God, Lord

thee, thou, thy


A sermon reference to monkeys, banana, ladder, and water hose, illustrating the force of tradition, reminded me of the case of the whales. Sperm whales will only breach on the windward side of ships even though whalers haven't used sails for quite some time. The tradition lives on among whales if not men.

On the other hand there are some traditions that benefit the animals. I recall a story of a farmer whose fields were infested with crows, so he would go out and shoot them. It got so that the crows would take off when they saw him coming. Oh, his wife could come out and that wouldn't bother them, but let a man who meant business show up and they were gone!

Well, he developed a plan. He got a couple cousins to come over, & the three of them would walk across the field to a copse of trees. He would hide in the trees while the two cousins would walk back. Then the crows would return, and the farmer would jump out and blast them. He could do this once or twice a week.

See, crows can't count, to say nothing of addition and subtraction. To them a group of men walked out and a group of men walked back. The equation: 3-2=1 was beyond their ken.

Now I'm thinking, suppose there were an Einstein crow, or one inspired, and he figured out because the farmer did it too often that it's best not to go back the same afternoon the men return, and the other crows follow suit, and it becomes tradition. It would be advantageous for the rest of the crows to carry on that behavior long after Einstein crow and all his generation are gone. That's even if none of their research shows why they carry on the tradition; a group of men comes out, a group of men goes back; where's the problem?

Disturbance of formulas.281
§ 11. ... The moral and intellectual nature of man has few more difficult practical problems to resolve than that of following the golden mean between passion for novelty and an ultra-conservative attachment to the time-honoured and the old. Both extremes are inherently, perhaps equally, mischievous, but the love of innovation is the more dangerous, because the future is more uncertain than the past, and because the irreverent and thoughtless wantonness of an hour may destroy that which only the slow and painful labour of years or of centuries can rebuild.
One may say that the masters, who in all their greatness surpass the generality of their contemporaries, send out the rays of their genius well beyond their own day. In this way they appear as powerful signal-fires—as beacons, to use Baudelaire's expression—by whose light and warmth is developed a sum of tendencies that will be shared by most of their successors and that contributes to form the parcel of traditions which make up a culture.
    These great beacon-fires which shine out at widely separated distances upon the historical field of art promote the continuity that gives the true and only legitimate meaning to a much abused word, to that evolution which has been revered as a goddess—a goddess who turned out to be somewhat of a tramp, let it be said in passing, even to having given birth to a little bastard myth that looks very much like her and that has been named Progress, with a capital P ...
    For the devotees of the religion of Progress, today is always and necessarily more worth while than yesterday, from which the consequence necessarily follows that in the field of music the opulent contemporary ... represents an advance over the modest ... of former times. ... I leave it to you to judge what such a preference is worth ...
    The beautiful continuity that makes possible the development of culture appears as a general rule that suffers a few exceptions which, one might say, were expressly created to confirm it.
    In fact, at widely separated intervals one sees an erratic block silhouetted on the horizon of art, a block whose origin is unknown and whose existence is incomprehensible. These monoliths seem heaven-sent to affirm the existence, and in a certain measure the legitimacy, of the accidental.
—Igor Stravinsky, Poetics of Music282

Let's suppose that the crows have established their tradition not to return to the field that afternoon even though the group of men has gone back to the house. Generations (of crows) have now passed since the tradition got established, and some of the newer crows think it's all a bunch of hooey. There is a big crow debate going on over protocols.

On the traditional side is the Crow Einstein Version, based on the theory of relative pronouns. "They come out of the house. Some of them return. And he is left hiding with a shotgun. Caw, caw, caw.

The newcomers from other fields don't like all those pronouns: they, them, he. These modern crows like to use the single pronoun they. There's is the New International Version. No more thee's and thou's. They come out, they return, end of story. Caw, caw, caw.

And the newcomers have their research to back them up. The men do come out, they do return, and that's that. Meanwhile one of the smarty birds is advising caution. Our enemy, he points out, is more intelligent than the average crow, and he lives through many generations of crows. What if he's just laying low to wait until several generations of crows have passed, and nobody remembers the Crow Einstein Version any more. Then he'll have a heyday picking off crows left and right while none of them has a tradition to protect them. Smarty crow advises to keep the tradition, and if they feel they must update it to the New International Version in the modern fields, they at least keep the Crow Einstein Version in the field of that old farmer.

The screecher hearing all the chatter, tells the crows to follow the example of their nobler brethren, to receive the screeches with all readiness of mind and search the fields keenly whether these things be so.

Thy word have I hid in my heart that at might not sin against thee. My booklet on Bible Versions283 contains an exhortation relevant to our Acts 17:11 sermon.

The King James Version
Now that we have learned something about the majority and minority texts, let us turn our attention to the history of the King James Version (KJV) which is based on Textus Receptus. The King James Version was translated directly from the original languages: though it owes its style and biblical language to versions which went before. I now invite you to imitate the believers of Berea mentioned in the book of Acts.
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

At any rate I've been writing about three facets of modern English Bibles: whether they really use simpler English, better Greek, or safer formulas; and one issue of intra-body submission. I'd like to continue on these four topics and use an illustration from a fictional account of a dinner conversation in Oxford, England in 1663. I've picked this illustration as it can do quadruple duty on the four topics above, so I don't unnecessarily lengthen my writing.

A Multi-Topical Story284
"Now, sir," he said, "you must defend yourself. It is not often that we have an advocate of the new learning amongst us. If you are intimate with Lower, I suppose you must be so."
    I replied that I hardly saw myself as an advocate, certainly not a worthy one.
    "It is true, though, that you seek to cast off the knowledge of the ancients, and replace it with your own?"
    I said that I respected all opinions of worth.
    "Aristotle?" he said in a challenging way. "Hippocrates? Galen?"
    I said that these were all great men, but could be proven to have been wrong in many particulars. He snorted at my reply.
    "What advances? All that you novelists have done is to find out new reasons for ancient practice, and show how a few trifles work in ways other than was supposed."
    "Not so, sir. Not so," I said. "Think of the barometer, the telescope."
    He waved his hand in scorn. "And the people who use them all come to entirely different conclusions. What discoveries has the telescope made? Such toys will never be a substitute for reason, the play of the mind upon imponderables."
    "But advances of philosophy, I am convinced, will achieve wonders."
    "I have yet to see a sign of it."
    "you will," I replied warmly. "I doubt not that posterity will verify many things that are now only rumors. In some age it may be that a voyage to the moon will not be more strange than one to the Americas is for us. To speak with someone in the Indies may be as usual as a literary correspondence is now. After all, to talk after death could only have been thought fiction before the invention of letters, and to sail true by the guide of a mineral would have seemed absurd to the ancients, who knew nothing of the magnet."
    "That is a most extraordinary flourish," Grove replied tartly. "Yet I find the rhetoric defective in the suiting of the antithesis and the antipodes. For you are wrong, sir. The ancients did know of the magnet. Diodorus Siculus knew it plainly, as any gentleman should be aware. All we have discovered is a new use for the stone. This is what I mean. All knowledge is to be found in ancient texts, if you know how to read them aright. And that is true in alchemy as in physick."
    "I disagree," I said, thinking that I was holding my own quite well. "For example, take cramps of the stomach. What is the usual remedy for those?"
    "Arsenic," said another further up the table who was listening. "A few grains in water as a vomit. I took it myself last September."
    "Did it work?"
    "I know the pains grew worse first. I must say, I am inclined to believe that letting a little blood was more effective. But its qualities as a purgative are undoubted. I have never passed so many stools so quickly."
    "My master at Padua did some experiments and concluded that the belief in arsenic was a foolish error. The idea came from a book of remedies translated from Arabic and then into Latin by Deusingius. However, the translator made a mistake; the book recommended what is called darsini for the pains, and this was translated as arsenic. But arsenic in Arabic is zarnich."
    "So what should we be taking?"
    "Cinnamon, apparently. Now, sir, do you defend a long tradition when it can be shown to rest merely on a translator's error?"
    Here this other threw back his head and laughed, sending a shower of half-chewed food in an elegant parabola across the table. "you have justified only the existence of a sound knowledge of classical languages, sir," he said. "No more. And use this as an excuse to cast away thousands of years of learning so you may replace them with your own feeble scrabblings."
    "I am all too aware of the feebleness of my scrabblings," I replied, still the most civil person there. "But I do not substitute; merely examine before I accept an hypothesis. did not Aristotle himself say that our ideas must conform to our experience of things as they are?"
    I fear I was becoming reddened with anger by this stage, as I was conscious that he was little interested in a discussion in which reason played a part; while Grove was amiable in his argument, this one was unpleasant in tone and in manner.
    "And then?"
    "What do you mean?"
    "And after you have put Aristotle to your proof? And, no doubt, found him wanting. Then what? Will you submit the monarchy to your investigations? The church, perhaps? Will you presume to put Our Savior himself to your proofs? There lies the danger, sir. Your quest leads to atheism, as it must unless science is held firmly in the hands of those who wish to strengthen the word of God, rather than challenge it."
    He stopped there and looked around to gather support from his colleagues. I was pleased to see that they did not look on with complete enthusiasm, although many were nodding with agreement.
    "'Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou?'" Grove murmured mildly, half to himself.
    But his half spoken quotation roused the young man who had shown me to Grove's room that morning. "Isaiah, 45:9," he said. "'The price of wisdom is above rubies,'" he added quietly, being obviously too young and junior to enter into the contest, but reluctant to let the older man speak unchecked. I had noticed that he had tried to take part in the conversation on several occasions, but each time he opened his mouth, Grove had interrupted and carried on as if he wasn't there.
    "Job, 28:18," Grove snapped back, irritated by the presumption. "'He that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.'"
    "Ecclesiastes, 1:18," Thomas Ken countered, also showing signs of becoming heated. I discerned that there was some private squabble here, which had nothing to do with me or experiment. "'Scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge.'"
    "Proverbs, 1:22. 'Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, it hath perverted thee.'"
    The final sally defeated poor Ken, who knew that he could not remember the source of the quotation, and his face grew red under the public humiliation as he desperately tried to think of a response.
    "Isaiah, 47:10," Grove said in triumph when Ken's failure was obvious to all.
    Ken threw down his knife with a clatter and, hands shaking, stood up to leave the table. I feared that they might come to blows, but it was all theater. "Romans, 8:13," he said. With icy slowness, he withdrew from the table and marched out of the hall, his footsteps echoing as he went. I believe I was the only person who heard this last comment, and to me it meant nothing. I always found the tendency of Protestants to bandy quotations from the Bible a trifle ridiculous, even blasphemous. Anyway, Grove certainly did not hear, but instead looked pleased with himself for having carried the field.

