How would KJV users respond to this argument

[Tom Hart]

One important note:

The KJV is not in "Old English". I often see it referred to as such and whenever I do it causes me physical pain in my chest.

The KJV, completed in 1611, is in Early Modern English.

Beowulf, written in the 8th century, is in Old English.

 

[Taylor]

It also uses "you" instead of "thee" and "thou" when referring to God so it would be no good.

I understand the helpfulness of these pronouns to distinguish between singular and plural in many instances, but I am unsure how not using them in reference to God would render a translation “no good.”

 

[B.L.]

Another reason I enjoy the KJV is the fun and dare I say reward of looking up and studying all of the antiquated phrases and expressions and then seeing how various modern translations chose to translate the same passages. I get great enjoyment from doing this and learn a lot in the process. I understand this is a choice and not a necessity, so if others prefer to stick to a good modern translation I'm all for it so long as their noses are in the word regularly.

I wanted to add to what I said above and highlight two resources, one print and one electronic, that have been beneficial to me and perhaps might be to others.

1. Holy Bible Two-Version Edition by Crimond House. This might be the very first parallel/amplified version ever printed. There is a Jongbloed printed version that is still available (less than 10 in stock) at Ards Evangelical Bookshop in Northern Ireland. The text block has the KJV in double-column with differences found in the R.V. in the margins. This Bible is one of my favorites due to its uniqueness, the quality of the materials used at an amazing price, and for the fun of studying translation and language use issues. Highly recommend picking one up while they are available. A 2012 review from Mark Bertrand is available here.

2. SwordSearcher Bible Software. I usually have this software up while reading the KJV. It's been a tremendous aid for study and I consider it a must for those who love the KJV. This has been one of the best purchases I've made for self study. Love it.

 

[RamistThomist]

What you are saying is that "we should ask KJV users to defend the KJV against the suggestion that we should abandon it because it is archaic but only allow them to use certain arguments which we want them to use." Well sorry I don't accept that arbitrary limitation.

I'm fairly certain I never said abandon the KJV. I think I said the opposite. My point was that language is intended to communicate, and I listed a number of archaic terms that have zero meaning in today's world. I'm not talking about thees and thous. Those should be revived.

 

[alexandermsmith]

I understand the helpfulness of these pronouns to distinguish between singular and plural in many instances, but I am unsure how not using them in reference to God would render a translation “no good.”

Because God is one. He is not many gods. The second person plural pronoun "you" which has also assumed the function of the second person singular pronoun in modern English leaves this rather important distinction ambiguous grammatically and is technically (and theologically) wrong and I think on the matter of whether God is one or many being technical is more than a mere "technicality". And yes people say "we do not imagine God is many when we use "you"" but I think when we have the correct pronoun in our language- which we do, it's just antiquated- we should use it.

And I will also say that, today, the use of "thee" and "thou" adds reverence when addressing God. Now this is not the primary reason for retaining this usage. As is well known "thee" and "thou" were not the formal mode of address at the time the KJV was translated but today they do add formality and reverence. "You" strikes me as far too familiar.

 

[alexandermsmith]

I'm fairly certain I never said abandon the KJV. I think I said the opposite. My point was that language is intended to communicate, and I listed a number of archaic terms that have zero meaning in today's world. I'm not talking about thees and thous. Those should be revived.

It was Richard who said it should be retired and it was in response to him that I brought up James White &c. I didn't say you personally said the KJV should be discarded but you did engage with that particular back and forth with Richard.

 

[RamistThomist]

It was Richard who said it should be retired and it was in response to him that I brought up James White &c. I didn't say you personally said the KJV should be discarded but you did engage with that particular back and forth with Richard.

Well, you said that in response to a quoted text from me.

 

[Taylor]

Because God is one. He is not many gods. The second person plural pronoun "you" which has also assumed the function of the second person singular pronoun in modern English leaves this rather important distinction ambiguous grammatically and is technically (and theologically) wrong.

