Studies of the Original Texts

bryan1276 said:

Sam Gipps "Understandable History of the Bible" is good.

Indeed! It never won any prestigious awards for English fiction. But it should have.

 

IMO David Cloud has some good info. He's what I would call a 'moderate' KJVO as compared with Dr. Ruckman and Gail Riplinger.

Here are a few audio sermons by him:

Why We Hold to the King Jame Bible, part 1
Why We Hold to the King James Bible, part 2
Old Time Fundamentalists Who Defended the King Jame Bible

And by D.A. Waite

Four Ways the King Jame Bible is Superior

And some web pages from Way of Life Literature (Mr. Cloud's publishing ministry)

KJV Defense Library

 

White's book is good; the book from Central Seminary ("One Bible Only??" I think is the title); D.A. Carson has a book or two on it. Kenneth Barker has a little book on it. It has been so long since I have read these books my mind slips me on some of them.

Stay away from anything by Gipp, Ruckman, Waite, or Cloud. Cloud is very suspect. Numerous errors in logic and use of Scripture and history can be pointed out in his writings. The same with these others. They are very loose with the facts and their logic is not good. From that side of the equation, you would be better with someone like Scrivener (whose book dates back to the 1800s) or Burgon. The modern writing on the KJV has become so filled with vitriole and hatred, it is mostly useless. The argumentation in them is just plain bad. They are more useful for learning insults than for learning about the issues.

And I don't think anyone is asking you to place any version over the KJV. The important thing is not to place faithful translations under it, as so many do. Most of the KJVOs in this forum make a habit of attacking God's word, simply because it is not their preferred translation. That is a huge problem.

Actually the other way around. It is we on the other side who are determined to keep Christianity strong. That is why we refuse these attempts to keep the word of God out of the hand of modern readers. There is no reason why we should have to go back and struggle with 400 year old style of English when we have better options. There are some conspiracies theories out there about watering down God's word and perverting it. Not one of these claims has ever stood up to the test of truth. They have all, without exception, failed miserably. The conspiracy theories are crazy.

But consider those who weren't raised on the KJV. It is exceedingly difficult for them. God's word was not intended to be that way. It was originally written in the common language of the day, not some exalted language. Today, it should be in the common language. I too was raised on teh KJV. I used it exclusively for more than 25 years. I did all my memory from it. But when I started reading modern versions, it was like reading the Bible for the first time. It was uncomfortable at first because it was too easy. In fact, I had a new believer (a converted Catholic) in my church who, while reading the NKJV, said she felt guilty because it was too easy to understand. I told her to enjoy it, not to feel guilty about it.

Because they are closer to the time of writing. REmember the game we used to play as kids when we all sit in a circle and the first person whispers something in someone's ear and they turn and whisper it in the next person's ear and so on aroudn the circle? Remember how funny it gets sometimes?? That is the principle. The farther we get from the original, the more likely that errors are introduced (most often inadvertant errors).

We use the same principle in gossip. A friend tells you an unbelievable story so you ask who told them and go ask them and then trace it back all the way to the source, or as close as possible. We all do that ... except a few people in the textual issue.

I realize that is simplistic and it would take a book to give all the various factors involved. The majority text type has some benefits. Too often this matter is boiled down to "God perfectly preserved his word in the KJV" and sometimes they add "in the TR." But what we must remember is that out of 5200+ manuscripts, they are all different. At some level, man must sit down with two different readings (renditions of a verse) and decide which one is accurate. The Majority Text advocates leave out 5% of the manuscript evidence without consideration at all (and come up with two different versions of the Majority Text). The TR advocates (and KJVOs) leave out 99+% without any reason at all. (The TR and the Majority Text are not the same; don't let anyone fool you on that.) Only the proponents of the eclectic text use all the evidence. Both the Majority Text and the eclectic text has its benefits. In the end, there is no clear right answer. Anyone who says there is doens't know what they are talking about. God did that intentionally for whatever reason. It should not cause us a problem. There is not enough difference in teh manuscripts to compromise any doctrine whatsoever. Often lists of "omissions" or "changes" are offered and without except each doctrine affected in a particular verse is found somewhere else in Scripture. We have many threads addresssing this topic and in each case, those who suggest "changed doctrine" are shown to be wrong.

Consider yourself blessed. Many people do not have the benefit of a church where modern versions are encouraged. I have used one exclusively for more than 7 years and have never had any confusion at all. The "added" or "deleted" words depend on your perspective. If you start with the KJV, then you believe all changes are deletions. If you start with a modern versions, you see that the KJV actually added somethings in over the years. Either way, your starting point determines your view. What you must remember is that God has not revealed which is correct. We are left with probabilities. In it all, there is remarkable similarity for a 2000 year old document.

