Clearly, I do not post anything near half a book every time I respond. My ten books are from around 100 pages to almost 700 pages while my responses are not even 1/2 of one page or even 1/4 of one page. Some of my responses are very brief. Many of my responses are newly typed. Sometimes I copy and quote from my research. When someone claims I have not engaged with or answered their point, I provide the evidence that shows that I have.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Our Scriptural Confidence is that We have a Pure, More Sure Word of Prophecy.
- Thread starter Alan Dale Gross
- Start date
Anthony Pritchard
Well-Known Member
I understand the reaction. The reason Logos posts that much is because he is trying to overwhelm the discussion with volume instead of dealing with the actual point.
Anthony Pritchard
Well-Known Member
Or from the works of others.
Your opinion is incorrect. I am not copying and pasting from the works of others. I present my own research.
Anthony Pritchard
Well-Known Member
I still stand by "The reason Logos posts that much is because he is trying to overwhelm the discussion with volume instead of dealing with the actual point." At least that is the result, and the quotes are the work of others.
You fail to demonstrate that you are being misrepresented in the same way that you have misrepresented my view of preservation. You asserted what you incorrectly claimed were the logical conclusions of my statements, but you oppose me presenting what I consider to be the logical conclusions to which your stated assertions would lead. There are no bad faith responses on my part as you seem to try to attack my motives and character.
I clearly presented my clear definition and explanation of the accurate term KJV-only. According to my sound definition and explanation of KJV-only, some of your statements display KJV-only reasoning or use similar or parallel arguments to those of KJV-only authors. I provided quotations from several KJV-only authors that present their view of preservation. I believe that I accurately engage with your very own stated claims. There is no intention on my part to misrepresent your views. KJV-only refers only to a person's views or claims concerning English Bible translations, not concerning translations into other languages.
You have not presented your definition and explanation of KJV-only, but you may hold to a different definition by which you may try to deny the logical implications of your preserved text view. You have not clearly distinguished your view from all four varying KJV-only camps. Your assertion that "preservation carries that inspired text forward" could well have been stated by some KJV-only authors. You fail to demonstrate a clean, consistent, and clear distinction between what you stated as your view and the retained inspiration view of some KJV-only advocates. Do you acknowledge that the KJV translators made some errors of translation in the KJV or do you claim that the KJV has no errors made by the KJV translators?
An inconsistent view that suggests that inspiration is retained in the KJV, but not in modern English translations such as the NKJV from the same preserved texts would be a form of KJV-only view.
Some other TR-only advocates and KJV defenders seem to seek to try to apply incorrectly the term KJV-only to only Ruckman and his followers. Baptist pastor Glenn Conjurske (1947-2001) asserted: “Mr. Waite finds three definitions of ‘King James Only,’ and none of them the true one” (Bible Version Controversy, p. 130). Glenn Conjurske observed: “Most of the King James Only men have of late been shy of the word ‘perfect,’ but if they ascribe to the King James Version what practically amounts to perfection, their scruples about the word ‘perfect’ signify nothing” (p. 127). D. A. Waite denied being KJV-only while he argued for his form of KJV-only view.
Mike B
Active Member
Logos, I'd like to share a few thoughts.
I love the KJV for many reasons, one being I trust that the TR and Masoretic text are indeed the
preserved Words of God, and believe it to be the most accurate of any translation available today.
Do I believe the 47 men who did the KJV translation were directly inspired of God? No, however I very
much prefer the "word-for-word" style of translation they used, and believe they did so prayerfully and
accurately. Some say there are a few very minor exceptions, and if there are, they are of no concern to
me whatsoever as they certainly would not effect my faith or practice.
I love the language used...it inspires me. It is eloquent, graceful, and direct. I do not find this
in any of the more modern bibles, including the NKJV.
The very first week after I was saved by the Lord, I became aware of the "KJV vs. others" debate, and
in all the years since, not a thing has changed. Pretty much the same argument and pretty much the
same rebuttals, although to be honest I have never read rebuttals of such eloquence as Bro. Pritchard
has shared on this subject across various threads. Still, it's the same dead horse being beaten once again.
As a Baptist, I don't mind arguing one bit, however a question I always ask myself now is: Of what benefit?
Do I honestly believe I can get the "opponent" to see things my way, or see the error in their doctrine or
practice, or am I just speaking out because I disagree? Who will benefit from this discussion, if anyone?
