Refuting the (Theo)logical Argument for KJV Only

Introduction

For the past three years or so, up until just the other day, I was reluctantly King James Only. I say “reluctantly” because it’s such a controversial and painful issue and, contrary to popular opinion, I don’t actually like serious controversy.

Like most folks, I was raised on the KJV. When I was in high school, my parents got me an NIV, which I used until I became convinced of KJV Only. I’ve now turned to the NAS.

I want to emphasize one point. While I’ll be explaining some about Bible versions, the theological case for KJVO, and what’s wrong with it, it is not my slightest intention to mock or ridicule those who hold to the KJV only. I believe that KJVO advocates sincerely love the Word and it’s Author.

History of Bible Translation

There are lots of good sources for the history of the Bible, particularly English translations. I am not one of those sources. I can, however, give a rough “good enough” overview.

Once the manuscripts that made up the Bible were written, many copies were made. These copies were copied, and so on. Unfortunately, sometimes errors were made in these copies. Then the erroneous copies were copied. Given the limited travel opportunities over the first few centuries A.D., it wasn’t possible to regularly compare all the variations. What wound up happening is that you’d have “families” of manuscripts develop, generally following some geographic areas. The manuscripts in one family tended to agree with one another, but would disagree with those in another family. The New Testament texts are primarily divided into the Western, Alexandrian, and Byzantine families.

At various points in time, scholars tried to recreate the authentic set of Scriptures by selecting and editing the best texts they had available. There are several of these that are quite significant, but I’ll only discuss three of them.

From the wikipedia

From the 800s to the 1400s rabbinic Jewish scholars known as the Massoretes compared the text of all known Biblical manuscripts, in an effort to create a unified and standardized text; a series of highly similar texts eventually emerged, and any of these texts are known as Masoretic Texts (MT). The Masoretes also added vowel points (called nikud) to the text, since the original text only contained consonants. This sometimes required the selection of an interpretation, since words can differ only in their vowels, and thus the text can vary depending upon the choice of vowels to be inserted.

The primary set of texts for the Old Testament was the Masoretic Text.

For the New Testament, there are two really important texts to our discussion. The first is known as the Textus Receptus. It was edited by a guy named Erasmus right around the time that Gutenberg produced the printing press. Erasmus relied on the Byzantine texts almost exclusively, since those were by far the most prevalent in western Europe at the time.

Another significant Greek New Testament was developed, in the late 1800s, by two men named Westcott and Hort. This is, unsurprisingly, known as Westcott-Hort.

The science of evaluating manuscripts and identifying the correct reading is known as textual criticism.

Translations were made into various languages, and these translations were circulated widely. For the Old Testament, around the time of Christ, 72 rabbis translated the best Hebrew scriptures they had into Greek. It’s known as the Septuagint (Greek for 70) and abbreviated LXX.

When the KJV translators began their work, they primarily relied on Masoretic text for the Old Testament, and Erasmus?s Textus Receptus for the New Testament.

More recent translations, rather than relying as heavily on the Textus Receptus, use Westcott-Hort primarily. This is the reason for many of the differences between translations, particularly where words, verses, or sections are added or removed.

The Case for KJV Only

The case for King James Only is a logical and theological argument based on a belief in God?s verbal inspiration of the Scripture and subsequent preservation of those words. It is as follows.

  1. God inspired the actual words that the human authors used in writing the Bible. This is known as verbal or plenary inspiration, and is believed by most conservative evangelical Christians.
  2. When we talk about the Word of God, we?re talking about the actual words that God inspired (or a faithful translation of those words). Written communication cannot exist apart from the words used in that communication. If God inspired the words, then that?s what He wanted us to have.
  3. If two sets of text differ in any non-trivial way, they are not the same. As any good sci-fi junkie knows, subtle differences are an excellent warning sign that one?s mom/dad/commanding officer/best friend has been replaced by a robot or changling. It?s not enough that they look, talk, and act very much the same. Different is different. I say ?any non-trivial way? because we?re not really concerned about a punctuation mark or word here and there ? we?re concerned about the use of very different words, the inclusion or omission of entire phrases, sentences, verses, and passages, and so on.
  4. If two things differ or disagree, at most one can be correct. Perhaps neither is. This is self-evident.
  5. God has promised to preserve His Word for His church.
  6. God?s promise to preserve His Word implies, from statements 1 and 2, that God will preserve the actual text that He inspired, not some vague ?meaning? apart from the inspired words.
  7. Preservation has some actual value to God?s people, meaning that not only is God?s Word preserved, but it?s also available. An inspired, preserved revelation from God does no good if it?s unavailable to God?s people. Why would He bother with a revelation if He wasn?t going to exercise some providential care to get it to His people, and in a way we could understand?
  8. Since the vast majority of all known manuscripts are Byzantine, from statement 7 it follows that God?s Word is preserved in the Byzantine texts.
  9. From statement 4, any manuscripts which differ non-trivially from the Byzantine texts do not comprise the Word of God.
  10. From statement 9, the Westcott-Hort cannot be considered the Word of God. Furthermore, no translations that use the Westcott-Hort instead of the Byzantine texts can be considered the Word of God.
  11. From statement 8, only the Textus Receptus, which is based on the Byzantine texts, is trustworthy. Only translations that are based on the TR can be considered the Word of God. This means KJV.

It?s a pretty sound logical case, IMO. So I was stuck. I had no choice but to be KJV Only. It made sense.

The Problem with KJVO

Recently, though, I re-evaluated the logical case a little differently. First, I realized that something may be nearly incomprehensible to me, but still true – God?s sovereignty and man?s free will, the Trinity, etc. Second, I kept in mind that scripture and facts trump logic, even when the facts seem illogical. After some more thought, I discovered that the logical case for KJVO is not correct. I do not understand why it?s not correct, but I know it?s not.

The various Byzantine manuscripts do not agree with each other entirely. Erasmus had to select among the readings found in those manuscripts, and sometimes he did not choose the majority reading. Furthermore, the KJV translators didn?t follow Erasmus?s Textus Receptus entirely. Dr. Hills, a KJV Only advocate, writes ?the King James Version ought to be regarded not merely as a translation of the Textus Receptus but also an independent variety of the Textus Receptus.? (Further discussion at http://wayoflife.org/fbns/whichtr.htm).