I understand. Honestly, this forum is not the best place to learn about it. The problem with the internet is that anyone with a computer, a phone line, and a view can espouse that view and people act like it deserves to be heard. For your main learning, stick with published resources from main publishers. They have passed the test of general credibility. They are not the work of someone who esteemed themselves too high and published something that should not have been published. (Cloud, Waite, Ruckman, and Gipp fall into this category. To see what I mean, compare what you read in them with what you see in other credible resources. It will not take long to see a big difference.) Use a forum like this to ask questions about the books you are reading. Do not use this forum as a "be all and end all" in your pursuit. This should play a minor role at best.

 

Stay away from anything by Gipp, Ruckman, Waite, or Cloud. Cloud is very suspect. Numerous errors in logic and use of Scripture and history can be pointed out in his writings. The same with these others. They are very loose with the facts and their logic is not good.

He's basically telling you to ignore all the writings on the KJVO side. Burgon and Scrivener are hardly KJVO, though they are very pro TR. I say read all of the above, along with the best the MV side has to offer. From your posts I think you easily have enough discernment and maturity to be able to handle it.

 

Reading all of the posts again reminded me of something I heard years ago, "An empty bag makes the most noise.

I don't hear much noise about W.F. Albright anymore. I am not sure of how many grammars have been written by Albright's students but it is several. If I remember right it is W.F. Albright who was able to translate some tablets that nobody else was able to and knew 38 languages. But I haven't heard much talk about him. I wonder what his position was on the KJV and MV's? Anybody know?

 

And with good reason. There is nothing on the KJVO side worth reading. They are too loose with the facts. When a KJVO person is willing to be honest with the truth, then I will heartily recommend them. I have no issue with the truth. I have serious issues with recommending someone who is not committed to the truth, whether intentional or not. I have no particular axe to grind. If someone prefers the KJV or the TR, I don't really care. All I am interested in is the truth. These men cited above compromise it too much to make them worth reading.

It is nice to hear someone on your side say this. You would never know this was the truth the way that most people cite these men.

 

ew, did someone say Waite?

well, like for Sam Gipp, if one can get past a little duplicity cloaked in religiosity, why not?

watch him (n/or his family/friends):

1. Rework the KJB in his "DEFINED KJB"

2. Get under the searchlights of James White

(Hint: Dr. Waite admits that he "can't pin down" a single historical instance of the many heretical emendations he and other King James "defenders" allege in non-Textus Receptus readings. Then he tries to equate Textus Receptus with the original autographs because he "must have a Word of God to preach ... it's all by faith." Also claims that Alexandrian scribes, who he insists couldn't read Greek, could introduce heresies into the Greek manuscripts. Has to admit to a telephone caller that there's no essential Christian doctrine that is unique in the King James. Towards the end, attempts [unsuccessfully] to muscle in a commercial for his son's "excellent research" on KJB readability, while evading comment on Mrs. "God-And" Riplinger. Closes by crawling away with a nutty plea for freedom to believe ... whatever!)

 

You are implying something that I did not say: I simply pointed out that if you use Ruckman and Gipp, then you will have a predetermined outcome.
Don't forget: I love the AV more than ANY of the KJVO's as I accept and use the entire 1611 Authorised Version. If you and your husband were to stop me at church and do a "Bible check" you will most likely find my facsimile of the TRUE King James Version, not those subjacent posthumous revisions.
I would not discourage you from visiting these sites. Quite the contrary, although one must remember that they are passionate KJVO's, especially Ruckman. You will see the same old tired and oft-quoted arguments that are posted and re-posted in practically every thread on this group. If you want KJVO sites, don't forget Chick Publications (home of the conspiracy theories about the Apocrypha) and FBC Sayville (using numerology to justify KJVO). There is also a link to Pastor Reagan in my hometown of Knoxville, TN, and I can post the link to his info. if you so desire. When visiting these sites, and others, make sure that the person extolling the 1611 AV is really using the 1611 AV. As I said in another thread, closer examination of this claim usually reveals that they are NOT using the 1611 AV.
There is no way to Scripturally justify the total and complete rejection of all other Translations of the Bible, and one should be wary of anyone who proclaims this. My Tyndale and Geneva Bibles are just as good (in some ways even better) as the AV. I also love my Septuagint as well (if it was good enough for the Apostle Paul, then it is good enough for me!! ), along with the Wiclif Translation, Luther Translation, ESV, NKJV, and the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible (my latest addition).
Oops, I forgot about Cranmer and Rheims (only have the New Testaments).

