AV and the Case for a Single English Translation

Status
Not open for further replies.

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
"Speak, Lord; for thy servant heareth."

I believe we do ourselves a disservice when we change Bible versions, because we do not come to a settled belief as to what the Word of God says. The Christian witness is also discredited by the impression that there is more than one Bible. God is not the author of confusion; and a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.

We should find the most accurate English version and cleave to it. In my humble opinion, the Authorised Version is the most accurate, and therefore I heartily recommend it as the Word of God in English. Others might disagree; but I would hope we could at least agree on the need to confess what the Word of God is, and where it is to be found. What a sorry state the church is in, if we cannot at least agree on this.

Yearly reading plans have their place for those who need them, but they can be a hindrance to the proper understanding of the Bible. It is much better to set aside a specific time period in the day, and to attempt to take in larger portions, whereby it becomes possible to derive a more accurate understanding of what specific books intend to teach.

Blessings!
 
What a sorry state the church is in, if we cannot at least agree on this.
The church is in a "sorry state" because it doesn't with one accord agree to use the KJV? :um: (Or, for that matter, any single translation?) As pertains to being confessional, one may have any opinion concerning the Hebrew/Greek MSS -- much less, then, what English translation is to be used. Anyway, the KJV might be considered unconfessional, because its language is by no means the vulgar language of the day ("therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come," WCF 1.8).
 
The church is in a "sorry state" because it doesn't with one accord agree to use the KJV? :um: (Or, for that matter, any single translation?) As pertains to being confessional, one may have any opinion concerning the Hebrew/Greek MSS -- much less, then, what English translation is to be used. Anyway, the KJV might be considered unconfessional, because its language is by no means the vulgar language of the day ("therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come," WCF 1.8).

WCF 1:8 says, "that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all..." The Word of God is singular, not plural. Methinks it a sad state of affairs if a "confessional Presbyterian" cannot tell me where THE Word of God is to be found in the vulgar language.
 
WCF 1:8 says, "that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all..." The Word of God is singular, not plural. Methinks it a sad state of affairs if a "confessional Presbyterian" cannot tell me where THE Word of God is to be found in the vulgar language.
Word of God is singular? :um: It seems obvious to me that God's Word contains words (plural). No where in the Confession of Faith does it say that each language is to have only one translation. If the singular of "Word" was so important, no translation at all would be valid. The fact is, no single translation can render completely all that the original languages convey (which is why ministers of the gospel must know the original languages). Should we be born again, or from above? Seems to me it's both! You still haven't commented on why you prefer a translation that isn't in what is today a vulgar language . . . :think:
 
Word of God is singular? :um: It seems obvious to me that God's Word contains words (plural). No where in the Confession of Faith does it say that each language is to have only one translation. If the singular of "Word" was so important, no translation at all would be valid. The fact is, no single translation can render completely all that the original languages convey (which is why ministers of the gospel must know the original languages). Should we be born again, or from above? Seems to me it's both! You still haven't commented on why you prefer a translation that isn't in what is today a vulgar language . . . :think:

I can only point you to the Larger Catechism, answer 157, "The holy scriptures are to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the very word of God." If one cannot approach their translation with this conviction, then their view of the English translation is obviously at odds with the confessional view.

Concerning the specific example of John 3, Nicodemus understood the literal import of our Lord's words well enough, when he spoke of a "second time." His misinterpretation lay in his inability to comprehend Jesus' words according to their heavenly meaning.

Be that example as it may, I don't doubt that there are valid occurrences of double-reference, and that there are times when different renderings help to give a fuller understanding of the original. Thus the AV translators provided marginal readings. This, however, is irrelevant. Modern versions differ from reformation versions and amongst themselves as to the sense of Scripture. It is the different "senses" of these different Bibles, which is the point of concern.

The problem with the modern conception is that the translation is not truly recognised as the Word of God. Traditional Presbyterians used to distinguish between the words and the sense of Scripture: the words in the original alone are inspired, but the inspiration is carried over into the sense as it is accurately conveyed in the translation. If this were truly believed, there would not be such haste to alter the Word of God.

Concerning the loaded question, as to why I prefer a translation that is not in the vulgar language of today -- you yourself have negated the validity of the question by using the word "vulgar;" for therein you have acknowledged that a word, which has altered its meaning over time, can still convey an accurate sense when it is understood in its linguistic context. There is no problem with the English of the AV; the problem is to be found in the lack of comprehension of the English language on the part of its non-readers.

