Burgon was labouring upon the basis for a new revision, and never advanced to (as far as we can tell) a formal plan. However, by scouting his works, various quotations can be gathered, indicating his mind on the matter. As for specifics, i.e. which so-called archaic words to be revised, which so-called obscurities in Paul’s writings, which so-called needful alterations in translation, etc., this must have been known to some extent by Miller, other suggested corrections exist in the unpublished material of the Dean.

John Burgon himself sought to improve the Received Text by first revising the underlying text, “an authoritative Revision of the Greek Text will have to precede any future Revision of the English of the New Testament. Equally certain is it that for such an undertaking the time has not yet come.” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, page 124.) He wrote, “Whenever the time comes for the Church of England to revise her Authorized Version (1611), it will become necessary that she should in the first instance instruct some of the more judicious and learned of her sons carefully to revise the Greek Text of Stephens (1550). Men require to know precisely what it is they have to translate before they translate it.” (Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, page 263.) Edward Miller recorded that, “we do not advocate perfection in the Textus Receptus. We allow that here and there it requires revision. In the Text left behind by Dean Burgon, about 150 corrections have been suggested by him in St Matthew’s Gospel alone. What we maintain is the Traditional Text. And we trace it back to the earliest ages of which there is any record.” (Burgon, The Traditional Text, page 5.)

Burgon’s plan was to gather the information which had been discovered after 1611, or had been, in his opinion, not utilised by the King James Bible translators, “my object, the establishment of the text on an intelligible and trust worthy basis.” (Burgon, The Traditional Text, page 6.) “Let 500 more COPIES of the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles be diligently collated. Let at least 100 of the ancient Lectionaries be very exactly collated also. Let the most important of the ancient VERSIONS be edited afresh, and let the languages which these are written be for the first time really mastered by Englishmen. Above all, let the FATHERS be called upon to give up their precious secrets. Let their writings be ransacked and indexed, and (where needful) let the MSS of their works be diligently inspected, in order that we may know what actually is the evidence which they afford, Only so will it ever be possible to obtain a Greek Text on which absolute reliance may be placed, and which may serve as the basis for a satisfactory Revision of our Authorized Version.” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, page 125.)

He said, “Whenever the time comes for the Church of England to revise her Authorized Version (1611)”. (Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, page 263.) Of course, Burgon was not entirely correct in his view of revising the underlying texts, but he was correct that further work was required in the King James Bible. He also quoted the modernist Ellicott’s words, “‘No Revision’ (he [Ellicott] says) ‘in the present day could hope to meet with an hour’s acceptance if it failed to preserve the tone, rhythm, and dictation of the present Authorized Version.’” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, page 226.) This was perfectly true, in that Ellicot’s own favoured Revised Version failed his own requirements, though what Burgon pointed out was that whatever change was to happen in the revision of the King James Bible would at the last be nothing less than a preservation of it.

Burgon made it very plain that the Revised Version could not be any factor in the work. “It is idle — worse than idle — to dream of revising, with a view to retaining, this Revision. Another generation of students must be suffered to arise. Time must be given for Passion and Prejudice to cool effectually down ... Partisanship must be completely outlived, — before the Church can venture, with the remotest prospect of a successful issue, to organise another attempt at revising the Authorized Version of the New Testament Scriptures.” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, page 227.)

“Then further,” wrote Burgon, “those who would interpret the New Testament Scriptures, are reminded that a thorough acquaintance with the Septuagintal Version of the Old Testament is one indispensable condition of success.” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, page 128.) This was a condition which was entirely lacking in the Revised Version, yet in the history of the Church, “the translation of the Seventy” had been set “forth openly to be considered of and perused by all.” (TTR, Section 12, Paragraph 2).

“And finally,” Burgon concluded, “the Revisionists of the future [after 1884] (if they desire that their labours should be crowned), will find it their wisdom to practise a severe self-denial; to confine themselves to the correction of ‘plain and clear errors;’ and in fact to ‘introduce into the [English] Text as few alterations as possible.’” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, page 128.) And that “the Authorized Version, wherever it was possible, should have been jealously retained.” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, page 226.)

While it is possible to de-emphasise what the good Dean's real intentions where, it is an inescapable truth that he did seek to depart from the Authorized Version. Even the conservative new translation which he is advocating, though it would be very close to the AV, would still represent a corruption. We must see that it is God's providence which both disallowed it to proceed, and that God has yet kept alive a jealousy for the very words of the English Bible without alteration of one point in the underlying text.

That interpretation of the Dean is not what he said, nor meant. I have laid out that Burgon's view was that it was necessary for the eventual correction or alteration of the King James Bible. Of course, he was not settled on how it should be finally done, so he suggested a system of marginal notes as a possibility.

The fact is that he was aiming, not only for adjustments in the TR, but that there should be (minor?) adjustments in the English also. Those who see the Dean as a champion of the King James Bible need to take this realistic view: that while Burgon does tend to support the AV, yet he does not give it his full support.

As for thorough acquaintance with the Fathers, Versions and with the Septuagint, it is clear in hindsight that this was not required for any textual correction to the AV, however, the use of this knowledge has been in another way, namely, that it has been useful for the defence (e.g. Hills) and purification (e.g. Redpath) of the King James Bible as we now have it.

For example, those who are somewhat learned in these matters should tend to support the AV, even though they may not believe it to be fully perfect. Thus, we have the favourable witness of people in this stream, which has turned to the defence of the Textus Receptus. Of course, there should be an advance to English just-is-now-going-only.

To claim that Burgon's argument was basically "come back in 50-100 years and we can see what is the story" is a whitewashed view at best. While Burgon implied that another generation should arise beyond the Revised Version, he did not have just a passive "wait and see" approach. It was all hands on deck in doing the hard work to prop up, what he hoped to be, the foundation of a needful revision.

The Dean Burgon Society seems to be a major proponent of the Burgonist view, which rather than revising the underlying texts, accepts Scrivener’s TR as the benchmark for continuing translations of the Scripture. It seems that Donald Waite’s Defined King James Bible has been made on the very principle of the necessity of “the removal of many an obscurity in the AV”, which by a series of footnotes is for the “representing certain words more accurately”. This, in the main can be helpful, but it is not perfect. I tender that this is the conservative implementation of Burgon’s plan, which had the (relatively more) radical idea of adjusting the underlying text of the English Bible.