In all your efforts to otherwise convince those who faithfully stick to the KJV, has anyone ever changed
their minds, and gone out and bought a modern version as a result? In all your efforts, has anyone come
to know the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior as a result of your campaign against those who are KJV only?
In truth, is holding to the KJV going to harm anyone's faith?
I would submit that, no, it is not.
Let's not argue over jots and tiddles, and instead reason together so we may better serve the Lord.
My thanks to the forum members for their patience in allowing me to share these thoughts.
I love the KJV for many reasons, one being I trust that the TR and Masoretic text are indeed the
preserved Words of God, and believe it to be the most accurate of any translation available today.
Do I believe the 47 men who did the KJV translation were directly inspired of God? No, however I very
much prefer the "word-for-word" style of translation they used, and believe they did so prayerfully and
accurately. Some say there are a few very minor exceptions, and if there are, they are of no concern to
me whatsoever as they certainly would not effect my faith or practice.
I love the language used...it inspires me. It is eloquent, graceful, and direct. I do not find this
in any of the more modern bibles, including the NKJV.
The very first week after I was saved by the Lord, I became aware of the "KJV vs. others" debate, and
in all the years since, not a thing has changed. Pretty much the same argument and pretty much the
same rebuttals, although to be honest I have never read rebuttals of such eloquence as Bro. Pritchard
has shared on this subject across various threads. Still, it's the same dead horse being beaten once again.
As a Baptist, I don't mind arguing one bit, however a question I always ask myself now is: Of what benefit?
Do I honestly believe I can get the "opponent" to see things my way, or see the error in their doctrine or
practice, or am I just speaking out because I disagree? Who will benefit from this discussion, if anyone?
In all your efforts to otherwise convince those who faithfully stick to the KJV, has anyone ever changed
their minds, and gone out and bought a modern version as a result? In all your efforts, has anyone come
to know the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior as a result of your campaign against those who are KJV only?
In truth, is holding to the KJV going to harm anyone's faith?
I would submit that, no, it is not.
Let's not argue over jots and tiddles, and instead reason together so we may better serve the Lord.
My thanks to the forum members for their patience in allowing me to share these thoughts.
Anthony Pritchard
Well-Known Member
MikeB, I appreciate the spirit of your post. You’re asking the right questions, not just “Can we argue this?” but “Should we, and to what benefit?” That’s a needed voice.
I’d like to offer the other side of the questions you raised, because my experience has been different.
You asked whether anyone has ever changed versions because of these discussions. In my case, the answer is yes. I’ve watched people move from confusion to clarity when they finally settled on a stable text. It wasn’t about winning an argument, it is never about winning an argument; it was about removing obstacles that were genuinely troubling them, it was about establishing and promoting truth.
You asked whether anyone has ever come to Christ as a result of these conversations. Again, in my experience, yes. Not because the text itself saves, but because a clear and consistent witness to Scripture helped remove doubts that were standing in the way. When the ground stops shifting under someone, they can finally hear the gospel without distraction.
And you asked whether holding to the KJV harms anyone’s faith. I can only speak from what I’ve seen, but the harm I’ve witnessed has come from the other direction, the modern versions have caused harm. I’ve watched newly saved believers lose confidence because their Bible didn’t match someone else’s. I’ve seen seekers walk away because the differences between versions looked like contradictions. I’ve seen interest in Scripture die before it ever had a chance to grow because the text seemed unstable. I have seen confusion in the congregation as the Pastor quoted verses from one version which did not match what was in the hands of the congregant. You really cannot have a word study if the words are different for example.
That doesn’t mean everyone has that experience. But some do, and I’ve seen it firsthand.
I agree with you completely that we shouldn’t beat dead horses or argue for argument’s sake. But I also believe clarity matters, I believe truth matters, especially for those who are young in the faith or just approaching the Scriptures for the first time. For some people, textual stability is not a minor issue, it’s foundational.
Thank you again for your thoughtful post. Your tone is exactly what these discussions need.
As a believer, I have read and studied the KJV over 60 years. I love the KJV. I accept the KJV as what it actually is. I have not attempted to get anyone not to read the KJV, or I have not attempted to get anyone to buy a modern version. My effort is to advocate and defend the truth. I also think truth matters.
The doctrine of truth taught in the KJV does not support the making of non-true claims for the KJV or the making of non-true accusations against modern English Bibles.
