AV and the Case for a Single English Translation

[bookslover]

If some man hits his golf ball out of bounds, he does not have the liberty to redefine the golf course in order to call his ball in bounds. Either we are reformed or we are not. The fact is, the AV represents the canon of Scripture accepted by the historic reformed church.



As noted earlier, they accepted translations which were made "by men of our profession."



Language naturally simplifies over time. Holy Scripture does not.



Perhaps some do. The trend is to transliterate words which carry important theological concepts like Sheol and Hades. They also transliterate weights, measures, and geographical descriptions where the reader is left without a clue as to the type of thing being referenced. Meanwhile they translate other words, especially pertaining to music, where scholarship can only speculate the intended reference. Overall, modern translations are poor on this point.



Again, perhaps some do. But the trend overall is to include more additions, and rather than simply make up the sense of the original, to give an interpretative bias to it.



Holy Scripture does not alter its message.

I'll tell you what. Can you recommend to me a book (available here in the States) which gives a sober, thorough (emphasis on both) presentation of the case for the AV, in all its particulars? Not written by one of the KJV-only extremists, but a well-written, intelligent, and cogent laying out of all the evidence?

I promise that I will get it, read it, and let you know what I think.

Deal?

 

[Casey]

Holy Scripture does not alter its message.

This is right. The Scriptures do not change. That's not what we're talking about, though, are we? Language changes, right?

 

[ChristopherPaul]

This is right. The Scriptures do not change. That's not what we're talking about, though, are we? Language changes, right?

This is not an issue of autographs changing, but the vulgar tongue of the people.

 

[MW]

This is right. The Scriptures do not change. That's not what we're talking about, though, are we? Language changes, right?

Language changes; and yet you still consult the subordinate standards in the language of the day in which they were written; thereby showing that the language of the 17th century still serves as a medium of authoritative communication to the 21st century man.

THis kind of confessionalism is weak at the knees. It insists on an unchanging subordinate standard while it allows an ever changing supreme standard. It looks like Romanism to me.

 

[MW]

I'll tell you what. Can you recommend to me a book (available here in the States) which gives a sober, thorough (emphasis on both) presentation of the case for the AV, in all its particulars? Not written by one of the KJV-only extremists, but a well-written, intelligent, and cogent laying out of all the evidence?

I promise that I will get it, read it, and let you know what I think.

Deal?

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!

Otherwise, if you must take a shortcut, I recommend Revision Revised by Burgon, some articles by R. L. Dabney in the first volume of his Discussions, Oswald Allis' Revision or New Translation, and the literature of the Trinitarian Bible Society. Recently a David Silversides message was posted at Sermon Audio which you may find a helpful introduction.

Blessings!

 

[bookslover]

...I recommend Revision Revised by Burgon...,

I've located a copy of The Revision Revised (1883) by John William Burgon (1813-1888) and will fulfill my promise to you.

 

[MW]

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!

 

[Casey]

Language changes; and yet you still consult the subordinate standards in the language of the day in which they were written; thereby showing that the language of the 17th century still serves as a medium of authoritative communication to the 21st century man.

THis kind of confessionalism is weak at the knees. It insists on an unchanging subordinate standard while it allows an ever changing supreme standard. It looks like Romanism to me.

Using a translation of the Bible in a language that people can understand looks like Romanism?

Your argument is flawed. There is a difference, you see, between the Bible and the confessional standards. The Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek (NOT the English of the KJV). The Confession was originally written in 1600-era English, yes.

The churches have seen fit to translate the Bible into the English of today so it could be understood. The churches have, by and large, not deemed it fit to update the language of the Confession.

Reformed churches use confessional standards written in other languages, and so they translate them. What has the authority is the original language documents, but the translations are very useful to members of the churches.

The Westminster Standards have updated English versions available to help people understand them, but the updated English versions do not have the authority. This is the same with the Bible.

Consider what the WCF itself says: "The Old Testament in Hebrew . . . and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them."

Putting it in your own words, then, "thereby showing that the language of the [original language Scriptures] still serves as a medium of authoritative communication to the 21st century man." Hence, the church has preachers and modern translations to assist in this communication, but the authority ultimately resides in the original language texts.

The church appeals not to English translations, but to the originals, as the basis of our religion. Seems to me the same exact thing is happening with the confession.

