Why I am KJV only

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
It is called "honesty of translation." The KJV does not attempt to interpret it just translates.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hate to jump in again, but this is a bit of a misrepresentation. All translations, of necessity, interpret. It is impossible to translate without interpretation. The KJV interprets many times (e.g., Matt 26:44)

When God said, "mashteen" what was he talking about? He was talking about cutting off men. The text uses a idiom or a euphemism.

It is funny how we argue that the exact formal equivalence should be chosen here, in spite of its crudeness in modern society, while places like Matt 26:44, Rom 6:2 and others, we reject formal equivalence for dynamic equivalence. I don't think you can have it both ways.

 

Larry, once again you have displayed a seeming inability to follow a simple conversation. If you will go back and read the post I was commenting on, you will note the words objected to, which are found in 1 Samuel 25:22, 34; 1 Kings 14:10, 16:11, 21:21, and 2 Kings 9:8. If you will read Matt 26:44 and Rom 6:2 you will see the words in question do not appear in those verses. Once again you seem to have posted for no other reason than to disrupt the discussion and contradict what I have said. If you have no other reason for posting, why not just keep silent?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
Larry, once again you have displayed a seeming inability to follow a simple conversation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Once again, a clear misrepresentation of the truth. I can follow the conversation very well which is why I am able to build upon what you are arguing and take it to other texts where your argument here is violated by the KJV. I am tracing your argument beyond where you are willing to go with it. You claim that the "words in question" in the various verses listed should have been translated just as they appear in the original language text. I was pointing out that if that is truly the case, then it should apply to other passages as well where the KJV does the very same thing the MVs do.

While you are concerned about the "words in question," (which is fine) I am pointing to the larger issue of the "principle in question."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Once again you seem to have posted for no other reason than to disrupt the discussion and contradict what I have said. If you have no other reason for posting, why not just keep silent?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, a misunderstanding on your part. I have not disrupted the discussion. I have posted something very germane to the issue. It was a point that you over simplified and misrepresented.

In this post, instead of addressing the principle under discussion, you choose to make a personal statement about me.

Comment on the verses I gave and principle in question if you will. Tell us why "mashteen" should be translated literally (if not somewhat crassly, using a word that is very clearly inappropriate slang), while the KJV apparently gets a "free ride" from you when they do not translate the words that God put in the text. That is the principle under discussion here.

 

Larry, once again you have tried to misrepresent me and what I was discussing. My post was in reply to Cynic's statement, "And does 'any that pisseth against the wall' have the same flow of 'as much as one male?'" I was not discussing a principal, but that, and only that, statement. I realize you hate to allow me to say anything without attacking me, my beliefs and my statements, but can't you just give it a rest for awhile? Find somebody else to harrass. I have better things to do.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
searcher, have you ever considered the possibility that the problem was not the KJV but 1 Corinthians 2:14?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Thomas! I love that verse! (It comes in handy witnessing to people who say they have tried to read the bible but found themselves 'unable to believe' it). My problem was not so much in believing, but in understanding!

Maybe an example will clear up this point?

An unregenerate unilingual anglophone hears about Jesus, and wants to learn about God. He opens his father's German bible, but cannot comprehend the German. Does 1 Cor 2:14 apply here?

I don't believe my problem was spiritual.

Your question seems to indicate an underlaying premise: that had I been more spiritual at the time I would have understood the KJV.

Can you see how that premise would be offensive to a Christian?

I do not say these things in accusation, or even imply that you meant them. I only draw attention to them because it may benefit you to know how your living episitle is being seen.

Searcher.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Searcher:
I don't believe my problem was spiritual.

Your question seems to indicate an underlaying premise: that had I been more spiritual at the time I would have understood the KJV.

Can you see how that premise would be offensive to a Christian?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You stated in your post you were unsaved at the time. I believe the Holy Spirit is our Guide into all Truth, and that the bible is the word of Truth. I simply suggested the problem may have been the lack of the Holy Spirit guiding you into all truth rather than the KJV English. We have kids in our school who have just learned to read who can understand KJV English. Granted they have been raised on it, but nevertheless, with a little study, and a good dictionary, I am of the opinion the KJV English is understandable by all those of reasonably normal intellect.

I really don't see how you can say, as a lost person, you had no spiritual problem, or that a lost person being lost is somehow being offensive, but then, I come from a generation that just doesn't understand all the politcal correctness going around. I still think it is perfectly correct to tell a lost person he is lost, and that a sinner is a sinner, and agree with a person that he was lost at the time, etc., but maybe I am just way behind the times.

[ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

AAAAAMEN to that, Pastor Larry!

that's the weakness of Formal Equivalency--it assumes that word-level correspondence across languages is a measure of accuracy and then proceeds to cite the KJB.

what a joke!

[ January 12, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Forever settled in heaven:

that's the weakness of Formal Equivalency--it assumes that word-level correspondence across languages is a measure of accuracy and then proceeds to cite the KJB.

what a joke!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FSIH:

Could you provide evidence that:

1. Formal Equivalency is a "joke".
2. It is not desirable to translate every verbally inspired word of God as formally as possible, where possible?

Thanks.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
You stated in your post you were unsaved at the time. ... I simply suggested the problem may have been the lack of the Holy Spirit guiding you into all truth rather than the KJV English. [ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you again Thomas! I agree with you about Political correctness. It is counter productive to biblical witnessing. I apologize if my post gives you the impression that I am weak on the truth, I am not.

I try to be gentle, patient all the time, and when I have the opportunity to share the truth with someone, I try to come at it as humbly as I am able; prefering to avoid arguments. I try to share God's glory, trusting His truth to produce the contrition that will bring about a real salvation.

I thank God for this. His wisdom is the only wisdom.

I apologize if my experience with the KJV was a poor example. If I follow your reasoning correctly, I was a slow witted, exceptionally timid child, who without the Spirit leading me into truth found the KJV incomprehensible.

I agree that the Holy Spirit teaches us (1 John 2:27), but while the Spirit teaches us, what you're suggesting is that the bible is incomprehensible without it! How then could an unregenerate person read it [the bible] and learn about salvation?

I love you Thomas. You seem like a great guy. If I have rubbed you wrong or said something that gets under your skin, please forgive me.

I love God, and I love His word. I believe you do to.

Searcher.

[ January 12, 2002: Message edited by: Searcher ]

 

&lt;sigh&gt; Never mind.

 

&gt;&gt; FSIH: Could you provide evidence that:
1. Formal Equivalency is a "joke".

it assumes that word-level correspondence across languages is a measure of accuracy and then proceeds to cite the KJB.

&gt;&gt; 2. It is not desirable to translate every verbally inspired word of God as formally as possible, where possible?

1. the NT's quotation of the OT doesn't do it, with rare exceptions.
2. leading Bible translators fr Jerome to Luther n members of the International Bible Society don't either.
3. nor did the revered KJB translators.

because literalness is a non sequitur to verbal inspiration (Beekman n Callow).

 

An example of dynamic equivalence:

In college, my prof either told us this story or I read it in my Anthropology text book, anyway;

It seems that there was sissionary ministering to a tribe that had no concept of lambs, or sheep - but they knew what chickens were. In fact, they worshipped chickens.

Anyway, this enterprising young man dealt with the verse "Behold, the lamb of God" thusly: "Behold, the chicken of God".

I guess he led some to Christ - even with the questionable rendering of John 1:29.

This "seems" to be situation where the translator had no choice.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>it assumes that word-level correspondence across languages is a measure of accuracy and then proceeds to cite the KJB. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Speaking of non sequitors
The NASB, ASV, NKJV and ESV translate formally and do not cite the KJV.

You seem to be equating formal equivalency translation theory with KJV onlyism where the link does not exist. You are also equating formal equivalency with wooden-literalism, which is also incorrect.

As the translators of the ESV state:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The ESV is an "essentially literal" translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer. As such, its emphasis is on "word-for-word" correspondence, at the same time taking into account differences of grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary English and the original languages. Thus it seeks to be transparent to the original text, letting the reader see as directly as possible the structure and meaning of the original.

In contrast to the ESV, some Bible versions have followed a "thought-for-thought" rather than "word-for-word" translation philosophy, emphasizing "dynamic equivalence" rather than the "essentially literal" meaning of the original. A "thought-for-thought" translation is of necessity more inclined to reflect the interpretive opinions of the translator and the influences of contemporary culture.

Every translation is at many points a trade-off between literal precision and read-ability, between "formal equivalence" in expression and "functional equivalence" in communication, and the ESV is no exception. Within this framework we have sought to be "as literal as possible" while maintaining clarity of expression and literary excellence. Therefore, to the extent that plain English permits and the meaning in each case allows, we have sought to use the same English word for important recurring words in the original; and, as far as grammar and syntax allow, we have rendered Old Testament passages cited in the New in ways that show their correspondence. Thus in each of these areas, as well as throughout the Bible as a whole, we have sought to capture the echoes and overtones of meaning that are so abundantly present in the original texts. As an essentially literal translation, then, the ESV seeks to carry over every possible nuance of meaning in the original words of Scripture into our own language. As such, it is ideally suited for in-depth study of the Bible. Indeed, with its emphasis on literary excellence, the ESV is equally suited for public reading and preaching, for private reading and reflection, for both academic and devotional study, and for Scripture memorization.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See ESV Translation Philosophy

[ January 13, 2002: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]

 

I visited this site many times and could defend the KJV if I had a mind to but that is not my purpose of coming here. I'm here only to state why I read it as the KJV will defend itself. What matters to me is why I read and study the KJV not what anyone thinks of it or what I think of what they read or study?