However, in reality, the actual "revision" that took place to the King James Bible was that a few dozen words were restored to their 1611 presentation, and a few other minor grammatical or editorial points. I believe this to be the kind of revision that was actually necessary, and that the Dean was mistaken to think that his indexing of the old evidence would contribute something more.

Burgon, as represented by Miller, wrote, “we do not advocate perfection in the Textus Receptus. We allow that here and there it requires revision. In the Text left behind by Dean Burgon, about 150 corrections have been suggested by him in St Matthew’s Gospel alone. What we maintain is the Traditional Text. And we trace it back to the earliest ages of which there is any record.” (Burgon, The Traditional Text, page 5.)

Steven Avery wrote:
150 corrections to the TR is 150, not "a few". We cannot whitewash, degrade or justify otherwise. These 150 changes in the underlying text could mean 150 changes in the English. They were designed to be so, otherwise what was the purpose of the marginal notations he suggested? Perhaps exceedingly minor, such as spelling, perhaps not so minor, such as the tense, and perhaps even quite radical, such as alteration of the sense and the text. But no matter what, it is good that the exact details of these 150 revisions are not known. (Even if they were just suggestions, which could be accepted or rejected case by case by some later "revision".)

Steven Avery wrote, "only a few of the 150 referenced in Matthew are likely his own declaration that the TR is not correct -- people 'suggest' all sorts of stuff) which would change the underlying text."

I pointed out that the Dean was labouring to revise the TR, and had 150 (suggested) changes for the Book of Matthew alone. That is 150 changes in the TR of St. Matthew, potentially 150 changes in the King James Bible in the Gospel of Matthew alone.

I said that, "150 corrections to the TR is 150, not 'a few'."

Steven Avery wrote: "Of course not, and to write in this manner is an astonishing misrepresentation of my words. Where did I ever claim that 150 is a 'few'?"

What I meant exactly was that Steven Avery was making Burgon's 150 TR changes down to just a few, i.e. just a small portion of that 150, rather than accepting the plain wording of Miller that there were about 150 Greek textual/English translational changes in the Book of Matthew, Miller writes, "In the Text left behind by Dean Burgon, about 150 corrections have been suggested by him in St Matthew’s Gospel alone."

Was Burgon’s revisionary work with the Greek underlying text merely restricted to the Greek, or was he implying, indicating and revealing that the King James Bible should be altered?

Steven Avery seems to be arguing that the Dean’s work was restricted to the Greek only, and that the Dean was not advocating any change to the King James Bible. If that is more or less what Steven Avery is arguing and claiming, I believe it to be a wrong interpretation of Burgon’s work.

First, Burgon spoke of the necessity of “the removal of many an obscurity in the AV”.

Here is the full quotation (from David Cloud):
In the context of that quote, he 1. agrees that there were obscurities in the English, 2. that the Revisionists of the RV have done well in having thrown important light, specifically by new so-called accurate translation and also by alterations of the English idiom, 3. that there were indeed obscurities in the AV Gospels and Epistles which he expected and agreed should be clarified.

This shows that Burgon was believing that revision to the English Bible was right, proper and good. But he favoured a vastly different kind of revision than what actually occurred.

Burgon’s plan, which was never “formalised” consisted of:
I. gaining a full picture of the underlying textual evidence with special reference to the Byzantine tradition,
II. the developing of scholarship in “sound” textual criticism, including acquaintance with the LXX, etc.,
III. making corrections to the TR,
IV. translating afresh in places, while keeping the KJB as much as possible,
V., alterations of the English idiom of the KJB where obscure or imprecise,
VI. updating a few “archaicisms” in the KJB,
VII., as to how this is to be executed, could perhaps as an auxiliary “handmaid” volume, or perhaps by marginal references, or perhaps as a new edition wherein would be introduced as few alterations as possible into the Text of the Authorized Version.

(I have constructed this outline of a planfrom a general knowledge of Burgon's printed work.)

Thus, when Burgon spoke of, “representing certain words more accurately, — here and there translating a tense with greater precision, — getting rid of a few archaisms”, he was in fact laying out what was part of his own plan. In the context of these words he does not condemn this notion at all, but says that the AV should not be endangered, for the sake of making these changes. He is seeing that these changes are right, but that they should not be used as a pretext for wholesale radical modernisation. In other words, he would rather be conservative and have no revision than to allow the needful revision he really desires, when it would be hijacked and destructive to Scripture (like the RV was).

Burgon wrote, “an authoritative Revision of the Greek Text will have to precede any future Revision of the English of the New Testament. Equally certain is it that for such an undertaking the time has not yet come.” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, page 124.)

Note, he says “will have to”. He believed in not only altering the Greek, but the AV. He then uses the words “not yet come”, meaning that there would be a time when the AV would be somehow revised. He is not against a “future Revision of the English”.

Again, Burgon wrote, “Whenever the time comes for the Church of England to revise her Authorized Version (1611), it will become necessary that she should in the first instance instruct some of the more judicious and learned of her sons carefully to revise the Greek Text of Stephens (1550). Men require to know precisely what it is they have to translate before they translate it.” (Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, page 263.)

Note that he believed it inevitable that there would be a revision to the AV, and then says that it would be necessary for it to be done properly, etc. Not only is the Greek to be altered, but then men would “translate it”. That is clearing meaning that he believed and supported and even advocated change to the AV.

Edward Miller recorded that, “we do not advocate perfection in the Textus Receptus. We allow that here and there it requires revision. In the Text left behind by Dean Burgon, about 150 corrections have been suggested by him in St Matthew’s Gospel alone. What we maintain is the Traditional Text. And we trace it back to the earliest ages of which there is any record.” (Burgon, The Traditional Text, page 5.)

These 150 corrections mean 150 changes in the KJB in the Book Matthew! It does not mean less, or just the Greek, as though it would have no affect or manifestation in English. As for even a short catalogue of specific examples of any sort of alterations the Dean suggested, one can probably find allusions to examples in places in his writings.

He said, “my object, the establishment of the text on an intelligible and trust worthy basis.” (Burgon, The Traditional Text, page 6.) And, “Let 500 more COPIES of the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles be diligently collated. Let at least 100 of the ancient Lectionaries be very exactly collated also. Let the most important of the ancient VERSIONS be edited afresh, and let the languages which these are written be for the first time really mastered by Englishmen. Above all, let the FATHERS be called upon to give up their precious secrets. Let their writings be ransacked and indexed, and (where needful) let the MSS of their works be diligently inspected, in order that we may know what actually is the evidence which they afford, Only so will it ever be possible to obtain a Greek Text on which absolute reliance may be placed, and which may serve as the basis for a satisfactory Revision of our Authorized Version.” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, page 125.)

Note that once all this was done, “Only so will it ever be possible to obtain a Greek Text on which absolute reliance may be placed, and which may serve as the basis for a satisfactory Revision of our Authorized Version.” He very plainly, clearly supports a “satisfactory Revision of our Authorized Version”. He is wanting to change the AV, not just the Greek, but the English.

What English was he wanting to change? Certainly not wholesale changes like the RV, because he said, “It is idle — worse than idle — to dream of revising, with a view to retaining, this Revision. Another generation of students must be suffered to arise. Time must be given for Passion and Prejudice to cool effectually down ... Partisanship must be completely outlived, — before the Church can venture, with the remotest prospect of a successful issue, to organise another attempt at revising the Authorized Version of the New Testament Scriptures.” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, page 227.)

He wanted someone to have a “successful” venture, and “organise another attempt at revising the Authorized Version”. He was all for changing the AV. All for the success of a conservative revision.

“Then further,” wrote Burgon, “those who would interpret the New Testament Scriptures, are reminded that a thorough acquaintance with the Septuagintal Version of the Old Testament is one indispensable condition of success.” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, page 128.)

Again, Burgon sees that a new interpretation would be exectued, and gave his ideas on what would make it a “success”? He is not just talking about the Greek, but about creating changes to the King James Bible!

“And finally,” Burgon concluded, “the Revisionists of the future (if they desire that their labours should be crowned), will find it their wisdom to practise a severe self-denial; to confine themselves to the correction of ‘plain and clear errors;’ and in fact to ‘introduce into the Text as few alterations as possible.’” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, page 128.) And that “the Authorized Version, wherever it was possible, should have been jealously retained.” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, page 226.)

He is not just speaking of errors in the Greek but errors or changes to be made in the Authorized Version. He said that it should be retained “wherever it was possible” meaning that he thought it was not always possible to do so, indeed, giving his blessing and the most certain implication that the work of his sort would differ to the AV as it was.

I cannot supply specific examples of what Burgon though were corrections, but it might be possible to find various throughout his writings. But I am not making a case in support of Burgon’s revising the AV, rather, that Burgon being on the side of good was not wholly wrong. Namely, that he did see the value in retaining much of the AV, and that there were a few corrections that were needful in the presentation of the AV, nothing like the types of corrections which he implied he required. And in time, the purification of the AV was complete. But so much of the Dean’s projections were never fulfilled, nor should they be, and that is why we should not bother about what exactly were his requirements for revision, how much and to what extent he was for “representing certain words more accurately, — here and there translating a tense with greater precision, — getting rid of a few archaisms”. He certainly thought there were at least a few inaccuracies, a few imprecisions and a few archaicisms in the AV. What exactly, how many, we do not know, and it does not matter.

Elements or things of the proper spirit of his requirements were fulfilled, and this can be recognised from the basis of a proper view of the AV itself. This includes that the Septuagint knowledge seems to have been helpful in correcting longstanding typographical errors/variations in names in the AV. And that greater knowledge of the Byzantine tradition connected to TR defence has afterwards confirmed the AV.

I stand by my claim that Burgon had the specific aim and wish for the conservative revising of the KJB, which would certainly include, “representing certain words more accurately, — here and there translating a tense with greater precision, — getting rid of a few archaisms”.

Steven Avery wrote:
It is clear that the LXX, or knowledge of it, is not helpful nor has had any affect to be able to change even one word of the underlying text to the King James Bible Old Testament. This is simply because no change has been admitted to the underlying text. (It would be contradictory to be stuck upon some issue concerning the underlying text when the AV has been set forth as the final Word for the world.)

My point is that knowledge of the LXX would be (i.e. was) helpful, in that it would be a great asset to having understanding of textual and translational details, second, that this knowledge would not be a hindrance if it was rejected or not utilised in regards to making any change, third, that in purely editorial work, that is, criticism that related to English printed textual history, LXX knowledge would be an asset in identifying typographical errors/variations in obscure names (regardless of the specific LXX witness in regards to those names), and that LXX knowledge would be an aid to regularisation, especially if a person were an LXX editor, therefore in the practice of being an editor, better equipped to deal with the English.

The cause and affect between Burgon and the Pure Cambridge Edition is not literal, but signal (i.e. as a sign). It is not that Burgon said that the LXX would be helpful, and then when an LXX editor worked on the AV, that he made changes from the LXX or on the basis of the LXX, etc. Rather, Burgon, while misguided, was still very good, and had something prophetic about him, in that as little as possible changes to the AV was really his rule, and it worked out that few was far fewer than what he thought. It is not about trying to draw or disavow LXX connections between the editing of the Pure Cambridge Edition. It is about seeing the kind of spirit involved and seeing the kind of learning that would be used by God. (In mentioning Redpath’s knowledge of the LXX, I am doing so highlighting that he was scholarly and learned.)

The very reason why concentrating on the TR and underlying texts is a waste of time is because the KJB is settled now. The very reason why we go beyond Burgon, building upon him, is because we can see where he was wrong and uncertain. Therefore, to yet be labouring with the Greek is to be somewhere where things have not yet been recognised as final.

For example, those who are yet labouring with the Textus Receptus, those who support other translations yet being made from the TR, and so on, which is better than Burgon’s position, is still not fully the final position, because such people may still regard obscurities, etc. in the KJB (e.g. that the English language may alter so that another edition of the KJB be needful), and/or else think that it is obscure, etc. for people in other nations (e.g. to doubt that God is turning the world to English in time).

It is as a sign that there is a connection between those who tend to uphold Burgon in a slightly wrong light themselves tend to be slightly wrong in their view of the perfection of the King James Bible in English. The right light is to see Burgon as good (e.g. learned, prophetic), but mistaken; as furthering the principles of the cause (as few changes as possible), while misapplying the practise (the right view is that the AV is fixed for the world now since its final purification).

Unless I put in prodigious effort I find I'm unable to follow this discussion very far at this point. I hope nobody minds if I pipe up here and try to collect some pieces of my scattered brain by asking a few questions of Steven Avery, perhaps not particularly pertinent ones, hard to know.

Would I be right in thinking, SA, that you and BP agree on what the KJB should look like? That is, you both reject every kind of change at this point?

Do you agree with BP about the finality and perfection of the PCE or Pure Cambridge edition (?) that he favors?

You say he is misrepresenting Burgon. I think I'm following your argument about this but on the other hand I might have drawn the same conclusion BP did about Burgon's hope for a future revision from the very quotes BP put together, even if he shouldn't have put them together without more indication of their context. I haven't read far enough in Burgon to know yet what impression I will have of his own views of the need for a revision. But I might end up agreeing with anything Burgon suggests toward a revision while neither of you would? Is that right?

And here's another question that may seem to come out of the blue at this point but maybe it fits in somewhere. Recently I compared a few paragraphs among the versions just out of curiosity, hardly systematically, and it's led me to a horror of the new versions that I didn't even have before despite being KJB-only for some time now. It's brought me to a sort of fury of indignation at what they did to the Bible that none of the discussions I've read about it so far have done. I haven't done much, a few paragraphs as I said, in Psalms 91 and 23 and Jeremiah for instance, and my impression is that there are a ridiculous number of changes from the KJB in the new versions, ridiculous and utterly indefensible, and they're all in the English or in the translation it seems, not in the underlying texts, just willynilly changes in words to no purpose. "Pinions" for "feathers." "Unreliable stream" for "waters that fail." "Overflows" for "runneth over." And so on. I looked up a few of them in the concordance and found that they had chosen the least representative translation of a particular Hebrew word, as if they were going out of their way to make change for change's sake, anything, just anything at all to destroy the AV. The words are all synonyms more or less but they change the rhythm of the text and make it clumsy without the slightest improvement in clarity that I can see, in fact they make it more obscure: nobody has a problem with the image of feathers, but pinions is a technical term that distances the reader from the text. What on earth is an "unreliable stream" anyway? I'm not completely sure I know what physical reality "waters that fail" refers to either, but "unreliable stream" is no help whatever.

Again, these things have nothing to do with the underlying texts. They aren't even about doctrine. They strike me as vandalism committed against the English pure and simple. Anything to confuse and scatter God's people. If the majority of the changes are of this sort, and let me guess that's what I'll keep finding if I continue with this, I don't feel I need to know much more about the versions dispute, about the Johannine Comma or Mark 16 or any of that, to answer the skeptics. Anyone should reject the revisions based on this mutilation of the English language alone.

I realize this is a separate issue from the issue of whether any revision whatever should be countenanced, and I still think there are probably a few words that could use updating.

This is not what I have said. What I have shown is that Burgon had a plan (without specific details) to change both the TR and the KJB, or to agree with such things. It was not just "possible" TR changes, but the design was that some of the suggestions would actually be finally taken. And the changes to the KJB included a desire to alter some minor points, such as archaic words or modifying tenses. We do not have the fine details, because the Dean only broadly promotes this idea in his published works. He says that the TR should be changed, but we don't know fully know what those changes are. He says that the KJB should be revised, but we don't know which verses he particularly means. But we cannot deny that he was a conservative Bible corrector, and much more sound, as when comparing to even the NKJV people.

Burgon’s plan, which was never "formalised", which outline I have constructed from a general knowledge of Burgon's printed work, was promoted by the Dean because he clearly indicated the inevitability and the necessity of revision, therefore, he wished the (deferred) revision to be done soundly:

I. gaining a full picture of the underlying textual evidence with special reference to the Byzantine tradition,
II. the developing of scholarship in “sound” textual criticism, including acquaintance with the LXX, etc.,
III. making corrections to the TR,
IV. translating afresh in places, while keeping the KJB as much as possible,
V. alterations of the English idiom of the KJB where obscure or imprecise,
VI. updating a few “archaicisms” in the KJB,
VII. as to how this is to be executed, could perhaps as an auxiliary “handmaid” volume, or perhaps by marginal references, or perhaps as a new edition wherein would be introduced as few alterations as possible into the Text of the Authorized Version.

I cannot produce any particular reference off hand where the Dean said, "this particular archaic, obscure or imprecise word should be altered", etc., but we know Burgon did give hints that this was his thinking. From what he stated, it is clear that he thought some revision in the KJB was necessary. Also, he never says the opposite, namely, he never says or rules out that the King James Bible should not be revised or altered. The closest he comes to that is by pointing out the danger of altering the KJB which is a binding religious link, and a recognised monument, etc. I submit that the presentation of my view of Dean Burgon as a potential corrector of the King James Bible is based on sound reality. I emphasise that he must have been on the right side, because he was kept from actually carrying out his designs in this regard.

Connie wrote:

After reading Burgon, I strongly recommend reading Edward Hills. This is what he wrote against revision of the KJB:

Why the King lames Version Should be Retained

But, someone may reply, even if the King James Version needs only a few corrections, why take the trouble to make them? Why keep on with the old King James and its 17th century language, its thee and thou and all the rest? Granted that the Textus Receptus is the best text, but why not make a new translation of it in the language of today? In answer to these objections there are several facts which must be pointed out.

In the first place, the English of the King James Version is not the English of the early 17th century. To be exact, it is not a type of English that was ever spoken anywhere. It is biblical English, which was not used on ordinary occasions even by the translators who produced the King James Version. As H. Wheeler Robinson (1940) pointed out, one need only compare the preface written by the translators with the text of their translation to feel the difference in style. (46) And the observations of W. A. Irwin (1952) are to the same purport. The King James Version, he reminds us, owes its merit, not to 17th century English—which was very different—but to its faithful translation of the original. Its style is that of the Hebrew and of the New Testament Greek. (47) Even in their use of thee and thou the translators were not following 17th century English usage but biblical usage, for at the time these translators were doing their work these singular forms had already been replaced by the plural you in polite conversation. (48)

In the second place, those who talk about translating the Bible into the "language of today" never define what they mean by this expression. What is the language of today? The language of 1881 is not the language of today, nor the language of 1901, nor even the language of 1921. In none of these languages, we are told, can we communicate with today's youth. ... But in contrast to these absurdities the language of the King James Version is enduring diction which will remain as long as the English language remains, in other words, throughout the foreseeable future.

In the third place, the current attack on the King James Version and the promotion of modern speech versions is discouraging the memorization of the Scriptures, especially by children. Why memorize or require your children to memorize something that is out of date and about to be replaced by something new and better? And why memorize a modern version when there are so many to choose from? Hence even in conservative churches children are growing up densely ignorant of the holy Bible because they are not encouraged to hide its life giving words in their hearts.

