# Question for the confessional KJVer



## Michael (Jan 7, 2008)

I don't mean to debate anyone on this. I only wish to post the question and see what folks have to say. Hopefully there are some direct answers.

My question is this: How much further must today's language evolve before the KJV translation is deemed beyond the concept of "vulgar language" as described in WCF 1:8?


----------



## MW (Jan 7, 2008)

Ezekiel16 said:


> My question is this: How much further must today's language evolve before the KJV translation is deemed beyond the concept of "vulgar language" as described in WCF 1:8?



The question supposes the development of language can be traced by steps. This would be a mistake. Linguists say that language morphs as it comes into contact with other languages and pushes out into new contexts. While people continue to write in English, and to express conservative religious ideas in English, the AV will be standard vulgar English.


----------



## larryjf (Jan 7, 2008)

There's also a distinction to be made as to who the Bible is to be "vulgar" to...the Church.

It's not enough to say we need to change the language because the secular world doesn't consider it common anymore.

So one takes into consideration the context of who is using the language when determining if it is vulgar or not. As an example, in the animal field you have the Latin name and the vulgar name of an animal. But even the vulgar name may not be "vulgar" to those who don't have knowledge in the field.

The Latin "Puma concolor" and the vulgar "Puma" may not be vulgar enough for the masses to know what animal we are talking about. But when we say "cougar" it is even a more common name.

I hope what i am trying to get across is making sense.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Jan 7, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> The question supposes the development of language can be traced by steps. This would be a mistake. Linguists say that language morphs as it comes into contact with other languages and pushes out into new contexts. While people continue to write in English, and to express conservative religious ideas in English, the AV will be standard vulgar English.



How come then, that as a person who has post-grad education levels and reads much, I struggle to understand what the KJV means?


----------



## JM (Jan 7, 2008)

According to the "Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Indicator" the grade level average is 5.8 and the NIV is 8.4. 

"According to the F-K [Flesch-Kincaid] formula 74.3% of the books [in the KJV] are on or below the sixth grade level, and 94% are on or below the seventh grade level! . . . And the FRE [Flesch Reading Ease] rated 97% of the KJV books as Fairly Easy or Easy! These were all first place statistics!" (D.A. Waite Jr, The Comparative Readability of the Authorized Version)

"The King James Bible was published in the year Shakespeare began work on his last play, The Tempest. Both the play and the Bible are masterpieces of English, but there is one crucial difference between them. Whereas Shakespeare ransacked the lexicon, the King James Bible employs a bare 8000 words—God’s teaching in homely English for everyman."
(Robert McCrum, William Cran, and Robert MacNeil, The Story of English, p. 113)

That all posted, I would still like a new updated translation, but I'll keep my AV until then. I went from the NIV to the NKJ to the AV, I think that helped me to understand the AV better because I had become familiar with the Bible before hand. 

j


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Jan 7, 2008)

I grew up with the KJV and have little problem understanding it. However, I grew up in the 60's. I have noticed that some of the young people in out congregation have some trouble with it though. That's why we have allowed the NKJV as an aid to thier study.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 7, 2008)

It’s an interesting question for me, as literature is one of my two primary fields of endeavor; a writer – especially a poet, at least of the type I am – must be in touch with language as it is spoken and understood by the culture(s) he wants to speak to. In the English-speaking world (I include the U.K., Australia, etc., although I am not as familiar with the vagaries of their speech as I am of the U.S.’s) there are so many subcultures with their dialects, odd phrases and word-usage, that one must aim to find a common language along with a commonality of things signified (words/phrases being the signifiers). I reckon it still possible to speak to the American peoples en mass, and be well understood.

I admit that the language of the King James Bible is somewhat difficult, both in its phraseology and words used, for some modern people. On the other hand, it _is_ the language of the confessional church, or many confessional churches. One important quality of the KJV is that it does incorporate in its language the rhythms and sound of the ancient Hebrew and Greek, and there is a majesty to it that modern English does not convey, not even that of the NKJV or MKJV. I think that perhaps the main objection people have with the KJV language is the _idea_ or _thought_ that it is old-fashioned and _in the main_ archaic, and they, after all, are modern people and don’t want to seem out-of-date, or be using dated material. Because in itself it is not difficult language; the NKJV is often much more difficult in its words and phrasing. I consider Rev. Winzer’s church, where the AV is thought of as the norm, an ideal situation, but one that is not easily arrived at if another Scripture has been used before. 

When there are places in the AV that are difficult for _me_ to understand (and it does happen) I look at other versions, and consider the meaning of the original languages. 

There is a timeless quality to the AV’s language – it was quite apart and distinct from the English spoken when it was translated – it is _not_ Elizabethan English by any means, as studies have shown. It is _Biblical_ English.

I recall a saying by C.S. Lewis, “All that is not eternal is eternally out of date." The AV’s language is not out of date.

Is it possible that the English language as we know it in America and in England is _deteriorating?_ Where is good, precise, vital, and vibrant English spoken? In universities? At poetry readings? In modern fiction? On the street? In the business worlds? In the world of law? Some schools of philosophy have steadily been attacking the viability of language, saying that it cannot any longer (or ever really did) communicate to the hearer what the speaker meant. With postmodern deconstruction this linguistic nihilism is carried even further, even to the point of positing the idea that there is no commonality either in the language or cultural realities of the various human cultures, so that we are not a human community which can speak so as to be understood by all, but are irreparably divided.

In the church this is not so. In the Kingdom of God the division of languages at Babel has been reversed; there is a common speech, with common signifiers and common realities signified therewith. The quintessential commonality in the Kingdom is the Word and Person of the King. Despite the textual battles this Word cannot be destroyed or overcome; true, it has been whittled at in some of the versions, but the essential core remains.

Yet this “whittling” has unnerved some as to the reliability of the Word, and rightly so. The Kingdom is the last bastion of uncorrupted speech, and the KJV, in my view, the finest standard of that speech, and based on the most accurate original language sources.

If indeed the language of the English-speaking cultures _of the world_ are being ravaged by the advertising word-smiths prostituting it for gain, subcultures relativizing it, and by nihilists saying there is no meaning, and no true human personality (in this chance universe), so how can there be true speech? then one might well ask a counter question: What if the language is not evolving, but _de_volving, and the AV is a standard of sanity and excellence, the Kingdom’s language of the first water, this side of Heaven, at any rate?


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Jan 7, 2008)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> It’s an interesting question for me, as literature is one of my two primary fields of endeavor; a writer – especially a poet, at least of the type I am – must be in touch with language as it is spoken and understood by the culture(s) he wants to speak to. In the English-speaking world (I include the U.K., Australia, etc., although I am not as familiar with vagaries of their speech as I am of the U.S.’s) there are so many subcultures with their dialects, odd phrases and word-usage, that one must aim to find a common language along with a commonality of things signified (words/phrases being the signifiers). I reckon it still possible to speak to the American peoples en mass, and be well understood.
> 
> I admit that the language of the King James Bible is somewhat difficult, both in its phraseology and words used, for some modern people. On the other hand, it _is_ the language of the confessional church, or many confessional churches. One important quality of the KJV is that it does incorporate in its language the rhythms and sound of the ancient Hebrew and Greek, and there is a majesty to it that modern English does not convey, not even that of the NKJV or MKJV. I think that perhaps the main objection people have with the KJV language is the _idea_ or _thought_ that it is old-fashioned and _in the main_ archaic, and they, after all, are modern people and don’t want to seem out-of-date, or be using dated material. Because in itself it is not difficult language; the NKJV is often much more difficult in its words and phrasing. I consider Rev. Winzer’s church, where the AV is thought of as the norm, an ideal situation, but one that is not easily arrived at if another Scripture has been used before.
> 
> ...


