# Dr. Joel R. Beeke's 13 reasons for retaining the KJV



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 8, 2006)

Here.


----------



## Casey (Feb 8, 2006)

> _Originally posted by TimeRedeemer_
> Here.


"11. 'Sounds' Like the Bible"
This "sounds" a bit subjective to me.

Most of those items apply directly to the NKJV . . . yes?

Anyway, I think the Confession (1.8) speaks to this:


> ... But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore *they are to be translated into the vulgar language* of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.


Oh, well.  No biggie.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 8, 2006)

I think one can objectively discern or identify language of the high nature of the King James Version and language of the pedestrian nature of the New York Times...

There is a stubborn popular myth that the language of the KJV was the street language of people in 1611 England. It's not true. It was high - or unusual, or unique shall we say - diction back then as well. A similar myth surrounds the language of the Homeric epics. They were a poetic language to any generation of Greek speaking ancients (this comes up in discussions and defenses of different translation styles of Homer)...


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 8, 2006)

Beeke's reason #2 can't be repeated often enough:



> 2. Based on the Full Text of the Hebrew and Greek Originals
> Based on the Textus Receptus (the Greek NT), and the Masoretic Text (Hebrew OT), the KJV gives the most authentic and fullest available text of the Scriptures, with none of the many omissions and textual rewrites of the modern translations such as the Revised Standard Versions (RSV) and the NIV.
> 
> (a) Oldest Does Not Mean Best - The Westcott and Hort arguments that 'the oldest manuscripts are the most reliable' and that 'age carries more weight than volume' are not necessarily true. It could well be that the two oldest, complete manuscripts were found to be in such unusually excellent condition because they were already recognized as faulty manuscripts in their time and therefore were placed aside and not recopied until worn out as were the reliable manuscripts. This is further supported by numerous existing differences between the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts.
> ...


----------



## Mike (Feb 8, 2006)

1. Naturalistic Fallacy

2. I don't find this particularly compelling.
3. A literal, accurate translation is key. The criticism of the NIV here was more or less accurate. However, the KJV made some quite obvious screwups that should not be retained. The consistant, direct translation of other translations like the NASB is much more desirable.
4. False dichotomy. The NIV is not the only alternative.
5. I do like that the KJV has clear plural and singular second person pronouns. Unfortunately, modern English does not really support these.
6. Matter of opinion "proved" by naturalistic fallacy. I would think that a more understandable, more acurate translation would be better for such uses.
7. For one, that type of printing has been retained in printings of other translations. However, I do not buy that this is the best way to go, anyways. The verse markings are not inspired and can in fact be distracting in expository study.
8. Unimportant
9. Counterfactual. In reality, I think his view here would do just the opposite and cause strife rather than unity. However, if we were to all use the same translations for the same things, I would think a better one than the KJV would be best.
10. I don't see why it is necessary to use the KJV under this criterion.
11. Much of the Bible was not written in lofty language. Why should we require lofty language in its translations.
12. Ad hominem.
13. 13. How is this true at all? The KJV was a big player in a movement in historic Christianity to make the Bible clear an accessible in vulgar languages. The tradition we should follow behind the KJV isn't use of old translations or ones that are not in the most understandable language.


----------



## JJF (Feb 8, 2006)

> _Originally posted by TimeRedeemer_
> I think one can objectively discern or identify language of the high nature of the King James Version and language of the pedestrian nature of the New York Times...
> 
> There is a stubborn popular myth that the language of the KJV was the street language of people in 1611 England. It's not true. It was high - or unusual, or unique shall we say - diction back then as well. A similar myth surrounds the language of the Homeric epics. They were a poetic language to any generation of Greek speaking ancients (this comes up in discussions and defenses of different translation styles of Homer)...



Michael, do you have any examples to buttress your assertion, such as a comparative analysis of the two styles of language?


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 8, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JJF_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by TimeRedeemer_
> ...



Between the Authorized Version and the New York Times?


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 8, 2006)

Michael Graham, really? Beeke is 0 for 13? You don't think you're being partisan or anything, do you?

And this:

>_2. I don't find this particularly compelling._

I find it compelling when parts of sacred Scripture are deleted and distorted at the whim and demand of men.


