Why I am KJV only

Scott, I was attempting to show that, all too often, the questions asked by both sides in this debate are based on the questioner's interpretation of the other person's position and not necessarily on the other person's position. It is easy to say "would inevitibly lead to . . ." when in fact that is not my conclusion based on what I believe but your conclusion based on what you think I believe!

As to why I answer your post, apparently out of context, is simply that most of these type of discussions are out of context. And when one side fails to respect the context of his antagonist, he will do him an injustice, and will not have a valid objection when his antagonist does the same thing.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pioneer:
Here is my position on the King James Bible:

#1 - I believe that the very words that were written down in the original autographs have been providentially preserved (perfectly and accurately) for us in the Hebrew Masoretic Text (OT) and the Greek Textus Receptus (NT).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I also believe the "ORIGINAL" manuscripts were accurate word for word; however, we have no copies of these manuscripts. We do have many, many copies of the Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus and they do not all agree with each other. Which one is the correct one? There were twelve manuscripts taken in pieces to come up with the complete book of Revelation. Each was different. Were the translators inspired? If so, where does God indicate this?

The Masoretic Text had all the vowels added many years after Jesus was born. The "name" of God (pronounciation)was lost even during Jesus' time because the Jews refused to say it. Were these additions inspired by God? If so where is your evidence?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
#2 - I believe that the very words that were written down in the original autographs have been providentially preserved (perfectly and accurately) for us in the King James Bible.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why? Where does the Bible indicate that the English translation will be perfect? Again, TWELVE different manuscripts to make up Revelation--each different--How does this compare with "Do not add or subtract from this book." (paraphrase) The apocrypha was included in the King James. Under who's authority was this removed? Yours? If God inspired the translators why would he inspire the apocrypha to also be translated?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
#3 - I believe that God, in His providence, was guiding the King James translators so that we would have the very words that were written down in the original autographs preserved (perfectly and accurately) for us in the English language.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The mistranslations in the King James version are well known and documented -- even from the masoretic and textus receptus there are multitudes of mistranslations. Would you like a list?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
#4 - I believe that the King James Bible is the inerrant, infallible perfect word of God in the English language and that it is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why? Where is your documented proof?
Do NOT get me wrong and play the game most KJVO people do and call me a KJV hater---NOT SO. I love the King James version, but I also realize it has it limitations and therefore have begun to learn Greek and Hebrew to study older manuscripts. You can say all you want to about the new mainstream translations, but the Word of God is maintained very accurately.

PLEASE, PLEASE, answer this question--I have yet had a KJVO person answer it -- I have original copies of the KJV from 1613, 1628, on up, etc. etc. I bet YOU cannot read them. . . you know why? Because the text, grammar, spelling and punctuation has been changed so much since it was written. The KJV we read today is NOT the original copies of those translated even in the 1700's. You can't read those either.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>[/QB]
That is my position and has been my position for 28 years.
[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This has been my position for about at least 30 years, if not more.


As a person who has studied the NIV, NASB and KJV in depth. Now that I am studying older manuscripts, I find that the masoretic and textus receptus may be a bit more accurate, but they are still not fool-proof. There are simply too many copies with too many minor differences---BUT--the Word is still there. The other manuscripts are also different in certain places, but as an over-all context -- nah, they still carry the Word of the Living God and the Grace of his Son Jesus. I find that a comparison of all three translations often helps bring a better understanding, but ONLY if your heart is right and you are listening to the Holy Spirit bringing out the "living word" in your heart.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Bro. Steve Smith
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In Christ's Love,

[ September 15, 2001: Message edited by: Phillip ]

[ September 15, 2001: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phillip:
The mistranslations in the King James version are well known and documented -- even from the masoretic and textus receptus there are multitudes of mistranslations. Would you like a list?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes. Let's deal with one at a time.

 

RE: Mistranslations in the KJV.

&gt;&gt;Yes. Let's deal with one at a time.&gt;&gt;

KJV Judges 9:29 And would to God this people were under my hand! then would I remove Abimelech. And he said to Abimelech, Increase thine army, and come out.

No deity or name of a deity appears in the original Hebrew for this verse.

NKJ Judges 9:29 "If only this people were under my authority! Then I would remove Abimelech." So he said to Abimelech, "Increase your army and come out!"

Neither did the Jews add HaShem to the LXX.

LXE Judges 9:29 And would that this people were under my hand! then would I remove Abimelech, and I would say to him, Multiply thy host, and come out.

HankD

[ September 17, 2001: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Thank you HankD, I was getting tired.

 

"Would to God" is a dynamic colloquialism common to the 16th and 17th century. We are looking for "errors" not colloquialisms.

 

&gt;&gt;"Would to God" is a dynamic colloquialism common to the 16th and 17th century. We are looking for "errors" not colloquialisms&gt;&gt;

You are right dear brother, however many KJVO adherents throw the following verses in the face of their brothers and sisters for similar uses of "dynamic equivalence" in the Bibles that they love and use.

5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

"Sauce for the goose, source for the gander".

I love the KJV in spite of its "weaknesses" here and there.

But because I also love you, I really have no heart to go any further with this.

Your brother
HankD

 

Dear Pioneer,
Thank you for your stand on the King James
Bible. It is sure good to know that I am not alone in this forum. No matter what these
learned men may say, it is the Word of God.
Sounds to me like we have some who are ever
learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by david reed:
Dear Pioneer,
Thank you for your stand on the King James
Bible. It is sure good to know that I am not alone in this forum. No matter what these
learned men may say, it is the Word of God.
Sounds to me like we have some who are ever
learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I challenge you to show one post from this forum where someone has said that the KJV is not the Word of God.

Furthermore, you are incorrect (once again) to call it the King James Bible. It is not now, nor has it ever been the "King James Bible." For 400 years it has been the Authorized (King James) Version and so long as it remains in print, it will continue to be the King James Version.

It is somewhat humorous (and indicative of the inconsistency of of the KJV Only movement) those who insist that the wording of the KJV is the perfect wording somehow can't get the wording off the title page correctly. Did those translators get everything right but the title?

[ September 17, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by david reed:
Dear Pioneer,
Thank you for your stand on the King James
Bible. It is sure good to know that I am not alone in this forum. No matter what these
learned men may say, it is the Word of God.
Sounds to me like we have some who are ever
learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ain't it too bad that Peter, Paul, John, and even Jesus Himself never came to "knowledge of the truth" because they did not have your Anglican Bible to read from?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
...Sounds to me like we have some who are ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Honestly, it sounds more like we have some unlearned men here who are never learning and ever denying the truth.

In all seriousness, the facts clearly come down against KJVOnlyism. I believe that the KJV is a good, reliable translation of the Bible. It is the Word of God. I don't believe it is wise to go chasing after every fad or trend. However, the KJV is not an idol to me. It is not a perfect translation and it is not equivalent to the originals. The KJV is not the actual inspired words of God...neither can any English translation be.

If you want to support Pioneer and the KJVO position then take the arguments against this belief and demonstrate factual flaws in them. If you can, take the factual evidence and demonstrate how the KJVO view is consistent with that evidence.

As I have stated here before, faith that contradicts facts is nothing more than superstition.

[ September 18, 2001: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

Well, it seems that the "errors" in the KJV thread has, once again, changed directions, so allow me to answer a criticism of the KJV which we see over and over again. Several times in the KJV we see the term "God forbid." It has been pointed out that neither the word "God" nor the word "forbid" are in the Greek texts, so this phrase has often been offered as an "error" in the KJV.

The reading "God forbid" comes from the Hebrew. This is a Hebraism that is not understood by many who think of themselves as experts on bible translation. In the Old Testament, oaths were taken, sometimes with the name of God clearly stated and other times with the name of God only implied. In Joshua 24:16 "God forbid that we should forsake the LORD" is an example of such an oath. In I Chron. 11:19 "my God (Hebrew: elohiym) forbid (Hebrew: chaliylahit) me" is rendered in the Septuagint by "me genoito" even though the word God is in the Hebrew, it is not in the Greek but implied. If we would consult our lexicons, we would not be at such a loss to explain this usage of me genoito. Liddell and Scott, Thayer, and Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich all say that "God forbid" is a legitimate translation in English of me genoito. Not only do all the previous English versions use this same expression, but so does the Douay, in Luke 20:16; Romans, I Cor. and Galatians, as do the Revised Version, the American Standard Version (in all the same new testament verses as the KJB), The World English Bible in Luke 20:16 and Gal. 2:17, Weymouth Version in Mat. 16:22, Luke 20:16 and Gal. 6:14. The Revised Standard Version in Mt. 16:22 and Luke 20:16, The New RSV has "heaven forbid" in Luke 20:16 (likewise no heaven nor forbid). By the way the NRSV also has "God forbid" in Matt. 16:22 where it is not in the Greek. The Hebrew Names Version (this version understands Hebraisms!) has "God forbid" in Gal. 2:17, Wesley’s Version has it in Mat. 16:22; Luke 20:16, and Gal. 6:14; Todays English Version has it in Mt.16:22, The New Century Version has "heaven forbid" in all the same verses where the KJV has "God forbid"; The Living Bible has God forbid in Romans 3:6, Gal 2:17, and 6:14, the Jerusalem Bible has it in Luke 20:16. The NASB has "God forbid" in Mat. 16:22 where our own standards would condemn this version and the New KJV has rendered the exact same me genoito as God forbid in Galatians 6:14!

