Translator Question

Originally posted by Ransom:

No wonder I called you "reckless" and "intemperate." KJV-onlyists apparently think they can spread their garbage to the four winds as though it were God's own truth.


And the landfill of trash that MV users spread is?

edited to remove insult

[ December 12, 2002, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: PreachtheWord ]

 

With all due respect, I am not interested in what you believe. I am interested in what Scripture says since that is my guide. So why don't you tell us where God said what you believe is right? I can support my belief from Scripture. You haven't offered one word of support for your view from Scripture. Why not? Do you not have one? Are you admitting that what you believe is not taught by God but rather by men?

If you read more carefully (rather than buying what people say without study) you will find that Satan did not change God's word. He outright denied it. YOu will also find that Eve's did not change God word. This is clear from the fact that it is not accorded as sin and if she had done what she said, there would have been no sin. This is an argument that is frequently thrown out but rarely thought through. When studied, Gen 3 proves exactly the opposite of what you claim.

I do believe in the perfect word of God. I have not read every version out there so I cannot testify for all of them. I can say that what the KJV translators said ... that every faithful translation (even the meanest of them) is the Word of God. Why don't you accept what the KJV translators say??

Yes. you can. You will notice some translational differences that will help your understanding since I use God's word in our language, the way that he intended it to be.

In my opinion.

 

I suppose, however, that had I made such a reckless and questionable theological claim as you, I would also want to change the subject rather than have to answer for it.

And why can't they make their case without blaspheming?

I believe that the KJV is the Bible God gave to the english-speaking peoples.

There you go, making unsupported theological claims again, i.e. "God gave" the KJV in some way that he did not "give" the NIV or NASB.

Present your credentials. Who are you, that I should just accept ex cathedra assertions like the above without Biblical proof that the assertions are true?

Anyway, again you avoided what I really said. I was referring to this:

So you believe the Devil was responsible for the Word of God, eh? Didn't Jesus say that attributing the works of God to the Devil was an unforgivable sin?

No wonder I called you "reckless" and "intemperate." KJV-onlyists apparently think they can spread their garbage to the four winds as though it were God's own truth.

You will make account for your words before Almighty God, I can assure you. "But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment" (Matt. 12:36).

Pardon us for believing we have the Truth.

You may believe you have the Truth, but the fact is you are peddling a false gospel.

We just are not willing to accept that God said something or didn't say something because a "scholar" said so.

And yet you expect us to accept what you say because you said so. Hypocrisy, thy name is "KJV-onlyism."

Shameful.

The really sad part of this is, you have the temerity to demand that I treat you nicely while you reserve for yourself the right to run roughshod over God's holy Word with impunity.</font>[/QUOTE]I think you are mixing posts, there. You attributed somethings to me that were said by others.

 

I think this was missed by Refreshed so I will repostit.

Why is it not the same as the "majority text" (once again, defined as the reading with the most manusript evidence). Why did he say (in your own words) "This isn't part of the bible"? Why did he do five revisions? Was his first revision not the word of God? Was his second not the word of God? Which revision was the word of God? (might I add in case our we forget, things different are not the same)

Do you believe there is a Greek text called the Receieved Text that is perfect in every word, or is the perfect in every word Bible only in English (that is the 1769 edition of english)?

It seems like a no brainer to me, the Geneva Bible is does not say the same thing as does the KJV in every instance from Genesis to Revelation there for it should not be the word of God. Do you agree or disagree with this? A simple yes or no please, before your explain your answer.

 

Pete,

It's been less than 19 hours and you asked some legitimate questions. Did you think I'd lash out and start calling you a child of Satan? That wouldn't fall into the category of allowable in any version would it?

I have tried to keep the tone of the debate out of the gutter, and I have tried to answer all questions put to me. If anybody can find where I have been demeaning, show it to me, and I'll apologize profusely.

I'll need time to check out what you are saying and formulate an answer. Rome wasn't built in a day, and between my work and my family, your answer won't be either.

I will tell you this, though, I won't hold onto a pet theory in the face of irrefutable evidence just because someone says so from *either* side of this issue. Do I think this is an important issue? Absolutely, as we are dealing with the very words of God, which the Bible says are reliable, pure, and preserved. The Bible also warns about tinkering with itself.

Your questions are valid, it may just take me awhile to answer in light of the above.

