One More Textus Receptus Critique Question

  • Thread starter Deleted member 12919 by request
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
retroGRAD3 said:
This may be true of individuals brought up in a church that regularly preaches from the KJV, but I don't believe this is true for the society at large, especially with the public schools they way they are and some individuals being functionally illiterate. The Bible should be a book that anyone should be able to pick up, read, and understand the gospel at a minimum. Once in church, I believe the standard can be changed for what is expected, but there needs to be some considerations for evangelism to the population at large, even if it is just someone picking up God's word on their own.
Click to expand...

My congregation is not used to the KJV, and a good amount of them are young or new believers. They are not having issues with the KJV. If there are people who are functionally illiterate, it doesn't matter the translation. But we do have some who are not as well educated and also those who have learning disorders. Since I've ministered with all those translations already cited, I have found no difference whatsoever in understanding KJV from ESV. In evangelism, it is not the Word that needs to change, it is the way to minister with that Word that needs to change. We have new believers who have come to faith under a "KJV ministry", they are not educated more than public school. They have no issue with understanding. So again, I think this often used critique is not in line with what I at least have experienced.
 
aaronsk said:
After I made the change from CT to TR I started doing homework on the translations available and that research showed the KJV to be the best option. I still use others but the KJV is my main. TBS has some articles on the NKJV. The KJV is not old english but still of early modern english. The thee’s/thou’s are not even found in the letter to the king written by the KJV translators, they are included to better keep the sense of the original languages by having distiction between plural and singular “you”. For that reason I now prefer them, not because they are old or sound holy but rather they are accurate (John 3 is an example of where this can matter a bit).

TBS NKJV Pt 1

TBS NKJV Pt 2

To be clear I still use an NKJV at times as well and am aware of the flaws. But as I use the KJV the more those things that intimidate folks have become some of my favorite bits! I will admit though, there are some old words that could be updated though they are still understandable and able to be looked up in a dictionary. Perhaps its just me but I used a dictionary a lot when reading the ESV as well. All of the modern printings of the KJV I have used have the lesser used terms defined right on the page. Some of those terms turn out to be great fun to look up and see why they chose that particular word.

The TBS articles I think do take issue with some of the notes being present but I find them helpful. so although they make a principled point, I think for most- real life is a bit more nuanced. They are useful especially in bible studies when both traditions are in use.




Also Easter shoud be understood as passover - the issue was the word for passover didn’t exist way back when and so some of the old translations used the word Easter. These usages were replaced throughout the KJV (as the references these older translations) but seems to have been missed in one spot.

Not sure why the quotes went to the bottom nor how to move them to the top of the post while on my phone - sorry haha.

Also for fear of muddying this thread - Ill not reply further in this vein of thought here.
Click to expand...
“Easter“ in our Bibles comes from Tyndale. It derives from German. “Passover” also comes from Tyndale, it was a word invented by him for the OT feast. For the people of Tyndale’s day, the words became synonymous (Easter already being the common English term for passover season). Fast forward to the KJV, “Easter” fell out of the scriptures entirely in favor of the consistent “Passover,” except in that one verse. I’m guessing it was an oversight by the translators/printer and for some reason never got changed in the last update (1769?).
 
Romans922 said:
My congregation is not used to the KJV, and a good amount of them are young or new believers. They are not having issues with the KJV. If there are people who are functionally illiterate, it doesn't matter the translation. But we do have some who are not as well educated and also those who have learning disorders. Since I've ministered with all those translations already cited, I have found no difference whatsoever in understanding KJV from ESV. In evangelism, it is not the Word that needs to change, it is the way to minister with that Word that needs to change. We have new believers who have come to faith under a "KJV ministry", they are not educated more than public school. They have no issue with understanding. So again, I think this often used critique is not in line with what I at least have experienced.
Click to expand...
That could be. However, I believe I am being reasonable when I state the KJV language is not what is spoken by the society at large. I also still do not understand why the KJV has to be insisted on so much by some. If you are a TR proponent that is one thing, but why ALWAYS the KJV as well? I understand the argument for the Thy/Thou/Ye, but that seems to be functionally it. We have words for that in modern English as well: "You" versus "You all". Why not use that type of terminology in a new translation?
 
