Question For KJVO'ers

Is it no longer acceptable for a Moderator to express an opinion?

I was very involved in the making of the guidelines for the BV/T Forum. My remarks were not in violation of the guidelines in any way.

 

Amen, Brother Pastor Bob -- Preach it! :thumbs:

Speaking of Eliiah:
1Ki 19:14 (KJV1611 Edition):
And he sayd, I haue beene very iealous for
the Lord God of hostes, because the children
of Israel haue forsaken thy Couenant,
throwen downe thine Altars, and slaine
thy Prophets with the sword,
and I, euen I onely am left,
and they seeke my life, to take it away.

1 Kings 19:18 (KJV1611 Edition):
Yet I haue left me seuen thousand in Israel,
all the knees which haue not bowed vnto Baal,
and euery mouth which hath not kissed him.

No, KJVs, you are not the only witnesses
to Messiah Jesus -- for in 2007 God has over
200 Bibles, God's Holy Written Word, in
the English language alone.

 

Pastor Bob writes:

I find no violation of BB rules, Pastor Bob. I do appreciate that you repeatedly said that it was your opinion.
Still, I find it troubling that a pastor would use the phrase, "contains the word of God" about any bible.
The phrase implies that there is something in the translation that is not God’s word.
Remarkably it is the Byzantine Textform (“the preserved majority text”) that is often the more conflated of the two.

When someone attaches the phrase, "contains the word of God" to any translation it implies that it is not fully God’s word.
IMO, it’s an dreadful declaration for a Christian to make; it undermines the trustworthiness of God's word.

Should I doubt the written word before me?
If I can prove one err in any particular KJV, have I shown that it too “only contains” the word of God?
Since even the Majority text offers different potential readings does it too “only contain” the word of God?
Shall we all then confess that our bibles aren’t fully trustworthy?

How do we answer these questions?

First, one should realize that a translation can NEVER completely convey the full meaning of the original languages.
In this regard, technically, each particular translation then only "contains the word of God".
This is why so many enjoy various translations in their studies.
It helps to open up the full meaning present in the original language.
Why even the translators of the KJV condescended to present footnotes that confirm this aspect of transmission between languages.

So does this mean we don’t really have the word of God before us?
No! Although the early church strived to conform their translated versions to the original documents, even though at times the works were wanting, each was considered the word of God and held holy to the community of believers.
It was as close as they could get to the originally inspired words.
It effectively conveyed God’s word to his people.

Second, regarding the text, we must all confess that through the hand of man over the millennia, errors of transmission have occurred.
Some of these errors are widespread among the texts and very difficult to assess one way or another.
These errors occur throughout every text form; no single text form is exempt from err.
The “preserved majority text” is not exempt from them either.

(“Majority text” – oxymoron; it seems to me that if we are only counting numbers, there are more users of the eclectic text than the Byzantine textform. Ah, but of course you mean before the development of the printing press, like that makes a difference to God).

I am coming to believe that the problem we are having at this time stems from our over-indulgent use of the word, INERRANT.

The KJV translators wrote in their preface: “The originall thereof being from heaven, not from earth; the authour being God, not man; the enditer, the holy spirit, not the wit of the Apostles or Prophets…" [bolding added].

It is the original that was inspired, our copies and translations are the word of God as they faithfully communicate the meaning of the original.

Personally I have a preference for the eclectic Greek text.
Both texts however faithfully communicate the same message of salvation.

I’ll also note that all the modern Greek texts (UBS, NA27 and the Byzantine Majority text of 2002) document the variant readings of importance in their apparatus.
Therefore all these texts, “contain the word of God”.

And while I prefer a particular text, I consider them all to be God’s word and try not to “go beyond what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6).

The differences are negligible.

Lastly, I'll admit that the written word is not the full word of God, for that we will experence in eternity as we abide in him.

Rob

 

Pastor Bob, it seems from your various statements that what you are saying, in a nut shell, is that versions based on the Received Text (aka textus receptus), as long as they are accurate translations, are the true word of God while versions based on any other text contain only parts of the word of God. Is that a correct summary of your feelings?

If my summary is correct, what do you think of versions such as Green's Literal Translation (LITV) and Modern King James Version (MKJV), and other TR-based versions such as the Third Millennium Bible (TMB) and the 21st Century King James Version (KJ21)? Are these also the true word of God or do they simply contain the word of God? Why?

Please do not take my questions as a trick of any kind or as a condemnation of any kind. Those are not my intentions here. I merely seek to find out what you feel about other TR-based Bible versions.

 

Yeah, "Bible" is a modern term. I have a "hunter's bible" which is fulla info for henters, including descriptuons/SRPs for virtually every civilian firearm.

However, "Holy Bible" is a collection of the Scriptures. We generally only say/write "Bible", but the context tells the audience or reader when we're referring to God's word.

 

In a nutshell, I believe that only translations that are accurate representations of the originals are reliable. My belief in preservation has led me to the belief that the Byzantine family of extant mss are accurate representations of the originals, therefore, I can only apply the phrase "true Word of God" to those translations that have as their basis the majority of extant textual evidence. This, of course, is simply the conclusion at which I have personally arrived after much study and hours of reading on the version and text issue.

I do not particulary care for Green's because it is basically a "one man translation." Regarding the others, although they fit my criteria of having the proper textual basis, I am concerned with some of the choices of the translators in certain passages. It seems as if they were influenced by the critical text more than I would like. My preference would be zero influence.

I am happy to answer any and all questions as long as they are asked with the right spirit. I have no desire to argue, but would be glad to share my opinions.

 

Thanks for your reply, Pastor_Bob. It answers the questions I had.

