RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Do you see what you just did? You say we can't talk about manuscripts and then you say your standard is objective by......appealing to aspects of manuscripts.
How would KJV users respond to this argument
- Thread starter Polanus1561
- Start date
- Status
Do you see what you just did? You say we can't talk about manuscripts and then you say your standard is objective by......appealing to aspects of manuscripts.
alexandermsmith
Puritan Board Junior
Yes I was talking about White and it was to him I was referring in the post to which you directly responded.
Last edited:
alexandermsmith
Puritan Board Junior
Because we are talking about how a KJV user would respond to criticisms that its language is a barrier to comprehension. If one accepts there is a barrier- which I don't- what's he to do? What other translation is there he can use which uses more "comprehensible" English but holds to the same translation policy? There is none. Ergo he sticks with the KJV. He must fall back on the objective standard of the text it is based on rather than allowing himself to be swayed by the subjective standard of "easier to understand" English.
I mentioned James White because if I were to abandon the KJV and opt for modern translations I would be giving up what is to me certainty in the translation to skepticism which would rather undermine the whole point of abandoning the KJV because it is less comprehensible, don't you think?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
On one hand that is fair, but it really can't be said in this thread because everyone is agreeing to leave manuscript considerations out of it.
As to "objective standard," what was the objective standard when translators were collating all of the texts that would make up the TR? They couldn't use the TR for that itself was what was being collated.
alexandermsmith
Puritan Board Junior
I'm not talking about manuscripts. I'm talking about what my standard as a KJV user is in evaluating all the issues brought up by the specific question of the op. Since the thread was addressed to KJV users I think that's legitimate. I have utilised it only as a reason why comprehension concerns are of secondary importance to me, a KJV user. I also addressed the language itself in my initial post. It is the anti KJVers who have made an issue out of this and who have kept coming back to the issues to do with the manuscripts themselves.
There is a difference between discussing the merits of the various texts on the one hand and saying that one's belief in the superiority of the TR is the most important argument for retaining the KJV on the other. The latter discussion does not require the former: but there will always be those who want to make it about the manuscripts.
As to your question: I have no interest in discussing that and it is not the subject of this thread.
B.L.
Puritan Board Sophomore
What are your thoughts on the Modern English Version (MEV)? I am not familiar with it, but it seems like some might view it as an answer to your question.
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
Exactly. Why should any Christian living today (old or young) have to put up with outdated language like this? Just seems like common sense to me.
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
It's not a good translation if you have to have it translated into modern English in order to comprehend it.
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
They were grammatically correct more than four hundred years ago. If they were still grammatically correct, English would still be using them. Languages change over time.
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
Co-sign.
Polanus1561
Puritan Board Junior
Gents, just to clarify the discussion:
1. Not about Manuscripts, this argument can be defined as Why not the NKJV? if so desired.
2. The argument is simply in ages past, when the Word of God was read (excluding the medieval period), people (commonfolk - believers or unbelievers) could understand what was said, reading aloud the KJV in this day would cause confusion (not speaking about John 3:16 which everyone knows but rather the archaic vocab)
1. Not about Manuscripts, this argument can be defined as Why not the NKJV? if so desired.
2. The argument is simply in ages past, when the Word of God was read (excluding the medieval period), people (commonfolk - believers or unbelievers) could understand what was said, reading aloud the KJV in this day would cause confusion (not speaking about John 3:16 which everyone knows but rather the archaic vocab)
I don't need to do that. Anyway, that's not much of a reply to my post.
The KJV is still "grammatically correct", just dated.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
In one sentence you say you are not talkinga bout manuscripts, but in another sentence you bring up the manuscripts. You can't do both.
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
Perhaps you don't need to do that, but most people in the pews would. The whole purpose of the Bible is to communicate God's message, which is difficult to do when the language is outdated. Why should anyone have to struggle with that?
I said the same earlier. See posts #3 and #8.
It depends. Not everyone can be said to be "putting up" with it.
Some individuals prefer the KJV. And that's fine.
Some churches prefer KJV. And that's fine.
I agree that your average Christian would struggle with a fair bit of a translation that has passed its 400th birthday. Whether that has to do with the "dumbing down" of English, as someone said earlier, is beside the point. (Anyway, after 400 years, languages will change.) The point is that believers should be able to comprehend what they're reading and hearing. I'm sure you and I agree there. What I don't understand is your hostility to the KJV, which, whatever your personal dislike for it, remains a solid translation.
alexandermsmith
Puritan Board Junior
alexandermsmith
Puritan Board Junior
Please refer me to the modern second person singular pronoun that is distinct from the second person plural pronoun.
alexandermsmith
Puritan Board Junior
You assert it causes confusion. I would say this is merely anecdotal but you haven't even provided anecdotes. I can tell you in my denomination the KJV does not cause "confusion". Your argument also assumes that modern translations don't cause confusion. And yet we still have anti-paedobaptists so clearly confusion remains even with these oh-so-easy to understand modern translations.
