I am curious about your thoughts on a subject that seems to be always looming in the back corners of my mind lately...

In the pulpit I bounce around from the NASB, NKJV, and the ESV. Since arriving at my new parish last month I have been getting to know the people and their thoughts on this thing and that.

One recurring theme of the direction that I believe the Lord is leading us as a church is to be a place where the Scriptures are elevated. By that I am speaking directly in opposition to what is occurring in many Congregational Churches ( UCC Coalition :: ONA Basics ).

We are an independent Congregational Church where the people are genuinely interested in faithfulness to traditional values, biblical authority, and a traditional worship.

I have been feeling a strong urge to return to the use of the KJV in the service. I am curious what your thoughts are on the use of the KJV?

I am not so much talking about the "KJV only" controversy (for those who choose to call it that). I am speaking more to the understandability of it, what it says to a visitor on Sunday morning, etc.

Blessings!

__________________
Pastor Chris Surber, M.A.R.
First Congregational Church
Peru, Illinois USA
[url]www.1stperu.org[/url]
"Prayer is as natural an expression of faith as breathing is of life." - Jonathan Edwards

Follow Up:

Thank you for your thoughts. I am really enjoying interacting with and learning from the folks on this board.

I know that this could be a problem in many English churches with so many English translation out there. Five years from now there very well might be another new English translation. It seems that there is a tendency nowadays for many Reformed Churches to switch towards the ESV. This is the case, especially if the publishers of the ESV also happen to published your books.

I think a pastor should have no problem using either the NASB, ESV, KJV, etc. respectively, as long as he first knows how to preach from such particular translation along with the Hebrew and Greek languages. I do not think it is healthy that a church continues to switch translations every so often. Pastor John MacArthur, for instance, has been preaching from the NASB for more than 20 yrs. And I do not think he is ever going to switch because he relies more on the original languages and is already accustomed to using this translation. It is also very important with these different translation that a person is fully aware of their own weaknesses as how where they translated from the original languages.

__________________
Gil Garcia
Rehoboth Reformed Church (RCUS)
La Habra, CA


"Indeed, one might say that as far as the doctrine of justification
is concerned, if you are not on the road to Wittenberg or Geneva, then the old proverb is indeed true: all roads lead to Rome." Carl Trueman

I have attended churches where the KJV was used exclusively and it worked well. I have also attended a church where the ESV was used and one where the NIV was used. Overall, my preference would be to use the KJV. You could always update the language yourself! I know of a minister that does that.

How someone can preach expositionally from a version that is not "word-for-word" is beyond me I am afraid.

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

I have done that on occasion - updating some of the language as I read the passage - although I suppose that is not so different from reading the NKJV.

I know a wonderful man of God (he is a retired Presbyterian Pastor) who I heard deliver a message two Sundays in a row when I first arrived here at First Congregational in Peru, Illinois. He was the interim Pastor for 6 months before my arrival.

It was wonderful because those were the first two Sundays in a year when I had not been the pulpit and it was nice to get a "pew view" for a change.

Anyway, he read the Scriptures and preached from The Message version! I actually read something written by Eugene Patterson (the author) where he said that he doesn't even think that is what that translation is meant for!

The Scripture teaches that we are to come to unity of the faith, to be with one mind and one mouth. (see, Psalm 133, Ephesian 4, Romans 15) Unity in truth is more important than what one's personal opinions are on various textual hypotheses or the perceived perfection of translation, and that unity must be consistent with the Regula Fidei of the historic Reformed Confessions. There is only one english version that maintains that continuity, that is the Authorized Version.

Biblical criticism has created a multitude of schism's in the Church and made it a battleground where a radical individualism is asserted that is contradictory to all Reformed Confessions. It is simply impossible that Sola Scriptura be maintained consistent with the Regula Fidei when multiple translations are in use that are also based upon multiple texts. How can people come to unity of the faith when they disagree with what God even said? How can they know that differences are translational or textual, outside of readily apparent deletions? Critical proponents argue that the Regula Fidei is maintained because some other text maintains a doctrinal teaching, when a particular text that the Confession utilizes has been mutilated. It's simply not true, if there is textual and confessional discontinuity then there cannot be unity of the Faith, because Sola Scriptura has never meant that the individuals preference superseded the Regula Fidei. Nor has the Regula Fidei been some fuzzy principle that a teaching can be derived from some other Scripture that is no longer present. The Church is double minded today and because of that it is unstable in all of its ways. (James 1:8)

What you are preaching and what the congregation may be reading are not of one mind and one mouth. And there is also a radical discontinuity proposed in the government of the body and the soul when the critical texts are taken up. Even if I believed the critical texts were right and were "closer to the original," I wouldn't depart from the Authorized Version. It's just lawlessness. Since all of these versions are in fact all different hypothetical texts, it is a tremendous problem.

