The case for the KJO belief

[Mexdeaf]

I found the following statements from the article to be very telling.

Why does the English language need over two hundred translations when there are over 3,000 ethnic languages that do not have one word of Scripture? I suppose the money that should have been used to publish God's Word in these languages has been used up on English language readers who want their ears tickled by yet another trendy translation.

The many translations have robbed the Word of God of its authority and left man's intellect in charge of deciding whether he would have this version or that version to rule over him.

Since 1881 there has been controversy and confusion (which by the way, is reflected in the many modern translations all claiming to be the Word of God and all different from each other). Some say it is the United Bible Society's Greek text and the English translation of it that is God's Word. Others say, no, it is the Nestle Greek text and the English translation of it that is God's Word. Now it comes down to the tyranny of the experts. What do the scholars say? Each scholar says something different than the other.

So now, the correct reading is "up for grabs." One Greek scholar says one reading is right, while another says it is not. There is mass confusion much like the ridiculous uncertainty of modern art. Well, that is how the situation came to be, but that does not mean that is what it should be. God is not the author of confusion.

Gee, to read this one would think that the reason there are a multiplicity of Christian churches is because they all use their own Bible version, and NNE knows the truth, whereas the opposite is correct.

Some like to have their "ears tickled" by the KJV, by the way. Nice slam on those of us who use MV's.

 

[Bro K]

Simply what I said. I futurer translations can cause confusions and doubt; why not the newer existing translations doing the same.

 

[sag38]

What??????

 

[Bro K]

Sorry for the typing error. REWORDED:"Simply what I said. If future translations can cause confusions and doubt; why not the newer existing translations doing the same."

 

[TomVols]

If future translations can cause confusions and doubt; why not the newer existing translations doing the same.

You can flip it around a bit to the converse: if multiple new translations cause confusion and doubt, did the KJV do that during the day of the Bishops, Great, and Geneva Bibles?

"how come your Bible doesn't have that passage in it?"

"how come mine does, but your's doesn't?"

Those would be few, but we should be prepared for these.

"Who's version is correct?"

Again, those who cherish the Bible have the answer.

"that doesn't mean the same thing as what mine says"

Permit me a rant:

when I hear a teacher has asked his students "What does that mean to you?" I want to slap him. Hard. The Bible doesn't mean one thing to one and another to another. It means what it means. Now, perhaps a particular contextual application of that meaning is different, but we are not given Biblical liberty to have private meanings.

Okay...rant over

I do think again, that if we cherish the Bible, we can answer the questions that people think would lead us astray. Just like those who say there are contradictions within the Word. We can answer all of them. But if people have their mind made up that the Bible errs, then that's their..well, error

 

[Bro K]

["when I hear a teacher has asked his students "What does that mean to you?" I want to slap him. Hard."]

This is a very useful teaching technique to gather info about the students. Everyone has preconceived ideals, thoughts, beliefs, etc on any subject matter. Bringing these to the forefront helps the teacher understand how they should present the subject being taught. Since we are a very mobile society we encounter people who have been taught principles and beliefs that are in direct contrast to what we believe.

["The Bible doesn't mean one thing to one and another to another."]

Why then do we have so many churches (Baptist, Catholic, Mormon, etc) or even the Baptist Board. I remember one sect on TV that said they would send you a KJV Bible; BUT they have their own "Bible" which teaches doctrinal beliefs vastly different from the KJV.

 

[stilllearning]

Hello Tom

You suggested........

“You can flip it around a bit to the converse: if multiple new translations cause confusion and doubt, did the KJV do that during the day of the Bishops, Great, and Geneva Bibles?”

No it didn’t.
Because the KJV, the Bishops Bible, the Great Bible & the Geneva Bible, all used the same source for the New Testament.

Unlike the hundreds of English versions today.

 

[Bro K]

I found this online which is from the Gevena Bible:
1 Peter 3:15: But fanctifie the Lord God in your harts: and be ready alwaies to give an anfwer to enery man that asketh you a reafon of the hope that is in you.

And people say the KJV is hard to read and/or understand!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[annsni]

Hello Tom

You suggested........

No it didn’t.
Because the KJV, the Bishops Bible, the Great Bible & the Geneva Bible, all used the same source for the New Testament.

Unlike the hundreds of English versions today.

But did they say the same thing? No.

 

[stilllearning]

Hello Bro K

Nice to talk to you.

You asked......

“Why then do we have so many churches (Baptist, Catholic, Mormon, etc).........

Well first lets narrow the list to only Gospel preaching Churches......
Baptist, Methodists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals etc.

The reason they all exists, is because of a willingness to let Doctrine slide.
(Each are different, depending upon how far they depart from Bible Doctrine.)

The Methodists let the Doctrine of water baptism, etc.....slide.
The Pentecostals let the Doctrines of tongues & women preachers, etc.....slide.
etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,
---------------------------------------
But we IFB, don’t let any Bible Doctrine slide.

 

[stilllearning]

Hi annsni

You said.........

“But did they say the same thing? No.”

Could you please show me, where any of these Bible’s did not say the same thing.
(Of course I am not talking about spelling differences or including the apocrypha.)

 

[franklinmonroe]

... Because the KJV, the Bishops Bible, the Great Bible & the Geneva Bible, all used the same source for the New Testament. ...

Almost right. (But 'almost' right is still wrong.) I've actually read the NT through in Tyndale's 1534/5 version, a Geneva edition, Coverdale, the Great Bible, and a Bishop's edition.

For example, the Great Bible has these words in Acts 23 --

And delyver them beastes, that they maye sett Paul on, and brynge him safe unto Felix the hye debyte (For he dyd feare lest happlye the Jewes shulde take hym awaye and kyll him, and he hym selfe shulde be afterwarde blamed, as though he wolde take money.) and he wrote a letter after thys maner.​

There are many other differences among them, some (like the one above) I have written about here on the BB (search the archives for "EETs").

 

[stilllearning]

Hello franklinmonroe

You forgot something.........

You said........

“Almost right. (But 'almost' right is still wrong.) I've actually read the NT through in Tyndale's 1534/5 version, a Geneva edition, Coverdale, the Great Bible, and a Bishop's edition.”

If indeed Tyndale’s Bible used a different source for the New Testament, what did they use??

 

[Winman]

And delyver them beastes, that they maye sett Paul on, and brynge him safe unto Felix the hye debyte (For he dyd feare lest happlye the Jewes shulde take hym awaye and kyll him, and he hym selfe shulde be afterwarde blamed, as though he wolde take money.) and he wrote a letter after thys maner.

The KJV says

Acts 23:24 And provide them beasts, that they may set Paul on, and bring him safe unto Felix the governor.
25 And he wrote a letter after this manner:

Except for the part in parenthesis, these verses are the same, although the KJV says governor, while the Great Bible says high deputy.

Wikipedia on the Great Bible says that portion shown in parenthesis was taken from Latin.

The Great Bible's New Testament revision is chiefly distinguished from Tyndale's source version by the interpolation of numerous phrases and sentences found only in the Vulgate. For example, here is the Great Bible's version of Acts 23:24-25 (as given in The New Testament Octapla):

"...And delyver them beastes, that they maye sett Paul on, and brynge him safe unto Felix the hye debyte (For he dyd feare lest happlye the Jewes shulde take hym awaye and kyll him, and he hym selfe shulde be afterwarde blamed, as though he wolde take money.) and he wrote a letter after thys maner."

The non-italicized portions are taken over from Tyndale without change, but the italicized words, which are not found in the Greek text translated by Tyndale, have been added from the Latin. (The added sentence can also be found, with minor verbal differences, in the Douai-Rheims New Testament.) These inclusions appear to have been done to make the Great Bible more palatable to conservative English churchmen, many of whom considered the Vulgate to be the only legitimate Bible.

 

[annsni]

Hi annsni

You said.........


Could you please show me, where any of these Bible’s did not say the same thing.
(Of course I am not talking about spelling differences or including the apocrypha.)

The Geneva has "passover" at Acts 12:4 whereas the KJV has "easter".

The Geneva has "him" at Psalm 12:7 where the KJV has "them".

The Geneva has "hope" at Hebrews 10:23 when the KJV has "faith".

There are a bunch more but here are some examples.

 

[TomVols]

["when I hear a teacher has asked his students "What does that mean to you?" I want to slap him. Hard."]

This is a very useful teaching technique to gather info about the students. Everyone has preconceived ideals, thoughts, beliefs, etc on any subject matter. Bringing these to the forefront helps the teacher understand how they should present the subject being taught. Since we are a very mobile society we encounter people who have been taught principles and beliefs that are in direct contrast to what we believe.

["The Bible doesn't mean one thing to one and another to another."]

Why then do we have so many churches (Baptist, Catholic, Mormon, etc) or even the Baptist Board. I remember one sect on TV that said they would send you a KJV Bible; BUT they have their own "Bible" which teaches doctrinal beliefs vastly different from the KJV.

Because they interpret differently. But does God have fifteen meanings for a text? Hardly. It means what it means. I'm no relativist. Truth is truth.

But we IFB, don’t let any Bible Doctrine slide.

I beg to differ, but that's another story.

I found this online which is from the Gevena Bible:
1 Peter 3:15: But fanctifie the Lord God in your harts: and be ready alwaies to give an anfwer to enery man that asketh you a reafon of the hope that is in you.

And people say the KJV is hard to read and/or understand!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are 1611 renderings just as "hard" as you put it.

Stilllearning maintains that the KJV was not divisive because...

Because the KJV, the Bishops Bible, the Great Bible & the Geneva Bible, all used the same source for the New Testament.

Unlike the hundreds of English versions today.

This is a flimsy non sequitur, one that history doesn't bear out. People divided then despite all this. So it's not an accurate argument to make (I know you didn't originally make it).

 

[Bro K]

Because they interpret differently. But does God have fifteen meanings for a text? Hardly. It means what it means. I'm no relativist. Truth is truth.

Exactly......By expressing their 'interpretation' they have opened the door where the teacher can either agree with them or show why they are wrong. Have 15 people give an account of an accident; every view will not be exactly the same. Truth is Truth: Yes, God's Truth is true truth; man's truth is what he believes and will continue to believe until he shown to be wrong; which will never happen if he is not allowed to express his belief(s).

 

[franklinmonroe]

stilllearning, I was generally responding to several of your recent claims/questions: you replied (to TomVols) that the KJV did not contribute to "confusion" in the 17th century Bible version situation AND you asked (annsni) for examples of differences in early English versions.

... If indeed Tyndale’s Bible used a different source for the New Testament, what did they use??

I did not previously actually claim that Tyndale used a 'different' source; I merely mentioned that I have read it along with several other early English versions. Of course, Tyndale did not completely translate the entire OT.

But since you asked, Tyndale probably used Erasmus’s 3rd (1522) Greek NT edition, in addition to consulting Latin (Vulgate) Bibles, and was clearly influenced by Luther’s German version. Coverdale also primarily used German (because he did not know Hebrew or Greek). Matthew's Bible was mostly Tyndale with a bit of Coverdale.

The Great Bible and Bishops' would have more Latin influences perhaps through Wyclif's work (some carried over into the KJV). Unfortunately, Taverner's Bible (1539) is often neglected in these discussions (the translator being particularly strong in Greek). These men would have likely used later Erasmus editions or other published Greek texts. The Complutensian Polyglot would have been one such source for these later projects.

The Geneva NT (William Whittingham) probably used a Stefanus' Greek edition (the 1550 introduced verse numbers). Later Geneva Bibles would have been influenced by Beza's work and other Greek MSS. It is thought that the KJV revisers primarily used a Beza Greek edition. Sharp translators were familiar with many previous ancient language translations and European versions.

None were single sourced.

 

[TomVols]

Because they interpret differently. But does God have fifteen meanings for a text? Hardly. It means what it means. I'm no relativist. Truth is truth.

Exactly......By expressing their 'interpretation' they have opened the door where the teacher can either agree with them or show why they are wrong. Have 15 people give an account of an accident; every view will not be exactly the same. Truth is Truth: Yes, God's Truth is true truth; man's truth is what he believes and will continue to believe until he shown to be wrong; which will never happen if he is not allowed to express his belief(s).

I think we're saying the same thing with one major difference. I don't think it's permissible for a teacher to ask a question that is from an incorrect premise. Since Scripture cannot mean one thing to one and another to another rightly, don't ask "What does this mean to you?" Instead, ask "What do you think this is saying?" or "What do you think of this passage?" Very important distinction, although prima facie merely semantics. When people are allowed to have personal meaning, they have personal truth. Sorry....I know I'm in the minority here, but the Bible is God's Word and we aren't allowed to bend it one whit.

 

[TomVols]

stilllearning, I was generally responding to several of your recent claims/questions: you replied (to TomVols) that the KJV did not contribute to "confusion" in the 17th century Bible version situation AND you asked (annsni) for examples of differences in early English versions.

I did not previously actually claim that Tyndale used a 'different' source; I merely mentioned that I have read it along with several other early English versions. Of course, Tyndale did not completely translate the entire OT.

But since you asked, Tyndale probably used Erasmus’s 3rd (1522) Greek NT edition, in addition to consulting Latin (Vulgate) Bibles, and was clearly influenced by Luther’s German version. Coverdale also primarily used German (because he did not know Hebrew or Greek). Matthew's Bible was mostly Tyndale with a bit of Coverdale.

The Great Bible and Bishops' would have more Latin influences perhaps through Wyclif's work (some carried over into the KJV). Unfortunately, Taverner's Bible (1539) is often neglected in these discussions (the translator being particularly strong in Greek). These men would have likely used later Erasmus editions or other published Greek texts. The Complutensian Polyglot would have been one such source for these later projects.

The Geneva NT (William Whittingham) probably used a Stefanus' Greek edition (the 1550 introduced verse numbers). Later Geneva Bibles would have been influenced by Beza's work and other Greek MSS. It is thought that the KJV revisers primarily used a Beza Greek edition. Sharp translators were familiar with many previous ancient language translations and European versions.

Well said. How bout we go have some Skyline and talk about it