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).

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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