Ronald Reagan and the King James Bible

Dial the Truth Ministries ^ | September 6, 1977 | Ronald Reagan

[Commander8]

The following transcript is one of Ronald Reagan's famous radio addresses. In this address (which aired September 6, 1977), Ronald Reagan, the great orator, eloquently gives his thoughts on the "Good News Bible" (also called the Good News for Modern Man and Today's English Version) in comparison to the Authorized Version or the King James Bible. emphasis added

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What would you say if someone decided Shakespeare's plays, Charles Dicken's novels, or the music of Beethoven could be rewritten & improved? I'll be right back. . .

Writing in the journal "The Alternative", Richard Hanser, author of The Law & the Prophets and Jesus: What Manner of Man Is This?, has called attention to something that is more than a little mind boggling. It is my understanding that the Bible (both the Old & New Testaments) has been the best selling book in the entire history of printing.

Now another attempt has been made to improve it. I say another because there have been several fairly recent efforts to quote "make the Bible more readable & understandable" unquote. But as Mr. Hanser so eloquently says, "For more than 3 1/2 centuries, its language and its images, have penetrated more deeply into the general culture of the English speaking world, and been more dearly treasured, than anything else ever put on paper." He then quotes the irreverent H. L. Mencken, who spoke of it as purely a literary work and said it was, "probably the most beautiful piece of writing in any language."

They were, of course, speaking of The Authorized Version, the one that came into being when the England of King James was scoured for translators & scholars. It was a time when the English language had reached it's peak of richness & beauty.

Now we are to have The Good News Bible which will be in, "the natural English of everyday adult conversation." I'm sure the scholars and clergymen supervised by the American Bible Society were sincerely imbued with the thought that they were taking religion to the people with their Good News Bible, but I can't help feeling we should instead be taking the people to religion and lifting them with the beauty of language that has outlived the centuries.

Mr. Hanser has quoted from both the St. James Version & the Good News Bible some well known passages for us to compare. A few thousand years ago Job said "How forcible are right words!" [Job 6:25] The new translators have him saying "Honest words are convincing." That's only for openers. There is the passage [Eccl. 1:18], "For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow". Is it really an improvement to say instead, "The wiser you are, the more worries you have; the more you know the more it hurts."

In the New Testament, in Mathew, we read "The voice of the one crying in the wilderness. Prepare ye the way." [Matthew 3:3] The Good News version translates that, "Someone is shouting in the desert. Get the road ready." It sounds like a straw boss announcing lunch hour is over.

The hauntingly beautiful 23rd Psalm is the same in both versions, for a few words, "The Lord is my shepherd" but instead of continuing "I shall not want" we are supposed to say "I have everything I need."

The Christmas story has undergone some modernizing but one can hardly call it improved. The wondrous words "Fear not: for; behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy" has become, "Don't be afraid! I am here with good news for you."

The sponsors of the Good News version boast that their Bible is as readable as the daily paper – and so it is. But do readers of the daily news find themselves moved to wonder, "at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth"? Mr. Hanser suggests that sadly the "tinkering & general horsing around with the sacred texts will no doubt continue" as pious drudges try to get it right. "It will not dawn on them that it has already been gotten right."

This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening.

— aired September 6, 1977

“ Indeed, it is an incontrovertible fact that all the complex and horrendous questions confronting us at home and worldwide have their answer in that single book. — Ronald Reagan The King James Bible, Newsweek, Dec. 27, 1982 p.46 ”

[Commander8]

PING

[Wrigley]

Well, if the Gipper says so, I guess it is.

[drstevej]

C8, is the KJV a perfect translation?

[nobdysfool]

Is the KJV inspired like the original autographs were?

[RochesterFan]

What would you say if someone decided Shakespeare's plays, Charles Dicken's novels, or the music of Beethoven could be rewritten & improved? I'll be right back. . .

