Why Did Pastors Discard the KJV?

[Logan]

Perhaps you don't mean it, but statements like this sound a bit condescending and as though you make no effort to understand what I'm saying.

I understood full well what you were saying, and what you were saying was incorrect. I noted the problem with your parallel and stated it without any personal comment. There is nothing in the bare statement of a fact which should be regarded as condescending. Your reply, however, is personal and uncalled for.

I am trying to be respectful but in humility I ask you to consider if I am the appropriate judge of whether you understood me or not. I also tried to be charitable when saying it sounded condescending, saying you perhaps didn't mean to. However, I may not have made myself clear (it's been spread out over multiple posts) so I accept that the blame is mine.

I understand the Vulgate is not English, but at one point it was the common tongue. Language moved on and the Vulgate continued to be used. The Reformers rejected this. The same thing can happen in English and some would argue it already has. You are of the opinion that we have not yet passed that point. I can agree for myself, but I cannot claim that is universally the case.

At some point the study required to get past the language barrier just becomes too great. You agree but you believe we are not yet at that point and there is no use speculating on when we will reach it. I cannot be so bold as to say that my abilities set the standard for everyone and that if I can learn from antiquated language then others should too. I desperately want to be aware of setting up stumbling blocks that would prevent people, even unbelievers, from reading the Word of God.

 

[MW]

Can we be charitable with one another in the future, Mr. Winzer?

Charity thinketh no evil. Why are you insinuating our discussion has not been charitable to this point?

For what it is worth, I speak plainly on such an important matter because I charitably think my brethren have the grace to be able to weigh up such important considerations without prejudice.

 

[MW]

I understand the Vulgate is not English, but at one point it was the common tongue. Language moved on and the Vulgate continued to be used.

The problem was not that Latin speakers used a Latin Bible, but that people who could not read Latin had nothing else but the Latin Bible. There is no parallel.

 

[earl40]

The problem today is not that the language of the AV is outdated, but that people expect instant results. I do not believe a translation which caters to this mindset is going to produce long-lasting results.

Would it be OK to say Koine Greek is to Late Modern English, as Classical Greek is to Early Modern English? I can see where The Holy Spirit did indeed inspire the NT in Koine Greek and the OT in Hebrew, and in doing such inspired the exact words from these two languages to convey exactly what He willed to convey. Is there no way to convey the original inspired languages into Late Modern English? Also is this not what the NKJV translates did? Or did they use substantially different methods in their work vs. what the KJV translators did?

 

[sevenzedek]

Why are you insinuating our discussion has not been charitable to this point?

I don't mind being bold and plain in what I say, but I often look back and hope I haven't been offensive to anyone. Not everyone can say that they feel safe around me. Your enduring emotional integrity is a testimony to how you hold your convictions with humility.

Thanks, Mr. Winzer.

 

[MW]

Would it be OK to say Koine Greek is to Late Modern English, as Classical Greek is to Early Modern English?

Are you referring to the Greek of the NT or to some language which would have been spoken or written in a particular place around the same time? The Greek of the NT contains numerous Hebraisms, archaisms, and various other elements which set it apart. There are also assessments of the quality of "Greek" written by different penmen in Scripture. It is not all uniform.

 

[Logan]

I understand the Vulgate is not English, but at one point it was the common tongue. Language moved on and the Vulgate continued to be used.

The problem was not that Latin speakers used a Latin Bible, but that people who could not read Latin had nothing else but the Latin Bible. There is no parallel.

I'm pretty sure it's not very useful to debate this point but the transition to romance languages was what I was referring to. To them, the Latin of the Vulgate eventually became unintelligible, though to this day a Spaniard could still pick out some words. Is this not a parallel? To us, Old English (properly speaking) is much the same, and it's conceivable we are on the way to a position where Middle English will also become unintelligible even if it is still called "English".

 

[MW]

To us

"Us" should include "you and I." But "you and I" are not going to misunderstand present English at some future point.

 

[Logan]

To us

"Us" should include "you and I." But "you and I" are not going to misunderstand present English at some future point.

I'm not certain what you mean by that. When I said "Old English (properly speaking)" I was referring to this, which I know I don't recognize:

Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in ġeār-dagum,
þēod-cyninga, þrym ġefrūnon,
hū ðā æþelingas ellen fremedon.

But even today there are people who misunderstand the KJV because they impute what the word means today back into the text. Such a word as "worship", which is used in a much broader sense in the KJV. Is this not a problem caused by antiquated language, and an unnecessary one at that?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

If this thread remains open long enough, I have a few remarks.

Fred, it was because of you, some years ago, that I saw my stance re the AV was delegitimizing other Bibles, Bibles that enabled blood-bought souls to partake of the divine nature through the precious promises of God’s word (2 Pet 1:4), and as a result my understanding was changed. To do anything to damage the faith of another child of God – especially faith in His words – is now abhorrent to me.