In the fourth place, modem speech Bibles are unhistorical and irreverent. The Bible is not a modern, human book. It is not as new as the morning newspaper, and no translation should suggest this. If the Bible were this new, it would not be the Bible. On the contrary, the Bible is an ancient, divine Book, which nevertheless is always new because in it God reveals Himself. Hence the language of the Bible should be venerable as well as intelligible, and the King James Version fulfills these two requirements better than any other Bible in English. Hence it is the King James Version which converts sinners soundly and makes of them diligent Bible students.

In the fifth place, modern speech Bibles are unscholarly. The language of the Bible has always savored of the things of heaven rather than the things of earth. It has always been biblical rather than contemporary and colloquial. Fifty years ago this fact was denied by E. J. Goodspeed and others who were pushing their modern versions. On the basis of the papyrus discoveries which had recently been made in Egypt it was said that the New Testament authors wrote in the everyday Greek of their own times. (49) This claim, however, is now acknowledged to have been an exaggeration. As R. M. Grant (1963) admits (50) the New Testament writers were saturated with the Septuagint and most of them were familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures. Hence their language was not actually that of the secular papyri of Egypt but biblical. Hence New Testament versions must be biblical and not contemporary and colloquial like Goodspeed's version.

Finally, in the sixth place, the King James Version is the historic Bible of English speaking Protestants. Upon it God, working providentially, has placed the stamp of His approval through the usage of many generations of Bible believing Christians. Hence, if we believe in God's providential preservation of the Scriptures, we will retain the King James Version, for in so doing we will be following the clear leading of the Almighty.

AND:

It is possible, if the Lord tarry that in the future the English language will change so much that a new English translation of the Bible will become absolutely necessary. But in that case any version which we prepare today would be equally antiquated. Hence this is a matter which we must leave to God, who alone knows what is in store for us. For the present, however, and the foreseeable future no new translation is needed to take the place of the King James Version. Today our chief concern must be to create a climate of Christian thought and learning which God can use providentially should the need for such a new English version ever arise. This would insure that only the English wording would be revised and not the underlying Hebrew and Greek text.

As I've been reading along in this site for the past few months and thinking through all this I have gradually changed my position from thinking a new translation would be needed (I was influenced in that direction at the time by a discussion I think I posted a link to some time ago, between Douglas Wilson and James White), to just thinking that the only change that would be useful would be updating certain words that no longer mean what they meant in 1611. Since I can't make a comprehensive list of such words all I can do is guess that it wouldn't be many -- a dozen, two dozen? (Perhaps there being so few means marginal notes would be a better solution than a revision but most Bibles have way too many such definitional notes as it is.) I understand the argument about the thees and thous and verb endings and accept it.

So I am very far from wanting a "modern speech version" at this point. I just can't go with what still seems like a superstitious clinging to the letter of the text, or what Steven Avery called English-KJB triumphalism. But since I've been gradually moving toward less and less change, who knows, I may still end up agreeing with those who argue for absolutely no change. I just haven't been convinced yet.

I haven't followed the discussions about the underlying texts but I don't see any need for a change there until someone convinces me there is one, which I doubt is going to happen. I trust the KJB translators to have had the knowledge and especially the spiritual judgment to choose the right texts and I know the texts that were found later and underlie the new versions are corrupt, so that ends the subject for me. But changes in the English language are a different kind of problem. The translators had no way of anticipating such changes or doing anything about them. And again I don't mean the thees and thous, I mean particular words. I'll try to remember to start a list of such words.

And yes, one thing that bothers me a lot about the new versions is how they discourage memorization and make congregational unison reading impossible and in general create a chaos in the churches. But that's because they made those thousands of absolutely unnecessary nuisance changes.

Steven Avery said:
This is not the case at all. All along I showed (just look through the draft of my book) that Burgon was attempting and/or supporting a revision of the KJB. I have, in this series of postings, been able to give both a series of quotations and draw an outline of the Dean’s plan.

The question is, how could Burgon get it right, when he was actually a Bible corrector?

Then I realised that Burgon, like anyone at the time, was thinking that some revision to the King James Bible was needful. Burgon says as much.

And what kind of revision, that is, what types of things needed to be changed? Read various writers from the mid-1800s, and you will find that there were a few obscurities or so-called archaic words that could or should be revised. Burgon himself gives several indications that he agrees with this. Several times he implies and even plainly agrees that the Authorized Version of the Bible should be revised, and indicates obscurities and tenses of the English as a part of this "revision".

In my thinking about the matter, I wondered how this wrong desire for revision could fit in with what actually happened. And I saw that there was a need for revision in the 1800s, just not the kind of revision that was being advocated. But there needed to be just a tiny revision to correct a few dozen obscure names and some other points where typographical errors had lingered, and some other points of regularisation.

Thus, Burgon's desire for a revision did come about, but on a much less scale, though with some interesting similarities or inputs from the Dean's requirements, which have indeed rightly led into the King James Bible movement today.

I. gaining a full picture of the underlying textual evidence with special reference to the Byzantine tradition,

Although largely accomplished by Burgon, this had no affect upon the text of the King James Bible, but served to confirm and vindicate it, and that general knowledge of it has aided the King James Bible movement, which this very day does not have the complete and full knowledge of this. When the PCE was executed, various factors (i.e. tradition) were indicating that no changes in the underlying text were required.

II. the developing of scholarship in “sound” textual criticism, including acquaintance with the LXX, etc.,
III. making corrections to the TR,

Scholarship in this direction failed. Someone like Henry Redpath had the tail end of that learning. Modernism took over the entire field. People like Edward Hills were the most sound executors of this, yet their conclusion was to advocate no changes in the underlying text, and were extremely cautious to the point of almost prohibiting any changes at all with the KJB. Since then, the King James Bible movement has (largely) a prohibitive view of any changes.

IV. translating afresh in places, while keeping the KJB as much as possible,
V. alterations of the English idiom of the KJB where obscure or imprecise,
VI. updating a few “archaicisms” in the KJB,

Although some small measure of editorial changes in the English occurred with the PCE, which did follow the rule of making as few changes as possible, other than that, and since that time, the idea of changing any words, especially the idea of merely “modernising” the language, has been unpopular and often prohibited by King James Bible only supporters. The fact is that once the PCE was made, there has been a strengthening and settling and fixing of the position.

VII. as to how this is to be executed, could perhaps as an auxiliary “handmaid” volume, or perhaps by marginal references, or perhaps as a new edition wherein would be introduced as few alterations as possible into the Text of the Authorized Version.

Unhindered, Burgon’s position leads to something like the NKJV. But in reality, Burgon’s position has been thwarted, and rather useful for:
a. supporting the textual basis of the King James Bible as it is, and
b. allowing for and now keeping the purity of the presentation of the King James Bible.

