# Question for KJV only/preffered users



## tellville (Jan 14, 2008)

I've been reading the "Question for the confessional KJVer" thread and I have a question. There seems to be a wide spread opinion that because the English language appears to be "deteriorating" that we as Christians should cling to the majestic language of the KJV. So to my question: Would you tell a modern day Greek person that because his language has obviously deteriorated from the original Greek of the NT that he should read the original Greek NT instead of an updated Greek version?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 15, 2008)

Hello Mark,

The Biblical Greek is _so_ ancient a tongue that very few Greek-speakers can understand it, whether in writing or spoken. Greek evangelicals, who treasure their Scriptures, usually read one of the Bambas (pronounced Vamvas) versions, one older, somewhat equivalent to the KJV language, and one newer, equivalent to the NKJV. Both are very popular here in Cyprus. My wife reads the newer version when she reads to her grandmother (and used to for her mom, but doesn't now, as her mom's Alzheimer's has progressed too far).

As I have said, I would welcome an updated AV, if it was done faithfully, and still captured the majesty of the language.


----------



## tellville (Jan 15, 2008)

So would you say that if KJV english came to be too hard for English speakers that you would recommend a newer translation? 

I am asking this because my youth have a hard enough time understanding the NIV. They either have to read the NLT or Message to even get anything out of there Bibles besides confusion when on their own. The KJV might as well be written in Russian. The parents aren't much help because they do not know English very well and the kids don't know Korean very well, or if they do they don't know Korean theological/Biblical language thus it is up to me the pastor to guide them in their readings, but I can't be there every time one of my kids wants to read the Bible. 

Maybe most of the people don't see it on this board because they have always grown up around the KJV or are older than 30 years old but I'm telling you, this upcoming generation (and this just isn't my Korean youth, it was in the Chinese church I was in before and it is in the Western churches as well) CAN NOT understand the KJV. Unless you are brought up on it, the KJV will be entirely unaccessible due to its archaic language. 

And yes, I am sure there are 1 or 2 exceptions (maybe more) on this board where someone never touched a KJV in their life but started reading it last year and are only 20 and can understand it perfectly because they are geniuses but I assure you, you are not the norm!

Anyway, that is just my little rant. I'm probably a little more touchy on this subject because if I were to follow the logic of many on this board no one in my congregation would be able to read the Bible.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 15, 2008)

Mark,

If your congregation is Korean, do you have a version in that language they can also use, to help with the English, at least for those who have some proficiency in Korean?

There are two issues: first, if you give them the NIV or TEV or either the old or new Living Translation, they will come across the margin notes indicating the "oldest and most reliable" manuscripts don't have this or that, right away introducing them to the confusion extant in modern versions and criticism. I suppose there is no avoiding it — even in Africa, in a remote area — I had students coming to me asking me about the margin notes and/or absence of certain verses in their versions (the class had been issued ESVs before I arrived). It is a Pandora's Box that has been opened, and must be dealt with. I was forced (by these circumstances) to teach a class on the field of textual criticism today, and concerning reliable Bibles.

I use the KJV because there is no other version near as accurate; Jay Green's _Modern King James Version_ I am not absolutely sure about. I am using it more now to examine it. The NKJV is far and away better than the modern versions, but it has its faults. So there is no sure replacement at this point.

I relate to you having folks whose first language is not English. You have three choices, it seems to me: either go with a modern version and suffer the doubt you will introduce into their minds by giving them Bibles with omissions and destructive notes; or use the NKJV or MKJV (there are editions of the former without the textual notes -- which notes I happen to like, but not all do), although the language of either is a bit more complex than the older KJV; or 3), use the KJV and educate them to the language of the church. If you taught Shakespeare you would teach them an older English as well as the newer. It is really not so tough.

I teach my folks (African, Hungarian, Romanian, Filipino, Greek — the Arabic congregation is a different ball-game) English (along with Bible) from the NKJV and the AV.

I try to make it vitally interesting to them: through the words/promises of God's Book, we actually draw near to Him who is the Lord of Glory, and we receive the gift of His amazing wisdom and insight, and abide in His love.

Hope this helps.

-----

Nigel,

I would be interested in taking a look at what you have done with John's Gospel. And I would give you comments on that.

Steve


----------



## Thomas2007 (Jan 15, 2008)

Mark,

As I'm sure you are aware, there are two issues involved in this, and it is often hard to distinguish the emphasis of arguments because everything is intertwined together. 

When the Southern Convocation approved the translation update for the Authorized Version back in the late 19th century, they set down certain rules. Wescott and Hort brought forward that work but upon an entirely different Greek text in contradiction to the rules - so this is passed off as an update to the translation, when it is really the introduction of an entirely different text and hypothesis. In turn, various textual hypothesis and critical opinions have erupted into a debate in the public life of the Church.

Unfortunately, this is just the way we have to deal with this today. Translation after Translation has concealed within its pages an evolving and hypothetical textual standard, and as Elder Rafalsky noted, they introduce issues to the weak that can be very damaging. There is a certain lack of pastoral concern and shepherding in the introduction of this debate into the public life of the Church that I find quite disturbing. With the tender minds under your care, I do think you need to be sensitive to these issues within finding a solution to deal with the very real problems you are facing.

There is, however, inherit within this Protestant Bible both a theological and sociological issue as a unitary foundation for both theology and society as it affects those in English common law countries that I place considerable weight upon as it doesn't exist in an isolated ecclesiastical context.

