# Why Did Pastors Discard the KJV?



## Brian R.

Hello, All. First timer here.

I recently made the switch from the ESV to the KJV for practically all of my reading, family worship, etc. And I don't regret it for a second. I totally love the KJV now. The Puritan Board was very helpful in this transition, as I studied up on Greek manuscripts, textual criticism, etc. for the first time in my Christian life.

Lately, in listening to older sermons (1990s) I've been pleasantly amazed at how often the preacher, who's using a modern translation, tells his congregation the old KJV actually had a more accurate translation here. It almost seems as if he's been forced to use the NIV and he knows it's not the best.

Question: What happened back in the 80s and 90s to cause so many pastors to jump from the KJV to the NIV or other modern translation? Just curious if any of you might provide some informative historical feedback. Thanks.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

This Pastor has not abandoned the Authorized Version.


----------



## Jack K

My dad was a pastor when the NIV came out. He switched from the KJV to the NIV for one simple, compelling reason: his congregation (mostly not very educated and many non-native English speakers) could understand it far, far better.

By the way... If the KJV is a more accurate translation than the NIV in many spots, I don't get why that's a compelling reason to switch away from the ESV, which is language-wise probably a closer cousin to the KJV than to the NIV. I get that one may have source-text reasons.


----------



## Scott1

All three, KJV, NIV, and ESV are very good translations.
(Not the latest NIV, stay away from that, use pre-1980 NIV).

One of the unfortunate consequences of so many versions now is that people do not have a common version to read, memorize and it probably is diminishing Bible memorization.

But those three translations (older NIV) are good, suitable for reading, memorizing and reading.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

There are many advantages to the KJV, even beyond textual issues, that readers of modern versions are missing out on. I do understand, however, that many who are unaccustomed to the language of the King James may find it hard to understand, which is probably why so many pastors have moved away from it. As far as the NIV, I am not a big fan mainly because of the translation philosophy behind it, which leaves too much room for translator interpretation. That being said, I think all the hoopla surrounding the NIV 2011 is way overblown. It is simply not that much different than the 1984 version, and so I don't understand why so many people who gladly used the 1984 version are all of the sudden condemning the 2011 version.


----------



## Caroline

I grew up on the KJV, but I don't use it now. What happens when you have poorly educated or English-as-a-second-language people and an old-English book is a lot of misunderstanding. Some of the strangest interpretations of the Bible I ever heard resulted from people not understanding KJV. At some point, it becomes like the question of why people stopped using Latin. Sure, it is fine if someone is fluent in Latin (as it is fine if someone is familiar with King James English). Otherwise, it is a barrier to understanding the word of God. If the ESV is a good translation and people understand it better, then they rightfully make a change. But if you want to read King James (or Latin) and can understand it well, then carry on.


----------



## Brian R.

These are helpful comments. Thanks, everyone! And bless you, Todd. Keep up the good fight!


----------



## Scott1

Let me also comment, the KJV has served well for 400 years.
When it says it, it often says it best with a poignancy and vicissitude that is unmatched. It's a great way to improve one's command of the language as well.
And, I still do much of my memorization in it.

But the NIV and ESV are useful for Bible reading and study in a group, etc.


----------



## JM

The seed can be traced to Scofields notes! (along with every other evil plaguing the modern evangelical world)


----------



## Claudiu

JM said:


> The seed can be traced to Scofields notes! (along with every other evil plaguing the modern evangelical world)



In all seriousness, do you think that had any effect?


----------



## JM

I do. Scofield's Fundamentalism stood for orthodoxy for a long, long time. After you asked I did a quick google to see if anyone else agreed with me and TBS had an pdf! 

http://www.tbsbibles.org/pdf_information/148-1.pdf


----------



## joejohnston3

Actually our family made the switch recently from ESV to KJV for similar reasons and all the good feedback from PB and Joel Beeke and others that have a sound reasoning. We have been very happy with the switch and do not plan on using anything else in the future. I am also very anxious for the Joel Beeke KJV Study Bible!!


----------



## Claudiu

JM said:


> I do. Scofield's Fundamentalism stood for orthodoxy for a long, long time. After you asked I did a quick google to see if anyone else agreed with me and TBS had an pdf!
> 
> http://www.tbsbibles.org/pdf_information/148-1.pdf



Thanks for passing that on. 

So you think that pastors left the KJV because they were also departing from Scofieldism (considering that they were so closely related in many circles)?


----------



## Claudiu

I'm just trying to figure out how Scofield plays into all this. I think there may be something there, but can't quite connect the dots.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Claudiu said:


> I'm just trying to figure out how Scofield plays into all this. I think there may be something there, but can't quite connect the dots.



For better or worse, both Dispensationalism and the KJV came to be associated with a certain type of fundamentalism, and the tendency is to throw the baby out with the bath water.


----------



## Paul1976

The Bible is inspired. Translations are not. Any translation is, among other things, at best a compromise between being literal and being more readily readable and easily comprehensible. No translation will ever be "best" simply because it will either be literal, but cumbersome and awkward to read, or it will be overly translated and (by necessity) inject a degree of the translator's interpretation, or it will be a "jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none." I see translations as tools, some more appropriate than others, depending on how I want to approach the text.

What I describe above summarizes the best approach to translation and what limits how good a translation CAN be. Some translations do not even rise to this level. To my mind, ANY barrier that limits a translation team's ability to produce the best translation the can based on their goal (such as very literal or very approachable) will result in a less-than-ideal translation.

Include, for example, the additional goal of interjecting politically correct gender-inclusive language into a translation, and you have an additional barrier to producing the best translation possible. While I think it could be legitimately argued how severe a limitation this would be, and to what extent a translation would suffer as a result, I think it is clear that the translation would at least suffer to a degree. This is the difference between the ’84 and ’11 NIV and why I personally prefer the ’84 version.

In my mind, the KJV has two major barriers to being a good translation: it's age and source material. The English language has changed drastically in the last 402 years, as any student who has studied the works of Shakespeare can attest! This is an absolutely huge and completely unnecessary barrier to put between people and God’s word. Studying scripture is not easy – why make that more difficult with an archaic translation? I believe it also presents a barrier to evangelism. How often do we see Christians ridiculed for speaking in archaic English when we should be being ridiculed for clearly preaching Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles. Someone made an excellent point about most crazy translations and cults coming out of the KJV, and there is truth to that. It’s much easier to either miss or distort the meaning simply because the wording is so archaic.

The second objection is the source document. Relatively few of the original Greek manuscripts now available were used (recall the Catholic church banned everything but the Vulgate!). Newer translations have better manuscripts available and are undoubtedly closer to the original. I know there will be objections to this, but I do believe the more researched manuscripts are at least generally closer. Besides, if you really like the received text, just use the NKJV and at least avoid objection #1.

Someone above mentioned that the NIV is a less good translation because it’s less literal and more interpretive. I would disagree. It’s a less good translation for careful analysis. That doesn’t mean it isn’t good for applications where you would prefer a more approachable translation, such as reading aloud or listening in a car. I realize the NIV is probably an inferior translation for how most people here use translations, but that doesn’t make it a bad translation overall.

The best argument I’ve heard personally for retaining the KJV is that it’s battle-tested. There is an element of wisdom to this, but I think some of the older translations (NASB) that are equally literal are sufficiently battle tested as to be safe at this point. Besides, there is also wisdom to the expression “never bring a sword to a gunfight.” Simply being battle tested does not mean a weapon (to follow the original analogy) is not obsolete. 

So why are pastors abandoning the KJV? I honestly believe they are coming to their senses.


----------



## kvanlaan

I always find it funny when people say that it is 'hard to understand' (though I understand that with ESL folks in attendance). It is not hard to understand, it is indeed more accurate. If there are contextual clues lacking, for instance, and the NIV says 'you', I know I can look to my KJV/Geneva and see whether or not they use 'ye' and then I will know if it is an individual or multiple people being addressed. I also find it odd to see how some want the Bible constantly updated in the vernacular when our language is dumbing down on one hand and becoming more vulgar on the other day by day. I remember hearing one preacher lament this and then point to the evening news, so to say 'see, not even the pagans are doing this - the broadcast news is in standard English, not the vernacular of the day, with its F-this and F-that; why do we want to do that to the Bible?'


----------



## Edward

kvanlaan said:


> I always find it funny when people say that it is 'hard to understand'



Try going around to the unchurched and ask them to explain this phrase in their own words and see how many understand:

"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face"


----------



## kvanlaan

Agreed, but we are not going to the unchurched with a canned KJV sermon with at test at the end, but with our own selves, face to face, witnessing and discipling. I am not one for using the assembly of believers as an outreach tool, and simplifying it week in week out in case someone wanders in - the Saints need meat, not milk. Otherwise, there is a whole host of things that even the NIV would make mysterious - the trinity? How would the unchurched view that? Even in 4th grade English?


----------



## Claudiu

Bill The Baptist said:


> Claudiu said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just trying to figure out how Scofield plays into all this. I think there may be something there, but can't quite connect the dots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For better or worse, both Dispensationalism and the KJV came to be associated with a certain type of fundamentalism, and the tendency is to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately.


----------



## SinnerSavedByChrist

JM said:


> The seed can be traced to Scofields notes! (along with every other evil plaguing the modern evangelical world)



 Too funny


----------



## MW

Brian R. said:


> Question: What happened back in the 80s and 90s to cause so many pastors to jump from the KJV to the NIV or other modern translation? Just curious if any of you might provide some informative historical feedback.



A study on changing attitudes towards educational methodology, especially in the department of English, will explain the parallel changes in Bible translation. The days of stiff scientific philology gave us the RV. Later the tendency towards technical terms, stylised sentences, and purpose-built English led to the RSV. Then the movement towards self-expression and lack of grammatical and syntactical form has produced translations like the GNB and NIV.

To this might be added, from a philosophical point of view, the "Honest to God" and "New Reformation" movements of the 60s and 70s, which placed a greater emphasis on understanding than on the thing to be understood. As this movement influenced Bible translation individual relevance became more important than formal meaning. The reader became the reference point for interpretation. Translations then became geared towards the way specific demographic groups could understand the words for themselves. The idea of a single translation based around a common English that could be read by all was then abandoned. Translations must henceforth be made to suit specific cultures and trends.

Like the commercialism and technological mindset of much of present-day society, the Bible is translated with the specific intention that it should be discarded and replaced by something more appealing.

The AV is a multi-generational translation which one commits to reading for a lifetime and shares with people of different ages and places, and does so in a sense of continuity with those who have gone before. It was made to be read over and over again; not to be mastered at once. To the degree one values the ideal of "the common English Bible," faithful and true, the AV will meet with a hearty welcome.


----------



## Free Christian

I came across a Bible translation compare site Bible Verses by Comparison, Read Verses Using All Translations Side by Side where you can select a verse and have it compared with others. Some of the interesting comparisons I saw were Zechariah 13 v 6, Colossians 1 v 14, Micah 5 v 2, Mathew 9 v 13, Mathew 20 v 20, Mathew 25 v 35 and 1 Peter 2 v2. Zechariah was interesting as it had from "Wounds in thine hands" to "wounds on your body", "wounds between your arms". Ok, all wounds but why on earth so different? I like the KJV but do agree that it is high time it had just the hard to understand words in it changed. Not everyone is highly schooled or has a great command of the English language. As I understand the WCF says the Bible should be in the known native language, or as it says "translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come' If I am to be honest, the language of parts of the KJV is not the common, or "Vulgar" language of my own country. But too, is trying to understand a hard to understand word anywhere near as bad as reading a translation that changes words for no valid reason or omits them for the same?


----------



## KaphLamedh

Caroline said:


> I grew up on the KJV, but I don't use it now. What happens when you have poorly educated or English-as-a-second-language people and an old-English book is a lot of misunderstanding. Some of the strangest interpretations of the Bible I ever heard resulted from people not understanding KJV. At some point, it becomes like the question of why people stopped using Latin. Sure, it is fine if someone is fluent in Latin (as it is fine if someone is familiar with King James English). Otherwise, it is a barrier to understanding the word of God. If the ESV is a good translation and people understand it better, then they rightfully make a change. But if you want to read King James (or Latin) and can understand it well, then carry on.



Caroline, English is my second language and I have to say that KJV is the easiest to read in my opinion. Then maybe NASB and after that ESV & HCSB. Maybe I have heard so many sermons preach from KJV so it has became the Bible in English for me. There are some archaic words, but do I read whatever English translation, I need dictionary sometimes.


----------



## JM

_When the Dispensation of the AV was over the Dispensation of the NIV commenced. God is now dealing differently with the church according to a different set of mss. revealed through the magisterium of textual scholars. _

Seriously, Scofield was more than popular, that’s all I was trying to say. His notes had a huge impact on the church, we cannot separate his theological notes from his textual notes like Sco does the church and Israel. 

jm


----------



## Bill The Baptist

JM said:


> When the Dispensation of the AV was over the Dispensation of the NIV commenced. God is now dealing differently with the church according to a different set of mss. revealed through the magisterium of textual scholars.


----------



## jandrusk

The reason in my opinion has been the "dumbing" down of our culture from having to think critically or heaven forbid you have to look a word up in the dictionary. A good point of reference on this position is a book by T.David Gordon, titled, "Why Johnny Can't Preach. It's a good read and the data that he provides is insightful into a number of issues with our culture's short attention span. 

Why Johnny Can't Preach: The Media Have Shaped the Messengers: T. David Gordon: 9781596381162: Amazon.com: Books


----------



## Edward

kvanlaan said:


> Saints need meat, not milk



Perhaps in your church. Fortunately, there are saints in our church that need milk, as well as those who need meat. 



kvanlaan said:


> in case someone wanders in



Perhaps it is a Dutch versus Scots view, but I'd consider the lack of folks 'wandering in' as a sign of an unhealthy church. 



kvanlaan said:


> even the NIV would make mysterious - the trinity?



I don't think that 'trinity' appears in either the KJV or the original NIV.


----------



## JoannaV

The Scofield thing reminds me of the church I grew up with. They were unorthodox and supported KJV usage. Then in the early 90s they moved to mainstream evangelicalism (eg accepted the Trinity!) and adopted the NIV. So there's another example of the KJV being abandoned along with false beliefs.

There are all kinds of reasons why a preacher may have been "forced" to use the NIV. For example, often churches have pew Bibles and whatever version they are is the one the church is stuck with as the standard version. (Unless they *really* want to change.)


----------



## jogri17

I'm praying Zondervan will release the original NIV into the public domain. That would be an huge blessing to the Lord.


----------



## py3ak

armourbearer said:


> A study on changing attitudes towards educational methodology, especially in the department of English, will explain the parallel changes in Bible translation. The days of stiff scientific philology gave us the RV. Later the tendency towards technical terms, stylised sentences, and purpose-built English led to the RSV. Then the movement towards self-expression and lack of grammatical and syntactical form has produced translations like the GNB and NIV.



Matthew, that observation reminded me of a fascinating essay from Theodore Dalrymple, "The Gift of Language" in _Not with a Bang but a Whimper: The Politics and Culture of Decline_. I no longer have the entire article to hand, but it addresses itself to the question of changing educational standards for English and their impact on wider society, as can be seen in the following excerpt:



> With a very limited vocabulary, it is impossible to make, or at least to express, important distinctions and to examine any question with conceptual care. My patients often had no words to describe what they were feeling, except in the crudest possible way, with expostulations, exclamations, and physical displays of emotion. Often, by guesswork and my experience of other patients, I could put things into words for them, words that they grasped at eagerly. Everything was on the tip of their tongue, rarely or never reaching the stage of expression out loud. They struggled even to describe in a consecutive and logical fashion what had happened to them, at least without a great deal of prompting. Complex narrative and most abstractions were closed to them.
> In their dealings with authority, they were at a huge disadvantage—a disaster, since so many of them depended upon various public bureaucracies for so many of their needs, from their housing and health care to their income and the education of their children. I would find myself dealing on their behalf with those bureaucracies, which were often simultaneously bullying and incompetent; and what officialdom had claimed for months or even years to be impossible suddenly, on my intervention, became possible within a week. Of course it was not my mastery of language along that produced this result; rather my mastery of language signaled my capacity to make serious trouble for the bureaucrats if they did not do as I asked. I do not think it is a coincidence that the offices of all those bureaucracies were increasingly installing security barriers against the physical attacks on the staff by enraged but inarticulate dependents.
> (...)
> Beginning in the 1950s, Basil Bernstein, a London University researcher, demonstrated the difference between the speech of middle- and working-class children, controlling for whatever it is that IQ measures. Working-class speech, tethered closely to the here and now, lacked the very aspects of standard English needed to express abstract or general ideas and to place personal experience in temporal or any other perspective. Thus, unless Pinker's despised schoolmarms were to take the working-class children in hand and deliberately teach them another speech code, they were doomed to remain where they were, at the bottom of a society that was itself much the poorer for not taking full advantage of their abilities, and that indeed would pay a steep penalty for not doing so. An intelligent man who can make no constructive use of his intelligence is likely to make a destructive, and self-destructive, use of it.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Ruben, here's Dalrymple's essay


----------



## MW

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Ruben, here's Dalrymple's essay



Ruben, Steve, thankyou for the notice and link to the essay. It responds very well to the naive idea of innate language skill.

We should not forget Orwell's famous essay, Politics and the English Language.



> But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation even among people who should and do know better.


