Thread: Kjv controversy

Could someone explain this contoversy in layman's term? This is not just an academic question. The three largest Baptist churches In Long Beach are independent fundamentalist KJO. They make the KJV an issue to divide and also they all teach easy believism. Say this prayer and you are saved even if you never become a Christian disciple. One of these churches has had over 30,000 "saved"

If this was true Long Beach would be the new Jerusalem instead of the moral cesspool it is now.

These churches will not have friendly cooperation with any non KJV church and actually do their best to tear others down

Jeff,

Your issue is not with the KJV but with the toxic spirit of fundamentalism, that majors in minors and does not understand the Gospel.

As to your question, the various threads are pretty self-explanatory, albeit somewhat "inside baseball" unless you have considerable background.

The argument of those who are KJV only ranges from a simple "I like it and my church uses it" to "it is a new revelation from God and is right even when the underlying Greek is wrong." One cannot simply lump everyone into a KJVonly camp because they use it, prefer it, or even only use it.

Simply put: the Reformation was a recovery of the Gospel and of the Word of God. The recovery of the Gospel came with a translation of the Word of God into the vernacular of the people (e.g., German, French, English). All of the major Bible translations of the time (e.g., the Luther Bible, Geneva Bible, and later the KJV) were based upon a Greek text assembled originally by the Renaissance scholar Erasmus who had six major texts that he worked from in his "critical edition" of 1516 that went through several editions and ultimately became known as the "received text" (textus receptus or TR). This was a great improvement over the Western tradition of the church that relied upon a Latin Bible and part of a larger move "back to the originals" (ad fontes).

Now we have nearly 6,000 manuscripts of the Greek NT, 95% of them are in the textual tradition from which the TR comes from (i.e., Byzantine family, sometimes represented by a M). Since the Byzantine manuscripts were the ones used continuously from the earliest days of the church and for the next millennium and a half in the Greek speaking section of the church, they are the most plentiful, and mostly late in time.

In the 1800s scholars discovered/rediscovered some Greek manuscripts that had an Egyptian provenance. Known as the Alexandrian texts, they have been dated to the early to mid 300s. That makes them the "oldest" surviving Greek texts. They differ from the Byzantine texts in thousands of places, and from each other in about 3,000 places. Most of these differences are spelling, non-translatable grammatical anomalies, and the like.

In a few places it makes a real difference: The woman taken in adultery (John 7-8), the ending of Mark's Gospel (after 16:8) and the trinitarian proof text in 1 John 5:7.

After the discovery of the Alexandrian texts, scholars such as Wescott and Hort put together a critical text based almost exclusively upon the Alexandrian readings as the "oldest and most reliable." The defenders of the modern translations which are based on the "oldest" manuscripts, called the Critical Text (e.g., NAS, NIV, NLT, ESV, and pretty much everything else outside of the KJV and NKJV) support them because they believe them to be based on the "oldest and most reliable" texts. They also suggest that today scholars examine all of the manuscripts and apply objective criteria to determining which one is likely to be the most authentic. Translations such as the ESV or HCSB are based on an eclectic Greek text that has many more Byzantine readings in them than the underlying Greek of the Wescott and Hort NT of the late 1800s. It is found in two "flavors": The Nestle-Aland edition, now in its 27th incarnation, and the United Bible Societies text, now in edition 4. Both of these are identical in terms of the textual decisions but differ in typography, spelling (in places), and the explanations of the variants at the bottom of the page (the "apparatus" as it is called). One tells about more variants the other tells more about the variants it lists.

The supporters of the KJV and NKJV are convinced that the Byzantine tradition is more reliable, partly because it represents 95% of the extant manuscripts that we have today. They also argue that the Alexandrian copies came from a time and place where various heresies were abounding; they suspect the theological trajectory of the Alexandrian texts. They argue that the Byzantine texts have been continuously used throughout the history of the church.

People who support the KJV do so for a variety of reasons from merely preferential to almost cultic. For those who think that the new translations are intrinsically corrupt because they differ in small places from the TR/M traditions, it would be good to remember that the early church had both a Hebrew Bible and a Greek translation (Septuagint or LXX). They looked at both of them as the Word of God even though the underlying texts differed in some spots.

* On the PB, we have CT folks (probably the majority) who were taught to use the NA/UBS Greek text.
* We also have some TR folks, many of whom do so because they see it as the text God chose to use to reform his church in the time of Luther and Calvin (or because they see this tradition as enshrined in the Reformed confessions).
* A growing minority would support the Byzantine tradition but would not see the KJV tradition (textus receptus) as particularly sacred and would be willing to modify it when the six manuscripts of Erasmus differ from the majority of the Byzantine texts available today.

Unfortunately, this discussion almost always generates more heat than light and we end up with the mods closing these threads because so many of us can't play nice in the sandbox.

I hope that this helps.

Thanks for the history. So is it a sincere position that one can use the either the TR or the Alexandrian with clear conscience?

Is there any evidence that either text was tampered with? I think the KJO baptists say the Alexandrian is corrupt. Is that a valid opinion?

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

* On the PB, we have CT folks (probably the majority) who were taught to use the NA/UBS Greek text.
* We also have some TR folks, many of whom do so because they see it as the text God chose to use to Reform his church in the time of Luther and Calvin (or because they see this tradition as enshrined in the Reformed confessions).
* A growing minority would support the Byzantine tradition but would not see the KJV tradition (textus receptus) as particularly sacred and would be willing to modify it when the six manuscripts of Erasmus differ from the majority of the Byzantine texts available today.

You are a blessing to PB, brother Dennis! That was a 'fair and balanced' assessment.

I would only add that there are, on PB, some KJ users who, in the interest of unity, are willing to change to a different version when the English speaking church settles on one.

Jeff,

I just received a PM rebuke telling me that I only succeeded in muddling your mind further and failing to answer your "only" question with my "red herring" answer. Please forgive me if I missed your original point and did not address it. Sometimes I can run at the mouth without being careful to catch the proper question. If you will kindly re-frame it for me, I will attempt to answer it more clearly and without insulting "over-simplification."

Jeff,

It is MY conviction that either text is the Word of God and can be counted upon to teach true doctrine. Most of my 56 years were spent with one translation or another based on the critical text. In the last few years I have come to respect the Byzantine tradition a great deal more and have decided to opt for the NKJV, in part because it informs you in the margins whenever there is a variant and what it is in the NA27/UBS4 (marked NU) and the wider Byzantine tradition of texts beyond the TR (marked M for "majority").

Good and Godly scholars use translations based on the TR (KJV, NKJV) and on the CT (NAS, NIV, ESV, RSV, NLT, etc.). One can not only be sincere but have good arguments on his side in contending for either position. Some of our most illustrious and intelligent members of the PB are committed to the ESV; others of our brightest use the KJV or NKJV. As far as I can tell, there is no differentiation by orthodoxy, intelligence, or any other relevant factor among those who prefer one side or the other on this forum.

As one becomes more partisan, there is less tolerance for differences of opinion on this issue. If you are a KJVOnly fundamentalist, you may even doubt the salvation of those who use an ESV.

My guess is that threads get shut down on the PB because of the strong rhetoric of defenders of the CT as much as that of the TR. So, around here, we have more than our share of anger over this topic.

I do not find the evidence for "tampering" to be convincing. James White and Donald Carson have both written good books on the topic from the perspective of the critical text. Jerusalem Blade had a host of good posts Jerusalem Blade's posts (a partial compilation) defending the non CT point of view.

The Baptist churches to which you refer are probably true Kind James Only churches, which believe the actual translation of the AV was inspired. Most of these believe, now that we have a perfect and inerrant KJV, even translations into foreign languages would best be made from the KJ English version rather than the original Hebrew and Greek texts. Thus, they elevate the translators of the AV to the level of the canonical writers.

Such is obviously a heresy. I don’t believe we have any of these on the PB, though there are some like me, who read the AV in public worship and prefer it for private and family devotion.

I have learned alot from this especially that the early church used both the hebrew bible and the greek bible as the word of God and that all the differences are really of no great importance.

My main concern was not people using the KJV but those using it to treat other christians as sadly mistaken if not worst.

Sincerely in Christ's love, Jeff Allen