Thread: AV and the Case for a Single English Translation

Originally Posted by armourbearer

That was fast. I will be interested to hear your thoughts. Also, if you can track down Allis on the second hand market, he provides astute criticisms of the RSV, which started a number of the translation practices that have become standard in more modern versions. Blessings!

Yes, I found a copy at one of the local theological libraries near me. It's 549 pages! Yikes! Maybe it's big print.

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

We're talking big business here. Thus, most of the major Christian publishers in the USA have their own versions, i.e. Nelson with the NKJV as well as NCV, Zondervan with the NIV (and TNIV), Broadman & Holman with the HCSB, Crossway has the ESV, NavPress with the Message, etc.

Just to be fair to them (and I could be wrong about this), isn't Crossway a non-profit organization? If so, then they aren't in it strictly for the money.

Which reminds me of a quip I once heard the late Rev. John Marshall give out with: "Non-profit means that you're not allowed to make money, but you're allowed to lose money."

Originally Posted by bookslover

If I were to go to Tazmania and meet Matthew, I'm sure we'd be able to sit down together like two Christian brothers over dinner (after I've employed my food-taster - KIDDING!) and have a good old time. After all, we're going to be spending eternity together.

Where we will have the most perfect version of Scripture, the face of our Lord Jesus Christ, and nothing to disagree on. You're welcome for dinner if you ever come to Tassie, Richard. I'll even be your food-taster, well, only if I haven't done the cooking.

Originally Posted by bookslover

As you've read, Matthew Winzer and I are on opposite sides of this issue. And I've said that if people want to read the AV, privately or in church, I'm not going to come up to them and yank it out of their hands. As you say, this discussion has been carried out at a very high "cordiality" level, which is something that I, too, appreciate. I've also noticed that there seems to be a reasonably strong AV contingent on the Puritan Board generally and, as far as I can see so far, they express themselves very winsomely on the subject. I don't think we have any AV-only extremist "flamers" on the Board.

If I were to go to Tazmania and meet Matthew, I'm sure we'd be able to sit down together like two Christian brothers over dinner (after I've employed my food-taster - KIDDING!) and have a good old time. After all, we're going to be spending eternity together.

Frankly, I appreciate Matthew's earnestness over the subject, even though I disagree with him. It's refreshing to see someone take a definite stand on a subject and vigorously and intelligently defend it - something one sees far too rarely in this namby/pamby, soft-soap kind of politically correct world we live in.

This has been a most fruitful discussion that's gotten me thinking a lot more on both sides of the issue.

Rev. Winzer, I'll also say you've given some of the strongest sets of pro-AV arguments I've ever heard. Especially in regard to translation being tied to doctrinal alignment, I have to admit that's something I have to really think about in regard to my Bible choices.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Where we will have the most perfect version of Scripture, the face of our Lord Jesus Christ

The ultimate glory, my brother: the beatific vision...

Originally Posted by Theoretical

Rev. Winzer, I'll also say you've given some of the strongest sets of pro-AV arguments I've ever heard. Especially in regard to translation being tied to doctrinal alignment, I have to admit that's something I have to really think about in regard to my Bible choices.

God be praised! It is refreshing to come on the board and find souls seeking out the truth with sincerity and seriousness. It is a complete contrast to the religious mentality of the town I live in.

Originally Posted by bookslover

Just for my own curiosity, let's start at square one. Why do you believe that the AV is the best English translation, ancient or modern? Please keep your answer to 750,000 words or less.

Originally Posted by bookslover

Just to be fair to them (and I could be wrong about this), isn't Crossway a non-profit organization? If so, then they aren't in it strictly for the money.

Which reminds me of a quip I once heard the late Rev. John Marshall give out with: "Non-profit means that you're not allowed to make money, but you're allowed to lose money."

I don't know about Crossway or Good News Publishers being non-profit. Either way, they paid the NCC for the rights to the RSV since the ESV is a revision of it. I do know that the Lockman Foundation that is responsible for the NASB and Amplified versions is non-profit.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

I have just the book for you, Richard. It is called the Authorised Version of the Bible. Read it this year for your Bible reading plan. At the end of the year, I will be very interested to hear what you have to say. The proof is in the eating!

Could you or any AV advocate recommend some Authorized Version Bibles? I looked at Christian Book and most of the KJV's are promotional types.

I do not have one KJV bible in my house, just NASB, NKJV, ESV, and NIV.