----------



## KaphLamedh

JM said:


> _When the Dispensation of the AV was over the Dispensation of the NIV commenced. God is now dealing differently with the church according to a different set of mss. revealed through the magisterium of textual scholars. _
> 
> Seriously, Scofield was more than popular, that’s all I was trying to say. His notes had a huge impact on the church, we cannot separate his theological notes from his textual notes like Sco does the church and Israel.
> 
> jm



One man said that few churches took Scofield's notes so seriously as they would be part of Scriptures...maybe there are few ultra-dispensationalists.
MacArthur's Study Bible has also dispensationalistic notes, right?


----------



## Bill The Baptist

KaphLamedh said:


> MacArthur's Study Bible has also dispensationalistic notes, right?



Oh yeah. Here is an example from the notes on Acts 2:16-21 where Peter quotes Joel in his sermon at Pentecost: "Joel's prophecy will not be completely fulfilled until the Millennial Kingdom. But Peter, by using it, shows that Pentecost was a pre-fulfillment, a taste of what will happen in the Millennial kingdom when the spirit is poured out on all flesh."


----------



## py3ak

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Ruben, here's Dalrymple's essay



Thank you, Mr. Rafalsky - it was even more entertaining than I remembered.


----------



## Caroline

jandrusk said:


> The reason in my opinion has been the "dumbing" down of our culture from having to think critically or heaven forbid you have to look a word up in the dictionary. A good point of reference on this position is a book by T.David Gordon, titled, "Why Johnny Can't Preach. It's a good read and the data that he provides is insightful into a number of issues with our culture's short attention span.
> 
> Why Johnny Can't Preach: The Media Have Shaped the Messengers: T. David Gordon: 9781596381162: Amazon.com: Books



While it may be good and helpful for people to use archaic translations in their private worship, I tend to think it is a bad idea for public worship. It's not a matter of "heaven forbid someone have to look up a word," because (1) dictionaries are not readily available in church pews and (2) some parishioners could not use one anyway. My son, for example, is autistic. There is no way that he would ever understand the KJV, but he does grasp at least some of more modern translations. My daughter is slightly deaf and has a limited vocabulary. She, too, struggles with comprehension. We read Shakespeare at home, but I have to be on hand to explain it to her, which is difficult to do in the middle of a worship service. We take other measures, like reading the Bible passages ahead of time so that the children can understand the sermon more easily.

But it is a lack of charity to those who struggle with learning disabilities to characterize everyone who can't use the KJV effectively as stupid and lazy. I'm not saying that this was your intent, but I have heard it done before.

In a discussion at church some years ago, someone complained scornfully at a meeting of "catering to the lowest common denominator," and I noted aloud that people ought to remember that the lowest common denominator in this church was my son.

It's not that everything needs to necessarily be at his level. But if something small can be changed to make it easier for people who struggle--then why not do that? Why put a stumbling block of archaic language in front of a child who has enough problems already? For that reason, I tend to think of KJV-only churches as uncharitable, even if they do not intend to be so. It is the linguistic equivalent of failing to have a handicapped ramp.


----------



## a mere housewife

I was thinking yesterday of how Scripture has a variety of levels of complexity simply as regards vocabulary and poetic devices -- as the difference between Isaiah and Mark. There are books written in a way that was readily accessible to common folk, as well as those books that still challenge even the most educated simply on a literary level. I don't understand the original languages, and can only approach that range of accessibility and difficulty in translation. But as it is a part of the original inspiration, I feel able to use an easier version for comprehension, for myself and others who are struggling (the very rhythms which are so readily memorable can make it harder for me to focus on word meaning), and also using the KJV, not to neglect that element of challenge and learning to comprehend more than I do naturally. It seems that one translation will scarcely be able to sufficiently capture that whole range, and there is something lost in neglecting either end of it? Just a small observation from my largely uneducated standpoint -- I have been very grateful for both my ESV and my KJV.


----------



## ZackF

I try to steer a course between getting too "woo woo" about a translation (like forgetting it is a translation and writing people out of Christianity) and total indifference. My thoughts are similar to those of Heidi above as I use multiple translations that are usually NASB (study), ESV(reading and study) and KJV(devotion). Though I have some training in Greek, I am not proficient. As my Spanish improves bit by bit, I find it helping my biblical understanding. Elizabethan English is in some fashion a different language but also the same language. Where many use newer translations for devotion and KJV for study, I reverse those habits due to KJV's majesty. As Pastor Winzer, more eloquently than I ever could KJV has continuity with the previous generations and is just a plain excellent work altogether.


----------



## earl40

Brian R. said:


> Question: What happened back in the 80s and 90s to cause so many pastors to jump from the KJV to the NIV or other modern translation?



I believe the same reason Luther translated the scripture in German from Latin and the same reason the early church translated it from Greek and Hebrew to Latin.


----------



## Jack K

I can understand arguments for the KJV that are based on the source text used, or the accuracy/consistency of translation, or the beauty of the language, or even to some extent the desire to preserve tradition. But I fail to see why we would use the KJV merely because we _want_ the Scriptures to be somewhat difficult to understand and to require extra effort or scholarly learning. It's not that I'm against education or effort. But one of the main principles of the Reformation is that the Word ought to be as accessible as possible to the largest number of people possible. Four-hundred-year-old word usage simply is less accessible to most people today than is modern word usage.

We can bemoan the fact that people aren't better educated or didn't grow up hearing KJV English. But to try to solve that "problem" by keeping the Word inaccessible to those who haven't trained their ears to appreciate the old style is to have misplaced priorities. So to answer the opening question another way: Pastors have moved away from the KJV because they understand the Reformation principle that the Scriptures ought to be accessible to the people in their everyday language.

Whether or not other factors outweigh this consideration is another issue. But accessible language is a plus, not a negative.


----------



## a mere housewife

Jack, how would you deal with the way the original Scriptures contains material that is at various degrees of accessibility?

It seems discordant with a significant aspect of the original to raise the bar for comprehension when what the Holy Spirit inspired was on a level of ready comprehension. Yet one misses so much for instance, reading through Isaiah without puzzling over some features and needing some trained help, because that incredible work of literature (surely on par with the great literature of all ages) has been flattened to one's own level? And God intended it to be the complex statement that it is, just as the accessible parts were surely meant to be so.

It seems from the discussions I have read, that positions pull between wanting all of Scripture to be on a lower or a higher comprehension level, but Scripture itself is not like that?


----------



## Jack K

a mere housewife said:


> Jack, how would you deal with the way the original Scriptures contains material that is at various degrees of accessibility?
> 
> It seems discordant with a significant aspect of the original to raise the bar for comprehension when what the Holy Spirit inspired was on a level of ready comprehension. Yet one misses so much for instance, reading through Isaiah without puzzling over some features and needing some trained help, because that incredible work of literature (surely on par with the great literature of all ages) has been flattened to one's own level? And God intended it to be the complex statement that it is, just as the accessible parts were surely meant to be so.
> 
> It seems from the discussions I have read, that positions pull between wanting all of Scripture to be on a lower or a higher comprehension level, but Scripture itself is not like that?



It sounds reasonable to me that different books might be translated with a different reading level if that accurately reflects the original. You may be onto something.

That probably wouldn't mean using archaic language, though, would it... unless parts of Isaiah used Hebrew that would have been considered old-fashioned and archaic to Isaiah's readers? If Isaiah is simply a more complicated or learned or flowery style, then I guess a faithful translation could reflect that and might take more work to comprehend... but not necessarily because it uses words that are no longer in common use today. Certainly, the Reformation principle of accessible Scritpures does not mean to make the Bible simple or dumbed-down. Much of it _will_ take much effort to fully comprehend. I personally find Isaiah a challenge even in the most simple translations. I just see no reason to make the Scriptures intentionally inaccessible where they originally were not.

My thinking on this matter is surely skewed by my experience growing up in a missionary family with the Navajos. The New Testament had been translated into Navajo. But sadly, the Navajo translators had used the KJV and, since it had archaic language, had wrongly believed that the New Testament must have been originally written in a "formal" Greek rather than common Greek. Therefore, they translated the New Testament using a formal version of the Navajo language that most everyday Navajos did not understand so readily. The result was that the people had both an English Bible (KJV) and a Navajo one... but both were hard to read and comprehend. Not just Isaiah, but the whole thing.


----------



## a mere housewife

I sometimes think that almost all our thinking about everything is skewed by some factor or other: God balances us all out somehow, and saves us from ourselves, and uses us anyway -- but what looks so objective to us is still enclosed in such a small system of our own experience. My favorite translation of Isaiah is the one in my devotional by Alec Motyer, who explains and tries to replicate enough that I realise there is even more in the original. He spoke at one point of the way Isaiah produces an effect with sounds, which comes across (if you try to reproduce it in English) as cheap, because of the nuances of the word you must employ -- they come across as ridiculous, rather than shattering. Sounds convey significance: Isaiah knew what he was doing even there. 

It is not an archaic translation though it is difficult and in attempting to reproduce various things, it is 'literary' -- even with commentary, it is not the book I would give to someone who had little acquaintance with Scripture, unless they had some interest in studying something somewhat difficult. The vocabulary is not introductory, and the structures are complex. Yet, I did not mean to argue for any translation in particular. I was thinking more that the greatest 'accessibility' cannot be too overriding a consideration, even where it is a significant aspect of accuracy to the original -- but the accuracy is still the most important thing? Sometimes that accuracy might mean somewhat less accessibility.


----------



## MW

Jack K said:


> Pastors have moved away from the KJV because they understand the Reformation principle that the Scriptures ought to be accessible to the people in their everyday language.



Sorry to be openly contradictory, Jack, but the idea you have presented is blatantly false. First, Scripture is "written" and is a literary language. Every day language is something entirely different to literary language. Even Tyndale's plough-boy would be given a Bible which was in a language far more technical than what he was accustomed to day by day. Secondly, literacy was not high at the reformation. The translations were intended to be used with a diligent use of the means and in immediate connection with a teaching ministry. This was as it should be. The idea that people should be able to pick up a Bible and understand it with ease is somewhat naive of what it means to be human and fallen. Thirdly, the reformers maintained the great principle of returning to the fountains. The concepts contained in the Bible are culturally removed from the lives of everyday people. Language reflects cultural occupation. The Bible abounds with terminology which is legal, sacrificial, royal, pastoral, familial, etc. These by nature will require a reader to accustom himself to the thought forms and terms which are used, and this can only be done by repetitive study. Every field has its technical nomenclature. Where there is interest in that field the individual will pick up the terms and their meanings over time. Fourthly, the reformation translations all ran in the catholic tradition. They were not intended to meet the needs of a generation but to accurately reflect the proper understanding of Scripture as it had been built up across the ages of the church. Finally, the reformers were well trained in the humanities. The concern was to produce accurate translations which conformed to academic standards and could stand the test of learned criticism.

All scholars agree that the Authorised Version was not written in the everyday language of the 17th century, and yet no one denies it became the classic work of the English language. If one reads 19th and 20th century appraisals, it is called "the common English Bible," and that is two to three hundred years after it was created. Nothing has been created which is worthy to take its place. Of many good translations King James' translators made a better one. Regrettably, of that better one, there has now emerged many inferior ones. We are to approve things that are excellent, not things that are inferior.


----------



## Herald

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Ruben, here's Dalrymple's essay



Steve, thank you for providing the link.

A bit off topic, but Dalrymple's essay is a good reminder against looking down on others because of their inability to communicate at the "schoolmarm" level.


----------



## jandrusk

Caroline said:


> jandrusk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason in my opinion has been the "dumbing" down of our culture from having to think critically or heaven forbid you have to look a word up in the dictionary. A good point of reference on this position is a book by T.David Gordon, titled, "Why Johnny Can't Preach. It's a good read and the data that he provides is insightful into a number of issues with our culture's short attention span.
> 
> Why Johnny Can't Preach: The Media Have Shaped the Messengers: T. David Gordon: 9781596381162: Amazon.com: Books
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While it may be good and helpful for people to use archaic translations in their private worship, I tend to think it is a bad idea for public worship. It's not a matter of "heaven forbid someone have to look up a word," because (1) dictionaries are not readily available in church pews and (2) some parishioners could not use one anyway. My son, for example, is autistic. There is no way that he would ever understand the KJV, but he does grasp at least some of more modern translations. My daughter is slightly deaf and has a limited vocabulary. She, too, struggles with comprehension. We read Shakespeare at home, but I have to be on hand to explain it to her, which is difficult to do in the middle of a worship service. We take other measures, like reading the Bible passages ahead of time so that the children can understand the sermon more easily.
> 
> But it is a lack of charity to those who struggle with learning disabilities to characterize everyone who can't use the KJV effectively as stupid and lazy. I'm not saying that this was your intent, but I have heard it done before.
> 
> In a discussion at church some years ago, someone complained scornfully at a meeting of "catering to the lowest common denominator," and I noted aloud that people ought to remember that the lowest common denominator in this church was my son.
> 
> It's not that everything needs to necessarily be at his level. But if something small can be changed to make it easier for people who struggle--then why not do that? Why put a stumbling block of archaic language in front of a child who has enough problems already? For that reason, I tend to think of KJV-only churches as uncharitable, even if they do not intend to be so. It is the linguistic equivalent of failing to have a handicapped ramp.
Click to expand...


Thanks for sharing your thoughts Caroline. Yes, by no means was my intent to characterize everyone, it was really directed to the problem at large. I too have an autistic child (Who I read your children's catechism to every night, thank you for that) and I agree that teaching him the KJV verbiage would not work. I wasn't even thinking of it in a worship context and you bring up some good points around that. I was trying to address the question around why our Pastor's are not using the KJV especially when they reference it at times to be a better or more accurate translation. 

Now that I think of it, I think the bigger question might be, "Given all of the numerous bible translations out there, how can I be sure which ones are orthodox and which ones are not?" I think a good use case would be ESV versus the Message; Does it matter? Forgive me for not constructing greater detail around my comments.


----------



## ZackF

armourbearer said:


> The concern was to produce accurate translations which conformed to academic standards and could stand the test of learned criticism.



I've appreciated what you have written on the subject over the years. Do you think that it is impossible that a more accurate translation can be produced today or that it is just unnecessary?


----------



## MW

KS_Presby said:


> Do you think that it is impossible that a more accurate translation can be produced today or that it is just unnecessary?



Any small group of people can make changes to a text; but whether they are considered improvements and recognised universally is another matter.

There were specific ecclesiastical, educational, political and social factors which were active under Providence to make the AV what it is. Nothing is impossible with God, but the present fractured nature of the church, academic relativism, political pluralism, and social inclusivism, seem to me to be potent forces which will militate against wide acceptance of any change which is introduced into the translation. The same applies to our subordinate standards.

This is not what might be termed a constitutional age. There is a reason conservatives are concerned to maintain old constitutions and charters, and seek to avoid bringing them under re-examination in the present atmosphere. It is not good to have large drilling machines operative around exposed foundations, especially when their operators are only interested in clearing everything away in order to start anew. It is simply unrealistic to think that "the spirit of the age" is not going to find its way into attempts to revise our constitutional documents. The Bible is the fundamental constitutional document for Protestant and Reformed churches, and the AV is the common English Bible upon which our churches were established and grew.

It is important to note that churches which departed from the AV usually did not put anything in its place. It is not the AV which has been replaced. "The Common English Bible" has simply been removed from the life and work of the church. If the Bible has been removed as the fundamental "common denominator" of the church, one does not wonder why churches look to cultural factors to try to make up for the lack of cohesion. How does a body of people hope to "speak the same things," when their Bibles are speaking different things?

I don't think revision is "necessary," if by that term is meant something which MUST be done. The AV functions very well as "the best allowed translation." There are many "helps" which are available to assist the reader and student, and the mintry should be well equipped to know how to feed the flock of God.


----------



## Jack K

armourbearer said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pastors have moved away from the KJV because they understand the Reformation principle that the Scriptures ought to be accessible to the people in their everyday language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to be openly contradictory, Jack, but the idea you have presented is blatantly false. First, Scripture is "written" and is a literary language. Every day language is something entirely different to literary language. Even Tyndale's plough-boy would be given a Bible which was in a language far more technical than what he was accustomed to day by day. Secondly, literacy was not high at the reformation. The translations were intended to be used with a diligent use of the means and in immediate connection with a teaching ministry. This was as it should be. The idea that people should be able to pick up a Bible and understand it with ease is somewhat naive of what it means to be human and fallen. Thirdly, the reformers maintained the great principle of returning to the fountains. The concepts contained in the Bible are culturally removed from the lives of everyday people. Language reflects cultural occupation. The Bible abounds with terminology which is legal, sacrificial, royal, pastoral, familial, etc. These by nature will require a reader to accustom himself to the thought forms and terms which are used, and this can only be done by repetitive study. Every field has its technical nomenclature. Where there is interest in that field the individual will pick up the terms and their meanings over time. Fourthly, the reformation translations all ran in the catholic tradition. They were not intended to meet the needs of a generation but to accurately reflect the proper understanding of Scripture as it had been built up across the ages of the church. Finally, the reformers were well trained in the humanities. The concern was to produce accurate translations which conformed to academic standards and could stand the test of learned criticism.
> 
> All scholars agree that the Authorised Version was not written in the everyday language of the 17th century, and yet no one denies it became the classic work of the English language. If one reads 19th and 20th century appraisals, it is called "the common English Bible," and that is two to three hundred years after it was created. Nothing has been created which is worthy to take its place. Of many good translations King James' translators made a better one. Regrettably, of that better one, there has now emerged many inferior ones. We are to approve things that are excellent, not things that are inferior.
Click to expand...


I probably should have chosen a better word. By "everyday" language I wasn't really thinking of a plough-boy's spoken language. Clearly the Bible is written language and in most places is far more technical, scholarly or poetic than that. I meant that rather than being in Latin or in a version of the local language that was several centuries old, the reformers were eager to have the Scriptures in the local language of the day. Not simplistic language, certainly... but still a language that the reader or listener would claim as his own current-day language. Am I wrong about that?

