Question for the confessional KJVer

[Michael]

I don't mean to debate anyone on this. I only wish to post the question and see what folks have to say. Hopefully there are some direct answers.

My question is this: How much further must today's language evolve before the KJV translation is deemed beyond the concept of "vulgar language" as described in WCF 1:8?

 

[MW]

My question is this: How much further must today's language evolve before the KJV translation is deemed beyond the concept of "vulgar language" as described in WCF 1:8?

The question supposes the development of language can be traced by steps. This would be a mistake. Linguists say that language morphs as it comes into contact with other languages and pushes out into new contexts. While people continue to write in English, and to express conservative religious ideas in English, the AV will be standard vulgar English.

 

[larryjf]

There's also a distinction to be made as to who the Bible is to be "vulgar" to...the Church.

It's not enough to say we need to change the language because the secular world doesn't consider it common anymore.

So one takes into consideration the context of who is using the language when determining if it is vulgar or not. As an example, in the animal field you have the Latin name and the vulgar name of an animal. But even the vulgar name may not be "vulgar" to those who don't have knowledge in the field.

The Latin "Puma concolor" and the vulgar "Puma" may not be vulgar enough for the masses to know what animal we are talking about. But when we say "cougar" it is even a more common name.

I hope what i am trying to get across is making sense.

 

[JohnOwen007]

The question supposes the development of language can be traced by steps. This would be a mistake. Linguists say that language morphs as it comes into contact with other languages and pushes out into new contexts. While people continue to write in English, and to express conservative religious ideas in English, the AV will be standard vulgar English.

How come then, that as a person who has post-grad education levels and reads much, I struggle to understand what the KJV means?

 

[JM]

According to the "Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Indicator" the grade level average is 5.8 and the NIV is 8.4.

"According to the F-K [Flesch-Kincaid] formula 74.3% of the books [in the KJV] are on or below the sixth grade level, and 94% are on or below the seventh grade level! . . . And the FRE [Flesch Reading Ease] rated 97% of the KJV books as Fairly Easy or Easy! These were all first place statistics!" (D.A. Waite Jr, The Comparative Readability of the Authorized Version)

"The King James Bible was published in the year Shakespeare began work on his last play, The Tempest. Both the play and the Bible are masterpieces of English, but there is one crucial difference between them. Whereas Shakespeare ransacked the lexicon, the King James Bible employs a bare 8000 words—God’s teaching in homely English for everyman."
(Robert McCrum, William Cran, and Robert MacNeil, The Story of English, p. 113)

That all posted, I would still like a new updated translation, but I'll keep my AV until then. I went from the NIV to the NKJ to the AV, I think that helped me to understand the AV better because I had become familiar with the Bible before hand.

j

 

[Blueridge Believer]

I grew up with the KJV and have little problem understanding it. However, I grew up in the 60's. I have noticed that some of the young people in out congregation have some trouble with it though. That's why we have allowed the NKJV as an aid to thier study.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

It’s an interesting question for me, as literature is one of my two primary fields of endeavor; a writer – especially a poet, at least of the type I am – must be in touch with language as it is spoken and understood by the culture(s) he wants to speak to. In the English-speaking world (I include the U.K., Australia, etc., although I am not as familiar with the vagaries of their speech as I am of the U.S.’s) there are so many subcultures with their dialects, odd phrases and word-usage, that one must aim to find a common language along with a commonality of things signified (words/phrases being the signifiers). I reckon it still possible to speak to the American peoples en mass, and be well understood.

I admit that the language of the King James Bible is somewhat difficult, both in its phraseology and words used, for some modern people. On the other hand, it is the language of the confessional church, or many confessional churches. One important quality of the KJV is that it does incorporate in its language the rhythms and sound of the ancient Hebrew and Greek, and there is a majesty to it that modern English does not convey, not even that of the NKJV or MKJV. I think that perhaps the main objection people have with the KJV language is the idea or thought that it is old-fashioned and in the main archaic, and they, after all, are modern people and don’t want to seem out-of-date, or be using dated material. Because in itself it is not difficult language; the NKJV is often much more difficult in its words and phrasing. I consider Rev. Winzer’s church, where the AV is thought of as the norm, an ideal situation, but one that is not easily arrived at if another Scripture has been used before.

When there are places in the AV that are difficult for me to understand (and it does happen) I look at other versions, and consider the meaning of the original languages.

There is a timeless quality to the AV’s language – it was quite apart and distinct from the English spoken when it was translated – it is not Elizabethan English by any means, as studies have shown. It is Biblical English.

I recall a saying by C.S. Lewis, “All that is not eternal is eternally out of date." The AV’s language is not out of date.

