Is KJVO unscriptural? (Topic started for 2 people)

I will ask that others respect our wishes, and allow myself and mrs. wookie to have a one on one discussion. As long as it is just she and I, we will stay on topic, and I am excited to see what she has to say. PLEASE OPEN ANOTHER THREAD IF YOU WISH TO COMMENT ON OUR DISCUSSION.

Now, to business. Mrs. Wookie, you believe that they KJV is perfect, and no other english translation is. I have a few questions as to how you came to that belief.

1. When you say perfect, do you mean that it is word for word exactly what God inspired Paul, Peter, John, Matthew etc to write in the original autographs? Word for word, letter for letter, "every jot and tittle", or merely perfect in doctrine? Be very specific.

2. What evidence is there that the KJV is a perfect reflection of what the biblical writers original wrote, since A) no 2 manuscripts agree 100%, B) Many readings from the KJV have almost zero greek support, and C) The KJV translators themselves made many statements indicating they did not believe that they had just created a perfect bible.

3. There are minor differences in the various KJVs out there today. The 1611 does not look anything like the KJV used today. The Oxford has a few word changes from the Cambridge. Which KJV (publisher and date) is the "perfect KJV" that you speak of?

I have others, and I dont need anyone else to help me here, so dont post answers or other questions PLEASE. Allow Mrs. Wookie to answer, and allow me to respond directly to her.

Thank you for your gracious agreement, Mrs. Wookie. I trust you believe my questions are sincere and designed to find the truth.

 

I completely understand. However, Mrs. Wookie and I have both agreed to a civil discussion, and I would not be able to understand why a christian wouldnt respect the wishes of 2 people having a civil discussion. I hope they will respect that.

We will make sure that there is no need for you to enforce any rules.

 

I will save my response to these until you have responded fully.

Take as long as you need. I cant believe I spelled it wrong! I am so sorry.

 

Very well put! I would have to say that I have NO PROBLEM whatsoever with anyone who believes the KJV is the best version. I disagree, but to me its much like our view of eschatology in that I have my belief, but I am not for certain, and I am not bothered by someone who disagrees, provided they allow for the disagreement. So, if you say "superior" and mean that you feel it is better, and its texts are better, I disagree, but I have no problem with that claim.

You say you believe God's word has been preserved in the KJV and not in the MVs. Do you have any evidence attesting to this, or is it simply a personal conviction? Let me explain: If there is evidence, then this fact will make it binding to all english speaking christians. However, if it is simply a personal conviction, then do you feel other english speaking christians are bound to it? Why or why not?

I love this passage as well. Before I comment on its meaning, I must ask you this: Are you aware of the footnote placed in the KJV 1611 by the KJV translators regarding this verse? If not, I will inform you. If so, would you comment on the reliability of that footnote, and what you think it means?

I agree that God promised to preserve his word for us. However, I do not understand how that fact can be seen as "evidence" that he did so in the KJV. None of those verses mentioned the KJV. I believe it is a good translation, though.

I guess I must ask this: Do you feel that the KJV is simply the "best" translation, or that it is the ONLY translation that should be used by english speaking christians? Please, be as specific as possible.

In order to comment on this, I must ask you what do you feel is a "change"? I would agree that a spelling change is of no consequence at all, but if any other words or wordings are different, do you feel this constitutes a "change"? If you need examples, I will provide them.

Thank you so much for your honest and straightforward responses! I think our discussion will be used by God to educate many people on how to discuss this issue without anger or spite! I encourage you to keep it up! I also think our manner of discussion will allow others to understand our respective views without distraction!

Now, I answer your questions.

Interestingly worded HAHA! I feel the NASB 95 is the most accurate representation of that was originally penned by the inspired writers. However, I dont think "perfection" is even in the picture for any one translation. Since in my opinion there is no direct evidence to conclusively prove which text type (alexandrian or byzantine) is the most accurate in each instance, I feel that God has preserved his perfect word through many translations. I feel it is our job to rely on the Holy Spirit to show us in those instances where the original reading is unclear which one is accurate. I have a article written to explain my view in detail, and if you want it, I will send it to you via PM.

I am not sure how to answer this. I would feel versions such as the NWT and Joseph Smith's translation have the most errors because many of their readings have no textual support at all. I do not view paraphrases at translations, so the message and living bible would not be considered. As far as english versions normally used by "christians", I do not like the NRSV and I feel it is a poor translation because it takes too much liberty in too many places in my opinion.

