JackHammer

2 Trackbacks & Pingbacks

1. February 28, 2007 05:21

   A Good Post Over at JackHammer « Delve into the Depths :

2. April 6, 2007 08:06

   JackHammer » A Follow-up and Clarification on the “Update” Issue :

45 Comments

1. 
   1

   Donald Johnson

   Dave, your last point probably makes your plea impossible to realize. First, a whole host of KJO churches simply will not receive such an updated version. Second, the vast majority of evangelical churches have already received other versions, primarily the NIV. Finally, from the leftish wing of sorta fundamentalism to the sorta center of real fundamentalism has pretty much moved on to receive the theory at least of the CT and thus is receiving either the NAS or the ESV.

   So who does that leave you with to receive your hoped for updated KJV? Not only a small market, which may or may not be able to bear the cost, but also a minority market. Let’s just say that you somehow can achieve a plan of creating an updated KJV, offered to the churches to receive it. This small minority accepts it but how is it then ‘received’ by the ‘churches’ as per Kent’s test? Presumably you could discount some of the evangelicals as ‘not true churches’, but how are you going to come up with enough churches to receive your update to declare that this new version is actually received by the churches and therefore is authoritative?

   I think you have a pretty big hill to climb to achieve your own test. I’d say you are stuck with the 1769 for another 500 years!

   Regards,
   Don Johnson
   Jer 33.3

   February 24th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
   
   
2. 
   2

   William Dudding

   An updated KJV has already been made, but it’s not too well known. The link to it is here: http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/index.php?action=getVersionInfo&vid=48&lang=2

   and here:

   http://www.kj21.com/

   Check it out, it’s not a new translation, just an update on the 1769.
   I’d prefer this one if it were more widespread and available for purchase.

   February 24th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
   
   
3. 
   3

   reglerjoe

   I’ve had the same thoughts as Don.

   Most evangelicals are happy with their modern versions.
   Most KJVO churches would never receive an updated KJV.
   That leaves the “receivers” of an updated KJV in quite the minority, which, as Don pointed out, would not pass your test of church reception.

   February 24th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
   
   
4. 
   4

   Kent Brandenburg

   Here’s a good critique of the KJ21. I don’t give blanket endorsement to critiques, so when I say it is legitimate, I think it is.

   Few questions, Don and Joe:
   1) Why is recognition or reception by churches only our test and not an exegetical and historically Scriptural test and, therefore, your test too?
   2) Why would NT churches not look for recognition or reception from churches from whom we would separate and with whom we would not fellowship?
   3) What recognition could we get from churches who do not believe in any settled Bible? Isn’t it true that they would recognize it as long as the doctrines were essentially all there and at least 93% of the Words?

   February 24th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
   
   
5. 
   5

   Steve Bates

   Don said:
   “Finally, from the leftish wing of sorta fundamentalism to the sorta center of real fundamentalism has pretty much moved on to receive the theory at least of the CT and thus is receiving either the NAS or the ESV.

   ”

   Don,
   Perhaps you and I would differ on what is one of the Lord’s candlesticks (I believe those holding to the position you are espousing are in danger of losing their candlestick status - if they do not repent cf. Rev. 2-3, et al.) However, I think you vastly and grossly underestimate the number of and the faith of many of the Lord’s candlesticks. I do not believe that the majority of the Lord’s churches have moved away from a “receieved text” position. Most, IMO, have rejected the CT/MT/ET/etc position and hold to the translations of the “Received text.” Many of these candlesticks (often because of their refusal to bow the knee to unbelief) are small and insignificant in the eyes of the world and much of self-professed Bible scholarship (I believe your “center of real Fundamentalism”), but they are still many.

   February 24th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
   
   
6. 
   6

   Steve Bates

   By the way, hammer guys - I have enjoyed very much these series of articles. I have printed several and given to some of the men of the church that I pastor. Beneficial to me have been the comments. Thanks!

   February 24th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
   
   
7. 
   7

   Anvil

   Pastor B., if that critique you posted is the best there is, it’s pretty sad indeed. Before hammering it, the critique admits that the important things are still there — i.e. no textual changes and no doctrinal changes. You’d think that would be the most important thing, but no. If it were, the article couldn’t move on to dismiss that translation as it would any, which is obvious from the last part of the article.

   The critique proceeds to criticize, in upper case, no less, such horrible things the copyright and the unpleasing typeface. Wow! Those really are heretical, and important indeed, especially compared to doctrine and the very words of God. It moves on to the very thing we are discussing here — changing into more modern language. The article claims that it was unnecessary to change “unto” to “toward.” Maybe everyone will understand “unto” just fine, but in reality, how often is that word used in modern conversation when not a special title or quoting something old?

   The article goes on to say that the Bible is ecumenical because it has recommendations from Catholics, an Anglican, and a Lutheran. Well, the KJV has recommendations from Anglicans (after all, they produced it), as well as from many cults, and sects, and yet we still recommend it. The TR is used directly by the Greek Orthodox, but that doesn’t make us disqualify it either.

   Sadly, and this is the biggest part of the criticism, it moves on to criticize the KJ21 because its text is being used to produce a different Bible. Most of the article after that point criticizes that new work, knocking down that straw man, and hoping you’ll think the same about the KJ21 (or at least be suspicious of those who produced it).

   Finally, the article is written by someone who admits he doesn’t even believe any update is necessary, so I guess he would be one of those who would not accept your theoretical new translation either. If this reviewer is one who would not receive the new work, why is his opinion on the KJ21 even of interest to you? There may be critiques of the KJ21 that would be useful. That wasn’t one of them.

   February 24th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
   
   
8. 
   8

   reglerjoe

   Kent, I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.

   Are you saying that as long as churches that are like yours receive an updated KJV, then the KJV2.0 would meet the Scritpural test of church-reception?

   Are you saying that KJV2.0 could never become widely popular and still be considered the inerrant Word of God for the English people?

   February 24th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
   
   
9. 
   9

   Kent Brandenburg

   OK, I mean this in a good way, but this has been entertaining. The last couple I got a chuckle, not in a mocking way, but in a real chukles kind of way.

   OK, Anvil. I’m glad you’re here. I don’t think typeface is very meaningful, no, but I would assume that you would understand that I don’t mean blanket endorsement. That is part of what got a chuckle, the typeface critique. That I would have left out. I’m laughing right now thinking about writing a critique with something about the typeface. No disrespect to David Cloud. OK. I’m done laughing, well, almost. Maybe I’m tired, or it could have been the wrestling match I was just in with my family before bed time.

   I didn’t want to rehash his critique. I thought that changing certain phrases went further than an “update,” and, yes, I thought the ecumenism made it a legitimate critique. I knew someone might mention that Anglicans, but I have now said about five times, that it isn’t the Anglicans on the translation committee but the recognition by the churches that make it good. I think some of what Cloud said will result in not giving it recognition—yes, who did it, including the company who did it (not a church).

   Steve, I think you have a good point about there being many, many churches. Don, that would be good for you to know. I preached at a conference in South Dakota that had 60 plus pastors in it that were all KJV, not at all of the Hyles variety. South Dakota. Small church.

   Joe, regler, you had some loaded terminology there, so I’m not sure what you mean. I mean NT, and you said “like yours.” If by “like yours” you mean NT, then I say “yes.” Steve has it when he says, “candlesticks.” You won’t hear this kind of thing on Pyromaniacs usually because they are very b r o a d in their ecclesiology and their view of unity (they’re not separatists in a Scriptural sense). I think that the words behind the KJV21 are already the Bible for the English speaking people, but I don’t think the KJV21 will be viewed as legitimate because it does have problems that churches like mine (ours) will find too much for settling on it as a translation to use. I don’t think a church should become loosey-goosey with translations, i.e., “Oh, any one of those is fine!” The Bible is a special book that shouldn’t be treated so flippantly, which is common place on that side of the ledger. A company that looks for an endorsement from the Catholics will be hard-pressed to get reception from true churches.

   February 24th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
   
   
10. 
    10

    Donald Johnson

    Hey, Kent… how many churches does it take to receive a Bible?

    The reason I jumped in on this thread is that it just seems to me that you all are getting into somewhat circular reasoning here. As I understand your view, a major basis for your position is that the churches received the KJV. Fine, I agree that the KJV certainly won the day in the 1600s through at least the late 1800s and beyond among the majority of English speaking churches. Even in the 1900s the newer versions really didn’t get much traction until the NIV came along.

    Quite frankly, that is a strong argument in support of your point of view.

    But now you are arguing for a much smaller segment of ‘the churches’ to receive an updated KJV and that is just fine you say because though a small segment of the overall total of churches, they are the ‘right kind’ of churches. (Or else the others are not really churches at all.)

    But if the others aren’t the right kind, or are not really churches at all, how many of those thousands and tens of thousands of churches that received the KJV in its day were the right kind of churches? Does their reception of the KJV mean anything or not?

    Or perhaps your view is that the thousands and tens of thousands of churches from the 1600s to the present day who received the KJV (but weren’t really the right kind of churches) are irrelevant. Could it be that the only thing that matters is if the right kind of churches receive a version is all that matters? But what does that do to your argument in favor of the Received Text and the Received Version?

    Do you see how these points of view seem contradictory? Or is it just me?

    BTW, I am not arguing for anything on this. I hope you know that. I am probing to understand your position.

