My purpose for posting this thread is to explain my position on the Authorized (King James) Version of the Bible. I believe there are going to be areas where some of you don't agree with me, where that is the case I hope you will explain why you believe I am wrong with Christian charity and kindness, I have no desire to argue with anyone here.

I have used an Authorized Version of the Bible since I was saved as a child about 33 years ago. I have only attended churches that adhear to an AVO/KJVO position and I would not be a member of any church that does not have a strict policy of only using the AV in all church related functions.

Several years ago I bought a NASB Bible, but I never felt comfortable using it or reading it, so I got rid of it after a few weeks. I do have a copy of the "Archaeological Study Bible" which only comes in the NIV Version, but I only use that for the historic and Archaeological notes and articles. All of my Bible study is done with an AV Bible.

I believe that the AV translation was blessed in a special way by God, I believe that it's popularity for the last 398 years amongst English speaking Christians of all types proves that it is special in a way that no other English translation can claim. In addition to that it was translated at a time when English as a language was at it's very height both in terms of technical precision and in terms of style. Because of that no translation of our era could hope to reach the heights of form and style that was achieved in the AV translation.

I believe that the team of scholars who were selected to translate the AV were amongst the very best Hebrew and Greek scholars who have ever lived and I find it amazing that God placed them all in the same small island nation at the same period in history.

I believe that the Majority Text manuscripts used as the basis for the translation are the perfectly and miraculously preserved Word of God. I also believe that the Minority Text manuscripts used to translate most modern versions, although older than any Majority Text manuscript, have been edited by Gnostic Christians centered in Alexandria, Egypt and as such are less trustworthy. I could spill a lot of words on why this is the case, but for the sake of this post I think it is enough to say that almost all of the Scripture quotes from the early Church Fathers adhear to the Majority text and almost all of the early fragments of Scripture that we have are Majority Text. Every Bible for the first 1850 years of Church historty was based on the Majority Text and it is only during the last 100 or so years that we have seen Minority Text Bibles embraced by Christians. If it is what the early church was using, I believe it is what we should be using now in these latter days.

I believe that the AV is the most accurate English translation of the Bible that we have and that we are unlikely to see a better translation in the future. The AV is very dear to me and I am very thankful to God for providing such an accurate (and elegant) version of His Word in my native language. Having said that, I do not believe that the AV is perfect, there are a few (very few as the case may be) things that I believe could have been translated better. There are also a few errors in translation (such as Matthew 23:24 which should read "strain out" as in "filter out" but not "strain at"). I believe that the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts are the Perfect Word of God and that they always correct the English. However, none of the errors that I have seen in any way changes the meaning. In other words while the AV is not perfect in word for word transmission, it is perfect as far I can tell in conveying the original intended meaning. The same can not be said for any modern version based on the Minority Text manuscripts.

I do believe that the modern versions contain the Word of God, I believe that you can lead a person to Christ with even a poor modern translation. I also believe that a Christian can grow and mature in their faith using a modern version. However, I have no doubt that these modern versions are suspect at best and in my opinion have clearly been altered by human editing of the Minority Text manuscripts. I deeply and sincerely wish that Christians would educate themselves on this issue before selecting a modern version as their primary or only Bible.

I think that many Christians have been very caviler in trading the time tested AV for one of the modern versions and I believe that the Church and the cause of Christ have suffered as a result.

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by HowlerMonkey

My purpose for posting this thread is to explain my position on the Authorized (King James) Version of the Bible. I believe there are going to be areas where some of you don't agree with me, where that is the case I hope you will explain why you believe I am wrong with Christian charity and kindness, I have no desire to argue with anyone here.

I have used an Authorized Version of the Bible since I was saved as a child about 33 years ago. I have only attended churches that adhear to an AVO/KJVO position and I would not be a member of any church that does not have a strict policy of only using the AV in all church related functions.

