About the KJV

From this post by Markus Leoninus

I'll begin by saying that my favorite translation is the KJV. I use other versions, such as the NKJV, NASB, and ESV for purposes of comparison, but the old KJV is my preferred version, hands down.

Of course, there is no escaping disputes and controversy on any biblical doctrine, and anyone who has been around evangelicalism for even the shortest time realizes that debates can run hot over Bible versions. There have been, and doubtless will continue to be, shrill, acerbic, irascible individuals on both sides of the translations/versions debate.
I can say with God and the angels as my witnesses that I desire to provoke serious and sacred thought, and to edify the reader, not berate him or her. My desire is to promote the KJV... that old and venerable translation mightily used of God in the conversion and sanctification of countless souls, used by men of evangelical renown such as Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, many a Puritan, and so on. My desire is to build up, not tear down; to edify and facilitate in terms of intelligence on the issues, not to add unnecessary fuel to a dogmatic fire.

Now... forthrightness of statement cannot be avoided by any party. Both sides of an issue will of necessity make themselves abundantly clear, often in no uncertain terms. They will be generally passionate about their position. And there is a right way, just as there is a wrong way, to be forthright and passionate. This underscores, however, that folk must be careful with regard to just what they are about. Are they truly led of the Holy Spirit, and does their presentation demonstrate that they bear about themselves the fruit of the Spirit; or are they simply promoting themselves and their own cause, and speaking in a manner that only shows them in accord with certain "works of the flesh", like "strife, seditions, heresies, envyings" (Gal. 5:19-26)? Are they speaking the truth in love, seeking to truly edify the body of Christ, the Church, or are they driven by "bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking... malice", and the like, which grieves the Holy Ghost, and tends only to tear up the body of Christ (Eph. 4:15,16,30-32)?
Let every man in this regard examine himself... really, really thoroughly and good.

There are good, sound, solid, scholarly reasons, it seems to me, for recognizing that the KJV is the best translation for English speaking Christians to this day; and these reasons are well presented by genuine men of God who give evidence that they are called of God, and that they walk in the Spirit. I am certain of this.
At the same time I think it quite unfortunate that at the tip of the KJVOnlyism spear at grass roots levels, or amongst the common man in the pew, are people like Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger. Sadly, many folk who use other translations are not very aware of sound and truly scholarly, as well as congenial discussions on this whole issue. They are only aware of the Ruckman school of shrill, irascible, acerbic individuals, who are not merely offensive and off-putting, but who also do an incredibly poor job of representing the dignity and worth and reliability and preferability of the old KJV.

Incidentally, the Lord has some people in His fold who are not pushovers. They aren't necessarily looking for a fight, they're not bullies, or naturally inclined to be hard and unapproachable. But they don't take kindly to those of Ruckmanite stamp. To approach them in a Ruckmanite manner is not unlike running up on a pit bulldog, or a mastiff, or a german shepherd trained by spec-ops military personnel, grabbing these animals by the ears, and then demanding that they "sit", or "roll over".
Lolololol! If one is so inclined, I say, Go ahead, tough guy. But be assured well in advance that if you do that with these formidable creatures particularly, it will be only a matter of a split second or two when you will realize your mistake! Likewise, take care how you approach just anybody within the realm of a professing assembly of believers. They might send you, figuratively speaking at least, limping right back out the door.
And, sadly, here's the worst part... you will have failed to honor God, and will have turned them away even further from a venerable translation of the Holy Scriptures.
Sadder still, when weak believers, babes in Christ, are accosted by those of Ruckamite persuasion, much damage can be done to them; such that persons of no mean Spirit-informed talent in biblical counseling and intercessory prayer are needed to help heal the wounds, and restore them to confidence in Bible-based Christianity.
Woe be to those who, promoting no one but themselves, recklessly offend and cause to stumble Christ's little lambs.

Among the absurdities of Ruckman, according to one researcher, are the following:
the KJV is doubly inspired;
the KJV is advanced revelation;
the English KJV is as or more inspired than the original language Scriptures;
the KJV can be used to correct the original language Scriptures;
there is no need whatsoever to study the Biblical languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek due to an "inspired" English translation;
the KJV cannot be improved on (The Defined King James Bible edited by D A Waite and S H Tow and published by Bible For Today is certainly an improvement of the KJV); [by defining archaic terms in the text, ML]
the KJV is the only Bible that has gospel or salvific content;
those who do not use the KJV are condemned to hell; and
all non-English speaking believers must learn English to know the Truth.
(bracketed bold statement mine, ML)
From Non-Ruckmanite Answers to Anti-KJV Questions
http://deanburgonsociety.org/KJBible/answers.htm

Needless to say, Patrick (a.k.a, AMR, site founder) is a solid theologian whose threads/posts are characterized by soundness in the faith. And he possesses an admirable facility in expressing it. Likewise, RTI is noteworthy for its informed and intelligent membership. And so, I need not spend time showing how fallacious and downright absurd the Ruckman stance is. It will be immediately apparent to pretty much everyone here.

