Have you ever seen the charts that compare the King James Version with the newer translations? You can check out one here. The charts present to us things that are “added to” or “left out of” the modern translations of the Bible. They are very convincing to those who are not aware of the arguments on both sides of the translation issue.
There is a fundamental problem, however. That problem is that the King James Version is upheld as THE BIBLE. It is THE STANDARD. In other words, there is truly no Bible other than the King James Version. It is perfect in every way. Now, I am fully convinced of the inerrancy of Scripture. I am fully convinced of the perfection of God’s Word. I am not fully convinced of the absolute perfection of translations, though. In fact, God has not promised to us that we would have an absolutely perfect translation. He did promise that His Word would endure through all ages, but that is to be distinguished from perfection in translation. The King James Version, as good as it is, is not a perfect translation.
There is a reason that newer versions differ from the King James Version. That reason is due to the fact that the translators of the newer versions are doing the same thing that the translators of the King James Version did; they are translating “out of the original tongues” (from the frontispiece of the Oxford AV), because the Bible was originally given to us in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The English Version authorized by King James is not the standard. The original languages are the standard.
A great Bible commentator of old stated it in this manner:
“..to the Bible, in its original languages, is every translation to be brought, and by it to be examined, tried and judged, and to be corrected and amended: and if this was not the case, we should have no certain and infallible rule to go by; for it must be either all the translations together, or some one of them; not all of them, because they agree not in all things: not one; for then the contest would be between one nation and another which it should be, whether English, Dutch, French, &c. and could one be agreed upon, it could not be read and understood by all: so the papists, they plead for their Vulgate Latin version; which has been decreed authentic by the council of Trent; though it abounds with innumerable errors and mistakes; nay, so far do they carry this affair, that they even assert that the Scriptures, in their originals, ought to submit to, and be corrected by their version; which is absurd and ridiculous. Let not now any be uneasy in their minds about translations on this account, because they are not upon an equality with the original text, and especially about our own; for as it has been the will of God, and appears absolutely necessary that so it should be, that the Bible should be translated into different languages, that all may read it, and some particularly may receive benefit by it; he has taken care, in his providence, to raise up men capable of such a performance, in various nations, and particularly in ours; for whenever a set of men have been engaged in this work, as were in our nation, men well skilled in the languages, and partakers of the grace of God; of sound principles, and of integrity and faithfulness, having the fear of God before their eyes; they have never failed of producing a translation worthy of acceptation; and in which, though they have mistook some words and phrases, and erred in some lesser and lighter matters; yet not so as to affect any momentous article of faith or practice; and therefore such translations as ours may be regarded as the rule of faith. And if any scruple should remain on the minds of any on this account, it will be sufficient to remove it, when it is observed, that the Scriptures, in our English translation, have been blessed of God, either by reading them in it, or by explaining them according to it, for the conversion, comfort, and edification of thousands and thousands. And the same may be said of all others, so far as they agree with the original, that they are the rule of faith and practice, and alike useful. Here I cannot but observe the amazing ignorance and stupidity of some persons, who take it into their heads to decry learning and learned men; for what would they have done for a Bible, had it not been for them as instruments? and if they had it, so as to have been capable of reading it, God must have wrought a miracle for them; and continued that miracle in every nation, in every age, and to every individual; I mean the gift of tongues, in a supernatural way, as was bestowed upon the apostles on the day of Pentecost; which there is no reason in the world ever to have expected. Bless God, therefore, and be thankful that God has, in his providence, raised up such men to translate the Bible into the mother tongue of every nation, and particularly into ours; and that he still continues to raise up such who are able to defend the translation made, against erroneous persons, and enemies of the truth; and to correct and amend it in lesser matters, in which it may have failed, and clear and illustrate it by their learned notes upon it.” John Gill. A BODY OF DOCTRINAL DIVINITY (15). Transcribed for use in Logos Bible Software by Joseph Kreifels.
It is for this reason that one cannot trust those neat looking, convincing charts. They are based upon the wrong standard.
Originally posted at PastoralMusings
July 6, 2009 at 10:38 am |
If we assume the standard is in the Original languages, we come to the major problem, that there is NO single extant manuscript or critical edition which is perfect, nor one which is actually accepted as the exemplar, matching exactly to what was inspired. Moreover, there is no known method whereby a perfect form of the originals can be ascertained or compiled.
