Question for KJV Prefered Folks

[Prufrock]

Since it seems topics move in trends on here, I thought I'd ask a question to keep up the Bible Translation trend of the last day or two.

Please, only people who truly have a KJ preferred position (or can answer for it) respond. (Also, if it isn't too much to ask, please don't let this turn into a debate about the KJV being the best or not...) I simply want an explanation of some things from people more knowledgeable than myself, so as to save much reading time. I have had little experience with educated KJ advocation until coming to the PB, and would like to benefit from your judgments.

1.) From what I've gathered here so far, the KJ preferred position stems mostly from its witness to the providentially preserved text of the Greek New Testament. Is this an accurate statement, or have I missed the true underlying reason?

2.) As an honest question, can someone explain the preference of these texts over those of, for example, the Geneva Bible?

3.) Again, provided the accuracy of #1, How does the KJ relate to the Reformation-era translations in other languages, such as Luther's German bible?

4.) Finally, provided a literal translation of scripture were made from a reconstructed Greek text upon which the KJV was based, simply making slight alterations where the last 400 years of knowledge suggest slightly different phrasing or word order or grammatical construction -- is there any theological position which would still give the KJ precedence?

I realize that is a large list of questions, but if people can answer some/all of them so I could better understand the position, I would greatly appreciate it.

 

[MW]

1. Text, translation, and translators are all taken into account when evaluating the translation. The "preferred" position is simply one of "reliability." The AV translates a reliable text, uses reliable methods of translation, and was translated by reliable men, thereby securing a reliable translation which is much to be preferred.

2. It is accepted by many that the AV is a superior translation to the Geneva Bible. See, for example, the preface to Poole's Annotations, for the later Puritan assessment.

3. The other reformation versions are accepted as faithful translations in their languages.

4. The AV might still be a preferred translation where it could reflect the unity of the church if a modern update was done from sectarian principles.

 

[Prufrock]

4. The AV might still be a preferred translation where it could reflect the unity of the church if a modern update was done from sectarian principles.

Interesting. I think that's good. Stemming from it, though:

If a subsequent translation (made using sound method, by reliable translators, upon sound texts) becomes predominant, is that translation to be preferred for the sake of this unity?

Thanks for your answers.

 

[Grymir]

Hi Prufrock!

I'm a real KJV user, and Rev. Winzer answered your questions really well. To add a little to answer your question #4. There are also philosophical considerations which lead to the theological reasons.

For example -

"What does God reveal in the word which He has created, in the holy Scriptures, and in the Gospel of Christ? Does He reveal Himself, or does He merely reveal information concerning Himself?"

and

"Weakened by dead orthodoxy and pietism, conservative Protestants of the late 17th and 18th centuries failed to resist the rising neutral world-view as vigorously as they should have done. Instead of taking their stand upon God's revelation of Himself in holy Scripture and pointing out that the neutral world-view is not really neutral but antichristian and full of contradictions, they began to adopt it themselves, especially in those areas of thought not specifically covered by their Reformation creeds, namely, philosophy and biblical introduction and above all New Testament textual criticism. Soon a serious inconsistency developed in the thinking of orthodox Protestants. At their colleges and theological seminaries especially students and teachers alike were torn between two world-views. In their study of systematic theology they maintained the believing world-view of the Protestant Reformation, but in their study of philosophy, biblical introduction, and New Testament textual criticism they adopted the neutral world-view of Post-Reformation rationalism."


Those are a few quotes from The King James Verison Defended by Edward F. Hills. That is a very good book that explains how us real KJV users think and differ from the KJV-only'ers junk that most people hear. (An educated KJ advocation that most never hear about)

I also don't know if a good modern translation of the texts would appeal to the people. Part of the so-called problem of the KJV, according to some who attack it, is that it is unreadable, when the real problem is the language skills of people. What the people are really asking for is a 'lower level' english translation. I'd like to see one written in the same 'higher level' english done today. I'd bet good money that they would say the same things about it.

 

[Prufrock]

Thanks, Timothy -- I think he answered well, too.

I've actually read Hills' book before; and, though I have some disagreements with him, I certainly respect him and the position he puts forth. Thanks for taking the time to pull up quotes from him.

