-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
KJV-Onlyism Commentary
- Thread starter Jason Gastrich
- Start date
After months of studying all of the "scholarly" work from both positions, I realized that it could never be settled amongst men.
So I laid it all on the Lord.
" If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him ". (James 1:5)
After much humble fervent prayer, I felt that God moved within me most when I read from the KJB. It simply delighted my spirit and doctrine appeared to be so much clearer and Jesus Christ was exalted in most every page.
Did God speak to me? No, i never heard any thundering voice nor even a whisper, but I was convinced through the Spirit dealing with my spirit that I should rely on what God had relied on for 300+ years as opposed to the versions which began a division between God's children.
After I believed that God had led me to believe that the KJB was inerrant verse 6 of James 1 came into play.
" But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think he shall receive any thing of the Lord ".
So now I have chosen with a pure heart before the Lord, believing that He has led me to the KJB alone. Since I believe this, I will never change my position. i will use the KJB exclusively and spread the Gospel with it, never doubting what i teach from it as the pure Word of the Lord.
If in the end of the age it is found that I was in error for my stance, then so be it and I will accept my losses before the Lord. I will not question my rebuke.
I pray that each one of you have envolved God in your decisions to support the positions that you do.
God Bless!
Will J. Kinney
Member
Hi Escatologist, I was reading through this section and noticed your thoughts. I wanted to comment on a couple of things. You said:
"Some obvious errors, although most knowledgeable people know the meaning, are words in which the KJV combine under a singular word or meaning.
Example: The KJV uses the word 'world' (i.e. "the end of the world") when the actual Greek meaning is 'age'. Unless you believe there is no difference between the end of the world and the end of the age this poses no problems. Also the word 'Hell' is used for both words 'Hell' and 'Hades' which do have distinguished meanings."
As for the Hades vs Hell thing, please read my article on this at:
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/hell.html
Now, as for the "end of the world", again, I think you are misinformed. Consider the following.
The End of the World, or the end of the Age? Matthew 24:3
There are many sites on the internet and Bible critics who tell us the King James Bible is in error for translating Matthew 24:3 as "the end of the WORLD".
One such site that recommends the NKJV says of Matthew 24:3 in the KJB: "I can hear some of you saying, "There, see, the world is going to end." The problem here is the translation of the Greek word aion. Aion does not mean "world" but "age, dispensation, era, or a period of time." We can understand that an age can end and yet the world can still go on. The Bible talks about the end of the age but never the end of the world. Most newer translations of the Bible correct this error in the KJV."
"So, the age that was to end was the Jewish age. It would end with the destruction of the Jewish temple and the city Jerusalem. The end of the age did not happen at the cross or at Pentecost but at the destruction of Jerusalem. The world was not going to end but the age of Judaism was. The disciples knew that the fall of the temple and the destruction of the city meant the end of the Old Covenant age and the inauguration of a new age".
http://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/transcripts/eschatology/end_of_the_world.htm
Another Christian site says: "Looking at these verses, we can't help wondering what is meant by the expression: "the end of the world." Looking up in the original Greek we find that the term translated "world" is "aion" which means "an indefinite time, a dispensation." Most modern translations render this as the end of the age...The end of the world, and heaven and earth passing away are talking about changes in religious institutions and the spiritual state of people. The world, heaven and earth all passed away two thousand years ago with the coming of Christ, and a new heaven, new earth and new world were started."
http://aztec.asu.edu/worship/sunrise/relax.html
As is usually the case, the "scholars" don't agree among themselves nor are the modern translations consistent in how they translate the Greek word aion. One can usually find some scholar published somewhere who will tell you what you want to hear, but, as we shall show, they are often completely at odds with other scholars who are just as educated. I place zero trust in any scholar.
The King James Bible is not wrong nor in error for translating the Greek phrase found in Matthew 13:39, 40, 49; Matthew 24:3, and 28:20 as "the end of the world"
Matthew 13:39, 40, 49 - "the harvest is the end of the world"; "As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world"; "So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just."
Matthew 28:20 "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."
Not only does the King James Bible translate Matthew 24:3 as "What shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the WORLD", but so also do the following Bible versions both old and modern:
Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, Geneva Bible 1599, John Wesley 1755, Webster's 1833 translation, the Revised Version 1881, American Standard Version 1901, Spanish Reina Valera 1909 (el fin del mundo), Italian Diodati (fin del mondo), Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, Alford's translation, Bible in Basic English 1960, Phillips translation, Douay Version 1950, New Life Bible 1969, New American Bible 1970, Living Bible 1981, New Jerusalem Bible 1985, New Century Version 1988, Contemporary English Version 1991, World English Bible, Hebrew Names Version, God's Word Translation 1995, New Living Bible 1998, Third Millenium Bible 1998, KJV 21st Century, and the Easy to Read Version 2001.
The first major English translation to be widely accepted that changed "the end of the world" to "the end of the AGE" was the liberal RSV, followed by such versions as the NRSV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, ESV and the Holman Christian Standard.
Obviously not all scholars agree on the meaning of the word aion. Anytime you hear someone say: "All scholars agree that....", you should immediately recognize that they person saying this doesn't know what he is talking about.
Even the modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, NKJV and Holman ALL at times translate this same Greek word as WORLD. The NIV does this four times - Luke 16:8 "the children of this world"; Romans 12:2 "Be not conformed to this world"; 1 Timothy 6:17 "Charge them that are rich in this world..."; and 2 Timothy 4:10 "Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world."
The NASB translates this same Greek word as "world" 7 times, including twice as "worlds" in Hebrews 11:3 "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God." and "whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds" - Hebrews 1:2. The NASB likewise has "the care of this world" Matthew 13:22 and Mark 4:19; and "the god of this world" 2 Corinthians 4:4, as well as agreeing with the NIV in 1 and 2 Timothy. The Holman and the NKJV also translate this word as "world" in various verses in the New Testament.
Even though some Bible critics emphatically tell you the word aion does not mean "world" but "age", all the modern versions disagree and so do many Greek Lexicons.
Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich in their Greek-English Lexicon on page 27 list one of the definitions of the word aion as: "THE WORLD as a spatial concept".
Kittel's huge Lexicon in 10 volumns says on page 203: "The sense of "time or course of the world" can easily pass over into that of the "world" itself, so that aion approximates closely to kosmos...to the description of the end of the world (aion) there corresponds the description of its beginning as foundation of the world (kosmos). The equation of aion and kosmos, also found in the Hellenistic mysteries, is to be explained in the NT by Jewish linguistic usage...the spatial significance is just as definite as the temporal."
Trench's Synonyms of the New Testament quotes several authors who agree that the word aion properly means "the world". Trench himself says: "Aion came to mean all that exists in the world under conditions of time." He then quotes C.L.W. Grimm who defines aion as: "the world inasmuch as it is active in time."
Trench also quotes Windischmann who says: "Aion dare never be taken to denote only time, but rather as embracing everything caught up in time, the world and its glory, people and their natural doings and strivings, in contrast to yonder eternal kingdom of the Messiah."
Trench, though giving conflicting thoughts (as is often the case) ends his article on the meaning of aion with these words: "Etymologically our English "world" more nearly represents aion than does the Greek kosmos."
In Matthew 24 the Lord Jesus Christ is describing THE END OF THE WORLD. This physical world as we know it will come to a definite end and a new heaven and a new earth will be created. Just read the rest of the chapter in the King James Bible without trying to fit your particular brand of end-times theology into it.
The Lord says "this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." He says that after the tribulation of those days, the sun shall be darkened, the moon shall not give her light, the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. In Revelation Six we read an overview of all these catastrophies with stars falling, heaven departing as a scroll, and every mountain and island moved out of their places. The great day of the wrath of the Lamb is come, and who shall be able to stand?
2 Peter 3:10-13 say: "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements whall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be destroyed, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness."
The King James Bible is always right.
Will Kinney
"Some obvious errors, although most knowledgeable people know the meaning, are words in which the KJV combine under a singular word or meaning.
Example: The KJV uses the word 'world' (i.e. "the end of the world") when the actual Greek meaning is 'age'. Unless you believe there is no difference between the end of the world and the end of the age this poses no problems. Also the word 'Hell' is used for both words 'Hell' and 'Hades' which do have distinguished meanings."
As for the Hades vs Hell thing, please read my article on this at:
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/hell.html
Now, as for the "end of the world", again, I think you are misinformed. Consider the following.
The End of the World, or the end of the Age? Matthew 24:3
There are many sites on the internet and Bible critics who tell us the King James Bible is in error for translating Matthew 24:3 as "the end of the WORLD".
One such site that recommends the NKJV says of Matthew 24:3 in the KJB: "I can hear some of you saying, "There, see, the world is going to end." The problem here is the translation of the Greek word aion. Aion does not mean "world" but "age, dispensation, era, or a period of time." We can understand that an age can end and yet the world can still go on. The Bible talks about the end of the age but never the end of the world. Most newer translations of the Bible correct this error in the KJV."
"So, the age that was to end was the Jewish age. It would end with the destruction of the Jewish temple and the city Jerusalem. The end of the age did not happen at the cross or at Pentecost but at the destruction of Jerusalem. The world was not going to end but the age of Judaism was. The disciples knew that the fall of the temple and the destruction of the city meant the end of the Old Covenant age and the inauguration of a new age".
http://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/transcripts/eschatology/end_of_the_world.htm
Another Christian site says: "Looking at these verses, we can't help wondering what is meant by the expression: "the end of the world." Looking up in the original Greek we find that the term translated "world" is "aion" which means "an indefinite time, a dispensation." Most modern translations render this as the end of the age...The end of the world, and heaven and earth passing away are talking about changes in religious institutions and the spiritual state of people. The world, heaven and earth all passed away two thousand years ago with the coming of Christ, and a new heaven, new earth and new world were started."
http://aztec.asu.edu/worship/sunrise/relax.html
As is usually the case, the "scholars" don't agree among themselves nor are the modern translations consistent in how they translate the Greek word aion. One can usually find some scholar published somewhere who will tell you what you want to hear, but, as we shall show, they are often completely at odds with other scholars who are just as educated. I place zero trust in any scholar.
The King James Bible is not wrong nor in error for translating the Greek phrase found in Matthew 13:39, 40, 49; Matthew 24:3, and 28:20 as "the end of the world"
Matthew 13:39, 40, 49 - "the harvest is the end of the world"; "As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world"; "So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just."
Matthew 28:20 "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."
Not only does the King James Bible translate Matthew 24:3 as "What shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the WORLD", but so also do the following Bible versions both old and modern:
Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, Geneva Bible 1599, John Wesley 1755, Webster's 1833 translation, the Revised Version 1881, American Standard Version 1901, Spanish Reina Valera 1909 (el fin del mundo), Italian Diodati (fin del mondo), Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, Alford's translation, Bible in Basic English 1960, Phillips translation, Douay Version 1950, New Life Bible 1969, New American Bible 1970, Living Bible 1981, New Jerusalem Bible 1985, New Century Version 1988, Contemporary English Version 1991, World English Bible, Hebrew Names Version, God's Word Translation 1995, New Living Bible 1998, Third Millenium Bible 1998, KJV 21st Century, and the Easy to Read Version 2001.
The first major English translation to be widely accepted that changed "the end of the world" to "the end of the AGE" was the liberal RSV, followed by such versions as the NRSV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, ESV and the Holman Christian Standard.
Obviously not all scholars agree on the meaning of the word aion. Anytime you hear someone say: "All scholars agree that....", you should immediately recognize that they person saying this doesn't know what he is talking about.
Even the modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, NKJV and Holman ALL at times translate this same Greek word as WORLD. The NIV does this four times - Luke 16:8 "the children of this world"; Romans 12:2 "Be not conformed to this world"; 1 Timothy 6:17 "Charge them that are rich in this world..."; and 2 Timothy 4:10 "Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world."
The NASB translates this same Greek word as "world" 7 times, including twice as "worlds" in Hebrews 11:3 "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God." and "whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds" - Hebrews 1:2. The NASB likewise has "the care of this world" Matthew 13:22 and Mark 4:19; and "the god of this world" 2 Corinthians 4:4, as well as agreeing with the NIV in 1 and 2 Timothy. The Holman and the NKJV also translate this word as "world" in various verses in the New Testament.
Even though some Bible critics emphatically tell you the word aion does not mean "world" but "age", all the modern versions disagree and so do many Greek Lexicons.
Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich in their Greek-English Lexicon on page 27 list one of the definitions of the word aion as: "THE WORLD as a spatial concept".
Kittel's huge Lexicon in 10 volumns says on page 203: "The sense of "time or course of the world" can easily pass over into that of the "world" itself, so that aion approximates closely to kosmos...to the description of the end of the world (aion) there corresponds the description of its beginning as foundation of the world (kosmos). The equation of aion and kosmos, also found in the Hellenistic mysteries, is to be explained in the NT by Jewish linguistic usage...the spatial significance is just as definite as the temporal."
Trench's Synonyms of the New Testament quotes several authors who agree that the word aion properly means "the world". Trench himself says: "Aion came to mean all that exists in the world under conditions of time." He then quotes C.L.W. Grimm who defines aion as: "the world inasmuch as it is active in time."
Trench also quotes Windischmann who says: "Aion dare never be taken to denote only time, but rather as embracing everything caught up in time, the world and its glory, people and their natural doings and strivings, in contrast to yonder eternal kingdom of the Messiah."
Trench, though giving conflicting thoughts (as is often the case) ends his article on the meaning of aion with these words: "Etymologically our English "world" more nearly represents aion than does the Greek kosmos."
In Matthew 24 the Lord Jesus Christ is describing THE END OF THE WORLD. This physical world as we know it will come to a definite end and a new heaven and a new earth will be created. Just read the rest of the chapter in the King James Bible without trying to fit your particular brand of end-times theology into it.
The Lord says "this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." He says that after the tribulation of those days, the sun shall be darkened, the moon shall not give her light, the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. In Revelation Six we read an overview of all these catastrophies with stars falling, heaven departing as a scroll, and every mountain and island moved out of their places. The great day of the wrath of the Lamb is come, and who shall be able to stand?
2 Peter 3:10-13 say: "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements whall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be destroyed, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness."
The King James Bible is always right.
Will Kinney
Will J. Kinney
Member
Hi Natters, you post: '' posted August 30, 2004 11:37 AM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
steaver said "Can you provide a quote where inerrancy of the KJB is disproven?"
One that I haven't see it used in the debate yet, but I'm hoping it will appear soon, will be when Kinney speaks about "Easter" in Acts 12:4. Kinney's position is that the common KJV-only argument is wrong (that "Passover occurred before the days of unleavened bread, and so the Passover had already taken place"). His solution to "Easter" is that the Holy Ghost changed the meaning. Kinney would have us believe that Herod observed the Christian holiday of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that the Holy Spirit changed the meaning scripture when the Greek was translated into English. "
Natters, may I suggest you go back and re-read my article on Easter. You are accusing me of saying certain things I did not say at all. The article has been updated a bit with more info added to help refute some erroneous views.
Thank you for the consideration.
Here is the article
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Easter.html
Will Kinney
------------------------------------------------------------------------
steaver said "Can you provide a quote where inerrancy of the KJB is disproven?"
One that I haven't see it used in the debate yet, but I'm hoping it will appear soon, will be when Kinney speaks about "Easter" in Acts 12:4. Kinney's position is that the common KJV-only argument is wrong (that "Passover occurred before the days of unleavened bread, and so the Passover had already taken place"). His solution to "Easter" is that the Holy Ghost changed the meaning. Kinney would have us believe that Herod observed the Christian holiday of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that the Holy Spirit changed the meaning scripture when the Greek was translated into English. "
Natters, may I suggest you go back and re-read my article on Easter. You are accusing me of saying certain things I did not say at all. The article has been updated a bit with more info added to help refute some erroneous views.
Thank you for the consideration.
Here is the article
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Easter.html
Will Kinney
Will, you still say the typical KJV-only arugment is wrong, you still have the Holy Spirit changing the meaning of scripture, and you still have Herod waiting for the anniversary of the resurrection of Christ.
Also, your article avoids the simple and obvious truth: since "pascha" can refer to the entire Passover week (as you admit Luke 22:1 tells us), then Herod waiting for "pascha" ("Passover") to end makes complete and total sense - translating the word as "Passover" simply is not wrong. Does it not bother you that such a simple fact needs oodles of "imaginative" explanations to show how the simple facts need to be disregarded so that you can cling to the man-made concept of KJV inerrancy?
Also, your article avoids the simple and obvious truth: since "pascha" can refer to the entire Passover week (as you admit Luke 22:1 tells us), then Herod waiting for "pascha" ("Passover") to end makes complete and total sense - translating the word as "Passover" simply is not wrong. Does it not bother you that such a simple fact needs oodles of "imaginative" explanations to show how the simple facts need to be disregarded so that you can cling to the man-made concept of KJV inerrancy?
steaver said "After much humble fervent prayer, I felt that God moved within me most when I read from the KJB. It simply delighted my spirit and doctrine appeared to be so much clearer and Jesus Christ was exalted in most every page."
That's wonderful. But how is it proof of KJV inerrancy and exclusivity in English?
steaver said "After I believed that God had led me to believe that the KJB was inerrant verse 6 of James 1 came into play."
Verse six says nothing about the KJV, nothing about the preservation of scripture, nothing about scripture in general. Your argument reminds me of the "burning in the bosom" that Mormons tell me about.
That's wonderful. But how is it proof of KJV inerrancy and exclusivity in English?
steaver said "After I believed that God had led me to believe that the KJB was inerrant verse 6 of James 1 came into play."
Verse six says nothing about the KJV, nothing about the preservation of scripture, nothing about scripture in general. Your argument reminds me of the "burning in the bosom" that Mormons tell me about.
Will J. Kinney
Member
Hi Gina, in your post to Michelle you said:
"Michelle!
There are people out here in the real world that care about the truth, but do believe that the KJV is a KJV, with the V standing for version. A version is a translation from another language.
If (note the IF) you believe that the translation of the KJV was miraculous in that it was the only one that could and did translate perfectly into English, you will need to provide your reason for believing that."
Gina, can a translation be inspired? The Bible itself teaches that a translation CAN BE the inspired word of God.
Gina>>>Also, it would be helpful to know if you believe that this was also done for others throughout the world so that they could also have a perfect Bible. You wouldn't have to know which ones they are, but it doesn't really make sense to believe God chose the English speaking people alone to receive a perfect version of the Bible, unless you also believe that everyone should learn English in order to be right with God and have a perfect Bible. <<<
Gina, God never promised to give everybody or every nation a perfect Bible, but He did promise to preserve His wordS somewhere on this earth.
For those who are not KJB only, their idea of preservation is like saying God's preserved words are found in Webster's dictionary, - they are in there somewhere but we are not sure which ones are which.
God uses imperfect bible versions. The gospel is found in any of them. The question is: Has God preserved His inerrant, complete and inspired words in a Book that today can be called with confidence the inspired word of God?
I and many others believe He has done so in the King James Bible.
The Bible itself tells us that the O.T. Scriptures were committed to the Jews and to no one else. See Psalm 147:19-20 and Romans 3:2.
All modern versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman frequently reject the Hebrew readings. This alone disqualifies them as being God's perfect words.
Sure, you can get saved using them, but they are not the perfect word of God.
We only have a very small percentage of all the manuscripts that once existed. Both man and Satan have corrupted to varying degrees the true words of God. Only God can sort out this mess.
In His providence and sovereignty He has done so in the KJB - at least, that is my firm conviction. The KJB has no proven errors and always follows the Hebrew texts, which were committed to the Jews.
All other versions have proveable theological errors and some ridiculous statements, showing them to be false witnesses.
God had His preserved words before 1611 too. I'm pretty sure, but do not know, that they were found among the Waldensian believers in the Old Latin texts until the time of the Reformation. Then they passed over into the English of the KJB.
You do not need to learn English to get saved and have a "reliable" Bible version. But "reliable" is not the same as "perfect".
Most modern versions today frequently reject the Hebrew Scriptures in many places and are based on the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus mss. The bibles are getting worse, not better and many Christians today no longer believe any Bible in any language is now the inspired words of God. This should tell you something about the spirit behind the false bibles.
I don't know how much I will be able to contribute to this section of the discussion because of time constraints, but I thought I would add a couple of thoughts to this section.
Would any of you who are promoters of the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman stuff like to try to explain the riddle within a riddle? Please give it a shot. I don't know if Jason will try to explain it or if he will pull a James White switcheroo and refuse to talk about his own version but rather keep trying to poke holes in the KJB. We'll see.
So, for all NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman supporters, try to explain this one for us. This serves as an example of the whole textual mindset.
In Judges 14:12-18 Samson puts forth a riddle to the Philistine companions of the wedding feast. In verse 15 the Hebrew text and the King James Bible say: "And it came to pass on THE SEVENTH DAY, that they said unto Samson's wife, Entice thy husband, that he may declare unto us the riddle, lest we burn thee and thy father's house with fire...
In verse 17 it says "she wept before him THE SEVEN DAYS, while their feast lasted".
However, in verse 15 such versions as the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman have all changed the SEVENTH day, to the FOURTH DAY, and they got this number from the Syriac and SOME Septuagint versions.
My question for you is this: Which reading is correct and why? Can you explain this riddle within a riddle for us?
God bless,
Will K
"Michelle!
There are people out here in the real world that care about the truth, but do believe that the KJV is a KJV, with the V standing for version. A version is a translation from another language.
If (note the IF) you believe that the translation of the KJV was miraculous in that it was the only one that could and did translate perfectly into English, you will need to provide your reason for believing that."
Gina, can a translation be inspired? The Bible itself teaches that a translation CAN BE the inspired word of God.
Gina>>>Also, it would be helpful to know if you believe that this was also done for others throughout the world so that they could also have a perfect Bible. You wouldn't have to know which ones they are, but it doesn't really make sense to believe God chose the English speaking people alone to receive a perfect version of the Bible, unless you also believe that everyone should learn English in order to be right with God and have a perfect Bible. <<<
Gina, God never promised to give everybody or every nation a perfect Bible, but He did promise to preserve His wordS somewhere on this earth.
For those who are not KJB only, their idea of preservation is like saying God's preserved words are found in Webster's dictionary, - they are in there somewhere but we are not sure which ones are which.
God uses imperfect bible versions. The gospel is found in any of them. The question is: Has God preserved His inerrant, complete and inspired words in a Book that today can be called with confidence the inspired word of God?
I and many others believe He has done so in the King James Bible.
The Bible itself tells us that the O.T. Scriptures were committed to the Jews and to no one else. See Psalm 147:19-20 and Romans 3:2.
All modern versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman frequently reject the Hebrew readings. This alone disqualifies them as being God's perfect words.
Sure, you can get saved using them, but they are not the perfect word of God.
We only have a very small percentage of all the manuscripts that once existed. Both man and Satan have corrupted to varying degrees the true words of God. Only God can sort out this mess.
In His providence and sovereignty He has done so in the KJB - at least, that is my firm conviction. The KJB has no proven errors and always follows the Hebrew texts, which were committed to the Jews.
All other versions have proveable theological errors and some ridiculous statements, showing them to be false witnesses.
God had His preserved words before 1611 too. I'm pretty sure, but do not know, that they were found among the Waldensian believers in the Old Latin texts until the time of the Reformation. Then they passed over into the English of the KJB.
You do not need to learn English to get saved and have a "reliable" Bible version. But "reliable" is not the same as "perfect".
Most modern versions today frequently reject the Hebrew Scriptures in many places and are based on the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus mss. The bibles are getting worse, not better and many Christians today no longer believe any Bible in any language is now the inspired words of God. This should tell you something about the spirit behind the false bibles.
I don't know how much I will be able to contribute to this section of the discussion because of time constraints, but I thought I would add a couple of thoughts to this section.
Would any of you who are promoters of the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman stuff like to try to explain the riddle within a riddle? Please give it a shot. I don't know if Jason will try to explain it or if he will pull a James White switcheroo and refuse to talk about his own version but rather keep trying to poke holes in the KJB. We'll see.
So, for all NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman supporters, try to explain this one for us. This serves as an example of the whole textual mindset.
In Judges 14:12-18 Samson puts forth a riddle to the Philistine companions of the wedding feast. In verse 15 the Hebrew text and the King James Bible say: "And it came to pass on THE SEVENTH DAY, that they said unto Samson's wife, Entice thy husband, that he may declare unto us the riddle, lest we burn thee and thy father's house with fire...
In verse 17 it says "she wept before him THE SEVEN DAYS, while their feast lasted".
However, in verse 15 such versions as the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman have all changed the SEVENTH day, to the FOURTH DAY, and they got this number from the Syriac and SOME Septuagint versions.
My question for you is this: Which reading is correct and why? Can you explain this riddle within a riddle for us?
God bless,
Will K
While your post was incredibly lengthy, I took the time to read it. You failed to make your point with any scriptural support whatsoever. For example, you totally sidestepped the whole Hell/Hades topic by doing a "number of words" comparison between versions, a completely fruitless excercise, since one translation carries no authoritative weight over another. Now, if you were to compare translations to their source texts, you might have gained credibility in your arguement. But you know very well that you cannot do that, because a translation-to-sourcetext comparison actually refutes your position instead of bolstering it.
Now, to your closing statement, you said the King James is always right, even though there are several places where the KJV differs from its source texts in translation.
Mr. Kinney, your essay on Hades/Hell seems to go on the premise that a word count supporting a given doctrine is more important than the accuracy of a text. What credible lexicon supports the notion that "aè" is not translated as "hades" (c.f. Luke 16:23) as opposed to "geenna" which is the more literal word (c.f. Matthew 5:29)?
You also say "The NASB on the other hand, transliterates rather than translates this word every single time as SHEOL. How many Christians know what Sheol is? It strikes fear in the heart, doesn't it?"
This is an odd argument from one who holds to your position. How many Christians know what these words mean?:
almug, algum, chode, charashim, chapt, earing, gat, habergeon, hosen, kab, knob, ligure, leasing, maranatha, nard, neesed, pate, pilled, rabboni, raca, ring-straked, stacte, strake, sycamyne, thyme wood, trode, wimples, ouches, tatches, brigandine, ambassage, occurrent, purtenance, bruit, fray, cracknels, nusings, mufflers, anathema, corban, talitha cumi, ephrata, aceldama, centurion, quarternion, delectable, sanctum sanctorum, carriage, let, pityful (for full of pity), wot, trow, sod, and swaddling clothes - source: Jack P. Lewis, The English Bible From KJV to NIV (Baker Book House, 1981), p. 55.
It is far more accurate to research the foreign and somewhat complex concept of "sheol" as the Hebrews conceived it than to dismiss it with a simple translation of "hell," "grave," or "pit." None of these words capture the concept completely.
[ September 01, 2004, 07:48 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]
You also say "The NASB on the other hand, transliterates rather than translates this word every single time as SHEOL. How many Christians know what Sheol is? It strikes fear in the heart, doesn't it?"
This is an odd argument from one who holds to your position. How many Christians know what these words mean?:
almug, algum, chode, charashim, chapt, earing, gat, habergeon, hosen, kab, knob, ligure, leasing, maranatha, nard, neesed, pate, pilled, rabboni, raca, ring-straked, stacte, strake, sycamyne, thyme wood, trode, wimples, ouches, tatches, brigandine, ambassage, occurrent, purtenance, bruit, fray, cracknels, nusings, mufflers, anathema, corban, talitha cumi, ephrata, aceldama, centurion, quarternion, delectable, sanctum sanctorum, carriage, let, pityful (for full of pity), wot, trow, sod, and swaddling clothes - source: Jack P. Lewis, The English Bible From KJV to NIV (Baker Book House, 1981), p. 55.
It is far more accurate to research the foreign and somewhat complex concept of "sheol" as the Hebrews conceived it than to dismiss it with a simple translation of "hell," "grave," or "pit." None of these words capture the concept completely.
Chapter and verse, please.
[ September 01, 2004, 07:48 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]
Does it really matter which day the men of the Philistine city approached Samson's wife? Is it not conceivable that an additional three days passed after they "plowed with [his] heifer" (verse 18)? Verse 14 supports the notion that the "fourth" day is entirely plausible to the story as it was after three days that the men of the city approached the woman. The story in all versions returns to the climax of the event culminating on the seventh day (verse 17).
I could just as easily throw the question back to you: what was the animal that swallowed Jonah? Was it a "fish" as supported by the Masoteric? Or was it a "whale" as supported by the Septuagint. Answer carefully as the answer may be in the New Testament of any version, including the KJV.
artbook1611
New Member
Mr Ed Edwards Quote:
"True" does not apply to the chart
there. There is a difference between history
and fiction, this chart is largely fiction.
END QUOTE
So what makes you the final authority on this chart? Men who have studied this issue were certainly more knowledgable than you or I. I wouldn't be so quick to scoff at this work unless of course YOU ARE THE FINAL AUTHORITY.
"True" does not apply to the chart
there. There is a difference between history
and fiction, this chart is largely fiction.
END QUOTE
So what makes you the final authority on this chart? Men who have studied this issue were certainly more knowledgable than you or I. I wouldn't be so quick to scoff at this work unless of course YOU ARE THE FINAL AUTHORITY.
It is no proof to you but only to me. It is like trying to prove to an athiest that God exist. I know He does but I cannot prove it to him. He must search it out for himself.
I don't think you understood my post.
Do you believe that we can ask God for wisdom concerning this issue, whether or not the KJB is fully trustworthy or not, and that He will show us if we should trust it and reject the others?
Or even the opposite, that God could show us that we should trust all translations?
The point is, can we ask God about this and expect an answer from Him?
God Bless!
The point is, Steaver, that it is as equally a silly task in trying to venerate the KJV to a status above other versions. If a matter of "day four" in Syriac and Septuagint texts opposed to "day seven" in the Hebrew texts are cause for an issue in Judges and presents a "riddle," then certainly a disagreement between the Jewish text in Jonah as presented in the KJV disagreeing with the words of Christ in the KJV New Testament must be a real conundrum. I eagerly wait Mr. Kinney's response.
My hope is that he will recognize the hypocrisy of issuing his challenge as the KJV cites the New Testament authors quoting the Greek texts they had at the time.
As I stated on page 9, the word discrepencies don't bother me as long as the content is not changed, whether it be the sea creature that swallowed Jonah, which day Samson's wife approached him, or even the Easter/Passover debate. Perhaps Mr. Kinney may recognize the fultility of straining at gnats. There are a quite a few at which to strain.
My hope is that he will recognize the hypocrisy of issuing his challenge as the KJV cites the New Testament authors quoting the Greek texts they had at the time.
As I stated on page 9, the word discrepencies don't bother me as long as the content is not changed, whether it be the sea creature that swallowed Jonah, which day Samson's wife approached him, or even the Easter/Passover debate. Perhaps Mr. Kinney may recognize the fultility of straining at gnats. There are a quite a few at which to strain.
It is good to define the parameters with which we work. Many do not have a working definition of "inspiration" The word in the Greek literally means "God-breathed." Here is a classic definition of Inspiration as given by Benjamin Warfield.
The KJVO people are far too self-centered, seemingly not caring for the rest of the world. English is not the most widely spoken language in the world. It does not make sense therefore that an English Bible would be the ONLY inspired Bible.
William Carey, the father of modern missions went to India and translated the Bible into 26 different languages. What makes his translations any less "inspired" than the KJV. The fact is that he gave the Word of God to millions of East Indian people.
No translation of the Bible is inspired. That much can be easily demonstrated from Scripture. What you, Will (and Michelle), have failed to do, is provide and Scriptural evidence that a translation can be inspired.
DHK
Note that to be inspired a writing (including a translation) would have to be "perfectly infallible." One thing I am sure of--no translation is "perfectly infallible," and thus could never be "inspired." That is why "inspiration" can only apply to the original autographs. They were the ones that were God-breathed. Man, in his translations, makes mistakes. God makes no mistakes.
The KJVO people are far too self-centered, seemingly not caring for the rest of the world. English is not the most widely spoken language in the world. It does not make sense therefore that an English Bible would be the ONLY inspired Bible.
William Carey, the father of modern missions went to India and translated the Bible into 26 different languages. What makes his translations any less "inspired" than the KJV. The fact is that he gave the Word of God to millions of East Indian people.
No translation of the Bible is inspired. That much can be easily demonstrated from Scripture. What you, Will (and Michelle), have failed to do, is provide and Scriptural evidence that a translation can be inspired.
DHK
What then is the point for Paul saying to Timothy.....?
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God , and is profitable for doctrine , for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect , thoroughly furnushed unto all good works".
Paul did not say all translations, or all copies of the inspired scriptures are inspired. Paul said "all scripture".
Why say this to Timothy and us, if Timothy nor us has the inspired scriptures to read?
By this passage alone, only the inspired scripture is profitable. Scripture which you claim we do not have because only the originals are inspired.
Your only choice is to add to this statement in some fashion or declare it means something other than what it clearly states if you are to explain it away.
How is the man of God going to be furnished unto all good works without these inspired scriptures which Paul speaks of?
God Bless!
I'm not sure anyone ever stated that the English Bible is the only one that can be inspired. Just that among all the English translations, the KJB appears to be.
You are applying worldly wisdom here as well. God may exclusively use any language He chooses, no?
God Bless!
Good morning, Steaver -Originally posted by steaver:
What then is the point for Paul saying to Timothy.....?
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God , and is profitable for doctrine , for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect , thoroughly furnushed unto all good works".
Paul did not say all translations, or all copies of the inspired scriptures are inspired. Paul said "all scripture".
Why say this to Timothy and us, if Timothy nor us has the inspired scriptures to read?
By this passage alone, only the inspired scripture is profitable. Scripture which you claim we do not have because only the originals are inspired.
Your only choice is to add to this statement in some fashion or declare it means something other than what it clearly states if you are to explain it away.
How is the man of God going to be furnished unto all good works without these inspired scriptures which Paul speaks of?
God Bless!
I realize that you quoted DHK in the post and were likely addressing him, however, I would like the opportunity to address this point as it is often used by those who hold to a given translation being inspired. One need not add to it at all.
One should be careful about building a doctrine upon a single verse taken out of context. Look to the two previous verses, 2Timothy 3:14-15 as well:
But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
Paul never says that Timothy possessed the inspired Scriptures. He tells them that he knows them. The Scriptures manifested themselves in Christ (John 5:39) and were previously preserved by the Jews (Romans 3:2). Timothy knew the Scriptures because he had studied them since childhood, not because they sat in the form of a "perfect" text on his desk.
Consider James 4:5 "Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?" One will not find this quote in any Old Testament writing, but the essense is there in Ecclesiastes 4:4; Job 5:2; Proverbs 14:30, etc.
Paul used the same device in Romans 3:10-18. You will find there a compilation of Old Testament quotes that you will not find in sequence anywhere else. Yet, he says "it is written." The essense of the inspired word of God lives on, even in paraphrase.
As for the rest of the defense, I suspect that DHK will refer you back to page 6 and the exposition of 2Peter 1:21, though I would not want to put words in his mouth.
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2767/6.html#000081
Now as for the post addressed to me:
Yes, one can ask.
I would not presume to speculate how God would answer another's prayer. He might say, "yes," "no," or He may tell you something you don't want to hear.
[ September 02, 2004, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]