What this means is that, if my logical case built in statements 1-9 is correct, God has not preserved His Word, and no extant manuscript or translation can be called ?The Word of God?; God?s revelation has been lost to us. Even if one Byzantine manuscript was the perfectly preserved Word of God, the TR does not completely follow any of those manuscripts, and the KJV does not follow the TR. Preservation would be disproved.

Matters continue to worsen for my KJVO case, and this next point is the one that really torpedoed KJVO in my mind. The KJV translators themselves provided the argument!

The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men do confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy of the appellation and name of the word of God.

The Septuagint differs from the best OT manuscripts in many places. However, it was written in Greek and available to the New Testament authors, who freely quoted it in the New Testament.

Now, everything quoted in the New Testament is necessarily inspired. But what to do when what?s quoted in the New Testament is different from what was actually inspired in the Old Testament? How can two things that differ both be right? This flies directly in the face of statements 3 and 4 above.

Clearly, my KJVO case is flawed, but like I said, I?m not sure where. I think that perhaps I?m taking preservation far too literally. I am a programmer, and I like precision. I do byte-by-byte comparisons on strings. I like checksums. Even whitespace is important. I suspect that this is where the problem lies. The KJV translators answered this type of thinking when they wrote

things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, ? A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) [James 3:2] also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?

Somehow, and I don?t really understand how, God has inspired the very words of the Bible, and preserved His Word in such a manner that does not require us to have 100% of the originally inspired words. I can trust the infallibility of my English Bible without requiring it to be a perfect translation of the particular words that were inspired. It may well be perfect, but it doesn?t have to be. This is very unsatisfying to me, but it appears to be true so I have to be content with it.

Objections

Some people hold that Erasmus was inspired in his selection of texts for the TR. If true, this would mean (per Dr. Hills assertion) that the KJV was uninspired, for it differs from the TR in some instances. Others hold that the KJV translators were inspired. If true, this would mean that the Word of God was effectively lost to the church for hundreds or thousands of years, from the loss of the authentic copies of the autographs to the creation of the KJV. Both of these contentions still have to explain why the NT writers quoted the Septuagint, even though it differs from the Masoretic.

Methods of Translation

Selection of different manuscripts is one reason for the differences among Bible versions. Another reason is the method of translation.

Some Bibles use what?s called a formal equivalency, or a word-for-word translation. When the translators read a Greek or Hebrew word, they wrote an English word, except for minimal changes so the grammar worked in English. Sometimes they had to rearrange the words, sometimes they had to change the tense, and sometimes they had to add words. The KJV and NAS italicize added words. The NAS puts a star by words where they had to change the tense. I know the KJV and NAS use this method, but I?m not sure which other translations do. This method of translation focuses on accuracy.

Another method of translation is dynamic equivalency, or a thought-for-thought translation. The translators would read a phrase, thought, sentence, etc., in the original language and re-write it in English, attempting to preserve the meaning, but not necessarily the actual wording. The NIV is a good example of this form of translation. This method of translation focuses on readability.

Since I believe in plenary inspiration, I prefer formal equivalency to dynamic equivalency. I?m not sure there?s a big difference between dynamic equivalency and paraphrases, and I don?t necessarily trust translators enough to believe they don?t let their own biases influence the translation. That is certainly more possible with dynamic equivalency than with formal equivalency.

Conclusion

The conclusion I?ve reached is that God has preserved His Word, and to a great extent (well over 99%) has preserved the actual words He inspired. There are substantial differences among Bible translations, which is disconcerting to me, but no more so than many other questions in life.

Given my belief in plenary inspiration, I believe a word-for-word translation is the best. The NAS is highly recommended by my elders and people I trust, so I?ve chosen to use it.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to Refuting the (Theo)logical Argument for KJV Only

  1. Jared says:

    The NASB is a very good translation, and is what I generally use in my teaching (though not in my studies).
    I hope my “endorsement” will not lead you to change your mind. ;-)

  2. Mac Swift says:

    Interesting that I’m writing a series of KJV entries which coincides with your recent reflection of the KJV’s history and KJV-only argument, though mine approaches from a slightly different angle. :-D

  3. Great, Jared, thanks a lot. Just when I was starting to get used to the NAS. :-)

    Mac, I’d been planning to write this article for a while but when I saw you blogging about it, it motivated me to finish my article.

    Next I plan a few posts on liberty, works, grace, salt and light, how Christians ought to relate to the world, and so on. One will be titled “Be Ye Separate” and another will be “Careless Christianity” (title is a parody of “Classic Christianity” by Bob George). I’m sure this will set Jared off! :-) (Not to mention my preacher and my friend Barry, not that they EVER read my site).

  4. Michael_in_TN says:

    Robert,
    You say in your gut you are KJV but due to the influences of others (elders and people you trust), you use the NAS.

    Proverbs 3:5-6
    Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
    In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

    Here is a link to An Understandable History of The Bible

    Here is a link to the testimony of S. Franklin Logsdon, who wrote the foreword in the NASV, entitled From the NASV to the KJV. After reading, perhaps you will renounce the NASV as he did as well.

    Michael

  5. You say in your gut you are KJV but due to the influences of others (elders and people you trust), you use the NAS.

    That is not an accurate statement.

    I love and respect the King James Version. It has been, and will be, greatly used by God. It is also a tremendous literary work. It is unmatched, IMO, for beauty and power.

    It is not, however, the _only_ book worthy of being called the Holy Bible. It is not necessarily a perfect translation of the perfectly preserved autographs. It is an excellent work, but not a perfect one. Even the KJV translators attested to this.

    Loving and respecting the King James Version does not make me KJVO in my “gut”.

    I was KJVO because of some good logical cases presented by men like David Cloud. I abandoned the KJVO position because I started to see some significant flaws in it. The logical case does not mesh with undisputed facts. It has nothing to do with the influence of my elders.

    The only way that my elders, etc., influenced me was in the selection of a particular translation.

    I skimmed the article by Logsdon and was neither impressed nor persuaded. If I get around to it, I’ll read “An Understandable History of the Bible”, but I doubt it’s anything I haven’t heard before. I’ve spent a fair amount of time on this over the past few years.

