"Attacking" the KJV?

The post below is why this debate is futile....To say the KJV is not without error ISan attack on the KJV. What else can you call it. God promised His preserved Word and God keeps his promise. Any perversion that says Jesus had an earthly father and a young woman for a mother is not God's prserved word!

Any perversion translated by those who were into spiritism can not be God's word.

Again I ask you to please study the bacjground of Wescott and hort. Ungodly men who were part of translting the new versions.

Ernie

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ransom:
Ernie B. posted this to another thread:

Some who oppose the KJV have said they don't rject the KJV but spend countless hours attacking same.

This is probably the most common straw man the KJV zealots use. They propose an absurd, extrabiblical, and irrational theory about the transmission and translation of the Biblical text, culminating in an "inerrant" KJV, then castigate everyone else who is rightly skeptical about their claims.

The KJV zealots are confusing attacking the KJV with attacking an idea about the KJV. Either they fail to see the difference between a thing an an idea about the thing (in which case they are guilty of sloppy thinking), or they do see it and continue confusing them anyway (in which case they are guilty of deception).

Since the KJV-onlyists have constructed this "inerrant" KJV out of thin air, it is they themselves that are attacking the KJV by misrepresenting what it truly is: a good translation, even a great translation, but not necessarily the best translation, and certainly not a perfect translation. It is hardly an "attack" upon the KJV to declare that KJV-only fiction is, in fact, fiction.

Would I be guilty of "attacking" the mother of the Lord if I denied the Catholic doctrines of immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, and bodily assumption (to say nothing of the common view that the Virgin Mary is a co-redemptrix with Christ)? Of course not. I am simply telling the truth and portraying Mary as she truly is. But what the Mariolators are to the Roman church, the KJV-onlyists are to the Fundamentalists: zealots for fictional doctrine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Brazee, (words edited out) God never said anything about any Scottish/English king named James, nor about any Westcott Hort, nor about any Latin Vulgate, nor about any 'KJVO's.' ALL translations are man's efforts.

I hereby "attack" the JimmyBible, according to you. God did not inspire Paul to insert his name in Romans 3:4 where the KJV says "God forbid." The literal translation is "May it not be." This is an error...one error and the KJV is not error-free. Case closed.

Rockfort, kindly refrain from using profane words. This time it was edited out, but if you continue then we have to remove all your posts. bjh

[ September 25, 2001: Message edited by: Barnabas ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rockfort:
I hereby "attack" the JimmyBible, according to you. God did not inspire Paul to insert his name in Romans 3:4 where the KJV says "God forbid." The literal translation is "May it not be." This is an error...one error and the KJV is not error-free. Case closed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There certainly is an error here, but it is not an error made by the KJV translators, but an error made by Rockfort.

The reading "God forbid" comes from the Hebrew. This is a Hebraism that is almost lost in the modern versions. In the Old Testament, there are many oaths taken, sometimes with the name of God clearly stated and other times with the name of God only implied. In Joshua 24:16 "God forbid that we should forsake the LORD" is an example of such an oath. In I Chron. 11:19 "my God forbid it me" is rendered in the Greek by "me genoito" even though the word God is in the Hebrew, it is not in the Greek, but implied. If we would consult our lexicons, maybe we would not be at such a loss to explain this usage of "me genoito." Liddell and Scott, Thayer, and Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich all say that "God forbid" is a legitimate translation in English of "me genoito."

Not only do all the previous English versions use this same expression, but so does the Douay of 1950 in Luke 20:16; Romans, I Cor. and Galatians, as do the Revised Version, the American Standard Version (in all the same new testament verses as the KJB), The World English Bible in Luke 20:16 and Gal. 2:17, Weymouth Version in Mat. 16:22, Luke 20:16 and Gal. 6:14. The Revised Standard Version in Mt. 16:22 and Luke 20:16, The New RSV has "heaven forbid" in Luke 20:16 (likewise no heaven nor forbid), By the way the NRSV also has "God forbid" in Mat. 16:22 where likewise it is not in the Greek. The Hebrew Names Version contains "God forbid" in Gal. 2:17, Wesley’s Bible Translation has it in Mat. 16:22; Luke 20:16, and Gal. 6:14; Todays English Version has it in Mt.16:22, The New Century Version has "heaven forbid" in all the same verses where the KJV has "God forbid"; The Living Bible has "God forbid" in Romans 3:6, Gal 2:17, and 6:14, the Jerusalem Bible has it in Luke 20:16.