But what I am concerned to point out and emphasize is that there are plenty of learned, able, Spirit-led men of God whose purpose is to promote the KJV. Therefore, don't dismiss every KJV promoter out of hand. There are those who go to no such extremes as Ruckman and his ilk. There are scholarly men who can back up, on the basis of solid research and analysis, and in a genuinely concerned and amicable manner, their conviction and declaration that the KJV of the Bible is the best and safest version for English-speaking folk to use.

The fact is, the matter about translations/versions of Scripture is a very, very important one. By no reasonable stretch of the imagination can anyone afford to take this matter lightly. Regardless of present assumptions, we must all labor to hone our knowledge on this matter as thoroughly as our God-given talents enable us; and always praying to be led by the Spirit of truth every step of the way; for I submit that no one is a graduate just yet, no matter how learned, in any one doctrine of the Bible or the Christian faith. On the matter of translations of the Bible, the most learned have more to learn still.
I know for sure that I'm still at school, dear reader of this thread.
There are some things I am sure of already, though.
One is that it will not do to say that one's salvation is based upon one's adherence to this or that version of the Bible. One's salvation, assuming one is saved, is based solely upon the determination of God's own eternal counsel. God sovereignly chose His people from eternity. That salvation was bought and paid for by God the Son, and it is inevitably applied effectually by God the Holy Ghost. God continues, therefore, to work in His chosen both to will and do of His own good pleasure. In due time, His elect shall be glorified. Soli Deo Gloria!!!
It also will not do to say that able men of God preaching and teaching from versions like the NKJV, the NASB, or the ESV, in addition to the KJV, are necessarily detrimental to the faith of their hearers or readers or students. There are plenty of men who are Reformed Presbyterians, Reformed Baptists, Dutch Reformed, and so on, who adhere to the Westminster Confession, the 2nd London Baptist Confession of 1689, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Canons of Dort, and other Reformed standards... all of which are amazingly in accord with Scripture... who evangelize many a soul by God's sovereign grace, and enrich many a Christian layperson in terms of growing in that grace and in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.
When I read an exposition by Sproul, MacArthur, Ferguson, Packer, Beeke, et.al., in our day... and use my KJV to follow up on all biblical texts they provide in their instruction from, say, the ESV or some other translation, I find that what they say is amply set forth in the KJV also.

Nevertheless, there are matters of great concern to me with regard to the modern translations. These things are not inconsiderable, for they are surely not inconsequential. The main issue has to do with the family of manuscripts/copies that the modern versions are based upon; the evidence, according to learned scholars versed in the languages, of Gnostic influences in the Alexandrian texts upon which the modern versions are based; the fact that the other family of manuscripts, the Byzantine copies of the Autographa, the ones used in the Reformation era, on through to 1611 when the first KJV appeared, are decidely different in a number of instances from the copies used in modern translation; the fact that the modern versions cast doubt on passages affirmed by the Byzantine copies and translations, and leave out whole words and verses in some cases, and so on... these are not small matters, mere minutiae, that we can afford to blissfully cast aside and go on our way whistling Dixie. We need to know the facts, and for that serious study and research is required.
These things are surely of major concern; or ought to be, it seems to me, in the minds of the thoughtful and intelligent believer.

Well, enough said, I think, in this post, though more to come in terms of reply to any who might interact with me here. Meanwhile, take in the following as major food for thought, and points of departure for future comment or discussion:

Highly recommended:
John Greer, Pastor at Ballymena Free Presbyterian Church, Ballymena, Ireland; former teacher of NT Greek; currently, in addition to pastoral duties at said assembly, teacher of Systematic Theology at Whitefield College of the Bible.
Holy Scripture Series (17 messages) at Sermon Audio site, to include details on the Byzantine or Traditional Text, the Alexandrian Type Text, etc.
https://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp? ... +Scripture

Trinitarian Bible Society Articles:
http://www.tbsbibles.org/page/articles

The Dean Burgon Society (lots and lots of material, click tabs at top of homepage):
http://deanburgonsociety.org/index.html

And some videos, (documentaries, actually) by one of Christendom's best rsearchers and documentary film makers, Christian Pinto:

A Lamp in the Dark


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5524&v=1OlXqprelaw
Enter into a world of saints and martyrs battling against spies, assassins and wolves in sheep's clothing. Through the Middle Ages, the Inquisition forbade the translation of the Bible threatening imprisonment and death to any who disobeyed. Learn the stories of valiant men who battled the principalities of the Dark Age to communicate the Holy Scriptures to a lost and dying world.