  6. Michael_in_TN says:

    Robert,
    I apologize for misstating your position (past and present). Perhaps I was reading something into your comments that wasn’t there. It saddens me when I hear someone has given up on the KJV.

    If you would, please elaborate on the following:

    I abandoned the KJVO position because I started to see some significant flaws in it. The logical case does not mesh with undisputed facts.

    It is not necessarily a perfect translation of the perfectly preserved autographs. It is an excellent work, but not a perfect one. Even the KJV translators attested to this.

    Michael

  7. I abandoned the KJVO position because I started to see some significant flaws in it. The logical case does not mesh with undisputed facts.

    I’d hoped that my post would adequately address this. I guess not. I’ll give it another shot.

    The KJVO case requires a level of verbal preservation that simply does not exist. The autographs have not been perfectly transmitted through the ages. This is easily demonstrable by the fact that the Byzantine texts do not agree with one another, and the Textus Receptus does not perfectly agree with the Byzantine texts. These facts are not disputed.

    Further, the KJV does not perfectly agree with the Textus Receptus. See my quote by Dr. Hills for proof.

    The case for KJVO insists that if two things do not agree (virtually) entirely, then at least one of them is “corrupt”. By that logic, almost all the Byzantine manuscripts are corrupt (since they disagree with each other), and the TR is corrupt (since it disagrees with the Byzantine mss), and the KJV itself is corrupt (since it disagrees with the TR). This is not an acceptable position to me.

    Further, the LXX does not agree with the Masoretic texts, but the apostles quoted the LXX frequently in the New Testament. Using the logic of the KJVO case, the LXX is corrupt and the Masoretic is pure. But this is contradictory to the facts. The apostles would not use a corrupt text.

    It is not necessarily a perfect translation of the perfectly preserved autographs. It is an excellent work, but not a perfect one. Even the KJV translators attested to this.

    The autographs have not been perfectly preserved. No one believes this. At best, we believe they were recovered by Erasmus. But if that’s the case, then when the KJV deviated from the TR, it is not a faithful translation.

    Also see the second quote from the KJV translators in my post under the heading “The Problem with KJVO”. They attest that their work might not be perfect, but argue that nothing short of the autographs are anyway.

  8. Michael_in_TN says:

    Robert,
    Would you agree that God always honors and blesses his Word?

    Of all the great revivals thru the last several centuries, which version was used? Answer: KJV

    Has there been any great revivals where thousands of souls were saved using any other version?

    I am not saying that other versions don’t contain God’s Word but remember Satan quoted scripture when contending with Jesus in the wilderness. Would you admit that Satan had an agenda?

    Does it not make sense that Satan would use new versions and translations to confuse and corrupt man’s mind like he did with Eve in the Garden of Eden?

    Perhaps I’m wrong but then again perhaps I’m correct.

    Michael

  9. Michael, I do not disagree with any of your statements. But they are not conclusive.

    Please explain to me why the apostles quoted the Septuagint, even though it disagrees with the Masoretic. Can two walk together except they be agreed? Apparently so, in this case, for God has firmly established both the Masoretic (being the most accurate OT mss as far as we can tell, and the source for the KJV) and the Septuagint (by quoting it in the NT) as His Word.

  10. Michael_in_TN says:

    Robert,

    Found on the Septuagint web page:
    It is imperative to note that these ?variations? are extremely minor (i.e., grammatical errors, spelling differences or missing words) and do not affect the meaning of sentences and paragraphs. (An exception is the book of Jeremiah, in which the actual passages are arranged differently.) None of the differences, however, come close to affecting any area of teaching or doctrine. The majority of the Septuagint, Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls are remarkably similar and have dispelled unfounded theories that the Biblical text has been corrupted by time and conspiracy. Furthermore, these variations do not call into question the infallibility of God in preserving His word. Although the original documents are inerrant, translators and scribes are human beings and are thus prone to making slight errors in translation and copying

    God even explains some of the problems with Jeremiah in chapter 36 were Jehoiakim burns the scrolls and God has Jeremiah rewrite it and add some words (verse 32). This second copy was also destroyed (51:63) but we can read what it contained (chapters 45-51), thus it was also copied.

    Ecclesiastes 8:4 says, “Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?” Unlike the modern versions, the KJV was translated under a king. In fact, the king’s name was “James,” which is the English word for “Jacob,” whom God renamed “Israel,” because he had power with God and with men (Gen. 32:28).

    Michael

  11. It is imperative to note that these ?variations? are extremely minor (i.e., grammatical errors, spelling differences or missing words) and do not affect the meaning of sentences and paragraphs… None of the differences, however, come close to affecting any area of teaching or doctrine… Furthermore, these variations do not call into question the infallibility of God in preserving His word. Although the original documents are inerrant, translators and scribes are human beings and are thus prone to making slight errors in translation and copying

    Please correct me if I misunderstand you, but I think what you’re saying is that grammatical differences, missing or added words here and there, etc., really aren’t of concern as long as they don’t affect the meaning. I wholeheartedly agree with that statement, but most KJVO advocates would not. It’s quite common to hear “the word ‘Christ’ has been ommitted X zillion times” in a newer translation. You and I would agree that all mainstream translations very clearly teach that Jesus is the Christ, so we’d also agree that these ommissions are insignificant. Right?

  12. Mac Swift says:

    I made an immensely long fisking of your essay on my blog Robert, which I should publish sometime today. I’m sure both you and Michael will find it interesting. I’ve been so engrossed in Jacobean England lately, that my writing has obviously been affected by it. So much the better. ;-)

  13. Mac Swift says:

    It’s all finished. :-) Should be in your trackback too….

  14. Michael_in_TN says:

    Robert,
    No, that is not what I am saying. Your question to me was:

    Please explain to me why the apostles quoted the Septuagint, even though it disagrees with the Masoretic(?)

    I quoted the Septuagint web page to just show that the differences are minor.
    Hebrew -> Greek -> English is not going to be the same as Hebrew -> English 100% of the time.
    Especially if you use the Greek translation that W&H wrote!

