KJV-onlyism?

[farouk]

Well, Revelation speaks about lukewarmness at Laodicea. But I certainly would not equate balance and moderation with lukewarmness. It has been said of the Lord Jesus that He held truth without legalism and grace without comprise.

I think it should be possible to aspire to discussing Bible versions in a measured and balanced way.

 

[Mitspa]

Well, Revelation speaks about lukewarmness at Laodicea. But I certainly would not equate balance and moderation with lukewarmness. It has been said of the Lord Jesus that He held truth without legalism and grace without comprise.

I think it should be possible to aspire to discussing Bible versions in a measured and balanced way.

My friend, I think we also should dicsuss these issues that are very important. I guess i would say that some would limit others abilty to present a contrary veiw based upon their own judgment of what is "measured" and "balanced" ? God has measure and His balance I will attempt to go by His rule and maintain the rules of this forum as best as I can understand them.
I suggest that your "measure" and " balance" is not accepted by all, nor do I believe your understanding of the truth of scripture, limits my own understanding.

So not sure where that leaves our conversation, but I do hope that you will allow others to have their OWN "measure" of understanding?

 

[farouk]

M: Re. 'moderation': Philippians 4.5, is the kind of thing I had in mind.

 

[Mitspa]

M: Re. 'moderation': Philippians 4.5, is the kind of thing I had in mind.

Yes farouk, i understand your point. Also I might add I find I agree with much that you promote on this forum.

Having said that, there is a time to say to Peter "thou are blessed" and there is a time to say "get behind me satan" both are correct when done in there season and time. I maintain that I answer to God with my own conscience and you may answer to Him with your own.

Eph 5:11 Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

So again not sure what you would have others to do but to submit to your own understanding and your sense of "moderation" and "balance"?
I say again as a minister of Lord Jesus Christ, that I do not hold that you or any other man has place over my conscience nor it is a biblical position that one should attempt.

So again I maintain that all should answer to God and as it relates to this forum, the rules as they have been described.

 

[Mitspa]

Yes farouk, i understand your point. Also I might add I find I agree with much that you promote on this forum.

Having said that, there is a time to say to Peter "thou are blessed" and there is a time to say "get behind me satan" both are correct when done in there season and time. I maintain that I answer to God with my own conscience and you may answer to Him with your own.

Eph 5:11 Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

So again not sure what you would have others to do but to submit to your own understanding and your sense of "moderation" and "balance"?
I say again as a minister of Lord Jesus Christ, that I do not hold that you or any other man has place over my conscience nor it is a biblical position that one should attempt.

So again I maintain that all should answer to God and as it relates to this forum, the rules as they have been described.

I believe one of the issues that many have with the KJV folks, is their attempt to take "moral" ground and position based upon some false sense of moral ability that they have? In their defense of this error filled translation they pretend to defend some moral standard that the KJV represent to them. This is the larger part of their defense of the translation. To accuse any who challenge it with some moral fault. This is a common tactic and works well against those who are not secure in Christ and the truth of scripture. To challenge the "moral" condition of the KJV translators or the rulers that controlled that translation will not be tolerated by those who pretend to uphold the translation.
Consider that the whole of the reformation was about The Word of God being given to to world apart from religious control and religious manipulation of those scriptures.

Its always been about the Word of God, and it will be until the end. Do not allow those who pretend to have some false "moral" authority, intimidate you from seeking the truth of the Greek scriptures.

 

[gr8grace]

Guys let me show somethings I have noted.

This word "only" is a big problem for many people. That is the sinful nature in us. That word triggers a rebellious nature in us. It is just like Eve. God told man not to eat from "only" one tree and they had to rebel. In other words we do not like exclusiveness. The moment someone uses the word "only" in a sentence we get upset. Christianity is an "only" religion.

Only one God.
His only Son.
Salvation Only through Jesus.
Only one mediator between God and man
Christianity Only true religion

Most of the people in this post mentioned that they were up set with their pastors because they said Only KJV. We have to grow out of getting rebelous at that word.

The next point I would like to make is this. If you are finding the KJV difficult to understand that is understandable. But if that makes you want to look for some easier translation then you are a wrong attitude. You should rather struggle with the KJV and strive to understand it and be humble enough to take other peoples help. Why do I say this?

