KJV Translator's Work Lost

But you have made a choice among many alternatives and become a judge of Scripture, the 1769 KJV of the Bible is your choice.


HankD

 

You're kidding, right?

 

But you have made a choice among many alternatives and become a judge of Scripture, the 1769 KJV of the Bible is your choice.


HankD </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, the standard Bible of the English speaking world, at least until rather recent times.

 

I think it is silly to keep repeating these unsubstantiated, largely debunked charges.

But you are trusting worldly wisdom... 400 year old worldly wisdom to be precise. The fact that something has aged doesn't make it any more or less worldly.

Which is...what? Being purely Byzantine? It isn't. Being the "traditional text"? It is part of the "traditional texts".

Statistically, more people were saved world wide since 1990 than in any other comparable period. Most of the new foreign/non-european language Bibles are translations of modern texts. Does this count as "providential confirmation of being the Word of God amongst Bible believers"?

But that is exactly what you have done. However instead of making conscious, informed decisions, you are following the traditions of men, emotion/sentiment, and faulty logic to a conclusion that is all but arbitrary.

That is an incredibly sad statement. The bottom line is that you don't have to strictly adhere to the works of an RCC scholar and a group of Anglican scholars to be a "Bible Believer".

Are you completely sanctified/perfected in your prayer life? If not, why don't you discard the practice and do as you jolly well please?

Are you morally perfect as you will be in final salvation? If not, why don't you forget about trying to become more holy and do as you jolly well please?

Have you become the completely submitted servant? If not, why don't you give up and start serving yourself as you jolly well please?

I would dare say that the KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, etc. are more perfect as Bible texts (in comparison to any possible alternative of what the originals, the words of God were) than any of us are as Christians when compared to our exemplar (the living Word of God).

 

Yes, the standard Bible of the English speaking world, at least until rather recent times.

As was the Geneva Bible 400 years ago. Do you believe the GB is still valid, even though it's been replaced as the English "standard"? I believe the KJV is still valid, even though it's no longer the "standard" either.

 

We should not forget that the KJV translators themselves praised the proliferation of translations because they showed the "sense" of the Scriptures and that even the "meanest" of them ARE the Word of God.

HankD

 

Valid? Possibly, I don't really know. Necessary today? No. Superior to the KJV? No.

 

I believe much of what God accomplished with KJV was in spite of its translators. I can't help but think if they would have had the Living Bible and New World Translation to deal with they might have modified their position somewhat.

 

Tim: I do think it's silly to try and compare this problem with the problem of the thousands of missing words/verses in the modern versions. Mountain, molehill.

Scott: I think it is silly to keep repeating these unsubstantiated, largely debunked charges.

Either a bunch of verses/words were added, or a bunch were deleted. I'll go with the traditional text, the text found among Bible believing Christians for centuries. Others are welcome to keep all their faithless-in-method man-glorifying pseudo-scientific reconstructions.

Tim: What KJV do I submit to? The one in my hands at the moment. That's not 100% rational and I don't really care. The general tenor of the scriptures teach humility and submission to authority with a distrust of our worldly wisdom.

Scott: But you are trusting worldly wisdom... 400 year old worldly wisdom to be precise. The fact that something has aged doesn't make it any more or less worldly.

People had a reverence for the Word of God that is today generally lacking. I think there is a bit of truth to the idea that mainstream KJV Onlyism is somewhat more extreme than the positions held by most Bible believers in the 19th and previous centuries (things started falling apart in the 19th, apparently). But my studies have shown that their viewpoints in general are much, much closer to ours than to yours. The idea of everybody cutting and splicing together a Bible based on godless methods and/or personal whim would horrify them.

Tim: The KJV (and it's underlying texts) have the right pedigree

Scott: Which is...what? Being purely Byzantine? It isn't. Being the "traditional text"? It is part of the "traditional texts".

Apparently there are some problems here. I say apparently, because I have not personally looked deeply into the matter. But I trust God to have kept His promises regarding His Word, and for me that's the end of the story. "Proof" via history is impossible, but God's Word is sure.