I also don't know if a good modern translation of the texts would appeal to the people. Part of the so-called problem of the KJV, according to some who attack it, is that it is unreadable, when the real problem is the language skills of people. What the people are really asking for is a 'lower level' english translation. I'd like to see one written in the same 'higher level' english done today. I'd bet good money that they would say the same things about it.

Interesting hypothesis. Let's try to market one and see.

(By the way, my english bible is an AV as well. Just thought I'd throw that out there.)

 

[charliejunfan]

What does AV mean?

 

[jogri17]

Let me throw in another question:

Would any of you on this board hold to the Double inspiration theory refering to the KJV Bible?

 

[Thomas2007]

Since it seems topics move in trends on here, I thought I'd ask a question to keep up the Bible Translation trend of the last day or two.

Please, only people who truly have a KJ preferred position (or can answer for it) respond. (Also, if it isn't too much to ask, please don't let this turn into a debate about the KJV being the best or not...) I simply want an explanation of some things from people more knowledgeable than myself, so as to save much reading time. I have had little experience with educated KJ advocation until coming to the PB, and would like to benefit from your judgments.

Hi Paul,

I hold to this position and appreciate the opportunity to explain my views, I'll try to be brief.

1.) From what I've gathered here so far, the KJ preferred position stems mostly from its witness to the providentially preserved text of the Greek New Testament. Is this an accurate statement, or have I missed the true underlying reason?

There is a multitude of reasons, however, I would note that my position is not a "preferred" position, it is one of singularity of authority as it pertains to the Authorized Version as an English "version". Certainly, I hold to the Confessional position that the locus of Biblical authority is in the authentic apographs, which we call the Received Text, as it pertains to religious controversies. However, where no controversy exists there is no reason for an appeal, speaking authoritatively and not ministerially, beyond the Authorized Version. I would say that at one time the textual issue was primarily in my focus, but that has long been settled and is no longer a primary issue.

My position of recognizing and advocating the standing of the Authorized Version is not merely a textual issue, although this is probably the major focus of the intramural debate, and probably will be for quite some time. It certainly is an important issue. For Protestants though, in reality, the text is a given, the same way our Confessions and Creeds are a given, we inherited these rich blessings. However, since the area is a complicated one, or can be made complicated, Protestants have forgotten their history and no longer prize their birthright, and like Esau trade their inheritance for their daily bread.

One of the great failings of the defenders of the Authorized Version has been the limited aspect of its defense as an ecclesiastical text, as if it exists only within and for the Church - only and for Gospel and not Law. We simply don't appreciate and prize the full scope and meaning of the Authorized Version as the Established Bible of English Common Law countries upon which the entire fabric of life was built by our Protestant forefathers. Our society and our legal establishments were built, not merely upon Christian ideas, but upon the very wording of the Authorized Version.

The great Protestant goal outworking their faith was that God would rule on earth, even as He does in heaven, binding the conscience by means of a single authoritative law word in our native tongue. They wanted neither King nor Priest to attempt to stand between them and God, but Christ only - and that by means of the Scripture. That's what I want too.

The goal in America and the universal acceptance of the Authorized Version displacing the Geneva Bible was to establish Church and State with continuity upon God's Word, as independent spheres of authority, but interdependent upon Scripture. They wanted an established Faith with a disestablished Church, that required an established Bible and the Authorized Version had those credentials. Today, leaving aside all of the other excellencies I find in the Authorized Version, maintaining fidelity to this vision is what primarily underlies my advocacy of the Authorized Version. I find it to be foolishness to try and advance the Christian faith and uphold the authority of God's word without the affirmation of an authoritative Bible.

Today, democracy rules and "we the people" demand a democratic Bible to speak to us, not with authority, but as a "spiritual advisor" in our own peculiar idioms that we can consult when it pleases us. As a result the authority of God's word has diminished and the light of His word is held hostage by a democratic demand for individualistic simplicity. We apparently can't be bothered with a dictionary, but on the other hand, many men desire to become their own textual critics.

Just as the Authorized Version was an expression of outworking the Puritan hope of a Christian commonwealth, we've inverted that Protestant ideal and the constant negative attacks upon this particular Bible are an expression of that inversion. In other words, we've "decentralized" Scripture and the meaning of the Authorized Version as the established Bible for Protestant Churches in exchange for centralized man and his political institutions as our god so that we may determine good and evil for ourselves.

