Why Did Pastors Discard the KJV?

[py3ak]

A study on changing attitudes towards educational methodology, especially in the department of English, will explain the parallel changes in Bible translation. The days of stiff scientific philology gave us the RV. Later the tendency towards technical terms, stylised sentences, and purpose-built English led to the RSV. Then the movement towards self-expression and lack of grammatical and syntactical form has produced translations like the GNB and NIV.

Matthew, that observation reminded me of a fascinating essay from Theodore Dalrymple, "The Gift of Language" in Not with a Bang but a Whimper: The Politics and Culture of Decline. I no longer have the entire article to hand, but it addresses itself to the question of changing educational standards for English and their impact on wider society, as can be seen in the following excerpt:

With a very limited vocabulary, it is impossible to make, or at least to express, important distinctions and to examine any question with conceptual care. My patients often had no words to describe what they were feeling, except in the crudest possible way, with expostulations, exclamations, and physical displays of emotion. Often, by guesswork and my experience of other patients, I could put things into words for them, words that they grasped at eagerly. Everything was on the tip of their tongue, rarely or never reaching the stage of expression out loud. They struggled even to describe in a consecutive and logical fashion what had happened to them, at least without a great deal of prompting. Complex narrative and most abstractions were closed to them.
In their dealings with authority, they were at a huge disadvantage—a disaster, since so many of them depended upon various public bureaucracies for so many of their needs, from their housing and health care to their income and the education of their children. I would find myself dealing on their behalf with those bureaucracies, which were often simultaneously bullying and incompetent; and what officialdom had claimed for months or even years to be impossible suddenly, on my intervention, became possible within a week. Of course it was not my mastery of language along that produced this result; rather my mastery of language signaled my capacity to make serious trouble for the bureaucrats if they did not do as I asked. I do not think it is a coincidence that the offices of all those bureaucracies were increasingly installing security barriers against the physical attacks on the staff by enraged but inarticulate dependents.
(...)
Beginning in the 1950s, Basil Bernstein, a London University researcher, demonstrated the difference between the speech of middle- and working-class children, controlling for whatever it is that IQ measures. Working-class speech, tethered closely to the here and now, lacked the very aspects of standard English needed to express abstract or general ideas and to place personal experience in temporal or any other perspective. Thus, unless Pinker's despised schoolmarms were to take the working-class children in hand and deliberately teach them another speech code, they were doomed to remain where they were, at the bottom of a society that was itself much the poorer for not taking full advantage of their abilities, and that indeed would pay a steep penalty for not doing so. An intelligent man who can make no constructive use of his intelligence is likely to make a destructive, and self-destructive, use of it.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Ruben, here's Dalrymple's essay

 

[MW]

Ruben, here's Dalrymple's essay

Ruben, Steve, thankyou for the notice and link to the essay. It responds very well to the naive idea of innate language skill.

We should not forget Orwell's famous essay, Politics and the English Language.

But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation even among people who should and do know better.

 

[KaphLamedh]

When the Dispensation of the AV was over the Dispensation of the NIV commenced. God is now dealing differently with the church according to a different set of mss. revealed through the magisterium of textual scholars.

Seriously, Scofield was more than popular, that’s all I was trying to say. His notes had a huge impact on the church, we cannot separate his theological notes from his textual notes like Sco does the church and Israel.

jm

One man said that few churches took Scofield's notes so seriously as they would be part of Scriptures...maybe there are few ultra-dispensationalists.
MacArthur's Study Bible has also dispensationalistic notes, right?

 

[Bill The Baptist]

MacArthur's Study Bible has also dispensationalistic notes, right?

Oh yeah. Here is an example from the notes on Acts 2:16-21 where Peter quotes Joel in his sermon at Pentecost: "Joel's prophecy will not be completely fulfilled until the Millennial Kingdom. But Peter, by using it, shows that Pentecost was a pre-fulfillment, a taste of what will happen in the Millennial kingdom when the spirit is poured out on all flesh."

 

[py3ak]

Ruben, here's Dalrymple's essay

Thank you, Mr. Rafalsky - it was even more entertaining than I remembered.

 

[Caroline]

The reason in my opinion has been the "dumbing" down of our culture from having to think critically or heaven forbid you have to look a word up in the dictionary. A good point of reference on this position is a book by T.David Gordon, titled, "Why Johnny Can't Preach. It's a good read and the data that he provides is insightful into a number of issues with our culture's short attention span.

Why Johnny Can't Preach: The Media Have Shaped the Messengers: T. David Gordon: 9781596381162: Amazon.com: Books

While it may be good and helpful for people to use archaic translations in their private worship, I tend to think it is a bad idea for public worship. It's not a matter of "heaven forbid someone have to look up a word," because (1) dictionaries are not readily available in church pews and (2) some parishioners could not use one anyway. My son, for example, is autistic. There is no way that he would ever understand the KJV, but he does grasp at least some of more modern translations. My daughter is slightly deaf and has a limited vocabulary. She, too, struggles with comprehension. We read Shakespeare at home, but I have to be on hand to explain it to her, which is difficult to do in the middle of a worship service. We take other measures, like reading the Bible passages ahead of time so that the children can understand the sermon more easily.

But it is a lack of charity to those who struggle with learning disabilities to characterize everyone who can't use the KJV effectively as stupid and lazy. I'm not saying that this was your intent, but I have heard it done before.

In a discussion at church some years ago, someone complained scornfully at a meeting of "catering to the lowest common denominator," and I noted aloud that people ought to remember that the lowest common denominator in this church was my son.

It's not that everything needs to necessarily be at his level. But if something small can be changed to make it easier for people who struggle--then why not do that? Why put a stumbling block of archaic language in front of a child who has enough problems already? For that reason, I tend to think of KJV-only churches as uncharitable, even if they do not intend to be so. It is the linguistic equivalent of failing to have a handicapped ramp.

 

[a mere housewife]

I was thinking yesterday of how Scripture has a variety of levels of complexity simply as regards vocabulary and poetic devices -- as the difference between Isaiah and Mark. There are books written in a way that was readily accessible to common folk, as well as those books that still challenge even the most educated simply on a literary level. I don't understand the original languages, and can only approach that range of accessibility and difficulty in translation. But as it is a part of the original inspiration, I feel able to use an easier version for comprehension, for myself and others who are struggling (the very rhythms which are so readily memorable can make it harder for me to focus on word meaning), and also using the KJV, not to neglect that element of challenge and learning to comprehend more than I do naturally. It seems that one translation will scarcely be able to sufficiently capture that whole range, and there is something lost in neglecting either end of it? Just a small observation from my largely uneducated standpoint -- I have been very grateful for both my ESV and my KJV.

 

[ZackF]

I try to steer a course between getting too "woo woo" about a translation (like forgetting it is a translation and writing people out of Christianity) and total indifference. My thoughts are similar to those of Heidi above as I use multiple translations that are usually NASB (study), ESV(reading and study) and KJV(devotion). Though I have some training in Greek, I am not proficient. As my Spanish improves bit by bit, I find it helping my biblical understanding. Elizabethan English is in some fashion a different language but also the same language. Where many use newer translations for devotion and KJV for study, I reverse those habits due to KJV's majesty. As Pastor Winzer, more eloquently than I ever could KJV has continuity with the previous generations and is just a plain excellent work altogether.

 

[earl40]

Question: What happened back in the 80s and 90s to cause so many pastors to jump from the KJV to the NIV or other modern translation?

I believe the same reason Luther translated the scripture in German from Latin and the same reason the early church translated it from Greek and Hebrew to Latin.

