kjv against the rest. Is it as bad I as I am led to believe?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by WITBOTL, Oct 17, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. WITBOTL

    WITBOTL
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    95
    Likes Received:
    0
    All concerned should take a moment to consider where this began. Not to suggests that texts were not debated prior or that corruptions did not occur prior, but this debate between the kjv and modern versions essentially began with the introduction of the RV as a better translation which took into account "better" manuscripts. Upon examination though, particularly by Burgon the version introduced a new way of handling the sacred words of scripture which was and should have been alarming. Were the concerns of Burgon invalid? Was he unreasonable in his assessment of Wescott and Hort's work?

    Like most theological debates two sides seem to take to distancing themselves so thoroughly from the other position that truth sometimes suffers. I find it sad though that apparently good men here refuse to acknowledge the legitimate problems that were introduced with the methodologies of Westcott and Hort and the 19th Century philisophical systems which took the world by storm and to which we have become slaves.

    I don't believe anyone here would profess those philosophical systems as their god but we should all take care that we are not led away by the wisdom of men.

    Is conjectural emendation and the subjective relativity of an eminent scholar a good method for determining a variant reading?

    Are Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and Alexandrinus really the best and most reliable texts?

    Should the methodology for textual analysis deny the very existence of God and treat the texts as one would treat any other historical text?

    When a new version comes along which claims a better reading, use of more reliable mss, a more accurate translation, should we trust this because a great Greek scholar determined it was better, more reliable, more accurate?

    What makes a particular reading “better”

    Is there ANY place for faith and a concept of a preserved transmitted word or is faith in this matter just foolishness?

    Or, are these concerns just silly, stupid and naive?

    I suppose the problem with much “kjvoism” is a move to suggest that in English, translation was locked in at 1611 and no further work in English should ever be done. I don’t subscribe to that position. I believe it is imperative that good men of faith handle the texts and mss that are out there and be familiar with Greek and be Hebrew scholars and engage in such endeavours as translation.

    But I refuse to accept that God has not been providentially involved in the transmission of his Word through the ages. I refuse to accept that we can treat the sacred words of God in our handling just as any other ancient text and trust in the scientific method to sort it out. We need to trust in God instead. He GAVE us his Word and we do disservice to treat it so carelessly. I have only heard men here who hate kjvoism spend every effort to bring down the kjv in an attempt to make it equal with modern translations. If you cannot elevate the bible you use and must seek to bring down another to make yours equal, perhaps you’ve got it wrong.

    I have visited a church where the pastor began a series on bible translations. He started by saying all (most?) modern translations were valid and profitable including the kjv. Then for the next five weeks I heard him consistently and regularly disparage the kjv to support his position.

    I love the kjv and I have no desire to change which version I use. English of the 17th Century was in many respects the best it ever was or has been. I cannot imagine a modern language version rivalling it if only from the point of view of the state of English then compared to now. But I think it would be a tragedy if we stopped handling the mss of the Word of God and stopped learning the Greek and Hebrew in which it was written. It would be a tragedy if the kjv became like a medieval Latin Vulgate which very few understood.

    Unfortunately though, we have an utter confusion on our hands with regards to an explosion of translations. There is so much doubt cast upon the scriptures today by men who claim to believe it that it is utterly shameful.

    I am frustrated by the attitude that I am reading of a smug and snobbish intelligencia who have it right against a bunch of country bumpkins who hold a position that is just misinformed in its simpleton naiveté by suggesting that God could or would or did actually give men of the 21st Century a bible that they could actually believe with confidence actually IS the Word of God upon which they can lay their hope of eternity without reservation. I admit this may be unscholarly but I’ll take that over believing the industry of doubt which thrives on the uncertainty of the layman and the priestly power over him to say thus saith the Lord because WE have determined it.

    Take out the money motive, take out the scholarly prestige motive and take out more sinister motives and how many versions do we have left?

    How many of you claim that all versions are equally good when you mean all versions are equally bad? Is this the position we should take? That all versions are so rife with errors that it doesn’t really matter which one you choose, they’re all bad. At least with a modern version you can read and doubt those mistakes in language you can understand? Is that what I should advocate to be purged of my heresy?

