# How would KJV users respond to this argument



## Polanus1561 (Jul 17, 2019)

[Not regarding manuscripts but regarding KJV language]

"The Gospels were written with simple everyday language, Tyndale's translation was also so that the commonfolk would understand. It would go against the inspired writers and the tradition of translations to use antiquated Scripture translations in the church."


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 17, 2019)

I have heard it argued by literary folk (who certainly were not Christians) that the grammar of the KJV is simpler than modern English translations and lends itself to memorising. The sentences are simpler. And the language, overall, is more beautiful which also lends itself to memorising.

As to the use of "old-fashioned" language like "putteth" instead of "put" &c. I don't see that as much of a hindrance. One quickly gets used to it. There are the occasional words which are either obsolete or have a different meaning today, which would need to be looked up, but words like "justification" and "sanctification" and "atonement" all have technical understandings which one has to learn. It also uses the correct pronouns.

I don't accept that the modern English translations are de facto easier to understand. There are still passages which are as hard to unpack in the modern translations as they are in the KJV with the added disadvantage that they are not as faithful a translation as the KJV. And the issue of translation, ultimately, is the point. If one believes the KJV to be the most faithful translation, because it's a formal translation of the most reliable text, then that trumps all other considerations. There are phrases and words in the KJV which one would rather rendered differently, or which can be hard to follow, but these are small points.

We must also acknowledge the fact that this objection to the KJV's language is a product of the dumbing down of our language and of ourselves. If we therefore adopt modern translations to accommodate this where do we stop? When does the integrity of the text prevent us from reducing it any further to the lowest denominator of modern English usage? People argue we shouldn't use words like "justification" because people today don't understand them. So whilst I accept that the style of language in the KJV is not in keeping with modern English, I think we leave ourselves on very unstable ground if we reject the KJV because of this. Scripture should lift us up, in many ways; we should not pull it down to us.

I'm also not sure what "tradition" of translation it goes against? The Vulgate? I would also strongly reject the suggestion the KJV is a barrier for the commonfolk to understand the Scriptures. People from all strata of society have done just fine with the KJV for hundreds of years either reading it themselves or hearing it read/preached from.

I say this as someone who never used a KJV in any serious manner until 2011 (I was born in 1984). I grew up using the Good News and NIV. My transition to the KJV was not hard, once I became convinced of the superiority of its translation and was using it in worship and private devotions.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## Tom Hart (Jul 17, 2019)

John Yap said:


> [Not regarding manuscripts but regarding KJV language]
> 
> "The Gospels were written with simple everyday language, Tyndale's translation was also so that the commonfolk would understand. It would go against the inspired writers and the tradition of translations to use antiquated Scripture translations in the church."


I use the KJV every day. I would say this:
"If you prefer a more modern translation, go for it."

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## B.L. (Jul 17, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> We must also acknowledge the fact that this objection to the KJV's language is a product of the dumbing down of our language and of ourselves. If we therefore adopt modern translations to accommodate this where do we stop? When does the integrity of the text prevent us from reducing it any further to the lowest denominator of modern English usage? People argue we shouldn't use words like "justification" because people today don't understand them. So whilst I accept that the style of language in the KJV is not in keeping with modern English, I think we leave ourselves on very unstable ground if we reject the KJV because of this. Scripture should lift us up, in many ways; we should not pull it down to us.



Alexander,

I'm in strong agreement with much of your post, but would politely push back a bit on the above. I write this as one who prefers the KJV. Is it possible the objection some have to the KJV's language is not so much a product of the "dumbing down" of our language (and of ourselves), but rather the "changing" of our language?

When you take a look at the Bible translation reading levels here, yes there is a wide range in reading levels among modern translations, but there are plenty of modern versions (i.e. NRSV, NASB, ESV, etc.) that are still written at a higher reading level. With regards to your example of words like "justification" I did a quick check via Bible Gateway to see how the CSB, ESV, NIV, NKJV, and NRSV translate Romans 4:25 for example and all five translated δικαίωσις as "justification." I think when talking about the use of language your fear that the drive to adopt modern translations somehow does damage to the integrity of the text is overstated a bit.

Leaving out discussions on manuscripts and keeping strictly to the use of language, I'm primarily concerned as to whether the reader can comprehend what it is he/she is reading and I do think the Bible can be communicated at different reading levels and in the modern tongue without sacrificing the original meaning of the text.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 17, 2019)

B.L. McDonald said:


> Alexander,
> 
> I'm in strong agreement with much of your post, but would politely push back a bit on the above. I write this as one who prefers the KJV. Is it possible the objection some have to the KJV's language is not so much a product of the "dumbing down" of our language (and of ourselves), but rather the "changing" of our language?
> 
> ...



My point about words like "justification" was not to say that modern translations are currently removing or altering those words. It was to make the point that there are those who think even these technical Biblical words should be avoided and that this is related to the critique of the KJV, but not necessarily a feature of current modern translations but that that thinking could infect furture translations.

I have no interest in discussing manuscripts but I do reserve the right to make the argument that the particulars of the KJV translation is the ultimate standard by which _I_ must judge this question because of my view of the KJV and because there is currently no other translation which meets the same standard (and no I don't believe the NKJV does). I accept this is not directly related to the question and am happy not to make any more of it except to say that questions to do with readability are very subjective and we need an objective ground for the translation we use.

Certainly the Bible can be communicated on different reading levels. This happens in Sabbath school classes every week and in children's books. But do we not teach our children from the youngest age with the actual Bible as well? I see no reason why teaching them from infancy using the KJV results in the KJV being more of a barrier to understanding Scripture than using any other translation. The church does not replicate the world. Preaching is not a usual mode of communication one encounters in the world. Prayer is not a usual mode of communication found in the world. These are things one must learn and one must become accustomed to.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 17, 2019)

I like the old timey language. As a grammar teacher I can see the drawbacks in not having the King's Speech. On the other hand, words have changed meaning. The word "prevent" in 1 Thess. 4:15 doesn't mean what we mean today by "prevent," and that's not a result of apostasy or dumbing down. Language changes.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 17, 2019)

“Fetched a compass” (Joshua 15:3, 2 Kgs 3:9) actually means travel or turn around.

what is the meaning of “chambering” (Rom. 13:13), “champaign” (Deut. 11:30), “charger” (Matt. 14:8— it is not a horse), “churl” (Isa. 32:7), “cielcd” (Hag. 1:4), “circumspect” (Lxod. 23:13), “clouted upon their feet” (Josh. 9:5), “cockatrice” (Isa. 11:8), “collops” (Job 15:27), “confection” (Exod. 30:35— it has nothing to do with sugar), “cotes” (2 Chron. 32:28), “covert” (2 Kings 16:18), “hoiscd” (Acts 27:40), “wimples” (Isa. 3:22), “stomacher” (Isa. 3:24), “w?ot” (Rom. 11:2), “wist” (Acts 12:9), “withs” (Judg. 16:7), “wont” (Dan. 3:19), “surctiship” (Prov. 11:15), “saekbut” (Dan. 3:5), “the scall” (Lev. 13:30), “scrabbled” (1 Sam. 21:13), “roller” (Lzck. 30:21— i.e., a splint), “muffler” (Isa. 3:19), “froward” (1 Peter 2:18), “brigadinc” (Jer. 46:4), “amercc” (Deut. 22:19), “blains” (Lxod 9:9), “crookbackt” (Lev. 21:20)

Some more:

And Mt. Sinai was altogether on a smoke (Exod. 1^:18).

Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing I Ps. 5:6).

“For example, while one finds the KJV translating the Greek phrase pneumata hagion at Luke 11:13 as “Holy Spirit,” the very same phrase is translated “Holy Ghost” at Luke 2:25. It is interesting to note as well that the KJV always capitalizes Holy Ghost, but does not always capitalize Holy Spirit, i.e., Ephesians 1:13, 4:30, and 1 Thessalonians 4:8, where each time the KJV has “holy Spirit” (239 n.10).


----------



## Tom Hart (Jul 17, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> what is the meaning of “chambering” (Rom. 13:13), “champaign” (Deut. 11:30), “charger” (Matt. 14:8— it is not a horse), “churl” (Isa. 32:7), “cieled” (Hag. 1:4), “circumspect” (Lxod. 23:13), “clouted upon their feet” (Josh. 9:5), “cockatrice” (Isa. 11:8), “collops” (Job 15:27), “confection” (Exod. 30:35— it has nothing to do with sugar), “cotes” (2 Chron. 32:28), “covert” (2 Kings 16:18), “hoiscd” (Acts 27:40), “wimples” (Isa. 3:22), “stomacher” (Isa. 3:24), “w?ot” (Rom. 11:2), “wist” (Acts 12:9), “withs” (Judg. 16:7), “wont” (Dan. 3:19), “surctiship” (Prov. 11:15), “saekbut” (Dan. 3:5), “the scall” (Lev. 13:30), “scrabbled” (1 Sam. 21:13), “roller” (Lzck. 30:21— i.e., a splint), “muffler” (Isa. 3:19), “froward” (1 Peter 2:18), “brigadinc” (Jer. 46:4), “amercc” (Deut. 22:19), “blains” (Lxod 9:9), “crookbackt” (Lev. 21:20)


I can guess at some of these because they come either from French (_cieled_, _cockatrice_) or are derived from Old English (_churl_), but many I only know from familiarity with the KJV! For plenty others I would need to see the footnotes.

I prefer to use the KJV, and I'm raising my son with the KJV; my wife, whose first language is not English, can follow along just fine, with some explanation here and there. But I know plenty of people for whom the KJV would be too challenging. Or they might associate it with stiff traditionalism (rightly or wrongly). Why should I insist that they use it?


----------



## KMK (Jul 17, 2019)

John Yap said:


> [Not regarding manuscripts but regarding KJV language]
> 
> "The Gospels were written with simple everyday language, Tyndale's translation was also so that the commonfolk would understand. It would go against the inspired writers and the tradition of translations to use antiquated Scripture translations in the church."



They would probably respond by asking for support for your propositions, and then question your conclusion. (Four books out of 66 and one translator out of hundreds?)

Then they would ask for a definition of 'antiquated' and who has the authority to dictate which versions are 'antiquated'.

In conclusion, they might argue that when the English speaking church unifies around a more accurate and majestic version, they would gladly switch.

But that will not happen soon, they would say; for according to Barna, the KJV is still the most widely read and heard version by far.

The above argument might steer a new Christian away from the KJV, but it has no effect on those who have already fallen in love with it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## KMK (Jul 17, 2019)

Cue: Edward.


----------



## JimmyH (Jul 17, 2019)

Since my first Bible, in 1976, a New Scofield KJV, I used an NIV to better understand passages that were confusing to me. In the ensuing years I've pretty much come to know the definitions of archaic lexeme in the KJV. 

I continue to use various translations to compare one to another. I don't lock myself into any specific translation. I'm reading 'How To Choose A Translation For All That It's Worth', by Gordon Fee, and Michael Strauss right now, and loving it BTW. It has reinforced my decision that various translations are the best practice for those who cannot read the Bible in the original languages. The practice is recommended my Fee/Strauss.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Chad Hutson (Jul 17, 2019)

In a recent conversation with an earnest lady who was having difficulty understanding Romans, I encouraged her to read the ESV or NASB alongside her KJV. She has alerted me that this has helped her greatly, removing some of the obstacles of language to help her then focus on the majesty of the message. I was raised on the KJV and agree that there is an elegance to it that is hard to duplicate with modern language translations. Nevertheless, I grew tired of double-interpreting in the pulpit (translating from old English to current English before hermeneutics). I use the NKJV during sermons, but ESV, NASB, and KJV during study.
Please understand that in our area, with so many fundamentalists who are KJV only, that draws scorn and ridicule from other preachers. They believe that all other translations are heretical at best or demonic at worst.
Alas, as I sit here typing I am looking at two old KJV Bibles that are nearly worn out sitting on my desk. I am reminded that my beloved grandfather (with the Lord now for 25 years) only had a 4th grade education but understood the KJV!


----------



## bookslover (Jul 17, 2019)

Chad Hutson said:


> In a recent conversation with an earnest lady who was having difficulty understanding Romans, I encouraged her to read the ESV or NASB alongside her KJV. She has alerted me that this has helped her greatly, removing some of the obstacles of language to help her then focus on the majesty of the message.



Thus demonstrating why the KJV should be permanently retired.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 17, 2019)

bookslover said:


> Thus demonstrating why the KJV should be permanently retired.



Which of course would mean embracing a less reliable translation. Which was my point. One can argue about these things but at the end of the day one has to have an objective standard by which one chooses a Bible translation.

Here's an example. I've been listening to a lot of James White stuff recently. Think he's great on a lot of things. Great apologetics debates. And he's taking a very courageous stand on critical race theory. *But* I listen to him on this issue- Bible translations/texts- and despite all his learning and his deep commitment to the Truth of Scripture, at the end of the day he cannot tell me what the Word of God actually is. He cannot say "this is the authentic, complete, final text of Scripture". Not even in the original languages and he certainly cannot point me to an English translation of the Bible and say "that is the true, reliable Word of God which you can read and trust and ground your faith and doctrine upon absolutely and without reservation". Just the other day I came across his arguments against the account of the woman taken in the adultery. And his argument against Luke 23:34. This was two cases in just one afternoon I came across. Just the latest two.

He has criticised liberals with whom he has debated for not bringing a Bible with them to the debates (Lynn, Spong), makes a lot out of that. And yet he doesn't believe that everything which is in that Bible on his table should even be there! His whole approach to this issue is saturated with skepticism. It may be a skepticism _tempered _with belief, or _despite _belief. But it is still skepticism and a skepticism at odds with Scripture's own testimony as to its preservation by the providence of God.

So we can dump the KJV. We can opt for modern translations which are "easier", which aren't a "barrier", and we can keep producing ever more translations which are ever easier to "understand" but all that will accomplish is an ever greater doubt in the reliability of what we're reading. We need objective standards. If the KJV isn't the most reliable translation then all these concerns over comprehension make a good case against using it. But if it is these considerations must be put aside.


----------



## Username3000 (Jul 17, 2019)

Discussion about quality of bible translations? I feel another 13 pager coming on.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Taylor (Jul 17, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> As a grammar teacher I can see the drawbacks in not having the King's Speech.



What are some of the drawbacks you think of? The first that come to my mind are the more precise personal pronouns and verb endings (e.g., “-eth” for third person singular and “-est” for second person singular).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 17, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> What are some of the drawbacks you think of? The first that come to my mind are the more precise personal pronouns and verb endings (e.g., “-eth” for third person singular and “-est” for second person singular).



