I’m sure we’re all well aware of these buses that have been carrying around Atheist propaganda. Big deal! It gets people thinking about God, especially with the “probably”. In answer, the Trinitarian Bible Society have begun a campaign to put the verse “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God” (Psalm 53:1). I discovered this first on Biblog this morning, and then discovered I’d had an invite on Facebook to a group that supports the campaign.
I guess the idea has potential, though it does come across a bit as answering a fool according to his folly, which is both recommended and advised against in Proverbs 26:4-5. But I am most disappointed that such an initiative has been done using the Authorised Version of the Bible. I probably shouldn’t have done but I expressed this on the wall of the group. Someone responded posting a link to a pamphlet that explains why the TBS use the AV. And so here is my response to the pamphlet:
What that leaflet fails to mention (1) is that the AV is even based on a Latin manuscript where they couldn’t find the Greek one. And most scholars, evangelical too, agree that the textual basis of the AV is not the most faithful to the original.
(2) In places, it is not a more accurate translation than some of our modern translation. It is biased of the TBS to compare the AV with the Living Bible as the LB doesn’t aim at what is called formal equivalence (literalness in form) but at what is called dynamic equivalence (equivalent phraseology for the language it is being translated into). A fair comparison would be the AV with either the ESV or the NASB. Indeed to claim that any one English translation is more accurate does a great amount of damage.
To argue that the AV is more appropriate language (3) is totally subjective. One could just as easily say that because God is a God who desires to communicate and who has spoken, it is more appropriate to translate in an understandable language. Besides this, the AV was intended to be in the ‘vulgar’ (common) language of the people, something which it now isn’t. I don’t understand it and I’m a third year Bible College student!
Let us suppose that Jesus wasn’t fully divine. I know that’s heresy but let’s just suppose. If it were true, then for a Bible translation to “bear stronger testimony” to Jesus’ divinity (4) would be heretical. Now, Jesus is and was divine, but he was also human, and fully both as the scriptures tell us. So the better translation is the one that accurately translates Jesus’ divinity and humanity, not the one which gives greater emphasis to his deity.
The fact that it has been a standard English translation is a poor argument (5). Before the reformation, a translation of scripture was available that was even more established. But it wasn’t appropriate as it was in Latin. So the reformation happened, and what was incomprehensible to contemporary English speaking men of 1611 had to be translated to 1611 English. 1611 English, however, is almost as incomprehensible to 2009 English speakers as Latin was to 1611 English speakers.
In short, it is wise that the AV is not used as a translation, especially if it is being used as an evangelistic tool. I am happy with dynamic equivalent translations, so far as they are understood as such, and so I use the NIV. I see no real reason to change. I also use the NASB when I want a literalistic translation that retains the form of the original. I would be happy to even use a paraphrase translation such as the Message, so long as it was understood to be a paraphrase translation.
And this because I believe that God is a God who hasn’t just spoken, but who still speaks today. And God doesn’t just speak out, but he speaks to people. And if he’s to do that then it needs to be understandable by the people he is speaking to whilst still keeping what God has said.
Finally, I don’t want to be divisive, but generally people who insist upon the AV are dogmatic without being aware of the issues, which leads to just as much divisiveness. And it is an issue that still lingers, and really it shouldn’t!
February 12, 2009 at 7:30 am
Thank you for having the rant I wanted to have when I saw their advert. I also think they’re doofuses (doofi?) for not putting a slogen on their bus about Jesus. I know the Bible says that atheists are fools, and I’m quite happy telling the Warwick Atheist Soc that, but why shove it on a bus when you could have something far more full of Gospel!
February 12, 2009 at 11:50 am
Thanks indeed for the rant. You bring up some good points. I would like to add to that since the people reading the Bus aren’t going to be able to be proper exegesis of the verse is a literal version required anyway? A DE would be much better suited for the off hand, random verse: NIV, TNIV, LT, etc.
Larry makes a good point too. Surely in evangelism the main aim is to get a basic understanding of who Jesus is and what he did, and not to offend random Athiests without the Gospel being preached. Despite what seems to go round some circles,”Athiests are idiots” is not the Gospel, nor will it ever be.
God bless,
Hope mission continues well.
February 13, 2009 at 1:46 am
I don’t disagree with your seniments, but isn’t it strange that the bus has created more of an outcry among some Christians than the original posters?
Your post seems to forget that it is still God’s Word up on those posters – and not heresy – comparing the AV to the Vulgate might be a tad sensationalist.
