# KJV ONLY



## Randall Pederson (Jan 12, 2004)

Does anyone here buy into the KJV only arguments? I find them somewhat unsettling as the original preface to the 1611 version states that as the English language changes, so, too, must the translation.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jan 12, 2004)

wannabee was probably on just a little while ago I believe he could answer this well as he used to go to a KJV only church.

blade


----------



## jfschultz (Jan 12, 2004)

Which one? The first edition that left &quot;not&quot; out of the seventh commandment?

Consider the origin, a king who did not like what the Geneva Bible said about the Egyptian midwives.


----------



## LawrenceU (Jan 12, 2004)

The argument for KJV only are based in a gross misunderstanding of language, translation and textual criticism. For a very good easy to read book get a copy of James White's 'The KJV Only Controversy.'


----------



## blhowes (Jan 12, 2004)

I spent quite a few years in a KJV-only church. I don't know that I've ever heard the arguments articulated why the new perversions of the Bible (no offense, that's what they called the other Bibles) were wrong. Its hard to sift through (determine) the facts when the origin of the other translations are just linked with movements or organizations that most &quot;Bible believers&quot; would tend to oppose (world counsel of churches, ecumenical movement, liberalism, etc).

Personally, the KJV-only debate is one that I never cared to get into with anybody. It always seemed a little silly to attack the spiritual armor (the sword of the spirit) that the Lord gave which is used to attack our common adversary, unless the facts clearly warranted it. 

Has anybody ever heard a debate where the KJV position was credibly defended. I've listened to several debates that James White had with KJV-only proponents where his opposition I thought was a little lacking. I always figured that they &quot;sent a boy to do a man's job&quot; or that the best the KJVers had to offer either couldn't do the debate, declined to debate, or whatever.


----------



## LawrenceU (Jan 12, 2004)

I've never heard a debate in which the KJVer came out on top. Not even in the 'smaller venue' forum. The reason is because the argument is illogical and based upon inaccuracies in history, textual history, inspiration, transmission, . . . . ad infinitum. I'm not trying to cast allegations. It is just the way things look from where I sit. I have some dear brothers who are in that camp. (Living near Pensacola seems to cause that.) Some of them are so rabid about this that you'd think that either James Rex or his version went to the cross. They get more vexxed by this than they do more serious issues such as open theism.


----------



## blhowes (Jan 12, 2004)

[b:d2d26584b4]Lawrence wrote:[/b:d2d26584b4]
I've never heard a debate in which the KJVer came out on top. 

How about any debates where they at least came across as being quasi credible. The ones I've heard, in my opinion, made the person look silly. The debate that James White had against Gail Riplinger is a prime example. 

Bob


----------



## Guest (Jan 12, 2004)

I am a Latin Vulgate only myself.


----------



## Randall Pederson (Jan 12, 2004)

*Worse and worse.*

It's kind of sad how the &quot;KJV only&quot; arguments seem to get worse and worse as the years go by. The &quot;best&quot; defense of the KJV was called &quot;The KJV defended&quot; by some Harvard Graduate. It was a little known, and little recognized, work. He based his arguments largely upon 1) the Providential preservation of the Textus Receptus, 2) the large reception of the translation as the &quot;standard&quot; translated for centuries afterwards. Just recently, Dr. Joel Beeke wrote a tract called &quot;Practical Reasons for Retaining the KJV&quot;. I presume he called them &quot;practical&quot; because there are no real &quot;textual&quot; reasons for doing so (at least in the sense that KJV onlyers would have it). Perhaps the greatest failure of the tract was the &quot;practical&quot; reason that &quot;it just sounds like the Bible&quot;!
Arghh...


----------



## blhowes (Jan 12, 2004)

[b:0ad4995aca]Randall wrote:[/b:0ad4995aca]
The &quot;best&quot; defense of the KJV was called &quot;The KJV defended&quot; by some Harvard Graduate. It was a little known, and little recognized, work. He based his arguments largely upon 1) the Providential preservation of the Textus Receptus, 2) the large reception of the translation as the &quot;standard&quot; translated for centuries afterwards.

I thought that title sounded familiar. I had bought the book around 15 years ago and never got around to reading it. Its by Edward Freer Hills. His mini-biography on the back cover is interesting - sounds like he's no slouch:

&quot;Edward Freer Hills was a distinguished Latin and Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Yale University. He also earned the B.D. degree from Westminster Theological Seminary and the TH.M degree from Columbia Theological Seminary. After doing doctoral work at the University of Chicago in New Testament text criticism, he completed his program at Harvard, earning the TH.D. in this field. He is also the author of Believing Bible Study.&quot;

In thumbing through the book, it looks like its definitely worth reading. 

Bob


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 12, 2004)

[quote:66ad4c2553][i:66ad4c2553]Originally posted by blhowes[/i:66ad4c2553]
[b:66ad4c2553]Randall wrote:[/b:66ad4c2553]
The &quot;best&quot; defense of the KJV was called &quot;The KJV defended&quot; by some Harvard Graduate. It was a little known, and little recognized, work. He based his arguments largely upon 1) the Providential preservation of the Textus Receptus, 2) the large reception of the translation as the &quot;standard&quot; translated for centuries afterwards.

I thought that title sounded familiar. I had bought the book around 15 years ago and never got around to reading it. Its by Edward Freer Hills. His mini-biography on the back cover is interesting - sounds like he's no slouch:

&quot;Edward Freer Hills was a distinguished Latin and Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Yale University. He also earned the B.D. degree from Westminster Theological Seminary and the TH.M degree from Columbia Theological Seminary. After doing doctoral work at the University of Chicago in New Testament text criticism, he completed his program at Harvard, earning the TH.D. in this field. He is also the author of Believing Bible Study.&quot;

In thumbing through the book, it looks like its definitely worth reading. 

Bob [/quote:66ad4c2553]


There is a huge difference between defense of the use of the KJV and KJV-onlyism (which is a heresy). The former is certainly within the pale of orthodoxy, and a good case can be made for it. The latter is held mostly by kooks that have other major heresies (just read Riplinger or the other major proponent - I forget his name).


----------



## blhowes (Jan 13, 2004)

[b:597626eebe]Fred wrote:[/b:597626eebe]
There is a huge difference between defense of the use of the KJV and KJV-onlyism (which is a heresy). The former is certainly within the pale of orthodoxy, and a good case can be made for it. 

I agree. After writing the first part of my post, I started thumbing through the book a little and thought it would be disrespectful for me to lump him in with the KJV-only crowd. 

[b:597626eebe]Fred wrote:[/b:597626eebe]
The latter is held mostly by kooks that have other major heresies (just read Riplinger or the other major proponent - I forget his name).

&quot;Dr&quot; Peter Ruckman?

Being a somewhat slow reader (who's working on his speed), I wouldn't waste my time reading Riplinger's writings. Some of her ideas that I heard in the debate with James White I thought were silly - I felt embarrassed for her. I was glad that James White took the &quot;high ground&quot; when he debated her and didn't utterly crush her in the debate. (I think he won hands down, but he did it with dignity and allowed her &quot;arguments&quot; to speak for themselves)

Bob

[Edited on 1-13-2004 by blhowes]


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 13, 2004)

[quote:ddccf39335][i:ddccf39335]Originally posted by blhowes[/i:ddccf39335]
[b:ddccf39335]Fred wrote:[/b:ddccf39335]
There is a huge difference between defense of the use of the KJV and KJV-onlyism (which is a heresy). The former is certainly within the pale of orthodoxy, and a good case can be made for it. 

I agree. After writing the first part of my post, I started thumbing through the book a little and thought it would be disrespectful for me to lump him in with the KJV-only crowd. 

[b:ddccf39335]Fred wrote:[/b:ddccf39335]
The latter is held mostly by kooks that have other major heresies (just read Riplinger or the other major proponent - I forget his name).

&quot;Dr&quot; Peter Ruckman?

Being a somewhat slow reader (who's working on his speed), I wouldn't waste my time reading Riplinger's writings. Some of her ideas that I heard in the debate with James White I thought were silly - I felt embarrassed for her. I was glad that James White took the &quot;high ground&quot; when he debated her and didn't utterly crush her in the debate. (I think he won hands down, but he did it with dignity and allowed her &quot;arguments&quot; to speak for themselves)

Bob

[Edited on 1-13-2004 by blhowes] [/quote:ddccf39335]

Yes, it is Ruckman I am thinking about. His soteriology is completly whacked. He also has many odd views concerning the Trinity.


----------



## Jie-Huli (Jan 13, 2004)

[quote:9890b57389][i:9890b57389]Originally posted by Randall Pederson[/i:9890b57389]
Does anyone here buy into the KJV only arguments? I find them somewhat unsettling as the original preface to the 1611 version states that as the English language changes, so, too, must the translation. [/quote:9890b57389]

I do not agree with all of the arguments made by &quot;KJV only&quot; proponents, but I do think the KJV is the best version to use, and I think it is unfortunate so many other translations have come into existence; I think it would be best if all used the KJV.

I just wanted to respond briefly to the question about the preface to the 1611 version stating that as the English language changes, so too must the translation. I believe the way we should understand this is that when the language changes to such an extent that common people cannot read and understand the Authorised (KJV) Version, then a new translation would be appropriate, because the ability of God's people to read God's Word for themselves is of the most vital importance.

However, I do not believe that this has actually taken place; the English language has not in fact changed so much that people can no longer understand the KJV. It is still exceptionally readable, as well as majestic and memorable for the language it uses.

The newer translations are certainly easier to read, but also bland-sounding and simplistic, sometimes achieving their simplicity by questionable interpretation rather than straight translation. 

When we spurn out new translations every few years adapting to the vulgar language of the times, we send the message that God's Word must adapt itself to human society, rather than the other way around.

If the English language had really evolved such that the KJV was not readable by the people a new translation would be justified, but that simply is not the case. The church I attend uses the KJV, and many internationals for whom English is not even their first language are able to use it, so I cannot imagine why any native English speaker could not. It might be a little harder at first, but we are called to diligence, not laziness, in our Christian life.

I certainly do not put the KJV on the same level as the original Greek and Hebrew texts, and a good pastor will explain to his flock instances where the KJV translation might be misleading compared to the original texts. But I still believe there is no other translation to compare with the KJV, and it would be good if all churches used it so that all God's people would be united in their use of the same Bible. Understanding of the KJV language is also very useful for helping people retain the ability to understand the great old hymns and the works of the great reformers. If Christians are dumbed down by the Bible translations they are given, we should not be surprised if they are less and less inclined to read the great old works of the Puritans and others not writing in the modern vulgar tongue.

I realize there are arguments about other translations being more accurate because of the texts used, and I do not address that here; I am responding primarily to the question about the translation needing to change as the language does.


----------



## workman (Jan 13, 2004)

[quote:4bc8e183d6][i:4bc8e183d6]Originally posted by Randall Pederson[/i:4bc8e183d6]

Does anyone here buy into the KJV only arguments?
[/quote:4bc8e183d6]
I did, for a season in Florida many years ago.

Looking back I imagine it felt somewhat like a cult.


----------



## pastorway (Jan 13, 2004)

[quote:ffb430ebda]the English language has not in fact changed so much that people can no longer understand the KJV.[/quote:ffb430ebda]

The KJV has been &quot;improved&quot; several times and updated for language. Most people to day cannot read and understand the 1611 or later versions of the KJV. The language has changed that much.

The KJV is a fine translation. I do not use it because when I used to I spent more time in my sermon defining the English terms for my congregation than I did on the Greek and Hebrew. If I have to translate it while I am preachin git then the language needs updating!

As White proves over and over in his debates, there is nothing wrong with several of the &quot;new&quot; transaltions and many even improve the work of the KJV translators, giving us a more accurate English version of the Bible.

Phillip


----------



## luvroftheWord (Jan 13, 2004)

You can manipulate the original languages to say whatever you want, but not the KJV, baby!


----------



## Wannabee (Jan 14, 2004)

Blade, sorry I missed your prompt there. 

Looks like most of it's been said though.

The KJV is great. I still like to read it. But let's face it, it's tough for some people. And the translation is lacking in many ways, relying heavily on the TR. The KJVonly crowd equates the TR with the MT, which is really quite dishonest. They also refuse fellowship with churches that won't adhere to their position. I know of a couple of churches where you will not be allowed to preach unless you use the KJV. It's really quite sad. I think I used to hear a plug for the KJV at least once or twice a month from the pulpit. What a waste of time, energy and ability. 

As has been said, KJVonlyism is cultish. The mindset that one gets is really quite binding, keeping one caught in a legalistic trap. When I realized how wrong it was it was an extremely liberating experience. I wasn't in a position to be used by Christ because I was so caught up in a fight that was not edifying to His children and wascontrary to His glory. The freedom was exhilarating, almost like being born again, again :biggrin:. 

I prefer the NKJV now because I still lean toward the Byzantine side of the debate. I try to honestly check it against the NASB though, and when there's a descrepancy I do a word study. I know that's a little backward, but I'm just learning the languages. 

Another plug for learning Greek and Hebrew.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jan 15, 2004)

its ok


----------



## LawrenceU (Jan 15, 2004)

[quote:817e911ebe]
However, I do not believe that this has actually taken place; the English language has not in fact changed so much that people can no longer understand the KJV. It is still exceptionally readable, as well as majestic and memorable for the language it uses. 
[/quote:817e911ebe]

I know that it has already been said, but the language has changed considerably; and not just in pronouns and verbal formation. Syntax and definitions have changed. Learning 1611 English ACCURATELY unless your are raised with it (and sometimes even then folks miss it) is essentially learning a new dialect.

I've taught ESL for some time. It is true that 1611 can be learnt. But, learning the language necessary for NASB or ESV is much easier; and in my experience more productive.

Why is the language viewed as majestic? Because it is associated with church. It was not majestic in 1611 - it was the vernacular of the street. This brings up another point. The use of archaic pronouns and verb forms when addressing God. I realise that this has been carried into other translations. It is a mistake. Those forms were the common speech used in addressing anyone. To bring them in, and thereby make a distinction in the text, is adding in implication into the text that is not in the original.

Just my :wr50:


----------



## JohnV (Jan 15, 2004)

Yeah but, Lawrence, for a southerner any other form of English is another dialect. 

Especially Texas?

Seriously, though, the majestic part of the old English is that it is so grammatically structured that the phraseology, and not just the denotation of words, are part of the conveying of the meanings. And this can be done very closely in the old English. In our time there are hardly any rules anymore about grammatical structure. I know the ones I learned in school are out the window. They are still good form, mind you, but they are not rules anymore. 

The same is true for the dictionary. It is not what it used to be. It now reflects the way society uses words, whether rightly or not, and is not the tool to better society's use of words anymore. 

I am not a KJV onlyest. I hardly use it anymore. But I really like the RSV because it still respects grammatical structure. For word usage I like the NASB. But note that both the RSV and the NASB are reworking of an older style of English. 

If you read Edward's stuff, just like he wrote it, and other old Puritan writers, it is NOT KJ English. There is a distinct difference. 

But all this means nothing in light of the argument that the Bible should be in the vernacular. This is very true. And no matter how poor our language might be in our time, the Bible should be in our native tongue. The problem is not the version of the Bible, whether it should be KJV only, but in our poor English skills, and how we have let it slide. 

Read any newspaper today, and start counting all the poor use of English, and you won't get past page one before you tire of it. These are professional word people. Words and sentences are their life's work. It is a refelction on our time in more ways than the the stories they write about.

I'm not for going back to KJ English, but I am for improving the language we have. Webster should be our guide to the use of English, not the Valley Girls.


----------



## Jie-Huli (Jan 15, 2004)

[quote:74a4cc144b][i:74a4cc144b]Originally posted by LawrenceU[/i:74a4cc144b]
Why is the language viewed as majestic? Because it is associated with church. It was not majestic in 1611 - it was the vernacular of the street. This brings up another point. The use of archaic pronouns and verb forms when addressing God. I realise that this has been carried into other translations. It is a mistake. Those forms were the common speech used in addressing anyone. To bring them in, and thereby make a distinction in the text, is adding in implication into the text that is not in the original.

Just my :wr50: [/quote:74a4cc144b]

We may differ in our appreciation of the KJV language and our assessment of its suitability for common people today.

I know that the KJV language is much closer to the vernacular of the time in which it was written than it is to modern vernacular, but it was not strictly the vulgar vernacular even of that time.

And I would say the vernacular of that time is superior to the vernacular of modern times.

There is no denying that modern translations, though easier to understand, sound bland compared to the KJV. The commonplace language of the new Bibles is thus more difficult to memorise than is the KJV. And the almost casual sounding language only too easily encourages thinking about spiritual things in a more casual way.

I agree with you that if modern translations choose to do away with the so-called &quot;archaic&quot; distinction between the singular and plural 2nd person (&quot;thee&quot; and &quot;thou&quot; as opposed to &quot;ye&quot; and &quot;you&quot; ), then they probably should do so consistently and not retain the forms when the text is addressing God, because there are certain instances where whether God is being addressed or not is perhaps not clearcut in the original language, and so including or leaving out the special form in some instances might involve undue interpretation.

Many present-day Christians do use the &quot;thee&quot; and &quot;thou&quot; forms when personally addressing God in prayer, however, which I think is a healthy practice, so I suppose that is why these forms are also retained in prayers in some of the modern translations.

At any rate, I do not think the so-called &quot;archaic&quot; forms should be discarded at all in any event, because they in fact are not just a matter of form, but are very important to the meaning of the text, denoting clearly the difference between the singular and plural form of the second person &quot;you&quot;, consistent with the original languages. Modern translations which simply use &quot;you&quot; for both singular and plural second person leave the number ambiguous, which can often make a big difference in our understanding of the text.

The &quot;thee&quot; and &quot;thou&quot; forms were not part of the common vernacular even at the time the KJV was written; these forms were rightly used in the KJV despite this fact because their use was important for a correct understanding of God's Word.

[Edited on 1-15-2004 by Jie-Huli]


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2004)

[quote:a46e10627f]
And I would say the vernacular of that time is superior to the vernacular of modern times. 
[/quote:a46e10627f]

No, you personally enjoy the vernacular of that time to today.

Language today conveys the same truth. And eloquence is subjective. The difference between Eliot and Milton is vast but both are eloquent, and both convey truth in a powerful way. 

Vernacular is not a hindrance to proper translation.

(And by the way, &quot;thee&quot; and &quot;thou&quot; are not formal in KJ English, they are familiar.)

The use of thou and its forms in the King James Bible seem to us to be formal, sublime, ethereal, and holy; but to the translators and original readers, if it had any connotation at all, it connoted a close familiarity. After all, formality ill-befits a Savior who addressed God as Father(Abba), and enjoined us to do the same.

In order to show that all people were equal before God, Quakers continued to use the informal pronouns thee and thou longer than anyone else. Actually, they stopped using thou and used thee as if it were a subject form, and they combined it with the third person singular of the verb, which is ungrammatical. So what would be "thou findest the truth" in historical usage became "thee finds the truth" in Quakerese.



[Edited on 1-15-2004 by Visigoth]


----------



## Jie-Huli (Jan 15, 2004)

[quote:d484a3fde4][i:d484a3fde4]Originally posted by Visigoth[/i:d484a3fde4]

(And by the way, &quot;thee&quot; and &quot;thou&quot; are not formal in KJ English, they are familiar.)

The use of thou and its forms in the King James Bible seem to us to be formal, sublime, ethereal, and holy; but to the translators and original readers, if it had any connotation at all, it connoted a close familiarity. After all, formality ill-befits a Savior who addressed God as Father(Abba), and enjoined us to do the same.
[/quote:d484a3fde4]

In my understanding, in the KJV it has much less to do with either formality or familiarity than it does with showing properly the distinction between the singular and plurar form of the 2nd person pronoun. That is why it is used consistently for the 2nd person pronoun no matter what the context.


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2004)

That is true. I am just waery of arguments that suppose it is more holy to address God with &quot;thee&quot; instead of &quot;you&quot;.
I know you were not saying that. I also share your love for the KJV. I just thought your statements were a bit too subjectively dogmatic. 

Do you think vernacular can be a hindrance to translation, or conveying precise truths ? ?


----------



## Jie-Huli (Jan 15, 2004)

[quote:2ea4096fb5][i:2ea4096fb5]Originally posted by Visigoth[/i:2ea4096fb5]
That is true. I am just waery of arguments that suppose it is more holy to address God with &quot;thee&quot; instead of &quot;you&quot;.
I know you were not saying that. I also share your love for the KJV. I just thought your statements were a bit too subjectively dogmatic. 

Do you think vernacular can be a hindrance to translation, or conveying precise truths ? ? [/quote:2ea4096fb5]

I am sorry if I sounded subjectively dogmatic. As for how we address God in prayer today, I would surely never criticise anyone for addressing God with &quot;you&quot; in prayer; though I appreciate using &quot;thee&quot; and &quot;thou&quot; because it sets God apart from the way we speak to mere humans, I know there is no Scriptural requirement for using a different pronoun to address Him, so this is up to the individual and the church.

