Rock of Ages Study Bible

[Bayouparson]

Are we having fun yet?

 

[Trotter]

Loads. It's good that most can discuss back and forth... but a few continue to be nuisances.

I don't have a problem with anyone holding to a single translation. The problem stems from when someone wants to try to proclaim that their favorite translation is the only one that is the word of God and all others are not, period. God never limited Himself in any way and He is not about to start by limiting Himself to a single translation. Trying to put a translation, any translation, on that kind of pedestal is tantamount to making it an idol to worship.

 

[Dale-c]

they can trust all the new translations that do not agree in most places.

THis can be a very misleading statement I see all the time.

Just what do you mean by "agree"?

If by agree you mean the wording is exactly the same, then no, you will not find two modern translations that "agree" even in half of the verses exactly.

Now, if you mean agree in the meaning of the words then all of them agree.

The same Gospel is in the KJV as in all of the good modern versions.
There is no disagreement in doctrine.

 

[robycop3]

Bayouperson, do YOU dare face the issue that KJVO has no Scriptural support in the KJV, let alone any other version? Without any Scriptural backing, all other pro-KJVO arguments are moot.

 

[robycop3]

Trotter, my belated condolences for the passing of your dad.

 

[Johnv]

You have no more scriptural support for what you say than the claim that the KJVO people cannot give scriptural support for their position on one translation. I have never called anyone who uses another translation a heretic and I know some who believe their translation is the only one....

Scripture has specific core doctrine. If it's not in scripture, then it's not scripural doctrine. The aforementioned church has added a doctrine that is completely absent in scripture. If it's absent in scripture, it's false doctrine. If a church has a single-translation-only position as part of its doctrinal position statement, that position categorically disqualifies them as having sound doctrine.

Yet you seem to believe that you have some super revelation that anyone who believes the King James Bible is the word of God is a heretic if they have a doctrinal statement to that effect.

Never said anyone was a heretic, and I never mentioned the KJV at all. In said if a church has a single-translation-only position (regardless of the translation) as part of its doctrinal position statement, that position categorically disqualifies them as having sound doctrine. Not having sound doctrine is different from being a heretic.

I hope heaven is not uncomfortable for those who have this position against the King James Only people.

When a single-translation onlyists enters heaven, they will be surprised to find their position in gross error.

 

[Bayouparson]

Scripture has specific core doctrine. If it's not in scripture, then it's not scripural doctrine. The aforementioned church has added a doctrine that is completely absent in scripture. If it's absent in scripture, it's false doctrine. If a church has a single-translation-only position as part of its doctrinal position statement, that position categorically disqualifies them as having sound doctrine.

Never said anyone was a heretic, and I never mentioned the KJV at all. In said if a church has a single-translation-only position (regardless of the translation) as part of its doctrinal position statement, that position categorically disqualifies them as having sound doctrine. Not having sound doctrine is different from being a heretic.

When a single-translation onlyists enters heaven, they will be surprised to find their position in gross error.

Why won't you and the others deal with the dishonesty of Mr. White in his book when he accuses the KJVO people for the confusion with translations. The KJV has been around a long time and never questioned until the new translations came along and said, "Let me give you a better translation." This has been precipitated by advent of the "critical" redactors of the German Higher Critical type and then followed by people like Westcott and Hort.

Here is something to chew on.
For those who say the translations are equal and that all of them are the word of God. Take a look at this.
Colossians 1:14 (KJV) In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Colossians 1:14 (NIV)
in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
Colossians 1:14(NASB77)
in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
Colossians 1:14 (NASB)
in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
Colossians 1:14 (RSV)
in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
Colossians 1:14 (ASV)
in whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins:

All of the “new” translations leave out one of the important elements of redemption – the shed blood of Jesus Christ. Ephesians 1:7 (KJV) In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; Hebrews 9:12 (KJV) Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. [Emphasis added.] Now I can hear the naysayers voicing their objection – well the new translations say the same thing in Eph. 1:7 and Heb. 9:12 what is the problem? If I have three witnesses and one of them impugns the testimony of the other two then I must wonder which one is correct. Here are these two verses in the noted new translations.

