# So many KJV Arguments



## Ajay (Jan 14, 2018)

why in the board so much arguments regarding KJV Bible. why always some one posts questions about KJV Bible. sadly tge moderators need to close down the threads relating KJV superiority over other translations or other translations superiority over KJV. almost i am here for the past six years, benefited so much from reading threads related to many topics. sadly when i am trying to learn something about ttranslations, always the debates are heating and didnt answered to the question actually posted. last time when i asked something about inspiration its ends up with unhealthy debate and thread was closed. 

when i joined this board, i never saw a unhealthy debates. its just what i observed. 

Sent from my Venue 7 3730 using Tapatalk

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 14, 2018)

Hello Ajay,

I would ask you only two questions: Seeing as there are differences between Bibles – not the translations primarily, but the underlying Hebrew or Greek manuscripts – is it not healthy and sound scholarship to try to discern which is the true text?

And, Is it not sound to discern the differences between Roman Catholic positions on the Bible texts, and Reformation positions, given the latter's dependence on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura? 

I would agree with you that some of these discussions turn unhealthy and contentious. But our desire for truth is born of good motives, whatever side we take.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Ajay (Jan 14, 2018)

I agree that examination and validating are very important things, it is very crucial when it comes to the scriptures, it is more important.

The emphasis is more on translations rather than the underlying text of Hebrew and Greek. Actually as a seminary student I am curious about learning which one is more close to original manuscripts. It is TR or CT, I want to know, so I use to read the topics about translations.

But sadly from few months onwards if someone post a question related to scriptures, it's ending as a KJV/ modren translations debate. 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 14, 2018)

I agree, it is sad Ajay. Don't be discouraged by what you see here though, brother. This topic can become heated, but it doesn't need to be that way. Whether you use a good modern translation (ex. ESV, NASB), or the KJV, you still have the Word of God, and are not in spiritual danger because of it. 

And don't be swayed into adopting a KJVO position because of the personal pain you are experiencing. I'm sure the temptation to believe it is there because of your relationship loss, but if that is the case, then you are not going to be thinking clearly enough.

Mr. Rafalsky, I must be reading you wrong in post #2, for it seems like you are charging non-KJV users with Roman Catholic tendencies. Surely I am mistaken.


----------



## Ajay (Jan 14, 2018)

E.R. CROSS said:


> I agree, it is sad Ajay. Don't be discouraged by what you see here though, brother. Some people can't help but turn threads in that direction at any given opportunity.
> 
> And don't be swayed into adopting a KJVO position because of the personal pain you are experiencing. I'm sure the temptation to believe it is there because of your relationship loss, but if that is the case then you are not going to be thinking clearly enough.
> 
> Mr. Rafalsky, I must be reading you wrong in post #2, for it seems like you are charging non-KJV users with Roman Catholic tendencies. Surely I am mistaken.


Relationship loss, yes because of KJVO, however if I convicted KJV is more superior than any other translations, I am not going to separate from those who don't agree with that. Unless they are serious errs regarding fundamental doctrines of the Bible.

I am amazed to see Asian people especially some Chinese people who can speak English, some reformed churches in singapore, Baptist churches in Philippines, are teaching that they need to separate those who don't hold to KJV superiority over other translations. This causes disunity. Slowly this type of mentality will spread to the other countries.

I love my KJV Bible, reformation heritage KJV study Bible, I used for my daily reading. I love to sing some psalms which are from KJV Bible. How can I say to my fellow brother, hey if your reading Esv, don't do it. It's a bible from corrupted text. I was amazed by one of my friend stop coming to my house, because he saw Esv study bible in my home.

I wonder how will Westminster divines will react, if they live in our present age. 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 14, 2018)

I had no idea how widespread KJVO thinking is around the world, even in non-English speaking countries. It is so damaging. I'm sorry to hear about your friend.

And yes, by all means, if the KJV is your preferred translation, read it! Our unity is in the gospel, not Bible translations.

I hope you have a blessed day, brother. Praise God for your example of not making a big issue where there doesn't need to be one.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 14, 2018)

Ajay, since your interest is primarily in the underlying texts and trying to determine any 'superiority' between CT and RT, I would try to do independent study until you at least have a good grasp on the fundamental issues. I think your main complaint is that any conversation on this board around that issue always devolves into debate over KJV vs. critical text translations. That is disappointing, I agree, since it really clouds the issues.

Anyone holding to a KJVO position who is harsh and dogmatic and schismatic about the use of other translations is sadly misinformed, of that you can be sure. But we live in difficult times where laymen must discuss these things outside their local churches, as their church officers often aren't familiar with all the facts. This makes it more difficult.

I think there's a lot of information in the older Puritan Board posts about the RT and CT. And I'm sure there is more food for thought out there on the internet. Sometimes it just takes a long time to come to a settled position on some issues. Until then, I would just continue to study- and sorrow and grieve for your girlfriend's, and others you love, misunderstandings and where those misunderstandings take them. Pray for them, and pray for the church at large, that times of reformation and revival would come.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 14, 2018)

AJAY said:


> I wonder how will Westminster divines will react, if they live in our present age.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk



I think they would be appalled at the church's acceptance of the higher critical approach to translation and the methods whereby variant texts were used to amend the Bible we had. But they knew better than anybody that reform is a work of the Holy Spirit, and so I think they would set to prayer.