Ronald Regan was a great orator and arguably a great president. Despite those strong attributes, this is a logically fallacious argument. This equates providing a new translation of a work with "rewritimg" a work. Consider the following: A popular translation of John Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion" was done by Henry Beveridge. If someone decided to do a new translation to reflect changes in common English usage, would they be accused of "re-writing Calvin?" Not by somebody who was familiar with tranlation issues. Might the two translations be compared by those who could also read the original to see which more faithfully conveyed the author's ideas? Very likely.

[Corin Stormhands]

but I can't help feeling we should instead be taking the people to religion and lifting them with the beauty of language that has outlived the centuries.

Sounds to me like Reagan was arguing for the beauty of the text, not necessarily the meaning. I don't think that there's any question that there is beauty and poetry in the KJV. Doesn't make it more accurate tho.

It's sort of like arguing that because we have Romeo and Juliet we shouldn't have West Side Story.

The way I read this, Reagan was more concerned with how the new Bible would sound rather than what it actually said.

I love Ronald Reagan but he was far better at politics than at religion.

[Alex Murphy]

Bravo, Corin. You nailed it in one.

[Between the Lines]

I agree with Reagan. The Good News Bible wasn't very good. But he wasn't making a case that the KJV was better than all other Bibles just the GNB.

[drstevej]

OK guys, slamming the KJV and Ronnie Reagan in the same post.... I'm warning you!

Hell is very hot and the KJVOnly committee will not write you a recommendation for heaven if you make such statements. They don't endorse Satanic Democrats who "dis" the King Jimmy and the Great Gipper.

[RobbyS]

Reagan's point is that when one reads this translation one cannot remember the words ten minutes later. They are unmemorable and so the meaning fades almost as soon as our eyes leave the page.

[The Bard]

Questions and Answers:

C8, is the KJV a perfect translation?

Throughout the Bible, God repeats himself. This repetition serves two purposes:

1. God shows us how important something is by repeating it, similar to how parents often have to repeat things to their children.

2. God, through repetition, preserves his word. A bad bible translation is exposed as contradictions and errors are created by attempts to alter His word.

The first Bible I truely sat down and read was a New living Translation. I thought it was wonderful, and God kept his promise (those that seek him with all their heart will find him). But I have found where there are times when it seems to be "vague" or somewhat "contridictory" with itself. I have not encountered that with my King James. I will grant that this could be caused by personal preferences, or because of reading skill (or lack thereof). My suggestion is that if you are going to use a bible other than the King James, have one handy for reference.

Is the KJV inspired like the original autographs were?

No. ONLY the Originals were inspired. ALL copies after the originals are preserved. The King James is the Preserved word of God, but it itself is not inspired (even the writers of the King James claim that it was not inspired).

I agree with Reagan. The Good News Bible wasn't very good. But he wasn't making a case that the KJV was better than all other Bibles just the GNB.

Different translations have their good and bad points. Again my suggestion is that if you are going to use a bible other than the King James, have one handy for reference.

It's sort of like arguing that because we have Romeo and Juliet we shouldn't have West Side Story.

I've read both Romeo and Juliet and West Side Story and enjoyed both. but one can't say that if they have read West Side Story that that means they have also read Romeo and Juliet. While they have many plot twists in common, they are different stories. Same with Bible versions. Some (perhaps not all) translations are so twisted or corrupt that they are almost as different as Romeo and Juliet and West Side Story.

[drstevej]

***No. ONLY the Originals were inspired. ALL copies after the originals are preserved. The King James is the Preserved word of God, but it itself is not inspired (even the writers of the King James claim that it was not inspired).***

The KJV is English, the inspired autographa was Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. Does "preserved" in your formulation mean a "perfect translation" as some here argue?

Define "preserved."

[Conservative til I die]

Reagan's supremely off base, as much as I love him. The difference between the Bible and Shakespeare is that Shakespeare actually was written originally in English. The Bible was not. It's been translated anr re-translated almost since it was canonized.

Of course, that's not to say I'm much of a fan of these "with the times" translations. At the same time, I don't speak 15th century English and I don't know anyone who does.

[drstevej]

*** I don't speak 15th century English ***

17th century (1611)

Don't awaken the King Jimmy Inquisition!

