Why I use the Authorised Version, Reason .1
As I mentioned in my introductory ‘blog’ this year 2011 marks the 400th anniversary of the first publication of the King James (Authorised) Version of the Scriptures of 1611. Up until the late 19th Century the KJV was the common and standard version for the English-speaking world until it came under attack from Textual Criticism and the explosion of modern version.
For me this has been a sad development. As I look at the modern versions I can see the fingerprints of Satan all over them. There seems to be a trend within the modern versions to render the original in such a way that weakens the doctrine of the Deity of Christ. The first example that I wish to discuss relates to a verse where we find evidence of the Eternal existence of Christ.
We have just come through the Christmas season and I am sure you have heard the following verse quoted at a Carole service or printed on a Christmas card.
‘But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.’ Micah 5 v2
This verse of Scripture was penned by the Prophet Micah some 700 years before the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ and foretold the very place that He would be born. You will remember that when the ‘Wise men’ came seeking Him that should be born King of the Jews’ it was to Bethlehem that they were sent. The Jewish Scribes confidently sent them that way knowing what the Prophet Micah had written.
It is to the closing phrase of the verse that I want to turn our thoughts. The verse closes saying that this promised one, who we know to be Jesus Christ, was to be from old, from everlasting. This is a clear reference to the fact that the promised Messiah, spoken of in this verse had eternal origins, he was very God indeed. The word everlasting in the verse is the translation of the following two Hebrew words.
יוֹם = yowm = Day
עוֹלָם = `owlam = Perpetual
To render the passage literally we could say that His origins were from a perpetual day. When we use the word perpetual we normally think in terms of the future. A perpetual trophy is a trophy that is award ever year, year after year. However, the perpetuity talked about here is not so much future focused, although the prophecy is of a future event, but rather He is from Perpetuity, in other words He has always existed. No doubt that is why the KJV translators rendered the word ‘everlasting’ and they were right to do so.
The same cannot be said for the modern translations of the Bible. The New International Version (NIV) renders the words ‘ancient times’, the English Standard Version (ESV) says ‘ancient days’ and the New Century Version (NCV) reads ‘days long ago’. Each of these translations although slightly different have one thing in common, they remove the theme of ‘Eternality’. When I was a kid I thought my great aunt was ancient but I knew she was not eternal, I knew she had a birthday just like me. Old does not equal eternal. As far as I am concerned this is an attack on the eternality of Christ and I don’t want a Bible that does that.
It’s not as if the translators of these modern versions do not understand the correct rendering of the Hebrew word עוֹלָם = `owlam. When they translate the very same word in Psalm 93 they get it right.
‘Thy throne is established of old, thou art from everlasting.’ Pslm 93 v2 KJV
Both the ESV and NCV render the above as everlasting and the NIV says Eternity. Another example where the modern versions get the translation right for this word is in Genesis 9 where God makes a promise to Noah.
‘And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.’
On this occasion both the NIV and ESV have the same rendering as the KJV while the NCV translates it as forever. So it is not as if these people are stupid and don’t know their Hebrew, doubtless they know it a lot better than this poor blogger. There are the above and many more examples of where they get it right. The question has to be why did they get it wrong in Micah 5 v2 and Is there something sinister going on here?
Now it must be said that the word in question can be translated, old or ancient and there are examples of this is scripture, however, when choosing a suitable word for translation the translator must take into account the context of what is being described. In the case of Micah 5 v2 God’s Messiah is being described, if the passage had been about a mere man then clearly to bring an eternal dimension into the translation would be wrong. But it must be stated that this verse is talking about God’s Messiah, about Jesus Christ the Eternal Son, how dare these people bring him down to the level of the finite by removing the eternal dimension from the phrase.
That is my first reason for rejecting the modern versions. I look forward to sharing another one with you soon.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm also not happy with many modern versions - but I'm not happy with the AV either.
ReplyDeleteIt's not a matter of all of them being perverted - some are - but the better ones have the weaknesses of any translation. That is, the problem of choosing the best text in the original language, then giving the best translation into English. The best translations are better on this point and worse on that. But all the better ones can be relied on to give us what we need to know.
One weakness of the AV is its limited range of Greek texts it had available. So it resorted to Latin for one passage, despite it being absent from any Greek text. Does that make it a bad Bible? Not at all. It's up there with best.
Is the AV denying the deity of Christ and the NIV upholding it in Titus 2:13? AV says, 'Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;' but NIV says, 'while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,'. No, like the NIV and ESV in other places you cited, the AV is just trying to follow the text as they have it. Maybe deliberate tampering caused the original copies to be altered, or copyist mistake - but it is a big jump to think any of the modern (Christian) versions do so wilfully.