Here is one of my favorite mishandling of the text by the new translations. Remember the numbers in brackets [ ] are notes in the text of the new translations.

1 Thessalonians 4:4 (KJV) “That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour.” Now watch how the new translations handle this one.
1 Thessalonians 4:4 (NIV)
that each of you should learn to control his own body[1] in a way that is holy and honorable,
[1] Or learn to live with his own wife; or learn to acquire a wife1

1 Thessalonians 4:4 (NASB77)
that[11] each of you know how to[12] possess his own[13] [14] vessel in sanctification and[15] honor,
Since our interest is in footnote [13] which says in this version, [I.e., body; or possibly, wife].

1 Thessalonians 4:4 (NASB)
that each of you know how to possess[5] his own vessel[6] in sanctification and honor, Again we are interested in footnote [6] which says, [I.e., body; or wife].

1 Thessalonians 4:4 (RSV)
that each one of you know how to take a wife for himself in holiness and honor,

Now let’s be honest for a moment. The Greek text in every edition says κτασθαι (vessel). In fact there are no variants of any kind according to the UBS text. All texts say the same thing, the UBS 4th Ed, the TR, the Nestle, et al. Even the context is talking about a person knowing how to posses his own vessel which would be his body and avoid fornication (1Thess. 4:3). “A man who commits fornication sins against his own body” (1Cor. 6:18). The context has to be stretched to mean “wife” as the RSV does and all the new translations suggest. Is this being fair with the text? And did not someone say recently that marginal/footnotes were important? Where is the confusion? It comes from those new translations that play games with the text, both English and Greek. Are all the translations to be trusted and have the ability to qualify for the word of God? I trow not.

 

[Logos1560]

The KJV has been around a long time and never questioned until the new translations came along and said, "Let me give you a better translation." .

After it came out in 1611, the KJV was questioned by a number of believers including Baptists, especially concerning several verses where it was claimed to have renderings that were the result of Episcopal bias.

One example involves Acts 14:23. One place where the Church of England translators reveal their bias for their Episcopal church government is in Acts 14:23 where either the KJV translators, Bancroft, or another prelate omitted the words "by election" found in Tyndale's New Testament, Coverdale's Bible, Matthew's Bible, Great Bible, Taverner's Bible, Geneva Bible, and Bishops' Bible ("ordained them elders by election"). Henry Dexter noted: “So Acts 14:23 retained in the English versions, until the hand of Episcopal authority struck it out, the recognition of the action of the membership of the churches in the choice of their elders” (Hand-Book, p. 15, footnote 1). In his 1648 sermon entitled “Truth and Love,“ Thomas Hill asserted that Acts 14:23 was one of the fourteen places altered “to make them speak the language of the Church of England” (Six Sermons, p. 24). James Lillie maintained that “this [Acts 14:23] is a key-text on the subject of church-government” (Bishops, p. 18). In an article entitled “Did King James and his translators tamper with the truth of God as delivered by William Tyndale” in the Baptist Magazine for 1871 as edited by W. G. Lewis, the author asserted: “This all-important text [Acts 14:23] was mutilated and corrupted by James’s revisers, by leaving out the two words ’by election;’ and by changing congregation into church; thus representing the act as exclusively that of Paul and Barnabas, and as Whitgift and Bancroft said they were successors of the Apostles, they turned the text into a justification of their lordship over the congregations, besides leading the people to believe that the congregations of the Apostles were the same as the churches of the bishops” (p. 582). This article maintained “that James and his hierarchy committed a foul crime against God and man in their daring forgery on this text [Acts 14:23]” (p. 583). This article connected the change with the Church of England’s doctrine of apostolic succession.