----------



## JimmyH (Jan 14, 2018)

I hate to see any controversial topic on PB become 'heated' and divisive. This happens when members feel so strongly about their position that they prefer to 'die on that hill', rather than give any ground. Some are as tenacious as gladiators seemingly and go on and on arguing their position. I know that certain issues are that important if seen it as an incorrect doctrine, or worse, being touted. The combatants feel they cannot just once state their position/opinion and move on.
In some past threads this has saddened me. Particularly if the argument seems to become personal. I think of 1John, especially chapter 3, and urge the frequent reading of that epistle to ground us in the love for our brothers ...... and sisters ... in Christ. 
As for me, I've been in those frays regarding RT versus CT for years now. Years ago I was torn between the two, but I happen to believe that we have the best of both worlds in utilizing translations from both the RT and CT now, and feel good that I've reconciled myself to that position. For me the debate is settled.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 14, 2018)

Gentlemen,

I have labored long to make clear the distinction between KJVOnly, and KJV _priority_. KJVO says that no other version is legitimate, and I have friends who hold that. Myself, I’m a pastor and a teacher, and when a pastor takes that view (KJVO) it will either split the church, and / or not tolerate those who hold differing views—so I teach that, being KJV _priority_, I hold the KJV’s underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts the better texts, with the result that the translations made from them are likewise better—preserved in the minutiae—*but* that the other versions translated from the CT—preserved in the main—are nonetheless sufficient for the Lord to nurture both individuals and churches into maturity and godliness; in other words, the non-KJV Bibles are legitimate Bibles, the only question being individual variant readings, are _they_ legit or not?

I’m not going to divide my church over this issue. Nor will I delegitimize any Bibles, as this is the very lifeline of the believer’s communion with the Savior—His word. How awful to poison a man’s mind against his Bible! Argue about variants, ok. But not trashing Bibles.


E.R., you said,

Mr. Rafalsky, I must be reading you wrong in post #2, for it seems like you are charging non-KJV users with Roman Catholic tendencies. Surely I am mistaken.​
This was in response to my saying,

Is it not sound to discern the differences between Roman Catholic positions on the Bible texts, and Reformation positions, given the latter’s dependence on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura?​
Now we get to a different aspect of the matter. One that is not often brought into the discussion. E.R., to answer you directly, No, I do *not* charge or insinuate “non-KJV users with Roman Catholic tendencies”! However—and it’s a big “however”—many Reformed folks may simply be unaware of Roman Catholic involvement in the text-critical industry.

For instance, it does not inspire confidence in Reformed persons that the publishers of the Critical Text, the United Bible Societies, unabashedly serve the Vatican and the Pope, of whom UBS General Secretary Michael Perreau said,

“Pope Francis embodies several ‘first ever’ aspects: he’s the first Jesuit pope, the first Latin American pope, and the first to choose St Francis of Assisi as the patron of his papacy. He combines modesty, not least in his lifestyle, with fervent engagement for the poor, and traditional Catholic theology with courageous advocacy for human rights.

“He is a man of the universal church with an ecumenical spirit and he is a pastor, who knows the reality of ‘simple’ people. The new Pope is a truly biblical person whose faith and actions are deeply rooted in the Bible and inspired by the Word of God.”

“As a long-time friend of the Bible Societies Pope Francis knows that our raison d’être is the call to collaborate in the incarnation of our Christian faith,” says Mr Perreau. “We assure Pope Francis of our renewed availability to serve the Catholic Church in her endeavours to make the Word of God the centre of new evangelisation.”

https://www.unitedbiblesocieties.org/united-bible-societies-welcomes-pope-francis/​
And further, the Nestle-Aland Greek NT 27th Ed. page 45 clearly states that,

The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following *an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision*. This marks a significant step with regard to _*interconfessional relationships*_. It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text (in the sense of the century-long Nestle tradition): it is not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament. For many reasons, however, the present edition has not been deemed an appropriate occasion for introducing textual changes. [Emphasis added]​
Source document:



Nestle-Aland Greek NT 27th Ed by Steve R., on Flickr

What amazes me is that good Reformed souls can fall for the Roman assault on Sola Scriptura through their prize MSS (the “Queen of the Uncials” Vaticanus is called), which is the main exemplar and basis of the Greek Critical Text, throwing into disarray the defense of the Reformation. Is it not evident? The textual conflicts among the Reformed—indeed, the entire Protestant camp—derive from the Catholic assault against Sola Scriptura via the variant-laden manuscripts they have for a long while, to this very day, promoted as the superior “neutral” text, or the superior eclectic text. Their agenda? Furthering “interconfessional relationships… under their [the Vatican’s] supervision”. What am I saying? That, in large measure, Rome has defeated the Reformation’s stand. The loss of the Reformation’s Bibles in lieu of the plethora of Critical Text Bibles—which foment the discord and confusion we see here even in this very thread—has weakened the faith in a sure and reliable word of God.

I’m not making this stuff up. If the UBS-Papal union and collaboration does not convince you, I don’t know what will. Yes, some good and scholarly men (and women) believe the CT the superior text *despite* the Roman connection; well and good. It remains that Rome’s agenda has succeeded: the doctrine of Sola Scriptura as the Reformation’s foundation has been destroyed. We are in disarray.

Oh, it may seem we are thriving, and individual churches (and individual souls) may seem to be so, for the time, but the Reformation ship has taken a torpedo in the hold, and the leak cannot be mended.

Some may decry what has happened, and call for folks to return to the Reformation’s textual standard, but the hole is too big. The lifeboats of local churches remain. May God our Shepherd (to change metaphors) guide us to Celestial City, using skilled and godly pastors who with wisdom take His direction.

I believe, as an amillennial proponent, that the eschaton draws near, with the preliminary judgments, catastrophes, and apostatizing, and then the global turning against the saints before His return. How long? I do not know.

This is why I hold up the Reformation Bibles: a sure word of God is our strength, and the standard of the Spirit of the LORD when the enemy comes in like a flood (Isa 59:19-21).

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 5 | Amen 2


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 14, 2018)

Mr. Rafalsky,

While I appreciate your denouncement of KJVOnly-ism, I am afraid that overzealous KJVPrimary-ism can be just as divisive and harmful. 

Ajay has created a thread lamenting that so often discussions on the Puritanboard quickly turn into heated CT/TR arguments, and has asked why this is so. 

You have followed by essentially calling CT Bibles products of the Whore of Babylon, and leaving it up to the reader to easily connect the dots that proponents of the CT are complicit (possibly unawares) in "the doctrine of Sola Scriptura as the Reformation’s foundation [having] been destroyed"

If nothing else, you have given Ajay a great lesson in how so many threads devolve into heated textual arguments. I hope the irony is not lost on you.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 14, 2018)

E.R., I told you how I deal with the issue of varying Bible versions in the church. With scholarship mixed with grace and brotherly care.