Since the apostles were content to use the LXX many times in their quotations, we should use the best that is at hand too, remembering it is a translation, not the original. God in His providence has provided us with all we need, not all we would love to have.
Maurice
ReplyDeleteI am fully supportive of the comments which you have made. The vast majority of modern translations are extremely weak on the issues surrounding the Deity of Christ and the Efficacy of His sacrificial work in particular. I look forward to further blogs on a similar vein.
I just want to add, in relation to the comment about Titus 2 v 13, I would contend that the AV is a much more accurate translation as it recognises the personal aspect of our Salvation. The verse could literally be rendered from the original greek as 'expecting the blessed hope and appearance of the glory of the great God and Saviour (of us), Jesus Christ, who gave himself on behalf of us...' Brackets for emphasis. The NIV also weakens the strength of our desire for His coming, by rendering the believer as simply waiting, while the AV is much stronger, in that the believer should be actively 'looking' or 'expecting.' I hope this is helpful.
ReplyDeleteDavid, you missed the point - who the term 'great God' applies to. The AV makes the text mean God the Father. The NIV calls Jesus Christ 'our great God and Saviour'.
ReplyDeleteSo is the AV playing down the deity of Christ?
Of course not - but it is therefore unfair to accuse the other versions of doing so, when we excuse the same in the AV.
The NIV largely follows the United Bible Society's criterion as to what is and what is not "accurate" renderings (and what is and what is not an accurate manuscript)... getting the foundations right and accurately translating an accurate manuscript is a far more advisable way to go than simply taking taking your pick from what you are happy with.
ReplyDeleteMaurice, this is a timely and very profitable task - defending the foundations... if what we believe is founded upon the Scriptures... then we had better get the most accurate copy we can in our hands... and so far the KJV wins that one by a long shot when put under heaviest of examination.
Blessings.
Stephen
ReplyDelete'getting the foundations right and accurately translating an accurate manuscript is a far more advisable way to go than simply taking taking your pick from what you are happy with.'
Did not the TR and the AV translators who used it depart from the Byzantine text when they thought fit?
Picking and choosing is OK sometimes, but not if it is not YOU doing it?
No, Wolfsbane, the translation philosophies and methodologies employed by the translators were completely different as where the source texts which they used used.
ReplyDeleteStephen
ReplyDeleteWhy not answer my question: 'Did not the TR and the AV translators who used it depart from the Byzantine text when they thought fit?'
Not in the ways that you infer, Wolfsbane, no. Certainly not in the subjective sense that the NIV translators did.
ReplyDeleteI did answer your question, by the way, I told you that the comparison cannot be made - it's like comparing apples and oranges! The translation methodologies employed were different...as were the source texts used. The source texts used by the NIV translators had been previously rejected (take the Alexandrian texts, which were so influential in the NIV translation)... the fact that the NIV translators made further changes to these texts, does not make it as reliable a text as the AV, or as justified a textual change purely on the basis that the AV translators did not make an absolutely perfect translation either!
There is a massive difference between the kinds of changes made by the AV translators and those made by the NIV translators.
As for the various word-for-word translations, at least with these we can have a much more serious debate. Certainly such versions that take this line are, in my view, vastly more credible than the likes of the NIV which aren't worthy of any credit whatsoever... belonging, instead, to the realm of fantasy!
But, we still need to be mindful of the source texts being used to furnish any translation. Put simply, what exactly is being translated? After all, you could make the most astounding word-for-word translation of a corrupt and unreliable source text... your efforts could be worthy of praise, but the result would be laughable! It would be nothing more than an accurately translated inaccurate source text/s!
I do argue that the textual sourcing used by the AV translators was far more superior in accuracy than the source texts used by the other versions we have available to us today in the English tongue, including the likes of the word-for-word versions such as the RV the ASV and ESV, etc. (The NKJV is another case and requires examination separately, as opposed to throwing it into the mix as if it stands on the same level playing field.)
When consideration is given to the methodologies employed, the sources used, and those who used them (in furnishing the modern "versions"), then each must be taken in turn and examined. Having done so, I am convinced that many of them aren't worthy of the paper they are written on, and others (some of which are indeed much more accurate than the likes of the NIV, which I think you would concede, such as the word-for-word translations) are nevertheless not as accurate as the AV. Indeed, not only do many of them have seriously corrupted source texts, the translators have retained those serious corruptions which, in turn, makes them corrupt. (Unless you are suggesting that you can turn a corrupt text into a reliable text by a translation of a translation? Consulting other sources is a different matter. The AV translators consulted a variety of texts too, including the Geneva Bible, but did not retain anything that conflicted ultimately with the Byzantine texts. The NIV translators, on the other hand, cherry picked as per their subjective bent.
