# Question for KJV onlyists...



## tdh86 (Jun 23, 2017)

So...I know I posted about KJV updates recently and, please don't think it's a hobby-horse, but I've got a question that's been niggling since my last thread...

Will there ever be any point at which KJV-onlyists would acknowledge that the language of the KJV can be legitimately updated?

I ask the question because I've just started using the KJV Easy Read edition from Whittaker House and, I've heard/read various comments about the edition to the effect of advising against using it because it changes the KJV. But the KJV Easy Read edition ONLY alters the old verb forms (believeth to believes, etc) and the pronouns (thou becomes you and ye becomes you with a 'P' superscript to indicate plurality.) The publishers say that, in effect, the KJV easy reader is a new edition not a new version and I agree with them.

So, since 'believeth' being changed to 'believes' really is no different from changing 'musick' to 'music', is there any good reason not to change it? Just for the record, 'it doesn't need changing' and 'But I like how it sounds' aren't good enough reasons. Listening to exactly the same sermons that my dad used to play in the car on crackly old cassette tapes but that I now have in cleaned up MP3 audio isn't 'wrong' even if some people might prefer how the old cassette sounds. So, what I want to know is, is there any reason that it would be wrong to update verb and pronoun forms? If so, what is it?

By grace,
Tim

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## BG (Jun 23, 2017)

Tim you said:

Will there ever be any point at which KJV-onlyists would acknowledge that the language of the KJV can be legitimately updated?

If they did that they would not be KJV onlyists. 

Many believe the KJV should correct the Greek manuscripts.


----------



## scottmaciver (Jun 23, 2017)

BG said:


> Many believe the KJV should correct the Greek manuscripts.



Who are you aware of subscribing to that view Bill?


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 23, 2017)

Tim,
I don't think you'll find any KJV Only folks of that stripe on the Puritan Board. There are many of us that prefer the KJV, many of us who think that it should be the only one used in the Pulpit (implied in that position are some elements of Presbyterian government that are foreign to many Americans--it's not a view based on superstition), and there may even be some who would advocate for its exclusive private use by Christians. However, the reason for all of this is because it is the most faithful English translation, _not_ because it is immediately inspired.

I'll refer you to the Westminster Confession:


> The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.



Any view that would explicitly contradict this would not be allowed on the Puritan Board.


----------



## KMK (Jun 23, 2017)

tdh86 said:


> So, since 'believeth' being changed to 'believes' really is no different from changing 'musick' to 'music',



I am not a KJO, but I am not sure I agree with this statement. 

Changing the form of the 3rd person singular would, I assume, be accompanied by a change in the 2nd person singular as well, which would then require a change in the singular/plural pronoun paradigm. Changing 'believeth' to 'believes' is not as simple as changing 'musick' to 'music'.


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 23, 2017)

BG said:


> Tim you said:
> 
> Will there ever be any point at which KJV-onlyists would acknowledge that the language of the KJV can be legitimately updated?
> 
> ...



Touche! That's a good point...


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 23, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> Tim,
> I don't think you'll find any KJV Only folks of that stripe on the Puritan Board. There are many of us that prefer the KJV, many of us who think that it should be the only one used in the Pulpit (implied in that position are some elements of Presbyterian government that are foreign to many Americans--it's not a view based on superstition), and there may even be some who would advocate for its exclusive private use by Christians. However, the reason for all of this is because it is the most faithful English translation, _not_ because it is immediately inspired.
> 
> I'll refer you to the Westminster Confession:
> ...



Thanks Tyler. I think there a probably a few borderline cases. ;-) The church government aspect is an interesting one. Although the terms 'vulgar language' or common language wouldn't allow for KJVonlyism...


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 23, 2017)

KMK said:


> I am not a KJO, but I am not sure I agree with this statement.
> 
> Changing the form of the 3rd person singular would, I assume, be accompanied by a change in the 2nd person singular as well, which would then require a change in the singular/plural pronoun paradigm. Changing 'believeth' to 'believes' is not as simple as changing 'musick' to 'music'.



Thanks Ken. Not sure you what you mean about the 3rd person. The changes are all to the second person. As Whittaker House explain: 'The KJVER changes all second person singular pronouns to their modern equivalents: thee (you), thy (your), thine (yours), and thyself (yourself). To distinguish the plural pronouns from the singular ones, the KJVER places a superscript p (meaning plural) after each plural second person pronoun. Accordingly, the Old English forms yield to the modern equivalents: ye (you p), you (you p), your (your p), yours (yours), and yourselves (yourselves).' (The superscript doesn't work on here but it looks like 'you²' but with a 'P' instead of a '2'.)

It seems to confuse a lot of people but I'm really not sure why. It just means thee and thou and ye and you are all changed to you but the plural forms have a superscript P over them. No need to rewrite the English language. 

As for the verb endings, I disagree. Believeth went out of use and was replaced with believes. Just as musick went out of use and was replaced with music. Language evolves.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 23, 2017)

tdh86 said:


> Thanks Tyler. I think there a probably a few borderline cases. ;-) The church government aspect is an interesting one. Although the terms 'vulgar language' or common language wouldn't allow for KJVonlyism...


