[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]

Author Topic: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism  (Read 38351 times)

Tony Warren

  • Administrator
  • Affiliate Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2306
  • Gender: Male
    • The Mountain Retreat
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #45 on: November 07, 2004, 05:07:13 AM »
>>>
No, I'm looking at the bigger picture. This idea that many different versions means better understanding is without merit. And more importantly, it is this philosophy that has led to all the different versions in the first place. That if we don't understand a word in one translation, we simply write a whole new version, instead of simply picking up a concordance and comparing scripture with scripture.
<<<

Kenneth, on this point, I couldn't agree any more with what you've said here if I had written it myself. This is indeed the real problem today with all these different English versions. This false idea that many different versions means a better understanding of Scripture.

Number one, it can in no way be glorifying to God to have a hundred different variations of God's divine, inerrant word. I look at that as a fact. The whole idea is indefensible as far as I'm concerned. Nor to have a variety of 50, nor 25, nor 10 different versions or of God's word. There is nothing whatsoever scientific, honorable, Christian, virtuous, scholastic, Biblically rational, good, helpful, or healthy for the church to have each Christian select what he likes and doesn't like from 20 variations, every one purporting to be God's accurate word. I look at it the same way that you do. It is confusion. History confirms that the church was much better off when it had a couple versions, most using the KJV, and virtually no "Versions Controversy." I would take the knowledge and understanding of scripture of those people "every time" over today's modern theologians feigning to understand so much more because of diverse versions. No matter how it is rationalized or justified in our day, there is really no good that has come from taking the KJV, the staple good enough for the church proper for hundreds of years, and replacing it with fifty other "diverse" versions on biblical text. So, I'm with you, it is both a cause for division of the body, word, and I believe inherently confusing.

Philippians 1:27
  • "Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;"

Today's church is not striving together with one mind for the faith of the gospel. Because of pride it is striving independently against that virtue. They have been chipping away at the authority of the word ever since these new versions broke onto the scene. This steady chipping away, hidden by the chorus of professing Christian proponents of these new versions has been relentless. To not see the relationship between modern versions and corruption of doctrines is to blind ourselves to the truth. It seems that Christians today no longer seek the joy in communion in the mind of Christ, rather they joy in their own minds, in their own private opinions, in their own selfish desires and personal interpretations. They joy in selecting their own versions that they can "feel" more comfortable with. And this seems to out-weigh the better good of the church as a whole. Many times this tendency is under the guise of the KJV being archaic or inferior. It' sad, but they deem us as simply judgmental, legalists with a old fashioned sense of superiority and nostalgia. At least that's the presupposition and line most often heard.

Moreover, I might go out on a limb here and declare that I personally think that the new proliferation of modern versions of the Bible are all part and parcel of the growing apostasy that has been a creeping plague in the church for years. Christians in great numbers have lost respect for the word of God, and it shows in their region-wide acceptance of the NIV as the bible of choice, despite its obvious unfaithfulness, flaws and inaccuracies. If I had a dime for every christian who told me they use the NIV because it's easier to understand, I'd be a rich man.
  • First of all, God didn't generally author the Bible to be easy to understand. If He did, we wouldn't have whole nations blind and unable to comprehend Scripture.
  • Second, often the NIV is easier to understand precisely because it's not true to the original text or what God actually said within context.
  • Third, and perhaps most important, judging by parallel versions is at its most basic core man depending upon the interpretations of other men. In other words, each translator thought that it meant this or that. But true and faithful understanding of scripture comes not from comparing translators views, but by comparing scripture with scripture.

I'm not saying there is a law no one should use a parallel Bible, I'm saying I wouldn't. For example, if I want to know what [musterion] means, I don't go to Greek experts (who can't even agree themselves), or Websters Dictionary, or the Catholic Encyclopedia, or trust the different translators, but to all the scriptures where the actual word is found. I'd compare each word with word, each Scripture with Scripture, in context, and in that way discern the meaning God intended. Rather than arguing over whether it should have been translated "hidden," "Secret," "Unrevealed," or "Mystery" based upon a vaunted expert is foolishness "to me." Something unrevealed is a mystery, is it not? Why do I need a new version to re-translate mystery to unrevealed? I don't.  It's not going to bring anyone one step closer to understanding scripture. It is our diligence in the scriptures that shows us wise and Spirit filled, not the lazy path of leaning towards the translators personal opinions or private interpretations of each word.

Proverbs 12:23-24
  • "A prudent man concealeth knowledge: but the heart of fools proclaimeth foolishness.
  • The hand of the diligent shall bear rule: but the slothful shall be under tribute[/i]."