    Regards,
    Don Johnson
    Jer 33.3

    February 25th, 2007 at 12:07 am
    
    
11. 
    11

    Kent Brandenburg

    I think you ask legitimate questions, Don, and these things are actually clear in my mind (I’m not making this up as I go). The majority of “churches” did receive the KJV. However, what I would say that I care about, Scripturally, is that the true churches did. All churches did, so true churches certainly did too. As we look at the possibility of an update, I would respect true churches. I don’t trust the others. That’s the difference between one point in time and another. I would think that you see what I mean. Can you imagine trusting the judgment of the non-separatists to decide these things? I wouldn’t think so. The churches received the KJV. An update really doesn’t change the doctrine of preservation. I’m talking about what I believe churches like ours would accept/recognize.

    Thanks.

    February 25th, 2007 at 12:26 am
    
    
12. 
    12

    Bill Hardecker

    I really like the idea that Dr. D.A. Waite and Bible For Today staff did with the “Defined King James Bible.” I am surprised we don’t see more of that kind of KJV ‘updates.’

    February 25th, 2007 at 6:41 am
    
    
13. 
    13

    Donald Johnson

    Kent, here are a couple of quotes from your earlier post on the ‘how’ of preservation:

    The churches received God’s Words as led by the Holy Spirit, so it is no wonder that the terminology used to name their first printed copies in 1633 was textus receptus (TR), the mindset of God’s churches through history. As the Holy Spirit bore witness in the believer’s hearts to the Words of God, they received them.

    The English speaking people had uniquely responded to the Word of God. They, more than any one culture, devoted themselves to the Bible in their own language. After their finest scholars finished their translation of the Bible in 1611 (the King James Version), their churches agreed upon it as the Word of God. The Words of God were settled for the people of God. For at least 300 years after, the KJV was the Bible for God’s English-speaking believers. The Spirit canonized the Words of Scripture through the churches.

    You seem to be saying here that it is the acceptance of the English speaking churches that makes the KJV the received version for English. That seems to be different from what you are saying above, i.e., that the only ones whose reception of the KJV counts is the ‘true churches’.

    It also seems to me that from our perspective, there were precious few ‘true churches’ in existence at that time. Every one of the KJV translators were Church of England men, regardless of whether they supported the Puritans or not. Does the reception of the KJV depend only on those few ‘true churches’?

    Regards,
    Don Johnson
    Jer 33.3

    February 25th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
    
    
14. 
    14

    Dave Mallinak

    Don,

    In answer to your first comment…

    Are you a pessimist? (I’m smiling, outwardly…) I’m not hopeless that we can persuade people to return to the historic doctrine of Providential Preservation.

    As far as the question of which churches should be involved and what level of agreement we would want, let me say that we would be looking for a consensus among churches who believe that God has Providentially and Perfectly Preserved His Word. Frankly, we don’t believe that the Theological Forensic Scientists can handle the work of translation adequately. So, we would look for a consensus amongst churches who take the historic position of Providential and Perfect Preservation.

    We believe that this can happen, and we hope in less than 500 years. Mainly because I’m not planning to be around then. I would like to see this in the not too distant future. Optimistically. Realistically, I’d like to see it started before I die.

    February 26th, 2007 at 9:17 am
    
    
15. 
    15

    Kent Brandenburg

    Don,

    At this moment I’m seeing this for the first time. You are not reading me properly. Perhaps I could have been clearer, but I have already been fairly long in this forum.

    I wrote this, that you quoted: “The English speaking people had uniquely responded to the Word of God.” That sets up the whole paragraph. There is a reason why the English sent the missionaries all over the world and now the United States. Who else had and has done this? No one. Very few other nations send out missionaries. If they do, it is from churches that were started by English-speaking missionaries. The Bible was accepted by the English. That’s why God has blessed America. You know the providence of the sinking of the Spanish Armada. I recognize that we have other English speaking countries too—Canada and Australia among several others. That is where the Bible is honored. Look at South America, the other European countries, Russia, France, etc.

    So when I talk churches, Don, I am talking English. You get acceptance from the English churches and you get acceptance from the churches. Even in the foreign language versions, they are translated at least from the TR as well, so they are in the line. But since we believe in perfection, availiability, every Word, then we look to see what the churches accepted and recognized. We look to see where providence is.

    I know you are not using it as a red herring, but the KJV translators being Anglicans and Puritans is a red herring. I know they did the work, but the English churches accepted it. It might be few churches, since few there be that find it (Mt. 7:13, 14), but they are the large majority of true churches that accepted and recognized and received those Words.

    If that is not true, could you give me the true alternative to it? I don’t think it is hard to know the history of these things. Would you say that God’s providential hand has been upon some other group than English speaking countries, Don?

    February 26th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
    
    
16. 
    16

    Anvil

    Pastor B., as someone who is KJVP, I agree with you that the “Anglican KJV Translators” argument is mostly a red herring. The only reason it keeps coming up (at least from me) is because of people more or less on your side. Whether it is Wescott/Hort or the NAS translators, the Qumran behind the DSS, etc., etc., the KJVO guys keep hammering that aspect (including that critique you linked to, and, at least in one footnote, your book TSKT). When they do, they should realize that then it’s only fair to question the guys behind the KJV in the same fashion, because the same arguments apply.

    You are probably correct that having 2 Catholics, an Anglican, and a Lutheran recommend a new translation will probably be a big minus to many of the KJVO persuasion, and will make that translation a hard sell. My point though, is given the background of the KJV, why should that really be a factor? If the churches could accept the KJV because it’s a good translation, and in spite of the positions of the men that worked on it, they could do the same for a new translation, even if it weren’t done by strictly local-church-only men.

    Like Pastor Johnson, I don’t see a lot of men/churches on your side of the issue that will be willing to change to ANY other translation than the KJV, at least for a VERY long time. The circumstances surrounding the acceptance of the KJV were somewhat unique, including the fact that there was a desire by some to get rid of the hated Geneva, as well as the desire to unite all of England under one translation (and not coincidentally, one church). God used all of this providentially, including the fact that many in the true churches did not want or use the KJV for a long time, though it eventually prevailed. I can imagine any future widespread acceptance of a single more-modern version having just about as tortured a path, but I can’t see how having a modern publishing house or men not exactly of your persuasion involved would invalidate the work, any more than it did in 1611.

    And what about the NKJV? It may never reach a critical mass, but what if it does? Does that mean all of the churches that accept it no longer have a candlestick, or would it mean that acceptance validates it? I know you wouldn’t find it acceptable, but many non-CT men do. My pastor, for one, is seriously considering it.

    February 26th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
    
    
17. 
    17

    Bob Hayton

    The comments here seem to have picked up the theme of the Churches/How post, so I’ll comment here.

    As has been brought up here in the comments by Pastor Johnson and Anvil and others, there are many questions and concerns with the issue of church reception. I want to raise a few of those questions and include those already brought up here. To simplify, I’ll discuss these questions under three headings: 1) the nature of “reception” 2) the nature of “church” 3) the “open-ended” question.

    1) So what is the nature of “reception”? From the position advocated by the authors here at jackhammr.org (Many thanks, by the way for briniging up the issue and allowing comments and interaction here. I believe people on both sides of the issue have been helped by the interchange.) it would seem that “reception” is a kind of official endorsement. Because the churches received the KJV, for instance, we know where to look if we want to find each and every word of God.

    But is this really the case? Did the churches ratify, if you will, the KJV? Did they “receive” it? Well, for starters, there are no official church documents or proceedings that I am aware of which indicate that only the KJV is to be used or treated as God’s Word in English. At least not until the late 1900s.

    We do know that among separatist and Puritan churches, the Geneva was preferred for upwards of 100 years after the KJV was born. It seems that eventually the KJV won the day because it was a better translation, not because it was officially sanctioned or received.

    Could we say the KJV was “received” because it was the best English version available? When we look at the TR, for instance, did the churches receive that and ratify it? Or did they use the only printed text widely available to them? Church leaders like Calvin, Beza, Turretin, Wesley, and etc., found an error here and an error there in the TR. They had no qualms departing from that printed text in favor of other manuscript copies available. So did they really “receive” the TR?

    All the quotes in jackhammr’s latest post, really don’t prove much. They show that many people assumed the Greek and Hebrew copies of Scripture that they possessed were pure copies of the original text. They don’t argue explicitly that the TR is to be understood as a carbon copy of the original text. Rather they saw preservation to be in the body of manuscripts then available. And indeed in that same body of manuscripts for the most part, every reading in the critical text today could be found (except for perhaps less than 1%). And I am willing to allow that we should deny that 1% and go with the body of manuscripts God had available in the 1500s and 1600s as the preferred manuscripts to start with. All that being said, however, where is the evidence that the churches ratified, or received the TR as identical to the original texts?

    2) Quickly, now, lets deal with “church”. As was demonstrated earlier by others, when it comes to judging whether the KJV/TR was “received” by the churches, any old “church” will do. Any confessing, evangelical church counts. But when we start looking at the matter of revising the KJV today, which jackhammr supports, it will only work if “true church”es endorse/receive it. So here we have a change in what constitutes a church.

    They will counter that a majority of “true church”es received the KJV anyway, so that point is moot. But I’ll go into that issue with point 3.

    One last issue regarding this point was recently raised, that of nationality and language. Pastor Brandenburg affirms that only the English church’s “reception” should really matter, because they obviously have received the Bible more than other nationalities. God’s blessing is on the English more so than on others.

