ReformedWretch
Puritan Board Doctor
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.
KJV ONLY
- Thread starter Randall Pederson
- Start date
- Status
larryjf
Puritan Board Senior
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.
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
Puritan Board Freshman
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
Christian Preacher
Check your U2U Joe. (Upper left top screen).
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
The other left
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
Yes, the other left! My wife is right about me!
nicnap
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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]
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
Puritan Board Professor
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
Puritan Board Senior
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
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]
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]
- Status
Similar threads
