Attack of the Imperfect Translations #2

As a non-KJVo, let me explain my position. First, your assumption that "a proliferation of imperfect translations of which the "meanest" is still God's Word." is incorrect.

I am not sure exactly how you meant this sentence to come across, especially considering the statement (according to the KJV translators)?

I think I speak for most MV people, others can write their opinion. Not ALL translations are good, so therefore the "meanest" is NOT still God's Word. Only the translations that have been accepted as main-stream and accurate to at least one of the sets of compiled documents which are considered "accurate" are true to God's Word. For example, if the New NIV actually is Genderless for the purpose of becoming "politically correct", then it will be a bad translation. There are other bad translations already on the market. What we would consider good translations would be the mainstream NKJV, NIV, NASB, etc.
Some of us lean towards a particular text type or group of manuscripts that have been compiled as being better than others. For example, even some of the MVer's would rather have translations from the Byzantine text type rather than the Alexandrian. This is a personal opinion which has to be developed through much study.
Now, whether they are imperfect or not depends on your description of "perfect". If a translation contains ALL of God's Word, it is accurate and there are no doctrinal changes then it contains God's Word. God's Word as shown to KJVo individuals is not a group of specific words. If a verse or two is either added or omitted that do not change the Word of God; His doctrine is unchanged and not weakened (as many KJVo's are guilty of accusing MVs), then we have God's Word and it is in-effect inerrant. There are NOT a lot of error filled main-stream translations in this discussion. This is something the KJVo would like you to believe. A translation is exactly what it says; a translation and God has agreed to preserve His Word for each generation. We do not disagree with this, we just do not agree that it is found in a single translation.
If you have a good parallel Bible, you can see very quickly that the message being told by (for instance) the NIV and the KJV are exactly the same. There is NO "dumbing down" nor is there any "weakening of the scriptures". Even with the few minor changes with a group of words or word from the different text-types, we do not find doctrinal changes. Everything in the Bible is usually backed up many times. For example, when Jesus says: "Get thee behind me Satan" in the KJV, but it does not appear in the NASB, this has no effect whatsoever on the scripture as a whole. There is no doubt where Satan stands and where Jesus stands. If left out, there is no weakening of the scriptures whatsoever.
So, in reply, my opinion God's Word is inerrant and preserved in many of the translations.

When I refer to inerrant, I mean that the doctrine is fully intact and historically the creation existed the way it is told and so did the flood (Of course these are old testament errors which is not under the microscope in this discussion anyway.)

In considering the NT, it is the same, we have different paths from which the Bible has come to us, but all this does is strengthen my belief that God has preserved His Word and preserved it correctly.

 

Dr. Bob, you hit that nail on the head.

It is interesting to watch them make excuses. Now, it is the "dreaded Alexandrian notes". If they were left out, it would be something else.

Personally, I may be wrong, but I think that the NKJV will eventually be accepted by the KJV crowd; as were the revisions of the KJV which were often disputed at the time of their printing.

Then again, just because the name has changed from KJV to NKJV, the "New" may kill it--commercially that is.

I have seen a lot of older people who are not KJVo, but KJV preferred, readily accept the NKJV. In reality, I think it has more to do with the marketing, because most of these people are completely ignorant of the different paths of manuscripts. All they know is the Bible was written in Hebrew or Greek or Arabic (one o' them Middle East languages).

 

Just curious, are you serious about "translated from the KJV"? I was actually wondering why someone didn't just take a KJV and change some of the difficult wording and market it as an upgraded KJV.

It is sad that companies will think like this in order to get sales from people who do not know any better than to believe the KJVo myth; but, I have no doubt that it does happen.

 

No joke, Ed--you nailed it.

 

In 1534 Martin Luther completed his well-known translation of the Bible into German, working from Erasmus' text. This predated the KJV by 77 years. Is there a Luther-Only movement in Germany which upholds the Luther1534 as the only acceptable translation of God's Word?

Islam teaches that the Qu'ran is inerrant, but only in Arabic (the original language). It specifically disavows inerrancy in any other language that the Qu'ran has been translated into. Although I/we would obviously disagree that the Qu'ran is inerrant in any form, why can Muslims universally adhere to the correct principle in regards to translation from one language to another, when (IMHO) many Christian believers stumble on this?

 

Larry,
I see your point and I hear you.