 

Hank: I disagree with your statement about the KJV a product of just scholars and texts. I believe it is God's preserved words and God had more to do with that book than the scholars did, he just used men. Tauf: been there done that with Hebrew Greek la ti da. NOthiing sheds light like preserved English text that is the 7th (Ps. 12:6-7) purification of Gods words. The Bible says not to mess with dead things, so i dont worry about Dead langauges like "Koine Greek" or the "dead sea scrolls" when it comes to shedding light on what God said. Unfortunately today belief in the Lord Jesus Christ comes second only to beleiving the lazy theories of Westcott and Hort. Pastor Larry, division comes from multiple authorities, not from one authority. Get the point? There is no division when there is only one book in charge. And since the KJV was here first, it didnt cause any division.

 

OLIVEBRANCH: I agree with Timothy.. I posted those books by Ruckman and Gipp and such b/c not many others will post them. But you are on your way.. Get every book on either side of this "bible controversy" and since the Lord gives wisdom to all who ask for it I have no doubt that with both sides of this issue at your hands you'll come to the God honoring conclusion about his book. thats one thing ive never seen Jimmy white or any other modernist do... They banned ruckman books from their schools while he sold Jimmy whites book on his shelves... WHY? Because he had more grace about it and more liberty to do that. I was asked never to bring my King James Bible to seminary class toward then end of my tenure in seminary. I know at Ruckmans school he uses 36 versions and every modernist available to show you WHY God uses a single authority, not multiple versions. But, as Timothy said, you'll get it right cause your on the right track. Study every side and the Lord will be with you in it.

 

The KJV wasn't here first. There were countless translations before that. And multiple translations does not mean multiple authorities. The only ones causing confusion are those who say that the Word of God cannot be trusted. You will never hear that coming from my mouth. I have heard that only from liberals and KJVOs.

 

How do you know?? I think aroudn 1611 there was confusino because the KJV was the modern version and many preferred the Geneva Bible.

Nope, no confusion that I know of.

A good preached makes those explanations anyway because he is committed to preaching the text. This is an overblown complaint, usually due to those who have never used a different version than the pastor uses.

I think the confusion over outdated words, difficult sentence structure, and old language is also not the kind of confusion God wants. But the reality is that that is how God has seen fit to work. Last week in my Adult Bible study class we looked a few differences between teh NASB, KJV, NKJV, and NIV. Without exception everyone agreed that the KJV was the most confusing. And I didn't pick a particular verse on purpose. I picked a random verse because I didn't decided to do it until I got in the discussion. Everyone also agreed that all the versions communicated the same truth. We did exactly what the KJV translators said to do ... used a variety of translations to gain the sense. It was a great exercise. And there was no doubt about what God's word was or what God wanted us to know.

 

Larry, your in denial about multiple authorities. The only thing that they can produce is confusion and Ill give you one example. In the NIV you have two statements about the death of Goliath. in 2 Samuel 21:19 your told that Goliath was killed by Elhanan. earlier you were told that David killed Goliath. Those are two authoritative statements that are confusing. If the NIV were the final authority in all matters of faith and practice in my life, if I were honest, would not know who killed Goliath nor whether I could believe the rest of what the NIV said. You just have to have the courage to admit the reality of the matter which is hard to do if you've been through the cookie cutter seminaries and now pastor a church that'd run you out for believing a KJV exclusively. But facts are facts and multiple authorities that conflict dont promote belief, they promote DISBELIEF. All those modern versions to reach people and 'bring in folks' do exactly the opposite of their intent... they promote disbelief in a book b/c if you can change one word, why not a sentence, why not a paragraph, why not a chapter..etc...then what do you believe is that standard? what a scholar says? what a lexicon says? and now your so far from BIBLE believing its not funny. You'll now bow to a professor rather than submit to a book. And thats where we are today.

 

This is not a complete sentence. I do not possess any denial. Please write with complete sentences. It helps communication.

You are in denial about this. They cause confusion in some who have been wrongly taught, such as yourself. However, in a great many people they bring great growth. To say otherwise is to lie.

In a strange twist that you fail to be honest enough to mention, the KJV avoids this problem only by violating the command of Rev 22:17ff. about adding to Scripture. They add to Scripture. Guess what God said ... You're right ... He said what you find the NIV. That is the Hebrew text. So your KJV decided that adding to God's word was better than leaving what God had said. Strange isn't it ... That verse you guys love to cite comes back to bite you.