----------



## etexas (Jan 7, 2008)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> It’s an interesting question for me, as literature is one of my two primary fields of endeavor; a writer – especially a poet, at least of the type I am – must be in touch with language as it is spoken and understood by the culture(s) he wants to speak to. In the English-speaking world (I include the U.K., Australia, etc., although I am not as familiar with vagaries of their speech as I am of the U.S.’s) there are so many subcultures with their dialects, odd phrases and word-usage, that one must aim to find a common language along with a commonality of things signified (words/phrases being the signifiers). I reckon it still possible to speak to the American peoples en mass, and be well understood.
> 
> I admit that the language of the King James Bible is somewhat difficult, both in its phraseology and words used, for some modern people. On the other hand, it _is_ the language of the confessional church, or many confessional churches. One important quality of the KJV is that it does incorporate in its language the rhythms and sound of the ancient Hebrew and Greek, and there is a majesty to it that modern English does not convey, not even that of the NKJV or MKJV. I think that perhaps the main objection people have with the KJV language is the _idea_ or _thought_ that it is old-fashioned and _in the main_ archaic, and they, after all, are modern people and don’t want to seem out-of-date, or be using dated material. Because in itself it is not difficult language; the NKJV is often much more difficult in its words and phrasing. I consider Rev. Winzer’s church, where the AV is thought of as the norm, an ideal situation, but one that is not easily arrived at if another Scripture has been used before.
> 
> ...


Preach it Steve!


----------



## dswatts (Jan 7, 2008)

*Bravo!*

One of the best posts I've read on this site in quite a while!

Thanks for sharing it, Steve.

Grace,

Dwayne


----------



## JTDyck (Jan 7, 2008)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Is it possible that the English language as we know it in America and in England is _deteriorating?_ Where is good, precise, vital, and vibrant English spoken? In universities? At poetry readings? In modern fiction? On the street? In the business worlds? In the world of law? Some schools of philosophy have steadily been attacking the viability of language, saying that it cannot any longer (or ever really did) communicate to the hearer what the speaker meant. With postmodern deconstruction this linguistic nihilism is carried even further, even to the point of positing the idea that there is no commonality either in the language or cultural realities of the various human cultures, so that we are not a human community which can speak so as to be understood by all, but are irreparably divided.



Thanks for this, Steve. I appreciate your comments.
It seems to me that another spin-off (to use a modern term) of all this is that Christians are reading less and less of the Puritans, many of whom used similar language in their expression of theology and doctrine. It becomes too difficult for the "modern man", who must wait until it is released in updated language, or perhaps until it is made into a movie.
It is worthwhile to study the Bible, as it is also to work at reading substantial expressions of sound doctrine from good students of God's Word.


----------



## etexas (Jan 7, 2008)

I feel guilty for using my NKJV, I am going back to my King James!


----------



## Thomas2007 (Jan 7, 2008)

Ezekiel16 said:


> I don't mean to debate anyone on this. I only wish to post the question and see what folks have to say. Hopefully there are some direct answers.
> 
> My question is this: How much further must today's language evolve before the KJV translation is deemed beyond the concept of "vulgar language" as described in WCF 1:8?



Dear Michael,

I think it is important to understand the issue of translation, what was done in the Authorized Version as contrasted against the concept as it is promoted today.

I'm working with eldest child this year on textual criticism, we have been reviewing Tyndals interdependence with Luther's translation of the Protestant Received Text, one of our fellow church members has a 300 year old German Bible and it is quite enlightening to sit down with it and work on these things. I'm doing this in order to demonstrate the unity and principles upon which the Protestants worked, as faithfully as possible, to represent the original tongues into the native languages of the respective societies. This is in direct contrast to the modern principle.

That is to say our Protestant forebears work was dedicated to bringing God's word to the people in their native tongue so that the people could relate to God, and learn of His Law and Grace and conform their lives to it. In contrast, the modern principle is to relate God's word to the people in their peculiar idiom (not native tongue) in order to relate God to the people. The standard is no longer the word of God that is then translated, the standard is the peculiar idiom in which God's word is then brought. This is a tremendous difference. 

When I talked with Bruce Metzger on these things 15 years ago his principle has always been that the work of translation is never finished. This is a standard presupposition today. Leaving the textual debate out of the discussion, this means that the word of God is never fixed, never standardized, but perpetually subjective to society. Since faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God, this new principle of relating God to people whereby the word of God is much more subjective to an evolving language means, ultimately, an evolving God. God's word is constantly being remade into the image of society, or groups of society, such as Ghetto Bible's, Feminist Bibles &c. While we discount these things as being aberrations they really aren't, they've just taken the principle to it's logical conclusion, something we would be ashamed to do - but the principle is the same nevertheless.

Our Protestant forebears intended that to be the other way around, and indeed it was for 300 years, whereby both Luther's German Bible and the English Authorized Version became the very foundation of German and English as literary languages, the foundation of jurisprudence, and the bedrock upon which society as a whole was built. The idea was to move as close as possible the original tongues into the native tongue, so the English of the Authorized Version is not the English of Shakespeare, and it represents the meaning of the underlying tongues. For example, "ye" in the Authorized Version represents the underlying plural "you" of the original tongue. Once you understand some basic principle such as this, you should be able to understand the meaning of Scripture much more clearly than in modern translations when these meanings are all obscured in the peculiar idiom of the day. Cambridge Bibles generally have a word list in the back that gives modern meanings to older english words, such as marketplace for shambles in 1 Corinthians 10:25; hence once you know what shambles means, then it is no longer a problem to read that and understand it.

If translation holds to these principles then it will always produce what appears as archaic language, because the original tongues are archaic languages. 

I have to look up English words all the time in dictionaries, just to read a lot of things, invariably I'm always learning and expanding my vocabulary; the same is true of the Bible and it just isn't that hard.

In my view, then, we have to work on re-educating ourselves to reach the high standard of the Authorized Version, then we may want to discuss reaching for a higher standard, until then, I don't see any need for new translations.

I was raised under the premise of if at first you don't succeed, try try again. Today this seems to have changed to if at first you don't succeed, lower, lower, lower the standard!


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Jan 7, 2008)

The official Bible for Wilderness Road Baptist Assembly is the A.V. It only will be used for preaching and public reading. We do however approve any good translation for study that is translated from the reformation text.
KJV, NKJV, GENEVA, MKJV, LITV, YLT.


----------



## KMK (Jan 7, 2008)

JohnOwen007 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > The question supposes the development of language can be traced by steps. This would be a mistake. Linguists say that language morphs as it comes into contact with other languages and pushes out into new contexts. While people continue to write in English, and to express conservative religious ideas in English, the AV will be standard vulgar English.
> ...



Can you give an example? I say the same thing when I read the NASB.


Let's face it, in America people simply cannot read very well. (present company excluded) Perhaps the fact that our sheep cannot read the KJV does not indicate that we need to retranslate it, but we need to do a better job teaching our young people to read!

(Maybe we could send them to the Zoolander Center For Kids Who Can't Read Good)


----------



## Davidius (Jan 7, 2008)

KMK said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> > armourbearer said:
> ...



