A recent article in the Messenger dealt extensively with the use of the 'thee' and 'thou' pronouns, both in Scripture and in prayer. The article argued for the continued use of the King James (Authorized) Version of the Bible because of its use of these pronouns. This opens up a discussion which has occupied our Synods for several years, and a discussion that I'm pleased can now be continued, albeit tentatively, on the pages of the Messenger. As brothers in the Lord, we should be able to look at the issue from different angles.

I'll get back to the issue of the pronouns later in this article, but let me begin this discussion by asserting that the real issue of which translation of the Bible we use comes down, very precisely, to the matter of "Translation Principles.'' Any church stands or falls by the place that the Word of the Living God occupies in her life. The Bible is the basis for what we believe and how we live. It is therefore essential that we have confidence that the Bible we use is a good and faithful translation. The question is, how does one determine what is a "good and faithful translation?"

While supervising the Achi Old Testament Translation Project in Guatemala, I was obliged to study translation prin­ciples. It is not my purpose to outline the differences between the literal and dynamic equivalent approach to translation. Let us all simply agree that an essentially literal translation is one that is "as literal as possible and as free as necessary," that this is a basic requirement for a good and faithful translation. My purpose here is to look at three basic principles of translation: that a translation must be accurate, clear, and natural. When these three basic criteria are met, one has a good and faithful translation.

Accuracy⤒🔗

Of the three principles mentioned, accuracy is the most important. Clarity and natural expression must be sub­servient to what the original text actually says. But how does one determine accuracy? Grammar, vocabulary, and literary style all play important roles in determining an accurate ren­dering of the original. Often, a strictly word-for-word translation from one language to another becomes nonsensical. Word order and grammatical structure vary from language to language. Hebrew often doesn't supply a (to be) verb; it must be provided. We had the reverse problem in Achi where Spanish had a verb and Achi, being a Mayan Ianguage, didn't need one. Spanish not only allows for double negatives, it practically glories in them. For example, the Spanish expression: "no digas nada a nadie" literally translates as "don't say nothing to no one." The implication is "say something to someone" — the exact opposite of what the Spanish says! An accurate rendering of the Spanish would be: "don't say anything to anyone." One must translate from one language to another according to current, normal grammatical usage.

Tied to grammar is the question of vocabulary. An accurate translation must convey the original by using words that the reader will understand, or else communication does not happen. Given that we are speaking about translating God's Word, this is something to be taken with great seriousness.

The recent Messenger article asserted that it is necessary to maintain the use of 'thee' and 'thou' as singular forms of 'you' to maintain Biblical accuracy. I do not deny that the biblical languages have singular and plural pronouns. However, current English grammar no longer does. We may lament this fact, but it remains a fact. While one might concur that there are a select number of passages where this distinction is important, the instances where the ambiguity of pronouns makes a theologically significant difference are but few. Usually, the context itself makes the reference clear, and where it doesn't, an explanation by the preacher can clarify this. The earlier article made specific reference to Isaiah 7:10-14 and Luke 22:31-32. Readers are invited to see how the NKJV or ESV clarify the problem by translation, footnotes or study notes. For my part, I would rather explain the exact meaning of the occasional ambiguous pronoun than attempt to explain the many archaic words in the KJV.

Consider the following: a few weeks ago I preached from Philippians 3:20-21. It is extremely important that God's people in the pew have confidence in the Bible we are using. One is, therefore, very reluctant to make corrections to the translation in use. However, when preaching one is forced to do this frequently with the KJV. The archaic language obscures the very words that the Holy Spirit inspired. In two verses one must retranslate five words if one is to be faithful to the Greek text.

• 'Conversation' = 'citizenship' (not even 'conduct' as 'conversation' often means in the KJV)¹
• 'look for' = 'eagerly wait for' (not a word generally speaking used for looking)²
• 'vile' = 'lowly or humble' ('vile' has distinct negative and sinful connotations which are not in the text)³
• 'fashioned like unto' = 'conformed to', 'sharing the form of something'⁴
• due to grammatical considerations 'working whereby he is able' should be rendered 'his power enabling him...'

These examples form only a paragraph but they could be multiplied to fill a book. If the primary translation principle is accuracy, using the issue of two archaic pronouns as justification for keeping the KJV is not compelling. It is like trying to stamp out a smoldering cigarette butt while the house is burning down around us. Ultimately — and this is the issue — the translation we have bound ourselves to use in the pulpit is actually less than accurate in today's English.

Clarity and Natural Expression←⤒🔗

While clarity and natural expression must be subservient to accuracy, it is obvious that they are essential elements of a good and faithful translation and must not be considered insignificant.

It is generally agreed that all translations have strengths and weaknesses and that yes, the KJV has archaic words. Yet, I have noticed that there is very little self-criticism of the KJV on the part of its defenders. We are not speaking of jots and tittles; we are speaking of key theological concepts. Most defenders of the KJV insist they have no trouble understanding it. Undoubtedly, many parts of it are clear. But let's also admit that many parts are not, that to truly appreciate the KJV one must clearly understand both Elizabethan English and Hebrew-Greek.

Without such understanding would the man or woman in the pew grasp that in 1 Samuel 3:1 the fact that the Word of God was 'precious' should be understood to mean that it was 'rare?' Or that the fact that God's people are a 'peculiar' people (1 Peter 2:9) doesn't mean 'strange' or 'different' as the word means today, but 'purchased' or 'acquired possession' — a theologically rich and experientially comforting word? Or that 'be careful for nothing' really means 'do not be anxious about anything' (Philippians 4:6)? What about the hundreds of other words that have changed or lost their meanings and are no longer intelligible: wit, wot, sith, outlandish (foreign), decline (to turn aside), prevent (lead, go before), privy, halt, milch, mess, botch, broided, anon, etc.? Reference is sometimes made to taking away or adding to the Word of God with the accompanying warning and curse (Revelation 22). This is indeed very serious and solemn. However, it must be asked in all humility whether the KJV itself is not doing this very thing by its use of archaic forms that tend to obscure the Word and confuse today's reader? God's Word does not change. Let that be clear. The problem is that our human words, our language, does change with the passage of time. No one version of Scripture, except the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, can claim to be the standard for all time. But translations need to be written in the language of the reader.

There may be many personal reasons why one would prefer to keep the KJV. These reasons may be legitimate for private use as a matter of personal preference. But using the translation principles of accuracy, clarity and natural expression, it is difficult to defend that the KJV must be used in corporate worship. We agree that the use of 'thee' and 'thou' is not a matter of reverence, based on the way the same pronouns are used for both God and man in the Biblical languages. Even if a congregation prefers to keep the KJV — and that would be their prerogative — it is surely not a matter of orthodoxy if another congregation chooses to use another translation.

It was — and is — a Reformation principle that the Word of God be available in the language of the people. The Reformers rightly condemned the Roman Church for its insistence that the religious hierarchy interpret the Latin Bible for the common people. But are we not doing the same thing? Keeping a translation that, because of its lack of clarity, requires someone else to retranslate from the pulpit, conflicts very pointedly with the same Reformation to which we claim spiritual allegiance.

The Reformers argued for — and in some cases gave their lives for — a translation that the ploughboy could understand, so that the Church might use this Word as a tool to witness to a perishing world. Our society is increasingly pagan and secular. Many Canadians think that the Bible is irrelevant. We might ask ourselves whether we are inadvertently contributing to this mindset by clinging to a translation that has become patently unintelligible to the 'ploughboys' of today.

Engaging in any kind of serious evangelism requires that our hearers understand the Word of God. If we want unchurched people to join our congregations and learn under the ministry of the Word, if we want our children to be well-grounded in the Scriptures in an increasingly post-Christian society, if we take our calling seriously to feed the flock, "to shepherd the church of God which He has purchased with His own blood," we cannot do anything but acknowledge the need of a new translation. There are some alternative good translations available, not perfect to be sure, but translations that are accurate, clear and use natural expression of speech.

These kinds of changes are always traumatic and yet throughout history, faithful, godly men have made them for the greater benefit of the Church. We can do no less.