If we lose the KJV we’ll lose access to the Puritans

Status
Not open for further replies.
The KJV is in modern English. I realize it contains words unfamiliar to us now, or that have changed in meaning, and some sentence structures that are unusual. Thus the hope that Christian families will teach their children to read it. As an adult, it’s pretty easy to figure out any passage with a difficulty along those lines.
I would consider Elizabethan English though as exactly being the same as our modern English though.
 
The King James Bible is easier to read than many today would recognize. For some people, the antiquated language is an obstacle, but I honestly think that if they sat down and tried, they'd have little trouble. I read the KJV with my wife, whose first language is not even English, and she is able to understand without much difficulty.

I have also found that reading the King James Bible fits well with singing from the Scottish Psalter, as they are not very far removed from each other.

Further, studying the King James Bible and books of the period has made reading Shakespeare a breeze. I intend to raise my son principally on the KJV, though I'll have other versions around for reference.


A side note:

Old English (Anglo-Saxon) = Beowulf
Middle English = The Canterbury Tales, Wyclif's Bible
Early Modern English = Hamlet, the King James Bible
 
The thesis of the OP is not true. I have not read the KJV regularly for 14 years, yet I read the Puritans all the time.

I agree with this. I've never used the KJV and have little trouble reading the Puritans. If anything, we moderns probably stumble over the 17th-century grammar and syntax more than over the vocabulary. Familiarity with the KJV is not necessary to understand the Puritans.
 
You could say because I regularly read the AV for 5 years that I had an advantage over other readers of the Puritans, but I am not convinced. We also need to avoid speaking of the Puritans in monolithic terms. Some are very easy to read; others are more of a chore. The difficulty in reading them has little or nothing to do with familiarity with the AV.
 
I appreciate the pushback as well as the agreement on this. I think I’ve been corrected somewhat on what I said. I could have been clearer in the OP that:

I wasn’t saying that if you leave off reading the KJV, after having read it in prior years, that you’ll lose the ability to understand the Puritans.

I wasn’t saying that a person can’t read the Puritans if they don’t read the KJV.

By “losing the KJV” I meant to convey what will happen if churches and Christian parents don’t teach their children to read and appreciate the it; the use of it to coming generations will be in danger of being lost.

By losing access to the Puritans I did initially mean losing the ability to read and follow the language they used; but as Edward pointed out, I “left an opening” for other ways and reasons, and I think it turns out they’re more key.

One point to clarify is that the “we” I had in mind in the OP isn’t the type of people who are members of the Puritanboard. Those kinds of people are generally strong readers, and have a theological and historical understanding of the events of the Reformation and the times of the Puritans. The people I have in mind are those inside and outside the confessional tradition who are drifting away from historical moorings. They see the KJV as hopelessly antiquated and tend to put the Reformers and Puritans in the same category. These aren’t just mainline denominational people and SBC people and charismatics, but are also PCA people and other Reformed denominations.

I still think there’s a vital connection between continued familiarity in families and churches with the Authorized version, and church history and thought from the reformation onward. I wonder if where the KJV is despised and neglected, Puritan doctrines and confessions become less consequential. More of an ecclesiastical issue than mere language, I think. Those who disdain that connection may be more beholden to it than they realize.
 
Last edited:
Jeri,

While I appreciate much about the KJV and think familiarity with it is a good part of understanding our heritage, I think the cause-and-effect you suggest may be a bit overstated. I suspect that if we want to keep people interested in Puritan writings, the best way to do that will be to keep them interested in godliness, theology, and church history. If they are interested in these things, they will eventually seek out Puritan writings.

The people I know who read the Puritans don't generally use the KJV as their go-to translation. But they are committed believers who love getting to know Christ better. They crave deep teaching and want to be moored in a solid Christian heritage. If we keep that alive in our churches, the Puritan witness with flourish.

(Many of those people will like the KJV too, and for some of the same reasons.)
 
Jeri,

While I appreciate much about the KJV and think familiarity with it is a good part of understanding our heritage, I think the cause-and-effect you suggest may be a bit overstated. I suspect that if we want to keep people interested in Puritan writings, the best way to do that will be to keep them interested in godliness, theology, and church history. If they are interested in these things, they will eventually seek out Puritan writings.

The people I know who read the Puritans don't generally use the KJV as their go-to translation. But they are committed believers who love getting to know Christ better. They crave deep teaching and want to be moored in a solid Christian heritage. If we keep that alive in our churches, the Puritan witness with flourish.

(Many of those people will like the KJV too, and for some of the same reasons.)
Jack, I don’t know if I was speaking correctly as far as cause and effect, but I still will maintain the intertwining and connection is possible, and I think likely. I concede to some of the pushback received; I appreciate it, as I don’t want to think or speak wrongly about this.

We’re all the beneficiaries of generations of church men who held an ecclesiastical view of the KJV, and so maintained its use in their churches and families. Its use only began to be abandoned in the late 1880’s, and then not by everyone, by any means. I would think that many Reformed denominations, especially, would have held out for a good while (some still do such as the FC(C), and individual ministers still use it in the pulpit). So it may be too early to tell the full impact of its abandonment.

So those who read and love the Puritans but protest any necessary connection with the KJV might consider they’re standing on the shoulders of those generations referred to above. I wonder if it can be likened to a people whose freedom to protest their military came from that military’s preservations of those freedoms. Their protests succeeded and they weakened it down to a shadow of its former self, then they were overrun, and in a couple of generations had forgotten their former heritage. It may not be the best analogy but maybe something to it?

Again, you and many on the board are going to know a lot of theologically literate people; but those are a small minority compared to the many, many believers in the kinds of churches I’ve been in, who retain absolutely no familiarity with or appreciation of either the KJV or Puritan doctrine. Is there no link there? I guess it’s impossible to prove or disprove. Anecdotally though, coming from the confused and confusing church situations I’ve been in, the loss of the two definitely appear together, and from people who should know better. It’s the ESV and new Calvinist authors all the way for them.
 
don't worry, over here for the Chinese, we have some Puritan work translated to Chinese.... think about transferable content... i myself use NKJV and love the rhythm-ic style (though not very word-for-word as per NASB)
 
Jack, I don’t know if I was speaking correctly as far as cause and effect, but I still will maintain the intertwining and connection is possible, and I think likely. I concede to some of the pushback received; I appreciate it, as I don’t want to think or speak wrongly about this.

We’re all the beneficiaries of generations of church men who held an ecclesiastical view of the KJV, and so maintained its use in their churches and families. Its use only began to be abandoned in the late 1880’s, and then not by everyone, by any means. I would think that many Reformed denominations, especially, would have held out for a good while (some still do such as the FC(C), and individual ministers still use it in the pulpit). So it may be too early to tell the full impact of its abandonment.

So those who read and love the Puritans but protest any necessary connection with the KJV might consider they’re standing on the shoulders of those generations referred to above. I wonder if it can be likened to a people whose freedom to protest their military came from that military’s preservations of those freedoms. Their protests succeeded and they weakened it down to a shadow of its former self, then they were overrun, and in a couple of generations had forgotten their former heritage. It may not be the best analogy but maybe something to it?

Again, you and many on the board are going to know a lot of theologically literate people; but those are a small minority compared to the many, many believers in the kinds of churches I’ve been in, who retain absolutely no familiarity with or appreciation of either the KJV or Puritan doctrine. Is there no link there? I guess it’s impossible to prove or disprove. Anecdotally though, coming from the confused and confusing church situations I’ve been in, the loss of the two definitely appear together, and from people who should know better. It’s the ESV and new Calvinist authors all the way for them.
I can only speak from limited experience, but out of all the people I know who read the Puritans, none read the KJV as their primary translation. I think it comes down to an interest in theology; hence, those in evangelical, gospel-lite churches, or charismatic churches, do not care for the Puritans.

Furthermore, some who love the KJV - fundamentalist Baptists - have zero time for the Puritans.

In my mind this whole idea is flawed; and I believe that, in many ways, the insistence on using the KJV is actually a stumbling block to getting those who don't read the Puritans to read them. You're asking them to climb two mountains instead of one.

This is coming from a confessed antiquarian who nearly always prefers the old to the new.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have six children and have no interest in reading to them from any translation other than the AV. Most of them have their own AV Bibles and their own Scottish Metrical Psalter.

Some people forget there are still denominations that require the use of the AV for preaching. Forget reading the Puritans for a moment, my children need to understand the preaching and singing of the word each week!

Some may dismiss this next reason as utter foolishness, but I also use the AV exclusively for preaching, reading, family, and personal worship because it correctly addresses the Lord using the second-person-singular pronoun in English. This is also how we pray. If Christ taught us to pray, "Hallowed be thy name," (Matt. 6:9), I believe we should maintain the nearest approximation of that we can in our own language. I do not believe that using "you" for God the Father in translation or prayer is wrong. Of course it isn't wrong, because that's how we all speak. However, "you" simply does not contain as much information as using "thou" (per the original languages). I see any loss of information, when preventable, as a thing to be avoided.

When I was in Australia, someone tried to tell me that "thee" and "thou" are not part of the English language anymore. I found that implausible, since every session of the Australian Parliament is still commenced with the AV version of the Lord's Prayer.
 
I have six children and have no interest in reading to them from any translation other than the AV. Most of them have their own AV Bibles and their own Scottish Metrical Psalter.

Some people forget there are still denominations that require the use of the AV for preaching. Forget reading the Puritans for a moment, my children need to understand the preaching and singing of the word each week!

Some may dismiss this next reason as utter foolishness, but I also use the AV exclusively for preaching, reading, family, and personal worship because it correctly addresses the Lord using the second-person-singular pronoun in English. This is also how we pray. If Christ taught us to pray, "Hallowed be thy name," (Matt. 6:9), I believe we should maintain the nearest approximation of that we can in our own language. I do not believe that using "you" for God the Father in translation or prayer is wrong. Of course it isn't wrong, because that's how we all speak. However, "you" simply does not contain as much information as using "thou" (per the original languages). I see any loss of information, when preventable, as a thing to be avoided.

When I was in Australia, someone tried to tell me that "thee" and "thou" are not part of the English language anymore. I found that implausible, since every session of the Australian Parliament is still commenced with the AV version of the Lord's Prayer.
I am glad that works for you, brother. But most of us are not in the situation where the KJV is required reading.
 
This has been an informative thread for me. I'm surprised at how many eschew the KJV. I could see using a 'modern' English translation primarily, especially since many congregations do not use the AV, but surprised that some don't read it at all.

Maybe it is because of my age, pushing 70, and years ago the KJV was the Bible, or maybe it is the beauty of the text, but I can't stop reading it. I do supplement it with other English translations.

For instance, in the M'Cheyne 1 year plan I've finished the Book of Proverbs just a couple of days ago. I found that following my reading the KJV translation I'd pick up the NIV or NASB, and I would find I didn't completely understand the import of my reading in the KJV. This probably says more about me than the KJV, but that is my story and I'm sticking to it.

I read the Puritans and whether familiarity with the KJV helps or not I cannot say, but it certainly doesn't hurt. After all, it was the Bible that most of them were reading when they wrote their tomes. The first Puritan I began with was Richard Baxter and I have delved into John Owen, Thomas Goodwin, Richard Sibbes, Anthony Burgess, Samuel Rutherford and Thomas Boston among others. I have to thank this board for pointing me in that direction.

I wouldn't want to read a modernized version of any of them, I even prefer reading facsimile editions when available. I never could understand someone reading Charles & Mary Lamb's adaptations of Shakespeare when they could have the real thing.
 
I wouldn't want to read a modernized version of any of them, I even prefer reading facsimile editions when available.

Neither would I if I could avoid it; I try to read as much of the originals as I can on archive.org or Google Books if I do not own hard copies. Still, a lot of people find the facsimiles too intimidating and it is better they read modernised editions than not read them at all. The purists might want everyone to read the originals, but the realists are content that people are reading edifying material in a format that they find accessible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top