Another contention from the KJVO debate is that new translations (usually the NIV is picked here) denigrate the Lordship of Jesus. They will find times when phrases such as “our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” have been rendered as simply “Jesus” due to new manuscript evidence. “Jesus Christ” or “Christ Jesus” sometimes becomes simply “Jesus” or “Christ”.
Thanks to the wonder of the internet, any child of God (or pagans for that matter!) can determine for himself how true this charge is.
I used bible.gospelcom.net to search the NIV and KJV for certain phrases.
Searching for “Christ” (also included “Christ’s” in new numbers)
NIV: 536 times 521 times
KJV: 538 times 505 times
Searching for “Jesus”
NIV: 1,281 times
KJV: 943 times
Searching for Jesus” and “Christ”
NIV: 245 times 236 times
KJV: 258 times 238 times
Searching for “Son” and “God” (NT only)
NIV: 124 times 90 times
KJV: 116 times 84 times
It appears that the NIV is on par with the KJV in this respect. It clearly teaches that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16) and is “my Lord and my God” (John 20:28)
Update: Michael points out that some of my numbers are off because I didn’t check “Whole words only”. “Son” also matches “Song” for instance. I’ve updated the numbers as appropriate. Thank you, Michael.
Your fallacy here is addressing the quantity rather than the quality in which the name of Christ is mentioned. The strongest argument as to the corruption of modern translations is that they indicate a TREND, a trend towards a type of Jesus that is rendered so generic that it could just as easily refer to say, the final antichrist.
2 Corinthians 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [if] ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with [him].
Mac, please give me some examples of what you mean.
Here is a handy list to use.
Show me how these verses indicate a trend towards a generic Jesus rather than Jesus of Nazareth.
It’s clear no amount of persuasion is going to convince you as you have apparently already made your mind up, so que sera sera. I’ll waste my time elsewhere.
The trend I see in these KJVO discussions is the idea that the KJV is the original English text from which all English texts have been derived. How can changes be compared b/w independantly translated texts? Translators aren’t rewording the KJV. They are working with the best ancient copies available. That’s why we have the problems of Acts 8:37 and 1 John 5:7-8.
“They are working with the best ancient copies available.”
This is the fallacy, they are NOT working with the best ancient copies in my view. They may claim they are, but that alone has been the subject of fierce debate. There’s hardly a consensus on this issue.
Mac, this is an entirely new argument you are making. First you insinuate that they are simply rewording the KJV with a malicious intent to dilute particular doctrines. Now you insist that in your opinion, the oldest manuscripts available are not the best.
There’s hardly a consensus on this issue.
If by “consensus” you mean “unanimity among anyone who claims to know something about textual criticism” then you’re right, there’s no consensus. On the other hand, it is quite rare to find an actual scholar who rejects the older manuscripts. This is the reason KJVO advocates compile lists of scholars – past and present – who reject anything but the KJV. There are some qualified and talented men on the list who cannot be dismissed, but the list is rather short.
There is, in fact, consensus among textual critics on certain rules of textual criticism. A careful application of these rules will favor manuscripts other than the Byzantine in the handful of places we’re concerned with.
Having refuted the theological and logical case that required me to ignore the scholarship and evidence, I can now take a look at it and accept its conclusions.
You’ve yet to present a coherent case for KJVO. You admiringly refer to David Cloud, but the argument I refuted is essentially his. You even agreed that the KJV does not live up to the logical case for the KJV, which was my whole point.
I’m not making a new argument, as this is just two sides of the same coin. I admire David Cloud in the sense that he is far more respectful in his writings than those like G.A. Riplinger. However, I have not seen any specific examples from you where he has set forth the 11 points you made earlier. I wonder if you purposely misrepresented his arguments so you could easily knock them down in your gleeful abandonment of the KJV? I haven’t read his works in-depth to know for sure if that’s what you did. But I wouldn’t be surprised.
I’m simply not going to waste my time writing a thesis of sorts just to convince one person of the issue. Just in writing the review for a book on the making of the King James took me over a week to put together. Some of the points I made overall you have ignored or not bothered to address, but I accept that THAT can be due to your lack of time. So in the end we will just have to agree to disagree: you go your own way, and I’ll go mine.
I wonder if you purposely misrepresented his arguments so you could easily knock them down in your gleeful abandonment of the KJV? I haven’t read his works in-depth to know for sure if that’s what you did. But I wouldn’t be surprised.
Mac, I’m sorry that you have such a low opinion of me. I assure you that I’ve done my best to accurately present the KJVO argument as I understood it. While brother Cloud never spells it out exactly as I did, you can review his collection of articles about Bible versions and see for yourself that his argument is essentially the same as mine. I have in fact spent a lot of time reading material from his site.
And Mac, my decision to use a different Bible translation is not a “gleeful abandonment of the KJV”. This is a quite serious issue to me. It was actually quite embarassing and it would have been far easier to continue using my KJV.
Robert, I don’t have a low opinion of you, so I forbid you from going into martyrdom mode here. This is just an issue near and dear to my heart so I tend to get agitated more often than not.
That being said, I’m sorry for being so harsh in tone with my comments here and elsewhere. For that I apologize.
If you’re interested, here’s a page showing that newer versions, such as the NIV, are not ‘downplaying’ Christ’s deity and the like:
http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/jesusnew.html
Also, if you’d like to discuss KJVOism, you can drop by this board:
http://pub1.ezboard.com/bbibleversiondiscussionboard