Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Botz

The King James Bible controversy

29 posts in this topic

This will be a closed debate between Oneaccords and Botz on the subject of whether G-d has preserved His Word only through the translation of the 1611 King James Bible.

....the usual rules apply which are:-

1) This will be a "polite" discussion. This means that neither party will engage in namecalling, ad-hominem attacks, or resort to any manner of character assassination at any point in time.

2) Time to reply will not be a consideration. However, please be considerate enough to at least try to reply in a timely manner, or otherwise concede the discussion.

3) This is not a "win/lose" discussion. The nature of a debate is to argue your points clearly and to the best of your ability. Nobody is right or wrong. Even though you may use the words "right" and "wrong" in the process of disputing a point, the purpose of debate is to get your point across, and support that point with evidence. It is up to the reader to decide who's argument is more weighty.

4) Books and online articles may be used as source material. However, those articles may be referenced in accordance with the Terms of Service. Links to inappropriate material will be removed. Material that is plagiarized will not be considered at all. At all times participants will cite their source material completely.

5) Wherever possible, please try to avoid leading the course of discussion "off track," or "off topic." In order to have a clear and concise debate it is necessary to stick to the topic until such time as the issues involved have been completely discussed and all points have been exhausted. When such a point in the discussion has been reached then other issues can be brought into the discussion and debated.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First I would like to thank Oneaccords for accepting my invitation to discuss this topic in the Soap-box debate...a medium for expressing opposing views that has been rather neglected of late.

My position is that I love the King James Bible, I once used it exclusively for about 7 years...I like the language, I like the rhythm and poetic pulse that seems to accord it a uniqueness in

the English language, I am not one of those that finds some of the unusual words particularly difficult, rather like anything, they just have to be looked up and learnt...although if you try

and read an original version as I have looked at in an auction recently (I buy and sell paintings, but also books from time to time) it probably won't be easy because not only was it originally

printed in Gothic type face, but all the esses are written as effs...but the feel and the smell of these old leather bound treasures is an experience in itself...even the paper they are printed

on has a unique feel of quality and substance.

Saying that these days I use a number of Bible translations, mostly the NASB, the ESV and the NKJ, but also the KJV...there are a few others I use namely the Orthodox Jewish Bible which

has a wonderful amalgamation of English, Hebrew and Yiddish, David Sterns Jewish Bible...and then Hebrew and Greek copies in an effort to gain as good an understanding about the

full intent of the authors as it is possible to discover. I am not a big fan of the NIV, and never use it...but have been reluctantly forced to defend it on the Boards when accusations have

been levelled against it that I believe are unreasonable...however it is my hope that in these discussions we can leave the NIV out of it, and just work with what has already been mentioned.

I also believe there are many poor and unacceptable Bible versions knocking around, but most people are soon aware how they deviate from the truth...what we are concerned about in this

debate boils down to manuscript sources, why they were used, who agreed on the evidence for their authenticity, who actually did the translation work, what was available at the time and

why was it used, how does one sort out what is corrupt etc etc, and I hope this debate will give readers the opportunity to consider many aspects of the controversy because I do not hold

that the King James Bible is the only proper/pure/uncorrupted version.

There are many other things I could touch upon, but I think they will surface over time as Oneaccords and I thrash out our differences in brotherly love and mutual respect...

Over to him.

Botz

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Botz for this opportunity, i have an interest in the Bible Version Issue, i think it is very profitable for all Christians to consider this, i would like to bring up why there is a need for a perfect English Bible.

The Importance of God's Word:

Matthew 24:35 reads, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

Psalms 138:2 says, "...for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."

1 Peter 1:23 says "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God..."

Romans 10:17 says the word of God produces faith: "...faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God"

1 Peter 2:2 says it produces spiritual growth: "...desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:"

Psalm 12:6,7 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

I hope them verses speak for themselves.

For God to preserve His word on Earth forever is to mean that God's Perfect word must be on Earth somewhere. Since English is one of the most common languages you probably would suspect that God would have a perfect Bible in that language.

