# Why NOT the KJV?



## irresistible_grace (Nov 12, 2011)

If you don't use the KJV in your Corporate, Family, and/or Private worship... 
Why NOT the KJV?
What Translation do you use? Why?


----------



## rookie (Nov 12, 2011)

Personally for my own reading, church and house, I use the NSAB and the Louis Segond (French). I used the ESV when I had one, gave it to my brother in law. The reason for these translations, is that they are today's english.


----------



## TimV (Nov 12, 2011)

Because you have to translate it for most people. Last Bible study one of the guys read our study passage from the KJV even though I keep telling him it's not confessional in our situation:



> 1Ti 6:18 That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;



and I asked a young man what it meant and he had no idea. So why not just read the Bible in English?????What are some people trying to prove?


----------



## reformedminister (Nov 12, 2011)

I use and prefer the KJV in preaching, personal Bible study, and family worship. I appreciate it's historicity, the beauty of the language, and am convinced that it is a great and reliable translation.


----------



## irresistible_grace (Nov 12, 2011)

For corporate worship we typically use the NKJV (depending on who is filling the pulpit) _because_ of the pastor's preference. 

For Family worship we are using the ESV because it is in "today's english" as you say.

For private I use KJV because... What We Believe - Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland

---------- Post added at 03:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:13 PM ----------

The Importance of An Approved Translation Of The Bible


----------



## Rufus (Nov 12, 2011)

I can't speak for myself (I read out of the KJV) but for many its the archaic language and the ease of reading a different translation.


----------



## Zach (Nov 12, 2011)

I prefer the ESV translation because I find it to be both readable and accurate. To be fair though, I have never read much from the KJV other than when I cross check if the meaning is unclear or if I am using the Matthew Henry Commentary.


----------



## irresistible_grace (Nov 12, 2011)

TimV said:


> Because you have to translate it for most people. Last Bible study one of the guys read our study passage from the KJV even though I keep telling him it's not confessional in our situation:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All you quote did was prove the importance of not singling out one verse ... when read in context it makes perfect since in the KJV (which is in English). 

"Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life (1 Timothy 6:17-19 KJV)"


----------



## NB3K (Nov 12, 2011)

I read mainly from the ESV, but if it was not for Calvin, I would never known about the changes in many OT passages. I read it because I got on the ESV bandwagon.



> > Jer 31:18 I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself thus; Thou hast chastised me, and I was chastised, as a bullock unaccustomed to the yoke: turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for thou art the LORD my God.
> > Jer 31:19 *Surely after that I was turned, I repented;* and after that I was instructed, I smote upon my thigh: I was ashamed, yea, even confounded, because I did bear the reproach of my youth. KJV
> 
> 
> ...


&



> > Job 21:30 That the wicked is reserved to the day of destruction? they shall be brought forth to the day of wrath. KJV
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So while I do not use the KJV for study, it is nice to be able to use it to cross-examine other versions. I would rather see an updated Geneva Bible which from my knowledge was considered the "Protestant's" Bible.


----------



## Herald (Nov 12, 2011)

Why don't I use the KJV as my primary translation? For starters, I've used the NASB since I became a Christian in 1979. I've memorized Scripture in the NASB. I consider the NASB to be at least as faithful an English translation as the KJV. I have nothing against the KJV; I just don't prefer it.


----------



## southkogs (Nov 12, 2011)

Okay - I'll jump in.

I don't mind the KJV (I've spent a lot of time in it), but ultimately it was originally commissioned in an effort to support the divine right of kings. I think the 1635 version repaired much of the language that is suggested to have supported King James' claims to divine right, but the roots are still there. The 1599 Geneva offers a more "Calvinistic" translation (which I would say is probably more accurate). I do like the ESV and use it heavily - it's easy to read, easy to teach from and a good formal translation.

I have found that I also like to dabble in the Holman Christian Standard as well. It's a little more of a dynamic translation, but it also holds a little more tightly to gender representations of God and offers some interesting insights to context.


----------



## Weston Stoler (Nov 12, 2011)

Was in an IFB turned SBC KJV only church. As long as your not one of those people who believe the KJV is more reliable then the greek and herbrew I am fine with whatever version you use.

I use the ESV on the simple fact that I love it, and I have issues with anger at my former church and the KJV (although a wonderful and beautiful translation) brings that back up again.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Nov 12, 2011)

In all honesty, I use the NASB because: 1) what i've personally read and researched involving the manuscripts used for the NASB(i.e. alexandrian) 2) the history of the 1611 KJV 3) and the fact that we don't speak in old english terms anymore( e.g. using terms such as "unicorns": 


> Deuteronomy 33:17
> His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.
> 
> Psalm 22:21
> ...


)


----------



## jogri17 (Nov 12, 2011)

My Church is French speaking so that is why we do not for corporate worship. As for personal use, I do use it a long with the ESV. I love both. But I do think the KJV was based off of inferior manuscripts and the language has changed enough since 1611 that certain words do not reflect the meaning of the original Greek and Hebrews and modern English.


----------



## elnwood (Nov 12, 2011)

Westminster Confession, I.8:


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



The Westminster Confession (and the London Confession, in preserving the same language) tells us that we must do the missionary work of translating the Bible into the "vulgar language" of every nation. The Confession should not only lead us to support missions work in foreign lands without Bibles, but it also demands that the Bible be translated into the language as spoken by the people.

Since the KJV is no longer in the "vulgar language" of any nation, I believe the confessions teach us to use Bible translations that use modern English for modern English readers and listeners.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 12, 2011)

As has been noted before, seemingly ad nasuem, the way folks are using the word "vulgar" the KJV really was not "vulgar" in 1611. 

Also I have heard a lot of rumor surrounding the KJV but it being written to support the Divine Right of Kings is a new one.


----------



## TimV (Nov 12, 2011)

It's been noted before, but always by KJVOnlies  Outside of this forum I've never heard vulgar meaning anything other than vulgar 



> The ancestor of vulgar, the Latin word vulgris (from vulgus, "the common people"), meant "of or belonging to the common people, everyday," as well as "belonging to or associated with the lower orders." Vulgris also meant "ordinary," "common (of vocabulary, for example)," and "shared by all." An extension of this meaning was "sexually promiscuous," a sense that could have led to the English sense of "indecent." Our word, first recorded in a work composed in 1391, entered English during the Middle English period, and in Middle English and later English we find not only the senses of the Latin word mentioned above but also related senses. What is common may be seen as debased, and in the 17th century we begin to find instances of vulgar that make explicit what had been implicit. Vulgar then came to mean "deficient in taste, delicacy, or refinement." From such uses vulgar has continued to go downhill, and at present "crudely indecent" is among the commonest senses of the word.



Pretty much what any dictionary says.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Nov 12, 2011)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> As has been noted before, seemingly ad nasuem, the way folks are using the word "vulgar" the KJV really was not "vulgar" in 1611.
> 
> Also I have heard a lot of rumor surrounding the KJV but it being written to support the Divine Right of Kings is a new one.



Here's were I first encountered this idea:

No. 29- James I, Pervert and Tyrant, Part 1 WS021 - SermonAudio.com

No. 30 - James I, Pervert and Tyrant, Part II WS022 - SermonAudio.com

and I believe here also:

No. 15 - The History of the English Bible WS007 - SermonAudio.com


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 12, 2011)

Thanks James!


----------



## Unoriginalname (Nov 12, 2011)

I use the Esv for my personal study because I have it on my phone so it is always available to me. I have a KJV hardcopy I bring to church, but I only really use it in church because I didnt grow up using the KJV and learned most things NIV . I bring the KJV to church though because it looks bad to be on your phone the whole service. While I think the KJV is a good translation, I do not think it is the only one so I go for the most accurate/easily accessible version which is the ESV for me. (in case that sentence is unclear I am not saying the ESV is the most accurate, but the most accurate translation I have access to, I believe it is at least as accurate as the KJV.)


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 12, 2011)

Tim,

Interestingly enough, the primary definition of "vulgar" found in the Oxford English Dictionary (which seems like a fairly reliable resource) does not include the notion of pertaining especially to the "low orders," but rather is simply refers to (in the case of English) English as opposed to _____(something else). I still don't buy a redefinition of the term vulgar which _requires_ the necessary insertion of the term "contemporary." (And please do keep in mind that I would be all for certain semantic modernizations to the AV _provided_ the were accepted by the broad church as linguistically helpful, without changing the meaning of the passage). _Can_ vulgar involve the concept of being contemporary? Of course. _Must_ it? Of course not. More importantly, are you _positive_ the divines truly, consciously and purposefully used the term vulgar to specifically include the notion of "contemporary" such that they thereby purposefully and consciously exclude non-contemporary language? I know it has been stated here before that the WCF requires a modern translation, but are you positive (i.e., is it _demonstrable_) that such is exclusively what they meant? Or rather is it possible that they meant it simply in the standard meaning of "English, not Latin, Hebrew or Greek", such as this example from 1612 taken from the Oxford English Dictionary: "I haue giuen them vulgars, or Englishes, such as I haue deuised, to be made in Latine"? I'm not in any way suggesting the WCF somehow _requires_ an older translation or a specific translation; I _am_ asking for any shred of evidence for the oft repeated claim that the divines' use of the term "vulgar" in the WCF _*necessarily*_ invokes the legitimate subset of the definition which includes being contemporary or pertaining to the common speech of the lower orders specifically.


----------



## Claudiu (Nov 12, 2011)

I used the KJV for years, but switched to the ESV recently. But I'm trying to finish my daily readings in the KJV since it's the 400th anniversary. 

The reason for the switch is because the ESV is more understandable. I love the KJV, but people just don't understand it as well (although many on here would disagree). I don't have anything against the KJV though, and still use it in my daily reading. I'm starting to use the ESV more. As far as family and corporate worship, I use the ESV. Also, I believe the manuscripts used for the new translations (NASB and ESV) are better than the ones used for the KJV.


----------



## a mere housewife (Nov 12, 2011)

We use KJV for corporate worship; and we have a very ably read version by Alexander Scourby which I love to listen to. For private reading, I use the ESV, and the Geneva Bible. I have no understanding of textual issues; I only know that my mind is often tired when I read my Bible (even first thing in the day) and when I am tired I easily find myself reading and rereading the same lines numerous times without grasping the sense. This is aggravated by familiarity, as well as by complexity -- and both these factors (familiarity because I grew up with the KJV) play into the trouble I have in reading Scripture (I do have more trouble understanding what I am reading, than I have hearing it well read). When I was looking at various Bible versions to help with this I asked my husband which were fair game, opened to the Psalms in each of those, and fell in love with the ESV in the bookstore. I love it more deeply now: its words have been the greatest comfort of the past years. For study I use the Geneva Bible because of the wonderful notes: I have also come to dearly love this Bible.