 

[Barnpreacher]

Originally posted by armourbearer

Best Hebrew and Greek sources; conservative translation philosophy; most accurate from a reformed perspective; utilises an elegant and dignified form of English in accord with the "majesty of the style" of Scripture; exercises wisdom in its use of transliteration; indicates when the sense has been made clearer by the addition of italicised words; and easily understood when read in accord with the purpose for which the Scriptures were given.

Excellent reasons for defense of the King James Bible as the standard for the English speaking people.


I have been reading this thread and I would like to commend you all on the graciousness that has been found herein. Most of the time discussions on translations turn very ugly, and it becomes very ungodly and unedifying.

I fall into Rev. Winzer's camp on this discussion, and even though we are in the minority I think he has graciously defended the AV as well as I've ever seen it done throughout the course of this thread.

Don't let it turn ugly brothers. Turn it off before it does that because up till now I believe God has been magnified through this discussion. I pray that remains true throughout the remainder of it.

 

[Davidius]

My knowledge of the technicalities involved in this debate is greatly limited, but I'm just wondering what it is about the KJV that makes it so unbearably difficult to understand? If "difficult" means that you need a dictionary next to you in order to understand it, then we are going to be hard-pressed finding any work of theology, or any bible for that matter, that should not be disregarded as too difficult for the "average person" (whoever that is) to read (unless of course you want to use something like The Message or the Good News for Modern Man). As a student of other Germanic languages and Latin, I loathe the fact that we have lost the 2nd-person plural pronoun and verb conjugation in our modern dialect and find it to be quite helpful when reading the KJV. With a little explaining this could come in handy for anyone. The same goes for the usage of words like "wherefore." In our modern dialect the translation is going to be "for which" instead of incorrectly putting the preposition at the end of the sentence, a grammatical error that almost everyone makes on a regular basis when speaking. For that reason, using "for which" at the beginning of a question or a relative clause is awkward for most people who would never say that in "everyday speech" as well.

This isn't intended to contribute anything substantial to the argument for the sole use of the AV since I am just now coming out of circles where the use of the KJV would be considered ridiculous and know little about this debate, but those are just my thoughts on the argument used against Rev. Winzer's points that it's just so difficult to read.

 

[Pilgrim]

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!

I came across the Allis book several years ago when I was a new Christian and researching the Bible versions issue. The book I read was his response to the RSV NT that was published in 1946, and I haven't seen Allis' book on the whole RSV that was published in the 1950's. The title "Revision or New Translation?" is a reference to the RSV claiming to be a revision of the ASV of 1901. I was not as aware of all the issues then as I am now, but my guess is (and correct me if I'm wrong) that Allis' view was closer to Warfield's than to Burgon's since he commends both the ASV and KJV (If I recall correctly he didn't dwell on the textual issue) and notes the deviations of the RSV in the areas of a liberal antisupernatural bias, the abandonment of italics to show that words had been added by the translators, and the RSV being less literal in many places than the KJV or ASV. Allis' main point in the book was that the RSV was so different from the ASV that it should have been marketed as a new translation and not as a revision. He wrote that the RSV wasn't as bad as it could possibly be but was concerned with the future of Bible translation, and I think his concerns have certainly proven to be valid. Most evangelicals rejected the RSV (and rightly so), but the sense among many was that a modern version was needed. This led to the proliferation of versions that we see today.

Some of Allis' criticisms of the RSV have more or less been corrected with the ESV and some have not.

 

[Pilgrim]

I tend to agree that there ought to be a common English translation but at this point the situation only seems to be getting worse, not better. Every publisher wants to have their own translation, since of course people are always after something new, as if the translations of five years ago (not to mention 400 years!) are somehow inferior. 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.

I think those who argue for an "Ecclesiastical Text" may have a point in arguing that the work of translation has been ceded to committees and commercial publishers who are often part of some corporate conglomerate, but I see no indication that the churches are headed toward being able to agree on a version, much less a text type. The only denominations that I know of that would coalesce around the AV are very small ones with at most a few dozen churches. The chances of accepting any other modern version above others is slim and none. The ESV seems to be the "hot" translation now in our circles. It is better than the NIV, but overall not quite as good as the NKJV or NASB in my opinion. The NASB doesn't read very smoothly at times, but the NKJV is about as readable as the ESV and is more literal. I also think the criticisms of the AV tend to be somewhat overblown and would not have a problem with a church that used it.