Human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching is a tradition and doctrine of man, and it is not a doctrine of God taught in Scripture. It is sound and scriptural to oppose and correct false doctrine such as modern, non-scriptural KJV-only teaching. Contending for the faith involves opposition to non-scriptural and false teachings. According to the Scriptures, it can be concluded that sound true faith would not come from believing or following opinions, speculations, or traditions of men (Mark 7:7-9, Col. 2:8, Matt. 15:9, Col. 2:21-22) or from following men’s inconsistent, unjust applications, misinterpretations, or twistings of Scripture (2 Tim. 2:15, 2 Pet. 3:16).
Mike B
Active Member
Truth does indeed matter, and I believe I have the truth in the KJV. You disagree.
In one of my earlier posts to the board I asked about "modern versions" for new Christians,
and got a variety or responses and recommendations, one of which was to give them a
KJV. After thought and prayer, I agree, as this way I can better help the new Christian as
both our bibles would read the same, and I am giving them a bible that I have no doubt
about being God's Word. I guess that makes me not quite as "KJV-only" as you would
assert me to be, as I have considered other versions.
I'm sure it has happened, however I don't recall many discussions where a "KJV-only" person
opened a thread (here or anywhere) telling modern bible users that they were apostate or
in grave error for using a bible other than the KJV. I do recall many that were the other way
around.
IMO, too many hours have been spent writing endless books and posts on the subject, and
I have never known of anyone who changed their position/opinion as a result. It seems to be
an issue that should not be an issue, and I know of none who have benefited as a result of the
debates, however Bro. Pritchard has very valid points in maintaining Biblical consistency with new
believers, and seeing people come to the Lord as a result.
If we had spent that same amount of time (perhaps thousands of hours over the years) sharing the
gospel with the lost, we can be fairly sure that many more souls would heading for glory, saved by
the Lord Jesus Christ.
If you wish to continue flogging that dead horse, go right ahead, but I don't care to spend
any further time on the subject.
Last edited:
Do you improperly try to put words in my mouth that I have not said?
The truth is that the KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense as the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English and in the same sense as post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are the word of God translated into English.
Acknowledging or asserting the truth that the word of God is not bound or limited to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England men in 1611 is not saying that the truth cannot be found in the KJV.
Your opinion is wrong. Your actual unproven points have been properly challenged and countered.
The 1611 KJV is not a more sure word of prophecy than the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.
Alan Dale Gross
Well-Known Member
You're crazy to put words in the mouths of people that they have not said.
You need a good solid Cease and Desist notice from the best of what I see out of you.
Do you practice what you preach since you seem to try to put words in my mouth with your inconsistent accusation of alleging that the best of me is bad or in effect alleging the worse in me? You do not demonstrate that I am putting words in the mouths of others. You do not demonstrate anything wrong with what I posted.
My effort is to present the views of others as accurately as possible. My effort is to present the truth. Soundly identifying stated human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching as being KJV-only is not putting words in someone's mouth. It is stating the truth about what was stated or posted. I do not say that those who deny being KJV-only admit that they are KJV-only. I properly point out the truth that they are using KJV-only arguments, displaying KJV-only reasoning, making KJV-only claims for the KJV, and being inconsistent with their denial of being KJV-only.
Alan Dale Gross
Well-Known Member
He even makes the obvious eloquent and powerful.
Thanks for sharing with us, Br. Pritchard. Our pleasure.
10-4 0n "the voice". Preach on, you two!!!
Alan Dale Gross
Well-Known Member
Not to make an accusation against calling them the "modern English bibles",
but shouldn't we be referring to them as "The Modern Take Away Versions"? of The Revelation 22:18,19.
18; "For I testify unto every man that heareth the Words of the Prophecy of this Book,
If any man shall add unto these things, God shall Add unto him the Plagues that are Written in this Book:
19; "And if any man shall take away from the Words of the Book of this Prophecy,
God shall Take Away his part out of the Book of Life,
and out of the Holy City, and from the things which are Written in this Book.
20; "He which Testifieth these things saith, Surely I Come Quickly. Amen. Even so, Come, Lord Jesus."
They are in big trouble with their Maker
and what "the Plagues that are Written in this Book" and "his part out of the Book of Life means,
no one knows better now than Westcott and Hort.