Some of those who have issue with the King James Bible Only position really have an issue because they believe that no one can have a perfect text-form, let alone, in an English translation.
July 6, 2009 at 10:09 pm
BP,
Thanks for stopping by and commenting. I only have time to reply today. I am in meetings all week. I trust that you shall have interaction from the other guys here.
Your contention is self-defeating.
If we have no exemplar, then neither do you.
God did not drop the TR from Heaven.
Neither did He inspire Erasmus, Stephanus, or Elzivir in their editing of it.
Yes, we have perfect text. We have the complete Scripture. That is all perfect means. That is all we expect to have, because that is what was promised.
We were not promised a newly inspired Greek text, or a newly inspired English translation.
It truly seems that the problem rests with the KJVO folks.
July 7, 2009 at 8:38 am
BP,
Just popping in before I leave for the day.
What you neglect to see is the fact that, by seeking to defend God’s Word in the KJV, you do two things:
1. You dismiss God’s Word in other translations, yet the KJV translators stated that the meanest translation contains, yes, is the Word of God. You go beyond the men who translated the venerated version.
2. You go beyond the authority and words of Scripture, because Scripture promised no exemplar, or standard. Scripture promised preservation, and God’s Word is intact in most modern translations.
July 6, 2009 at 6:52 pm |
God preserves. The Holy Spirit shepherds in time. This is the difference between a *received* text and a *constructed* text. The latter gives man an open field to determine the content of Scripture (and the products get farther and farther – and more boldly – away from the received standard).
July 6, 2009 at 10:14 pm
DT,
Thanks for your comments.
See above.
God did not inspire the editors of the TR anymore than He inspired the KJV translators.
The TR and KJV were no more received from God than the NASB 1995 or the ESV.
It is the KJVO folks who depart the standard. Why? The standard is in the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. God has preserved His Word across various textual traditions and in various manuscripts.
One thing that you must see is the fact that, simply because a manuscript has an error, it does not cease to be God’s Word.
God promised we would have His Word and that it would abide.
TR and KJVO add to Scripture when they seek to tell us HOW God does that. He did not tell us HOW He would preserve. We have found that His Word is preserved in many places, and in many ways.
God has always given man an “open field.” Sadly, some have wandered out of the field in search of greener pastures. We cannot, however, build a fence where God has not.
July 6, 2009 at 11:20 pm |
The good thing is thus far the main modern versions have wisely cribbed from the Authorized Version and use it as their standard. The NASB, NKJV, ESV, even the NIV to a great extent. The bad thing is the products don’t end there, nor do the new editions and revisions.
That we have a standard, though, shows God’s hand.
July 6, 2009 at 11:36 pm
Ahhh, but the KJV translators had a standard, too.
I’ll leave it for you to find out what it was
July 7, 2009 at 2:18 am |
>Ahhh, but the KJV translators had a standard, too. I’ll leave it for you to find out what it was
The Masoretic and Received Text, and the line of English Bibles that culminated in the crown that the AV1611 is.
July 7, 2009 at 7:03 am
The KJB men had no standard. They gathered from Hebrew/Syriack for the OT, and Greek for the NT, but also weighed the variations in those languages, let alone other commentaries, ancient versions and translations, including the Latin, Reformation translations and previous English Bibles. Clearly, they had not final standard of appeal, but had to judge or discern word by word in their gathering process, linked with their translating sense for sense.
July 7, 2009 at 8:41 am |
DT and BP,
In other words, there was no standard until 1611?
Where was God’s Word before then?
If they had to discern word by word, that is no different from modern translators.
I believe you will find, however, that there were two standards: Tyndales Bible and the Textus Receptus. I may be corrected on that, but I believe I am correct.
I trust you both have a good day.
I appreciate your zeal for God’s Word. Sadly, you deny God’s Word to the people by denying the preservation of God’s Word in translations other than the KJV. That is not a good thing, sirs. Please consider your ways.
July 7, 2009 at 10:39 am
I am saying there was no extant copy in 1610 which was flawless, perfect or 100% correct, that was upheld as the exemplar then.
Are you claiming there was one?
