earl40
Puritan Board Professor
I saith this is a valid point.
Why Did Pastors Discard the KJV?
- Thread starter Brian R.
- Start date
- Status
I saith this is a valid point.
Jack K
Puritan Board Doctor
Not really. I hardly want to "break away." I like unity with the church of the past. I think the confessions are good for us and necessary. I think many of the old hymns are wonderful and should be more widely sung. I love reading the Puritans and wish more people would do so. And I like the KJB Bible and appreciate many things about it. My copy sets on my nearest bookshelf and often finds its way to my work desk. I use my ESV more often, but that too I have chosen in large part because it intentionally retains more ties to the historical language of the English Scriptures than do many of the much more "accessible" new translations.
So do I feel accessibility is paramount to unity with the church of the past? I don't think so. Both seem to be affirmed biblically. I think I'd like to see a healthy measure of each, if we can manage that.
Do you think it is a good thing that Pastors stopped preaching from the Version that English speakers were unified around for hundreds of years because it was inaccessible? I don't see how that is not making accessibility paramount to unity.
Even if we assume your point, who gets to decide which version is accessible? Does each individual make that choice for himself based upon what is most accessible to him? Does each church make that choice for its congregation? Is it the head of the family that decides? Is it the Presbytery that decides? Eventually unity must take precedence or you end up with the scenario I described.
a mere housewife
Not your cup of tea
A question: do I not have unity with the church in China, or the ancient church Paul wrote to at Ephesus, because I use a different translation of the same Scriptures? I don't fully understand the argument about unity having to be around a particular translation?
Jack K
Puritan Board Doctor
An analogy: If I replace one serving of steak a week with a salad, this does not make me a vegetarian. It only means I acknowledge that, as much as I enjoy steak, salads are good too. In the same way, if I believe it was a good thing for some pastors to switch from the KJV (and in many instances I believe it was) it means I give up that particular bit of unity in favor of some badly needed accessibility. But I don't chuck out all unity in favor of endless accessibility. There are still many things I treasure that join us to believers of long ago. By giving up that one serving of steak I'm not necessarily making a statement about all steaks and salads.
I am gathering "obscure" and "foreign-sounding" is your evaluation of the AV. To me the NIV can be "obscure" and "foreign-sounding." One would have to prove the point before reformation-era thinking on that point became relevant. I can show contexts where the language of the AV is still used and must therefore be deemed relevant. It should be noted that "archaic" does not amount to "obscure" or "foreign." Archaisms are part and parcel of quality literature and regularly used to good effect. When one sees an article headed with "Love thy neighbour," I don't think there is any doubt as to the meaning. I can also show places where the NIV simply transliterates words and leaves the reader without any clue as to what is being referred to. Then there is the problem of an indefinite number in second person pronouns. Where the pronouns change in discourse the reader is regularly left with wrong impressions. "Ye (Jews) must be born again" becomes "You (Nicodemus) must be born again." One only needs to see a bumper-sticker to see the impact this obscure translation has had on the masses. "Ye (Jews) say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship" becomes "You (Jesus) say..." That is obscurity; and it occurs literally thousands of times throughout the modern translations.
I don't find anything wrong with clearly stating one's point of view, especially when it helps others to get to the core of an issue. So please speak as freely as you need.
I consider that to be a solid consideration. From my point of view, though, the value of accessibility must be determined by the value of the THING to be accessed. If accessibility means changing the nature of the translation so as to be either directly or indirectly misleading, the value of accessibility is diminished.
Ephesians 4 speaks of an unity to be maintained and an unity to be attained. The former is essential; the latter is instrumental. The one is established on the basis of things which are essential to being a believer in Christ; the other is reached through the ministerial gifts with which Christ has graced His church. "Speaking the same things" falls into the second category. The ministry gives us translations, creeds, confessions, catechisms, order, discipline, etc. Where there is division on these things the church is not speaking the same things, even though the essential unity of the church continues to be maintained.
