# KJV Bible: How to overcome the language barrier?



## tellville (Nov 30, 2008)

For those of you who started reading the King James Bible later in life, how did you overcome the language barrier? And are you confident that you have actually overcome the language barrier?

For those who have grown up on the KJV, how did you teach others to use the KJV in such a way so that they actually understand what they are reading to the same level that someone would understand a modern translation?


----------



## SolaGratia (Nov 30, 2008)

This works good:

http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/bwl.pdf

Also this KJV study Bible which contains helpful modern day english translations in the cross-reference section and also sometimes below in the study notes: 

Reformation Heritage Books


----------



## Grymir (Nov 30, 2008)

I started reading the KJV much later in life, but had no problems with the language. The newer ones give me problems because they don't use good sentence structure, and they are written like a 'dick and jane' book. In my humble opinion


----------



## Robin (Nov 30, 2008)

Mark,

I overcame the language barrier by switching to the ESV!

Try it...it works.



Blessings,

Robin


----------



## tellville (Nov 30, 2008)

Grymir said:


> I started reading the KJV much later in life, but had no problems with the language. The newer ones give me problems because they don't use good sentence structure, and they are written like a 'dick and jane' book. In my humble opinion



The Gospels and the narrative parts I can understand especially if you already had a high reading level. But what about the Prophets? And all the poetic passages?


----------



## kvanlaan (Nov 30, 2008)

Hast thou a language problem? Wherefore dost thou partake in such a calumnity?

We actually find that the language issue is a means of teaching the children more thoroughly. You don't just rattle off a chapter and be done with it. Instead, we get through a few verses, stop to explain and dissect (and if need be I will open up Matthew Poole on the subject) and then discuss. It moves along more slowly, but the depth is unmatched (we use the Geneva, not the KJV, but same issue).


----------



## Tim (Dec 1, 2008)

This is a useful thread. I hope others have suggestions, as I would like to be better at reading the KJV.


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 1, 2008)

I like the KJV because it says things to a penetrating depth that no other translation does, with a full use of the language. I also like the fact of its exact word-for-word translation with words added by the translation in italics. This is very precise.

When I'm not sure of a word, I take a good dictionary and look it up and it is suprising how many of the terms have historical meanings still in the dictionary. This is a superb way to expand one's command of the English language, as well as to understand the text.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 1, 2008)

I would read a "looser" version for getting bigger chunks of Scripture down at once and seeing the "big picture" - and then go back and go verse by verse with the KJV. 

I like to read the Bible in several version at once anyway (i.e. have KJV, ESV, NIV and The Message, and Living Bible all out in front of me opened to the same book).


----------



## GTMOPC (Dec 1, 2008)

I've honestly never had a problem reading the KJV. Only two issues have come up. 1.) words I don't know, which I can define with a dictionary, and 2.) dry reading (especially the law sections or parts of the major prophets), but this is the case with me in any translation I've used. It wasn't because I didn't understand the text. 

I usually switch between the KJV and the Geneva. Newer 'dick and jane' translations have their place but I just can't palate them. in my opinion, they have no substance and I always come away wanting to see what the KJV says. Purely a preference issue? Maybe. I think the KJV just brings out nuances of scripture that newer translations leave out in the pursuit of simplifying the text. 

The KJV does demand a slower, deeper, focused reading. This is a great part of its value. You have to interact with the text. Popcorn translations are like trying to watch the movie version of a book. They just seem watered down. They perhaps get the theme across but miss most of the content.

My advice. Commit to the KJV, engage it, fall in love with it. If you just can't understand it then move to the ESV or something similar, even the NKJV. 

I had a particularly hard time understanding the doctrines of grace at one point, they were just hard reading from reformed sources. On the other hand all the arminian stuff floating around was very understandable. Should I have chosen what was easiest to digest? Obviously not! The issue of bible translations is not directly comparable to the issue of that theological point but I think it points out that just because it's difficult, that's no reason to ditch it.

-----Added 12/1/2008 at 10:23:31 EST-----

Are we talking about lay persons who will probably never read a theology text or are we talking about persons who read Calvin, Augustine, and other similar authors? 

Someone who is studying calvin and the like should have no problem with the KJV in my opinion.


----------



## TimV (Dec 1, 2008)

> The KJV does demand a slower, deeper, focused reading. This is a great part of its value. You have to interact with the text.



From Job 30



> 29I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls.



So, how would you interact with this text? I lived in a similar area to Job for 9 years. A little help? 'Cause I don't relate.


----------



## GTMOPC (Dec 1, 2008)

I won't claim to know how to exegete that for you. I haven't studied the passage in-depth. However, do the following translations shed that much more light on it?

(NKJV) I am a brother of jackals, And a companion of ostriches.

(NIV) I have become a brother of jackals, a companion of owls. 

(MSG) I howl with the jackals, I hoot with the owls. 

(AMP) I am a brother to jackals [which howl], and a companion to ostriches [which scream dismally].

Plus, it might have been my mistake for not mentioning it but, I never said one should read the bible without consulting any other material such as commentary, customs, history, etc.


----------



## TimV (Dec 1, 2008)

The NKJ and ESV make perfect sense to me. They fit the context and the best scholarship.

Now, do any KJ onlies have any objection to admitting it would be better for people to use the ESV for that verse than the KJV?


----------



## Thomas2007 (Dec 1, 2008)

Scott1 said:


> I like the KJV because it says things to a penetrating depth that no other translation does, with a full use of the language. I also like the fact of its exact word-for-word translation with words added by the translation in italics. This is very precise.
> 
> When I'm not sure of a word, I take a good dictionary and look it up and it is suprising how many of the terms have historical meanings still in the dictionary. This is a superb way to expand one's command of the English language, as well as to understand the text.



For even greater insight try a Webster's 1828 Dictionary.


----------



## GTMOPC (Dec 1, 2008)

Why is the translation of תּנּים as jackal any more valid than dragon accept for the fact that most people understand what a jackal is and probably not what the use of dragon means. Is there a reason behind why jackal is prefered? How do we know that's what the hebrew meant? I don't know, I'm not a hebrew scholar. What is the best scholarship behind it?

BTW I'm not "KJV only." I just think the KJV is a valuable translation. Do you feel that we should jetison the KJV in favor of a more contemporary translation Tim?


----------



## APuritansMind (Dec 1, 2008)

tellville said:


> For those of you who started reading the King James Bible later in life, how did you overcome the language barrier? And are you confident that you have actually overcome the language barrier?
> 
> For those who have grown up on the KJV, how did you teach others to use the KJV in such a way so that they actually understand what they are reading to the same level that someone would understand a modern translation?



Mark,

I have used the KJV since I was a youth, and I use it for Scripture reading in our Lord's Day worship services, congregational/family Bible studies, and personal Scripture reading.

I also use the KJV in a Bible study at work during lunch hour with Christians and non-Christians in attendance. Versions used by others are the NIV, The Living Bible, ESV, and the Holman Christian Standard. I explain the meaning of the archaic and difficult words as we go along, which quite often matches one of the other translations being used. I often reference the ESV when studying a passage. 

I do not see the KJV language as being much of a barrier with a teacher involved and, as others have previously indicated, I feel the KJV actually gives a deeper meaning to many of the passages. I have found the greater challenge is getting the group to understand the "greater meaning" of the passage being studied, along with it's application, rather than the comprehension of individual words. 