Is it possible that the English language as we know it in America and in England is deteriorating? Where is good, precise, vital, and vibrant English spoken? In universities? At poetry readings? In modern fiction? On the street? In the business worlds? In the world of law? Some schools of philosophy have steadily been attacking the viability of language, saying that it cannot any longer (or ever really did) communicate to the hearer what the speaker meant. With postmodern deconstruction this linguistic nihilism is carried even further, even to the point of positing the idea that there is no commonality either in the language or cultural realities of the various human cultures, so that we are not a human community which can speak so as to be understood by all, but are irreparably divided.

In the church this is not so. In the Kingdom of God the division of languages at Babel has been reversed; there is a common speech, with common signifiers and common realities signified therewith. The quintessential commonality in the Kingdom is the Word and Person of the King. Despite the textual battles this Word cannot be destroyed or overcome; true, it has been whittled at in some of the versions, but the essential core remains.

Yet this “whittling” has unnerved some as to the reliability of the Word, and rightly so. The Kingdom is the last bastion of uncorrupted speech, and the KJV, in my view, the finest standard of that speech, and based on the most accurate original language sources.

If indeed the language of the English-speaking cultures of the world are being ravaged by the advertising word-smiths prostituting it for gain, subcultures relativizing it, and by nihilists saying there is no meaning, and no true human personality (in this chance universe), so how can there be true speech? then one might well ask a counter question: What if the language is not evolving, but devolving, and the AV is a standard of sanity and excellence, the Kingdom’s language of the first water, this side of Heaven, at any rate?

 

[Blueridge Believer]

It’s an interesting question for me, as literature is one of my two primary fields of endeavor; a writer – especially a poet, at least of the type I am – must be in touch with language as it is spoken and understood by the culture(s) he wants to speak to. In the English-speaking world (I include the U.K., Australia, etc., although I am not as familiar with vagaries of their speech as I am of the U.S.’s) there are so many subcultures with their dialects, odd phrases and word-usage, that one must aim to find a common language along with a commonality of things signified (words/phrases being the signifiers). I reckon it still possible to speak to the American peoples en mass, and be well understood.

I admit that the language of the King James Bible is somewhat difficult, both in its phraseology and words used, for some modern people. On the other hand, it is the language of the confessional church, or many confessional churches. One important quality of the KJV is that it does incorporate in its language the rhythms and sound of the ancient Hebrew and Greek, and there is a majesty to it that modern English does not convey, not even that of the NKJV or MKJV. I think that perhaps the main objection people have with the KJV language is the idea or thought that it is old-fashioned and in the main archaic, and they, after all, are modern people and don’t want to seem out-of-date, or be using dated material. Because in itself it is not difficult language; the NKJV is often much more difficult in its words and phrasing. I consider Rev. Winzer’s church, where the AV is thought of as the norm, an ideal situation, but one that is not easily arrived at if another Scripture has been used before.

When there are places in the AV that are difficult for me to understand (and it does happen) I look at other versions, and consider the meaning of the original languages.

There is a timeless quality to the AV’s language – it was quite apart and distinct from the English spoken when it was translated – it is not Elizabethan English by any means, as studies have shown. It is Biblical English.

I recall a saying by C.S. Lewis, “All that is not eternal is eternally out of date." The AV’s language is not out of date.

Is it possible that the English language as we know it in America and in England is deteriorating? Where is good, precise, vital, and vibrant English spoken? In universities? At poetry readings? In modern fiction? On the street? In the business worlds? In the world of law? Some schools of philosophy have steadily been attacking the viability of language, saying that it cannot any longer (or ever really did) communicate to the hearer what the speaker meant. With postmodern deconstruction this linguistic nihilism is carried even further, even to the point of positing the idea that there is no commonality either in the language or cultural realities of the various human cultures, so that we are not a human community which can speak so as to be understood by all, but are irreparably divided.

In the church this is not so. In the Kingdom of God the division of languages at Babel has been reversed; there is a common speech, with common signifiers and common realities signified therewith. The quintessential commonality in the Kingdom is the Word and Person of the King. Despite the textual battles this Word cannot be destroyed or overcome; true, it has been whittled at in some of the versions, but the essential core remains.

Yet this “whittling” has unnerved some as to the reliability of the Word, and rightly so. The Kingdom is the last bastion of uncorrupted speech, and the KJV, in my view, the finest standard of that speech, and based on the most accurate original language sources.

If indeed the language of the English-speaking cultures of the world are being ravaged by the advertising word-smiths prostituting it for gain, subcultures relativizing it, and by nihilists saying there is no meaning, and no true human personality (in this chance universe), so how can there be true speech? then one might well ask a counter question: What if the language is not evolving, but devolving, and the AV is a standard of sanity and excellence, the Kingdom’s language of the first water, this side of Heaven, at any rate?

 

[etexas]

It’s an interesting question for me, as literature is one of my two primary fields of endeavor; a writer – especially a poet, at least of the type I am – must be in touch with language as it is spoken and understood by the culture(s) he wants to speak to. In the English-speaking world (I include the U.K., Australia, etc., although I am not as familiar with vagaries of their speech as I am of the U.S.’s) there are so many subcultures with their dialects, odd phrases and word-usage, that one must aim to find a common language along with a commonality of things signified (words/phrases being the signifiers). I reckon it still possible to speak to the American peoples en mass, and be well understood.

