KJV ONLY

Status
Not open for further replies.

Randall Pederson

Puritan Board Freshman
Does anyone here buy into the KJV only arguments? I find them somewhat unsettling as the original preface to the 1611 version states that as the English language changes, so, too, must the translation.
 
wannabee was probably on just a little while ago I believe he could answer this well as he used to go to a KJV only church.

blade
 
Which one? The first edition that left "not" out of the seventh commandment?

Consider the origin, a king who did not like what the Geneva Bible said about the Egyptian midwives.
 
The argument for KJV only are based in a gross misunderstanding of language, translation and textual criticism. For a very good easy to read book get a copy of James White's 'The KJV Only Controversy.'
 
I spent quite a few years in a KJV-only church. I don't know that I've ever heard the arguments articulated why the new perversions of the Bible (no offense, that's what they called the other Bibles) were wrong. Its hard to sift through (determine) the facts when the origin of the other translations are just linked with movements or organizations that most "Bible believers" would tend to oppose (world counsel of churches, ecumenical movement, liberalism, etc).

Personally, the KJV-only debate is one that I never cared to get into with anybody. It always seemed a little silly to attack the spiritual armor (the sword of the spirit) that the Lord gave which is used to attack our common adversary, unless the facts clearly warranted it.

Has anybody ever heard a debate where the KJV position was credibly defended. I've listened to several debates that James White had with KJV-only proponents where his opposition I thought was a little lacking. I always figured that they "sent a boy to do a man's job" or that the best the KJVers had to offer either couldn't do the debate, declined to debate, or whatever.
 
I've never heard a debate in which the KJVer came out on top. Not even in the 'smaller venue' forum. The reason is because the argument is illogical and based upon inaccuracies in history, textual history, inspiration, transmission, . . . . ad infinitum. I'm not trying to cast allegations. It is just the way things look from where I sit. I have some dear brothers who are in that camp. (Living near Pensacola seems to cause that.) Some of them are so rabid about this that you'd think that either James Rex or his version went to the cross. They get more vexxed by this than they do more serious issues such as open theism.
 
[b:d2d26584b4]Lawrence wrote:[/b:d2d26584b4]
I've never heard a debate in which the KJVer came out on top.

How about any debates where they at least came across as being quasi credible. The ones I've heard, in my opinion, made the person look silly. The debate that James White had against Gail Riplinger is a prime example.

Bob
 
Worse and worse.

It's kind of sad how the "KJV only" arguments seem to get worse and worse as the years go by. The "best" defense of the KJV was called "The KJV defended" by some Harvard Graduate. It was a little known, and little recognized, work. He based his arguments largely upon 1) the Providential preservation of the Textus Receptus, 2) the large reception of the translation as the "standard" translated for centuries afterwards. Just recently, Dr. Joel Beeke wrote a tract called "Practical Reasons for Retaining the KJV". I presume he called them "practical" because there are no real "textual" reasons for doing so (at least in the sense that KJV onlyers would have it). Perhaps the greatest failure of the tract was the "practical" reason that "it just sounds like the Bible"!
Arghh...
 
[b:0ad4995aca]Randall wrote:[/b:0ad4995aca]
The "best" defense of the KJV was called "The KJV defended" by some Harvard Graduate. It was a little known, and little recognized, work. He based his arguments largely upon 1) the Providential preservation of the Textus Receptus, 2) the large reception of the translation as the "standard" translated for centuries afterwards.

I thought that title sounded familiar. I had bought the book around 15 years ago and never got around to reading it. Its by Edward Freer Hills. His mini-biography on the back cover is interesting - sounds like he's no slouch:

"Edward Freer Hills was a distinguished Latin and Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Yale University. He also earned the B.D. degree from Westminster Theological Seminary and the TH.M degree from Columbia Theological Seminary. After doing doctoral work at the University of Chicago in New Testament text criticism, he completed his program at Harvard, earning the TH.D. in this field. He is also the author of Believing Bible Study."

In thumbing through the book, it looks like its definitely worth reading.

Bob
 
[quote:66ad4c2553][i:66ad4c2553]Originally posted by blhowes[/i:66ad4c2553]
[b:66ad4c2553]Randall wrote:[/b:66ad4c2553]
The "best" defense of the KJV was called "The KJV defended" by some Harvard Graduate. It was a little known, and little recognized, work. He based his arguments largely upon 1) the Providential preservation of the Textus Receptus, 2) the large reception of the translation as the "standard" translated for centuries afterwards.