Polanus1561
Puritan Board Junior
A Scottish church that has had many generations reared on the KJV is not where the argument is targetted at.
alexandermsmith
Puritan Board Junior
Again I'm not bringing up the manuscripts. I made reference to the translation philosophy of the KJV which is an objective standard- whether you accept it or not is not the point- as to why I, a KJV user, consider comprehension secondary.
What you are saying is that "we should ask KJV users to defend the KJV against the suggestion that we should abandon it because it is archaic but only allow them to use certain arguments which we want them to use." Well sorry I don't accept that arbitrary limitation. You could have ignored my reference to the translation aspect or you could simply have said "I don't agree with that." But instead a couple of you decided you were gonna make this about manuscripts. I offered it as one amongst a few points in answer to the question. You made it about the manuscripts.
Last edited:
alexandermsmith
Puritan Board Junior
Well, to be fair, that qualification was not in the title of the thread or the OP. It is, however, likely that those who use the KJV today do so within the context of a congregation which uses it. Or have been raised using it.
But as I also said earlier on I did not grow up using the KJV. I grew up with the Good News and NIV. I didn't start using the KJV until 2011 well past my formative reading years. And I have not found it hard at all to adapt.
This is an issue of theology, not linguistics.
alexandermsmith
Puritan Board Junior
My point is that implicit in the argument against the language of the KJV is the assumption that with a modern version suddenly we have comprehension and the text is easy to understand. I dispute that. Even with modern everyday English there is still a lot of disagreement and indeed confusion so that would suggest to me there is something else which is more of a barrier than the style of the language.
Solparvus
Puritan Board Senior
Bypassing in full the manuscript debate that's in other parts of this post... and let me say I feel sympathy to those who struggle with old English. It does take effort to get used to. I myself am KJV preferred, not an onlyist, and I do hold the modern faithful translations (even based on CT) to be the Word of God, as God has evidently owned them as such.
There is another practical tradeoff to permanently retiring the KJV. We have many wonderful Puritan/Reformed works, but they are in a heavily dated English, and they'll either refer to the KJV, the Geneva, or some other old translation. And there's not the time available to update all these works. Even when we make this attempt, sometimes we don't always do it so well. However, I remember hearing that in Owen's day people made the effort to learn English just so they could read him (no source, sorry). Old English education, in some respects to our Reformed heritage, is ad fontes.
I think of Asian seminary students and what a task they have (we meet at Puritan Seminary so I run into them all the time)... I feel for them when I hear them try to preach in English, knowing it's not their first language. But if they don't learn English, they cut themselves off from a world of spiritual wealth, as so many wonderful works are in this language which is vastly different from their own; and they have to read all realms of English from the 17th century to today, Scottish to English to American spread over four centuries with all their spelling and orthographic variations. That on top of cultural differences and references! Neither is their reading list a light one. They have a much bigger task in learning English at all than we do in learning Old English.
Yet they will read these dated works, painful as it is. For them, it's an exercise in Proverbs 2 where they have to mine through sturdier bedrock than us to obtain all this spiritual gold.
And really, aren't the pains of a language education worth it? We have a better running start than they do. They go land and sea to get to it, but for us it's buried in our backyard.
I'm not an onlyist, though I prefer it for manuscript reasons (not for debate). If we say the dated language is a reason not to read it, it then becomes an excuse to not read older literature altogether, or to wait until someone modernizes it. I don't even want to think of a modernized Shakespeare!
If someone wants to mine the riches of their Puritan heritage, learning old English isn't an option, and the KJV is a wonderful introduction to their English.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
I think it's well known I choose the KJV as my primary Bible, and that for a variety of reasons (see Collected Textual Posts), though here will briefly restrict myself to the issue of language.
When I read my Scripture, by my reading chair & small desk, on a shelf at arm's reach, I have 8 newer versions (ESV, NIV '84, NKJV, MEV, NASB, MKJV, LB (old version), and Amplified (just gave away a CSB to a friend who needed a Bible). On a shelf a step away I have numerous others (including various interlinears), such as Lamsa, Young's Literal, RSV, NRSV, etc. I have the Geneva 1599 edition in digital format on a nearby Apple computer.
When I want to get a simpler sense of the language I often turn to the old Living Bible paraphrase, which, though limited, is very helpful (I have been using that for around 50 years), and often consult the other versions, as well as the Hebrew and Greek.
When I preach, either open-air or from the pulpit, I will often spontaneously "modernize" the language of the KJV, so it is eminently understandable to folks either Biblically illiterate or not used to KJV language.
I do not envision a replacement for the KJV – one slightly modernized – the basic text unchanged, at least not in my lifetime. Although, as pointed out, there are a few serious archaisms in it, there are plenty of available helps to aid with that.
When planting and pastoring a church in the Middle East (Cyprus) I opted for a poor edition NKJV (tiny print, sans the helpful – to me – footnotes) over a much better edition ESV, due to the better underlying mss (the KJV was not an option given in the gift). Still, the NKJV, although acceptable, still has some serious translational issues and some underlying text issues (mostly in the OT).
Ultimately, I am KJV priority due to the accuracy of the underlying Hebrew and Greek, and fidelity of the translation, that is, the confidence I have in the text. When I say "KJV priority" I mean I acknowledge the legitimacy of other honest versions (the JW NWT is not an honest version), save in the matters of the variants – which may easily be discussed while honoring whichever Bible folks may be using. As a pastor, I was loath to divide the church over the Bible version issue, or to cause my brothers and sisters to lose faith in the version they used.
When I read my Scripture, by my reading chair & small desk, on a shelf at arm's reach, I have 8 newer versions (ESV, NIV '84, NKJV, MEV, NASB, MKJV, LB (old version), and Amplified (just gave away a CSB to a friend who needed a Bible). On a shelf a step away I have numerous others (including various interlinears), such as Lamsa, Young's Literal, RSV, NRSV, etc. I have the Geneva 1599 edition in digital format on a nearby Apple computer.
When I want to get a simpler sense of the language I often turn to the old Living Bible paraphrase, which, though limited, is very helpful (I have been using that for around 50 years), and often consult the other versions, as well as the Hebrew and Greek.
When I preach, either open-air or from the pulpit, I will often spontaneously "modernize" the language of the KJV, so it is eminently understandable to folks either Biblically illiterate or not used to KJV language.
I do not envision a replacement for the KJV – one slightly modernized – the basic text unchanged, at least not in my lifetime. Although, as pointed out, there are a few serious archaisms in it, there are plenty of available helps to aid with that.
When planting and pastoring a church in the Middle East (Cyprus) I opted for a poor edition NKJV (tiny print, sans the helpful – to me – footnotes) over a much better edition ESV, due to the better underlying mss (the KJV was not an option given in the gift). Still, the NKJV, although acceptable, still has some serious translational issues and some underlying text issues (mostly in the OT).
Ultimately, I am KJV priority due to the accuracy of the underlying Hebrew and Greek, and fidelity of the translation, that is, the confidence I have in the text. When I say "KJV priority" I mean I acknowledge the legitimacy of other honest versions (the JW NWT is not an honest version), save in the matters of the variants – which may easily be discussed while honoring whichever Bible folks may be using. As a pastor, I was loath to divide the church over the Bible version issue, or to cause my brothers and sisters to lose faith in the version they used.
B.L.
Puritan Board Sophomore
I was thinking about the reasons why I continue to prefer the KJV and this was one practical reason I spent a lot of time reflecting on. Most books on my shelves were written at a time when the KJV was the English standard and cite it almost exclusively. I really enjoy reading an older book with my KJV open beside it. As scripture saturated as Puritan writings and generally other older writings are it's a banquet feast to sit and look up all the scripture references in the same/similar translation. I do wonder from time to time whether the diminished use of the KJV and the familiarity with that kind of prose might result in a loss of accessibility to the Puritans. That would be most unfortunate.
Another reason I enjoy the KJV is the fun and dare I say reward of looking up and studying all of the antiquated phrases and expressions and then seeing how various modern translations chose to translate the same passages. I get great enjoyment from doing this and learn a lot in the process. I understand this is a choice and not a necessity, so if others prefer to stick to a good modern translation I'm all for it so long as their noses are in the word regularly.
alexandermsmith
Puritan Board Junior
My contacts referred me to this review of the MEV. It seems to follow the KJV approach closely but there are a few divergences in translation and a few of those pesky "explanatory" footnotes. It also uses "you" instead of "thee" and "thou" when referring to God so it would be no good.
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2019/05/book-review-posted-modern-english.html?m=1
Last edited:
Yes, this matters. About two centuries ago, English lost this rather important distinction.
- Status
Similar threads