To be honest, I’m alarmed by the fact that the first thing I did was criticise other Christians, instead of praying for the lost, and for God to use his Word (despite our lack of wisdom in putting up unnecessary barriers – and that’s not just the TBS)
February 14, 2009 at 3:39 pm
I didn’t know about these posters. Thanks
February 20, 2009 at 8:13 pm
I don’t agree with the idea that the KJV is incomprehensible to 2009 English speakers. I’d appreciate if you could provide an example of incomprehensible text from the KJV. Shakespeare is fairly incomprehenible to modern folk, but the KJV of Scripture is very plain.
You will find that the TBS has many articles comparing the KJV with every different English translation, not just the LB.
Also which part of the AV are you refering to when you mention it is based on a Latin manuscipt? And is the Textus Receptus really less accurate than the Wescott and Hort texts underpinning many of the modern versions?
February 20, 2009 at 9:08 pm
You’re right, the KJV isn’t incomprehensible to 2009 English speakers…that is if you’re middle class (or above) and fairly well educated. Do you really think people who aren’t as well educated can understand it. I honestly have difficulty in understanding it and I’m not only degree level educated but in my final year of a second degree, this one theology! You cannot seriously believe that a working class person who left school at 16 is going to understand the KJV. They’d struggle with a NCV. KJV is not plain, it’s flowery and poetic, and that’s one of the reasons i’ve heard for keeping it.
I couldn’t care less about comparing it to other translations. The point there was that what TBS does in the leaflet is very biased.
The part that comes from the Latin Manuscript is in Revelation 22. See second paragraph here:
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=665
I know it has been disputed but I don’t think its disputations are well founded.
My preferred Greek text is UBS. I would consider it the most appropriate.
February 26, 2009 at 12:35 am
Are you all living on cloud cuckoo-land?
Let’s get some perspective here please. We’ve gone very far away from the posters on the buses.
Saint Jonny – can I just ask what you’ve done in response to the bus campaign, considering you have so much to say about the response of the TBS?
February 26, 2009 at 1:04 am
Surely the problem is the responsorial nature of the dabate. No one is interested in dialogue – just point scoring!
February 26, 2009 at 8:39 am
I’m just answering the TBS poster the way the TBS poster answered the atheist poster. I don’t feel that I need to respond to the atheist poster itself. I’m reasonably content for them to be where they are.
And if you read this post carefully, it was never really about the poster, it was about the problems with the KJV. It was just that the poster was the springboard for a rant about the KJV!
February 26, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Saint Jonny,
Thank you for replying to my previous comment, I apologise for being so slow in replying to you.
I believe the KJV is (so far) the best translation of the Holy Bible which is available in the English, and that is the position I am trying to write from in this context. I came across your blog through the critical comments which you left on the Facebook group site wall, and which seemed strange to me.
I appreciate the answers which you have left so far, and I am trying to make sense of them. I feel I should repeat my question to you, about producing an example of incomprehensible text from the KJV, as you have yet failed to do so.
Admittedly, many people today in the UK are not as used to the form of the KJV as they used to be, however this is very quickly remedied by exposure to it! I would attribute your perceived difficulties in understanding the text, to simply your being overly unfamiliar with it. I certainly do not question your learning or intelligence, which you doubtless have in spades.
In my (unscholarly) experience so far, I have not met anyone from any background in UK society who cannot very quickly understand the KJV. And there are many advantages to using the KJV, and it is so sad that you have said that you ‘couldn’t care less about comparing it to other translations’, otherwise it might be worth discussing it!
February 26, 2009 at 11:18 pm
I guess my big problem is that I just can’t understand how anyone can affirm that the KJV is the most accurate English translation. From even the small amount of research I’ve done, it seems to me that it clearly is not. Here’s an example of a KJV error:
Ephesians 2:1 in the KJV says this: “And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;”
My own translation is this: “And you were dead in your wrongdoing and sins”
The point is, the KJV has added the words “hath he quickened”. Besides this, the word quickened to mean “made alive” has dropped out of common English usage.
Verse 2-3, KJV: “Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.”
My translation: “in which you previously walked according to the period of this world according to the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit now at work in the sons of disobedience; in which also we all previously lived in the desires of our flesh doing the will of the flesh and of the mind, and we were naturally children of anger as also the rest.”
First, notice the flamboyance of the language that distorts somewhat the simplicity of the original language. “Wherein in time past ye walked” is so much more complicated than “in which you previously walked”. And what’s that about a conversation? Who’s talking to who?
I could go on. I could find many examples of passages that are obscured in the KJV and that even add to the original in ways that the TBS document above criticises of other translations. But I’ve said enough for now.
My challenge to you (or any KJV supporter) is to give me an actual explanation as to why the KJV is the most accurate translation. The only one I can see is that it’s the one that’s been most used for the last 500 years or so.