We are also commanded to serve Christ in both our bodies and our spirits (1 Cor 6:20) but one of the major issues that seems to be completely ignored is that no Bible based upon the critical text has any standing at law. Only the Authorized Version has standing at law and when it is taught it provides a word that has real continuity over both body and spirit whereby the Christian man brought under submission to the Holy Ghost can assert his duty.

The Christian profession of faith will and must necessarily move toward a public confession consistent with the Great Commission teaching the nations to obey whatsoever God has commanded. It is a double edged sword, law and gospel, that the saints have the honour of binding Kings and nobles unto the law of God (Psalms 149:6-9). When Christians, though, no longer recognize the Providential working of God in history and the great gift He has given the Church in an established Bible that has an apostolic witness that the heathen is required to receive for the protection, peace and purity of Christ's Church, then he has abandoned the faith. I know that is a harsh saying, but governments are part of the Church as well, and we are commanded to obey every ordinance of man as well. In America the Bible doesn't just pop up in 1901 with the proposition that the Vatican is the proper repository of the text of Scripture - it is part of the organic foundation just as much as the Constitutions are and the proper repository is the English Common Law.

Illinois is a Northwest Ordinance State, if God has called you to service in Illinois then in my belief one needs to consider Providence's work in history, and the covenantal foundations of that. Where you can preach and teach the gospel and do it from the Scripture's in a fully covenantal sense with continuity between law and gospel, then you should do that. It may be old and archaic to you and many other people, it's not to God though, He works through His covenant and works through human covenants that are consistent with that.

I believe our calling is to work toward unity of the faith, to develop the Church into having one mind and one mouth to the Glory of God, not to engage the public life of the Church into an academic debate over textual perfection.

I would encourage you to pray about it and seek the unction of the Holy Spirit and if you feel so led, try preaching and teaching from the Authorized Version. There is power there and covenantal continuity there that the majority of the Reformed Church has abandoned. See for yourself what the fruit is "for by there fruits ye shall know them."

Cordially in Christ,

Thomas

__________________
Thomas Weddle
Member, Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church
Evansville, Indiana

My Pastor uses the AV for all his sermons and readings and it's also the standard text for our Bible studies and we do just fine.

__________________
J. M. - Baptist - Ontario, Canada - Feileadh Mor

"Nothing is more seductive for man than his freedom of conscience. But nothing is a greater cause of suffering."
The Brothers Karamazov

It's a shame imo, that so many reformed folks do not use a reformation era bible. I really enjoy hearing Joel Beeke and appreciate his use of the KJV as well as out Free Presbyterian brethren. While our chruch is not KJV only, it is the official bible for preaching and teaching from the pulpit.

__________________
1689 Baptist Confession

Psa 55:16 As for me, I will call upon God; and the LORD shall save me.
Psa 55:17 Evening, and morning, and at noon, will I pray, and cry aloud: and he shall hear my voice.
James Farley, Wilderness Road Baptist Assembly.
Husband of Melissa and father of Ann.
www.wildernessroadbaptist.org

While on the one hand I don't think I would make the issue of particular translation one of the definitive emphasis of a particular church, I do think adopting an official 'standard' for the church is a wise course.

IMO, you would be better making the KJV your 'official' translation for the sake of unity then switching between various different translations from one sermon to another.

The route we took at Christ Reformed Church was to standardize on the ESV. We get modern english that maintains much of the beauty of the KJV and a good translation of a better Greek text (yes, I am of the persuasion that the Critical Text is better than all forms of the Traditional Text ).

__________________
Robert Truelove
Pastor
Christ Reformed Church
Lawrenceville, GA

I've always use the KJV. From 1st graders to adults, from pastors to housewifes, no problems. It also seems that when I read from the King Jimmy, I speak with authority that is lacking when I use modern translations.

__________________
Timothy Johnson
First United Presbyterian of Moline
PCUSA (Yea, I know)
Theology/Philosophy Sunday School Teacher
Davenport, IA

I say, use the KJV if that is what you're inclined to do. As for updating the language as you preach, isn't that part of good expository preaching? As a preacher, it's your job to make the Word understandable to the congregation, isn't it?

__________________
Sterling Harmon
Coventry, CT
PCA
Deacon
________________

"Whatever is laudable in our works proceeds from the grace of God."
-- John Calvin, Institutes III:xv.3.