I guess I do think vernacular can be a hindrance in some respects . . .

What I really meant about the vernacular of the KJV times being superior to modern vernacular was not just that it subjectively sounds better, but that there is value in Christians today reading the Bible in a more classical language rather than the most commonplace language of the day. And I have a feeling that even in 1611, the KJV translation would not have sounded to the people of that time as casual and common as the modern translations of today sound to me; I believe there was always a certain special majesty in the KJV (even all those years ago when the common vernacular was much closer to its language) which the translations of today lack.

I just believe that the Word of God is taken with more reverence and awe and seriousness when worded in the KJV language than in the modern vulgar tongue.

But again I obviously cannot say it is a Scriptural command to stay with the KJV, so if others regard it best to move to a newer translation I cannot criticise, but I myself will continue to use the KJV. And the Bible translation a church uses would certainly be a factor in my decision which church to attend.


----------



## LawrenceU (Jan 15, 2004)

Just to go on record: I deplore the current state of the English language. We are deconstructing our language and are paying the price in our children. I deal with this on an almost daily basis with young people in our congregation. Having said that, we must make the Bible comprehensible to the man on the street. But, we must not stoop to the full dynamic equivalency position, in my opinion.

I do love the 1611. But, I love the Geneva more. If I were to choose an archaic translation that would be it.


----------



## JohnV (Jan 15, 2004)

I agree, Lawrence. 

We rely on the words of scripture to understand the teachings. We are always fending off new ideas or renewed old ideas. And we need the Bible at its best to do that, and for it to be authoritative. But we also need it so that the new and budding Christian can understand it. And the last time I checked, they weren't talking the old English. 

Whatever the standards of grammar we have, the Bible has to be the best of it. That's one of the problems with the NIV, I think; it just doesn't reach very high liguistically. We need high grammar and plain words. The better translations should have both, along with a good translation of the text, I would think. 

I have seen, though, that the KJV is too strongly condemned, and I think it was in order to get the congregation to submit the the elders' decision to go for the NIV for pew Bibles. My mother-in-law's church did that, and so alienated her because she used it almost exclusively because that was what she knew, remembered, memorized, and could relate to the easiest. And that is fine for her; she never spoke against the newer versions, so why did they have to ride her so much?

As you can guess, a lot of their arguments had nothing to do with which really is better. They were no more than an attempt to justify their choices. Arguments for KJV ought to be directed at the manuscripts they use, not the specific translation because that just doesn't hold water, in my opinion. When did KJV replace Textus Receptus, or whatever it's called?

So a strong reaction against KJV only is called for, in my opinion; but yet it needs to be respected for it's very fine structure and choice of words. It is a very fine translation. But it is a translation, and not an original manuscript.


----------



## Wannabee (Jan 16, 2004)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember that &quot;ye&quot; had been out of use for almost two centuries when the KJV was translated. However, in an effort to convey the meaning of the text more accurately the translators chose to use it for the plural second person.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 16, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Wannabee_
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember that "ye" had been out of use for almost two centuries when the KJV was translated. However, in an effort to convey the meaning of the text more accurately the translators chose to use it for the plural second person.


I'd be interested in this as well. The loss of the 2s/2p distinction is regrettable. And in at least one case, "you are the temple of the Holy Spirit" it has lead to some very *bad* theology. The "you" there is plural, and the text is about the unity of the church, not drug use or smoking (like everyone thinks today).

Having said that, I have often gotten around this issue by emphasizing that it really is "y'all are the temple..." Even Northerners get that.

[Edited on 10/17/2004 by fredtgreco]


----------



## turmeric (Jan 16, 2004)

*Why I Like the KJV*

1. It scans like poetry, making it easy to memorize.
2. It follows the Textus Receptus, which I like.
3. It seems less like a paraphrase than some of the others(though I'm going to give the ESV a whirl).
4. I cut my teeth on this version, the hard words were explained, when I took foreign languages in high school, I found the familliar form easier to memorize than I think I would have if I hadn't learned it in English first.:wr50:


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 17, 2004)

Well, I am responding very late to this discussion but here it goes. Something that is missing in this discussion is that there are different groups of manuscripts that our translations come from. Another part missing is the way they are translated. (i.e. Formal equivalence or Dynamic equivalence) Does anyone understand what I am talking about? I have been introduced to the argurments many years past but admit I am only a novice. I have a friend named J. P. Green Sr. Baker Bookhouse publishes his interlinear. He maintains that the line of manuscripts the King James comes from is more accurate to the originals probably. They are not the oldest but there is evidence, by outside older sources, that they are probably what was truly written. I read Dr. Whites book years ago, and if I did not misunderstand him, he misunderstood Mr. Greens position. I know J. P. Green Sr. and have spent some time with him. He is not a KJV only person. He is a majority text person. The Textus Receptus is a result of the Majority Texts. He has a 3 volume work called Unholy Hands on the Bible. He has Dean Burgon and His writings in the first volume. He has the 3rd volume done but it hasn't went to the printers yet. The third volume includes a critique of Dr. Whites book 'The KJV Controversy'. Click on the site below to get the books and other puritan writings.

For Christs Crown and Covenant, R. Martin Snyder
My son likes the banana. So do I.

Sovereign Grace Publishers/Christian Literature World
Jay P. Green Sr. books


[Edited on 1-4-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## ReformedWretch (Oct 17, 2004)

All I know is that I am still laughing at Fred using the word "whacked"


----------



## Reformingstudent (Oct 17, 2004)

Just came across this web site and thought those here might be interested. http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvdefects.html

I love the KJV bible and have quite a few copies but I have learned over the years that the KJV like any other version of the bible has it's flaws to. I do not wish to get rid of the KJV though as it is still one of the best on the market and I would still reccomend it over some of the newer versions on the market today.

Blessings.


Tom


----------



## bigheavyq (Dec 13, 2004)

I have many different versions at home.
Because I believed in the Sovereignty of God, I will hold to the Textus Receptus. However I do read and use the King James, NKJ, ESV, NASB, NIV.
I prefer the NKJ over all others and the Geneva a close second.

I will stay away from the Message (too much new age terminology), NLT (have interpreted andy calvinistic phrases out, see Rom 8:28-30), and most paraphrased, except I like JB Phillips.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 13, 2004)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Wannabee_
> ...



Y'all make an excellent point! 

One can note this distinction clearly in the French Bible. It's interesting to see that God is referred to as the more intimately personal/singular _Tu_ oftentimes rather than the more formal/plural _Vous_. I happen to pray in KJV-style English and one of my reasons for doing so is based on my preference to address God more intimately in prayer than is possible in modern English.


----------



## Bro.Jon (Jan 2, 2005)

Hello, everyone. I am kind of jumping in late on this thread.

I am a AV1611 KJB-only Baptist. My friend has done a lot of research on this topic, and would like to share his website, http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/articles.html 
When I start looking at other versions, and noticing words taken out, and complete verses missing, while other words are added, it makes me scratch my head. We are talking about God's Word, not some text book.
I have yet to find any errors in my KJB, and have yet to have any one show me one.


----------



## Covenant Joel (Jan 2, 2005)

No errors in the KJV?

"monogenhs" is wrongly translated in the KJV. It is from "genos," not "gennaw."

And in your post you assume what you need to prove: that the KJV is the standard. You say verses are missing. Perhaps it is rather that verses are added in the KJV.

Joel

[Edited on 1-3-2005 by Covenant Joel]


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 2, 2005)

brother.John,
Although I am not a KJV man myself, your position would be strengthened exponentially if you focused your defense on the Textus Receptus and not the AV1611.


----------



## Bro.Jon (Jan 3, 2005)

I really don't need to prove anything, when it comes to the KJB. 
People unfortunately think that God must have made mistakes when giving His Word, so newer is better.
It was on thing to point out spelling errors, and we don't need to go into the process of printing Bibles back in the 1600's, but it is another to have a Bible that has doctrinal changes.
I am new to this board, and a bit surprised.
For a board to be labeled "Puritan", there sure is a lot of ecumenism in here.


----------



## Joe Keysor (Jan 3, 2005)

At the beginning of this thread, Randall Pederson said "Does anyone here buy into the KJV only arguments? I find them somewhat unsettling as the original preface to the 1611 version states that as the English language changes, so, too, must the translation."

I have a different take on this question than I have heard expressed elsewhere. I find myself between two camps and rejected by both. 

On the one hand, the old language of the KJV is definitely a hindrance, especially to unbelievers. It is good to have a translation in modern English, if that translation is reliable and based on proper principles of translation and also on the right manuscripts. After all, even the KJV advocates use an updated edition of the 1611 version (made in the 1700's) and I have never seen anyone use an exact reprint of the 1611 version (these can be purchased). This is what the translators of the KJV meant when they referred to the need for new translations. It does not follow from that however they would instantly accept any and every new translation no matter what its content, just because it was new. 

On the other hand, I believe the KJV is the best available translation, and the only one I accept and use. Newer translations are in my view based on faulty manuscripts and faulty scholarly principles, and are not reliable. Furthermore, I believe deletions, or questioning passages such as Mark's account of the resurrection of Christ, are nothing less than the devil's attack on the word of God. I don't know about anyone else, but when someone says that a gospel account of the resurrection of Jesus Christ is not part of the original, I hear the hissing of the serpent. 

It is true that many defenders of the KJV use weak arguments and bad arguments - some of them are an embarrassment and I want nothing to do with them. I have not looked at Gail Riplinger's book as I do not believe in feminism and do not think it is suitable for a woman to lecture and teach on such subjects. From what I have heard second hand, her arguments (some of them) are very weak, and I am a KJV Only-ite. 

I debated this once on another board and some defender of New Bible-ism (or Let's Improve the Bible-ism) brought up and refuted extreme arguments which I didn't make. It might be that defenders of the new bibles prefer to debate the extremists - it is much easier for them to win. They may prefer to avoid the best defendants of the KJV as there are serious problems with modern scholarship that many do not want to examine.

Going over this whole thread, there are so many comments one could write a book in response. I don't want to be tedious with an excessively long post, so for now I would only like to comment on James White's 'The KJV Only Controversy.' I thought the book was full of mistakes and errors. I spent a fair amount of time researching and writing an in-depth response - I sent James White a copy and got no answer (the essay was not hostile or abusive). I would like to mention four or five problems I had with the book.

1) He said the KJV Only position was "anti-freedom." In no sense is it anti-freedom to say one bible translation is more authentic and accurate than others. Some KJV people do go to extremes, but the belief that modern translations are seriously flawed is not "anti-freedom."

