The KJVO Myth Has NO Scriptural support!

[Radagast]

The KJV is not the standard by which we judge other English versions of the Bible and certainly not the Greek and Hebrew.

Agreed.

 

[Dr. Jack]

The KJV is not the standard by which we judge other English versions of the Bible and certainly not the Greek and Hebrew.

I think that depends on who you ask.

 

[kiwimac]

I think that depends on who you ask.

No, really it does not.

 

[Dr. Jack]

No, really it does not.

So if I were to ask Dr. D.A. Waite, Dr. Mickey Carter, and others; are you telling me they would agree with you?

 

[Radagast]

So if I were to ask Dr. D.A. Waite, Dr. Mickey Carter, and others; are you telling me they would agree with you?

Who cares?

 

[Dr. Jack]

Who cares?

The following statements were made, leading up to this response:

The KJV is not the standard by which we judge other English versions of the Bible and certainly n

Agreed

I think that depends on who you ask.

No, really it does not.

So if I were to ask Dr. D.A. Waite, Dr. Mickey Carter, and others; are you telling me they would agree with you?

Who cares?

So when the professional opinion of particular scholars disagrees with a statement which you make, your best response is; "Who cares?"

What you fail to realize is that there are many men who have both a great understanding of the Biblical languages, but also great knowledge of the Biblical narrative (from a doctrinal perspective), alnog with a great knowledge of the historicity of the Bible itself,and therefore hold the position that that the King James Bible is the stand for English Bibles.

You may disagree with that position, but to assert that there are no such people is a complete denial of the truth. The mere fact that even one person in this very thread opposes that assertion, proves that assertion to be false. Secondly, the fact that you reply with an answer such as "Who cares?", shows that you really don't care about the facts of history, and or the method of translation itself; rather, you only care about making an assertion that is based upon a word concept fallacy that that creates a false dichotomy. Hence, you defeat your own purpose prior to proper introduction of it.

 

[Radagast]

So when the professional opinion of particular scholars disagrees with a statement which you make, your best response is; "Who cares?"

Are D.A. Waite and Mickey Carter "scholars"?

hold the position that that the King James Bible is the stand for English Bibles.

The standard for all Bibles is the original Hebrew and Greek. That standard shows the KJV to be flawed.

 

[Dr. Jack]

Are D.A. Waite and Mickey Carter "scholars"?

Pastor D. A. Waite
Dr. D. A. Waite, received a B.A. (Bachelor of Arts) in classical Greek and Latin from the University of Michigan in 1948, a Th.M. (Master of Theology), with high honors, in New Testament Greek Literature and Exegesis from Dallas Theological Seminary in 1952, an M.A. (Master of Arts) in Speech from Southern Methodist University in 1953, a Th.D. (Doctor of Theology), with honors, in Bible Exposition from Dallas Theological Seminary in 1955, and a Ph.D. in Speech from Purdue University in 1961. He holds both New Jersey and Pennsylvania teacher certificates in Greek and Language Arts.

He has been a teacher in the areas of Greek, Hebrew, Bible, Speech, and English for over thirty-five years in nine schools, including one junior high, one senior high, three Bible institutes, two colleges, two universities, and one seminary. He served his country as a Navy Chaplain for five years on active duty; pastored three churches; was Chairman and Director of the Radio and Audio-Film Commission of the American Council of Christian Churches; since 1971, has been Founder, President, and Director of THE BIBLE FOR TODAY; since 1978, has been President of the DEAN BURGON SOCIETY; since 1998, has been Pastor of THE BIBLE FOR TODAY BAPTIST CHURCH with his sermons and other messages heard daily all over the world on www.Bible ForToday.org. org by means of the internet; has produced over 900 other studies, books, cassettes, or VCR's on various topics; and is heard on both a five-minute daily and thirty-minute weekly radio program IN DEFENSE OF TRADITIONAL BIBLE TEXTS.
Author D. A. Waite

I do not have a "bio" on Dr. Carter, but what I do know is that he has written books on the KJV issue, and has been the Pastor of Landmark Baptist Church, and President of Landmark Baptist College, and has been a recognized champion in the KJV Only position. There are an abundance of men that I could present ... all of which I'm sure would be met your highest approval.

The standard for all Bibles is the original Hebrew and Greek. That standard shows the KJV to be flawed.

That is your OPINION, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[ViaCrucis]

That is your OPINION, nothing more, nothing less.

Exactly. It's also why the standard for judging how faithful an adaptation is to the works of Shakespeare isn't the works of Shakespeare themselves, but rather the 2013 film Make Your Move.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Dr. Jack]

Exactly. It's also why the standard for judging how faithful an adaptation is to the works of Shakespeare isn't the works of Shakespeare themselves, but rather the 2013 film Make Your Move.

-CryptoLutheran

We aren't talking about Shakespeare, we are talking about 1) the vast majority of Greek MSS supporting readings which modern scholarship reject, because the developers of the rules governing Textual Criticism were made by those who reject the inspiration of all Scripture; and 2) the method of translation is more about Dynamic Equivalence than Formal Equivalence because Dynamic Equivalence gives scholarship a greater ability to use a broader definition when translating the Biblical narrative.

 

[ViaCrucis]

We aren't talking about Shakespeare, we are talking about 1) the vast majority of Greek MSS supporting readings which modern scholarship reject, because the developers of the rules governing Textual Criticism were made by those who reject the inspiration of all Scripture; and 2) the method of translation is more about Dynamic Equivalence than Formal Equivalence because Dynamic Equivalence gives scholarship a greater ability to use a broader definition when translating the Biblical narrative.

And what does any of that have to do with the KJV? Or with the KJV being the standard to judge other translations?

But since we're here now,

1) What are the vast majority of readings which "modern scholarship" rejects on the basis of Textual Criticism? And where do you get that this is because such scholars reject divine inspiration?

2) And yet most of the most widely used translations rely on Formal Equivalence, not Dynamic Equivalence. Further, you are attributing motive for why one would choose to prefer dynamic over formal, but there can be a lot of reasons to prefer one or the other--namely how to best render the text in such a way as to make it sensible to the reader. If a translations chose to use the most woodenly word-for-word we'd likely get an incoherent mess, it would be a bad translation.

Example:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
In beginning was the Word and the Word was beside the God and God was the Word.

That's a literal word-for-word, but it fails to 1) look proper in English and 2) fails to understand Greek grammatical rules and so does not faithfully capture the meaning. Hence:

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

By adding the definite article before beginning it helps the flow in English; also removing the definite article before "God" is in keeping with standard English usage. Further, by restructuring part of the sentence where "God" without definite article is being used to describe the Word (as the subject) to get "and the Word was God" rather than the clunky and incorrect (in English) "And God was the Word" we get a sensible, faithful rendering of the source text into English.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Dr. Jack]

And what does any of that have to do with the KJV? Or with the KJV being the standard to judge other translations?

But since we're here now,

1) What are the vast majority of readings which "modern scholarship" rejects on the basis of Textual Criticism? And where do you get that this is because such scholars reject divine inspiration?

You may want to do a bit of research on Johann Salomo Semler and his disciples

2) And yet most of the most widely used translations rely on Formal Equivalence, not Dynamic Equivalence. Further, you are attributing motive for why one would choose to prefer dynamic over formal, but there can be a lot of reasons to prefer one or the other--namely how to best render the text in such a way as to make it sensible to the reader. If a translations chose to use the most woodenly word-for-word we'd likely get an incoherent mess, it would be a bad translation.

Example:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
In beginning was the Word and the Word was beside the God and God was the Word.

That's a literal word-for-word, but it fails to 1) look proper in English and 2) fails to understand Greek grammatical rules and so does not faithfully capture the meaning. Hence:

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

By adding the definite article before beginning it helps the flow in English; also removing the definite article before "God" is in keeping with standard English usage. Further, by restructuring part of the sentence where "God" without definite article is being used to describe the Word (as the subject) to get "and the Word was God" rather than the clunky and incorrect (in English) "And God was the Word" we get a sensible, faithful rendering of the source text into English.

-CryptoLutheran

Please tell me that isn't your argument! Anyone with any knowledge of English and Greek is fully aware that English and Greek syntax differ greatly.

For example, I'm sure you understand that "καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν" it is improper English syntax to say, "and the word was with the God". English syntax is English syntax, and Greek syntax is Greek syntax; we learn that in Greek 101 when learning about nouns and articles.

English relies on word order, while Greek relies on the endings of words.

I'm not here to hold Greek lessons, nor recieve them. Please don't assume I'm a complete idiot.

 

[Dr. Jack]

And what does any of that have to do with the KJV? Or with the KJV being the standard to judge other translations?

The KJ was translated using a Greek Text produced without the rules of Textual Criticism developed long after the KJ was published.

When Erasmus published his Greek text, he did so using his knowledge of the vast MSS he had previous access to. Erasmus, like the other scholars of his day, believed in what we now refer to as derivative inspiration. He, by having both knowledge of, and access to a huge selection of Greek MSS, used the MSS from the Byzantine family because he knew they were of the greatest quality, not to mention quantity.

However, after Semler taught his disciples his beliefs concerning the inspiration of Scripture, (or more correctly addresses stated, his lack thereof), they developed rules to remove those texts (from the Bible) which they believed were not inspired. This was the bases of the development of the rules of Textual Criticism.

 

[nolidad]

The only inerrant infallible Scriptures are the original autographs and all faithful copies of those autographs. Translations and translations of translations tend to get muddied simply because words and verbs lose impact so very often when taken to another language.

There are many bibles that are excellent! Many are so-so and many that should be used as fire starters.

The good translations may lose impact from the originals but do not alter doctrine.

I teach my students to download and use greek and hebrew study tools to help them . That is the best way to go.

 

[nolidad]

The KJ was translated using a Greek Text produced without the rules of Textual Criticism developed long after the KJ was published.

When Erasmus published his Greek text, he did so using his knowledge of the vast MSS he had previous access to. Erasmus, like the other scholars of his day, believed in what we now refer to as derivative inspiration. He, by having both knowledge of, and access to a huge selection of Greek MSS, used the MSS from the Byzantine family because he knew they were of the greatest quality, not to mention quantity.

However, after Semler taught his disciples his beliefs concerning the inspiration of Scripture, (or more correctly addresses stated, his lack thereof), they developed rules to remove those texts (from the Bible) which they believed were not inspired. This was the bases of the development of the rules of Textual Criticism.

And that started teh downfall of the modern church into the age of Laodecia!

 

[Dr. Jack]

And that started teh downfall of the modern church into the age of Laodecia!

I agree.

 

[ViaCrucis]

You may want to do a bit of research on Johann Salomo Semler and his disciples

Perhaps you could simply tell me instead of sending me on a wild goose chase.

Please tell me that isn't your argument! Anyone with any knowledge of English and Greek is fully aware that English and Greek syntax differ greatly.

For example, I'm sure you understand that "καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν" it is improper English syntax to say, "and the word was with the God". English syntax is English syntax, and Greek syntax is Greek syntax; we learn that in Greek 101 when learning about nouns and articles.

English relies on word order, while Greek relies on the endings of words.

I'm not here to hold Greek lessons, nor recieve them. Please don't assume I'm a complete idiot.

Syntax is only part of the issue. It's the simple fact that strict word-for-word translation is not always right, it's not always preferable, and it's not always possible. The goal of translation should be more than a simple, wooden word-for-word translation; but should be about capturing the meaning and accurately conveying that meaning in the new language.

As such arguing that formal equivalence is always superior to dynamic equivalence doesn't hold out. Note that my argument is not that dynamic equivalence is superior. My argument is that the aim of the translator needs to be a faithful communication, insofar as it is possible at all.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

The KJ was translated using a Greek Text produced without the rules of Textual Criticism developed long after the KJ was published.

When Erasmus published his Greek text, he did so using his knowledge of the vast MSS he had previous access to. Erasmus, like the other scholars of his day, believed in what we now refer to as derivative inspiration. He, by having both knowledge of, and access to a huge selection of Greek MSS, used the MSS from the Byzantine family because he knew they were of the greatest quality, not to mention quantity.

However, after Semler taught his disciples his beliefs concerning the inspiration of Scripture, (or more correctly addresses stated, his lack thereof), they developed rules to remove those texts (from the Bible) which they believed were not inspired. This was the bases of the development of the rules of Textual Criticism.

So we should accept the work of Erasmus uncritically because...?

And we should dismiss textual criticism because...?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

And that started teh downfall of the modern church into the age of Laodecia!

Laodicea was an ancient city in the Roman province of Asia, and the Christian community located in ancient Laodicea was one of the target audiences of St. John's Apocalypse. The seven churches were just that, seven churches, seven communities of Christians located in the province of Asia to whom John wrote his Apocalypse while exiled on Patmos.

I know that it's popular in some modern circles to treat the seven churches as epochs or "ages"; but there is literally no exegetical justification for doing so.

In other words, there's no such thing as an "age of Laodicea".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Radagast]

they developed rules to remove those texts (from the Bible) which they believed were not inspired. This was the bases of the development of the rules of Textual Criticism.

This is an absolute and total falsehood. This is not what Textual Criticism does.