I hold that Steven Avery’s claims of where I have supposedly misquoted, or supposedly changed my opinion, or supposedly played games etc. is entirely irrelevant. Even if someone was unscholarly in their approach, yet had a simple desire for God’s truth, it would be better to agree with God’s truth than to reject it based on the person’s lack of worldly of learning. On the other side, someone like Burgon shows that a person with a desire for God’s truth can be tainted by worldly learning.

Those who hold that the King James Bible is perfect in English are not doing so out of lack of knowledge. It is not a blind statement. No, it is the very opposite. It is made on the basis of knowledge of the Word of God. Since we know that "their works do follow them" (Rev. 14:13b), we acknowledge that John William Burgon, Edward Hills and many others historically and presently have highlighted the superiority of the textual basis, the translation and the very English of the King James Bible.

The point is this: we do not have to yet continue investigating various issues, such as 1 John 5:7 as if the case were unsettled. (I suspect that the people who do so often begin with the case unsettled in their own mind, and place the authority of the case upon the "Greek" and "men" until they are convinced of the genuineness.)

But there is now a shift in the view: since everything is going toward English being common throughout the world, since the King James Bible is clearly the best of all Bibles, why should the authority of the King James Bible yet rest upon the Hebrew and the Greek, when the translators and a massive testimony since that time shows that they got it right? In other words, we are now privileged to get hold of just a few succinct presentations of information to gain an understanding of the doctrine that the vast opinion of so many witnesses is greatly and fully in favour of the King James Bible as it now stands.

Just as we accept that the translators got it right in 1611, so that there does not need to be any more textual gathering and translating, so likewise, we should now accept that godly people to this time have presented enough for us to accept the finality that the King James Bible translators got it right in every particular.

We should be able to say now, "I accept the English as is, that it is presenting the autographs exactly, and that this is God's very message, down to the very jot and tittle, for the whole world for everyone".

As a "triumphalist", I am not attacking the foundation of our position. Our triumphal position is based upon the witness of the facts which men like Burgon, etc. have presented. In my own writings, I have presented Burgon accurately and drawn an interpretation from his work. However, it is really the gathering of the case as a whole, rather than each part of it, to see that all worked together (in a providential continuum) building up and contributing toward one central and final position, namely, that the King James Bible is the standard and only Bible for the whole world.

We are at a point of history where we may gather and reap of what all came before us. Just as the translators were able to get the KJB right in 1611, so we should be convinced from, say 2007, that they actually did get it right. (That is, that God ensured that the right men at the right time with the right learning etc. all came together for the KJB, but also that the right things have all come together that we now be confident in the English Bible as it stands today. This is called practical faith in the providence of God.)

So, the English is final. The meaning of the God's Word is there in English. The certainty is there in English. We don't have to go anywhere else to find the "real" meaning. We don't have to harbour any uncertainty as to various textual or translational questions at any point. In fact, the whole battle of comparing to modern versions is really won. (I walk by faith, not by sight.) We shouldn't be reacting to modern versions, because we are on the rock and we cannot be moved. Modern versions are dashing themselves in vain on this rock. Thus, our triumphalist position is to hold the victory that we actually have God's Word, and not that we are still trying to find it (as many seek in all the wrong ways and places).

In an age of gross darkness, where the saints ask “how long O Lord?” We find that the patience of the saints is to POSSESS, to keep the Word of God and the testimony of Christ. We must therefore OBTAIN by faith, knowing that all who came before us have contributed to us: "their works do follow them" (Rev. 14:13b). That these things are already supplied to us shows that we are in the privileged position to ATTAIN the blessing.

Thus, God's providence has been to give us the King James Bible, and God's providence has been to allow for us a foundation of vindication of that Bible, which is such a mountain of victory, that we find that we have the fruits of those who came before us in the great provision of the Almighty. Thanks be to God who has graciously multiplied such wisdom to us!

There is nothing wrong with dredging through old writings, or yet discussing the various things to do with the underlying text. The point is that it is not necessary to pursue the details of this when we have a gathered form of witness. It is exactly the same as saying that we do not know how exactly the King James Bible was made, though we have some idea, but we accept the result. In like manner, we do not have to know the entire body of evidence which vindicates or yet delves into the Greek and Hebrew, etc., to know this simple thing: God’s Word is fully true, right, accurate and exact here and now in this book.

In other words, “we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.” (Rom. 8:37b).

I am all for accepting the historical scholarly witness which has upheld the accuracy of the King James Bible. I have laboured to uphold the very words of Scripture, therefore, I submit that these accusations about me cannot be true:

We should see that we have a great colossus of material in defence of the King James Bible, and as we see that it is gathered, and understand it (with the chaff out), it is very easy to understand and teach others the simple truth that the King James Bible has been vindicated in every whit concerning textual and translational questions/points.

Moreover, since the major battles are already resolved, we can yet engage in the greatest wars in history and come out victorious because we have already possessed the truth today, namely, that the King James Bible is very pure, and that it is set now as the final form of the Word of God for the whole world.

If someone is saying that I am "adversarial" and "an opponent", perhaps that person is actually on the wrong side.

"For his God doth instruct him to discretion, and doth teach him. For the fitches are not threshed with a threshing instrument, neither is a cart wheel turned about upon the cummin; but the fitches are beaten out with a staff, and the cummin with a rod. Bread corn is bruised; because he will not ever be threshing it, nor break it with the wheel of his cart, nor bruise it with his horsemen. This also cometh forth from the LORD of hosts, which is wonderful in counsel, and excellent in working." (Isaiah 28:26-29).

Some will find it a strange thing that we should say that the King James Bible is sufficient truth, that persistent quibbling about the original languages actually amounts to nothing anyway. To them it might be like a wheel going over their back or something.

"To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear." (Isaiah 28:12).

We can present the truth and point to signs, but some may yet resist it. But the resisting of some (according to Bible prophecy) cannot be for so long, which is also my wish. Yes, I will provoke to jealousy and say that I am presenting the correct history of the King James Bible, and that I am presenting the correct future of the King James Bible too.

We are at a point of history where we may gather and reap of what all came before us. Just as the translators were able to get the KJB right in 1611, so we should be convinced from, say 2007, that they actually did get it right. (That is, that God ensured that the right men at the right time with the right learning etc. all came together for the KJB, but also that the right things have all come together that we now be confident in the English Bible as it stands today. This is called practical faith in the providence of God.)