    But was it so in 1611? Then the Germans and Swiss by far had more numbers of Godly people and churches. And while the Enlgish did do much for missions, it was the Moravians who first sent missionaries all over the world. They had the famous 100 year long prayer meeting (people prayed in shifts without stopping for 100 years) and they sent thousands of missionaries around the world. Why is it not the Bible that they used which is the “received” version which holds each and every word of the original Scripture? Also, the Dutch utilized the 1633 Elzevir’s TR for their Estates-General version which is the KJV’s equal with regard to literary beauty and faithfulness to the text. Why is not their version the one? Remember the Pilgrims took refuge from pagan England with its oppressive leadership in the Netherlands.

    3) Lastly, is this “reception” in any sense “open-ended”? Apparently it is, since you are for a revision of the KJV. But that is only a revision.

    If the “reception” was such a hard and fast ratification of the text, why is it true that God’s people and Godly churches have “received” different texts in the past, and “received” different texts later? For instance, in the 13 and 1400s, God’s people in England received a translation that Wycliffe made from the Latin Vulgate. They readily used it and loved it and treasured it as God’s Word. The same is true of some work done by John Huss, I believe, in Germany. Furthermore, the evidence we have overwhelmingly points to the fact that the Waldensians used a Bible that was translated from the Latin Vulgate also.

    Then, in the 1800s, the Baptists sponsored different Bibles primarily in an effort to get “immerse” as the translation for “baptizo”. Yet their Bibles did agree with some of the current textual findings of their day. These were definitely “true churches”. And they were all for departing from the KJV and the TR in places! So was God really leading them to do this? Was this a failed “reception”?

    Lastly, many Baptists today use the NKJV. In fact Baptists and other conservative church people were involved in the translation work of the NKJV. And I would guess that Baptists use the NKJV more than any other church group does today. How is this not God leading his churches to receive an updated and slightly better version than the KJV?

    All of these questions unite to make many Bible loving people disagree with the conclusions of the authors of jackhammr. We unite with them on many important issues, but in this regard, it is not such a simple open and shut case. We can be thankful for the KJV. It is a wonderful translation, and the TR was a wonderful gift to God’s church. But I can’t agree that it has been “ratified” by God’s churches to the extent that the authors here claim.

    In Christ,

    Bob Hayton

    P.S. My Bible and the KJV posts will continue tomorrow, Lord willing. Sorry for the wait.

    February 26th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
    
    
18. 
    18

    Donald Johnson

    Hi Kent

    Back after a day of laying laminate flooring… the end of the reno project is in sight!

    Just a quick one… I think there is not much more to say on this thread, but I do want to answer the question of providence.

    Of course in God’s providence, the KJV was translated and was mightily used by God in the building of his church among the English speaking world (though it is in mighty decline in Canada, sad to say). I have no trouble seeing that or affirming it enthusiastically.

    But let me ask you this: has God’s providence stopped working? Is it possible that the multiple translations on the market today are not the working of God’s providence?

    Regards,
    Don Johnson
    Jer 33.3

    February 26th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
    
    
19. 
    19

    Kent Brandenburg

    Bob’s material in small print and MINE IN LARGE.
    1) So what is the nature of “reception”? FIRST, WE BELIEVE IN RECEPTION. WE BELIEVE IN SETTLING. WE BELIEVE IN AVAILABILITY. WE BELIEVE IN A PERFECT BIBLE. THE NATURE OF RECEPTION IS USAGE AND RECOGNITION BY TRUE CHURCHES. WHAT ABOUT CANONICITY? WHAT IS THAT? THE HOLY SPIRIT GUIDED CHURCHES TO THE CORRECT BOOKS. A MIRACLE. HERE HE GUIDES THEM TO THE CORRECT WORDS, AN ACTUAL SCRIPTURAL POSITION. IT IS A MATTER OF FAITH. IF SOMEONE DOESN’T BELIEVE IN PERFECTION AND AVAILABILITY, EVERY WORD, VERBAL PLENARY PRESERVATION, THEN THEY WILL NOT AGREE WITH US. PLEASE CATCH THAT LAST SENTENCE. THAT IS THE CRUX OF THIS ISSUE. SCRIPTURAL PRESUPPOSITIONS.

    But is this really the case? Did the churches ratify, if you will, the KJV? Did they “receive” it? Well, for starters, there are no official church documents or proceedings that I am aware of which indicate that only the KJV is to be used or treated as God’s Word in English. CHURCHES USED THE KJV. CHURCHES USED 66 BOOKS. CHURCHES USED 27 BOOKS OF THE NT. THEY RECOGNIZED THE KJV AS THE WORD OF GOD. THE PEOPLE IN CHURCHES RECOGNIZED IT AS INSPIRED AND PERFECTLY PRESERVED. THERE WASN’T A VOTE, JUST LIKE THERE WAS NO VOTE ON CANONICITY.

    We do know that among separatist and Puritan churches, the Geneva was preferred for upwards of 100 years after the KJV was born. It seems that eventually the KJV won the day because it was a better translation, not because it was officially sanctioned or received.

    THE KJV UNIFIED ENGLISH SPEAKING BELIEVERS. THAT’S WHAT WE KNOW. REMEMBER THAT THERE ARE VERY MINOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE GENEVA AND THE KJV. THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY IN THE SAME FAMILY. YES, I KNOW THAT ISN’T A PERFECT PRESERVATION OBSERVATION, BUT IT IS A RECOGNITION OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS. THE KJV SETTLED WHAT WAS THE BIBLE.

    Could we say the KJV was “received” because it was the best English version available? When we look at the TR, for instance, did the churches receive that and ratify it? Or did they use the only printed text widely available to them? Church leaders like Calvin, Beza, Turretin, Wesley, and etc., found an error here and an error there in the TR. They had no qualms departing from that printed text in favor of other manuscript copies available. So did they really “receive” the TR?

    THE POSITION WAS WHEN AN ERROR IN ONE COPY, CORRECT IT WITH THE OTHER. SINCE WE BELIEVE GOD GUIDES US INTO TRUTH, AND THE BIBLE IS PERFECT, WE TRUST GOD WOULD DO THAT. YOU DON’T TRUST THAT HE WOULD DO THAT, SO YOU DON’T ASSUME IT. WE BELIEVE HE WOULD USE THE CHURCH LIKE MANY THAT I QUOTED BELIEVED AND THAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. THE KJV IS WHAT THE CHURCHES SETTLED ON FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS.

    All the quotes in jackhammr’s latest post, really don’t prove much.

    YOUR VERY BIASED OPINION. PERHAPS YOU SHOULD READ AGAIN. THEY BELIEVED THEY HAD A PERFECT BIBLE.

    All that being said, however, where is the evidence that the churches ratified, or received the TR as identical to the original texts?

    THEY BELIEVED THEY HAD ONE AND USED IT. SEE AGAIN CONFESSIONS AND QUOTES FROM THOSE WHO WROTE IT, AND THOSE WERE FAMILIAR WITH THOSE WHO WROTE IT. THIS WAS THE POSITION OF BELIEVERS.

    2) Quickly, now, lets deal with “church”. As was demonstrated earlier by others, when it comes to judging whether the KJV/TR was “received” by the churches, any old “church” will do. Any confessing, evangelical church counts.

    I’VE ANSWERED THIS, BUT MAYBE YOU ARE CHOOSING TO IGNORE IT OR YOU MISSED IT. I SAID THAT THE CHURCHES AGREED, SO THIS IS A MOOT POINT. THE TRUE CHURCHES AGREED WITHIN THE MAJORITY OF CHURCHES THAT AGREED.

    But when we start looking at the matter of revising the KJV today, which jackhammr supports, it will only work if “true church”es endorse/receive it. So here we have a change in what constitutes a church.

    WE’VE NEVER CHANGED ON THIS. YOU CAN’T FIND A QUOTE THAT SAYS WE’VE CHANGED.

    But was it so in 1611?

    THIS IS AKIN TO THE KJV TRANSLATORS WERE ANGLICANS ARGUMENT. WE LOOK AT WHAT GOD DID AND WE AGREE THAT HIS PROVIDENTIAL HAND WAS ON THE KJV. THE SWISS AND THE DUTCH HAD SOMETHING FROM THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS, BUT WE SEE GOD’S PROVIDENCE WITH THE ENGLISH. SO THAT YOU DON’T MAKE A RACIAL OR CULTURAL ARGUMENT, IT DOESN’T RELATE TO THAT.

    Why is it not the Bible that they used which is the “received” version which holds each and every word of the original Scripture? Also, the Dutch utilized the 1633 Elzevir’s TR for their Estates-General version which is the KJV’s equal with regard to literary beauty and faithfulness to the text. Why is not their version the one? Remember the Pilgrims took refuge from pagan England with its oppressive leadership in the Netherlands.

    I’M HAPPY ABOUT THE BIBLE THAT THEY DO HAVE. REMEMBER THE PRESUPPOSITIONS. REMEMBER WHAT WE THEREFORE WOULD BE LOOKING FOR. THOSE VERSIONS ARE SO CLOSE THAT THIS IS NOT A MAJOR ISSUE. IS YOUR THING NOT TO KNOW THE WORDS? IT SEEMS THE MVO SIDE IS A PRO-DON’T-KNOW, NO ONE CAN KNOW, WE DON’T HAVE PERFECTION POSITION.

    3) Lastly, is this “reception” in any sense “open-ended”? Apparently it is, since you are for a revision of the KJV. But that is only a revision.

    WE WOULD BE TRANSLATING FROM THE SAME WORDS, SO THIS IS A MOOT POINT. IT ISN’T OPEN-ENDED ON AGREEING THAT THE WORDS ARE GOING TO CHANGE. IF WE HAVE SOMETHING PERFECT, THEN WE DON’T WANT IT TO CHANGE. IT IS LIKE THE NATURE OF GOD, IMMUTABLE.