Second person plural. And using thee and thou gets em thinking about direct objects, etc.


----------



## bookslover (Jul 17, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Which of course would mean embracing a less reliable translation.



All other English translations are automatically less reliable than the KJV? What happened to your objectivity?

It seems to me that modern translations are _more_ reliable, if only because modern translators have many, many more manuscripts and parts of manuscripts to work from than they had in the early 17th century. 

Besides, at least in the New Testament, how much "translating" did the KJV translators actually do, seeing that about 90% of the KJV New Testament is actually Tyndale's New Testament imported almost entirely into the KJV? By 1611, Tyndale's English was about a hundred years old _then._ His English included all those supposedly wonderful "thees" and "thous" that, by the early 17th century, were already beginning to slowly disappear from English.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 17, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> And yet he doesn't believe that everything which is in that Bible on his table should even be there!



To be fair, that criticism cuts both ways, as someone could then charge the KJVer for adding to the Bible. We've been over these issues on PB and it's not as simple as "He wants to take stuff out of the Bible."

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Taylor (Jul 17, 2019)

Just to be clear, the OP _specifically_ said this thread is not about manuscripts.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 17, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Just to be clear, the OP _specifically_ said this thread is not about manuscripts.



Which brings us back to current language. Take a girl who has spent the past 5 years listening to Taylor Swift, or some guy who has Bieber Fever. Now tell him that he can only read a bible that has these words in it:

what is the meaning of “chambering” (Rom. 13:13), “champaign” (Deut. 11:30), “charger” (Matt. 14:8— it is not a horse), “churl” (Isa. 32:7), “cielcd” (Hag. 1:4), “circumspect” (Lxod. 23:13), “clouted upon their feet” (Josh. 9:5), “cockatrice” (Isa. 11:8), “collops” (Job 15:27), “confection” (Exod. 30:35— it has nothing to do with sugar), “cotes” (2 Chron. 32:28), “covert” (2 Kings 16:18), “hoiscd” (Acts 27:40), “wimples” (Isa. 3:22), “stomacher” (Isa. 3:24), “w?ot” (Rom. 11:2), “wist” (Acts 12:9), “withs” (Judg. 16:7), “wont” (Dan. 3:19), “surctiship” (Prov. 11:15), “saekbut” (Dan. 3:5), “the scall” (Lev. 13:30), “scrabbled” (1 Sam. 21:13), “roller” (Lzck. 30:21— i.e., a splint), “muffler” (Isa. 3:19), “froward” (1 Peter 2:18), “brigadinc” (Jer. 46:4), “amercc” (Deut. 22:19), “blains” (Lxod 9:9), “crookbackt” (Lev. 21:20)

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## KSon (Jul 17, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Which brings us back to current language. Take a girl who has spent the past 5 years listening to Taylor Swift, or some guy who has Bieber Fever. Now tell him that he can only read a bible that has these words in it:
> 
> what is the meaning of “chambering” (Rom. 13:13), “champaign” (Deut. 11:30), “charger” (Matt. 14:8— it is not a horse), “churl” (Isa. 32:7), “cielcd” (Hag. 1:4), “circumspect” (Lxod. 23:13), “clouted upon their feet” (Josh. 9:5), “cockatrice” (Isa. 11:8), “collops” (Job 15:27), “confection” (Exod. 30:35— it has nothing to do with sugar), “cotes” (2 Chron. 32:28), “covert” (2 Kings 16:18), “hoiscd” (Acts 27:40), “wimples” (Isa. 3:22), “stomacher” (Isa. 3:24), “w?ot” (Rom. 11:2), “wist” (Acts 12:9), “withs” (Judg. 16:7), “wont” (Dan. 3:19), “surctiship” (Prov. 11:15), “saekbut” (Dan. 3:5), “the scall” (Lev. 13:30), “scrabbled” (1 Sam. 21:13), “roller” (Lzck. 30:21— i.e., a splint), “muffler” (Isa. 3:19), “froward” (1 Peter 2:18), “brigadinc” (Jer. 46:4), “amercc” (Deut. 22:19), “blains” (Lxod 9:9), “crookbackt” (Lev. 21:20)



Or, to your point, passages such as 2 Corinthians 6:11-13 can be a tad challenging for some when seeking to understand:

_O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged._

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Tom Hart (Jul 17, 2019)

bookslover said:


> Thus demonstrating why the KJV should be permanently retired.


I am not sure how that could be achieved, or why. It's still a good translation and it remains popular. If people want to use the KJV, why not let them?


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 17, 2019)

bookslover said:


> All other English translations are automatically less reliable than the KJV? What happened to your objectivity?
> 
> It seems to me that modern translations are _more_ reliable, if only because modern translators have many, many more manuscripts and parts of manuscripts to work from than they had in the early 17th century.
> 
> Besides, at least in the New Testament, how much "translating" did the KJV translators actually do, seeing that about 90% of the KJV New Testament is actually Tyndale's New Testament imported almost entirely into the KJV? By 1611, Tyndale's English was about a hundred years old _then._ His English included all those supposedly wonderful "thees" and "thous" that, by the early 17th century, were already beginning to slowly disappear from English.



The KJV is more reliable than modern translations because it is a formal translation of the TR. None of the modern translations can claim that (nor do most of them want to). That is an objective standard of distinction.

Again I've no interest in getting into a manuscript fight. That's not the focus of this thread. You can disagree with me about the TR that's fine but my standard is the TR and that is why I said that this policy of the KJV's translation trumps all concerns about comprehension.

Tyndale's translation is not really relevant. I've no problem with a lot of his translation ending up in the KJV. I've never argued the KJV is inspired or fell from Heaven. This is an issue of translation policy.

The "thees" and "thous" are grammatically correct. That's why we use them.

These are all objective considerations: it is your rather emotional response which is subjective.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 17, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> The KJV is more reliable than modern translations because it is a formal translation of the TR. None of the modern translations can claim that (nor do most of them want to). That is an objective standard of distinction.



That formally begs the question on the priority of the TR. That is a logical fallacy.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 17, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> To be fair, that criticism cuts both ways, as someone could then charge the KJVer for adding to the Bible. We've been over these issues on PB and it's not as simple as "He wants to take stuff out of the Bible."



Well the difference, surely, would be that I believe everything in the KJV should be there whereas he doesn't believe everything in his Bible should be. In other words I can hold a KJV and say without equivocation: this is the Word of God. Can he hold up an ESV and say that?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 17, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> an he hold up an ESV and say that?



Easy. Yes. I just did.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 17, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That formally begs the question on the priority of the TR. That is a logical fallacy.



No it's not because we're not debating manuscripts. We're talking about what standards we must use in evaluating bible translations. I said that we need to fall back on objective standards. The texts from which a Bible is translated is a pretty objective standard. You or others are free to disagree that the TR is the authoritative text but since the question of the op was how would a *KJVer *respond to the question put then, for the sake of the argument, I think I'm allowed to assume this point. I am a KJVer and my answer is that whatever barriers to comprehension the KJV may have (and which one user, in the response to whom I made the point about James White, used as reasons to dump the KJV) the fact that I believe it is the most reliable translation overrules those concerns.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 17, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Easy. Yes. I just did.



Well that's strange because on his show he has said the account of the woman taken in adultery shouldn't be there. So that would be a lie then.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 17, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Well that's strange because on his show he has said the account of the woman taken in adultery shouldn't be there. So that would be a lie then.



