Why Did Pastors Discard the KJV?

[Logan]

Good post Rich. I posted earlier about my perception that this is a very English-centric view of Scripture.

I know that Calvin disputed the inclusion of some of the passages in Erasmus' Greek (for example, on the Johannine Comma he says that the best manuscripts do not contain it), but don't know about thereafter. The current "Textus Receptus" (Scrivener's) is quite tied to English though.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

There are modernized versions out there (some better than others) but that seemingly wouldn't satisfy those who say they are not KJO, but who exhibit distaste for other versions.

Which is why I ask whether those advocating the AV would also advocate a completely new translation into current vernacular. Even if I happen to disagree with AV-priority folks, I wouldn't mind seeing such a translation. Even my usual translation (the ESV) is woefully lacking in literary quality, which is why I prefer the AV or Coverdale for the psalms, for instance.

The position of the Trinitarian Bible Society has always been a resounding yes to the question whether a new English translation would be appropriate in the future.

One of the big issues that gets kind of glossed over in these discussions is who has the right to offer a "translation" of the Bible?

1) The Church

or

2) The Parachurch (i.e. - Publishing Houses).

 

[KMK]

If I really want to look at precision terms (like plural and singular), I'll crack open an interlinear Bible, I'm not going to the KJV anyway.

I am not saying that a love of precision will drive every English speaking Christian to use the AV exclusively. I am saying that precision is eventually important to all Christians, hence the the fact that you, as well as most strong meat loving Christians, own an interlinear Bible.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

One of the big issues that gets kind of glossed over in these discussions is who has the right to offer a "translation" of the Bible?

1) The Church

or

2) The Parachurch (i.e. - Publishing Houses).

or, perhaps:

3) A missionary

I attempted, at least, to wrestle with the issue of what it means that the Church might produce a translation. It seems to me that it requires historical conditions to reproduce themselves where you have an Establishmentarian Church with appointed men of a certain pedigree for the production of anything that might produce or supplant the "best". That may work for that Church or that country but then what about those who aren't members of that established Church? Do I even have the best if I'm in the PCA because the PCA, which has adopted the WCF in a certain fashion, has not received the AV as its text.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

Are there any French speaking Reformed who insist upon the manuscript choices of Calvin or other scholars there and dispute that the KJV scholars made some inaccurate choices? I ask this because it seems to only be us English speakers that God gave Providential inerrancy to in the creation of a Greek textual platform that led to a "best" translation.

This is not really the position of most TR/KJV advocates. French being my native language I do have a facsimile version of the JF Osterwald version and a New Testament of the 1744 Martin bible. I'm also waiting for the complete Martin Bible which TBS is working on. I use the KJV because I understand English and I go to an English church and the KJV is readily available pretty much everywhere. To say that God only gave Providential inerrancy to the English speakers is not really correct. There are faithful translation based on the Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text in other languages. The facts is that the spread of Protestantism is in a large part due to the spread of the British Empire. (I know this is certainly not the only way but it is in large part due to this). This is History, I don't make it up I just report it. The same argument could be made as to why the New Testament was not inspired in all languages instead of only in Greek. I find it funny that this argument is mostly used by English speakers ironically. God choose to bless the English speaking people for a season, what's wrong with that. If we understand God's sovereignty over the spread of his Word who are we to impose guidelines on how he should to it.

As I hear people answering about other translations than the AV, this is what I'm hearing: "Well, you see, other translations may be acceptable but they are not the best."

This argument is mainly about which version should be used in public worship. We Presbyterian follow the Westminster Standards therefore this should be something we hold to.

From the Directory or Public Worship:

Of Publick Reading of the Holy Scriptures.
READING of the word in the congregation, being part of the publick worship of God,
(wherein .i.we; acknowledge our dependence upon him, and subjection to him,) and one
mean sanctified by him for the edifying of his people, is to be performed by the pastors and
teachers.