If they get enjoyment out of the different translations they read who am I to rain on their parade. When we get right down to it we all march to the beat of a different drummer but God leads the parade.

Two people could get on this board and have the same bible with the same verse and get different applications of the same verse. Why? The verse are the same but the experiences of God with each of his children are different. That is what makes each of us special and unique in Gods eyes.

I read the KJV because I've had a different revelation than someone else who reads a different translation. Is what I read wrong? No!... Not to me. Is what someone else reads wrong? No!... Not to them. It is only wrong in this sense if it changes doctrine. If it changes christian doctrine then it is dead wrong.

I had a chance to read other versions but felt the KJV was sufficient for me. I have no future plans to read any other and just stick to the trusted KJV. In my walk with the Lord and experiences of his grace this version of his word has been a daily comfort for me in a wicked and evil world... Brother Glen

 

thx for the sharing, Tyndale.

&gt;&gt; It is only wrong in this sense if it changes doctrine. If it changes christian doctrine then it is dead wrong.

can i take it that u've found no doctrinal changes in either the KJB or other versions?

 

Just wanted to say a few things as I have read along. It is sad enough that there is such a heresy as KJV Onlyism. But I feel perhaps more sadder is the fact that more and more seem to fall for the deception of dynamic equivalency translations. Even sadder is when some begin defending dynamic equivalency against literal, or, formal translation. And the most pathetic is when one defends D.E. with secular and profane linguistic arguments. And surprisingly many such call themselves fundamentalists. I would call them rather liberals, or pseudo fundamentalists. I believe such have a real hard time defending their position/error from the word of God. I cannot believe God the Lord favors D.E. translation techniques. And as some said KJV Onlyism has nothing to do with formal equivalency. Still many if not most KJV Onlyists honorably stand for literal translation, in spite of their twistedness w. respect to the KJV. Formal equivalency may be employed in rare cases when it seems impossible to translate literally, but the main policy in Bible translation should always be to faithfully carry across God's words to the receptor language. Nothing new in what I said, but still had to say it.

Harald

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Harald:
I cannot believe God the Lord favors D.E. translation techniques.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

On what verse or principle do you base this belief? I am curious as to what leads you to believe that the Lord does not favor a particular philosophy of translation.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...the main policy in Bible translation should always be to faithfully carry across God's words to the receptor language.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why isn't the main policy to faithfully carry across God's message contained in the words to the receptor language? It seems to me that the message is pretty important.

FTR, I am not defending a wholesale use of DE. I am simply saying that it is impossible to accurately translate without it. And it is entirely possible to be a fundamentalist and to use DE. Don't be mislead by that argument.

 

One of the "Fundamentals of the Faith" is the Inspiration of the Bible. In his excellent article "The Inspiration of the Bible," Dr. James M. Gray, formerly Dean of Moody Bible Institute says in "The Fundamentals" (volume 2, page 15, 17), 2. The inspiration includes not only all the books of the Bible in general but in detail, the form as well as the substance, the word as well as the thought. . . . In the last analysis, it is the Bible itself, of course, which must settle the question of inspiration and the extent of it, and to this we come in the consideration of the proof, but we may be allowed a final question. Can even God Himself give a thought to man without the words that clothe it? Are not the two inseparable, as much so "as a sum its figures, or a tune and its notes?" Has any case been known in human history where a healthy mind has been able to create ideas without expressing them to its own perception? In other words, as Dr. A. J. Gordon once observed: "To deny that the Holy Spirit speaks in scripture is an intelligible proposition, but to admit that He speaks, it is impossible to know what He says except we have His Words."

 

Inspiration is defined as that work of the Holy Spirit of God upon the minds, souls, and bodies of the Scripture writers which makes their writings the record of a progressive divine revelation. When God determined to give to His creation the Self-revelation that we today call the Bible, He selected the Prophets of the Old Testament, and the Apostles of the New Testament, and through the agency of His indwelling Holy Spirit so over came the sin nature of these men that the words which He selected from the reservoir of the culture, education, experience, and personality of the man were His chosen words, and no others. This process of inspiration was two fold: Verbal, the very words that God selected were the very words that best revealed the mind and will of God to His creation. Thus, every word so inspired was in fact, the Word of God. Plenary, the collection of words that we call the Bible is, in its whole, the complete Word of God, without error or contradiction. The entire Bible, regardless of subject matter, is the infallible, unfailing, Revelation of God.