“Wrong” is far too strong a word. This would mean that when I addressed God as “you” this morning in prayer that I was in sin (that’s what “wrong” means, after all, especially if this has to do with Trinitarian dogma).

Furthermore, your objection would only be valid if you could produce actual evidence that “you” in reference to God in Scripture is commonly misunderstood as plural rather than singular. I have literally never encountered such a problem.

 

[alexandermsmith]

Well, you said that in response to a quoted text from me.

View attachment 6183

Because you engaged in the conversation and argued with me over the point and said that I couldn't use that argument (on the translation philosophy) in this thread.

 

[alexandermsmith]

“Wrong” is far too strong a word. This would mean that when I addressed God as “you” this morning in prayer that I was in sin (that’s what “wrong” means, after all, especially if this has to do with Trinitarian dogma).

Furthermore, your objection would only be valid if you could produce actual evidence that “you” in reference to God in Scripture is commonly misunderstood as plural rather than singular. I have literally never encountered such a problem.

It is grammatically wrong. That is a fact of language. "You" is plural. It has morphed to include singular (as part of a declension in our language) but we already have a distinct singular pronoun in the English language. Just because "thee" and "thou" are antiquated does not mean they are no longer part of the English language. If "you" is grammatically wrong it follows it is theologically wrong because God is not plural he is one. You can disagree and assert it is not wrong but that is as much an assertion as you ascribe to my position.

However if it is objectively wrong-which I maintain it is, for grammatical reasons- then it doesn't matter if there is common misunderstanding. Correctness takes priority.

 

[RamistThomist]

Because you engaged in the conversation and argued with me over the point and said that I couldn't use that argument (on the translation philosophy) in this thread.

Fair enough, but if you weren't talking to me on that point, you should have then quoted and addressed Richard. Otherwise, it makes it look like you were directly addressing me.

 

[alexandermsmith]

Fair enough, but if you weren't talking to me on that point, you should have then quoted and addressed Richard. Otherwise, it makes it look like you were directly addressing me.

Well when you say to me that I can't use a particular argument I am within my rights to reference the reason I used the argument whether or not it was you who caused me to use that argument originally. You were speaking for the whole thread- "it really can't be said in this thread"- you were not limiting your argument to our specific interaction. And I didn't say that you specifically said the KJV should be retired. My reply to your post was but one link in a chain of posts which both Richard and you were involved in: it was not a random point pulled out of thin air.

On one hand that is fair, but it really can't be said in this thread because everyone is agreeing to leave manuscript considerations out of it.

 

[Taylor]

It is grammatically wrong. That is a fact of language. "You" is plural.

This is patently incorrect, not only as indicated by all dictionaries, but also as evidenced by your own use of “you” to address me, a single individual:

You can disagree...

You have moved from “you” being “ambiguous” to being plural only. The former is true some of the time, the latter is entirely incorrect.

 

[alexandermsmith]

This is patently incorrect, not only as indicated by all dictionaries, but also as evidenced by your own use of “you” to address me, a single individual:



You have moved from “you” being “ambiguous” to being plural only. The former is true some of the time, the latter is entirely incorrect.

Yes because I use modern English in my day to day conversation. I have a higher standard when it comes to Biblical translation and addressing God in prayer. I won't apologise for having a higher standard in my language when it comes to God.

 

[Taylor]

Yes because I use modern English in my day to day conversation.

That’s not what you’ve argued, though. You’ve said “you” is (not merely was) plural, and even used that as a criteria against modern translations. So saying what you just said—namely, that using “you” for the singular in modern speech is okay—is, at best, inconsistent. Is using “you” to address a singular incorrect or not? You can’t have it both ways.

I have a higher standard when it comes to Biblical translation and addressing God in prayer.

So I was in sin when I addressed God as “you” this morning? Am I a tritheist because I don’t address him as “thou”?

This is a little extreme, brother.