My point is that _if_ all other considerations were pushed aside (not that they should be), that same principle would cause us to prefer what is accessible over what is not. I realize that Reformation-era translators did not shy away from difficult or obscure wording when it contributed to the richness or accuracy of the translation. But I've never heard that they chose such wording just because they believed that adding several layers of unnecessary difficulty—thus making the reader struggle to understand or causing him to feel like he was reading something foreign—would somehow be profitable in itself. Did they do that?


----------



## MW

Jack K said:


> but still a language that the reader or listener would claim as his own current-day language. Am I wrong about that?



Yes, I believe you are wrong about that. Tyndale made up words which eventually made their way into the English language through his version. As for the AV, every scholar recognises it was not in all respects the current language of its time and that it too contributed to the vernacular. Even the pronouns had already changed their significance and nuance, yet the AV employed them because it enabled them to accurately express the distinction between singular and plural.

"Current-day language" can only be established by contextual use. There is an ecclesiastical context where the AV continues to be used. That context establishes that the language of the AV is still in current use.

If one struggles to understand words he may look them up in a dictionary, if he has a will to learn.


----------



## Jack K

armourbearer said:


> Tyndale made up words which eventually made their way into the English language through his version. As for the AV, every scholar recognises it was not in all respects the current language of its time and that it too contributed to the vernacular. Even the pronouns had already changed their significance and nuance, yet the AV employed them because it enabled them to accurately express the distinction between singular and plural.



Okay, and I've heard that before, but it still doesn't get at my point. Was Reformation-era thinking based on the idea that _all else being equal_, obscure and foreign-sounding was more profitable to the church than clear and accessible? Of course there are trade-offs. Of course there are situations where we will chose something more obscure because it's better for other reasons. But I've heard some people argue that obscure and foreign-sounding is _inherently_ better because it's somehow good to make people work harder at studying—which is the only point I can't see any merit in at all.

I hope I'm not sounding argumentative. I find it helpful to discuss these things and appreciate the back-and-forth.

I'm currently an ESV guy. Many of the points you make clearly have much merit and deserve careful consideration. I think on an emotional level, though, accessibility carries a lot of weight with me... and it should. There's something about it that fits the gospel. It fits the way Christ came to us—humble and especially accessible to those who otherwise felt left out. Somehow, expecting people to know Christ better through first becoming familiar with 400-year-old language makes him seem to me too aloof and distant; too much a Savior of ecclesiastical specialists, and not enough a Savior of ordinary sinners.


----------



## ZackF

Jack K said:


> I hope I'm not sounding argumentative. I find it helpful to discuss these things and appreciate the back-and-forth.



I don't think you sound quarrelsome if that is what you mean. There is nothing wrong with argumentation. As time goes on I am becoming more and more convinced by KJV-Preferred points of view. However, I think there is a hierarchy to the reasoning. I find the issues surrounding liturgical and memorization continuity of the native English speaking church more convincing than that of the use of elevated language. If the KJV language is one or two notches above typical language usage in the 17th century, it is certainly eight or ten notches above today's "discourse." For years I allowed myself to be jaded and closed to the issue of KJV-Preferred entirely but I'm thawing out on the matter. The Winzers and Beekes of the world are to credit for that.


----------



## KMK

Jack K said:


> I think on an emotional level, though, accessibility carries a lot of weight with me...



If you give accessibility more weight than unity then no culture, community, church, or even family can be unified around God's Word. Each individual would need to have a version tailor made to fit their language context or they could complain that the Bible is not accessible enough for them.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

One of my favorite aspects of the Trinitarian Bible Society Windsor KJV that I use for my daily devotions and study is that in the back directly after the book of Revelation there is a "List of Words and Proper Names With Their Pronunciations" as well as a "Bible Word List". Both of these appendices provide all the help one would need to "understand" any word or phrase that might prove difficult. This is something my ESV Study Bible does not have even though most of these "hard to understand" words appear in both the KJV and the ESV. 

As another example we use the KJV in our family devotions and our children have no more a hard time understanding the "thees and thous" than they would the "yous" in another translation. Now that they have been taught what "thee" means and what "ye" means it actually makes it easier to understand what Paul or John or whoever it might be is saying in a passage because I do not have to stop my reading and explain whether the "you" is plural or singular and to whom it is referring. (This of course is information that I can only share because I may be aware of the Greek/Hebrew underlying the translation.)


----------



## Brian R.

I love my TBS Westminster Reference Bible for the same reason- those tough words are defined in the margins. 

By the way, just this morning I heard that familiar expression from a pastor: Alistair Begg (one of my favorites), preaching from Luke 2 in a 1999 sermon, "Now some of you remember that old King James Bible. It actually has a better translation here." There it is again! 

Thanks to all of you for the feedback. It's been quite helpful.


----------



## Phil D.

First, I think "discard" (Merriam-Webster "to throw (something) away because it is useless or unwanted") is probably too strong a word in the context of the OP. Virtually all Reformed pastors (or non-Reformed for that matter) I am familiar with that use a more modern translation in their preaching still hold the KJV in very high regard.

Also, for as many times as I've heard a non-KJV preacher say "the KJV has a better/more nuanced rendering", I've just as often heard a KJV preacher feel the need to better explain his text with a "or as the XXX translation renders it"...


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

A good sermon on whether the KJV is a "hindrance" to missions can be heard here from the Rev. Hugh Cartwright of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland (who has recently passed away).


----------



## Jack K

KMK said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think on an emotional level, though, accessibility carries a lot of weight with me...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you give accessibility more weight than unity then no culture, community, church, or even family can be unified around God's Word. Each individual would need to have a version tailor made to fit their language context or they could complain that the Bible is not accessible enough for them.
Click to expand...


Of course. But that would only be the case if we give accessibility ALL the weight—a terrible idea. On the other extreme, if we give accessibility NO weight we should be using nothing but the Hebrew and Greek... or maybe Latin. We could be unified worldwide around Latin. It would force would-be Bible readers to get serious, train themselves, use dictionaries, and depend more on ministers to guide them through the Bible's teaching. But the Latin thing has been tried and found wanting. 

In itself, accessibility is good and not bad. Declaring it a good thing does not mean we make it the ultimate thing.


----------



## KMK

Jack K said:


> On the other extreme, if we give accessibility NO weight we should be using nothing but the Hebrew and Greek... or maybe Latin.



This is irrelevant to this discussion because no one is arguing for such. 

The English speaking church were, for the most part, unified around the KJV. You feel that times have changed and we must break unity with the English speaking church of the past and the present because the KJV is not 'accessible' enough. Therefore, you feel that accessibility is paramount to unity. If accessibility is consistently made more important than unity I don't see how you can avoid the scenario above.


----------



## earl40

Jack K said:


> It fits the way Christ came to us—humble and especially accessible to those who otherwise felt left out. Somehow, expecting people to know Christ better through first becoming familiar with 400-year-old language makes him seem to me too aloof and distant; too much a Savior of ecclesiastical specialists, and not enough a Savior of ordinary sinners.



I saith this is a valid point.


----------



## Jack K

KMK said:


> You feel that times have changed and we must break unity with the English speaking church of the past and the present because the KJV is not 'accessible' enough. Therefore, you feel that accessibility is paramount to unity.



Not really. I hardly want to "break away." I like unity with the church of the past. I think the confessions are good for us and necessary. I think many of the old hymns are wonderful and should be more widely sung. I love reading the Puritans and wish more people would do so. And I like the KJB Bible and appreciate many things about it. My copy sets on my nearest bookshelf and often finds its way to my work desk. I use my ESV more often, but that too I have chosen in large part because it intentionally retains more ties to the historical language of the English Scriptures than do many of the much more "accessible" new translations.

So do I feel accessibility is paramount to unity with the church of the past? I don't think so. Both seem to be affirmed biblically. I think I'd like to see a healthy measure of each, if we can manage that.


----------



## KMK

Jack K said:


> So do I feel accessibility is paramount to unity with the church of the past? I don't think so.



Do you think it is a good thing that Pastors stopped preaching from the Version that English speakers were unified around for hundreds of years because it was inaccessible? I don't see how that is not making accessibility paramount to unity.

Even if we assume your point, who gets to decide which version is accessible? Does each individual make that choice for himself based upon what is most accessible to him? Does each church make that choice for its congregation? Is it the head of the family that decides? Is it the Presbytery that decides? Eventually unity must take precedence or you end up with the scenario I described.


----------



## a mere housewife

A question: do I not have unity with the church in China, or the ancient church Paul wrote to at Ephesus, because I use a different translation of the same Scriptures? I don't fully understand the argument about unity having to be around a particular translation?


----------



## Jack K

KMK said:


> Do you think it is a good thing that Pastors stopped preaching from the Version that English speakers were unified around for hundreds of years because it was inaccessible? I don't see how that is not making accessibility paramount to unity.



An analogy: If I replace one serving of steak a week with a salad, this does not make me a vegetarian. It only means I acknowledge that, as much as I enjoy steak, salads are good too. In the same way, if I believe it was a good thing for some pastors to switch from the KJV (and in many instances I believe it was) it means I give up that particular bit of unity in favor of some badly needed accessibility. But I don't chuck out all unity in favor of endless accessibility. There are still many things I treasure that join us to believers of long ago. By giving up that one serving of steak I'm not necessarily making a statement about all steaks and salads.


----------



## MW

Jack K said:


> Was Reformation-era thinking based on the idea that _all else being equal_, obscure and foreign-sounding was more profitable to the church than clear and accessible?



I am gathering "obscure" and "foreign-sounding" is your evaluation of the AV. To me the NIV can be "obscure" and "foreign-sounding." One would have to prove the point before reformation-era thinking on that point became relevant. I can show contexts where the language of the AV is still used and must therefore be deemed relevant. It should be noted that "archaic" does not amount to "obscure" or "foreign." Archaisms are part and parcel of quality literature and regularly used to good effect. When one sees an article headed with "Love thy neighbour," I don't think there is any doubt as to the meaning. I can also show places where the NIV simply transliterates words and leaves the reader without any clue as to what is being referred to. Then there is the problem of an indefinite number in second person pronouns. Where the pronouns change in discourse the reader is regularly left with wrong impressions. "Ye (Jews) must be born again" becomes "You (Nicodemus) must be born again." One only needs to see a bumper-sticker to see the impact this obscure translation has had on the masses. "Ye (Jews) say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship" becomes "You (Jesus) say..." That is obscurity; and it occurs literally thousands of times throughout the modern translations.



Jack K said:


> I hope I'm not sounding argumentative. I find it helpful to discuss these things and appreciate the back-and-forth.



I don't find anything wrong with clearly stating one's point of view, especially when it helps others to get to the core of an issue. So please speak as freely as you need.



Jack K said:


> I think on an emotional level, though, accessibility carries a lot of weight with me... and it should.



I consider that to be a solid consideration. From my point of view, though, the value of accessibility must be determined by the value of the THING to be accessed. If accessibility means changing the nature of the translation so as to be either directly or indirectly misleading, the value of accessibility is diminished.


----------



## MW

a mere housewife said:


> A question: do I not have unity with the church in China, or the ancient church Paul wrote to at Ephesus, because I use a different translation of the same Scriptures? I don't fully understand the argument about unity having to be around a particular translation?



Ephesians 4 speaks of an unity to be maintained and an unity to be attained. The former is essential; the latter is instrumental. The one is established on the basis of things which are essential to being a believer in Christ; the other is reached through the ministerial gifts with which Christ has graced His church. "Speaking the same things" falls into the second category. The ministry gives us translations, creeds, confessions, catechisms, order, discipline, etc. Where there is division on these things the church is not speaking the same things, even though the essential unity of the church continues to be maintained.

It is odd that Presbyterians can agree on the importance of an unified subordinate standard but cannot agree that the same importance attaches to the supreme standard on which the subordinate standard ought to rest.


----------



## a mere housewife

Thank you, Rev. Winzer: I am always grateful when you take the trouble to answer my questions. 

I think of the Westminster Confession as translated into Spanish -- the Presbyterian Churches that hold to it use a different translation of the confession, and of the Scriptures, but I have never felt disunity with the confessing Spanish Presbyterians over that, or that they hold to a different standard. I understand that it would be a practical hindrance to the experience of unity if people are not bilingual. Is it not too far afield to think of what you have described from Eph. 4 as the 'elements and circumstances' of unity? Or am I misunderstanding still?


----------



## MW

a mere housewife said:


> the Presbyterian Churches that hold to it use a different translation of the confession, and of the Scriptures, but I have never felt disunity with the confessing Spanish Presbyterians over that, or that they hold to a different standard.



Perhaps Turretin's distinction of verba and vox might come in helpful. They are obviously different words if rendered in a different language, but the meaning should be the same. If it were translated so as to give a different meaning that would certainly introduce division to the degree that the difference was of any importance.



a mere housewife said:


> Is it not too far afield to think of what you have described from Eph. 4 as the 'elements and circumstances' of unity? Or am I misunderstanding still?



I don't think that will work. Elements and circumstances must pertain to the same thing. The "unity" in this case is of two different kinds. One might see another truly believe and love the Lord and embrace that believer as such; however, one might see the same individual communing in an unlawful way and be obliged to withdraw from that communion. There is unity to be maintained in the first instance, but an unity which is not yet attained in the second.


----------



## KMK

a mere housewife said:


> I don't fully understand the argument about unity having to be around a particular translation?



No one is saying it 'has to be' but, as Rev Winzer said, being unified in language should be desired. I am simply arguing against the feeling that accessibility is obviously paramount to unity. What happened at Babel was a curse, not a blessing.


----------



## KMK

Jack K said:


> I give up that particular bit of unity in favor of some badly needed accessibility.



Do you believe that it is up to each individual to make this decision?


----------



## Mushroom

If the modern translations had just used good Southern American English the main point of contention would have been moot. 'You all' (or better, ya'll) as opposed to 'you' conveys the plurality of the second person jes' fine...


----------



## a mere housewife

Then (please forgive me if I'm not grasping this readily: I want to make sure I am understanding all the distinctions) would 'speaking the same things' and the unity to be attained be able to apply only to people in the same language group -- who are able to use the same translation of the Scriptures or of the confession? Or was the verba/vox distinction with reference to the unity that is to be attained?


----------



## Caroline

jandrusk said:


> Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jandrusk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason in my opinion has been the "dumbing" down of our culture from having to think critically or heaven forbid you have to look a word up in the dictionary. A good point of reference on this position is a book by T.David Gordon, titled, "Why Johnny Can't Preach. It's a good read and the data that he provides is insightful into a number of issues with our culture's short attention span.
> 
> Why Johnny Can't Preach: The Media Have Shaped the Messengers: T. David Gordon: 9781596381162: Amazon.com: Books
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While it may be good and helpful for people to use archaic translations in their private worship, I tend to think it is a bad idea for public worship. It's not a matter of "heaven forbid someone have to look up a word," because (1) dictionaries are not readily available in church pews and (2) some parishioners could not use one anyway. My son, for example, is autistic. There is no way that he would ever understand the KJV, but he does grasp at least some of more modern translations. My daughter is slightly deaf and has a limited vocabulary. She, too, struggles with comprehension. We read Shakespeare at home, but I have to be on hand to explain it to her, which is difficult to do in the middle of a worship service. We take other measures, like reading the Bible passages ahead of time so that the children can understand the sermon more easily.
> 
> But it is a lack of charity to those who struggle with learning disabilities to characterize everyone who can't use the KJV effectively as stupid and lazy. I'm not saying that this was your intent, but I have heard it done before.
> 
> In a discussion at church some years ago, someone complained scornfully at a meeting of "catering to the lowest common denominator," and I noted aloud that people ought to remember that the lowest common denominator in this church was my son.
> 
> It's not that everything needs to necessarily be at his level. But if something small can be changed to make it easier for people who struggle--then why not do that? Why put a stumbling block of archaic language in front of a child who has enough problems already? For that reason, I tend to think of KJV-only churches as uncharitable, even if they do not intend to be so. It is the linguistic equivalent of failing to have a handicapped ramp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing your thoughts Caroline. Yes, by no means was my intent to characterize everyone, it was really directed to the problem at large. I too have an autistic child (Who I read your children's catechism to every night, thank you for that) and I agree that teaching him the KJV verbiage would not work. I wasn't even thinking of it in a worship context and you bring up some good points around that. I was trying to address the question around why our Pastor's are not using the KJV especially when they reference it at times to be a better or more accurate translation.
> 
> Now that I think of it, I think the bigger question might be, "Given all of the numerous bible translations out there, how can I be sure which ones are orthodox and which ones are not?" I think a good use case would be ESV versus the Message; Does it matter? Forgive me for not constructing greater detail around my comments.
Click to expand...


Thank you for your clarifications. I had momentarily forgotten that your son is autistic, or actually failed to properly notice to whom I was replying.  So of course you are well aware of the challenges--and perhaps even more than me. 

I did not mean to imply that you were characterizing people that way--only that it effectively leads to that sometimes when people go too far in the pursuit of intellectual worship.

As soon as I defend one side, of course, I have a nagging idea that there is another side, and your post made me think of it again. I do love the intellect of Reformed churches, even as I protest sometimes against its excesses when my children struggle. But I despise the willful ignorance of many (well, nearly all) Pentecostal churches. It was an irony that Pentecostal churches that I attended were almost exclusively KJV, which I never really understood considering how they despised learning.