Without a teacher, I agree the language of the KJV can be somewhat of a challenge. A person that is reading scripture privately must have a good dictionary, as Scott stated in a previous post, and look up EVERY word that he doesn't understand. No different than trying to understand a newspaper article about how the sub-prime lending market has affected our economy. The average person will need to look up some of the words to understand their meaning, and thus gain a foundation to understand the fuller meaning of the subject being presented by the writer. 

I'm not a KJV-only guy, I just prefer the KJV and often use the NKJV and ESV for comparison. In my humble opinion, the key to gaining more understanding is praying for God to shed light upon His Word, slowing down when reading, prayerfully meditating upon passages, looking up words (in a good Bible dictionary) and ideas (good reformed commentaries), and discussing passages with knowledgable brothers and sisters in Christ.


----------



## biggandyy (Dec 1, 2008)

tellville said:


> For those of you who started reading the King James Bible later in life, how did you overcome the language barrier? And are you confident that you have actually overcome the language barrier?
> 
> For those who have grown up on the KJV, how did you teach others to use the KJV in such a way so that they actually understand what they are reading to the same level that someone would understand a modern translation?



I was saved in a church that uses the NIV. I find it outstanding to read and understand the narrative in one sitting (no endlessly looking up arcane words and words that have changed meaning). It is a "big picture" translation and I like that since that is the way we learn naturally as people: get the big picture set and then begin to fill in the details.

The King James, Strong's Concordance, J. Vernon Magee, and Matthew Henry help to fill in many of the details.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 1, 2008)

When I read difficult passages (such as portions of Job), I will consider the Hebrew and its (sometimes) various meanings, comparing it with other translations to get a sense of how others understood it, as well consulting commentaries.

Concerning the passage TimV brought up, the Hebrew underlying the KJV _dragons_ has various meanings, from sea "monsters", jackals, serpents (and I would think reptiles, great lizards). Although perhaps archaic, I would accept dragons, in my mind thinking serpents or lizards, as well as owls (Owls of Middle East - The Owl Pages), as they kept Job company at night in his anguished, lonely, hopeful vigils.

I have a confidence in the King James, or rather, in the Lord's providential preservation of it, and so stick with it even when it is difficult.

But I certainly use various helps.


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 1, 2008)

Here's a possible solution, recommended to me by a fellow ARP pastor (Steve Woods), who is a KJV man. It's called the _Defined King James Bible_, and it might be what your looking for.



> Don't throw the baby out with the bath water! Keep the excellent rhythm, cadence, and reliability of the Faithful Old King James Bible. Simply add to it footnoted definitions of uncommon words and what do you get? You get the Defined King James Bible. This Bible uses footnotes to define virtually all of the archaic, obsolete, difficult, or uncommon words in the King James Bible



Defined King James Bibles


----------



## SolaGratia (Dec 1, 2008)

There is also this:

King James Bibles

Sample view:
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=740040&event=CF


----------



## FenderPriest (Dec 1, 2008)

tellville said:


> For those of you who started reading the King James Bible later in life, how did you overcome the language barrier? And are you confident that you have actually overcome the language barrier?
> 
> For those who have grown up on the KJV, how did you teach others to use the KJV in such a way so that they actually understand what they are reading to the same level that someone would understand a modern translation?



Not intentionally, but unintentionally I over came the "barrier" by studying Old English and Middle English in college. So if you're looking to go that route, a goode version of The Canterbury Tales will help you out, preferably, one with the Middle English on one page, and the translation on the other. After that, KJV is a piece of cake. However, with that in mind, I don't ever recommend the KJV because words do not mean the same thing today as they did when the KJV was translated. If you want an accurate definition of a word, Webster is going to help, but only in part. The Oxford English Dictionary is going to give you the best historically accurate definition of a difficult word to the time period. That said, it is not necessarily hard words that will trip you up, it is usually the "common" words that change over long periods of time (like the word "nice"). Because some words could have a historical nuance that we just simply don't know, I don't generally recommend the KJV, and thus would find the only recommendation to learning true KJV to be a handy, 22 volumed OED with you - or an online subscription! If you're interested in spending effort, why not just go straight to the original?!


----------



## SolaGratia (Dec 1, 2008)

Jacob,

Where is the word "nice" found in the KJV?


----------



## FenderPriest (Dec 1, 2008)

SolaGratia said:


> Jacob,
> 
> Where is the word "nice" found in the KJV?



I'm not finding any, but that wasn't the point in noting the word. It's a historical example of a contemporary word to the translation of the KJV that has changed its meaning over time. Sorry if that was confusing.


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 1, 2008)

Another way is to do a side-by-side comparison of the KJV with a more modern translation. For example, there is a handy parallel Bible with both translations side-by-side:


Amazon.com: NIV/KJV Parallel Bible: Books

Somehow, I still find myself doing Scripture memorization and meditation in KJV as well as proof-texting (such as for the Confession). 

For family worship, small groups, and church, as well as most personal Bible Study, I use the NIV or ESV. But when a passage needs clarification or deeper study, I take the time to compare with the KJV, and even go back to Greek.

While it is not true in every case, it seems when KJV says it , it says it best. And if you lead others in this way, you will be amazed at how it expands their command of the language, but even more importantly, how it focuses on the meaning of every statement and proposition in God's Word.

It's also comforting that in spite of translation and language difficulties, God superintends His Word in every generation. The Holy Spirit illuminates our understanding, and in spite of our limitations, we can be sure of "getting it" in God's purposes.


----------



## TimV (Dec 1, 2008)

> Concerning the passage TimV brought up, the Hebrew underlying the KJV dragons has various meanings, from sea "monsters", jackals, serpents (and I would think reptiles, great lizards). Although perhaps archaic, I would accept dragons, in my mind thinking serpents or lizards,



There are other words for lizards and snakes in OT Hebrew. The KJV uses dragons for the same reason it used unicorns. They didn't have as much knowledge as we do.

So, is there anyone out there who thinks that the KJV is better than the ESV when it comes to this verse in Job? I'm not asking of the KJV is acceptable or not.


----------



## KMK (Dec 1, 2008)

tellville said:


> For those of you who started reading the King James Bible later in life, how did you overcome the language barrier? And are you confident that you have actually overcome the language barrier?
> 
> For those who have grown up on the KJV, how did you teach others to use the KJV in such a way so that they actually understand what they are reading to the same level that someone would understand a modern translation?



The 'language barrier' stems from the fact that the original languages must be translated in order to read them in English. This 'barrier' exists, then, in all English translations. The 'modern' English versions may be easier reading for modern readers but they do not have the accuracy of the KJV. Therefore, the 'modern' versions require helps in order to get at the original just like the KJV does. There is no way around the fact that learning God's Word requires effort.

For what it is worth, in my brief eight year experience teaching, the words in the KJV that need further explanation are pretty much the same as their 'modern' contemporaries. Whether you use 'propitiation' or 'expiation' or 'sacrifice of atonement' in Rom 3:25, it is going to require explaining.


----------



## jaybird0827 (Dec 1, 2008)

SolaGratia said:


> This works good:
> 
> http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/bwl.pdf
> 
> ...


 
This can actually be ordered from TBS in the form of a small blue booklet. I keep one handy, tucked in one of the pockets of my bible cover.


----------



## MW (Dec 1, 2008)

Besides the excellent advice already provided, may I also suggest listening regularly to Scourby's reading and to read along with it. The cadence in his speech provides helpful clarity.