I have found this thread very helpful and have been enlightened to consider the AV more because of the discussion so far.

A few comments on what I’ve seen here.

Richard, Burgon’s book is thick, and his style not quite what it is today, but – if one likes the thrill of “textual detective work”, and the efficiency of a trial lawyer tearing down false testimony, and the sheer wonder of peerless competence in defending sacred portions of Scripture – then this book is a must-read, and a joy. Another book I would recommend (I know you didn’t ask me) would be Dr. Edward Hills’ The King James Version Defended.

Casey, I can sympathize with you, for I have people in my congregation – and can envision having as we grow (we are a newly-planted church in a country, Cyprus, where English is the second language, and many who do speak it do not speak it well) – many more for whom even simplified English is difficult. The people I am aiming to evangelize are English-speaking Greek Cypriots – young professionals, artists, business people – as well as Russians, East Europeans, Filipinos, Sri Lankans, Arabic-speaking peoples, Brits, and other natural English-speakers, etc. I will depend on translators a lot. I desired to plant a church here as there was no Reformed witness in my city at all (save in an Arabic-speaking congregation I was serving), and only one other in the entire country! It was a distorted gospel preached in this land, the glory given to man’s much vaunted (supposed) free will, and not to the Lord. The sovereign and glorious God was not being preached.

At any rate, being a lover of the AV (as you can see if you know my postings) I find myself in sort of a bind. My co-elder uses the NASB, and the church has as its pew Bibles the NKJV, which I had to fight for in lieu of the ESV, a compromise, but one I could live with. [When I taught in Africa, my class had been given (before my arrival) NIVs, and the margin notes (similar to most modern version margin notes) seriously shook their confidence in the Bible generally. It was apparent to them there was no settled and certain text. I had to give a number of classes on the textual issue to help them understand. I did not want a repeat of that.]

I long for a unified and literate church such as Matthew has where the AV could be used as the generally accepted Bible. But if that is not to be given me I will do the best I can, keep my integrity as regards the Scripture, and preach the gospel in its purity.

You said in one of your posts, “the original language Scriptures have the ultimate authority,” but this is part of the problem, for it is not only the translation which is at issue, but these very original language texts themselves. The primary difference between the AV and the modern versions is exactly at this “original-language” level, for both the Greek and Hebrew texts differ between them.

I realize that the difference is not so great that the Lord cannot well use (what I consider the inferior) modern versions based on (what I consider the inferior) Greek and Hebrew texts, which anyone can see by the many people saved through preachers using the NIV, ESV, NASB etc. It is a question of did God preserve His word according to His promise so that we have a completely reliable Bible down even to the minute readings? I know there are superb scholars such as Dr. James White who claim this is not necessary, but many people say there is such a preserved Greek and Hebrew Scripture – the position of the 17th century Reformed dogmaticians (Turretin, Owen), as well as the Westminster Confession – and an English translation based upon it by perhaps the finest scholars ever to set their minds and pens to such a labor. Yes, I know, this translation was done 400 hundred years ago. And the language has changed since then. But even in the 16 and 1700s the King James English was not the language of the day. It was a uniquely Biblical language, a devotional language, capturing the spirit of the Hebrew and Greek idioms.

When you said, Casey, regarding the “thees” and “thous,” “It is not the language that people speak or read today,” I must beg to differ. Those very words, supposedly archaic, are used in modern love poetry and in literature as a pure form of address, a love-language, if you will. Not common language, but to be used either in private devotion, or in some other extraordinary usage.

I will not say that worshipping communities who do not use such “devotional language” as I am referring to are remiss in any sense, but those who do use it ought not be charged with being archaic, or not speaking the modern tongue. Such distinctions as these can be taught.

How I will proceed in my own church: I will winsomely defend those portions of Scripture excised by the faulty Greek bases (and their English translations), and seek to instill a love for the AV English when I can. As a poet I have a love for language that may serve me well in this. In the meanwhile I will use the NKJV of the pew Bibles, as its Greek base is sound, even if it is not my beloved AV.

Matthew, I like the way you put this, and I long for the day it is realized: In eternity “we will have the most perfect version of Scripture, the face of our Lord Jesus Christ, and nothing to disagree on.”

Steve

Originally Posted by ChristopherPaul

Could you or any AV advocate recommend some Authorized Version Bibles? I looked at Christian Book and most of the KJV's are promotional types.

