Why Did Pastors Discard the KJV?

[KMK]

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.

Calling our position 'KJO' may seem reasonable to you, however, for most people, KJO refers to a fringe group who believe the AV is 'inspired'. For the purposes of clarity and honesty, those of us who believe, like the Puritans, that the AV is simply a better version than any other English version should not be called 'KJO'.

 

[Phil D.]

Calling our position 'KJO' may seem reasonable to you, however, for most people, KJO refers to a fringe group who believe the AV is 'inspired'.

I understand, brother, and that is why I said "a form" of KJV Onlyism. Nor, for the reason you note, would I use that terminology in every setting to describe what I see here.

Yet can you see that when every single detail of the KJV - whether textual, translational or with regard to "right" usage - is so tenaciously defended, how it might take on the appearance of (in effect) it being treated as inspired?

 

[MW]

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.

WCF 1.8, "that the word of God dwelling plentifully in all," is the objective of translation. The Confession states nothing concerning your idea that the translations "are subject to some error." I know the Standards well enough to know that you are imposing a MUST-HAVE-ERROR theory on the teaching of the Standards, quite contrary to its intention. According to the Larger Catechism, the Scriptures are to be read in the vulgar langauge as "the very word of God."

 

[MW]

Are you saying that the translational choice of "covenant" is necessarily an error? And that such error undermines the covenant theology of the WCF?

I haven't said anything about "error." I have simply pointed to an historical fact. The divines held that "covenant" contains a testamentary idea. A certain strain of theologians have come to a different view. The older translations included it. It is excluded among a variety of modern translations. So far as a Bible translation has any real value in terms of influencing religious thought is the degree to which the change in translation will affect a change of attitude towards the doctrinal ethos of the Confession.

 

[MW]

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

I've said no such thing. You should retract your false representation. All I have said falls under the Direction for Public Worship that the Scriptures should be publicly read in the vulgar tongue, out of the best allowed translation."

 

[MW]

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.

If one would like to see a "confessional" appraisal of a modern version one might consult Oswald Allis' "Revision or New Translation." Allis compared the RSV not only to the AV, but also to the RV, and showed the clear departures which were being made from conservative standards of translation. The translations which came after the RSV have gone even further. The ESV has only plastered up a few holes in the wall. Many of Allis' criticisms still apply.

If one would like to see an older critique of a non-confessional translation one might consult Thomas Cartwright's Confutation of the Rhemists. The reformed tradition has never held that when it comes to Bible translation "almost anything goes." The present day church has let its testimony slip in the name of a sentimental charity which is eating away at the church's distinctive quality as "the pillar and ground of the truth."

 

[MW]

Are the AV translators now held so high as the JW's?

I don't understand the line of thinking. The idea of a translation is to make a text accessible to those who cannot read the original language. The reason why Scripture is translated should be owing to the fact that it is "the word of God." The aim of translating should be to make the word of God accessible. It is not the translation, but the quality of what is translated, which makes it so valuable. Where one translation surpasses others it is in the interests of truth to circulate that translation over others. There is no desire to exalt the "translation," but merely to exalt the thing that is translated.

The Bible is the religion of Protestants. It would be good if Protestants started acting like it.

 

[Logan]

I have a quick question, do you believe that at any point in the evolution of English the KJV will cease to be intelligible or useful to the common man? If so, when will you know that point has been reached and what should be done at that time?

 

[MW]

I have a quick question, do you believe that at any point in the evolution of English the KJV will cease to be intelligible or useful to the common man? If so, when will you know that point has been reached and what should be done at that time?

I am not a prophet. I am closed in to the means of God's appointing and the circumstances in which Providence has placed me.

 

[Logan]

Alright then, do you allow it to be a possibility? If so, when would you know that point has been reached and what do you think should be done at that time?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Phil,

A brief response to your post 120 above. I am one who identifies himself as a “King James priority” person – although AV priority would do just as well – and as representative of some of “the AV’ers here” I’d like to bring out a few nuances you seem to have missed in your perception of us.