Funny enough, I didn't realize I was talking to a Brit when I wrote of "some elements of Presbyterian government that are foreign to many Americans." "Uniformity in religion" was the aim of the Westminster Assembly. The looseness of many Presbyterian denomination is a far cry from the uniformity envisaged by our Puritan forebears.

I see that you belong to an Independent Baptist congregation. Ironically, in my part of the world, the ones we call "Independent Baptists" are the most vehement adherents to KJV Onlyism.


----------



## KMK (Jun 23, 2017)

You said:



tdh86 said:


> So, since 'believeth' being changed to 'believes' really is no different from changing 'musick' to 'music',



'Believeth' is third person singular.

Then you said:



tdh86 said:


> Thanks Ken. Not sure you what you mean about the 3rd person. The changes are all to the second person.



'Believest' is second person singular.

Are you saying they changed both the second and third person forms of the paradigm, or just one or the other?

Nevertheless, the complexity of our conversation alone proves my case. Changing an entire verb paradigm is not as simple as changing the spelling of a word that appears only 16 times in the whole Bible. Your question is based upon an assumption that should be carefully considered.


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 23, 2017)

No problem! I factored that in... ;-) That's what it was even more foreign to me 

Yep, it's strange how different things are on either side of the Atlantic. To be honest, there are very few denominations over here that would be pretty much exclusively KJV-only. KJV-onlyists are actually fairly rare here I would say. 'Independent Baptist' in the UK can mean pretty much anything though to be fair... It's a catch-all term.


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 23, 2017)

KMK said:


> You said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



OK - Got you! Well, the verb tense just conforms with subject so it's changed on a case by case basis. It's not just a 'find and replace' job. It's done to make sure all verb forms are maintained - just transposed into the current equivalent.


----------



## MW (Jun 23, 2017)

As the main question is for KJV Onlyists I am unable to answer.

We are required to use those helps that assist in understanding the Bible. Regarding the suffix system of the AV, if a work facilitates someone's reading of the Bible it should be used in the way any other help is used. It should be observed, however, that the differentiating pronouns and the suffix system function together. To alter the suffixes in correlation with the pronouns is to create a new language form.


----------



## KMK (Jun 23, 2017)

tdh86 said:


> Just for the record, 'it doesn't need changing' and 'But I like how it sounds' aren't good enough reasons.



In addition, it seems to me that if one was convinced that the KJV doesn't need changing it would be a perfectly good reason not to change it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Fool for Christ (Jun 24, 2017)

There are many reasons not to meddle with the language. One primary reason is the "th" endings mean that the action began in the past, continues in the present and will continue in the future. Therefore, when one quotes John3:16 in a modern version there is a doctrinal difference. In the NIV you are only required to believe today in order to have everlasting life. But in the KJV "believeth" means you must continue to believe in order to have everlasting life. Thus, he that "endureth unto the end shall be saved." It does not teach a once saved, always saved, doctrine (when you really understand it) like many modern churches. I would like to comment more on other reasons, but don't have the time now.


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 24, 2017)

MW said:


> As the main question is for KJV Onlyists I am unable to answer.
> 
> We are required to use those helps that assist in understanding the Bible. Regarding the suffix system of the AV, if a work facilitates someone's reading of the Bible it should be used in the way any other help is used. It should be observed, however, that the differentiating pronouns and the suffix system function together. To alter the suffixes in correlation with the pronouns is to create a new language form.



Sorry, I'm seriously confused. How is switching to current, everyday usage creating a new language form? We no longer say 'thou hast', we say 'you have' instead. We no longer say 'he saith', we say 'he says' instead. No meanings or tenses of verbs have ever changed.


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 24, 2017)

KMK said:


> In addition, it seems to me that if one was convinced that the KJV doesn't need changing it would be a perfectly good reason not to change it.



That's like saying, 'Just because.' is a valid reason for doing something. It may be good enough for that person but it will never persuade someone else that the point of view is correct.


----------



## MW (Jun 24, 2017)

tdh86 said:


> Sorry, I'm seriously confused. How is switching to current, everyday usage creating a new language form?



Sorry for the confusion. It came across to me that you were advocating for a change only in the suffixes. I did not realise you were also advocating for a change of pronouns. Please disregard my previous comment as it only applies to a mixture of forms.

If the pronoun distinction between singular and plural is abandoned I would say the accuracy of the AV is lost. This form was chosen by the AV translators for accuracy even though it was not the every day spoken English of the time.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 24, 2017)

Fool for Christ said:


> There are many reasons not to meddle with the language. One primary reason is the "th" endings mean that the action began in the past, continues in the present and will continue in the future. Therefore, when one quotes John3:16 in a modern version there is a doctrinal difference. In the NIV you are only required to believe today in order to have everlasting life. But in the KJV "believeth" means you must continue to believe in order to have everlasting life. Thus, he that "endureth unto the end shall be saved." It does not teach a once saved, always saved, doctrine (when you really understand it) like many modern churches. I would like to comment more on other reasons, but don't have the time now.