"Our Lord God must be a good man, to be fond of worthless fellows. I cannot like them, and yet I, myself, am one."
-- Martin Luther, Table Talk

I would encourage you to read some of the articles found on The Trinitarian Bible Society website. The KJV is the best we've got and probably will be for a long time to come.

I am thankful that it hasn't been taken from us.

__________________
~Jay~
Husband of ENS, father of J II. | Indian Trail, NC
Teacher Aide, Union County Public Schools, NC
Communicant Member, Precentor | Presbyterian Reformed Church of Charlotte, NC | Presbyterian Reformed Church

Pastor Surber,

Our pastor whom I love uses the NASB and honestly sometimes I can not tell when he is reading scripture or preaching. Also different versions detract from something very important "Bible memorization".

May God bless all you do that pleases Him

.

In regards to TBS refusing to acknowledge a revision upon the KJV it does not make sense to me, because they are currently revising and updating another Bible found in a another language other than English.

In other words, TBS, along with many other Churches/Pastors, do not want to update the KJV but they (TBS) are updating and revising other Bibles in other languages.

I cannot speak for TBS, but real King Jimmy users know that the few textual changes (real textual problems, not the made up ones that come from using faulty texts) that apply to the newer versions, you can apply to the KJV. Real KJV users know this. We also update the KJV to try and reflect what it originally said, as there have been variants. Real KJV users use it for more than a 'historical' translation, but where the original texts come from, and the language that is used. It's written in a 12 grade reading level, so alot of so-called 'unable to understand' comes from the peoples lack of education, not the 'archaic'-ness of it that many people claim. By using a higher level of English, there is more depth and meaning that comes through that the original writers meant.

The Trinitarian Bible Society has a bunch of great articles that expound and refute alot of the 'common' reason that people site as reasons that the modern versions are better. Or that we should even be using them.

Some versions are O.K., But they are best used to come along the KJV and help draw out the meaning for those whose English isn't up to it.

The reason for an English translation is to enable those who don't read Greek and Hebrew to have a copy of God's word that a person can read. And the KJV does it with the most precision of any translation.

Mr. Johnson, is there such thing as a "fictitious or imaginary" KJV user?

KJV is te best place for any english speaker to start. The problenm is that Americans expect everything to be thought out for them so that they do not have to think. We must move our people beyond this point and teach them to think through what they beleive. It is there that they will begin to value the KJV.

__________________
Paul W.
Soon to be leaving
Girard, Illinois

Yes there is. Those who drive us real KJV users nuts!!! They apply the same straw-man arguments to the moden versions that some use on the KJV. Or say the KJV has never changed. Although it was let down on a golden cord from God, the original spellings and letters used (like it looks like an f for s) were different than we use today.

P.S. Conan the barbarian used the KJV - therefore there are Fictitious KJV users!

<----imaginary smiley uses KJV too!

Mr. Johnson--
Are the imaginary KJV users the ones who say,
"King James was good enough for Paul and Silas, so it's good enough for me!" ???

I think Sials was a fictitious KJV user.

No, the "it was good enough for Paul" bit is a joke...but a joke with a point, meaning they believe it to be most true to the text (speaking about the KJVOers, as that is who the "joke" is intended toward and used by).


I'm not KJVO, I'm KJV/Geneva/ESV preferred (and I like my ESV mostly because of the study notes ) I cannot stand the NIV or the others that come after it's sort (the Translation, the Message) and cannot even follow along with any pastor that uses it.

The KJV might be considered 12th grade reading now...but it used to be considered 8th grade reading...and I thrived on it from an early age, from the time I learned to read.



I DO have a question though and would love to hear an answer:
My understanding is that the KJV/Geneva came from the Coptic/Byzantine texts, whereas the ESV/NASB/etc comes from the Alexandrian/Egyptian texts. I understand that these two groups are different, one more wordy, and after their own traditions. The KJVOers argument is against the Alexandrian texts due to corruption within the Alexandrian church (and we know that there were heresies spread throughout varies parts of the church, such as gnosticism, judaizing, etc and those mentioned in the NT). Could someone speak to this issue? What were the issues in the Alexandrian church and did/how did they affect the texts?

__________________
JC
URCNA
PA

"Forgiveness is primarily for our own sake, so that we no longer carry the burden of resentment. But to forgive does not mean we will allow injustice again." --Jack Kornfield

Remember that the KJV was translated in opposition to the Reformation. The reformers translated the Geneva Bible as a response to these who despised the Reformation and the Puritans brought the Geneva, not the KJV to America.

__________________
Stephen Welch
PCA Teaching Elder
Nova Scotia

I know and understand that dear brother. However, the KJV is from the same text and was accepted by and large by our reformed brethren.