MUST we have only one text?

[DiamondLady]

I am late coming to this discussion, and I will admit up front that I am not a philosophical giant nor a Biblical genius. That said, both the TR and the CT can not be accurate. Either both are flawed, in which case God is a liar and did not preserve His Word as He said in scripture, or one is correct and one is flawed.

As I have stated before, I am not a KJV onlyist. I am KJV preferred and will also state that while I allow the preferences of others, I do not like the modern translations for a variety of reasons, none of which pertain to this discussion. Here are, however, a couple of reasons why I prefer the KJV.

It has withstood the test of time.....400 years with very little change/correction (mostly spelling and grammatical).

Great spiritual awakenings and revivals took place using the KJV. I have not seen the same results with the modern versions.

I love the richness of the language, the effort in which one must put to read it. Modern versions (which I have read and tried) I get very little from as I can "speed read" through them because of the language. I have to take my time and concentrate with the KJV, thinking through as I read, stopping from time to time to investigate and word and then ponder why that word was used.

As for the verses in Mark, they're there for a reason. The process the scholars went through in bringing the KJV to mankind was too intense for these verses to be put in lightly or in error.

As for the question from Mexdeaf "Question for you: Was every word that God spoke written down for us?" This is a misstated question. God did not give words for man to write down, period, except as listed below. God INSPIRED, God BREATHED, God GAVE. There's only one scripture in which God said, "write these words" and that was to Moses in Exodus. In that case, YES, every word God spoke was written down. The second place is in Revelation where John is told to "Write: for these words are true and faithful. "

It's similar to knowing the right sermon to give or SS lesson to teach. God doesn't say, "TEACH this or PREACH this" he inspires us by giving us a scripture, an idea, and then sends a verification, then guides us as we prepare, then enables us as the time to preach or teach actually arrives.

And this is how my simple mind understands and accepts that the KJV IS indeed AN inspired version of God's Word. Your opinions probably vary, and that's okay with me....it's between you and God that it matters anyway.

 

[jbh28]

I am late coming to this discussion, and I will admit up front that I am not a philosophical giant nor a Biblical genius. That said, both the TR and the CT can not be accurate. Either both are flawed, in which case God is a liar and did not preserve His Word as He said in scripture, or one is correct and one is flawed.

The problem is that you have a very faulty premise that one has to be 100% perfectly correct to have God preserve His word. First of all, the TR has been revised many times. There is no way that all of these revisions are 100% perfect. Second, the TR was put together originally by Erasmus in the 1500's. Was the Bible perfectly preserved prior to the TR? Sure it was! So having a perfect TR is not required to have God preserve His word.

As I have stated before, I am not a KJV onlyist. I am KJV preferred and will also state that while I allow the preferences of others, I do not like the modern translations for a variety of reasons, none of which pertain to this discussion. Here are, however, a couple of reasons why I prefer the KJV.

It has withstood the test of time.....400 years with very little change/correction (mostly spelling and grammatical).

No problem to prefer the KJV for this reason.

Great spiritual awakenings and revivals took place using the KJV. I have not seen the same results with the modern versions.

The Great spiritual awakenings also took place with many other things that are different from today. The KJV translation was just the Bible that was used, but the differences between it and the modern versions have absolutely nothing to do with the lack of great spiritual awakenings today.

I love the richness of the language, the effort in which one must put to read it. Modern versions (which I have read and tried) I get very little from as I can "speed read" through them because of the language. I have to take my time and concentrate with the KJV, thinking through as I read, stopping from time to time to investigate and word and then ponder why that word was used.

that has to do with the English language and you preferring the older language.

As for the verses in Mark, they're there for a reason. The process the scholars went through in bringing the KJV to mankind was too intense for these verses to be put in lightly or in error.

most modern versions have the ending of mark included.

And this is how my simple mind understands and accepts that the KJV IS indeed AN inspired version of God's Word. Your opinions probably vary, and that's okay with me....it's between you and God that it matters anyway.

As with your "AN" I would assume I would agree with you. The English words themselves are not inspired like the original words are. The English translators were not guided by the spirit and kept from error. Good to see you don't hold to that position.

 

[InTheLight]

Great spiritual awakenings and revivals took place using the KJV. I have not seen the same results with the modern versions.

The Great spiritual awakenings also took place with many other things that are different from today. The KJV translation was just the Bible that was used, but the differences between it and the modern versions have absolutely nothing to do with the lack of great spiritual awakenings today.

Indeed. Crediting the KJV with spiritual revivals taking place also ignores other foreign language editions of the modern translations which have been used by missionaries to show people the way to God. Are we to toss out every non-English speaking converted person because the KJV wasn't used?

 

[DiamondLady]

Indeed. Crediting the KJV with spiritual revivals taking place also ignores other foreign language editions of the modern translations which have been used by missionaries to show people the way to God. Are we to toss out every non-English speaking converted person because the KJV wasn't used?

:BangHead: Stay on topic. Nobody said anything about tossing every non-English speaking convert out. I SAID great spiritual revivals took place in the last 400 years using the KJV. They did, that's a fact of history. I also said I haven't seen any huge spiritual revivals taking place using the NIV or other modern versions. Again, fact of present history.

Great revivals are taking place in foreign countries today. Maybe God is moving there because we English speaking intellectuals are too busy arguing and debating whether one version is superior/one version is more accurate/one version is God inspired and the other versions aren't instead of being out teaching and preaching God's Word. In retrospect thinking, that might be EXACTLY why there were great revivals using the KJV...men like Spurgeon, Moody, Billy Sunday, Billy Graham and others were out preaching every night.

 

[JesusFan]

:BangHead: Stay on topic. Nobody said anything about tossing every non-English speaking convert out. I SAID great spiritual revivals took place in the last 400 years using the KJV. They did, that's a fact of history. I also said I haven't seen any huge spiritual revivals taking place using the NIV or other modern versions. Again, fact of present history.

Great revivals are taking place in foreign countries today. Maybe God is moving there because we English speaking intellectuals are too busy arguing and debating whether one version is superior/one version is more accurate/one version is God inspired and the other versions aren't instead of being out teaching and preaching God's Word. In retrospect thinking, that might be EXACTLY why there were great revivals using the KJV...men like Spurgeon, Moody, Billy Sunday, Billy Graham and others were out preaching every night.

God NOT dependent upon what version of the Bible is used though during a service ....

As its by His power/presense things get accomplished, regardless of which bible version was preached/taught/used!

 

[InTheLight]

:BangHead: Stay on topic. Nobody said anything about tossing every non-English speaking convert out. I SAID great spiritual revivals took place in the last 400 years using the KJV. They did, that's a fact of history.

When would you say the last great revival took place?

I also said I haven't seen any huge spiritual revivals taking place using the NIV or other modern versions. Again, fact of present history.

Since the 70's there has been a fairly large migration from mainline Protestant churches that are turning apostate to non-denominational evangelical churches. If you listen to the Calvinists on BB, Reformed Theology is having a resurgence. These churches typically do not use the KJV,

 

[Winman]

So in other words, God was not big and strong enough to preserve His Word so we have this mishmash of texts (including the various TR's), and therefore He did not keep His promise?

I prefer to believe that God is big enough to preserve His Word. He just didn't do it in a solitary version or a solitary language or even in a solitary text. He doesn't do things the way WE would like for Him to do them.

Most of the quibbling done on here is about which English word should be used for a particular Greek or Hebrew word. The problem isn't the source text, the problem is that English is not a very precise language, especially when compared to Greek. That applies to the English used in ANY translation including the KJV.

Oh, yes- where is His Word hidden, except to those who are blinded by a lack of faith, or to those for whom there is not yet a Bible translation?

You misrepresent me, I firmly believe God is powerful enough to preserve his word, I have said that from the beginning.

The primary issue is not how the original Greek should be translated, though that is an issue.

No, the primary issue is that the CT text has about 2880 less words in the original Greek. So one text either added to God's word, or one text diminished from God's word. But it is impossible that they are the same.

I have only used the last 12 verses of Mark as an example because it is well known. There are many differences besides these 12 verses between the KJB text and the CT text.

 

[Winman]

Fine, but as you have said before the only basis for this belief is your own opinion.

Yes, but it is not a blind faith, I studied the subject years ago and read many good books. I became convinced the KJB translators and their methods was superior to the CT translators. I see history as evidence to support the KJB, just as it came to prominence, England became the first world-wide super-power, taking the KJB to nearly every country on earth. It came out of the Reformation. I also see the language as evidence, the KJB language has a majesty the other versions cannot compete with. While that is not proof, it is certainly the way I would expect God to speak. I see the fruit of the KJB, the great revivals Diamond Lady spoke of...

The KJB speaks to me in a way the other versions do not. I have read other versions, and frankly, I get nothing out of them. This is not an insult, it is the truth for me personally. Jesus said his sheep know his voice and will not follow another. This is how the KJB speaks to me.

So, it is not a blind faith.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Great revivals are taking place in foreign countries today. Maybe God is moving there because we English speaking intellectuals are too busy arguing and debating whether one version is superior/one version is more accurate/one version is God inspired and the other versions aren't instead of being out teaching and preaching God's Word. In retrospect thinking, that might be EXACTLY why there were great revivals using the KJV...men like Spurgeon, Moody, Billy Sunday, Billy Graham and others were out preaching every night.

Exactly. crediting any BV with such is akin to crediting a set of pots for a meal instead of the cook!

 

[DiamondLady]

When would you say the last great revival took place?


Since the 70's there has been a fairly large migration from mainline Protestant churches that are turning apostate to non-denominational evangelical churches. If you listen to the Calvinists on BB, Reformed Theology is having a resurgence. These churches typically do not use the KJV,

I try VERY hard not to listen to th Calvinists on the BB.....really hard. :saint:

Oh, to your major question....I'd say the last great revivals ended with the 70's.

 

[DiamondLady]

Exactly. crediting any BV with such is akin to crediting a set of pots for a meal instead of the cook!

As a cook, this isn't a very accurate corollary....no matter how good a cook you are, you have to have good pans. Hmmm....come to think of it, it might actually be a good corollary....have to have a good Bible to ....hmmm will think on that one a bit.

 

[marke]

On another thread someone made this statement,

"There comes a time when you must either believe one text is preserved and the other corrupt, or that both are corrupt. They are not the same, both cannot be the true text. If you can not settle on one, then you have none."

I think this statement is a fallacy and should be examined more thoroughly.


Perhaps I am wrong and the statement above is correct, but if so, on what basis?

Take Gal. 3:16 for example. If one version of the Bible claims that God's promises to Abraham were to Abraham and his descendants and another version claims God's promises were to Abraham only in his one Seed, the Lord Jesus Christ, it is not likely that both can be right. Those promises in Genesis in modern versions should be reviewed for accuracy.

 

[Logos1560]

mysticism

The KJB speaks to me in a way the other versions do not. I have read other versions, and frankly, I get nothing out of them. This is not an insult, it is the truth for me personally. Jesus said his sheep know his voice and will not follow another. This is how the KJB speaks to me.

So, it is not a blind faith.

Your experience or mysticism is not firm biblical evidence concerning faith.

A mystical view of translation would be one that claims that a translation is inspired when or if the reader or hearer feels or experiences something from reading or hearing it. A mystical view of translation would seem to reside in the individual reader or hearer's opinion of the particular translation that he is reading or hearing. Such a view implies that a translation is not the true Word of God if the reader or hearer is not moved by it.


A mystical view of translation is similar to the mystical view of inspiration. KJV-only author Wally Beebe described and condemned this mystical view. He noted that the neo-orthodox say: "Only what speaks to me is the real Word of God." He added: "I don't believe that, and I know of no one who is a fundamentalist who does" (Church Bus News, Oct.-Dec., 1997, p. 3). KJV-only author Robert Sargent pointed out: "Theology based upon such a view of inspiration can only be emotive and mystical and again makes man the authority" (English Bible, p. 27). Robert Barnett also stated: "We are quick to spot the error of Neo-orthodoxy for saying the Bible is only the Word of God when the Holy Spirit subjectively applies the Word to our hearts" (Word of God on Trial, p. 24). Barnett also wrote: "Neo-orthodoxy would say that the Bible is only the Word of God when an individual experiences the Word through the work of the Holy Spirit" (Ibid., p. 37). The mystical view has also been called "flash" inspiration.

David Norris observed: “The Bible does not mean what it means to me, it means what God gave it to mean quite apart from me” (Big Picture, p. 236). In mysticism, he noted that “authority is determined subjectively by the reader and not by God” (p. 256).


While KJV-only advocates correctly reject the mystical view of inspiration, do they as strongly condemn a mystical view of translation? A mystical view of translation also makes man or his experience the authority. Do not some of the statements of some KJV-only advocates imply that they only acknowledge as from God the one translation that touches their own hearts? Since they believe that no modern English translation can deliver God's Word to their hearts, their self-fulfilling mystical predication comes true.

Gail Riplinger announced: "The KJV is the Bible through which God speaks to me" (Language of the KJB, p. xviii). Mickey Carter wrote: "The King James Version has the awe of the Holy Spirit on it" (Things That Are Different, p. 92). William Grady claimed: "These counterfeit Bibles were void of Holy Spirit endorsement" (Final Authority, p. 277. Hugh Pyle stated: "The new versions leave me cold. I've tried to read some of them and there's something missing--the vitality, the life, the warmth, the power just isn't there" (Church Bus News, Oct.-Dec., 1995, p. 18). Waite also contended: "Many of these new versions do not even sound like the 'Bible' to those of us who love the King James Bible" (Burgon's Confidence in the KJB, p. 16). Paisley contended: "The very expression of the truths of the Bible in the Authorized Version carry with them their own intrinsic power and godliness" (Plea, p. 96). Bruce Cummons claimed: "I believe the Bible to be the Authorized Version or the King James Version. If I had no evidence at all, I would still believe it, because of the way it speaks to my heart" (Foundation, p. 46).


Another author seems to use this same mystical argument to support the use of the Douay-Rheims. Thomas A. Nelson wrote: “Personally speaking, this writer has been reading the Douay-Rheims Bible for over 30 years and can attest that it literally bristles with meaning, that it is replete, verse after verse, with wonderful shades and nuances of meaning, such that no human being could possibly have written without being aided by Almighty God“ (Which Bible, p. 5). Nelson also claimed: “This writer has never experienced anything similar while reading any other version. In comparison, all other versions seem prosaic and flat” (p. 5).

 

[Logos1560]

Great spiritual awakenings and revivals took place using the KJV. I have not seen the same results with the modern versions.

Has it been proven that the KJV was the cause for those revivals? Perhaps your argument relies somewhat on a faulty assumption or argument that is known as the fallacy of false cause or the post hoc fallacy. The same results may have come about if some other English translation had been used in those days. The Scriptures do not state that the use of a certain translation is the requirement for revival so perhaps you are looking at the wrong factors or causes responsible for those revivals.

 

[Logos1560]

KJV departures from any one edition of Textus Receptus

KJV defender Edward Hills asserted that the KJV "agrees with Beza against Stephanus 113 times, with Stephanus against Beza 59 times, and 80 times with Erasmus, or the Complutensian, or the Latin Vulgate against Beza and Stephanus" (KJV Defended, p. 220; see also Scrivener, Authorized Edition, p. 60). KJV defender D. A. Waite pointed out that Scrivener found about 190 places where the KJV translators departed from the 1598 edition of Beza (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 71). Kirk DiVietro, a KJV-only advocate, claimed: "The fact that the King James translators left the Beza text and the Stephanus text for other readings in about 25 places shows that they did not consider Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, or any other printed text the final authority" (Anything But the KJB, p. 23). Hills acknowledged: "Sometimes the King James translators forsook the printed Greek text and united with the earlier English versions in following the Latin Vulgate" (Believing Bible Study, p. 207).


Timothy Morton, a KJV-only advocate, admitted: "The King James Version is NOT a word for word translation of the Textus Receptus or of the Majority Text. It is based on the Textus Receptus, but it also has a few readings from other sources" (Which Translation Should You Trust, p. 45). Samuel Gipp, a KJV-only advocate, acknowledged: "You're going to find places where the King James Bible doesn't agree with even the Textus Receptus" (Ankerberg, Which English Translation, p. 1). Len Smith, a KJV-only author, wrote: “The King James is not a faithful, accurate, scholarly translation of the Textus Receptus or of any manuscript on earth” (Age of Reason, D22, p. 7). He also commented: “The real reason we know that the Authorized King James Version did not come from the Textus Receptus is because the King James does not agree with any manuscript in the Textus Receptus. In fact, the KJV has readings in it that do not appear in any manuscript in any family on earth” (p. 3). William Grady wrote: “The King James Bible is an eclectic text, which means that it was produced from a variety of underlying sources” (Given by Inspiration, p. 44). Grady asserted: “Sometimes they [the KJV translators] bypassed the Greek altogether in favor of a Latin text” (Ibid.).

 

[Rippon]

The KJB speaks to me in a way the other versions do not. I have read other versions, and frankly, I get nothing out of them.

You don't hear the Word of God when you read the Word of God. How strange.

Jesus said his sheep know his voice and will not follow another. This is how the KJB speaks to me.

You are off your rocker here Winman. How can you distort Scripture so? His sheep know the voice of the Savior --not a version of the Bible. Don't get the two confused.

Are the elect to follow only the KJV?!

 

[marke]

The KJV is a translation and, as such, shows evidence of translational difficulties common to translations.

The textus receptus, however, is not a translation and is the most accurate of all english translations in representing the exact wording of the originals. The KJV stands alone among most of its peers in exact adherence to the TR, evidenced, by one example, with the use of italicized words.

 

[Mexdeaf]

As a cook, this isn't a very accurate corollary....no matter how good a cook you are, you have to have good pans. Hmmm....come to think of it, it might actually be a good corollary....have to have a good Bible to ....hmmm will think on that one a bit.

Let's use another analogy that a professional photographer friend uses-

Once upon a time a photographer was invited to have dinner at the home of a nice couple. During dinner the wife comments to the photographer “Your pictures are beautiful. You must have a great camera.” The photographer nods politely.

After finishing dinner the photographer comments to the wife “That was a fine meal. You must have some great pots!

 

[Mexdeaf]

The KJV is a translation and, as such, shows evidence of translational difficulties common to translations.

The textus receptus, however, is not a translation and is the most accurate of all english translations in representing the exact wording of the originals. The KJV stands alone among most of its peers in exact adherence to the TR, evidenced, by one example, with the use of italicized words.

#1- You contradict yourself.

#2- The KJV was not translated from any TR that exists today. The texts the KJV was translated from are lost to history.

#3- Not all words added to the KJV text which do not exist in the TR are italicized.

 

[Winman]

#1- You contradict yourself.

#2- The KJV was not translated from any TR that exists today. The texts the KJV was translated from are lost to history.

#3- Not all words added to the KJV text which do not exist in the TR are italicized.

I am glad you pointed out #2, you are absolutely correct that the KJB was not translated from any TR text known today, and that text has been lost (I believe it was destroyed in a fire if I remember correctly).

Many folks do not know this and fall prey to a false argument presented by many that oppose KJVO. They will say the KJB departs from the TR (which one?). This is true. I think it should more properly be called the KJB text.

So, when I say TR, I really mean the KJB text. I do this because most believe it translated from the TR as opposed to the CT.

But folks should be aware of this false argument.