I assume you were talking about White. I wasn't. That again begs the question on whether it should have been there in the first place.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 17, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> No it's not because we're not debating manuscripts. We're talking about what standards we must use in evaluating bible translations. I said that we need to fall back on objective standards. The texts from which a Bible is translated is a pretty objective standard



Do you see what you just did? You say we can't talk about manuscripts and then you say your standard is objective by......appealing to aspects of manuscripts.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 17, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I assume you were talking about White. I wasn't. That again begs the question on whether it should have been there in the first place.



Yes I was talking about White and it was to him I was referring in the post to which you directly responded.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 17, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Do you see what you just did? You say we can't talk about manuscripts and then you say your standard is objective by......appealing to aspects of manuscripts.



Because we are talking about how a KJV user would respond to criticisms that its language is a barrier to comprehension. If one accepts there is a barrier- which I don't- what's he to do? What other translation is there he can use which uses more "comprehensible" English but holds to the same translation policy? There is none. Ergo he sticks with the KJV. He must fall back on the objective standard of the text it is based on rather than allowing himself to be swayed by the subjective standard of "easier to understand" English.

I mentioned James White because if I were to abandon the KJV and opt for modern translations I would be giving up what is to me certainty in the translation to skepticism which would rather undermine the whole point of abandoning the KJV because it is less comprehensible, don't you think?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 17, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> He must fall back on the objective standard of the text it is based on rather than allowing himself to be swayed by the subjective standard of "easier to understand" English



On one hand that is fair, but it really can't be said in this thread because everyone is agreeing to leave manuscript considerations out of it.

As to "objective standard," what was the objective standard when translators were collating all of the texts that would make up the TR? They couldn't use the TR for that itself was what was being collated.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 17, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> On one hand that is fair, but it really can't be said in this thread because everyone is agreeing to leave manuscript considerations out of it.
> 
> As to "objective standard," what was the objective standard when translators were collating all of the texts that would make up the TR? They couldn't use the TR for that itself was what was being collated.



I'm not talking about manuscripts. I'm talking about what my standard as a KJV user is in evaluating all the issues brought up by the specific question of the op. Since the thread was addressed to KJV users I think that's legitimate. I have utilised it only as a reason why comprehension concerns are of secondary importance to me, a KJV user. I also addressed the language itself in my initial post. It is the anti KJVers who have made an issue out of this and who have kept coming back to the issues to do with the manuscripts themselves.

There is a difference between discussing the merits of the various texts on the one hand and saying that one's belief in the superiority of the TR is the most important argument for retaining the KJV on the other. The latter discussion does not require the former: but there will always be those who want to make it about the manuscripts.

As to your question: I have no interest in discussing that and it is not the subject of this thread.


----------



## B.L. (Jul 17, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> What other translation is there he can use which uses more "comprehensible" English but holds to the same translation policy? There is none. Ergo he sticks with the KJV.



What are your thoughts on the Modern English Version (MEV)? I am not familiar with it, but it seems like some might view it as an answer to your question.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## bookslover (Jul 17, 2019)

KSon said:


> Or, to your point, passages such as 2 Corinthians 6:11-13 can be a tad challenging for some when seeking to understand:
> 
> _O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged._



Exactly. Why should any Christian living today (old or young) have to put up with outdated language like this? Just seems like common sense to me.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## bookslover (Jul 17, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> I am not sure how that could be achieved, or why. It's still a good translation and it remains popular. If people want to use the KJV, why not let them?



It's not a good translation if you have to have it translated into modern English in order to comprehend it.


----------



## bookslover (Jul 17, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> The "thees" and "thous" are grammatically correct. That's why we use them.



They _were_ grammatically correct more than four hundred years ago. If they were still grammatically correct, English would still be using them. Languages change over time.


----------



## bookslover (Jul 17, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Easy. Yes. I just did.



Co-sign.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Jul 17, 2019)

Gents, just to clarify the discussion:
1. Not about Manuscripts, this argument can be defined as Why not the NKJV? if so desired.
2. The argument is simply in ages past, when the Word of God was read (excluding the medieval period), people (commonfolk - believers or unbelievers) could understand what was said, reading aloud the KJV in this day would cause confusion (not speaking about John 3:16 which everyone knows but rather the archaic vocab)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Jul 17, 2019)

bookslover said:


> It's not a good translation if you have to have it translated into modern English in order to comprehend it.


I don't need to do that. Anyway, that's not much of a reply to my post.


----------



## Tom Hart (Jul 17, 2019)

bookslover said:


> They _were_ grammatically correct more than four hundred years ago. If they were still grammatically correct, English would still be using them. Languages change over time.


The KJV is still "grammatically correct", just dated.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 17, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> I'm not talking about manuscripts. I'm talking about what my standard as a KJV user is in evaluating all the issues brought up by the specific question of the op. Since the thread was addressed to KJV users I think that's legitimate. I have utilised it only as a reason why comprehension concerns are of secondary importance to me, a KJV user.



In one sentence you say you are not talkinga bout manuscripts, but in another sentence you bring up the manuscripts. You can't do both.


----------



## bookslover (Jul 18, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> I don't need to do that. Anyway, that's not much of a reply to my post.



Perhaps you don't need to do that, but most people in the pews would. The whole purpose of the Bible is to communicate God's message, which is difficult to do when the language is outdated. Why should anyone have to struggle with that?


----------



## Tom Hart (Jul 18, 2019)

bookslover said:


> Perhaps you don't need to do that, but most people in the pews would. The whole purpose of the Bible is to communicate God's message, which is difficult to do when the language is outdated. Why should anyone have to struggle with that?


I said the same earlier. See posts #3 and #8.


----------



## Tom Hart (Jul 18, 2019)

bookslover said:


> Exactly. Why should any Christian living today (old or young) have to put up with outdated language like this? Just seems like common sense to me.


It depends. Not everyone can be said to be "putting up" with it.

Some individuals prefer the KJV. And that's fine.
Some churches prefer KJV. And that's fine.

I agree that your average Christian would struggle with a fair bit of a translation that has passed its 400th birthday. Whether that has to do with the "dumbing down" of English, as someone said earlier, is beside the point. (Anyway, after 400 years, languages will change.) The point is that believers should be able to comprehend what they're reading and hearing. I'm sure you and I agree there. What I don't understand is your hostility to the KJV, which, whatever your personal dislike for it, remains a solid translation.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 18, 2019)

B.L. McDonald said:


> What are your thoughts on the Modern English Version (MEV)? I am not familiar with it, but it seems like some might view it as an answer to your question.



I've never heard of it. I've put out a few queries...


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 18, 2019)

bookslover said:


> They _were_ grammatically correct more than four hundred years ago. If they were still grammatically correct, English would still be using them. Languages change over time.



