I think I understand

[SRBooe]

I have good friends who will read only the KJV bible.

All this discussion and all my reading has taught me a few things on the subject, so I guess I am wanting to state the obvious.

My friends have devoted over 20 years into learning from the KJV, some more than 30 years. They can quote verses and their bibles are highlighted and annotated with personal notes. They "know" what the KJV says.

Now, someone wants to tell them that their Bible is not accurate.

And we wonder why they are upset with this accusation?

Should we really be doing this to them? Can not they be good Christian people using the KJV only? Can not they be walking the narrow path, even using their KJV?

Despite what I think I now understand, I will not even discuss it with them unless they initiate the conversation. I will applaud the years they have devoted to learning their Bibles and let them be.

 

[Rippon]

I have good friends who will read only the KJV Bible.

All this discussion and all my reading has taught me a few things on the subject, so I guess I am wanting to state the obvious.

My friends have devoted over 20 years into learning from the KJV, some more than 30 years. They can quote verses and their Bibles are highlighted and annotated with personal notes. They "know" what the KJV says.

That's wonderful.

Now, someone wants to tell them that their Bible is not accurate.

It's not news. The information has been out for quite a while now. It shouldn't discourage them. They can still be saved and grow in their Christian lives using the KJV.

And we wonder why they are upset with this accusation?

All translations are marred because humans make Bible translations. Translations are approximations.They shouldn't be upset. They just need to wake-up to reality.

Should we really be doing this to them?

What? Tell them the truth? We should never hesitate to tell the truth.

Can not they be good Christian people using the KJV only? Can not they be walking the narrow path, even using their KJV?

My answer is affirmative to both questions.

Despite what I think I now understand, I will not even discuss it with them unless they initiate the conversation. I will applaud the years they have devoted to learning their Bibles and let them be.

Okay.

 

[Trotter]

No one here is against the KJV itself, SRBooe. While most (including me) do know that the KJV is not perfect, none of us condemn it.

What the vasy majority of us here oppose, however, is the false man-made doctrine that the KJV is perfect and God's only word.

 

[glfredrick]

I think that Trotter said it well.

Use the KJV. Make it your only Bible. It is sufficient.

But to say that IT ALONE is God's Word is to walk into something akin to heresy. Even the original translators did not say anything at all like that.

Speaking of the Holy Scriptures, the original translators say this:

And what marvel? The original thereof being from heaven, not from earth; the Author being God, not man; the Inditer, the Holy Spirit, not the wit of the apostles or prophets; the penmen such as were sanctified from the womb, and endued with a principal portion of God's spirit; the matter, verity, piety, purity, uprightness; the form, God's word, God's testimony, God's oracles, the word of truth, the word of salvation, etc.; the effects, light of understanding, stableness of persuasion, repentance from dead works, newness of life, holiness, peace, joy in the Holy Ghost; lastly, the end and reward of the study thereof, fellowship with the saints, participation of the heavenly nature, fruition of an inheritance immortal, undefiled, and that never shall fade away.

About the need for translation:

But how shall men meditate in that which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknown tongue? As it is written, "Except I know the power of the voice, I shall be to him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian to me" [1 Cor. 14<:11>]. The apostle excepteth no tongue; not Hebrew the ancientest, not Greek the most copious, not Latin the finest. Nature taught a natural man to confess that all of us in those tongues which we do not understand are plainly deaf; we may turn the deaf ear unto them. The Scythian counted the Athenian, whom he did not understand, barbarous [Clem. Alex. 1o Strom.]; so the Roman did the Syrian and the Jew (even St. Jerome himself called the Hebrew tongue barbarous, belike because it was strange to so many) [S. Hieronym. Damaso.]; so the Emperor of Constantinople [Michael, Theophili fil.] calleth the Latin tongue barbarous, though Pope Nicolas do storm at it: [2 Tom. Concil. ex edit. Petri Crab.]; so the Jews long before Christ called all other nations Lognazim, which is little better than barbarous. Therefore as one complaineth, that always in the senate of Rome, there was one or other that called for an interpreter [Cicero 5o de finibus.], so, lest the church be driven to the like exigent, it is necessary to have translations in a readiness. Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtain, that we may look into the most holy place; that removeth the cover of the well, that we may come by the water, even as Jacob rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, by which means the flocks of Laban were watered [Gen. 29:10]. Indeed, without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob's well (which was deep) [John 4:11] without a bucket or something to draw with; or as that person mentioned by Isaiah, to whom when a sealed book was delivered, with this motion, "Read this, I pray thee," he was fain to make this answer: "I cannot, for it is sealed" [Isa. 29:11].

