Korean KJV Onlyists
- Thread starter tellville
- Start date
- Status
VilnaGaon
Puritan Board Sophomore
So I just met some Korean KJV onlyists. They barely knew English. It was weird. That's all I have to say.
I have met Chinese KJV onlyists who had a very limited command of English. But they knew their Bible!!! They exclusively relied on the Lord Jesus only to teach them. I am no KJV-onlyist but the humility and simplicity of these precious brethren was a real eye-opener to me.
Reformed Thomist
Puritan Board Sophomore
Maybe they're referring to the great Kim Jong Version...
VilnaGaon
Puritan Board Sophomore
How good a command of English does one need to understand King James English?? The KJV is actually easier to understand than many modern Translations.
Plus when one comes across a difficult word there are these books called dictionaries.........
VilnaGaon
Puritan Board Sophomore
I am not a KJV-onlyist. Rather I am a 1599 Geneva Bible onlyist(A Joke
)But seriously the TR on which the KJV NT is based is far superior to the CT on which the modern Translations base their NT. Why use a text in which hundreds of words are missing(the CT).
I have little formal schooling(not even High School). The first Bible I used before and after conversion was the KJV and I never had any problems with understanding the text. I found it easier to read, understand and memorize than the NIV. I followed Martin Luther's advice in his Table Talk in which he counseled one to pray to the Lord Jesus for illumination and understanding before approaching the Bible. This humble piece of advice from the Great Reformer who studied Ibn Ezra Torah Commentary! I say this because study of commentaries and books is extremely important. I would not have accumulated a 10,000 book Theological and Rabbinical collection, if I thought otherwise. But humility before God in the pursuit of wisdom is more important. This is something in which I have often failed in! Peace be upon you Brother.
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
James White is rather devastating against the KJVOnly movement. He is, in my opinion, less convincing in dealing with the arguments of people who appeal to the superiority of the Byzantine texts, shorn the unique (and more extreme) KJVOnly beliefs.
White delineates a range of views from "I Like the KJV Best" to "The Textual Argument" to the "Received Text Only" to the "The Inspired KJV Group" and finally "The KJV As New Revelation."
Views #4 and #5 ARE extreme in my opinion. But, treating people in the first two camps as one would those afflicted with Ruckmanism is a methodological error bordering on bearing false witness. Regardless of what one thinks of Hodges, Farstad, Pierpont, or Robinson they are NOT Peter Ruckman or Gail Ripplinger!
White delineates a range of views from "I Like the KJV Best" to "The Textual Argument" to the "Received Text Only" to the "The Inspired KJV Group" and finally "The KJV As New Revelation."
Views #4 and #5 ARE extreme in my opinion. But, treating people in the first two camps as one would those afflicted with Ruckmanism is a methodological error bordering on bearing false witness. Regardless of what one thinks of Hodges, Farstad, Pierpont, or Robinson they are NOT Peter Ruckman or Gail Ripplinger!
Last edited:
VilnaGaon
Puritan Board Sophomore
I agree that views#4 and #5 are extreme and I do not often meet people spewing that nonsense; In my humble opinion the Received Text is the most accurate copy of the originals. Lots of Reformed scholars hold to this view as well.
I do not believe that the KJV is the best translation out there. In my humble opinion, that distinction belongs to the 1599 Geneva Bible which I use almost exclusively. I find that the 1599 Geneva Bible is easier to read and understand than almost any translation out there.
toddpedlar
Iron Dramatist
I am not a KJV-onlyist. Rather I am a 1599 Geneva Bible onlyist(A Joke
But seriously the TR on which the KJV NT is based is far superior to the CT on which the modern Translations base their NT. Why use a text in which hundreds of words are missing(the CT).
Criticism of the differences between the CT and the TR goes far deeper than a statement like this. If all we're going to do is talk about word count, one could just as well make the statement "Why use a text in which there are so many words added (the TR)?"
By the way, I'm not saying anything one way or another about the preference for the TR vs. the CT.... I'm just making the point that it's much more complicated than a simple statement of word count because each side can make the simple (and inconclusive) argument in different directions.
VilnaGaon
Puritan Board Sophomore
I am not a KJV-onlyist. Rather I am a 1599 Geneva Bible onlyist(A Joke
But seriously the TR on which the KJV NT is based is far superior to the CT on which the modern Translations base their NT. Why use a text in which hundreds of words are missing(the CT).
Criticism of the differences between the CT and the TR goes far deeper than a statement like this. If all we're going to do is talk about word count, one could just as well make the statement "Why use a text in which there are so many words added (the TR)?"
By the way, I'm not saying anything one way or another about the preference for the TR vs. the CT.... I'm just making the point that it's much more complicated than a simple statement of word count because each side can make the simple (and inconclusive) argument in different directions.