My problem is that there are over 250 translations all competing for the title of God's Holy word in the English language. As the Holy Spirit is perfect therefore what the Holy Spirit inspires and preserves must be perfect. Sinful men such as Moses, David, Solomon, Peter, Paul and John have been used by God to produce a Bible that is Perfect from beginning to end. Thankfully we can look at the fruits of the Authorized King James Bible in the past 400 years. The KJV produces good fruit [Mat. 7:17-20.] No modern translation can compare to the KJV when it comes to producing good fruit. For nearly four hundred years, God has used the preaching and teaching of the KJV to bring hundreds of millions to Christ. God used the AKJV to go forth unto the ends of the Earth. Great preachers of the Gospel rose. Great revivals have occurred with the AKJV. I would like to compare that with the Modern Bible Versions. eg the NASB is only 52 years old, the NKJV and NIV less than that. The AKJV is the book that has been printed more than any other book in history! If it aint broke why fix it?

I readily admit that “the book of the LORD” (the Holy Bible) was in a rather lengthy process of being perfected and brought to full maturity, the Printing Press was invented in the early 1400's and made possible for a common man to own a copy of the Bible in English. I and thousands of other Bible believers hold that the final product was and is the King James Bible. In general terms the Bible versions that existed before the perfection of the King James Bible followed the same Hebrew texts and the traditional Greek texts. For example, you will find 1 John 5:7 in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops Bible 1568 and the Geneva Bible 1560 to 1602. (Even the Catholic Douay-Rheims of 1582 included all of 1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one" etc. and not even in brackets. The later Douay version of 1950 still included the phrase but in brackets, but the more recent Catholic versions like the St. Joseph NAB 1968 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 began to omit the Trinity phrase altogether just like the modern versions like the NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV, NET and Holman versions do. Even regarding the canon of Scripture, or the individual books that taken as a whole form the Bible, a full dogmatic articulation of the canon was not made until the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for British Calvinism.

I would hope that you see for yourself the difference between the KJV and all other Modern Bibles, then there is only one, inescapable conclusion you can come to - that the King James Bible is the only one among the hundreds of copies, posers, and pretenders, that has stayed true to the words delivered by God, through angels, to men. It's not about what version you like better, or which one your favorite preacher promotes, but it's about which Bible is the one that God recommends and is pure. Why would the Holy Spirit need to produce new Modern Bibles that contradict the AKJV in many places when God has already given us the AKJV? God is not confused. For God is not the author of confusion. We can change the words of God and expect God not to punish us for doing so? What is the motivation to change God's word? Could Satan be behind the attempt to change God's word through perversions that seek to replace the AKJV?

So too in this chapter we read about the book of the LORD. Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail...(Isaiah 34:16) What exactly was this book of the LORD at Isaiah's time in history? Was it all the books of the Bible written up till the time of Isaiah? Was it just the book of Isaiah? In either case the Bible as we know it today was not a completed Book. Isaiah was still being written at this time and there yet lacked many other Old Testament books still to be written. And that's not even mentioning the entire New Testament. Yet God calls it the book of the LORD and commands us to read it.

In the NASB we read in Luke 4:4 “man shall not live on bread alone” Now the proper rendering in the AKJV is: “That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God”

I hope that the readers of this debate will Pray, and ask the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth.

Edited by Oneaccords
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'I have no problem recognizing the importance of G-ds word...it is our instruction manual to Holy living and contains amongst many other things stepping stones that reveal the power, authority, character

and nature of the L-rd G-d. It is unique because the words it contains are actually brought to life by the work of the Holy Spirit who Himself testifies of their veracity, enabling us to place our confidence

and trust in what the pages of Scripture contain. Although historically it was written many years ago and penned by over forty recipients, it is an up to date living word thatspeaks directly to a person's

heart, despite no mention of planes, cars, mobile phones and hair-straighteners...the essence of the message it contains is about knowing G-d and loving our fellow man.

I totally agree that the KJB has been instrumental in seeing countless millions of people come into the Kingdom of G-d over the last 400 years, and we can expect it to be used effectively probably until

the L-rd returns... the fruit of those that faithfully laboured over its construction are evident before us, and every Believer would thank G-d for this noble undertaking.

What I begin to take issue with, is the assumption that translations from Greek and Hebrew into English, must be perfect in the same manner that the originals were perfect, and that unless one possesses

a translation that is faultless (and thus re-inspired) what one has is virtually valueless/useless, because how can you be sure it doesn't have additions or subtractions and will cause you to sin?

From what I can tell, this is the thinking behind those that venerate the KJB to such an extent that they have to believe it is absolutely perfect, otherwise they cannot reconcile the stance they have

taken with the theology they have developed....what I suggest is that this is a work of the flesh, and is more about the need of a group of people to justify their belief regarding the KJB, than actually

recognising that the word of G-d has indeed been preserved, but in such a manner that it has also been revised and up-dated according to the wealth of fresh manuscript evidence now available

and the widening and deeping of the scholarship of many gifted faithful individuals, who would readily confess to standing on the shoulders of worthy men and women that have gone before them.

Regarding the maxim concerning the KJB, 'If it ain't broke why fix it?'....

Acts 18:24 ...And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. 25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. 26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

No one despises the KJB or thinks it needs fixing...just some fine tuning.

I don't believe the translators of the NASB or the ESV have knowingly taken liberties with the word of G-d...just like the KJV, these translations are very good, but they have their weaknesses although

more from things like stiltedness and awkward wording and sentence construction...and not from deleting known truths, or inserting unbiblical doctrine...which is really what is being levelled against

these translations. Also it is no good lumping all translations together, as I have already agreed there are many poor, even perverted versions floating around, and it has been like this ever since

the times of the Apostles.

In the NASB we read in Luke 4:4 “man shall not live on bread alone” Now the proper rendering in the AKJV is: “That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God”

I would like to sugest that you have jumped the gun a bit here my friend...because you are assuming the KJ rendition is the proper one...I would contend that with the manuscripts available at the

time it was probably the only choice, but not necessarily the most authentic or accurate.

Let me expand on this....here in the NASB which I personally favour for accuracy...you are correct that 'but by every word of G-d' has been left off. This was not done on a whim, or to try and

weaken the word of G-d, but because the translators could not justify its inclusion in this instance according to their manuscript evidence...at the same time, fully realising that their colleagues

of nearly 400 years ago used it according to what they had available and thought was correct.

In fact if we look back at the same event as recorded through the book of Matthew, we can see that the NASB even says:

Matt 4:4 '.....Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.'

Giving a fuller rendition than either translation in the passage in Luke....so you could say that both the NASB and the KJV were correct even though they are different.

I think that when we try to examine evidence, especially concering Scripture, we need to try and get the whole counsel of G-d on a matter...and no single man or group has the monopoly

on His truth...the very nature of its understanding is safe-guarded within the diversity and gifting within the Body, orchestrated and directed by the Holy Spirit.

In simple terms...we all need each other. Exclusivity within the Body of Messiah, is not a work of the Spirit.

Back to you bro.....

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I begin to take issue with, is the assumption that translations from Greek and Hebrew into English, must be perfect in the same manner that the originals were perfect, and that unless one possesses

a translation that is faultless (and thus re-inspired) what one has is virtually valueless/useless, because how can you be sure it doesn't have additions or subtractions and will cause you to sin?

From what I can tell, this is the thinking behind those that venerate the KJB to such an extent that they have to believe it is absolutely perfect, otherwise they cannot reconcile the stance they have

taken with the theology they have developed....what I suggest is that this is a work of the flesh, and is more about the need of a group of people to justify their belief regarding the KJB, than actually

recognising that the word of G-d has indeed been preserved, but in such a manner that it has also been revised and up-dated according to the wealth of fresh manuscript evidence now available

and the widening and deeping of the scholarship of many gifted faithful individuals, who would readily confess to standing on the shoulders of worthy men and women that have gone before them.

Remember though that the Greek NT quoted the Hebrew OT so therefore the NT is a translation from the OT in places. So if this happened it can be reasonable to assume that the KJV is perfect. I dont know how you can say that venerating the KJB can be a work of the flesh. Since the Spirit agrees with the KJB Bible then to me the KJV Supporters are acting spiritually when they agree to holding onto the Authority of Scripture. The KJV Bible has to be perfect because there are no other English Bibles that come close to being a candidate for being perfect. Since God is still God today He has kept His words for us so we aren't in the dark, the verses about inspiration and perservation of God's word speak the truth.

Regarding the maxim concerning the KJB, 'If it ain't broke why fix it?'....

Acts 18:24 ...And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. 25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. 26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

No one despises the KJB or thinks it needs fixing...just some fine tuning.

Sorry i dont see your point here.

