Why the KJV?

Hey guys- I am really starting to believe that JYD is a MVer playing the fool to make KJVO's look bad. After all his time here, his arguments are so shallow and blatantly false that he has to be pitching batting practice for us.

Go ahead Neal... swing away.

 

God never made a grammatical error when inspiring the Scripture.

I agree. However, those who transcribed Scripture might have made grammatical errors, and those who translated scripture might have made grammatical as well as translational errors. These are issues separate from the issue of inspiration.

 

I have done some quick research into JYD’s accusation of the NKJV following something other than the TR. For those who do not wish to read the evidence below, I will sum it up: It is emphatically not true. JYD has repeated some information without bothering to compare the texts. If you get out your Greek texts and look these up, you will see that JYD has not accurately represented the facts. So I say again, the NKJV is based on the TR. In the passages below, there are three actual textual differences and in each of the three cases, the NKJV follows the TR, not the EC. It is simply untrue to say otherwise.

Now for those who want to see the individual breakdown, read on:

2thessalonians 2:7 – All Greek texts are the same here. There is no NASB (note correction of your error from NASV which doesn’t exist) vs. KJV here.

James 5:16, -- The only textual difference is harmartia vs. paraptoma. The TR (SCR) reads paraptoma and the NKJV translation of “faults” is a translation of that text. Harmartia is probably the more accurate (as the EC and the MVs have) but the NKJV did not follow it. The NKJV followed the TR and the KJV here.

Matt 20:20 – The only textual difference here does not really stand out in English. The last preposition is para (TR, MajT) against apo (EC). The words both mean essentially the same thing. Interestingly enough, the KJV and NKJV here have “deleted” the name of Jesus, something they accuse the MVs of doing (cf. NASB vs. NKJV, KJV).

Acts 4:27 – There is no textual difference here. All Greek texts read the same. The word is paida, which means servant or child. The problem with the KJV rendering is that Herod and Pilate and the Jews did not gather against Christ when he was a child, but rather as a grown man. The “servant” reference seems a clear reference to the “Servant Songs” of Isaiah where the Messiah is called the “servant of Yahweh.”

2 Tim 2:7 – This difference is between the future (EC) and the optative/subjunctive (TR/MajT). The KJV translation does not really make a lot of sense. It needs a verb such as “will give” or “may give.” The TR takes it as a prayer; the EC takes it as a promise. The promise seems better to me from theological grounds then a mere wish or prayer.

1 Thessalonians 5:22 – Again, no textual difference. All Greek texts read exactly the same. The issue surround the translation of “ponerou.” The translation of the KJV is unlikely. The NKJV and NASB have it right here. We are to abstain from every form of evil. There is no form of evil that is acceptable for the believer. However, this is an interpretive issue, not a textual one.

Acts 4:27,30 is a ASV reading which attacks the deity of Christ, -- You actually brought this up already and I showed it to be misplaced then. This verse does not attack the deity of Christ in anyway. Read the OT book of Isaiah and you will see what he is referring to.

Acts 4:13 is the NASV reading – There is no textual difference. The NKJV and the KJV translate the same text. The “NASB reading” is a clearer way to communicate what the verse means. The only difference is its clarity.

2Tim 2:22 & 2:26 are NASV readings – No textual difference here. Both the NKJV and KJV translate the same text.

John 14:2 is a RSV & NASV reading – Again no textual difference. All the Greek texts are the same. Here the KJV and the NKJV, read exactly the same with the exception of My vs. my.

2Tim 4:6 is a NASV reading, -- No textual difference. All Greek texts read the same here. The word the KJV translates as “be offered” means “to be offered as a drink offering” (Look it up before you deny it.)

Acts 17:29 is from the NASV – No textual difference here either. All Greek texts read the same and the only difference is “children” vs. “offspring” which obviously mean the same thing.

1st John 3:4,7 is also a NASV reading – Yet again, no textual difference here. All Greek texts read the same.

 

Are you so thinned skinned to look up the underlying texts and see if it is a textual difference? I always maintain that KJVOs are stuck on tradition of men. I am afraid that your statement that I fear men more that God is ridiculous and completely untrue. My friend, I have no 'peers' pressuring me one way or another. I have no ridicule to fear. See, I use my brain and observe the data and can see clearly that the NKJV is based on the TR. So you are the one with a problem with reality. You are willfully ignoring the truth and perpetuating a lie. I am not going to respond to your verses because Pastor Larry has done a fine job.

So will you continue to lie willfully?

Neal

 

Yes, you have understood me correctly. I can pull up individual verses with 20 different English translations on my screen. I can also view several different Greek NTs along with them. I always go with the TR (Scrivener 94/95) or the Masoretic Text.