----------



## Ivan (Dec 1, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Besides the excellent advice already provided, may I also suggest listening regularly to Scourby's reading and to read along with it. The cadence in his speech provides helpful clarity.



This is an excellent suggestion.


----------



## Grymir (Dec 1, 2008)

Dragon is the correct translation of the passage in Job. The word means a marine or land monster. Evolutionary mindset has made the 'dragon' a myth, whereas dinasaurs (dragons) probably existed in the middle ages. A jackle is not a marine or land monster, so would not be well translated. 

So yes, I would be one person who thinks the KJV beats out the ESV in translating the passage in Job. 

On another note ---------------------

The KJV is biblical english, not the common english of the day, even in 1611.


----------



## JBaldwin (Dec 1, 2008)

I find it interesting that you use the word "language barrier" when talking about the KJV. This topic came up at church yesterday in our study of the Westminister standards. 

Westminister Standards Chapter 1 part 8:



> The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;a so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them.b 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,c *therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,d that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner,e and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.f*
> a. Mat 5:18. • b. Isa 8:20; John 5:39, 46; Acts 15:15. • c. John 5:39. • d. 1 Cor 14:6, 9, 11-12, 24, 27-28. • e. Col 3:16. • f. Rom 15:4.



At what point does a language cease to be the "vulgar"? 

To answer the question in the OP, I grew up on the KJV, and my pastor went through it verse by verse and explained difficult words in detail. However, I now use a variety of translations and find it difficult to go back to the KJV.


----------



## TimV (Dec 1, 2008)

> Dragon is the correct translation of the passage in Job. The word means a marine or land monster. Evolutionary mindset has made the 'dragon' a myth, whereas dinasaurs (dragons) probably existed in the middle ages.



And is this certainty you have because of your study of the particular word, or from your loyalty to the KJV? In other words, an act of faith? The same sort of faith that leads you to believe in dragons, unicorns and elves? I mean the exact same evidence for dinosaurs existing in the middle ages exists for elves and unicorns. Which is to say none.

If it is because of your study of the word translated as either dragons or jackals, why do you think Luther chose jackal?

And the same with Micah 1:8 in the KJV?



> 8Therefore I will wail and howl, I will go stripped and naked: I will make a wailing like the dragons, and mourning as the owls.



I lived in Africa, and there were jackals, just like there were in Job's area. I can just see him in a desolate place where jackals howled. It really does sound like human wailing. Not that I'm claiming to understand enough language and contemporary literature to say for certain what the word means. It's just that you're so sure the KJV is the best translation of this word I'm wondering what other reasons you have than faith. There were big monitor lizards where I lived, and they are still in the Mideast. I had one 6 feet long as a pet. But they didn't wail at all; not more than a hissing sound when you grabbed them.


----------



## Igor (Dec 1, 2008)

Greetings to everybody!
Since English is not my native language (and I have never been to an English-speaking country), this is a problem for me too. Though for myself on a daily basis I read the NIV, I have never completely given up the KJV, whish I like very much. 
Here is what I used: The King James Bible Word Book The KJV Life Application Study Bible it has textual notes) - my favorite, Nelson's KJV/NKJV Parallel Bible - extremely useful, Concise King James Bible Dictionary by David W. Cloud, and, of course, a few books on the History of the English Language (first, I had to understand the Early English Grammar). The Defined King James Bible I also have but I do not like it.


----------



## Grymir (Dec 1, 2008)

TimV said:


> > Dragon is the correct translation of the passage in Job. The word means a marine or land monster. Evolutionary mindset has made the 'dragon' a myth, whereas dinasaurs (dragons) probably existed in the middle ages.
> 
> 
> 
> And is this certainty you have because of your study of the particular word, or from your loyalty to the KJV? In other words, an act of faith? The same sort of faith that leads you to believe in dragons, unicorns and elves? I mean the exact same evidence for dinosaurs existing in the middle ages exists for elves and unicorns. Which is to say none.



Umm, Is this type of statement called for?

I looked up the Hebrew word and the translation stands. I've had too many people question the words, and looked up the Hebrew/Greek myself or asked Scholars the meaning, only to have the KJV words stand. That is why I stick with it.


----------



## KMK (Dec 1, 2008)

FenderPriest said:


> the only recommendation to learning true KJV to be a handy, 22 volumed OED with you - or an online subscription!



I loooovvve my OED and not just for use with the KJV. However, one does not need the 22 vols or the online subscription. Do what I did and get the 2 vol. version on Ebay and then invest in a good reading magnifying glass. Works like a charm and it is inexpensive as well.

Happy reading!


----------



## Thomas2007 (Dec 1, 2008)

JBaldwin said:


> I find it interesting that you use the word "language barrier" when talking about the KJV. This topic came up at church yesterday in our study of the Westminister standards.
> 
> Westminister Standards Chapter 1 part 8:
> 
> ...



Mrs Baldwin,

The focus of historic Protestantism's intent on translation as outlined in the WCF was directed toward translating God's word from the Greek and Hebrew tongues into the native tongue, such as English. Linguistic continuity was as important in the work of translation as it was in the work of identifying the authentic Greek and Hebrew texts that they translated. While vulgar means common, we can understand how the Divines intended that to be understood by their actions regulating translations and printing of the Scriptures in the years following its enactment. You can learn more about that in "The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611) by Frederick Scrivener"

That is to say the Reformers 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. Indeed, conform their entire society 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. These are two diametrically opposite principles with completely different presuppositions. It is fundamentally very similar to the Protestant principle of the priesthood of every believer vs the Roman Catholic notion of a Priest that mediates God to you. Same language, same subject matter - but completely different concepts.

The Authorized Version is the Protestant Bible in English, just as the Dutch Staten Version is the Protestant Bible in Dutch - it's the only consistently Protestant Bible we have in our native tongue from it's source documents to its translation.


----------



## SolaGratia (Dec 2, 2008)

To English Speaking Folks, 

*Tyndale Did Not Died In VAIN*


----------



## Tim (Dec 2, 2008)

Grymir said:


> The KJV is biblical english, not the common english of the day, even in 1611.



Grymir, could you please expand on what you mean by "Biblical English"? Do you mean that the "style" of English used is more able to capture the sense of the Hebrew and Greek?


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 2, 2008)

I have folks asking me all the time if the folks here read the King James Bible - an almost laughable question, since the Bible is not in English here.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 2, 2008)

Did someone say unicorns? Check this informative article by Will Kinney: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/unicorn.html

Elves? 

Tim Keller gave a lecture for the International Arts Movement (IAM), _The Significance of J.R.R. Tolkien_, which posits an unusual point of view. He explores the philological basis upon which Tolkien built his story (_Lord of the Rings_), his delving into the etymological similarities in ancient European tongues, deriving from them — these ancient words and the beings depicted by them — a linguistic reconstruction of ancient imaginary worlds and the beings which inhabited them. Tolkien started first with the meanings of certain names in these old north European languages, names depicting elves and dwarves and wizards, not as we perceive them today, but, as with the elves, creatures of unimaginable beauty, names which eventually became characters in the story. Likewise he explored the names of malign beings — orcs, for instance, referring to a kind of “dark elves.” The story was built first upon the old names, and the characters they suggested. Was this reconstruction of a pre-Christian or mixed Christian/pagan apprehension of the spirit worlds? Keller notes that in an interview filmmaker Peter Jackson opined that Tolkien was creating, for the first time in many centuries, not fantasy, but mythology, according to an ancient, and in essence timeless, worldview.

We have, Keller asserts, ancient worldviews from many peoples — Asians, Hebrews, Africans, Greeks and Romans, Persians, etc; but of ancient northern Europeans very little, as their books and stories have largely been destroyed and lost, save some scant stories, and a few fairy tales and nursery rhymes. The power of LOTR then, is from the potency of a mythic world brought to life again, a myth not an escape from reality, but a window into it. Dr. Keller also shows the profoundly complex view of good and evil Tolkien wove into the story (despite the critics ignoring these moral depths), a view only derivable from the gospel of Christ and its profundity.


----------



## FenderPriest (Dec 2, 2008)

Grymir said:


> On another note ---------------------
> 
> The KJV is biblical english, not the common english of the day, even in 1611.



Eh, I'd disagree. "Thee" and "thou" were passing out of high society in the time of the KJV translation, and were generally used only by commoners, while the upper class used more formal (a.k.a. French) "ye", which became our "you". I'm a little fuzzy on the particulars - I'll go check it out at home when I get the chance in the next couple days - but wiki's article is generally helpful: here. One of the brilliant things of the KJV (for it's time) is it's use of thee and thou, aiming the translation directly at the "common" person. Anyhow, I could be wrong on that, but that's my understanding from the study I've done around the time period.


----------



## Davidius (Dec 2, 2008)

kvanlaan said:


> Hast thou a language problem? Wherefore dost thou partake in such a calumnity?
> 
> We actually find that the language issue is a means of teaching the children more thoroughly. You don't just rattle off a chapter and be done with it. Instead, we get through a few verses, stop to explain and dissect (and if need be I will open up Matthew Poole on the subject) and then discuss. It moves along more slowly, but the depth is unmatched (we use the Geneva, not the KJV, but same issue).





Pergamum said:


> I would read a "looser" version for getting bigger chunks of Scripture down at once and seeing the "big picture" - and then go back and go verse by verse with the KJV.
> 
> I like to read the Bible in several version at once anyway (i.e. have KJV, ESV, NIV and The Message, and Living Bible all out in front of me opened to the same book).



This works particularly well with a Greek NT. 



FenderPriest said:


> Grymir said:
> 
> 
> > On another note ---------------------
> ...



"Thou" and "ye" are technically part of the same system, being the nominative singular and plural forms of the 2nd person pronoun. The accusative form of "thou" was "thee," and "you" was the accusative of "ye." In courtly culture, it was commonplace to address a noble person with the second person plural instead of the second person singular, which may account for the upper class beginning to use "ye" all the time. For whatever reason, the accusative form "you" stuck and we now use it for every case.


----------



## FenderPriest (Dec 2, 2008)

Davidius said:


> FenderPriest said:
> 
> 
> > Grymir said:
> ...


Quite true! It's because we think we're more important than we are. Thank ye kind sir!


----------



## JBaldwin (Dec 2, 2008)

Thomas2007 said:


> That is to say the Reformers 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. Indeed, conform their entire society 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. These are two diametrically opposite principles with completely different presuppositions. It is fundamentally very similar to the Protestant principle of the priesthood of every believer vs the Roman Catholic notion of a Priest that mediates God to you. Same language, same subject matter - but completely different concepts.



We are not talking about the "Good News Bible" paraphrase which IS an attempt to explain God to the people, but rather translations like the ESV and NASB which attempt to translate the Scriptures from the Hebrew and Greek as accurately as possible in modern English. 

In an early post you stated that an 1828 Webster's Dictionary would be useful for greater insight. If someone with a command of the English language has to dig out an 1828 Webster's Dictionary in order to understand the Scriptures, then I seriously question whether the KJV English could be considered "common" or in the "native tongue". English from 1611 is much different from the common English we speak today. 

The only reason I am even slightly comfortable with KJV English is because someone stood up in the pulpit and spent a great deal of preaching time (years) explaining it to me. Time, I might add, that could have been spent explaining what the Scripture said rather than defining old English words. I did not have an 1828 Dictionary to help me with the difficult words. How much different is having to rely on a pastor to explain the Scriptures to me than having a priest be the only person who can interpret the Scriptures for the people? While I admit this is a huge stretch, it is heading in that direction. 

The reformers were not just interested in accurate translation as you stated, but that the common folk could understand. Most of the people in my community cannot understand KJV English, neither do many adult converts in my church. Again, I ask, at what point does the KJV cease to be "common" English?


----------



## kvanlaan (Dec 2, 2008)

> I like to read the Bible in several version at once anyway (i.e. have KJV, ESV, NIV and *The Message, and Living Bible *all out in front of me opened to the same book).



Just a technical (and highly  point), but those aren't actually bibles... 

(You're not the only pot stirrer, my friend!)


----------



## E Nomine (Dec 2, 2008)

The KJV is the version I tried, and failed, to read and understand on my own before being saved. 

As a new believer, I started the NIV, then "graduated" to the NKJV after several years.

I don't see the "Sword Bible" mentioned on this thread. The publisher brands it the KJVER (Easy Reading). It's a "minimal" revision of the KJV which replaces (and identifies when doing so) clearly archaic words. It seems to me like a reasonable compromise to overcome the language barrier.

King James Bibles

I have a Sword Bible. I like the feature of printing the words of God in red in the OT. After reading a few chapters of the KJVER, however, I shelved it and returned to my favored NKJV.


----------



## Jon Lake (Dec 2, 2008)

The KJV was what I grew up hearing my "Gran" use, I would hear Bible stories aloud, somehow that helped me understand, I still use the KJV a lot and I enjoy hearing a good narration from it, Scourby is a classic.


----------



## LawrenceU (Dec 2, 2008)

Just go ask the man on the street. Even one with a couple of advanced degrees who teaches English at a conservative university what 'conversation' means. He will in no way define it as it was used in 1611.

Hey, I like and use the AV1611 / KJV but it does not communicate the word of God accurately to the majority of educated people today, let alone the 'commoner'. The Geneva actually does a better job of it even though it is older.

(I won't go into how I preached from the Geneva at a KJVO congregation  )


----------



## TimV (Dec 2, 2008)

> I won't go into how I preached from the Geneva at a KJVO congregation



If they would have complained you could have pointed out that the KJV was banned on the Mayflower so you were just being patriotic ;-)


----------



## GTMOPC (Dec 2, 2008)

This thread has caused me to focus some introspective thought on myself. There has been a lot of talk about struggling with the KJV language, having to look up archaic words, and the KJV just not relating to the common person today.

I have never had a difficult time with the KJV. Sometimes I look up words or consult other translations but for the most part work from the KJV. Is my ability to work with the KJV just based on the fact I grew up with that translation? I never was much of a reader till I became a Christian so I didn't have any literary knowledge. I Just picked up the KJV and started reading. Could it be that I'm interpreting the KJV language wrong much of the time? Many of you in this thread have made it seem very difficult to understand the English used. I just wonder if I am arrogantly claiming to grasp the KJV when maybe I don't know what I think I know. The only proof that I know I'm comprehending is that my understanding generally agrees with the commentaries, doctrine, etc that I consult.

This is an honest question. Is the KJV _that_ hard to grasp? Is it that difficult for a person who can comprehend the WCF, systematic theology, the Institutes, to work with the KJV?


----------



## Thomas2007 (Dec 2, 2008)

JBaldwin said:


> We are not talking about the "Good News Bible" paraphrase which IS an attempt to explain God to the people, but rather translations like the ESV and NASB which attempt to translate the Scriptures from the Hebrew and Greek as accurately as possible in modern English.