Please refer me to the modern second person singular pronoun that is distinct from the second person plural pronoun.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 18, 2019)

John Yap said:


> Gents, just to clarify the discussion:
> 1. Not about Manuscripts, this argument can be defined as Why not the NKJV? if so desired.
> 2. The argument is simply in ages past, when the Word of God was read (excluding the medieval period), people (commonfolk - believers or unbelievers) could understand what was said, reading aloud the KJV in this day would cause confusion (not speaking about John 3:16 which everyone knows but rather the archaic vocab)



You _assert_ it causes confusion. I would say this is merely anecdotal but you haven't even provided anecdotes. I can tell you in _my _denomination the KJV does not cause "confusion". Your argument also assumes that modern translations _don't_ cause confusion. And yet we still have anti-paedobaptists so clearly confusion remains even with these oh-so-easy to understand modern translations.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Jul 18, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> You _assert_ it causes confusion. I would say this is merely anecdotal but you haven't even provided anecdotes. I can tell you in _my _denomination the KJV does not cause "confusion". Your argument also assumes that modern translations _don't_ cause confusion. And yet we still have anti-paedobaptists so clearly confusion remains even with these oh-so-easy to understand modern translations.



A Scottish church that has had many generations reared on the KJV is not where the argument is targetted at.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 18, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> In one sentence you say you are not talkinga bout manuscripts, but in another sentence you bring up the manuscripts. You can't do both.



Again I'm not bringing up the manuscripts. I made reference to the translation philosophy of the KJV which is an objective standard- whether you accept it or not is not the point- as to why I, a KJV user, consider comprehension secondary.

What you are saying is that "we should ask KJV users to defend the KJV against the suggestion that we should abandon it because it is archaic but only allow them to use certain arguments which we want them to use." Well sorry I don't accept that arbitrary limitation. You could have ignored my reference to the translation aspect or you could simply have said "I don't agree with that." But instead a couple of you decided you were gonna make this about manuscripts. I offered it as one amongst a few points in answer to the question. You made it about the manuscripts.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 18, 2019)

John Yap said:


> A Scottish church that has had many generations reared on the KJV is not where the argument is targetted at.



Well, to be fair, that qualification was not in the title of the thread or the OP. It is, however, likely that those who use the KJV today do so within the context of a congregation which uses it. Or have been raised using it.

But as I also said earlier on I did _not _grow up using the KJV. I grew up with the Good News and NIV. I didn't start using the KJV until 2011 well past my formative reading years. And I have not found it hard at all to adapt.


----------



## Taylor (Jul 18, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> And yet we still have anti-paedobaptists so clearly confusion remains even with these oh-so-easy to understand modern translations.



This is an issue of theology, not linguistics.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 18, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> This is an issue of theology, not linguistics.



My point is that implicit in the argument against the language of the KJV is the assumption that with a modern version suddenly we have comprehension and the text is easy to understand. I dispute that. Even with modern everyday English there is still a lot of disagreement and indeed confusion so that would suggest to me there is something else which is more of a barrier than the style of the language.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jul 18, 2019)

bookslover said:


> Perhaps you don't need to do that, but most people in the pews would. The whole purpose of the Bible is to communicate God's message, which is difficult to do when the language is outdated. Why should anyone have to struggle with that?



Bypassing in full the manuscript debate that's in other parts of this post... and let me say I feel sympathy to those who struggle with old English. It does take effort to get used to. I myself am KJV preferred, not an onlyist, and I do hold the modern faithful translations (even based on CT) to be the Word of God, as God has evidently owned them as such.

There is another practical tradeoff to permanently retiring the KJV. We have many wonderful Puritan/Reformed works, but they are in a heavily dated English, and they'll either refer to the KJV, the Geneva, or some other old translation. And there's not the time available to update all these works. Even when we make this attempt, sometimes we don't always do it so well. However, I remember hearing that in Owen's day people made the effort to learn English just so they could read him (no source, sorry). Old English education, in some respects to our Reformed heritage, is ad fontes.

I think of Asian seminary students and what a task they have (we meet at Puritan Seminary so I run into them all the time)... I feel for them when I hear them try to preach in English, knowing it's not their first language. But if they don't learn English, they cut themselves off from a world of spiritual wealth, as so many wonderful works are in this language which is vastly different from their own; and they have to read all realms of English from the 17th century to today, Scottish to English to American spread over four centuries with all their spelling and orthographic variations. That on top of cultural differences and references! Neither is their reading list a light one. They have a much bigger task in learning English at all than we do in learning Old English.

Yet they will read these dated works, painful as it is. For them, it's an exercise in Proverbs 2 where they have to mine through sturdier bedrock than us to obtain all this spiritual gold.

And really, aren't the pains of a language education worth it? We have a better running start than they do. They go land and sea to get to it, but for us it's buried in our backyard.

I'm not an onlyist, though I prefer it for manuscript reasons (not for debate). If we say the dated language is a reason not to read it, it then becomes an excuse to not read older literature altogether, or to wait until someone modernizes it. I don't even want to think of a modernized Shakespeare!

If someone wants to mine the riches of their Puritan heritage, learning old English isn't an option, and the KJV is a wonderful introduction to their English.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 18, 2019)

I think it's well known I choose the KJV as my primary Bible, and that for a variety of reasons (see Collected Textual Posts), though here will briefly restrict myself to the issue of language.

When I read my Scripture, by my reading chair & small desk, on a shelf at arm's reach, I have 8 newer versions (ESV, NIV '84, NKJV, MEV, NASB, MKJV, LB (old version), and Amplified (just gave away a CSB to a friend who needed a Bible). On a shelf a step away I have numerous others (including various interlinears), such as Lamsa, Young's Literal, RSV, NRSV, etc. I have the Geneva 1599 edition in digital format on a nearby Apple computer.

When I want to get a simpler sense of the language I often turn to the old Living Bible paraphrase, which, though limited, is very helpful (I have been using that for around 50 years), and often consult the other versions, as well as the Hebrew and Greek.

When I preach, either open-air or from the pulpit, I will often spontaneously "modernize" the language of the KJV, so it is eminently understandable to folks either Biblically illiterate or not used to KJV language.

I do not envision a replacement for the KJV – one slightly modernized – the basic text unchanged, at least not in my lifetime. Although, as pointed out, there are a few serious archaisms in it, there are plenty of available helps to aid with that.

When planting and pastoring a church in the Middle East (Cyprus) I opted for a poor edition NKJV (tiny print, _sans_ the helpful – to me – footnotes) over a much better edition ESV, due to the better underlying mss (the KJV was not an option given in the gift). Still, the NKJV, although acceptable, still has some serious translational issues and some underlying text issues (mostly in the OT).

Ultimately, I am KJV _priority_ due to the accuracy of the underlying Hebrew and Greek, and fidelity of the translation, that is, the confidence I have in the text. When I say "KJV _priority_" I mean I acknowledge the legitimacy of other honest versions (the JW NWT is not an honest version), save in the matters of the variants – which may easily be discussed while honoring whichever Bible folks may be using. As a pastor, I was loath to divide the church over the Bible version issue, or to cause my brothers and sisters to lose faith in the version they used.

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1


----------



## B.L. (Jul 18, 2019)

Harley said:


> There is another practical tradeoff to permanently retiring the KJV. We have many wonderful Puritan/Reformed works, but they are in a heavily dated English, and they'll either refer to the KJV, the Geneva, or some other old translation. And there's not the time available to update all these works. Even when we make this attempt, sometimes we don't always do it so well. However, I remember hearing that in Owen's day people made the effort to learn English just so they could read him (no source, sorry). Old English education, in some respects to our Reformed heritage, is ad fontes.



I was thinking about the reasons why I continue to prefer the KJV and this was one practical reason I spent a lot of time reflecting on. Most books on my shelves were written at a time when the KJV was the English standard and cite it almost exclusively. I really enjoy reading an older book with my KJV open beside it. As scripture saturated as Puritan writings and generally other older writings are it's a banquet feast to sit and look up all the scripture references in the same/similar translation. I do wonder from time to time whether the diminished use of the KJV and the familiarity with that kind of prose might result in a loss of accessibility to the Puritans. That would be most unfortunate.