----------



## cupotea (Feb 8, 2006)

> _Originally posted by TimeRedeemer_



I find Beeke's arguments compelling, though I'm quite far from the "KJV-only" position. (But then, I don't think Beeke is KJV-only either.) Having spoken with, read, and listened to him personally, I have nothing but admiration and respect for him.

The only thing is, I've never found a comparison between the KJV language, and the "street language" of the Elizabethan period. I've often heard that the KJV is quite different - and deliberately so. But I've never actually seen any comparisons. I've read some who said a simple comparison between Shakespear and the KJV would suffice, but I've not checked into it. 

BTW, in my congregation we use the NKJV. It's what we use for the public reading of God's Word, and for preaching (and BibleWorks for exegesis). But in my own personal reading, devotion, and study, I tend to stick with the KJV. I've left it numerous times and gone to other worthwhile translations (NKJV, ESV, NASB), but always find myself returning to the KJV. I really do love it (except, perhaps, when trying to read through Ezekiel! )


----------



## satz (Feb 8, 2006)

> 5. A More Precise Idiom
> Often attacked at this very point, the KJV actually is a more accurate and helpful translation precisely because of the archaic pronouns ('thou, thy, thee,' etc.). Both Hebrew and Greek distinguish clearly between the 2nd person singular ('thou') and the 2nd person plural ('ye,you'). In many statements this makes an important difference (e.g. John 3:7). In a sense it is correct to say that in praying the Lord Jesus used 'Thou' - God is one, not many! - for he definitely used the Hebrew or Greek equivalent.



I think this is one of the more practical and powerful arguments in favour of the KJV.

As far as if the langague of the KJV was common speak in 1611, i don't have a copy now, but i have heard it said that simply looking at the introduction/dedication to king james written by the translators shows that KJV-type high english was not commonly used in that day.


----------



## Peter (Feb 9, 2006)

Good article. 

The Trinitarian Bible Society is the most well known organization promoting the Received Text. They have many pamphlets and articles on Greek NT. Also, one site I found on the internet that looks interesting The Institute for Renaissance and Reformation Biblical Studies founded by the late Dr. Theodore Letis (I believe he was Lutheran)


----------



## Mike (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by TimeRedeemer_
> Michael Graham, really?


Um... really.



> Beeke is 0 for 13?


Some of his arguments have some validity, that I do not deny. However, what was presented there certainly doesn't mean we should act as he seems to be suggesting.



> You don't think you're being partisan or anything, do you?


I am not sure what you mean here. I certainly take the other side of the issue than Dr. Beeke. That much is obvious. If my criticisms were wrong, I am open to you showing me how. 



> And this:
> 
> >_2. I don't find this particularly compelling._
> 
> I find it compelling when parts of sacred Scripture are deleted and distorted at the whim and demand of men.


What I do not find particularly compelling is that what you described happened, from what was presented. However, I am not that well-versed in textual criticism. I didn't make a positive claim for anything here, of course. What you quoted was probably the weakest claim I made; I'm not even sure if it qualifies as truly critical.

[Edited on 2-9-2006 by Mike]


----------



## cupotea (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Good article.
> 
> The Trinitarian Bible Society is the most well known organization promoting the Received Text. They have many pamphlets and articles on Greek NT. Also, one site I found on the internet that looks interesting The Institute for Renaissance and Reformation Biblical Studies founded by the late Dr. Theodore Letis (I believe he was Lutheran)



My most-used Bible is from the Trinitarian Bible Society. It also contains the Scottish Metrical Psalter in the back.

Dr. Letis was a Missouri Synod Lutheran. He and I had some wonderful conversations in the past. His stance upon the KJV was, for the most part, ecclesiastically-based; that it is the only *authoritative* translation available. His "The Ecclesiastical Text" is perhaps the best-known for discussing this topic. In it he takes Warfield to task for introducing the concept of "inerrancy" into the text critical controversy. Can't say I agreed with him on this point, but Letis was certainly a more-than-competent apologist for his point of view.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Globachio_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by TimeRedeemer_
> ...



Shakespeare used a high, middle, and low style throughout his plays. The contrast can be seen strikingly in, for instance, Henry IV, Pt. 1 & 2. The 'low' language of the inn scenes is almost unintelligible. Some of that is due to Shakespeare's punning, which have lost impact over time, yet the language itself that carries the punning is what is relevant. 

