Is the KJV more than a translation

[Glaucus]

To some, it is definitely more than a translation. It is undeniable that the KJV has become a God - an object of worship - to some of the hardcore onlyist crowd.

 

[Tallguy88]

well either way the facts are the KJV is no longer the best selling bible. This inevitably means the KJV will begin to lose its market share among Christians to other versions.

That's a bit of a leap. IT's certainly possible, but it's by no means a foregone conclusion that the KJV will lose pride of place among American Christians within the foreseeable future.

 

[kiwimac]

Not one of those things is something that westcott and Hort believed.

 

[kiwimac]

I've never heard anyone make that claim.

You're lucky.

 

[Tallguy88]

jason0047 seems to make that claim

I've never met anyone in real life make that claim. And I grew up in KJV-reading Pentecostal churches all my life.

 

[Tallguy88]

Which one(s) do you like, DamianWarS? I started out KJV for a 1/2 year, moved to the Good News and then Living Bible for another 1/2. I finally settled on the RSV about 1973, but unfortunately my RSV wore out and became hard to find as other versions dominated the scene. In 1979 I moved to the NIV for a few months but found too many paraphrases. I opted for the NASB for the next 28 years. I always regretted that the NASB was not good for memorization. I memorized a lot but forgot almost as much. Then in 2007 I was in a friends church and they were using the ESV of which I had been unaware. That day I read the preface and was instantly hooked. I intend to stay here until the end... for now.

The ESV is my favorite modern translation. I still prefer the KJV and sometimes get into arguments with my ESV about how it chose to phrase some things, but all in all it's a good word-for-word translation that is also quite literary. The NIV changed too much with it's sneaky 2011 revision. I sometimes read my pre-2011 NIV, but I really don't care for it compared to other, better translations.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Not one of those things is something that westcott and Hort believed.

Westcott and Hort's Un-Biblical Beliefs:

Denial of the Inspiration of the Scriptures:

“Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise.” (Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p. vii).

“Evangelicals seem to me perverted. . .There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, especially the authority of the Bible.” (Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.400)

“Dr. Wilbur Pickering writes that, Hort did not hold to a high view of inspiration.” (The Identity of the New Testament Text, p.212)

Denial of the Deity of Christ:

“He never speaks of Himself directly as God, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him.” (Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297).

“(John) does not expressly affirm the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ.” (Westcott, Ibid., p. 16).

“(Rev. 3:15) might no doubt bear the Arian meaning, the first thing created.” (Hort, Revelation, p.36).

False Salvation:

"I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan. I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the doctrine of a ransom to the father." (Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter 1:1-2:17, p. 77).

Romanism:

“I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry (the worship of the Virgin Mary) bears witness.” (Westcott, Ibid.)

“The pure Romanish view seems to be nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical.” (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 77)

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I've never heard anyone make that claim.

Yes, I believe the 1769 KJV in English and the KJV (TR) translated in other languages is the perfect and pure Word of God for our day. While I use Modern Translations to help update the 1600's English, they are not my final word of authority like the KJV because they are corrupted in many ways. This does not mean somebody cannot be saved by a Modern Translation or a Bible in another language that is not based on the TR. This simply means that not all people have the exact pure Word of God that can lead them into a deeper walk with God by faith. There can only be one perfect Word of God. One communicated message that God preserves. For Heaven and Earth shall pass away but His words will not pass away.

But there are many KJVO-ists who believe that a Christian should not even read Modern Translations at all. They are afraid a person can be corrupted by them. While I respect their belief, I disagree that Modern Translations can corrupt me if I am aware of their changes. I am always going to make the KJV my final word of authority.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The majority of Greek manuscripts differs from the Textus Receptus {Hodges ans Farstad used an 1825 Oxford reprint of Stephanus' 1550 text for comparission purposes) in 1,838 places and in many of these places, the text of Wescottand Hort agrees with the majority of manuscripts against the Textus Receptus. The majority in excluding Lk 17:36; Acts 8:37; and 1 Jn 5:7 from the NT as well asconcuring in numerous other readings (such as "tree of life" in Rev 22:19). Except in rare cases writers well versed in textal criticism have abandoned the Textus Receptus as a standard text.[Bible-researcher.com] Tyndale used the faulty TR, Vulgate, and Erasumus' text and although he correctly translated the word devil as a "FIEND".

