TO KJV or not TO KJV that is the question hey kjv only and those against it list ...

There is a thread right now where this very thing has happened. As a matter of fact, you have even posted in the forum.
Moreover, someone actually posted on the list that King James was SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED in the Old Testament.

I very much enjoy your posts, by the way.

 

Surfer5 said:

In the first place, I do not see how the relaying of this information is helpful.

You shall know them by their fruits . . .

 

I was one of those folks who thought that the King James version was the only version. How narrow minded of me! I will stick with my King James for a number of reasons. The first being that was the Bible being preached out of on the day of my salvation. Second, there are things in the KJV that can be found nowhere else. On the latter, I am speaking of the significance of the numbers that used throughout the King James Bible. There is a book on the market, I believe is entitled the Great Mathematician. It is amazing how the numbers used in the King James are interconnected throughout. However, it is even more amazing how the number 7 is linked through the Bible in the Greek/Hebrew texts. I have just started reading the book and it is amazing.

I wonder if all those KJVO's out there have really and truly sat down and read the preface in the 1611 version that the translators wrote to the readers. The translators themselves told the readers that there could very well be mistakes in their translation. The translators themselves told the readers that there were words in the Greek and Hebrew texts that just had no English word to coincide with them. So, they used thought translation there.

I will stick with my King James because it the Bible that lead me to salvation and it is the Bible that is read in our church. However, when I am at home reading my Bible, I will go to other versions to clarify something I don't quite understand.

There are NO scriptures and anyone's version that states who Bible is the absolute word of God. I will say that there are versions out there that should not be. But, if we pray before we read our Bibles and ask the Lord to guide us in the understanding of His word, we will know, ourselves, personally, which ones are not good. We need to let the Lord guide us there, not man.

We are all supposed to be Christians. And as such we are supposed to spread the Gospel to the four corners of the earth. (4 being the number in the Bible that represents the earth) We are supposed to our utmost to help bring the lost to salvation. How can we possibly do that when we are wasting our time bashing fellows Christians in what Bible they read? We need to get our priorities straight, people.

There was something else mentioned in the preface of the 1611 King James Bible to the reader by the translators. They explained how the Bible needed to be translated in the native tongue of the reader. What say ye of translations in German, French, Italian, Swaheli (sp?). We all know that word for word, there will ALWAYS be some words that came from the Greek and the Hebrew transcripts that we (English, German, French, Italian, Swaheli, etc.) will not have a specific word for. What then?

 

The KJV-onlyism view is a ridiculous position to take. There were excellent Bibles before 1611. If I had a Geneva Bible from the 1500's, would you say I possessed the infallible Word of God?

The KJV is a great, reliable, word-for-word translation that has stood the test of time. However, it is not a more spirtual translation because it uses out-of-date Elizabethan-period English.

KJV-onlyist love to claim that the KJV uses "Biblical English." Nonsense, there is no such thing as Biblical English. The English used in the KJV was in common use in the 16th century.

 

I used to be a strong supporter of Modern Versions. I thought that the KJVOs were a bunch of waccos. I thought that they were inconsistent and that their supporting arguments were weak. Then, I started to look into the lives of the Modern Translators, and into the history of the manuscripts that they used.


Surfer5

 

Please continue reading in the other posts and threads. Although being within the KJVO camp, I have said in Many of my posts that the Geneva Bible is fine as well.

Following it or the KJV will certainly lead a person to a more accurate version, than any comparison with the Modern Versions that are using manuscripts that disagree with 98% of the Biblical Manuscripts found so far, even including the ones found After the KJV translation.

 

when bibles get translated into foreign languages to be handed out on mission fields, are the new translated bibles inspired or not?


The short answer is if those translators who went to the foreign mission field brought with them a copy of the Greek received text which has been used for 2000 years, upon which the KJV is also based, and these translators wish to translate from that Greek Bible into another language, IF the translators are competent in the Greek and in the language they will translate in, then there should not be a problem.

At the point when the translation is complete, the people newly reached would have an accurate bible in their own language, and in case of problems, they could rely on the same Greek text as Calvin, Beza, Knox, Rutherford and the other leaders of the Protestant Reformation.

Until the Westcott/Hort text came along and began replacing the Textus Receptus, that IS what missionaries did exclusively. Some of the foreign versions today use the wrong Greek Text (the Nestle-Aland) and therefore come up with bad, wrong, and powerless translations.