Another reason I enjoy the KJV is the fun and dare I say reward of looking up and studying all of the antiquated phrases and expressions and then seeing how various modern translations chose to translate the same passages. I get great enjoyment from doing this and learn a lot in the process. I understand this is a choice and not a necessity, so if others prefer to stick to a good modern translation I'm all for it so long as their noses are in the word regularly.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 18, 2019)

B.L. McDonald said:


> What are your thoughts on the Modern English Version (MEV)? I am not familiar with it, but it seems like some might view it as an answer to your question.



My contacts referred me to this review of the MEV. It seems to follow the KJV approach closely but there are a few divergences in translation and a few of those pesky "explanatory" footnotes. It also uses "you" instead of "thee" and "thou" when referring to God so it would be no good.

http://www.jeffriddle.net/2019/05/book-review-posted-modern-english.html?m=1


----------



## Tom Hart (Jul 18, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Please refer me to the modern second person singular pronoun that is distinct from the second person plural pronoun.


Yes, this matters. About two centuries ago, English lost this rather important distinction.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Jul 18, 2019)

One important note:

The KJV is not in "Old English". I often see it referred to as such and whenever I do it causes me physical pain in my chest.

The KJV, completed in 1611, is in Early Modern English.

_Beowulf_, written in the 8th century, is in Old English.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Taylor (Jul 18, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> It also uses "you" instead of "thee" and "thou" when referring to God so it would be no good.



I understand the helpfulness of these pronouns to distinguish between singular and plural in many instances, but I am unsure how not using them in reference to God would render a translation “no good.”

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## B.L. (Jul 18, 2019)

B.L. McDonald said:


> Another reason I enjoy the KJV is the fun and dare I say reward of looking up and studying all of the antiquated phrases and expressions and then seeing how various modern translations chose to translate the same passages. I get great enjoyment from doing this and learn a lot in the process. I understand this is a choice and not a necessity, so if others prefer to stick to a good modern translation I'm all for it so long as their noses are in the word regularly.



I wanted to add to what I said above and highlight two resources, one print and one electronic, that have been beneficial to me and perhaps might be to others.

1. *Holy Bible Two-Version Edition by Crimond House*. This might be the very first parallel/amplified version ever printed. There is a Jongbloed printed version that is still available (less than 10 in stock) at Ards Evangelical Bookshop in Northern Ireland. The text block has the KJV in double-column with differences found in the R.V. in the margins. This Bible is one of my favorites due to its uniqueness, the quality of the materials used at an amazing price, and for the fun of studying translation and language use issues. Highly recommend picking one up while they are available. A 2012 review from Mark Bertrand is available here.

2. *SwordSearcher Bible Software*. I usually have this software up while reading the KJV. It's been a tremendous aid for study and I consider it a must for those who love the KJV. This has been one of the best purchases I've made for self study. Love it.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 18, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> What you are saying is that "we should ask KJV users to defend the KJV against the suggestion that we should abandon it because it is archaic but only allow them to use certain arguments which we want them to use." Well sorry I don't accept that arbitrary limitation.



I'm fairly certain I never said abandon the KJV. I think I said the opposite. My point was that language is intended to communicate, and I listed a number of archaic terms that have zero meaning in today's world. I'm not talking about thees and thous. Those should be revived.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 18, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I understand the helpfulness of these pronouns to distinguish between singular and plural in many instances, but I am unsure how not using them in reference to God would render a translation “no good.”



Because God is one. He is not many gods. The second person plural pronoun "you" which has also assumed the function of the second person singular pronoun in modern English leaves this rather important distinction ambiguous grammatically and is technically (and theologically) wrong and I think on the matter of whether God is one or many being technical is more than a mere "technicality". And yes people say "we do not imagine God is many when we use "you"" but I think when we have the correct pronoun in our language- which we do, it's just antiquated- we should use it.

And I will also say that, today, the use of "thee" and "thou" adds reverence when addressing God. Now this is *not* the primary reason for retaining this usage. As is well known "thee" and "thou" were not the formal mode of address at the time the KJV was translated but today they do add formality and reverence. "You" strikes me as far too familiar.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 18, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I'm fairly certain I never said abandon the KJV. I think I said the opposite. My point was that language is intended to communicate, and I listed a number of archaic terms that have zero meaning in today's world. I'm not talking about thees and thous. Those should be revived.



It was Richard who said it should be retired and it was in response to him that I brought up James White &c. I didn't say you personally said the KJV should be discarded but you did engage with that particular back and forth with Richard.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 18, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> It was Richard who said it should be retired and it was in response to him that I brought up James White &c. I didn't say you personally said the KJV should be discarded but you did engage with that particular back and forth with Richard.



Well, you said that in response to a quoted text from me.


----------



## Taylor (Jul 18, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Because God is one. He is not many gods. The second person plural pronoun "you" which has also assumed the function of the second person singular pronoun in modern English leaves this rather important distinction ambiguous grammatically and is technically (and theologically) wrong.



“Wrong” is far too strong a word. This would mean that when I addressed God as “you” this morning in prayer that I was in sin (that’s what “wrong” means, after all, especially if this has to do with Trinitarian dogma).

Furthermore, your objection would only be valid if you could produce actual evidence that “you” in reference to God in Scripture is commonly misunderstood as plural rather than singular. I have literally never encountered such a problem.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 18, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Well, you said that in response to a quoted text from me.
> 
> View attachment 6183



Because you engaged in the conversation and argued with me over the point and said that I couldn't use that argument (on the translation philosophy) in this thread.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 18, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> “Wrong” is far too strong a word. This would mean that when I addressed God as “you” this morning in prayer that I was in sin (that’s what “wrong” means, after all, especially if this has to do with Trinitarian dogma).
> 
> Furthermore, your objection would only be valid if you could produce actual evidence that “you” in reference to God in Scripture is commonly misunderstood as plural rather than singular. I have literally never encountered such a problem.



It is grammatically wrong. That is a fact of language. "You" is plural. It has morphed to include singular (as part of a declension in our language) but we already have a distinct singular pronoun in the English language. Just because "thee" and "thou" are antiquated does not mean they are no longer part of the English language. If "you" is grammatically wrong it follows it is theologically wrong because God is not plural he is one. You can disagree and _assert _it is not wrong but that is as much an assertion as you ascribe to my position.

However if it is objectively wrong-which I maintain it is, for grammatical reasons- then it doesn't matter if there is common misunderstanding. Correctness takes priority.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 18, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Because you engaged in the conversation and argued with me over the point and said that I couldn't use that argument (on the translation philosophy) in this thread.



Fair enough, but if you weren't talking to me on that point, you should have then quoted and addressed Richard. Otherwise, it makes it look like you were directly addressing me.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 18, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Fair enough, but if you weren't talking to me on that point, you should have then quoted and addressed Richard. Otherwise, it makes it look like you were directly addressing me.



Well when you say to me that I can't use a particular argument I am within my rights to reference the reason I used the argument whether or not it was you who caused me to use that argument originally. You were speaking for the whole thread- "it really can't be said in this thread"- you were not limiting your argument to our specific interaction. And I didn't say that you specifically said the KJV should be retired. My reply to your post was but one link in a chain of posts which both Richard and you were involved in: it was not a random point pulled out of thin air.