We needed faithful students who studied the scriptures rather than those who expertly twist and re-translate scripture according to their own biases and views. Wisdom is in those comparing those Scriptures with the Scriptures, not with the variations or diverse versions that "this" translator, or that "that" translator has written. That's the biggest difference I see today in the church. More of a desire to read what other authors, translations, theologians and so-called experts have said about the what the Bible means, than a desire for what the bible actually says about itself. Again, for example you can really learn more about the word translated "angel," by comparing every place it is found with every other place, than you can by listening to a thousand Greek or Hebrew scholars explaining secular history, visions, Hebrew tenses and nuances. We don't have to buy into the, "we need to know Greek" mentality of understanding scripture. It is a con-job and a narcissistic farce of the highest order. In my youth I argued with Greek and Hebrew "experts" about these things all night until the cows would come home--to no profit. There were those who could put together a string of verbs and pronouns with such skill that you would think they spewed gold saliva from their mouths. But in the end they always stumbled over God's "authoritative word" and were defeated by the hollow immanency of their postulations, tripping all over their own factitious theories.

You don't "need" to know Greek, you don't "need" parallel bibles, you don't "need" the NIV, what you "need" is the mind of Christ which produces the wisdom to understand that all these different English versions are harmful to the body of Christ, and thus (IMHO) Christians should not support it. Men, women, teachers, authors, flesh and blood, will not reveal these things to Christians, only the Spirit of Christ can.

Matthew 16:17
  • "And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."

I have no "need nor use" for parallel translations, and honestly, neither does anyone else. Sure, many may indeed have a "desire" for different variations of God's word, but let us be clear that desire, is not need. Nor are our desires (no matter how well meaning) always helpful in the long run. They are seldom prudent, insightful, or wise. Witness the man who had a desire to put forth his hand and steady the ark when the oxen that was pulling it stumbled. I mean really, he "thought" his action would help, but his actions were not insightful, prudent or wise. And God killed him on the spot for what he did. The moral of the story being, all things that "seem" helpful, are not "really" helpful at all when we consider them in the light of God's word. And God's word was not to touch it.

1st Chronicles 13:9-11
  • "And when they came unto the threshingfloor of Chidon, Uzza put forth his hand to hold the ark; for the oxen stumbled.
  • And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzza, and he smote him, because he put his hand to the ark: and there he died before God.
  • And David was displeased, because the LORD had made a breach upon Uzza: wherefore that place is called Perezuzza to this day."

Of course this action by God displeased David. Why? Because David (in his humanistic understanding), thinks this man was only trying to be helpful. But this man was not simply slain for himself, but for those who would come after and read of this episode. In other words, He's an example that there are no situation ethics in play with God. God says don't touch the Ark and you touch it, you die. And you die justly! Likewise, like Uzza, people who see nothing wrong with all these different variations of God's word think that they can be helpful, but they deceive themselves. In fact, all these diverse versions are a hindrance to the church. And those who support acceptance of them are part of the problem, rather than the solution.

It's my view that the minute that the church accepted the idea of there being great benefit in having many different versions of God's word, they began to sow a bad seed in the field, and we are reaping what they have sowed. And when giving assent to the diverse (and perverse) versions, we lose our right to exclude any of the hundreds of new translations that follow in that same mentality that more "opinions" (translations) of the Bible are also good for the church. No it's not better, and "GOD FORBID" that Christians cannot see the inherent dangers in this careless philosophy.

1st Corinthians 14:8
  • "For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?"

When I wanted to know if the scriptures teach the "faith of Christ," or our "faith in Christ," it wasn't translators, different versions, Hebrew, or Greek that I went to for Biblical proof, it was the Bible itself. It was the rest of the Bible, compared with itself, which confirmed by itself. And it did so in a hundred different ways. Not by comparing other Bibles, but confirmed in one Bible version by carefully comparing scripture (the Hebrew and Greek words) with scripture. God's word is true and He indeed does preserve it. But not in a perfect an authored translation nor in diverse English translations, but in the faithful copies that the KJV and others were translated from.

Nevertheless, the "Version Wars" will go on as long as there is an earth, man and will of man. And I think you can expect it to become worse as more and more professed Christians accept both these modern versions and perversions. And those accepting them as helpful to the church I don't think can hold themselves blameless for the place that it takes them.

nosce te ipsum"
 
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"

judykanova

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 918
  • Gender: Female
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #46 on: November 07, 2004, 08:50:57 AM »
Quote
Quote - I think you are saying that having four different versions of the same verse can be more confusing than helpful, since one cannot know which is correct.

No, I'm looking at the bigger picture. This idea that many different versions means better understanding is without merit. And more importantly, it is this philosophy that has led to all the different versions in the first place. That if we don't understand a word in one translation, we simply write a whole new version, instead of simply picking up a concordance and comparing scripture with scripture.

