brian_poad — 2014-09-10T22:06:42-04:00 — #1
Been dealing with this issue a lot recently, with friends and aquaintances. so I've got to see first hand the closed mindedness of those who hold to this. Its alright to favor a translation, but to then go on and debunk all other translations, is an injustice and a disservice to those who have labored so much in this field. I guess I don't have lots to say on this issue, other than it grieves me that some of my friends can be so closed minded on this! I think its really hurting them spiritually, but it is hard to put something into a closed mind!
Because I love the English bible, I do love the KJV. Love its richness and rhythm, I even love some of its archaic English. It is both fun and enlightening to study these words, for example, there is the phrase peculiar people. 1 Pet 2:9 KJV. It is nice to be able to call people peculiar and get away with it! lol. In some places I have found the KJV to more faithfully translate a phrase or figure of speech, where some of the newer translations translate the meaning more. I also like the way that words that are not found in the original are italicized, that is very helpful. Its historical value is not to be despised or ignored, being now 403 years old. it is older than U.S.A.
One of the most fascinating studies for me, is the study of Greek variants behind the translations. I must confess that I am not a Greek scholar, but a tool that has been most helpful for me in this area is, The New Testament Text and Translation Commentary by Philip W Comfort. In this book he shows what different translations went with the Textus Receptus, and those that went from the NU text, and he looks at other variants to, then he gives what was most likely the original reading before the variants came in. It is a great study!
kendall_sholtess — 2014-09-10T23:08:36-04:00 — #2
The best resource to examine these issues is to get a UBS4 and Bruce Metzger's textual commentary on the New Testament. He examines some of the reasons why the committee chose the variants they did.
Note that it is not comprehensive, in my opinion. And one can readily see that theological biases are very difficult to weed out, especially when variants have equal weight.
brian_poad — 2014-09-10T23:46:39-04:00 — #3
I have that book to it is very good, I use it with Phillip Comforts book. I've found comforts book to be more detailed and more user friendly. Though I do love Metzgers work!
patrick_tompkins — 2014-09-11T00:46:30-04:00 — #4
Admittedly, I am "Textus Receptus preferred" for many reasons, and I enjoy going back to the KJV periodically. One of the rewards is the understanding of the KJV passages is enhanced by seeing the plurality of 'you' throughout the text, as observed with "thee" (you-singluar) and "ye" (you-plural).
However, if you want one KJV verse to prove the translation was not entirely 'without error', then look at Acts 12:4.
Acts 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
Obviously, the word 'pascha', translated by KJV scholars as "Easter" is incorrect. It should be translated "Passover". Would the Holy Spirit really want to remove the extremely biblically significant word "Passover" and replace it with the name of a pagan god? No way! It is a simple mistake by the KJV translators. This is not so egregious to suggest throwing the KJV into the burn bin, but it simply demonstrates a fairly notable translation error revealing the KJV translation efforts were not entirely divine.
Regards and Blessings,
mike_tourangeau — 2014-09-11T01:36:55-04:00 — #5
Brian, I can appreciate your frustrations, but your friends still could be persuaded. I was KJVO at one point, I graduated from a strict KJVO school and held firmly to the position.
What helps is to chip away at their presuppositions. For instance, mention that Erasmus dedicated his TR to the pope, or that the TR was edited in several additions, or maybe they are unaware that there were other English translations before the KJV and question why they are not the standard. Ask if they would be open to a new translation based on the TR? Maybe ask about the Septuagint.....
There are ways of getting them to think (the key) without a head on assault which will be futile. The structure of KJVO is built on faulty presuppositions.
In the end, the KJV is a fine translation, so long as they are not creating division over it, you can enjoy Christian fellowship. If then cause problems, ask them to "enlarge their bowels"
brian_poad — 2014-09-11T03:50:20-04:00 — #6
Interesting point! I to still love the KJV. It is still a wonderful tool! and has had a massive impact on English literature and our speech as a whole. I often find myself on the other side of the argument of this discussion, warning people not to neglect or look down on our old English Bible!
In line with the problem you pointed out. My father in law was always told by a certain teacher, that the Bible wasn't the word of God, that it was full of error. Well he finally became a Christian, but was one day reading in KJV, about Jesus and His disciples walking through the cornfields! With this discovery he temporarily cast his bible aside, and said, "that's it! My old teacher was right!" It took a Pastor to point out to him that the original Greek wasn't talking about cornfields, but grain fields. The KJV translators, would have had no idea back then, that corn wasn't yet in Israel! The same would also apply to candles! Still love it though, and still read it daily!
brian_poad — 2014-09-11T03:59:34-04:00 — #7
Hey Mike, thank you for your thread and for your encouragement! I have done just what you have said, and I think it did make my friends think a little bit! I picked up an original facsimile of a bulky Geneva Bible, which was the Bible that the Puritans used. I shared it with my friends, showing all the notes in this great Bible. I pointed out to them, the reason why King James authorized another translation, it was because he found the notes of the Geneva distasteful, especially where the notes said we need to obey God above the King! The Geneva Bible is also a great tool! John Bunyan, would use both translations, Geneva and KJV, Comparing them together.
nick_mcclure — 2014-09-11T12:20:51-04:00 — #8
I'm just getting caught up on this conversation, so I apologize if this is out of place.
If anybody is a debate junky like myself, you might be interested in James White's debates on this matter. I haven't watched all of these yet. But maybe it'll be of interest to some.
brian_poad — 2014-09-11T13:41:05-04:00 — #9
Thanks for the heads up! I will check it out!
wolfgang_schneider — 2014-09-12T11:11:53-04:00 — #10
If KJV was the only true, accurate, correct Bible version or translation ... what do the proponents of this idea suggest that I do seeing that I am not a native English speaker and would like to read the Bible in my own (other than English) language?
Do they have an equivalent "[???] only" Bible version for other languages, such as for example in German, French or Spanish ?
brian_poad — 2014-09-12T11:35:28-04:00 — #11
Good thought Wolfgang! Reveals even more how flawed this whole thinking is!
freddie_jr_kinsler — 2014-09-12T11:49:11-04:00 — #12
If you are not studying the Greek or Hebrew and Aramaic lag. then you are missing out. For Bible group studies I use one translation to help keep the study on the same page. But that does not have to be KJV it could be any other collectic works. When people are not studying from same source it slows the Bible study down, this is ok if your study is exegatical . Even with the KJV, we have a great starting point. As long as we all have the understanding that the Lan. is not English origanally.
brian_poad — 2014-09-12T11:54:14-04:00 — #13
Thankfully, there are great tools out there, to tap into the original languages, even for those who aren't well versed in Greek and Hebrew! We are living in a privileged time.
david_ames — 2014-09-13T08:33:36-04:00 — #14
Try reading Matt 17:21 and Mark 9:29.
The reason that fast is not included in the modern texts is that the early church was into fasting so, the scholars tell us, these were added to the Majority text [TR also].
Question to those scholars: Did they add these texts because they fasted or did they fast because of these words?
Next time you read the Bible in a year try reading the KJV, the NASB, the ESV, and the NIV all at once comp airing verse to verse. Keep notes!
brian_poad — 2014-09-13T08:49:15-04:00 — #15
I like reading in that way. Seeing all the readings in the KJV, that aren't found in the modern bible. When I see these things I ask why? My favorite reference book is, the New testament text and translation commentary by Philip Comfort. My King James only friends like to think conspiracy when they see different readings, so in my Bible studies I like to point out the more plausible reasons why certain translations may read differently.
Just the other day when we were going through Romans 8:1 there was a King James only person present, and it reads a little differently than the modern translations Rom 8:1 KJV. Sometimes there are some NAS who would like to poke fun at the KJV, but I often remind them what a great translation it still is!
matthew_mcguire — 2014-09-13T12:44:24-04:00 — #16
I used to be quite confused and misguided about the KJV and TR. However, I found reading The King James Only Controversy by James White to be very thorough and helpful. He answers probably every question you will have about textual variants and systematically tackles the arguments from each brand of KJV-Onlyist.
He also makes a great case for using the modern eclectic texts. You should definitely check the book out! Warning though, it is a little dry.
brian_poad — 2014-09-13T13:07:32-04:00 — #17
Thanks for the recommendation Matthew, I will check it out! For me some of the misunderstanding arises out of the way we are misinformed, or rather not informed properly about the Greek variants in the new testament manuscripts.
When I was taught on the infallibility of scripture, I was taught it like word for word letter by letter the scriptures had to be perfect. I still believe in the infallibility of scripture and of its message, but I don't believe in the infallibility of its copyists!
brett_moorman — 2014-09-15T20:52:03-04:00 — #18
I have a lot of people inside of my church that only use the king james bible, and they even "rebuke" people on facebook when they don't use the king james. i think there are so many people who use this a means for division. honestly, I just wish kjv only people would focus more on holiness and preaching repentance. Sorry I went off on a tangent, that's not the point of this topic. I just wanted to express that I look at the fruit of some of the people promoting only the king james, and it does not look good
christopher_riggs — 2014-09-15T22:23:56-04:00 — #19
Coming from a Christian school that used KJV primarily, I understand your frustration. I myself find the KJV to be difficult to use when reading long passages, but I also like the way it sounds through memorized passages (mostly because monthly Scripture memorization was mandatory, so I learned to like the way it sounds). That being said, I wish more schools and institutions would abandon the KJV-only mindset so people can understand the Bible in the most efficient and effective way possible.
brian_poad — 2014-09-16T00:24:41-04:00 — #20
To ignore some of the really good newer translations, such as the Nasb, and the esv is to ignore some of the advances that have been made, in our understanding of Hebrew and Greek, also in all the older Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that have been discovered. Also our English has changed a lot in 400 years. I still like the KJV, I agree its easier to memorize scripture, still use it daily! But I don't use it by itself, I like to see the places that are different in the other translations.
next page →