July 7, 2009 at 3:44 pm |
It is an illogical leap to go from no perfect exemplar to a perfect one. The exemplar is the sum total of manuscripts plus the evangelical truth as known by the translators, along with their knowledge of original languages and the previous translations. All of these things were the guides of translators. The same is true today, when men gather to faithfully translate God’s Word. If a KJVO person does not discount or dismiss other translations, he is not KJVO. That brings me to ask what you truly are. Here we are not demigrating the KJV. I preach out of it exclusively and do not intend to change. I simply dislike the falsehoods, animosity, andlegalism of the KJVO movement as a whole. Certainly you can appreciate such a motivation?
July 7, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Since it is the avowed aim of scholars and critics to “reconstruct” what was originally inspired, this means that of course there is no exemplar until one is made.
The issue is whether one can be made or not. It comes down to how you view Providence versus entropy. Either Providence is greater, or entropy is greater.
Since I believe God is the provider, and not the God of entropy, I certainly believe that we have the exemplar today. It seems that the anti-KJBO view is to say that “God uses entropy, and has limited Himself to it.”
Therefore, when it comes to comparing versions in charts, either we must yet be choosing between them what is the best, or we have one alone which is always right.
July 7, 2009 at 7:49 pm |
Jason, you know very well manuscripts were being corrupted from the very time of the apostles. A couple of them were raised from the dead in the 19th century. Only God could protect His Word in such circumstances. The Masoretic and the Received Text were/are the standard, Bibleprotector’s objection notwithstanding.
July 7, 2009 at 9:47 pm
DT,
I’m not sure what your statement does to bolster the KJVO claim.
Please explain.
Thanks,
Jason
July 8, 2009 at 12:35 am |
I’m not English preservationist, nor is a Riplinger or most others who get tarred with the counter-Reformation Jesuit-like sophistry and accusation of King James Only. I believe all the sound Reformation era translations from the Masoretic and Received Text (in French, German, Dutch, etc.) are the pure and whole Word of God. English being, in God’s providence, the dominant language of this era in the plan of redemption I see a particular refining of the English Bible up to the AV1611 which has given it historically, in time-vetted fashion, the status of standard. The downgrade from it, starting in the 19th century, has been precipitous and increasingly shameless. The famine of the end times.
July 8, 2009 at 9:46 am |
Wow Jason, sorry to leave you hanging here. I was going to respond to BPs first comment, got busy and forgot about it. Now we’re up to 18 comments.
Good discussion so far. We are probably talking past each other and will never actually agree, but its good to clearly state our positions no matter what. And we must uphold Christian charity and assume the best of the others representing contrary positions to our own here.
I’d like to make a couple points:
1) BP’s original comment claims in the original languages we have no exemplar, we have no agreed upon standard to compare our translations to. This is dangerous. White points this out in his book. Today, the Bart Ehrmans of the world and other agnostic/atheistic crusaders want people to believe that we can’t know what the Bible ever really said. Christians corrupted the manuscripts to suit their liking and the Bible today doesn’t match the original version of the Bible. Against this assault, the KJV Only groups say “yes” there is no original reading we can be certain of in the Greek / Hebrew, so God must have protected us by giving us the English KJV in 1611. This teaching undermines the truth that we really do have an original. In the vast majority of the New Testament, we absolutely know for certain what the original Greek words were. All the printed texts, TR, WH, NA27, MT agree. This is a massively important point! We have agreement in around 90% of the text or more. An agreement that is virtually unanimous, the few variants of that 90% are obviously wrong and seen so by all parties. For the other 10%, we have every reason to believe that we have all the data available. We know that the correct reading is either option A, B, or C in most cases. God has preserved an enormous amount of textual data for us that dwarfs the amount of data we have for any other historical text.
2) BP is admitting above that prior to 1611 there was no single exemplar. He has also admitted that the 1611 had manifest printing and presentation errors, so in principle and practice, the average person in the church pew wouldn’t have access to a single exemplar until the late 1700s or possibly early 1900s (I don’t remember when the “Pure Cambridge Edition” was released.) So my question is, what Biblical text teaches that we have to have a perfect exemplar in one copy today, but that it was okay not to have that perfect exemplar in 1610 and earlier? This betrays the inherent circular reasoning in KJV Onlyism. Because the 1611 is a widely attested, good edition, it must have God’s stamp of approval. Since it has God’s stamp of approval, it must reflect perfectly all of God’s inspired words. The Bible’s inspiration and preservation is no good without a perfect exemplar to know which words are legitimately Bible perfectly. The problem to this is that other groups have said the same thing about the Vulgate and about the Old Latin before it, and the Greek Septuagint as over and against the Hebrew text. Plus today, the NIV could lay claim to being the most influential for good, modern Bible translation and it could claim to be the perfect representation of God’s words. Wait, you say, that is just a man-made claim to hold up the NIV as the standard because it was accepted by a majority of believers. But then again, it is a man-maade claim to hold up the KJV as the standard too. No Bible passage leads us to expect that we would have God’s words in 1611 and not 1610. If we did not have the exemplar in 1610 but have a copy of it in 1611, where did we get it? Who’s to say the translators made the right decisions, unless they were supernaturally guided. Supernatural guidance is a short step away from re-inspiration.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob
July 8, 2009 at 1:27 pm
It is a fact that there is no absolutely final copy of the Greek, which contains without variation one set rendering of the entire New Testament in absolute certainty to every last word.
Of course, there may be substantial agreement between all kinds of Greek manuscripts and editions, but it is that tiny percentage of continuing and apparently unresolvable variation where there is a problem. In other words, questions and queries continue to exist concerning places, so that if you take this to its logical full conclusion, you would have to agree with the atheists, agnostics, liberals and sceptics, namely, that you can never be entirely certain of your New Testament.
While people may have had partial and insufficient copies in the past, they should have looked forward toward a completion of the gathering process. I believe this was the trend of the Reformation. The modern version supporter seems to be in the process of “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (2 Tim. 3:7).
Whereas, the King James Only view shows the exact opposite, being, that in time one final text of the whole Bible was formed in one version, and that therefore absolute knowledge of every last word is certain in English.
To say, “We know that the correct reading is either option A, B, or C in most cases” is NOT “the truth that we really do have an original.” That means the original reading is present somewhere (at least we agree on that point), but which one was originally inspired, the modern versionist cannot finally say. This admits that there is no finite form of the originals in existence, and denies that they can exist (perhaps until Christ comes). This is why I cannot accept any accusations that say that the King James Bible is wrong, because there is no final standard copy in the originals or in any other accessible form which people can use to so-called “disprove” the KJB. In fact, the KJB is the standard by which all the others are to be judged.
There is no real objection which can be raised that would disallow that in time an exemplar copy could be produced even though there was none before. While each Autograph was obviously correct, there was never a time when all of the Scripture in the original languages was bound together in one volume which matched what was originally inspired. If scholars and textual critics are not striving for this aim, what is the point of all their work? And if that is the logical aim of proper textual criticism, why would it be wrong that this be accomplished historically by way of a translation?
To argue that the Bible does not explicitly demand it does not mean that it (the KJB) is not the ultimate form.
To argue merely that external factors surrounding the KJB show God’s providential approval is to ignore the internal aspects of its perfection. It is on these very grounds that a modern version fails, not only because people do not expect it to be perfect, but also because upon investigation, it is found wanting in various ways. Even if it (e.g. the NIV) is taken upon its own authority without external measures, it will be found to be self-contradictory.
It would be putting unfair and unwarranted demands upon the Scripture to demand a Bible passage explicitly stating that God’s words would be resolved to mankind in 1611. We find that the Scripture does not say anything about modern versions being better either.
Finally, it should be clear that obtaining the textual and translational exemplar in 1611 was out of pre-existing, but scattered, materials which existed in (say) 1610. In other words, copies of Scripture, versions, and whatever was called “the Word of God” really was sufficient, but a greater outworking of God’s providence manifested, in the refining of former things, to the perfected form. Thus, there is nothing “magical” about it, there is no “re-inspiration”, there is no new “supernatural thunderclouds with heavenly tablets”, what there was is Providence, the outworking of Him who is the master of history and time. The translators of the King James Bible were able to make the right decisions because of their being born again, having the right resources and having the proper beliefs when it came to their work.