I admit that the language of the King James Bible is somewhat difficult, both in its phraseology and words used, for some modern people. On the other hand, it is the language of the confessional church, or many confessional churches. One important quality of the KJV is that it does incorporate in its language the rhythms and sound of the ancient Hebrew and Greek, and there is a majesty to it that modern English does not convey, not even that of the NKJV or MKJV. I think that perhaps the main objection people have with the KJV language is the idea or thought that it is old-fashioned and in the main archaic, and they, after all, are modern people and don’t want to seem out-of-date, or be using dated material. Because in itself it is not difficult language; the NKJV is often much more difficult in its words and phrasing. I consider Rev. Winzer’s church, where the AV is thought of as the norm, an ideal situation, but one that is not easily arrived at if another Scripture has been used before.

When there are places in the AV that are difficult for me to understand (and it does happen) I look at other versions, and consider the meaning of the original languages.

There is a timeless quality to the AV’s language – it was quite apart and distinct from the English spoken when it was translated – it is not Elizabethan English by any means, as studies have shown. It is Biblical English.

I recall a saying by C.S. Lewis, “All that is not eternal is eternally out of date." The AV’s language is not out of date.

Is it possible that the English language as we know it in America and in England is deteriorating? Where is good, precise, vital, and vibrant English spoken? In universities? At poetry readings? In modern fiction? On the street? In the business worlds? In the world of law? Some schools of philosophy have steadily been attacking the viability of language, saying that it cannot any longer (or ever really did) communicate to the hearer what the speaker meant. With postmodern deconstruction this linguistic nihilism is carried even further, even to the point of positing the idea that there is no commonality either in the language or cultural realities of the various human cultures, so that we are not a human community which can speak so as to be understood by all, but are irreparably divided.

In the church this is not so. In the Kingdom of God the division of languages at Babel has been reversed; there is a common speech, with common signifiers and common realities signified therewith. The quintessential commonality in the Kingdom is the Word and Person of the King. Despite the textual battles this Word cannot be destroyed or overcome; true, it has been whittled at in some of the versions, but the essential core remains.

Yet this “whittling” has unnerved some as to the reliability of the Word, and rightly so. The Kingdom is the last bastion of uncorrupted speech, and the KJV, in my view, the finest standard of that speech, and based on the most accurate original language sources.

If indeed the language of the English-speaking cultures of the world are being ravaged by the advertising word-smiths prostituting it for gain, subcultures relativizing it, and by nihilists saying there is no meaning, and no true human personality (in this chance universe), so how can there be true speech? then one might well ask a counter question: What if the language is not evolving, but devolving, and the AV is a standard of sanity and excellence, the Kingdom’s language of the first water, this side of Heaven, at any rate?

Preach it Steve!

 

[dswatts]

Bravo!

One of the best posts I've read on this site in quite a while!

Thanks for sharing it, Steve.

Grace,

Dwayne

 

[JTDyck]

Is it possible that the English language as we know it in America and in England is deteriorating? Where is good, precise, vital, and vibrant English spoken? In universities? At poetry readings? In modern fiction? On the street? In the business worlds? In the world of law? Some schools of philosophy have steadily been attacking the viability of language, saying that it cannot any longer (or ever really did) communicate to the hearer what the speaker meant. With postmodern deconstruction this linguistic nihilism is carried even further, even to the point of positing the idea that there is no commonality either in the language or cultural realities of the various human cultures, so that we are not a human community which can speak so as to be understood by all, but are irreparably divided.

Thanks for this, Steve. I appreciate your comments.
It seems to me that another spin-off (to use a modern term) of all this is that Christians are reading less and less of the Puritans, many of whom used similar language in their expression of theology and doctrine. It becomes too difficult for the "modern man", who must wait until it is released in updated language, or perhaps until it is made into a movie.
It is worthwhile to study the Bible, as it is also to work at reading substantial expressions of sound doctrine from good students of God's Word.

 

[etexas]

I feel guilty for using my NKJV, I am going back to my King James!

 

[Thomas2007]

I don't mean to debate anyone on this. I only wish to post the question and see what folks have to say. Hopefully there are some direct answers.

My question is this: How much further must today's language evolve before the KJV translation is deemed beyond the concept of "vulgar language" as described in WCF 1:8?

Dear Michael,

I think it is important to understand the issue of translation, what was done in the Authorized Version as contrasted against the concept as it is promoted today.

I'm working with eldest child this year on textual criticism, we have been reviewing Tyndals interdependence with Luther's translation of the Protestant Received Text, one of our fellow church members has a 300 year old German Bible and it is quite enlightening to sit down with it and work on these things. I'm doing this in order to demonstrate the unity and principles upon which the Protestants worked, as faithfully as possible, to represent the original tongues into the native languages of the respective societies. This is in direct contrast to the modern principle.

