An article written by Nathan Deatrick sparked a debate between myself and Mark Ward over the question of whether or not the words in the KJV really are archaic. One of my friends had shared the article. I commented, and Mark decided to risk opening communications with me once again. I suspect that he now wishes he hadn’t. Bill:
I skimmed the article, and as much as I respect Nathan, I have to disagree with his claim that there are "hundreds of archaisms" in the KJV. I'll admit that there are a few, but there are barely a handful of words and phrases in the KJV that are not currently in use in modern American literature. The problem that I've noticed when discussing this issue with people of Nathan's persuasion is that they lack sufficient familiarity with American literature to make the claim. Additionally, there is no true "American vernacular." There are several American vernaculars. Do you think that we should have a separate translation for each of them? Mark: You pose a worthy question: where does the push for readability stop? How far do we push Bible translations toward accessibility, when the natural man doesn't receive the things of God's Spirit anyway, and when Paul wrote things that are hard to be understood? I wonder, however, if you're open to the answer implicit in Nathan's article—or to the one I've been giving. This question has been answered by careful people working in Bible translation over many years. The answer Nathan implicitly gives to your question, with regard to English, is the NKJV, MEV, SKJV, KJVER, and other mild updates to the KJV. Are those dummy Bibles that change "sheep" to "pig" just in case people haven't heard of sheep?[1] Do they use modern slang terms that the teenagers know like "riz" and "sigma"? They do not. The dire situation you appear to be warning against does not actually obtain when it comes to the actual KJV updates Nathan and others are promoting. The SKJV does not dumb down the Bible. The other answer I've been giving for years now is that we pitch the level of readability difficulty to the level God chose when He inspired a given passage. Did God use then-archaic words in Hebrew and Greek? Generally no, I'd say—though this is harder to judge in Hebrew than in Greek. Did he use "false friends," words people didn't realize they didn't understand, because of language change? There I'd say the answer is a clear no. In the New Testament, at least, God used Koine Greek, common Greek, the Greek of the day. Nathan says, "Let's give others liberty to use a version without archaisms so the plowboy can understand!" And you change the subject, Bill, to "Let's avoid making the Bible *too* accessible!" Fine. But let's tackle the first problem; then we can argue about getting the balance right on the second. The IFB is in no danger right now of making the Bible too accessible. It's much closer to the other ditch. Bill: I'm working on a full response to Nathan's article, but I think that this excerpt from it applies very well to your position.[2] ********* ...we do have another statement directly from Tyndale himself that can be found in his work “A Pathway Into the Holy Scripture.” “In order that you not be deceived by any man, I believed it very necessary to prepare this Pathway into the scripture for you. I do it so that you might ... well understand what these words mean: the Old Testament, the New Testament, the law, the gospel, Moses, Christ, nature, grace, working, believing, deeds and faith.” After translating the New Testament into English, Tyndale found it necessary to publish a short list of definitions to explain crucial terms used in his translation of the Bible. He did not translate the Bible into words that every individual could understand clearly on his own. Tyndale recognized that accuracy of translation would require the use of terminology that was foreign to his intended audience, and he chose to educate the audience rather than to use simpler language in the translation. Tyndale included similar lists of definitions in the prologues to his 1525 and 1534 editions of the New Testament, and in the prologue to the 1526 edition, Tyndale instructed his readers to “Mark the plain and manifest places of the Scriptures, and in doubtful places see thou add no interpretation contrary to them; but (as Paul saith) let all be conformable and agreeing to the faith.” And a bit further in the same place, Tyndale expressed his desire to eventually “seek in certain places more proper English, and with a table to expound the words which are not commonly used and shew how the Scripture useth many words which are otherwise understood of the common people, and to help with a declaration where one tongue taketh not another; and will endeavor ourselves, as it were, to seeth it better, and to make it more apt for the weak stomachs; desiring them that are learned and able, to remember their duty, and to help thereunto, and to bestow unto the edifying of Christ's body (which is the congregation of them that believe) those gifts which they have received of God for the same purpose.” Tyndale recognized that some of his translation choices would need to be improved, but he clearly did not share our modern concept that the Bible should be translated into words that every commoner could understand. His translation intentionally included words that were “otherwise understood” by the common people. In other words, he included words that meant something different in the context of the Scriptures than those same words meant in the common speech of England. Tyndale did not suggest that we use less accurate but easier understood English words in these passages. What he said instead is that we should fulfill our duty to edify those who struggle with these words by providing dictionaries and lessons to educate people on the proper sense of the words in the Bible. Mark: Once again I do not speak to you so much as for others. I beg others who watch Bill not to let him confuse and intimidate you into denying what is obvious: the KJV, an excellent translation, now contains so many archaisms that the plowboy often struggles to understand it. I have read Tyndale’s Pathway into the Holy Scripture, and I invite others to do the same. It's freely available online Tyndale does not talk in that brief document as if the words “law” or “Moses” or “Christ” were unknown to England’s plowboys. He does not give dictionary definitions of these words. He gives theological explanations—Protestant ones rather than Catholic ones—of the concepts they name. This is a crucial distinction. The reason Tyndale has to give these explanations is not that the words are unknown to the plowboys, but that the necessary words have been given Catholic definitions in their culture and time period. Tyndale did not have more accurate words to choose from, because Protestant definitions were unknown. The parallel for us today would be having to explain to Muslims that “Son of God” doesn’t mean “biological offspring of a physical, sexual union between God and a woman.” What Bill still doesn’t answer is whether Tyndale (or the KJV translators) self-consciously chose to use archaic words that the plowboy did not understand, or actively misunderstood, when accurate, contemporary (to him), intelligible English words were available. This is the situation we face now: Bill and other KJV-Onlyists have insisted that only the KJV is truly accurate. It’s as if God is incapable of speaking contemporary English. Any time I—or, now, someone as rightly respected among KJV-Onlyists as Nathan Deatrick—raise the objection that the KJV contains archaic words, Bill responds by insisting that KJV words are more accurate and therefore cannot be updated. But he won't get into specifics, or not beyond a certain point. I've shown in detail on my YouTube channel how nearly 100 words in the KJV (and I'm still working on more) are "false friends," words the plowboy doesn't even know he doesn't know: "study," "commend", "remove," "halt," etc. I've shown through kjbstudyproject.com that even KJV-Only pastors don't know what the KJV translators meant by these archaic KJV words. What good are accurate words that even KJV-Only pastors don't understand? Especially when intelligible contemporary equivalents are ready to hand? Bill: As I said, I'm working on a detailed response to Nathan, but if you want a few specifics, you can check out this link to a collection of various thoughts that I have penned regarding your book. It's just a collection of comments that I've made in response to various facebook posts, but I think you'll find enough specifics there to satisfy you for at least a few moments. http://www.increasinglearning.com/blog/authorized Also, Tyndale's reference to words otherwise understood is an exact parallel to your list of "false friends" in the KJV. Mark: Men and brethren, I stand with Nathan Deatrick on trial for William Tyndale's principle: the Bible for the plowboy! Sometimes truths are complex, and simple calls like that obscure the real issues. In this case, however, it really is that simple. People like Bill Fortenberry have insisted that we must all use the pure Hebrew and Greek texts. The position in such circles has been that "the text is the issue." But every time a more intelligible, contemporary English update to the KJV is made available, they find reasons to reject it. And all too much like the Catholics of Tyndale's day, they never find the energy or need to do the updating work themselves. The text is not the issue. If it were, people who love and trust the TR would have differences of opinion about which translations of the TR are best—and they'd all get along just fine. If the text were the issue, then people graduating from ostensibly TR-only Bible colleges wouldn't be finding out *for the first time* from Nathan's article that there are other English translations of the TR into contemporary English. If the text were the issue, I wouldn't hear a bewildering array of obfuscations and denials and evasions when I teach people KJV false friends. If the text were the issue, we wouldn't see 99.99% of TR defenders also insisting on the exclusive use of the KJV. 1 Corinthians 14 teaches that edification requires intelligibility. Read it, brothers and sisters. If you don't use words—as much as possible—that people can understand, they will not be built up in their most holy faith. No one is trying to take your KJV away from you; I still have mine and use it every day. We are trying to give you something, the something that Nathan mentions when in his article he says, "As I’ve read from some of these modern versions, I’ve had numerous 'light-bulb' moments, as passages that I’d struggled understanding to this point in the KJV, came to clarity through the wording of a modern English version. In those moments, I was a plowboy." Don't you want that? This is all my heart: I want to understand God's Word, and I want others to understand it as well. Men and brethren, I stand with Nathan Deatrick on trial for William Tyndale's principle: the Bible for the plowboy! Bill: What were the unintelligible words that Paul spoke of in I Corinthians 14? Were they Greek words that the congregants had difficulty understanding or were they words spoken in a different language altogether? Mark: I have repeatedly answered this argument in videos and writing. To others who would like to know the answer I speak: Elizabethan English is English, clearly. But just as clearly, it’s not our English. It’s someone else’s English. It can usefully be described as a different language altogether. At the many places where it diverges from the way we speak—“besom” instead of “broom,” “let” instead of “prevent,” “conversation” instead of “manner of life”—what is it? It’s not higher English, compared to which ours is low. It's older English compared to which ours is current and intelligible. The parallel would be this: What if there were some highly educated Greeks in the church at Corinth, and they felt that the way most people spoke Greek was low-class, that everyone should go back to the way Greek was spoken in Homer’s time centuries prior? What if these educated Corinthian Greek speakers insisted on using Greek words in sermons that a) the average Corinthians saint did not understand at all or that b) the average saint actively misunderstood without realizing it, because of language change in Greek? If Paul said to them, “Brothers, edification requires intelligibility” (as he did say in 1 Cor 14), they could easily reply just as Bill has done: “But we are using Greek! This is not a different language! We just need to raise people up to the level of the true Greek, the literary Greek!” It’s like Abraham arguing with God about the destruction of Sodom: “Can I use 40 archaic Greek words people don’t understand?” Paul: “Well, no: edification requires intelligibility.” “How about just 20? 10? 5?” Paul: “No—as much as possible, use words the people can understand.” Another quick illustration: what if there arose today a movement of Wycliffe-onlyists? That was the original Bible God gave English speakers, after all. What arguments would KJV-Onlyists use to push back against Wycliffe-Onlyism? I think they’d find themselves having to say the same things I’m saying about the archaisms in the KJV. Wycliffe-Onlyists could say, “But Wycliffe is English, not a foreign language! Why are you dumbing everybody down? Can’t you raise people up to the level of the original English Bible?” No. The answer is no. The Bible is for the plowboy. Brothers and sisters, don’t let anyone take that away from you. God’s word in your tongue—yours—is a precious gift. Bill: This is a great example of the kind of reasoning that I object to in your position. You are claiming that your position is based on Scripture when it is not. The verses that you present in defense of your position require creative manipulations like imagining that I Corinthians 14 applied to highly educated Greeks speaking in some imaginary high-Greek that the common man didn't understand. That's not what I Corinthians 14 is talking about. It's talking about people abusing the gift of tongues and considering themselves more spiritual if they addressed the church in some unknown tongue. The only way to apply this passage to your claim is to do as you have done and add imaginary details that are not found in the text. Mark: I have carefully answered this argument as well. And once again, for those who are listening in, I'll repeat it—because I think the sterling character of Nathan Deatrick is earning a hearing that I cannot get among those who know and love him (understandably!), and I hate to see Bill confusing and intimidating those who would like to listen to Nathan and heed his biblical call. My first response to this objection is to try to lead people through my reasoning. I read a passage like 1 Cor 14, and I can hardly think of a place in the entire Bible where the writer states a *principle* so clearly, and states it so many times. The principle is edification requires intelligibility; the situation, though, is one I have personally never faced because I’m not a charismatic but a cessationist. It’s the use of the gift of tongues in church. I simply have to refer God’s people to that passage. Look for how many times in this passage Paul repeats the principle. By my count, it’s 9ish. Let me make extra explicit what I’m arguing. I’m arguing that what Paul says about words teachers use in church must also, obviously, apply to words they use in Bible translations. It’s Bible teachers who make Bible translations, and whenever possible, they should translate the Bible using intelligible words, words known by the average person. It isn’t just common sense that tells us this—although