We went to visit my husband's grandma recently after she had a stroke: she had been reading an NIV for years because of its being in use at church she attended, but she could not read it, or remember it, anymore. She could not consistently remember the names of her children. Yet she could quote long passages she had read most of her life out of the KJV. Those times of quoting Scripture (and I found out I could quote a good bit along with her) and singing familiar hymns were the only times she was joyful and comforted while we were there. Naturally this makes the KJV even more precious to me; and makes me aware of how a received and (as I understand) more universally familiar, version of Scripture can impact the comfort of laypeople (I'm afraid I also love some fairly inadequate hymns a little more now too . I think I will always find the rhythms of the KJV better for memorisation. I tend to trust its translation more where the sense conflicts with the ESV (as in Proverbs 19:27), because several people who are knowledgeable about textual issues, for whose opinion I have respect, prefer the KJV. The language of the ESV is more natural to me in prayer.

I am so grateful for the scholarship and the devoted lives behind my possession of three Bibles. I can't help wishing all people in the world had the same privilege.

(please note, that I am never sure about contributing my underinformed opinion especially to these discussions; but one of my few settled convictions on this subject is that the experience of God's normal, even underinformed, people ought to be taken into consideration. Yet I understand there are other important considerations involved and wouldn't wish to contribute my very unscholarly two cents as if I think they should count for more than merely that.)


----------



## baron (Nov 12, 2011)

I have been using the KJV in my daily bible reading , but next year I may switch back to the HCSB. The HCSB just seems to flow so nice.


----------



## seajayrice (Nov 12, 2011)

I refrain from the KJV only when seeking to antagonize firebreathing KJ onlyists types. ESV, NKJ or NAS otherwise, they are all fabulous translations and a publishers winter wonderland of profits.


----------



## TimV (Nov 12, 2011)

Heidi don't be silly, we all think you're a genius, at the very least. People read what you say several times over because of how seriously you're taken here, and that's no joke.



> Interestingly enough, the primary definition of "vulgar" found in the Oxford English Dictionary (which seems like a fairly reliable resource) does not include the notion of pertaining especially to the "low orders,"



No one said it did 



> but rather is simply refers to (in the case of English) English as opposed to _____(something else).



Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!! Like some language where communicate means giving money.



> Can vulgar involve the concept of being contemporary? Of course. Must it? Of course not.



Paul, that is simply hilarious!!! Vulgar means simply that!! What the people mean!!!




> More importantly, are you positive the divines truly, consciously and purposefully used the term vulgar to specifically include the notion of "contemporary" such that they thereby purposefully and consciously exclude non-contemporary language? I know it has been stated here before that the WCF requires a modern translation, but are you positive (i.e., is it demonstrable) that such is exclusively what they meant?



Yep 



> Or rather is it possible that they meant it simply in the standard meaning of "English, not Latin, Hebrew or Greek", such as this example from 1612 taken from the Oxford English Dictionary: "I haue giuen them vulgars, or Englishes, such as I haue deuised, to be made in Latine"? I'm not in any way suggesting the WCF somehow requires an older translation or a specific translation; I am asking for any shred of evidence for the oft repeated claim that the divines' use of the term "vulgar" in the WCF necessarily invokes the legitimate subset of the definition which includes being contemporary or pertaining to the common speech of the lower orders specifically.



You can make it as complicated and/or twisted as you want, but the chance of scores of educated people taking a secondary definition of a term that they were all familiar with, i.e. "pertaining to the lower orders" above the standard definition of "what everyone speaks" makes my head spin. Why can't "is" just mean "is"? Really!!!!


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 12, 2011)

I guess that settles it.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 12, 2011)

TimV said:


> Why can't "is" just mean "is"?



Because the AV deliberately uses archaisms, yet the AV was acceptable to the Westminster Assembly!!!!!!!!!


----------



## TimV (Nov 12, 2011)

Lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## py3ak (Nov 12, 2011)

( ! )


----------



## Reformed Thomist (Nov 12, 2011)

If Early Modern English was good enough for the Apostle Paul, it's good enough for all of ya'll.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 13, 2011)

I have never used the KJV as my private and family worship Bible until this year. In recent years it's been the NKJV. But I've been reading the KJV this year due to the 400th Anniversary and my realization that I've never read it all the way through. I've always had a high degree of respect for the KJV and some of the brethren here have helped in that regard as well. 

I've also never regularly attended a church that used the KJV as the pulpit Bible. Usually it's been the NKJV or NASB, and occasionally the NIV or increasingly the ESV.


----------



## elnwood (Nov 13, 2011)

Prufrock said:


> I know it has been stated here before that the WCF requires a modern translation, but are you positive (i.e., is it _demonstrable_) that such is exclusively what they meant? Or rather is it possible that they meant it simply in the standard meaning of "English, not Latin, Hebrew or Greek", such as this example from 1612 taken from the Oxford English Dictionary: "I haue giuen them vulgars, or Englishes, such as I haue deuised, to be made in Latine"? I'm not in any way suggesting the WCF somehow _requires_ an older translation or a specific translation; I _am_ asking for any shred of evidence for the oft repeated claim that the divines' use of the term "vulgar" in the WCF _*necessarily*_ invokes the legitimate subset of the definition which includes being contemporary or pertaining to the common speech of the lower orders specifically.



To understand what the WCF means by "vulgar," you need to read the WCF in context. "Vulgar language" is not talking particularly about English at all; it's talking about any language where Greek and Hebrew are not understood by all.



> But, because these original tongues are not known to *all the people of God*, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come



Because the original languages are not known to ALL THE PEOPLE OF GOD, the Scriptures ought to be translated into a language they understand so that they can read them and search them. Thus, "vulgar" is not specifically saying that the translation needs to be "modern" or "contemporary" or "of the lower orders." What matters is that ALL THE PEOPLE OF GOD can read and understand it.

The first definition in OED for "vulgar" is "the *common* or usual language of a country; the vernacular." "Common" means it is the language common to ALL THE PEOPLE. The WCF wants ALL THE PEOPLE OF GOD to read and search the Scriptures. Therefore, this is the definition the WCF uses.

Now, to apply the Confessions today, we need to ask is whether KJV English is the the common language in any nation today. I believe the answer to that is clearly no. Therefore, I believe the Confessions compels us to use translations in which ALL THE PEOPLE OF GOD can read and search.

The WCF could have said "all the people of God do not know Greek and Hebrew. Therefore, we ought to teach them to read the Scriptures in Greek and Hebrew." But they didn't. In the same way, I don't think it is in accordance with the WCF to say "all of the English-speaking people of God do not understand KJV English. Therefore, we ought to teach them to read the Scriptures in KJV English."

It certainly is a mark of an educated person to understand KJV English, just as it is to be able to read and understand Greek and Hebrew. However, the Confession is not concerned about giving everyone a beneficial education. It is concerned about ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD reading and searching the Scriptures, in every tribe, tongue, people and nation.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 13, 2011)

But again the KJV was not "common" or "vulgar" in 1646 or 1611 by that definition. Your average cobbler running around London in 1611 was not using "thee"/"thou" in his daily life or other language we have taken to call "KJV" language.


----------



## elnwood (Nov 13, 2011)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> But again the KJV was not "common" or "vulgar" in 1646 or 1611 by that definition. Your average cobbler running around London in 1611 was not using "thee"/"thou" in his daily life or other language we have taken to call "KJV" language.



Do you have any citations to prove this?

"Indeede without translation into the *vulgar tongue*, the unlearned are but like children at Jacobs well (which was deepe) without a bucket or some thing to draw with: or as that person mentioned by Esau, to whom when a sealed booke was delivered, with this motion, Reade this, I pray thee, hee was faine to make this answere, I cannot, for it is sealed."
- KJV original preface

The KJV was a translation into the vulgar tongue so that the unlearned could understand it. If the average cobbler in London in 1611 didn't understand it, then the KJV translators failed in their stated goals.

Today, the unlearned cannot understand the KJV. Hence, we are Confessionally bound to use an understandable translation. This is in keeping with the KJV translators' goals.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 13, 2011)

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/vulgar-v-50677/


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 13, 2011)

Don,

I thank you for your meaningful interaction on the topic.

Yes, the first definition is "the common or usual language of a country; the vernacular." That is, _the_ language that is common to all in a country, including the uneducated. I think, given our modern situation in America, with only one language (English), whic is common to both the educated (the academic and clerical class) and less educated (the "everyone else" class), it is far too easy to import a meaning to it which is, indeed, an allowable meaning, but not essential to the word itself. Do recall the situation in which the confession was drafted, and in which was carried out the debate over whether or not vulgar translations should be produced: there was a language which belonged to the common people (in England, English), and a language which belonged to the educated people (Latin, plus Hebrew and Greek for the ministerial class). The one was not vulgar, and the other was. It does not matter whether the English was written in high-styled, academic, inacessible and "fancy" prose, or whether it was the most "street-y" language out there - it was the vulgar: it was the language shared by all (even if it was difficult), not the language of the few (Latin); the style or sophistication of the language is not at issue. Poets who wrote in English were the vulgar poets - this did not necessarily mean their language would be in every case instantly comprehensible by those with no education; but it did mean they were writing in the language of the people, and which the people could come to understand without learning a new language. There is a vast, vast different between learning a new language, and learning a few new words and syntactic patterns in your native tongue. 

Is the style and vocabulary of the KJV often more difficult to comprehend for the unacquainted than the language of the HCSB or the NIV? Obviously. Is it a different language than spoken by English speakers? Hardly. Recite to yourself the 23rd Psalm, or read the first chapter of John and tell me it is a different language which requires teaching people a new language in order to understand it. 

The fact of the matter is, the language of the KJV is able to be comprehended by any English speaker. Please note (as I know this statement will be taken differently than I intend it), I do not say immediately, intuitively and entirely clear to each English speaker at each level of education. This is not what I am saying. But with a guide and a teacher, it is able to be read by anyone who can read as they slowly grow in familiarity with its style. I note you quoted the "Jacob's well" passage from the AV translators' preface; this is a good quote; but it needs to be taken in conjuction with the Reformed approach to learning the scriptures, captured by the Ethiopian Eunuch's cry, "How can I understand, except someone teach me?" A person may not understand all the words in a passage, and it may seem confusing at first: but when it is explained and taught to him, he can back and read it and understand; that could not happen with a Greek, Hebrew or Latin Bible - and I say _*this*_ is precisely the meaning of the WCF's use of the term "vulgar."

*Finally, please keep in mind* that my purpose in this thread is not to establish or set forth the merits of the AV, or to say it should be used; do not import that concept into this thread. Rather, my purpose is simply to vindicate the churches that do use the AV as their translation from the calumny that they betray the confession's teachings by using a "non-vulgar" translation. I'm not even trying to make an argument that the AV should be used by churches, but rather that it emphatically fits the Confession's definition of "vulgar," should a church decide to use it.

Again, thanks for your kind interaction, brother.

P.S. Yes, I of course understand that vulgar does not mean English; but obviously in England, the vulgar tongue is English.