My reference to the New York Times was a reference to some translation teams who self-consciously set out to make the Bible read as easy "as a modern newpaper". 

Of course, much of the KJV's unique diction is due to following the original so closely and faithfully. 

The main issue for me is the underlying manuscript. I wasn't a person worried about translations for a long time (I first read the Bible complete using the NRSV, not knowing about differences in trans.) I did have experience with the King James as literature though, so I valued it for that. But it was when I learned of the manuscript issues that I turned to the King James Version. 

Also, it galled me to learn that a handful of, let's say, 'less than Bible-believing' scholars in the 19th century could change the landscape so radically with nary a shot fired or confrontation put up. 

Also, I find that modern scholars become sophistical when defending the modern manuscripts. Take James White: I find White to be one of the rarely bold and on the mark Christian writers and theologians and I also find him to be an obvious true believer and follower of Christ and nothing I've read by him really do I find in any way falling short -- with the very glaring exception of his writings on the King James Version issues. Frankly he becomes a sophist and he becomes dishonest. He turns into, basically, something in the neighborhood of a Roman Catholic apologist (in terms of dishonesty and sophistry) on that issue. 

Then you hear defenders of the modern manuscripts and versions repeat the mantra "nothing is missing, nothing has been changed" then you look into it and find that central doctrine is missing and changed. Then you look into it further and you see all these motivations the defenders of the new versions have that have nothing to do with "is it right? is it faithful to the Word of God". 

I highly value the language of the KJV as well, but if one bases their choice solely on manuscript issues and wants a easier to read version the NKJV is there. 

Just don't tell me that 'For thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory' should be deleted from the Word of God "because", and present your "because" as if it's a knock-down argument when it clearly isn't. Or the reference to the Trinity in 1 John. Or whole swaths of verses such as Mark. Or almost every important reference to fasting (which has deep meaning in the Word of God and involves spiritual warfare and is something the devil would target for deletion is he could get away with it). All the so-called 'minor' changes that just so happen to directly effect the deity of Jesus Christ, etc., etc., etc. Please don't make these arguments like you are talking to children who havn't looked into the issue. 

Just the fact that the defenders of the modern manuscripts and modern versions start off with their arguments as if it's not a manuscript issue (assuming their audience doesn't know about the differences in manuscripts) exposes a, let us say, less than up front approach. For instance someone says verse X is missing in the modern versions, and defender of the modern manuscripts, Mr. Z., says, "Yes, but that verse isn't IN the manuscript!" as if the very issue isn't competing claims regarding authentic manuscripts. They play to the portion of the audience that doesn't know about the differences in manuscripts and that that is the very issue at stake and they don't care that the portion of the audience who does know about the differences in manuscripts can see what they're up to. They resemble liberals in the political sphere in this sense. 

The mocking tone towards people who value the Word of God as it's come down to us in the manuscripts the KJV is based on - that all the great Reformation Bibles were/are based on - is strange as well. 

Also, they suddenly become great users of strawmen fallacies. Right, every Christians who values the Textus Receptus can't understand Calvinism. Yeah, we're all like that. I hate or can't see and accept or just simply understand the doctrines of grace just like Ruckman or Riplinger. (I, for the record, though I don't share their anti-Calvinism, admire the spirit and zeal of a Riplinger - Ruckman may be a bit of a bully, but I'm not very familiar with him; and I say that knowing how easy it is to make fun of Ms. Riplinger, yes, what great fun. She of course has to be 100% accurate in all she writes and believes because that's the standard for us all, right? And the entire defense of the Textus Receptus has to hang on every word she's ever penned, right?) I also, from my past experience with language and literature, and from my belief in the work of the Holy Spirit regarding shepherding and safeguarding the Word of God into the world and from the world see the value in the KJV as a translation itself, and value it's pedigree, so to speak, in a way perhaps others today don't have the background to be able to value, yet that is not the main issue: the main issue is the underlying manuscripts and what is deleted and distorted in the modern manuscripts and versions. A person can get the TR manuscripts in a modern translation via the NKJV, for the most part (it has its problems, and I'd still direct people to the KJV first, but by degree it's not as bad in terms of the deletions alone)...

