A KJV-Only Question...

Although KJV Onlyism is most observable in IFB circles, it exists throughout Evangelicalism, in the SBC and even among some Presbyterian and Reformed groups. The KJV is also the official translation of the Protestant Reformed Church in America (www.prca.org).

 

Chris is pretty well right on target. The only thing I'd add is that among SBC churches, the KJVonlyism there is more of the sentimental type, rather than being based upon loyalty to a mss type or hatred of another type. Then again, some might argue that this is typical of much of KJVonlyism regardless of denomination Depends on who you ask I suppose.
But back to the SBC. Up until a few years ago, there was a resolution offered at almost every annual SBC meeting to make the KJV the "official" Bible of the SBC. But since SBC churches are autonomous, this would fail and usually be ruled out of order.
Oops, now I'm the one rambling


[ August 17, 2001: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

Umdum:

I, too, am a KJV-onlyer. I belong to a "Fellowship" Baptist church in Canada that is not KJV-Only but is a soul-winning church. My son is a Pastor here in Canada and we disagree on this issue, but I have learned a long time ago that it should never be a test of fellowship, nor does it have anything to do with salvation.

God works in spite of the versions and all that Satan, working through the thousands of translators of the 150 "Bibles" on the market today.

People need to pray about this, allow the Holy Spirit to guide them to the truth and then they will see it.

This is one issue that Satan has used very effectively to divide believers and turn one against another.

Given all the new, watered-down perversions of God's word available today, it will now be very difficult to get new,young believers into the pure word of the KJV because even their Pastors and Parents find it too difficult to read.

We need to be praying that a new committee of true believers will soon form to give us a new version of the pure word, inspired and preserved perfect, with nothing changed except the old English words, a few of which have changed in their meaning. It is time for a modern KJVersion, based on the Textus Receptus and the KJV 1611, for our young believers who have so much trouble with the old English language.

I don't know if you have noticed but there are also many new-age choruses replacing the old favorite hymns of the faith. These choruses never mention the name of Jesus, the blood, the cross or salvation. They could be sung as easily in Buddhist Monastery as in a Baptist Church. I do believe we are being set up for the one-world church prophesied in scripture.

Hang in there.

Don't let'em get you down. The way is narrow and few are they that find it!!

 

< a new version of the pure word, inspired and preserved perfect, with nothing changed except the old English words, a few of which have changed in their meaning. >

That is extremely stoopid. The very reason the KJV communicates falsely is because some of its words "have changed in their meaning--" the very reason modern versions do and should exist. Why state the reason for not using the (1769) KJV while referring to it as "pure" and "perfect?" If it actually were pure and perfect, then any change whatsoever would remove purity and perfection, which is what you are proposing.

 

Bro Cassidy could recommend some versions that update the KJV. My personal favorite and the most popular (which of course doesn't mean it's the most accurate) is the NKJV.My church has switched our pew Bibles a couple of months ago from the KJV to NKJV, and the folks seem to appreciate it.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rockfort:
That is extremely stoopid. The very reason the KJV communicates falsely is because some of its words "have changed in their meaning--" the very reason modern versions do and should exist. Why state the reason for not using the (1769) KJV while referring to it as "pure" and "perfect?" If it actually were pure and perfect, then any change whatsoever would remove purity and perfection, which is what you are proposing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What's "stoopid" about it? If a man is willing to admit that the KJV is not perfect and would like to see a modernization of it, I say amen to that. Translation preferences do remain a matter of personal taste and choice.

While we should rightly come down hard on KJV onlyism that claims inerrancy for one archaic English translation alone, we should conversely uphold the individual's right to prefer the KJV or any modern update of it, so long as he does not claim exclusivity for that translation.

(BTW uhdum, it has been done in the NKJV, MKJV, LITV, KJ21 and KJ2000.)

 

If I may put in my two cents worth. I understand that the Hebrew text underlying the NKJV is different than the one used in the KJV translation. This is a far cry from updating a version.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pawn raider:
If I may put in my two cents worth. I understand that the Hebrew text underlying the NKJV is different than the one used in the KJV translation. This is a far cry from updating a version.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dr. James D. Price, Executive Editor of the NKJV Old Testament, said this in response to criticisms of the NKJV by D. A. Waite:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> ‘THE NEW KJV ADMITTED IT DID NOT USE THE SAME OLD TESTAMENT TEXT USED FOR THE KING JAMES BIBLE.’ This is an erroneous twisting of a perfectly clear statement in the preface of the 1982 edition, and it is evidence that Waite either is ignorant of the text used by the KJV translators or he failed to do his homework before making such an unfounded accusation. The statement says that we ‘consulted and/or made use of’ various other textual authorities, but it does not say that we used as the standard for translation a different Hebrew text than the Hebrew text used by the KJV translators in 1611. In fact, we used exactly the same text as they did. This too could have been confirmed by one telephone call or letter. Our practice was in perfect harmony with the practice of the 1611 translators. With regard to the textual sources used by the 1611 translators, Miles Smith wrote in the preface to the 1611 edition entitled, ‘The Translators To The Readers:’

‘If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew of the Old
Testament and the Greek of the New....These tongues therefore, we should say the Scriptures in these tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues in which God was pleased to speak to his Church by his Prophets and Apostles....Neither did we think lightly of consulting the translators or commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch.’