March 2, 2009 at 7:06 pm
I would have thought it slightly naive to think in the 400 years since the KJV that a better English translation hasn’t arisen.
I also think that our english language has changed significantly since then and so to say it is the ‘best’ translation is like saying ‘i know of an even better one in spanish so we should all use that even though it isn’t readable today’ (I know, that is extreme. Better still, if we must learn a new ‘english’ to access the best translation then why don’t we all learn greek and hebrew and aramaic and go straight to source?
March 7, 2009 at 10:13 am
I thought as moderate KJV user i might add a few thoughts.
1) Claims about the KJV being translated from the Latin, even on specific passages, just aren’t accurate. The KJV translators did refer to various Latin texts, chiefly Beza’s Latin translation, but as they conducted all their discussions in Latin it would be odd if they didn’t. Texts for reference and translation are not the same thing.
2) It is true that the KJV inserts words and even entire phrases into the text where the translators thought this would clarify the meaning. Greek and Hebrew grammar requires this to make clear sense in English. However, they used italicised text to make clear their additions. The NIV and various modern versions do not use this system and so obscure their additions.
3) The word ‘best’ is not helpful. There are bad versions, but among the mainstream translations there are no set criteria, reasonably testable, to assign a version the ‘best’.
4) There are various great versions available in English, but this doesn’t mean we should get rid of the KJV – it is still extremely useful. Don’t let the poor arguments of ‘KJV only’ people blind you to the value of the KJV.
Those are just a few thoughts this post and subsequent comments brought to mind. Sorry if it’s a bit long, but the post was thought provoking.
March 12, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Thanks for your comments Wayward, they are helpful. The claims that the last chapter(s) of Revelation were translated from the Latin do have some evidence. It depends who you listen to. Of course they would have referred to Latin translations but the argument (as I’m sure you’re aware) is that they didn’t even have Greek manuscripts for those bits. Personally, I reckon it’s true.
I was aware of the italics indicated it not being in the original text. But even doing this as italics is misleading for the undiscerning reader who doesn’t expect it to be dynamic equivalence-esque translation.
I agree that ‘best’ is probably not helpful, but we can talk about being ‘most accurate’ as well as most appropriate for different purposes such as evangelism, exegetical study and church gathering use.
I still don’t see any value in the KJV, except as informing us about the way we used to translate the Greek when English was used differently! If you’d care to enlighten me as to the KJV’s worth, then I’d be much obliged.
And the challenge is still open for anyone to demonstrate how they can say that the KJV is the most accurate or even most appropriate for either evangelism, exegesis or church use.
I may be a bit hyperbolic in this, but I think it’s only a very small bit!
March 13, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Jonny,
Guess we’ll have to agree to differ on the history of translation, though i’d recommend Alistair McGrath ‘In the Beginning’ as a good history, especially as he’s not that keen on the continued use of the KJV.
I agree, it would be preferable to not have any added phrases/words in translation, but even in very literal versions (NASB, ESV) this just is always possible if the translation is going to make sense. At least the AV makes clear its additions.
As regards accuracy and the such, i guess firstly we’d have to ignore textual points such as whether certain verses/passages ought to be in scripture or whether they’re additions of scribes over the years, arguments either way are pretty much no more than speculation. But the KJV uses words some modern translations avoid (propitiation, begotten, hell). In that regard at least it could be said to be more accurate than certain modern translations. As a KJV user i also notice that where modern commentators prefer to give their own translation of a passage it frequently proves a pretty good match to the KJV.
As far as usefulness goes, there are literally hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of middle-aged and above folk in the UK with a tremendous knowledge of the KJV through childhood Sunday School experiences. For reaching these people the KJV is still useful – in the church where i preach we would regularly have 20 unsaved people who grew up with and have a familiarity with the KJV in on a Sunday evening. It also has pastoral use in visiting the sick/elderly/hospitalised where they will know entire passages by heart in the AV.
I may just be biased (I had a bad experience of reading the NIV in public once) but i think the KJV still has a place, though as the use of modern versions like the ESV increase, the role of the KJV will probably decrease.
I guess we have to think about our situation and choose a version accordingly. The KJV probably isn’t the most useful version to use with kids (though i was brought up on it and it did me know harm!!), but likewise, if we’re living in a community of older people we need to be sensitive to that too.
March 31, 2009 at 10:18 am
Thanks Wayward, and sorry for the delay in responding. I’ve got a dissertation due this Friday, and I’ve still not finished it!
I think your last two paragraphs are the only real defence the KJV has, though I would want to add “middle class and above” to your “middle-aged and above”. Such a ‘market’ is very small, and I would argue, as I have elsewhere, that our focus should be on the more deprived classes of society, which I would say rules out the use of the KJV. Though for the old folks in the pastoral situations, fair enough.
I’ve dipped into McGrath’s, In the Beginning. It is clearly on a popular level so isn’t really going to deal too much with the technical side of things. It did teach me though that those who translated the KJV were using an older and outdated (by a few hundred years) understanding of Greek grammar and vocabulary. They were working with a “Classical Greek” understanding when the Greek text of the Bible was written in “Koine Greek”. This was not understood properly until a few centuries later. (See pages 236-8.)This would be like us working with modern text using King James era grammar and vocabulary principles!
If you really want to deal with the issues, try something at a little bit more of an academic level (though not so academic that it’s inaccessible). I’d recommend Carson’s, The King James Debate: A Plea for Realism. He makes the point I was making: “For the Book of Revelation [Erasmus] had but one manuscript, and it was lacking the final leaf, which contained the last six verses of the book. Therefore Erasmus translated the Latin Vulgate back into Greek and published that” (p.34). “Erasmus’s Greek Testament stands in line behind the King James Version; yet it rests upon a half dozen minuscule manuscripts, none of which is earlier that the tenth century” (p.35-6)
March 31, 2009 at 10:25 am
I should also add that I like Erasmus’s principles. His aim was to get as close to the original as possible. He abandoned some phrases that he deemed weren’t in the original, such as the Trinitarian verse, 1 John 5:7-8. He argued that this verse was a Latin addition as it wasn’t in his Greek manuscripts and that he wouldn’t include it until someone found it in a Greek manuscript. Someone then forged a Greek manuscript with the phrase included and so it got re-included.
Erasmus was trying to get back to the original rather than just having to stick with the Vulgate and its erroneous additions. This is commendable. Were Erasmus to have the wealth of manuscripts we have today, the KJV would be somewhat different. Erasmus was simply working with the best he had, which was not a lot!
October 1, 2009 at 6:30 pm
You have hardly even begun to scratch the surface of this issue.
The AV/KJV is translated from the Received Text, which is the text preserved by God through the centuries and approved by the church in all ages.
The modern versions are based on a greatly reduced text, which came about as a result of destructive “higher criticism” in the nineteenth century.
This was the result of an onslaught against the authority of the Bible by proud scholars who hated evangelical Christianity and were determined to undermine it.
The same kind of proud scholars are at work today. They are too busy making money from new Bible versions to care about an infallible Bible.
If you want a Bible which teaches all the historic doctrines in their full force, you will choose the Authorized King James Bible.
If you want a watered down Bible with weakened doctrines to tickle your ears, you will choose a modern version.
The King James Bible is perfectly readable to the spiritual Christian and to the simple alike. It has a lower reading age than modern versions. It is used successfully in developing countries with people who know little English, and by children, and it has been used to promote revivals down through history.
As the saying goes, “It’s not the parts of the Bible I don’t understand that trouble me, it’s the parts I do understand.”
If you don’t want your conscience to be troubled, you will choose a modern version that is soft on the ears. If you want to know the truth, and the truth will set you free, you will thoose the King James Bible.
I would advise you to dig deeper on this issue. Whether you will or not will reveal whether you are an earnest seeker of truth or a merely superficial Christian, if a Christian at all.
October 1, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Hear Hear!!!
October 1, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Before I start I would like to note that I am a practising, evangelical Christian and what I have to say is for the purpose of supporting each other as family and to help further the knowledge of God and his glorious Gospel! Also this thread seems to have got a little out of hand but I feel that the last post needs to be addressed.
With that said: Ambrose, your comment seems to be a biased rant based mainly on nothing but speculation.
You are (sort of) incorrect that the AV (1611) uses the Received Text as its foundational source from which it is translated. Firstly it only relates to the NT. Secondly, it was translated using two texts: Thomas Beza’s Greek New Testament (1565-1604) and Stephanus’ 3rd edition Greek NT (1564-1551). It wasn’t until 1624 (13 years after the AV) that the Received Text even officially existed. The Elzevir Brothers wrote a Greek NT using Beza’s text claiming in 1633 that they were providing “the text which is now received by all,in which we give nothing changed or corrupted.”
However your, and their, assertion that it “is the text preserved by God through the centuries and approved by the church in all ages” is completely foundation-less! To start with it was based on the previous texts by Beza, who himself based his text on that of Erasmus (1516). His text was based on around 6, rather late, Greek manuscripts he had, all from the 10th Century onward. There is variation in his text too. The famous Trinitarian text of 1 John 5:7-8 found in the AV was not in the original print, nor in Erasmus’ text as he couldn’t find it in any Greek texts. However in 1520 he was presented with a Greek manuscript with it included so it was added to later editions. Also, Erasmus’ has to translate the last 6 verses of Revelation himself from the Latin Vulgate as they weren’t in his manuscripts. His translation appears in none of the Greek manuscripts we have.
That doesn’t even scratch the surface, as you state. The concept that the early church had a single document is in itself false. An easy example in that of the LXX, the Greek OT used by the early church and from which nearly all the quotations come from in the NT. It has significant variations from the Hebrew editions we have, such as a shorter (12%) version of Jeremiah. Or in the NT where we have longer, and shorted versions of books and passages. E.g. The adulterous woman in John’s Gospel.
This is meant in no way to discredit either the great men of God mentioned here who have done might works in furthering our understanding of scripture, or in any sense to slander the Scriptures themselves but rather to try to correct those who claim that there is some concept of an autograph which contains the perfectly preserved original texts.
Also you say, “If you want a watered down Bible with weakened doctrines to tickle your ears, you will choose a modern version.” Weakened doctrines? Where? How is using modern language and varied sources weakening doctrine? How is that tickling our ears? Was it tickling our ears when the Bible was translated into Latin, or English, or any other language?
As for it being readable I find it dubious. I do know some who like it and great for them. However, the purpose of the Bible is that we understand God. The NT was mainly written in Koine Greek. The type used by the commoner, not the scholar. It was written that the average person would understand it immediately. The fact that it has be used to teach English is true but there are better versions to use for it. The Good News Bible was created for that very purpose in fact, and although it isn’t great for the subtle neuances in the text it will give a better understanding of modern English usage and will leave them with a better understanding of the text (assuming they haven’t read it before, or maybe even if they have), the if the AV was used. the AV does have it’s uses such as the variation on pronouns that are lost in modern English, however I would again suggest the NASV, RSV, or NKJV for that, if one can’t read the original.
The AV has be used greatly in revivals, and praise God for that, but so have many other versions. The turning of ones heart is to do with the movement of our God and not just the understanding of a text. If God can use sinners for his glory, then he can use anyone or anything!
You assertion that, “If you want a Bible which teaches all the historic doctrines in their full force, you will choose the Authorized King James Bible” seems to claim that anyone that didn’t have the AV is lacking. All the Christians before 1611 will be rather annoyed I guess. This also limits the work of the spirit in revealing truth to us.
You say, “If you don’t want your conscience to be troubled, you will choose a modern version that is soft on the ears. If you want to know the truth, and the truth will set you free, you will thoose[sic] the King James Bible.” However, I say that if you would know the truth then know Jesus and he will set you free. Choose any version that will help you grasp with God. As the hymn writer said, “I’d rather have Jesus then silver or gold, I’d rather have Jesus then riches untold. I’d rather have Jesus then anything this world affords today!”
The idea that any scholar who discredits the AV or Received Text has some form of agenda is an awful thing to slander a brother/sister with, and I suggest you look closely at what you are claiming about them before you go any further. However your criticism of Higher criticism of the 19th C is not without merit. However what it has done is tell us where there are variations in the texts so that we can decide, with help of the spirit, as to what one should should do with such information. To me this is a good thing and is in keeping with the Christian understanding of truth. If you feel convicted to accept it all then God bless you, but please do not slander those who feel convicted to treat the text otherwise.
For further info I suggest the essay, “Can I Have Your Autograph? Uses and abuses of textual criticism in formulating an evangelical doctrine of scripture; John J. Brogan. The version I have used is found in the book, “Evangelicals & Scripture: Tradition, Authority and Hermeneutics.” There are obviously loads of other texts, both in books and online which you can read, although I encourage you to look at and reflect upon a variety of sources and not just those you already agree with.
In Christ,
Peter.
October 2, 2009 at 11:48 am
Peter, thanks for that well worked out argument, you’ve saved me the job of putting forward a good and reasonable response. I’m too busy doing fatherly things to respond properly!
Ambrose you need to understand how much we do actually understand. We haven’t just scratched lightly the surface of these issues even if they have only been presented lightly for the purposes of a blog post. You need to understand that you can be thoroughly evangelical, reformed and conservative whilst preferring the NIV or ESV or even CEV. And I just can’t understand how you can say that the KJV has a lower reading age than most modern Bible translations. Here are some comparison charts that tell the opposite of what you say:
http://www.sundayschoolresources.com/biblechoices.htm
http://www.shoppingforbibles.com/page-bibletranslationchart.html
I feel that now would be a good time to close comments before things get out of hand. Enough has been said.