I don't believe the translators of the NASB or the ESV have knowingly taken liberties with the word of G-d...just like the KJV, these translations are very good, but they have their weaknesses although

more from things like stiltedness and awkward wording and sentence construction...and not from deleting known truths, or inserting unbiblical doctrine...which is really what is being levelled against

these translations.

The ESV New Testament is based on the Westcott-Hort Greek text which differs from the Traditional Greek text that underlies the King James Bible; it omits some 5000 words, including 18 entire verses in the New Testament alone. The Old Testament is a random mixture of texts from the Hebrew Masoretic tradition, readings from the alleged pre-Christian Greek Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, Syriac, and Vulgate. It is the old RSV in a new garb.

In the New Testament, the RSV and the ESV are missing the following whole verses. Matthew 12:47 (though the NASB, NIV have it, but omit or bracket the others) Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:18; most of Luke 9:55-56; all of Luke 17:36; 23:17; John 5:4, Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; Romans 16:24, and most of 1 John 5:7. So, yeah, we can see that the ESV is not "close enough" to the King James Bible, right?

I Tim. 3:16 KJV -- "And without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh."

For hundred of years, millions of Christian have read these glorious words, and have known most certainly in their hearts that the One Who came from the glory of Heaven, to die on the cross of Calvary for our sins, was truly "God, manifest in the flesh."

Before the Devil can have a world church, or a world Bible, this tremendous witness to the Deity of our Lord must be removed. In no other way could the conflicting religious views of the world's many religions be reconciled, except by the elimination of all Scriptures that teach the Deity of Christ. We are not therefore surprised to find the New American Standard Version and that of the Jehovah Witnesses, uniting in the rejection of this great Scripture, or rather in the alteration of it so that the Deity of Christ is no longer clearly stated.

Dr. Frank Logsdon, member of the translation committee for the New American Standard Version (NASB), has denounced his work on that Bible and urged all Christians to return to the Authorized Version, commonly known as the King James Bible.

Logsdon finally said, "I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; it's wrong; it's terribly wrong; it's frightfully wrong; and what am I going to do about it?"

Logsdon shocked publisher Dewey Lockman by writing, "I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard."

Logsdon then began to travel extensively, trying to make up for his error by explaining to people the very simple reasons why the Authorized Version is the one Bible which is absolutely 100% correct.

Along with many other scholars, Logsdon had blindly accepted the basic argument used today to support the use of the two Catholic manuscripts, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus, in all modern Bibles.

The "experts" claim that these are the oldest manuscripts in existence, so they must be the best!

In one of his many public speeches, Logsdon explained, "When there is an omission that might be observed, they put in the margin, ‘Not in the oldest manuscripts.' But they don't tell you what those oldest manuscripts are. What oldest manuscripts?

Or they say, ‘Not in the best manuscripts.' What are the best manuscripts? They don't tell you. You see how subtle that is?

Logsdon's advice? If you hold the Authorized Version, and someone tries to prod you to accept another, "You don't need to defend it; you don't need to apologize for it.

"Just say, ‘Well, did this new version or this translation come down through the Roman Catholic stream? If so, count me out.'"

Also it is no good lumping all translations together, as I have already agreed there are many poor, even perverted versions floating around, and it has been like this ever since the times of the Apostles.

KJV Believers have two camps. One is the Modern Bible Version Camp and the other is the Authorized King James Bible camp. The former is from Catholic Manuscripts - the Vaticanus/Sinaiticus from Egypt and the latter is the Textus Receptus/Received Text/Majority Text that comes from Antioch Syria. Where the Christians were first called Christians.

In the NASB we read in Luke 4:4 “man shall not live on bread alone” Now the proper rendering in the AKJV is: “That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God”

I would like to sugest that you have jumped the gun a bit here my friend...because you are assuming the KJ rendition is the proper one...I would contend that with the manuscripts available at the

time it was probably the only choice, but not necessarily the most authentic or accurate.

Let me expand on this....here in the NASB which I personally favour for accuracy...you are correct that 'but by every word of G-d' has been left off. This was not done on a whim, or to try and

weaken the word of G-d, but because the translators could not justify its inclusion in this instance according to their manuscript evidence...at the same time, fully realising that their colleagues

of nearly 400 years ago used it according to what they had available and thought was correct.