    If we go into a translation endeavour with the intention of correcting all the errors in what came before and with an attitude that God certainly didn’t preserve his word in what came before then we are starting in the wrong place. If we begin a translation endeavour with a need to satisfy the swelled minds of men or our own with our unique ability to actually improve upon the bible we are starting in the wrong place. If we go into a translation endeavour without fear and trembling of carelessly handling the Word of God we are starting in the wrong place. Too many modern translation endeavours are starting in the wrong place.

    In what is the kjv so outstandingly wanting to warrant the constant attacks against it and an explosion of translations which boggles the mind. Alternative bibles are a nice philosophy for our post-modern new age all truths are true, just pick one society but why does it make me a heretic to believe that I have a bible that I can rely on, believe is an accurate preservation of what God GAVE to us and what he intended for us to have? I don’t want to have to inject a panoply of doubts into every reading that I cast my eyes upon because somebody said “it doesn’t REALLY say THAT” or “better mss read thisaway” ?
     
  2. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen. :tonofbricks:
     
  3. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's a pretty big chunk of text, WITBOTL. I did actually read it, but I am not going to answer it point by point.

    Some may attack the KJV, but I am not one of them. however, I will not stand by when someone tries to elevate the KJV above that which it is... a translation.Raising it above that makes it an idol.

    The English of the KJV is fine, but it is rather dated and confusing to most anymore. That's not a condemnation or a criticism, but merely a statement of fact

    Some word choices made in the KJV were not the best choices for the passage. I am not about to try to list which words, as I am sure many here could pull up a link for it. I do know in my own study that I have found many an instance where the word(s) used were ill-fitted to what the Greek or Hebrew actually said. That could be chalked up to the time in which it was translated or the voice of the Church of England... I really don't know. The KJV stands on its own merits. I may compare it to others, but I see no reason to tear it down. It stands in its rightful place as a grand translation of God's word.

    The KJV IS the word of God, but it is not the sole repository for it. That is the main thing so many of us struggle to get across to those who come here and bellow otherwise (while they snipe and belittle anyone who disagrees with them). It is not just "country bumpkins" who hold to this errant philosophy, either, as I have met many others in different walks of life who espouse the same. It's still wrong no matter what job the person has, what car he drives, or what street he lives on.

    I can lay my hope in the KJV as well as many other accurate translations, and I do so without any worries whatsoever. I use several different translations in my studying (as I am no language scholar); in doing do I have seen how, even though the translational choices may vary, the message and meaning remain exactly the same.

    I respect and admire your honesty and candidness, WITBOTL. Such is seldom seen around here. May God bless and keep you.
     
  4. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    IMO, no he wasn't unreasonable.
    But he wasn't like today's KJVO either.
    The KJV comes from one group of MSS (majority text), and most other MV's come from another group of MSS (critical text). To simplify it then, there are really only two Bibles--those emanating from the majority text which are KJV, NKJV, and just a few others. And secondly, those emanating from the Critical Text as most MV's do. The problem lies in the Greek text not in the translation.

    My pastor once was clarifying a word in the KJV from the Greek (when preaching from the pulpit), and a KJVO visiting preacher rudely slammed his Bible shut and stomped out of the service. To him it was heresy to use the Greek (even the TR), to clarify a word or phrase in the KJV. This is the idiocy most of us are against.
     
  5. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    The KJV-only view is not stated in the Scriptures, and it is based on the wisdom of men.

    There were differences in English translations before 1611. Baptists and other believers in the early 1600's had objections to the KJV because of changes it made to the Geneva Bible. Baptists, Congregationalists, and other believers considered some of the changes to be result of Anglican bias for Episcopal church government.

    John Wesley made a new English translation that was printed in 1755. Wesley's Bible was popular among Methodists in America. Baptists and other believers made a revision of the KJV that was printed in 1842 that differed from the KJV in many renderings.
     
  6. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Holders of a KJV-only theory imply that God did not preserve the Scriptures faithfully enough in the original languages so that the preserved Scriptures in the original languages can be used to try all translations including the KJV. The KJV-only view starts in the wrong place by denying the greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages from which translation derive their authority.