[Edited on 2-9-2006 by TimeRedeemer]

[Edited on 2-9-2006 by TimeRedeemer]


----------



## JJF (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by TimeRedeemer_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by JJF_
> ...




No, between the street language in 1611 and the KJV. Sorry for the confusion.

[Edited on 9-2-06 by JJF]


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 9, 2006)

I touched on it in my last comment above...


----------



## JJF (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by TimeRedeemer_
> I touched on it in my last comment above...



I knew the answer to my own question before I asked it; I just wanted to see what your answer would be. Your claim that Scripture shouldn't be written in the common man's tongue is confusing to mediums of communication. I think one could also say that the NIV, of which I'm not a fan for other reasons, is also not like the common language of American people. Does the NIV reflect street language of the people, say, in Detroit? 

The written word is often more unusual in diction than the spoken word. Very few people talk like a book. I took a Linguistics course, and I don't think spoken language is ever equivalent to written language. The exceptions would be in plays or dialogues in books, like Shakespeare's, where the playwright or author is trying to capture the idiom or dialect of the person doing the talking (although I would argue that Shakespeare's writing isn't a perfect reflection of the actual language at the time); this happens in Plato's Republic. The written word and the spoken word are two different mediums of communication. So I believe the argument that the KJV captures a higher-style than the common man's tongue, can also be made for the NIV or other translations (excluding paraphrases). 

There is also a little bit of relativism in your argument that the Bible should be translated in the high-style language. Should it be high-style southern American language, or high-style northern American language, or high-style standard English? Why do you select the KJV, which is a 17th Century high-style English language?

[Edited on 9-2-06 by JJF]

[Edited on 9-2-06 by JJF]


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JJF_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by TimeRedeemer_
> ...




Yes, spoken and written language are two different things, but I respond to the request nevertheless because of the popular myth involved (as stated above). 

You're ascribing statements to me I didn't make. I would say Scripture needs to be translated faithfully. Notice I speak of the manuscripts and only speak of the virtues of the KJV as a translation secondarily, though they aren't small. There are elements in language, though, that carry impressions that more pedestrian language can't carry. This is where the Authorized Version is preeminent in terms of language. Anything modern versions carry that is similar is derived from the KJV usually (in the case of the versions that are in the line of the KJV, yet based on the modern manuscripts). In fact, the indebtedness to the renderings found in the KJV (and derived from the line of English translations that led up to the consoldiation in the KJV) go unspoken by modern translation teams. Those renderings are of such a nature one can say they are inspired by the Spirit Himself. 

The real issue is the deletions and distortions that appeared with the new manuscripts and that were accepted rather bizarrely (and still accepted rather bizarrely) by people who probably should be a bit more sceptical. It's the Word of God afterall, but I wouldn't stand for what's been done if it had been done to Plato or Homer to Thucydides...


----------



## JJF (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by TimeRedeemer_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by JJF_
> ...



I'm sorry if I unfairly ascribed arguments to you that you didn't make. I thought that the high-style of the KJV was one of your arguments for its retention. I just took issue with this point in your above posts, and I tried to debunk what I thought was an error. But, if you don't take issue with my post, then I misunderstood you. I ask for your forgiveness.


----------



## Steve Owen (Feb 9, 2006)

On the matter of Shakespeare and the KJV, it's amusing that Shakespeare normally uses _you_ and _your_ rather than _thou, thee_ and _thine_.

The only exception is when a character is issuing a rebuke or an insult:-

* 'Thou knave! Thou naughty knave!' *

I would join a campaign to promote the TR in a flash, if it wasn't for the fact that they are all promoting the KJV. The Scriptures must be available in the language of ordinary people. That's why the NT was originally written in _Koine_ Greek, not Classical Greek. If the NKJV isn't good enough, then someone do a better one.

Martin


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 9, 2006)

> I'm sorry if I unfairly ascribed arguments to you that you didn't make. I thought that the high-style of the KJV was one of your arguments for its retention.



I consider the style of the Word of God to derive from the Word of God itself, when translated faithfully and literally, which the AV does. The "majesty of the style", as the Westminster Confession of Faith put it, exists if it is just tranlated as is, and this is what we have in the AV. You have to get away from being faithful and literal to the original to get the easy-reading styles that the modern versions sell as a virtue. 