I thought that title sounded familiar. I had bought the book around 15 years ago and never got around to reading it. Its by Edward Freer Hills. His mini-biography on the back cover is interesting - sounds like he's no slouch:

"Edward Freer Hills was a distinguished Latin and Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Yale University. He also earned the B.D. degree from Westminster Theological Seminary and the TH.M degree from Columbia Theological Seminary. After doing doctoral work at the University of Chicago in New Testament text criticism, he completed his program at Harvard, earning the TH.D. in this field. He is also the author of Believing Bible Study."

In thumbing through the book, it looks like its definitely worth reading.

Bob [/quote:66ad4c2553]


There is a huge difference between defense of the use of the KJV and KJV-onlyism (which is a heresy). The former is certainly within the pale of orthodoxy, and a good case can be made for it. The latter is held mostly by kooks that have other major heresies (just read Riplinger or the other major proponent - I forget his name).
 
[b:597626eebe]Fred wrote:[/b:597626eebe]
There is a huge difference between defense of the use of the KJV and KJV-onlyism (which is a heresy). The former is certainly within the pale of orthodoxy, and a good case can be made for it.

I agree. After writing the first part of my post, I started thumbing through the book a little and thought it would be disrespectful for me to lump him in with the KJV-only crowd.

[b:597626eebe]Fred wrote:[/b:597626eebe]
The latter is held mostly by kooks that have other major heresies (just read Riplinger or the other major proponent - I forget his name).

"Dr" Peter Ruckman?

Being a somewhat slow reader (who's working on his speed), I wouldn't waste my time reading Riplinger's writings. Some of her ideas that I heard in the debate with James White I thought were silly - I felt embarrassed for her. I was glad that James White took the "high ground" when he debated her and didn't utterly crush her in the debate. (I think he won hands down, but he did it with dignity and allowed her "arguments" to speak for themselves)

Bob

[Edited on 1-13-2004 by blhowes]
 
[quote:ddccf39335][i:ddccf39335]Originally posted by blhowes[/i:ddccf39335]
[b:ddccf39335]Fred wrote:[/b:ddccf39335]
There is a huge difference between defense of the use of the KJV and KJV-onlyism (which is a heresy). The former is certainly within the pale of orthodoxy, and a good case can be made for it.

I agree. After writing the first part of my post, I started thumbing through the book a little and thought it would be disrespectful for me to lump him in with the KJV-only crowd.

[b:ddccf39335]Fred wrote:[/b:ddccf39335]
The latter is held mostly by kooks that have other major heresies (just read Riplinger or the other major proponent - I forget his name).

"Dr" Peter Ruckman?

Being a somewhat slow reader (who's working on his speed), I wouldn't waste my time reading Riplinger's writings. Some of her ideas that I heard in the debate with James White I thought were silly - I felt embarrassed for her. I was glad that James White took the "high ground" when he debated her and didn't utterly crush her in the debate. (I think he won hands down, but he did it with dignity and allowed her "arguments" to speak for themselves)

Bob

[Edited on 1-13-2004 by blhowes] [/quote:ddccf39335]

Yes, it is Ruckman I am thinking about. His soteriology is completly whacked. He also has many odd views concerning the Trinity.
 
[quote:9890b57389][i:9890b57389]Originally posted by Randall Pederson[/i:9890b57389]
Does anyone here buy into the KJV only arguments? I find them somewhat unsettling as the original preface to the 1611 version states that as the English language changes, so, too, must the translation. [/quote:9890b57389]

I do not agree with all of the arguments made by "KJV only" proponents, but I do think the KJV is the best version to use, and I think it is unfortunate so many other translations have come into existence; I think it would be best if all used the KJV.

I just wanted to respond briefly to the question about the preface to the 1611 version stating that as the English language changes, so too must the translation. I believe the way we should understand this is that when the language changes to such an extent that common people cannot read and understand the Authorised (KJV) Version, then a new translation would be appropriate, because the ability of God's people to read God's Word for themselves is of the most vital importance.

However, I do not believe that this has actually taken place; the English language has not in fact changed so much that people can no longer understand the KJV. It is still exceptionally readable, as well as majestic and memorable for the language it uses.

The newer translations are certainly easier to read, but also bland-sounding and simplistic, sometimes achieving their simplicity by questionable interpretation rather than straight translation.

When we spurn out new translations every few years adapting to the vulgar language of the times, we send the message that God's Word must adapt itself to human society, rather than the other way around.

If the English language had really evolved such that the KJV was not readable by the people a new translation would be justified, but that simply is not the case. The church I attend uses the KJV, and many internationals for whom English is not even their first language are able to use it, so I cannot imagine why any native English speaker could not. It might be a little harder at first, but we are called to diligence, not laziness, in our Christian life.