The differences between the Majority Text and the Received Text are minuscule compared with the differences between these 2 texts and the Alexandrian Texts. Also the majority of NT manuscripts are Majority Text and Received Text. The only reason why the Critical Text prefers readings from the Alexandrian Manuscripts is that they are older. Age does not necessarily mean accuracy especially when the Alexandrian Manuscripts date to the time of the Christological Controversies when heretics had an interest in tampering with the texts.
A.J.
Puritan Board Junior
Very true.
I am also disturbed by the rampant antinomianism in their circles.
-----Added 8/9/2009 at 10:09:32 EST-----
How good a command of English does one need to understand King James English?? The KJV is actually easier to understand than many modern Translations.
Plus when one comes across a difficult word there are these books called dictionaries.........
Independent fundamental baptists (including KJV-only ones) in my country run schools which require their students to memorize verses from the KJV. So even if the students are not good in English, they gradually find themselves learning the Bible in KJV-English. As someone who speaks English as a second language, it's an extremely effective method in my opinion.
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
If we are talking about differences, aren't there something like 3,000 differences between the Aleph and Vaticanus, two leading Alexandrian texts which happen to be our oldest Alexandrian exemplars!
I am enough of a purist that I want the text closest to the original autographs. That is what got me reconsidering my CT bias in the first place. Some of the arguments on the PB in favor of the Byzantine textual tradition struck me as cogent enough to warrant deeper study.
However, before we lop off too many heads from our "heretical" brethren for holding a different opinion on textual traditions from our own, it might be worth noting that the early church had both the MT and the LXX, treating both of them as the Word of God despite their wide differences.
Hungus
Puritan Board Freshman
that the early church had both the MT and the LXX, treating both of them as the Word of God despite their wide differences.
Quick question: given that the Masoretes did not exist until the 5th -11 century how did the early church have access to the Masoretic texts?
or do you simply hold to a different definition of early than I do? Talmudic texts existed previously, but they were eclectic and thus ostensible reason for the Masoretes to harmonize the text to what we know as the Masoretic texts.
Maybe someone with experience can shed some light on Korean or Chinese translation works...
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
that the early church had both the MT and the LXX, treating both of them as the Word of God despite their wide differences.
Quick question: given that the Masoretes did not exist until the 5th -11 century how did the early church have access to the Masoretic texts?
or do you simply hold to a different definition of early than I do? Talmudic texts existed previously, but they were eclectic and thus ostensible reason for the Masoretes to harmonize the text to what we know as the Masoretic texts.
Oops! Good catch. I was being sloppy in my expression. What I meant was that the "traditional Hebrew text that led to our MT" stood side-by-side with the Greek translation, representing a different textual tradition.
VilnaGaon
Puritan Board Sophomore
For 1900 years the Church used the Majority Text and the Received Text for its NT. Then in the late 1800s these Alexandrian manuscripts surface, and we ignore 1900 years of Tradition(yes I used the ""bad word"" tradition)!!!
Unbelievers and scoffers mock at us Christians regarding our Translations, saying we can't even agree on a NT text and that the New Testament cannot be inspired because NT Texts have so many words missing between them. Orthodox Jews and Muslims say that all the time! The trouble is we Believers have bought into the lie of Moral Relativism which is the curse of our society, by believing that contradictory opinions can all be right. They can't. 1900 years of Church Tradition is right and the Alexandrian Manuscripts are corrupt, and should be ignored like the ""Gospel of Thomas"".
Unbelievers and scoffers mock at us Christians regarding our Translations, saying we can't even agree on a NT text and that the New Testament cannot be inspired because NT Texts have so many words missing between them. Orthodox Jews and Muslims say that all the time! The trouble is we Believers have bought into the lie of Moral Relativism which is the curse of our society, by believing that contradictory opinions can all be right. They can't. 1900 years of Church Tradition is right and the Alexandrian Manuscripts are corrupt, and should be ignored like the ""Gospel of Thomas"".
TimV
Puritanboard Botanist
Jacob, there was no Received Text for 1500 years. It didn't exist. The the MT is even more recent. You really need to learn a bit about the subject matter before you become so passionate.
The MT and RT contradict each other, Jacob, as you yourself pointed out in this very thread.
But that can be remedied through a thorough regimen of reading and study. Until then, when you call the Bibles most of us use, at least occasionally the equivalent of the Gospel of Thomas, and in the same breath use the type of reasoning that should embarrass any well read person regardless of a HS diploma, don't be surprised when the reaction is one of mild amusement or even pity.
Last edited:
christianhope
Puritan Board Freshman
Brother Tim,
You stated:
I have responded with evidence to the contrary from Robinson's famous introductory to the greek NT. Note, this is not dogma, this is fact from a well respected historical text scholar. The received text was embodied within the byzantine tradition, and was used as a 'received' text within the church during that time- although it did not yet have that name given to it. This is clearly evidenced by the lectionaries which were specifically formated for Lord's Day readings.
Quoted from reference below:
The "Byzantine" Textform (otherwise called the "Majority" or "Traditional Text") predominated throughout the greatest period of manual copying of Greek New Testament manuscripts -- a span of over 1000 years (ca. AD 350 to AD 1516). It was without question the dominant text used both liturgically and popularly by the Greek-speaking Christian community. Most Greek manuscripts in existence today reflect this Byzantine Textform, whether appearing in normal continuous-text style[9] or specially arranged in lectionary format for liturgical use. Of over 5000 total continuous-text and lectionary manuscripts, 90% or more contain a basically Byzantine Textform.[10]
Introduction to Robinson & Pierpont
Respectfully stated to a brother in Christ,
Josh
You stated:
I have responded with evidence to the contrary from Robinson's famous introductory to the greek NT. Note, this is not dogma, this is fact from a well respected historical text scholar. The received text was embodied within the byzantine tradition, and was used as a 'received' text within the church during that time- although it did not yet have that name given to it. This is clearly evidenced by the lectionaries which were specifically formated for Lord's Day readings.
Quoted from reference below:
The "Byzantine" Textform (otherwise called the "Majority" or "Traditional Text") predominated throughout the greatest period of manual copying of Greek New Testament manuscripts -- a span of over 1000 years (ca. AD 350 to AD 1516). It was without question the dominant text used both liturgically and popularly by the Greek-speaking Christian community. Most Greek manuscripts in existence today reflect this Byzantine Textform, whether appearing in normal continuous-text style[9] or specially arranged in lectionary format for liturgical use. Of over 5000 total continuous-text and lectionary manuscripts, 90% or more contain a basically Byzantine Textform.[10]
Introduction to Robinson & Pierpont
Respectfully stated to a brother in Christ,
Josh
TimV
Puritanboard Botanist
Josh, we've been through this a thousand times here. It will start when I ask you to show an example of a text identical to the TR prior to 1510, and you won't be able to. Then you will respond by more cut and paste. Then will try to get you to admit that the TR is compiled of about a half dozen Greek manuscripts, all of which contradict each other, and you will reply with more cut and paste.
To save time, please tell me. If there are 200 Byzantine texts of Rev. 16:5, and every single one of them uses the phrase Holy One instead of the word Lord (as per the TR) would you be willing to change the TR on that verse to conform to the Byzantine reading?
christianhope
Puritan Board Freshman
Well Tim, I don't know how many texts there are of Rev 16:5 so I cannot tell you that. Nor do I believe I'm qualified to make a subjective judgment over the Word of God based upon the information you have provided me with.
My main point, was just to provide evidence for the TR within the byzantine tradition- which, in the best judgment of the reformers I am willing to trust I have the accurate Word of God. The eclectic position to my mind being completely untenable as I believe they overthrow the traditional reading which was used throughout church history within the Byzantine tradition.
If what you say concerning the 200 byzantine readings we have today on Rev 16:5 contradict the TR- I would still say the TR is much better compared to all the other textual changes brought in by the eclectic method, which I see as destructive on a strategic scale to the church over a long period of time.
Respectfully stated,
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
Yes, there is nothing like insisting that someone for whom English is not a first language read the Bible in antiquated Elizabethan English by claiming it is "easier to understand than many modern translations" and then pointing them to a dictionary when they come across a difficult word. Feel free to correct, but I would suspect that most (if not all!) translation dictionaries are designed to translate words using modern English and do not give definitions for 400 year old archaic words.
Perhaps someone should point them (or translate for them) the preface of the KJV where the translators themselves insist upon the need to offer a translation of the Bible in the common language of the reader.
If they want to translate a Korean Bible from the TR, more power to them. But don't insist they use folks who can only speak "See Dick Run, See Jane Run" English need to read something beyond their reading level in order to read the word of God.
Missions must prioritize "heart language ministry" and missionaries must produce Gospel materials in whatever language is most dear to a people-group's heart (the language that they cuss, talk to their kids in, dream in, etc, so that they Gospel can truly penetrate).
I highly doubt that old English is the heart language of Koreans.
Someone ought to track down and expose these missionaries and whatever bone-headed mission board it is that is setting back the work of the Gospel among these people! They ought to be made a laughing stock due to their foolishness.
I highly doubt that old English is the heart language of Koreans.
Someone ought to track down and expose these missionaries and whatever bone-headed mission board it is that is setting back the work of the Gospel among these people! They ought to be made a laughing stock due to their foolishness.
tellville
Puritan Board Junior
I wonder if old English is the heart language of 21st century young adults and youth?
- Status
