KJV ONLY

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Farmer's Wife:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
With all due respect to you, Farmer's Wife, and to a lesser extent Pastor Bob 63, you all have put your faith in a manmade doctrine that contradicts known facts. In other words, you hold to a superstition.

superstition: n : an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear

Scott J, my faith is NOT in a manmade doctrine! My faith is in my LORD JESUS CHRIST!

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ~ John 1:1 (KJBible)</font>[/QUOTE]I was referring to your belief in KJVOnlyism. The Lord Jesus Christ is not a manmade doctrine.

Our Saviour did not cause you to believe in KJVO.

 

[Farmer's Wife]

Originally posted by Scott J:
I was referring to your belief in KJVOnlyism. The Lord Jesus Christ is not a manmade doctrine.

I don't have a belief in any 'ism'! I believe that the King James Bible is the true and perfect Word of God! Don't you?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Farmer's Wife:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
I was referring to your belief in KJVOnlyism. The Lord Jesus Christ is not a manmade doctrine.

I don't have a belief in any 'ism'! I believe that the King James Bible is the true and perfect Word of God! Don't you? </font>[/QUOTE]It depends on how you are now defining "true and perfect". And whether you believe it to be exclusively the "true and perfect" Word of God in English.

Yes. I believe the KJV to be the true (not false, consistent with other versions and the historical evidence for the original text) and perfect (complete, not lacking any concept or matter of fact present in the originals) Word of God. Under these same terms, I believe the NASB and NKJV to be the true and perfect Word of God also.

[ August 14, 2002, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

[AVL1984]

Originally posted by TomVols:
Tough to answer. There are varying degrees. When I was KJV only, it meant that the KJV was the only real Bible. All others were not real Bibles. Anyone who used one of the others was deceived and potentially a deceiver themselves. It meant only true believers used the KJV. But God delivered me from this liberal, unScriptural belief system.

Amen, Brother! The Lord will shed those scales from anyones eyes if they will let Him!

B.T.

 

[Japheth]

Originally posted by Brother Tony:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TomVols:
Tough to answer. There are varying degrees. When I was KJV only, it meant that the KJV was the only real Bible. All others were not real Bibles. Anyone who used one of the others was deceived and potentially a deceiver themselves. It meant only true believers used the KJV. But God delivered me from this liberal, unScriptural belief system.

Amen, Brother! The Lord will shed those scales from anyones eyes if they will let Him!

B.T.</font>[/QUOTE]How can a KJVO's be deceived or a deceiver, when the MV's subtlety deceive those who read them? The NA texts leave out and partialy omit verses that deny His deity and the blood atonement.The "scales" are not reserved for just KJVO's

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Originally posted by DocCas:
I believe faith is only as good as the object we place that faith in. When you say you have faith in what you have been taught, and what you have read on the subject, aren't you saying your faith is in the men who taught you or the scholarship of those who's books you read? Is faith in men really the kind of faith which is taught in the bible?

So, the bible is the object of my faith. But in your case it seems to me you are saying that men are the object of your faith. Men who taught and men who wrote books about the bible. How does your position on faith differ from the Jehovah's Witnesses who have faith in the writings of Russell, Rutherford, and the other leaders of their cult?

DocCas,

My faith is in the doctrine of preservation as declared in the Word of God. I have chosen to deem as accurate the writings of men who have chronicled the steps of preservation from the originals until today.

My faith is not in the men, my faith is in the God who directs the men. When my people hear me preach each week, I would not have them put their trust in me as the spokesman of God; I would have them put their trust in God alone.

Pastor Larry said

You have reiterated in your post that you believe what Jesus read was "perfect" (or words to that effect). How is it that you define this with respect to textual criticism and the existence of variants?

Jesus often quoted the OT. He never once refuted it's accuracy. This, to me declared that the writings that He read from had been perfectly preserved from the originals. He didn't have to correct or clarlfy any of them.

Anytime man is involved there is the possibility of error. There were doubtless writings that contained mistakes and differed from the majority of the texts. 99% of the extant writings agree with the Recieved Text; 1% disagree. The varients would come from the 1%.

The W/H text, using the theory that "older is better" ignores the uniformity of the 99%. In my opinion this is not using common sense.

As a former school teacher, if I had 9 out 10 students tell me the same version of how the window was broken and 1 child told a similar story but left out some key parts, I would tend to place my confidence in the story of the majority.

I hope this makes sense to you.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Pastor Bob 63:
Jesus often quoted the OT. He never once refuted it's accuracy. This, to me declared that the writings that He read from had been perfectly preserved from the originals. He didn't have to correct or clarlfy any of them.

Thanks for your kind response. Let's assume for the moment that what you have said above is true (I don't grant it but let's assume it). Which of the 5000+ manuscripts extant can we make that claim for? No two match exactly. They all have differences. If two of them perfectly agreed, I would grant you a little legitimacy on this point. But on what basis do you make a claim that one of the 5000+ is perfectly preserved from the originals? If you do not make this claim, then it seems you cannot talk about a perfect preservation of the originals ... a perfect reconstruction perhaps ... but not a perfect preservation. I believe you said you preferred the 1550 (I can't remember). Whatever it is, it is a compilation put together by editors. How can that be called a perfect preservation?

Anytime man is involved there is the possibility of error. There were doubtless writings that contained mistakes and differed from the majority of the texts. 99% of the extant writings agree with the Recieved Text; 1% disagree. The varients would come from the 1%.

The difficulty here is that there is not even agreement in the majority text family. There are places where it is split right down the middle. There are places where the TR reads with the minority of the majority. There are even places where the TR reads with the 1% above (such as 1 John 5:7 -- I know all the arguments; I use it merely as an example). In other words, on the basis of your own arguments, you have cast doubt on your own choice of a text.

You are right that anytime man is involved (I assume you mean apart from the direct inspiration of the Spirit since you are not claiming man was not involved in the originals) there is the possibility of errors. That is why I don't grant your assumption that Jesus was reading from a perfection preservation of the originals. Man had copied them through generations.

As a former school teacher, if I had 9 out 10 students tell me the same version of how the window was broken and 1 child told a similar story but left out some key parts, I would tend to place my confidence in the story of the majority.

What if the 1 child was 14 and the other 9 were 3? What if the other 9 didn't see it but were merely reporting what one of them had told the others? What if they all were involved in breaking it and conspired with the others to lie about it to protect themselves but one, a little more sensitive than the others, couldn't hold out? (I was busted in that scenario once upon a time.)

In other words, it is not this simple. If all things are equal, then you have a case. But all is not equal. First, you are not comparing 9 with 1; you are comparing 1 with 1. Second, all testimony does not have equal weight. Some "weighs" more than others. If 4 of the 9 have a reputation for being a bully and have lied to you repeatedly and the 1 has a reputation for being a sensitive kid who just can't lie without giving it away, the evidence takes a different spin.

I could on and on to cast doubt on either or all of their stories. My point is this: I don't think it is as simple as counting. There are other factors involved and that is why the canons of textual criticism are involved. They are well-established. I have previously asked Thomas if he could enlighten us on Erasmus' principles that he used in making textual choices for the TR. I would be interested to know exactly what process he used in the original and then in the subsequent changes, what led him to change his mind.

Does this make sense to you?

I hope this makes sense to you.[/QB][/QUOTE]

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Pastor Larry,

Yes, your illustration did make sense to me. Thank you. I realize their could be a number of variables in the scenario I presented. It was a crude illustration that does not do justice to what I was hoping it would illustrate.

Let me submit to you that, when Jesus quoted from the OT, there were undoubtedly manuscripts available to Him that are no longer extant. He would have had writings that may have been 2nd, 3rd, or 4th generation copies of the originals. With the painstaking detail that the Jews observed when copying God's Word, I don't think it would be a stretch to believe He had a perfect reproduction of the originals.

As far as the 5000+ extant today, I will agree that no two are exactly the same. Some, or rather, the majority of these are so similar that it leaves no doubt as to the intent of the scribe who copied it. That intent was, I believe to accurately preserve God's Word.

I simply choose to believe, and please know that I am not trying to be sarcastic or insinuate that you do not believe, that God is big enough to preserve His Word even amidst the frailty of the human agents that copied the Scriptures.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Pastor Bob 63:
As far as the 5000+ extant today, I will agree that no two are exactly the same. Some, or rather, the majority of these are so similar that it leaves no doubt as to the intent of the scribe who copied it. That intent was, I believe to accurately preserve God's Word.

This is exactly how I would say it ... that God accurately preserved his word ... I would add in the multitude of the manuscripts. We are not in doubt as to what God said and no protestation to the contrary will change that. I think we both agree on that though we have different approaches to get there.

I would simply add that when a manuscripts departs from the majority, it does not mean that they "intended" to corrupt God's word. I cannot, in good conscience, believe that any copyists deliberately corrupted a manuscripts. There is simply too much uniformity across to board to argue intention.

Those would argue a deliberate omission of doctrine have to realize that the doctrine is still there. It seems they think these copyists were dummies who can get the blood out of Col 1:14 but somehow missed in 1:20 and 90 some other places. That theory just doesn't hold water when we look at the facts.

Anyway, these are some difficult issues and I don't think in this life we will have the perfect answer to this problem. By the time we get it in the next life, no one will care anymore. That's the good part.

 

[ChristianCynic]

Originally posted by Pastor Bob 63:
I simply choose to believe....that God is big enough to preserve His Word even amidst the frailty of the human agents that copied the Scriptures.

But He is not "big enough" preserve His Word in the language of the average Joe on the street?

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Originally posted by ChristianCynic:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Bob 63:
I simply choose to believe....that God is big enough to preserve His Word even amidst the frailty of the human agents that copied the Scriptures.

But He is not "big enough" preserve His Word in the language of the average Joe on the street?</font>[/QUOTE]Cynic,

I will break my vow of silence and respond because you ask an honest question.

The popularity of the MV's came on the premise that that KJV was "too hard to understand." As far as "readability" is concerned, here are some levels for the KJV based on the computer program "Right Writer."

Gen. 1 readability 8.13 = 8th grade.
Ex. 1 readability 7.94 = 8th grade.
Romans 1 readability 9.74 = 10th grade.
Romans 3 readability 5.63 = 6th grade.
Romans 8 readability 7.72 = 8th grade.
Jude readability 10.11 = 10th grade.

You can test any portion of Scripture on most word processor prgrams and see the readability on each based on today's educational standards. Of course, today's 10th grade would have been equal to 5th or 6th grade 100 years ago.

This, too me, verifies that the KJV is most certainly not hard to understand and it is preserved in the language of the average Joe.

Regardless of which translation you choose, this verse is true.
1Cor. 2:14 "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

If a person is lost, without the illumination of the Holy Spirit, even the simplest of truths will not be understood.

God can make the scholar or the unlearned man understand His Word. I feel it is a mistake to limit God to the "easier to understand" versions.

 

[Ransom]

I would like to know more details concerning this "readability test." I have questions that include, but are not limited to,

Who conducted it?
How were the sample chapters chosen?
Do any of the chapters contain anomalies that might affect the results?
Would I get similar results with a different, randomly chosen, sample set?
What results would I get if I ran the very same test on an NIV, NASB, or NKJV?
Why was "Right Writer" chosen instead of some other similar product such as Grammatik, or working out the readability by hand?
By what method does Right Writer calculate readability - is it Flesch-Kincaid, Fry, Gunning FOG, something else? Does it simply do a word or syllable count? Or can it actually take context and word familiarity into account?

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Originally posted by Ransom:
I would like to know more details concerning this "readability test." I have questions that include, but are not limited to,

Who conducted it?

Rev. D.A. Waite, Th.D, Ph.D.
Collingswood, New Jersey

How were the sample chapters chosen?

Randomly

Do any of the chapters contain anomalies that might affect the results?

That is relative; you'll have to check for yourself.

Would I get similar results with a different, randomly chosen, sample set?

Possibly. Again, you'll have to try it for yourself.

What results would I get if I ran the very same test on an NIV, NASB, or NKJV?

You would get the readability of each version. The point made was that the KJV is not as hard to understand as some imply.

Why was "Right Writer" chosen instead of some other similar product such as Grammatik, or working out the readability by hand?

I assume it's because that is the program Dr. Waite had available to him.

By what method does Right Writer calculate readability - is it Flesch-Kincaid, Fry, Gunning FOG, something else?

Flesch-Kincaid I believe.

Does it simply do a word or syllable count?

Word count if I'm not mistaken.

Or can it actually take context and word familiarity into account?

I have no idea, but I would seriouly doubt it had that ability.

I had no "hidden adgenda" when I posted the readability. It is obvious that I encouraged others to do the same with their programs.

The KJV has been read, memorized, taught, and understood by countless numbers of people, all of which do not have a high level of education. The arguement that it is too hard to understand just doesn't hold water for me.

 

[longshot]

At the risk of being used as an example of the downfall of the American educational establishment, let me offer myself up as an "average Joe". Mid 40's, construction worker, high school grad and walking with Jesus aprox. a year and a half now. I am NIV preferred as you can see by previous posts. I CAN read the KJV and admire its beauty, however, I understand the MV's "with less effort". It is almost as though I have to translate the old English into modern English to get the meaning with the KJV. I believe if I were brought up in a church that preached the KJV from the pulpit, (the one I belong to at this time does), it possibly would be second nature to me as it is with many of you. But as for myself, understanding the meaning is what is most important. If there is a question on my part I will compare to the KJV and other versions. I follow along with my NIV as the preacher reads from the pulpit. It gives an interesting perspective and adds to the message. But to put it in a nutshell, if my intellect is in question because I comprehend the MV's with less effort, so be it. For me comprehension of the scriptures are the name of the game. Just my opinion. Thanks.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Originally posted by Ransom:
I would like to know more details concerning this "readability test." I have questions that include, but are not limited to,

What results would I get if I ran the very same test on an NIV, NASB, or NKJV?

Out of curiousity, I ran this test using Microsoft Word 2000 which gives the Flesch-Kincaid grade level of a document. Here is what I found.

Genesis 1 - Creation
KJV - 7.3
NKJV - 5.0
ASV - 7.8
RSV - 5.6
BBE - 7.4

Genesis 3 - The Fall
KJV - 5.6
NKJV - 5.6
ASV - 5.9
RSV - 5.2
BBE - 7.0

Matthew 5 - Sermon on the Mount portion
KJV - 7.4
NKJV - 6.2
ASV - 7.1
RSV - 5.8
BBE - 6.0

KJV = King James Version
NKJV = New King James Version
ASV = American Standard Version
RSV = Revised Standard Version
BBE = Basic Bible in English

Because of time I just did these three chapters. If you are interested in another passage, I would be glad to do it as well.

I did not have access to the NIV or NASB.

 

[Pastor Larry]

On Matthew 5, NIV is 5.8, NASB95 is 6.1.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Thank you Pastor Larry.

The point I am trying to make is that the argument that the MV's are better because the KJV is too hard to understand, is just not a valid arguement.

Sure, the MV's at times may be easier, but that does not make the KJV difficult.

It is my opinion that anyone with a 7th to 8th grade comprehension level can understand the KJV just fine. That would include the vast majority of "average Joes," and a whole lot more besides.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Pastor Bob 63:
The point I am trying to make is that the argument that the MV's are better because the KJV is too hard to understand, is just not a valid arguement.

Sure, the MV's at times may be easier, but that does not make the KJV difficult.

It is my opinion that anyone with a 7th to 8th grade comprehension level can understand the KJV just fine. That would include the vast majority of "average Joes," and a whole lot more besides.

I would disagree. Having worked with teenagers of all spiritual maturity levels for 10 years, I found the KJV was distracting and confusing to the vast majority, including those who had been brought up on it. I think these computer analyses are flawed in that machines cannot really give us an insight into the words themselves, the sentence structures, etc. Someone had posted some information on these previously though I don't remember who it was. My personal experience is that the readability argument falls decidedly on the side of MVs.

 

[Ransom]

Pastor Bob 63 said:

The point I am trying to make is that the argument that the MV's are better because the KJV is too hard to understand, is just not a valid arguement.

But you haven't made that point. All you have done is run a Flesch-Kincaid test on a few chapters, and all that does is measure words per sentence and syllable per word. A mathematical formula can make no distinction between plain English (such as "The cat sat on the mat") and complete gibberish ("Sat the on mat cat the"). It can tell you about sentence length and number of syllables, but it can't account for word familiarity, sentence structure, or formal things such as type and layout.

In short, running a few chapters through a grammar checker is useless as a proof of anything.

[ August 21, 2002, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

[DocCas]

I really hate it when I am forced to agree with Ransom, but the reading level tests so far in evidence do not support anything other than the length of words and sentences tend to be shorter. If those short words are unknown to the reader, it matters not how short they are, they are still unknown.