 
There is nothing in the KJV which a semi-educated person cannot understand through a careful rereading of the passage or the use of a dictionary, aids of which one should avail onself when studying an important text anyway.


----------



## etexas (Jan 7, 2008)

KMK said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> > armourbearer said:
> ...


 Zoolander! Nice one man!


----------



## MW (Jan 7, 2008)

JohnOwen007 said:


> How come then, that as a person who has post-grad education levels and reads much, I struggle to understand what the KJV means?



I don't feel it is my place to be commenting on an individual's ability in the English language. It may, however, come down to the way you are approaching it.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Jan 7, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> > How come then, that as a person who has post-grad education levels and reads much, I struggle to understand what the KJV means?
> ...



My point concerns those who do have ability in the English language. It is simply that one can be educated in the humanities, disciplines that focus on reading (we're not talking about the typical person in a sound-byte culture), and they find the KJV very difficult to comprehend. I've seen it time and time again, not just for me, but with my students as I get them to read KJV and other 17th century literature. If this is the case for bookworms, how much more for those who (by capacity) aren't good readers.

We can produce statistics about the reading level of NIVs versus KJVs etc. but in my real-life pastoral experience, here in several parts of Australia (in both educated and uneducated areas), the KJV is difficult to drive in practice. The best explanation of this (in my mind) is that the English language has morphed sufficiently enough to demand a new translation. Why educate a person to understand 17th century English, when we could be spending the time educating them in Scripture?

On a similar point I struggle to get people who are bookworms to read John Owen because of his cumbersome and antiquated language. Hence, Banner have released some of his works in updated English, precisely because it's better to read updated Owen than no Owen at all.

God bless.


----------



## bookslover (Jan 7, 2008)

JohnOwen007 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > The question supposes the development of language can be traced by steps. This would be a mistake. Linguists say that language morphs as it comes into contact with other languages and pushes out into new contexts. While people continue to write in English, and to express conservative religious ideas in English, the AV will be standard vulgar English.
> ...



That's easy (as you know): the Elizabethan/Jacobean English of the KJV has not been the "vulgar" language of the people for nearly 400 years now. Languages (not just English) are always changing over time. And English just isn't where it was 4 centuries ago. Nor should it be.


----------



## MW (Jan 7, 2008)

JohnOwen007 said:


> The best explanation of this (in my mind) is that the English language has morphed sufficiently enough to demand a new translation.



It's not a simplistic matter of the English language "morphing sufficiently enough." That supposes there are levels to language development. There are not. Language is the expression of ideas. Ideas require context. So long as the context exists in which the AV is recognised as a standard of religious conservatism, the AV will continue to speak in the language of the day. If radicals get their way religious conservatism might become an antiquated term, and it might just be that such a morphology takes place that the language of the AV no longer speaks to the religious world. But not if religious conservatives have anything to do with it!


----------



## MW (Jan 7, 2008)

bookslover said:


> That's easy (as you know): the Elizabethan/Jacobean English of the KJV has not been the "vulgar" language of the people for nearly 400 years now. Languages (not just English) are always changing over time. And English just isn't where it was 4 centuries ago. Nor should it be.



If you ever have the time, Richard, please read Alister McGrath's "In the Beginning." The AV simply wasn't written in the language of 4 centuries ago.


----------



## bookslover (Jan 7, 2008)

Ezekiel16 said:


> If translation holds to these principles then it will always produce what appears as archaic language, because the original tongues are archaic languages.



Well, no; the original tongues were not archaic_to the original speakers_. They were the "up to date" languages of their respective times and peoples. Why should we not have the Bible in the modern English language of _our_ times and people? Why must the Bible always appear only in an archaic form of English?

Paul wrote Romans (just to pick one of his books) in modern 1st century Greek. Why should we have to put up with Romans in not-modern, in fact archaic, English?


----------



## KMK (Jan 8, 2008)

Once again, can anyone give an example of a passage in the KJV that is difficult to understand because of the Elizabethan English? Maybe I am so used to the sound of it I don't notice it any longer.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Jan 8, 2008)

KMK said:


> Once again, can anyone give an example of a passage in the KJV that is difficult to understand because of the Elizabethan English? Maybe I am so used to the sound of it I don't notice it any longer.



Sure, I'll give a fresh example from my work today on Haggai 2:1-9 for a sermon. Haggai 2:6 reads:



> "For thus saith the LORD of hosts; Yet once, it [is] a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry [land];"



I have no idea what "*Yet once, it [is] a little while*" means. I've never heard anyone say this before. I've never seen that combination of words before. To me, in my modern English parlance, the words don't make grammatical sense.

God bless KMK.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 8, 2008)

Marty (JohnOwen007),

You have a point. Upon my first reading I took it to mean, "In a little while..." and the "Yet once" I took to mean "once again" though I wasn't sure.

The King James reading does reflect the literal Hebrew. When Paul (I know, that's another topic!) comments on this verse in Hebrews 12:26 he renders the beginning of the phrase, "Yet once more I shake not the earth only..."

It is worth — to me — the little extra trouble of ferreting out the meaning occasionally to have the assured accuracy of the AV's Masoretic Hebrew and Received Greek texts. In a reading I would make clear to the congregation the meaning of any such minor difficulties. 

As I have explained elsewhere, the pew Bibles of our church are NKJV (it was that or the ESV from the planting congregation), and I often read from that, yet will give the AV's rendering if the difference is significant, or else just read the AV. The Filipina women in the church are getting accustomed to the AV's language (Tagalog is their first language), and they take to heart my teaching that it is the best English Bible, even if at times hard. For their personal Bibles they have both AV and NKJV.

The Arabic congregation uses the Smith-Van Dyke Arabic version, which is almost identical to the AV.

Accuracy is the first priority, in my view.

Steve


----------



## KMK (Jan 8, 2008)

JohnOwen007 said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Once again, can anyone give an example of a passage in the KJV that is difficult to understand because of the Elizabethan English? Maybe I am so used to the sound of it I don't notice it any longer.
> ...



I see what you mean. It's not that the words themselves don't make sense it is the grammar that sounds so different than 'modern' English. (whatever that is) 

I am not against retranslating the TR. However, I don't think the motivation behind it should be that the Elizabethan English is too difficult to understand for English speakers. People are going to have to do their homework to understand passages like Hag 2:6 anyway. (As I am sure you already did) I think the motivation behind a new translation should be that we can make an English version that is more accurate than the KVJ. And modern English is just not as precise as Elizabethen. (I know Mr. Zuelch will probably have a few words to say about this)


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Jan 8, 2008)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> As I have explained elsewhere, the pew Bibles of our church are NKJV (it was that or the ESV from the planting congregation), and I often read from that, yet will give the AV's rendering if the difference is significant, or else just read the AV. The Filipina women in the church are getting accustomed to the AV's language (Tagalog is their first language), and they take to heart my teaching that it is the best English Bible, even if at times hard. For their personal bibles they have both AV and NKJV.



Dear brother Steve, I think that approach is eminently sensible because it takes into account all kinds of people you must and will have in a congregation. Good stuff!


----------



## Thomas2007 (Jan 8, 2008)

JohnOwen007 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > JohnOwen007 said:
> ...



In my experience, and I'm speaking a little more broadly conceptually, but I don't think it is really a "language" issue as it is two other things: truncated critical thinking skills, and minds disposed to image based communication. Because of the predominance of the latter, the former is a predisposed condition in most everyone today, especially those that are educated in public institutions.

The modern mind just isn't as advanced in these areas as the 17th century mind. It's the complex thought patterns that cause people problems, not language in and of itself. The words aren't difficult, it's the thinking that's difficult. Television and image based communications in our advertising mediums, and even our text books, has had a drastic effect upon the mind. The areas of the mind that were fully developed in childhood in the 17th and 18th century, simply aren't developed in our people.

New translations really don't do much, in terms of the Reformed Faith anyway, because it just reduces the complexity of the thought patterns to which their minds can handle, but then it doesn't reinforce it with images, which is how they are trained to learn, accepting and collating tremendous amounts of information through the passive occipital lobe.

In turn, modern Evangelicalism will grow with new Translations because they fully adopt ritual and image based communication. For example, we've had someone visit our Church recently entertaining the idea of exiting a modern Church, they watch reruns of Andy Griffith in Sunday School and talk about the moral implications taught in the show. Their children are taught with drama and puppet shows. The gentlemen's wife perceives us to be too intellectual and thus not truly "spiritual," and she simply cannot comprehend much of anything, and certainly cannot connect in our worship because nothing, music, the ministry of the word, the people, nothing is coming to her in terms which her mind knows how to receive it. This disparity is much more than just what people are used to, it is the way the mind has been trained to think.

This lady is a classic example that everybody probably has a similar experience with in the Reformed Faith, whereby they defend themselves against the illegitimacy of our premise, which is generally expressed against our "intellectualizing" of the Faith.

There is a tremendous amount of social psychology and learned patterns that have to be overcome, translation alone doesn't do anything, other than plug people into Christianized yet thoroughly humanistic social psychology, and in turn they never really grasp the width, breadth, height and depth of the Christian Faith.

There is a tremendous bond built in society as a result of the presupposition of autonomy, the entire doctrine of Sola Scriptura, challenges and demolishes this bond and necessitates developing thinking, emotions and attitudes in terms of Scripture as Authority. The advance of continuous translation in our society has been an attempt to secure the results of centuries of social progress in terms of Sola Scriptura, and it presumes this is merely a linguistic issue. So, when new versions are brought forth they don't work toward developing Authority in terms of Scripture, they reinforce the presupposition of autonomous bond which results in reversed responses in terms of ritual, images, and drama to which their minds are developed to think, and which are the highest emotional level in which people connect to the idea of Authority.


----------



## Ravens (Jan 8, 2008)

Here are some of my thoughts and observations on this issue; hopefully some of my own thoughts and opinions can be clarified by interacting with those who are far brighter than I.

I lean towards adhering to the TR, but also see some value in the MT position; and to be honest, I'm not exactly sure where one starts and the other begins. To me it seems that Rev. Winzer explains the TR position somewhat differently than Rev. Rafalsky (both of whom I have immense respect for). Rev. Winzer's position, as I understand it, allows for "moderate" textual criticism (c.f. the recent thread where he interacted with Rev. Keister) within the established tradition of the Reformation texts. I would take that to be the same kind of criticism utilized by the AV translators themselves as they compared different "received" manuscripts. Rev. Rafalsky (again, correct me if I'm wrong) seems to have a somewhat loftier view not of Reformation texts in general, but of the AV specifically, to the point that, if the AV disagreed with one of the readings utilized by the Protestant Dutch Bible, then the AV would be preferred across-the-board, since Providence brought together the true text in the AV in particular, and not in Protestantism generally. To me this slight evidence between them was evident in the thread on Beelzebub a few weeks (months?) back, where Rev. Winzer thought that the TR could be amended to Beelzebul, whereas Rev. Rafalsky would stick with Beelzebub because it is the Reformation reading. 

I could accept Rev. Winzer's view, but I would have a harder time with Rev. Rafalsky's, as much as I respect and appreciate him (and his work; and his writings in other areas!), in that I think it is a bit nationalistic to see the pure Greek text preserved in the AV only, when Reformation also came to the German, French, and Dutch churches. 

Regardless. I don't know what the point was. Maybe Rev. Winzer and Rev. Rafalsky elaborating on their differences could help some of us understand things better.

For all of my reading, I would still have trouble understanding how Rev. Winzer, from what I understand, disagrees with a MT position, unless his is a "Protestant MT", or something to that effect. For, are not both Byzantine? And if allowances can be made so that the English and the Dutch and continental versions all had the "received text", then how is that not, in essence, an MT position? My lack of learning in this matter is showing, but maybe this will lead to further understanding.

Either way, I find myself opposed to the critical texts and eclectic texts, be it Westcott and Hort, or UBS, or what have you. I agree that the multiplicity of Greek editions, and, worse, the multiplicity of English translations (not to mention the ways in which those translations are marketed) is doing much damage to the church. I agree with Rev. Rafalsky's repeated emphasis that confidence in the sure and reliable word of God is being eroded by a multiplicity of texts, versions, translations, etc.

The AV position would recall Protestants back to the AV as the standard, established text of the English language. At this point I'm not quite sure how to frame my arguments and questions, so bear with me. Rev. Winzer stated recently in the "Abiding Validity..." thread that theonomists have more friends than they themselves recognize, and, insofar as they implicitly affirm that the _principles of the law_, and not the law qua law, are what retain abiding validity, that they approximate to a Reformation understanding of the application of the judicial law.

To me, it seems as if a similar thing can be said to AV adherents. If they would only be willing to concede on a few minor points, I wager they would realize that they had far more friends than they imagined.

I realize that "concede" sounds like the hissing of the serpent; but please hear me out. 

There are a wealth of people out there who realize the dangers of an ever evolving critical text which, in turn, spawns ever-changing "relevant" translations into the vernacular, which, in turn, are packaged and bell'd and whistle'd and shipped off to various groups, e.g. Teen Bibles, Single Bibles, Ethnocentric Bibles, Gender-specific Bibles, etc. I wouldn't pretend to do justice to Rev. Greco's position, but he has repeatedly said that he rejects that the word of God was lost to the church, or that the church deemed something "the word of God" (e.g. John 8, or the ending to Mark) that was not, in fact, the word of God. However, he is apparently (correct me if I am wrong, Rev. Greco) uncomfortable with the language and phrasing of the KJV, so he uses the NKJV.

I'm getting sidetracked, but hear me out. I can't count the number of times that I have heard, in real life, and on this board, from fathers of families and from ordained elders, that the language of the AV is troublesome to many young people, new Christians, and, if people were honest, long-time Christians themselves. I candidly wonder if many older Christians (at least in non-Biblical churches) don't have many problems with the AV, because they stay in their favorite passages, and ones that are the most familiar to them. 

So, the way I look at it, the AV folks, though taking an admirable stand, are turning away willing and ready allies, in my opinion, over trifles. Now that all depends on how I define trifle.

It is my firm belief that most of the MT, light-TR, and NKJV using folks could be one over by an incredibly slight revision of the AV; namely, one that avoids the errors of the NKJV, and only updates obsolete words and obsolete word-endings. 

Here is where the rub is for me: Just looking at the spirit of these discussions, it appears that, were there a national caucus of NKJV and AV users, and the NKJV users said, "We will adopt the AV, and establish it in our churches, if you remove the "-th" endings and update obsolete words (e.g., exchange "lying" for "leasing", "know" words for "wot, wit"." And from the appearance of these discussions, I imagine that the AV folk would reject that offer.

Many of us have a desire for those who hold to a preserved text to make a unified stand against the ever-changing versions. And sometimes it breaks my heart and gives me migraines that "-th's (maketh, breaketh, etc.) seem to be so important as to demand non-compromise. The AV is_ not_ obscur, obsolete, or difficult English. On that point I agree with the AV crowd. However, there are many obsolete words, and obsolete "verbal forms" or whatever you would call them in the AV. And it is precisely this that leads people to deem it (in error) Elizabethan.

Now, those people who call it Elizabethan or completely archaic... well, I question their motives. They are painting with a broad brush.

*However*, the fact of the matter is, that _ordained men_ in many denominations confess to the people in their churches struggling with the AV. And on that account, they refuse to use it. And I suppose I give more credence to ordained men who have problems with the AV when working with youth, young Christians, in the inner city, etc. When fathers of families complain (as some have on here in the past) that their children have problems understanding passages in the AV during family worship (apparently these people are committed enough to have family worship...), then there is a problem. Indeed, it seems as if the only people who don't have a problem with some of the language in the AV come from a very small circle of people whose life work is to defend the AV, and/or read the Puritans.

Point being, there are many ministers and fathers, as well as enough Christians themselves, good-hearted, Reformation folk, who have problems with the AV, and that, in turn, leads them to corrupted Bibles. And at that point, if these people are willing to use a Reformation text, I think, personally, some guilt lies on AV organizations and churches, who fail to issue as soft revision that AV, NKJV, TR, MT, et al. could rally around, so that we could face the critical/eclectic texts with a unified front.

Lastly, in my mind, there is not one iota of difference between updating the spelling from the 1611 (which has been done), and updating the endings to some verbal forms (-eth, -th). There's no difference in between that, and probably no difference in changing "leasing" to "lying", all the while keeping distinctive Reformation readings, word orders, theological words, etc.

in my opinion, the fact that every serious AV Bible published always comes with a list of archaic word definitions in the back of it. That in and of itself, to me, shows the need for a _soft_ revision of conjugations and verb forms. 

I would stop there! But, if the AV people were open, it would be nice to see slight revisions in other places, e.g., the reinsertion of the Divine Name for "LORD", Beelzebub to Beelzebul, "God and Savior" instead of "God and our Savior" in Titus and 2 Peter (and I know Rev. Winzer would disagree with that), etc.

Now, warning bells probably went off with the last paragraph; because those are more serious changes. But what I'm saying is, many NKJV and MT people, I believe, would be willing to compromise on those other changes (I know I would), if the AV people would only do a soft revision to make the language palatable to the every day people we witness to, read to, preach to, talk with, and instruct. And the vast majority of ordained men and fathers say that there is, indeed, a problem with the language that needs to be corrected.

Anyway, that's just my two cents. I wrote a lot, but it pains me to see unity being withheld by trifles. And the difference between "lying" and "leasing", "stave" and "sword" is just that: a trifle. When so much serious issues are at stake, and when revision to the AV has already been done, it pains me to see people majoring on the minors.

Would it not be wonderful if we could all rally around a new established version; one that every non-critical, non-eclectic text person could feel comfortable using in their actual, real-life, in the streets ministry?

Anyway, blessings to all, and a mea culpa for any gracelessness and mischaracterization. I deeply respect the AV adherents on this board; I also deeply respect the non-AV "TR/MT" men (Rev. Greco, Mr. Farley in this thread, etc.) who either have problems with the language, or know people who do.

Therein lies the rub.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Jan 8, 2008)

"Anyway, blessings to all, and a mea culpa for any gracelessness and mischaracterization. I deeply respect the AV adherents on this board; I also deeply respect the non-AV "TR/MT" men (Rev. Greco, Mr. Farley in this thread, etc.) who either have problems with the language, or know people who do".


_That was a wonderful read young man. Very good indeed. However I am an AV man. I just have a little tolerance for other versions as long as they are from the reformation text._


----------



## Ravens (Jan 8, 2008)

Mr. Farley,

I hesitated to put that in, because I know you are an AV man. I just noticed that on this thread, you mentioned some people in your church having a problem with it. That's all. My point was, even good men (e.g., you), whose word you can rely upon, still know many "real life" people in "real life" churches who have problems understanding and digesting the AV. 

I didn't mean to say you would endorse any of my conclusions. 

You've been a great encouragement to me over the past, so the last thing I'd want to do is misrepresent you.

Warmly,

Joshua


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Jan 8, 2008)

JDWiseman said:


> Mr. Farley,
> 
> I hesitated to put that in, because I know you are an AV man. I just noticed that on this thread, you mentioned some people in your church having a problem with it. That's all. My point was, even good men (e.g., you), whose word you can rely upon, still know many "real life" people in "real life" churches who have problems understanding and digesting the AV.
> 
> ...



And you have been a great encourgement and help to me dear friend. I miss talking to you. Call me this saturday if you get a chance. I certainly took no offence at any thing you posted I assure you.


----------



## KMK (Jan 8, 2008)

JD, I would also like to see the English speaking church unite and discuss an English language Bible based on the TR. I wish that had been done in the first place instead of different 'societies' splintering off and doing their own thing.

I still maintain, however, that it would not be possible to make a translation into 'modern' English without losing accuracy because 'modern' English is simply not a very precise language. 

One cannot remove the '-eth' from words without losing accuracy. 'Believeth' does not mean the same thing as 'believe'. Nor does 'ye' mean the same thing as 'you'.

Any compromise that is made would necessarily be a compromise in accuracy. That would have to be understood going in.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Jan 8, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> It's not a simplistic matter of the English language "morphing sufficiently enough." That supposes there are levels to language development. There are not. Language is the expression of ideas. Ideas require context.



Matthew, I'm not quite sure what you mean here by "levels"; please excuse my ignorance. Latin eventually became French in one part of the world, and Spanish in another. Aren't they examples of different levels of language change? 



armourbearer said:


> So long as the context exists in which the AV is recognised as a standard of religious conservatism, the AV will continue to speak in the language of the day. If radicals get their way religious conservatism might become an antiquated term, and it might just be that such a morphology takes place that the language of the AV no longer speaks to the religious world. But not if religious conservatives have anything to do with it!



Again, I'm not quite sure what you mean here. However, isn't it more important to be educating church leaders (and interested laypeople) in Greek and Hebrew than KJV if we want to be truly conservative? At least, that's part of my vision in theological education.

On this point I so lament the loss of the study of the classical languages at school and Universities in our country. The earlier we can teach Greek, Latin, and Hebrew the better In my humble opinion.


----------



## bookslover (Jan 8, 2008)

KMK said:


> One cannot remove the '-eth' from words without losing accuracy. 'Believeth' does not mean the same thing as 'believe'. Nor does 'ye' mean the same thing as 'you'.



"Believeth" = "believes"
"ye" = "you" (plural)

See? That wasn't so hard!


----------



## MW (Jan 8, 2008)

Marty, If we take into account the idea of "conquest" then there's no difficulty in adopting your idea of "levels." If the street people force us all out of our native land, then undoubtedly English will officially move to a new level in our country. But then wherever we go we will take our traditional English with us, so the language will live on.

I agree we should teach people Hebrew and Greek in order to train them for the ministry; but in their ministry they will communicate in English. They will do this either poorly or well. If they aren't trained to use the English language the likelihood is that they will do this poorly; and it is likely that they will pass on a poor translation of the Bible to the people they are teaching in order to accommodate this poor standard of English. It's simply a fact that education produces after its kind. Blessings!



JohnOwen007 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > It's not a simplistic matter of the English language "morphing sufficiently enough." That supposes there are levels to language development. There are not. Language is the expression of ideas. Ideas require context.
> ...


----------



## bookslover (Jan 8, 2008)

JDWiseman said:


> I lean towards adhering to the TR, but also see some value in the MT position; and to be honest, I'm not exactly sure where one starts and the other begins.



Unless I'm really misunderstanding you (always possible!), this sentence seems to say that you equate the TR and the MT; that you think the TR and the MT represent the same thing. Actually, the MT (Masoretic Text) is the underlying Hebrew text of the Old Testament, and the TR (Textus Receptus) is an underlying Greek text of the New Testament.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 8, 2008)

bookslover said:


> JDWiseman said:
> 
> 
> > I lean towards adhering to the TR, but also see some value in the MT position; and to be honest, I'm not exactly sure where one starts and the other begins.
> ...



He is no doubt referring to the Majority Text (MT) and not the Masoretic Text.


----------



## Ravens (Jan 9, 2008)

Mr. Poe, 

Thank you; I was referring to the Majority Text.

Rev. Klein,

I agree with you regarding "you" and "ye". I think they should be retained in the interests of greater accuracy. Are you sure that the -eth, -th meanings really add anything to the accuracy of the translation? I am not good at English grammatical terms, but I'm assuming those are something along the lines of present participial endings? Or something to that effect? 

I don't see any difference between, "He that believes..." and "He that believeth"; I don't think an update in the area would entail a loss of accuracy. 

And that still leaves all of the wot's, wit's, staves, leasing, et al.

Anyway, I'm out of my league in this discussion; I just don't like to see more divisions than are necessary.


----------



## Iconoclast (Jan 9, 2008)

KMK said:


> Once again, can anyone give an example of a passage in the KJV that is difficult to understand because of the Elizabethan English? Maybe I am so used to the sound of it I don't notice it any longer.



Kmk, i use the KJV, but several years ago this passage was offered to me as an example of how the old english sometimes obscures an Idea to a modern reader,2Cor6;


> 11O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged.
> 
> 12Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.
> 
> 13Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.


If you think about it however, when a passage has to be explained it can be helpful to open up or unpack the meaning, by going to the root word in the greek or Hebrew, as pastors do during a sermon.
I find the verses dealing with the judgment of God , or the doctrines of grace are very clearly and plainly put forth by the KJV,or any of the similar versions already spoken of here.
Some of the modern translations have lowered the bar, or rounded of the edge that is given with the older translations


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 9, 2008)

Joshua,

Thanks for an excellent post (your #30). Incidentally, I am not a Rev., but a ruling elder who has been _functioning_ as a teaching elder/pastor (these are those entitled to the designation “Rev.”) for maybe 4 years on this foreign mission field. I would gladly step down and relinquish my de facto office if someone qualified were to come on board. The bottom line for me is, the gospel needs to be proclaimed here according to the Reformed faith, that a faithful witness to the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ be heralded.

You probably have seen this, but there is a significant difference between the TR and the MT (Majority Text), as I noted in the first post of the thread http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/answering-alan-kurschner-aomin-24839/. That said, I nonetheless use the excellent research and hypothesizing of the MT advocates, such as Maurice Robinson, Jakob Van Bruggen, Wilber Pickering, etc., when making my defense of the TR. (I know that Dr. Robinson, for one, disavows the TR/KJV position.) They posit some of the best critiques of / defenses against the CT and ET (Eclectic Text) views.

Re the Beelzebub issue, this is what I ended with: 



> Reading in Dr. (& pastor) Kirk DiVietro’s _Where the King James Bible Leaves the Greek Text of Theodore Beza 1598_ I found more on Beelzebub.
> 
> It was laid upon the AV translators to observe fifteen rules* pertaining to their work. DiVietro has a table in his book examining the variants between Beza and the KJV, and regarding Matthew 10:25 he says,
> 
> ...



It is a nuanced subject, and godly wisdom would be needed in any updating of the AV. There have been updates before, and these pertained mostly to spelling.

John Burgon, and also E.F. Hills, were of the mind that a faithful updating of the King James Bible would be a good thing. (This was the commission and _*intended*_ purpose given to the Revision committee in 1871, but which Westcott and Hort violated and subverted with a text and agenda of their own, contra the specific instructions of the Church of England.) So two of our premiere Traditional Text defenders agree with you, Joshua. Note, though, that Burgon was not a KJV man, but a Majority Text proponent. Hills discusses this in his book, _The King James Version Defended_.

Ken brought out the differences between ye and you – the only clear English equivalent would be the South’s _y’all_. Other seeming archaisms are actually more true to the meaning of the Greek grammar than the modern renderings.

Re the Protestant Dutch Bible, the Statenvertaling, one could reckon it almost equivalent to the AV, with but minute deviations, as in Romans 7:6 (one of the readings where E.F. Hills preferred the Dutch reading [in the Greek]).

I would welcome – just for the record – an updated-language AV, as long as the meanings, and the majestic (Hebrew-Greek language-structure rendered into) English was retained. Jakob Van Bruggen’s lesser-known work, _The Future of the Bible_ (available from Russ Spees <[email protected]>, along with all of Ted Letis' works), deals extensively and in great depth on the translation issue, as well as some textual matters. This is an excellent book.

I would no doubt keep and exclusively use my AV, though an updated form of it would be most welcome, and I could well use it in the church.

Re the Titus 2 and 2 Peter 1 readings (see thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/titus-2-13-2-Peter-1-1-granville-sharp-18634/#post232768) I would stay with the AV’s readings, for there is a richness of meaning the _supposedly_ clearer / more accurate modern versions neglect. But these are small points, and ones, if retained as the AV reads, would not hinder modern folks from accessing the text.

“Compromise” or “concede” are not necessarily evil words in this matter (to some they no doubt will be). I would be willing to compromise insofar as agreeing that an update could be helpful; for those who are aghast at the direction the CT and ET Bibles are going to have a contemporary version faithful to the AV around which they could rally – this would be a good thing. It will not happen with the AV itself. I am a purist, yet if there were a contemporary version which remained pure it could do wonders for the church.

Steve


----------



## KMK (Jan 9, 2008)

JDWiseman said:


> Mr. Poe,
> 
> Thank you; I was referring to the Majority Text.
> 
> ...



I am out of my league as well, but doesn't -eth mean that the underlying Greek word is a participle? By simply changing 'believeth' to 'believes', aren't we losing the sense of the participle?


----------



## Thomas2007 (Jan 9, 2008)

Joshua,

I wanted to take a minute this afternoon and address your post, thank you for taking the time to express your thoughts.

I think I understand your frustration with Biblical English expressed in the Authorized Version, however, I do not agree with your argument. The reason is that it is presuming that modern English is in some way more simple, when it is merely your training in the latter, and lack thereof in the former, which is at issue. A little training in Biblical English and anyone can not only understand the Authorized Version, but can do so consistent with the meaning of the underlying original tongues. In turn, if Confessional unity is established in terms of it, much of the arguments continually raised about the Greek simply no longer exist, and stronger bonds are built in terms of the Truth of Scripture you are able to know instead of what you are not able to know.

