# KJV/TR Folks - Why don't we do a new translation of the TR?



## MichaelNZ (Aug 26, 2016)

I was talking to my friend today and was trying to convince him of the TR/KJV position. He is a ministry intern at our church. He mentioned the fact that some words have changed meanings between now and when the KJV was translated, and advised me against using the KJV in evangelism as he thinks the average person would get lost in the thees and thous and archaic language. 

He also asked why there isn't an updated translation of the TR.

So why is that? Why don't we get a bunch of Reformed Hebrew and Greek scholars who are committed to the TR to do a fresh translation into modern English? We could make sure they are godly men who believe in the inspiration of the text and reject the critical text (in fact there could be no consultation of the critical text whatsoever). So why aren't people like MW, Jerusalem Blade and the Trinitarian Bible Society doing just that? What is stopping them?

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## ProtestantBankie (Aug 26, 2016)

We can all do lots of things that we don't do.

I could be reading Thomas Manton but instead I am reading Thomas Brooks.

Even if I had the talents to do the work of translation - I would rather stick happily with the Bible version that we have. Adding another Bible to the marketplace will not make things any easier. There is also good reasons to retain the "thees and thous" and I would never remove them. 

I do not believe the people of the 21st century are less educated than the 19th century. And I certainly do not believe words like "propitiation" ought to be removed because most people don't know what the word means.


----------



## Tyrese (Aug 26, 2016)

MichaelNZ said:


> I was talking to my friend today and was trying to convince him of the TR/KJV position. He is a ministry intern at our church. He mentioned the fact that some words have changed meanings between now and when the KJV was translated, and advised me against using the KJV in evangelism as he thinks the average person would get lost in the thees and thous and archaic language.
> 
> He also asked why there isn't an updated translation of the TR.
> 
> So why is that? Why don't we get a bunch of Reformed Hebrew and Greek scholars who are committed to the TR to do a fresh translation into modern English? We could make sure they are godly men who believe in the inspiration of the text and reject the critical text (in fact there could be no consultation of the critical text whatsoever). So why aren't people like MW, Jerusalem Blade and the Trinitarian Bible Society doing just that? What is stopping them?



"...the average person would get lost in the thees and thous and archaic language."

This basically goes back to the last thread that you started. Maybe you could ask him (if he's a hymn singer) why most of the Churches favorite hymns use the exact same words. Are Christians more interested in protecting their favorite songs even though (as they claim) nobody understands them?

Your Church denomination may not sing hymns but I've heard people say the same thing as the intern at your Church. It seems no one really wants to address this issue; especially when it comes to the Trinity Hymnal. When it comes to Bible translations and the battle betwixt (  ) old and new hymns I'm beginning to think Christians are conditioned to "prefere" whatever it is they are taught to do.

I recognize there's a few Christian denominations that have sought to be consistent in this area, but those Churches are in the minority. In other words, it says very little to say "well my denomination sings songs that are similar to the English found in my Bible." That's good but it doesn't speak for the majority. Take the PCA, OPC, and Reformed Baptist for example: The Trinity Hymnal (red and blue) has been the most popular Hymnal used in these circles and yet it's laced with Thees and Thous. What's confusing is how some of the most ardent defenders of modern translations unashamedly sing from these hymnals giving little or no thought to the archaic language found throughout. 

I know someone is thinking my comment is irrelevant but that only shows they may be a bit out of touch with what a lot of young Church goers are thinking. So again, either the KJV is outdated with a lot of our favorite Church hymns, or it's just as good as it has ever been.


----------



## JimmyH (Aug 26, 2016)

ProtestantBankie said:


> We can all do lots of things that we don't do.
> 
> I could be reading Thomas Manton but instead I am reading Thomas Brooks.
> 
> ...



Really ? I can guarantee that people in the USA are not as educated now as they were in the 1930s and previously. Secular school education began going 'down the tubes' in the 1960s. Looking at the writings of the Puritans I see that their tomes were peppered with not only Greek, but Latin as well. It is true that the average 'man on the street' was not always educated. It was a matter of class. Those who were educated were far more educated than the average college student of today. (In my humble opinion)

As for evangelism, I was witnessing to a young lady at the tattoo shop where I used to work before I retired. She thinks she is a lesbian unfortunately. I was quoting, from memory, the beginning of the second chapter of Ephesians. So I'm telling this 20 something year old girl, 'You hath He quickened who were dead in trespasses an sins, wherein time past ye walked' ......... and she is looking at me with little or no comprehension. I paraphrased in modern English as best I could.

It is a great shame that men and women in Africa, China, Korea, Latin America, and places too numerous to name are inevitably damned to hell and perdition because they are unable to read and understand the King James version of the Holy Bible. Pray for them.


