[boaz212]

I like to know how the KJB is translated. I have read it's a word-for word translation. Can anyone help explain how that is done from one language to another?
Which other translation methods have been used to make other versions?
Thanks for your help. I need these information in case I am called to defend the KJB.
Tim

[George]

Originally Posted by boaz212

I like to know how the KJB is translated. I have read it's a word-for word translation. Can anyone help explain how that is done from one language to another?
Which other translation methods have been used to make other versions?
Thanks for your help. I need these information in case I am called to defend the KJB.
Tim

Aloha brother Tim,

The following are a couple of good books on the subject.

King James, His Bible, and Its Translators
by Laurence M. Vance (Author - 172 pages)

THE MEN BEHIND THE KING JAMES VERSION
by Gustavus S. Paine (Author - 212 pages)

Originally Posted by boaz212

I like to know how the KJB is translated. I have read it's a word-for word translation. Can anyone help explain how that is done from one language to another?
Which other translation methods have been used to make other versions?
Thanks for your help. I need these information in case I am called to defend the KJB.
Tim

Tim, There are many others here who I am sure I much better qualified to answer this question than me. However, I'll take a stab at it.

In the case of a "word-for-word" translation (like the AV) a translator seeks to take a word from the original and use a word with the same meaning. This is not always possible because there are words in Greek that have no English equivalent. In such a case the translator seeks to either use an English phrase that expresses the Greek word or selects an English word with a meaning that is similar to the Greek.

It should be noted that a number of the modern versions also use a word-for-word method of translation (NASB and ESV for example). The problem with the MVs is not always the method of translation used, but the selection of manuscripts on which the translation is based.

Other MVs use a "dynamic equivalent" method (often in addition to using the poor manuscripts on which to base the translation). Dynamic equivalent translation seeks to express the thought of the original without concern for the specific words used. As an example of this "my wife went to the store for milk and bread" would be translated "a lady went shopping." Notice that a lot of specific meaning is lost.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by HowlerMonkey

The problem with the MVs is not always the method of translation used, but the selection of manuscripts on which the translation is based.

While this is very true, the underlying texts are grossly deficient, it could over-simplify the difficulties with the MV's.

1) Deficient and corrupt underlying texts (close to every version published today)

2) Inaccurate translation methodologies (e.g. dynamic equivalence and paraphrase translations)

3) Lack of Holy Spirit anointing and clarity and expression sense and language and Bible skills. Including a major pitfall, changing words simply to be different than the pure King James Bible.

#3 is also very important, I just want to be sure that it is not omitted in discussing the pitfalls of the variety of modern versions. At tmes it even leads to straightforward errors in the versions, always they produce inferior phrasing and words, while the King James Bible retains unparalled accuracy and power and purpose.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[larryb]

The KJV is very unique version in its translation method and philosophy.

They did translate word-for-word, in that they understood that the very words of God were important to convey the thoughts of God. The versions that translate thought-for-thought rely too heavily upon interpretation rather than translation, disconnecting the value of the words to define the thoughts behind them.

The reason the KJV is unique is because it does this translation without sacrificing literary style. So you have at the same time a word-for-word translation and a beautiful style and cadence in the text.

[larryb]

Another point about the KJV translation is that it was the last translation whose translators were all Confessional (at least to my knowledge).

The presumptions that translators have do make a difference, and knowing those presumptions because they are found in a Confession make it easier to check on the doctrinal purity of the translators.

[bibleprotector]

Originally Posted by boaz212

I like to know how the KJB is translated. I have read it's a word-for word translation. Can anyone help explain how that is done from one language to another?
Which other translation methods have been used to make other versions?
Thanks for your help. I need these information in case I am called to defend the KJB.
Tim

The KJB is a sense-for-sense translation, whereas some modern versions are highly interpretative, that is, they impose a present day meaning onto the passage. An example might be that where it says "Jesus sat", they will change it to "Jesus reclined".