    The KJV-only theory uses some of the same reasoning and arguments that were used by Roman Catholics for their Latin Vulgate-only theory. The early English translators including the KJV translators rejected that type one-translation-only arguments.
     
  7. WITBOTL

    WITBOTL
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    95
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks Trotter et al for the reply.

    I will apologize for excess in verbosity... I can't seam to sit at a keyboard without rambling on (and on!)

    Trotter, I appreciate your position, and thank you for the kind words. I think as DHK said there is essentially a MT view and a critical text view which gives us two bibles (ok that IS a simplification, but it is a good one) and the vast majority of modern versions utilize the critical text. I would say there are some problems with the methodology of the critical text as well as the text itself.

    I think it is entirely valid to raise concerns about the critical text.

    DHK, I think there are many "kjvo" folk who have taken their position too far (probably grown in response to opposition) but those who I know personally who defend the kjv and will not advocate the use of any other version are also willing to admit there are problems with the kjv (they distinguish between errors and problems by the way and see the kjv as inerrant) They have no problem in looking to the greek and finding some greater understanding there. I believe it is foolish not to look to the Greek or Hebrew and what commentators have said about the original language words in study. I would also respectfully suggest that the bible in English is sufficient as the word of God and does not NEED to be enhanced by these aids. But we should not disallow that which helps our understanding.
     
  8. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    I am sure there were "Geneva Bible Onlyists" when the AV1611 began to be more-widely used; I don't think "One-Version-Onlyism" is a new thing at all. But I DO believe it's WRONG unless believed for the RIGHT reasons such as personal preference or availability.

    However, KJVO is in a class by itself among One-Version-Only doctrines. First, the KJV was the most-popular Engliah version for a long time. Second, KJVO was the first such doctrine whose proselytes had the advantage of instantaneous mass media to help spread it. But most of those who advocate it haven't bothered to check out its VERACITY. they don't know that it originated from a CULT OFFICIAL'S book, & that virtually every KJVO author from J. J. Ray to Gail Riplinger have either quoted from that book or used info found in it, if not copying from it verbatim. (Now, I'll be the first to admit that Riplinger, Ruckman, etc. have made up quite a bit of stuff on their own, but the basic source for their KJVO blarney to begin with was Dr. Wilkinson's book.) http://www.temcat.com/Wilkinson/AuthorizedBibleTOC.htm

    But above all else, the one fact that condemns KJVO and all other rabid One-Version-Only doctrines is that there's absolutely NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for ANY of them. God is quite capable of making His will known to man, and if he intended for only one version or translation of His word to be used within a given language, He would have said so, or allowed only one to have been made.

    Therefore I relegate KJVO to the garbage can full of of other false, man-made doctrines of worship, & encourage others to do the same.
     
  9. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    Not new at all. As I posted elsewhere the Latin Vulgate was a one-version only Bible for over a thousand years.
     
  10. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    In reality, there were NEVER any Latin Vulgate Only or Geneva Only. That is simply not true.

    No one was so audacious as to say that God corrected and gave new revelation in a man-made translation. It is a modern phenomenon and attack on the precious doctrine of inspiration.

    Until the Adventist Cult did in the 30's (of course they have since admitted that was heresy - their word). Or a few Baptists who bought into the Adventist lies. And then Ruckman and the popularization among the most ignorant of this false teaching on a man-made translation being somehow the "only" Word of God.

    To answer the op, the valid study of "textual criticism" is EXTREMELY needed. With 5500+ manuscripts, uncials, codices, and fragments (and no two agree 100%) to clearly point out the original inspired and preserved actual God-breathed words, one MUST have rules and methods. It is truly a science and I thank God for men like Wescott and Hort and a host of others through the past century for doing very difficult work.
     
  11. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think in the 50's and 60's, we put undue emphasis on the KJV in our battle against modernism and the RSV, the Bible of the liberals.

    This may have added to the KJVonlyism.

    The truth is that we believed the verbal inspiration only applied to the original manuscripts, which are lost, and prolly for good reason. We always believed that we had an adequate copy down through the years that we could stand in the pulpit and state that we were preaching from God's word.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  12. Harold Garvey

    Harold Garvey
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    yes, that wisodm passed unto men from God is also wisdom of men but not eminating from men, but God.