 

Pastor Bob, how do you reconcile the words and passages in the KJV that are not "accurate representations" of the Majority text? There are several translations in the KJV that are not supported by the text: you are undoubtedly familar with the KJV insertion of "the brother of" Goliath slain by Elhanan (2 Sam. 21:19); another one I have read recently, is the insertion of "Red Sea" when the Hebrew word cuwph (Strong's #5488/9) clearly means 'reed', 'rushes', 'seaweed', or similar aquatic plant. It is translated by the KJV as "flags" (archaic term for 'rushes') and "weed" otherwise. It does not mean "red" in any sense.

BTW, I am not a 'liberal' that is suggesting that the Israelites didn't cross the Red Sea, or that David didn't kill Goliath, or even that there are actual contridictions in the Scriptures (only apparent ones). I am not saying that these are inappropriate articulations for understanding of the truth of the passages.

I am just pointing out that the KJV has many words and phrases that are not literal renderings of the original text and I just would like to read your explanation of how that fits with the position of the preserved text being the standard for determining what is God's Word, and not just a 'Bible'.

Pastor Bob, if the Holy Spirit didn't originally inspire the words "the brother of" or "Red" then how do we justify their insertion into the English? I realize that some words are italicized [or bracketed] in the Authorized Version, that is, they are included for the smoothing out the English, but also there are many words that are not so indicated and yet do affect meaning. For a small example of something I've just read recently, in Hebrews 6:6 the word "if" is not literally from any extant Greek manuscript. Does this represent "reliable" translation?

Those above are only a few examples of interpretation being imposed on the translation. But if someone supports the insertion of 'clarifying' terms into the KJV translation, then an inconsistency needs to be explained: why are there many cases in the KJV where words are merely transliterated and not actually translated for the reader (excluding proper names and places)?

 

I'll give the KJVOs credit for being right about Goliath, in one of the FEW times they've been right. They base their claim on 1 Chron. 20:5..."And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam."

I have no explanation for "Red" Sea.

 

Very often a proper name has a meaning all its own. Granted, the Hebrew word means "weed, flag, or reed," but that does not mean that the name of the sea must be "Weed Sea, Flag Sea, or Reed Sea."

My name means something specific as well, but my friends call me by my proper name, not by the meaning of my name. It is my opinion that such is the case with your question. Geography and history support that it was, in fact, the Red Sea.

 

On this particular bit of info, I'm tending to support "Reed Sea", personally. That is the swampy area that is today known as the "Bitter Lakes" region in the area of the Suez Canal, where the average depth of the water is between 6 and 12 inches. That also shows just how powerful the Lord is, as well. God drowned Pharaoh and thousands of Pharaoh's soldiers in ankle deep water! :smilewinkgrin: :thumbsup:

Ed

 

I believe I understand you. Let's try my name: my name is 'Frank' which means "free man"; therefore my friends call me 'Frank' (my proper name) not 'Free Man' (the meaning). Proper name is used, and meaning is ignored, right? While this true, it does not support your conclusion.

Yes, by your argument I think it does mean that the name of the sea must be Reed Sea because there is no Hebrew manuscript that I am aware of that has "red"; they all have "reed". Therefore, it seems that "reed" is what the Hebrews called this body of water (it is the word written in every OT occurrence), making 'Reed' the proper name according to the Hebrew text. 'Red' only occurs in the English.

Perhaps you were thinking that 'Red Sea' actually carries the meaning of "reed" in Elizabethan English. Is there some evidence that the KJV revisors commonly knew the Red Sea as a "reed" sea (that would be, I guess, a sea notable for its reeds)? For your theory to be legitimate, there needs to be some reason to believe that "red" has an underlying connection to "reed' (or "weed", "flag", etc) at the time of their translation. I don't believe that connection can be established. That would have to be an archaic meaning since the contemporary word "red" does not have anything to do with "reed".

Even if the ancient proper name 'Reed Sea' carried the meaning of "red" (the color), it does not follow your argument. But if proven it would give English translators some textual justification for using 'Red Sea' in their text. Almost all English versions have Red Sea. But is there any evidence that "reed" ever meant "red" in Hebrew? No, I don't think you'll find that.

I'm not disputing that the Hebrews crossed the Red Sea. But it is clear to me that Red Sea has been inserted into the English text based upon Jewish tradition in total disregard to the actual underlying Hebrew text.

 

The KJVs translation "Red Sea" is derived from both the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate.

 

Yes, the Septuagint expresses that Jewish tradition I mentioned against the Hebrew text. It was picked up by the Latin (not arrived at separately). The Septuagint and Latin, while excellent witnesses generally, are not considered original language texts.

So now we've come full circle; this was the reason I brought up this passage to begin with... there are many examples of the KJV inserting words from outside the original language text (Masoretic Hebrew text for the OT) and how it fit with your standard for establishing the actual Word of God --

 

I guess my question to you would be, "Did the Moses, by whatever words he used, refer to the Red Sea when he wrote the account in Exodus?" If it was, in fact, the Red Sea that they crossed, I don't see a problem with the translation accurately representing the originals.

 

I believe that God performed a miracle for the Hebrews, and He may never allow the exact location, and exact name, of that body of water to become known with absolute certainty before He ends this present world. I have confidence that what was actually written should be understood in English as "flags", "weeds", etc.

So, it seems you will allow words into the English text that you accept as the Word of God based upon sources outside the bounds of the original language manuscripts.

 

Provided that these outside sources accurately reflect the originals. Patristic writing, lectionaries, etc...

 

I strongly agree with what you said (See red bold above). :thumbs: