Every Man For Himself Bible Versionism

[brandplucked]

KJO is actually coming from an envy of other people's choice [/quote'

Hi Michael. Uh, sorry. But we Bible believers certainly do not envy the choice you bible agnostics have made when you come to the conclusion that there never did exist and does not exist now any complete, inspired and 100% true Bible in any language on this earth. We might feel sorry for you, or want to smack you upside the head and say "Wake Up, and start believing God" or "Look at your loopy logic of unbelief you guys post all over the internet" or something along those lines, but certainly nothing even close to "envy".

and a bitterness that the world does not make their job as Gospel carriers any easier .

Michael, the greatest missionary outreach of all time was when men believed and carried the King James Bible into hundreds of foreign lands and translated from the KJB into other languages. Every hear of the 2 Great Awakenings in America and England? Now what do we have? The church is getting weaker by the day; young people are leaving in droves and Biblical ignorance is at an all time high. Oh Yeah. Things are getting much better since people no longer believe that any Bible is the infallible words of God, right?

It definitely does not come from faith. for if KJO supporters really believed that this was God's translation of the bible, then they would trust Him in convincing others to adopt it as their interpretation.

The Bible itself says there will come a falling away from the faith in the last days, not a great revival. People will turn away their ears from the truth and will be turned to fables and doctrines of devils. But some will have ears to hear the truth in spite of all this. There are only two choices here. #1 There is an infallible Bible and it is the King James Bible and it is the Standard by which all others are to be measured. Or #2 No such thing as a complete, preserved and infallible book of the LORD exists and it really doesn't matter all that much anyway, since apparently it wasn't that important to God.

the Gospel is not tied up in bible translations, if you want that then forget translations, go back to the manuscripts and begin there.

the Gospel is preaching Christ Crucified.

I agree with part of what you say here. The gospel is found in any bible translation you care to pick up and use out there. However we do not need to "go back to the manuscripts and begin there". That is just plain silly and goes nowhere except into further confusion. But I do agree that Christ crucified for the sins of His people and His glorious resurrection are the basis of the gospel and these truths are still found in any bible out there.

conversations like this thread exhibits are one of the reasons why people hold off on even considering to listen to Gospel preachers .

Not true. I think there are many reasons people don't want to hear the gospel. Their sin and their spiritual blindness. But how seriously am I to take the gospel message of salvation if it comes from a "preacher" who himself does not believe the Bible he is preaching from is the infallible words of God?

It's sort of like saying, "Here's the gospel of Jesus Christ. It's found in this Book that is mostly right but has some errors in it. Of course we are not agreed on what parts are true and what parts are the errors since "scholars" disagree about all these things, but Hey, we are pretty sure the parts that tell us about the gospel got it right. At least we hope so."

Wow, now that is going to carry some power of conviction, right?

Will K

 

[brandplucked]

finally, even though your proof text do not indicate what you assume they indicate, let us for a moment assume they do. how do any of them prove the king james instead of the geneva, the asv of 1901, or the rsv with 2nd edition NT?

Ken Willy

Ken, your whole post reeks of bible agnosticism. You yourself do not believe there exists any Bible in any language that is the complete and infallible words of God. All you guys have to do is post one or two sentences and we can tell right away if you are a Bible believer or not.

Do you believe any of these bibles you mention - Geneva, ASV, RSV, etc. - is the infallible words of God? Of course not. You are just blowing smoke.

Here is part of the article you may have missed as you "skim" things.

I believe in the sovereignty of God in history. "For the kingdom is the LORD'S; and He is the governor among the nations." Psalm 22:28. God has set His mark upon many things in this world that reveal His Divine hand at work in history. Why do we use the 7 day week instead of the 10 day week? Why are dates either B.C. (Before Christ) or A.D. (Anno Domini - year of our Lord)? (although the secular world is now trying in vain to change this too to BCE and CE.) England just "happens to be" the one nation from which we measure the true Time (Greenwich time, zero hour) and from which we measure true Position, zero longitude.

In 1611 the English language was spoken by a mere 3% of the world's population, but today English has become the closest thing to a universal language in history. He used the King James Bible to carry His words to the far ends of the earth, where it was translated into hundreds of languages by English and American missionaries for over 300 years. The sun never set on the British empire. It was even taken to space by American astronauts and read from there. God knew He would use England, its language and the King James Bible to accomplish all these things long before they happened. It is the only Bible God has providentially used in this way. It is the only Bible believed by thousands upon thousands of believers to be the inspired, infallible and 100% true words of God.

Will Kinney

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Hi Michael. Uh, sorry. But we Bible believers certainly do not envy the choice you bible agnostics have made when you come to the conclusion that there never did exist and does not exist now any complete, inspired and 100% true Bible in any language on this earth. We might feel sorry for you, or want to smack you upside the head and say "Wake Up, and start believing God" or "Look at your loopy logic of unbelief you guys post all over the internet" or something along those lines, but certainly nothing even close to "envy".

I notice thematically an envy of marketing success of the newer bibles. even if that is not true in your particular case.

Michael, the greatest missionary outreach of all time was when men believed and carried the King James Bible into hundreds of foreign lands and translated from the KJB into other languages. Every hear of the 2 Great Awakenings in America and England? Now what do we have? The church is getting weaker by the day; young people are leaving in droves and Biblical ignorance is at an all time high. Oh Yeah. Things are getting much better since people no longer believe that any Bible is the infallible words of God, right?

Romanticizing the past is the reason the present is dying. We need to as Paul forget what is behind and reach for the prize we've been called heavenward for. Though what your saying sounds good . it was for a particular time, there was a lot of abuse of foreign cultures during that time. and because of that abuse, the gospel is rejected in many places, but as the husk of that old colonial abusive daddy is laid to rest, a new son will rise from the dead, and preach the gospel anew.

The Bible itself says there will come a falling away from the faith in the last days, not a great revival. People will turn away their ears from the truth and will be turned to fables and doctrines of devils. But some will have ears to hear the truth in spite of all this. There are only two choices here. #1 There is an infallible Bible and it is the King James Bible and it is the Standard by which all others are to be measured. Or #2 No such thing as a complete, preserved and infallible book of the LORD exists and it really doesn't matter all that much anyway, since apparently it wasn't that important to God.

Protestantism was that falling away and the dividing of the kingdom as with Jeroboam and Rehoboam.

I agree with part of what you say here. The gospel is found in any bible translation you care to pick up and use out there. However we do not need to "go back to the manuscripts and begin there". That is just plain silly and goes nowhere except into further confusion. But I do agree that Christ crucified for the sins of His people and His glorious resurrection are the basis of the gospel and these truths are still found in any bible out there.

how do these quarrels over words "preach Christ crucified?"

Not true. I think there are many reasons people don't want to hear the gospel. Their sin and their spiritual blindness. But how seriously am I to take the gospel message of salvation if it comes from a "preacher" who himself does not believe the Bible he is preaching from is the infallible words of God?

faith expresses itself as love, this prayer opens the eyes of the blind, and removes the veil from their minds so the gospel begins to make sense. God is love. so in coming into contact with God, then their hearts warm up, the Spirit gives life, the grammah kills.

It's sort of like saying, "Here's the gospel of Jesus Christ. It's found in this Book that is mostly right but has some errors in it. Of course we are not agreed on what parts are true and what parts are the errors since "scholars" disagree about all these things, but Hey, we are pretty sure the parts that tell us about the gospel got it right. At least we hope so."

Wow, now that is going to carry some power of conviction, right?

Will K

No, it's like saying, this is the gospel, and this is what it has done in my life.

 

[Brandpluckt]

Will,

You sly misdirecting dog you. it's pretty obvious the way you totally ignored all of my handling of scripture and went straight to repeating your paragraphs that do not deal with scripture. so tell us will, does scripture support specifically your preferred translation or does it not? because as i have already shown, those verses do not mean what you really really wished they meant. and even if they did, they do not specifically support your preference when it comes to favorite translation.

Ken Willy

 

[brandplucked]

Here is another typical response I get from the Bible Agnostics and it is much the same as Ken's. They demand that we provide them with just one Bible verse that teaches that the King James Bible is the complete and inerrant words of God. This is from a man who calls himself freesundayschoollessons.

Will you ever give us at least ONE Bible verse on why God's preservation is limited to an English translation which appeared 1600s years after its final original composition?

Hi Free. You are demanding something of us Bible believers that you Bible agnostics cannot yourselves provide. Can you say 'Hypocrisy'?

Since you do not believe that any bible in any language is the complete and inerrant words of God, "Will you ever give us at least ONE Bible verse on why" there is no complete and inerrant Bible in any language?

"Will you ever give us at least ONE Bible verse" that teaches that 5 or 6 textually very different "reliable" bible versions (KJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, etc.) are all the inerrant words of God?

"Will you ever give us at least ONE Bible verse" that teaches that God will preserve His inspired and inerrant words "only in the originals"?

"Will you ever give us at least ONE Bible verse" that teaches that God will preserve His words in thousands upon thousands of very different and contradictory scraps of remaining "original language" manuscripts?

"Will you ever give us at least ONE Bible verse" that even mentions "the original languages"?

"Will you ever give us at least ONE Bible verse" that even remotely teaches what it is that you believe about the Bible not being the inerrant and 100% true words of God?

Go for it, Free. Let's see what good all your seminary training has done for you. Can you provide a Biblical answer to the very question you demand we answer for you before you will be satisfied? I trow not.

Happy hunting for that ONE Bible verse,

Will K

 

[CTS]

Let's look at a few of your very poorly thought out, shallow and meaningless statements. You tell us: " we do know this: we HAVE God's Word....The original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts ARE the ONLY inspired and God-breathed Scriptures."