Modern English Bibles: whether they really use simpler English

First, note that the day-to-day speech of the 1600's was not the same as that used in the Authorized Version of 1611. The only place where we see thee, thou, and thy used is when they are quoted in (Isaiah 45:9), "What makest thou?" and (Isaiah 47:10), "Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, it hath perverted thee." Otherwise, ordinary conversation employs the pronoun you:

    "Now, sir," he said, "you must defend yourself. ... If you are intimate with Lower, I suppose you must be so."
    "It is true, though, that you seek to cast off the knowledge of the ancients, ..."
    "All that you novelists have done is ..."
    "you will," I replied warmly.
    "For you are wrong, sir. ..., if you know how to read them aright."
    "Now, sir, do you defend a long tradition when ..."
    "you have justified only the existence of ... And use this as an excuse ... so you may replace them with ..."
    "What do you mean?"
    "And you have put Aristotle to your proof? And, no doubt, found him wanting. Then what? Will you submit the monarchy to your investigations? ... Will you presume to ..."

Compare that to the: NIV Preface: "As for the traditional pronouns 'thou,' 'thee' and 'thine' in reference to the Deity, the translators judged that to use these archaisms (along with the old verb forms such as 'doest,' 'wouldest,' and 'hadst') would violate accuracy in translation. Neither Hebrew, Aramaic nor Greek uses special pronouns for the persons of the Godhead. A present-day translation is not enhanced by forms that in the time of the King James Version were used in everyday speech, whether referring to God or man." These forms were not "used in everyday speech, whether referring to God or man" in the 1600's. It was the RSV that decided to employ them "in reference to the Deity."

As a side note, "it was the Quakers, not the Puritans, who wore plain, unadorned clothing; and their use of thee and thou instead of you, which today seems merely quaint, served the same purpose as simple dress—to minimize rank and social status. According to Margaret Bacon, common people in the seventeenth century were expected to address their betters as you, whereas thee and thou were more intimate forms, and the Quakers refused to comply with the linguistic forms of ranking."285

                     King John
                            by William Shakespeare

                Act Four, Scene II
KING JOHN             Here we sit, once again crown'd,
                      And look'd upon, I hope, with cheerful eyes.
PEMBROKE              This once again, but that your
                      Highness pleas'd,
                      Was once superfluous: you were crown'd before,

Just as the first person plural "we" was used as a "royal we" for a king to refer to himself, so was the second person plural "you" used to refer to him: "Was once superfluous: you were crown'd before," and eventually it was applied to both single and plural in informal speech—except for the nonclassist Quakers who retained thee and thou. The smart translators of the KJV used an earlier form of English—from Tyndale and Wycliffe—which retained thee and thou for second person singlular, you and ye for second person plural.

I'm taking some time to explain this partly because it is not commonly understood—witness the objections to the KJV on account of all those thee's and thou's—and partly because a well-known radio preacher has been floundering along with "you all." He's seen where the number is important in places, where it's critical to know whether "you" is referring to one person or to more than one. Where it refers to more than one, he has taken to saying "you all" which he has borrowed from a Southern dialect, explaining to us that a designated plural you is not found in the English Bible. Not only has he missed it in the King James Version, but he doesn't understand the Southern dialect either. In the South "y'all" can refer to one person, so if they want to make sure a group is included, they'll say, "y'all y'all."


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.287 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.288 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.289
Dialect of the translation not the colloquial speech of the English people.290
§ 3. I do not propose any inquiry into [the KJV's] fidelity, simply as a presentation of the doctrinal precepts of Christianity, both because the general accuracy of the version is so well established, that it is hardly questioned by those who are most zealous for a revision of its dialect. Its relations to our literature and the social and moral interests of the English family, considered simply as a composition, are however, a subject well worthy of examination. In the first place, then, the dialect of this translation was not, at the time of the revision, or, indeed, at any other period, the actual current book-language nor the colloquial speech of the English people. This is a point of much importance, because the contrary opinion has been almost universally taken for granted; and hence very mistaken views have been, and still are, entertained. respecting the true relations of the diction of that version to the national tongue. It was an assemblage of the best forms of expression applicable to the communication of religious truth that then existed, or had existed in any and all the successive stages through which English had passed in its entire history. Fuller, indeed, informs us that when a boy he was told by a day-labourer of Northamptonshire that the version in question agreed nearly with the dialect of his country; but, though it may have more closely resembled the language of that shire, and though it certainly most nearly approximated to the popular speech in those parts of the realm where English was best spoken,291 yet, when it appeared, it was by no means regarded as an embodiment of the every-day language of the time. On the contrary, its archaisms, its rejection of the Latinisms of the Rhemish Romanist version, and its elevation above the vulgarisms of the market and the kitchen, were assailed by the same objections which are urged against it at the present [1859] moment.

Part One...File 5 of 7

Thee and Thou292
We also hear a lot about the words 'ye,' 'thee' and 'thou' in the King James Version: and that these should all be replaced by the word 'you'. Everyone knows that the word 'you' is a uni-plural word like 'sheep' or 'fish.' It may refer to one or many depending on the context. Believe it or not, the word 'you' is used over 950 times in the KJV New Testament alone - but not exclusively. Why not? The answer is because of the vital difference between 'you' (plural) and 'thee' (singular) and there are times when it is necessary to make the difference. The word 'thee' refers to a single person, church, town or nation: whereas the word 'you' is the second person plural: it refers to many persons. To understand what I mean we will need to look at a few examples. Just before the Saviour's crucifixion he warned his disciples - particularly Peter - of Satan's intended plan to test them all. These are the Master's words:
  Luke 22:31-32    And the Lord said, Simon,
  Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that
  he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for
  thee, that thy faith fail
  not: and when thou art converted, strengthen
  thy brethren.
In this passage the Saviour used the word 'you' to mean all the disciples. But when he used the words 'thee' and 'thou' he meant Simon Peter alone. By replacing the 'thee' and 'thou' in this passage with 'you,' the Saviour's explicit warning to Simon Peter is considerably weakened. As for his warning to all the other disciples, that Satan wanted to sift them all, that warning is completely lost. Here are two more examples where the plural word 'you' and the singular words 'thee' or 'thou' are used.
 *          In this example Festus
            speaks to king Agrippa
            and Bernice concerning
            the Apostle Paul. Here
            the word 'you'
            refers to Agrippa and Ber-
            nice: whereas the word 'thee'
            addresses king Agrip-
            pa. Acts 25:26: Of
            whom I have no certain
            thing to write unto my
            lord. Wherefore I have
            brought him forth
            before you, and spe-
            cially before thee, O
            king Agrippa, that,
            after examination had,
            I might have somewhat
            to write.

*     In the following example two towns are initially
      addressed individually, therefore the word
      'thee' is used. But when referred to together the
      word 'you' is used. 
*         Luke 10:13: Woe unto thee,
           Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida!
           for if the mighty works had been done in
           Tyre and Sidon, which have been done in you,
           they had a great while ago repented, sitting
           in sackcloth and ashes.
Other examples where 'you' is plural and 'thou' or 'thee' is singular are found in Deut. 4:3; 1 Kings 9:5-6; Matthew 5:39-44; 6:4-7; 11:23-24; 18:9-10; 23:37-38; Mark 14:37-38; Luke 6:30-31; 9:41; 16:25-26; John 1:50-51; James 2:16. These texts, and there are hundreds more, prove that the word 'you' was well known by the translators of the King James Version. If you consult a concordance you will discover that it was used over 1800 times in that version; but not exclusively as in modern translations. In short, when the Saviour addresses a particular individual, church or town he uses the words 'thee' or 'thou' simply because these words are more explicit and personal than the uni-plural word 'you.' The Bible, remember, is the Word of God: explicit in every sentence - yea in every word!

