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

[aaronsk]

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.

My KJV is a Thomas Nelson Sovereign Edition - it also has the unfamiliar terms defined on page. I've never really had an issue with it as they did a pretty thorough job at that.

Also perhaps I'm just dumb but the first time I came across the word “colonnades” in an ESV, I had no idea what that meant and grabbed a dictionary. Could use an ESV footnote "c. John 5:2 Or Porches" .

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Yins - PESV (Pennsylvania ESV)

It's Yuins. LOL
Epistemology gives me more of a headache than theology. I think it is supposed to.

 

[JH]

I have to pull out a KJV to figure out if it is plural or singular, unless it is evident from the context.

Even then we may end up overlooking what may seem evident by context, yet isn't. (as I'm sure you know)

"And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you [plural, the disciples], that he may sift you [plural, the disciples] as wheat: But I have prayed for thee [singular, Peter], that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.” (Luk 22:31-32, KJV)

 

[Polanus1561]

I wish I can have both plural pronouns and also modern language. But for the sake of the children and to babes in the faith, I will always take the latter.
E.g It is important for believers to understand what is "Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying." as
"Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy."
on initial glance.
I am not a fan of the 'let the minister explain the words for the congregation' view. Independent bible study is a vital means of grace that the clearest translation serves.

 

[retroGRAD3]

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.

This seems like a red herring response. It is either wrong or it is not. The answer you gave started another conversation. Be careful that legalism doesn't start to cloud your judgment. If you have a preference that is one thing, but to say something is WRONG and not back it up with a command in scripture is dangerous.

 

[RamistThomist]

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).

If we are going to go that route, Alexander's original position breaks down with Psalm 82. I'm going to try to transliterate from the Hebrew

Elohim (singular or plural or Triune) stands in the Council of El and in the midst of the elohim (singular or plural or triune or humans or angels) holds judgment.

In any case, did I sin when I told God "I love you"? Even if we specify it to mean Thou, the singular, does the Thou refer to the Trinity (making the Trinity one person) or to the Father? Saying "thou" doesn't solve the problem.

 

[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.

Where do those criteria boxes come from? My point is that the criteria are typically post hoc, whether intentionally or not. And again, I stated this in the context of why people are theoretically open to a updated TR translation, but in actuality find some criteria why the NKJV is unacceptable, but this is almost always after they have first looked up to make sure the KJV fits that criteria. People don't state what the criteria is until they look up the history of the KJV.

I've even seen it happen multiple times where someone came up with a criteria as to why the NKJV isn't acceptable, only to have it pointed out that the KJV didn't fit that criteria either. At which point that criteria suddenly became unimportant, but some other criteria is now the new reason why the NKJV isn't acceptable. They might not even consciously be doing this but that's very much post hoc.

 

[aaronsk]

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).

I will re-quote myself with the winky face - indicating the comment was meant to be a bit tongue in cheek, perhaps I didn't convey that the best.

If we are going to go that route, Alexander's original position breaks down with Psalm 82. I'm going to try to transliterate from the Hebrew

Elohim (singular or plural or Triune) stands in the Council of El and in the midst of the elohim (singular or plural or triune or humans or angels) holds judgment.

I'm not going to be able jump into that... I think Alexander needs to dive in here with you further. I was just trying to point out that it didn't seem fair to pin him on comparing prayer versus a bible translation as the context, audience, etc is really quite different.

In any case, did I sin when I told God "I love you"? Even if we specify it to mean Thou, the singular, does the Thou refer to the Trinity (making the Trinity one person) or to the Father? Saying "thou" doesn't solve the problem.

Ill include second part of my post. I wasn't trying to speak for Alexander but just pointing out considerations for how we communicate in prayer and bible translations probably shouldn't be the same. I don't really have any affinity to thee & thou myself (though I find noting the distinction in some fashion where possible quite useful). My answer would be no to the sin question.

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.