Howbeit, such as intend the ministry, may occasionally both read the word, and exercise their
gift in preaching in the congregation, if allowed by the presbytery thereunto.
All the canonical books of the Old and New Testament (but none of those which are
commonly called Apocrypha) shall be publickly read in the vulgar tongue, out of the best
allowed translation, distinctly, that all may hear and understand.

the term "best" is exclusive, if one translation is inferior to another it should not be used in public worship according to our standards. I believe this is what Rev. Winzer was referring to in his previous arguments. I'm not saying you can't use any other translation for private use if it helps you, but I believe for the sake of consistency you should work toward getting used to the version used in public worship, which I believe for English speaking churches should be the KJV.

Now, let me shift for a moment and think of myself as if I was a non-English speaker in a foreign land. Does anyone, outside the English speaking world, possess the "best" translation of the Scriptures in their own tongue or is it simply we, the Providentially blessed English speakers with our OED, that have access to the "best"?

I would say that if your church is a French church, you should use the best available translation in French, same goes for any other languages (assuming this is a Presbyterian Church which hold the the Westminster standards).

I'm purposefully representing this in this manner because I firmly believe that these kind of arguments do not establish confidence in the Word of God but undermine it. They undermine God's ability to work in differing ways Providentially to produce faithful translations where the possessor of the Word doesn't have to wring his hands constantly and wonder: Do I possess the "best" translation of the Word?

I would say it's actually the opposite, if you present a variety of different version in the same language (which have significant differences between them) as equally accurate it won't take long before people will start pointing out contradiction in your view. If our view on scriptures is contradictory it doesn't help to bring confidence in the rest our theology. This is what happened to me when I started to look into this issue.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

One of the big issues that gets kind of glossed over in these discussions is who has the right to offer a "translation" of the Bible?

1) The Church

or

2) The Parachurch (i.e. - Publishing Houses).

or, perhaps:

3) A missionary

I attempted, at least, to wrestle with the issue of what it means that the Church might produce a translation. It seems to me that it requires historical conditions to reproduce themselves where you have an Establishmentarian Church with appointed men of a certain pedigree for the production of anything that might produce or supplant the "best". That may work for that Church or that country but then what about those who aren't members of that established Church? Do I even have the best if I'm in the PCA because the PCA, which has adopted the WCF in a certain fashion, has not received the AV as its text.

Well to the first point a "missionary" is a non-sequitur when speaking of English translations. The Trinitarian Bible Society sells dozens of different non-English bibles.

To the second point, yes to a large extent that is true. Part of the argument here does center around an establishment situation rather than the Judges 21:25 situation we find ourselves in.

 

[Logan]

All the canonical books of the Old and New Testament (but none of those which are
commonly called Apocrypha) shall be publickly read in the vulgar tongue, out of the best
allowed translation, distinctly, that all may hear and understand.

the term "best" is exclusive, if one translation is inferior to another it should not be used in public worship according to our standards.

Absolutely agreed, but let it also be remembered that it shall be read in the vulgar tongue...that all may hear and understand. So is it best for accuracy (should we read out of an interlinear Bible) or best for intelligibility?

What I've been hinting at is that at some point the KJV will cease to be useful, it will be like reading the Vulgate in church. Perhaps even now it is not the "best". What criteria will you use to determine when that has happened?

 

[Fogetaboutit]

All the canonical books of the Old and New Testament (but none of those which are
commonly called Apocrypha) shall be publickly read in the vulgar tongue, out of the best
allowed translation, distinctly, that all may hear and understand.

the term "best" is exclusive, if one translation is inferior to another it should not be used in public worship according to our standards.

Absolutely agreed, but let it also be remembered that it shall be read in the vulgar tongue...that all may hear and understand. So is it best for accuracy (should we read out of an interlinear Bible) or best for intelligibility?

What I've been hinting at is that at some point the KJV will cease to be useful, it will be like reading the Vulgate in church. Perhaps even now it is not the "best". What criteria will you use to determine when that has happened?

The statement "that all may hear and understand" is a reference to vulgar tongue (which should be distinguished from vulgar "jargon"). This is a reference to not using a bible in a language unknown to the common people like the Roman Church was doing at the time of the Reformation with the Latin Vulgate. This is not a reference to the level of understanding of the layman own language.