----------



## Tyrese (Aug 26, 2016)

JimmyH said:


> ProtestantBankie said:
> 
> 
> > We can all do lots of things that we don't do.
> ...



Jimmy H, do you personnally know people from "Africa, China, Korea, and Latin America"? I ask because if you knew them well enough you would know your comment is far from true. We're not talking about non English speaking foreigners. They won't be able to read any English translation. We're talkin about foreigners who read English. You might benefit from coming to PG County MD/ Washington DC where there's a lot of foreign Christians. Then you'll be able to have a better idea of how and why many of them use the KJV.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Aug 26, 2016)

MichaelNZ said:


> Why don't we



In your estimation, what precisely constitutes "we"? The church? If so, what church? Do you think the apostate modern church of England would produce a faithful translation today? If not the church of England, then what church? And if not the church, then whom? A publishing company? We already have enough of that and we see where that has mostly led us. It seems that in God's providence it is simply not possible for us to produce a modern, authoritative, and faithful translation from the TR. Perhaps we should be satisfied with this.


----------



## JimmyH (Aug 26, 2016)

Tyrese said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> > ProtestantBankie said:
> ...


I certainly do. In my congregation we have such people and they prefer English translations based on the CT because they find them more easily understood. This is not an assumption on my part. I've asked them face to face. This speaking of people who speak and read English in addition to their native tongue. What of those who do not speak or read English ?

I happen to hold the KJV, AV, call it what you will, in high regard personally. It is one of my favorite translations, and rarely does a day go by that I don't read from it. I just don't agree with those who disparage the CT. The Latin Vulgate was the dominant translation for a thousand years. The KJV, in the English speaking world for about 300. Since 1899, with the publication of the RV, the CT has been, and remains, the dominant text amongst Seminaries and amongst scholars. We may not agree that the CT is superior in all cases, but I think there has to be a reason why this dominance exists. 

Anyway, I've been through threads arguing these points time and time again, I don't know why I opened my trap on this one. I guess because I too am 'set for the defense of the Gospel', only from a different point of view. I don't intend, or expect, to change anyone's mind, I only hope to assure those who may read a different translation that they are essentially reading the Word of God. Read the translation that best gives you an understanding of the Word, whether it be the KJV, or NLV.


----------



## Tyrese (Aug 26, 2016)

JimmyH said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> > JimmyH said:
> ...



Fair enough. With that then you'll admit that your last comment was unnessessary. You said: 

"It is a great shame that men and women in Africa, China, Korea, Latin America, and places too numerous to name are inevitably damned to hell and perdition because they are unable to read and understand the King James version of the Holy Bible. Pray for them."

This is not a KJV problem only. You speak as if it is. If someone doesn't speak English than no translation will benifit them. I teach English as a Second Language at a local College here in Maryland and I can assure you that migrants will eventually know and speak better English than what passes today as good English. We teach English. We don't teach popular words and phrases that pass for English. This is another reason why America is on the decline. It seems to me that People who speak English as a second language are more likely to pick up a dictionary than the average American. 

So what's my point? Don't just get to know foreingers in your own church circle. Find out what's going on in other Christian groups as well that specifically target the people you mentioned. For example, look up African Church denominations right here I America. Find out what Bible translations they use. You'll be suprised how many of them use the KJV.


----------



## JimmyH (Aug 26, 2016)

Tyrese said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> > Tyrese said:
> ...



I'll be happy to know that we all are using the translation that conveys the Word so that we can best understand it, in whatever language.


----------



## Tyrese (Aug 26, 2016)

JimmyH said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> > JimmyH said:
> ...



Agreed. I'll say this though. As Christians we have to avoid making assumptions about other people groups because they may not look or sound as we do. As a black male I know this all to well. More often then not people make assumptions that in reality demonstrate they've spent little to no time around you. And even after you address their immaginations they still have no desire to spend time with you to correct their own thinking. Making assumptions is just not a very good idea. When we receive new students for ESL I make no assumptions about what they can or can't do simply becuase I don't know them well enough to do so.


----------



## JimmyH (Aug 26, 2016)

Tyrese said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> > Tyrese said:
> ...



Definitely. That is why I asked the aforementioned individuals which translation they preferred and why. In addition I asked how they felt about the KJV. Of course that is a very limited poll, and it is a big world. D.A. Carson's chapters on translation in "The Inclusive Language Debate" was very profitable for me to better understand the issues.


----------



## yeutter (Aug 26, 2016)

We have good translations readily available from textus receptus. 

This week I gave a well educated young lady from Kachin State, Burma, a copy of the interlinear Hebrew,Greek,English Bible that Jay Green translated. She was troubled by people who asserted that the teaching of the Bible in the original languages was different from what was found in her Burmese Bible translated by Judson, or her Kachin Bible translated by Ola Hanson. She was pleased to see that the KJV Bible, Burmese Bible, and Kachin Bible are reliable. 