About translations into other languages:

Now though the Church were thus furnished with Greek and Latin translations, even before the faith of Christ was generally embraced in the empire (for the learned know that even in St. Jerome's time, the consul of Rome and his wife were both Ethnics, and about the same time the greatest part of the senate also) [S. Hieronym. Marcell. Zosim]; yet for all that the godly-learned were not content to have the Scriptures in the language which they themselves understood, Greek and Latin (as the good lepers were not content to fare well themselves, but acquainted their neighbors with the store that God had sent, that they also might provide for themselves) [2 Ki. 7:9]; but also for the behoof and edifying of the unlearned which hungered and thirsted after righteousness, and had souls to be saved as well as they, they provided translations into the vulgar for their countrymen, insomuch that most nations under heaven did shortly after their conversion, hear Christ speaking unto them in their mother tongue, not by the voice of their minister only, but also by the written word translated.

About Roman Catholic resistance to translations in "vulgar" (common) languages:

Howbeit, it seemed too much to Clement the Eighth that there should be any license granted to have them in the vulgar tongue, and therefore he overruleth and frustrateth the grant of Pius the Fourth. [See the observation (set forth by Clement his authority) upon the fourth rule of Pius the Fourth his making in the Index, lib. prohib., pag. 15. ver. 5.] So much are they afraid of the light of the Scripture (Lucifugae Scripturarum, as Tertullian speaketh [Tertul. de resur. carnis]) that they will not trust the people with it--no, not as it is set forth by their own sworn men; no, not with the license of their own bishops and inquisitors. Yea, so unwilling they are to communicate the Scriptures to the people's understanding in any sort, that they are not ashamed to confess that we forced them to translate it into English against their wills.

About being satisfied in the efforts of earlier translation efforts:

And to the same effect say we, that we are so far off from condemning any of their labors that travailed before us in this kind, either in this land or beyond sea, either in King Henry's time or King Edward's (if there were any translation or correction of a translation in his time), or Queen Elizabeth's of ever renowned memory, that we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting remembrance.

Reliance on the eariler versions (corrected as needed by accurate study):

But let us rather bless God from the ground of our heart, for working this religious care in him, to have the translations of the Bible maturely considered of and examined. For by this means it cometh to pass, that whatsoever is sound already (and all is sound for substance, in one or other of our editions, and the worst of ours far better than their authentic vulgar), the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished; also, if anything be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place. And what can the king command to be done, that will bring him more true honour than this? and wherein could they that have been set a work, approve their duty to the king,--yea their obedience to God, and love to his saints--more, than by yielding their service, and all that is within them, for the furnishing of the work?

SEE NEXT POST

 

[glfredrick]

CONTINUED FROM ABOVE

Translations ARE the Word of God:

Now to the latter we answer that we do not deny--nay, we affirm and avow--that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.

Rationale for WHY translations are the Word of God:

As the king's speech, which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the king's speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.

The use of earlier faulty translations:

The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the original in many places; neither doth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it (as it is apparent, and as St. Jerome and most learned men do confess), which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it so grace and commend it to the church, if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the word of God.

That translations are NOT perfect, and may need to be ammended:

Yet before we end, we must answer a third cavil and objection of theirs against us, for altering and amending our translations so oft; wherein truly they deal hardly and strangely with us. For to whomever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to go over that which he had done, and to amend it where he saw cause?

Why a new English translation?

But it is high time to leave them, and to show in brief what we proposed to ourselves, and what course we held in this our perusal and survey of the Bible. Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk); but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against. That hath been our endeavor, that our mark.

The use of ALL available resources in the translation effort:

Neither did we think much to consult the translators or commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek or Latin--no, nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch. Neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see.

The use of marginal notes to deal with problematic words, found once in the original text, of difficulty in translating, etc.:

There be many words in the Scriptures which be never found there but once (having neither brother nor neighbor [], as the Hebrews speak), so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts and precious stones, etc., concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that rather because they would say something than because they were sure of that which they said, as St. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident, so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as St. Augustine saith, that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures [S. Aug. 2. De doctr. Christian. cap. 14.]; so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good--yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.

About preciseness of particular words from the original texts:

Another thing we think good to admonish thee of, gentle reader: that we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe that some learned men somewhere have been as exact as they could that way. Truly, that we might not vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places (for there be some words that be not of the same sense everywhere []), we were especially careful, and made a conscience according to our duty.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... I will applaud the years they have devoted to learning their Bibles and let them be.

Amen. I agree, it is wise to not bring it up it unless they initiate the conversation.

I suppose by "understand" you mean that you can sympathize with their preceived situation: that they have soley invested in one version and now they have been suddenly alerted that it has flaws.

And therein lies the problem: that they once were taught and believed that it was 'perfect'. That perception should have never been perpetuated. It certainly was not the postion of the KJV translators, the Reformers, or early Baptists. (Perhaps their refusal to read anything other than the KJV is really a sign of an obsession)

If I had married my wife under the delusion that she was 'perfect' and 20 or more years later was made aware of her shortcomings then I also may have been shocked into denial. (Fortunately, my wife actually IS perfect)

Of course the KJV can be a good English text for any Christian.