This is one of the main reasons I think the KJV language does need updating. Because, with the greatest of respect, you're wrong about verb suffixes. And you're not the only one - not by a long stretch. I hear people talk like this all the time but, if you're a student of English, then you know that there has NEVER been any such tense in English. Believeth can mean that (just like 'believes' can because it is absolutely indistinguishable from believeth apart from a modernising of the ending), but in English, it is not explicit. And never has been. The only people who tell you that there has been are Christians in discussion like this. 

Here's what the suffixes mean - there's been nothing more than a straight swap. No lost meaning in any of the tenses. http://www.shakespeareswords.com/Verb-forms

Hope that helps.


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 24, 2017)

MW said:


> Sorry for the confusion. It came across to me that you were advocating for a change only in the suffixes. I did not realise you were also advocating for a change of pronouns. Please disregard my previous comment as it only applies to a mixture of forms.
> 
> If the pronoun distinction between singular and plural are abandoned I would say the accuracy of the AV is lost. This form was chosen by the AV translators for accuracy even though they it was not the every day spoken English of the time.



No problem! I think it goes without saying that trying to change one and not the other would be crazy. and would show a complete lack of understanding of the language. 

In my original post, I put details of how a simple indicator (a superscript in this instance) can be used to indicate Plural vs Singular pronoun forms. So that has been dealt with as well. No meaning need ever be lost is using modern forms.


----------



## MW (Jun 24, 2017)

tdh86 said:


> In my original post, I put details of how a simple indicator (a superscript in this instance) can be used to indicate Plural vs Singular pronoun forms.



That would be a new convention requiring a new symbolism. It is not conventional English.


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 24, 2017)

And if that's necessary in the Bible to make it clear which pronouns are singular and which are plural then why is that a problem?


----------



## Fool for Christ (Jun 24, 2017)

tdh86 said:


> This is one of the main reasons I think the KJV language does need updating. Because, with the greatest of respect, you're wrong about verb suffixes. And you're not the only one - not by a long stretch. I hear people talk like this all the time but, if you're a student of English, then you know that there has NEVER been any such tense in English. Believeth can mean that (just like 'believes' can because it is absolutely indistinguishable from believeth apart from a modernising of the ending), but in English, it is not explicit. And never has been. The only people who tell you that there has been are Christians in discussion like this.
> 
> Here's what the suffixes mean - there's been nothing more than a straight swap. No lost meaning in any of the tenses. http://www.shakespeareswords.com/Verb-forms
> 
> ...


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 24, 2017)

Well, firstly, I agree with you completely regarding the accuracy and precision of the AV. I've also studied it although not as long as you have and, despite what many claim, I have never found a single translation error in the AV. It really is second to none.

I also agree that sloppy translations are far too common and, in places, truths are watered down or even done away with completely. However, the careful modernisation of verb tenses is categorically not the same kind of issue.

In the English, we have the simple present and the present continuous tenses. Using John 3:16 as an example, we have two choices, we can either say 'whoever believeth/believes' which are both the simple present tense of believe or we can use the present continuous of 'whoever is believing'. Whichever choice you make (and neither are wrong per se), what the verse is saying (or 'what the verse says' - which means the same thing  !) can still be misinterpreted if the reader is intent on it. 'Whoever believes or believeth' could be interpreted as a one off action of belief but then 'whoever is believing' is also not necessarily saying anything other than that the believing is happening right now. In John 3:16 the ongoing nature of the believing is only ever implied. Correctly implied of course. But still just implied.
The fact is that, if you study English grammar, there is no single tense and never has been a single tense which simultaneously shows a past, present and future action. Despite the fact that we know that that is what the Word of God is saying, we cannot use that (correct) interpretation to infer that the old version of the simple present tense always has that meaning. 'Believeth' can and does mean that the believing is more than just a here-and-now action but no more so than 'believes' also can and does mean more than a here-and-now action. Those are facts of English grammar. Ask any English teacher worth their salt. Or look for both words on yourdictionary.com. They don't have any theological axe to grind and they list both 'Believes' and 'Believeth' as 'third person singular simple present indicative form of believe'. There's no grammatical difference whatsoever.

It's the same with lovest in John 21 I'm afraid. The Lord has no more emphasis on Peter's love for Him in the future than Peter does when he says to the Lord, 'thou knowest that I love thee'. Are you saying that the emphasis there is on the Lord continuing to know in the future that Peter loves Him? You are going beyond the plain reading of Scripture in saying anything apart from that Peter is in fact saying, as we would today, 'you know that I love you'. The same applies to the Lord's words to Peter - He's saying 'do you love me?' The emphasis is, in fact, less on when the loving is happening but on the word for love which is being used. The Lord says do you agape me? And Peter says, you know that I phileo you. And the Lord asks the same again with the same response. And then the Lord uses the same word as Peter. He says do you phileo me? And Peter was grieved etc and says you know all things, you know that I phileo you. The emphasis is on Peter's restoration and the Lord allowing him to declare his love for Him three times instead of condemning him for his three renouncements of Jesus.