What I've been hinting at is that at some point the KJV will cease to be useful, it will be like reading the Vulgate in church. Perhaps even now it is not the "best". What criteria will you use to determine when that has happened?

I believe something similar to this was done without having to translate a brand new translation in 1769.

 

[Logan]

This is not a reference to the level of understanding of the layman own language.

Perhaps not exclusively, but isn't that a part of it? Or did the Reformers and Puritans not care if anyone comprehended as long as it was technically English? Would you at least agree that "best" can be interpreted multiple ways and is not necessarily confined narrowly to "most precise, regardless of comprehension and coming from a specific set of texts"?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

It needs to be remembered (as it does in every KJV thread evidently) that the local butcher in Cambridge was not using "Thee's" and "Thous" (and other things folks bring to mind when the KJV/AV is discussed) in his everyday speech in 1611. In the sense most are using "vulgar" the KJV itself was not "vulgar" in 1611 let alone in 1646.

 

[Philip]

In the sense most are using "vulgar" the KJV itself was not "vulgar" in 1611 let alone in 1646.

True. But it didn't evoke Monty Python references either.

 

[Logan]

I found this interesting. It is from The Bibles of England by Andrew Edgar, printed in 1889. There was apparently a movement by members of the Westminster Assembly to revise the KJV, proposed committee members including John Owen, Thomas Goodwin, and Joseph Caryl.

Even Selden, however, accorded to the King's translation only modified praise. He admitted it to be the best translation in the world, as rendering "the sense of the original best," but he complained of its un-English phrases which were much ridiculed by the common people.

In little more than thirty years after its first issue, a serious proposal was made for a revision of the national Bible. It was urged on Parliament in 1645. A distinguished member of the Westminster Assembly, in the course of a sermon preached that year before the House of Commons, entreated his hearers "to think of a review and survey of the translation of the Bible"; so that, by a revised translation, "exact, vigorous, and lively," the people of the three kingdoms might come to know the proper and genuine sense of the Scriptures. It is clear, therefore, that some of the Westminster divines did not suppose that the King's translation would continue for ever to be the only Bible appointed to be read in Churches. And so, in their directory for public worship, which was adopted by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1645, it is said, under the heading of public reading of the Scriptures :— "All the canonical books of the Old and New Testament shall be publicly read in the vulgar tongue, out of the best allowed translation."

A bill was actually brought into the long Parliament, shortly before its dissolution in 1653, to appoint a committee to review and revise the "new translation," as the King's or authorised version was then termed. It was alleged that that translation had been "wronged by the prelates, or printers, or others"; and it was proposed that all the injuries so done to that translation, in malice or in ignorance, should be repaired by this committee, "before there be any further printing of the Bible." It was further alleged to be a common stumblingblock to the weak, and a subject of cavil for scoffers, that, in sermons preached and printed, people heard or found it said, "the original bears it better thus and thus." It was accordingly proposed that the committee appointed by Parliament should carefully consider all translations, annotations, and marginal readings that they knew of; and give their approbation to what, "after seriously looking up to the Lord for his gracious assistance in so weighty a work, and advising together amongst themselves, they should judge to be nearest to the text, and to the mind of the Lord." And that there might be security against the hasty adoption, and unadvised insertion, of fanciful and unfaithful renderings in the English Bible, it was proposed that another committee of three divines should be "appointed and authorised to be supervisors of what is so approved, and that what those (supervisors) should so approve, should be printed and published for the general edification and benefit of the whole nation, to be read both privately and in the public congregations."