Kenneth,

Where did this quote come from?  Not from my post.
It appears you and others have found someone to channel your frustrations towards.  Your 'twists' and distortions of what I actually said, attributing to me things I have not said, overall misrepresentation of the intent of my posts,  and your thiinking I should not come to my own defense (which is your definition of being 'offended'), makes it clear to me that any response I make, will receive more of the same.  So this will be my last post.

judy
'For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.'   Ps 119:89

Kenneth White

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • Gender: Male
  • Thinking Christians, Intelligent Theology
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #47 on: November 07, 2004, 11:56:04 AM »
Quote
Quote - I think you are saying that having four different versions of the same verse can be more confusing than helpful, since one cannot know which is correct.

.

Kenneth,

Where did this quote come from?  Not from my post.

It is a quote from John's post to me. Since you two seem to always speak as one, rather than write two posts, I answered both questions with one post. And clearly, your touting of the parallel versions means that you think that different bible versions of the bible are helpful. Denying that is useless, since that is the very point of our contention.

As I said, I'm looking at the bigger picture. This idea that many different versions means better understanding (parallel bibles) is without merit. And more importantly, it is this philosophy that has led to all the different versions in the first place. That if we don't understand a word in one translation, we simply write a whole new version, instead of simply picking up a concordance and comparing scripture with scripture. I stand by my comments.

As for John saying that he thinks I don't like parallel versions because I think no one can know which one is correct, that is clearly not my reasons. Since I do know which one is correct, how could it be? I think that both Tony Warren's, as well as my own post expressed our reasons. It comes down to obedience and knowing that God doesn't want 20 different versions of his bible. Why can't you all understand that?  So if He doesn't want it, why do we want it? And so to support such practices is unbiblical and not prudent for the church in my view.

Judy, whether you respond to my posts or not is not the issue. The issue is what is pleasing to God and what is not. And you cannot show how having multiple versions of the word of God (parallel versions) is pleasing to him. And I'm sure that in your heart you know that. And that is why you attempt to change the subject and not deal with the multiple versions issue. I can't imagine the Apostles saying that they need another version of the old testament scriptures because it's good to know modern translators opinions of the text. It's a shame that you make things much more complicated than they are. God is not pleased by parallel bibles. It's confusion. It's as simple as that.


Proverbs 1:5-6 "A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels: To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings."

Kenneth White

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • Gender: Male
  • Thinking Christians, Intelligent Theology
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #48 on: November 07, 2004, 12:06:08 PM »

Kenneth, on this point, I couldn't agree any more with what you've said here if I had written it myself. This is indeed the real problem today with all these different English versions. This false idea that many different versions means a better understanding of Scripture. Number one, it can in no way be Glorifying to God to have a hundred different versions of His divine inerrant word.

All I can say is  )amen( Tony.

It seems that some choose to confuse the issue because they support the church having and using multiple Bible versions, but I think once you go down that slippery slope there is no coming back. Just listen to this statement. "The church having and using multiple Bibles is good." Now does that sound God glorifying to anyone?

As for those who don't think the modern versions are unfaithful, there's no talking to them. One minute they're saying they don't believe in different versions of the bible, and the next minute they're saying they didn't say that these other versions are unfaithful at all. They're saying so much, and yet saying nothing in order not to take a stand. You are right, it's "what came first, the chicken or the egg." Apostasy in the church, or corruption of the Bible. Or maybe they go hand in hand.

God bless your faithfulness brother.
Kenneth


Proverbs 1:5-6 "A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels: To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings."

brandplucked

  • Guest
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #49 on: November 07, 2004, 02:35:27 PM »
Hi Kenneth and Tony, just a note here.  I really enjoyed reading your thoughts on this vital subject and I agree with you both.

As for "the faith of Christ" and many other doctrines of  sovereign grace that have been perverted in all the modern versions, I have written an article that fellow Calvinists may find of interest.

It is titled Calvinism and the King James Bible.  It is plain for those who have eyes to see.

Here is the site

https://www.scionofzion.com/calvinism_kjb.htm

In His Grace,

Will Kinney

Pilgrim

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 294
  • Gender: Male
  • Reformed and Reforming
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #50 on: November 07, 2004, 02:53:41 PM »

Kenneth, on this point, I couldn't agree any more with what you've said here if I had written it myself. This is indeed the real problem today with all these different versions written produced in the same language.  Number one, it can in no way be Glorifying to God to have a hundred different versions of His divine inerrant word.

All I can say is  )amen( Tony.

It seems that some choose to confuse the issue because they support the church having and using multiple Bible versions, but I think once you go down that slippery slope there is no coming back. Just listen to this statement. "The church having and using multiple Bibles is good." Now does that sound God glorifying to anyone?

God bless your faithfulness brother.
Kenneth


No Kenneth, that doesn't sound right to me either. It sounds horrible!