Most likely not as long as you. I am 26, and I have been studying manuscript evidence since I was 18, so a little more than 8 years. I have done quite a bit of research on the subject because I am so interested in it. However, I am always open to learning from those who have been at it longer than I!

Thank you again for your Christ-like attitude! God bless you this day!

 

OK, here is what you have shown: God promised to preserve his word. I AGREE!!! Now, the question remains, what evidence is there that he preserved it in the KJV? I believe that God preserved his word through many translations. What evidence is there that he even promised to preserve his word in one volume? I think these are legitimate questions, and they need specific answers. I dont think we can say "God promised to preserve is word, and though he didnt tell us where or how, I THINK it is the KJV, so that is my evidence."
Here is the problem, I can say the same thing about any other translation, and I would have the exact amount of evidence for it as you do. DO you have any evidence that points towards the KJV?

Would you provide me an example of how I will be steered wrong by using the NASB 95? Please be very specific.

Please be clear, are you saying that todays catholic bible does not say you must be born again, or that todays MVs do not say you must be born again? To clarify, by MV lets use the NIV and NASB.

The note is as follows:
"Heb.him, I. Euery one of them"
That note is in reference to the 2nd "them" in Psalm 12:7. Compare the KJV reading to that of several other translations before it:

As you can see, nearly every translation committee, INCLUDING the KJV translators, believed that this verse was speaking of PEOPLE, and not words, since the Hebrew here literally says "him". Do you disagree with the KJV transltors in this instance, or were you aware of their stance on this verse?

Here is a table which shows dozens of changes between the 1611 KJV and the present KJV.
KJVO revisions

Do you feel these constitute changes or not? If no, could you explain why not?

No, I mean that there are many readings in which it is unclear which one is the original. In many cases, the KJV chose readings that have almost ZERO support from greek manuscripts. In order for those readings to be authentic, God's word must have disappeared from its original language for over 1000 years. An example of this is 1 John 5:7-8. If this passage is real, then it disappeared completely without a trace from the greek manuscript record, meaning that God did not preserve his word for those he originally gave it to! Many claim that the byzantine text is the preserved word, but the byzantine record does not contain this reading in its texts body save for 2 manuscripts. I do not believe that this passage was written by John for his epistle, I believe it is CLEAR that it was added later. Do you agree or disagree, and why?

I think you mean which greek text were they based on, and that would be several greek texts based on mainly the byzantine texts. Erasmus' texts went through several editions, along with Stephanus/Beza and others. They were very close, but did have glaring differences, such as 1 John 5:7-8, which was not in Erasmus' first 2 editions, and he seriously doubted its authenticity. So the answer to your question is the TR, but I want to make it clear that there are MANY DIFFERENT TRs, and the one used today is not a true greek text, it is merely a reverse translation of the KJV. Are you aware of this fact?

OK, we need to get something clear here. I never claimed that the W&H text is "God's word". I did not claim it was perfect in any way. I do not believe it is.

The 2 manuscripts disagree so much because there are no 2 maunscripts which agree 100%.

I must ask you, are you aware that the various byzantine manuscripts disagree greatly as well?

Are you aware that many of the readings in the KJV disagree with almost every greek manuscript in existence?

How can the KJV be God's word when it disagrees with almost every greek manuscript in 1 John 5:7-8, Acts 8:37, and others.

In fact, many Muslims use 1 John 5:7-8 as a tool to disprove christianity. Since so many christians want to keep that verse because of what it says, and have no idea what the manuscript evidence for the verse is, muslims show people that we care so little about truth that we include a verse that goes against VIRTUALLY ALL EVIDENCE IN EXISTENCE. I have seen many people leave christianity because of this argument, since the only way to refute it is to show that the verse doesnt actually belong in the bible.

Great discussion! Keep it up, I think it will be very edifying for many people!

Thanks to everyone else for allowing us this discussion in public. I really appreciate it!

 

This is exactly where the problem comes up. Upon what standard or rule or criteria are you basing these "errors"? How do you know they are errors?

My evidence is in the fact that due to several glaring errors, its various revisions, and its poor textual choices, the KJV is not a perfect translation. I believe that although no one single translation is perfect, the entire word of God is in our hands. There are additions, but nothing is missing. I do not believe God inspired errors, but he did allow them so that we would have to rely on the Holy Spirit for his word. I wrote an article explaining this on another board, I will include a link to it in a PM.