I do not know precisely how much learning you have in terms of the textual debate, but you do seem to express an understanding that has been gained by some considerable study. In doing so you have had to learn a lot of technical language, references, and concepts inherit in the discipline. This has required many hours of study, whereas people like myself and Elder Raflasky have invested years into this that I actually disdain because I would be much better off putting that time into doctrine and other theological pursuits, but it is simply a necessity in order to be able to defend certainty in my faith, which has been unfortunately assaulted by the Church itself.

The very definition of belief requires trust in the witness of another, the veracity of that witness is necessarily presumed, hence to have strength of faith it requires one to defend the veracity of the witness in whom they believe. It is alarming, that in the Reformed community as a whole, that the foundational premise of this principle has become mystical wherein the veracity of the witness in which one believes does not require trust or defense, but is really rather blind. The textual issue is not now nor has it ever been one of texts, it is an argument concerning Authority, and so is translation. I'll elaborate and relate more on that in a moment.

First, though, please consider that every area of study requires precision and develops in terms of its own subset a language to express its ideas. For example, we use the term Trinity to express a Biblical doctrine of Scripture's revelation about the ontology of the Deity. While this is not a word derived from Scripture, it expresses the precision of meaning concerning a Scripural doctrine, when you use it everything contained within that expansive meaning in incorporated therein by reference. So, it is with all language, this is simply not simplistic thinking - but very complex thinking.

You're plea for simplicity in translation is actually a quest for tremendous complexity, because you aren't taking into full account the expansive utilization of language and the means in which you interpret it within the culture you live. English is a very complex language, it is quite different in its philological and etymological orientation than Hebrew or Greek, and consists of Anglo Saxon, French, Latin, Spanish and other languages, today it is even more influenced, especially in great degree from the drug culture, African culture and a tremendous amount of pornographic influence. People speak with one another in terms of something being "cool," but not cold, "mind blowing," but no physical or mental damage to the brain &c, you interact with this on a daily basis with simplicity and ease because you are raised in it, not because it is simple, indeed linguistically it means the exact opposite of what the words are utilized to mean - you have simply been trained to interpret its complexities. Hence, you interpret it's complexities with ease, and thus presume it is simple, concluding that the linguistics of the precision of the Biblical English of the Authorized Version need to be made similarly simple.

For example, you make an argument concerning "believeth," but if you'll do a search on BibleGateway.com, you'll find that believe, believeth, believest, believed, and believing are all in the Authorized Version - not just "believeth." Likewise, you make an argument against "leasing," (Psalm 4:2) to mean lieing, but the Saxon original of "leasing" from leasunge, is quite different than the meaning of lie, which is generally understood in terms of a verbal falsehood on its face. We also use the term lie, to mean lay down, so if you changed that Scripture are you certain it will be interpreted to mean uttering falsehoods, or will others possibly interpret it to mean being lazy? 

By this translation and the development of Biblical English they intended to move the meaning of the underlying tongues into English as well as maintain continuity with ancient catholic orthodoxy - which is critical. Modern translations have little or no concern with maintaining theological continuity, they are attempting to maintain continuity of God's word with the culture, not with theology. There are many more examples I can give, but I think you get the point, if you can interpret cool to not mean cold, then you can learn the meaning of leasing, or shambles to mean marketplace as in 1 Corinthians 10:25 &c. If just a fraction of the time you have invested to study the text critical debate was applied to learning how to understand the Authorized Version, you would have it mastered, and no longer suffer confusion.

However, any field of study that is not the lowest common denominator will work toward precision of language. If you studied law, medicine or any of the sciences, for example, you'd have to learn a lot of Latin and specialized words. If you had to have an operation, would you want your doctor to instruct his nurse to hand him that really cool looking dohickey, no no, that ultra cool dohickey, so he can remove your appendix? Theology and the study of Scripture and its precision is more important than medicine, for it has to do with your spiritual health and the life of your immortal soul. In law, many things in life require a license, this is because the activity without it would otherwise be a crime, a tort or a trespass. I bet you have a drivers license, do you know what a tort is? 

If not, your obedience was not preconditional upon a demand for total perfection of your knowledge, neither would you successfully demand that complex areas of life, such as law or medicine, must linguistically present themselves to the lowest common denominator of language skills or vocabulary of culture at large. If you think about it for a moment, there isn't any specialized area of study in life that you can make this kind of a plea in regard to its language or vocabulary and be taken seriously. Why should Scripture or theology be any different?

Many Reformed people like the Geneva Bible, it has wonderful notes, but it was created by disenfranchised middle class refugees trying to escape persecution of Bloody Mary. While this became the accepted standard in Puritan England, that was not the case in Puritan Colonial America (1), as they began taking seriously the concept of Sola Scriptura in it's expansive sense that the word of God apply to all of life, they sought continuity with the Reformed doctrine of Authority recognized by a tripartite representation of the social order consisting of feudal heads of families, ecclesiastical leadership and the civil magistrate. This is consistent with the teaching of Theodore Beza in Rights of Magistrates and Duties of Subjects, Rutherford in Lex Rex, and Vindicae Contra Tyrannos among other Reformed works. Hence, the Authorized Version became the standard in America because it was, as against the commoners Geneva Bible, an establishment Bible with a high estate and impeccable intellectual credentials. It was a Bible that could provide the foundations of a Christian Commonwealth with continuity in terms of Authority between private, public and religious life, consistent with Reformed teaching on the tripartite recognition of Authority and bringing all of life under God's Word.

American's today, have little concept of the difference between estate and class, this was not so from the 17th through the late 19th century. This is a modern development and it coincides with the low view of Scripture, a result of abandonment of its lofty estate, adopted by the Church. If you look at our social order, it is incredibly complex, multiple governments, multiple jurisdictions and multiple legal statuses. There are, in fact, nineteen different legal status's (e.g., estates) that you can have under the United States Constitution, are you a freeman, a landowner, a slave, a woman, an indian &c? Americans today only think in terms of class and they define it in terms of economics, this was not intended to be so, a minister of the Gospel used to have a high estate, even if he was economically of the meanest class. This is no longer the case today, at least in the modern mind, it is actually still a legal reality that people are just ignorant of, those who aren't are able to live in terms of a different estate than the common man.

While some words could use updating much like the 1769 update of the Authorized Version, the people themselves have to have the attitude and desire for knowledge of truth and to live in terms of continuity of life, to be able to receive the Scripture in the high estate it exists in American jurisprudence first. Generally, most Christians today are more than happy to be of the lowest possible estate and only want Scripture in terms of their class as disenfranchised refugees.

In history we recognize certain men above others, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Owen, Rutherford, Westminster Divines &c they are in terms of the Reformed Faith, high points in an uptrending Christian culture - the Authorized Version was a literary high point in terms of their work, and it became a juridical high point as a result of the American War for Independence. Since that time we still recognize certain men above others, such as Warfield or Machen, but unfortunately they are high points in a downtrending Christian culture. It is much more important to work in terms of changing this trend, instead of continually re-translating Scripture to coincide with a new downtrend. You have to have continuity in terms of life in order to be able to do that, presently the foundations of our Christian Commonwealth are still intact, we will have to fight to regain lost ground, but it's something we can attain in a generation or two. If, however, we continue with this low view of Scripture propagating discontinuity of our lives, we will again fall under a millennium of spiritual darkness more heinous than our Reformed fathers escaped.

I mean this in no way demeaning to you or your post, but please consider the nobility of the estate of King Jesus, His entitlement to be Lord of our lives in a totality, and work towards bringing every one of your thoughts captive, instead of His words and rising to live in terms of your high estate in His Kingdom and not the low estate of the arrogant and self styled "high class" commoners, that don't understand the difference of these things.

The Authorized Version provides you much more than just the Word of God, as beautiful as it is, in your native tongue, it provides you the power of that Word in its high estate and establishment in the culture in which you live. (1 Corinthians 4:20) Learn how to put on the whole Armour of God's Word as Providence has delivered it unto you, and utilize that so He can use you to pull down strongholds and overcome spiritual wickedness in high places, so you may be able to stand.

Finally, beware of the Scribes, that would strip you of that power with craftiness appealing to your sensual and fleshy desires for simplicity and will leave you standing naked, with a Bible you may be able to understand more easily, but no armour to protect you in the evil day.

In Christ's Bonds,

Thomas

--------------------------
Notes:

(1) See, Harry Stout, "Word and Order in Colonial New England," in eds., Nathan O. Hatch and Mark A. Noll, The Bible in America (New York, 1982), 19-38.


----------



## Ravens (Jan 14, 2008)

Mr. Weddle,

First off, let me say that I read with some interest your various posts on this board, and, while I do not agree with you on everything (for instance, your posts on dispensationalism as related to Chalcedon), I do appreciate your insight on many of the topics on which you write.

It was that measure of respect for you that kept me from responding. I appreciate that you disagree with me on some particulars, but in the main, I felt like I got a response that went over most of the foundational issues of authority and translation on which I already agree.



> You're plea for simplicity in translation is actually a quest for tremendous complexity



I don't recall arguing for "simplicity in translation" as a principle in and of itself. Rather, I just called for the updating of archaic words that nobody uses anymore, or even words that have come to have a somewhat contrary usage today (e.g. "prevent"). If that's not a sufficient example, there are many more. As I've stated before, when the "Bible for Today" society publishes "Defined" King James Bibles, and hardcore Authorized Bible preachers like David Silversides (I love his ministry and listen to two sermons a week from him, if not more; I respect many of the men who endorse the AV) have to clarify the language of the AV in their own sermons, and many ordained elders in Reformed churches have problems with the language, then, in my opinion, I take it that it could be upgraded.

I would argue that, in fact, you agree with me in principle when you say:



> While some words could use updating much like the 1769 update of the Authorized Version



So you agree that words can be updated, and have been updated to the betterment of the version. So our only disagreement is on whether or not that point has been reached. I confess that, though I agree with you on many of the issues of authority, the effect of television and visual communication on the mind, the state of the people, etc., I don't see how your post was that revelant to the gist of what I was saying. 

Take care.


----------



## Ravens (Jan 14, 2008)

Mr. Rafalsky,

Thanks for your response! If I understand what you have written correctly, you believe the "TR" to read Beelzebul, and that the Authorized version translators rendered it as Beelzebub so as to allow the populace to understand that it referred to Satan. Is that correct? (I hadn't read your explanation in a couple of days, and as I didn't reply promptly, I'm wanting to make sure I remembered it correctly).

If so, then that makes sense, and I understand their rationale for translating it that way. I was working off the assumption that the different T.R.'s, or the one to which you held, had "Beelzebub" in the Greek.

Anyway, I don't know if this has been made clear, but I actually agree with you that the "ye's" should be kept. They enhance clarity and more closely align with the grammar of the autographa, so I would hope that any update would keep them.

Lastly, you say:



> Re the Protestant Dutch Bible, the Statenvertaling, one could reckon it almost equivalent to the AV, with but minute deviations, as in Romans 7:6 (one of the readings where E.F. Hills preferred the Dutch reading [in the Greek]).



I suppose that's one of the issues where I see some fuzziness either in myself, or in the Authorized version camp. It seems as if _some_ Authorized version proponents affirm that the AV is the result of God's "singular care and providence" functioning in such a way that the very jot's and tittle's are preserved. And, indeed, that verse is often quoted in these debates.

I had assumed the Continental and Dutch Bibles were very similar, with only minor discrepancies. But the "rub" for me is that those "minor discrepancies" amount to a handful of jot's and tittle's. Which brings me back to my original query: How is it not nationalism, or simply an educated guess, to affirm that God's singular care and providence functioned only in the Bible of the English church, while leaving the Dutch church in error as to a handful of jot's and tittle's? 

That isn't asked in "haughtiness" at all. Its one of the genuine questions I have when the "Protestant Bible" is talked about, since there were other Protestant countries other than England, and other Protestant languages than English.

Anyway, on most other things I think we are in agreement, and I deeply respect your effort and work in this area, as in others.

Blessings Steve!


----------



## Ravens (Jan 14, 2008)

Mr. Weddle,

I'm going to work today, and wanted to apologize for the snarkiness of the post. I went back to edit it, but in my hurry I can't figure out how to edit it for tone while, at the same time, leaving in the substance of my point, that, namely, the laying again of foundations when I largely agree with you (whether you agree that I agree with you is, I suppose, a different matter altogether), and am only saying that an update would be profitable.

I'll also agree that "lying" was a poor choice for "leasing", and that most translations use "deception" if I'm not mistaken. That wasn't meant to be the best example of old language; I had just been thinking about the 4th Psalm, so it was fresh in my mind. 

Regardless, my only point is, that many words can use updating, which is why Cambridge Bibles, Thomas Chain Reference Bibles, (I would assume) most Authorized Version Study Bibles, Defined Bible For Today bibles, etc., all come with a "list of archaic words" in the back with their modern English equivalent.

I would agree that tearing out "theological words" like justification, sanctification, etc., is, indeed, simplifying the text in an improper way. But I don't agree that updating that long list of words that most AV Bibles come with would be inappropriate or improper.

Anyway, that being said, blessings to you sir!


----------



## Ravens (Jan 14, 2008)

One more thing, and then I'm done for the day; could you give me an example (and you might be able to; this isn't a "challenge") how the -th or -eth add anything to the text that an -s wouldn't? In terms of clarity?

Take Lazarus. Is "He stinketh" not adequately covered by "He stinks" or "He is stinking"? "He that believeth" by "He that believes"? As it stands now, I think any argument that they are substantially different is just straining gnats, though I am willing to be proven wrong. And if they aren't integral (like the distinction between you and ye: That is integral) then I don't see why they should be retained. 

Anyway, off to work. 

Take care brother.


----------



## Davidius (Jan 14, 2008)

No, the -eth ending does not necessarily signify a participle in the original. It is a 3rd person singular, present indicative active ending (in other words, a regular verb, such as ours ending in -s/-es). A participle is not a verb. It is a verbal adjective (adjective made from a verb). In English, a present participle ends in "-ing," e.g. "the running man." Sometimes a Greek participle requires an entire clause with a regular verb in order to be translated in a way that sounds normal in English, but this would be the only case in which the "-s/-es" ending would be somewhat different grammatically from the original, but that's how it is with "-eth." My point is, those two endings are the same in English.


----------



## MW (Jan 14, 2008)

The "s" ending is the modern alternative to "eth." BTW, it was in the 17th century when the AV was written. But if one is going to adhere to the older pronominal distinction for the purpose of accuracy then "est" and "eth" is necessary baggage.


----------



## KMK (Jan 14, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> The "s" ending is the modern alternative to "eth." BTW, it was in the 17th century when the AV was written. But if one is going to adhere to the older pronominal distinction for the purpose of accuracy then "est" and "eth" is necessary baggage.



From Wiktionary:



> pronominal verb: (in some languages) A form of reflexive verb that has an attached pronoun


----------