 

[alexandermsmith]

That’s not what you’ve argued, though. You’ve said “you” is (not merely was) plural, and even used that as a criteria against modern translations. So saying what you just said—namely, that using “you” for the singular in modern speech is okay—is, at best, inconsistent. Is using “you” to address a singular incorrect or not? You can’t have it both ways.



So I was in sin when I addressed God as “you” this morning? Am I a tritheist because I don’t address him as “thou”?

This is a little extreme, brother.

I'll admit it's inconsistent. I've said throughout this discussion, though, that "you" has morphed to include singular as well as plural in modern English. I don't like it, I think it is a sign of the declension of our language but obviously it has happened. We are all of us a product of our time. But we do have a singular pronoun and therefore it should be used when addressing God. I am happy to be inconsistent in this matter.

As to whether or not you were sinning: I see no reason to reduce this discussion down to the personal like that. It seems you want me to say I think you were sinning in order for me to be able to make my argument. To me that is a distraction and one designed to deligitimise my argument for being "mean" or to silence me by making me feel guilty. Well my piety is not defined by your feelings. We all of us here consider other Christians to be "wrong" (i.e. sinning) in any number of particulars. I consider anti-paedobaptists to be sinning by not baptising infants. I consider hymn singers to be sinning by violating the RPW. (This is, after all, why we have separate denominations.) I don't know what is achieved by conducting discussions on these topics by reducing them to the personal, to our "feelings", demanding from others personal validation. That is not conducive to mature and friendly debate. I prefer to say "wrong" because it avoids all that comes with "sin". If we are to interact in an adult fashion that seems to me the best approach.

 

[Taylor]

As to whether or not you were sinning: I see no reason to reduce this discussion down to the personal like that.

If addressing God as “you” is, as you have asserted, technically and theologically “wrong,” then that I was in sin in doing so is an unavoidable entailment of your argument.

 

[Taylor]

@alexandermsmith Look, brother, don’t misunderstand me. Aside from the occasional extreme archaism, I do think the KJV is perhaps the most consistent and accurate translation we have available. I wish English would have retained the varied pronouns. I love them.

But...

That personal wish is a far cry from accusing the morphing of language of being inherently tritheistic.

 

[alexandermsmith]

@alexandermsmith Look, brother, don’t misunderstand me. Aside from the occasional extreme archaism, I do think the KJV is perhaps the most consistent and accurate translation we have available. I wish English would have retained the varied pronouns. I love them.

But...

That personal wish is a far cry from accusing the morphing of language of being inherently tritheistic.

The way I see it is the word "you" is ambiguous as it incorporates both singular and plural (originally being plural). Therefore, to me and many others, it is problematic, to say the least, to use it in reference to God where if one is going to be rigorously consistent and technical anywhere it would be in this area. We have an English term. It is antiquated, we don't use it in any other situation, but we do have it and therefore we believe it should be used here. I believe it is wrong to use "you" when addressing God. Whether I would actually go so far as to say it was a sin, I don't know. Wrong can be different from sin. But that is why for me, and for my denomination, a translation of the Bible which uses "you" in addressing God would be a non-starter.

 

[Grant]

The way I see it is the word "you" is ambiguous as it incorporates both singular and plural (originally being plural).

Does this not on some levels make it a better term (“you”). Don’t we confess our Lord to be One (singular) in essence AND Three (plural) in persons?

 

[Taylor]

Wrong can be different from sin.

Not when addressing God, it is not. I cannot perceive a distinction in this case.

So, whether or not you actually answer my question about my sin in prayer, the answer itself is loud and clear.

 

[JimmyH]

The way I see it is the word "you" is ambiguous as it incorporates both singular and plural (originally being plural). Therefore, to me and many others, it is problematic, to say the least, to use it in reference to God where if one is going to be rigorously consistent and technical anywhere it would be in this area. We have an English term. It is antiquated, we don't use it in any other situation, but we do have it and therefore we believe it should be used here. I believe it is wrong to use "you" when addressing God. Whether I would actually go so far as to say it was a sin, I don't know. Wrong can be different from sin. But that is why for me, and for my denomination, a translation of the Bible which uses "you" in addressing God would be a non-starter.