June, 1999
Elder: David B. Loughran
Stewarton Bible School, Stewarton, Scotland

The New International Version Preface also mentioned: "archaisms ... with the old verb forms such as 'doest,' 'wouldest,' and 'hadst,'" but in the dinner conversation quoted above, those endings were not in use in the 1600's except in Bible quotations: "... him that fashioneth it, What makest thou?" "He that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow." "... it hath perverted thee." In the dinner conversation proper, it's: "Now, sir, do you defend a long tradition when ...;" "What do you mean?" instead of, "dost thou defend ...?" and "What dost thou mean?" It's: "... a mineral would have seemed absurd to the ancients," instead of "wouldest have seemed absurd." And try, "... the young man who had shown me the way;" and "Grove had interrupted and carried on .." instead of, "who hath shown me the way;" and "Grove hadst interrupted."

The ordinary English speech of the 1600's wasn't that of the King James Version. And today we sometimes hear such archaic verb endings, as well as thee, thou, thy.

"Hi, this is Fudge," the answering machine whirred. "I'm not here right now, unless, of course you're a telemarketer, in which case, I am here and I'm screening you, because, quite honestly, your friendship means nothing to me. I have no time for hangers-on. Leave a message at the sound of the beep."
    "Fudge, I know you're there," Joey shouted into the answering machine. "Pick up, pick up, pic—!"
    "Ah, Lady Guenevere, thou doth sing the song of the enchantress," Fudge crooned, careful not to use Joey's name.293

According to the NIV Preface, "the Committee on Bible Translation held certain goals for the New International Version: ... that it would have clarity." And yet our comparison shows:

         Number of words    monosyllable words    Grade Level
KJV            238                 174                 7.76
NIV            239                 176                 7.01
at dinner     1188                 837                 5.99
Dinner patter in the 1600's would be at a sixth grade reading level, while the NIV translation (Acts 17:1-10a), is at seventh grade, no better than the King James Version once we allow that a series of and's in verse five would not have actually increased the difficulty as the formula indicates.
Sentence Structure

Even children know how to produce and understand very long sentences, as illustrated by the children's rhyme about the house that Jack built.
This is the farmer sowing the corn,
that kept the cock that crowed in the morn,
that waked the priest all shaven and shorn,
that married the man all tattered and torn,
that kissed the maiden all forlorn,
that milked the cow with the crumpled horn,
that tossed the dog,
that worried the cat,
that killed the rat,
that ate the malt,
that lay in the house that Jack built.

This rhyme begins with the line This is the house that Jack built, continues by lengthening it to This is the malt, that lay in the house that Jack built, and so on.
—Victoria Fromkin and Robert Rodman, An Introduction to Language294

Our King James Bible is not a more difficult read than the more modern versions. I believe the objections given are not on account of its (the KJV's) difficulty per se, but for another reason.

4. Effective readers engage in a great deal of prediction while they read.295

When one examines effective readers' miscue patterns together with their patterns of correction, it strongly suggests that effective readers are engaging in a particular kind of prediction. Furthermore, when one asks them to comment on their own reading behavior, they will actually tell you that is what they are doing. For example, imagine a reader reading a text about going to the beach, in which the following sentence296 occurs:
    I would go to the beach first and then put on my tea.
He proceeds thus:
    "I would go to the beach first and then put on my buh... er tea."
When asked why he said 'buh' and then changed it to 'tea,' his reply was:
    "I was going to say 'bathers' (swimming apparel) but then I saw it was too short for that and it started with a 't.'"
5. Effective and ineffective readers use graphophonic knowledge differently.

... The effective reader uses his knowledge of letter shapes and sounds to confirm or reject his predictions, as did our reader who rejected 'bathers' for 'tea.' If one could get inside his head and be privy to his thoughts as he changed from 'bathers' to 'tea,' one might have heard something like this:
     I've predicted 'bathers' because that fits in semantically
     and it doesn't violate the grammatical structure of English
     (a plural noun can go there) but, wait a minute, when I
     look at the initial letter it's a 't,' and what's more,
     it's only a small word. No, 'bathers' will never fit; I'd
     better back up, have a closer look at the graphics and see
     if there is an alternative which will fit in and which will
     also make sense and not violate the rules of English. I
     know! It's got to be 'tea.'

When I hear the radio preachers quoting long passages from the KJV, they will often substitute a more familiar sounding word for the KJV one, and if it works go on. I think that as we predict what we will be reading, an effective reader who is not familiar with the KJV dialect will be struggling to overcome his predicting and wanting to use words that are more in reach. Putting the Bible into contemporary English saves him some effort, but he could have understood the KJV by making the effort, and once familiar with it, it would seem more natural. The reader (like me) who is familiar by now with the KJV terminology will be thrown for a loop to hear a Bible quoted in a modern version.

Influence of Wycliffe's and Tyndale's versions upon the English language.297
Wycliffe, then, must be considered as having originated the diction and phraseology which for [six+] centuries have constituted the consecrated dialect of the English speech; and Tyndale as having given to it that finish and perfection which have so admirably adapted it to the expression of religious doctrine and sentiment, and to the narration of the remarkable series of historical facts which are recorded in the Christian scriptures.298
When it [KJV] appeared, it was by no means regarded as the embodiment of the everyday language of the time.  On the contrary, its archaisms, its rejection of the Latinisms of the Rhemish Romanist version, and its elevation above the vulgarisms of the market and the kitchen, were assailed by the same objections which are urged against it at the present moment.... I remarked that the dialect of the authorized version was not the popular English of the time, but simply a revision of older translations.  It is almost equally true that the diction of Wycliffe and of Tyndale was not that of the secular literature of their times.  The language of Wycliffe's Testament differs nearly as much from even the religious prose writings of his contemporary and follower, Chaucer, as does that of our own [KJV] Bible from the best models of literary composition in the present day; and it is still a more remarkable and important fact, that the style which Wycliffe himself employs in his controversial and other original works, is a very different one from that in which he clothed his translation. This circumstance seems to give some countenance to the declaration of Sir Thomas Moore, otherwise improbable, that there existed English Bibles long before Wycliffe; and hence we might suppose that his labours and those of his school were confined to the revision of still earlier versions.
    If we compare Tyndale's New Testament with the works of his contemporaries, Lord Berners and Sir Thomas Moore, or the authorized version with the prose of Shakespeare, and Raleigh, and Bacon, or other writers of the same date, we shall find very nearly, if not quite as great a difference in all the essentials of their diction, as between the authorized version and the best written narratives or theological discussions of the present day. But, in spite of this diversity, the language of the authorized version, as a religious dialect, is and always has been very familiar to the English people. ... If the Bible is less understood than it was at earlier periods, which I by no means believe, it is because it is less studied; and the true remedy is, not to lower its tone to a debased standard of intelligence, but to educate the understandings of the English people up to the comprehension of the purest and most idiomatic forms of expression which belong to their mother-tongue.

So to look at the translation of the KJV means looking also at Tyndale and Wycliffe.

In a lecture on the principles of translation I laid down the rule that a translator ought to adopt a dialect belonging to that period in the history of his own language when its vocabulary and its grammar were in the condition most nearly corresponding to those of his original. Now, when the version of Wycliffe appeared, English was in a state of growth and formation, and the same observation applies, though with less force, to the period of Tyndale. The Greek of the New Testament, on the other hand, was in a state of resolution. It had become less artificial in structure than the classical dialect, more approximated to modern syntactical construction, and the two languages, by development on the one hand, decay on the other, had been brought in the sixteenth century to a certain similarity of condition. Besides, the New Testament Greek was under the same necessity as Early English, of borrowing or inventing a considerable number of new terms and phrases to express the new ideas which Christianity had ingrafted on the Jewish theology; of creating, in fact, a special sacred phraseology; and hence there is very naturally a closer resemblance between the religious dialect of English, as framed by the Reformers, and that of the New Testament, than between the common literary style of England and the Greek of the classic ages. It will generally be found that the passages of the received version whose diction is most purely Saxon are not only most forcible in expression, but also the most faithful transcripts of the text, and that a Latinized style is seldom employed without loss of beauty of language, and at the same time of exactness in correspondence. Whatever questions may be raised respecting the accuracy with which particular passages are rendered, there seems to be no difference of opinion among scholars really learned in the English tongue as to the exceeding appropriateness of the style of the authorized version; and the attempt to bring down that style to the standard of to-day is as great an absurdity, and implies as mistaken views of the true character and office of human language, and especially of our maternal speech, as would be displayed by translating the comedies of Shakespeare into the dialect of the popular farces of the season.300

In other words, "If it was good enough for the apostle Paul, it's good enough for me." Our King James Version is the closest English we've got to the language and its condition that God chose to reveal his holy word in. That's because of how it came about:

In the first place, then, the dialect of this translation was not, at the time of the revision, or, indeed, at any other period, the actual current book-language nor the colloquial speech of the English people. This is a point of much importance, because the contrary opinion has been almost universally taken for granted; and hence very mistaken views have been, and still are, entertained. respecting the true relations of the diction of that version to the national tongue. It was an assemblage of the best forms of expression applicable to the communication of religious truth that then existed, or had existed in any and all the successive stages through which English had passed in its entire history.301

I was reading an autobiography of a woman who'd married a Mormon.  Part of the condition of her divorce was she was to write to their bishops detailing her sexual experiences both before her marriage and after her divorce.  She finally wrote and told them she was a virgin when she married, faithful during her marriage, and abstinent afterwards.  I have a real question in my mind why those bishops needed to know the details of a divorcee's sexual experiences.