Now let's look at some of the various theories of inspiration that have been common in historic Christendom.

The Intuition or Natural Theory is held by the typical Modernist today, who believes that inspiration is merely a higher development of that natural insight into truth which all men posses to some degree. In other words, the Bible is merely a book by men with highly religious motivation, and is similar to a book about science written by men with highly scientific motivation. This theory, holding as it does that natural insight is the only source of religious truth, involves a serious self-contradiction; if the theory is true, then one man is inspired to utter that which another man is inspired to condemn. The Koran and the Bible cannot both be inspired Truth, as they contradict each other. This theory reduces moral and religious truth to the subjective - a matter of private opinion - having no objective reality apart from the opinions of men.

The Illumination or Mystical Theory regards inspiration as merely an intensifying and elevating of the religious perceptions of the believer, the same in kind, though greater in degree, as the illumination of every believer by the Holy Spirit. This position holds that the Bible is not the Word of God, but only contains the Word of God, and that not the writings, but only the writers were inspired. Of course, we must admit that there is an illumination of the mind of the believer by the Holy Spirit as we look into the Word of God, but this illumination only allows us to understand that which has already been written, and cannot impart new truth.

The Dictation or Mechanical Theory holds that inspiration consisted in such a possession of the minds and bodies of the Scripture writers by the Holy Spirit, that they became passive instruments, not participating in any way in the process of inspiration. This theory fails to explain the medical terms used by Luke, the military and sporting terms used by Paul, and the distinct differences between the books written by the various Old and New Testament writers. Of course, we must grant that there are instances when God's communications to mankind were in an audible voice, and took the form of spoken words, and that sometimes God commanded men to commit these words to writing for the edification of all men. However, the Dictation Theory would force this occasional event upon all of Scripture, quite apart from the evidence to the contrary.

The Dynamic or Conceptual Theory states that inspiration is not simply a natural, but also a supernatural fact, and that it is the immediate work of a personal God in the soul of man. This theory holds that the Scriptures contain a human as well as a divine element, so that while they present a body of divinely revealed truth, this truth is shaped in human molds and adapted to ordinary human intelligence, and is thus conceptual (the idea, or thought, or concept is inspired) rather than verbal (the very words are inspired) in its view of inspiration. This is the view held, unfortunately, by many fundamentalists today, and is the basis for the proliferation of the many English language translations of the Scriptures now on the market, each one trying to put into different words the inspired thought, or idea, or concept of the original, while glossing over or even ignoring the words inspired by God.

The Verbal and Formal Inspiration position believes that first of all the Holy Spirit worked in the Prophets of the Old Testament and the Apostles of the New Testament in such a way that the very words of God were selected from the vocabulary of the man, taking into account his culture, education, and experience, and that not only the very words, but also the forms of the words, such as noun, pronoun, verb, adverb, singular, plural, etc., were written at the prompting of the Holy Spirit. This view is the only one that can give us a completely inspired, inerrant, infallible, preserved Bible, as well as account for such statements as Paul saying that the very form of a word was inspired by God for a specific purpose as in Galatians 3:16, and Christ saying in Matthew 5:18 that not only was each word inspired, but every letter of every word was inspired. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the perfect mirror of the Lord Jesus Christ, which reflects Him and leads us to Him. Authority resides in the Scriptures just as it does in Him. Just as all authority is given to Christ (Matthew 28:18), the living Word, all authority is bound up in the Scriptures, the reflection of Him, the written Word of God.

If we mistakenly believe we have the authourity to change those words, I.E., engage in a non-formal style of translation, we have placed our own interpretations (this is what I think it means, or this is what I believe the concept is) over the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God Himself! We have confused the role of the translator with the role of the expositor. Nehemiah 8:8.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
If we mistakenly believe we have the authourity to change those words, I.E., engage in a non-formal style of translation, we have placed our own interpretations (this is what I think it means, or this is what I believe the concept is) over the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God Himself! We have confused the role of the translator with the role of the expositor. Nehemiah 8:8. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

still does not follow.

one can believe in verbal, plenary, formal inspiration, while not assuming any authority to change a single inspired word, and YET use a variety of linguistic options to communicate that sacred word in a target language.

this appears to be the way the Holy Spirit inspired the NT authors in their translated quotes of the OT.