On the fourth page of the preface to his 1641 book, Edward Barber referred to “the great wrong done in putting out some Scripture, as in Acts 14:23, where election is left out, by which means people are kept from knowing” (Small Treatise, p. iv). Concerning Acts 14:23 in his 1647 book, William Bartlett wrote: “The original reads it otherwise than the Translation [the KJV]: the Translation reads it ordained, but the Greek word is cheirotoneesantes, that is, they chose elders by the lifting up of the hands of the people, which is different from ordination, as coronation is from the election of a king” (Ichnographia, p. 36). In his 1659 book, Baptist William Jeffery (1616-1693) referred to Acts 14:23 and then stated: “where the word election is left out in the new translation, but it is in the old, and cannot be denied to be in the Greek” (Whole Faith, p. 98). In a sermon preached in 1776, David Somerville maintained that the translation or rendering in the KJV at Acts 14:23 “is unjust” (Miller, Biographical, p. 246). Edward Hiscox quoted Matthew Tindale as follows:

We read only of the Apostles constituting elders by
the suffrages of the people, Acts 14:23, which is
the genuine signification of the Greek word,
cheirotoneesantes, so it is accordingly interpreted
by Erasmus, Beza, Diodoti, and those who translated
the Swiss, French, Italian, Belgic, and even English
Bibles, till the Episcopal correction, which leaves out,
the words, 'by election' (Principles and Practices for
Baptist Churches, p. 351).

 

[Johnv]

Why won't you and the others deal with the dishonesty of Mr. White...

That has nothing to do with my comment. I never mentioned the KJV, or any other translation, at all. I said: if a church has a single-translation-only position as part of its doctrinal position statement, that position categorically disqualifies them as having sound doctrine. It doesn't matter what translation is being referred to.

The KJV has been around a long time and never questioned until the new translations came along and said, "Let me give you a better translation."

That's actually untrue. The AV1612 was not well accepted when it was released. The common complaint of the day was that it was not written in common English. Many rejected the KJV in favor of their existing translations, such as the Geneva and Bishops translations. The unpopularity of the KJV eventually led the crown to make it illegal for anyone to own a bible other than the KJV. For some groups like the puritans, this was the last straw in a long line of religious persecution. So they left and travelled to the New World to found what we today know as the Plymouth Colony, bringing with them their Geneva Bible.

For those who say the translations are equal and that all of them are the word of God. Take a look at this....

So let me get this straight. Is it your contention that one translation, and only one translation, is scripturally superior and without error?

 

[Dale-c]

Why won't you and the others deal with the dishonesty of Mr. White...

Because I have never found him to be dishonest at any time.

If you would like to challenge him on his alleged dishonesty, he has an 800 number you can call.

His Dividing Line show is Tuesdays and Thursdays.

You can call 1800 753 3341 tomorrow night at 7 PM Eastern Daylight and challenge him on his dishonesty.
I am sure he would be happy to take your call.

 

[Dale-c]

"Let me give you a better translation."

So was is ok for the Brittish Crown to " "give you a better translation."? A Better translation that the Geneva etc?

 

[rsr]

Now let’s be honest for a moment. The Greek text in every edition says κτασθαι (vessel). In fact there are no variants of any kind according to the UBS text. All texts say the same thing, the UBS 4th Ed, the TR, the Nestle, et al. ... The context has to be stretched to mean “wife” as the RSV does and all the new translations suggest. Is this being fair with the text? ... It comes from those new translations that play games with the text, both English and Greek. ...

You act as though this is a new issue. Both John Gill and Adam Clark said either body or wife were plausible renderings, though they leaned toward wife.

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Let every man use his wife for the purpose alone for which God created her, and instituted marriage. The word akeuov answers to the Hebrew ylk keli, which, though it signifies vessel in general, has several other meanings. That the rabbins frequently express wife by it, Schoettgen largely proves; and to me it appears very probable that the apostle uses it in that sense here. St. Peter calls the wife the weaker VESSEL, 1 Pet. iii. 7. Others think that the body is meant, which is the vessel in which the soul dwells. In this sense St. Paul uses it, 2 Cor. iv. 7: We have this treasure in earthen VESSELS; and in this sense it is used by both Greek and Roman authors. There is a third sense which interpreters have put on the word, which I forbear to name. The general sense is plain; purity and continency are most obviously intended, whether the word be understood as referring to the wife or the husband, as the following verse sufficiently proves.[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica] [/FONT]

