A Confession: Duane W. H. Arnold, PhD

You may also like...

91 Responses

  1. josh hamrick says:

    Interesting take. So you actually prefer the 1611? I never see anyone actually use that. I’ve seen lots of IFB guys claim the 1611, while using the 1769.

    I find the 1611 almost indecipherable, personally, and therefore too great a barrier to my own use.
    The 1769 I have found useful in many ways.
    1.) Since learning Hebrew, I have found KJV to be the best Old Testament translation. As noted ,the Hebrew was a special language. It had a rhythm to it. I believe that is best captured in the King James English. (For the NT, I prefer NASB).
    2.) Memorization is easier with the KJV. The flowery language reads like poetry and sticks in the head better than the dry language of modern translations.

    Now, to the issue of whether there should be a religious language, apart from the language of the common people…I don’t think so. I would rather we remove all barriers and distractions from people knowing the Word of God.

  2. Duane Arnold says:


    I’m including the 1769 as the Authorized Version… although I do keep a 1611 on my shelf!

  3. JD says:

    The KJV is my daily reader and most useful of all in providing inspiration for songs. I took a NASB with me to church, because the pastor used it for the message and it was the pew bible there. Grew up in Sunday School with the RSV which has few fans in circles today. Mom gave me a Living Bible in high school in an attempt to reach out to me during my rebellion. Other versions have been used from time to time, but I enjoy the KJV as the most beautiful and lovely and also for the self-pronouncing feature.

  4. Duane Arnold says:


    “The KJV is my daily reader and most useful of all in providing inspiration for songs.”

    Yes, the poetry is already there…

  5. Jean says:


    Could you give me an example of the “specialized religious language” which you find beneficial in the KJV, which is not in other modern translations, such as NIV, ESV, NET or NASB?

  6. Michael says:

    One of my parishioners said this on FB…”Wow … I think we NEED both … there are people (like myself when I was younger) who don’t get to take in the reverent rituals of attending church. These need a bible that “speaks their language” so that the Holy Spirit may guide them from there … I think.”

  7. Duane Arnold says:


    It’s really throughout the text of the KJV. The translators did not use the common English of their own time… it was an elevated English, more like you would find in Shakespeare… For instance, in Genesis, the “face of the water’ rather than the “surface of the water”. The KJV is replete with this sort of usage…

  8. Duane Arnold says:


    Yes, I don’t think that it is an “either or” but perhaps we’ve gone too far in an attempt to be relevant in terms of language… and other things!

  9. Duane Arnold says:


    Perhaps a good example would be 1Cor. 13 in the KJV. The language is specifically religious, elevated and set forth in blank verse. It is memorable and majestic and easily recalled…

  10. Xenia says:

    Orthodox Churches tend to use the KJV in the Liturgy because of the elevated tone.

    If they are using English, that is.

  11. Duane Arnold says:


    It surprised me when I attended a Divine Liturgy (English) at an Orthodox seminary…

  12. josh hamrick says:

    I will say, KJV is the only one that correctly interprets 1 Peter 1:13.

  13. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    How about the reverent religious language of Amen and Awoman?

  14. Mike E. says:

    Interesting topic. I came up in my evangelical days with KJV. Much memorization has me constantly quoting the KJV (in my mind). It can be somewhat comical at times because I have to search for a verse in KJV, then go to the preferred translation after I find it. I was just discussing this with my wife last night, the concept of “High Church” and “Low Church.” I told her God has allowed all this diversity because we humans are all so unique. Some (me) prefer the beauty of sacred music, candles, liturgy, etc. Others prefer to enjoy the liberty in Christ to wear shorts to church in the summer. I say, whatever floats your boat, if it brings you closer to Jesus and doesn’t stumble others, go for it. As far as translations go…since I’m a Dr. J.I. Packer admirer and a new Anglican, I’m using ESV, but I use several different translations in order to truly understand difficult passages. But here’s my “heretical” 😉 confession: I love the Message translation by Eugene Peterson. I wouldn’t use it as my primary translation, but I really like his paraphrases.

  15. Mike E. says:

    MLD..bringing politics into the discussion? No thanks.

  16. Duane Arnold says:

    Mike E.

    No absolution required, Peterson’s work was/is delightful…

  17. Duane Arnold says:


    “Gird up the loins of your mind…” What a great phrase.

  18. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Mike E – what politics? This shows how rank it is when we take reverence out of public prayer.
    The fact that it is considered A-OK to make up new religious words to be “relevant” vs reverent.

    You just know Zondervan will come out with the new “amen – awoman” version. This is how it starts.

  19. josh hamrick says:

    Duane – I know! I love that image, and the fact that I have to do some study to understand what it means. The new translations all say something like “Be serious minded” which loses so much.
    So there would be an argument for the KJV – The dumbing down of archaic phrases necessarily dumbs down the impact of those passages.

  20. josh hamrick says:

    MLD – I think most just agree it was a dumb phrase, not worthy of too much energy.

  21. Duane Arnold says:


    Another good example is the draught of fish in John 21… The KJV gives the story real life.

  22. Em says:

    KJV? The Bible was, for me, a dead book.
    Then God got to me through the truth in the 3rd chapter of John. I accepted the offer of redemption and the little KJV that my grandmother had given me came aliive. ..
    We do need evangelists with a God given ability to get the Truth through to us and the Holy Spirit’s work to bring it to life…. Are the various versions in circulation today acceptable to God? I suspect He uses all of them – maybe not cover to cover, but He uses them all
    IMHO. 🙆

  23. Gabby says:

    Thank you for writing this; it’s got me thinking. This reminded me of a lesson from one of my undergraduate professors that I have never forgotten. I was sitting in an ethics class, and Dr. Augustine was speaking on the day of Pentecost. She argued that when the apostles began to speak in many tongues through the power of the Holy Spirit, the Lord was displaying hospitality. Those in the crowd came from many nations and spoke in various languages, and God spoke to each of them in the language they understood (Acts 2:6-11) – or as Dr. Augustine put it – the Holy Spirit spoke the language of every person as a sign of hospitality, of making room for the other. Instead of demanding that each person speak one, distinct, holy language, God condescends and speaks in the heart-language of each person. In a similar way, perhaps we as followers of Christ are meant to also extend that hospitality to those around us. I don’t think this means we should ditch religious language; I think our words matter. But I think there’s a balance there somewhere of making room for the other while also calling each other higher into the life of Jesus, including in our words.

  24. Em says:

    Josh @10:34
    AMEN !

  25. Duane Arnold says:


    A good reflection…

  26. josh hamrick says:

    Hmm, never noticed that one. “stripped for work”? You are right, that’s not in the original. KJV gets it right.

  27. Duane Arnold says:


    In the final revision of the KJV (1611) the text was read to the committee. Really important, as they were interested in how it sounded. It was translated for the ear, not the eye…

  28. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    I keep a KJV around so when I speak to people 400 plus years old we can relate and have common ground.
    Hey, their eyes light up when I tell them the story when Paul “fetched a compass…” 🙂

  29. josh hamrick says:

    You know, Duane, I ‘ve learned that, but haven’t really thought how it impacts translation. Interesting.

  30. Duane Arnold says:


    Especially relevant when we think of the use of Scripture in the context of a congregation.

  31. I was taught to read from The Authorized version, and Dick and Jane Readers. But overwhelmingly the Authorized. I pray in Authorized thought.

    The idea of relevancy, bothers me a bit. I would not expect the Almighty to converse in the vulgar vernacular, anymore than the Queen of England.

  32. josh hamrick says:

    “I would not expect the Almighty to converse in the vulgar vernacular,”

    Wouldn’t any human dialect be beneath a Holy God?

  33. Duane Arnold says:


    I don’t see it as being about God’s understanding of our language. It is more about how we approach God with our language… reverence and relevance, I think, should be kept in a creative tension.

  34. josh hamrick says:

    “reverence and relevance, I think, should be kept in a creative tension.”

    That’s a good thought.

  35. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Are we sure that we aren’t confusing familiarity for reverence.
    Each year I hear pastors who do not use the KJV at any point in the year, read the Christmas story from the KJV because it just doesn’t sound like Christmas if read from a modern version.
    Perhaps Linus had it right 🙂

  36. Duane Arnold says:


    Keeping the balance is an art… as you know from leading music.

  37. Em says:

    Amen and Awoman was the closing of the House prayer today…
    Not political at all, but definitely not God honoring….
    I see that Pelosi has called a women pastor to be the House chaplain? God have mercy on us .. Pelosi sticking her finger in God’s eye? God have mercy on us …. I am a woman – happy to e – but Scripture is pretty clear on our gender roles…. IMHO 😇

  38. Duane Arnold says:


    Not all people think so, including many on this blog. This is a mere distraction.

