What is your understanding of KJVO?

[TCassidy]

"I consider the Stuttgartensia and Alexandrian (WH) texts, from which all modern bibles are translated, to be corrupt. This is, I believe, easily demonstrated by the egregious errors contained in the versions translated from them."

Yes. Bearing in mind that was written prior to the Byzantine based versions such as WEB, EMTV, NKJV, etc.

Also bear in mind that Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (which underlies the NKJV) differs from the Ben Chayyim text, (Bomberg which underlies the KJV) in only eight places which would effect translation: Proverbs 8:16; Isaiah 10:16; Isaiah 27:2; Isaiah 38:14; Jeremiah 34:1; Ezekiel 30:18; Zephaniah 3:15; and Malachi 1:12. And in all 8 cases the NKJV agrees with the KJV reading.

I believe the AV is inspired and inerrant because the preserved original language manuscripts from which it is derived are both inspired and inerrant, when correctly copied, which virtually all of the textual evidence suggests is assuredly the case. The charge of errors in the AV is an unfounded charge.

Exactly. No errors of fact concerning history, prophecy, or promises.

You do understand what derived inspiration/inerrancy means, don't you? And what it applies to?

You state, "The charge of errors in the AV is an unfounded charge."

Correct. No errors of fact concerning history, prophecy, promises, etc. You can trust your bible.

Yet, when I state that a group of extreme KJVO (#6) believe there are no provable errors you reply:

Yes, I asked for clarification. Are you claiming verbal inspiration for the KJV or derivative inspiration? You did not make that clear.

Tell us, Tom, was your statement meaningless or were you simply grandstanding again?

Neither. And I am sorry you did not understand what I posted.

Here, I will try again.

God directly inspired Luke to write the words "Τὸν μὲν πρῶτον λόγον ἐποιησάμην περὶ πάντων, ὦ Θεόφιλε, ὧν ἤρξατο ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ποιεῖν τε καὶ διδάσκειν, ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας ἐντειλάμενος τοῖς ἀποστόλοις διὰ Πνεύματος ῾Αγίου οὓς ἐξελέξατο ἀνελήμφθη" in Acts 1:1 & 2.

Then a copyist took the manuscript written by Luke and copied the words "Τὸν μὲν πρῶτον λόγον ἐποιησάμην περὶ πάντων, ὦ Θεόφιλε, ὧν ἤρξατο ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ποιεῖν τε καὶ διδάσκειν, ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας ἐντειλάμενος τοῖς ἀποστόλοις διὰ Πνεύματος ῾Αγίου οὓς ἐξελέξατο ἀνελήμφθη.

Then a committee of translators translated the words into English as "The first book I wrote, Theophilus, concerned all that Jesus began both to do and to teach, until the day in which he was received up, after he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen."

The first is an example of directly inspired writings.

The second is an example of derivatively inspired writings. They are the same inspired words that Luke wrote down and are thusly derivatively inspired. They are derived, via a copyist, from Luke's inspired words.

The third is an example of translation. The inspired, preserved words are then translated into English where they are the English derivative of the inspired, preserved originals.

When you make overly broad statements without understanding the above limitations to the technical meaning of "inspired" you prove yourself to be the worst of the worst among KJVOs. When they say "inspired" they mean it (out of sheer ignorance) in the first example rather than in the third.

Got it now?

 

[Pastor_Bob]

ALL decent translations can use that reasoning, as we do not have any inspired original texts to us, correct?

You are absolutely correct. The difference is what you and I consider to be “decent translations.” You consider translations based on the Critical text as decent. I consider translations based on the Traditional text as decent translations.

 

[TCassidy]

Thank you, Pastor Bob, but may I press you a little further? Do you believe that the KJV as we have it today is perfect in the sense of being beyond improvement?

Perhaps a better question to ask him is if he thinks all English versions are derivatively inspired. That may get us closer to the truth.

 

[TCassidy]

You are absolutely correct. The difference is what you and I consider to be “decent translations.” You consider translations based on the Critical text as decent. I consider translations based on the Traditional text as decent translations.

Who are you responding to? Martin or Me?

If me, you couldn't be more wrong.

If Martin I will have to let him answer for himself as I would not do him the injustice of claiming he believes something which he very well may not.

[Edited to add: Never mind. I now see you were quoting Yeshua1, who I have on "ignore."]

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Got it now?

Yes, that is a very helpful way to explain it. Thank you.

 

[HankD]

Perhaps a better question to ask him is if he thinks all English versions are derivatively inspired. That may get us closer to the truth.