    I think Mac brought up a great point in his latest article about the thought that the apostles were NOT quoting the LXX but were translating the Hebrew to Greek as they were led by the Holy Spirit. The fact that some, if not most, of the translations match the LXX is interesting but not pertinent. The fact that the KJV translators did the same (Hebrew -> English) would explain many of the differences with the TR.

    You and I would agree that all mainstream translations very clearly teach that Jesus is the Christ, so we’d also agree that these ommissions are insignificant. Right?

    Absolutely not! There are several websites that show verse by verse how modern translations waterdown key doctrinal scripture. Is it by coincident or as I asked earlier:

    Does it not make sense that Satan would use new versions and translations to confuse and corrupt man’s mind like he did with Eve in the Garden of Eden? Nothing overt, just minor, subtle changes here and there to ever so slowly chip away foundational truths.

    Michael

  15. Randy Brandt says:

    Here is a link to the testimony of S. Franklin Logsdon, who wrote the foreword in the NASV, entitled From the NASV to the KJV. After reading, perhaps you will renounce the NASV as he did as well.

    Michael, please don’t rely on urban legends to make your case. In the words of The Lockman Foundation,

    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.”

    Quoted from The Lockman Foundation’s Official Response to KJVO claims about Frank Logsdon

  16. Randy Brandt says:

    I’ve taught Bible in a KJV-only school. I thank God for delivering me. In my experience, KJV-only folks care little about truth and reality. I’m not accusing anyone here of that, but that is my personal experience, and has been reinforced by hearing and reading frothing-at-the-mouth fanatics like Peter Ruckman, Texe Marrs and Gail Riplinger. These people simply are not emotionally healthy and have channeled their fanaticism into a cultish obsession that cares more about the KJV than the Christianity it teaches. It’s really quite pathetic.

  17. No, that is not what I am saying.

    I asked you why the New Testament writers quoted the LXX. You responded with a copy & paste of something from a website that said it didn’t matter that the LXX was different from the Masoretic, since small differences are OK. Now you say that’s not what you were saying even though it’s what you said.

    Michael, at this point, I have absolutely no idea what you are saying. I’m getting a bit frustrated.

    Why did the NT writers apparently quote the Septuagint? There are two answers which have been offered. Please let me know which you believe.

    One possibility is that they didn’t quote the LXX, but instead did their own translation from the Hebrew every time. Sometimes that translation agreed with the LXX perfectly, which is just a nifty coincidence. The KJV translators were wrong about this.

    The other option is that they only quoted the LXX where it was accurate, but when it was inaccurate they did their own translation. There are no disagreements between NT quotes of the Old Testament, and the Masoretic text.

    Michael, will you please let me know which position you hold? If you hold an entirely different position, would you clarify that instead?

  18. In my experience, KJV-only folks care little about truth and reality. I’m not accusing anyone here of that, but that is my personal experience

    I do not share your experience or your opinion in this matter, but I sincerely appreciate all your input. I will not deride or mock KJVO advocates, except just maybe Ruckman and Riplinger. :-)

  19. Randy Brandt says:

    I will not deride or mock KJVO advocates, except just maybe Ruckman and Riplinger. :-)

    Trust me, Marrs is their equal in absurdity. I respect Waite and Hills as people even though I disagree with their views. At least they’re civil.

  20. Michael_in_TN says:

    Robert,

    I asked you why the New Testament writers quoted the LXX. You responded with a copy & paste of something from a website that said it didn’t matter that the LXX was different from the Masoretic, since small differences are OK. Now you say that’s not what you were saying even though it’s what you said.

    Michael, at this point, I have absolutely no idea what you are saying. I’m getting a bit frustrated.

    OK, let’s go slow. You made a couple of statements that I was responding to, specifically:
    1. “the LXX does not agree with the Masoretic texts”
    2. “the apostles quoted the LXX frequently in the New Testament”

    My response to #1 was to go to the official Septuagint web page and paste their official statement concerning the differences, since I don’t read Hebrew or Greek and would not know if your statement was true or not.

    My response to #2 was to suggest that perhaps this statement is not true since we don’t know if they did or not. The Apostles could have:
    a. quoted the LXX
    b. interpreted the Hebrew and got the same results as the LXX
    c. interpreted the Hebrew and got different results

    Remember that the LXX and the NT were both written in Greek but the difference is one was inspired by the Holy Spirit. So, if you see a difference between the LXX and the NT, you have to go with the NT as the correct version.

    You seem to be hung up on the premise that if the KJV differs from the Masoretic, the Septuagint, the Textus Receptus, the Byzentine mss, etc. then it can’t be a perfect English translation of God’s Word.
    The translators themselves acknowledged that they had a multitude of sources from which to draw from: “Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch.” The Greek editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza were all accessible, as were the Complutensian and Antwerp Polyglots, and the Latin translations of Pagninus, Termellius, and Beza. They did not accept one single document as being the perfect Word of God but instead took the whole collection and said, “Herein is the perfect Word of God.”

    Now, can I (personally) prove 100%, without a doubt, that the KJV is the perfect Word of God? Absolutely not. Can I look at the fact that God has blessed the KJV above every other version and conclude that it has God’s “stamp of approval”? Yes, I can. Should I use what God has “approved” or some other version? You know the answer to that.

    You wrote concerning the link I provided about Logsdon renouncing the NASV:

    please don’t rely on urban legends to make your case.

    I have quoted the “testimony” of Franklin Logsdon who had nothing to lose in making his statements. You have quoted a group of business people that stand to lose money if Logsdon testimony is believed. You quoted:

    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.

    I don’t believe he said he was a board member, an employee of the foundation, that he hired anyone (he said he interviewed some), that he translated or was part of the translation team. He does claim to have written the foreword.

    You mentioned David Cloud, perhaps you will want to read what he wrote concerning this subject.

    Hopefully, this clarifies my position a little better. :smile:
    Michael

  21. If you want to contend that the KJV is a good translation, or even the best translation, I won’t quarrel with you any more than I would quarrel with someone who wanted to claim the NIV was the best.

    If you attempt to prove that the KJV is the ONLY valid English translation, and that all others are “_per_versions”, or frauds, etc., then I take great exception.

    Should I use what God has “approved” or some other version?

    This statement implies that God has only “approved” one English version. There is no reason that needs to be true.

  22. Michael_in_TN says:

    Robert,
    But you’ve already agreed that the only great revivals, where thousands of souls were saved, were the ones using the KJV. The KJV is the best seller of all time. It’s the standard that all other versions have to compare themselves against. What more proof do you need?

    There is an estimated 10,000 changes in the NKJV as compared to the KJV. How can both be “good”? I don’t know how many differences there are in other versions but you must admit that they all can’t be equal. I submit that more effort was placed in the translation of the KJV than in all the others combined.

    You’re a programmer and know that you can write a program many different ways and get the same desired results. I believe you are carrying that logic over in regards to the Bible. However, there is one God, one plan of salvation, one Holy Spirit, and I content, one version of the Bible for the English speaking people, the KJV. God has greatly blessed it, as he has promised, and that’s enough proof for me.

    Michael

  23. But you’ve already agreed that the only great revivals, where thousands of souls were saved, were the ones using the KJV

    Agreeing that many of the great revivals through the last few centuries used the KJV does not even approximate agreeing that the revivals were great because of the KJV. There’s an awful lot of factors to consider – what other translations existed, what “church age” did those happen in, what was the spiritual and cultural climate, and so on. You’re claiming causality but can only prove correlation. You’re also deliberately ignoring other revivals, such as the Reformation, which happened before the KJV was even written and sometimes used texts you’d reject as corrupt.

    There is an estimated 10,000 changes in the NKJV as compared to the KJV. How can both be “good”?

    I guess it depends on what you count as a change. If I change “thou”, “thee” and “ye” to “you” in 5,000 places, is that 5000 changes, 3 changes, or 0 changes? If “Jesus Christ” becomes simply “Christ” or simply “Jesus” in some places, is that a significant change?

    If you say that any varying of the text counts as a change, then surely you’re aware that there have been many such changes to the KJV since 1611. But I know you would not contend that, so we have to exame the 10,000 changes you claim to determine which are minor (like the updates to the KJV from 1611-1789) and which are major.

    Let’s assume there are some significant changes. You ask “how can they both be good?” and it’s a good question, one which I’m unable to satisfactorily answer. So I’ll quote some highly respected authorities:

    We do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, 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… For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say … “A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else there were none virtuous, for, in many things we offend all,) also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand; yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sun, where Apostles or aostolick men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?

    The like we are to think of translations. The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Hierome and most learned men do confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using of it so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the word of God…

    Yet before we end, we must answer a third cavil and objection of theirs against us, for altering and amending our Translation so oft; wherein truly they deal hardly and strangely with us. For to whom ever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to go over that which he had done, and to amend it where he saw cause?.. If we will be sons of the truth, we must consider what it speaketh, and trample upon our own credit, yea, and upon other men’s too, if either be any way an hinderance to it.

    Hope that helps. I’m a great admirer of the men who wrote it.

    I don’t know how many differences there are in other versions but you must admit that they all can’t be equal.

    Equality and identity are not the same thing. If by “equal” you mean “identical”, then of course not. If you mean “equally good” then it’s at least possible. But in no case does one being “good” mean the others are “bad”, just “less good”.

    I content, one version of the Bible for the English speaking people, the KJV

    Which was God’s approved version in English prior to the KJV? Was there one? If so, would it still be appropriate for use?

  24. phil says:

    Bravo, Robert. You’ve dealt with a difficult topic. I love the quote from the KJV translators in your last comment. That was the first thing I found when I began looking into the KJVO argument.

    As for the NASB, that’s a great translation. Precept Ministries used to advocate it exculsively, but they’ve softened a bit to accept the NIV also. Did you look into the ESV, English Standard Version? I like it a lot myself, though my reading and studying Bible is an NKJV. (It replaced my NASB when I needed a new Bible.)

  25. Michael_in_TN says:

    Robert,

    You wrote: You’re also deliberately ignoring other revivals, such as the Reformation, which happened before the KJV was even written and sometimes used texts you’d reject as corrupt.

    Which English bible did they use during the Reformation? That is what we are debating, right?

    If “Jesus Christ” becomes simply “Christ” or simply “Jesus” in some places, is that a significant change?
    The link I gave on Mac’s site shows 135 times where the names or titles of Jesus were omitted or changed in the NIV. Is 135 insignificant?
    65,000+ words were removed and you think that is acceptable?

    Which was God’s approved version in English prior to the KJV?
    I don’t believe there was one in English, an approved version that is.

    Concerning the quote of the KJV translators:
    OK, they didn’t claim that the earlier works were corrupt or in need of replacing. Also, they never claimed divine inspiration. (A claim which, if they had made, would overjoy their detractors as evidence of a prideful spirit.) They never even claimed perfection for their finished work.
    Does this mean that, because they did not claim God’s hand in translating the Scripture that He could not be or was not in control of their commission? They merely acknowledged that were fallible and didn’t know how God or man would judge their work, but they had done it to the best of their ability.

    Since you like logic, let’s consider our positions:

    If you are correct and I am wrong then my Bible is no better or worse than yours since both are imperfect translations and there is no greater harm in using the KJV.

    If I am correct and you are wrong, then you are using a perverted version of God’s Word and are subject to corrupt and/or watered-down doctrinal statements.

    Either way, 1) no harm in using KJV or 2) only use KJV, the logical choice would be to always use the KJV.

    Michael

  26. Which English bible did they use during the Reformation? That is what we are debating, right?

    What does English have to do with it? If God produced revivals through Latin or German, then those Bibles much surely ALSO be the Word of God – but what if they contradict our English Bible or the underlying manuscripts it was translated from?

    Furthermore, you’ve not responded to my contention that all you can demonstrate is correlation between revivals that happened among English speaking people and the King James version.

    135 times where the names or titles of Jesus were omitted or changed in the NIV. Is 135 insignificant?

    I did some checking on bible.gospelcom.net
    Searching for “Christ”
    NIV: 536 times
    KJV: 538 times

    Searching for “Jesus”
    NIV: 1,281 times
    KJV: 943 times

    Searching for Jesus” and “Christ”
    NIV: 245 times
    KJV: 258 times

    Searching for “Son” and “God” (NT only)
    NIV: 124 times
    KJV: 116 times

    I think it’s safe to say that the NIV does in fact teach that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God”. Don’t you?

    65,000+ words were removed and you think that is acceptable?

    As long as the removal of those words does not change the meaning of the text, then yes. If those words were corrupt late additions to the TR, then not only is their removal acceptable, it’s good!

    I don’t believe there was one in English, an approved version that is.

    Which version of the KJV was “approved”? The translators themselves acknowledged making many revisions, and did not claim that “they were only spelling updates”. So, which edition of the KJV is divinely approved? And how do you know? And which edition do you use?

    If there was no trustworthy English translation of the Bible for the hundred or so years between the Reformation and the first edition of the KJV, what about God’s promise to preserve His word for His people (Ps 12:6-7)? Is God faithless?

    Concerning the quote of the KJV translators:

    You’ve badly misread the quote. Have you ever carefully read the KJV Preface to the Readers? It’s fascinating.

    What the KJV translators said is this:
    1. The KJV is not perfect.
    2. It doesn’t have to be perfect to be the Word of God. Nor does any other translation.
    3. Example: The apostles quoted the Septuagint, which differs from the originals in many places, but they didn’t act like somehow the Septuagint was corrupt.
    4. We have revised, and will continue to revise, the KJV as we see cause. This is a good thing, and it’s quite strange to criticize someone for trying to improve a work.

    Your logical case is flawed. Here’s a better one.

    If I am correct and you are wrong, you’re guilty of blaspheming good translations of the Bible.

    If you are correct and I am wrong, I’m in the same position as the vast majority of Christians who have ever lived, save only the Christians of a few nations for 400 years. However, I have not maligned the KJV at all, so at least I’m not guilty of insulting the Word of God. I believe the KJV is good. I won’t even disagree that it’s the best by many measures. But I do not agree that it is the only valid English translation.

    There is no logical case to support KJVO.

  27. Phil says:

    Robert, I hope you’re still reading these comments. I thought I’d throw in a reference to the recent debate over the new revision to the NIV and TNIV. The textual differences pointed out by the KJVO folks are nothing compared to the differences described by those questioning the TNIV, especially where KJVO is comparing itself to the NASB.

    Anyway, that’s a side comment.

  28. Phil says:

    Ok, let me add that throwing numbers around doesn’t support much. 65K changes or word removals is a specious statistic. What words were removed and how does the context differ? (You’ve said as much, Robert, so I’m just repeating you, I suppose.)

    Here’s an example to argue over. Acts 8:36-38.
    NIV: 36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptized?” 38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. [Some late manuscripts baptized?” 37 Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” The eunuch answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”]

    KJV: 36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
    37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
    38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

    NASB: Read the verses here, noting the footnote which says that early manuscripts don’t contain verse 37.

    ESV, which notes the absence of the verse.

    Now, I know the KJV advocate will say the heresy is obvious, but as a layman, I have to ask, why wasn’t the verse in the early manuscripts? Which of the mss. has authority over the other, if any? Is the verse Scripture or not? That’s one of the faith questions we are wrestling with here.

  29. Michael_in_TN says:

    What does English have to do with it?
    My contention all along is that the KJV is the Word of God for English speaking people. I do not know which Bible God would have the Germans or Polish or Italian people to use.

    you’ve not responded to my contention that all you can demonstrate is correlation between revivals that happened among English speaking people and the King James version.
    See above. On 8/29 1:04pm, I said that I cannot prove 100% that KJV has God’s “approval” but I can see that God has used it above all others and conclude so.

    If those words were corrupt late additions to the TR, then not only is their removal acceptable, it’s good!
    And if those words were in the mss and the TR was wrong, then the removal of those words is very bad!

    Which version of the KJV was “approved”? The translators themselves acknowledged making many revisions, and did not claim that “they were only spelling updates”.
    This page gives a thorough explaination to the “revisions” of the KJV.

    I’m in the same position as the vast majority of Christians who have ever lived, save only the Christians of a few nations for 400 years.
    You are assuming that my position is that the KJV is the only perfect Bible ever. That is not correct. My position, again, is that the KJV is the perfect Bible for English speaking people. God’s completed Word has been around since John finished up the Book of Revelations, either in copies of the original Greek, or the old Latin of 150 AD, (NOT to be confused with Jerome’s corrupt “Vulgate”) or the Syrian Peshetto of 157 AD.

    Phil wrote: Which of the mss. has authority over the other, if any?
    There are major differences in the mss from Antioch and the mss from Alexandria. Check out this link and this one.

    Michael

  30. the KJV is the Word of God for English speaking people. I do not know which Bible God would have the Germans

    Logically, the “approved” word of God in German would say the same thing as the “approved” word of God in English – just one would be in German and the other in English. These words and verses are either authentic or not, and this is independent of which language one translates the underlying Greek into.

    God only wrote one Bible. If I can demonstrate that the apparently “approved” Bible in German is substantially different from the apparently “approved” Bible in English, then I’ve demonstrated that the revivals resulting from a given translation have no bearing on the textual quality of that translation.

    Fortunately for me, this is easy to do. Calvin’s German translation was unarguably greatly blessed by God to bring people out of the heretical Roman church, amen? The effect of the Bible used by Calvin and Luther is arguably much greater than the magnificent results of the KJV.

    The KJV and Calvin’s translation differ substantially in several places. For one example, Luke 2:33 – Calvin’s reads “His father” whereas the KJV says “Joseph”.

    Now, which one is correct? Which one is “God’s approved Bible”? Both were blessed and bore much fruit.

    Could it be that the KJV translators were correct in their assertion that “things are to take their denomination of the greater part”? I think so.

    I said that I cannot prove 100% that KJV has God’s “approval” but I can see that God has used it above all others and conclude so.

    Your conclusion is logically weak. All you have is a correlation. Other evidence contradicts your conclusion of causality. If God’s blessings can be considered evidence of God’s “approval” on a Bible version, then multiple versions – which disagree somewhat – are apparently “approved”. This is illogical.

    This page gives a thorough explaination to the “revisions” of the KJV

    That page contradicts the KJV translators. It claims that “The changes from the 1611 edition that are admittedly textual are obviously printing errors”. The KJV translators, however, freely admitted to “altering and amending our Translation so oft” and thought it strange to be criticized for it. They did not claim “oh, it was only printer’s errors and spelling standardization”. Instead they said “For to whom ever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to go over that which he had done, and to amend it where he saw cause?.. If we will be sons of the truth, we must consider what it speaketh, and trample upon our own credit, yea, and upon other men’s too, if either be any way an hinderance to it.”

    Look at that last sentence again. They were willing to trample upon their own credit, and that of others, for the sake of the truth. These are not the words of men who only change things due to printing errors or spelling standardization. They are the words of humble men, “sons of the truth”, who were not too proud to admit when they made mistakes and then correct those mistakes. We should learn from such men of God.

    There are major differences in the mss from Antioch and the mss from Alexandria

    It’s quite funny to me that the pages you linked to both criticize Siniaticus and Vaticanus for including the Apocrypha. Michael, do you find it funny as well?

    I also asked you a couple of questions which you did not address. I’ll list them again in hopes that you’ll see fit to respond.

    * I think it’s safe to say that the NIV does in fact teach that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God”. Don’t you?

    * If there was no trustworthy English translation of the Bible for the hundred or so years between the Reformation and the first edition of the KJV, what about God’s promise to preserve His word for His people (Ps 12:6-7)? Is God faithless?

  31. Mac Swift says:

    Robert,

    You haven’t answered Phil’s questions: “I have to ask, why wasn’t the verse in the early manuscripts? Which of the mss. has authority over the other, if any? Is the verse Scripture or not?”

    In addition, only one of the links Michael gave mentioned the Apocrypha, not both of them as you claimed. Just being a stickler for facts here. Why do you find the criticism of the Apocrypha humourous? Enlighten us idiots, please.

  32. Michael_in_TN says:

    Forgive me if I have overlooked something. I have been suffering with a wisdom tooth since last Friday and I will be having oral surgery on Monday (9/8).

    Logically, the “approved” word of God in German would say the same thing as the “approved” word of God in English – just one would be in German and the other in English.
    That is, of course, assuming that the words have the same meaning in German and English. I know German and English are closely related but that does not mean that a word will hold the same meaning across both languages. Thus, different words would have to be used to carry the meaning. Since I have no clue about the Calvin translation and it’s accuracy in translation, I would be foolish to comment whether it is “approved” or not.

    Calvin’s German translation was unarguably greatly blessed by God to bring people out of the heretical Roman church, amen?
    Since the Lutheran church still carries many of the same traditions and doctrines of the RCC, I’m not really sure what you are saying. From David Cloud’s website:

    While Luther rejected many Roman Catholic dogmas, such as the pope and sacramental salvation and Mariolatry, and while he proclaimed that salvation is solely by grace through faith without works and that the Bible is the sole authority for the church and Christian life, he did not return to the simple N.T. faith. The Lutherans after him reflect this error. They practice infant baptism. They maintain a formal, liturgical type of worship, with prayer books, special clothing, clergy/laity concepts, etc. They have retained a Roman Catholic-like mass. Though Lutherans reject Rome?s dogma of transubstantiation, they do believe Christ ?is present in, with and under the elements.? Major Lutheran denominations in Europe are unbiblically yoked together with civil government, forming ?state churches? in Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Estonia, and Latvia.

    The KJV translators, however, freely admitted to “altering and amending our Translation so oft” and thought it strange to be criticized for it. They did not claim “oh, it was only printer’s errors and spelling standardization”.
    Talk about a weak argument, you’ve taken a quote from the Preface and are applying it to the changes made after 1611. Are you intentionally trying to mislead someone?

    It’s quite funny to me that the pages you linked to both criticize Siniaticus and Vaticanus for including the Apocrypha. Michael, do you find it funny as well?
    No, I do not see any humor in it. The Siniaticus and Vaticanus include the Apocrypha as inspired Scripture, whereas the KJV translators only inserted the writings for historical purposes. They did not integrate it into the Old Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts.
    Here’s a link with more detail as to why the Apocrypha was discredited and removed.

    I also asked you a couple of questions which you did not address. I’ll list them again in hopes that you’ll see fit to respond.
    Thought I had, perhaps indirectly. Let’s try again.

    1)I think it’s safe to say that the NIV does in fact teach that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God”. Don’t you?
    I believe I have written in a couple of places that the modern versions have subtly watered-down the doctrine (See the list of 135 instances in the NIV). By the way, your numbers on “Son” & “God” are way off because your query didn’t look at ‘whole words only’ and include ‘reason‘ and ‘songs’.
    Do I believe every verse in the NIV is corrupt? ABSOLUTELY NOT!
    Do I believe it is 100% correct? ABSOLUTELY NOT!
    So, my position is that the NIV and other modern versions contain some percentage of the Word of God but have errors. I believe the KJV is exactly what God intended for English speaking people to have, 100%.

    2)If there was no trustworthy English translation of the Bible for the hundred or so years between the Reformation and the first edition of the KJV, what about God’s promise to preserve His word for His people (Ps 12:6-7)? Is God faithless?
    I did answer this but YOU seemed to have skipped over it. Here it is again:
    “My position, again, is that the KJV is the perfect Bible for English speaking people. God’s completed Word has been around since John finished up the Book of Revelations, either in copies of the original Greek, or the old Latin of 150 AD, (NOT to be confused with Jerome’s corrupt “Vulgate”) or the Syrian Peshetto of 157 AD.”


    Robert, I don’t know whether it is frustration or anger or both, but your replies appear to have more and more emotion (sarcasm, bitterness) in them. You may see my posts the same way, which I really don’t intend to do (other than typing YOU above). Forgive me if I have offended you. My prayer is that the Holy Spirit will guide and direct us to the correct answers we seek.

    Michael

  33. Mac,

    only one of the links Michael gave mentioned the Apocrypha, not both of them as you claimed.

    The first link was to http://www.av1611.org/kjv/fight.html#fight7
    “Both manuscripts contain the Apocrypha as part of the Old Testament.”

    The second link was to http://www.samgipp.org/answer/gipp_answer_06.html
    “Both manuscripts contain uninspired, anti-scriptural books which are not found in the Bible.”

    I suppose that second one could be referring only to the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas, but I took it to be a reference to the Apocrypha.

    Why do you find the criticism of the Apocrypha humourous? Enlighten us idiots, please.

    The KJV 1611 also included the Apocrypha, inserted as a special section between the Old Testament and New Testament. It’s ironic that KJVO advocates would criticize other Bibles for including the Apocrypha when the AV 1611 did. The Apocrypha was included in the KJV until 1885, although it was sometimes omitted in printings before that.

    It’s true that the KJV translators didn’t necessarily hold the Apocrypha as the same level of Scripture, nor did they intersperse the Apocrypha among the books of the Old Testament like the RCC. But it was still included.

  34. Michael, oral surgery is no fun. I had all 4 of my wisdom teeth cut out last year. They weren’t causing me any trouble but we could tell from the x-rays that they would be soon.

    The surgery itself wasn’t so bad, but for a week or more afterwards the nerve in my jaw was exposed where they’d cut out a tooth, so it was painful to chew. The treatment for that was worse than the pain! They shoved a medicated piece of cotton into the socket and let me tell you that hurt a lot.

    But all in all the surgery wasn’t too bad.

    Your point about German and English is over my head. If I start with the right text, and accurately translate it into umpteen different languages, they still all say the same thing. Some words may be slightly changed or some idiomatic expressions, but it’s still the same text.

    Since the Lutheran church still carries many of the same traditions and doctrines of the RCC

    Calvin’s translation had a far greater impact than simply starting the Luteran church! It largely broke the back of Rome, and put the Bible in the language the people spoke. Without this Bible, the Reformation would possibly never have taken place. I think God’s hand was clearly at work in all of this.

    you’ve taken a quote from the Preface and are applying it to the changes made after 1611. Are you intentionally trying to mislead someone?

    I’m not trying to mislead anyone. I’ve misunderstood them; it appears that what the Papists were condemning was not the repeated changes to the KJV, but the repeated translation of the English Bible.

    your numbers on “Son” & “God” are way off because your query didn’t look at ‘whole words only’ and include ‘reason’ and ‘songs’.

    Oops. Thanks for pointing that out. I’ll redo the numbers and post corrections.

    (Time passes.) Looks like NIV is 90, KJV is 84.

    This conversation is taking a nasty turn. I may have to close off the comments.

  35. Michael_in_TN says:

    I’m back with 4 fewer teeth. Surgery went rather well but thank God for pain killers.

    Back on topic, perhaps a recap is due. Correct me if I am wrong on this:

    Things we have settled on
    1. The KJV today is essentially the same as what was published in 1611 except for corrections in printing and spelling.
    2. The Apocrypha was originially included in the KJV between the O.T. and N.T. for historical purposes only.
    3. There are major differences in the mss from Antioch and the mss from Alexandria. The ones from Alexandria are considered older than the ones from Antioch but are thought to be inferior by the KJV translators and others.

    Things we are not settled on:
    1. The KJV is a better translation.
    2. The modern texts based upon the mss from Alexandria are not “good”.
    3. The modern texts water-down basic doctrine.

    Let me know where you want to go from here and whether to continue in this thead or in one of the newer ones.

    Michael

  36. Rebek says:

    My thanks to all, esp. most extensive inputs from Michael and Robert. I think I’ve benefitted much from these most informative comments so obviously produced from intense bible text studies. My question at this point is this:
    I was told by a Hebrew scholar that the word “easter” (a pagan word connected with spring celebration, etc.)is included within the 1611 KJV, an inssertion which was not in the earlier texts, such as Wycliffe and Tyndale had translated from. Is this true? Also, I’ve been told that the word “baptidzo”, meaning immersion from earlier texts, became changed to “sprinkle” in the 1611 KJV. Do you also know if this is true? Please reply, anyone. Thank-you ~ ~

  37. Rebek says:

    My thanks to all, esp. most extensive inputs from Michael and Robert. I think I’ve benefitted much from these most informative comments so obviously produced from intense bible text studies. My question at this point is this:
    I was told by a Hebrew scholar that the word “easter” (a pagan word connected with spring celebration, etc.)is included within the 1611 KJV, an insertion which was not in the earlier texts, such as Wycliffe and Tyndale had translated from. Is this true? Also, I’ve been told that the word “baptidzo”, meaning immersion from earlier texts, became changed to “sprinkle” in the 1611 KJV. Do you also know if this is true? Please reply, anyone. Thank-you ~ ~

  38. Schmuel says:

    Hello,
    Robert, an interesting blog.

    To a large extent, I understand your concerns, although it looks like you, at this point, are not even solid on the corruptness of the alexandrian texts and the unscriptural textcrit paradigms their proponents work under.

    Originally you offerred two basic reasons you were moving away from a King James Bible view. One had to do with the difficulty of our seeing a chain of preservation. The difficulty in finding a perfect TR was mentioned. This is a discussion that King James Bible proponents are well aware, Scrivener even essentially back-translated in the 1890’s a compendium TR to virtually match the KJB. Honestly, doctrinally, I really don’t believe the lack of an extant provable Hebrew-Aramaic or Greek perfect manuscript is a significant question, unless one is defending the TR’s as the inerrant, perfect Word of God.

    A second issue was interesting, where you quoted the KJB translators in the Preface, which to a certain extent contains a gentle put-down of the socalled LXX. However, they indicate the Apostles used the “LXX”. Those of us who have studied the issue carefully take great issue with this statement, and believe that the KJB translators were simply wrong on that sentence. (Inspiration and Inerrancy by most all views, does not extend beyond the actual Scripture text). The details of this issue make a fascinating study, which I won’t go into much here on a hello, intro post. I will mention that, in my view, Gipp and Ruckman err in their “LXX” articles, by overstating the case some. However, the book by Floyd Nolan Jones on the Net, free in .pdf or .htm is an excellent starting point.
    LXX Septuagint – Floyd Nolen Jones, Ph.D., Th.D.
    http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/1157/floyd-jones.htm
    http://www.floydjones.org/ebooks2.html

    May the Lord Jesus anoint your heart and studies on His Word.

    Shalom and Grace,
    Steven Avery
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

  39. Pingback: Vessel of Honour

Comments are closed.