A Short KJV Detour (Part 1)
January 18th, 2007
We’ve noticed that the King James Only discussion has appeared in some of the recent comment threads. So we thought we would take a brief detour to address that issue, before continuing our study of the charismatic gifts. The following is a study our elders at Grace Community Church put together regarding the King James Version. This detour will take us just a few days, after which we will resume our discussion of the gifts.
Is the KJV the only version of the Bible we should use?
A growing literature crusade claims, “God wrote only one Bible,” referring to the King James Bible published in 1611. These people contend that the King James Version (KJV) is the only English version of Scripture which faithfully preserves the original writings, and they support their claim in articles with titles such as “My Stand on the Inerrancy of the King James Version.” They build their case upon such doctrines as providential preservation of Scripture, Scriptural inerrancy, and one’s commitment to God.
Grace Community Church regularly receives letters from “Grace to You” listeners all over the country who react to statements in the radio broadcasts that better and older texts differ from those used for the KJV and conclude we teach that the Greek manuscripts on which the KJV is based are inaccurate. They ask, “If the King James Version is not the most accurate translation of the Bible, then which translation is and why is it regarded so?”
At the heart of the controversy lie several questions: Is one Scripture version inherently superior to the others? Is one family of original language manuscripts superior to another, and if so, which one? How can we determine which manuscripts are reliable? The evaluation of the relative merits of various Biblical manuscripts and translations is a very complex issue, especially for those who are not trained in the field of the Greek language and New Testament textual studies, and cannot be addressed fully in a short pamphlet; however, we trust this brief study will prove helpful.
BACKGROUND
Some basic facts about the existing manuscripts of the New Testament are necessary to an understanding of the historical background of the issue of textual variations. These facts are summarized below:
1. The Old and New Testaments were not originally written in the English language but in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
2. The original writings, or autographa, of all the books of the Bible do not exist today.
3. God never promised the perfect preservation of the original manuscripts, but He did promise to preserve their content, as evidenced in Numbers 23:19, Isaiah 55:11, and Matthew 5:18. The content is preserved within the body of currently existing manuscripts.
4. There are differences among the existing original language manuscripts of both the Old and New Testaments. These differences are the source of the controversy.
5. Far more manuscripts are in existence today for the New Testament than for any other piece of ancient literature. There are at least four Scripture manuscript families that are widely recognized. They include the Alexandrian Text, the Western Text, the Caesarean Text, and the Byzantine, or Majority, Text.
6. Because of the large number of manuscripts in existence, the sources of textual variants in the Greek New Testament are usually simple to identify.
7. Textual variations are almost always incidental and do not significantly affect the meaning of Scripture. Once the easily explained variants are removed, 99.9 percent of the text of our Bible can be confirmed as accurate without reservation.
8. Many textual problems have already been resolved satisfactorily and are no longer in question.
9. No doctrine in all of historic orthodox Christianity is dependent upon the solution to any one textual variant.
The facts listed above are vital in order to maintain a proper perspective toward the controversy surrounding the issue of the textual accuracy of the Bible.
APPROACHES TO THE PROBLEM OF TEXTUAL VARIATION
Because there are variations of the same portions of Scripture in different manuscripts, there must be guidelines to use in evaluating which manuscripts are the most faithful to the original writings. Several approaches to this issue have been proposed. They include:
1. ”King James only”
2. “Majority Text only”
3. “Thorough going eclectic”
4. “Westcott Hort”
5. “Balanced eclectic”
These approaches are described briefly in the paragraphs below.
The “King James only” approach suggests that the English translation made in 1611 is inspired of God. It equates the Word of God, in the very real sense of the autographa, with the King James Version Bible. In the October 1978 issue of Bible Believers Bulletin, Peter Ruckman states, “…the Holy Ghost…honored the English text above any Greek or Hebrew text…” By this he meant that the KJV translators were guided more accurately in their translation by the Holy Spirit than were those men who copied the original manuscripts. This sentiment is echoed by the “King James Bible Preachers Fellowship,” a group of pastors who characterize themselves as “men who are unashamed to proclaim the King James Bible, A.D. 1611, as God’s holy, perfect word. God still has a few men who have not bowed the knee to the Baal of scholarship.”