I argue that the changes made by the AV translations are vastly different and cannot in anyway be compared as like for like with regard to the other versions that are ultimately taken from seriously corrupted source texts that couldn't hold a candle to the Byzantine texts!
There is absolutely no evidence that the AV is not the most accurate version in the English tongue and it has been and continues to be blessed by God... and it will continue to be blessed in days to come.
Wolfsbane, you seem to want this entire debate to be started and concluded in one comment, and when that is not done you infer that my argument is not sound... well, Wolfsbane that really is pretty ridiculous - and obvious too! As I have already said in other comment threads, this is a huge topic and if we are going to do justice to the issue/s then you will need to contain yourself instead of making impulsive charges such as "show me the evidence, show me the evidence". You will be shown the evidence as each issue is taken in turn.. and this discussion is only warming up! But playing with words and being dishonest when you are shown evidence, even denying evidence in the teeth of evidence is hardly a way of giving credence to your case!
ReplyDeleteSo, patience old boy! You are evidently all fired up by some new book you read recently, very nice... but don't get too high up on that high-horse of yours… pride cometh before a fall!
It also takes time dealing with your twists and turns around the things I do say. You ignore some things that are put to you, at other times you misquote things and construct arguments upon premises that were never argued by me in the first place (commonly known as a straw-man argument) you then present the refutation of said (spurious) argument as some sort of evidence that I am wrong. Then, when I point this out, you accuse me of simply accusing you of straw-man arguments as a way of not addressing your points!
Hilarious, if it weren't so serious!
And then if that doesn't work... you infer that there is some sort of mental handicap on the part of your, albeit well-meaning, opponents. Somewhat like those scholars who claim to detest "the KJV-only invective", only to go on and provide an even more bitter one of their own with a large helping of pompousness on top!
On a side note, Wolfsbane, may I ask why you choose to use a nickname, instead of your real name? You are perfectly entitled to do so, of course, and I am not having a dig! I would simply like to know who you actually are, and why you choose to go by the name of a poisonous plant that is considered to be of great importance in Alchemy and witchcraft, and that produces a substance which Medieval European witches dipped sharp pieces of flint into for use as weapons to be thrown at their enemies. Or, perhaps it has something to do with the heavy metal group called Wolfsbane? It’s an interesting nickname, do enlighten us!
'I argue that the changes made by the AV translations are vastly different and cannot in anyway be compared as like for like with regard to the other versions that are ultimately taken from seriously corrupted source texts that couldn't hold a candle to the Byzantine texts!'
ReplyDeleteDo you know anything about this subject, or are you just rehashing fools like James Jasper Ray and Gail Riplinger?
I ask that because the changes made by the AV came from non-Byzantine texts. What's the difference - other than numbers - between one corrupt text and another? If the change is corrupt, it is corrupt.
The AV is not as corrupt as most of the modern versions, but it is corrupt, a 'perversion'- if your rule is applied.
That's what all this debate comes down to: all the versions have their errors; some more than others. But once one makes one version THE version and all others 'perversions', they commit Popery - an appeal to authority (in this case, the AV translators) and a demand for submission, never mind the facts.
Is the Byzantine text the correct text of the New Testament in Greek? Yes or No.
'On a side note, Wolfsbane, may I ask why you choose to use a nickname, instead of your real name? You are perfectly entitled to do so, of course, and I am not having a dig! I would simply like to know who you actually are, and why you choose to go by the name of a poisonous plant that is considered to be of great importance in Alchemy and witchcraft, and that produces a substance which Medieval European witches dipped sharp pieces of flint into for use as weapons to be thrown at their enemies. Or, perhaps it has something to do with the heavy metal group called Wolfsbane? It’s an interesting nickname, do enlighten us!'
ReplyDeleteGladly. I use that nickname here because it is the one I use on my Google account - and one has to give an account to post here.
I chose a nickname when I entered internet debates several years ago, as some of the discussion lists preferred one not to reveal personal details. I carried on using it for the same reason. But I have no objection to my identity being known.
I chose Wolfsbane because of one of its meanings: Slayer of wolves.
Not because I'm a poisonous flower, or involved in magic, or heavy metal music. I'm sorry to disappoint your conspiracy theories.
It is my desire to protect God's flock from wolves of all sorts - including cultish ones who made the AV a mark of orthodoxy and have persuaded good brethren like yourself to swallow their nonsense. The Adventist origins of KJV-Onlyism are well known.