I think the problem lies in the fact that (if I am correct historically, and I think I am based on what I have read of the Qu'ran) the Qu'ran is maintained in matching manuscripts without disagreement. The Qu'ran is so "new" compared to the Bible (especially the OT) that I believe excellent and acurate manuscripts are available.

On the other hand, with the Bible, we have soooo many manuscripts that a different situation occurs. I still maintain that all of those manuscripts simply confirm the authenticity of the Bible.

I'm just putting forth a theory of mine about why Islam would understand this easier than Christians. I do think that churches are not "teaching" people basics adequately they way they used to.

WHen I was younger I remember very intense (at that time---Training Union) classes where Bible history and development was taught, right along-side of Biblical doctrine and actual intense Bible studies of Genesis through Revelations one book at a time. Baptist History was usually dealt with. Today, many church members are so ignorant of what we are supposed to believe, let alone what they themselves believe that the next generation of church leaders that are weak in their faith and convictions.

I know this is not according to the thread, but I also think this is a reason for so many non-denominational churches to appear, many of which don't even know what they believe themselves.
(Some do, I am talking about a trend.)

 

Michelle, Like it or not, "KJVO" is an accurate description of what you believe. The fundamental thread between all KJVO's is that they equate the Word of God in English with the words of the KJV only. It simply saves keystrokes to summarize your view as "KJVO".

I never said you are a liar... although I guess I am now since I didn't call you a liar but you say I did.

I think you are in error and probably misled but that doesn't make you a liar. If you sincerely believe something that is false then you are basically wrong, not a liar.

That said, there is a point where someone moves from being ignorantly wrong to being willfully deceived which is a form of lying. The more often you ignore critical points that refute your view, the more you shift toward the latter.

You have never cited one verse of scripture that says that the KJV is the preserved words of God nor that MV's are to be rejected or that your opinion of what preservation means is correct. You have possibly cited a few verses that are different. You have not proven a missing doctrine or teaching nor have you shown that MV's do not faithfully represent the evidence God providentially preserved concerning His Word and words.

That's true. On my side are: scripture, history, the manuscript evidence for the Bible, the orthodox doctrine on scripture dating back to the early church fathers, logic, consistency, perspective from both sides of the issue, and my sincere belief that my prayers for wisdom on this issue have been answered as the Holy Spirit has led me to numerous proofs that KJVOnlyism is a false, divisive, destructive doctrine.

On your side: misinterpretation and misapplication of scriptures concerning the Bible, circular reasoning, faulty presuppositions with regard to how God preserved His Word, and a claim that the Holy Spirit has given you a new revelation by telling you that the KJV is God's words in English.

Our beliefs are not quite opposite. We both believe that the KJV is a faithful translation of the Word of God.

I simply accept the fact that the evidence does not support the notion that it is the only faithful version in English. I also reject the notion that it is "God's words" rather than the words chosen by Anglican translators/revisers.

The belief that the KJV is "God's words" in the sense that the individual units of speech were chosen by Him is specifically contrary to scripture. The KJV translators do not qualify for receiving direct inspiration. They are not prophets, holy men of old, nor Apostles. These are the only three groups scripturally qualified to receive inspiration.

There is also truth. Any one that is submitting to the Spirit's leading has no need to avoid facts or to resist changing their opinion when shown factual evidence that they are wrong and presented with an alternative that is consistent with the scriptures and the evidence.

More to come.

 

Michelle said:

You can't be reading the responses if you believe this.

Numerous times examples have been given that prove that Jesus and other NT writers/speakers quote from a different version of the OT than the one used to translate the KJV. This is an indisputable proof that the Lord Himself uses different versions. We have shown you that parallel accounts of the same events differ in wording and sometimes in completeness within the KJV.

But the most fundamental and obvious biblical proof is that the Bible was not given by God in KJV English. It was given in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. It is the meanings communicated in the originals that are critical and relevant. The words used to communicate the meanings are only vehicles. In and of themselves, they are not the Word. The Word is the revelation that God gave.

Are you so intent on deceiving yourself that you would resort to this type of straw man deception? We BELIEVE that God preserved words through 5000+ mss that while not identical are providentially preserved so that we can compare them and develop texts that lose nothing of the original message. We believe He preserved His Word through out church history in faithful copies and translations.

That would only be true if the KJV and faithful MV's taught different doctrines. They don't.