I sense there is a detour perhaps developing here, perhaps unintended yet still, that is saying that the Authorized Version is some kind of artificially elevated language. That's not what I meant at all, and that's not the case at all. To deny that is not to say it's the language of the Elizabethan, or that era, street. It is obviously literary language, yet it is blood and bones Saxon with, yes, some latinate renderings here and there, but English is well known for its ability to incorporate language, yet the AV is in style as rugged as Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress or even Malory's Morte d'Arthur. What is special about the language and renderings of the AV is it is tried and forged over centuries. The AV is not just another English translation, it's a culmination of English translation and, indeed, the crown, or pinnacle of that process that was carried out in time.

[Edited on 2-9-2006 by TimeRedeemer]


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> On the matter of Shakespeare and the KJV, it's amusing that Shakespeare normally uses _you_ and _your_ rather than _thou, thee_ and _thine_.
> 
> The only exception is when a character is issuing a rebuke or an insult:-
> ...



I frankly don't think "ordinary people" even notice the language of the Bible they first encounter. Neither is the AV all that difficult. In fact it's actually easier to read in many ways. The subject matter will be such that it demands study and time, and that is true no matter what translation one encounters. This is a manufactured problem, manufactured by years of propaganda and advertising attacking the AV in any and every way for monetary gain.


----------



## Randall Pederson (Apr 6, 2006)

Personally, I don't find Dr. Beeke's arguments for the KJV convincing (even though I'm surrounded by KJV-only people).

Here are some reasons why (inserted after each point):

PRACTICAL REASONS FOR RETAINING THE KJV
Thirteen practical reasons for retaining the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible. By Dr. Joel R. Beeke who is the president and professor of Systematic Theology and Homiletics at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, and pastor of the Heritage Netherlands Reformed Congregation of Grand Rapids, Michigan.

1. The Standard Text of the English Bible
It is wiser to choose the known over against the unknown. The weaknesses and disadvantages of a particular version of the Bible cannot really be assessed apart from a thorough trial of daily usage over many years. Many who welcomed the New International Version (NIV) with great enthusiasm when it first appeared are now prepared to admit its serious weaknesses as a translation.

The KJV is well established in the market-place and in the literature of Christian scholarship. It will continue in production in many editions for years to come. Helps and reference works are commonly available. It is not likely that the KJV will fade from view and disappear as have many versions produced to supplant it.

Likewise the KJV is widely studied and commented on in the literature of biblical scholarship. It will always be a standard of reference and comparison of Bible commentators. All other versions are compared to it, contrasted with it, tested by it. Campaigns to sell other versions must attack it. The same cannot be said of any other Bible version.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
He was doing fine until this last paragraph. I highly doubt modern Greek scholars are comparing, contrasting, and testing their translations with the KJV. I admit that he as a point in saying that the KJV has been around for a while. Of course, the Latin Vulgate has been around longer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Based on the Full Text of the Hebrew and Greek Originals
Based on the Textus Receptus (the Greek NT), and the Masoretic Text (Hebrew OT), the KJV gives the most authentic and fullest available text of the Scriptures, with none of the many omissions and textual rewrites of the modern translations such as the Revised Standard Versions (RSV) and the NIV.

(a) Oldest Does Not Mean Best - The Westcott and Hort arguments that 'the oldest manuscripts are the most reliable' and that 'age carries more weight than volume' are not necessarily true. It could well be that the two oldest, complete manuscripts were found to be in such unusually excellent condition because they were already recognized as faulty manuscripts in their time and therefore were placed aside and not recopied until worn out as were the reliable manuscripts. This is further supported by numerous existing differences between the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts.

(b) Volume - The King James Version is based upon the Traditional Text. The vast majority of the more than 5,000 known partial and complete Greek manuscripts follow this textual reading.