[hiho hiho]

I have two problems with the “new” translations.

Translators have become bold in their attempt to revise Christianity. For example, I recently heard (at a funeral) the 23rd Psalm translated something like “...and I will dwell in God’s house as long as I live.” So much for a hereafter!

The huge number of translations has destroyed any common corporate usage. 40 years ago on a doomed airliner, the poor souls could recite “The Lord’s Prayer”, or the 23rd Psalm together. A common translation no longer exists. Not only that, but some will be offended by the “non-inclusive” language of other peoples versions. (I guess it is easier to fiddle with the language than educating people and man or mankind is, in fact, inclusive.)

[Alex Murphy]

Hell is very hot and the KJVOnly committee will not write you a recommendation for heaven if you make such statements.

[drstevej]

The Operating system used in Hell

[As you well know...]

The ones who did the translation were trained by Catholics, so, what other result than excellence would be expected?

[drstevej]

***The ones who did the translation were trained by Catholics, so, what other result than excellence would be expected?***

Well Jerome seems to have had trouble translating the greek word metanoeo. He ended up with "do pennance" rather than "repent".


:~)

[As you well know...]

LOL You are WAY over my head with that one. I have enough trouble with the English of McGeorge Bundy and I have no desire to go outside my area of competence and dispute about Greek texts.

[As you well know...]

In my house, memorising the Kyrie was considered the equivalent of mastering Greek - please don't tell my hero Tom Fleming; he is such a hardheaded Classicist he'd probably cancel my subscription to Chronicles.

[Con X-Poser]

<< The KJV is English, the inspired autographa was Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. >>

Do we always have to have someone parrot the same tired old falsehoods?

The very passage that says "All scripture is given by inspiration of God ..." is talking about the scripture Timothy had since childhood - NOT the original autographa. As a matter of fact, virtually EVERY mention of the word "scripture" (which is defined as given by inspiration in 2 Tim 3:15-16) is talking about preserved COPIES - NOT the originals. The Ethiopian eunuch had inspired scripture, the Bereans searched the inspired scripture, Jesus read the inspired scripture, Timothy had the inspired scripture- but NONE of them had the originals.

[nobdysfool]

The Ethiopian eunuch had inspired scripture, the Bereans searched the inspired scripture, Jesus read the inspired scripture, Timothy had the inspired scripture- but NONE of them had the originals.

So you're saying then, that the KJV is (was) inspired. Let me be clear about this. You are saying that the KJV translators were inspired the same way that the original writers were inspired when they wrote the original autographs, that is, inspired by the Holy Spirit, giving the KJV an equal standing with the original autographs as "inspired scripture", or "God-breathed" scripture. Is that what you're saying?

[George W. Bush]

nobdysfool to Con X-Poser: Let me be clear about this. You are saying that the KJV translators were inspired the same way that the original writers were inspired when they wrote the original autographs, that is, inspired by the Holy Spirit, giving the KJV an equal standing with the original autographs as "inspired scripture", or "God-breathed" scripture.

At the risk of being called a textual critic, I don't see how you can read that into his remarks.

BTW, if we believe that the Pauline epistles written to Timothy were authentic and were actually received and read by Timothy, we can assume that Timothy did in fact have the original autographs in Greek from Paul. And neither Paul nor Timothy might have been aware that they were inspired writings. This is why the Gospels are considered the heart of the New Testament writings and why they have always come first in the canon.

[editor-surveyor]

the "tinkering & general horsing around with the sacred texts will no doubt continue" as pious drudges try to get it right. "It will not dawn on them that it has already been gotten right."

I'd say that it has dawned on them that it already has been gotten right, and that is what is creating the burning desire to change it.

Men have always attempted to change God's commandments, and there is no stopping them now; all we can do is continue to blow the whistle on them.

[editor-surveyor]

This equates providing a new translation of a work with "rewritimg" a work

And that is exactly what the 'modern' translations are; an incremental approach to the revocation of God's word.
(Anyone here who thinks themselves qualified to correct Ron Reagan, should read "In his own hand." Clearly he was one of the greatest perceptive intellects of the modern era.)