I have recently determined to follow along with whatever the pastor uses while preaching. (Of course there are some translations I would consider unacceptable and others that would be undesirable). My primary version is the NKJV but my pastor preaches from the NASB, so that is what I bring to church. Dr. John R. DeWitt was here for our Bible Conference recently. Since I knew he would use the AV that is what I brought to those meetings. It leads to less distractions and helps to eliminate the tendency to sit in judgment of the word if I am following from a different version and thinking about why it differs from what he's using instead of focusing on the sermon. This may be a bigger problem for me than others, but I suspect that many churchgoers find themselves wondering why their version is different from the preacher's. For the same reasons in my opinion everyone should use the same translation in family worship as well. It's not particularly helpful if one person has the AV, another the NAS, and another the NIV.

 

[MW]

Using a translation of the Bible in a language that people can understand looks like Romanism?

The changing/unchanging statement was the context for the Romanism verdict. If you would like to interact on the issue, I am more than willing to do so; but I do hope you will make some effort to avoid misrepresenting what I say.

Your argument is flawed. There is a difference, you see, between the Bible and the confessional standards. The Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek (NOT the English of the KJV). The Confession was originally written in 1600-era English, yes.

This difference is well noted, but irrelevant. The parallel with the Confession was solely in response to your statement about language changing. The practice of churches in relation to their subordinate standards demonstrates that the English language has not changed to the extent that 17th century English cannot be understood.

The churches have seen fit to translate the Bible into the English of today so it could be understood. The churches have, by and large, not deemed it fit to update the language of the Confession.

No, the churches have seen fit to adopt translations made by non-confessionalists. The fact that they have not "deemed it fit" to update the language of the Confession is usually because they discern the declining times in which they live, and see that revisionism is dangerous. The same wisdom should have been applied to the supreme standard, as has been the case with conservative Presbyterian and Reformed churches.

Reformed churches use confessional standards written in other languages, and so they translate them. What has the authority is the original language documents, but the translations are very useful to members of the churches.

The official status of the Three Forms in English is not something of which I have experience, so I cannot comment.

The Westminster Standards have updated English versions available to help people understand them, but the updated English versions do not have the authority. This is the same with the Bible.

The analogy breaks down because the English Bible does have authority in Presbyterian churches. It is read as a public act of worship. It is read as the very Word of God.

Consider what the WCF itself says: "The Old Testament in Hebrew . . . and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them."

Putting it in your own words, then, "thereby showing that the language of the [original language Scriptures] still serves as a medium of authoritative communication to the 21st century man." Hence, the church has preachers and modern translations to assist in this communication, but the authority ultimately resides in the original language texts.

Some research on the the authority of translations is required here, especially considering what the Confession goes on to state in the latter part of the section you have cited. May I recommend Francis Turretin's Institutes, 1:123-127. Although versions are not "put on an equality with the original," "nevertheless all authority must not be denied to versions," p. 125. He makes the distinction I noted above, between the words and the sense of Scripture. While the words of the translation are not inspired, the sense conveyed by those words is inspired when accurately translated. He proceeds to state: "Although any version made by fallible men cannot be considered divine and infallible with respect to the terms, yet it can well be considered such with respect to the things, since it faithfully expresses the divine truth of the sources." Then notice what he says concerning the foundation of faith: "Thus faith depends not on the authority of the interpreter or minister, but is built upon the truth and authenticity (authentia) of the things contained in the versions" (p. 126).

Now if this is the case, and believers are to build their faith upon "the things contained in the version," it does not consist with the proper function of the ministry to set forth two contradictory credenda, or things to be believed. Now, if it were merely the case that modern versions sought to update the language of our reformation Scriptures in order to make it more intelligible, that would be commendable. But the fact is, modern versions have deliberately introduced changes into the meaning of the English Bible; so that in reality, they have changed the Word of God, i.e., "the things contained in the version."

 

[MW]

I came across the Allis book several years ago when I was a new Christian and researching the Bible versions issue. The book I read was his response to the RSV NT that was published in 1946, and I haven't seen Allis' book on the whole RSV that was published in the 1950's. The title "Revision or New Translation?" is a reference to the RSV claiming to be a revision of the ASV of 1901. I was not as aware of all the issues then as I am now, but my guess is (and correct me if I'm wrong) that Allis' view was closer to Warfield's than to Burgon's since he commends both the ASV and KJV (If I recall correctly he didn't dwell on the textual issue) and notes the deviations of the RSV in the areas of a liberal antisupernatural bias, the abandonment of italics to show that words had been added by the translators, and the RSV being less literal in many places than the KJV or ASV. Allis' main point in the book was that the RSV was so different from the ASV that it should have been marketed as a new translation and not as a revision. He wrote that the RSV wasn't as bad as it could possibly be but was concerned with the future of Bible translation, and I think his concerns have certainly proven to be valid. Most evangelicals rejected the RSV (and rightly so), but the sense among many was that a modern version was needed. This led to the proliferation of versions that we see today.