Semper Fidelis said:
P1: The more languages one has to translate from the original Greek and Hebrew requires more thought.
P2: Modern translators have had to translate into many more languages than the translators for the KJV.
Therefore, modern translators have put in more thought.

This is not a difficult thing to discern.

It's not stating that the KJV translators were lazy. It is only noting that they had one linguistic context in which they translated.
Click to expand...
I didn't take it as modern translators were translating into many different languages, but from one language (original) to a modern language. Most translators, I am assuming, know Hebrew/Aramaic and/or Greek and then their own native language (English, Spanish, Korean, etc.). Most people don't know the original languages and then many other languages in which to translate into. So if how you take it is how he meant it, that's fine. But I didn't read Mr. Duguid as saying that.
 
retroGRAD3 said:
That could be. However, I believe I am being reasonable when I state the KJV language is not what is spoken by the society at large. I also still do not understand why the KJV has to be insisted on so much by some. If you are a TR proponent that is one thing, but why ALWAYS the KJV as well? I understand the argument for the Thy/Thou/Ye, but that seems to be functionally it. We have words for that in modern English as well: "You" versus "You all". Why not use that type of terminology in a new translation?
Click to expand...
I'm not insisting upon KJV. I'm simply stating that I believe it is a major assumption on the part of Mr. Duguid to say what he said in post #117.

Eyedoc84 said:
“Easter“ in our Bibles comes from Tyndale. It derives from German. “Passover” also comes from Tyndale, it was a word invented by him for the OT feast. For the people of Tyndale’s day, the words became synonymous (Easter already being the common English term for passover season). Fast forward to the KJV, “Easter” fell out of the scriptures entirely in favor of the consistent “Passover,” except in that one verse. I’m guessing it was an oversight by the translators/printer and for some reason never got changed in the last update (1769?).
Click to expand...

https://www.tbsbibles.org/page/Acts12verse4 is a good summary of this.
 
Last edited:
Semper Fidelis said:
P1: The more languages one has to translate from the original Greek and Hebrew requires more thought.
P2: Modern translators have had to translate into many more languages than the translators for the KJV.
Therefore, modern translators have put in more thought.

This is not a difficult thing to discern.

It's not stating that the KJV translators were lazy. It is only noting that they had one linguistic context in which they translated.
Click to expand...
Well, I might put that differently, since many of the translators of the KJV would have been familiar with translation in several languages (Latin, Greek, Hebrew, etc). But the field of linguistics from which terms like "formal equivalence" and "dynamic equivalence" come did not exist in the 17th century, so by definition, they hadn't thought explicitly about such topics.
 
iainduguid said:
Well, I might put that differently, since many of the translators of the KJV would have been familiar with translation in several languages (Latin, Greek, Hebrew, etc). But the field of linguistics from which terms like "formal equivalence" and "dynamic equivalence" come did not exist in the 17th century, so by definition, they hadn't thought explicitly about such topics.
Click to expand...
What about the kind of language that the Scottish speak? :)
 
retroGRAD3 said:
That could be. However, I believe I am being reasonable when I state the KJV language is not what is spoken by the society at large. I also still do not understand why the KJV has to be insisted on so much by some. If you are a TR proponent that is one thing, but why ALWAYS the KJV as well? I understand the argument for the Thy/Thou/Ye, but that seems to be functionally it. We have words for that in modern English as well: "You" versus "You all". Why not use that type of terminology in a new translation?
Click to expand...
The English of the KJV was never spoken by society at large.
 
Since switching to the KJV, our congregation has only grown, and hardly anyone who attends has been exposed to the KJV before (most of our congregation has no Reformed background and often no Christian background). We do not mandate that our congregation use it privately or in their homes, however, and tell them that in the inquirer's class. But our pulpit translation is the KJV and the uneducated and unbelievers who come - while many vociferously disagree that a man must be born again - they never misunderstand the message of the preaching: that a man must be born again.

