The King James Version Defended

[Aquila]

I've read about a number of translators and scholors who believed in the providential preservation of the Scriptures who departed from it upon further study. The reason is... as they studied it honestly they did find that the text was riddled with insertions and contradictions based on differing source texts for various passages. We see this in the King James quite a bit.

It's evident that only the original texts were inspired by God... but we don't have them any longer. There isn't a translation on the shelf today without it's errors and issues.

That's called intellectual honesty.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Where were believers first called Christian? Alexandria.

What occurred there at one time would not mean there forever are good sources from the same place centuries later.

I'm not saying that the texts aren't influenced by individuals such as Origen, though I've not found anything problematic in the texts themselves while studying. What I am saying is that the quality of translation and over all agreement with multiple additional texts offers them some very strong creditability.

I used to be KJV Only. I've got a number of books on it. I've found in deeper study (sometimes you have to read materials from the opposition and weigh the information offered) that I was more impressed with them over time.

I recommend, again, reading the book I presented here, before you entirely make your conclusions, if you have not already. It incredibly deals with an aspect the higher critics would never consider -- faith, and how the philosophies behind the men who handled the Alexandrian strain moved them to interpolate, etc. Origen believed he could alter the texts!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I've read about a number of translators and scholors who believed in the providential preservation of the Scriptures who departed from it upon further study. The reason is... as they studied it honestly they did find that the text was riddled with insertions and contradictions based on differing source texts for various passages. We see this in the King James quite a bit.

It's evident that only the original texts were inspired by God... but we don't have them any longer. There isn't a translation on the shelf today without it's errors and issues.

That's called intellectual honesty.

I found no solid contradictions in the KJV that cannot be dealt with to show there really was not a contradiction. And I think your reasoning, in all due respect, conflicts with the logic of faith. If you're right, we really do not have have a reliable Word of God today, as the critics state, since what else is invalid that is written if parts are invalid or missing? We cannot treat the Bible like any other ancient book. God inspired it and it only stands to reason that God would preserve it. That's called the logic of faith.

The New Testament textual criticism of the man who believes the doctrines of the divine inspiration and providential preservation of the Scriptures to be true ought to differ from that of the man who does not so believe. The man who regards these doctrines as merely the mistaken beliefs of the Christian Church is consistent if he gives them only a minor place in his treatment of the New Testament text, a place so minor as to leave his New Testament textual criticism essentially the same as that of any other ancient book. But the man who holds these doctrines to be true is inconsistent unless he gives them a prominent place in his treatment of the New Testament text, a place so prominent as to make his New Testament textual criticism different from that of other ancient books, for if these doctrines are true, they demand such a place.

Thus there are two methods of New Testament textual criticism, the consistently Christian method and the naturalistic method. These two methods deal with the same materials, the same Greek manuscripts, and the same translations and biblical quotations, but they interpret these materials differently. The consistently Christian method interprets the materials of New Testament textual criticism in accordance with the doctrines of the divine inspiration and providential preservation of the Scriptures. The naturalistic method interprets these same materials in accordance with its own doctrine that the New Testament is nothing more than a human book.

Sad to say, modern Bible-believing scholars have taken very little interest in the concept of consistently Christian New Testament textual criticism. For more than a century most of them have been quite content to follow in this area the naturalistic methods of Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort. And the result of this equivocation has been truly disastrous. Just as in Pharaoh's dream the thin cows ate up the fat cows, so the principles and procedures of naturalistic New Testament textual criticism have spread into every department of Christian thought and produced a spiritual famine. The purpose of this book, therefore, is to show that in the King James (Authorized) Version we still have the bread of life and in demonstrating this to defend the historic Christian faith.

In the world, which He has created, and in the holy Scriptures which He has given God reveals Himself, not merely information about Himself, but HIMSELF. Hence the thinking of a Christian who receives this divine revelation must differ fundamentally from the thinking of naturalistic scholars who ignore or deny it. In this book we shall endeavor to prove that this is so, first in the field of science second in the realm of philosophy, and third in the sphere of Bible study, and especially in New Testament textual criticism.


...


What about all the modern Bible versions and paraphrases which are being sold today by bookstores and publishing houses? Are all these modern-speech Bibles "holy" Bibles? Does God reveal Himself in them? Ought Christians today to rely on them for guidance and send the King James Version into honorable retirement? In order to answer these questions let us first consider the claims of the Textus Receptus and the King James Version and then those of the modern versions that seek to supplant them.

1. Three Alternative Views Of The Textus Receptus (Received Text)

One of the leading principles of the Protestant Reformation was the sole and absolute authority of the holy Scriptures. The New Testament text in which early Protestants placed such implicit reliance was the Textus Receptus (Received Text), which was first printed in 1516 under the editorship of Erasmus. Was this confidence of these early Protestants misplaced? ...

(a) The Naturalistic, Critical View of the Textus Receptus

Naturalistic textual critics, of course, for years have not hesitated to say that the Protestant Reformers were badly mistaken in their reliance upon the Textus Receptus. According to these scholars, the Textus Receptus is the worst New Testament text that ever existed and must be wholly discarded. One of the first to take this stand openly was Richard Bentley, the celebrated English philologian. In an apology written in 1713 he developed the party line which naturalistic critics have used ever since to sell their views to conservative Christians. (1) New Testament textual criticism, he asserted, has nothing to do with Christian doctrine since the substance of doctrine is the same even in the worst manuscripts. Then he added that the New Testament text has suffered less injury by the hand of time than the text of any profane author. And finally, he concluded by saying that we cannot begin the study of the New Testament text with any definite belief concerning the nature of God's providential preservation of the Scriptures. Rather we must begin our study from a neutral standpoint and then allow the results of this neutral method to teach us what God's providential preservation of the New Testament text actually has been. In other words, we begin with agnosticism and work ourselves into faith gradually. Some seminaries still teach this party line.

See how philosophy of approaching the issue mars the approach?

When the day is over, we simply must accept the fact that FAITH is going to have to be a part of our position, and this always involves trust in God. We cannot get away from FAITH in anything that relates to the Lord. And the modern critical approach simply lacks faith in this issue altogether.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

What occurred there at one time would not mean there forever are good sources from the same place centuries later.



I recommend, again, reading the book I presented here, before you entirely make your conclusions, if you have not already. It incredibly deals with an aspect the higher critics would never consider -- faith, and how the philosophies behind the men who handled the Alexandrian strain moved them to interpolate, etc. Origen believed he could alter the texts!

I haven't read the book yet, but can you provide examples of how Origen altered the text or how the philosophies have effected translation?

I typically stay away from dynamic translations and prefer formal equivelency. As I explained earlier, I use the ESV (especially in home Bible studies) with wonderful results that bring a deeper understanding of the Bible for seekers.

P.S.
Do you have this book in a .pdf that I could read? I'll send you my email address in PM if you'd be interested in sending it to me.

[Aquila]

Here's a book that helped me along my journey from KJV Only to a more open perspective on Bible translation:

God's Infallible Word
by David K. Bernard
http://www.librarything.com/work/370152

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I haven't read the book yet, but can you provide examples of how Origen altered the text or how the philosophies have effected translation?

I typically stay away from dynamic translations and prefer formal equivelency. As I explained earlier, I use the ESV (especially in home Bible studies) with wonderful results that bring a deeper understanding of the Bible for seekers.

P.S.
Do you have this book in a .pdf that I could read? I'll send you my email address in PM if you'd be interested in sending it to me.

The links I provided shows an HTML: http://www.biblebelievers.com/HTML.ZIP

Word 6.0: http://www.biblebelievers.com/WORD6.ZIP

Word Perfect: http://www.biblebelievers.com/WP.ZIP

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I haven't read the book yet, but can you provide examples of how Origen altered the text or how the philosophies have effected translation?

I would have to hunt through my research to find the Origen issue. But the philosophy affecting the translation would be a given, I think, since the philosophy is reflected in opinions of the TR.

[Trouvere]

We use the Greek Text itself and teach classes in Biblical Greek. As for reading in church versions I agree with Brother Blume that KJV is easier to correct as its supposed to be a compilation of 5000 Greek manuscripts but I don't just come up with teaching based on it
as that is how you fall into false doctrine. I read the KJV and then go and read the
text. I also like the Orthodox Greek text that is not in print but you can find online.
I had to print my own copy down because the modern translations of it are altered.
Hope this helps.
In Jesus,
D

PS. My husband has a book coming out on this subject that is almost ready to go to the printer

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I would have to hunt through my research to find the Origen issue. But the philosophy affecting the translation would be a given, I think, since the philosophy is reflected in opinions of the TR.

I wrestle with that one. When I was KJV Only I believed that the philosophy of the translators would be reflected in the text of Bibles such as the ESV... however, when using the Bibles themselves, especially the ESV, I've not found any issue. In fact, I've found quite a bit of clarification. The KJV is really outdated and is VERY misleading for some modern readers. It's easy to slide false doctrine in on folks who don't know KJV vernacular. For example I was repeatedly told that remission and forgiveness were two different things. However, they are the very same word. False teaching was the result of the KJV's use of two different words for the same Greek word. I've truly come to respect the honest scholarship behind versions such as the ESV and NRSB. Not to mention how the ESV is far more Oneness than KJV. I now I find it interesting to read books written to defend or to support the notion of KJV only. For example there's typically a chapter about Christology and how modern versions challenge the doctrine of the Trinity because modern versions don't have verses such as I John 5:7 (a glaring insertion by Trinitarians) or don't use terms that "deify" Christ Jesus in various verses. As an Apostolic I see how these versions actually do reflect the original Apostolic Christology in that they don't maintain Trinitarian incertions and emphasize the humanity of the man Christ over "deifying" him as a second divine person. Bro. Ensey, one of my many mentors who I highly respect, also had high regards for the ESV.

For example, in the book you gave me link to (which I want to thank you for and definately will read) the author writes:

Amid this welter of heretical teaching there was danger that the orthodox Christian faith would perish, but in the sacred Scriptures and especially in the Gospel of John God had provided the remedy for this perilous situation. Writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, this "beloved disciple" had expounded the true meaning of the Hebrew term dabar and the Greek term logos. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John 1:1). The reference was to Christ the eternal Son of God. He is the Word, the light of men (John 1:4), who was made flesh and revealed His glory (John 1:14). Guided therefore by these teachings d the New Testament Scriptures, the Church was able to formulate at Nicaea (324 A.D.) and at Chalcedon (451 A.D.) the true doctrine of the holy Trinity and of the incarnation of Christ. Three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but one God. Two natures, divine and human, but one Person. (25)

So while yes these critical scholars challenged orthodoxy, namely the Trinity, they did so as a result of their diligent study of Scripture. It is ironic to see how humanist scholars are more honest with the Bible than Trinitarian theologians and translators.

You'll notice that the loudest theological argument by those defending the King James Version is that the ancient texts our modern versions are based on challenge the concept of the Trinity. In fact they defend the KJV to defend the Trinity. One would almost conclude that King James Version Defended is Truth Compromised.

Just a thought. lol

[mfblume]

I already quoted some considerations of the Textus Receptus from the critics who would prefer the ESV. They simply disdain the TR.

Anyway, I have the same book of Bernard's. It is good. The one after which the thread is named is the best I found yet, IMO.