KJV vs. Others?
It seems as though which version of the Bible a person uses is still a touchy subject among many people. This week at camp, I was privileged to bring the Monday evening message. I decided to use the New American Standard (NASB) so that it would be clear to the children who do not go to church anywhere. Well, a church (which will not be named because we don't need to personalize this...we just need to discuss the issue) left right after I read my text out of the New American Standard. Needless to say, it was somewhat hard to concentrate on my preaching while they were getting up and leaving from the Tabernacle. Anyway, I talked to the pastor afterwards, and he said that he and his church do not use anything except the King James. He also said that it was nothing personal which I believe him to be telling the truth. Also, there was a sponsors meeting where this issue was discussed (the motion was finally tabled). All this information is to show how divisive an issue this still is. What do you think? What version and why? I'm sure we can get some good discussion going on this one!
Posts
In other words, ubiquitous carapace
3 hours ago
21 comments:
Off topic: How is Marilyn doing?
On topic (maybe): Which version? KJV. Why? Majority textual basis; accurate translation; and, if nothing else, no matter what people think about the KJV, I doubt anyone will ever get up and walk out because you're reading from it!
I would agree with that!
(Marilyn is doing much better. She had a severely pulled muscle in her chest.)
I would definitely recommend the KJV. I am not a KJV fanatic as some KJV fanatics go. I am not so sure that I would say the KJV is the "perfect, inspired, infallible word of God in the English language." However, to echo the words of Bro. Vaughn, it does have majority textual basis and it was accurately translated. Further, English has been watered down in recent years as a language and those archaic words in the KJV allow readers to peer into the Greek in a much more profound way. I would not go back to a meeting where anything other than the KJV is used. That is because, while I could care less what others use, I have a made a commitment to have a standard Bible version in my ministry, so as to not confuse people with the thousands of Bible versions in the world. When people use other versions, they unknowingly are usurping my teaching at the church, and undoing some of what we work for by confusing new converts. I do not really have time to go into a long discussion over textual criticism with new converts, and would never have to if Missionary Baptists at least only used Bibles with a Majority textual basis. You might look into the Defined King James, or the 21st century King James as proper alternatives to the ASB.
Which version of the KJV? One of the eleventy billion revisions, or do you use the 1611 version?
The ESV and NASB are translations coming from the exact same text as the KJV. Why wouldn't they be equally as acceptable?
Sorry... I just cannot see where there is any leg to stand on here.
The majority of my studying is done in a New King James Version. However, I do have many other versions that are at my disposal for reference. I have a KJV/NIV parallel Bible that I use to teach from (don't excommunicate me, yet). I read the KJV, then use the NIV to transliterate. This is an especially useful approach when teaching kids and teens. They are exposed to the KJV, which I think is important, yet get to hear it stated a clearer way.
HOWEVER, I do know and understand the issues with the NIV. I use that particular parallel because it was the only one I could find 14 years ago. I avoid using the NIV verses that I find to be problematic.
Anyone wishing to study an easy to understand author on the subject of textual criticism should start with James R. White. Yes, he is a Calvinist, but he approaches this subject with simpler language that is easy to digest. I started with "The King James Only Controversy" and have loaned my copy to many friends. It helped me tremendously.
Oh, boy. I just endorsed James R. White. Let the beatings begin...
No beatings from me! Only loving pats on the back as we welcome you to the family. Mwahahahaha!
The ASB and the ESV are not translated from the same manuscripts as the KJV. The KJV comes from the Textus Receptus, part of the larger Majority Text family, whereas, the ASB and ESV come from the Minority text, the Vaticanus and Syanticus. Pardon my incorrect spelling.
I think I was fairly clear concerning my preference for the Majority text. I also think I am quite open within the family of the King James Versions. However, I have used both a 1611 and a 1769 in my preaching. The differences are in spelling. And you muddy the waters to assert otherwise. In 1611, English had not yet gone through a standardization of spelling. Words were spelled in such a way as to fill a line. An "e" was added to end of many words to fill space. The 1769 is the version that reads the easiest with standardized modern spelling. No new translation work was done to the KJV until the NKJV came around.
