Harvard University in their book, "The Literary Guide to the Bible" in The chapter entitled "English Translations of the Bible" concludes correctly
that the modern versions are sorely inferior to the KJV in both theology and style.
“We have as a rule used the King James Version in translations, and our reason for doing so must be obvious: it is the version most readers associate
with the literary qualities of the Bible, and it is still arguably the version that best preserves the literary effects of the original languages.” (p. 7)
As a rule, whenever we encounter a syntactic oddness or aberration in the Authorized Version {KJV} - the kind of thing the word ‘archaic’ is
used unthinkingly to describe — we ought to assume that it reflects an attempt to reproduce the original’s word or phrase order. (p. 648)
The Authorized Version translators have taken care to reproduce the syntactic details {word order and sentence structure} of the original.” (p. 656)
Its overall effect is still much more Hebraic than English.” (p. 660) The Greek, as we would expect, is a fairly exact model of the Renaissance {KJV} rendering… (p. 658)
The Authorized Version has the kind of transparency which makes it possible for the reader to see the original clearly. It lacks the narrow interpretive bias of modern versions, and is stronger for it. (p. 664) Through its transparency the reader of the Authorized not only sees the original but learns how to read it. Patterns of repetition, the way one clause is linked to another, the effect of unexpected inversions of word order, the readiness of biblical writers to vary tone and register from the highly formal to the scatological, and the different kinds and uses of imagery are all, like so much else, open to any reader of the Renaissance versions, and best open to them in the Authorized Version.” (pp. 664-665)
Of the NIV, they comment, “And the New International Version…Here we can see the diminishments consequent upon tinkering with the original syntax. Robert Alter, in showing how vital a part of biblical narrative technique is the repetition of key words, has warned that ‘most modern
English translations go to the opposite extreme, constantly translating the same word with different English equivalents…the repetition of
key-words is so prominent in many biblical narratives that one can still follow it fairly well in translation, especially if one uses the King
James Version.’ (p. 652) Tyndale and the Calvinist translators of the Geneva Bible took little care to maintain verbal equivalence.” (p. 653)
Knowing the severe limitations of current lexicons, they chide the new versions’ grade-school “instinct which perceives the word only as it appears in the lexicon.” (p. 652) After citing sixteen large pages of errors in the new versions and demonstrating examples of how the KJV is translated “powerfully” with “verbal dexterity…extraordinary economy…{and} rhythmic patterning,” the author says, “All these examples can be seen to have doctrinal or theological implications…in the modern versions…The loss is measurable, not only in terms of aesthetics but also in terms of meaning.” (p. 663) They add that new versions might be “more attractive…to those who prefer an abstract God.” (p. 647)
“The Authorized Version {KJV} emerges from comparison with twentieth-century versions as more attractive and more accurate.” (p. 664) "Only 'scribes questioning' will pretend otherwise. (Mark 9:14) The professors at Harvard join Pilate in saying, “I find no fault…” in this King. (Luke 23:4)
“I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth,
because thou hast hid these things from
the wise and prudent, and hast
revealed them unto babes.
Even so, Father: for
so it seemed
good in thy
sight.”
Praise the Lord for the blessed KJV Bible. He really did preserve His Words just like He said He would.
Psalm 12:6-7, "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
Isaiah 40:8 says, "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."
“We have as a rule used the King James Version in translations, and our reason for doing so must be obvious: it is the version most readers associate
with the literary qualities of the Bible, and it is still arguably the version that best preserves the literary effects of the original languages.” (p. 7)
As a rule, whenever we encounter a syntactic oddness or aberration in the Authorized Version {KJV} - the kind of thing the word ‘archaic’ is
used unthinkingly to describe — we ought to assume that it reflects an attempt to reproduce the original’s word or phrase order. (p. 648)
The Authorized Version translators have taken care to reproduce the syntactic details {word order and sentence structure} of the original.” (p. 656)
Its overall effect is still much more Hebraic than English.” (p. 660) The Greek, as we would expect, is a fairly exact model of the Renaissance {KJV} rendering… (p. 658)
The Authorized Version has the kind of transparency which makes it possible for the reader to see the original clearly. It lacks the narrow interpretive bias of modern versions, and is stronger for it. (p. 664) Through its transparency the reader of the Authorized not only sees the original but learns how to read it. Patterns of repetition, the way one clause is linked to another, the effect of unexpected inversions of word order, the readiness of biblical writers to vary tone and register from the highly formal to the scatological, and the different kinds and uses of imagery are all, like so much else, open to any reader of the Renaissance versions, and best open to them in the Authorized Version.” (pp. 664-665)
Of the NIV, they comment, “And the New International Version…Here we can see the diminishments consequent upon tinkering with the original syntax. Robert Alter, in showing how vital a part of biblical narrative technique is the repetition of key words, has warned that ‘most modern
English translations go to the opposite extreme, constantly translating the same word with different English equivalents…the repetition of
key-words is so prominent in many biblical narratives that one can still follow it fairly well in translation, especially if one uses the King
James Version.’ (p. 652) Tyndale and the Calvinist translators of the Geneva Bible took little care to maintain verbal equivalence.” (p. 653)
Knowing the severe limitations of current lexicons, they chide the new versions’ grade-school “instinct which perceives the word only as it appears in the lexicon.” (p. 652) After citing sixteen large pages of errors in the new versions and demonstrating examples of how the KJV is translated “powerfully” with “verbal dexterity…extraordinary economy…{and} rhythmic patterning,” the author says, “All these examples can be seen to have doctrinal or theological implications…in the modern versions…The loss is measurable, not only in terms of aesthetics but also in terms of meaning.” (p. 663) They add that new versions might be “more attractive…to those who prefer an abstract God.” (p. 647)
“The Authorized Version {KJV} emerges from comparison with twentieth-century versions as more attractive and more accurate.” (p. 664) "Only 'scribes questioning' will pretend otherwise. (Mark 9:14) The professors at Harvard join Pilate in saying, “I find no fault…” in this King. (Luke 23:4)
“I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth,
because thou hast hid these things from
the wise and prudent, and hast
revealed them unto babes.
Even so, Father: for
so it seemed
good in thy
sight.”
Praise the Lord for the blessed KJV Bible. He really did preserve His Words just like He said He would.
Psalm 12:6-7, "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
Isaiah 40:8 says, "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."