BayouHuguenot said:


> On one hand that is fair, but it really can't be said in this thread because everyone is agreeing to leave manuscript considerations out of it.


----------



## Taylor (Jul 18, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> It is grammatically wrong. That is a fact of language. "You" is plural.



This is patently incorrect, not only as indicated by all dictionaries, but also as evidenced by your own use of “you” to address me, a single individual:



alexandermsmith said:


> You can disagree...



You have moved from “you” being “ambiguous” to being plural only. The former is true some of the time, the latter is entirely incorrect.

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 18, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> This is patently incorrect, not only as indicated by all dictionaries, but also as evidenced by your own use of “you” to address me, a single individual:
> 
> 
> 
> You have moved from “you” being “ambiguous” to being plural only. The former is true some of the time, the latter is entirely incorrect.



Yes because I use modern English in my day to day conversation. I have a higher standard when it comes to Biblical translation and addressing God in prayer. I won't apologise for having a higher standard in my language when it comes to God.


----------



## Taylor (Jul 18, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Yes because I use modern English in my day to day conversation.



That’s not what you’ve argued, though. You’ve said “you” *is* (not merely _was_) plural, and even used that as a criteria against *modern* translations. So saying what you just said—namely, that using “you” for the singular in modern speech is okay—is, at best, inconsistent. Is using “you” to address a singular incorrect or not? You can’t have it both ways.



alexandermsmith said:


> I have a higher standard when it comes to Biblical translation and addressing God in prayer.



So I was in sin when I addressed God as “you” this morning? Am I a tritheist because I don’t address him as “thou”?

This is a little extreme, brother.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 18, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> That’s not what you’ve argued, though. You’ve said “you” *is* (not merely _was_) plural, and even used that as a criteria against *modern* translations. So saying what you just said—namely, that using “you” for the singular in modern speech is okay—is, at best, inconsistent. Is using “you” to address a singular incorrect or not? You can’t have it both ways.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'll admit it's inconsistent. I've said throughout this discussion, though, that "you" has morphed to include singular as well as plural in modern English. I don't like it, I think it is a sign of the declension of our language but obviously it has happened. We are all of us a product of our time. But we do have a singular pronoun and therefore it should be used when addressing God. I am happy to be inconsistent in this matter.

As to whether or not you were sinning: I see no reason to reduce this discussion down to the personal like that. It seems you want me to say I think you were sinning in order for me to be able to make my argument. To me that is a distraction and one designed to deligitimise my argument for being "mean" or to silence me by making me feel guilty. Well my piety is not defined by your feelings. We all of us here consider other Christians to be "wrong" (i.e. sinning) in any number of particulars. I consider anti-paedobaptists to be sinning by not baptising infants. I consider hymn singers to be sinning by violating the RPW. (This is, after all, why we have separate denominations.) I don't know what is achieved by conducting discussions on these topics by reducing them to the personal, to our "feelings", demanding from others personal validation. That is not conducive to mature and friendly debate. I prefer to say "wrong" because it avoids all that comes with "sin". If we are to interact in an adult fashion that seems to me the best approach.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Jul 18, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> As to whether or not you were sinning: I see no reason to reduce this discussion down to the personal like that.



If addressing God as “you” is, as you have asserted, technically *and theologically* “wrong,” then that I was in sin in doing so is an unavoidable entailment of your argument.


----------



## Taylor (Jul 18, 2019)

@alexandermsmith Look, brother, don’t misunderstand me. Aside from the occasional extreme archaism, I do think the KJV is perhaps the most consistent and accurate translation we have available. I _wish_ English would have retained the varied pronouns. I love them.

But...

That personal wish is a far cry from accusing the morphing of language of being inherently tritheistic.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 18, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> @alexandermsmith Look, brother, don’t misunderstand me. Aside from the occasional extreme archaism, I do think the KJV is perhaps the most consistent and accurate translation we have available. I _wish_ English would have retained the varied pronouns. I love them.
> 
> But...
> 
> That personal wish is a far cry from accusing the morphing of language of being inherently tritheistic.



The way I see it is the word "you" is ambiguous as it incorporates both singular and plural (originally being plural). Therefore, to me and many others, it is problematic, to say the least, to use it in reference to God where if one is going to be rigorously consistent and technical anywhere it would be in this area. We have an English term. It is antiquated, we don't use it in any other situation, but we do have it and therefore we believe it should be used here. I believe it is wrong to use "you" when addressing God. Whether I would actually go so far as to say it was a sin, I don't know. Wrong _can _be different from sin. But that is why for me, and for my denomination, a translation of the Bible which uses "you" in addressing God would be a non-starter.


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 18, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> The way I see it is the word "you" is ambiguous as it incorporates both singular and plural (originally being plural).


Does this not on some levels make it a better term (“you”). Don’t we confess our Lord to be One (singular) in essence AND Three (plural) in persons?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Jul 18, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Wrong _can _be different from sin.



Not when addressing God, it is not. I cannot perceive a distinction in this case.

So, whether or not you actually answer my question about my sin in prayer, the answer itself is loud and clear.


----------



## JimmyH (Jul 18, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> The way I see it is the word "you" is ambiguous as it incorporates both singular and plural (originally being plural). Therefore, to me and many others, it is problematic, to say the least, to use it in reference to God where if one is going to be rigorously consistent and technical anywhere it would be in this area. We have an English term. It is antiquated, we don't use it in any other situation, but we do have it and therefore we believe it should be used here. I believe it is wrong to use "you" when addressing God. Whether I would actually go so far as to say it was a sin, I don't know. Wrong _can _be different from sin. But that is why for me, and for my denomination, a translation of the Bible which uses "you" in addressing God would be a non-starter.


I was listening to a presentation by D.A. Carson about Bible translation. I've been reading the KJV for 40+ years, along with other modern translation, but I've read the KJV so much, for so long, that I still pray in KJV English. 

Carson said that he grew up in French speaking Quebec, and that English was not his first language. His father was a pastor in both French, and later English speaking churches. I don't remember the discourse he gave precisely, nor could I link to it, there are so many, but by the time he was done I was satisfied that KJV English was not necessary in any way, shape or form, to correctly come before the Lord in prayer. 

When I began reading the Bible seriously, in 1986, I bought a New Scofield KJV. I soon found I was having difficulty making sense of the archaisms, and the syntax in some portions. I bought an NIV to augment my study, and to define portions I had difficulty with. 

I still read the KJV, but not as much as the modern translations. I've read the usual pro & con books on the RT vs the CT, and I am comfortable that both are the Word of God. Not trying to change any minds, we each have to follow the Spirit's leading and come to our own conclusions.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover (Jul 18, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Please refer me to the modern second person singular pronoun that is distinct from the second person plural pronoun.



There is none, of course. Over time, English-speakers and writers decided they were no longer necessary. If they were actually necessary, they'd probably still be used. We let context make the distinction now.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Jul 18, 2019)

bookslover said:


> We let context make the distinction now.



