So many KJV Arguments

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello David, welcome to PB!

I'm not sure what you mean by "overboard", but some may indeed be possessed more of heat than light, which is understandable, given the crucial importance our Bibles are to us. This applies to both sides of the debate.

When you say there are verses that are "literally unreadable" – though I would say, "somewhat unreadable", given the old language – you have a point. Yet, for my part, I would rather do the extra work of seeking to ascertain the meaning (through comparing with modern translations, and the Greek and Hebrew) knowing that for accuracy the text is based upon the best Hebrew and Greek mss as your own 1689 Confession (and the WCF) says at 1.8. That's the real issue to me. Though difficult in places, the Bible I can hold in my hand is sure, the original languages having been providentially preserved by the God who wrote the book through His servants.

 

[beloved7]

Hello David, welcome to PB!

I'm not sure what you mean by "overboard", but some may indeed be possessed more of heat than light, which is understandable, given the crucial importance our Bibles are to us. This applies to both sides of the debate.

When you say there are verses that are "literally unreadable" – though I would say, "somewhat unreadable", given the old language – you have a point. Yet, for my part, I would rather do the extra work of seeking to ascertain the meaning (through comparing with modern translations, and the Greek and Hebrew) knowing that for accuracy the text is based upon the best Hebrew and Greek mss as your own 1689 Confession (and the WCF) says at 1.8. That's the real issue to me. Though difficult in places, the Bible I can hold in my hand is sure, the original languages having been providentially preserved by the God who wrote the book through His servants.

Thank you brother for the warm welcome. It's not my intention to put down, so to speak, the KJV. As a fellow literal translation skewed guy (ESV) I'd much rather read the KJV than the NIV, or gasp, anything even more dynamic than that.

By overboard what I mean are those who attack all modern translations with a broad brush; not all modern translations are equal. Crossway, for example, did a phenomenal job with the ESV. Perfect balance of literal translation and literary excellence. I admit that I can get defensive when defending the ESV. It's when the KJVO crowd (not KJV preference, KJVO) make claims that it's the only legitimate English version that causes me to get upset. Haven't seen that on this thread to be fair though.

Ironically, the KJV was the ESV in its day. It was developed in the common language. It's also worth stating that the KJV had three (If I'm correct) updates, which shows that it is not any higher in preservation than any other literal (ish) translation. It has been around for over 400 years, but its the RT and CT that are divinely preserved.

Finally, you mentioned cross referencing a modern translation in addition to the Hebrew and Greek texts while reading the KJV. Though commendable, in my humble opinion, it should not be needed.

 

[Dachaser]

Hello David, welcome to PB!

I'm not sure what you mean by "overboard", but some may indeed be possessed more of heat than light, which is understandable, given the crucial importance our Bibles are to us. This applies to both sides of the debate.

When you say there are verses that are "literally unreadable" – though I would say, "somewhat unreadable", given the old language – you have a point. Yet, for my part, I would rather do the extra work of seeking to ascertain the meaning (through comparing with modern translations, and the Greek and Hebrew) knowing that for accuracy the text is based upon the best Hebrew and Greek mss as your own 1689 Confession (and the WCF) says at 1.8. That's the real issue to me. Though difficult in places, the Bible I can hold in my hand is sure, the original languages having been providentially preserved by the God who wrote the book through His servants.

Do any of the Confessions though require that only the TR greek text is the One to be used to translate English versions off from?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Well, David (Dachaser), there was only one alternative Greek text current at this time – that held by Rome, and employed for the overturning of the Reformers' doctrine of Sola Scriptura – thus the TR was tacitly understood and agreed upon as the standard by the framers of the Reformed Confessions.
_____

David (beloved7), apart from the serious errors in the ESV at Matt 1:7, 10, the issue for me – and others who are KJV priority, while owning the legitimacy of your and other versions – is the status of a number of variant readings. That's really the issue for many.

The reason I stick with the AV and supplement that, on occasion, by consulting other translations – which you say "should not be needed" – is needed by me due to my mistrust of the modern and sometimes more readable versions, given their unacceptable significant variants.

 

[beloved7]

Well, David, there was only one alternative Greek text current at this time – that held by Rome, and employed for the overturning of the Reformers' doctrine of Sola Scriptura – thus the TR was tacitly understood and agreed upon as the standard by the framers of the Reformed Confessions.
_____

David (beloved7), apart from the serious errors in the ESV at Matt 1:7, 10, the issue for me – and others who are KJV priority, while owning the legitimacy of your and other versions – is the status of a number of variant readings. That's really the issue for many.

The reason I stick with the AV and supplement that, on occasion, by consulting other translations – which you say "should not be needed" – is needed by me due to my mistrust of the modern and sometimes more readable versions, given their unacceptable significant variants.

That's a fair position. Personally, it can be said that there are errors in the KJV as well. At a certain point you just have to rely on the process that the publishers went through, what texts they used, who endorses it etc. The KJV, is without a doubt, a very safe choice. The ESV, is also a very safe choice as I have no reason to doubt the critical text. If it's good enough for RC Sproul, it's good enough for me.

Brother if you can read the KJV and are happy with it, then that sincerely warms my heart. I just don't want others to feel as if it's their only legitimate word- for - word style choice.

 

[Dachaser]

Well, David (Dachaser), there was only one alternative Greek text current at this time – that held by Rome, and employed for the overturning of the Reformers' doctrine of Sola Scriptura – thus the TR was tacitly understood and agreed upon as the standard by the framers of the Reformed Confessions.
_____

David (beloved7), apart from the serious errors in the ESV at Matt 1:7, 10, the issue for me – and others who are KJV priority, while owning the legitimacy of your and other versions – is the status of a number of variant readings. That's really the issue for many.

The reason I stick with the AV and supplement that, on occasion, by consulting other translations – which you say "should not be needed" – is needed by me due to my mistrust of the modern and sometimes more readable versions, given their unacceptable significant variants.

Would the reformers though have accepted other Greek texts and English translations if were available at their time, or in the future.
And what main Christian doctrines or theologies were affected/corrupted in either Critical Greek text, or modern versions than?

 

[Dachaser]

That's a fair position. Personally, it can be said that there are errors in the KJV as well. At a certain point you just have to rely on the process that the publishers went through, what texts they used, who endorses it etc. The KJV, is without a doubt, a very safe choice. The ESV, is also a very safe choice as I have no reason to doubt the critical text. If it's good enough for RC Sproul, it's good enough for me.

Brother if you can read the KJV and are happy with it, then that sincerely warms my heart. I just don't want others to feel as if it's their only legitimate word- for - word style choice.

More important in translation to me would not be which Greek text was used, but the translation philiophy behind the translation work. A more formal version such as KJV/NKJV/Nas to be preferred over something more dynamic, like the Nlt/Niv.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello again, David (beloved7),

You stated, "it can be said that there are errors in the KJV as well" — care to show me one or two? (Please keep it to two tops—and this is for beloved7 only—I don't want a pile-on as I'm pretty busy.)

 

[beloved7]

Hello again, David (beloved7),

You stated, "it can be said that there are errors in the KJV as well" — care to show me one or two? (Please keep it to two tops—and this is for beloved7 only—I don't want a pile-on as I'm pretty busy.)

I'm not a pastor or seminary student, and to be candid, I'd have to search the internet to answer your question. Though off the top of my head, there are things that the KJV appeared to add upon cross examination of the RT and the CT. Also if memory serves me there is wording in regard to the Trinity that is not correct, though I'd have to look it up to see which book and verse.

Either way, it's virtually unreadable. People don't speak like that anymore.

 

[Ajay]

Hello again, David (beloved7),

You stated, "it can be said that there are errors in the KJV as well" — care to show me one or two? (Please keep it to two tops—and this is for beloved7 only—I don't want a pile-on as I'm pretty busy.)

Sir, Are you saying that KJV is the perfect Bible. As some churches claims here in Singapore that KJV is the only perfect preserved word of God and equate it to the original Autographs.


Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

David (beloved7),

When you say, “to be candid, I'd have to search the internet to answer your question”, that should make you wonder about your epistemology—the basis, i.e., the source—of your knowledge. It is evidently hearsay—you have heard others talking or writing, and you have also formed subjective opinions based on your personal experience. Yet, there are children who, having been raised on the KJV and how to read it, as well how to deal with difficult passages, are quite at home in it.

Even when it was new in 1611 and thereafter, it was not the language of the street—though quite intelligible to them—but the language of the church and of the sacred, a language set apart from the common usage of English, whose cadences and forms of expression reflected the masterful Hebrew and Greek with their majesty and power. I will grant you that now, some 500 years later, our English language has changed in some degree, but not so much that children cannot still comprehend and appreciate its beauty. I do not begrudge anyone preferring a modern version that is easier to read—my own godly wife prefers the 1984 edition of the NIV, a Bible her late father gave to her even before she was saved—but with that preference comes the liability of having to deal with the illegitimate variants (she now uses the NKJV when she teaches the women in their Bible Studies, for such is the default edition of our church), whereas the liability of the KJV users is having to deal with older language and syntax that makes reading more difficult.

For many decades I have sought to learn about the textual status of the Bibles, studying a lot of material on both sides of the debate, and have determined that which is credibly authentic as the Bible God has providentially preserved, and have prepared myself to defend and teach it—seeing as it is such a crucial matter for God’s children in these days of increasing apostasy.

When you assert things concerning the Bible, please make sure you know things for yourself after being informed in these matters. You will no doubt appreciate that there are textual experts on both sides—and all godly men—who differ in these things, so simply choosing one or two people who agree with you, supporting your uninformed early thoughts, will not be sufficient. I see you are sincere and godly, and I wish you the best as you continue to study, even if you end up still disagreeing with me!

______


Hello AJAY—you’re the one who started all this! But I like the discussion, as it is friendly and mostly scholarly.

What I believe is “the perfect Bible” are the Hebrew and Greek texts the Westminster divines affirmed as “being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, [and] are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them” (WCF 1.8). This is your own Confession, AJAY, which says (and is confirmed by God’s promises in His word) He kept the Bible pure through all the ages.

Of course this perfection of purity does not refer to any translation of it; however, insofar as a translation is faithful to the original languages it then partakes of their purity on a derived (or second-hand) basis. Having looked over the AV for many years, I have not seen any verifiable errors, though some instances I ponder with a suspended judgment. I do know that E.F. Hills, the Harvard-trained textual critic who wrote The King James Version Defended (PDF here; online hyperlinked version here) posited that there may be three small errors in the Greek of the NT. There are those who disagree with this, here.

As a co-pastor with the care of a small church and the souls therein, I refuse to allow this Bible version issue to divide the church, or to diminish the faith of those using whatever versions they prefer in their Bibles. All our versions are legitimate Bibles, and the word of God is in them. What is in dispute are some variant readings, and some poorly translated words, but the Bibles in the main are sound, with God able to use them to nurture His people and to mature the churches unto godliness.

I hope this answers your questions and concerns, AJAY.