it most certainly does; it’s Bible. I am also arguing that what Paul says applies in degrees, not just in toto. Yes, obviously, Paul in 1 Cor 14 is contrasting totally foreign languages with the local lingua franca, whatever it is. But what if only 5% or 10% or 32% of what someone says in the pulpit is unintelligible? Then I think Paul would say the same thing: “Brother, you know, you need to give attention to speaking in a way that people can understand so that you can build them up. Maybe you don’t sound like a complete foreigner; your speech isn’t complete gibberish. But the portions where you’re not making sense or are being misleading or are sprinkling in French—you’ve got to work to eliminate those. Because edification requires intelligibility.” I am not the only person—or the only Baptist—in history to apply 1 Corinthians 14 beyond tongues, or to apply it to Bible translation. John Gill in the 17th century said that 1 Cor 14:9 “[1 Corinthians 14:9] condemns the practice of the Papists, performing divine service in a language not understood by the common people.” In other words, Gill thinks that this passage applies not just to speaking in tongues but to church services today. Matthew Henry says around the turn of the 18th century, “To speak words that have no significancy to those who hear them is to leave them ignorant of what is spoken; it is speaking to the air, v. 9. Words without a meaning can convey no notion nor instruction to the mind; and words not understood have no meaning with those who do not understand them: to talk to them in such language is to waste our breath.” I agree. I checked dozens of commentators on 1 Corinthians, spanning the entire history of the church. Most didn’t make any application of the text at all. They merely repeated Paul’s application of it (this is a bit of a problem with commentators—failing to bring the text into our day). But those who did apply the text to our day all applied it to words in church beyond speaking in tongues. And even among those who stuck with explaining Paul’s ancient meaning, just listen to the different ways they translate the key word in 1 Cor 14:9. They say that words in church should be “intelligible,” “readily intelligible,” “easily understandable,” “clear,” “readily understood,” “plain,” “easily recognizable.” We’re supposed to use words like well-painted, large-lettered signs, signs pointing in a clear direction that no one could mistake unless they’re trying. And last, and certainly not least, guess who uses 1 Corinthians 14 to defend the need for Bible translation into the vernacular? *The KJV translators.* In their famous and excellent preface, “Translators to the Reader,” they make an argument for the necessity of translation, and they appeal precisely to 1 Corinthians 14:11. “How shall men meditate in that which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknown tongue? as it is written, ‘Except I know the power of the voice, I shall be to him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian to me.’” I stand with the KJV translators against KJV-Onlyism. (For those who want more, I speak at greater length about 1 Cor 14 in my video, "Top 10 Objections to my 50 False Friends in the KJV.") Bill: Just out of curiosity, why do you find it necessary to pretend that you're not debating me? Are you afraid to address me directly, or is this just another one of the rhetorical devices that you use to demean your opponents? Either way, I find it hilarious, so by all means, continue. None of the quotations that you provided above actually support your position on Biblical translation. Gill was referring to the practice of the Catholic church to read the Bible in Latin instead of reading it in the language of the people present. Henry was referring to a language which was foreign to the people receiving it. The KJV translators were referring to the use of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin versions of the Bible to teach people who understood none of those languages. Here's what the translators wrote after the portion that you quoted: "The Apostle excepteth no tongue; not Hebrew the ancientest, not Greek the most copious, not Latin the finest. Nature taught a natural man to confess, that all of us in those tongues which we do not understand, are plainly deaf; we may turn the deaf ear unto them. The Scythian counted the Athenian, whom he did not understand, barbarous; so the Roman did the Syrian, and the Jew (even S. Jerome himself called the Hebrew tongue barbarous, belike because it was strange to so many) so the Emperor of Constantinople calleth the Latin tongue, barbarous, though Pope Nicolas do storm at it: so the Jews long before Christ called all other nations, Lognazim, which is little better than barbarous. Therefore as one complaineth, that always in the Senate of Rome, there was one or other that called for an inter- preter: so lest the Church be driven to the like exigent, it is necessary to have translations in a readiness." All of these people recognized that I Corinthians 14 condemns speaking in a foreign language. None of them say that this passage requires us to sacrifice accuracy for clarity in our translations of the Bible, nor do any of them condemn translations that may be more difficult to understand. Mark: Brothers and sisters, I have already answered the arguments Bill makes in his most recent comment. I still implore you not to let him, or men like him, take from you the precious gift of a Bible in your own English. N: Bill, can you clarify some things for me just so I can better understand your position? Are you saying that the KJV does not contain archaic language? If it does then what is your proposed solution to that issue? Then lastly, is your argument that any other English translation is by default inferior to the KJV, and if so why? Bill: Thanks for asking. There are a small handful of words in the KJV that could be said to be archaic, but only a few. The vast majority of the words that people think are archaic are actually used quite often in modern American literature. Even the word "besom" that has been mentioned in this discussion is not an archaic word. It is true that use of the word "besom" has decreased dramatically since the mid-nineteenth century is not really an archaic word. In fact, the rise of paganism in twenty-first century America has actually produced an increase in uses of "besom." Modern witches prefer to use this word instead of the more common word "broom" because it is a more exact description of their fabled talismans. There are many more people in the US who are familiar with this term today than there were twenty years ago. Most of the words in Ward's list of "false friends" are used rather frequently in modern literature even in what he says is their archaic sense. For example, Ward lists the term "spoil" as a false friend that no longer means what it meant when the KJV was translated, but one need only search for the term "spoils of war" in any search engine to find out that the so-called archaic meaning of this word is still very much alive and well. The words that I would consider close enough to archaic to justify changing them are so rarely used in the KJV (likely the reason they passed out of common use in the first place) that the advantages gained from changing them could never justify a new translation. In fact, no publisher would be likely to print a version with so few changes because they would never be able to sell enough of them to justify the cost. The solution to these few difficult words is the same that was proposed by William Tyndale in the prologue to his 1526 New Testament. We should provide Christians with dictionaries and preachers to help them understand what these words mean. As for my view of other translations, I would have to answer no and yes. No, I do not consider any other translation to be inferior by default just because it is not the KJV. That would be stupid. Yes, I do consider them all to be inferior, but that conclusion has nothing to do with the KJV per se. As far as I know, the KJV is the only translation currently in print that has a distinction between the singular and the plural forms of the second person pronouns e.g., thee, thou, and thy vs. ye, you, and your. This is an important distinction that is inherent in the original Greek and Hebrew texts but absent in almost all modern translations. The KJV translators recognized the absence of this distinction in the standard English grammar of their day, so they resurrected the term "thou" and its variants to supply the English language with a means of preserving this aspect of the text. Any translation that fails to preserve the distinction between singular and plural second person pronouns is therefore inferior to the KJV. N: thank you for that! We would probably disagree on what practically qualifies as archaic. Probably more than a dozen times I have realized after the fact that I preached or taught and completely missed the thrust or actual meaning of a verse because I thought I understood a word. I’m guessing you’re more educated on this particular issue so it’s easier for you to make those distinctions and classifications. The only thing I would caution you on in that regard is that while you may be well versed, many lay leaders in the church, such as myself, simply lack the study time necessary to always ensure we don’t get tricked by what Mark calls the false friends. I also certainly get your other points and I think you explained your issues with other versions well. I have some other minor disagreements. First off I’m basically a child so when I read the story of Balaams donkey to my teen class I can’t do it with a straight face. For my own sake I wish words like ass, or pisseth, or bastard were changed. I’m not opposed to offensive language but I certainly do find those to be inappropriate in the pulpit, particularly around little ears. There are a couple more things I would like to get your thoughts on if you don’t mind: 1. Would you contend that other TR based translations shouldn’t be used because they are inaccurate? Or are you simply arguing for the superiority of the KJV? 2. Do you think there is ever a good use case for a modern translation over the KJV? Bill: My position is that the KJV is the most accurate English translation of the best Hebrew and Greek texts. I do not view the KJV itself as some sort of inspired work of God. It's just an extremely well done translation of God's Word. I enjoy reading other translations, but most of the translations I read have been out of print for many years. For example, I like Charles Thomson's translation which I don't think has been reprinted since his death in 1824. I'm particularly fond of Thomson's Harmony of the Gospels which is one of the best harmonies I've found. I have no objection to the concept of a modern translation of the TR. I just don't think that any of the reasons given so far would be satisfied by such a translation. There are extremely few people in America today who CANNOT understand the KJV. There are some who legitimately find that understanding difficult, but most of the people in that category are there by there own fault (e.g. recovering drug addicts and alcoholics), and find many other areas of what we consider normal life to be equally difficult to manage. The vast majority of Americans use the claim that the KJV is difficult as an excuse for laziness. My primary evidence for this view is that, after reading more than 10,000 books, I've noticed that the very same words and phrases which so many claim they can't understand in the KJV are found in some of the best-selling novels of our day. For example, many claim that the verb form of the word "compass" is difficult to understand, but best-selling author David Weber uses this form several times in his novels. When I find these supposedly archaic terms abounding in our present-day novels, I can only conclude that they aren't nearly as archaic as people claim. Additional evidence would include things like the large number of adults I personally know who are quite capable of reading and understanding the KJV without even a high school education. If the claim that the KJV is unreadable is really just a sign of laziness, then a modern translation of the TR is not likely to resolve the issue. Laziness does not dissipate when the work is made easier. N: I appreciate the discussion on this! It seems like we have broad agreement and would probably only disagree on minor issues if we continued much longer so I’ll just mention a few things as food for thought. It seems, by your own admission, that you are exceptionally well read. I saw a study recently (I can’t remember where) that said only half of adults in the US read 4 or more books per year. That means the other half read between 0 and 3. That number also has continued to decrease over the years. It’s a sad reality but it also happens to be our cultural moment that literacy in the US is at an all time low. I only say that because I think you might be grossly over estimating the literary capacity of the majority of American adults, don’t even get me started on kids! I also don’t think you’re doing that intentionally but more likely looking at yourself as an accurate comparison rather than as exceptional. Where I think most people that I have met who had difficulty understanding the KJV is not because of the archaisms, the syntax, and the sentence structure, as standalone issues. When you combine all of these though it can be and is difficult, not for some, but possibly for the majority of Americans, not to mention those for whom English is not their first language. I’m certainly not saying it’s impossible for them to understand and appreciate, or that we should throw out the King James. But I do think it’s true that to many it can cause Bible reading to become a frustrating experience. It’s just my opinion, but if we have good and faithful translations that are easier to be understood then why should we not encourage their use? Likewise, if we could maintain the integrity of the KJV and also update it to bring it to the common man is that such a bad thing? It’s true that this issue certainly needs robust debate and discussion, it’s also true that much of the useful debate takes place among the scholarly who can be somewhat out of touch with the common man. As a common man I just want you to consider that. Mark: Brothers and sisters, Bill Fortenberry has made a claim worth evaluating. He said that his extensive reading has shown him that “the very same words and phrases which so many claim they can’t understand in the KJV are found in some of the best-selling novels of our day.” He offers one example, a science fiction/fantasy author who uses “compass” the way the KJV does. Bill says: “When I find these supposedly archaic terms abounding in our present-day novels, I can only conclude that they aren’t nearly as archaic as people claim.” I am not prepared to accept Bill’s one example without citations, and here’s why: Laurence M. Vance, who bears some strong similarities to Bill, has made a book-length attempt to prove that the KJV is ”no more archaic than the daily newspaper,” and when I read his work my jaw just hung open. He repeatedly failed to find what he promised to find, namely contemporary uses of archaic KJV words and senses. He said he would; he didn’t. I really couldn’t believe my eyes. (https://youtu.be/W0bXdlX2668) Let me, then, appeal to a different authority, The Dictionary. The lexicographers at the Oxford English Dictionary have marked (at least) dozens of KJV senses as obsolete. I have shown this repeatedly on my YouTube channel. In other words, it isn’t our fault—and I include myself here—when we fail to understand the KJV due to language change. I have to urge you, brothers and sisters, not to accept Bill’s one example (without a citation) against the dozens of archaic words and senses I have discussed in detail and that were named archaic by the best English lexicographers in the world. Bill: Here are a few examples. These are taken from books currently on my computer waiting for me to consider transferring them to my kindle. If I searched my entire library, I could find many more, but I think this should be sufficient for the current challenge. "The chest—A gift of P. Severius Auctus, purveyor of fine woolens—was open. Dama was climbing out of it, as stiff as was to be expected when even a small man closed himself in so strait a compass. He'd shrugged aside the bolt of cloth that covered him within the chest, and he held the scabbard of an infantry sword in his left hand." (David Weber, Other Times Than Peace, pg. 204) "Meder swallowed and rose to a crouch. He scuttled forward without meeting the hermit's eyes. Asera released the tiller—it was lashed to move only in a short compass anyway" (David Drake, Lord of the Isles, pg. 214) "But I came up through short stories, which necessitated me developing skill in writing tight prose. 'Something Had to Be Done' is the best I've ever done at packing a story effectively in a brief compass. I'm very proud of it." (David Drake, Author's introduction to "Something Had To Be Done," Balefires, pg. 232) "Five hundred people exhaling in a close compass like this is going to raise the humidity a great deal in this climate. I think it's a good omen, don't you?" (David Drake, When the Tide Rises, pg. 118) "Only a flawless craftsman like Cyril Kornbluth, arguably the best short story writer in the SF field, would've been able to pack so much in so brief a compass. The story's terse, elliptical form drove home a message that would've been softened if not suffocated by a wordier presentation." (David Drake, Preface to "The Only Thing We Learn," The World Turned Upside Down, pg 187) "For Vance I picked 'Liane the Wayfarer' without a second thought. It contains all the traits that attract me to Vance, and it also tells a satisfying story in a brief compass." (David Drake, Afterward to "Liane the Wayfarer," The World Turned Upside Down, pg. 472) Mark: I'll turn to address you now, because this last post of yours is serious and respectful engagement, and I appreciate it. I’ve got three points to make: 1. First, and most importantly, the KJV phrase “fetch a compass” is treated by the OED as a distinct lexical item. That is, the whole phrase bears meaning as a phrase—much as "**waiting for** a customer" means something different than "**waiting on** a customer." Here's the OED: “to cast, †fet, fetch, go, take a compass: to take a circular or circuitous course, make a circuit or detour; †rarely, to form a circle; figurative to act or speak in a roundabout manner, digress.” The OED lists Acts 28:13’s use of this phrase as a sample use under this sense. Admittedly, the OED does not name this sense as archaic or obsolete. But I could not find the phrase in the NOW corpus, with its billions of words. And I know in my English gut that we simply don’t use that phrase anymore. If we say "Fetch a compass," we mean, "Go get the device that helps me find true North." That OED entry hasn’t been revised since 1891. If it were revised today, clearly the phrase would be labeled obsolete. 2. You did not give any examples of “casting a compass” or “fetching” one—or “going” or “taking” one. Indeed, you have done just what Vance did in a number of examples in his book. He found contemporary instances of a given KJV word, but not instances of the relevant sense of that word—which is my whole point with “false friends.” Yes, writers still use the word “compass,” but not in this sense with which it is used in the KJV. The instances of “compass” that you found bear a different dictionary sense entirely: “the range or scope of something” or “the enclosing limits of an area” (NOAD) Sample uses: - the event had political repercussions that are beyond the **compass** of this book. - this region had within its **compass** many types of agriculture. This is not an archaic sense. It is clearly active in the language. I use it. 3. What are you actually defending? What’s the upshot here? That today’s plowboy *ought* to know what “And from thence we fetched a compass, and came to Rhegium” (Acts 28:13 KJV) means? That “From there we circled round and reached Rhegium” (NKJV) is less accurate? The plowboy simply does not know what “fetched a compass” means, because it’s no longer part of our English. No one uses that phrase. Insisting on exclusive use of the KJV takes that and many other words and phrases out of the hands of the plowboy. It browbeats him into thinking that his struggle to understand God’s word is his fault. It makes him feel guilty for wanting the Bible in his English. The NKJV is not disagreeing with the KJV at Acts 28:13; it is merely speaking our English instead of someone else's. Bill: Actually, the OED does not treat the phrase "fetch a compass" as a distinct lexical item. It lists this phrase as a subset of the definition "Circuit, round, circuitous course." And