Riddle responds to Ward's review of "Why I preach from the Received Text"

[Jake]

Jeri,

Most translations even ones used to great ends in the Reformation were done by individuals or small groups of men (as mentioned, earlier English translations before the KJV like Tyndale and Geneva; the Luther Bible; the Reina Valera; etc.), not ecclesiastically sanctioned. If this is necessary, should we no longer support missionary-focused parachurch organizations which translate the Bible to other languages like Trinitarian Bible Society and Wycliffe Bible Translators?

To me the more natural conclusion is that God blesses the growth of the church when his Word is available. The TR was even made by an ungodly man (Erasmus) but in God' providence it was very important for the Reformation. The church is able to grow and flourish when the Bible is available in the vulgar languages.

 

[Jake]

I think this statement from the RPCNA Testimony on WCF 1:8 is excellent and speaks to what the church's role is in translations.

"Bible translations must combine faithfulness to the original text with the idiom of the native language, and thus will always be imperfect. The Church
is responsible to examine the documents available to determine as far as possible what was originally written, and to study the translations as to their accuracy in conveying the meaning of the original, and to advise the public concerning them. Paraphrases, which interpret rather than translate, must be used with great caution."

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Jeri,

Most translations even ones used to great ends in the Reformation were done by individuals or small groups of men (as mentioned, earlier English translations before the KJV like Tyndale and Geneva; the Luther Bible; the Reina Valera; etc.), not ecclesiastically sanctioned. If this is necessary, should we no longer support missionary-focused parachurch organizations which translate the Bible to other languages like Trinitarian Bible Society and Wycliffe Bible Translators?

To me the more natural conclusion is that God blesses the growth of the church when his Word is available. The TR was even made by an ungodly man (Erasmus) but in God' providence it was very important for the Reformation. The church is able to grow and flourish when the Bible is available in the vulgar languages.

I'm getting above my head in replying to things like this but my point is that the KJV was the result of all that textual work done in times past using the texts/manuscripts God provided, and it came out of a time of reformation and church establishment. It's not the KJV in itself but the texts used. TBS uses those texts to translate into other languages, I believe. Not sure about the others.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Agreed with the eventual acceptance, but at the time I don't think it would have fit Jeri's criteria.
Didn't the Puritans agree to a new translation as an alternative to the Bishop's Bible being forced on them? Not because they thought they needed a new one? Everything I've read indicates they would have kept the Geneva if that was an option.

That's not my recall; just from the Hampton Court meeting I recall it being noted that the puritans there pressed for it. But I'll defer to more information on Bishops' being a factor.

 

[Jake]

I'm getting above my head in replying to things like this but my point is that the KJV was the result of all that textual work done in times past using the texts/manuscripts God provided, and it came out of a time of reformation and church establishment. It's not the KJV in itself but the texts used. TBS uses those texts to translate into other languages, I believe. Not sure about the others.

I should have quoted -- I was trying to wrap my mind around your statement, "But in any case my view is that a revision of our Bible should be an ecclesiastical undertaking, in times of reformation of the church."

I'll use TBS as an example since I know there's great respect for it in your church. The Reina-Valera was a Reformation era translation which has been used by God to greatly bless the Spanish-speaking world. TBS is finishing a revision of the 1909 RV translation to update it to modern Spanish. I think this is very good, despite being done by a parachurch organization in a time when the Spanish-speaking church is fragmented and not strong, because having access to the Bible in the modern tongue is very important. I strongly believe in WCF 1:8 when it says "therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope." -- Bible translation is a very important work and God will often use his word to strengthen his church. That logically follows that the Word being available in faithfully translated into the vulgar tongue helps to make the church stronger.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I should have quoted -- I was trying to wrap my mind around your statement, "But in any case my view is that a revision of our Bible should be an ecclesiastical undertaking, in times of reformation of the church."

I'll use TBS as an example since I know there's great respect for it in your church. The Reina-Valera was a Reformation era translation which has been used by God to greatly bless the Spanish-speaking world. TBS is finishing a revision of the 1909 RV translation to update it to modern Spanish. I think this is very good, despite being done by a parachurch organization in a time when the Spanish-speaking church is fragmented and not strong, because having access to the Bible in the modern is very important. I strongly believe in WCF 1:8 when it says "therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope." -- Bible translation is a very important work and God will often use his word to strengthen his church. That logically follows that the Word being available in faithfully translated into the vulgar tongue helps to make the church stronger.

