On Facebook I am a fan of the page I Am A Independent Fundamental Baptist (soon to be moved to I Am An Independent Fundamental King James Bible Believing Baptist). He posted the following:
"QUESTION THAT BOTHERS ME MUCH- Why is there so much fighting over the KJV Bible? It is either inspired or just another "best they could do". Men that use, quote, or refer to versions otherwise are not brothers we can still support. I want to make myself VERY clear. I believe and will die standing on the fact that God w...as able to give us a perfect copy of His Word!!! What do you think?"There are three things that I make no sense to me regarding the issue of Bible translations. First, if there are differences in the versions, only one can be right. How do you know which one is right? If you say that the KJV is wrong on verse x, how do you know that? How do you know that your version is correct? Which leads me to the second thing that makes no sense to me. If you say that there are errors in the translations, how can you be sure that any of the Bible is correct, including the plan of salvation?
But mostly what makes no sense to me is this. If God is able to keep the universe going. If He is all powerful, why then is it impossible for Him to preserve His word? He used mortal men to write it, and they wrote it perfectly, why can't He use men to properly translate and preserve it?
7 Comments:
I'll try to answer your questions, Michelle:
First, if there are differences in the versions, only one can be right. How do you know which one is right? If you say that the KJV is wrong on verse x, how do you know that? How do you know that your version is correct?
Well, with the manuscript evidence we have, we can see what we have is an accurate translation. The KJV was quite accurate in 1611, although not perfectly so, nor were the subsequent editions following. We know for a fact that the KJV has been printed with errors (the "adultery Bible" comes to mind) yet we know they are errors because of being able to go back to the manuscripts. Even the different bodies of manuscripts agree in the vast majority of cases, with only smaller differences between them. One issue, however, is the change in word meanings from the 1600s to today and while some words were very accurate for the thought of the original, the translated word no longer means what it meant back then. One example is "study" as in the verse that says "Study to shew thyself approved". The word today means "application of the mind to the acquisition of knowledge, as by reading, investigation, or reflection" (definition from Dictionary.com) but back then, study meant "To endeavor diligentl" (from Webster's 1828 dictionary). So to change the word "study" to "endeavor diligently" or a similar phrase/word would be correct. It doesn't mean that the KJV is wrong but that the language has changed and a person reading it today would not understand the meaning of the verse as it was written by God. They both are correct - but one more clearly conveys the original language.
Which leads me to the second thing that makes no sense to me. If you say that there are errors in the translations, how can you be sure that any of the Bible is correct, including the plan of salvation?
I guess you could say the same thing with the KJV since, if you compare the modern KJV to the original 1611, there are many differences. Which ones are correct? The differences between the versions are really quite minor and there is not one doctrine that is compromised by those differences.
But mostly what makes no sense to me is this. If God is able to keep the universe going. If He is all powerful, why then is it impossible for Him to preserve His word? He used mortal men to write it, and they wrote it perfectly, why can't He use men to properly translate and preserve it?
Once again, I can ask the same thing. If God is all powerful, why is it impossible for Him to preserve His Word beyond 1611? Did all protection and inspiration stop at that point? What would point to that supposition?
I think the KJV is an excellent translation and it is one I use myself. However, I also find great use for other translations that might convey a thought more clearly for 21st century English. There is a great wealth in our lives today with the choices of Bible versions to use. God is great and His Word stands today whether it is in the KJV or my NASB or my ESV. :)
Glad to see you "found" me here again Ann!
So my question back to you is two-fold. One are you sure that your manuscripts are correct? I'm assuming that you are referring to manuscripts outside of the Textus Receptus, but please correct me if I am wrong.
And the second part of my question (though I guess that these would be two different questions) is what about verses that are omitted in the NIV, NKJV, etc?
OK - Your first question is regarding the manuscripts. Well, using forensic evidence, we can be quite sure that we have as close to the originals as God wants us to have right now and that our Bibles are quite accurate - KJV and others. Yes, there are some differences between the different manuscript bodies but not significant enough to worry about. The right thing to do when there IS a more serious discrepency is to notate the issue for the reader. The KJV translators did that and sadly, those notes were removed in the modern versions of the KJV.
This leads to your second question. The verses are not omitted in the NIV, NKJV or any of the other Scriptures. They are duly notated as having questionable heritage but they are in the Scriptures none-the-less. We know that the verses that are notated are orthodox in their teaching so even if they were later additions, or later subtractions, they are valid to put into the Bibles that we have today. In some instances, they are a result of harmonization (two verses with similar phrasing where the translators accidentally made them identical, adding in the words from the other verse that were not included in the verse that they were translating) or taking margin notes and adding them into the text. We also need to remember that our measure is not the KJV but the texts. So where there are differences, we do not say that the KJV is right because it's the KJV and the others are wrong because they don't agree with the KJV but we need to go back to our source texts and use what's called "textual criticism" to figure out what is correct.