 

[Jack K]

I can understand arguments for the KJV that are based on the source text used, or the accuracy/consistency of translation, or the beauty of the language, or even to some extent the desire to preserve tradition. But I fail to see why we would use the KJV merely because we want the Scriptures to be somewhat difficult to understand and to require extra effort or scholarly learning. It's not that I'm against education or effort. But one of the main principles of the Reformation is that the Word ought to be as accessible as possible to the largest number of people possible. Four-hundred-year-old word usage simply is less accessible to most people today than is modern word usage.

We can bemoan the fact that people aren't better educated or didn't grow up hearing KJV English. But to try to solve that "problem" by keeping the Word inaccessible to those who haven't trained their ears to appreciate the old style is to have misplaced priorities. So to answer the opening question another way: Pastors have moved away from the KJV because they understand the Reformation principle that the Scriptures ought to be accessible to the people in their everyday language.

Whether or not other factors outweigh this consideration is another issue. But accessible language is a plus, not a negative.

 

[a mere housewife]

Jack, how would you deal with the way the original Scriptures contains material that is at various degrees of accessibility?

It seems discordant with a significant aspect of the original to raise the bar for comprehension when what the Holy Spirit inspired was on a level of ready comprehension. Yet one misses so much for instance, reading through Isaiah without puzzling over some features and needing some trained help, because that incredible work of literature (surely on par with the great literature of all ages) has been flattened to one's own level? And God intended it to be the complex statement that it is, just as the accessible parts were surely meant to be so.

It seems from the discussions I have read, that positions pull between wanting all of Scripture to be on a lower or a higher comprehension level, but Scripture itself is not like that?

 

[Jack K]

Jack, how would you deal with the way the original Scriptures contains material that is at various degrees of accessibility?

It seems discordant with a significant aspect of the original to raise the bar for comprehension when what the Holy Spirit inspired was on a level of ready comprehension. Yet one misses so much for instance, reading through Isaiah without puzzling over some features and needing some trained help, because that incredible work of literature (surely on par with the great literature of all ages) has been flattened to one's own level? And God intended it to be the complex statement that it is, just as the accessible parts were surely meant to be so.

It seems from the discussions I have read, that positions pull between wanting all of Scripture to be on a lower or a higher comprehension level, but Scripture itself is not like that?

It sounds reasonable to me that different books might be translated with a different reading level if that accurately reflects the original. You may be onto something.

That probably wouldn't mean using archaic language, though, would it... unless parts of Isaiah used Hebrew that would have been considered old-fashioned and archaic to Isaiah's readers? If Isaiah is simply a more complicated or learned or flowery style, then I guess a faithful translation could reflect that and might take more work to comprehend... but not necessarily because it uses words that are no longer in common use today. Certainly, the Reformation principle of accessible Scritpures does not mean to make the Bible simple or dumbed-down. Much of it will take much effort to fully comprehend. I personally find Isaiah a challenge even in the most simple translations. I just see no reason to make the Scriptures intentionally inaccessible where they originally were not.

My thinking on this matter is surely skewed by my experience growing up in a missionary family with the Navajos. The New Testament had been translated into Navajo. But sadly, the Navajo translators had used the KJV and, since it had archaic language, had wrongly believed that the New Testament must have been originally written in a "formal" Greek rather than common Greek. Therefore, they translated the New Testament using a formal version of the Navajo language that most everyday Navajos did not understand so readily. The result was that the people had both an English Bible (KJV) and a Navajo one... but both were hard to read and comprehend. Not just Isaiah, but the whole thing.

 

[a mere housewife]

I sometimes think that almost all our thinking about everything is skewed by some factor or other: God balances us all out somehow, and saves us from ourselves, and uses us anyway -- but what looks so objective to us is still enclosed in such a small system of our own experience. My favorite translation of Isaiah is the one in my devotional by Alec Motyer, who explains and tries to replicate enough that I realise there is even more in the original. He spoke at one point of the way Isaiah produces an effect with sounds, which comes across (if you try to reproduce it in English) as cheap, because of the nuances of the word you must employ -- they come across as ridiculous, rather than shattering. Sounds convey significance: Isaiah knew what he was doing even there.