P.P.S. I think you press the phrase "all the people of God" too far. If it simply means, translated into the language of a country, therefore being accessible to anyone who speaks only that language and is willing to put in the time and effort, then the phrase makes sense. If you press the meaning too far, however, we're left with trying to create a translation comprehensible to infants, small children and those who cannot read at all. Is this farther than you would press it? Of course; but such seems the inevitable conclusion of pressing it as done.

P.P.P.S Please read the citation from Whitaker in post 7 of the "Vulgar A.V." thread linked above; his use of the term is important, given the influence of his work on the first chapter of the WCF.


----------



## Grimmson (Nov 13, 2011)

I use the LXX (Greek translation of the OT) and the USB4 for church and private worship. Why? I like to work with the Greek text, its good practice, and am not constrained by interpretation of the KJV, ESV, or other English translations. 

If my USB4 or LXX is not around then I will probably use NASB, NKJV, or Young’s Literal.

For Bible teaching however I typically use the NKJV, because I like it as a translation for its updated language, style, and a couple translational corrections to the KJV. I also use it because I think it’s a good balance from KJV to ESV to NIV.


----------



## TimV (Nov 13, 2011)

> Recite to yourself the 23rd Psalm, or read the first chapter of John and tell me it is a different language which requires teaching people a new language in order to understand it.



That's not only a bad argument it's illogical. *My hand is in warm water* is the same in English and Afrikaans  so should I use that as proof they're the same language? Besides, as a youngster I never could understand why I wouldn't *want* the Lord. I was so confused! *I shall not want *indeed!! I'd never allow my kids to go through that. And why? To what purpose???? Fortunately except (mostly) in some of those micro denominations it's generally not a problem in Reformed circles anymore.


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 13, 2011)

TimV said:


> Besides, as a youngster I never could understand why I wouldn't want the Lord. I was so confused! I shall not want indeed!! I'd never allow my kids to go through that. And why? To what purpose????



Curious you should pick this as an example...

Psalm 23:1 in the NASB:
The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not want.

Psalm 23:1 in the ESV:
The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.

I'm very glad someone sat down with you when you were a youngster and helped you understand the verse, just as I'm thankful that someone sits down with many children today who use the contemporary ESV or NASB translations which word it exactly the same way and explain it to them; the words and phrases are explained and confusion is removed, so the child understands and can successfully read it over and over again throughout his or her life.

Peace brother,
Paul


----------



## TimV (Nov 13, 2011)

Uh, well, there was a classic case of posting without thinking.....


----------



## Hebrew Student (Nov 13, 2011)

Hey Everyone!

I don't think, from my perspective, it is a matter of *not* using the KJV. It is a matter of *how* the KJV is used. The KJV is very good in terms of wording things in English in cases where no further information has been found about the Hebrew text, or where the English is not archaic. I like to use the KJV in this regard, as a translation, because it was written during the golden age of English.

Still, as I mentioned on the other thread, in terms of our understanding of Biblical Hebrew, I believe the KJV is outdated. There has been much light that has been shed on the text of the Hebrew Bible since the publication of the KJV, due to studies in linguistics, archaeology, and the decipherment of other Ancient Near Eastern languages. As far as translations go, I like to use the NASB, and I was introduced to the ESV, although I don't like it as much as the NASB. I will also use the NIV if I need a translation that is more meaning for meaning rather than word for word, but normally the translations I will consult are the NASB and sometimes the ESV. If there is an issue of English style in cases where no further information has been found about the Hebrew text, or where the English is not archaic, then I [surprisingly probably to most people] don't mind consulting the KJV.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## elnwood (Nov 13, 2011)

Hi Paul,

Thank you also for the interaction.

My response is simply this: what was the purpose of translating into the vulgar? The stated purpose in both the KJV preface and the WCF was that so as many people could read and search the Scriptures for themselves. This may not include infants, but it would include those who could not read. The Scriptures ought to be read to them such that they understand.

This is not to deny that Scriptures do not need to be taught. You brought up the Ethiopian eunuch, but his misunderstanding wasn't "not understanding all the words in a passage," as you seem to suggest. His confusion was theological: he did not know about whom the prophet was speaking. Yes, "with a guide and a teacher, it is able to be read by anyone who can read as they slowly grow in familiarity with its style," but I don't think the Word of God was intended to read this way. The time and energy of the teacher ought to be spent teaching about explaining the theology, not helping the learner understand what the words mean. The new believer ought to be immersing himself or herself in the rich meaning of the Scriptures, not struggling over understanding what it says.

The 23rd Psalm and John 1 seem easily comprehensible because we've heard them quoted so many times, but even those are difficult to understand for those who did not grow up in the Church. Take the first two verses of Psalm 23. "The Lord is my shepherd." So far, so good." "I shall not want." I shall not want ... what? I shall not want anything? Is this teaching a Buddhist-type of repressing our desires? "He maketh me lie down in green pastures." He's making me lie down? Why is he forcing me to do this?

Even in something as straight-forward as Psalm 23, the KJV language is unnatural at best, and conveys the wrong meaning at worst. No one says "want" without a direct object, so it's not immediately understood, and we might instead substitute "anything" as the object. "He makes me" implies that someone is forcing you to do something against your will." A better translation from the Hebrew would be "The Lord is my shepherd. I have everything I need. He lets me lie down in green meadows." It fulfills the three standard guidelines for Bible Translation: clear, accurate, and natural.

As you can see, there is a huge potential for misunderstanding even in these relatively simple passages. There are many passages in the KJV which are much more difficult, and easier to misunderstand! For example, reading 1 Thessalonians 5:22 in the KJV, "Avoid every appearance of evil," has been the source of all kinds of legalism among fundamental KJV churches. Generations of Bible teachers failed to prevent this misunderstanding because it looks so clear in the KJV, causing untold harm.

You stated that you are seeking to affirm KJV English as a "vulgar language" in order to defend those Reformed congregations that use it. From my view, I am seeking to be true to the vision of the KJV translators and the WCF authors for the Word to be understood by as many people as possible. Perhaps you are right, and that under a technical definition KJV English is a "vulgar language" today. But is using a difficult-to-understand Bible version really what the KJV translators and the WCF drafters would have wanted 400 years later?


----------



## DMcFadden (Nov 13, 2011)

I use the KJV almost exclusively this year (in honor of the 400th anniversary).
* Great historical significance
* Unparalleled scholarship of the translators (probably the only work of art ever accomplished by a committee)
* Majesty of the language (since so much of the Bible is poetic in the original, it is good to have a translation that moves the emotions as well as the intellect and will)
* Historically documented impact upon the language, culture, and literature of the English speaking world
* And, as to the deliberately "old fashioned" English of the translation in 1611 in making use of already archaic forms, cf. Ryken, McGrath, Campbell, and pretty much any serious history of the KJV done by Oxford University Press

NEXT year, I will use the ESV for my preaching, teaching, and devotions. I love the ESV and consider it a worthy successor to the KJV, at least that is what the Crossway marketing people told me to repeat over and over when they put me in the "special" chair and did the water drop treatment on me. 

Seriously, despite my preference for the Majority Text, the hegemony of the ESV is just too great for me to overcome. As the Borg used to say in the Star Wars series: "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated." Lacking the assimilation resistance skills of Jean-Luc Picard and the escape ability of Seven of Nine, I have surrendered all individual choice and will take my place in the Crossway-ESV collective in January.


----------



## Tim (Nov 13, 2011)

I do not think the KJV is that difficult to understand, and I have only been using it for about a year or two.


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 13, 2011)

Hello Don,

I will give three points in response, and then leave the last word to you if you should desire anything more to say on the matter; I will of course carry on the discussion if you would like, but I am content to let the matter rest here if you are.

1. For clarification, I do not mention the Ethiopian Eunuch as an example of one having difficulty with language; but simply for the broader fact that we are never expected to be without guides to help us understand the Word - and that includes the language of the Word. Someone may have confusion about the wording or language of a passage, but those students which listen to a sermon or lesson on the passage, or who take time to have the passage explained to them, walk away understanding the wording for the rest of their lives, and can thenceforth read it just as any other English literature. 

2. I find it fascinating that both you and Mr. Vaughan, after I mentioned Psalm 23, proceeded to show the danger of a "non-vulgar" translation from the confusion wrought by the obscure and archaic language of the King James version in this passage - when it is _exactly_ the same wording as found in both the NASB and ESV, two of the most widely used contemporary translations, which I highly doubt anyone would accuse of being not-in-the-vulgar language. Both the ESV and NASB state (verbatim): "The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not want; he makes me lie down in green pastures." So you have just made the positive case that the ESV and NASB are too removed from the vulgar, since you explicitly stated that, *on the basis of the two word choices in this passage* (1. The use of "want" without a direct object, and 2. the use of "he makes me"), that therefore "the language is unnatural at best, and conveys the wrong meaning at worst." This at least makes me pause to wonder how much emotion and prior assumption is the driving force behind much of this argumentation.

3. In answer to your question, yes, I fully believe based upon the way theologians used the concepts of "vulgar" and "vernacular" at the time, they would still today accept the AV as meeting the criteria, as per the Whitaker reference I provided earlier. Again, I'm not saying in this argument that it is required or even recommending it (I want to leave those issues out of this conversation), but merely stating that the KJV today still fits their understanding of "vulgar" and that churches which use the translation are not betraying the spirit of the WCF.

Peace, brother.


----------



## elnwood (Nov 13, 2011)

Paul, I don't have much to add, other than I believe that the NASB and ESV have the same flaw as the KJV. Because the KJV language is so familiar, translators (wrongly, in my opinion) are biased towards preserving the familiar language.

The problem is exacerbated even more in the last verse, that I will dwell in the house of the Lord "forever." But, forever is not what the Hebrew says! The literal rendering is "for length of days, "and HCSB gets the meaning correct when it translates it "as long as I live."


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 13, 2011)

Interesting, Don; thank you for the clarification. I think that fact greatly changes the nature of the conversation.

Also, please accept my apologies if you thought me too harsh when I said, "This at least makes me pause to wonder how much emotion and prior assumption is the driving force behind much of this argumentation." I do not mean to actually accuse you of being led solely by prior assumption and not by reasons; but I just found it most remarkable and curious that, in sequence, both parties made the same seemingly unusual statements about the KJV's use of confusing language in Ps. 23, which at least had to give me pause.


----------



## elnwood (Nov 13, 2011)

Prufrock said:


> Interesting, Don; thank you for the clarification. I think that fact greatly changes the nature of the conversation.
> 
> Also, please accept my apologies if you thought me too harsh when I said, "This at least makes me pause to wonder how much emotion and prior assumption is the driving force behind much of this argumentation." I do not mean to actually accuse you of being led solely by prior assumption and not by reasons; but I just found it most remarkable and curious that, in sequence, both parties made the same seemingly unusual statements about the KJV's use of confusing language in Ps. 23, which at least had to give me pause.