No, I do not "require" members of my congregation to read a specific version. I "recommend" that they read the Word of God, which by definition is the most accurate translation of the immediately inspired and providentially preserved Hebrew and Greek -- the Authorised Version. However, if that is found to be too difficult, then I would rather they read a watered down version than no version at all. I am sure God will bless His people with salvation and edification despite the corruption of the means.
 
Currently I'm in Genesis in the Ferrar Fenton "Holy Bible in Modern English" version. I will probably read it through in the NKJV as well this coming year. I would like to read it through at LEAST twice.
I will continue to read through Psalms & Proverbs once a month.
I plan on reading through the NT in January in the Phillipps translation.
I'm planning on doing some heavy duty reading this coming year on my list are continued study with Grudems Systematic. Owens "Death of Death...", a batch of Piper, will finish Douglas "Mother Kirk" & Stoddards "Nature of True Conversion", & after that I'm open to other books. Life is good!!!!:book2:
 
I would agree with Pastor Wizner that having multiple translations is more unhelpful than helpful. While the 'general idea' might be the same in most parts, I think it is still true that with different words used and different grammar between the versions, there is at least a small change in meaning, or possible meanings, if you are studying a difficult passage. I also think having many possible renderings of the same verse also does take away from the authority of that verse, and the trust christians can have in it.
 
I use the KJV as my main bible but I use many. I think his thinking is SEVERELY flawed. But to each his own. Sometimes I might read a passage & one particular translation might just change my view of it because of how it's worded. :2cents:
 
I knew a young man who was reared on the AV, and understood well the traditional teaching concerning heaven and hell. Upon turning to a modern version, he gained insights from the words Sheol and Hades that led him to deny fundamental truths of the Word of God. These insights were nothing other than the depths of Satan.

Friends, modern versions were not created in a vacuum. They reflect the theological trends of their creators. Children of the reformation should use the Scriptures of the reformation. Depart from the supreme standard, and it is little wonder if deviation from the subordinate standards follow.

I am not suggesting that other versions cannot ever be consulted. The subject of the thread pertains to Bible reading for the next year. I am speaking about the current practice of swapping and changing Bible versions as if we do not possess the very Word of God in English.

Blessings!
 
Friends, modern versions were not created in a vacuum. They reflect the theological trends of their creators.

Well, the same is true of the AV, just like every other translation, into whatever language (not just English). The AV translators themselves said that the last thing they wanted to do was to create a brand new translation from scratch. About 85% of the New Testament is Tyndale's translation carried over more or less in its entirety - and Tyndale's pioneering translation was nearly a century old by 1611 (which explains, in part, why the AV is full of "thee" and "thou" when the use of those pronouns was dying out already in English usage in King James's day).

I think that most of those scholarly and godly translators would be shocked by the attitude of some modern folks who, shall we say, revere the AV a little too earnestly.

The AV was a fine translation for its day, but it's day was nearly 400 years ago. I once heard, on tape, a sermon by Martyn Lloyd-Jones, who was a solid AV man who took a backseat to no one in his love for it. (In another sermon, from the 1950s, I heard him castigate the RSV mightily from the pulpit.) However, I heard him having to correct the AV's language no fewer than 4 times during the course of this one sermon.

I'm not trying to stop anyone from reading the AV, but let's admit that there are legitimate modern translations which do the job just as well as the AV did in its day (and I'm NOT talking about the NIV, the "Message", or some of these other more creative "translations").
 
First, the AV was made by men who upheld the 39 articles. They acknowledged versions that were made by "men of their own profession" as the Word of God. Please show me the modern version to be made by men who upheld the reformation standard.

Secondly, the fact that so much of the earlier versions is in the AV should demonstrates how much continuity existed between the reformation versions. The fact that so little of the AV is to be found in the modern versions is clear evidence of a departure.

Thirdly, the AV is full of "thee" and "thou," not because it carried over archaisms in an attempt to maintain mere continuity, but out of a concern for faithfulness to the original which differentiates singular and plural second person pronouns. The fact that more recent versions do not carry this differentiation demonstrates the lack of concern for faithful rendering of the original, and too much concern for readability over reliability.
 
Discussion split off to Translations and Manuscripts.

Rev Winzer - If you prefer a more apt title please PM me and I will gladly oblidge. It's a worthy discussion. I'm not convinced by your argument but you make a good case for there being a single English translation.

