KJVO

Scott J,

Hey I'm no fan of Ruckman, and I believe there can be a debate on the issue without resorting to name-calling. That's why I have been obstaining for the most part from the issue. Are you a fundamentalist?

As far as you agreeing with everything in the above post, could you say,

"I, Scott J, 'deplore the rash of new versions which add to or delete from the Word of God, such as the New International Version, with special reference to those so-called "revisions" which by footnote additions undermine the text.'

This is in the 1984 resolution on inerrancy.

Jason

Ooops, I read PCC as PBC. Disregard what I said about Ruckman in relation to this issue, but keep it for future reference.

[ January 10, 2003, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: Refreshed ]

 

To add to Scott's comments (if I may so humbly suggest that that even be possible), I think folks like David Cloud are included in that.

 

Edited my above post, just at the end.

Jason

 

You mean being schizmatic?

 

Absolutely without question or deviation.

There are implications of this statement that I might not agree with. Also, you're right... I wouldn't agree with this one phrase about footnotes. I would never condemn someone for being honest with the facts. Apparently even the KJV translators included margin notes with variant readings.

If I am not mistaken, the FBFI reached a crossroads in the '80's on this issue. I think they even had some men separate from them because they wouldn't be KJVO. (I have a copy of "From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man" which I think is the source of my info. Most if not all of its contributing authors were FBF members) Notably even at this time of dissention, they didn't mention the NASB nor the NKJV by name. Through BJU and other mutual associations, the FBFI is linked to the only version whose translators were required to sign a statement affirming inerrancy and the orthodox position on the scriptures... the NASB.

No problem. I don't take you for a Ruckmanite anyway.

 

What I want to know is if this has historically been an issue. Apparently, they have always believed that the RSV was inappropriate for use among fundamentalists. Was the bible version debate not an issue in the FBF prior to the mid-1980's? Did disagreeing fundamentalists on this issue just live with each other's views?

Apparently the FBF had great issues with both the RSV and NIV. It would be interesting to find a thorough history on the FBF, the one on their website is woefully lacking.

Jason

 

Good question. I doubt you will find anything at all about fundamentalists arguing over this issue prior to the '50's. Some of the modern day KJVO's are descended from fundamentalists which were not, ie. John R Rice.

The original fundamentalists were definitely not KJVO and not divided on the issue. But I don't know how long this was an issue within the FBF.

[ January 10, 2003, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

It would be unfair not to mention that this was not an issue for anyone until the MV explosion. the KJV was the Bible of choice for most of the Christian community. It was not until the "same as the King James; only easier to understand" claim surfaced that many Christians began buying the MVs on the assumption that they were the same as the KJV with easier to understand synonyms replacing the "archaic" words. That claim was untrue then; it is untrue now.

 

It would be unfair not to mention that this was not an issue for anyone until the MV explosion. the KJV was the Bible of choice for most of the Christian community.</font>[/QUOTE]Yes and no. The fundamentals were written in the same time period as the ASV and RV. Fundamentalists then had a the opportunity to condemn new translations and lower textual criticism but didn't.

Also, from a practical point of view, a Bible 100 years ago costs much more relative to a person's wealth than they do now. Even if there had been a ground swell of demand for the newer versions, most people couldn't have afforded them.

1) Do you have a source for that quote? I haven't seen that used in marketing other translations.

2) MV's are easier to understand for the average modern reader. That doesn't make them better on the whole or more accurate but to say that MV's are not easier for most people to read is simply a denial of fact.

3) The KJV does contain archaic words and phrasing. Again, this is simply a provable fact that anyone familiar with this issue and honest about it will acknowledge. MV's do not use archaic words and phrases.

 

1) Do you have a source for that quote? I haven't seen that used in marketing other translations.

2) MV's are easier to understand for the average modern reader. That doesn't make them better on the whole or more accurate but to say that MV's are not easier for most people to read is simply a denial of fact.

3) The KJV does contain archaic words and phrasing. Again, this is simply a provable fact that anyone familiar with this issue and honest about it will acknowledge. MV's do not use archaic words and phrases.</font>[/QUOTE]1. This is not a "quote" per se. This is my paraphrase of the desired opinion of the MV publishers.

2. This is arguable. We've all seen the lists of hard-to-understand words in the MVs. When we are having trouble understanding the Word of God, is the answer always to find an "easier to understand" version? Or, would we be better off heeding these verses?
Ps 119:34 Give me understanding, and I shall keep thy law; yea, I shall observe it with my whole heart.
Ps 119:73 Thy hands have made me and fashioned me: give me understanding, that I may learn thy commandments.
Ps 119:144 The righteousness of thy testimonies is everlasting: give me understanding, and I shall live.
Ps 119:169 Let my cry come near before thee, O LORD: give me understanding according to thy word.

3. The KJV does contain words that have had their changed in the last 400 years it is true. My point was, the claim that the MVs are the same as the KJV with only synonyms replacing the archaic words is not true.

[ January 10, 2003, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Bob 63 ]

 

In addition to Scott's point, the ASV was the most quoted version in The Fundamentals, which was the initial statement of the doctrinal position of the earliest fundamentalists.

I have seen some historical analysis that actually indicates that many of the earliest fundamentalists were moving toward the RSV until they saw how the liberals were twisting some of the passages. That doesn't mean we should use the RSV, but it does indicate that early fundamentalists weren't KJVO.