Thank you, Paul, I appreciate it.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 13, 2011)

I am stuck on the KJV. I prefer it. I had an 8th grade education when I quit school. I picked up a KJV Bible after becoming a Christian by reading the Living Bible Paraphrase. I had very little problem working my way through the KJV and the extra work was well worth the pay off. I don't buy the Archaic excuse. It is just something that people use because it is spouted off enough times that others believe it. I am living proof that that is true. I totally was a flunky and completely failed my 9th grade and quit school when I turned 16. 

I still believe it is the best translation manuscript wise for the most part and English wise. There is much benefit to be gained by reading such a great translation. I do read other translations also. I bought my kids ESV's and NKJV's. I am not scared of them. I am not a eclectic text guy. Theodore Letis does a good job explaining what I hold to and why. 

I use to joke about this issue at one time. The older I get, the more informed I become about the issue, the more grateful I am for the Providence of God's work in providing the KJV. I still believe it is the best.


----------



## arielann81 (Nov 14, 2011)

I'm new to Reformed Theology as of this summer and have grown up with the NIV. I recently asked my husband to buy me a Reformation Study Bible from Ligonier Ministries that is an ESV version. Since getting that I'm appreciating the notes but still miss the verses I memorized through the NIV. I've become a bit biased to the ESV now since I'm hungry for truth and want something more accurate yet not as far from what I came from.

I've never learned to appreciate the KJV and due to this would probably not recommend it to others. I think about it like this. The ESV used the KJV as a standard during creation (at least this is what I'm told from teachers I respect) and is the most accurate aside from KJV in English. Reading through the comments that have come before allow me to respect those with a different position but in the end I will use what I feel will be the most effective in ministry as well as for my own maturity and edification. I liken it to people who enjoy Shakespeare and those who don't. If you take each verse of a sonnet apart you may get much more from it but overall the context may be too much for a clear meaning to come across. The bible was never intended to be read a verse here or there. Paul wrote letters that were intended to be read in full. Verse headings were added later. If a translation loses meaning when taken in the full context of a book then issues "may" arise. Martin Luther wanted the bible put in the language of the people even though "the church" feared the mis-interpretation of scripture as a result. This happens all the time but are we going to allow someone else to interpret scripture for us or stand with Luther on the view that the average person has this right? I think the Holy Spirit makes scripture ring true or not... in spite of the version. I agree with all of those that said we should compare versions if we are unclear. The meaning is what is important.

I have worked with women going through un-planned pregnancies as an alternate house mother for a home that provided support during their pregnancy. These women were very hesitant in church settings as it was because they already felt like they would be "made into a project" by someone and were often correct in this fear unfortunately. While living in the house they were required to attend services on Sundays and support groups throughout the week. I often had girls come into my room crying, begging me that they would not have to go back. I would generally run down the list of questions like: Was it just one person you had issues with? People are human and make mistakes and that doesn't mean they are representative of everyone or the church as a whole. They responded with feeling like a general judgment was experienced. They didn't have any other support system in their lives and had been abandoned by the men responsible for the pregnancy. When walking them through scripture I wanted it to be something they could readily understand and feel applicable to their lives. I still volunteer on the side at times but I don't think I would use a version that asked them to also decipher meaning. Yes, I believe that those God chooses will come to Him in spite of what I do but I also believe it's best to make whatever I do as easy as possible for God to do his work. If someone can understand the meaning of his word then I see that as "getting out of the way," to a greater degree so God can work in their hearts. If they feel like the language of the version is boring, lol, which is often what I hear, then this is getting in the way of what God may have for them in the meaning of his word. I'm not sure if others in ministry have encountered this but that may be a topic for another thread. Ultimately I want to serve those God calls me to be around the best I can. My utmost for his highest right? It's not just about what I prefer since what I'm using will indirectly influence someone who wants to be like me, or comes in contact with me, depending on how they see me. It's relational and the only reason I'm here still is to serve Christ (to live is Christ Phil. 1:21) and the mechanism he uses to bring about salvation in the lives of others. It boggles my mind, but if God is going to use me I want everything I do to make it the easiest for him to reach others. This includes the version of the Bible I read.


----------



## ericfromcowtown (Nov 14, 2011)

I use the ESV because of its accuracy and readability. I have nothing against the KJV (it's a fine translation with a splendid history), only rabid KJV-onlyists.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Nov 14, 2011)

I constantly compare the KJV, ESV and NASB when studying. I still feel most comfortable with the NASB, since that is what I was given as a young adult as my first "serious bible." Like many, I started with "Good News for Modern Man" and then when my reading comprehension picked up, I got another version. I don't consider anything to be "wrong" with the KJV. However, I think the militant-strain KJVOnly folks have worked hard to push folks away to the NASB, ESV and NIV. And that is a shame, as the KJV is so majestic and historical.


----------



## 3John2 (Nov 14, 2011)

reformedminister said:


> I use and prefer the KJV in preaching, personal Bible study, andThi family worship. I appreciate it's historicity, the beauty of the language, and am convinced that it is a great and reliable translation.



This.


----------



## Weston Stoler (Nov 15, 2011)

arielann81 said:


> I'm new to Reformed Theology as of this summer and have grown up with the NIV. I recently asked my husband to buy me a Reformation Study Bible from Ligonier Ministries that is an ESV version. Since getting that I'm appreciating the notes but still miss the verses I memorized through the NIV. I've become a bit biased to the ESV now since I'm hungry for truth and want something more accurate yet not as far from what I came from.
> 
> I've never learned to appreciate the KJV and due to this would probably not recommend it to others. I think about it like this. The ESV used the KJV as a standard during creation (at least this is what I'm told from teachers I respect) and is the most accurate aside from KJV in English. Reading through the comments that have come before allow me to respect those with a different position but in the end I will use what I feel will be the most effective in ministry as well as for my own maturity and edification. I liken it to people who enjoy Shakespeare and those who don't. If you take each verse of a sonnet apart you may get much more from it but overall the context may be too much for a clear meaning to come across. The bible was never intended to be read a verse here or there. Paul wrote letters that were intended to be read in full. Verse headings were added later. If a translation loses meaning when taken in the full context of a book then issues "may" arise. Martin Luther wanted the bible put in the language of the people even though "the church" feared the mis-interpretation of scripture as a result. This happens all the time but are we going to allow someone else to interpret scripture for us or stand with Luther on the view that the average person has this right? I think the Holy Spirit makes scripture ring true or not... in spite of the version. I agree with all of those that said we should compare versions if we are unclear. The meaning is what is important.
> 
> I have worked with women going through un-planned pregnancies as an alternate house mother for a home that provided support during their pregnancy. These women were very hesitant in church settings as it was because they already felt like they would be "made into a project" by someone and were often correct in this fear unfortunately. While living in the house they were required to attend services on Sundays and support groups throughout the week. I often had girls come into my room crying, begging me that they would not have to go back. I would generally run down the list of questions like: Was it just one person you had issues with? People are human and make mistakes and that doesn't mean they are representative of everyone or the church as a whole. They responded with feeling like a general judgment was experienced. They didn't have any other support system in their lives and had been abandoned by the men responsible for the pregnancy. When walking them through scripture I wanted it to be something they could readily understand and feel applicable to their lives. I still volunteer on the side at times but I don't think I would use a version that asked them to also decipher meaning. Yes, I believe that those God chooses will come to Him in spite of what I do but I also believe it's best to make whatever I do as easy as possible for God to do his work. If someone can understand the meaning of his word then I see that as "getting out of the way," to a greater degree so God can work in their hearts. If they feel like the language of the version is boring, lol, which is often what I hear, then this is getting in the way of what God may have for them in the meaning of his word. I'm not sure if others in ministry have encountered this but that may be a topic for another thread. Ultimately I want to serve those God calls me to be around the best I can. My utmost for his highest right? It's not just about what I prefer since what I'm using will indirectly influence someone who wants to be like me, or comes in contact with me, depending on how they see me. It's relational and the only reason I'm here still is to serve Christ (to live is Christ Phil. 1:21) and the mechanism he uses to bring about salvation in the lives of others. It boggles my mind, but if God is going to use me I want everything I do to make it the easiest for him to reach others. This includes the version of the Bible I read.



When typing this I would like to make clear I would never use the KJV. However this is for pride and stubborn reasons because I was an avid member and fighter of the faith for and IFB KJVonly church. 

That being said the KJV is a beautiful translation and those who you say call it "Boring" are okay to call it that, however if that impedes them in their study of the scriptures when you quote them or their church quote them I really don't see the KJV being the agent of that. If I was to read the KJV (which I haven't in 3 years) and someone told me it was boring and that it impedes their understanding of the text (even after I lovingly explained it to them) then it is most likely not the KJV they are misunderstanding but the Bible in general.


----------



## J. Dean (Nov 15, 2011)

1.) The KJV was translated using far less manuscript resources than we now have for later translations.
2.) The KJV was translated in reaction to the Geneva Bible. I had read that James did not like the notes of the Geneva Bible (done by the Reformers) and so comissioned his own translation. BTW, the Puritans, when they came here, used the Geneva Bible, NOT the KJV.
3.) The KJV has archaic language that can be misunderstood. For example, the word "conversation" when used in the KJV refers to a person's behavior, but the modern person understands the word "conversation" to mean a verbal dialogue between people. It's pointless to encumber people with such potential for misunderstanding, when a more modern translation takes care of this problem more easily.
4.) The construction of the KJV, while aesthetically pleasing to those who love older English, can be laborious and tiresome for people to read. Don't we want to REMOVE hindrances to understanding the Word of God instead of adding to them?
5.) It's just not the best translation. The NASB, ESV, and even the NIV in some instances does better in handling certain passages than the KJV does. Again, this is because more manuscript evidence is available, and scholars can work better with the addition of information.
6.) While this is not true in all cases, I find too many "KJV only" people associated with the KJV. James White has done a very good job of refuting this position in a book he wrote.


----------



## Damon Rambo (Nov 15, 2011)

I do not use the KJV, because I believe that it's underlying manuscript is fault-laden. It disagrees even with earlier versions of its own manuscript lines, in some pretty significant places. I prefer a translation that has a better documented, well substantiated underlying manuscript...preferably assembled by protestants, rather than Catholics.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Nov 15, 2011)

I see a lot of emotion being use as justification in this thread. Justifying not using the KJV with the sole argument that you don't like KJV Onlies is completely absurd. This is as absurd as an Arminian pointing to Servetus as justification to reject calvinism. Many unbelievers point the the hypocrisy of some believers as justification for their unbelief, I wonder how this will work at the judgment seat.