I do not have one KJV bible in my house, just NASB, NKJV, ESV, and NIV.

I have found this thread very helpful and have been enlightened to consider the AV more because of the discussion so far.

Trinitarian Bible Society is a great place to get KJV Bibles (w/Psalters too)

Originally Posted by ChristopherPaul

Could you or any AV advocate recommend some Authorized Version Bibles?

Do you have Trinitarian Bible Society distributors over there? Their Bibles are a little more expensive, but no words of Christ in red. They also provide a list of difficult words and definitions for those not acquainted with the AV. And if you like to sing the Scottish Psalter in Metre, some editions include that also. Blessings!

Trinitarian Bible Society USA

thanks guys

Steve (Jerusalem Blade),

Thank you for your comments. I myself prefer the Majority/Church Text, which is why I use the NKJV (and am glad the congregation I am a member at uses the NKJV, too). (Incidentally, I use the NKJV because, as I'm sure you're aware, there is no "mass-produced" Majority Text translation available.)

But, if it were the Greek texts that were the issue, then here's a new question: Why use the KJV instead of the NKJV? You have said that "thee" and "thou" are words commonly used in modern poetry -- that may be true, but I don't know a whole lot of people that read poetry. These words still are not used in the media at all. World Magazine is a widely read "standard" weekly that many thoughtful Christians read, and it doesn't use "thees" and "thous." I don't know of any modern English grammars that cover "thee," "thou," or "ye."

The question in this thread really doesn't hinge on whether or not God has preserved his Word (that's a given, as far as I'm concerned!). It doesn't hinge on which Greek text is to be preferred (though we all have a preference). The question, as far as I'm concerned, is whether or not the KJV is written in modern English, the vulgar language of the land -- a language people can understand without much difficulty, without tripping and stumbling over, without being a hindrance to their growth in godliness and knowledge of the Lord. I'm still convinced that the KJV is a hindrance and not a help.

The argument that since God's Word doesn't change, therefore we don't need any new translations, is not a very good argument. When the discussion is about translations, foundational to the discussion is the issue of changing culture and language -- the fact is, these things change. God's Word does not change, but our translation of it must, that is, if we don't want Christianity to be relegated to the proverbial trash bin of history.

Honestly, there are numerous different issues trying to be tackled in this single thread, which is making it confusing: (1) original language basis (CT or RT, etc.), (2) ecclesiastical participation in creating a translation (and that it be Reformed), (3) whether a church ought to subscribe to a single translation, and (4) whether the KJV is a form of modern English or not.

Here's my take:
1. Original language basis = Majority Text
2. Yes, it is preferred, but must it be necessary today? No, because no modern translation is the fruit of the Reformed churches
3. Not necessarily
4. The KJV is not modern English

The fact is, none of these 4 points are confessional, and so no one can be enforced on a denominational level. One might be able to argue that the Critical Text is not confessional, as I ultimately would, but even then those holding CT views may still frame their view in such a way that it would fit the Confession. The Confession does not designate where the translation needs to come from. The Confession does not say to make but one translation for every language. The Confession does not say that the KJV is the translation of choice, or the English choice for all time.

Every translation has its virtues and vices, and it seems to me that some that have participated on this thread want to turn a blind eye to the vices of the KJV.

Thank you Andrew and Rev. Winzer for the website.

This may have been discussed in another thread, so no need to side track a good thread; I am just looking for a yes or no and then a link from Andrew to put me in the right direction ( ): is the Geneva Bible considered acceptable by the authorized camp?

The Geneva version is acknowledged as a faithful reformation Bible. However, the AV was a significant improvement upon it. Note what the preface to Poole's Annotations says: "About the year 1640 some deliberations were taken for the composing and printing other English notes (the old Geneva Notes not so well fitting our new and more correct translation of the Bible)."

Much of the interest in the Geneva version is nostalgic, due to the revival of interest in Puritanism. As noted above, it is a myth that the Puritans preferred the Geneva over the AV. As the AV is more accurate, it by default became the standard Bible of the Puritans, and indeed of the English speaking world for nearly three centuries.