Where do those criteria boxes come from? My point is that the criteria are typically post hoc, whether intentionally or not. And again, I stated this in the context of why people are theoretically open to a updated TR translation, but in actuality find some criteria why the NKJV is unacceptable, but this is almost always after they have first looked up to make sure the KJV fits that criteria. People don't state what the criteria is until they look up the history of the KJV.

I've even seen it happen multiple times where someone came up with a criteria as to why the NKJV isn't acceptable, only to have it pointed out that the KJV didn't fit that criteria either. At which point that criteria suddenly became unimportant, but some other criteria is now the new reason why the NKJV isn't acceptable. They might not even consciously be doing this but that's very much post hoc.

Fair enough - if this is what you have encountered and are speaking about etc., then I fully agree.

 

[Jake]

Are there are any other features of the Greek language not in vernacular English that we should translate? Or can the others be handled with preaching or occasional footnotes?

 

[Eyedoc84]

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).

Umm…this is a little bit overreaching. 1 Chronicles 5:26 is literal to the Hebrew, Acts 9:6/22:9 is literal to the Greek (same word for “heard”), and Acts 5:30 does not say “and then”, and given the gospels, I’m not sure who would actually read it that way. As to the individual problem words above, sure, many of the ones pointed out are obsolete (some may have been even in 1611), but I’ve seen “charger, “suretiship”, and maybe even “froward” used outside of a biblical context in the 21st century with the same meanings as the KJV. And “crookbackt” and “hoised” are pretty self explanatory, even though funny looking.

 

[JH]

The KJV gets a lot of flack for some words that require a dictionary – but that very same "problem" exists in modern translations. Shakespeare is required reading for English classes in public high school, but somehow at the same time there are reports about how the KJV is hard to read.

 

[Charles Johnson]

Umm…this is a little bit overreaching. 1 Chronicles 5:26 is literal to the Hebrew, Acts 9:6/22:9 is literal to the Greek (same word for “heard”), and Acts 5:30 does not say “and then”, and given the gospels, I’m not sure who would actually read it that way. As to the individual problem words above, sure, many of the ones pointed out are obsolete (some may have been even in 1611), but I’ve seen “charger, “suretiship”, and maybe even “froward” used outside of a biblical context in the 21st century with the same meanings as the KJV. And “crookbackt” and “hoised” are pretty self explanatory, even though funny looking.

To add another, my mother calls a certain type of scarf a muffler. But perhaps that use is limited to the midwest where it is cold enough to wear such things. To Jacob I say, if thou willst visit the north, I shall clad thee with mine muffler.

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

The KJV gets a lot of flack for some words that require a dictionary – but that very same "problem" exists in modern translations. Shakespeare is required reading for English classes in public high school, but somehow at the same time there are reports about how the KJV is hard to read.

Would you take Shakespeare to inner city kids and have their entire future depend upon them being able to understand it?

 

[B.L.]

Here's an interesting article written by Jeffrey Stivason that was posted yesterday on Gentle Reformation.

Edward Hills & a Strange Providence

Enjoy!

 

[alexandermsmith]

This seems like a red herring response. It is either wrong or it is not. The answer you gave started another conversation. Be careful that legalism doesn't start to cloud your judgment. If you have a preference that is one thing, but to say something is WRONG and not back it up with a command in scripture is dangerous.

It is grammatically and theologically wrong to refer to God as plural because He is one. If there is a word in the language with which one can make that distinction one should use it. I didn't say anything about sin, that is people like you pushing the conversation to the extreme to give you cover from addressing the point at hand. I am well aware most Christians refer to God as "you" and that is just the way it is. But this sort of reaction: refusing to engage with the issue, dismissing the concerns and forcing people to extreme positions is why you will never convince KJV users of your position. You show absolutely no understanding, nor interest in trying to understand, our position and our concerns. And yet we are the bad guys who say you're using "Satan's bible" (an expression I have never heard used except by CT advocates).

