Now we're getting somewhere.

Thank you Ray, RJP, and George,

I wanted to just add a little bit. I agree with Ray completely. I am not KJVO, I am OKJV. The difference being that I do believe the earlier Greek texts are inspired. Like RJP said, how could we say there were no inspired texts before the 1611 text? If they were not inspired, where did the 1611 come from? Would we say the men who translated (the 1611 AV) were more inspired/directed of the Holy Spirit than the men who wrote the earlier texts?

But I am sorry, I must still say I do not agree with any version created in the 20th century and beyond. I don't know Greek. I have studied translations and I understand that the Koine Greek language was used and understand about the Hebrew Masoretic texts. Does anyone know anyone who uses the original Greek/Hebrew texts in their daily devotional study (my assistant pastor made this point to me last night)? When I say this, I mean exclusively for growth and admonishment, not to learn Greek and what it is trying to translate to. If so, let them do the arguing.

I still have my earlier question: Why do we need the modern translations? What purpose do they serve? Is it truly coincidence that all of a sudden we are having this massive influx of modern translations? Why do they scare me? Is this insensible? Why does my spirit quake when I think of them?

Also, RJP, not to contradict you, but Bill Rice's camp at Bill Rice Ranch in Murfreesboro (that's where I grew up, my brother heads up a SWAT team up there, Lord bless him, they haven't had to invade Bill Rice ranch yet, , just kidding about the ranch) catered mostly Pensacola bible students who were adamant KJVO's. Bob Jones students and Pensacola Bible Students have since time immemorial fought like cats and dogs over the KJV stance up there. They would all look forward to the summer for the debates. I am not exactly sure what Bill Rice's stance was, I am not trying to criticize it, just wondering why the camp he created would have almost exclusiveley KJVO's attending. I have since then, seen the BJU students worry more on others' salvation than arguing the KJVO stance. Cannot vouch for Pensacola Bible College, I don't know enough about them presently to say yea or nay. I hope I do not offend any students from either, I am not trying to be critical, please take this with a loving heart to all students and alumni.

Also, I have another question I am going to start. It will be a new thread on something that I think will help think about other things. It is about the Lord Jesus Christ's name.

May the Lord Jesus Christ be blessed in all our conversation.

Jim

RJP--

You asked:

"Jerry, I will say that the variation in wording of the NASB and the KJV you spent some time explaining does not address the issue I raised. Both the KJV and the NASB clearly claim to be the inspired Word of God. Why are the claims of the KJV superior to the claims of the KJV? That is the question I asked earlier. Waiting for a response..."

I believe the little explaining I did in the word variation from the NASB and the KJV addresses the issue very well. The verse II Timothy 3:16,17 is a prime example of how the NASB has change the message of God. It has watered it down, and made Gods Word less forceful among other things. That's just one passage, two verses. Using the word "training" instead of "instruction" waters down and causes this verse to be less forceful. Using the word "adequate" in verse 17 instead of "throughly furnished" changes completely the meaning and direction of the verse. Does the Word of God simply make us "adequately" equipped to every good work, or does the Word of God "throughly furnish" us for every good work?

Now, understand, we on this site are pretty well grounded in Gods Word, but what about those who are not nearly as grounded, they will read these watered down translations/versions and will not be acquainted with the real power God gives us, has made available to us. They may be adequate, but not complete. Was the sacrifice of Jesus simply adequate, or was it complete? Does God give us just enough of the Holy Spirit to get the job done, or does He fill us completely with the Holy Spirit?

Sailor:

This is an excellent point you make. My whole basis is also this argument about new believers' growth in MV's.

Being that this is a public forum, we would be good to be careful of new believers and the testimony we have to them.


Jim

Jim,

Yes, I do know (acquaintences and friends who I have not seen in years) a couple of people who do their devotions in Greek. Know one who preaches from the GNT only and some others who only use a GNT to follow when someone else is preaching from the NT. As far as them getting involved in a discussion like this, they publish books on the subject, they don’t take time to debate the issues with the likes of us. Was friends (not real close, but I feel sure he would remember me) with Dr. Maurice Robinson, the co-author/co-editor/co-compiler of the Robinson-Pierpoint edition of the majority text. Can’t recall if I took any Greek under him though. Most of my Greek was done by the time I was there (LRS in Jax Fla, now in GA).

