# How to talk about the AV...



## JM (Apr 1, 2011)

without being called a KJVO, any suggestions? I believe the AV is a good translation based on good mss. How do I talk to other Christians about it without being called a far out loon?


----------



## nwink (Apr 1, 2011)

I know what you mean.  One thing I do is to start out calling it the "Authorized Version" instead of the "King James Version" because once you say the word "KJV", you're automatically "one of _those_ (KJVO) people." (But I think once you mention that you're not a KJVO, then they listen a little closer) Then I go on to talk about the translation method, translators, manuscripts, and then point to a few verses of significant difference in translation (comparing it to the ESV, NASB, NIV, etc) or wording/verses that were left out of other translations that are of importance. And then the inevitable question is "Why should I make the effort since it's all archaic language anyways?" Then I reaffirm the pro's for using the AV, the benefits of some of the "archaic" language (such as "ye", etc) and then mention that TBS has the word definition list available in their Bibles and on their website. Then the next inevitable question is "Why can't we get a new translation of the KJV?" to which I ask if it's worth all the time, money, effort for the Church (*not a publishing company*) to put out a new translation when: (1) the KJV is already an excellent, understandable translation (with a few Anglican quibbles), (2) the KJV is pretty inexpensive and fairly available/well-distributed in a lot of places throughout the world (whereas a new translation would be more expensive and not as widely distributed).


----------



## Jack K (Apr 1, 2011)

Just don't be a jerk about it, and you'll be fine. People rightly feel a very close attachment to the Bible they read. So they're sensitive to criticism of it, which is why they don't like the loony types. But most can handle the discussion if you're clear you aren't taking an "-only" position and you don't think less of them personally for using something else.

I use the ESV for most of my personal study. But I readily agree that the mss arguments for the KJV are reasonable arguments, the translation effort was meticulous, and the English wording that resulted is often sublime. As long as you took a respectful tone, I wouldn't mind having a KJV vs ESV discussion with you.

Oh, and on the suggestion to refer to it as the "Authorized Version"... To me, that sounds like you'd be accusing the Bible I read of being unauthorized. It comes across as more confrontational and dogmatic. But maybe that's just how it sounds to me. I'm also old enough to have grown up with the KJV, in a home where it was alive and cherished, so that the words "King James Version" carry a fondness to me.


----------



## LawrenceU (Apr 1, 2011)

Try living near Pensacola and having a sane discussion in this vein


----------



## TimV (Apr 1, 2011)

It's the implications of only that upset people familiar with these things. If it meant "you" only use the KJV that's fine, but what the loonies demand is that "I" can only use it with the only alternative being that I of necessity use a "corrupt" Bible. And why should I consider such a person as anything other than a fanatic?


----------



## JM (Apr 1, 2011)

I don't recall ever saying new, modern, hip (  ) translations are corrupt but I find CT folks to be just as insane as the KJVO crowd...at times. They will insist that I give up my AV because it is a deeply flawed translation based on outdated scholarship that no one can understand.

This is fanatical as well.

j


----------



## kodos (Apr 1, 2011)

I also have more fondness for the KJV being called the King James Version instead of the Authorized Version. In fact, the first Bible I bought, I picked up the King James Version because that's the only thing I could remember that people read. And that was all of 2 years ago!


----------



## TimV (Apr 1, 2011)

JM said:


> I don't recall ever saying new, modern, hip ( ) translations are corrupt but I find CT folks to be just as insane as the KJVO



Where? In real life I never hear that at all. On this board I never hear that. But there have been dozens of KJVOnlies here on this board who have gone to unbelievable lengths, even claiming that the WCF demands the use of the KJV only in church! And some time ago you yourself would post something guaranteed to be controversial, then not post at all on the thread but kick back and watch the fireworks. My favorite link from you was some goofy Baptist who claimed Antioch was the mother of truth and Alexandria was the mother of the devil. That particular link made Chick Tracks look like they were written by orthodox scholars in comparison.

So you have personal experience with CV supporters who act like you have here? Again, where?


----------



## Philip (Apr 1, 2011)

Jack K said:


> Oh, and on the suggestion to refer to it as the "Authorized Version"... To me, that sounds like you'd be accusing the Bible I read of being unauthorized. It comes across as more confrontational and dogmatic. But maybe that's just how it sounds to me. I'm also old enough to have grown up with the KJV, in a home where it was alive and cherished, so that the words "King James Version" carry a fondness to me.



I have to agree with this: I've only ever heard it referred to as such by advocates. That's not to say that the use is wrong, just that calling the KJV the "Authorized Version" tells me more or less what your position is before you start the argument.

On a side note: today I picked up a second-hand leather-bound pocket-sized KJV Bible for 4 quid at the used bookshop---I figured it was about time I used it alongside the ESV.


----------



## LawrenceU (Apr 1, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> On a side note: today I picked up a second-hand leather-bound pocket-sized KJV Bible for 4 quid at the used bookshop---I figured it was about time I used it alongside the ESV.