I understand, I was precisely referring to translations like the ESV and NASB, not paraphrases, when I said: "_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. These are two diametrically opposite principles with completely different presuppositions._"

Let me ask you this, what exactly is "modern english" that everyone keeps talking about? When did it become "modern" and when does it cease being "modern?" Also, am I correct in understanding that you correlate the term concept of vulgar tongue, or common, with modern as synonyms?





JBaldwin said:


> In an early post you stated that an 1828 Webster's Dictionary would be useful for greater insight. If someone with a command of the English language has to dig out an 1828 Webster's Dictionary in order to understand the Scriptures, then I seriously question whether the KJV English could be considered "common" or in the "native tongue". English from 1611 is much different from the common English we speak today.




Apparently people don't have a command of the English language, in fact, I would venture to say that the majority are apparently illiterate. 

I don't know why using a dictionary is difficult, especially one that defines its terms in concert with Scripture. I've seen lots of threads on PB asking people how they study the Bible and I'm amazed that most will respond they use numerous different versions with often references to various Greek texts that differ from one another, but no one complains about that. Yet, if a dictionary is necessary, then that is completely unacceptable. Very strange.

If I were to switch to the ESV or its contemporaries then I would need a whole library of books to refer to, and then I could not be certain what I've read and trusted is the word of God or not, because it's perpetually subjective to change, alteration, or a new discovery that a particular part maybe never was the word of God at all. I could never be sure.

How can you prefer having a Bible that you can never trust or believe, over one you can, but might need a dictionary to understand from time to time? Also, why is learning the definition of a word an insurmountable difficulty for people when it comes to Scripture, but not any other area of study?

Second, the english of the Authorized Version is also quite different from the "common" English of the 17th century - it is not the language of Shakespeare.

Third, consider 1 Corinthians 10:25: "_Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:_" That word shambles is a word we don't "commonly" use anymore, but Webster's says it comes from the Latin "scamnuma" and means: "The place where butcher's meat is sold; a flesh-market." We may call that a butcher shop.


Why is it unacceptable to "modern" Christians to have a footnote that explains an english word, that we no longer commonly use, but it is acceptable to not merely retranslate Scripture, but engage in an entire overhall and redefinition of the underlying textual foundation and then have hundreds of footnotes that cast doubt upon the veracity of Scripture? 

For example, my NASB has these peculiar notes "_some mss. add "and was carried up into heaven_" as footnote 44 for Luke 24 verse 51 and "Some mss insert "_worshipped Him, and_" as footnote 45 for Luke 24 verse 52. These Scriptures then become:

"And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven." Authorized Version, Luke 24:51

"And it came about that while He was blessing them, He parted from them (44)", NASB, Luke 24:51

and

"And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:" Authorized Version, Luke 24:52

"And they (45) returned to Jerusalem with great joy," NASB, Luke 24:52





JBaldwin said:


> The only reason I am even slightly comfortable with KJV English is because someone stood up in the pulpit and spent a great deal of preaching time (years) explaining it to me. Time, I might add, that could have been spent explaining what the Scripture said rather than defining old English words. I did not have an 1828 Dictionary to help me with the difficult words. How much different is having to rely on a pastor to explain the Scriptures to me than having a priest be the only person who can interpret the Scriptures for the people? While I admit this is a huge stretch, it is heading in that direction.



No, it's not heading in that direction at all. You just need to consider the possibility that your linguistic axioms are presuppositionally humanistic and need to work on Reforming your understanding.





JBaldwin said:


> The reformers were not just interested in accurate translation as you stated, but that the common folk could understand. Most of the people in my community cannot understand KJV English, neither do many adult converts in my church. Again, I ask, at what point does the KJV cease to be "common" English?



Common or modern? You seem to hold these two words as synonyms, where I referenced common to native, most certainly not modern as the Authorized Version wasn't modern in 1611, but rather archaic.

This perpetual demand to maintain linguistic adolescence as a societal norm is what is wrong, even though it is quite common and the modern concept.

Consider for a moment that great missionary to the American Indians, John Eliot. When he came into Massachusetts, he was faced with the problem of a foreign tongue, but not only that - no written alphabet or forms of written communication for it. He created an alphabet and writing for their language and then translated Scripture into it. That was the first book published on this continent and those people not only had to learn the Scriptures, they had to learn how to read and write their own language. Yet he accomplished that and formed them into fourteen self governing Christian communities based upon Biblical precepts. Yet, "modern" Christians can't be troubled with a dictionary to find out what "shambles" means, it's just too difficult for them. I digress.

Cordially,

Thomas


----------



## Grymir (Dec 2, 2008)

GMcClain20 said:


> This thread has caused me to focus some introspective thought on myself. There has been a lot of talk about struggling with the KJV language, having to look up archaic words, and the KJV just not relating to the common person today.
> 
> I have never had a difficult time with the KJV. Sometimes I look up words or consult other translations but for the most part work from the KJV. Is my ability to work with the KJV just based on the fact I grew up with that translation? I never was much of a reader till I became a Christian so I didn't have any literary knowledge. I Just picked up the KJV and started reading. Could it be that I'm interpreting the KJV language wrong much of the time? Many of you in this thread have made it seem very difficult to understand the English used. I just wonder if I am arrogantly claiming to grasp the KJV when maybe I don't know what I think I know. The only proof that I know I'm comprehending is that my understanding generally agrees with the commentaries, doctrine, etc that I consult.
> 
> This is an honest question. Is the KJV _that_ hard to grasp? Is it that difficult for a person who can comprehend the WCF, systematic theology, the Institutes, to work with the KJV?



No, the KJV is not hard to grasp at all. And yes, it relates very well to us common folk. I'm not a college educated person. Maybe that's it. hmmm. Most of the bad stuff about the KJV was pushed by the NIV people when it came out, and persist to this very day. Just take the criticisms with a grain of salt.

I too, picked up the KJV one day and started reading it. It converted me from my pagan ways before I finished Deuteronomy. And no, you are not interpreting it wrong much of the time.


----------



## KMK (Dec 2, 2008)

Great post as usual, Mr. Weddle!



Thomas2007 said:


> Let me ask you this, what exactly is "modern english" that everyone keeps talking about? When did it become "modern" and when does it cease being "modern?"



Exactly! Can we be expected to retranslate the Bible every time the idiom changes? Are we to have Ebonics Bibles and Spanglish Bibles? Its Babel all over again.



Thomas2007 said:


> I don't know why using a dictionary is difficult, especially one that defines its terms in concert with Scripture. I've seen lots of threads on PB asking people how they study the Bible and I'm amazed that most will respond they use numerous different versions with often references to various Greek texts that differ from one another, but no one complains about that. Yet, if a dictionary is necessary, then that is completely unacceptable. Very strange.



I agree. In past threads I have provided research done by the CU and CSU University systems that demonstrate one of the major reasons university stundents are not prepared for college level reading and writing is that they lack 'self-advocacy'. Modern Californian youth have no desire, compared to previous generations, to seek out answers for themselves. The proper use of dictionaries is not being taught at the HS level and is being left to University professors to teach!



Thomas2007 said:


> If I were to switch to the ESV or its contemporaries then I would need a whole library of books to refer to, and then I could not be certain what I've read and trusted is the word of God or not, because it's perpetually subjective to change, alteration, or a new discovery that a particular part maybe never was the word of God at all. I could never be sure.