I certainly do not put the KJV on the same level as the original Greek and Hebrew texts, and a good pastor will explain to his flock instances where the KJV translation might be misleading compared to the original texts. But I still believe there is no other translation to compare with the KJV, and it would be good if all churches used it so that all God's people would be united in their use of the same Bible. Understanding of the KJV language is also very useful for helping people retain the ability to understand the great old hymns and the works of the great reformers. If Christians are dumbed down by the Bible translations they are given, we should not be surprised if they are less and less inclined to read the great old works of the Puritans and others not writing in the modern vulgar tongue.

I realize there are arguments about other translations being more accurate because of the texts used, and I do not address that here; I am responding primarily to the question about the translation needing to change as the language does.
 
[quote:4bc8e183d6][i:4bc8e183d6]Originally posted by Randall Pederson[/i:4bc8e183d6]

Does anyone here buy into the KJV only arguments?
[/quote:4bc8e183d6]
I did, for a season in Florida many years ago.

Looking back I imagine it felt somewhat like a cult.
 
[quote:ffb430ebda]the English language has not in fact changed so much that people can no longer understand the KJV.[/quote:ffb430ebda]

The KJV has been "improved" several times and updated for language. Most people to day cannot read and understand the 1611 or later versions of the KJV. The language has changed that much.

The KJV is a fine translation. I do not use it because when I used to I spent more time in my sermon defining the English terms for my congregation than I did on the Greek and Hebrew. If I have to translate it while I am preachin git then the language needs updating!

As White proves over and over in his debates, there is nothing wrong with several of the "new" transaltions and many even improve the work of the KJV translators, giving us a more accurate English version of the Bible.

Phillip
 
Blade, sorry I missed your prompt there.

Looks like most of it's been said though.

The KJV is great. I still like to read it. But let's face it, it's tough for some people. And the translation is lacking in many ways, relying heavily on the TR. The KJVonly crowd equates the TR with the MT, which is really quite dishonest. They also refuse fellowship with churches that won't adhere to their position. I know of a couple of churches where you will not be allowed to preach unless you use the KJV. It's really quite sad. I think I used to hear a plug for the KJV at least once or twice a month from the pulpit. What a waste of time, energy and ability.

As has been said, KJVonlyism is cultish. The mindset that one gets is really quite binding, keeping one caught in a legalistic trap. When I realized how wrong it was it was an extremely liberating experience. I wasn't in a position to be used by Christ because I was so caught up in a fight that was not edifying to His children and wascontrary to His glory. The freedom was exhilarating, almost like being born again, again :biggrin:.

I prefer the NKJV now because I still lean toward the Byzantine side of the debate. I try to honestly check it against the NASB though, and when there's a descrepancy I do a word study. I know that's a little backward, but I'm just learning the languages.

Another plug for learning Greek and Hebrew.:bouncy:
 
[quote:817e911ebe]
However, I do not believe that this has actually taken place; the English language has not in fact changed so much that people can no longer understand the KJV. It is still exceptionally readable, as well as majestic and memorable for the language it uses.
[/quote:817e911ebe]

I know that it has already been said, but the language has changed considerably; and not just in pronouns and verbal formation. Syntax and definitions have changed. Learning 1611 English ACCURATELY unless your are raised with it (and sometimes even then folks miss it) is essentially learning a new dialect.

I've taught ESL for some time. It is true that 1611 can be learnt. But, learning the language necessary for NASB or ESV is much easier; and in my experience more productive.

Why is the language viewed as majestic? Because it is associated with church. It was not majestic in 1611 - it was the vernacular of the street. This brings up another point. The use of archaic pronouns and verb forms when addressing God. I realise that this has been carried into other translations. It is a mistake. Those forms were the common speech used in addressing anyone. To bring them in, and thereby make a distinction in the text, is adding in implication into the text that is not in the original.

Just my :wr50:
 
Yeah but, Lawrence, for a southerner any other form of English is another dialect.:lol:

Especially Texas?:lol::lol:

Seriously, though, the majestic part of the old English is that it is so grammatically structured that the phraseology, and not just the denotation of words, are part of the conveying of the meanings. And this can be done very closely in the old English. In our time there are hardly any rules anymore about grammatical structure. I know the ones I learned in school are out the window. They are still good form, mind you, but they are not rules anymore.

The same is true for the dictionary. It is not what it used to be. It now reflects the way society uses words, whether rightly or not, and is not the tool to better society's use of words anymore.

I am not a KJV onlyest. I hardly use it anymore. But I really like the RSV because it still respects grammatical structure. For word usage I like the NASB. But note that both the RSV and the NASB are reworking of an older style of English.

If you read Edward's stuff, just like he wrote it, and other old Puritan writers, it is NOT KJ English. There is a distinct difference.

But all this means nothing in light of the argument that the Bible should be in the vernacular. This is very true. And no matter how poor our language might be in our time, the Bible should be in our native tongue. The problem is not the version of the Bible, whether it should be KJV only, but in our poor English skills, and how we have let it slide.

Read any newspaper today, and start counting all the poor use of English, and you won't get past page one before you tire of it. These are professional word people. Words and sentences are their life's work. It is a refelction on our time in more ways than the the stories they write about.

I'm not for going back to KJ English, but I am for improving the language we have. Webster should be our guide to the use of English, not the Valley Girls.
 
[quote:74a4cc144b][i:74a4cc144b]Originally posted by LawrenceU[/i:74a4cc144b]
Why is the language viewed as majestic? Because it is associated with church. It was not majestic in 1611 - it was the vernacular of the street. This brings up another point. The use of archaic pronouns and verb forms when addressing God. I realise that this has been carried into other translations. It is a mistake. Those forms were the common speech used in addressing anyone. To bring them in, and thereby make a distinction in the text, is adding in implication into the text that is not in the original.

Just my :wr50: [/quote:74a4cc144b]

We may differ in our appreciation of the KJV language and our assessment of its suitability for common people today.

I know that the KJV language is much closer to the vernacular of the time in which it was written than it is to modern vernacular, but it was not strictly the vulgar vernacular even of that time.

And I would say the vernacular of that time is superior to the vernacular of modern times.

There is no denying that modern translations, though easier to understand, sound bland compared to the KJV. The commonplace language of the new Bibles is thus more difficult to memorise than is the KJV. And the almost casual sounding language only too easily encourages thinking about spiritual things in a more casual way.

I agree with you that if modern translations choose to do away with the so-called "archaic" distinction between the singular and plural 2nd person ("thee" and "thou" as opposed to "ye" and "you" ), then they probably should do so consistently and not retain the forms when the text is addressing God, because there are certain instances where whether God is being addressed or not is perhaps not clearcut in the original language, and so including or leaving out the special form in some instances might involve undue interpretation.

Many present-day Christians do use the "thee" and "thou" forms when personally addressing God in prayer, however, which I think is a healthy practice, so I suppose that is why these forms are also retained in prayers in some of the modern translations.

At any rate, I do not think the so-called "archaic" forms should be discarded at all in any event, because they in fact are not just a matter of form, but are very important to the meaning of the text, denoting clearly the difference between the singular and plural form of the second person "you", consistent with the original languages. Modern translations which simply use "you" for both singular and plural second person leave the number ambiguous, which can often make a big difference in our understanding of the text.

The "thee" and "thou" forms were not part of the common vernacular even at the time the KJV was written; these forms were rightly used in the KJV despite this fact because their use was important for a correct understanding of God's Word.

[Edited on 1-15-2004 by Jie-Huli]
 
[quote:a46e10627f]
And I would say the vernacular of that time is superior to the vernacular of modern times.
[/quote:a46e10627f]

No, you personally enjoy the vernacular of that time to today.

Language today conveys the same truth. And eloquence is subjective. The difference between Eliot and Milton is vast but both are eloquent, and both convey truth in a powerful way.

Vernacular is not a hindrance to proper translation.

(And by the way, "thee" and "thou" are not formal in KJ English, they are familiar.)

The use of thou and its forms in the King James Bible seem to us to be formal, sublime, ethereal, and holy; but to the translators and original readers, if it had any connotation at all, it connoted a close familiarity. After all, formality ill-befits a Savior who addressed God as Father(Abba), and enjoined us to do the same.

In order to show that all people were equal before God, Quakers continued to use the informal pronouns thee and thou longer than anyone else. Actually, they stopped using thou and used thee as if it were a subject form, and they combined it with the third person singular of the verb, which is ungrammatical. So what would be "thou findest the truth" in historical usage became "thee finds the truth" in Quakerese.



[Edited on 1-15-2004 by Visigoth]
 
[quote:d484a3fde4][i:d484a3fde4]Originally posted by Visigoth[/i:d484a3fde4]

(And by the way, "thee" and "thou" are not formal in KJ English, they are familiar.)

The use of thou and its forms in the King James Bible seem to us to be formal, sublime, ethereal, and holy; but to the translators and original readers, if it had any connotation at all, it connoted a close familiarity. After all, formality ill-befits a Savior who addressed God as Father(Abba), and enjoined us to do the same.
[/quote:d484a3fde4]

In my understanding, in the KJV it has much less to do with either formality or familiarity than it does with showing properly the distinction between the singular and plurar form of the 2nd person pronoun. That is why it is used consistently for the 2nd person pronoun no matter what the context.
 