 

&lt;FLAME SUIT ON&gt;

What are some good books that document the King James Translators and the translation of the King James?

Wasn't there something written by some dude named Paine?

I'd be interested in reading more about it.

thanks,
kman

&lt;FLAME SUIT OFF&gt;

 

JYD said:

And the landfill of trash that Bible rejectors spread is?

I have seen no evidence, from KJV-onlyists or anyone else, that the translators of Holy Scripture in the 20th century are "Bible rejectors."

Do you have such evidence? Then present it.

 

Refreshed said:

I think you are mixing posts, there. You attributed somethings to me that were said by others.

My mistake; Homebound said the words I was referring to, not you; I misattributed them.

Nonetheless, two facts remain:

One, you cited the Virgin birth as theological proof of something, although it had nothing to do with the matter at hand. So my charge of changing the subject remains.

Two, will you now repudiate Homebound's blasphemous statement that the Devil was ultimately responsible for modern Bibles? If not, I assume you approve of the statements she made, in which case you share her blame.

 

kman asked:

What are some good books that document the King James Translators and the translation of the King James?

A few favourites of mine:

Olga S. Opfell, The King James Bible Translators (Oxford, 1980). Recently reprinted in paperback by McFarland & Co.

F. F. Bruce, The English Bible: A History of Translations from the Earliest English Versions to the New English Bible (Oxford, 1970). A general history of the English Bible, but a very good one.

Westcott, B. F., A General View of the History of the English Bible (Wipf & Stock, 1997). Originally published in Westcott's lifetime, and still an excellent history of the English Bible, though the KJV-onlyists will probably demonize it anyway.

Ward Allen, ed., Translating for King James (Vanderbilt, 1994). The notes of John Boys, one of the KJV translators. A valuable resource into the process of translation.

Alister E. McGrath, In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language,and a Culture (Doubleday, 2001). A new book, and an excellent one.

Wasn't there something written by some dude named Paine?

You're thinking of The Men Behind the King James Version by Gustavus Paine. I've never read it, except for looking up one thing once.

 

Point goes to Pastor Larry. We know more about the original languages today than they did in 1611. Not only that but we know more about textual criticism also.

 

1. I merely answered your question. You said, "Why don't KJV-onlyists ever make theological assertions they can demonstrate biblically?"

I made an assertion I can demonstrate Biblically. That points to this question. Why do you use such blanket statements to defend your position? That is the same accusation you often make toward the KJVO crowd (rightfully so, many times). I'll be the first to admit that blanket statements are rarely helpful and I will personally strive to not make "blanket" statements.

2. I will stand by my own statements. I do not know Homebound except through the board, and cannot personally verify what he has said in this debate. I will not expect you to speak for anyone else, and I expect the same courtesy. Regarding your last statement, perhaps you assume too much?

 

Alright, I have some answers. I enumerated all of your questions in the above quote, and answer them here.

1. Because the majority text is not be the correct one. Let us take the King James, itself, for example. These are rough numbers. Say there are 2,000 first edition 1611 KJV Bibles left in the world (not counting partial ones). If there were 1,000,000 printed, and we only have 2,000 left (due to heavy use because it was the Word of God), the KJV Bibles left would represent 0.002 percent of the original number. Say there were 5,000 correct readings of Greek originally, how many correct readings would there be now at the same rate (being worn out due to use)? That would leave 10 correct readings in the Greek. This is a great simplification, but would show why there are few ancient Syriac Greek manuscripts to be had.

The reason we have more corrupt manuscripts than correct ones is because they were shelved or lost and rediscovered (Aleph and B) instead of being worn out and replaced. The corruptions simply did not get heavy use due to their subtractions and errors.

2. Erasmus may not have touched on the perfect Greek until his latest edition or maybe not even then. The perfect Bible is a thread throughout time, based on God’s promise to preserve his word, and sometimes translators touch on it perfectly (KJV), and other times, they only get the edge of it (Erasmus' first versions of the TR). It is interesting to note that the King James translators actually recompiled the Greek from which the KJV is translated. They did this recognizing that the text was handed down to them through a pure line, so, in a sense, THEY had the correct version of the recieved text, and so that's the version of the TR I would trust.

3. He did five revisions because he realized the ones he had done before did not perfectly represent God's word. Erasmus was not infallible. He was wrong, admitted it, and revised his Greek, not then called the TR, and may have died before touching on the pure Greek text.

4. The first revision was not the pure Word of God if it disagrees with the KJV, for the reasons stated above.

5. Same answer as above, but insert "second revision" where "first revision" is located.

6. It may be that none of his revisions were the word of God if they differed from the pure line of text expressed in the KJV, which is the pure Word of God.

7. Yes. The one that underlies the KJV and that was compiled by the KJV translators. Refer to answer number 2.

8. Yes. If the Geneva does not correspond to the KJV, then it is not the pure Word of God. Show me an example from the Geneva , compared to the KJV, that is critical, (in other words, not including; spelling errors, restatements, including; an omission, an addition, or otherwise stating something in direct opposition to the pure text). If it is substantially different in some area from the pure text, as expressed in the KJV, then it is a corrupted version, as the Lord promised to preserve his word and affirmed his word was "very pure." It is so pure, in fact, as to be as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times! What a promise!

So, Pete, what are the differences between the KJV and the Geneva? What are the differences between earlier versions (actually revisions) of the KJV and what we use today?

I don’t claim to be a scholar, I cannot read the languages of the Bible, but I do claim God’s promise to preserve his pure word. If we can’t trust the promise of preservation of the pure scriptures by God, then can we trust God for anything?

As a side note, in my studies, I ran across the theory of textual criticism that the shorter reading is correct because of scribal additions at a later time. I especially noticed this in the White/Waite debate. Is this conjecture or can it be proven?

Sorry for the long post. There were a lot of questions!

 

I don't understand something: If the "perfect Bible" is a thread throughout time because God promised to preserve his word (in the way you seem to believe), and the KJV is the perfect preservation of that word and various editions of TR or anythings just "touch on it", then something other than the various editions of the TR must be the "perfect Bible" on the "thread throughout time".

What, prior to the KJV, was that which was the perfect Bible on the thread throughout time if not even the TR was on this thread?

 

I can't really say that we know. The pure text has not always been so evident, especially in light of apostacy in the early church and the Roman Catholic strong-hold on the Western world during the middle ages. The Catholics stamped out entire populations and the word that each had recieved because of their non-Catholic views! It is easy, however for the last 400 years to see where the pure text has been. It has been in the KJV, or more specifically, the variety of TR that was developed by the KJV translators.

To answer which TR we should follow. We should follow the one which has "God's stamp of approval," (Dr. Hills quote). We are guided by "common faith" to the correct version of the TR that underlies the KJV.

This is what it all boils down to. God made a promise to preserve his word. I'm taking him up on that promise.

"FAITH WHICH IS BASED ON A CLEAR PROMISE IS STRONGER THAN OBJECTIONS WHICH ARE RAISED BY OUR LACK OF INFORMATION. Since God has promised to preserve His Word for all generations, and since the Hebrew and Greek which is represented by the King James Version is the Bible that has been received from ancient tradition, and since God has so singularly used the truth preached from this Bible, I must follow it and reject others where they differ."

- Bruce Lackey.

Much of the information for this post was gleaned from David Cloud's website. Click here: Problems with Preservation

 

To all: I will not pretend to have every answer on this question or even anything close to every answer. If there is anyone who does on the "Modern Version" side of the issue, there are some questions I would like to ask.

In fact there are many questions that I *have* asked that have gone unanswered. I do not hold this against the person defending the MV, as no one person can have all the answers.

Thanks,

Jason

 

Can we even say it is logically possible that it even existed? If it must match the KJV perfectly, then the KJV did not need to be produced since it already existed, just under a different name. The TR should not have been used at all, since it was not the perfect Bible. What you are saying is that a perfect Bible, that matched the KJV, existed prior to the KJV, but that the imperfect TR was used to produce the KJV, which resulted in a perfect Bible that perfectly matched the previous unknown perfect Bible. Not only does this not make any logical sense, and not only is there *no* reason to believe this, I would be *extremely* surprised if you were able to provide a single shred of evidence for this theory.

Yes, God preserved his word. But maybe not in the way you think.

As do I. The problem is that *your understanding* of that promise results in logical impossibilities.

Faith which is based on a clear promise that God's word is preserved, even *despite* textual differences, is STRONGER than the "faith" that requires word-for-word preservation.

 

Faith which is based on a clear promise that God's word is preserved, even *despite* textual differences, is STRONGER than the "faith" that requires word-for-word preservation.[/QUOTE]

Are you saying that in order for a person to have a stronger faith, they have to be able to question the word of God as to its accuracy? That's ludicrous.

 

I can't really say that we know. The pure text has not always been so evident, especially in light of apostacy in the early church and the Roman Catholic strong-hold on the Western world during the middle ages.</font>[/QUOTE]So if it has not always been evident, how is it that you are so sure it is evident now?? I am not intendign to be inflammatory but only pointing out what should be (but appears not to be) patently obvious. The TR that underlies the KJV is actually teh other way around. No one knows for sure what TR the translator's use. The one used now is actually Scrivener's 1894 edition, some 300 years after the KJV itself. So it is in reality a case of the TR that was compiled to look like the KJV rather than the other way around.

Earlier you said, the majority text may not be the correct one. I totally agree. But most KJVOnly people would not agree with you. It is in fact that principle that underlies the eclectic text, not the TR as you have made it out to be.

You suggest there are more corrupt than complete manuscripts because of the idea of usage. Yet that cannot be proven. Your argument is, in essence, that these manuscripts do not now exist because they were overused. The more likely argument is that they do not now exist because they never did. That simplicity seems too often to be overlooked by those who desire to support a position.

You appeal to God's promise to preserve his word, which none of his disagreement. But then you make the jump that he preserved it in the KJV, a promise that God did not make, something that Cloud, Waite, Ruckman, and others gloss over too easily. It also involves the assumption that his word was not available for 1600 years (since nothing prior to 1611 is identical to teh 1611). Which brings the question, if he waited 1600 years, what's to prove that he didn't wait 1900 years?? The answer is, "nothing biblical." It all becomes a matter of preference, rather than of revelation. And therein lies the problem. There are a great number of people, well meaning I am sure, such as Cloud, Waite, and others, who have injected the personal preference into the debate about translations and preservations. As Baptists, whose sole authority is not some teachign magisterium but rather the word of God, we should call on these men to produce Scripture that dictates the KJV is the only word of God. Such a call would quickly result in silence for there is no such Scripture. Scriptures about preservation are found in every Bible and thus speak nothing about the KJV per se. So they are depending on their own (potentially flawed) understanding and their own preferences. They have asserted what the word of God is without Scripture to assert it, which is the very thing that they accuse others of doing. As the old saying goes, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."

Lastly to the matter of faith, Lackey's comment is lacking in substance. He asserts faith in clear promise, but (like all the others) has not shown that promise to be relevant to the KJV. Why not? Because no Scripture cannot be offered in support because there is none. So instead, he appeals to the nebulous "faith" argument, insinuating that those who do not believe as he does do not have faith. Speaking from personal experience, my faith in God's word has increased since I read his word in modern versions. It shows that language and translation is not a barrier to his authoritative word but that his word transcends the shortcomings of man. The issue of faith is not, as you say, an issue of "questioning its accuracy." It is rather an issue of the reality of textual transmission that has left us with over 5000 manuscripts or fragments of manuscripts, no two of which match perfectly. At that point, all people must practice textual criticism and decide what God's word is. I believe that the multitude of manuscripts is the best approach, the learning need not be left at the door, but that our minds, made in teh image of God, should be used to their fullest to answer this question. Scholarship seems only a problem for those who disagree with what the scholars say or for those who have no scholarship. I say, "Let's use what God gave us."

My point, my friend, is not to chide you with respect to your belief but rather to lovingly and kindly suggest that there are some issues which deserve more thought and investigation. At the head of the list is that of authority. If the Bible is our authority, then any dogmatic statement must find its root in there. As such, the KJVOnly will always fail on the issue of authority. It cannot be identified and substantiated from Scripture itself. It must appeal to something outside of Scripture for its basis. That is why I reject it.

 

Not exactly. I'm saying it takes more faith to believe in preservation when you don't have to touch the word-for-word perfect Bible. Kind of like after Christ's resurrection: some believed he was risen without seeing him, but Thomas had to be able to "hold it in his hand" before he'd believe. KJV-onlyists say that if they can't "hold it in their hand", they can't believe in preservation.

Are you not going to comment on the logical paradox a word-for-word perfect preservation creates?

 

So simply put, why do you believe the KJV is an answer to that promise and not the Geneva Bible? The same promises are in the Geneva Bible?

[ December 16, 2002, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: Pete Richert ]