People today have this fanciful notion and individualistic focus that they can rip up the foundations of our lives and maintain the Christian social order upon some whimsical idea of an abstract "authoritative" word of God. Our Protestant forefathers didn't approach the issue of authority as an abstraction and the priesthood of all believers was never a radical individualism demanding a designer Bible to the latest fashions as it has become today.

Ultimately, I believe for Christianity to be the established Faith requires an established Bible - the Authorized Version still enjoys establishment, yet men no longer recognize its authority and what that really means to us in the total scope of our lives. And frankly, the nonchalant attitude of the Church toward this issue terrifies me, because in general my Reformed brethern that support critical text Bible's advocate the same lofty goal of God ruling on earth as He does in heaven, but seem to be oblivious to the fact that to attain establishment of Scripture in order to experience that will require the same price that it took for the Authorized Version to enjoy that position - buckets of Christian's blood.

2.) As an honest question, can someone explain the preference of these texts over those of, for example, the Geneva Bible?

It's the same textual base. All of the Protestant english bibles are derived from the Received Text. It's also important to understand that the Authorized Version is not a "brand spanking new" translation, that is to say it is not independent of the previous English Bibles, but derivative of them.

You have to remember that while the Geneva Bible is an excellent Bible, it is the work of disenfranchised Puritan refugee's escaping the wrath of Bloody Mary. It was a commoners Bible for political refugee's. They knew and understood that Scripture needed recognition from the ruling classes which prompted seeking a translation under directive from the crown, to bind Church and State together under God. Hence, they petitioned Elizabeth and Parliament drafted the law to do so, but she died and James VI of Scotland was appointed as her heir. After the bill was taken up under the rule of King James I of England, and he authorized the work, that is how it became known as the "King James Bible." If Elizabeth would have lived another year or so we would be calling it "Queen Elizabeth's Bible."

Providentially, it is quite interesting to study how the Lord worked out the ascendency of this particular version and its establishment in light of the change to the Supremacy Act under Elizabeth and James coronation as King following her reign. What is means to us is that the Holy Scripture is the visible "head of the Church," or at least to those that wish it to be, most desire Caesar though.

3.) Again, provided the accuracy of #1, How does the KJ relate to the Reformation-era translations in other languages, such as Luther's German bible?

Same textual foundation. It was Erasmus's publication of his Latin translation and Greek text that formed the basis of Martin Luther's disputation against indulgences. Erasmus pointed out that the Vulgate's translation in Matthew 4:17 was in error.

"From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matthew 4:17

The Latin Vulgate translated this as "Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." This was a Roman proof text for the doctrine of the sacrament of penance. *From this arose the concept that the coming of the kingdom was connected to the sacrament of penance through the absolution of the priesthood to forgive sins and the Pope to exercise the keys of the Kingdom.

This was based on a perversion of John 20:23 “Whosoever sins ye forgive they are forgiven, and whosoever sins ye retain they are retained,” whereby they are claiming to have judicial authority. The ascetic monasteries were seen as places where the good works of monks were excessive, these excess merits were contemplated as being deposited into what became known as the “Treasuries of Merit.” It is this heavenly vault that the Pope claimed to have the key too. The Pope, then, declared that he could transfer credits of merits to your account by the purchase of indulgences from this "Treasury of Merit" earned by the Monks. In today’s understanding, the Gospel of Jesus Christ was converted into a Pyramid scheme where the people lived their lives making bricks without straw in service of the Papal States - very much like we do today. The "Treasuries of Merit" was the "Social Security Administration" for your soul, and Churches today, while not as explicit, are engaged in principally the same activity by selling tax exemptions.

Erasmus pointed out that the proper translation of the Greek was "turn your mind" or "Repent." *Instead of an outward practice, he insisted it was an inward faith - being repentant. Martin Luther picks this up in 1517 and lifts the trumpet to his lips and proclaims a new day, but that’s not fully comprehended until one grasps the shift of the locus of Authority based upon one single word - Repent instead of Do Penance. This is the very first of his 95 Thesis, which reads: “Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said “Poenitentiam agite”, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.”

What came to be known as the "Received Text" is the Trumpet that Martin Luther put to his lips.

I recently had the great privilege of delivering a four month lecture series at our Church on the history of all of this stuff, if that would be of interest to you.