The incorrect spelling can certainly be pardoned. Oversimplification, not so much. With regard to the New Testament, scholars recognize anywhere from three to five basic manuscript families based on the text type, materials used, etc. not two. Furthermore, the method of textual criticism employed by the Nestle and Aland and UBS texts (the underlying Greek texts of the NASB and ESV), called “reasoned eclecticism”, takes all of the families into account, not just one. The Alexandrian and Byzantine families are the ends of the spectrum as far as date, style and fullness are concerned, but they are hardly the only ones taken into consideration. Hence the name “eclecticism”, as in eclectic: composed of elements drawn from various sources.
Additionally, over 5,300 manuscripts are known to exist and all of them differ in some way from one another. Also, Textus Receptus, like the Nestle Aland and UBS texts, is not a manuscript. It’s a series of printed editorial compilations of Greek manuscripts (Erasmus used approx. six when he compiled his). It was dubbed “The Received Text”, no doubt for marketing purposes, by one edition’s publishers in the late 1600’s after the KJV had been translated. It differs from the Majority Text in almost 1,000 different places, close to 400 of those in Revelation alone due to the fact that none of the manuscripts Erasmus used contained the last portion of the book of Revelation so in his attempt to beat a rival to press he had to back-translate from Latin into Greek.
Furthermore, the several editions of TR vary from one-another. The edition most closely followed by the KJV translators was Beza's edition of 1598, but they departed from this edition for the reading in some other published Greek text at least 170 times, and in at least 60 places, the KJV translators abandoned all then-existing printed editions of the Greek New Testament, choosing instead to follow precisely the reading in the Latin Vulgate.
Many thanks to a friend who offered insight to this.
So, we agree that the line of Bibles in the KJV are translated from a different source text than the ASB and ESV. Totally awesome!
Just to share with you guys, my 1960 RVA in Spanish also does not harmonize with the NIV, but does with the KJV. That is because even in 1960, Spanish speakers were still using the correct manuscripts. My French Bible also agrees with the KJV. It has only been in recent times, and through American influence that newer Bibles in these traditional languages have begun to reflect the tectual problems we have already seen in the NIV and others.
how do KJV-only advocates respond when it's pointed out that the earliest church references to scripture in the first 300-ish years reflect the alexandrian texts rather than the KJV/byzantine texts such as the TR and majority text?
i find the argument that "english is becoming 'watered down' " to be completely unsupportable...my understanding is that much of the NT was written in "watered down" koine (or "common") greek rather than the classical greek of the scholars. those archaic words in the KJV discourage or confuse (see 2 thes 2:7) most readers who lack a degree in shakespearean english and the pretention of endorsing such language seems to counter the purpose in originally making the bible available in the more "common" language.
english, like any other language, is constantly changing. trying to force people to learn 400 year old english usage in order to understand scripture is an unnecessary stumbling block. you'd have a better argument if you disallowed any translations and tried to force everyone to learn the original greek. IMO, if you are that willing to separate from brothers who use other translations, you'd better be willing to go to the mat arguing that the KJV english is every bit as inspired as the original greek.
and for clarification, given these serious charges of "usurping of teaching" and "undoing" of conversion work necessitating withdrawing from fellowship, which essential doctrines are actually being put at risk by using a non-KJV translation, such as the ESV?
-charles
It is painfully obvious that people are not reading or comprehending what I am saying... go figure.
I want to qualify what I mean by "go figure." It is very difficult to explain online any aspect of the textual debate. I would like however someone to review my post and evaluate what I actually stated.
I have never been inconsistent in my handling of this issue. But I have had new converts confused when a pastor goes through a study of 1 John, and read a completely different verse for 1 John 5:7-8.