    Only certain breed of Baptists.

    There you would be justified within those realms to say only the wisdom of men was at work on the translations.

    Methodist, Congregational Methodists, applauded J.Wesley's work, just as many Baptists concurred with revising the KJV, but there are still some, a remnant, if you may, never turned from the 1611 in essence being it was only edited.:sleeping_2:
     
  13. Harold Garvey

    Harold Garvey
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    And where, if ever, was this compilation of the originals to make up a Bible?

    I will forver stand against the rhetoric of saying we don't have an inspired copy of God's word today or ever.

    To say only the original autographs are inspired is a direct attack against the Lord.

    A new breed of "onlyists" has erupted out of modernism.

    many preachers from the 50's and upward took a strong stand against the endorsement of modern versions and for good reason. They said things like,"Accepting a modern version, which is nothing more than a watered down version of God's Holy Word ,will lead to atrocities within the very walls of the Church."

    We're living in those days as we speak.
     
  14. Harold Garvey

    Harold Garvey
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wasn't there, but i could see if the use of the Greek were to be a denial of what the KJV says, because that would be a corrupting of the text from the Greek. This is the failure to include the definition of an English word which DOES give the implication of the Greek meaning.

    I see this often.

    I agree the Greek, the right Greek, will enhance and add to clarity of the KJV, but the fact still remains the KJV said what was in the Greek all along.:thumbs:

    I asked before how one could define agape' without using the term "love", it never even surfaced.

    The fact is that our word "love" has so vast in meaning, and certainly depending upon context and application, every use of it does not define agape, but every use of agape is found within our word.

    To say one cannot understand what Jesus meant from the English by the term "love" is a sad interuption to a line of thought to be processed and coupled by the Spirit of God. Merely the reptition of the exchange between Jesus and Simon Peter clearly indicates one must consider the text very closely.

    We see not just one aspect of love towards the Saviour but a progression of that love to make application to the then ability to teach and to help the young and ultimately the more mature.
     
  15. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's a falsehood. I answered your post directly. There is no exact translation for "agape" into English.
    Not so. When Jesus asks "do you love me", and Peter replies "I love you", they are not using the same word. Jesus is saying "Do you agape (love unconditionally) me? Peter replies "I phileo (love like a brother) you. Jesus asks again, and gets the same answer. Finally, Jesus asks "Do you phileo (love like a brother)", to which Peter replies "you KNOW I phileo (love like a brother) you. It's an example of Jesus meeting Peter where he is. Since the KJV does not differentiate between agape and phileo, the koine context is not adequately translated here.
     
    #15 Johnv, Oct 20, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 20, 2009
  16. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    No, it hasn't
    In Acts 12:4, the Greek word is "pascha."
    The KJV translates this word "Easter."
    Every other time that the word "pascha" is used it is always translated "passover," and that is what it should have been translated here. Mistakes are made.

    Sometimes words are not translated, but transliterated.
    Baptidzo is one such word. The meaning is "immersion."
    But the KJV translators were Anglicans, and their hands were tied by political expediency. They could not translate the word "to immerse" but had to translate it "to baptize," because the Anglican church sprinkled. Baptism included everything from sprinkling, pouring to dunking. It is an all inclusive word. But baptidzo has only one meaning--immerse.

    What is the underlying word for church? And what does it really mean? Why didn't the KJV translators translate it correctly?
     
  17. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    So the KJV corrects the Greek from which it came? Hmmm... I've heard that one before...
     
  18. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Which bolsters what I've said elsewhere. The KJVOist hypocrisy reveals itself when it asserts that the KJV is allowed to correct the Greek, yet when a non-KJV translation supposedly doing the same thing, the KJVOist calls that translation a perversion.
     
  19. Harold Garvey

    Harold Garvey
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    What a joke!

    Explain to me the meaning of agape.

    Funny, real; funny.
    I researched the passage when i first noticed the repitition and found out what the passage was referring to. I did it all from the English:smilewinkgrin:
     
  20. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    I didn't know that the Apostle Paul spoke the King James English. :D
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...