Tell us, CTS, where exactly we can get a hold of these "original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek manuscripts" that you affirm ARE the ONLY inspired and God-breathed Scriptures". You use a present tense verb here - "ARE"- meaning that they EXIST NOW, and you tell us that they "are" exclusively the "only" inspired Scriptures.

I said ARE because for all we know they still exist but haven't been found. But fine, I can say they WERE the only originals. They were written by Moses, Paul, Luke, John, etc. -- the ORIGINAL BIBLE AUTHORS INSPIRED BY GOD HIMSELF. Not a translation committee initiated by King James.

So back to my question that you never fully answered: Do you believe that the King James Version of the Bible more inerrant and accurate than the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts?

No, we don't have the original written manuscripts by the writers of Scripture with us today. But IF we did, would you say the KJV is more accurate, or less accurate than the ORIGINALS? If, once again, your answer is "NO the KJV is not as accurate", then you are admitting that the KJV is not the perfect/pure/infallible Word of God! You can't say they would be equal in perfection, since the originals obviously would contain vastly different vocabulary, sentence structures, etc since they are written in languages other than English. So, please, answer the question. Don't skirt around it. It can either be YES or NO.
And could you please answer this other question I posted earlier? Thanks.

I read earlier in this thread an answer to the question: why did the 1611 KJV contain errors and misprints if it was divinely inspired? The KJVO answer went something like this: just because it had errors and misspellings doesn't mean it wasn't God-breathed. My response is: really? God divinely inspired the KJV of the Bible and the divine translators managed to misspell and make errors? That goes against the definition of divinely inspired.

------------------

Some other questions I've found and would love to see you try to answer (and please, no posting links that "prove" your points. I'd love to hear your arguments/defences to each of these specific questions in your own words).

1) Why did the KJV translators use marginal note that show alternate translation possibilities? If the English of the KJV is inspired of God, there would be no alternates!


2) If the KJV-only supporters believe fully in the word-for-word inspiration of the KJV, why would italics be necessary?


3) In the 1611 AV for Judges 19:2, the meaning of the Hebrew is obscure. Go and look at the translators notes. Was it "4 months" or "a year and four months"? Quite a difference! But the structure of the Hebrew makes it difficult to for any translators to know for sure which it is. So they show the alternate reading, NOT KNOWING THEMSELVES FOR SURE WHICH IS CORRECT!


4) Do KJV only advocates realize that they stand beside the Mormon church in that both groups believe that they were delivered an "inspired translation"? (Mormon's believe Joseph Smith's English translation of the Book of Mormon from the Nephi Plates was done under inspiration.) Do KJV only advocates realize that the most powerful and irrefutable evidence that neither were translated under inspiration, is the very first edition with all their thousands of errors? (KJV- 1611 edition; BoM- 1831 edition)


5) If the KJV is error free in the English, then why did they fail to correctly distinguish between "Devil and Demons" (Mt 4:1-DIABOLOS and Jn 13:2-DAIMONIZOMAI) ; "hades and hell" (see Lk 16:23-HADES and Mt 5:22-GEENNA; Note: Hades is distinct from hell because hades is thrown into hell after judgement: Rev 20:14)

I personally use and love the KJV. But one of the greatest errors it contains is its translation of "Hades, gehenna, tartarus, Sheol, etc." all as "hell". This is completely incorrect, and none of your KJVO arguments can prove differently (and please, spare me your links that "prove" the KJV's infallibility; I've read the arguments for the use of "hell" in place of all these, and it is a completely false and misleading argument). Jesus Himself uses the word Hades (and the Septuagint uses it, translating it from the Hebrew word "Sheol". Both Sheol and Hades refers to the temporary realm of the dead (as seen in Luke 16 in the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus. They are in HADES, not HELL). And yes, Hades is a word seen in Greek mythology. But this doesn't mean it isn't a real place. Jesus used in when preaching, and it is the translation of the Greek "Sheol" (realm of the dead), not the mythological aspect in Greek mythology.


5) Is it not ridiculous to suggest that when the TR disagrees with the KJV that Greek TR has errors, but the KJV doesn't? Is this not the ultimate example of "translation worship"? (Reject the original in favor of the translation)


6) Why did the translators make mistakes in the chapter summaries in the 1611 version? Wouldn't God have inspired this as well? Why would God inspire the English providentially accurate, but then allow misleading chapter headings? (Every chapter of the Song of Songs is interpreted as descriptive of the church. This is wrong. SoS is God's "mate selection manual." Also, Isa 22 "He prophesieth Shebna's deprivation, and Eliakim, prefiguring the kingdom of Christ, his substitution" This is wrong and reflect the incorrect theology of the day.)


7) How do you explain the grammatical error in the original 1611 KJV in Isa 6:2 where the translators made a rare grammatical error by using the incorrect plural form of "seraphims" rather than "seraphim"?


8) Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His Word in the form of one seventeenth-century English translation?


9) Did the KJV translators mislead their readers by saying that their New Testament was "translated out of the original Greek"? [title page of KJV N.T.] Were they "liars" for claiming to have "the original Greek" to translate from?


10) Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture - "whom ye" [Cambridge KJV's] or, "whom he" [Oxford KJV's] at Jeremiah 34:16?


11) Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture - "sin" [Cambridge KJV's] or "sins" [Oxford KJV's] at 2 Chronicles 33:19?


12) Is 2 Corinthians 6:11-13 in the KJV understood or make any sense to the modern-English KJV reader? - "O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompense in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged." As clearly understood from the New International Version [NIV] - "We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you. We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us. As a fair exchange - I speak as to my children - open wide your hearts also."


And that isn't even close to half of the difficulties and problems with KJVO. But I'd be delighted if you could answer these. Thanks.

-----

But besides all this back-and-forth arguing...here's my point. You seem to think, Will, that you are some specially appointed minister on Bible perfection, and you definitely think (judging by the psots you've written) you are above everyone who doesn't solely adhere to KJVO. Your posts are written in a vehement, vitriolic, and very distasteful tone -- they contain no love, peace, patience, and kindness (i.e. fruit of the Spirit). For someone who claims to KNOW what the only infallible word of God today is, your posts certainly don't "speak the truth in love" (Ephesians 4:15). I'm not judging you. But reading what you've wrote in this thread, your posts have a very antagonistic and holier-than-thou attitude. Why do you feel the need to conduct your points like that? Even if you are 100% convinced you are right, do you think that God likes it when people try to prove their points in such a corrosive manner? Paul tells us to avoid quarreling and creating strife about such things. "But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless." Titus 3:9 NASB. Here's the KJV as well:
"But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain." Titus 3:9 KJV.

It is foolish to waste time creating strife and argumentation amongst followers of Christ -- the unsaved could care less about controversies like this. Christ-followers worldwide should be focusing on spreading His truth and the gospel to the unsaved, not fostering quarrelling and fighting between ourselves!

 

[Brandpluckt]

Will,

The problem with all that is, you are the one making the specific claim about a specific translation as it relates to the doctrine of preservation. and if you are making claims of doctrinal specificity then i ask you to provide scripture to back up your position. if you cannot provide scripture to back up your position then i ask what do you provide that has equal or greater authority than scripture?

 

[brandplucked]

Originally Posted by brandplucked

Let's look at a few of your very poorly thought out, shallow and meaningless statements. You tell us: " we do know this: we HAVE God's Word....The original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts ARE the ONLY inspired and God-breathed Scriptures."

Tell us, CTS, where exactly we can get a hold of these "original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek manuscripts" that you affirm ARE the ONLY inspired and God-breathed Scriptures". You use a present tense verb here - "ARE"- meaning that they EXIST NOW, and you tell us that they "are" exclusively the "only" inspired Scriptures.
​

I said ARE because for all we know they still exist but haven't been found. But fine, I can say they WERE the only originals. They were written by Moses, Paul, Luke, John, etc. -- the ORIGINAL BIBLE AUTHORS INSPIRED BY GOD HIMSELF. Not a translation committee initiated by King James.

So, CTS, are you backing away from your previous strong statements about "only the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek ARE the only God inspired Scriptures"? And now you have a "for all we know" type of inspired and inerrant Bible which you readily admit you do not have and have never seen? Is this "invisible, unknown, and hypothetical for all we know" Scriptures the final authority you appeal to now? Is this where you are now in your thinking?

Then instead of answering my question to you about your "accurate" NASB, ESV, NKJV versions and that list I gave you asking you to tell us which Bible out there got all those readings right, you simply dodge it and turn around and ask me a whole bunch of loaded and rather juvenile questions you got from some other bible agnostic like yourself.

CTS, you are in no frame of mind or spirit to receive the truth regarding the King James Bible. You are already dead set against the idea that ANY Bible in any language IS the complete and infallible words of God.

Do you know what the Lord Jesus said to do about the blind leaders of the blind? Well, that is what I am going to do with you, unless you finally decide to address that one question I asked you with that list of totally different numbers. Which one got them right?

Maybe when you answer that question I asked you first, then we will see how open you are to receiving the truth about God's Book. But from where I sit, it looks like you are far more interested in finding faults in the King James Bible you "love so much" so you can prove what it is that you really believe - that is - there is no such thing as an infallible Bible anywhere at all.

Isn't that what I have been saying about you from the get go?

Now, here's a freebie for you. You ask if the KJB is more accurate than the originals. Well, since there ARE NO originals, I would have to say that Yes, the KJB is definitely more accurate than something that doesn't even exist.

Now, if hypothetically the originals did exist (but they don't), would the KJB convey the exact sense intended by God over into the English language? My answer would be Yes, that is right. That is what I and many thousands of other blood bought Christians believe.