    If the “reception” was such a hard and fast ratification of the text, why is it true that God’s people and Godly churches have “received” different texts in the past, and “received” different texts later? For instance, in the 13 and 1400s, God’s people in England received a translation that Wycliffe made from the Latin Vulgate. They readily used it and loved it and treasured it as God’s Word. I CAN’T PROVE EVERYTHING FOR YOU. I BASED MY VIEW ON WHAT SCRIPTURE SAYS. THEY HAD EVERY WORD GENERALLY ACCESSIBLE. WE BOTH CAN’T PROVE SOMETHING LIKE THAT FROM THE 1400S.

    The same is true of some work done by John Huss, I believe, in Germany. Furthermore, the evidence we have overwhelmingly points to the fact that the Waldensians used a Bible that was translated from the Latin Vulgate also. PRESERVATION IS PERFECT. I AM NOT BASING MY VIEW ON THE WALDENSIANS, BUT ON SCRIPTURE. I’M NOT GOING TO CHANGE MY VIEW ON YOUR VIEW OF THE WALDENSIANS OR ON WHAT HISTORIANS SPECULATE HAPPENED. THEY CAN BE WRONG, BUT THAT DOESN’T MATTER TO THEM USUALLY. THEY’LL COME UP WITH A NEW VIEW THAT MIGHT BE WRONG AND MIGHT CHANGE TOO. GOD’S WORD ISN’T LIKE THAT.

    Then, in the 1800s, the Baptists sponsored different Bibles primarily in an effort to get “immerse” as the translation for “baptizo”. Yet their Bibles did agree with some of the current textual findings of their day. These were definitely “true churches”. And they were all for departing from the KJV and the TR in places! So was God really leading them to do this? Was this a failed “reception”? IT DIDN’T SUCCEED, SO GOD PROTECTED THEM.

    Lastly, many Baptists today use the NKJV. In fact Baptists and other conservative church people were involved in the translation work of the NKJV. And I would guess that Baptists use the NKJV more than any other church group does today. How is this not God leading his churches to receive an updated and slightly better version than the KJV? THE PEOPLE THAT DID THE TRANSLATION DON’T BELIEVE IN PRESERVATION. HOW COULD THEY BE LIKE US WHEN THEY DON’T START WITH THAT PRESUPPOSITION. IT IS OBVIOUS FROM THEIR NOTES THAT THEY ARE TEXTUAL CRITICS WHO DON’T HOLD TO THE DOCTRINE OF PERFECT PRESERVATION. THEY ARE ATTACKING THE KJV WHILE MAKING AN UPDATE OF IT OF SORTS. I BELIEVE THERE ARE SOME TEXTUAL DIFFERENCES TOO.

    All of these questions unite to make many Bible loving people disagree with the conclusions of the authors of jackhammr. We unite with them on many important issues, but in this regard, it is not such a simple open and shut case. We can be thankful for the KJV. It is a wonderful translation, and the TR was a wonderful gift to God’s church. But I can’t agree that it has been “ratified” by God’s churches to the extent that the authors here claim.

    THE DIFFERENCE IS THE DOCTRINAL PRESUPPOSITIONS. YOU AND OTHERS DON’T START WITH SCRIPTURE BOB. YOU STAGGER IN UNBELIEF. THAT DOESN’T MEAN THAT GOD WON’T BLESS WHAT SCRIPTURE YOU AND OTHERS DO HAVE, BUT HE IS NOT HONORED BY YOUR UNBELIEF.

    February 26th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
    
    
20. 
    20

    Greg Linscott

    Kent,

    The argument against the NKJV because they don’t hold to the principles of the doctrine of preservation as you seems to break down at some point. How can we be assured that this was true of all of the translators of other “good” English Bibles? How does this apply to, say, the Bible in Spanish? As I understand it from a very close friend of mine (who is also a translator with Bibles International and a KJV proponent), the predominant Spanish version (the Reina-Valera, I believe) was originally based on the Critical Text, but through a process of updates and revisions has come to essentially mirror the Traditional Text.

    It does seem to me that throughout history, God has preserved His Word- but that does not necessarily mean that every language group will have access to an absolutely perfect translation of it. Could it be that the NKJV has value, if for nothing else, as a transitional step to get to a “better” position?

    I must say I’ve wondered.

    February 27th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
    
    
21. 
    21

    Greg Linscott

    On the Spanish Bible comments- I take it back. I believe it was the Louis Segond version (French) of which we had that discussion.

    February 27th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
    
    
22. 
    22

    reglerjoe

    Okay, seeing as it’s the end of February, let me see if I can summarize your position. Correct me where I’m wrong:

    1. The Bible teaches inspiration of the autographs.
    2. The Bible teaches preservation through copies.
    3. Preservation is a work of God through the Church(es).
    4. Preservation is for words, not just books and meaning.
    5. We know which manuscript family and which translation are to be considered God’s Word based on which one has had the most usage in the Church(es).
    6. The KJV and the TR are the translation and manuscript which have been used more than any other translation or text, and therefore are to be considered the Word of God - above any other translation or text.
    7. Any update of the KJV can only be considered legitimate if the Churche(es) accept it and use it.

    Is this about right?

    February 28th, 2007 at 7:01 am
    
    
23. 
    23

    Bobby Mitchell

    I’ve been thinking about the modern Hebrews and Greeks that can’t really understand much of the TR/Masoretic. There must be many Hebrew and/or Greek-speaking/reading people who are unfamiliar with many phrases and words used in the TR or Masoretic. Should we work on an updated TR and Masoretic? Now, I’m being somewhat humorous here, but I’m also seriously interested in how you would answer this question.

    If you get your wish concerning an updated KJV will you be for keeping or abandoning the pronouns “thee,” “thou,” and “ye”? Will you be in favour of just having “you?”

    What are some examples of words and phrases you would like to see updated?

    Thanks for your time and I look forward to the answers.

    February 28th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
    
    
24. 
    24

    Jeff Voegtlin

    I know you’re being humorous about the TR/Masoretic, sort of. But here’s how I would answer that. No, the TR/Masoretic are the actual words that God gave. We have no right to change what He said! At the same time, there probably are “translations” of classical Greek into modern Greek. If the language is that different, I would not be opposed to a translation, as long as it was taken from the Words that we have from God. It would need to be made clear that the modern version is just that — a translation of the Words of God.

    As far as English, we have the responsibility to make the English tell us as closely as possible what the TR/Masoretc says.

    Updated edition… I, for one, would never condone forsaking the distinctions of number in the second person of personal pronouns.

    Here are some examples of words that could be changed…

    spake –> spoke
    most, if not all the “-eth” endings
    same for the “-st” endings
    There could be many others, but I think this short list tells the spirit of the edition I would be in favor of.

    I hope the other men answer you questions also. I look forward to their responses.

    February 28th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
    
    
25. 
    25

    Greg Linscott

    Jeff,

    Have you looked at the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible?

    March 1st, 2007 at 2:02 am
    
    
26. 
    26

    Jeff Voegtlin

    There’s one in the mail. I should have it this week some time. I got the Penguin Classics “edition.”

    March 1st, 2007 at 6:21 am
    
    
27. 
    27

    Greg Linscott

    I have one. I really do like it for personal reading. There is something about the paragraph formatting alone that makes it a little more accessible to a modern day reader, in my mind, anyway.

    On Wednesday evenings as part of our prayer meetings, in fact, our congregation has been reading entire epistles out loud in one sitting, then discussing how what we read should help shape our prayers (such as Paul asking for prayer that the Word of the Lord might have free course). It has been helpful for us to read the KJV text in paragraph format- I prepare handouts to distribute.

    March 1st, 2007 at 6:43 am
    
    
28. 
    28

    Christian Markle

    Wow, after all the huppla and smoke at SI, I guess I agree with you guys on this issue more than I do with those on SI.

    I really appreciated this particular piece. In my mind this concept — “an update” — is what separates the KJVOs I am concerned about and those that I am not. I really appreciated your 500 year illustration; it puts things in perspective and forces us to ask the question, “How long will we wait?”

    Now, what will it take to actually make an update? It seems we need agreement on the need, agreement on the process, and agreement on the product. This seems like a very difficult sell for those who are focused on defending the ole KJV. What will it take for us to lay down our arms and gather the correct minds to do this work so that the churches can approve it? What will have to change in our preaching so that the people will be out of the mode of defending inspired Word of God and recognized that they have a translation of the preserved inspired word of God that could use an update?

    Until this time and while we are approaching this differently, what will protect our people from moving to one of the present translations that concern us? For that matter some of our people are already moving to the NKJV. What do we tell them?

    Just some questions.

    For His Glory,

    March 1st, 2007 at 9:27 am
    
    
29. 
    29

    reglerjoe

    Perhaps the update could be best accomplished by means of the last update (1769?) - through the Crown’s Publisher.

    I’d sign my name on the petition.

    March 1st, 2007 at 12:30 pm
    
    
30. 
    30

    Greg Linscott

    reglerjoe,

    The New Cambridge Paragraph/Penguin Classics update is astep in that direction (Cambridge being the operative word here).

    March 1st, 2007 at 1:33 pm
    
    
31. 
    31

    Christian Markle

    Brother Linscott,

    This new Paragraph “update” is it an actual update or only the old KJV placed in paragraph form?

