words of truth

Joey M,

I agree with you on spiritual discernment. There are PHDs of theology with and without discernment. But the translational issue of the Bible is one of archaeology and linguistic mechanics basically. Two points:

1) With the thousands of transcript COPIES (no originals) from different sites, it is impossible for man to produce a "perfect English translation." For one thing, Hebrew and Greek do not always translate "perfectly" into English. I have German and Chinese friends who have told me their frustration in not being able to adequately express something in English and they had a very good command of the English language.

2) With that in mind and that I said it was impossible for man to produce a perfect translation, it is entirely possible for God to divinely inspire a "complete equivalence in translation." This principle of complete equivalence seeks to preserve all of the information in the text, while presenting it in good literary form. Even the KJV 1611 translators did this. Take a Hebrew or Greek lexicon and you will see all the added words to give meaningful sense in English.

So if the KJV translators did that using the English of their day, what pray tell is wrong with equally competent and dedicated Bible scholars of our day doing the same using English as we speak it today?

The NIV and NLT use dynamic equivalence, a recent procedure in Bible translation, which commonly results in paraphrasing where a more literal rendering is needed to reflect a specific and vital sense. Great care is used to preserve the original message.

Where we tend to go round and round on this KJVonly issue is that they want to overlook textual variants in the manuscripts, claiming that the KJV translators got it right 100%. I would believe them if no scholarly criticism could find a single error in the KJV, but that is just simply not the case.

Most of the fuss is over minor differences that detract more from the integrity of Christianity than they do the accuracy of God's Word! I'll cite one, because it is the most hotly debated:

7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 1 John 5:7 through 1 John 5:8 (KJV)

Regarding the bold above: External manuscript evidence, however, is against them being in the original epistle. They do not appear in any Gr. mss. dated before ca. tenth century a.d. Only 8 very late Gr. mss. contain the reading, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Furthermore, 4 of those 8 mss. contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript. No Greek or Latin Father, even those involved in Trinitarian controversies, quote them; no ancient version except the Latin records them (not the Old Latin in its early form or the Vulgate). Internal evidence also militates against their presence, since they disrupt the sense of the writer's thoughts. Most likely, the words were added much later to the text.

And there are many others, but I don't want to write a book here! For guys like Alex to close his eyes and say "it aint so" doesn't change a thing.

In closing, many fine Christians are being saved, diligently studying God's Word, discipling others, leading others to the Lord, etc. using MVs. In fact, many have testified that at an earlier time in their lives they rejected the gospel, largely due to their difficulty in understanding the concepts of the gospel with the KJV, and later through an MV understood the gospel and received Christ as their Savior.

For those who love the KJV and will have no other, great! Please don't divide the church over an utterly defenseless claim that God's hand is not upon any other translation. The overwhelming evidence of souls saved and growing in the admonition of the Lord using MVs makes that argument foolish.

[ October 20, 2001: Message edited by: John Wells ]

 

John,
first I'd like to say I agree with most of what you said there. I know there are textual errors in the KJV and every other version ever written. There are a few things I don't quiet agree with, with what you said. One of them is what I quoted you saying here: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Great care is used to preserve the original message. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is one place taht I think is critical where they fail to preserve the orginal message, and I have mentioned it before.
Gen. 22:8
KJV "8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering:"

Webster 1995 " And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering:"

All other versions that I have read so far add the word "for" himself" which is not what the passage is getting across. Because it was not even a lamb that God provided there but a ram. The passage looks forward to where Jesus was coming to be baptized of John and John proclaims "behold the lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world."

I have heard the argument about the word for time and time again and I'm sorry, I'm not buying it. With the word for there it makes the rest of the passage a lie. But however without the word for, we have here one of the great prophecies of the Bible, such as when God told satan in Gen 3:15 "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

Some I have read have used great care such as Websters 1833 and 1995 editions. I like these versions very much, haven't read it all but I like what I've read so far. But for the most of them, if they can't take care in a great prophetic passage as this, my trust in them is distorted and weakened.


God speed.

[ October 20, 2001: Message edited by: Joey M ]

 

Joey M,

I'll have study that later, but it may be a valid point of error in some MVs. As you said, they all have errors. But right now I gotta run and go get ready to go to the North Carolina State Fair tonight and hand out . . . you guessed it . . . KJV New Testaments! I'm a Gideon!

 

Hi Alex,

No need to fax me. I don't agree with the Wescott & Hort theory : (Older is better, shorter reading is prefered).
Out of this theory came almost all of the MVs.

My view is that the traditional Received Text is the best. My test is 1 John 5:7 for a "Received Text". If its there its traditional.

I use the KJV almost exclusively, I use MVs (I have several on my hard-drive) sometimes to get a modern nuance.

God Speed.

HankD

 

John Wells:

Just read and absorb your post about flying the plane with square wings.

I have been flying this plane for 31 years and it flies as straight and true as it did the day I boarded her.

Just as a blind person cannot flya commercial airplane it takes a spiritually blind person to overlook the thousands of differences in the versions, that pervert it and weaken it's effectiveness.

As I said earlier, it does not require a doctorate in theology to see the differences in the versions. They number in the thousands. The word changes, together with omissions are far too numerous to mention here but you probably know the ones I mean:
Mat 18:11, Lk 4:8, Acts 8:37 and 23:9, Romans 13:9, Rev 20:9 and 21: 14.

I could go on and on.

I like the work of the Gideons. They are not exclusively KJV though and, praise god, He still saves the lost in spite of the MV's.

Hope you get to enjoy some of that County fair.

God Bless

 

Joey,

The Hebrew in Gen 22:8 is yireh-lo (provide for himself). The MVs are right on this one. There is no theological significance really. God did not provide "himself" for the burnt offering. He provided a lamb for the burnt offering as is clear from the text. That is simply not a good passage for you to hang your hat on. Your position preaches well but is not really what the text is saying. By the way, did you know that you are agreeing with the RSV??

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Joey,
The Hebrew in Gen 22:8 is yireh-lo (provide for himself). The MVs are right on this one.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry I don't buy that.
Even in the LXX and LXXE )LXX to English) it is rendered the correct way.
KJV:
8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.
LXX:
8 eipen de abraam o yeov oqetai eautw probaton eiv olokarpwsin teknon poreuyentev de amfoteroi ama
LXXE:
8 And Abraam said, God will provide himself a sheep for a whole-burnt-offering, my son. And both having gone together,


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There is no theological significance really. God did not provide "himself" for the burnt offering. He provided a lamb for the burnt offering as is clear from the text. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

God did not even provide a lamb there He provided a ram, and weather He did or not there wouldn't matter. And God did provide Himself a lamb (Jesus Christ).


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> That is simply not a good passage for you to hang your hat on. Your position preaches well but is not really what the text is saying. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not only is it a good pasage to hang my hat on, praise God it's why I'm saved today, because God did provide Himself that lamb.
And yes it does preach well, it preaches very well, thank you. And it is exactly what the text is saying. Maybe you need a good dose of Holy Ghost disernment and you could see it too.
(not meant in an attacking way, just saying the Holy Ghost can reveal this to you, if you would put the educated man aside for a sec.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>By the way, did you know that you are agreeing with the RSV?? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the RSV lines up with what the scripture says then praise God, I'm not out here saying it's the KJV against the world. I already said I found that the webster 1833 and 1995 editions agreed in this atrea too. I wish the other MV's did to. I don't hate the MV's, but at the same time when they disagree, I'll stand on the tried and proved KJV for the final authority on the issue.

God speed.

[ October 20, 2001: Message edited by: Joey M ]

[ October 20, 2001: Message edited by: Joey M ]

 

Just got back from the fair. We Gideons have handed out over 11,700 KJV New Testaments, with one day to go. For the most part, people were very receptive and eager to have them. I'm tired and must read my daily Bible reading in the NLT and get to bed for church tomorrow where my pastor will preach from the NIV. On Jan 1 I will start reading the Bible through in one year in the ESV. Good night KJVonlyers!

 

John,
Hehehe!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex Mullins:
Just as a blind person cannot fly a commercial airplane it takes a spiritually blind person to overlook the thousands of differences in the versions, that pervert it and weaken it's effectiveness.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So Alex ... a KJVO is spiritually superior to a believer who reads and trusts the NASB/NIV etc.?

 

Chris:

A spiritually blind person will look at anything that has bivle written on it and call it "God's Word".

A discerning Christian will look at the differences in the MV's and KJV, the person of the trnaslators of all those versions, the manuscripts they evolved from, see the differecnes clearly and there impact on the basic doctrines of our faith, pray about it and the Holy Spirit will guide him/her to the truth.

Things that are different cannot be the same.
It's that simple.

The MV's contain God's Word, The KJV is God's Word, perfect and pure.

There, I said it again and did not say a bad word about anyone. I am a child of the King and I loveth at all times.isloveth

God Bless you all this fine Lord's day.

 

&lt; A discerning Christian will look at the differences in the MV's and KJV &gt;

I Samuel 25:22, KJV-- So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

I Samuel 25:22, NAS-- May God do so to the enemies of David, and more also, if by morning I leave as much as one male of any who belong to him.

Hebrews 12:8, KJV-- But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

Hebrews 12:8, NAS-- But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.

Ezekiel 23:21, KJV-- Thus thou calledst to remembrance the lewdness of thy youth, in bruising thy teats by the Egyptians for the paps of thy youth.

Ezekiel 23:21, NAS-- Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians handled your bosom because of the breasts of your youth.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex Mullins:
Chris:

A spiritually blind person will look at anything that has bivle written on it and call it "God's Word".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> An equally spiritually blind person will misunderstand what the Word of God is and is not, will ignore the facts of transmission and translation, will ignore the words of the translators themselves, will misapply scripture to support unscriptural beliefs, etc. KJVOnlyism is not biblical. It is not factual. It is not true. It is not of faith. It is a manmade superstition.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A discerning Christian will look at the differences in the MV's and KJV, the person of the trnaslators of all those versions, the manuscripts they evolved from, see the differecnes clearly and there impact on the basic doctrines of our faith, pray about it and the Holy Spirit will guide him/her to the truth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This only works if you are actually willing to accept the truth once the Holy Spirit has shown it to you. If you believe the things that you are posting about the Bible then you have not reached that point.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Things that are different cannot be the same.
It's that simple.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> True. Therefore if you are looking for words inspired by God then you can never have the Word of God. They have been gone for centuries. However, if you are looking for the message (Word) of God. It is faithfully preserved in the mss and several faithful translations.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The MV's contain God's Word, The KJV is God's Word, perfect and pure.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No matter how many times you make this statement it will still be false. Many of the modern translations ARE the Word of God and the KJV is not perfect nor pure except when compared against itself.

 

As for me and my house, we shall use the NIV, ESV, NKJV, KJV, NLT, NASB (in no particular order). Praise God that He continues to raise up godly scholars to study, research, and further refine the accuracy of translation of the original language manuscripts!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex Mullins:
Chris:

A discerning Christian will look at the differences in the MV's and KJV, the person of the trnaslators of all those versions, the manuscripts they evolved from, see the differecnes clearly and there impact on the basic doctrines of our faith, pray about it and the Holy Spirit will guide him/her to the truth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which, I assume, must equate to your belief?

 

Scott:

I agree with most of your post, except the following:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>True. Therefore if you are looking for words inspired by God then you can never have the Word of God. They have been gone for centuries. However, if you are looking for the message (Word) of God. It is faithfully preserved in the mss and several faithful translations.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To say we have the message of the Bible without having the exact words of God is wrong. We do have the exact words of God - in Hebrew and Greek. The English translations are the very words of God where they translate faithfully. This is why a formal translaton is so much better than a DE translation.

As the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy says:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appears to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.

Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autograph. Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach. Indeed, in view of the frequent repetition in Scripture of the main matters with which it deals and also of the Holy Spirit's constant witness to and through the Word, no serious translation of Holy Scripture will so destroy its meaning as to render it unable to make its reader wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus (II Tim. 3:15)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:
Scott:

I agree with most of your post, except the following...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was probably too ambiguous. I agree that we have the words in the mss. I would argue that we don't have the words in the sense that anyone is 100% certain of the exact words of the originals.

[ October 22, 2001: Message edited by: Scott J ]