The NASB has "God forbid" in Mat. 16:22 and the New KJV has rendered the exact same "me genoito" as God forbid in Galatians 6:14!

Why criticize the KJB for translating "me genoito" as "God forbid" when the lexicons tell us this is a perfectly acceptable way of rendering it? Plus there are a whole host of Bible versions both before and after the KJB that do the very same thing.

The Reason? Because it is a correct translation. Those who say it is an "error" are unlearned in the matter of Hebraisms. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Rockfort, kindly refrain from using profane words. This time it was edited out, but if you continue then we have to remove all your posts. bjh[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As forum moderator I wholeheartedly concur. An more vulgarities or name calling will result in the entire post being deleted. Thank you Brother Barnabas for intervening. I was out of the office most of the day getting ready for my trip to South Dakota or I would have caught it myself.

[ September 25, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

Sooooo, let me ask a couple of questions to the KJVO crowd and see if I understand your point of view:

1. Westcott-and-Hort are the ONLY documents used in modern translations?

2. If Westcott and Hort were not Christians I assume that the Bible tells us somewhere that every single translator chartered by King James was a bonafide, verified Christian?

3. If I like another translation, then I am attacking the KJV, even though I consider it a great translation myself, but also read other translations?

4. If I use another translation, I may not be saved?

5. My daughter who has trouble reading the old KJV text should not read an easier version even if she cannot understand the KJV and just loves to read the easier, more modern text?

6. There are ZERO translational errors in the King James version?

7. The 12 manuscripts that were selected by the translators to write the book of Revelation were all different----God inspired the selections?

8. God inspired the translators? If so, where is your authority?

9. If any of you just happen to be wrong by calling modern mainstream translations "corrupt", but if God just happens to consider them the "His Word" don't you feel the least bit nervous making this kind of drastic statement?

I am not joking here and I would like some serious and specific answers so that I can understand the KJVO point of view.

 

1. The Westcott and Hort Text is the foundation of all modern versions.

2. Westcott and Hort were not saved, they were devout Roman Catholics.

3. Using another Bible is not attacking the KJV. However, when you begin to pick the KJV apart then you are attacking it. I don't pick other Bibles apart. I compare them to the KJV.

4. I am not in a position to determine your salvation. That is a smoke screen.

5. Readability is not the issue. That is a smoke screen.

6. I do not believe there are any translational errors in the KJV.

7. I believe God was guiding the KJV translators in their selection of texts.

8. I believe God was guiding the KJV translators in their selection of words.

9. I don't feel nervous one bit. I am not the one saying, "yea, hath God said."

Bro. Steve Smith

 

Amen!

 

&lt; there are many oaths taken, sometimes with the name of God clearly stated and other times with the name of God only implied... Liddell and Scott, Thayer, and Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich all say that "God forbid" is a legitimate translation in English of "me genoito &gt;

I don't care about opinions as to "legitimate" rendering. The question is: Is the name of God in the text or not? As to oaths, we are to take none at all (Matthew 5:34). Television and motion pictures throw in the name of God to 'strengthen' what is being said, as do most speakers at some time. Does it have your approval? 'God, yes!' do you say? or 'God forbid!'?

 

&lt; Using another Bible is not attacking the KJV. However, when you begin to pick the KJV apart then you are attacking it. &gt;

Studying the Bible is not attacking anything.

&lt; I don't pick other Bibles apart. I compare them to the KJV. &gt;

That is 'picking them apart,' and the JimmyBible is no standard for comparison.

&lt; I am not in a position to determine your salvation. &gt;

Ain't you just SO noble?

&lt; Readability is not the issue. &gt;

If you really think so, you would be opposed to any translation at all. You would think anyone must learn the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek to read the scriptures. But why bother with those languages or with any form of English?...afterall, "Readability is not the issue"... it doesn't matter if the Bible is read or not, right?

&lt; I do not believe there are any translational errors in the KJV. &gt;

That's a dogma, and it is not the dogma which is the basis of the Christian faith.

&lt; I believe God was guiding the KJV translators in their selection of texts. &gt;

That is another dogma which bears no relevance to faith in Christ. If you even know exactly which texts they used, identify them.