  39. Xenia Moos says:

    In our Church the Epistle and Gospel readings are chanted/sung and for that to sound really great, you need some kind of archaic language.

  40. Duane Arnold says:


    Funny you brought this up. On my FB feed I mentioned to a priest friend that it sometimes feels that newer translations “clash” with some choral work…Additionally, the KJV is much more easily “pointed” for chanting.

  41. Em says:

    Dr Duane @11:52
    Not sure i understand….?
    “Amen” has nothing to do with gender…
    I’d never make a church pastored by a woman my home church and that has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with a disrespect for my gender, but…
    To each his own…. I guess.

  42. Duane Arnold says:


    I was referring to gender roles. There is a diversity of opinion…

  43. Em says:

    Dr. Duane, thank you for clarifying…. I know i am a minority spiritual viewpoint here… Not offended by pushback unless someone says I’m stupid…. LOL
    God keep

  44. Jean says:


    I am supportive of Christians becoming comfortable with a certain major translation and even preferring it for consistency. I am supportive of churches establishing a certain translation for consistency and uniformity in church liturgy.

    I personally agree with you that the KJV is an elegant (my term, not yours) English translation which contributes to an elegant church liturgy.

    I, however, would not impose my preference for a certain translation on another Christian, but I may express the pros and cons of any particular translation.

    The issues in your article for me are that (1) I do not want to deny non-English translations any degree of sanctity or elegance or reverence, simply because they are not the KJV; (2) the KJV has only been around since 500+ years, and the Church no doubt had other lovely liturgies preceding the KJV, (3) not every Christian experiences the liturgy or the Word of God exactly the same, and I don’t think we can impose our experiences or expectations on others as to how they experience a liturgy or the Word of God, except where the Bible enjoins us to a certain experience (such as joy, for example), and (4) I don’t think the issue of most modern translations is “relevance,” which comes across as a superficial critique.

    I think all or the vast majority of modern translation committees not only do a very good job, but I think they are trying to (i) choose the best English (in our case) words and grammar (in our modern lexicon and context) which express as closely as possible the original Greek (as we have them today in available manuscripts and with the updated lexical information we have today, balanced against (ii) the reading comprehension level that each translation is aiming for.

    But again, don’t get me wrong, I find the KJV elegant and I appreciate how it sounds in the liturgies of the Lutheran hymnal. But I can’t as a result say it’s “better” or anyone else should prefer it as I do. I would not break fellowship over a modern major translation, and if I was teaching Sunday School or Bible Study, it is my habit to share how some words are translated from different versions when a certain Greek word carries a sense that can best be expressed with range of English words or when my “go to” translation (the ESV by the way for personal Bible Study) doesn’t give the best (IMO) translation of a particular Greek word.

    In one of Luther’s Catechisms he admonishes pastors to teach a consistent version of things like the Ten Commandments, Creed and Lord’s Prayer, so that the laity can memorize them. He thought that changing the versions randomly or needlessly was confusing and counter-productive. Therefore, if someone I know is really comfortable with a major translation, such as KJV, NKJV, ESV, NET, NASB, I would not encourage them to change what they are comfortable reading.

  45. JimmieT says:

    To those preferring the KJV to teach from- why spend a third of your message having to explain what the words mean in today’s vernacular when you could just use a NKJV?

  46. Jean says:

    I left out the NIV. I find it to be an excellent modern translation for a very wide audience of English readers

  47. Xenia says:

    My preference is the old KJV for singing/chanting at Liturgy and something like the New King James Version for Bible study. Liturgical services are not Bible studies, so it is appropriate to have different versions for different purposes.

    It’s the notes in the margins of most modern Bibles that are problematic for me. I prefer either no notes or links to Church Fathers.

  48. Duane Arnold says:


    I take your points and I am not arguing for the KJV in particular, but rather for the place of an elevated language in Christian worship, inclusive of both Scripture and liturgy. As I said in the article: “All this is to say, there seems to be something inherently attractive, at least to some, of an elevated religious language that is somehow distinct from what we hear about us on the street, or in films, or in our offices.” It is a balance, but I would suggest that in our desire to be relevant, we may have gone too far on the other side of the matter…

  49. Duane Arnold says:


    You took away my next post!! That is to say, I agree.

    BTW, Happy Birthday again!