He's already using the jargon. . . I wonder what his accent is like now?


----------



## JM (Apr 1, 2011)

TimV said:


> So you have personal experience with CV supporters who act like you have here? Again, where?



Mostly forums but I have had these discussions with Reformed folks who come from Fundie backgrounds. They are so afraid of being called a KJVO they go on the attack. I talked with a Reformed Pastor about 5 years ago on this issue and he really freaked on me for not toeing the line, it happens, believe it.

I also had threads locked on other forums for discussing this subject.


----------



## JM (Apr 1, 2011)

Honestly Tim I looked for the thread/link that you found so controversial did not find it. If I posted a link and did not respond it was probably due to the fact that I didn't know how to treat the information in the article and wanted to see what the members of PB thought about it. 



> So you have personal experience with CV supporters who act like you have here?



I would say you have posted in this forum many times, on this subject many times with a hyper sensitivity and intensity matched by what you refer to as the Baptist KJVO. Anyone who disagrees with the CT position finds a post by Tim. So yah, I would you have acted like me on occasion.


----------



## TimV (Apr 1, 2011)

I've not only never claimed to be a CV supporter I've repeatedly said I am not one. If someone said the CV or MT or anything else was totally without fault and I have to believe this or I don't believe God's Word I'd react the same as I do to the KJVOnlies here. But it's only them.


----------



## JM (Apr 1, 2011)

TimV said:


> I've not only never claimed to be a CV supporter I've repeatedly said I am not one. If someone said the CV or MT or anything else was totally without fault and I have to believe this or I don't believe God's Word I'd react the same as I do to the KJVOnlies here. But it's only them.



Ok Tim, I get it.


----------



## Pilgrim (Apr 2, 2011)

JM said:


> I don't recall ever saying new, modern, hip (  ) translations are corrupt but I find CT folks to be just as insane as the KJVO crowd...at times. They will insist that I give up my AV because it is a deeply flawed translation based on outdated scholarship that no one can understand.
> 
> This is fanatical as well.
> 
> j



On occasion I too have noticed near anti-KJV (and in some cases, even anti-NKJV) fanaticism on the part of some critical text advocates. It's true that this is often due to an overreaction to the more extreme advocates of KJV Onlyism, but that doesn't make it excusable. 

Unfortunately many today relegate the KJV as being little better than a curiosity or a historical artifact due to archaic language, etc. That's a different issue, and older CT versions like the RV and ASV are open to that charge as well. 

But it's not too hard to find people who insinuate and sometimes state outright that the KJV and even the NKJV are unsuitable for use as a primary Bible because they are not based on the ostensibly better manuscripts. On the one hand, critical text advocates will say that no doctrines are changed in the newer versions, but on the other hand will often state that the ESV or NASB or NIV (and perhaps even the RSV or NRSV) must used over the KJV or NKJV because they are not translated from the late and corrupted Byzantine texts, etc. So depending on which discussion you're having, the textual variants are either relatively insignificant or they are so significant as to place even the modern NKJV in the also ran category because it's based on the wrong manuscripts and thus perpetuates ignorance among the populace about the assured results of modern scholarship. 

With some folks, no matter how you raise the issue, you are viewed as little better than a flat earther who holds to views that aren't worth serious consideration. This can be the case even with advocacy of the Majority or Byzantine text when defense of the AV itself isn't even the subject at hand.

I had an otherwise fairly knowledgeable and level headed evangelical pastor once tell me that the KJV was "the worst" translation, a ludicrous claim given the Living Bible, the Good News Bible, The Message, and other paraphrastic editions, at least some of which are produced by those with less than orthodox views of Scripture. Despite this, this man who held to inerrancy recommended the Good News Bible as a version to use to get the "big picture" even though its translator vehemently opposed inerrancy. This is just one example of several that come to mind.


----------



## rbcbob (Apr 2, 2011)

LawrenceU said:


> Try living near Pensacola and having a sane discussion in this vein



Would that have anything to do with one "Dr. R." who advocated correcting the Greek text with the KJV?


----------



## torstar (Apr 2, 2011)

JM said:


> without being called a KJVO, any suggestions? I believe the AV is a good translation based on good mss. How do I talk to other Christians about it without being called a far out loon?




Is it better being called a far out loon or realizing the other person is the far out loon?


----------



## JennyG (Apr 2, 2011)

Jason, just direct anyone who has a problem with the AV to Leland Ryken's  new book on its legacy.
When I was very new on this board I hadn't even heard of "KJVOnlyism" but as soon as I mentioned my own love of the AV and regret for its relative disuse, I had a sensation of being jumped on! It almost made me think twice about staying (I'm very glad now I did)


----------



## LawrenceU (Apr 2, 2011)

rbcbob said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> > Try living near Pensacola and having a sane discussion in this vein
> ...