this definition in turn is not treated as a distinct lexical item either. It is listed as one of several senses of the word "compass" which is listed as the first of four homonyms. Each of those homonyms is a distinct lexical item. The word "compass" which means "compost" is distinct from the word "compass" which has to do with circles. Also, the OED (and many other dictionaries) lists the verb form of a word as a separate entry from the noun, adjective, and adverb forms even though the verb form is often directly related to the others. Thus, even if the phrase "fetch a compass" were listed as a distinct entry in the OED, that would not preclude one from deriving the meaning of that phrase from the definition of "compass" since the two would be related. Now, the word "compass" appears 39 times in the KJV, and only 5 of those appearances are in a variation of the phrase "fetch a compass." All of the uses of this word in the KJV have to do with circles, and none of them have anything to do with the navigational tool that we call a compass. (By the way, both the navigational tool and the mathematical tool are called compasses precisely because of their close association with circles.) Anyone who properly understands the 34 uses of "compass" without the word "fetch" will have no difficulty whatsoever understanding the 5 verses that include the word fetch. It's simply ridiculous to assume otherwise. The readers would have to be complete imbeciles to not make the connection between the definitions for the other 34 uses and the meaning of the 5 with the word "fetch." By the way, all of the references to "compass" in modern literature that I provided above also fall under the sense of ""Circuit, round, circuitous course." The word "circuit" could be substituted in place of each of them without changing the meaning of the sentence. As for what I am defending, I am claiming that your arguments against the KJV do not hold up to intense scrutiny. Even your use of the plowboy doesn't add up. The plowboys of Tyndale's day were most likely illiterate. They couldn't read an English translation any better than they could read the original Hebrew or Greek. The benefit of Tyndale's translation was not that the plowboy was immediately able to read it and understand it, but rather that he could be taught to read and understand the Bible without first having to complete the likely insurmountable task of learning Hebrew, Greek, or Latin. The plowboy needed only to learn how to read English and then increase his knowledge of the vocabulary of his own language to understand the Bible. The goal of Tyndale's translation is readily attainable in America today with the KJV. Any English-speaking American can read and understand the KJV without first having to complete the likely insurmountable task of learning Hebrew, Greek, or Latin. An American of our day need only to learn how to read English and then increase his knowledge of the vocabulary of his own language to understand the KJV. The argument that the KJV is too difficult for modern American readers to understand does not hold up under intense scrutiny. Mark: I don't want to bicker or quarrel, in violation of New Testament commands (Titus 3:9). I won't say that this is what Bill has done; I actually appreciate the respect he showed in this engagement. I did not enter this discussion expecting that. I'm content at this point for everyone to read what we both have written and come to their own conclusions. [1] The pig and sheep comment refers to something I said on a friend’s status about two weeks prior to Ward’s comment. Here is what I said at that time: “I was thinking about Ward's position the other day, and I wonder if he would support a practice followed by the Wycliffe Bible Translators. When they come across an animal in the Bible that is unknown to the people they are translating for, they simply substitute a known animal in its place. I saw a translation once where they said that Jesus came as the pig of God instead of coming as the Lamb of God because the language didn't have a word for sheep. Their reasoning was the same as Mark Ward's reason for rejecting the KJV. They claimed that it was more important for the Bible to be understandable than for it to be accurate.” [2] My response to Nathan is now online. It went through several edits between my response to Mark and the final publication, but you can read it online here.
1 Comment
10/22/2024 03:27:32 pm
Bill, thank for getting tit for tat with Mark. It was interesting that he seems to think of himself as a loving brother who is just kindly sharing his opinion. Yet when you share your belief, you are trying to confuse and intimidate! I more than one Christian who was confused after listening to Mark.
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
Bill Fortenberry is a Christian philosopher and historian in Birmingham, AL. Bill's work has been cited in several legal journals, and he has appeared as a guest on shows including The Dr. Gina Show, The Michael Hart Show, and Real Science Radio.
Contact Us if you would like to schedule Bill to speak to your church, group, or club. "Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning." (Proverbs 9:9)
Search
Topics
All
Archives
November 2024
|