Obama Achieves the Impossible: He’s United Israel and Saudi Arabia

New York Observer ^ | 05/19/15 | By Kalman Sporn

[Pelham]

Well I’m not intending to suggest that Greek should be today’s common tongue. My point is that some commentators have noticed that Koine Greek was particularly suited to expressing complex theological thought at precisely the time such a language was useful.

[Mollypitcher1]

I tend to agree with you, but would have suggested Greek was perhaps a better language than French for Diplomacy . . . but then, French serves its purpose of ambiguity in many cases which is after all the weapon of diplomacy.

[cuban leaf]

You can still find that definition listed as archaic in current dictionaries:

---

Key word, “archaic”. Which is the problem with the KJV. Since we moved to KJV bible country, on two separate occasions, in two separate churches, the pastor had to “translate” the modern meaning of one verse or the other. In BOTH cases they translated it to be word for word what was in my wife’s NIV bible.

It’s very difficult for a culture where a lot of people have a hard enough time reading simple English to have to re-translate an “archaic” language into the language they actually speak. It is a barrier.

We don’t need barriers.

[Pelham]

I was replying to the claim that KJV wasn’t accurately translated, not whether modern readers are inconvenienced by changes in English usage over 400 years.

The KJV was accurately rendered. Moderns need help following it the same as they would reading Shakespeare. Both continue to be admired for the beauty of the language. Shakespeare is probably the more difficult.

A King James Only movement arose in the 1950s because of controversy over how the Revised Standard Version translated some passages.

[cuban leaf]

I was replying to the claim that KJV wasn’t accurately translated, not whether modern readers are inconvenienced by changes in English usage over 400 years.

---

I don’t think the word “inconvenienced” gets to the core point. It is inconvenient to use an outhouse, but if it’s all you have, it’s what you use. However, it is no longer necessary to be inconvenienced. So why do it?

[cuban leaf]

The KJV was accurately rendered. Moderns need help following it the same as they would reading Shakespeare. Both continue to be admired for the beauty of the language. Shakespeare is probably the more difficult.

---

I’m interested in content and whatever tools will best enable and ensure a clear understanding of the content. It means using it in whatever language is closest to the one I am most familiar with.

I don’t think old English is all that “beautiful”. I say that having read Shakespeares entier works (and it was painful). What I think it is is old.

All of this is a bit moot these days though, now that we have full Greek and Hebrew available online. The first time I ever availed myself to one of these tools I was reminded that there are some ancient manuscripts used by the KJV that translate to verses that don’t even exist in the NIV.

[Pelham]

“I don’t think old English is all that “beautiful”. I say that having read Shakespeares entier works (and it was painful). What I think it is is old.”

I believe you mentioned that English isn’t your first language and that’s likely why you don’t see the beauty of the KJV and Shakespeare.

As far as tools for understanding the Bible, it’s never been easier to get access to multiple translations and Greek and Hebrew texts. It takes study no matter what text or translation someone uses. The way that John uses “Logos” isn’t going to be fully appreciated by anyone unfamiliar with Greek thought of his time. Ancient readers would have understood his reference, modern readers will miss it.

[cuban leaf]

I believe you mentioned that English isn’t your first language...

---

No. Though I see how you could infer that from what I said.

Old(e) English is not my first language. When singing hymns in church I audibly change the thee’s and thou’s into their modern english counterpart. I consider it to be a foreign language, though similar to the language we speek. Kinda like Puerto Rico and Mexico both speak “Spanish”, but they are very different versions.

[cuban leaf]

As far as tools for understanding the Bible, it’s never been easier to get access to multiple translations and Greek and Hebrew texts. It takes study no matter what text or translation someone uses. The way that John uses “Logos” isn’t going to be fully appreciated by anyone unfamiliar with Greek thought of his time. Ancient readers would have understood his reference, modern readers will miss it.

---

And the important thing is that the bible is secondary to prayer. It is a helpful tool, especially when prayerfully used.

[Pelham]

“When singing hymns in church I audibly change the thee’s and thou’s into their modern english counterpart.”

The KJV was translated near the end of the run for the use of thee and thou as personal pronouns, except for part of Scotland where apparently you can still hear it in daily conversation. It’s an inflected pronoun, I suppose it came over from German.

It amuses me that the book of Mormon borrows this pronoun form. Joseph Smith produces/translates his book around 1829 and for some reason his Golden Plates were fixated on Middle to Early Modern English. Maybe the plates knew it sounded “religious” to the modern ear even though it was just the everyday pronoun of its own era.

[cuban leaf]

Yep. It sounded “religious”. And here we are.

My Mormon friends are very much KJV people. They call the other versions “easy read” as though there is something intellectually weak with reading a book in your native tongue.