It is not an archaic translation though it is difficult and in attempting to reproduce various things, it is 'literary' -- even with commentary, it is not the book I would give to someone who had little acquaintance with Scripture, unless they had some interest in studying something somewhat difficult. The vocabulary is not introductory, and the structures are complex. Yet, I did not mean to argue for any translation in particular. I was thinking more that the greatest 'accessibility' cannot be too overriding a consideration, even where it is a significant aspect of accuracy to the original -- but the accuracy is still the most important thing? Sometimes that accuracy might mean somewhat less accessibility.

 

[MW]

Pastors have moved away from the KJV because they understand the Reformation principle that the Scriptures ought to be accessible to the people in their everyday language.

Sorry to be openly contradictory, Jack, but the idea you have presented is blatantly false. First, Scripture is "written" and is a literary language. Every day language is something entirely different to literary language. Even Tyndale's plough-boy would be given a Bible which was in a language far more technical than what he was accustomed to day by day. Secondly, literacy was not high at the reformation. The translations were intended to be used with a diligent use of the means and in immediate connection with a teaching ministry. This was as it should be. The idea that people should be able to pick up a Bible and understand it with ease is somewhat naive of what it means to be human and fallen. Thirdly, the reformers maintained the great principle of returning to the fountains. The concepts contained in the Bible are culturally removed from the lives of everyday people. Language reflects cultural occupation. The Bible abounds with terminology which is legal, sacrificial, royal, pastoral, familial, etc. These by nature will require a reader to accustom himself to the thought forms and terms which are used, and this can only be done by repetitive study. Every field has its technical nomenclature. Where there is interest in that field the individual will pick up the terms and their meanings over time. Fourthly, the reformation translations all ran in the catholic tradition. They were not intended to meet the needs of a generation but to accurately reflect the proper understanding of Scripture as it had been built up across the ages of the church. Finally, the reformers were well trained in the humanities. The concern was to produce accurate translations which conformed to academic standards and could stand the test of learned criticism.

All scholars agree that the Authorised Version was not written in the everyday language of the 17th century, and yet no one denies it became the classic work of the English language. If one reads 19th and 20th century appraisals, it is called "the common English Bible," and that is two to three hundred years after it was created. Nothing has been created which is worthy to take its place. Of many good translations King James' translators made a better one. Regrettably, of that better one, there has now emerged many inferior ones. We are to approve things that are excellent, not things that are inferior.

 

[Herald]

Ruben, here's Dalrymple's essay

Steve, thank you for providing the link.

A bit off topic, but Dalrymple's essay is a good reminder against looking down on others because of their inability to communicate at the "schoolmarm" level.

 

[jandrusk]

The reason in my opinion has been the "dumbing" down of our culture from having to think critically or heaven forbid you have to look a word up in the dictionary. A good point of reference on this position is a book by T.David Gordon, titled, "Why Johnny Can't Preach. It's a good read and the data that he provides is insightful into a number of issues with our culture's short attention span.

Why Johnny Can't Preach: The Media Have Shaped the Messengers: T. David Gordon: 9781596381162: Amazon.com: Books

While it may be good and helpful for people to use archaic translations in their private worship, I tend to think it is a bad idea for public worship. It's not a matter of "heaven forbid someone have to look up a word," because (1) dictionaries are not readily available in church pews and (2) some parishioners could not use one anyway. My son, for example, is autistic. There is no way that he would ever understand the KJV, but he does grasp at least some of more modern translations. My daughter is slightly deaf and has a limited vocabulary. She, too, struggles with comprehension. We read Shakespeare at home, but I have to be on hand to explain it to her, which is difficult to do in the middle of a worship service. We take other measures, like reading the Bible passages ahead of time so that the children can understand the sermon more easily.

But it is a lack of charity to those who struggle with learning disabilities to characterize everyone who can't use the KJV effectively as stupid and lazy. I'm not saying that this was your intent, but I have heard it done before.

