Responding to a KJV advocate

DiscipleEthan · Sep 16, 2015

I met someone over skype who claimed that the newer translations (NIV, ESV, NASB, etc) took verses out of God's word and that the people who translated them are cursed because of revelation 22:18-19. Therefore he claims that only the KJV and earlier are the only bibles that haven't been corrupted. I feel like something is not right and I honestly feel bothered. Can you guys help me refute this claim?

Albion · Sep 16, 2015

DiscipleEthan said:
I met someone over skype who claimed that the newer translations (NIV, ESV, NASB, etc) took verses out of God's word and that the people who translated them are cursed because of revelation 22:18-19. Therefore he claims that only the KJV and earlier are the only bibles that haven't been corrupted. I feel like something is not right and I honestly feel bothered. Can you guys help me refute this claim?

You can find, online, the answers as to which verses were "taken out." Reading them, you can see that this is only technically so, since the Bible originally didn't have any numbering. Translate a passage somewhat differently than is done by some other translation, and it's nothing unusual for the verses to be changed, making it look as though something's been taken out.

And as for Revelation 22 and the idea of someone being cursed, the verse is explicit in saying that if someone takes away from "this book," there is a consequence. That's a reference to the Book of Revelation, not to Scripture overall.

DiscipleEthan · Sep 16, 2015

Albion said:
You can find, online, the answers as to which verses were "taken out." Reading them, you can see that this is only technically so, since the Bible originally didn't have any numbering. Translate a passage somewhat differently than is done by some other translation, and it's nothing unusual for the verses to be changed, making it look as though something's been taken out.

And as for Revelation 22 and the idea of someone being cursed, the verse is explicit in saying that if someone takes away from "this book," there is a consequence. That's a reference to the Book of Revelation, not to Scripture overall.

Good answer. but I also remembered some other claims he made. He claimed that the manuscripts used by modern translators exclude revelation and doubt revelation's existence but they include it anyway because of Christian tradition. He also sees Westcott and Hort as evil anti christ men. Is there any truth to these claims?

Albion · Sep 16, 2015

DiscipleEthan said:
Good answer. but I also remembered some other claims he made. He claimed that the manuscripts used by modern translators exclude revelation and doubt revelation's existence but they include it anyway because of Christian tradition. He also sees Westcott and Hort as evil anti christ men. Is there any truth to these claims?

I don't see how including Revelation would count as having removed it, regardless of the translators' thinking about the manuscripts. :sorry:

As for Westcott and Hort, the critic would have to make his own case for that, especially as regards the "antichrist" part. However, as translators, there is a case to be made that they did some questionable picking and choosing among the ancient manuscripts.

Dialogist · Sep 16, 2015

DiscipleEthan said:
I met someone over skype who claimed that the newer translations (NIV, ESV, NASB, etc) took verses out of God's word and that the people who translated them are cursed because of revelation 22:18-19. Therefore he claims that only the KJV and earlier are the only bibles that haven't been corrupted. I feel like something is not right and I honestly feel bothered. Can you guys help me refute this claim?

It is very easy to show that the King James Version is "corrupted". Get a copy of the Jewish Publishing Society's Jewish Study Bible, available from Oxford University Press. Its English-language translation of the Tanakh, like that of the King James Bible, is based on the medieval Masoretic Hebrew text. Start anywhere in the book and look for a footnote indicating "Meaning of Heb. uncertain". Usually you will find that even though the Hebrew is uncertain, the King James Version gives a definitive translation without any indication that there was ambiguity in the Hebrew. Sometimes the King James Version follows the Septuagint or Latin Vulgate, but often (usually?) does not.

As a simple example, consider Psalm 2:11-12 (which I chose at random). The JPS translation is

Serve the Lord in awe; tremble with fright, pay homage in good faith, lest He be angered, and your way be doomed in the mere flash of His anger.

where footnotes indicate that the Hebrew underlying the portion I have underlined is uncertain. The KJV translation is:

Serve the Lord with fear, And rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, And ye perish from the way, When his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

There is no footnote in the KJV to this particular verse indicating an alternate translation (as sometimes is provided). Interestingly, Jerome's Latin translation, which is based on a Hebrew text 400 years older than the Masoretic text, reads:

Servite Domino in timore, et exsultate ei cum tremore [and rejoice unto him with trembling]. Apprehendite disciplinam [Embrace discipline], nequando irascatur Dominus, et pereatis de via justa. Cum exarserit in brevi ira ejus, beati omnes qui confidunt in eo.

Jerome's translation tends to agree with the Greek Septuagint, which is based on a Hebrew Text almost 1,000 years older than the Masoretic Text:

Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice in him with trembling. Accept correction, lest at any time the Lord be angry, and ye should perish from the righteous way: whensoever his wrath shall be suddenly kindled, blessed are all they that trust in him.

I think the above exercise could be repeated with just about any other translation whose Old Testament is based on the Masoretic Text, though some (e.g. RSV) do try to highlight alternate translations based on older Hebrew texts. There are perhaps over a thousand such verses in the Masoretic Text with uncertain Hebrew, rendered in the KJV (and probably other translations) as if there is no ambiguity in the underlying text.

Grafted In · Sep 16, 2015

I prefer King James for 2 reasons. One being that I began my life in Christ with a pocket KJ NT someone gave me, and second, because it is easier for me to memorize the KJ.
I'm not certain the misinterpretations are a hindrance. I believe that if I read the King James with a genuine desire to know and understand Scripture, The Holy Ghost will give my spirit an accurate understanding in spite of text poorly translated. The Bible is Spiritual, not manmade.

juvenissun · Sep 16, 2015

DiscipleEthan said:
I met someone over skype who claimed that the newer translations (NIV, ESV, NASB, etc) took verses out of God's word and that the people who translated them are cursed because of revelation 22:18-19. Therefore he claims that only the KJV and earlier are the only bibles that haven't been corrupted. I feel like something is not right and I honestly feel bothered. Can you guys help me refute this claim?

I have less confidence in other versions than the KJV. I have found a few cases that other translations are actually interpreting, rather than translating.

Chriliman · Sep 16, 2015

I try to remember to pray and ask God for the wisdom of the Holy Spirit before I intentionally study the Bible. Truth will be discerned if you take that approach, guaranteed

SkyWriting · Sep 17, 2015

DiscipleEthan said:
I met someone over skype who claimed that the newer translations (NIV, ESV, NASB, etc) took verses out of God's word and that the people who translated them are cursed because of revelation 22:18-19. Therefore he claims that only the KJV and earlier are the only bibles that haven't been corrupted. I feel like something is not right and I honestly feel bothered. Can you guys help me refute this claim?

There is no reason to refute the claim. Newer versions simply have a different group of scholars doing the translating.
A case could be made than by removing poetic phrases found in KJV that there is less "Holy Spirit" in them.
I have to say that some "everyday language" versions are less inspiring.

dysert · Sep 17, 2015

DiscipleEthan said:
I met someone over skype who claimed that the newer translations (NIV, ESV, NASB, etc) took verses out of God's word and that the people who translated them are cursed because of revelation 22:18-19. Therefore he claims that only the KJV and earlier are the only bibles that haven't been corrupted. I feel like something is not right and I honestly feel bothered. Can you guys help me refute this claim?

KJV-onlies are rarely swayed, but for your own sake consider these points:

A verse can only be "missing" if it was included in the original manuscript. Since we don't have the originals, we can't be sure if verses have gone missing or if other verses have been added.
There are different manuscript sets that are used in translation. They are all extremely similar, but there are some slight differences. So two diligent and faithful translators can come away with slightly different translations because they used different manuscript sets to begin with.
The English language has changed a great deal since 1611, so translators who want to accurately reflect what the text meant back then will often have to use different (i.e., modern) words to reflect that meaning.
As the art/science of hermeneutics has advanced, and as more manuscripts have been discovered over the past few centuries, we have more data now to make a reliable Bible than they did back then.

I'd be curious to know if your friend accepts the Apocrypha as inspired. It was included in the 1611 KJV.

You just have to be aware of what you're getting in a Bible. Some Bibles are just paraphrases. Some are just revisions of previous translations. Some use the translation philosophy of "dynamic equivalence" whereas others use the philosophy of "formal equivalence". Read the introduction at the front of the Bible, where it will explain how it was translated.

There's a lot more I could go into, but I hope that's enough to get you thinking.

ananda · Sep 17, 2015

Is he Anglican? If not, I'd ask him why ... since the perfect Bible (KJV) is a product of the Anglican church, it must therefore be the perfectly inspired church, according to his logic.

Albion · Sep 17, 2015

ananda said:
Is he Anglican? If not, I'd ask him why ... since the perfect Bible (KJV) is a product of the Anglican church, it must therefore be the perfectly inspired church, according to his logic.

Whoa. The KJV is the most-read translation in history and used by many different churches. It's "Anglican" only to the extent that it was the translation produced by the Church of England. It's not something intended for Anglicans exclusively, nor does it embody any particular Anglican beliefs like a catechism or an Anglican version of something like the Book of Mormon.

Indeed, this is why the KJV is used so widely--simply because Anglican publishing and missionary societies were so active in the past and so many denominations are split-offs from the Church of England.

Albion · Sep 17, 2015

dysert said:
I'd be curious to know if your friend accepts the Apocrypha as inspired. It was included in the 1611 KJV.

"included," but not as inspired books. The position of the Anglican and Lutheran churches was that these books were not to be used to establish any doctrine (as we'd ordinarily do with Bible books) but were appointed to be read for instruction in morals and manners.

ananda · Sep 17, 2015

Albion said:
Whoa. The KJV is the most-read translation in history and used by many different churches. It's "Anglican" only to the extent that it was the translation produced by the Church of England. It's not something intended for Anglicans exclusively, nor does it embody any particular Anglican beliefs like a catechism or an Anglican version of something like the Book of Mormon.

Indeed, this is why the KJV is used so widely--simply because Anglican publishing and missionary societies were so active in the past and so many denominations are split-offs from the Church of England.

Yes, it was produced by the Church of England. Therefore, if God chose and inspired the Anglicans to produce an inspired translation, it stands to reason that that particular church must be the right one (and others are more or less questionable).

The fact that other churches, religions, or individuals use or quote it do not make them inspired.

Where is the flaw in my logic?

Albion · Sep 17, 2015

ananda said:
Yes, it was produced by the Church of England. Therefore, if God chose and inspired the Anglicans to produce an inspired translation, it stands to reason that that particular church must be the right one (and others are more or less questionable).

No, it doesn't. At best, it could be said that the translators were guided by the Holy Spirit, but Anglicanism doesn't even believe that there is a "one true church, i.e. denomination," whether itself or any other church body. I'd advise trying to get away from that kind of thinking.

ananda · Sep 17, 2015

Albion said:
No, it doesn't. At best, it could be said that the translators were guided by the Holy Spirit, but Anglicanism doesn't even believe that there is a "one true church, i.e. denomination," whether itself or any other church body. I'd advise trying to get away from that kind of thinking.

I'm not focusing on what Anglicans now believe, but what God allegedly did (or chose) 400 years ago.

SkyWriting · Sep 17, 2015

ananda said:
I'm not focusing on what Anglicans now believe, but what God allegedly did (or chose) 400 years ago.

Historical events are always a matter of Faith in the person who claims to know what happened in the past.

Albion · Sep 17, 2015

ananda said:
I'm not focusing on what Anglicans now believe, but what God allegedly did (or chose) 400 years ago.

I don't see that it makes any difference. There is nothing about a king commissioning a bunch of Bible scholars to produce a translation of the Bible for a Christian populace that connects to an idea of there being a divinely-chosen denomination. As I said, Anglicans don't believe in that anyway.

brinny · Sep 17, 2015

Grafted In said:
I prefer King James for 2 reasons. One being that I began my life in Christ with a pocket KJ NT someone gave me, and second, because it is easier for me to memorize the KJ.
I'm not certain the misinterpretations are a hindrance. I believe that if I read the King James with a genuine desire to know and understand Scripture, The Holy Ghost will give my spirit an accurate understanding in spite of text poorly translated. The Bible is Spiritual, not manmade.

Exactly.

ananda · Sep 17, 2015

Albion said:
I don't see that it makes any difference. There is nothing about a king commissioning a bunch of Bible scholars to produce a translation of the Bible for a Christian populace that connects to an idea of there being a divinely-chosen denomination. As I said, Anglicans don't believe in that anyway.

SkyWriting said:
Historical events are always a matter of Faith in the person who claims to know what happened in the past.

I'm addressing the OP's friend's idea that it was a divinely-inspired translation, which would lead to certain logical conclusions.

Responding to a KJV advocate

Newbie

Facilitator

Newbie

Facilitator

Active Member

Newbie

... and God saw that it was good.

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

The Librarian

Member

Early Buddhist

Facilitator

Facilitator

Early Buddhist

Facilitator

Early Buddhist

The Librarian

Facilitator

everlovin' shiner of light in dark places

Early Buddhist

Similar threads