Again, this is why the KJV language needs updating. It's all too easy to infer meaning which is not necessarily there because our partial understanding of the old English suggests it to us.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Fool for Christ (Jun 24, 2017)

tdh86 said:


> Well, firstly, I agree with you completely regarding the accuracy and precision of the AV. I've also studied it although not as long as you have and, despite what many claim, I have never found a single translation error in the AV. It really is second to none.
> 
> I also agree that sloppy translations are far too common and, in places, truths are watered down or even done away with completely. However, the careful modernisation of verb tenses is categorically not the same kind of issue.
> 
> ...



Dear Brother: I am not an English major. I have never been to a university. But I have studied this book (King James Bible, which years ago used to be referred to just as The Holy Bible) extensively and I love it. If you want to read an "updated" version, there are plenty of corrupted alterations to choose from. 

Your argument is the same as that of Wescott and Hort and they did what they would to their text. What I say about the verb endings is plain to me from comparing scripture with scripture. I do not trust modern scholarship, dictionaries, concordances, etc. None of them are inspired. They are for suggestion only. The Word must be our final authority. The Word of God has a name: Jesus Christ. He is the same yesterday, today and forever. He never changes. Neither should His Book. It was settled forever in heaven when David wrote the book of Psalms. And, as you said, it is without error. We should educate ourself upward, not demand that it come downward to our depraved intellect. 

Pride, doubt and unbelief are rife in Christendom today. There is no possible way for us to go back to the time of the reformation and witness the holy living and the power of the lives of those persecuted for their trust in the scriptures. They believed they were handling the very words of a holy God. Most scholars today do not believe that. They believe the lies that W/H introduced, that the true text of scripture had been lost, and only the "spiritually enlightened" could correct the "grave" mistakes found in that text. They did far more than just "update" the text. History shows us that they changed the truth in thousands of places. We have their manuscript. We do not have the one used by the KJB translators. All we know is that they told us that they had the originals and we now know that those have apparently ceased to exist. They said they translated "out of the original tongues." That means to me that they believed that they had original manuscripts that were then on the verge of extinction. 

Have you ever read "The Translators to the Reader" in the 1611 edition? Most scholars have not. There is an abundance of information that comes to us from that document. They tell us all about the Septuagint. How it was translated, who did it and why. Most scholars would tell you that the King James translators didn't know anything about that corrupt document. They give a pretty good history of the "chopping and changing" that has been a perpetual history of men who corrupt the scripture. Therefore, I would heartily resist any changes in this noble text. I believe that it could be possible to come up with a better translation that that done by the KJ translators, but it would have to be done by angels, for there are few men alive today who have the love and respect for the Word that they had. This book has been around for four hundred years and my 2008 edition reads virtually the same as my 1611. I love that. That is the testimony of Jesus Christ. The same yesterday, today and forever.


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 24, 2017)

Fool for Christ said:


> Dear Brother: I am not an English major. I have never been to a university. But I have studied this book (King James Bible, which years ago used to be referred to just as The Holy Bible) extensively and I love it. If you want to read an "updated" version, there are plenty of corrupted alterations to choose from.
> 
> Your argument is the same as that of Wescott and Hort and they did what they would to their text. What I say about the verb endings is plain to me from comparing scripture with scripture. I do not trust modern scholarship, dictionaries, concordances, etc. None of them are inspired. They are for suggestion only. The Word must be our final authority. The Word of God has a name: Jesus Christ. He is the same yesterday, today and forever. He never changes. Neither should His Book. It was settled forever in heaven when David wrote the book of Psalms. And, as you said, it is without error. We should educate ourself upward, not demand that it come downward to our depraved intellect.
> 
> ...



I just want to say thank you for your gracious responses!! It's refreshing to see. I have to be honest and say I disagree with your position - I am absolutely opposed to W&H and their goals and methods. I will certainly not be using any corrupt alterations. That is not what I'm talking about with updating grammar and syntax at all. But I will bow out there. Thank you for your contribution!

By grace,
Tim


----------



## MW (Jun 25, 2017)

tdh86 said:


> And if that's necessary in the Bible to make it clear which pronouns are singular and which are plural then why is that a problem?



Why must readers learn something you have invented when there is already an established convention in English? The reader can look up a dictionary and other aids to assist him in understanding conventional English. He knows that others will have access to these things. He has no idea whether others have access to your invention or what they might make of it.


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 26, 2017)

Why would readers have to 'learn' anything? It's not exactly rocket science...  The use of italics is exactly the same. You'll rarely find a word of explanation in a Bible for their use, and the average person will never come across the system apart from when they pick up a Bible, but I don't hear people complaining about having to 'learn' how it works. Italics were first used in the 1500s. Would you have said the same thing about that if you were there at the time? I know KJV-onlyists who say the pronoun issue is one of the main reasons for resisting an update and yet I've had to correct some of them when they get confused as to whether thee or you is plural! Why? Because we don't use that system anymore in our everyday language.

This was the purpose of my question in the first place. When do KJV users say the English language has changed sufficiently for an update to be acceptable? If the Lord was to remain away for another thousand years, then will there still be people insisting that nothing needs to change? Beowulf was written in English just over a thousand years ago – it starts like this, ‘Hwæt! Wé Gárdena in géardagum þéodcyninga þrym gefrúnon hú ðá æþelingas ellen fremedon.’ Language changes. That’s not something to be scared of.


