Comparing & Contrasting KJV/MV/KJVO

[rlvaughn]

I am starting this topic in order to have a place for all to clarify some of the positions in the Bible versions debate. The method used is to compare and contrast them. If we can understand where our positions diverge and where they cross, we should be better able to understand our brethren and the core of the debate itself. This kind of topic might be approached better, especially if it were started by someone who holds the majority position. Complain if you wish , but since I am starting the topic, I must approach it my way and with my understandings. Three broad categories are made rather than to attempt to include every point of view: (1) KJV-ist, which is my position, I don't blame anyone else with holding it; (2) MV-ist, which represents those who use modern versions such as NIV, NASB, RV, NEB, etc.; (3) KJVO-ist, which represents those who hold the KJV-only, and particularly those hold the Ruckman approach or something near to it. I realize this excludes the NKJV-ists, KJVO-ists who do not agree with Ruckman, and any number of other varieties of thought on the matter. But I couldn't include everyone. Those who hold other positions are free to post them. I have also broadly assumed that one of the main disagreements between the KJV-ist and the MV-ist centers around the Greek text, and that the disagreement is of little consequence to the KJVO-ist. I have chosen to divide the text-types in a general way as Byzantine & Eclectic. I have tried to keep the three points generally parallel. I have tried to keep it simple.

This topic is not a debate on which version or text-type is better. Please don't turn it into one.
This topic is an attempt to see where different points of view stand in relation to other points of view.
This topic does not seek to caricature any viewpoint, but the original post is limited by what I may think the other viewpoints are. Feel free to clarify your position. I must admit that though I am a KJV-ist, and I have friends who are even farther toward the KJV-only position, I find it hard to conceive of a true KJV-ONLY position that doesn't by necessity go as far as Peter Ruckman.
This topic's original post is very very far from exhaustive. It just contains some things I have thought about this evening. Please add more comparisons and contrasts, but keep in mind the intent of the topic.
This topic hopes to generate more light than heat.

[ February 20, 2003, 11:09 PM: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

[rlvaughn]

The KJV-ist believes that the King James Version is the inspired word of God.
The MV-ist may agree with the intent of the statement, but might disagree with applying the terminology to a translation.
The KJVO-ist believes the King James Version translators were inspired.

The KJV-ist doesn't deny that other accurate translations are the word of God.
The MV-ist seems to agree in principle.
The KJVO-ist denies that any translation other the KJV is the word of God (at least in English).

The KJV-ist favors the Byzantine Text.
The MV-ist favors an "Eclectic Text".
The KJVO-ist favors dispensing with any use of the original Bible languages.

The KJV-ist not only holds to the Byzantine text, but also holds that the KJV is the most accurate English translation in this tradition.
The MV-ist does not hold the Byzantine text, so the accuracy of translation of the KJV is not the main issue.
The KJVO-ist holds the inspiration of the translation/translators of the KJV.

The KJV-ist believes new language versions should be translated from the Byzantine Text.
The MV-ist believes new language versions should be translated from an "Eclectic Text".
The KJVO-ist believes new language versions should be translated from the King James Version.

The KJV-ist position maintains the integrity of KJV from 1611 to the present, in spite of needed correction of printer errors and updates in spelling, punctuation, etc.
The MV-ist believes that needed updates and corrections at least disprove the KJVO position.
The KJVO-ist maintains that errors of printing, etc., as mentioned above, do not constitute real errors (not sure how to best explain this).

The KJV-ist may compare other translations (while being aware that certain portions are translated from textual variants).
The MV-ist will apply this same principle in reverse (that is, their translation's & the KJV's positions reversed).
The KJVO-ist probably uses other translations more than the KJV-ist, though mostly only to show that they are incorrect.

The KJV-ist does not separate from all who do not hold the KJV-ist position (the KJV-ist would feel no need to separate from the KJVO-ist, but some KJVO-ists would have to separate from the KJV-ist; would also feel some necessity to separate from radicals on either end of the KJVO or MV chain).
The MV-ist probably does not separate over the versions issue (with the possible exception of separating from radical KJVO-ists).
The KJVO-ist separates from all who do not hold the KJVO-only.

The KJV-ist favors dispensing with the use of such terms as "the original Greek."
The MV-ist might agree.
The KJVO-ist would agree.

[ February 20, 2003, 11:08 PM: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

I would take issue with saying that the MVist prefers the Alexandrian text and believes we should translate from the Alexandrian text. I think it is better characterized as the eclectic position because it takes into account all the evidence, including byzantine and western, rather than just the alexandrian. The label "Alexandrian" is not very helpful because in many uses it is an attempt to associate with a particular group, a veritable cult. I do not mean to imply that you were doing that, brother Robert, but we have seen it all too often here.

