The Key to the KJV-Only Conundrum

[robycop3]

Robycop's post reminded me of something I've been thinking about lately. I just finished an academic paper on Bible translation, and as I did it I put a theological name to something I've been thinking about in connection with translation: the linguistic theory of universal grammar. This is the theory that the ability to learn a language is in the DNA of every child born.

To give a theological name for this concept, it comes under the doctrine of natural (or general) revelation. This is the teaching that all of creation shows forth God (Ps. 19:1-6, Rom. 1:19-20, etc.). So, God created the different languages at the Tower of Babel, with their different verb systems, syntax, semantics, etc.

If God created all of the languages, then all of the languages can have the Word of God translated into them. God will guide the missionary translator as to how to best do this.

It follows then that since God created all of the languages, none of them is more special than any other. English is just another language, created in God's providence, so why would God choose the English language as the one to have a perfect Bible? Why not the logical German or the beautiful French or the exotic Chinese or the ubiquitous Spanish?

If the answer is that it is spoken by the most people, that is wrong. Chinese is spoken by 1.2 billion, though English is spoken by around 940 million. Spanish is spoken by half a billion.

If the answer is that English is easily learned, are you kidding me? It's a very difficult language to learn. I always get a laugh when someone says people should learn English to read the KJV. As one who has taught English to Japanese people, I have to say that is an absolutely ridiculous notion.

Jordan, you've been to Africa now. Does God love Americans more than Africans? Is English somehow a better language than African languages? Why would God choose English to have a perfect Bible instead of an African language?

I believe God keeps His word updated as He causes/allows language changes to occur. And some languages change more-rapidly than others. The language of the Waironi in South America has changed very little since outsiders discovered this people, so missionaries to them don't hafta write a new Bible for them every ten years. But the Romance languages change constantly, and I suspect Japanese and Chinese does as well. (Perhaps you can enlighten us on that, John?)

Now, can we imagine the difficulty we'd have in understanding Scripture if our only English Bible was Wycliffe's 1384 edition? I believe God caused "updated" translations to be made, and the KJV was one of them. But English has changed vastly since 1611, and I believe God has caused newer translations to be made to reflect those changes.

As for the "must learn English" notion of some KJVOs, we have the example of the various peoples' hearing Peter's preaching in their own language or dialect by the power of the Holy Spirit. I believe this proves God intends for all to hear His word in their own languages. This KJVO excuse shows the shallowness and excuse-making KJVOs employ to try to justify their non-Scriptural KJVO myth.

 

[TCassidy]

Earth to Jordan. Earth to Jordan. You haven't responded to post #57 yet.

 

[HankD]

Some complain that the Bible original languages are dead languages.

True - But they never change!

Here is what I believe is a promise when the Lord sits upon the throne of David ruling over the kingdom of God upon the earth for 1000 years:

Zephaniah 3:9 For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.

OK bring on the nay-sayers!

HankD

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Jordan, the answer to your question lies in the meaning of "perfect."

The word "perfect" means, "complete, nothing lacking which is necessary to the whole."

The bible is "perfect" in that it is "complete, nothing lacking which is necessary to the whole."

And every legitimate translation can be said to be "complete, nothing lacking which is necessary to the whole."

What are you confused about and Who are you doubting?

Let me show you what the bible says about knowing which translation is real "scripture."

2 Timothy 3:15 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.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

So, God's word, the bible, says that any bible that is complete enough to make you understand the gospel and be saved is "scripture."

And that the true man of God will, through reading that bible, be made "perfect" - not sinless perfection, but be complete, spiritually mature, nothing lacking in his spiritual life, completely equipped for all good works.

So Jordan, let me ask you a very serious question. Is Paul a liar? Is the Holy Spirit, Who inspired the words quoted above, a liar? If so, you call God a liar. If not then every bible translation able to make thee wise unto salvation is scripture, the word of God in English.

Are some bible translations better than others? Yes, I think so. Some use better underlying Hebrew and Greek textforms. Some use better translation techniques. But all are "perfect" in the sense of being "complete, nothing lacking necessary to the whole" and thus "able to make thee wise unto salvation."

I am an old King James guy. I preach from my KJV. But my daily reading/study is in the New King James. It is based on the same texts and was translated using the same techniques.

But I was saved reading the Revised Standard Version (the bible Evangelicals and Fundamentalists loved to hate).

I have won people to Christ using the American Standard Version.

I have won people to Christ using the New American Standard Version.

I have won people to Christ using the English Revised Version.

I even won a Jehovah's Witness to Christ using his own bible, the New World Translation! (I used his own bible to prove the Deity of Christ.)

How can we recognize the perfect, complete, translation of the word of God in English (or any other language)? Can a person be saved using it? If so then it is God's word.

So according to your logic, If I happen to a book that quotes a bible verse and get saved that it makes the whole thing scripture?

You can get saved out of Roman Catholic commentary if it happens to mention John 3:16... But that does not make the whole things scripture.

While I agree that many translations contain portions of scripture, to assert that a whole translation can be considered scripture just because you get saved from it not true.