  50. Jean says:


    I think we’re generally on the same page. I see the same thing as you as a “lack of holiness.” Many modern churches in an effort to be relevant or what many have coined “seeker sensitive,” present church service as just another place to go. So, come in a tee shirt and be entertained.

    Church is (in our view) a different genre from a college lecture hall, a movie theatre or a concert auditorium. The worship service is a unique genre of its own. We should set it apart and people coming in should be willing to learn this sacred genre. It’s not too hard, and when we dumb it down, we (I think) disrespect not only God but our own laity who are capable to learning this unique genre we call traditional Christian worship.

    What is the basis of our argument? Where two or three are gathered in my name… Christ God with us. He is with us in the worship service. Thus, the liturgy, furnishings, music, etc., should reflect that fact (IMO).

  51. Eric says:

    My friend told me recently “When I get a word from the Lord, it’s in King James English”. And English isn’t even her first language!

    Even in churches that have left KJV way behind (where grew up NIV was the main translation), there is plenty of religious language that I saw as unhelpful for newcomers. But there are still things that need to be expressed that language outside the church doesn’t have.

  52. josh hamrick says:

    Xenia, do you mean like study notes or translation notes marking textual variants and such?
    I can’t live without the latter.

  53. Xenia says:

    Hi Josh, I meant the study notes that reflect the theology of the editors. As for the latter, I can see how those notes would be valuable and I wouldn’t mind them.

  54. Xenia says:

    Thank you, Duane!

  55. josh hamrick says:

    Yeah, the study notes are largely useless.

  56. Em says:

    Since most of the traffic is on this thread, a rabbit trail note….
    My smart nurse daughter says the word is out that the corona mutation should be taken seriously ….
    Stay safe and God keep

  57. Duane Arnold says:


    Agreed… simply agreed…

  58. I switched from preaching out of the ESV in favor of the CSB this year. No big reason other than I like my mind being jarred with a slightly different translation. And I’m with Mike E…I love The Message.

  59. Duane Arnold says:

    Out of curiosity, has anyone taken a look at the new translation of The Hebrew Bible by Robert Alter? I’ve always respected his work…

  60. CM says:

    A few observations on this thread:

    1. The KJV, along with the works of William Shakespeare and the BCP are the 3 giant and quintessential works of early Modern English literate. All 3 have impacted the English language and English speaking world for centuries. A side note: The KJV is not Middle English, middle English would be Chaucer.

    2. I do agree with Duane that while the KJV has a very poetic poety that makes it ideal for reading aloud in a liturgical setting, it has its limitations due to the dearth of manuscripts available. I believe the KJV used Erasmus’s Greek edition (the TR) and his Greek manuscripts were missing the final 6 verses of Revelation. So he translated the last 6 from Latin to Greek. This is why Rev 22:19 is incorrect in KJV when it says “book of life”, instead of “tree of life. And of course, the KJV also includes the longer ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) whereas most of the oldest manuscripts do not.

    3. The KJV was based upon the Geneva Bible. Since it was done by a committee with a monarch and state church, much of the language dealing with the priesthood of the belief was muddled. No self-respecting Puritan would be caught reading the KJV, their Geneva Bible was fine thank you.

    This reminds me of a funny story. I live in MA and I took some visiting aunts to see Plimoth Plantation (correct spelling) in MA. One of the reenactors was reading a Bible, and my aunts asked if that was the KJV. The reaction of the actor was priceless. He basically said it was most certainly NOT, the KJV was much too Catholic. To which I reminded my relatives that he would be reading the Geneva Bible.

  61. CM says:

    Minor bit of trivia:

    By the way, the first Bible printed in the New World was NOT in English (or Spanish or Latin).

  62. Duane Arnold says:


    Yes, the approved list of “source’ translations for the KJV were the Bishops’ Bible, Tyndale Bible, the Coverdale Bible, Matthew’s Bible, the Great Bible, and the Geneva Bible. Of them all, Tyndale contributed the most…

  63. CM says:


    Interestingly, the AV1611 was commissioned in order to replace the Geneva Bible as a response to the Geneva Bible. Can’t have those pesky Puritans run amok in our state church now can we?

  64. Duane Arnold says:

    Actually, James appointed four Puritans to the original organizing committee and most of the Cambridge company of translators leaned toward Puritan views… an interesting group.