(c) Church History - The 'Received' or 'Ecclesiastical' Text has been used by the church historically. The English, French, Dutch, and German Reformation churches all used Bibles based on the Traditional Text. (The Dutch 'Statenvertaling' is also based upon the 'Ecclesiastic' Text.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is simply not convincing. Much of this point is pure conjecture. I have no idea where he got the idea that the well-preserved manuscripts were "already recognized as faulty and set aside." No church father (to my knowledge) ever attested to this practice. Why set them aside for future generations to unearth and discover? If anything, the church was accustomed to destroying heretical manuscripts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. A More Faithful Method of Translation
The KJV translators employed a method of verbal equivalence ('word for word') rather than the method of paraphrase of dynamic equivalence ('meaning for meaning') used in the NIV. The result is that the KJV gives you what biblical authors wrote, not what a committee thinks they meant to write.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is NO such thing as a "word for word" translation. The KJV is not a "word for word" translation but rather an essentially literal translation. I could point out some verses in the KJV where there was some dynamic equivalence going on! I could equally show where the NIV was more literal than the KJV at times. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not pro-NIV)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. A More Honest Translation
The text of the KJV used italics to identify every word or phrase interpolated (supplied by the translator) and not given in the original. Such a practice was not followed in the NIV, lest the loose method of its translators be unmercifully exposed to view.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To me, this argument seems bland and the _ad hominem_ remark against the NIV translators unscholarly. The italics feature of the KJV is fine, I suppose, but is it essential? Did seventeenth-century translations into other languages, such as Spanish, utilize the italics method? I would dare say that the KJV is one of a few (maybe the only one) who employed this method in the near two-thousand year history of Christian translation. Last time I looked at the Peshitta, there were no italics!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. A More Precise Idiom
Often attacked at this very point, the KJV actually is a more accurate and helpful translation precisely because of the archaic pronouns ('thou, thy, thee,' etc.). Both Hebrew and Greek distinguish clearly between the 2nd person singular ('thou') and the 2nd person plural ('ye,you'). In many statements this makes an important difference (e.g. John 3:7). In a sense it is correct to say that in praying the Lord Jesus used 'Thou' - God is one, not many! - for he definitely used the Hebrew or Greek equivalent.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
He had a good point until the end. 'God' is most often plural in the Old Testament and Hebrew often utilizes the 'plural of majesty' to denote the supremacy of God above all others. Dr. Beeke's church still insists on using 'thees and thous' in prayer meetings so as not to offend people. They are offended because they think that praying 'you' and 'your' is sinful and wrong. Ironically, in the KJV, Jesus said, 'Get thee behind me, Satan!' (Matt. 16:23). The KJV translators didn't think that 'thee' and 'thou' were reserved for deity alone! Besides, who cares if the KJV was supposedly in a 'higher' language than the vulgar (which I dispute)? The Greek NT was written in koine (i.e. common) Greek.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. The Best Liturgical Text
The KJV excels as a version to be used in public worship. That is why it has been used so widely in the churches. The requirements of the sanctuary are not those of the classroom. Other versions may be helpful on occasions to the student, but none is more edifying to the worshipper.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Other versions may be helpful on occasions to the student, but none is more edifying to the worshipper." Do I need to comment on this one? My Chinese friends would like to know that their Chinese versions aren't as edifying as the KJV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. The Best Format For Preaching
The KJV traditionally has been laid out verse by verse on the page, rather than in paragraphs; though for most of the text, paragraphs are indicated by a sign. The Hebrew and Greek texts, of course, have no paragraphing at all. The verse-by-verse format best serves the purpose of verse-by-verse consecutive expository sermonizing.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Verses were introduced in 1560 with the Geneva Bible. Who would say that John Chrysostom was at a distinct disadvantage because he did not possess the KJV-versification system? Or Augustine for that matter? Or the Apostles? etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. The Most Beautiful Translation
The KJV gives classic expression to many important passages in the Bible (e.g. Ps 23, Isa 53, Luke 2, and the Parable of the Prodigal Son). Our seniors need to hear these passages as a comfort and help as they draw near to the end of life's journey and our children need to hear them in the KJV as part of their nurture and education. They need to understand that the KJV is an important part of the spiritual and cultural heritage of all English-speaking Christians, and a key to our greatest literature. Children well instructed in the KJV will be greatly advantaged over other children, spiritually, linguistically, educationally, and culturally.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The most beautiful translation." It is a beautiful translation, but really, "the _most_ beautiful"? This may be true to someone who was raised on the KJV. This is a purely subjective personal taste argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. An Ecumenical Text For Reformed Christians
No other version has been used so widely among evangelical Christians. More significantly for Reformed Christians, this version is used by preference in many conservative Reformed congregations. The KJV is also used in the Christian schools these churches sponsor. Using the KJV is one way to underscore our unity and identity with other conservative evangelical and Reformed Christians.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, the KJV is the minority in conservative Reformed churches. Unless, of course, the hallmark of being 'conservative' is one's use of the KJV! Seriously, though, which Reformed publisher uses the KJV? (Not P&R)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. A Practical Choice
The KJV is available in many editions; with a full range of helps and reference materials, not to mention computer software; in large-type, clear-print editions; and often priced well below modern translations.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The KJV is as expensive as other translations. Check Amazon.com for proof. By this criteria, every other translation would be a "practical choice" as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