I see what you're saying. I can't speak to the necessity of this revision; if there are truly issues where the populace there is no longer able to make use of the current translation (which I do not believe to be the case here with the KJV, a matter of argument obviously!); then an update by an organization like TBS would be a good and even necessary thing, though not able to be done in ideal circumstances. I assume TBS is using the underlying RT to correct as always?

 

[greenbaggins]

I think again you are seemingly taking things too emotionally, or you are too easily offended. Consider the arguments presented and respond to them. Myers calls the men who followed the CT position after Westcott and Hort "men of God" (Warfield, Hodge, etc.) even though they held a view contrary to his [Myers'] own. He's not calling anyone who doesn't hold his view satan's children or anything like that. Can a minister conclude that a great multitude of the Church is in sin? The question that should be asked is whether Myers' statements that lead to his conclusion are correct or not.

What you are asserting is based on an argument ad populum. Is it not possible that the majority of 2020's Reformed world is in great error, in sin? Has a majority of the church at times throughout Scripture and history been in great error? And if so, how would you characterize that great error? I'm sure one possible description is "satanic". Influenced of course by Satan, the great deceiver. In sin. Are there other issues in the Church that one could characterize as Satanic or in sin? How about a good multitude of the Church believing abortion is fine? Or holding to Arminianism or dispensationalism? Wicked doctrines, deceiving many? Satanic? Sinful? Yes, hopefully, all on the PB would agree. Does that mean they are in collusion with Satan? No, we would all hopefully say they are deceived. So if we are talking about the bedrock of all doctrine -- the Scriptures. Is it possible, that the vast majority of the Church is deceived? Yes, it is possible. So instead of responding emotionally or being offended too easily, perhaps the response is looking at the arguments, examining your heart/faith, and then responding. Never consider the reformed world as being above reproach or as having all the answers.

Nothing about your post is anything close to an accurate reading of my post. First of all, I was not taking the argument emotionally, nor was I posting as someone personally offended by Myers's remarks. What I was asserting was a reductio ad absurdam of Rom's statement. I was not claiming that the majority of the Reformed world was correct simply because it was the majority. Therefore I was not committing any sort of ad populam fallacy. I was claiming that Rom's statement about Ward had a fairly significant blind eye towards the problem with Myers's statement, and that Ward was asserting sin of one person, whereas Myers was asserting sin of the majority of the Reformed world. He didn't seem to have any problem whatsoever with Myers's statement, and you don't either, but any criticism of Myers's statement is apparently off-limits. To me, this looks like "speck in your brother's eye, blind to the log in your own" type of thing, which was what I was trying to point out. Neither you nor Rom are apparently willing to extend the least bit of charity to Ward, while requiring the utmost in charity towards Myers. This does not appear to me to be a level playing field. That is what I am pointing out. And I am doing so in the calmest of calm spirits, I assure you.

 

[Logan]

That's not my recall; just from the Hampton Court meeting I recall it being noted that the puritans there pressed for it. But I'll defer to more information on Bishops' being a factor.

Chris, I did a little digging. One of the common sources for the Hampton Court conference is William Barlow's account. The specific instance is pg 46

He notes that Dr Rainolds "moved his Majesty, that there might be a new Translation of the Bible, because, those which were allowed in the reign of King Henry VIII, and Edward VI, were corrupt, and not answerable to the truth of the Original."

To which James said that he'd never yet seen a Bible well translated in English, but the worst was the Geneva, and that any new translation should have no marginal notes because he had found in the Geneva some notes "very partial, untrue, seditious, and favoring too much of dangerous, and traitorous conceits."

Several things I think help put this all in context though:
1. There were only two translations then authorized to be read in the church: the Great Bible of 1539 (in which much of the Old Testament was translated from Latin rather than Hebrew) and the Bishop's Bible of 1568 (revised in 1572). Households used the Geneva Bible, but the Bishop's Bible was prescribed to be read in the Church of England. Rainolds is specifically enumerating some errors in the Bishop's Bible.

2. The purpose of Rainolds et al was to reform the Church of England. They specifically talk about the Book of Common Prayer and the Articles of Faith and faults they find with them. Rainolds specifically brings up the faults of the Bishop's Bible in the same vein as these prior discussions.

3. Dr Rainolds does not appear to represent the Puritans at large. He was a spokesman for them in some fashion but many considered him and the others far more moderate and we find no mention of a desire for a new translation in the Millenary Petition which was put together by the Puritans and which Rainolds was presumably supposed to represent. It does appear that he suggested a new translation on his own. There are multiple possibilities here:
3.a. Keeping in mind that these accounts are written from memory months after the events, it is possible that Rainolds did not suggest a new translation, but rather a uniform translation that was better than the Bishop's. At least one account phrases it "only one translation of the Bible [be] declared authentical and read in the church." To which the King responded that a new translation was fine but he would not go with the Geneva and clearly the Bishop's was unacceptable.
3.b. Perhaps Rainolds did not care for the Geneva himself. He later worked on the translation of the Prophets at Oxford.
3.c. Perhaps accepting the Geneva as the standard authorized translation was considered as out of the question because it hadn't been authorized to begin with.
3.d. Perhaps Rainolds knew that the Geneva was unacceptable to King James. His distaste for the Geneva may have been well-known and thus it would have been pointless to suggest this be the official translation.

It's hard to know exactly the motivations or details. Regardless, it does seem to me that Rainold's request was specifically in the context of the current authorized Bible (Bishop's Bible) being in need of revision, and that he doesn't seem to have represented the larger Puritan base on this point, who would gladly have continued using the Geneva Bible. I've never read of anyone of the day considering the Geneva deficient as a translation, but perhaps it was unacceptable because it was not an official translation. And if the official translation was unacceptable, then the only agreeable solution was a new translation which could answer the critiques of the Bishop's, while also falling under the authority of the crown.

I think KJV as the solution appears to have been the best outcome for everyone, I just don't think the Puritans (other than Rainolds, seemingly) were actually pressing for it. They had no issues with the Geneva and no need for a new translation, other than potentially to satisfy the desire for uniformity.

 

[alexandermsmith]

Well, it has been revised, just not recently. In Romans, there is still a part that calls the Holy Spirit an "it". I would say the NKJV is the revision as it fixes many of the translation/printing errors in the KJV.

It is my understanding that the underlying Greek which is translated "itself" is in the neuter gender and therefore "itself" is grammatically correct, even though it is referring to a person. In John 4:22 Christ says, referring to the Father (as He explains in the next verse): "Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship..." Here Christ had no qualms (nor fear of 20th century scholarship) referring to the Father, a person, as "what". And this is also the case in the NIV and the ESV. It seems the KJV is criticised at times for not translating the Greek correctly and at other times for doing just that.

As to the other comment about an ecclesiastical undertaking, who gets to decide that? Like would this be reformed churches? Reformed plus Anglican? Reformed plus Anglican plus Lutheran? Shouldn't reformation be an ongoing thing in the reformed church. Also, were the revisions of the KJV and the TR ecclesiastical undertakings or were they undertakings of specific men like Beza and Erasmus (honest question)?

This seems like a standard that cannot really be defined. Also, since God is sovereign over all things, wouldn't he ultimately be the one that allowed all of the numerous other translations to come out as well? I could argue that God brought about the NKJV to correct all of the errors in the KJV. Another could argue that God brought about the CT manuscripts to correct the TR issues. It doesn't seem like this is a sound way to go about deciding what is allowed and not allowed. Also, where in scripture do we see standards for translation work? Keep in mind, we are talking about just the TR at this point.

This is exactly the process which produced the Canons of Dordt and the Westminster Standards. An assembly of godly ministers, recognised by the church at large, producing documents which are then adopted by the assemblies of particular denominations. There is nothing stopping a publisher from producing a new translation of the RT. The question is, is there a demand for such a translation and would it be accepted by the churches which currently use the KJV? There was a new translation of the RT produced- the NKJV- and it did not receive widespread acceptance.

 

[Polanus1561]

All I can say is I know of denominations who are open to a modernized TR, and yes, the NKJV is not seen as ideal (partly because of the marginal notes referencing the CT).

 

[retroGRAD3]

(partly because of the marginal notes referencing the CT).

