Why Did Pastors Discard the KJV?

[littlepeople]

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

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

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

 

[PaulMc]

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

Why would you posit this?

 

[KaphLamedh]

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

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

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

 

[py3ak]

Let's take a break.

 

[MW]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[MW]

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

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

 

[kvanlaan]

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

I've got 66% at the dinner table.

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

 

[Edward]

The numerical argument serves Romanists better than genuine Protestants.

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

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

 

[THE W]

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

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

 

[JimmyH]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[MW]

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

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

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

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

 

[Edward]

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

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

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

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

The numerical argument serves Romanists better than genuine Protestants.

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

 

[MW]

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

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

 

[Edward]

Your church has Confessional standards

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

"8. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native lan-
guage of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek
(which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to
the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular
care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;
so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal
unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all
the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scrip-
tures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search
them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of
every nation unto which they come..."
(emphasis supplied)


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

I am led to believe.

Getting a bit snarky, are we?

 

[MW]

Your church has Confessional standards

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

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

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

Getting a bit snarky, are we?

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

 

[Steve Curtis]

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

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

 

[MW]

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

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

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

 

[littlepeople]

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

Isn't that putting the cart before the horse?

 

[sevenzedek]

WCF 7:4

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

 

[MW]

Isn't that putting the cart before the horse?

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

 

[MW]

WCF 7:4

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

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

 

[Edward]

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

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

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

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

 

[Logan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Covenant Joel]

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

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

 

[JM]

A-men Rev. Winzer!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[fredtgreco]

Rich,

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

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich,

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

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

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

 

[sevenzedek]

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Winzer,

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

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

 

[Phil D.]

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

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