  65. Mike E. says:

    What really strikes me about this thread is the faithfulness of God’s people who have labored so intensely through the centuries and have brought us to the point we are at now. There is a song called “Ancient Words.” There’s a line in it that says, “Holy words of our Faith
    Handed down to this age.
    Came to us through sacrifice
    Oh heed the faithful words of Christ.”
    And of course we know their faithfulness was modeled to them by our great God. I give Him humble thanks, and I pray that I may also be found with even a modicum of their faithfulness, following their great examples. That also applies to many on this blog as well. Faithful servants. God, thank you for those who labor for You and for Your people. Remember them always, Lord, and grant them Your reward.

  66. Duane Arnold says:

    Mike E.

    We all stand on the shoulders of giants…

  67. Dave Lindsay says:


    Your second paragraph stopped me in my tracks because I had no idea what opprobrium was and I have a strong hunch that opprobrium is not familiar to most people. So I consulted a dictionary which translated it into everyday English as “something that brings disgrace”. I make this point about opprobrium because it relates to language translation and the King James Bible which you recognize “was not the common English of its time.”

    I think it is most telling that Koine Greek was used for the New Testament and the Septuagint Greek translation of the Old Testament. As you know, Koine was the common, everyday Greek of that era and not the classic older Greek of the great epics like the Iliad and the Odyssey. If they had used the classic older Greek, it would have been harder for the average person to understand and probably would have included words like opprobrium.

    Just like common Koine Greek was used by the translators of the Old Testament and the authors of the New Testament, we should be translating the Bible into the common, everyday English of our era.

  68. Duane Arnold says:

    Dave Lindsay,

    Yes, that is why I included the LXX on the other side of the balance. However… while the LXX was embraced by early Christians, after about 130 it was pretty well rejected by Jewish communities in favor of the Hebrew text. Even here there seems to be two sides to the question…

  69. Duane Arnold says:

    Oh yes, apologies for “opprobrium”, but it worked with the rhythm of the sentence: “…the opprobrium and ridicule of many learned friends.” It has a meter to it!

  70. Steve says:

    I agree there is something to an elevated language for religious activity; however I do not believe the opposition to it’s all about being relevant. I go to a multiethnic, multi cultural, multi lingual church. In this setting, using the Authorized KJV bible would be equivalent to speaking latin or Greek that most if not everyone would not understand. I’m all for the NIV because of this. Curious how many languages has the KJV been translated to? Is there any such equivalent in Chinese, Vietnamese or Japanese or Korean, etc.?

  71. CM says:


    I believe some of the earliest translations by English missionaries were translated into the local languages from the KJV (since that was most prevalent translation at the time). Not sure about about Catholics in say Vietnam or elsewhere (perhaps they used the Douay-Rheims English to the language?).

    What people need to understand is the following:

    1. Some languages are not written languages. Which means that a written language needs to be developed first in order to print _anything_.

    2. Some languages are written but not in Latin characters and alphabet. It makes it easier to have a Latin script language for printing purposes. Case in point, Vietnamese language was originally written a Chinese pictogram-based script. Jesuit missionaries created the Vietnamese alphabet for the modern writing system of the Vietnamese language.

    Based upon 1 and 2, I would surmise that it would be easier to translate the Latin Vulgate directly to Vietnamese than say from the Douay-Rheims English. Especially since the creators of the modern Vietnamese alphabet first published a Latin-Portuguese-Vietnamese dictionary. In recent decades, many translations have opted not to have a middle-man as it were and instead directly translate Greek and Hebrew to the language (with or with out Latin script) as needed.

    As for #1, the first Bible printed (the Eliot Bible) in the New World had to overcome that initial hurdle.

  72. Jean says:


    “after about 130 it was pretty well rejected by Jewish communities in favor of the Hebrew text.”

    What Hebrew text was available to Jewish communities in the 2nd century? I understand the Masoretic text dates to the 7-10th centuries AD.

  73. Duane Arnold says:


    The Masoretic text was an agreed upon text, but it was based upon earlier texts, such as, for example, the Dead Sea scrolls which, by the way, are remarkably consistent with the Masoretic text…

  74. Duane Arnold says:


    A good point… Is there, however, a way to introduce the “grandeur” of Scripture into a contemporary setting? It’s an honest question…

  75. Steve says:

    Duane, there is definitely no shortcut to introducing the grandeur of scripture. In addition It has to be contextualized to its audience to have any meaning. Also with the technological advances with smart phones, computers, ect., one can have at their finger tips every possible translation in every language instantly with linking commentary and with the power of AI can ascertain every possible nuance of meaning that has been gleamed from every tradition for centuries . This is information overload. While it can be helpful it more likely becomes a distraction. I don’t know the answer to this dilemma. I wish I did.