Regarding the Rice’s, do not know where Dr. Bill stood on the issue. Only know where Dr. John R. Rice (founder, pretty sure, and long time editor and publisher of the Sword, I am sure) stood. Will try to dig out the article I referenced earlier to give some quotes at some point in the next few days. Do know for sure where Pensacola stands on the issue. They are not as rabid as Ruckman on the issue, but I found Michael Maynards book on the comma johanneum in their bookstore. In almost every issue of the PCC magazine they have an article arguing for the KJVO position. I have family and friends who are students and who teach there. I have the videos with with Dr. Del Johnson (Leaven of the Pharisees) and .... (Blank on his name right now) another guy (I remembered, Theodore Lettis) who is from a conservative Presbyterian backround. Have personally spoken with him, but he does not believe that the comma was part of the autograph. Several years ago, as I was preparing to study the issue again, called him and he sent a bunch of his material on the issue. His is strong Majority Text, but not strong on the TR, 4th edition of Erasmus. Incidentally, I have actually handled an original TR, 4th edition (Jewel Smith's) and read the marginal notation in 1John 4:7-8. It was in Latin. Found it interesting that they would have him (Lettis) on campus for seminary lectures to speak to the issue. I attended Tennessee Temple just about 2 hours south of Murfreesboro. Was in the Bible School, College, and Seminary from 1975 to 1980 or 81. Heard Dr. John every year for Bible conferences, till his health began to fail. (Curtis Hudson took the Sword in some directions that Dr. Rice never would have, in my opinion.) TTU is where I met Dr. John. Was in Murfreesboro for some university function and stayed in the home of one of his daughthers, can’t remember which one though. One of my professors at TTU was married to another of his daughters. I think she is the one who wrote the article on Dr. John's position on the KJVO issue. Had Dr. Fred Afman for several classes. He along with Dr. Stewart Custer of BJU were frequent targets of Ruckman’s wrathful diatribes. This is not a new issue for me. And, as I said earlier, a few summers ago I spent hundreds of hours on this one issue alone. If it has been written about the KJV issue I have probably read it and there is a good chance, I probably have it (unless it is loaned out to someone). This includes hundreds of internet articles (at least 2,000 pages worth, probably more like 3,000) from all points of the spectrum that have never been published on paper as far as I know.

My position is pretty close to both TTU and BJU. Not anywhere close to PCC. Kinda hoped to discuss the subject with Del Johnson on one of my visits but was afraid to bring it up while my daughter was still at PCC. I have never debated the issue with someone who has a Ph.D. or equivalent. Not too many people who have earned higher degrees hold to the KJVO position. In fact, Dr. Johnson is the only one I have ever heard defend the KJVO position who does have an earned doctorate in theology. Del is not at PCC anymore.

My personal thoughts on why people are “scared” of the modern translations is that they have heard too many sermons or read to many books that make the MV’s out to be tools of the devil. You tell someone a lie often enough, forcefully enough, and over a long enough period of time, they will believe it. It’s human nature. In fact, a domineering preacher (or writer) can make you afraid to even reexamine your position on an issue. Makes you kinda feel like you are an apostate for even daring to think about it again.

As far as not offending people, I do not want to be personally offensive in the manner in which I present truth. But, if the Word of God offends, that is their problem not mine. I do not want to preach Christ with contention, but I do realize that Truth does divide. Have you watched any of the Republican convention? Better not open that can of worms, but some people have some real funny ideas about what is and what is not truth (by the way, I am very pro-Bush).

I do not want to offend, but I do want to jolt people about the truth and I want to drive them to the book (albeit the KJV or the NAS or the GNT, Greek New Testemant) to find out if what they are proclaiming as the “covenant and testimony” (Psa 132:12) is indeed clearly established within the pages of God’s Word. I still stand by my earlier statement that most of the MV’s are faithful to the apographs (copies of copies of copies of copies of the Autographs, or originals).

WOW! Two posts while I was working on my response to Jim! This is a hot topic!

Jerry, actually the word translated “instruction” in the KJV is paideia and is only translated as “instruction”in this one passage. It is most commonly translated as “chastening”. The verb form paideuo(w) is only translated as “instruct” in one of thirteen occurances. Again, note the danger of building doctrine on one rendering in only one “favorite” version.

And yes, I do understand about the danger of discussing issues like this in the presence of baby Christians. IF ANYONE IS CAUSED TO DOUBT THE FAITHFULNESS OF THE TRANSLATION THEY ARE USING, PLEASE E-MAIL ME AT rjprince@alltel.net. I do not want any millstones about my neck! Let me also say that I would probably not say some of the things I have said there to my Sunday morning crowd. Let’s face it, we are dealing with meat here, not milk.

WHAT!!! Tell me how you can justly compare the sacrifice of Jesus with the version/translation issue??? This is meaningless rehtoric and a debate tactic that I refuse to let slide! It is a fact that there are many different versions is many diferent languages. It is a fact that NO TWO HANDWRITTEN MSS (out of thousands) ARE PERFECTLY IDENTICAL!!! It is disingenuous and prejudicial to make it appear that since we disagree on the version issue that I therefore am wishy washy on the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement on the cross. Shame on you. That is the exact kind of rhetoric that disguises the real issues involved in this question. Statements like that may get hearty amens in some circles, but it is an attempt to shift from the real issues at hand!
Ditto the comment on the Holy Spirit!

I hope I have not offended you personally, but your calling into question my views on these other issues is without basis and totally uncalled for. It does nothing to add to the discussion at hand. I do realize, however, that there are many preachers and writers who avoid the real issues with such tactics, and so, your attempt may be somewhat excusable as you may only be repeating what others have said or written.

I understand your point RJP, but must also point out, I have not noticed anyone that has a doctorates lean any more towards the KJV or away. It is usually even. What I have noticed, is that a lot scholars who have gone so far as to get a doctorates in theology, have lost faith and replaced it with Pharaseeism. Most of them sit in front of the books and study material and forget the one purposeful thing in life: Going and teaching others about Christ. Is this not what we are commanded to do?

We get so caught up in the Greek this and Greek that we lose complete sight of our two purposes and reasons for being here: Glorification of Jesus Christ and spreading his Gospel.

I don't ever think any amount of Greek texts will change my opinion on the KJV, which I might add, I formed myself, I never had any person in my life push KJV on me in an influential way so it is not through, as you said,

Also, you said "tools of the devil", In a sense I kind of agree that they are.

I still am wondering if there is an answer to my earlier questions:

Why did we need translations in the 20th century?

I am well aware of the argument of readibility, etc. but I dismiss those as dry and unsupportive of a good answer. Why did they need to be retranslated after 300-350 years? What was the point? We already have an english bible accepted by billions, after many, many years. It is readible by all, smart and not so smart.

In Christ,

Jim

Perhaps you mean Dr. J. Michael Bates http://www.emmanuel-newington.org/church/staff.htm

He has started a seminary here in Connecticut. He has also wrote a book or two on the Bible version issue.

You are probably correct about some of this being over the head of some of us(Although Ill just speak for me). I have not dedicated all my study time to exhaust the translation controversy. It was settled for me rather quickly.

God has placed me under a Pastor who is more knowledgable about the issue than I am. He used the NASB for the first ten years of his Christian life and then studied out the KJV vs Modern translations and came away convinced that the KJV was it.

Being that I have not dedicated my life to studying one issue I can only accept the teaching of men that God has placed me under.

I have heard Dr. Bates and Pastor D. A. Waite, Th.D., Ph.D preach on the subject also.

So really for me it comes down to who's research that you accept as being correct.


Ray

Not really trying to convince anyone to change their position. But I would really like to convince those who hold to a KJVO or OKJV position to not denounce those who differ as liberals, compromisers, heretics or the like.

Raymond,
Not familiar with Dr. Bates. Do certainly regonize that higher education has certainly led many astray. I also recognize the danger of educational cultural inbreeding. Only studying one side of the issue and only having fellowship or diaglogue with those who hold to my own position.

As a pastor, I do not have the option of taking anybody's research at face value. I have the responsibility before God to carefully study out issues looking at the best arguments and presentations from all sides. Then I must determine, as best I can, what is right and what is consistent with the Word of God. I am constantly refining my understanding and presentation of the Word of God. The day I think I have it all figured out is the day I stop learning. Never want to get there, at least not this side of Glory.

What grieves me is when people who have not invested the labor that I have write me off as a either an ignorant babbler, or on the other side of the coin, as an educated liberal who denies the only true Word! The fact that I may disagree is neither an indication of ignorance or apostasy.

Would really love to know how many people have abandoned the NASB without have been influenced at least to some degree by the rantings and babblings of Gail Riplinger with her degree in domestic engineering or someone who repeats her mantras.

Do any of the THEOLOGY PhD's that you know hold to secondary inspiration of the KJV or the absolute perfection of the KJV text above the Majority Text?

Oh, as to the benefit of MV's, there are some verses in the KJV that are worded so awkwardly as to make almost no sense to MOST people. I dare say there are few who can swallow one or two without gagging and getting some kind of help to digest the difficult wording and construction. Having a MV or even a paraphrase like the Amplified can really help out.

RJP--

WOW!! Is the Holy Spirit starting His work of conviction? I have read my last post a few times and nowhere did I even come close to making this a personal issue with you. I was simply pointing out a word the NASB used, "adequate", and commenting on it's use in the Bible. As I read the Bible, Jesus never did anything "adequately", nor did He ever offer us or expect from us anything that was just "adequate".

The NASB uses that word, not the KJV.

Now, you ask:

"WHAT!!! Tell me how you can justly compare the sacrifice of Jesus with the version/translation issue???"

I can definately compare the sacrifice with the version/translation issue using the very verses you used...II Timothy 3:16, 17.

Jesus' death, burial and ressurection was done to save us. Once we are saved, that same death, burial and ressurection gives us power to do His will. What is His will? That we go forth to preach, baptize and teach. How do we do this? We are "throughly furnished" not just "adequately" equipped. The sacrifice of Christ was not so we could be adequate. Jesus had power way beyond what was needed to do the job He was sent to do. As we are saved, we have His power, which is far more than we need to do His will...hence "throughly furnished", not just "adequate".

An illustration may be in order here. If you move into a house that is adequately furnished, you have what is needed to live there. But, if you move into a house that is throughly furnished, you have everything needed to live there, work there, entertain there, and whatever else is needed to do there.

Therefore, the NASB has watered down the message Jesus intended to send.

It is interesting...I just did a mini study...In luke 4:14:

Lu 4:14 And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about.

Jesus was just returning from His temptation by Satan...He "returned in the POWER of the Spirit...Power here is the word "dunamis"...which means:

"force (literally or figuratively); specially, miraculous power (usually by implication, a miracle itself):--ability, abundance, meaning, might(-ily, -y, -y deed), (worker of) miracle(-s), power, strength, violence, mighty (wonderful) work."

In Acts 1:8:

Ac 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Power here is the same word "dunamis". We are promised the same power Jesus has...a bit more than "adequate" wouldn't you say? More like "throughly furnished".

You said:

"It is disingenuous and prejudicial to make it appear that since we disagree on the version issue that I therefore am wishy washy on the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement on the cross. Shame on you. That is the exact kind of rhetoric that disguises the real issues involved in this question. Statements like that may get hearty amens in some circles, but it is an attempt to shift from the real issues at hand!
Ditto the comment on the Holy Spirit!"

In no place in my post did I ever even insinuate your stand on the atonement of Christ, but the NASB's statnd. It seems I may have struck an raw spot, and caused you to try to shift the focus of the real issues. I don't know you personally, but from your posts you seem a very intelligent man, and in none of your posts could I get anything to attack you on what you accuse me of. I don't take this personally, I have my stand, I will take my stand and defend my stand. And I don't take anythng anyone says at face value, I have my stand because I have studied and came to my own conclusions.

You may want to analyze your own words...you seem to be the one that is shifting the focus and ducking the real issues.

Yes, please show where Jesus Christ is omitted in the KJV.

(refer to The Name of the Lord thread).

In Christ,

Jim

Also,

Why did we need today's modern translations?

How many times am I going to ask this question?

Enquiring minds want to know.....




Jim

Jerry,

OK. You are right. You did not make a direct personal attack. Yes, I do know that my response was a little inflamatory itself. Sorry. Sometimes I just get carried away.

And I am certainly willing to concede that the "adequate" of the NAS is less than the "throughly furnished" furnished of the KJV. Hey, I already told you that I use the KJV, not the NAS. But I am not ready to brand the NAS as a per-Version as many have done.

And yes, after I had written it I did realize that your words re the atonement and the HS were not aimed at me. But I did kinda feel an implication that someone who accepts other versions must be weak in other points of foundational theology as well. Even if that was not your intent, clearly there are others who draw that connection.

To many, the fact that I do not denounce the MV's is an indication that I do not love God's Word.


George,
Please give source on V.R. Mollencott and "stacks and stacks" of material to translate. "Take a little time" -- I have hundreds of hours in this, as already noted. Did pick up on the slam, "I expected nothing more from a defender of the NIV". Still praying for you over the cat anyway (other post). Have some close friends who are recovering/recovered. Document her influence on the NIV, don't just assert it! My copy reads, "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." (Rom 1:26-27). Does not sound like her lesbian influence on the translation was all that effective to me! Yes, I know Riplinger was not the only one repeating it, I think DA Waite passed that info around as well. Maybe even Jack Chick. Does not matter where they got it, based on the ref in Rom 1, they seem to be wrong!

I understand that people are passionate about this issue. The KJV was attacked along all the same lines when it came out. What is wrong with the Geneva? Why do we need a new modern translation? I do not fault your love for the KJV. I only fault those who say that anything else is not the Word of God. Was the Geneva or the Bishops not the word of God. Sorry, I thought you said that the KJV was first put out in 1602 as the Bishops Bible. I must have misread. Certainly the KJV translators consulted other versions in their translation.

Sorry for the confusion on the copyright issue. The original KJV was copyrighted. NO KJV TEXTS CAN BE COPYRIGHTED NOW! Yet, the study notes in some KJV’s can be copyrighted. Most copyrights expire after 50 years and the work becomes public domain.

I do not have and have not read Paul Wegner’s book, will see if I can find a copy. The 1768/1769/1850 revision I cited was not the one by Harwood. I am not familiar with Harwood or his work. “Lord’s prayer three times longer” - there were not that many differences in my list of citations. THE POINT IS THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENCES! THE KJV WE COMMONLY USE TODAY IS NOT THE SAME AS THE 1611. And yes, I know about the he/she bible, the sinners bible, and the other printing errors. I am talking about changes from the text from 1611 to the present and the work of Benjamin Blayney and F.H.A. Schrivener’s research and documentation of those changes. COMPARE THE 1611 TO WHAT WE USE TODAY! WHICH ONE IS RIGHT?

As far as division, it was not my intent to cause it. I am sorry if my words have been perceived as an attack on the Word of God. All I offer is a plea that the KJVO crowd (or at least some in that crowd) stop labeling those who may consult other versions from time to time as heretics who do not love the Lord as deeply, throughly, or perfectly as those of us who have the real true Bible. I offer a plea for Christian charity among those who may differ on this issue.

My references to and communication with the host and moderator of this site has sought to avoid attacking its formal position on the matter. If disagreement on this issue labels me as a liberal compromising Bible hater who has no business posting here, I am sorry. I hope that the host and moderator does not share your feelings.

I almost feel as though we have reached the point where when a few cannot respond to the issues and points raised, some of us will resort to personal attack and final withdrawal from the discussion. This grieves me. It grieves me more to realize that some of my words may have moved us in this direction.

In summary, I think of a few things that are critical to the discussion that I do not feel have been addressed.

1) There are changes from 1611 to the current KJV. Which one is right? If they are different, one must be. They cannot both be right.

2) Where is a Biblical promise that God will perfectly preserve His word in multiple languages for diverse people groups? How can this be reconciled with the fact that not all people have a perfect copy in their language, some have no Scripture at all in their language?

3) Why did the KJV translators have the right to retranslate and change earlier versions when some argue that the English text is now fixed in the perfect KJV and can no longer undergo revision? How is it that the KJV translators themselves acknowledged that further continual revision would be needed (the Preface to the KJV).

4) Last, at least last that I will list, why is it that there is such animosity toward a brother who uses another version from many in the KJVO camp? That is really the bottom line and basic reason for all the typing I have done in the last two days on this issue.

What changes? I have seen no changes worth merit. The only changes I stil lsee even from the earlier post you made to be insignificant.

God made no such promise. He did, however make a promise to preserve his Word, Psalm 12:7 "Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." I believe it can be reconciled for the same reason there no bibles complete in Sumerian, Akkadian, Hittite, etc. during those times also.

Uhhhhh.... Can't answer this question

I have not seen any animosity (Well actually, I guess you can say some posts have been a little harsh, but please forgive them). It saddens me greatly that someone would feel attacked here. You must understand, we are not great biblical scholars here, like Ray said, at least I am not. I have seen a lot of "Biblical Scholars", (not referring to you) tear people down with their self-hyped intellect and have admonished nothing except to push their knowledge in other peoples' faces. They puff themselves up and give themselves the glory, not our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. I will stand by the belief that the more you learn, in most cases, the further you get away from God. Did we learn nothing from the Pharisees and Saducees? Of course they felt they were immune, too to these types of accusations.

RJP, I am not referring to you personally, But I have seen some outrageous claims by "Biblical Greek Scholars". I even had one tell me that Eve slept with Satan in the Garden of Eden, and claimed they had proof! I also had another "Greek Scholar" and yes, he spoke what I thought be fluent greek, claim the KJV was completely corrupt.

I am just not seeing the compassion in these posts as was shown by Christ. Did Jesus ever debate with the Pharisees over doctrine? No, they were either convicted of truth or Jesus knew it was fruitless. Why do you think he had to use parables so much(Please forgive me, this is my worldy thinking coming out here)?

Oh yeah,

Why did we need the new versions by the way?

I am sorry to keep repeating this question, I just do not know the answer to it.

In Christ,

Jim

Thought - I wonder what the bible would read if english was the primary language back then? If there was no Greek or any other language. Hmmm......

This post was last modified: Wed Sep 01, 2004 03:03 PM by Jim.

Hey I have an idea! Let's find something we all can agree on. That was actually my main purpose for joining this forum.



In Christ Jesus,

Jim