KJV Debate

[petrek]

"Please don't imply that Christians are misled by the Word of God in other translations."

There is no need for me to imply something which can be proved.

Notice how the absence of the word "you" when Paul is writing to the Christians at Ephesus gives credence to the heresy that men are saved regardless of their relationship with Jesus. (Ephesians 4:6)

KJV "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."

NIV "one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."

("you" which has the purpose of specifying that only the saints are being addressed is also missing from the: NASB, RSV, ASV)

Or the omission of the words "on me" in John 6:47, leaves the verse vague and wide open to misinterpretation.

KJV "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life."

NIV "I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life."

("on me" also omitted in: NASB, RSV, ASV)


Let us look at some other ommisions in regards to Christ's purpose (redemption):

(Luke 9:56)

KJV "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village."

NIV "and[1] they went to another village." (footnote of verse)

(also omitted in: NLT, RSV, DARBY, ASV)

Matthew 18:11

KJV "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."

(whole verse omitted in NIV, NASB says early mss do not contain verse, NLT, RSV)


God purchased fallen man back through His own shed blood, for without the shedding of blood is no remission. (Colossians 1:14)

KJV "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:"

NIV "in whom we have redemption,[1] the forgiveness of sins." (footnote, a few late manuscripts contain "through his blood")

("through his blood" omitted in: NASB, RSV, DARBY, ASV)


What of this condensed version of the dialogue between Jesus and Paul on the Damascus road, Paul's very first believing experience. (Acts 9:5,6)

KJV "And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do."

NIV ""Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked. "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied. "Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.""

(dialogue also condensed in: NASB, NLT, RSV, WE, DARBY, ASV)


Or what of Acts 8:37 which contains (after the cross) the only recorded account in Scripture of a sinner's actual confession of faith in Christ, and is the only verse in the New Testament which shows both the minister in the act of sharing the Gospel and the listener recieving the gift of Salvation.

KJV "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

(The entire verse is omitted in: NIV, NASB says that early mss do not contain the verse, NLT, RSV, DARBY)


While there are many which corrupt the Word of God for the sake of profit, Be not fooled, God says his words are pure words, as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times, and that while heaven and earth shall pass away, His words shall not pass away. (Yet in these new perversions since 1881 we see the Word's of God passing away.)

Dave

 

[JupiterJones]

bump

 

[Josephus]

I just looked at Eph 4:6 in Nestle's "21st ed. Novum Testamentum Graece"

the literal translation follows:

"one God and Father of all, the [one] over all and through all and in all."

To carry on the debate beyond the source of manuscripts and start implying, no accusing ALL translations other than KJV as unGodly and an effort to subvert the will of God is a judgment I would not wish to be accountable before the object of our worship...

 

[petrek]

"I just looked at Eph 4:6 in Nestle's "21st ed. Novum Testamentum Graece"

the literal translation follows:

"one God and Father of all, the [one] over all and through all and in all."

To carry on the debate beyond the source of manuscripts and start implying, no accusing ALL translations other than KJV as unGodly and an effort to subvert the will of God is a judgment I would not wish to be accountable before the object of our worship..."


"The Traditional Text or Textus Receptus held sway in the Greek church from about 312-1453 A.D., and in the Protestant church as a whole from 1453 until 1881 (about 1569 years). The other texts have held sway in the church in liberal and neo-evangelical groups from about 1881 to the present time." A Review of the NIV and NASV of the Bible, The Peopples Gospel Hour, page 6

It is all english translations, based on the Westcott and Hort Greek text of 1881, which are of great concern. As Hort readily admits his intention (in creating a new Greek text) was to quietly (and deceptively) remove (or change) the Word's of God that he (among others) didn't like (as quoted in the first post).

Dave

 

[petrek]

Maximum Certainty Versus Maxumum Uncertainty

"God's preservation of the New Testament text was not miraculous but providential. The scribes and printers who produced the copies of the New Testament Scriptures and the true believers who read and cherished them were not inspired but God-guided. Hence there are some New Testament passages in which the true reading cannot be determined with absolute certainty. There are some readings, for example, on which the manuscripts are almost equally divided, making it difficult to determine which reading belongs to the Traditional Text. Also in some of the cases in which the Textus Receptus disagrees with the Traditional Text it is hard to decide which text to follow. Also, as we have seen, sometimes the several editions of the Textus Receptus differ from each other and from the King James Version. And, as we have just observed, the case is the same with the Old Testament text. Here it is hard at times to decide between the kethibh and the keri and between the Hebrew text and the Septuagint and Latin Vulgate versions. Also there has been a controversy concerning the headings of the Psalms.

In other words, God does not reveal every truth with equal clarity. In biblical textual criticism, as in every other department of knowledge, there are still some details in regard to which we must be content to remain uncertain. But the special providence of God has kept these uncertainties down to a minimum. Hence if we believe in the special providential preservation of the Scriptures and make this the leading principle of our biblical textual criticism, we obtain maximum certainty, all the certainty that any mere man can obtain, all the certainty that we need. For we are led by the logic of faith to the Masoretic Hebrew text, to the New Testament Textus Receptus, and to the King James Version.

But what if we ignore the providential preservation of the Scriptures and deal with the text of the holy Bible in the same way in which we deal with the texts of other ancient books? If we do this, we are following the logic of unbelief, which leads to maximum uncertainty. When we handle the text of the holy Bible in this way, we are behaving as unbelievers behave. We are either denying that the providential preservation of the Scriptures is a fact, or else we are saying that it is not an important fact, not important enought to be considered when dealing with the text of the holy Bible. But if the providential preservation of the Scriptures is not important, why is the infallible inspiration of the original Scriptures important? If God has not preserved the Scriptures by His special providence, why would He have infallibly inspired them in the first place? And if it is not important that the Scriptures be regarded as infallibly inspired, why is it important to insist that Gospel is completely true? And if this is not important, why is it important to believe that Jesus is the divine Son of God?

In short, unless we follow the logic of faith, we can be certain of nothing concerning the Bible and its text."