[editor-surveyor]

And neither Paul nor Timothy might have been aware that they were inspired writings.

It should be abundantly clear that Paul and Timothy knew that they did not have the originals, and that they also knew that All Scripture, not just the originals, is inspired.

The "only the the original autographs" position is scripturally, and logically untenable.

[drstevej]

E-s, do you believe the KJV is a perfect translation?
Yes or No

[George W. Bush]

You don't think Timothy ever had the originals of the two epistles which Paul addressed to him which became what we call first and second Timothy?

[editor-surveyor]

I've answered that question before. It is not a simple yes/no situation.

Perfect as in word for word? You and I know that that is impossible, considering the structural differences of the languages.

Perfect as to conveying God's word? It has to be taken as such by believers, much as the Geneva has to be so taken. The differences between them are political, not spiritual.

[editor-surveyor]

You don't think Timothy ever had the originals of the two epistles which Paul addressed to him which became what we call first and second Timothy?

Yes, of course he had them, but It is clear that at the time, neither of them were even considering the question of whether they were scripture. They were living them, so that we could read them.

(I may have misunderstood your post)

[drstevej]

***Perfect as in word for word? You and I know that that is impossible, considering the structural differences of the languages.***

I take that as a no. The concept of a perfect translation is as you say impossible. Please disciple ftD, he's really confused.

[nobdysfool]

Perfect as to conveying God's word? It has to be taken as such by believers, much as the Geneva has to be so taken. The differences between them are political, not spiritual.

It has to be taken as perfect in conveying God's Word because it IS perfect, or because believers have decided that it is? I'm a little unclear on your position on that.

As for the political differences between the Geneva and the KJV, yes, it was the difference between an anti-monarchal bible, and one that King James could have his name attached to as being "authorized" by him. Funny how a king who hated Baptists has become associated with the "sine qua non" of bible translations, and the descendants of those Baptists now happily defend the king who hated them.

Yes, please take ftD under your wing and speak some sense to him...his Ruckmanite rantings are getting quite tiresome....

[RochesterFan]

RF wrote: This equates providing a new translation of a work with "rewritimg" a work E-S wrote: And that is exactly what the 'modern' translations are; an incremental approach to the revocation of God's word. Anyone here who thinks themselves qualified to correct Ron Reagan, should read "In his own hand." Clearly he was one of the greatest perceptive intellects of the modern era.)

You clearly either misunderstand the goal of modern translations (see, for example, the forward to the NAS by the Lockman Foundation, as refutation of your argument. Note also that the very preface to the 1611 KJV refutes your arguments - the tranlators realized they were producing just that.) I maintain the distinction between translation and revison. You blur the distinction above. The KJV-Only argument is fallacious. Ronald Regan made the same errors in the piece you posted. That does not distract from his other accomplishments.

[drstevej]

***As for the political differences between the Geneva and the KJV***

Did not the Geneva Bbile have study notes that were Calvinistic, hence another reason for King Jimmy to suppress it?

[nobdysfool]

Did not the Geneva Bbile have study notes that were Calvinistic, hence another reason for King Jimmy to suppress it?

Well, that also...I figured we'd take things one step at a time....:o)

[Con X-Poser]

<< The "only the the original autographs" position is scripturally, and logically untenable. >>

The "autographs only" people don't HAVE any scripture. By their own profession, all they have are uninspired, error-riddled mistranslations.

I believe God kept His promise to preserve His word unto all generations, and we can HAVE it and KNOW it, not guess and hope we might have it fairly close.

Notice that 2 Tim 3:16 says "all scripture IS given by inspiration", not that it WAS inspired. I believe it still IS.

If God could give His word through murderers, adulterers, and Christian persecutors (Moses, David, Paul), He can preserve it through sinners on the KJV committee.

If it's not the KJV? What IS the pure scripture today? Did God fail to preserve it, and we no longer have pure scripture? Could a god who can't preserve his own word preserve your soul?