In a discussion at church some years ago, someone complained scornfully at a meeting of "catering to the lowest common denominator," and I noted aloud that people ought to remember that the lowest common denominator in this church was my son.

It's not that everything needs to necessarily be at his level. But if something small can be changed to make it easier for people who struggle--then why not do that? Why put a stumbling block of archaic language in front of a child who has enough problems already? For that reason, I tend to think of KJV-only churches as uncharitable, even if they do not intend to be so. It is the linguistic equivalent of failing to have a handicapped ramp.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Caroline. Yes, by no means was my intent to characterize everyone, it was really directed to the problem at large. I too have an autistic child (Who I read your children's catechism to every night, thank you for that) and I agree that teaching him the KJV verbiage would not work. I wasn't even thinking of it in a worship context and you bring up some good points around that. I was trying to address the question around why our Pastor's are not using the KJV especially when they reference it at times to be a better or more accurate translation.

Now that I think of it, I think the bigger question might be, "Given all of the numerous bible translations out there, how can I be sure which ones are orthodox and which ones are not?" I think a good use case would be ESV versus the Message; Does it matter? Forgive me for not constructing greater detail around my comments.

 

[ZackF]

The concern was to produce accurate translations which conformed to academic standards and could stand the test of learned criticism.

I've appreciated what you have written on the subject over the years. Do you think that it is impossible that a more accurate translation can be produced today or that it is just unnecessary?

 

[MW]

Do you think that it is impossible that a more accurate translation can be produced today or that it is just unnecessary?

Any small group of people can make changes to a text; but whether they are considered improvements and recognised universally is another matter.

There were specific ecclesiastical, educational, political and social factors which were active under Providence to make the AV what it is. Nothing is impossible with God, but the present fractured nature of the church, academic relativism, political pluralism, and social inclusivism, seem to me to be potent forces which will militate against wide acceptance of any change which is introduced into the translation. The same applies to our subordinate standards.

This is not what might be termed a constitutional age. There is a reason conservatives are concerned to maintain old constitutions and charters, and seek to avoid bringing them under re-examination in the present atmosphere. It is not good to have large drilling machines operative around exposed foundations, especially when their operators are only interested in clearing everything away in order to start anew. It is simply unrealistic to think that "the spirit of the age" is not going to find its way into attempts to revise our constitutional documents. The Bible is the fundamental constitutional document for Protestant and Reformed churches, and the AV is the common English Bible upon which our churches were established and grew.

It is important to note that churches which departed from the AV usually did not put anything in its place. It is not the AV which has been replaced. "The Common English Bible" has simply been removed from the life and work of the church. If the Bible has been removed as the fundamental "common denominator" of the church, one does not wonder why churches look to cultural factors to try to make up for the lack of cohesion. How does a body of people hope to "speak the same things," when their Bibles are speaking different things?

I don't think revision is "necessary," if by that term is meant something which MUST be done. The AV functions very well as "the best allowed translation." There are many "helps" which are available to assist the reader and student, and the mintry should be well equipped to know how to feed the flock of God.

 

[Jack K]

Pastors have moved away from the KJV because they understand the Reformation principle that the Scriptures ought to be accessible to the people in their everyday language.

Sorry to be openly contradictory, Jack, but the idea you have presented is blatantly false. First, Scripture is "written" and is a literary language. Every day language is something entirely different to literary language. Even Tyndale's plough-boy would be given a Bible which was in a language far more technical than what he was accustomed to day by day. Secondly, literacy was not high at the reformation. The translations were intended to be used with a diligent use of the means and in immediate connection with a teaching ministry. This was as it should be. The idea that people should be able to pick up a Bible and understand it with ease is somewhat naive of what it means to be human and fallen. Thirdly, the reformers maintained the great principle of returning to the fountains. The concepts contained in the Bible are culturally removed from the lives of everyday people. Language reflects cultural occupation. The Bible abounds with terminology which is legal, sacrificial, royal, pastoral, familial, etc. These by nature will require a reader to accustom himself to the thought forms and terms which are used, and this can only be done by repetitive study. Every field has its technical nomenclature. Where there is interest in that field the individual will pick up the terms and their meanings over time. Fourthly, the reformation translations all ran in the catholic tradition. They were not intended to meet the needs of a generation but to accurately reflect the proper understanding of Scripture as it had been built up across the ages of the church. Finally, the reformers were well trained in the humanities. The concern was to produce accurate translations which conformed to academic standards and could stand the test of learned criticism.