You can get saved from a sermon, but that doesn't mean the whole sermon is scripture.

 

[TCassidy]

So according to your logic, If I happen to a book that quotes a bible verse and get saved that it makes the whole thing scripture?

Why do you feel you have to make up untruths? You know very well I never said any such thing. Shame on you!

You can get saved out of Roman Catholic commentary if it happens to mention John 3:16... But that does not make the whole things scripture.

And I never said it did. Shame on you!

While I agree that many translations contain portions of scripture, to assert that a whole translation can be considered scripture just because you get saved from it not true.

So what part of the New King James Version do you think is not scripture? What part of the American Standard Version is not scripture? And why isn't it scripture?

You can get saved from a sermon, but that doesn't mean the whole sermon is scripture.

I never claimed it was. Shame on you!

If we are going to discuss this very important issues, honesty will be required.

So, let's go back to what was actually said. Do you think 2 Timothy 3:15 (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.) is wrong? Is that which is able to make you wise unto salvation scripture or not?

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Why do you feel you have to make up untruths? You know very well I never said any such thing. Shame on you!

And I never said it did. Shame on you!

So what part of the New King James Version do you think is not scripture? What part of the American Standard Version is not scripture? And why isn't it scripture?

I never claimed it was. Shame on you!

If we are going to discuss this very important issues, honesty will be required.

So, let's go back to what was actually said. Do you think 2 Timothy 3:15 (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.) is wrong? Is that which is able to make you wise unto salvation scripture or not?

If a sermon makes you wise unto salvation does that make the sermon scripture?

 

[TCassidy]

If a sermon makes you wise unto salvation does that make the sermon scripture?

Jordan, please. That has already been answered. It is dishonest to ignore the answer and ask the same question again.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Jordan, please. That has already been answered. It is dishonest to ignore the answer and ask the same question again.

Please graciously remind me your answer to the question.

It seems to me that you are the one being dishonest.

It is a simple yes or no question.
You seem to claim that anything that makes you wise unto salvation is scripture.

Please Kindly answer yes or no, is a sermon someone gets saved after hearing considered scripture.

If your answer is yes, then that just seems absurd.

If your answer is no, then you need to explain your view of scripture, because your question that you asked seemed to imply to me that you think anything that makes you wise to salvation is scripture.
If that is not the case than maybe you could explain your point.

Perhaps you are not being clear rather than me being dishonest.

 

[rsr]

 

[TCassidy]

Please graciously remind me your answer to the question.

Look at post #65.

It seems to me that you are the one being dishonest.

Please post a quote of me being dishonest.

You seem to claim that anything that makes you wise unto salvation is scripture.

No, Jordan, the subject is clearly "The Holy Scriptures." Also called "The Holy Bible." Or "The Bible."

I never mentioned "sermons," or "a book that quotes a bible verse" or a "commentary." You did.

And, in fact, in your post #64 you show that you understand we are talking about bible translations and you even use the world "translation" to indicate what we are talking about.

Perhaps you are not being clear rather than me being dishonest.

I am being very clear. It is you who is dancing around trying to avoid the issue.

Here, again, are the questions you can't seem to answer honestly.

So what part of the New King James Version do you think is not scripture? And why isn't it scripture?

What part of the American Standard Version is not scripture? And why isn't it scripture?

Do you think 2 Timothy 3:15 (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.) is wrong? Is that bible which is able to make you wise unto salvation holy scripture or not?

 

[robycop3]

If a sermon makes you wise unto salvation does that make the sermon scripture?

No, but you can bet yer sweet bippy that sermon was BASED on Scripture.

 

[robycop3]

Some complain that the Bible original languages are dead languages.

True - But they never change!

Here is what I believe is a promise when the Lord sits upon the throne of David ruling over the kingdom of God upon the earth for 1000 years:

Zephaniah 3:9 For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.

OK bring on the nay-sayers!

HankD

I believe that's why God chose ANCIENT Hebrew. Aramaic, and KOINE Greek as the languages in which He presents His word to man, and made them "dead", unchanging languages. And that's also why He causes new translations to be made in current languages, as they change over time. And let us remember it was GOD who made ALL languages to begin with, and it's GOD who causes/allows all the changes which occur in languages.

The KJVO myth is one of Satan's attempts to interfere with God's updating the translation of His word to reflect the changes He's brought about in English since His word was first translated into English.

 

[Jerome]

When did language changes in Hebrew and Greek stop happening?

 

[TCassidy]

When did language changes in Hebrew and Greek stop happening?

About the same time you answered my questions in post 70?

 

[Smyth]

As for the "must learn English" notion of some KJVOs, we have the example of the various peoples' hearing Peter's preaching in their own language or dialect by the power of the Holy Spirit. I believe this proves God intends for all to hear His word in their own languages.

Yes, in Acts 2, the Jews of gentile heritage heard the Apostles' preaching in their own native languages. Since then, Christians have worked very hard to bring God's word to people of all languages. Compare to false religions: Muslims want people to learn Arabic to read the Korean. So-called Jews want people to learn Hebrew to read the Talmud -- but, only if you're rich, otherwise crawl away.

