# AV and the Case for a Single English Translation



## MW (Dec 29, 2006)

"Speak, Lord; for thy servant heareth."

I believe we do ourselves a disservice when we change Bible versions, because we do not come to a settled belief as to what the Word of God says. The Christian witness is also discredited by the impression that there is more than one Bible. God is not the author of confusion; and a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.

We should find the most accurate English version and cleave to it. In my humble opinion, the Authorised Version is the most accurate, and therefore I heartily recommend it as the Word of God in English. Others might disagree; but I would hope we could at least agree on the need to confess what the Word of God is, and where it is to be found. What a sorry state the church is in, if we cannot at least agree on this.

Yearly reading plans have their place for those who need them, but they can be a hindrance to the proper understanding of the Bible. It is much better to set aside a specific time period in the day, and to attempt to take in larger portions, whereby it becomes possible to derive a more accurate understanding of what specific books intend to teach.

Blessings!


----------



## Casey (Dec 29, 2006)

armourbearer said:


> What a sorry state the church is in, if we cannot at least agree on this.


The church is in a "sorry state" because it doesn't with one accord agree to use the KJV?  (Or, for that matter, any single translation?) As pertains to being confessional, one may have any opinion concerning the Hebrew/Greek MSS -- much less, then, what English translation is to be used. Anyway, the KJV might be considered _un_confessional, because its language is by no means the vulgar language of the day ("therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come," WCF 1.8).


----------



## MW (Dec 29, 2006)

StaunchPresbyterian said:


> The church is in a "sorry state" because it doesn't with one accord agree to use the KJV?  (Or, for that matter, any single translation?) As pertains to being confessional, one may have any opinion concerning the Hebrew/Greek MSS -- much less, then, what English translation is to be used. Anyway, the KJV might be considered _un_confessional, because its language is by no means the vulgar language of the day ("therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come," WCF 1.8).



WCF 1:8 says, "that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all..." The Word of God is singular, not plural. Methinks it a sad state of affairs if a "confessional Presbyterian" cannot tell me where THE Word of God is to be found in the vulgar language.


----------



## Casey (Dec 29, 2006)

armourbearer said:


> WCF 1:8 says, "that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all..." The Word of God is singular, not plural. Methinks it a sad state of affairs if a "confessional Presbyterian" cannot tell me where THE Word of God is to be found in the vulgar language.


Word of God is singular?  It seems obvious to me that God's Word contains words (plural). No where in the Confession of Faith does it say that each language is to have only one translation. If the singular of "Word" was so important, no translation at all would be valid. The fact is, no single translation can render completely all that the original languages convey (which is why ministers of the gospel must know the original languages). Should we be born _again_, or from _above_? Seems to me it's both! You still haven't commented on why you prefer a translation that isn't in what is today a vulgar language . . .


----------



## Casey (Dec 29, 2006)

Pastor Winzer, do you require members of your congregation to use the KJV?


----------



## bookslover (Dec 29, 2006)

StaunchPresbyterian said:


> Pastor Winzer, do you require members of your congregation to use the KJV?




Hey, guys! I wasn't trying to start any fist fights with this thread!


----------



## MW (Dec 29, 2006)

StaunchPresbyterian said:


> Word of God is singular?  It seems obvious to me that God's Word contains words (plural). No where in the Confession of Faith does it say that each language is to have only one translation. If the singular of "Word" was so important, no translation at all would be valid. The fact is, no single translation can render completely all that the original languages convey (which is why ministers of the gospel must know the original languages). Should we be born _again_, or from _above_? Seems to me it's both! You still haven't commented on why you prefer a translation that isn't in what is today a vulgar language . . .



I can only point you to the Larger Catechism, answer 157, "The holy scriptures are to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the very word of God." If one cannot approach their translation with this conviction, then their view of the English translation is obviously at odds with the confessional view.

Concerning the specific example of John 3, Nicodemus understood the literal import of our Lord's words well enough, when he spoke of a "second time." His misinterpretation lay in his inability to comprehend Jesus' words according to their heavenly meaning.

Be that example as it may, I don't doubt that there are valid occurrences of double-reference, and that there are times when different renderings help to give a fuller understanding of the original. Thus the AV translators provided marginal readings. This, however, is irrelevant. Modern versions differ from reformation versions and amongst themselves as to the sense of Scripture. It is the different "senses" of these different Bibles, which is the point of concern.

The problem with the modern conception is that the translation is not truly recognised as the Word of God. Traditional Presbyterians used to distinguish between the words and the sense of Scripture: the words in the original alone are inspired, but the inspiration is carried over into the sense as it is accurately conveyed in the translation. If this were truly believed, there would not be such haste to alter the Word of God.

Concerning the loaded question, as to why I prefer a translation that is not in the vulgar language of today -- you yourself have negated the validity of the question by using the word "vulgar;" for therein you have acknowledged that a word, which has altered its meaning over time, can still convey an accurate sense when it is understood in its linguistic context. There is no problem with the English of the AV; the problem is to be found in the lack of comprehension of the English language on the part of its non-readers.

No, I do not "require" members of my congregation to read a specific version. I "recommend" that they read the Word of God, which by definition is the most accurate translation of the immediately inspired and providentially preserved Hebrew and Greek -- the Authorised Version. However, if that is found to be too difficult, then I would rather they read a watered down version than no version at all. I am sure God will bless His people with salvation and edification despite the corruption of the means.


----------



## 3John2 (Dec 29, 2006)

Currently I'm in Genesis in the Ferrar Fenton "Holy Bible in Modern English" version. I will probably read it through in the NKJV as well this coming year. I would like to read it through at LEAST twice. 
I will continue to read through Psalms & Proverbs once a month. 
I plan on reading through the NT in January in the Phillipps translation. 
I'm planning on doing some heavy duty reading this coming year on my list are continued study with Grudems Systematic. Owens "Death of Death...", a batch of Piper, will finish Douglas "Mother Kirk" & Stoddards "Nature of True Conversion", & after that I'm open to other books. Life is good!!!!


----------



## satz (Dec 29, 2006)

I would agree with Pastor Wizner that having multiple translations is more unhelpful than helpful. While the 'general idea' might be the same in most parts, I think it is still true that with different words used and different grammar between the versions, there is _at least_ a small change in meaning, or possible meanings, if you are studying a difficult passage. I also think having many possible renderings of the same verse also does take away from the authority of that verse, and the trust christians can have in it.


----------



## 3John2 (Dec 29, 2006)

I use the KJV as my main bible but I use many. I think his thinking is SEVERELY flawed. But to each his own. Sometimes I might read a passage & one particular translation might just change my view of it because of how it's worded.


----------



## MW (Dec 30, 2006)

I knew a young man who was reared on the AV, and understood well the traditional teaching concerning heaven and hell. Upon turning to a modern version, he gained insights from the words Sheol and Hades that led him to deny fundamental truths of the Word of God. These insights were nothing other than the depths of Satan.

Friends, modern versions were not created in a vacuum. They reflect the theological trends of their creators. Children of the reformation should use the Scriptures of the reformation. Depart from the supreme standard, and it is little wonder if deviation from the subordinate standards follow.

I am not suggesting that other versions cannot ever be consulted. The subject of the thread pertains to Bible reading for the next year. I am speaking about the current practice of swapping and changing Bible versions as if we do not possess the very Word of God in English.

Blessings!


----------



## bookslover (Dec 30, 2006)

armourbearer said:


> Friends, modern versions were not created in a vacuum. They reflect the theological trends of their creators.



Well, the same is true of the AV, just like every other translation, into whatever language (not just English). The AV translators themselves said that the last thing they wanted to do was to create a brand new translation from scratch. About 85% of the New Testament is Tyndale's translation carried over more or less in its entirety - and Tyndale's pioneering translation was nearly a century old by 1611 (which explains, in part, why the AV is full of "thee" and "thou" when the use of those pronouns was dying out already in English usage in King James's day). 

I think that most of those scholarly and godly translators would be shocked by the attitude of some modern folks who, shall we say, revere the AV a little too earnestly.

The AV was a fine translation for its day, but it's day was nearly 400 years ago. I once heard, on tape, a sermon by Martyn Lloyd-Jones, who was a solid AV man who took a backseat to no one in his love for it. (In another sermon, from the 1950s, I heard him castigate the RSV mightily from the pulpit.) However, I heard him having to correct the AV's language no fewer than 4 times during the course of this one sermon.

I'm not trying to stop anyone from reading the AV, but let's admit that there are legitimate modern translations which do the job just as well as the AV did in its day (and I'm NOT talking about the NIV, the "Message", or some of these other more creative "translations").


----------



## MW (Dec 30, 2006)

First, the AV was made by men who upheld the 39 articles. They acknowledged versions that were made by "men of their own profession" as the Word of God. Please show me the modern version to be made by men who upheld the reformation standard.

Secondly, the fact that so much of the earlier versions is in the AV should demonstrates how much continuity existed between the reformation versions. The fact that so little of the AV is to be found in the modern versions is clear evidence of a departure.

Thirdly, the AV is full of "thee" and "thou," not because it carried over archaisms in an attempt to maintain mere continuity, but out of a concern for faithfulness to the original which differentiates singular and plural second person pronouns. The fact that more recent versions do not carry this differentiation demonstrates the lack of concern for faithful rendering of the original, and too much concern for readability over reliability.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 30, 2006)

Discussion split off to Translations and Manuscripts.

Rev Winzer - If you prefer a more apt title please PM me and I will gladly oblidge. It's a worthy discussion. I'm not convinced by your argument but you make a good case for there being a single English translation.

One question: It seems that you are denying any ability for the AV to ever be updated or corrected as there is no authorized body left to speak for English speaking Reformed people. What we have is what we have at this point. What about spelling then? Many words are now spelled differently than they were in 1611. Who is "authorized" to update the spelling or do we stick with the way words were spelled in 1611 as well as no body speaks with authority to update the spelling?


----------



## MW (Dec 30, 2006)

SemperFideles said:


> Discussion split off to Translations and Manuscripts.
> 
> Rev Winzer - If you prefer a more apt title please PM me and I will gladly oblidge. It's a worthy discussion. I'm not convinced by your argument but you make a good case for there being a single English translation.
> 
> One question: It seems that you are denying any ability for the AV to ever be updated or corrected as there is no authorized body left to speak for English speaking Reformed people. What we have is what we have at this point. What about spelling then? Many words are now spelled differently than they were in 1611. Who is "authorized" to update the spelling or do we stick with the way words were spelled in 1611 as well as no body speaks with authority to update the spelling?



Rich, my comments were made in the context of a yearly reading plan, and the idea of choosing a new version to carry out the plan. My position only relates to modern versions, not to other reformation versions. I have no difficulty with more than one rendering; the difficulty comes when translations deviate from the reformation understanding.