It is odd that Presbyterians can agree on the importance of an unified subordinate standard but cannot agree that the same importance attaches to the supreme standard on which the subordinate standard ought to rest.
a mere housewife
Not your cup of tea
Thank you, Rev. Winzer: I am always grateful when you take the trouble to answer my questions.
I think of the Westminster Confession as translated into Spanish -- the Presbyterian Churches that hold to it use a different translation of the confession, and of the Scriptures, but I have never felt disunity with the confessing Spanish Presbyterians over that, or that they hold to a different standard. I understand that it would be a practical hindrance to the experience of unity if people are not bilingual. Is it not too far afield to think of what you have described from Eph. 4 as the 'elements and circumstances' of unity? Or am I misunderstanding still?
I think of the Westminster Confession as translated into Spanish -- the Presbyterian Churches that hold to it use a different translation of the confession, and of the Scriptures, but I have never felt disunity with the confessing Spanish Presbyterians over that, or that they hold to a different standard. I understand that it would be a practical hindrance to the experience of unity if people are not bilingual. Is it not too far afield to think of what you have described from Eph. 4 as the 'elements and circumstances' of unity? Or am I misunderstanding still?
Perhaps Turretin's distinction of verba and vox might come in helpful. They are obviously different words if rendered in a different language, but the meaning should be the same. If it were translated so as to give a different meaning that would certainly introduce division to the degree that the difference was of any importance.
I don't think that will work. Elements and circumstances must pertain to the same thing. The "unity" in this case is of two different kinds. One might see another truly believe and love the Lord and embrace that believer as such; however, one might see the same individual communing in an unlawful way and be obliged to withdraw from that communion. There is unity to be maintained in the first instance, but an unity which is not yet attained in the second.
No one is saying it 'has to be' but, as Rev Winzer said, being unified in language should be desired. I am simply arguing against the feeling that accessibility is obviously paramount to unity. What happened at Babel was a curse, not a blessing.
Do you believe that it is up to each individual to make this decision?
a mere housewife
Not your cup of tea
Then (please forgive me if I'm not grasping this readily: I want to make sure I am understanding all the distinctions) would 'speaking the same things' and the unity to be attained be able to apply only to people in the same language group -- who are able to use the same translation of the Scriptures or of the confession? Or was the verba/vox distinction with reference to the unity that is to be attained?
Caroline
Puritan Board Sophomore
Thank you for your clarifications. I had momentarily forgotten that your son is autistic, or actually failed to properly notice to whom I was replying.
So of course you are well aware of the challenges--and perhaps even more than me. I did not mean to imply that you were characterizing people that way--only that it effectively leads to that sometimes when people go too far in the pursuit of intellectual worship.
As soon as I defend one side, of course, I have a nagging idea that there is another side, and your post made me think of it again. I do love the intellect of Reformed churches, even as I protest sometimes against its excesses when my children struggle. But I despise the willful ignorance of many (well, nearly all) Pentecostal churches. It was an irony that Pentecostal churches that I attended were almost exclusively KJV, which I never really understood considering how they despised learning.
It is a balance that I do not know that I have yet found. I confess that I would not like to attend a church that sang simplistic Jesus-loves-me choruses, and yet sometimes I feel guilty that my children do not benefit much from the highly complex psalms and hymns. I do believe, however, that my church deeply loves my children, and love overcomes whatever insufficiency may exist in other realms. Their tenderness toward my son is wonderful, even while he is not the easiest kid to tolerate (he tends to talk loudly and right in people's faces, and has been known to shout, "Excuse me!" to the congregation when he burped during a sermon.) On the bright side, as an usher, he's quite a shake-down artist, as he tends to stand there holding the plate in front of people until they put something in it, sometimes going so far as to whisper, "Did you forget your money?", and the church has done better financially since Kevin joined the ushering team.
But all that just to say that I suppose sometimes my judgments are harsh. I like churches to consider how learning disabled people struggle to comprehend Reformed worship... and yet, ultimately, that doesn't even seem to be the main thing. Perhaps it means I have to teach them more at home, but they benefit from the love of the congregation, even if not directly from the preaching.
