On "King James Only" Christians - 1:09 PM, 12/29/2011 |
On "King James Only" Christians Bernard Pyron I posted this on a Christian forum:: "Present Day Pharisees In Their Whited Sepulchres The present day Pharisees in their whited sepulchres teach false doctrines, ridicule the "King James Only" Christians, are agents for the government of their IRS incorporated 501 c(3) churches, often teach that Christians should always obey the government, sometimes argue against that which is of faith, often make salvation appear to be an easy broad way one time event, and tend to be led by the Christian celebrities and themselves try to attain to good appearances or images as taught by the Christian Celebrity System - and in that conformity to worldliness of the Celebrity System are often deceptive. A guy on this form then asks: Here are some questions we should all ask about our own preferred translations....not just the KJV. Q1: How long has the King James version been around and what did God use for "his Word" before the KJV? Q2: Does it use clear language to the present and younger generation? Q3: Do all people speak "The 1600s King's English" or "English" in the world? How many editions and re-writes since the 1611 version are there? This should tell us all something. Would you preach KJV only to the Chinese? Q4: Is it possible that your church or upbringing has indoctrinated you into thinking that the KJV is the only acceptable translation? Q4: Is the KJV more accurate than the Hebrew and Greek scripture manuscripts we translate from? Q5: Have people been saved and blessed through other Bible translations? Q6: Does God's Word even mention the KJV? Q7: If you say "King James only" (or any version only), are you adding a "new law" to God's word as the pharicees often added their own man made laws? Please do not put this yoke on your grandchildren. Q8: Is it possible that you have made an idol of the KJV in your heart? "Q1: How long has the King James version been around and what did God use for "his Word" before the KJV? The issue is the English translations of the Greek New Testament, not earlier Latin or other translations. "Q3: Do all people speak "The 1600s King's English" or "English" in the world? " The English language after 1611 owes its development in part to the Authorized Version. The King James Version was a model for the development of the English language. Its elegant but simple style had an influence on English-speaking writers" (World Book Encyclopedia). This partially explains why the King James English is more alive and explicit while most other literary-type texts from that period are more difficult to read. The English of the King James Version is not the English of the early 17th century. It is biblical English, which was not used on ordinary occasions even by the translators who produced the King James Version. As H. Wheeler Robinson (1940) pointed out, one need only compare the preface written by the translators with the text of their translation to feel the difference in style. The King James Version owes its greatness not to 17th-century English - which was very difficult - but to its faithful translation of the original. Its style is that of the Hebrew and of the New Testament Greek. Even in their use of thee and thou the translators were not following 17th-century English usage but biblical usage, for at the time these translators were doing their work these singular forms had already been replaced by the plural you in polite conversation (The King James Version Defended, Des Moines: Christian Research Press, 1984, pp. 218). Ye is a more exact word, for example, that calling a bunch of people you, because we use you to address a single individual. The writing style in the Preface is more complex than that of the 1611 King James Version Bible, whose wording is less complex and often more exact. This is largely because of the translation method of the King James, which tended to be more word for word. That is, the verse wordings of the King James Version derive more from the Greek wordings of the Textus Receptus than from the writing style of Elizabethian English in 1611. The more interesting and lively words of the King James Version come from its word for word method of translation. The NIV, on the other hand, tends to use what is called "dynamic equivalency" in translating the Bible, which sometimes results more in an interpretation, according to the translator's theology. In general, the NIV does not follow word for word the Hebrew or Greek words as closely as does the King James Version, and this is a very important difference for this issue of which version is inspired by God and which is closer to the very early copies of the New Testament. "Q4: Is it possible that your church or upbringing has indoctrinated you into thinking that the KJV is the only acceptable translation?" Whether a "church" or denomination upholds the King James Version or some more recent one is not necessarily relevant to the issue of whether the King James is closer to the early Greek New Testament copies than say the NIV. "Q5: Have people been saved and blessed through other Bible translations?" By "other Bible translations" you probably mean the English translations since 1881 (Revised Version) or American Standard Version of 1901. Yes, some people have been saved through these recent English versions. But the falling away of II Thessalonians 2: 3 began at about that time, so that how many were saved after the falling away got going is uncertain. In addition, the leavening of the "church" began also at this time. Luke 13: 21 says "It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures till the whole was leavened." The word "till" indicates the leavening occurs over a period of time, and neither the leavening nor the falling away occur only during the dispensationalist tribulation. The Great American and English revivals, however, went on before the falling away began at about the end of the 19th century - and in those great revivals the King James Version was used. The gradual substitution of the new versions and turning away from the King James were not the only causes of the falling away and the leavening. Dispensationalism and several other less popular false doctrines also began in the 19th century. "Q6: Does God's Word even mention the KJV?" This is the most