Those who have not studied the history of translations probably are not aware of this, but the Reformers and Puritans had good cause to reject certain works which called themselves the Word of God. In the reformed period, Castellio; and in the Puritan period, the Rheims. Perhaps more astonishing is the fact that these rejected translations have borne an influence on modern versions which "reformed" people so readily accept. One example which readily comes to mind is to be found in John Knox's work on Predestination, where he rejects the Anabaptist's Pelagian rendering of Gen. 4:7; that rendering is now to be found in EVERY modern version.

I believe there should be one official Bible in the reformed church. The fact is, that the AV held that place amongst English speaking people for centuries, while no modern version has reached the same status. Without an official Bible, the church effectively says, we do not know where the Word of God is to be found in the English language.

I concede that there are renderings in the AV which can be improved, and I can envisage a day when the English speaking churches will recover their visible unity and the task of faithful "revision" can commence again. Until that time, we should bear with the occasional "archaism" in the AV. If the NT could borrow words from the dated vocabulary of the Greek version of the OT, then I see nothing wrong with bearing with a few antiquated expressions for the sake of adhering to the most faithful rendering of the inspired Scriptures.

Blessings!


----------



## jaybird0827 (Dec 30, 2006)

armourbearer said:


> Rich, my comments were made in the context of a yearly reading plan, and the idea of choosing a new version to carry out the plan. My position only relates to modern versions, not to other reformation versions. I have no difficulty with more than one rendering; the difficulty comes when translations deviate from the reformation understanding.
> 
> Those who have not studied the history of translations probably are not aware of this, but the Reformers and Puritans had good cause to reject certain works which called themselves the Word of God. In the reformed period, Castellio; and in the Puritan period, the Rheims. Perhaps more astonishing is the fact that these rejected translations have borne an influence on modern versions which "reformed" people so readily accept. One example which readily comes to mind is to be found in John Knox's work on Predestination, where he rejects the Anabaptist's Pelagian rendering of Gen. 4:7; that rendering is now to be found in EVERY modern version.
> 
> ...


----------



## AV1611 (Dec 30, 2006)

armourbearer said:


> In my humble opinion, the Authorised Version is the most accurate, and therefore I heartily recommend it as the Word of God in English.


----------



## Ambrose (Dec 30, 2006)

In Martin Luther's Small Catechism, he made some similar comments in the Preface. With regards to textual variants and the importance of consistency and uniformity, Luther wrote:



> First, the pastor should most carefully avoid teaching the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, the sacraments, etc., according to various texts and differing forms. Let him adopt one version, stay with it, and from one year to the next keep using it unchanged. Young and inexperienced persons must be taught a single fixed form or they will easily become confused, and the result will be that all previous effort and labor will be lost. There should be no change, even though one may wish to improve the text.
> 
> The honored fathers understood this well, and therefore they all consistently used one form of the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, and the Ten Commandments. We should do as they did by teaching these materials to the young and the common man without altering a single syllable and by never varying their wording when presenting or quoting them year after year.


----------



## satz (Dec 30, 2006)

I guess few may agree with me, but I think that having multiple translations, as well as a constant focus on the originals is ultimately unhelpful. The various English translations do differ from one another, and I feel it is impossible to hold up the word of God as being an absolute standard when there exist multiple different renderings of that standard, even if the differences are slight ( and they are not always so). 

Regarding the originals, I believe that to a point we just have to believe on faith that God has preserved his word by providentially guiding translators etc etc. I am tending toward believing that everything necessary for a Christian to know can be known by studying the translations. We might have to do a little more work than those Christians who had access to the originals, but I believe the idea that it is impossible to know what God says without knowledge of langugues that have not been spoken for thousands of years is not helpful for the faith of a Christian. When a pastor tells his sheep ‘this is a better rendering…’ or that the translators have made a mistake in their bibles, it is essentially undermining the certainly those Christians have in the word of God they hold in their hands. If one verse is wrongly or badly translated, how would they know if there are other verses that the pastor has missed? Or simply has not preached on yet? How then are they to use the bible to make practical decisions in their lives when they can’t even be 100% sure that what they are holding in their hands is what God really said? 

And the thing is, even if the pastor is right, the laymen are essentially trusting him, and not the word of God. They have no way to checking if their pastors’ study of the original langugues is correct or not. The Bereans were called noble for checking to make sure what the Apostle Paul said was in concord with the scriptures, but today when the man in the pulpit is told the scriptures he has are not quite accurate, how is he possibly to authenticate that claim? (And if it was necessary to check on the Apostle Paul, I hope no pastor or teacher today would take offence at the suggestion that they should be treated likewise).

Although this may sound suspiciously like some of the more extreme forms of KJ-onlyism, I do believe a version in the common langugue of the day which can be trusted absolutely as the word of God is important, if not essential for the Christian churches. 

If I have erred anywhere, I would appreciate correction.


----------



## toddpedlar (Dec 30, 2006)

armourbearer said:


> I believe there should be one official Bible in the reformed church. The fact is, that the AV held that place amongst English speaking people for centuries, while no modern version has reached the same status.


Let's not forget how the AV became that "official" Bible, okay? The Geneva held that status for a large part of a century before the "authorizers" stamped it out, and replaced it with the AV. This isn't to put the Geneva on a pedestal, and to denegrate the AV, but let's at least let history speak correctly. 



> Until that time, we should bear with the occasional "archaism" in the AV. If the NT could borrow words from the dated vocabulary of the Greek version of the OT, then I see nothing wrong with bearing with a few antiquated expressions for the sake of adhering to the most faithful rendering of the inspired Scriptures.



Well, you've not demonstrated that the AV is that most faithful rendering, as opposed to the Geneva, for instance. They have the same textual basis, and one was translated exclusively by (correct me if I'm wrong) truly Reformed men, while the other translation committee had far more variety. I think both are valuable, by the way, and largely they agree - though if pressed I'd have to take the Geneva over the AV by virtue of the comparison of their respective origins. (No, I don't have a list of preferred renderings of Geneva vs. AV, so don't ask )


----------



## Casey (Dec 30, 2006)

SemperFideles said:


> Discussion split off to Translations and Manuscripts.


Whoa . . okay. And here I found that I had posted in a thread I didn't know existed!


----------



## JOwen (Dec 30, 2006)

StaunchPresbyterian said:


> Word of God is singular?  It seems obvious to me that God's Word contains words (plural). No where in the Confession of Faith does it say that each language is to have only one translation. If the singular of "Word" was so important, no translation at all would be valid. The fact is, no single translation can render completely all that the original languages convey (which is why ministers of the gospel must know the original languages). Should we be born _again_, or from _above_? Seems to me it's both! You still haven't commented on why you prefer a translation that isn't in what is today a vulgar language . . .



Let me jump in here and say a word or two on "vulgar language". My brother is importing an idea into this phrase that was not intended by the Westminster Divines. The term "vulgar language", as the late Dr. Letis (Ivy League Textual Scholar) so aptly pointed out in 1999, means "German, not Latin, French, not Latin, English, not Latin". This is the proper rendering of the term. To take the phrase as StaunchPresbyterian would have it, would demand new translations _as quickly as language changes_, because language is organic not static. It is this line of thinking that inspired the _Message_ and many other _vulgar_ translations. 

The AV _is_ in the vulgar language of the people.


----------



## bookslover (Dec 30, 2006)

Chad Degenhart said:


> In Martin Luther's Small Catechism, he made some similar comments in the Preface. With regards to textual variants and the importance of consistency and uniformity, Luther wrote:



An interesting comment, especially in light of the fact tha Luther was _not_ speaking about the AV!


----------



## Casey (Dec 30, 2006)

JOwen said:


> The AV _is_ in the vulgar language of the people.


Friend, I do understand what you're saying. But check out what the word "vulgar" means in a dictionary: it means, simply speaking, the language that people speak. No one today speaks in the language of the KJV, which is why, by and large, more people are confused than edified by it. It's one thing to have a personal preference for a translation, even to hope that the church at large would adopt a single translation . . but if that translation is to be the KJV, I'd object simply on the grounds that the language contained therein is no longer spoken by those living in our culture. The spelling of many words contained in the KJV has been updated, same as the very characters used to form those words, but many of the meanings of the words used have also changed. It's true, God's Word doesn't change, but our language does.


----------



## JOwen (Dec 30, 2006)

StaunchPresbyterian said:


> Friend, I do understand what you're saying. But check out what the word "vulgar" means in a dictionary: it means, simply speaking, the language that people speak. No one today speaks in the language of the KJV, which is why, by and large, more people are confused than edified by it. It's one thing to have a personal preference for a translation, even to hope that the church at large would adopt a single translation . . but if that translation is to be the KJV, I'd object simply on the grounds that the language contained therein is no longer spoken by those living in our culture. The spelling of many words contained in the KJV has been updated, same as the very characters used to form those words, but many of the meanings of the words used have also changed. It's true, God's Word doesn't change, but our language does.



First, the word "vulgar" today has taken on the barnacles of time and does not mean the exact same thin now as it once did (this is what I mean by organic). If I go downtown Vancouver and ask a street person "what is thy name?", he is going to look at me funny, but he will know exactly what I am saying. The AV (my preferred version) has _some_ archaic words in it, but the truth of the matter is it reads at about a grade 5 reading level (so says the Flesch-Kincaid Readability Test). The AV actually scores below the NASB and NIV. Despite the style and _some_ interesting words, the AV is still in the vulgar language of the people. 

Blessings!


----------



## bookslover (Dec 30, 2006)

satz said:


> I believe that to a point we just have to believe on faith that God has preserved his word by providentially guiding translators etc etc. I am tending toward believing that everything necessary for a Christian to know can be known by studying the translations.



This is right; and God did not stop guiding faithful and godly translators after the production of the AV. Wisdom did not end with the translators of the AV! The NASB and the ESV are two examples of good, faithful translations produced during the last half-century.

I suppose it would be nice if there were a Reformed Board of Directors, or some such, to hand down a decree as to what translation we will all use (and they would have to hand down decrees for those who speak Spanish, German, French, Italian, Finnish, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, etc., etc., etc., if they do their job properly) but that just ain't gonna happen - not in our lifetimes, anyway!

As long as earnest and godly men produce translations from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek that accurately reflect what the biblical authors wrote to us in those languages, we can be sure that we do, in fact, have the very Word of God written. Most of the men and women sitting in our churches do not know the original languages, and will never know them. But they can know that the Bible they hold open in the laps is, in fact, the Word of God.

I can just imagine how intense this conversation will be in 2011! Oy.


----------



## bookslover (Dec 30, 2006)

armourbearer said:


> First, the AV was made by men who upheld the 39 articles.



So, are you implying that the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England is to be the standard by which men are judged qualified to make English translations of the Bible? Isn't that somewhat arbitrary? Why the Thirty-Nine Articles? Why not some other document? 

Or, better yet, why is a mere man-made document being set up as a standard that translators of God's Word are to meet? Isn't that to have things backwards, if, indeed, this is what you are implying?


----------



## JOwen (Dec 30, 2006)

bookslover said:


> So, are you implying that the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England is to be the standard by which men are judged qualified to make English translations of the Bible? Isn't that somewhat arbitrary? Why the Thirty-Nine Articles? Why not some other document?
> 
> Or, better yet, why is a mere man-made document being set up as a standard that translators of God's Word are to meet? Isn't that to have things backwards, if, indeed, this is what you are implying?



Rev. Winzer is pointing out the doctrinal unity of the AV translators over against the_ eclectic _denominational and theological backgrounds of the modern translators. Presuppositions will impact translations. That is my brother's point.

I think


----------



## bookslover (Dec 30, 2006)

JOwen said:


> Rev. Winzer is pointing out the doctrinal unity of the AV translators over against the_ eclectic _denominational and theological backgrounds of the modern translators. Presuppositions will impact translations. That is my brother's point.
> 
> I think



Even granting him that point, though, wouldn't it be theologically healthier, for a translation committee, for there to be representatives from the whole spectrum of Reformed thought - Dutch, English, Scottish, American, English - than just having a committee representing only one strand?


----------



## JOwen (Dec 30, 2006)

bookslover said:


> Even granting him that point, though, wouldn't it be theologically healthier, for a translation committee, for there to be representatives from the whole spectrum of Reformed thought - Dutch, English, Scottish, American, English - than just having a committee representing only one strand?



Sure. So long as there is a unified theological foundation, and a rendering from the Received Text, the best of every national persuasion should be selected. This is sadly not the case with most if not all modern translation committees. I'd be open to a updated revision of the AV if we had the right men involved. My own denomination has toyed with a soft revised AV soliciting the help of men like Dr. Beeke, Dr. G. Bilkes (both of PRTS), Silversides, Iain Murray, Hanko, Letis, and a wack of other men, but nothing has come of it since the 2004 Synod.

Blessings!


----------



## bookslover (Dec 30, 2006)

JOwen said:


> Sure. So long as there is a unified theological foundation, and a rendering from the Received Text, the best of every national persuasion should be selected. This is sadly not the case with most if not all modern translation committees. I'd be open to a updated revision of the AV if we had the right men involved. My own denomination has toyed with a soft revised AV soliciting the help of men like Dr. Beeke, Dr. G. Bilkes (both of PRTS), Silversides, Iain Murray, Hanko, Letis, and a wack of other men, but nothing has come of it since the 2004 Synod.
> 
> Blessings!



You _do_ realize that the term "received text" was merely a publisher's blurb, in effect, and was not meant to be taken literally.

That's a great name, by the way - Silversides. I wish I had a cool name like that!


----------



## JOwen (Dec 30, 2006)

bookslover said:


> You _do_ realize that the term "received text" was merely a publisher's blurb, in effect, and was not meant to be taken literally.
> 
> That's a great name, by the way - Silversides. I wish I had a cool name like that!



Received Text is the english name for the Textus Receptus which is a family of the Byzantine text-type as opposed to the Alexandrian text-type. I'm not sure why you think it is a can of worms to state the family type that the Church has drawn from for 2000 years?

Byzantine type = good.
Alexandrian text-type= bad.

Blessings!


----------



## bookslover (Dec 30, 2006)

JOwen said:


> I'm not sure why you think it is a can of worms to state the family type that the Church has drawn from for 2000 years?



I only used it because textual criticism is such a convoluted and (at times) controversial subject.

I wonder if it would be possible to start all over again from scratch, now that we have terrifically high-speed computers and all: take every one of the 25,000 or so manuscripts and parts of manuscripts, feed every one of those readings into the computer, and see if the computer would come up with the same manuscript piles (families) that men have come up with by hand over the last 400 years. I wonder if the computer would arrange the manuscript piles differently. Bottom line would be, of course: put all the manuscripts and pieces of manuscripts together that have the same (or at least the most consistently the same) text.


----------



## beej6 (Dec 30, 2006)

A side issue, but no less important, is that the church has largely abandoned her supervision of the production of these translations to "committees." 

I'm in the minority here, I suppose, in that since the English cannot by definition capture the multiple meanings of the Greek, that multiple English translations should be consulted by the educated layman and pastor. We have this luxury and should use it wisely.


----------



## bookslover (Dec 30, 2006)

beej6 said:


> A side issue, but no less important, is that the church has largely abandoned her supervision of the production of these translations to "committees."
> 
> I'm in the minority here, I suppose, in that since the English cannot by definition capture the multiple meanings of the Greek, that multiple English translations should be consulted by the educated layman and pastor. We have this luxury and should use it wisely.



As to your first paragraph: well, that's because, in the protestant world, no one ecclesiastical body is "in charge", as it were. Which is probably a good thing...

As to your second paragraph: I agree. I think the proliferation of legitimate translations (not paraphrases or other things) is a great blessing. No one translation can dominate, and thoughtful Christians can compare and contrast.


----------



## MW (Dec 31, 2006)

Dear friends,

When we approach holy Scripture we must make a choice -- we either stand to be judged by the Word of God, or we sit in judgment upon it? When a person takes up different versions of Scripture which contradict each other, the reader is obliged to discriminate between the two. Discrimination is an act of judgment. When two contradictory versions of Scripture are permitted, the reader is ipso facto required to sit in judgment on holy Scripture, and thereby excuses himself from the authority of the Word of God.

The Bible calls upon believers to "hear the Word of the Lord" -- to hear, not to raise critical questions. Accordingly, the early church prefaced the public reading of holy Scripture with the summons to hear the Word of the Lord. Likewise, reformed piety taught that "the holy scriptures are to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the very word of God" (Westminster Larger Catechism, answer 157). It is contrary to reformed piety to allow two different translations which contradict each other, and to esteem them both as the Word of God.

Concerning the question as to the priority of translation or confession -- if we follow the path of the enlightenment, which lives in the dreamy world of uncorrupted human reason, follows the myth of neutrality, and insists upon the right of private judgment, then translation naturally comes first. On the other hand, if we follow the path of Christian discipleship, which acknowledges the noetic effects of the fall, the absolute necessity of spiritual illumination, and the constant requirement to engage in self-denial, then confession must be placed in the forefront. We must begin with the divine revelation that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. This is the rock upon which the Lord Jesus Christ builds His church and preserves it from the gates of hell. Those who confess Christ Jesus the Lord are the true successors of St. Peter, speaking by the Holy Spirit. Conversely, those who do not begin with this confession, undertake the work of translation with a veil over the eyes of their understandings. They might understand well enough the literal sense of the letters and syllables, but they will constantly corrupt the spiritual message, because they will not see the heavenly reality to which the earthly language points. The Gospel of John provides numerous examples of this earthly-minded folly.

In relation to the Geneva Bible, we should bear in mind that it was the Puritan party at the Hampton Court Conference which called for a new translation to take in the best aspects of the Geneva and Bishops Bibles; and the result was a significant improvement. The idea that the Puritans rejected the King James Version in favour of the Geneva Bible is not attested by the facts. Certainly the Geneva Bible contained those valuable book and chapter digests and textual annotations which made it appealing; but the fact remains that Puritan works predominantly quote from the Authorised Version at least from the 1640s, when the Puritan revolution was in the ascendancy. Besides, those who criticise the AV for its antiquated words will not find the situation alleviated by the GB.

My first post for 2007. Blessings to all for the year ahead!


----------



## bookslover (Dec 31, 2006)

armourbearer said:


> The idea that the Puritans rejected the King James Version in favour of the Geneva Bible is not attested by the facts.



I don't think anyone has said that the Puritans "rejected" the AV. However, it is true that the Pilgrims, in 1620 (9 years after the AV was published) took the Geneva Bible with them to North America, not the AV. And it is true that it took about half a century for the AV to catch on. I think it's hardly fair to say that those English Christians who pondered the differences in translations between the Geneva Bible and AV, and had to choose between them, were guilty of holding an Enlightenment attitude toward the Word of God. (I know you haven't said this; I'm just giving an example.)

Someone who's trying to choose the better of two or more translations of the Word of God is hardly shaking his fist at heaven. And, I dare say, someone who rejects the AV in favor of a different legitimate translation is hardly shaking his fist at heaven, either.


----------



## MW (Dec 31, 2006)

The differences in translation betwen the Geneva and Authorised are really only formal. My comment refers to versions which contradict each other, where there is a material difference in the meaning.

As for this supposed half a century before the AV caught on, it is refuted by the simple exercise of reading the Puritans and noting their Scripture quotations.


----------



## bookslover (Dec 31, 2006)

armourbearer said:


> The differences in translation betwen the Geneva and Authorised are really only formal. My comment refers to versions which contradict each other, where there is a material difference in the meaning.
> 
> As for this supposed half a century before the AV caught on, it is refuted by the simple exercise of reading the Puritans and noting their Scripture quotations.




But, if there is a material difference in meaning, isn't it the responsible thing to do to inquire as to which translation comes closest (even if only in nuance) to the actual meaning of the Hebrew or Greek text? How is that being rebellious against God? Would it be honoring to God if one chose the AV over something else even if the AV, in a particular case, was wrong? 

I think you're treading awfully close to the "the AV fell direct from heaven" view of the extremists but, from your posts on this topic, I know you're smarter than that.

As for my half-century comment, most of the vast body of Puritan writings began to be produced, generally speaking, from the 1640s on, 1641 being 30 years after the AV was published. (30 years as over against 50 - close enough for government work!)


----------



## Bandguy (Dec 31, 2006)

armourbearer said:


> We should find the most accurate English version and cleave to it.



Just as a matter of clarification, is this version only to be authoritative for English speaking people, or do you believe that everyone in the world should be forced to learn English in order to be able to read the Gospel?


----------



## providenceboard (Dec 31, 2006)

armourbearer said:


> Dear friends,
> 
> When we approach holy Scripture we must make a choice -- we either stand to be judged by the Word of God, or we sit in judgment upon it? When a person takes up different versions of Scripture which contradict each other, the reader is obliged to discriminate between the two. Discrimination is an act of judgment. When two contradictory versions of Scripture are permitted, the reader is ipso facto required to sit in judgment on holy Scripture, and thereby excuses himself from the authority of the Word of God.
> 
> ...



 Very well put. 

I am replying to your 2007 post in 2006.


----------



## MW (Jan 1, 2007)

Do you mean "formal" difference?" If it is only formal, and the meaning is not affected, the reader will not minunderstand the "sense" of God's word. They can read it as the very Word of God. Note the distinction I pointed to in an earlier post between the immediate inspiration of the words pertaining to the original, and the mediate inspiration of the sense when the original is accurately rendered. The issue of a more formally accurate translation is irrelevant to my contention.

Regarding "the AV fell direct from heaven," so far as the posture of the worshipper is concerned, in accord with the reformed view of faithful translations, yes, it is to be read as the very word of God, that is, as if it fell direct from heaven. Calvin makes the same point in the Institutes. It is the failure of modern folk to grasp this point, and also their negligent attitude towards approaching the holy, that leads them to be so careless and carefree in this matter, which is nothing more than a taking of God's name (word) in vain.

