Why NOT the KJV?

Status
Not open for further replies.

DMcFadden

Puritanboard Commissioner
Damon,

You are investing a large amount of energy in beating a dead horse. I doubt that we can find hardly a person in Church history -- not Tertullian, not Athanasius, not Augustine, not Anselm, not Luther, etc. -- who will meet muster to satisfy the 21st century theological sensibilities of a member of the SBC. Faulting the KJV translators for their theology is certainly your prerogative; labeling, or rather libeling, them as "Catholics" significantly misrepresents the historical data.
 

Whitefield

Puritan Board Junior
Though Cranmer later repudiated SOME of these articles (such as Purgatory and partially transubstantiation), he did not repudiate all of them. In truth, Cranmer was put to death by a monarch that was very angry at him for facilitating her father's divorce from her mother...

Which of those articles you find objectionable were not abandoned and/or repudiated by Cranmer in the Forty-two Articles of 1552?
 
Last edited:

py3ak

Unshaven and anonymous
Staff member
I do not use the KJV, because I believe that it's underlying manuscript is fault-laden. It disagrees even with earlier versions of its own manuscript lines, in some pretty significant places. I prefer a translation that has a better documented, well substantiated underlying manuscript...preferably assembled by protestants, rather than Catholics.

Most of the KJV translators were Anglicans - as J. I. Packer loves to remind us non-Anglican Protestants!



Brother, forgive me, but I was not referring to the KJV translation. I was referring to its underlying manuscript, the so called "Textus Receptus," whose first edition was done by Erasmus...a Roman Catholic apologist.

However, as some would point out to Mr. Packer, the Anglicans were high-churchmen whose primary difference with Roman Catholics was that they followed the Archbishop of England, rather than the Pope. Their theology for all intents and purposes was identical.


[Moderator]Damon, this is either intolerable ignorance or wilful misrepresentation. You need to show (contrary to the ideas of Newton, Ryle, Toplady, and Scott, among others) that the 39 Articles are functionally Roman Catholic in their theology or withdraw this remark.[/Moderator]


I will not withdraw my remark. Obviously there are differences (in this early stage especially), HOWEVER: if you read my comment in context, I was not speaking of Anglicans in general, but of the KJV translators IN PARTICULAR. Notice the past tense usage, not present tense. There is excellent evidence that the KJV translators were Maryolators (both in their writings, and in their insistence on capitalizing the word "Virgin.")

However, since you insist, in terms of High Church structure, it is certainly similar to Rome. Also, if you will examine article 16, which notes the possibility of losing one's salvation due to sin after baptism, baptismal regeneration, and a whole host of other issues. However, I agree with you that as a whole, the Anglican church which arose out of the English reformation is not nearly as far out on a limb as the RCC.


[Moderator]Damon, that is nowhere near good enough. Speaking specifically of the Anglican men who worked on the translation of the AV, you would need to show that the main point of division from Rome was not with regard to any of the solas of the Reformation, but was centered on the Pope. And you would have to do that with documentation, not assertions.[/Moderator]


Since I did not make any such assertion, there is no reason why I must show documentation. What there personal motive was for not aligning with the Church of Rome was, I know not (though certainly as a whole, Anglicanism can be traced to Henry the VIII's dalliances). My statement (if you read above) did not reference their motivation, but their actual doctrine.

Further, friend, I make absolutely no apologies for criticizing High Church Anglicanism, nor the Anglican translators of the KJV. Last time I checked, the teachings were well outside of confessional reformed teachings. Do you believe your continuing salvation is based on abstention from sin? Do you deny the Perseverance of the Saints? Do you believe in Baptismal Regeneration? While I certainly appreciate the work of men like Ryle and Newton (I have to go back and look, but I could have sworn Newton and Ryle were low-churchmen, who asserted the POS...maybe I am wrong..), I will not apologize for criticizing those who hold to popish doctrine.


[Moderator]Damon, all of this is missing the point. You said that the main thing that distinguished their theology from the Roman Catholics was following the Archbishop of Canterbury rather than the pope. Either document that on the Protestant points of dissension from Rome the translators of the AV largely sided with Rome, or withdraw your remark.[/Moderator]
 

Damon Rambo

Puritan Board Sophomore
I do not use the KJV, because I believe that it's underlying manuscript is fault-laden. It disagrees even with earlier versions of its own manuscript lines, in some pretty significant places. I prefer a translation that has a better documented, well substantiated underlying manuscript...preferably assembled by protestants, rather than Catholics.

Most of the KJV translators were Anglicans - as J. I. Packer loves to remind us non-Anglican Protestants!



Brother, forgive me, but I was not referring to the KJV translation. I was referring to its underlying manuscript, the so called "Textus Receptus," whose first edition was done by Erasmus...a Roman Catholic apologist.

However, as some would point out to Mr. Packer, the Anglicans were high-churchmen whose primary difference with Roman Catholics was that they followed the Archbishop of England, rather than the Pope. Their theology for all intents and purposes was identical.


[Moderator]Damon, this is either intolerable ignorance or wilful misrepresentation. You need to show (contrary to the ideas of Newton, Ryle, Toplady, and Scott, among others) that the 39 Articles are functionally Roman Catholic in their theology or withdraw this remark.[/Moderator]


I will not withdraw my remark. Obviously there are differences (in this early stage especially), HOWEVER: if you read my comment in context, I was not speaking of Anglicans in general, but of the KJV translators IN PARTICULAR. Notice the past tense usage, not present tense. There is excellent evidence that the KJV translators were Maryolators (both in their writings, and in their insistence on capitalizing the word "Virgin.")

However, since you insist, in terms of High Church structure, it is certainly similar to Rome. Also, if you will examine article 16, which notes the possibility of losing one's salvation due to sin after baptism, baptismal regeneration, and a whole host of other issues. However, I agree with you that as a whole, the Anglican church which arose out of the English reformation is not nearly as far out on a limb as the RCC.


[Moderator]Damon, that is nowhere near good enough. Speaking specifically of the Anglican men who worked on the translation of the AV, you would need to show that the main point of division from Rome was not with regard to any of the solas of the Reformation, but was centered on the Pope. And you would have to do that with documentation, not assertions.[/Moderator]


Since I did not make any such assertion, there is no reason why I must show documentation. What there personal motive was for not aligning with the Church of Rome was, I know not (though certainly as a whole, Anglicanism can be traced to Henry the VIII's dalliances). My statement (if you read above) did not reference their motivation, but their actual doctrine.

Further, friend, I make absolutely no apologies for criticizing High Church Anglicanism, nor the Anglican translators of the KJV. Last time I checked, the teachings were well outside of confessional reformed teachings. Do you believe your continuing salvation is based on abstention from sin? Do you deny the Perseverance of the Saints? Do you believe in Baptismal Regeneration? While I certainly appreciate the work of men like Ryle and Newton (I have to go back and look, but I could have sworn Newton and Ryle were low-churchmen, who asserted the POS...maybe I am wrong..), I will not apologize for criticizing those who hold to popish doctrine.


[Moderator]Damon, all of this is missing the point. You said that the main thing that distinguished their theology from the Roman Catholics was following the Archbishop of Canterbury rather than the pope. Either document that on the Protestant points of dissension from Rome the translators of the AV largely sided with Rome, or withdraw your remark.[/Moderator]


Since I didn't say they "largely sided with Rome," I am under no obligation to document that idea. Please document me saying that they "largely sided with Rome," or withdraw your statement.

Me saying that something is the "primary difference," means that it is a statement of my opinion...I never said "only difference" nor did I say they "largely sided with Rome." I am stating my opinion regarding their theology. Denial of Perseverance of the Saints, and assertion of losing ones salvation due to post salvation sin, is POPISH works righteousness, and NON REFORMED. I had to sign a statement saying that I would not teach contrary to these doctrines. By forcing me to embrace Anglicanism as legitimate, it would seem that you are in fact trying to force me to break the rules...something I will not do. Denial of PoS, and assertion of works righteousness is popish heresy.

Tell me, since when is criticizing NON REFORMED, NON CONFESSIONAL theology and theologians for their beliefs against the rules here? I can find absolutely nothing in the rules about this. I understand that you obviously have strong feelings on this issue, and I apologize if my words offended you, but you are not reading what I wrote...you are reading your thoughts into my posts.
 

py3ak

Unshaven and anonymous
Staff member
However, as some would point out to Mr. Packer, the Anglicans were high-churchmen whose primary difference with Roman Catholics was that they followed the Archbishop of England, rather than the Pope. Their theology for all intents and purposes was identical.
(Emphasis added)

[Moderator]Damon, does the above statement reflect your views or not? Since you posted it, I consider that it does. This is the primary statement we are discussing, and that I am requiring you to either substantiate or withdraw. You have one post left in which to do that.

The words you wrote state that "Their [i.e., the translators of the AV] theology for all intents and purposes was identical [viz., to the Roman Catholic theology of the time]." It may be an importation into your intention, but it is not an importation into the words you wrote, to rephrase the point as I have done. A "theology" that is "for all intents and purposes" "identical" is a theology that places them largely on the side of Rome when it comes to the theological divide between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. A theology whose primary difference with Roman Catholic theology has to do with whether they follow the Archbishop or the Pope is a very similar theology.

Opinions must be substantiated, withdrawn, or kept quiet. We are past the third option, so again, either substantiate or repudiate the quoted phrases with which this post begins.

Again, you have one post left in which to heed the moderation directed to you. It's a simple request.[/Moderation]
 

Damon Rambo

Puritan Board Sophomore
However, as some would point out to Mr. Packer, the Anglicans were high-churchmen whose primary difference with Roman Catholics was that they followed the Archbishop of England, rather than the Pope. Their theology for all intents and purposes was identical.
(Emphasis added)

[Moderator]Damon, does the above statement reflect your views or not? Since you posted it, I consider that it does. This is the primary statement we are discussing, and that I am requiring you to either substantiate or withdraw. You have one post left in which to do that.

The words you wrote state that "Their [i.e., the translators of the AV] theology for all intents and purposes was identical [viz., to the Roman Catholic theology of the time]." It may be an importation into your intention, but it is not an importation into the words you wrote, to rephrase the point as I have done. A "theology" that is "for all intents and purposes" "identical" is a theology that places them largely on the side of Rome when it comes to the theological divide between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. A theology whose primary difference with Roman Catholic theology has to do with whether they follow the Archbishop or the Pope is a very similar theology.

Opinions must be substantiated, withdrawn, or kept quiet. We are past the third option, so again, either substantiate or repudiate the quoted phrases with which this post begins.

Again, you have one post left in which to heed the moderation directed to you. It's a simple request.[/Moderation]

Fine. I withdraw my earlier statement. Instead, let me assert that the translators of the KJV were heretics who denied the PoS, asserted a form of works righteousness, and believed Baptismal regeneration, all of which are horrific, horrible, and non-reformed doctrines. I cite the 39 articles as my proof, which was standard by this time. Do you care to share any counter proof?
 

py3ak

Unshaven and anonymous
Staff member
[Moderator]
Damon, thank you for taking responsibility for your first statement. You may not be surprised to learn that your replacement statement is equally unacceptable.

The thread can now go back on topic. For those interested in pursuing the validity of Damon's charge, here is some information.[/Moderator]

A link to the 39 Articles:
The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion

And here are some relevant excerpts:

Article XI

Of the Justification of Man

We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort; as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.

Article XVII

Of Predestination and Election

Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby, before the foundations of the world were laid, He hath constantly decreed by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom He hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation as vessels made to honour. Wherefore they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God be called according to God's purpose by His Spirit working in due season; they through grace obey the calling; they be justified freely; they be made sons of God by adoption; they be made like the image of His only-begotten Son Jesus Christ; they walk religiously in good works; and at length by God's mercy they attain to everlasting felicity.
As the godly consideration of Predestination and our Election in Christ is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh and their earthly members and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: so for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the devil doth thrust them either into desperation or into wretchlessness of most unclean living no less perilous than desperation.

Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise as they be generally set forth in Holy Scripture; and in our doings that will of God is to be followed which we have expressly declared unto us in the word of God.

Article XXVII

Of Baptism

Baptism is not only a sign of profession and mark of difference whereby Christian men are discerned from other that be not christened, but is also a sign of regeneration or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God, by the Holy Ghost are visibly signed and sealed; faith is confirmed, and grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the Church as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.
 

J. Dean

Puritan Board Junior
I was not necessarily saying this specifically for you, I was just saying that many people will accuse KJV onlies of bigotry and having bad arguments while they themselves use arguments that are just as bad and are less than "loving" when dealing with them. 9 time out of 10 this debate is done on the bases of emotions. (I know this goes both ways and I was not trying to justify one side or the other). There are bad arguments on both sides I was just pointing the "emotion" factor to try to limit the straw man tactics. Most people just accept whatever they hear without checking the validity of the arguments. I'm not trying to force my view on anybody (which is KJV priority) but I do not like seeing a misrepresentation of my views especially when invalid argument are used. I do believe this is as important as any doctrinal issues, but I also realize that utlimately only God can bring truth and agreement in theses matters.
I took your argument in the wrong spirit. I humbly apologize for that and ask you to forgive me.

As to the TR vs. the CT, my question would be this: are there any differences in the texts that equate to a major change with regard to a doctrinal/theological point basic to Christianity?

---------- Post added at 07:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:48 AM ----------

In fact, it was due in part to Reformed people that I switched from the KJV (which I was raised on). For example, Francis Schaeffer deals with the passage of Daniel 3

Francis Schaeffer, while a great philosopher and apologist and a Presbyterian, was hardly reformed. For evidence, read his book "25 Basic Bible Studies"
Really? I always got the impression that he subscribed to TULIP and acknowledged God's sovereignty in conversion (See his book True Spirituality)
 

DMcFadden

Puritanboard Commissioner
Someone asked me offline how I justify the issue of KJV relative readability.

Granted that Google's criteria is not available to me, here is someone's correlation of the data.

2010-12-reading-levels1.png


It is a little awkward to be defending the KJV since I'm an ESV and NKJV man. I simply do not want us to wrongly bad-mouth a very fine translation. Despite the archaic language in spots, it is not nearly as bad as some say. And, despite weird words such as "gay" for expensive clothing in James 2, it is pretty easy to follow most of the time.
 

Weston Stoler

Puritan Board Sophomore
Someone asked me offline how I justify the issue of KJV relative readability.

Granted that Google's criteria is not available to me, here is someone's correlation of the data.

2010-12-reading-levels1.png

I can easily read the words but can I comprehend what I am reading? Sure I can because I have read it for so long but as a new Christian who was forced to read it I was relying on someone else's interpretation of the text. Which is why I was ultra-Dispensational, kjvonly, arminian, and many other horrible doctrines that I would not have been otherwise.
 

elnwood

Puritan Board Junior
Readability metrics are based primarily on counting things like syllables per word, and syllables and words per sentence. They have nothing to do with comprehension or how difficult the individual words are.

It's the same thing you get when using Microsoft Word to calculate readability. You can even put in a foreign language and get a decent readability number.

Have any of you read the NIrV? It breaks up Paul's epistles into a whole bunch of really short sentences.
 

JML

Puritan Board Junior
Someone asked me offline how I justify the issue of KJV relative readability.

Granted that Google's criteria is not available to me, here is someone's correlation of the data.



It is a little awkward to be defending the KJV since I'm an ESV and NKJV man. I simply do not want us to wrongly bad-mouth a very fine translation. Despite the archaic language in spots, it is not nearly as bad as some say. And, despite weird words such as "gay" for expensive clothing in James 2, it is pretty easy to follow most of the time.

I disagree with this chart. I find the Message absolutely unreadable. :D
 

SRoper

Puritan Board Graduate
I don't use the KJV because I didn't grow up with it and never went to a church that used it. I use the ESV primarily because the church I attend uses it, and I think it is very readable.
 

Fogetaboutit

Puritan Board Freshman
As to the TR vs. the CT, my question would be this: are there any differences in the texts that equate to a major change with regard to a doctrinal/theological point basic to Christianity?

Well definitely the primary one would be the infallibility of God's word. I'm not againt greek or hebrew words being translated differently in some instances as long as the meaning of the verse is not hindered, but when you have complete verses, partial verses, sometime entire sections of a text (Mark 16:9-20) omitted or being put in doubt by footnotes, and at other place readings created by taking portion for differents MSS (See "The Revision Revised" by John Burgon for examples) then we definitely have problems, escpecially when the MSS used for the bases of these changes are very suspicious. (These manuscripts don't even agree with each other on many instances)


This is certainly not an exhaustive list but here a few verses which support and Arminian view in many new version.

1 Timothy 2:3-5 (the KJV says "God will have all men to be saved" as men from all nation, classes etc, but the NKJV, ESV, NIV, NASB all have "God desires (or wants) all men (or people) to be saved" )

2 Peter 3:9 (The KJV says God "not willing that any should perish" while the ESV, NASB, NIV all says that God is "not wishing (or wanting) for any to perish")

Of course the context of those verse is concerning the elects.
 

Whitefield

Puritan Board Junior
2 Peter 3:9 (The KJV says God "not willing that any should perish" while the ESV, NASB, NIV all says that God is "not wishing (or wanting) for any to perish")

I am missing the nuance as to why "not wishing for any to perish" is a more effective tool in the hand of the Arminian than "not willing that any should perish."
 

Fogetaboutit

Puritan Board Freshman
I am missing the nuance as to why "not wishing for any to perish" is a more effective tool in the hand of the Arminian than "not willing that any should perish."

Most Arminian will agree that God "will" accomplish his will, which in their eyes is to save all those who "choose" to be save. Wishing that his elect do not perish leaves place for the elects to fall in apostacy if they so "choose" to.

Not being "willing" means it would be againts God's will for his elects to perish, therefore if some of his elect would perish it would mean God failed to accomplish his will. On the other hand if he is only "wishing" for them to not perish some of his elect could still perish without God failing to accomplish his will.

"Wishing" for something not to happen doesn't mean you are not "willing" for it to happen under certain cirucumstances
 

Whitefield

Puritan Board Junior
I am missing the nuance as to why "not wishing for any to perish" is a more effective tool in the hand of the Arminian than "not willing that any should perish."

Most Arminian will agree that God "will" accomplish his will, which in their eyes is to save all those who "choose" to be save. Wishing that his elect do not perish leaves place for the elects to fall in apostacy if they so "choose" to.

Not being "willing" means it would be againts God's will for his elects to perish, therefore if some of his elect would perish it would mean God failed to accomplish his will. On the other hand if he is only "wishing" for them to not perish some of his elect could still perish without God failing to accomplish his will.

"Wishing" for something not to happen doesn't mean you are not "willing" for it to happen under certain cirucumstances

It would be nice to meet an Arminian arguing that way (which I never have). The logical outcome for an Arminian who argued that way would be for him to deny the omnipotence of God (God can't always get what He desires/wishes). I don't see any difference between what God wills and what He wishes/desires, so however βουλομενος is translated, it ends in the same result. I don't think the problem lies in the translation, but in the theology of the Arminian reading 2 Peter 3:9. There were Arminians using this passage long before there was an ESV, NASB, RSV, etc.
 

py3ak

Unshaven and anonymous
Staff member
I don't see any difference between what God wills and what He wishes/desires, so however βουλομενος is translated, it ends in the same result.

"Wish" is sometimes used to refer to an ineffective or unfulfilled volition. If a translation gives that idea in speaking of God, it is unfortunate.
 
Last edited:

FedByRavens

Puritan Board Freshman
After i got saved, i became a membr of a KJV only church. I acctually got to the point to where i believed that the KJV was the only true english bible. Since then i have come to absolutely love the NASB. It's absolutely amazing to have a modern english version that doesn't try do dumb down the english. I've made myself exclusive to the NASB and have began to bring it to church. Often times I'll stand back and observe people misunderstand the scriptures because of the old english. Passages such as "Exodus 32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people. " or "Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light." Ever so often I'll speak out with what the NASB says, and people have become impressed with it. The elders will usually ask me what the NASB says about a particular passage and it always matches with the context. I love the KJV, but I've come to realize that if i cant understand it due to outdated wording or phrases, then all I can be is a hearer of the word, and not a doer. God has given us His word to understand, not to just blindly qoute or recite. God has never had to repent of evil, but He has "relented from disaster." Jesus wasn't refering to having one eye Etc Etc
 

Bill The Baptist

Puritan Board Graduate
I was not necessarily saying this specifically for you, I was just saying that many people will accuse KJV onlies of bigotry and having bad arguments while they themselves use arguments that are just as bad and are less than "loving" when dealing with them. 9 time out of 10 this debate is done on the bases of emotions. (I know this goes both ways and I was not trying to justify one side or the other). There are bad arguments on both sides I was just pointing the "emotion" factor to try to limit the straw man tactics. Most people just accept whatever they hear without checking the validity of the arguments. I'm not trying to force my view on anybody (which is KJV priority) but I do not like seeing a misrepresentation of my views especially when invalid argument are used. I do believe this is as important as any doctrinal issues, but I also realize that utlimately only God can bring truth and agreement in theses matters.
I took your argument in the wrong spirit. I humbly apologize for that and ask you to forgive me.

As to the TR vs. the CT, my question would be this: are there any differences in the texts that equate to a major change with regard to a doctrinal/theological point basic to Christianity?

---------- Post added at 07:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:48 AM ----------

In fact, it was due in part to Reformed people that I switched from the KJV (which I was raised on). For example, Francis Schaeffer deals with the passage of Daniel 3

Francis Schaeffer, while a great philosopher and apologist and a Presbyterian, was hardly reformed. For evidence, read his book "25 Basic Bible Studies"
Really? I always got the impression that he subscribed to TULIP and acknowledged God's sovereignty in conversion (See his book True Spirituality)

Don't get me wrong, I love Francis Schaeffer. Here at Southeastern, we have all of letters and other documents and included are his long correspondence with Van Til. Schaeffer went to Westminster for two years before leaving and going to Faith seminary. His reasons for doing so were because one he was a premillenialist and Westminster was becoming increasingly Amil, and two he did not believe in a strong determinism. His main disagreement with Van Til center on depravity. Francis Schaeffer did not believe that man was completely worthless apart from God, but that man was special because of his being made in the image of God regardless of whether or not he was part of the elect. I would really suggest reading 25 Basic Bible Studies to get a better idea of his theology. It is a very short read, almost like a confession of faith.
 

FedByRavens

Puritan Board Freshman
Psalm 143:2 And enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified. KJV

Psalm 143:2 Enter not into judgment with your servant, for no one living is righteous before you. ESV
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top