Adam Clarke's Commentary

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]By which may be meant, either a man's wife, or his body, and it is not very easy to determine which, for the Jews call both by this name.[/FONT][/FONT] ... [FONT=Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]And certain it is, that the woman is called the "weaker vessel" in (1 Peter 3:7) , between which passage and this there seems to be some agreement. The same metaphor of a "vessel" is made use of in both; and as there, honour to be given to the weaker vessel, so here, a man's vessel is to be possessed in honour; and as there, husbands are to dwell with their wives according to knowledge so here, knowledge is required to a man's possessing his vessel aright. Now for a man to possess his vessel in this sense, is to enjoy his wife, and to use that power he has over her in a becoming manner; see (1 Corinthians 7:4) , and which is here directed to "in sanctification and honour"; that is, in a chaste and honourable way; for marriage is honourable when the bed is kept undefiled; and which may be defiled, not only by taking another into it, and which is not possessing the wife in sanctification and honour, it is the reverse, for it is a breaking through the rules of chastity and honour; but it may even be defiled with a man's own wife, by using her in an unnatural way, or by any unlawful copulation with her; for so to do is to use her in an unholy, unchaste, wicked, and dishonourable manner; whereas possessing of her according to the order and course of nature, is by the Jews, in agreement with the apostle, called F21, (wmue vdqm) , "a man's sanctifying himself", and is chaste, and honourable. And it may be observed, that the Jews use the same phrase concerning conjugal embraces as the apostle does here. One of their canons runs thus F23: [/FONT][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica] [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica] ``though a man's wife is free for him at all times, it is fit and proper for a disciple of a wise man to use himself (hvwdqb) , "in", or "to sanctification".''​

John Gill's Commentary
[/FONT][/FONT]​

 

[Harold Garvey]

It's one thing to have a single-translation-only stance as a matter of practical application, but if a church has a single-translation-only position as part of its doctrinal position statement, that position categorically disqualifies them as having sound doctrine.

I don't know exactly why, but i appreciate it is that YOU said that.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Harold Garvey]

SAG38, have you noticed the KJVO CANNOT & WILL NOT address their problem of the fact that there's NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for their doctrine? That fact alone makes it false, & they just can't bring themselves to face it.

You have no scriptural support for a "version of the week" doctrine is your problem. we know and believe we have the word of God in the KJV. we know and believe there are many versions which are not excatly the word of God. We stand upon the KJV as the word of God. You stand in many places at different times about which version is the word of God.

I wonder how stability would fit into your decorum?

 

[Harold Garvey]

Several of you have noted that KJVO people have no answer to the issue of one translation. Did it ever occur to you that the Old Testament people had only one translation for centuries in the Hebrew language? God only had one Bible during the Old Testament times and even during the New Testament period of the life of Christ. There was no "scriptural" support for their position either, they just believed it was the word of God. Then when the New Testament was developed in Greek, God only had one translation of the New Testament. According to the position posted the Old Testament saints were heretics because they held to one version of the Bible. I'm sure the Philistines complained that the Hebrews thought they were the only ones who knew what God said and how He said it. Surely the Romans thought that if God wanted to talk to them He surely would have written it in Latin since that was the language of the Roman elite (and the RCC). Why would God be so limited and have only one version of the Bible? The only thing the new translations have done is create confusion in the pew. If you read the Introduction by James White in his book The King James Only Controversy he tells of a volunteer staff member who used the NIV and the pastor of the church they attended preached from the NASB. The pastor read from Matthew 18 and they wondered why the NIV would delete something the pastor read from the NASB? Both of them had failed to see the footnote that described why this was so says Mr. WHite. He says, "It is this kind of confusion that provides the perfect breeding ground for controversy" (page IV) [emphasis added]. Do you know what Mr. White does? In the next paragraph he blames this confusion on the King James Controversy. The King James people had nothing to do with it. The controversy came about because the NIV and NASB were used in a church and they did not agree. Mr. White's tactic is called building a straw man. You can destroy a straw man and look like a hero. "Yea, we slew the giant of the KJVO crowd." I'm sorry but the King James issue had nothing to do with it. I am glad to know there are those who see themselves as "Protestant Popes" to help the poor dumb people in the pews see that the King James Bible is not the word of God and they can trust all the new translations that do not agree in most places. Then they can deal with the confusion and blame it on the KJVO crowd. If I believe that inspiration is in the "original autographs" I don't have an inspired Bible because most people know the "original autographs" do not exist anywhere on this earth. Maybe God did preserve His word for us today in ONE translation that was based on the best and majority of Greek manuscripts (i.e. Textus Receptus) and the "non-critical" Hebrew text (i.e. the Bomberg Hebrew text). Maybe God does have just one Bible. I would really hate to be on the wrong side of this issue.