I think that you pick a bible and you stick with it. You don't treat the word of God as if it is a salad bar where you pick what you like from each different dish.

I respect Judy and John but they are wrong on this issue. You simply can't have a collection of different bibles. And Judy, yes the modern versions are unfaithful to God's word. This particular issue has nothing to do with KJ Only advocates. It's just a matter of fact.
 
"And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." -Matthew 1:21

John

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 535
  • Gender: Male
  • A man with God is always in the majority-John Knox
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #51 on: November 07, 2004, 11:59:45 PM »
Quote
I respect Judy and John but they are wrong on this issue. You simply can't have a collection of different bibles. And Judy, the modern versions are unfaithful to God's word. This particular issue has nothing to do with KJ -only advocates. It's just a matter of fact.

I think there is an allowable difference in the manner that Christians approach this subject. I am not passionate about parallel Bibles, I find it a useful tool, some do not -- so be it. Am I wrong for checking the Greek, am I wrong for looking at Strong's, Young's or Green's work? Am I insulting someone by highlighting the better translation or even making pen-and-ink changes that better reflect the underlying Greek? Am I endorsing the proliferation of versions by assembling the best text? I don't think so.

OK, let's look at an example:

Mark 16:1-2
1  And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
2  And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.


Here is the acclaimed 'inerrant' King James Version quoting of Mark 16 above. Mary came to the tomb on Sunday morning the first day of the week. The KJV-only folks are content and move on to other things. The person who refuses to address the underlying Greek or check other version based on it is content also is happpy and moves on to other things. But someone who looks at Young's translation notices something different:

Mark 16:1-2
1  And the sabbath having past, Mary the Magdalene, and Mary of James, and Salome, bought spices, that having come, they may anoint him,
2  and early in the morning of the first of the sabbaths, they come unto the sepulchre, at the rising of the sun,


We soon find that the King James Version is wrong and Young's is correct, especially if we refer back to the TR and check the Greek to be sure. That morning at the tomb was the first of the New Testament Sabbaths!

Now if we trusted only the KJV we would have missed an important truth (as we would also sadly with the NKJV).

Quote
I respect Judy and John but they are wrong on this issue. You simply can't have a collection of different bibles.

If I carry a parallel bible how has that offended you? Does my eye hurt your elblow? Why am I wrong and you right? Why is it a zero sum game? As far as I can see it is a matter of personal choice for personal study. I am not promoting modern versions or sabotaging churches. Do you see a mole hill ahead or is that a mountain on the horizon? We can also learn Greek without arguing nuances and becoming embroiled in endless debate. It is all a matter of intent.

I am against red letter editions -- do you own a red-letter KJV?  I'd ask you why? Are the words of Christ is red because they are more important or significant than the rest of the Bible? I find that to be more of an issue than comparing multiple versions.

I am against commentaries in Bibles -- do you own a Bible with Macarthur’s commentary or notes from reformers -- do you think it wise to mix the words of men with the words of God? I don't. But I will not rail against you if you do -- it's your choice. Welcome to America!

I do not like paragraph headings that summarize the paragraph -- they are written by men and can be quite misleading. But if the Bible you use has this "feature" you can still be my friend.

These things are minor and a matter of personal needs based on what works for you. However, I will not support the use of modern versions based on Alexandrian texts -- ideally they should all be collected and burned. Please do not confuse something like Robert Young's or Jay Green's attempt to make a more literal and accurate Bible based on the TR text with these modern monstrosities based on corrupted Greek texts.

Honest people have been trying to make a better English translation since Jon Wycliff in the 1300's, the KJV is another is a long list of attempts to be more accurate (present modern versions based on the CT excepted). In fact, the KJV was not initially accepted. The people enjoyed the Geneva Bible and it was supremely popular. It was a revision of Tyndale's version done by William Whittingham, the brother-in-law of John Calvin of all people. The Geneva Bible went through 144 editions between 1560 and 1644. Even forty years after the publication of the King James Bible, the Geneva Bible continued to be the Bible of choice. The Pilgrim's came to American carrying the Geneva Bible. The Bishop's Bible was used mainly within the church. Can you believe that? Two Bibles -- one for home and one for church -- does that give glory to God?  Well, the reformers didn't consider the situation to be unmanageable.   

The King James version was born out of King James' dislike for the marginal notes in the Geneva Bible and its Calvinistic commentary. King James is quoted as saying, "I profess, I could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but I think that, of all, that of Geneva is the worst." He went on to make ownership of the Geneva Bible a felonyin England. The King James Bible was authorized by him with the intent of supplanting a bible that was odious to James. Eventually it did, but not for a long while. This does not diminish the KJB, it is an excellent translation.