Referring to your half century comment, it may be that you have only read Puritan literature from the 1640s. In this you are probably disadvantaged by the preferences of modern publishers. That is why historians should not depend on reprints but examine the literature in its original printings.


----------



## MW (Jan 1, 2007)

Bandguy said:


> Just as a matter of clarification, is this version only to be authoritative for English speaking people, or do you believe that everyone in the world should be forced to learn English in order to be able to read the Gospel?



One should read the word of God in their own native language if providence makes it possible.


----------



## MW (Jan 1, 2007)

providenceboard said:


> I am replying to your 2007 post in 2006.


----------



## Bandguy (Jan 1, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> One should read the word of God in their own native language if providence makes it possible.



So, the KJV 1611 is only authoritative for English speaking folks? How about non-English speaking folks?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 1, 2007)

providenceboard said:


> Very well put.
> 
> I am replying to your 2007 post in 2006.



Don't worry Rev. Winzer, there are a few of us that were in 2007 already. I just returned from the States on Friday and was quite exhausted by 8 pm last night. I heard a bunch of fireworks and yelling in the middle of the night and had to remind myself that the New Year had come.

I'm glad you're back from your business. It's quite lonely sometimes in the middle of the day here.


----------



## MW (Jan 1, 2007)

Bandguy said:


> So, the KJV 1611 is only authoritative for English speaking folks? How about non-English speaking folks?



The AV equivalent in their native language. Most of the romance languages have one dating from reformation times, and some other languages have been so blessed through the efforts of the Trinitarian Bible Society.


----------



## MW (Jan 1, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Don't worry Rev. Winzer, there are a few of us that were in 2007 already. I just returned from the States on Friday and was quite exhausted by 8 pm last night. I heard a bunch of fireworks and yelling in the middle of the night and had to remind myself that the New Year had come.
> 
> I'm glad you're back from your business. It's quite lonely sometimes in the middle of the day here.



Rich, welcome back to the time zone.


----------



## MW (Jan 1, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> What is "The AV Equivalent" in one's own native language? *?*
> 
> Many of the Bibles of the world are less than 50 years old and suffer from various deficiencies. Others are old and yet too wooden and unable to be understood because the language has changed so much.
> 
> The Romance languages are but a small drop in the bucket.



Perhaps if westerners were not so spoiled, needing to have their fancies tickled with something new every few years, more effort and expenditure could go in the direction of spiritually undeveloped countries, and they also could be blessed with the faithful translation of the Scriptures. It seems to be a case of those having much using too much on themselves so that those who have little do not have enough.

"AV equivalent" is the faithful rendering of the whole Word of God in their language.


----------



## bookslover (Jan 1, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> The NIV had a committee, the ESV was largely the work of 2 men was it not?



Actually, I believe that about 100 men worked on the ESV at one stage or another. There were several committees, if I remember rightly, working together in a hierarchical structure.


----------



## bookslover (Jan 1, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Perhaps if westerners were not so spoiled, needing to have their fancies tickled with something new every few years, more effort and expenditure could go in the direction of spiritually undeveloped countries, and they also could be blessed with the faithful translation of the Scriptures. It seems to be a case of those having much using too much on themselves so that those who have little do not have enough.



Here are two translations of the same verse, picked at random:

_The young lions roar after their prey and seek their meat from God._ (Psalm 104:21; KJV)

_The young lions roar for their prey, seeking their food from God._ (Psalm 104:21; ESV)

These two verses say the same thing. Why should I choose the AV over the ESV?

Also: if you go into a bookstore and by a King James Version, you're not getting the "real" 1611 AV, you're getting the 1769 revision. So, isn't your whole argument sort of pointless to begin with?


----------



## MW (Jan 1, 2007)

bookslover said:


> These two verses say the same thing. Why should I choose the AV over the ESV?



Because the ESV does not follow the AV in multitudes of other places. Start with Gen. 4:17 and Heb. 2:16. This is to say nothing of the fact that the ESV does not follow the AV in distinguishing singular and plural second person pronouns, so that the English reader is at a complete loss as to the real meaning of the text in literally thousands of places. Then what shall we say about the ESV departing from the reformed canon of Scripture by leaving various texts?



bookslover said:


> Also: if you go into a bookstore and by a King James Version, you're not getting the "real" 1611 AV, you're getting the 1769 revision. So, isn't your whole argument sort of pointless to begin with?



Those who edit 17th century books for publication often correct printer's mistakes and standardise the English, and yet they still sell the book as the work of the original author.


----------



## bookslover (Jan 1, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Because the ESV does not follow the AV in multitudes of other places. Start with Gen. 4:17 and Heb. 2:16. This is to say nothing of the fact that the ESV does not follow the AV in distinguishing singular and plural second person pronouns, so that the English reader is at a complete loss as to the real meaning of the text in literally thousands of places. Then what shall we say about the ESV departing from the reformed canon of Scripture by leaving various texts?
> 
> 
> 
> Those who edit 17th century books for publication often correct printer's mistakes and standardise the English, and yet they still sell the book as the work of the original author.



Matthew, you are one tough cookie!


----------



## MW (Jan 1, 2007)

bookslover said:


> Matthew, you are one tough cookie!



Just keeping the critics honest.


----------



## bookslover (Jan 1, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Just keeping the critics honest.



Just for my own curiosity, let's start at square one. Why do you believe that the AV is the best English translation, ancient or modern? Please keep your answer to 750,000 words or less.


----------



## MW (Jan 1, 2007)

Best Hebrew and Greek sources; conservative translation philosophy; most accurate from a reformed perspective; utilises an elegant and dignified form of English in accord with the "majesty of the style" of Scripture; exercises wisdom in its use of transliteration; indicates when the sense has been made clearer by the addition of italicised words; and easily understood when read in accord with the purpose for which the Scriptures were given.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Jan 1, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> In my humble opinion, the Authorised Version is the most accurate, and therefore I heartily recommend it as the Word of God in English.



I would not be opposed to one version, but I disagree with the last part of this statement. English today is not the same as English in the days of King James.


----------



## MW (Jan 1, 2007)

The fact is that the English of the AV is not the "spoken" English of any era, not even of King James' day. The Bible is "written" composition. So far as written composition is concerned, the Authorised Version is pure English. Any book on the history of English will teach as much.


----------



## bookslover (Jan 1, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Best Hebrew and Greek sources; conservative translation philosophy; most accurate from a reformed perspective; utilises an elegant and dignified form of English in accord with the "majesty of the style" of Scripture; exercises wisdom in its use of transliteration; indicates when the sense has been made clearer by the addition of italicised words; and easily understood when read in accord with the purpose for which the Scriptures were given.



"best Hebrew and Greek sources" - that's been debated, a lot.

"conservative translation philosophy" - OK.

"most accurate from a reformed perspective" - was that a conscious goal for the translators?

"utilizes an elegant and dignified form of English in accord with the 'majesty of the style' of Scripture" - yeah, for 400 years ago.

"exercises wisdom in its use of transliteration" - OK, but modern translations do the same thing.

"indicates when the sense has been made clearer by the addition of italicized words" - OK, but ditto immediately above.

"easily understood when read in accord with the purpose for which the Scriptures were given" - yeah, for 400 years ago.


----------



## MW (Jan 1, 2007)

bookslover said:


> "best Hebrew and Greek sources" - that's been debated, a lot.



If some man hits his golf ball out of bounds, he does not have the liberty to redefine the golf course in order to call his ball in bounds. Either we are reformed or we are not. The fact is, the AV represents the canon of Scripture accepted by the historic reformed church.



bookslover said:


> "most accurate from a reformed perspective" - was that a conscious goal for the translators?



As noted earlier, they accepted translations which were made "by men of our profession."



bookslover said:


> "utilizes an elegant and dignified form of English in accord with the 'majesty of the style' of Scripture" - yeah, for 400 years ago.



Language naturally simplifies over time. Holy Scripture does not.



bookslover said:


> "exercises wisdom in its use of transliteration" - OK, but modern translations do the same thing.



Perhaps some do. The trend is to transliterate words which carry important theological concepts like Sheol and Hades. They also transliterate weights, measures, and geographical descriptions where the reader is left without a clue as to the type of thing being referenced. Meanwhile they translate other words, especially pertaining to music, where scholarship can only speculate the intended reference. Overall, modern translations are poor on this point.



bookslover said:


> "indicates when the sense has been made clearer by the addition of italicized words" - OK, but ditto immediately above.



Again, perhaps some do. But the trend overall is to include more additions, and rather than simply make up the sense of the original, to give an interpretative bias to it.



bookslover said:


> "easily understood when read in accord with the purpose for which the Scriptures were given" - yeah, for 400 years ago.



Holy Scripture does not alter its message.


----------



## bookslover (Jan 1, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> If some man hits his golf ball out of bounds, he does not have the liberty to redefine the golf course in order to call his ball in bounds. Either we are reformed or we are not. The fact is, the AV represents the canon of Scripture accepted by the historic reformed church.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'll tell you what. Can you recommend to me a book (available here in the States) which gives a sober, thorough (emphasis on both) presentation of the case for the AV, in all its particulars? Not written by one of the KJV-only extremists, but a well-written, intelligent, and cogent laying out of all the evidence?

I promise that I will get it, read it, and let you know what I think.

Deal?


----------



## Casey (Jan 1, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Holy Scripture does not alter its message.


This is right. The Scriptures do not change. That's not what we're talking about, though, are we? Language changes, right?


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Jan 1, 2007)

StaunchPresbyterian said:


> This is right. The Scriptures do not change. That's not what we're talking about, though, are we? Language changes, right?




 

This is not an issue of autographs changing, but the vulgar tongue of the people.


----------



## MW (Jan 2, 2007)

StaunchPresbyterian said:


> This is right. The Scriptures do not change. That's not what we're talking about, though, are we? Language changes, right?



Language changes; and yet you still consult the subordinate standards in the language of the day in which they were written; thereby showing that the language of the 17th century still serves as a medium of authoritative communication to the 21st century man.

THis kind of confessionalism is weak at the knees. It insists on an unchanging subordinate standard while it allows an ever changing supreme standard. It looks like Romanism to me.


----------



## MW (Jan 2, 2007)

bookslover said:


> I'll tell you what. Can you recommend to me a book (available here in the States) which gives a sober, thorough (emphasis on both) presentation of the case for the AV, in all its particulars? Not written by one of the KJV-only extremists, but a well-written, intelligent, and cogent laying out of all the evidence?
> 
> I promise that I will get it, read it, and let you know what I think.
> 
> Deal?



I have just the book for you, Richard. It is called the Authorised Version of the Bible. Read it this year for your Bible reading plan. At the end of the year, I will be very interested to hear what you have to say. The proof is in the eating!

Otherwise, if you must take a shortcut, I recommend Revision Revised by Burgon, some articles by R. L. Dabney in the first volume of his Discussions, Oswald Allis' Revision or New Translation, and the literature of the Trinitarian Bible Society. Recently a David Silversides message was posted at Sermon Audio which you may find a helpful introduction.

