If the KJV is inerrant, what about other languages that dont have the KJV?

yogosans14 said:

The KJVonlyist is a ridiculous doctrine and only patriotic bigotry legalistic people hold to this doctrine from what I have seen......

Click to expand...

So you post in the one forum where you will encounter the most KJV-onlyists and then call it ridiculous?

As someone who does not believe the KJV is the best translation, nor even that the Biblical text has been preserved with 100% accuracy, I want to defent the Koonz.

Jack Koons believes that the received text has been kept 100% pure, an assertion I deny.

I do not believe that is the same as the KJV-only stance which is, in fact, ridiculous for various reasons such as the one the OP cited.

JR

The original text have been kept pure, because God preserves his word. While I prefer the KJV, I have never encountered a KJV only person in my life, so I don't know where this comes from.

yogosans14 said:

You didnt answer my question.

Click to expand...

KJV-only applies only to the English language.

I think most KJV only folks that I have met would say that the KJV needs to be translated into their language. I know some who would say that the KJV is the only correct english translation and is meant for the english speaking world. You need to ask a fellow on here by the name of Jack Koons to get his thoughts on this question.

It is no secret that I believe that God has preserved His words perfectly in the King James Bible. Since participating in discussions here in this forum, I have defended individual passages such as 1 John 5:7 (on its own merit), and the King James as a whole; during which time I have always tried to maintain professionalism and courtesy to all, regardless of their beliefs.

I also want to thank Cubanito for his candor and professionalism toward me in these threads, especially during times when several of my opponents were less than mannerly toward me.


My position on the King James issue:


I believe the King James Bible is God's perfectly preserved word, for English speaking people. As the London 1689 Confession of Faith states, “8._____The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.
([bless and do not curse]Romans 3:2;[bless and do not curse]Isaiah 8:20;[bless and do not curse]Acts 15:15;[bless and do not curse]John 5:39;[bless and do not curse]1 Corinthians 14:6, 9, 11, 12, 24, 28;[bless and do not curse]Colossians 3:16[bless and do not curse])”, (Taken from: 1689 LBC: Chapter 1 "Of the Holy Scriptures")

The writers of this confession, clearly believed the Bible was Divinely authored. Furthermore, these same men also believed that God, “by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages” those same scriptures. They believed that because of the just written statement, the scriptures “are (note the present tense) therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them”.

My Bible says, “For with God nothing shall be impossible.” Luke 1:37. I believe through the efforts of men, it truly is impossible to keep the Scriptures pure. However, I believe God did not give His words to men, only to have them corrupted, the very first time they were copied. It is my belief that through the intervening work of God, He kept His words pure throughout the ages. Not in every church, not in every nation, not to every people; rather, He chose the churches, and people whom he knew would be faithful to him, cherish and reverence His words. Then, in the time of His choosing, He chose men in whom He would impart “wisdom from above” to achieve the task at hand. In this case, that work was the translating of the words of God, from the original languages, into English. This is not 'double inspiration', it is God giving them wisdom to translate what is already written, from one language into another. (Since God made the languages at the Tower of Babel, He is probably pretty familiar with all the languages of Earth.)

What about other languages?

The issue here is not is there a KJV in other languages; rather, the issue is, is there a Bible in other languages based on the TR, and translated using Verbal and Formal Equivalence? While it may be possible to translate the Bible into another language from the KJV, (this would probably be the stand of Ruckmanites), the best translation would be from the Traditional Text (both Hebrew in the Ben Chayyim Masoretic, and the Greek in the TR).

The problem with modern versions in any language, is that both the underlying text Hebrew and Greek, along with the method of translation, have been, and are the result of textual criticism. (Just for the record, I will soon be starting a thread that will consist of a series of posts showing the history of textual criticism. While this will not be an exhaustive study, it will present enough evidence to cause others to do additional research on the subject.)


Jack

I suggest everyone in this thread read the book "The King James Only Controversy" by James White, it's free on Google Books.

BelCantoBaptist said:

I suggest everyone in this thread read the book "The King James Only Controversy" by James White, it's free on Google Books.

Click to expand...

I would recommend the article at the following link:

Textual Criticism Fact And Fiction


Jack

Jack Koons said:

I would recommend the article at the following link:
Jack

Click to expand...

So are you saying that those who use modern versions are not saved?

BelCantoBaptist said:

I suggest everyone in this thread read the book "The King James Only Controversy" by James White, it's free on Google Books.

Click to expand...

Got it. Good read. I believe it is more about Ruckman and others who take the KJV only concept to a massive extreme.
I like Mr. Koons' candor and his honesty about how he feels. Very proper.

I am not King James Only, of course, but I am familiar with some who are, both online and in person. In my experience and research, I have heard some of them state that every language has a translation equivalent to the English-speaking peoples' King James. For instance, the Spanish-speaking nations have what is referred to as Reina Valera 1960, which some say is the Spanish language equivalent to the King James Version. I might be wrong, but this is what I've heard some say.

yogosans14 said:

Ok, I would love to here his response.

Click to expand...

JGiddings said:

Got it. Good read. I believe it is more about Ruckman and others who take the KJV only concept to a massive extreme.
I like Mr. Koons' candor and his honesty about how he feels. Very proper.

Click to expand...

JGiddings,

Thank you for your kind words, they are much appreciated.


Concerning Dr. White. Dr. White is a learned man and I do not dispute his knowledge of the Bible, and or the original languages. My problem with Dr. White is that his presentation of the 'facts' is not always done in a truthful manner. When I say a “truthful manner”, I am making reference to the same point as I normally do concerning the presentation of 'facts'. An example of this, for those who have read the thread I began concerning 1 John 5:7. In that thread I was presented with an outline by Mr. Doug Kutilek where he presented his 'Three Point Outline' on his 'Evidence' against the validity of the Comma. Mr. Kutilek is considered by many to be an authority on the subject of Biblical Studies, however, as I pointed out in the thread, (of 1 John 5:7) his 'Outline' was nothing more than a 'parroting' of that which was taught by the late Dr. Bruce Metzger. Furthermore, the information was presented in a way which did not fully represent the truth.

As an example, the following is Mr. Kutilek's presentation of his first point, along with my response:

“Point # 1 Declared Misleading, at Best.


Point # 1 of the outline above:

“1. Greek manuscripts-about 300 existing Greek manuscripts contain the book of I John. Of these manuscripts, only 4 (manuscript numbers 61, 629, 918, 2318) contain the disputed words of v.7. All four are very late manuscripts (16th, 14th or 15th, 16th, and 18th centuries A.D. respectively); none gives the Greek text exactly as it appears in printed Greek NTs, and all 4 manuscripts give clear evidence that these words were translated into Greek from Latin.
Four additional manuscripts (88, 12th century; 221, 10th; 429, 16th; 636, 15th) have the disputed words copied in the margin by much later writers.”


Defense of the Johannine Comma

Please consider the following excerpt, taken from the above web address:

“Further, it ought to be evident that the weight of numbers on the side of Comma-deleted manuscripts at least partially nullifies the "oldest-is-best" arguments which the Critical Text crowd loves to advance in favor of the Alexandrian texts. While it is true that only around 8-10 of the Greek texts contain the Comma, and most of these are late, the vast bulk of those without the Comma are also late, by the standards of the United Bible Society. Around 95% of these Comma-deleted texts are "late" by these standards (post-9th century). Further, at least three other marginal references date to a relatively early period, these being #221m (10th century), #635m (11th century), and #88m (12th century).”

So let's put this into perspective. The main (not the only) argument or reason (according to textual critics) that the comma should NOT be included in the text is because the Greek MSS containing the comma are of "late" origin. It would therefore only be fair to apply the same rules to ALL Greek MSS containing 1 John 5. Doing so then removes 95% of the Greek manuscript evidence of the textual critics.
Do you remember me asking this question above?

“Since you supplied me with the link that contained the above excerpt, I would like to know if you believe the information above is a truthful, and accurate presentation of the evidence shown.

The reason I ask this is because often times there are facts 'left out' in a presentation of such evidence, that if included, would cast an entirely different light on the exact same evidence that is provided.

So again I ask, is the information above a truthful, and accurate presentation of the evidence shown.”

My point is simply this; the first point of Doug Kutilek's outline is true. However, it is also misleading. The reason it is misleading is because stating that the small number of Greek MSS containing the Comma are “very late”, leads the reader to believe that the majority of the rest of the MSS NOT containing the Comma, are other than “very late”, and quite possibly 'early'. When nothing is said pertaining to the rest of the Greek MSS, it would be assumed that the rest fall into a completely different category.

The question then that must be asked is this, Was this 'absence' of information accidental, or on purpose? Allow me to say this; when one is considered to be an 'authority' on a subject, (or if one claims to be an authority on the subject [as Doug Kutilek does]), one should be as truthful as possible about all the facts. Clearly, this was not the case in this first point of the outline.”

Dr. White does the exact same thing in his presentation of the facts (which I will demonstrate in future posts). I want to make a point at this juncture in this discussion. It is my desire to show as much compassion as possible when dealing with 'motives' as to why scholars like Mr. Kutilek and Dr. White present their facts in such a manner. As I have said to at least one of my opponents in this Forum, it is my opinion that these men are 'products' of their education. When a person is presented this information in a format in which says, 'these are the absolute facts', one finds himself (or herself) being led through the education process as a 'horse wearing blinders', only seeing those things the 'driver' wishes them to see. In the early days of my studies, I was taught Dispensationalism, but along with that teaching, came a 'suggestion' that the opposing view was so blasphemous, that it was a complete waist of time to study, or investigate. After completing that part of my studies however, I did the unheard-of; I studied the opposing view. Wow, what an insight! (Just for the record, it is my belief that there is good, and bad in both. The real truth is in a proper combining of the two.) The point I am making is that many students (and educators) have beliefs due to the above scenario. Additionally, it is possible for this process to continue for generations (teacher – student who becomes teacher).

I will do my best to present all facts in a truthful manner.

Jack

yogosans14 said:

You didnt answer my question.

Click to expand...

Because your question is foolish.

BelCantoBaptist said:

So are you saying that those who use modern versions are not saved?

Click to expand...

I know for an absolute fact that I have not made a statement that even resembles what you are asking. Please, let's keep things honorable.

Jack

Jack Koons said:

I know for an absolute fact that I have not made a statement that even resembles what you are asking. Please, let's keep things honorable.

Jack

Click to expand...

The site you posted tacitly makes such a claim and treats people who don't hold to the KJVO lunacy like heretics. It attacks men like Bruce Metzger which is bizarre, despite some of Metzger's disagreeable beliefs on the Bible, his scholarly work advanced Biblical scholarship light years ahead of its time.

Textual criticism is not a bad thing, Beza used it, Jerome used it, Stephanus used it, even the translators of the KJV used it.

BelCantoBaptist said:

The site you posted tacitly makes such a claim and treats people who don't hold to the KJVO lunacy like heretics.

Click to expand...

Greetings to you as well BelCantoBapist,

I am going to begin by giving you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you have simply 'skimmed' over the threads which I have participated in. The reason for this assumption on my part, is due to the fact, that on a few occasions, I have actually defended, or told at least some of my opponents, that I agreed with them on certain issues.

In case you missed it, this thread is not about Soteriology, it is about Textual Criticism. Do I believe my opponents on this issue are lost? No. In this Forum, I have read enough of each of their writings to confirm that they have all accepted the death, (according to the scriptures), the burial, and the resurrection (according to the scriptures) of Christ, by grace, through faith.

It attacks men like Bruce Metzger which is bizarre, despite some of Metzger's disagreeable beliefs on the Bible, his scholarly work advanced Biblical scholarship light years ahead of its time.

Click to expand...

I will accept the fact that I have posted some of those things which Dr. Metzger authored. One of the things one should expect that writes as he did, is that others are going to critique your work (as you are now doing to mine).

Textual criticism is not a bad thing, Beza used it, Jerome used it, Stephanus used it, even the translators of the KJV used it.

Click to expand...

We'll discuss that at a later time.

Jack

Well, as one has said: "A mind persuaded against its' will is of the same opinion still". It is one thing to set forth the reasons one has for their belief, but it is not honorable to fight against one for their beliefs. We can just move on and leave it between one and the Spirit of God.