"If you notice (below) in the first part of this verse, the full name “Jesus Christ” has been omitted in the "Modern Take Away Versions". Depends on what type of spirit a person has whether it be new age or false religion, this verse (in the "Modern Take Away Versions") could be used to confirm someone’s relationship with their false god."
"2 Timothy 4:22"
"Sample Preserved Versions"
"(KJV) The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit. Grace be with you. Amen."
"(1611 KJB) The Lord Iesus Christ bee with thy spirit. Grace be with you. Amen."
"(1587 Geneva Bible) The Lorde Iesus Christ be with thy spirit. Grace be with you, Amen."
"(1382 Wycliffe) Oure Lord Jhesu Crist be with thi spirit. The grace of God be with you. Amen."
"Modern Take Away Versions"
"(CSB) The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you all.
"(NIV) The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you.
"(NASV) The Lord be with your spirit Grace be with you.
"(THE MESSAGE) God be with you. Grace be with you.
"(AMP) The Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Grace (God's favor and blessing) be with you. Amen (so be it).
"(NLT) May the Lord be with your spirit. And may his grace be with all of you.
"(ESV) The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you.
"(CEV) I pray that the Lord will bless your life and will be kind to you.
"(NCV) The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you.
"(1901 ASV) The Lord be with thy spirit. Grace be with you.
"(HCSB) The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you!
"(RSV) The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you.
"(NAB-Roman Catholic) The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with all of you.
"(NWT-Jehovah’s Witneses) The Lord [be] with the spirit you [show]. His undeserved kindness [be] with YOU people."
Footnotes: NKJV - "NU-Text omits Jesus Christ."
"Textus Receptus "o kurioV ihsouV cristoV meta tou pneumatoV sou h cariV meq umwn amhn"
"Hort-Westcott "o kurioV meta tou pneumatoV sou h cariV meq umwn"
"At least in the King James Bible we know exactly who the “Lord” is.
"The "Modern Take Away Versions" leave the Lord Jesus Christ out of the very book which is supposed to be all about Him, (as the Bible says here):
"(Psa 40:7 KJV) "Then said I, Lo, I Come: in the Volume of the Book it is Written of Me,"
"(Heb 10:7 KJV) "Then said I, Lo, I Come (in the Volume of the Book it is written of Me,) to do Thy Will, O God."
Do you believe these omissions, like this one, were systematic and intentional sabotage of God's Holy Bible?
Why do all the changes favor the side of Supernatural Evil?
Isn't it wrong to be ashamed of the Lord Jesus Christ?
Perhaps you demonstrate use of divers measures or double standards since you do not apply the same exact measures to the making of the KJV. According to their marginal notes in the 1611 KJV edition, the Church of England makers of the KJV admitted that they took away some original-language words of Scripture since they gave no English word/rendering for them in the verses although they did sometimes give an English word for them in those marginal notes. The KJV omits giving any English word/rendering for hundreds of original-language words of Scripture.
Allan, do you believe the hundreds of omissions in the KJV were systematic and intentional sabotage of God's Holy Bible or do you reveal use of unjust divers measures?
Some post-1900 English Bible translations such as the KJ3 Literal Translation by Jay Green gives English renderings for oriiginal-language words of Scripture omitted or taken away in the KJV.
In the preface to his English translation, Jay Green asserted: “This entire KJ3 Literal Translation Bible is translated using the words of today and translated from the same Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and texts used by the translators of the Authorized/King James Version. In this Bible, God’s very words are translated word-for-word with the literal meanings given of each of the Hebrew and Greek words used in writing the Bible” (p. xvi). Jay Green claimed: “This is the first time ever a translator has produced a Bible with all of God’s words translated into English, all of them” (p. xv). Jay Green declared: “This is the newest and most accurate English version of the Bible” (p. xiii). Jay Green contended that those who read his translation acknowledge “that the Holy Spirit speaks to them through this Bible like no other Bible they have used” (p. xvi).
According to a consistent, just application of Alan Dale Gross's assertions, did the KJV take away or omit a word or words in these examples?