The Bible Truth Mission in Millersburg, Pennsylvania has issued the following challenge in an attempt to resolve the controversy surrounding the KJV: “We have decided to have a standing offer of $10,000 for anyone who can disprove, to our satisfaction, the authenticity and historicity of the facts surrounding the King James Bible as compared to other versions, paraphrases, translations, etc. We are making this offer to permanently silence the small group of biased news journalists, self appointed scholars, Bible book stores and publishing companies, who question why the vast majority of born again Christians use the King James only.”
The second approach is the “Majority Text only” school. This reasonable approach, championed by Zane Hodges, professor of New Testament and Greek at Dallas Theological Seminary, also promotes the King James Bible. The Dean Burgon Society was recently formed to advocate this position, and Thomas Nelson Publishers of Nashville issued the New King James Version under the academic leadership of Dr. Arthur Farstad with this position in mind.
The “Majority Text only” approach argues that God preserved His Word in the text which is found in the largest number of manuscripts. Because the largest number of manuscripts is found in the Byzantine, or Majority, family, this family is considered by supporters of this approach to most accurately represent the autographa. The King James Bible is based upon the “textus receptus” (TR), a segment of the Byzantine family of manuscripts.
The “thorough going eclectic” approach to the textual variation controversy is advocated by liberal theologians who reject any consideration of manuscript families, date of manuscripts, and other external evidence. They concentrate their attention on internal content of the manuscripts and draw conclusions based only upon a literary analysis of the text. This school has little support among conservative theologians.
The “Westcott Hort” approach has long been publicized as the position held by most modern conservatives. Westcott and Hort suggested that the Alexandrian family of manuscripts are the oldest in existence today and, therefore, are to be preferred. They also concluded that external evidence, i.e. manuscript families, outweighs internal evidence. An in depth explanation of this position can be found in the Westcott Hort Greek New Testament.
The fifth approach to the problem of textual variation is the position actually espoused by many conservative theologians. This “balanced eclectic” approach holds that each text type is to be evaluated independently without premeditated bias as to which manuscript family is most authoritative. It also posits that internal and external evidences are to be considered equally. This school basically suggests that each textual variant be investigated thoroughly and considered on its own merits.
(To be continued tomorrow with an evaluation of the arguments supporting the King James Only position)
For most of us Pastors who have tried to follow the debates of textual criticism and translation theory, admittedly we have given up all hope of an educated opinion – I simply do not have the ability to make any kind of objective opinion, nor the time to honestly even evaluate the Critical Apparatus in the Greek New Testament. I can broadly read about the differences in the Westcott/Hort verses the Textus Receptus theory of translation but that is about all. I preach from the New King James Version, study from the most recent Nestle-Aland Greek text but honestly depend on the critical commentaries or theological journals to help in any kind of translation option. I do believe, in my humble opinion, there is something for a challenge to the “translation theory” itself of the Westcott-Hort or Critical Text, not just the Textus Receptus (which is admittedly more prone to insert terms) Maybe my seminary professors at Master’s will shutter some but I could not help seeing there are some errors in both translation theories. Regardless, I find comfort in the sovereignty of God who directs a humble, sincere desire to know the precise meaning of the text and is not somehow committed to justifying a theory (even a translation theory) at the extent of knowing God’s Word.
Thanks for this ‘Detour’. I’m eager to learn, and shall be prayerfully listening.
I’ve come across blogs(such as Be Not Conformed) with links that make a person take pause. Have read books, seen videos from PCC on the debate, have seen a myriad of online comparisons and reasoning pro and con concerning both sides of the fence…and know that the new versions must have significant changes from the KJV in order to qualify as a new translation when it comes to copyright law…and profit. Actually, isn’t the KJV the only one quote issue in print because it isn’t under such?
Have read a bit from John MacArthur on the subject but do wonder if there would be more unity on application that flows from interpretation in the Body of Christ if there weren’t so many flavors of God’s written Word in the English language. Having so many sure hasn’t been a positive overall, has it? Maybe to the adversary who loves the sheep stirred up?
Actually, isn’t the KJV the only one without quote issue in print because it isn’t under such?
An edit OOPS; sorry about that!
This topic can be painful to bear. I liked Doug Hecks honest response. Why is it painful? Well, I came to Christianity through the reading of the Bible, and it was the King James Version. I am both comfortable with the style and the text, and was even as a heathen. It would make sense that I would become the KJV-only advocate, but I cannot. Perhaps I am simplistic, but to me the issue appears much deeper than KJV only. The issue to me appears to boil down to Literal versus Paraphrase. I have a friend that will not go to any church that does not preach emphatically that KJV is not the “true bible”. I love my friend, but he sometimes misses the point.
Having said that, I shudder when I see people only read Bibles like the Message…or other paraphrases. They almost believe what they have been told that the Bible is too hard to read, so in order to keep interest, they must read these type of Bibles-and usually stay illiterate of what the Bible really says.
There are “literal” translations of the Bible other than simply KJV-and many times, more faithful to the original text. I cringe when my friends make this an issue to die on rather than the literal/paraphrase issue. It seems it is not really an issue over translation for some, but rather a style.
I am no expert; in fact I sympathize over losing literal translations. However, why not the Geneva Bible? King James wasn’t exactly an icon of the faith. I enjoy the ESV, but I prefer the NASB and NKV because those I am still most familiar with.
I’ve never responded to anything in blog world before, and my comment is not intended to land on the site here, but is rather a question to the administrator – sorry if this is the wrong place.
I enjoy reading the magazine and save most of the emails I receive from it. Is it feasible to put a short phrase description of each article after “New Article from Pulpit Magazine” in the subject line of the email? That would make it much easier for those of us who save them to go back and find a particular article for reference.
Just a thought.
To all,
Let this be a good lesson on the value of knowing the original languages. Every Christian leader should know or be learning the originals.
It’s like reading the Scripture in color, instead of black and white. And it clears up so many issues.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
In point number 3 under Background above, you list Numbers 23:9 as a proof text. I am wondering what this passage of scripture has to do with this topic?
9 “As I see him from the top of the rocks,
And I look at him from the hills;
Behold, a people who dwells apart,
And will not be reckoned among the nations.
I have suffered directly from the hammer of the KJV only people and I cringe to think that any credibility would be given to a guy like Peter Ruckman. Our Lord has given us a mandate to communicate the gospel with love and simplicity. While I study the original languages, I wouldn’t quote Scripture in Greek to a person I was witnessing to because it would be no different than speaking in tongues without an interpreter. In the same way, quoting from the KJV to many today is no different. The word tell us a “spiritual man appraises all things.” I take that to mean that God has given us a mind to use and the Holy Spirit to guide us and we should do just that to accomplish His purposes with love, temporance and common sense. I don’t believe the arrogant demands of the KJV only people is consistant with the principles of love and respect that the word of God teaches.
James,
Thanks for your comment… The correct verse is Numbers 23:19. We have made that correction in the article.
Numbers 23:19 reads:
God is not a man, that He should lie,
Nor a son of man, that He should repent.
Has He said, and will He not do it?
Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?
“Actually, isn’t the KJV the only one without quote issue in print because it isn’t under such?”
You can quote any translation without copy write issues, but only to a certain limit (for example, the ESV I have here says you can quote up to 1000 verses without consent as long as you aren’t simply quoting an entire book). So the issue of copy write has to do with complete reproduction of one or more complete books, not with quoting select passages.
I remember having this debate a long time ago. I personally love the KJV because of it’s poetic language and cadence – sometimes being easier to remember. I use the NIV in study and enjoy The Message for contrast. The best ‘interpretation’ of Scripture I ever enjoyed was in a class on Greek Exegesis that I audited at The Masters Seminary. I enjoy doing homiletic analysis on passage.
I think all translations suffer somewhat from loss of original meaning. I have found it helpful to correlate meaning from several sources, including commentaries and linguistic dictionaries. And the Holy Spirit plays the major role in interpretation – as does comparison to other passages – to reveal something new about each passage within the context of my life / experiences – making God’s Word a continual source of joy.
Is one the authority to the exclusion of all others? No. I trust God to make His meaning and intent clear and thank Him that there are so many great tools available for study.
I believe serious scholars, like Dr. MacArthur, when they say there are several versions faithfully translated and viable. He uses the New American Standard now though I find it too pedestrian. The New King James is excellent; clear, poetic… However, I take exception to the psychobabble paraphrase known as “The Message”. I shudder to think of a pastor using it in the pulpit. Clearly people are much more illiterate than they were two hundred years ago but surely they can undertand the NKJV, can’t they? The Message utterly corrupts the Word and should be avoided. Anyone agree?
The Message Bible does make me shudder, but as John Piper says, it’s better than nothing.
I’m sure it was written with good intentions, however, he should’ve just wrote study notes a la Scofield, MacArthur, etc. and not a paraphrase of the whole thing. This is also not meant as a slam, but someone pointed out that ppl should be able to understand the NKJV at the minimum.
The author should’ve just wrote a Bible for a 3-6th grade audience – students at that level might not “get it” completely.
I wonder if any of the KJV only advocates would really use an original KJV. They seem to have little to say about the edits and revisions that version has undergone through the years.
We have a fairly new believer that has been attending a men’s group that I lead on Monday nights. He has been using the Message, however, one of the men gave him a NASB McArthur Study Bible in early December. It is amazing how much more of the word he is grasping and understanding since he started using a literal translation vs a paraphrase.
Why do so many in the church today want to dumb down the Scriptures and biblical concepts? Lack of trust in the suffiency and perspicuity of Scripture? Lack of trust in God, in His Holy Spirit? Lack of understanding and salvation themselves?
A personal note on this issue:
I wanted to be a pastor at age 7 or 8. I left the church at age 16 and came back to it in my early 30s. I am now a pastor at age 61. Why did I leave the church when I did has been a question I have asked myself many times over the years. One recurring reason–the King James Bible.
I distinctly remember doing my Sunday school lesson as a young boy and getting completely frustrated with the language and trying to understand what God was saying through Elizabethan English. I threw my pencil down in frustration. I didn’t realize I could have used another translation. Did anyone use anything else in the 1950s?
Today I realize the KJV is a good translation as well as others. I use the MacArthur Study Bible NAS and I would never recommend the KJV (1769 edition).
The question of what is an appropriate version for kids is a very good one (and one not discussed very often). I have started using the ESV and really like the translation, but as a choice for kids I worry the version would be an unnecessary barrier if (and hopefully when) they start reading it for themselves – something akin to what Jim experienced with the KJV.
I’ve started looking at kid-friendly New Testaments for a child outreach program that will (God willing) be starting up soon and have found a New Living Translation that seems to fit my requirements, but it has really caused me to think hard about this whole translation issue. While the NLT isn’t a version I would’ve found myself recommending, it may be totally appropriate for the kids I’m targeting (6-12 yrs).
A lot of healthy and encouraging comments. This is such an important subject for the Body of Christ in our day.
I like Phil’s response:
“Let this be a good lesson on the value of knowing the original languages. Every Christian leader should know or be learning the originals.
It’s like reading the Scripture in color, instead of black and white. And it clears up so many issues.”
Couldn’t have said it better Phil. I hope that one day I can see it in full color.
Or as we are told..”a workman who need not be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth.”
Eddie
I had no idea there were so many versions until going to google. I knew nothing other than the KJV was even available until the 70’s and then let the confusion begin. Dynamic. Functional equivalent. Formal equivalent. Paraphrase. Others, too. Grade 12. Grade 7. Grade 3. And others. When the message was spoken in tongues, does anyone think there so much variety for each language interpreted?
There is a verse comparison of Bibles at this link. They speak somewhat similar but not really to me…the same thing that happens when I’ve compared other verses and wondered why they are so different(some omit, others change meaning completely to these eyes). Would someone be up to sharing how they would address the verse according to the original language? How to begin reading in color rather than black and white as Phil shared? Strong’s? A different concordance for different versions? Don’t totally wipe out my brain circuits in my wanting to understand the next step. Is it inductive Bible study?
http://www.allbibles.com/bibleversions.asp
Hi!
I was born in Romania and came to the US at 16. Now I am 50 and, with the exception of one year, I have been in Romanian Baptist Churches all my life. There is only one widely published translation of the Bible in Romanian and it was done in the early 1900s by a Romanian Orthodox priest who was saved while doing the translation. I still read my Bible in Romanian and even have a hard time praying in English! This controversy is purely American, maybe of the English speaking world! By the way, my daughter studied in France for a semester and could only find one translation there! There are over 1 billion Chinese in this world. Would the KJV only crowd say that they have to all learn English before they can b presented the Gospel for salvation? I appreciate John’s ministry and recommend it to everyone!
Maranatha!
Gabriel,
You hit the nail on the head! This is the point where many of my KJV only friends have stuttered the most. Sometimes we Americans think we’re the only ones on this planet.
David MacAfee said that the KJV is like a foriegn language to the average guy on the street. And he is right. The funny thing is is that those who read the KJV don’t understand it all either. Ask them what a mansion is, at least in John 14:2. Then tell them to go look it up in a dictionary. Some might get the right answer…
While the number of English versions has exploded in recent years, it is important to note that there have been many older (i.e., pre-1970) English translations produced including:
1525 Tyndale New Testament
1535 Cloverdale Bible
1537 Matthew-Tyndale Bible
1539 Great Bible
1560 Geneva Bible
1568 Bishop’s Bible
1582 Rheims New Testament (OT in 1609)
1611 King James Bible
1782 Aitken Bible
1833 Webster Bible
1881 English Revised Bible
1901 American Standard Bible
One interesting historic note, the bible used by the Reformers was not the KJV – the Geneva bible was the Protestant translation even decades after the KJV was published. For example, the Geneva Bible was the translation that Puritans and Pilgrims brought to America.
Also, the 1611 KJV included the Apocrypha – do the KJV only crowd insist on its inclusion as well?
For more details see: http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/index.html
“‘Jesus said: ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they are doing.’” (Luke 23:34 – NIV)
Or did He?
According to Wycliffe He said: “Fadir, foryyue hem, for thei witen not what thei doon”.
Why?
I believe that the Geneva Bible especially the 1599 edition, had a great influence of the translators of the AV in 1611.
Dear Mrs. Burrows,
It sounds like the best you could do right now is to Google the phrases you’ve already found. You’ve already hit on different translation types: Dynamic. Functional equivalent. Formal equivalent.
A lot of cutting-edge work in linguistics (the study of language) is done by Bible translators.
When I attended Bible college (graduated 1977) I had a professor who had been a Wycliffe Bible translator. The mission of Wycliffe is to translate the New Testament and the entire Bible into languages that have no translations of the Bible.
Growing up in western culture, we have a lot of knowledge that allows us to understand most English translations of the Bible. For example, nearly everyone has a basic understanding of words like temple, law, sin, priest, guilt, etc.
But there are tribes everywhere which have no such words. Or their roughly equivalent words are so heavily weighted with non-Biblical meanings as to pose a real problem.
Many tribes have a word for “stranger.” Unfortunately, the same word means “enemy.” But in their language the word doesn’t have two separate meanings: a stranger IS an enemy. Stranger = Enemy.
We all know what a Jew is, many know what a Gentile is, but a Samaritan?
So the problem Bible translators are faced with is this. The most “literal” translation in such a tribal context would require explanatory footnotes which would be twice as long as the translation itself. It would be worse than reading Shakespeare with all the footnotes.
For many tribes, the new Bible translation is the first time their language has been written down. Prior to that, there was not what we call literacy. To burden the new believers with learning to read PLUS a Bible translation PLUS a commentary twice the size of their Bible is a serious problem.
That’s where all the talk of “equivalency” comes in. I believe it’s the book “Through Gates of Splendor” that contains a terrific story about how the missionaries struggled to find a cultural example of Christ’s sacrifice to build on, and how the ultimate discovery of a “cultural equivalent” was connected to averting a tribal war. (I could be mistaken about the title, however.)
Another professor of mine told us about a French phrase: “l’esprit d’escalier.” The literal translation means “the spirit of the staircase.” It refers to that moment when you’re leaving someone and you think to yourself, “you know, what I SHOULD have said was…”
So a “literal translation” of the French words would come out “the spirit of the staircase,” which would NOT communicate much at all. So the element of interpretation enters the translation task.
The Bible has been so central in Western Civilization for so long, it’s colloquialisms and meanings have become part of the language. We don’t need nearly as much help understanding our translations of the ancient Greek and Hebrew texts as language groups need who do not have centuries of Biblical influence in their culture.
A few points of clarification, I hope. I was a KJV Onlyist for years and finally could not get past the clear errors in the TR. Now I prefer the ESV.
First, your first two categories are a little bit too generalized. Many KJV only people have nothing to do with Ruckman. He would be more extreme than some. However most in that group would not allow any changes to the KJV. They would say that in effect it is the only inspired word of God for english speakers.
But the “Majority Text” only group is different. Hodges and those guys have no problem with the KJV. The brand of KJV only that I was, however was what is called “TR Only”. We held that the Greek is more important than the English and that the English was merely an accurate translation but did not hold every nuance the Greek held. This group believed the TR (Textus Receptus) which underlies the KJV and also the Hebrew text underlying the KJV are inerrant and perfectly preserved. Although they might admit we don’t have all the perfect words in one edition of the Greek or Hebrew, but they are all translated accurately in the KJV. This group would not use the NKJV under any circumstances and they would say the TR is better than the recently edited Majority Text. Majority Text only guys would use the NKJV and say the MT is far superior to the TR. (This might be a little technical for some here, but this TR Only group loves to point out how they are incorrectly lumped together with Ruckmanites and how they actually care about the Greek. But like the first group, they believe they are the only ones who are right.
Second, someone aksed what KJV people would do with China. The extreme KJV onlies (from the first group listed above) would do something similar to backtranslating from the KJV english to Chinese. Or they would produce a corrected Chinese Bible. TR Only people, however, would use what is available, but try to produce a Chinese Bible based on the TR Greek and the Hebrew that underlies the KJV.
Great series of articles, am looking forward to the whole series!
Blessings in Christ,
Bob Hayton
KJV Only Debate Resource Center
By the way, the TR that TR Only people use is the 1890 or so edition of Scrivener’s TR. Scrivener attempted to put down in one book all the textual choices that the KJV used. However even in that TR edition, Scrivener expressly states that there are many (40+) places where the KJV did not use Greek at all but relied on Latin or some uncertain source.
Great discussion. I am working on my MDIV and have not taken any Greek classes. I have a question that I feel will get equitable treatment here. I was KJV only for all of my Christian life until about 7 months ago. I want to know if the first part of Acts 9:6 is in the Greek manuscripts or did the KJV translators add? Haven’t seen any mention of how the KJV translators themselves felt, like their own page that is still included in some KJVs.
Chris,
Most of the notes of the KJV translators were burned in a fire and we don’t have them.
Re: Acts 9:6, Erasmus doubted its veracity. He said he included it due to its being in the Vulgate, but he doubted its authenticity. He actually got the greek for it from the parallel passage in Acts 22 I believe.
Take a moment and peruse some of the articles I have listed in my KJV Only Debate Resource center above, as some of them touch on this issue.
As to whether it is in the Greek manuscripts, it isn’t. It made its way into the TR (Greek printed editions) from the Vulgate, but it is not in the Greek manuscripts. It may be in one or two late MSS which are of the same date as printed editions of the TR, and hence may have been influenced by them. But I don’t think so. I don’t have my technical works to check right now, but I don’t believe it is in Greek.
Hope that helps.
Bob Hayton
“burned in” above, should read “destroyed by”–it was not intentional.
Thanks for the timely response and I will read the other articles.
[...] http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/18/a-short-kjv-detour-part-1/ [...]
Hi all. As I read through the comments here it is plain that none of you who are not King James Bible only believes that there is such a thing as a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible. This is not a salvation issue; God can and does save His people using just a few words or short verses found in any bible version out there, no matter how corrupt or inferiour it might be.
However the central issue that you all seem to overlook is this: Is there such a thing as a complete and inerrant Bible in any language here on this earth today?
Most of you do not believe such a thing exists, and you each end up becoming your own final authority and none of you agrees 100% of the time with anybody else. “In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” Judges 21:25
I do have a website defending the Book. I invite you to take a look at it.
Here is one article I wrote that you might like to consider. It is called Everyman For Himself Bible Versions. This is where most of you are right now.
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/everyman.html
All of grace, Accepted in the Beloved,
Will Kinney
[...] Part 1 [...]
Hi saints. In regards to the erroneous statements regarding Acts 9:6, here is an article to consider. Without exception, those who criticize this verse and others like it, none of them believes ANY bible in any language is the complete and infallible words of God. All they have to offer you is their own variable opinions and personal preferences – but no infallible book of the LORD.
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Acts9-5-6.html
All of grace,
Will Kinney
Much like the Charismatic health, wealth and prosperity gospel, this belief is only workable in the western, english speaking world. Should our missionaries in foreign lands be teaching English first and then teaching the AV? I know missionaries that hold to the Peter Ruckman brand of kJV only beliefs mentioned in the article above. In fact they graduated from his bible college. But, they teach the bible in the language of the people to whom they are ministering, not in English. They ask; If the KJV isn’t the word of God then where is it? which reminds me of the classic “can God build a rock so big that he cannot lift it?” Just because they can ask a question that results in a dilemma does not mean that the question has merit or truth as its motive or foundation. Blessings
Gabriel:
As has already been said by another reader, you hit the nail on the head! This is something that I have been thinking for a while now, regarding requiring people in other countries to learn English just to get the gospel from a KJV Bible? That makes no sense and I believe it to be highly presumptuous — for no man knows when the end of his, or someone else’s, life will come.
And I would add, do these people really think that God built His Church using something other than His Word until 1611??? Puzzling. Why would it take the sovereign God of the Universe 1600 plus years to get His Word to his people? Wow!
Tim
Wow, it is something to read all you higher intellectuals comment on the KJV only controversy. It is also interesting to see how you misquote Ruckman. Several of you claim that he believes that you can only get God’s words in English. This is not true. You ask the question what if you don’t speak English, what if you speak French, Chinese or some other language? Ruckman has recommendations for those people as well, and no it’s not the KJV. I don’t think I could add much more to my stand, then what Will Kinney has stated. Other then this, I don’t read, use and/or believe the KJV because it’s what I “prefer”, but because I believe it to be the book that God has chosen/preserved for me. I can say that I have the “W-O-R-D-S” of God, can you?
- Thomas Morris -
Will says:
Without exception, those who criticize this verse and others like it, none of them believes ANY bible in any language is the complete and infallible words of God. All they have to offer you is their own variable opinions and personal preferences – but no infallible book of the LORD.
What I don’t understand is, that if our scholarship has advanced, scholarship by Christians, and we have older and better MSS, why cling to an inferior translation?
There’s no conspiracy brother. Shouldn’t we be trying to come as close as possible to true inerrancy? In fact, if you’re for translations in native tongues to non-English speakers, fundamentally, what’s the difference? We’re not talking about liberal gender inclusive translations. We’re talking about the pure Word.
As a former KJV onlyist, I was flattened when I took my first Church history class and learned from the history books that God Himself saw fit to have His word translated from the Hebrew in which it was initially penned to the common language of the day, the koine Greek. And yet we sit here and deny the possibility that the same God wouldn’t provide a version of His word for common folk today?
I would argue that God has preserved His word in all of its nuances in many different versions. “Which one is perfect?” the white washed tombs will asked. The one that leads the reader to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. Now, come down of your high horses, and get down amongst the people! If they are struggling with the KJV, then find them one they can understand! NASB, ESV, or even and NIRV (third grade reading level).
It’s sad to admit that I have had to minister to people who have struggled for years choking on the Word of God because legalism has taught that only the KJV is God’s word. Once a persecutor of God’s people in this very area, I now work to restore the ones I helped to discourage.
Brian, you said…”I believe that the Geneva Bible especially the 1599 edition, had a great influence of the translators of the AV in 1611. ”
If my history serves me well, you are right, it did. King James wanted a uniquely English version so that his English subjects wouldn’t wouldn’t be so pursuaded to the Calvinist translation with John Calvin’s notes. Especially when it translated “congregation” rather than “church.” It was all about politics and control. The RCC rejected it because it was a contemporary translation, not the Authorized version of the day (Vulgate).