When I defend various readings (though not often translations, for there are places where the language may be modernized) it is not because I see it as “unassailable” (for it is often assailed) but rather as defensible. My primary concern is that of omissions and changes as seen in the Critical Text and, occasionally, what is called the Majority Text, supplanting the readings of the Reformation Bible. I am not saying these things to debate them here, but simply to let you see what I think.

It is very important to me that the issue be regarding the variant and changed readings and not the Bibles in the main. On the one hand, it is a matter of adequate preservation versus preservation in the minutiae, for I would certainly not say that Critical Text-derived Bibles are not good Bibles, greatly used of God in the converting of souls, sanctifying them, and sustaining the churches in godliness and good works.

On the other hand, there are those who have a strong interest in a Bible which can be defended in the minutiae against just those adversaries of the common faith who seek to attack it in its foundation, which is the word of God. Such enemies of Christ and His church – as Bart Ehrman, for one – uses the variant readings of the Critical Text as the soft underbelly he goes for. Defenders of the Critical Text, such as Dr. James White, do an admirable job standing up to Ehrman and the like, but I prefer a defense in the minutiae, particularly defending those uniquely TR/AV readings which the CT variants change and Ehrman goes after.

I have not begun my “Ehrman Project” yet – I have a number of projects I am working on, and have requested of the Lord to extend my years well beyond the 71 He has already graciously given me so I may get to them all – but it is much with me to get to Ehrman.

At any rate, I am glad that men are able to use with confidence the modern versions, and I know folks dear to me who love God’s word in such – and should I harass them in that they delight in? No, it is only that I do not want the AV/TR readings in, for instance, Mark 16:9-20, 1 Timothy 3:16, 1 John 5:7, Acts 20:28, John 7:53-8:11, Matthew 1:7, 10, etc denied their rightful place in the Scriptures God gave us.

It is not about the Bibles in the main, it is about some of its readings. I hope this clarifies somewhat the AV priority view.

 

[MW]

Alright then, do you allow it to be a possibility? If so, when would you know that point has been reached and what do you think should be done at that time?

Given the rate of change I would even say it is a probability. We would know the point is reached, I suppose, because the English teachers will stop calling it "modern" English and start calling it something else. As to what should be done, whether the English language fundamentally changes or not, my prayer is that the Lord would revive His work in the midst of the years, enable the church to unite in her task of bearing testimony for Jesus, and bring forth a true, biblical, further reformation built on the attainments of past generations which will bequeath to posterity an even richer heritage than we have enjoyed. But while the professing church continues in its steady course of attack against reformation attainments, a sensible soldier has no other choice but to hold the ground he has.

 

[fredtgreco]

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

I've said no such thing. You should retract your false representation. All I have said falls under the Direction for Public Worship that the Scriptures should be publicly read in the vulgar tongue, out of the best allowed translation."

Please then give me an example of when you believe any English translation other than the AV is acceptable to be used by the Church.

 

[MW]

Please then give me an example of when you believe any English translation other than the AV is acceptable to be used by the Church.

You false represented my view. You need to retract it. I am not about to give you more material to falsely represent.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Please then give me an example of when you believe any English translation other than the AV is acceptable to be used by the Church.

You false represented my view. You need to retract it. I am not about to give you more material to falsely represent.

Rev Winzer, I do think it was a fair question.

 

[fredtgreco]

Please then give me an example of when you believe any English translation other than the AV is acceptable to be used by the Church.

You false represented my view. You need to retract it. I am not about to give you more material to falsely represent.

I most certainly did not. I may have presented it in an unfavorable light, but you have not once (in this thread, or to my knowledge in the entirety of the Puritan Board) ever allowed for the use of an English translation other than the AV by a church. In fact, in this thread, when I asked about the very real case of non-native English speakers, your response was that they should use a dictionary with their Bible reading and that they would be better off understanding less of the Bible with the AV than misunderstanding more of the Bible with another translation: "true understanding of the Bible in small portions is more important than misunderstanding large portions of it".

I certainly could be wrong. I don't wish to be uncharitable, but one would need some evidence to the contrary to come to a contrary conclusion of your views of the AV. If I am wrong, state so, and I will retract my statement.