Choosing a bible base on emotion is a flawed approach. Bibles should not be picked based on how it makes you feel and how easy to read it is, faithfulness to God's actual words should be the primary criteria. If the most accurate version available uses a richer language then this is the perfect opportunity to learn new words  I wonder how that would work, hmm sorry God I stumble on few words I didn't understand right away so I just stop reading the "literary" version of your word, even if it was more accurate, and just looked at the pictures in the comic book version. (I'm exaggerating but you get the point I hope  )

The controversy over bible versions is primarily a textual one. Comparing the KJV with newer versions is like comparing apples to oranges, first you need to determine which textual tradition should be preferred (Textus Receptus/Ecclesiastical Text or the Critical text). Once this is settled then you investigate which bible translation (translated from the same textual tradition) is the best. Using arguments like the KJV was translated to supplant the Geneva Bible does absolutely nothing to justify the new version based on the Critical Text. The Geneva and the KJV used the same underlying Greek text therefore they are good candidate for comparison. The new versions all use the Critical Text therefore if they are to be compared they should be compared to one another. 

Accepting both textual tradition as equally valid is the same as accepting Arminianism and Calvinism as equally valid exposition of scriptures. Then you would start comparing the Free Will Baptist statement of faith and the Westminster Confession of faith and argue which one you should be used based on which one is easier to read or which one in your opinion is better translated (if it would be translated in a different language from which it was originally written).


----------



## tarrda (Nov 15, 2011)

the very first translation I used was the KJV in the Giddions NT given to me in the 5th or 6th grade, (I didn't become a Christian until I was @20), then I breifly used a Good News for Modern Man, and after being born again, a Chaplin Moore on my ship went to shore in Italy?, (not sure) and bought me a New Scofield Ref bible, in KJV, I really liked the cross references but the footnotes didn't make much sense a lot of times. Tried the Living Bible but didn't like it, tried the NIV and found it a little wanting, then the NASB came out and I stuck with it along with the NKJV and ESV, I still use the KJV but like to compare it with one of the 3 just mentioned to clear up some passages. I really like the New Geneva Study bible, bought before the name change and even have a 1599 Geneva bible Calvin Legacy Edition, for me it has a lot to do with the study aids and notes and cross references which I found in the New Geneva study bible to be real good, (now called the Reformation Study Bible) oh my NGSB is New King James.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Nov 15, 2011)

J. Dean said:


> 1.) The KJV was translated using far less manuscript resources than we now have for later translations.



Maybe but these manuscripts agree with the vast majority of manuscripts known to us today therefore this is a misleading statement. Actually it is the Revisers who gave greater weight to the minority of contradicting Alexandrian manuscripts as opposed to the vast majority of Byzantine manuscripts (which support the textus receptus) when creating their new text.



J. Dean said:


> 2.) The KJV was translated in reaction to the Geneva Bible. I had read that James did not like the notes of the Geneva Bible (done by the Reformers) and so comissioned his own translation. BTW, the Puritans, when they came here, used the Geneva Bible, NOT the KJV



Actually the translation of the KJV was suggested by John Reynold (a Puritan) and was approved and comissioned by King James I. And as mentioned in my previous post the Geneva and the KJV use the same underlying text, I would definitely suggest the Geneva over the newer version based on the accuracy of the underlying greek text.



J. Dean said:


> 3.) The KJV has archaic language that can be misunderstood. For example, the word "conversation" when used in the KJV refers to a person's behavior, but the modern person understands the word "conversation" to mean a verbal dialogue between people. It's pointless to encumber people with such potential for misunderstanding, when a more modern translation takes care of this problem more easily



There are many "difficult" words in new versions as well, the context ususally takes care of this.



J. Dean said:


> 4.) The construction of the KJV, while aesthetically pleasing to those who love older English, can be laborious and tiresome for people to read. Don't we want to REMOVE hindrances to understanding the Word of God instead of adding to them?



the difficulty of a passage can be dealt with some effort and research, on the other hand once the true meaning has been perverted due to paraphrasing, doctrinal and spiritual bankruptcy is the results.



J. Dean said:


> It's just not the best translation. The NASB, ESV, and even the NIV in some instances does better in handling certain passages than the KJV does. Again, this is because more manuscript evidence is available, and scholars can work better with the addition of information.



That is quite the statement, the "so called" few better translations from what I have seen are very debatable, plus when contrasted with the better translations in the KJV compared to newer version this argument is easily silenced. I suggest you read "The Revision Revised" by John Burgon.



J. Dean said:


> While this is not true in all cases, I find too many "KJV only" people associated with the KJV. James White has done a very good job of refuting this position in a book he wrote



While people are quick to point to the KJV onlies for their "bigotry" I think some of them should look in the mirror before pointing fingers.


----------



## elnwood (Nov 15, 2011)

Fogetaboutit said:


> the difficulty of a passage can be dealt with some effort and research, on the other hand once the true meaning has been perverted due to paraphrasing, doctrinal and spiritual bankruptcy is the results.



The true meaning is often perverted by the KJV. 1 Thess. 5:22 "avoid every appearance of evil" is a prime example, and the results have been fundamentalism and legalism. Recent translations correct the translation. Modern translations also have a better understanding of Hebrew. We know from Hebraic studies that Psalm 23:4 is better translated "darkest valley" (NIV, HCSB, NET, NLT) instead of "valley of the shadow of death." In other places, the KJV is simply inaccurate: "forever" is not what the Hebrew says in Psalm 23:6.

Debates on manuscripts aside, if you're starting from the presupposition that the KJV is the most accurate translation in order to justify the difficult and antiquated language, you're starting from a faulty presupposition.


----------



## arielann81 (Nov 15, 2011)

Weston Stoler said:


> When typing this I would like to make clear I would never use the KJV. However this is for pride and stubborn reasons because I was an avid member and fighter of the faith for and IFB KJVonly church.
> 
> That being said the KJV is a beautiful translation and those who you say call it "Boring" are okay to call it that, however if that impedes them in their study of the scriptures when you quote them or their church quote them I really don't see the KJV being the agent of that. If I was to read the KJV (which I haven't in 3 years) and someone told me it was boring and that it impedes their understanding of the text (even after I lovingly explained it to them) then it is most likely not the KJV they are misunderstanding but the Bible in general.



I agree with you on the comment about reactions being to the Bible itself instead of the version. I guess I feel the version I'm most excited about is going to come across when I relate to people. When it comes down to it, I'm going to use whatever version is available at the time. Of course if I'm asked I will related what I'm fond of but would encourage the reading of the Word in general and point out that comparing versions is a helpful practice.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Nov 15, 2011)

So what am I missing here?



elnwood said:


> The true meaning is often perverted by the KJV. 1 Thess. 5:22 "avoid every appearance of evil" is a prime example



1 Thessalonians 5:22 (KJV)

22 Abstain from all appearance of evil

____________________________________

1 Thessalonians 5:22 (ESV)

22 Abstain from every form of evil

__________________________________

1 Thessalonians 5:22 (NASB)

22 abstain from every [a]form of evil. 

Footnotes:
a.1 Thessalonians 5:22 Or appearance

__________________________________

1 Thessalonians 5:22 (NKJV)

22 Abstain from every form of evil.




elnwood said:


> In other places, the KJV is simply inaccurate: "forever" is not what the Hebrew says in Psalm 23:6



Psalm 23:6
King James Version (KJV)

6Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD *for ever*.

_______________________________________

Psalm 23:6 (NASB)

6 Surely goodness and lovingkindness will follow me all the days of my life, 
And I will dwell in the house of the LORD *forever*. 

_________________________________

Psalm 23:6 (ESV)

6Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life,and I shall dwell in the house of the LORD *forever.*

______________________________________

Psalm 23:6 (NKJV)


6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me All the days of my life; And I will dwell in the house of the LORD *Forever*.




elnwood said:


> Modern translations also have a better understanding of Hebrew. We know from Hebraic studies that Psalm 23:4 is better translated "darkest valley" (NIV, HCSB, NET, NLT) instead of "valley of the shadow of death."



Psalm 23:4(KJV)


4Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

___________________________________

Psalm 23:4(ESV)

4 Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff,they comfort me.

_________________________________

Psalm 23:4 (NASB)


4 Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for You are with me; Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me. 


____________________________________


Psalm 23:4 (NKJV)

4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; For You are with me; Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me.




elnwood said:


> if you're starting from the presupposition that the KJV is the most accurate translation in order to justify the difficult and antiquated language, you're starting from a faulty presupposition



My position is that the Greek Text underlying the KJV is supperior than the Critical Text. I also do not believe the language of the KJV is antiquated and I was just pointing out that it is an invalid reason to reject the KJV.


----------



## Wayne (Nov 15, 2011)

Dr. Ben Shaw has taken this past year to write much on the KJV. 

In one of his last posts on the subject, his third point has been particularly helpful:

gptsrabbi: Concluding Thoughts on the KJV


----------



## TimV (Nov 15, 2011)

> My position is that the Greek Text underlying the KJV is supperior the Critical Text.



Isn't that a bit simplistic?? Erasmus didn't even have the whole New Testament.


----------



## DMcFadden (Nov 15, 2011)

I agree that much of this thread is driven by emotional reasons (both pro and con).

Full disclosure: I was educated by broad evangelicals, learned Greek with a UBS text 40 years ago this fall, and was taught that the TR (and Byzantine tradition generally) was not the "oldest and most reliable" textual tradition. Furthermore, I did not even "touch" a KJV after the NASB and NIV came out (and then the ESV) until the last few years. And, my favorite Bible translation is the ESV (peer pressure).

However, some of the "superiority of the modern translation" arguments are just plain wrong. And, there are so many splendid facts about the KJV that I did not realize until researching it for this anniversary year.

1. I am NOT convinced that finding 3 mss in the Egyptian desert is a reason to overturn the 90-95% of the extant mss. in the Byzantine tradition. And, the so-called "oldest and most reliable" mss. differ from each other in so many places that it is difficult to take the descriptor "more reliable" all that seriously.
2. The language of the KJV does something that few modern translations do: it appeals to the emotive as well as the cognitive and volitional. Given that such a high percentage of the Bible is poetry, wouldn't it seem reasonable that "majesty" and "beauty" ought to be characteristic of the translation? Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek do not have to sound like a shopping list at the grocery store.
3. Yes, the linguistic advances in Hebraic studies afford additional insight into the text. However, just about any of the modern translations is just as problematic for other reasons.

And, let's get real: * the KJV is NOT difficult to understand compared to some modern translations that require a high level of reading ability.
* the modern translations based upon the critical text ARE the Word of God, regardless of what the KJVO nuts say.

Like it or don't like it; use it or don't use it. But, quit treating it as if it were Protestantism's crazy aunt in the antic. It is the most magnificent rendering of the Word of God into English ever produced by some of the finest scholars ever active in an English-speaking country.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Nov 15, 2011)

TimV said:


> Isn't that a bit simplistic?? Erasmus didn't even have the whole New Testament.



Well as I have said in a previous post, manuscripts found after that have given more weight to the Textus Receptus. Also let's remember that Erasmus is not the only one to have worked on compiling this Greek text, Stephanus, Beza and the Elzevirs also did some work in this area. Actually if I'm not mistaken the translators of the KJV primarily used the the 5th Edition of Beza to translate the new testament.