The point here is that Bibles based on the TR Greek did not stop with the KJV -- we are not more noble because of our determined effort to use the KJV and only the KJV. If I choose to reference several of these excellent versions and a Greek TR and you find me in grave error, then so be it, let God be the judge.

john
Si hoc signum legere potes, operis boni in rebus Latinus alacribus et fructuosis potiri potes!

Genrev

  • Guest
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #52 on: November 08, 2004, 12:38:20 AM »

OK, let's look at an example:

Mark 16:1-2
1  And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
2  And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.


Here is the acclaimed 'inerrant' King James Version quoting of Mark 16 above. Mary came to the tomb on Sunday morning the first day of the week. The KJV-only folks are content and move on to other things. The person who refuses to address the underlying Greek or check other version based on it is content also is happpy and moves on to other things. But someone who looks at Young's translation notices something different:

Mark 16:1-2
1  And the sabbath having past, Mary the Magdalene, and Mary of James, and Salome, bought spices, that having come, they may anoint him,
2  and early in the morning of the first of the sabbaths, they come unto the sepulchre, at the rising of the sun,


We soon find that the King James Version is wrong and Young's is correct, especially if we refer back to the TR and check the Greek to be sure. That morning at the tomb was the first of the New Testament Sabbaths!

Now if we trusted only the KJV we would have missed an important truth (as we would also sadly with the NKJV).


Dear John,

I don't know a thing about Greek, but to me, the use of the word "sabbaths" in Mark 16:2 would make these verses very confusing because we are told in the verse right before it (verse 1) that "the sabbath was past."

If the sabbath was past, how could they come "early in the morning of the first of the sabbaths"?


Here is the Young's translation that you gave and said was correct.  Please read it again and see that it is confusing:


Mark 16:1-2
1  And the sabbath having past, Mary the Magdalene, and Mary of James, and Salome, bought spices, that having come, they may anoint him,
2  and early in the morning of the first of the sabbaths, they come unto the sepulchre, at the rising of the sun,


Do you see what I mean?


Also, I don't know what Young's Literal Translation says in Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2, but according to Strong's, the word used for "week" in Mark 16:2 is # 4521, and is also used in other verses, including the the verses below. 

Would the word "sabbaths" instead of "week" make any sense in the verses?   


Acts 20

6  And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days; where we abode seven days.

7  And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.


1 Corinthians 16

1  Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.

2  Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

3  And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem.


There is no error here. The King James Bible is correct.

Blessings,
Minna

Pearson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 219
  • Conformed by the Blood
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #53 on: November 08, 2004, 03:26:11 AM »
No Kenneth, that doesn't sound right to me either. It sounds horrible!

I think that you pick a bible and you stick with it. You don't treat the word of God as if it is a salid bar where you pick what you like from each different dish.

I repect Judy and John but they are wrong on this issue. You simply can't have a collection of different bibles. And Judy, the modern versions are unfaithful to God's word. This particular issue has nothing to do with KJ Conly advocates. It's just a matter of fact.
 


[Soapbox mode on]

This is an interesting thread so I thought I'd just add my two cents worth. I started out on one side of the fense, and now end up on the other. We all need to do a little soul searching on the issue.

Tony, you are so right. Before the 1900's you could read any Bible version you wanted, just as long as it was the King James Version. That's oversimplified, but basically true. But since 1881, there has been a shift to a more liberal, practical and social Church, and scores of new translations have since been printed. I don't see this as progress either, I see it as the Church in degradation. Especially since we all know that there are literally hundreds of textual changes between the King James Version of the bible and these modern translations. All you have to do is ask these Christians what stories the KJV has that the modern translations don't have, do they believe don't belong there. Then do a bible study of it and see how fast their beliefs are proven absurd. Do you know that there are scholars who claim that Christians who believe that a faithful translation of the Bible means a word-for-word translation, are to be considered laymen and ignorant? That alone shows you were their heads are. They believe that a "phrase-for-phrase" translation, or a dynamic equivalence translation is actually the faithful translation. That people like us should not be so concerned about the grammatical form of the original language, but about the meaning of the original. Just how they are supposed to get into the head of the author and know the original meaning, only they can say. the truth is, the dynamic equivalence translations that are in the modern versions are interpretation, not translation. We know that in some instances a word-for-word translation is not possible in some words, but that does not change anything as far as faithful translation goes.

John, you're correct, KJV-onlyism as an absolute is not valid. In other words, it's not a perfect translation. Neither is any other translation. However, I do believe that it is the best translation, and has been for hundreds of years. Therefore it is the one I use, recommend and quote from exclusively. And Tony makes a good point that I think you skim over. That the real issue we should be concerned with is the proliferation of modern versions, which I'm sure you know that most, if not all parallel bibles include as standard. So when we say we have no problem with parallel bibles, what are we saying. I realize you are creating your own, but I'm speaking in general terms. People will assume getting parallel bibles is a good thing to do because John has one and sees nothing wrong with it. Yours may be fine, but what about mine? We are our brothers keeper. It's like I don't smoke or drink anymore, not because I can't, but because I don't want to be a stumbling block to my weaker brother.


