Comment by RandomTisk | Hacker News Reader

Comment by RandomTisk | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

There is a small but very convinced group that believes that the King James Bible is "perfect", preserved by God to be the only true scripture for Christians.

This is just my opinion, after many hours of researching this phenomenon myself: They mean well, but they're very wrong. The translators of the King James Bible themselves, specifically and without ambiguity stated in the introduction to the KJV that it's important for scholars to update the texts from time to time to allow current culture to understand what ancient writers meant. There are a lot of archaic words in the KJV that don't mean today what they meant back when it was written, for instance.

I used to work with a KJV-onlyist and I had a few debates with him over lunch about it. I gave him a verse with an archaic word in it, and asked him to explain it. As I expected, he interpreted it using the modern definition which made no sense at all. When I pointed out that I had basically tricked him, he flat out refused to even admit he was wrong.

My take on this find is that it's nice and all, but it's a rather minor 'find' in terms of how useful it will be.

> The translators of the King James Bible themselves, specifically and without ambiguity stated in the introduction to the KJV that it's important for scholars to update the texts from time to time to allow current culture to understand what ancient writers meant.

Wow, I don't think I had seen this before. I think you're probably referring to this section:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(King_James)/Preface#%C...

Or maybe even further

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(King_James)/Preface#%C...

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(King_James)/Preface#%C...

> Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, do endeavour to make that better which they left so good, no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us.

(I didn't realize that the Preface had so much discussion of the history of Bible translation!)

Yeah the KJV was and is still a very good translation, and it was very controversial in it's day. The Catholic church didn't want the Bible in a "vulgar" or common tongue or even being able to read the Bible without their approval and guidance. The Latin Vulgate existed for the learned, and those who knew Latin objected also. I think that's why they felt the need to explain why they made the translation.

Just to add, the Douay Rhiems is a Catholic Bible released a few years before the KJV.

What was the verse?

I wish I could remember it, or even just the word, but it was several years ago. It might have been the word 'prevent' which 400 years ago meant to precede, but I really don't know.

Psalms 119:

I prevented the dawning of the morning, and cried: I hoped in thy word.

Versus the NIV's

I rise before dawn and cry for help; I have put my hope in your word.

Would be a good candidate

Not OP but Psalm 37:8b[0] is my go to verse for this. I grew up reading, hearing, & memorizing out of the KJV and kind of prided myself in being able to understand that style of English. Even knowing various words & phrases have changed,I still have no idea what they verse would have meant to the original readers. I can look at a modern translation & see what it "should" say,but wow, I just can't get there from the KJV languagefret not thyself in any wise to do evil.

[0] "fret not thyself in any wise to do evil."

I saw a humorous YouTuber (from the US South?) that made comedy from quoting phrases constantly, but in socially ironic moments.. like people doing somewhat embarrassing things at the mall.. things like that.. it was irreverent overall, but for someone who does not know that many verses, to hear so many, but funny .. it was entertaining..

I understand you are not OP.

I am confused as to whether the word "fret" is considered archaic. I'd settle on "used more often 100 years ago" or something similar, but I have doubts and curiosity.

I don't think its archaic but it is certainly not a common word anymore. My primary reason for using that verse though is that it is just impossible to get at the meaning from the modern vantage point. I have no idea how to parse it to make it make say anything like what a modern translation says or even anything meaningful to be honest. Don't worry to do evil? Don't worry about doing evil? Don't do evil while worrying?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com