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." KJV
"For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement." NIV
Does this change any vital doctrine? No, but it opens questions up before I feel a student is ready to digress into textual criticism. I know it may have been a long time since y'all were new converts, but it makes it much easier when we are all on the same page and the same Bible.
I am not a KJV-only person per se. I do not badger people for using some other version. I have about twenty versions, and I have both the Received Text and the Nestle-Alan. Frankly, I am not ready to go out on a limb and state that one is better than the other. But, one is more widely accepted, more widely quoted, etc. Further, that old Shakespherian English does command more respect than street language.
When I talk about the language being watered down, though, I am not referring to anything other than the reality that English above all other languages has become a lazy language with very simple declension and conjugation.
If you have studied Greek, you know that a noun can be in several forms. This is also true in English. "He" is nominative, whereas "him" is accusative. However, we have lost any ability to discern between plural and singular second person pronouns, we use "you" for both. When I say that and older variation of the language helps folks to peer into the Greek with greater ease, it is for that reason. It allows us to note that Jesus was speaking to two different audiences when he said in Matthew 16:19:
"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
And then in Matthew 18:18, "Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Here we can distinguish a difference- Jesus used the words "thee" and "thou" in the first declaration, and then uses "ye" and "you" in the second declaration. This is because "you" and "ye" are plural, and "thee" and "thou" are singular. This is a cool feature that is absent from all translations except for the KJV and the 21st Century KJV.
I do not mind linguistic change, and that is why I support the 1960 RVA in Spanish over the older Spanish Bibles. What I do mind is linguistic deterioration. I personally feel that Spanish as a lanugage is a much better language from which to preach true Biblical doctrine. The Spanish language never adopted the word "church," for example, but still maintains the word "iglesia" from the Greek "ekklesia."
I could go on and on about the linguistic problems in English. Even the KJV has its issues. However, it has several features that make it the best Bible in the English language.
For the sake of brevity, I will not at this time refute what you have stated about the earliest biblical references. I will state that Tertullian obviously had an Antiochan manuscript when he quoted 1 John 5:7 in 200 A.D.
Further, that old Shakespherian English does command more respect than street language.
OH COME ON! I will bite my thumb at them, which is disgrace to them if they bear it. Really? This demands respect? That's your weakest argument yet.
"Thou shalt not...." sounds better than "you shall not." That is the why the Christmas story is commonly quoted from the KJV instead of the NIV even by Hollywood. Don't try to overanalyze it, it is what it is. People respect that variation of the language more. There are so many examples of this....
By the way, I am not arguing anything. I am stating my reasons for my preference. You are the one who is getting defensive.
Not defensive at all. I just think that's a ridiculous assertion, and one that shouldn't enter the debate at all. :shrug:
Just today, heading home from work, I heard a radio spot for a local hospital. In the spot, they basically said that if you get more healthy your cup will "runneth over." It is not a ridiculous assertion when you are talking about meeting the culture to ask what method has the most cultural significance. I started out as a Bible major, but now have been studying Business for several years. I am soon to complete a BS in Business with a focus in Marketing. It has always been interesting to me that in ad campaigns such as the one I just alluded to, people use that old KJV English when they want a biblical reference. It is probably one of the strongest reasons to use the KJV... it has widely been accepted by the American culture to the point that when the Bible is thought of by the secularist, they think of it in the KJV.
I've been mostly observing this discussion and reserving involvement (for now) because I'm really interested in what you guys think on this.
Studymore has made two points that I think are valid and I'd like to explore very briefly.
I'll avoid the "ancient" versus "majority" discussion because
1.) I don't think there's very much opposition to my thinking on this and
2.) Blogger probably doesn't own enough bandwidth to contain that debate, should it arise.
Now, as far as the English language (modern and Shakespearean) is concerned, the King James does indeed lend itself better to clarity of intent (the "you's," singular and plural being a very good example). However, let's not forget that it takes just as much time to teach a new convert these King James usages as it does to teach them why, in their modern translation, these words have different intent as to specifying the audience. The responsibility to teach and clarify Scripture on our part is not greatly diminished by ANY translation.