    CJM

    March 1st, 2007 at 1:58 pm
    
    
32. 
    32

    Greg Linscott

    Some info on the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible-

    From the Wikipedia:

    Features of the new edition

    Using such sources as the first edition published in 1611, a manuscript preserved from the first stage of the KJV men’s work (known as Lambeth Palace MS 98), and a complete Bishops’ Bible annotated by them (known as Bodelian Library Bibl. Eng. 1602 b. 1), Norton re-edited the KJV. His edition

    * divides the text into paragraphs (and poetic line-divisions for poetic portions like the Psalms);
    * introduces modern spelling in preference to that of the 18th century–”assuaged” rather than “asswaged,” “music” rather than “musick,” “show” instead of “shew,” etc.;
    * adds quotation marks for dialogue and words indicated as spoken in the Bible text;
    * restores certain readings of the 1611 edition that were modified by later editions.

    At the same time, Norton’s recension is for the most part quite conservative. For example, no readings are introduced from the above-mentioned manuscripts that only occur in them, though the annotations they contain are used to support 1611 first edition readings as demonstrating a deliberate decision by the original translators that has been overruled by subsequent hands. Norton writes in the introduction, “Except where there are good reasons to think that the first edition does not represent the readings the translators decided on, first edition readings are restored” (2005, p. ix). Also, other than the quotation marks, the punctuation–where changed from that of the current standard KJV text–mainly provides a simple restoration of 1611’s punctuation.

    One of the more radical changes is to eliminate the main text’s differentiation of the “supplied words” usually printed in italics in current KJVs. (Such words are, however, intentionally retained in the marginal notes.) Norton points out that the original edition’s supplied words, printed in Roman type in 1611 as opposed to the black-letter of the main text, were very inadequately marked; although many subsequent editors have tried to revise them (especially Scrivener), Norton feels that they are misunderstood by most readers and are ineffective even for those who know their purpose. While this is likely true, it may also be said on the other hand that the translators patently placed value on having the “supplied words” set off from the main Bible text, and that it seems regrettable to lose this aspect of the way in which they consciously chose to present their translation.

    In summary, the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible is a valuable edition of the KJV text, and Prof. Norton’s editing represents an important contribution to both religious and English literature. Although it may be too soon to measure the full impact of this volume, it seems safe to say that Norton’s work, and his companion study in Textual History, will necessarily have a far-reaching influence on any subsequent scholars who deal with the King James Version’s history or its text.

    from http://education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,,1372661,00.html

    As the most important book in the religious life of the English-speaking world, the new text is guaranteed to become one of the century’s enduring works of New Zealand-based scholarship. And even if it provokes debate, as it probably will, its editor believes he has no reason to be shamefaced.

    Norton says the troublesome word from the Pauline verse was never meant to be a synonym for “ashamed”. In poring over a number of earlier translations, he discovered that the original word used had been “shamefastness”, which means a state of holding fast to modesty. For the new edition, the older word has been reintroduced.

    The shaming of shamefaced is the kind of detective work Norton has undertaken for the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible. As a publisher’s note explains, modern Authorised Versions have until now been based on the Oxford edition of 1769, which contains many layers of changes made, both knowingly and unintentionally, by successive printers and editors.

    March 1st, 2007 at 8:54 pm
    
    
33. 
    33

    Kent Brandenburg

    I like the italics in the KJV.

    March 2nd, 2007 at 1:22 am
    
    
34. 
    34

    Anvil

    And I like the KJV translators’ preface and all their marginal notes, which, sadly, are left out of most modern KJV editions.

    March 2nd, 2007 at 1:26 pm
    
    
35. 
    35

    Thomas Ross

    A Plea For Not (At This Time) Updating the King James Version

    I am thankful for Pastor Mallinak and for the comments others have put on this subject. It is unscriptural to say that the English can never be changed, because God did not directly inspire it (I believe an accurate translation is properly referred to as derivatively inspired, as a product, not a process; note the present tense of “proceedeth” in Matthew 4:4; the available copies are inspired, God-breathed, and I can hardly call my English Bible the “uninspired Word of God.”)
    I make a plea here for not, at this time, updating the King James Version.

    My thoughts on this subject are in ALL CAPS within the text of the original post.

    Should the Lord tarry for, say, another 200 years, the 1769 edition of the King James Version, the edition that most use today, would hardly be adequate. In fact, it would be the equivalent of reading Beowulf in the original.
    I MUST DISAGREE WITH THIS; IT WOULD NOT AT ALL BE LIKE BEOWULF IN THE ORIGINAL. OLD ENGLISH (WHICH IS NOT WHAT THE KJV IS, BUT IS THE LANGUAGE OF THE BRITISH ISLES BEFORE THE NORMAN CONQUEST) IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFFERENT LANGUAGE FROM MODERN ENGLISH. ONE CAN LEARN TO READ CHAUCER (1400’S ENGLISH) IN ONLY A FEW HOURS, BUT OLD ENGLISH HAS A VERY DIFFERENT VOCABULARY, ETC. IT IS NOT A FAIR REPRESENTATION TO SAY THAT IN 200 YEARS THE 1769 WILL BE LIKE THIS AT ALL. CONSIDER THAT THE CONSTITUTION TO THE UNITED STATES WAS WRITTEN OVER 200 YEARS AGO; WOULD IT ALSO BE LIKE BEOWULF IN 200 YEARS?

    The Bible would be out of reach for all but the most educated.
    ANOTHER ASSUMPTION HERE IS THAT LANGUAGES CHANGE AT A STEADY RATE; WE CANNOT KNOW HOW MUCH OUR LANGUAGE WILL CHANGE IN 200 YEARS. THE FACT THAT THE WORLD LANGUAGE IS ENGLISH, AND, INDEED, THE KJV ITSELF, HAVE BEEN MOST INFLUENTIAL IN KEEPING OUR MODERN TONGUE REMARKABLY STABLE. ENGLISH FROM 1800 TO TODAY HAS CHANGED MUCH LESS THAN, SAY, ENGLISH BETWEEN 1400 TO 1600.

    I point this out on purpose. I understand that most of those who are persuaded of the King James Only position also believe that the Lord’s Return is imminent. Several friends of mine believe that we will not finish out this year, or that the Lord will return within the next two years, or hold to some similar viewpoint. Certainly, this is possible. It is equally possible, however, that Christ will not return in the next two years, that he will in fact tarry for another, say, 200 years. In which case, it would be ungodly to insist that those Christians should still be using the 1769 edition of the King James Version.

    WE ACTUALLY ARE UNABLE TO SAY THAT, WERE THE LORD NOT TO RETURN FOR ANOTHER 200 YEARS, WHICH IS, INDEED, UNLIKELY, THAT IT WOULD BE UNGODLY TO STILL USE THE 1769. WE ARE NOT PROPHETS, NOR THE SONS OF PROPHETS, SO LET US NOT ASSUME WE CAN TELL HOW MUCH LANGUAGE WILL CHANGE.

    Nevertheless, some will no doubt continue to insist. In the early days, men like Tyndale gave their life so that the average man could have the Bible in his own language. And the hard-liners of today will eventually undo that purpose. The King James Version was finished in 1611. After that, there were 14-16 updates and editions, each one intended to bring the version up-to-date. For some reason, we stopped updating it in the 1700’s. And as a result, we have a version today that is badly in need of an update.

    WAS EACH OF THESE “14-16 . . . EDITIONS” INTENDED TO BE A “UPDATE,” INDEED? WERE NOT MANY OF THEM JUST FIXING TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS? WERE EACH OF THEM AN ACTUAL “UPDATE”?
    THE KJV OF TODAY IS NOT AT ALL “BADLY IN NEED” OF AN UPDATE. THERE ARE A SMALL NUMBER OF WORDS THAT HAVE DIFFERENT SENSES. WE CAN TAKE CARE OF THESE THROUGH USING A DICTIONARY OR THROUGH USING SOMETHING LIKE THE DEFINED KJV PUBLISHED BY BIBLE FOR TODAY, WHERE ONE WHO IS TOO LAZY TO USE A DICTIONARY CAN SIMPLY LOOK DOWN AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE.
    THE PAPISTS IN TYNDALE’S DAY (AND OTHERS) WANTED PEOPLE NOT TO HAVE A BIBLE IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGE. TO COMPARE WANTING TO KEEP THE BIBLE IN LATIN THAT PEOPLE DID NOT KNOW AT ALL TO THE KJV, WHERE SOMEONE MIGHT HAVE TO LEARN A FEW DOZEN WORDS, IS NOT AT ALL AN EQUAL COMPARISON, ESPECIALLY WHEN ONE CAN USE EDITIONS OF THE KJV THAT HAVE THE LESS COMMON WORDS DEFINED RIGHT AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE.

    The scenario I used at the beginning of this post is admittedly an understatement.

    TWO HUNDRED YEARS TO BEOWULF IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT, NOT AN EXAGGERATION?

    We have to start somewhere in our thinking, and for those of the more rabid persuasion of KJVO, 200 years out might get them thinking. But I wouldn’t be honest if I said that I myself believe that we should wait 200 years before attempting a new edition.
    I can only please some of the people some of the time, but I can offend some people all of the time. I am not careful to tiptoe around this issue. Some, no doubt, will be offended. But then, some have made the art of taking offense their life’s calling. I guess I shouldn’t be proud of myself for offending them. That’s just too doggoned easy.

    IF ONE LOOKS IN A DICTIONARY, “DOG—ED” EASY IS SAID TO COME FROM “GOD D—N IT.” I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THIS IS UNINTENTIONAL; I ONLY MENTION IT HERE PUBLICLY ON THE BLOG TO PREVENT OTHERS WHO READ THIS BLOG FROM USING THE EXPRESSION, IN LIGHT OF HOW VERY SERIOUS THE LORD OF HOSTS TAKES HIS THIRD COMMANDMENT.