The other alternative would be to study. Of course, that would take more effort than reading the writings of these false teachers who convinced you of this position in the beginning. Ask them to explain why it was alright to add to Scripture simply because it didn't seem to make sense to them.

The reality of the matter is that you consistently refuse to deal with evidence. You consistently refuse to believe the truth. It is not hard for me admit the reality. I did that long ago which is why I believe what I do now. I had the courage to believe what God said. You need the same.

So show me some evidence for a verse that I have disbelieved. And explain why you call me this when you have absolutely no evidence. In fact, you have more than 6600 posts of demonstrable evidence that i do believe the Bible. We are where we are at because you refuse to support your position from God's word. You need to tell us what God said what you say. If you do, you will be the first KJVO to do so. So far, not one person has offered one iota of biblical proof. All we have is the opinion of men, the thing that you rail on me for supposedly believing. Truth be told, I believe the Bible more than you do. Everything I say can be supported from it. You cannot say the same. You must turn to the likes of Ruckman, Riplinger, Cloud, Waite, and others to support your belief. I don't need them. I have the Bible.

 

I am glad that you said "I believe it is...".

Others believe that to be true of any and all faithful translations. The question is and remains unanswered in the minds of many Christians as to what exactly "faithful" means.

You have your belief and others vary from it as is true to our distinctive of soul liberty.

It is good to see the new and better spirit of discussion here at the BB.

HankD

 

What is the source of this belief?

It is not found in scripture. It is not demonstrated by any logical examination of the evidence.

Unless you have received a divine revelation equivalent in authority to the Bible itself then you are simply believing what you were told by others- a doctrine which comes by "the will of man" not by "holy men of God [speaking] as they were moved by the Holy Spirit".

 

bryan1276 said:

In the NIV you have two statements about the death of Goliath. in 2 Samuel 21:19 your told that Goliath was killed by Elhanan. earlier you were told that David killed Goliath.

Oh, come on. Come on! Is it your intention to make KJV-onlyism look shallow and superficial and apathetic about the truth?

The above so-called "confusion" is easily resolved with a little homework and close Bible study. Why don't you do some?

And in the meantime, stop trying to cast doubt on God's Word by coming to it from the position of skepticism and unbelief. Doing a little googling on this passage, the first five hits making the exact same argument as Bryan were atheist sites trying to find fault with the Scriptures. Nothing like a little practical atheism from the Bible's defenders, eh? You gotta laugh.

[ October 03, 2003, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

Is the alleged "contradiction" between 1 Sam. 17 and 2 Sam. 21 genuine confusion, or is it just more KJV-only sleight-of-hand with the truth? Consider:

The standard KJV-only macro response to this verse is: "See! The modern versions lie! Every schoolkid knows David killed Goliath." But this is a disingenuous falsehood. KJV-onlyists, who have not the truth in them, don't want you to know the whole story - that would make them look foolish.

Of course, this alleged "lie" is easily resolved. The parallel passage in 1 Chron. 20:5 notes that it was really Goliath's brother that was killed. For whatever reason, this bit of information has been dropped from all known Hebrew texts in 1 Sam. 21:19, and the modern versions are only treating the text at face value when they translate it literally.

But let's leave 2 Chron. alone for a while and take what 2 Samuel says at face value. What the KJV-onlyists aren't telling you is that there are far more differences than similarities between the well-known account of David and Goliath in 1 Sam. 17, and the less familiar battle of 2 Sam. 21. For example:

</font>

• In 1 Samuel, David is a young shepherd boy; in 2 Samuel, he is an old man.</font>
• In 2 Samuel, David is an unknown and Saul is king; in 2 Samuel, David is king and Saul is dead.</font>
• In 1 Samuel, the battle takes place at Socoh; in 2 Samuel, it takes place at Gob, which is several miles away from Socoh.</font>
• In 1 Samuel, David is the star of the piece. He kills Goliath. But in 2 Samuel, his generals have taken him out of the action for his own safety, and Elhanan kills Goliath.</font>
• In 1 Samuel, there's only one giant; in 2 Samuel, there are several.</font>

Faced with this mountain of evidence, it's abundantly clear that we're talking about two giants, two heroes, two battles, two times, two places, two different things entirely. But naturally, it's the one similarity that the KJV-onlyists exploit in order to cast doubt on God's Word. We're not supposed to notice the major differences. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain," trumpet the KJV-onlyists, doing their poor imitation of David Blaine. "Don't pay any attention to all those other details, just look at the one we want you to see." Of course, when you hear that sort of rhetoric, the first thing you ought to think is "What do these people have to hide?"