Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Bible Study The Desirability of Keeping the Authorized Version

JM

Member
by J. C. Philpot

(Written in 1857 when the Revised Version was contemplated)

We take this opportunity to express our opinion upon a question much agitated of late--whether it would be desirable to have a new (or at least a revised) translation of the Scriptures. We fully admit that there are here and there passages of which the translation might be improved, as, for instance, "love" for "charity" all through 1 Corinthians 13; but we deprecate any alteration as a measure that, for the smallest sprinkling of good, would deluge us with a flood of evil. The following are our reasons:

1. Who are to undertake it? Into whose hands would the revision fall? What an opportunity for the enemies of truth to give us a mutilated false Bible! Of course, they must be learned men, great critics, scholars, and divines, but these are notoriously either Puseyites or Neologians (We should say: Anglo-Catholics and Modernists.)--in other words, deeply tainted with either popery or infidelity. Where are there learned men sound in the truth, not to say alive unto God, who possess the necessary qualifications for so important a work? And can erroneous men, men dead in trespasses and sins, carnal, worldly, ungodly persons, spiritually translate a book written by the blessed Spirit? We have not the slightest ground for hope that they would be godly men, such as we have reason to believe translated the Scriptures into our present version.

2. Again, it would unsettle the minds of thousands as to which was the Word of God, the old translation or the new. What a door it would open for the workings of infidelity, or the temptations of Satan! What a gloom, too, it would cast over the minds of many of God's saints to have those passages which had been applied to their souls translated in a different way, and how it would seem to shake all their experience of the power and preciousness of God's Word!

3. But besides this, there would be two Bibles spread through the land, the old and the new, and what confusion would this create in almost every place! At present, all sects and denominations agree in acknowledging our present version as the standard of appeal. Nothing settles disputes so soon as when the contending parties have confidence in the same umpire and are willing to abide by his decision. But this judge of all disputes, this umpire of all controversy, would cease to be the looser of strife if the present acknowledged authority were put an end to by a rival.

4. Again, if the revision and re-translation were once to begin, where would it end? It is good to let well alone, as it is easier to mar than mend. The Socinianising (Denying the Godhead of Christ) Neologian would blot out "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16, and strike out 1 John 5:7,8, as an interpolation. The Puseyite would mend it to suit Tractarian views (Led by Newman and Keble, the Tractarians were moving towards Romanism). He would read "priest" where we now read "elder," and put "penance" in the place of "repentance."

Once set up a notice, "THE OLD BIBLE TO BE MENDED," and there would be plenty of workmen, who, trying to mend the cover, would pull the pages to pieces. The Arminian would soften down the words "election" and "predestination" into some term less displeasing to Pharisaic ears. "Righteousness" would be turned into "justice," and "reprobate" into "undiscerning." All our good Bible terms would be so mutilated that they would cease to convey the Spirit's meaning, and instead of the noble simplicity, faithfulness and truth of our present version, we should have a Bible that nobody would accept as the Word of God, to which none could safely appeal, and on which none could implicitly rely.

5. Instead of our good old Saxon Bible, simple and solid, with few words really obsolete, and alike majestic and beautiful, we should have a modern English translation in the pert and flippant language of the day. Besides its authority as the Word of God, our present version is the great English classic generally accepted as the standard of the English language. The great classics of a language cannot be modernised. What an outcry there would be against modernising Shakespeare, or making Hooker, Bacon or Milton talk the English of the newspapers or of the House of Commons!

6. The present English Bible has been blessed to thousands of the saints of God; and not only so, it has become part of our national inheritance which we have received unimpaired from our fathers, and are bound to hand down unimpaired to our children.

(Taken from pages 103-105, Sin & Salvation, Selections from J. C. Philpot)
 
When I was @ interdenominational, evangelical Bible College, professors said that the NIV was the most accurate version, because when the KJV was done, the method was to focus on individual words, rather than thought-for-thought, & so missed the point of many an idiom & proverb - as well as the fact that the meanings of many English words used then have changed vastly in 400+ years

Ian
 
I don't understand any of it. The KJV was translated by men, so why not trust men to translate again. The first drafts came from word of mouth that had been passed down, and it was men who were scribes! If we could trust these scribes to write it down correctly in the first place then why can't we trust men nowadays to translate correctly now.
As for calling the Authorized version "authorized", it wasn't God who authorized it in that case in the first place. :wink:

I have read many translations, and they all say the same thing.
 