In Nepali, the Trinitarian Bible Society has published the entire Bible translated from the TR. 

The Bible is being faithfully translated from the TR. I question whether we need another English translation.


----------



## MW (Aug 26, 2016)

MichaelNZ said:


> So why aren't people like MW, Jerusalem Blade and the Trinitarian Bible Society doing just that? What is stopping them?



MW is thankful for God's strength and help just to get him through the week's load of Hebrew and Greek which is exegetically necessary to prepare him to preach and teach.

I can say that my exegetical work differentiates singular and plural, and I find this necessary to understand the natural sense of Scripture; so as a minimum I would expect to see this distinction in a faithful translation, and I would expect to see it in English, i.e., in the accepted English forms of thou and ye. Making up a new pronominal system which nobody understands is not going to work.

I would also suggest that in the present divided state of the church any new translation is likely going to further divide the church. We are blessed to have some conservative confessionally reformed churches who are united in the use of the common English translation of the Bible; I count my blessings and pray they may be continued to us.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Aug 26, 2016)

MichaelNZ said:


> So why aren't people like MW, Jerusalem Blade and the Trinitarian Bible Society doing just that? What is stopping them?


Seems to me that any translation worth the effort should be church sponsored given that a confessional church affirms that the word of God is being preached from its pulpit. We come to hear the word of God on the Sabbath and not to question it or hold it up to personal judgment.

EDIT: I posted this before seeing Rev. Winzer's cogent response.


----------



## Free Christian (Aug 27, 2016)

I personally agree with your opening post Michael 100% and have wondered for years why not today, have not good faithfull Bible men got together as they did centuries ago to update the KJV. I am a firm advocate of the KJV and as many would know now also the 21,st Century Kj. But still i believe there should be those who are better than I come together as they did in the past, pick up the torch, and do it. The world is screaming out for it to be done loud and clear, the need is there and cannot be denied by anyone. It should be done and there is no excuse not to, language has changed so dramatically in just the last 10 or so years let alone the past 20 that anyone or bodies of persons that refuse to are dropping the ball and missing the big picture.


----------



## reformed28 (Sep 15, 2016)

Why wouldn't we consider the NKJV as an updated version? It claims to use the TR even more so then the KJV. It has updated language and sentence structure, and retains that cadence when reading. I primarily use the KJV, but also use the NKJV. It does translate certain passages better.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 15, 2016)

Hello Michael,

In a nutshell, it is not my calling to do that work. I am not equipped for it. There are times, such as when open-air preaching with my church, that I modernize the language of the Gospel call so that unchurched people passing by have no problem understanding it.

And then, can it even be done? I would not object were it to be done properly. But as Pastor Winzer rightly said, forms such as "thou and ye" can not be replaced easily, and they do serve a vital function. He also made a good point that at this juncture a new translation might possibly even further divide the church.

I do not know how close we are to the end of the age, but I would be reluctant—given the truly _seismic_ upheavals coming upon us—to add another potentially destabilizing factor into the mix. But I do sympathize with your view.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Sep 16, 2016)

The NKJV is an excellent translation of the TR in contemporary English. 

I prefer the KJV because it is the historic, English Bible of the Reformation (it's still 85+% the translation of William Tyndale) and a masterpiece of English prose.


----------



## ProtestantBankie (Sep 16, 2016)

Robert Truelove said:


> The *N**KJV* is an excellent translation of the TR in contemporary English.
> 
> I prefer the KJV because it is the historic, English Bible of the Reformation (it's still 85+% the translation of William Tyndale) and a masterpiece of English prose.



It does deviate from the TR now and again...


----------



## Free Christian (Sep 17, 2016)

Did, when the original old world spelling KJV get updated, divide or destabilise the church?


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 17, 2016)

MichaelNZ said:


> I was talking to my friend today and was trying to convince him of the TR/KJV position. He is a ministry intern at our church. He mentioned the fact that some words have changed meanings between now and when the KJV was translated, and advised me against using the KJV in evangelism as he thinks the average person would get lost in the thees and thous and archaic language.
> 
> He also asked why there isn't an updated translation of the TR.
> 
> So why is that? Why don't we get a bunch of Reformed Hebrew and Greek scholars who are committed to the TR to do a fresh translation into modern English? We could make sure they are godly men who believe in the inspiration of the text and reject the critical text (in fact there could be no consultation of the critical text whatsoever). So why aren't people like MW, Jerusalem Blade and the Trinitarian Bible Society doing just that? What is stopping them?



It's called the NKJV


----------