----------



## KMK (Jun 26, 2017)

tdh86 said:


> Will there ever be any point at which KJV-onlyists would acknowledge that the language of the KJV can be legitimately updated?





tdh86 said:


> This was the purpose of my question in the first place. When do KJV users say the English language has changed sufficiently for an update to be acceptable?



Part of your frustration might be that you originally asked the question about KJV-onlyists, but now you ask it of KJV users. They are not the same thing. 

As for me, a KJV user, I am not opposed to an update, per se. But, I am opposed to an update that makes changes from an older form of conventional English to a brand new convention altogether that no one else in the English speaking world uses. 

For the record, I am also opposed to updates generally that are for the primary purpose of making the KJV more 'readable'. 'Preachability', 'hearability', and 'teachability' are just as important, if not more so.

LBC Chapter 22; Paragraph 5. The reading of the Scriptures,*16* preaching, and hearing the Word of God,*17* teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in our hearts to the Lord;*18* as also the administration of baptism,*19* and the Lord's supper,*20* are all parts of religious worship of God, 

Adding marks to the page does not help a Bible's preachability or hearability, because the hearer cannot see the marks. Also, I would argue that teaching the difference between 'thee' and 'ye' is simpler than teaching about underscores.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 26, 2017)

I'm conscious of that. I was kind of trying to widen it out... 

The issue is that the current convention has already done away with the distinctions between plural and singular. So we have two choices. We can persist in using archaic forms which certainly don't allow the Word of God to 'speak as in the language of Canaan' which was the 1611 translators' stated intention. Or we can use our initiative to make up for what is lacking in modern English.

I agree that readability in a specific sense is not the only consideration but I would include 'Preachability', 'hearability', and 'teachability' in public readability, if you will. I appreciate the issue of hearability. The same applies to the use of the word 'love' in English I guess. And also LORD/Lord. And 'will' as in exercising the will as opposed to 'will' meaning 'going to'. In the places where those things make a difference to interpretation, it's always the teacher's/preacher's responsibility to make his hearers aware.

I guess my point is that, while it wouldn't be for everyone, I am yet to see any unanswerable objection to a genuine update. A genuine revision without critical footnotes etc. In my opinion, we have done the church a great disservice by being so bound to our archaic pronouns and verb forms that we have allowed the Bible critics the monopoly on modern English.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## KMK (Jun 26, 2017)

tdh86 said:


> Language changes. That’s not something to be scared of.



This argument can and has been used by just about every English version/paraphrase out there. Once you embrace the rule that a new English translation must be made every time the English language changes, then you will be forever searching for the latest translation. 

This is something that I have lived through as my churches urged me to change from the NKJV to the Good News Bible, to the NIV, to the Message, and now I am under pressure to switch to the ESV which is also updated every five or six years. Yet there are many new translations/paraphrases still in the pipeline. I would rather have a reliable, settled translation even if it requires the use of a dictionary from time to time.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## KMK (Jun 26, 2017)

tdh86 said:


> In my opinion, we have done the church a great disservice by being so bound to our archaic pronouns and verb forms that we have allowed the Bible critics the monopoly on modern English.



Who is 'we'?


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 26, 2017)

KMK said:


> This argument can and has been used by just about every English version/paraphrase out there. Once you embrace the rule that a new English translation must be made every time the English language changes, then you will be forever searching for the latest translation.
> 
> This is something that I have lived through as my churches urged me to change from the NKJV to the Good News Bible, to the NIV, to the Message, and now I am under pressure to switch to the ESV which is also updated every five or six years. Yet there are many new translations/paraphrases still in the pipeline. I would rather have a reliable, settled translation even if it requires the use of a dictionary from time to time.



I agree. My question is essentially is there no happy medium?  'Absolutely no change' and 'whatever change you feel like' seem to be the majority views.


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 26, 2017)

KMK said:


> Who is 'we'?



KJV users and Received Text onlyists.


----------



## KMK (Jun 26, 2017)

tdh86 said:


> I agree. My question is essentially is there no happy medium?  'Absolutely no change' and 'whatever change you feel like' seem to be the majority views.



This may be true. Which makes it seem unlikely that there is enough middle ground at this time to warrant an update. Who wants to stand alone with some Bible that no one else has ever used?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 26, 2017)

Which is a great shame as far as I'm concerned! But I think there's more than one person saying it... ;-)


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 26, 2017)

KMK said:


> This may be true. Which makes it seem unlikely that there is enough middle ground at this time to warrant an update. Who wants to stand alone with some Bible that no one else has ever used?


I am more concerned that much of the modern versions revisions are either to appeal to gender issues, or else to marketing and merchandising to churches.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 26, 2017)

tdh86 said:


> In the places where those things make a difference to interpretation, it's always the teacher's/preacher's responsibility to make his hearers aware.


Brother,
I don't know how things are done in public worship at your church, but in most Reformed churches, entire chapters are read as a part of the service, apart from the preaching. It would be ridiculous and irreverent for the pastor to have to break in with, "that's plural, by the way," or, "that's singular, by the way" every time a second person pronoun is used. Granted, there are other ambiguities present in our English translations--you mentioned some good examples--but why add more?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 26, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> Brother,
> I don't know how things are done in public worship at your church, but in most Reformed churches, entire chapters are read as a part of the service, apart from the preaching. It would be ridiculous and irreverent for the pastor to have to break in with, "that's plural, by the way," or, "that's singular, by the way" every time a second person pronoun is used. Granted, there are other ambiguities present in our English translations--you mentioned some good examples--but why add more?


