KJV Only

[JM]

KING JAMES ONLY | Bible Versions | Way of Life Literature

If “King James Only” defines one who believes that God has preserved the Scripture in its common use among apostolic churches through the fulfillment of the Great Commission and that He guided the Reformation editors and translators in their choice of the Received Text and that we don’t have to start all over today in an to attempt to find the preserved text of Scripture, call me “King James Only.” The theories of modern textual criticism, on the other hand, all revolve around the idea that the pure text of Scripture was not preserved in the Reformation text but that the Reformation editors, because of their alleged ignorance and or lack of resources, rejected the pure text and chose, instead, an inferior text. In fact, modern textual criticism is predicated upon the theory that the best text of the New Testament (the Egyptian or Alexandrian) was rejected in the earliest centuries and was replaced with a corrupt recension that was created through the conflation of various manuscript readings (the Byzantine or Traditional text) and that the corrupt text became the dominant text throughout most of church history (for 1,500 years) until the best text was rediscovered in the 19th century. You are free to accept such views if it suits you. I, for one, believe this is absolute nonsense, and if that is “King James Only,” count me in.​

Any thoughts?

 

[Grymir]

It's hard to have thoughts when I'm going Amen Brother!!!!!!

-----Added 3/1/2009 at 12:48:48 EST-----

Actually, I read the blog entry on the link, and really enjoyed it. I like the I'm KJV/I'm not KJV disticntions. Very readable and enjoyable.

 

[JohnGill]

I agree with him on this, but on his gross misrepresentation of Calvinism I vehemently disagree.

At this link: debatecalvinism you can hear his "refutation" of Calvinism.

 

[TimV]

The theories of modern textual criticism, on the other hand, all revolve around the idea that the pure text of Scripture was not preserved in the Reformation text but that the Reformation editors, because of their alleged ignorance and or lack of resources, rejected the pure text and chose, instead, an inferior text

.

More ramblings by people who have never been taught to think for themselves. How can you reject something you don't have? The author of the TR said

"You cry out that it is a crime to correct the gospels. This is a speech worthier of a coachman than of a theologian. You think it is all very well if a clumsy scribe makes a mistake in transcription and then you deem it a crime to put it right. The only way to determine the true text is to examine the early codices."

The ignoramus quoted in the OP and who in a sermon linked to in the third post

Declares that John Calvin has caused great and unnecessary divisions among God's people and that few things have hindered Biblical evangelism more than Calvinism.

has a view of church history that is consistent only in it's blindness.

 

[CNJ]

Dear JM in Canada, under British rule:

Last fall my husband gave me The Geneva Bible. It was what the Pilgrims used before the KJV. According to the beginning notes "The Calvinist notes of the Geneva Bible infuriated King James I at Hampton court in 1604, prompting him to authorize a group of Puritan scholars to produce a version of the Bible without annotations for him. . . . The marginal notes of the Geneva Bible presented a systematic Biblical worldview centered on the Sovereignty of God over all of His creation including churches and kings." Hence the introduction of the KJV. Had you thought about this, or does your nationality prefer KJV? Just wondering.

Cordially,
Carol

 

[Rangerus]

I think the KJV is still superior to many translations that are out today. Although I still like to look at the New King James Version which modernized the KJV, but retained its essential nature. And is a bit more readable.

Surprisingly, the KJV was originally printed in response to the perceived problems of earlier translations as detected by the Puritan faction of the Church of England. Instructions given to the translators that were intended to limit the Puritan influence on this new translation. This was mostly in the marginal notes though and not the actual verses.

Although Luther did add the word "alone" to Romans 3:28 controversially so that it read: "thus, we hold, then, that man is justified without the works of the law to do, alone through faith."

To me it is ironic that today we (as Reformed Puritans) embrace a Bible that was originally meant to contradict our beliefs.

 

[larryjf]

The theories of modern textual criticism, on the other hand, all revolve around the idea that the pure text of Scripture was not preserved in the Reformation text but that the Reformation editors, because of their alleged ignorance and or lack of resources, rejected the pure text and chose, instead, an inferior text

.

More ramblings by people who have never been taught to think for themselves. How can you reject something you don't have? The author of the TR said

If you don't believe that we have a pure text i would presume that you deny the Westminster Confession when it states about the Scriptures that they have been...
"kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical"

 

[TimV]

If you don't believe that we have a pure text i would presume that you deny the Westminster Confession when it states about the Scriptures that they have been...
"kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical"

You haven't been following the AVer threads over the past few months, or at least not with understanding. These threads are almost always started by the same people looking to push an agenda, and then they almost always end up backing out when you try to pin them down.

We can save reams of cyberspace and fast forward. Rob, who was on James White's show said he would agree to change the underlying text for the KJV New Testament in Revelation 16:5 from Lord to Holy One if it could be proven that no text in the Byzantine tradition exists which says Lord, as does the King James.

Do you agree with Rob?

 

[larryjf]

If you don't believe that we have a pure text i would presume that you deny the Westminster Confession when it states about the Scriptures that they have been...
"kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical"

You haven't been following the AVer threads over the past few months, or at least not with understanding. These threads are almost always started by the same people looking to push an agenda, and then they almost always end up backing out when you try to pin them down.

The threads that i've been following are quite irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I don't need to read every thread on the KJV to respond to a post from a particular thread.

Suggesting that i may have read the posts without understanding is hitting below the belt. There's no reason for you to criticize my understanding on anything based on what i posted here.

Your statement about "how can you reject something you don't have?" - as speaking about the "pure text" - is what i responded to.

The WCOF clearly teaches that the text of Scripture has been kept pure.

Instead of wondering what threads i've read, or the understanding that i may lack, perhaps you should consider that your statement, as it stands, is in opposition to the WCOF.

I didn't say how i define the Scripture that has been kept pure, i simply pointed to the fact that you denied that we have a Scripture that has been kept pure.

 

[TimV]

Your statement about "how can you reject something you don't have?" - as speaking about the "pure text" - is what i responded to.

The WCOF clearly teaches that the text of Scripture has been kept pure.

Yes, the the Divines were educated men who knew that there were variations even in editions of the TR. They knew that Christians from the beginning, like Jerome, Augustine et. al. knew that even though God kept His word pure, it wasn't necessarily written down in one place.

Instead of wondering what threads i've read, or the understanding that i may lack, perhaps you should consider that your statement, as it stands, is in opposition to the WCOF.

I did consider it.

I didn't say how i define the Scripture that has been kept pure, i simply pointed to the fact that you denied that we have a Scripture that has been kept pure.

No, I did not. I said Erasmus didn't have access to as many manuscripts as would have been optimal. And he himself knew that.

Pastor Buchanan answered it best some months ago when he said that we do have God's preserved Word, but that he didn't know exactly where it was. Many other have pointed out that there is no central Christian doctrine that is changed by teaching from the KJV, ASV, ESV, etc.. and that proves to the majority of the Church that God did indeed preserve His word.

The subject of this thread is the King James Version, and the poster, JM, has been starting threads on the subject for a very long time, and often after posting this subject sits back just to watch the fireworks.

 

[Grymir]

Now back to the OP. I've just spent some time reading his site. I do find David Cloud much easier to read than Barth, but brother Cloud seems to give with one hand and take with the other concerning Calvinism. Very similar to what Barth does, but he uses the proper terminology, and doesn't muddle up the definitions like Neo-Orthodoxy does. But, even Barth gets it right once in a while (Don't tell anybody I said that!!). I think his defense of KJV only is well spelled out.

Long live the King Jimmy!

 

[lynnie]

I wish I was fluent in Greek and Hebrew.

I can't begin to count all the times somebody has explained to me how an English word in Greek is a certain tense that carries great significance, or with a certain preposition that matters ("faith into" versus "faith".). Or how one word is translated with two different English terms. Or how two different English words have the same Greek in the text.

I still remember the day I first saw the Greek where Jesus healed a sick man, cast out a demon, and saved another from sin, and it was all "sozo". All the same word, with at least three english words used to translate.

I find arguements about which English version is best to be of course important, because we want the best translation possible. But it seems like the KJV people stop there, and put English above the original Greek and Hebrew, at least in their heart. I would say that is a terrible mistake.

 

[Grymir]

I agree. Real KJV users (Like me) try and keep it on the philosophy of translation. And not to get hung up on the words. I think the ideas behind the various translation tell alot more, and is quite telling.

 

[JM]

Dear JM in Canada, under British rule:

Last fall my husband gave me The Geneva Bible. It was what the Pilgrims used before the KJV. According to the beginning notes "The Calvinist notes of the Geneva Bible infuriated King James I at Hampton court in 1604, prompting him to authorize a group of Puritan scholars to produce a version of the Bible without annotations for him. . . . The marginal notes of the Geneva Bible presented a systematic Biblical worldview centered on the Sovereignty of God over all of His creation including churches and kings." Hence the introduction of the KJV. Had you thought about this, or does your nationality prefer KJV? Just wondering.

Cordially,
Carol

This is a joke right?



Yes and no.

 

[Hippo]

A critical approach consists of considering each manuscript on its merits and being thankful that the various traditions of manuscripts support all the Church's doctrines with amazingly few troubling variants.

What we should not do is to pick a manuscript (well actually a synthesis of manuscripts) almost at random and prize certainty in every detail over truth.

Christianity is a historical religion where truth matters, I thought that only the Pope would come up with a post apostolic revelation and argue that any disagreement was a disagreement with God.

Grymir is right what is important are the presupositions underlying a translation and this really is not as simple as only accepting one historical text.

This is really an issue that does not benefit from being aired again and the assertion that using anything other than the AV is unconfessional really needs to be rested.

 

[larryjf]

prize certainty ... over truth.

I love this part of your post.
Dr. R. Scott Clark has a whole section in his "Recovering the Reformed Confession" on the quest for illegitimate certainty.

Great book

 

[he beholds]

So I was just reading Holman QuickSource Guide to Christian Apologetics by Doug Powell.

The text type with the most copies is by far the Byzantine. These manuscripts were written on vellum, a much more durable medium than papyri. The Byzantine texts date from the ninth century onward. This type of textwas used by Erasmus to compile the first published Greek New Testament. The King James Version was based on Erasmus's work. This accounts for the variation seen between the King James Version and almost any other major English translation.

Powell states a paragraph before the above quote, "The vast majority of English translations are based on the Alexandrian text type since it is considered by most experts today to be the oldest form of the New Testament."

This chapter was on the reliability of the NT, not really about the different versions, but it interested me that the reason for the discrepancies goes back to where the copiers got their copies, rather than the claim that one is an inspired or "authorized" version, as some claim.




Powell, Doug. Holman QuickSource Guide to Christian Apologetics. Nashville:Holman Reference, 2006. 159-160.

 

[JohnGill]

So I was just reading Holman QuickSource Guide to Christian Apologetics by Doug Powell.

The text type with the most copies is by far the Byzantine. These manuscripts were written on vellum, a much more durable medium than papyri. The Byzantine texts date from the ninth century onward. This type of textwas used by Erasmus to compile the first published Greek New Testament. The King James Version was based on Erasmus's work. This accounts for the variation seen between the King James Version and almost any other major English translation.

Powell states a paragraph before the above quote, "The vast majority of English translations are based on the Alexandrian text type since it is considered by most experts today to be the oldest form of the New Testament."

This chapter was on the reliability of the NT, not really about the different versions, but it interested me that the reason for the discrepancies goes back to where the copiers got their copies, rather than the claim that one is an inspired or "authorized" version, as some claim.




Powell, Doug. Holman QuickSource Guide to Christian Apologetics. Nashville:Holman Reference, 2006. 159-160.

The bolded part is wrong. Even Westcott & Hort admitted that the byzantine text-form went back as far as the 4th or 5th century. He may have been thinking of the invention of the minuscule script.

 

[DMcFadden]

Jessi,

Full disclosure: I use the Critical Text (ESV translation) mainly and the NKJV (Byzantine text tradition) only secondarily. All of my schooling was in the Critical Text (primarily Alexandrian) and my teachers all thought that the KJV folks were nuts.

