Go Back   Let's Roll Forums > Blogs > spanner
Connect with Facebook

Rate this Entry

Mr. Wallace: Do Not Think KJV Is Best-Just 'Cause

Posted 12 Mar 2011 at 23:23 PM by spanner

Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today

Study By: : Daniel B. Wallace

http://bible.org/article/why-i-do-no...vailable-today
First, I want to affirm with all evangelical Christians that the Bible is the Word of God, inerrant, inspired, and our final authority for faith and life. However, nowhere in the Bible am I told that only one translation of it is the correct one. Nowhere am I told that the King James Bible is the best or only ‘holy’ Bible. There is no verse that tells me how God will preserve his word, so I can have no scriptural warrant for arguing that the King James has exclusive rights to the throne. The arguments must proceed on other bases.


(My answers are numbered block not written format or those paragraphs beginning with red - any misspelling or baddy word usage is intentional by the writer -me- intentional due to ignorance, but by no means, excusable)

1. What is so inerrant, inspired and final authority you are speaking of and about, which 'one' is it? If it is not 'one' then the answer would by logic, reasoning, and by deduction > None. There is no verse that denotes the word, 'Trinity' but yet you receive it as though it were in the Word of God, the same being true to the word, 'Rapture'. No one that I know of is placing the 'book' on the throne as that of 'thumping' but what is being expounded by the KJV is the exactness of the Word per word as that of precept upon precept, in other words what is proclaimed in the Greek as 'thou' is written as 'thou' and not what the writer or translater thought the writer was trying to convey to the people or from God, this is what is referred unto with the Constitution by the liberal camp as, " Living Constitution; this is the theory that the Constitution was written in flexible terms whose meaning is dynamic". To embrace this same type of action with the Bible is to 'bend or break' the Word of God by the interpreter as to any meaning he/she chooses it to be, for there are varying interpreters in the Greek and Hebrew who hold different in the meanings of every word and that accordingly to the outcome desired. Just as the English dictionary has 5 -8 or more definitions for every word, including synonyms and antonyms, which can be included or inserted to interchange or change the outcome of the sentence meaning and structure, so to the Greek interpreters vary in degrees of interpretation, the same as you have accomplished here. This is the reason why crime etc.., has run amok not only in the USA but throughout the world fulfilling that of Jeremiah 25:32 "Thus saith the LORD of hosts, Behold, evil shall go forth from nation to nation, and a great whirlwind shall be raised up from the coasts of the earth". Whenever you change the Bible and reinterpret it's meaning to place your name on it to increase your own revenue, you let much evil out, not only to your own countrymen/women, but unto the entire world.

Second, the Greek text which stands behind the King James Bible is demonstrably inferior in certain places. The man who edited the text was a Roman Catholic priest and humanist named Erasmus.1 He was under pressure to get it to the press as soon as possible since (a) no edition of the Greek New Testament had yet been published, and (b) he had heard that Cardinal Ximenes and his associates were just about to publish an edition of the Greek New Testament and he was in a race to beat them. Consequently, his edition has been called the most poorly edited volume in all of literature! It is filled with hundreds of typographical errors which even Erasmus would acknowledge. Two places deserve special mention. In the last six verses of Revelation, Erasmus had no Greek manuscript (=MS) (he only used half a dozen, very late MSS for the whole New Testament any way). He was therefore forced to ‘back-translate’ the Latin into Greek and by so doing he created seventeen variants which have never been found in any other Greek MS of Revelation! He merely guessed at what the Greek might have been. Secondly, for 1 John 5:7-8, Erasmus followed the majority of MSS in reading “there are three witnesses in heaven, the Spirit and the water and the blood.” However, there was an uproar in some Roman Catholic circles because his text did not read “there are three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit.” Erasmus said that he did not put that in the text because he found no Greek MSS which had that reading. This implicit challenge—viz., that if he found such a reading in any Greek MS, he would put it in his text—did not go unnoticed. In 1520, a scribe at Oxford named Roy made such a Greek MS (codex 61, now in Dublin). Erasmus’ third edition had the second reading because such a Greek MS was ‘made to order’ to fill the challenge! To date, only a handful of Greek MSS have been discovered which have the Trinitarian formula in 1 John 5:7-8, though none of them is demonstrably earlier than the sixteenth century.