It is a balance that I do not know that I have yet found. I confess that I would not like to attend a church that sang simplistic Jesus-loves-me choruses, and yet sometimes I feel guilty that my children do not benefit much from the highly complex psalms and hymns. I do believe, however, that my church deeply loves my children, and love overcomes whatever insufficiency may exist in other realms. Their tenderness toward my son is wonderful, even while he is not the easiest kid to tolerate (he tends to talk loudly and right in people's faces, and has been known to shout, "Excuse me!" to the congregation when he burped during a sermon.) On the bright side, as an usher, he's quite a shake-down artist, as he tends to stand there holding the plate in front of people until they put something in it, sometimes going so far as to whisper, "Did you forget your money?", and the church has done better financially since Kevin joined the ushering team.

But all that just to say that I suppose sometimes my judgments are harsh. I like churches to consider how learning disabled people struggle to comprehend Reformed worship... and yet, ultimately, that doesn't even seem to be the main thing. Perhaps it means I have to teach them more at home, but they benefit from the love of the congregation, even if not directly from the preaching.


----------



## MW

a mere housewife said:


> Or was the verba/vox distinction with reference to the unity that is to be attained?



It only applies to translation, and I only thought it would be helpful because you mentioned people speaking other languages. People can speak the same thing in different languages, so I don't see why it should be limited to all speaking the same language. To clarify, "speak the same thing" comes from 1 Cor. 1:10. It is often used to support some degree of uniformity in the church's profession of faith and practice of godliness. Where the supreme standard in English differs from one person to another, one wonders from what source a body of people derives its ability to speak the same thing.


----------



## a mere housewife

Thank you, Rev. Winzer. I had looked up 1 Cor. 1:10. I do love the way that section follows on in further chapters to the coherence of all things not in any particular minister or ministry but of all ministers and ministries in belonging to Christ, and Christ to God.

I think I understand what is being put forward better now. Thank you again for your time and care.


----------



## Jack K

KMK said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> 
> I give up that particular bit of unity in favor of some badly needed accessibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe that it is up to each individual to make this decision?
Click to expand...


As we're talking about pastors choosing a translation to preach from, it's clearly not an individual matter but rather a case of one man (or perhaps an elder board or denomination) making that choice for an entire congregation. I do think it generally is good to let a pastor, who knows his particular church, make a choice that takes into account their needs... much as he might tailor a sermon to specific issues his church ought to address. Certainly he would be wise to choose from within the bounds of well-tested translations that the wider church finds to have merit, and to consider many other factors besides just accessibility.

I don't see it so much as a matter of personal preference but rather an issue of wise, thoughtful shepherding.


----------



## fredtgreco

Let me ask one question of the AV-insistent folks here:

what do you do with a sizable number of folks in your congregation for whom English is not a first language? Do you have Brazilians, Mexicans, or Argintines in your congregation? (we do, up to a quarter of our congregation) What would you do if they wanted to come - and obviously could not handle the English of the KJV? Would you insist that they use it because "it is good for them" and "it is not that hard" and "it is proper English"? Or would you tell them if they could not hack it, they should go elsewhere (which would probably be at least an Arminian Church, if not a Health and Wealth Church)?


----------



## irresistible_grace

Biblia Bilingüe RVR 1960-KJV, Piel Fabricada Negra (RVR 1960-KJV Bilingual Bible, Bonded Leather Black)


----------



## fredtgreco

irresistible_grace said:


> Biblia Bilingüe RVR 1960-KJV, Piel Fabricada Negra (RVR 1960-KJV Bilingual Bible, Bonded Leather Black)


Seriously, your answer is to have my people use a bilingual Bible in the name of "unity?" (By the way, Brazilians speak Portuguese.)


----------



## KMK

Jack K said:


> I don't see it so much as a matter of personal preference but rather an issue of wise, thoughtful shepherding.



I agree.


----------



## irresistible_grace

fredtgreco said:


> irresistible_grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Biblia Bilingüe RVR 1960-KJV, Piel Fabricada Negra (RVR 1960-KJV Bilingual Bible, Bonded Leather Black)
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, your answer is to have my people use a bilingual Bible in the name of "unity?" (By the way, Brazilians speak Portuguese.)
Click to expand...

 https://www.logos.com/product/31473/sagrada-biblia-king-james-atualizada


----------



## fredtgreco

irresistible_grace said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irresistible_grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Biblia Bilingüe RVR 1960-KJV, Piel Fabricada Negra (RVR 1960-KJV Bilingual Bible, Bonded Leather Black)
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, your answer is to have my people use a bilingual Bible in the name of "unity?" (By the way, Brazilians speak Portuguese.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> https://www.logos.com/product/31473/sagrada-biblia-king-james-atualizada
Click to expand...

OK. I get it now. In order to have "unity" around "one" English version, I am to encourage a polyglot usage of all sorts of languages, so that people can understand the Bible when they can't understand the English version we "have" to use, instead of just using an English version that everyone could understand. That makes all sorts of sense.


----------



## DMcFadden

During the 2011 anniversary year of the KJV, I did all of my devotions in it and quite a bit of reading about it. Hey, I even purchased a 12" x 17" page out of a first edition of the KJV and have it framed and on the wall in my office. Jeanette and I also have a full size (12" by 17" page) facsimile of the first edition proudly displayed in our living room (the thing weighs a TON!). It is a literary masterpiece and harkens back to an era when the majority of biblical scholars were orthodox believing scholars.

As one old enough to remember when sermons in most churches were preached from the KJV (unless you were liberal and heard the RSV), I lament the cacophony of differences in English wording that has contributed to a diminution of the practice of Bible memorization, for instance. However, unless you want to play Don Quixote, let's quit pretending that a few folks in microdenominations will change the world back to a common Bible. 

The proverbial cows have left the barn and we are stuck with a multiplicity of translations. The best we can hope for is that individual congregations will probably gravitate to their own "standards" on a case by case basis. And, in our multilingual America of today, Fred raises some important points about communication in church. Our last congregation before moving from CA to IN had 45% Chinese and 35% Hispanic with most of them having only rudimentary English skills. 

The other issue that I ruminate over is the one of appropriate text. Despite my basic embrace of the CT (hey, I use the ESV primarily despite my appreciation for the KJV and NKJV), I am still not convinced that an obviously corrupt manuscript (Codex Sinaiticus) should be privileged just because it is old. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus differ from one another in more than 3,000 places (3,036 if you follow Hoskier's count). Yes, they are old, but so are the 2nd and 3rd century heresies popular in some parts of Egypt, the provenance of the so-called Alexandrian texts.

Still, inside baseball arguments about text notwithstanding, the Gospel and all doctrines we count as true are clear and evident in all of the major English translations we have today. My claim is still that the best translation is the one you will actually read.


----------



## Edward

fredtgreco said:


> Let me ask one question of the AV-insistent folks here:
> 
> what do you do with a sizable number of folks in your congregation for whom English is not a first language?



I would posit (but I could be wrong) that most of the AV-insistent folks don't have a sizable number of folks for whom English is the primary language, much less a sizable number for whom English isn't the primary language.


----------



## JoannaV

Providing bilingual Bibles would seem helpful either way. It would allow for easier understanding in the moment, when the English is too confusing, and would also help in learning English. And then the choice of translation might depend on which source texts were used for the foreign translation. (Better to be using the same texts!)


----------



## kvanlaan

> As another example we use the KJV in our family devotions and our children have no more a hard time understanding the "thees and thous" than they would the "yous" in another translation. Now that they have been taught what "thee" means and what "ye" means it actually makes it easier to understand what Paul or John or whoever it might be is saying in a passage because I do not have to stop my reading and explain whether the "you" is plural or singular and to whom it is referring. (This of course is information that I can only share because I may be aware of the Greek/Hebrew underlying the translation.)



Exactly - it enlightens the reader rather than obscuring the message. But yes, it does take study to fully appreciate the depth of the meaning (but not as much as you might think!)



> I would posit (but I could be wrong) that most of the AV-insistent folks don't have a sizable number of folks for whom English is the primary language, much less a sizable number for whom English isn't the primary language.



Funny thing is, I look at the 'congregation; around our dinner table and see 40% of the listeners non-native speakers. Five years ago, not a word of English was spoken by them, but we used the 1599 Geneva right from the beginning. Now we have three Africans who can wade into the original of "Romeo and Juliet" without blinking - and we actually had that from early on. It is a matter of teaching, not translation. And yes, the depth of understanding of the passage is, I think, greatly improved over that of the NIV in part _because_ of the language.


----------



## Edward

kvanlaan said:


> Funny thing is, I look at the 'congregation; around our dinner table and see 40% of the listeners non-native speakers.



I've got 66% at the dinner table.


----------



## Jesus is my friend

I love threads like this!,trying to keep it simple here though,I love the KJV,for two main reasons1.)it and the NKJV were what I grew up as a Christian with,and I thought why change? memorization is hard enough for me to try and memorize another few takes on the same verse would be very difficult for me and less fruitful 2) all the great teachers/preachers/theologians of old (Puritans,etc.) quoted from it extensively in their books/sermons,why confuse myself listening to different readings when it can a nice fit with the KJV


----------



## irresistible_grace

I have said it before elsewhere that I loved the ESV since I first read it cover to cover in 2008. I have since made the switch to the AV & though I made up several excuse early on about the KJV being too difficult to read, I am glad I made the switch because now I am actually able to comprehend what I am reading much better (not just as it relates to the AV but to early Reformed literature as well).

I do believe parallel/bilingual Bibles are "an" answer not necessarily "the" answer to Rev. Greco's [hypothetical] question concerning congregations with large numbers of people that speak ESL. Because, dumbing things down is not typically the best way to build others up. If those who speak Spanish or Portuguese as their first language (ESL) had a parallel/bilingual Bible with the AV it would be far more edifying & unifying than some of the comments in this thread are charitable.


----------



## littlepeople

All I can think is that King-James English is certainly not the vulgar language of the American south. Although some people do pray in King James English down here. The contrast is hard not to laugh at: "hey ya'll shush now I'm fixin to pray for this here food - Our father, we beseech thee that in thy kindness....." Somewhere along the way people started to believe that 17th century british was a more spiritual way of speaking.

I do think that the vulgar language is to be our goal, certainly understanding the Bible will require various helps, but surely not to understand the pronouns??

If we do insist upon the AV, what are we saying about God's ability to accurately preserve His word throughout the generations of the church. I mean eventually KJV english will be unintelligible to all but the learned and the clergy. What will we do then? and how is that different from what the ESV/NASB do now?


----------



## PaulMc

Edward said:


> I would posit (but I could be wrong) that most of the AV-insistent folks don't have a sizable number of folks for whom English is the primary language, much less a sizable number for whom English isn't the primary language.



Why would you posit this?


----------



## KaphLamedh

But look where the King James Onlyism leads in it's the most extreme form. There are more videos posted by the user, but this one tells the sad reality. There African Christians hardly speaks English and some English speaking people have gone to Kenya to preach the Gospel of KJV-onlyism (as far as I have understood the purpose of the videos.)

Wycliffe understood that everyone should have the Scriptures on their own language, not just on one dominant language like English. I read the Bible in my own language, but also in English to maintain my skills and by the grace of God I get extra value from God's word. Sometimes KJV or NASB is clearer.

TKJBF Videos - YouTube[video=youtube;L-KbDt5Jv-Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-KbDt5Jv-Q[/video]


----------



## py3ak

Let's take a break.


----------



## MW

fredtgreco said:


> what do you do with a sizable number of folks in your congregation for whom English is not a first language?



1. If the language itself is a problem there is no formal equivalent translation which can alleviate it. The GNB might help, but what Reformed pastor would recommend it as a faithful translation of the Word of God? The best assistance would be to offer Bible classes designed to bridge the gap. I have done this with Korean students, who testified that they found it very helpful.

2. Human intelligence deserves more credit. Where there's a will there's a way. When a person takes an interest in a sport it doesn't take long before he learns one of the strangest languages in the world. One wonders what could be accomplished were religion given its rightful place as a matter of supreme importance.

3. Broad and repeated exposure will help with the process of familiarity. Whereas enclosing the mind in a narrow compass hinders education.

4. Since translators use dictionaries to translate the Bible there can be no shame in a reader using a dictionary to read the Bible.

5. Surely a true understanding of the Bible in small portions is more important than misunderstanding large portions of it.


----------



## MW

Edward said:


> I would posit (but I could be wrong) that most of the AV-insistent folks don't have a sizable number of folks for whom English is the primary language, much less a sizable number for whom English isn't the primary language.



The numerical argument serves Romanists better than genuine Protestants. Better to be faithful with few than unfaithful with many. Matthew 18:6.


----------



## kvanlaan

> Funny thing is, I look at the 'congregation; around our dinner table and see 40% of the listeners non-native speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> I've got 66% at the dinner table.
Click to expand...


Edward, let that then be an encouragement to you to explore the KJV with your family!


----------



## Edward

armourbearer said:


> The numerical argument serves Romanists better than genuine Protestants.



And I'd say elevating the traditions of the church over the vernacular are marks of Romanism, not the Reformation. 

And to keep count, that's the second time you've waved the Roman flag in my face. But this time the thread is still open.


----------



## THE W

I like the KJV because it uses words like "goodly" and uses the word "without" to mean outside.

Proverbs 22:13 "The slothful man saith, There is a lion without, i shall be slain in the streets."


----------



## JimmyH

A view from the pew. At 65 years old it is obvious that I 'cut my spiritual teeth' on the AV. When I became serious about Bible reading I found it necessary to use the '84 NIV to decipher problem (for me) passages.

Such as Romans 5:15-19 for example. Much of Romans 7 was very difficult for me to follow without the plain English of the NIV. Not to mention archaisms such as Romans 1:13 "was *let* hitherto". Luke 18:16, "*Suffer* little children to come unto me," and countless more examples.

I still read the AV more, or at least as much as the ESV, NKJV or NASB, and still memorize verses out of the AV because I prefer it. When witnessing to a prospect I have to do my own paraphrase of what memorized verses I might be using because Elizabethan English will be incomprehensible to many an average person.

I think that is why many pastors may have moved from the AV for public reading. We who love the AV, not only for the literary quality, the expertise of the translators, and the inclusion of some few doctrinal statements that newer modern translations lack, such as the Johannine Comma, "only begotten Son", as opposed to "Only Son" lament the passing of the AV as the foremost Bible used at the pulpit, but I understand it and think in the final analysis it is necessary.

Id also mention that the controversy surrounding the AV versus the competing versions was troubling for me. I've gotten over it and have just accepted that it isn't going away. When such men as D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones preach , giving examples where the AV is "right", and alternatively the RV or even the RSV, is better in a particular word or phrase, I accept the alternative translations as being worthy.

As MLJ points out, it is the doctrine that is most important. I'm certainly not a Biblical scholar but in reading the ESV, NASB or NKJV it seems that the doctrine remains correct.


----------



## MW

Edward said:


> And I'd say elevating the traditions of the church over the vernacular are marks of Romanism, not the Reformation.



John Murray: "the fact of tradition and of its all-permeating influence on thought and life is undeniable. Where it is a good tradition, it should be welcomed, embraced, cherished, promoted. It is the way whereby God in His providence and grace establishes and furthers His kingdom in the world."

Or, in the words of holy writ, "Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."

The AV set the standard in quality and became the "common English Bible." Nothing has arisen to take its place. They are the plain facts of the matter.


----------



## Edward

armourbearer said:


> ... became the "common English Bible." Nothing has arisen to take its place.



In the US, it is currently outsold in both dollars and sheer numbers by the NIV. http://www.cbaonline.org/nm/documents/bsls/bible_translations.pdf

So here, at least, the present holder of "common English Bible", if there was such a thing, would be the NIV, which I would hope that no one on this board would endorse in its current form. (And yes, I know that there are far more KJVs sitting on shelves and in closets from previous years than there are NIVs.) 

So based on popularity, the NIV HAS surpassed the KJV as the 'common English Bible. 



armourbearer said:


> The numerical argument serves Romanists better than genuine Protestants.



Well, how else to determine what is the 'common English Bible but numbers? Tradition?


----------



## MW

Edward said:


> Well, how else to determine what is the 'common English Bible but numbers? Tradition?



Your church has Confessional standards, I am led to believe.


----------



## Edward

armourbearer said:


> Your church has Confessional standards



Yes, but limitation to the KJV is not in them. 

"8. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native lan-
guage 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 Scrip-
tures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search
them, *therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of
every nation* unto which they come..."
(emphasis supplied)


Perhaps if you post the relevant portions of your confessional standards, we can compare the two. 



armourbearer said:


> I am led to believe.



Getting a bit snarky, are we?


----------



## MW

Edward said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your church has Confessional standards
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but limitation to the KJV is not in them.
Click to expand...


While they may not "limit" the church to the AV, they lay down fundamental principles which establish the text of Scripture and exclude numerous inaccuracies of modern versions; besides the fact that individual statements within the Confession would be overturned or undermined by the replacement of the AV with modern versions which deviate from the ethos of the Confession, e.g., WCF 7:4, among others.

But this is a mere aside. The Confession represents a tradition. Hence your original statement referring tradition to Romanism is refuted by the fact that your church maintains a confessional tradition.



Edward said:


> Getting a bit snarky, are we?



You must be viewing my post through the lens of your own demeanour.


----------



## Steve Curtis

armourbearer said:


> You must be viewing my post through the lens of your own demeanour.



Actually, it seemed a bit "snarky" to me, as well


----------



## MW

kainos01 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must be viewing my post through the lens of your own demeanour.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it seemed a bit "snarky" to me, as well
Click to expand...