The sudden dissolution of the long Parliament put an end to this scheme. It is evident, however, that the scheme was something more than a pedantic project of some whimsical layman's, which had no countenance either in the Church or country. It was fostered, if not devised, by some of the leading divines of the age. On the proposed committee of review and revision stood the names of Dr. John Owen and Dr. Ralph Cudworth; and on the proposed committee of supervision, the names of Dr. Thomas Goodwin and Mr. Joseph Caryl. On the committee of review there was the name of a Scotsman also, Mr. John Row, Professor of Hebrew at Aberdeen. This Mr. John was son of the more famous John of Carnock, but was one of the unstable zealots who in those days of ecclesiastical revolt deserted the Presbyterian Church of their fathers and adopted the principles of congregational independence. So ready was he to undertake the duties proposed for him in the bill brought into Parliament, that he had a programme of his committee's procedure, cut and dry upon paper. "For ye bettering of ye Inglish translation of ye Bible (first printed A.D. 1612) . . . five things are to be endeavoured," said Mr. John. These five things are, "a more proper, rational, and dexterous" division of chapters, verses and sentences; an amendment of " needless transposition of words or stories, pretending to Hypall or Synchyses"; the excision of all useless additions "that debase the wisdom of the spirit"; the reparation of " all sinful and needless detractions "; and the introduction of certain specified "mutations and changes." Under several of these heads, detailed explanations and instructions were given. The useless additions to be removed from the Bible were, all the apocryphal writings; all popish prints, plates, and pictures; all prefixes of saint to evangelists and apostles; and all spurious subscriptions of particular epistles. Among the mutations and changes recommended, were, the printing of God's names and titles in capital letters ; magisterial correction of all misprints; an "idiomatization" of English words not understood in Scotland ; a substitution of English for Hebrew, Greek and Latin terms ; and "something equivocal to Keriand Kethib!"

From 1653 to 1871, demands more or less loud continued to be made from time to time by divines and biblical scholars for a revision of the King's, or what we are more accustomed to call the authorised, version of the Scriptures. In 1659, "An essay toward the amendment of the last English translation of the Bible," was published by Dr. Robert Gell; and in 1702 a similar essay was published by "H. R., a minister of the Church of England." In the middle of the eighteenth century, revision was advocated by several men of note, including Lowth and Seeker. Towards the end of the century the agitation was renewed. In 1788, a book was printed at Cambridge under the title of "Reasons for revising by authority our present version of the Bible." From the same Universitytown were issued, in 1789, "Observations on the expediency of revising the present English version of the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles," by Professor John Symonds; and five years later there was published, by the same author, another set of observations on the expediency of retranslating the Epistles. In 1792, Archbishop Newcome gave the weight of his name and influence to the movement for revision, and cited high authorities of unquestioned orthodoxy, who were all in favour of the project. Among those that, in the present century advocated the desirability of a new translation of the Bible into English, it will suffice to name Dr. Marsh, Bishop of Peterborough (1828), Professor Scholefield (1832), Professor Selwyn (1856), Dr. Trench, Archbishop of Dublin (1858), Dr. Ellicott, Bishop of Gloucester (1870), Dr. Lightfoot, Bishop of Durham, (1871). It must be admitted however, that men of equal or almost equal eminence, both in the first and second half of the present century, set themselves sternly against the project of revising the King's version. In 1819, an able vindication of the authorised translation of the Bible was published by the Rev. Henry John Todd. In 1820, Archbishop Lawrence took up his episcopal pen, and, on the grounds that it was impossible to restore the original text of the Hebrew Testament, and to clearly establish the text of the Greek Testament, contended that no revision of the English Bible could be satisfactory or beneficial. During the first decade of the present half century, when Selwyn and Trench were advocating revision, and holding forth the benefits that would result therefrom, Mr. Malan, Mr. Scrivener, Dr. Cumming, and Dr. M'Caul were as vigorously enforcing the duty of "holding fast what we have."

And not only has there, from 1645, been a demand, more or less loud and widespread, for a revision of the King's version of the Bible, but not a few attempts have been made to furnish such a revision in whole or in part. As far back as 1639, a translation of the Pentateuch, Psalms, and Canticles was published by Dr. Henry Ainsworth, a member of the Brownist persuasion. So well thought of, too, in the time of the commonwealth was this work of Dr. Ainsworth's, that, in the bill before Parliament in 1653, his translation was specially commended to the favourable consideration of the proposed committee of review. But it does not appear to have been a really meritorious work. The translation was literal beyond all propriety, and the diction was even more archaic than that of the version it was meant to supersede. In the ninety-fifth Psalm the following renderings occur: "Let us prevent his face with confession." ... "Whose the sea is, for he made it; and the dry land his hands have formed." ... "Come let us bow down ourselves and bend." ... "Forty years I was irked with that generation; and said, they are a people erring in heart."