I think that as an authority our Bibles (esp. KJV) do well to tell the widow wishing to remarry that she may do so "only in the Lord." Evidently some widows were remarrying for wanton reasons, but the Bible leaves it up to us to figure out the details of "only in the Lord," which I think we're quite capable of.

J.B. Phillips expands on the concept to say, "let her be guided by the Lord." I've nothing in particular against the Lord's guidance, but I think that "only in the Lord" has other dimensions.  One James Dobson bulletin insert gave us a warning example of a precipitous marriage based on an intuitive leading, a leading such as might be overly encouraged by Phillips. I wouldn't use Phillips for a general teaching in this area, but if I knew a couple open to modern versions about to marry blissfully unaware of the requirements, I might use Phillips to get them to seek guidance through counsel.  It would be a judgment call.  However, I think marriages have been made in the Lord without either party feeling a particular inspiration from God to select each other.

There is one place where the NIV tags itself for being inhospitable.  Among the KJV, RSV, ASV, NIV only the NIV in 1st Corinthians 7 tells a widow that she must remarry only to someone belonging to the Lord; the others just say she must do it in the Lord.  It seems to me that it would be inhospitable for any group one joins up with to force a woman to break up with her fiancé of nine years.  That's how I once saw the NIV used.

I don't think one has the authority of Paul to do so.  I mean, he clearly tells us that mixed marriages are sanctified, and then if he makes some general statement that a widow is to remarry only in the Lord, well, he expected the people he wrote to to understand it, perhaps from their earlier letter to him (which we don't have) or perhaps by their own circumstance, which we might at most apply to ours.  When he told them in II Corinthians not to be unequally yoked, again, he expected them to understand it from their familiarity with yoked oxen working together.  If some later Christians take those two letters and put them together into a Bible and then use the second letter as a context for the first—which is what the NIV translators evidently did in their interpretive rendering—then that does not come from apostolic authority and it's inhospitable.

That's actually my main concern, and when I see the NIV being used to support sermons, it looks like the fox guarding the chickens.

I was in a Bible study of First Corinthians where everyone but I had a modern version, the NIV, and so insistent were they on modern translation, that I went and brought my old J.B. Phillips which I hadn't read since high school. Well, that was the modern English one at the time, and the one I am familiar with in modern speech. When we got to the requirement of a widow to remarry only in the Lord, mine said that she must be guided by the Lord, and theirs said she had to marry only a believer. Such confusion brought to mind the confusion of tongues at the Tower of Babel, and since I am of the belief that God undertakes to preserve his word through translation, my conclusion was that he confused it here to communicate to us that we were supposed to maintain the separate Bible dialect, just as in the days of the Tower of Babel he showed them they were supposed to maintain their separate languages too, not unite into one.

This particular verse has wider implications, because of the qualifications for high office that a man must first be able to rule his own house. If the Bible version does not first get right the man-woman thing, how can we trust it to guide us on our relationship to God? In chapter seven of First Corinthians, Paul is laying down some principles as a spiritual man would grasp them. If the translators cannot even relay these straight, how can we trust them to relay what is the revelation that comes from God himself?

The only way I find to reconcile the abysmal state of the modern translations and their contradictions with each other is to conclude that God is telling us he wants us to keep the Bible dialect handed down, that we are not supposed to unify our Bibles with our standard English dialects, just as at the Tower of Babel they had their tongues confused by God to show them they had to maintain their separate tongues. And just as the Spanish speaking woman had to extend her courtesy to her husband by telling her friends to speak only Inglés in their house, so I feel I should express courtesy to God by telling the brethren with whom I come into contact, with their modern versions, that God wants us speaking the KJV dialect in the church. I believe the elders in my church allow others the liberty to paraphrase, like, say, the husband allowing the girls to use a Spanish word if it suits the occasion better, but the way I hear the KJV used is like the girls were speaking Spanish a mile a minute and occasionally used an English word, the rare smattering of the KJV.

It's like that passage in Malachi. "And ye say, Wherein have we despised thy name? Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar; and ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee?" "Why, then, should theology, the highest of knowledges, alone be required to file her tongue to the vulgar utterance, when every other human interest has its own appropriate expression, which no man thinks of conforming to a standard that, because it is too common, can hardly be other than unclean?"302
    "In that ye say, The table of the LORD is contemptible. And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? and if ye offer the lame and sick, is it not evil?" The ministers say the dialect of the King James version is unworthy and then they go about to preach from other versions that are lame and sick.
    "Offer it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person? saith the LORD of hosts." Will the husband who wants English spoken in his house be satisfied with all the Spanish just because he hears an English word interjected every once in a while?

It's bad enough our own use of modern English translations, but we go to an extreme even the world can figure out. I mean, read an account like:

Another worker went to sleep on the job, ground for termination in most organizations. He was leaning on his machine, his head resting on his arm so nobody could see he was dozing. After a while, he opened his eyes, still looking down, and saw his boss' feet. A fast thinker, he raised one hand and said, "In Jesus name I pray, Amen."
    That boss may have had strong doubts that the fellow was praying, but it is always a good idea to give an employee the benefit of the doubt when possible. ... You can run a tight ship and rule your people with an iron hand, IF you put a soft glove on it.
—Mildred Ramsey, The Super Supervisor303

You don't have to be a Christian to understand that Christians are supposed to be merciful, the old soft glove. Take another example: "Ballard wore a drab tie with a small, tight knot as hard as a Calvanist's mercy, and a nondescript blue suit five years out of date."304 The world understands that the hard knot of a Calvinist's mercy was not what Christ had in mind.

The world understands what's traditional too. Like:

When not working, he was the most traditional-looking of Gypsies: a day's beard, twirling mustachios, a red bandanna around his thick neck. When working, he shaved and wore suits and bought electronic appliances with checks that bounced, then sold them with phony service warranties at cutthroat prices out of storefronts rented by the week in big-city low-income areas. The government never saw the sales tax he collected.305

The world knows what traditional Gypsy getup is, and it sure ain't suit and tie. If a red bandanna, facial hair, and mustache is perceived as traditional Gypsy garb, then a traditional Bible quotation uses thee and thou and verbs that end in -eth. Unfortunately, the traditional service I attend does not have many Bible readings like that.

This can create a wrong impression in a variety of ways. A new convert has only heard the King James Version since his youth, and it's the only version he can understand. He lives right up the street from church, and I've been by to visit him and encourage him to read his Bible. Until this writing he's only had the New Testament in the King James Version, although people kept giving him Bibles. Our preacher gave him a New King James Version, somebody gave him a Contemporary English Version, and someone else gave him a New International Version. Poor guy; he doesn't want all those books he can't understand, so he gave them to me one by one to get rid of for him. It's a long walk home so I tossed them into the nearest dumpster which was the one behind church. I was just ridding the world of confusion. Now his mother has given him a King James Version Bible.

If the preacher were to give him another modern Bible, he'd only hand it to me to get rid of again. Now, I am a big fan of recycling, so I'd toss it into the city Mission's newspaper box. The men who bundle the papers would see a new Bible in the trash, and our bulletin stating we are a family of Bible believing Christians, and conclude we were hypocrites. The preacher may want to stop doing stuff like indiscriminately passing out modern versions.

(Ecclesiasticus XXXVII:8-16) "Every counsellor extolleth counsel; but there is some that counseleth for himself. Beware of a counsellor, and know before what need he hath; for he will counsel for himself; lest he cast the lot with thee, and say unto thee, Thy way is good: and afterward he stand on the other side, to see what shall befall thee. Consult not with one that suspecteth thee: and hide thy counsel from such as envy thee. Neither consult with a woman touching her of whom she is jealous; neither with a coward in matters of war; nor with a merchant concerning exchange; nor with a buyer of selling; nor with an envious man of thankfulness; nor with an unmerciful man touching kindness; nor with the slothful for any work; nor with an hireling for a year of finishing work; nor with an idle servant of much business; hearken not unto these in any matter of counsel. But be continually with a godly man, whom thou knowest to keep the commandments of the Lord, whose mind is according to thy mind, and will sorrow with thee, if thou shalt miscarry. And let the counsel of thine own heart stand: for there is no man more faithful unto thee than it; for a man's mind is sometime wont to tell him more than seven watchmen, that sit above in an high tower. And above all this pray to the most High, that he will direct thy way in truth. Let reason go before every enterprise, and counsel before every action."