So who am I? I'm Ian Major, a 61 year old Baptist, member of Lurgan Baptist (as is my brother Maurice). You'll find me on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=560624096
And you?
Nothing to do with conspiracy theories (another straw-man false accusation), the term "Wolfsbane" has been connected with a variety of meanings including a heavy metal band and, of course, the poisonous plant called "Wolfsbane"... and, after all, it was a QUESTION not an accusation on my part!
ReplyDeleteAs for having a desire to protect the flock from wolves, you have a strange way of going about it - namely, regurgitating James White's straw-man arguments and those of his false assertions (he does make some fair assertions, but many are false) against those who consider the KJV to be the most accurate to date in the English language and therefore the version that ought to be used instead of very problematic (not merely blemished) so-called "versions".
Also, those who genuinely wish to protect the flock will not be telling lies against their fellow brethren! I have repeated (possibly as many as SIX TIMES now) that this, for me at least, is not about KJV only-ism! Were a more accurate version to be produced in the English tongue, I would gladly welcome it, or if we didn't have as accurate a version as the AV already in existence, then I would gladly welcome the next best thing. Indeed, English is not the only language which the Bible has been translated into, very accurately and reliably.
Having read my comments, and yet continuing to accuse me of promoting or supporting KJV only-ism, you are bearing false witness against a brother in Christ - hardly the marks of a man who seeks to protect the flock from wolves!
You said: "The AV is not as corrupt as most of the modern versions" - in that case, it would be better to encourage folks to read the AV rather than telling them, in effect, that many of the "modern" versions are just as worthwhile a read!
Your statements - which, in effect, say that no matter what version you choose, it's the Word of God and reliable as such - are utterly reckless, especially when folk who aren't that long saved or who have not been well grounded in the truth, hear such comments ... they then go out and think, "well, a Lurgan Baptist man says they are all fine, so let's just go for whatever!" That is a very dangerous thing to spin!
It sounds more as though you are either a wolf in sheep's clothing, or you don't have a clue what you are talking about. You argue as if minor blemishes on the one hand and serious errors and calibrated corruptions of perverse men and women (homosexuals, ecumenicals, liberal critical scholars, etc.) on the other are all just the same thing and in equal measure! Doing so is utterly dishonest or dangerously ignorant! Ignoring the facts and the evidence no matter what, and denying point blank that perverted men and women have corrupted the modern versions in this age of apostasy defies reality!
'Were a more accurate version to be produced in the English tongue, I would gladly welcome it, or if we didn't have as accurate a version as the AV already in existence, then I would gladly welcome the next best thing.'
ReplyDeleteSo if a Bible comes out that changes the 300+ corrupt readings in the Textus Receptus to the correct Byzantine text, you will accept it? Excellent.
Why not go for the NKJV in the meantime - it highlights the TR errors and gives the correct Byzantine text. It has its quirks like all versions, but less than the AV.
'You said: "The AV is not as corrupt as most of the modern versions" - in that case, it would be better to encourage folks to read the AV rather than telling them, in effect, that many of the "modern" versions are just as worthwhile a read!'
ReplyDeleteI never said that many of the modern versions are just as worthwhile a read. I said they are still the word of God - despite their failings.
You accept the AV has its failings, yet are happy to use it. So it must be a matter of how many failings can one accept. Ten corrupt readings? Fifty? One Hundred? A thousand?
This is part of my difficulty in understanding your case. If the other versions are 'perversions', not the word of God, because of their omissions/additions - why is the AV not such, seeing it has omissions and additions?
You seem to answer that it is OK to add or subtract from the Scripture, as long as it does not alter doctrine.
I must say, that is a new defence of the AV to me. Most of its defenders seem to suggest it is the omissions/additions themselves that condemn the other versions. Have I got you correctly?
If I have, that gives infinite leeway to mould the Bible to our own tastes. I could add the whole 1688 Baptist Confession and you (if you are a Reformed Baptist)would accept it as part of the Bible. Or I could remove all the parallel passages and you would accept it as the Bible.
'Your statements - which, in effect, say that no matter what version you choose, it's the Word of God and reliable as such - are utterly reckless, especially when folk who aren't that long saved or who have not been well grounded in the truth, hear such comments ... they then go out and think, "well, a Lurgan Baptist man says they are all fine, so let's just go for whatever!" That is a very dangerous thing to spin!'
ReplyDeleteNo, they will not say 'let's just go for whatever' - they will note I said some are more accurate than others.
You are the one undermining sinners who have read an NIV or ESV and been convicted by it. You are telling them it is NOT the word of God. You are demanding they read the AV if they want to read the gospel and learn about Christ.
I can tell them that the Gideons they read in that hotel room and which shook them from their apathy - it was the word of God. No matter if it were AV, NKJV, NIV or ESV.
'You argue as if minor blemishes on the one hand and serious errors and calibrated corruptions of perverse men and women (homosexuals, ecumenicals, liberal critical scholars, etc.) on the other are all just the same thing and in equal measure! Doing so is utterly dishonest or dangerously ignorant!'
ReplyDeleteHow much can one add or omit from the Bible and still call them 'minor blemishes'?
'Ignoring the facts and the evidence no matter what, and denying point blank that perverted men and women have corrupted the modern versions in this age of apostasy defies reality!'
ReplyDeleteYou have not shown where these perverted men and women have done so - the only 'examples' you give can be matched by similar 'examples' in the AV.
All you have are baseless assertions, suspicions - but you are unwilling to apply the same suspicion to the AV.
I'm happy to point out that neither the NIV or AV are pro-homosexual, and that all such suspicions are fabricated to keep the AV as the only true Bible in print.
And back to my question: who are you, Stephen?
ReplyDeleteI've gladly complied with your request to identify myself, so I'm looking forward to knowing something about you.
“Why not go for the NKJV in the meantime - it highlights the TR errors and gives the correct Byzantine text. It has its quirks like all versions, but less than the AV.”
ReplyDeleteI would not use a versions such as the NKJV and for very good reason!
“they are still the word of God - despite their failings.”
This position that all versions of the Bible are really the same fails already at the practical level. When we take a closer look at the contents of the different versions, we discover some major differences. For instance, we find that in most modern versions Mark’s Gospel ends at chapter 16 verse 9 but in the Authorised Version it continues until verse 20. Similarly, in John’s Gospel most modern versions omit twelve complete verses from 7.53–8.11 while the Authorised Version includes them. And there are individual verses missing from the modern versions, as we have already seen. What are we to do when we encounter these passages in our reading or in our preaching? Are we to make use of them or are we not? Are they the Word of God or are they not? It is irrational to say in a post-modern sort of way that these opposites can both be true yet this is often what is done. Many versions include these passages in the main text but inform the reader in footnotes that the ‘most reliable manuscripts’ do not contain them. What is the reader to think of this? It hardly reflects Peter’s statement,‘ We have also a more sure word of prophecy’ (2 Peter 1.19). And how can one preach from passages such as the above if one has real doubts that they are the Word of God?
We should be clear that the textual differences between the Authorised Version and
modern versions are not confined to just a few passages or a few words. The Greek text underlying the New Testament in modern versions is approximately 2,500 words shorter than the Greek text underlying the New Testament in the Authorised Version. This is nearly 2% of the whole. It is the equivalent of removing 1 and 2 Peter from the Bible. The total number of word differences (chiefly omissions, additions and substitutions) between these two texts is approximately 10,000 or nearly 7% of the whole.
While many of these differences are minor, over 1,500 affect the meaning of the
text and nearly 500 of these substantially affect the meaning. Biblical doctrine is at
stake. So there are theological implications as well as practical problems if we take
this viewpoint.
In the final analysis, this position that all versions of the Bible are really the
same even when they do not agree in many places on what the true, God-given, text
is cannot be held logically. It cannot be maintained alongside an orthodox, God-honouring view of Scripture.
“You accept the AV has its failings, yet are happy to use it. So it must be a matter of how many failings can one accept. Ten corrupt readings? Fifty? One Hundred? A thousand?
ReplyDeleteThis is part of my difficulty in understanding your case. If the other versions are 'perversions', not the word of God, because of their omissions/additions - why is the AV not such, seeing it has omissions and additions?
You seem to answer that it is OK to add or subtract from the Scripture, as long as it does not alter doctrine.”
I must say, that is a new defence of the AV to me. Most of its defenders seem to suggest it is the omissions/additions themselves that condemn the other versions. Have I got you correctly?”
Another straw-man argument (your approach is getting a bit old, Wolfsbane… if you cannot argue a matter honestly, without playing on words and using sleight-of hand manipulation of what people ACTUALLY say, then considering your words is an utter waste of time!).
Again, as has been repeated to you over and over and over again, it is vitally important that, when discussing these matters honestly, we compare like with like. You simply cannot compare apples with oranges, so-to-speak. First of all, the AV does not have “hundreds of thousands” of erroneous anything! The AV translators, basing their work on the Byzantine and Masoretic texts, as well as consulting others for clarity of words such as using some words from the Latin Vulgate only where and when the English vocabulary had been exhausted and found wanting in terms of finding the exact word equivalent as that in the Hebrew and Greek. Indeed, as a recent BBC news article correctly pointed out, the AV changed the English language in many respects. Latin versions that came before it were certainly not perfect, but consulting them and using certain words when the English had otherwise been exhausted was not a wrong course of action where this was done accurately and faithfully in relation to the original text. This cannot, however, be used to excuse the translators of so-called “modern” versions who consulted other works and cherry picked from them at will, and changed words without first exhausting the vocabulary of the English language. Indeed, the translators of so-called “modern versions” primarily based their works on rejected and heavily corrupted source texts, unlike the AV translators who used the Byzantine and Masoretic texts. Your argument here about the AV translators using the same tactics as the so-called “modern versions” is deceitful, to say the least! The AV translators produced a more accurate translation in the English language than anything that had come before it. If we are to accept any of the so-called “modern versions” then they must surpass the accuracy of the AV. THEY DO NOT! Indeed, as long as modern critical scholars continue to use corrupt source texts as their primary texts, and as long as the current trends in translation methodology and philosophy continue, then we are not going to get a more accurate version than the AV, certainly not any time soon. Until a more accurate version appears, then Christians have no call to be using or encouraging others to use anything that is in any way less accurate than the AV in the English tongue.
“that gives infinite leeway to mould the Bible to our own tastes. I could add the whole 1688 Baptist Confession and you (if you are a Reformed Baptist)would accept it as part of the Bible. Or I could remove all the parallel passages and you would accept it as the Bible.”
ReplyDeleteNo, that argument is utterly nonsensical and straw-man in nature! Because, to add the whole Baptist Confession in this way would mean that you are definitely not accurately translating the text on a primarily word for word basis! I would thus reject such a “version” as being an unreliable scrap of nonsense.
“'Your statements - which, in effect, say that no matter what version you choose, it's the Word of God and reliable as such - are utterly reckless, especially when folk who aren't that long saved or who have not been well grounded in the truth, hear such comments ... they then go out and think, "well, a Lurgan Baptist man says they are all fine, so let's just go for whatever!" That is a very dangerous thing to spin!'
No, they will not say 'let's just go for whatever' - they will note I said some are more accurate than others.”
That is clearly not born out by the facts. Perhaps you are further removed from young people and the trends amongst young people today than you realise. By telling folks that all versions are the word of God, you give support for using any of those versions. Besides, looking at the very statements you have made on the comment threads of various blog posts associated with this current debate, you not only say that all these so-called versions are the Word of God, but you actually claim that the AV translators did nothing different to those who translated the so-called “modern” versions. That is completely untrue. Yes, all translators consulted other works and texts, but they did not do so in the same way and certainly not to the same extent, and they did not apply the same translation philosophies whilst doing so. Your argument is reckless and very dangerous.
“You are the one undermining sinners who have read an NIV or ESV and been convicted by it. You are telling them it is NOT the word of God. You are demanding they read the AV if they want to read the gospel and learn about Christ.
I can tell them that the Gideons they read in that hotel room and which shook them from their apathy - it was the word of God. No matter if it were AV, NKJV, NIV or ESV.”
Another straw-man argument! Pointing out that so-called “modern” versions are corrupt and unreliable does not “undermine sinners”! You seem to have a very un-reformed view of Soteriology! The holy Spirit convicts men and women of their sin, and I delight when such sinners repent, as God grants them grace to do so, and trust the Saviour. The fact that they (like me, at an earlier stage of my life, if you had the decency and honesty to READ and accurately present what I have stated previously during these discussions) have read something that contains some words of truth within it’s pages, does not in any way handicap me from telling them that there is a much more faithful translation available to them, and that the so-called modern versions are corrupt and unreliable. I praise God that some honest and faithful brother in the Lord was more concerned about the Truth and had the decency to warn me about the dangerous and deliberate corruptions inherent in the so-called “modern” versions. He was not condemning me in any way shape or form!
“'You argue as if minor blemishes on the one hand and serious errors and calibrated corruptions of perverse men and women (homosexuals, ecumenicals, liberal critical scholars, etc.) on the other are all just the same thing and in equal measure! Doing so is utterly dishonest or dangerously ignorant!'
ReplyDeleteHow much can one add or omit from the Bible and still call them 'minor blemishes'?”
Using the same straw-man, twisted logic, you can justify any amount of corruption!
Besides, as I have said, the so-called “modern” versions make unjustified changes without exhausting the English vocabulary. They also introduce entire portions (not merely words or letters), using rejected source texts as their basis, and at times, introduce entire portions of “scripture” without any basis in any source manuscripts at all!
“Ignoring the facts and the evidence no matter what, and denying point blank that perverted men and women have corrupted the modern versions in this age of apostasy defies reality!'”
“You have not shown where these perverted men and women have done so - the only 'examples' you give can be matched by similar 'examples' in the AV. All you have are baseless assertions, suspicions - but you are unwilling to apply the same suspicion to the AV.”
That is an outright lie! Actually, I DID give examples which CANNOT IN ANY WAY be matched by what the AV translators did. I have not made ANY baseless assertions whatsoever!
AV:
“Through faith also Sara herself receiveth strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.”
NIV:
“By faith Abraham even though he was past age - and Sarah herself was barren – was enabled to become a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise.”
No matter what evidence you are presented with, you point blank deny that it is evidence and continue with your line of deceit.
“I'm happy to point out that neither the NIV or AV are pro-homosexual, and that all such suspicions are fabricated to keep the AV as the only true Bible in print.”
Then you are a liar and a deceiver! For some one to take a different position on something, and argue their point honestly and genuinely is one thing. I have enjoyed many a long debate about a variety of issues on various other blogs and forums in which my opponent has taken a different line, and done so honestly and genuinely. But it is evident to me that you are a very dishonest man. Your constant use of sleight of hand, misrepresenting what people actually say, your denial that evidence is evidence and your employment of the straw-man approach in virtually every comment you make is not only patronizing to those who are educated in this area, but it is grievous to those who are genuine about promoting the truth. I wonder how your conscience sits with all of this! For you to use the Jesuitical argumentation of “Probabilism” whilst trying to present yourself as a Reformed Baptist from Lurgan Baptist Church raises a lot of questions!
I'll come back to your 'argument' shortly, DV.
ReplyDeleteBut not to let this pass: WHO ARE YOU, Stephen? Since you were keen to know my identity, surely you will have no reason to conceal your own.
Certainly, if I posted all the nonsense you have done, I would be too embarrassed to reveal my identity. But if you believe your own nonsense, you will be happy to stand over it.
So let's hear from you. Unless you KNOW you have been spouting nonsense - in which case, a 'Fair cop, Guv.' will suffice.
"I'll come back to your 'argument' shortly"
ReplyDeleteWolfsbane, that would be a first!
Whatever, Wolfsbane!
More straw-man nonsense from you!
It is YOU who spouts lies and deceit, your arguments will not be given more of an ear simply because you told us all about yourself!
Utter nonsense!
Waste whatever time you like tapping out your key-board lies, your "arguments" condemn you! Besides, you did not come to add anything to Maurice's site, you came to harry his honourable (and accurately argued) efforts to warn the flock against liberal critics... like you!
Every single thing Maurice blogs about, you immediately fly straight in to pick a fight. I'll gladly refute your sleight-of-hands and reckless deceits, but it is evident that you are not in the slightest bit interested in genuinely discussing the topic.
So, Wolfsbane, keep spitting against the wind if you like!
As someone once said before, "There are certain men who go to Bible seminary and come out much the better for having been there, but there are others who go to Bible seminary and get a fat head and a shrunken soul!"
"I'll come back to your 'argument' shortly" - who do you think you are? You seem to think that you own the blog, now... pouncing on every blog post and comment made even to not make a comment, but to say that you will do.... you really do bring down folly upon your name!
It would be entertaining were it not so serious a topic!
What's the matter, 'Stephen'? Have you something to hide, that you demand of others what you will not give yourself? So I repeat:
ReplyDeleteWHO ARE YOU, Stephen? Since you were keen to know my identity, surely you will have no reason to conceal your own.
Certainly, if I posted all the nonsense you have done, I would be too embarrassed to reveal my identity. But if you believe your own nonsense, you will be happy to stand over it.
So let's hear from you. Unless you KNOW you have been spouting nonsense - in which case, a 'Fair cop, Guv.' will suffice.
Now to your argument:
ReplyDelete'For instance, we find that in most modern versions Mark’s Gospel ends at chapter 16 verse 9 but in the Authorised Version it continues until verse 20. Similarly, in John’s Gospel most modern versions omit twelve complete verses from 7.53–8.11 while the Authorised Version includes them.'
Quite so. The Critical text errs in omitting these passages. They are part of the Majority text, and of the Textus Receptus.
'And there are individual verses missing from the modern versions, as we have already seen. What are we to do when we encounter these passages in our reading or in our preaching? Are we to make use of them or are we not? Are they the Word of God or are they not?'
A good question. The answer - yes, use them - IF they are part of the Byzantine/Majority text. Why do I say that? Because it is not only most of the modern versions who add/omit/alter bits of Scripture, the AV does so too -
AV addition to the word of God:
1 John 5:7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
The Byzantine text reads 'For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.'
So the AV has added: 'in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8And there are three that bear witness in earth,'
AV omission from the word of God:
Revelation 4:6 6And before the throne there was a sea of glass like unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, were four beasts full of eyes before and behind.
The Byzantine text reads: 'And before the throne there was something like a sea of glass like unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, were four beasts full of eyes before and behind.'
So the AV has omitted 'something like'.
AV alteration to the word of God:
Revelation 22:19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
The Byzantine text reads: 'And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the tree of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.'
So the AV has altered 'tree' to 'book'.
Those examples ( I can give you many more) require you to give an answer to your own question, 'What are we to do when we encounter these passages in our reading or in our preaching? Are we to make use of them or are we not? Are they the Word of God or are they not?'
So let's hear from you.
Ian "Wolfsbane" Major the bare faced liar and Jesuitical styled straw-man arguer said:
ReplyDelete"What's the matter, 'Stephen'? Have you something to hide, that you demand of others what you will not give yourself? So I repeat:
WHO ARE YOU, Stephen? Since you were keen to know my identity, surely you will have no reason to conceal your own.
Certainly, if I posted all the nonsense you have done, I would be too embarrassed to reveal my identity. But if you believe your own nonsense, you will be happy to stand over it.
So let's hear from you. Unless you KNOW you have been spouting nonsense - in which case, a 'Fair cop, Guv.' will suffice."
Actually, I didn't "demand" anything of others... here's what I ACTUALLY said:
"On a side note, Wolfsbane, may I ask why you choose to use a nickname, instead of your real name? You are perfectly entitled to do so, of course, and I am not having a dig! I would simply like to know who you actually are."
"May I ask ... why you use a nickname?" "You are perfectly entitled to do so, of course, and I am not having a dig" "I would simply like to know.."
I didn't demand anything, and certainly nothing that I wouldn't be prepared to tell others. I do not use a nickname and have nothing to hide. My arguments are there for all to see, and so are your lies and decitful sleight of hand and straw-man arguments... which go along way to exposing you!
Again, you are a lying deceiver and a straw-man arguer ... much more like a child of Satan than a child of God, if your "fruit" is anything to go by! Not surprising you defend corrupted "modern" versions and seek to harry genuine believers like Maurice when he puts a blog together.
I have also already stated that my name is Stephen, so for you to put it in italics, and then to attach a fabrication about "demands", etc., just helps everyone who visits this blog to see how deceitful and immature a 60-something year old you are!
Furthermore, your lies and deceits and play-on-words may fool simple minded folks like the sort of people who'd usually give you an ear, but for anyone who actually knows what they are talking about (evidently not you) you are entertaining, but for the seriousness of the topic.
You keep ignoring previous comments made weeks ago, as if the points were never brought to your attention... and then infer that I have something to answer... Well, Ian, it is abundantly evident that you are not in the slightest bit interested in genuine discussion or debate... you are simply here to cause trouble.
Noted!
"So, let's hear from you" - such a disingenuous load of immature deceit! ... or perhaps you are simply going senile?
'"So, let's hear from you" - such a disingenuous load of immature deceit! ... or perhaps you are simply going senile?'
ReplyDeleteNo, Stephen, I'm not going senile - just asking you to give an answer to the question you raised:
'What are we to do when we encounter these passages in our reading or in our preaching? Are we to make use of them or are we not? Are they the Word of God or are they not?'
I'm now going to tell you what I would do, and it will be enlightening for all who read this blog to hear what you would do.
When I encounter any words/passages in my Bible version that are not part of the Byzantine text - 'book' in Rev.22:19, for example - I tell the people the truth about it. I don't play Protestant priest and pretend it is OK. I respect my fellow-believers as those in whom the Spirit of God dwells. The truth sets us free, and we can be sure the Spirit of Truth will honour that word.
The only thing likely to disturb the faith of God's people is spinning them a simplistic yarn that encourages them to think the AV is the perfect word and all other versions are perversions.
Now what about you? What do you tell them when you encounter parts of the AV that are not part of the Byzantine text? That whatever texts Erasmus chose are the true text, even if they are not found in any Greek text?
Or what?
I'll deal with your other comments tomorrow, DV.
OK, Stephen, I agree you did not DEMAND I identify myself. But you did request it: "I would simply like to know who you actually are."
ReplyDeleteSince I have agreed to your request, I too would like you to do the same. Who are you actually, Stephen?