When the people have the historic Bible that God wanted us all to have, that is when Christianity can have the results that God intended.

 

I know that you have said that you still use the KJV so the following below would not apply to you.

But what we would normally say is:


The Geneva Bible in English used the same Textus Receptus as the King James and this has been good enough for the American Founding Fathers, that is the Puritans and the Pilgrims in resisting false teachings and building a strong vibrant well-grounded Christian Church for hundreds of years. If it was good enough for them as they risked their life to defend it and live by it, then might it not be good enough for you ?

The Reina Valera Bible in Spanish used the same Textus Receptus as the King James and this has been good enough for the Spaniards & Spanish in resisting false teachings and building a strong vibrant well-grounded Christian Church for hundreds of years. If it was good enough for them, why is it not good enough for you ??

The Diodatti Bible in Italian used the same Textus Receptus as the King James and this has been good enough for the Italians in resisting false teachings and building a strong vibrant well-grounded Christian Church for hundreds of years. If it was good enough for them, then why is it not good enough for you ???

The Luther Bible in German used the same Textus Receptus as the King James and this has been good enough for the Germans in resisting false teachings and building a strong vibrant well-grounded Christian Church for hundreds of years. If it was good enough for them, why is it not good enough for you ????

The Olivetain & Geneva Bible versions in French used the same Textus Receptus as the King James and this has been good enough for the French in resisting false teachings and building a strong vibrant well-grounded Christian Church for hundreds of years. If it was good enough for them, why is it not good enough for you ?????

That is what we would usually say...

 

I do think that the above statement is true. Some words have no exact corresponding equivalent in another language. The short answer is to learn Greek, and then we can compare the Modern language translations with the Greek.

As to the actual question, translators will come to the closest equivalent possible. But that is very different from 1) chosing manuscripts in Greek that the Church has historically rejected as counterfeit 2) choosing manuscripts that disagree with 98% of the Greek Bible Manuscripts, and 3) only then giving that changed text to the Translators of today, so that they can come up with a new version based on spurious Greek Manuscripts [which is what Modern Versions have done].

when the Translators 1) have the right Greek Manuscripts and 2) the fluent knowledge of both the Greek and the other language, and 3) when they are saved and following God honoring lives, then they are far more likely to produce a translation which is both Doctrinally sound, historically sound, and which continues to agree with the rest of the Bibles around the world, until the work of W & H (Westcott & Hort changed the Greek manuscripts being used).

 

Surfer5 said:

Surfer5,

Can you give me a resource that will back up your claim? I've never heard of 98% disagreement. I look forward to your response.

--Jeff

 

I would refer you to the discussions of the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus within the works of John William Burgon, and the contrast between those Greek Texts and the rest of the Biblical Manuscripts. That is one of the faster ways...

 

You (don't remember who) talked about looking into the backgrounds of translators of the Modern Versions. Back in the 15th century, people didn't have access to information regarding someone's background. Do we know if some of those modern translators' pasts happened before or after salvation? We might not want to know the pasts of the men who translated the King James Bible.

Those who have bashed the "modern" versions, which I will agree that there are some out there that are corrupt, have you REALLY read them? Or, have you just gone to some website and pulled up one of those "comparison" charts? How does the Romans Road read in the modern versions?

There is absolutely NO scripture whatsoever out there to condemn a Bible version. Every single KVJO out there needs to read the preface from the translators to the readers in the original 1611 version. You might think a little differently then, unless you are just plain hard headed.

As I stated before, I will stay with my King James version, because it is the Bible that was preached from when I received salvation. It is also the Bible that our preacher reads from. It would be pointless for me to try to follow the preacher's readings using another version in church. However, when I come across scripture that I don't quite understand, I will go to other versions to help me to understand, not to mention that I pray before I read my Bible for the Lord to bring understand and guidance in my reading.

I was on the KJVO side of the fence just recently, until the Lord opened my eyes and made me see that there is a much greater cause then to bash folks who are reading a version of the Bible that they understand a little better then reading 15th century Elizabethan English.

Get out of your sense of pride and into the will of God and let Him guide you. As I was told, some "man" put the KJVO idea into you. The Lord certainly did not. Your neighbor, who just might be reading the NLT, is supposed to be loved by you.

I've done some reading on both ends of the spectrum. I don't claim to be an expert in any of the versions including the King James. And unless you have a degree from a Bible college or seminary school, most of you don't either. We rely on either going to the library or searching on the internet for our answers.