Lest I find myself going into a tangent - the problem for most Reformed men is not the unintelligibility of the translation they use, but rather that they preach unintelligibly to the demographic several here are concerned about re: the KJV's language. Their sermons are more high-minded Biblical theology with the use of systematic theology terms without explanation, and not the kind of plain preaching you see in the Bible. This leaves unbelievers and the uneducated scratching their heads and heading over to the local megachurch where they can at least understand what the preacher is saying (though it is probably all wrong).

This kind of unintelligibility in preaching has been a greater hindrance to the gospel going to the less educated in Reformed pulpits than the KJV. And this has been my experience in the Reformed churches.
 
kodos said:
Since switching to the KJV, our congregation has only grown, and hardly anyone who attends has been exposed to the KJV before (most of our congregation has no Reformed background and often no Christian background). We do not mandate that our congregation use it privately or in their homes, however, and tell them that in the inquirer's class. But our pulpit translation is the KJV and the uneducated and unbelievers who come - while many vociferously disagree that a man must be born again - they never misunderstand the message of the preaching: that a man must be born again.

Lest I find myself going into a tangent - the problem for most Reformed men is not the unintelligibility of the translation they use, but rather that they preach unintelligibly to the demographic several here are concerned about re: the KJV's language. Their sermons are more high-minded Biblical theology with the use of systematic theology terms without explanation, and not the kind of plain preaching you see in the Bible. This leaves unbelievers and the uneducated scratching their heads and heading over to the local megachurch where they can at least understand what the preacher is saying (though it is probably all wrong).

This kind of unintelligibility in preaching has been a greater hindrance to the gospel going to the less educated in Reformed pulpits than the KJV. And this has been my experience in the Reformed churches.
Click to expand...
I am fairly well-educated (I think), and I still have some problems with a very few certain passages in the KJV when it comes to comprehension (as I think most folks here will confess). However, what you said here is really the crux of the matter—namely, does the man who preaches preach intelligibly? In the end, a preacher preaching unintelligibly from the NLT will be utterly ineffective. Some of my favorite preachers, on the other hand, preach very plainly from the KJV—e.g., Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Joel Beeke, Henry Mahan, etc.
 
retroGRAD3 said:
Seems like the KJV could benefit from this treatment as well if the NKJV and MEV are considered inferior. I personally feel the NKJV is the solution.
Click to expand...
As I noted earlier, the KJV had language modernization in 1769 already, primarily around spelling, punctuation, and capitalization, but there were also some translational changes based on manuscript evidence and updating of some words. There is a decent summary here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon10.html

Many of the editions of the KJV around actually incorporate a few additional changes past 1769 as well, including many of which are based on the 1900 Cambridge edition which actually has a very small number of translational/textual differences. The 1900 edition actually has translational differences in a few places and most published KJV versions I have are based on the 1900 Cambridge text.

Webster in 1833 made a revision of the KJV which was quite minor, but got rid of some of the old idioms in the KJV, introduced some new American idioms, and changed a few words to make it more modern and conforming to American English patterns.

There have been a multitude of small revisions of the KJV (much smaller than the NKJV) over the years like the MKJV, KJV2000, etc. but none have gained enough traction to be readily available in print.
 
Taylor said:
I am fairly well-educated (I think), and I still have some problems with a very few certain passages in the KJV when it comes to comprehension (as I think most folks here will confess). However, what you said here is really the crux of the matter—namely, does the man who preaches preach intelligibly? In the end, a preacher preaching unintelligibly from the NLT will be utterly ineffective. Some of my favorite preachers, on the other hand, preach very plainly from the KJV—e.g., Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Joel Beeke, Henry Mahan, etc.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm thankful that men that preach from the KJV preach in the vulgar tongue and take time to explain the KJV when it is not in the vulgar tongue. That's certainly the case of my last pastor who preached from the KJV. I've listened to Joel Beeke quite a bit and while I've not heard him reference other translations, he's often careful to explain unfamiliar words or phrases.
 
My wife uses the NKJV, so I am not too hard on it. But the NKJV rendition of the Song of Solomon forces an interpretation, and a bad one at that. Further it does not have the cadence, beauty, or precision of the second person singular/plural that the KJV has. Using the KJV has shaped my prayer life and bible memorization more than I ever did when using the ESV - and I do not think that is mere coincidence. For instance, I am convinced of the propriety of using the second person singular in prayer, and having a bible version which does the same makes it far more natural. The KJV is not perfect, but it is time tested and I do not see it going anywhere anytime soon.
 