Most of the time, the proper meaning can be given to the congregation from a good English translation, so there would be the rare time the Pastor would need to give extra emphasis from appealing to the Greek text itself.


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 26, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> Brother,
> I don't know how things are done in public worship at your church, but in most Reformed churches, entire chapters are read as a part of the service, apart from the preaching. It would be ridiculous and irreverent for the pastor to have to break in with, "that's plural, by the way," or, "that's singular, by the way" every time a second person pronoun is used. Granted, there are other ambiguities present in our English translations--you mentioned some good examples--but why add more?



I completely agree with Dachaser on this. Firstly, 99% of the time the congregation should be following the reading in their own Bibles so the distinction would be obvious. Secondly, it's generally obvious from the context who is being spoken to anyway. Thirdly, it works for me to read the passage and make the distinction at the relevant point of the sermon.
All these objections add weight to my suspicion that there's always going to be some reason for rejecting change of any sort even when the change is perfectly valid.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 26, 2017)

tdh86 said:


> I completely agree with Dachaser on this. Firstly, 99% of the time the congregation should be following the reading in their own Bibles so the distinction would be obvious. Secondly, it's generally obvious from the context who is being spoken to anyway. Thirdly, it works for me to read the passage and make the distinction at the relevant point of the sermon.
> All these objections add weight to my suspicion that there's always going to be some reason for rejecting change of any sort even when the change is perfectly valid.


I'll answer your objections in the order you gave them.
1. I agree with you that the congregation, if possible, should be following along in their own copies. However, this is not always possible. For large portions of both of yesterday's services, I was consoling a fussy child. That is the norm for me right now, with three small children, the oldest of whom is three years old. I'm often standing in the back of the chapel bouncing or cradling a child. There is no way for me to read along under such circumstances.

2. That's often true, but not always. Can you distinguish the singular and plural pronouns in the following passage?
“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:31-32, ESV)

3. The scripture readings are not always covered during the sermon. I will concede, however, it may be explained after passage is read. However, why choose a translation for which this has to be done every time there's an ambiguity?

By the way, I do not subscribe to KJVO _at all_. My wife uses the NKJV, and, while we do plan on her next copy being a KJV, we're not in any hurry.

You spoke of excuses given to exclude any alteration "even when the change is perfectly valid." I don't see any valid reason for a change here. The older pronoun system is easy to understand. I've never met someone who doesn't know what "thou" means.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 26, 2017)

What you're going to have to prove, Tim, is that there really is a good reason to change the text. If everyone can understand the older forms, and making the proposed changes to the forms would make the language less precise, then why change them?


----------



## MW (Jun 26, 2017)

tdh86 said:


> Why? Because we don't use that system anymore in our everyday language.



First, They were not using it in every day language in 1611. It is there because it is the conventional way of expressing the differences between singular and plural. Secondly, your innovation is not in everyday language at all. The AV at least has the advantage that it is used in religious contexts. Your innovation would be confined to your version of the Bible. Thirdly, Why opt for your innovation? Why not use Hendriksen's innovation of distancing the letters? If every person takes your liberty we could end up with a thousand different conventions in the place of the natural one that is historically ingrained in the language and can be understood by ordinary means.


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 27, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> What you're going to have to prove, Tim, is that there really is a good reason to change the text. If everyone can understand the older forms, and making the proposed changes to the forms would make the language less precise, then why change them?



OK…I take the child-wrangling point.  I’ve got five kids so I know all about that. But I would repeat my point about the majority of passages being obvious anyway. ‘He said to him…’ or ‘He said to them…’ make the ‘yous’ that follow obvious in most cases. We don’t struggle to communicate in everyday life because we no longer have the distinction so I think the issue is massively overblown anyway.

Luke 22 is the classic passage where it does make a difference of course. Even with thees and thous it’s possible to read the passage too quickly without registering that there is a distinction there though. But those passages are the exception rather than the rule.

You said, ‘The scripture readings are not always covered during the sermon. I will concede, however, it may be explained after passage is read. However, why choose a translation for which this has to be done every time there's an ambiguity?’ I would point out again that it’s not all the time… But, for me, the point is really about having the Word of God in our language as it is now. Having to point out plurality/singularity of pronouns in a few passages is not a serious enough problem for me to say the Word of God should remain in less accessible language in order to avoid it. My issue is that there are very few options for the Received Text-onlyist when it comes to more modern language. Not if you value textual accuracy as well as accessibility of language.