I agree. How many times are Textual Critics, Christian and otherwise, going to tell us that the Word of God needs to be updated and revised?



Thomas2007 said:


> Why is it unacceptable to "modern" Christians to have a footnote that explains an english word, that we no longer commonly use, but it is acceptable to not merely retranslate Scripture, but engage in an entire overhall and redefinition of the underlying textual foundation and then have hundreds of footnotes that cast doubt upon the veracity of Scripture?



Excellent question and I am eager to hear people's answers!


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 2, 2008)

LawrenceU said:


> Just go ask the man on the street. Even one with a couple of advanced degrees who teaches English at a conservative university what 'conversation' means. He will in no way define it as it was used in 1611.
> 
> Hey, I like and use the AV1611 / KJV but it does not communicate the word of God accurately to the majority of educated people today, let alone the 'commoner'. The Geneva actually does a better job of it even though it is older.
> 
> (I won't go into how I preached from the Geneva at a KJVO congregation  )



When you go ask the man on the street, peradventure you might need to "fetch a compass" around the block to get to him? 




Here's a list of archaisms in the KJV that most "moderns" do not normally use. Any good and fitting translation must communicate the Scripture in the heart-language of the people:


o“chambering” (Rom. 13:13), “champaign” (Deut. 11:30), “charger” (Matt. 14:8—it is not a horse), “churl” (Isa. 32:7), “cieled” (Hag. 1:4), “circumspect” (Exod. 23:13), “clouted upon their feet” (Josh. 9:5), “cockatrice” (Isa. 11:8), “collops” (Job 15:27), “confection” (Exod. 30:35—it has nothing to do with sugar), “cotes” (2 Chron. 32:28), “covert” (2 Kings 16:18), “hoised” (Acts 27:40), “wimples” (Isa. 3:22), “stomacher” (Isa. 3:24), “wot” (Rom. 11:2), “wist” (Acts 12:9), “withs” (Judg. 16:7), “wont” (Dan. 3:19), “suretiship” (Prov. 11:15), “sackbut” (Dan. 3:5), “the scall” (Lev. 13:30), “scrabbled” (1 Sam. 21:13), “roller” (Ezek. 30:21—i.e., a splint), “muffler” (Isa. 3:19), “froward” (1 Peter 2:18), “brigadine” (Jer. 46:4), “amerce” (Deut. 22:19), “blains” (Exod. 9:9), “crookbackt” (Lev. 21:20), “descry” (Judg. 1:23), “fanners” (Jer. 51:2), “felloes” (1 Kings 7:33), “glede” (Deut. 14:13), “glistering” (Luke 9:29), “habergeon” (Job 41:26), “implead” (Acts 19:38), “neesing” (Job 41:18), “nitre” (Prov. 25:20), “tabret” (Gen. 31:27), “wen” (Lev. 22:22)?


What does this prove? That there IS, in fact, a language barrier and a college education may help on some of these words, but more than that these words are not understand (not due to lack of education) but simply because they are archaic and belong to another age and even in educated journals these words are not used. 


I believe that we should avoid as much as possible a "holy lingo" and that our Bibles and our prayers should, as much as possible, reflect the language that is spoken in the time and place where we live.


----------



## MW (Dec 2, 2008)

A "charger" is archaic? No one has heard of "wont and custom?"

The problem with making lists of archaic words is the fact that while there is a Bible which contains them they are obviously not redundant but have a continuing linguistic context in which they are employed. One only needs to notice how a newspaper column can use the phrase "love thy neighbour" for literary effect in order to show how shallow is this idea that the AV uses outdated English.


----------



## LawrenceU (Dec 2, 2008)

I seriously doubt that anyone uses the word 'charger' in their kitchen anymore unless it is related to a cordless appliance.


----------



## MW (Dec 2, 2008)

So if it's not used in the kitchen then it's not relevant? That is a very narrow view of language. What about if it is used in the catering industry? Is the Bible allowed to use terms that are not spoken by Mr. Everyman?


----------



## LawrenceU (Dec 2, 2008)

I'm not trying to be nitpicky here, nor am I trying to say that Scripture in the KJV cannot be used by God to reach a man's soul. What I am saying is that to say that the very vocabulary of the KJV or any other translation is necessary to the accurate communication of God's word is very suspect. Surely we don't believe that the word as 'received' in the KJV is plenary and verbally accurate do we? I know there are some that believe that. A whole nest of them live about an hour east of me. 

Communication is not about relevancy, it is about accuracy. The cognitive definitions of words change over time. That is a given. Accurate communication of thought and principle requires that we use language in such a manner that the audience can comprehend it. Telling the man that in order to understand the basics of the word of God he must be reeducated is almost as sensible as speaking louder English to a man who does not understand the language well so that he can better 'hear' us. I find that no where in Scripture.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 2, 2008)

Armourbearer: I know I will never convince you, but there ARE archaic words in the KJV. 

We also use Latinisms, but when getting the Bible into the lanuguage of the people a better choice of words would be "Our Father" rather than Pater Noster, even though that phrase, too, has been preserved in our print and our cultural knowledge.

In like manner, wot, wimples and Sakbut have exited our language, as well as a host of other words in the KJV. I can make a list 5 times as long if you would like. 

I prefer the KJV in reading, with ESV a close number 2. 

A Bible should be clear to the host audience even while being true to the Word of God. The KJV accomplishes the latter very well, but as English changes, the KJV does not accomplish the first as well as it used to.


----------



## MW (Dec 2, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Armourbearer: I know I will never convince you, but there ARE archaic words in the KJV.



I don't doubt there are archaisms in the AV; the point I am making is that archaisms can be used to literary effect. They were used in the Greek translation of the OT. They very reason they are recorded in the dictionaries is because they still continue in use. To criticise the AV because it contains archaisms, as if archaisms make it outdated, is to "bewray" a lack of linguistic sophistication.

-----Added 12/2/2008 at 09:38:35 EST-----



LawrenceU said:


> Communication is not about relevancy, it is about accuracy.



Nonsense. Communication in the form of instruction challenges the mind to reach higher and broader and deeper and longer.


----------



## SolaGratia (Dec 2, 2008)

New Translations (ESV, NIV, NASB, NKJV) also have words we don't normaly used:

What is dissipation (Titus 1:6) = The AV uses "riot"

perpetrate (Ruth 4:5) = AV has "raise up"

Syrtis (Acts 27:17) = AV uses "quicksands"

Satraps (Dan.6:2) = AV uses "princes"

Ascent of Heres (Judges 8:13) = AV uses "the sun was up"

*Pergamum did you see the ascent of the heres? 


Offal (Lev. 4:11) = AV has "Dung"


----------



## MW (Dec 2, 2008)

SolaGratia said:


> New Translations (ESV, NIV, NASB, NKJV) also have words we don't normaly used:



Yes, the fact is that the Bible speaks of many life-contexts which are not part and parcel of everyday life, especially for modern man, and therefore require a vocabulary which is not a part of everyday speech.


----------



## SolaGratia (Dec 2, 2008)

Zechariah 13:6 (KJV)

And one shall say unto him, What are these *wounds in thine hands*? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.


New American Standard Bible (NASB)

"And one will say to him, 'What are these *wounds between your arms?*' Then he will say, 'Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends


English Standard Version (ESV)

And if one asks him, *'What are these wounds on your back?*' he will say, 'The wounds I received in the house of my friends.'

