Why does the KJV have [questionable] material in it?

Ooooooo~L@@ks to me like while "the mice are away, the rats will play"...somebody's been being bad, bad, bad & God's gonna git ya fer that!

 

If English cannot read "word for word" as Koine Gree, then one or both cannot be the Word of God. Things different are not the same-- or have you perchance heard that somewhere before?

 

This is precisely the point so many of us have been trying to convince you of for so long. The KJV is a translation and subject to the choices of its translators. It is not perfect nor preserved in any sense that good MV's are not.

It is an excellent translation but the claim that God has somehow chosen it to be the only Word of God in English is no more credible than if I were to translate the Mexican constitution into English and declare that mine was the only God approved translation.

Who here said that the KJV is not the Word of God? I believe it is. PTW believes it is. Pastor Larry believes it is...etc.

Yes and no. I understand perfectly that the italicized words are for clarity... However with that in mind, it is mind boggling that you can place such a heavy emphasis on the minor differences between the KJV and MV's.

Right. Do you really think He was talking about the KJV?

We're not. We are pointing out the error of KJVO thinking.

No. This is simply untrue. The fact that we do not believe that one, and only one, English translation can rightly be called the Word of God DOES NOT mean that we do not believe that God preserved His Word.

God did not speak the words of the KJV through its translators. He did speak His words through the original writers.

What He said is perfectly preserved. We can prove it by overwhelming evidence. But we cannot prove exactly how He said it since there are variants in the evidence.

I do trust God's Word and receive it through more than one translation.

Did God give you your body? Does it have "errors" in it? God gave you your church. Does it have errors? God gave you your parents. Do they have errors in them? Your question is non-sense. The fact that the KJV does not perfectly match the words of the original does not mean that it has errors of substance... and the fact that MV's do not match the KJV's words does not mean that they have errors of substance either.

...then why do you cling to KJVOnlyism when you have been shown facts that refute it?

This is nothing to be thankful for. We are supposed to prove things and hold to that which is true not blindly hold to a false doctrine.

[ October 12, 2002, 02:52 AM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

The answer is very simple. The truth is, this statement is not in the KJV. This statement is in italics. It shows the great caution and care that the KJV Translators took to insure that nothing questionable made it into the text.

They saw that this phrase was not found in all the manuscripts but it was found in many of them including the Vulgate , the Syriac, and others.

Not being certain, the Translators decided to include the words but to designate them so you and I would recognize immediately that they were not in even the majority of MSs. What tremendous honesty and integrity these men possessed!

With or without this phrase, the verse conveys adequately that we need a relationship with the Lord Jesus if we hope to have a relationship with God.

On the other hand, the NASV Translators did not give you and I the opportunity to know this information. Although absent from many MSs, they chose to include this phrase with no indication that it may not belong there.

Which is more honest and upright? You be the judge.

 

Pastor Bob, I think your answer to this is patently disingenuous. Partially, I think you are correct, and partially I think you have no idea what you are talking about. Do you have any evidence of what the KJV or NASB translators were thinking about concerning 1 John 2:23? Postulating and guessing what were the motives behind the translators, whether the KJV translators or the NASB translators, is not good scholarship. To imply that the NASB translators were 'hiding' something, without proof of such perverse motives, was very galling! Now, I would be equally demented to imply that the KJV translators were purposefully corrupting the validity of the second half of 1 John 2:23. Simply put, their textual evidence at that time did not give them clear impetus to have that phrase ([But] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also) placed into the text without questioning its origins as being original. There are several other places in the KJV where the KJV translators had seen differences in their Greek text and placed in the margin that other manuscripts in their possession differed from what they perceived to be original. The KJV translators did execute a form of textual criticism by evaluating what they had in front of them. The TR is not a 'static' document as it had differences in readings between the various Greek texts available (Erasmus' Greek NT, Beza's, Stephens', etc...).

Pastor Bob, you did correctly state, "Not being certain, the Translators decided to include the words but to designate them so you and I would recognize immediately that they were not in even the majority of MSs. What tremendous honesty and integrity these men possessed!". Of course, so did the translators of the NIV, NASB, NKJV, and many others! The translators of the KJV said nothing about the textual variant of 1 John 2:23, and neither did the NASB translators, so who is being 'dishonest' here? No one here on this bulletin board should be confused about textual variants, and the more that are stated in the margins of our Bibles, whether KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, and others, the more we are aware that the transmission of the Bible text was not an exact science. If the KJV has errors (and its corresponding Greek text, the TR), then maybe you don't have the 100% 'inspired' Bible! God did not preserve the Hebrew and Greek texts to state exactly what the originals had! Through textual criticism, and the evaluation of the mountain of textual evidence in support of the OT & NT, we can ascertain with certainty that we have all of the originals had, but there are errors that have crept into the text through its transmission over the centuries.