Well, yes it would. It is amazing how many folks he has influenced. Him and G.R. Something funny is how many times I have talked with hard-line KJVO pastors who also believe that a man should never be taught anything about the Bible from women. Then they begin to quote G.R. When I point out that G.R. is a woman, they sort of get this goldfish look. They often are unaware of that.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Apr 2, 2011)

I love many things about the KJV, and think most people are right on when they promote its good qualities. I don't think the language is that hard but I have read it much and been surrounded by it. 

I also love and use modern translations. The problem is many KJV-Preferred (as opposed to KJVO) folks that I've run into go through all the good things about the KJV, then afterward the attitude is 1) "so why do we need anything else" or 2) "why don't YOU just use it?". Then we start hearing them saying modern translations are corrupt and they denigrate the divinity of Christ or soteriology, how the KJV is so blessed so why change (e.g. Augustine's criticism of Jerome's Vulgate) etc. etc. 

Then when someone mentions that "well, the language is far older now than it was then" the response is "just get a dictionary so you can really read God's word." The KJVP folks I have seen basically said "we could update it and make a couple of corrections, but they're so minor we shouldn't waste our time" like Trinitarian Bible Society, and you get closer and closer to a de facto KJVO position or "Vulgate Only" position of the Reformation era, even though theoretically you're not KJVO.

As a non KJVO or KJVP guy, for those who are talk about the good qualities and don't bash the moderns or attempt to undermine their faith. I would say the same for those who don't care for the AV. Discuss things LIKE CHRISTIANS SHOULD, and agree that we're all brothers in the faith. The Ruckmans, Ripingers, Clouds, and haters on both sides go somewhere else.


----------



## JM (Apr 2, 2011)

Good points Mr. Tate. Personally, I'd love for TBS to produce a revised and updated edition of the AV, I would buy one.


----------



## Puritan Scot (Apr 2, 2011)

JennyG said:


> When I was very new on this board I hadn't even heard of "KJVOnlyism" but as soon as I mentioned my own love of the AV and regret for its relative disuse, I had a sensation of being jumped on!




As someone who is eternally grateful to the Lord for the great spiritual blessings He has brought upon this nation in giving us The Authorised Version / KJV - I am also thankful that "KJOnlyism" is rare in the United Kingdom.

Our nation became *Great* Britain on the high watertide of this most faithful and accurate version of the Scriptures. 

Sadly the "Great" belongs to former centuries and this demise follows after the time of the glorious Protestant Reformation when there were great outpourings of God's Spirit and genuine revivals over a period of three centuries. However sad to say, here on mainland Britain, we have not experienced these blessings since the end of the 19th century.

I am sure that the rise of the Higher Critical Movement that swept into this country from Germany at this time contributed a great deal to this demise. The subsequent birth of an abundance of versions of the Scriptures have not enjoyed the same measure of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in enlightening and blessing the souls of the multitudes in our cities, towns and villages.

As such let us not run down the AV/JKV as it leaves us with such a glorious history and legacy spanning from the era of the later Reformers, Puritans and Covenantors.

Jenny - You will be glad to know of the forthcoming scheduled Commemorative Meeting in your part of the country at the end of this month.

*The Authorised Version: The Bible of The Martyrs and Missionaries of the Scottish Church
Burntisland Parish Church, Fife
Saturday 30th April 2011 at 3.00pm
Preacher The Rev. David Silversides*


----------



## JennyG (Apr 2, 2011)

Puritan Scot said:


> Jenny - You will be glad to know of the forthcoming scheduled Commemorative Meeting in your part of the country at the end of this month.
> 
> The Authorised Version: The Bible of The Martyrs and Missionaries of the Scottish Church



Thank you, John! you are so sadly right about the tragic decline since Formerly-Great Britain turned its back on its greatest treasure, the AV. 
I must check that meeting out, since as you say Burntisland is not too far away. I knew it had a special connection, but I had to google it to check the details.
It was in this very building that the momentous decision was actually made to produce a new English version.


----------



## LawrenceU (Apr 3, 2011)

JennyG said:


> Puritan Scot said:
> 
> 
> > Jenny - You will be glad to know of the forthcoming scheduled Commemorative Meeting in your part of the country at the end of this month.
> ...


 
My, what a beautiful and unique church building, and what a history. I did not know that the decision for a new translation was made in Scotland. Had I thought about the dates of the decision and the date of James VI/I taking the English throne I am pretty certain it would have eventually occurred to me, but it didn't. (Some of my kin have still not quite forgiven Seumas for becoming more English than Scottish after taking the throne there.)


----------



## TomVols (Apr 13, 2011)

As a former KJVO, just stay away from sounding like a jerk. Be kind, something KJVOs rarely are. Don't EVER use the phrase "King James Bible" because that's the KJVO shibboleth. Praise other translations where they are praiseworthy. Note that the KJV is merely a translation, and your assessment of it. You should be fine, friend.


----------