    There are objections to updating the King James Version. No doubt some will object that the edition we have is just fine. Our fathers used it, their fathers used it, and their father’s fathers used it, so we can (or should) too. TRADITIO-O-O-O-N! TRADITION! TRA-DI-TION! I can hear the song playing in my head even as I type. Tradition is obsessive-compulsive. You could give up Tradition if only Tradition would let go of you.
    But I’d ask those who feel a strong loyalty to the 1769 edition to consider a few arguments. First, what if we had no editions of the KJV after 1611? No doubt some enjoy reading “ye” for “the.” No doubt some don’t mind having an extra “e” tacked on to the ends of many of the words. But for the bulk of Christians, the 1611 is simply out of reach. I’ve read the Mayflower Compact. I’ve read from William Bradford’s Of Plimoth Plantation. They are not easy reading. So, newer editions have been a blessing to us.

    I AM GLAD TO HAVE THE BIG “F” CHANGED TO “S” FROM THE 1611. IT IS NICE.

    Secondly, we really can’t argue that the 1769 is the final and perfect edition. Nor can we argue for the exclusivity of the 1769. After all, if the 1769 is the exclusive preserved Bible, then the 1611 is not, nor are any of the other editions between the 1611 and the 1769. If it was lawful to make a new edition in 1769, then it certainly is lawful to make one now.

    CHANGING “F” TO “S” AND DROPPING FINAL “E” IS NOT CHANGING VOCABULARY, ETC. THE 1769 DOES NOT DO THINGS LIKE CHANGE WORDS SUCH AS “CONVERSATION” OR “LETTETH” OR, FOR THAT MATTER, ANY OTHER WORDS LIKE THIS. IF “UPDATE” IS USED IN THE 1769 SENSE, THEN WE CAN’T CHANGE ANY VOCABULARY, JUST DROP “ETH” FROM THE ENDS OF WORDS AND STUFF LIKE THAT—AND, ACTUALLY, THERE ISN’T MUCH OTHER “STUFF LIKE THAT” TO CHANGE THAT IS EQUIVALENT TO THE CHANGES BETWEEN THE 1611 AND THE 1769. THAT’S ABOUT IT. AND, REALLY, THE FACT THAT ONE NEEDS TO DROP THE “ETH” IS HARDLY MAKING THE BIBLE LIKE BEOWULF, NOW OR IN 200 YEARS.

    Thirdly, while the readers of this blog might breeze through the language of the 1769 edition King James Bible , many Christians struggle mightily. We need to be careful here, lest we transgress the law of God by our tradition. Wouldn’t this issue also fall under the category of loving our neighbor? When we insist that our neighbor should “figure it out…” we essentially make the law of God of none effect by our tradition.

    NOT NECESSARILY. THE FACT THAT SOME CHRISTIANS STRUGGLE WITH THE KJV DOES NOT MEAN THAT VOCABULARY, ETC. NEEDS TO BE CHANGED (DUMBED DOWN?). WHEN CHILDREN WERE GROWING UP IN ISRAEL, OR IN THE FIRST CENTURIES WHEN GREEK WAS THE WORLD LANGUAGE, SOME CHRISTIANS—INDEED, LIKELY A HIGHER PERCENTAGE THAN THOSE TODAY WHO STRUGGLE WITH THE KJV ENGLISH, IN LIGHT OF THE HIGHER RATE OF SIMPLE LITERACY TODAY—WOULD HAVE STRUGGLED READING THE BIBLE IN GREEK AND HEBREW. SOME PEOPLE WILL ALWAYS STRUGGLE WITH THAT BECAUSE THEY NEED TO LEARN THEIR LANGUAGE BETTER FOR THE GLORY OF GOD SO THEY CAN UNDERSTAND THE SCRIPTURES BETTER. ONE CAN EVEN SEE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF VOCABULARY, ETC. IN DIFFERENT PORTIONS OF SCRIPTURE. FOR EXAMPLE, JOHN—WHICH, INTERESTINGLY, IS THE ONLY SPECIFICALLY EVANGELISTIC BOOK—HAS MUCH SIMPLER GREEK THAN LUKE/ACTS.

    As a pastor, I have on more than one occasion had to deal with God-fearing believers, discouraged in their pursuit of God by the difficulty of the King’s English. Why would we not want to help them?
    WE CAN HELP THEM BY GIVING THEM A DEFINED KJV AND HAVING THEM KNOW THE VOCABULARY. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE NEED TO DO A KJV REVISION—WHICH IS WHAT THIS BLOG IS CALLING FOR, FOR THE KIND OF “UPDATE” THAT TOOK PLACE BETWEEN THE 1611 AND 1769 KJV’S DID NOT MAKE ANY KIND OF SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TO GRAMMAR, VOCABULARY, OR SYNTAX.
    FURTHERMORE, SOMETIMES THE KJV HAS LONG, LOOPY SENTENCES BECAUSE GOD INSPIRED LONG SENTENCES IN GREEK. FOR EXAMPLE, SOMEONE MIGHT COMPLAIN THAT THE KJV IS TOO CONFUSING BECAUSE EPHESIANS 1:7-14 IS ONE SENTENCE—UNTIL HE REALIZES THAT, IN GREEK, GOD INSPIRED EPHESIANS 1:3-14 AS ONE SENTENCE, SO THE KJV HAS ALREADY MADE IT EASIER BY BREAKING THE ONE SENTENCE INTO THREE. SOMETIMES GOD INSPIRED GREEK AND HEBREW SENTENCES THAT BELIEVERS COULD VIEW AS “DISCOURAGING,”; BUT THEY ACTUALLY SIMPLY NEEDED TO PUT MORE STUDY INTO THEM. THE SAME CAN BE TRUE OF THE ENGLISH KJV.
    If we refuse to allow the King James Version to be updated, we will eventually come to the place when the average English-speaking person will not be able to read the Bible. Even now, readers struggle with those infamous “antiquated” words, or with fun phrases like “I wist not whence they were” and “to whit,” and with the never-ending stream of –eth and –est attached to the ends of so many words.

    ARE THE VERY SMALL NUMBER OF ANTIQUATED WORDS A “STRUGGLE” THAT REQUIRES A REVISION? IF ONE WANTS TO KNOW WHAT WIST MEANS AND HE HAS A DEFINED KJV, ALL HE HAS TO DO IS LOOK DOWN AT THE BOTTOM OF HIS PAGE, OR, IF HE HAS A DIFFERENT EDITION, SPEND ABOUT $3 AND GET A KJV DICTIONARY FROM WAY OF LIFE LITERATURE, OR USE HIS NORMAL DICTIONARY. I THINK THAT ETH AND EST ARE HARDLY REASONS TO REVISE THE KJV. JUST DROP THEM. WHEN I STARTED READING THE BIBLE, ON MY OWN, IN GRADE SCHOOL, WITH NO BACKGROUND, AND AS AN UNSAVED PERSON, I HAD NO PROBLEM WITH EST AND ETH.
    Now, I should say here that I’ve been reading the King James for my entire life. So, I don’t struggle to read it. Apart from a short time in my early years when my dad gave me one of those “four translation” Bibles, I’ve never read anything else. Being a student of God’s Word has given me an ability to grasp the words, for the most part. Other times, I’m thankful for Matthew Henry, John Gill, Adam Clarke, and Albert Barnes.
    But not everyone can say this. Especially (though not limited to) those who have been burdened with a public skool ejication. Some struggle valiantly to make heads or tails out of their Bible. Others compromise: when they come to those parts that are out of reach, they do like you and I do when we come across a Latin phrase in a commentary… they skim over it. So to me, this issue is as much about loving your neighbor as it is about anything else.
    I DO THINK, THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THE QUALITY OF THE EDUMICATION THAT MANY FUNDIMETILISTS GET. BUT THAT IS NOT A KJV PROBLEM, IT IS A PROBLEM WITH THE QUALITY OF THE CHRISTIAN SCHOOL OR HOME SCHOOL THAT THEY ARE INVOLVED WITH, AND WITH THEIR OWN MOTIVATION, AND THE WORK THEIR PARENTS PUT INTO THEM. CHILDREN SHOULD BE EXTREMELY MOTIVATED TO LEARN ENGLISH SO THEY CAN KNOW THEIR BIBLES WELL. ALSO, WHEN WE HAVE CHRISTIANS WHO ARE READING THEIR BIBLES A LOT, ESTEEMING THE WORDS OF JEHOVAH’S MOUTH MORE THAN THEIR NECESSARY FOOD, RATHER THAN DOING THE LITTLE DAB OF DEVOTIONS THING WHERE THEY DON’T ACTUALLY GET IMMERSED IN SCRIPTURE, IT WILL TAKE THEM LONGER TO GET USED TO THE KJV.
    PERHAPS IF THEY ALL THREW OUT THEIR TV’S AND STARTED TO READ THEY WOULD, SOMEHOW, END UP FINDING THE KJV EASIER TO UNDERSTAND.
    We can make a new edition. And we should. We should make one for the sake of those for whom the 1769 edition of the King James Bible is out of reach. We should make one for the sake of unbelievers who get lost in the language. We should make one for our children, for our grandchildren, lest they should be discouraged. Just as we set step stools by the drinking fountain so the little ones can reach it, so we should make a new edition of the King James Version.
    IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE IN THE OLD OR NEW TESTAMENTS THAT BELIEVERS CHANGED THE BIBLE TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR THEIR CHILDREN TO READ UNTIL THEY GOT OLD ENOUGH TO KNOW THE LANGUAGE WELL? AS FOR UNBELIEVERS, AS I MENTIONED ALREADY, IT IS SCRIPTURAL TO KEEP LANGUAGE SIMPLER FOR THEM, AS IS DONE IN THE GREEK OF JOHN’S GOSPEL. SO IN TRACTS, WE USE VERSES LIKE JOHN 3:16, 18, 36, ETC. THAT HAVE EASY VOCABULARY.
    Of course, some will ask why we should update the King James at all. Why not simply use one of the other versions that are out there? Since we have taken a full month to explain our position on this, I will avoid giving a long answer to that question. Please read the other posts we have made on the issue if you struggle to understand our position.
    A brief answer would be that the majority of the modern versions rely on the Critical Text, and translate using “dynamic equivalence” rather than “formal equivalence.” A faithful translation, as we have contended, will translate from the Received Text, and will concern itself with translating every word, inasmuch as possible.
    Probably the one modern version that comes the closest to meeting that criteria would be the New King James Version. And, no doubt, some will wonder what could possibly be wrong with using that version. We have three main issues with the New King James. First, the translators used an eclectic approach to the text, as is evident in their footnotes and marginal references. Secondly, as Douglas Wilson said, they “have accepted the task of a scholarly reconstruction of the text but believe that the widespead acceptance of the minority readings is misguided… in other words, they have come up with a traditional answer but with a suspect, modern method.(1)”