&lt;I believe God was guiding the KJV translators in their selection of words. &gt;

So God is behind such beautiful words as "a bastard shall not enter
(Deuteronomy 23:2)
"; drink their own piss with you (Isaiah 36:12);" "And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight (Ezekiel 4:12)?"

&lt;I don't feel nervous one bit. &gt;

Ain't that praiseworthy?

 

Since I asked the questions, I think I will also give you my responses from a common-sense point of view.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BroSmith:
1. The Westcott and Hort Text is the foundation of all modern versions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Prove it? Let's see the documentation. As I said in another post, one of my least favorite translations is the NIV, but read the description of documents utilized and compared. Westcott and Hort is not the only text utilized nor do they necessarily make up the basic foundation of new translations. Even the NIV is very careful and placing notations of what other manuscripts have either left out or added at the bottom of the pages.

By the way, whether you may or may not like it or believe it, a LOT of the basis for the KJV was the Bishop's Bible---of Roman Catholic descent (round about). It was NOT completely translated from the Textus Receptus as many KJVO's tend to believe. Those documents were used to fill in missing or misunderstood parts.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

2. Westcott and Hort were not saved, they were devout Roman Catholics.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, don't you think God is almighty and powerful enough to use a non-Christian in his work? The Bible (the Word of God -- including the KJV is full of examples of non-believers being used for a purpose.

Whether or not they are Christians, they spent a tremendous amount of time using the same type of textual criticism used in the King James Version to come up with as accurate of copy of the ancient manuscripts as possible.

So, you are also telling me that EVERY single one of the translators who translated the KJV WERE "verified", "guaranteed", and "certified" Christians"?

In fact, your statement is also a smoke-screen (using your own words) because this means anybody who has been responsible for handling or copying documents which were originally used in the KJV must all be "legitimate" Christians without exception.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
3. Using another Bible is not attacking the KJV. However, when you begin to pick the KJV apart then you are attacking it. I don't pick other Bibles apart. I compare them to the KJV.
[/QUOTE/]

As was stated earlier, digging into the wording and comparing with original language manuscripts does not constitute tearing them apart. I too compare Bibles, and I too feel the KJV is a great translation, but it has its minor translational errors, too. It, like the other translations, contain the gospels, the prophecy, the history, the epistles, etc. etc. and I've completely read both the KJV and the NASB, NIV and others more than once and have concluded that the message is just as effective if not more powerful is an easier read translation. (We'll cover that one in a minute.)

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joey M:
Amen!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You too are invited to respond specifically to my responses.
God Bless.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but this is an issue which uses the same arguments over and over again and I honestly don't feel anybody is going to change their opinions becaused most were probably formed in the church they either grew up in or "grew up as a Christian" in. If they had a good minister who was KJVO, then they will maintain those arguments and remain KJVO.
I for one, was once KJVO until I embarked on a deep study of the issue. I have come to realize that (in my opinion) I was wrong. . . that the ONLY Perfect Words of Christ were recorded by the apostles and the originals are long-gone--even though the Jews were very careful and did a fantastic job of preserving the Word of God down through the ages.
I do believe there is a reason those documents are no longer available. One I won't get into, but the other is that they would be worshipped by man as an idol, when they are nothing more than written words on papyrus. It is the meaning of those words that contains the Word of God.
Maybe this thread should be left open for a few more rounds of responses, just so we will know how our brothers in Christ who disagree feel and think; otherwise I think this is the only real benefit of continuing.
God bless you all--and you too Dr. Cassidy.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Westcott and Hort were not saved, they were devout Roman Catholics. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They were? (I thought they were Anglican).

I guess then the Byzantine texts of teh KJV must be thrown out then, as they were preserved and copied by the Greek Orthodox?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BroSmith:
1. The Westcott and Hort Text is the foundation of all modern versions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> False. But they did develop methods of textual criticism which were scientific in their approach as opposed to being dictated by doctrinal biases.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2. Westcott and Hort were not saved, they were devout Roman Catholics.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> They were Anglicans just like the KJV translators, not RCC. I haven't researched them well enough to know if their testimony was good or not.

BTW, if being tainted by the RCC is a disqualifier then what do you do with the TR which was originated by a Catholic or the KJV which was definitely influenced by the Vulgate. It is well documented and undeniable that the KJV agrees with the (RCC) Latin Vulgate at I John 5:7-8 and Rev. 22:18 against most other evidence.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>3. ...I compare them to the KJV.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Therein lies part of your problem. The KJV is not the standard. The standard is the God inspired originals. The questions are: 1-what methods are best for determining the text of the originals and 2- whether translations are faithful to the text from which they are rendered.