In terms of proving that there really is a good reason to change the text, I would be arguing that we need to fulfil the aim of the 1611 translators that 'the Scriptures may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even by the very vulgar'. While the KJV is a literary masterpiece I don’t think that anyone could reasonably argue that it ‘speaks like itself, in the language of Canaan’ any longer. In other words, when the prophets spoke in the Old Testament, did their words sound to the people like the KJV sounds to us? Or when the Saviour sat and told a parable were His words as old-fashioned to His hearers as the KJV makes them sound? Did the kids in that day ask why He was talking funny? No, of course not. He spoke to them in everyday language. Not slang, not colloquial, just the language of the common man.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 27, 2017)

MW said:


> First, They were not using it in every day language in 1611. It is there because it is the conventional way of expressing the differences between singular and plural. Secondly, your innovation is not in everyday language at all. The AV at least has the advantage that it is used in religious contexts. Your innovation would be confined to your version of the Bible. Thirdly, Why opt for your innovation? Why not use Hendriksen's innovation of distancing the letters? If every person takes your liberty we could end up with a thousand different conventions in the place of the natural one that is historically ingrained in the language and can be understood by ordinary means.



With respect, I would submit that, if you do your research from the documented history of the English language then you would see that it was, in fact, everyday language in 1611. The Merriam Webster dictionary states that for most speakers of southern British English, thou had fallen out of everyday use, even in familiar speech, by sometime around 1650. And that's just in the south of England. That may not mean much to you, but as an Englishman, that's very significant. What's it's saying is that in the 'cultured south' - London etc - the use of these and thous was going out of fashion by around 1650. But the rest of the country would still have used those forms in everyday speech. In fact, thees and thous were the standard usage in informal settings which was one reason the singular went out of fashion. It was seen as too 'familiar' and not polite enough. So, polite society stopped using thees and thous forty years after the KJV was published. But the rest of the country used them for a lot longer. In fact, there are still a few places (they would be seen as the UK's equivalent of 'redneck country' I guess!) where the gentrifying influence of London still hasn't fully reached even in 2017 and you'll still hear people addressing each other as 'tha' (thou). So I can tell you with some authority that to say 'They were not using it in every day language in 1611' is simply not the case. Interestingly, the places where you'll see that urban myth perpetuated are almost exclusively Christian. (Fake news clearly isn't a new phenomenon!)

With regards my 'innovation' - the King James Easy Read edition from Whittaker House uses the same method for distinguishing pronouns and it works perfectly well. And if we raised 'but there might be other ways of doing it' to every new thing that was proposed then nothing would ever get done. Which bring me back, again, to my initial question. I think that that question has now been more than adequately answered though! The answer was NEVER!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 27, 2017)

tdh86 said:


> With respect, I would submit that, if you do your research from the documented history of the English language then you would see that it was, in fact, everyday language in 1611. The Merriam Webster dictionary states that for most speakers of southern British English, thou had fallen out of everyday use, even in familiar speech, by sometime around 1650. And that's just in the south of England. That may not mean much to you, but as an Englishman, that's very significant. What's it's saying is that in the 'cultured south' - London etc - the use of these and thous was going out of fashion by around 1650. But the rest of the country would still have used those forms in everyday speech. In fact, thees and thous were the standard usage in informal settings which was one reason the singular went out of fashion. It was seen as too 'familiar' and not polite enough. So, polite society stopped using thees and thous forty years after the KJV was published. But the rest of the country used them for a lot longer. In fact, there are still a few places (they would be seen as the UK's equivalent of 'redneck country' I guess!) where the gentrifying influence of London still hasn't fully reached even in 2017 and you'll still hear people addressing each other as 'tha' (thou). So I can tell you with some authority that to say 'They were not using it in every day language in 1611' is simply not the case. Interestingly, the places where you'll see that urban myth perpetuated are almost exclusively Christian. (Fake news clearly isn't a new phenomenon!)
> 
> With regards my 'innovation' - the King James Easy Read edition from Whittaker House uses the same method for distinguishing pronouns and it works perfectly well. And if we raised 'but there might be other ways of doing it' to every new thing that was proposed then nothing would ever get done. Which bring me back, again, to my initial question. I think that that question has now been more than adequately answered though! The answer was NEVER!


The KJV translators themselves based their translation off prior versions in part, and so they would expect their work to continue and even be modernized when need be.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 27, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The KJV translators themselves based their translation off prior versions in part, and so they would expect their work to continue and even be modernized when need be.



Absolutely! If you read the preface, the translators are quite clear about the attitudes they encountered at the time. The objections sound eerily familiar... A lot of people basically said,'What's wrong with the old one?'  But the translators were candid about why they were doing what they were doing and the importance of it. I think that's the reason why most KJV editions don't have the preface included if I'm being honest!


----------



## JimmyH (Jun 27, 2017)

A good book to read on the topic is David Norton's A Short History Of The King James Bible, From Tyndale To Today. He also famously was the head of the translation of The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible, which was a revision of the original Cambridge Paragraph Bible edited by F.H.A. Scrivener. If you'd like to go into it in-depth, and have deep pockets, or a good library, A Textual History Of The King James Bible, also by David Norton, is probably all you'll ever need to know.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jun 27, 2017)

The OP question is, "Will there ever be any point at which KJV-onlyists would acknowledge that the language of the KJV can be legitimately updated?"

My understanding from what I've learned here on the PB about the establishment principle, is that that point will be when God sends reforming times again. Rev. Winzer was helpful on the other thread:

"Anyone with gifts and ability could translate the Scriptures. Every trained minister could make his own translation and every congregation could have its own version. This makes translations liable to become a divisive tool.