 

Thomas,

The boundries are obviously wide when it comes to translation theory, and I really don't have difficulty with "God Forbid" for me genoito, although I am not certain that one can make the case certain that Paul had the Godhead in mind when he used this term. With dynamic equivalency a reality, to some degree, in every translation, I am slow to call English word choices "errors". However, there are many examples where better words could have been chosen. For example, the KJV translators kept translating tekna as "sons" in John's gospel, where "children" is probably the better choice--especially when John could have recorded uioi (sons) in the Greek. Real errors do occur nonetheless, in the translation process. Some are not even attributable to the translators themselves. For instance, the KJV translators worked with a faulty Greek text in the last 6 verses in Revelation, resulting in English words that have no support from even a single Greek manuscript. I do not hesitate to call those English words "erroneous."

Chick

 

Chick Daniels said:

With dynamic equivalency a reality, to some degree, in every translation, I am slow to call English word choices "errors".

The beauty of such usages, however, is that when you hear some zealous KJVer going on about "demonic equivalence" in the NIV or whatever, as though the KJV were never guilty of the same thing, you can just throw "God forbid"/me genoito right back at him. (From what I understand, the KJV and NIV are actually pretty much in the same place on the formal/dynamic equivalence spectrum in any case.)

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chick Daniels:
I do not hesitate to call those English words "erroneous." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As the words in question come from the Latin versions, which date to as early as 150 AD, I have no problem with the verses in question.

As you did not deliniate which words of verses 16-21 you object to, I will give a brief treatment of the various readins.

Stevens: Rev 22:16 egw ihsouv epemqa ton aggelon mou marturhsai umin tauta epi taiv ekklhsiaiv egw eimi h riza kai to genov tou dabid o asthr o lamprov kai oryrinov
17 kai to pneuma kai h numfh legousin elye kai o akouwn eipatw elye kai o diqwn elyetw kai o yelwn lambanetw to udwr zwhv dwrean
18 summarturoumai gar panti akouonti touv logouv thv profhteiav tou bibliou toutou ean tiv epitiyh prov tauta epiyhsei o yeov ep auton tav plhgav tav gegrammenav en bibliw toutw
19 kai ean tiv afairh apo twn logwn biblou thv profhteiav tauthv afairhsei o yeov to merov autou apo biblou thv zwhv kai ek thv polewv thv agiav kai twn gegrammenwn en bibliw toutw
20 legei o marturwn tauta nai ercomai tacu amhn nai ercou kurie ihsou
21 h cariv tou kuriou hmwn ihsou cristou meta pantwn umwn amhn.

The Latin reads: 16 ego Iesus misi angelum meum testificari vobis haec in ecclesiis ego sum radix et genus David stella splendida et matutina
17 et Spiritus et sponsa dicunt veni et qui audit dicat veni et qui sitit veniat qui vult accipiat aquam vitae gratis
18 contestor ego omni audienti verba prophetiae libri huius si quis adposuerit ad haec adponet Deus super illum plagas scriptas in libro isto
19 et si quis deminuerit de verbis libri prophetiae huius auferet Deus partem eius de ligno vitae et de civitate sancta et de his quae scripta sunt in libro isto
20 ¶ dicit qui testimonium perhibet istorum etiam venio cito amen veni Domine Iesu
21 gratia Domini nostri Iesu Christi cum omnibus

I will deal only with words that I assume you dispute.

Verse 16: AV "the bright and morning star"

The CT omits the "and" 2 variants read "a" as do 11 of Hoskiers cursives, the Old Latin gig, Vulgate, and the Patristics Apringius, Primasius, Pseudo-Ambrose VI, and Deatus.

The AV reading is supported by Stephens and Beza as well as 296 and 2066, and 17 of Hoskiers uncollated cursives as well as the Patristics Hymo and Halberstadt, and the Latin 841.

Verse 17 also has a variant, the CT omiting the word "and."

Verse 18, the CT omits "for"

But I doubt it is these minor variants you object to, so I will only deal with the major departures.

Verse 19, the CT has "tree of life" while the AV reads "book of life" as do Tyndale, Great, Geneva, Bishops, Stephens and Beza. Greek support for the AV reading can be found in 296, 2049, 2067(mg), the vulgae, Clementine, the Coptic version (Bohairic), the Arabic, Ambrose, Milan, Latin, 397. Speculum, Pseudo-Augustine, Latin V, Primasius, Adrumentum, Latin 552, Andreas, Cappadocia 614, Hymo, Malberstadt, and Latin 841. Hoskier states that he doubted the "legend" that Erasmus translated this phrase from the Vulgate, but suggests he followed either 141, Codex 2049, or perhaps both.

Verse 19 is the other major divergance, but I have to make a hospital call, then take my wife out for dinner, then teach 3 hours of evening Seminary classes, so I will have to wait for tomorrow to continue.

 

Thomas, first of all, I am not alone in my objection to the TR in the last 6 verses in Revelation. Yours is the position that is in the extreme minority. This alone of course, does not establish truth, but when the vast majority of serious NT Greek manuscript scholarship (Dan Wallace, Gordon Fee, Bruce Metzger, etc., and Fundamentalist seminary professors from Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, Calvary Baptist Seminary) is in agreement with my position, it does give me pause to abandon such scholarship and join you in your view. One of the best articles I have read on the textus receptus is by William Combs (Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary) in the DBTS . Journal

Here are a few passages from this article:

"For the book of Revelation, Erasmus had only one manuscript (1 r ).
Since the text of Revelation was imbedded in a commentary by Andreas of Caesarea and thus difficult for the printer to read, Erasmus had a fresh copy made. The copyist himself misread the original at places, and thus a number of errors were introduced into Erasmus’ printed text.52
For example, in Revelation 17:4 Codex 1 r and all other Greek manuscripts have the word akatharta “impure”, but Erasmus’ text reads akathartAto", a word unknown in Greek literature. In a similar fashion, the words kai; parestai “and is to come” in 17:8 were mis-read as kaiper estin “and yet is”.53 These and other errors produced by the scribe who made the copy of Revelation for the printer are still to be found in modern editions of the TR, such as the widely used version published by the Trinitarian Bible Society.54"

"Because Codex 1 r was missing its last page and thus the last six verses of Revelation (22:16–21), Erasmus retranslated these verses from the Latin Vulgate, and he honestly admitted in the Annotationes that he had done so.55 But again, this produced, by my count, twenty errors in his Greek NT which are still in the TR today.56 They have no Greek manuscript support whatsoever.57"

---------------------------------------------

52 Rummel, Erasmus’ Annotations on the New Testament, p. 38. Some of these errors
can conveniently be found in Frederick H. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the
Criticism of the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell, and Co., 1874),
pp. 382–83, n. 2.
53 The marginal note in the old Scofield Reference Bible corrects this error (p. 1346).
54 H KAINH DIATHHKH. This version is subtitled The New Testament: The Greek
Text Underlying the English Authorised Version of 1611. My copy is not dated, though it was published in 1976. See Andrew J. Brown, The Word of God Among All Nations: A Brief History of the Trinitarian Bible Society, 1831–1981 (London: Trinitarian Bible
Society, 1981), p. 130.

55 Rummel, Erasmus’ Annotations on the New Testament, p. 193, n. 15.
56 v. 16: insertion of tou before Dauid and orthrinos instead of proinos v. 17:
aorist tense elthe twice instead of the present erkou, aorist tense eltheto instead of the present erkestho, insertion of kai after erkestho, present tense lambanetw instead of the aorist labeto, and insertion of to before hudor; v. 18: summarturomai gar instead of marturo ego, present tense epitithA instead of the aorist epithA, pros tauta instead of ep auta, and omission of to before the last occurrence of bibliw v. 19: present tense afairA instead of the aorist afelA, omission of tou before the first occurrence of bibliou, afairAsei instead of afelei, bibliou instead of tou xulou, insertion of kai before twn gegrammenwn, and omission of to) before the last occurrence of bibliw v. 21: insertion of hAmon before Ihsou and insertion of humon after panton. See Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, p. 382, n. 2; Metzger, Text of the New Testament, p. 100, n. 1.

So in summary, the history of Erasmus and his work in Revelation for the 1st TR edition resulted in many errors, some corrected in later editions and some that still persist. Erasmus did copy from Latin the last six verses, and readily admitted so (contra Hoskier). And the errors cited by Combs are Greek words in the TR that have no Greek manuscript support whatsoever. Maybe you find yourself in the position to accept Latin allusions over against all Greek evidence, but I will demand that the Greek be primary source of evidence for establishing the text.

Futhermore, the Latin evidence as a whole is not in the camp of the Byzantine text type. Here is what Dan Wallace said, following Bruce Metzger, "There are almost twice as many Latin MSS as there are Greek and, to my knowledge, none of them belongs to the Byzantine text." (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37/2, June 1994, p. 202)

Those (I am not including you, you may speak for yourself) who argue that these errors do not exist in the last six verses of Revelation are starting with a serious a priori assumption that the TR must be errorless (or virtually so), and therefore the actual evidence must twisted, explained away, or ignored at all costs.

Best wishes,

Chick

[ September 19, 2001: Message edited by: Chick Daniels ]

 

Does the above mean you don't want to, or are inable, to discuss the issue?

You make a very general statement about the last 6 verses of Revelation as contained in the TR/KJV but fail to say what you think those readings should be and why.

Then you post a bunch of opinions of others which are not germane to the issue.

What words in the last 6 verses of Revelation do you object to, why do you object to them, and how do they change the meaning/translation of the verses into English?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Does the above mean you don't want to, or are inable, to discuss the issue?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do want you, I am able, do you want to, and are you able? When discussing issues such as this, last time I checked, it was very appropriate to refer to published scholarship when one finds that his position has been effectively stated by a published scholar, to quote that scholar, instead of re-inventing the wheel. I have quoted William Combs who wrote exactly what I believe in a scholarly journal.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You make a very general statement about the last 6 verses of Revelation as contained in the TR/KJV but fail to say what you think those readings should be and why. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I object to the errors introduced into the TR due to faulty transposing the Latin into Greek for the last six verses. Combs has found 20 such errors: "this produced, by my count, twenty errors in his Greek NT which are still in the TR today." Combs listed these particular errors in his footnote.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Then you post a bunch of opinions of others which are not germane to the issue. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The bunch of opinions are more credible than your "bunch of opinions" simply because Dr. Combs has had the courage to place his research and findings in a well recognized (indexed) Journal, and I know for a fact that this article was well received in the large community of NT Greek scholarship. Furthermore, Dr. Combs' article is directly germane to the issue at hand, as he has written on the events in Erasmus' life that led to the first printing of the TR, and he demonstrates the historical account of Erasmus and his approach on the last six verses of Revelation.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What words in the last 6 verses of Revelation do you object to, why do you object to them, and how do they change the meaning/translation of the verses into English? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I object to the 20 words in the TR cited by Combs as errors. I object to them because these 20 Greek words in the TR are supported by neither the best nor majority of Greek manuscripts, and in fact, Combs goes on to say that "they have no Greek manuscript support whatsoever." If you can demonstrate, Thomas, that these 20 words in the TR HAVE Greek manuscript support, and that there are compelling reasons to accept that support (over against all the other Greek manuscript evidence), then you could write an article in a scholarly journal and make an absolute fool of Dr. Combs.

Furthermore, does it not seem very predictable that when someone copies a translation of Greek (Latin) back into Greek the possibilities of error is very high? In the case Erasmus, the possibility is amplified by the extreme haste he was in to produce this volume. Dr. Combs indicated that "In June of 1516 Erasmus wrote to a friend: 'At last I have escaped from the workhouse in Basel, where I have got through six years work in eight months.' Erasmus himself confessed that the first edition was 'thrown together rather than edited.'"

I truly hope that I have clarified for you Thomas, and I will wait to see your Greek manuscript support for the 20 words that are in the TR that have been identified above as having no Greek manuscript support.
Chick

 

Fine! If you don't want to discuss the issue, just say so! If you don't want to tell me which words you object to, just say so! If you don't want to do your own study of the issue, just say so!