Personally I don't make a distinction between formal and dynamic equivalence. My view is that any translation is a functional equivalent and I don't qualify it. Faithfulness to the original is my criteria. I have 20,000 pages of church "fathers" on my hard disk with a search engine.
They can be quite useful in determining obscure words and phrases or figures of speech.

HankD

 

A not-so gentle reminder to keep the gloves up and to remember that there is a difference between opinion and fact. Thank you.

TomVols
Moderator

 

Here is a good link for that question. http://www.touchet1611.org/WHYKJVintro.html

Also, just food for thought, people today that use other versions seem to accept drinking, gambling to be okay and that there is no Christian attire and that music doesn't matter as long as it mentions Jesus. I believe the reason they accept these things is because the new versions don't have that power that the King James Bible has.

Again, I must say, if we have, and we do have a perfect God, there has to be a perfect Word of God.

 

Homebound, Just for reference, the things you cite have nothing to do with versions. I know many KJVO's who reject CCM as of the Devil but at the same time listen to country music and rock-a-billy southern gospel indiscriminately. I know KJVO's that wouldn't know modesty if you smacked them up side the head with it. And I also know KJVO's that are hyper-legalists that make rigid standards out of their own personal convictions while holding loose standards in other areas of behaviour.

What you post may seem to be the case from your own experiences but mine are very different. The most sanctified church I ever went to was not KJVO. The least holy IFB church I have ever seen was radically KJVO.

 

As a user of modern versions, I adamantly reject this. I do not personally know any user of modern versions that believes this.

I think the reason is a lot more simple: They do not live by the Bible period. Translations have nothing to do with this.

[]quote]Again, I must say, if we have, and we do have a perfect God, there has to be a perfect Word of God. [/QUOTE]And again, I say, Why? There is no basis in Scripture for this belief, as you use the word perfect.

 

This was my experience with talking to other people. Sorry if I forgot to mention that.

You are correct, I am sure that there are KJO people out there that agree with the things I mentioned. I would say that they are "comfort zone Chrisitians." Meaning, as long as they attend church at least once a week that is all they do.

 

As a user of modern versions, I adamantly reject this. I do not personally know any user of modern versions that believes this.

I think the reason is a lot more simple: They do not live by the Bible period. Translations have nothing to do with this.

[]quote]Again, I must say, if we have, and we do have a perfect God, there has to be a perfect Word of God. </font>[/QUOTE]And again, I say, Why? There is no basis in Scripture for this belief, as you use the word perfect. [/QUOTE]


You believe that God has not given us a perfect Bible.

I believe that God has given us a perfect Bible. Why? Because it is His Word, not man. Plus,

Deuteronomy 32:4  He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

2 Samuel 22:31  As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all them that trust in him. and Psalms 18:30

Matthew 5:48  Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

 

Where did I say this? I never said this.

But none of that argue for the perfection of a particular version. Which seems to be the constant problem we run into. Your side tries to assert one version as perfect and then either offers no verses in support, or offers verses that do not teach the perfection of a particular version. Those verses are in my NASB and NIV. They prove nothing with respect to the perfection of one particular version.

 

AMEN!! HOMEBOUND

 

As a user of mutiple versions, I am against all of these things. Just so you know that 'all' MVers are not worldly hypocrites. But I must say that if you are just talking about types of music, I don't think that a certain type of music is bad, I am more concerned with the message of the song.

Neal

 

Where did I say this? I never said this.

But none of that argue for the perfection of a particular version. Which seems to be the constant problem we run into. Your side tries to assert one version as perfect and then either offers no verses in support, or offers verses that do not teach the perfection of a particular version. Those verses are in my NASB and NIV. They prove nothing with respect to the perfection of one particular version. </font>[/QUOTE]There is no verse that says, "this is the Bible you will use," just like there is no verse that says smoking a joint is wrong or right, but we know that it is wrong.

BTW, is there a perfect Bible?

 

BTW, is there a perfect Bible?

The subject of there being a perfect Bible is a different topic.

The topic at hand is whether or not there's a perfect translation.

The answer to that is "no".

 

This is apples and oranges. You can make a good scriptural case for not smoking a joint, starting with submit yourselves to government. Your side has yet to make even a marginal case for the exclusive use of the KJV. There is a big difference here also in substance. To compare the word of God in its various translations to the smoking of a joint is really reaching.

There is no perfect translation. A translation is good inasmuch as it reflects the original language manuscripts. This has been the orthodox position for several millenia. The KJV is an excellent translation, as is the NKJV, the NASB, the NIV, and the ESV. All of these faithfully communicate the word of God to us.

 

A translation is to the Bible as a dagger is to a Sword.


HomeBound

[ April 02, 2003, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

What??? A translation of the Bible is all most people can use since very few can read the original language texts. Any faithful translation of hte word of God is a sword.

I haven't seen anyone here say that they didn't believe in a perfect Bible.