Kenneth, you make a good point. There really is three differences in the  modern Christian that has been the parents of this new generation of Bible translations. Textual differences, informational differences, philosophical differences. I think what we see in this forum is mainly the philosophical influences at work. Modern Christians don't so much believe in a word for word rendering of the Word of God, as a phrase for phrase rendering. That's why they have no problem with the modern versions. Are these translations any better than the King James? No, they are a far inferior translation, and I wouldn't recommend them to anyone.


Judy, if you knew anything about Dynamic Equivalence Vs. Formal Equivalence, you certainly wouldn't imply that the modern translations were faithful to the word of God. the modern versions like the New International Version  and the New English Bible follow this Dynamic Equivalence philosophy. You should know that in 1881 there was published Greek New Testament based not on the superior texts, but on the oldest found manuscripts. This text, by Brook Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort was an unorthodox and massive departure from the Greek texts that the King James Bible was translated from. This text from Westcott-Hort is corrupted text. Many quick-scholars think the oldest manuscripts make it the best for translating, but the truth is that the very reason many old texts survived was because they were corrupted, and no one used them. So they didn't wear out like many of the faithful texts did. The Westcott-Hort text is shorter because of this corruption and as a result does not contain many passages. Passages such as the story of the angel of the Lord stirring the waters at the pool of Bethesda (John chapter 5 verse 4), or nearly all of the second half of Mark chapter 16 of the signs following believers, or even Christ's gospel of the women caught in adultery (John chapter 8 ). Do you think any of these passages don't belong in the bible? If not, then obviously these oldest texts the modern versions are using are the inferior and corrupted text.

Moreover, although many christians are quick to tell you that the Byzantine texts from which the KJV is translated is dated as more recent, what they don't tell you is that these texts comprise at least 80 percent of the 5000+ MSS of the New Testament that we presently have. It's clear to me that to say these passages left out of the modern versions  were never part of the original scripture is absurd. Just read them. To make a long story short, these corrupted Westcott-Hort texts are what almost all of the modern versions are translated from. But the Greek texts behind the King James Version of the bible comes from the faithful Byzantine text.

Many versions don't interpret scripture, they distort it. And some are notorious for leaving out references to the blood of Christ, for using language to deny Christ's deity, or support a more free will philosophy.

Pearson


Just My two cents

[Soapbox mode off]

Genrev

  • Guest
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #54 on: November 08, 2004, 03:46:54 AM »


John, you're correct, KJV-onlyism as an absolute is not valid. In other words, it's not a perfect translation.


Dear Pearson,

Then if the King James Bible isn't a perfect translation, where is the word of God? 


Remember that God has promised to preserve His words:

Psalms 12

6  The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

7  Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.


And He has promised that His words shall not pass away. 


Matthew 24:35

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.


Mark 13:31

Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.


Luke 21:33

Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.


So where are God's words now? 

How can we compare Scripture with Scripture if we believe that there are errors in the Scripture or if we are in doubt that we have the complete and correct word of God?  We can't.  It would be useless and futile.  And if we believed that there were errors in the Scriptures, then we would put in jeopardy every post quoting Scripture and every Bible study ever done on Mountain Retreat (not to mention every Bible study ever done anywhere), because we wouldn't be able to know for sure if the Scriptures used in them contained errors or not...thus making them all null and void because there would be no Final Authority...no word of God!  Please think about that.

So if what you are saying is correct, then what's the use in studying the Scriptures in the first place if we believe that there are errors in them?  In that case, we might as well compare comic books with comic books and movies with movies, etc., anything besides studying the Scriptures, if we can't know for sure if there are errors or not...which is what the world does...totally doubting and ignoring the word of God.

Blessings,
Minna

brandplucked

  • Guest
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #55 on: November 08, 2004, 06:34:07 AM »
John, I agree with what Minna said about your point of Young translating the word as "sabbaths".  It makes no sense at all.  Truth is the word for sabbath is always in the plural, just like the word "heaven" is frequently in the plural but it should be translated as a singular.

What Young ignorantly did was to always make sabbath a plural and he ends up with nonsense.

Notice for example (and there are many in Youngs) Matthew 12:1 in Youngs - "At that time did Jesus go on the SABBATHS through the corn, and his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck ears, and to eat..."

Come on, John.  How is this the "sabbaths" (plural).?

Look at every other time Young translates this as a plural.  Young was wrong.

Do you consider Young's to be the inerrant word of God?  I'll bet not.

In case you want an example or two I have several real blunders by Young.

Can God be deceived?  Try Young in Psalm 78:36.

