Abraham Lincoln and the KJV

Everyone who has read any of the great speeches of Abraham Lincoln knows what an articulate, eloquent and inspiring speaker he was. We've heard the stories of how he agonized over just the right words to explain to the citizens of America the truly epic struggle in which they were involved and the righteousness of their cause.


People being the way they are, I imagine that, at some point in time, future historians will come up with the genius idea that Lincoln's way of speaking is just too old fashioned and contemporary American students just struggle too much with his antiquated and archaic mode of speech. They would contend that it's maybe less about his exact words than his ideas.


That's when you can expect to see history books with revised and edited Lincoln speeches using simpler, less complex and, honestly, dumbed-down language. You know, so as to make reading his thoughts less work and so his words are, allegedly, more easily read. And, though there is loss, they will claim it will be more understandable for those who, frankly, are unwilling to do the work involved in comprehending what this great man was trying to say to us.


Will they argue that their version of his speeches are just as accurate?  Will they question who in their world can understand such antiquated language? Will they suppose so few in their day can grasp the nineteenth century dialect that it has to be brought to a more current vernacular? Will they claim they are not less concerned with precision than readability?

Will the thought ever occur to them that If you change a man's words, you change his ideas? Would they ever wonder if rewording his speeches would detract from his oratorical nobility? Would they be bold and brassy enough to actually think they can improve his wording? His phraseology? His style? Would they presume the average student will ever understand the man's thinking better by merely simplifying the way he wrote?

Will they ever consider the undeniable truth that Mr. Lincoln's words cannot be simplified, they can only be changed? And, being changed, will lose the precision, eloquence and inspiration for which he has been lionized for one hundred and sixty years? Would it ever occur to them that you can't make his words simpler, you can only make them less accurate?

Would they realize that trying to "simplify" the beautiful words he once delivered to a war torn nation would only diminish, weaken and make them less impactful?

Would they claim it's more about readability than accuracy?

Would they ever understand the cost?

I've been recently contemplating this potentiality and it puts me to mind of arguments, er, discussions I've had with a lot of people concerning English Biblical translations. Which is best? Is new better? The old?

Being the KJV man that I am, I feel very comfortable with the king's English and when I struggle, I consult a dictionary or encyclopedia. Along with other study helps to which I have access. Then, just for good measure, I pray.

Now, I consider myself very fortunate to have grown up in America and in the South. (When there actually was a "South.") We have traditionally been so predominately KJV readers that we still retain much of the vernacular from the Bible. (Supper, carry, yonder, etc.) Most, at least those who know the old ways, are glad to have been blessed with so inestimable a gift.

The past century or more, specifically the past few decades, some of the more modern translations have taken hold in our formerly genteel society. (Not affected in a small manner by the large numbers of Yankees and foreigners moving into our neighborhoods.) Modern wanna-be scholars won't admit that they believe trading a little accuracy for "readability" is perfectly acceptable. They say theirs is as good as ours.

Is it?

I've had at least one liberal college professor, who didn't use the KJV, tell our class that, in the English language, it is the most accurate. I recall another liberal non-KJV preacher saying the same thing.

So what am I to conclude from these statements? No, this doesn't prove anything, but it only makes the point that they didn't have any prejudice toward the KJV. So, there was no reason for them to be dishonest or slanted in their opinion.

Now, some might be willing to use another translation because they think they'll be able to understand it better.  (Ya know, to avoid all those thee's and thou's,) Could they then simply read whatever version they choose as is? Would they need a dictionary? An encyclopedia? More study-helps? Maybe prayer and fasting? Just how simple would they expect the translators to make it for them?

I'm amused by those who criticize the alleged difficulty of King James English as if they have any command of modern English. Most can barely put two words together and don't know the difference between a subject and a predicate. Can anyone help them with their obvious willful ignorance? Rarely.

Okay, it has been a long time since I have claimed that the KJV is the only Bible or that it should be anyone's exclusive Bible. Most of the other translations have their uses, but should really be treated only as opinion. The KJV has proven over four centuries that it's reliable and trustworthy and is a useful tool for leading lost souls to a saving knowledge of Christ and making them into disciples.

Is it always easily understood? Even by those who were raised with it? Do you often need a dictionary? An encyclopedia? Other study-helps? Prayer and fasting?

Yes, Praise God!


Acts 8:30 KJV
And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
Acts 8:31 KJV
And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.