This seems to be the main reason. The reality is though that the KJV also had marginal notes before they were removed in more recent times.

 

[retroGRAD3]

This is exactly the process which produced the Canons of Dordt and the Westminster Standards. An assembly of godly ministers, recognised by the church at large, producing documents which are then adopted by the assemblies of particular denominations.

I think this is a novel idea personally. I think the definition around this whole process changes from person to person. Any denomination could be considered "the church". We are not Papists and we should stop trying to be like them. If the OPC decided to do their own translation, that should be a legitimate effort and should be recognized as something "the church" is doing.

There is nothing stopping a publisher from producing a new translation of the RT. The question is, is there a demand for such a translation and would it be accepted by the churches which currently use the KJV? There was a new translation of the RT produced- the NKJV- and it did not receive widespread acceptance.

As far as I can tell, many who hold to the KJV do so out of tradition. There is nothing that will change that, even if it is the most faithful TR translation ever. Also, I do think the NKJV is accepted in many places. Just not in the "confessional text" group. I don't think this is out of it not being a faithful translation either, but because of the marginal notes (which is a bad reason for rejecting it).

 

[Logan]

This seems to be the main reason. The reality is though that the KJV also had marginal notes before they were removed in more recent times.

I thought the marginal notes were helpful and honest, sort of like the italicized words in the KJV/NKJV. And there are NKJV editions published without the marginal notes, here is an example.

https://www.thomasnelsonbibles.com/product/NKJV-deluxe-readers-bible/

So that solves the objection, right? I doubt it. There will always be some other "problem" which makes it unacceptable. E.g., it doesn't use plural/singular personal pronouns. It translates a word here and there differently than the KJV, therefore it's not truly an update. Not all the scholars contributing thought the TR was the best text (as though their personal opinion matters even though it doesn't affect the product in the slightest). It was not done by "the Church". Or it was not done by "the Magistrate". It was not done during a time of Reformation, etc., etc. And nobody seems to agree with each other on these qualifiers, but they do agree that the KJV fulfills them, whatever they are.

So yes, hypothetically possible. Practically? All the qualifiers put the possibility of a new TR translation to death by papercuts.

 

[alexandermsmith]

I thought the marginal notes were helpful and honest, sort of like the italicized words in the KJV/NKJV. And there are NKJV editions published without the marginal notes, here is an example.

https://www.thomasnelsonbibles.com/product/NKJV-deluxe-readers-bible/

So that solves the objection, right? I doubt it. There will always be some other "problem" which makes it unacceptable. E.g., it doesn't use plural/singular personal pronouns. It translates a word here and there differently than the KJV, therefore it's not truly an update. Not all the scholars contributing thought the TR was the best text (as though their personal opinion matters even though it doesn't affect the product in the slightest). It was not done by "the Church". Or it was not done by "the Magistrate". It was not done during a time of Reformation, etc., etc. And nobody seems to agree with each other on these qualifiers, but they do agree that the KJV fulfills them, whatever they are.

So yes, hypothetically possible. Practically? All the qualifiers put the possibility of a new TR translation to death by papercuts.

Why should we accept a new translation? Those of us who use the KJV (that I know) don't believe there is a need for a new version. And we certainly haven't been convinced by the many, many English translations which are now available. Some people seem to get itchy for a new translation every few years. I'm not one of those people.

It is also obtuse to argue that "nobody seems to agree with each other on these qualifiers, but they do agree that the KJV fulfills them, whatever they are." Every qualifier you mention actually happened in regards to the KJV. It is historical fact that the King commissioned a new English translation, which was carried out by the best and godliest scholars of the day and that the translation came to be accepted throughout the English speaking world as the standard version of the Bible in English. And do you deny that the period from the Reformation to the Westminster Assembly wasn't a particularly blessed period in the history of the church? That it was just like the state we are in today?

And specifically on the NKJV: what is so good about it that we should abandon the KJV? You mention the change in second person pronouns. This is a very important issue for those of us who use the KJV. We believe it is wrong to refer to God as "you", especially when we have (albeit now archaic) English second person singular pronouns. It's not an issue for thee, but that doesn't mean it's not an issue. And if we are talking about convincing those who use the KJV to adopt a modern translation of the TR then their concerns have to be taken into account. Someone who uses the ESV isn't the target audience for a new translation of the TR. And we do not believe the KJV is an inspired or perfect translation. There are words we would have preferred translated differently; some passages which are hard to understand; some places where the translators had to make a decision between various renderings about what was best in that context. But the question is do these minor concerns warrant a whole new translation which would certainly lose so much more than the small amount it might gain?

 

[Logan]

It is also obtuse to argue that "nobody seems to agree with each other on these qualifiers, but they do agree that the KJV fulfills them, whatever they are." Every qualifier you mention actually happened in regards to the KJV.

I know. That's why I mentioned them. But they are post hoc qualifiers. Qualifiers that are not required in scripture and are not universal (i.e., apply to no Bible other than the KJV). Qualifiers that are designed (whether consciously or not) to make the KJV the only acceptable English translation.

The context of my post was specifically regarding those who say they would accept a modern TR translation (but don't); it was not about convincing those who want to stick to the KJV to switch.

Saying "the KJV is great and look at all the features and the history and the circumstances in which it arose, isn't that wonderful!" is one thing. Saying "no other translation is acceptable because it doesn't duplicate the features, history, and circumstances of the KJV" is quite another thing. That's making a requirement out of something that isn't actually a requirement.

 

[retroGRAD3]

We believe it is wrong to refer to God as "you", especially when we have (albeit now archaic) English second person singular pronouns.

What in scripture leads you to believe this? Something is only "wrong" or "sin" if God tells you it is. We don't get to make up what is right or wrong.

 

[RamistThomist]

Why should we accept a new translation? Those of us who use the KJV (that I know) don't believe there is a need for a new version.

I listen to the KJV every day, but these problems are huge.

Acts 5:30. Did they kill Jesus and then hang him on a tree? Or did they, as the modern translations note, kill him by hanging him on a tree (225)?

1 Chronicles 5:26. The KJV at best is misleading. It makes it seem like Pul is co-ruler with Tiglath Peleser. At worst it is simply wrong. As the NASB notes, Pul is Tiglath.

Acts 9:7/22:9. On the KJV’s reading, the others heard the voice and didn’t hear the voice, a clear contradiction. The modern translations have a better reading.

The Changing English Language

“Fetched a compass” (Joshua 15:3, 2 Kgs 3:9) actually means travel or turn around. Quoting Edwin Palmer White notes,

what is the meaning of “chambering” (Rom. 13:13),
“champaign” (Deut. 11:30),
“charger” (Matt. 14:8— it is not a horse),
“churl” (Isa. 32:7),
“cielcd” (Hag. 1:4),
“clouted upon their feet” (Josh. 9:5), “cockatrice”
(Isa. 11:8), “collops”
(Job 15:27),
“confection” (Exod. 30:35— it has nothing to do with sugar),
“cotes” (2 Chron. 32:28),
“ “hoiscd” (Acts 27:40), “wimples” (Isa. 3:22), “stomacher” (Isa. 3:24), “w?ot” (Rom. 11:2), “wist” (Acts 12:9), “withs” (Judg. 16:7), “wont” (Dan. 3:19), “surctiship” (Prov. 11:15), “saekbut” (Dan. 3:5), “the scall" (Lev. 13:30), “scrabbled” (1 Sam. 21:13), “roller” (Lzck. 30:21— i.e., a splint), “muffler” (Isa. 3:19), “froward” (1 Peter 2:18), “brigadinc” (Jer. 46:4), “amercc” (Deut. 22:19), “blains” (Lxod 9:9), “crookbackt” (Lev. 21:20), (White 236).

Some more:

And Mt. Sinai was altogether on a smoke (Exod. 1^:18).
Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing I Ps. 5:6).

 

[alexandermsmith]

I know. That's why I mentioned them. But they are post hoc qualifiers. Qualifiers that are not required in scripture and are not universal (i.e., apply to no Bible other than the KJV). Qualifiers that are designed (whether consciously or not) to make the KJV the only acceptable English translation.

The context of my post was specifically regarding those who say they would accept a modern TR translation (but don't); it was not about convincing those who want to stick to the KJV to switch.

Saying "the KJV is great and look at all the features and the history and the circumstances in which it arose, isn't that wonderful!" is one thing. Saying "no other translation is acceptable because it doesn't duplicate the features, history, and circumstances of the KJV" is quite another thing. That's making a requirement out of something that isn't actually a requirement.