11. 'Sounds' Like the Bible
More than any other version, the KJV sounds like the Word of God, even to unbelievers. The KJV translators aimed at this very thing. Even in 1611 the KJV sounded old-fashioned, ancient, a voice from the past. This was to command a reverent hearing, and to suggest the timeless and eternal character of God's Word.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tell this one to the Apostle Paul who wrote, "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power" (1 Cor. 1:17).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The modern unbeliever, if he has any spiritual concern at all, is well aware that the contemporary scene really offers him no hope. He expects the church to speak in a way that is timeless and other-worldly.

Many church-goers and occasional visitors to a church go much more by 'feel' and 'mood' than by intellectual content or apprehension. They are more likely to take seriously what is said to them if they sense that this is something more important than a casual conversation.

12. The Character of the Translators
The fifty men appointed to translate the King James Version were not only well-known scholars, but were also men of sound religious faith. They were strong believers in every word of the Bible being inspired by God and in all the central doctrinal truths of Scripture. They were God-fearing men whose lives testified of a saving knowledge of these truths. This same testimony cannot be made of all translators serving on modern translation teams.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The same testimony cannot be made of all translators serving on modern translation teams." Wow! I highly doubt Dr. Beeke knows even one of these men, and to lambast them with this _ad hominem_ argument seems so unfair. Besides, we can't fall into the danger of hagiagraphy (i.e. idolizing people of the past). The Bible itself doesn't hide people's glaring faults. It is a wonder that God used any of the Apostles at all. Peter was quite a hot-head (poor Malchus). If Peter was on a modern translation commitee, no doubt he would be lambasted too!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

13. Upholds 'Old Paths'
Using the KJV is a clear statement of where we stand and want to be as a church walking in the 'old paths' of God's Word. 'Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls' (Jer 6:16). In choosing this version we choose to stand with all that is best in the great tradition of historic Christianity.

The penchant for new translations was part of the program of change which has done such harm to many denominations over the past century. This change to new translations was often part of an effort to strip worship services of dignity, reverence, and beauty, in favour of the casual, the contemporary, and the convenient. It also causes a congregation to lose touch with keeping the Word in memory. Memorization of the Scriptures suffers when each generation uses a different translation.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think we should all learn Hebrew and Greek and uphold the really old, old paths! Don't get me wrong, I love Dr. Beeke dearly (we have even written a few books together) and I'm still a member of his church. I just can't buy into the KJV arguments presented here. Especially when I know people who read these arguments and then judge other Christians as 'less spiritual' because they use the ESV or another translation, or becaue they pray 'you and your'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


[Edited on 4-6-2006 by Randall Pederson]


----------



## Cuirassier (Apr 6, 2006)

I grew up in a KJV-only Bible environment. I respect those that hold that view. 

The militancy with which some hold to this view, though, is a bit baffling. If the KJV is the only Bible a Christian, that leaves the entire rest of the non-English speaking Bible readers in the serious dark.

In Spanish, the "authourised" version is the Reina Valera--published in 1569--42 years before the 1611 KJV. How does the KJV-only reasoning apply to Spanish-speaking/reading believers? How about those in Albania, Angola, and Afghanistan? 

Absence of clear Biblical support for a KJV-only Bible, and complete inaplicability to most of the human race ... sounds like dogma, not doctrine to me.

dl


----------



## Randall Pederson (Apr 6, 2006)

I think it is 'dogma'. Most people who are KJV-only were raised that way and couldn't argue as to the validity of the position. Many people who are KJV-only are intelligent, wise, (misinformed) people. Some who are KJV-only can only be classified as 'nuts'.