 

[Fogetaboutit]

This is not a reference to the level of understanding of the layman own language.

Perhaps not exclusively, but isn't that a part of it? Or did the Reformers and Puritans not care if anyone comprehended as long as it was technically English? Would you at least agree that "best" can be interpreted multiple ways and is not necessarily confined narrowly to "most precise, regardless of comprehension and coming from a specific set of texts"?

I for one do not believe accuracy should ever be sacrificed for any reason, it does need to be intelligible of course hence the need to translate into ones language, but a formal translation is a must.

Let us also remember that the big bulk of what is considered "best" is actually the reliability of the translated text. There only a few source texts that can be used. Once you determine which is better then it does eliminates others versions translated from other textual sources.

I believe a solid case can be made for the Traditional Text used by the Reformers. If you agree with that statement you have eliminated the vast majority of English translation and I believe out of the versions left a good case can also be made for the KJV. It's not rocket science.

 

[Logan]

I for one do not believe accuracy should ever be sacrificed for any reason, it does need to be intelligible of course hence the need to translate into ones language, but a formal translation is a must.

Definitely, but we don't all use interlinear Bibles do we? Is there not a balance? If so, where does that balance lie?

I believe a solid case can be made for the Traditional Text used by the Reformers. If you agree with that statement you have eliminated the vast majority of English translation and I believe out of the versions left a good case can also be made for the KJV. It's not rocket science.

Which one? Erasmus' (1st, 2nd, 3rd?), Beza's, Stephanus', Scrivener's, or the Vulgate? Why is Stephanus' use of Codex Bezae or Beza's use of Codex Claromontanus, which Beza "discovered" unused for centuries, (both western text-types) acceptable but other western types are not? And since Luther didn't have access to this, are the Germans now without pure Scriptures? It may not be rocket science but it is far from simple, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

Which one? Erasmus' (1st, 2nd, 3rd?), Beza's, Stephanus', Scrivener's, or the Vulgate? Why is Stephanus' use of Codex Bezae or Beza's use of Codex Claromontanus, which Beza "discovered" unused for centuries, (both western text-types) acceptable but other western types are not? And since Luther didn't have access to this, are the Germans now without pure Scriptures? It may not be rocket science but it is far from simple, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Are you just being argumentative here or are you serious? How many English version do you have left no matter which one of these editions you use? (The Great Bible, The Bishop Bible, The Coverdale/Tyndale, Geneva and KJV) as I said in my previous post I believe out of the one left I believe a good case could be made for the KJV. What does Luther have to do in a discussion about the "best" English translation?

 

[Logan]

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I apologize if I seem to be so. Perhaps I should bow out as this hasn't been very fruitful.

I am serious because you said "I believe a solid case can be made for the Traditional Text used by the Reformers". I want to know what you mean by that, since there is no single text. Luther is relevant because his "traditional text" was not the same as what we have today in English. And what you would consider the "traditional text" used western-type manuscripts which I understand CT proponents are criticized for using. It's not as simple as you implied, there is no "this is clearly the text the church has always used".

Of course this has a bearing on what you believe to be a "legitimate" translation, or the "best" English translation, and debating over what "best" means. Since the Westminster Assembly allowed the "best translation" (instead of "Authorized Version") one might conclude that they didn't expect it to be the best forever and clearly (from above) thought it was in need of revision. How the church got from "it clearly needs to be revised" to "don't you dare touch it!" amazes me.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

I am serious because you said "I believe a solid case can be made for the Traditional Text used by the Reformers". I want to know what you mean by that, since there is no single text. Luther is relevant because his "traditional text" was not the same as what we have today in English. And what you would consider the "traditional text" used western-type manuscripts which I understand CT proponents are criticized for using. It's not as simple as you implied, there is no "this is clearly the text the church has always used".