 

Why do you presume that having a modern version is at odds with those verses? God in his providence has provided for us modern versions in order that we may heed those versions. The dichotomy you have made here is a false one.

Additionally, you keep arguing that MVs are different than the KJV. While that is certainly true in teh wording, it is not true in teh doctrine and the word of God. We need to very quickly dispense with the notion that the MVs are somehow deficient. As has been shown time and again, no KJV can come up with a doctrine or teaching that has been omitted. The best they can do is show words that were most likely added during the period of textual transmission.

 

So you're saying you know that's what they're thinking, even though you've never heard them say it?

I checked all those verses in the NASB and they all tell me to do that, too. You're not suggesting that it's better to communicate in obscure language and let God make everything clear, are you? I doubt if you do that intentionally when you preach.

That may have been the marketing ploy at some point. I don't know. That does not appear to be the case today. Personally, if Zondervan or whoever marketed a Bible as "same as the KJV with synonyms for the archaisms" I wouldn't buy it because I want a Bible based on what I believe are the better manuscripts. (That is, unless it has MacArthur's study notes. )

 

Do you think it is fair for you to paraphrase what you believe to be the desired opinion of the MV publishers? If so, can you give a direct quote so we can examine for ourselves the meaning of the quote as opposed to the meaning you have assigned it?

No. Actually it is not arguable. Depending on the level of reader, there will be hard-to-understand words in any publication. The problem is further expounded when you have a version like the NASB that is attempting to translate as formally as possible. But on the whole, MV's use common words in their accepted modern meanings.

Obviously the answer is no... but it is an answer. I would recommend as the KJV translators did to compare versions to get the "sense of scripture" and pray for the wisdom to understand its implications.

As has been discussed before, this has nothing to do with granting someone a miraculous endowment in language understanding. If it did, we should all pray and wait for God to give us knowledge of the original languages.

It means, as you well know, that we should pray to understand and do what the Word is saying, not that we should pray to understand difficult grammar.

But you have not demonstrated that anyone has made these claims. Several of us here have stated that the faithful versions teach the same doctrines but that is different from what you claim.

 

Pastor Bob, Siegfried makes a good point. If this passage means what you claim, why wouldn't you take a course in Shakespeare and present all of your sermons in the language of the KJV including their idioms, rhetoric, and diction. If you and your congregation prayed properly, they should be able to understand you just fine... in fact, even better than they do now.

 

I believe so. It is simply called having an opinion. It may not be the same as your's; but it is an opinion.

Regarding the verses I listed, My point, missed by all, is that when one does not understand the Word of God, the best solution is not always to lay it down for an easier to read version. We just may be short-changing the Holy Spirit who delights in guiding us into all truth.

Pastor Larry asked:

I never made that presumption. I simply asked if that was always the answer.

Siegfried asked:

Again, I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. I'm asking if always running to an easier version is the wisest thing to do.

I do reference other versions out of curiousity at times. When they disagree with the KJV, one has to be the standard.

Scott J says:

What are you claiming that I am claiming these verses are saying?

 

That if people who have difficulty understanding the KJV would just pray, God would enlighten them in spite of the fact that they wouldn't normally understand Elizabethan English.

You didn't finish the insenuation but normally it is implied that if someone prays and still doesn't understand it means they are unsaved. There are people in this boat that won't study the Bible for fear of being trapped in this scenario.

As well as pastors that would rather have ignorant, non-growing Christians in their congregation than to have them use a Bible that they can read easily.

[ January 11, 2003, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

Absolutely false, brother. 100% false. They never were, are not now, and God willing, never will be. They represent historic fundamentalism, not the modern schismatic intrusion of the KJVonly sect.

I have been a past member in the 70-80's and know whereof I speak. Please do not malign this organization. </font>[/QUOTE]That was my interpretation of their resolutions. Check out especially the 1984 resolution. Would that or would it not include most if not all modern versions? I'm not maligning the organization, just attempting an honest assessment. Please read the conversation between Scott and myself to get the context, Dr. Bob. I'm VERY interested in the actual history of the Fundamental "movement," and am not trying to be revisionist. Just read the 1984 resolution.

Jason

 

Dear Pastor Bob (and anyone else who would be so kind as to offer helpful advice):

I am probably the only MV publisher active on this board with the official publication of our World English Bible last week (gotta be official, Amazon.com now lists it&lt;g&gt; here and our own site here). Since I am personally writing the marketing copy, I humbly solicit suggestions for language that would be accurate and not overly offensive to the KJVonly camp(s) while still promoting the Bible to those who might benefit by it.

At this time, I have minimal copy posted, saying only "...in modern English you can read and understand" (which I realize is a much too vague and general description) What I would like to say, and which I believe to be true that this Bible brings God's Word to us in a more understandable form without the archaic and often obtuse language of the KJV. I intend to point out the WEB does not replace the KJV but can be used as an aid in helping one to understand it. And, overall, helping everyone read the glorious message of salvation in... well... modern English.

Again, any helpful suggestions would be most appreciated.

In Christ ... and in the footsteps of one Johannes Gutenberg,

--Ralph

P.S. if you refer to reply offline, email me at [email protected].

[ January 12, 2003, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: Author ]