I also think it's noteworthy that the KJV translation was an official Anglican project. It was in many ways an anti-Puritan polemic (i.e. no marginal notes defrocking the divine right of kings). Some KJV people note that it is a beautiful translation, eloquent to the bone. As noted above, this is an Anglican gloss. Puritans were, for the most part, into plain-style preaching. Paul himself argued for plain words in 1 Corinthians. The beauty of the Incarnation is that God became man and dwelled among us, taking upon him our flesh. When he speaks to us, he speaks in our language. That's why the gospel is translatable into all cultures (unlike the Koran). Someone could argue that KJV-onlyism is the Christian equivalent of Islam's worship of the Koran. I won't go there, but you can see how some might perceive it that way. 



[Edited on 4-6-2006 by Randall Pederson]


----------



## VictorBravo (Apr 6, 2006)

Where are the Geneva Bible-only people? 

I have an older copy of an authorized version that contains a preface slamming the Puritans. I read it every now and then to remind my of my theological roots.


----------



## Randall Pederson (Apr 6, 2006)

They're in catacombs, hiding from the KJV-only people!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Randall Pederson_
> They're in catacombs, hiding from the KJV-only people!


That's no joke. Providence, RI was found by folks who were Geneva Bible readers that were outcast by the "establishment."


----------



## Archlute (Apr 7, 2006)

I think that the whole debate is a tiring nuisance. 

If pastors kept their language skills up (_and_grew in them throughout their ministry) it would be a non-issue, but I believe that many who promote this sort of linguistic uniformity have never studied the languages, or have lost them (not accusing Beeke of this BTW). Every minister of the Word should be proficient enough to make his own translation for the sermon (including weighing the textual variants), and defend it to those in the congregation who might complain. 

There is no "divine right of understanding" when it comes to the languages, nor is there a divine English style. The hard working minister, in a very real sense, has an advantage over the congregation, and he shouldn't feel cowed into dropping it so that the people can feel they are all on equal footing. The real essence is in the original text, and that will never be "immediately" conveyed by an English translation. I fact, some of the phrases and enigmatic lexemes will never be comprehensible by a word-for-word translation, be it KJV or otherwise (not that I'm promoting dynamic equivalency either). I just plea for a realistic understanding here as no single version will ever solve all of the variables, although some are definately worse than others. 

What in the world did Christians do before 1611?


----------



## bill c. (Apr 8, 2006)

Is the Geneva Bible still in print? I did see a Geneva Study Bible but it was NKJV I think. Not the same thing.


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 8, 2006)

> _Originally posted by bill c._
> Is the Geneva Bible still in print? I did see a Geneva Study Bible but it was NKJV I think. Not the same thing.



Yes Bill.

See this thread.


----------



## beej6 (Apr 8, 2006)

Has anyone read William Einwechter's _English Bible Translations: By What Standard?_ His conclusion seems similar to Dr. Beeke's:

"The doctrinal standards of verbal inspiration and providential preservation lead to the conclusion that the Authorized (King James) Version is the *best* and *most trustworthy* English version of Holy Scripture." (p.45, emphasis his)

Einwechter says that (most) modern translations are "relatively untrustworthy because they often misrepresent the original Hebrew and Greek and corrupt the Word of God." These are any based on the MCT (Modern Critical Text) and are DE (dynamic equivalence), both of which he argues against. In a footnote, he also criticizes the NKJV.

I mention this because Einwechter is identified as a "Christian Reconstructionist," so should be considered Reformed (in some circles). I would characterize his stance as more "KJVO" than Beeke's stance.

As with Dr. Beeke's paper above, I am sympathetic to the arguments, but am unconvinced by the conclusion. I would agree with both men that an implicit weakness (and, no doubt, a big reason for all this potential confusion) of most modern translations is that have *not* been created nor overseen by the Church. Endorsement is not the same as "creation." However, God has and may continue to work in the hearts of sinful men even "faulty" translations to win people to His gospel. May he pour His Spirit upon us to use discernment in these matters.


----------