There are those who do have this confidence in the KJB as the word of God, who do not follow you into the belief that therefore there is never going to be a need for the occasional updating of words. Such changes if correctly done are not changes in God's word at all, merely the provision of a new container for God's word. (Perhaps Will Kinney wouldn't like my use of his metaphor, I'll have to read more of his writings.)

So, the English is final. The meaning of the God's Word is there in English. The certainty is there in English. We don't have to go anywhere else to find the "real" meaning. We don't have to harbour any uncertainty as to various textual or translational questions at any point. In fact, the whole battle of comparing to modern versions is really won. (I walk by faith, not by sight.) We shouldn't be reacting to modern versions, because we are on the rock and we cannot be moved. Modern versions are dashing themselves in vain on this rock. Thus, our triumphalist position is to hold the victory that we actually have God's Word, and not that we are still trying to find it (as many seek in all the wrong ways and places).

I do not see why we cannot hold to the position that we do in fact have God's Word, and that there is nothing more to seek for, while yet also believing that some of the old English terms have lost their value as containers for God's Word and should be replaced by terms that people recognize today. The old terms were perfect containers in their day, correctly chosen new terms would be the same for our day.

This argument that if we think any such change is necessary we are therefore rejecting the KJB as God's Word or seeking God's Word elsewhere is not valid.

Strictly speaking, this is off topic, so I don't want to pursue it beyond this post, but as long as this keeps being asserted I feel I have to answer it. This position that rightly-done changes in the English are changes in God's Word itself is probably the most alienating idea I encounter in the KJVO camp. Even now I myself can argue against making any changes whatever, but I can only argue this on practical grounds at this point. That is, I can argue for it on the ground that it would be impossible to get together the right men for the job who would all agree on which changes are necessary; I can argue for it on the ground that any new edition would be lost in the confusion of all the versions; I can argue for it on the ground that people can be taught the meaning of any old words that confuse them; I can even argue for it on the ground that it would shake the brittle faith of the KJVO people who place their faith in the letter of the text rather than in its meaning. But I can't argue for it on the ground that the English of the current text is perfect for our day. It might be that Steven Avery or Will Kinney could convince me of this, but Bibleprotector's way of talking about it leaves me unconvinced.

I find that I am increasingly disagreeing with Steven Avery's assertions.

I believing in perpetuating the historical witness that supports the King James Bible until the end. However, the "original language" defender of the King James Bible can be in all sorts of troubles, not just pride, but because they fundamentally are rejecting that the King James Bible is the Word of God itself in its final form. This can be seen because they continue to uphold foreign Bibles, and because they continue to think that the battle for the Bible is on the grounds of underlying texts/translations, and because they continue to think that they are contributing positively by investigating the sense and style and import of the original language basis to the King James Bible.

I. Since the King James Bible is the final form of the Word of God for the world, promoting it should excel beyond and replace other foreign Bibles.

II. Since the King James Bible is the final form of the text and translation of the Word of God, standing for it as settled is the way by which we observe signs and show the wonders of it, rather than merely just defensive counter-arguments and attacks against modern versions. Standing for the King James Bible as true is like a plough that goes through everything, to the point that there is no need to point out the 64,000+ errors of the NIV, etc. (Heavenly time is spent studying the truth, not merely identifying multitudes of error.)

III. Since the King James Bible is the final form of God's Word, everything sufficient is available to everyone to know it, which excludes the need for delving into the original languages, examining the margin notes, etc. The sense, style and import of the writings of Scripture are manifest in the English Bible, so that we may plainly access the truth without need of props. The Holy Ghost has ministers enough and provision enough that we may study the fullest depth and gain the fullest certainty of the Scripture by proper study without any excursions to the cloudland of misuse of tools, i.e. biased "contextualism", weighted "hermeneutics" and unjust balanced "interpretations".

Do we reject the original languages, margins, context, hermeneutics and interpretations? Only when they are used (as they often are) to deny the validity of the Scripture as manifest at hand. There is much that can be taken from Reformers, Puritans, Missionaries, Scholars, Teachers and Counsellers which aligns to the central maxim that "the Word is nigh".

I would that everyone in the world believed the English Bible rather than only a few, and I would that of the many people that must be saved, they would accept that King James Bible doctrine, even by simple faith in simple knowledge, rather than to have the Church slave to those who have the "higher learning". The true higher learning is that Christ is in every true believer, and that God has given every creature the Word.

There is a place for knowledge of the originals, etc., which must be in subjection to the truth that the English Bible is manifestly the final form of the Word for the world. Only then would we really be built upon the foundation of the godly men who came before us, and would we be properly be furnished with what God has used them to supply to us.

I said that Redpath's Septuagint knowledge would be helpful. I am not talking about where words were changed on the basis of the LXX (?!). I am talking about having good scholarly knowledge. Linguist knowledge was mandatory for the placing of proper pronunciations on English words. Moreover, I am showing that Dean Burgon, even though mistaken in his desire for revision, was not wholly mistaken, and his requirement that a reviser should be acquainted with the Septuagint was fulfilled, though in another way. I am only pointing out that this is a sign.

There are people who use the original languages to defend the King James Bible, and there are those who defend the original languages at the basis of the King James Bible.

I am not saying that Steven Avery is of the Textus Receptus Only type of position. (Not everything I say, or every point I raise should be read as if I am applying it to Steven Avery, even though such things may be related.) I just saw in another post that he said (something like) that he believes that the English gives a clear expression of the meaning. The English is clear, where there may be less clarity with the (current knowledge of the) originals. Of course, this is true.

We agree that the King James Bible is presenting the Hebrew grammar accurately. That is not the issue.

The issue is concerning whether or not the English itself is sufficient alone to be the very Word of truth to every man in the world. Again, whether or not the "simple faith" that the vast historical tradition which under girds the true King James Bible position may be reduced to simple teachings in this regard, rather than a complex and continuing system of focussed investigation. And whether or not the battle to convince the modern versionists must be waged from relying upon comparing to their position, etc., rather than to primarily having a self-authenticating monolith.

Wow, that was very interesting, Steve you are very well spoken, and a great defender, Matthew, I think you have something with a pure KJB, how be it the PCE, you may well be correct. The both of you I think need to remember that you are on the same side, the issue you are discussing is important, and to remain focus and not accusatory, I think Steve had the upper hand in the debate, but Matthew may well articulate his position better.
God Bless you both and looking forward to read both of your comments in the future.
Scott

No, the English is not sufficient alone.

