# King James Only Movement



## JM

From Wikipedia :



> * *"I Like the KJV Best"* This division is represented by individuals who simply prefer the KJV over other translations. These are people who like the version because their church uses it, they have always used it, or because they like its style. The Trinitarian Bible Society would fit in this division. They have said, "The Trinitarian Bible Society does not believe the Authorised Version to be a perfect translation, only that it is the best available translation in the English language."
> 
> * *"The Textual Argument"* - Individuals here believe the KJV's Hebrew and Greek textual basis are the most accurate. These conclude that the KJV is based on better manuscripts. Many in this group may accept a modern version based on the same manuscripts as the KJV. White claims Zane C. Hodges is a good example of this group.
> 
> * *"Received Text Only"* - Here, the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts are believed to be supernaturally preserved. The KJV is believed to be a translation exemplar, but it is also believed that other translations based on these texts have the potential to be equally good.
> 
> * *"The Inspired KJV Group"* - Individuals in this group believe that the KJV itself was supernaturally inspired. They see the translation to be preserved supernaturally by God and as accurate as the original Greek and Hebrew Manuscripts found in its underlying texts. Sometimes this group will even exclude foreign versions based on the same manuscripts claiming the KJV to be the only Bible.
> 
> * *"The KJV As New Revelation"* - This group of individuals would believe that the KJV is a "new revelation" from God, and can and should be the standard from which all other translations originate. Adherents to this belief may also believe that the original-language Hebrew and Greek can be corrected by the KJV. This view is often called "Ruckmanism" after Peter Ruckman, a staunch KJV supporter.
> 
> White, James (1995). The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 5. ISBN 1556615752.


----------



## Barnpreacher

Honestly, from what I've heard I think that Ruckman has backed off his stance that the AV corrects the originals. I can't swear to that, but that is what I've heard from some guys that associate themselves with him.

He's still a staunch supporter of the AV, and he would call you an ugly name to your face if you told him you used any other version.


----------



## Reformed Baptist

Hey JM, 

That comes from James White's book "The King James Only Controversy" Good book. I did a small work on the subject on my blog here Ergates Theologia: The King James Only Movement, Part 1

haven't gotten to part 2 yet though..


----------



## Grymir

JM - nice quote! Mark me as a #1 and #2. Gives us KJV people an way to define KJV groups. The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly! 

Reformed Baptist, I found this quote on your blog - "Kutilek wrote, “All writers who embrace the KJV-only position have derived their views ultimately from Seventh-Day Adventist missionary, theology professor and college president, Benjamin G. Wilkinson (d. 1968).”" Is that taken from the James White book? That sounds like a Ruckman type person on the other side. Ruckman give us Real KJV people a bad name.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

I'm between the textual and the received text only postions.


----------



## Reformed Baptist

Grymir said:


> JM - nice quote! Mark me as a #1 and #2. Gives us KJV people an way to define KJV groups. The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly!
> 
> Reformed Baptist, I found this quote on your blog - "Kutilek wrote, “All writers who embrace the KJV-only position have derived their views ultimately from Seventh-Day Adventist missionary, theology professor and college president, Benjamin G. Wilkinson (d. 1968).”" Is that taken from the James White book? That sounds like a Ruckman type person on the other side. Ruckman give us Real KJV people a bad name.



It's not in the book. Is the reference to that idea not clear in my blog? If not, I will edit it to reference it better. I am pretty sure there is a link there. 

Honestly, I leave the "history" open to scrutiny. I could not really find a history of the doctrine and admitted in my blog a reliance on that man's work. James White, I would agree, is more level headed in the debate. But I disagree with his views on the Greek texts. I am actually a KJVO kinda guy myself. I do favor the majority text position. I oppose the more radical forms of KJVO.


----------



## Jie-Huli

JM said:


> From Wikipedia :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * *"I Like the KJV Best"* This division is represented by individuals who simply prefer the KJV over other translations. These are people who like the version because their church uses it, they have always used it, or because they like its style. The Trinitarian Bible Society would fit in this division. They have said, "The Trinitarian Bible Society does not believe the Authorised Version to be a perfect translation, only that it is the best available translation in the English language."
> 
> * *"The Textual Argument"* - Individuals here believe the KJV's Hebrew and Greek textual basis are the most accurate. These conclude that the KJV is based on better manuscripts. Many in this group may accept a modern version based on the same manuscripts as the KJV. White claims Zane C. Hodges is a good example of this group.
> 
> * *"Received Text Only"* - Here, the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts are believed to be supernaturally preserved. The KJV is believed to be a translation exemplar, but it is also believed that other translations based on these texts have the potential to be equally good.
> 
> * *"The Inspired KJV Group"* - Individuals in this group believe that the KJV itself was supernaturally inspired. They see the translation to be preserved supernaturally by God and as accurate as the original Greek and Hebrew Manuscripts found in its underlying texts. Sometimes this group will even exclude foreign versions based on the same manuscripts claiming the KJV to be the only Bible.
> 
> * *"The KJV As New Revelation"* - This group of individuals would believe that the KJV is a "new revelation" from God, and can and should be the standard from which all other translations originate. Adherents to this belief may also believe that the original-language Hebrew and Greek can be corrected by the KJV. This view is often called "Ruckmanism" after Peter Ruckman, a staunch KJV supporter.
> 
> White, James (1995). The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 5. ISBN 1556615752.
Click to expand...


I do not believe it is accurate to say that the Trinitarian Bible Society (which I support) simply prefers the KJV because of its style. While it certainly would hold that the KJV's style is superior, its main reasons for upholding the KJV as the best and most faithful translation are textual.

Kind regards,

Jie-Huli


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

RE Kutilek and his Seventh-Day Adventist theory

In a response to Dr. White's book, David Cloud has this paragraph:

WHITE LUMPS ALL KING JAMES BIBLE DEFENDERS INTO THE RUCKMAN CAMP.

In the beginning of his book, White divides "KJV Only" into five categories: Those who like the KJV best, those who support the KJV textually, those who are Received Text only, those who believe the KJV is inspired and inerrant, those who believe the KJV is advanced or new revelation. In the body of the book, though, White almost exclusively applies his pet term, "KJV Only," to a Ruckman-type position. In the chapter entitled "The King James Only Camp," White claims that the scholars of the past (such as John Burgon and H.C. Hoskier) who defended the textual tradition underlying the KJV, cannot be included in the "KJV Only" camp. Thus he contradicts his own definition given in chapter one, by refusing to label men as "KJV Only" who are defenders of the textual tradition underlying the KJV.​
Excerpted from, _EXAMINING_ [James White's] _THE KING JAMES ONLY CONTROVERSY_


----------



## SolaGratia

I like this from the same excerpt above:

The King James Only Controversy is straw man, smokescreen apologetics at its best. This is serious, because many men who read White’s book will become severely biased against "King James Onlyism" and, as a consequence, will never make the effort to read for themselves the many important materials written in defense of the Received Text and the KJV. It reminds us of a statement made by Dr. Alfred Martin, former vice president of Moody Bible Institute, in his doctoral thesis at Dallas Theological Seminary in 1951:

"In spite of the notable work of Burgon, Hoskier, and others who supported them, the opponents of the Westcott-Hort theory have never had the hearing which they deserve. How many present-day students of the Greek New Testament ever heard of the two men just mentioned, and how many ever saw a copy of The Revision Revised or Codex B and Its Allies, to say nothing of actually reading these works? ... THE PRESENT GENERATION OF BIBLE STUDENTS, HAVING BEEN REARED ON WESTCOTT AND HORT, HAVE FOR THE MOST PART ACCEPTED THE THEORY WITHOUT INDEPENDENT OR CRITICAL EXAMINATION. To the average student of the Greek New Testament today it is unthinkable to question the theory at least in its basic premises. Even to imply that one believes the Textus Receptus to be nearer the original text than the Westcott-Hort text is, lays one open to the suspicion of gross ignorance or unmitigated bigotry. That is why this controversy needs to be aired again among Bible-believing Christians. There is little hope of convincing those who are unbelieving textual critics, but IF BELIEVING BIBLE STUDENTS HAD THE EVIDENCE OF BOTH SIDES PUT BEFORE THEM, INSTEAD OF ONE SIDE ONLY, THERE WOULD NOT BE SO MUCH BLIND FOLLOWING OF WESTCOTT AND HORT" (Alfred Martin, A Critical Examination of the Westcott-Hort Textual Theory, Th.D. Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, May 1951, pp. 4,46,47).


----------



## Galatians220

SolaGratia said:


> I like this from the same excerpt above:
> 
> The King James Only Controversy is straw man, smokescreen apologetics at its best. This is serious, because many men who read White’s book will become severely biased against "King James Onlyism" and, as a consequence, will never make the effort to read for themselves the many important materials written in defense of the Received Text and the KJV. It reminds us of a statement made by Dr. Alfred Martin, former vice president of Moody Bible Institute, in his doctoral thesis at Dallas Theological Seminary in 1951:
> 
> "In spite of the notable work of Burgon, Hoskier, and others who supported them, the opponents of the Westcott-Hort theory have never had the hearing which they deserve. How many present-day students of the Greek New Testament ever heard of the two men just mentioned, and how many ever saw a copy of The Revision Revised or Codex B and Its Allies, to say nothing of actually reading these works? ... THE PRESENT GENERATION OF BIBLE STUDENTS, HAVING BEEN REARED ON WESTCOTT AND HORT, HAVE FOR THE MOST PART ACCEPTED THE THEORY WITHOUT INDEPENDENT OR CRITICAL EXAMINATION. To the average student of the Greek New Testament today it is unthinkable to question the theory at least in its basic premises. Even to imply that one believes the Textus Receptus to be nearer the original text than the Westcott-Hort text is, lays one open to the suspicion of gross ignorance or unmitigated bigotry. That is why this controversy needs to be aired again among Bible-believing Christians. There is little hope of convincing those who are unbelieving textual critics, but IF BELIEVING BIBLE STUDENTS HAD THE EVIDENCE OF BOTH SIDES PUT BEFORE THEM, INSTEAD OF ONE SIDE ONLY, THERE WOULD NOT BE SO MUCH BLIND FOLLOWING OF WESTCOTT AND HORT" (Alfred Martin, A Critical Examination of the Westcott-Hort Textual Theory, Th.D. Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, May 1951, pp. 4,46,47).


 


Margaret


----------



## Stomata leontôn

Theoretically, is it possible for a translation to be inspired or partially inspired? By that I mean, can translators have special guidance of the Holy Spirit?


----------



## Grymir

Hi Peter H! The translators can have the special guidance of the Holy Spirit, but inspired would apply to the originals.


----------



## Grymir

SolaGratia said:


> I like this from the same excerpt above:
> 
> The King James Only Controversy is straw man, smokescreen apologetics at its best. This is serious, because many men who read White’s book will become severely biased against "King James Onlyism" and, as a consequence, will never make the effort to read for themselves the many important materials written in defense of the Received Text and the KJV. It reminds us of a statement made by Dr. Alfred Martin, former vice president of Moody Bible Institute, in his doctoral thesis at Dallas Theological Seminary in 1951:
> 
> "In spite of the notable work of Burgon, Hoskier, and others who supported them, the opponents of the Westcott-Hort theory have never had the hearing which they deserve. How many present-day students of the Greek New Testament ever heard of the two men just mentioned, and how many ever saw a copy of The Revision Revised or Codex B and Its Allies, to say nothing of actually reading these works? ... THE PRESENT GENERATION OF BIBLE STUDENTS, HAVING BEEN REARED ON WESTCOTT AND HORT, HAVE FOR THE MOST PART ACCEPTED THE THEORY WITHOUT INDEPENDENT OR CRITICAL EXAMINATION. To the average student of the Greek New Testament today it is unthinkable to question the theory at least in its basic premises. Even to imply that one believes the Textus Receptus to be nearer the original text than the Westcott-Hort text is, lays one open to the suspicion of gross ignorance or unmitigated bigotry. That is why this controversy needs to be aired again among Bible-believing Christians. There is little hope of convincing those who are unbelieving textual critics, but IF BELIEVING BIBLE STUDENTS HAD THE EVIDENCE OF BOTH SIDES PUT BEFORE THEM, INSTEAD OF ONE SIDE ONLY, THERE WOULD NOT BE SO MUCH BLIND FOLLOWING OF WESTCOTT AND HORT" (Alfred Martin, A Critical Examination of the Westcott-Hort Textual Theory, Th.D. Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, May 1951, pp. 4,46,47).



Mega Dittos and


----------



## JohnGill

Reformed Baptist said:


> Grymir said:
> 
> 
> 
> JM - nice quote! Mark me as a #1 and #2. Gives us KJV people an way to define KJV groups. The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly!
> 
> Reformed Baptist, I found this quote on your blog - "Kutilek wrote, “All writers who embrace the KJV-only position have derived their views ultimately from Seventh-Day Adventist missionary, theology professor and college president, Benjamin G. Wilkinson (d. 1968).”" Is that taken from the James White book? That sounds like a Ruckman type person on the other side. Ruckman give us Real KJV people a bad name.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not in the book. Is the reference to that idea not clear in my blog? If not, I will edit it to reference it better. I am pretty sure there is a link there.
> 
> Honestly, I leave the "history" open to scrutiny. I could not really find a history of the doctrine and admitted in my blog a reliance on that man's work. James White, I would agree, is more level headed in the debate. But I disagree with his views on the Greek texts. I am actually a KJVO kinda guy myself. I do favor the majority text position. I oppose the more radical forms of KJVO.
Click to expand...


You should also read Letis' assessment of White and Riplinger's books. They're available here: Theodore P. Letis Resources Scroll down past the book pics. I've read White's book myself. I think Riplinger's book is better. It has a bigger bibliography. You just have to get past all that nonsense that comes before the bibliography.


----------



## SolaGratia

More from the same excerpt above:

Let me summarize my findings about the history of the modern versions. First of all, most of the key textual critics of the 19th century rejected the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. This category includes J.L. Hug (1765-1846), Carl Lachmann (1793-1851), Johann Griesbach (1745-1812), Friedrich Tischendorf (1815-1874), B.F. Westcott (1825-1901) and F.J.A. Hort (1828-1892). Of the work of these men, *Robert L. Dabney*, 19th-century Presbyterian scholar, testified: "We shall find them continually varying, each one obnoxious to grave objections, and the question still unsettled. ... Their common traits may be said to be an almost contemptuous dismissal of the received text, as unworthy not only of confidence, but almost of notice" (Dabney, "The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek," Discussions Evangelical and Theological, pp. 350,52,54; this first appeared in the Southern Presbyterian Review, April 1871). Again, we would ask James White if Robert Lewis Dabney (1820-1898) was a member of a Ruckmanite cult?

Let see, should we follow Westcott, Hort, Tischendorf, etc. (critical text adherents)

OR

Our very owned Robert Lewis Dabney (a defender of our Reformed Faith that God has given us from His word). 

Again, I will put it before you.

Should we read the RSV=ASV=ESV, NASB, NIV, NLT, The Messenger, CEV (you name it!)

OR

The Authorized Version/KJV?

Hmmm!


----------



## jwithnell

Ok, I'm probably leaping in way over my head here (I'm still chasing smoke in Northern California, so go figure ...) Anyway, are y'all making a link between the Alexandrian texts and a theology based in viewing that scriptures as less than inerrant?


----------



## CDM

SolaGratia said:


> More from the same excerpt above:
> 
> Let me summarize my findings about the history of the modern versions. First of all, most of the key textual critics of the 19th century rejected the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. This category includes J.L. Hug (1765-1846), Carl Lachmann (1793-1851), Johann Griesbach (1745-1812), Friedrich Tischendorf (1815-1874), B.F. Westcott (1825-1901) and F.J.A. Hort (1828-1892). Of the work of these men, *Robert L. Dabney*, 19th-century Presbyterian scholar, testified: "We shall find them continually varying, each one obnoxious to grave objections, and the question still unsettled. ... Their common traits may be said to be an almost contemptuous dismissal of the received text, as unworthy not only of confidence, but almost of notice" (Dabney, "The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek," Discussions Evangelical and Theological, pp. 350,52,54; this first appeared in the Southern Presbyterian Review, April 1871). Again, we would ask James White if Robert Lewis Dabney (1820-1898) was a member of a Ruckmanite cult?
> 
> Let see, should we follow Westcott, Hort, Tischendorf, etc. (critical text adherents)
> 
> OR
> 
> Our very owned Robert Lewis Dabney (a defender of our Reformed Faith that God has given us from His word).
> 
> Again, I will put it before you.
> 
> Should we read the RSV=ASV=ESV, NASB, NIV, NLT, The Messenger, CEV (you name it!)
> 
> OR
> 
> The Authorized Version/KJV?
> 
> Hmmm!



I would suggest we neither follow Westcott, Hort, Tischendorf, etc or the good R.L. Dabney. Rather, Dr. Alfred Martin, from your earlier post, has the right idea:



> "...How many present-day students of the Greek New Testament ever heard of the two men just mentioned, and how many ever saw a copy of The Revision Revised or Codex B and Its Allies, to say nothing of actually reading these works? ... THE PRESENT GENERATION OF BIBLE STUDENTS, HAVING BEEN REARED ON WESTCOTT AND HORT, HAVE FOR THE MOST PART ACCEPTED THE THEORY WITHOUT *INDEPENDENT OR CRITICAL EXAMINATION*..."



Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. <2Tim. 2:15>

Short of this, you are taking someone else's word for it.


----------



## Stomata leontôn

I didn't see this link posted here yet, so I thought I would add it to the discussion: Bible Devotionals and the Greek Majority Text

See the sections under "Wilbur Pickering."

After reading this and Burgon, I wonder how Westcott and Hort, and Nestle-Aland's NT gained so much weight. For example the textual "canon" of choosing a poor reading over a clear reading is wholly unconvincing and contradicts another canon that an older manuscript must always be used instead of a newer text. In the W-H method, there is a built in bias toward corrupt texts.


----------



## Galatians220

Peter H said:


> I didn't see this link posted here yet, so I thought I would add it to the discussion: Bible Devotionals and the Greek Majority Text
> 
> See the sections under "Wilbur Pickering."
> 
> After reading this and Burgon, I wonder how Westcott and Hort, and Nestle-Aland's NT gained so much weight. For example the textual "canon" of choosing a poor reading over a clear reading is wholly unconvincing and contradicts another canon that an older manuscript must always be used instead of a newer text. In the W-H method, there is a built in bias toward corrupt texts.


 
Just a guess: in the late 19th century, the occult was in vogue, and Westcott and Hort were "down" with that. People also wanted "a change" from the KJB; Catholics didn't want "that Protestant Bible" around, which is why parochial schools gained such ascendance. Other things factored in as well. *Other people here on this board are much more schooled than I* (although in my first degree, I majored in British history)* and can give you a much more cogent and correct picture* of exactly what happened to eclipse the Received Text to the degree that it has been so eclipsed.

I also offer this link: THE WESTCOTT AND HORT ONLY CONTROVERSY -By Dr. Phil Stringer.

Margaret


----------



## Blueridge Believer

While listening to a podcast from a familiar Baptist church last night, the speaker noted that the last 12 verses of Mark 16 are not part of the scripture and were added at a later date by an unknown indiviual. I thought to myself,how does he know that? This is the kind of criticism, in my opinion, that is destructive to peoples faith. When he said that, I stopped listening.
Pray for me. That kind of stuff grieves my spirit.