That is to say our Protestant forebears work was dedicated to bringing God's word to the people in their native tongue so that the people could relate to God, and learn of His Law and Grace and conform their lives to it. In contrast, the modern principle is to relate God's word to the people in their peculiar idiom (not native tongue) in order to relate God to the people. The standard is no longer the word of God that is then translated, the standard is the peculiar idiom in which God's word is then brought. This is a tremendous difference.

When I talked with Bruce Metzger on these things 15 years ago his principle has always been that the work of translation is never finished. This is a standard presupposition today. Leaving the textual debate out of the discussion, this means that the word of God is never fixed, never standardized, but perpetually subjective to society. Since faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God, this new principle of relating God to people whereby the word of God is much more subjective to an evolving language means, ultimately, an evolving God. God's word is constantly being remade into the image of society, or groups of society, such as Ghetto Bible's, Feminist Bibles &c. While we discount these things as being aberrations they really aren't, they've just taken the principle to it's logical conclusion, something we would be ashamed to do - but the principle is the same nevertheless.

Our Protestant forebears intended that to be the other way around, and indeed it was for 300 years, whereby both Luther's German Bible and the English Authorized Version became the very foundation of German and English as literary languages, the foundation of jurisprudence, and the bedrock upon which society as a whole was built. The idea was to move as close as possible the original tongues into the native tongue, so the English of the Authorized Version is not the English of Shakespeare, and it represents the meaning of the underlying tongues. For example, "ye" in the Authorized Version represents the underlying plural "you" of the original tongue. Once you understand some basic principle such as this, you should be able to understand the meaning of Scripture much more clearly than in modern translations when these meanings are all obscured in the peculiar idiom of the day. Cambridge Bibles generally have a word list in the back that gives modern meanings to older english words, such as marketplace for shambles in 1 Corinthians 10:25; hence once you know what shambles means, then it is no longer a problem to read that and understand it.

If translation holds to these principles then it will always produce what appears as archaic language, because the original tongues are archaic languages.

I have to look up English words all the time in dictionaries, just to read a lot of things, invariably I'm always learning and expanding my vocabulary; the same is true of the Bible and it just isn't that hard.

In my view, then, we have to work on re-educating ourselves to reach the high standard of the Authorized Version, then we may want to discuss reaching for a higher standard, until then, I don't see any need for new translations.

I was raised under the premise of if at first you don't succeed, try try again. Today this seems to have changed to if at first you don't succeed, lower, lower, lower the standard!

 

[Blueridge Believer]

The official Bible for Wilderness Road Baptist Assembly is the A.V. It only will be used for preaching and public reading. We do however approve any good translation for study that is translated from the reformation text.
KJV, NKJV, GENEVA, MKJV, LITV, YLT.

 

[KMK]

The question supposes the development of language can be traced by steps. This would be a mistake. Linguists say that language morphs as it comes into contact with other languages and pushes out into new contexts. While people continue to write in English, and to express conservative religious ideas in English, the AV will be standard vulgar English.

How come then, that as a person who has post-grad education levels and reads much, I struggle to understand what the KJV means?

Can you give an example? I say the same thing when I read the NASB.


Let's face it, in America people simply cannot read very well. (present company excluded) Perhaps the fact that our sheep cannot read the KJV does not indicate that we need to retranslate it, but we need to do a better job teaching our young people to read!

(Maybe we could send them to the Zoolander Center For Kids Who Can't Read Good)

 

[Davidius]

The question supposes the development of language can be traced by steps. This would be a mistake. Linguists say that language morphs as it comes into contact with other languages and pushes out into new contexts. While people continue to write in English, and to express conservative religious ideas in English, the AV will be standard vulgar English.

How come then, that as a person who has post-grad education levels and reads much, I struggle to understand what the KJV means?

Can you give an example? I say the same thing when I read the NASB.


Let's face it, in America people simply cannot read very well. (present company excluded) Perhaps the fact that our sheep cannot read the KJV does not indicate that we need to retranslate it, but we need to do a better job teaching our young people to read!

There is nothing in the KJV which a semi-educated person cannot understand through a careful rereading of the passage or the use of a dictionary, aids of which one should avail onself when studying an important text anyway.

 

[etexas]

The question supposes the development of language can be traced by steps. This would be a mistake. Linguists say that language morphs as it comes into contact with other languages and pushes out into new contexts. While people continue to write in English, and to express conservative religious ideas in English, the AV will be standard vulgar English.

How come then, that as a person who has post-grad education levels and reads much, I struggle to understand what the KJV means?

Can you give an example? I say the same thing when I read the NASB.


Let's face it, in America people simply cannot read very well. (present company excluded) Perhaps the fact that our sheep cannot read the KJV does not indicate that we need to retranslate it, but we need to do a better job teaching our young people to read!

(Maybe we could send them to the Zoolander Center For Kids Who Can't Read Good)

Zoolander! Nice one man!

 

[MW]

How come then, that as a person who has post-grad education levels and reads much, I struggle to understand what the KJV means?

I don't feel it is my place to be commenting on an individual's ability in the English language. It may, however, come down to the way you are approaching it.

 

[JohnOwen007]

How come then, that as a person who has post-grad education levels and reads much, I struggle to understand what the KJV means?

I don't feel it is my place to be commenting on an individual's ability in the English language. It may, however, come down to the way you are approaching it.

My point concerns those who do have ability in the English language. It is simply that one can be educated in the humanities, disciplines that focus on reading (we're not talking about the typical person in a sound-byte culture), and they find the KJV very difficult to comprehend. I've seen it time and time again, not just for me, but with my students as I get them to read KJV and other 17th century literature. If this is the case for bookworms, how much more for those who (by capacity) aren't good readers.

We can produce statistics about the reading level of NIVs versus KJVs etc. but in my real-life pastoral experience, here in several parts of Australia (in both educated and uneducated areas), the KJV is difficult to drive in practice. The best explanation of this (in my mind) is that the English language has morphed sufficiently enough to demand a new translation. Why educate a person to understand 17th century English, when we could be spending the time educating them in Scripture?

On a similar point I struggle to get people who are bookworms to read John Owen because of his cumbersome and antiquated language. Hence, Banner have released some of his works in updated English, precisely because it's better to read updated Owen than no Owen at all.

God bless.

 

[bookslover]

The question supposes the development of language can be traced by steps. This would be a mistake. Linguists say that language morphs as it comes into contact with other languages and pushes out into new contexts. While people continue to write in English, and to express conservative religious ideas in English, the AV will be standard vulgar English.

How come then, that as a person who has post-grad education levels and reads much, I struggle to understand what the KJV means?

That's easy (as you know): the Elizabethan/Jacobean English of the KJV has not been the "vulgar" language of the people for nearly 400 years now. Languages (not just English) are always changing over time. And English just isn't where it was 4 centuries ago. Nor should it be.

 

[MW]

The best explanation of this (in my mind) is that the English language has morphed sufficiently enough to demand a new translation.

It's not a simplistic matter of the English language "morphing sufficiently enough." That supposes there are levels to language development. There are not. Language is the expression of ideas. Ideas require context. So long as the context exists in which the AV is recognised as a standard of religious conservatism, the AV will continue to speak in the language of the day. If radicals get their way religious conservatism might become an antiquated term, and it might just be that such a morphology takes place that the language of the AV no longer speaks to the religious world. But not if religious conservatives have anything to do with it!

 

[MW]

That's easy (as you know): the Elizabethan/Jacobean English of the KJV has not been the "vulgar" language of the people for nearly 400 years now. Languages (not just English) are always changing over time. And English just isn't where it was 4 centuries ago. Nor should it be.

If you ever have the time, Richard, please read Alister McGrath's "In the Beginning." The AV simply wasn't written in the language of 4 centuries ago.

 

[bookslover]

If translation holds to these principles then it will always produce what appears as archaic language, because the original tongues are archaic languages.

Well, no; the original tongues were not archaicto the original speakers. They were the "up to date" languages of their respective times and peoples. Why should we not have the Bible in the modern English language of our times and people? Why must the Bible always appear only in an archaic form of English?

Paul wrote Romans (just to pick one of his books) in modern 1st century Greek. Why should we have to put up with Romans in not-modern, in fact archaic, English?

 

[KMK]

Once again, can anyone give an example of a passage in the KJV that is difficult to understand because of the Elizabethan English? Maybe I am so used to the sound of it I don't notice it any longer.

 

[JohnOwen007]

Once again, can anyone give an example of a passage in the KJV that is difficult to understand because of the Elizabethan English? Maybe I am so used to the sound of it I don't notice it any longer.

Sure, I'll give a fresh example from my work today on Haggai 2:1-9 for a sermon. Haggai 2:6 reads:

"For thus saith the LORD of hosts; Yet once, it [is] a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry [land];"

I have no idea what "Yet once, it [is] a little while" means. I've never heard anyone say this before. I've never seen that combination of words before. To me, in my modern English parlance, the words don't make grammatical sense.

God bless KMK.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Marty (JohnOwen007),

You have a point. Upon my first reading I took it to mean, "In a little while..." and the "Yet once" I took to mean "once again" though I wasn't sure.

The King James reading does reflect the literal Hebrew. When Paul (I know, that's another topic!) comments on this verse in Hebrews 12:26 he renders the beginning of the phrase, "Yet once more I shake not the earth only..."

It is worth — to me — the little extra trouble of ferreting out the meaning occasionally to have the assured accuracy of the AV's Masoretic Hebrew and Received Greek texts. In a reading I would make clear to the congregation the meaning of any such minor difficulties.

As I have explained elsewhere, the pew Bibles of our church are NKJV (it was that or the ESV from the planting congregation), and I often read from that, yet will give the AV's rendering if the difference is significant, or else just read the AV. The Filipina women in the church are getting accustomed to the AV's language (Tagalog is their first language), and they take to heart my teaching that it is the best English Bible, even if at times hard. For their personal Bibles they have both AV and NKJV.

The Arabic congregation uses the Smith-Van Dyke Arabic version, which is almost identical to the AV.

Accuracy is the first priority, in my view.

Steve

 

[KMK]

Once again, can anyone give an example of a passage in the KJV that is difficult to understand because of the Elizabethan English? Maybe I am so used to the sound of it I don't notice it any longer.

Sure, I'll give a fresh example from my work today on Haggai 2:1-9 for a sermon. Haggai 2:6 reads:

"For thus saith the LORD of hosts; Yet once, it [is] a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry [land];"

I have no idea what "Yet once, it [is] a little while" means. I've never heard anyone say this before. I've never seen that combination of words before. To me, in my modern English parlance, the words don't make grammatical sense.

God bless KMK.

I see what you mean. It's not that the words themselves don't make sense it is the grammar that sounds so different than 'modern' English. (whatever that is)

I am not against retranslating the TR. However, I don't think the motivation behind it should be that the Elizabethan English is too difficult to understand for English speakers. People are going to have to do their homework to understand passages like Hag 2:6 anyway. (As I am sure you already did) I think the motivation behind a new translation should be that we can make an English version that is more accurate than the KVJ. And modern English is just not as precise as Elizabethen. (I know Mr. Zuelch will probably have a few words to say about this)

 

[JohnOwen007]

As I have explained elsewhere, the pew Bibles of our church are NKJV (it was that or the ESV from the planting congregation), and I often read from that, yet will give the AV's rendering if the difference is significant, or else just read the AV. The Filipina women in the church are getting accustomed to the AV's language (Tagalog is their first language), and they take to heart my teaching that it is the best English Bible, even if at times hard. For their personal bibles they have both AV and NKJV.

Dear brother Steve, I think that approach is eminently sensible because it takes into account all kinds of people you must and will have in a congregation. Good stuff!

 

[Thomas2007]

How come then, that as a person who has post-grad education levels and reads much, I struggle to understand what the KJV means?

I don't feel it is my place to be commenting on an individual's ability in the English language. It may, however, come down to the way you are approaching it.

My point concerns those who do have ability in the English language. It is simply that one can be educated in the humanities, disciplines that focus on reading (we're not talking about the typical person in a sound-byte culture), and they find the KJV very difficult to comprehend. I've seen it time and time again, not just for me, but with my students as I get them to read KJV and other 17th century literature. If this is the case for bookworms, how much more for those who (by capacity) aren't good readers.

We can produce statistics about the reading level of NIVs versus KJVs etc. but in my real-life pastoral experience, here in several parts of Australia (in both educated and uneducated areas), the KJV is difficult to drive in practice. The best explanation of this (in my mind) is that the English language has morphed sufficiently enough to demand a new translation. Why educate a person to understand 17th century English, when we could be spending the time educating them in Scripture?

On a similar point I struggle to get people who are bookworms to read John Owen because of his cumbersome and antiquated language. Hence, Banner have released some of his works in updated English, precisely because it's better to read updated Owen than no Owen at all.

God bless.

In my experience, and I'm speaking a little more broadly conceptually, but I don't think it is really a "language" issue as it is two other things: truncated critical thinking skills, and minds disposed to image based communication. Because of the predominance of the latter, the former is a predisposed condition in most everyone today, especially those that are educated in public institutions.

The modern mind just isn't as advanced in these areas as the 17th century mind. It's the complex thought patterns that cause people problems, not language in and of itself. The words aren't difficult, it's the thinking that's difficult. Television and image based communications in our advertising mediums, and even our text books, has had a drastic effect upon the mind. The areas of the mind that were fully developed in childhood in the 17th and 18th century, simply aren't developed in our people.

New translations really don't do much, in terms of the Reformed Faith anyway, because it just reduces the complexity of the thought patterns to which their minds can handle, but then it doesn't reinforce it with images, which is how they are trained to learn, accepting and collating tremendous amounts of information through the passive occipital lobe.

In turn, modern Evangelicalism will grow with new Translations because they fully adopt ritual and image based communication. For example, we've had someone visit our Church recently entertaining the idea of exiting a modern Church, they watch reruns of Andy Griffith in Sunday School and talk about the moral implications taught in the show. Their children are taught with drama and puppet shows. The gentlemen's wife perceives us to be too intellectual and thus not truly "spiritual," and she simply cannot comprehend much of anything, and certainly cannot connect in our worship because nothing, music, the ministry of the word, the people, nothing is coming to her in terms which her mind knows how to receive it. This disparity is much more than just what people are used to, it is the way the mind has been trained to think.