[boaz212]

Thanks Bro. George for your reply. I will look up those two books. Hopefully I will be able to get them in the near future.
HM, thanks for your reply also. I prefer to have difficult things explained in laymen's terms.
Bibleprotector, thank you for your reply too. Is it correct to say that KJB is a word-for-word translation or it's more correct that it's a sense-for-sense translation?

One more quick question on the gender-neutral Bibles. How is this method justified? I read recently that ESV also contained g-n readings but these readings are "acceptable". Thanks in advance.

[Tmonk]

Sense for sense or word for word varies. In the Old Testament with Hebrew, you have to a good bit or it would very strange to any English reader.

The New Testament however, Greek often is more word for word depending on the literary quality of the Greek. But that has mostly to do with subject-verb-object placements and such.

[PaulB]

Hi Boaz, I think that there is much more to the KJB translating methodology than words and the work of a bilingual committee. The simplest and most understandable way that I could communicate my thoughts on the issue (without presenting you with pages of twenty nine letter words to interpret) is this and the KJB bear witness to these facts:

I) God speaks in Spirit literally - I hear that in English
II) God speaks in history literally – I see that in the production & timing of the KJB
III) God speaks in Person literally – Jesus promised that His words would outlast everything in creation.

I know that that sounds like a neat 3 point sermon, but trust me it isn’t – I just thought it up now!

But what I am getting at is this;

The spiritual dimension of divine writ can only be persevered in that which God had prepared in language and history (and neither are formed by random chance). Without history there can be no language and without language there can be no history! I believe that God used the pair of them like a needle and thread to leave us with His literal word in these last days.

Whether it be a specific point in time or the choice of a thousand languages, it has to be 100% in tune with the will and acts of the purposes of Christ before it is ready or even capable to fit in the eternal framework of things. The continual degeneration of modern English is neither able, nor fit to contain the eternally preserved content of divine writ, and that which translation committees are producing today is certainly not the result of spiritual light to say the least.

Now the KJB was the “sealing” of holy writ in English once and for all, the process of which gave grandeur to that tongue throughout the world. But since the English speaking world has turned from its precious crown (the KJB) its language has not only degenerated, but it (the English speaking world) has had the audacity to replace its crown with a series of degenerate substitutes.

Modern day speech has not left the KJB behind the times and according to Jesus (who is from everlasting to everlasting) it is certain that it will not outlive it!)

If a Bible is from God then its life, testimony and timing fit together for the work that it has been set out to do. But if a Bible is not from God then it will pass its sell by date once its agenda has been outlived. Now some may say that the Bibles that preceded the KJB are no longer in use so isn’t that a self defeating proposition? No it certainly isn’t! The KJB wasn’t written with the intention of becoming the latest “best seller”. It was simply the final stage of a timeless work that would put to rest all the earlier hindered labours of the persecuted church.

When I consider the differences of today’s English with the English of the KJB I see much more than a change in writing styles or an evolution of a particular tongue. What I see is a tongue that had been cultured, tempered and prepared to declare that which no other tongue in its day could accomplish for the task that awaited it.

Modern English is insufficient in its capacity to contain divine writ (in the same way as a litre of water can’t be poured into a pint glass) Spiritual truth at the height of its revelation just does not fit into modern English. As the KJB was the long awaited product of a persecuted praying body of believers who were laying down their lives so that lost souls purchase the light that they had witnessed.

So concerning the issue of “most literal” – I would put it this way:

The modern versions of the bible are not literal translations of conservative Christian Scripture, but are the product of the ever changing and highly confusing interpretations of a minority group of corrupted text (all of which are pre-planned with particular agendas in mind).
As the KJB is the product of that which has been handed down faithfully from the times of the apostles until now with the sole aim of remaining faithful to what had always been accepted as “the Scriptures” (you can’t get more literal than truth transcribed!)


Hope this is helpful

God bless

PaulB