KJV Debate

[petrek]

Johnny Reb, I'll start by pasting what I wrote to Linuxboy in another thread, and we can go from there.

If God is the all knowing, all seeing, all powerful God that he claims to be then the preservation of His word to man is easily acknowledged. Obviously if God is who he claims to be then he is more than capable of preserving his word to all generations.

At the National Leadership Conference of 1996, Gordon Lovik of Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary states, "It is important to realize that no theology of the Bible is changed by variant readings...The total number of words in question are no more than 10 percent of the New Testement". I'm sorry but that is unaccaptable. If God is who he says he is than 1 percent is too much. And to suggest that no theology of the Bible is changed is ridiculous. Words have meaning, and by changing the words you change the meaning, it's as simple as that.

I could give numerous quotes to establish how we arrived at the position we are currently in, with over 100 Bible versions all claiming to be the word of God and yet if one is to look at one version and compare it to another the passage being compared bares a completely different meaning. For the sake of brevity I'll give a quick review of how we got here and we can delve further into the issue if need be.

In the late 1800's Westcott and Hort create a new Greek text using mainly Aleph (Sinaiticus) and B (Vaticanus), manuscripts (which have come to be known as the oldest and the best) which on page one of volume 2 of Hoskier's Codex B. and its Allies, Hoskier notes that there are 3036 differences between those two manuscripts in the Gospels alone. The Bible plainly tells us that witnesses that do not agree with each other are not witnessing truth (Mark 14: 55-56)

So why did Westcott and Hort use manuscripts that weren't witnessing truth? Let's allow Hort to tell us in his own words. "The errors and prejudices which we agree in wishing to remove, can surely be more wholesomely and also more effectually reached by individual efforts of an indirect kind than by combined open assault. At present very many orthodox but rational men are being unawares acted on by influences which will assuredly bear good fruit in due time. If the process is allowed to go on quitely; but I cannot help fearing that a premature crisis would frighten back many into the merest traditionalism. And as a mere matter of prudence, it seems to me questionable to set up a single broad conspicious target for the philistines to shoot at, unless there is some very decided advantage to be gained." Life & Letters, Vol. 1, page 400

His interest clearly had nothing to do with truth, he wanted the Bible to allow for his prejudices, and he knew that if he acted quietly eventually his dream would be realized, as it has. Many people accept the new versions as being the word of God and consider the King James Bible as just another version. How was this done, by changing the Greek, and in that way, when a scholar looks to the greek to check the word in correlation to the KJV Bible he sees a word that doesn't match, as it wouldn't, because the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus(aka, the Ecclesiastical text, the Bzantine text, the Majority text, and the Traditional text) which is in agreement with 80-95 percent of the currently extant manuscripts (approx. 5,000), and the Greek text used by most seminaries is the new Greek text by Westcott and Hort.

How did this leaven get into conservative (fundamentalist) Bible believing churches and seminaries. Mainly through one man. Benjamin B. Warfield of Princeton Theological Seminary who is well known for his work on the inspiration and authority of scripture, and who said that only the autographs can be considered the word of God, and that the autographical text is at our fingertips, that the word of God had been lost and needed to be found. We don't have the autographs, we have apographs (copies of the original texts that were directly inspired by God), but the autographs no longer exist. So when Warfield said that only the autographs could be considered the word of God, he changed the common view of the Bible from being an infallible, existing manuscript, to an inerrant, non-existing original manuscript.

A T Robertson of Southern Theological Seminary, Lewis Sperry Chafer of Dallas Theological Seminary, and Charles D Brokenshire of Bob Jones University, all aquired their view of textual criticism from B B Warfield. (above two paragraphs were from notes I took while watching the video 'The Leaven in Fundamentalism' by Dr Dell Johnson and Dr Theodore Letis, 1998 Pensacola Christian College)

God says in regards to preserving his word, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled, and God is more than capable of keeping his word.