There is nothing wrong with the KJB and almost every other version I know of correcting translating sabbaths as a singular most of the time when it clearly is a singular sabbath day being referred to.

And God certainly cannot be deceived by man. 

Will Kinney

judykanova

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 918
  • Gender: Female
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #56 on: November 08, 2004, 06:49:43 AM »
I know I said I wouldn't say anything further, but since this topic continues to go on, with others making all kinds of assumptions and assertions which go far beyond the nature of the comments made on 1/6/04 in the "What Happpens If You Are Not a KJB Only?" thread, please allow me to remind everyone what those comments were, as demonstration of how this issue has been blown way out of proportion, and has become something else entirely.

What I said then and say now:

"This post pertains to both 'KJV' threads that are in progress...  an issue that will no doubt be debated till Jesus comes.  But while we’re at it,  there are certain things that should never be lost sight of, which based on some of the comments I've read,  seem to have gotten lost in the shuffle.

Of most importance, it is through the Word of God, that He elects to save.  So the faithfulness of a translation does matter.
(...Rom 10:17, John 15:3, 1 Thess 2:13, Eph 1:13, 1 Peter 1:23)

Secondly,  Jesus Himself is referred to as The Word (John 1:1,14) and we are forewarned about false prophets & teachers who distort and pervert the Word of Truth.  So the stance that a translation or interpretation is not important, is both foolish and dangerous.
(... Titus 1:9-11, 2 Cor 4:2, Gal 1:9, Ezek 22:28)

Thirdly, we understand that without the leading of the Holy Spirit who provide us with eyes to ‘see’ and ears to 'hear', no translation is of value.  That’s what the parable of the sower is all about (Mark 4), and what many other Scriptures teach:
(...John 16:14, Acts 10:44, Matt 18:15-19)

So,  there is no question but that the faithful rendering of God’s Holy Word is of all importance, and Christ – as The Word, is central to the ‘true’ gospel, and to our very salvation.  Moreover, and fourthly, The Word is also central to God’s wrath and judgment on the unsaved world:
(...Rev 19:11, 13, John 12:48)

Lastly and in conclusion,  when it comes to translations, the issue is not one of perfection (which can only be said of the original texts),  but one of relative faithfulness.  Like Christ_Alone, my preference is the KJV for reasons of overall faithfulness.   However, I am not going to lie and say I have never found other translations helpful.  I have invested in a parallel Bible which has about 6 translations (with KJV being the first) side-by-side for comparison.  As someone else mentioned in one of these 2 related threads,  such comparisons can be useful in our understanding of Scripture.

So while poor/unfaithful translations should not be deemed or overlooked as harmless, and while the KJV (though overall superior in it’s faithfulness)  is not perfect,  a bit of common sense can be used in utilizing other versions when warranted and beneficial to our study of God’s Word.   It’s the study of God’s Word which, in part, constitutes our ‘labor’ – but that’s a somewhat different topic.
(...2 Tim 2:15-18, Acts 17:11, 1 Tim 5:17)

Words are powerful, even in the earthly sense; how much more powerful is the Word of God, rightly divided!"


So, Kenneth, having made no comment back then, why did you wait 9 months later to voice criticism, saying that having a parallel Bible is hypocritical, and putting me in the wrong for even responding in defense?. Talk about underhanded, that takes the cake!  

I understand what many are saying about the dangers of poor translations , and said as much in my post of 1/6/04.  But that's isn't the topic of this thread and was never under contention.  The points that have been entirely and conveniently overlooked, are these...

- One has every right to check out the claim that the KJV is the most faithful rendition of Scripture, and reach their own conclusion.
  This can only be done by looking at the other translations, and with the use of a Strongs concordence and related tools, make a comparison.  This is exactly what
  I did, and had every right to do.  
 
- One has every right to use whatever personal study tools they find helpful.  There is nothing sinful about this despite self-righteous claims to the contrary.
  There is also no basis for the charge of 'confusion' since no one else is involved in this endeavor.  I would not presume to dictate to anyone how they must
  study, nor what tools they are allowed to study with.  I know perfectly well that other translations are inferior to the KJ, and have said as much many times.
  But it's still a matter of degree, as some of the modern translations were undertaken in good faith, and are based on the same manuscripts.
  How many of you listen to the wonderful Bible readings on Family Radio --  which is from the NKJV?

 
- ALL of my posts have used Scripture from the KJV.  However, while studying, I sometimes run across difficult Old English idioms that another version may help  
  clarify.  I expect some will get on their high-horse about even admitting that.

- According to Kenneth, who seems to have a fondness for the term 'always', I'm supposedly always 'offended' whenever
  I come to my own defense, yet it's he and others who for some strange reason are 'offended' by the tools I use for Bible study. 