obvious example of all of a question which tries to side step the issue of whether the King James Version is inspired and is closer to the very early New Testament Greek texts. Some of the other questions also tend to side step that issue. Obviously, the Bible does not mention any specific English or other Bible translations. An attempt to side step or come against a thesis from a flanking movement is the dialectic argument, which is not that of "it is written." Dean Gotcher calls the dialectic the Diaprax. The Diaprax is a deceptive way or arguing against that which is of faith, or the truth. A Bible translation is important for the creation of faith. I doubt if I can get away with putting a link here. But if anyone is interested in the dialectic, or the Diaprax, type in "Dean Gotcher" on Google. You will get: "The Institution for Authority Research DIAPRAX EXPOSED This website is not for those who are content in the way things are, it is for those who have already been abused by the dialectical process and want to know what happened and how to respond. Learn what Diaprax is (the dialectic process--of Hegel and Marx 'fame'--put into social practice-- praxis) and how it is affecting you and the world around you. About the Institution for Authority Research Articles on Diaprax Check out the introduction to the articles, says it all...Radio programs Why I continue to use the KJV of the Bible (the Textus Receptus)." Dean Gotcher is one leader of what some call the Remnant. The dialectic or Diaprax is a method of attitude or belief change which tries to make every truth or moral into an opinion. "Q7: If you say "King James only" (or any version only), are you adding a "new law" to God's word as the pharicees often added their own man made laws? Please do not put this yoke on your grandchildren." This question seems to assume that there is one Greek New Testament text, and the many English versions since 1881-1901 have somewhat different verse wordings, using that one Greek text. Therefore, you can pick and choose any Bible version you want, and put different verses from different versions together to create you own man-made doctrine. Beware of this, because this is what Satan wants you to do. It creates confusion about what is the authentic word of God. To do justice to the issues of which version is God-inspired and which is closer to the early New Testament copies, you need to learn which English New Testament versions are from the Textus Receptus and which are from the Alexandarian Wescott-Hort Greek texts. You also should learn the characteristics of the Textus Receptus as opposed to the Westcott-Hort. Two New Testament texts do deal with the issue of what is the word of God and its inspired nature: II Timothy 3: 16: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." II Peter 1: 21 "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." The issue is whether the Textus Receptus, from which the King James was translated word for word, or the NIV and other recent versions, from the Westcott-Hort Greek text are inspired, and the extent to which he KJV or the others are faithful to the wordings and doctrines of the early New Testament Greek text copies. These questions need both the Holy Spirit and honest scholarship to deal with. As far as honest scholarship is concerned, these issues can't be dealt with by Byte-Speak, the use of a few sentences. Westcott and Hort argued that since the Alexandarian Greek texts from the fourth century were earlier than the existing Byzantine Greek texts, therefore the Alxandarian texts were closer to the originals and more authentic. But many Papyri fragments of the New Testament contain Byzantine readings, that is, the verse wordings are more similar to the Byzantine Greek text than to the Alexandarian text, used by Westcott and Hort for their 1881 Greek text, and from which almost all recent New testrament versions were translated. "Harry Sturz discusses these "distinctively Byzantine" readings in his book, The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism." "The most important of these discoveries was several Egyptian papyri. Sturz lists "150 distinctively Byzantine readings" found in these papyri. Included in his list are papyri numbers 13, 45, 46, 47, 49, 59, 66, 72, 74, and 75 (pp.61, 145-159)." "Sturz brings up another very important point about these papyri, "They attest the early existence of readings in the Eastern part of the Roman empire in which the Byzantine and the properly (i.e. geographically) Western witnesses agree and at the same time are opposed by the Alexandrian" (p.70). " What Sturz is saying is that many early Papyri Greek texts agree with the verse wordings of the Byzantine or Textus Receptus type Greek text more than with the Alexandrian or Westcott-Hort type Greek text. "Sturz concludes, "In view of the above, it is concluded that the papyri supply valid evidence that distinctively Byzantine readings were not created in the fourth century but were already in existence before the end of the second century and that, because of this, Byzantine readings merit serious consideration" (p.69)." "Aland says all but one of the these early papyri, "... are from Egypt where the hot, dry sands preserved the papyri through the centuries." Meanwhile, in Asia Minor and Greece (eastern areas), "... the climate in these regions has been unfavorable to the preservation of any papyri from the early period" (pp.59,67)." The writer of this site then says "So it is not surprising many early papyri have been found which reflect the Alexandrian text since this text existed in Egypt. But even some of these Egyptian papyri, as mentioned above, contain Byzantine and even Western readings." The papyri from as early as the late second century, some of which contain Byzantine or Textus Receptus-King James type verse wordings and some have Alexandarian or Westcott-Hort-recent versions wordings, were found mostly in the dry climate of Egypt since 1881 when the Westcott-Hort Greek text was published. So, the argument of Westcott and Hort that the Alexandarian Greek texts are more authentic because they are older than the Byzantine has not been supported. The Byzantine or Textus Receptus Greek texts have longer and more elaborated verse wordings, though not always. The Alexandarian texts tend to have more abbreviated verse wordings. The extreme example is I John 5: 7-8, where, for the Westcott-Hort and its numerous English versions, as compared to the Textus Receptus and the King James, the text is so short and abbreviated that it does not clearly explain the doctrine of the trinity. ELABORATION IN THE KING JAMES If you compare verses from the King James to those of the modern translations, you will find that many verses in the NIV and other modern versions are shorter, more abbreviated and not amplified or elaborated as much. The reason why the verses in the new versions are shorter, though not always, is because the Greek text behind the new versions generally has shorter wordings. I will show this later with such texts as I John 5: 7-8 as examples. Westcott and Hort set up their critical rules so that the shorter wording of verses in the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus would be used rather than the longer and more amplified or elaborated wordings of the Textus Receptus. In the Bible, God often amplifies a thought as he chooses words to connect to the mind, and to communicate the holiness and the inspiration linked with holiness. The human mind can more easily learn and remember a thought that is amplified and elaborated than a thought that is presented only in a very brief way. I know that sometimes we can communicate more clearly with statements that are brief, but if we know our subject matter and can use words well, we can be more clear by expanding on that thought and associating it with different other ideas. A person who at first knows little of New Testament doctrines should be better able to learn and remember those doctrines from reading them in the King James than from the NIV or other modern versions. In part, this is because of the greater elaboration of the thoughts in the King James. So, after becoming more familiar with the 17th century English of the King James, a person wanting to learn New Testament teachings can learn them more fully from the longer and more elaborated verses in the KJV than from the shorter verses of the new versions. The King James reader may also be better able to remember the gist meanings of those doctrines than the reader of the NIV. This is really an empirical question, and could be tested in experiments. Now, a person who has not read the Bible over and over for a time will have some difficulty in remembering exactly what verses say and exactly how a New Testament doctrine is stated. Here again, the longer, more elaborated verses of the King James should help that person re-learn the verses and the doctrines, while reading them in the NIV should be of somewhat less help in the re-learning process. Remember that the new versions play down, dilute, abbreviate and weaken some New Testament doctrines. The teaching that Christ who is fully God and is always omnipresent but took on the flesh of man in the material world to save us from our sin is one of these doctrines that is played down and weakened in the new translations. This is because it is weakened in the Westcott-Hort Greek text. The longer wording of some verses in the King James, its greater amplification and elaboration of meanings is one quality. The actual individual words used is another issue dividing the King James Version from the modern versions. THE SPIRITUALLY POWERFUL WORDS OF THE KING JAMES Isaiah 66: 5 "Hear the word of the Lord, ye that tremble at his word: your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said Let the Lord be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed." The English words that the King James translators chose to use in translating Hebrew and Greek words describe the nature of God and the doctrines God wants us to follow. The words the translators chose work well upon the human mind, on our intellect as well as on our emotions. The words of the King James are effective and powerful in arousing awe for the Lord and in creating faith, at least in those who fully believe in that word of God. The King James English words can put believers into a closer relation to God, to his greatness and can lead us to become more holy as God is holy. The words can inspire us to separate from our own sins and from sinners and those who hold false doctrines. The KJV's words can help put us into a spiritual relation with Jesus Christ, who is "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher..." On the other hand, the words of the NIV tend to be more the uninspired and secular words of modern people in the world of the universities, the media, government and big business. Of course, the promoters of the new Bible translations will say this is one of the reasons we should use the NIV, since it uses the language of our time which we understand and not the "archaic" language of the old King James. Many of the words used in the NIV and in other new versions are shown by Edinburgh University's Associative Thesaurus to be unholy, harmful, defiled, and anything but separate from sinners. That is, the associations these words evoke tend to be more unholy, harmful, and defiled. |
Post Comment |
 |
| « Last Page | Next Page » |
- 10:20 AM, 1/1/2012
Bernard,Why should the remnant concern themselves with the foolish virgins. Those who know Jesus and can articulate truth, KNOW that the KJV is the only true Word of God. It is a exercise in futility to try and reason with unreasonable men. Jesus told them the truth and then went on and did not look back. I feel you are wasting too much time trying to point out the lies of other reprobate versions of the bible. Any TRUE son of god can do a search on the internet and get thousands of verses from other versions that are COPYRIGHTED that show distinctly the lies and twisting of the scripture by the antichrist spirit of our age. Don't waste your time when you find they have no knowledge, Jesus said feed my lambs and sheep, not feed the insincere, the blind and rebellious. If you read this please do a post on what you consider The Image of the Beast is. I saw a short post you did, that was in my opinion, right on. They are worshiping the beast and his image NOW. If there are .9999% of the remnant that understand this I would be taken back. I have found NOT ONE post on this truth. For the most part, as God reveals truth to them, they reject it and the remnant keeps getting smaller and smaller.
Posted by Bill