July 12, 2009 at 1:37 pm |
Well said, Jason. It’s reasonable to expect some sort of Scriptural warrant for the KJV being the be-all/end-all translation. This is the bold claim of KJV onlyism. The ones making the bold claim need to support it from Scripture.
July 13, 2009 at 8:06 pm |
One major problem with the KJVO’s thoughts on this is the inherent contradiction within his argumentation, namely the basis vs. the application. The basis, in essence, says, “God promised to preserve His Word to His people throughout every generation.” This then provides the basis to believe that we cannot have a Bible that is incomplete in any sense nor has textual variations from others. That the KJV is thought of as the standard presents a major problem, especially when you begin to break it down in actual readings. If the KJV’s minority/secondary readings (I John 5:7; Rev 16:5 etc) are the standard, the automatically disqualifies the “preserved to every generation” argument because it is clear they weren’t preserved like the KJVO is forced to try to prove.
July 14, 2009 at 2:32 am
It would be a problem to argue that God’s Word has to be “preserved to every generation” meaning an intact perfect Bible.
In reality, God’s promise is for the sufficiency, as may be seen by several facts,
a. that the Canon was not always complete,
b. that Christians have not always had vernacular translations, or that better ones were made in time,
c. that textual and translational perfection were arrived at in English, that not everyone recognised it for years, and even today people deny it, as well, there are many who do not yet know English, and who could not use the KJB.
Moreover, the absence of renderings like 1 John 5:7 in some Eastern Orthodox copies, or the copyist error at Revelation 16:5 have for a long time been apparent in some parts of the evidence, which means that God has been able to work, preserve and so on, despite these difficulties, but greater, that God has been able to gather and resolve in time through the Church, that is, most specifically through the British Protestant tradition, what actually is His Word, and has provided it for the world for a later stage in history.
Thus, the logic is not “basis versus essence” but “sufficiency versus absolute formation”.
July 14, 2009 at 8:13 am |
bp, your position is certainly different than that held by many other, if not most, King James onlyists. And I agree, for those who use the preserved to every generation argument, it is a problem.
The problem I have with your logic is how you can dogmatically arrive at “c”.
October 3, 2009 at 9:49 pm |
[...] experience leads me to believe that this is an argument that goes back to those handy-dandy little Bible comparison charts. Said argument is fundamentally [...]
October 31, 2009 at 3:06 pm |
The real issue surely isn’t which English translations leave out this phrase or half-verse or that.
The question is whether those parts of Holy Scripture belong in the text or not.
On our site, we endeavour to thoroughly examine ALL the evidence for every single omission, addition, or substitution that we discuss, in the light of both past Text-critical practices, and the latest discoveries and new directions of investigation.
A good example of the problem with ‘modern’ versions (English translations) is the unnecessary doubt they cast upon the word of God as given to us, when whole and half-verses are relegated to the margin or footnotes with terse and cryptic statements, that have no real informative value for readers.
Many changes upon closer investigation turn out to be simple gaffes by ancient scribes, temporarily proliferated in the copying stream, but which have no lasting importance RE: the original text.
We have recently posted a list, not of mere “omissions” between Bibles, but of readings that should never have been adopted, because their origin upon close inspection is obvious.
We have a new “Haplography” section where we have posted about 50 plain examples of homoeoteleuton and homoeoarcton that formerly were mis-identified by textual critics.
This is (good) news. The over-editing that took place in the recent past can be toned down, and many favourite passages can be restored to their former place of honour, without regrets.
http://adultera.awardspace.com/TEXT/index.html#r03
peace,
Nazaroo
October 31, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Nazaroo,
First of all thanks for stopping by. Is Nazaroo your real name? Just curious, because it’s unusual to a guy from down in Dixie. Of course, Jason may be unusual to you, too
Yes, I agree that the question is whether the passage is truly in the text or not.
I’m a newbie in many ways to the issue, but can say that I’m not totally comfortable with some of the differences between the KJV and newer translations. At the same time, I know that I’ll have to take time to delve into textual issues further than I have at present to say much about those differences.
I shall look at your site sometime soon.