All I can say is THANK YOU!

 

[Johnv]

You have no scriptural support for a "version of the week" doctrine is your problem.

The only way that position can be considered consistent is if a person's bible of choice is the Textus Receptus, since there is no scriptural support for any version.

 

[Harold Garvey]

These were in the original tongues, not translations as is the KJV. Apples and oranges.

news alert, God's word is not fruit.

Trotter doesn't believe God is God enough to preserve His word in a translation because God quit being God enough to be able to go beyond Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.:tongue3:

I didn't say he didn't believe in God.

No one has said that the KJV is not the word of God. However, several from the KJVO camp have said that anything else is not the word of God. Funny thing is that no one can find that verse in ANY translation.

The KJV is not the NKJV. Since you say the KJV is the word of God how is it something that is different the same?

Translating from the original languages is not a precise science. There are no direct word-for-word translations for most of the words used. In these cases the translators must choose the English equivalent as best they can through both knowledge and prayer (which is exactly what the KJV translators did... except when the Church of England dictated otherwise).

Um, Trotter, God isn't subject to science.

Maybe... but why would God limit Himself to a single man-made translation? God didn't perform a single feeding of the Israelites in the wilderness and say, "Yep, that's good enough." Jesus didn't heal a single leper and decide that that one was a perfect representation of His power and never heal another. And yet you, and others who have decided that a 400 year old translation is perfection itself, want to try to put God in your little box? Sorry, mate, but the God I know has nothing to do with man-made boxes... or doctrines.

Of course that line of reason also begs the question: "Why would God limit himself to His word, why can't God just get along with us men?"

You want controversy? Try taking a look at all the cults and fringe "denominations" (very loosely defined to apply here) who base their cock-and-bull stuff out of the KJV. And why do they use the KJV? Because most people cannot understand the archaic language. Sure, you can understand as can I... but Tom and Mary America have not studied God's word and become familiar with the prose, syntax, and outdated words (as well as the changed meanings of many words used in the KJV that mean something totally different today).

I'm beginning to think that those who hold to the plethora of versions as the word of God are becoming a cult. Well, at least the:smilewinkgrin:ir behavior is saying they are.

 

[Harold Garvey]

The only way that position can be considered consistent is if your bible of choice is the Textus Receptus, since there is no scriptural support for any version.

So you're saying the Scripture doesn't support itsself as the word of God?:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Harold Garvey]

Well , Mr. John, I'm glad to know that you see that anyone who has a doctrinal statement on one translation is heresy. You have no more scriptural support for what you say than the claim that the KJVO people cannot give scriptural support for their position on one translation. I have never called anyone who uses another translation a heretic and I know some who believe their translation is the only one. Yet you seem to believe that you have some super revelation that anyone who believes the King James Bible is the word of God is a heretic if they have a doctrinal statement to that effect. I hope heaven is not uncomfortable for those who have this position against the King James Only people.

Ouch! But THANKS!

 

[Johnv]

So you're saying the Scripture doesn't support itsself as the word of God?:smilewinkgrin:

You're the one who says scripture doesn't support versions.

Ouch! But THANKS!

Except that you'll note that I never referred to the KJV or any specific translation, neither did I ever accuse anyoen of heresy. As much as I oppose single-translation-onlyism in any form, single-translation-onlyism does not qualify as heresy.