To put this to rest, the Confessional standards were not given by my interlocutor as an option for evaluating competing claims for the "common English Bible. I drew attention to them as an obvious means for making the evaluation. The additional comment was merely intended to highlight the obvious omission made by the interlocutor. If one wants to impute an ill sense to my words it will be the reflection of his own demeanour because it is not necessitated by what I wrote.


----------



## littlepeople

armourbearer said:


> besides the fact that individual statements within the Confession would be overturned or undermined by the replacement of the AV with modern versions which deviate from the ethos of the Confession



Isn't that putting the cart before the horse?


----------



## sevenzedek

armourbearer said:


> WCF 7:4



I know this deviates from the OP, but I am compelled to ask how this is so.


----------



## MW

littlepeople said:


> Isn't that putting the cart before the horse?



Translation requires interpretation of the original texts, including a proper understanding of the doctrines taught by them. Reformed translations were made by "men of our confession." Confession of the faith and translation of the Scriptures should share the same doctrinal ethos. The idea of doctrinally neutral translations is a myth which has caused much mischief.


----------



## MW

sevenzedek said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> WCF 7:4
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know this deviates from the OP, but I am compelled to ask how this is so.
Click to expand...


The word "testament" is often changed uniformly to "covenant" in modern translations, which reflects a different view of covenant theology. If Bible readers are not being introduced to the "testamentary" idea of covenant theology through their translations the idea is created that it derives from an unbiblical source, thus undermining or overturning the Confession's declaration.


----------



## Edward

armourbearer said:


> While they may not "limit" the church to the AV, they lay down fundamental principles which establish the text of Scripture and exclude numerous inaccuracies of modern versions



I'm a bit surprised by this statement. In the past you have shown a rather full knowledge of the Standards. If you will note, the passage from the WCF recognizes that the text is pure ONLY in the original languages - all modern (and not so modern) translations are subject to some error. So if you want to promote accuracy, you probably ought to do like one of the Sunday School teachers I had a few years ago, and teach from the Greek and Hebrew texts. 



armourbearer said:


> You must be viewing my post through the lens of your own demeanour.



Your posts can only be judged on their faces. If they are coming across other than as you intended, perhaps you should examine them more closely.


----------



## Logan

I think there's still people today that think the Geneva Bible is the only true English Bible and the KJV is the supplanter! 

I thoroughly enjoy the KJV, I read and study from it regularly, though I do disagree with some of the translations. For example, I have a problem with "God forbid" being substituted for the phrase "may it never be", in every instance. I don't believe the underlying text ever says "God forbid", the name of God is not even mentioned. This makes some of the people in the Old Testament using the phrase seem like they are using the Lord's name in vain. It seems like a colloquialism the translators used.

But mainly I find KJV onlyism to be very off-putting because it is extremely English-centric, even when it is couched in terms of _Textus Receptus_ or the Byzantine texts. Luther had Erasmus' second edition, missing the _Johannine Comma_ among other things. Were the German people then without the true Scriptures? The Waldenses never had _Textus Receptus_ at all.

Erasmus compiled originally and made several editions, correcting his own work.
Beza made "corrections", adding from a manuscript he himself had discovered (textual criticism)
Same with Stephanus (textual criticism)
The KJV translators referenced all three as well as the Vulgate but relied mostly on Beza from what I understand (textual criticism)
From that time, no single Greek text represented the KJV until 1891 with Scrivener's back-translated version, which is now called _Textus Receptus._

So from 1611 until 1891, was any Bible translation made for foreign tongues incorrect? Do the other nations not have God's word after all, since their underlying Greek differed from the KJV's in several hundred places?

In other words, it seems to me that you would have to think that God preserved his word not in the original languages as much as the English language. Do other nations have arguments like this about their translations?

On the other hand, I understand the concern with having non-Christians translating the Bible or doing textual criticism. I agree completely and think the church should be the one engaging in this. On the other hand, some people I respect very much have been engaged in this and looking very carefully at what the Critical Text uses as sources. They aren't using it without discernment. 

And ultimately, there isn't even any difference in doctrine. The reader of the NKJV or NASB or ESV is not being led into apostasy. God has indeed preserved his word.


----------



## Covenant Joel

armourbearer said:


> The word "testament" is often changed uniformly to "covenant" in modern translations, which reflects a different view of covenant theology. If Bible readers are not being introduced to the "testamentary" idea of covenant theology through their translations the idea is created that it derives from an unbiblical source, thus undermining or overturning the Confession's declaration.



I'm not sure I follow you here. Are you saying that the translational choice of "covenant" is necessarily an error? And that such error undermines the covenant theology of the WCF? Not looking to dispute the translational question, just trying to understand exactly what you're getting at here.


----------



## JM

A-men Rev. Winzer!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Edward said:


> I'm a bit surprised by this statement. In the past you have shown a rather full knowledge of the Standards. If you will note, the passage from the WCF recognizes that the text is pure ONLY in the original languages - all modern (and not so modern) translations are subject to some error. So if you want to promote accuracy, you probably ought to do like one of the Sunday School teachers I had a few years ago, and teach from the Greek and Hebrew texts.


Let me see if I can unravel this a little bit. First of all, calm down. I think there could have been a little more explanation as to what Matthew is trying to communicate but, even as one who does not adopt the notion that the TR is the only viable textual platform from which to perform translation, Matthew is not saying anything that is really all that controversial. Let me explain.

The work of translation is actually much trickier than some people realize. I've only appreciated that as I've moved beyond basic Greek grammar and started moving into more advanced syntactical concepts. I can't recommend it more to people who want to delve deeper into the Scriptures. It's far more important than I would have considered.

I'll try not to get technical but simply knowing Greek doesn't answer all questions. That's because certain forms can take on a ton of different nuanced meanings such that context and, yes, theology are going to inform proper translation. Let me take πίστεως Χριστοῦ (Phil 3:9) or πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Rom 3:22). The words Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Jesus Christ) or Χριστοῦ (Christ) are in the Genitive case. The question is, what kind of genitive is this? There are literally dozens of uses of the Genitive case.

Many translations have chosen the objective genitive. In which case teh translation is: faith in Christ or faith in Christ Jesus.
Some have argued that it ought to be translated: the faithfulness of Christ or the faithfulness of Jesus Christ.

There are some pretty significant theological implications to this. The bottom line is that one must not only take into account the immediate but larger Biblical and theological contexts in order to perform translation. Inevitably one's hermeneutic (method of interpretation) will inform how own interprets a passage. If you con't believe in inspiration or the harmony of the Scriptures then you might feel "freer" to interpret a certain construction in a way that breaks up the harmony of the Scriptures as a whole.

I can't quite get into all of the issues but the bottom line is that translation is inevitably shaped by who we are when we come to the text. There is no "nude" meaning to the text that is just waiting for the reader of Greek to ascertain. Even a native Koine Greek reader needed the Holy Spirit to understand things. I'm convinced, more than ever, of the need for illumination in the interpretive process. We want to know the languages so we know the tools and can apply them ourselves but we must never forget that the Holy Spirit working in the Church is indispensible in proper translation because there is a tremendous amount of interpretation that is going on behind the scenes that we need to be aware of.

What Matthew is driving at, then, is the fact that we are Reformed (and have the WCF as our Confession) actually *does* affect a certain range of things when interpreting. It's not the obvious case that the Greek ought to have been translated repeatedly as Covenant in some modern translations where the Greek has bhe flexibility to be taken another way. There are some that will point out during examination that they take exception to the WCF because they say that Testament doesn't occur a lot in the Scriptures as the WCF writers believed. Either they are betraying a basic ignorance of the way translation occurs (that necessarily involves context and theology) or they are denying another aspect of the Testamentary nature of the Covenants that is another aspect of what we've "seen" together as a Church.


----------



## fredtgreco

Rich,

I agree with what you have said about the importance (and difficulty) of translation. But that is not what Matthew is saying. What he is saying is that the *only* acceptable English translation is the AV. Even when I asked about non-native English speakers, his answer was "they should be able to learn the AV" and "understanding of a little of the (AV) Bible is superior to understanding of more of the (ESV/NASB, etc) Bible." That is not a comment about translation. To assume that no one in the last 400+ years has been able to accurately translate the Bible borders on rejecting the continuing illuminating work of the Spirit in the Church.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

fredtgreco said:


> Rich,
> 
> I agree with what you have said about the importance (and difficulty) of translation. But that is not what Matthew is saying. What he is saying is that the *only* acceptable English translation is the AV. Even when I asked about non-native English speakers, his answer was "they should be able to learn the AV" and "understanding of a little of the (AV) Bible is superior to understanding of more of the (ESV/NASB, etc) Bible." That is not a comment about translation. To assume that no one in the last 400+ years has been able to accurately translate the Bible borders on rejecting the continuing illuminating work of the Spirit in the Church.



Sorry if I gummed up the conversation. I was primarily addressing the last several posts and had not seen prior points that may have led up to it.

I hope that my contribution was useful, in part, for those who may not understand how some references to our Standards could actually prove relevant to a discussion on translation.


----------



## sevenzedek

Edward said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> While they may not "limit" the church to the AV, they lay down fundamental principles which establish the text of Scripture and exclude numerous inaccuracies of modern versions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a bit surprised by this statement. In the past you have shown a rather full knowledge of the Standards. If you will note, the passage from the WCF recognizes that the text is pure ONLY in the original languages - all modern (and not so modern) translations are subject to some error. So if you want to promote accuracy, you probably ought to do like one of the Sunday School teachers I had a few years ago, and teach from the Greek and Hebrew texts.
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must be viewing my post through the lens of your own demeanour.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your posts can only be judged on their faces. If they are coming across other than as you intended, perhaps you should examine them more closely.
Click to expand...


For what it is worth, I interpreted Winzer's "snarky phrase" as pointing out the obvious with no malice, as his correction shows.

Mr. Winzer,

To speak to what you say about ESL congregants, I cannot follow you in this line of reasoning. Regarding the ultimacy of the AV, the JW's had their own version of how the Holy Spirit stopped revelation to the church. Apparently, the buck stopped with them too and now they are the only go-to for revelation. Are the AV translators now held so high as the JW's?

This thread may be going the way of the Vaticanus trash can. I am really beginning to hate these KJV threads.


----------



## Phil D.

fredtgreco said:


> What he is saying is that the only acceptable English translation is the AV.



It does seem that even though many AV'ers (for lack of a better term) here on the Board are careful to say they aren't KJV Only, but rather KJV Preferred, when push comes to shove they are in some important respects indeed KJV only. That is, they invariably give a quick and forceful refutation of _every_ textual and even _every_ translational complaint/issue that anyone may raise concerning the KJV - which in fact renders it unassailable (in their view). In effect, then, it does seem they are saying that the only _really_ acceptable translation is the KJV. Reasonably, in my opinion, such amounts to a form of KJV Onlyism.


----------



## KMK

Phil D. said:


> In effect, then, it does seem they are saying that the only really acceptable translation is the KJV. Reasonably, in my opinion, such amounts to a form of KJV Onlyism.



Calling our position 'KJO' may seem reasonable to you, however, for most people, KJO refers to a fringe group who believe the AV is 'inspired'. For the purposes of clarity and honesty, those of us who believe, like the Puritans, that the AV is simply a better version than any other English version should not be called 'KJO'.


----------



## Phil D.

KMK said:


> Calling our position 'KJO' may seem reasonable to you, however, for most people, KJO refers to a fringe group who believe the AV is 'inspired'.



I understand, brother, and that is why I said "a form" of KJV Onlyism. Nor, for the reason you note, would I use that terminology in every setting to describe what I see here.

Yet can you see that when every single detail of the KJV - whether textual, translational or with regard to "right" usage - is so tenaciously defended, how it might take on the appearance of (in effect) it being treated as inspired?


----------



## MW

Edward said:


> I'm a bit surprised by this statement. In the past you have shown a rather full knowledge of the Standards. If you will note, the passage from the WCF recognizes that the text is pure ONLY in the original languages - all modern (and not so modern) translations are subject to some error. So if you want to promote accuracy, you probably ought to do like one of the Sunday School teachers I had a few years ago, and teach from the Greek and Hebrew texts.



WCF 1.8, "that the word of God dwelling plentifully in all," is the objective of translation. The Confession states nothing concerning your idea that the translations "are subject to some error." I know the Standards well enough to know that you are imposing a MUST-HAVE-ERROR theory on the teaching of the Standards, quite contrary to its intention. According to the Larger Catechism, the Scriptures are to be read in the vulgar langauge as "the very word of God."


----------



## MW

Covenant Joel said:


> Are you saying that the translational choice of "covenant" is necessarily an error? And that such error undermines the covenant theology of the WCF?



I haven't said anything about "error." I have simply pointed to an historical fact. The divines held that "covenant" contains a testamentary idea. A certain strain of theologians have come to a different view. The older translations included it. It is excluded among a variety of modern translations. So far as a Bible translation has any real value in terms of influencing religious thought is the degree to which the change in translation will affect a change of attitude towards the doctrinal ethos of the Confession.


----------



## MW

fredtgreco said:


> What he is saying is that the *only* acceptable English translation is the AV.



I've said no such thing. You should retract your false representation. All I have said falls under the Direction for Public Worship that the Scriptures should be publicly read in the vulgar tongue, out of *the best allowed translation*."


----------



## MW

Semper Fidelis said:


> What Matthew is driving at, then, is the fact that we are Reformed (and have the WCF as our Confession) actually *does* affect a certain range of things when interpreting.



If one would like to see a "confessional" appraisal of a modern version one might consult Oswald Allis' "Revision or New Translation." Allis compared the RSV not only to the AV, but also to the RV, and showed the clear departures which were being made from conservative standards of translation. The translations which came after the RSV have gone even further. The ESV has only plastered up a few holes in the wall. Many of Allis' criticisms still apply.

If one would like to see an older critique of a non-confessional translation one might consult Thomas Cartwright's Confutation of the Rhemists. The reformed tradition has never held that when it comes to Bible translation "almost anything goes." The present day church has let its testimony slip in the name of a sentimental charity which is eating away at the church's distinctive quality as "the pillar and ground of the truth."


----------



## MW

sevenzedek said:


> Are the AV translators now held so high as the JW's?



I don't understand the line of thinking. The idea of a translation is to make a text accessible to those who cannot read the original language. The reason why Scripture is translated should be owing to the fact that it is "the word of God." The aim of translating should be to make the word of God accessible. It is not the translation, but the quality of what is translated, which makes it so valuable. Where one translation surpasses others it is in the interests of truth to circulate that translation over others. There is no desire to exalt the "translation," but merely to exalt the thing that is translated.

The Bible is the religion of Protestants. It would be good if Protestants started acting like it.


----------



## Logan

I have a quick question, do you believe that at any point in the evolution of English the KJV will cease to be intelligible or useful to the common man? If so, when will you know that point has been reached and what should be done at that time?


----------



## MW

Logan said:


> I have a quick question, do you believe that at any point in the evolution of English the KJV will cease to be intelligible or useful to the common man? If so, when will you know that point has been reached and what should be done at that time?



I am not a prophet. I am closed in to the means of God's appointing and the circumstances in which Providence has placed me.


----------



## Logan

Alright then, do you allow it to be a possibility? If so, when would you know that point has been reached and what do you think should be done at that time?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Phil,

A brief response to your post 120 above. I am one who identifies himself as a “King James _priority_” person – although AV priority would do just as well – and as representative of some of “the AV’ers here” I’d like to bring out a few nuances you seem to have missed in your perception of us.

When I defend various readings (though not often translations, for there are places where the language may be modernized) it is not because I see it as “unassailable” (for it is often assailed) but rather as defensible. My primary concern is that of omissions and changes as seen in the Critical Text and, occasionally, what is called the Majority Text, supplanting the readings of the Reformation Bible. I am not saying these things to debate them here, but simply to let you see what I think.

It is very important to me that the issue be regarding the variant and changed _readings_ and _not_ the Bibles in the main. On the one hand, it is a matter of _adequate_ preservation versus preservation in the _minutiae_, for I would certainly not say that Critical Text-derived Bibles are not good Bibles, greatly used of God in the converting of souls, sanctifying them, and sustaining the churches in godliness and good works.

On the other hand, there are those who have a strong interest in a Bible which can be defended in the minutiae against just those adversaries of the common faith who seek to attack it in its foundation, which is the word of God. Such enemies of Christ and His church – as Bart Ehrman, for one – uses the variant readings of the Critical Text as the soft underbelly he goes for. Defenders of the Critical Text, such as Dr. James White, do an admirable job standing up to Ehrman and the like, but I prefer a defense in the minutiae, particularly defending those uniquely TR/AV readings which the CT variants change and Ehrman goes after.

I have not begun my “Ehrman Project” yet – I have a number of projects I am working on, and have requested of the Lord to extend my years well beyond the 71 He has already graciously given me so I may get to them all – but it is much with me to get to Ehrman.

At any rate, I am glad that men are able to use with confidence the modern versions, and I know folks dear to me who _love_ God’s word in such – and should I harass them in that they delight in? No, it is only that I do not want the AV/TR readings in, for instance, Mark 16:9-20, 1 Timothy 3:16, 1 John 5:7, Acts 20:28, John 7:53-8:11, Matthew 1:7, 10, etc denied their rightful place in the Scriptures God gave us.

It is not about the Bibles in the main, it is about some of its readings. I hope this clarifies somewhat the AV priority view.


----------



## MW

Logan said:


> Alright then, do you allow it to be a possibility? If so, when would you know that point has been reached and what do you think should be done at that time?