Blessings!


----------



## bookslover (Jan 2, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> ...I recommend Revision Revised by Burgon...,



I've located a copy of _The Revision Revised_ (1883) by John William Burgon (1813-1888) and will fulfill my promise to you.


----------



## MW (Jan 2, 2007)

That was fast. I will be interested to hear your thoughts. Also, if you can track down Allis on the second hand market, he provides astute criticisms of the RSV, which started a number of the translation practices that have become standard in more modern versions. Blessings!


----------



## Casey (Jan 2, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Language changes; and yet you still consult the subordinate standards in the language of the day in which they were written; thereby showing that the language of the 17th century still serves as a medium of authoritative communication to the 21st century man.
> 
> THis kind of confessionalism is weak at the knees. It insists on an unchanging subordinate standard while it allows an ever changing supreme standard. It looks like Romanism to me.


Using a translation of the Bible in a language that people can understand looks like Romanism?  

Your argument is flawed. There is a difference, you see, between the Bible and the confessional standards. The Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek (NOT the English of the KJV). The Confession was originally written in 1600-era English, yes.

The churches have seen fit to translate the Bible into the English of today so it could be understood. The churches have, by and large, not deemed it fit to update the language of the Confession.

Reformed churches use confessional standards written in other languages, and so they translate them. What has the authority is the original language documents, but the translations are very useful to members of the churches.

The Westminster Standards have updated English versions available to help people understand them, but the updated English versions do not have the authority. This is the same with the Bible.

Consider what the WCF itself says: "The Old Testament in Hebrew . . . 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; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them."

Putting it in your own words, then, "thereby showing that the language of the [original language Scriptures] still serves as a medium of authoritative communication to the 21st century man." Hence, the church has preachers and modern translations to assist in this communication, but the authority ultimately resides in the original language texts.

The church appeals not to English translations, but to the originals, as the basis of our religion. Seems to me the same exact thing is happening with the confession.


----------



## Barnpreacher (Jan 2, 2007)

> Originally posted by *armourbearer*
> 
> Best Hebrew and Greek sources; conservative translation philosophy; most accurate from a reformed perspective; utilises an elegant and dignified form of English in accord with the "majesty of the style" of Scripture; exercises wisdom in its use of transliteration; indicates when the sense has been made clearer by the addition of italicised words; and easily understood when read in accord with the purpose for which the Scriptures were given.



Excellent reasons for defense of the King James Bible as the standard for the English speaking people.


I have been reading this thread and I would like to commend you all on the graciousness that has been found herein. Most of the time discussions on translations turn very ugly, and it becomes very ungodly and unedifying. 

I fall into Rev. Winzer's camp on this discussion, and even though we are in the minority I think he has graciously defended the AV as well as I've ever seen it done throughout the course of this thread. 

Don't let it turn ugly brothers. Turn it off before it does that because up till now I believe God has been magnified through this discussion. I pray that remains true throughout the remainder of it.


----------



## Davidius (Jan 2, 2007)

My knowledge of the technicalities involved in this debate is greatly limited, but I'm just wondering what it is about the KJV that makes it so unbearably difficult to understand? If "difficult" means that you need a dictionary next to you in order to understand it, then we are going to be hard-pressed finding any work of theology, or any bible for that matter, that should not be disregarded as too difficult for the "average person" (whoever that is) to read (unless of course you want to use something like The Message or the Good News for Modern Man). As a student of other Germanic languages and Latin, I loathe the fact that we have lost the 2nd-person plural pronoun and verb conjugation in our modern dialect and find it to be quite helpful when reading the KJV. With a little explaining this could come in handy for anyone. The same goes for the usage of words like "wherefore." In our modern dialect the translation is going to be "for which" instead of incorrectly putting the preposition at the end of the sentence, a grammatical error that almost everyone makes on a regular basis when speaking. For that reason, using "for which" at the beginning of a question or a relative clause is awkward for most people who would never say that in "everyday speech" as well. 

This isn't intended to contribute anything substantial to the argument for the sole use of the AV since I am just now coming out of circles where the use of the KJV would be considered ridiculous and know little about this debate, but those are just my thoughts on the argument used against Rev. Winzer's points that it's just so difficult to read.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 2, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> That was fast. I will be interested to hear your thoughts. Also, if you can track down Allis on the second hand market, he provides astute criticisms of the RSV, which started a number of the translation practices that have become standard in more modern versions. Blessings!



I came across the Allis book several years ago when I was a new Christian and researching the Bible versions issue. The book I read was his response to the RSV NT that was published in 1946, and I haven't seen Allis' book on the whole RSV that was published in the 1950's. The title "Revision or New Translation?" is a reference to the RSV claiming to be a revision of the ASV of 1901. I was not as aware of all the issues then as I am now, but my guess is (and correct me if I'm wrong) that Allis' view was closer to Warfield's than to Burgon's since he commends both the ASV and KJV (If I recall correctly he didn't dwell on the textual issue) and notes the deviations of the RSV in the areas of a liberal antisupernatural bias, the abandonment of italics to show that words had been added by the translators, and the RSV being less literal in many places than the KJV or ASV. Allis' main point in the book was that the RSV was so different from the ASV that it should have been marketed as a new translation and not as a revision. He wrote that the RSV wasn't as bad as it could possibly be but was concerned with the future of Bible translation, and I think his concerns have certainly proven to be valid. Most evangelicals rejected the RSV (and rightly so), but the sense among many was that a modern version was needed. This led to the proliferation of versions that we see today. 

Some of Allis' criticisms of the RSV have more or less been corrected with the ESV and some have not.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 2, 2007)

I tend to agree that there ought to be a common English translation but at this point the situation only seems to be getting worse, not better. Every publisher wants to have their own translation, since of course people are always after something new, as if the translations of five years ago (not to mention 400 years!) are somehow inferior. We're talking big business here. Thus, most of the major Christian publishers in the USA have their own versions, i.e. Nelson with the NKJV as well as NCV, Zondervan with the NIV (and TNIV), Broadman & Holman with the HCSB, Crossway has the ESV, NavPress with the Message, etc. 

I think those who argue for an "Ecclesiastical Text" may have a point in arguing that the work of translation has been ceded to committees and commercial publishers who are often part of some corporate conglomerate, but I see no indication that the churches are headed toward being able to agree on a version, much less a text type. The only denominations that I know of that would coalesce around the AV are very small ones with at most a few dozen churches. The chances of accepting any other modern version above others is slim and none. The ESV seems to be the "hot" translation now in our circles. It is better than the NIV, but overall not quite as good as the NKJV or NASB in my opinion. The NASB doesn't read very smoothly at times, but the NKJV is about as readable as the ESV and is more literal. I also think the criticisms of the AV tend to be somewhat overblown and would not have a problem with a church that used it. 

I have recently determined to follow along with whatever the pastor uses while preaching. (Of course there are some translations I would consider unacceptable and others that would be undesirable). My primary version is the NKJV but my pastor preaches from the NASB, so that is what I bring to church. Dr. John R. DeWitt was here for our Bible Conference recently. Since I knew he would use the AV that is what I brought to those meetings. It leads to less distractions and helps to eliminate the tendency to sit in judgment of the word if I am following from a different version and thinking about why it differs from what he's using instead of focusing on the sermon. This may be a bigger problem for me than others, but I suspect that many churchgoers find themselves wondering why their version is different from the preacher's. For the same reasons in my opinion everyone should use the same translation in family worship as well. It's not particularly helpful if one person has the AV, another the NAS, and another the NIV.


----------



## MW (Jan 2, 2007)

StaunchPresbyterian said:


> Using a translation of the Bible in a language that people can understand looks like Romanism?



The changing/unchanging statement was the context for the Romanism verdict. If you would like to interact on the issue, I am more than willing to do so; but I do hope you will make some effort to avoid misrepresenting what I say.



StaunchPresbyterian said:


> Your argument is flawed. There is a difference, you see, between the Bible and the confessional standards. The Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek (NOT the English of the KJV). The Confession was originally written in 1600-era English, yes.



This difference is well noted, but irrelevant. The parallel with the Confession was solely in response to your statement about language changing. The practice of churches in relation to their subordinate standards demonstrates that the English language has not changed to the extent that 17th century English cannot be understood.



StaunchPresbyterian said:


> The churches have seen fit to translate the Bible into the English of today so it could be understood. The churches have, by and large, not deemed it fit to update the language of the Confession.



No, the churches have seen fit to adopt translations made by non-confessionalists. The fact that they have not "deemed it fit" to update the language of the Confession is usually because they discern the declining times in which they live, and see that revisionism is dangerous. The same wisdom should have been applied to the supreme standard, as has been the case with conservative Presbyterian and Reformed churches.



StaunchPresbyterian said:


> Reformed churches use confessional standards written in other languages, and so they translate them. What has the authority is the original language documents, but the translations are very useful to members of the churches.



The official status of the Three Forms in English is not something of which I have experience, so I cannot comment.



StaunchPresbyterian said:


> The Westminster Standards have updated English versions available to help people understand them, but the updated English versions do not have the authority. This is the same with the Bible.



The analogy breaks down because the English Bible does have authority in Presbyterian churches. It is read as a public act of worship. It is read as the very Word of God.



StaunchPresbyterian said:


> Consider what the WCF itself says: "The Old Testament in Hebrew . . . 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; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them."
> 
> Putting it in your own words, then, "thereby showing that the language of the [original language Scriptures] still serves as a medium of authoritative communication to the 21st century man." Hence, the church has preachers and modern translations to assist in this communication, but the authority ultimately resides in the original language texts.



Some research on the the authority of translations is required here, especially considering what the Confession goes on to state in the latter part of the section you have cited. May I recommend Francis Turretin's Institutes, 1:123-127. Although versions are not "put on an equality with the original," "nevertheless all authority must not be denied to versions," p. 125. He makes the distinction I noted above, between the words and the sense of Scripture. While the words of the translation are not inspired, the sense conveyed by those words is inspired when accurately translated. He proceeds to state: "Although any version made by fallible men cannot be considered divine and infallible with respect to the terms, yet it can well be considered such with respect to the things, since it faithfully expresses the divine truth of the sources." Then notice what he says concerning the foundation of faith: "Thus faith depends not on the authority of the interpreter or minister, but is built upon the truth and authenticity (authentia) of the things contained in the versions" (p. 126).

Now if this is the case, and believers are to build their faith upon "the things contained in the version," it does not consist with the proper function of the ministry to set forth two contradictory credenda, or things to be believed. Now, if it were merely the case that modern versions sought to update the language of our reformation Scriptures in order to make it more intelligible, that would be commendable. But the fact is, modern versions have deliberately introduced changes into the meaning of the English Bible; so that in reality, they have changed the Word of God, i.e., "the things contained in the version."