Casey, if thees and thous are contained in the English Bible which people are reading, then quite obviously they are part of vulgar English. I often see newspapers quoting the AV. Just the other day, I read an article which was headed, "love thy neighbour." Not too long ago I read an article in a popular evangelical magazine which quoted, "thy will be done." Australian Parliament commences with prayer in thee and thou. There are churches in Australia who still pray in this reverential mode, our own included. I have listened to numerous tapes over the years by American Presbyterian men, and numbers of them prayed in thee and thou. If usage is indicative of vulgar English, thee and thou IS vulgar English.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Casey, if thees and thous are contained in the English Bible which people are reading, then quite obviously they are part of vulgar English. I often see newspapers quoting the AV. Just the other day, I read an article which was headed, "love thy neighbour." Not too long ago I read an article in a popular evangelical magazine which quoted, "thy will be done." Australian Parliament commences with prayer in thee and thou. There are churches in Australia who still pray in this reverential mode, our own included. I have listened to numerous tapes over the years by American Presbyterian men, and numbers of them prayed in thee and thou. If usage is indicative of vulgar English, thee and thou IS vulgar English.

Pastor Winzer, I am just wondering . . how would you handle a situation in which a family was considering your church but was greatly distracted in the pastoral prayer (and even the language of the KJV) by the "thee's" and "thou's" and "ye's" and "thy's"? In fact, you may have already experienced situations like this? I've heard of this happening myself. Do the young children in your church use the KJV? I'm just scratching the surface of all the pastoral problems that might arise on account of using the KJV that would be prevented by using a modern English translation. Have you run into any problems of this sort? I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts about these things . . . :cool2:

If by "vulgar" we mean "of the common people" then would the appearing of the KJV as the #3 best selling version be a good argument for it being "vulgar?"...
http://www.cbaonline.org/TrackingLists/trx.jsp?w=t

If by "vulgar" we mean "common everyday language" then surely none of the more literal translations would fall into that category?

Casey, I suppose my definition of "pastoral" means I do not look on people's growing pains as problems. We are all sinners. Grace alone makes the difference. God works in providentially different ways with His flock; and yet He uses the same means of grace. As far as I can see, my task as an under-shepherd is to point people to the Chief Shepherd by the use of the means. Whether or not these are blessed to the good of people's souls is altogether dependent on Sovereign free grace. I do not think I am acting as a true pastor if I compromise the means of Christ's appointment for the sake of making them more palatable; and I certainly cannot conscientiously seek God's blessing on my compromise. On the other hand, if I administer the means of grace purely, there is every reason to believe that they will be accompanied with the divine blessing for the good of the elect.

Yes, the children read the AV as well as the adults. There have been some who have found the way we do things a little difficult. Such difficulties may be overcome by patient continuance in well-doing. I think if there is no heart to learn, it will not matter what is done to accommodate the person. But where the Lord has opened the heart, they will attend upon the ministry, and God will bless it to them. It starts with a desire to please the Lord even in circumstantial matters. Modern folk call it legalism; I call it understanding the will of the Lord. "Delight thyself also in the Lord, and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart." Blessings!

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Their Bibles are a little more expensive, but no words of Christ in red.

Hey! We agree on something! I think "words of Christ in red" Bibles are ridiculous. I avoid them whenever I can.

Originally Posted by larryjf

If by "vulgar" we mean "common everyday language" then surely none of the more literal translations would fall into that category?

This is a point I mentioned earlier. Some American dialects are comprised of very poor grammar and limited vocabulary. Casey, your idea of the "common language" seems to be that of the moderately educated white person living in the suburbs.

Reading any bible that uses correct grammar is going to be awkward to an extent for most people, and to a great extent for many. That of course isn't a definitive argument for the side of the AV, it just means that all this talk about the KJV being so unlike the common language that one of the modern translations (excluding maybe "The Message" or the "New Living Translation") would be better just seems a little silly.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Casey, I suppose my definition of "pastoral" means I do not look on people's growing pains as problems. We are all sinners. Grace alone makes the difference. God works in providentially different ways with His flock; and yet He uses the same means of grace. As far as I can see, my task as an under-shepherd is to point people to the Chief Shepherd by the use of the means. Whether or not these are blessed to the good of people's souls is altogether dependent on Sovereign free grace. I do not think I am acting as a true pastor if I compromise the means of Christ's appointment for the sake of making them more palatable; and I certainly cannot conscientiously seek God's blessing on my compromise. On the other hand, if I administer the means of grace purely, there is every reason to believe that they will be accompanied with the divine blessing for the good of the elect.