The problem on both sides is that this is a VERY emotional discussion for most people.

The VAST majority of liberals, moderates, conservatives, and many fundamentalists buy the idea that the Alexandrian texts are the "oldest and most reliable." But, what makes this less than a complete slam dunk are a couple of awkward facts:
1. The two primary exemplars of the Alexandrian texts (ﬡ - Codex Sinaiticus 325-350 and B - Codex Vaticanus 325-350) differ in about 3,000 places.
2. Some have argued that the Alexandrian texts represented the heretical sects of the gnostics and others who had a motive to tamper with the text of the Bible (this one is hotly debated).

The Byzantine texts represent 90-95% of all extant manuscripts of the New Testament, predominating from the 9th century onward. However, Byzantine texts are found in manuscripts A, C, W, Q from the 5th century and Byzantine readings can be observed in old translations of the NT into Syriac and Latin at a much earlier date.

The question is do you "count" manuscripts (advantage Byzantine) or "weigh" them (advantage Alexandrian).

Almost all modern English translations (NAS, NIV, ESV, TEV, NLT, etc.) are based on a critical text drawn primarily from the Alexandrian manuscripts, taking them to be the "oldest and most reliable." However, in doing so, they are translating from a text that NEVER existed at any time in that exact form. It is almost as if you have a stack of body parts of different people and decide to put together a composite picture with Angelina's lips and Jennifer's hips, and Pam's eyes, and Brad's elbows, based on a formalized set of criteria for how to determine what the "best" part should be for a particular spot. Nobody claims that the critical text is or was ever found in such a form, only that by employing the canons of textual criticism (which scholars trust will lead them to a more accurate form of the text), they have done their due dilligence to put the text back together in a most responsible way.

The upholders of the majority (Byzantine) text (KJV and NKJV) argue . . .
1. Byzantine readings can be found in old translations of the NT
2. The Alexandrian text is probably a corruption by heretics and should not be trusted since Vaticanus and Sinaiticus differ so much between themselves anyway.
3. Wouldn't God most likely preserve his word in a text that was continuously available throughout the entire church age rather than one that got discovered in 1844?

They, therefore, prefer the KJV (based on Erasmus' handful of late Byzantine texts) or the NKJV (based on a much wider array of Byzantine texts).

Confused? Sorry! Now for the really cool part . . .

No major doctrine is impacted by either set of texts! And, in fact, whether you use a dynamic equivalent translation (NIV, NLT, TEV, GW) or a strictly formal correspondence translation (NAS, ESV, KJV, NKJV), you will still get all of the major doctrines in the creeds and confessions pretty clearly.

All of the heat and some of the light deal with issues of preference and (to a lesser extent) scruples. Some believe that the doctrine of inerrancy hinges on having the exact text closest to the autographs. Others are willing to allow that God has preserved his word throughout history despite the thousands of textual variants (most of which relate to spelling or untranslatable differences in the Greek that are lost in English). Beyond that, some believe that the doctrine of inerrancy is not well served by translating "thought for thought" while others are equally bugged by strict "form for form" styles of translation and the potential to sacrifice clarity for the sake of formal correspondence of parts of speech (noun for noun, adj. for adj., etc.).

Good Reformed folks use the KJV/NKJV, the ESV, and even the NIV or NLT. Is the issue important? Sure. Are you likely to settle it beyond a reasonable doubt? Not likely.

 

[DMcFadden]

Jessi, I added a final couple of paragraphs you should probably read to help relieve your mind.

 

[he beholds]

Thanks! I wasn't really arguing which is better! I was just noting that there is a technical reason (b/c they come from different manuscripts) that the versions differ. I had assumed that when people say, "The KJV says it this way b/c it is better," they meant that the two contrasting Bible versions used the exact same Greek or Hebrew manuscript and chose two different ways to translate it. I did not know that they were, in fact, translating or copying from two separate pieces. I thought that cleared some things up for me.

I think Powell probably does say (the book is not in front of me right now) that there is some evidence that suggests the Byzantine does go back further. However, he definitely said what I quoted before, that most of the experts consider the Alexandrian "to be the oldest form of the New Testament."
Powell wasn't arguing one way or the other in this chapter for which is better, and I doubt he would anywhere in this book. He was explaining why there are supposed problems or variations in the manuscripts, not which ones are correct. I imagine he does have an opinion on the subject, though, but I just don't know it.

 

[ThomasCartwright]

Br McFadden,

I respect the fact that you are willing to look at this issue with an open mind and are willing to leave the CT. So many are wedded to the Hortian presuppositions and that of rationalistic textual criticisms that they argue liek evolutionists when confronted by creationism.

The facts are even more blurred when you consider that Codex Washingtonianus I which is dated from the fourth to early fifth century contains in the Gospels many Traditional Text readings and, “(all of) Matthew and Luke 8:13-24:25 are Byzantine (Traditional text).” Even the infamous Codex Alexandrinus, dating around 450 AD reflects the Traditional Text in the Gospels. The Peshitta Syriac is older, and is Byzantine, but it obviously is not Greek. Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus is dated paleographically to the fifth century and in the Gospels even Kurt Aland accepts that the manuscript is slightly more Byzantine than not. For instance, the Chester Beatty Papyri (P. 45, 46, and 66) are dated to the early third century all have readings that reflect the Traditional Text. The manuscripts known as P66, P72, and P75 show the same pattern. Wilbur N. Pickering in comparing John 1-14 states, “P66 agrees with the TR (i.e. the Textus Receptus Greek text) 315 times out of 663 (47.5%), with P75 280 out of 547 (51.2%).” (The Identity of the New Testament Text, p. 56). He also noted that out of 43 places where all these manuscripts have the same passages of scripture, P45 agreed with the Traditional text 32 times, P66 agreed 33 times, and P75 agreed 29 times (Ibid. p. 55).

We also have the little matter of the testimony of the Early Church Fathers. As I pointed out yesterday, the TR reading of prophetes in Mark 1:2 is in the writings of the Church Fathers such as Irenaeus in 202 AD a mere 2 centuries before the CT manuscripts date from.

Textual criticism has, at best, only been able to posit the state of the New Testament text as believed to have existed in the fourth century, but admit that that most of the corruptions happened in the second century and we have no way of discovering the final form of the originals. Eldon Epp has said the study of the papyri, “is largely an exercise in historical-critical imagination. ” Before that, historically it is mud wrestling between diverse and contradictory competing textual theories. Hence the physical scientific evidence speaks against the position of being able to recover the inspired text of the first century. The Critical Text advocates are not submitting themselves to the authority of their manuscripts, but simply using them to overthrow the TR. This has the consequence that it is not that we have a “new” Received text but that we cannot have any Received Text now.

Aside from the objections you set out for the CT, I would say you also need to factor in the Biblical presuppositions that guide us to the true text. All of our theological presuppositions are interconnected, working as one to formulate a web of basic beliefs that shape our worldview grid of nature. As these presuppositions, are simply taken for granted our worldview is ultimately a faith-view. It is not that the manuscript evidence is not the same for the two competing pre-suppositional world views in respect of the textual evidence, but what is almost certain is that each one is interpreting the evidence differently. Textual critics boast that they have constructed their own worldview autonomously and independent of Scripture. However, believers who adhere to a biblical worldview do not rely upon their own arbitrary assumptions as a tool to judge the truth-claims recorded in the Bible and to construct their own explanations for what extant textual evidence. Our brand of fideism, what we call, well, fideism, is not bereft of rationale or logic. There is a tremendous and diverse evidences, historical and tangible, for the preservation of Scripture, including thousands of ancient extant manuscripts.

(1) All of our doctrines must be from the Bible (2 Tim 3:16). The Bible is self-attesting (1 Cor 14:29, 32, 37; Matt 18:19). How we view our world is not how God views it and believers are mandated to think God’s thoughts after Him (Isa 55:9), which requires a scriptural presuppositional approach to the textual problems. A believer must study to show “himself approved unto God” (2 Tim 2:15). As Cornelius Van Til puts it, “The Bible is thought of as authoritative on everything of which it speaks. And it speaks of everything.” We are to receive these promises by faith (Heb 11:13; Matt 13:22; Rom 1:17). God revealed the Scriptures so men could know His will both in the Old and New Testaments and in the future (Deut 31:9-13, 24-29; 1 John 1:1-4; 2:1-17; 2 Tim. 3:14-17, 2 Pet 1:12-15). Certainly the Bible makes clear that no Scripture was intended for only the original recipient (Rom 15:4; Rom 16:25-26; 1 Cor 10:11). God intended for those writings to be recognised and received by the church as a whole (e.g., Col 4:16; Rev 1:4). These Words were to be guarded (1 Tim 6:20-21) as a “pattern of sound words” for the church (2 Tim 1:13-14) and to be used to instruct the future church (2 Tim 2:2).
(2) The Bible promises that God will preserve every one of His Words forever down to the very jot and tittle of the smallest letter (Ps12:6, 7; Ps 33:11; Ps 119:152, 160; Isa 30:8; 40:8; 1 Pet 1:23-25; Matt 5:18; 24:35).
(3) The Bible assures us that God’s Words are perfect and pure (Ps12:6-7; Prov 30:5).
(4) The Bible promises that God would make His Words generally available to every generation of believers (Deut 30:11-14; Isa 34:16; Isa 59:21; Matt 4:4; 2 Pet 3:2; Jude 1:17). (This is general availability, not necessarily to every person on the planet.) Certainly, we are told that for around two millennia in history only one small nation had the true and pure words of God, “He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation; and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD” (Ps 147:19, 20 cf. Rom. 2:14).
(5) The Bible promises there will be certainty as to the Words of God (2 Peter 1:19; Luke 1:4; Prov 1:23; Prov 22:20-1; Dan12:9-10; 1 John 2:20).
(6) The Bible promises that God would lead His saints into all truth, that the Word, all of His Words, are truth (John 16:13; 17:8, 17).
(7) God states that the Bible will be settled to the extent that someone could not add or take away from His Words (Rev 22:18, 19; Deut 12:32). Indeed, the Apostle Peter in 2 Peter 3:2 warned the saints of his day to be mindful of the “Words” of the Old Testament writings (v2a) and the New Testament writings (v2b), which would be absurd if some of these Words had been corrupted or lost.
(8) The Bible shows that the true Church of Christ would receive these Words (Matt 28:19-20; John 17:8; Acts 8:14, Acts 11:1; Acts 17:11; 1 Thess 2:13; 1 Cor 15:3).
(9) The Bible implies that believers would receive these Words from other believers (Deut 17:18; 1 Kgs 2:3; Prov 25:1; Acts 7:38; Heb 7:11; 1 Thess 1:6; Phil 4:9).
(10) The Bible shows that Bible promises may appear to contradict science and reason. In Genesis 2 we see that a newly created world may look ancient. However, the Scriptures remind us that “It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man” (Ps 118:8).
(11) Christ implied the preservation of His very Words as a Standard of future judgment (John 12:48). He also warned of the vanity of ignoring His actual Words (Matt 7:26). Christ emphatically declared, “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). In Matthew 22:29 Jesus rebuked, “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures.” If the Scriptures were only accessible in the Originals then why would He chide them for being ignorant of Words that were not available? Believers are commanded to contend for the faith (Jude 3) and this faith is based upon the Words of God (Rom 10:17). Note that concerning the end-times, the Lord Jesus warned, “Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8 cf. Amos 8:11; Lam 2:9).

Here are other Bible evidences that guide us:

(1) God also has established Biblical precedents which show that He keeps and protects His Words. For instance, when Moses broke the original copy of the tables of God, they were replaced very soon afterwards and not hundreds of years later and Scripture makes the point that these second tablets were written “the words that were in the first tables” (Deut 10:2). In the book of Jeremiah, God responded to the burning of His inspired Words by preparing Baruch to record in it “all the former words that were in the first roll” (Jer 36:28).

(2) Jesus preached from the existing scrolls and we are explicitly told they were “Scripture” (Luke 4:21). Jesus also explicitly said the “Scripture” that they were reading was “spoken unto you by God” (Matt 22:31 cf. Mark 12:24-26). Indeed, Christ said to His audience that when they read the Scripture they would see that which was written by Daniel the prophet himself (Matt 24:15; Mark 13:14). Other New Testament passages argue from the Old Testament text based on a phrase (as in Acts 15:13-17), a word (Matt 22:32), or even the difference between the singular and plural form of a word (as in Gal. 3:16).

(3) The Bible warns that there would be those who would “corrupt the word of God” (2 Cor 2:17; Jer 23:29) and handle it “deceitfully” (2 Cor 4:2). The Apostle Paul warns of those who “changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator” as heading towards apostasy (Rom 1:25). There would arise false gospels with false epistles (2 Thess 2:2). Jesus taught us that if a tree is corrupt, the fruit will be corrupt. Likewise, if a tree is good, the fruit will be good (Matt 7:17). He was speaking of false prophets. False prophets and false teachers corrupt the Scriptures (2 Pet 2:1-3). We must understand that there will always be a line of perversion as there will be of preservation. We are commanded to be fruit inspectors based upon the premise that if a man’s doctrinal belief is in error we can conclude that he will do the same to the Scriptures (2 Cor 2:17). “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge” (Prov 1:7); so all knowledge of the Words of God is rooted in God.

(4) God utilised fallible but Spirit-filled human writers to pen His divinely inspired Words of Scripture (2 Tim 3:16, 1 Pet 1:21). A fallible but Spirit-filled John the Baptist could point infallibly to Christ. As much as a fallible but Spirit-filled Church can recognise and receive the infallible Canon, so can she also recognise and receive the infallible Words of this Canon (John 10:27). Canonicity was recognised by the true Church (not Rome) and the corollary of this must be that the Canonised Words must be recognised by the true and faithful Church and not Rome’s texts or apostate textual critics such as Westcott, Hort, Aland, Metzger etc.

(5) The Church at Antioch has a noteworthy position in Scriptures in contrast to Alexandria. Antioch is the first place where the born-again believer is called a Christian (Acts 11:26). It is also interesting to see that where both Antioch and Alexandria are mentioned in the same passage, Antioch is listed as a place of service, while Alexandria is listed as a place of disruption (Acts 6:5-10). Egypt is for the most part associated with ungodliness in the Bible (Isa 19:14; 30:1-3; Act 7:39; Rev 11:8). Most of the New Testament books were written originally to cities in the Byzantine Text area and none written to Alexandria. However, it was precisely in Alexandria that corrupters of the true text dominated.

For those who disagree with my Biblical presuppositional framework, I ask one thing only state your own and show how it will guide us to the WORDS OF GOD.

 

[TimV]

For those who disagree with my Biblical presuppositional framework, I ask one thing only state your own and show how it will guide us to the WORDS OF GOD.

I'll take this one, although your point isn't as clear to me as I would like:

(11) Christ implied the preservation of His very Words as a Standard of future judgment (John 12:48). He also warned of the vanity of ignoring His actual Words (Matt 7:26). Christ emphatically declared, “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). In Matthew 22:29 Jesus rebuked, “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures.” If the Scriptures were only accessible in the Originals then why would He chide them for being ignorant of Words that were not available?

I can't believe than any educated, rational Christian would deny that Scripture is only accessible in the originals. Almost every one of the people reading this understands that Scripture from the original three languages can legitimately be translated in to any other language. For instance in the time and place where the events described in Matthew 22 took place, there was a Greek Bible that was the commonly used (Edersheim says it had the same status as the KJV did in the century before last in the English speaking world), translation, and even though there were differences between that version and another version NT authors quoted from, Christ seems clearly assuming that those variations didn't amount to enough to keep either version from being called Scripture. Kind of like Dr. McFadden and so many others here have said.

And by the way, you never did give me a clear answer to a question. If Rob were to be convinced that no Byzantine tradition exists for using the word Lord in Rev. 16:5 like the underlying text for the KJV and would be willing to change Lord to Holy One as per Byzantine tradition, would that constitute the violation spoken of in Rev. 22:18,19?

 

[Wanderer]

I think the KJV is still superior to many translations that are out today. Although I still like to look at the New King James Version which modernized the KJV, but retained its essential nature. And is a bit more readable.

Surprisingly, the KJV was originally printed in response to the perceived problems of earlier translations as detected by the Puritan faction of the Church of England. Instructions given to the translators that were intended to limit the Puritan influence on this new translation. This was mostly in the marginal notes though and not the actual verses.

Although Luther did add the word "alone" to Romans 3:28 controversially so that it read: "thus, we hold, then, that man is justified without the works of the law to do, alone through faith."

To me it is ironic that today we (as Reformed Puritans) embrace a Bible that was originally meant to contradict our beliefs.

By the way, the New King James Version is NOT a modernized version of the KJV. NKJV uses the Majority Text as a basis.

I view the titling of the NKJV as a way of misleading people that it is just the modernization of the KJV, making people believe that the work of the translators was to just go through the KJV and update some of the words and therefore just updating the bible to modern English.

 

[nicnap]

I think the KJV is still superior to many translations that are out today. Although I still like to look at the New King James Version which modernized the KJV, but retained its essential nature. And is a bit more readable.

Surprisingly, the KJV was originally printed in response to the perceived problems of earlier translations as detected by the Puritan faction of the Church of England. Instructions given to the translators that were intended to limit the Puritan influence on this new translation. This was mostly in the marginal notes though and not the actual verses.

Although Luther did add the word "alone" to Romans 3:28 controversially so that it read: "thus, we hold, then, that man is justified without the works of the law to do, alone through faith."

To me it is ironic that today we (as Reformed Puritans) embrace a Bible that was originally meant to contradict our beliefs.

By the way, the New King James Version is NOT a modernized version of the KJV. NKJV uses the Majority Text as a basis.

I view the titling of the NKJV as a way of misleading people that it is just the modernization of the KJV, making people believe that the work of the translators was to just go through the KJV and update some of the words and therefore just updating the bible to modern English.

Brother,

With all due respect, have you read the preface to the NKJV? The good thing about a preface is that it always tell you what they are going to do there...in it they state that they do use the TR, and they merely footnote where it varies with the Majority and the Critical texts...this is clearly seen throughout in the footnotes.

 

[he beholds]

What is TR and CT?
It's not Truly Reformed and Covenant Theology in these instances, right? (Thant wouldn't make sense.)
Those are the only meanings for those initials that I know.

 

[LawrenceU]

TR is Textus Receptus
CT is Critical Text

The TR is one that the KJV is based upon and is more Byzantine. The CT is what most newer translations are based upon and is more Alexandrian.

 

[TimV]

Jessi, they are short for Textus Receptus and Critical Text. Two of very many texts put together from different old manuscripts, those manuscripts being all or parts of the New Testament.

 

[JoeRe4mer]

A critical approach consists of considering each manuscript on its merits and being thankful that the various traditions of manuscripts support all the Church's doctrines with amazingly few troubling variants.

What we should not do is to pick a manuscript (well actually a synthesis of manuscripts) almost at random and prize certainty in every detail over truth.

Christianity is a historical religion where truth matters, I thought that only the Pope would come up with a post apostolic revelation and argue that any disagreement was a disagreement with God.

Grymir is right what is important are the presupositions underlying a translation and this really is not as simple as only accepting one historical text.

This is really an issue that does not benefit from being aired again and the assertion that using anything other than the AV is unconfessional really needs to be rested.

Ditto.

I don't think that most KJV only people really take the time to look at the translation process or historical developments that lead to the KJV. The bottom line is that whatever underlying manuscripts a translation committee chooses to use there is still a choice that must be made. This means that even the mighty KJV translators had to use some kind of criteria for their choice of manuscripts and in their translations of specific words. The real argument should center around whether or not they always made the right choices since as mere translators they were not divinely inspired as were the original authors.

 

[kevin.carroll]

The 1611 Version included the Apocrypha. Think about it.