Is using the KJV compromise? - 2nd Attempt!

[Johnv]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
If the KJv was translated from the original Greek and Hebrew, and the translators did not sway in their intrepretation of the texts set before them, is it truly compromise to use the KJV?

Or is the true compromise in the use of the more modern versions?

There is no shortage of valid logical reasons to use a newer translation than the KJV, Geneva, et al. There is likewise no shortage of reasons to prefer an older translation. This is not a KJVO debate, so let it not go in that direction.

It is not compromise to use any faithful translation, be it the KJV, NKJV, NIV, Geneva, NASB, ESV, et al. None has a monopoly on divine authority or infallibility, nor does any have scriptural authority, or claim of preservation, exclusive of any other. To claim otherwise is nothing short of translation idolatry. I worship God, not translations of scripture.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
If the KJv was translated from the original Greek and Hebrew, and the translators did not sway in their intrepretation of the texts set before them, is it truly compromise to use the KJV?

Or is the true compromise in the use of the more modern versions?

I think you are missing the point.

Fundamentalists claim that we practice ecclesiastical separation.
We would not cooperate with the Church of England today
Why do we use a translation done by a Church of England committee?

My answer is above.

It is not compromise to use any faithful translation, be it the KJV, NKJV, NIV, Geneva, NASB, ESV, et al.

Excellent, using a sound, valid translation is not "compromise" no matter who does it.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Brother James:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by C4K:
Let us get back on topic. No one is attacking the KJV.

If we as fundamentalists hold ecclesiastical separation so dear, why do we use a Bible translated by the Church of England? This is not a discussion of the translation, but our stand on separation.

If using it were a compromise brother wouldn't it be more of a compromise to use a bible with the Roman Catholic vaticanus manuscript for it basis along with a manuscipt found in a trash can in a monastary? I'm afraid there's going to be some kind of compromise whatever you do. </font>[/QUOTE]Possibly. But I doubt it since that text probably pre-dates the papacy and most of Rome's abuses.

However, the TR was produced from RCC possessed manuscripts by an RCC scholar. Any mud you sling at Vaticanus can likewise stick to the TR but much more so.

I don't think this question is out of bounds. I won't use some MV's because I don't trust the translators.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
If the KJv was translated from the original Greek and Hebrew, and the translators did not sway in their intrepretation of the texts set before them, is it truly compromise to use the KJV?

Or is the true compromise in the use of the more modern versions?

If modern versions are made from the original Greek and Hebrew, and the translators did not sway in their "translation" of the texts set before them, is it truly compromise to use MV's? (ie. NASB, NKJV)

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

We are headed off topic again.

Is it compromise for fundamentalists who claim eccleciastical separation to use a Church of England translation? That is the only issue in this thread.

I would be very interested to hear a response to the question from some of the more ardent supporters of a strong KJV position.

 

[Scott J]

I don't think it is C4K. The quality of the translation stands on its own... and the vetting of good non-Anglican scholars since the early 1800's.

My point was that the same courtesy should work in reverse as well.

 

[Paul33]

C4K,

Thanks for your refreshing honesty.

If it is acceptable to use any translation that is faithful to the original manuscripts because we "don't separate from books," would I be accepted in a fundamental Baptist church if I were to teach SS class using the NIV?

Again, I'm trying to get to the heart of the ecclesiastical separation issue in terms of what Bible I use.

Thanks for keeping the thread on track.

 

[Paul33]

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I don't think there is a connection at all between the version you use and ecclesiastical separation.

I don't think that means that I as pastor of a local church must let all of my Sunday School teachers and workers use any version they want. I have a view on the translation issue. I expect workers in my church to respect that view - it has nothing to do with ecclesiastical separation.

 

[Linda64]

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/separationand.htm

http://www.mag-net.com/%7Emaranath/ttt.htm

Take a look at these two links and then determine wherein the compromise is found.

 

[DeclareHim]

The question was however that some people have problems with and decry the fact that Modern Versions are ecumenical and some say versions like the NAB,NJB shouldn't be used because they are Catholic. While they may use the KJV which is Anglican. Now to be fair I know non-KJVO's who have the same concerns. So I'm not pointing fingers but just agreeing with Paul33.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort were graduates of Cambridge University in England and they were students during the time when the university was completely repudiating orthodox Christianity. B.F. Westcott went on to become the Bishop of Durham of the Church of England and F.J.A. Hort eventually became a professor at Cambridge.

In 1851, these two distinguished British scholars began a thirty-year project of creating a new Greek text of the New Testament. That project would be based almost entirely upon Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. They also developed and published a theory for textual criticism which remains to this day. J.H. Greenlee notes in his Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism that "the textual theories of W-H underlie virtually all subsequent work in NT textual criticism."(pg. 78)

Wilbur Pickering notes that both the Nestle-Aland as well as the United Bible Societies' Greek texts (the modern critical text) "really vary little from the W-H text." (The Identity of the New Testament Text pg. 42)
Touch Not The Unclean Thing by David Sorenson - pgs 166, 167

It would seem to me that acceptance and use of the Modern Versions are linked more to compromise than is the KJV.

 

[Orvie]

Originally posted by Pastor_Bob:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort were graduates of Cambridge University in England and they were students during the time when the university was completely repudiating orthodox Christianity. B.F. Westcott went on to become the Bishop of Durham of the Church of England and F.J.A. Hort eventually became a professor at Cambridge.