Pastor Bob, please stop the baiting of language that suggests some nefarious behavior on behalf of the NASB translators. The Lockman Foundation, which underwrote the NASB translation, does not have anything to do with liberalism nor is it an organization that is trying to 'undermine' the Bible. To assume that the NASB translators were being dishonest is 'below the belt', and such nonsense is not necessary to prove your point.

In another post, I had used an example of KJV-only propaganda that showed their weakness in being honest with the facts. There is an 'urban legend' out there that a man by the name of Frank Logsdon who was supposedly a "co-founder" of the NASB. I have in my possession a tract by David Sorensen (a KJV-onlyist) of the Northstar Publications which states the following about the NASB:

"Dr. Frank Logsdon was the co-founder of the New American Standard Bible (NASB). He has since renounced any connection to it.
[Quoting Dr. Logsdon]
"I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord... We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface... I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; its wrong, terribly wrong... The deletions are absolutely frightening... there are so many... Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?
Upon investigation, I wrote my dear friend, Mr. Lockman, (editors note: Mr. Lockman was the benefactor through which the NASB was published) explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV (editors note: This is the same as the NASB).
You can say that the Authorized Version (KJV) is absolutely correct. How correct? 100% correct..."
[Dr. Frank Logsdon]

---> These were the words put into David Sorensen's tract, and it is obviously condemning-- if it were true! KJV-onlyist lies and deceit through and through had made this statement up and now it has been passed along as being a true statement by Frank Logsdon. Here is the statement from the Lockman Foundation, which is the translation committee that produced the NASB:

The Board of Directors of The Lockman Foundation launched the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE translation work in the late 1950's following the completion of the AMPLIFIED NEW TESTAMENT. Dr. S. Franklin Logsdon was acquainted with Dewey Lockman, president of The Lockman Foundation, prior to Mr. Lockman's death in 1974. Mr. Logsdon was never a member of the Board of Directors, nor was he an employee of The Lockman Foundation. Mr. Logsdon had no authority to hire employees or translators for the Foundation, to set policy, to vote, to hold office, to incur expenses, etc. He cannot be considered "co-founder" of the NASB, nor part of The Lockman Foundation, nor part of the NASB translation team, nor did he write the forward of the NASB. According to our records, he was present at board meetings on two occasions -- once to hear a travel report; and once to deliver an "inspirational thought."

Mr. Logsdon last wrote to Mr. Lockman in fall of 1973 that he was moving to Florida. Mr. Lockman replied that he was surprised and saddened by his decision to leave the area. Mr. Lockman passed away in January of 1974, and no further correspondence was exchanged between Frank Logsdon and The Lockman Foundation. He resided in Florida until his passing some years ago.

The grass withers, the flower fades; but the word of our God stands forever. Isaiah 40:8 (NASB)

The Lockman Foundation

************************************

[ October 13, 2002, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: Joseph Botwinick ]

 

So why didn't they use italicized words at I John 5:7-8? The trinitarian formula included in the KJV is supported by less than 10 questionable mss against over 5,200 that don't have it. If your answer was legitimate then the KJV translators were grossly inconsistent.

BTW, the NASB is the only Bible translation where the translators were required to sign a statement affirming inerrancy. It is also the only Bible that I am aware of translated by conservative evangelicals.

 

grace 1999 said:

I believe the reason there are italicised words is because whne translating any language you have to at times add basic words for it to be readable.

So are you saying that without the phrase "(but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also" in 1 John 2:23, this is unreadable? "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father."

Funny. I understand it just fine.

[ October 15, 2002, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

You'd think there was a more intelligent subject for people to be derogatory towards each other about....

(sigh)

 

Preach the Word said:

Ranson, you only understand because of the deception that Satan has you under.

Well, then, where do I go to sell my soul?

 

I find the mocking and insults in this thread to be offensive, and I am shutting it down. Please try debating the issues.

Joseph Botwinick
Moderator