It's merely recognising historical circumstances which can also be applied to the creeds of the church. There were many creeds and confessions written at and just after the Reformation but only a few are considered constitutionally authoritative in the Reformed churches: those which were composed by or on the request of extraordinary assemblies and then adopted by individual denominations. And this is also true of the ecumenical creeds. Maybe the unique circumstances of the production of the KJV is a reason to preserve it.

As to those who say they would accept a modern TR translation but don't: what are the modern TR translations they're not accepting? It's basically the NKJV and it clearly hasn't won them over. It's not incumbent upon those who hypothetically may change to a modern TR translation to produce such a translation.

 

[alexandermsmith]

I listen to the KJV every day, but these problems are huge.

Acts 5:30. Did they kill Jesus and then hang him on a tree? Or did they, as the modern translations note, kill him by hanging him on a tree (225)?

"And" does not denote passage of time but rather two actions happening together. To read "and" as meaning "then" is to read meaning into the language which isn't there. It may have that connotation today and therefore the KJV may cause confusion to modern readers on this point but that is not the fault of the KJV for using English correctly.

1 Chronicles 5:26. The KJV at best is misleading. It makes it seem like Pul is co-ruler with Tiglath Peleser. At worst it is simply wrong. As the NASB notes, Pul is Tiglath.

These were two separate kings: Pul was the king of Assyria during Menahem's reign over Israel (2 Kings 15:17-19) and Tilgathpilneser was the king of Assyria during Pekah's reign over Israel (2 Kings 15:27-29). There is nothing in the text to suggest this is the same king but with a different name. And the ESV translates the verse the same way as the KJV does.

Acts 9:7/22:9. On the KJV’s reading, the others heard the voice and didn’t hear the voice, a clear contradiction. The modern translations have a better reading.

This can be reconciled one of two ways: either 1) 9:7 is referring to the voice of Saul, which the men heard, but not the voice of Christ which is specifically referred to in 22:9 ("they heard not the voice of him that spake to me"); or, 2) 9:7 is telling us they heard the sound of the voice of Christ but not articulately, as in a parallel case in John 12:29 ("The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered...") and so in 22:9 it is as if they did not hear the voice. Option 2 seems a better explanation to me. Either way it is not hard to reconcile these verses. They certainly don't contradict each other. And even if one were to concede that the KJV does not have the best translation in this instance, is that a reason to dump the whole translation for ones which have many (greater) problems of their own?

The Changing English Language

“Fetched a compass” (Joshua 15:3, 2 Kgs 3:9) actually means travel or turn around. Quoting Edwin Palmer White notes,

what is the meaning of “chambering” (Rom. 13:13),
“champaign” (Deut. 11:30),
“charger” (Matt. 14:8— it is not a horse),
“churl” (Isa. 32:7),
“cielcd” (Hag. 1:4),
“clouted upon their feet” (Josh. 9:5), “cockatrice”
(Isa. 11:8), “collops”
(Job 15:27),
“confection” (Exod. 30:35— it has nothing to do with sugar),
“cotes” (2 Chron. 32:28),
“ “hoiscd” (Acts 27:40), “wimples” (Isa. 3:22), “stomacher” (Isa. 3:24), “w?ot” (Rom. 11:2), “wist” (Acts 12:9), “withs” (Judg. 16:7), “wont” (Dan. 3:19), “surctiship” (Prov. 11:15), “saekbut” (Dan. 3:5), “the scall" (Lev. 13:30), “scrabbled” (1 Sam. 21:13), “roller” (Lzck. 30:21— i.e., a splint), “muffler” (Isa. 3:19), “froward” (1 Peter 2:18), “brigadinc” (Jer. 46:4), “amercc” (Deut. 22:19), “blains” (Lxod 9:9), “crookbackt” (Lev. 21:20), (White 236).

Some more:

And Mt. Sinai was altogether on a smoke (Exod. 1^:18).
Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing I Ps. 5:6).

These are trifling complaints. It might look a problem when all these words are placed together but they are taken from all over the Bible and are irrelevant when compared with the full body of the text. When compared with what we gain from the KJV text, not least its majesty and beauty, then I'm afraid you're not going to convince anyone these are reasons to abandon it.