I did not change my view of the KJV, but I did of the other Bibles, according them honor and the designation “holy”.

I think we all have our view as to which is the “best” Bible, even though others may be “acceptable” to us. To deny us this value judgment is to succumb to the relativity of the postmodern concept of truth, that what is best for us is best among many bests, and that there is no objective best.

I think my views on the merits and demerits of the various textual editions, translations, and readings are well enough known here that I need not bring them up (for those who do not know, click the link in my signature, “collected textual posts”).

It is strange that we have to have wars of words over that which is most holy to us in this world. That we cannot be gracious and irenic when we talk about it. That there is acrimony in our words when we do. Not that I myself have always held to this ideal, but now, as I am older and have matured a little, I do seek to hold to it.

Fred, Matthew did not say these words you attributed to him, “What he is saying is that the only acceptable English translation is the AV”. His point was otherwise, though it may have sounded like that to you. His point that the AV is “the best allowed translation” is a more nuanced view than what you have said.

I also have observed his statements re the Ecclesiastical Text / Authorized Version over the years, and it is neither unreasonable nor uncharitable to take the stands he has, though many disagree and find fault with it. Yet we all disagree and find fault with some of the views of others, and that is acceptable and even godly if we remain gracious in it.

I have valued greatly some of the views you have held on this topic, Fred, and have been edified by them, and ditto with views of Matthew.

About ESL folks: am I right in remembering you use the NKJV? Does that make understanding easier for those in your congregation? That was the version I chose (over the ESV) in the church plant I pastored in Cyprus – as it was a gift from the planting church, and we didn’t have enough money to buy anything ourselves; it wasn’t a bad choice. I like the NKJV. Yet I like the AV best.

Pastors (and others) have different views about which translation to use with ESL people. Some, with merit, say the KJV is fine; likewise those who say a more modern version is fine, and they have merit also. We are allowed our individual choices in this, and there ought be no war over such differences.

I do find it lamentable that an ordained pastor can be mocked and spoken rudely to by lay persons, as though a governor over God’s people appointed thereto by God may be treated with disdain. This ought not be. Even in the secular military enlisted men are to respect officers from different branches of the armed forces, and are liable to the Uniform Code of Military Justice for transgressions. God is not mocked; there are repercussions for such transgressions of His law.

I think Dennis’ observation in his post #84 is keen:

“nless you want to play Don Quixote, let's quit pretending that a few folks in microdenominations will change the world back to a common Bible.

The proverbial cows have left the barn and we are stuck with a multiplicity of translations. The best we can hope for is that individual congregations will probably gravitate to their own ‘standards’ on a case by case basis.”​

This is the situation in 2013, and how shall we work within it? Myself, I am not a pastor now, and I strive to maintain the peace in the congregation I am a member of. I talk to the pastor about version issues upon occasion and he is very receptive, though the church uses the NIV and ESV in its readings. If I am asked to read I will read from the texts given me.

In my opposition to Bart Ehrman I will use the AV and TR in defense of the NT text he seeks to deconstruct and demolish. Young David was scorned when he used a supposedly antiquated and simple sling and stone – instead of the “better” weapons of his day – to fight the giant, but God gave him to prevail.

Yet in normal situations in the community of faith, I may shine a quiet light with regard to textual issues, but I have other things to focus on that are important. I may occasionally talk about the impact of what Dennis refers to as “The proverbial cows have left the barn and we are stuck with a multiplicity of translations”, for the differences we all acknowledge have indeed impacted the broad community of faith.

I don’t think Matthew has transgressed any matter with regard to impropriety or uncharitableness, though his views are not widely appreciated in 2013 AD. It would not have been so in earlier times. Also, to speak sharply and forcefully is not necessarily uncharitable.

How about we live and let live, unless someone truly transgresses?

Rich brought up some very interesting points, in a couple of his posts, but I have addressed what I thought necessary, and so will refrain.

------------

This thread could probably be closed with profit, and not loss.

 

[Philip]

The Greek of the NT contains numerous Hebraisms, archaisms, and various other elements which set it apart.

Just as the English that I speak contains numerous Latinisms, archaisms, and various other idiosyncrasies. That doesn't mean that I don't speak modern English any more than the NT writers aren't writing in Koine Greek.

 

[Logan]

This thread could probably be closed with profit, and not loss.

I agree and I think I'll avoid this thread from now on.

Steve, thank you very much for your graciousness and humility in dealing with others. I appreciate your ability to state your reasons without coming across as demeaning.

 

[JimmyH]

This thread could probably be closed with profit, and not loss.

+1. More heat than light after 189 posts, anyone change their mindset ?

 

[VictorBravo]

This thread could probably be closed with profit, and not loss.

A fair assessment. Thread closed for now, at least....