----------



## MW (Jan 2, 2007)

Pilgrim said:


> I came across the Allis book several years ago when I was a new Christian and researching the Bible versions issue. The book I read was his response to the RSV NT that was published in 1946, and I haven't seen Allis' book on the whole RSV that was published in the 1950's. The title "Revision or New Translation?" is a reference to the RSV claiming to be a revision of the ASV of 1901. I was not as aware of all the issues then as I am now, but my guess is (and correct me if I'm wrong) that Allis' view was closer to Warfield's than to Burgon's since he commends both the ASV and KJV (If I recall correctly he didn't dwell on the textual issue) and notes the deviations of the RSV in the areas of a liberal antisupernatural bias, the abandonment of italics to show that words had been added by the translators, and the RSV being less literal in many places than the KJV or ASV. Allis' main point in the book was that the RSV was so different from the ASV that it should have been marketed as a new translation and not as a revision. He wrote that the RSV wasn't as bad as it could possibly be but was concerned with the future of Bible translation, and I think his concerns have certainly proven to be valid. Most evangelicals rejected the RSV (and rightly so), but the sense among many was that a modern version was needed. This led to the proliferation of versions that we see today.
> 
> Some of Allis' criticisms of the RSV have more or less been corrected with the ESV and some have not.



Excellent summation!  Allis also draws attention to the need to continue the pronominal system of the AV -- thee/thou; and also the folly of introducing change for the sake of change.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 2, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Excellent summation!  Allis also draws attention to the need to continue the pronominal system of the AV -- thee/thou; and also the folly of introducing change for the sake of change.



I had forgotten about his advocacy for the pronominal system of the AV, which I think was more or less retained in the RV/ASV. The RSV introduced the awkward practice of adopting current pronominal usage except for references to Deity, something that is seen as well with NASB until thee/thy, etc. were abandoned entirely with the 1995 update.


----------



## Casey (Jan 2, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Some research on the the authority of translations is required here, especially considering what the Confession goes on to state in the latter part of the section you have cited. May I recommend Francis Turretin's Institutes, 1:123-127. Although versions are not "put on an equality with the original," "nevertheless all authority must not be denied to versions," p. 125. He makes the distinction I noted above, between the words and the sense of Scripture. While the words of the translation are not inspired, the sense conveyed by those words is inspired when accurately translated. He proceeds to state: "Although any version made by fallible men cannot be considered divine and infallible with respect to the terms, yet it can well be considered such with respect to the things, since it faithfully expresses the divine truth of the sources." Then notice what he says concerning the foundation of faith: "Thus faith depends not on the authority of the interpreter or minister, but is built upon the truth and authenticity (authentia) of the things contained in the versions" (p. 126).
> 
> Now if this is the case, and believers are to build their faith upon "the things contained in the version," it does not consist with the proper function of the ministry to set forth two contradictory credenda, or things to be believed. Now, if it were merely the case that modern versions sought to update the language of our reformation Scriptures in order to make it more intelligible, that would be commendable. But the fact is, modern versions have deliberately introduced changes into the meaning of the English Bible; so that in reality, they have changed the Word of God, i.e., "the things contained in the version."


I did not say that English versions have no authority. My point was that the original language Scriptures have the ultimate authority. We can agree to disagree. As far as I'm concerned, using the KJV leads to confusion. People have a hard time understanding it. It's a pastoral issue. Requiring only the KJV to be used from the pulpit, In my humble opinion, is a real problem. I couldn't imagine having a new believer join my church and telling them, "here, use this, it's the KJV." A denomination seeking to standardize which translation it uses might have some valid benefits, though I haven't been convinced that such an action would be right. But, if a denomination were to standardize which translation is to be used, the KJV would be my last choice.

I remain more convinced of my position, having heard your arguments. Honestly, I've had experience with people who hold on to the KJV and will not accept other translations. I've seen new believers try to read it. They have a hard time with it -- in fact, so do people who have used it for years. It's clumsy old language that people just stumble over. They get lost in the "thees" and "thous," and over the words with meanings that have changed. It is not the language that people speak or read today. I've known people that leave churches because they use the KJV (or pray with "thees" and "thous") -- why'd they leave? Because they want to understand the Bible. I remain convinced that the churches need to use translations that people can understand, which is why I will never recommend the KJV.


----------



## MW (Jan 2, 2007)

What hope do people have of understanding the Bilble if they cannot tell who is being referred to? Readers of modern Bibles think an individual is being referred to whenever an individual is being addressed, e.g., the covenant "with Noah" after the flood. They may very well understand the words, but they are lost as to the sense. Even Hendriksen recognised the need to differentiate singular and plural pronouns. The thees and thous of the AV are its strength, not its weakness.

If people cannot understand the AV, it is not the fault of the AV; it is the reader's lack of understanding of the English language. They need to become more literate; then they will be better equipped to understand the Bible. The answer is not to be found in dumbing down the Bible, but in educating the person reading the Bible.

I remain convinced that churches need to use a translation whereby people can understand the words of the original in their language. Which is why I only recommend the Authorised Version.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 2, 2007)

Pilgrim said:


> I tend to agree that there ought to be a common English translation but at this point the situation only seems to be getting worse, not better. Every publisher wants to have their own translation, since of course people are always after something new, as if the translations of five years ago (not to mention 400 years!) are somehow inferior. We're talking big business here. Thus, most of the major Christian publishers in the USA have their own versions, i.e. Nelson with the NKJV as well as NCV, Zondervan with the NIV (and TNIV), Broadman & Holman with the HCSB, Crossway has the ESV, NavPress with the Message, etc.
> 
> I think those who argue for an "Ecclesiastical Text" may have a point in arguing that the work of translation has been ceded to committees and commercial publishers who are often part of some corporate conglomerate, but I see no indication that the churches are headed toward being able to agree on a version, much less a text type. The only denominations that I know of that would coalesce around the AV are very small ones with at most a few dozen churches. The chances of accepting any other modern version above others is slim and none. The ESV seems to be the "hot" translation now in our circles. It is better than the NIV, but overall not quite as good as the NKJV or NASB in my opinion. The NASB doesn't read very smoothly at times, but the NKJV is about as readable as the ESV and is more literal. I also think the criticisms of the AV tend to be somewhat overblown and would not have a problem with a church that used it.
> 
> I have recently determined to follow along with whatever the pastor uses while preaching. (Of course there are some translations I would consider unacceptable and others that would be undesirable). My primary version is the NKJV but my pastor preaches from the NASB, so that is what I bring to church. Dr. John R. DeWitt was here for our Bible Conference recently. Since I knew he would use the AV that is what I brought to those meetings. It leads to less distractions and helps to eliminate the tendency to sit in judgment of the word if I am following from a different version and thinking about why it differs from what he's using instead of focusing on the sermon. This may be a bigger problem for me than others, but I suspect that many churchgoers find themselves wondering why their version is different from the preacher's. For the same reasons in my opinion everyone should use the same translation in family worship as well. It's not particularly helpful if one person has the AV, another the NAS, and another the NIV.



Chris,

This is a very good point about being distracted by translations during worship. It is very hard to follow along if one is reading from a different translation than the one reading. In some ways, I find myself more sympathetic to the idea that we ought to have one translation rather than many.

In the other thread I started up where I asked about the AV and the practice of targumim, your post seems to amplify an idea I've been trying to develop.

Part of the work of the preacher is not merely to read the Word to the People of God but to targum (explain, translate) the Word for them. In principle, those in the pews should not be teaching themselves and constantly correcting the one who is charged with that role (one of the reasons why teachers are held in strict judgment if they mess it up).

In some ways, then, perhaps the super-addition of translations is not merely an aid to readability but encourages the _un_-Reformed practice of *Solo*-Scriptura where *I* get to read and interpret and teach myself the Bible apart from the authority of the Church.

Thank you for helping me to consider this better. Even if we cannot get to the point anytime soon of convincing all to use one version, we can endeavor to teach the important principle that we learn as a Body and not as individuals who get to authoratatively determine on our own what the Scirptures teach.


----------



## Casey (Jan 2, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> What hope do people have of understanding the Bilble if they cannot tell who is being referred to? Readers of modern Bibles think an individual is being referred to whenever an individual is being addressed, e.g., the covenant "with Noah" after the flood. They may very well understand the words, but they are lost as to the sense. Even Hendriksen recognised the need to differentiate singular and plural pronouns. The thees and thous of the AV are its strength, not its weakness.
> 
> If people cannot understand the AV, it is not the fault of the AV; it is the reader's lack of understanding of the English language. They need to become more literate; then they will be better equipped to understand the Bible. The answer is not to be found in dumbing down the Bible, but in educating the person reading the Bible.
> 
> I remain convinced that churches need to use a translation whereby people can understand the words of the original in their language. Which is why I only recommend the Authorised Version.


Yeah, it's nice to know if "you" is plural or not. Sure. But it's still not modern English, and people still have a hard time understanding it (and I do not believe this is due to their lack of understanding of the English language). Not on the television, not on the radio, not in any modern publication will you see "thee" or "thou" or "ye" being used. It's not a modern translation.


----------



## bookslover (Jan 2, 2007)

Barnpreacher said:


> Excellent reasons for defense of the King James Bible as the standard for the English speaking people.
> 
> 
> I have been reading this thread and I would like to commend you all on the graciousness that has been found herein. Most of the time discussions on translations turn very ugly, and it becomes very ungodly and unedifying.
> ...



As you've read, Matthew Winzer and I are on opposite sides of this issue. And I've said that if people want to read the AV, privately or in church, I'm not going to come up to them and yank it out of their hands. As you say, this discussion has been carried out at a very high "cordiality" level, which is something that I, too, appreciate. I've also noticed that there seems to be a reasonably strong AV contingent on the Puritan Board generally and, as far as I can see so far, they express themselves very winsomely on the subject. I don't think we have any AV-only extremist "flamers" on the Board.

If I were to go to Tazmania and meet Matthew, I'm sure we'd be able to sit down together like two Christian brothers over dinner (after I've employed my food-taster - KIDDING!) and have a good old time. After all, we're going to be spending eternity together.

Frankly, I appreciate Matthew's earnestness over the subject, even though I disagree with him. It's refreshing to see someone take a definite stand on a subject and vigorously and intelligently defend it - something one sees far too rarely in this namby/pamby, soft-soap kind of politically correct world we live in.


----------



## bookslover (Jan 2, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> That was fast. I will be interested to hear your thoughts. Also, if you can track down Allis on the second hand market, he provides astute criticisms of the RSV, which started a number of the translation practices that have become standard in more modern versions. Blessings!



Yes, I found a copy at one of the local theological libraries near me. It's 549 pages! Yikes! Maybe it's big print.


----------



## bookslover (Jan 2, 2007)

Pilgrim said:


> We're talking big business here. Thus, most of the major Christian publishers in the USA have their own versions, i.e. Nelson with the NKJV as well as NCV, Zondervan with the NIV (and TNIV), Broadman & Holman with the HCSB, Crossway has the ESV, NavPress with the Message, etc.



Just to be fair to them (and I could be wrong about this), isn't Crossway a non-profit organization? If so, then they aren't in it strictly for the money.

Which reminds me of a quip I once heard the late Rev. John Marshall give out with: "Non-profit means that you're not allowed to make money, but you're allowed to lose money."


----------



## MW (Jan 2, 2007)

bookslover said:


> If I were to go to Tazmania and meet Matthew, I'm sure we'd be able to sit down together like two Christian brothers over dinner (after I've employed my food-taster - KIDDING!) and have a good old time. After all, we're going to be spending eternity together.



 Where we will have the most perfect version of Scripture, the face of our Lord Jesus Christ, and nothing to disagree on. You're welcome for dinner if you ever come to Tassie, Richard. I'll even be your food-taster, well, only if I haven't done the cooking.


----------



## Theoretical (Jan 3, 2007)

bookslover said:


> As you've read, Matthew Winzer and I are on opposite sides of this issue. And I've said that if people want to read the AV, privately or in church, I'm not going to come up to them and yank it out of their hands. As you say, this discussion has been carried out at a very high "cordiality" level, which is something that I, too, appreciate. I've also noticed that there seems to be a reasonably strong AV contingent on the Puritan Board generally and, as far as I can see so far, they express themselves very winsomely on the subject. I don't think we have any AV-only extremist "flamers" on the Board.
> 
> If I were to go to Tazmania and meet Matthew, I'm sure we'd be able to sit down together like two Christian brothers over dinner (after I've employed my food-taster - KIDDING!) and have a good old time. After all, we're going to be spending eternity together.
> 
> Frankly, I appreciate Matthew's earnestness over the subject, even though I disagree with him. It's refreshing to see someone take a definite stand on a subject and vigorously and intelligently defend it - something one sees far too rarely in this namby/pamby, soft-soap kind of politically correct world we live in.


 This has been a most fruitful discussion that's gotten me thinking a lot more on both sides of the issue.

Rev. Winzer, I'll also say you've given some of the strongest sets of pro-AV arguments I've ever heard. Especially in regard to translation being tied to doctrinal alignment, I have to admit that's something I have to really think about in regard to my Bible choices.


----------



## bookslover (Jan 3, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Where we will have the most perfect version of Scripture, the face of our Lord Jesus Christ



   The ultimate glory, my brother: the beatific vision...


----------



## MW (Jan 3, 2007)

Theoretical said:


> Rev. Winzer, I'll also say you've given some of the strongest sets of pro-AV arguments I've ever heard. Especially in regard to translation being tied to doctrinal alignment, I have to admit that's something I have to really think about in regard to my Bible choices.



God be praised! It is refreshing to come on the board and find souls seeking out the truth with sincerity and seriousness. It is a complete contrast to the religious mentality of the town I live in.


----------



## CDM (Jan 3, 2007)

bookslover said:


> Just for my own curiosity, let's start at square one. Why do you believe that the AV is the best English translation, ancient or modern? *Please keep your answer to 750,000 words or less.*


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 3, 2007)

bookslover said:


> Just to be fair to them (and I could be wrong about this), isn't Crossway a non-profit organization? If so, then they aren't in it strictly for the money.
> 
> Which reminds me of a quip I once heard the late Rev. John Marshall give out with: "Non-profit means that you're not allowed to make money, but you're allowed to lose money."



I don't know about Crossway or Good News Publishers being non-profit. Either way, they paid the NCC for the rights to the RSV since the ESV is a revision of it. I do know that the Lockman Foundation that is responsible for the NASB and Amplified versions is non-profit.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Jan 3, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> I have just the book for you, Richard. It is called the Authorised Version of the Bible. Read it this year for your Bible reading plan. At the end of the year, I will be very interested to hear what you have to say. The proof is in the eating!




Could you or any AV advocate recommend some Authorized Version Bibles? I looked at Christian Book and most of the KJV's are promotional types.

I do not have one KJV bible in my house, just NASB, NKJV, ESV, and NIV.

I have found this thread very helpful and have been enlightened to consider the AV more because of the discussion so far.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 3, 2007)

A few comments on what I’ve seen here.

Richard, Burgon’s book is thick, and his style not quite what it is today, but – if one likes the thrill of “textual detective work”, and the efficiency of a trial lawyer tearing down false testimony, and the sheer wonder of peerless competence in defending sacred portions of Scripture – then this book is a must-read, and a joy. Another book I would recommend (I know you didn’t ask me) would be Dr. Edward Hills’ _The King James Version Defended_.

Casey, I can sympathize with you, for I have people in my congregation – and can envision having as we grow (we are a newly-planted church in a country, Cyprus, where English is the second language, and many who do speak it do not speak it well) – many more for whom even simplified English is difficult. The people I am aiming to evangelize are English-speaking Greek Cypriots – young professionals, artists, business people – as well as Russians, East Europeans, Filipinos, Sri Lankans, Arabic-speaking peoples, Brits, and other natural English-speakers, etc. I will depend on translators a lot. I desired to plant a church here as there was no Reformed witness in my city at all (save in an Arabic-speaking congregation I was serving), and only one other in the entire country! It was a distorted gospel preached in this land, the glory given to man’s much vaunted (supposed) free will, and not to the Lord. The sovereign and glorious God was not being preached.

At any rate, being a lover of the AV (as you can see if you know my postings) I find myself in sort of a bind. My co-elder uses the NASB, and the church has as its pew Bibles the NKJV, which I had to fight for in lieu of the ESV, a compromise, but one I could live with. [When I taught in Africa, my class had been given (before my arrival) NIVs, and the margin notes (similar to most modern version margin notes) seriously shook their confidence in the Bible generally. It was apparent to them there was no settled and certain text. I had to give a number of classes on the textual issue to help them understand. I did not want a repeat of that.]

I long for a unified and literate church such as Matthew has where the AV could be used as the generally accepted Bible. But if that is not to be given me I will do the best I can, keep my integrity as regards the Scripture, and preach the gospel in its purity.

You said in one of your posts, “the original language Scriptures have the ultimate authority,” but this is part of the problem, for it is not only the translation which is at issue, but these very original language texts themselves. The *primary* difference between the AV and the modern versions is exactly at this “original-language” level, for both the Greek and Hebrew texts differ between them.

I realize that the difference is not *so* great that the Lord cannot well use (what I consider the inferior) modern versions based on (what I consider the inferior) Greek and Hebrew texts, which anyone can see by the many people saved through preachers using the NIV, ESV, NASB etc. It is a question of _did God preserve His word according to His promise so that we have a completely reliable Bible down even to the minute readings?_ I know there are superb scholars such as Dr. James White who claim this is not necessary, but many people say there _is_ such a preserved _Greek and Hebrew_ Scripture – the position of the 17th century Reformed dogmaticians (Turretin, Owen), as well as the Westminster Confession – and an English translation based upon it by perhaps the finest scholars ever to set their minds and pens to such a labor. Yes, I know, this translation was done 400 hundred years ago. And the language has changed since then. But even in the 16 and 1700s the King James English was not the language of the day. It was a uniquely _Biblical_ language, a devotional language, capturing the spirit of the Hebrew and Greek idioms.

When you said, Casey, regarding the “thees” and “thous,” “It is not the language that people speak or read today,” I must beg to differ. Those very words, supposedly archaic, are used in modern love poetry and in literature as a pure form of address, a love-language, if you will. Not _common_ language, but to be used either in private devotion, or in some other extraordinary usage.

I will not say that worshipping communities who do _not_ use such “devotional language” as I am referring to are remiss in any sense, but those who _do_ use it ought not be charged with being archaic, or not speaking the modern tongue. Such distinctions as these can be taught.

How I will proceed in my own church: I will winsomely defend those portions of Scripture excised by the faulty Greek bases (and their English translations), and seek to instill a love for the AV English when I can. As a poet I have a love for language that may serve me well in this. In the meanwhile I will use the NKJV of the pew Bibles, as its Greek base is sound, even if it is not my beloved AV.

Matthew, I like the way you put this, and I long for the day it is realized: In eternity “we will have the most perfect version of Scripture, the face of our Lord Jesus Christ, and nothing to disagree on.”

Steve


----------



## Davidius (Jan 3, 2007)

ChristopherPaul said:


> Could you or any AV advocate recommend some Authorized Version Bibles? I looked at Christian Book and most of the KJV's are promotional types.
> 
> I do not have one KJV bible in my house, just NASB, NKJV, ESV, and NIV.
> 
> I have found this thread very helpful and have been enlightened to consider the AV more because of the discussion so far.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 3, 2007)

Trinitarian Bible Society is a great place to get KJV Bibles (w/Psalters too)


----------



## MW (Jan 3, 2007)

ChristopherPaul said:


> Could you or any AV advocate recommend some Authorized Version Bibles?



Do you have Trinitarian Bible Society distributors over there? Their Bibles are a little more expensive, but no words of Christ in red. They also provide a list of difficult words and definitions for those not acquainted with the AV. And if you like to sing the Scottish Psalter in Metre, some editions include that also. Blessings!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 3, 2007)

Trinitarian Bible Society USA


----------



## Davidius (Jan 3, 2007)

thanks guys


----------



## Casey (Jan 3, 2007)

Steve (Jerusalem Blade),

Thank you for your comments.  I myself prefer the Majority/Church Text, which is why I use the NKJV (and am glad the congregation I am a member at uses the NKJV, too). (Incidentally, I use the NKJV because, as I'm sure you're aware, there is no "mass-produced" Majority Text translation available.)

But, if it were the Greek texts that were the issue, then here's a new question: Why use the KJV instead of the NKJV? You have said that "thee" and "thou" are words commonly used in modern poetry -- that _may_ be true, but I don't know a whole lot of people that read poetry. These words still are not used in the media at all. World Magazine is a widely read "standard" weekly that many thoughtful Christians read, and it doesn't use "thees" and "thous." I don't know of any modern English grammars that cover "thee," "thou," or "ye."

The question in this thread really doesn't hinge on whether or not God has preserved his Word (that's a given, as far as I'm concerned!). It doesn't hinge on which Greek text is to be preferred (though we all have a preference). The question, as far as I'm concerned, is whether or not the KJV is written in modern English, the vulgar language of the land -- a language people can understand without much difficulty, without tripping and stumbling over, without being a hindrance to their growth in godliness and knowledge of the Lord. I'm still convinced that the KJV is a hindrance and not a help.

The argument that since God's Word doesn't change, therefore we don't need any new translations, is not a very good argument. When the discussion is about translations, foundational to the discussion is the issue of changing culture and language -- the fact is, these things change. God's Word does not change, but our translation of it must, that is, if we don't want Christianity to be relegated to the proverbial trash bin of history.

Honestly, there are numerous different issues trying to be tackled in this single thread, which is making it confusing: (1) original language basis (CT or RT, etc.), (2) ecclesiastical participation in creating a translation (and that it be Reformed), (3) whether a church ought to subscribe to a single translation, and (4) whether the KJV is a form of modern English or not.

Here's my take:
1. Original language basis = Majority Text
2. Yes, it is preferred, but must it be necessary today? No, because no modern translation is the fruit of the Reformed churches
3. Not necessarily
4. The KJV is not modern English

The fact is, none of these 4 points are confessional, and so no one can be enforced on a denominational level. One might be able to argue that the Critical Text is not confessional, as I ultimately would, but even then those holding CT views may still frame their view in such a way that it would fit the Confession. The Confession does not designate where the translation needs to come from. The Confession does not say to make but one translation for every language. The Confession does not say that the KJV is the translation of choice, or the English choice for all time.

Every translation has its virtues and vices, and it seems to me that some that have participated on this thread want to turn a blind eye to the vices of the KJV.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Jan 3, 2007)

Thank you Andrew and Rev. Winzer for the website.

This may have been discussed in another thread, so no need to side track a good thread; I am just looking for a yes or no and then a link from Andrew to put me in the right direction (  ): is the Geneva Bible considered acceptable by the authorized camp?


----------



## MW (Jan 3, 2007)

The Geneva version is acknowledged as a faithful reformation Bible. However, the AV was a significant improvement upon it. Note what the preface to Poole's Annotations says: "About the year 1640 some deliberations were taken for the composing and printing other English notes (the old Geneva Notes not so well fitting our new and more correct translation of the Bible)."

Much of the interest in the Geneva version is nostalgic, due to the revival of interest in Puritanism. As noted above, it is a myth that the Puritans preferred the Geneva over the AV. As the AV is more accurate, it by default became the standard Bible of the Puritans, and indeed of the English speaking world for nearly three centuries.


----------



## MW (Jan 3, 2007)

Casey, if thees and thous are contained in the English Bible which people are reading, then quite obviously they are part of vulgar English. I often see newspapers quoting the AV. Just the other day, I read an article which was headed, "love thy neighbour." Not too long ago I read an article in a popular evangelical magazine which quoted, "thy will be done." Australian Parliament commences with prayer in thee and thou. There are churches in Australia who still pray in this reverential mode, our own included. I have listened to numerous tapes over the years by American Presbyterian men, and numbers of them prayed in thee and thou. If usage is indicative of vulgar English, thee and thou IS vulgar English.


----------



## Casey (Jan 3, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Casey, if thees and thous are contained in the English Bible which people are reading, then quite obviously they are part of vulgar English. I often see newspapers quoting the AV. Just the other day, I read an article which was headed, "love thy neighbour." Not too long ago I read an article in a popular evangelical magazine which quoted, "thy will be done." Australian Parliament commences with prayer in thee and thou. There are churches in Australia who still pray in this reverential mode, our own included. I have listened to numerous tapes over the years by American Presbyterian men, and numbers of them prayed in thee and thou. If usage is indicative of vulgar English, thee and thou IS vulgar English.


Pastor Winzer, I am just wondering . . how would you handle a situation in which a family was considering your church but was greatly distracted in the pastoral prayer (and even the language of the KJV) by the "thee's" and "thou's" and "ye's" and "thy's"? In fact, you may have already experienced situations like this? I've heard of this happening myself. Do the young children in your church use the KJV? I'm just scratching the surface of all the pastoral problems that might arise on account of using the KJV that would be prevented by using a modern English translation. Have you run into any problems of this sort? I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts about these things . . . :cool2:


----------



## larryjf (Jan 3, 2007)

If by "vulgar" we mean "of the common people" then would the appearing of the KJV as the #3 best selling version be a good argument for it being "vulgar?"...
http://www.cbaonline.org/TrackingLists/trx.jsp?w=t

If by "vulgar" we mean "common everyday language" then surely none of the more literal translations would fall into that category?


----------



## MW (Jan 3, 2007)

Casey, I suppose my definition of "pastoral" means I do not look on people's growing pains as problems. We are all sinners. Grace alone makes the difference. God works in providentially different ways with His flock; and yet He uses the same means of grace. As far as I can see, my task as an under-shepherd is to point people to the Chief Shepherd by the use of the means. Whether or not these are blessed to the good of people's souls is altogether dependent on Sovereign free grace. I do not think I am acting as a true pastor if I compromise the means of Christ's appointment for the sake of making them more palatable; and I certainly cannot conscientiously seek God's blessing on my compromise. On the other hand, if I administer the means of grace purely, there is every reason to believe that they will be accompanied with the divine blessing for the good of the elect.

Yes, the children read the AV as well as the adults. There have been some who have found the way we do things a little difficult. Such difficulties may be overcome by patient continuance in well-doing. I think if there is no heart to learn, it will not matter what is done to accommodate the person. But where the Lord has opened the heart, they will attend upon the ministry, and God will bless it to them. It starts with a desire to please the Lord even in circumstantial matters. Modern folk call it legalism; I call it understanding the will of the Lord. "Delight thyself also in the Lord, and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart." Blessings!


----------



## bookslover (Jan 3, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Their Bibles are a little more expensive, but no words of Christ in red.



Hey! We agree on something! I think "words of Christ in red" Bibles are ridiculous. I avoid them whenever I can.


----------



## Davidius (Jan 3, 2007)

larryjf said:


> If by "vulgar" we mean "common everyday language" then surely none of the more literal translations would fall into that category?




This is a point I mentioned earlier. Some American dialects are comprised of very poor grammar and limited vocabulary. Casey, your idea of the "common language" seems to be that of the moderately educated white person living in the suburbs. 

Reading any bible that uses correct grammar is going to be awkward to an extent for most people, and to a great extent for many. That of course isn't a definitive argument for the side of the AV, it just means that all this talk about the KJV being so unlike the common language that one of the modern translations (excluding maybe "The Message" or the "New Living Translation") would be better just seems a little silly.


----------



## Casey (Jan 3, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Casey, I suppose my definition of "pastoral" means I do not look on people's growing pains as problems. We are all sinners. Grace alone makes the difference. God works in providentially different ways with His flock; and yet He uses the same means of grace. As far as I can see, my task as an under-shepherd is to point people to the Chief Shepherd by the use of the means. Whether or not these are blessed to the good of people's souls is altogether dependent on Sovereign free grace. I do not think I am acting as a true pastor if I compromise the means of Christ's appointment for the sake of making them more palatable; and I certainly cannot conscientiously seek God's blessing on my compromise. On the other hand, if I administer the means of grace purely, there is every reason to believe that they will be accompanied with the divine blessing for the good of the elect.
> 
> Yes, the children read the AV as well as the adults. There have been some who have found the way we do things a little difficult. Such difficulties may be overcome by patient continuance in well-doing. I think if there is no heart to learn, it will not matter what is done to accommodate the person. But where the Lord has opened the heart, they will attend upon the ministry, and God will bless it to them. It starts with a desire to please the Lord even in circumstantial matters. Modern folk call it legalism; I call it understanding the will of the Lord. "Delight thyself also in the Lord, and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart." Blessings!


Pastor Winzer: Friend, we can agree to disagree.  I am weary of considering one's aversion to the archaic language of the KJV as a form of "growing pains," impurity, or a "compromise" to the means of grace. Thank you for discussing this with me, and God's blessing in your continued labors for his kingdom.

EDITED


----------



## MW (Jan 3, 2007)

StaunchPresbyterian said:


> Pastor Winzer: "Growing pains" = learning to understand the archaic language of the KJV?  Is it a sin, or simply a sign of immaturity, to find the KJV difficult to comprehend? By prefering another translation to the KJV one is "compromis[ing] the means of Christ's appointment for the sake of making them more palatable"? Do you believe pastors ministering in the English language are "compromis[ing]" when they use any other translation besides the KJV? Do you believe that the means of grace through the Word is less pure if it is not from the KJV? Your post seems to presuppose all such . . . but maybe I've misread?



Casey, perhaps it is me, perhaps it is you, perhaps it is the medium, but I find it difficult to communicate with you. The "growing pains" had reference to your question: "how would you handle a situation in which a family was considering your church but was greatly distracted...," which you specifically went on to label a pastoral problem. My response was that I do not classify such things as problems. To me it is the work of the ministry to assist people as they grow up into Christ. For some reason you decided to take what I said about growing pains and to apply to "understanding the archaic language of the AV." Despite the fact that you are totally wrong by calling the language of the AV archaic, you should have applied the "growing pains" comment to people being distracted.

Concerning means, faithfulness, and God's blessing -- I am going to equate it to the church's confession of faith again, hoping you do not confuse the parallel like last time. In Presbyterianism it has happened that there are two different Confessions, the original Westminster and the American revision. If it is decided that the original is more in accord with Scripture, then it would be unfaithful to adopt the revision. At that point the church is bearing witness to what it knows is not accurate. Ditto for the AV and modern translations.


----------



## MW (Jan 4, 2007)

Casey, I answered your "original" post before seeing you had "revised" it. I don't agree to disagree with people. I agree to be patient and bear with them.


----------



## Barnpreacher (Jan 4, 2007)

Brothers,

A few years ago God by his sovereign good pleasure and grace saw fit to pull me out of the Peter Ruckman school of thought. I was your typical "Ruckmanite". This isn't something I am proud of, but there's a reason I am writing this. In years past I would have already been banned from this board because I would have been defending dispensationalism, the AV, pre-millennialism, credobaptism, decisional regeneration etc. with "reckless abandon".

Then, as I said, God did a work of grace in my heart and life to which he deserves all the glory. I've posted some things in this board that have resorted back to that part of my ministry that I'm not really proud of. But for the most part I now just get on here and read without saying too much and asking too many questions (although I have had some honest questions taken the wrong way by some in here, but that's o.k.).

In all my years as a Christian and in the ministry to which God saw fit to call me I have never seen such a gracious discussion on the AV as opposed to modern translations. I know I made mention of this in an earlier post, but it has truly done my heart good. For many years I've argued that the AV was God's preserved word in the English speaking language. And yet in all those years I have NEVER (that I can recall anyway) had anyone tell me that my arguments were working on their hearts to examine the use of the AV for their own lives. Yet in one short thread I have seen at least 2-3 people say this very thing. You've got to understand, coming from the school of theology that I was trained in this to me is a miraculous working of the Holy Spirit. 

I understand that in times past it would have been my attitude about what I was defending that would have so quickly turned people off. I guess that's why I keep getting on here and beckoning you guys not to let this thread go the wrong way. It has been such a HUGE blessing to so many people, yet I'm starting to get a feel that it's headed in the wrong direction now. I'm no moderator or forum, so I'm not trying to act like I have any power here. I would just hate to see a wedge driven between two brothers in whom the fruit of the Spirit is so evident that there is a true love for Christ in their hearts.

May the fruit of this thread prosper in the power of the Holy Spirit, and may we know when to say enough is enough.

God Bless!


----------



## MW (Jan 4, 2007)

Point well taken, Barnpreacher. I think that is my signal to give it a rest. Good quotation from John Paton. Blessings!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 4, 2007)

And with those edifying words, this thread is closed.


----------