If you read "The Traditional Text of the Holy Scriptures" and "The Revision Revised" by John Burgon it should help you to appreciate the text underlying the KJV a bit better. He demonstrates the trustworthiness of the Textus Receptus by appealing to early fathers, early versions (older than Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) and the vast majority of Byzantine manuscripts, plus he exposes the depravity of the Alexandrian MSS especially Vaticanus (B) , Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Bezae (D) which were given greater weight by Westcott and Hort while rejected by the editors of the Textus Receptus. (only Sinaiticus has been discovered after the compilation of the Textus Receptus)


----------



## Martin (Nov 15, 2011)

I have always been a KJV reader myself. I am not KJV only but it is my preferred translation to read from. That said, I read, study, and teach from the NASB, NKJV, and ESV.

I have not read all of the replies so forgive me if it has been mentioned, but one thing that I think is a plus for the KJV is longevity. It has been around unchanged for centuries unlike most modern translations that seem to be revised or updated fairly regularly. That is just my  though.


----------



## bookslover (Nov 15, 2011)

Damon Rambo said:


> I do not use the KJV, because I believe that it's underlying manuscript is fault-laden. It disagrees even with earlier versions of its own manuscript lines, in some pretty significant places. I prefer a translation that has a better documented, well substantiated underlying manuscript...preferably assembled by protestants, rather than Catholics.



Most of the KJV translators were Anglicans - as J. I. Packer loves to remind us non-Anglican Protestants!

---------- Post added at 11:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 PM ----------




Eric said:


> I have always been a KJV reader myself. I am not KJV only but it is my preferred translation to read from. That said, I read, study, and teach from the NASB, NKJV, and ESV.
> 
> I have not read all of the replies so forgive me if it has been mentioned, but one thing that I think is a plus for the KJV is longevity. It has been around unchanged for centuries unlike most modern translations that seem to be revised or updated fairly regularly. That is just my  though.



Well, not entirely unchanged. There was a major tweaking of the KJV by a committee of scholars from Oxford and Cambridge universities in the 1760s. That is the KJV you buy at the bookstore today.

---------- Post added at 11:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:21 PM ----------

I read the ESV because I live in the 21st century, not the 17th.

At church, we use the NASB (groan...).


----------



## Martin (Nov 15, 2011)

bookslover said:


> There was a major tweaking of the KJV by a committee of scholars from Oxford and Cambridge universities in the 1760s




Yes, this was the last one know to me. Thankfully, because the original is unreadable to me.




bookslover said:


> I read the ESV because I live in the 21st century, not the 17th.



Yes, I have to read the other translations at times to help me understand passages. It is really more of a preference issue Also, at times the language can slip up in everyday conversation. I have found myself saying "peradventure" lately.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Nov 16, 2011)

elnwood said:


> Fogetaboutit said:
> 
> 
> > the difficulty of a passage can be dealt with some effort and research, on the other hand once the true meaning has been perverted due to paraphrasing, doctrinal and spiritual bankruptcy is the results.
> ...



I think most of us who have studied this issue realize that there are some serious issues with the TR text that the KJV was based on. What most people probably don't realize are the equally serious issues that exist within the critical text. Dr. Maurice Robinson has created a list of all the readings within the critical text that have no textual support in any manuscript anywhere. Essentially they have come to passages where Sinaticus and Vaticanus have disagreed and they have simply created a combination of the two readings to create a reading that is not found in any text. I consider this to be a major flaw. I also fail to see how "valley of the shadow of death" is significantly different from "darkest valley". The KJV rendering is simply intended to be poetic, which was something that people still understood back then.


----------



## Damon Rambo (Nov 16, 2011)

bookslover said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> > I do not use the KJV, because I believe that it's underlying manuscript is fault-laden. It disagrees even with earlier versions of its own manuscript lines, in some pretty significant places. I prefer a translation that has a better documented, well substantiated underlying manuscript...preferably assembled by protestants, rather than Catholics.
> ...




Brother, forgive me, but I was not referring to the KJV translation. I was referring to its underlying manuscript, the so called "Textus Receptus," whose first edition was done by Erasmus...a Roman Catholic apologist.

However, as some would point out to Mr. Packer, the Anglicans were high-churchmen whose primary difference with Roman Catholics was that they followed the Archbishop of England, rather than the Pope. Their theology for all intents and purposes was identical.


----------



## elnwood (Nov 16, 2011)

Fogetaboutit said:


> So what am I missing here?



You're missing the Hebrew. Psalm 23 was originally written in Hebrew. You listed three English translations: The KJV, and two translations that are heavily biased to preserving the KJV (NASB, ESV). The NASB and ESV are reluctant to change the KJV of Psalm 23 because it's so familiar, and they're afraid of losing their readership.

Try looking at what the actual Hebrew says, and look at some translations that are more loyal to the Hebrew than tradition -- NIV, NET, HCSB, etc.

---------- Post added at 05:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:49 AM ----------




Bill The Baptist said:


> I also fail to see how "valley of the shadow of death" is significantly different from "darkest valley". The KJV rendering is simply intended to be poetic, which was something that people still understood back then.



It's not a big deal, but unfortunately many people don't understand it as poetic. I read an article this morning claiming that "The shadow of death is a metaphor for fearing impending death," and it is commonly read at funerals. "Darkest valley" is simply more accurate, and better reflects the context of a shepherd leading his sheep through a dangerous place -- a dark valley -- and protecting the sheep such that they do not fear.


----------



## CharlieJ (Nov 16, 2011)

Damon Rambo said:


> However, as some would point out to Mr. Packer, the Anglicans were high-churchmen whose primary difference with Roman Catholics was that they followed the Archbishop of England, rather than the Pope. Their theology for all intents and purposes was identical.



Damon, I suggest you read the 39 articles sometime. You're way off here.


----------



## JennyG (Nov 16, 2011)

DMcFadden said:


> 1. I am NOT convinced that finding 3 mss in the Egyptian desert is a reason to overturn the 90-95% of the extant mss. in the Byzantine tradition. And, the so-called "oldest and most reliable" mss. differ from each other in so many places that it is difficult to take the descriptor "more reliable" all that seriously.
> 2. The language of the KJV does something that few modern translations do: it appeals to the emotive as well as the cognitive and volitional. Given that such a high percentage of the Bible is poetry, wouldn't it seem reasonable that "majesty" and "beauty" ought to be characteristic of the translation? Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek do not have to sound like a shopping list at the grocery store.
> 
> 
> ...


yes indeed!


Damon Rambo said:


> the Anglicans were high-churchmen whose primary difference with Roman Catholics was that they followed the Archbishop of England, rather than the Pope. Their theology for all intents and purposes was identical.


no, it wasn't - that may be true of the so-called "Anglo-Catholic" movement beginning with Pusey and the young Newman, but not of Anglicanism as a whole, or why did Cranmer get burned? Speaking as a cradle anglican, - no *way* was it identical to Catholicism!

I'm amazed at the widespread tendency to skip between two, three or even more different versions. However do you memorise any?
Even if the KJV had nothing else to recommend it,- instead of being the most sublime literary production known to man - , I would stick with it for that reason alone!


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Nov 16, 2011)

elnwood said:


> Fogetaboutit said:
> 
> 
> > So what am I missing here?
> ...



I think that we should all acknowledge that there is no perfect translation and there likely never will be. That is because every translation is done by men and women who are sinful and fallible. The miracle of the Scriptures is that God has supernaturally preserved their message despite the things that men would do to them.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Nov 16, 2011)

elnwood said:


> You're missing the Hebrew. Psalm 23 was originally written in Hebrew. You listed three English translations: The KJV, and two translations that are heavily biased to preserving the KJV (NASB, ESV). The NASB and ESV are reluctant to change the KJV of Psalm 23 because it's so familiar, and they're afraid of losing their readership.
> 
> Try looking at what the actual Hebrew says, and look at some translations that are more loyal to the Hebrew than tradition -- NIV, NET, HCSB, etc.



So are you suggesgting that the NIV, NET and HCSB are the best English translations available today?


----------



## TimV (Nov 16, 2011)

> Well as I have said in a previous post, manuscripts found after that have given more weight to the Textus Receptus.



Again, simplistic. We had a long thread some time ago about the last few verses of Rev. that were torn off Erasums' single copy of Rev (which was smeared too) and even a hard core KJV man admitted after checking that only 4 out of 250 Greek manuscripts containing Rev. 22:19 agree with the Textus Receptus. The various editions of both the TR and KJV ignore the overwhelming witness of Byzantine family texts where they differ.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 16, 2011)

Damon Rambo said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> > Damon Rambo said:
> ...




[Moderator]*Damon, this is either intolerable ignorance or wilful misrepresentation. You need to show (contrary to the ideas of Newton, Ryle, Toplady, and Scott, among others) that the 39 Articles are functionally Roman Catholic in their theology or withdraw this remark.*[/Moderator]


----------



## elnwood (Nov 16, 2011)

Fogetaboutit said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> > You're missing the Hebrew. Psalm 23 was originally written in Hebrew. You listed three English translations: The KJV, and two translations that are heavily biased to preserving the KJV (NASB, ESV). The NASB and ESV are reluctant to change the KJV of Psalm 23 because it's so familiar, and they're afraid of losing their readership.
> ...



I'm suggesting that the NIV, NET and HCSB translate the Hebrew of Psalm 23 more accurately than the KJV, NASB, and ESV. "Best" is highly subjective, and it depends on a variety of other factors depending on what your purpose is.


----------



## J. Dean (Nov 16, 2011)

Fogetaboutit said:


> While people are quick to point to the KJV onlies for their "bigotry" I think some of them should look in the mirror before pointing fingers.


Don't you think that's a little on the harsh side, my friend? If you enjoy the KJV, more power to you; I don't begrudge that. What I'm saying is that the KJV is not the only translation out there. That's not "bigotry," that's the truth.

In fact, it was due in part to Reformed people that I switched from the KJV (which I was raised on). For example, Francis Schaeffer deals with the passage of Daniel 3, in which Nebuchadnezzer talks about the fourth being in the furnace with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and the KJV refers to him as like "The Son of God." But Schaeffer points out (correctly) that this is an incorrect translation, and that it should be rendered "a son of the gods." It has been understood that the KJV's text can give the false impression that Nebuchadnezzer suddenly has a Messianic understanding that he simply would not have had, not to mention that the confusion is added when you later see Nebuchadnezzer refer to this same being as an angel. Do you see the potential problem?

Or how about a more basic one: thou shatle not kill? It is universally understood that a more proper rendering of this commandment is "Thou shalt not murder," and later translations have correctly made this adjustment. And rightly so, because there IS a difference between killing and murder.

I've already pointed out the difficulty of the word "conversation" as being used in the KJV, and the problem is that people will come to the text and attach a 21st century understanding and interpretation to a word that had a very different meaning in the 17th century. It simply makes more sense to upgrade the words into more relevant forms instead of running the risk of confusing the reader. Why wouldn't you want to remedy something like that which could become a potential stumblingblock? 