I was listening to a presentation by D.A. Carson about Bible translation. I've been reading the KJV for 40+ years, along with other modern translation, but I've read the KJV so much, for so long, that I still pray in KJV English.

Carson said that he grew up in French speaking Quebec, and that English was not his first language. His father was a pastor in both French, and later English speaking churches. I don't remember the discourse he gave precisely, nor could I link to it, there are so many, but by the time he was done I was satisfied that KJV English was not necessary in any way, shape or form, to correctly come before the Lord in prayer.

When I began reading the Bible seriously, in 1986, I bought a New Scofield KJV. I soon found I was having difficulty making sense of the archaisms, and the syntax in some portions. I bought an NIV to augment my study, and to define portions I had difficulty with.

I still read the KJV, but not as much as the modern translations. I've read the usual pro & con books on the RT vs the CT, and I am comfortable that both are the Word of God. Not trying to change any minds, we each have to follow the Spirit's leading and come to our own conclusions.

 

[bookslover]

Please refer me to the modern second person singular pronoun that is distinct from the second person plural pronoun.

There is none, of course. Over time, English-speakers and writers decided they were no longer necessary. If they were actually necessary, they'd probably still be used. We let context make the distinction now.

 

[Taylor]

We let context make the distinction now.

Exactly. And, in cases where there is contextual ambiguity, many modern translations make a clarifying note (e.g., Exod. 16:28; Luke 22:31). Sure, it would be nice to not need that note, but the English language has changed, like all languages do. And, unless I am mistaken, languages tend to evolve toward simplicity, not complexity. In other words, language tend to not retain aspects which are not absolutely necessary for comprehension. Hence why these pronouns have dropped. Therefore, chalking language change up to something like people getting dumber or irreverent is not only false by unhelpful.

 

[bookslover]

When I preach, either open-air or from the pulpit, I will often spontaneously "modernize" the language of the KJV, so it is eminently understandable to folks either Biblically illiterate or not used to KJV language.

I do the same thing. When I read the KJV quoted in an old book, I automatically correct the grammar and/or the syntax in my head as I read.

 

[bookslover]

Yes, this matters. About two centuries ago, English lost this rather important distinction.

Must not have been all that important if English was willing to jettison it. Somehow, everyone survived.

 

[bookslover]

Exactly. And, in cases where there is contextual ambiguity, many modern translations make a clarifying note (e.g., Exod. 16:28; Luke 22:31). Sure, it would be nice to not need that note, but the English language has changed, like all languages do. And, unless I am mistaken, languages tend to evolve toward simplicity, not complexity. In other words, language tend to not retain aspects which are not absolutely necessary for comprehension. Hence why these pronouns have dropped. Therefore, chalking language change up to something like people getting dumber or irreverent is not only false by unhelpful.

Excellent post, Taylor. You are correct.

 

[chuckd]

[Not regarding manuscripts but regarding KJV language]

"The Gospels were written with simple everyday language, Tyndale's translation was also so that the commonfolk would understand. It would go against the inspired writers and the tradition of translations to use antiquated Scripture translations in the church."

Biblical language is not simple everyday language. It is set apart. Nobody talks like it, regardless of the translation.

 

[Taylor]

Biblical language is not simple everyday language. It is set apart. Nobody talks like it, regardless of the translation.

If by "set apart" you mean its status as special revelation, then sure. However, as far as I am aware, there is no indication that the language of the Hebrew Bible and Greek New Testament are anything other than the language of the day.

 

[chuckd]

If by "set apart" you mean its status as special revelation, then sure. However, as far as I am aware, there is no indication that the language of the Hebrew Bible and Greek New Testament are anything other than the language of the day.

But not the language of our day, even when translated into the most readable English.