All scholars agree that the Authorised Version was not written in the everyday language of the 17th century, and yet no one denies it became the classic work of the English language. If one reads 19th and 20th century appraisals, it is called "the common English Bible," and that is two to three hundred years after it was created. Nothing has been created which is worthy to take its place. Of many good translations King James' translators made a better one. Regrettably, of that better one, there has now emerged many inferior ones. We are to approve things that are excellent, not things that are inferior.

I probably should have chosen a better word. By "everyday" language I wasn't really thinking of a plough-boy's spoken language. Clearly the Bible is written language and in most places is far more technical, scholarly or poetic than that. I meant that rather than being in Latin or in a version of the local language that was several centuries old, the reformers were eager to have the Scriptures in the local language of the day. Not simplistic language, certainly... but still a language that the reader or listener would claim as his own current-day language. Am I wrong about that?

My point is that if all other considerations were pushed aside (not that they should be), that same principle would cause us to prefer what is accessible over what is not. I realize that Reformation-era translators did not shy away from difficult or obscure wording when it contributed to the richness or accuracy of the translation. But I've never heard that they chose such wording just because they believed that adding several layers of unnecessary difficulty—thus making the reader struggle to understand or causing him to feel like he was reading something foreign—would somehow be profitable in itself. Did they do that?

 

[MW]

but still a language that the reader or listener would claim as his own current-day language. Am I wrong about that?

Yes, I believe you are wrong about that. Tyndale made up words which eventually made their way into the English language through his version. As for the AV, every scholar recognises it was not in all respects the current language of its time and that it too contributed to the vernacular. Even the pronouns had already changed their significance and nuance, yet the AV employed them because it enabled them to accurately express the distinction between singular and plural.

"Current-day language" can only be established by contextual use. There is an ecclesiastical context where the AV continues to be used. That context establishes that the language of the AV is still in current use.

If one struggles to understand words he may look them up in a dictionary, if he has a will to learn.

 

[Jack K]

Tyndale made up words which eventually made their way into the English language through his version. As for the AV, every scholar recognises it was not in all respects the current language of its time and that it too contributed to the vernacular. Even the pronouns had already changed their significance and nuance, yet the AV employed them because it enabled them to accurately express the distinction between singular and plural.

Okay, and I've heard that before, but it still doesn't get at my point. Was Reformation-era thinking based on the idea that all else being equal, obscure and foreign-sounding was more profitable to the church than clear and accessible? Of course there are trade-offs. Of course there are situations where we will chose something more obscure because it's better for other reasons. But I've heard some people argue that obscure and foreign-sounding is inherently better because it's somehow good to make people work harder at studying—which is the only point I can't see any merit in at all.

I hope I'm not sounding argumentative. I find it helpful to discuss these things and appreciate the back-and-forth.

I'm currently an ESV guy. Many of the points you make clearly have much merit and deserve careful consideration. I think on an emotional level, though, accessibility carries a lot of weight with me... and it should. There's something about it that fits the gospel. It fits the way Christ came to us—humble and especially accessible to those who otherwise felt left out. Somehow, expecting people to know Christ better through first becoming familiar with 400-year-old language makes him seem to me too aloof and distant; too much a Savior of ecclesiastical specialists, and not enough a Savior of ordinary sinners.

 

[ZackF]

I hope I'm not sounding argumentative. I find it helpful to discuss these things and appreciate the back-and-forth.

