Home Forums BIBLE STUDY Biblical Criticism KJVO debate

This topic contains 8 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by  admin 5 months, 3 weeks ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #8523

    admin
    Keymaster
    • Offline
      • RANK: Prophet
      • 95

    discuss the KJVO issues.

  • #8524

    SteveD
    Member
    • Offline
      • RANK: Just saved
      • 3

    ORIGINAL COMMENT FROM “IS THE KJV REALLY ON A GRADE SCHOOL READING LEVEL?

    http://dustoffthebible.com/Blog-archive/2016/05/26/is-the-kjv-really-on-a-grade-school-reading-level/

    This is a fair discussion but you focus on the negatives and not the positives. Suppose I wrote a post about why I should divorce my wife and get a younger wife, more compatible with the times we’re living. Suppose I went to her and said, “Honey, you have been faithful and reliable to me for so many years, but I find your use of jargon like “whence” and “wherefore” 2 B incon. wit 2day kidz” (See what I did there? :)

    I know marriage and biblical translations are not the same, but I think you can appreciate my point that verbiage and sentence structure alone shouldn’t be the only cause.

    Moreover, there is the recognition that Jesus is a little about tradition. That is, we are instructed to “Traine vp a childe in the way he should goe: and when he is olde, hee will not depart from it” Pr 22:6. So there is the idea that, yes, these words are hard and don’t read well, but that’s what elders and deacons and preachers and teachers and godly men are for. To be the man and teach their families. They should do so with passion and fire so as not to be spit out of the mouth of God for your lukewarm, new age Bible teaching.

    That is to say, “For the word of God is quicke and powerfull, and sharper then any two edged sword, pearcing euen to the diuiding asunder of soule and spirit, and of the ioynts and marrowe, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” Heb 4:12 KVJ 1611. It is not redone, revamped, updated, tweaked for newfangled gender neutral, self-identifying, bible shenanigans you forgot to mention here.

    You should not just dismiss the Bible, the true KJV 1611 Bible, because it is hard. That’s a weak excuse.

     

  • #8526

    admin
    Keymaster
    • Offline
      • RANK: Prophet
      • 95

    Steve, let me first say that your opinion is always welcome here.

    I would like to now point out that this post isn’t about whether or not the KJV should be used. It’s mainly just an examination of the popular KJVO claim that it’s easier to read than other translations and then ultimately KJVOers always point out this one time the Flesch system was used against it.
    I am merely pointing out that it’s a misleading and false argument. It’s clearly not easy to read which is why people make up bogus arguments to defend its readability.

    I would also point out that the KJV is riddled with translation errors and is anything but perfect. I have already written on this topic if you’re actually interested in matters of translation. I don’t dismiss the KJV because it’s “hard”. I do because it’s full of errors and I prefer to read the actual Greek and Hebrew.

    Unless you’re prepared to discuss the original languages I would suggest that this is not a website that your KJVO position will hold up very long for.

     

  • #8528

    SteveD
    Member
    • Offline
      • RANK: Just saved
      • 3

    Hi Justin

    Thanks for the interaction. First let me say, I’m replying here because this is where the dialog is. If there is a better place/post I’ll be glad to comment on each post. I’ve seen several of your posts about KJV translational errors. I would have commented on each, but easy-to-read seemed to be the best starting place. Would you like to discuss in each forum?

    Here are some points of contention with your position:

    1) KJVO was good enough to teach, rebuke, train for hundreds of years. I don’t say that full of ignorance of modern discoveries and education, I say that to the testament of what we have. Are we really going to assume that what we know now may be so dramatically different that those who wrote, studied, and prayed over scripture from 1611 may never have known the true word of God?

    2) If we begin accepting differences now, what happens in 400 years when our archaeology, historical understanding, and updated Rosetta stone tell us something else? Could it possibly take us back to KJV 1611? Maybe. It certainly can’t bring us to a modern translation becuase we are allowing changes to the sacred text.

    3) We don’t have original documents. We have copies, and that’s OK. The more copies the better we can understand the original. But, we also need to accept the current with understanding of the past. What documents did the original 1611 KJV have that we do not? Are there any? Of course there are. 1611 was closer to the original and therefore more reliable.

    4) Original Greek, yeah, I know a few words. Turns out many of them have multiple meanings. Take the word Hos which means ‘Who’ or ‘Which’. The word does not mean “He” but in 1 Tim 3:16, when talking about God, “Who” was manifest in the flesh. He doesn’t fit, it was a “modern” tweak–much like many other places.