I’m not sure that I totally agree with your statement about doubt being cast on the Scriptures by modern translations. Many of these translations attempt to be true to the original text and don’t desire to cast doubt. On the other hand, I agree with you that there should be more evidence given for textual choices, though much of that would have to be in an appendix, I’m sure. Even then I don’t know if the average layman would truly be able to grasp all the relevant data. Textual issues seem to get very involved. I do wish for more info, and I mentioned as much in my review of the ESV Study Bible.
Thanks again for stopping by. Please come back, visit, and comment from time to time.
July 7, 2009 at 7:00 am |
There is no exemplar in the original languages, which is why I assume certain folks argue that the KJB cannot be the standard.
I believe that we do have the perfect text, but that we can know what it is, and that it is presented in one standard Version. The KJB.
As for new inspirations or whatever, that is a false doctrine. A proper KJBOist believes that the KJB not only best represents, but perfectly represents the inspired text. Therefore, the KJB must be the final gathered form. This has nothing to do with re-inspiration or double inspiration etc.
July 7, 2009 at 10:37 am |
If the KJB is perfect, then this does not mean dismissal of other versions. There are various versions and translations which have sufficiently communicated the Scripture.
The meanest translation of the Scripture as referred to by the KJB men was talking about Protestant English ones. It cannot honestly be implied that they automatically approved of modern versions by this quote.
Just because the Scripture does not explicitly promise an exemplar copy does not mean that such a thing is not implied or inconsistent. For example, Isaiah 34:16 does refer to the book of the LORD.
It is amusing to me to see someone claim that God’s Word is “intact” in most (but not all) modern versions. How is it that they differ in places to each other, both textually and translationally. If there are actual differences of this nature, none or only one can be actually “intact”.
I thought it was the modernist argument to claim that no Bible is flawless. I understand “intact” to mean, “not touched”, and therefore, “complete”. Can that really be said about any modern version?
July 12, 2009 at 12:48 am |
BP,
You certainly have a gift with words, I’ll grant you that. Thanks for commenting. I appreciate the thought and effort that goes into your comments. I trust that we can continue to dialogue in a charitable manner.
I’ll leave this as my last comment on this post. You are welcome to give your reply to it.
The emphasized portions are from your comment above.
you can never be entirely certain of your New Testament.
That leaves you in a sad state. In fact, being in the same boat with atheists, skeptics, etc. does not leave you in good company.
You must remember that entire certainty and satisfactory certainty are different animals. Satisfactory certainty exists, however. You admit that by stating that the variants make up a very small percentage. They also do not negate any doctrine of Scripture.
the KJB is the standard by which all the others are to be judged.
There has yet to be given to us objective proof of this statement. There is no way to give objective proof of this statement. In fact, should one read the KJV translator’s preface to the reader he will find that they did not expect the KJV to be the version to end all versions. They knew the process of study was an ongoing process. That’s why they included variants in the marginal notes.
It would be putting unfair and unwarranted demands upon the Scripture to demand a Bible passage explicitly stating that God’s words would be resolved to mankind in 1611. We find that the Scripture does not say anything about modern versions being better either.
Why would it be unfair? If God were to do something so decisive, I would think He would let us know it. After all, it seems that His Word failed from the earth until the translation of the KJV out of what must have been inferior manuscripts and inferior translations. A resurrection of such magnitude as this would surely merit mention in God’s Word. On the other hand, continual, providential preservation such as we hold to can be maintained Scripturally. After all, God promised that His Word would endure. He did not promise that it would be lost and recovered.
Finally, it should be clear that obtaining the textual and translational exemplar in 1611 was out of pre-existing, but scattered, materials which existed in (say) 1610. In other words, copies of Scripture, versions, and whatever was called “the Word of God” really was sufficient, but a greater outworking of God’s providence manifested, in the refining of former things, to the perfected form. Thus, there is nothing “magical” about it, there is no “re-inspiration”, there is no new “supernatural thunderclouds with heavenly tablets”, what there was is Providence, the outworking of Him who is the master of history and time. The translators of the King James Bible were able to make the right decisions because of their being born again, having the right resources and having the proper beliefs when it came to their work.
Sorry, but that statement leaves you facing both ways. Either the previous manuscripts and versions were the Word of God, or they were not. Either they were sufficient for the guidance of people until 1611, or they were not. If they were not, God’s Word failed from the earth until 1611. If they were sufficient, so are new translations that seek to be faithful to the originals.