One question: It seems that you are denying any ability for the AV to ever be updated or corrected as there is no authorized body left to speak for English speaking Reformed people. What we have is what we have at this point. What about spelling then? Many words are now spelled differently than they were in 1611. Who is "authorized" to update the spelling or do we stick with the way words were spelled in 1611 as well as no body speaks with authority to update the spelling?
 
Discussion split off to Translations and Manuscripts.

Rev Winzer - If you prefer a more apt title please PM me and I will gladly oblidge. It's a worthy discussion. I'm not convinced by your argument but you make a good case for there being a single English translation.

One question: It seems that you are denying any ability for the AV to ever be updated or corrected as there is no authorized body left to speak for English speaking Reformed people. What we have is what we have at this point. What about spelling then? Many words are now spelled differently than they were in 1611. Who is "authorized" to update the spelling or do we stick with the way words were spelled in 1611 as well as no body speaks with authority to update the spelling?

Rich, my comments were made in the context of a yearly reading plan, and the idea of choosing a new version to carry out the plan. My position only relates to modern versions, not to other reformation versions. I have no difficulty with more than one rendering; the difficulty comes when translations deviate from the reformation understanding.

Those who have not studied the history of translations probably are not aware of this, but the Reformers and Puritans had good cause to reject certain works which called themselves the Word of God. In the reformed period, Castellio; and in the Puritan period, the Rheims. Perhaps more astonishing is the fact that these rejected translations have borne an influence on modern versions which "reformed" people so readily accept. One example which readily comes to mind is to be found in John Knox's work on Predestination, where he rejects the Anabaptist's Pelagian rendering of Gen. 4:7; that rendering is now to be found in EVERY modern version.

I believe there should be one official Bible in the reformed church. The fact is, that the AV held that place amongst English speaking people for centuries, while no modern version has reached the same status. Without an official Bible, the church effectively says, we do not know where the Word of God is to be found in the English language.

I concede that there are renderings in the AV which can be improved, and I can envisage a day when the English speaking churches will recover their visible unity and the task of faithful "revision" can commence again. Until that time, we should bear with the occasional "archaism" in the AV. If the NT could borrow words from the dated vocabulary of the Greek version of the OT, then I see nothing wrong with bearing with a few antiquated expressions for the sake of adhering to the most faithful rendering of the inspired Scriptures.

Blessings!
 
Rich, my comments were made in the context of a yearly reading plan, and the idea of choosing a new version to carry out the plan. My position only relates to modern versions, not to other reformation versions. I have no difficulty with more than one rendering; the difficulty comes when translations deviate from the reformation understanding.

Those who have not studied the history of translations probably are not aware of this, but the Reformers and Puritans had good cause to reject certain works which called themselves the Word of God. In the reformed period, Castellio; and in the Puritan period, the Rheims. Perhaps more astonishing is the fact that these rejected translations have borne an influence on modern versions which "reformed" people so readily accept. One example which readily comes to mind is to be found in John Knox's work on Predestination, where he rejects the Anabaptist's Pelagian rendering of Gen. 4:7; that rendering is now to be found in EVERY modern version.

I believe there should be one official Bible in the reformed church. The fact is, that the AV held that place amongst English speaking people for centuries, while no modern version has reached the same status. Without an official Bible, the church effectively says, we do not know where the Word of God is to be found in the English language.

I concede that there are renderings in the AV which can be improved, and I can envisage a day when the English speaking churches will recover their visible unity and the task of faithful "revision" can commence again. Until that time, we should bear with the occasional "archaism" in the AV. If the NT could borrow words from the dated vocabulary of the Greek version of the OT, then I see nothing wrong with bearing with a few antiquated expressions for the sake of adhering to the most faithful rendering of the inspired Scriptures.

Blessings!

:ditto:
 
In Martin Luther's Small Catechism, he made some similar comments in the Preface. With regards to textual variants and the importance of consistency and uniformity, Luther wrote:

First, the pastor should most carefully avoid teaching the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, the sacraments, etc., according to various texts and differing forms. Let him adopt one version, stay with it, and from one year to the next keep using it unchanged. Young and inexperienced persons must be taught a single fixed form or they will easily become confused, and the result will be that all previous effort and labor will be lost. There should be no change, even though one may wish to improve the text.

The honored fathers understood this well, and therefore they all consistently used one form of the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, and the Ten Commandments. We should do as they did by teaching these materials to the young and the common man without altering a single syllable and by never varying their wording when presenting or quoting them year after year.
 