    5) KJVO people are better than non-KJV’rs *wink*

  • #8530

    admin
    Keymaster
    • Offline
      • RANK: Prophet
      • 95

    1) KJVO was good enough to teach, rebuke, train for hundreds of years. I don’t say that full of ignorance of modern discoveries and education, I say that to the testament of what we have. Are we really going to assume that what we know now may be so dramatically different that those who wrote, studied, and prayed over scripture from 1611 may never have known the true word of God?

    Yes the KJV was used for centuries but that does not mean that it’s better than having a readable translation. The Hebrew OT was used for hundreds, if not 1000 years but even that was replaced with a Greek translation. Simply being around and being heavily used is not a valid point. The text still has to be read and understood in a language that fits the masses.

    2) If we begin accepting differences now, what happens in 400 years when our archaeology, historical understanding, and updated Rosetta stone tell us something else? Could it possibly take us back to KJV 1611? Maybe. It certainly can’t bring us to a modern translation because we are allowing changes to the sacred text.

    As archaeology discovers texts linguists are provided to tools to hone in their understanding of certain words. There are dozens of Hebrew and Greek words that ONLY show up once in the Bible. In some instances there are very few manuscripts outside the Bible that use those words. As time passes we discover texts in cognate languages, like Ugarit or Aramaic, and it gives us better understanding of how that word was used in the time it was written. It’s an attempt to “change scripture.” It’s just updating as our knowledge of languages change.

    3) We don’t have original documents. We have copies, and that’s OK. The more copies the better we can understand the original. But, we also need to accept the current with understanding of the past. What documents did the original 1611 KJV have that we do not? Are there any? Of course there are. 1611 was closer to the original and therefore more reliable.

    Correct, we don’t have the originals. At the time the KJV was translated the oldest Hebrew or Greek manuscript we had was from 1000 AD. In many cases the Latin text was used in place of missing Greek or Hebrew texts. We now have thousands more documents that we did in 1611 and many of them are within 100 years of Christ. Moreover, we have them in multiple languages which allows us to understand how ancient translators used words. The KJV being “older” than today’s translations is not a valid argument. The issue isn’t the age of the English translations is the age of the manuscripts that were available at the time of translation.

    Our understanding of which texts were used in Jesus’ day and how they were used has grown greatly since 1611. I would recommend an intro text on Biblical Criticism if you’re interested in know what texts we actually have now that we did not have previously. There are a few good ones in the DOTB store as well as other places on the internet.

    4) Original Greek, yeah, I know a few words. Turns out many of them have multiple meanings. Take the word Hos which means ‘Who’ or ‘Which’. The word does not mean “He” but in 1 Tim 3:16, when talking about God, “Who” was manifest in the flesh. He doesn’t fit, it was a “modern” tweak–much like many other places.

    I am not here to defend modern translations as perfect. The NIV, ESV, NRSV, and others continually update their translations because they know that they will have mistakes. There is no illusion that they are perfection translations.

    But about ὅς. This is a relative pronoun and it’s most basic use is “who”, “which”, ect. But that doesn’t mean it’ cant be used as personal pronoun when referring to a person. This happens all the time in English as well as Greek. That being said, it doesn’t bother me either way if there are mistakes in the modern translations. I expect them. In fact, until the 2011 update to the NIV I stopped using it but the new update fixed a lot of things.

    5) KJVO people are better than non-KJV’rs *wink*

    If by better you mean fewer and increasingly dying out, then yes you’re better than us. :) 

    Looking forward to your response. Hope your Sunday is blessed.

  • #8532

    SteveD
    Member
    • Offline
      • RANK: Just saved
      • 3

    Sorry for the delays, didn’t realize I’d need to register for the forums differently than I did for the comments. Anyway, on with the KJVO4Life debate :)

    1) When you say “the text needs to be read and understood” I agree but I think you are misapplying the thought. Let me put it like this, if I were an atheist and said “God condones rape” and rattled off a passage from Deuteronomy, you would (rightly) call foul. I didn’t understand the passage from which I was referring. Now, if I read that from the 1611 “If a man finde a damosel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found” our atheist fried would not have been able to Google “rape” and would have to apply context and understand what he is reading, thus drawing a more correct understanding that “rape” in this context is sex outside marriage. What I mean to say is, sometimes “harder” reading, brings us closer to understanding because we are not so superficial in our reading. I see you have an M.Div, would you say superficial (NIV) reading is any way to get the most from God’s word?

    2) Update=change. Thomas Jefferson attempted to “update” his Bible because some things didn’t jive with his beliefs (Martin Luther tried this, too). Ultimately, we need to go back to the original, not newer.

    3) 1611 is original. Everything before that was fragments.