It only applies to translation, and I only thought it would be helpful because you mentioned people speaking other languages. People can speak the same thing in different languages, so I don't see why it should be limited to all speaking the same language. To clarify, "speak the same thing" comes from 1 Cor. 1:10. It is often used to support some degree of uniformity in the church's profession of faith and practice of godliness. Where the supreme standard in English differs from one person to another, one wonders from what source a body of people derives its ability to speak the same thing.
a mere housewife
Not your cup of tea
Thank you, Rev. Winzer. I had looked up 1 Cor. 1:10. I do love the way that section follows on in further chapters to the coherence of all things not in any particular minister or ministry but of all ministers and ministries in belonging to Christ, and Christ to God.
I think I understand what is being put forward better now. Thank you again for your time and care.
I think I understand what is being put forward better now. Thank you again for your time and care.
Jack K
Puritan Board Doctor
As we're talking about pastors choosing a translation to preach from, it's clearly not an individual matter but rather a case of one man (or perhaps an elder board or denomination) making that choice for an entire congregation. I do think it generally is good to let a pastor, who knows his particular church, make a choice that takes into account their needs... much as he might tailor a sermon to specific issues his church ought to address. Certainly he would be wise to choose from within the bounds of well-tested translations that the wider church finds to have merit, and to consider many other factors besides just accessibility.
I don't see it so much as a matter of personal preference but rather an issue of wise, thoughtful shepherding.
Let me ask one question of the AV-insistent folks here:
what do you do with a sizable number of folks in your congregation for whom English is not a first language? Do you have Brazilians, Mexicans, or Argintines in your congregation? (we do, up to a quarter of our congregation) What would you do if they wanted to come - and obviously could not handle the English of the KJV? Would you insist that they use it because "it is good for them" and "it is not that hard" and "it is proper English"? Or would you tell them if they could not hack it, they should go elsewhere (which would probably be at least an Arminian Church, if not a Health and Wealth Church)?
what do you do with a sizable number of folks in your congregation for whom English is not a first language? Do you have Brazilians, Mexicans, or Argintines in your congregation? (we do, up to a quarter of our congregation) What would you do if they wanted to come - and obviously could not handle the English of the KJV? Would you insist that they use it because "it is good for them" and "it is not that hard" and "it is proper English"? Or would you tell them if they could not hack it, they should go elsewhere (which would probably be at least an Arminian Church, if not a Health and Wealth Church)?
Seriously, your answer is to have my people use a bilingual Bible in the name of "unity?" (By the way, Brazilians speak Portuguese.)
I agree.
OK. I get it now. In order to have "unity" around "one" English version, I am to encourage a polyglot usage of all sorts of languages, so that people can understand the Bible when they can't understand the English version we "have" to use, instead of just using an English version that everyone could understand. That makes all sorts of sense.
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
During the 2011 anniversary year of the KJV, I did all of my devotions in it and quite a bit of reading about it. Hey, I even purchased a 12" x 17" page out of a first edition of the KJV and have it framed and on the wall in my office. Jeanette and I also have a full size (12" by 17" page) facsimile of the first edition proudly displayed in our living room (the thing weighs a TON!). It is a literary masterpiece and harkens back to an era when the majority of biblical scholars were orthodox believing scholars.
As one old enough to remember when sermons in most churches were preached from the KJV (unless you were liberal and heard the RSV), I lament the cacophony of differences in English wording that has contributed to a diminution of the practice of Bible memorization, for instance. However, unless 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. And, in our multilingual America of today, Fred raises some important points about communication in church. Our last congregation before moving from CA to IN had 45% Chinese and 35% Hispanic with most of them having only rudimentary English skills.
The other issue that I ruminate over is the one of appropriate text. Despite my basic embrace of the CT (hey, I use the ESV primarily despite my appreciation for the KJV and NKJV), I am still not convinced that an obviously corrupt manuscript (Codex Sinaiticus) should be privileged just because it is old. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus differ from one another in more than 3,000 places (3,036 if you follow Hoskier's count). Yes, they are old, but so are the 2nd and 3rd century heresies popular in some parts of Egypt, the provenance of the so-called Alexandrian texts.