  76. Duane Arnold says:


    Agreed. I was hoping you might have some hidden wisdom on the subject. It occupies my mind a good bit these days…

  77. Jean says:

    Duane, this is not hidden wisdom, heck it might not even be wisdom at all, but when the Israelites went to the tabernacle (later temple) for worship, they went to receive from God. They received atonement, forgiveness and God’s blessing. The priests interceded for the people, the people offered their prayers and thanksgiving. Torah was read and in later times explained. But the overwhelming priority and reason for coming was for what the people received from God at the service.

    When it comes to context, I think modern churches focus too much on their context and relevance. People don’t know what they need unless enlightened by the Holy Spirit. I think worship is its own unique context and that people should learn and be shaped by the context of the worship service.

    There is no correspondence between a Christian worship service and any other human activity IMO. Who would think up, or on their own come up with the idea, that they need to confess their sins, receive forgiveness, partake of the Eucharist (i.e., the body and blood of Jesus Christ), contribute to a common offering, or receive God’s blessing? What other human activity even resembles this?

    We have corrupted Christian worship by transforming into something similar to our mundane activities. God is the loser. We deny Him the opportunity to serve us, and delude ourselves into believing that we are serving Him and doing Him a great honor by our attendance. Moreover, we elevate the pastor to the point where he is the focal point, with his humor, charismatic speaking, knowledge, etc., so that we go home thinking and talking more about the pastor than Jesus Christ.

  78. Em says:

    Worship – IMO – should come from our knowledge of our Triune God and His plan for man….
    Vice versa is not possible

  79. JimV says:

    Nicolson’s book, God’s Secretaries: The making of the King James Bible, is terrific. He wrote that “drafts” do not exist. Each committee member would speak out his personal memorized translation of the passage they were working on and then as a group they would tease out a reading that sounded best. Only then was it written down. King James himself called for a translation that would be read out loud fluently and powerfully in a Church setting. We moderns do not have the vocabulary or the zeal to come up with anything nearly as great. I focus on the NKJV, corrected when in error, for memorizing Scripture.

  80. Duane Arnold says:


    “We have corrupted Christian worship by transforming into something similar to our mundane activities.”

    I’m not sure that God is the loser, but we are certainly those who suffer loss, as are generations yet unborn…

  81. Duane Arnold says:

    Jim V

    “We moderns do not have the vocabulary or the zeal to come up with anything nearly as great.”

    I would like to think you are wrong, but on the basis of much that I see and hear, I suspect you are right… and I wonder why this is the case.

  82. Mike E. says:

    Yeah um….you folks are smart. It is good for me to be here. Even if I do have to re-read comments over and over. And still not get it. There’s a reason I was an artilleryman. 😉

  83. Duane Arnold says:

    Mike E.

    In the “smart” department, you’re right there with the rest of us, asking questions and trying to understand…

  84. josh hamrick says:

    After thinking on it a few days, I think I’m settled in to disagreeing with the article, and certainly the tome of the comments following.

    I prefer simple faith, simple expressions, and no unnecessary barriers between God and man.

    But the article made me think it through, and for that, I am thankful.

  85. Duane Arnold says:


    Thinking through these issues is the point of the exercise… not arriving at “lock step” conclusions.

  86. Muff Potter says:

    I love the lilting Elizabethan prose of The King James Bible.
    Psalm 23 when read aloud does not have the same ring to it with the ‘newer’ versions.

  87. Duane Arnold says:

    Muff Potter

    There are so many sections of the Authorized Version that seem singular when read aloud. John 1:1-14 is another good example…

  88. josh hamrick says:

    And even as I disagree in whole, I agree with the sentiments. Psalm 23 is splendid in KJV. (Of course, I’ve already said I prefer KJ for Old Testament.)

    Duane, not to be a snob, but you know what I mean – The Prelude to John in Greek is probably my favorite piece of writing, ever.

  89. Duane Arnold says:


    You know me too well… I memorized the prelude in the Greek when I was in seminary.

  90. Em says:

    Dr. Duane @7:55…../ Amen

  91. josh hamrick says:

    Duane – Me too. It is something else.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from Phoenix Preacher

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading