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.
KJV ONLY
- Thread starter Randall Pederson
- Start date
- Status
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
Puritan Board Senior
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.
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
Puritan Board Senior
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.
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.
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]
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]
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:
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:
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.
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
Puritan Board Doctor
And with that I see this issue as settled.
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
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
Puritan Board Professor
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
Puritan Board Freshman
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:
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.
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:
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
Puritan Board Freshman
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.
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.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
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.
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
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
Puritanboard Assessor
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
Puritan Board Freshman
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]
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
Puritan Board Freshman
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]
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]
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
Puritanboard Assessor
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?
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
Christian Preacher
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.
Yes, again, I read Greek. The Greek word in every MSS is not "appointed" but "condmened." They are two different words.
I read Greek. (Yes redundants but necessary). Its not there.
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
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.
Joe Keysor
Puritan Board Freshman
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.
larryjf
Puritan Board Senior
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
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
Puritanboard Assessor
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]
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
Puritan Board Freshman
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
Puritan Board Freshman
Draught Horse,
Good point about not highjacking the thread.
I had heard that quote, but didn't know it was from Owen.
Good point about not highjacking the thread.
I had heard that quote, but didn't know it was from Owen.
larryjf
Puritan Board Senior
alwaysreforming,
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.
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.
- Status
Similar threads