[drstevej]

Is the KJV a perfect translation?
Yes or No.

[George W. Bush]

Funny how a king who hated Baptists has become associated with the "sine qua non" of bible translations, and the descendants of those Baptists now happily defend the king who hated them.

The Geneva was even more the Bible of the Presbyterians and the Puritans. When the Revolution came, the popular saying in England (when they were still confident of reclaiming the colonies was "Cousin America has run off with a Prebyterian parson." And they were right. Something like all but one of the commanding colonels in the American army were Presby. OPie has a lot of material on those fiery early American Presbyterians. It's very interesting background to the American Revolution.

[George W. Bush]

Yes, of course he had them, but It is clear that at the time, neither of them were even considering the question of whether they were scripture. They were living them, so that we could read them.

Well, that's what I thought. I wanted to make it clear that we were singing from the same page...

[Con X-Poser]

<< The concept of a perfect translation is as you say impossible. >>

With man it might be impossible, but with God all things are possible.

In fact, Moses spoke to Pharaoh in Egyptian, yet it was TRANSLATED into Hebrew for the Old Testament - so either God CAN inspire a perfect translation - or the original Old Testament wasn't inspired. Neither was the original New Testament, when it *translated* passages of the OT. Neither were the words of Jesus Christ Himself, who spoke Aramaic and were *translated* into Greek in the NT originals.

If God cannot inspire a perfect translation, then the OT originals are out, the NT originals are out, and so are the very words of Jesus Himself. Not much of a god you have there. You should trade that impotent wimp in for the Omnipotent Creator who KEPT His word.

[Con X-Poser]

<< Is the KJV a perfect translation? Yes or No. >>

Are you a lawyer?

The KJV is the perfect word of God. If there are any translation issues, the problem is with the *extant* Greek and Hebrew.

[Wrigley]

So, errors in the greek and hebrew were corrected in the kjv?

[drstevej]

***Are you a lawyer?***
No

***The KJV is the perfect word of God. If there are any translation issues, the problem is with the *extant* Greek and Hebrew.***

So God enabled a perfect translation, except where the translators of the KJV didn't have the right text?

Your first sentence is an endorsement off the perfect translation concept. Your second sentence contradicts this (at least hypothetically).

Editor-surveyor, ya' got another disciple who needs mentoring.

[drstevej]

***If God cannot inspire a perfect translation, then the OT originals are out, the NT originals are out, and so are the very words of Jesus Himself. Not much of a god you have there. You should trade that impotent wimp in for the Omnipotent Creator who KEPT His word.***

So now you are affirming perfect KJV translation.

[Con X-Poser]

There's no contradiction. The *extant* Hebrew and Greek texts (and Latin) were no more the "originals" than the KJV on my desk. And none of them were complete. They were the sourse texts, whereas the KJV was the completed product.

Whatever pure texts existed in Hebrew, Greek, or Latin before the KJV, God allowed them to pass off the scene, to eliminate multiple-authorities.

[Alex Murphy]

The KJV is the perfect word of God. If there are any translation issues, the problem is with the *extant* Greek and Hebrew.

Why would God have the KJV translators "perfectly translate" (and thus propagate) problem texts in the extant Greek and Hebrew?

[drstevej]

***Whatever pure texts existed in Hebrew, Greek, or Latin before the KJV, God allowed them to pass off the scene, to eliminate multiple-authorities.***

Explain this one. This is getting more and more interesting.

GWB, this one may need YOUR attention.

[nobdysfool]

The KJV is the perfect word of God. If there are any translation issues, the problem is with the *extant* Greek and Hebrew.

So, if the extant Greek and Hebrew tests are not accurate, or if they were mis-translated, then the KJV cannot, by definiton, be perfect, can it? You can't have a perfect translation if the texts were mis-translated, or if there were errors in the texts.

You're trying to have it both ways. Pick one or the other. If the KJV is perfect, it must be provably so. If it is not, then have the honesty to say so.