Correction on the KJV Position

WOW! Are you actually conceding ground here? So the ERV and 1901 American Revision meet with your approval?

For just one solitary example 1 John 3:1 has "added" the words "and such we are!" ( or something similiar). Spurgeon commended the correction of the old KJV by the 1881 ERV here ( as he did on numerous other verse revisions).

 

Ehud, are you really claiming that the KJV did not add or subtract ( unintentionally mind you) from the original texts?

 

Wow, a whole thread grew up starting with my name, and I didn't even know about it! Must have been sleeping. Oh, yeah, I was, since it was night time in Japan.:sleeping_2:

No, this is not the view that came from the book, From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man. I don't have the book and have not read it. My view is the view that came to the mind of John of Japan! It came from my own research, from my library of many books on Bible translation and translations, KJV-only issues, textual criticism, etc.

My statement was about the KJV-only movement and books that influenced it and helped start it, not about defending the KJV per se. If I had written about defending the KJV, I would have said the earliest reference was from 1611, "The Translators to the Readers"--which I notice you missed!! :smilewinkgrin: :smilewinkgrin:

 

I did not make any claims. The burden of proof is on you, full stop. As a "professor" I would think you would know that. Do you require your students to footnote their sources?

Please, dear professor, teach us where these men claimed the KJV was perfect and the only version "God needed" here on earth. Defending this most excellent translation does not equal exclusivity for it.

 

A quick Internet search reveals some interesting things about John Henry Todd. First of all, if you have $25 extra you can purchase a PDF version (image not text, evidently) at: http://www.vancepublications.com/classic reprints.htm

You can also shell out $15 for a later book he wrote opposing a proposed Baptist version, An Authentic Account of Our Authorized Translation of the Holy Bible, and of the Translators: with Testimonies to the Excellence of the Translation, in which we find out that he was certainly not KJV only from the following excerpt. He wrote that his previous book was "in vindication not only of the AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION but also of preceding English versions of the Bible" (p. iv).

Now I will state firmly that Todd had nothing to do with the KJV-only movement. I'm fairly positive that none of the seminal authors quote him: Hills, Ruckman, Ray, Fuller.

By the way, there is also a book for sale on the website by John Dowling who also opposed the Baptist translation: The Old-Fashioned Bible, or Ten Reasons Against the Proposed Baptist Version of the New Testament. Mauro's book is also on there as well as others. (But don't knock yourself out--you can read Mauro on line!) A great site for research!

 

Again, even though I know it will fall on deaf ears (pardon the pun, my deaf brother) the KJV also added to and took away from God's original words. There is NO WAY to accurately (and with understanding) translate from Greek or Hebrew to English WORD-FOR-WORD exactly same order, any more then there is a way to accurately (and with understanding) translate from KJV English to ASL WORD-FOR-WORD exactly same order, o del revision RVR1960 a espanol exactamente PALABRA-POR-PALABRA en orden. Imposible es.

If what you propose is true, then Jesus and the apostles were wrong to quote the Septuagint and to make their own translation as is being discussed in another thread.

 

Um, are you placing more authority on the translators than the God who inspired Scripture?

Jesus said, John 4:23But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. Jhn 4:24God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth. Jhn 14:17[Even] the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. Jhn 16:13Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. Eph 5:9(For the fruit of the Spirit [is] in all goodness and righteousness and truth

Spirit and truth are synonomous here. Any attempt to separate the two isn't advisable.

 

Prove it!

:laugh: I strongly disagree and find this one of the most illogical and humorous statements ever made concerning th4e word of God as if to conclude it an impossibility to know what God has already said.

Thier remarks were related to us by different writers who undoubtedly wrote from a personal perspective as reflected into what you are referring.

I really "fell" like none of the aforementioned ever quoted from the Septuagint except as they were inspired of God to reference what was already established and found in it.

You're dealing with a translational issue that doesn't go beyond accurate meaning/ God is therefore glorified.

To accept those translations which confuse the understanding dishonours the Lord and should be trashed.

 

Don"t put words in my mouth- I never said, "it (is) an impossibility to know what God has already said."


I already proved my point. You just refuse to see it- Imposible es.

 

When your intellect goes beyond reason I see you must rethink your position and avoid what is said and make up something else.:laugh:

 

No proof there.