I am not so dogmatic that I do not recognize the educational problems of our modern youth and the disabilities they are suffering, though, and willingly concede leeway in teaching and private studies upon other versions; in contrast I'm very dogmatic on the public use of the Authorized Version. And I'm very concerned about the Apostolic witness of the Church and it's public confession of faith both confessionally and legally. But that is not say that liberty of conscience no longer exists where effective tools can not be used to build up the Kingdom of God.

I say this just to address some of your comments, because if you are reading me, it is important to distinguish my emphasis on the peace, purity and good order of Christ's Church in an expansive sense that I argue within a defense of the Authorized Version as the established Bible; hence, that should not be interpreted to mean that I am not sensitive to the real issues that you are bringing up.

Cordially In Christ,

Thomas


----------



## tellville (Jan 15, 2008)

Hey Steve, Nigel, and Thomas

Steve first:

There is a Korean translation, and most of them do have parallel Bibles, but would not the Korean suffer the same criticisms you give to the modern texts? All major foreign translations that I am familiar with use today's critical text, not the texts underlying the KJV. 

But even if this were not the case, the problem is that the theological/biblical language, names, places, etc. are different than in the English. These terms don't translate the same from the Greek and Hebrew into Korean as they do into English and thus make the Korean translations useless to them due to the fact that my preaching and the Sunday school teaching is all done using English terms. I guess they could do the grunt work and just read both passages all the time but Youth don't usually like doing that much work. It makes reading the Bible more like homework from Korean school then an edifying experience of reading the Bible. Also, for many of them, their reading of Korean is not very good. I even have better reading skills then some of them (and I am improving everyday)! 

I really don't think the textual data at the bottom of the page really affects them (if they even read it). When I was a youth and knew nothing about textual debates the data that there were older manuscripts, etc. didn't affect me. I would think "ok, that makes sense". Because none of these kids have grown up on the KJV they don't really know that English Bibles read a bit differently in the past anyway! In the 7 years I have been teaching youth I have never been questioned on the footnotes on the bottom. I have taught about textual criticism and stuff, but this only reinforced their faith in the text. 

Also, given that I am not convinced that the KJV texts are better I do not view the footnotes as a bad thing. 

Most of my kids are basically fluent in English, that's why they come to English service instead of the Korean service, they just have a really hard time reading the Bible in the more formal and older translations. I don't blame them!

----
Nigel

While I think your project is a worthwhile one, especially for those who follow your textual views, I doubt it would ever catch on. Even if a whole group of scholars did a whole new translation using the KJV textual data, I am sure almost everyone on this board and elsewhere would pan it as being inferior to the KJV. That's just the mindset. 

I do know Greek and Hebrew to a good enough degree so as to translate the Biblical text as a whole, but given the above reason, and the fact that I am still not convinced of KJV underlying text superiority, I find it hard to desire to be a part of such a project! 

But I will say this: I am always in awe of those who take the time to actually translate the whole of Scripture into another language. I applaud you and Larry. 

----

Thomas

I appreciated your post. I don't have much to say beyond what I said to Steve. 

I want my kids to read the Bible. If I were to insist on using the KJV all Bible reading would disappear. That's just the reality of it. Like Steve said, modern Greek is so much removed from NT Greek that an update is needed, well I offer to you this: The English in the KJV has finally reached the point where it is nonsensical to those under the age of 20 who have not been brought up in it or have not had extensive training in the English of the time. That's just the reality. 

If the underlying text of the KJV is really that important then I think it is about time all the churches who think this pony up the cash and get a bunch of scholars together and do a whole new translation. But alas, like I said before, I highly doubt that it would ever be accepted. I think there are other issues at play on this issue beyond textual data. 

Again, I apologize for the rant. It just pains me as a pastor to hear kids say that their Bible is just too complicated and the English to confusing to understand. As someone coming from the Protestant tradition, hearing that the Bible is too hard to understand and comprehend breaks my heart, especially when that need not be the case.


----------



## Stephen (Jan 15, 2008)

Thomas2007 said:


> Mark,
> 
> As I'm sure you are aware, there are two issues involved in this, and it is often hard to distinguish the emphasis of arguments because everything is intertwined together.
> 
> ...



Which KJV translation is based on the TR? The Reformers and the Puritans had the Geneva Bible. Was the Geneva Bible based on the TR?


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 15, 2008)

tellville said:


> If the underlying text of the KJV is really that important then I think it is about time all the churches who think this pony up the cash and get a bunch of scholars together and do a whole new translation. But alas, like I said before, I highly doubt that it would ever be accepted. I think there are other issues at play on this issue beyond textual data.



The majority of churches, whether we're talking Reformed or more broadly evangelical, favor the Critical Text, and not the TR or Majority/Byzantine text. (That's not to say they're necessarily right.) Those who do favor the TR or Byzantine text use either the KJV or NKJV.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 15, 2008)

tellville said:


> So would you say that if KJV english came to be too hard for English speakers that you would recommend a newer translation?
> 
> I am asking this because my youth have a hard enough time understanding the NIV. They either have to read the NLT or Message to even get anything out of there Bibles besides confusion when on their own. The KJV might as well be written in Russian. The parents aren't much help because they do not know English very well and the kids don't know Korean very well, or if they do they don't know Korean theological/Biblical language thus it is up to me the pastor to guide them in their readings, but I can't be there every time one of my kids wants to read the Bible.
> 
> ...



Are these recent immigrants, or people for whom English is a second language and who struggle to read the newspaper or other similar writings?