Some of Allis' criticisms of the RSV have more or less been corrected with the ESV and some have not.

Excellent summation! Allis also draws attention to the need to continue the pronominal system of the AV -- thee/thou; and also the folly of introducing change for the sake of change.

 

[Pilgrim]

Excellent summation! Allis also draws attention to the need to continue the pronominal system of the AV -- thee/thou; and also the folly of introducing change for the sake of change.

I had forgotten about his advocacy for the pronominal system of the AV, which I think was more or less retained in the RV/ASV. The RSV introduced the awkward practice of adopting current pronominal usage except for references to Deity, something that is seen as well with NASB until thee/thy, etc. were abandoned entirely with the 1995 update.

 

[Casey]

Some research on the the authority of translations is required here, especially considering what the Confession goes on to state in the latter part of the section you have cited. May I recommend Francis Turretin's Institutes, 1:123-127. Although versions are not "put on an equality with the original," "nevertheless all authority must not be denied to versions," p. 125. He makes the distinction I noted above, between the words and the sense of Scripture. While the words of the translation are not inspired, the sense conveyed by those words is inspired when accurately translated. He proceeds to state: "Although any version made by fallible men cannot be considered divine and infallible with respect to the terms, yet it can well be considered such with respect to the things, since it faithfully expresses the divine truth of the sources." Then notice what he says concerning the foundation of faith: "Thus faith depends not on the authority of the interpreter or minister, but is built upon the truth and authenticity (authentia) of the things contained in the versions" (p. 126).

Now if this is the case, and believers are to build their faith upon "the things contained in the version," it does not consist with the proper function of the ministry to set forth two contradictory credenda, or things to be believed. Now, if it were merely the case that modern versions sought to update the language of our reformation Scriptures in order to make it more intelligible, that would be commendable. But the fact is, modern versions have deliberately introduced changes into the meaning of the English Bible; so that in reality, they have changed the Word of God, i.e., "the things contained in the version."

I did not say that English versions have no authority. My point was that the original language Scriptures have the ultimate authority. We can agree to disagree. As far as I'm concerned, using the KJV leads to confusion. People have a hard time understanding it. It's a pastoral issue. Requiring only the KJV to be used from the pulpit, In my humble opinion, is a real problem. I couldn't imagine having a new believer join my church and telling them, "here, use this, it's the KJV." A denomination seeking to standardize which translation it uses might have some valid benefits, though I haven't been convinced that such an action would be right. But, if a denomination were to standardize which translation is to be used, the KJV would be my last choice.

I remain more convinced of my position, having heard your arguments. Honestly, I've had experience with people who hold on to the KJV and will not accept other translations. I've seen new believers try to read it. They have a hard time with it -- in fact, so do people who have used it for years. It's clumsy old language that people just stumble over. They get lost in the "thees" and "thous," and over the words with meanings that have changed. It is not the language that people speak or read today. I've known people that leave churches because they use the KJV (or pray with "thees" and "thous") -- why'd they leave? Because they want to understand the Bible. I remain convinced that the churches need to use translations that people can understand, which is why I will never recommend the KJV.

 

[MW]

What hope do people have of understanding the Bilble if they cannot tell who is being referred to? Readers of modern Bibles think an individual is being referred to whenever an individual is being addressed, e.g., the covenant "with Noah" after the flood. They may very well understand the words, but they are lost as to the sense. Even Hendriksen recognised the need to differentiate singular and plural pronouns. The thees and thous of the AV are its strength, not its weakness.

If people cannot understand the AV, it is not the fault of the AV; it is the reader's lack of understanding of the English language. They need to become more literate; then they will be better equipped to understand the Bible. The answer is not to be found in dumbing down the Bible, but in educating the person reading the Bible.

I remain convinced that churches need to use a translation whereby people can understand the words of the original in their language. Which is why I only recommend the Authorised Version.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I tend to agree that there ought to be a common English translation but at this point the situation only seems to be getting worse, not better. Every publisher wants to have their own translation, since of course people are always after something new, as if the translations of five years ago (not to mention 400 years!) are somehow inferior. 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.