I could make a similar argument that the KJV readers that depend on "Kings" for historical facts are being lied to since "Chronicles" records a different age for when Ahaziah began his reign.

This argument could also be made for all of those who lived prior to the TR. They had a different ending to Revelation and didn't have the trinitarian formula in I John 5:7-8. If you like, I can find other places where the TR departs from not only the oldest mss but also the Byzantine majority. Under your logic consistently applied, everyone who lived before the TR was being lied to since their scriptures didn't match the TR much less the KJV. You have not provided me... why you still approve of and use a Bible that has additions to God's word,[/quote][/qb] Because it does not add to God's Word. It has different wording that communicates the same doctrines and beliefs.

His words are important thus scholarship and evaluation of the evidence. But the message is more important and is in fact the primary definition of "word(s)" when used in the Bible concerning a message that came from God.

More to come because this is an extremely important point that might break the ice for you. You must understand the different definitions and uses of the word "word".

 

So in other words because you don't understand some of the key concepts at work in this issue and because you have elevated your presuppositions to the level of Holy Spirit revelation, you now expect us to provide scripture that specifically refutes your false beliefs?

Scripture doesn't specifically refute every error. It gives commands, principles, and examples. Our beliefs of translations are consistent with all three. Yours isn't uniformly consistent with any of them.

Before you start "obeying" maybe you should make sure you aren't putting words into God's mouth then obeying those words. Nowhere has He told you that the words of the KJV are His words. Nowhere has He told you that words different from the KJV are not His Word. In fact, He has given you examples in scripture that prove different words can and do equal the same words/saying.

God didn't declare MV's unclean. You did... Now who are you obeying?

 

Here is the exact quote concerning what the KJV translators said about other translations...

They said that even the VERY MEANEST of the translations IS the Word of God. They go on to compare them to a man with “imperfections and blemishes” (warts, freckles, scars).

The KJV translators themselves were not KJVO attributing infallibility to the Apostolic writers but not the translators of their inspired writtings.

HankD

 

Just because some New-Age-liberal takes a term from English & makes it into a buzzword for his/her camp doesn't render that word or phrase evil. A good example is the word "gay". The homosexuals have adopted that word to describe themselves in an attempt to remove some of the stigma from their lifestyles.

The word "christ" is a title, from the Greek 'christos', which means, "anointed one". In that part of the world where Jesus walked, people appointed to a high office were often publicly anointed on their heads with olive oil, which was as symbolic to those people as was the coronation of QE2 to us today. Soon after Christianity began, the term came to represent "Messiah" in Greek.

"Jesus" is the Latinized form of "Joshua" or "Jeshua".(Yeshua)

Since there's only ONE true Christ, Jesus, then saying "THE Christ" in reference to Him isn't incorrect. However, if this phrase is used to refer to anyone else, it IS being incorrectly used.

I do NOT let any false religious group nor any wannabee power brokers tell me how to talk. I will continue to say "the Christ" whenever and wherever cuz I know there is only ONE real Christ.(No slam aimed at you, Ed!)

 

Ed Edwards:My question for both groups is this: how does the thought of God giving us imperfect translations reflect on preservation and God's character? I am pretty sure of the KJVO answer on this one, but would like to hear from them anyway. I also would like MV supporters to explain how this idea does NOT attack God's character or doctrine of preservation.

Jesus is the Creator of all languages. We know that no one language will translate 100% into any other, & that each language has its particular subtleties, nuances, & slang. For example, "hey, dig that" could easily confuse a person who'd learned only schoolbook English. I know; I said that to a Japanese while I was in Tokyo with the USN. The man spoke such good English otherwise that I had almost forgotten that he was a Japanese & that I was in HIS home! He looked kinda puzzled I I then realized what'd happened. I quickly explained the English slang to him.

When the Holy Spirit caused each person in the audience at the "first pentecost" to hear the apostles' preaching in his/her own primary language, I'm sure there would be no two versions alike if a representative of each language heard were to write what was preached & all these accounts were to be translated into one common language.

I believe God causes His word to appear in each language or dialect AS HE CHOOSES. He hasn't given us one common language worldwide, nor are the oldest-extant versions of His word written all in one language. God knows what HE'S doing whether or not WE do or not. God has chosen to fit His word to each language, rather than to fit each language to His word.