4.) Finally, provided a literal translation of scripture were made from a reconstructed Greek text upon which the KJV was based, simply making slight alterations where the last 400 years of knowledge suggest slightly different phrasing or word order or grammatical construction -- is there any theological position which would still give the KJ precedence?

Yes, however, it is important to understand that the Authorized Version has been conservatively updated several times, the last being 1769 when it spelling, punctuation and some phraseology was updated.

One of the endearing qualities of the Authorized Version is that King James has long been dead, but this particular version can be legitimately revised without the textual switch done in 1888 with the Revised Version. No one seems to be interested in that though, modern Christians while reviling James as a King seem to want a "New King James" instead of the dead and buried one.


Cordially,

Thomas

-----Added 12/3/2008 at 04:36:59 EST-----

Let me throw in another question:

Would any of you on this board hold to the Double inspiration theory refering to the KJV Bible?

No, but that doesn't mean that the translation isn't the inspired Word of God. Every faithful translation of the inspired word of God necessarily has a derivative inspiration by carrying that meaning into the tongue being translated.

 

[Prufrock]

What does AV mean?

Hey Charles,

It stands for "Authorized Version." The King James. It was the version he "authorized" for use.

(There really are too many abbreviations on this site, aren't there?)

-----Added 12/3/2008 at 07:44:12 EST-----

There is a multitude of reasons, however, I would note that my position is not a "preferred" position, it is one of singularity of authority as it pertains to the Authorized Version as an English "version". Certainly, I hold ...&c.

Thank you, Thomas, for taking the time to post such a thorough answer.

However, where no controversy exists there is no reason for an appeal, speaking authoritatively and not ministerially, beyond the Authorized Version.

Interesting position.

The goal in America and the universal acceptance of the Authorized Version displacing the Geneva Bible was to establish Church and State with continuity upon God's Word, as independent spheres of authority, but interdependent upon Scripture. They wanted an established Faith with a disestablished Church, that required an established Bible and the Authorized Version had those credentials. Today, leaving aside all of the other excellencies I find in the Authorized Version, maintaining fidelity to this vision is what primarily underlies my advocacy of the Authorized Version. I find it to be foolishness to try and advance the Christian faith and uphold the authority of God's word without the affirmation of an authoritative Bible.

Ought this to be binding upon all English speaking peoples where the AV did not have such an early, founding purpose? In other words, does your view of its singular authority stem from this historical incident, or is there more behind it? In other English speaking places where no such thing happened, is there any reason that the AV ought to take precedence there?

Thanks.

 

[KMK]

Where can I get these lectures, Thomas?

 

[TimV]

Originally Posted by charliejunfan
What does AV mean?

Hey Charles,

It stands for "Authorized Version." The King James. It was the version he "authorized" for use.

It was authorized by an act of Parliament. All the translators were members of the Church of England, and the AV contained all 80 books of the Bible, which include the Apocrypha.

 

[MW]

Would any of you on this board hold to the Double inspiration theory refering to the KJV Bible?

WCF 1:8, the Hebrew and Greek were "immediately" inspired and providentially preserved; the vulgar translation is considered "the Word of God" (or "the very Word of God," Larger Catechism answer 157), and therefore "mediately" inspired. "Mediate inspiration" of course refers to the product translated, not to the process of translating.

 

[Iakobos_1071]

2.) As an honest question, can someone explain the preference of these texts over those of, for example, the Geneva Bible?

From what I can see for the most part the AV/KJV and the Geneva Bible come from the same Textus Receptus Greek New Testament.

I was KJV only until I was introduced to the 1599 Geneva Bible for this reason

 

[Prufrock]

Thanks for your response, Jym. Just so you know, there is a hiatus of TR discussion on the board right now, so at the risk of appearing rude, I'm going to stay out of the discussion so as not to tempt anyone to go or push it in that direction.

SemperFidelis, maybe close this one down as well so it doesn't accidentally come to life?

 

[Iakobos_1071]

there is a hiatus of TR discussion on the board right now

I was not aware... .. I am unsure I understand the hiatus.. Is this posted somewhere.. I might have missed it.

 

[TsonMariytho]

there is a hiatus of TR discussion on the board right now

I was not aware... .. I am unsure I understand the hiatus.. Is this posted somewhere.. I might have missed it.

Here is the moderator notice (at the end of thread):

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/wcf-1-8-ct-40915/index7.html