Given the rate of change I would even say it is a probability. We would know the point is reached, I suppose, because the English teachers will stop calling it "modern" English and start calling it something else. As to what should be done, whether the English language fundamentally changes or not, my prayer is that the Lord would revive His work in the midst of the years, enable the church to unite in her task of bearing testimony for Jesus, and bring forth a true, biblical, further reformation built on the attainments of past generations which will bequeath to posterity an even richer heritage than we have enjoyed. But while the professing church continues in its steady course of attack against reformation attainments, a sensible soldier has no other choice but to hold the ground he has.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## fredtgreco

armourbearer said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> What he is saying is that the *only* acceptable English translation is the AV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've said no such thing. You should retract your false representation. All I have said falls under the Direction for Public Worship that the Scriptures should be publicly read in the vulgar tongue, out of *the best allowed translation*."
Click to expand...

Please then give me an example of when you believe any English translation *other than the AV* is acceptable to be used by the Church.


----------



## MW

fredtgreco said:


> Please then give me an example of when you believe any English translation *other than the AV* is acceptable to be used by the Church.



You false represented my view. You need to retract it. I am not about to give you more material to falsely represent.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

armourbearer said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please then give me an example of when you believe any English translation *other than the AV* is acceptable to be used by the Church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You false represented my view. You need to retract it. I am not about to give you more material to falsely represent.
Click to expand...


Rev Winzer, I do think it was a fair question.


----------



## fredtgreco

armourbearer said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please then give me an example of when you believe any English translation *other than the AV* is acceptable to be used by the Church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You false represented my view. You need to retract it. I am not about to give you more material to falsely represent.
Click to expand...

I most certainly did not. I may have presented it in an unfavorable light, but you have not once (in this thread, or to my knowledge in the entirety of the Puritan Board) ever allowed for the use of an English translation other than the AV by a church. In fact, in this thread, when I asked about the very real case of non-native English speakers, your response was that they should use a dictionary with their Bible reading and that they would be better off understanding less of the Bible with the AV than misunderstanding more of the Bible with another translation: _"true understanding of the Bible in small portions is more important than misunderstanding large portions of it"_.

I certainly could be wrong. I don't wish to be uncharitable, but one would need some evidence to the contrary to come to a contrary conclusion of your views of the AV. If I am wrong, state so, and I will retract my statement.


----------



## MW

fredtgreco said:


> I certainly could be wrong. I don't wish to be uncharitable, but one would need some evidence to the contrary to come to a contrary conclusion of your views of the AV. If I am wrong, state so, and I will retract my statement.



You most certainly are wrong; and now you are attempting to impose upon me your positive misrepresentation on the basis of what I have not said. Simply because I have not said what you desire me to say, you impute your misrepresentation to me. And then, the only way I can extricate myself from your misrepresentation, is to make a statement that satisfies your criterion of judging the issue.

The Directory uses a superlative, "BEST." Your term is "acceptable." Something might be acceptable which is not necessarily the best. Your term commits me to something which is basically irrelevant to the discussion. Yet you insist on judging me according to your term.

I have never said what you are claiming. You are wrong. Retract your statement.


----------



## KMK

Logan said:


> I have a quick question, do you believe that at any point in the evolution of English the KJV will cease to be intelligible or useful to the common man?



I am not trying to answer for Rev Winzer, but I think most AV defenders believe that, so far, the English language is not 'evolving' but 'devolving'. This is an important distinction as AV defenders are jealous of the precision of translation the AV provides in comparison to those versions that purposely use a less precise form of devolved English. We are often accused of being hardhearted because we encourage our sheep to use a 'less intelligible' Version, but really what we encourage is the use of the most precise Version available.


----------



## Logan

I understand and agree since I love our historical English, but while the serious Bible student or pastor is very concerned about the accuracy, I am also quite sure that the average person feels no inadequacy with modern English and eventually, at some point it may very well be like telling them to read in Greek and Hebrew. It doesn't matter how precise it is if the average person cannot understand it, no? I'm not saying language should be dumbed down, but neither should it be an artificial barrier to the common man, so that he must read it with his dictionary always beside him.


----------



## sevenzedek

armourbearer said:


> sevenzedek said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are the AV translators now held so high as the JW's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand the line of thinking.
Click to expand...


Dragging the JW's into this mess was meant to inflame a sense of the corruption of such an idea that the AV translators had a corner on the truth. The Scriptures have been entrusted not to one portion of the body, but the whole body of Christ. To say that the modern church is ill qualified for the translation of the Scriptures in our modern day puts not only our standards on shaky ground, but the whole church. Has the Holy Spirit ceased sanctifying the bride? I already know that you would say no. If the translators didn't have a corner on the truth, then neither does their work because it flows from them.


----------



## KMK

Logan said:


> I understand and agree since I love our historical English, but while the serious Bible student or pastor is very concerned about the accuracy, I am also quite sure that the average person feels no inadequacy with modern English and eventually, at some point it may very well be like telling them to read in Greek and Hebrew. It doesn't matter how precise it is if the average person cannot understand it, no? I'm not saying language should be dumbed down, but neither should it be an artificial barrier to the common man, so that he must read it with his dictionary always beside him.



By 'average person' do you mean the average believer or unbeliever? I would think that accuracy is eventually important to all believers. (Heb 5:12-14)


----------



## MW

sevenzedek said:


> Dragging the JW's into this mess was meant to inflame a sense of the corruption of such an idea that the AV translators had a corner on the truth. The Scriptures have been entrusted not to one portion of the body, but the whole body of Christ. To say that the modern church is ill qualified for the translation of the Scriptures in our modern day puts not only our standards on shaky ground, but the whole church. Has the Holy Spirit ceased sanctifying the bride? I already know that you would say no. If the translators didn't have a corner on the truth, then neither does their work because it flows from them.



There is admixture of truth and error in the professing visible church. We are to prove all things; hold fast that which is good and abstain from all appearance of evil. I am affiliated with one church, not because I believe it is the only true church, but because I believe it is the most pure church to which I can commit myself and seek God's blessing. In the same way, I have adopted one translation of the Bible, not because I think it is the only true translation, but because I believe it is the most reliable translation to which I can commit myself and read it as the very word of God. As such I recommend it to others.


----------



## sevenzedek

armourbearer said:


> I recommend it to others.



At the expense of their understanding?



armourbearer said:


> 5. Surely a true understanding of the Bible in small portions is more important than misunderstanding large portions of it.



While I do see the value of the AV, I advocate for a more charitable view toward those less advantaged in my English speaking society. You keep saying that the AV is written in English, and who can argue with that? It is! But one must confess that, while the AV is written in English, the syntax is hardly the vulgar tongue of the day. I don't know anyone who speaks like that. I will grant you that the AV is written in English if you will admit that the syntax is antiquated. For our ESL brothers and sisters, the words of the AV may not be as much of a problem as the syntax of it.

To answer the question of the OP, syntax would seem to be one of the biggest reasons people switched to modern versions. From where I come, when people say they have a hard time understanding the AV, they don't mean the individual words as much as the syntax; so the go-get-a-dictionary rebuttal will be quite lost on me in light of this fact.

Unless you have anything that demands a response, I think I will just bow out of this thread. Maybe the moderators should make a PB-KJV rule for which I don't have or offer any advice. What a touchy subject for everyone.


----------



## earl40

Maybe if we had a NASV based on the AV (with the few proper corrections the AV needs)? The syntax of the AV is just horrible to the ear to most of us who speak English that dwell not in England or one of its colonies. Now I know many will say "I like and think the syntax is not horrible and I live in the USA" but one must recognize most people do not like Old English but the vulgar language they use. Thus the reason our NT is not written in classical Greek.


----------



## Logan

KMK said:


> Logan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand and agree since I love our historical English, but while the serious Bible student or pastor is very concerned about the accuracy, I am also quite sure that the average person feels no inadequacy with modern English and eventually, at some point it may very well be like telling them to read in Greek and Hebrew. It doesn't matter how precise it is if the average person cannot understand it, no? I'm not saying language should be dumbed down, but neither should it be an artificial barrier to the common man, so that he must read it with his dictionary always beside him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By 'average person' do you mean the average believer or unbeliever? I would think that accuracy is eventually important to all believers. (Heb 5:12-14)
Click to expand...


By "average" I mean the person on the street. Imagine asking them whether they feel English doesn't have the capability to express things properly and if they wish there was a distinction between plural and singular "you" or more control between past-perfect and perfect tenses. 

If it's so important, why doesn't anyone on this board use "thee", "thy", "behold", even in theological discussions? Because we find common English accurately conveys what we mean. 

If I really want to look at precision terms (like plural and singular), I'll crack open an interlinear Bible, I'm not going to the KJV anyway.


----------



## Philip

My one comment is that the average man on the street, hearing the AV read, will more than likely associate the syntax with Monty Python.

The situation that we are in here seems to be analogous (though not perfectly) to say, a Frank living in the 9th century under the Carolingian Renaissance, when the church decided to keep the Vulgate as the Bible of the church, despite the fact that vulgar Latin was no longer the language of the people. And while granted, the Frankish language of the day was hardly a written language, the fact remains that not having the Bible in the vulgar tongues led to superstitious hocus-pocus (quite literally).

For those who value the Received Text, then, I would pose this question: would a new translation of the TR be appropriate at this time? And if so, what can you do toward the creation of one?


----------



## Edward

earl40 said:


> most people do not like Old English



Technically, it is early modern English, not old English, which unless one is a scholar of the tongue, would be understood by no one here. Compare to Chaucer, which is in Middle English, and quite difficult for most of us. 

In any event, your point is well made. If we want to reserve the scripture to the well trained elite, the KJV is probably adequate. But for the vulgar tongue, you would need at least to go to the NKJV in that manuscript family.


----------



## Edward

Philip said:


> For those who value the Received Text, then, I would pose this question: would a new translation of the TR be appropriate at this time?



There are modernized versions out there (some better than others) but that seemingly wouldn't satisfy those who say they are not KJO, but who exhibit distaste for other versions.


----------



## Philip

Edward said:


> There are modernized versions out there (some better than others) but that seemingly wouldn't satisfy those who say they are not KJO, but who exhibit distaste for other versions.



Which is why I ask whether those advocating the AV would also advocate a completely new translation into current vernacular. Even if I happen to disagree with AV-priority folks, I wouldn't mind seeing such a translation. Even my usual translation (the ESV) is woefully lacking in literary quality, which is why I prefer the AV or Coverdale for the psalms, for instance.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Philip said:


> For those who value the Received Text, then, I would pose this question: would a new translation of the TR be appropriate at this time? And if so, what can you do toward the creation of one?


I'm going to jump in here again because I think this is a good question. It sort of represents the thing that keeps plaguing me in all of these discussions. As I see it, advocates for the AV are arguing for four simultaneous things that seem to have converged only once (that I can discern) in human history):

1. The perfect collection of Greek manuscripts collected in such a way as to never need to perform any more textual work based on the interpolated choices of the KJV translators from the manuscripts they had at their disposal.
2. Men who were theologically all in accord as to a Reformed hermeneutic and well trained in theology.
3. Men who had a particular translation philosophy.
4. men whose work was sanctioned by the Church and received.

Concerning item 1, can anyone tell me if there are any groups in Germany that prefer a kind of "Textus Receptus" based on Luther's translation of the German Bible extrapolating the Greek word choices he used? Are there any French speaking Reformed who insist upon the manuscript choices of Calvin or other scholars there and dispute that the KJV scholars made some inaccurate choices? I ask this because it seems to only be us English speakers that God gave Providential inerrancy to in the creation of a Greek textual platform that led to a "best" translation.

As I hear people answering about other translations than the AV, this is what I'm hearing: "Well, you see, other translations may be _acceptable_ but they are not the _best_."

The best translations would be those that meet criteria 1-4, which essentially rules out any translation that came before the KJV and, historically, makes the creation of any other translation after it in any other tongue than English improbable. In fact, it makes the creation of another translation in the English nearly impossible so any translation into the English is going to be "acceptable" but not the best. Much as the Church may desire to give a person an updated translation, Providence just can't converge the right Churchmen to the task. Even if I found that a modern translation met criteria 1-3, Alas! I'm not in the kind of Church that receives certain translations as the "best". Always the bridesmaid!

Ah, you see, we can give people _dictionaries_ to ameliorate that problem (that word is in the dictionary). What dictionary ought we to give them? I ask this seriously. My kids actually use Websters 1828 dictionary at their school because it has some word definitions one cannot find in modern dictionaries. I'm not sure if it's the "best" dictionary for interpreting the KJV, however or is it just "acceptable". Is the OED the "best"? Would one recommend buying a multi-volume set or simply do the online subscription for their congegants? Also, does anyone have any recommendation on how to train the members of the Church on lexicography?

Now, let me shift for a moment and think of myself as if I was a non-English speaker in a foreign land. Does anyone, outside the English speaking world, possess the "best" translation of the Scriptures in their own tongue or is it simply we, the Providentially blessed English speakers with our OED, that have access to the "best"? Again, I'm not speaking just about have condition 1 (and perhaps 2 and 3) fulfilled by some well-meaning Reformed folk but having the full authenticated process that a member of a Church in that country can stand on the Word and say: "We believe in the Scriptures and I know for certain that this is the best because my Bible has met all the criteria for making it so!"

Or, rather, is he one of the poor souls who had some translator that thought he was performing a service for an obscure tribe somewhere who never had the Scriptures in their native tongue and he didn't follow steps 1-4 but used the UBS platform. Would he have been better off training them in English, giving them KJV's, and leaving them with an OED?

I'm purposefully representing this in this manner because I firmly believe that these kind of arguments do not establish confidence in the Word of God but undermine it. They undermine God's ability to work in differing ways Providentially to produce faithful translations where the possessor of the Word doesn't have to wring his hands constantly and wonder: Do I possess the "best" translation of the Word?

I'm not arguing against precision but I am arguing against extra-Biblical arguments that believe that a certain interpretation of Divine Providence is co-extensive with the idea of trust in the fidelity of the Scriptures.

I consider many of you my friends so I don't want to destroy that by this post but I really cannot understand the whole mindset. While I appreciate the concern for the text and not treating as an academic text, I don't think confidence in the Word is served by claiming extra-Biblical certainty about the convergence of forces that creates an impenetrable barrier around any thought that the Church might still refine and improve her understanding of some texts or that the Lord might even have certain manuscripts be discovered that aid in that end. If he can allow the Church to go 1611 years without a perfect apparatus then he can allow the Church to continue to labor even longer. If he can allow the Church to continue her march for 1611 years without a "best" English translation then He can continue to do so now and in the future.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan

Good post Rich. I posted earlier about my perception that this is a very English-centric view of Scripture.

I know that Calvin disputed the inclusion of some of the passages in Erasmus' Greek (for example, on the Johannine Comma he says that the best manuscripts do not contain it), but don't know about thereafter. The current "Textus Receptus" (Scrivener's) is quite tied to English though.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Philip said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are modernized versions out there (some better than others) but that seemingly wouldn't satisfy those who say they are not KJO, but who exhibit distaste for other versions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why I ask whether those advocating the AV would also advocate a completely new translation into current vernacular. Even if I happen to disagree with AV-priority folks, I wouldn't mind seeing such a translation. Even my usual translation (the ESV) is woefully lacking in literary quality, which is why I prefer the AV or Coverdale for the psalms, for instance.
Click to expand...


The position of the Trinitarian Bible Society has always been a resounding *yes* to the question whether a new English translation would be appropriate in the future. 

One of the big issues that gets kind of glossed over in these discussions is who has the right to offer a "translation" of the Bible?

1) The Church

or 

2) The Parachurch (i.e. - Publishing Houses).


----------



## KMK

Logan said:


> If I really want to look at precision terms (like plural and singular), I'll crack open an interlinear Bible, I'm not going to the KJV anyway.



I am not saying that a love of precision will drive every English speaking Christian to use the AV exclusively. I am saying that precision is eventually important to all Christians, hence the the fact that you, as well as most strong meat loving Christians, own an interlinear Bible.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> One of the big issues that gets kind of glossed over in these discussions is who has the right to offer a "translation" of the Bible?
> 
> 1) The Church
> 
> or
> 
> 2) The Parachurch (i.e. - Publishing Houses).



or, perhaps:

3) A missionary

I attempted, at least, to wrestle with the issue of what it means that the Church might produce a translation. It seems to me that it requires historical conditions to reproduce themselves where you have an Establishmentarian Church with appointed men of a certain pedigree for the production of anything that might produce or supplant the "best". That may work for _that_ Church or _that_ country but then what about those who aren't members of that established Church? Do I even have the best if I'm in the PCA because the PCA, which has adopted the WCF in a certain fashion, has not received the AV as _its_ text.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

Semper Fidelis said:


> Are there any French speaking Reformed who insist upon the manuscript choices of Calvin or other scholars there and dispute that the KJV scholars made some inaccurate choices? I ask this because it seems to only be us English speakers that God gave Providential inerrancy to in the creation of a Greek textual platform that led to a "best" translation.



This is not really the position of most TR/KJV advocates. French being my native language I do have a facsimile version of the JF Osterwald version and a New Testament of the 1744 Martin bible. I'm also waiting for the complete Martin Bible which TBS is working on. I use the KJV because I understand English and I go to an English church and the KJV is readily available pretty much everywhere. To say that God only gave Providential inerrancy to the English speakers is not really correct. There are faithful translation based on the Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text in other languages. The facts is that the spread of Protestantism is in a large part due to the spread of the British Empire. (I know this is certainly not the only way but it is in large part due to this). This is History, I don't make it up I just report it. The same argument could be made as to why the New Testament was not inspired in all languages instead of only in Greek. I find it funny that this argument is mostly used by English speakers ironically. God choose to bless the English speaking people for a season, what's wrong with that. If we understand God's sovereignty over the spread of his Word who are we to impose guidelines on how he should to it. 



Semper Fidelis said:


> As I hear people answering about other translations than the AV, this is what I'm hearing: "Well, you see, other translations may be acceptable but they are not the best."



This argument is mainly about which version should be used in public worship. We Presbyterian follow the Westminster Standards therefore this should be something we hold to.

From the Directory or Public Worship:



> Of Publick Reading of the Holy Scriptures.
> READING of the word in the congregation, being part of the publick worship of God,
> (wherein .i.we; acknowledge our dependence upon him, and subjection to him,) and one
> mean sanctified by him for the edifying of his people, is to be performed by the pastors and
> teachers.
> 
> Howbeit, such as intend the ministry, may occasionally both read the word, and exercise their
> gift in preaching in the congregation, if allowed by the presbytery thereunto.
> All the canonical books of the Old and New Testament (but none of those which are
> commonly called Apocrypha) shall be publickly read in the vulgar tongue, *out of the best
> allowed translation*, distinctly, that all may hear and understand.



the term "best" is exclusive, if one translation is inferior to another it should not be used in public worship according to our standards. I believe this is what Rev. Winzer was referring to in his previous arguments. I'm not saying you can't use any other translation for private use if it helps you, but I believe for the sake of consistency you should work toward getting used to the version used in public worship, which I believe for English speaking churches should be the KJV. 



Semper Fidelis said:


> Now, let me shift for a moment and think of myself as if I was a non-English speaker in a foreign land. Does anyone, outside the English speaking world, possess the "best" translation of the Scriptures in their own tongue or is it simply we, the Providentially blessed English speakers with our OED, that have access to the "best"?



I would say that if your church is a French church, you should use the best available translation in French, same goes for any other languages (assuming this is a Presbyterian Church which hold the the Westminster standards).



Semper Fidelis said:


> I'm purposefully representing this in this manner because I firmly believe that these kind of arguments do not establish confidence in the Word of God but undermine it. They undermine God's ability to work in differing ways Providentially to produce faithful translations where the possessor of the Word doesn't have to wring his hands constantly and wonder: Do I possess the "best" translation of the Word?



I would say it's actually the opposite, if you present a variety of different version in the same language (which have significant differences between them) as equally accurate it won't take long before people will start pointing out contradiction in your view. If our view on scriptures is contradictory it doesn't help to bring confidence in the rest our theology. This is what happened to me when I started to look into this issue.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Semper Fidelis said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the big issues that gets kind of glossed over in these discussions is who has the right to offer a "translation" of the Bible?
> 
> 1) The Church
> 
> or
> 
> 2) The Parachurch (i.e. - Publishing Houses).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or, perhaps:
> 
> 3) A missionary
> 
> I attempted, at least, to wrestle with the issue of what it means that the Church might produce a translation. It seems to me that it requires historical conditions to reproduce themselves where you have an Establishmentarian Church with appointed men of a certain pedigree for the production of anything that might produce or supplant the "best". That may work for _that_ Church or _that_ country but then what about those who aren't members of that established Church? Do I even have the best if I'm in the PCA because the PCA, which has adopted the WCF in a certain fashion, has not received the AV as _its_ text.
Click to expand...


Well to the first point a "missionary" is a non-sequitur when speaking of English translations. The Trinitarian Bible Society sells dozens of different non-English bibles. 

To the second point, yes to a large extent that is true. Part of the argument here does center around an establishment situation rather than the Judges 21:25 situation we find ourselves in.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan

Fogetaboutit said:


> All the canonical books of the Old and New Testament (but none of those which are
> commonly called Apocrypha) shall be publickly read in the vulgar tongue, *out of the best
> allowed translation*, distinctly, that all may hear and understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the term "best" is exclusive, if one translation is inferior to another it should not be used in public worship according to our standards.
Click to expand...


Absolutely agreed, but let it also be remembered that it shall be read *in the vulgar tongue*...*that all may hear and understand*. So is it best for accuracy (should we read out of an interlinear Bible) or best for intelligibility?

What I've been hinting at is that at some point the KJV will cease to be useful, it will be like reading the Vulgate in church. Perhaps even now it is not the "best". What criteria will you use to determine when that has happened?


----------



## Fogetaboutit

Logan said:


> Fogetaboutit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the canonical books of the Old and New Testament (but none of those which are
> commonly called Apocrypha) shall be publickly read in the vulgar tongue, *out of the best
> allowed translation*, distinctly, that all may hear and understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the term "best" is exclusive, if one translation is inferior to another it should not be used in public worship according to our standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely agreed, but let it also be remembered that it shall be read *in the vulgar tongue*...*that all may hear and understand*. So is it best for accuracy (should we read out of an interlinear Bible) or best for intelligibility?
> 
> What I've been hinting at is that at some point the KJV will cease to be useful, it will be like reading the Vulgate in church. Perhaps even now it is not the "best". What criteria will you use to determine when that has happened?
Click to expand...



The statement "that all may hear and understand" is a reference to vulgar tongue (which should be distinguished from vulgar "jargon"). This is a reference to not using a bible in a language unknown to the common people like the Roman Church was doing at the time of the Reformation with the Latin Vulgate. This is not a reference to the level of understanding of the layman own language.



Logan said:


> What I've been hinting at is that at some point the KJV will cease to be useful, it will be like reading the Vulgate in church. Perhaps even now it is not the "best". What criteria will you use to determine when that has happened?



I believe something similar to this was done without having to translate a brand new translation in 1769.


----------



## Logan

Fogetaboutit said:


> This is not a reference to the level of understanding of the layman own language.



Perhaps not exclusively, but isn't that a part of it? Or did the Reformers and Puritans not care if anyone comprehended as long as it was technically English? Would you at least agree that "best" can be interpreted multiple ways and is not necessarily confined narrowly to "most precise, regardless of comprehension and coming from a specific set of texts"?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

It needs to be remembered (as it does in every KJV thread evidently) that the local butcher in Cambridge was not using "Thee's" and "Thous" (and other things folks bring to mind when the KJV/AV is discussed) in his everyday speech in 1611. In the sense most are using "vulgar" the KJV itself was not "vulgar" in 1611 let alone in 1646.


----------



## Philip

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> In the sense most are using "vulgar" the KJV itself was not "vulgar" in 1611 let alone in 1646.



True. But it didn't evoke Monty Python references either.


----------



## Logan

I found this interesting. It is from _The Bibles of England_ by Andrew Edgar, printed in 1889. There was apparently a movement by members of the Westminster Assembly to revise the KJV, proposed committee members including John Owen, Thomas Goodwin, and Joseph Caryl. 



> Even Selden, however, accorded to the King's translation only modified praise. He admitted it to be the best translation in the world, as rendering "the sense of the original best," but he complained of its un-English phrases which were much ridiculed by the common people.
> 
> In little more than thirty years after its first issue, a serious proposal was made for a revision of the national Bible. It was urged on Parliament in 1645. A distinguished member of the Westminster Assembly, in the course of a sermon preached that year before the House of Commons, entreated his hearers "to think of a review and survey of the translation of the Bible"; so that, by a revised translation, "exact, vigorous, and lively," the people of the three kingdoms might come to know the proper and genuine sense of the Scriptures. It is clear, therefore, that some of the Westminster divines did not suppose that the King's translation would continue for ever to be the only Bible appointed to be read in Churches. And so, in their directory for public worship, which was adopted by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1645, it is said, under the heading of public reading of the Scriptures :— "All the canonical books of the Old and New Testament shall be publicly read in the vulgar tongue, out of the best allowed translation."
> 
> A bill was actually brought into the long Parliament, shortly before its dissolution in 1653, to appoint a committee to review and revise the "new translation," as the King's or authorised version was then termed. It was alleged that that translation had been "wronged by the prelates, or printers, or others"; and it was proposed that all the injuries so done to that translation, in malice or in ignorance, should be repaired by this committee, "before there be any further printing of the Bible." It was further alleged to be a common stumblingblock to the weak, and a subject of cavil for scoffers, that, in sermons preached and printed, people heard or found it said, "the original bears it better thus and thus." It was accordingly proposed that the committee appointed by Parliament should carefully consider all translations, annotations, and marginal readings that they knew of; and give their approbation to what, "after seriously looking up to the Lord for his gracious assistance in so weighty a work, and advising together amongst themselves, they should judge to be nearest to the text, and to the mind of the Lord." And that there might be security against the hasty adoption, and unadvised insertion, of fanciful and unfaithful renderings in the English Bible, it was proposed that another committee of three divines should be "appointed and authorised to be supervisors of what is so approved, and that what those (supervisors) should so approve, should be printed and published for the general edification and benefit of the whole nation, to be read both privately and in the public congregations."
> 
> The sudden dissolution of the long Parliament put an end to this scheme. It is evident, however, that the scheme was something more than a pedantic project of some whimsical layman's, which had no countenance either in the Church or country. It was fostered, if not devised, by some of the leading divines of the age. On the proposed committee of review and revision stood the names of Dr. John Owen and Dr. Ralph Cudworth; and on the proposed committee of supervision, the names of Dr. Thomas Goodwin and Mr. Joseph Caryl. On the committee of review there was the name of a Scotsman also, Mr. John Row, Professor of Hebrew at Aberdeen. This Mr. John was son of the more famous John of Carnock, but was one of the unstable zealots who in those days of ecclesiastical revolt deserted the Presbyterian Church of their fathers and adopted the principles of congregational independence. So ready was he to undertake the duties proposed for him in the bill brought into Parliament, that he had a programme of his committee's procedure, cut and dry upon paper. "For ye bettering of ye Inglish translation of ye Bible (first printed A.D. 1612) . . . five things are to be endeavoured," said Mr. John. These five things are, "a more proper, rational, and dexterous" division of chapters, verses and sentences; an amendment of " needless transposition of words or stories, pretending to Hypall or Synchyses"; the excision of all useless additions "that debase the wisdom of the spirit"; the reparation of " all sinful and needless detractions "; and the introduction of certain specified "mutations and changes." Under several of these heads, detailed explanations and instructions were given. The useless additions to be removed from the Bible were, all the apocryphal writings; all popish prints, plates, and pictures; all prefixes of saint to evangelists and apostles; and all spurious subscriptions of particular epistles. Among the mutations and changes recommended, were, the printing of God's names and titles in capital letters ; magisterial correction of all misprints; an "idiomatization" of English words not understood in Scotland ; a substitution of English for Hebrew, Greek and Latin terms ; and "something equivocal to Keriand Kethib!"
> 
> From 1653 to 1871, demands more or less loud continued to be made from time to time by divines and biblical scholars for a revision of the King's, or what we are more accustomed to call the authorised, version of the Scriptures. In 1659, "An essay toward the amendment of the last English translation of the Bible," was published by Dr. Robert Gell; and in 1702 a similar essay was published by "H. R., a minister of the Church of England." In the middle of the eighteenth century, revision was advocated by several men of note, including Lowth and Seeker. Towards the end of the century the agitation was renewed. In 1788, a book was printed at Cambridge under the title of "Reasons for revising by authority our present version of the Bible." From the same Universitytown were issued, in 1789, "Observations on the expediency of revising the present English version of the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles," by Professor John Symonds; and five years later there was published, by the same author, another set of observations on the expediency of retranslating the Epistles. In 1792, Archbishop Newcome gave the weight of his name and influence to the movement for revision, and cited high authorities of unquestioned orthodoxy, who were all in favour of the project. Among those that, in the present century advocated the desirability of a new translation of the Bible into English, it will suffice to name Dr. Marsh, Bishop of Peterborough (1828), Professor Scholefield (1832), Professor Selwyn (1856), Dr. Trench, Archbishop of Dublin (1858), Dr. Ellicott, Bishop of Gloucester (1870), Dr. Lightfoot, Bishop of Durham, (1871). It must be admitted however, that men of equal or almost equal eminence, both in the first and second half of the present century, set themselves sternly against the project of revising the King's version. In 1819, an able vindication of the authorised translation of the Bible was published by the Rev. Henry John Todd. In 1820, Archbishop Lawrence took up his episcopal pen, and, on the grounds that it was impossible to restore the original text of the Hebrew Testament, and to clearly establish the text of the Greek Testament, contended that no revision of the English Bible could be satisfactory or beneficial. During the first decade of the present half century, when Selwyn and Trench were advocating revision, and holding forth the benefits that would result therefrom, Mr. Malan, Mr. Scrivener, Dr. Cumming, and Dr. M'Caul were as vigorously enforcing the duty of "holding fast what we have."
> 
> And not only has there, from 1645, been a demand, more or less loud and widespread, for a revision of the King's version of the Bible, but not a few attempts have been made to furnish such a revision in whole or in part. As far back as 1639, a translation of the Pentateuch, Psalms, and Canticles was published by Dr. Henry Ainsworth, a member of the Brownist persuasion. So well thought of, too, in the time of the commonwealth was this work of Dr. Ainsworth's, that, in the bill before Parliament in 1653, his translation was specially commended to the favourable consideration of the proposed committee of review. But it does not appear to have been a really meritorious work. The translation was literal beyond all propriety, and the diction was even more archaic than that of the version it was meant to supercede. In the ninety-fifth Psalm the following renderings occur: "Let us prevent his face with confession." ... "Whose the sea is, for he made it; and the dry land his hands have formed." ... "Come let us bow down ourselves and bend." ... "Forty years I was irked with that generation; and said, they are a people erring in heart."


----------



## Fogetaboutit

Logan said:


> Fogetaboutit said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a reference to the level of understanding of the layman own language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps not exclusively, but isn't that a part of it? Or did the Reformers and Puritans not care if anyone comprehended as long as it was technically English? Would you at least agree that "best" can be interpreted multiple ways and is not necessarily confined narrowly to "most precise, regardless of comprehension and coming from a specific set of texts"?
Click to expand...


I for one do not believe accuracy should ever be sacrificed for any reason, it does need to be intelligible of course hence the need to translate into ones language, but a formal translation is a must. 

Let us also remember that the big bulk of what is considered "best" is actually the reliability of the translated text. There only a few source texts that can be used. Once you determine which is better then it does eliminates others versions translated from other textual sources.

I believe a solid case can be made for the Traditional Text used by the Reformers. If you agree with that statement you have eliminated the vast majority of English translation and I believe out of the versions left a good case can also be made for the KJV. It's not rocket science.


----------



## Logan

Fogetaboutit said:


> I for one do not believe accuracy should ever be sacrificed for any reason, it does need to be intelligible of course hence the need to translate into ones language, but a formal translation is a must.


Definitely, but we don't all use interlinear Bibles do we? Is there not a balance? If so, where does that balance lie?



Fogetaboutit said:


> I believe a solid case can be made for the Traditional Text used by the Reformers. If you agree with that statement you have eliminated the vast majority of English translation and I believe out of the versions left a good case can also be made for the KJV. It's not rocket science.



Which one? Erasmus' (1st, 2nd, 3rd?), Beza's, Stephanus', Scrivener's, or the Vulgate? Why is Stephanus' use of _Codex Bezae_ or Beza's use of _Codex Claromontanus_, which Beza "discovered" unused for centuries, (both western text-types) acceptable but other western types are not? And since Luther didn't have access to this, are the Germans now without pure Scriptures? It may not be rocket science but it is far from simple, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

Logan said:


> Which one? Erasmus' (1st, 2nd, 3rd?), Beza's, Stephanus', Scrivener's, or the Vulgate? Why is Stephanus' use of Codex Bezae or Beza's use of Codex Claromontanus, which Beza "discovered" unused for centuries, (both western text-types) acceptable but other western types are not? And since Luther didn't have access to this, are the Germans now without pure Scriptures? It may not be rocket science but it is far from simple, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.



Are you just being argumentative here or are you serious? How many English version do you have left no matter which one of these editions you use? (The Great Bible, The Bishop Bible, The Coverdale/Tyndale, Geneva and KJV) as I said in my previous post I believe out of the one left I believe a good case could be made for the KJV. What does Luther have to do in a discussion about the "best" English translation?


----------



## Logan

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I apologize if I seem to be so. Perhaps I should bow out as this hasn't been very fruitful.

I am serious because you said "I believe a solid case can be made for the Traditional Text used by the Reformers". I want to know what you mean by that, since there is no single text. Luther is relevant because his "traditional text" was not the same as what we have today in English. And what you would consider the "traditional text" used western-type manuscripts which I understand CT proponents are criticized for using. It's not as simple as you implied, there is no "this is clearly the text the church has always used".

Of course this has a bearing on what you believe to be a "legitimate" translation, or the "best" English translation, and debating over what "best" means. Since the Westminster Assembly allowed the "best translation" (instead of "Authorized Version") one might conclude that they didn't expect it to be the best forever and clearly (from above) thought it was in need of revision. How the church got from "it clearly needs to be revised" to "don't you dare touch it!" amazes me.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

Logan said:


> I am serious because you said "I believe a solid case can be made for the Traditional Text used by the Reformers". I want to know what you mean by that, since there is no single text. Luther is relevant because his "traditional text" was not the same as what we have today in English. And what you would consider the "traditional text" used western-type manuscripts which I understand CT proponents are criticized for using. It's not as simple as you implied, there is no "this is clearly the text the church has always used".



I do believe the later edition to be more accurate since as I see the previous one being stepping stone for the later ones (The same way I see the previous English version based on the traditional text being stepping stones for he KJV). But I do see a sharp distinction between the method and philosophy of criticism used to compile all of the these editions and the methods and philosophy used to compile and edit the Critical Editions. 