This lady is a classic example that everybody probably has a similar experience with in the Reformed Faith, whereby they defend themselves against the illegitimacy of our premise, which is generally expressed against our "intellectualizing" of the Faith.

There is a tremendous amount of social psychology and learned patterns that have to be overcome, translation alone doesn't do anything, other than plug people into Christianized yet thoroughly humanistic social psychology, and in turn they never really grasp the width, breadth, height and depth of the Christian Faith.

There is a tremendous bond built in society as a result of the presupposition of autonomy, the entire doctrine of Sola Scriptura, challenges and demolishes this bond and necessitates developing thinking, emotions and attitudes in terms of Scripture as Authority. The advance of continuous translation in our society has been an attempt to secure the results of centuries of social progress in terms of Sola Scriptura, and it presumes this is merely a linguistic issue. So, when new versions are brought forth they don't work toward developing Authority in terms of Scripture, they reinforce the presupposition of autonomous bond which results in reversed responses in terms of ritual, images, and drama to which their minds are developed to think, and which are the highest emotional level in which people connect to the idea of Authority.

 

[Ravens]

Here are some of my thoughts and observations on this issue; hopefully some of my own thoughts and opinions can be clarified by interacting with those who are far brighter than I.

I lean towards adhering to the TR, but also see some value in the MT position; and to be honest, I'm not exactly sure where one starts and the other begins. To me it seems that Rev. Winzer explains the TR position somewhat differently than Rev. Rafalsky (both of whom I have immense respect for). Rev. Winzer's position, as I understand it, allows for "moderate" textual criticism (c.f. the recent thread where he interacted with Rev. Keister) within the established tradition of the Reformation texts. I would take that to be the same kind of criticism utilized by the AV translators themselves as they compared different "received" manuscripts. Rev. Rafalsky (again, correct me if I'm wrong) seems to have a somewhat loftier view not of Reformation texts in general, but of the AV specifically, to the point that, if the AV disagreed with one of the readings utilized by the Protestant Dutch Bible, then the AV would be preferred across-the-board, since Providence brought together the true text in the AV in particular, and not in Protestantism generally. To me this slight evidence between them was evident in the thread on Beelzebub a few weeks (months?) back, where Rev. Winzer thought that the TR could be amended to Beelzebul, whereas Rev. Rafalsky would stick with Beelzebub because it is the Reformation reading.

I could accept Rev. Winzer's view, but I would have a harder time with Rev. Rafalsky's, as much as I respect and appreciate him (and his work; and his writings in other areas!), in that I think it is a bit nationalistic to see the pure Greek text preserved in the AV only, when Reformation also came to the German, French, and Dutch churches.

Regardless. I don't know what the point was. Maybe Rev. Winzer and Rev. Rafalsky elaborating on their differences could help some of us understand things better.

For all of my reading, I would still have trouble understanding how Rev. Winzer, from what I understand, disagrees with a MT position, unless his is a "Protestant MT", or something to that effect. For, are not both Byzantine? And if allowances can be made so that the English and the Dutch and continental versions all had the "received text", then how is that not, in essence, an MT position? My lack of learning in this matter is showing, but maybe this will lead to further understanding.

Either way, I find myself opposed to the critical texts and eclectic texts, be it Westcott and Hort, or UBS, or what have you. I agree that the multiplicity of Greek editions, and, worse, the multiplicity of English translations (not to mention the ways in which those translations are marketed) is doing much damage to the church. I agree with Rev. Rafalsky's repeated emphasis that confidence in the sure and reliable word of God is being eroded by a multiplicity of texts, versions, translations, etc.

The AV position would recall Protestants back to the AV as the standard, established text of the English language. At this point I'm not quite sure how to frame my arguments and questions, so bear with me. Rev. Winzer stated recently in the "Abiding Validity..." thread that theonomists have more friends than they themselves recognize, and, insofar as they implicitly affirm that the principles of the law, and not the law qua law, are what retain abiding validity, that they approximate to a Reformation understanding of the application of the judicial law.

To me, it seems as if a similar thing can be said to AV adherents. If they would only be willing to concede on a few minor points, I wager they would realize that they had far more friends than they imagined.

I realize that "concede" sounds like the hissing of the serpent; but please hear me out.

There are a wealth of people out there who realize the dangers of an ever evolving critical text which, in turn, spawns ever-changing "relevant" translations into the vernacular, which, in turn, are packaged and bell'd and whistle'd and shipped off to various groups, e.g. Teen Bibles, Single Bibles, Ethnocentric Bibles, Gender-specific Bibles, etc. I wouldn't pretend to do justice to Rev. Greco's position, but he has repeatedly said that he rejects that the word of God was lost to the church, or that the church deemed something "the word of God" (e.g. John 8, or the ending to Mark) that was not, in fact, the word of God. However, he is apparently (correct me if I am wrong, Rev. Greco) uncomfortable with the language and phrasing of the KJV, so he uses the NKJV.