 

For the record, fellerzz, I very often say KJVO started from Wilkinson;s book. However, I usually say something like "the CURRENT KJVO tall tale...". There mighta been KJVOs in 1612 for all I know, but I'm not concerned with them...if there were, they're long-dead. and I don't think there's hardly a major pro-KJVO work today that hasn't used at least SOME material from W's book.

And no matter how long various KJVO doctrines have been around, they were WRONG from the gitgo & are still just as wrong NOW.

 

I would hope my professor would not tell me what I am saying. I am not saying any of what you accuse me of. Your continuing demeaning spirit toward your students does nothing to validate your views.

I hate to be disrespectful, dear professor, but could you please show me where I used that passage in defence of my point?

Dear sir, all you have shown us is that men have defended the KJV since, as JofJ pointed out, the translation itself came out. You still have not proven any kind of claim of exclusivity. The KJV has always, and still is, worthy of defence. I am a firm defender of this excellent translation. I am a firm supporter of the traditional Byzantine textual body. This idea of one exclusive translation, however, does appear to be a new concept.

 

Once again, I must say it was possible that God providentially preserved Sinaiticus, which was found in a trash receptacle at St. Catherine's Monastery, which, BTW, is EASTERN ORTHODOX, & not Roman Catholic. It's possible God preserved it until Tischendorf found it, & not simply burned soon as the monks decided it was trash.

Same for Vaticanus. The vatican officials had a long history of immediately burning any writings they got their hands on that were considered corrupt copies of Scripture. Yet, they kept Vaticanus, although it differed from what they considered Scripture at the time, deviating from their standard practice. Again, could the HAND OF GOD have been involved?

And no matter how many times the KJVO position is revised, it will always be WRONG, unless such a position is held from PERSONAL PREFERENCE alone.

 

Yes, there is. Please translate the meaning of 'Imposible es' to correct English using only two words. It is not possible- if you catch my drift. :smilewinkgrin:

 

THEY didn't burn THEIR Bibles cuz THEY didn't consider'em corrupt.

But Vaticanus doesn't match their Bibles perfectly, & they still didn't burn it. That's why I say GOD could well have had a hand in its preservation. This isn't set in stone, of course, but it's a possibility that cannot be lightly dismissed.

 

Ehud, may I suggest that robycop3 is not the only one here that could probably stand a 'refresher course' in Church History.

So here goes:

What 'Rome' "LOVED AND PROTECTED" was her authority and power. The version of Scripture (any version) is/was basically incidental and at best, tangential to that control.

Wycliffe, Purvey, et al., in fact, translated the Vulgate, the official Bible of 'Rome', into English.

'Rome' ostensibly opposed Wycliffe, here, on the basis of 'translational errors'. These so-called 'translational errors' were in fact, a pretext for the real reason for opposition - namely that the Bible was being translated into 'the vulgar', where understanding the Bible no longer would have to be 'church controlled', but that any could read and understand it for himself, hence taking power away from the church hierarchy. (Also one of the real reasons for opposition to the Luther and Tyndale Bibles.)

Overlooked in your approach is that Wycliffe's Bible, unlike the English translation of Tyndale, and the German translation of Luther, which were, in fact, based on the NT Greek and OT Hebrew and Chaldee/Aramaic, was a translation on the 'official' Bible of Rome, yet the same basic hatred existed for all three, by Rome.

Also overlooked is the 'levels' of 'translational' 'purity' in Wycliffe. If I am not mistaken, the OT was 'three' levels removed, first from the Hebrew and Aramaic, to the Greek of the LXX, secondly from the GK LXX to the Latin of the Vulgate, then third, from the Latin to Wycliffe's 'Middle' English. The NT is one better, since it is only two levels, from the Greek to the Latin to the English.

By contrast, both Tyndale's and Luther's Bibles, at least mostly, translate from the Biblical languages to the English and German, which has to be a decided improvement. Otherwise, the premises of your position, at least as to the version you personally prefer, are in reality no different from those of Rome, in that you first 'pick your version', then read every other fact into the support of that version.

"Onlyism" has no support, in any language, of for any version, in other words.

Class dismissed!

Ed

 

Good job Ed.