I don't view the Traditional Greek text "editions" as the Muslims view their Qu'ran, but I do function on the presupposition that since God did inspire his Word, he also preserved it. I do not hold that every Christian throughout the ages have equally benefited from the entire perfectly preserved content of every word of scriptures, but that the perfect Word of God in it's entirety has not vanished away from the face of the earth. I believe the strongest case can be made for the Traditional Text being the purest stream available to us, therefore I hold to it by "faith" supported by the best evidence. 




Logan said:


> Of course this has a bearing on what you believe to be a "legitimate" translation, or the "best" English translation, and debating over what "best" means. Since the Westminster Assembly allowed the "best translation" (instead of "Authorized Version") one might conclude that they didn't expect it to be the best forever and clearly (from above) thought it was in need of revision. How the church got from "it clearly needs to be revised" to "don't you dare touch it!" amazes me.



I don't dispute this in theory, but the facts are that I still believe the KJV to be the best available today. As I said I have no issues with the edition made to the KJV in 1769. 

But the flip side of that is that you have a lot of people just wanting change for the sake of changes, or wanting to distance themselves from those whom they label "KJVO".


----------



## Logan

Fogetaboutit said:


> I do believe the later edition to be more accurate since as I see the previous one being stepping stone for the later ones



Out of curiousity, is this Scrivener's?


----------



## Fogetaboutit

Logan said:


> Fogetaboutit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do believe the later edition to be more accurate since as I see the previous one being stepping stone for the later ones
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Out of curiousity, is this Scrivener's?
Click to expand...


From my understanding it was reversed engineered by examining the texts that would have been available to the KJV translators (mainly the Stephanus and Beza editions I believe). So would it be considered a "new" edition? Or a compilation of previous editions? I see it more as a republication of older editions.

I believe the content is very similar, if not just about identical (I can't read Greek and I have never observed these myself so I will not be too assertive), but from what I read from others who are more familiar with this edition it is very faithful to previous editions.


----------



## Logan

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> In the sense most are using "vulgar" the KJV itself was not "vulgar" in 1611 let alone in 1646.


I'm wondering if this is true? As an example, Owen wrote in a similar style and wouldn't the common person have at least been familiar with the language as part of the plays (Shakespeare's for example). Perhaps it was literary English? They may not have spoken that way but read that way? Just wondering.

Pure speculation but perhaps its lack of "vulgarity" was one of the reasons behind the Westminster Assembly considering a revision.


----------



## MW

sevenzedek said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I recommend it to others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the expense of their understanding?
Click to expand...


I don't accept the premise of the question. There is no sacrifice of understanding. There is, rather, the value that what is understood is the word of God. This is much to be preferred to a loose human accommodation of the word of God.



sevenzedek said:


> You keep saying that the AV is written in English, and who can argue with that? It is! But one must confess that, while the AV is written in English, the syntax is hardly the vulgar tongue of the day.



The syntax wasn't the vulgar tongue of 1611. Your requirement of non-biblical syntax demands that a translator must compromise the integrity of the word of God in order to give the people the word of God "in their own language." Very sad!


----------



## MW

Semper Fidelis said:


> 1. The perfect collection of Greek manuscripts collected in such a way as to never need to perform any more textual work based on the interpolated choices of the KJV translators from the manuscripts they had at their disposal.



Textual work proceeds apace in its own domain and is valued while the scholars keep to their own field and do not trespass on other fields. But the conjectures of textual critics are no basis for overturning the well established text of the reformed tradition.



Semper Fidelis said:


> 2. Men who were theologically all in accord as to a Reformed hermeneutic and well trained in theology.



Philippians 1:27.



Semper Fidelis said:


> 3. Men who had a particular translation philosophy.



This simply follows from being reformed.



Semper Fidelis said:


> 4. men whose work was sanctioned by the Church and received.



This must inevitably apply to any translation which is taken up and used by the church.



Semper Fidelis said:


> If he can allow the Church to continue her march for 1611 years without a "best" English translation then He can continue to do so now and in the future.



Who knows where to start with a statement like this. First, the dating is wrong because the English church came some time later than AD nought. Secondly, there were English translations prior to 1611, and some of these were "preferred" over others. The AV translators aimed to make one better translation of many good ones. Thirdly, when the church has attained to a standard it is not at liberty to function irrespective of that standard; relinquishing standards is called "defection."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Philip

armourbearer said:


> The syntax wasn't the vulgar tongue of 1611. Your requirement of non-biblical syntax demands that a translator must compromise the integrity of the word of God in order to give the people the word of God "in their own language." Very sad!



In Greek, the form of the syntax carries meanings and connotations. In English it merely sounds awkward. The integrity is no more compromised in this instance than it is inherently by the process of translation.


----------



## MW

Logan said:


> What I've been hinting at is that at some point the KJV will cease to be useful, it will be like reading the Vulgate in church.



The Vulgate is Latin, not English.

As already noted, we are not prophets; we must work with what is here today, not prognosticate on conditions tomorrow.

The AV is living English. Living English-speakers from all different backgrounds and countries read, use, and comprehend it as well as any translation that is available. It is not the translation. "All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all." One should not expect the understanding of the Bible to come without effort. The Confession states that even things necessary to salvation require "a due use of the ordinary means" by learned and unlearned alike, even though these are clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other.

The problem today is not that the language of the AV is outdated, but that people expect instant results. I do not believe a translation which caters to this mindset is going to produce long-lasting results.


----------



## MW

Philip said:


> The integrity is no more compromised in this instance than it is inherently by the process of translation.



"And..." On your theory this is meaningless and modern translations rightly omit it when the repetition becomes tedious. Yet numerous commentators regret its regular omission and/or comment on its significance.


----------



## Logan

armourbearer said:


> Logan said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I've been hinting at is that at some point the KJV will cease to be useful, it will be like reading the Vulgate in church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Vulgate is Latin, not English.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you don't mean it, but statements like this sound a bit condescending and as though you make no effort to understand what I'm saying.


----------



## MW

Logan said:


> Perhaps you don't mean it, but statements like this sound a bit condescending and as though you make no effort to understand what I'm saying.



I understood full well what you were saying, and what you were saying was incorrect. I noted the problem with your parallel and stated it without any personal comment. There is nothing in the bare statement of a fact which should be regarded as condescending. Your reply, however, is personal and uncalled for.


----------



## Edward

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> One of the big issues that gets kind of glossed over in these discussions is who has the right to offer a "translation" of the Bible?
> 
> 1) The Church



Doesn't that path risk leading, if not back to Rome, at least to Canterbury? 

If we decide to give up relying upon the Scripture to validate Themselves; " The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God."

and instead to rely upon men or a man, shouldn't the advocates of such turn to a Bishop, or Archbishop, or the Pope of Rome for their validation?


----------



## MW

Edward said:


> Doesn't that path risk leading, if not back to Rome, at least to Canterbury?



Translation is an human activity -- ministerial. The rejection of magisterial authority should not lead to a rejection of ministerial authority. Some person must do it. One does not need to be a mechanic to drive a car, but someone, somewhere, must have been a mechanic for there to be a car. Likewise for translation. The question is, Who is to do it? The Confession attributes ministerial authority to the Church, 31.3; and assigns the Church the authority, by means of its testimony, to move and induce men to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture, 1.5.


----------



## sevenzedek

armourbearer said:


> sevenzedek said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I recommend it to others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the expense of their understanding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't accept the premise of the question. There is no sacrifice of understanding. There is, rather, the value that what is understood is the word of God. This is much to be preferred to a loose human accommodation of the word of God.
> 
> 
> 
> sevenzedek said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying that the AV is written in English, and who can argue with that? It is! But one must confess that, while the AV is written in English, the syntax is hardly the vulgar tongue of the day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The syntax wasn't the vulgar tongue of 1611. Your requirement of non-biblical syntax demands that a translator must compromise the integrity of the word of God in order to give the people the word of God "in their own language." Very sad!
Click to expand...


I am sad. And while I have much to say with more passion than what I think to be fitting for a man of my low rank, I would rather have peace at this point. Please don't take my convictions with offense toward your person. Can we be charitable with one another in the future, Mr. Winzer?


----------



## Logan

armourbearer said:


> Logan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you don't mean it, but statements like this sound a bit condescending and as though you make no effort to understand what I'm saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understood full well what you were saying, and what you were saying was incorrect. I noted the problem with your parallel and stated it without any personal comment. There is nothing in the bare statement of a fact which should be regarded as condescending. Your reply, however, is personal and uncalled for.
Click to expand...


I am trying to be respectful but in humility I ask you to consider if I am the appropriate judge of whether you understood me or not. I also tried to be charitable when saying it sounded condescending, saying you perhaps didn't mean to. However, I may not have made myself clear (it's been spread out over multiple posts) so I accept that the blame is mine.

I _understand_ the Vulgate is not English, but at one point it was the common tongue. Language moved on and the Vulgate continued to be used. The Reformers rejected this. The same thing can happen in English and some would argue it already has. You are of the opinion that we have not yet passed that point. I can agree for myself, but I cannot claim that is universally the case.

At some point the study required to get past the language barrier just becomes too great. You agree but you believe we are not yet at that point and there is no use speculating on when we will reach it. I cannot be so bold as to say that my abilities set the standard for everyone and that if I can learn from antiquated language then others should too. I desperately want to be aware of setting up stumbling blocks that would prevent people, even unbelievers, from reading the Word of God.


----------



## MW

sevenzedek said:


> Can we be charitable with one another in the future, Mr. Winzer?



Charity thinketh no evil. Why are you insinuating our discussion has not been charitable to this point?

For what it is worth, I speak plainly on such an important matter because I charitably think my brethren have the grace to be able to weigh up such important considerations without prejudice.


----------



## MW

Logan said:


> I _understand_ the Vulgate is not English, but at one point it was the common tongue. Language moved on and the Vulgate continued to be used.



The problem was not that Latin speakers used a Latin Bible, but that people who could not read Latin had nothing else but the Latin Bible. There is no parallel.


----------



## earl40

armourbearer said:


> The problem today is not that the language of the AV is outdated, but that people expect instant results. I do not believe a translation which caters to this mindset is going to produce long-lasting results.



Would it be OK to say Koine Greek is to Late Modern English, as Classical Greek is to Early Modern English? I can see where The Holy Spirit did indeed inspire the NT in Koine Greek and the OT in Hebrew, and in doing such inspired the exact words from these two languages to convey exactly what He willed to convey. Is there no way to convey the original inspired languages into Late Modern English? Also is this not what the NKJV translates did? Or did they use substantially different methods in their work vs. what the KJV translators did?


----------



## sevenzedek

armourbearer said:


> Why are you insinuating our discussion has not been charitable to this point?



I don't mind being bold and plain in what I say, but I often look back and hope I haven't been offensive to anyone. Not everyone can say that they feel safe around me. Your enduring emotional integrity is a testimony to how you hold your convictions with humility.

Thanks, Mr. Winzer.


----------



## MW

earl40 said:


> Would it be OK to say Koine Greek is to Late Modern English, as Classical Greek is to Early Modern English?



Are you referring to the Greek of the NT or to some language which would have been spoken or written in a particular place around the same time? The Greek of the NT contains numerous Hebraisms, archaisms, and various other elements which set it apart. There are also assessments of the quality of "Greek" written by different penmen in Scripture. It is not all uniform.


----------



## Logan

armourbearer said:


> Logan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I _understand_ the Vulgate is not English, but at one point it was the common tongue. Language moved on and the Vulgate continued to be used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem was not that Latin speakers used a Latin Bible, but that people who could not read Latin had nothing else but the Latin Bible. There is no parallel.
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure it's not very useful to debate this point but the transition to romance languages was what I was referring to. To them, the Latin of the Vulgate eventually became unintelligible, though to this day a Spaniard could still pick out some words. Is this not a parallel? To us, Old English (properly speaking) is much the same, and it's conceivable we are on the way to a position where Middle English will also become unintelligible even if it is still called "English".


----------



## MW

Logan said:


> To us



"Us" should include "you and I." But "you and I" are not going to misunderstand present English at some future point.


----------



## Logan

armourbearer said:


> Logan said:
> 
> 
> 
> To us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Us" should include "you and I." But "you and I" are not going to misunderstand present English at some future point.
Click to expand...


I'm not certain what you mean by that. When I said "Old English (properly speaking)" I was referring to this, which I know I don't recognize:

Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in ġeār-dagum,
þēod-cyninga, þrym ġefrūnon,
hū ðā æþelingas ellen fremedon.

But even today there are people who misunderstand the KJV because they impute what the word means today back into the text. Such a word as "worship", which is used in a much broader sense in the KJV. Is this not a problem caused by antiquated language, and an unnecessary one at that?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

If this thread remains open long enough, I have a few remarks.

Fred, it was because of you, some years ago, that I saw my stance re the AV was delegitimizing other Bibles, Bibles that enabled blood-bought souls to partake of the divine nature through the precious promises of God’s word (2 Pet 1:4), and as a result my understanding was changed. To do anything to damage the faith of another child of God – especially faith in His words – is now abhorrent to me. 

I did not change my view of the KJV, but I did of the other Bibles, according them honor and the designation “holy”.

I think we all have our view as to which is the “best” Bible, even though others may be “acceptable” to us. To deny us this value judgment is to succumb to the relativity of the postmodern concept of truth, that what is best for us is best among many bests, and that there is no _objective_ best.

I think my views on the merits and demerits of the various textual editions, translations, and readings are well enough known here that I need not bring them up (for those who do not know, click the link in my signature, “collected textual posts”).

It is strange that we have to have wars of words over that which is most holy to us in this world. That we cannot be gracious and irenic when we talk about it. That there is acrimony in our words when we do. Not that I myself have always held to this ideal, but now, as I am older and have matured a little, I do seek to hold to it.

Fred, Matthew did not say these words you attributed to him, “What he is saying is that the *only* acceptable English translation is the AV”. His point was otherwise, though it may have sounded like that to you. His point that the AV is “the best allowed translation” is a more nuanced view than what you have said. 

I also have observed his statements re the Ecclesiastical Text / Authorized Version over the years, and it is neither unreasonable nor uncharitable to take the stands he has, though many disagree and find fault with it. Yet we all disagree and find fault with some of the views of others, and that is acceptable and even godly if we remain gracious in it.

I have valued greatly some of the views you have held on this topic, Fred, and have been edified by them, and ditto with views of Matthew.

About ESL folks: am I right in remembering you use the NKJV? Does that make understanding easier for those in your congregation? That was the version I chose (over the ESV) in the church plant I pastored in Cyprus – as it was a gift from the planting church, and we didn’t have enough money to buy anything ourselves; it wasn’t a bad choice. I like the NKJV. Yet I like the AV best.

Pastors (and others) have different views about which translation to use with ESL people. Some, with merit, say the KJV is fine; likewise those who say a more modern version is fine, and they have merit also. We are allowed our individual choices in this, and there ought be no war over such differences.

I do find it lamentable that an ordained pastor can be mocked and spoken rudely to by lay persons, as though a governor over God’s people _appointed thereto by God_ may be treated with disdain. This ought not be. Even in the secular military enlisted men are to respect officers from different branches of the armed forces, and are liable to the Uniform Code of Military Justice for transgressions. God is not mocked; there are repercussions for such transgressions of _His_ law.

I think Dennis’ observation in his post #84 is keen:
“nless you want to play Don Quixote, let's quit pretending that a few folks in microdenominations will change the world back to a common Bible. 

The proverbial cows have left the barn and we are stuck with a multiplicity of translations. The best we can hope for is that individual congregations will probably gravitate to their own ‘standards’ on a case by case basis.”​

This is the situation in 2013, and how shall we work within it? Myself, I am not a pastor now, and I strive to maintain the peace in the congregation I am a member of. I talk to the pastor about version issues upon occasion and he is very receptive, though the church uses the NIV and ESV in its readings. If I am asked to read I will read from the texts given me.

In my opposition to Bart Ehrman I will use the AV and TR in defense of the NT text he seeks to deconstruct and demolish. Young David was scorned when he used a supposedly antiquated and simple sling and stone – instead of the “better” weapons of his day – to fight the giant, but God gave him to prevail.

Yet in normal situations in the community of faith, I may shine a quiet light with regard to textual issues, but I have other things to focus on that are important. I may occasionally talk about the impact of what Dennis refers to as “The proverbial cows have left the barn and we are stuck with a multiplicity of translations”, for the differences we all acknowledge have indeed impacted the broad community of faith.

I don’t think Matthew has transgressed any matter with regard to impropriety or uncharitableness, though his views are not widely appreciated in 2013 AD. It would not have been so in earlier times. Also, to speak sharply and forcefully is not necessarily uncharitable. 

How about we live and let live, unless someone truly transgresses?

Rich brought up some very interesting points, in a couple of his posts, but I have addressed what I thought necessary, and so will refrain.

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

This thread could probably be closed with profit, and not loss.


----------



## Philip

armourbearer said:


> The Greek of the NT contains numerous Hebraisms, archaisms, and various other elements which set it apart.



Just as the English that I speak contains numerous Latinisms, archaisms, and various other idiosyncrasies. That doesn't mean that I don't speak modern English any more than the NT writers aren't writing in Koine Greek.


----------



## Logan

Jerusalem Blade said:


> This thread could probably be closed with profit, and not loss.



I agree and I think I'll avoid this thread from now on.

Steve, thank you very much for your graciousness and humility in dealing with others. I appreciate your ability to state your reasons without coming across as demeaning.


----------



## JimmyH

Jerusalem Blade said:


> *This thread could probably be closed with profit, and not loss*.


 +1. More heat than light after 189 posts, anyone change their mindset ?


----------



## VictorBravo

Jerusalem Blade said:


> This thread could probably be closed with profit, and not loss.



A fair assessment. Thread closed for now, at least....


----------