We fully admit that there are here and there passages of which the translation might be improved, as, for instance, "love" for "charity" all through 1 Corinthians 13;

Wow, not even AVBunyan would admit that! Congrads.

P.S. As for the topic: I must also note that the author's concerns are the same concerns that any genuine bible-believing translator has. Any translation faces its challenges.
 
Oh no. You have no idea how and why our Bible is written the way as it is now, including the various translations.

You have no clue about why the Bible is considered as 100% correct.

You have no idea what dictated and inspired could mean. So leave it as it is, before you truly understand what's going on.

Let me tell this, there is a process for a written passage gets authenticated by God. I am serious about it, until you know how to get an approval from Him, leave it as it is.

Let me give you a rough idea what such an approval process looks like;

willed-wait-instructed-dictated-inspired-wrote-approved (by miracles and prophesies when deemed necessary)

I mean it. You need direct help and approval from God through His Apostles/prophets (office rank) to do the job. It's Word of God, for Christ sake.

And try to answer this question, if anyone thinks he's qualifed to do the job;

Why some of the verses keep repeating themselves?

Repeated verse:
Matthew 19:18
Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony

Luke 18:20
You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony

Mark 10:19
You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony


And I bet you have no clue about what Peter says about Paul's letters here;

2 Peter 3:16
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
 
I'm a KJV man. For 2 reasons. First is the mathematical reason. In the original Greek and Hebrew one sees the gematria in scripture, and later we found the codes. That's one way (IMO) that the texts were preserved. The KJV was translated from those texts without an axe to grind (I'm not saying the English is perfect, but translated honestly). The later versions seemed to be "new and improved" and from what I see without regard for the phenomenon I just mentioned.

Secondly, I like the KJV for legal reasons. Legal? Yes. It's not copyrighted. If the other versions were God's Word, then nobody in all of creation should have the gall to retranslate it and claim copyright on God's Word. Where are the brains in the general populace? Something reeks here when people claim copyright on God's Word. I'll tell you what it really is: Man's words, not God's.

Now someone pointed out the NIV version as the most accurate. Not really. Let me quote Ezekiel 21:27 regarding the eternal throne of David in the NIV and then the KJV:

NIV: A ruin! A ruin! I will make it a ruin! It will not be restored until he comes to whom it rightfully belongs; to him I will give it.'

KJV: I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it: and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him.

The word "overturn" in Hebrew is "overthrow" (a synonym) and comes from the word "crooked". In other words, a change of order is implied. In the NIV, ruin implies a termination of the throne of David.

Anyone with a half ounce of understanding knows that the Davidic Covenant was an unconditional covenant which promised the throne in all generations until Jesus Christ comes to take it. If it was terminated, then there is no promise of Messiah either! A subtle but major difference.

As a matter of fact, I used this one passage to instantly identify if a translation is worth its salt or piece of crap like the NIV.
 
Keeping the Authorized Version

Hi tim_from_pa. I have the book telling about a supposed "code" in the Hebrew Scriptures. You say there are codes in the Greek text? And how were tey preserved?

As to the compiling of the KJV, I suppose you know that when James VI of Scotland became James I of England, there were three versions of the Scriptures in use: The 'Great Bible', 'Geneva Bible', and the 'Bishop's Bible.'
Since the people were divided among the versions, the king authorized a new revivsionof the entire Scriptures to be made, which should bear his name. It is on record that the Bishop's Bible was the one most closely followed, while comparing the other two for compatibility.

As for the RSV and others being copyright, it is because of unauthorized publications between 1881 and 1901, which tampered with the text of the RSV (from Preface of RSV, p. 4). The copywrite was to protect the text from spurious variations under the name of the RSV.
Well, tim, I looked inside the front covers of my KJV, and it says "Copyright@ 1990 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.

I'm with you, tim. The NIV is OK as another version to get the general idea of the text, but it certainly isn't the most accurate, IMO.

As for the comparisons of Ezek. 21:27, to me, both versions are saying about the same thing.
Yeah, 'ruin' means 'wiped out', 'gone'. But, the Ezekiel writes, "It will not be restored", until-- in the NIV, implying it will be restored.
But look at the KJV: after 'overturn, it:' it says 'shall be no more' until---
Same meaning.

To me, there is no literal throne of David today. It is still in the future.

Here is a thought. You point out the Davidic Covenant was an unconditional covenant which promised the throne in 'all generations' until Jesus Christ comes to take it.
QUESTION: During Jesus earthly ministry, where was the throne? Jesus came as a servant to his people, not a king. Even though he preached 'repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near!"

Young's or Rotherham's are the most literal versions I have found.
Bick
 
Hi tim_from_pa. I have the book telling about a supposed "code" in the Hebrew Scriptures. You say there are codes in the Greek text? And how were tey preserved?

The codes are more in the Torah, although I heard some claim other OT books e.g. the Psalms. The OT and NT both are more Gemetria. Change the language one jot or tittle and both are messed up and the series and gemetria are gone. (Matthew 5:18)

Well, tim, I looked inside the front covers of my KJV, and it says "Copyright@ 1990 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.

That's the other stuff, not the KJV text. You can copy that verbatim and post it on the Internet and I guarantee you the best lawyer in town could not prosecute you.

Here is a thought. You point out the Davidic Covenant was an unconditional covenant which promised the throne in 'all generations' until Jesus Christ comes to take it.
QUESTION: During Jesus earthly ministry, where was the throne? Jesus came as a servant to his people, not a king. Even though he preached 'repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near!"

At least you take me literally. That's good because the covenant is literal and earthly and not meant to be "spiritually fulfilled" like all this stuff being fed to us. The throne was perpetuated by King Zedekiah's daughter married off to a descendant of Zorah and overturned to the isles. Later on, we see that the lost house of Israel, the ten tribes that never came back, are described all thru the OT as sounding "Christian". That's where they settled to bring that Abrahamic blessing to the world thru Jesus Christ. In other words, many people of Christian nations today are unbeknownst to themselves actual physical seed of Abraham and not only spiritual seed, although everyone is included in the gospel message.
 
reply

I can assure you that God does not lose the tribes of Israel. They have been coming back ever since 1948.



May God bless, Golfjack
 
Re: reply

golfjack said:
I can assure you that God does not lose the tribes of Israel. They have been coming back ever since 1948.

Agreed. They are merely lost to themselves and do not know they are Israelites and they became "many nations" as promised to Abraham. These peoples will rejoin the Jews in the last days to come back to the land of Israel when the 2 sticks are rejoined (Ezekiel 37).
 
Now someone pointed out the NIV version as the most accurate. Not really. Let me quote Ezekiel 21:27 regarding the eternal throne of David in the NIV and then the KJV:

NIV: A ruin! A ruin! I will make it a ruin! It will not be restored until he comes to whom it rightfully belongs; to him I will give it.'

KJV: I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it: and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him.

The word "overturn" in Hebrew is "overthrow" (a synonym) and comes from the word "crooked". In other words, a change of order is implied. In the NIV, ruin implies a termination of the throne of David.

Not to sidetrack the thread too much, but there are better translations to use than the NIV. I personally prefer the NKJV and the NASB which are more conservative than the NIV, and don't use as much thought-for-thought translation as the NIV does. Nonetheless for this reading I'm finding lots of support by other versions for it meaning "a ruin". The NET Bible (the best annotated Bible on how each verse was translated) calls the Hebrew word a noun. Perhaps it is a single letter difference in the Hebrew which is disputed over, because it would only take a one letter difference to make a verb of a root word a noun instead. The NET Bible translates this: "A total ruin I will make it!* It will come to an end when the one arrives to whom I have assigned judgment."

Its footnote says this:

*Lit. Heb “A ruin, a ruin, a ruin I will make it.†The threefold repetition of the noun “ruin†is for emphasis and draws attention to the degree of ruin that would take place. See IBHS 233 §12.5a and GKC 431-32 §133.k. The pronominal suffix (translated “itâ€Â) on the verb “make†is feminine in Hebrew. The probable antecedent is the “turban/crown†(both nouns are feminine in form) mentioned in verse 26. The point is that the king’s royal splendor would be completely devastated as judgment overtook his realm and brought his reign to a violent end.

I'll look into this some more to see why some see it as a noun and others as a verb form of the word.
 
It seems that the word is indeed a noun. I don't know why the KJV & NKJV want to make it into a verb. I found the following discussion on it:

“......Some who believe in Anglo-Israelism, as it is sometimes called, teach that the throne of David in Jerusalem was transferred three times: first from Jerusalem to Ireland, then to Scotland, and then to England, where it will remain until Jesus returns to transfer it back to Jerusalem. Ezekiel 21:27, with its three overturns (in the KJV), is used to support this theory, with overturn taken to mean ‘transferred.’However, check this passage in a contemporary translation. ‘A ruin! Aruin! I will make it a ruin! It will not be restored until he comes to whom it rightfully belongs; to him I will give
it’(NIV). As most translations show, the sense of the Hebrew word used in Ezekiel 21:27 is ruination or utter destruction, not transference. The throne of David is overturned in the sense of spilled milk and certainly cannot be used to support the idea of three transfers. Furthermore, the verse makes it
clear that the throne will remain in a state of ruin until he (the Messiah) comes to whom it rightfully belongs.†(Focus on Truth, Aug. 85).

“Do most translations show, as the writer states, the sense of the Hebrew word used in Ezek.21:27 to mean ruination or utter destruction? The Amplified Bible gives it as OVERTHROW, which does not necessarily mean ruination or utter destruction. The New KJV translates as ‘OVERTHROWN, overthrown, I will make it overthrown.’The Living Bible still retains the word as OVERTURN.

“Now even if you could show that more translations render it as ‘ruin’ or ‘utter destruction’ than ‘overturn’ - that of itself would prove nothing. It is the meaning of the Hebrew word that counts and the sure word of God’s promise to David that holds the truth.

“The Hebrew word we are looking at is number 5754 in Strong’s Concordance. It is only used in this
one place in the OT. Strong’s says: “avvaw; intens. from 5753 abbrev.; overthrow: - overturn.â€Â
As for number 5753 Strong’s says “awvaw; a prim. root; to crook, lit.or fig. (as follows): - do amiss.
bow down. make crooked, commit iniquity, pervert, (do) perverse (ly), trouble, turn, do wickedly, do
wrong.â€Â

“The ‘THEOLOGICAL WORDBOOK of the Old Testament’says concerning this word ‘ avvaw ‘ page 651, “This noun occurs only in Ezk 21:27(32), where it is used three times to express a superlative degree. The ASV tslates this word ‘overturn’, associating it with the root ‘awa,’‘bend....†Under the word “awa†the above TWOT on page 650 gives it as meaning “bend, twist, distort.â€Â
 
......Some who believe in Anglo-Israelism, as it is sometimes called, teach that the throne of David in Jerusalem was transferred three times: first from Jerusalem to Ireland, then to Scotland, and then to England, where it will remain until Jesus returns to transfer it back to Jerusalem.

Yes, and that's where I am coming from. I believed this happened. But I do not rest that belief in this one verse alone. There are other passages such as a few verses before that says to "exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high." 4 chapters earlier tells of the tender twig where the Lord God would plant of Zedekiah's lineage. That tender twig is in the Hebrew feminine and cannot refer to Messiah (not to mention Messiah did not come from Solomon's/Jehoiachin/Zedekieh's lineage that its speaking about.) In addition, both Old testament and New Testament have tantalizing stories and hints regarding Zarah, the prince of the scarlet thread. King David and Jesus came from Pharez (his twin brother's) lineage.

I DO agree that the legal line of Kings was terminated in Palestine (consider the curse of Coniah in Matthew's genealogy) so that none would reign in Judah. However, theologians see the most obvious only and assume that since the throne was "ruined" as some translations say, that there is no more throne. But to say that is to totally denies the eternalness of it when it was very clearly understood it was to go on for all generations e.g Psalm 89. And trust me, the eternity of it is not "Christ reigning from heaven" or the throne "in our hearts" whatever that means. This eternal covenant was a literal, earthly throne that a descendant was to reign from for all generations.
 
Back
Top