Is using the KJV compromise? - 2nd Attempt!

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Originally posted by 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.

The question in this thread is not how modern versions translate passages on separation, but whether we practice separation when we use our KJV.

Several have done a good job of addressing this issue.

Let's rephrase Paul's question this way.

Imagine you are the pastor of a non-conformist, sepraratist church soneplace in rural England in 1612. You have your Geneva Bible open and suddenly a rider appears. It is one of your deacons. "Pastor," he yells as his jumps off his horse," I have a copy of the king's new Bible. What do you think?" As you open the new translation you discover that it has the Apocrapha inserted between the Old and New Testaments. You realise that his translation team was composed totally of officials in the state church. You ministry is always in danger because you will not conform to the state church.


The question is this. Do you lay aside your Geneva Bible to use this new translation? Would you be violating your principles in so doing? Would you feel that you are compromising your beliefs by using the king's new Bible version?

I am obviously playing "devil's advocate" here folks. If we have a belief we ought to able to defend it. Do we have a reasonable answer for this question, or will we just shoot the questioner?

[ February 14, 2006, 03:36 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by 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.

Welcome to the BB to Mrs Woogie from me, too!

I agree with you here, C4K. In particular, cross-cultural missionaries who can't use English would be tremendously handicapped if we had to pay attention to what denominational group did the translating! Oftentimes there is little choice of translations in a given language, unlike in the English language.

The caveat is that Fundamentalists have always rejected translations done by liberals for the simple reason that liberals don't get it right. Going way back to the Revised Standard Version controversy, the RSV translated the Hebrew almah as "young woman" in Isaiah 7:14, and Fundamentalists rejected the RSV for that and other mis-translations.

I'm going to throw a bouquet to Paul33 here and his OP and mention that the fact that there were liberals on the RSV translating committe was evidently a factor in its rejection by Fundamentalists. Fundamentalists also in days past have rejected such liberal translations as the New English Bible and Good News for Modern Man.

In Japan the first modern colloquial version, the Kogo Yaku ("Colloquial Translation"), was rejected by some Fundamentalists partly because it openly used the RSV as a version for consultation. However, the main reason for its rejection to this day was not this, but that it translated the Greek future active indicative as a potential verb. Thus, "This same Jesus may come again...."

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The caveat is that Fundamentalists have always rejected translations done by liberals for the simple reason that liberals don't get it right. Going way back to the Revised Standard Version controversy, the RSV translated the Hebrew almah as "young woman" in Isaiah 7:14, and Fundamentalists rejected the RSV

IMVHO this is the key issue, thanks for throwing it in John.

 

[DeclareHim]

Originally posted by Mrs.Woogie:
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.

Not trying to point fingers or cause a huge fuss but I must tell you that the KJV is an Anglican translation although the Anglican church is certainly not the RCC there not exactly IFB.

Originally posted by Mrs.Woogie:
Nice to meet all of you! This is my second post here on the board!

Welcome.

 

[Linda64]

The question in this thread is not how modern versions translate passages on separation, but whether we practice separation when we use our KJV.

Number one--we, as believers in Jesus Christ, are "sanctified"--which means "set apart". Set apart means "separated". Sanctification or holiness refers to being set apart to God from sin. Therefore, we are to practice separation in ALL aspects of our Christian walk--which includes reading God's Word. What is written in God's Word DOES matter.

1 Thessalonians 4:3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:
1 Thessalonians 4:4 That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;

Number two--I did not always use the KJV exclusively. Even though my first Bible was the Open Bible, KJV (1974 edition), I did use other versions--mainly the NASB and the NKJV. I even argued with the KJV defenders, until I decided to do a Bible version study on my own, to check those KJV guys out. I did alot of this without the aid of a computer/internet and spent many months on this comparison study. Then when I got a computer in 1998 and got on the internet, I found tons of sites defending the KJV--I also read James White's book "The King James Only Controversy". I found James White to be much too "philosophical" for my taste--but I did finish the book. Most of his arguments were weak for the MVs. The only truth that James White convinced me of was that there definitely was a "KJV Only Controversy". I am a firm believer in the KJV as the most accurate translation of God's Word because it is based on the best Hebrew manuscript (Masoretic text) and Greek manuscript (Textus Receptus/Received Text). The KJV is God's preserved, inspired, and inerrant Word. I just recently read about Westcott & Hort in depth--they were both heretics, IMHO. Most of the MVs are based on Westcott & Hort Greek manuscripts--and I sure don't believe I need to be reading a version that is translated from manuscripts written by heretics.

Thirdly and finally--I sure don't see anybody making an attempt to "defend" any of the MVs--but as soon as a KJV Only person begins to defend the KJV, they are accused of attacking Bible versions. Not all KJV Only people are radicals and should not be "categorized" into "one" group. Most KJV Only people on this board have had their threads closed down for defending the KJV. The reason I defend the KJV is because I believe it to be the most accurate translation (and I use the word "translation")--translated from the best Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. It is God's preserved, inspired and inerrant Word for English speaking people, in the English language.

BTW--The KJV is NOT an Anglican translation--it was translated in England in English -- that makes it an ENGLISH translation. Maybe the translators were Anglicans--the KJV is NOT a denominational Bible.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Sorry Linda, the KJV was translated by Anglican scholars at the direction of the king. It is an English translation done by Anglicans.

Lets not get sidetracked that defenders of the KJV are censored. No one here is ever censored for their defense of a version unless they attack another person or version. This charge has been made over and over without any substantiation.

Now, to the topic. Just because the KJV was translated by Anglicans is no reason to reject it and it now compromise to do so. The scholars used what are still, imho, the best manuscripts and the best translational methods. That is all that really matters. Their ecclesiastical association has nothing to do with our choice to use it today.

 

[DesiderioDomini]

Linda,

If you are a KJV defender, then why do you so often refuse to answer direct questions?

In your most recent post, you claimed that you believe it to be the "best" translation, using the "best" greek and hebrew texts. That is great!

Here is where the problem lies. Being the best is a far cry from being the only. I believe that Dr. Pepper is the best soda, made from the best materials. That does not make it the only.

I ask, where do you make the jump? Where do you go from "in my opinion, the KJV is the best, using the best manuscripts" to the "KJV is the only translation, God's only preserved and inerrant word in English"? Is it a leap based in objective fact, or subjective faith?

BTW, the KJV IS an anglican translation. It does contain many influences from the RCC. I cannot believe the denial of plain facts in those 2 cases.

May I pose a question? If you are "separated" from sin, and most assuredly false doctrines, what is your view on sprinkling or baptizing babies? Do you feel it is heretical? (please, allow for linda to answer that)

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Please keep the thread on topic DD. If Linda answers your question it will carry the thread off topic. Please feel free to post that question in a general way elsewhere.

 

[Keith M]

Originally posted by 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?

Agreed!

We should not base our selection of Bible versions on the denominational affiliation of the translators, with a couple exceptions I can think of. If there are errors in translation like in the Clear Word and New World translations, then I believe the Holy Spirit will give us discernment about those matters.

If it is compromise to use the KJV then it is compromise to use any English Bible version.

Greek 101 is being taught down the hallway on the left. Hebrew 101 is on the right.

 

[Mrs.Woogie]

Originally posted by C4K:
Sorry Linda, the KJV was translated by Anglican scholars at the direction of the king. It is an English translation done by Anglicans.

This does not make the KJV bible an "angelican" bible. I think the question has been answered. Atleast from me it has. We are not compromising because we are using the KJV bible. The KJV is a free bible. Just like our country is a free country. Just because Englishmen founded our country does not mean that we are english. It does not mean we compromised with England. God uses differant people for differant things.

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by Keith M:
Greek 101 is being taught down the hallway on the left. Hebrew 101 is on the right.

Hey, can we have a class in Japanese for the Japanese Bible, too? It wasn't translated by Anglicans, I know that.

 

[Scott J]

Mrs. Woogie

, The point of these points is that it is inconsistent and even dishonest to cast dispersions on modern translations but not apply or allow the same arguments against the KJV.

My bias or yours toward a particular version doesn't set that version apart to a double standard.

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.

You should go back and read the brief history provided on the first couple of pages. The KJV was specifically written to suppress religious freedom and dissent.

It is a very scholarly translation. Its history in no way diminishes its quality... but the history does exist. The Bible for freedom in the early 1600's was the Geneva. The KJV was the Bible of the state church.

Freedom for people to actually be able to read the Word of God instead of being blinded by the RCC repetitive scaraments.

No again. The KJV wasn't the first nor the most daring translation. Wycliffe, Tynsdale, and the Geneva Bible translators all risked life and fortune to make their translations. The KJV was made at the order and under the protection of a monarch that considered himself the head of the English church.

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.

Then you should likewise be very happy with a Bible translated by conservative and fundamentalist scholars of the first order who were required to have a good testimony and ascribe to a fundamentalist statement of faith, right?

That would be the NASB.

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.

That is a false characterization of those texts. Both Sinaticus and Vaticanus pre-date the radical abuses and errors of the RCC. The Alexandrian text type yields most of the mss we have that pre-date the papacy.

It is beyond ridiculous to state that they are "RCC manuscripts" when the fact is all of the texts used for the TR, the text underlying the KJV, were in RCC hands. They were probably copied by RCC scribes or worse Orthodox scribes.

I believe the KJV IS seperated because of that very reason, no influence from the RCC.

If Vaticanus being held in the Vatican makes it a RCC mss... then the fact that the TR was created by a Catholic scholar and that the KJV agrees greatly and probably borrowed from the Douay-Rheims and that the KJV follows the Latin Vulgate (the official RCC Bible) against overwhelming Greek evidence in places... and was created by Anglicans who weren't very far removed from the RCC doctrinally (they were in transition and remained the most catholic of the protestant churches)... hopefully you get my point.

I am not trying to tear down the KJV. I use it almost all of the time and have done so since childhood. But these shallow guilt by association arguments against MV's utilize deceptive double standards. They are the products of vain false teachers like those mentioned in 2 Peter.

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

Nice to meet you too.

Hope you won't take my response wrong... It just bothers me when I see arguments built on unbalanced scales.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

This thread is on page five - the standard policy limit. I think we have said all we can on the "compromise" issue so am issuing a six hour warning. This thread will be closed no earlier than 1600 EST today.

 

[Linda64]

Originally posted by C4K:
Please keep the thread on topic DD. If Linda answers your question it will carry the thread off topic. Please feel free to post that question in a general way elsewhere.

Don't worry, C4K, I've already answered that question and I will not repeat myself. I've stated the reasons why I use the KJV and DD's question is just another attempt to show his disdain for the KJV and the people who choose to use it.

As far as the KJV being an Anglican translation-- I said:

BTW--The KJV is NOT an Anglican translation--it was translated in England in English -- that makes it an ENGLISH translation. Maybe the translators were Anglicans--the KJV is NOT a denominational Bible.

You said almost the same thing--the only thing I added was the word Maybe . You said:

Sorry Linda, the KJV was translated by Anglican scholars at the direction of the king. It is an English translation done by Anglicans.

That does NOT make the KJV an ANGLICAN Bible--that was the point I was trying to make.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Just can't see how a version commissioned by the king for the Church of England is not an Anglican Bible.

Doesn't mean I am compromising by using it.

No takers on my scenario above before the thread is closed?

Imagine you are the pastor of a non-conformist, sepraratist church soneplace in rural England in 1612. You have your Geneva Bible open and suddenly a rider appears. It is one of your deacons. "Pastor," he yells as his jumps off his horse," I have a copy of the king's new Bible. What do you think?" As you open the new translation you discover that it has the Apocrapha inserted between the Old and New Testaments. You realise that his translation team was composed totally of officials in the state church. You ministry is always in danger because you will not conform to the state church.


The question is this. Do you lay aside your Geneva Bible to use this new translation? Would you be violating your principles in so doing? Would you feel that you are compromising your beliefs by using the king's new Bible version?

 

[Scott J]

That absolutely would be a compromise of principles C4K and a very good illustration to boot.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The problem with my scenario is that I don't know how I would respond to it .

 

[Paul33]

I still think that those who emphasize ecclesiastical separation are playing fast and loose with the KJV.

Sponsorship is the issue, not the quality of the product.

We know this to be the case from the most highlighted example of the past 50 years, namely, Billy Graham.

What I'm picking up from those of you who admit that the KJV was/is an Anglican sponsored work from a King who suppressed separatist dissent is that after a lapse of time (350 years in this case) history and origins no longer matter.

If that is your standard, then eventually supporting Billy Graham will no longer be seen as compromise. (Of course, the difference here is that Billy Graham will soon die, but his organization will live on.)

Thanks C4K for your input. For the record, I don't think it is compromise to use the KJV. Neither, however, do I think it is compromise to use the NASB or the NIV. I am saddened that in our churches one's loyalty to the movement is graded by one's choice of translation.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

This is too broad a charge Paul. I personally know of IFB churches who use the NIV, the NASB, and the NKJV. But that is the topic of another thread.

 

[mcdirector]

Roger -- it is a great example because it gets to the heart of the matter in that time period. I would have stuck with my Geneva Bible. I'm sure I would have (but I'm a rebel at heart anyway -- and don't think God hasn't taken me to task on multiple occassions for it!).

AT the time, I think it might not only have been a compromise, but some church members might have considered trechorous (sp?). I don't know that I consider it a compromise today as we are far removed from the time and place AND we have well established our separation.

[ February 14, 2006, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: mcdirector ]