“The teachings of holy Scripture should serve as binding rules on the translator. The unity and maturity of the church should be one of the teachings given priority, as the exalted Head of the church has given the gift of pastors and teachers to the church for this express purpose, Eph. 4:11-14. It is the duty of every member of the body of Christ to "speak the same thing," and to "be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment," 1 Cor. 1:10. Holy Scripture not only does not teach ecclesiastical anarchy, individualism, and independence, but it outrightly discourages it and warns against its evils.

“This is one of the reasons that we have subordinate standards -- to maintain the unity of the faith to which the church has attained. What applies to the subordinate standard subordinately must apply to the supreme standard supremely. Wherever there is an English speaking church which stands on the attainments of the reformation there will be an implicit obligation to the translation of the Bible which has shaped that reformation.

“The Geneva Bible was an excellent translation, but many of our reforming forbears recognised the superior accuracy of the Authorised Version, and they especially respected the fact it was the established Bible."

So I think the reasoning against revisions such as the one you've proposed, or new translations, has to do with big things: the unity of the church being the biggest thing at stake. The establishment principle is an outworking of maintaining that unity. So individuals and random groups of people, even godly and scholarly ones, aren't to take it upon themselves to revise or retranslate the Scriptures for the use of the church. Instead we're to wait on the Lord and be content with what he has provided until better times come for change.

That's what I've gleaned so far about this issue; maybe someone more knowledgeable will improve on my effort!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 28, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> The OP question is, "Will there ever be any point at which KJV-onlyists would acknowledge that the language of the KJV can be legitimately updated?"
> 
> My understanding from what I've learned here on the PB about the establishment principle, is that that point will be when God sends reforming times again. Rev. Winzer was helpful on the other thread:
> 
> ...


The big stumbling block to some seems to be when they equate perfection to any English translation, as that is reserved just for the originals.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jun 28, 2017)

Do you mean the Onlyists? I actually missed that the question was concerning KJVO folks; I really don't think know that any on this board are that. I have known a few in 'real' life and they do hold to some erroneous ideas. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JimmyH (Jun 29, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Do you mean the Onlyists? I actually missed that the question was concerning KJVO folks; I really don't think know that any on this board are that. I have known a few in 'real' life and they do hold to some erroneous ideas.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I did not begin reading the Bible until I was 36 years old, and then my purpose was to prove to myself that it was unreliable. I ended up becoming a believer. I had a leg up on some because I had read Shakespeare's tragedies with annotations, and was somewhat familiar with archaic language.

Even with that background I found the need to have a more recent translation to better understand what I was reading in the KJV. I chose the 1984 NIV for that purpose. Fast forward 32 years.

For the past 3 years I've been doing the M'Cheyne 1 year Bible reading plan. My first year was the KJV supplemented variously with the NIV, NASB, ESV, NKJV at points where I still needed the clarity I personally wasn't sure of in the KJV. My shortcoming no doubt.

The second year I used the 1599 Geneva Bible, and this year I've returned to the KJV, with the usual supplementing with more recent translations at some points. Say all this to say, I love the KJV, and read it every day. OTOH, I also highly regard other translations.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 30, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Do you mean the Onlyists? I actually missed that the question was concerning KJVO folks; I really don't think know that any on this board are that. I have known a few in 'real' life and they do hold to some erroneous ideas.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


They are a real issue among certain Baptist groups, as we Baptists do not see any problem with preferring aversion over another, but do have real issues with seeing one version alone as being from God, and without any errors in it.


----------



## KMK (Jul 1, 2017)

tdh86 said:


> With respect, I would submit that, if you do your research from the documented history of the English language then you would see that it was, in fact, everyday language in 1611.



Can you provide us with some of that research? You are the first person who I have heard make the claim that the English verb paradigms used in the AV was used in common speech at that time.


----------



## tdh86 (Jul 1, 2017)

KMK said:


> Can you provide us with some of that research? You are the first person who I have heard make the claim that the English verb paradigms used in the AV was used in common speech at that time.



It's difficult to find too much in terms of transcript because most common speech wasn't written down but here's one... please see attached image. This was a letter written from a mother to a son, so less formal than a lot of writing and closer to the common way of talking between friends. It's written a decade later than the KJV and, even in the formal language of a letter, the mother still alternates between the more polite 'you' and associated verb conjugations and the more familiar 'thou' and associated verb conjugations.
You can tell from a lot of writings from the same time, that at least in more genteel parts of the country, usage was definitely changing to the more polite 'you' but 'thou' was still being used and it definitely wasn't just being used in literature. It was the average man on the street who was most likely to use it in familiarity with his friends. 
T


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jul 1, 2017)

KMK said:


> Yet there are many new translations/paraphrases still in the pipeline. I would rather have a reliable, settled translation even if it requires the use of a dictionary from time to time.


Ken, I sympathise with this. I use the ESV Reformation study Bible (2010 ed). The ESV had done minimal changes up to then. I also use the original HCSB. With all the changes in Bibles I believe this has kept me on the 'safe' path.


----------