1 Kings 16:12 [1611 margin—“Heb. by the hand of”]
by the hand of Jehu the Prophet [1560 Geneva Bible; 1602 Bishops’ Bible]
by Jehu the prophet [1611 KJV]
by the hand of Jehu the prophet [YLT] [Literal Translation] [KJ3] [LSV]
1 Kings 17:16 [1611 margin—“Heb. by the hand of”]
by the hand of Elia [1540 Great Bible]
by the hand of Eliah [1560 Geneva Bible]
by the hand of Elias [1602 Bishops’ Bible]
by Elijah [1611 KJV]
by the hand of Elijah [YLT] [Literal Translation] [KJ3] [LSV]
2 Kings 5:5 [1611 margin—“Heb. in his hand”]
with him [1611 KJV]
in his hand [YLT] [Literal Translation] [KJ3] [LSV]
2 Kings 8:9 [1611 margin—“Heb. in his hand”]
in his hand [1560 Geneva Bible]
with him [1611 KJV]
in his hand [YLT] [Literal Translation] [KJ3] [LSV]
2 Kings 9:36 [1611 margin—“Heb. by the hand of”]
by the hand of his servant [1602 Bishops’ Bible]
by his servant [1611 KJV]
by the hand of his servant [YLT] [Literal Translation] [KJ3]
by the hand of this servant [LSV]
2 Kings 10:10 [1611 margin—“Heb. by the hand of”]
by the hand of his servant Elias [1602 Bishops’ Bible]
by his servant Elijah [1611 KJV]
by the hand of His servant Elijah [YLT] [Literal Translation] [LSV] [KJ3]
1 Kings 16:12 [1611 margin—“Heb. by the hand of”]
by the hand of Jehu the Prophet [1560 Geneva Bible; 1602 Bishops’ Bible]
by Jehu the prophet [1611 KJV]
by the hand of Jehu the prophet [YLT] [Literal Translation] [KJ3] [LSV]
1 Kings 17:16 [1611 margin—“Heb. by the hand of”]
by the hand of Elia [1540 Great Bible]
by the hand of Eliah [1560 Geneva Bible]
by the hand of Elias [1602 Bishops’ Bible]
by Elijah [1611 KJV]
by the hand of Elijah [YLT] [Literal Translation] [KJ3] [LSV]
2 Kings 5:5 [1611 margin—“Heb. in his hand”]
with him [1611 KJV]
in his hand [YLT] [Literal Translation] [KJ3] [LSV]
2 Kings 8:9 [1611 margin—“Heb. in his hand”]
in his hand [1560 Geneva Bible]
with him [1611 KJV]
in his hand [YLT] [Literal Translation] [KJ3] [LSV]
2 Kings 9:36 [1611 margin—“Heb. by the hand of”]
by the hand of his servant [1602 Bishops’ Bible]
by his servant [1611 KJV]
by the hand of his servant [YLT] [Literal Translation] [KJ3]
by the hand of this servant [LSV]
2 Kings 10:10 [1611 margin—“Heb. by the hand of”]
by the hand of his servant Elias [1602 Bishops’ Bible]
by his servant Elijah [1611 KJV]
by the hand of His servant Elijah [YLT] [Literal Translation] [LSV] [KJ3]
Your experience is absolutely different to mine. Perhaps the reason is because we live in different countries, I don't know.
I can think of three churches where I used to preach occasionally that were KJV only and have closed. Two have changed from KJV to NKJV and are still going strong. Two have remained KJV and, last time I was aware, are struggling.
That some churches that use modern versions are struggling or have closed, I do not doubt, but these tend to be churches that have stepped away from the preaching of the word of God to the giving of 10 or 12 minute talks on political themes that interest them.
People don't want to be preached at in 17th Century language. Tyndale wanted the lad who wields the plough to understand the Bible, not to struggle with words he doesn't understand.
Anthony Pritchard
Well-Known Member
I was answering the question from my own experience, just as you are answering from yours. I was not arguing that church growth or decline proves a translation right or wrong. Churches flourish or struggle for many reasons.
My point was much narrower. I have personally seen people become confused when confronted with multiple competing renderings and told that one verse, one phrase, or one reading should be preferred over another. I have seen confidence weakened because the text appeared unstable to them.
Whether that has been your experience or not, it has been mine.
As for the language, I agree that people should understand what they read. The question is whether unfamiliar words should be explained or whether they should be removed. Christians routinely learn words such as justification, sanctification, propitiation, redemption, and imputation. Difficulty alone is not a sufficient reason to discard a reading.
In any case, my original point was not about proving the superiority of one translation by church growth statistics. It was simply an observation about what I have personally witnessed regarding confidence in Scripture.