I'm getting sidetracked, but hear me out. I can't count the number of times that I have heard, in real life, and on this board, from fathers of families and from ordained elders, that the language of the AV is troublesome to many young people, new Christians, and, if people were honest, long-time Christians themselves. I candidly wonder if many older Christians (at least in non-Biblical churches) don't have many problems with the AV, because they stay in their favorite passages, and ones that are the most familiar to them.

So, the way I look at it, the AV folks, though taking an admirable stand, are turning away willing and ready allies, in my opinion, over trifles. Now that all depends on how I define trifle.

It is my firm belief that most of the MT, light-TR, and NKJV using folks could be one over by an incredibly slight revision of the AV; namely, one that avoids the errors of the NKJV, and only updates obsolete words and obsolete word-endings.

Here is where the rub is for me: Just looking at the spirit of these discussions, it appears that, were there a national caucus of NKJV and AV users, and the NKJV users said, "We will adopt the AV, and establish it in our churches, if you remove the "-th" endings and update obsolete words (e.g., exchange "lying" for "leasing", "know" words for "wot, wit"." And from the appearance of these discussions, I imagine that the AV folk would reject that offer.

Many of us have a desire for those who hold to a preserved text to make a unified stand against the ever-changing versions. And sometimes it breaks my heart and gives me migraines that "-th's (maketh, breaketh, etc.) seem to be so important as to demand non-compromise. The AV is not obscur, obsolete, or difficult English. On that point I agree with the AV crowd. However, there are many obsolete words, and obsolete "verbal forms" or whatever you would call them in the AV. And it is precisely this that leads people to deem it (in error) Elizabethan.

Now, those people who call it Elizabethan or completely archaic... well, I question their motives. They are painting with a broad brush.

However, the fact of the matter is, that ordained men in many denominations confess to the people in their churches struggling with the AV. And on that account, they refuse to use it. And I suppose I give more credence to ordained men who have problems with the AV when working with youth, young Christians, in the inner city, etc. When fathers of families complain (as some have on here in the past) that their children have problems understanding passages in the AV during family worship (apparently these people are committed enough to have family worship...), then there is a problem. Indeed, it seems as if the only people who don't have a problem with some of the language in the AV come from a very small circle of people whose life work is to defend the AV, and/or read the Puritans.

Point being, there are many ministers and fathers, as well as enough Christians themselves, good-hearted, Reformation folk, who have problems with the AV, and that, in turn, leads them to corrupted Bibles. And at that point, if these people are willing to use a Reformation text, I think, personally, some guilt lies on AV organizations and churches, who fail to issue as soft revision that AV, NKJV, TR, MT, et al. could rally around, so that we could face the critical/eclectic texts with a unified front.

Lastly, in my mind, there is not one iota of difference between updating the spelling from the 1611 (which has been done), and updating the endings to some verbal forms (-eth, -th). There's no difference in between that, and probably no difference in changing "leasing" to "lying", all the while keeping distinctive Reformation readings, word orders, theological words, etc.

in my opinion, the fact that every serious AV Bible published always comes with a list of archaic word definitions in the back of it. That in and of itself, to me, shows the need for a soft revision of conjugations and verb forms.

I would stop there! But, if the AV people were open, it would be nice to see slight revisions in other places, e.g., the reinsertion of the Divine Name for "LORD", Beelzebub to Beelzebul, "God and Savior" instead of "God and our Savior" in Titus and 2 Peter (and I know Rev. Winzer would disagree with that), etc.

Now, warning bells probably went off with the last paragraph; because those are more serious changes. But what I'm saying is, many NKJV and MT people, I believe, would be willing to compromise on those other changes (I know I would), if the AV people would only do a soft revision to make the language palatable to the every day people we witness to, read to, preach to, talk with, and instruct. And the vast majority of ordained men and fathers say that there is, indeed, a problem with the language that needs to be corrected.

Anyway, that's just my two cents. I wrote a lot, but it pains me to see unity being withheld by trifles. And the difference between "lying" and "leasing", "stave" and "sword" is just that: a trifle. When so much serious issues are at stake, and when revision to the AV has already been done, it pains me to see people majoring on the minors.

Would it not be wonderful if we could all rally around a new established version; one that every non-critical, non-eclectic text person could feel comfortable using in their actual, real-life, in the streets ministry?

Anyway, blessings to all, and a mea culpa for any gracelessness and mischaracterization. I deeply respect the AV adherents on this board; I also deeply respect the non-AV "TR/MT" men (Rev. Greco, Mr. Farley in this thread, etc.) who either have problems with the language, or know people who do.

Therein lies the rub.