You compare MV's to the KJV. We compare all to what we believe the originals most likely said. Unless you believe and can prove that the KJV was inspired by God then our foundation (even acknowledging that some passages are still in question) is much sounder than yours.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>4. I am not in a position to determine your salvation. That is a smoke screen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually it is a very serious question. I know pastors that teach that persons who do not accept the KJV as the perfect, inerrant Word of God are not saved. I think that Ernie even suggested this idea on the board.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>5. Readability is not the issue. That is a smoke screen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Readability is very much an issue. I have heard more than one speaker misapply scripture because they did not know what the KJV definition of "conversation" was. There are numerous words where the primary definitions have changed, some words have dropped out of usage, and the phrasing can sometimes be confusing.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>6. I do not believe there are any translational errors in the KJV.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is an opinion in denial of the facts.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>7. I believe God was guiding the KJV translators in their selection of texts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Was God also guiding some of these same Anglicans when the pronounced judgment against Baptists, Puritans, and Separatists for denying Anglican doctrines (such as prelacy) that we would also reject? Did God guide them to the correct form of baptism? Did God guide Archbishop Andrewes, who effectively headed up the KJV translation committee, to the conclusion that communion was both sacrament and sacrifice?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>8. I believe God was guiding the KJV translators in their selection of words.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> See above. Also, if God chose the words "committeth" and "transgresseth" in I John 3, what does that passage mean? If we commit sin is that proof that we are unsaved?...or if we "practice" sin as the NASB has it?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>9. I don't feel nervous one bit. I am not the one saying, "yea, hath God said."

Bro. Steve Smith<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really...then how did you arrive at KJVOnlyism? You say that the KJV must be perfect because "God promised to preserve" His Word. If this isn't putting words in God's mouth then what is?

[ September 27, 2001: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott J:


Really...then how did you arrive at KJVOnlyism? You say that the KJV must be perfect because "God promised to preserve" His Word. If this isn't putting words in God's mouth then what is?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny, how we have all responded with legimate and factual responses and the KJV Only crowd aren't answering---Maybe they are trying to find answers that are based on fact and not opinion. ....takes a little time when you have to make it up. LOL

Come one, KJVOs -- give us some answers to debate!

 

&lt; Readability is not the issue. That is a smoke screen. &gt;

Of all the imbecilic notions promulgated by the Jimmy-ites, this is one of the most aimless. If readability is not an issue, there is no reason for scripture to exist in any form in any language whatsoever.

 

I'd like to change the direction of this thread just a bit. There seems to be no more passionate discussion on this board than the KJV-Only arguments. This is clearly the most divisive issue among the Baptists who come together on this board.

Why is that?

I've observed that the KJV-Only position has virtually no understanding of the processes of translation or manuscript preservation that have led to the existence of more modern English versions. The problem is that their basis of evaluation of all other translations is the KJV itself, which is a subjective, not an objective, standard. The basis of evaluation of all translations, including the KJV, should be the oldest, most reliable manuscripts of the Bible and the most accurate, unbiased translation is the one that is keyed to the most modern usage of the language.

But, does holding to the KJV as the only acceptable English translation keep these people from knowing the sufficient essentials of God's word? I think the answer to that is a resounding NO!

On the other side, those of us who accept and use the more modern translations on the basis of the more objective standard of ancient manuscripts and better translation techniques are also reading, studying, interpreting and applying scripture. We are not prevented, either, from a sufficient understanding of God's word. But we have our preferences, too, based on our biases. Still, there are thousands of Christians who use these versions (NASB, NRSV, NIV, NKJB) in their daily walk and faith, and are not hindered, correct?

Now, I did learn a lot of Baptist history in college and I am well aware that our Baptist brethren back in the early days of the separatist movements suffered mightily at the hands of their Anglican persecutors. So I find it surprising that there are Baptists who are so defensive of an English translation of the Bible that was the work of the Anglican Church (only one generation removed from being the Catholic Church, mind you, and only slightly altered in theology and practice) which was the persecutor of our Baptist ancestors.

So why not just accept that there will be differences of opinion, but recognize that we are all on the same side, heading in the same general direction?

 

INCOMING!!!!!


(ellis, I agree 100%, but observe the barage of hate this will arouse from "the other side")