In reality and IMO that can only be said with an element of faith because we can't know for certainty according to empirical evidence.

e.g. An example you gave:
1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Whether God manifest in the flesh is Os or theos for example. Yes I have read the arguments between Burgon and W&H (Burgon, The Revision Revised).

Though it is upper case "He"in modern CT translations W&H argued for "os".

I believe Burgon was correct and hold the KJV as derivatively correct (better than uppercase "He").

There are many others of even more complicated debate - e.g Johannine Comma (the KJV is correct).

AOBTW I believe the office of "bishop" is legitimate.

 

[HankD]

ALL decent translations can use that reasoning, as we do not have any inspired original texts to us, correct?

No, not actually as some modern translations are still in flux. RE NIV, NKJV...
Perhaps some day.

 

[TCassidy]

In reality and IMO that can only be said with an element of faith because we can't know for certainty according to empirical evidence.

I agree. The issue is not about certainty, but about scholarship. And there are always going to be scholarly differences of opinion.

I believe Burgon was correct and hold the KJV as derivatively correct.

I like that turn of phrase, "derivatively correct." I agree. But I also believe those versions which chose to (incorrectly, in my opinion) translate Ος as "he who" are still derivatively inspired although not derivatively correct, because a grammatical argument can be made that the antecedent of "he who" is the "God" (used twice) in verse 15.

There are many others of even more complicated debate - e.g Johannine Comma (the KJV is correct).

I agree. Although I don't believe the comma is part of 1st John 5, I do believe it is scripturally accurate (your "derivatively correct?") and does not introduce an error into the text. It may have belonged elsewhere in John's writings (it sure sounds like him) or not, but I have few serious doctrinal issues with the variants with the possible exception of John 1:18. I have a problem with "the only begotten God."

 

[HankD]

"Bishop" - I can't prove it but to me the office of Bishop is a man who is an elderly pastor or deacon in an area of more than one local church (for whatever reason). One who has wisdom and a mentor to those seeking an office of pastor or deacon.

Yes, almost the definition of a Methodist "Bishop" minus the "Episcopal" authority over the other pastors.

Start the bonfire, sing the Te Deum.

 

[robycop3]

Thank you, Pastor Bob, but may I press you a little further? Do you believe that the KJV as we have it today is perfect in the sense of being beyond improvement?

Martin, the KJV cannot be improved any more than a Shakespeare play, as all its makers are dead, as is The Bard. I believe only its original makers could've improved it, as anyone else doing it would impress their own thoughts & attitudes into it, as Blayney did when he made his 1769 edition.

And it certainly be improved, such as replacing "Easter" with "passover" in Acts 12:4 and "thou shalt not do murder" in Ex. 20:13. However, as its makers are all gone, we should leave it as is.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I tend to avoid the KJV, and those who consider the use of any other translation as lesser, flawed or heretical.

Without addressing any difficulties, real or imagined, of the KJV, I have one serious problem.

One is the English language has changed in the last 400 years or so. What was a correct and valid translation of a word (single unit of language) in the English of 1611 is not always the correct and valid translation of the same word in 2018. (Even 1960.) Biblical Hebrew was a rather 'simple' language. One word (unit of language) could have several meanings depending on context. (Current Spanish is the same and Modern English has a few examples.)

Not only that but the 1611 English language used a number of seemingly current English language words in somewhat different meanings.

On the other hand, the KJV has been used to spread the message of God, and how to obtain a relationship with God through Jesus Christ. I think the KJV is weak on details and easy to misunderstand.

How do I understand KJVO? I do not wish to speak for that faction. In short, my understanding is KJVO is a ridiculous position with no substantial basis.

 

[Yeshua1]

You are absolutely correct. The difference is what you and I consider to be “decent translations.” You consider translations based on the Critical text as decent. I consider translations based on the Traditional text as decent translations.

Just the TR, so which version of the TR is acceptable? And if the critical text is corrupted, does that mean that the Nas/Esv et all are also all bad translations then?

 

[Yeshua1]

No, not actually as some modern translations are still in flux. RE NIV, NKJV...
Perhaps some day.

The Nas does a better job in giving to us the deity of jesus than the Kjv does itself, so why would it be inferior?

 

[Yeshua1]

In reality and IMO that can only be said with an element of faith because we can't know for certainty according to empirical evidence.

e.g. An example you gave:
1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Whether God manifest in the flesh is Os or theos for example. Yes I have read the arguments between Burgon and W&H (Burgon, The Revision Revised).

Though it is upper case "He"in modern CT translations W&H argued for "os".

I believe Burgon was correct and hold the KJV as derivatively correct (better than uppercase "He").