 

[Jeri Tanner]

When the visible church is in a state of sad declension and has become largely unfaithful, God sends a famine upon her. "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord" (Amos 8:11). The Book of the Law had been hidden away until times of reformation came again, and Hilkiah discovered it stored away in the temple and brought it to Josiah. Revival followed.

These are not the times for revisions and new translations than what we received from our most recent time of reformation. What if the language difficulty of the KJV is part of the consequences of our sin... God sending a difficult way in these times of declension and unfaithfulness to our Head? In the 2 OT examples God withheld his word, and God restored his word, and shows us a principle. He does these things with his own word- not man with his own ideas. Perhaps had the church remained faithful, we would have certain revisions accepted in whole by the Reformed church.

We need to consider these things. In handling the word of God we should have such fear. Look at church history, all the way back to the OT. Consider these things biblically, not critically. If the Bible that came from texts the church has used for several hundred years is now considered difficult; if recently discovered manuscripts have caused such a furor and division in the visible church; doesn't it warrant stepping back with caution and fear, and looking to the God of heaven for wisdom and help, rather than speaking so knowledgeably of this and that family of texts, using the wisdom of man rather than God. We should be asking him, Lord, what is this? Is this part of the judgment and chastisement upon a church that wasn't hearing his word anyway (I think of Babel, of the division of tongues being a sign of judgment).

 

[alexandermsmith]

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.

I'm not going to go through the whole list and give you a definition. My interaction was that on the rare occasion one encounters such a word it is easy enough to find a definition and it would be ridiculous to discard a translation for this very minor issue.

If we are going to go that route, Alexander's original position breaks down with Psalm 82. I'm going to try to transliterate from the Hebrew

Elohim (singular or plural or Triune) stands in the Council of El and in the midst of the elohim (singular or plural or triune or humans or angels) holds judgment.

What is the problem here? The KJV translates the verse: "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods." The ESV translates it: "God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment."

Neither translation had a problem distinguishing between God, Jehovah, and the gods, magistrates (as the term is commonly understood) and yet both translations use the word "gods".

Where do those criteria boxes come from? My point is that the criteria are typically post hoc, whether intentionally or not. And again, I stated this in the context of why people are theoretically open to a updated TR translation, but in actuality find some criteria why the NKJV is unacceptable, but this is almost always after they have first looked up to make sure the KJV fits that criteria. People don't state what the criteria is until they look up the history of the KJV.

I've even seen it happen multiple times where someone came up with a criteria as to why the NKJV isn't acceptable, only to have it pointed out that the KJV didn't fit that criteria either. At which point that criteria suddenly became unimportant, but some other criteria is now the new reason why the NKJV isn't acceptable. They might not even consciously be doing this but that's very much post hoc.

The point is that the KJV came about in the Lord's providence at a time of Reformation in the church. It's not about stipulating certain conditions which must be ticked off but recognising the unique historical context which produced the KJV. Just as the Reformation itself was a unique moment in history which couldn't be replicated merely by arranging circumstances so that they would be similar to 16th century Europe.

 

[retroGRAD3]

It is grammatically and theologically wrong to refer to God as plural because He is one. If there is a word in the language with which one can make that distinction one should use it. I didn't say anything about sin, that is people like you pushing the conversation to the extreme to give you cover from addressing the point at hand. I am well aware most Christians refer to God as "you" and that is just the way it is. But this sort of reaction: refusing to engage with the issue, dismissing the concerns and forcing people to extreme positions is why you will never convince KJV users of your position. You show absolutely no understanding, nor interest in trying to understand, our position and our concerns. And yet we are the bad guys who say you're using "Satan's bible" (an expression I have never heard used except by CT advocates).