I've no grudge against the KJV: it served its purpose for its time. The language is beautiful, and certain passages reflect that beauty. But the KJV has its limits in some areas, and it only makes more sense to update the translation if doing so will widen the potential audience of the the Word of God. Why would you leave words or pasages in a format that open the door for serious misunderstanding when rendering a more modern translation will eliminate this problem?

Just makes sense to me.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Nov 16, 2011)

TimV said:


> Again, simplistic. We had a long thread some time ago about the last few verses of Rev. that were torn off Erasums' single copy of Rev (which was smeared too) and even a hard core KJV man admitted after checking that only 4 out of 250 Greek manuscripts containing Rev. 22:19 agree with the Textus Receptus. The various editions of both the TR and KJV ignore the overwhelming witness of Byzantine family texts where they differ.



You seem to be quite selective in you choice of verse, what about the 100s of verses which have been change based on the authority of a handfull of contradicting manuscripts against the vast majority agreeing manuscripts. I'm not debating for the perfection of any versions or specific greek texts, I'm not qualify to determine that, but I'm quite convinced that overall the TR is more reliable than the Critical Text base on the evidence we have.


----------



## TimV (Nov 16, 2011)

> You seem to be quite selective in you choice of verse, what about the 100s of verses which have been change based on the authority of a handfull of contradicting manuscripts against the vast majority agreeing manuscripts.



Which has nothing to do with the subject. I'm just pointing out the TR ignores the MT just like the CT ignores the MT.



> I'm not debating for the perfection of any versions or specific greek texts, I'm not qualify to determine that, but I'm quite convinced that overall the TR is more reliable than the Critical Text base on the evidence we have.



A lot of us here would love to see something like an MT version of the NT. I for one would prefer that over the TR or the CV because they both have the same weaknesses you're pointing out in the CT. In the mean time, I've got a NKJV and and ESV within easy reach!


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Nov 16, 2011)

J. Dean said:


> Don't you think that's a little on the harsh side, my friend? If you enjoy the KJV, more power to you; I don't begrudge that. What I'm saying is that the KJV is not the only translation out there. That's not "bigotry," that's the truth.



I was not necessarily saying this specifically for you, I was just saying that many people will accuse KJV onlies of bigotry and having bad arguments while they themselves use arguments that are just as bad and are less than "loving" when dealing with them. 9 time out of 10 this debate is done on the bases of emotions. (I know this goes both ways and I was not trying to justify one side or the other). There are bad arguments on both sides I was just pointing the "emotion" factor to try to limit the straw man tactics. Most people just accept whatever they hear without checking the validity of the arguments. I'm not trying to force my view on anybody (which is KJV priority) but I do not like seeing a misrepresentation of my views especially when invalid argument are used. I do believe this is as important as any doctrinal issues, but I also realize that utlimately only God can bring truth and agreement in theses matters.

You mentionned the few issues you have with the KJV, have you ever look a the issues with the new versions? Most issues I see people have with the KJV are somewhat trivial. The Killing vs Murdering argument to me seems somewhat less important than the hundreds of verses and words omitted in the newer version based on the Critical Text. In Genesis we see places where the word "create" is used and other places where the word "made" is used. Even if these words do not have exact same definitions, the context usually let's you know what the intended meaning is.

Even if you do not hold to the perfection of the KJV I do believe a case can be made of it greater realiabilty compared to newer versions based on the CT when you look at the big pictures.

I would not be against updating certain words in the KJV but so far I have seen no translation in English that have done that while keeping the reliablity of the Ecclisiasitcal Text/Traditional Text.

---------- Post added at 02:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:45 PM ----------




TimV said:


> Which has nothing to do with the subject. I'm just pointing out the TR ignores the MT just like the CT ignores the MT.



The TR does not ignore the MT, when the TR (the one used by the tranlators of the KJV) was compiled there was no such thing as what is now know as the MT. But I do believe that early quotations and early version can have weight in this argument. The MT deals solely with Greek MSS at least I think.


----------



## Damon Rambo (Nov 16, 2011)

py3ak said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> > bookslover said:
> ...




I will not withdraw my remark. Obviously there are differences (in this early stage especially), HOWEVER: if you read my comment in context, I was not speaking of Anglicans in general, but of the KJV translators IN PARTICULAR. Notice the past tense usage, not present tense. There is excellent evidence that the KJV translators were Maryolators (both in their writings, and in their insistence on capitalizing the word "Virgin.")

However, since you insist, in terms of High Church *structure*, it is certainly similar to Rome. Also, if you will examine article 16, which notes the possibility of losing one's salvation due to sin after baptism, baptismal regeneration, and a whole host of other issues. However, I agree with you that as a whole, the Anglican church which arose out of the English reformation is not nearly as far out on a limb as the RCC.


----------



## TimV (Nov 16, 2011)

> The TR does not ignore the MT, when the TR (the one used by the tranlators of the KJV) was compiled there was no such thing as what is now know as the MT. But I do believe that early quotations and early version can have weight in this argument. The MT deals solely with Greek MSS at least I think.



There have been over 100 editions of the TR and they all ignore the MT.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 16, 2011)

Damon Rambo said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > Damon Rambo said:
> ...




[Moderator]Damon, that is nowhere near good enough. Speaking specifically of the Anglican men who worked on the translation of the AV, you would need to show that the main point of division from Rome was not with regard to any of the solas of the Reformation, but was centered on the Pope. And you would have to do that with _documentation_, not assertions.[/Moderator]


----------



## Damon Rambo (Nov 16, 2011)

py3ak said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> > py3ak said:
> ...




Since I did not make any such assertion, there is no reason why I must show documentation. What there personal motive was for not aligning with the Church of Rome was, I know not (though certainly as a whole, Anglicanism can be traced to Henry the VIII's dalliances). My statement (if you read above) did not reference their motivation, but their actual doctrine.

Further, friend, I make absolutely no apologies for criticizing High Church Anglicanism, nor the Anglican translators of the KJV. Last time I checked, the teachings were well outside of confessional reformed teachings. Do you believe your continuing salvation is based on abstention from sin? Do you deny the Perseverance of the Saints? Do you believe in Baptismal Regeneration? While I certainly appreciate the work of men like Ryle and Newton (I have to go back and look, but I could have sworn Newton and Ryle were low-churchmen, who asserted the POS...maybe I am wrong..), I will not apologize for criticizing those who hold to popish doctrine.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Nov 16, 2011)

J. Dean said:


> In fact, it was due in part to Reformed people that I switched from the KJV (which I was raised on). For example, Francis Schaeffer deals with the passage of Daniel 3



Francis Schaeffer, while a great philosopher and apologist and a Presbyterian, was hardly reformed. For evidence, read his book "25 Basic Bible Studies"


----------



## Damon Rambo (Nov 16, 2011)

JennyG said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> > the Anglicans were high-churchmen whose primary difference with Roman Catholics was that they followed the Archbishop of England, rather than the Pope. Their theology for all intents and purposes was identical.
> ...



Have you never read Cranmer's Ten Articles? They teach:

Article 2: Baptismal Regeneration
Article 3: Confession absolution and Penance
Article 4: Transubstantiation
Article 5: "Meritorious" salvation...not Sola Fide
Article 6: Idols in Church
Article 7: Honoring of Saints and the Virgin Mary
Article 8: The INVOCATION of Saints
Article 9: Holy Water, Vestments, etc.
Article 10: Purgatory and prayer for the dead

Though Cranmer later repudiated SOME of these articles (such as Purgatory and partially transubstantiation), he did not repudiate all of them. In truth, Cranmer was put to death by a monarch that was very angry at him for facilitating her father's divorce from her mother...


----------



## DMcFadden (Nov 16, 2011)

Damon,

You are investing a large amount of energy in beating a dead horse. I doubt that we can find hardly a person in Church history -- not Tertullian, not Athanasius, not Augustine, not Anselm, not Luther, etc. -- who will meet muster to satisfy the 21st century theological sensibilities of a member of the SBC. Faulting the KJV translators for their theology is certainly your prerogative; labeling, or rather libeling, them as "Catholics" significantly misrepresents the historical data.


----------



## Whitefield (Nov 16, 2011)

Damon Rambo said:


> Though Cranmer later repudiated SOME of these articles (such as Purgatory and partially transubstantiation), he did not repudiate all of them. In truth, Cranmer was put to death by a monarch that was very angry at him for facilitating her father's divorce from her mother...



Which of those articles you find objectionable were not abandoned and/or repudiated by Cranmer in the _Forty-two Articles_ of 1552?


----------



## py3ak (Nov 16, 2011)

Damon Rambo said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > Damon Rambo said:
> ...




[Moderator]Damon, all of this is missing the point. You said that the main thing that distinguished their theology from the Roman Catholics was following the Archbishop of Canterbury rather than the pope. Either document that on the Protestant points of dissension from Rome the translators of the AV largely sided with Rome, or withdraw your remark.[/Moderator]


----------



## Damon Rambo (Nov 16, 2011)

py3ak said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> > py3ak said:
> ...




Since I didn't say they "largely sided with Rome," I am under no obligation to document that idea. Please document me saying that they "largely sided with Rome," or withdraw your statement.

Me saying that something is the "primary difference," means that it is a statement of my opinion...I never said "only difference" nor did I say they "largely sided with Rome." I am stating my opinion regarding their theology. Denial of Perseverance of the Saints, and assertion of losing ones salvation due to post salvation sin, is POPISH works righteousness, and NON REFORMED. I had to sign a statement saying that I would not teach contrary to these doctrines. By forcing me to embrace Anglicanism as legitimate, it would seem that you are in fact trying to force me to break the rules...something I will not do. Denial of PoS, and assertion of works righteousness is popish heresy.

Tell me, since when is criticizing NON REFORMED, NON CONFESSIONAL theology and theologians for their beliefs against the rules here? I can find absolutely nothing in the rules about this. I understand that you obviously have strong feelings on this issue, and I apologize if my words offended you, but you are not reading what I wrote...you are reading your thoughts into my posts.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 16, 2011)

Damon Rambo said:


> However, as some would point out to Mr. Packer, *the Anglicans were high-churchmen whose primary difference with Roman Catholics was that they followed the Archbishop of England, rather than the Pope. Their theology for all intents and purposes was identical.*


 (Emphasis added)

[Moderator]Damon, does the above statement reflect your views or not? Since you posted it, I consider that it does. This is the primary statement we are discussing, and that I am requiring you to either substantiate or withdraw. You have one post left in which to do that.

The words you wrote state that "Their [i.e., the translators of the AV] theology for all intents and purposes was identical [viz., to the Roman Catholic theology of the time]." It may be an importation into your intention, but it is not an importation into the words you wrote, to rephrase the point as I have done. A "theology" that is "for all intents and purposes" "identical" is a theology that places them largely on the side of Rome when it comes to the theological divide between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. A theology whose primary difference with Roman Catholic theology has to do with whether they follow the Archbishop or the Pope is a very similar theology. 