 

[alexandermsmith]

What in scripture leads you to believe this? Something is only "wrong" or "sin" if God tells you it is. We don't get to make up what is right or wrong.

God is singular; "you" is ambiguous at best. If we have a word which correctly identifies God as singular we should use it. Whether God is one or many is actually a very important point. Of course the rebuttal is always: no-one who uses "you" thinks God is plural so it doesn't matter. Well as we are seeing today pronouns do matter. Correctly addressing the person one is speaking to is important. What does it matter if one is asked to refer to one person as "they" or "zhi" or "xyrs"? It matters because truth matters. And we know that these ridiculous pronouns will start appearing in translations of the Bible and will be used (as I'm sure they already are) in the church. But hey, it doesn't matter because we know of Whom they are speaking. It matters a lot. But the "English changes" brigade have already ceded the territory on this by saying ambiguous pronouns when addressing or referring to God don't matter.

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

What in scripture leads you to believe this? Something is only "wrong" or "sin" if God tells you it is. We don't get to make up what is right or wrong.

Wrong to call God “you”? That is troubling.

 

[RamistThomist]

These are trifling complaints. It might look a problem when all these words are placed together but they are taken from all over the Bible and are irrelevant when compared with the full body of the text. When compared with what we gain from the KJV text, not least its majesty and beauty, then I'm afraid you're not going to convince anyone these are reasons to abandon it.

And I notice you didn't interact with it. These aren't trifling complaints. I read 16th and 17th century literature on a regular basis and I can barely gloss those words.

 

[RamistThomist]

God is singular; "you" is ambiguous at best. If we have a word which correctly identifies God as singular we should use it. Whether God is one or many is actually a very important point. Of course the rebuttal is always: no-one who uses "you" thinks God is plural so it doesn't matter. Well as we are seeing today pronouns do matter. Correctly addressing the person one is speaking to is important. What does it matter if one is asked to refer to one person as "they" or "zhi" or "xyrs"? It matters because truth matters. And we know that these ridiculous pronouns will start appearing in translations of the Bible and will be used (as I'm sure they already are) in the church. But hey, it doesn't matter because we know of Whom they are speaking. It matters a lot. But the "English changes" brigade have already ceded the territory on this by saying ambiguous pronouns when addressing or referring to God don't matter.

If I tell God "I love you," did I sin?

 

[De Jager]

And I notice you didn't interact with it. These aren't trifling complaints. I read 16th and 17th century literature on a regular basis and I can barely gloss those words.

In my Reformation Heritage Study Bible, all of these old words are explained in the notes. Besides that, all it really takes is a quick google search and the problem is solved. I don't really think this is a big deal. If someone wants to come up with a new translation which translates these words into current usage, they can go ahead, but it appears that at the same time they invariably jettison other strengths of the KJV, like the distinguishing between the singular and plural 'you' and the italicizing of words that are not in the original but were added for readability. No translation is perfect. When I use my ESV and see the word "you", I have to pull out a KJV to figure out if it is plural or singular, unless it is evident from the context.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

In the original Greek, there is no unique second person pronoun that is used when referring to God in the second person.

That said, there is value in knowing that a particular text is using the singular or plural "you". That's at least a good reason to preserve "ye" but the same can be achieved by using "y'all".

 

[aaronsk]

If I tell God "I love you," did I sin?

Unclear - does "you" refer to the triune God (singular) or a plurality of gods? (Keeping with the hypothetical here, not saying you would ever profess love to a plurality of gods). Honestly though, I can't speak for @alexandermsmith but I don't think this in the context of his point. You know what you mean when you pray to God "I love you" (see how much I used "you" ). This is a translational issue dealing with the clairity of scripture in the readers or hearers native language and thus impacting a translation's usefullness in the teaching & edification of the saints.

@Logan - I don't think the TR folks who prefer the KJV bible do so because of a cleverly designed criteria that only the KJV could ever fit but rather none of the newer verions have checked all their criteria boxes as well as the KJV does. The first way kind goes at folks with the assumption there is some KJV-O lurking within them (and maybe I am nieve) but I don't think that is really the case. I think we have to look at from the other direction. That the criteria is set and the KJV is best fit for that criteria. Now I get some of the pickiness with wording can make it seem that way and I am not saying we should maintain the usage of all terms if a modern one exists that is just as accurate. I've know people who love the ESV because of wording choice on key passages etc. It is not an unrealistic standard espeically when talking about an "update" to a translations and not a totally new one. If a "new" translation were to be made, would it not be best that it remain similar to the current version of the targeted saints so that it not be a disruption?

disclaimer - I didnt grow up with the KJV, I think its a great bible and do use it now (as well as the NKJV -gasp I even have some CSB and ESV but I read the subnoted verses as authentic, sometimes the "you" distinction is in the subnotes but sometimes not). As I have said in previous threads I think an update would be benificial and the plural/singular pronoun distinction should be kept. Perhaps marking it like "you(s)", "you(p)" would be fine to me - though less useful when read aloud so it is likely not the best solution.

 

[De Jager]

In the original Greek, there is no unique second person pronoun that is used when referring to God in the second person.

That said, there is value in knowing that a particular text is using the singular or plural "you". That's at least a good reason to preserve "ye" but the same can be achieved by using "y'all".

Introducing the new DSESV (Deep South English Standard Version).

 

[Taylor]

This is an honest question. How is this…

…all it really takes is a quick google search and the problem is solved.

…any different than this…

When I use my ESV and see the word "you", I have to pull out a KJV to figure out if it is plural or singular, unless it is evident from the context.

…?

Nevertheless, the problem with the KJV for me isn’t the vocabulary but rather the syntax. Of course anyone can look up words, but in many cases this doesn’t help one understand the text because communication of meaning is not merely at the word level but rather at the clause level. Although I can’t think of any examples off the top of my head at the moment, there have been many times I have stumbled across a passage in the KJV where I know the meaning of all the individual words, and yet the way they are arranged makes the meaning lost to me.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Introducing the new DSESV (Deep South English Standard Version).

Yins - PESV (Pennsylvania ESV)
Yous Guys - NJESV (New Jersey ESV)

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

LOL... Someone noted above about the translation being in the vulgar language. You all haven't heard a Vulgar English translation fit for the neighborhoods I can travel in or the ones Frank Smith ministers in if he is still working in Georgia. The normal vulgar language these people speak is illiteracy built by generational sin. smh. John 3:16 still needs exposition no matter what translation it comes from. The KJV has been the best so far the past how many years even with its upgrades? It is just as easily understood word for word. Sometimes what is termed as a Vulgar Language still needs to be set on a level that is beneficial for all. That is the NIV was written with a 7th grade reading level. Had to dumb it down for us Mericans. That includes from Kings to the lowest. You don't want to hear the things I hear and have said in the Vulgar sense. Look, I know vulgar doesn't mean the same thing it meant a long time ago. It meant common language. Language has been used by God to lift people out of illiteracy. Look at Luther's and Erasmus' work. God has done that.

While you guys are discussing some minutia points the bigger issue of manuscript historicity, geographical locality, historical theology and manuscript families have been largely ignored in my estimation. Just saying. Maybe the Critical Text is based upon a preferred group or family of manuscripts over others. Why? Popular opinion (or dare I say Scholarship) doesn't mean anything as noted above. The criteria seems to be all over the place. Also, we have established many times over on this board that the oldest manuscripts aren't always the most reliable. The very numbers of these manuscripts can be slim to none and incomplete

I haven't looked at the video. I know that is a taboo. I have grown complacent in this type of discussion. It has brought a def tone noise to me. It just seems to generate more heat than good scholarship.

I have read a few discussions lately on the topic and there is a lot more heat generated than light in my estimation. Sure, we get a glimpse of good historical reference but it is painstaking to read on a Forum. It always seems to come with the suspicion of sin. Yes, I have read the Puritans. LOL.

I asked a question in another thread that went unanswered.
@Dr. Duguid or anyone who does manuscript work, has anyone interacted with J. W. Burgon's work? I knew J. P. Green Sr. the later years of his life. Through the years on this board, I am not sure I have seen anything that has. NO, Green was not KJVO guy obviously. He did his own translating also. A lot of us have his translations in our Bible Programs. White accused him of it in his book on the KJVO movement. The name of the book escapes me. White is not the best source. And unfortunately that seems to be the level of scholarship that the day is producing. When Gerstner was here in Bloomington he gave Jay a respectful nod.