Still, inside baseball arguments about text notwithstanding, the Gospel and all doctrines we count as true are clear and evident in all of the major English translations we have today. My claim is still that the best translation is the one you will actually read.
As one old enough to remember when sermons in most churches were preached from the KJV (unless you were liberal and heard the RSV), I lament the cacophony of differences in English wording that has contributed to a diminution of the practice of Bible memorization, for instance. However, unless 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. And, in our multilingual America of today, Fred raises some important points about communication in church. Our last congregation before moving from CA to IN had 45% Chinese and 35% Hispanic with most of them having only rudimentary English skills.
The other issue that I ruminate over is the one of appropriate text. Despite my basic embrace of the CT (hey, I use the ESV primarily despite my appreciation for the KJV and NKJV), I am still not convinced that an obviously corrupt manuscript (Codex Sinaiticus) should be privileged just because it is old. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus differ from one another in more than 3,000 places (3,036 if you follow Hoskier's count). Yes, they are old, but so are the 2nd and 3rd century heresies popular in some parts of Egypt, the provenance of the so-called Alexandrian texts.
Still, inside baseball arguments about text notwithstanding, the Gospel and all doctrines we count as true are clear and evident in all of the major English translations we have today. My claim is still that the best translation is the one you will actually read.
Last edited:
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
I would posit (but I could be wrong) that most of the AV-insistent folks don't have a sizable number of folks for whom English is the primary language, much less a sizable number for whom English isn't the primary language.
JoannaV
Puritan Board Sophomore
Providing bilingual Bibles would seem helpful either way. It would allow for easier understanding in the moment, when the English is too confusing, and would also help in learning English. And then the choice of translation might depend on which source texts were used for the foreign translation. (Better to be using the same texts!)
kvanlaan
Puritan Board Doctor
Exactly - it enlightens the reader rather than obscuring the message. But yes, it does take study to fully appreciate the depth of the meaning (but not as much as you might think!)
Funny thing is, I look at the 'congregation; around our dinner table and see 40% of the listeners non-native speakers. Five years ago, not a word of English was spoken by them, but we used the 1599 Geneva right from the beginning. Now we have three Africans who can wade into the original of "Romeo and Juliet" without blinking - and we actually had that from early on. It is a matter of teaching, not translation. And yes, the depth of understanding of the passage is, I think, greatly improved over that of the NIV in part because of the language.
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
I've got 66% at the dinner table.
Jesus is my friend
Puritan Board Junior
I love threads like this!,trying to keep it simple here though,I love the KJV,for two main reasons1.)it and the NKJV were what I grew up as a Christian with,and I thought why change? memorization is hard enough for me to try and memorize another few takes on the same verse would be very difficult for me and less fruitful 2) all the great teachers/preachers/theologians of old (Puritans,etc.) quoted from it extensively in their books/sermons,why confuse myself listening to different readings when it can a nice fit with the KJV 
irresistible_grace
Puritan Board Junior
I have said it before elsewhere that I loved the ESV since I first read it cover to cover in 2008. I have since made the switch to the AV & though I made up several excuse early on about the KJV being too difficult to read, I am glad I made the switch because now I am actually able to comprehend what I am reading much better (not just as it relates to the AV but to early Reformed literature as well).
I do believe parallel/bilingual Bibles are "an" answer not necessarily "the" answer to Rev. Greco's [hypothetical] question concerning congregations with large numbers of people that speak ESL. Because, dumbing things down is not typically the best way to build others up. If those who speak Spanish or Portuguese as their first language (ESL) had a parallel/bilingual Bible with the AV it would be far more edifying & unifying than some of the comments in this thread are charitable.
I do believe parallel/bilingual Bibles are "an" answer not necessarily "the" answer to Rev. Greco's [hypothetical] question concerning congregations with large numbers of people that speak ESL. Because, dumbing things down is not typically the best way to build others up. If those who speak Spanish or Portuguese as their first language (ESL) had a parallel/bilingual Bible with the AV it would be far more edifying & unifying than some of the comments in this thread are charitable.
- Status