 

[MW]

I certainly could be wrong. I don't wish to be uncharitable, but one would need some evidence to the contrary to come to a contrary conclusion of your views of the AV. If I am wrong, state so, and I will retract my statement.

You most certainly are wrong; and now you are attempting to impose upon me your positive misrepresentation on the basis of what I have not said. Simply because I have not said what you desire me to say, you impute your misrepresentation to me. And then, the only way I can extricate myself from your misrepresentation, is to make a statement that satisfies your criterion of judging the issue.

The Directory uses a superlative, "BEST." Your term is "acceptable." Something might be acceptable which is not necessarily the best. Your term commits me to something which is basically irrelevant to the discussion. Yet you insist on judging me according to your term.

I have never said what you are claiming. You are wrong. Retract your statement.

 

[KMK]

I have a quick question, do you believe that at any point in the evolution of English the KJV will cease to be intelligible or useful to the common man?

I am not trying to answer for Rev Winzer, but I think most AV defenders believe that, so far, the English language is not 'evolving' but 'devolving'. This is an important distinction as AV defenders are jealous of the precision of translation the AV provides in comparison to those versions that purposely use a less precise form of devolved English. We are often accused of being hardhearted because we encourage our sheep to use a 'less intelligible' Version, but really what we encourage is the use of the most precise Version available.

 

[Logan]

I understand and agree since I love our historical English, but while the serious Bible student or pastor is very concerned about the accuracy, I am also quite sure that the average person feels no inadequacy with modern English and eventually, at some point it may very well be like telling them to read in Greek and Hebrew. It doesn't matter how precise it is if the average person cannot understand it, no? I'm not saying language should be dumbed down, but neither should it be an artificial barrier to the common man, so that he must read it with his dictionary always beside him.

 

[sevenzedek]

Are the AV translators now held so high as the JW's?

I don't understand the line of thinking.

Dragging the JW's into this mess was meant to inflame a sense of the corruption of such an idea that the AV translators had a corner on the truth. The Scriptures have been entrusted not to one portion of the body, but the whole body of Christ. To say that the modern church is ill qualified for the translation of the Scriptures in our modern day puts not only our standards on shaky ground, but the whole church. Has the Holy Spirit ceased sanctifying the bride? I already know that you would say no. If the translators didn't have a corner on the truth, then neither does their work because it flows from them.

 

[KMK]

I understand and agree since I love our historical English, but while the serious Bible student or pastor is very concerned about the accuracy, I am also quite sure that the average person feels no inadequacy with modern English and eventually, at some point it may very well be like telling them to read in Greek and Hebrew. It doesn't matter how precise it is if the average person cannot understand it, no? I'm not saying language should be dumbed down, but neither should it be an artificial barrier to the common man, so that he must read it with his dictionary always beside him.

By 'average person' do you mean the average believer or unbeliever? I would think that accuracy is eventually important to all believers. (Heb 5:12-14)

 

[MW]

Dragging the JW's into this mess was meant to inflame a sense of the corruption of such an idea that the AV translators had a corner on the truth. The Scriptures have been entrusted not to one portion of the body, but the whole body of Christ. To say that the modern church is ill qualified for the translation of the Scriptures in our modern day puts not only our standards on shaky ground, but the whole church. Has the Holy Spirit ceased sanctifying the bride? I already know that you would say no. If the translators didn't have a corner on the truth, then neither does their work because it flows from them.

There is admixture of truth and error in the professing visible church. We are to prove all things; hold fast that which is good and abstain from all appearance of evil. I am affiliated with one church, not because I believe it is the only true church, but because I believe it is the most pure church to which I can commit myself and seek God's blessing. In the same way, I have adopted one translation of the Bible, not because I think it is the only true translation, but because I believe it is the most reliable translation to which I can commit myself and read it as the very word of God. As such I recommend it to others.

 

[sevenzedek]

I recommend it to others.

At the expense of their understanding?