I don't think you sound quarrelsome if that is what you mean. There is nothing wrong with argumentation. As time goes on I am becoming more and more convinced by KJV-Preferred points of view. However, I think there is a hierarchy to the reasoning. I find the issues surrounding liturgical and memorization continuity of the native English speaking church more convincing than that of the use of elevated language. If the KJV language is one or two notches above typical language usage in the 17th century, it is certainly eight or ten notches above today's "discourse." For years I allowed myself to be jaded and closed to the issue of KJV-Preferred entirely but I'm thawing out on the matter. The Winzers and Beekes of the world are to credit for that.

 

[KMK]

I think on an emotional level, though, accessibility carries a lot of weight with me...

If you give accessibility more weight than unity then no culture, community, church, or even family can be unified around God's Word. Each individual would need to have a version tailor made to fit their language context or they could complain that the Bible is not accessible enough for them.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

One of my favorite aspects of the Trinitarian Bible Society Windsor KJV that I use for my daily devotions and study is that in the back directly after the book of Revelation there is a "List of Words and Proper Names With Their Pronunciations" as well as a "Bible Word List". Both of these appendices provide all the help one would need to "understand" any word or phrase that might prove difficult. This is something my ESV Study Bible does not have even though most of these "hard to understand" words appear in both the KJV and the ESV.

As another example we use the KJV in our family devotions and our children have no more a hard time understanding the "thees and thous" than they would the "yous" in another translation. Now that they have been taught what "thee" means and what "ye" means it actually makes it easier to understand what Paul or John or whoever it might be is saying in a passage because I do not have to stop my reading and explain whether the "you" is plural or singular and to whom it is referring. (This of course is information that I can only share because I may be aware of the Greek/Hebrew underlying the translation.)

 

[Brian R.]

I love my TBS Westminster Reference Bible for the same reason- those tough words are defined in the margins.

By the way, just this morning I heard that familiar expression from a pastor: Alistair Begg (one of my favorites), preaching from Luke 2 in a 1999 sermon, "Now some of you remember that old King James Bible. It actually has a better translation here." There it is again!

Thanks to all of you for the feedback. It's been quite helpful.

 

[Phil D.]

First, I think "discard" (Merriam-Webster "to throw (something) away because it is useless or unwanted") is probably too strong a word in the context of the OP. Virtually all Reformed pastors (or non-Reformed for that matter) I am familiar with that use a more modern translation in their preaching still hold the KJV in very high regard.

Also, for as many times as I've heard a non-KJV preacher say "the KJV has a better/more nuanced rendering", I've just as often heard a KJV preacher feel the need to better explain his text with a "or as the XXX translation renders it"...

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

A good sermon on whether the KJV is a "hindrance" to missions can be heard here from the Rev. Hugh Cartwright of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland (who has recently passed away).

 

[Jack K]

I think on an emotional level, though, accessibility carries a lot of weight with me...

If you give accessibility more weight than unity then no culture, community, church, or even family can be unified around God's Word. Each individual would need to have a version tailor made to fit their language context or they could complain that the Bible is not accessible enough for them.

Of course. But that would only be the case if we give accessibility ALL the weight—a terrible idea. On the other extreme, if we give accessibility NO weight we should be using nothing but the Hebrew and Greek... or maybe Latin. We could be unified worldwide around Latin. It would force would-be Bible readers to get serious, train themselves, use dictionaries, and depend more on ministers to guide them through the Bible's teaching. But the Latin thing has been tried and found wanting.

In itself, accessibility is good and not bad. Declaring it a good thing does not mean we make it the ultimate thing.

 

[KMK]

On the other extreme, if we give accessibility NO weight we should be using nothing but the Hebrew and Greek... or maybe Latin.

This is irrelevant to this discussion because no one is arguing for such.

The English speaking church were, for the most part, unified around the KJV. You feel that times have changed and we must break unity with the English speaking church of the past and the present because the KJV is not 'accessible' enough. Therefore, you feel that accessibility is paramount to unity. If accessibility is consistently made more important than unity I don't see how you can avoid the scenario above.