----------



## Thomas2007 (Jan 15, 2008)

tellville said:


> Thomas
> 
> I appreciated your post. I don't have much to say beyond what I said to Steve.
> 
> ...



Hello Mark,

Thank you for the response, a few concepts and points for your consideration. These may, on the surface, not seem to be critical points to you from the frame of reference and real problems you are explaining and facing. I do, though, think they are significant and need to at least be given some consideration.

The problem you are identifying is not merely a "natural" condition, it is a created condition, it is the results of our society as a whole revolting against the Reformation and the expansive meaning of it, especially the Authority of Scripture. It is no longer received in the fully orbed Reformational sense and in many ways we are squelching the Holy Spirit and this affects its perspicuity.

Because the problem, I believe is in fact, a spiritual problem existing as both psychological and sociological in this context, it doesn't disappear, nor is it cured, with the introduction of new translation alone - upon proper textual grounds or not. In many ways the Church has become what I might define as "mystical" in its conception of translation, as if it comes to us independent of a cultural context. That all we have to do is introduce Holy Scripture in language that people can "understand" and miraculously each person is going to be put, ipso facto, on the high ground of spiritual growth.

Now, please understand, that is not to be interpreted as diminishing the work of your ministry, it is to point out that a lot of continuity and profound theological and sociological links to Confessional Reformed theology comes "prepackaged", that the Holy Spirit has born consistent witness to in history, with the Authorized Version. Battles against spiritual wickedness were fought, ground was won, that we don't have to refight - we can receive the blessings of that, or we can reject it. There are issues here that are much deeper than I think you presently comprehend, and it really doesn't matter what one's opinions are about the text, Providence has born witness to the work of the Holy Spirit in history and "by their fruits ye shall know them."

Text critical proponents seem to believe that if they can restore what they believe to be the inerrancy of Scripture that we are going to experience an evangelistic explosion since we will then finally have it in its pristine perfection, as if the Holy Spirit must utilize Scripture is some non-material "spiritualized" way that the perceived lack of perfection is what is squelching His work in history. In contrast, I believe the Kingdom of God is not in word, but in power, (1 Cor 4:20) and Providence through the work of the Holy Spirit bears witness of the Truth and Substance of His Word by both advancing the Faith, on one hand, and binding spiritual wickedness on the other.

In my view the modern Church has this inversed and believes the Kingdom is in word, not in power, or if in power in some non-material "spiritualized" definition and in turn it has abandoned all of the work of Providence in Reformational history and while it speaks of the truth of Scripture, it is no longer willing to receive the expansive substance of it, in reality. This is important, because this textual and translation issue has in fact, I believe, exercised the keys to the Kingdom, unbinding what four centuries of Christians worked to bind, and have swung the gates of hell wide open.

The problem that you are laying out is not merely a language problem, it is also a dialetical problem that imputes a truncated spiritual condition upon modern people whereby they are unable to connect to Scripture as Authority because of the spiritual and cultural context in which they live. Linguistical solutions are just a bandaid upon a much deeper infection and not as broad and absolute as you are portraying their potentiality. We have a hundred years now of easier to read translations that simply don't have the fruit.

The Church is not innocent in this because it has withdrawn its recognition of Scripture in its establishment which included the Protestant doctrine of Scripture whereby the Scripture served as a prolegomenon to theology and society at large. There is an imputed spiritual deficiency, not merely a linguistic deficiency, embodied in this whole issue as well whereby the external testimony of Scripture and the internal witness of the Holy Spirit are spiritually skewed and never fully connecting.

Of course, this is much bigger issue and much more complicated issue that I have time to even get into here, at depth, but the concept that: "The English in the KJV has finally reached the point where it is nonsensical to those under the age of 20 who have not been brought up in it or have not had extensive training in the English of the time. That's just the reality," is not the end of the story, it's just not that simple. It's more analogous to a spiritualized Babel, where the people themselves have finally reached a point of squelching the Holy Spirit that he is giving us up to our sins, and the sins of the fathers are being imputed unto the children.

Consider, for a moment, that every new translation that comes out is still, after a century, trying to supplant the Authorized Version - and that is how they are advertised. Finally, this greatness has been reproduced in language you can now understand, but that superiority is never supplanted, because the next one tries again. And when you look at the evolution of the critical texts, they keep adding back in received readings that they knew were defections in the prior version.

There is a spiritual battle going on here that is affecting your children, it is not merely linguistics, while certainly there is some validity to your points, they are just not absolute as you portrayed them, nor is the solution a new translation of the right texts.

In Christ's Bonds,

Thomas


----------



## KMK (Jan 16, 2008)

A response to those who advocate ‘modern’ English versions on the grounds that English speaking youth have been poorly educated.

This is not a response to those who advocate ‘modern’ English versions on the grounds that the Elizabethan English of the KJV is indeed a ‘foreign’ language. (I don’t believe it is, but that is a different debate.)

There was a time when the literacy rate of the US was much higher than it is today.



