Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

8902Re: Authorized Version & KJV-only Extremism

Expand Messages
  • Dan Fraas
    Sep 8, 2003
    • 0 Attachment

      I'd suggest you try using the New King James Version. Although I
      personally think that it is an inferior translation in some ways,
      largely because modern English is ill-suited to a translation from
      antiquity, it has many advantages in comprehension for your average

      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Britton"
      <bander1643@y...> wrote:
      > I am curious about what any of you think about Noah Webster's
      > to his 1833 updating of the Authorized version. Keep in mind that
      > Noah was reformed, calvinistic & Independent/Congregtionalist.
      > Among some of his points:
      > 1. "In the present version, the language is, in general, correct
      > perspicuous; the genuine popular English of Saxon origin;
      > adapted to the subjects; and in many passages, uniting sublimity
      > beautiful simplicity. In my view, the general style of the version
      > ought not to be altered."
      > 2."[I]n the lapse of two or three centuries, changes have taken
      > place, which, in particular passages, impair the beauty; in others,
      > obscure the sense, of the original languages. Some words have
      > into disuse; and the signification of others, in current popular
      > is not the same now as it was when they were introduced into the
      > version. The effect of these changes, is, that some words are not
      > understood by common readers, who have no access to commentaries,
      > who will always compose a great proportion of readers; while other
      > words, being now used in a sense different from that which they had
      > when the translation was made, present a wrong signification or
      > ideas. Whenever words are understood in a sense different from that
      > which they had when introduced, and different from that of the
      > original languages, they do not present to the reader the `Word of
      > God'. This circumstance is very important, even in things not the
      > most essential; and in essential points, mistakes may be very
      > injurious...In my own view of this subject, a version of the
      > scriptures for popular use, should consist of words expressing the
      > sense which is most common, in popular usage, so that the `first
      > ideas' suggested to the reader should be the true meaning of such
      > words, according to the original languages. That many words in the
      > present version, fail to do this, is certain."
      > 3. "There are ... many words and phrases, very offensive to
      > and even to decency. In the opinion of all persons with whom I have
      > conversed on this subject, such words and phrases ought not to be
      > retained in the version. Language which cannot be uttered in
      > without a violation of decorum, or the rules of good breeding,
      > exposes the scriptures to the scoffs of unbelievers, impairs their
      > authority, and multiplies or confirms the enemies of our holy
      > religion."
      > 4."There are a few errors in the A.V which "are admitted on all
      > to be obvious;" which he has corrected. HOWEVER, "To avoid giving
      > offense to any denomination of Christians, I have not knowingly
      > any alteration in the passages of the present version, on which the
      > different denominations rely for the support of their peculiar
      > tenets." So what good is THAT? Probably a good thing there weren't
      > Mormons around at the time :-)The A.V is chock full of errors that
      > support the "peculiar tenets" of the so-called Episopalians, and I
      > a Presbyterian find THAT offensive :-) (I know, I know, "who cares
      > the Presbys are offended." :p~~~]
      > 3. it is very important that all denominations of Christians should
      > use the same version, that in all public discourses, treatises &
      > controversies, the passages cited as authorities should be uniform.
      > Anyway, I'm not chucking out my A.V., but I would like to know how
      > get a better sense of it in a lawful way without exposing myself &
      > family to grave error.
      > Your thoughts are appreciated,
      > Tom
    • Show all 9 messages in this topic