I think those who argue for an "Ecclesiastical Text" may have a point in arguing that the work of translation has been ceded to committees and commercial publishers who are often part of some corporate conglomerate, but I see no indication that the churches are headed toward being able to agree on a version, much less a text type. The only denominations that I know of that would coalesce around the AV are very small ones with at most a few dozen churches. The chances of accepting any other modern version above others is slim and none. The ESV seems to be the "hot" translation now in our circles. It is better than the NIV, but overall not quite as good as the NKJV or NASB in my opinion. The NASB doesn't read very smoothly at times, but the NKJV is about as readable as the ESV and is more literal. I also think the criticisms of the AV tend to be somewhat overblown and would not have a problem with a church that used it.

I have recently determined to follow along with whatever the pastor uses while preaching. (Of course there are some translations I would consider unacceptable and others that would be undesirable). My primary version is the NKJV but my pastor preaches from the NASB, so that is what I bring to church. Dr. John R. DeWitt was here for our Bible Conference recently. Since I knew he would use the AV that is what I brought to those meetings. It leads to less distractions and helps to eliminate the tendency to sit in judgment of the word if I am following from a different version and thinking about why it differs from what he's using instead of focusing on the sermon. This may be a bigger problem for me than others, but I suspect that many churchgoers find themselves wondering why their version is different from the preacher's. For the same reasons in my opinion everyone should use the same translation in family worship as well. It's not particularly helpful if one person has the AV, another the NAS, and another the NIV.

Chris,

This is a very good point about being distracted by translations during worship. It is very hard to follow along if one is reading from a different translation than the one reading. In some ways, I find myself more sympathetic to the idea that we ought to have one translation rather than many.

In the other thread I started up where I asked about the AV and the practice of targumim, your post seems to amplify an idea I've been trying to develop.

Part of the work of the preacher is not merely to read the Word to the People of God but to targum (explain, translate) the Word for them. In principle, those in the pews should not be teaching themselves and constantly correcting the one who is charged with that role (one of the reasons why teachers are held in strict judgment if they mess it up).

In some ways, then, perhaps the super-addition of translations is not merely an aid to readability but encourages the un-Reformed practice of Solo-Scriptura where I get to read and interpret and teach myself the Bible apart from the authority of the Church.

Thank you for helping me to consider this better. Even if we cannot get to the point anytime soon of convincing all to use one version, we can endeavor to teach the important principle that we learn as a Body and not as individuals who get to authoratatively determine on our own what the Scirptures teach.

 

[Casey]

What hope do people have of understanding the Bilble if they cannot tell who is being referred to? Readers of modern Bibles think an individual is being referred to whenever an individual is being addressed, e.g., the covenant "with Noah" after the flood. They may very well understand the words, but they are lost as to the sense. Even Hendriksen recognised the need to differentiate singular and plural pronouns. The thees and thous of the AV are its strength, not its weakness.

If people cannot understand the AV, it is not the fault of the AV; it is the reader's lack of understanding of the English language. They need to become more literate; then they will be better equipped to understand the Bible. The answer is not to be found in dumbing down the Bible, but in educating the person reading the Bible.

I remain convinced that churches need to use a translation whereby people can understand the words of the original in their language. Which is why I only recommend the Authorised Version.

Yeah, it's nice to know if "you" is plural or not. Sure. But it's still not modern English, and people still have a hard time understanding it (and I do not believe this is due to their lack of understanding of the English language). Not on the television, not on the radio, not in any modern publication will you see "thee" or "thou" or "ye" being used. It's not a modern translation.

 

[bookslover]

Excellent reasons for defense of the King James Bible as the standard for the English speaking people.


I have been reading this thread and I would like to commend you all on the graciousness that has been found herein. Most of the time discussions on translations turn very ugly, and it becomes very ungodly and unedifying.

I fall into Rev. Winzer's camp on this discussion, and even though we are in the minority I think he has graciously defended the AV as well as I've ever seen it done throughout the course of this thread.

Don't let it turn ugly brothers. Turn it off before it does that because up till now I believe God has been magnified through this discussion. I pray that remains true throughout the remainder of it.

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.

 

[bookslover]

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.

 

[bookslover]

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."

 

[MW]

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.

 

[Theoretical]

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.

 

[bookslover]

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...

 

[MW]

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.

 

[CDM]

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.

 

[Pilgrim]

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.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

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.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

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