Secondly, the Shakespearean English DOES carry a certain mystique, and it does get attention and respect because of that. Right or wrong, that's our culture. Quote John 3:16 out loud. Right now. Do it or you'll go to bed without dinner!
See? I'll bet you just quoted the KJV. I encourage kids to learn memory verses from the KJV for several reasons:
1.) The "uncommon" sound of the sentence and word structure makes for better memorization. It's somewhat poetic. How many times has a favorite song gotten stuck in your head? It's the same principle - the brain tends to remember that which is unique and discard the common.
2.) The RESPECT aspect. In our culture, one could quote Scripture all day long from a modern translation, and while some familiar with Scripture might recognize it as such, the Oprahfied world would probably think you were quoting her, Dr. Phil, or one of her gnostic gurus. Quote the KJV, and most people in our society would recognize it immediately, even with little or no knowledge of the Bible. Once again, right or wrong, this is the society we live in.
3.) Uniformity. If verses are to be read or recited from memory by a group or congregation aloud as in the case of our Scripture readings during Sunday morning worship, it is best for all to be reading from the same text. All of the Scripture verses intended for corporate recitation in our hymnals are in the KJV for this reason. Only ONE hymnal is in a different translation, and it floats between Matt, Shane, and me (myself and I). Whoever ends up with it gets a pretty distressed look on their face when we're doing the Scripture reading before the congregation. FYI, Matt - I'm confiscating that thing the next time it surfaces!!
4.) It makes Grandpa proud. Ever watched a 6 year old recite memory verses for their grandparents? KJV wins every time. Traditionalism, yes, but let's not toss traditions just because they are traditions. Let's honor the traditions of our forefathers BECAUSE it helps to show honor to our them. We won't always have these traditions or the men that gave them to us. Love 'em while ya got 'em.
Lastly, regardless of what I've stated, KJV-only advocates shouldn't count me as an ally. I respect, honor, and encourage the use of most of the modern translations, but, like I said in an earlier post, I use as my main study text the NKJV (as well as the KJV). I know, the footnotes in the NKJV cast shadows of doubt that are troubling for some. To them, I say study the KJV instead. My wife studies from an NIV (GAAASSPPP!!!). She finds it easy to understand, and when she has a question about something it opens up an avenue of discussion we probably would never have had. I read to my kids from the NKJV. They are too young to give a rip about Shakespeare or his style of language. My 6 year old boy learns his verses from the KJV. It makes Grandad proud.
I just don't want it to be assumed that we can skirt our responsibility of teaching our people the truth about Biblical textual analysis by prescribing the KJV, then going on about our little lives (I'm not accusing anyone here of that). The easy road is seldom the right one. I think you guys agree with that.
OK. I lied. I wasn't brief. Sorry. Send me a bill, and I'll make sure Matt reimburses you for the time you spent reading this.
Philip,
Great comments... I need to learn to write like you, then I would not be so misunderstood.
But I'm still not paying the bill!
Just wanted to mention one thing. I too have walked out during a service which was going to use another version. I heard the devotion given from another version, and looked at the sermon outline available which said the sermon would also be using another version, I think it was the HCSB. I waited until the "welcome eachother" time, and then left. It wasn't because of anger, or disrespect.
Just understand this. If I feel it isn't the word of God, and the ONLY reason I listen to a sermon is to hear the word of God read, and the preacher expounding upon that word, then why should I stay? For what purpose would I desire to stay? I don't want to hear what a person thinks. I don't want to hear what a person believes. I want to listen to a preacher preach the word of God, and then expound upon it from the word of God. So if I feel another version is not His Word, would you really expect me, or anyone else to stay?
Now I've never met you, so it isn't personal. I'm just trying to help you see the other side of the argument. By the way, I've never met ANY ANY ANY ABA member who is against anything other than the KJV. They just want something based ONLY on the Textus Receptus, which the NKJV is close, but not completely based upon it.
Love in Christ,
james
Post a Comment