I guess few may agree with me, but I think that having multiple translations, as well as a constant focus on the originals is ultimately unhelpful. The various English translations do differ from one another, and I feel it is impossible to hold up the word of God as being an absolute standard when there exist multiple different renderings of that standard, even if the differences are slight ( and they are not always so).

Regarding the originals, I believe that to a point we just have to believe on faith that God has preserved his word by providentially guiding translators etc etc. I am tending toward believing that everything necessary for a Christian to know can be known by studying the translations. We might have to do a little more work than those Christians who had access to the originals, but I believe the idea that it is impossible to know what God says without knowledge of langugues that have not been spoken for thousands of years is not helpful for the faith of a Christian. When a pastor tells his sheep ‘this is a better rendering…’ or that the translators have made a mistake in their bibles, it is essentially undermining the certainly those Christians have in the word of God they hold in their hands. If one verse is wrongly or badly translated, how would they know if there are other verses that the pastor has missed? Or simply has not preached on yet? How then are they to use the bible to make practical decisions in their lives when they can’t even be 100% sure that what they are holding in their hands is what God really said?

And the thing is, even if the pastor is right, the laymen are essentially trusting him, and not the word of God. They have no way to checking if their pastors’ study of the original langugues is correct or not. The Bereans were called noble for checking to make sure what the Apostle Paul said was in concord with the scriptures, but today when the man in the pulpit is told the scriptures he has are not quite accurate, how is he possibly to authenticate that claim? (And if it was necessary to check on the Apostle Paul, I hope no pastor or teacher today would take offence at the suggestion that they should be treated likewise).

Although this may sound suspiciously like some of the more extreme forms of KJ-onlyism, I do believe a version in the common langugue of the day which can be trusted absolutely as the word of God is important, if not essential for the Christian churches.

If I have erred anywhere, I would appreciate correction.

:2cents:
 
I believe there should be one official Bible in the reformed church. The fact is, that the AV held that place amongst English speaking people for centuries, while no modern version has reached the same status.
Let's not forget how the AV became that "official" Bible, okay? The Geneva held that status for a large part of a century before the "authorizers" stamped it out, and replaced it with the AV. This isn't to put the Geneva on a pedestal, and to denegrate the AV, but let's at least let history speak correctly.

Until that time, we should bear with the occasional "archaism" in the AV. If the NT could borrow words from the dated vocabulary of the Greek version of the OT, then I see nothing wrong with bearing with a few antiquated expressions for the sake of adhering to the most faithful rendering of the inspired Scriptures.

Well, you've not demonstrated that the AV is that most faithful rendering, as opposed to the Geneva, for instance. They have the same textual basis, and one was translated exclusively by (correct me if I'm wrong) truly Reformed men, while the other translation committee had far more variety. I think both are valuable, by the way, and largely they agree - though if pressed I'd have to take the Geneva over the AV by virtue of the comparison of their respective origins. (No, I don't have a list of preferred renderings of Geneva vs. AV, so don't ask :))
 
Word of God is singular? :um: It seems obvious to me that God's Word contains words (plural). No where in the Confession of Faith does it say that each language is to have only one translation. If the singular of "Word" was so important, no translation at all would be valid. The fact is, no single translation can render completely all that the original languages convey (which is why ministers of the gospel must know the original languages). Should we be born again, or from above? Seems to me it's both! You still haven't commented on why you prefer a translation that isn't in what is today a vulgar language . . . :think:

Let me jump in here and say a word or two on "vulgar language". My brother is importing an idea into this phrase that was not intended by the Westminster Divines. The term "vulgar language", as the late Dr. Letis (Ivy League Textual Scholar) so aptly pointed out in 1999, means "German, not Latin, French, not Latin, English, not Latin". This is the proper rendering of the term. To take the phrase as StaunchPresbyterian would have it, would demand new translations as quickly as language changes, because language is organic not static. It is this line of thinking that inspired the Message and many other vulgar translations.

The AV is in the vulgar language of the people.
 
The AV is in the vulgar language of the people.
Friend, I do understand what you're saying. But check out what the word "vulgar" means in a dictionary: it means, simply speaking, the language that people speak. No one today speaks in the language of the KJV, which is why, by and large, more people are confused than edified by it. It's one thing to have a personal preference for a translation, even to hope that the church at large would adopt a single translation . . but if that translation is to be the KJV, I'd object simply on the grounds that the language contained therein is no longer spoken by those living in our culture. The spelling of many words contained in the KJV has been updated, same as the very characters used to form those words, but many of the meanings of the words used have also changed. It's true, God's Word doesn't change, but our language does.
 