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

As I have read through your threads, I believe your pedantic attention to details has blinded you so as you can't see the forest for the trees. Where is the Gospel in all your writing??? Hid somewhere only in English. Your delusion of an English only pure text is an affront to every missionary who works tirelessly to give the people an accurate faithful translation in their native tongues.

The Gospel is not "hidden" in English, but manifestly there. By which language has the Reformation prevailed? And which Bible has been sailed and beamed throughout the world? Which nations have been the greatest missionaries?

Just as a seed grows up to harvest, and just as a great building is put up stone upon stone, so we see that things are tending toward a monumental universal English Gospel witness.

God has caused the true Bible to be manifest fully in English, that it be taken by those English-speaking Christians who are advanced in doctrine and knowledge, to use the English language, from the basis of their English-speaking nations, to communicate by an English-saturated medium to an English-speaking world... how could one deny that the Scripture by this way being fulfilled to overflowing, be the Gospel preached into all the world, to every man, among all nations, etc., but that it would obviously be because the English is sufficient alone. Why? Because the Holy Ghost has chosen it and raised it up and is furthering the cause of it, as we may see by signs this very day.

Isaiah 28:11 says, "For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people." Those who are predestined to preach to the Jews are those who speak another language: not Hebrew, because it must be one other, and not Greek, because the conversion of the Jews was not accomplished in the New Testament times. Therefore, (and it is clear) that it falls to those who would preach to the Jews before the coming of Christ. And who? Plainly, the highest and true form of Christianity is very strongly connected and evident with those who use the King James Bible. Yes, Bible prophecy shows that it is we who preach to the Jews.

What is the Gospel? I have been writing about it all along. God has manifested himself to us, seemingly foolish people from the end of the earth, that we, as lovers and doers of the law of God, attain wisdom and possess the blessing, bring others into the truth. It is Christ in us that it may be (by our witness) Christ in them (Jews and multitudes of other sinners).

Let the missionaries rejoice and be glad. The same God who has provided them with an accurate faithful translation of the Holy Scripture (the KJB) is also turning the people to the English tongue! "that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent." (Zeph. 3:9b).

I agree, Debau. God has particularly blessed the English-speaking nations -- although we are losing those blessings in recent years, having turned away from our Christian heritage -- and yes, we are blessed in the KJB, and yes, the KJB is the best guide to translations into other languages we possess, as David Cloud affirms among others, but this idea that the English itself is some kind of divine perfection is a strange conceit, and it makes defending the KJB-only position a lot more difficult than necessary too.

Debau and Connie,

Can either of you name a single translation in any present (or past for that matter) language other than the English KJB that has been identified as being pure and absolutely accurate down to the very punctuation? I think not.

The reality is that none exists. Your argument is theoretical. Should we want the Gospel be available in every language in perfect accuracy? Certainly. Is it God's plan for that to happen? Evidently not. What we are to do is help those missionaries who are in the field and serving faithfully to have the tools necessary to bring those to whom they are sent as close as is possible to the full knowledge of God's message to them. Next, we should seek to promote the knowledge of English so that those who are converted will have the greatest opportunities to grow as they learn the pure truth.

The reality is that we cannot translate the complete Word of God into every single language that exists today. What we can do is train those who can go into those places and enable the development of English awareness. This will do more to open the doors of the Gospel than any other method.

I do not discredit the efforts of those who are doing their best to get the Gospel out by whatever means possible. I am simply saying that in the big picture, the most effective long-term efforts in the growth of the believing church worldwide are likely to be involving English-language education.

Brother Tim, you have the gift of laying things out very clearly and being very practical.

It is a sad thing that many have not yet heard the Gospel, and that various barriers and darkness persists. We want the Gospel to be preached. What you have laid out makes a lot of sense.

Connie wrote:
"We" have not been turning away from "our" Christian heritage. "We" are the remnant that remembers and keeps it. We are the salt of the nation.

Most sincere Christians are viewing history from a pessimistic futurist view. They see everything getting worse. They know that the Antichrist etc. is coming soon. But we should also see that through history God has preserved and built up His Church. And that through history God has done so many things to thwart evil purposes.

Things might go down for some nations because of the failures of the Church in those nations, and we know that Bible prophecy indicates that some nations are to have bad things happen to them, e.g. Russia, nevertheless, we should not think that God has abandoned us or that proper revival is never coming for those who tarry for it.

.

We can't do it if we aren't in earnest prayer asking to do it. You have already given up. God can do it! Whose "big picture" are you viewing from? Are you supporting foreign language translators?

Here are some videos addressing foreign languages realistically. English is not the answer here.


http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninf...ID=71008164520

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninf...D=710081222174
.

By coincidence, I happened to watch parts of those two sermons on a live webcast last week, and so I have not looked at those links. As I heard them speak, it only confirmed to me that English was the way to go. Apparently hundreds of small Indian languages do not have the Scripture. Obviously English is the answer. (This speaker presented such a negative view of the reaching of the natives, that I turned it off.)

As for nations where Islam is currently in control, we should not think that such control is everlasting. Moreover, that the learning of the people involved with the Arabic translation is not on the same level as the King James Bible translators. Moreover, the principles of the Arabic translation raise some objections, e.g. allowing peer review in a time where modernism was arising/is now ascendant.

Most importantly, the learned speaker upon the Arabic translation stressed what is an incorrect premise, namely, that the Word of God exists in the "Masoretic Text" and "Textus Receptus". While this is generally true, these text forms are not final. It is obvious that there are many varying presentations or possibilities of textual and translational differences depending on choices within the good stream, because there is no final authoritative perfect extant presentation of the Scripture in Hebrew or in Greek.

As far as wasting prayer, money and resources for future developments and "breakthroughs" in that direction, no. Personally, I want to see the KJB getting into non-English nations more and more.

Debau, I am not going to question God's ability to do anything. I just know that it is clear that it is not His intention. The Bible has for the vast majority of its existence been available to the church in a very few languages at any given point in time. Its presence in the major languages even today is with little witness outside of the English where the reverse is true, though only the KJB is a pure text. God has determined to provide the world a single absolutely pure and final standard with the KJB. Those who use the KJB to translate faithfully the Bible into other languages are to be commended for their efforts to extend the reach of the Gospel, but none will reach the perfection that the KJB holds.

Common sense tells us that the vast majority of languages today do not even have the vocabulary necessary to support the message of the text. It is not a matter of the lack of prayer, it is obedience to the direction of the Spirit.