 

[Rippon]

Of course the KJV can be a good English text for any Christian.

Perhaps you'd like to qualify that comment Franklin. There are a good number of non-English speaking Christians in the world. Even those with rudimentary English skills -- the KJV would be an ill-advised version for them to attempt to read -- much less study. I just bought another NIrV today for someone. I haven't presented it yet. Thankfully it doesn't have cartoons and junk. It is being branded for ESL Bible readers.

Even for many native English speakers --especially the unchurched -- the KJV is inadequate for the task. I think the KJV revisers would be rolling in laughter that 400 years later some die-hard folks are touting it as the be-all and end-all of Bible translations. It was good for its time -- but that time is well past. There are too many excellent English versions for folks to use which would serve them in a practical way in this 21 century.

 

[SRBooe]

Please note that I did not address the people in the camp of those who believe that the KJV is the ONLY Bible worth reading.

I am merely stating that it is wrong to initiate fights with people over it.

Some like the fights more than others.

 

[John Toppass]

Amen. I agree, it is wise to not bring it up it unless they initiate the conversation.

I suppose by "understand" you mean that you can sympathize with their preceived situation: that they have soley invested in one version and now they have been suddenly alerted that it has flaws.

And therein lies the problem: that they once were taught and believed that it was 'perfect'. That perception should have never been perpetuated. It certainly was not the postion of the KJV translators, the Reformers, or early Baptists. (Perhaps their refusal to read anything other than the KJV is really a sign of an obsession)

If I had married my wife under the delusion that she was 'perfect' and 20 or more years later was made aware of her shortcomings then I also may have been shocked into denial. (Fortunately, my wife actually IS perfect)

Of course the KJV can be a good English text for any Christian.

I had heard the rumor that there were 2 perfect wives. It is nice to meet the guy that got the other one.:thumbs:

 

[glfredrick]

I had heard the rumor that there were 2 perfect wives. It is nice to meet the guy that got the other one.:thumbs:

That would be me... :love2:

 

[sag38]

SrBooe, in my experience it has been the other way around. It was the KJVO folks who wanted to educate me, without my invitation, as to my supposed deficiency concerning God's word.

 

[SRBooe]

SrBooe, in my experience it has been the other way around. It was the KJVO folks who wanted to educate me, without my invitation, as to my supposed deficiency concerning God's word.

Oh, I know that there are those folks on both ends of the discussion. At one time, I would have been one of them.

I choose not to fight about it.

 

[Jeffriesw]

SrBooe, in my experience it has been the other way around. It was the KJVO folks who wanted to educate me, without my invitation, as to my supposed deficiency concerning God's word.

That has been my experience also, I usually will no even give them the time of day on it.

 

[sag38]

I never argued with them. They are so indoctrinated in the rightness of thier position that debate is pointless. Now here, it's a different story when it is evident that there is an agenda poromoting KJVonlyism.

 

[SRBooe]

I never argued with them. They are so indoctrinated in the rightness of thier position that debate is pointless. Now here, it's a different story when it is evident that there is an agenda poromoting KJVonlyism.

Would you also say that there is an agenda when promoting dynamic equivalence, too?

I'm trying to see what agenda KJV-only would serve, but I can't grasp it. Perhaps you could help?

As I said before, the ONLY purpose for KJV-only that I can perceive is that someone may not want to feel like they spend years studying an error-filled version of the Bible.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Would you also say that there is an agenda when promoting dynamic equivalence, too?

I'm trying to see what agenda KJV-only would serve, but I can't grasp it. Perhaps you could help?

As I said before, the ONLY purpose for KJV-only that I can perceive is that someone may not want to feel like they spend years studying an error-filled version of the Bible.

I've been trying to wean myself off of this forum, but since you asked:

The purpose of the KJVO agenda? I'm going to be blunt here- it is the same agenda as any false doctrine has- to direct people away from the truth.

Ask almost any non-KJVO missionary and they will tell you about the havoc wreaked on foreign fields by those (perhaps well-meaning but mis-guided) who come and tell folks that "They don't have a Bible."

It destroys faith instead of building it. It tears churches, families, and discussion boards apart. And [Bluntness on] it is not of God [/Bluntness off].

 

[Baptist4life]

It destroys faith instead of building it. It tears churches, families, and discussion boards apart.

I'm not KJVO, but I could make the same statement about the hundreds of different Bible versions out there. They lead to confusion, doubt, and I believe are the CAUSE of KJVO. Common sense tells me they ALL cannot be the "Word of God" when they differ so much, yet I continue to watch people argue that they are.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Pop goes the weasel.