Tim: and the solid providential confirmation of being the Word of God amongst Bible believers through the ages - it is the Word of God and I submit to it.

Scott: Statistically, more people were saved world wide since 1990 than in any other comparable period. Most of the new foreign/non-european language Bibles are translations of modern texts. Does this count as "providential confirmation of being the Word of God amongst Bible believers"?

I don't think so, but let's see what happens in the next few hundred years. But I personally hope Jesus comes today, given the conditions in the world it wouldn't suprise me in the least.

Tim: The idea is riduculous that I'm somehow supposed to be the judge of scripture, deciding amongst thousands of variant readings to assemble my own personal "Word of God".

Scott: But that is exactly what you have done. However instead of making conscious, informed decisions, you are following the traditions of men, emotion/sentiment, and faulty logic to a conclusion that is all but arbitrary.

There is a leap of faith involved, as there was in believing in Jesus and His resurrection. I believe God when he says He will preserve His Word. Looking around with my extremely limited vision and abilities, the KJV fits the bill 95%+ percent. So by faith I accept it as the Word of God and submit to it, and assume any problems remaining are due to my limited understanding, the limitations of the historical record and the attempts of Satan to destroy and bring doubt upon God's Word.

Tim: I'd sooner just toss the whole thing out the window

Scott: That is an incredibly sad statement. The bottom line is that you don't have to strictly adhere to the works of an RCC scholar and a group of Anglican scholars to be a "Bible Believer".

To be a Bible believer you have to have a Bible you can believe in and submit to, that you can hold in your hands, with no assembly required. Otherwise you are believing in something which doesn't really exist! I suppose such people could call themselves 95%+ Bible believers, pending more evidence found in some ancient trash can that could affect that percentage, of course.

Tim: ...and do just as I jolly well pleased.
Scott: Are you completely sanctified/perfected in your prayer life? If not, why don't you discard the practice and do as you jolly well please?
Are you morally perfect as you will be in final salvation? If not, why don't you forget about trying to become more holy and do as you jolly well please?
Have you become the completely submitted servant? If not, why don't you give up and start serving yourself as you jolly well please?

No, because in my flesh dwells no good thing. But God's words are pure, holy and good. God is perfect, I am flawed. To see perfection, look not to my life but to God and His Holy Word.

I hope for the day we can discard this flesh and serve God with sinless perfection, doing as we all jolly well please.

Scott:I would dare say that the KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, etc. are more perfect as Bible texts (in comparison to any possible alternative of what the originals, the words of God were) than any of us are as Christians when compared to our exemplar (the living Word of God).

True, but IMO irrelevant. We are flawed, therefore the Bible must be flawed? That doesn't follow.

 

Valid? Possibly, I don't really know. Necessary today? No. Superior to the KJV? No. </font>[/QUOTE]There are places where the Geneva Bible is clearly superior to the KJV. Examples:

Mt. 23:24 - "strain out" (Geneva), "strain at" (KJV) - the Greek word means "to filter out," as in straining out impurities from liquid.

Mk. 1:10 - "cloven in twaine" (Geneva), "opened" (KJV) - the Greek word means "forcefully to split, tear, separate, or divide." Mark uses the same word to describe the tearing of the Temple curtain in Mk. 15:38.

Lk. 20:26 - "his saying" (Geneva), "his words" (KJV) - the Greek word here is singular, not plural

Ac. 12:4 - "Passover" (Geneva), "Easter" (KJV) - the Greek word here refers to the Jewish Passover

Rom. 11:4 - "not bowed the knee to Baal" (Geneva), "not bowed the knee to the image of Baal" (KJV) - the italicized words in the KJV are not found in any Greek copy, but were added by the KJV translators.

Heb. 10:23 - "hope" (Geneva), "faith" (KJV) - the Greek word means "hope." It's the same word is translated as "hope" in 1 Cor 13:13, where the Greek words for "faith" and "hope" are used together.

 

The text found among Bible believing Christians? Do you have some sort of concrete proof of this?