> Looking back, abundant data exist from states like Connecticut and Massachusetts to show that by 1840 the incidence of complex literacy in the United States was between 93 and 100 percent wherever such a thing mattered. According to the Connecticut census of 1840, only one citizen out of every 579 was illiterate and you probably don’t want to know, not really, what people in those days considered literate; it’s too embarrassing. Popular novels of the period give a clue: Last of the Mohicans, published in 1826, sold so well that a contemporary equivalent would have to move 10 million copies to match it. If you pick up an uncut version you find yourself in a dense thicket of philosophy, history, culture, manners, politics, geography, analysis of human motives and actions, all conveyed in data-rich periodic sentences so formidable only a determined and well-educated reader can handle it nowadays. Yet in 1818 we were a small-farm nation without colleges or universities to speak of. Could those simple folk have had more complex minds than our own?” “The Underground History of American Education, Chapter 3: Eyeless in Gaza”, John Taylor Gatto, former New York City “Teacher of the Year”, available at: Table of Contents - John Taylor Gatto



Gatto goes on to say that during WWII 18 million American men were given “low-level” academic tests before induction into military service. It was found that among those 18 million, 96 % of them “were judged to have the minimum competence in reading required to be a soldier.” Six years later, during the Korean War, that literacy rate had dropped to 81%, “Even though all that was needed to classify a soldier as literate was fourth-grade reading proficiency.” By the end of the Vietnam War, in 1973, the literacy rate had dropped to 73%.

Plummeting literacy rates in the US coincide with the rise of compulsory state education in the 20th century. In the previous century, children were by and large homeschooled by parents whose goal was to teach their children to read the KJV. Just look at the popularity of the “Blue Back Speller” and the “New England Primer”, the latter of which remained in print even into the 20th century. Both of these textbooks taught the English of the KJV.

Ever since the American people have abdicated the education of their youth to the pagan state literacy rates have fallen to the point that a real crisis has developed.

In 2004, a joint task force of professors from both the University of California and the California State University systems issued a report. It was titled “Academic Literacy: A Statement of Competencies Expected of Students Entering California’s Public Colleges and Universities.”
The report reflected CA university professors answers to three main questions:



> •	What do they expect of their students' reading, writing, and critical thinking?
> •	How well are their students prepared for those expectations, and why or why not?
> •	How do they expect their students to acquire these skills, experiences or
> competencies that they are missing at matriculation? (Pg. 1)



Here is a brief list of recommendations contained in the report:



> •	Analytical thinking must be taught, and students must be encouraged to apply those analytical abilities to their own endeavors as well as to the work of others.
> •	Students must assume a measure of responsibility for their own learning, must discern crucial values of the academic community, must seek assistance when they need it, and must advocate for their own learning in diverse situations.
> •	Self-advocacy is a valuable practice that emerges from the recognition that education is a partnership.
> •	Successful students understand that reading and writing are the lifeblood of educated people.
> ...



This is in spite of the fact that in 1996 the California Education Round Table issued a set of standards that required these expectations for incoming university students. 

In other words, the standards placed on public schools were not working. The report says that only “33% of the students are prepared to analyze information or arguments based on their reading.” (pg. 17) “83% of the surveyed faculty say that the lack of analytical reading skills contributes to students’ lack of success in a course.” (pg. 18)

The report points to three things that contribute to this underpreparation:



> (1) Reading is not well supported in the culture.
> (2) Reading is not formally taught after a certain point in students’ education.
> (3) Too frequently, the teaching of reading, thinking, and writing falls solely on the high-school English teacher… (pg. 20)



What we see in American history, I believe, is a pattern. As we lower expectations for literacy, we lower the literacy rate itself. There is an axiom among teachers that lower standards means lower achievement. (Just look at the CA High School Exit Exam) There was a time in our country when the expectation was that a young person would/should/needed to read the KJV. That was a time when the literacy rate was the highest. As we have more and more removed the KJV as the ‘standard’ for literacy, our literacy rate has continued to fall.
So before we go altruistically advocating ‘modern’ English versions of the Bible because American youth can’t read ‘good’, let us stop and think about what would benefit them more? A continued lowering of expectations, or a new commitment to the KJV?


----------



## tellville (Jan 16, 2008)

What makes KJV English so "good"? Because it's old? Because it was written at a key formative time in the history of the English language? Because it has been used for 400 years? Because it is in a Bible that has been used for 400 years? Because the confession uses it? Because it "sounds" Biblical? Because it doesn't have the perceived pitfalls of today's English?

None of these are good reasons to keep KJV English when it no longer can be understood by the everyday person. 

My kids aren't stupid, and they don't suffer because of a poor education system. I pastor in a more affluent church and many of these kids go to private schools. And unlike the States, Canadian public schools are actually quite good. The problem is not their English skills (though, there are also many kids whose first language is not English). The problem is that they have been trained and speak in an English of a different time and and place. 

I can read Hebrew, Greek, French, and Korean, I have an undergraduate degree in the Arts (Religion and Theology, minor in History) and I am in a Thesis based Master's degree. I have quite a firm and learned background in languages and English. But even after all this I still have difficulty reading the KJV! So how much more will those who are younger than me (24) and don't have any real training in languages or theological/biblical studies have difficulty with the English of the KJV? 

You can rant and rave all you want about how depraved society is and how pathetic the English language has become, but that doesn't change the fact that society is depraved and the English language has changed. There is no going back. 

Should Spanish people read translations done in the 17th century? Chinese people? Russians? How utterly meaningless does a translation have to be before it is acknowledged that it needs to be updated?

* Ken, I would argue that the English of the KJV is not any better than the English of today, just different. Thus, literacy will not be improved by reading a Bible that uses different English than the English used today. Rather, literacy will be improved by reading a Bible that uses the best form of contemporary English. 

If the NT had been written in Classical Greek instead of Koine Greek, it would have made very little sense, or at least it would have been made more difficult to a majority of people. And yet, all the same arguments that are being used to support KJV English could have been used back in NT times to support a Classical Greek NT. Rather, the NT writers saw the necessity of writing the most important of documents in the common everyday language of the people, not the language of the Golden Age of Greece.


----------



## MW (Jan 17, 2008)

tellville said:


> Ken, I would argue that the English of the KJV is not any better than the English of today, just different.



This is where it appears to me you are creating a false scenario. There is no "deterioration" or "difference" in English today. As one who knows various languages you should understand that the meanings of words are bound by specific contexts. As a Bible reader you should recognise the fact that the ideas presented in the Bible are not the types of ideas which are readily discussed in everyday conversation. The Scriptures present numerous contexts which are vague and unfamiliar to the ordinary man of the 21st century. It is no wonder, then, if the Scriptures employ numerous expressions which are somewhat alien to the modern reader. The answer is not to be found in altering the message of Scripture to suit the mind of modern man, but in the modern man studying the Scripture to come to a better knowledge of what it is God has so graciously condescended to reveal in His Word.


----------



## tellville (Jan 17, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> This is where it appears to me you are creating a false scenario. There is no "deterioration" or "difference" in English today. As one who knows various languages you should understand that the meanings of words are bound by specific contexts. As a Bible reader you should recognise the fact that the ideas presented in the Bible are not the types of ideas which are readily discussed in everyday conversation.



Point taken and I agree. 



armourbearer said:


> The Scriptures present numerous contexts which are vague and unfamiliar to the ordinary man of the 21st century. It is no wonder, then, if the Scriptures employ numerous expressions which are somewhat alien to the modern reader. The answer is not to be found in altering the message of Scripture to suit the mind of modern man, but in the modern man studying the Scripture to come to a better knowledge of what it is God has so graciously condescended to reveal in His Word.



I agree with what you say here as well. The Scriptures do employ many concepts that are indeed foreign to the 21st century mind. But why should I convey and translate these 2000 year and older concepts into 17th century English instead of 21st century English? Especially when my kids do not understand 17th century English but understand 21st century English?


----------



## MW (Jan 17, 2008)

tellville said:


> I agree with what you say here as well. The Scriptures do employ many concepts that are indeed foreign to the 21st century mind. But why should I convey and translate these 2000 year and older concepts into 17th century English instead of 21st century English? Especially when my kids do not understand 17th century English but understand 21st century English?



The point which seems to be assumed is that the AV is written in 17th century English. The language of the AV was not the English of the 17th or any century. The language of any "version" of the Bible which seeks to be even remotely accurate will be foreign to the 21st century English reader.

Why use the AV? For the same reason that different communal groups of the 1st century used the "strange" Greek version of the Old Testament. It was universally received and read. This meant that people of various contexts could share in a single language which they all held in common, notwithstanding the fact that the language itself was a little strange to all cultures.


----------



## tellville (Jan 17, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> The point which seems to be assumed is that the AV is written in 17th century English. The language of the AV was not the English of the 17th or any century. The language of any "version" of the Bible which seeks to be even remotely accurate will be foreign to the 21st century English reader.



The English of the KJV was such that anyone who was literate in the 17th century would be able to understand and comprehend what it was saying. Maybe the concepts and such would be foreign, but the text would be understandable. The text of the KJV is no longer understandable or comprehendable to today's younger generation. So not only are the concepts foreign, the language in which they are being conveyed is foreign. 



armourbearer said:


> Why use the AV? For the same reason that different communal groups of the 1st century used the "strange" Greek version of the Old Testament. It was universally received and read. This meant that people of various contexts could share in a single language which they all held in common, notwithstanding the fact that the language itself was a little strange to all cultures.



And eventually, when the LXX became incomprehensible to people it was either updated or translated into another language. 

There seems to be an assumption on your part that the KJV is the universally received and read Bible in the English world. Maybe this was the case when you were younger and for your generation but that is definitely not the case now. The translation that would meet that requirement today would be the NIV---->TNIV. Furthermore, the English in the KJV unites no one in today's generation of English speakers. It may unite the older generations, and it may unite certain wings of the Reformed community and KJV Onlyists, but that's about it.


----------



## MW (Jan 17, 2008)

tellville said:


> The English of the KJV was such that anyone who was literate in the 17th century would be able to understand and comprehend what it was saying. Maybe the concepts and such would be foreign, but the text would be understandable. The text of the KJV is no longer understandable or comprehendable to today's younger generation. So not only are the concepts foreign, the language in which they are being conveyed is foreign.



The various "helps" which Puritan authors produced make it clear from their perspective that the Bible was a sadly misunderstood book in their day. Elisha Coles' Dictionary of hard words includes hundreds of words contained in the AV. The point you are making simply does not account for certain historical facts. Moreover, you seem to think the Bible is an everyman's book. It's not. One reading of the Gospel of John should be enough to show that the message of this book is grossly misunderstood by learned and unlearned alike.

As for your idea that the language in which the concepts are being conveyed is foreign, this is simply false. You are still assuming language is static. It's not. It's dynamic. The English of the AV is still perfectly suited to convey the distinctive religious message of the Bible. This is clearly seen from the fact that when a newspaper article wants to create religious overtones the journalist will often quote the AV, e.g., "love thy neighbour," "three score and ten," etc., etc. Even popular speakers will invoke the language of the AV when they are seeking to convey a traditionalist sentiment. So you will often hear a speaker say, "Thy will be done." The style of the AV is ingrained in the English language, and it only takes a little experience in different cultural settings to see this is the case.



tellville said:


> There seems to be an assumption on your part that the KJV is the universally received and read Bible in the English world. Maybe this was the case when you were younger and for your generation but that is definitely not the case now.



Yes, the AV is universally received, as it is the common English Bible. Where we have a common English Bible we have a shared language in which Christians of various cultures can communicate. Whether it is still in use with the younger generation is beside the point. The younger generation might think that the world begins and ends with them, and might even succeed in adding a few odd sounding words to the English dictionary, but they are not going to render obsolete the richness and variety of the English tongue by their ignorance of the world in which they live.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 18, 2008)

Here is something that might interest you guys.

Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament: Second Edition

Or the Third edition.
http://www.amazon.com/Analytical-Literal-Translation-Testament-Holy-Bible/dp/0759624992/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200711544&sr=1-2


----------



## KMK (Jan 19, 2008)

tellville said:


> My kids aren't stupid, and they don't suffer because of a poor education system.



I meant no disrespect. I am sure your kids are wonderful. I prefaced my post by saying it was an argument against those who say that the KJV should be updated to 'modern' English (whatever that is) because young people do not have the literacy needed to understand it. I was not arguing against those who say that the KJV is a foreign language. (This seems to be the thrust of your argument) 

Perhaps I work in a different environment. I teach in the CA public school system. The point I was trying to make was that university educators are crying out for help with a generation of young people who can't read or write English well enough to succeed at the university level. 

Some of the areas of need, according to university educators, could be addressed by churches and parents bringing their children up with the KJV.

It is not a forgone conclusion that providing English speaking youth with an 'easy to read' and less accurate Bible is doing them any favors in the long run.



tellville said:


> I can read Hebrew, Greek, French, and Korean, I have an undergraduate degree in the Arts (Religion and Theology, minor in History) and I am in a Thesis based Master's degree. I have quite a firm and learned background in languages and English. But even after all this I still have difficulty reading the KJV! So how much more will those who are younger than me (24) and don't have any real training in languages or theological/biblical studies have difficulty with the English of the KJV?



The same way you do. With a dictionary and a lexicon and various commentaries.



tellville said:


> You can rant and rave all you want about how depraved society is and how pathetic the English language has become, but that doesn't change the fact that society is depraved and the English language has changed. There is no going back.



I don't know which post you are referring to but I have done no ranting or raving. I simply quoted experts. 



tellville said:


> Should Spanish people read translations done in the 17th century? Chinese people? Russians? How utterly meaningless does a translation have to be before it is acknowledged that it needs to be updated?



I believe "because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope." LBC 1:8



tellville said:


> * Ken, I would argue that the English of the KJV is not any better than the English of today, just different. Thus, literacy will not be improved by reading a Bible that uses different English than the English used today. Rather, literacy will be improved by reading a Bible that uses the best form of contemporary English.



You have made that abundantly clear. We disagree. Let me ask you a question. What is 'the best form of contemporary English'?


----------



## tellville (Jan 19, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> tellville said:
> 
> 
> > The English of the KJV was such that anyone who was literate in the 17th century would be able to understand and comprehend what it was saying. Maybe the concepts and such would be foreign, but the text would be understandable. The text of the KJV is no longer understandable or comprehendable to today's younger generation. So not only are the concepts foreign, the language in which they are being conveyed is foreign.
> ...


I tend to think the Bible is a perspicuous book. Is this not one of the tenets of the theoogy of the Reformation? 


armourbearer said:


> As for your idea that the language in which the concepts are being conveyed is foreign, this is simply false. You are still assuming language is static. It's not. It's dynamic. The English of the AV is still perfectly suited to convey the distinctive religious message of the Bible. This is clearly seen from the fact that when a newspaper article wants to create religious overtones the journalist will often quote the AV, e.g., "love thy neighbour," "three score and ten," etc., etc. Even popular speakers will invoke the language of the AV when they are seeking to convey a traditionalist sentiment. So you will often hear a speaker say, "Thy will be done." The style of the AV is ingrained in the English language, and it only takes a little experience in different cultural settings to see this is the case.


I would beg to differ that society’s using of certain classic statements from the Bible is an argument that the KJV is ingrained in the English language. The most this is an argument for is that _those_ statements are ingrained in the English language, not the whole KJV. A majority of the KJV is not ingrained into today’s English language. 



armourbearer said:


> tellville said:
> 
> 
> > There seems to be an assumption on your part that the KJV is the universally received and read Bible in the English world. Maybe this was the case when you were younger and for your generation but that is definitely not the case now.
> ...


I will state again, the KJV is not the universally received English Bible of _today_ and if you think so I think maybe you have been misinformed. Go to most any ethnic church in the English speaking world and the primary English translation used is the NIV. Most bilingual bibles are done in the ethnic language and NIV. As for traditional English speaking culture the KJV only unites certain packets within the Christian English speaking community. As for the younger generation thinking the world begins and ends with them: Maybe this is so. That is the nature of young people. But that doesn’t change the fact that they can’t read the KJV due to its archaic language. And you're right, Shakespeare and KJV English will live in history as classic English that will always be a part of our English programs in high school and university, but it will never again be the tongue of instruction, and thus should not be the language of the greatest instructive document: the Bible.



KMK said:


> tellville said:
> 
> 
> > My kids aren't stupid, and they don't suffer because of a poor education system.
> ...


No offense taken. My statement, while reading it again sounds harsh, was not written in a defensive tone. I just wanted to emphasize that my kids don’t suffer from a poor education. 
Also, I am not arguing necessarily for an “easy to read less accurate Bible.” I am arguing for a Bible that uses the best form of contemporary English so that the only thing holding my kids back is the foreign world of the Bible (which can be easily remedied) and not also the foreign world of KJV English (which is basically another language to these kids).


KMK said:


> tellville said:
> 
> 
> > I can read Hebrew, Greek, French, and Korean, I have an undergraduate degree in the Arts (Religion and Theology, minor in History) and I am in a Thesis based Master's degree. I have quite a firm and learned background in languages and English. But even after all this I still have difficulty reading the KJV! So how much more will those who are younger than me (24) and don't have any real training in languages or theological/biblical studies have difficulty with the English of the KJV?
> ...


Youth usually do not have the training or the patience to refer to various commentaries, lexicons, and dictionaries for both the biblical world and the KJV world so as to understand their Bible. The first readers/hearers of the Greek NT would have understood what was being said without the aid of any of these things, thus a good translation should be able to recreate this environment as much as possible. Obviously my youth are still going to have to look some things up, but I do not see why forcing them to refer to 5 different books to understand each verse of scripture they come across as beneficial and probably much more detrimental to their regular bible reading. 

How do you think Wycliffe translators translate the Bible when they go to the mission field? Do you think they try to find the loftiest, most complex, majestic, and elitist language they can to translate the Bible or do you think they translate it into the best contemporary language that the everyday person speaks in the tribe? 



”KMK” said:


> I don't know which post you are referring to but I have done no ranting or raving. I simply quoted experts.


Maybe I used a little too much hyperbole. 



tellville said:


> Should Spanish people read translations done in the 17th century? Chinese people? Russians? How utterly meaningless does a translation have to be before it is acknowledged that it needs to be updated?





”KMK” said:


> I believe "because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope." LBC 1:8


I agree 100%. But KJV English is in NO WAY the vulgar language of today. Thus, a new translation is needed. 



tellville said:


> * Ken, I would argue that the English of the KJV is not any better than the English of today, just different. Thus, literacy will not be improved by reading a Bible that uses different English than the English used today. Rather, literacy will be improved by reading a Bible that uses the best form of contemporary English.





KMK said:


> You have made that abundantly clear. We disagree. Let me ask you a question. What is 'the best form of contemporary English'?



That is an excellent question. And I think someone as lowly as myself could not give you a good answer to that question. However, I would probably say the language should reflect every day “vulgar” English, be understandable to the various different dialects of English in the world (thus not include any slang particular to a people group), and not use any language that simplifies Biblical concepts. But I am not a Bible translator nor an English expert, so I cannot be sure. But those are some qualities I think would probably at least need to be there. 

Thank you all for your replies! I really appreciate them!


----------



## KMK (Jan 19, 2008)

tellville said:


> Also, I am not arguing necessarily for an “easy to read less accurate Bible.” I am arguing for a Bible that uses the best form of contemporary English so that the only thing holding my kids back is the foreign world of the Bible (which can be easily remedied) and not also the foreign world of KJV English (which is basically another language to these kids).



I can't seem to understand which point you are arguing. Are you saying that the KJV is a 'foreign language' or it is the same language but it is too 'lofty', 'complex', 'majestic', and 'elitist'?

Any Bible that uses 'contemporary' English, even the 'best form', is by definition going to be less accurate. Contemporary English, for example, does not distinguish between 'you' plural and 'you' singular. That means any 'contemporary English' version will be less accurate.



tellville said:


> Youth usually do not have the training or the patience to refer to various commentaries, lexicons, and dictionaries for both the biblical world and the KJV world so as to understand their Bible.



That was the point of my post. We aren't necessarily doing youth any favors by making reading easier. Youth need to learn how to use lexical aids for all sorts of reasons.



tellville said:


> The first readers/hearers of the Greek NT would have understood what was being said without the aid of any of these things, thus a good translation should be able to recreate this environment as much as possible.



I don't know. From Paul's letters it sounds like the first readers were actually having great difficulty understanding the Scriptures.



tellville said:


> Obviously my youth are still going to have to look some things up, but I do not see why forcing them to refer to 5 different books to understand each verse of scripture they come across as beneficial and probably much more detrimental to their regular bible reading.



This is where you and the university professors in CA would disagree.



tellville said:


> That is an excellent question. And I think someone as lowly as myself could not give you a good answer to that question. However, I would probably say the language should reflect every day “vulgar” English, be understandable to the various different dialects of English in the world (thus not include any slang particular to a people group), and not use any language that simplifies Biblical concepts. But I am not a Bible translator nor an English expert, so I cannot be sure.



For not being an 'English expert' you certainly have some strong views about whether 'contemporary' English is better, or different than that of the KJV.


----------



## tellville (Jan 20, 2008)

KMK said:


> tellville said:
> 
> 
> > Also, I am not arguing necessarily for an “easy to read less accurate Bible.” I am arguing for a Bible that uses the best form of contemporary English so that the only thing holding my kids back is the foreign world of the Bible (which can be easily remedied) and not also the foreign world of KJV English (which is basically another language to these kids).
> ...



I am saying both. To most of my youth many parts of the KJV are basically another language. However, for me, and maybe a couple of my youth (though I doubt it) the KJV is more lofty, etc. I think both points are strong, though obviously more for those who can’t read the KJV period. 



KMK said:


> Any Bible that uses 'contemporary' English, even the 'best form', is by definition going to be less accurate. Contemporary English, for example, does not distinguish between 'you' plural and 'you' singular. That means any 'contemporary English' version will be less accurate.



Using this logic then we might as well just teach everyone to read the original Greek and Hebrew and totally abandon all translations because otherwise we are just reading something that is “less” accurate. 



KMK said:


> tellville said:
> 
> 
> > Youth usually do not have the training or the patience to refer to various commentaries, lexicons, and dictionaries for both the biblical world and the KJV world so as to understand their Bible.
> ...



And I admitted that they would still probably/should need to look things up. I just don’t think that all their Bible reading time should be spent in a dictionary but rather it should be spent in the Bible itself. 



”KMK” said:


> I don't know. From Paul's letters it sounds like the first readers were actually having great difficulty understanding the Scriptures.



Understanding the Scriptures, yes, understanding Greek, no. Big difference. 



tellville said:


> Obviously my youth are still going to have to look some things up, but I do not see why forcing them to refer to 5 different books to understand each verse of scripture they come across as beneficial and probably much more detrimental to their regular bible reading.



I addressed this above. 



KMK said:


> tellville said:
> 
> 
> > That is an excellent question. And I think someone as lowly as myself could not give you a good answer to that question. However, I would probably say the language should reflect every day “vulgar” English, be understandable to the various different dialects of English in the world (thus not include any slang particular to a people group), and not use any language that simplifies Biblical concepts. But I am not a Bible translator nor an English expert, so I cannot be sure.
> ...



I don’t think you need to be an expert in English to recognize that there are some differences between KJV English and today’s English. And the reason I have strong views is because I am a youth pastor in an ethnic church and have to actually deal with this issue. It’s not some theoretical debate for me, it’s a real issue.


----------



## MW (Jan 20, 2008)

tellville said:


> I tend to think the Bible is a perspicuous book. Is this not one of the tenets of the theoogy of the Reformation?



No. Please read WCF 1:7 for what is regarded as perspicuous, and note also the "due use of the ordinary means" as necessary to "attain unto a sufficient understanding of them."



tellville said:


> I would beg to differ that society’s using of certain classic statements from the Bible is an argument that the KJV is ingrained in the English language. The most this is an argument for is that _those_ statements are ingrained in the English language, not the whole KJV. A majority of the KJV is not ingrained into today’s English language.



Your initial complaint concerned the "language" of the AV. To what degree the AV is known by people today is irrelevant. If people are still using the language of the AV when they seek to impress certain religious ideas on people's minds then it is clear that the language of the AV is not antiquated nor that the ENglish language has "deteriorated" according to your initial claim.



tellville said:


> I will state again, the KJV is not the universally received English Bible of _today_ and if you think so I think maybe you have been misinformed. Go to most any ethnic church in the English speaking world and the primary English translation used is the NIV.



I fail to see the relevance in adverting to the practice of an "ethnic" church in order to establish what is considered standard "English" when it comes to reading the Bible. Of course if you limit context you minimise the quality of English.


----------



## KMK (Jan 20, 2008)

Mark, I thank you for your efforts in shepherding the youth that the Lord has laid in your charge. From your posts, here and in other threads, I can tell you are a godly man and take your work seriously. I would be honored if my own children were a part of your ministry. 

I fully respect your authority over your own sheep and I readily admit that you know their needs better than I.

Once again, my argument is against those who start with the premise that we must have an English version that is easier for English speaking youth to read. I assert that this is by no means foregone conclusion. Much of the English speaking literacy research shows that the English of the KJV may actually benefit young people. It at least deserves to be a topic of discussion. Yet this is a discussion that the English speaking church has, to my knowledge, overlooked in a frenzy to out-do each other with 'newer and better' English versions.



tellville said:


> I am saying both. To most of my youth many parts of the KJV are basically another language. However, for me, and maybe a couple of my youth (though I doubt it) the KJV is more lofty, etc. I think both points are strong, though obviously more for those who can’t read the KJV period.



I don't see how you can have it both ways. It is either a foreign language or it is the same language but more difficult to read.



tellville said:


> Using this logic then we might as well just teach everyone to read the original Greek and Hebrew and totally abandon all translations because otherwise we are just reading something that is “less” accurate.



I am not opposed to the idea of teaching young people to read Hebrew and Greek. But I don't think that is the point you are trying to make. I think you are saying that any English translation is going to be less accurate than the original therefore we may as well not make accuracy a primary concern. This is a belief that I wish most 'anti-KJVers' would admit up front. 'Contemporary English' is simply not as accurate as the English of the KJV. Modern version proponants are willing to trade some accuracy in favor of easier readability. My point is that maybe we don't actually need to make such a trade off in the first place.



tellville said:


> And I admitted that they would still probably/should need to look things up. I just don’t think that all their Bible reading time should be spent in a dictionary but rather it should be spent in the Bible itself.



I don't see how looking up the word 'propitiation', for example, in a dictionary is not considered time 'spent in the Bible itself'. I don't think Bible time and dictionary time are mutually excusive. And if they got better at using lexical aids, maybe it would not take as much time. This is the point of my argument. By using the KJV, maybe young people would gain more 'self advocacy' (as the experts call it) and literacy would improve.



tellville said:


> I don’t think you need to be an expert in English to recognize that there are some differences between KJV English and today’s English.



But you go beyond saying that there is just 'differences'. You say that one is 'better' and one is 'worse' for young people.

Nevertheless, brother, I honestly appreciate the work you do for the ethnic church and may the Lord bless you for the love you have for your young sheep.


----------