I notice you have completely overlooked the United Bible Societies' association with and agenda furthering Papal Rome's agendas—specifically through the means of the Bibles they produce, in their very own words.

I acknowledge the papal involvement and show how I deal with the results on-the-ground in the local church.

You condemn me for pointing out unsavory facts? You would prefer I stick my head in the sand and ignore the Roman connection? Pretend it doesn't exist?

If I point out these undeniable facts, and still deal graciously with the CT, do I do wrong?

I actually use CT Bible translations when I study the Scriptures, as they may give a shade of meaning or a clearer turn of phrase than the KJV, which is a big help to me. I can put aside the Roman connection in my studies, and in my teaching. But in a discussion such as ours, it is off limits?

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 14, 2018)

My understanding of the OP was that this thread was to be about *why* these textual discussions very often turned heated, not to open the door to yet another textual discussion. 

I am not addressing your concerns because I believe that by so doing I would be disregarding Ajay's intentions for this thread. 

JimmyH seems to have it right in his assessment of things. 

Finally, any fingerprints of the Vatican's on my Bible are definitely worth looking into, but not here. I am not saying your concerns are not valid. 

I think it is a good question, Why _do_ these discussions so often become so heated?


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 14, 2018)

E.R., I think sometimes we can read heat into a comment where none is intended. We get heated so we think the comment that made us feel that way is heated. I think it's always good to put the most charitable spin on people's contributions on this forum (something I determined to do after a very lengthy thread not long ago.)

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 14, 2018)

Jeri Tanner said:


> E.R., I think sometimes we can read heat into a comment where none is intended. We get heated so we think the comment that made us feel that way is heated. I think it's always good to put the most charitable spin on people's contributions on this forum (something I determined to do after a very lengthy thread not long ago.)



That is very true. The same can happen with text messages or emails. But would you agree that KJV threads can get more heated than the average discussion here?


Mr. Rafalsky, please forgive me for the tone of my posts not being discernibly kind.

Reactions: Like 1 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 14, 2018)

E.R. CROSS said:


> That is very true. The same can happen with text messages or emails. But would you agree that KJV threads can get more heated than the average discussion here?



Maybe so; there are others like EP and the recent one on lay evangelism that will give it a run for the money. Unless someone uses actual language that expresses something uncharitable toward someone else, it's best to read that comment carefully and again, 
give it the most charitable reading. And then wait and cool off from the heat it caused you before answering back! Hehe. Passionate defense or questioning doesn't have to equal heat or anger or anything uncharitable.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 14, 2018)

Indeed. Thank you for your words.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Edward (Jan 14, 2018)

AJAY said:


> when i joined this board, i never saw a unhealthy debates. its just what i observed.



Perhaps you joined at an unusually quiet time, or you just missed them.

Several recurrent themes are almost always guaranteed to generate more heat that light until a moderator finally cuts them off.

KJV vs all others
Wine vs grape juice

I understand that baptism used to trend that way but the separate answer subfora were established before I got drawn into any of those. 

Perhaps if someone had the time they could make a numbered list of the standard arguments so that posters could just post the numbers. Then proponents could just post 'TR 1, 8, 12' with a response of 'BR 4, 5, 7'. Bonus points for the rare novel contribution, and minus points for an argument spelled out that is covered by the numbering system.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 3


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 15, 2018)

E.R., I forgive. I think we are prone to getting heated on this topic simply because our Bibles are so crucially important to us.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RBachman (Jan 15, 2018)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Gentlemen,
> 
> I have labored long to make clear the distinction between KJVOnly, and KJV _priority_. KJVO says that no other version is legitimate, and I have friends who hold that. Myself, I’m a pastor and a teacher, and when a pastor takes that view (KJVO) it will either split the church, and / or not tolerate those who hold differing views—so I teach that, being KJV _priority_, I hold the KJV’s underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts the better texts, with the result that the translations made from them are likewise better—preserved in the minutiae—*but* that the other versions translated from the CT—preserved in the main—are nonetheless sufficient for the Lord to nurture both individuals and churches into maturity and godliness; in other words, the non-KJV Bibles are legitimate Bibles, the only question being individual variant readings, are _they_ legit or not?
> 
> ...


Thank you for the primer on the relationship of the Vatican with the variouis CTs. While I have studied Greek and Hebrew for years, and some of the textual discussions interested me, I did not really consider the point you are making about potential 'behind the text manipulation' by Babylon. That might be a more refined and better discussion thread than just RT vs CT.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 15, 2018)

E.R. CROSS said:


> Mr. Rafalsky,
> 
> While I appreciate your denouncement of KJVOnly-ism, I am afraid that overzealous KJVPrimary-ism can be just as divisive and harmful.
> 
> ...


Some of the reasoning behind the KJV extreme viewpoints seem to be that they require both a perfect Greek text, and a perfect Translation, but only the Originals themselves qualified for that.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 15, 2018)

RBachman said:


> Thank you for the primer on the relationship of the Vatican with the variouis CTs. While I have studied Greek and Hebrew for years, and some of the textual discussions interested me, I did not really consider the point you are making about potential 'behind the text manipulation' by Babylon. That might be a more refined and better discussion thread than just RT vs CT.


The problem is that much of the heated discussion regarding the sources underlining the CT position make assumptions that they were an effort by monks to make the scriptures corrupted and polluted.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 15, 2018)

Edward said:


> Perhaps if someone had the time they could make a numbered list of the standard arguments so that posters could just post the numbers. Then proponents could just post 'TR 1, 8, 12' with a response of 'BR 4, 5, 7'. Bonus points for the rare novel contribution, and minus points for an argument spelled out that is covered by the numbering system.



That suggestion would save an awful lot of typing.


----------



## Ajay (Jan 15, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The problem is that much of the heated discussion regarding the sources underlining the CT position make assumptions that they were an effort by monks to make the scriptures corrupted and polluted.


