New KJV Versions

"Would the KJVOs accept a new KJV edition with modern English, and claim it is the AV1611 and word-for-word the same as the AV1611 except for corrected printer errors and typos?"

No. There was a time when KJVOs could claim they would accept new translations based upon the mythical TR (or some reasonable facsimile.) That is no longer true with the recent spate of new TR-based versions. Now, to be KJVO is truly KJVO, not TR-only.

Besides, any modern version worth its salt would have to deal with questionable or outdated translation choices the KJV translators made, which would automatically invalidate the new version.

 

I'm sorry, Amity, but Chick has no credibility in this matter. None at all. In fact, less than none.

 

Amity, I've already read about the issues. Ad nauseum. Gipp, Riplinger and Ruckman are in the same boat.

About Chick's diatribe:

Let's go point by point.

1. QUESTION: Shouldn't we be loyal to the "original autographs" and not a mere translation?

ANSWER: ... Every Bible ever printed with a copy of Jeremiah in it has a text in chapters 45-51 which is translated from a copy of the "second" original, or ORIGINAL #3.

(2) Secondly, NNE can overlook the fact that God didn't have the least bit of interest in preserving the "original" once it had been copied and its message delivered. So WHY should we put more of an emphasis on the originals than God does? An emphasis which is plainly unscriptural.

Thus, since we have the text of the "originals" preserved in the King James Bible we have no need of the originals,even if they were available.

This assumes that the KJV represents the originals, which can't be proven. Typical circular reasoning.

2. QUESTION: Isn't "Easter" in Acts 12:4 a mistranslation of the word "pascha" and should it be translated as "passover"?


It amazes me the contortions folks go through to support an insupportable translation. Tyndale got it wrong too, probably because of haste; admit it and go on.

3. QUESTION: I have been told that King James was a homosexual. Is this true?

There is evidence on both sides. The question is, in the final analysis, irrelevant.

4. QUESTION: Aren't there archaic words in the Bible, and don't we need a modern translation to eliminate them?

ANSWER: ... So we see that, the Bible practice for handling situations such as we find in I Corinthians 10:25 when preaching is to tell the congregation something to the effect that "What beforetime was called 'shambles' is now called 'market place"'. But we should leave the archaic word in the text. This is what God did! Surely we sinners are not going to come up with a better method for handling archaic words than God has.

So, the answer to the question is, "Yes, there are archaic words in the Bible but No we do not need a modem translation to eliminate them. God didn't change His Book, He certainly does not want us doing it.

Chick confuses the KJV translators with God. They chose the translation, not He. Theology, not philology, is the subject of the Bible.

5. QUESTION: Haven't there been several revisions of the King James Bible since 1611?

ANSWER: No. There have been several editions but no revisions.

How you can have a new edition that has changes and not call it a revision is beyond me. The 1769 edition widely in use now is a scholarly revision, correction, emendation ... call it what you want, but there have been revisions.

6. QUESTION: Don't the best manuscripts support the new versions?

ANSWER: No. The best manuscripts support the Bible, the Authorized Version.

There is room for disagreement, at least on my part, about the foundations of textual criticism, but Chick flat-out says the older manuscripts are NOT the Bible, hence the argument is over. In fact, Chick knows nothing about the topic and is cribbing from demogagogues.

7. QUESTION: If there is a perfect Bible in English, doesn't there also have to be a perfect Bible in French, and German, and Japanese, etc?

ANSWER:No. God has always given His word to one people in one language to do one job; convert the world. The supposition that there must be a perfect translation in every language is erroneous and inconsistent with God's proven practice.

... Thus in choosing English in which to combine His two Testaments, God chose the only language which the world would know. Just as He has shown in His choosing only one language for the Old Testament and only one language for the New Testament, He continued that practice by combining those two testaments in only one language.

I don't know what to say. The KJV, apparently, is the only perfect Bible given to the world. Pity the folks who can't read it; they have to settle for error.

8. QUESTION: Where do Bible manuscripts come from?

ANSWER: Most existing manuscripts of the Bible are divided into two "families". These families are generally represented by the cities of Alexandria, Egypt and Antioch, Syria.

EXPLANATION: There are only two Bibles, God's and the devil's. There are only two views of the Bible. It is totally perfect or it is imperfect.

Funny; the KJV translators didn't think so. The Wycliffe NT, though translated from the Vulgate, was a rallying point in the pre-Reformation. Too bad it wasn't "perfect."

9. QUESTION: What is the LXX?

ANSWER: A figment of someone's imagination.

But surely it's obvious that some OT quotes in the NT do not match the Masoretic Text.

"What then," one might ask, "of the numerous quotes in the New Testament of the Old Testament that are ascribed to the LXX?" The LXX they speak of is nothing more than the second column of Origen's Hexapia. The New Testament quotations are not quotes of any LXX or the Hexapla. They are the author, the Holy Spirit, taking the liberty of quoting His work in the Old Testament in whatever manner He wishes. And we can rest assured that He certainly is not quoting any non-existent Septuagint.