2) He repeatedly said that the KJV was inaccurate and what the Greek "really" meant was.... In EVERY case I looked in my Liddell-Scott Greek Lexicon and found the KJV's rendering included in the possible definitions. It seems that White looked at some bible dictionary and just picked out the very first definition out of many, or the one that he liked, and thought this is what the Greek "really" means. I definitely got the impression he was overeager to find fault with the KJV and he did not think much about why the KJV translators chose the word they did. I also think James White and many other critics of the KJV could not read a page of Plato or Xenophon in the original to save their lives, and know much less about Greek than did the men whose work they criticize so freely. This does not apply to the rare occasions where the meaning of a word (such as "lust") has changed over time.

3) He criticized a KJV rendering where Jesus said "Let these sayings sink down into your ears," and asked "What father would speak to his child that way?" But what father would say to his child "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father through sanctification of the Spirit"? The bible is not a children's book and Jesus was not talking to children. This is one reason why the KJV has a degree of spiritual power that none of the modern versions have - it follows the original, and if it is difficult or unusual or hard to understand, so be it. It does not repeatedly and consistently make the bible simpler for the modern reader, thuis diluting its impact. 

4) He pointed to a major doctrinal mistake in the KJV and said no defenders of the KJV had been able to answer it. This was in Acts 19:2 where Paul asks "Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed?" He made quite an issue of this, asserting that it was bad translating and bad doctrine - people receive the Holy Spirit the instant they believe, according to him. But what does Paul say in Ephesians? "...in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise" (1:13). Another mistake in the bible? Also in Acts we read that the people of Samaria believed and were baptized, but received the Holy Spirit later. White's preferred rendering is in my mind definitely related to a false gospel which says "Just agree to some basic doctrines intellectually and you are guaranteed of a place in heaven no matter what you do" - not that White said this himself. As to the grammar, the Greek (in the TR at least) uses the aorist participle (pisteusantes), which refers to actions that were completed prior. His argument that the aorist participle can refer to simultaneous actions was extremely weak and contrary to basic grammar.

5) White spent some time refuting the most extreme and obvious arguments, but there were some substantive issues he did not deal with.

I strongly agreed with one comment made by someone that some new versions are easier to read because they alter the wording to what they guess it might mean. The KJV is much more inclined to leave the difficulties as they stand and let the reader search out the meaning.


----------



## Joe Keysor (Jan 3, 2005)

brother. John,

Excuse me for not responding to some more significant topics about the KJV, as I just put up one post that I wrote the other day without having read your comments. About ecumenism though, personally I like to see some different points of view on a discussion forum, though of course a local church needs more unity.

[Edited on 1-3-2005 by Joe Keysor]


----------



## Joe Keysor (Jan 3, 2005)

Jie Hu Li,

I was very glad to see some insightful comments on this question from China. Some American Christians are not aware that some Chinese Christians are deeply informed on many theological and spiritual questions.


----------



## Covenant Joel (Jan 3, 2005)

> I really don't need to prove anything, when it comes to the KJB.
> People unfortunately think that God must have made mistakes when giving His Word, so newer is better.
> It was on thing to point out spelling errors, and we don't need to go into the process of printing Bibles back in the 1600's, but it is another to have a Bible that has doctrinal changes.
> I am new to this board, and a bit surprised.
> For a board to be labeled "Puritan", there sure is a lot of ecumenism in here.



You do indeed need to prove something. You say taking out some verses is bad because the KJV had them. But thereby you assume what you need to prove, namely, that the KJV is the infallible standard. Why should I take the KJV over the ESV? Just because it's older? If so, then why shouldn't the Geneva be the standard, since it is older than the KJV? 

I do not support every modern translation. I think (as the KJV translators did) that variety in translations is good for understanding the text, but that does't mean I think every translation is good. I personally don't like the NIV much, and the RSV obviously has some problems. But I do like some, like the NASB, and the ESV. 

And another thing about taking verses out. If you have a copy of the actual 1611 KJV, if you look at Luke 17:36, and see the marginal note to the side of it, you will see this: "This verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies." The KJV translators acknowledged that one of the verses was most likely not original. 

And show me where my ESV constitutes any doctrinal changes.

Joel


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 3, 2005)

Let's compromise"
Everybody labor to get the Geneva Bible back into print. That shall be our text.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Covenant Joel_
> 
> And show me where my ESV constitutes any doctrinal changes.
> 
> Joel


 There are a few places that deity is not mentioned in the text and John 3:13 definitely says something different. But these things only relate to the different lines of Manuscripts.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Let's compromise"
> Everybody labor to get the Geneva Bible back into print. That shall be our text.



Let's go for it!!!


----------



## larryjf (Jan 3, 2005)

I just started reading the Geneva bible, and so far i like it.

It could by _sayd_ that the spelling takes some time to come _vnto_ my understanding. But, i will _giue_ it a chance.


----------



## Ivan (Jan 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Covenant Joel_
> 
> 
> > I really don't need to prove anything, when it comes to the KJB.
> ...



I suppose it's time for all Christians to learn Hebrew and Greek.


----------



## Bro.Jon (Jan 4, 2005)

I van, though it would be nice for every Christian to learn Greek and Hebrew, the AV1611 was translated by people who spoke the language, not some ruffled collar, wig wearers who studied the language.
If you start getting into your NASB, NIV, etc. you are dealing with completely different text. A text from a trash can in the vatican, and onefrom a cave in egypt. Exactly where I would expect to find Gods preserved Word.
Lets look at the NASB. Lets look at Luke 2:33, for example. Is Joseph, Jesus' father?
KJB: And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him. 
NASB: And his father and his mother were marvelling at the things which were spoken concerning him; 
?
look at Luke 2:43:
KJB: And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it. 
NASB: and when they had fulfilled the days, as they were returning, the boy Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and his parents knew it not; 
? Is Joseph the father of Jesus? I thought God is the Father of Jesus.
Aren't there cults out there that try and tell us that Jesus is just a human? If Joseph is the father, then Mary wasn't a virgin.

Now, some JW's believe that "Christ" did not die on the cross. They believe that the "œChrist" (the spiritual) left, leaving only "œJesus" (the physical) to die on the cross.
KJB: And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. 
NASB: And he said, Jesus, remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom. 

We are all familiar with the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the fiery furnace. Let´s take a quick look at how our Bibles translate Dan. 3:25: 

KJB: He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God. 
NASB: He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the aspect of the fourth is like a son of the gods. 
Lets just throw in the JW's NWT, also: He was answering and saying: "œLook! I am beholding four able-bodied men walking about free in the midst of the fire, and there is no hurt to them, and the appearance of the fourth one is resembling a son of the gods." 

How about an attack on the Sonship of Jesus. in Acts 3:13.
KJB: The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; 
NASB: The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Servant Jesus; 

Next we want to look at what perhaps is the greatest statement in scripture declaring that Jesus was "œGod". Nothing could be more clearer about the Deity of Christ than I Tim. 3:16.
KJB: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, 
NASB: And by common confession great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, 
Lets throw in the NWT also, just to see what the JW's have:
Indeed, the sacred secret of this godly devotion is admittedly great: "˜He was made manifest in flesh,...´ 

The Jehovah´s Witnesses translated this verse as they did since they completely reject that Jesus was "œGod manifest in the flesh". It is quite shameful that the NASV has followed along with this corrupt work in changing "œGod" to "œHe".

How about the Trinity? One of the clearest verses in the Bible, describing the Trinity, 1John5:7
KJB: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
NASB: And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth.

Im not sure about you, but I would reject any translation that rejects the Diety of Christ, the Trinity, etc. 

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 
II Tim. 3:16


----------



## pastorway (Jan 4, 2005)

As Lawrence said a long time ago in a galaxy far far away:



> The argument for KJV only are based in a gross misunderstanding of language, translation and textual criticism. For a very good easy to read book get a copy of James White's 'The KJV Only Controversy.'



Read White and then see if there are any arguments left standing for KJV onlyism. 

The KJV is a fine English translation of the Word of God. But it is not the end all translation, the final word, the only Bible in the English language. Latin may be dead but English is still alive and kicking. As long as the language lives, we should be striving to have accurate translations available for people to read and for God to use!

Phillip

PS - what do KJV only people tell people who don't speak English about the Word of God? Do they tell them they must learn English to have a Bible they can trust? If so, it had better be a long out of date version of the language because if that is all the English they learn then those who do speak the language will have a hard time understanding them when they ask doctrinal questions!


----------



## Bro.Jon (Jan 4, 2005)

pastorway, we all know that the arguement is over the correct Enlgish translation, as given to us by God. Just as God has preserved his word for others who don't speak English.
How much more do we have to learn until we get the "correct" trnalation? You make God's Word sound like medical science, something in whcih we are always on the brink of finding the cure for the common translation.
Now we are dealing with folks who study the languages of the original texts, instead of the folks who spoke the language. Now we have groups getting together, behind closed doors, dishing out the latest greatest marketing campaign, for yet a "better translation".
Not one jot or tittle has past from KJB. Now we have translations that deny the Diety of Christ, that deny the Trinity, and some of you folks just brush it off, because the words are old, in the KJB. Hogwash.
Did it ever cross any of your minds that Satan might want to get his translation in our hands?
I find it hard to believe that so many scholarly people on here, do not believe that Alimghty God, wouldn't want us to know His Word. Like it is some secret code, in which we may some day get correct.
Maybe, in some ways it is. Maybe our Lord doesn't want everyone to know and understand His Word, so He sent strong delusions, that people may believe a lie. 
Ahh, Im sure God would have put something like that in His Word, if it were true.

[Edited on 1-4-2005 by brother.Jon]


----------



## LawrenceU (Jan 4, 2005)

brother. John,
While I appreciate your conviction. The attitude that is coming across in your posts makes it almost impossible to take your points seriously. Much of your arguments are straw man arguments. eg. the denial of the Trinity, deity of Christ, etc. by the NAS. Those verses, and any others cited, do no such thing. If they truly wanted to deny the Trinity they would have to rework significant portions of scripture.

BTW, why don't you just use an even better translation, the Geneva?


----------



## larryjf (Jan 4, 2005)

pastorway,



> what do KJV only people tell people who don't speak English about the Word of God?


I must say that this seems a little disingenuous.
Do you believe that the original languages contain the perfect word of God?
If so, then you believe the word of God was preserved in particular languages.
If you believe the word of God was preserved in particular languages, you can't really criticize someone else for thinking it is in a particular language (english).