But how do you know that your texts are correct? Just because something is older, doesn't make it right. The manuscripts that were used, were of course replaced, they would wear with time. Logically speaking, if a manuscript was in "perfect" condition from an earlier time, I would have to wonder why it wasn't used.
As for verses not being omitted. Acts 8:37 comes to mind. I just looked it up on blueletterbible.org and it's not there. The RSV has it in parentheses with notations.
The problem, of course, is this is one of the key verses about baptism coming after belief (something I'm pretty sure your church believes). If you don't have that verse, there is not explanation of baptism.
Well, I guess we can ask the same of the KJV adhearants. How do you know that the other manuscripts are correct? No, older does not necessarily mean better. I also don't know many manuscripts that are in "perfect" condition but I'm sure that there were some that were stored because of the importance of the text and the fact that scribing the entire Bible is a lot of work to just let get trashed quickly.
As for Acts 8:37, I went right to my NIV without looking anywhere else and here's what it says: "Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." The eunuch answered, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
The same verse in my ESV says: "And Philip said, "If you believe with all of your heart, you may." And he replied, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
Michelle, if I remember correctly, you stand on the Majority Text correct? Did you know that this verse is not in the Majority Text? Did you know that the verse is in only a very few Greek manuscripts and none of them earlier than the sixth century? Erasmus, who wrote the basis of the work that would be translated to the KJV, put it in his work based on the fact that it was in the Latin Vulgate and in the margin of ONE Greek text. So it's certainly right to notate the questionable heritage of the verse. However, it contains an orthodox idea, so it was not wrong to include it in case it WAS original Scripture. Additionally, there are other verses that support the idea of being baptized after belief (Acts 10:47 comes to mind), so it's not a doctrine that stands or falls on the one verse. If anyone meant to change a doctrine by bringing the supporting verse(s) in question, then they did a lousy job because they forgot the OTHER verses that support that same doctrine.
Michelle,
A couple of years ago I learned a really neat thing about 2Tim 2:15. My daughter was involved in Bible Quizzing and I was so excited that she was memorizing God's Word in another way. It was after she had made a commitment to this program that I found out it was NOT out of the King James! I was afraid of the part where it says not to add or take away and was sure God would not want her to memorize something that couldn't possibly be his Word. Immediately when I spoke in my mind that this was not really God's Word I felt the Holy Spirit give me the most strong correction and without an explanation. I marked this in my heart and mind but didn't understand it until later. Meanwhile, I went back to my mission to help fix this terrible problem. I went online to find all the verses that were omitted in this version and take a marked copy to the officials and plead for the "righteous thing." It didn't take long to find a website that had this list but the site also commented that there were many translations of God's Word. Some good ones and some bad, but they were all still God's Word. That's when 2Tim 2:15, that I had memorized as a child and never really got the last part, came back to me. The last part of the verse that said "rightly dividing the word of truth" became clear to me in that one moment, after having hidden it away all those years ago.
We live in a time where it is easy for us to study- and we should. We have access to so many tools etc, and we also have the Holy Spirit to personally guide us. No longer are we outside the veil. Living in such a day of grace, we bear more responsibility to study his word. Only God knows if we have done our best to know him("to show thyself approved unto God",) "a workman that needeth not to be ashamed" and "rightly dividing the word of truth." I can't say that every translation out there is of God, but I never again want to say that any other version but KJV (and I LOVE KJV) is not God's word. How many testimonies have we heard about people needing answers at an absolute time of need and, amazingly,there was a Bible right there. I believe with all my heart that the Lord has brought his word to us from many directions and time and at a high price to many. It stands to reason, not every manuscript ever written reached the publishers in pristine condition. Nevertheless, we have His perfect word in our own hands. He is so amazing! He has already told us we are like sheep. Its very common for the shepherd to take his flock to more than one pasture to feed. We need to know His voice and trust him. This "different version" thing is no big deal to God.
Now. What do we do with such a blessing? We could ask the persecuted church. They would know.
May God bless you,
Pam
Pam - I've never said that a person couldn't get saved by reading something other than the KJV. However, if you want the Word of God in English without error, then read the KJV. It is the only one not based on Westcott and Hort's manuscript.
Post a Comment