From what I understand, the "traditional texts" come to us via the Eastern, and to a lesser degree Roman, Catholic churches. The evidence suggests that the earliest "Bible believing" Christians who lived before the consolidation of errors into the Catholic Church used texts that were more like the Alexandrian than Byzantine.

I would rather put my faith in a substantiated 'something' than an unsubstantiated 'nothing'. The 'nothing' is your apparent denial that the KJV comes to us by the hands of a Catholic and Anglicans via a process of textual criticism.

It realy isn't a matter of whether you will trust human scholarship but rather whose scholarship you trust and why.

The evidence says that your statement is untrue. The Anglicans that translated the KJV believed in the 39 Articles of Religion. We Baptists did and would still reject that document. The Anglicans believed in the union of church and state, infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, and other errors over and against what the Bible teaches.

OTOH, if you read "To the Reader" you will see that part of the KJV translators "reverence" for the Bible was to say that the things God left questionable in the textual evidence, should remain questionable.

Truth is, they were no more nor less reverent of God's Word than the NASB translators... perhaps less so.

Sorry but no. My position is very much in line with that held by orthodox Christians since at least Augustine. Your position was held by the RCC about with the LV as its object. No "Bible believing" Christian believed that on translation of the Bible was perfect to the exclusion of all others. They all held that the God inspired originals carried His direct stamp of approval and the objective is to take the best available evidence into account to try and reconstruct those originals.

But this is simply a straw man created by you. No one is doing what you accuse to a greater degree than Erasmus or the KJV translators did.

In the affirmative, perhaps... but not in the negative. KJVOnlyism is demonstrably false.

Why? Why don't you "think" so? For something to be thoughtful, it must be backed up by "thought" rather than simply an emotional reaction.

No. Faith in KJVOnlyism is not comparable to faith in Jesus and His resurrection.

For one, the scriptures tell us of Jesus and His resurrection. They say absolutely nothing about KJVOnlyism.

Secondly, Jesus and the resurrection are historical facts. Josh McDowell lays the case out in "Evidence that Demands a Verdict."

I do too. I simply reject the notion that He did it by reinspiring either the creators of the TR or the creators of the KJV.

Are you a 95% Bible believer like you say someone might be in your next paragraph? Interesting how you are getting caught in your own snares. Anytime one employs double standards, this becomes a risk.

That could be an equally valid answer for any version of the Bible... for instance the NKJV that you attacked in another thread recently.

[/b] You are the only one saying that we don't have this very thing. We affirm that we do have God's Word.

I cannot touch Jesus with my physical hands. Yet I have no problem believing that He really is. The Word of God is the message communicated by the words of the Bible. It is not limited to a single set of human words to communicate it.

Or, someone could call themselves a "Bible believer" when they are really a believer in the scholarship of the Roman Catholic Erasmus and 17th century Anglicans.

I am being a little facetious here to once again counter your false inference. Not believing in KJVOnlyism does not preclude one from being a "Bible Believer". In fact, being KJVO does preclude someone from being a "Bible believer" since the Bible does not teach KJVOnlyism.

But in the flesh of Erasmus and the KJV translators good things did dwell?

But the KJV isn't the words of God. It is the word choices of Anglican scholars.

As were the KJV translators.

Also look not to Erasmus nor the KJV translators for they were likewise imperfect... and they were not inspired directly by God. Therefore, they did not produce a perfectly worded Bible.

No. All human beings are flawed therefore all human works are flawed unless God directly intervenes as He did when He inspired the originals. Therefore, the KJV, being a translation work of flawed men, is flawed.

It is perfect (complete, whole, accurate) in the message it communicates as supported by the whole of the textual evidence for the Bible. But it is not perfectly worded nor did it come from a perfectly worded text.

God's Word, the Bible, is the work of God. Copies and translations of God's Word are the works of men. Copies and translations are the Word of God in as much as they communicate what God intended for us to receive. My belief agrees with these very basic, historical, biblical principles. Yours does not.