Yes, the children read the AV as well as the adults. There have been some who have found the way we do things a little difficult. Such difficulties may be overcome by patient continuance in well-doing. I think if there is no heart to learn, it will not matter what is done to accommodate the person. But where the Lord has opened the heart, they will attend upon the ministry, and God will bless it to them. It starts with a desire to please the Lord even in circumstantial matters. Modern folk call it legalism; I call it understanding the will of the Lord. "Delight thyself also in the Lord, and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart." Blessings!

Pastor Winzer: Friend, we can agree to disagree. I am weary of considering one's aversion to the archaic language of the KJV as a form of "growing pains," impurity, or a "compromise" to the means of grace. Thank you for discussing this with me, and God's blessing in your continued labors for his kingdom.

EDITED

Originally Posted by StaunchPresbyterian

Pastor Winzer: "Growing pains" = learning to understand the archaic language of the KJV? Is it a sin, or simply a sign of immaturity, to find the KJV difficult to comprehend? By prefering another translation to the KJV one is "compromis[ing] the means of Christ's appointment for the sake of making them more palatable"? Do you believe pastors ministering in the English language are "compromis[ing]" when they use any other translation besides the KJV? Do you believe that the means of grace through the Word is less pure if it is not from the KJV? Your post seems to presuppose all such . . . but maybe I've misread?

Casey, perhaps it is me, perhaps it is you, perhaps it is the medium, but I find it difficult to communicate with you. The "growing pains" had reference to your question: "how would you handle a situation in which a family was considering your church but was greatly distracted...," which you specifically went on to label a pastoral problem. My response was that I do not classify such things as problems. To me it is the work of the ministry to assist people as they grow up into Christ. For some reason you decided to take what I said about growing pains and to apply to "understanding the archaic language of the AV." Despite the fact that you are totally wrong by calling the language of the AV archaic, you should have applied the "growing pains" comment to people being distracted.

Concerning means, faithfulness, and God's blessing -- I am going to equate it to the church's confession of faith again, hoping you do not confuse the parallel like last time. In Presbyterianism it has happened that there are two different Confessions, the original Westminster and the American revision. If it is decided that the original is more in accord with Scripture, then it would be unfaithful to adopt the revision. At that point the church is bearing witness to what it knows is not accurate. Ditto for the AV and modern translations.

Casey, I answered your "original" post before seeing you had "revised" it. I don't agree to disagree with people. I agree to be patient and bear with them.

Brothers,

A few years ago God by his sovereign good pleasure and grace saw fit to pull me out of the Peter Ruckman school of thought. I was your typical "Ruckmanite". This isn't something I am proud of, but there's a reason I am writing this. In years past I would have already been banned from this board because I would have been defending dispensationalism, the AV, pre-millennialism, credobaptism, decisional regeneration etc. with "reckless abandon".

Then, as I said, God did a work of grace in my heart and life to which he deserves all the glory. I've posted some things in this board that have resorted back to that part of my ministry that I'm not really proud of. But for the most part I now just get on here and read without saying too much and asking too many questions (although I have had some honest questions taken the wrong way by some in here, but that's o.k.).

In all my years as a Christian and in the ministry to which God saw fit to call me I have never seen such a gracious discussion on the AV as opposed to modern translations. I know I made mention of this in an earlier post, but it has truly done my heart good. For many years I've argued that the AV was God's preserved word in the English speaking language. And yet in all those years I have NEVER (that I can recall anyway) had anyone tell me that my arguments were working on their hearts to examine the use of the AV for their own lives. Yet in one short thread I have seen at least 2-3 people say this very thing. You've got to understand, coming from the school of theology that I was trained in this to me is a miraculous working of the Holy Spirit.

I understand that in times past it would have been my attitude about what I was defending that would have so quickly turned people off. I guess that's why I keep getting on here and beckoning you guys not to let this thread go the wrong way. It has been such a HUGE blessing to so many people, yet I'm starting to get a feel that it's headed in the wrong direction now. I'm no moderator or forum, so I'm not trying to act like I have any power here. I would just hate to see a wedge driven between two brothers in whom the fruit of the Spirit is so evident that there is a true love for Christ in their hearts.

May the fruit of this thread prosper in the power of the Holy Spirit, and may we know when to say enough is enough.

God Bless!

Point well taken, Barnpreacher. I think that is my signal to give it a rest. Good quotation from John Paton. Blessings!

And with those edifying words, this thread is closed.