MChase said:
My wife uses the NKJV, so I am not too hard on it. But the NKJV rendition of the Song of Solomon forces an interpretation, and a bad one at that. Further it does not have the cadence, beauty, or precision of the second person singular/plural that the KJV has. Using the KJV has shaped my prayer life and bible memorization more than I ever did when using the ESV - and I do not think that is mere coincidence. For instance, I am convinced of the propriety of using the second person singular in prayer, and having a bible version which does the same makes it far more natural. The KJV is not perfect, but it is time tested and I do not see it going anywhere anytime soon.
Click to expand...
I am glad the KJV helped you in your walk with God, but this type of commentary worries me a bit. It makes it seem yet again that the KJV is imbued with some sort of special power that apparently other translations just don't have including the original language texts. Many of the things you say about the KJV could be true of another translation for another person. Also, with the praying in second person, that is great that you like to do this, but this requirement does not come from scripture. If there is something in the original Greek and Hebrew that I am missing, I would welcome correction, but when using language like "convinced" it makes it seem like you drew this from scripture as a Biblical command.
 
retroGRAD3 said:
I am glad the KJV helped you in your walk with God, but this type of commentary worries me a bit. It makes it seem yet again that the KJV is imbued with some sort of special power that apparently other translations just don't have including the original language texts. Many of the things you say about the KJV could be true of another translation for another person. Also, with the praying in second person, that is great that you like to do this, but this requirement does not come from scripture. If there is something in the original Greek and Hebrew that I am missing, I would welcome correction, but when using language like "convinced" it makes it seem like you drew this from scripture as a Biblical command.
Click to expand...

Certainly there is no special power in the translation, but a translation can be more memorable than another. For instance, when the ESV came out many were praising its readability.

It is not a direct requirement to be sure, but I do think it is wise and best practice. For instance, I have heard a rather prominent presbyterian minister who is surely a quite godly man pray something like, "Father, Son and Holy Spirit we praise you for..." Is the you there singular or plural? It is not clear in this case. There was even a man with some theological acumen arguing in a facebook group that we should refer to God as 'them' and not 'he'. That is troubling.

Here is Dr. William Young on the subject.
reformedbooksonline.com

Address to God in Prayer

William Young Young argues for addressing God with the language of ‘thou’ and ‘thee’. From The Presbyterian Reformed Magazine, Summer, 1989. HT: The Puritan Board &nb…
reformedbooksonline.com reformedbooksonline.com
 
MChase said:
Certainly there is no special power in the translation, but a translation can be more memorable than another. For instance, when the ESV came out many were praising its readability.

It is not a direct requirement to be sure, but I do think it is wise and best practice. For instance, I have heard a rather prominent presbyterian minister who is surely a quite godly man pray something like, "Father, Son and Holy Spirit we praise you for..." Is the you there singular or plural? It is not clear in this case. There was even a man with some theological acumen arguing in a facebook group that we should refer to God as 'them' and not 'he'. That is troubling.

Here is Dr. William Young on the subject.
reformedbooksonline.com

Address to God in Prayer

William Young Young argues for addressing God with the language of ‘thou’ and ‘thee’. From The Presbyterian Reformed Magazine, Summer, 1989. HT: The Puritan Board &nb…
reformedbooksonline.com reformedbooksonline.com
Click to expand...
Modalism, tritheism, and unitarianism are not concerns I currently have with my pastors. I trust that they are praying to our one God. I find that legalism and self righteousness seem to be far more prevalent in reformed circles. Not accusing anyone here at all, just stating my experience. I myself have been guilty of both in the past and it is still something I have to be on guard for.
 
MChase said:
It is not a direct requirement to be sure, but I do think it is wise and best practice. For instance, I have heard a rather prominent presbyterian minister who is surely a quite godly man pray something like, "Father, Son and Holy Spirit we praise you for..." Is the you there singular or plural? It is not clear in this case.
Click to expand...
This is a curious exemplar to use. After all, in 1 John 5;7 "the three" in the first half of the verse modifies a plural Greek verb, but it is clear from the second half of the verse that "the three" in question are "the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost". So there is Biblical precedent for a plural (as well as singular elsewhere) construal of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We are not Unitarians.

Moreover, since "you" in modern English can be either singular or plural, why would you choose to construe it in a way that seems to you problematic, when it was perfectly possible to understand it in the way you think God ought to be addressed? Was my use of "you" in this last sentence in any way grammatically unclear to you?

Finally, it seems to me a little odd that some who insist that "Thou" is a more personal and intimate address to God in prayer are also insistent on formality and reverence in the rest of their approach to God in worship (suits, ties, etc.).

I do, however, recognize the advantage of being able to distinguish between singular and plural in Biblical interpretation.
 
iainduguid said:
This is a curious exemplar to use. After all, in 1 John 5;7 "the three" in the first half of the verse modifies a plural Greek verb, but it is clear from the second half of the verse that "the three" in question are "the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost". So there is Biblical precedent for a plural (as well as singular elsewhere) construal of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We are not Unitarians.

Moreover, since "you" in modern English can be either singular or plural, why would you choose to construe it in a way that seems to you problematic, when it was perfectly possible to understand it in the way you think God ought to be addressed? Was my use of "you" in this last sentence in any way grammatically unclear to you?

Finally, it seems to me a little odd that some who insist that "Thou" is a more personal and intimate address to God in prayer are also insistent on formality and reverence in the rest of their approach to God in worship (suits, ties, etc.).

I do, however, recognize the advantage of being able to distinguish between singular and plural in Biblical interpretation.
Click to expand...

To be clear, I’m not denying that we can speak of God being three. That’s not the issue. The issue is clarity and precision. God isn’t addressed as a ‘them’ but a ‘he’. For instance, WCF doesn’t say “God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of themselves…”
 
retroGRAD3 said:
Modalism, tritheism, and unitarianism are not concerns I currently have with my pastors. I trust that they are praying to our one God. I find that legalism and self righteousness seem to be far more prevalent in reformed circles. Not accusing anyone here at all, just stating my experience. I myself have been guilty of both in the past and it is still something I have to be on guard for.
Click to expand...

Nor do I. Though I don’t think theology proper is at a high point in our day. We ought to be precise because we serve a precise God.
 
retroGRAD3 said:
I believe that only strengthens the point I am trying to make then.
Click to expand...
Hi Brother,

I think the point here is that the KJV was meant to reflect the original languages in the way it was written. Although the NT was written in coversational greek that doesn’t mean its meaning is best conveyed in conversational english. The text (original) was written at a fixed point in time and its meaning tied to words of that time (speaking of the greek).

Trying to keep up with the constantly changing english vernacular is not an easy task requiring constant revision (what is a woman?). The example there seems silly but Webster has been changing definitions regularly and words have seen meaning change in the public sphere frequently in the last few years. Think about how we are required now to interact with people in our professional environments. The KJV is modern english (vulgar) though not in what is commonly spoken on the street (yet it is accessible).

Once again Im not saying the KJV uses the best word in every place today but it is accurate and readable. I wouldn't be opposed to a revision that updated a few words and got rid of the th/st endings but kept a distinction with “you”. The NKJV came close but waviered in its original intent and thus it didn’t succeed in replacing the KJV with a “more modern” translation of the TR.

Though I must make the point that if the KJV english was never spoken as street vernacular is an argument against it then it would follow that the argument would lead to it aught to never have been used at all. Thus it seems to me this point is best suited as an argument for its usage rather than against.

Perhaps this should be a new thread. As it is a bit off the point of the main thread.

If I am helping someone with doctrine and they use and ESV, I use the ESV and include any sidelined readings; as I’m not KJVO but TR and prefer KJV.
 
MChase said:
To be clear, I’m not denying that we can speak of God being three. That’s not the issue. The issue is clarity and precision. God isn’t addressed as a ‘them’ but a ‘he’. For instance, WCF doesn’t say “God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of themselves…”
Click to expand...
Of course. But that doesn't match your example. To match your example, it would have to say "The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit hath all life..." (or in more contemporary language "has") which sounds odd to me. Wouldn't we say "The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit have all life..."?
 