I do believe the later edition to be more accurate since as I see the previous one being stepping stone for the later ones (The same way I see the previous English version based on the traditional text being stepping stones for he KJV). But I do see a sharp distinction between the method and philosophy of criticism used to compile all of the these editions and the methods and philosophy used to compile and edit the Critical Editions.

I don't view the Traditional Greek text "editions" as the Muslims view their Qu'ran, but I do function on the presupposition that since God did inspire his Word, he also preserved it. I do not hold that every Christian throughout the ages have equally benefited from the entire perfectly preserved content of every word of scriptures, but that the perfect Word of God in it's entirety has not vanished away from the face of the earth. I believe the strongest case can be made for the Traditional Text being the purest stream available to us, therefore I hold to it by "faith" supported by the best evidence.

Of course this has a bearing on what you believe to be a "legitimate" translation, or the "best" English translation, and debating over what "best" means. Since the Westminster Assembly allowed the "best translation" (instead of "Authorized Version") one might conclude that they didn't expect it to be the best forever and clearly (from above) thought it was in need of revision. How the church got from "it clearly needs to be revised" to "don't you dare touch it!" amazes me.

I don't dispute this in theory, but the facts are that I still believe the KJV to be the best available today. As I said I have no issues with the edition made to the KJV in 1769.

But the flip side of that is that you have a lot of people just wanting change for the sake of changes, or wanting to distance themselves from those whom they label "KJVO".

 

[Logan]

I do believe the later edition to be more accurate since as I see the previous one being stepping stone for the later ones

Out of curiousity, is this Scrivener's?

 

[Fogetaboutit]

I do believe the later edition to be more accurate since as I see the previous one being stepping stone for the later ones

Out of curiousity, is this Scrivener's?

From my understanding it was reversed engineered by examining the texts that would have been available to the KJV translators (mainly the Stephanus and Beza editions I believe). So would it be considered a "new" edition? Or a compilation of previous editions? I see it more as a republication of older editions.

I believe the content is very similar, if not just about identical (I can't read Greek and I have never observed these myself so I will not be too assertive), but from what I read from others who are more familiar with this edition it is very faithful to previous editions.

 

[Logan]

In the sense most are using "vulgar" the KJV itself was not "vulgar" in 1611 let alone in 1646.

I'm wondering if this is true? As an example, Owen wrote in a similar style and wouldn't the common person have at least been familiar with the language as part of the plays (Shakespeare's for example). Perhaps it was literary English? They may not have spoken that way but read that way? Just wondering.

Pure speculation but perhaps its lack of "vulgarity" was one of the reasons behind the Westminster Assembly considering a revision.

 

[MW]

I recommend it to others.

At the expense of their understanding?

I don't accept the premise of the question. There is no sacrifice of understanding. There is, rather, the value that what is understood is the word of God. This is much to be preferred to a loose human accommodation of the word of God.

You keep saying that the AV is written in English, and who can argue with that? It is! But one must confess that, while the AV is written in English, the syntax is hardly the vulgar tongue of the day.

The syntax wasn't the vulgar tongue of 1611. Your requirement of non-biblical syntax demands that a translator must compromise the integrity of the word of God in order to give the people the word of God "in their own language." Very sad!

 

[MW]

1. The perfect collection of Greek manuscripts collected in such a way as to never need to perform any more textual work based on the interpolated choices of the KJV translators from the manuscripts they had at their disposal.

Textual work proceeds apace in its own domain and is valued while the scholars keep to their own field and do not trespass on other fields. But the conjectures of textual critics are no basis for overturning the well established text of the reformed tradition.

2. Men who were theologically all in accord as to a Reformed hermeneutic and well trained in theology.

Philippians 1:27.

3. Men who had a particular translation philosophy.

This simply follows from being reformed.

4. men whose work was sanctioned by the Church and received.

This must inevitably apply to any translation which is taken up and used by the church.

If he can allow the Church to continue her march for 1611 years without a "best" English translation then He can continue to do so now and in the future.