“Obviously they felt free to consult and/or use various other sources of authority. Our consulting and/or use of other authorities was of the same kind and purpose as theirs -- for the purpose of clarification, illumination, and possible alternate readings.

“Regarding alternate readings on the margin, Miles Smith wrote in his ‘The
Translators To The Reader:’

'Some perhaps would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding controversies, by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we do not hold their judgment to be so sound in this point....Now in such a case, does not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that without investigation?...So diversity of significance and sense in the margin, where the text is not clear, must needs do good, indeed, it is necessary, as we are persuaded.’

“Now Waite seems to have missed such statements in his KJV 1611, and the fact
that the 1611 edition had 2,156 marginal notes listing alternate readings in the Old Testament and 582 in the New Testament (Scrivener, xxv, xxx). The notes occasionally made reference to the reading of the Greek Septuagint (cf. Gen. 5:12, 21; 10:10), but the alternate renderings frequently reflect the influence of the Septuagint, Latin, Syriac, or Targums without direct mention of such a source in the note; yet Waite criticizes the NKJV for its similar marginal notes which acknowledge the sources rather than conceal them. He speaks of modern Bible readers as though they were naive ignoramuses who would be deceived by such honest contemporary notation. Unsophisticated readers do not notice marginal notes nor understand them. Shame on the foolish pastor or teacher who plants seeds of doubt in the minds of simple believers regarding notes that they themselves do not understand.

“But he reveals greater lack of care in stating that our notes indicate changes from the Masoretic Text (i.e., what he regards as the text used by the KJV translators). The KJV 1611 translators had two basic Hebrew editions before them: the second edition of the Bomberg Rabbinic Bible edited by Ben Chayyim (abbreviated as ‘Bg’ in our notes), and the Complutensian Polyglot.

“Modern Hebrew scholars regard Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica (BHK) and Biblia
Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) to be the best critical authorities for the Masoretic Text; the difference between BHK and BHS is microscopic. But in those few places where Bg (the TR text of the KJV) differs from BHK/BHS (the modern critical editions of the MT), the NKJV follows Bg with a marginal note listing the reading of MT (=BHK/BHS). Such notes do not indicate a departure from the TR (=Bg) of the KJV Hebrew Text, but rather a careful adherence to the KJV Hebrew TR against the modern critical edition of the MT. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See http://kjvonlyism.tripod.com/gary/response_to_waite.htm

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> He speaks of modern Bible readers as though they were naive ignoramuses who would be deceived by such honest contemporary notation. Unsophisticated readers do not notice marginal notes nor understand them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And the ad hominem monster rears it's head once more!

Also, Kittel was an anti-semite that was convicted of war crimes during WW2. Strange how an anti-semite would produce a Hebrew bible.
I'm not familiar with Waite so I don't see what he has to do with this.

[ August 19, 2001: Message edited by: pawn raider ]

 

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia differs from the Ben Chayyim text, (Bomberg) in only eight places which would effect translation: Proverbs 8:16; Isaiah 10:16; Isaiah 27:2; Isaiah 38:14; Jeremiah 34:1; Ezekiel 30:18; Zephaniah 3:15; and Malachi 1:12. In all 8 cases the NKJV follows the reading of the KJV.

 

who cares? a bible is a bible and doesn't everyone believe that every 'bible' is supposed to be the Word Of God anywayz? if God was so powerful , he should be able to thwart Satan's plans from succeeding, and so may i put it to everyone, that all Bibles are good, because God is God and He's able to stop the devil from tampering with his word, PS. what about in poorer countries, for those without a bible, ,they'd be lucky just to get one, so the translation is all the same, if God wants' everyone to be saved, i think He would keep the Satan from messing around, don' t u think so?

so what's the big deal, i read the Good News Bible (GNB) , NKJV, NIV, RSV, NESB, and so on, again, Whas the big deal?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gabber Piet:
who cares? a bible is a bible and doesn't everyone believe that every 'bible' is supposed to be the Word Of God anywayz? if God was so powerful , he should be able to thwart Satan's plans from succeeding, and so may i put it to everyone, that all Bibles are good, because God is God and He's able to stop the devil from tampering with his word, PS. what about in poorer countries, for those without a bible, ,they'd be lucky just to get one, so the translation is all the same, if God wants' everyone to be saved, i think He would keep the Satan from messing around, don' t u think so?

so what's the big deal, i read the Good News Bible (GNB) , NKJV, NIV, RSV, NESB, and so on, again, Whas the big deal? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen -- Funny, I get the same thing from reading the NIV as I do the KJV when I don't take it out of context and read the entire chapter. The little differences are primarily words which are different today than before. Nothing has been left out that changes doctrine whatsoever in the mainstream translations. My daughter can't read very well so she reads the NIV because she enjoys it and cannot read the KJV because of her reading skills (unless I were to force her too) --- now she loves to read the Bible all the time.

I will make one remark--my remarks apply to "translations" and not "paraphrases" like the Living Bible. I might refer to them, but do not consider them accurate enough for independent study.