In fact if we look back at the same event as recorded through the book of Matthew, we can see that the NASB even says:

Matt 4:4 '.....Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.'

Giving a fuller rendition than either translation in the passage in Luke....so you could say that both the NASB and the KJV were correct even though they are different.

I'm saying that the NASB and KJV can agree in places, but then there are many differences, just having these 2 verses does not give us the big picture.

I think that when we try to examine evidence, especially concering Scripture, we need to try and get the whole counsel of G-d on a matter...and no single man or group has the monopoly

on His truth...the very nature of its understanding is safe-guarded within the diversity and gifting within the Body, orchestrated and directed by the Holy Spirit.

In simple terms...we all need each other.

Exclusivity within the Body of Messiah, is not a work of the Spirit.

Well i dont see it as KJV Believers wanting to be exclusive, that is not their aim, there aim is the truth and they believe in the KJV Bible as their Sole Authority and tell others of a perfect Bible.

The Spirit does not contradict Himself, nor does the Spirit want the Christian to be confused about Scripture.

2 TIMOTHY 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Yet if the scripture is not really scripture then it wont be profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

Edited by Oneaccords
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I begin to take issue with, is the assumption that translations from Greek and Hebrew into English, must be perfect in the same manner that the originals were perfect, and that unless one possesses

a translation that is faultless (and thus re-inspired) what one has is virtually valueless/useless, because how can you be sure it doesn't have additions or subtractions and will cause you to sin?

From what I can tell, this is the thinking behind those that venerate the KJB to such an extent that they have to believe it is absolutely perfect, otherwise they cannot reconcile the stance they have

taken with the theology they have developed....what I suggest is that this is a work of the flesh, and is more about the need of a group of people to justify their belief regarding the KJB, than actually

recognising that the word of G-d has indeed been preserved, but in such a manner that it has also been revised and up-dated according to the wealth of fresh manuscript evidence now available

and the widening and deeping of the scholarship of many gifted faithful individuals, who would readily confess to standing on the shoulders of worthy men and women that have gone before them.

Remember though that the Greek NT quoted the Hebrew OT so therefore the NT is a translation from the OT in places. So if this happened it can be reasonable to assume that the KJV is perfect.

I fail to see the connection, and I pointed out some time ago that the quotes from the OT in the NT varied somewhat from the actual Scriptures they were quoted from...just check out any passage

that Jesus quotes, and flick back to the OT reference and you will see the variation...this isn't error, deception or some New-Age conspiracy....but if you approached these differences in the same way

you attack the NASB or ESV you would condemn them for either adding or leaving things out...thus demonstrating a lack of consistency as far as I can see.

I dont know how you can say that venerating the KJB can be a work of the flesh.

What I have found with the KJOnlyers is that they lift the KJV to a position of exclusivity and often despise all other biblical works...in a very real sense they seem to do with the KJB what the Catholics

have done with Mary the mother of Jesus...ascribed things that go beyond what is in evidence....thus it is a work of the flesh, because it is not founded by the Spirit...at least that is how I perceive it.

Since the Spirit agrees with the KJB Bible then to me the KJV Supporters are acting spiritually when they agree to holding onto the Authority of Scripture.

Many have found the Spirit to be equally in agreement through the pages of other versions.

The KJV Bible has to be perfect because there are no other English Bibles that come close to being a candidate for being perfect.

I don't understand this logic, nor how you measure perfection....care to elaborate.

Since God is still God today He has kept His words for us so we aren't in the dark, the verses about inspiration and perservation of God's word speak the truth.

I agree He has kept His words, just not exclusively in the King James format.

No one despises the KJB or thinks it needs fixing...just some fine tuning.

Sorry i dont see your point here.

I'm just saying the KJV is a great translation, but like other good translations it ain't perfect in translation and can be improved.

(will continue later)......

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

continued......

I don't believe the translators of the NASB or the ESV have knowingly taken liberties with the word of G-d...just like the KJV, these translations are very good, but they have their weaknesses although

more from things like stiltedness and awkward wording and sentence construction...and not from deleting known truths, or inserting unbiblical doctrine...which is really what is being levelled against

these translations.

The ESV New Testament is based on the Westcott-Hort Greek text which differs from the Traditional Greek text that underlies the King James Bible; it omits some 5000 words, including 18 entire verses in the New Testament alone. The Old Testament is a random mixture of texts from the Hebrew Masoretic tradition, readings from the alleged pre-Christian Greek Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, Syriac, and Vulgate. It is the old RSV in a new garb.