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

While I do see the value of the AV, I advocate for a more charitable view toward those less advantaged in my English speaking society. You keep saying that the AV is written in English, and who can argue with that? It is! But one must confess that, while the AV is written in English, the syntax is hardly the vulgar tongue of the day. I don't know anyone who speaks like that. I will grant you that the AV is written in English if you will admit that the syntax is antiquated. For our ESL brothers and sisters, the words of the AV may not be as much of a problem as the syntax of it.

To answer the question of the OP, syntax would seem to be one of the biggest reasons people switched to modern versions. From where I come, when people say they have a hard time understanding the AV, they don't mean the individual words as much as the syntax; so the go-get-a-dictionary rebuttal will be quite lost on me in light of this fact.

Unless you have anything that demands a response, I think I will just bow out of this thread. Maybe the moderators should make a PB-KJV rule for which I don't have or offer any advice. What a touchy subject for everyone.

 

[earl40]

Maybe if we had a NASV based on the AV (with the few proper corrections the AV needs)? The syntax of the AV is just horrible to the ear to most of us who speak English that dwell not in England or one of its colonies. Now I know many will say "I like and think the syntax is not horrible and I live in the USA" but one must recognize most people do not like Old English but the vulgar language they use. Thus the reason our NT is not written in classical Greek.

 

[Logan]

I understand and agree since I love our historical English, but while the serious Bible student or pastor is very concerned about the accuracy, I am also quite sure that the average person feels no inadequacy with modern English and eventually, at some point it may very well be like telling them to read in Greek and Hebrew. It doesn't matter how precise it is if the average person cannot understand it, no? I'm not saying language should be dumbed down, but neither should it be an artificial barrier to the common man, so that he must read it with his dictionary always beside him.

By 'average person' do you mean the average believer or unbeliever? I would think that accuracy is eventually important to all believers. (Heb 5:12-14)

By "average" I mean the person on the street. Imagine asking them whether they feel English doesn't have the capability to express things properly and if they wish there was a distinction between plural and singular "you" or more control between past-perfect and perfect tenses.

If it's so important, why doesn't anyone on this board use "thee", "thy", "behold", even in theological discussions? Because we find common English accurately conveys what we mean.

If I really want to look at precision terms (like plural and singular), I'll crack open an interlinear Bible, I'm not going to the KJV anyway.

 

[Philip]

My one comment is that the average man on the street, hearing the AV read, will more than likely associate the syntax with Monty Python.

The situation that we are in here seems to be analogous (though not perfectly) to say, a Frank living in the 9th century under the Carolingian Renaissance, when the church decided to keep the Vulgate as the Bible of the church, despite the fact that vulgar Latin was no longer the language of the people. And while granted, the Frankish language of the day was hardly a written language, the fact remains that not having the Bible in the vulgar tongues led to superstitious hocus-pocus (quite literally).

For those who value the Received Text, then, I would pose this question: would a new translation of the TR be appropriate at this time? And if so, what can you do toward the creation of one?

 

[Edward]

most people do not like Old English

Technically, it is early modern English, not old English, which unless one is a scholar of the tongue, would be understood by no one here. Compare to Chaucer, which is in Middle English, and quite difficult for most of us.

In any event, your point is well made. If we want to reserve the scripture to the well trained elite, the KJV is probably adequate. But for the vulgar tongue, you would need at least to go to the NKJV in that manuscript family.

 

[Edward]

For those who value the Received Text, then, I would pose this question: would a new translation of the TR be appropriate at this time?

There are modernized versions out there (some better than others) but that seemingly wouldn't satisfy those who say they are not KJO, but who exhibit distaste for other versions.

 

[Philip]

There are modernized versions out there (some better than others) but that seemingly wouldn't satisfy those who say they are not KJO, but who exhibit distaste for other versions.

Which is why I ask whether those advocating the AV would also advocate a completely new translation into current vernacular. Even if I happen to disagree with AV-priority folks, I wouldn't mind seeing such a translation. Even my usual translation (the ESV) is woefully lacking in literary quality, which is why I prefer the AV or Coverdale for the psalms, for instance.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

For those who value the Received Text, then, I would pose this question: would a new translation of the TR be appropriate at this time? And if so, what can you do toward the creation of one?