[ February 20, 2003, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[rlvaughn]

I'll concede your point, Larry. That's why I said everyone should clarify their own position. But as for intent, as I said in the first post, the idea was to keep it simple and general. I intended Byzantine to stand for Majority Text, Textus Receptus, etc. underlying the KJV, and Alexandrian for everything underlying the main MV's. So my mention of Alexandrian was intended to include the eclectic position. Probably not the best choice of words, but like I said:

Complain if you wish, but since I am starting the topic, I must approach it my way...

 

[rlvaughn]

On second thought, Larry, though I would like to say

I did it my way

I have decided to go back and change "Alexandrian" to "eclectic". That will be more accurate, and mainly I don't want a bad choice of words to distract from the intent of the discussion. But I'm-a not-a gonna change anythin' else!

 

[Pioneer]

rlvaughn,

I would say that my position is very close to what you are describing as a "KJV-ist" although I do classify myself as "King James only". I use the term "King James only" in reference to English translations only. When it comes to the original language texts, I am "Masoretic Text only" and "Textus Receptus only". When it comes to translating the Bible in other languages, I believe, if at all possible, the original language texts should be the starting point. However, according to David Cloud, the non-English speaking world already had Bibles in their own language by the late 1800's. The problem is that many of them have gone out of print and modern versions have filled the gap. Please refer to the following link for that information.

http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/modern.htm

By the way, I think Ruckman and people like him are a disgrace to Biblical Christianity.

 

[HankD]

I guess I'm the Lone Ranger (HiHo Silver!!)

I'm TRO, Scrivener 1894/5.

This TR, I believe, represents the distilled text of the orthodox Church.
The orthodox Church - the churches of what came to be known as the Byzantine Empire (along with the EARLY Church of Rome), the churches which came into being through the apostles of Jesus Christ in their response to the Great Commission.

Burgon, Wescott and Hort (late 1800's) all agreed upon this, That the "Received Text" was the text of these churches witnessed by manuscripts, lectionaries and writings of the "fathers" of these local churches and that the TR was established in the 3-4th centuries.

Wescott and Hort however felt that the non-byzantine older extant "Alexandrian" texts (Vaticanus, Siniaticus, alexandrinus, etc)
had a place in "textual criticism". Burgon vehemently disagreed.

Having researched the matter on my own, I agree with Burgon, the "alexandrian texts" are for the most part defective.
This is a subjective matter and I can and do discuss the matter with believers who hold a different position from a faith conviction (as opposed to blind hysterics).

Is it possible that Burgon was wrong? I believe (nay, I am convicted) that he was correct, but yes it is within the realm of possibility that he might have been wrong.

I treat the TR as if it is the restored text.
However I am open to believing scholarship (coming out of prayer and faith and not an emotional catharsis) and correction should blemishes be found in the text.

Personally, I totally reject the idea that any translation is without human error and that the KJVO movement teaching that it is the "pure" Word of God without error does more harm than good to the Church of Jesus Christ.

The fruits of hate, strife, anger, jealousy and division from all sides bearing witness as to its source, the flesh.

May our Father grant peace to His Son's Church in this matter.

HankD

 

[Harald]

HankD. Your position, TRO (Scrivener), pretty much describes my own. So much so that I need not say anything more in this respect. A Dito is enough. On the whole rlvaughn made quite correct assessments of the standpoints, in my opinion.

Harald

 

[HankD]

Dear Harald,

True, a good assessment, but I was trying to take the focus off the English texts which can only and ever be translations.

HankD

 

[Scott J]

I am kind of a tweener on KJVist and MVist. I would generally disagree with the TR being the preserved text. It contains readings with almost no Greek support. If those were modified, I would be more agreeable.

I also tend to question the extent of a couple of modern textual criticism's assumptions.

"The shorter wording is often preferable."
"The harder wording is often preferable."

These two give me the most doubt. My experience with Data Entry people leads me to believe that people are more inclined to leave things out than to add them especially if under pressure.

The second statement is largely subjective. "Harder for who?" Harder wording may simply mean that copyists made mistakes- or that copyists weren't as educated as their supervisors- or that copyists with different beliefs than contemporary ones allowed their biases to enter when they missed hearing something. In any event, my experience tells me that the "harder reading" is not more likely to be original than an easier one.

All that said, I think that the CT should reflect greater respect for the majority readings. I think improvement lies between the two.

On translations, I largely agree with you guys.

 

[Tony Solomon]

rlv, a very good summary.

I would place myself in the KJV-ist.

I do think it should be revised though. But that is not likely now, in a way that commends itself to all. I would like to see something that is a mix of the KJV (Byz text, MT) and the English Standard Version.

