niv or kjv- which is right

[Jay Barker]

In summary regarding Edward F. Hills:

Edward F. Hills was a Presbyterian minister who graduated with honors from Westminster and Yale and was later thrown out of the University of Chicago. He then went to Harvard Divinity School and graduated with a Ph.D. in textual criticism. In 1956, he wrote "The KJV Defended" in an effort to get out his position on the KJV. He is pretty much 'the' authority in the scholarly KJV community. Theodore Letis was a friend of Hills' who wrote his Master's Thesis at Candler School of Theology (Emory University) in 1987 on Hills. He was a good enough friend to Hills that he preached Hills' funeral when the latter died in 1981. He defended Hills in the 1998 KJV Only video, "The Leaven In Fundamentalism" produced in conjunction with Pensacola Christian College, a rabid (and near cultic) fundamentalist Independent Baptist school in Florida. He also published a couple of books on the subject before his tragic demise in a car pile-up in Atlanta a little less than a year ago.

I find it amazing, though, that you instead hang your hat on Gail Riplinger. Letis considered Riplinger a complete embarrassment to the cause of the KJV because of her unscholarly work. She has a Master's Degree in Home Economics and has NEVER studied the biblical languages. I disagree with the conclusions of Letis and Hills, but I can also fairly evaluate their work.

It seems to me that your problem, Butero, is that you only read something (or perhaps believe it might be a better word) if it reinforces your preconceived notions. That is poor logic and argument, sir. When I began researching this issue in 1994, I was at least 'slanted' towards the KJV for the same reasons you are saying. But the more research I did and the more I learned, the less I could abide it.

I cite Hills because he is the best-known and most credentialed scholarly member of the KJV Only group; he would be embarrassed, I think, by Riplinger's arguments.

[Jay Barker]

BUTERO:

Here are a couple of the things Gail Riplinger supposedly said that was crazy. One, that God told her to write this book and spoke to her in general. That is not crazy to me. God has spoken to people throughout history. Also, again I will re-state, Gail Riplinger only reaffirmed what I already came to believe on my own. I can call what you believe blind faith as well. You chose who you wanted to believe, to support your arguments. Most people do that to some degree or another, though most are not honest enough to admit it. Also, it is one thing to have writings of the church fathers, and quite another to show me where they said what their Bible looked like. I know of no record of them saying for instance they did or didn't use the TR. I have read many writings of the church fathers and never came across anything to prove your case.

JAY:

Well, I don't want to engage in Gail-bashing, but she has brought a lot of abuse on herself. She said that God had written her book and therefore she had put her name on the book as "G.A. Ripligner,' meaning 'God And Riplinger.' While that may not sound far-fetched to you (and that is a fair point that I will even concede), most of us have a problem with identifying God with some of the slanderous things she said including comparing five-point Calvinism to the Satanic pentagram (this is specious even if one is Arminian in theology), misspelling the names of D.A. Carson and Richard Longenecker (didn't God know how to spell them?), and implying that NIV committee member Edwin Palmer denied the Deity of Christ when his actual quote is just the opposite. While God may speak in visions, He doesn't command people to lie in His name.

Blind faith in my case? I've taken the time to do the leg work, sir. The difference between my apologetic and yours (keeping only with this issue) is that mine is based on EVIDENCE and yours is based on PRESUPPOSITION.

And of course no writer would say he didn't use the TR. We know they didn't for one VERY GOOD reason: IT DIDN'T EXIST BACK THEN!!!

[Jay Barker]

LAST WORD FOR TODAY:

Butero,

I echo your call of gladness regarding this conversation. May God bless and keep you this week - keep you safe on the road. Btw, thanks that you're one of those people who does that job. Just look out for the rest of us and drive safe!!!

[Jay Barker]

Butero,

Haven't talked to you in a couple of days, so I thought I'd check in.

Regarding Dr. Hills, let me make it clear: there are some scholars who do not endorse in toto the Critical Text (Westcott-Hort) and there are some who take an in-between position on this issue.

The KJV Only position is a vary narrow stream of a wide river of manuscripts called the Byzantine Text. The more contemporary name for this has become the Majority Text. In essence, it is the notion that the text contained in the majority of the manuscripts is the 'real' text. Although I do not endorse this particular textual view, it has many scholarly adherents including Dr. Art Farstad (d. 1998) and Dr. Zane Hodges. A second majority text was compiled by William Pierpont and Maurice Robinson (professor at Wake Forest) in 1991. These folks might be what you would call "KJV Superior," yet they acknowledge that some of the KJV readings such as I John 5:7 have minimal to no textual support. Other representatives of this view include Dr. Wilbur Pickering ("Identity of the New Testament Text" available online), Dr. Jakob van Bruggen ("The Ancient Text of the New Testament"), Dr. Alfred Martin (Moody Bible Institute).

A mid-level group that takes readings from both textual families is represented by the late Dr. Harry Sturz and is contained in his book, "The Byzantine Text-Type And New Testament Textual Criticism."

The most common group now are adherents of the Critical Text. These go from the ultraconservatives like Dr. Gordon Fee (professor at Regent College in Canada) and Dr. Daniel Wallace (my own academic advisor at Dallas Seminary) to modernists like Dr. Bruce Metzger ("The Text of the New Testament") and the late Kurt Aland (same book title as Metzger). Within the Critical Text is another stream called the 'thoroughgoing eclectic school,' represented by two main scholars, G.D. Kilpatrick and J. Elliott.

The bottom line is that all of the scholarly voices do not walk in lockstep and agree to disagree charitably. The notable exception, of course, is the KJV Only movement. Most of these authors have the barest knowledge of the manuscripts or ignore manuscripts that undercut the KJV. These include Dr. Donald Waite of "The Dean Burgon Society," Gail Riplinger, and Dr. David Otis Fuller, a well-educated man who was less than honest on the Bible version issue. Then there are the radcials: Peter Ruckman, Samuel Gipp (Ruckman's prize pupil), Jack Hyles (d. 2001) and William Grady. Ruckman believes that any English translation in the KJV that does NOT accurately record the Greek (an acknowledgement that this is true by even the most radical man) is an 'advanced revelation.' In his scheme, there was no perfect Bible until 1769. Gipp is his student who made a complete fool of himself on the prior mentioned "John Ankerberg Show" series about the KJV (aired in 1995). Hyles believes that you can't even be saved unless the KJV was used in preaching the Word to you - because otherwise the 'seed is corruptible.'

This is merely the broad spectrum. The one KJV Only advocate I do like despite not caring for his arguments is the 'kill them with kindness' Dr. Thomas Strouse, now the dean at Emmanuel in Connecticut. He doesn't resort to the shrill arguments that others have used.

Hope all is well with you.

jb

[Guest Cephas]

[Guest Cephas]

Cephas, when I said first, I simply meant before this onslaught of new versions. I personally use the 1611 Version Bible. The only other one I use at all is the Authorized King James Version when posting at Worthy.

I have gone back and forth with several different people over this issue to the point where I think the debate is futile. I did get one thing out of my last encounter however.

I do agree with you on this, in fact I only get involved to voice a 'side' to the discussion, not with any real hope of changing minds. I do like to read the 'arguments' of each side to see if something new is added, so that my understanding can be closer to the Truth and God's true word.

By the way, if God is powerful enough to inspire new versions, then isn't the devil also smart enough to do the same thing? After all, he did with the New World Translation and he also did with the gender neutral abomination. I don't trust new translations.

That argument could (and probably was) be used against the King James in favor of the Previous Englishversions to it, and also to any 'disacussion' over the 'inspired, true version' and 'validity' of the Latin Vulgate vs the King James. (and so forth back in history as the Latin translations vs the older Greek, etc) In fact, I'm pretty sure (knowing Human inclinations toward being 'the ones with the TRUE version) it very likely was the case. The Reverse of the Argument could also apply. Satan could very easily be using the outdated language of the 1611 and the Authorized version(s) to confuse and mislead people, and it could well be God's intention (and Will) to provide a more modern version that people can read in language that has meaning to them. The Fact that ALL Cults either use or endorse the KJV as the version they 'prefer' is indication that such is indeed done. NO, I'm not saying the King James is 'Satan inspired', only that it's archaic language does make it easier for Satan to use in order to confuse and mislead people, then a more modern translation would be. Without the real originals, there is room for doubt in ANY translation, and ALL translations lose accuracy AND completeness of understanding and likewise contain errors, since words don't always translate cleanly between languages. Nor do I endorse ALL modern translations, of course some translators had agenda's, and those translations MUST be trashed.

My point was more along the lines of, Satan does NOTHING that God is not aware of, and therefore, by definition, ALLOWS, in fact He even sometimes grants Satan permission or agrees to his evil deeds, as proven by the Book of Job. God is capable of using ALL evil for Good purposes and ends. Satan can do NOTHING to subvert God's Will, unless God was to allow him to, and He NEVER does that!! God's ways are not our ways, nor can we understand his infinitely superior wisdom and will. So all we can do is follow him as best we understand, strive to understand His Will "As it is presented to us" (NO, I don't believe God will punish those who eagerly follow his will as it is revealed to them IF the version they read has flaws (and the King James has many translation errors as well) If God needed pure translations, then Original Manuscripts would still be available, AND we would all know THE Hebrew and THE Greek that they were inspired in, so we wouldn't need translations. I believe that what is important for us to know, is faithfully preserved in ALL carefully translated and Majority accepted versions. In other words, I trust God to Provide me with ALL the knowledge I need (in the manner most easy for me to understand) to be Saved AND Justified, and thereby live by His Will and His Way. So, am I going to get hung up over a translation? No. Am I concerned or stressed that you find only one version acceptable? NO! One must follow God wherever faith leads them. If 1611 High English is your cup o' tea, may Jesus bless your understanding of it. And your acceptance of others is very commendable (and quite contrary to many of the KJVo Group)

To all those on both sides of this debate, have a great week in the Lord.

Thank you for your blessing. And may your week be a God Blessed one and your life filled with His Protections and guidance always.

And thank you for allowing me to participate with the few words I thought might be of service.

[Elihu's Girl]

A person asked a pastor this question: "What is the best version of the Bible to read?"

The pastor answered: "I don't know which version is the best, but I know which is the worst."

"Yeah." Answered the questioner. "Which one?"

The pastor quietly answered:"The UNREAD one."

AMEN!

[Guest Cephas]

The Fact that ALL Cults either use or endorse the KJV as the version they 'prefer' is indication that such is indeed done. NO, I'm not saying the King James is 'Satan inspired', only that it's archaic language does make it easier for Satan to use in order to confuse and mislead people, then a more modern translation would be.

Hello Cephas,

The majority of what you wrote again comes down to the question of which version of the Bible do we trust and why, so I won't bother to respond to that. I did however want to respond to this one statement you made. I don't know where you got the idea that all cults either use or endorse the KJV but that is just not true. I had a Jehovah's Witness try to persuade me over to his church through the use of his New World Translation Bible. Before showing it to me, he compared it to the many other modern english translations. He was very unhappy to find out I am a KJO advocate, because he couldn't pervert the doctrine of the trinity to me. He said he didn't understand why people like myself were so stuck on the King James Version Bible, so in that case, my stuborness was a deterent to a cult leader.

The other thing I would like to say is that in addition to my King James Version Bible, I also have an Abington Strong's Concordance with a Greek and Hebrew Dictionary in the back. With that dictionary, if a question should ever arise about the meaning of what some call "archaic" words, I can easily find out the correct meaning. This same Concordance is available through just about any Christian book store, and I recommend every Bible student have one on hand. That way, Satan cannot confuse or mislead the reader.

You are correct, I shouldn't have used the word ALL, since there is no way I can know what ALL cults use. However, as to the JW that you talked to? My experience would call that a fluke, though again that is based on experience. In the 5 or 6 different groups of JW's that have tried to 'convert' me or close friends, they've all been happy to see a KJV sitting around, as they all were well versed in quoting the problems and errors and in using the archaic meanings of the words to "prove" their translation as being better and more accurate.

As to it's real accuracy? Again, it's a matter of preference with me, but I would say this. Like any other "foreign" language (and like it or not, 17th Century English is NOT your birth language), your tendency is to read everything in your native (birth) language and only translate when you think you need to. Since many of the words, phrases and idioms have changed their meanings in the intervening 400+ years, you're reading with meanings that aren't the same, UNLESS you take every word, phrase, idiom and translate it actively as you read it. (and, if you ARE one of those that can actually read 1600 English AS IT WAS MEANT I'm happy for you, but too many people aren't that well educated or linguistically astute) That is my only real grumble about the KJV, it's too easy to read things thinking you understand it, when in reality, you miss what the translators were actually saying, because of the language shift. (I used to be a KJV only person too, so I'm not putting you or anyone down for believing in it, if it speaks the Word of God to you, then I'm happy for you) The word Hell is a really good example. In the Old English, it's meaning was closer to the Teutonic Hel, which means 'to cover' than it is to Dante's Inferno, as we read it today, therefore we get a poor reading (and a 'different' understanding) from a word that has changed meanings (and drastically). In the 1600's you could share hell with potatoes, turnips and cabbages, to use the word as it's popular meaning was then. That is one of the reasons I opened my view to other translations

May God be with you always

[Guest Cephas]

As far as the word hell goes, I do believe in a literal hell, as well as a literal lake of fire where the wicked will spend eternity. I have never read Dante's book so I do not know how well that matches up with the hell of the Bible. Even though that is the case, this is not the proper thread to debate the reality of hell, but I did want to make it clear I do believe in a literal hell, so the idea you believe the KJV falsely refers to a literal hell is not much of a selling point to me on new translations. If anything, it gives me yet another reason to distrust them. Satan would like nothing better than for us to think there is no literal hell for the wicked to dwell in eternal torment.

Actually no, my meaning was only to point out the differences in meaning between then and now. For that matter, without some effort, people in America (especially the West Coast) have some meaning difference problems with British English, and unless you know what you are hearing or reading, and what the speaker intends, you come away with a false view. Imagine using a British Napkin to wipe your face. And the English of 1611 is even further removed from 20th Century American. I personally doubt that anyone truly understands 1611 English well enough to bet their souls on them, but that's just a personal viewpoint.

Anyway, as already noted, changing your (or my) views is not possible, nor is that my intent. I would ask the further question of why you think the Translators in 1611 were somehow more perfect or more Godly inspired and error free than at any other time in history, before or since. As I recall my readings, the Authorized version of 1769 was the 4th revision done under the authority, to correct problems found in the 1611 version, yet you unabashedly accept that version without question or qualm, as being THE most accurate, in fact THE ONLY ACCURATE. The way I read your view is that in 1611 somehow a group of English Translators found a perfect set of copies that were complete, accurate and completely identical in all ways to the originals as wrote by the Apostles, then made a perfect, error free translation, and every translation, before or since, is inferior or Satan tampered or inspired, lesser attempts. Does that pretty much sum it up?

Perhaps, the reason you notice differences in the way the newer versions say things, is not because the 1611 people were perfect in their efforts, but in fact because some of their efforts were NOT correct and the newer translations reflect a better rendering of the original texts. I say that only as something to think on. The 1611 Translators were human too, and any translation is prone to error, if only for the reason of trying to pick out what meaning of the words the original author actually meant. There were errors in their efforts, and there are errors in the new efforts. But, put all together, with diligent study, one can still figure out what God wants us to know

By the way, I'm the one who gave you that other quote, and I only used the NASB to save space, there are MANY versions available. I just listed the NASB (as well as the KJV out of courtesy to you). I could have easily listed many more, but knowing you were a KJV person, I figured it was unnecessary to list more than the two. Again, that topic belongs in the thread it was in, so I won't dwell on it further here.

[Elihu's Girl]

A person asked a pastor this question: "What is the best version of the Bible to read?"

The pastor answered: "I don't know which version is the best, but I know which is the worst."

"Yeah." Answered the questioner. "Which one?"

The pastor quietly answered:"The UNREAD one."

AMEN!