Eyedoc84 said:
The Hebrew and Greek distinguish singular and plural pronouns. I think that was his point.
Click to expand...
To be fair, that wasn’t the point he was making. He was saying that he has been convinced of the use of the older English second person pronouns when addressing God. While Hebrew and Greek does distinguish between singular and plural pronouns, there is nothing in the Hebrew and Greek that directs us to use archaic English second person pronouns when addressing God, as if it were somehow more reverent.
 
Taylor said:
To be fair, that wasn’t the point he was making. He was saying that he has been convinced of the use of the older English second person pronouns when addressing God. While Hebrew and Greek does distinguish between singular and plural pronouns, there is nothing in the Hebrew and Greek that directs us to use archaic English second person pronouns when addressing God, as if it were somehow more reverent.
Click to expand...
Amen. While I am someone who prays "in the King's" in private, family, and from the pulpit, it is in no way imprecise, irreverent, or inaccurate to address God in modern English. That is the English we speak. Many other languages share the same feature (no differentiation between singular and plural second person pronouns).

The same logic could be used to say that we shouldn't address the second person of the adorable godhead as "Jesus", since that is a modern English and imprecise form of His true name "Yeshua (Aramaic)/Yehoshua (Hebrew)". The name "Jesus" is how the Hebrew word "Jehovah saves" (Yehoshua/Joshua) has come into English. So is it imprecise or inaccurate to say "Jesus" therefore? I think not. And if is not imprecise to use the modern English equivalent of a Hebrew word through Aramaic and Greek to address or refer to the second person of the Trinity, nor is it imprecise to use the modern English equivalents of the Greek sú (you sg) and umeís (you pl) to address the godhead.

Additionally, There are many languages that make no distinction between plural and singular, as I mentioned above. What are they to do? Has God not given them a way of addressing him? Do they have to invent new vocabulary to address God properly? Maybe they should learn English and adopt a 400+ year old translation as their Bible?

Again, this is coming from someone who has adopted the use of archaic forms in prayer for almost a decade. My prayer life, habits, form, and style have been shaped by the KJV, the valley of vision, Henry's prayer book, the collects from the Scottish Psalter, Knox's collects, the collects from the book of common prayer, and the prayers of Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones, and Dr Beeke.
 
Last edited:
aaronsk said:
The thee’s/thou’s are not even found in the letter to the king written by the KJV translators, they are included to better keep the sense of the original languages by having distiction between plural and singular “you”. For that reason I now prefer them, not because they are old or sound holy but rather they are accurate (John 3 is an example of where this can matter a bit)
Click to expand...
Even if I was not convinced of the TR for many other reasons, this (the inclusion of singular and plural) is the main practical reason that I, too, use an older TR version.

I grew up on the AV, but when I found the Geneva was republished, I switched. I cannot see why anyone would want to be associated with anything propagated by the wicked King James if there is a worthy alternative - I would think one would want to read any book banned by such a wicked ruler, but especially if it was a Bible translation. "When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what is before thee" (Prov.23.1).

I would venture that most at the Westminster Assembly - especially the Scots commissioners - (and most of the Puritans you admire for that matter) were not using the AV.

Plus the Geneva's notes are incredible, especially in a devotional setting - you can hear the echo of Calvin and Knox (you will sometimes find verbatim phrases in Calvin's writings).

If you are not familiar with the Geneva, I encourage you to try it. If already use the AV, it won't be much of a switch, other than that you will now be testifying against the wickedness of King James.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
Strongest Critiques of the Textus Receptus
Replies
15
Views
2K
Jerusalem Blade
Jerusalem Blade
J
Question about the history of the Textus Receptus
Replies
9
Views
1K
bookslover
B
Ask Mr. Religion
  • Locked
Textus Receptus Bibles Site
Replies
1
Views
2K
Jake
Jake
Backwoods Presbyterian
  • Locked
Textus Receptus V Critical Text
2
Replies
33
Views
11K
Stomata leontôn
Stomata leontôn
MichaelNZ
  • Locked
What exactly is the Textus Receptus?
Replies
4
Views
3K
manuelkuhs
M
Back
Top