Exactly. And, in cases where there is contextual ambiguity, many modern translations make a clarifying note (e.g., Exod. 16:28; Luke 22:31). Sure, it would be nice to not need that note, but the English language has changed, like all languages do. And, unless I am mistaken, languages tend to evolve toward simplicity, not complexity. In other words, language tend to not retain aspects which are not absolutely necessary for comprehension. Hence why these pronouns have dropped. Therefore, chalking language change up to something like people getting dumber or irreverent is not only false by unhelpful.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover (Jul 18, 2019)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> When I preach, either open-air or from the pulpit, I will often spontaneously "modernize" the language of the KJV, so it is eminently understandable to folks either Biblically illiterate or not used to KJV language.



I do the same thing. When I read the KJV quoted in an old book, I automatically correct the grammar and/or the syntax in my head as I read.


----------



## bookslover (Jul 18, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> Yes, this matters. About two centuries ago, English lost this rather important distinction.



Must not have been all that important if English was willing to jettison it. Somehow, everyone survived.


----------



## bookslover (Jul 18, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Exactly. And, in cases where there is contextual ambiguity, many modern translations make a clarifying note (e.g., Exod. 16:28; Luke 22:31). Sure, it would be nice to not need that note, but the English language has changed, like all languages do. And, unless I am mistaken, languages tend to evolve toward simplicity, not complexity. In other words, language tend to not retain aspects which are not absolutely necessary for comprehension. Hence why these pronouns have dropped. Therefore, chalking language change up to something like people getting dumber or irreverent is not only false by unhelpful.



Excellent post, Taylor. You are correct.


----------



## chuckd (Jul 18, 2019)

John Yap said:


> [Not regarding manuscripts but regarding KJV language]
> 
> "The Gospels were written with simple everyday language, Tyndale's translation was also so that the commonfolk would understand. It would go against the inspired writers and the tradition of translations to use antiquated Scripture translations in the church."


Biblical language is not simple everyday language. It is set apart. Nobody talks like it, regardless of the translation.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Taylor (Jul 18, 2019)

chuckd said:


> Biblical language is not simple everyday language. It is set apart. Nobody talks like it, regardless of the translation.



If by "set apart" you mean its status as special revelation, then sure. However, as far as I am aware, there is no indication that the language of the Hebrew Bible and Greek New Testament are anything other than the language of the day.


----------



## chuckd (Jul 18, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> If by "set apart" you mean its status as special revelation, then sure. However, as far as I am aware, there is no indication that the language of the Hebrew Bible and Greek New Testament are anything other than the language of the day.


But not the language of our day, even when translated into the most readable English.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 18, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> If by "set apart" you mean its status as special revelation, then sure. However, as far as I am aware, there is no indication that the language of the Hebrew Bible and Greek New Testament are anything other than the language of the day.



Absolutely. Compare the Hebrew of 2 Samuel 9:20 with the Hebrew of Job. Very, very different.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 18, 2019)

chuckd said:


> Biblical language is not simple everyday language. It is set apart. Nobody talks like it, regardless of the translation.



Well....sort of. Most of that is due to Semitisms from the OT that crept into some parts of NT Greek. Such Semitisms, though, are absent from Luke/Acts or Hebrews.


----------



## gjensen (Jul 18, 2019)

As one that prefers the KJV, I can no longer use it for evangelism. 

I agree that the difficulties can be overcome, and there are any number of helps available. 

Many of the people that I would give a Bible to are teenagers. It is counterproductive to burden them with any extra added difficulties. Where I would make an exception is if they would attend a church where the AV is still in use.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 18, 2019)

I wouldn't say that I "correct" the KJV's grammar or syntax when open-air preaching, rather _adapting_ it to the language-use of some modern folks.

As a poet and writer I am sensitive to the necessity of my being understood by those I speak to. _Much_ of the King James' language is easily comprehended by most people, even children. It is only on rare occasions it's not.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jw (Jul 18, 2019)

"Nuh uh."

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jul 18, 2019)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I wouldn't say that I "correct" the KJV's grammar or syntax when open-air preaching, rather _adapting_ it to the language-use of some modern folks.
> 
> As a poet and writer I am sensitive to the necessity of my being understood by those I speak to. _Much_ of the King James' language is easily comprehended by most people, even children. It is only on rare occasions it's not.


Sadly I am not in the group of most people. I've often tried the text but always end up going back to a modern translation.


----------



## bookslover (Jul 18, 2019)

Joshua said:


> "Nuh uh."



"Uh-huh!"


----------



## Tom Hart (Jul 18, 2019)

bookslover said:


> Must not have been all that important if English was willing to jettison it. Somehow, everyone survived.


It is unusual. I'm not aware of any other language whose second person singular pronouns, etc. have disappeared so completely.

That is not to say that the distinction is unimportant. It is, and this issue does lead to some confusion in translation into English.

However, in the interest of having translations that represent authentic modern English, I think a footnote is a reasonable solution. It seems to me rather absurd to attempt a revival of _thou_.

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## Logan (Jul 18, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> It is unusual. I'm not aware of any other language whose second person singular pronouns, etc. have disappeared so completely.



It seems to have disappeared so completely that among the informal polls I've done, a great many KJV readers don't realize that the distinction between plural and singular even exists within the KJV!

So while the informed reader might benefit by that distinction, I'm pretty certain that the vast majority of KJV readers do not.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover (Jul 18, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> It is unusual. I'm not aware of any other language whose second person singular pronouns, etc. have disappeared so completely.
> 
> That is not to say that the distinction is unimportant. It is, and this issue does lead to some confusion in translation into English.
> 
> However, in the interest of having translations that represent authentic modern English, I think a footnote is a reasonable solution. It seems to me rather absurd to attempt a revival of _thou_.



The distinction is important. It's just that English doesn't make it using separate words anymore. An anomaly among languages, to be sure.


----------



## B.L. (Jul 18, 2019)

I tuned in today to the Bridge Ministries podcast while building a Lego set for my son and much to my surprise this week's guest was Mark Ward in a segment titled "The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible." Much of what was discussed for 60 minutes was the theme of this thread. Just wanted to make everyone aware in the event they want to tune in and listen.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 19, 2019)

Logan said:


> It seems to have disappeared so completely that among the informal polls I've done, a great many KJV readers don't realize that the distinction between plural and singular even exists within the KJV!
> 
> So while the informed reader might benefit by that distinction, I'm pretty certain that the vast majority of KJV readers do not.



They benefit from it, they just don't know it.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Taylor (Jul 19, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> They benefit from it, they just don't know it.



That’s impossible. Since language is a communication of knowledge that requires understanding, it is impossible to benefit from it yet not know it. That’s like saying I benefit from hearing the Bible read in Arabic, I just don’t know it. The benefit comes from the knowledge of what exactly is being said.

Reactions: Like 4 | Funny 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 19, 2019)

Does "prevent" mean precede or keep from happening?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JimmyH (Jul 19, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Does "prevent" mean precede or keep from happening?


Or ... Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (*but was let hitherto*,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jul 19, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Does "prevent" mean precede or keep from happening?



Depends on the context you're using the word.


----------



## bookslover (Jul 19, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Does "prevent" mean precede or keep from happening?



Look up the verse that word appears in in a modern English translation - problem solved!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 19, 2019)

And to repeat another problem: For example, while one finds the KJV translating the Greek phrase pneumata hagion at Luke 11:13 as “Holy Spirit,” the very same phrase is translated “Holy Ghost” at Luke 2:25. It is interesting to note as well that the KJV always capitalizes Holy Ghost, but does not always capitalize Holy Spirit, i.e., Ephesians 1:13, 4:30, and 1 Thessalonians 4:8, where each time the KJV has “holy Spirit”


----------