Friend, I do understand what you're saying. But check out what the word "vulgar" means in a dictionary: it means, simply speaking, the language that people speak. No one today speaks in the language of the KJV, which is why, by and large, more people are confused than edified by it. It's one thing to have a personal preference for a translation, even to hope that the church at large would adopt a single translation . . but if that translation is to be the KJV, I'd object simply on the grounds that the language contained therein is no longer spoken by those living in our culture. The spelling of many words contained in the KJV has been updated, same as the very characters used to form those words, but many of the meanings of the words used have also changed. It's true, God's Word doesn't change, but our language does.

First, the word "vulgar" today has taken on the barnacles of time and does not mean the exact same thin now as it once did (this is what I mean by organic). If I go downtown Vancouver and ask a street person "what is thy name?", he is going to look at me funny, but he will know exactly what I am saying. The AV (my preferred version) has some archaic words in it, but the truth of the matter is it reads at about a grade 5 reading level (so says the Flesch-Kincaid Readability Test). The AV actually scores below the NASB and NIV. Despite the style and some interesting words, the AV is still in the vulgar language of the people.

Blessings!
 
I believe that to a point we just have to believe on faith that God has preserved his word by providentially guiding translators etc etc. I am tending toward believing that everything necessary for a Christian to know can be known by studying the translations.

This is right; and God did not stop guiding faithful and godly translators after the production of the AV. Wisdom did not end with the translators of the AV! The NASB and the ESV are two examples of good, faithful translations produced during the last half-century.

I suppose it would be nice if there were a Reformed Board of Directors, or some such, to hand down a decree as to what translation we will all use (and they would have to hand down decrees for those who speak Spanish, German, French, Italian, Finnish, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, etc., etc., etc., if they do their job properly) but that just ain't gonna happen - not in our lifetimes, anyway!

As long as earnest and godly men produce translations from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek that accurately reflect what the biblical authors wrote to us in those languages, we can be sure that we do, in fact, have the very Word of God written. Most of the men and women sitting in our churches do not know the original languages, and will never know them. But they can know that the Bible they hold open in the laps is, in fact, the Word of God.

I can just imagine how intense this conversation will be in 2011! Oy.
 
First, the AV was made by men who upheld the 39 articles.

So, are you implying that the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England is to be the standard by which men are judged qualified to make English translations of the Bible? Isn't that somewhat arbitrary? Why the Thirty-Nine Articles? Why not some other document?

Or, better yet, why is a mere man-made document being set up as a standard that translators of God's Word are to meet? Isn't that to have things backwards, if, indeed, this is what you are implying?
 
So, are you implying that the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England is to be the standard by which men are judged qualified to make English translations of the Bible? Isn't that somewhat arbitrary? Why the Thirty-Nine Articles? Why not some other document?

Or, better yet, why is a mere man-made document being set up as a standard that translators of God's Word are to meet? Isn't that to have things backwards, if, indeed, this is what you are implying?

Rev. Winzer is pointing out the doctrinal unity of the AV translators over against the eclectic denominational and theological backgrounds of the modern translators. Presuppositions will impact translations. That is my brother's point.

I think:smug:
 
Rev. Winzer is pointing out the doctrinal unity of the AV translators over against the eclectic denominational and theological backgrounds of the modern translators. Presuppositions will impact translations. That is my brother's point.

I think:smug:

Even granting him that point, though, wouldn't it be theologically healthier, for a translation committee, for there to be representatives from the whole spectrum of Reformed thought - Dutch, English, Scottish, American, English - than just having a committee representing only one strand?
 
Even granting him that point, though, wouldn't it be theologically healthier, for a translation committee, for there to be representatives from the whole spectrum of Reformed thought - Dutch, English, Scottish, American, English - than just having a committee representing only one strand?

Sure. So long as there is a unified theological foundation, and a rendering from the Received Text, the best of every national persuasion should be selected. This is sadly not the case with most if not all modern translation committees. I'd be open to a updated revision of the AV if we had the right men involved. My own denomination has toyed with a soft revised AV soliciting the help of men like Dr. Beeke, Dr. G. Bilkes (both of PRTS), Silversides, Iain Murray, Hanko, Letis, and a wack of other men, but nothing has come of it since the 2004 Synod.

Blessings!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top