One probably wouldn't want to "consult with an unmerciful man touching kindness," say, ask a Calvinist how to show mercy. Are you all that confident about consulting "with a merchant concerning exchange; or with a buyer of selling"? How much confidence should we place in the literature the publishers put out themselves about the virtues of their modernized translations? I know that's a lot of material I've given the reader, but I needed to make a point, that the spiritual force guiding the translation of the NIV (and other new versions) is evidently trying to cover its tracks, as it is getting us to question what God has fashioned—the KJV with its sacred dialect—but not question what rebellious man has made, a unified tongue where our Bible is spoken in the same dialect of every day profane matters. We are not supposed to look at the KJV Bible passed down from God, and say, "Yikes! What's with all the thee's and thou's?" but to read it reverently. If we want to question something, we should question rebellious man, à la tower of babel, who wants no separate sacred dialect, but have even God's word use the same phraseology as the rest of his worldly business, just as the builders of the tower of Babel wanted a unified tongue to keep God at a distance.

The next formula in the dinner conversation is: Job, 28:18, "The price of wisdom is above rubies." The NIV puts it, "The price of wisdom is beyond rubies." My dictionary306 defines "above, prep. 4. more than: the weight is above a ton;" and "beyond, prep. 5. more than; exceeding: a price beyond what I can pay." At first blush it appears that both versions give the same definition, a price more than rubies. However, we should consider:

Perfect synonyms are extremely rare.307

    A synonym is a word of nearly the same meaning as another. ... There are very few pairs of interchangeable words.308

Aside from one reference: "Above is primarily used as a preposition (above the clouds) ...,"309 my personal reference books don't give any help in selecting between the two words, so I'll have to actually quote them in sentences—bold emphasis added.

Dangers of dehydration310
... The boys were Gary Beeman, 18, and Jim Twomey, 16. Their car bogged down in soft sand, two hundred feet off a remote gravel side road. Daytime temperatures probably approached 120° F. Humidity was virtually zero. ...
    He had always known that in the desert your radiator water could save you; yet for two days he had ignored it! Again he had that terrible momentary comprehension of his state of mind. The he grabbed a saucepan, squirmed under the front bumper, and unscrewed the drainage cap. A stream of rust-brown water poured down over the greasy, dust-encrusted say bar and splashed into the saucepan. "That water," he told me later, "was the most wonderful sight I had ever seen."
    After he had drunk a little, Gary found himself thinking more clearly. He went back and poured some water into Jim's open mouth. Quite quickly, Jim revived. All at once Gary saw what should have been obvious all along: a way to run the car clear, using some old railroad ties they had found much earlier. ...
    Since that day, Gary has never driven into the desert without stocking up his car with at least fifteen gallons of what he now calls "the most precious liquid in the world.

Okay, the car was stranded two hundred feet beyond the road, but the boy had to draw some water from above the saucepan before they could push the car back. That's similar to certain passages: (Psalm 67:1-2) "God be merciful unto us, and bless us; and cause his face to shine upon us; Selah. That thy way may be known upon earth, thy saving health among all nations." (Eph. 2:6, 10) "And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: ... For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." God shines his face upon us from above, and then he is recognized beyond us, upon earth, among all nations. We are raised us up, sitting together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, and then we walk in good works, which God hath ordained. First the vertical, above, then the horizontal, beyond. So the NIV has done it again, put the secondary in the place of the primary from our traditional (KJV) Bible. Let's read a little further, looking at a usage of "more than."

How much water to carry310
When you're backpacking you can't play it as safe as Gary Beeman now does, and carry fifteen gallons of water (1 U.S. gallon weighs 8 pounds); but in any kind of dry country you'll have to carry more than you would like to.

Just as in the desert we'd need to carry more than we'd like to in H2O, so in translating a Bible we'd need more than we'd like to be satisfied with scholarship. Let's see how the translators of the King James Version fare in this regard.

Around the time that the last three of these early Bibles, the Bishop's Bible of 1568, was published, a certain John Bois—whose mature years were dedicated to translating the Authorized Version—was just starting his education, learning Hebrew and Ancient Greek. Bois was born in 1560, just four years before William Shakespeare, and it is said that under his father's eye he had read the entire Bible in Hebrew by the time he was six years old. At fourteen he became a classics scholar at St John's College, Cambridge, passed through his examinations at record speed, and soon became a Fellow at the College.
    John Bois was the sort of scholar people like to gossip about. It was said that he would rise at four in the morning to give classics in Greek, and would work until eight o'clock at night, always reading standing up. When his Fellowship expired he was offered a rectorship at Boxworth, a scattered hamlet a few miles to the north of Cambridge, on condition that he married the deceased Rector's daughter. This he did, and moved out into the Fens, though he would often ride his horse into Cambridge to teach, reading a book as he went.
    In 1604 Bois was forty-four, living quietly in Boxworth, a man with a brilliant scholarly reputation. At the Hampton Court Conference, Dr John Reynolds, President of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, proposed a definitive translation of the Bible to ameliorate the friction between the Anglicans and the Puritans. James I, the rex pacificus, gladly assented to the idea of "one uniforme translation", though he confessed he doubted whether he would "see a Bible well translated in English."
    Progress was rapid. By June, it had been settled that there should be six groups of translators, two in Westminster, two in Oxford and two in Cambridge, each made up of at least eight scholars. It was perfectly natural that the brilliant John Bois should be recruited for one of the Cambridge committees. He was put in charge of translating the Apocrypha from the Greek. As it turned out, his was a level of scholarship that made him indispensable to more than one committee. Surprisingly, perhaps, for an age that was so familiar with Latin and Greek, the six committees were instructed to base their Authorized Version upon the previous English versions, translating afresh, but also comparing their work with the other vernacular Bibles, from Tyndale to Parker.

The King James Version Translators312
When the LORD God of Israel chose the prophets and apostles of old to pen the Scriptures, He made His selection with the utmost care. Faith, holiness, a love for truth and inherent ability were the deciding qualities He looked for. In other words the Most High looks within when selecting His servants. That is how He always judges men.
1 Samuel 16:7 But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.
The Protestant translators of the King James Version were providentially chosen by God in exactly the same way: firstly for their faith, holiness and love of truth, and secondly for their linguistic abilities. In other words, they were TRUE BELIEVERS. At their centre some 47 pious scholars were involved. In addition many hundreds of Protestant ministers and believing linguists throughout the UK assisted in the great work. I cannot over-stress the importance of that fact: that FAITH IN GOD was the first and over-riding reason why the Almighty chose the KJV translators for their sacred task. It is totally inconceivable that the Almighty, who initially inspired "faithful, holy men of God" to write the Scriptures in the first place, would then - centuries later - hand over the translating of those selfsame Scriptures to unbelievers and sceptics. So I repeat: the translators of the King James Version were MEN OF FAITH, who believed that the text they were translating was, in fact, the WORD OF GOD!
    "Thus started the greatest writing project the world has ever known, and the greatest achievement of the reign of James I - the making of the English Bible which has ever since borne his name."313 W. Scott writes as follows:
Quote: "King James named 54 pious and scholarly persons - and who were empowered to communicate with 'all our principal learned men within this our kingdom,' so that the scholarship of the country was consecrated to the noblest work which could engage the heart, the mind, and the pen of men - the production of our admirable English Bible. Seven of the number, through death and other causes, were unable to serve, so that the list was reduced to 47.
    It may be interesting to know how and to whom the work was distributed. There were six committees chosen, two of which sat at Westminster, two at Cambridge, two at Oxford. The whole were presided over by Bishop Andrews, who, besides possessing an intimate knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, Chaldee, and Syriac, was familiar with 16 other languages.
    As each set or committee of translators finished the particular part assigned to them, it was then subjected to the criticism of the other five sets in order; so that each part of the Bible came before the whole body of the translators. When the 47 finished their work it was then carefully reviewed by the final committee. Dr Miles Smith, Bishop of Gloucester, wrote the preface."
Always bear in mind the spiritual qualifications of these great men of God. They were
     *       Pious Christians who believed that the text they
          were handling was the very Word of God! 

     *       They had absolutely no doubt in their minds that
          the Genesis account of creation was true.

     *       They never for a moment doubted the miracles of
          Jesus or that he was born of a virgin, lived a sinless
          life, was crucified for the sins of mankind and that
          he rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.

     *       They were pious Protestants who saw through the
          errors of the Roman Catholic Church.