----------



## larryjf (Jan 4, 2005)

LawrenceU,

I think the main point is that modern versions "chop away at" certain doctrines, not so much that they take them out of the bible completely.

Let's look at one of the newest "conservative" translations, the ESV, at Dan 9:26, "And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off..."
Many people would no longer see Jesus prophesied about here because it no longer says "the messiah".

To many in the kjvo camp it just seems like every new version chops away at our Lord a little bit more.


----------



## larryjf (Jan 4, 2005)

The Westminster Shorter Catechism Q#107 says the following...
*"The conclusion of the Lord's Prayer, which is, For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever, Amen. teacheth us to take our encouragement in prayer from God only , and in our prayers to praise him, ascribing kingdom, power, and glory to him ; and, in testimony of our desire, and assurance to be heard, we say, Amen."*
Since this says that the conclusion of the Lord's prayer has these verses in it, and the ESV does not contain these verses in the Lord's prayer - will this shape reformed congregations into the bible version they pick? Will it lead to changing the catechsim?
I find that it is a bit hypocritical if the confession is not changed, and at the same time bibles excluding these verses are embraced. You can't have it both ways.


----------



## Ivan (Jan 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by larryjf_
> The Westminster Shorter Catechism Q#107 says the following...
> *"The conclusion of the Lord's Prayer, which is, For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever, Amen. teacheth us to take our encouragement in prayer from God only , and in our prayers to praise him, ascribing kingdom, power, and glory to him ; and, in testimony of our desire, and assurance to be heard, we say, Amen."*
> Since this says that the conclusion of the Lord's prayer has these verses in it, and the ESV does not contain these verses in the Lord's prayer - will this shape reformed congregations into the bible version they pick? Will it lead to changing the catechsim?
> I find that it is a bit hypocritical if the confession is not changed, and at the same time bibles excluding these verses are embraced. You can't have it both ways.



Interesting point. Not going to a church that follows the WSC, naturally I don't have an answer to your question, but it's a good point.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by larryjf_
> pastorway,
> 
> 
> ...



Actually, yes you can. That is a denial of the doctrine of Inspiration, which states that the Holy Spirit was the author of the Scriptures by means of the men who wrote them (You can review the Children's Catechism on this point). What an "inspired translation" does is the same thing that continuing revelation does. It mistakes the work of Inspiration for Illumination and the other ordinary works of the Spirit. it is dangerous beyond description.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by larryjf_
> LawrenceU,
> 
> I think the main point is that modern versions "chop away at" certain doctrines, not so much that they take them out of the bible completely.
> ...



Come on. That is ridiculous. Messiah _means_ anointed one. That is what the Hebrew word (which is a transliteration means). That is like saying that some one would not understand the "Lord Almighty" because the Hebrew title was not retained.

This is a classic example of the KJVO camp, of which I have found almost none of them have any working knowledge of Hebrew or Greek.


----------



## Ivan (Jan 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco This is a classic example of the KJVO camp, of which I have found almost none of them have any working knowledge of Hebrew or Greek. _


_

Really?! I find that interesting._


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ivan_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco This is a classic example of the KJVO camp, of which I have found almost none of them have any working knowledge of Hebrew or Greek. _
> ...


_

Really. The whole point of the KVJ-only (not those who simply like the KJV, or find it a good translation - like me) is that you don't need Greek or Hebrew, because the KJV English is as inspired as those._


----------



## larryjf (Jan 4, 2005)

fredtgreco,

My point about the languages was that it seems people are saying the bible can't be perfect in particular languages, they must be able to be perfect for all languages. 
And i thought that was what the doctrine of inspiration taught, that the scriptures are perfect in particular languges (greek, hebrew, aramaic).

I know that i extended this out to english, but it was only to show the logic. I do not support a perfect english translation. But i would never say it's because "it's in english, and everyone can't read english", because that flies in the face of the original inspired writings.


----------



## larryjf (Jan 4, 2005)

> Messiah means anointed one.


I was not referring to the word "annointed" in contrast to "messiah", but to the word "an" in contrast to "the".

To me there is a difference between "an annointed one" and "the annointed one"

I do want to make it clear that i am not kjvo, and the esv is actually one of my favorite bibles. But i do not see why there is so little understanding of why some kjvo's feel the way they do. And why so many are quick to call them uneducated and cultish, when the majority of them simply love God's word.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by larryjf_
> fredtgreco,
> 
> My point about the languages was that it seems people are saying the bible can't be perfect in particular languages, they must be able to be perfect for all languages.
> ...



Larry,

You can't extend that logic out to English. That is error. The reason that the particular languages (Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic) are inspired is NOT because they are particular languages. It is because they were used in immediate revelation and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. One could just as easily say that all things written with ink can be inspired, since ink was used to write the Scriptures. There are only two choices: either (1) the Holy Spirit immediately inspires a translation like the KJV and it is the very word of God and there is no need for original languages, since we have the immediately inspired word of God (the KJVO position); or (2) all translations are subject to error (greater or lesser) and have no final authority, but instead the original languages do (the WCF position). They are not compatible.


----------



## Bro.Jon (Jan 4, 2005)

Fredtgreco, do you not trust your translation, that you need a working knowledge of Hebrew & Greek to understand it?
The folks who gave us the KJB spoke the languages of the original tounges! They didn't need a working knowledge of it. I am sure they are more learned men than you are when it comes to Hebrew and Greek, but yet you don't trust the men God used to give us the KJB. For some odd reason you, and the folks in your camp, think that scholars, catholics, and with the NIV, a lesbian, have a better working knowledge of translating texts, than did the people who spoke the language.

Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

[Edited on 1-4-2005 by brother.Jon]


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by larryjf_
> 
> 
> > Messiah means anointed one.
> ...



Actually, they are cultish. Both Riplinger and Ruckman are heretics. They deny key aspects of the Trinity. They are virulant anti-Calvinists. They are false teachers. They do not love preaching or God's Word. If they did G.A. (that is Gail) Riplinger would not seek to hide the fact that she is a woman in print because she desires to clearly violate 1 Timothy 2. They would realize that many of these "huge" difficulties are easily resolved through an understanding of the word and sound teaching. These KJVOites are not concerned about text bases (they hate the NKJV more than anything else), they are not concerned about original languages - many of them in print have said with pride that they don't know Greek or Hebrew and _don't want to know them._ They always take the worst spin on a translation (ANY translation).

What would one do with this verse:



> KJV Philippians 1:9 And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment



Would I be accurate if I castigated the KJV authors for introducing judgment and legalism into the text? Especially since Paul tells believers not judge elsewhere? Now you tell me, which is the more accurate translation - WITHOUT explanation of the words, for that is how the KJVOits treat a text - the KJV or:



> ESV Philippians 1:9 And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment,
> 
> NKJ Philippians 1:9 And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment,



I love the KJV. I stopped using it regularly to minister to others who have difficulty with the language and use the NKJV mostly now (occasionally the ESV). I am a Majority Text guy. But I have no patience for KJVOites. They are heretics, majoring in areas of division where there need be none. They gloss over Trinitarian heresy and instead kill others for "a" instead of "the." It is pitiful.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by brother.Jon_
> Fredtgreco, do you not trust your translation, that you need a working knowledge of Hebrew & Greek to understand it?
> The folks who gave us the KJB spoke the languages of the original tounges! That didn't need a working knowledge of it. I am sure they are more learned men than you are when it comes to Hebrew and Greek, but yet you don't trust the men God used to give us the KJB. For some odd reason you, and the folks in your camp, think that scholars, catholics, and with the NIV, a lesbian, have a better working knowledge of translating texts, than did the people who spoke the language.



Uh, they didn't. They didn't "speak" Hebrew. They were scholars and very good ones, but they did not "speak" the original languages any more than men do today. That is simply a bald faced untruth. They had a working, scholarly knowledge of the original languages, and used them to make a good translation.

And don't put me in a camp. You obviously have not read any of my posts on the NIV. And you really should read the history of the KJV, how the homosexual idolater King James - yep, a homosexual - who desired to kill (yep, kill) the Reformation in England, sponsored the AV so that it would supplant the Geneva Bible. He gathered pro-Romanists, Laudians, Arminians and others in making the AV. Yep. Does that mean that the AV is a bad translation? No. But to you it does. Somehow you think I haven't heard these old, worn out arguments twenty times over (the NIV lesbian thing is a complete laugh - it is a clear violation of the 9th commandment to perpetuate it). Oh, that's right, the KJVOites don't believe in the continuing validity of the law. Gee, another heresy to chalk up. Let's see:

Denial of Trinitarian doctrines
Denial of the doctrine of inspiration
Denial of Providential Preservation
Denial of Doctrines of Grace
Denial of the Doctrine of the Law

and so it goes....


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 4, 2005)

> Denial of Trinitarian doctrines
> Denial of the doctrine of inspiration
> Denial of Providential Preservation
> Denial of Doctrines of Grace
> ...



And with that I see this issue as settled.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 4, 2005)

> Fredtgreco, do you not trust your translation, that you need a working knowledge of Hebrew & Greek to understand it?



We like Greek and Hebrew because of things like this:

KJV says:

Acts 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after *Easter* to bring him forth to the people.

1 Corinthians 4:9 For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were *appointed* to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.

Colossians 1:14 In whom we have redemption *through his blood*, even the forgiveness of sins:

In the first, the word "Easter" is wrong. It shoudl be Passover.

In the second, "appointed" should be "condemned."

In the third, the phrase does not appear int he origianl languages at all. It is a dynamic equivalent rendering here (like the NIV)

This is why we like to know Greek and Hebrew.


----------



## blhowes (Jan 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> In the first, the word "Easter" is wrong. It shoudl be Passover.


In a blog entry called Is the "Easter" in the KJV a Mistranslation?, the blogger (don't know who he is) contends:

*
These are all valid interpretations, but what we CAN conclude is that the word Easter is NOT an erroneous term or a mistranslation made by the KJV Translators. We can argue that it is an archaic term, of course, but not an erroneous one.*

Anybody agree? Disagree?

[Edited on 1-4-2005 by blhowes]


----------



## Joe Keysor (Jan 4, 2005)

Pastorway,

In a recent post you quoted Lawrence ("The argument for KJV only are based in a gross misunderstanding of language, translation and textual criticism. For a very good easy to read book get a copy of James White's 'The KJV Only Controversy.'") and said "Read White and then see if there are any arguments left standing for KJV onlyism."

Would you care to respond to these comments I made in a previous post:



> I would only like to comment on James White's 'The KJV Only Controversy.' I thought the book was full of mistakes and errors. I spent a fair amount of time researching and writing an in-depth response - I sent James White a copy and got no answer (the essay was not hostile or abusive). I would like to mention four or five problems I had with the book.
> 
> 1) He said the KJV Only position was "anti-freedom." In no sense is it anti-freedom to say one bible translation is more authentic and accurate than others. Some KJV people do go to extremes, but the belief that modern translations are seriously flawed is not "anti-freedom."
> 
> ...




You also said, "what do KJV only people tell people who don't speak English about the Word of God? Do they tell them they must learn English to have a Bible they can trust?"

I believe the KJV is the most authoritative English version, and I have no problem with translations in other languages. To say that one English version is more reliable says nothing about versions in other languages. I encourage people who don't speak English to read the bible in their own language.


----------



## Joe Keysor (Jan 4, 2005)

webmaster 
Super Administrator:

You said "We like Greek and Hebrew because of things like this" and mentioned four problems with the KJV.

1) You object to Easter. First, this is very trivial compared to the New Bible-ists saying a gospel account of the resurrection of Jesus is not part of the original. Second, if the new bibles had made only this change or other minor ones like it there would be fewer objections to them. I am a KJV person and I would not care if a new version changed "Easter" to "Passover." Third, "Passover" and "Easter" are synonymous in time, this is a minor judgment call, an area where translators can legitimately differ and does not justify the many other changes in the new bibles.

Then you referred to 1 Corinthians 4:9 and claimed that the KJV's use of appointed was wrong, what the Greek REALLY means is condemned. First, the Oxford Liddell-Scott Lexicon says "appointed" and does not use the word "condemned," though it may in the unabridged version. How do you know the Greek means "condemned"? Did you get this from Kittel, who admired Hitler and hated Jews? Do you read Greek? Have you read any Homer and Thucydides lately? Also, since it is an honor and a privilege to suffer for Christ, "condemned" has negative connotations that are much less suitable than "appointed."

Then you refer to Colossians 1:14 and claim that the phrase through his blood "does not appear int he original languages at all." How do you know? It is in the TR, which means it is in the Byzantine text. Are you possibly relying on Codex Sinaticus, which is a notoriously corrupt manuscript full of the most egregious scribal blunders (a fact the new bibleists conceal)?

That is why I like to know some Greek, I find that many criticisms of the KJV's Greek are groundless.


----------



## Bro.Jon (Jan 4, 2005)

Fred, King James had NOTHING to do with the translation of the KJB. He was the first king who didn't kill Christians for trying to copy the texts to English, and thus "authorized" the project.
I thought that was elementary KJB knowledge.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by webmaster_
> ...



I use the KJV primarily but also refer to the 1599 Geneva and other translations based on the majority text. I am not KJVO. I am also not a Greek scholar. And I object to the celebration of Easter on the grounds of the Regulative Principle of Worshp. I mention these things in the interests of disclosure. Here's my take on the issue: 

I wish the KJV had rendered this word "Passover" instead of "Easter" but based on Tyndale's use of "Easter" I understand why the choice was made. Passover is the real meaning of the Greek word, but there is a "Paschal" connection with the idea of Easter (as well as pagan meaning too). I can live with the KJV rendering, though it's not my preference.


----------



## Robin (Jan 4, 2005)

Someone please explain H O W the KJVO argument is different from the Jehovah Witnesses or Mormon claims for their own versions of the Bible?

Shouldn't they bear the burden of proof to show H O W the Church and/or the Word failed after Christ Himself said they would not? 

Robin


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Joe Keysor_
> Do you read Greek? Have you read any Homer and Thucydides lately?



Yes.
What does reading Thucydides have to do with reading the Bible in its original language? Anyway, to answer your question, I browse a little bit in the classics, usually just to compare and see how my knowldege of Koine greek helps in reading other Greek authors. Also, I am quite certain that Fred has read the classics in their original languages.


----------



## Joe Keysor (Jan 4, 2005)

fredtgreco 
Super Administrator

I have read your comments on the KJV with interest. I can't respond to them all but would like to make a few comments.

First, I partly agree with you that the KJV translators had a working, scholarly knowledge of the original languages, and used them to make a good translation. But what do you mean by "working" - that like many today they learn some grammar and then hunt through the dictionary? They could read Greek and Hebrew much more freely than many of their critics who can't even read one page of Plato or Homer but have a "working" knowledge in the sense that they can struggle with a dictionary and puzzle over a few verses for an hour. I maintain that their knowledge of the languages was far superior, in human terms, than that of many of their critics who can't really read Greek or Hebrew at all. 

I was very astonished at your assertion that "the KJVOites don't believe in the continuing validity of the law." I am a KJV Only person and I do not deny the validity of the law, nor do I deny any of the other basic doctrines you mention. 
I do deny that the bible is full of mistakes and errors that need to be discovered for us by the scholars. Denying a gospel account of the resurrection of Jesus Christ as the NIV does is a direct attack on the word of God.

You say KJV Only people "are cultish. Both Riplinger and Ruckman are heretics. They deny key aspects of the Trinity. They are virulant anti-Calvinists. They are false teachers. They do not love preaching or God's Word. If they did G.A. (that is Gail) Riplinger would not seek to hide the fact that she is a woman in print because she desires to clearly violate 1 Timothy 2."

Why not say SOME KJV only people. Riplinger and Ruckman are entirely superfluous to the real issues. Refute them all you want, criticize them all you want, I want nothing to do with them. I agree that as a woman Riplinger is assuming a teaching position she should not. Hmm, are there any women preachers or teachers who are not KJV Only people? There are. This is a problem throughout the whole church.

You say "they hate the NKJV more than anything else." That doesn't apply to me. As to those who are proud of their lack of knowledge, and take the worst spin on a translation, I see you point out the worst in the KJV Only camp. If you could forget about those people and respond to the points I have made I would be interested in what you have to say.

Then you refer to KJV Philippians 1:9 and object to the use of the term "judgment," saying that it should be "discernment." Paul says "that your LOVE" may abound in judgment, why? To condemn other people? No, "so that you may approve things that are excellent" and be sincere and without offense. Anyone who gets judgment and legalism out of this is missing something. That is one thing critics of the KJV OFTEN do, pick out one word without considering the whole setting. 

You say "I have no patience for KJVOites. They are heretics, majoring in areas of division where there need be none. They gloss over Trinitarian heresy and instead kill others for "a" instead of "the." It is pitiful."

I hope you will have patience with me. Love bears all things, believes all things...I do not believe you can condemn me of heresy, nor do I major in areas of division. But I maintain using corrupt and unreliable manuscripts and taking too many liberties with the text has harmed the church and degraded the word of God. The authority and accuracy of the word is a major issue. I do not gloss over Trinitarian heresy - I am sure the new bibles have some defenders of less than spotless and unstained orthodoxy. As to killing others for "a" instead of "the" I don't have the faintest idea of what you are talking about. Who has ever been killed? 

Then you say to Larry: "There are only two choices: either (1) the Holy Spirit immediately inspires a translation like the KJV and it is the very word of God and there is no need for original languages, since we have the immediately inspired word of God (the KJVO position); or (2) all translations are subject to error (greater or lesser) and have no final authority, but instead the original languages do (the WCF position). They are not compatible."

I am a KJV Only person and I do not believe that the KJV was inspired as the originals were inspired. Critics of the KJV Only position love to attack the most far out extremists they can find and ignore more moderate views such as mine. As to all translations being subject to error, the blatant errors of using corrupt manuscripts and faulty principles of translation are errors of which the KJV is wholly free.

There is a third choice: 3) the KJV can be changed and updated, but the new bibles based on the faulty principles of modern criticism are not worth using as they are corrupt and unreliable. I believe saying "The ending of Mark is not in the most authentic manuscripts" is a lie from the devil. These insinuations have done a great deal of damage and harm to the church. I was debating a Moslem one time and he pulled out his NIV and pointed to the ending of mark and he said "See, even your own bible admits that the most authentic manuscripts do not contain this."

One guy on another message board brought out all of the standard arguments against the most extreme KJV Only position. I responded to him at length, point by point, avoiding all offensiveness and hostility, and he completely ignored my whole post and made no attemtp to answer it. Personally I think he could not handle anything other than the same stock arguments he had grown used to refuting over and over again.

At the risk of being tedious, I notice you said in an earlier post, "Really. The whole point of the KVJ-only (not those who simply like the KJV, or find it a good translation - like me) is that you don't need Greek or Hebrew, because the KJV English is as inspired as those."

I am sure you would agree one does not have to know Greek and Hebrew to be saved and to be a mature Christian. Look at John Bunyan for example. A knowledge of the original languages is not essential for godliness and salvation, and there are many who are not called by God to work in the original languages.

Also, the KJV is a reliable and authoritative translation that has been used in great spiritual revivals suuch as I predict will never be seen with the new bibles. It is accurate, complete, and trustworthy (but dated) - and someone who knows no Greek or Hebrew at all can be led by the Holy Spirit to reject the false assertion that this verse or this passage were included by mistake, and that by digging around in the rubbish the scholars have found better versions and now the bible is new and improved and you can have more confidence in your bibles now that we have taken the mistakes out.


[Edited on 1-4-2005 by Joe Keysor]


----------



## Joe Keysor (Jan 4, 2005)

Draught Horse,

Someone responded to one(!) of my points. I am convinced that many (NOT ALL) people who criticize the KJV's renderings do not really know Greek at all. They took a few years in seminary (if that), got some basic knowledge, and then hunt through a dictionary picking out what they think is the best word, and automatically assume the KJV is wrong when they don't even know what they are talking about.

To really translate a thorough knowledge of the language is necessary. Here is a Greek word with different possibilities - how did other Greek authors use it? What are the possibilities. The KJV translators had access to a much wider range of possibilities than do those who just hunt through a dictionary. Of course, knowledge of Greek is one aspect, it does not guarantee spiritual insight.

Talk about the Puritans, Bunyan had more spiritual insight without Greek and Hebrew than do many modern "scholars."
Also, browsing a little bit in the classics does not indicate a real mastery of Greek. I don't know how much knowledge of Greek you or anyone else on this board has, but if someone criticized a translation of Dostoevsky and it turned out they didn't really know Russian at all, but studied it for a year or two and then hunted through a dictionary picking out words here and there, people would think they were foolish.


[Edited on 1-4-2005 by Joe Keysor]

[Edited on 1-4-2005 by Joe Keysor]


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by brother.Jon_
> Fred, King James had NOTHING to do with the translation of the KJB. He was the first king who didn't kill Christians for trying to copy the texts to English, and thus "authorized" the project.
> I thought that was elementary KJB knowledge.



Then you thought wrong, and do not know the history.

By the way, we are still waiting for your compliance with the signature requirements. Please do so, or your posting privileges will be suspended.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Joe Keysor_
> Draught Horse,
> 
> Someone responded to one(!) of my points. I am convinced that many (NOT ALL) people who criticize the KJV's renderings do not really know Greek at all. They took a few years in seminary (if that), got some basic knowledge, and then hunt through a dictionary picking out what they think is the best word, and automatically assume the KJV is wrong when they don't even know what they are talking about.



If we use our knowledge to puff up, then we are guilty. But if we translate with humility, I don't see the problem. I will freely admit that my knowledge of Greek is not as fine-tuned as it should be. Should I then not read Greek?



> Talk about the Puritans, Bunyan had more spiritual insight without Greek and Hebrew than do many modern "scholars."
> 
> [Edited on 1-4-2005 by Joe Keysor]



I am aware of that.
Talk of the Puritans, so did Owen using Greek
Talk of the Reformers, so did Calvin using Greek
Talk about modern scholars, so did Warfield using Greek

BTW, I know Owen's famous statement about Bunyan so I don't need it repeated to me


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Joe Keysor_
> webmaster
> Super Administrator:
> 
> ...



It seems the thread was set on making KJV onlyism something to ponder. My contention is that the KJV is not perfect. Thus, using "Easter" is not trivial - it proves the point. The Greek there, and yes I do know Greek, is not Easter. It is the same word the KJV used throughout the rest of the NT for Passover. It is not a good translation of the word.



> Then you referred to 1 Corinthians 4:9 and claimed that the KJV's use of appointed was wrong, what the Greek REALLY means is condemned. First, the Oxford Liddell-Scott Lexicon says "appointed" and does not use the word "condemned," though it may in the unabridged version. How do you know the Greek means "condemned"? Did you get this from Kittel, who admired Hitler and hated Jews? Do you read Greek? Have you read any Homer and Thucydides lately? Also, since it is an honor and a privilege to suffer for Christ, "condemned" has negative connotations that are much less suitable than "appointed."



Yes, again, I read Greek. The Greek word in *every* MSS is not "appointed" but "condmened." They are two different words.



> Then you refer to Colossians 1:14 and claim that the phrase through his blood "does not appear int he original languages at all." How do you know?



I read Greek. (Yes redundants but necessary). Its not there. 



> It is in the TR, which means it is in the Byzantine text. Are you possibly relying on Codex Sinaticus, which is a notoriously corrupt manuscript full of the most egregious scribal blunders (a fact the new bibleists conceal)?



Actually the Byzantine Text does not officially include it and deems it "unsure" which is why they place the phrase in brackets. Its a dynamic equivalent. If you want the real technical reasons, I can porvide them but it may not make sense to you unless you know Greek well.

As a side note, versions that it does not officially appear in:

BNT (NA27) 
BYZ Majority Text
GNM Friberg
The Modern Greek Bible
SCR and STE Scrivener



> That is why I like to know some Greek, I find that many criticisms of the KJV's Greek are groundless.



They are not groundless as is seen above.
Don't misunderstand, I love the KJV. But it has its problems as well as other translations. And then we have to figure out WHICH KJV we are talking about, 1607 1st draft, or 1611, revision.


----------



## blhowes (Jan 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> I use the KJV primarily but also refer to the 1599 Geneva and other translations based on the majority text. I am not KJVO. I am also not a Greek scholar. And I object to the celebration of Easter on the grounds of the Regulative Principle of Worshp. I mention these things in the interests of disclosure. Here's my take on the issue:
> 
> I wish the KJV had rendered this word "Passover" instead of "Easter" but based on Tyndale's use of "Easter" I understand why the choice was made. Passover is the real meaning of the Greek word, but there is a "Paschal" connection with the idea of Easter (as well as pagan meaning too). I can live with the KJV rendering, though it's not my preference.


Andrew,
Thanks for your response. 

I had always heard that the translators were pressured by the catholic church to render it that way. It was good to read about another possible reason for the word choice.


----------



## Joe Keysor (Jan 4, 2005)

> If we use our knowledge to puff up, then we are guilty. But if we translate with humility, I don't see the problem. I will freely admit that my knowledge of Greek is not as fine-tuned as it should be. Should I then not read Greek?



Anyone who wants can try to read and study Greek. But, when it comes to criticizing the work of others, someone's knowledge needs at least to be equal to that of those whose work they are criticizing.

I have found many criticisms of the KJV's renderings are made without humility.

Bunyan did not know Greek, but many others did. If God calls someone to that, the study of Greek can be very edifying. I have gotten a lot out of it. KJV ONly people who object to the study of Greek rightly object to the constant drumbeat of "The KJV is wrong, what the Greek *really* means is," but they react in the wrong way. Instead of saying that Greek is not important, it is much better to say that a standard lexicon such as the Liddell-Scott supports the KJV's renderings as possible alternatives, and people who say the KJV is wrong often know less than the people whose work they are criticizing. The KJV's renderings are in every case defensible. James White boasted that the KJV was wrong in Acts 19:2. I argue that it is right and White is wrong, and I have yet to meet with a New Bible-ist who could respond seriously to my arguments. They always go back to Riplinger and the most extreme views - much easier to deal with.

Dean Burgon, the English opponent of Hort and Westcott's disastrous blunders also knew Greek.

You said "I know Owen's famous statement about Bunyan so I don't need it repeated to me." What was that? I have never read Owen. My observation was my own. 

By the way, I don't believe the bible justifies rebelling against the authorities. The early Christians allowed themselves to be killed and their faith was victorious. The French Protestants took up weapons and fought and they were defeated and Catholicism remained dominant. 

You quote Thomas Jefferson. Are you aware Jefferson was not a Christian? He was dead in trespasses and sins.


----------



## blhowes (Jan 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Joe Keysor_
> Anyone who wants can try to read and study Greek. But, when it comes to criticizing the work of others, someone's knowledge needs at least to be equal to that of those whose work they are criticizing.


Is this true just for the KJV, or does this apply to other versions as well? Should a person's knowledge of Greek,etc be at least equal to those who translated the NIV before they criticize criticize the NIV?


----------



## larryjf (Jan 4, 2005)

> Actually, they are cultish. Both Riplinger and Ruckman are heretics. They deny key aspects of the Trinity.


But they are heretics because they deny the Trinity, not because they believe they hold an infallible bible.

When Jesus talked to the Sadduccees (who only believe the first 5 books of the OT), He never told them to read a different bible. Instead He quoted from what they read when teaching them.
When the Saduccees asked Him about the woman who married all those brothers, and whose wife she would be in the resurrection - He quoted the books of Moses to validate the resurrection.

Certainly we should defend ourselves when a kjvo attacks our bibles, but we should not attack them simply for believing they have infallable scripture. As if believing we have perfect scripture was somehow a heresy.


----------



## alwaysreforming (Jan 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by larryjf_
> 
> 
> > Actually, they are cultish. Both Riplinger and Ruckman are heretics. They deny key aspects of the Trinity.
> ...




Larry,
I think the point of contention here is that if we say they have an "inspired" and perfect translation, then we're missing the true meaning of inspiration. The inspiration happened as the Scriptures were being penned by the original authors. If we claim the KJV is inspired in that same way, then what do we do with any mistakes we find? Now God made the mistakes, if indeed it is "inspired" and "infallible."


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 4, 2005)

I am not going to respond to the tyranny comments as I do not want to hijack the thread, but we have on this board deabetd the legitimate uses of authority and the preconditions for seceeding (not just in the Confederate sense) numerous times. Do a search for them.

Yes, i am aware of Jefferson's views, I am merely highlighting the Founders' rationale for the 2nd Amenmentd.

Owen: "I would gladly trade all my learning for that tinker's ability to touch souls."

[Edited on 1--4-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## Joe Keysor (Jan 4, 2005)

> It seems the thread was set on making KJV onlyism something to ponder. My contention is that the KJV is not perfect. Thus, using "Easter" is not trivial - it proves the point. The Greek there, and yes I do know Greek, is not Easter. It is the same word the KJV used throughout the rest of the NT for Passover. It is not a good translation of the word.



I agree that KJV Onlyism needs to be criticized - but so do many of the arguments in favor of New and Improved Bible-ism.

Also, I am a KJV Only person who does not object to variations in wording. If a translation changed Easter to Passover this would not matter to me. People who try to argue against the new versions by saying the KJV must not be changed are using the wrong approach and find themselves driven by the logic of argument to more and more extreme positions. The point is not that the KJV should never be changed - the point is that the changes that have been made are in and of themselves wrong, based on faulty manuscripts and insufficiently reverent approaches to translating. And, since Easter and Passover are synonymous in time, the words are interchangeable as far as I am concerned. You say it is not a good translation - I say it is not a bad translation and conveys the meaning exactly.

Moving on to 1 Corinthians 4:9 you say that the "Greek word in every MSS is not 'appointed' but 'condemned.' They are two different words." My Textus Receptus uses the aorist form of apodeiknumi, which my Liddell-Scott Greek Lexicon says means "appointed." And, you skipped my point that since it is an honor to suffer for Christ, it does not make much sense to say that the apostles were condemned to honor Christ. I think the KJV routinely shows more spiritual insight when it comes to these nuances. "Condemned" is a negative word, which is to me less suitable than appointed. I think the question is not the Greek word, apodeiknumi, but in how the word should be translated. I could be wrong as I don't have other manuscripts to look at.

Moving on to Colossians 1:14 you repeat the claim that the phrase "through his blood" does not appear in the original languages at all. It is in my edition of the TR which according to the introduction corresponds with Scrivener's edition and others. I learned a long time ago that I do not have to automatically accept every assertion that is made about alleged defects in the KJV.

You say you read Greek. One guy told me he read Latin once, and it turned out that he had only studied it some. I would be quite surprised if you could sit down and read Homer and Thucydides, as opposed to wrestling with a text using various study helps. 

You say "the Byzantine Text does not officially include it and deems it 'unsure' which is why they place the phrase in brackets." There is no one official Byzantine text. There is a family of texts. I suspect you have gotten a hold of one in which the word "unsure" is a purely arbitrary opinion of a modern scholar who was predisposed from the outset to assume that the Byzantine text was not reliable. My TR has the words, and they are included in the KJV. I do not believe Whitefield and Wesley and Bunyan used a bible with verses and passages and phrases included by mistake while the REAL bible was lying in a basement in the Vatican or a monastery in the desert waiting to be discovered by scholars who can improve the bible by taking the mistakes out of it. If you would like to give me some technical reasons on this argument that the KJV has included some words by mistake, meaning "All scripture is inspired by God except for the mistaken parts that need to be removed," feel free.

As to the versions it does not appear in, what about the versions it does appear in? My TR refers to Scrivener, also to Stephens, Beza, the Elzivirs and others.

I continue to believe that many criticisms of the KJV are groundless. I worked carefully through every one of White's many criticisms, and in every case I thought he was mistaken.

You say the KJV has problems. It does have a problem of out of date language. Also, two passages can be translated without identical wording. I don't care if someone changes the wording, but I do object to "This passage is not original. this is a mistake, delete this, remove that," even to the extent of saying that a GOSPEL ACCOUNT OF THE RESURRECTION OF Christ is a MISTAKE. I feel sorry for someone who believes that their bible's account of the resurrection of Jesus is not original. That undermines all of scripture and gives great occasion to the enenmy to blaspheme.

You say "we have to figure out WHICH KJV we are talking about, 1607 1st draft, or 1611, revision." That is a problem for those who assert the divine inspiration of the KJV. It is not a problem for someone like me who is glad it was revised in the 1700's, and would gladly use a modern revision if it were based solely on the TR and consisted only of grammatical changes to update antique language, without taking into account the follies of modern so-called scholarship.


----------



## Joe Keysor (Jan 4, 2005)

Draught Horse,

Good point about not highjacking the thread.

I had heard that quote, but didn't know it was from Owen.


----------



## larryjf (Jan 4, 2005)

alwaysreforming,



> I think the point of contention here is that if we say they have an "inspired" and perfect translation, then we're missing the true meaning of inspiration. The inspiration happened as the Scriptures were being penned by the original authors. If we claim the KJV is inspired in that same way, then what do we do with any mistakes we find? Now God made the mistakes, if indeed it is "inspired" and "infallible."



Saying that you have a perfect translation is not the same as saying you have an inspired translation. Many people believe that God can perfectly preserve His word just as He can perfectly inspire it.

I just feel so much anger on both sides of the issue, i think it's a real shame. And i wonder how Jesus would feel about all the hostile talk about His word among His people. I can't help but think He would weep.

I have even felt some rising emotions towards me, and i'm not even kjvo. (Granted, it's easy to misread emotions on an internet board like this)

Let's judge rightly those who are heretics, but let's not get carried away with judgment and start judging things that aren't sin.
Let's pay close attention to how we treat those for whom Christ has died.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 4, 2005)

Larry, while I have not really participated in this I must say that from reading your posts I had assumed your were taking the side of the KJVO crowd.


----------



## larryjf (Jan 4, 2005)

houseparent ,

i understand that you may have thought that because i was trying to point out what i thought were errors in logic from the anti-kjvo stance.

For instance, the idea that "the perfect word of God can't be in English, because then nobody else would be able to read it" seemed to me hypocritical if you believe the word of God can be in greek and hebrew and be perfect even though not everyone could read it either.

I don't think it's logical to say simply because something is in the English language, that is proof that it is not perfect. It just doesn't seem like a valid argument to me.

Then, i just gave 1 example of what kjvo's might consider a change in the new versions that they don't like. Because some were posting as if there were no changes that should bother people - But we don't decide what bothers other people. If it bothers them, it bothers them - and i was trying to point out why it might bother some people.

But to make my position clear, i did post specifically that i was not kjvo, and that the ESV is actually one of my favorite versions.


----------



## Joe Keysor (Jan 4, 2005)

> Anyone who wants can try to read and study Greek. But, when it comes to criticizing the work of others, someone's knowledge needs at least to be equal to that of those whose work they are criticizing.





> Is this true just for the KJV, or does this apply to other versions as well? Should a person's knowledge of Greek,etc be at least equal to those who translated the NIV before they criticize criticize the NIV?




Excellent point. It is a pleasure to chat on such a serious board, and have at least one or two of my points responded to.

Someone who says that the NIV has translated the Greek wrongly should have a knowledge of Greek equal to those whose work they are translating. However, I believe that the KJV translators had a knowledge of Greek that was far superior to that of the modern translators. They were much more comfortable with the whole range of Greek literature, and received much more rigorous educations while young. They learned Latin and read classical authors as little kids, and did not have many of the modern evils such as TV and movies and pop music to trivialize the mind. Also they had more reverence for the word, and adopted dynamic equavalents only when truly necessary (saying Mary was "with child" instead of "having in the womb") and not every time they thought they should make it simpler for the reader. They also had a limited number of accurate manuscripts provided by God's providence and were not deceived by Sinaiticus and other useless distractions.

So now we have to not merely criticize a translation based on our knowledge of Greek alone, but to judge between two of them. This is a little different.

Then, when James White says the KJV is wrong in Acts 19:2 because it speaks of receiving the Holy Spirit subsequently to believing instead of simultaneously, and I look at Ephesians 1:13 and Acts 8:12, 17, and I wonder if White knows what he is talking about, I find myself on the level not of Greek but of spiritual insight. I am sadly deficient in this area with a limited knowledge of scripture, but I think White is hopelessly wrong here and does not know what he is talking about. So, in many instances, I do not have to criticize the NIV, I have to criticize criticisms of the KJV's Greek, in areas that go beyond mere grammar and enter into things of the Spirit. 

Anyway, this is very complex. More needs to be said about this not being a matter of scholarship only, but of spirituality and a walk with Christ, and sensitivity to the leading of the Holy Spirit. In this area, I do not have a high opinion of the spirituality of people who say that a Gospel account of the resurrection of Jesus is not authentic.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 4, 2005)

Check your U2U Joe. (Upper left top screen).


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Check your U2U Joe. (Upper left top screen).



The other left


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 4, 2005)

Yes, the other left! My wife is right about me!


----------



## nicnap (Jan 5, 2005)

Joe, 
I am not up for debating this entire thread; I'll leave that for those already involved with the "main" issue(s). I will however take issue with a couple of comments from your post on 1-4-2005 at 6:07 p.m.

*However, I believe that the KJV translators had a knowledge of Greek that was far superior to that of the modern translators. *
This is mere speculation. You cannot base your whole theory on this. I know that you are scholarly, but to even use such an argument as this is below you. This cannot be known, and I can simply presuppose the opposite. (I do realize that we all work with presuppositions, but to even try this one...)

*They were much more comfortable with the whole range of Greek literature, *
Again speculation and mere presupposition (I am a presuppositionalist, so do not think I am "bashing" presuppositions, for we all have them)...have you surveyed each of those who are involved with translation(s) to find out how "comfortable" they are with Greek? Who sets the standards for "comfortability"? Me? You?

*and received much more rigorous educations while young*

Is education at an old age less valid? Should we discount what we learn as we age? Cannot a young mind be "tainted"? Hmmmm.....

*They learned Latin and read classical authors as little kids, and did not have many of the modern evils such as TV and movies and pop music to trivialize the mind. *
Again, is the Latin and classical authors we read and learn as adults less valid? Granted, TV is bad, but human depravity seems to be able to "slip in" even without Television and pop music. 

*Also they had more reverence for the word*
Again, speculation. Surely, there must be many translators out there that reverence and love the Word just as much as the translators of the KJV, and try to be as accurate and faithful as the translators of the KJV- but seeing as how you have asked both the translators of the KJV and all the translators of other versions you must know.

I believe that every argument that you make is done out of a love for the Lord and His truth and even a commitment to scholarship, but there are some problems with them. Please do not think that I am being brash. But sometimes our arguments get in the way of our arguments.

[Edited on 1-5-2005 by nicnap]

[Edited on 1-5-2005 by nicnap]


----------



## blhowes (Jan 5, 2005)

I was thinking the same thing, but you put it much more succinctly than I could have.

Joe,
I've read several KJV-only type books that describe the scholarship of the KJV translators. The scholarship of the translators is very impressive, to say the least. The book "Which Bible?" gives a description of the process as well that each text went through before it was approved. Its a blessing to know the scholarship of the translators and the care that went into the translation of the KJV.

I think we do those who translated the better modern versions a disservice if we make a blanket statement that their scholarship doesn't even compare with the scholarship of the KJV translators - that is, unless you know the training of each and the gifts God gave them. 

I don't know why you assume that the training received by modern scholars was less rigorous than the KJV scholars. I guess if the modern translators all received a public education, then it would probably be a good assumption. But, nowadays, there are many who see the shortcomings of the public schools and are educating their children in more rigorous private schools or at home. I know of some on this board whose children are learning Latin, Greek, logic, etc. at an age when their peers are probably reading "See Spot Run" in the public schools. Just as God gave the KJV translators special abilities in language translation back then, he could do it now as well.

I do appreciate your zeal in defending the scholarship of the KJV translators. They are indeed a gifted group.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jan 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Joe Keysor_
> 
> You say "we have to figure out WHICH KJV we are talking about, 1607 1st draft, or 1611, revision." That is a problem for those who assert the divine inspiration of the KJV. It is not a problem for someone like me who is glad it was revised in the 1700's, and would gladly use a modern revision if it were based solely on the TR and consisted only of grammatical changes to update antique language, without taking into account the follies of modern so-called scholarship.



That's pretty much my position, Joe. I think that 'King James Only' is a tag you should not apply to yourself because of what it effectively means to everyone! King-James-Best, perhaps?

JH


----------



## pastorway (Jan 5, 2005)

The translators of the KJV make the case those in the "anti-KJV ONLY" camp are making - they saw their work as one more valid translation of the Word of God into English. They did not see it as the end all or as inspired in the English. The KJV is a good translation. There are other translations just as good or even better. 

Here are some questions for KJV only adherents:

1. Do you believe that the KJ Translation of the Bible is inspired? Which edition?
2. Do you believe that every other English translation is not the preserved Word of God but instead the work of the devil to lead men astray from the truth? If not all the others, then which English translations are acceptable?
3. Why is it so important that we should all hold to a KJV only doctrine? Why is this the WHOLE thrust of many KJV Only adherents? Why do they spend so much time trying to uphold a translation over other translations?
4. Why should we even leave this thread open????? Is it edifying? Is it helpful? Or is it like arguing with a brick wall about something that simply does not matter?? 

Please, use the KJV if you want to. But do not waste our time trying to argue us into the false belief that only the KJV is the Word of God in English or that every recent translation is the spawn of the devil hatched in a trash can from Rome........ 

Phillip 

[Edited on 1-5-05 by pastorway]


----------



## pastorway (Jan 5, 2005)

Thinking about it, I want to answer #4.


----------