- According to Kenneth,  my comments may be used interchangeably with john's since we 'always' agree.  Even if this were true (which it isn't),
  to do such a thing is both disrespectful and deceitful.  If I happen to agree with someone, well I just happen to agree with someone and may choose to say so,
  ... no different than anyone else here.  And I would be interested in hearing a response to john's comments regarding commentaries, footnotes, red letters,
  and things of that nature.  Are these materials in one's home, used judiciously for personal study, also generally viewed as 'horrible', leading to mass confusion and the
  decline of churches -- whether you attend one or not?

judy
'For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.'   Ps 119:89

brandplucked

  • Guest
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #57 on: November 08, 2004, 07:17:40 AM »
Hi Preston, in part you said: "John, you're correct, KJV-onlyism as an absolute is not valid. In other words, it's not a perfect translation. Neither is any other translation. However, I do believe that it is the best translation, and has been for hundreds of years."

Preston, you and John talk about the TR and translations made from it.  Are you aware that there is no "THE TR"?  The King James text is a variety of the Textus Receptus.  Young's doesn't always follow the same Greek text as the KJB, nor does the NKJV, nor does Green.  In fact Green thinks several readings in the KJB are spurious.

Then we have the little problem of how to translate the Greek and Hebrew into English.  What you fellas end up with is each of you disagreeing about different parts of your various, conflicting, multiple-choice bible versions, and then each of you follows your own understanding and pieces together a unique and peculiar bible version that exists nowhere in print on this earth.  You have a mystical bible that is different in varying degrees from anybody else's.  And of course, it can and often does change with every "new light" you might think you have found.

You still do not have any single Book you can confidently call the inspired, inerrant, complete and final word of God.  You are no different than the Whateverists who promote a multitude of conflicting comic book bibles.  It is just a question of degree and personal preference.


My view and belief is based on the Sovereignty and Providence of Almighty God who promised to preserve His words somewhere on this earth.  I believe He has done this and it is only in the King James Bible.  See, I can point you to a real, tangible Book in print that any of you can pick up and read and you don't need to change a single thing in it.  It is just the way God wanted it to be.  The text of the KJB has never changed.  Sure, some minor printing errors have occured from time to time in various printings, but the text itself has never changed in almost 400 years.  God has clearly set His seal of divine approval on this particular Bible far, far more than on any other.  Just look at how He has used it all over the world.

If it were not for the King James Bible there would be no bible version issue today.  There is only one Bible that thousands of people all over the world actually believe to be the inerrant, inspired word of God.  Just one.  And we let other people know that the others are inferiour at best and devilish at worst.  We really believe this.

There are NO errors in the King James Bible. Nada, zip, zero.  If you can find one proveable error, then my whole position falls to the ground.  I don't mean your personal preference on how a word should be translated, but a real error.  Not something like that silly sabbathS thingy, but a real textual or translational error.

The NKJV is supposedly based on the same underlying TR text, and yet this version is certainly not the true words of God.  It has real and not just apparent errors.  I can show you several of them if you like.

Youngs "literal" translation is another bogus bible, yet he supposedly adopted the same underlying texts (he didn't always do this, and he has some really messed up translations)  God never set His seal of divine approval on this mess and He never will.

So, you either have a perfect Bible or you don't.  Apparently you are satisfied with using inferiour bibles.    You are free to do so.  Like you said, this is America.  But keep in mind the fact that God does not run a democratic form of government.  He is a sovereign King.  I suggest we submit to the Bible He chose to give us as His inerrant and accurate words of truth and life.

Will Kinney


brandplucked

  • Guest
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #58 on: November 08, 2004, 07:27:06 AM »
Hi Judy, I found your post to be very interesting.  I noticed you were trying to equate the word of God (it should be a small w in word) with the Word of God, being Christ incarnate.  I agree with your analogy.  However your analogy falls apart at the seams when we examine it more closely with what you really believe.

You have told us that no translation is perfect and that only the originals were.  We all know the originals no longer exist and in fact they never were all together in one Book to begin with.  So to follow the logic of your analogy, we would then have to conclude that the Word of God (the Lord Jesus Christ) either 1. no longer exists; or 2. is not perfect.

So, which is it?

Will Kinney

Genrev

  • Guest
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #59 on: November 08, 2004, 07:42:24 AM »

  I noticed you were trying to equate the word of God (it should be a small w in word) with the Word of God, being Christ incarnate. 


Dear Will,

Thank-you for pointing out that the "word of God" should not be capitalized, whereas the "Word of God"...Christ incarnate should be.  I, too, made the same mistake and have gone back and corrected it in my last post.  (I have probably made it many times over on the forum and elsewhere, but now, thanks to your correction, I will be more careful of it.)  I know this wasn't the main point of your post, but I did want to thank you for straightening this out for me.

Blessings,
Minna

 


[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]