Opinions must be substantiated, withdrawn, or kept quiet. We are past the third option, so again, either substantiate or repudiate the quoted phrases with which this post begins.

Again, you have one post left in which to heed the moderation directed to you. It's a simple request.[/Moderation]


----------



## Damon Rambo (Nov 16, 2011)

py3ak said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> > However, as some would point out to Mr. Packer, *the Anglicans were high-churchmen whose primary difference with Roman Catholics was that they followed the Archbishop of England, rather than the Pope. Their theology for all intents and purposes was identical.*
> ...



Fine. *I withdraw my earlier statement*. Instead, let me assert that the translators of the KJV were heretics who denied the PoS, asserted a form of works righteousness, and believed Baptismal regeneration, all of which are horrific, horrible, and non-reformed doctrines. I cite the 39 articles as my proof, which was standard by this time. Do you care to share any counter proof?


----------



## py3ak (Nov 16, 2011)

[Moderator]
Damon, thank you for taking responsibility for your first statement. You may not be surprised to learn that your replacement statement is equally unacceptable.

The thread can now go back on topic. For those interested in pursuing the validity of Damon's charge, here is some information.[/Moderator]

A link to the 39 Articles:
The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion

And here are some relevant excerpts:



> Article XI
> 
> Of the Justification of Man
> 
> We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort; as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.





> Article XVII
> 
> Of Predestination and Election
> 
> ...





> Article XXVII
> 
> Of Baptism
> 
> Baptism is not only a sign of profession and mark of difference whereby Christian men are discerned from other that be not christened, but is also a sign of regeneration or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God, by the Holy Ghost are visibly signed and sealed; faith is confirmed, and grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the Church as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.


----------



## J. Dean (Nov 17, 2011)

Fogetaboutit said:


> I was not necessarily saying this specifically for you, I was just saying that many people will accuse KJV onlies of bigotry and having bad arguments while they themselves use arguments that are just as bad and are less than "loving" when dealing with them. 9 time out of 10 this debate is done on the bases of emotions. (I know this goes both ways and I was not trying to justify one side or the other). There are bad arguments on both sides I was just pointing the "emotion" factor to try to limit the straw man tactics. Most people just accept whatever they hear without checking the validity of the arguments. I'm not trying to force my view on anybody (which is KJV priority) but I do not like seeing a misrepresentation of my views especially when invalid argument are used. I do believe this is as important as any doctrinal issues, but I also realize that utlimately only God can bring truth and agreement in theses matters.


I took your argument in the wrong spirit. I humbly apologize for that and ask you to forgive me.

As to the TR vs. the CT, my question would be this: are there any differences in the texts that equate to a major change with regard to a doctrinal/theological point basic to Christianity?

---------- Post added at 07:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:48 AM ----------




Bill The Baptist said:


> J. Dean said:
> 
> 
> > In fact, it was due in part to Reformed people that I switched from the KJV (which I was raised on). For example, Francis Schaeffer deals with the passage of Daniel 3
> ...


Really? I always got the impression that he subscribed to TULIP and acknowledged God's sovereignty in conversion (See his book _True Spirituality_)


----------



## DMcFadden (Nov 17, 2011)

Someone asked me offline how I justify the issue of KJV relative readability.

Granted that Google's criteria is not available to me, here is someone's correlation of the data.







It is a little awkward to be defending the KJV since I'm an ESV and NKJV man. I simply do not want us to wrongly bad-mouth a very fine translation. Despite the archaic language in spots, it is not nearly as bad as some say. And, despite weird words such as "gay" for expensive clothing in James 2, it is pretty easy to follow most of the time.


----------



## Weston Stoler (Nov 17, 2011)

DMcFadden said:


> Someone asked me offline how I justify the issue of KJV relative readability.
> 
> Granted that Google's criteria is not available to me, here is someone's correlation of the data.



I can easily read the words but can I comprehend what I am reading? Sure I can because I have read it for so long but as a new Christian who was forced to read it I was relying on someone else's interpretation of the text. Which is why I was ultra-Dispensational, kjvonly, arminian, and many other horrible doctrines that I would not have been otherwise.


----------



## elnwood (Nov 17, 2011)

Readability metrics are based primarily on counting things like syllables per word, and syllables and words per sentence. They have nothing to do with comprehension or how difficult the individual words are.

It's the same thing you get when using Microsoft Word to calculate readability. You can even put in a foreign language and get a decent readability number.

Have any of you read the NIrV? It breaks up Paul's epistles into a whole bunch of really short sentences.


----------



## JML (Nov 17, 2011)

DMcFadden said:


> Someone asked me offline how I justify the issue of KJV relative readability.
> 
> Granted that Google's criteria is not available to me, here is someone's correlation of the data.
> 
> ...



I disagree with this chart. I find the Message absolutely unreadable.


----------



## SRoper (Nov 17, 2011)

I don't use the KJV because I didn't grow up with it and never went to a church that used it. I use the ESV primarily because the church I attend uses it, and I think it is very readable.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Nov 17, 2011)

J. Dean said:


> As to the TR vs. the CT, my question would be this: are there any differences in the texts that equate to a major change with regard to a doctrinal/theological point basic to Christianity?



Well definitely the primary one would be the infallibility of God's word. I'm not againt greek or hebrew words being translated differently in some instances as long as the meaning of the verse is not hindered, but when you have complete verses, partial verses, sometime entire sections of a text (Mark 16:9-20) omitted or being put in doubt by footnotes, and at other place readings created by taking portion for differents MSS (See "The Revision Revised" by John Burgon for examples) then we definitely have problems, escpecially when the MSS used for the bases of these changes are very suspicious. (These manuscripts don't even agree with each other on many instances)


This is certainly not an exhaustive list but here a few verses which support and Arminian view in many new version.

1 Timothy 2:3-5 (the KJV says "God *will* have all men to be saved" as men from all nation, classes etc, but the NKJV, ESV, NIV, NASB all have "God *desires (or wants)* all men (or people) to be saved" )

2 Peter 3:9 (The KJV says God "not *willing* that any should perish" while the ESV, NASB, NIV all says that God is "not *wishing (or wanting)* for any to perish") 

Of course the context of those verse is concerning the elects.


----------



## Whitefield (Nov 17, 2011)

Fogetaboutit said:


> 2 Peter 3:9 (The KJV says God "not *willing* that any should perish" while the ESV, NASB, NIV all says that God is "not *wishing (or wanting)* for any to perish")



I am missing the nuance as to why "not wishing for any to perish" is a more effective tool in the hand of the Arminian than "not willing that any should perish."


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Nov 17, 2011)

Whitefield said:


> I am missing the nuance as to why "not wishing for any to perish" is a more effective tool in the hand of the Arminian than "not willing that any should perish."



Most Arminian will agree that God "will" accomplish his will, which in their eyes is to save all those who "choose" to be save. Wishing that his elect do not perish leaves place for the elects to fall in apostacy if they so "choose" to.

Not being "willing" means it would be againts God's will for his elects to perish, therefore if some of his elect would perish it would mean God failed to accomplish his will. On the other hand if he is only "wishing" for them to not perish some of his elect could still perish without God failing to accomplish his will.

"Wishing" for something not to happen doesn't mean you are not "willing" for it to happen under certain cirucumstances


----------



## Whitefield (Nov 17, 2011)

Fogetaboutit said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> > I am missing the nuance as to why "not wishing for any to perish" is a more effective tool in the hand of the Arminian than "not willing that any should perish."
> ...



It would be nice to meet an Arminian arguing that way (which I never have). The logical outcome for an Arminian who argued that way would be for him to deny the omnipotence of God (God can't always get what He desires/wishes). I don't see any difference between what God wills and what He wishes/desires, so however βουλομενος is translated, it ends in the same result. I don't think the problem lies in the translation, but in the theology of the Arminian reading 2 Peter 3:9. There were Arminians using this passage long before there was an ESV, NASB, RSV, etc.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 17, 2011)

Whitefield said:


> I don't see any difference between what God wills and what He wishes/desires, so however βουλομενος is translated, it ends in the same result.



"Wish" is sometimes used to refer to an ineffective or unfulfilled volition. If a translation gives that idea in speaking of God, it is unfortunate.


----------



## FedByRavens (Nov 17, 2011)

After i got saved, i became a membr of a KJV only church. I acctually got to the point to where i believed that the KJV was the only true english bible. Since then i have come to absolutely love the NASB. It's absolutely amazing to have a modern english version that doesn't try do dumb down the english. I've made myself exclusive to the NASB and have began to bring it to church. Often times I'll stand back and observe people misunderstand the scriptures because of the old english. Passages such as "Exodus 32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people. " or "Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light." Ever so often I'll speak out with what the NASB says, and people have become impressed with it. The elders will usually ask me what the NASB says about a particular passage and it always matches with the context. I love the KJV, but I've come to realize that if i cant understand it due to outdated wording or phrases, then all I can be is a hearer of the word, and not a doer. God has given us His word to understand, not to just blindly qoute or recite. God has never had to repent of evil, but He has "relented from disaster." Jesus wasn't refering to having one eye Etc Etc


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Nov 17, 2011)

J. Dean said:


> Fogetaboutit said:
> 
> 
> > I was not necessarily saying this specifically for you, I was just saying that many people will accuse KJV onlies of bigotry and having bad arguments while they themselves use arguments that are just as bad and are less than "loving" when dealing with them. 9 time out of 10 this debate is done on the bases of emotions. (I know this goes both ways and I was not trying to justify one side or the other). There are bad arguments on both sides I was just pointing the "emotion" factor to try to limit the straw man tactics. Most people just accept whatever they hear without checking the validity of the arguments. I'm not trying to force my view on anybody (which is KJV priority) but I do not like seeing a misrepresentation of my views especially when invalid argument are used. I do believe this is as important as any doctrinal issues, but I also realize that utlimately only God can bring truth and agreement in theses matters.
> ...



Don't get me wrong, I love Francis Schaeffer. Here at Southeastern, we have all of letters and other documents and included are his long correspondence with Van Til. Schaeffer went to Westminster for two years before leaving and going to Faith seminary. His reasons for doing so were because one he was a premillenialist and Westminster was becoming increasingly Amil, and two he did not believe in a strong determinism. His main disagreement with Van Til center on depravity. Francis Schaeffer did not believe that man was completely worthless apart from God, but that man was special because of his being made in the image of God regardless of whether or not he was part of the elect. I would really suggest reading 25 Basic Bible Studies to get a better idea of his theology. It is a very short read, almost like a confession of faith.


----------



## FedByRavens (Nov 18, 2011)

Psalm 143:2 And enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified. KJV

Psalm 143:2 Enter not into judgment with your servant, for no one living is righteous before you. ESV


----------