Because
1. The LORD inspired this translation and designed it to be so for a purpose.
2. The result of your struggle will be unexpectedly wonderful.

I am not a native English speaker. Nor am all that good at English. I felt the same way as you do about the KJV and went around looking for easier versions. But finally the Lord brought be to the KJV and I stuck with it. Now I find it quite enjoyable to read. Because when I read it and come across some difficulty I tend to study it. The more I do so the more I grow. The LORD speaks to me. Believe me if you are finding it difficult to understand, stick with with and you will soon see that become quite comfortable in understanding it.

I do not claim that one cannot be saved reading the modern versions. You can be saved. But to grow in the Lord and go to the next level, you definitely need the KJV.

So what did people do for 1600 years before the KJV?

 

[farouk]

So what did people do for 1600 years before the KJV?

Yes, Jarrod, this is a good question.

Actually, I think that tohelp doesn't go as far as some KJ Only advocates when they even try to assert that salvation for English-speakers can only come through the King James, more or less, supposedly.

 

[farouk]

Do you believe there is a difference between God's guidance and God's inspiration?

A valid distinction.

 

[WIP]

I have heard of the letters alpha and omega and that is about the extent of my fluency in ancient or contemporary Greek. In this very post I have already shared my knowledge of the Hebrew language, which is zero. One of the blessings that I have attributed to God is that somewhere in history someone decided to get a group of individuals together and translate those ancient texts into English. I am also not comfortably fluent in Elizabethan English but I am able to understand to some degree when I read from my KJV. I also have a NKJV and a NIV at home and via the internet I have access to every translation known to man. I thank God there are English translations for prior to the reformation people relied on the clergy for their understanding and look where that got us.

I do know one thing. Give 10 people a phrase in one language and ask them to translate it into another and you will likely get 10 different results. There is no language that will translate word-for-word. In all the translations I have referenced I have never thought or believed that those who worked to make them happen had any ulterior or ungodly motive or purpose behind their work and I am not prepared to take anyone's word for such a judgment.

Even in our own language we each have our own understanding of the meaning of text and this causes strife. This is proven every time the United States Supreme Court hears a case and precisely why there are nine of them instead of one.

Consider this phrase, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." I believe it is quite clear what this means, yet there are plenty people that disagree with my understanding and so we have a myriad of laws that I personally believe violate the rights this amendment is designed to protect.

Even if we all studied for our entire life and dedicated our lives to the study of ancient Hebrew and Greek languages, everything we would learn would be nothing more than another person's interpretation or understanding of what they teach us. So we are learning the language from fallible beings and therefore our understanding will be tainted. Even if we grew up living with and using the ancient languages, just as we can't agree on the meaning of a simple phrase such as the one found in our 1st amendment, our understanding of the scriptures would very likely differ from the writer's intentions.

So where does that leave us? We must pray for wisdom and understanding from God, meditate on His word, put our trust and faith in Him, and not rely on our own understanding but from every word that comes from the mouth of God.

That's my opinion for what it's worth.

 

[farouk]

PS:

I must admit, this controversial subject has me very confused and more worried than I should be.
My pastor believes that any church that uses other versions have seducing spirits. And while I think this is an irrational argument--even if the KJVonlyists have it right, God clearly speaks to people even through the modern versions (to say that He can't would be limiting God, y'know? He can do anything)--I can't help but be worried that when I go to my Bible study that what I feel is not the Holy Spirit, but something else. But when I compare what is taught to the Bible--none of what is taught contradicts, and that is how you test the spirits.

questdriven:

A careful and encouraging reading of John's First Epistle is generally relevant to this whole area, also. With only 5 chapters, it need not take long, either.

Blessings.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

In short, Stone, verse seven is saying "Listen up!" It is God's way of assuring the "afflicted and the needy" of verse six that what He says next is assured by His character and integrity. "What I say, I mean" in other words. Then He proceeds to promise to preserve the afflicted and the needy despite the fact His faithful fall by the wayside to sin and arrogance daily.

To understand verse seven as you do would mean that the Lord inserted a totally unrelated thought into the middle of a promise. That's absurd.

 

[mondar]

I'm no longer convinced that the KJV is the only correct version, although I don't believe they can all be correct. I was always taught that it was, though, and I have some serious doubts about some of the things I've been told. (I do think that the KJV is an excellent translation, though. And I've used it all my life, so I plan to keep using it.)
Just wanted to know more about other sides of the debate, and hopefully learn more.

Interesting. Your tone is respectful. I am pleased, but not sure what to make of that. In my experience most KJV only people breathe fire and call everyone apostates that disagree with them. My complements.

In my opinion, one thing that is valuable to me in a discussion is to avoid any discussion of "KJV only" or critical text issues and to discuss the manuscript evidence of a single passage. Of course critical text people love to discuss 1 John 5:7 with KJV only people because the kjv reading is so obviously an addition. The KJV follows the reading of one single very late greek manuscript against the readings of hundreds or thousands of greek manuscripts. I believe the KJV reading has some support in the older latin texts, but not in greek. By the way, somewhere I read opinions on that one greek manuscript. The author was saying that he believed the manuscript came after Geutenburg, and possibly even during the lifetime of Erasmus.

One thing I was taught was that the KJV was translated from the textus receptus

Well, this is kind of true, the only think I would mention is that the term "textus receptus" is not a single manuscript, but a collation of a very small group of manuscripts within the Byzantine Family of manuscripts. Also, the term "textus receptus" has a history of editions. Erasmus had a few revisions, Beza, and many others changed and amended the TR. Of course there were changes in each edition. I do not recall which edition was used by the KJV translators. Of course the TR is represented as the "majority text." This is simply a gross error. I once used a GNT that was the "majority text." At the bottom, in the textual apparatus, a huge amount of differences between the majority text and the TR were documented. The TR is frequently a minority text. In one case, the KJV uses an extreme minority text (1 John 5:7), as mentioned above.

and that the modern translations were translated from a corrupt manuscript.

Statements like this sound like KJV only attitudes. I think what they mean is that the critical text comes from a corrupted family of manuscripts. This opinion has seemed erroneous to me. I cannot prove this, but as speculation, when Christianity was no longer a persecuted religion (Constantine and Nicea), and the scriptorium and professional scribes came into the picture, I am going to guess that they collated many of the available papyri before beginning the vellum. If I can offer an opinion, I see no reason to place great weight on the later Byzantine Family to the exclusion of other Families of evidence, or the quotes in the Fathers, or the papyri. Why just dismiss evidence not based upon the Byzantine? If we look at the different parts of the world, and the manuscript tradition from most parts of the world agree against the Byzantine, why choose the Byzantine Family?

They have also claimed that a lot of the people who translated the modern translations were agnostics rather than Christians.
Not sure about that anymore, and am especially skeptical about that last part.

Actually, the above has more truth in it that what you are admitting. The doctrinal views of many of the collators of may of the critical editions were dubious. On the other hand, the theological views of the KJV were government people espoused by the church of England. They had their parties of doctrinal views at that time. Some may have been good Puritan men, but others were Roman Catholic leaning. I doubt all were evangelical believers. I would say that some of the modern translations have translators with more men closer to my own evangelical views then the KJV.

One book I read claimed that there were six translations before the KJV and that the KJV was translated at a time when the English language was at it's peak. Then it quoted a verse about God's Word being tried seven times.
The history on that sounds pretty accurate, but the conclusions the author came to based on it sound pretty subjective.

That sounds a little over simplified. Lets go over some of the 6 translations of just John 3:16.

Here is the first... it is in anglo saxon english.
“God lufode middan-eard swa, dat he seade his an-cennedan sunu, dat nan ne forweorde de on hine gely ac habbe dat ece lif."
* Kind of a different language ehh? I can recognize a few of the words.

Here is a copy of John 3:16 by Wycliff in 1380 during the 100 years war with France and the Babylonian Captivity of the RCC.
"for god loued so the world; that he gaf his oon bigetun sone, that eche man that bileueth in him perisch not: but haue euerlastynge liif,"
* This is middle english written about 250 years before the KJV. Its a lot closer to our present language. I can at least recognize the words. One thing that I find fascenation about Wycliff is that he does not use the term "whosoever" in this verse. Instead he uses the term "each man that believeth." Actually, you can translate the greek just the way Wycliff did from the Latin into english. Neither the way Wycliff did it, or the way the later KJV did it is actually wrong. Both are correct translations.
Also, think about this... up until this point, a greek to english translation of the NT does not yet exist. I believe all previous translations were from Latin.

Of course then comes Tyndale, the Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, Rheims, and finally the KJV in 1611 which read like this....
"For God so loued the world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life."

None of them are in the language we commonly read and use.

It's also been claimed that a lot of the modern versions leave out important doctrines and that they have some verses missing.



P.S. If you could give sources for your information, that'd be helpful.

Well, I would state that a little different. I would say that the TR and Byzantine added material that was never really there. In one text, John 4:5, most scholars believe the reason that lacks manuscript support from many of the Family of manuscripts is because at one time it was a note in the column to explain the rippling waters. A later scribe included the side note, right into the text. Of course John 4:5 has no doctrinal importance. I do think the shorter readings are often the more original readings. I do not think we lost any material, we have 102% of the original text. What do you think is more likely. When a scribe copied the name of Jesus, would they be more likely to delete terms like "Lord" or more likely to zealously add terms found many other places in the NT, like "Lord." If the critical text has only 95 places in it where the term "Lord" is used, and the TR has 100, does this mean that there was a secrete plot to remove the term Lord from the NT? LOL, if there was some plot to remove terms, they did a very very very very bad job, for the forgot the other 95 uses.

 

[Mitspa]

really good post! I can find no fault and have come to many of the same conclusions.

 

[farouk]

Of course the TR is represented as the "majority text." This is simply a gross error...

Actually, the term Textus Receptus refers to printed editions of a particular provenance, while majority text is a general term referring to the large body of manuscripts, mainly Byzantine, which the Textus Receptus broadly resembles, at least, more closely than the Alexandrian.

So I would suggest it is not 'a gross error'.

Your tone is respectful.

Yes, questdriven is a thoughtful and mature-minded adult in the way she regularly expresses herself; it would be good if more of these discussions were so, also.

 

[Guest]

If you ask me, the devil uses the KJV-only mindset to cause division between believers.

This is true, but a true prophet of God can discern truth for you no matter what version is being used. Blessings.

 

[mondar]

Actually, the term Textus Receptus refers to printed editions of a particular provenance, while majority text is a general term referring to the large body of manuscripts, mainly Byzantine, which the Textus Receptus broadly resembles, at least, more closely than the Alexandrian.

So I would suggest it is not 'a gross error'.

I think you misunderstood what I wrote, or else you are ingorant of the term "Majority Text." I am aware that I did not capitolize the term at times when I should have. At times I was referring to the majority text philosophy and at times I was referring to the printed edition of the Majority Text which you seem to be unaware of.

In fact I am sitting at my computer right now and pulled off my self the "Majority Text" Edited by Zane C Hodges and Arthur Farstad. It is printed by Thomas Nelson Publishers. Copyright 1982.

On page xiii in the introduction it says...
"(1) The First Apparatus. In all cases where the available sources indicate that there is a significant division within the surviving manuscripts, the problem is assigned to the first apparatus. This stands, wherever it is required, immediately below the text material. Also assigned to this apparatus is anotehr class of variant. The 1825 Oxford edition of the Textus Receptus was employed as a working base against which the manuscript data were compared. Wherever our text differs from the Oxford Textus Receptus, the variation is noted in the first apparatus. Only in a few instances of typographical errors and certain kinds of spelling variants is this not the case."

If you were familiar with the published edition by Hodges and Farstad, you would be aware of what I was talking about.

In fact, the printed edition of the Majority Text that I am referring to contains two apparatus's. The first is the differences between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus. The second apparatus is the differences between the Majority Text and the United Bible Societies printed edition and the Nestle Aland Text. Almost every page of the printed edition of the Majority Text has documented variations with the Textus Receptus. Now what I said was "the TR is represented as the "majority text." The two have printed editions that have thousands of documented variants. It is way to easy to observe that they are not the same.

farouk, you are saying --- well, they are somewhat kinda similar. Yeah, obviously! But if you read what I said....... "TR is represented as the "majority text." The statement I made just observes the fact that there are indeed a few thousand variants between the two printed volumes. To say that they are pretty well photocopies of each other would absolutely be "gross error."

 

[Navigator]

Re: disputes over family beliefs and doctrines

I don't know if this will help, hurt, or do nothing, but here is a chart outlining the "strength" and "weakness" of different Bible Translations

http://www.apbrown2.net/web/TranslationComparisonChart.htm

 

[farouk]

I think you misunderstood what I wrote, or else you are ingorant of the term "Majority Text." I am aware that I did not capitolize the term at times when I should have. At times I was referring to the majority text philosophy and at times I was referring to the printed edition of the Majority Text which you seem to be unaware of.

In fact I am sitting at my computer right now and pulled off my self the "Majority Text" Edited by Zane C Hodges and Arthur Farstad. It is printed by Thomas Nelson Publishers. Copyright 1982.

On page xiii in the introduction it says...
"(1) The First Apparatus. In all cases where the available sources indicate that there is a significant division within the surviving manuscripts, the problem is assigned to the first apparatus. This stands, wherever it is required, immediately below the text material. Also assigned to this apparatus is anotehr class of variant. The 1825 Oxford edition of the Textus Receptus was employed as a working base against which the manuscript data were compared. Wherever our text differs from the Oxford Textus Receptus, the variation is noted in the first apparatus. Only in a few instances of typographical errors and certain kinds of spelling variants is this not the case."

If you were familiar with the published edition by Hodges and Farstad, you would be aware of what I was talking about.

In fact, the printed edition of the Majority Text that I am referring to contains two apparatus's. The first is the differences between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus. The second apparatus is the differences between the Majority Text and the United Bible Societies printed edition and the Nestle Aland Text. Almost every page of the printed edition of the Majority Text has documented variations with the Textus Receptus. Now what I said was "the TR is represented as the "majority text." The two have printed editions that have thousands of documented variants. It is way to easy to observe that they are not the same.

farouk, you are saying --- well, they are somewhat kinda similar. Yeah, obviously! But if you read what I said....... "TR is represented as the "majority text." The statement I made just observes the fact that there are indeed a few thousand variants between the two printed volumes. To say that they are pretty well photocopies of each other would absolutely be "gross error."

Hi mondar.

I think the words I highlighted immediately above about 'photocopies' are yours, not mine.

Maybe we are to some extent saying something similar.

We need to bear in mind, too, that traditionally the term 'majority text', whether in capitals or not, refers to manuscripts.

Whereas the terms Textus Receptus/Received Text refers to printed editions, a term coined in 1633, which can refer to a number of Greek New Testament editions from Erasmus's 1516 edition onwards.

As well as Hodges-Farstad, there is also the Pierpont-Robinson Byzantine Textform edition of the Greek New Testament.

So my plea is really for folk to be aware of what they are referring to.

All these, with differences, are more similar to each other than to Alexandrian forms of the text.

'If you were familiar with the published edition by Hodges and Farstad, you would be aware of what I was talking about.'

With respect, I don't think you know what I am aware of.

Blessings.

 

[farouk]

Re: disputes over family beliefs and doctrines

I find it concerning that you are unable or unwilling to offer valid source credit for this information. Links given are dead or cannot be found. Does that mean that what you present has been altered or is slighted?

"Word for Word" according to who or what? Why were these specific verses chosen for comparison? "Linear" according to whose standards? What is this sources definition of "linear." What position in this debate does this source have, if any?

J: What exactly is your point? I guess any of these aspects which you mention could be talked about at length, but are you saying that unless Navigator talks about them all, he can't suggest a source?

 

[reba]

Re: disputes over family beliefs and doctrines

I find it concerning that you are unable or unwilling to offer valid source credit for this information. Links given are dead or cannot be found. Does that mean that what you present has been altered or is slighted?

"Word for Word" according to who or what? Why were these specific verses chosen for comparison? "Linear" according to whose standards? What is this sources definition of "linear." What position in this debate does this source have, if any?

The links posted worked for me. moderator