I do know that the Lord intended for us to spread the Gospel to the lost in hopes of bringing them to salvation. Being KJVO makes you pre-occupied with defending that belief, being "holier than thou". That does not a good Christian make.

Read the preface in the 1611 King James.

 

Thank You. It looks like you've done much study on this issue.

The 98% difference you quoted is an incredible figure. I'm a little confused. My NASB version does not appear to be 98% different from the KJV, yet you made a claim that the text the modern versions are based on are 98% different from the text the KJV is based on. Pardon my ignorance, but I seriously doubt that evangelical churches, including mine, would use a Bible that is 98% different from the KJV. Am I making sense? The debate continues.....

 

Yes, "98%" does seem outrageous, and it's meant to be - that number is supposed to scare you. What they "forget" to mention when mentioning "98%" is that those manuscripts they are "differnt from", the difference is less than 3-4% in terms of content.

Kind of like saying the KJV is different from 100% of all the Textus Receptus editions (which it is, it's not identical to any of them). That sounds more alarming than "the KJV is less than 2% different from any TR", which is another way of saying the same thing. Which way the facts are presented indicate the motivation of the person presenting them.

 

BrianT hit it right on the head. In a similar vein, KJVO's will point to Sinaiticus and say something like "Look, it was found on a scrap-heap, even the monks thought it was trash!".

Of course, another way to view the event is that God Providentially preserved it so that it was found before it was discarded or burned.

A furthur consideration with Sinaiticus is that the origin of something doesn't or shouldn't reflect its value or worth. Remember, our own Lord and Saviour began his earthly life in a filthy stable.

 

The TR differs with 100% of the biblical mss found so far. As does every compiled text. They were all subject to some form of textual criticism and none of them are a facsimile of any one mss.

But worse for your view, the last 7 verses of the TR have no support in Greek at all. They were back translated from the Latin Vulgate into Greek. It really disagrees with 100% of the mss.

The Greek evidence for the Johannine Comma appears to have been manufactured. As it is, the TR disagrees with at least 99.8% of the biblical mss discovered so far at I John 5:7-8.

 

NO its not supposed to scare you. Saying that - is a presuposition about the motive of those who use that figure.

My point is that there are great differences between the Greek Text of the Textus Receptus, and the Greek Text of the Westcott & Hort and/or
the Nestle-Aland Version.

The test to see who is accurate is:

Take a copy of the Textus Receptus and then get a copy of Westcott & Hort, and start comparing. Then come back and share what you have noticed.

Surfer

 

IN the "for what its worth", consider getting a copy of the Revision Revised by Oxford professor John William Burgon (published in 1883 but available now). After you read that, you will have no trouble seeing the differences...

 

Yes, I readily admit I have a presupposition about the motive of those that use that figure. Why not say "W/H's critical NT is less than 5% different from any TR"? Why try to make it appear so drastically different from the TR, when the difference is NOT so drastic?

My point is that there are NOT great differences. Generous estimates say 5%, many say less. And that's including relatively insignificant differences. "Significant" differences are numbered at about 1%.

I have done this test. The difference is less than 5%.

I have also done the test of comparing the TR compared to the KJV. About 2%.

5%, 2%. Where do you draw the line? Why is 2% perfectly acceptable, but 5% is cause for great amounts of blustering?

 

Because I have looked at the data and my interpretation is very different from yours.

It it not significant that according to you, the difference is only 5%. I am not sure that you are right, but even if you were, I do not know that it would affect the point I was trying to make.

If someone only takes 5 % of you during surgery, depending on where the cutting takes place, you may or may not - find that significant.

My point is where the cutting took place concerning the texts. It is where the cutting took place that helps to determine the intention of those who were doing the cutting.

I do not believe that the changes are happenstance, nor statistical anomalies. I think certain people said "this is not what the Bible should say", and out of a desire to harm the Word of God and attack Christ, they cut many verses out. I believe that this process was underway by the 300s, and that 2 versions that were part of this process are known as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.

If I thought that the changes were unintentional or insignificant, then perhaps my perspective would be different. After all, most of the seminary professors who are married to the Nestle Aland version (for reasons of tenure mostly I believe), have a very vested interest in making sure that the T.R. is not followed.

And most seminary students take their own formative views from those professors, whom they "presume" to be credible, truthfull and honest. Having sat under some and talked with many, those are not presumptions I can make any longer.

I believe that where the cutting took place is significant.