Your view, in stark contrast, maintains that "only the originals are/were inspired and infallible" but that such diverse and often radically different versions like the NASB, ESV and NKJV are all "accurate" to this never seen by you originals. "accurate" even though they differ among themselves by literally thousands of words and hundreds of different meanings? Now, that is really loopy.

Now, if you would kindly answer the question I asked you before. Which of your "accurate and trustworthy" versions got the readings right, according to your "for all we know" originals?

“MEANINGLESS and PICKY DETAILS”?

The following short list is just a sampling of the divergent and confusing readings found among the contradictory modern bible versions. There are numerous other examples. Among these “details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, KJB) or Zedekiah (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman); whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV) or Merab (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman), or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, Holman, KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 and 10:17 or 72 (NIV, ESV, NET), or in Matthew 18:22 does the Lord say to forgive your brother not “until 7 times, but unto 70 times 7 times” (= 490 times - RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, ESV, ALL Greek texts) or 77 times (NRSV, NIV), or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV) or the 4th day (RSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NET, Holman), Or Hannah taking young Samuel to the house of the LORD with THREE bullocks in 1 Samuel 1:24 (Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, JPS 1917, NKJV, Youngs, NET) or “A THREE YEAR OLD BULL: (LXX, Syriac RSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman) or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, NET) or 70 men slain (RSV, NIV, NRSV, ESV), or “70 men- 50 chief men” (Young’s), or “70 MEN OUT OF 50,000 Holman Standard, or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV) or only 3000 (NIV, NET, Holman), or 1 Samuel 13:1 reading - ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva, Judaica Press Tanach), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV, Holman), OR 30 years/ 40 years (NET) or _____years and.______and two years (RSV, NRSV, ESV), or even “32 years old...reigned for 22 years” in the 1989 Revised English Bible!; 2 Samuel 15:7 “forty years” (Hebrew, Geneva, NKJV, NASB, RV) OR “four years” (NIV,RSV, ESV, NET), or whether both 2 Samuel 23:18 and 1 Chronicles 11:20 read “chief of the THREE” (Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, NRSV, Holman, NIV, NET, Holman, NET) or THIRTY from the Syriac (NASB, RSV, ESV), or 2 Samuel 24:13 reading SEVEN years (Hebrew, ASV, NASB, NKJV, NET) or THREE years (LXX, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman), or whether 1 Kings 4:26 reads 40,000 stalls of horses (Hebrew, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV, NKJV, Holman) or 4,000 stalls (NIV, NET) or whether 1 Kings 5:11 reads 20 measures of pure oil (Hebrew texts, Geneva, KJB, ASV, RV, NASB, NRSV) or 20,000 (RSV, NIV, ESV, NET, LXX and Syriac) or 110,000 gallons (Holman) or in 2 Chronicles 31:16 we read THREE years old (Hebrew texts, Geneva Bible, Wycliffe, LXX, Syriac, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NKJV, Holman, NET) or THIRTY years old (NASB - ft. Hebrew “three”) or where 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, KJB, RSV, NRSV ESV 2001 edition) or he was 18 years old (NIV, Holman, NET, ESV 2007 edition), or that when God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead it is stated in Acts 13:33 “this day have I begotten thee” - referring to the resurrection (KJB, NASB, NKJV, RV, RSV, NRSV, ESV) or “today I have become your Father” - teaches that Christ was not the eternal Son of God (NIV, Holman, NET).

All modern bible versions like the NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV, NET, Holman Standard,etc. often reject the clear Hebrew readings and not even in the same places. These are undeniable facts. Here are many examples:

NIV, NASB reject Hebrew - Another King James Bible Believer

NIV,NASB reject Hebrew2 - Another King James Bible Believer

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matthew 11:15

Will K

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I'm a Jesus believer

 

[Look4him]

I was introduced first hand to KJV only’ism less than a year ago. I was ready to get married to the wonderful lady God had brought into my life, when her parents, who turned out to be KJV only, refused to give us permission to get married and wanted us to break up. Needless to say it caused me to dig in deep and check out the claims that they made about the KJV.
Now I am one of those poor old farmer Joes, in the sense that I cannot read Greek or Hebrew. I would love to learn how to read it, but life is too short, I simply don’t have time to learn it.
Therefore a lot of the arguments of what words are used in the Greek and the context, ect, are things that I have no way of verifying. I don’t know who is telling the truth and who is not.
But thankfully, I grew up using a Luther German and a KJV parallel Bible. One of the biggest arguments that helped me see through this blind faith, of thinking that the KJV was an inherent version, was the use of the German Bible. In my case it was the NKJV that was being attacked. Often after a big deal was made about some supposed change in the NKJV the German Luther would quite often agree with the NKJV rather than the KJV. Remember the Luther German comes from the same family of texts (Erasmus’s text) that the KJV comes from. The Luther German is based on Erasmus’s 2’nd edition whereas the KJV finds its roots in his third edition. The German Luther was translated in 1522 and so it is definitely older than the KJV.
For example Isaiah 14:12 “Lucifer” is translated “beautiful morning star”, in the 1522 German. So much for the claim that modern versions are trying to equate Satan with Jesus!
The term “God forbid “such as in Romans 3:4+6+31 is translated as “Das sei ferne!” in the German which is a lot closer to the NKJV’s translation as “Certainly not!”
2 Tim 2:15 The German agrees with the NKJV “ Be diligent” as opposed to the KJV’s “Study.”
1 Kings 22:38 German agrees with the NKJV of ”while the harlots bathed.”
Psalms 4:4 German agrees with NKJV of “Be angry, and do not sin.”
And I could go on and on. These are just a few examples of verses often raised as points of contention by KJV onlyst. The German does not agree with the NKJV in all instances. But it seems to me, that more often than not it will agree more with the NKJV.
I still use the KJV and the German. But to say the KJV does not have any errors or weakly translated words is absurd. It is a view (as has been clearly demonstrated in this discussion) that can only be argued with a circular argument. It might be based on faith, but it is not a faith that is based on truth. And if your faith is not based on truth, it doesn’t matter how much faith you have, it will not turn your hope into reality.


Look4him

 

[CTS]

So, CTS, are you backing away from your previous strong statements about "only the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek ARE the only God inspired Scriptures"? And now you have a "for all we know" type of inspired and inerrant Bible which you readily admit you do not have and have never seen? Is this "invisible, unknown, and hypothetical for all we know" Scriptures the final authority you appeal to now? Is this where you are now in your thinking?

Then instead of answering my question to you about your "accurate" NASB, ESV, NKJV versions and that list I gave you asking you to tell us which Bible out there got all those readings right, you simply dodge it and turn around and ask me a whole bunch of loaded and rather juvenile questions you got from some other bible agnostic like yourself.

CTS, you are in no frame of mind or spirit to receive the truth regarding the King James Bible. You are already dead set against the idea that ANY Bible in any language IS the complete and infallible words of God.

Do you know what the Lord Jesus said to do about the blind leaders of the blind? Well, that is what I am going to do with you, unless you finally decide to address that one question I asked you with that list of totally different numbers. Which one got them right?

Maybe when you answer that question I asked you first, then we will see how open you are to receiving the truth about God's Book. But from where I sit, it looks like you are far more interested in finding faults in the King James Bible you "love so much" so you can prove what it is that you really believe - that is - there is no such thing as an infallible Bible anywhere at all.

Isn't that what I have been saying about you from the get go?

Now, here's a freebie for you. You ask if the KJB is more accurate than the originals. Well, since there ARE NO originals, I would have to say that Yes, the KJB is definitely more accurate than something that doesn't even exist.

Now, if hypothetically the originals did exist (but they don't), would the KJB convey the exact sense intended by God over into the English language? My answer would be Yes, that is right. That is what I and many thousands of other blood bought Christians believe.

Your view, in stark contrast, maintains that "only the originals are/were inspired and infallible" but that such diverse and often radically different versions like the NASB, ESV and NKJV are all "accurate" to this never seen by you originals. "accurate" even though they differ among themselves by literally thousands of words and hundreds of different meanings? Now, that is really loopy.

Now, if you would kindly answer the question I asked you before. Which of your "accurate and trustworthy" versions got the readings right, according to your "for all we know" originals?

"Loaded and rather juvenile questions"? That is hilarious! Is that what you refer to questions you can't answer? It seems that ad hominem is what you resort to when you have no answers. The 12 questions I asked are VERY reasonable, legitimate, and valid questions regarding the KJV and its infallibility. So, if you are right, then answer them! It shouldn't be too hard for you, right?

The only thing that's "juvenile" here is your ridiculous rebuttals to reasonable questions and reponses to your posts on this thread. If you are right like you claim to be, then answer the 12 questions (without referring to your KJVO links).

 

[brandplucked]

"Loaded and rather juvenile questions"? That is hilarious! Is that what you refer to questions you can't answer? It seems that ad hominem is what you resort to when you have no answers. The 12 questions I asked are VERY reasonable, legitimate, and valid questions regarding the KJV and its infallibility. So, if you are right, then ANSWER THEM! It shouldn't be too hard for you, right?

The only thing that's "juvinile" here is your ridiculous rebuttals to reasonable questions and reponses to your posts on this thread. If you are right like you claim to be, then answer the 12 questions (without referring to your KJVO links).

Hi CTS. Sorry, guy, but they are silly and juvenile questions that are not difficult at all to answer. You talk about a two way street of communication. Well, I asked you a specific question. Not a whole laundry list of things you picked up from some other bible agnostic. Rick Norris perhaps? Or your seminary profs who themselves deny the existence of an infallible Bible? Whatever.

Let's see if you really are a reasonable man or not. Tell you what. I will address just one of questions from the list you gave us. Not hard to answer at all. Then would you return the gentlemanly favor and answer the question I had for you about what you so called "accurate and trustworthy translations" the NASB, NKJV and ESV? I gave you a list of examples of totally different and contradictory numbers and names. I'll make it easy on you. Just pick one of the examples. Take your best shot and let us know which reading is the correct, God given, inspired and infallible reading. You can check your "as far as we know" copies if you like. Then explain just ONE of those examples. Deal?

Now, here is my part of the arrangement.

You ask - "If the KJV-only supporters believe fully in the word-for-word inspiration of the KJV, why would italics be necessary?"

First of all, we Bible believers believe in a word for word meaning, not necessarily a strictly literal word for word translation. Sometimes the literal translation would not make sense to us.

ALL translations into another language require the "addition" of certain words for a passage to make proper sense. Why? Because the Hebrew and Greek languages are often elliptical languages. That is, they sometimes omit the Subject or the Verb, or the Direct Object, the Indirect Object or even the word "not" when the text requires it when placed into another language.

The King James Bible translators were honest enough to put most of these "added" words in italics so you could see where they did this. Versions like the NASB, NKJV, ESV, NIV ALL still "add" those words but they do not put them in italics so a person reading them is not aware of this.

In fact, there are many places in the Hebrew text where a word is not literally in the text but placed in italics, but when the passage is quoted in the Greek, the word IS there.

Here is one of many examples:

Deuteronomy 8:3.

"And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with
manna, which thou knewest not, neither did they fathers know; that he
might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by
every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man
live."

You will note that the word "word" is in italics, meaning, of course,
that it was not in the Hebrew text. Upon examination of Deuteronomy
8:3 in Hebrew one will find that the word "dabar" which is Hebrew for
"word" is not found anywhere in the verse.

Yet in His contest with Satan we find Jesus quoting Deuteronomy 8:3 as
follows in Matthew 4:4.

"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread
alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

While quoting Deuteronomy 8:3 Jesus quotes the entire verse including
the King James italicized word! Even an amateur "scholar" can locate
"ramati," a form of "rama," which is Greek for "word," in any Greek
New Testament.

Another example found in all bible translations. (And I have MANY of these)

In 1 Samuel 2:3 we read: "Talk no more so exceeding proudly; let not arrogancy come out of your mouth"

The simple word "not" is not literally in the Hebrew text, yet how different the meaning (the opposite) if not supplied. Check out your bible versions.

Here is another one like it. In Proverbs 24:28 we read: "Be not a witness against thy neighbour without cause; and deceive not with thy lips."

Check out your modern versions. If the word "not" is not "added" then we get the totally opposite meaning from the verse.

There are literally hundreds of such examples found in all Bible translations in both English and foreign languages. It is due in large part to the elliptical nature of the Hebrew and Greek languages.

Here are a few examples from the N.T.

The Elliptical Greek language.

The Greek language used in the New Testament is often elliptical and so also is the Hebrew in the Old. That is, certain parts of speech, including everything from the subject, the verb or the direct and indirect objects are frequently omitted in the literal sense but are implied in the context.

ALL Bible translations OFTEN “add” words like “him, them and you” to their English or foreign language translation. The KJB is honest about this in that it places these “added” words in italics, whereas most modern versions still “add” the extra words but put them in regular print so you can’t see where they did it.

Here are just a FEW of the literally hundreds of examples that could be given. The Bold faced CAPITALIZED words are “added” to the Greek texts.

John 1:18 - “No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared HIM.” (NASB, NIV, NKJV, ESV, Holman)

John 4:26 - “Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am HE.” (NIV, NASB, NKJV, ESV)

John 5:21 - “For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth THEM; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.” (NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, Holman)

John 6:5 - “When Jesus then lifted up HIS eyes, and saw a great company come unto him, he saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat?” (NKJV, NASB, ESV)

John 6:52 - “The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us HIS flesh to eat?” (NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, Holman)

John 8:44 - “Ye are of YOUR father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.” (NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, Holman)

John 8:47 - “He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear THEM not, because ye are not of God.” (NIV, NASB, RV, ASV, RSV)

John 9:9 - “Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am HE.” (RV, ASV, NKJV, - NIV, ESV “THE MAN”, NASB “THE ONE”)

John 10:29 - “My Father, which gave THEM me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.” (RV, ASV, NASB, NIV, ESV, NKJV, Holman)

John 12:42 - “Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess HIM, lest they should be put out of the synagogue” (NASB, NKJV, Holman; NIV THEIR FAITH; ESV, RSV - IT)

John 13:9 - “Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also MY hands and MY head.” (NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, Holman)

John 13:10 - “Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash HIS feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all. “ (NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman)

John 13:19 - “Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am HE.“ (NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman)

John 15:6 - “If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather THEM, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.” (RV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, Holman; - NIV SUCH BRANCHES; ESV THE BRANCHES)

John 19:1 - “Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged HIM. “ (NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman)

John 19:15 - “But they cried out, Away WITH HIM, away WITH HIM, crucify him. “ (NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman)

John 20:22 - “And when he had said this, he breathed ON THEM, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.” (NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman)

John 21:18 - “...but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry THEE whither thou wouldest not.” (NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, Holman)


Now, Sir, if you would be so kind as to answer my previous question put to you about all those totally different numbers found in your "accurate and trustworthy" versions out there like your NASB, NKJV, ESV. Which ones got them right? You will notice that not one of them is a case of the elliptical nature of Hebrew or Greek, but rather to a different text, usually taken from a different language other than what the Hebrew actually says.

Waiting to hear from you.

Will Kinney

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Good resources for greek and hebrew interlinears using strongs definitions are

Blue Letter Bible - Home Page and Online Bible North America.

 

[brandplucked]

I was introduced first hand to KJV only’ism less than a year ago. I was ready to get married to the wonderful lady God had brought into my life, when her parents, who turned out to be KJV only, refused to give us permission to get married and wanted us to break up. Needless to say it caused me to dig in deep and check out the claims that they made about the KJV.
Now I am one of those poor old farmer Joes, in the sense that I cannot read Greek or Hebrew. I would love to learn how to read it, but life is too short, I simply don’t have time to learn it.
Therefore a lot of the arguments of what words are used in the Greek and the context, ect, are things that I have no way of verifying. I don’t know who is telling the truth and who is not.
But thankfully, I grew up using a Luther German and a KJV parallel Bible. One of the biggest arguments that helped me see through this blind faith, of thinking that the KJV was an inherent version, was the use of the German Bible. In my case it was the NKJV that was being attacked. Often after a big deal was made about some supposed change in the NKJV the German Luther would quite often agree with the NKJV rather than the KJV. Remember the Luther German comes from the same family of texts (Erasmus’s text) that the KJV comes from. The Luther German is based on Erasmus’s 2’nd edition whereas the KJV finds its roots in his third edition. The German Luther was translated in 1522 and so it is definitely older than the KJV.
For example Isaiah 14:12 “Lucifer” is translated “beautiful morning star”, in the 1522 German. So much for the claim that modern versions are trying to equate Satan with Jesus!
The term “God forbid “such as in Romans 3:4+6+31 is translated as “Das sei ferne!” in the German which is a lot closer to the NKJV’s translation as “Certainly not!”
2 Tim 2:15 The German agrees with the NKJV “ Be diligent” as opposed to the KJV’s “Study.”
1 Kings 22:38 German agrees with the NKJV of ”while the harlots bathed.”
Psalms 4:4 German agrees with NKJV of “Be angry, and do not sin.”
And I could go on and on. These are just a few examples of verses often raised as points of contention by KJV onlyst. The German does not agree with the NKJV in all instances. But it seems to me, that more often than not it will agree more with the NKJV.
I still use the KJV and the German. But to say the KJV does not have any errors or weakly translated words is absurd. It is a view (as has been clearly demonstrated in this discussion) that can only be argued with a circular argument. It might be based on faith, but it is not a faith that is based on truth. And if your faith is not based on truth, it doesn’t matter how much faith you have, it will not turn your hope into reality.


Look4him

Hi Look4him. Just curious. Did you end up marrying that girl or not?

Now, to address your points. The German bibles (which do vary among themselves in both texts and meanings) are not a good place to go searching for an infallible Bible. God knows the future. He is the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End. Germany was the first country to go into full blown apostasy through German Rationalism and Higher Criticism. Luther himself was extremely anti-Semitic. He omitted 1 John 5:7, which is in the NKJV and all English Bibles from Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535 and the Great Bible 1540, all of which preceded Luther's German bible of 1545. Luther thought the book of James was an epistle of straw and did not belong in the Bible.

God did not chose to use the German Bible nor German missionaries to start the modern day Foreign Missions outreach that began around 1750. He used English and American missionaries carrying one Bible - the King James Holy Bible - to the nations of the world.

I do not know of any German Christians who believe that Luther's bible or any other German bible is the infallible words of God, but I do know of many King James Bible believers even in foreign countries who do.

Luther's bible and the NKJV differ in numerous places, even in the few you mentioned. NKJV has Lucifer. NKJV also has "God forbid".


You close with this statement: "And if your faith is not based on truth, it doesn’t matter how much faith you have, it will not turn your hope into reality."

Tell us, brother. Has your faith led you to believe that there IS such a thing as a complete, inspired and 100% true Holy Bible in any language or has your faith led you to believe that no such Book exists?

It can't be both the NKJV and Luther's bible because they differ from each other in both texts and meaning in numerous verses. IF you DO believe "The Bible" is the complete and infallible words of God, then please tell us exactly where we can get a copy of it so we can compare it to what we are reading now to see the differences and similarities. Will you do that for us?

Thanks,

Will Kinney

 

[CTS]

The King James Bible translators were honest enough to put most of these "added" words in italics so you could see where they did this. Versions like the NASB, NKJV, ESV, NIV ALL still "add" those words but they do not put them in italics so a person reading them is not aware of this.

Thanks for answering. However, several translations do in fact use italics or brackets to indicate that (NKJV, HCSB) not just the KJV.

Now, Sir, if you would be so kind as to answer my previous question put to you about all those totally different numbers found in your "accurate and trustworthy" versions out there like your NASB, NKJV, ESV. Which ones got them right? You will notice that not one of them is a case of the elliptical nature of Hebrew or Greek, but rather to a different text, usually taken from a different language other than what the Hebrew actually says.

I think that textual criticism is important when determining what is accurate and trustworthy. I use both a KJV/NKJV and a NASB/HCSB regularly and frequently compare the NT differences (since they are based off different texts, Textus Receptus and primarily the Codex Vaticanus and Sinaitcus respectively). Do I know for sure if the Codexes are more accurate than the Textus Receptus? No, I don't. No one knows for sure. We might have our theories and guesses (as I have heard several times, from KJVO, that the codexes are 'corrupted' from thir Egyptian origin). But since I personally don't know for sure, I frequently use different versions when reading God's Word. Textual criticism in the NASB and other versions tries diligently to stay true to what the originals were (whether that means some verses are omitted, i.e. 1 John 5;7, because they were most likely added by other scribes and translators. In the case of 1 Jn 5:7, only five very late manuscripts contain that verses, which leads me to definitely question its authenticity. Once again, I don't know if that is apart of Scripture or not. I wasn't there when the original manuscripts were written). I wish that I could know for a fact whether the codexes or the Textus Receptus is more reliable... from the many commentaries I've read on this issue and some research I've done, I definitely lean more towards the Codexes reliability as some of the earliest manuscripts we have. However, I don't know for sure - I wasn't there when they were written. How could I know for a fact which is undoubtedly more reliable? How could anyone? And for that reason, I don't completely disregard the TR. Could I infer that the codexes are more reliable? Sure; but no one can know without a doubt. I regularly use versions based on the TR (KJV, NKJV) and the Codexes (NASB, HCSB) that stay true and accurate to their respective manuscipt texts, and I recognize the variations between the two (although there are not major variations in them that differentiate on major doctrinal issues, i.e. Christ as the Son of God, salvation through faith not by works, etc).


Here is a response I found though that sums this up well:

Question:
Is the Word of God only perfect in the originals?

Answer:
It depends upon what a person means by the words "perfect" and "originals," because this is another question where it is important to define our theological terms.
First of all, with the word "originals," does a person have in mind the actual autographs initially written by God's prophet or apostle? Or does the person mean the copies of those originals that have been generated over the centuries by various individuals? The proponents of King James Version Onlyism (KJVO) tend to blur the distinction between the original letters written by the authors of scripture with the copies made of those originals. The reason being is because there are no "originals," and all that we have available to us as Christians are copies of the copies of those originals. KJVO advocates argue that certain principles of providential preservation can be utilized in order to determine which copies best reflect the original. The problem, however, is that when those principles are placed under serious scrutiny, they are lacking any real merit, both factually, and historically. For example, KJVO advocates claim that any Greek text that had its origin in Egypt has been corrupted by heretics. King James Only proponents will often hold up the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, two major NT manuscripts that are about 200 years or so removed from the time of the original New Testament authors, as illustrations of how heretics have corrupted the Bible. But, there is no historical evidence of any heretics introducing corruption to these manuscripts, let alone any other biblical manuscripts. The heretics that did dare to change the biblical text were quickly exposed and renounced as false teachers. Thus, this is a principle that lacks any true justification from Church History for determining the original text.

Also, there can be differing understandings of the word "perfect." For instance, is the word "perfect" being applied to the quality of the content of revelation being conveyed in the biblical text, or to the actual, physical manuscripts? In other words, if the word "perfect" is being applied to the quality of God's revealed word, then that would mean that God's word is considered perfect in that it is complete and sufficient for the people of God to understand spiritual truth, and it is with out error. To that I would say God's word is both "perfect" in the many copies of the Old and New Testaments we have in the original biblical languages, as well as in any language translation that accurately translates those original language texts. Thus, any English translation that accurately translates the original languages of Hebrew and Greek, is a fitting translation of the biblical text and would be considered the "perfect" Word of God.

If by "perfect," however, a person has in mind the actual, physical manuscripts then I would disagree. Some KJVO advocates attempt to argue that God has perfectly preseved his Word in a specific family of manuscripts called the Byzantine family of manuscripts that had their circulation in and around the former Byzantine empire where the Greek Orthodox Church flourished. Once again, however, that position doesn't take in all of the historical facts concerning the transmission of the biblical text, because it tends to ignore the presence of transcribing errors, copying variants, or surface damage to the actual manuscripts themselves. Practically every Hebrew and Greek manuscript (meaning entire copies of the OT and NT), or text of scripture (meaning portions of passages from the OT or NT) contains textual variants, marginal notes by copyists and other insignificant differences from one another. There are no manuscripts that are perfectly free from such marks. King James advocates often exaggerate these variants and copyist errors as examples of heretical corruption being introduced into the Bible by false teachers, but in actuality, these variants are minor. They include such things as difference in word order, spelling, harmonizations by scribes over years of copying, and other similar occurences that happen when a text is passed down from one generation to the next. Whereas KJVO advocates argue that such variants are a negative thing, I believe it is a good thing, because God in his graciousness has seen fit to make sure we have so many copies of his word that it would not be lost at any point, nor could one group, either heretical or orthodox, gather up all the copies and pass off their "version" of the biblical languages as the true Bible. However, one aspect of having many, many copies of scripture will be the presence of variants. That is why textual criticism is necessary for determing which copies best reflects the original epistles of the apostles. It helps to establish what is the true biblical text and to discover what the authors of scripture originally wrote.

Here is another one like it. In Proverbs 24:28 we read: "Be not a witness against thy neighbour without cause; and deceive not with thy lips."

Check out your modern versions. If the word "not" is not "added" then we get the totally opposite meaning from the verse.

The word "not" is added in the KJV as well as many modern versions.
Do not be a witness against your neighbor without cause,
And do not deceive with your lips. Prov 24:28 NASB.

I gave you a list of examples of totally different and contradictory numbers and names. I'll make it easy on you. Just pick one of the examples. Take your best shot and let us know which reading is the correct, God given, inspired and infallible reading. You can check your "as far as we know" copies if you like. Then explain just ONE of those examples. Deal?

or that when God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead it is stated in Acts 13:33 “this day have I begotten thee” - referring to the resurrection (KJB, NASB, NKJV, RV, RSV, NRSV, ESV) or “today I have become your Father” - teaches that Christ was not the eternal Son of God (NIV, Holman, NET).

In this instance, I don't think the NIV/HCSB translators are being deceptive in saying "today I have become your Father." In this instance, however, I prefer the KJV, NKJV rendering of "begotten". But the other translations are trying to make it more understandable by saying "I have become your Father."

 

[CTS]

Here's something I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on:
On the King James Bible Versus Other Translations Controversy
Author Unknown
(Tentmaker editor: The following article is an excellent treatment of the King James Bible, often called the “Authorized Version”, versus other English Bible Translations debate. This article contains very valuable information not found in most material on this subject.)
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12 )
In my contacts with folks, offline and on the Internet, I frequently encounter people who have a special fondness for the King James Version (KJV) of the English Bible. Some profess to take pleasure from the almost poetic use of 17th century English, as I do. Others like the fact that so many aids to study and interpretation are based on the KJV, as I do. Some believe the KJV, also known as the Authorized Version (AV), to be an inspired version, as I do not.
There is a body of professing Christians who claim that the AV is the only English version – and I have met a few who claim it is the only version in any language – that truly preserves God's written revelation to mankind as set down in the original autographs.. Within this latter group are to be found some who assess the eternal state of others by their choice of Bible version; if they're not using the KJV exclusively, then they're not truly saved.
When confronted concerning their excessive zeal for this translation, it is not uncommon for those who hold to KJV-Onlyism to charge that their antagonists are being divisive. Often, they will claim that this "divisiveness" is caused by the "other" versions of the English Bible.
Adherents of KJY-Onlyism are very messianic about their choice of Bible versions and often are willing to devote a lot of time and effort to spreading the KJV gospel. As often as not, they will concentrate on "proving" that other versions are tainted due to satanic influence over those who labored to bring them into existence. On those occasions when they attempt to show why the KJV is the better choice, their arguments often tend to rely more on logic or sentiment than theology. Not infrequently, they will attack, either directly or by innuendo, the faith or doctrine of those who prefer some other translation to the KJV.
I prefer to stay clear of "version fights," which I believe are as often motivated by pride as by reasoned study of the issues. To me, these are similar to strivings over denominational affiliation. In my considered opinion, any time someone's relationship to the Lord is judged on the basis of externals such as church affiliation, Bible choice, etc., personal prejudice is the standard against which that individual is being measured, not sound doctrine.
Recently, I stood to one side and watched as some apparently KJV-Only folks preached their KJV gospel to a group of professing Christians, most of whom had only recently heard the call to Christ. As usual, their arguments were centered on proving all other Bible translations to be false, while expecting the KJV to be accepted simply because it was the right thing to do. Those in the KJVO camp, while admitting for the most part that they had used other translations early in their Christian walk, were intolerant of the fact that most of those to whom they were preaching their cause were young in the faith and that some of these were still struggling with vestiges of old beliefs and habits. I saw little tenderness or compassion; little of that Christian love we so like to boast of. What I saw was harsh language, bitterness, invective, ad hominems, and other "arguments" generally favored by those who lack convincing evidence to support their stand. This is poor polemics, for it is does little to convince the antagonist that his position is flawed and, in fact, tends to harden his opposition. It is far easier to attack one's opponent on a personal level than it is to show what is "wrong" with his position or to advance irrefutable evidence in support of one's own stand.
When it became apparent that some of those targeted by the KJV-Only assault team were suffering injury as a consequence of the unrelenting barrage, I stepped in and made a half-hearted effort to either end the exchange or shift the focus. I enlisted the support of a gentle believer who strongly favors the KJV, but does not consider choice of translation to be a watershed issue in assessing the faith of another. He made several attempts, calling upon the Scriptures for support, to end the increasingly harsh exchanges -- to no avail. Once the KJV-Only juggernaut starts rolling, it is quite difficult to stop.
I decided to examine the KJV-Only position in detail; something I had never done before. Who knows? Maybe these folks have the right understanding and the KJV is the only Bible translation that perfectly preserves God's revelation as breathed to the inspired writers of the original autographs. For my limited study, I chose to go with some of the more-often-quoted exponents of KJV-Onlyism. What I found were mostly value-laden arguments that depended more on appeals to emotionalism than to facts. The majority of the items I read appeared targeted to readers looking for nothing more than confirmation of strongly held beliefs.
One theme I encountered several times had to do with the alleged divisiveness of those who preferred some other translation to the Authorized Version. After reading that argument a few times, I sat quietly for a few minutes and tried to remember the last time I recalled anyone who used a translation other than the KJV trying to shove his favorite down someone else's throat. After a few minutes, I gave up the effort. I could think of not a single incident.
In my observation, it seems that it is those who have some special attachment to the KJV who tend to foster divisions within the Body of Christ. I cannot recall ever observing someone who prefers the NASB pointing an accusing finger at another person who happens to prefer the RSV and fairly screaming, "Heretic! The Bible you are using is not inspired." I don't recall ever observing someone with an NIV in his hand ever saying to someone holding a KJV that he would never find Christ using THAT Bible.
I cannot recall ever observing someone holding one of those "other" English translations bringing a brother or sister to tears over his or her choice of translations. I have seen KJV-Only types do that often.
On the other hand, I have observed a great number of people who appear to almost worship their KJV as much as a devout Roman Catholic might worship the Virgin Mary -- not with the same degree of worship as rendered to God, but worship nevertheless. This excessive reverence for, not the Bible, mind you, but for a particular translation of the Bible, might constitute bibliolatry. Not an accusation, just something to think on.
Is one's salvation determined by his choice of Bible version? Can someone who is saved by faith lose that salvation when he fails to cleave to the KJV? I submit that one's choice of translation is not a salvation issue and does not merit the incredible amount of effort, time and emotion that KJV-Only people seem so willing to devote to pushing their preferred version.
I use the KJV more than any other version, but I do not use it exclusively. I do not use it because I believe it to be inspired or more faithful to the autographs than any other version. I remind the reader that no copies of the autographs have survived and copies were used in preparing not only the KJV but almost all other versions in, I should think, all other languages as well as English.
Read the rest here: www .tentmaker.org/Biblematters/King-James-version. htm


-------------------

As for the other questions I had -- I'm not trying to 'trick' you or anything. Those have always been some of the legitimate concerns and questions I've had regarding KJV-Onlyism.

 

[CTS]

And one more thing I have:
Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today

First, I want to affirm with all evangelical Christians that the Bible is the Word of God, inerrant, inspired, and our final authority for faith and life. However, nowhere in the Bible am I told that only one translation of it is the correct one. Nowhere am I told that the King James Bible is the best or only ‘holy’ Bible. There is no verse that tells me how God will preserve his word, so I can have no scriptural warrant for arguing that the King James has exclusive rights to the throne. The arguments must proceed on other bases.
Second, the Greek text which stands behind the King James Bible is demonstrably inferior in certain places. The man who edited the text was a Roman Catholic priest and humanist named Erasmus. He was under pressure to get it to the press as soon as possible since (a) no edition of the Greek New Testament had yet been published, and (b) he had heard that Cardinal Ximenes and his associates were just about to publish an edition of the Greek New Testament and he was in a race to beat them. Consequently, his edition has been called the most poorly edited volume in all of literature! It is filled with hundreds of typographical errors which even Erasmus would acknowledge. Two places deserve special mention. In the last six verses of Revelation, Erasmus had no Greek manuscript (=MS) (he only used half a dozen, very late MSS for the whole New Testament any way). He was therefore forced to ‘back-translate’ the Latin into Greek and by so doing he created seventeen variants which have never been found in any other Greek MS of Revelation! He merely guessed at what the Greek might have been. Secondly, for 1 John 5:7-8, Erasmus followed the majority of MSS in reading “there are three witnesses in heaven, the Spirit and the water and the blood.” However, there was an uproar in some Roman Catholic circles because his text did not read “there are three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit.” Erasmus said that he did not put that in the text because he found no Greek MSS which had that reading. This implicit challenge—viz., that if he found such a reading in any Greek MS, he would put it in his text—did not go unnoticed. In 1520, a scribe at Oxford named Roy made such a Greek MS (codex 61, now in Dublin). Erasmus’ third edition had the second reading because such a Greek MS was ‘made to order’ to fill the challenge! To date, only a handful of Greek MSS have been discovered which have the Trinitarian formula in 1 John 5:7-8, though none of them is demonstrably earlier than the sixteenth century.

...

One further point is necessary. With the recent publication of several different books vilifying modern translations, asserting that they were borne out of conspiratorial motives, a word should be mentioned about this concocted theory. First, many of these books are written by people who have little or no knowledge of Greek or Hebrew, and are, further, a great distortion of the facts. I have read books on textual criticism for more than a quarter of a century, but never have I seen such illogic, out-of-context quotations, and downright deceptions about the situation as in these recent books. Second, although it is often asserted that heretics produced some of the New Testament MSS we now have in our possession, there is only one group of MSS known to be produced by heretics: certain Byzantine MSS of the book of Revelation. This is significant because the Byzantine text stands behind the KJV! These MSS formed part of a mystery cult textbook used by various early cults. But KJV advocates constantly make the charge that the earliest MSS (the Alexandrian MSS) were produced by heretics. The sole basis they have for this charge is that certain readings in these MSS are disagreeable to them! Third, when one examines the variations between the Greek text behind the KJV (the Textus Receptus) and the Greek text behind modern translations, it is discovered that the vast majority of variations are so trivial as to not even be translatable (the most common is the moveable nu, which is akin to the difference between ‘who’ and ‘whom’!). Fourth, when one compares the number of variations that are found in the various MSS with the actual variations between the Textus Receptus and the best Greek witnesses, it is found that these two are remarkably similar. There are over 400,000 textual variants among NT MSS. But the differences between the Textus Receptus and texts based on the best Greek witnesses number about 5000—and most of these are untranslatable differences! In other words, over 98% of the time, the Textus Receptus and the standard critical editions agree. Those who vilify the modern translations and the Greek texts behind them have evidently never really investigated the data. Their appeals are based largely on emotion, not evidence. As such, they do an injustice to historic Christianity as well as to the men who stood behind the King James Bible. These scholars, who admitted that their work was provisional and not final (as can be seen by their preface and by their more than 8000 marginal notes indicating alternate renderings), would wholeheartedly welcome the great finds in MSS that have occurred in the past one hundred and fifty years.

SOURCE: BIBLE.ORG BY Daniel B. Wallace

bible.org /article/why-i-do-not-think-king-james-bible-best-translation-available-today

 

[brandplucked]

I think that textual criticism is important when determining what is accurate and trustworthy. I use both a KJV/NKJV and a NASB/HCSB regularly and frequently compare the NT differences (since they are based off different texts, Textus Receptus and primarily the Codex Vaticanus and Sinaitcus respectively). Do I know for sure if the Codexes are more accurate than the Textus Receptus? No, I don't. No one knows for sure. We might have our theories and guesses (as I have heard several times, from KJVO, that the codexes are 'corrupted' from thir Egyptian origin). But since I personally don't know for sure, I frequently use different versions when reading God's Word.

Hi CTS. Thanks for getting back. You have gone from "only the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek originals ARE the God inspired Scriptures" to "For all we know" and now to "I don't know". That, my friend, is the definition of a bible agnostic.

The so called "oldest and the best" manuscripts that are the primary basis of modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, NET and Holman except where they included 39 verses in [brackets] (faith affirming, isn't it ) are in fact some of the most corrupt manuscripts to see the light of day.

Most people are totally unaware of what they actually say and how much they disagree not only with the majority of texts and previous bibles, but with each other. If interested, here is some concrete and factual information about what readings they contain or omit.

Oldest and Best Mss? - Another King James Bible Believer

Just some of what you will find is this:

SINAITICUS (Aleph) completely omits the following verses while they are found in Vaticanus. Matthew 24:35 - "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away"; Luke 10:32 - "And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side."; 17:35 - "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."; John 9:38 - "And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him."; 16:15 - "All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you."; 21:25 - "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."; and I Corinthians 2:15- "But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man." and 13:1b -2 - "I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not- (charity, I am nothing)."

(As a side note, there are many sections and even whole books missing from the Old Testament. Aleph-"Sinaiticus: written more than 200 years after the completion of the New Testament. It omits Genesis 23:19-24:46, Numbers 5:27-7:20, 1 Chronicles 9:27-19:17, all of Exodus, Joshua, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, Hosea, Amos, Micah, Ezekiel, Daniel and Judges. It contains New Testament Apocrypha.)

VATICANUS (B) omits Matthew 12:47 - "Then one said unto him, Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee." and Luke 23:17 while Sinaiticus retains them. Luke 23:17, "For of necessity he must release one onto them at the feast", is omitted in B, the NASB, and NIV, yet it is in Sinaticus and the majority of all Greek texts. Yet B omits Luke 23:34, "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do", while it is retained in Sinaticus and this time kept in the NASB and NIV. Go figure.

Luke 23:17 "FOR OF NECESSITY HE MUST RELEASE ONE UNTO THEM AT THE FEAST."

This entire verse is found in the Majority of all texts as well as Sinaiticus. However Vaticanus omits the whole verse and so do the NIV, RSV, ESV, RV and ASV. The NASB pulls its usual trick, and from 1963 to 1972 the NASB omitted the verse, but then in 1977 and again in 1995 the NASB scholars decided to put the verse back in the text. The brand new ISV of 2004 and the Holman Christian Standard of 2003 also retain the verse and place it in their modern versions, but The Message and the NET version continue to omit it. Aren't you glad we have the latest sure findings of modern scholarship to help us find out what God REALLY said?

Will K

 

[CTS]

Hi CTS. Thanks for getting back. You have gone from "only the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek originals ARE the God inspired Scriptures" to "For all we know" and now to "I don't know". That, my friend, is the definition of a bible agnostic.

So I don't pretend to be omniscient regarding biblical manuscripts and that's wrong? I'd rather not flaunt arrogance and pride regarding a partiular version and pretend to know everything regarding these matters. That is the definition of a Bible (KJVO) chauvinist. Since I was not there when the manuscripts were written (I'm referring to TR and the codexes) I DON'T KNOW for a fact -- and neither do you, or anyone else. We can guess, theorize, make assumptions, etc. -- but we cannot know.

BUT I still believe that ONLY THE HEBREW, ARAMAIC, AND GREEK ORIGINALS ARE/WERE THE GOD INSPIRED SCRIPTURES. And now, although we don't have the originals, we do have trustworthy manuscripts that we have translated into other languages.

So, thanks for the feedback you've given, but I'm done with this thread for good. Simply because circular reasoning seems to be a trend, and although I've proposed 12 very significant and valid questions earlier in this thread regarding KJVO, you retorted with an ad hominem claiming the questions were "juvenile and loaded." Any questions should be able be answered if the KJV is truly superior, authentic, and perfect in every way.

For everyone reading this thread: I suggest reading these 10 points against KJV-Onlyism.

First, I want to affirm with all evangelical Christians that the Bible is the Word of God, inerrant, inspired, and our final authority for faith and life. However, nowhere in the Bible am I told that only one translation of it is the correct one. Nowhere am I told that the King James Bible is the best or only ‘holy’ Bible. There is no verse that tells me how God will preserve his word, so I can have no scriptural warrant for arguing that the King James has exclusive rights to the throne. The arguments must proceed on other bases.

Second, the Greek text which stands behind the King James Bible is demonstrably inferior in certain places. The man who edited the text was a Roman Catholic priest and humanist named Erasmus. He was under pressure to get it to the press as soon as possible since (a) no edition of the Greek New Testament had yet been published, and (b) he had heard that Cardinal Ximenes and his associates were just about to publish an edition of the Greek New Testament and he was in a race to beat them. Consequently, his edition has been called the most poorly edited volume in all of literature! It is filled with hundreds of typographical errors which even Erasmus would acknowledge. Two places deserve special mention. In the last six verses of Revelation, Erasmus had no Greek manuscript (=MS) (he only used half a dozen, very late MSS for the whole New Testament any way). He was therefore forced to ‘back-translate’ the Latin into Greek and by so doing he created seventeen variants which have never been found in any other Greek MS of Revelation! He merely guessed at what the Greek might have been. Secondly, for 1 John 5:7-8, Erasmus followed the majority of MSS in reading “there are three witnesses in heaven, the Spirit and the water and the blood.” However, there was an uproar in some Roman Catholic circles because his text did not read “there are three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit.” Erasmus said that he did not put that in the text because he found no Greek MSS which had that reading. This implicit challenge—viz., that if he found such a reading in any Greek MS, he would put it in his text—did not go unnoticed. In 1520, a scribe at Oxford named Roy made such a Greek MS (codex 61, now in Dublin). Erasmus’ third edition had the second reading because such a Greek MS was ‘made to order’ to fill the challenge! To date, only a handful of Greek MSS have been discovered which have the Trinitarian formula in 1 John 5:7-8, though none of them is demonstrably earlier than the sixteenth century.
That is a very important point. It illustrates something quite significant with regard to the textual tradition which stands behind the King James. Probably most textual critics today fully embrace the doctrine of the Trinity (and, of course, all evangelical textual critics do). And most would like to see the Trinity explicitly taught in 1 John 5:7-8. But most reject this reading as an invention of some overly zealous scribe. The problem is that the King James Bible is filled with readings which have been created by overly zealous scribes! Very few of the distinctive King James readings are demonstrably ancient. And most textual critics just happen to embrace the reasonable proposition that the most ancient MSS tend to be more reliable since they stand closer to the date of the autographs. I myself would love to see many of the King James readings retained. The story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11) has always been a favorite of mine about the grace of our savior, Jesus Christ. That Jesus is called God in 1 Timothy 3:16 affirms my view of him. Cf. also John 3:13; 1 John 5:7-8, etc. But when the textual evidence shows me both that scribes had a strong tendency to add, rather than subtract, and that most of these additions are found in the more recent MSS, rather than the more ancient, I find it difficult to accept intellectually the very passages which I have always embraced emotionally. In other words, those scholars who seem to be excising many of your favorite passages from the New Testament are not doing so out of spite, but because such passages are not found in the better and more ancient MSS. It must be emphatically stressed, however, that this does not mean that the doctrines contained in those verses have been jeopardized. My belief in the deity of Christ, for example, does not live or die with 1 Timothy 3:16. In fact, it has been repeatedly affirmed that no doctrine of Scripture has been affected by these textual differences. If that is true, then the ‘King James only’ advocates might be crying wolf where none exists, rather than occupying themselves with the more important aspects of advancing the gospel.

Third, the King James Bible has undergone three revisions since its inception in 1611, incorporating more than 100,000 changes. Which King James Bible is inspired, therefore?

Fourth, 300 words found in the KJV no longer bear the same meaning—e.g., “Suffer little children…to come unto me” (Matt 19:14). “Study to shew thyself approved unto God” (2 Tim 2:15). Should we really embrace a Bible as the best translation when it uses language that not only is not clearly understood any more, but in fact has been at times perverted and twisted?

Fifth, the KJV includes one very definite error in translation, which even KJV advocates would admit. In Matthew 23:24 the KJV has ‘strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.’ But the Greek has ‘strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.’ In the least, this illustrates not only that no translation is infallible but also that scribal corruptions can and do take place-even in a volume which has been worked over by so many different hands (for the KJV was the product of a very large committee of over 50 scholars).

Sixth, when the KJV was first published, it was heavily resisted for being too easy to understand! Some people revere it today because it is difficult to understand. I fear that part of their response is due to pride: they feel as though they are able to discern something that other, less spiritual folks cannot. Often 1 Corinthians 2:13-16 is quoted with reference to the KJV (to the effect that ‘you would understand it if you were spiritual&#8217. Such a use of that text, however, is a gross distortion of the Scriptures. The words in the New Testament, the grammar, the style, etc.—in short, the language—comprised the common language of the first century. We do God a great disservice when we make the gospel more difficult to understand than he intended it. The reason unspiritual people do not understand the scriptures is because they have a volitional problem, not an intellectual problem (cf. 1 Cor. 2:14 where ‘receive,’ ‘welcome’ shows clearly that the thing which blocks understanding is the sinful will of man).

Seventh, those who advocate that the KJV has exclusive rights to being called the Holy Bible are always, curiously, English-speaking people (normally isolated Americans). Yet, Martin Luther’s fine translation of the Bible into German predated the KJV by almost 100 years. Are we so arrogant to say that God has spoken only in English? And where there are substantial discrepancies between Luther’s Bible and the KJV (such as in 1 John 5:7-8), are we going to say that God has inspired both? Is he the author of lies? Our faith does not rest in a singular tradition, nor is it provincial. Vibrant, biblical Christianity must never unite itself with provincialism. Otherwise, missionary endeavor, among other things, would die.
Eighth, again, let me repeat an earlier point: Most evangelicals—who embrace all the cardinal doctrines of the faith—prefer a different translation and textual basis than that found in the KJV. In fact, even the editors of the New Scofield Reference Bible (which is based on the KJV) prefer a different text/translation!

Finally, though it is true that the modern translations ‘omit’ certain words and verses (or conversely, the KJV adds to the Word of God, depending on how you look at it), the issue is not black-or-white. In fact, the most recent edition of a Greek New Testament which is based on the majority of MSS, rather than the most ancient ones (and thus stands firmly behind the King James tradition), when compared to the standard Greek New Testament used in most modern translations, excises over six hundred and fifty words or phrases! Thus, it is not proper to suggest that only modern translations omit; the Greek text behind the KJV omits, too! The question, then, is not whether modern translations have deleted portions of the Word of God, but rather whether either the KJV or modern translations have altered the Word of God. I contend that the KJV has far more drastically altered the scriptures than have modern translations. Nevertheless, I repeat: most textual critics for the past two hundred and fifty years would say that no doctrine is affected by these changes. One can get saved reading the KJV and one can get saved reading the NIV, NASB, etc.
I trust that this brief survey of reasons I have for thinking that the King James Bible is not the best available translation will not be discarded quickly. All of us have a tendency to make mountains out of molehills and then to set up fortresses in those ‘mountains.’ We often cling to things out of emotion, rather than out of true piety. And as such we do a great disservice to a dying world that is desperately in need of a clear, strong voice proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ. Soli Deo gloria!
bible.org /article/why-i-do-not-think-king-james-bible-best-translation-available-today

KJV-Onlyism is a false teaching. It is a cult rooted in misleading and misdirecting interpretations of Scripture. It is a belief that is entrenched in arrogance, pride, and alleged superiority of the English language and King James Version. God's Word does not say that He would preserve His Word enitrely into the KJV and no other translations.


"But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves." 2 Peter 2:1 NASB.


It is arrogant and absurd to claim that the King James Version is the perfect and pure Word of God. The message of salvation through Jesus Christ must be preached to this culture and world, and as much as I and others love the KJV, it is not the best translation available to us today. Accurate and trustworthy translations that stay true to the original manuscripts and that are written in understandable and readable English should be used for evangelizing.

I'm done with this thread for good now. I would suggest to all readers of this thread not to get involved in this discussion: KJV-Only defenders aren't looking for a good debate. They could seemingly care less about the myraid of evidence stacked up against KJV=Onlyism. "Defending KJVO under all circumstances and against all evidence" is the apparent motto of KJV-Only defenders. This is an idolatrous cult that reveres a single English translation as EQUAL with the original autographs (if we had them) that the original authors of the Bible wrote. That is completely false and erroneous, and is not supported by Scripture at all, no matter what ways it is twisted by KJV-Onlyists. The KJV is a great translation, but is not the perfect word-for-word Word of God. I pray that the saving message of Christ's salvation would be revealed to the unsaved -- whether by the KJV, NASB, NKJV, EVS, HCSB, etc. Paul tells us to not involve ourselves in such meaningless controversies of the faith. And so, I will no longer participate in this thread at all -- and I suggest others against KJV-Onlyism to do the same.

Farewell.

CTS

 

[brandplucked]

In this instance, I don't think the NIV/HCSB translators are being deceptive in saying "today I have become your Father." In this instance, however, I prefer the KJV, NKJV rendering of "begotten". But the other translations are trying to make it more understandable by saying "I have become your Father."

CTS. The perversions that say "Today I have become your Father" follow no Greek text at all. It is a total paraphrase with a completely wrong and heretical outcome.

Acts 13:33 "This day have I begotten thee."

All bible versions do NOT teach the same things. Important doctrines are seriously affected, not only by the different texts used, but also by the ways in which the same texts are translated. Such a case is found in Acts 13:33. The King James Bible reads, "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus AGAIN; as it is written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE." This verse, as it stands in the KJB, clearly refers to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, and God the Father "begetting" Him from the dead.

The versions that read as the KJB in Acts 13:33 - “he hath raised up Jesus AGAIN” are Tyndale 1525, Miles Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible (John Rogers) 1549, the Bishop's Biible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1602, Whiston's Primitive New Testament 1745, Worsley Version 1770, the Living Oracles 1835, Webster’s 1833, Noyes Translation 1869, the Third Millenium Bible 1998, and the 21st Century KJB. The modern New English Bible and the New Century version both read “raising Jesus from the dead”. The Living Bible says “bringing Jesus back from the dead”, and God’s Word Translation says, “by bringing Jesus back to life.”

It is of interest to see how many foreign language Bibles render the phrase "he hath raised up Jesus AGAIN". The Spanish says: "resusitándo a Jesus", the Latin - resuscitans Iesum, the French - en ressuscitant Jesus; the Portuguese - ressuscitando a Jesus, and the Italian has risuscitando Gesu. It is easy to see that they all render this verse the same way as the KJB has it - referring to the resurrection of Christ.

Commentators as well as bible versions differ radically concerning both the meaning and rendering of this passage. Among those that I believe got it right are John Gill, Matthew Henry, John Wesley, and John Calvin.

Psalm 2:7 “this day have I begotten thee”

This is a prophetic Psalm and verse 7 refers to the resurrection of Christ, when He became “the first begotten from the dead” (Revelation 1:5) and “the firstborn from the dead” (Colossians 1:18)

John Wesley comments on this passage:

"Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee - It is true, he was the Son of God from eternity. As St. Paul elsewhere, declared to be the Son of God with power, by the resurrection from the dead,(Romans 1:4) And it is with peculiar propriety and beauty that GOD IS SAID TO HAVE BEGOTTEN HIM, ON THE DAY WHEN HE RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD, as he seemed then to be born out of the earth anew."

B.W. Johnson, People's New Testament Commentary 1891 says: Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Paul gives the thought in Romans 1:4: "He was declared to be the Son of God with power, by the resurrection from the dead." No more to return to corruption. Never more to endure death."

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown

"God hath fulfilled the same in that he hath raised up Jesus again -- the meaning is (notwithstanding the contrary opinion of many excellent interpreters) "from the dead"; as the context plainly shows. as it is written in the second psalm this day have I begotten thee--As the apostle in Romans 1:4 regards the resurrection of Christ merely as the manifestation of a prior Sonship, it is plain that this is his meaning here. "

Adam Clarke on the meaning of Psalm 2:7-Verse 7 - Thou art my Son This day have I begotten thee. BY THE RESURRECTION thou art declared to be the Son of God, by miraculous power, being raised from the dead. Thus by thy wondrous and supernatural nativity, most extraordinary death, and miraculous resurrection, thou art declared to be the Son of God. And as in that Son dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, all the sufferings and the death of that human nature were stamped with an infinitely meritorious efficacy. WE HAVE ST. PAUL'S AUTHORITY FOR APPLYING TO THE RESURRECTION OF OUR LORD THESE WORDS, "Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee; "-see Acts 13:33; see also ; Hebrews 5:5;-and the man must indeed be a bold interpreter of the Scriptures who would give a different gloss to that of the apostle. It is well known that the words, "Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee," have been produced by many as a proof of the eternal generation of the Son of God.”

John Gill comments on Psalm 2:7 “this day have I begotten thee” - “ And this may be applied to any time and case in which Christ is declared to be the Son of God; as at his incarnation, his baptism, and transfiguration upon the mount, and HIS RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD, AS IT IS IN ACTS 13:33 ; because then he was declared to be the Son of God with power, (Romans 1:4)"

Matthew Henry comments on Psalm 2:7 “This day have I begotten thee.” - “This day have I begotten thee, which refers both to his eternal generation itself, for it is quoted (Hebrews 1:5) to prove that he is the brightness of his Father's glory and the express image of his person (Psalms 2:3), and to the evidence and demonstration given of it BY HIS RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD, FOR TO THAT IT IS EXPRESSLY APPLIED BY THE APOSTLE, ACTS 13:33. He hath raised up Jesus again, as it is written, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. It was by the resurrection from the dead, that sign of the prophet Jonas, which was to be the most convincing of all, that he was declared to be the Son of God with power, Romans 1:4. Christ is said to be the first-begotten and first-born from the dead, Revelation 1:5,Col+1:18.”

John Calvin comments on Psalm 2:7 “this day have I begotten thee” - “Paul, who is a more faithful and a better qualified interpreter of this prophecy, in Acts 13:33, calls our attention to the manifestation of the heavenly glory of Christ ... We must, at the same time, however, bear in mind what Paul teaches, (Romans 1:4) that he was declared to be the Son of God with power when he rose again from the dead, and THEREFORE WHAT IS HERE SAID HAS A PRINCIPAL ALLUSION TO THE DAY OF HIS RESURRECTION."

The modern NKJV, NIV, and NASB versions make this verse refer to the incarnation of Jesus, rather than His resurrection by merely saying, “God has raised up Jesus”. They leave out raised up Jesus AGAIN.
Some new version defenders tell us that the word “again” is not in the Greek text. This is a misleading statement. All the versions, frequently translate the verb anistemi as "rise AGAIN". For example the NIV renders this word as “rise again” 6 times, “raised to life” once, and “raised from the dead” once. It is frequently used in the phrase that Jesus would be “raised” on the third day. The noun form of this verb is anastasis and is always used in referrence to the resurrection.

For those who are NIV users, you can likewise check out how it reads about Jesus or the dead being raised AGAIN in verses like Matthew 27:63; Mark 8:31; Luke 18:33; Luke 24:7, John 11:23-24 and 1 Thessalonians 4:14.)

Rise again.

When the Bible speaks of Christ rising AGAIN from the dead, it does not mean that He was to be raised from the dead the second time! This should be obvious. All you need is a little common sense and a greater understanding of our own English language.

The word “again” in this context, refers to returning to a previous condition (alive) or simply “in addition to what has already been mentioned.”

Let’s look at some English dictionaries.

The Oxford English Dictionary - Again - “adverb 1. once more. 2. RETURNING TO A PREVIOUS POSITION OR CONDITION. 3. in addition to what has already been mentioned.

Webster’s New World College Dictionary - again - adverb
1. back in response; in return: answer again
2. BACK INTO A FORMER POSITION OR CONDITION: he is well again
3. once more; anew: try again
4. besides; further: again, we should note
5. on the other hand; from the contrary standpoint: he may, and then again he may not

Mark 8:31 “And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days RISE AGAIN.”

Not only does the King James Bible say that Jesus would RISE AGAIN but so also do the following English Bible translations: Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, Bishops’s bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the RV 1881, ASV 1901, RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001, NASB, NIV, NKJV, Darby, Youngs, and the brand new ISV (International Standard Version).

The phrase “rise again” clearly does not mean that He would be raised from the dead the second time, but merely that He would be raised up from the dead to the condition He was in before, that is, that of being alive.

(more to come)