2. You mistake the history of the Catholic as though it were the only history available (and probably is to a certain degree, as Satan tried to get his book published for the historical buffs to pander about), but the church was 'underground' and existed from house to house and not in cathederals of man/womankind. When the 'time' came forth for the Word of God to be published, then these came out of the underground and had the Word of God published and it has gone forth to all nations and published in all languages verifying it is the Word of God now worldwide.

That is a very important point. It illustrates something quite significant with regard to the textual tradition which stands behind the King James. Probably most textual critics today fully embrace the doctrine of the Trinity (and, of course, all evangelical textual critics do). And most would like to see the Trinity explicitly taught in 1 John 5:7-8. But most reject this reading as an invention of some overly zealous scribe. The problem is that the King James Bible is filled with readings which have been created by overly zealous scribes! Very few of the distinctive King James readings are demonstrably ancient. And most textual critics just happen to embrace the reasonable proposition that the most ancient MSS tend to be more reliable since they stand closer to the date of the autographs. I myself would love to see many of the King James readings retained. The story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11) has always been a favorite of mine about the grace of our savior, Jesus Christ. That Jesus is called God in 1 Timothy 3:16 affirms my view of him. Cf. also John 3:13; 1 John 5:7-8, etc. But when the textual evidence shows me both that scribes had a strong tendency to add, rather than subtract, and that most of these additions are found in the more recent MSS, rather than the more ancient, I find it difficult to accept intellectually the very passages which I have always embraced emotionally. In other words, those scholars who seem to be excising many of your favorite passages from the New Testament are not doing so out of spite, but because such passages are not found in the better and more ancient MSS. It must be emphatically stressed, however, that this does not mean that the doctrines contained in those verses have been jeopardized. My belief in the deity of Christ, for example, does not live or die with 1 Timothy 3:16. In fact, it has been repeatedly affirmed that no doctrine of Scripture has been affected by these textual differences. If that is true, then the ‘King James only’ advocates might be crying wolf where none exists, rather than occupying themselves with the more important aspects of advancing the gospel.2
2. Nothing you have stated has shown one viable mistake or error, just your thoughts only about what you believe, and you know the saying about that.

Third, the King James Bible has undergone three revisions since its inception in 1611, incorporating more than 100,000 changes. Which King James Bible is inspired, therefore?

3. The one that has stood the test of time and having been published in every language and nation, of course Satan kept trying to corner the KJV and failed greatly, but what Satan could not accomplished the 'church' has now decided to do, and help Satan to get the 'mixed' baggage of bibles out there to create confusion and disruption of the house of God, and when did the church decide to do this great feat? In the 'endtimes' or the later days leading to judgment. Looks like God has preserved the one revision He approved.
Fourth, 300 words found in the KJV no longer bear the same meaning—e.g., “Suffer little children…to come unto me” (Matt 19:14). “Study to shew thyself approved unto God” (2 Tim 2:15). Should we really embrace a Bible as the best translation when it uses language that not only is not clearly understood any more, but in fact has been at times perverted and twisted?3

4. How better could God keep it from the world and reveal it unto His children, and uh..., it is the Holy Spirit's job to teach and comfort not your many translations which lead to confusion > "But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy." Take note of the word 'pure' "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him" What/who is this generation, "There is a generation that curseth their father, and doth not bless their mother. There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness. There is a generation, O how lofty are their eyes! and their eyelids are lifted up. There is a generation, whose teeth are as swords, and their jaw teeth as knives, to devour the poor from off the earth, and the needy from among men.


Fifth, the KJV includes one very definite error in translation, which even KJV advocates would admit. In Matthew 23:24 the KJV has ‘strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.’ But the Greek has ‘strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.’ In the least, this illustrates not only that no translation is infallible but also that scribal corruptions can and do take place-even in a volume which has been worked over by so many different hands (for the KJV was the product of a very large committee of over 50 scholars).4

5. You have accomplished this well enough, for you have strained at a gnat, for you cannot swallow the camel, but you can strain that gnat for all it's worth, a camel is like a pig, no matter how good a pig is, it is best eaten in smaller quantites. A camel was valued as transportation, especially so, in the desert, but if a person were to kill his own transportation, he should stick to swatting the gnat, kill the intricate details of the KJV all you want, but in doing such, you may just kill that understanding you call a camel, for it is transportation from ignorance to knowledge and wisdom.

Sixth, when the KJV was first published, it was heavily resisted for being too easy to understand! Some people revere it today because it is difficult to understand. I fear that part of their response is due to pride: they feel as though they are able to discern something that other, less spiritual folks cannot. Often 1 Corinthians 2:13-16 is quoted with reference to the KJV (to the effect that ‘you would understand it if you were spiritual’). Such a use of that text, however, is a gross distortion of the Scriptures. The words in the New Testament, the grammar, the style, etc.—in short, the language—comprised the common language of the first century. We do God a great disservice when we make the gospel more difficult to understand than he intended it. The reason unspiritual people do not understand the scriptures is because they have a volitional problem, not an intellectual problem (cf. 1 Cor. 2:14 where ‘receive,’ ‘welcome’ shows clearly that the thing which blocks understanding is the sinful will of man).

6. Intellectually speaking, not I, but you, how many times did you contradict your own words above? " first published, it was heavily resisted for being too easy to understand" > "they feel as though they are able to discern something that other, less spiritual folks cannot." > "We do God a great disservice when we make the gospel more difficult to understand than he intended it" > "where ‘receive,’ ‘welcome’ shows clearly that the thing which blocks understanding is the sinful will of man" > Pride is...? If the KJV was/is so easy to understand then God did correctly for having it stand the test of time, I believe you stated 400 years, and by sending it throughout the entire world, funny how the 'church' understands the Word of God but to the world it is not given, but the saved are not of the world.

Seventh, those who advocate that the KJV has exclusive rights to being called the Holy Bible are always, curiously, English-speaking people (normally isolated Americans). Yet, Martin Luther’s fine translation of the Bible into German predated the KJV by almost 100 years. Are we so arrogant to say that God has spoken only in English? And where there are substantial discrepancies between Luther’s Bible and the KJV (such as in 1 John 5:7-8), are we going to say that God has inspired both? Is he the author of lies? Our faith does not rest in a singular tradition, nor is it provincial. Vibrant, biblical Christianity must never unite itself with provincialism. Otherwise, missionary endeavor, among other things, would die.

7. To the Greek, German, English: 'For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;'
If God cannot get you one Word (Bible) which is solid Truth can He judge you for what you do not know (yes, for He has revealed it in your mind, although you may choose to ignor or rebel it as in Romans 1) is God's arm short that He cannot guarantee you one Bible of His Word only? discrepancies between Luther’s Bible and the KJV (such as in 1 John 5:7-8), are we going to say that God has inspired both? Is he the author of lies? And Luther establishes what is or is not the Word of God, why, was Luther more than a man?

Eighth, again, let me repeat an earlier point: Most evangelicals—who embrace all the cardinal doctrines of the faith—prefer a different translation and textual basis than that found in the KJV. In fact, even the editors of the New Scofield Reference Bible (which is based on the KJV) prefer a different text/translation!

8. To this I have no doubt, we are after all in the latter days called the 'endtimes' when men/women go away from the truth and follow after leaders for their 'itching' ears to hear words that give a false peace and security, how many go away from Truth establishes truth.
Finally, though it is true that the modern translations ‘omit’ certain words and verses (or conversely, the KJV adds to the Word of God, depending on how you look at it), the issue is not black-or-white. In fact, the most recent edition of a Greek New Testament which is based on the majority of MSS, rather than the most ancient ones (and thus stands firmly behind the King James tradition), when compared to the standard Greek New Testament used in most modern translations, excises over six hundred and fifty words or phrases! Thus, it is not proper to suggest that only modern translations omit; the Greek text behind the KJV omits, too! The question, then, is not whether modern translations have deleted portions of the Word of God, but rather whether either the KJV or modern translations have altered the Word of God. I contend that the KJV has far more drastically altered the scriptures than have modern translations. Nevertheless, I repeat: most textual critics for the past two hundred and fifty years would say that no doctrine is affected by these changes. One can get saved reading the KJV and one can get saved reading the NIV, NASB, etc.
I trust that this brief survey of reasons I have for thinking that the King James Bible is not the best available translation will not be discarded quickly. All of us have a tendency to make mountains out of molehills and then to set up fortresses in those ‘mountains.’ We often cling to things out of emotion, rather than out of true piety. And as such we do a great disservice to a dying world that is desperately in need of a clear, strong voice proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ. Soli Deo gloria!

And which version is it that you would recommend to people for the whole of the entire truth? Now, you would not be a biasised individual would you, and we are to trust your belief and opinion because you proposed it?
See: 'conversely, the KJV adds to the Word of God, depending on how you look at it', IT MATTERS NOT(?) - "The question, then, is not whether modern translations have deleted portions of the Word of God, but rather whether either the KJV or modern translations have altered the Word of God", This witness is true>' I contend that the KJV has far more drastically altered the scriptures than have modern translations.< The writer contends.
Addendum

History is written by historians whom are biasised in one form or another, you have no true history especially so, when quotes are given through Catholic method and their view of history, their first pope being that of Constatin who just happened to be in charge of the city that sets on seven hills, now why would he give you what you seek to know is truth?
One further point is necessary. With the recent publication of several different books vilifying modern translations, asserting that they were borne out of conspiratorial motives, a word should be mentioned about this concocted theory. First, many of these books are written by people who have little or no knowledge of Greek or Hebrew, and are, further, a great distortion of the facts. I have read books on textual criticism for more than a quarter of a century, but never have I seen such illogic, out-of-context quotations, and downright deceptions about the situation as in these recent books. Second, although it is often asserted that heretics produced some of the New Testament MSS we now have in our possession, there is only one group of MSS known to be produced by heretics: certain Byzantine MSS of the book of Revelation. This is significant because the Byzantine text stands behind the KJV! These MSS formed part of a mystery cult textbook used by various early cults. But KJV advocates constantly make the charge that the earliest MSS (the Alexandrian MSS) were produced by heretics. The sole basis they have for this charge is that certain readings in these MSS are disagreeable to them! Third, when one examines the variations between the Greek text behind the KJV (the Textus Receptus) and the Greek text behind modern translations, it is discovered that the vast majority of variations are so trivial as to not even be translatable (the most common is the moveable nu, which is akin to the difference between ‘who’ and ‘whom’!). Fourth, when one compares the number of variations that are found in the various MSS with the actual variations between the Textus Receptus and the best Greek witnesses, it is found that these two are remarkably similar. There are over 400,000 textual variants among NT MSS. But the differences between the Textus Receptus and texts based on the best Greek witnesses number about 5000—and most of these are untranslatable differences! In other words, over 98% of the time, the Textus Receptus and the standard critical editions agree. Those who vilify the modern translations and the Greek texts behind them have evidently never really investigated the data. Their appeals are based largely on emotion, not evidence. As such, they do an injustice to historic Christianity as well as to the men who stood behind the King James Bible. These scholars, who admitted that their work was provisional and not final (as can be seen by their preface and by their more than 8000 marginal notes indicating alternate renderings), would wholeheartedly welcome the great finds in MSS that have occurred in the past one hundred and fifty years.

Your emotion is showing in the rendered hatred of the KJV and no other versions do you assume or presume in inaccurracy, therefore your own emotion reveals the Truth as that of the KJV, for men/women hate the truth and assemble to a lie, "Their appeals are based largely on emotion, not evidence" emotion.
1Now a humanist in the sixteenth century is not the same as a humanist today. Erasmus was generally tolerant of other viewpoints, and was particularly interested in the humanities. Although he was a friend of Melanchthon, Luther’s right-hand man, Luther did not care for him.
What the 'humanist' thought in the 16th century matters why? Do you refer to the humanists of today for verifications of versions?
2It is significant that Erasmus himself was quite progressive in his thinking, and would hardly be in favor of how the KJV Only advocates have embraced him as their champion. For example, every one of his editions of the Greek NT was a diglot—Latin on one side and Greek on the other. The Latin was his own translation, and was meant to improve upon Jerome’s Latin Vulgate—a translation which the Catholic church had declared to be inspired. For this reason, Cambridge University immediately banned Erasmus’ New Testament, and others followed suit. Elsewhere, Erasmus questioned whether the pericope adulterae (the story of the woman caught in adultery [John 7:53-8:11]), the longer ending of Mark (16:9-20), etc., were authentic.

Again what Erasmus did or would not endorse matters not, for he or anyone else do not add or take away from the Word of God nor any of the other church 'fathers' or today's 'experts' in the field, the Word of God stands without the aid or endorsement of any including myself.
3“Suffer” in Matt 19:14 means “permit”; “study” in 2 Tim 2:15 means “be eager, be diligent.” See the Oxford English Dictionary (the largest unabridged dictionary of the English language) for help here: it traces the uses of words through their history, pinpointing the year in which a new meaning came into vogue.
You could state the word permit, but a better term would be 'patience', have patience with the little children and forbid them not, mute point having no error in play. Christ stated the same with Peter with feed my sheep. Your view in 'study' is erroneous as that would take from the 'study' of the Word of Truth which is the reference point again precept. Eager diligence in a man/woman implys nothing but running without a reason. The 'approval' from God is not how eager or diligently a person pursues any goal, but the 'study' of Truth does.
4There are other mistakes in the KJV which persist to this day, even though this translation has gone through several editions. For example, the KJV in Heb 4:8 reads: “For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.” This sounds as though Jesus could not provide the eternal rest that we all long for! However, the Greek word for Jesus is the same as the word for Joshua. And in the context of Heb 4, Joshua is obviously meant. There is no textual problem here; it is rather simply a mistake on the part of the translators, perpetuated for the last 400 years in all editions of the KJV.

Precept: (Isaiah 28:10-13) It is to be a certain specific timeframe called 'this' day, that day was the day of atonement or salvation in the cross of Christ, therefore, the name was correct in the usage of Jesus as He is the only one that can provide salvation. When David was quoting David was referring to the time of God's Creation as the seventh day making specific reference not to the people to rest but that God rested on the seventh day from all His Creation, the same holding true for the children of Israel in the wilderness that followed after the cloud but they were rebellious not following the commands and not attaining unto the 'rest' and not entering into the land of promise. In using the term 'to day' and not 'today' as in this day, but as in 'to the day' when Christ shall provide through His death and resurrection a 'rest' for the people to cease or stop their work(s) for salvation as He Christ is the salvation for all who would enter into His rest. Israel could not enter into that rest as ascribed by Christ as they were found in unbelief and why unbelief? That we, the Gentile might attain to that 'rest' by faith, and faith not of or in ourselves, but the faith God has placed within us so that we might believe in the finished 'work' of Jesus Christ, "To day, if you harden not your heart". It is therefore, precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little, there a little, taking the whole of the Word of God and not just pieces here and there but taking the precept or the idea and matching that idea to the entire concept of the idea or precept. Joshua would be in error because Joshua was a man, and men cannot atone for the sins of anyone, not even for themselves, if this had been used in Hebrews 4:8 then would it have indeed been eroneous as man is as a filthy rag and incapable of saving himself or others, having first needs to have his own sins forgiven, this then was the dialog of the high priest.

JAPAN: And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found. Pray for these.

Humor:
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/bushmail.html#

Posted in Uncategorized
Views 6533 Comments 0
« Prev     Main     Next »
Total Comments 0

Comments

 

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Ad Management by RedTyger