Again, the problem is that Wescott and Hort believed things that were contrary to the faith.
This is evident if you were to look at quotes from their own writings.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

To some, it is definitely more than a translation. It is undeniable that the KJV has become a God - an object of worship - to some of the hardcore onlyist crowd.

Nope. Just because I believe something is holy does not mean I worship it. The ark was a holy object but that does not mean God wanted people to worship the Ark. God said to Moses that he was standing on holy ground but that does not mean God wanted Moses to worship the ground. In other words, something can be holy and yet not conflict with us worship God Himself alone. So you are drawing the wrong conclusions.

But that does not mean we cannot love God's Word. It is not wrong to do that.

"Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it." (Psalms 119:140).

Do you believe God's Word is VERY PURE and that is the reason why you love it?
Or are you of the persuasion that there is no VERY PURE Word of God?

 

[kiwimac]

I have answered these kinds of cribbed quotations many times and will do so again here. Quoting Jason0047

". . .Westcott and Hort's Un-Biblical Beliefs:

Denial of the Inspiration of the Scriptures:

“Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise.” (Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p. vii).
"
Firstly the title of this work is "A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament. " These words are taken from the preface and are quoted as they are to make it seem that they are a sentence entire of itself. It is not. Let me quote it in it's context

"...However imperfectly this design has been carried out, I cannot but hope that such a method of inquiry will convey both the truest notion of the connexion of the written Word with the living body of Christ, and the surest conviction of its divine authority. Hitherto the co-existence of several types of Apostolic doctrine in the first age and of various parties in Christendom for several generations afterwards has been quoted to prove that our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise..." (Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, p. vii).

Rather than being a summation of his opinion Westcott is here writing that he hopes his work will disprove the notion that the Bible and faith are a "mere compromise."

“Evangelicals seem to me perverted. . .There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, especially the authority of the Bible.” (Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.400)

Not really strange that an Anglican did not like evangelicals. But hardly heretical.

“Dr. Wilbur Pickering writes that, Hort did not hold to a high view of inspiration.” (The Identity of the New Testament Text, p.212)

This is not a quote from Hort but a quote ABOUT Hort and is only the opinion of Pickering. Hort's writings show quite a different view.

Denial of the Deity of Christ:

“He never speaks of Himself directly as God, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him.” (Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297)

Here is the full quote in it's context from the notes to the text on page 297

". . .The record of this confession therefore forms the appropriate close to his narrative; and the words which follow shew that the Lord accepted the declaration of His Divinity as the true expression of faith. He never speaks of Himself directly as God (comp. v. 18), but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him. . . "Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297

Just a little further on at the end of the notes to this section Hort adds

". . .In the Gospel the Evangelist shews step by step that the historic Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God (opposed to mere " flesh ") ; in the Epistle he re-affirms that the Christ, the Son of God, was true man (opposed to mere " spirit :" i John iv. a). . ."ibid

“(John) does not expressly affirm the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ.” (Westcott, Ibid., p. 16).

This is another of the cribbed note so beloved of KJV-Onlyists, for if you read the page you will find that Hort is in fact saying completely the opposite of what the cribbed quote above appears to make him say.; here is the text in full

". . 2. There is no effort on the part of the writer to establish, or to enforce, or to explain. He sets forth what is matter of experience to him with complete conviction and knowledge. Nothing can be farther from the appearance of introducing any new teaching. The Evangelist takes for granted that his readers understand perfectly what he means by " the Word," "the Father." He does not expressly affirm but assumes the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ (i>. 17) . . ." (Westcott, the Gospel according to St. John, pg. 16)

“(Rev. 3:15) might no doubt bear the Arian meaning, the first thing created.” (Hort, Revelation, p.36).

This is quoted in an attempt to make Hort look like an Arian, he was not and the text does not say what those quoting it want you to believe it says.

". . .what does Hort actually say on page 36, regarding "the beginning of the creation" (in Rev 3:14-15)? Here it is ;

n apx. t. ktis. Prov. viii. 22, [(Prov 8:22 in Greek and Heb)] The words do not define the precise sense. On apxn, as a term cf. Col. i. 18, and for the probable idea Col. i. 16. The words might no doubt bear the Arian meaning "the first thing created": but they equally well bear the sense which the other Christological language of the book suggests, the being antecedent to all creation, in whom all creation came and comes to pass. Christ's last testimony and His earliest function seem purposely combined."

Hort did NOT "proclaim Christ was the first thing created", as claimed. He simply recognized that the precise Greek words of this particular verse (n apxh thc kticwec), on their own, from a grammatical perspective could mean "the first thing created" - but they could also just as easily mean the source of creation, which is the meaning we accept because it is the meaning the rest of Revelation and the Bible (such as Col 1:16-18, which Hort mentions) and even the Creeds (with which Hort had "deeply-rooted agreement") compel us to accept. . . .

False Salvation:

"I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan. I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the doctrine of a ransom to the father." (Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter 1:1-2:17, p. 77).
"
Here he is addressing a belief prevalent at the time that Christ's sacrifice was a price PAID TO SATAN. It was not and such belief is indeed heretical.

 

[gordonhooker]

The ESV is my favorite modern translation. I still prefer the KJV and sometimes get into arguments with my ESV about how it chose to phrase some things, but all in all it's a good word-for-word translation that is also quite literary. The NIV changed too much with it's sneaky 2011 revision. I sometimes read my pre-2011 NIV, but I really don't care for it compared to other, better translations.

Love it!

I have a similar problem but I don't argue with my ESV or NRSV I argue with the voices in my head and sometimes they win the argument...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I have answered these kinds of cribbed quotations many times and will do so again here. Quoting Jason0047

". . .Westcott and Hort's Un-Biblical Beliefs:

Denial of the Inspiration of the Scriptures:

“Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise.” (Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p. vii).
"
Firstly the title of this work is "A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament. " These words are taken from the preface and are quoted as they are to make it seem that they are a sentence entire of itself. It is not. Let me quote it in it's context

Rather than being a summation of his opinion Westcott is here writing that he hopes his work will disprove the notion that the Bible and faith are a "mere compromise."

“Evangelicals seem to me perverted. . .There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, especially the authority of the Bible.” (Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.400)

Not really strange that an Anglican did not like evangelicals. But hardly heretical.

“Dr. Wilbur Pickering writes that, Hort did not hold to a high view of inspiration.” (The Identity of the New Testament Text, p.212)

This is not a quote from Hort but a quote ABOUT Hort and is only the opinion of Pickering. Hort's writings show quite a different view.

Denial of the Deity of Christ:

“He never speaks of Himself directly as God, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him.” (Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297)

Here is the full quote in it's context from the notes to the text on page 297

Just a little further on at the end of the notes to this section Hort adds

“(John) does not expressly affirm the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ.” (Westcott, Ibid., p. 16).

This is another of the cribbed note so beloved of KJV-Onlyists, for if you read the page you will find that Hort is in fact saying completely the opposite of what the cribbed quote above appears to make him say.; here is the text in full



“(Rev. 3:15) might no doubt bear the Arian meaning, the first thing created.” (Hort, Revelation, p.36).

This is quoted in an attempt to make Hort look like an Arian, he was not and the text does not say what those quoting it want you to believe it says.



False Salvation:

"I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan. I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the doctrine of a ransom to the father." (Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter 1:1-2:17, p. 77).
"
Here he is addressing a belief prevalent at the time that Christ's sacrifice was a price PAID TO SATAN. It was not and such belief is indeed heretical.

Nice magic trick, but it is not really working out in your favor by reading the text of what they said so liberally. Even if you are right in the context and interpretation of those words by Wescott and Hort (of which I disagree with), you did not address their statements involving Catholicism.

In addition, in regards to salvation: They did say they have no repugnance for the doctrine paid to Satan. This is a problem because it suggests that they are liberal in their beliefs in regards to salvation. This is a big problem because men should have a basic understanding of salvation if they are writing a foundational text in Greek for God's Holy Word.

I also do not see how the context of them saying how their faith is a mere compromise helps to explain what you said. I would never say under any circumstance that my faith is a compromise. They were not speaking of somebody else's faith. They were speaking of their own faith. So you are not reading what they are saying correctly. They are saying that their Bible and their faith is a compromise. Period. The additional words they add does not change what they said.

You also added no context to Hort's words on his reference to the Arian meaning, either.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Westcott Denied That The Lord Jesus Christ And God The Father Could Be “EQUAL IN POWER,” Hence Denied Thereby The DEITY Of Christ. He wrote:

(John 10:30)(I and my Father are one) It seems clear that the unity here spoken of cannot fall short of unity of essence. The thought springs from the EQUALITY OF POWER (my hand, the Father’s hand); but infinite power is an essential ATTRIBUTE OF GOD; and it is IMPOSSIBLE TO SUPPOSE THAT TWO BEINGS DISTINCT IN ESSENCE COULD BE EQUAL IN POWER. (W-John, op. cit., p. 159)

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I have answered these kinds of cribbed quotations many times and will do so again here. Quoting Jason0047

". . .Westcott and Hort's Un-Biblical Beliefs:

Denial of the Inspiration of the Scriptures:

“Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise.” (Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p. vii).
"
Firstly the title of this work is "A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament. " These words are taken from the preface and are quoted as they are to make it seem that they are a sentence entire of itself. It is not. Let me quote it in it's context

Rather than being a summation of his opinion Westcott is here writing that he hopes his work will disprove the notion that the Bible and faith are a "mere compromise."

“Evangelicals seem to me perverted. . .There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, especially the authority of the Bible.” (Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.400)

Not really strange that an Anglican did not like evangelicals. But hardly heretical.

“Dr. Wilbur Pickering writes that, Hort did not hold to a high view of inspiration.” (The Identity of the New Testament Text, p.212)

This is not a quote from Hort but a quote ABOUT Hort and is only the opinion of Pickering. Hort's writings show quite a different view.

Denial of the Deity of Christ:

“He never speaks of Himself directly as God, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him.” (Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297)

Here is the full quote in it's context from the notes to the text on page 297

Just a little further on at the end of the notes to this section Hort adds

“(John) does not expressly affirm the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ.” (Westcott, Ibid., p. 16).

This is another of the cribbed note so beloved of KJV-Onlyists, for if you read the page you will find that Hort is in fact saying completely the opposite of what the cribbed quote above appears to make him say.; here is the text in full



“(Rev. 3:15) might no doubt bear the Arian meaning, the first thing created.” (Hort, Revelation, p.36).

This is quoted in an attempt to make Hort look like an Arian, he was not and the text does not say what those quoting it want you to believe it says.



False Salvation:

"I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan. I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the doctrine of a ransom to the father." (Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter 1:1-2:17, p. 77).
"
Here he is addressing a belief prevalent at the time that Christ's sacrifice was a price PAID TO SATAN. It was not and such belief is indeed heretical.

Try reading this article, too.

B.F. Westcott and the Deity of Jesus Christ:

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Also, I would not under any circumstance say my Bible or faith is a compromise unless I was talking about a person who denies the Bible and the faith and or if I used a what if scenario. No what if scenario or talk of another person's faith were used in the statment made by Westcott. Please highlight the specific words that say that Westcott is talking about somebody else's Bible and faith or highlight the specific words that reference Wescott talking about his Bible and faith in a what if scenario (But not his own personal Bible and faith).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Also, people can admit to the deity of Jesus Christ and also deny that He is THE GOD (as a part of the Triune Godhead or Trinity). In other words, some believe that Jesus is A god but not THE GOD. Some falsely believe that Jesus came into being sometime in the beginning or before that time.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Also, it is wrong to attack a fellow brother in Christ and call them perverted. 1 John 3:15 says if one hates their brother, they are like a murderer and no eternal life abides in them.

 

[he-man]

Again, the problem is that Wescott and Hort believed things that were contrary to the faith.
This is evident if you were to look at quotes from their own writings.

The TR, KJV, NKJV based on Erasumas text is from a few 10 to 15 Century translations and in some cases had no manuscript support at all. Without question it is possible to produce a text which is close to the autographs by comparing over 5,000 manuscripts avaiable today. Fundamentalists should reject the attempts by some in our movement to make the TR the only acceptable form of Greek text. An example is given by Wycliff, who translates correctly the word devil as FIEND.

 

[DamianWarS]

That's a bit of a leap. IT's certainly possible, but it's by no means a foregone conclusion that the KJV will lose pride of place among American Christians within the foreseeable future.

this is an argument of what is more popular not what is more accurate or what is more responsible. Why exactly is the KJV a place of pride among Americans? In faith we have non-negotiables and negotiables. Non-negotiables are core foundational beliefs of christianity where negotiables are things that do not alter the core foundational beliefs. The KJV is a negotiable and it's future is a negotiable where the Word of God is a non-negotiable and it's future is lasting. We should not have such a firm grip on these negotiables and when we do then the gospel is compromised. Read, value and proclaim the KJV but never to the degree that people miss the gospel either because they are unwilling to go toward the KJV or because they irresponsibly go toward the KJV. If it doesn't work with out mission then release the grip and use what works, never at the expense of the gospel or God's Word but our focus should not be about it the KJV maintains it's position of pride and honor.