    4) Yes! Point for Steve :) LOL Seriously though, I know people, whole churches even, that dropped the NIV with the new update and went ESV (and HCSB) because of all the gender roles it dropped. Why did you like the changes? Honest question.

    We may be dying out, but so is the church…coincidence? ;)

  • #8534

    admin
    Keymaster
    • Offline
      • RANK: Prophet
      • 95

    Steve, don’t worry about response time. I am way to busy to be on here everyday lol. Either way, let us continue our our fun.

    1) When you say “the text needs to be read and understood” I agree but I think you are misapplying the thought. Let me put it like this, if I were an atheist and said “God condones rape” and rattled off a passage from Deuteronomy, you would (rightly) call foul. I didn’t understand the passage from which I was referring. Now, if I read that from the 1611 “If a man finde a damosel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found” our atheist fried would not have been able to Google “rape” and would have to apply context and understand what he is reading, thus drawing a more correct understanding that “rape” in this context is sex outside marriage. What I mean to say is, sometimes “harder” reading, brings us closer to understanding because we are not so superficial in our reading. I see you have an M.Div, would you say superficial (NIV) reading is any way to get the most from God’s word?

    I am not sure I understand your comparison. The NIV is a translation that paraphrases Hebrew idioms. It shouldn’t be a shock that they rendered the Hebrew idol for rape as rape. It neither loses it’s meaning nor water’s it down. There is nothing gained by using “lay hold of, and lie with.” Unless you are trying to use this passage to imply that rape can also be consensual sex outside of marriage, in which case I would heartily disagree with you. 

    The Hebrew word “תפשׂ” which is used to say “lay hold of” does not mean they embraced. It means that she was captured against her will. In nearly ALL used of this word in the OT, especially the Pentateuch, it’s used to indicate a capture against one’s will and often violently. It’s the same phrase used to describe how the military seized lands and people. This is obviously why the NIV used the word rape. It’s also why the translators of the Septuagint also rendered it in Greek to indicate rape. A form of “βιάζω“ replaced “תפשׂ” which means to take something by force or violence. Keep in kind the Septuagint is the scriptures that were used by our NT authors and used for quoting the OT 9 out of 10 times.

    2) Update=change. Thomas Jefferson attempted to “update” his Bible because some things didn’t jive with his beliefs (Martin Luther tried this, too). Ultimately, we need to go back to the original, not newer.

    Jefferson was a deist, he only believed a small portion of the Bible. But he wasn’t a Bible translator so it doesn’t matter. If we are going to go back to original then the KJV is hardly a source that can be counted as original. It’s not in the original languages and it wasn’t even translated completely from the original languages. As I mentioned before, a sizable portion was translated from Latin which was earlier translated from the Greek and Hebrew under Jerome. A translation of a translation is hardly original. This also coupled with the fact that 80% of the KJV is identical to the Geneva English Bible. The Tyndale and Geneva Bibles were complete English translations long before the KJV.

    3) 1611 is original. Everything before that was fragments.

    I don’t know what “everything” is or what you are using as a source for your history but complete manuscripts of OT and NT clearly existed in multiple languages long before the KJV. John Wycliff made one in the 1380’s. John Colet made one in the 1490’s. Tyndale made his translation in the 1520’s. The first single-volume English Bible to be mass-produced was by Myles Coverdale in 1535, almost 100 years before the KJV. In 1539 Thomas Cramner and Coverdale published the “Great Bible” which was also single-volume and mass produced. In the 1550 the Geneva Bible was produced. Shortly after that, the Doway/Rheims Bible was published the late 1580’s. In all, at least 5 complete English Bibles produced before the KJV. The KJV is hardly original.

    4) Yes! Point for Steve :) LOL Seriously though, I know people, whole churches even, that dropped the NIV with the new update and went ESV (and HCSB) because of all the gender roles it dropped. Why did you like the changes? Honest question.

    The NIV is not really a study Bible. It’s designed for easy reading. It’s not that it’s a “bad” translation but in many cases they tried a bit too hard to gloss over certain passages that were hard to read because we don’t have the same idioms in English. There isn’t anything wrong with this as long as the reader knows that some passages are paraphrased and not directly translated. But the NIV still better than nothing. The gospel is still delivered. And they did a good job of changing course with the 2011 update.

  • #9675

    dbzsuper786
    Participant
    • Offline
      • RANK: Apostle
      • 30

    I’ve been seeing remarks saying Christians should only use the King James Bible. But why

    • #10572

      admin
      Keymaster
      • Offline
        • RANK: Prophet
        • 95

      The general idea behind the KJVO issue is that all other English versions are deficient or that they were purposefully changed. However, no facts support such a theory.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.