    BY THE WAY—AND THAT DOES NOT MEAN NOT TO QUOTE HIM EVER—I DON’T LIKE DOUGLAS WILSON. HE BELIEVES IN BAPTISM FOR SALVATION, DENIES JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE IN A PROPER SENSE, ETC. IN ASSOCATION WITH THE FEDERAL VISON/AUBURN AVENUE/NEW PERSPECTIVE ON PAUL HERESY. SEE http://WWW.TRINITYFOUNDATION.ORG FOR INFORMATION ON THIS IF YOU ARE UNAWARE OF THAT WHICH I SPEAK, FOR CRITIQUES BY (MORE) SCRIPTURAL PRESBYTERIANS OF HIM (ALTHOUGH ALL PRESBYTERIANS ARE UNBIBLICAL, SCISMATIC OPPONENTS OF THE BAPTIST CHURCHES FOUNDED BY THE LORD JESUS CHRIST DURING HIS EARTHLY MINISTRY AND PRESERVED FROM THE FIRST CENTURY TO TODAY, AND THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION TEACHES A FORM OF BAPTISMAL SALVATION THAT LEADS THE GREAT MAJORITY OF PRESBYTERIANS WHO BELIEVE IN THEIR CONFESSION TO ETERNAL DAMNATION).

    In other words, they engaged in a little “textual criticism” of their own, though not to the extent of the major modern versions. Thirdly, the New King James has not met with the wide acceptance of the churches.
    I should expound on the third point briefly. Bible versions and translations should not be individualistic. It isn’t “up to me” or even “up to my church” to decide which books should be in the canon, or which text should be used. According to God’s plan, as Kent detailed here, God’s churches lend their witness, a very important and vital testimony, to the Word of God. The churches lend their witness to the books, the chapters, the verses, the words, and yes, to the translations.
    AMEN—AND WHEN SCRIPTURAL CHURCHES AGREE, LED BY THE SPIRIT, THAT IT IS TIME FOR AN UPDATE, THEN, AND ONLY THEN, WOULD ONE BE APPROPRIATE. THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED, AND SO WE DON’T NEED AN UPDATE.

    Some have argued that the King James Bible was written to undermine the Geneva Bible. Others, however, have pointed out that historically, England was deeply divided between the Bishop’s Bible and the Geneva, and that John Reynolds urged King James to commission a new version that would unite the churches. The fact is, the churches did settle on this version of the Bible, and for nearly 300 years, the King James Bible was the Bible of choice for English-speaking people.
    WE SHOULD ALSO CONSIDER THAT IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO FIND TRANSLATORS AS GOOD AS THE KJV TRANSLATORS, OR—FOR THAT MATTER—AS SOUND IN THEIR BIBLIOLOGY; WHILE THEY WERE ANGLICANS, ETC., THEY HAD A BETTER DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION (VERBAL DICTATION) AND OF PRESERVATION THAN CT FUNDAMENTALISTS TODAY, NOT TO MENTION THE VAST, SOFT WORLD OF NEO-EVANGELICAL APOSTASY.

    Over the last 100 or so years, modern versions have gradually undermined the allegiance that English-speaking churches had to the King James Bible, so that today, we find ourselves once again deeply divided over an acceptable Bible version. The New King James has done nothing to alleviate this problem. If anything, the NKJV has added to the problem.
    ARE “OURSELVES” REALLY DIVIDED OVER IT? THERE AREN’T VERY MANY SCRIPTURAL BAPTIST CHURCHES THAT ARE LOCAL-ONLY IN ECCLESIOLOGY, SOULWINNING, THAT OFFER GOD BIBLICAL MUSIC, AND THAT PROHIBIT THEIR WOMEN FROM COMMITTING THE ABOMINATION OF WEARING MEN’S APPAREL—TO NAME ONLY FOUR ISSUES—THAT USE ANYTHING BESIDES THE KJV.

    For those reasons, we do not believe that the New King James Version could meet the criterion for a settled Bible for New Testament churches. Wilson called the Authorized Version “the last true ecclesiastical version,” and called for a new edition of that (2). We concur. In hopes of getting an updated KJV, we must work towards a consensus among churches to that end.
    Coming soon… a plan for an updated KJV.
    LET ME ALSO ISSUE ANOTHER CAUTION—WE LIVE IN DAYS OF TREMENDOUS COMPROMISE BIBLIOLOGICALLY AND IN OTHER AREAS, AND THERE WOULD BE TREMENDOUS DANGER THAT THIS WOULD INFLUENCE AN UPDATE.
    ON A SOMEWHAT TANGENTIAL SUBJECT, REAL CHURCHES WILL NEVER PRODUCE AN UPDATE THAT IS ACCEPTABLE IF THEY DON’T HAVE THEIR PASTORS KNOW GREEK AND HEBREW—AND, TO BE LIKE THE KJV TRANSLATORS, AT LEAST SOME OF THEM MUST KNOW COGNATE LANGAUGES—EXTREMELY WELL. THIS WOULD REQUIRE THAT THEY GET BETTER EDUMICATED; BUT A BETTER EDUCATION WOULD, OF ITSELF, GO A LONG WAY—WITH THE INDISPENSIBLE AID OF THE OMNIPOTENT, ILLUMINATING SPIRIT OF GOD—TO UNDERSTANDING THE EARLY MODERN ENGLISH (FOR THE KJV IS NOT MIDDLE ENGLISH OR OLD ENGLISH BY ANY STRETCH OF THE TERMS) OF THE KJV.
    I THEREFORE DISSENT FROM MY GOOD BROTHER AND RESPECTED PASTOR, DAVE MALLINAK, ON THE SUBJECT OF THE NECESSITY OF REVISING THE KJV AT THIS TIME.

    March 3rd, 2007 at 5:14 pm
    
    
36. 
    36

    Jeff Voegtlin

    Wow, I thought Bob wrote long posts

    IF ONE WANTS TO KNOW WHAT WIST MEANS AND HE HAS A DEFINED KJV, ALL HE HAS TO DO IS LOOK DOWN AT THE BOTTOM OF HIS PAGE, OR, IF HE HAS A DIFFERENT EDITION, SPEND ABOUT $3 AND GET A KJV DICTIONARY FROM WAY OF LIFE LITERATURE, OR USE HIS NORMAL DICTIONARY. I THINK THAT ETH AND EST ARE HARDLY REASONS TO REVISE THE KJV. JUST DROP THEM. WHEN I STARTED READING THE BIBLE, ON MY OWN, IN GRADE SCHOOL, WITH NO BACKGROUND, AND AS AN UNSAVED PERSON, I HAD NO PROBLEM WITH EST AND ETH.

    To be fair Thomas, you should give your language credentials. How old were you when you graduated from what school with a degree in what major concentration? Just because you had no problem with them doesn’t mean many others won’t or shouldn’t.

    IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE IN THE OLD OR NEW TESTAMENTS THAT BELIEVERS CHANGED THE BIBLE TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR THEIR CHILDREN TO READ UNTIL THEY GOT OLD ENOUGH TO KNOW THE LANGUAGE WELL?

    This is not a legitimate comparison. We have no right to change the words of Scripture. The ones the Old Testament and New Testament believers had. We do have a responsibility to “make” a translation communicate those words and their meaning.

    I DON’T LIKE DOUGLAS WILSON. HE BELIEVES IN BAPTISM FOR SALVATION, DENIES JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE IN A PROPER SENSE, ETC.

    Have you read him on this or just what John Robbins says Wilson says about this? I have read Wilson in a couple places say that parents should never presume that their “covenant children” are regenerate. This seems to indicate something very different than what you say he believes.

    AMEN—AND WHEN SCRIPTURAL CHURCHES AGREE, LED BY THE SPIRIT, THAT IT IS TIME FOR AN UPDATE, THEN, AND ONLY THEN, WOULD ONE BE APPROPRIATE. THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED, AND SO WE DON’T NEED AN UPDATE.