This is what I am continously hearing from people those who hold to Kjvo, all the texts that have an Alexandrian influence are corrupted, they copied with the intention of adding or subtracting the words to pervert some doctrines. 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 15, 2018)

Ajay, I don't think the intent was to corrupt or pervert; some thought they were correcting errors, imposing what they thought were proper to the originals. Yes, there are some extremist and bitter-hearted views, but this side of the terrain is swampy, and not profitable to wade through, not for me at any rate.

There were skilled men, such as Origen, who had a high esteem of his own judgment, and made unwarranted corrections. As for the KJVO folks in your country, better to steer clear of them if they are judgmental of you and of others.

I think you're on the right track, being gracious to those who differ with you. If a person has a view of the Bible, but doesn't love his brethren, he or she is not reflecting the heart of God.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 3


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 16, 2018)

There was no evidence that has been documented though to support those notions regarding what was being done to the manuscripts by those holding to the CT source, and the truth is that regardless of which Greek text preferred, all agree on substantial all major areas, and there are no doctrines disputed in any of them, and regardless if one uses and prefers the KJV, Nas, esv we have a reliable English translation to use.
To me, far more important than which Greek text used to translate would be the translation philosophy used, as a more formal version such as KJV/Nas/NKJV preferred to those such as Niv/NRSv for example.


----------



## Free Christian (Jan 18, 2018)

I look at it this way. If I have a Bible that suggests God may have said something, or maybe did not. That this verse is in some manuscripts recording as Jesus said something, but another one doesn't have it so maybe he didn't. Then what in my Bible can I ultimately trust. The passages that don't contain footnotes? I sometimes recently have thought this.
Many call themselves Calvinist. I wonder what would be Calvin's response if he was given one of the modern version's with parts of the Lord prayer missing, other passages missing with a number leading him to a footnote saying others have this". Or a passage with a note that the oldest manuscripts leave this out. Or that God said the womans desire would be against her husband. Reference to the blood of Jesus taken out and all the other footnotes and alterations. Then he gets supplied with the names and belief of some of the translators and their stance on creation etc. I wonder what his reaction would be given the reverence and respect he gives God's word in his writings and what he says about those who carelessly handle it!


----------



## TrustGzus (Jan 18, 2018)

Free Christian said:


> I look at it this way. If I have a Bible that suggests God may have said something, or maybe did not. That this verse is in some manuscripts recording as Jesus said something, but another one doesn't have it so maybe he didn't. Then what in my Bible can I ultimately trust. The passages that don't contain footnotes? I sometimes recently have thought this.
> Many call themselves Calvinist. I wonder what would be Calvin's response if he was given one of the modern version's with parts of the Lord prayer missing, other passages missing with a number leading him to a footnote saying others have this". Or a passage with a note that the oldest manuscripts leave this out. Or that God said the womans desire would be against her husband. Reference to the blood of Jesus taken out and all the other footnotes and alterations. Then he gets supplied with the names and belief of some of the translators and their stance on creation etc. I wonder what his reaction would be given the reverence and respect he gives God's word in his writings and what he says about those who carelessly handle it!



Brett, I am a Calvinist. I have great respect for John Calvin. However, he is not the Christ. He is not even an apostle.

The differences in the manuscripts existed over a millennium before Calvin was born.

What Calvin would think today is total conjecture from either side.

Here’s something both sides should agree about.

If God didn’t breathe something through the pen of the apostles, then I don’t want it inserted into the Scriptures.

If something was God-breathed through the apostles, then I don’t want it removed.

Whether it’s true or not isn’t relevant. Did God breathe it? For example....The Westminster Standards are true. I don’t want them inserted in Matthew 6 into the Sermon in the Mount.

So the blood of Jesus, I don’t want it inserted or removed. I want what the apostles wrote.

I would hope we can agree that much and that Calvin would agree at least on that.

Things could have been added. Things could have been removed. Both were in manuscripts long before Calvin or the KJV.

Give me what he Apostles really wrote. I hope you agree.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JimmyH (Jan 18, 2018)

Free Christian said:


> Many call themselves Calvinist. I wonder what would be Calvin's response if he was given one of the modern version's with parts of the Lord prayer missing, other passages missing with a number leading him to a footnote saying others have this". Or a passage with a note that the oldest manuscripts leave this out. Or that God said the womans desire would be against her husband. Reference to the blood of Jesus taken out and all the other footnotes and alterations. Then he gets supplied with the names and belief of some of the translators and their stance on creation etc. I wonder what his reaction would be given the reverence and respect he gives God's word in his writings and what he says about those who carelessly handle it!


Calvin was not unaware of discrepancies in manuscripts and addressed some of those issues. This article by John Murray speaks to that ;
https://www.the-highway.com/articleNov06.html
In Garnet Howard Milne's, "Has the Bible Been Kept Pure?" he recounts the recognition by the Westminster Divines, as well as Luther and Calvin, that there were copyist errors and such in the apographs. This did not prevent them from believing in the inerrancy of Scripture.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 19, 2018)

TrustGzus said:


> Brett, I am a Calvinist. I have great respect for John Calvin. However, he is not the Christ. He is not even an apostle.
> 
> The differences in the manuscripts existed over a millennium before Calvin was born.
> 
> ...


We have that essentially in any good translation of the scriptures, regardless if KJV/Nas/Esv et all.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 19, 2018)

JimmyH said:


> Calvin was not unaware of discrepancies in manuscripts and addressed some of those issues. This article by John Murray speaks to that ;
> https://www.the-highway.com/articleNov06.html
> In Garnet Howard Milne's, "Has the Bible Been Kept Pure?" he recounts the recognition by the Westminster Divines, as well as Luther and Calvin, that there were copyist errors and such in the apographs. This did not prevent them from believing in the inerrancy of Scripture.


Neither of those men would have been KJVO.


----------



## Beezer (Jan 20, 2018)

Not sure if this is the best thread to post this, but here's an interesting book that's scheduled for release next week.

Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible

A short review of it can be found here.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 20, 2018)

Beezer said:


> Not sure if this is the best thread to post this, but here's an interesting book that's scheduled for release next week.
> 
> Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible
> 
> A short review of it can be found here.


Very interesting that the conclusion would be based upon the truth that the King James English has been so far removed from our modern English over time that we literally just cannot know the real intended meaning of the scriptures, due to us knowing what the words are, but not what it meant to those who translated it over 400 years ago.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 21, 2018)

Sounds interesting, Brian – I think I'll get a copy, and it helps that it's only 168 pages, not a long read (I'm pretty busy). Still, I see no adequate alternative to the King James Bible. I'm aware of what he's talking of, having read it for a month or so short of 50 years.

Language is my primary academic / literary focus (being a classical writer and poet) along with all that pertains to the Christian faith. So melding the KJV language with street vernacular understanding ought to be the goal of pastors who use this version.

I do suggest to those I speak with (in my church, mostly) to get a decent modern version or two to read along with the AV. For better or worse, there is no other version with the accuracy or fidelity to the original Reformation texts underlying the AV. I'll be interested to see what Dr. Ward has to say. Thanks for the heads-up.


----------



## KMK (Jan 21, 2018)

Beezer said:


> Not sure if this is the best thread to post this, but here's an interesting book that's scheduled for release next week.
> 
> Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible
> 
> A short review of it can be found here.



From the review: 

“ He isn’t telling you what translation to choose. He leaves that up to you and your own research.”

Typical. On the one hand he claims that laypeople shouldn’t be burdened with trying to use the KJV as their primary Bible, but on the other they should be burdened with doing their own research on scores of modern translations.

Slamming the KJV is low hanging fruit. I would like to see just as much effort going into proving which modern translation should be our primary Bible.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 23, 2018)

KMK said:


> From the review:
> 
> “ He isn’t telling you what translation to choose. He leaves that up to you and your own research.”
> 
> ...


I do not think that he is slamming the KJV, just saying that based upon how large a change has happened in English vocabulary, that it might not be the best translation to use for all churches and people.

Just seems that anything said about the KJV that might be negative at all is seen by some as one being gainst that version.


----------



## KMK (Jan 23, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I do not think that he is slamming the KJV, just saying that based upon how large a change has happened in English vocabulary, that it might not be the best translation to use for all churches and people.
> 
> Just seems that anything said about the KJV that might be negative at all is seen by some as one being gainst that version.



Right. What word would be better? Knocking, criticizing, panning, attacking, disparaging, casting aspersion? The point is that those who don't want English speaking Christians to preach, teach, and memorize the KJV are not willing to take a stand for an alternative. 

"Do your own research" is not helpful when there are scores of modern translations to choose from. I think pastors and theologians forget that the average lay-person doesn't have the luxury of studying theology four hours a day.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 23, 2018)

KMK said:


> Right. What word would be better? Knocking, criticizing, panning, attacking, disparaging, casting aspersion? The point is that those who don't want English speaking Christians to preach, teach, and memorize the KJV are not willing to take a stand for an alternative.
> 
> "Do your own research" is not helpful when there are scores of modern translations to choose from. I think pastors and theologians forget that the average lay-person doesn't have the luxury of studying theology four hours a day.


The good news on this is that most of the modern versions are very good and faithful to the original texts, so the lay-person can be assured that they are indeed reading the English word of the Lord to them now.


----------



## Edward (Jan 23, 2018)

KMK said:


> Typical. On the one hand he claims that laypeople shouldn’t be burdened with trying to use the KJV as their primary Bible, but on the other they should be burdened with doing their own research on scores of modern translations.



Doing your part to see that this thread heads the same direction as all KJV threads?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## KMK (Jan 23, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The good news on this is that most of the modern versions are very good and faithful to the original texts,



By what authority do you make this assertion? Are you an expert in the field or is this something you have heard from others?


----------



## KMK (Jan 23, 2018)

Edward said:


> Doing your part to see that this thread heads the same direction as all KJV threads?



We all have our part to play, don’t we Edward?


----------



## Edward (Jan 23, 2018)

KMK said:


> We all have our part to play, don’t we Edward?



Well, I figured complaining to a moderator wouldn't do me any good.


----------



## Beezer (Jan 24, 2018)

Here's a YouTube trailer to the new book I highlighted. You know...the one Ken couldn't wait to get his hands on and pre-ordered (j/k).

*Lexham Press | Introducing "Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible" by Mark Ward*


----------



## JimmyH (Jan 24, 2018)

Beezer said:


> Here's a YouTube trailer to the new book I highlighted. You know...the one Ken couldn't wait to get his hands on and pre-ordered (j/k).
> 
> *Lexham Press | Introducing "Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible" by Mark Ward*


I agree wholeheartedly with the multiple translation philosophy and have been practicing that for years. I love the KJV, but I can say the same of the NIV, NASB and NKJV. Dabbling with the ESV as well.

Check out this other video by Mark Ward which adds to his argument ;

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 24, 2018)

KMK said:


> By what authority do you make this assertion? Are you an expert in the field or is this something you have heard from others?


The translator teams that were behind the modern versions such as the Nas/NKJV/Esv were all recognized textual critics and scholars in the original languages, and all of them ascribed to the full inerrancy/infallibility of the Holy Scriptures, so one can be confident on their finished products.
Just as the Lord worked with and used the Oxford translators on the KJV, same fashion worked in having these translations done.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 24, 2018)

JimmyH said:


> I agree wholeheartedly with the multiple translation philosophy and have been practicing that for years. I love the KJV, but I can say the same of the NIV, NASB and NKJV. Dabbling with the ESV as well.
> 
> Check out this other video by Mark Ward which adds to his argument ;


Using various translations is a good practice to be doing, as I like to use versions such as the NLT/Niv for quick reading/skimming through the book, and then after reading it through , switch to more formal version like the Nas/Esv to do serious studies on that book.


----------



## JimmyH (Jan 25, 2018)

Regarding the video, and the preference for a 'reader's edition'. Mark Bertrand of Bible Design Blog is also an advocate of the paragraphed Bible sans verse numbers and chapter headings. I have the 1939 George Macy Limited Editions Club paragraphed Bible in 5 volumes. The complete OT/NT in the KJV with chapter numbers, but no verse numbers, margin or footnotes. 
So last night I read Colossians and 1 John in that format. I don't like it as well as the double column reference format I'm used to. Whether that is something that I would begin to favor if I became accustomed to it I don't know. 
Mark Ward's assertion that you will read more because the text flows may be accurate, but I wonder if you'll miss more because of the flow ? If I remember correctly, in the video he claims the opposite, but it seems to me that reading in a format as a standard book would take away rather than add. Perhaps I'll give it more time and see which way it works for me.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 25, 2018)

Jimmy, you may be right on this. It may also be just a matter of personal preference. For myself, I don't want to be reading my Bible as I would any other book. When I want to read it in a sweeping fashion—whole chapters at a time—I can adjust my mind and my eyes to do that; though usually I read it slowly, pondering, often prayerfully. It's not an ordinary book.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 25, 2018)

In the 2nd video posted above—on typography—I lost my confidence in pastor Ward's take. His view of Prov 24:16 showed a lack of understanding (per the commentaries of Geo. Lawson and Chas. Bridges), and proves to be driven not by actual typography but by interpretation. The same with his take on "typography" in Psalm 12:6, 7—it is guided by commentators' spins and not by faulty paragraphing of the text (that section is a highly disputed couple of verses re providential preservation). Having seen this much, I think I'll pass on getting his book.

It is an interesting topic, though—how layout affects comprehension. And I suppose it may, yet I find it has not deterred me from comprehending adequately.

As to the issue of using other (more modern) versions to help with understanding more clearly differing shades of meaning those translations may afford, I agree wholeheartedly. I have at least 7 I use right by my reading chair and desk, as well as Greek and Hebrew helps.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jan 26, 2018)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> E.R., I told you how I deal with the issue of varying Bible versions in the church. With scholarship mixed with grace and brotherly care.
> 
> I notice you have completely overlooked the United Bible Societies' association with and agenda furthering Papal Rome's agendas—specifically through the means of the Bibles they produce, in their very own words.



Steve,

Forgive me if this was answered later in the post; I'm not able to read all the responses. Can you give any examples of how Rome may have perverted any texts in their acceptance of the CT? IE, are there examples in the CT that favor Catholic doctrine over against the RT?


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 26, 2018)

JTB.SDG said:


> Steve,
> 
> Forgive me if this was answered later in the post; I'm not able to read all the responses. Can you give any examples of how Rome may have perverted any texts in their acceptance of the CT? IE, are there examples in the CT that favor Catholic doctrine over against the RT?


The simple answer would be no.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 26, 2018)

Hello Jon,

In my post #10 I display some of Rome’s involvement. I referred not to examples of the text being perverted to favor Catholic doctrine, but rather the UBS constructing an edition of the NT using Rome’s Critical Text prime exemplar, Cod. Vaticanus, and under the Vatican’s supervision, for the purpose of furthering “interconfessional relationships”, or in the words of UBS General Secretary Michael Perreau, to “serve the Catholic Church in her endeavours to make the Word of God the centre of new evangelisation” – which would be their ecumenical thrust.

This entire endeavor flies against the Reformation’s bedrock doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which Scripture the WCF at 1.8 speaks of, referring to their _Textus Receptus_, the word of God contra the teachings of Rome. It is of this I spoke. It may be edifying to you to read further in the thread as I flesh it out here and there, especially my view that Rome won the contest our Reformation forebears labored so valiantly to defend, the proof of which is the disarray most of Christendom – and particularly the P & R sector – finds itself in with regard to the true Biblical text, i.e., a sure, intact, preserved-in-the-minutiae Bible such as said forebears had.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 26, 2018)

Are they referring to the Church of Rome, or catholic in sense of the Universal Church?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 26, 2018)

Go back and read post 10, David.


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jan 26, 2018)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello Jon,
> 
> In my post #10 I display some of Rome’s involvement. I referred not to examples of the text being perverted to favor Catholic doctrine, but rather the UBS constructing an edition of the NT using Rome’s Critical Text prime exemplar, Cod. Vaticanus, and under the Vatican’s supervision, for the purpose of furthering “interconfessional relationships”, or in the words of UBS General Secretary Michael Perreau, to “serve the Catholic Church in her endeavours to make the Word of God the centre of new evangelisation” – which would be their ecumenical thrust.
> 
> This entire endeavor flies against the Reformation’s bedrock doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which Scripture the WCF at 1.8 speaks of, referring to their _Textus Receptus_, the word of God contra the teachings of Rome. It is of this I spoke. It may be edifying to you to read further in the thread as I flesh it out here and there, especially my view that Rome won the contest our Reformation forebears labored so valiantly to defend, the proof of which is the disarray most of Christendom – and particularly the P & R sector – finds itself in with regard to the true Biblical text, i.e., a sure, intact, preserved-in-the-minutiae Bible such as said forebears had.



Okay, thanks Steve. This is an area I haven't studied extensively in the past and need to at some point. Appreciate your thoughts.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Feb 19, 2018)

The "heat" isn't simply coming from the people who prefer the KJV. I'd say the heat comes equally from both sides of the fence.

The problem with this whole discussion is both sides almost always talk past each other. Critical Text proponents are making a fundamentally critical argument whereas TR advocates are making a fundamentally dogmatic one.

Their concerns are different and therefore so are their answers.

This however is rarely recognized by those discussing this subject.


----------



## beloved7 (Feb 19, 2018)

Ironically, I actually read from a KJV two nights ago while staying in a hotel. It was one of those that was placed by the Gideons group. I'm an ESV guy.

My daily chapter reading that night was Isaiah 57. The wording was distracting. Out of curiousity, I flipped around and looked at some verses in John; the verses from Jesus just seemed so 'translated'. 

The KJV is a treasure and served Christendom for hundreds of years. We don't talk like that anymore though. We have the ESV now which came from that stream and additional scrolls.


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 19, 2018)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> E.R., I told you how I deal with the issue of varying Bible versions in the church. With scholarship mixed with grace and brotherly care.
> 
> I notice you have completely overlooked the United Bible Societies' association with and agenda furthering Papal Rome's agendas—specifically through the means of the Bibles they produce, in their very own words.
> 
> ...


The question to answer would be , did the Critical Greek text get as close, if not even closer to what the Originals recorded down to us though?


----------



## Polanus1561 (Feb 20, 2018)

as a beginning student in Greek, I am beginning to appreciate the KJV even more. Any CT advocates NOT appreciate what the KJV does in greek renderings?


----------



## beloved7 (Feb 20, 2018)

I'm not a seminary student, alas I'm just a lowly layman. Having said that, I like the ESV. I appreciate the KJV but not anymore than I appreciate the Tyndale or Geneva. The KJV stood strong for literal translations for 400 years, how could one not appreciate that? It's unreadable now though. There are verses that are literally unreadable.

Also, let's not imagine as if the Roman Catholic priest Erasmus was standing next to the apostle Paul when he was translating the new testament.

I'd appreciate the KJV more if its advocates wernt so overboard. It makes me look at it more criticly than I normally would.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Feb 20, 2018)

Hello David, welcome to PB!

I'm not sure what you mean by "overboard", but some may indeed be possessed more of heat than light, which is understandable, given the crucial importance our Bibles are to us. This applies to both sides of the debate.

When you say there are verses that are "literally unreadable" – though I would say, "somewhat unreadable", given the old language – you have a point. Yet, for my part, I would rather do the extra work of seeking to ascertain the meaning (through comparing with modern translations, and the Greek and Hebrew) knowing that for accuracy the text is based upon the best Hebrew and Greek mss as your own 1689 Confession (and the WCF) says at 1.8. That's the real issue to me. Though difficult in places, the Bible I can hold in my hand is sure, the original languages having been providentially preserved by the God who wrote the book through His servants.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## beloved7 (Feb 20, 2018)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello David, welcome to PB!
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by "overboard", but some may indeed be possessed more of heat than light, which is understandable, given the crucial importance our Bibles are to us. This applies to both sides of the debate.
> 
> When you say there are verses that are "literally unreadable" – though I would say, "somewhat unreadable", given the old language – you have a point. Yet, for my part, I would rather do the extra work of seeking to ascertain the meaning (through comparing with modern translations, and the Greek and Hebrew) knowing that for accuracy the text is based upon the best Hebrew and Greek mss as your own 1689 Confession (and the WCF) says at 1.8. That's the real issue to me. Though difficult in places, the Bible I can hold in my hand is sure, the original languages having been providentially preserved by the God who wrote the book through His servants.


Thank you brother for the warm welcome. It's not my intention to put down, so to speak, the KJV. As a fellow literal translation skewed guy (ESV) I'd much rather read the KJV than the NIV, or gasp, anything even more dynamic than that.

By overboard what I mean are those who attack all modern translations with a broad brush; not all modern translations are equal. Crossway, for example, did a phenomenal job with the ESV. Perfect balance of literal translation and literary excellence. I admit that I can get defensive when defending the ESV. It's when the KJVO crowd (not KJV preference, KJVO) make claims that it's the only legitimate English version that causes me to get upset. Haven't seen that on this thread to be fair though.

Ironically, the KJV was the ESV in its day. It was developed in the common language. It's also worth stating that the KJV had three (If I'm correct) updates, which shows that it is not any higher in preservation than any other literal (ish) translation. It has been around for over 400 years, but its the RT and CT that are divinely preserved.

Finally, you mentioned cross referencing a modern translation in addition to the Hebrew and Greek texts while reading the KJV. Though commendable, in my humble opinion, it should not be needed.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 20, 2018)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello David, welcome to PB!
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by "overboard", but some may indeed be possessed more of heat than light, which is understandable, given the crucial importance our Bibles are to us. This applies to both sides of the debate.
> 
> When you say there are verses that are "literally unreadable" – though I would say, "somewhat unreadable", given the old language – you have a point. Yet, for my part, I would rather do the extra work of seeking to ascertain the meaning (through comparing with modern translations, and the Greek and Hebrew) knowing that for accuracy the text is based upon the best Hebrew and Greek mss as your own 1689 Confession (and the WCF) says at 1.8. That's the real issue to me. Though difficult in places, the Bible I can hold in my hand is sure, the original languages having been providentially preserved by the God who wrote the book through His servants.


Do any of the Confessions though require that only the TR greek text is the One to be used to translate English versions off from?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Feb 20, 2018)

Well, David (Dachaser), there was only one alternative Greek text current at this time – that held by Rome, and employed for the overturning of the Reformers' doctrine of Sola Scriptura – thus the TR was tacitly understood and agreed upon as the standard by the framers of the Reformed Confessions.
_____

David (beloved7), apart from the serious errors in the ESV at Matt 1:7, 10, the issue for me – and others who are KJV _priority_, while owning the legitimacy of your and other versions – is the status of a number of variant readings. That's really the issue for many.

The reason I stick with the AV and supplement that, on occasion, by consulting other translations – which you say "should not be needed" – *is* needed by me due to my mistrust of the modern and sometimes more readable versions, given their unacceptable significant variants.


----------



## beloved7 (Feb 20, 2018)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Well, David, there was only one alternative Greek text current at this time – that held by Rome, and employed for the overturning of the Reformers' doctrine of Sola Scriptura – thus the TR was tacitly understood and agreed upon as the standard by the framers of the Reformed Confessions.
> _____
> 
> David (beloved7), apart from the serious errors in the ESV at Matt 1:7, 10, the issue for me – and others who are KJV _priority_, while owning the legitimacy of your and other versions – is the status of a number of variant readings. That's really the issue for many.
> ...



That's a fair position. Personally, it can be said that there are errors in the KJV as well. At a certain point you just have to rely on the process that the publishers went through, what texts they used, who endorses it etc. The KJV, is without a doubt, a very safe choice. The ESV, is also a very safe choice as I have no reason to doubt the critical text. If it's good enough for RC Sproul, it's good enough for me.

Brother if you can read the KJV and are happy with it, then that sincerely warms my heart. I just don't want others to feel as if it's their only legitimate word- for - word style choice.


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 21, 2018)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Well, David (Dachaser), there was only one alternative Greek text current at this time – that held by Rome, and employed for the overturning of the Reformers' doctrine of Sola Scriptura – thus the TR was tacitly understood and agreed upon as the standard by the framers of the Reformed Confessions.
> _____
> 
> David (beloved7), apart from the serious errors in the ESV at Matt 1:7, 10, the issue for me – and others who are KJV _priority_, while owning the legitimacy of your and other versions – is the status of a number of variant readings. That's really the issue for many.
> ...


Would the reformers though have accepted other Greek texts and English translations if were available at their time, or in the future.
And what main Christian doctrines or theologies were affected/corrupted in either Critical Greek text, or modern versions than?


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 21, 2018)

beloved7 said:


> That's a fair position. Personally, it can be said that there are errors in the KJV as well. At a certain point you just have to rely on the process that the publishers went through, what texts they used, who endorses it etc. The KJV, is without a doubt, a very safe choice. The ESV, is also a very safe choice as I have no reason to doubt the critical text. If it's good enough for RC Sproul, it's good enough for me.
> 
> Brother if you can read the KJV and are happy with it, then that sincerely warms my heart. I just don't want others to feel as if it's their only legitimate word- for - word style choice.


More important in translation to me would not be which Greek text was used, but the translation philiophy behind the translation work. A more formal version such as KJV/NKJV/Nas to be preferred over something more dynamic, like the Nlt/Niv.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Feb 22, 2018)

Hello again, David (beloved7),

You stated, "it can be said that there are errors in the KJV as well" — care to show me one or two? (Please keep it to two tops—and this is for beloved7 only—I don't want a pile-on as I'm pretty busy.)


----------



## beloved7 (Feb 22, 2018)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello again, David (beloved7),
> 
> You stated, "it can be said that there are errors in the KJV as well" — care to show me one or two? (Please keep it to two tops—and this is for beloved7 only—I don't want a pile-on as I'm pretty busy.)


I'm not a pastor or seminary student, and to be candid, I'd have to search the internet to answer your question. Though off the top of my head, there are things that the KJV appeared to add upon cross examination of the RT and the CT. Also if memory serves me there is wording in regard to the Trinity that is not correct, though I'd have to look it up to see which book and verse.

Either way, it's virtually unreadable. People don't speak like that anymore.


----------



## Ajay (Feb 23, 2018)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello again, David (beloved7),
> 
> You stated, "it can be said that there are errors in the KJV as well" — care to show me one or two? (Please keep it to two tops—and this is for beloved7 only—I don't want a pile-on as I'm pretty busy.)


Sir, Are you saying that KJV is the perfect Bible. As some churches claims here in Singapore that KJV is the only perfect preserved word of God and equate it to the original Autographs.


Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Feb 23, 2018)

David (beloved7),

When you say, “to be candid, I'd have to search the internet to answer your question”, that should make you wonder about your epistemology—the basis, i.e., the source—of your knowledge. It is evidently hearsay—you have heard others talking or writing, and you have also formed subjective opinions based on your personal experience. Yet, there are children who, having been raised on the KJV and how to read it, as well how to deal with difficult passages, are quite at home in it.

Even when it was new in 1611 and thereafter, it was not the language of the street—though quite intelligible to them—but the language of the church and of the sacred, a language set apart from the common usage of English, whose cadences and forms of expression reflected the masterful Hebrew and Greek with their majesty and power. I will grant you that now, some 500 years later, our English language has changed in some degree, but not so much that children cannot still comprehend and appreciate its beauty. I do not begrudge anyone preferring a modern version that is easier to read—my own godly wife prefers the 1984 edition of the NIV, a Bible her late father gave to her even before she was saved—but with that preference comes the liability of having to deal with the illegitimate variants (she now uses the NKJV when she teaches the women in their Bible Studies, for such is the default edition of our church), whereas the liability of the KJV users is having to deal with older language and syntax that makes reading more difficult.

For many decades I have sought to learn about the textual status of the Bibles, studying a lot of material on both sides of the debate, and have determined that which is credibly authentic as the Bible God has providentially preserved, and have prepared myself to defend and teach it—seeing as it is such a crucial matter for God’s children in these days of increasing apostasy.

When you assert things concerning the Bible, please make sure you know things for yourself after being informed in these matters. You will no doubt appreciate that there are textual experts on both sides—and all godly men—who differ in these things, so simply choosing one or two people who agree with you, supporting your uninformed early thoughts, will not be sufficient. I see you are sincere and godly, and I wish you the best as you continue to study, even if you end up still disagreeing with me!

______


Hello AJAY—you’re the one who started all this! But I like the discussion, as it is friendly and mostly scholarly.

What I believe is “the perfect Bible” are the Hebrew and Greek texts the Westminster divines affirmed as “being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, [and] are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them” (WCF 1.8). This is your own Confession, AJAY, which says (and is confirmed by God’s promises in His word) He kept the Bible pure through all the ages.

Of course this perfection of purity does *not* refer to any translation of it; *however*, insofar as a translation is faithful to the original languages it then partakes of their purity on a derived (or second-hand) basis. Having looked over the AV for many years, I have not seen any verifiable errors, though some instances I ponder with a suspended judgment. I do know that E.F. Hills, the Harvard-trained textual critic who wrote _The King James Version Defended_ (PDF here; online hyperlinked version here) posited that there may be three small errors in the Greek of the NT. There are those who disagree with this, here. 

As a co-pastor with the care of a small church and the souls therein, I refuse to allow this Bible version issue to divide the church, or to diminish the faith of those using whatever versions they prefer in their Bibles. All our versions are legitimate Bibles, and the word of God is in them. What is in dispute are some variant readings, and some poorly translated words, but the Bibles in the main are sound, with God able to use them to nurture His people and to mature the churches unto godliness.

I hope this answers your questions and concerns, AJAY.

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 1


----------