That is true. I am just waery of arguments that suppose it is more holy to address God with "thee" instead of "you".
I know you were not saying that. I also share your love for the KJV. I just thought your statements were a bit too subjectively dogmatic.

Do you think vernacular can be a hindrance to translation, or conveying precise truths ? ?
 
[quote:2ea4096fb5][i:2ea4096fb5]Originally posted by Visigoth[/i:2ea4096fb5]
That is true. I am just waery of arguments that suppose it is more holy to address God with "thee" instead of "you".
I know you were not saying that. I also share your love for the KJV. I just thought your statements were a bit too subjectively dogmatic.

Do you think vernacular can be a hindrance to translation, or conveying precise truths ? ? [/quote:2ea4096fb5]

I am sorry if I sounded subjectively dogmatic. As for how we address God in prayer today, I would surely never criticise anyone for addressing God with "you" in prayer; though I appreciate using "thee" and "thou" because it sets God apart from the way we speak to mere humans, I know there is no Scriptural requirement for using a different pronoun to address Him, so this is up to the individual and the church.

I guess I do think vernacular can be a hindrance in some respects . . .

What I really meant about the vernacular of the KJV times being superior to modern vernacular was not just that it subjectively sounds better, but that there is value in Christians today reading the Bible in a more classical language rather than the most commonplace language of the day. And I have a feeling that even in 1611, the KJV translation would not have sounded to the people of that time as casual and common as the modern translations of today sound to me; I believe there was always a certain special majesty in the KJV (even all those years ago when the common vernacular was much closer to its language) which the translations of today lack.

I just believe that the Word of God is taken with more reverence and awe and seriousness when worded in the KJV language than in the modern vulgar tongue.

But again I obviously cannot say it is a Scriptural command to stay with the KJV, so if others regard it best to move to a newer translation I cannot criticise, but I myself will continue to use the KJV. And the Bible translation a church uses would certainly be a factor in my decision which church to attend.
 
Just to go on record: I deplore the current state of the English language. We are deconstructing our language and are paying the price in our children. I deal with this on an almost daily basis with young people in our congregation. Having said that, we must make the Bible comprehensible to the man on the street. But, we must not stoop to the full dynamic equivalency position, in my opinion.

I do love the 1611. But, I love the Geneva more. If I were to choose an archaic translation that would be it.
 
I agree, Lawrence.

We rely on the words of scripture to understand the teachings. We are always fending off new ideas or renewed old ideas. And we need the Bible at its best to do that, and for it to be authoritative. But we also need it so that the new and budding Christian can understand it. And the last time I checked, they weren't talking the old English.

Whatever the standards of grammar we have, the Bible has to be the best of it. That's one of the problems with the NIV, I think; it just doesn't reach very high liguistically. We need high grammar and plain words. The better translations should have both, along with a good translation of the text, I would think.

I have seen, though, that the KJV is too strongly condemned, and I think it was in order to get the congregation to submit the the elders' decision to go for the NIV for pew Bibles. My mother-in-law's church did that, and so alienated her because she used it almost exclusively because that was what she knew, remembered, memorized, and could relate to the easiest. And that is fine for her; she never spoke against the newer versions, so why did they have to ride her so much?

As you can guess, a lot of their arguments had nothing to do with which really is better. They were no more than an attempt to justify their choices. Arguments for KJV ought to be directed at the manuscripts they use, not the specific translation because that just doesn't hold water, in my opinion. When did KJV replace Textus Receptus, or whatever it's called?

So a strong reaction against KJV only is called for, in my opinion; but yet it needs to be respected for it's very fine structure and choice of words. It is a very fine translation. But it is a translation, and not an original manuscript.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember that "ye" had been out of use for almost two centuries when the KJV was translated. However, in an effort to convey the meaning of the text more accurately the translators chose to use it for the plural second person.
 
Originally posted by Wannabee
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember that "ye" had been out of use for almost two centuries when the KJV was translated. However, in an effort to convey the meaning of the text more accurately the translators chose to use it for the plural second person.
I'd be interested in this as well. The loss of the 2s/2p distinction is regrettable. And in at least one case, "you are the temple of the Holy Spirit" it has lead to some very bad theology. The "you" there is plural, and the text is about the unity of the church, not drug use or smoking (like everyone thinks today).

Having said that, I have often gotten around this issue by emphasizing that it really is "y'all are the temple..." Even Northerners get that.

[Edited on 10/17/2004 by fredtgreco]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top