 

[John of Japan]

Sorry I missed this, brother, then after that our Internet access was down.

I believe God keeps His word updated as He causes/allows language changes to occur. And some languages change more-rapidly than others. The language of the Waironi in South America has changed very little since outsiders discovered this people, so missionaries to them don't hafta write a new Bible for them every ten years. But the Romance languages change constantly, and I suspect Japanese and Chinese does as well. (Perhaps you can enlighten us on that, John?)

Japanese and Chinese have both changed radically from before WW2 to after. In the case of the Japanese language, the written language was in Classical Japanese (like Middle English) until after the war. The first complete Bible in colloquial Japanese was not until 1954 (NT) to 1955 (OT). Another thing that happened after the war was the government listing of 1850 acceptable Chinese characters for the Japanese language.

Meanwhile, in China the Communists made many changes, especially in the area of semantics. Many new words were introduced in line with the Communist doctrines. Then the government simplified many of the characters, driving a wedge between the mainland and other Chinese areas: Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc.

Now, can we imagine the difficulty we'd have in understanding Scripture if our only English Bible was Wycliffe's 1384 edition? I believe God caused "updated" translations to be made, and the KJV was one of them. But English has changed vastly since 1611, and I believe God has caused newer translations to be made to reflect those changes.

I'm not sure this is a valid comparison. Note that there is a gap of 227 years between 1384 and 1611. Wycliffe was actually in Middle English and the KJV in Early Modern English, so they were two different varieties of the language. The gap between the KJV and our modern variety of English is not so great, being mostly in the semantics and not so much in the syntax.

As for the "must learn English" notion of some KJVOs, we have the example of the various peoples' hearing Peter's preaching in their own language or dialect by the power of the Holy Spirit. I believe this proves God intends for all to hear His word in their own languages. This KJVO excuse shows the shallowness and excuse-making KJVOs employ to try to justify their non-Scriptural KJVO myth.

I agree. Besides your Scriptural point I would mention that the Great Commission is all about cross-cultural evangelism: "every nation," "all the world," etc. This presupposes clear teaching in target languages.

Caveat: in my experience it is only a small percentage of KJVO people who think everyone should learn English. I know many who believe in Bible translation from the traditional texts. These are usually folk who care deeply about the Great Commission, but don't make a big deal out of their KJVO views.

 

[John of Japan]

When did language changes in Hebrew and Greek stop happening?

Since Biblical Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic are all dead languages, we have to study the original language Scriptures from the language being used when they were written. So, for example, to learn the meaning of a certain word we look at how it is used in the Bible itself, then research its usage in contemporary documents. This is actually quite easy nowadays, taking just a few keystrokes.

The Greek language continued to develop, but modern Greek is really quite similar to Biblical Greek, with most of the grammar and words being the same. If you were to take Greek from me, after Greek 101-102 and 201-202 you would be able to read the Greek NT fairly easily, and perhaps even become a translator of the TR into one of the 1000s of languages which do not have a NT in their language. This would set you far above the defenders of the KJV who never do a thing to get the Bible to the world. Follow Bearing Precious Seed, which prints millions of Bibles in many languages, rather than the Dean Burgon Society which repeats the old arguments ad infinitum. (This is just a "for instance," since I don't know if you follow them or not.)

Hebrew became a dead language, but was resurrected by the Zionists. What is spoken now in Israel is essentially a modernized form of Biblical Hebrew, so that Israelis can easily read the Hebrew OT in their own modern language. Israelis would laugh at the suggestion that they needed an OT in English rather than the Hebrew it was written in.

 

[Jerome]

The Greek language continued to develop, but modern Greek is really quite similar to Biblical Greek, with most of the grammar and words being the same. . . . Hebrew became a dead language, but was resurrected by the Zionists. What is spoken now in Israel is essentially a modernized form of Biblical Hebrew, so that Israelis can easily read the Hebrew OT in their own modern language.

Didn't/won't Greeks and Israelis need a new translation every few years?

 

[Yeshua1]

So according to your logic, If I happen to a book that quotes a bible verse and get saved that it makes the whole thing scripture?

You can get saved out of Roman Catholic commentary if it happens to mention John 3:16... But that does not make the whole things scripture.

While I agree that many translations contain portions of scripture, to assert that a whole translation can be considered scripture just because you get saved from it not true.

You can get saved from a sermon, but that doesn't mean the whole sermon is scripture.

Since we no longer have the originals, why not just accept the simple truth that God has indeed perserved to us in the greek/hebrew texts essentially those originals unto us, and that regardless which textual basis is used, the translations if done correctly are all to be seen as being the word of the lord unto us for today?

 

[John of Japan]

Didn't/won't Greeks and Israelis need a new translation every few years?

Israelis won't need an OT--Biblical Hebrew is their language. There is a Hebrew NT translation that might need to be updated in a few decades.

Modern Greeks might want a new one, though an educated Greek reads the koine Greek NT fairly easily, I've heard.