I am not a CT person. I look at all 3 streams and can see value in all. Also, "Satan's Bible" was used by your side. It is in the book that Riddle and McShaffrey edited. It's in print, I have read it, there is no denying it. Your side should be denouncing it and calling the man who wrote it to repent. He is in sin. This is how denominations are broken and split, by that kind of talk. Also, you are the one who is continuing to talk passed the actual issue. You have been responded to by 3 different people now and you continue to play motte and bailey. There is no issue to engage with because no orthodox Christian believes they are talking to multiple or plural Gods when they pray to him. This is a red herring and a straw man. You trying to bind men's souls and say it is wrong to say "you" to God IS THE ISSUE. It has no warrant in scripture and I believe the only reason you keep pushing it is because of tradition. Not ANYTHING in scripture that commands it.

 

[retroGRAD3]

These are not the times for revisions and new translations than what we received from our most recent time of reformation. What if the language difficulty of the KJV is part of the consequences of our sin... God sending a difficult way in these times of declension and unfaithfulness to our Head? In the 2 OT examples God withheld his word, and God restored his word, and shows us a principle. He does these things with his own word- not man with his own ideas. Perhaps had the church remained faithful, we would have certain revisions accepted in whole by the Reformed church.

With all do respect, this is your opinion. Also, the standard you put out has moving goal posts. If the OPC has accepted the ESV as their translation, then "the church" has accepted a new translation.

We need to consider these things. In handling the word of God we should have such fear. Look at church history, all the way back to the OT. Consider these things biblically, not critically. If the Bible that came from texts the church has used for several hundred years is now considered difficult; if recently discovered manuscripts have caused such a furor and division in the visible church; doesn't it warrant stepping back with caution and fear, and looking to the God of heaven for wisdom and help, rather than speaking so knowledgeably of this and that family of texts, using the wisdom of man rather than God. We should be asking him, Lord, what is this? Is this part of the judgment and chastisement upon a church that wasn't hearing his word anyway (I think of Babel, of the division of tongues being a sign of judgment).

Many Godly men are/were involved with the translations done using the critical text just as there were with the TR. Both sides also likely had goats among them too. We live in a fallen world. There are no perfect translations, because humans are not perfect, yet we have the word of God. Thank God for his providence and care of his text which comes to us in the TR, the CT, and the MT (variants and all, which exist in all 3).

 

[RamistThomist]

What if the language difficulty of the KJV is part of the consequences of our sin

That's not how language works. Words shift in meaning over centuries. Take 1 Thess. 4. In the KJV Paul says that those who are live will in no way prevent those who have died. The natural meaning of the word prevent today means to keep from happening, which is absurd in the context of the verse. Prevent back then meant, as modern translations note today, precede. That makes perfect sense.

Simply because the word changed in meaning doesn't mean God is punishing us.

 

[alexandermsmith]

I am not a CT person. I look at all 3 streams and can see value in all. Also, "Satan's Bible" was used by your side. It is in the book that Riddle and McShaffrey edited. It's in print, I have read it, there is no denying it. Your side should be denouncing it and calling the man who wrote it to repent. He is in sin. This is how denominations are broken and split, by that kind of talk. Also, you are the one who is continuing to talk passed the actual issue. You have been responded to by 3 different people now and you continue to play motte and bailey. There is no issue to engage with because no orthodox Christian believes they are talking to multiple or plural Gods when they pray to him. This is a red herring and a straw man. You trying to bind men's souls and say it is wrong to say "you" to God IS THE ISSUE. It has no warrant in scripture and I believe the only reason you keep pushing it is because of tradition. Not ANYTHING in scripture that commands it.

I've made my point and if you don't like it that's your problem.

I fail to see why people like you and @Logan et. al. care so much about this. You (supposedly) have the modern, CT Bible you want (and you'll have another one soon enough I imagine). And yet again and again we have attacks made on the KJV, new threads springing up. Why does it bother you so much that people like me prefer the KJV? If I had to hazard a guess I'd say it's because, despite having a plethora of translations to choose from, you're not satisfied with what you have but we are satisfied with what we have. Well that's what happens when you force new, defective translations on the church. This desire to force your translations on us speaks to the weakness of your position not ours.