Which one is it: hands (KJV), arms (NASB), back (ESV)???


----------



## TimV (Dec 2, 2008)

> To criticise the AV because it contains archaisms, as if archaisms make it outdated, is to "bewray" a lack of linguistic sophistication.



The KJV doesn't contain archaisms, it is an archaism. The whole thing is archaic. Since I speak English, Dutch and fair German and an avid history reader I can read _Beowulf_ in the original if I have a dictionary next to me, so I can look up every third word. I'm educated and consider myself linguistically sophisticated, grew up in the church, but even I can't read the KJV with comfort (and not be telling a lie). 

You know, the criticisms of the KJV wouldn't have to be trotted out every few weeks if it weren't for the conspiracy theories out there that lead certain (but not all) KJV onlies to criticise other translations as not being some how as inspired as the KJV.

Such conspiracy theories as that there is a "Biblical English" or the Septuagint is a myth or dragons and unicorns existed, or average English speakers can understand the KJV, or Aramaic was a form of Hebrew or the like. 

It's the most natural thing in the world for people to get defensive if they are attacked. But if someone is truly convinced that the KJV is some how more inspired than other versions, that person has the obligation to attack the other versions out there. And while that happens, people get defensive, sarcastic, dismissive and even contemptuous, especially as those on the attack aren't supported by any Reformed denominations and get so much of their material from independent fundamentalist Baptist work which isn't known as particularly scholarly.

I've often wondered why KJV onlies in confessional Reformed churches don't start church legal action against using any other version from the pulpit besides the KJV. I'd like to see such a case tried. I've asked here before why those advocating a KJV only stance won't send a letter to their Session, but to my knowledge no one here's done that yet.


----------



## MW (Dec 2, 2008)

TimV said:


> I've often wondered why KJV onlies in confessional Reformed churches don't start church legal action against using any other version from the pulpit besides the KJV. I'd like to see such a case tried.



Aren't we permitted to have a calm discussion as to the virtues of translations without splitting the church?


----------



## SolaGratia (Dec 2, 2008)

There are KJV only folks and New Modern Translation only folks; i.e. ESV only, NASB only, NIV only.

They can read their ESV, NKJV, NASB, etc. but others cannot read their KJV/AV.


----------



## tellville (Dec 3, 2008)

Marrow Man said:


> Here's a possible solution, recommended to me by a fellow ARP pastor (Steve Woods), who is a KJV man. It's called the _Defined King James Bible_, and it might be what your looking for.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That has got to be one of the most awesome things I have seen for a long time. Looking at the sample sheets that is exactly what I was looking for. 

Do you have any more information on it?

-----Added 12/3/2008 at 04:31:59 EST-----



FenderPriest said:


> tellville said:
> 
> 
> > For those of you who started reading the King James Bible later in life, how did you overcome the language barrier? And are you confident that you have actually overcome the language barrier?
> ...



I know Greek and Hebrew. I can read the Bible in the original languages. But for general reading I like to read a good English version. I like the sound of the KJV, but to be honest, I've had a hard time with the English. I mean, I just don't trust myself that I am understanding what is being said correctly. And then I will read a modern translation and I will get an aha! moment (or look at the original languages). 

That defined KJV bible looks pretty cool. I'm definitely going to look into that.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 3, 2008)

Mark: With that glowing endorsement, I'm taking a look at one right now too on Amazon (in another window)


----------



## LawrenceU (Dec 3, 2008)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by LawrenceU
> 
> Communication is not about relevancy, it is about accuracy.
> ...



Come on man, that is a distraction. I'm not saying that communication is not about challenging the mind. If you 'know' me at all from this forum you know that is not the case. I come from a strong academic background. You must have completely missed what I was saying. Let me try again: Whatever you are trying to communicate must be understood. I doubt the following would really help, 'Male offspring of my loins who bears the nominative of my maternal grandfather, retract your digital sinestrol appendage before its contact with the radiant surface to your anterior side results in the transfer of intensified caloric energy to your dermal tissues.'

To understand that one's mind must be stretched. But in the moment, it is useless.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 3, 2008)

Lawrence,

You said, "Communication is not about relevancy, it is about accuracy." I have a different take on your statement.

The reason I prefer the King James Bible is because of its accuracy, that is, the accuracy of the Hebrew and Greek texts which underlie it. I know this is disputed, but it is a position capable of being defended. When Muslims or other detractors of the Christian faith attack the Bible – our faith's very foundation – I cannot defend versions derived from other Greek and Hebrew textforms.

I willingly sacrifice some clarity and ease of comprehension for accuracy and intactness. Some KJV defenders will not like when I say I would welcome a careful revision so as to make the text without archaisms and syntactically amenable to 21st century readers. That being said, I would want to keep the usage of Thou, Thee, Thine, ye, and such as that is not so much archaic as a means of precision, and also indicative of a mode of speaking as befits the creature addressing the Infinite and Almighty God, as opposed to the "buddy conversation" some modern versions tend toward. 

It would have to be as much a work of art and learning as the original AV in its capturing the cadences and majesty of speech in the Biblical Hebrew and Greek.

An interesting examination of the concept of "Biblical English" may be seen in the section, "THE NIV OR THE AV ENGLISH", in Jack Moorman's book, _MODERN BIBLES: the Dark Secret_.

I realize this topic may bring the worst out of people, so prejudiced, bigoted and bitter some have become due to bad experiences. It has been said, "...if someone is truly convinced that the KJV is some how more inspired than other versions, that person has the obligation to attack the other versions out there." Not so. I do not think of myself as "attacking" other versions when I point out flaws in them which give our non-christian adversaries ground to deny the Bible's reliability, and also give our Christian brothers and sisters doubt and confusion as to whether there even _is_ a sure and reliable Word of God today — something many text-critics today deny!

This is what modern text critics say about the NT text:

“In spite of the claims of Westcott and Hort and of van Soden, we do not know the original form of the gospels, and it is quite likely that we never shall” (Kirsopp Lake, _Family 13, The Ferrar Group_, Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1941, p. vii).

“…it is generally recognized that the original text of the Bible cannot be recovered” (R.M. Grant. “The Bible of Theophilus of Antioch,” _Journal of Biblical Literature_, vol. 66, 1947, p. 173).

“…the optimism of the earlier editors has given way to that skepticisim which inclines towards regarding ‘the original text’ as an unattainable mirage” (G. Zuntz, _The Text of the Epistles_, 1953, p. 9).

“…every textual critic knows that this similarity of text indicates, rather, that we have made little progress in textual theory since Westcott-Hort; that we simply do not know how to make a definitive determination as to what the best text is; that we do not have a clear picture of the transmission and alternation of the text in the first few centuries; and accordingly, that the Westcott-Hort kind of text has maintained its dominant position largely by default” (Eldon J. Epp, “The Twentieth Century Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism,” _Journal of Biblical Literature_, Vol. 43, 1974, pp. 390-391).