The King James Version Defended, Edward F. Hills, 1996, pages 224-225

 

[Josephus]

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. (MT 22:37)



From the viewpoint of biblical anthropology, "heart" (GK G2840), "soul" (GK G6034), and "mind" (GK G1379) are not mutually exclusive but overlapping categories, together demanding our love for God to come from our whole person, our every faculty and capacity. (NIV Bible Commentary)

Holding the Bible in reverence is undoubtedly what we are to do! If I were to determine the "truth" based on the testimony of witnesses, I would be inclined to listen to all witnesses who were as close to the events as possible. All translators have followed this ideology, yes, even the KJV. Ignorining manuscripts found after the publication of the KJV relieves us of the burden of using "every faculty and capacity". Defending the position to ignore the additional witnesses by impying that God stopped guiding everyone involved in the process of archeology, linguistics, translation, and publishing, indicated that the holders of this position have a far greater insight into the motives and thoughts of God than I would care to assume.....

 

[docmanhattan]

<< I just looked at Eph 4:6 in Nestle's "21st ed. Novum Testamentum Graece"

the literal translation follows:

"one God and Father of all, the [one] over all and through all and in all."

To carry on the debate beyond the source of manuscripts and start implying, no accusing ALL translations other than KJV as unGodly and an effort to subvert the will of God is a judgment I would not wish to be accountable before the object of our worship... >>

I agree with you completely, Josephus It's a very serious accusation and one that should not be made lighty. I only hope that petrek does not witness this way to people. It certianly does no service to God to waste time and effort fighting your own brothers and sister in Christ calling them mislead. I sometimes wonder if this isn't Satan's own doing to create these sort of factions and infigting. Distracting followers from trying to get to know God and keeping them busy bickering over symantics.

 

[petrek]

Josephus, and Docmanhattan:

To place greater emphasis on a Greek text of which the two main manuscripts, Vaticanus (Codex B) and Sinaiticus (Aleph) contain over 3036 differences in the Gospels alone, and which was created by men who willingly admit their intent to decieve, while largely ignoring the over 1500 years during which the Recieved Text held sway in the Christian Church is very concerning.

"And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none. For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together." Mark 14:55-56


"1. The Chief Opponent of the Textus Receptus Today.
The text which is used today in most colleges, universities, and seminaries (even conservative and/or fundamental ones) is the Nestle/Aland Greek New Testament, 26th edition. It has gone through twenty-six editions thus far. Nestle began his critical Greek edition in 1898, following the basic text of Westcott and Hort and three other editions of his day. The Greek-English edition I have is dated 1981. I believe the 26th Greek edition came out in 1979. From 1898 to 1979, is about eighty-one years. If you divide eighty-one by twenty-six, you can see that they have come out, on the average, with one new, updated, changed, different edition of the Greek New Testament every 3.1 years! What does that tell you as to the certainty these editiors have in God's preservation of His New Testament words? It tells you that these men really don't know what the Greek New Testament is. This is basically the same as the Wescott and Hort text, 1881 edition, with changes here and there. The history of this text is an interesting history. The edition of Nestle/Aland Greek New Testament 26th Edition that I have has with it, in parallel columns, the English of the REVISED STANDARD VERSION, which is copyrighted by the NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CHURCHES, the apostate-led Council.

2. The Editiors of the Nestle/Aland Greek Text.
This Nestle/Aland Greek text was named for Eberhard Nestle, a German, and Kurt Aland, also a German. It was made up by a committee consisting of Kurt Aland (who is an unbeliever), Matthew Black (an unbeliever), Carlo M. Martini (a Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church), Bruce Metzger (who is from Princeton, a man who demonstrated his apostasy as editor of the Reader's Digest Bible), and Alan Wigren (from Chicago, an apostate also). All these were editors of the 26th edition of the Nestle/Aland Greek New Testament Text." Defending the King James Bible, D.A. Waite, 1998, Pages 38-39

Christ said "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Matthew 24:35

Dave

 

[docmanhattan]

petrek said...

<< Josephus, and Docmanhattan:

To place greater emphasis on a Greek text of which the two main manuscripts, Vaticanus (Codex B) and Sinaiticus (Aleph) contain over 3036 differences in the Gospels alone, and which was created by men who willingly admit their intent to decieve, while largely ignoring the over 1500 years during which the Recieved Text held sway in the Christian Church is very concerning.

"And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none. For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together." Mark 14:55-56


"1. The Chief Opponent of the Textus Receptus Today.
The text which is used today in most colleges, universities, and seminaries (even conservative and/or fundamental ones) is the Nestle/Aland Greek New Testament, 26th edition. It has gone through twenty-six editions thus far. Nestle began his critical Greek edition in 1898, following the basic text of Westcott and Hort and three other editions of his day. The Greek-English edition I have is dated 1981. I believe the 26th Greek edition came out in 1979. From 1898 to 1979, is about eighty-one years. If you divide eighty-one by twenty-six, you can see that they have come out, on the average, with one new, updated, changed, different edition of the Greek New Testament every 3.1 years! What does that tell you as to the certainty these editiors have in God's preservation of His New Testament words? It tells you that these men really don't know what the Greek New Testament is. This is basically the same as the Wescott and Hort text, 1881 edition, with changes here and there. The history of this text is an interesting history. The edition of Nestle/Aland Greek New Testament 26th Edition that I have has with it, in parallel columns, the English of the REVISED STANDARD VERSION, which is copyrighted by the NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CHURCHES, the apostate-led Council.

2. The Editiors of the Nestle/Aland Greek Text.
This Nestle/Aland Greek text was named for Eberhard Nestle, a German, and Kurt Aland, also a German. It was made up by a committee consisting of Kurt Aland (who is an unbeliever), Matthew Black (an unbeliever), Carlo M. Martini (a Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church), Bruce Metzger (who is from Princeton, a man who demonstrated his apostasy as editor of the Reader's Digest Bible), and Alan Wigren (from Chicago, an apostate also). All these were editors of the 26th edition of the Nestle/Aland Greek New Testament Text." Defending the King James Bible, D.A. Waite, 1998, Pages 38-39

Christ said "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Matthew 24:35

Dave >>

You're not addressing what I said at all. Nor are you reading what people are saying in this thread. No one here is dimishing the KJV. But what they are saying is that you are wrong to imply that other versions are mislead.

The exclusiveness that you are giving the KJV and the way in which you so adamently are forcing this idea makes me believe that your faith in God is predicated on something material and of this world rather than on the relationship with the Father that you can develop not only from reading His word, but also through worship, and pray, and interaction with the brothers and sisters of your church.

You're right when you quote Matthew 24:35

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

because His Word won't pass away, but you don't seem to trust Him. If He meant for the Bible to be written and perserved verbatim, He wouldn't have had so many languages. He wouldn't have allowed the original manuscripts to have been lost. His Word goes beyond written texts and translation. Do you really trust a mortal man to give you an accurate translation? You've chosen to place your faith in a particular translation, but that translation was still done by a man. For me, I trust God to help me understand His Word regardless of which version I chose to read. Who do you trust?

 

[PlatinumGold]

<< because His Word won't pass away, but you don't seem to trust Him. If He meant for the Bible to be written and perserved verbatim, He wouldn't have had so many languages. He wouldn't have allowed the original manuscripts to have been lost. His Word goes beyond written texts and translation. Do you really trust a mortal man to give you an accurate translation? You've chosen to place your faith in a particular translation, but that translation was still done by a man. For me, I trust God to help me understand His Word regardless of which version I chose to read. Who do you trust? >>



Finally something i can agree with. God is still the Author and Finisher of our faith. In the beginning was the WORD (not the KJV) the Word (not the KJV) was with GOD and the WORD (not the KJV) was God.

 

[petrek]

"You're not addressing what I said at all. Nor are you reading what people are saying in this thread. No one here is dimishing the KJV. But what they are saying is that you are wrong to imply that other versions are mislead."

Reread, the beginning of page 3.

"The exclusiveness that you are giving the KJV and the way in which you so adamently are forcing this idea makes me believe that your faith in God is predicated on something material and of this world rather than on the relationship with the Father that you can develop not only from reading His word, but also through worship, and pray, and interaction with the brothers and sisters of your church."

The exclusiveness is given to the Recieved Text. Rather than a Greek text created by Satanically minded heretics.

"If He meant for the Bible to be written and perserved verbatim, He wouldn't have had so many languages."

"O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?" Romans 11:33-34


"He wouldn't have allowed the original manuscripts to have been lost."

What??? They were worn out from use.


"Do you really trust a mortal man to give you an accurate translation?"

Godly men, yes.

Dave

 

[Athanasius]

Petrek:

Do you know much about the translators of the KJV and their views on Bible translations?

Click here for some info.

The web page isn't exhaustive, but it seems rather odd for you to assume a level of dogmatism about one translation that the translators themselves never came close to approaching. They strongly encouraged continual revisions and making every effort to keep the language of the text in the common language of the people.

If one of the original KJV translators stepped into this debate today, I am quite convinced that he would at least favor the NKJV. I would draw special attention to the fact that the KJV translators were so confident of God's ability to preserve His revelation of Himself that they said that even the worst English translation would suffice.

You keep tying any revision of the KJV to Westcott and Hort. Yet, as others have pointed out, no one here has defended Westcott and Hort. You also point out references where you feel like the critical text weakens doctrine. For example, you mention Ephesians 4 where the text is rendered differently, suggesting that it is heresy to say that the Father is in all people and that the only orthodox rendering is to say that the father is only in believers. Yet consider Acts 17:28, where Paul affirms the truth: ?For in him [God] we live and move and have our being.? The context makes it clear that Paul is talking about all of humanity, not just believers. So how is Acts 17:28 orthodox and the critical text rendering of Ephesians 4 automatically heresy?

Plus, there are some few places where the critical text strengthens what I am sure you would view to be orthodox doctrine. For example, consider John 1:18. The main debate between readings is ?only begotten son? versus ?only begotten god.? The Greek for ?only begotten? is ?monogenes.? The Aposlte John uses it only of Jesus and it is one root word that formed the concept of ?eternal generation.? In other words, the Word (not the Scriptures, but the pre-incarnate Christ) is the ?Logos? or ?Logic? or ?Reason? of God and is co-eternal with the Father and the unique generation/manifestation of the Father. He is ?God seen.? To say that there was a time when the Word was not is to say that there was a time when God Himself was devoid of reason. But when ?Son? is inserted as the reading instead of ?God,? it suggests that Jesus is a son in the sense that Isaac was a son of Abraham. As if the Father existed before the Son. So, which rendering is better? The Textus Receptus says ?Son? but P66 (circa 200 AD), P75 (200?s), Irenaeus (2nd Century), Origen (3rd century), and the Didache (115 AD) all say ?God.?

In the Greek, the spelling between ?God? and ?Son? is very close, and easily obscured. But no where in John 1:1-18, except in the disputed text, does John mention ?Son,? whereas he mentions ?God? eight times. Keep in mind that the Didache was written only a few short years after the Gospel of John itself. In fact, in some early versions of the Bible, it was included as a book thought to be inspired.

But if one studies church history, one understands how important ?monogenes theos? was to understanding the eternality of the Word as a manifestation of the Father?s Eternal Being.

Does either rendering promote heresy? No. But unbiased evidence lends itself to ?theos? (God) instead of ?huios? (Son). Theos is more consistent with the immediate context, it is better attested amongst early manuscripts and church fathers that predate the ?heretical writings? of the late 300?s that proliferated in Egypt, and it sheds light on the crucial early church understanding of the eternal generation of the Word and the Word?s co-eternality with the Father.


Was Irenaeus a godly man? Was the author of the Didache a godly man? Yet they disagree with the KJV and the Textus Receptus.

 

[sandorski]

Petrek: Umm, now I'm confused what your stance is. Are you calling the Greek texts apostate? All ancient texts apostate? Are you implying that the KJV was dictated directly from God's mouth to the translators ears?

Those might be stupid questions, but recent statements seem to lead me to believe that's what you are saying.

 

[Josephus]

Fascinating point... on the preface... I did a lirrle searching and found the entire text, if anyone is interested (I know I was)

KJV Introduction (with images)

You may purchase the original version from Thomas Nelson... just what I need, another Bible ( cloe to 20 texts now)

KJV 1611


As far as I know God only wrote three times (in words) twice in stone (10 commandments) and once in the ground (JN 8:6). Now either of those would be valuable additions to my library

 

[docmanhattan]

[preface]
I should probably preface this by saying that it seems very apparent to me that petrek is a KJV Only-ist (KJVO). Maybe others already knew this, but I did not see it explicitly stated in this thread, so I'm doing so now because, for me at least, it helped me gathering facts and information on the subject and gave me a better understanding of where he (petrek) is coming from. There's a lot of imformation out there regarding the subject (just follow the links!) and even a discussion board

petrek, if you are not KJVO, then I'm sorry from saying so, but it would be difficult to classify your ideas any other way.

That said...
[/preface]

Here are some interesting links if you have not already come across them.

What is KJV- Only-ism (Newbie Intro)
To lazy to click? Here an excerpt:

<< Basically, the common beliefs that define "KJV-only" are:

- the idea that there are no errors or problems of translation in the KJV.
- the idea that there are no internal errors or problems in the text of the KJV.
- the idea that any changes of words of the KJV constitutes changing God's word.
- God promised to preserve the Scriptures word for word throughout the centuries.
- the idea that the KJV translators were divinely inspired, and thus the words they used were given to them by the Holy Spirit to be implemented without any alternates.


There is a range of KJV-onlyism. The following beliefs are held by SOME, not all KJV-only supporters, but you'll run into these beliefs before long if you get into the issue in any detail:

- the idea that all other translations are inspired by Satan.
- the idea that all translators and readers of new versions have alterior motives
- the idea that Christians who use other versions are spiritual cripples at best, and destined for Hell at worst.
- the idea that where the KJV differs from the Greek and Hebrew from which it was translated, the English is an improvement over the Greek and Hebrew.
- the idea that English is the language God chose to give us Scripture in, and if anyone on Earth wants inerrant Scripture, they must learn English so they can use the KJV.
- the idea that we no longer need the Greek and Hebrew.
- the idea that the KJV translators were "super-human" (ie. more qualified than any translators before or after them).
- the idea that the KJV translators were under divine inspiration when translating, but totally out to lunch when they wrote the preface, marginal notes, and cross-references
- the idea that someone who doesn't agree with them about the status of the KJV is automatically a "heretic" or an "apostate", and is certainly "unteachable". >>

Another "What is KJV Only-ism" Page <-- much more informal in nature

What the KJV Translators said

Example of a KJV Only-ist view on Wescott and Hort

Listing of KJVO articles

Finally-

Charles Haddon Spurgeon Archives <--- He seems to be a relatively major figure in the KJVO issue.

I've read though some, but not all of these links. Hopefully, I will be able to post some thoughts on these later today.

cheers.



Mar 3:24-26 (KJV)
"And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. [25] And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. [26] And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end."

 

[docmanhattan]

^bump^

i'm interested in petrek's response.

 

[sandorski]

Doc: Thanks for the info, now hopefully Petrek will splain himself in light of that info.

Reminds me of the schisms caused by Sprinklers vs Immersionists. Though I'm an Immersionist, for that's how it was done, I don't think the distinction is great enough to consider Sprinkler's as Apostate. I suppose it comes down to how you view Baptism. If you think an event takes place, then accuracy is of the utmost importance, but, if like me, one thinks of Baptism as a statement of faith, then the procedure does not require complete accuracy. I would though, not consider the Baptism of babies of any worth, except as a parental dedication of a child's life to God, something that has become common in various forms in Pentecostal/Post-Pentecostal Churches(this includes non-denomination, New Testament, and inter-denominational types).

It is unfortunate that Christians go off on these tangents. Issues like these usually breed a sense of superiority that Jesus worked hard to expose in the Pharicees(sp) and Sadduccees of His day.

 

[petrek]

Doc and Sandorski, I posted this on page 2

"Do we believing Bible Students "worship" the King James Version? Do we regard it as inspired, just as the ancient Jewish philosopher Philo (d. 42 A.D.) and many early Christians regarded the Septuagint as inspired? Or do we claim the same supremacy for the King James Version that Roman Catholics claim for the Latin Vulgate? Do we magnify its authority above that of the Hebrew and Greek Old and New Testament Scriptures? We have often been accused of such excessive veneration for the King James Version, but these accusations are false. In regard to Bible versions we follow the example of Christ's Apostles. We adopt the same attitude toward the King James Version that they maintained toward the Septuagint.

In their Old Testament quotations the Apostles never made any distinction between the Septuagint and the Hebrew Scriptures. They never said, "The Septuagint translates this verse thus and so, but in the original Hebrew it is this way." Why not? Why did they pass up all these opportunities to display their learning? Evidently because of their great respect for the Septuagint and the position which it occupied in the providence of God. In other words, the Apostles recognized the Septuagint as the providentially approved translation of the Old Testament into Greek. They understood that this was the version that God desired the gentile Church of their day to use as its Old Testament Scripture.

In regard to Bible versions, then, we follow the example of the Apostles and the other inspired New Testament writers. Just as they recognized the Septuagint as the providentially appointed translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek, so we recognize the King James Version and the other great historic translations of the holy Scriptures as providentially appointed English Bible. Admittedly this venerable version is not absolutely perfect, but it is trustworthy. No Bible-believing Christian who relies upon it will ever be led astray. But it is just the opposite with modern versions. They are untrustworthy, and they do lead Bible-believing Christians astray." The King James Version Defended, Edward F. Hills, 1996, pages 229, and 230 (commentary in original)

Dave

PS Doc, there's no need to bump, I'm in for the long haul, working on a number of responses as we speak. I prefer to take the time to consider my response in light of the word of God and his instruction, so as to avoid as best as possible the use of my wisdom (being of the world and vain) over His (being infinite) when making my responses.

Here's a link (note: I do not endorse the site where I found this link)

 

[petrek]

Athanasius:

"Do you know much about the translators of the KJV and their views on Bible translations?

Click here for some info.

The web page isn't exhaustive, but it seems rather odd for you to assume a level of dogmatism about one translation that the translators themselves never came close to approaching. They strongly encouraged continual revisions and making every effort to keep the language of the text in the common language of the people.

If one of the original KJV translators stepped into this debate today, I am quite convinced that he would at least favor the NKJV. I would draw special attention to the fact that the KJV translators were so confident of God's ability to preserve His revelation of Himself that they said that even the worst English translation would suffice."

Rather than taking at face value the view of one man opposed to the KJV, please read the whole introduction provided by Josephus.


"You keep tying any revision of the KJV to Westcott and Hort. Yet, as others have pointed out, no one here has defended Westcott and Hort."

Whether or not you defend Westcott and Hort, is irrelevant. You are defending the critical theory and critical texts which they are responsible for.


"You also point out references where you feel like the critical text weakens doctrine. For example, you mention Ephesians 4 where the text is rendered differently, suggesting that it is heresy to say that the Father is in all people and that the only orthodox rendering is to say that the father is only in believers. Yet consider Acts 17:28, where Paul affirms the truth: ?For in him [God] we live and move and have our being.? The context makes it clear that Paul is talking about all of humanity, not just believers. So how is Acts 17:28 orthodox and the critical text rendering of Ephesians 4 automatically heresy?"

Please reread the passages, who is being spoken to? The unsaved and the Saved are not one in the same.


"Plus, there are some few places where the critical text strengthens what I am sure you would view to be orthodox doctrine. For example, consider John 1:18. The main debate between readings is ?only begotten son? versus ?only begotten god.? The Greek for ?only begotten? is ?monogenes.? The Aposlte John uses it only of Jesus and it is one root word that formed the concept of ?eternal generation.? In other words, the Word (not the Scriptures, but the pre-incarnate Christ) is the ?Logos? or ?Logic? or ?Reason? of God and is co-eternal with the Father and the unique generation/manifestation of the Father. He is ?God seen.? To say that there was a time when the Word was not is to say that there was a time when God Himself was devoid of reason. But when ?Son? is inserted as the reading instead of ?God,? it suggests that Jesus is a son in the sense that Isaac was a son of Abraham. As if the Father existed before the Son. So, which rendering is better? The Textus Receptus says ?Son? but P66 (circa 200 AD), P75 (200?s), Irenaeus (2nd Century), Origen (3rd century), and the Didache (115 AD) all say ?God.?

In the Greek, the spelling between ?God? and ?Son? is very close, and easily obscured. But no where in John 1:1-18, except in the disputed text, does John mention ?Son,? whereas he mentions ?God? eight times. Keep in mind that the Didache was written only a few short years after the Gospel of John itself. In fact, in some early versions of the Bible, it was included as a book thought to be inspired.

But if one studies church history, one understands how important ?monogenes theos? was to understanding the eternality of the Word as a manifestation of the Father?s Eternal Being.

Does either rendering promote heresy? No. But unbiased evidence lends itself to ?theos? (God) instead of ?huios? (Son). Theos is more consistent with the immediate context, it is better attested amongst early manuscripts and church fathers that predate the ?heretical writings? of the late 300?s that proliferated in Egypt, and it sheds light on the crucial early church understanding of the eternal generation of the Word and the Word?s co-eternality with the Father."

Is this logical?

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten God, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."


"Was Irenaeus a godly man? Was the author of the Didache a godly man? Yet they disagree with the KJV and the Textus Receptus."

Was Peter a godly man?

Dave

 

[Athanasius]

petrek:

You are an amazing creature. I admire your tenacity, but you employ many duplicities in your reasonings.

1) You critique me for pointing you to a web site that opposes KJV only beliefs and yet cut and paste entire articles from people who espouse KJV only beliefs. (For your information, I have read the preface to the original KJV long before the excellent link provided by Josephus.) Please point out where the web site I provided you misquoted the preface or took it out of context.

2) You say that you will accept translations from godly men. When I provide them, you point out how easily godly men can err. Yet you ignore clear cases where the godly men who translated the KJV did err. Rather than address them, you will say that I would have you believe that thesauruses and dictionaries do not exist, or that ?unicorn? is an appropriate translation for ?wild ox? for today?s readers.

3) You provide no evidence that the Didache or Irenaeus erred except that their reading differs from the Textus Receptus. Rather, you missed the whole point about John 1:18. The emphasis is on ?monogenes,? which is talking about ?unique generation? or ?unique manifestation.? So, ?monogenes theos? is a perfectly logical translation, as it should be understood as ?the unique and seen manifestation of God.? This is an emphatic point in John?s writings, a point he re-emphasizes in John 12:45, John 14:9, and 1 John 1:1-2. If the proper translation is ?son,? then who did Adam and Eve see in the garden? Who did Moses see in the Burning Bush? Who did Abraham converse with on the plains beside Sodom and Gomorrah? John says, no one has ever seen God at any time.? Therefore, what they saw was not God the Father, but the Word or Revelation of God as he chose to reveal Himself at that time. In the fulness of time, this ?Word? was incarnated fully and forever in the humanity of Jesus of Nazareth. In each case, it was the ?Unique and Seen Manifestation of God,? i.e., the Word. This is something the early church fully grapsed, a church that supports the ?monogenes theos? rendering.

Perhaps you missed the point because you are not aware of early church history. ?Monogenes Theos? is a concept that was revealed through John that was fundamental in the early church. In fact, I can point you to many of the earliest church fathers who built upon it, from Ignatius to Justin Martyr to Athenagoras to Theophilus of Antioch to the real Athanasius. The ?Textus Receptus? was not available to these men. If only the Textus Receptus is in any way legitimate, than the very men that God used to collect and preserve the Canon and the key doctrines of the Christian faith themselves did not have the Word of God, if your reasoning were valid.

But you cannot even seriously entertain these ideas because it touches upon a belief that you unnecessarily hold as sacred: that only the Textus Receptus is reliable. By the way, you make a false association between the Textus Receptus and the Byzantine text. There are places where they differ because Erasmus did not have complete manuscripts to work with. In fact, in Revelation Erasmus had to take Latin texts, guess as to how the Greek would have read, and translate the Latin back into Greek to provide an unbroken Greek text that could be called the Textus Receptus. There are methods of textual criticism that are not biased towards the critical text. But it seems that you are not interested in learning about them.

4) You point out that Ephesians 4 is written to believers and Acts 17:28 is written to unbelievers. Nevermind that I already said as much in my post. The point is that both verses are making statements about the nature of God, in whom all things consist, both believers and unbelievers. Acts 17:28 makes it emphatic that God is in all people. The rendering for the KJV is found virtually only in the TR. Yet Scriptures themselves clearly establish that God the Father is omnipresent in all things, so it is hardly just to say that it is heresy and a perversion of God?s word if Eph 4:6 is rendered differently than the TR.


It appears that you are not really interested in dialogue. It matters not to you that I have repeatedly said that, purely as a translation, I prefer the KJV. I do not support Westcott and Hort?s bias towards ?critical text.? I support research into all evidence available. If you knew Ant-Nicene history better, it would be evident to you that the very men that God most used to preserve and defend the Christian faith quoted a Scripture that was certainly not the Byzantine Text. Based on your reasoning, it appears that the very men that God used to collect and preserve the Scriptures themselves did not have the Byzantine Text. The Byzantine Text (or rather the TR, which is one offshoot of the Byzantine Texts) is the only manuscript family that you will ever concede has any merit in any situation. That leaves one with a hardly defensible position as to how men who did not have the Word of God could have so successfully defended its key doctrines and preserved its transmission.

 

[zimmie6576]

The KJV is very far from being correct, IMO. First off, let me just say that the issue is not changing the language of the Bible. Think about it, people have trouble reading and understanding Shakespeare nowadays, but when he wrote his plays, people mostly talked that way. The Bible must be updated to go with modern versions of speech. If it wasn't, the average person would have major trouble reading it. The Bible was completed over a thousand years ago, with the Old Testament being well over 2000 years old. It would be impossible for people today to even begin to understand what was being said in the method of speaking or writing from that long ago.

Second, the newer versions (I think after the 1970s or so) versions of the KJ Bible have removed every instance of the name of God. I have seen an older version (from the 50s) and it had the name, which is Jehovah. This is well documented, and is not only believed by the Jehovah's Witnesses (of which, I must say, I am one). Basically, the newer KJV call Jehovah by what He is (God, not a God but THE God). That would be like calling people around you "person" or "human". I don't get why the name was removed from the KJV. It is still in my version.

 

[Athanasius]

petrek:

This is directly from the KJV preface:

<< Also S. Augustine was of another mind: for he lighting upon certain rules made by Tychonius a Donatist, for the better understanding of the word, was not ashamed to make use of them, yes, to insert them into his own book, with giving commendation to them so far forth as they were worthy to be commended, as is to be seen in S. Augustine?s third book De doctrin&acirc; Christian&acirc;. To be short, Origen, and the whole Church of God for certain hundred years, were of another mind? For they were so far from treading under foot (much more from burning), the Translation of Aquila a Proselyte, that is, one that had turned Jew; of Symmachus, and Theodotion, both Ebionites, that is, most vile heretics, that they joined them together with the Hebrew Original, and the Translation of the Seventy (as hath been before signified out of Epiphanius) and set them forth openly to be considered of and perused by all. But we weary the unlearned, who need not know so much, and trouble the learned, who know it already. Yet before we end, we must answer a third cavil and objection of theirs against us, for altering and amending our Translations so oft; wherein truly they deal hardly and strangely with us. For to whom ever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to go over that which he had done, and to amend it where he saw cause? Saint Augustine was not afraid to exhort S. Jerome to a Palinodia or recantation; the same S. Augustine was not ashamed to retractate, we might say revoke, many things that had passed him, and doth even glory that he seeth his infirmities. >>




Note that the translators themselves recognized that "heretics" could come up with good principles, that the church for hundreds of years used translations supported by "vile heretics" to help gain a better understanding of the originals, and that it is the rightful place of godly men (such as Augustine and Jerome) to constantly amend or recant there works and translations where they see cause, because they are vulnerable to error.

Note also that, when Paul said in Acts 17:28 that in God we live and move and have our being, hence proving that God the Father is present in all people, he was quoting from the Cretan pagan Epimenides and even cited a "Hymn to Zeus" as containing a legitimate truth.

So, Paul quoted pagans and recognized that some of what they said had merit, and the KJV translators affirmed that even "vile heretics" can make great and beneficial translations and that any translator must be willing to constantly revisit and seek to improve his work.

Your position is not consistent with the Apostle Paul, it is not consistent with the position of godly men throughout church history, and it is not consistent with the position of the KJV translators themselves.

Unless you can address these statements directly, without long cut and pastes from third party sources and other writers who support your position (since you don't seem to give those who oppose you the benefit of such a luxury), I see little point in continuing the conversation.

 

[Josephus]

" Was Peter a godly man?"

But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. (MAT 16:23)

But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. (JN 20:25b)

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

I've been trying to find more concrete evidence on the "apostatcy" of these translators. All I can find are the dark sides presented in the KJVO sites, in an apparent endeavour to justify the position that the translation is evil because these men were human and commited some of their thoughts to paper. What I have been able to find, authored by these gentlement (Westcott and Hort), is considerable studies into the scripture and the history of the Bible and relgiion in general. Titles include the following:


The Incarnation and Common Life
Characteristics of the Gospel Miracles
A General View of the History of the English Bible
The Christian Ecclesia: A Course of Lectures on the Early History and Early Conceptions of the Ecclesia and Four Sermons
Judaistic Christianity: A Course of Lectures
Two Dissertations: I. In Scripture & Tradition, and II. On the Constantinopolitan Creed & Other Eastern Creeds of the Fourth Century
Letters to His Children on Confirmation
Sermons on the Books of the Bible Selected From the Volume of Village Sermons

Just looking at the titles of these books casts doubt on the allegation(s). I want the other side of these men that is obviously not presented in this debate.

Jesus called Peter Satan... was he unGodly? Perhaps at times Peter was, as we all may be, in our humanity. Was Thomas unGodly for doubtling? The same characteristics asssigned to Westcott and Hort can arguably be assigned to Peter and Thomas....

 

[petrek]

"Unless you can address these statements directly, without long cut and pastes from third party sources and other writers who support your position (since you don't seem to give those who oppose you the benefit of such a luxury), I see little point in continuing the conversation."

Athanasius, sorry if I gave you the impression that I oppose your ability to use "third party sources", I assume you are referring to your link to Robert A. Joyner, my apologies. Having read the whole introduction I got a completely different sense of reasoning than the one he holds to, which is why I asked it be read, maybe not as much for yourself but for everyone interested in this serious issue, allowing them to make up their own mind after reading all that they wrote, because as I say my understanding of their point of view is different than Joyner's and the others interested in this issue, which I consider to be one of the most serious issues facing the church today, if not the most serious as it affects Doctrine, and more noteably ones ability to place complete trust in the Authorty of the Bible which he holds in his hands.


"Note that the translators themselves recognized that "heretics" could come up with good principles, that the church for hundreds of years used translations supported by "vile heretics" to help gain a better understanding of the originals, and that it is the rightful place of godly men (such as Augustine and Jerome) to constantly amend or recant there works and translations where they see cause, because they are vulnerable to error."

I think there are two points to be made here:

1) Augustine and Jerome were two individuals working independantly for hours a day, and as such were prone to error, which is why they needed to edit their work, as they were just individuals. One of the main things we were taught in school in english class (assuming such is also the case for you) was that after writing a paper always reread it to make amends and if possible get others to read over it for any oversights on our part before handing it in to the teacher. I usually do the same thing here in regards to my posts, I'll preview the post to see if I got my thoughts down the way I meant to. I'm not perfect and neither were they, and they did not have the luxury of working with a host of others in their work, which is why it is to be expected that mistakes would need to be corrected during the editing process.

2) I don't recall ever saying that the other versions shouldn't be used for insight, a point which the translators of the KJV make(Edit, while I have never said the other versions should not be used, I do not believe intentionally corrupted versions should be used for insight into what God meant, there are plenty of commentaries, and Bible helps out there done by Godly men with no intent to corrupt or poison the mind of the Believer that to use translations that were intentionally corrupted is unwise.). I just don't believe that the other versions represent the Authority of God. In as much that God says he is not the author of confusion and when I compare what is said in the KJV to what is said in another version there is confusion. God says he is the same yesterday, today, and forever, yet if I were to take the Authority of one Bible over another he is changing his mind, which God am I to believe, the God of this Bible or the God of that Bible, should I use my own wisdom to decide, wisdom which God refers to as vain, it's confusing, and I don't like being confused, especially when God warns in so many places not to fall into the snares of the Devil and the Devil is the God of this world. Which God am I to trust as being the True God, and which God is the imposter appearing as an angel of light, having a form of Godliness but denying the power thereof. If I can't rely on Scripture for sole authority in a matter but must needs due to the confusion rely on my own wits, most surely I will be lead astray, as the spirit is strong but the flesh is weak. God says, let God be true and all men liars, and yet God changes based on which version I might use as Authoritative, shall I believe men who say we are sure about such and such percentage of the word of God or should I trust God and his promise to preserve all of His word, of which he says men shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God and that faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.


"Note also that, when Paul said in Acts 17:28 that in God we live and move and have our being, hence proving that God the Father is present in all people, he was quoting from the Cretan pagan Epimenides and even cited a "Hymn to Zeus" as containing a legitimate truth.

So, Paul quoted pagans and recognized that some of what they said had merit."

Yes, Paul did such, and many more things than that which are spoken against, are spoken of in the Bible. I believe the fact on such matters is clear, wherewith would Satan being able to decieve if there was no truth to what he says. The reason why he is able to decieve is because his deception is subtle and looks to the naked eye like the Truth. Let us also keep in mind that God is all seeing and as such he is everywhere, and without God nothing and no one would exist, however it is my belief that only those who have accepted Christ as their personal saviour are Saved. One who has repented of his sins, and accepted Christ as his Saviour has the Holy Spirit indwelling in him and has been redeemed through the Blood of Christ unto eternal life, whereas one who is of unbelief has neither the spirit nor eternal life but eternal death.


"and the KJV translators affirmed that even "vile heretics" can make great and beneficial translations"

I don't think that's the impression I got from their intro, I think that was an answer more to the charge of the Catholic church against their work and methods than it was an acceptance by them of the work of vile heretics.

"and that any translator must be willing to constantly revisit and seek to improve his work."

Again I think they are speaking in regards to single translators working on their own and the need therefore to peruse their work for obvious oversights due to the long hours spent alone at the desk.

"Your position is not consistent with the Apostle Paul, it is not consistent with the position of godly men throughout church history, and it is not consistent with the position of the KJV translators themselves."

I would disagree, I think my position is consistent with those individuals you sight. I believe in the Authority of Scripture but do not limit my understanding of the Bible which contains infinite wisdom and knowledge (because the Author is infinately wise and knowledgeable) too what little knowledge and wisdom I have gained during my life, for the Body of Christ has many parts and each has his own duties as God sees fit to bestow them, and that if I find a passage hard to be understood I don't hesitate to see how others have interpreted it, but the final Authority on my understanding must be consistent with what God says, let God be true and all men liars. What is the purpose of preaching if not to edify those that are unlearned in the things which are being taught.

Dave

 

[Athanasius]

Hi petrek:

Thank you for your last post. However, I disagree with your understanding of the preface in many points. For example, you distinguish between translation by groups versus translations by individuals, suggesting that individuals must constantly amend and up date their work but that a group need not. Or at least not the KJV group. Yet that is not what they say. Once again, consider the preface:



<< This may be supposed to be some cause, why the Translation of the Seventy [i.e: The Septuagint] was allowed to pass for current. Notwithstanding, though it was commended generally, yet it did not fully content the learned, no not of the Jews. For not long after Christ, Aquila fell in hand with a new Translation, and after him Theodotion, and after him Symmachus: yea, there was a fifth and sixth edition, the Authors whereof were not known. These with the Seventy made up the Hexapla, and were worthily and to great purpose compiled together by Origen. Howbeit the Edition of the Seventy went away with the credit, and therefore not only was placed in the midst of Origen (for the worth and excellency thereof above the rest, as Epiphanius gathereth), but also was used by the Greek fathers for the ground and foundation of their Commentaries. Yea, Epiphanius above named doth attribute so much unto it, that he holdeth the Authors thereof not only for Interpreters, but also for Prophets in some respect: and Justinian the Emperor enjoining the Jews his subjects to use specially the Translation of the Seventy, rendreth this reason thereof, because they were as it were enlightened with prophetical grace. Yet for all that, as the Egyptians are said of the Prophet to be men and not God, and their horses flesh and not spirit: so it is evident (and Saint Jerome affirmeth as much), that the Seventy were Interpreters, they were not Prophets; they did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to add to the Original, and sometimes to take from it >>



Note that the early Church spoke Greek, and that the Septuaguint was a Greek translation. Note also that the Septuagint was translated by a committee of godly men, a committee ordained by a King to complete that task. Note also that this work was so successful and so widely distributed that some (Epiphanius and Justinian the Emperor) viewed the Septuagint as God's Ordained Translation of the Hebrew for the Greek speaking world.

Yet the KJV translators did not view the committee of the Septuagint as such. Rather, they viewed the Septuagint committee as interpreters, not prophets. As learned men who did many things well but stumbled and fell in some places. Since they did not view the committee of the Septuagint as infallible, but rather emphasized the need to constantly revisit it and improve it where possible, it seems unlikely that they would view their own committee any differently. Rather, they said:



<< for the very Historical truth is, that upon the importunate petitions of the Puritans, at his majesty?s coming to this Crown, the Conference at Hampton Court having been appointed for hearing their complaints: when by force of reason they were put from all other grounds, they had recourse at the last, to this shift, that they could not with good conscience subscribe to the Communion book, since it maintained the bible as it was there translated, which was as they said, a most corrupted translation. And although this was judged to be but a very poor and empty shift; yet even hereupon did his Majesty begin to bethink himself of the good that might ensue by a new translation, and presently after gave order for this Translation which is now presented unto thee. Thus much to satisfy our scrupulous Brethren. An Answer To The Imputations Of Our Adversaries Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet), containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. >>



Note that one of the historical motives for translating the King James Version in the first place was to refute the Puritans and support the Church of England. The Puritans held that the translations of the Bible that occurred in the Anglican Communion Book of were corrupt. The King James translators responded to this claim by saying, "We do not deny, nay we affirm and avow that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession (i.e: clergy and scholars in the Anglican Church) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.

So, would you affirm that the poor translations in the Anglican Communion Book were still the word of God? The King James translators did. Which form of Christianity do you consider to be more pure: the Puritan or the Church of England? Given your previous statements, I am led to believe that you would view the Church of England as better than the Church of Rome, but that the Puritans were yet more godly.


1) In summary, I will say it one more time: I believe the KJV is the single best translation into the English language the world has ever seen. But it is not without error, and the language can and certainly should be updated. Furthermore, the TR upon which the KJV is based is not without error. It is the heart of all good translators to give the word of God in the common tongue of the people to whom one is ministering.

2) The English language has changed and the KJV translators were not above the biases of their time. That is why "unicorn" (a dubious translation even in 1611) should certainly be changed. It is also why "silent" and "shamefaced" when talking about women in 1 Timothy 2 should also be changed. You made the point quite emphatically that a word with the exact same meaning would be the exact same word. In response to that, I pointed out where the same Greek words were sometimes translated into very different English words with no contextual basis for doing so. The rational was cultural and chauvinistic, not linguistic and biblical.

3) Part of the reason the KJV needs to be updated is because it is based overwhelmingly on one manuscript tradition: Erasmus' Textus Receptus. The TR does not even faithfully render the Byzantine Text in all points, as Erasmus did not have a complete Greek text to work with. Even if one grants that the Byzantine Text is the best manuscript tradition (which, overall, I think it is), it is simply wrong to claim that all other traditions are satanic. Furthermore, if the Byzantine Text is the god ordained manuscript family, then the TR is corrupt in quite a few places and, by your reasoning, would therefore not be the word of God. If one suggests that only the TR is a godly manuscript tradition as you have done on this thread, then one is hard pressed to explain how God left the Alexandrian texts as the apparent Bible for the Didache (115 AD), Irenaeus (200 AD), and a host of other godly church fathers. One is also hard pressed to explain how the Didache (115 AD) could have been so corrupt in its quote from the Gospel of John (95 AD) so quickly. And if the Didache was so corrupt so quickly, then that raises the question of how the very era that collected and preserved the Canon could have successfully done so since its leaders were often reading what some would say were corrupt and satanically minded texts.

4) The KJV translators themselves point out the benefit of translating as many manuscript traditions as one can find. They specifically cite Origen's Hexapla (a side-by-side comparision of all of the manuscript traditions that origen was aware of) and even translations made by unbelievers.

5) You have still not reconciled how you can view the KJV as "infallible" and "not absolutely perfect" at the same time.

6) It also seems difficult for you to maintain that a variation from the KJV/TR is no longer the word of God since the KJV translators themselves recognized that even the most inferior English translation found in the Chruch of England's Communion Book was still the word of God.

7) You suggest that individuals can err but that a committee is not so prone to error. As far as that goes, is obviously true, but the KJV translators mentioned the specific point of the Septuagint and how it was a good thing to examine and improve even the work of godly committees ordained by kings.

8) The KJV translators were Church of England clergy and scholars who rejected the Puritan faith and called the Puritans "adversaries" who by "force of reason" had been refuted in their beliefs. So, in your understanding of Christian doctrine, who had the more biblical faith: the Puritans or the Church of England? Remember history: in the same era that the KJV was being translated, the Puritans were fleeing Europe and England and coming to America because of religious persecution.

9) You point out that you will accept the translations of godly men. Who was more godly? Can we even really ask that question? Were the Puritans more godly than the KJV translators? Was Irenaeus and the scribe of the Didache more godly? What about the original Athanasius? He was banished at least five times for his faith in the undiminished Deity of Christ. Virtually everyone in the whole spectrum of historic Christianity recognizes his orthodoxy. Yet he was the Bishop of Alexandria and hence was almost certainly a user of the Alexandrian tradition of manuscripts. Interestingly enough, the primary defender of the Deity of Christ and of the Trinity never once to my knowledge (and I have read his writings quite extensively) refers to 1 John 5:7 as a defense of the Trinity or of the Deity of Christ. In fact, none of the men who argued for the Trinity after Athanasius does either. Why? Because the evidence for 1 John 5:7 doesn't even show up in any Greek tradition (Byzantine or otherwise) until one obscure manuscript in the tenth century. Later, it starts to appear more, so that it has a total of eight manuscripts from the Latin Vulgate tradition translated back into Greek. Even of these eight, four list the KJV rendering as a variant, not the main text. No Greek fathers (who did not need translations; they spoke the Greek of the NT) ever quote it in all of the Sabellian and Arian controversies. Tertullian and Augustine do not reference it. Even Jerome, who wrote the orignal Vulgate, does not include this verse.

Was the word of God kept from these men? Did God allow a verse that would have been the single best support for orthodox doctrine be lost from His word when it was needed most? Or did some later scribe get careless or perhaps not have enough faith in God's ability to communicate himself unaided by explanatory inserts?

The best student of the word of God will examine all evidence with a deliberate attempt to eliminate prejudice and bias. The word stands on its own. No translation (or manuscript tradtion) is infallible. None of them need to be because all of the major manuscript traditions communicate the essential truths of the Christian faith in a way that makes the reader "wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus."

10) If the KJV translators fully accepted the work of "heretics" like Tychonius, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion as immensely valuable even while disagreeing with their doctrine, then it is hardly a falling away to recognize the contribution that men like Westcott and Hort and Nestle and Aland and Metzger have made even if one disagrees with their doctrine.