     *       They were scholars of the highest order. Few -
          if any - of today's scholars come anywhere near them
          in their understanding of the original languages; let
          alone their faith, piety and commitment to truth above
Here are a few quotes about some of these great men of God from Rev. Gipp's book entitled An Understandable History of the Bible..
     *       Lancelot Andrews: "As a preacher, Bishop Andrews
          was right famous in his day. He was called the 'star
          of preachers' Dr Andrews was also known as a great
          man of prayer...But we are chiefly concerned to know
          what were his qualifications as a translator of the
          Bible. He ever bore the character of a 'right godly
          man,' and a 'prodigious student.' One competent judge
          speaks of him as 'that great gulf of learning'! It
          was also said, that 'the world wanted learning to know
          how learned this man was.'
             A brave, old chronicler remarks, that such was his
          skill in all languages, especially the Oriental, that
          had he been present at the confusion of tongues at
          Babel, he might have served as the Interpreter-General!
          In his funeral sermon by Dr. Buckridge, Bishop of
          Rochester, it is said that Dr. Andrews was conversant
          with fifteen languages." (page 186)

     *       John Overall: "He was chosen for his expertise
          in the writings of the early church fathers. "Dr. Overall
          was vital to the translation because of his knowledge
          of quotations of the early church fathers." (page 186-187)

     *       Robert Tighe: "an excellent textuary and profound
          linguist." (page 189)

     *       William Bedwell: "an eminent Oriental scholar.
          His epitaph mentions that he was 'for the Eastern
          tongues, as learned a man as most lived in these modern
          times.'" (page 189)
     *       Edward Lively: "One of the best linguists in the
          world...Much dependence was placed on his surpassing
          skill in Oriental languages."(page 190)

     *       Lawrence Chaderton: "He made himself familiar
          with the Latin, Greek and Hebrew tongues and was
          thoroughly skilled in them...Dr Chaderton was a powerful
          preacher who lived to the age of one hundred and three.
          A preaching engagement in his later years was described
          as follows: 'Having addressed his audience for full
          two hours by the glass, he paused and said, 'I will
          no longer trespass on your patience.' And now comes
          the marvel; for the whole congregation cried out with
          one consent 'For God's sake, go on!' " (page 191)
     *       Francis Dillingham: "was so studied in the original
          languages that he participated in public debates in
          Greek." (page 191)

     *       Thomas Harrison: Vice-Master of Trinity College
          in Cambridge. "On account of his exquisite skill in
          the Hebrew and Greek idioms, he was one of the chief
          examiners in the University of those who sought to
          be professors of these languages." (page 192)

     *       John Harding: "At the time of his appointment
          to aid in the translation of the Bible, he had been
          Royal Professor of Hebrew in the University for thirteen
          years." (page 192)
     *       John Reynolds: "Determined to explore the whole
          field and make himself master of the subject, he devoted
          himself to the study of the Scriptures in the original
          languages, and read all the Greek and Latin fathers,
          and all the ancient records of the Church." (page 193)
     *       Dr. Henry Saville: "was known for his Greek and
          mathematical learning. He was so well known for his
          education, skilled in languages and knowledge of the
          Word, that he became Greek and mathematical tutor to
          Queen Elizabeth during the reign of her father, Henry
          VIII." (page 195)
     *       Dr. Miles Smith: "the man responsible for the
          preface of the King James Bible. The preface is no
          longer printed in present copies of the Book. He had
          a knowledge of Greek and Latin fathers, as well as
          being an expert in Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic. 'Hebrew
          he had at his finger's end.' And so was the Ethiopic
          tongue." (page 195)
"It should be noted that these men were qualified in the readings of the church fathers which prevented them from being 'locked' to the manuscripts, causing earlier readings to be overlooked. This is vastly better than the methods used by modern translators. It should also be recognized that these men did not live in 'ivory towers.' They were men who were just as renowned for their preaching ability as they were for their esteemed education. It is a lesson in humility to see such men of great spiritual stature call themselves 'poor instruments to make God's Holy Truth to be yet more and more known.'"315
William Grady backs up this evidence:
Quote: "The men on the translation committee of the King James Bible were, without dispute, the most learned men of their day and vastly qualified for the job which they undertook. They were overall both academically qualified by their cumulative knowledge and spiritually qualified by their exemplary lives... William John Bois was only five years old, when his father taught him to read Hebrew. By the time he was six, he could not only write the same, but in a fair and elegant character. At age fifteen, he was already a student at St John's College, Cambridge, where he was renowned for corresponding with his superiors in Greek." 316

Why the King James Version Should Be Retained?

This is so important an issue that I will again quote from Edward F Hills' book The King James Version Defended pages 218-219
"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 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 the 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 the their translation to feel the difference in style. And the observations of W A Irwin (1952) are to the same support. 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. 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.
    In the SECOND place , those who talk about translating the Bible into the language of today never define what they mean by their 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. There are even some who feel that the best way to translate the Bible into the language of today is to convert it into folk songs. Accordingly, in some contemporary youth conferences and even worship services there is little or no Bible reading but only crude kinds of vocal music accompanied by vigorous piano and strumming guitars. 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, modern-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 fulfils 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 savoured 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 publishing 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. This claim, however, is now acknowledged to have been an exaggeration. As R M Grant (1963) admits, 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 doing so we will be following the clear leading of the Almighty." 317

June 1999
Elder: David B Loughran
Stewarton Bible School, Stewarton, Scotland

These were the men of best scholarship, and with the providence of God to boot. Compare that to the scholarship used for the new translations, of men without faith putting together a corrupt montage of Greek from minority manuscripts. There's no comparison.

Let's take another instance of "more than" to further our understanding.

Wyatt Earp and Bat Masterson318
The legend tells us that Marshal Earp cleaned up two Kansas cowtowns, Ellsworth and Wichita, singlehanded. He then joined forces with Bat Masterson to clean up Dodge City, "the wickedest little city in America." So much accomplished, Marshal Earp turned his attention to the featherweight task of pacifying Tombstone, Arizona, a hotbed of outlaws unparalleled in history, ...
    Both men, the legend adds, were courteous to women, modest, handsome, and blue-eyed. We are also told that Earp was the Wild West's speediest and deadliest gun fighter. Masterson was quite willing to testify to his pal's prowess and so contribute to the legend. Earp, so Masterson has assured us, could kill a coyote with his colt 45 at four hundred yards.
    Earp, by his own account, had engaged in impressive heroics. First there was his mettlesome exploit at Ellsworth in 1873. To hear him tell it, Earp stepped out of a crowd, unknown and unheralded, and stalked alone across that familiar sun-baked plaza to disarm an able and truculent gun fighter, the Texas gambler Ben Thompson. Not only that, but Thompson was backed up at the time by a hundred pugnacious cowboy friends. How could Earp ever have dared do it? He would seem to have been cloaked in invisibility, for others who were present never saw him—not the reporter for the Ellsworth newspaper; not deputy Sheriff Hogue, to whom Thompson voluntarily turned over his gun; and not Mayor James Miller, to whom Thompson gave bond for his appearance when he might be wanted later.
    Is it possible Earp was not there at all?
    In May, 1874, Earp arrived in Wichita, another rowdy cowtown where, he said later, Mayor Jim Hope promptly made him marshal. Let Earp speak: "In two years at Wichita my deputies and I arrested more than eight hundred men. In all that time I had to shoot but one man—and that only to disarm him. All he got was a flesh wound.
    And now a look at the minutes of the Wichita city commission. They show that Earp was elected on April 21, 1875, as one of two policemen to serve under the marshal and assistant marshal. They show further that on April 19, 1876, the commission voted against rehiring him. A month later it was recommended that the vagrancy act be enforced against Earp and his brother Jim.
    Dodge was run by a small clique of saloonkeepers who, as the years went on, took turns at being mayor. ... We are told that the saloonkeeper who was mayor in 1876 sent for Wyatt Earp.
    Earp told his skillful biographer, Stuart Lake, that he appointed Bat Masterson as one of his deputies. Earp also asserted that he was paid $250 a month, plus a fee of $2.50 for each arrest; he and his deputies, he said, arrested enough to bring in about $750 a month. (One month in 1877, he recalled, the fees reached almost $1,000 from nearly four hundred arrests; that was the peak.) Earp's share would have brought his income to more than $400 a month, nice money for the time and place.
    And now to the town records. Earp was never marshal of Dodge. He served two terms as assistant marshal: from May, 1876, to September, 1876, and from May, 1878, to September, 1879. (During that month of 1877 when, by his own account, he and his deputies arrested nearly four hundred rowdy cowboys, Earp was not a peace officer at all. In fact, he was himself arrested that month for brawling with a dance-hall girl. His salary as assistant marshal was $75 a month. The fee paid for an arrest (and conviction) was only $2. The docket of the police court shows that during 1878 there were only twenty-nine arrests.

The translators who need wisdom worth more than rubies to write a trustworthy Bible version are, from my investigations, much like Wyatt Earp who supposedly was making more than $400 a month, but in reality it was only about $75. There's a lot of material the NIV leaves out, and a lot of stuff it gets wrong, just like Earp. And yet the NIV is quite popular but then so is Earp.