In 1851, these two distinguished British scholars began a thirty-year project of creating a new Greek text of the New Testament. That project would be based almost entirely upon Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. They also developed and published a theory for textual criticism which remains to this day. J.H. Greenlee notes in his Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism that "the textual theories of W-H underlie virtually all subsequent work in NT textual criticism."(pg. 78)

Wilbur Pickering notes that both the Nestle-Aland as well as the United Bible Societies' Greek texts (the modern critical text) "really vary little from the W-H text." (The Identity of the New Testament Text pg. 42)
Touch Not The Unclean Thing by David Sorenson - pgs 166, 167

It would seem to me that acceptance and use of the Modern Versions are linked more to compromise than is the KJV. </font>[/QUOTE]That's kinda silly. Some MV's I could see as compromisingly inferior, but not to put them all in that class. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
BTW, In 1611 the KJV was a MV, didn't the Puritans consider to use it as "compromise"?

 

[Acumenical]

The weakness with the separation doctrine is that everything produced by human beings, including Bible translations, is tainted to some degree by sin (whether those of omission or commission). What we choose to separate from is always somewhat arbitrary, then. The KJV stands on its own merits as an excellent translation, regardless of its origins, and the same can be said for the better modern versions. The guilt-by-association game is one that usually leads nowhere, and is often just a convenient tool we use to bash things we already don't like.

 

[Paul33]

Da Da Bing!

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by Paul33:
C4K,

Thanks for keeping the thread on track.

John,

One does not eclesiastically separate from a book?

Who are you kidding? In the ifb churches one most certainly separates from a book - the NIV, the NASB (in some), etc.

We also separate from song books, cds, dvds, etc that are produced by authors/artists that are off limits.

I see I have to duck in again and explain some things. In particular, the concept of ecclesiastical separation is not being understood on this thread.

1. "Ecclesiastical" means pertaining to the church. Ecclesiastical separation is when my church does not cooperate with another church or parachurch organization or evangelistic effort. When I buy or use a KJV it does not contribute any money to the C. of E., does not foster cooperation between my church and an Episcopalian one, does not bring C. of E. influence into my church, does not acknowledge C. of E. doctrine. Using the KJV or not using it has nothing to do with ecclesiastical separation.

2. If one must define not using a translation, book, CD or whatever as separation, it is classified as personal separation, not ecclesiastical separation. Personal separation involves the individual being separated unto God from worldly practices. Personally, though, I don't feel it fits here either. I consider the matter of which Bible version a church uses to be a doctrinal matter, not a matter of personal separation.

3. As a pastor, I can enforce ecclesiastical separation through my leadership. My church will never cooperate with a liberal "United Church of Japan" church in an evangelistic meeting while I am pastor. However, personal separation is much harder to enforce. The pastor who tries to do so must often become a dictator, and that is unscriptural. I freely admit that some (that's some, not most, not half, just some) IFB pastors rule their churches as a dictator and enforce obedience with a big stick on matters of personal separation. I do not, and there are only a couple of my supporting pastors I suspect of doing so.

4. If you want to consider ecclesiastical separation in relation to Bible translations, the area in which this occurs is when a church will not associate with another church on the basis of which Bible translation a church uses.

God bless.

 

[Mrs.Woogie]

Originally posted by C4K:
Is it compromise for fundamentalists who claim eccleciastical separation to use a Church of England translation?

No, I do not beleive it to be compromise. I am a strong believer in the KJV and IMHO the KJV was written FOR freedom. Freedom for people to actually be able to read the Word of God instead of being blinded by the RCC repetitive scaraments. We are called to be seperated from the world. I don't believe that just because the book was translated under English ruler ship causes one to place that translation in the "worldy" catagory.

There was a comment on page 3 that i wanted to quote because he made a good point. There are many other translation that use the RCC manscripts to translate from. I believe the KJV IS seperated because of that very reason, no influence from the RCC.

Nice to meet all of you! This is my second post here on the board!

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I apprecaite the thougts put forth. Can we agree then that the church affiliation of the translators is not grounds for determining the worth of a Bible translation and therefore it is not compromise to use any version based on the denomination of the translators?

 

[Linda64]

Originally posted by Mrs.Woogie:

No, I do not beleive it to be compromise. I am a strong believer in the KJV and IMHO the KJV was written FOR freedom. Freedom for people to actually be able to read the Word of God instead of being blinded by the RCC repetitive scaraments. We are called to be seperated from the world. I don't believe that just because the book was translated under English ruler ship causes one to place that translation in the "worldy" catagory.

There was a comment on page 3 that i wanted to quote because he made a good point. There are many other translation that use the RCC manscripts to translate from. I believe the KJV IS seperated because of that very reason, no influence from the RCC.

Nice to meet all of you! This is my second post here on the board!

Amen Mrs.Woogie!! Welcome to the Baptist Board and many happy postings to you!!

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Can we agree that to be consistant fellow fundamentalists, we cannot base our decsion of Bible versions on the denominational attachments of those who translated them? We must admit that we do use a Church of England translation. The point is that it is not a bad thing to do so.

Just looking for consitancy here.

BTW, as a side note, the KJV was FAR from free of RCC influence Mrs Woogie, but that will have to be discussed in a separate thread. Welcome to the BB.