----------



## Reformed Baptist

mangum said:


> SolaGratia said:
> 
> 
> 
> More from the same excerpt above:
> 
> Let me summarize my findings about the history of the modern versions. First of all, most of the key textual critics of the 19th century rejected the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. This category includes J.L. Hug (1765-1846), Carl Lachmann (1793-1851), Johann Griesbach (1745-1812), Friedrich Tischendorf (1815-1874), B.F. Westcott (1825-1901) and F.J.A. Hort (1828-1892). Of the work of these men, *Robert L. Dabney*, 19th-century Presbyterian scholar, testified: "We shall find them continually varying, each one obnoxious to grave objections, and the question still unsettled. ... Their common traits may be said to be an almost contemptuous dismissal of the received text, as unworthy not only of confidence, but almost of notice" (Dabney, "The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek," Discussions Evangelical and Theological, pp. 350,52,54; this first appeared in the Southern Presbyterian Review, April 1871). Again, we would ask James White if Robert Lewis Dabney (1820-1898) was a member of a Ruckmanite cult?
> 
> Let see, should we follow Westcott, Hort, Tischendorf, etc. (critical text adherents)
> 
> OR
> 
> Our very owned Robert Lewis Dabney (a defender of our Reformed Faith that God has given us from His word).
> 
> Again, I will put it before you.
> 
> Should we read the RSV=ASV=ESV, NASB, NIV, NLT, The Messenger, CEV (you name it!)
> 
> OR
> 
> The Authorized Version/KJV?
> 
> Hmmm!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would suggest we neither follow Westcott, Hort, Tischendorf, etc or the good R.L. Dabney. Rather, Dr. Alfred Martin, from your earlier post, has the right idea:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...How many present-day students of the Greek New Testament ever heard of the two men just mentioned, and how many ever saw a copy of The Revision Revised or Codex B and Its Allies, to say nothing of actually reading these works? ... THE PRESENT GENERATION OF BIBLE STUDENTS, HAVING BEEN REARED ON WESTCOTT AND HORT, HAVE FOR THE MOST PART ACCEPTED THE THEORY WITHOUT *INDEPENDENT OR CRITICAL EXAMINATION*..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. <2Tim. 2:15>
> 
> Short of this, you are taking someone else's word for it.
Click to expand...


I have Burgons' work. It is difficult to go through without some knowledge of Greek. But this should be remedied in a bit...lol


----------



## KMK

mangum said:


> SolaGratia said:
> 
> 
> 
> More from the same excerpt above:
> 
> Let me summarize my findings about the history of the modern versions. First of all, most of the key textual critics of the 19th century rejected the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. This category includes J.L. Hug (1765-1846), Carl Lachmann (1793-1851), Johann Griesbach (1745-1812), Friedrich Tischendorf (1815-1874), B.F. Westcott (1825-1901) and F.J.A. Hort (1828-1892). Of the work of these men, *Robert L. Dabney*, 19th-century Presbyterian scholar, testified: "We shall find them continually varying, each one obnoxious to grave objections, and the question still unsettled. ... Their common traits may be said to be an almost contemptuous dismissal of the received text, as unworthy not only of confidence, but almost of notice" (Dabney, "The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek," Discussions Evangelical and Theological, pp. 350,52,54; this first appeared in the Southern Presbyterian Review, April 1871). Again, we would ask James White if Robert Lewis Dabney (1820-1898) was a member of a Ruckmanite cult?
> 
> Let see, should we follow Westcott, Hort, Tischendorf, etc. (critical text adherents)
> 
> OR
> 
> Our very owned Robert Lewis Dabney (a defender of our Reformed Faith that God has given us from His word).
> 
> Again, I will put it before you.
> 
> Should we read the RSV=ASV=ESV, NASB, NIV, NLT, The Messenger, CEV (you name it!)
> 
> OR
> 
> The Authorized Version/KJV?
> 
> Hmmm!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would suggest we neither follow Westcott, Hort, Tischendorf, etc or the good R.L. Dabney. Rather, Dr. Alfred Martin, from your earlier post, has the right idea:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...How many present-day students of the Greek New Testament ever heard of the two men just mentioned, and how many ever saw a copy of The Revision Revised or Codex B and Its Allies, to say nothing of actually reading these works? ... THE PRESENT GENERATION OF BIBLE STUDENTS, HAVING BEEN REARED ON WESTCOTT AND HORT, HAVE FOR THE MOST PART ACCEPTED THE THEORY WITHOUT *INDEPENDENT OR CRITICAL EXAMINATION*..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. <2Tim. 2:15>
> 
> Short of this, you are taking someone else's word for it.
Click to expand...


Do you believe that it is every Christian's duty to decide for themselves which Bible most accurately represents the Word of God?


----------



## CDM

KMK said:


> mangum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SolaGratia said:
> 
> 
> 
> More from the same excerpt above:
> 
> Let me summarize my findings about the history of the modern versions. First of all, most of the key textual critics of the 19th century rejected the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. This category includes J.L. Hug (1765-1846), Carl Lachmann (1793-1851), Johann Griesbach (1745-1812), Friedrich Tischendorf (1815-1874), B.F. Westcott (1825-1901) and F.J.A. Hort (1828-1892). Of the work of these men, *Robert L. Dabney*, 19th-century Presbyterian scholar, testified: "We shall find them continually varying, each one obnoxious to grave objections, and the question still unsettled. ... Their common traits may be said to be an almost contemptuous dismissal of the received text, as unworthy not only of confidence, but almost of notice" (Dabney, "The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek," Discussions Evangelical and Theological, pp. 350,52,54; this first appeared in the Southern Presbyterian Review, April 1871). Again, we would ask James White if Robert Lewis Dabney (1820-1898) was a member of a Ruckmanite cult?
> 
> Let see, should we follow Westcott, Hort, Tischendorf, etc. (critical text adherents)
> 
> OR
> 
> Our very owned Robert Lewis Dabney (a defender of our Reformed Faith that God has given us from His word).
> 
> Again, I will put it before you.
> 
> Should we read the RSV=ASV=ESV, NASB, NIV, NLT, The Messenger, CEV (you name it!)
> 
> OR
> 
> The Authorized Version/KJV?
> 
> Hmmm!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would suggest we neither follow Westcott, Hort, Tischendorf, etc or the good R.L. Dabney. Rather, Dr. Alfred Martin, from your earlier post, has the right idea:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...How many present-day students of the Greek New Testament ever heard of the two men just mentioned, and how many ever saw a copy of The Revision Revised or Codex B and Its Allies, to say nothing of actually reading these works? ... THE PRESENT GENERATION OF BIBLE STUDENTS, HAVING BEEN REARED ON WESTCOTT AND HORT, HAVE FOR THE MOST PART ACCEPTED THE THEORY WITHOUT *INDEPENDENT OR CRITICAL EXAMINATION*..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. <2Tim. 2:15>
> 
> Short of this, you are taking someone else's word for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe that it is every Christian's duty to decide for themselves which Bible most accurately represents the Word of God?
Click to expand...


No.


----------



## SolaGratia

From the scriptures we have the following:

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me (John 10:27). 


For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ (2 Corinthians 2:17).


And when this epistle is read among you, *cause that it be read *also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea (Colossians 4:16).


*I charge you by the Lord* that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren (1 Thessalonians 5:27).

According to Paul NO, but "by the Lord" within the church/es the scriptures should be cause to be read. There is no such thing as a private Christian or a Lone Ranger Christian.


----------



## Stomata leontôn

Blueridge Baptist said:


> While listening to a podcast from a familiar Baptist church last night, the speaker noted that the last 12 verses of Mark 16 are not part of the scripture and were added at a later date by an unknown indiviual. I thought to myself,how does he know that? This is the kind of criticism, in my opinion, that is destructive to peoples faith. When he said that, I stopped listening.
> Pray for me. That kind of stuff grieves my spirit.


The vast majority of manuscripts have it but the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts favored by W & H and used in Nestle-Aland do not. Thus the only English translations that keep it unbracketed are the Authorised Version and the NKJV, both based on the Textus Receptus.


----------



## CharlieJ

SolaGratia said:


> According to Paul NO, but "by the Lord" within the church/es the scriptures should be cause to be read. There is no such thing as a private Christian or a Lone Ranger Christian.



If this is true, shouldn't we all use the UBS4, since the great majority of Christians and the great majority of knowledgeable critics have accepted it?


----------



## SolaGratia

Charlie,

Why the UBS4?


----------



## CharlieJ

I'm sorry, I read "Bible" and was still thinking Greek text, since that was the topic of most of the surrounding posts.

I'm trying to understand the import of answering "NO" to KMK's question. If a Christian does not, in some sense, decide for himself which version is the best to use, how does moving the responsibility to the corporate Church help?


----------



## Stomata leontôn

How does this relate to the discussion here? 



> VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; (Matt. v. 18) so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. (Isa. viii. 20; Acts xv. 15; John v. 39, 46.) But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them (John v. 39.), therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, (Cor. xiv. 6, 9,11, 12, 24, 27, 28). that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner (Col. iii. 16.), and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.


----------



## CharlieJ

I'm not sure how much bearing that has upon the discussion. I assume the relevant phrase is "by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages." 

But, the WCF does not address where or how they were preserved. All theories of text criticism acknowledge, as I assume the WCF framers would, that not all the manuscripts are identical. So... how do we determine which are the pure?

And, once again, how is this a corporate rather than individual choice?


----------



## jaybird0827

Now that I have been convinced of both the textual argument and the received text only, the only Bible I will read is the KJV.

With all this proliferation of Bible translations, paraphrases, versions, renditions, etc., etc. it's a wonder to me that the KJV hasn't been taken from us altogether. I thank God for his providential preservation of this faithful translation and for churches that still use it.


----------



## KMK

Peter H said:


> How does this relate to the discussion here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; (Matt. v. 18) so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. (Isa. viii. 20; Acts xv. 15; John v. 39, 46.) But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them (John v. 39.), therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, (Cor. xiv. 6, 9,11, 12, 24, 27, 28). that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner (Col. iii. 16.), and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.
Click to expand...


For one thing, in order to be truly confessional, you must subscribe to the view that the TR is the Word of God because that is the 'OT' and the 'NT' to which the Divines are referring. The CT (which was known and rejected by Erasmus) is not the 'NT' to which the Divines were referring.


----------



## SolaGratia

jaybird0827 said:


> Now that I have been convinced of both the textual argument and the received text only, the only Bible I will read is the KJV.
> 
> With all this proliferation of Bible translations, paraphrases, versions, renditions, etc., etc. it's a wonder to me that the KJV hasn't been taken from us altogether. I thank God for his providential preservation of this faithful translation and for churches that still use it.



Now all you have to do its to know is strengh and weaknesses of the KJV text. Mind you, they are mostly strenghts and very few weaknesses. But once you know how to differentiate them you will learn to appreciate it and you will read it more and more. 


I usually recommend this KJV bible even though it was put together by Baptist Fundamentalist/Dispensationals, but it is a good bible to start. 

Here: Reformation Heritage Books


----------



## Galatians220

KMK said:


> Peter H said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does this relate to the discussion here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; (Matt. v. 18) so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. (Isa. viii. 20; Acts xv. 15; John v. 39, 46.) But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them (John v. 39.), therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, (Cor. xiv. 6, 9,11, 12, 24, 27, 28). that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner (Col. iii. 16.), and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For one thing, in order to be truly confessional, you must subscribe to the view that the TR is the Word of God because that is the 'OT' and the 'NT' to which the Divines are referring. The CT (which was known and rejected by Erasmus) is not the 'NT' to which the Divines were referring.
Click to expand...

 
*Thank you!* I've read that the CT was *not* unknown to the translators of the KJB, contrary to what some think. They studied it and discarded it as being non-canonical. (If I'm wrong about that, I'll stand gratefully corrected.) The "older and better manuscripts" argument flies for about five and a half seconds and then falls flat.

Manuscripts that were kept from the Reformers and from other godly men and women for almost 1,900 years, until two founding members of Britain's Ghost Guild dug 'em out of trashcans and other forgotten places in Egypt and the Vatican? God preserved His word _that way?_

No. The Westminster men had their Bible, and so do we.

Guess who it really is that wants Bible studies not to be studies of God's word and of the work of salvation that His precious Son did, but rather to consist mostly of discussions along the lines of, "the NASB says this..." and "the NIV renders the verse this way...", "but 'The Message' puts it this way...", etc., etc.? God is not the author of confusion, after all, but someone else is. Someone who should be *rebuked* at every opportunity (Jude 9).

Margaret


----------



## mossy

Margaret,
I can't believe anyone actually takes you seriously.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist

Galatians220 said:


> Manuscripts that were kept from the Reformers and from other godly men and women for almost 1,900 years, until two founding members of Britain's Ghost Guild dug 'em out of trashcans and other forgotten places in Egypt and the Vatican? God preserved His word _that way?_



The "Ghost Guild" was some stupid thing done as college students. Westcott at least quit it because it "led to no good".

And if you've read about where Tischendorf found Codex Siniaticus, he found some pages used to build a fire, yes. But the manuscript itself was in the possession of an abbot who kept it as a valued treasure.

Let's try to argue this from Scripture, not emotion. I find God has used some modern translations in a major way, and don't feel the need to be limited to just one 400 year old edition commissioned by an Anglican, anti-puritan and anti-Calvinist king. (I for one think Geneva is far superior to the KJV, but will concede the KJV is superior to many modern editions. I just don't see where not using it alone is heretical.)


----------



## JohnGill

jtate732 said:


> Galatians220 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Manuscripts that were kept from the Reformers and from other godly men and women for almost 1,900 years, until two founding members of Britain's Ghost Guild dug 'em out of trashcans and other forgotten places in Egypt and the Vatican? God preserved His word _that way?_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "Ghost Guild" was some stupid thing done as college students. Westcott at least quit it because it "led to no good".
> 
> And if you've read about where Tischendorf found Codex Siniaticus, he found some pages used to build a fire, yes. But the manuscript itself was in the possession of an abbot who kept it as a valued treasure.
> 
> Let's try to argue this from Scripture, not emotion. I find God has used some modern translations in a major way, and don't feel the need to be limited to just one 400 year old edition commissioned by an Anglican, anti-puritan and anti-Calvinist king. (I for one think Geneva is far superior to the KJV, but will concede the KJV is superior to many modern editions. I just don't see where not using it alone is heretical.)
Click to expand...


The Life and Letters of Westcott are available here: Internet Archive Search: westcott Go to the Flip Book and type in "Ghostlie Guild" to find the relevant information. They were trying to bring the light of science on it.

The Life and Letter of Hort are available here: Internet Archive Search: Fenton Hort

Theodore Letis' short and succinct refutation of Gail Riplinger is available here: Theodore P. Letis Resources

Scroll down til you see "Reviews of James R. White's The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Versions? (1994) and Gail Riplinger's New Age Versions (1993)"


----------



## JohnGill

Galatians220 said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peter H said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does this relate to the discussion here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For one thing, in order to be truly confessional, you must subscribe to the view that the TR is the Word of God because that is the 'OT' and the 'NT' to which the Divines are referring. The CT (which was known and rejected by Erasmus) is not the 'NT' to which the Divines were referring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Thank you!* I've read that the CT was *not* unknown to the translators of the KJB, contrary to what some think. They studied it and discarded it as being non-canonical. (If I'm wrong about that, I'll stand gratefully corrected.) The "older and better manuscripts" argument flies for about five and a half seconds and then falls flat.
Click to expand...


Not the critical text. It was either Vaticanus or Sinaiticus. I can't remember which right now.


----------



## Marrow Man

jtate732 said:


> And if you've read about where Tischendorf found Codex Siniaticus, he found some pages used to build a fire, yes. But the manuscript itself was in the possession of an abbot who kept it as a valued treasure.



This was an interesting link. It claims that the copies that were being burned were from the LXX, not Siniaticus. If so, this is new info to me. It's always presented that the monks were burning Siniaticus, but this does appear to be the case.

Thanks for pointing this out.


----------



## JM

Is the use of the AV a sign of "mirco-presbyterianism?"


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist

JM said:


> Is the use of the AV a sign of micro-presbyterianism?"



Some micro-churches use the AV exclusively (WPCUS, Presbyterian Reformed, Covenant Reformed PC, American PC) as a rule of unity, but I don't think they hold to anything like a David Cloud would promote, to say nothing of Ruckmanism. (The only one I know that seems adamantly for the AV and against modern translations is the Free PC of Ian Paisley.)

Others do not promote AV exclusivity; I know Joe Morecraft (RPCUS) uses the NKJV and I think has used the NIV, and I would guess the RPCGA doesn't mandate it either.

Incidentally...

I haven't read much Letis, but I'm willing to look at some of him when I have some spare time. I have leanings toward the Majority Text, but no qualms with the CT or the TR, and not enough reading of MT or TR proponents. Would have been interesting for the HCSB to go MT as it originally did. I do like how the NAS Bible includes some of the Byzantine readings.

I do have a knee-jerk reaction to AV-Only folks because the ones I have run into in person and on the internet have often been irrational, judgmental, schismatic, and base all their arguments on emotion:

"Get a real bible with thees and thous"
"God wants us to have to dig deep to understand His word, so we can't translate it today"
"God blessed the KJV for 400 years, so we shouldn't change it" (which sounds a lot like what Rome said about the Vulgate during the time of the Reformation)
"Your "bible" sends people to hell" 
"If it was good enough for Paul, it is good enough for me." (not seriously)
And so on.


----------



## JohnGill

*But Paul Did Use The AV!!!!!*



jtate732 said:


> JM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the use of the AV a sign of micro-presbyterianism?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some micro-churches use the AV exclusively (WPCUS, Presbyterian Reformed, Covenant Reformed PC, American PC) as a rule of unity, but I don't think they hold to anything like a David Cloud would promote, to say nothing of Ruckmanism. (The only one I know that seems adamantly for the AV and against modern translations is the Free PC of Ian Paisley.)
> 
> Others do not promote AV exclusivity; I know Joe Morecraft (RPCUS) uses the NKJV and I think has used the NIV, and I would guess the RPCGA doesn't mandate it either.
> 
> Incidentally...
> 
> I haven't read much Letis, but I'm willing to look at some of him when I have some spare time. I have leanings toward the Majority Text, but no qualms with the CT or the TR, and not enough reading of MT or TR proponents. Would have been interesting for the HCSB to go MT as it originally did. I do like how the NAS Bible includes some of the Byzantine readings.
> 
> I do have a knee-jerk reaction to AV-Only folks because the ones I have run into in person and on the internet have often been irrational, judgmental, schismatic, and base all their arguments on emotion:
> 
> "Get a real bible with thees and thous"
> "God wants us to have to dig deep to understand His word, so we can't translate it today"
> "God blessed the KJV for 400 years, so we shouldn't change it" (which sounds a lot like what Rome said about the Vulgate during the time of the Reformation)
> "Your "bible" sends people to hell"
> "If it was good enough for Paul, it is good enough for me." (not seriously)
> And so on.
Click to expand...


Yes, the title is a joke.

There are some good articles in support of the TR at the Trinitarian Bible Society 

Some of Letis' work is available online here: Theodore P. Letis Resources

Westcott & Hort's Introduction to the Greek New Testament is at either Google Books or archive.org. It explains their methodology of textual criticism. Eberhard Nestle's book is online at Google Books. Burgon's works are online at the same places and ccel.org. At any of the three you will be able to find H. C. Hoskier's Codex B & Its Allies, a refutation of Aleph & B, and Scrivener's A Plain Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism. John Owen's commentary on the apographa is available at godrules.net Here are the links:

http://www.godrules.net/library/owen/131-295owen_p5.htm

http://www.godrules.net/library/owen/131-295owen_p6.htm

http://www.godrules.net/library/owen/131-295owen_p7.htm

Hope this helps begin some of your research. The sources are from both sides of the issue.

BTW "Get a real bible with thees and thous"!!


----------



## KMK

jtate732 said:


> I know Joe Morecraft (RPCUS) uses the NKJV



Doesn't Joe Morecraft use NASB?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Some clarity concerning Tischendorf's discovery of Sinaiticus from his own account: Biblical Preservation #3

and: Biblical Preservation #4

the link (in the first post) to Tischendorf's entire account seems to be broken, but here's a Google cache of it: Tischendorf, Codex Sinaiticus

It was Vaticanus (B) Erasmus [and the Reformation textual editors] had access to (from friends in the Vatican), and as Westcott and Hort made this MS the primary exemplar of their "neutral" Critical Text of the Greek New Testament (Sinaiticus was right after it in priority), one can say that B is representative of the modern Critical Text -- particularly in its unique readings / omissions.

The Old Testament portion of Vaticanus, written in Greek, _is_ the main version of the LXX extant; Siniaticus as well has most of the OT in Greek, also a version of the LXX.

I take Margaret seriously; why shouldn't I?

Hello Johnathan! Welcome to PB! There are some fairly irenic and scholarly King James Bible / Textus Receptus defenders here at PB, who deal more with light than heat; here's one of them: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/what-authentic-new-testament-text-15134/

and: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/answering-alan-kurschner-aomin-24839/

Steve


----------



## Galatians220

I respectfully differ with the conclusion that I'm dealing with the subject of the CT, the TR and/or the KJV from an emotional standpoint. I don't think I've yelled and screamed on here...   I'm totally puzzled. I think I've offered only reasoned and restrained support of, actually, the TR rather than the KJV only. My Bible of preference at the moment is the 1599 Geneva, to tell the absolute truth, and it has been since I bought a "personal size" one last fall. My husband and I also own a larger, more cumbersome 1560 version.

For the record, I believe Peter Ruckman to be quite a poor excuse of a professing Christian for his denunciations of fellow Christians. I've stated that implicitly before on this board. Long ago, I was appalled by the garbage that he had on his web site and I concede nothing to him in the area of textual scholarship, acumen or expertise. 

BTW: *Why* is the charge of being "emotional" being lobbed in my direction in the first place? If my name were "Mark" rather than Margaret, I suspect that that wouldn't have been the case. (Not that I have even the slightest "feminist" sympathies in my entire person, but it _is_ kind of obvious...  ) _Whatever, dudes._ I'll make a mental note of it - not that I didn't already have a suspicion of these leanings from prior discussions; I'll keep it in mind for the future and move on.  

Peace, and *God bless all of you.* I mean that.

Margaret


----------



## KMK

Jerusalem Blade said:


> It was Vaticanus (B) Erasmus [and the Reformation textual editors] had access to (from friends in the Vatican), and as Westcott and Hort made this MS the primary exemplar of their "neutral" Critical Text of the Greek New Testament (Sinaiticus was right after it in priority), one can say that B is representative of the modern Critical Text -- particularly in its unique readings / omissions.



Thank you clarifying, Mr. Rafalsky.


----------



## Stomata leontôn

jtate732 said:


> I find God has used some modern translations in a major way, and don't feel the need to be limited to just one 400 year old edition commissioned by an Anglican, anti-puritan and anti-Calvinist king. (I for one think Geneva is far superior to the KJV, but will concede the KJV is superior to many modern editions.


The Church of England at that time was Calvinist; agreement with the Calvinist 39 Articles was required and the Calvinist Homilies were required reading in churches. James VI was actually associated with the presbyterians of Scotland especially at the beginning of his reign; his son Charles I was the Protestant king whom the Puritans beheaded and thereafter established the dictatorship of Cromwell. James VI's most famous critics were English nationalists who resented paying respects to a sovereign who hailed from Scotland and who was associated with the radical English Borderers of the Scottish lowlands (whose ancestors settled Northern Ireland) and presbyterians they viewed as pesky, although James was criticized by Puritans on the other side of the spectrum as well.


----------



## Galatians220

Peter H said:


> jtate732 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find God has used some modern translations in a major way, and don't feel the need to be limited to just one 400 year old edition commissioned by an Anglican, anti-puritan and anti-Calvinist king. (I for one think Geneva is far superior to the KJV, but will concede the KJV is superior to many modern editions.
> 
> 
> 
> The Church of England at that time was Calvinist; agreement with the Calvinist 39 Articles was required and the Calvinist Homilies were required reading in churches. James VI was actually associated with the presbyterians of Scotland especially at the beginning of his reign; Charles II was the Protestant king whom the Puritans beheaded and thereafter established the dictatorship of Cromwell. James VI's most famous critics were English nationalists who resented paying respects to a sovereign who hailed from Scotland and who was associated with the radical English Borderers of the Scottish lowlands (whose ancestors settled Northern Ireland) and presbyterians they viewed as pesky, although James was criticized by Puritans on the other side of the spectrum as well.
Click to expand...

 
Um, I think it was Charles I... Reason I know is that one of my ancestors, Capt. Daniel Axtell, was a military leader of Cromwell's Roundheads and was executed at Tyburn for his part in the execution of Charles I... 

Margaret


----------



## Blueridge Believer

KMK said:


> jtate732 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know Joe Morecraft (RPCUS) uses the NKJV
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't Joe Morecraft use NASB?
Click to expand...


I've heard Joe call the AV the "Anglican bible". I guess that makes the CT bibles "Catholic" bibles.


----------



## Stomata leontôn

Galatians220 said:


> Um, I think it was Charles I... Reason I know is that one of my ancestors, Capt. Daniel Axtell, was a military leader of Cromwell's Roundheads and was executed at Tyburn for his part in the execution of Charles I...
> 
> Margaret


Yep. You spotted that before I could fix it. Can you call it counting if I can't count past one?


----------



## LawrenceU

Peter H said:


> jtate732 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find God has used some modern translations in a major way, and don't feel the need to be limited to just one 400 year old edition commissioned by an Anglican, anti-puritan and anti-Calvinist king. (I for one think Geneva is far superior to the KJV, but will concede the KJV is superior to many modern editions.
> 
> 
> 
> The Church of England at that time was Calvinist; agreement with the Calvinist 39 Articles was required and the Calvinist Homilies were required reading in churches. James VI was actually associated with the presbyterians of Scotland especially at the beginning of his reign; his son Charles I was the Protestant king whom the Puritans beheaded and thereafter established the dictatorship of Cromwell. James VI's most famous critics were English nationalists who resented paying respects to a sovereign who hailed from Scotland and who was associated with the radical English Borderers of the Scottish lowlands (whose ancestors settled Northern Ireland) and presbyterians they viewed as pesky, although James was criticized by Puritans on the other side of the spectrum as well.
Click to expand...


That is an interesting take on the history of the period. James VI / I was an open sodomite who rejected the presbyterianism of his upbringing. While in theory Church of England was Reformed due to the 39 Articles, in practice under Archbishop Laud it was violently anti-Reformed. Many godly men were tortured and executed in Laud with his approval. Charles I was tyrannical in his treatment of Reformed Christians.


----------



## Stomata leontôn

LawrenceU said:


> That is an interesting take on the history of the period. James VI / I was an open sodomite who rejected the presbyterianism of his upbringing. While in theory Church of England was Reformed due to the 39 Articles, in practice under Archbishop Laud it was violently anti-Reformed. Many godly men were tortured and executed in Laud with his approval. Charles I was tyrannical in his treatment of Reformed Christians.



The rumors about James VI were circulated by wild papist sympathizers who disliked James VI's Calvinism and also by English nationalists who sought rebellion against a man who was the king of Scotland. The historical facts are that James VI was *married, had children,* and wrote many godly letters advising his extended family to read their Bibles, live moral lives, and study Calvinist doctrine. I have read several of them; they are almost as inspirational as those by Edward VI.

Although William Laud, a high-church Calvinist, himself was imprisoned and executed, the Calvinist Reformation in England is known for its noteworthy lack of torturing and executing men for religious beliefs which did characterize the bloody reign of the papist Mary Tudor.

Charles I, of course was himself a Reformed Christian, but implicitly weak in his faith since he married a papist. Indeed he is known for being a weak leader that did not stand up for his allies. His closest friend and strongest supporter was executed owing to this weakness, and that later led to his own execution under the secular dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell, a much stronger man.

As for the series of executions of authorities by the individualists, remember: _Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God._ (Rom. 13:1)

But this is off topic...


----------



## Stomata leontôn

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Some clarity concerning Tischendorf's discovery of Sinaiticus from his own account: Biblical Preservation #3
> 
> and: Biblical Preservation #4
> 
> the link (in the first post) to Tischendorf's entire account seems to be broken, but here's a Google cache of it: Tischendorf, Codex Sinaiticus
> 
> It was Vaticanus (B) Erasmus [and the Reformation textual editors] had access to (from friends in the Vatican), and as Westcott and Hort made this MS the primary exemplar of their "neutral" Critical Text of the Greek New Testament (Sinaiticus was right after it in priority), one can say that B is representative of the modern Critical Text -- particularly in its unique readings / omissions.
> 
> The Old Testament portion of Vaticanus, written in Greek, _is_ the main version of the LXX extant; Siniaticus as well has most of the OT in Greek, also a version of the LXX.
> 
> I take Margaret seriously; why shouldn't I?
> 
> Hello Johnathan! Welcome to PB! There are some fairly irenic and scholarly King James Bible / Textus Receptus defenders here at PB, who deal more with light than heat; here's one of them: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/what-authentic-new-testament-text-15134/
> 
> and: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/answering-alan-kurschner-aomin-24839/
> 
> Steve



That's an excellent post you link to there and worth careful studying.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist

Galatians220 said:


> BTW: *Why* is the charge of being "emotional" being lobbed in my direction in the first place? If my name were "Mark" rather than Margaret, I suspect that that wouldn't have been the case. (Not that I have even the slightest "feminist" sympathies in my entire person, but it _is_ kind of obvious...  ) _Whatever, dudes._ I'll make a mental note of it - not that I didn't already have a suspicion of these leanings from prior discussions; I'll keep it in mind for the future and move on.



Trust me Margaret, your gender has nothing to do with it. I've found far more emotional folks in the fightin' fundamentalist camp, who have Y chromosomies, wear pants, and think the only woman who should be allowed to speak on religious issues is Gail A. "God And" Riplinger.

Again, nothing against you or your gender.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist

Blueridge Baptist said:


> I've heard Joe call the AV the "Anglican bible". I guess that makes the CT bibles "Catholic" bibles.



Sure, Catholics were involved in translating their Bibles as well as liberal (RSV/REB/NRSV), but what involvement did they have in the NIV, NAS, HCSB? Whereas the High-Church Anti-Puritan King James I commissioned the AV, and many Puritans avoided it because it was "too churchly" and "prelatical." They only gave up the Geneva when Charles I outlawed its printing.


----------



## JM

Wow, this thread took off!


----------



## Stomata leontôn

jtate732 said:


> Sure, Catholics were involved in translating their Bibles as well as liberal (RSV/REB/NRSV), but what involvement did they have in the NIV, NAS, HCSB? Whereas the High-Church Anti-Puritan King James I commissioned the AV, and many Puritans avoided it because it was "too churchly" and "prelatical."


The following is from a little article by Ian Paisley who represents the whole KJV as a Puritan enterprise, EIPS - The translators of the English Authorised Version (KJV) of the Holy Bible are pre-eminent in their saintliness and scholarship. 

Below are some highlights from the article.

- January 16th, 1604, Dr John Reynolds, president of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, a Puritan, proposed the translation to the king.
- "Dr Laurence Chaderton, one of the Cambridge delegates to the Hampton Court conference. He was Fellow of Christ's College, and afterwards Master of Emanuel. Chaderton entered Christ's College in 1564 and embraced the Reformed doctrines. He had been brought up as a Roman Catholic, and his father offered him an allowance of thirty pounds if he would leave Cambridge and renounce Protestantism - "Otherwise I enclose a shilling to buy a wallet - to go and beg. "He acquired a great reputation as a Latin, Greek and Hebrew scholar and was also proficient in French, Spanish and Italian." He was a Puritan.
- Dr Thomas Ravis, accepted some high offices in the Church of England and in 1609 became Bishop of Lichfield and Archbishop of Canterbury in 1611. He was regarded as the head of the Puritans within the Church of England. 

*In other words, not only was the head of the Church of England a Puritan, but the translation of the KJV was essentially a Puritan enterprise.*

And the article is written by a Presbyterian of Northern Ireland!

-----

We need spiritual discernment to tell Puritans apart from the multitude of splinterers who were Zwinglians, anabaptists, secularists, separatists, and individualists. These sectarians made poor Calvinists. Indeed it was the Zwinglian/anabaptist sects that could not respect the lawful authorities as the Bible commands, executed a number of them who were believers and plunged England into a devastating civil war. I repeat, they were not good Calvinists.

The descendants of these Zwinglian/individualists the American South historically holds responsible for the invasion and burning of the South. It is dismaying to see some modern advocates loyal to them rather than to their own.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist

Peter H said:


> *In other words, not only was the head of the Church of England a Puritan, but the translation of the KJV was essentially a Puritan enterprise.*



King James I was head of the church of England. Where is he a Puritan? As I understand, King Jimmy said "I will make them conform or I will harry them out of the land."

Also the Millenary Petition, out of which came the King James Bible, was rejected in every other point as the Puritans tried to get Romanism out of the CofE, and the King rejected the Calvinist upbringing of his youth.

The reason King James authorized the AV Bible had nothing to do with Puritan sympathies, but with the fact that he hated the Geneva translation. He also believed in the divine right of kings, and had Knox lived into his reign he would have criticized him as harshly as he did his papist mother.

Does this state that the KJV should not be used? Of course not. It has its majesty and its flaws. King James, thankfully, did not translate it, though he did issue some less than proper requirements upon the translators. The AV is good _in spite of_ Jimmy, not because of him.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

A post somewhere above gave a link which dismissed the allegation of Westcott and Hort's involvement in the occult (on an anti-King James site), as though this were a hair-brained red herring; here is a post which provides some data to the contrary:

The Occult in the late 19th, early 20th centuries


----------



## TimV

Steve, I read through that post you linked to twice, and while I know nothing about Westcott and Hort, I don't see how you get from a group of English academics in a less sophisticated age studying clairvoyance, telepathy, spiritual manifestations etc.. to a group of warlocks bent on raising the dead. A recent thread where many of the posters on this forum expressed a belief in Bigfoot, Elves, unicorns, the Sidhe etc..made me feel a bit uncomfortable, but your judgment of W&H based on the information you provide


> It should be clear that these men were not Christians, although they were baptized when infants in the Church of England. These were worldly men, unregenerate


seems a bit narrow.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hi Tim,

There's more data concerning them. A closer examination of these men’s minds:


First we will look at some further beliefs and statements of W&H, to get an idea of the hearts and minds of these men. It was important to them that the things they believed and did were kept secret, as they well knew they were at odds with orthodox Christian faith, even in the ailing Anglican Church. In a letter to Westcott, in April of 1861, while they were unofficially[1] working on their revision of the Greek text, Hort wrote,

Also—but this may be cowardice—I have a sort of craving that our text should be cast upon the world before we deal with matters likely to brand us with suspicion. I mean, a text, issued by men already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy, will have great difficulties in finding its way to regions which it might otherwise hope to reach, and whence it would not easily be banished by subsequent alarms.[2]​
Hort was worldly-wise in this, for it was not until dogged research by scholars in the 20th century unearthed their “dangerous heresy”[3] (though “damnable” be a more apt description) in _many_ areas, that we have learned things about them their contemporaries were unaware of. In a letter to Lightfoot in May of 1860, concerning a proposed commentary they would write with Westcott on the New Testament, Hort said,

Depend on it, whatever either you or I may say in an extended commentary, if only we speak our mind, we shall not be able to avoid giving grave offence to…the miscalled orthodoxy of the day.[4]​
He was surely right in this! He was not a believer, and it was easily apparent in his views! Remember, both he and Lightfoot were involved in spiritualism (along with Westcott and Benson), and although having respect to the COE and its traditions, the group of them were but secular classicists highly trained in classical Greek. They approached the New Testament Scriptures as they did any other Greek classics, with worldly, rationalist presuppositions and critical methods. In other words, their spiritualism was not their only heresy.

In answer to an Oxford undergraduate’s questions (in 1886) about the COE’s Thirty Nine Articles of Faith, with regard to Article IX (concerning the doctrine of Original Sin), Hort answered thus,

The authors of the Article doubtless assumed the strictly historical character of the account of the Fall in Genesis. This assumption is now, in my belief, no longer reasonable.[5]​
One might understand why he would think this way from his view of Darwin’s _Origin of Species_. In a letter to Westcott (1860) he says,

…Have you read Darwin?…In spite of difficulties, I am inclined to think it unanswerable. In any case it is a treat to read such a book.”[6]​
To his friend John Ellerton, he wrote (in 1860),

But _the_ book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with…at present my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable[7] (emphasis his).​
We see Westcott was of the same mind:

No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history—I never could understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did…[8]​
The implications of these views are immense. If the Book of Genesis is not true history, then it is either error, or allegory masquerading as history. If Genesis is not true history, Jesus was in error asserting the historicity of Adam and Eve[9], and Paul likewise in error in Romans and 1 Corinthians. If there was no actual fall of an actual Adam and Eve, the atonement of Christ was but a meaningless fiction. The Book of Genesis is foundational for all of God’s revelation concerning salvation. But such supposed errors were in accord with W&H’s view of the _errancy_ of Scripture.

In the event someone says, but this is _argumentum ad hominem_ (criticism of an opponent’s character or motives, rather than of the person’s argument or beliefs), a person’s character and motives will certainly bear on their spiritual views, and hence on their doctrines and related textual matters. As the Lord Jesus said, “…a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” (Matthew 7:17, 18) Their _beliefs_ will of course impact their doctrines.

Footnotes:
They did not receive their official appointment to revise the New Testament – not the Greek text, but make minor revisions in the English text – until 1871.
2 _Life of Hort_, Vol. I, page 445.
3 2 Peter 2:1 more accurately classifies theirs as “damnable heresies” – there being a distinction between the two types.
4 _Life of Hort_, Vol. I, page 421.
5 Ibid., Vol. II, page 329.
6 Ibid., Vol. I, page 414.
7 Ibid., page 416.
8 _Life of Westcott_, Vol. II, page 69.
9 Matthew 19:4-6​
----------

To be fair, Ted Letis was of the view that Westcott, if not Hort, was a genuine believer, and just caught up in the thinking of the day. He didn’t convince me, though.

Here's yet more of data regarding these men:

It was the scandal of England at the time that the openly Arian, Unitarian pastor Dr. Vance Smith was on the Revision Committee. When he was told by the Church of England he must resign his position Westcott threatened to resign himself if Smith was forced to leave.[1] Vance Smith caused an uproar when he attended a Communion Service and refused to say the Nicene Creed (affirming that Christ is God), although Hort loved it! He says,

…that marvelous Communion…It is, one can hardly doubt, the beginning of a new period in Church history. So far the angry objectors have reason for their astonishment. But it is strange that they should not ask themselves…what is really lost…by the union, for once, of all English Christians around the altar of the Church…[2]​
For the unregenerate Hort the Christ-denying Unitarian was a true “English Christian,” part of the good-ol’-boys’ religious club of academics and intellectuals who wear the frock, and not to be denied either the Lord’s Supper or a place in determining genuine Scripture. When Hort said, “So far the angry objectors have reason for their astonishment,” he wasn’t referring only to the Communion service, but to the results of the Unitarian on the Committee for Revision. There were many small but highly significant changes to the text they would eventually be publishing. Regarding the Revision, he said, “It is quite impossible to judge of the value of what appear to be trifling alterations merely by reading them one after another. Taken together, they have often important bearing which few would think of at first…the difference between a picture say of Raffaelle and a feeble copy of it is made up of a number of trivial differences.”[3]

One of these highly significant changes – “trifling alterations” Hort would say, perhaps – was the unwarranted deletion of the word “God” in the text of 1 Timothy 3:16, where the Scripture in speaking of Jesus talks of “the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh”. The Revisers replaced it with “who”. The Unitarian Dr. Smith later wrote,

The old reading is pronounced untenable by the Revisers, as it has long been known to be by all careful students of the New Testament…It is in truth another example of the facility with which ancient copiers could introduce the word God into their manuscripts,—a reading which was the natural result of the growing tendency in early Christian times…to look upon the humble Teacher as the incarnate Word, and therefore as “God manifested in the flesh”.[4]…It has been frequently said that the changes of translation…are of little importance from a doctrinal point of view…[A]ny such statement [is]…contrary to the facts.[5]

The only instance in the N.T. in which the religious worship or adoration of Christ was apparently implied, has been altered by the Revision: ‘At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow,’ [Philippians 2:10] is now to be read ‘in the name.’ Moreover, *no alteration of text or of translation will be found anywhere to make up for this loss; as indeed it is well understood that the N.T. contains neither precept nor example which really sanctions the religious worship of Jesus Christ.*[6] [Emphasis added]​
A.G. Hobbs, in his Forward to the reprint of Burgon’s _The Revision Revised_, wrote,

Here is a real shocker: Dean Stanley, Westcott, Hort, and Bishop Thirwall all refused to serve if Smith were dismissed [in the face of the public outcry at his presence on the Revision Committee]. Let us remember that the Bible teaches that those who uphold and bid a false teacher God speed are equally guilty. ‘For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds’ (2 John 9-11). No wonder that the Deity of Christ is played down in so many passages.[7]​
Does it not make sense what was happening? Unregenerate men had infiltrated the church, and not only the church, but the inner precincts of scholarship and textual reproduction. The enemy had taken the inner stronghold, and put unholy hands on the written Word of God, to alter it.

Footnotes

_Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott_, by his son Arthur Westcott (Macmillan, London, 1903) Reprint by the Bible for Today. Volume I, page 394.
2 _Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort_, by his son, Arthur Fenton Hort (Macmillan, London, 1896) Reprint by the Bible for Today. Volume II, page 139.
3 Ibid.
4 _Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament Affecting Theological Doctrine Briefly Reviewed_, by Dr. Vance Smith (London: 1881), pages 39, 47. Cited in _Revision Revised_, by Burgon, pages 515, 513.
5 Ibid., page 45. 
6 _Texts and Margins_, Smith, page 47. Cited in, _For Love of the Bible: The Battle for the King James Version and the Received Text from 1800 to Present_, by David W. Cloud (WA: Way of Life Literature, 1997), page 31.
7 _The Revision Revised_, by John William Burgon (Centennial Edition, Fifth printing, 1991), Forward [no page #]. See also, _Life of Westcott_, Vol I, page 394.​


----------



## TimV

Steve, I appreciate the information. I do think I have an open mind on the subject, but the information in the above post, except for your statement that Westcott held an unnamed heresey which sent him to Hell if he didn't repent of it, was that he didn't believe in the literal account of Creation.

I personally don't know how anyone could deny Genesis 1-3 as real history, but there are good people, including here on this board, who disagree with me. I think it dangerous, and that it sets a bad precedent etc...but just as an interest in paranormal activities doesn't equal a bunch of warlocks raising the dead, a belief that the early parts of Genesis are metaphorical doesn't automatically send them to Hell.


----------



## JohnGill

TimV said:


> Steve, I read through that post you linked to twice, and while I know nothing about Westcott and Hort, I don't see how you get from a group of English academics in a less sophisticated age studying clairvoyance, telepathy, spiritual manifestations etc.. to a group of warlocks bent on raising the dead. A recent thread where many of the posters on this forum expressed a belief in Bigfoot, Elves, *unicorns*, the Sidhe etc..made me feel a bit uncomfortable, but your judgment of W&H based on the information you provide
> 
> 
> 
> It should be clear that these men were not Christians, although they were baptized when infants in the Church of England. These were worldly men, unregenerate
> 
> 
> 
> seems a bit narrow.
Click to expand...


You don't believe in unicorns? Or as the Septuagint translators called it, the monokeros? A unicorn photograph. 

I think Steve's point comes from Jesus' statement in John 5:45-47

Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is [one] that accuseth you, [even] Moses, in whom ye trust.
For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
But if *ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words*?

If I remember correctly, Westcott held to the higher criticism theory which doubted the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch along with doubting the authenticity of the Mosaic account. That would put in him conflict with Jesus' statement as he did not believe Moses' words.


----------



## Galatians220

*TELLING QUOTATIONS FROM WESTCOTT AND HORT*
*Concerning the Deity of Christ:*​"*He never speaks of Himself directly as God*, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him." (Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297). 

"(John) does not expressly affirm the identification of* the Word with Jesus Christ*." (Westcott, Ibid., p. 16). ​_*Concerning the Scriptures:*_​"I reject the *infallibility* of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207). 

"Our Bible as well as our Faith is a *mere compromise*." (Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p. vii). 

"Evangelicals seem to me *perverted*. . .There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, *especially the authority of the Bible*." (Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.400) ​*Concerning Hell:*​"(Hell is) *not the place of punishment of the guilty*, (it is) the common abode of departed spirits. (Westcott, Historic Faith, pp.77-78). 
"We have *no sure knowledge of future punishment*, and the word eternal has a far higher meaning." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p.149). ​_*C*_*oncerning Creation:*​"No one now, I suppose, holds that the *first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history*. I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did." (Westcott, cited from Which Bible?, p. 191). 
"But the book which has most engaged me is *Darwin*. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with..... *My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable*." (Hort, cited from Which Bible?, p. 189) 
_*C*_*oncerning the Atonement:*​"I think I mentioned to you before Campbell's book on the Atonement, which is invaluable as far as it goes; *but unluckily he knows nothing except Protestant theology*." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 322)
"The popular *doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit*...nothing can be more *unscriptural than the the limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death*; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost *universal heresy*." (Hort to Westcott, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 430)
"I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a *ransom paid to Satan*. I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable;* anything is better than the doctrine of a ransom to the father*." (Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter 1:1-2:17, p. 77). 
*Co**ncerning Man:*​"It is of course true that we can only know God through human forms, but then I think the whole Bible echoes the language of Genesis 1:27 and so assures us that *human forms are divine forms*." (Hort to Westcott, August 14, 1860)
"Protestants (must) unlearn the *crazy horror of the idea of Priesthood*." (Hort, Life and Letters, Volume II, pp. 49-51)
*Concerning Roman Catholicism:*​"I wish I could see to what forgotten truth *Mariolatry *(the worship of the Virgin Mary) bears witness." (Westcott, Ibid. ) 
"I have been persuaded for many years that *Mary-Worship and Jesus-Worship have very much in common*." (Hort, Life and Letters, Volume II, pp. 49-51)
"The pure *Romanish view seems to be nearer*, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 77) 
"I agree with you in thinking it a pity that Maurice verbally repudiates purgatory . . . *the idea of purgation, cleansing by fire, seems to me inseparable from what the Bible teaches us of the Divine chastisements*." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. II, pp. 336,337)
*Concerning the Cumulative Effect of Multiple Changes to the Manuscripts:*​"It is quite impossible to judge the value of what appear to be *trifling alterations* merely by reading them one after another. Taken together, they have often important bearings which few would think of at first. . . *The difference between a picture, say of Raffaelle, and a feeble copy of it is made up of a number of trivial differences*. . . We have successfully resisted being warned off dangerous ground, where the needs of revision required that it should not be shirked. . . It is, one can hardly doubt, the beginning of a new period in Church history. So far the angry objectors have reason for their astonishment." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol.I, pp. 138,139)


----------



## JohnGill

For those who want read in the writings of Westcott & Hort for themselves, Google Books and archive.org carry all their books listed.

The Gospel According to St. John by Westcott

A general survey of the history of the canon of the New Testament (1896) (not page vii, but on the Preface's first page; use the flipbook option.)

Historic Faith by Westcott

Life and Letters of B. F. Westcott Volume 1

Life and Letters of B. F. Westcott Volume 2

The First Epistle of St. Peter by Hort

Life and Letters of F. J. A. Hort Volume 1

Life and Letters of F. J. A. Hort Volume 2

The New Testament in the original Greek (1881) (Starting on page 541 begins their "Introduction" in which they outline their subjective methodology for determining the "true text" of scripture. Use the flip book option.)

There are other of their writings available from the two sites beyond these listed.


----------



## Grymir

Galatians220 said:


> *TELLING QUOTATIONS FROM WESTCOTT AND HORT*
> *Concerning the Deity of Christ:*​"*He never speaks of Himself directly as God*, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him." (Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297).
> 
> "(John) does not expressly affirm the identification of* the Word with Jesus Christ*." (Westcott, Ibid., p. 16). ​_*Concerning the Scriptures:*_​"I reject the *infallibility* of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).
> 
> "Our Bible as well as our Faith is a *mere compromise*." (Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p. vii).
> 
> "Evangelicals seem to me *perverted*. . .There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, *especially the authority of the Bible*." (Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.400) ​*Concerning Hell:*​"(Hell is) *not the place of punishment of the guilty*, (it is) the common abode of departed spirits. (Westcott, Historic Faith, pp.77-78).
> "We have *no sure knowledge of future punishment*, and the word eternal has a far higher meaning." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p.149). ​_*C*_*oncerning Creation:*​"No one now, I suppose, holds that the *first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history*. I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did." (Westcott, cited from Which Bible?, p. 191).
> "But the book which has most engaged me is *Darwin*. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with..... *My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable*." (Hort, cited from Which Bible?, p. 189)
> _*C*_*oncerning the Atonement:*​"I think I mentioned to you before Campbell's book on the Atonement, which is invaluable as far as it goes; *but unluckily he knows nothing except Protestant theology*." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 322)
> "The popular *doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit*...nothing can be more *unscriptural than the the limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death*; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost *universal heresy*." (Hort to Westcott, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 430)
> "I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a *ransom paid to Satan*. I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable;* anything is better than the doctrine of a ransom to the father*." (Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter 1:1-2:17, p. 77).
> *Co**ncerning Man:*​"It is of course true that we can only know God through human forms, but then I think the whole Bible echoes the language of Genesis 1:27 and so assures us that *human forms are divine forms*." (Hort to Westcott, August 14, 1860)
> "Protestants (must) unlearn the *crazy horror of the idea of Priesthood*." (Hort, Life and Letters, Volume II, pp. 49-51)
> *Concerning Roman Catholicism:*​"I wish I could see to what forgotten truth *Mariolatry *(the worship of the Virgin Mary) bears witness." (Westcott, Ibid. )
> "I have been persuaded for many years that *Mary-Worship and Jesus-Worship have very much in common*." (Hort, Life and Letters, Volume II, pp. 49-51)
> "The pure *Romanish view seems to be nearer*, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 77)
> "I agree with you in thinking it a pity that Maurice verbally repudiates purgatory . . . *the idea of purgation, cleansing by fire, seems to me inseparable from what the Bible teaches us of the Divine chastisements*." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. II, pp. 336,337)
> *Concerning the Cumulative Effect of Multiple Changes to the Manuscripts:*​"It is quite impossible to judge the value of what appear to be *trifling alterations* merely by reading them one after another. Taken together, they have often important bearings which few would think of at first. . . *The difference between a picture, say of Raffaelle, and a feeble copy of it is made up of a number of trivial differences*. . . We have successfully resisted being warned off dangerous ground, where the needs of revision required that it should not be shirked. . . It is, one can hardly doubt, the beginning of a new period in Church history. So far the angry objectors have reason for their astonishment." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol.I, pp. 138,139)



Well, I guess that settles that issue! Wow. I love my King Jimmy!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Grace Alone

I find the quotes about W & H posted by Margaret to be very disturbing. Not having been to seminary, I have to trust more knowledgable, godly men on certain subjects as which Bible translation to use. I have read that there are translations that are MORE accurate than KJV because they are based on older manuscripts. They conclude that KJV had extra passages that were added since fewer manuscripts have the passages in question.

So who do you believe????

Let's say those godly men just don't know this about W&H and the fact that those earlier manuscripts WERE known and rejected early on. And let's say that the KJV is a more trustworthy translation. It still remains that I cannot simply read that translation and understand it as well as a more modern translation. I am not clear on whether the NKJV is really based on the same manuscripts as the KJV or not. I am fine with reading the NKJV, but if it is the same as the ESV, then I guess there is no reason to read it.

If the KJV is the only version based on the right manuscripts, then why doesn't someone update the language so it can be read in today's English? Or does the NKJV meet this need?

I really get a headache over this stuff. You really in your heart want to go to the most faithful church and read the scripture that is most faithfully translated in your own language. But the fact that very respected men differ over the translation question makes it almost impossible for people like me to know what to do.


----------



## JohnGill

Grace Alone said:


> I find the quotes about W & H posted by Margaret to be very disturbing. Not having been to seminary, I have to trust more knowledgable, godly men on certain subjects as which Bible translation to use. I have read that there are translations that are MORE accurate than KJV because they are based on older manuscripts. They conclude that KJV had extra passages that were added since fewer manuscripts have the passages in question.
> 
> So who do you believe????
> 
> Let's say those godly men just don't know this about W&H and the fact that those earlier manuscripts WERE known and rejected early on. And let's say that the KJV is a more trustworthy translation. It still remains that I cannot simply read that translation and understand it as well as a more modern translation. I am not clear on whether the NKJV is really based on the same manuscripts as the KJV or not. I am fine with reading the NKJV, but if it is the same as the ESV, then I guess there is no reason to read it.
> 
> If the KJV is the only version based on the right manuscripts, then why doesn't someone update the language so it can be read in today's English? Or does the NKJV meet this need?
> 
> I really get a headache over this stuff. You really in your heart want to go to the most faithful church and read the scripture that is most faithfully translated in your own language. But the fact that very respected men differ over the translation question makes it almost impossible for people like me to know what to do.



Why do you think the KJV is hard to read?


----------



## mossy

"He never speaks of Himself directly as God, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him." (Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297). 

If anyone will go to the link provided and read this actual page it will be obvious that the author is not saying that Christ is not God, in fact the sentence preceding the one quoted proves just that. This is so typical of the Gail Riplinger, Texe Marrs method of ripping short quotes out of their context to make it sound like the author is saying the opposite of what they are actually saying. 
If KJVO people want to be taken seriously, they should use better sources for their arguments. 

terry


----------



## Jared

I don't want to be disrespectful towards anyone who prefers the KJV. But, isn't it kind of unreformed to keep using the King James when it's language is archaic? What I mean is, the reformers wanted to put the word of God in the speech of everyday people. The King James is anything but the speech of the common American, Brit, Australian, or South African. Am I missing something?

BTW: I do believe that we should try to find translations that are faithful to the original text. I'm not advocating that we trade in King James for The Message as our preaching and devotional Bible. What I am saying is that I think the Bible needs to be in a dialect of English that is closer to the speech of the average person.


----------



## swilson

Some of the KJV Only arguments actually would support more solidly a Geneva Only arguement.


----------



## JohnGill

Jared104 said:


> I don't want to be disrespectful towards anyone who prefers the KJV. But, isn't it kind of unreformed to keep using the King James when it's language is archaic? *What I mean is, the reformers wanted to put the word of God in the speech of everyday people*. The King James is anything but the speech of the common American, Brit, Australian, or South African. Am I missing something?
> 
> BTW: I do believe that we should try to find translations that are faithful to the original text. I'm not advocating that we trade in King James for The Message as our preaching and devotional Bible. What I am saying is that I think the Bible needs to be in a dialect of English that is closer to the speech of the average person.



The language of the AV was not the language of the common man when it was translated. The language was archaic in 1611. The idea of putting the sacred scriptures in common everyday language is misguided. You can't put Hebrew idioms into everyday language. You most definitely cannot put the writings of Paul into everyday language. Unless you don't mind having someone's interpretation instead of an actual translation.

It was either Harvard or Oxford that commented on the various English translations. They found as the English translations became more like common speech, they drifted further away from the original languages. 

There is another problem with putting God's word in common everyday language. Read Luke 22:31,32 in any modern version without referring to any margin notes or footnotes or any other resources and answer this, To whom was Jesus speaking in verses 31 & 32? And how do you know?

Then read it in either the Geneva or Authorized Version. The ambiguity is removed. Any translation of scripture must have that specificity for it to be useful for an English reader.

Of course I would like the AV to change Easter to Passover as most people today now know that passover can refer to the whole season. I would also like 'unicorn(s)' replaced with the margin note rhinoceros, and some other changes. But the so-called archaic language should not be touched. Propitiation should never be removed from scripture just because it's 'archaic.'


----------



## JohnGill

mossy said:


> "He never speaks of Himself directly as God, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him." (Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297).
> 
> If anyone will go to the link provided and read this actual page it will be obvious that the author is not saying that Christ is not God, in fact the sentence preceding the one quoted proves just that. This is so typical of the Gail Riplinger, Texe Marrs method of ripping short quotes out of their context to make it sound like the author is saying the opposite of what they are actually saying.
> If KJVO people want to be taken seriously, they should use better sources for their arguments.
> 
> terry



To further demonstrate the problem you pointed out I would recommend buying "Heresies of Westcott & Hort" by D. A. Waite. All of the references to their writings are available online at the links listed above. I did it myself a few months back, but only managed to get through half of Waite's book. Too many ad hominem arguments. If you don't want to buy the book, sermon audio has 4.5 hours of his radio rants that covers the same material as the book. (Remember, that is 4.5 hours you will never get back. I threw away my study on it because I was so disgusted with Waite's continual ad hominem attacks.)

Either way, Waite over exaggerates, rips out of context, or judges as heresy what Reformed folk call Bible doctrine. Westcott & Hort were definitely wrong on certain doctrines, but to read Waite you'd think they were Satan's begotten children. Personally I don't consider Westcott & Hort orthodox. Having gone through half of Waite's book and reading W/H in context, they were not orthodox in their beliefs.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Terry, I'm having trouble reading "The Gospel According to St. John by Westcott" at that Google link -- all I get is a "snippet" of the page -- any suggestions?

Thanks, Steve


----------



## JohnGill

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Terry, I'm having trouble reading "The Gospel According to St. John by Westcott" at that Google link -- all I get is a "snippet" of the page -- any suggestions?
> 
> Thanks, Steve



The Gospel According to St. John ... - Google Book Search

It's linked to the page in question. The sentence in question occurs above the footnote to verse 29. 

Here's the link to chapter 5 which is referenced in the footnote.

The Gospel According to St. John ... - Google Book Search

I think his footnote on verse 28 was just referring to verse 28 and nothing more. He refers back to chapter 5 in regards to Jesus stating that he is God.


----------



## Grace Alone

JohnGill said:


> The language of the AV was not the language of the common man when it was translated. The language was archaic in 1611. The idea of putting the sacred scriptures in common everyday language is misguided. You can't put Hebrew idioms into everyday language. You most definitely cannot put the writings of Paul into everyday language. Unless you don't mind having someone's interpretation instead of an actual translation.
> 
> It was either Harvard or Oxford that commented on the various English translations. They found as the English translations became more like common speech, they drifted further away from the original languages.
> 
> There is another problem with putting God's word in common everyday language. Read Luke 22:31,32 in any modern version without referring to any margin notes or footnotes or any other resources and answer this, To whom was Jesus speaking in verses 31 & 32? And how do you know?
> 
> Then read it in either the Geneva or Authorized Version. The ambiguity is removed. Any translation of scripture must have that specificity for it to be useful for an English reader.
> 
> Of course I would like the AV to change Easter to Passover as most people today now know that passover can refer to the whole season. I would also like 'unicorn(s)' replaced with the margin note rhinoceros, and some other changes. But the so-called archaic language should not be touched. Propitiation should never be removed from scripture just because it's 'archaic.'



I don't really consider that the ESV uses common language we hear on the street. I think is uses a more literary language. Yet it uses words that can be understood by an educated person of today.

Okay, here are the Luke 22:31-32 verses:

KJV:

31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 

32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.


ESV:

31 "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers."

I don't get it. They seem to say the same thing to me.

Janis


----------



## Grymir

JohnGill said:


> Jerusalem Blade said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terry, I'm having trouble reading "The Gospel According to St. John by Westcott" at that Google link -- all I get is a "snippet" of the page -- any suggestions?
> 
> Thanks, Steve
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Gospel According to St. John ... - Google Book Search
> 
> It's linked to the page in question. The sentence in question occurs above the footnote to verse 29.
> 
> Here's the link to chapter 5 which is referenced in the footnote.
> 
> The Gospel According to St. John ... - Google Book Search
> 
> I think his footnote on verse 28 was just referring to verse 28 and nothing more. He refers back to chapter 5 in regards to Jesus stating that he is God.
Click to expand...



Yikes!! After reading the above footnotes, they are even more revealing than the original quote. People can't say they were taken out of context, and his epistemological bias and naturalistic framework come through!


----------



## Grace Alone

ESV:

Romans 3:25
whom God put forward as a *propitiation* by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.


Hebrews 2:17
Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make *propitiation* for the sins of the people.

1 John 2:2
He is the *propitiation *for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 4:10
In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the *propitiation* for our sins.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist

A few points

1) How many CT guys totally follow Westcott and Hort in every thing they teach? For the sake of argument, isn't it possible these guys stumbled onto something right, despite their other issues?

2) What modern translations throw out the deity of Christ (we're not talking of the JW or liberal nonsense)? Most of them are far more clear than King James is that Jesus is truly God.

3) The excellence of (some) modern editions should not be ignored due to problems with the translators. (In fact Westcott and Hort didn't translate any of the modern Bibles!) The NIV, NAS, ESV, and other translators are committed to inerrancy. At the same time, the excellence of the Authorized Version should not be discounted due to the fact that King Jimmy was a "divine right" tyrant, crypto-papist, and would be the first to persecute most of us on this board for "nonconformity" (Hello Baptists, Presbyterians, Nondenoms, even Reformed Anglicans!).

4) What about the NKJV? It is fairly literary. Or the World English Bible, which uses the Majority Text?

5) And I would definitely support a Geneva-Preference over an AV-Preference.


----------



## Jared

> Of course I would like the AV to change Easter to Passover as most people today now know that passover can refer to the whole season. I would also like 'unicorn(s)' replaced with the margin note rhinoceros, and some other changes. But the so-called archaic language should not be touched. Propitiation should never be removed from scripture just because it's 'archaic.'



I wasn't trying to say that they should remove words like propitiation. The ESV is a modern translation and it retains important theological terms like propitiation and justification.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Thanks, Chris, but I still couldn't get to it (on either Safari or Firefox), so I found a site where one can download W & H's works in PDF or Word: Westcott and Hort Resource Centre - Bookshelf

To be fair, Terry has a point. The statement, "He never speaks of Himself directly as God, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him" (Westcott, _The Gospel According to St. John_, p. 297) is not damning of itself, though incorrect. Westcott was a learned man, and he knew the Scriptures. In other places, such as his commentary on John 1:1, his remarks are orthodox. W's statement pertains to Jesus referring to Himself "directly as God", not Messiah or Son of God. I think this is in error due to Jesus' "I am" statement in John 5:58, or where He says in John 10:30, "I and my Father are one." The Jews well understood that Jesus' words signified He was indeed Jehovah God (see v. 33). Westcott means to say, I believe, Jesus didn't use the words "I am God." 

This, however, was not given to Him to say by the Father at that point, as His revelation of His Nature was progressive, due to the dullness and inability of the disciples to receive it. After His resurrection and ascension things changed. Inspired by the Spirit of Christ the apostles make numerous direct statements as to the full deity of Jesus -- and this was the Lord speaking through them.

Janis, I feel for you in your being disturbed to the point of having a headache over this stuff! It is a shame we are put in a predicament like this, but Pandora's box having been opened we must contain the destruction unleashed.

The NKJV is not too bad (it has some serious problems, though they're mild compared to the other modern versions based on the Critical Text). The Modern King James Version, by Jay P. Green, is an alternative. The pew Bible of my church is NKJV, as I had a choice between that and the ESV by the planting church which provided our Bibles.

My wife uses the NIV and she is a godly woman who loves the Word of God. She is aware of my position (she sits under my sermons where I bring this up occasionally -- and I see her using the KJV at times), but I do not lord it over her in this matter, and give her her space to make her own decision. I am delighted at her love of the Scriptures. One of my favorite preachers, Tim Keller, uses the NIV and the ESV (though he refers to other versions as well as the Greek and Hebrew texts), and he is a godly man.

Jakob van Bruggen, in his classic, _The Ancient Text of the New Testament_, discusses the situation vis-a-vis modern textual criticism. The opening section, "The Last Certainty of New Testament Textual Criticism", might clarify things for you somewhat.

This is something you're going to have to study and come to your own conclusions concerning. There's no going back to the simpler days when there was a universal text for the English-speaking church. If I would have to recommend only one book to you, it would be Dr. Thomas Holland's, _Crowned With Glory: The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version_. (I see the basic core of it is now online at his site: Dr. Thomas Holland's Home Page.) But I much prefer the hard copy, as it has appendices, an intro plus other stuff not in the online version. Highly recommended!

This is an issue pertaining to the _minutiae_ of the Bible being providentially preserved by God. The modern versions have the Scripture _adequately_ preserved, so that souls may be saved, sanctified, and equipped for the spiritual life, and that churches may be organized and sustained. It is an issue of the minute details of Biblical preservation. There are godly and intelligent men and women who use the modern versions.

In my church, where most of the folks speak English as a second language, I feel for their difficulty comprehending even simple English, not to mention the King James English. I often read the Scripture portions from the NKJV, primarily because that is the pew Bible many are following me with. Though I usually preach from the KJV. Slowly they are learning to understand the King James English.

It was Jakob van Bruggen in his book on translation techniques, _The Future of the Bible_, who made the point that the KJV's English captured the cadence and structure of both the Hebrew and Greek in a way other more modern versions did not. E.F. Hills remarked,

The English of the King James Version is not the English of the early 17th century. To be exact, it is not a type of English that was ever spoken anywhere. It is biblical English, which was not used on ordinary occasions even by the translators who produced the King James Version. As H. Wheeler Robinson (1940) pointed out, one need only compare the preface written by the translators with the text of their translation to feel the difference in style. And the observations of W.A. Irwin (1952) are to the same purport. The King James Version, he reminds us, owes its merit, not to 17th-century English - which was very difficult - but to its faithful translation of the original. Its style is that of the Hebrew and of the New Testament Greek. Even in their use of thee and thou the translators were not following 17th-century English usage but biblical usage, for at the time these translators were doing their work these singular forms had already been replaced by the plural you in polite conversation. (_The King James Version Defended_, Des Moines: Christian Research Press, 1984, pp. 218)​
So please, relax over this issue, and when you have time study it. It is a wholesome endeavor, and will bear fruit. In this day of increasing apostasy, it will serve us well to know that the Bibles we use are reliable. We study other doctrines, so we also ought to study the doctrines of Scripture, its inspiration and preservation.

Chris, I'm not as down on Dr. D.A. Waite as you. Yes, he gets carried away sometimes, but he is a good scholar. He is just very upset at what Westcott and Hort have done. He has read through the W&H books, and the memoirs of their sons, thoroughly. He has made available multitudes of out-of-print books on the topic of King James defense. Even though he makes minor mistakes at times, I am not offended in him.


----------



## JohnGill

Grace Alone said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> The language of the AV was not the language of the common man when it was translated. The language was archaic in 1611. The idea of putting the sacred scriptures in common everyday language is misguided. You can't put Hebrew idioms into everyday language. You most definitely cannot put the writings of Paul into everyday language. Unless you don't mind having someone's interpretation instead of an actual translation.
> 
> It was either Harvard or Oxford that commented on the various English translations. They found as the English translations became more like common speech, they drifted further away from the original languages.
> 
> There is another problem with putting God's word in common everyday language. Read Luke 22:31,32 in any modern version without referring to any margin notes or footnotes or any other resources and answer this, To whom was Jesus speaking in verses 31 & 32? And how do you know?
> 
> Then read it in either the Geneva or Authorized Version. The ambiguity is removed. Any translation of scripture must have that specificity for it to be useful for an English reader.
> 
> Of course I would like the AV to change Easter to Passover as most people today now know that passover can refer to the whole season. I would also like 'unicorn(s)' replaced with the margin note rhinoceros, and some other changes. But the so-called archaic language should not be touched. Propitiation should never be removed from scripture just because it's 'archaic.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really consider that the ESV uses common language we hear on the street. I think is uses a more literary language. Yet it uses words that can be understood by an educated person of today.
> 
> Okay, here are the Luke 22:31-32 verses:
> 
> KJV:
> 
> 31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
> 
> 32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
> 
> 
> ESV:
> 
> 31 "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers."
> 
> I don't get it. They seem to say the same thing to me.
> 
> Janis
Click to expand...


They're saying two different things. In verse 31 he is addressing Peter first and then the disciples. The AV reading makes this clear by distinguishing between the 2nd person singular and the 2nd person plural with its usage of the thou/you distinction. In verse 32 he is only addressing Peter. You cannot derive this information from the ESV.

In verse 31 we read, And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have *you*, that he may sift *you* as wheat:

The two "you"s refer to the disciples as a whole.

But in verse 32 we read, But I have prayed for *thee*, that *thy* faith fail not: and when *thou* art converted, strengthen *thy* brethren.

Thee/thy/thou are all referring to Peter. Modern versions remove the distinction between the singular and plural pronouns.

Here is a link to an article from the Trinitarian Bible Society dealing with more examples of thou/you distinction and some other problem areas in the ESV as a whole.

http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/A120.pdf


----------



## Grace Alone

Well, Chris, I'll have to say that the translation didn't matter a single bit...because I thought they said the same thing in both versions! Maybe I need a child's version!

However, I just looked up the passage in my Reformation Study Bible (ESV) and it explains that "you" is plural. So it seems that I may get greatest understanding by using my ESV with the notes.


----------



## JohnGill

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Chris, I'm not as down on Dr. D.A. Waite as you. Yes, he gets carried away sometimes, but he is a good scholar. He is just very upset at what Westcott and Hort have done. He has read through the W&H books, and the memoirs of their sons, thoroughly. He has made available multitudes of out-of-print books on the topic of King James defense. Even though he makes minor mistakes at times, I am not offended in him.



I am merely aggravated at his pushing of the ad hominem as if it proved his case. He has done the same thing to Letis' The Ecclesiastical Text. I have some of his books and have bought my Burgon books from him. And I have bought Scrivener's Introduction and Hoskeir's Codex B from him as well. I just find myself saying to the mp3 player, "Who cares about that! Deal with what he said!" His arguments would also have more weight if he didn't condemn as heresy Reformed Doctrine. I enjoyed his Fourfold Defense of the KJV and some of his other books. Some of the best first person resources for AV defense are offered by him. But the constant engaging in ad hominem against W/H detracts from the points he is making. 

Perhaps it's just me. I find it difficult to read or listen to such things anymore. Maybe too many Dragnet reruns. "Just the facts."


----------



## JohnGill

Grace Alone said:


> Well, Chris, I'll have to say that the translation didn't matter a single bit...because I thought they said the same thing in both versions! Maybe I need a child's version!



How did you know when Jesus switched from talking to Peter to the disciples and back from the disciples to Peter again?


----------



## Grace Alone

Hey...or we could have the southern version with "y'all" instead of "you", and then I would have known for sure that it was plural!


----------



## Grace Alone

JohnGill said:


> Grace Alone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Chris, I'll have to say that the translation didn't matter a single bit...because I thought they said the same thing in both versions! Maybe I need a child's version!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did you know when Jesus switched from talking to Peter to the disciples and back from the disciples to Peter again?
Click to expand...


I didn't. I thought He was speaking to Peter the whole time in both (when I was not looking at notes). But again, that is why I have a Reformation Study Bible so I can have some help!


----------



## JohnGill

Grace Alone said:


> Hey...or we could have the southern version with "y'all" instead of "you", and then I would have known for sure that it was plural!



That's not funny!

How dare you show such disregard for the proper interpretation of scripture as given in the only perfect English translation: *The Texas Bible!*

Yeah, I'm joking. 

Couldn't resist.

"And on the eighth day God created Texas."


----------



## Grace Alone




----------



## JohnGill

Grace Alone said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grace Alone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Chris, I'll have to say that the translation didn't matter a single bit...because I thought they said the same thing in both versions! Maybe I need a child's version!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did you know when Jesus switched from talking to Peter to the disciples and back from the disciples to Peter again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't. I thought He was speaking to Peter the whole time in both (when I was not looking at notes). But again, that is why I have a Reformation Study Bible so I can have some help!
Click to expand...


What about those who don't buy a study Bible? The translation should accurately reflect the Hebrew and Greek texts. That's my only point.

Get rid of the Reformation Study Bible and buy this one, or better yet buy me a copy of this one!! The Holy Bible with Dutch Annotations. Now *that's* a study Bible.

Because modern version fail to distinguish between the two pronoun types they are not as faithful to the original languages as they should be. Even if there were not a problem with the underlying texts of modern versions, I would still have a problem with the way they translate. Besides the AKJV, I have not found a modern version I can trust for apologetical arguments.

Hope that helps explain my view.


----------



## Grace Alone

I see what you are saying, but what I am saying is that I read the word "you" to be singular in both versions. I would not have known it was plural in the KJV unless I had had notes for it. So if my ESV notes explain that to me, I would get the accurate meaning whereas I would not have with the KJV.


----------



## JohnGill

Jared104 said:


> Of course I would like the AV to change Easter to Passover as most people today now know that passover can refer to the whole season. I would also like 'unicorn(s)' replaced with the margin note rhinoceros, and some other changes. But the so-called archaic language should not be touched. Propitiation should never be removed from scripture just because it's 'archaic.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't trying to say that they should remove words like propitiation. The ESV is a modern translation and it retains important theological terms like propitiation and justification.
Click to expand...


Didn't mean to imply that you were. I have heard some people and have read articles by others who claim words like propitiation should be removed because they are archaic. 

Sorry about that.


----------



## JohnGill

*You mean everyone else doesn't spend their free time as I do?!?*



Grace Alone said:


> I see what you are saying, but what I am saying is that I read the word "you" to be singular in both versions. I would not have known it was plural in the KJV unless I had had notes for it. So if my ESV notes explain that to me, I would get the accurate meaning whereas I would not have with the KJV.



Once again I've been reminded not to assume facts not in evidence.  

It didn't even occur to me that you didn't know the difference between thou and you. Sorry about that.

I spend a lot of time reading pre-20th century books on grammar. And I use pre-20th century books for studying Greek and Latin. They all translate Greek and Latin 2nd person singular pronouns with thee/thou/thy/thine. Lowth's is a good example of an 18th century English grammar that does this. I learned this when studying the principles of universal grammar. And yes I know how weird it is to read such books. What is even weirder is when you starting writing notes in that style. 

Below is a handy chart for remembering which is which. After about a week of this you'll know it. Shakespeare also locks it in quickly. 

Singular nominative - thou; thou art the man (you - Standard English equivalent)
Singular objective - thee; I have loved thee (you)
Singular possessive pronoun - thine; Thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart; thine is generally used before a word that begins with a vowel or an 'h'. (your)
Singular possessive adjective - thy; Thy will be done; (yours)

Plural nominative - ye; Ye must be born again (you)
Plural objective - you; Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat (you)
Plural possessive pronoun - yours; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also (yours)
Plural possessive adjective - your; for great is your reward in heaven (your)

Verb conjugation in the AV:

First Person I write
Second Person Thou writest (-est ending; would read you write in standard English)
Third Person He, She, It writeth (-eth ending; She writes)

Now if everyone would spend their free time reading pre-20th century books on English, Latin, and Greek grammar there would be no confusion.

Oh for a perfect world!


----------



## JohnGill

jtate732 said:


> A few points
> 
> 1) How many CT guys totally follow Westcott and Hort in every thing they teach? For the sake of argument, isn't it possible these guys stumbled onto something right, despite their other issues?
> 
> 2) What modern translations throw out the deity of Christ (we're not talking of the JW or liberal nonsense)? Most of them are far more clear than King James is that Jesus is truly God.
> 
> 3) The excellence of (some) modern editions should not be ignored due to problems with the translators. (In fact Westcott and Hort didn't translate any of the modern Bibles!) The NIV, NAS, ESV, and other translators are committed to inerrancy. At the same time, the excellence of the Authorized Version should not be discounted due to the fact that King Jimmy was a "divine right" tyrant, crypto-papist, and would be the first to persecute most of us on this board for "nonconformity" (Hello Baptists, Presbyterians, Nondenoms, even Reformed Anglicans!).
> 
> 4) What about the NKJV? It is fairly literary. Or the World English Bible, which uses the Majority Text?
> 
> 5) And I would definitely support a Geneva-Preference over an AV-Preference.



1) For a complete refutation of Westcott & Hort's textual theory read The Revision Revised. W/H textual theory forms the basis of modern TC and its rejection of the text that the Reformers considered 'inspired' and 'infallible', the Textus Receptus. Then read the book by Metzger I listed earlier. It demonstrates that modern textual criticism is subjective.

2) Besides the JW, and there is enough in there to prove Christ's Deity, I'm not aware of any, save the Deist version, that throws out Christ's deity. However, they do call it into questions through various contradictions. Most MVs render Psalm 119:9 as, How shall a young man keep his way pure, which by implication teaches that a man's way is pure to begin with. The GV/AV reading does not do this. If the MVs had rendered it, How shall a young man keep purifying his way, there would be no contradiction with the doctrine of original sin and no implicit support of Pelagianism. In some Proverbs 8:22 is rendered with 'made' or 'created' in referring to wisdom. As Christ is the wisdom of God, this would then lead to Arianism. BTW it was this verses reading in the Septuagint and Targum that Arius used. Also one could ask, Did God have wisdom before he made/created it? "Without a cause" is left out of Mt 5:22 making Jesus contradictory with himself in Mk 3:5, various times when he was angry with the disciples, and places him in conflict with Eph 4:26. In some modern versions 'yet' is left out of John 7:8 making Jesus a liar when you get to verse 10. 1 Timothy 3:16 does not read God but instead reads he/who or some other word. The textual support for God is so overwhelming that there is no legitimate reason for removing it from scripture. (See Burgon Revision Revised and his other texts) Unless you want to rely on Aleph & B, the two most corrupt manuscripts. (See Hoskier's Codex B & Its Allies. ccel.org should have it.) Then there is the problem with Phil 2:7 in which some versions have 'emptied' or 'nothing'. Nothing makes no sense in the verse. Did he make himself metaphysically nothing, ethically nothing, epistemologically nothing? Emptied is even worse as it supports the kenosis heresy. The Geneva and the Authorized Version get it right.

3) The NIV is not an excellent translation. The Trinitarian Bible Society has some articles dealing with its many problems. My favorite goof in it is found in 1 Cor 5:5. Sin enough and Satan will destroy your sinful nature. Jakob Van Bruggen has also dealt with its many problems.

4) They lack the specificity of the Geneva and the Authorized Version.

5)


----------



## JohnGill

Jerusalem Blade said:


> This is something you're going to have to study and come to your own conclusions concerning. There's no going back to the simpler days when there was a universal text for the English-speaking church. If I would have to recommend only one book to you, it would be Dr. Thomas Holland's, _Crowned With Glory: The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version_. (I see the basic core of it is now online at his site: Dr. Thomas Holland's Home Page.) But I much prefer the hard copy, as it has appendices, an intro plus other stuff not in the online version. Highly recommended!



I couldn't find Crowned With Glory. The only link at his site is broken.

Never mind. It's the Chapter links. The way the site is setup it makes it look like it is his commentary on an Epistle.

Who wrote his site?


----------



## Grace Alone

JohnGill said:


> Grace Alone said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see what you are saying, but what I am saying is that I read the word "you" to be singular in both versions. I would not have known it was plural in the KJV unless I had had notes for it. So if my ESV notes explain that to me, I would get the accurate meaning whereas I would not have with the KJV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again I've been reminded not to assume facts not in evidence.
> 
> It didn't even occur to me that you didn't know the difference between thou and you. Sorry about that.
> 
> I spend a lot of time reading pre-20th century books on grammar. And I use pre-20th century books for studying Greek and Latin. They all translate Greek and Latin 2nd person singular pronouns with thee/thou/thy/thine. Lowth's is a good example of an 18th century English grammar that does this. I learned this when studying the principles of universal grammar. And yes I know how weird it is to read such books. What is even weirder is when you starting writing notes in that style.
> 
> Below is a handy chart for remembering which is which. After about a week of this you'll know it. Shakespeare also locks it in quickly.
> 
> Singular nominative - thou; thou art the man (you - Standard English equivalent)
> Singular objective - thee; I have loved thee (you)
> Singular possessive pronoun - thine; Thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart; thine is generally used before a word that begins with a vowel or an 'h'. (your)
> Singular possessive adjective - thy; Thy will be done; (yours)
> 
> Plural nominative - ye; Ye must be born again (you)
> Plural objective - you; Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat (you)
> Plural possessive pronoun - yours; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also (yours)
> Plural possessive adjective - your; for great is your reward in heaven (your)
> 
> Verb conjugation in the AV:
> 
> First Person I write
> Second Person Thou writest (-est ending; would read you write in standard English)
> Third Person He, She, It writeth (-eth ending; She writes)
> 
> Now if everyone would spend their free time reading pre-20th century books on English, Latin, and Greek grammar there would be no confusion.
> 
> Oh for a perfect world!
Click to expand...


You have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt why the modern reader will have problems comprehending the KJV.


----------



## JohnGill

Grace Alone said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now if everyone would spend their free time reading pre-20th century books on English, Latin, and Greek grammar there would be no confusion.
> 
> Oh for a perfect world!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt why the modern reader will have problems comprehending the KJV.
Click to expand...




When I'm world dictator everyone will be required to learn Classical Latin and Greek. They will also be required to learn the distinction between 2nd pers. sing & plur. pronouns in English upon pain of death! Euclid's Elements of Geometry will be the only Geometry text book allowed in high schools. Everyone will be required to read Newton's Principia Mathematica. The entire Bible, either Geneva or Authorized, will be memorized upon leaving the 8th grade along with the 3 Forms of Unity, the LBCF or WCF and the Westminster Larger Catechism with scripture proofs. Science and Theology classes will be conducted in Latin only. People caught using slang will be severely punished.

I expect your vote.


----------



## Grace Alone

I seriously do want a Geneva Bible.


----------



## JohnGill

Grace Alone said:


> I seriously do want a Geneva Bible.



Better memorize the thou/you distinction. There's only a 39% difference between the AV & GV.

It is available online here: GENEVA BIBLE 1599

You can read the Bible notes here: The 1599 Geneva Bible Notes - The Reformed Reader


----------



## Grymir

Some of us have a hard time reading the newer versions. They are vague, and difficult to follow. esp the NASB for me. I got an early pre-release of the NT and it was jumbled in it's english. The English in the KJV is straight forward and crystal clear.


----------



## JohnGill

Grymir said:


> Some of us have a hard time reading the newer versions. They are vague, and difficult to follow. esp the NASB for me. I got an early pre-release of the NT and it was jumbled in it's english. The English in the KJV is straight forward and crystal clear.





I can't even understand the NKJV. I remember growing up my mother gave a new Bible to replace my battered KJV. It was the NIV. I stopped reading the Bible until I got another KJV. I just could not understand the NIV. And this was in 6th or 7th grade.


----------



## DMcFadden

Grymir said:


> Some of us have a hard time reading the newer versions. They are vague, and difficult to follow. esp the NASB for me. I got an early pre-release of the NT and it was jumbled in it's english. The English in the KJV is straight forward and crystal clear.



Better watch out, Timothy. What if Barth used the KJV? 

It could be true. It might be true. It's possible.


----------



## Grymir

DMcFadden said:


> Better watch out, Timothy. What if Barth used the KJV?
> 
> It could be true. It might be true. It's possible.



Oh the humanity of it all! I googled 'Barth's Bible version' and got no answer. Arghh!!! I'm gonna have to read more Barth just to figure it out. Haven't I read enough already?? Besides, his problem wasn't in the reading, but the interpretation of the Bible. And what the Bible was.


----------



## JohnGill

DMcFadden said:


> Grymir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of us have a hard time reading the newer versions. They are vague, and difficult to follow. esp the NASB for me. I got an early pre-release of the NT and it was jumbled in it's english. The English in the KJV is straight forward and crystal clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Better watch out, Timothy. What if Barth used the KJV?
> 
> It could be true. It might be true. It's possible.
Click to expand...


Barth was trained in German. He used some German Bible.


----------



## Grymir

JohnGill said:


> Barth was trained in German. He used some German Bible.



Whew! I feel better already. My trusty KJV delivered me through theological turmoil again! My KJV is like a sword from a Micheal Moorcock novel! Able to pierce asunder soul and spirit! It's - 'Soul-Bringer'!!!


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

In our discussions here we seem to have overlooked the fact that one of the main problems with the W&H Critical Text of the Greek New Testament, and the modern versions that replicate its textual changes and omissions based upon the readings of B and [size=+1]a[/size], is that portions of the Bible are removed. The last 12 verses of Mark, the woman taken in adultery in John 7:53-8:11, the Ethiopian's confession in Acts 8:37, "of his flesh, and of his bones" in Ephesians 5:30 (not even a margin note here on it!), "*God* was manifest in the flesh" in 1 Timothy 3:16, the wrong ancestors in Christ's genealogy in Matthew 1:7, 10 (Critical Greek text and ESV) and on and on.

To me this is the primary issue. B and [size=+1]a[/size] (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus), although the oldest manuscripts (certainly not more reliable), are not the oldest text-form, which is reflected in the Majority Text and its finest edition (thanks to the Lord's providential preservation), the Textus Receptus, and its best English translation, the King James Bible.

One just cannot take the Bible from me, and go at it with a scissors, without a fight from me -- a fight many men and women have already given their lives for.


----------



## Grace Alone

Jerusalem Blade said:


> In our discussions here we seem to have overlooked the fact that one of the main problems with the W&H Critical Text of the Greek New Testament, and the modern versions that replicate its textual changes and omissions based upon the readings of B and [size=+1]a[/size], is that portions of the Bible are removed. The last 12 verses of Mark, the woman taken in adultery in John 7:53-8:11, the Ethiopian's confession in Acts 8:37, "of his flesh, and of his bones" in Ephesians 5:30 (not even a margin note here on it!), "*God* was manifest in the flesh" in 1 Timothy 3:16, the wrong ancestors in Christ's genealogy in Matthew 1:7, 10 (Critical Greek text and ESV) and on and on.
> 
> To me this is the primary issue. B and [size=+1]a[/size] (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus), although the oldest manuscripts (certainly not more reliable), are not the oldest text-form, which is reflected in the Majority Text and its finest edition (thanks to the Lord's providential preservation), the Textus Receptus, and its best English translation, the King James Bible.
> 
> One just cannot take the Bible from me, and go at it with a scissors, without a fight from me -- a fight many men and women have already given their lives for.



What really bothers me is that some of the things you mention are incorrect. My ESV Bible DOES have the last 12 verses of Mark. There is tiny type that says some manuscripts do not include vs. 9-20, but the verses are in the main text and not in footnotes. John 7:53-8:11 is there in the main text as well. 

Acts 8:37 is in a footnote, 1 Timothy 3:16 in footnote (although I understand He to mean God there anyway), Matthew 1 in footnotes.

So I would have to conclude from these examples that the ESV did not leave out anything you mentioned as problems. I am actually feeling better about the ESV judging from these examples.

One question, how do you know those extra verses were not added later by someone as opposed to others leaving them out purposely?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hi Janis,

Sorry if I was not clear about this. When a Scripture section is set apart from the text by double brackets following the statement "[THE EARLIEST MANUSCRIPTS DO NOT INCLUDE 16:9-20]" (ESV), or set off from the main text following the statement "[The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.]" (NIV), or set apart in brackets with a footnote, "Some of the oldest mss. omit from verse 9 through 20..." (NASB), it is understood to mean _these portions do not belong in the text of the Bible but we include them for tradition's sake_.

It is equivalent to saying (for it is in _the Bible_ as an explanatory note by the textual editors) that the earliest and best manuscripts do not include these and we do not recognize them as genuine. That is tantamount to actually omitting them, is it not?

Multitudes of young (as well as mature) Christians are thrown into doubt concerning the reliability of the Bible. Which is the true text? Did God preserve His word for His people, or are we in the hands of academic scholars -- who often are not believers -- and their judgments? I consider the margin or in-text notes disallowing the genuineness of the various verses I noted above the same as if they had removed them with scissors. The effect is the same on the reader: these portions should not be here.

If you are interested in hearing a responsible opposing viewpoint (for the authenticity of these portions of Scripture), I submit these discussions for your consideration:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f44/mark-16-12-a-20445/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/john-7-53-8-11-a-25089/

On this one, scroll down a little till you see the section in blue type, 1 Timothy 3:16 

I think I will desist from posting further in this thread as it appears to have the disapproval of the moderators, it being removed from appearing in some of the Stats.

Your sincere interest in these things, Janis, is great!

Steve


----------



## JohnGill

Grymir said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Barth was trained in German. He used some German Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whew! I feel better already. My trusty KJV delivered me through theological turmoil again! My KJV is like a sword from a Micheal Moorcock novel! Able to pierce asunder soul and spirit! It's - 'Soul-Bringer'!!!
Click to expand...


Unless the German Bible was a translation of the KJV.


----------



## Grace Alone

Steve, I sincerely appreciate your dedication to seeing that the Word of God is accurately preserved. And I do understand the concern that brackets and footnotes might cause doubt in a new believer. It may cause me some confusion, but it doesn't affect my faith. As long as these variations don't cause doctrinal problems, I think I can deal with them. 

I wonder why someone hasn't done a faithful update of the KJV?


----------



## JohnGill

Grace Alone said:


> Steve, I sincerely appreciate your dedication to seeing that the Word of God is accurately preserved. And I do understand the concern that brackets and footnotes might cause doubt in a new believer. It may cause me some confusion, but it doesn't affect my faith. As long as these variations don't cause doctrinal problems, I think I can deal with them.
> 
> I wonder why someone hasn't done a faithful update of the KJV?



At this time with the great confusion in translation theory, textual criticism, non-existent autograph inerrancy vs apographa inspiration & infallibility, liberalism, etc. the conditions are not right for such an undertaking.

Question: Which of the following two questions below affirms the Doctrine of Original Sin & Total Depravity? Why?

1) How shall a young man keep his way pure?

2) How shall a young man purify his way?


----------



## Grace Alone

JohnGill said:


> At this time with the great confusion in translation theory, textual criticism, non-existent autograph inerrancy vs apographa inspiration & infallibility, liberalism, etc. the conditions are not right for such an undertaking.
> 
> Question: Which of the following two questions below affirms the Doctrine of Original Sin & Total Depravity? Why?
> 
> 1) How shall a young man keep his way pure?
> 
> 2) How shall a young man purify his way?



I feel like I need a children's bible again, but I'll take a guess. The second one is better because it indicates he was NOT pure and must become pure. Whereas the first one makes it seem that he is already pure and needs to stay that way, which would be incorrect.


----------



## JohnGill

Grace Alone said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> At this time with the great confusion in translation theory, textual criticism, non-existent autograph inerrancy vs apographa inspiration & infallibility, liberalism, etc. the conditions are not right for such an undertaking.
> 
> Question: Which of the following two questions below affirms the Doctrine of Original Sin & Total Depravity? Why?
> 
> 1) How shall a young man keep his way pure?
> 
> 2) How shall a young man purify his way?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I feel like I need a children's bible again, but I'll take a guess. The second one is better because it indicates he was NOT pure and must become pure. Whereas the first one makes it seem that he is already pure and needs to stay that way, which would be incorrect.
Click to expand...


That was my only point. The first one implies an error. The second one does not.

Psalm 119:9 How can a young man keep his way pure? By guarding it according to your word. (ESV)

Psalm 119:9 (Beth) Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? By taking heed thereto according to thy word. (AV)

BTW, the AV is written at a 5th to 6th grade reading level.


----------



## mossy

Mr. Gill,
I recognize that one from your previous post, Ps 119 I think. In that other post you mentioned 1 Cor 5:5 as your favorite NIV flub. I have read that verse in several translations and I don't really see any of them saying anything different. Help me out and explain what is the big flub on that verse in the NIV. It says sinful nature in the NIV but has flesh as an alternate translation in a footnote. Is that the problem you were pointing out? 

1 Cor 5:5

NET Bible 
5:5 turn this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved 8 in the day of the Lord. 9 

NIV
5 hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature[a] may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord. A. Or that his body; or that the flesh

NASB
I have decided to (A)deliver such a one to (B)Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in (C)the day of the Lord

KJV
5To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Thanks for your help.
Terry


----------



## Grace Alone

JohnGill said:


> Grace Alone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> At this time with the great confusion in translation theory, textual criticism, non-existent autograph inerrancy vs apographa inspiration & infallibility, liberalism, etc. the conditions are not right for such an undertaking.
> 
> Question: Which of the following two questions below affirms the Doctrine of Original Sin & Total Depravity? Why?
> 
> 1) How shall a young man keep his way pure?
> 
> 2) How shall a young man purify his way?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I feel like I need a children's bible again, but I'll take a guess. The second one is better because it indicates he was NOT pure and must become pure. Whereas the first one makes it seem that he is already pure and needs to stay that way, which would be incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was my only point. The first one implies an error. The second one does not.
> 
> Psalm 119:9 How can a young man keep his way pure? By guarding it according to your word. (ESV)
> 
> Psalm 119:9 (Beth) Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? By taking heed thereto according to thy word. (AV)
> 
> *BTW, the AV is written at a 5th to 6th grade reading level*.
Click to expand...


That is a myth, unfortunately. I teach children to read, and I can guarantee you that one of the two verses you just quoted is nowhere near 5th to 6th grade level. Here are some links that suggest 12th grade level for KJV:

Bible Translations

BibleNetUSA:Read

http://www.bible.com/community/biblebasics.php


----------



## JohnGill

mossy said:


> Mr. Gill,
> I recognize that one from your previous post, Ps 119 I think. In that other post you mentioned 1 Cor 5:5 as your favorite NIV flub. I have read that verse in several translations and I don't really see any of them saying anything different. Help me out and explain what is the big flub on that verse in the NIV. It says sinful nature in the NIV but has flesh as an alternate translation in a footnote. Is that the problem you were pointing out?
> 
> 1 Cor 5:5
> 
> NET Bible
> 5:5 turn this man over to Satan for the destruction of the *flesh*, so that his spirit may be saved 8 in the day of the Lord. 9
> 
> NIV
> 5 hand this man over to Satan, so that *the sinful nature*[a] may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord. A. Or that his body; or that the flesh
> 
> NASB
> I have decided to (A)deliver such a one to (B)Satan for the destruction of* his flesh*, so that his spirit may be saved in (C)the day of the Lord
> 
> KJV
> 5To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the *flesh*, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
> 
> Thanks for your help.
> Terry



I think the NIV is the ONLY translation with 'sinful nature' here. But let's assume they have accurately translated 'sarx' and have not put their own interpretation into the text as they are wont to do. If I engage in gross sin and do not repent, the church will turn me over to Satan. So far, so good. Once I'm turned over to Satan what will he do? Will he destroy my sinful nature? Or will he destroy my flesh? (Satan attacked Job's ....?) If my sinful nature is destroyed, I can live a perfect life. We sin that grace may abound? There have been various cults who have believed that you can purify yourself of your sinful nature by engaging in gross immorality. The NIV is not translating here, but is instead interpreting. And their interpretation is wrong. Furthermore they are destroying Paul's point. The battle is between the flesh and the spirit. That's the theme throughout Paul's writing. Walk after the Spirit and not the flesh. Mortify the deeds of the flesh by the Spirit. 

Here is an article from the Trinitarian Bible Society which deals with the many problems in the NIV. Scroll down until you get to "Synonym Problems."

From John Gill's Exposition on 1 Cor 5:5 "for the destruction of the flesh; that is, that his body might be shook, buffeted, afflicted, and tortured in a terrible manner; that by this means he might be brought to a sense of his sin, to repentance for it, and make an humble acknowledgment of it:"

John Calvin on the same passage: 



> The clause that follows, for the destruction of the flesh, is made use of for the purpose of softening; for Paul’s meaning is not that the person who is chastised is given over to Satan to be utterly ruined, or so as to be given up to the devil in perpetual bondage, but that it is a temporary condemnation, and not only so, but of such a nature as will be salutary. For as the salvation equally with the condemnation of the spirit is eternal, he takes the condemnation of the flesh as meaning temporal condemnation. “We will condemn him in this world for a time, that the Lord may preserve him in his kingdom.” This furnishes an answer to the objection, by which some endeavor to set aside this exposition, for as the sentence of excommunication is directed rather against the soul than against the outward man, they inquire how it can be called the destruction of the flesh My answer, then, is, (as I have already in part stated,) that the destruction of the flesh is opposed to the salvation of the spirit, simply because the former is temporal and the latter is eternal. In this sense the Apostle in Hebrews 5:7, uses the expression the days of Christ’s flesh, to mean the course of his mortal life. Now the Church in chastising offenders with severity, spares them not in this world, in order that God may spare them. "But it is in order that God may spare them.” Should any one wish to have anything farther in reference to the rite of excommunication, its causes, necessity, purposes, and limitation, let him consult my Institutes.


----------



## JohnGill

Grace Alone said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grace Alone said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel like I need a children's bible again, but I'll take a guess. The second one is better because it indicates he was NOT pure and must become pure. Whereas the first one makes it seem that he is already pure and needs to stay that way, which would be incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was my only point. The first one implies an error. The second one does not.
> 
> Psalm 119:9 How can a young man keep his way pure? By guarding it according to your word. (ESV)
> 
> Psalm 119:9 (Beth) Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? By taking heed thereto according to thy word. (AV)
> 
> *BTW, the AV is written at a 5th to 6th grade reading level*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a myth, unfortunately. I teach children to read, and I can guarantee you that one of the two verses you just quoted is nowhere near 5th to 6th grade level. Here are some links that suggest 12th grade level for KJV:
> 
> Bible Translations
> 
> BibleNetUSA:Read
> 
> Bible.com Community: Multimedia
Click to expand...


Not according to the Flesch-Kincaid research company’s Grade Level Indicator which places the KJV at a 5th grade reading level. Others say it is around the 10th grade. Dealing with 3rd-5th graders in Sunday School, none of them had a problem reading it. 



> "The best example of very easy prose (about 20 affixes per 100 words) is the King James Version of the Bible: . . ." (Rudolf Flesch, The Art of Plain Talk, p. 43)





> "The King James Bible was published in the year Shakespeare began work on his last play, The Tempest. Both the play and the Bible are masterpieces of English, but there is one crucial difference between them. Whereas Shakespeare ransacked the lexicon, the King James Bible employs a bare 8000 words—God’s teaching in homely English for everyman."
> (Robert McCrum, William Cran, and Robert MacNeil, The Story of English, p. 113)



The Influence of the Authorised Version upon English Literature.



> HS Millar, though a supporter of the Westcott Hort Text and the Revised Version, had to admit:
> 
> For more than three centuries the King James version has been the Bible of the English-speaking world, and there does not seem to be much abatement, even in favour of the Revised Version. More copies are being sold each year. *Its simple, majestic, Anglo-Saxon tongue, its clear, sparkling style, its directness and force of utterance, have made it the model in language, style and dignity of some of the choicest writers of the last two centuries.* Added to the above characteristics, its reverential and spiritual tone and attitude have made it the life of the Christian church, for its own words have been regarded as authoritative and binding. It has endeared itself to the hearts and lives of millions of Christians and has molded the characters of the leaders in every walk of life in the greatest nation of the world. During all these centuries, King James' version has become a vital part of the English-speaking world, socially, morally, religiously, and politically. Launched with the endorsement of the regal and scholarly authority of the seventeenth century, its conquest and rule have been supreme
> 
> - HS Miller, General Biblical Introduction, pp. 356,66; Miller quotes part of this paragraph from Ira Price's The Ancestry of our English Bible



Brand Blanchard On Philosophical Style


> It might pay them to do so. Raleigh thought that “imperfect acquaintance with the Latin element in English is the cause of much diffuse writing and mixed metaphor. If you talk nonsense in Saxon you are found out at once; you have a competent judge in every hearer. But put it into Latin and the nonsense masquerades as profundity of abstract thought.” Unfortunately the mask may deceive even oneself.



T. S. Eliot on the issue of readability. T.S. Eliot on the style of the New English Bible ('dignified mediocrity')

Geroge P. Marsh's Lectures on English Authorized King James Version of the Bible 1611

The Literary Impact of the Authorised Version Book by CS Lewis


But that was not my major point. My major point was that the ESV reading in Psalm 119:9, is contrary to the Doctrine of Original Sin & Total Depravity.

That is a doctrinal problem.


----------



## Grace Alone

I understand that it wasn't your main point. And I do not mean to appear to be arguing at all. But I pulled up a page of links for bible version reading levels and they all said 12th grade for KJV. If Flesch-Kincaid comes up with 5th, I will have to say they are in the minority, and I would seriously doubt their methods of assessing reading level.

I get your point with the other verse, but in just reading that Psalm, that verse would not have jumped out to me as a problem. I need to look it up in my Ref. Study Bible and see how they handle it. But I am off to church at the moment (with my family) to meet with the elders in order to join our new church!


----------



## JohnGill

Grace Alone said:


> I understand that it wasn't your main point. And I do not mean to appear to be arguing at all. But I pulled up a page of links for bible version reading levels and they all said 12th grade for KJV. If Flesch-Kincaid comes up with 5th, I will have to say they are in the minority, and I would seriously doubt their methods of assessing reading level.
> 
> I get your point with the other verse, but in just reading that Psalm, that verse would not have jumped out to me as a problem. I need to look it up in my Ref. Study Bible and see how they handle it. But I am off to church at the moment (with my family) to meet with the elders in order to join our new church!



The Flesch-Kincaid method may be in the minority, but this method has no bias for or against any version. I am not even sure the man was a Christian. However, with regards to lacking bias, the same cannot be said with the links you have provided.


I would say good luck, but I'm no longer Arminian. (And I'm not implying you are. Internet removes intonation which breeds confusion.)

God Bless.


----------



## cornopean

John Murray liked the NIV altho he disagreed with its translation of monogenes in john 3:16.


----------



## Stomata leontôn

Grace Alone said:


> I see what you are saying, but what I am saying is that I read the word "you" to be singular in both versions. I would not have known it was plural in the KJV unless I had had notes for it. So if my ESV notes explain that to me, I would get the accurate meaning whereas I would not have with the KJV.


Methinks our high school English teachers should be shaken and stirred.

Of course as you say, maybe modernist versions could be improved if they just used _y'all_.


----------



## Stomata leontôn

Galatians220 said:


> *TELLING QUOTATIONS FROM WESTCOTT AND HORT*
> *Concerning the Deity of Christ:*​"*He never speaks of Himself directly as God*, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him." (Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297).
> 
> "(John) does not expressly affirm the identification of* the Word with Jesus Christ*." (Westcott, Ibid., p. 16). ​_*Concerning the Scriptures:*_​"I reject the *infallibility* of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).
> 
> "Our Bible as well as our Faith is a *mere compromise*." (Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p. vii).
> 
> ...
> ​



This is the consistent pattern in the Alexandrian texts favored by Metzger, et al.: _they demote the divinity of Christ_. Considering Alexandria at the time was the source of the Arian heresy, one can conclude that this text was the Arian bible.​


----------



## LawrenceU

Peter H said:


> Grace Alone said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see what you are saying, but what I am saying is that I read the word "you" to be singular in both versions. I would not have known it was plural in the KJV unless I had had notes for it. So if my ESV notes explain that to me, I would get the accurate meaning whereas I would not have with the KJV.
> 
> 
> 
> Methinks our high school English teachers should be shaken and stirred.
> 
> Of course as you say, maybe modernist versions could be improved if they just used _y'all_.
Click to expand...


Actually, my first year Greek professor recommended this approach to us. Y'all works well! And, it is my vernacular.


----------



## Pilgrim

LawrenceU said:


> Peter H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grace Alone said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see what you are saying, but what I am saying is that I read the word "you" to be singular in both versions. I would not have known it was plural in the KJV unless I had had notes for it. So if my ESV notes explain that to me, I would get the accurate meaning whereas I would not have with the KJV.
> 
> 
> 
> Methinks our high school English teachers should be shaken and stirred.
> 
> Of course as you say, maybe modernist versions could be improved if they just used _y'all_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, my first year Greek professor recommended this approach to us. Y'all works well! And, it is my vernacular.
Click to expand...


I was joking about this with a PCA pastor friend of mine a while back. Y'all, we just need to produce the Redneck Standard Version and it will solve all of the second person plural problems. I mean, nobody outside of Dixie reads the Bible anyway, right?


----------



## JohnGill

Pilgrim said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peter H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Methinks our high school English teachers should be shaken and stirred.
> 
> Of course as you say, maybe modernist versions could be improved if they just used _y'all_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, my first year Greek professor recommended this approach to us. Y'all works well! And, it is my vernacular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was joking about this with a PCA pastor friend of mine a while back. Y'all, we just need to produce the *Redneck Standard Version* and it will solve all of the second person plural problems. I mean, nobody outside of Dixie reads the Bible anyway, right?
Click to expand...


I take great offense at that statement. How dare you demean the most awesomest translation in existence! *The Texas Bible!*

Which of course properly translates the Hebrew for manna as hominy grits. And them tweren't leeks, they is collard greens.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist

*Two Issues:*

"Faithful" KJV Updates

Have any KJV supporters used or looked into the updates from KJV supporters? (Let me make clear I don't think a KJV Supporter is a KJV Onlyist).

1) King James 21 or Third Millennium Bible - this one updates a lot, but not the Thees/Thous. I kinda like this one, though I don't have one in text.

2) Jay Green's editions - He's done several updates and writes against the CT

3) World English Bible - This is based on the Majority text

Am I the only modern Bible user who finds the thees and thous the least troublesome part of the AV? I'm more interested in updating "Fetch a compass" and "Easter".

Textual Issues:

1 Timothy - I always thought "Great is the mystery of godliness, who was manifest in the flesh" that the "Who" means the "mystery of godliness". (I've heard this explanation, but I do lean toward "God was manifest in the flesh" as the original.")

John 1.18 - "the Only God" vs "the only Son" - I've been convinced that _monoyenis_ means "unique" rather than "only begotten", which argues better in this passage for both the deity of Christ and the plurality of the godhead.

Personal note:

I've never seen KJV supporters being so reasonable and charitable. I'm used to the DA Waite and Jack Hyles types. Glad to have you guys in the Reformed Church - let the Indy-Fundies have those guys!


----------



## Pilgrim

If I'm not mistaken, Theodore Letis endorsed the KJ21. 

The World English Bible is a somewhat curious production as they take the ASV (1901) as their starting point and then apparently try to edit it to conform with the Majority Text. If I recall correctly this was done due to the ASV's literalness as well as it being in the public domain. I wonder, why not start with the KJV, which is so much closer as far as the textual basis?


----------



## Pilgrim

JohnGill said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, my first year Greek professor recommended this approach to us. Y'all works well! And, it is my vernacular.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was joking about this with a PCA pastor friend of mine a while back. Y'all, we just need to produce the *Redneck Standard Version* and it will solve all of the second person plural problems. I mean, nobody outside of Dixie reads the Bible anyway, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I take great offense at that statement. How dare you demean the most awesomest translation in existence! *The Texas Bible!*
> 
> Which of course properly translates the Hebrew for manna as hominy grits. And them tweren't leeks, they is collard greens.
Click to expand...


Texas has no monopoly on hominy grits or collard greens.


----------



## Grace Alone

Pilgrim said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was joking about this with a PCA pastor friend of mine a while back. Y'all, we just need to produce the *Redneck Standard Version* and it will solve all of the second person plural problems. I mean, nobody outside of Dixie reads the Bible anyway, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take great offense at that statement. How dare you demean the most awesomest translation in existence! *The Texas Bible!*
> 
> Which of course properly translates the Hebrew for manna as hominy grits. And them tweren't leeks, they is collard greens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas has no monopoly on hominy grits or collard greens.
Click to expand...


Ditto! The Carolinas were founded long before Texas.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Interesting read on some of the updates in the 1769 edition of the A.V.

Changes in the King James version


----------



## MW

I don't think any reasonable person would object on principle to updating the language of the AV. But it should be done decently and in order, by a council of godly scholars who are men of our profession and who represent a unified reformed church.

Technically, "y'all" is not second person plural. "Thou" is singular and "you" is plural, but "you" is not necessarily all-inclusive. See the words of institution of the Lord's supper for the clear difference: "drink ye all of it."


----------



## Grace Alone

You'd only use y'all for "you all" or "all of you" (or "you" plural) in the new ESV (English Southern Version). 

Rev. Winzer, do you know why they didn't make the NKJV an update of the original KJV manuscripts?


----------



## SolaGratia

*Rev. Matthew Winzer in behalf of the English speaking people, I nominate you to start updating the language of the A.V.

We expect for you and, who ever else you pick to help you, to finish by 2011 in time for the 400th anniversary of the A.V. 

Thank You,*

May Almighty God continued to blessed the English speaking Bible believing people of the only authorized English translation that of the A.V./KJV Bible.

Does anyone else have anyone in mind who is a "godly scholars who are men of our profession and who represent a unified reformed church."

Can Baptist participate? 

Even though they already have the NKJV, the NASB, most of the NIV, and half of the ESV for themselves, since the Baptist were the ones who did most of the job translating these different english versions.


----------



## JohnGill

jtate732 said:


> "Faithful" KJV Updates
> 
> Have any KJV supporters used or looked into the updates from KJV supporters? (Let me make clear I don't think a KJV Supporter is a KJV Onlyist).
> 
> 1) King James 21 or Third Millennium Bible - this one updates a lot, but not the Thees/Thous. I kinda like this one, though I don't have one in text.
> 
> 2) Jay Green's editions - He's done several updates and writes against the CT
> 
> 3) World English Bible - This is based on the Majority text
> 
> Am I the only modern Bible user who finds the thees and thous the least troublesome part of the AV? I'm more interested in updating "Fetch a compass" and "Easter".
> 
> Textual Issues:
> 
> 1 Timothy - I always thought "Great is the mystery of godliness, who was manifest in the flesh" that the "Who" means the "mystery of godliness". (I've heard this explanation, but I do lean toward "God was manifest in the flesh" as the original.")
> 
> John 1.18 - "the Only God" vs "the only Son" - I've been convinced that _monoyenis_ means "unique" rather than "only begotten", which argues better in this passage for both the deity of Christ and the plurality of the godhead.
> 
> Personal note:
> 
> I've never seen KJV supporters being so reasonable and charitable. I'm used to the DA Waite and Jack Hyles types. Glad to have you guys in the Reformed Church - let the Indy-Fundies have those guys!



What's the difference between the 21st KJV and the AV?

"Fetch a compass"? Easter I understand. Most people today don't realize that Easter refers to the whole festival. But Passover wouldn't be sufficient without a margin note. I'd like to see a margin note at every occurrence of 'unicorn' explaining it was either a rhinoceros or the Elasmotherium.

The vast majority of Greek manuscripts support 'God'. Even White in his KJVO Controversy admitted it should read 'God'. Burgon utterly refutes the reading who/he as spurious in his unanswered Revision Revised. (pg. 98-106, 316, 353, & 424-501; available online). John 1:18 should read "only begotten Son". Carson's argument against 'only begotten' is weak at best. However, 'unique' is much better than "one and only" since such a reading negates adoption. Furthermore, 'God' is a Valentinian corruption of the text. 'Son' is what the vast majority of texts read. Letis' deals with it in the Ecclesiasitical Text (chapter 5) as does Burgon in his Revision Revised (pg 182, 315), Causes of Corruption (pg 165, 215-218), and his The Traditional Text (pg 113-114, 139, 150). Gill deals with it indirectly in his Exposition of the Whole Bible. The foundation for switching from 'Son' to 'God' is (drum roll please) Aleph & B. H. C. Hoskier shows why they should not be used for textual criticism.

I think you meant more "the D. A. Waite and Peter Ruckman type." Hyles never really offered any support of the AV. If I remember correctly he was not originally a KJVOer. He became that later on. However his successor is causing quite a stir by moving away from the extremeness of the original position. 

Ruckmanites are the angry, ignorant (not pejorative just descriptive), anti-greek learning type that many run into on this issue. I was told I don't have a real Bible because I don't consider the AV to be more inspired than the original language texts. At one IFBkad church here in town I asked the pastor if he the church had any Hebrew resources that I could check out. I wanted to learn Hebrew to open a door to witnessing to a Jew. The pastor yelled at me, "What do you want to do?!? Retranslate the Bible?!?" 

D. A. Waite is lumped in with Ruckman, though he doesn't believe the AV corrects the Greek and Hebrew. And Waite doesn't cuss when preaching. Nor will he call you a moron and some others that would get me banned from this forum as Peter Ruckman does. White does not deal fairly with Waite nor does he deal fairly with Edward Hills (Presbyterian) and other scholars who are AV preferred. My main problem with Waite is he allows his rabid anti-calvinism and pro-Scofield dispensationalism to color his opinions. He also overuses the ad hominem. See David W. Cloud's "The Calvinism Debate." He is also one you may have run into.

You should know that the AV-Preferred position is a Reformed position. Most Dutch Reformed churches uses the AV as do many Free Presbyterian Churches. Ian Paisley recommended that we should only use it. The Protestant Reformed Churches uses it and are against modern versions. Click here. 

And of course John Owen & John Gill both defended the underlying texts of the GV & the AV.

I think any true revision of the AV will have to wait until the rationalism of higher criticism and lower criticism (textual criticism) have been swept away with all their attending errors. 

Don't let the IFBkad guys poison it for you.


----------



## MW

Grace Alone said:


> Rev. Winzer, do you know why they didn't make the NKJV an update of the original KJV manuscripts?



If the preface to the NKJV is carefully read it will be seen that this version presumed to make the AV more *precise* and not simply more readable. This led the committee down the path of seeking academic acceptability. Remarkably, though, its innovations led to less precision, since one cannot make heads nor tails of what the text is actually saying on numerous occasions. E.g., Every English speaker knows what "hell" is, but who can tell what to make of "Hades," which is really only a transliteration, not a translation.


----------



## JohnGill

Grace Alone said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take great offense at that statement. How dare you demean the most awesomest translation in existence! *The Texas Bible!*
> 
> Which of course properly translates the Hebrew for manna as hominy grits. And them tweren't leeks, they is collard greens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas has no monopoly on hominy grits or collard greens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ditto! The Carolinas were founded long before Texas.
Click to expand...


Heretical historical revisionist!! Everyone knows "And one the eighth day God created Texas." Get used to it!! 

(J/K; except about special creation of Texas)


----------



## MW

SolaGratia said:


> We expect for you and, who ever else you pick to help you, to finish by 2011 in time for the 400th anniversary of the A.V.



Actually I would like to see a scholarly text-critical work which collates the authorised editions of the AV with the original 1611. That would be a work worthy of the anniversary. For updates, the individual reader can utilise the glossary provided by TBS.


----------



## Ivan

armourbearer said:


> SolaGratia said:
> 
> 
> 
> We expect for you and, who ever else you pick to help you, to finish by 2011 in time for the 400th anniversary of the A.V.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I would like to see a scholarly text-critical work which collates the authorised editions of the AV with the original 1611. That would be a work worthy of the anniversary. For updates, the individual reader can utilise the glossary provided by TBS.
Click to expand...


Is either a possibility?


----------



## JohnGill

armourbearer said:


> SolaGratia said:
> 
> 
> 
> We expect for you and, who ever else you pick to help you, to finish by 2011 in time for the 400th anniversary of the A.V.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I would like to see a scholarly text-critical work which collates the authorised editions of the AV with the original 1611. That would be a work worthy of the anniversary. For updates, the individual reader can utilise the glossary provided by TBS.
Click to expand...


Are the original notes on the translation by the translators still available?


----------



## MW

JohnGill said:


> Are the original notes on the translation by the translators still available?



The only work of which I am aware is, Allen, Ward, Translating for King James; being a true copy of the only notes made by a translator of King James’s Bible, the Authorized Version, as the Final Committee of Review revised the translation of Romans through Revelation at Stationers’ Hall in London in 1610-1611. Taken by John Bois (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1969).

I can also recall reading something about a marked up copy of the Bishop's Bible but I haven't personally looked into this.


----------



## MW

Ivan said:


> Is either a possibility?



Not from li'l ol' me.


----------



## LawrenceU

> Technically, "y'all" is not second person plural. "Thou" is singular and "you" is plural, but "you" is not necessarily all-inclusive. See the words of institution of the Lord's supper for the clear difference: "drink ye all of it."



You've got to be kidding. Y'all is 2nd pl all over Heaven (Dixie). And, For what it's worth Texas was populated by Southerners that couldn't really cut in the glorious country and had to skedaddle. But, we'll claim you for your grit and noble character that developed over time.


----------



## MW

LawrenceU said:


> Technically, "y'all" is not second person plural. "Thou" is singular and "you" is plural, but "you" is not necessarily all-inclusive. See the words of institution of the Lord's supper for the clear difference: "drink ye all of it."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've got to be kidding.
Click to expand...


I kid y'all not.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist

JohnGill said:


> What's the difference between the 21st KJV and the AV?



The KJ21/TMB updates words like "prevent" (precede) which have changed meanings or dropped out of the language. Check out the website.



> John 1:18 should read "only begotten Son". Carson's argument against 'only begotten' is weak at best. However, 'unique' is much better than "one and only" since such a reading negates adoption. Furthermore, 'God' is a Valentinian corruption of the text.



Any articles on this? I'm interested. And yes, "Unique" is much better than "one and only", since we're all sons of God if regenerate, right?



> I think you meant more "the D. A. Waite and Peter Ruckman type." Hyles never really offered any support of the AV.



We all know Ruckman is a nut. Per Wikipedia (and I've read this myself) - 



Wikipedia said:


> In his book, Enemies of Soulwinning, Jack Hyles taught that one could not be born again if any other Bible except the King James Version was used.



He even listed the New Scofield KJV as "not the word of God", which I've found excellent, at least when you ignore the notes.



> You should know that the AV-Preferred position is a Reformed position. Most Dutch Reformed churches uses the AV as do many Free Presbyterian Churches. Ian Paisley recommended that we should only use it. The Protestant Reformed Churches uses it and are against modern versions. Click here.



Joel Beeke I think is AV-Preferred. I'd tend to put Paisley in the KJVO (rather than KJVP - preferred) camp because of his arguments.



> And remember, don't drink the kool-aid!



Nah, I stick with beer. That keeps the indy-fundies away. If that doesn't work, I break out the Scotch (Scottish Covenanter) or Gin (English Puritan) if we have some of the Hyles/Ruckman type.


----------



## JohnGill

jtate732,

If you want I can put together a list of pre-20th century books that are downloadable from Google Books and archive.org. Many of the IFB type books I have in favor of the KJVO position are useful for their large bibliographies.

You might find the books useful. They will give you an overview of support for the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts and of support for the AV down through history. There are also many in favor of Griesbach's textual theories. Also if you read German I can post the link to those as well.


----------



## Robert Truelove

As a 'Pro-Critical Text' guy, I can echo the sentiment that merely reading James White's book and coming to a conclusion is insufficient for this difficult issue. Anyone wanting to come to a studied conclusion must read broadly on this subject. Unfortunately, most Chritians, even pastors, are bored to tears by this subject.

I haven't said it enough here...though I differ with the Traditional Text folks, I genuially appreciate their stand on the authority of the Scriptures even if I do believe they have arrived at erronous conclusions on the subject of textual criticism. 

I share the same concern as my Traditional Text brethren that most pastors do not seem to give this subject the proper attention it deserves.


----------



## JohnGill

jtate732 said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's the difference between the 21st KJV and the AV?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KJ21/TMB updates words like "prevent" (precede) which have changed meanings or dropped out of the language. Check out the website.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John 1:18 should read "only begotten Son". Carson's argument against 'only begotten' is weak at best. However, 'unique' is much better than "one and only" since such a reading negates adoption. Furthermore, 'God' is a Valentinian corruption of the text.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any articles on this? I'm interested. And yes, "Unique" is much better than "one and only", since we're all sons of God if regenerate, right?
> 
> 
> 
> We all know Ruckman is a nut. Per Wikipedia (and I've read this myself) -
> 
> 
> 
> He even listed the New Scofield KJV as "not the word of God", which I've found excellent, at least when you ignore the notes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should know that the AV-Preferred position is a Reformed position. Most Dutch Reformed churches uses the AV as do many Free Presbyterian Churches. Ian Paisley recommended that we should only use it. The Protestant Reformed Churches uses it and are against modern versions. Click here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Joel Beeke I think is AV-Preferred. I'd tend to put Paisley in the KJVO (rather than KJVP - preferred) camp because of his arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And remember, don't drink the kool-aid!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, I stick with beer. That keeps the indy-fundies away. If that doesn't work, I break out the Scotch (Scottish Covenanter) or Gin (English Puritan) if we have some of the Hyles/Ruckman type.
Click to expand...


Here are the links to the three books of Dean John William Burgon:

The Revision Revised

The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels

The Causes of Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels.

The pages I listed earlier were from reprints but should be the same at these links.

I don't think Letis' article is available online. Edward F. Hills' The King James Version Defended deals with it in chapter 5.

Herman C. Hoskier's Codex B and Its Allies A Study and an Indictment deals with it starting here.

I'll put together some other online sources. From what I've read most of the modern writings in support of 'Son' are derivative of Burgon, Scrivener, & Hoskier.

Thankfully I wasn't drinking anything when I read:



> Nah, I stick with beer. That keeps the indy-fundies away. If that doesn't work, I break out the Scotch (Scottish Covenanter) or Gin (English Puritan) if we have some of the Hyles/Ruckman type.



I busted out laughing. Classic! I had actually forgot about Hyles Enemies of Soul Winning and the KJV. Thankfully not all indy-fundy's are hylesian ruckmanites. There are even a few that are Reformed Calvinists.

I haven't read about Paisley. I just heard he promoted the usage of the AV.


----------



## Ivan

armourbearer said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is either a possibility?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not from li'l ol' me.
Click to expand...


Yes, sir, I understand that, but since it's going to be the 400th anniversary of the AV I thought perhaps something was in the works. If not an "update" than something promoting the event...something....


----------



## JohnGill

Ivan said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is either a possibility?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not from li'l ol' me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, sir, I understand that, but since it's going to be the 400th anniversary of the AV I thought perhaps something was in the works. If not an "update" than something promoting the event...something....
Click to expand...


With the current negative attitude in 'popular' Christendom towards the AV, I doubt they will plan anything. The TBS or Cambridge might have something in the works. It'd be nice to see a scholarly treatment on the effects of the AV on the English language. Maybe an essay dealing with the distinctive characteristics of Biblical Language.


----------



## Ivan

JohnGill said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not from li'l ol' me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, sir, I understand that, but since it's going to be the 400th anniversary of the AV I thought perhaps something was in the works. If not an "update" than something promoting the event...something....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With the current negative attitude in 'popular' Christendom towards the AV, I doubt they will plan anything. The TBS or Cambridge might have something in the works. It'd be nice to see a scholarly treatment on the effects of the AV on the English language. Maybe an essay dealing with the distinctive characteristics of Biblical Language.
Click to expand...


Perhaps, in honor of the AV, I'll use it exclusively.


----------



## RTaron

jtate732 said:


> "Faithful" KJV Updates
> 
> 
> 1) King James 21 or Third Millennium Bible - this one updates a lot, but not the Thees/Thous. I kinda like this one, though I don't have one in text.




I didn't know about this bible version. Thanks for posting about it. I looks very good. Third Millennium Bible (TMB), New Authorized Version (NAV)


However, there is a statement in the preface that sounds sketchy to me. It says:



> "What has been historically known as Biblical English has been retained throughout the updating process. It is readily distinguishable from the colloquial language of business, commerce, and the media used in contemporary Bible translations. Biblical English may be intuitively recognized as the traditional language of worship and prayer, a liturgical language, used for centuries in English-speaking churches everywhere. It is not, as has often been alleged, the Shakespearean language of the early seventeenth century. It has indeed never been used in ordinary secular discourse anywhere, *but owes its character to faithful translation from the original biblical languages. *It is the language which has found its acceptance in Scripture and liturgy for more than five hundred years in over ninety percent of the English-speaking churches throughout the world. Only in the late twentieth century does one find secular English permeating Bible translations."



I think what they are referring to is using "th" at the end of many words like cometh and goeth or hearest. 

How can this be attributed to "faithful translation of the original biblical languages"? 

Does anyone know what this is about? Is it just a sales pitch?

Thanks!


----------



## JohnGill

RTaron said:


> jtate732 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Faithful" KJV Updates
> 
> 
> 1) King James 21 or Third Millennium Bible - this one updates a lot, but not the Thees/Thous. I kinda like this one, though I don't have one in text.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know about this bible version. Thanks for posting about it. I looks very good. Third Millennium Bible (TMB), New Authorized Version (NAV)
> 
> 
> However, there is a statement in the preface that sounds sketchy to me. It says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "What has been historically known as Biblical English has been retained throughout the updating process. It is readily distinguishable from the colloquial language of business, commerce, and the media used in contemporary Bible translations. Biblical English may be intuitively recognized as the traditional language of worship and prayer, a liturgical language, used for centuries in English-speaking churches everywhere. It is not, as has often been alleged, the Shakespearean language of the early seventeenth century. It has indeed never been used in ordinary secular discourse anywhere, *but owes its character to faithful translation from the original biblical languages. *It is the language which has found its acceptance in Scripture and liturgy for more than five hundred years in over ninety percent of the English-speaking churches throughout the world. Only in the late twentieth century does one find secular English permeating Bible translations."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think what they are referring to is using "th" at the end of many words like cometh and goeth or hearest.
> 
> How can this be attributed to "faithful translation of the original biblical languages"?
> 
> Does anyone know what this is about? Is it just a sales pitch?
> 
> Thanks!
Click to expand...


If it is a reference to the -est & -eth ending, these are necessary in order to properly translate the Greek and Hebrew verb forms.

I go
Thou goest -est
He/She/It goeth -eth

Dropping these verb endings and the thou/you distinction makes a translation less accurate.

They may also be addressing the transparency of the AV to the original languages. Instead of translating the Bible into the common english of their time, they translated it into what can only be called "Biblical English." The AV is filled with Hebrew Idioms that are missing from modern translations. When you see an unusual sentence structure in the AV, it is due to the underlying Greek or Hebrew sentence being faithfully represented in English.

On page 3 I posted some links and excerpts that deal with the readability of the AV. Those links also deal with the faithfulness of the translation to the originals.

Hope that helps. 

In fact Harvard has a book out that deals directly with this issue. I'll find the title and post it later.


----------



## Ex Nihilo

JohnGill said:


> RTaron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jtate732 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Faithful" KJV Updates
> 
> 
> 1) King James 21 or Third Millennium Bible - this one updates a lot, but not the Thees/Thous. I kinda like this one, though I don't have one in text.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know about this bible version. Thanks for posting about it. I looks very good. Third Millennium Bible (TMB), New Authorized Version (NAV)
> 
> 
> However, there is a statement in the preface that sounds sketchy to me. It says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "What has been historically known as Biblical English has been retained throughout the updating process. It is readily distinguishable from the colloquial language of business, commerce, and the media used in contemporary Bible translations. Biblical English may be intuitively recognized as the traditional language of worship and prayer, a liturgical language, used for centuries in English-speaking churches everywhere. It is not, as has often been alleged, the Shakespearean language of the early seventeenth century. It has indeed never been used in ordinary secular discourse anywhere, *but owes its character to faithful translation from the original biblical languages. *It is the language which has found its acceptance in Scripture and liturgy for more than five hundred years in over ninety percent of the English-speaking churches throughout the world. Only in the late twentieth century does one find secular English permeating Bible translations."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think what they are referring to is using "th" at the end of many words like cometh and goeth or hearest.
> 
> How can this be attributed to "faithful translation of the original biblical languages"?
> 
> Does anyone know what this is about? Is it just a sales pitch?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it is a reference to the -est & -eth ending, these are necessary in order to properly translate the Greek and Hebrew verb forms.
> 
> I go
> Thou goest -est
> He/She/It goeth -eth
> 
> *Dropping these verb endings and the thou/you distinction makes a translation less accurate.*
Click to expand...


Undoubtedly the verb forms of Greek and Hebrew do not have exact corresponding forms in 2008 English -- but if we have to learn another language to get a better idea of the original forms, why aren't more lay people learning Greek and Hebrew? Greek verb forms do not have exactly analogous forms in "Biblical English," either. 

I am curious as to what is more accurate about "he goeth" as opposed to "he goes." I understand that Greek has different verb forms for "he goes" as opposed to "I go" but I don't see any substantive difference that needs to be indicated by a translation. . .


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Ivan said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is either a possibility?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not from li'l ol' me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, sir, I understand that, but since it's going to be the 400th anniversary of the AV I thought perhaps something was in the works. If not an "update" than something promoting the event...something....
Click to expand...


2011 Trust
The King James Version 400th Anniversary Website

Trinitarian Bible Society:



> 09 May 2008
> 
> Four Hundred Years
> 
> 
> In celebration of the four hundredth anniversary of the publication of the English Authorised (King James) Version of the Bible in 2011, the Society is planning a series of commemorative lectures throughout the British Isles. Subjects will include the history of the English Bible before 1611, King James and Hampton Court, a Protestant Bible for all people, and the Authorised Version's relevance in a multicultural society. Details will be provided as they become available.
> 
> We would appreciate your prayers as we seek the Lord's guidance in this endeavour.


----------



## JohnGill

Ex Nihilo said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RTaron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know about this bible version. Thanks for posting about it. I looks very good. Third Millennium Bible (TMB), New Authorized Version (NAV)
> 
> 
> However, there is a statement in the preface that sounds sketchy to me. It says:
> 
> 
> 
> I think what they are referring to is using "th" at the end of many words like cometh and goeth or hearest.
> 
> How can this be attributed to "faithful translation of the original biblical languages"?
> 
> Does anyone know what this is about? Is it just a sales pitch?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it is a reference to the -est & -eth ending, these are necessary in order to properly translate the Greek and Hebrew verb forms.
> 
> I go
> Thou goest -est
> He/She/It goeth -eth
> 
> *Dropping these verb endings and the thou/you distinction makes a translation less accurate.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Undoubtedly the verb forms of Greek and Hebrew do not have exact corresponding forms in 2008 English -- but if we have to learn another language to get a better idea of the original forms, why aren't more lay people learning Greek and Hebrew? Greek verb forms do not have exactly analogous forms in "Biblical English," either.
> 
> I am curious as to what is more accurate about "he goeth" as opposed to "he goes." I understand that Greek has different verb forms for "he goes" as opposed to "I go" but I don't see any substantive difference that needs to be indicated by a translation. . .
Click to expand...


What's the other language you're referring to?

In Greek & Hebrew there is a difference between 2nd pers. sing. and 2nd pers. plur pronouns. Any translation in English that is to accurately reflect the original languages must also make that distinction. The -est & -eth endings are the verb endings that go with that distinction. It is bad grammar to write, Thou go. However it is not bad grammar to write, thou shalt go. He goeth and he goes are not substantially different. But when using the correct 2nd pers. sing. pronoun we must also employ the correct verb endings for the other pronouns. In third pers. sing. using "-s" while "using "-est" for 2nd pers. sing. breeds confusion. The endings are similar to the corresponding Latin endings.

Robert Lowth's A Short Introduction to English Grammar deals with how the Time & Mode of verbs are rendered with the two endings.

I should have clarified that the verb endings go together with the thou/you distinction. You cannot separate them.

John 1:49-51

AV 49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, *thou* art the Son of God; *thou* art the
King of Israel. 50 Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto *thee*, I saw *thee*
under the fig tree, believest *thou*? *thou* shalt see greater things than these. 51 And he saith
unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto *you*, Hereafter *ye* shall see heaven open, and the angels of
God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.

ESV 49 Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, *you* are the Son of God! *You* are the King of Israel!”
50 Jesus answered him, “Because I said to *you*, ‘I saw *you* under the fig tree,’ do *you* believe?
*You* will see greater things than these.” 51 And he said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to *you*, *you*
will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”

In the ESV it appears that Jesus is addressing Nathanael the entire time. He is not. The AV makes this clear.


----------



## Galatians220

armourbearer said:


> Grace Alone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rev. Winzer, do you know why they didn't make the NKJV an update of the original KJV manuscripts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the preface to the NKJV is carefully read it will be seen that this version presumed to make the AV more *precise* and not simply more readable. This led the committee down the path of seeking academic acceptability. Remarkably, though, its innovations led to less precision, since one cannot make heads nor tails of what the text is actually saying on numerous occasions. E.g., Every English speaker knows what "hell" is, but who can tell what to make of "Hades," which is really only a transliteration, not a translation.
Click to expand...

 
For what it's worth: The NKJV Examined and Bible Version Comparison Chart.

My Thompson Chain Reference KJV (for just one of many references that I've read on this, and noting that the TCR is, itself, not a particular proponent of the KJV, although it obviously does publish a version of it) has a chart in the back showing a line of descent for the NKJV from the Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus, as well as from "Dead Sea Scrolls and Newly Discovered Manuscripts." (p. 1585, Thompson Chain Reference, Kirkbride, 1988.) The line of Biblical descent appertaining to the KJV includes Bishops, Geneva, the Great Bible, Matthews, Coverdale, Tyndale, Wycliffe and "ancient copies." I would respectfully aver that the line of descent of the KJV and the NKJV are different...

Margaret


----------



## Ex Nihilo

JohnGill said:


> Ex Nihilo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is a reference to the -est & -eth ending, these are necessary in order to properly translate the Greek and Hebrew verb forms.
> 
> I go
> Thou goest -est
> He/She/It goeth -eth
> 
> *Dropping these verb endings and the thou/you distinction makes a translation less accurate.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Undoubtedly the verb forms of Greek and Hebrew do not have exact corresponding forms in 2008 English -- but if we have to learn another language to get a better idea of the original forms, why aren't more lay people learning Greek and Hebrew? Greek verb forms do not have exactly analogous forms in "Biblical English," either.
> 
> I am curious as to what is more accurate about "he goeth" as opposed to "he goes." I understand that Greek has different verb forms for "he goes" as opposed to "I go" but I don't see any substantive difference that needs to be indicated by a translation. . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the other language you're referring to?
Click to expand...


"Biblical English," since most people do not already understand the distinction between thou/you. Technically the KJV is in an early form of modern English, but most people need language training -- not unlike foreign language training -- to understand the very concepts that KJV English reproduces better.



> I should have clarified that the verb endings go together with the thou/you distinction. You cannot separate them.



Ah, I see. I can see the significance of the thou/you, but the only reason you can't separate that from the verb endings, if I am understanding correctly, is because it would be bad English. 

I agree that people need to be more educated about the nuances of Greek that can't be expressed in modern English, but thou/you is only one part of that. There are plenty of other Greek grammatical constructions (I took Greek a while ago, so my memory is probably confused, but concepts like the aortic, the middle voice, other distinctions among verb tense forms and voices come to mind) that can't be expressed in any form of English. The only solution to this is not the KJV, but a better knowledge of biblical language to supplement our Bible reading.

And for those who wouldn't put in the effort to learn something about Greek grammar, I don't see them putting in the effort to learn the specific KJV grammar that is _somewhat_ closer -- so they miss out on these distinctions, anyway.


----------



## JohnGill

JohnGill said:


> In fact Harvard has a book out that deals directly with this issue. I'll find the title and post it later.



The book is Harvard's Literary Guide to the Bible.



> The use of word pairs depends naturally upon parallelism...The doctrine that the Bible is its own interpreter was held...by both the rabbis and Luther, and the belief that one can
> best interpret a text by associating it with another text of similar authority presumes...the most fleeting echo, perhaps only of a single word, is significant.



and why they picked the AV:



> ... our reasons for doing so must be obvious: it is the version most English readers associate with the literary qualities of the Bible, *and it is still arguably the version that best preserves the literary effects of the original languages* (The Literary Guide to the Bible, p. 7)



Professor Gerald Hammond of the University of Manchester on the AV:



> [T]he context defines the word and gives it its specific meaning..._t constantly redefines and recontextualizes words. By ignoring this fact, [modern] translators frequently diminish the status of the text they translate...A modern translator...perceives the word only as it appears in the lexicon...[T]he literary loss is large..._


_

Albert S. Cook's book listed in an earlier post is also useful._


----------