The Life and Times of Wyatt Earp320 (Dodge City in 1878)
       Wyatt Earp TV321 theme lyrics

           I'll tell you a story a real true life story, a tale of the Western frontier.
           The West, it was lawless, but one man was flawless, and his is the story you'll hear.

           Wyatt Earp, Wyatt Earp, brave courageous and bold.
           Long live his fame and long live his glory, and long may his story be told.

           Well he cleaned up the country, the old wild west country.
           He made law and order prevail. And none can deny it,
           The legend of Wyatt forever will live on the trail.


According to popular belief, novels and song, Wyatt Earp cleaned up the wild west, just as the NIV cleared up the obscure wording in our Bibles. Unfortunately, they cleaned or cleared up a lot less than they get credit for, and in a good many instances they are or were the problem themselves.

The next formula: (Ecclesiastes 1:18) "He that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow." Or the NIV: "the more knowledge, the more grief." In the KJV it is the person increasing his sorrow in getting knowledge. In the NIV it sounds like the knowledge itself is of sorrows. In fact, a corollary of the NIV formula is, "no news is good news." That's especially unfortunate as the good news, the gospel, is exactly what we want there to be a lot of preached.

(Proverbs 1:22) "Scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge." Or by our New International Version, "mockers delight in mockery and fools hate knowledge." The only difference is between the words scorn and mock. But of course, true synonyms are so rare (see references 1 & 2).

Let's look at our dictionary:322 "scorn, v. 1. look down upon; think of as mean or low; despise: scorn a traitor;"
"mock, v, 1. laugh at; make fun of." Slightly different meanings. Let's look at some usages—my emphasis added:

The other curiosity about him was that, although he treated everybody with scorn, he gave tirelessly of his time and effort once his curiosity was engaged. Human beings he could not deal with, but set him a problem and he would work to exhaustion. Although he should have aroused little but disgust, I nonetheless developed a cautious regard for the man.323
Leaving the others Thorin and Fili and Kili and the hobbit went along the shore to the great bridge. There were guards at the head of it, but they were not keeping very careful watch, for it was so long since there had been any real need. Except for occasional squabbles about river-trolls they were friends with the Wood-elves. Other folk were far away; and some of the younger people in the town openly doubted the existence of any dragon in the mountain, and laughed at [see above definition of "mock, v, 1. laugh at"] the greybeards and gammers who said that they had seen him flying in the sky in their young days. That being so, it is not surprising that the guards were drinking and laughing by a fire in their hut ... Their astonishment was enormous when Thorin Oakenshield stepped in through the door.324

It is of note that a scorner might have some redeeming virtue in curiosity, but a mocker tends to carelessness. Wisdom is addressing a higher class individual in the KJV than in the NIV.

Let's look at a single author who uses both words/concepts:

KING EDWARD  These were her words, utt'red with mild disdain:
     ["scorn, v. 1. look down upon; think of
     as mean or low; despise] Tell him, in hope he'll prove a widower
     shortly, I'll wear the willow-garland for his sake,'
MENENIUS  You know neither me, yourselves, nor any thing. You are
     ambitious for poor knaves' caps and legs; you wear out a good
     wholesome forenoon in hearing a cause between an orange-wife and
     a fosset-seller, and then rejourn the controversy of threepence
     to a second day of audience. When you are hearing a matter
     between party and party, if you chance to be pinch'd with
     the colic, you make faces like mummers, set up the bloody
     flag against all patience, and, in roaring for a chamber-pot,
     dismiss the controversy bleeding, the more entangled by
     your hearing. All the peace you make in their cause is
     calling both the parties knaves. You are a pair of strange
BRUTUS    Come, come, you are well understood to be a perfecter
     giber for the table than a necessary bencher in the Capitol.
MENENIUS  Our very priests must become mockers, if they
     shall encounter such ridiculous subjects as you are. When
     you speak best unto the purpose, it is not worth the wagging
     of your beards; and your beards deserve not so honourable a
     grave as to stuff a botcher's cushion or to be entomb'd as
     an ass's packsaddle. ...

In the introductions to these new Bible versions, the translators scorn the KJV inasmuch as they do treat it "with mild disdain"—NIV PREFACE: "A present-day translation is not enhanced by ... the King James Versionsee above—Yet they do not mock the KJV saying "Our very priests must" take the pages of the KJV to "stuff a botcher's cushion or to be entomb'd as an ass's packsaddle." They seem to be trying to avoid the ridicule of Wisdom directed against scorners such as themselves by retranslating the ridicule to be against the lower grade mockers.

The last formula quoted at the dinner conversation was: (Isaiah 47:10) "Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, it hath perverted thee." Sounds just like what happened to the NIV with its modicum of wisdom and knowledge. Somehow our preachers, some of them, have become mesmerized by this version. And now its use has been perverted. It has itself made no claim to be a traditional text (except perhaps to follow some of the punctuation and spelling of proper names.) But it's the version of choice in the particular traditional service I attend. That's a perverted use. Caused by the modicum of wisdom and knowledge of that version. "Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, it hath perverted thee."

Finally, there's the issue of intra-body submission. (I Peter 5:5) "Likewise ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble."

I had noticed that he had tried to take part in the conversation on several occasions, but each time he opened his mouth, Grove had interrupted and carried on as if he wasn't there.
    The final sally defeated poor Ken, who knew that he could not remember the source of the quotation, and his face grew red under the public humiliation as he desperately tried to think of a response.
    "Isaiah, 47:10," Grove said in triumph when Ken's failure was obvious to all.
    Ken threw down his knife with a clatter and, hands shaking, stood up to leave the table. I feared that they might come to blows, but it was all theater. "Romans, 8:13," he said. With icy slowness, he withdrew from the table and marched out of the hall, his footsteps echoing as he went. I believe I was the only person who heard this last comment, and to me it meant nothing. I always found the tendency of Protestants to bandy quotations from the Bible a trifle ridiculous, even blasphemous. Anyway, Grove certainly did not hear, but instead looked pleased with himself for having carried the field.

It is naturally to be expected that the younger defer to the elder, but perhaps the younger should be allowed a part in the conversation at some point. When it comes to memorized scripture, the elder Christian will normally have more under his belt than the new convert. But switching to some new version upsets that balance, turns it on its head, because now in the new version the new convert will be picking up scripture that is only confusing the older Christian who has memorized his in the KJV.

Have I committed some offense in flaunting my knowledge of scripture so that now in the traditional service a new version is customarily read, so that in recalling it the new convert will know more than the one older in the Lord?

There is one other consideration.

    "Aha. Was Dr. Grove killed by Spirits or by spirits? That's the problem, is it? Is their wine the poison of dragons and the cruel venom of asps?"
    Lower sighed. "Deuteronomy 32:33," he responded. "Just so." And then stood patiently as Stahl went through an elaborate display of apparent thought.

Taking the advice of the NIV can at times be damaging. Let me illustrate thus:

The matchmaker328
Asa Mercer approached the Reverend Mr. Bagley with a notion about bringing a load of decent unmarried young ladies from the East out to the town for purposes of clearing the air with wholesale marriages. To Mr. Bagley, who was a bit naive on the subject himself, it seemed like an eminent satisfactory solution. It was felt that being a young man himself, Mercer understood what was going on in the minds and bodies of the other young men in the area.
    Mercer figured he had come up with a new approach to the most complicated problem, except survival, that has faced mankind since the beginning of time.
    There were some skeptics, so the public subscription he sought for the trip east to the marts of marriageable women was not as great as he wished it could be, but he felt that once he demonstrated his system, it couldn't fail. After all, he was a school teacher and logic was on his side. The men were in the West and the women were in the East.
    All he had to do was get into the transportation business.
    Accordingly, in March of 1864, he set forth from New York for Seattle with eleven young maidens ranging in age from fifteen to twenty-five years. Historian Clarence Bagley, who was a very young man in town at the time and wrote the kind of history that failed to give any prominence to the name of John Pinnell, voiced these sentiments about the venture when writing his chronicle about Seattle some fifty years later:
     They did not come West expressly to marry, as some would
     infer; but if, in addition to the appeal of wages, adventure,
     desire to help people at home, and the true missionary spirit
     of benefiting all whom they came in contact with, the thought
     of marriage in the new country was considered, it is not
     wondered at ...
Of the eleven who started out, nine actually got here and of the nine, eight got married. The ninth became principal of Seattle's first public school.
    For a long time, I wondered why she didn't get married, too ... but in the course of further research I came across her picture and that solved the mystery, at least to my satisfaction.
Postage prepaid
Well, Mr. Mercer was a pretty popular young fellow when he produced the petticoats and the folks elected him to the upper house of the Territorial Legislature. But he had bigger things on his mind. With his "can't fail" formula, he persuaded a number of young men to invest three hundred bucks apiece to finance a second trip to the East.
    He had an additional argument going with him when he left with the proceeds of the second public subscription. Over 360,000 young men had died as a result of the Civil War, and there were war widows until they ran out your ears. He was planning to return with about five hundred of those widows—a monumental task but a target worth shooting for. At $300 apiece he could gross out at $150,000. And if the five hundred worked out, he could shoot to provide a wife for every one of the ten thousand single men on Puget sound. And with that many widows as a potential ...
    There were millions in it!
    Unfortunately, James Gordon Bennett of the
New York Herald simply didn't believe that the distillation of naivete that was part and parcel of Asa Mercer could exist in the breast of any man ... and the Herald started screaming "white slavery." Mercer's recruits fell off like flies.
    A year after his first triumphal return with nine girls, Mercer came back with forty-six eligible young ladies. Make it forty-five ... he married one of them himself. And he was broke. Though the mathematical education of the young bucks in the community was rudimentary, they were able to figure out that forty-five eligible girls was a substantially lower number than the five hundred that Mercer had promised.
    And snuggling up to an empty promise on a cold winter's night was small satisfaction for the rosy dreams that had been allowed to grow while Mercer was in the East. That was the end of Mercer in Seattle. The young men of the town would have tarred and feathered him and ridden him out of town on a rail. But Sheriff Wyckoff wouldn't let 'em.
The old order changeth ...329
Writer Jim Stevens provides us with the following priceless prose describing the entry of the troops into Seattle:
     One fine day a lumber schooner from San Francisco tied up
     at the sandspit dock, and there appeared before the incredulous
     eyes of the hangers-on a marvelous parade. Down the gangplank
     tripped a dozen white damsels, all dazzling in form-fitting
     bombazine frocks, french-heeled shoes, silk stockings, and
     the war paint of their profession. The parade, escorted
     by Pinnell, marched daintily on to Illahee ...
     Recovering from its first surprise and enchantment, Seattle
     whooped in jubilation, shook hands all 'round, and bellowed
     a new defiance at Tacoma. Again, stirring news grapevined
     up the skidroads into the deep timber ... an overwhelming
     tide rolled into Seattle ...
The arrival of the ladies from San Francisco was greeted with as much enthusiasm as the arrival of the Mercer Girls. But the objectives of the two sets of girls were different. The Mercer Girls came here to get married.
    John Pinnel's girls did not.
    They were professional and business women.
    They knew their business and their profession was an old one.

There are two sets of women mentioned in the story above. One set is sanctified, and the other is not. Likewise in the Bible there is the New Testament and the Old Testament. In the New Testament marriage to an unbeliever is sanctified, although not every unbeliever will abide marriage to a Christian—"... fell off like flies." In the Old Testament there were seven nations the Israelites were not allowed to marry into. These are two distinct sets of people.

The New International Version confuses the two by paraphrasing whom the widow is permitted to marry: anybody she chooses, "only in the Lord"—meaning within the Lord's design for her life, to now read: "only he must belong to the Lord," [emphasis added] words and ideas that are not in the Greek at all. I've seen people get quite distressed by well meaning Christians trashing a mixed engagement, which biblical authority they do not have unless we regard the NIV as authoritative in this matter.

And there are other miscellaneous concerns.

Had Cola been more mindful of the Bible, he would have realized that the proof lay in those notebooks he carried to jot down the words of others. He reports that at the dinner in New College, Grove had a dispute with Thomas Ken, who stormed out, muttering the words "Romans, 8:13." Cola remembered the reference, wrote it down and entirely missed its significance; indeed, he missed the significance of the whole occasion, failing even to understand why he was invited in the first place. For what is this passage? Unlike him, I took the trouble to find out, and it confirmed the belief I have held all these years: "For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die." My friend Thomas was convinced Grove did indeed live for fleshly pleasure, and a few hours later he died.330

The NIV has "according to the sinful nature," instead of "after the flesh," which is not a simpler expression. It is all too easy to miss the significance in the NIV. In the KJV it's understood as: "live for fleshly pleasure," which course results in death. From the NIV it's "sinful nature" with a footnote from verse 3 that says "Or the flesh; also in verses 4, 5, 8, 9, 12 and 13." It just seems to me that this diverts the thoughts all over the place, so instead of a simple explanation of what the course of fleshly pleasure is, we have to again ask ourselves what is sinful about our nature, which is what is supposed to be explained in the first place.

The wide-eyed naïveté, the youthful enthusiasm, the openness he presents in his narration are nothing but the most monstrous of frauds. Satan is a master of deception, who has taught his servants his tricks. "Ye are of your father the devil ... for he is a liar, and the father of it." (John 8:44).331

I am wondering of the NIV if, "The wide-eyed naïveté, the youthful enthusiasm, the openness he presents in his narration are nothing but the most monstrous of frauds. Satan is a master of deception, who has taught his servants his tricks." I mean, the Preface is all gaga over improving upon the speech of the 1600's when that isn't what the KJV was even written in.

"I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green bay tree." (Psalms 37:35). Were people who had become used to authority and riches simply going to renounce these baubles?332

Yep, the NIV is spreading out in its influence and bringing in lots of money to the publisher. Some credible people have real problems with this version, (and with other new versions). Is the publisher going to withdraw its version,—and other publishers all theirs,—simply because they have all these problems? No, they are going to leave them on the shelf, and it is up to the consumer to beware.

I replied that all His Majesty's subjects were naturally delighted at his safe return to his rightful throne. Bennet snorted.
    "So how do you account for the fact that we have just had to hang another half dozen fanatics for plotting against the government?"
    "'This is an evil generation,'" I said.
(Luke 11:29.)333

A lot of people like their new versions. Yes, but a lot of people don't go for the rule of government, so perhaps they don't like the rule of a truly authoritative Bible either. This is an evil generation.

Let us suppose that this page begins: "So Hatach went forth to Mordecai unto the street of the city, which was before the king's gate," (Esther 4:6) a puzzling text on which I have given an elucidatory sermon334 , shortly to be published.)335

A translation is an intermediary as is a messenger. A messenger is expected to appear at such and such a place with his message, "before the king's gate." Can we not expect a traditional service to include reading from the King James Version?

And so I returned to Oxford, resumed my mathematical enquiry, and began weaving a web in which to catch the king's enemies. Mr. Bennet's perspicacity in choosing me was considerable: not only had I some small skill in the matter already, I sat in the middle of the kingdom and, of course, had a network of contacts throughout Europe which could readily be exploited. The Republic of Learning knows no boundaries and few things were more natural than to write colleagues in all countries to seek their views on mathematics, philosophy—and anything else. Piece by piece, and at very moderate expense, I began to have a better picture than anyone of what was going on. I did not, of course, rise to the level of Mr. Thurloe, but largely succeeded in heaping mischief upon them, and spending mine arrows among them. (Deuteronomy 32:23.)336

Tell me if reading the above quote, you cannot discern where the natural dialect used to write to one's colleagues in the 1600's ends and the sacred biblical dialect begins? The author didn't include quotation marks, and the Bible passage is quoted seamlessly in the discourse, but we can tell when one ends and the other begins. So how can translators who want to retranslate the Bible say that the King James Version is out of date because it used the natural dialect of the time which has since changed? They don't understand what they are doing at all!

The translation of the Scriptures into the languages of the nations has become a continuing miracle of Pentecost, making it possible for men of all tongues to hear the wonderful works of God in their own languages. This process, of course, includes the fascinating story of the development of the English Bible. About 1380, John Wycliffe translated the New Testament into English. In 1525, William Tyndale added a significant English translation of the New testament. After numerous other editions had been offered, the now-famous King James Version of 1611 was made by forty-seven scholars under the authorization of King James I of England. A multiplicity of translations into modern English has been a continuing manifestation of the Christian community in ascertaining exactly what God has spoken. As a landmark of enduring poetic beauty and linguistic excellence, the King James Version remains the crown of all English versions.

If somebody wants to make more English Bible translations with the objective of "ascertaining exactly what God has spoken," more power to him, but "the King James Version remains the crown of all English versions" which should not be superseded in a traditional service, especially not by an inferior effort like the NIV, not in my opinion at least.


Click here to bookmark this page.

Refresh this page to see the new bookmark below:
html gear
View My Guestbook
Sign My Guestbook


Earl Gosnell
1950 Franklin Bv., Box 15
Eugene, OR 97403

Contact: feedbackatbibles.n7nz.org

Copyright © 2004, Earl S. Gosnell III

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence.

Permission is hereby granted to use the portions original to this paper-- with credit given, of course--in intellectually honest non-profit educational material. The material I myself have quoted has its own copyright in most cases, which I cannot speak for but have used here under the fair use doctrine.

I have used material from a number of sources for teaching, comment and illustration in this nonprofit teaching endeavor. The sources are included in a notes file. Such uses must be judged on individual merit, of course, so I cannot say how other uses of the same material might fare.

Any particular questions or requests for permissions may be addressed to me, the author.

Scripture quotations marked NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION or NIV are taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.

Web page problems?
Contact: webfootsteratbibles.n7nz.org

Enable graphics to view counter visitors since 8/1/2006

Valid HTML 4.01!