“…we no longer think of Westcott-Hort’s ‘Neutral’ text as neutral; we no longer think of their ‘Western’ text as Western or as uniting the textual elements they selected; and, of course, we no longer think so simplistically or so confidently about recovering ‘the New Testament in the Original Greek.’…We remain largely in the dark as to how we might reconstruct the textual history that has left in its wake—in the form of MSS and fragments—numerous pieces of a puzzle that we seem incapable of fitting together. Westcott-Hort, von Soden, and others had sweeping theories (which we have largely rejected) to undergird their critical texts, but we seem now to have no such theories and no plausible sketches of the early history of the text that are widely accepted. What progress, then have we made? Are we more advanced than our predecessors when, after showing their theories to be unacceptable, we offer no such theories at all to vindicate our accepted text?” (Eldon J. Epp, “A Continuing Interlude in NT Textual Criticism,” _Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism_, (Eerdman’s, 1993), pp. 114, 115).​
What the AV defenders hold forth is a Bible the Lord preserved for His people. We do not believe the pessimism of the critics with their naturalistic methodologies. The Bible is a supernatural Book, as is our Faith in its entirety. 

Thus to critically scrutinize another's view is not to attack it, if it be done respectfully and in the gracious Spirit of Christ. In friendly and scholarly discussions it _indeed_ may be natural (as in the ungodly and unregenerate) to become "sarcastic, dismissive and even contemptuous", but _we_ are to conduct ourselves as spiritual and not as natural men and women. No one can _make_ us manifest these negative traits; if they are in us they will out; we ourselves are responsible for our sinful attitudes. As James said, "This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish." (James 3:15)

And if we claim any group of believers are en mass unscholarly, it behooves us to demonstrate it with counter-scholarship, not mere allegations. I refer to the Independent Fundamentalist Baptists. I suppose among some Reformed they make a nice scapegoat, much like Christians might be in an assembly of homosexual activists! But their scholarship regarding the Biblical texts is on a par with the best (unless of course you disagree with them! then just trash them rather than interact with their research).

The Protestant Reformed Church, for one, is a denomination that uses the King James Bible.

To sum: I find that, despite my holding to the King James and its underlying Hebrew and Greek texts as the best, there are men (and women) who use the modern versions based on the Critical and the Eclectic texts who are godlier souls than I am, and who are more learned. My spiritual life has been profoundly deepened and enriched by these folks, and I rejoice to be in intimate fellowship with them and partake of the Spirit of our King in them. It thus behooves me to present my views with gentleness and respect, and the spirit of love which is the mark of citizenship in the everlasting Kingdom.


----------



## LawrenceU (Dec 3, 2008)

Steve,
I appreciate your post, and your attitude. I, too, appreciate the accuracy of the AV and I honour its history and usage. I realise as well that the degradation of pronouns and the conjugation of verbs in English has muddied communication in our language at times. Having said all that, I do believe that for some, perhaps many, the archaic language of the AV is a needles hurdle to their spiritual growth and education.

I know that I will not convince anyone with my posts, so . . . over and out.


----------



## Igor (Dec 6, 2008)

May I suggest an excellent resourse on the King James English: Bible English : chapters on old and disused expressions in the authorized version of the Scriptures and the Book of common prayer : with illustrations from contemporary literature. It can be either read on-line or downloaded in pdf-format.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 6, 2008)

I think there are textual reasons to go with the ESV too.


----------



## KMK (Dec 6, 2008)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> The reason I prefer the King James Bible is because of its *accuracy*, that is, the accuracy of the Hebrew and Greek texts which underlie it. I know this is disputed, but it is a position capable of being defended. When Muslims or other detractors of the Christian faith attack the Bible – our faith's very foundation – I cannot defend versions derived from other Greek and Hebrew textforms.
> 
> I willingly sacrifice some clarity and ease of comprehension for *accuracy* and intactness. Some KJV defenders will not like when I say I would welcome a careful revision so as to make the text without archaisms and *syntactically amenable to 21st century readers*. That being said, I would want to keep the usage of Thou, Thee, Thine, ye, and such as that is not so much archaic as a means of precision, and also indicative of a mode of speaking as befits the creature addressing the Infinite and Almighty God, as opposed to the "buddy conversation" some modern versions tend toward.



Is it possible to keep the accuracy while making a text 'syntactically amenable to 21st century readers'? The English of the 21st centurt is simply not as precise as Biblical English. Perhaps the text could be explained as it went along like the Amplified Bible?


----------



## JohnGill (Dec 6, 2008)

tellville said:


> For those of you who started reading the King James Bible later in life, how did you overcome the language barrier? And are you confident that you have actually overcome the language barrier?
> 
> For those who have grown up on the KJV, how did you teach others to use the KJV in such a way so that they actually understand what they are reading to the same level that someone would understand a modern translation?



Most of the difficulty for the later reader I've found is due to a lack of knowledge of English Grammar. Here's how I taught it to an adult class which had difficulty with it.

1st Person -- 2nd Person


I go -- We go
Thou goest -- You go
He/She/It goeth -- They go


Removing the thou/you distinction leads to confusion in the English translation. See Luke 22:31, 32. 

For a basic understanding of the parts of speech and verb forms I've found the following grammars to be the best: 

A Short Introduction to English ... - Google Book Search

The Principles of Grammar: Being a ... - Google Book Search

For the words that are difficult to understand, I've found the following process to be useful. 

1) Read the surrounding verses.
2) If that fails, then read the surrounding paragraphs or the entire chapter.
3) If that fails, then read the chapter before and after.
4) If that fails, then begin reading every occurrence in the OT & NT. What I generally do is read how it is used in the Pentateuch and the Gospels and if I haven't figured it out by then I move on to the other books. You don't have to look at every occurrence, but the more you do look at the better the definition.

I've yet to find a word that this doesn't work on. You can check yourself against the OED or Online Etymology Dictionary or older commentaries that use the word in that context.


----------



## Igor (Dec 6, 2008)

JohnGill said:


> Most of the difficulty for the later reader I've found is due to a lack of knowledge of English Grammar.


Though English is not my native language, I did not have problems with the Early English Grammar (of course, it took some time to study it, but something was easy to figure out just by intuition). The most difficult thing for me is its vocabulary, namely the words that either fell into disuse or (what is worse) changed their meaning.


----------



## JohnGill (Dec 6, 2008)

Igor said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> > Most of the difficulty for the later reader I've found is due to a lack of knowledge of English Grammar.
> ...



Is your first language a Latin derivative or one that uses a distinction between 2nd pers. sing & plur? That might be why it was easier for you. We don't learn no stinkin' latin in America!


----------



## Igor (Dec 7, 2008)

JohnGill said:


> Is your first language a Latin derivative or one that uses a distinction between 2nd pers. sing & plur? That might be why it was easier for you. We don't learn no stinkin' latin in America!


Well, my language does have a distinction between 2nd pers. sing & plur (otherwise it has nothing in common with English or any Germanic languages), but it is not a Latin derivative either. It has an Indo-European synthetic-inflexional structure.


----------



## py3ak (Dec 7, 2008)

There are people whose experience is that the AV gives them no real trouble. There are people whose experience is that it's maddeningly frustrating to understand. These divides seem to cut across lines of gender, education, intelligence, acquaintance with other languages, and I trust, convictions (in other words, I hope that it is not your (generally taken) views on issues of text and translation that lead you to the affirmation of what is easy to understand, nor that you would have come to a position on those important matters based on what was intellectually convenient for you).

Those who say it is difficult to understand can take a low road and say that those whose experience is other are simply reading so inattentively they don't realize how many things are incomprehensible. Those who say it is easy to understand can also take a low road and say those who have a hard time with it are simply thick. 

But it would probably be better if we could think of way to overcome that difficulty, if our convictions lead us to think it necessary, or of ways in which we could make that difficulty, and the needlessness of overcoming it, intelligible to those who don't share it.


----------