Tares Among the Wheat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=371&v=-aiHcghIdjM 

“Tares Among the Wheat” is part two in our history of the Bible series -- the sequel to "A Lamp in the Dark."  This powerful documentary explores the controversial events that occurred just prior to the deveopment of the new Bible movement in modern times.
In the 19th century, a revolution in biblical scholarship was prompted by the publication of a never-before-seen manuscript called Codex Sinaiticus.  The work was discovered by a German scholar named Constantine von Tischendorf, who declared this to be the oldest Bible ever found.  Tischendorf claimed he found the work discarded in a rubbish basket at St. Catherine's monastery in Egypt, and the monks, he said, were using the pages to fuel the fire.  While many in the academic world did not fully believe his story of the discovery, they were willing to accept his claims about the antiquity of the Codex.
But shortly after the work was published, a renowned Greek paleographer named Constantine Simonides came forward and declared that the manuscript was no ancient text at all, but had been created in 1840.  Simonides claimed that he was the true author of the manuscript, which was intended as a gift for the Czar of Russia.  Tischendorf refuted his claims, and the academic world denounced the Greek as an imposter.  Yet the controversy surrounding these events is, perhaps, the most incredible untold chapter in Bible history.  It is a story that (while quite true and well documented) a vast majority of modern academics know little or nothing about.  Yet the subject matter dramatically impacts the world of biblical scholarship, even to this present day.

Bridge to Babylon: Rome, Ecumenism, and the Bible

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=437&v=ukRCVDmiAtFILM SYNOPSIS
In 1881, two scholars named Westcott and Hort published a revision of the New Testament that would send shockwaves through the academic world. Their new textual theory declared that the King James Version (which had been trusted for centuries) was full of errors. Sacred readings, long cherished by the faithful, were now declared to be forgeries. The world was informed that the book, which had been called the inerrant Word of God, was in need of correction.
The new theory claimed that recently recovered manuscripts revealed a truer version of Scripture. Yet others warned that these texts were, in fact, the writings of Gnostic heretics that had been abandoned centuries earlier. Was the new revision filled with ancient corruptions?
Follow the story of the Bible’s controversial history into the twentieth century, as the work of Westcott and Hort would transform biblical scholarship, inspire the work of various Bible Societies, and pave the way for the cause of ecumenical unity between Evangelical Protestants and Rome.
KEY INFORMATION COVERED IN THIS NEW FILM
1) The role of Westcott and Hort in secretly changing the text of the Bible through the Revision of 1881.
2) An examination of Westcott and Hort’s letters and what they believed.
3) The warnings of 19th century critic, F.H.A. Scrivener who opposed the Revision and warned that the work was based on fiction rather than historic fact.
4) The warnings of Dean John W. Burgon who believed that the new Greek manuscripts used for the Revision were the corrupted codices of ancient Gnostic heretics.
5) Examples from the work of Westcott and Hort (which are found in most modern bibles) of what Burgon believed were Gnostic readings from the ancient world.
6) Historic information on ancient Gnostic sects as recorded by early church fathers.
7) Examination of the claim that earlier manuscripts are closer to the originals, in light of the corruptions of heretical groups in the first and second centuries.
8) Rationalism and its role in modern textual criticism.
9) The influence of the critical text in the 20th century, with Eberhard Nestle, Kurt Aland, Bruce Metzger and the Jesuit Carlo Maria Martini.
10) The discovery of the Bodmer Papyri and the involvement of a Jesuit priest named Father Louis Doutreleau.
11) Evidence that the Egyptian papyri come from Gnostic origins.
12) The work of Eugene Nida and the development of dynamic equivalency.
13) The influence of William Cameron Townsend the founder of Wycliffe Bible Translators and the Summer Institute of Linguistics.
14) The connection between the new Bible movement and Rome.
15) The use of the UBS/Nestle-Aland Greek text as a one world Bible, intended to be a “bridge” for reunification with Rome.

More links for those who wish to continue digging into this matter:

Which Bible Version? Does it Really Matter?
By David Blunt at the Trinitarian Bible Society site
 http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.tbsbibles. ... Matter.pdf

Untrustworthiness of the NIV, by Jeffrey Khoo
http://www.febc.edu.sg/v15/article/def_ ... ess_of_niv

Theodore P. Letis on the NIV
http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/resou ... -15-01.pdf

Trinitarian Bible Society on the NASV
http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.tbsbibles. ... -Bible.pdf

Theodore P. Letis on the Strange About-Face of the NASV
http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/resou ... -09-02.pdf

The Trinitarian Bible Society on the ESV
http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.tbsbibles. ... ersion.pdf

Theodore P. Letis on the ESV
https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo. ... =860711134

The New King James Version: A Critique by Malcolm H. Watts
http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.tbsbibles. ... tique_.pdf

What Today's Christian Needs to Know About the NKJV
http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.tbsbibles. ... e-NKJV.pdf

An Examination of the NKJV, Part 1
http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.tbsbibles. ... nd+Text%22

An Examination of the NKJV, Part 2
http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.tbsbibles. ... nd+Part%22

No comments:

Post a Comment