    So Thomas, how will we know when it does happen? Will all the Scriptural churches on the same day, suddenly be led by the Spirit to call for a update? That is surely not outside the realm of the power of God. At the same time, could both you and Pastor Mallinak be being Spirit led? He, to get the idea “out there;” and you, to make sure we (Scriptural churches) don’t rush into something in an unnecessary, slipshod way? I guess my thought is: OK, maybe we don’t need an update in 2007, but does that mean we don’t need to talk about one and talk about how it should be done?

    I THEREFORE DISSENT FROM MY GOOD BROTHER AND RESPECTED PASTOR, DAVE MALLINAK, ON THE SUBJECT OF THE NECESSITY OF REVISING THE KJV AT THIS TIME.

    I wholeheartedly appreciate your dissent.

    Now some other thoughts from me:

    1. Were not good pastors and Christians calling for a revision in the mid-1800’s?

    2. Was not that the great “deception”? That the KJ was going to be revised, but was actually replaced? It seems to me that is the point of the book title, “The Revision Revised.”

    3. I don’t know. I am only assuming from hearsay and my faulty human logic. But, wouldn’t Dean John Burgon have been in favor of a “true revision” of the KJ?

    4. That was 150 years ago.

    5. Instead of a revision, we got a corruption.

    6. So we remain with an edition that was around 100 years old at that time and is now nearing 250 years old.

    7. Out of one side of our mouths, we long for the spirituality of yesteryear: we live in times of great apostacy and general degredation and lax Christianity. “If only our Christians today were like they were in the 1800’s.”

    8. Out of the other side of our mouth, we’re so much more spiritual than them, we don’t even need an update! Oh, they were spiritual and called for a revision, but we are local church only, separated, Bible believers. And so we’re so much more spiritual than them we can live 150 years later and read the 1769 edition just fine.

    9. If godly Christians wanted a revision 150 years ago, is it ungodly or anti-spiritual to suggest that we talk about, think about, lay groundwork, etc. for an update or even a faithful revision?

    March 3rd, 2007 at 6:20 pm
    
    
37. 
    37

    Kent Brandenburg

    Thomas,

    When you can, comment more. I think the give and take between Jeff and you is interesting too. I’m guessing you both won’t keep this going too long though.

    March 3rd, 2007 at 7:29 pm
    
    
38. 
    38

    Thomas Ross

    Dear Pastor Voegtlin,

    Thank you for your thoughts on this. Here is my reply to your reply to my reply to the original article.

    I was an English major, from U. C. Berkeley. Peace, man. Another point I think that is worth making, that I did not make in the original reply, is that the KJV is very beautiful, and that sort of beauty will be hard to replicate in any alteration.

    I had said:

    IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE IN THE OLD OR NEW TESTAMENTS THAT BELIEVERS CHANGED THE BIBLE TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR THEIR CHILDREN TO READ UNTIL THEY GOT OLD ENOUGH TO KNOW THE LANGUAGE WELL?

    Pastor Voegtlin had replied:

    This is not a legitimate comparison. We have no right to change the words of Scripture. The ones the Old Testament and New Testament believers had. We do have a responsibility to “make” a translation communicate those words and their meaning.

    My reply to this:

    My point was not to compare the derivitively, plenarily but not verbally inspired KJV with the verbally, plenarily inspired autographs and original language copies, although I think we do well to not make brethren who know nothing but English doubt their common language Bible. My point was that in Greek and Hebrew God did not make everything easy for a third grader, etc. to understand. Some words in Daniel were so obscure when the LXX was translated that the translators got them wrong; we have a variety of levels of difficulty in the original text. Since God did not inspire a Hebrew and Greek Bible that was totally easy swimming for children to read when those langauges were their mother tongues–although children were, nonetheless, commanded to diligently read, study, etc. it, Deut 6:4ff, with the aid of their parents and the institution for worship of the time–we are not required to translate the Bible in such a way that little children find the entire text easy swimming.

    I had said:

    I DON’T LIKE DOUGLAS WILSON. HE BELIEVES IN BAPTISM FOR SALVATION, DENIES JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE IN A PROPER SENSE, ETC.

    Pastor Voegtlin said:

    Have you read him on this or just what John Robbins says Wilson says about this? I have read Wilson in a couple places say that parents should never presume that their “covenant children” are regenerate. This seems to indicate something very different than what you say he believes.

    A search on Google for “Auburn Avenue theology” or similar expressions will be helpful. A very obvious way to note that Wilson is clueless about the gospel is that he debated James White (and this is available on White’s website) on the subject of whether Papists are Christian brethren–White said no, Wilson said yes. If someone thinks that the idolatrous, works salvation, baptismal regenerationist, bread-worshipping, justification by faith and works followers of the Whore of Babylon are Christian brethren, he must be close enough to their theology to not think that Galatians 1:8-9 applies.

    Bro T.:

    AMEN—AND WHEN SCRIPTURAL CHURCHES AGREE, LED BY THE SPIRIT, THAT IT IS TIME FOR AN UPDATE, THEN, AND ONLY THEN, WOULD ONE BE APPROPRIATE. THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED, AND SO WE DON’T NEED AN UPDATE.

    Pastor V.:

    So Thomas, how will we know when it does happen? Will all the Scriptural churches on the same day, suddenly be led by the Spirit to call for a update? That is surely not outside the realm of the power of God. At the same time, could both you and Pastor Mallinak be being Spirit led? He, to get the idea “out there;” and you, to make sure we (Scriptural churches) don’t rush into something in an unnecessary, slipshod way? I guess my thought is: OK, maybe we don’t need an update in 2007, but does that mean we don’t need to talk about one and talk about how it should be done?

    Nothing wrong with talking about it.

    I THEREFORE DISSENT FROM MY GOOD BROTHER AND RESPECTED PASTOR, DAVE MALLINAK, ON THE SUBJECT OF THE NECESSITY OF REVISING THE KJV AT THIS TIME.

    I wholeheartedly appreciate your dissent.

    Now some other thoughts from me:

    HERE I HAVE RETURNED TO ALL CAPS IN MY REPLY.

    1. Were not good pastors and Christians calling for a revision in the mid-1800’s?

    I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE RECORD OF BAPTIST CHURCHES DOING THIS, ONES NOT INFLUENCED BY THE DOWNGRADE CONTROVERSY IN ENGLAND OR OTHER ERROSR.

    2. Was not that the great “deception”? That the KJ was going to be revised, but was actually replaced? It seems to me that is the point of the book title, “The Revision Revised.”

    3. I don’t know. I am only assuming from hearsay and my faulty human logic. But, wouldn’t Dean John Burgon have been in favor of a “true revision” of the KJ?

    DR. WAITE HAS PUBLISHED A WORK ENTITLED “Dean Burgon’s warnings on revision of the Textus receptus and the King James Bible” WHICH STATES HIS POSITION ON REVISION. WE WOULD NOT, I BELIEVE, HAVE A REVISION AT THIS POINT FOLLOWING HIS ADVICE. BY THE WAY, WHILE I AM THANKFUL FOR BURGON’S POSITION ON INERRANCY AND HIS OPPOSITION TO THE MODERNISM OF THE REVISVED VERSION, ETC. HE, AS A HIGH CHURCH ANGLICAN, ALSO BELEIVED IN BAPTISMAL REGENERATION, SO, IF HE CONTINUED TO HOLD TO HIS DOCTRINE THROUGHOUT HIS LIFE, HE WAS CERTAINLY DAMNED, GALATIANS 1:8-9.

    I CUT AND PASTE FROM:

    http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/DeanBurgon/dbs2591.htm

    1. Burgon’s Admiration for the King James Bible. Dean Burgon wrote: “It may be confidently assumed that no `revision’ of our Authorized Version, however judiciously executed, will ever occupy the place in public esteem which is actually enjoyed by the work of the translators of 1611,–THE NOBLEST LITERARY WORK IN THE ANGLO-SAXON LANGUAGE.” [Dean John W. Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 113]

    2. Burgon’s Admiration for the King James Bible Translators. Dean Burgon also wrote: “Verily, those men understood their craft! `There were GIANTS in those days.’ . . . the Spirit of their God was mightily upon them.” [Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 196]
    3. Burgon’s Adherence to the King James Bible, Even If There Were a Revision of It. He wrote: “The method of such a performance [that is, any revision of the KJB], whether by marginal notes or in some other way, we forbear to determine. But certainly ONLY AS A HANDMAID is it to be desired. AS SOMETHING INTENDED TO SUPERSEDE OUR PRESENT ENGLISH BIBLE, WE ARE THOROUGHLY CONVINCED THAT THE PROJECT OF A RIVAL TRANSLATION IS NOT TO BE ENTERTAINED FOR A MOMENT. FOR OURSELVES, WE DEPRECATE IT ENTIRELY.” [Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 114] This certainly sounds like Dean John William Burgon would continue to use and support “ONLY THE KING JAMES BIBLE” no matter what other revisions of that Bible might come along during his lifetime!! For other comments by Dean Burgon on the superiority of the King James Bible, the reader is referred to B.F.T. #804. It is available for a GIFT of $5.50. It is entitled, “Dean John Burgon’s Prerequisites for Major Revision of the New Testament Greek Textus Receptus and the English King James Version New Testament,” by this writer. This study gives a series of quotations on this theme taken from Burgon’s excellent book, Revision Revised, which is also available as B.F.T. #611 for a GIFT of $25.00.”

    . . .

    Dean Burgon said that it was not the time for the revising of the King James Bible. Notice what he wrote: “Enough has been offered by this time to prove that AN AUTHORITATIVE R