'The Superiority of the KJV' (Part3)
Helen Willis hhiwater@BRIGHT.NET
Sun, 12 Apr 1998 15:35:33 -0700 (00892442133, 353141B5.4C0A@bright.net)
Matthew Bell wrote:
>
HELEN:
I snipped a lot, but I found these obvious problems with Matt's post.
THE FOUR-FOLD SUPERIORITY OF THE KING JAMES VERSION
> By Dr. D.A. Waite
>
> '
> #3: THE KING JAMES BIBLE HAS SUPERIOR TECHNIQUE. The third reason for
> defending the KING JAMES BIBLE is because it has superior technique of
> translation. This correctly implies that the various versions and
> perversions of the Bible have inferior technique of translation.
>
> The KJV translators used the superior technique of verbal equivalence and
> formal equivalence--not dynamic equivalence. The modern versions and
> perversions have used, to a greater or lesser degree, the inferior
> technique of dynamic equivalence and have disdained both verbal and formal
> equivalence.
>
> Alleged exceptions.
>
> 2. "God Save the King." Another favorite allegation of dynamic
> equivalency in the KJV is the expression "God save the king." Even
> if it were the case (and I do not accept that it is), it is only found four
> times in the O.T.: 1 Sa. 10:24; 2 Sa. 16:16; 2 Ki. 11:12; 2 Ch. 23:11. It
> means "may the king live long" or "may the king be preserved or
> safe." Well, if the king lives long, he is "saved" is he not?
> [Editor: The term "salvation" was used in a much broader sense in
> past centuries.] So why not let the 1611- parlance of "God save the
> king" alone? The fact is that such examples are very, very few in the
> KJV, whereas they abound in the modern versions and perversions because in
> those, the dynamic equivalent technique is the rule rather than the
> exception.
HELEN:
Matt, the C of E has the King of England (now the Queen) as it's head.
There are many prayers said for the royals in this church. "God save the
Queen" it seem to me if I remember right was said by the priest at the
altar at one point in the service and the congregation replied with the
same line. ( We were Americans so we simple remain silent during this
little exchange.)
King James had this book issued during the thirty year period before the
religious English Civil War during which James' son Charles was
beheaded. You don't think that this translation order by a king who know
that there were some who were already trying to kill him for partly
religious grounds (ever heard of Guy Fawkes, can you say boom?) might
not have had a political motive in these particular translations? I
suspect that is what the scholars Waite is replying to were claiming.
MATT'S POST
> The King James Bible's verbal and formal equivalence. The KJV
> basically uses the technique of verbal equivalence and formal equivalence.
> Verbal equivalence means that the very words, wherever possible, are
> brought over from Hebrew into English and from Greek into English. The KJV
> also uses the technique of formal equivalence, that is, the translators
> brought over, wherever possible, the very forms of the Hebrew and Greek
> words into English. They didn't transform the grammar. They didn't take a
> noun and make a verb out of it. They brought a verb into a verb and a noun
> into a noun wherever possible. They were skilled craftsmen who had a proper
> concept of what "translation" really is. It comes from translatus
> which in turn comes from two Latin words, trans ("across") and latus
> which is the past participle of fero ("to carry"). It means to
> "carry across" from one place to another, or from one language to
> another. It does not seek to CHANGE, or to ADD, or to SUBTRACT!
>
> Let me illustrate "translation." If I have my wife's pocketbook and
> I want to translate it from one side of the church to the other, I would
> simply pick it up, take it across the aisle, and put it on the other side
> of the church. I wouldn't leave any of it behind, even though there may be
> some things in it I wouldn't want to take over. I wouldn't add anything to
> it, and I wouldn't drop any of it in the center aisle. Now that's
> translation, translatus. That's what the KJV translators did. They just
> simply took the Hebrew words and put them into English. They picked up the
> Greek words and put them into English. That's translation. That's the
> superior technique.
>
> The modern versions' use of dynamic equivalence. I have a computer
> print-out research of three of these modern versions--the New King
> James, the New American Standard, and the New International. When compared
> to the Hebrew and Greek texts, I found that the New King James Version had
> over 2,000 examples of dynamic equivalency, that is, adding to, subtracting
>
> from, or changing the Words of God. In a similar study of the New American
> Standard Version, I found over 4,000 such examples. In a similar study of
> the New International Version I found over 6,653 such examples.
>
> What is meant by dynamic equivalency? "Dynamic" means "moving
> or changing." "Equivalence" means "the same or
> unchanging." You can't have it both ways! It is either changing or
> unchanging. Those who use this false technique in the various
> "translations/paraphrases" think it's a great technique. The bottom
> line for such a technique is that it gives a human being the right to ADD
> to God's Words (which is sin), to SUBTRACT from God's Words (which is sin),
> or to CHANGE God's Words (which is sin). God pronounces the strongest
> possible CURSE on anyone who dares to do any of those three things to God's
> Words!! Those who use this false technique are really paraphrasing rather
> than translating. Paraphrase comes from two Greek words, para
> ("along side or beside") and phrasis ("a word or phrase"). It means
> to use a word or phrase that is along side of the real meaning. It is to
> state something in other words. We should seek, as the KJV translators
> sought, to put into English the exact and accurate meaning of the Hebrew
> and Greek Words of God rather than to give something that is
> "beside" or "along side of" the word or phrase.
HELEN:
Language is dynamic. The expression "suffer the little children" has
change greatly since King James' day. Hasn't it?
MATT'S POST
> #4: THE KING JAMES BIBLE HAS SUPERIOR THEOLOGY. The fourth reason for
> defending the KING JAMES BIBLE is because it has superior theology. This
> correctly implies that the various versions and perversions of the Bible
> have inferior theology.
HELEN:
Does this mean that the author of this piece and Matt Bell are both
going to convert to the Church of England? Ah Well, if the C of E
accepted me they will accept anyone.
MATT'S POST
> Because "B" (Vatican) and "Aleph" (Sinai) remove both
> verses, so does the NKJV in the footnotes; so does the NASV (by putting
> them in brackets); and so does the NIV. So do the other modern versions and
> perversions. In so doing, they take away the fires of hell. Is this not a
> major doctrine? [Editor: While it is true that verse 48 is retained in this
> passage in the modern versions, the power and authority is weakened by two-
> thirds. The God- honored Received Text says Jesus repeated this statement
> three times to emphasize the horrors of going to hell. The critical text
> removes two of these statements, thus weakening the force of the doctrine.]
>
HELEN:
Why is "received text" capitalized here? It is not the name of a
manuscript, but is a title used to designate several copilations.
I think these posts are of a document that is written with a strong
opinion and is willing to alter the truth to defend that opinion.
Helen
hhiwater@bright.net