I see. The Holy Spirit changes the text, yet leaves the Masoretic Text as the basis of the Old Testament. So God leaves the first draft even though He's corrected it.

Pardon me for skipping some of the straw man arguments.

15. QUESTION: Aren't today's scholars better equipped to translate the Bible than the King James translators were?

ANSWER: No.

EXPLANATION: The answer to the question is "No" for two reasons.

First is that, the scholarship of the men who translated the King James Bible is literally unsurpassable by today's scholars. ...

The men of the King James translation committee were scholars of unparalleled ability. A brief description of their several abilities is found under a previous section.

I have no doubt that many of them were great scholars, but they didn't have the resources modern scholars have. Besides, Chick doesn't really like scholarship, so this is an odd argument for him to make.

Secondly, it would be foolish and contradictory to believe that today's scholars ever could equal or surpass those of the Authorized Version.

Most Christians agree that the world, with time, degenerates. Morals have degenerated since 1611. Character has degenerated since 1611.


Have they? Was Jacobean England really a sterling example of morality? What we know of the time is the bubble of exalted English prose — the KJV. Just as later ages would be marked by Swift and Pope and Milton. But underneath, I doubt that society at large was all that much different.

25. QUESTION: What is the difference between a "Textus Receptus Man" and a "King James Man?"

ANSWER: A "TR Man" gets his manuscripts from Antioch and his philosophy from Egypt.

So much for the TR-onlyists ...

44. QUESTION: Who were Westcott and Hort?

ANSWER: Two unsaved Bible critics.

Pretty presumptuous for Chick to know who's saved and not saved. They were critics of the text, not of the Bible. This section repeats some of the out-of-context slanders against the two, especially against Westcott, who was a prolific writer and defender of orthodoxy. You wouldn't know that from reading Chick.

56. QUESTION: What should I do where my Bible and my Greek Lexicon contradict?

ANSWER: Throw out the Lexicon.

Nuff said.

I beg pardon of the moderators for such a long post.

 

You are indeed correct. I saw "Chick" in the address and jumped to conclusions.

I doubt there is any credit to be gained there, but Gipp is entitled to the blamed for his own answers.

And Chick merely parrots them.

 

I don't consider it harsh. He's a public figure who has published his beliefs ... ludicrous as they may be.

Another sample, from No. 43:

"From the time of its publication in 1611 the King James Bible has grown in popularity. Although not mandated by the King to be used in the churches of England, it did, in a matter of a few years, manage to supplant all of the great versions translated before it."

Interesting omissional revisionism. The Geneva Bible was a runaway best-seller; its popularity was curbed by its suppression by the crown and, later, its identification with the Puritan faction in the English Civil War. After the Restoration, the Geneva was the Bible of regicides and the KJV the Bible of the establishment. Guess who won?

Bunyan used the Geneva; it was the Bible of Shakespeare. It was the Bible of the Pilgrims.

I think Chick tracts stink, for the most part. Full of half-truths, innuendo and downright misrepresentations.

 

Amnity, I don't think anyone is harsh. They are quoting the lies and false teaching of Gipp & Chick & Wilkerson & Ruckman & Hyles, as they people defame the Word of God.

You may find some good fellowship among the KJV preferred bunch here, but little support for the stench of those public writers.

 

rsr - I didn't see your post as I was typing mine and posting a couple minutes later.

Think it is ironic that you used "stink" and I used "stench" when talking about Chick et al?

Made me smile this fine evening!

 

Not THAT I am sorry for, Amity. I want to STRONGLY and FORCEFULLY tell you that these men you endorse - Chick, Gipp et al - are false teachers and you should flee from them. That is not "harsh" (your word, remember?) but "honest".

But to be compared in any way to the vile-mouthed, lascivious, heretical Ruckman is one of the LOWEST things I could be called.

 

I am sorry you feel that way, Amity. I really didn't mean to come across as harsh, but I've been here for 3+ years and have seen the same old Gipp, Riplinger, Ruckman stuff rehashed for so long it just gets under my skin.

I wish you wouldn't leave. I am not entirely comfortable here at times (for different reasons), but here I am. Stay and contribute.

This particular forum is for debate; it gets rough and tumble at times. Unfortunately, it gets personal too often, which is to be deplored.

I have not been personal in my responses ... except to those who perpetuate nonsense. I don't think you're one of those.

I have no problems with people who prefer the KJV. Much of it is pure poetry, and it's built upon the foundation laid by the greatest English Bible translator of all time, William Tyndale. I think in the KJV, because that was the Bible I used when I was growing up.

 

Dr. Bob:

When something stinks, it has a stench. I guess we both can smell it.

Amity:

Folks have had every opportunity to explain why the TR (or at least the Majority Text) is to be preferred, but most responses are ad hominem attacks, slanders, intellectual dishonesty or outright obfuscation. My mind is still open to the priority of the Byzantine text, but it's poorly defended here ... and everywhere else.

We have a couple of members who can take up the challenge, but even they are not willing to swallow the sophistry that passes for KJVO doctrine.

Sit and rest a spell.