In closing then, while it is possible for me to use one word in response to a question and depending on the tone of my voice and how long or short I draw out the word I can make the same word mean many different things, with writing such is not possible, and I must needs allow the context of my writing to speak to the meaning I am trying to convey. Such is true also of the Bible, the context in which something is said and the specific words used, convey the meaning of the passage. And the Bible can't contradict itself or it isn't what it claims to be. And if one does not take the Bible to be the literal and infallible word of God, I don't see how one can possibly understand what God is saying. That is undoubtably the cause of all this divergent theology, for when one gives up the belief that the Bible is the infallible, verbally inspired word of God one gives up the finality and absolute truth in regards to doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteous that the Bible claims to be.

If one does not trust that the Bible is given directly by an all knowing, all seeing, all powerful God to man to be read and understood literally in the simplist of terms and yet containing infinite wisdom and knowledge as far as I'm concerned the Bible lacks any and all pretense of importance. Wherewith would I start at trying to grasp it's meaning, surely if it is not the direct word of God then it is untrustworthy as it comes from men.

Dave

 

[glen]

the bible claims to be infalable?
Might be a translation mistake............. how circular

 

[petrek]

 

[JohnnyReb]

Petrek,
You said a lot that I agree with. I think the fundamental question (as far as this discussion goes) is whether the KJV is perfect.

As an idea of where I come from, I agree with THE CHICAGO STATEMENT ON BIBLICAL INERRANCY.

It is my contention that there does not exist an English translation that is perfect. I also contend that, in effect, every translation of Scripture is commentary. Basically, presenting the views of the translators wherever difficult text is to be translated.

As an example:

Let's take a look at the Book of Isaiah Ch. 37. Ahaz is told to ask for a sign, but he refuses. God says that he will give him a sign. An almah (Heb. adjective fem. sing.) will give birth to a son and call his name Immanuel. An almah is never married in scripture and so this pregnancy of an unmarried woman caused by divine intervention must be a virginal conception.

The question is asked as to why Isaiah did not use the word Betulah which has long been thought to be a virgin instead of the word almah - an unmarried woman. Jews in particular have used this to attack the Christian understanding of this prophecy pointing to Christ.

Well, there is in fact no Hebrew word that denotes a Virgo Intacta. The study by Wenham (Gordon Wenham, "Betulah 'A Girl of Marriageable Age'" Vetus Testamentum 22 1972 326-348) is groundbreaking in refuting this claim. The LXX, Ugaritic, and Aramaic text all support the translation of betulah as a girl of marriageable age. Note especially the use of betulah in Deut 22:13-21, where the betulim offered as proof against the husbands accusation isn't proof of virginity, but rather her menstruating regularly when was betrothed to the man making the accusation. How could the girls? parents provide proof of her virginity? They are not in possession of the remnants of the marriage bed. They are, however, in possession of evidence of her monthlies.

Also look at Joel 1:8. "Lament like a virgin girded with sackcloth for the husband of her youth." Here betulah is translated virgin, when it makes no sense. Why would a virgin lament the husband of her youth? But, a wife still in the 'flower of her womanhood', still menstruating, would lament the loss of the husband of her youth.

OK. What's my point. The KJV (as well as others) translate betulah as virgin, when we know for certain that betulah means a woman of marriageable age. The Word of God is perfect, in this case the Massoretic Text (Hebrew OT), but the KJV is not.

John

EDIT: BTW, the KJV is my translation of choice.

 

[wQuay]

I never would have expected to see this in ATOT. KJV all the way.

 

[spamsk8r]

I fully agree with JohhnyReb

 

[JohnnyReb]

NOTE: The odd, meaningless characters denote Hebrew fonts not supported on ATOT.

Petrek,

The article in question isn't available online (try ILL) but consider the following from Isaiah 7:16 ? Key to the Immanuel Prophecy by Murray R. Adamthwaite

(iii) The oft-repeated objection that if a virgin birth were intended the prophet would have used hlwtb is invalid. Here Wenham?s discussion has made a significant contribution to the whole debate. He argues as follows:
(1) hlwtb forms a co-ordinate pair in Hebrew poetry with its masculine equivalent rwjb (Deut 32:25; Amos 8:13), yet the latter has no connotation of virginity. The likelihood is that the feminine form does not either.
(2) The Akkadian cognates to this pair are respectively batultu [KI.SIKIL.TUR] and batulu [GURU?.TUR], and as such denote an age classification, i.e. adolescence or teenage years, and nothing more. There is in fact no single word per se denoting virginity in either Sumerian or Akkadian. The concept can only be expressed by a qualifying phrase E-NU-GI4-A or ?a la napqat (?who is not deflowered?) respectively. While this point is not demonstrative cognate evidence offers a powerful analogy and must be given its due weight. This consideration is especially poignant as the laws dealing with pre-marital intercourse on the part of a batultu/hlwtb are the same in both Assyrian and Hebrew codes respectively. Furthermore on the Hebrew side, there are several passages where hlwtb has some additional qualification that a man had not known her (e.g. in Gen 24:16, hudy al cyaw; 2 Sam 13:2ff), just as in Akkadian. Such qualifications are pleonastic and tautologous if the word means inherently ?virgin?. Hence the etymologically equivalent words batultu and hlwtb are likely to be semantically equivalent also.
(3) In the vexed passage in Deut 22:13-21 the term \ylwtb, traditionally ?tokens of virginity? and referred to the blood-stained bed linen from the wedding night, is much more plausibly rendered ?tokens of adolescence?, referring to cloths stained with menstrual blood, and constitutes in context a form of pregnancy test rather than a virginity test. Hence rather than a coup de grâce in favour of the hlwtb - ?virgin? equation, this passage really points in the opposite direction, in favour of the word meaning ?an adolescent girl of marriageable age?.
(4) In brief, there is no occurrence of hlwtb which requires it to be understood as ?virgin?, and several where such an equation involves serious difficulties, notably Lev 21:5-7, 13-15; 2 Sam 13:1-2; Job 31:1; Joel 1:8. The narrower meaning of ?virgin? developed probably just prior to the Christian era, Wenham postulates, and ever since has been read anachronistically back into the Old Testament.

 

[petrek]

"I think the fundamental question (as far as this discussion goes) is whether the KJV is perfect."

I disagree, the discussion is whether or not the KJV is the verbally inspired, providentially preserved word of God in the english language.

"Inerrancy refers to the fact that the autographa does not have error" (R.C. Sproul, Explaining Inerrancy: A Commentary, Oakland, CA: International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, 1980, p. 25).

This of course is where we run into problems. For in Article X of The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, this statement is made:

"We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture (which does NOT exist), which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy (NOT good enough). We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original." <--if such is the case then God is a liar because his statement "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" is of none effect.

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, apart from "inerrancy" being in the title also lays claim to said word in Articles X (noted above), XIII, XV, XVI, XVIII, and XIX.

If "great accuracy" is all that we can go by, as opposed to having a providentially preserved infallible word of God in the english language in the KJV, what then is one to make of the fact that some "word's of God" translate Revelation 13:16-17 as "in" and some as "on" considering the fact that anyone who gets said mark is damned, and that one can't buy or sell without said mark (am I to just toss a coin? Considering the fact that the eternal destiny of ones soul rests on that very crucial decision, I THINK NOT). Allow me to remind you that God says, "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till ALL be fulfilled" (capitols added).

As concerning the translation of the term virgin (Does not the spirit of truth guide men into all truth?) and does not the term virgin refer to a woman of marriageable age as well as one who has not had sex, or "known a man", etc?

Dave

 

[petrek]

 

[Athanasius]

petrek:

Are the translators of the KJV divinely inspired when they translate the Hebrew word "RYM" or "RM" or "RaAM" as "unicorn"?

Does that mean that unicorns existed in ancient Israel? No. Because the creature referred to was not known in the Grek speaking world, the Hebrew was mistakenly translated into "monokeros" and eventually into the Latin versions and the KJV. But it is an obvious error, one that modern archaeology and research (with its discoveries of ancient near eastern fauna) cleared up.

I am not trying to jest. If I am asked, "What is the best English translation the world has ever seen?" I will say without hesitation, "The KJV." But it not without error. If you are open, I can take the time to point some of them out to you, such as the one above.

Was the Latin Vulgate the inspired version for its era? Which Old Testament version is the inspired text: the Hebrew Masoretic text, the Greek Septuagint, or the Greek Dead Sea Scrolls? Most would say that the Masoretic Text is the more reliable tradition, and I would agree with them. But it is not infallible. The Apostles themselves, who were (I am sure you agree) writing directly under the inspiration of God's Spirit, rarely quoted the Old Testament directly, though they allude to it often. But when they did quote it, it was often the Septuagint that was quoted. Plus, in some key passages, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septaugint agree with each other (and with the Apostles) against the Masoretic text.

You think that it is necessary to maintain the inerrancy of the KJV in order to maintain the integrity of the Bible. Such is not the case. The translators of the KJV itself did not think they were inspired.

Your position presumes to make biblical trustworthiness easier to defend but in the end corners you into arguing that obvious errors (like unicorns) are somehow not errors.

 

[JohnnyReb]

I disagree, the discussion is whether or not the KJV is the verbally inspired, providentially preserved word of God in the English language.

I don't see the difference. If it is "verbally inspired, providentially preserved word of God in the English language", then it is, in effect, the Canon rather than just a translation OF the Canon.

As concerning the translation of the term virgin (Does not the spirit of truth guide men into all truth?) and does not the term virgin refer to a woman of marriageable age as well as one who has not had sex, or "known a man", etc?

Not necessarily. A two-year old is a virgin, but not of marriageable age. My daughter-in-law is not a virgin, but is of marriageable age. Also, the word used by Isaiah has never been thought to mean virgin, but rather an unmarried woman. The KJV translators chose virgin as commentary on what they thought was really intended. I agree with them, but it isn't an accurate translation.

if such is the case then God is a liar because his statement "not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the law till all be fulfilled" is of none effect.

It would be of benefit to examine this passage very closely. What is a jot? What is a tittle? What is the Law?

A jot - the 10th letter of the Hebrew alphabet. The Yodh. The smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet.

A tittle - a small projection placed on a letter to differentiate it from another letter. An English equivalent would be the difference between I and L.

The Law - "of Moses". Literally the Torah, or possible the Tanakh (Jewish Canon).

The verse in question refers specifically to the Torah, and possibly to the Tanakh. (The Tanakh was the Bible read by Jesus and His Disciples) But not to the KJV, or ANY of the New Testament. Note the reference to Hebrew characters only, and also to the Law, i.e. Torah. One can infer that the general idea expressed in this verse is valid for the whole of Scripture (I'm not sure that I would go that far), but to choose the KJV as the bearer of this promise is a unsupported reach.

John

 

[petrek]

"I don't see the difference. If it is "verbally inspired, providentially preserved word of God in the English language", then it is, in effect, the Canon rather than just a translation OF the Canon."

However, you initially used the word "perfect" where perfect is an "ive" word and means something different for different people.

For eg: the translation of betulah.

"Not necessarily. A two-year old is a virgin, but not of marriageable age. My daughter-in-law is not a virgin, but is of marriageable age (Today's standards). Also, the word used by Isaiah has never been thought to mean virgin (who never thought it to mean virgin-the speakers at a conference you attended, present day Hebrew "scholars"? Just a question.), but rather an unmarried woman. The KJV translators chose virgin as commentary on what they thought was really intended. I agree with them, but it isn't an accurate translation."

The KJV translators used formal (word for word) equivilancy to translate the Bible. The understood meaning (definition) of the term virgin is based on the context wherein it is used, as the term has many definitions. The KJV is accurate, considering the Spirit of truth will guide you into all truth, and the term virgin incorporates the definistic words you feel should have been used instead, the same meaning as those other words are begotten by the context of the word in question.


"It would be of benefit to examine this passage very closely. What is a jot? What is a tittle? What is the Law?

A jot - the 10th letter of the Hebrew alphabet. The Yodh. The smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet. (Yup)

A tittle - a small projection placed on a letter to differentiate it from another letter. An English equivalent would be the difference between I and L.(yes again)

The Law - "of Moses". Literally the Torah, or possible the Tanakh (Jewish Canon).

The verse in question refers specifically to the Torah, and possibly to the Tanakh. (The Tanakh was the Bible read by Jesus and His Disciples) But not to the KJV, or ANY of the New Testament. Note the reference to Hebrew characters only, and also to the Law, i.e. Torah. One can infer that the general idea expressed in this verse is valid for the whole of Scripture (I'm not sure that I would go that far), but to choose the KJV as the bearer of this promise is a unsupported reach."

Yes, note the "reference to Hebrew characters only", a testament to the concern for accuracy in translating the Bible to english, as the authors could have substituded "a" and "," but did NOT.

Surely a man of reason must accept that this verse refers to the whole of scripture and not just the Torah, otherwise it implies that only the Torah is certain to be providentially preserved, and fulfilled in it's entirety and that the rest of scripture is up to debate. Your decision not to "go that far" agrees with your position on current bible versions in that one can look up the "same" verse in "God's word" and see a totally different set of "jot's" and "tittles" wherein no correlation between the "same" verse is found.

To choose the KJV as bearer of this promise is fully supported considering the translation occured in 1611 and went uncontested until the Satinically minded Westcott and Hort in 1881 decided to go ahead with their deception and introduce the "leaven of the pharisees", to the which we are now deluged with "word's of God" all saying different things and implying different meanings whereby men can choose their god and claim there god is the true god because their using his words to men which are no longer his words, but words of men.

Dave

 

[petrek]

Athanasius:

The KJV is the Providentially preserved, verbally inspired, infallible, word of God in the english language. It is not inerrant as innerancy (if memory serves, is a scientific term referring to the orbit of planets which do in fact change and was first introduced (with no doubt good intention)by BB Warfield) as to refer to the autographs which do NOT exist, nor have existed for nearly 2,000 years.

SATAN DECIEVES THROUGH SUBTLETY APPEARING AS AN ANGEL OF LIGHT

Mythological unicorn- a horse like creature with a single horn in the middle of it's forehead

Hebrew unicorn- a huge and fierce auroch (wild ox)

No where is it implied or demanded that the biblical understanding of a word come from the mythological definition or understanding.

In fact one can gain a very extensive vocabulary simply from reading the Bible and recognizing the context wherein the words are used. The term unicorn is used in Numbers 23:22, 24:8; Deuteronomy 33:17; Job 39:9-10; Psalms 22:21, 29:6, 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7. I did not read all the references, but the few that I did read did not give me the idea that a unicorn is a prancy, dancy animal with a pink ponytail.

Would another such "error" be use of the term hare, or maybe the fact that hell is used to translate three specific places? Nonetheless, I will get back to you on that other paragraph, as I have heard that argument before and can provide you with an answer. I have numerous books, videos, and pamphlets on this subject so it may take a bit of time to find the one that deals with that subject in such a manner as memory serves.

Dave

 

[JohnnyReb]

The KJV translators used formal (word for word) equivilancy to translate the Bible. The understood meaning (definition) of the term virgin is based on the context wherein it is used, as the term has many definitions. The KJV is accurate, considering the Spirit of truth will guide you into all truth, and the term virgin incorporates the definistic words you feel should have been used instead, the same meaning as those other words are begotten by the context of the word in question.

If, at any time, one has to look at the Hebrew/Greek to get the real meaning, then the KJV is not Canon. The use of Betulah as Virgin is just plain wrong in Deut and in Joel. You can't look at the KJV and get the real meaning, you have to look at the Hebrew.

Surely a man of reason must accept that this verse refers to the whole of scripture and not just the Torah, otherwise it implies that only the Torah is certain to be providentially preserved, and fulfilled in it's entirety and that the rest of scripture is up to debate.

Surely NOT! One must look at the text, no matter one's personal beliefs. What is the Law? The New Testament church is not under Law, but under Grace. That being said, this verse guarantees that the Law will remain until the end. It is not intended as a guarantee of the Christian Canon, and to use it as such is to be on very dangerous ground.

It is not enough to accept the inerrancy of Scripture, one must also interpret it literally.

Your decision not to "go that far" agrees with your position on current bible versions in that one can look up the "same" verse in "God's word" and see a totally different set of "jot's" and "tittles" wherein no correlation between the "same" verse is found.

Wrong. My decision to not go that far agrees with a literal hermeneutic. My position is that NO English translation is Canon, but rather a translation of the Canon. In the translation process, the translators choose words based on their understanding. For example, the KJV translators chose Virgin where the Hebrew meant an unmarried woman. This is fine, as I agree with the usage in Isaiah. However in Deut and in Joel the word Virgin is also used, but is wrong.

My contention is that to properly understand God's word, one MUST read the Hebrew.

John

 

[Gen Stonewall]

This thread has prompted me to ask two questions:

1. Is it possible to essentially have a perfect version of the Bible if a compilation of texts in their original languages were made?

2. Do you ever see cases in the KJV (or any other reputable version) where translators will update the version by eliminating clear cases of an incorrect or misleading translation of a passage?

 

[Maetryx]

It is my understanding that the KJV that is used in modern times was the revision released in 1769. So the KJV itself was corrected for 150 years. Also, I'd like to add that the KJV released in 1611 was not the first English translation. There were dozens that preceded it. I mention this because I always thought that people defended the KJV because it was the first English translation. That is not the case.

People defend the KJV because they are King James Cultists.

 

[Maetryx]

Is Your Modern Translation Corrupt?

 

[JohnnyReb]

This thread has prompted me to ask two questions:

1. Is it possible to essentially have a perfect version of the Bible if a compilation of texts in their original languages were made?

2. Do you ever see cases in the KJV (or any other reputable version) where translators will update the version by eliminating clear cases of an incorrect or misleading translation of a passage?

Yes on both of these counts. On #2, you have this right now with the RSV and the ESV. On #1, we have all of the Scriptures, but on some very small issues don't have full agreement. For example, a huge area of contention is 1 SAM 13:1.

The JohnnyReb translation of the MT is:

Saul was the son of a year when he began to reign; and he reigned two years over Israel.

(NAS) "Saul was forty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned thirty- two years over Israel."

(NIV) "Saul was [thirty] years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel [forty-]two years."

(KJV) "Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel, . . . " (Original marginal note at "one year": "Heb. the son of one year in his reigning.")

You can see from the above that the KJV has the better translation, but some would argue that it is nonsensical, and therefore they changed it (NIV & NAS). Even the KJV is a bit free-n-loose here trying to make the verse make sense, thus the need for the marginal note.

Petrek - Do you notice that the original KJV had a margin note here giving an alternate interpretation. How can this be if the KJV is the English Canon?

Another point of major contention is in Judges 18:30, where most manuscripts say "son of Manasseh" The name Manasseh is very interesting. You see, what you have in the MT is a suspended nun (Hebrew Letter). This is almost superscriptish right in the middle of the name. Without this hanging nun the name is Mosheh (Moses).

This word is one of the four that has a suspended letter. Here the letter , nun (n), is written partly in the line and partly above the line, to show that originally it formed no part of the word, but was put in to make it spell "Manasseh" instead of "Moses". Jonathan was the grandson of Moses, (his contemporary Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, being mentioned in 20:28). This was done for two reasons: (1) to spare the honour of Moses' memory and name; (2) to put sin upon one who committed so gross a sin. The Talmud gives this latter as the reason. Jonathan's name is omitted in 1 Chronicles 23:15, 16, and 26:24. The Chaldee paraphrase says that "Shebuel", there substituted, is meant for Jonathan after his repentance and restoration. Shebuel = "he returned to God". The Authorized Version follows Septuagint and Chaldee by putting "Manasseh" in the text; Revised Version follows Vulgate, and those codices and early editions which have "n" suspended, by putting "Moses" in the text and "Manasseh" in the margin.


You see, this is the sort of differences that are being discussed. Nowhere is great doctrinal truth at jeapordy due to questions about the original Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek.

John

 

[Polgara]

How does anybody know if any of it is the original?

Sarah

 

[petrek]

"1. Is it possible to essentially have a perfect version of the Bible if a compilation of texts in their original languages were made?"

The KJV is the providentially preserved, infallible, verbally inspired word of God in the english language.


"2. Do you ever see cases in the KJV (or any other reputable version) where translators will update the version by eliminating clear cases of an incorrect or misleading translation of a passage?"

In the 1611 version Genesis 1:1 states "In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth.", soon after it was first translated Genesis 1:1 was changed to "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." So to answer your question in regards to the KJV, NO.

Providential preservation works thusly: Say 5 people translate the KJV into Korean, of those 5 translations God decides which one to preserve, the other four will in one way or another not get used, whether that be by accidental fire, abondonment, sudden death of the author, being stolen, etc. Such is the case of the KJV, it was not the first or only english translation of the time, but it was the translation that God saw fit to preserve as His infallible, verbally inspired word. It was used during the reformation and was without question the Providentially preserved, infallible, verbally inspired word of God in the english language untill the purposeful and Satanic deception of Westcott and Hort, who created the new "original" Greek manuscript from corrupt manuscripts. It is from this "original" Greek manuscript that all bible versions since 1881 are based, as opposed to the KJV Bible which is based on the Textus Receptus(aka, the Ecclesiastical text, the Bzantine text, the Majority text, and the Traditional text) and which is in agreement with 80-95 percent of the currently extant (existing) manuscripts (approx. 5,000).

Dave

 

[JohnnyReb]

Petrek,
The Textus Receptus and the Majority text are not the same.

John



Majority Text Versus The Textus Receptus

In 1977 Pickering predicted that "the Textus Receptus will be found to differ from the Original [=Majority Text] in something over a thousand places, most of them being very minor differences, whereas the critical texts will be found to differ from the Original in some five thousand places, many of them being serious differences."

There is much to criticize in the way this prediction is stated; nevertheless the quantitative aspect of Pickering's guess is on the mark. In this writer's examination of Hodges and Farstad's Majority Text he has counted 1,838 differences between it and the Textus Receptus. This is indeed "something over a thousand" differences! Most notably the Majority Text excluded Acts 8:37 and the Comma Johanneum (the Textus Receptus's rendering of 1 John 5:7-8 with its Trinitarian formula). As well, in the last six verses of Revelation, which Erasmus had to translate into Greek from Latin, there are 17 differences between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus.

The fact of almost 2,000 differences between these two texts, many of them quite significant, is a two-edged sword. On the one hand it should be rather disconcerting to Textus Receptus advocates who have been depending on Hodges's scholarship for some time. On the other hand it cries out for a fresh look, by New Testament students, at the Byzantine text-type, which has been seen only through a glass darkly in the printed editions of the Textus Receptus.

 

[Athanasius]

petrek:

It seems to me that you are playing word games with "inerrant" and "infallible." I mention "inerrant" in a specific context that was clear and you substitute the word "infallible" and suggest that inerrancy refers to the planets. Perhaps you should define clearly and concisely what you mean by infallible.

Since you assert that we can know with certainty that the KJV is "the infallible English translation," then I would like to see you address how we know which earlier versions of the Bible were the infallible translation. Is the Masoretic text infallible? Is it the Septuagint? Is it the Dead Sea Scrolls? The early church used the Septuagint, which the Apostles themselves often quoted from. But the Masoretic text is almost universally accepted today as the more reliable manuscript.

I don't want to get too hung up on the unicorn debate, because you seem to be saying that the English word "unicorn" was a legitimate translation of the Hebrew root. It is not, but you will never admit that point. The auroch did not have "one horn," which is what unicorn means. If auroch is what they meant, they could have translated it that way. If they did not know what it meant, it would have been better to transliterate the Hebrew word and let it go. You insist that words have meaning. The English word "unicorn" had a clear meaning to people of that day and was based on the Greek "monokeros," not the Hebrew root. "Monokeros" means "one horn." It is a false and misleading word to describe a wild ox or an auroch.


Many people who insist that we should only use the KJV say that the KJV is the only true word of God in the English language. That the Greek manuscripts (Received Text a.k.a. Textus Receptus) that were used to translate the KJV from, are the only ones that should be used because they are the only ones that are not corrupt.

The origin of the TR (Textus Receptus) can be traced to a Dutch scholar named Erasmus who in 1516 published the first Greek New Testament using the newly invented printing press. Erasmus was not able to find a single Greek manuscript that contained all of the New Testament. As such, he had to combine the few manuscripts he had in order to make one complete text.

Hence the KJV translators often had incomplete Greek manuscripts to work from, and had to borrow extensively from the Latin Vulgate to fill in their gaps. They translated the missing verses from the Latin. Schaff points out that in about 80 places in the New Testament, the KJV adopts Latin readings not found in the Greek.

So was the Latin reading the accurate rendition? That would mean that the actual Scripture did not exist until 400 AD.

The KJV translators lacked some information that modern translators now have. In a few instances (not most), it is clear that these modern discoveries can correct errors. The evidence that God has preserved His Word is not found in the King James Version; it is found in the fact that no doctrine of the Bible has ever been damged by the limitations of fallen human translators, none of whom were ever at any point guaranteed from error.

From what I have read on this thread, Johnny Reb's grasp on the issue is sound. The defense of the KJV is the infallible translation is rooted more in a sense of threat than it is in solid historical research. Keep in mind that I say this as someone who believes that the KJV is the single best English translation the world has seen. But it is not the best translation for today, unless its English is updated. The word of God works best when it is wrapped in a common form, like Jesus was. King James era English is not the form that best communicates to English speaking people today.

It is the passion to give the people the Scriptures, as best as we can, in the common language that they speak, that will allow people to discover the Word for themselves. This is what motivated the translators of the Septuagint. This is what motivated Jerome to produce the Vulgate (= "vulgar" or "common"), and this is what should motivate us to give the people the Bible in common English of the 21st century.

"King James Only" people are making the same logical error the Roman Church did by demanding that the Scripture stay in the Vulgate. Rather than preserving the word of God for future generations, they are hindering access to it.

It is worth noting that you seem to lump "non-King James" people into the Westcott-Hort label, which is not the case. At least it is not for me, nor apparently for Johnny Reb.

Really, you are arguing a straw man argument. No one is saying that Westcott and Hort were right. Only that the KJV is not infallible and can be improved with careful research.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Petrek

i must ask, Are you multilingual?

 

[petrek]

Athanasius:

I am not playing word games (even though that is what my enemies play). This debate is about words, in fact about the Word. You say I am in a corner, that I am arguing straw men, and so I am forced to ask you: is God a strawman?; Can God be cornered? Consider this:

I am saying that God can and did providencially preserve His verbally inspired, infallible word in the Greek, Hebrew, and in english (KJV).

You are argueing He did not.


Think seriously and prayerfully about the position you have taken, please. My God will raise me from the dead and give me eternal life, a feat that pales in comparison to preserving his verbally inspired, infallible word in the english language.

Dave

PS As I said before I will respond to your concerns, I ask that you grant me the necessary time to review the issues that you have been told "prove" the KJV is in error.

Thanks

Edit: God said "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it"

Satan said "Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?"

 

[Polgara]

I am saying that God can and did providencially preserve His verbally inspired, infallible word in the Greek, Hebrew, and in english (KJV).

I've been following along as well as I can ***twiddles hair with finger***, and as I understand the other guys are saying the there isn't anything especially great about the KJV. Not that God/god/goddess has not protected his/her message.

Aside from the KJV being what Grandaddy used, why do you think it is especially preserved?

Sarah