As a church we support the work of the Trinitarian Bible Society, and yet I find it strange that other countries are getting translations that are bang up to date, while we do not, and the TBS by its constitution can't produce one.

 

[HankD]

The KJVO-ist maintains that errors of printing, etc., as mentioned above, do not constitute real errors (not sure how to best explain this).

This is in essence the entire crux of the matter.

How do we determine an "error" when the radical KJVO dismiss the Greek and Hebrew as irrelevant?
and the English (1611?,1769?) as "inspired".

We can't. we disagree, end of story.

However that doesn't speak to the following dilemma:
Assuming we have the original words (either 1611/1769 English or koine Greek - as did the KJV translators believed RE:Greek) then there seems that there can only be 3 or 4 possibilities :

Compared to the original 1611 English or koine Greek, a translational (or inspirational - granted this is an oxymoron) "error" apart from spelling is constituted when:

1) Essential word(s) are added.
2) Essential word(s) are deleted.
3) Essential word(s) are incorrectly translated.

All 3/4 are witnessed to by the various revisions of the KJV between 1611 and 1853.
This is compounded by the fact that we no longer have the archetype 1611 original translation.

Of course we have an additional issue, the definition of "essential".

This definition is also a KJVO moving target for their supposed adversaries but a rock of holy logic for them "things which are different are not the same"

What water then may I ask can this AV1611 KJVO theory hold observing the facts of history that the several editions of the KJB display all 3 of the above as well as spelling errors when compared one to another.
All the while the KJVO having one set of word definitions for themselves and another set of defintions of those same words for those who object (e.g "different"), having one set of everchanging holy rules for their monologue but defining yet another set of unchangeable satanic rules for those who want a dialogue.

In the words of their hero John Burgon and also IMO, they want us to rewrite the dictionary as well as the Bible (compared to the TR).

Peace to all.

HankD

[ February 21, 2003, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

[Harald]

Amen.

Harald

 

[rlvaughn]

Hank, you have some interesting thoughts that spurred some of my own. I understand your reasoning about taking the focus off of the English texts, but I must say that as a practical matter they are important, because the vast majority of English speaking people will be reading the Bible in English, not Greek or Hebrew.

Second, to the thought about essential words being added, deleted, etc.: the additions, deletions, corrections in spelling, grammar, and punctuation are pretty straightforward. Incorrect translation gets into a more subjective arena (should it be translated this way or that way, etc.). And as you said, the definition of "essential" becomes another subjective issue.

Finally, your mention of "things which are different are not the same" brings me kind of back to the original way I was making comparisons.

The KJV-ist does not agree that just because things are different they cannot be the same.
The MV-ist I feel would agree with the KJV-ist on this.
The KJVO-ist seems to be the one who uses this concept.

For one example of this, see this Which is the most important love thread where I argue that two different Greeks words (phileo & agape) can mean the same thing. MV-ist D. A. Carson takes a similar position.

Or, for example:

Thou art the man.
You are the man.
Tú eres aquel hombre.

These three sentences are obviously different. But they are also the same.

 

[HankD]

Or, for example:
Thou art the man.
You are the man.
Tú eres aquel hombre.

These three sentences are obviously different. But they are also the same.

Dear rl,

I would say that they are NOT the same but MEAN the same.
Even at that, the Spanish is slightly different because there is no familiar voice (tu eres) in modern English (or koine).

As an example which has been driven into the ground in times past is the interjective "God forbid!" in the KJV which does not exist in the original koine in any manuscript(to this day) but translates "may it never be".
This (imo) is an example where things that are different are not the same.
Now as to "agape" and "phileo", this is what I mean about a KJVO double-speak definition. Why are we told that it doesn't matter here because they are interchangeable words but (for example) to replace "effeminate" with "homosexual" well that difference is from satan!
It can't be. Either it works the same all the time for everyone or something or someone is wrong.

Personally, I believe that if the issue had never been made about "jots and tittles" and "different things not being equal" and the KJVO folks had not set on fire the course of nature with evil speaking about other brethren and their use of the MVs then the Church would be at peace (in this matter anyway) and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

As for me, Ive said my piece for the moment and as I've done in the past I'll come back later, put the gloves on and get back in the ring with the next batch of KJVO.

(unless I'm provoked or calumniated

).

Until then, peace and the Lord bless you and yours.

HankD

[ February 21, 2003, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

[kman]

I currently hold to a majority (byzantine priority) text type position (although I do
recognize some weaknesses with this view that
I haven't been able to resolve yet).

I don't get upset with anybody that
holds a different view, mainly because I can't
prove from the bible that my view is the absolute correct one.

I agree for the most part with Pickering's majority text position presented in "Identity of the New Testament Text".

BTW..the entire book is online if you want to read it:
http://www.esgm.org/ingles/imenu.html

So I prefer the translations based upon the TR (imperfect example of the byzantine text but not that far off).

NKJV is best for me because it contains the textual footnotes to identify where the majority
text differs from the TR.

-kman

 

[rlvaughn]

Thou art the man. (I Sam. 12:7; KJV)
You are the man. (I Sam. 12:7; NAS)
Tú eres aquel hombre. (I Sam. 12:7; Reina Valera)

Originally posted by HankD:
I would say that they are NOT the same but MEAN the same. Even at that, the Spanish is slightly different because there is no familiar voice (tu eres) in modern English (or koine).

I will not quibble about whether they are THE SAME or just MEAN THE SAME. If you think I meant PERFECTLY the same, I have failed to make the point. This is a fairly simple illustration at which anyone can look and see that there are three sentences and that EACH SENTENCE IS DIFFERENT. But if they are analyzed, EACH SENTENCE IS ALSO THE SAME (or means the same, if you prefer). The only way for translation to be perfect would be for the donor language and the receptor language to be exactly equivalent in all points and parts of speech (unless I am missing something). However, each of these sentences say the same thing. Yes, the KJV English "thou" is specific as to number, and the Spanish has a familiar form, and the modern English "you" can be either singular or plural. But every one of these sentences means to the language reader that Nathan is saying to David, " 'attâhhâ'iysh " (I Sam 12:7; Tanakh with vowels - help, why didn't I pick a verse in the N.T. ). I guess what I am basically saying is that translated differently does not have to mean translated incorrectly.

 

[Bob Krajcik]

rlvaughn:

Two questions for you, if you don't mind.

You made mention about how the KJVO uses "Things different are not the same" and you say of yourself, a KJV-ist that you do “...not agree that just because things are different they cannot be the same.” I agree, the phrase is not always used properly.

You said:
The KJV-ist does not agree that just because things are different they cannot be the same.
The MV-ist I feel would agree with the KJV-ist on this.
The KJVO-ist seems to be the one who uses this concept.

</font>

• Do you say there are no places between the KJB and the MVs that are truly different in meaning, and so not the same?</font>
• If they are truly different in meaning, and not the same, do you think it is proper to say, "Things different are not the same"?</font>

I say, the claim “things different are not the same” is not always used properly, but at times the phrase is entirely appropriate.

As comparison, and for example, C.D. Cole said: “Baptists believe many things in common with other denominations. They even agree with the Roman Catholics in several things, viz., the virgin birth and deity of Christ. But they differ with all other denominations on some points, and on these points, I am a Baptist.” Well, with that said, I am Baptist. Now, for the version issue, what I say is, the KJB differs with all others in some places, and in those places I am using and trusting only the KJB, and since I am using the KJV in those places, no reason for me to use other versions.

Now, for any that are reading this, I don't intend to debate over places that might be different, or the same, so save any questions you might have that you are certain would completly destroy me.

All I want is to ask my two questions.

Bob Krajcik

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by Bob Krajcik:
</font>

• Do you say there are no places between the KJB and the MVs that are truly different in meaning, and so not the same?</font>

No, Bro. Bob. I do believe there are places that are different in meaning in different versions. A few years ago, I heard a brother read from either the NKJV, or perhaps the New Scofield (I wish I had written down the reference), and his Bible said exactly the opposite of mine because it inserted a "no," making the statement negative where it was positive in the KJV. So at times I believe they are different in a way that is significant. But if I correctly understand the concept of some KJVO people, they are saying that difference automatically proves they aren't the same. As per the "you are the man" example: I have had people tell me that kind of translation would be incorrect, wrong, unscriptural, whatever, and they are basing that on the simple fact that it is different from the KJV. But those two sentences do in fact say the same thing in English (though the KJV "thou" makes it clear that it refers to only one person and no more; that's one definite advantage of the KJV).

</font>

• If they are truly different in meaning, and not the same, do you think it is proper to say, "Things different are not the same"?</font>

I don't think it is proper to say "Things different are not the same" in a general or generic sense. That simply isn't universally true. But in specific circumstances, it is definitely proper to say it. Hope this helps clarify my thoughts.

 

[Bob Krajcik]

%%%%%%%%
Thank you. Yes, your answer helped. Regarding my two questions, from what I see, I agree with you. That is what I expected.

I know I have used the term, and intended it to be for specific and true differences, but I didn't always mention those specific differences and others took my usage to mean far beyond what I intended. The trouble sometimes seems to come from some having a different meaning than my definition of different. It seemed simple to me, till I tried to explain.

Isaiah 53:5
Bob Krajcik