There are many others of even more complicated debate - e.g Johannine Comma (the KJV is correct).

AOBTW I believe the office of "bishop" is legitimate.

Are there ANY major doctrines that the Nas/Esv would be denying then if inferior versions?

 

[HankD]

Just the TR, so which version of the TR is acceptable? And if the critical text is corrupted, does that mean that the Nas/Esv et all are also all bad translations then?

1894 Scrivener a reconstruction of the Greek text underlying the 1611 AV English (except a few places).

The Critical text in most publications is just that "critical" and shows the variants in the apparatus so even the "critical" text shows the Byzantine readings.

NAS/ESV are best scholarly guess. I always choose Byzantine.

 

[JonC]

Pastor Bob may I put to you the question that I posed in the previous thread?
My understanding would be that if a translation is deemed to be "without fault," then it must have been inspired by God and therefore double inspiration is in play.
I am not asking whether you believe the KJV is the word of God. I agree with the translators that " the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession....containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God" (though the translators had yet to encounter 'Gender neutral' versions!). I am asking if you believe it is somehow beyond improvement.

I shall be grateful if you would reply, as I need to know whether I ought to make an apology to @JonC.

Depending on the topic we will often disagree (sometimes strongly), but I don't think we do on this subject. Either way you never owe me an apology.

 

[Logos1560]

what reasons do KJVO have that causes them to hold to the position.

.

Perhaps the reasons that KJV-only advocates hold their position are not sound since they often involve the use of fallacies such as begging the question, special pleading, false dilemma, guilt-by-association, etc. and involve the use of unscriptural, unjust measures/standards.

A KJV-only position could be the easy way out to avoid learning the truth and facts concerning all the actual textual differences in the multiple textually-varying sources consulted and used by the Church of England makers of the KJV and to avoid all the effort and work that applying consistent, just measures/standards would require.

A KJV-only position may assume a mere non-scriptural preference or tradition of men and try to suggest that it needs to be accepted to be sound in Bible doctrine.

 

[Logos1560]

In the preface of the book Cleaning-Up Hazardous Materials by Kirk DiVietro, H. D. Williams wrote: “The false application of ’is given,’ to translations throughout the centuries must stop. Inspiration of translations is a false doctrine concocted by men to justify a position when they were caught proclaiming a doctrine that cannot be substantiated by the Scripture; by the grammar of passages in question, or by history” (p. v). Phil Stringer asserted: “The verse does not say that the words that God gave are preserved, transmitted, or translated by ‘inspiration’” (Brown, Indestructible Book, p. 394). D. A. Waite wrote: “There is no scriptural proof that any translation of God’s Words is inspired of God” (A Warning, p. 32). Charles L. Surrett wrote: “There is no theological reason (no statement from God) to believe that a translation into any language would be inspired in the same way that the original writings in Hebrew and Greek were. No translation has been ‘God-breathed,’ as 2 Timothy 3:16 says of the originals” (Certainty of the Words, p. 75).

D. A. Waite pointed out: "You cannot corrupt and change the Greek and Hebrew text and correct it with the English King James Bible or any other language version" (Foes, p. 6). Waite claimed: "You can't produce in English something that was originally given in Hebrew and Greek" (Fuzzy Facts, p. 33). Waite commented: “The people who say that God has breathed out the King James Bible are in serious error” (Fundamentalist Deception, p. 94). H. D. Williams wrote: “Every person holding the view that the King James Bible is inspired, derivatively inspired, derivatively pure, or derivatively perfect is not only linguistically and historically incorrect, he is theologically incorrect” (Pure Words, p. 21). Williams wrote: “If we attribute purity and inspiration to the translated Words of God in any language, we are in reality claiming double inspiration, double purity, and double Apostolic and prophet-like men who chose them and who wrote them” (p. 63).

 

[Yeshua1]

1894 Scrivener a reconstruction of the Greek text underlying the 1611 AV English (except a few places).

The Critical text in most publications is just that "critical" and shows the variants in the apparatus so even the "critical" text shows the Byzantine readings.

NAS/ESV are best scholarly guess. I always choose Byzantine.

Are those 2 good translations though, and how many of the Kjv versions used the Scrivener though?

 

[Yeshua1]

1894 Scrivener a reconstruction of the Greek text underlying the 1611 AV English (except a few places).

The Critical text in most publications is just that "critical" and shows the variants in the apparatus so even the "critical" text shows the Byzantine readings.

NAS/ESV are best scholarly guess. I always choose Byzantine.

Isn't the truth though that there is very high agreement between the Bzt and the Critical texts, with no major doctrines affected either text?