And that is your right and privilidge. What I am asking for is some conclusive evidence as to why all the others are wrong when they disagree. We will discuss this in one case further down this post.

Here is what I would like to see. How do you know that the KJV translated these correctly? In these, I see no misleading, even if I acknowledge a vast difference. The others are another story, however.

Here again we have the same issue. I must ask, on what basis are you claiming an error? How do YOU KNOW that the KJV is correct? It seems to me that you blindly accept the KJV by faith, and that is fine. However, do you know if there is a textual variant here? Do you know if the translators were even sure of how to translate this passage? Do you read Hebrew?

Let it be known I am not mocking you. I am simply trying to acertain as to what evidence you have that the KJV is correct? This is what we have all been waiting for.

I acknowledge that the versions are different. What I would like to see is when you post verses that read differently, also posting some evidence to support your claim that the KJV is correct. Simply assuming it is is the main reason why this debate is so heating and annoying for many people. The KJVO simply assumes the KJV is correct, and requires everyone else to do so as well. I will ask that you rise above that, and explain WHY you feel the KJV is correct. I trust you will rise to the occasion!

given that I just showed you several trusted translations, and the note from the KJV translators, how can you not believe it? Lets be clear on what you "dont believe" here: Do you NOT believe that this note was in the KJV 1611? DO you not believe that they knew this verse was discussing people? I need you to be very clear here if you can.

I agree that they believed that. I disagree that the TR, which was changed several times and finally back translated from the KJV into Greek. However, I dont accept the word of these men as official doctrine. I am accountable to God on my own, and as such, I am required to "test all things". This is what I believe I am doing now: the idea of KJVO does not make sense to me, so I am testing it. As such, I believe that God will provide conclusive evidence, through you or someone else, of its veracity. This is what God did with the Bereans, and I believe he still does it today. Therefore, if KJVO is true, then you will be able to find the evidence that no one else has provided to support your position. So far, the main problem remains that KJVO simply assume the KJV is correct, and require all others to do the same in discussion. That is why we never get anywhere. I have faith that you shall rise above!

EXACTLY!!!!! I have shown that this verse IS NOT ONE OF THEM. However, I do believe there are other verses which CLEARLY state that God will preserve his word.
An example is: Isaiah 40:8 8The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.
I have shown that even the KJV translators wrote that this verse is refering to PEOPLE. I would like you to either acknowledge this, or show why you believe I am incorrect. I encourage you to seek out a KJV 1611, check the margin note, and see for yourself if you feel I have fabricated it.

Are you aware of what you just said? Did you know that "mg" means that the verse is added in the margin? Lets go over the evidence you just provided.

"61" is a 16th century manuscript, has no record of its origin, and is believed to be a fabricated manuscript created to force Erasmus to include the comma. Even if that isnt true, it is still at best a 15th century manuscript. How much weight should that carry, being 1500 years removed from the original?

629 is a 14th/15th century parallel latin and greek manuscript, so this was probably copied from a Latin manuscript. Even if it wasnt, I think it is clear that it came from the Latin exemplar, and not the greek exemplar.

Neither 61 nor 629 have the entire comma in the manuscript. Several words are missing.

88 is a 12th century manuscript and 429 a 14th, and contains the addition in the margin. Why is it not contained in the text if it was authentic? I think it is clear that this passage was added in from the latin in both of these manuscripts.

636 is a 15th century manuscript, but the addition is in the margin, and the addition is dated in the 19th century!

918 is a 15th century manuscript, almost 1500 years removed from the original

110 (Tisch. w 110), which is a 16th century manuscript copy of the Complutensian Polyglot Greek text.

221 is from the 10th century, but only contains the comma in the margin. Why is it not in the body of the text?

2318 is an 18th century manuscript, which means it was written after the KJV. I cant see how this manuscript can carry ANY weight whatsoever.

That makes 9, not 20. I have already shown how each of these manuscripts cannot be trusted due to their late date, or the fact that the addition is not in the text.

There are over 500 other manuscripts of 1 John 5 which do not have any trace of the comma. How can we take the word of 9 manuscripts with untrustable background and date over 500 EARLIER manuscripts?

The lexionaries dated around the 10th century. They carry little weight IMO against ALL THE GREEK EVIDENCE.

Of those church fathers, even most KJVO will admit that it is unclear what Cyprian is talking about, and that he is not quoting the Comma. Have you actually look at his quote?

It is admitted even by KJVO that claiming Jerome quoted this verse is at best a guess. It is known that Jerome's work was edited by a later hand, so it is not conclusive that this quote is the work of Jerome.

I am unaware of Augustines quote on this verse. I will need you to post it so that I can research it. Please post a link of reference for me.

I agree that both Priscillian and Tertullian quoted the verse, but neither came until the 4th century.

Upon all this, how can we take the word of a couple of lexionaries, a couple of later church fathers, and a few late untrustable manuscripts against over 500 other EARLIER manuscripts, (including nearly all the byzantine manuscripts) and the fact that neither Sabellian nor Arian mentioned it in their debates, and NTHER TRANSLATION (peshitta, coptic, syriac, etc) besides the latin has any record of this passage.
One thing has to be true here: Either this passage is spurious, or God did not preserve his word to the greeks, since this reading disappeared without a trace from the entire greek manuscript record for 1000 years.

NO! I am saying that whoever copied the Latin manuscripts forged it, which is the only way to explain why it is wanting in every other early version. the KJV translators simply included it because Erasmus did, and Erasmus included it on the basis of ONE GREEK MANUSCRIPT dated from the 16th century. I believe he simply made an error of judgment.

Yes, it was preserved. Almost all of the differences in the 2 text types is ADDITIONS in the byzantine. All those that are not additions, I have not seen one that is of any importance at all, included the one you have included below, 1 tim 3:16. God's word was still preserved, but had several additions to it, which need to be weeded out. I think I have shown clear evidence of one of those instances.

I would love to know the difference between "God" and "He who". However, I prefer the reading "God" but I dont see how replacing it with a pronoun changes anything. "He who" is God. Who else does Paul claim was manifested in the flesh? Is there anyone else that Paul could have been refering to? I am unaware of any evidence to support any claim other than "God". Replacing a proper noun with a pronoun is of little consequence to me. I grew up reading the NIV, and I always understood this verse to mean "God was manifested in the flesh", even though it said "he who" because it is absolutely clear.

I believe it has been preserved from the 1st day it was written. That is why I reject KJVO, since many of its readings have almost 0 support from the greek manuscripts, which is the language the NT was originally penned.

God's word IS PERFECT, but that does not mean the KJV is. Until you provide evidence attesting to the fact that the KJV is perfect, and not merely assumed as such, how can I take this when all the evidence points against that claim?

May I ask you the following?

1. What evidence do you have that God promised to preserve his word in English in a perfect translation in one volume?

2. If you do have evidence of the above, what evidence do you have that the KJV is that volume?

3. If you are unable to provide evidence of the above, how do you know that the KJV is perfect? Is it simply a conviction of faith, and not a demonstrable fact?

Once again, I thank you for your discussion. I enjoy a friendly debate. I know God will use this as we sharpen each other. God bless you this day!

 

First off, you have misunderstood me. I said the KJV has errors, I did not say the word of God contains errors. I believe the word of God is present and preserved on the planet today. I simply do not believe that the KJV encompasses that perfection. I have shown how one verse included in the KJV goes against everything the KJVO claim is important, that we should not take a few manuscripts which have (in their opinion the alexandrian manuscripts, IMO all those which contain the comma) questionable origins.

I think the link I sent you explained it very clear. The word of God does not have to be present in one volume to be preserved. If God intended for us, by the leading of the Holy Spirit to be able to find his word by comparing various translations and texts, and come to a conviction as to what his word says, then the doctrine of preservation is achieved. God has not lied.

We do not disagree on perservation in any way, save for the fact that you believe it is preserved in one volume, the KJV, and I believe it is preserved in many volumes, and must be found through the leading of the Holy Spirit.

So, I think we are clear on this, so you may commence with your response to my statements and questions at your leisure.

Thanks again!

 

I forgot to explain also: Since you claim the KJV is perfect, yet you also admit that it originally contained errors of grammar and spelling, how can you claim that God inspired the KJV, when he allowed for the errors he did?

Did God create a perfect bible, then refuse to preserve it through the printing process, thereby leaving the common man still without a perfect bible for another 150 years? Please explain how this is not a double standard.