Question for KJV onlyists...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Language changes. That’s not something to be scared of.

This argument can and has been used by just about every English version/paraphrase out there. Once you embrace the rule that a new English translation must be made every time the English language changes, then you will be forever searching for the latest translation.

This is something that I have lived through as my churches urged me to change from the NKJV to the Good News Bible, to the NIV, to the Message, and now I am under pressure to switch to the ESV which is also updated every five or six years. Yet there are many new translations/paraphrases still in the pipeline. I would rather have a reliable, settled translation even if it requires the use of a dictionary from time to time.
 
In my opinion, we have done the church a great disservice by being so bound to our archaic pronouns and verb forms that we have allowed the Bible critics the monopoly on modern English.

Who is 'we'?
 
This argument can and has been used by just about every English version/paraphrase out there. Once you embrace the rule that a new English translation must be made every time the English language changes, then you will be forever searching for the latest translation.

This is something that I have lived through as my churches urged me to change from the NKJV to the Good News Bible, to the NIV, to the Message, and now I am under pressure to switch to the ESV which is also updated every five or six years. Yet there are many new translations/paraphrases still in the pipeline. I would rather have a reliable, settled translation even if it requires the use of a dictionary from time to time.

I agree. My question is essentially is there no happy medium? :) 'Absolutely no change' and 'whatever change you feel like' seem to be the majority views.
 
I agree. My question is essentially is there no happy medium? :) 'Absolutely no change' and 'whatever change you feel like' seem to be the majority views.

This may be true. Which makes it seem unlikely that there is enough middle ground at this time to warrant an update. Who wants to stand alone with some Bible that no one else has ever used?
 
Which is a great shame as far as I'm concerned! But I think there's more than one person saying it... ;-)
 
This may be true. Which makes it seem unlikely that there is enough middle ground at this time to warrant an update. Who wants to stand alone with some Bible that no one else has ever used?
I am more concerned that much of the modern versions revisions are either to appeal to gender issues, or else to marketing and merchandising to churches.
 
In the places where those things make a difference to interpretation, it's always the teacher's/preacher's responsibility to make his hearers aware.
Brother,
I don't know how things are done in public worship at your church, but in most Reformed churches, entire chapters are read as a part of the service, apart from the preaching. It would be ridiculous and irreverent for the pastor to have to break in with, "that's plural, by the way," or, "that's singular, by the way" every time a second person pronoun is used. Granted, there are other ambiguities present in our English translations--you mentioned some good examples--but why add more?
 
Brother,
I don't know how things are done in public worship at your church, but in most Reformed churches, entire chapters are read as a part of the service, apart from the preaching. It would be ridiculous and irreverent for the pastor to have to break in with, "that's plural, by the way," or, "that's singular, by the way" every time a second person pronoun is used. Granted, there are other ambiguities present in our English translations--you mentioned some good examples--but why add more?
Most of the time, the proper meaning can be given to the congregation from a good English translation, so there would be the rare time the Pastor would need to give extra emphasis from appealing to the Greek text itself.
 
Brother,
I don't know how things are done in public worship at your church, but in most Reformed churches, entire chapters are read as a part of the service, apart from the preaching. It would be ridiculous and irreverent for the pastor to have to break in with, "that's plural, by the way," or, "that's singular, by the way" every time a second person pronoun is used. Granted, there are other ambiguities present in our English translations--you mentioned some good examples--but why add more?

I completely agree with Dachaser on this. Firstly, 99% of the time the congregation should be following the reading in their own Bibles so the distinction would be obvious. Secondly, it's generally obvious from the context who is being spoken to anyway. Thirdly, it works for me to read the passage and make the distinction at the relevant point of the sermon.
All these objections add weight to my suspicion that there's always going to be some reason for rejecting change of any sort even when the change is perfectly valid.
 
I completely agree with Dachaser on this. Firstly, 99% of the time the congregation should be following the reading in their own Bibles so the distinction would be obvious. Secondly, it's generally obvious from the context who is being spoken to anyway. Thirdly, it works for me to read the passage and make the distinction at the relevant point of the sermon.
All these objections add weight to my suspicion that there's always going to be some reason for rejecting change of any sort even when the change is perfectly valid.
I'll answer your objections in the order you gave them.
1. I agree with you that the congregation, if possible, should be following along in their own copies. However, this is not always possible. For large portions of both of yesterday's services, I was consoling a fussy child. That is the norm for me right now, with three small children, the oldest of whom is three years old. I'm often standing in the back of the chapel bouncing or cradling a child. There is no way for me to read along under such circumstances.

2. That's often true, but not always. Can you distinguish the singular and plural pronouns in the following passage?
“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:31-32, ESV)

3. The scripture readings are not always covered during the sermon. I will concede, however, it may be explained after passage is read. However, why choose a translation for which this has to be done every time there's an ambiguity?

By the way, I do not subscribe to KJVO at all. My wife uses the NKJV, and, while we do plan on her next copy being a KJV, we're not in any hurry.

You spoke of excuses given to exclude any alteration "even when the change is perfectly valid." I don't see any valid reason for a change here. The older pronoun system is easy to understand. I've never met someone who doesn't know what "thou" means.
 
What you're going to have to prove, Tim, is that there really is a good reason to change the text. If everyone can understand the older forms, and making the proposed changes to the forms would make the language less precise, then why change them?
 
Why? Because we don't use that system anymore in our everyday language.

First, They were not using it in every day language in 1611. It is there because it is the conventional way of expressing the differences between singular and plural. Secondly, your innovation is not in everyday language at all. The AV at least has the advantage that it is used in religious contexts. Your innovation would be confined to your version of the Bible. Thirdly, Why opt for your innovation? Why not use Hendriksen's innovation of distancing the letters? If every person takes your liberty we could end up with a thousand different conventions in the place of the natural one that is historically ingrained in the language and can be understood by ordinary means.
 
What you're going to have to prove, Tim, is that there really is a good reason to change the text. If everyone can understand the older forms, and making the proposed changes to the forms would make the language less precise, then why change them?

OK…I take the child-wrangling point. :) I’ve got five kids so I know all about that. But I would repeat my point about the majority of passages being obvious anyway. ‘He said to him…’ or ‘He said to them…’ make the ‘yous’ that follow obvious in most cases. We don’t struggle to communicate in everyday life because we no longer have the distinction so I think the issue is massively overblown anyway.

Luke 22 is the classic passage where it does make a difference of course. Even with thees and thous it’s possible to read the passage too quickly without registering that there is a distinction there though. But those passages are the exception rather than the rule.

You said, ‘The scripture readings are not always covered during the sermon. I will concede, however, it may be explained after passage is read. However, why choose a translation for which this has to be done every time there's an ambiguity?’ I would point out again that it’s not all the time… But, for me, the point is really about having the Word of God in our language as it is now. Having to point out plurality/singularity of pronouns in a few passages is not a serious enough problem for me to say the Word of God should remain in less accessible language in order to avoid it. My issue is that there are very few options for the Received Text-onlyist when it comes to more modern language. Not if you value textual accuracy as well as accessibility of language.

In terms of proving that there really is a good reason to change the text, I would be arguing that we need to fulfil the aim of the 1611 translators that 'the Scriptures may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even by the very vulgar'. While the KJV is a literary masterpiece I don’t think that anyone could reasonably argue that it ‘speaks like itself, in the language of Canaan’ any longer. In other words, when the prophets spoke in the Old Testament, did their words sound to the people like the KJV sounds to us? Or when the Saviour sat and told a parable were His words as old-fashioned to His hearers as the KJV makes them sound? Did the kids in that day ask why He was talking funny? No, of course not. He spoke to them in everyday language. Not slang, not colloquial, just the language of the common man.
 
First, They were not using it in every day language in 1611. It is there because it is the conventional way of expressing the differences between singular and plural. Secondly, your innovation is not in everyday language at all. The AV at least has the advantage that it is used in religious contexts. Your innovation would be confined to your version of the Bible. Thirdly, Why opt for your innovation? Why not use Hendriksen's innovation of distancing the letters? If every person takes your liberty we could end up with a thousand different conventions in the place of the natural one that is historically ingrained in the language and can be understood by ordinary means.

With respect, I would submit that, if you do your research from the documented history of the English language then you would see that it was, in fact, everyday language in 1611. The Merriam Webster dictionary states that for most speakers of southern British English, thou had fallen out of everyday use, even in familiar speech, by sometime around 1650. And that's just in the south of England. That may not mean much to you, but as an Englishman, that's very significant. What's it's saying is that in the 'cultured south' - London etc - the use of these and thous was going out of fashion by around 1650. But the rest of the country would still have used those forms in everyday speech. In fact, thees and thous were the standard usage in informal settings which was one reason the singular went out of fashion. It was seen as too 'familiar' and not polite enough. So, polite society stopped using thees and thous forty years after the KJV was published. But the rest of the country used them for a lot longer. In fact, there are still a few places (they would be seen as the UK's equivalent of 'redneck country' I guess!) where the gentrifying influence of London still hasn't fully reached even in 2017 and you'll still hear people addressing each other as 'tha' (thou). So I can tell you with some authority that to say 'They were not using it in every day language in 1611' is simply not the case. Interestingly, the places where you'll see that urban myth perpetuated are almost exclusively Christian. (Fake news clearly isn't a new phenomenon!)

With regards my 'innovation' - the King James Easy Read edition from Whittaker House uses the same method for distinguishing pronouns and it works perfectly well. And if we raised 'but there might be other ways of doing it' to every new thing that was proposed then nothing would ever get done. Which bring me back, again, to my initial question. I think that that question has now been more than adequately answered though! The answer was NEVER! :)
 
With respect, I would submit that, if you do your research from the documented history of the English language then you would see that it was, in fact, everyday language in 1611. The Merriam Webster dictionary states that for most speakers of southern British English, thou had fallen out of everyday use, even in familiar speech, by sometime around 1650. And that's just in the south of England. That may not mean much to you, but as an Englishman, that's very significant. What's it's saying is that in the 'cultured south' - London etc - the use of these and thous was going out of fashion by around 1650. But the rest of the country would still have used those forms in everyday speech. In fact, thees and thous were the standard usage in informal settings which was one reason the singular went out of fashion. It was seen as too 'familiar' and not polite enough. So, polite society stopped using thees and thous forty years after the KJV was published. But the rest of the country used them for a lot longer. In fact, there are still a few places (they would be seen as the UK's equivalent of 'redneck country' I guess!) where the gentrifying influence of London still hasn't fully reached even in 2017 and you'll still hear people addressing each other as 'tha' (thou). So I can tell you with some authority that to say 'They were not using it in every day language in 1611' is simply not the case. Interestingly, the places where you'll see that urban myth perpetuated are almost exclusively Christian. (Fake news clearly isn't a new phenomenon!)

With regards my 'innovation' - the King James Easy Read edition from Whittaker House uses the same method for distinguishing pronouns and it works perfectly well. And if we raised 'but there might be other ways of doing it' to every new thing that was proposed then nothing would ever get done. Which bring me back, again, to my initial question. I think that that question has now been more than adequately answered though! The answer was NEVER! :)
The KJV translators themselves based their translation off prior versions in part, and so they would expect their work to continue and even be modernized when need be.
 
The KJV translators themselves based their translation off prior versions in part, and so they would expect their work to continue and even be modernized when need be.

Absolutely! If you read the preface, the translators are quite clear about the attitudes they encountered at the time. The objections sound eerily familiar... A lot of people basically said,'What's wrong with the old one?' :) But the translators were candid about why they were doing what they were doing and the importance of it. I think that's the reason why most KJV editions don't have the preface included if I'm being honest!
 
The OP question is, "Will there ever be any point at which KJV-onlyists would acknowledge that the language of the KJV can be legitimately updated?"

My understanding from what I've learned here on the PB about the establishment principle, is that that point will be when God sends reforming times again. Rev. Winzer was helpful on the other thread:

"Anyone with gifts and ability could translate the Scriptures. Every trained minister could make his own translation and every congregation could have its own version. This makes translations liable to become a divisive tool.

“The teachings of holy Scripture should serve as binding rules on the translator. The unity and maturity of the church should be one of the teachings given priority, as the exalted Head of the church has given the gift of pastors and teachers to the church for this express purpose, Eph. 4:11-14. It is the duty of every member of the body of Christ to "speak the same thing," and to "be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment," 1 Cor. 1:10. Holy Scripture not only does not teach ecclesiastical anarchy, individualism, and independence, but it outrightly discourages it and warns against its evils.

“This is one of the reasons that we have subordinate standards -- to maintain the unity of the faith to which the church has attained. What applies to the subordinate standard subordinately must apply to the supreme standard supremely. Wherever there is an English speaking church which stands on the attainments of the reformation there will be an implicit obligation to the translation of the Bible which has shaped that reformation.

“The Geneva Bible was an excellent translation, but many of our reforming forbears recognised the superior accuracy of the Authorised Version, and they especially respected the fact it was the established Bible."

So I think the reasoning against revisions such as the one you've proposed, or new translations, has to do with big things: the unity of the church being the biggest thing at stake. The establishment principle is an outworking of maintaining that unity. So individuals and random groups of people, even godly and scholarly ones, aren't to take it upon themselves to revise or retranslate the Scriptures for the use of the church. Instead we're to wait on the Lord and be content with what he has provided until better times come for change.

That's what I've gleaned so far about this issue; maybe someone more knowledgeable will improve on my effort!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
The OP question is, "Will there ever be any point at which KJV-onlyists would acknowledge that the language of the KJV can be legitimately updated?"

My understanding from what I've learned here on the PB about the establishment principle, is that that point will be when God sends reforming times again. Rev. Winzer was helpful on the other thread:

"Anyone with gifts and ability could translate the Scriptures. Every trained minister could make his own translation and every congregation could have its own version. This makes translations liable to become a divisive tool.

The teachings of holy Scripture should serve as binding rules on the translator. The unity and maturity of the church should be one of the teachings given priority, as the exalted Head of the church has given the gift of pastors and teachers to the church for this express purpose, Eph. 4:11-14. It is the duty of every member of the body of Christ to "speak the same thing," and to "be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment," 1 Cor. 1:10. Holy Scripture not only does not teach ecclesiastical anarchy, individualism, and independence, but it outrightly discourages it and warns against its evils.

This is one of the reasons that we have subordinate standards -- to maintain the unity of the faith to which the church has attained. What applies to the subordinate standard subordinately must apply to the supreme standard supremely. Wherever there is an English speaking church which stands on the attainments of the reformation there will be an implicit obligation to the translation of the Bible which has shaped that reformation.

The Geneva Bible was an excellent translation, but many of our reforming forbears recognised the superior accuracy of the Authorised Version, and they especially respected the fact it was the established Bible."

So I think the reasoning against revisions such as the one you've proposed, or new translations, has to do with big things: the unity of the church being the biggest thing at stake. The establishment principle is an outworking of maintaining that unity. So individuals and random groups of people, even godly and scholarly ones, aren't to take it upon themselves to revise or retranslate the Scriptures for the use of the church. Instead we're to wait on the Lord and be content with what he has provided until better times come for change.

That's what I've gleaned so far about this issue; maybe someone more knowledgeable will improve on my effort!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The big stumbling block to some seems to be when they equate perfection to any English translation, as that is reserved just for the originals.
 
Do you mean the Onlyists? I actually missed that the question was concerning KJVO folks; I really don't think know that any on this board are that. I have known a few in 'real' life and they do hold to some erroneous ideas.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Do you mean the Onlyists? I actually missed that the question was concerning KJVO folks; I really don't think know that any on this board are that. I have known a few in 'real' life and they do hold to some erroneous ideas.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I did not begin reading the Bible until I was 36 years old, and then my purpose was to prove to myself that it was unreliable. I ended up becoming a believer. I had a leg up on some because I had read Shakespeare's tragedies with annotations, and was somewhat familiar with archaic language.

Even with that background I found the need to have a more recent translation to better understand what I was reading in the KJV. I chose the 1984 NIV for that purpose. Fast forward 32 years.

For the past 3 years I've been doing the M'Cheyne 1 year Bible reading plan. My first year was the KJV supplemented variously with the NIV, NASB, ESV, NKJV at points where I still needed the clarity I personally wasn't sure of in the KJV. My shortcoming no doubt.

The second year I used the 1599 Geneva Bible, and this year I've returned to the KJV, with the usual supplementing with more recent translations at some points. Say all this to say, I love the KJV, and read it every day. OTOH, I also highly regard other translations.
 
Do you mean the Onlyists? I actually missed that the question was concerning KJVO folks; I really don't think know that any on this board are that. I have known a few in 'real' life and they do hold to some erroneous ideas.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They are a real issue among certain Baptist groups, as we Baptists do not see any problem with preferring aversion over another, but do have real issues with seeing one version alone as being from God, and without any errors in it.
 
With respect, I would submit that, if you do your research from the documented history of the English language then you would see that it was, in fact, everyday language in 1611.

Can you provide us with some of that research? You are the first person who I have heard make the claim that the English verb paradigms used in the AV was used in common speech at that time.
 
Can you provide us with some of that research? You are the first person who I have heard make the claim that the English verb paradigms used in the AV was used in common speech at that time.

It's difficult to find too much in terms of transcript because most common speech wasn't written down but here's one... please see attached image. This was a letter written from a mother to a son, so less formal than a lot of writing and closer to the common way of talking between friends. It's written a decade later than the KJV and, even in the formal language of a letter, the mother still alternates between the more polite 'you' and associated verb conjugations and the more familiar 'thou' and associated verb conjugations.
You can tell from a lot of writings from the same time, that at least in more genteel parts of the country, usage was definitely changing to the more polite 'you' but 'thou' was still being used and it definitely wasn't just being used in literature. It was the average man on the street who was most likely to use it in familiarity with his friends.
T
 

Attachments

  • sketch-1498951327198.png
    sketch-1498951327198.png
    48.8 KB · Views: 8
Yet there are many new translations/paraphrases still in the pipeline. I would rather have a reliable, settled translation even if it requires the use of a dictionary from time to time.
Ken, I sympathise with this. I use the ESV Reformation study Bible (2010 ed). The ESV had done minimal changes up to then. I also use the original HCSB. With all the changes in Bibles I believe this has kept me on the 'safe' path.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top