 

[retroGRAD3]

I've made my point and if you don't like it that's your problem.

I fail to see why people like you and @Logan et. al. care so much about this. You (supposedly) have the modern, CT Bible you want (and you'll have another one soon enough I imagine). And yet again and again we have attacks made on the KJV, new threads springing up. Why does it bother you so much that people like me prefer the KJV? If I had to hazard a guess I'd say it's because, despite having a plethora of translations to choose from, you're not satisfied with what you have but we are satisfied with what we have. Well that's what happens when you force new, defective translations on the church.

Your playing games now. No one has attacked the KJV here. I attacked the comment made about the use of "you". If you prefer the KJV, go for it, but don't get on here and tell us it's wrong to say "you" to God unless you can back it up with a clear command from scripture.

 

[alexandermsmith]

Your playing games now. No one has attacked the KJV here. I attacked the comment made about the use of "you". If you prefer the KJV, go for it, but don't get on here and tell us it's wrong to say "you" to God unless you can back it up with a clear command from scripture.

There have been numerous threads recently attacking the KJV.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

If the OPC has accepted the ESV as their translation, then "the church" has accepted a new translation.

A denomination has accepted a new translation. This isn't the same as how the Bible defines the visible church. We have in our nation a church divided. We ought to be united under the apostles' teaching, being of the same mind on these important matters.

 

[retroGRAD3]

There have been numerous threads recently attacking the KJV.

First, I have been responding exclusively to the conversation you and I are having.

Second, I have not seen any attacks on the KJV translation itself. Also, critique is not the same as an attack. There are legitimate critiques of the CT as well.
With the KJV, most (no matter which side they fall on) would agree it is a fine and faithful translation, but with the caveat that the language is outdated and there are some glaring translation issues (as there are with most translation, so this is not exclusive to the KJV). The attacks I see are on the irrationality and bad argumentation of a KJV only (or close to) position.

 

[retroGRAD3]

A denomination has accepted a new translation. This isn't the same as how the Bible defines the visible church. We have in our nation a church divided. We ought to be united under the apostles' teaching, being of the same mind on these important matters.

Can you please point to the passages that you believe defines what the "visible church" is so I can better understand your position?

edit: I guess my other response would be though that I believe the OPC (and any other faithful denomination) is the visible church. If they have made a decision to accept a translation then that clearly was a joint decision. It is legitimate in my eyes. If your denomination has accepted the KJV, then that works too. I am glad we have options and the ability to pick which is best for our specific congregations. Hopefully we can get along still and not say to each other that "you are using Satan's bible".

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Can you please point to the passages that you believe defines what the "visible church" is so I can better understand your position?

Jason, I think OT Israel is a good example of the visible church, as was the church in the days of the apostles. You would have found uniformity in confession and in practice, including worship. They would have had uniform copies of the apostles' letters.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

@retroGRAD3 Ryan McGraw has a book "Is the Church Necessary" which has a good section on defining the historical distinctions between the visible and invisible church.

 

[retroGRAD3]

@retroGRAD3 Ryan McGraw has a book "Is the Church Necessary" which has a good section on defining the historical distinctions between the visible and invisible church.

I do understand the distinction. I think the point is I don't agree with how you are defining the visible church and basically how it works out only to support your side of the argument (the use of the KJV exclusively).

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I do understand the distinction. I think the point is I don't agree with how you are defining the visible church and basically how it works out only to support your side of the argument (the use of the KJV exclusively).

Reformation comes about via the Spirit working in the visible church. I hold to the establishment principle so believe that reformation goes hand in hand with magistrates who become nursing fathers and mothers to the church, as we see in church history. Providing the peace and space for that now established church to come together for church councils. It is how we have received our confessions of faith and the working out of doctrinal issues over the centuries. God instituted church councils in this way for the peace and good of the church. Westminster was the last such church council.