Who knows where to start with a statement like this. First, the dating is wrong because the English church came some time later than AD nought. Secondly, there were English translations prior to 1611, and some of these were "preferred" over others. The AV translators aimed to make one better translation of many good ones. Thirdly, when the church has attained to a standard it is not at liberty to function irrespective of that standard; relinquishing standards is called "defection."

 

[Philip]

The syntax wasn't the vulgar tongue of 1611. Your requirement of non-biblical syntax demands that a translator must compromise the integrity of the word of God in order to give the people the word of God "in their own language." Very sad!

In Greek, the form of the syntax carries meanings and connotations. In English it merely sounds awkward. The integrity is no more compromised in this instance than it is inherently by the process of translation.

 

[MW]

What I've been hinting at is that at some point the KJV will cease to be useful, it will be like reading the Vulgate in church.

The Vulgate is Latin, not English.

As already noted, we are not prophets; we must work with what is here today, not prognosticate on conditions tomorrow.

The AV is living English. Living English-speakers from all different backgrounds and countries read, use, and comprehend it as well as any translation that is available. It is not the translation. "All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all." One should not expect the understanding of the Bible to come without effort. The Confession states that even things necessary to salvation require "a due use of the ordinary means" by learned and unlearned alike, even though these are clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other.

The problem today is not that the language of the AV is outdated, but that people expect instant results. I do not believe a translation which caters to this mindset is going to produce long-lasting results.

 

[MW]

The integrity is no more compromised in this instance than it is inherently by the process of translation.

"And..." On your theory this is meaningless and modern translations rightly omit it when the repetition becomes tedious. Yet numerous commentators regret its regular omission and/or comment on its significance.

 

[Logan]

What I've been hinting at is that at some point the KJV will cease to be useful, it will be like reading the Vulgate in church.

The Vulgate is Latin, not English.

Perhaps you don't mean it, but statements like this sound a bit condescending and as though you make no effort to understand what I'm saying.

 

[MW]

Perhaps you don't mean it, but statements like this sound a bit condescending and as though you make no effort to understand what I'm saying.

I understood full well what you were saying, and what you were saying was incorrect. I noted the problem with your parallel and stated it without any personal comment. There is nothing in the bare statement of a fact which should be regarded as condescending. Your reply, however, is personal and uncalled for.

 

[Edward]

One of the big issues that gets kind of glossed over in these discussions is who has the right to offer a "translation" of the Bible?

1) The Church

Doesn't that path risk leading, if not back to Rome, at least to Canterbury?

If we decide to give up relying upon the Scripture to validate Themselves; " The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God."

and instead to rely upon men or a man, shouldn't the advocates of such turn to a Bishop, or Archbishop, or the Pope of Rome for their validation?

 

[MW]

Doesn't that path risk leading, if not back to Rome, at least to Canterbury?

Translation is an human activity -- ministerial. The rejection of magisterial authority should not lead to a rejection of ministerial authority. Some person must do it. One does not need to be a mechanic to drive a car, but someone, somewhere, must have been a mechanic for there to be a car. Likewise for translation. The question is, Who is to do it? The Confession attributes ministerial authority to the Church, 31.3; and assigns the Church the authority, by means of its testimony, to move and induce men to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture, 1.5.

 

[sevenzedek]

I recommend it to others.

At the expense of their understanding?

I don't accept the premise of the question. There is no sacrifice of understanding. There is, rather, the value that what is understood is the word of God. This is much to be preferred to a loose human accommodation of the word of God.

You keep saying that the AV is written in English, and who can argue with that? It is! But one must confess that, while the AV is written in English, the syntax is hardly the vulgar tongue of the day.

The syntax wasn't the vulgar tongue of 1611. Your requirement of non-biblical syntax demands that a translator must compromise the integrity of the word of God in order to give the people the word of God "in their own language." Very sad!

I am sad. And while I have much to say with more passion than what I think to be fitting for a man of my low rank, I would rather have peace at this point. Please don't take my convictions with offense toward your person. Can we be charitable with one another in the future, Mr. Winzer?