The ESV is not based exclusively on the Westcott-Hort Greek text as far as I am aware....there are variations from the TR.

I don't believe you can say it 'omits 5,000 words and 18 sentences etc' in quite the way you are trying to make out....what it does is faithfully follow earlier manuscripts than

the traditional TR, and therefore by nature of its source material it is more concise, and deliberately choses not to include many later variants that are at odds with what they

believe gives a better translation closer to the original.

In the New Testament, the RSV and the ESV are missing the following whole verses. Matthew 12:47 (though the NASB, NIV have it, but omit or bracket the others) Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:18; most of Luke 9:55-56; all of Luke 17:36; 23:17; John 5:4, Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; Romans 16:24, and most of 1 John 5:7. So, yeah, we can see that the ESV is not "close enough" to the King James Bible, right?

I Tim. 3:16 KJV -- "And without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh."

For hundred of years, millions of Christian have read these glorious words, and have known most certainly in their hearts that the One Who came from the glory of Heaven, to die on the cross of Calvary for our sins, was truly "God, manifest in the flesh."

I don't think it is helpful trying to discuss a whole bunch of verses in this way...if you would like to give an example of something you believe underlines what you are attempting to

prove, then I think it will be easier than going all around the houses...but we can cover each one gradually if you so desire...but lets come to some closure on one before moving to

another and maybe things will become clearer.

Before the Devil can have a world church, or a world Bible, this tremendous witness to the Deity of our Lord must be removed. In no other way could the conflicting religious views of the world's many religions be reconciled, except by the elimination of all Scriptures that teach the Deity of Christ. We are not therefore surprised to find the New American Standard Version and that of the Jehovah Witnesses, uniting in the rejection of this great Scripture, or rather in the alteration of it so that the Deity of Christ is no longer clearly stated.

That is just not true.....we have covered this ground before.

You base your accusations against some modern translations on the premise that the people who translate them conspire to pervert the truth of Scripture by deliberately

sticking to inferior and corrupt manuscripts, and that they are in league with devils to remove reference to the fullness of the nature and person of YHVH as revealed in

His Holy Word...this is a faulty premise that you seem to have believed and the basis from which you attempt explanations.

Dr. Frank Logsdon, member of the translation committee for the New American Standard Version (NASB), has denounced his work on that Bible and urged all Christians to return to the Authorized Version, commonly known as the King James Bible.

Logsdon finally said, "I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; it's wrong; it's terribly wrong; it's frightfully wrong; and what am I going to do about it?"

Logsdon shocked publisher Dewey Lockman by writing, "I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard."

Logsdon then began to travel extensively, trying to make up for his error by explaining to people the very simple reasons why the Authorized Version is the one Bible which is absolutely 100% correct.

I think you will find this is a rather exaggerated account of what happened...nevertheless it is one mans conviction and without going into the whole story

doesn't really have that much relevance to what we are discussing. I think we both know there are some learned scholars that support the KJO side of things,

but many others who do not.

Along with many other scholars, Logsdon had blindly accepted the basic argument used today to support the use of the two Catholic manuscripts, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus, in all modern Bibles.

I honestly don't think 'blind acceptance' can be true....I would have thought the very nature of a scholars work, especially in the tricky field of translation

makes 'blind acceptance' an impossibility. :noidea:

The "experts" claim that these are the oldest manuscripts in existence, so they must be the best!

I don't think that is the premise they work from at all...it goes far deeper and involves masses of textual comparisons that just weren't possible in the 16th and 17th centuries...

I would just point out that in some ways manuscript evidence that pre-dates by 5-800 years what has been used before....might well be of benefit and be nearer the original

autographs...but I don't think any of these scholars are naive enough to just think 'old = better'...what it does is give them more material to work with in the effort to more closely

understand the fullness of G-ds Word. Not trying to besmirch the KJV or make it obsolete...but to make better something that is already excellent.

In one of his many public speeches, Logsdon explained, "When there is an omission that might be observed, they put in the margin, ‘Not in the oldest manuscripts.'

But they don't tell you what those oldest manuscripts are. What oldest manuscripts?

Or they say, ‘Not in the best manuscripts.' What are the best manuscripts? They don't tell you. You see how subtle that is?

Nevertheless they are there for comparison. There is nothing subtle about it...they're not trying to hide anything.

Logsdon's advice? If you hold the Authorized Version, and someone tries to prod you to accept another, "You don't need to defend it; you don't need to apologize for it.

"Just say, ‘Well, did this new version or this translation come down through the Roman Catholic stream? If so, count me out.'"

Was Erasmus who helped format much of the TR a Roman Catholic? If so then by default this applies to him as well.

Frank Logsdon has his opinions, and I notice he is wheeled out to provide evidence for the KJV...but like I said, he was just one man who has opinions.

KJV Believers have two camps. One is the Modern Bible Version Camp and the other is the Authorized King James Bible camp. The former is from Catholic Manuscripts - the Vaticanus/Sinaiticus from Egypt and the latter is the Textus Receptus/Received Text/Majority Text that comes from Antioch Syria. Where the Christians were first called Christians.

Are they mutually at loggerheads?

to be continued.,.,,

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the NASB we read in Luke 4:4 “man shall not live on bread alone” Now the proper rendering in the AKJV is: “That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God”

I would like to sugest that you have jumped the gun a bit here my friend...because you are assuming the KJ rendition is the proper one...I would contend that with the manuscripts available at the

time it was probably the only choice, but not necessarily the most authentic or accurate.

Let me expand on this....here in the NASB which I personally favour for accuracy...you are correct that 'but by every word of G-d' has been left off. This was not done on a whim, or to try and

weaken the word of G-d, but because the translators could not justify its inclusion in this instance according to their manuscript evidence...at the same time, fully realising that their colleagues

of nearly 400 years ago used it according to what they had available and thought was correct.

In fact if we look back at the same event as recorded through the book of Matthew, we can see that the NASB even says:

Matt 4:4 '.....Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.'

Giving a fuller rendition than either translation in the passage in Luke....so you could say that both the NASB and the KJV were correct even though they are different.

I'm saying that the NASB and KJV can agree in places, but then there are many differences, just having these 2 verses does not give us the big picture.

But you were the one who brought this verse up in an earlier post...I'm just showing you that your objection to the way this has been translated is not wrong just different

and now you are making my point for me. I agree about the 'big picture'...I even mention it below!!...but I don't believe the NASB and the KJV are mutually exclusive overall

I think that when we try to examine evidence, especially concering Scripture, we need to try and get the whole counsel of G-d on a matter...and no single man or group has the monopoly

on His truth...the very nature of its understanding is safe-guarded within the diversity and gifting within the Body, orchestrated and directed by the Holy Spirit.

In simple terms...we all need each other.

Exclusivity within the Body of Messiah, is not a work of the Spirit.

Well i dont see it as KJV Believers wanting to be exclusive,that is not their aim....

The very nature of their objections to decent modern bible translations makes them exclusive...they claim to know all others are corrupt because they stray from the TR.

their aim is the truth and they believe in the KJV Bible as their Sole Authority and tell others of a perfect Bible.

Precisely...but it is their version of what they think is true...I have found the objections against their belief far more substantial and convincing, and I have never really

looked at the arguments in depth until fairly recently.

The Spirit does not contradict Himself, nor does the Spirit want the Christian to be confused about Scripture.

2 TIMOTHY 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Yet if the scripture is not really scripture then it wont be profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

It is a fact that many aspects within Scripture are not that easy to fully understand, and that studying the Bible is a never-ending lifetimes pre-occupation...

The claim that Scripture is not really Scripture (presumably referring to all modern editions) is part of your belief, not mine....but there are plenty of translations

that I wouldn't touch with a barge-pole...these cannot be laid at the feet of the Holy Spirit....they are not acceptable translations because they are more like

works of fiction, humanistic reasoning, myth and supposition, but most of us are fully aware of these sorts of Bibles being marketed.

Back to you....

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The very nature of their objections to decent modern bible translations makes them exclusive...they claim to know all others are corrupt because they stray from the TR.

Well it is fact that the Modern Bible Versions stray from the TR. If you dont have the TR what do you have? Answer: Corrupt Greek Texts – The Nestle Aland Text for the Modern Bible Versions and approved by Rome – You have Catholics and Jehovah Witnesses that agree with the Nestle Aland Text. The NWT is based on it. One recent Nestle Aland Edition had a Jesuit Catholic on the board, the Nestle Aland Text agrees with 5% of the Greek manuscripts, the Textus Receptus is 95% hence its name the Majority Text.

Was Erasmus who helped format much of the TR a Roman Catholic?

No i dont think you can call him a Catholic because his beliefs were very much against the Roman Catholic Church. From what i have read about him he was hated by the Roman Catholics because of his works.

Frank Logsdon has his opinions, and I notice he is wheeled out to provide evidence for the KJV...but like I said, he was just one man who has opinions.

That one man was on the NASB translation committee and renounced his work on the NASB because he realized that one cant take away or add to the word of God.

but I don't think any of these scholars are naive enough to just think 'old = better'

Yet i have found that is their thinking, and the Modern Bibles are marketed as being better because they are based on older manuscripts than the KJV.

Not trying to besmirch the KJV or make it obsolete...but to make better something that is already excellent.

To tell you the truth i believe that there is a conspiracy in bringing these New Modern Bible Versions in and the people behind it are the Roman Catholic Church and behind that is Satan.

Why would the RCC do it? because they cant stand the KJV which has been so fruitful in the last 400 years. Remember that the RCC fought against an English Bible before the KJV was thought of in 1604! It still goes on today, people aren't being killed for their beliefs it is much more subtle.

Plus to add to that i believe that the NIV is a money making book, published by Zondervan, a worldly publishing company owned by Harper Collins that produce other books that are anti-Biblical.

The "experts" claim that these are the oldest manuscripts in existence, so they must be the best! No t goes far deeper and involves masses of textual comparisons that just weren't possible in the 16th and 17th centuries...

We are in a poorer position now than in 1611 because instead of unity of one Bible, there are 200+ different English Bibles all claiming to be God's word.

I honestly don't think 'blind acceptance' can be true....I would have thought the very nature of a scholars work, especially in the tricky field of translation makes 'blind acceptance' an impossibility

Scholars are not infallible as many believe. What we have today is scholars who agree with Westcott and Hort and the RV without seeing who these men really were and how they changed the KJV.

Before the Devil can have a world church, or a world Bible, this tremendous witness to the Deity of our Lord must be removed. In no other way could the conflicting religious views of the world's many religions be reconciled, except by the elimination of all Scriptures that teach the Deity of Christ. We are not therefore surprised to find the New American Standard Version and that of the Jehovah Witnesses, uniting in the rejection of this great Scripture, or rather in the alteration of it so that the Deity of Christ is no longer clearly stated.

That is just not true.....we have covered this ground before.

You base your accusations against some modern translations on the premise that the people who translate them conspire to pervert the truth of Scripture by deliberately

sticking to inferior and corrupt manuscripts, and that they are in league with devils to remove reference to the fullness of the nature and person of YHVH as revealed in

His Holy Word...this is a faulty premise that you seem to have believed and the basis from which you attempt explanations.

Yet the devil in Genesis 3 said “yeah hath God said?” i believe that Satan can work through sinful scholars to pervert, wrest, change, diminish the word of God. And if not that then replace it with something else. You could be amazed at what the motives of some scholars are.

The ESV is not based exclusively on the Westcott-Hort Greek text as far as I am aware....there are variations from the TR. I don't believe you can say it 'omits 5,000 words and 18 sentences etc' in quite the way you are trying to make out....what it does is faithfully follow earlier manuscripts than the traditional TR, and therefore by nature of its source material it is more concise, and deliberately choses not to include many later variants that are at odds with what they believe gives a better translation closer to the original.

it does omit 5000 words and 18 sentences i see that as fact. The translators of it are their own authority, yet they needed to come up with the ESV that comes after RSV and then the NRSV. I guess the RSV, NRSV aren't good enough.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but there are plenty of translations that I wouldn't touch with a barge-pole

The Message Bible

KJV Believers have two camps. One is the Modern Bible Version Camp and the other is the Authorized King James Bible camp. The former is from Catholic Manuscripts - the Vaticanus/Sinaiticus from Egypt and the latter is the Textus Receptus/Received Text/Majority Text that comes from Antioch Syria. Where the Christians were first called Christians.

Are they mutually at loggerheads?

In every way possible

Edited by Oneaccords
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0