I'm going to jump in here again because I think this is a good question. It sort of represents the thing that keeps plaguing me in all of these discussions. As I see it, advocates for the AV are arguing for four simultaneous things that seem to have converged only once (that I can discern) in human history):

1. The perfect collection of Greek manuscripts collected in such a way as to never need to perform any more textual work based on the interpolated choices of the KJV translators from the manuscripts they had at their disposal.
2. Men who were theologically all in accord as to a Reformed hermeneutic and well trained in theology.
3. Men who had a particular translation philosophy.
4. men whose work was sanctioned by the Church and received.

Concerning item 1, can anyone tell me if there are any groups in Germany that prefer a kind of "Textus Receptus" based on Luther's translation of the German Bible extrapolating the Greek word choices he used? Are there any French speaking Reformed who insist upon the manuscript choices of Calvin or other scholars there and dispute that the KJV scholars made some inaccurate choices? I ask this because it seems to only be us English speakers that God gave Providential inerrancy to in the creation of a Greek textual platform that led to a "best" translation.

As I hear people answering about other translations than the AV, this is what I'm hearing: "Well, you see, other translations may be acceptable but they are not the best."

The best translations would be those that meet criteria 1-4, which essentially rules out any translation that came before the KJV and, historically, makes the creation of any other translation after it in any other tongue than English improbable. In fact, it makes the creation of another translation in the English nearly impossible so any translation into the English is going to be "acceptable" but not the best. Much as the Church may desire to give a person an updated translation, Providence just can't converge the right Churchmen to the task. Even if I found that a modern translation met criteria 1-3, Alas! I'm not in the kind of Church that receives certain translations as the "best". Always the bridesmaid!

Ah, you see, we can give people dictionaries to ameliorate that problem (that word is in the dictionary). What dictionary ought we to give them? I ask this seriously. My kids actually use Websters 1828 dictionary at their school because it has some word definitions one cannot find in modern dictionaries. I'm not sure if it's the "best" dictionary for interpreting the KJV, however or is it just "acceptable". Is the OED the "best"? Would one recommend buying a multi-volume set or simply do the online subscription for their congegants? Also, does anyone have any recommendation on how to train the members of the Church on lexicography?

Now, let me shift for a moment and think of myself as if I was a non-English speaker in a foreign land. Does anyone, outside the English speaking world, possess the "best" translation of the Scriptures in their own tongue or is it simply we, the Providentially blessed English speakers with our OED, that have access to the "best"? Again, I'm not speaking just about have condition 1 (and perhaps 2 and 3) fulfilled by some well-meaning Reformed folk but having the full authenticated process that a member of a Church in that country can stand on the Word and say: "We believe in the Scriptures and I know for certain that this is the best because my Bible has met all the criteria for making it so!"

Or, rather, is he one of the poor souls who had some translator that thought he was performing a service for an obscure tribe somewhere who never had the Scriptures in their native tongue and he didn't follow steps 1-4 but used the UBS platform. Would he have been better off training them in English, giving them KJV's, and leaving them with an OED?

I'm purposefully representing this in this manner because I firmly believe that these kind of arguments do not establish confidence in the Word of God but undermine it. They undermine God's ability to work in differing ways Providentially to produce faithful translations where the possessor of the Word doesn't have to wring his hands constantly and wonder: Do I possess the "best" translation of the Word?

I'm not arguing against precision but I am arguing against extra-Biblical arguments that believe that a certain interpretation of Divine Providence is co-extensive with the idea of trust in the fidelity of the Scriptures.

I consider many of you my friends so I don't want to destroy that by this post but I really cannot understand the whole mindset. While I appreciate the concern for the text and not treating as an academic text, I don't think confidence in the Word is served by claiming extra-Biblical certainty about the convergence of forces that creates an impenetrable barrier around any thought that the Church might still refine and improve her understanding of some texts or that the Lord might even have certain manuscripts be discovered that aid in that end. If he can allow the Church to go 1611 years without a perfect apparatus then he can allow the Church to continue to labor even longer. If he can allow the Church to continue her march for 1611 years without a "best" English translation then He can continue to do so now and in the future.