Several years ago I bought a NASB Bible, but I never felt comfortable using it or reading it, so I got rid of it after a few weeks. I do have a copy of the "Archaeological Study Bible" which only comes in the NIV Version, but I only use that for the historic and Archaeological notes and articles. All of my Bible study is done with an AV Bible.

I believe that the AV translation was blessed in a special way by God, I believe that it's popularity for the last 398 years amongst English speaking Christians of all types proves that it is special in a way that no other English translation can claim. In addition to that it was translated at a time when English as a language was at it's very height both in terms of technical precision and in terms of style. Because of that no translation of our era could hope to reach the heights of form and style that was achieved in the AV translation.

I believe that the team of scholars who were selected to translate the AV were amongst the very best Hebrew and Greek scholars who have ever lived and I find it amazing that God placed them all in the same small island nation at the same period in history.

I believe that the Majority Text manuscripts used as the basis for the translation are the perfectly and miraculously preserved Word of God. I also believe that the Minority Text manuscripts used to translate most modern versions, although older than any Majority Text manuscript, have been edited by Gnostic Christians centered in Alexandria, Egypt and as such are less trustworthy. I could spill a lot of words on why this is the case, but for the sake of this post I think it is enough to say that almost all of the Scripture quotes from the early Church Fathers adhear to the Majority text and almost all of the early fragments of Scripture that we have are Majority Text. Every Bible for the first 1850 years of Church historty was based on the Majority Text and it is only during the last 100 or so years that we have seen Minority Text Bibles embraced by Christians. If it is what the early church was using, I believe it is what we should be using now in these latter days.

I believe that the AV is the most accurate English translation of the Bible that we have and that we are unlikely to see a better translation in the future. The AV is very dear to me and I am very thankful to God for providing such an accurate (and elegant) version of His Word in my native language. Having said that, I do not believe that the AV is perfect, there are a few (very few as the case may be) things that I believe could have been translated better. There are also a few errors in translation (such as Matthew 23:24 which should read "strain out" as in "filter out" but not "strain at"). I believe that the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts are the Perfect Word of God and that they always correct the English. However, none of the errors that I have seen in any way changes the meaning. In other words while the AV is not perfect in word for word transmission, it is perfect as far I can tell in conveying the original intended meaning. The same can not be said for any modern version based on the Minority Text manuscripts.

I do believe that the modern versions contain the Word of God, I believe that you can lead a person to Christ with even a poor modern translation. I also believe that a Christian can grow and mature in their faith using a modern version. However, I have no doubt that these modern versions are suspect at best and in my opinion have clearly been altered by human editing of the Minority Text manuscripts. I deeply and sincerely wish that Christians would educate themselves on this issue before selecting a modern version as their primary or only Bible.

I think that many Christians have been very caviler in trading the time tested AV for one of the modern versions and I believe that the Church and the cause of Christ have suffered as a result.

My friend, your profession is a good one and I'll offer only one criticism and suggestion: Never throw any version of the Bible away, it's evidence and a study tool in refuting them. They are useful in showing someone who uses an NASB or NIV the errors in them. Over a seven year period I collected 135 versions of the Bible in English. My own brother uses an NASB, I showed his John 1:18 where it clearly teaches two Gods and he resisted it, well, according to Ezekiel 2 he was told.

The KJV was produced by order of a king of an Empire with unlimited resources without Catholic interference and the results endure. Te KJV has a total vocabulary of just under 6000 words of which after 400 years only 8 have been declared "obsolete" or "archaic" by Oxford-Cambridge University. The "industry" and the nutburgers over on the FF Forum repeat the lie that "200 million copies of the NIV have already been sold". There are not 200 million Christians in the English speaking world today, who bought them, the Red Chinese?

Brother, you have a Sword that will never rust. Lock and load.

Grace and peace

Tony

Originally Posted by HowlerMonkey

I believe that the AV is the most accurate English translation of the Bible that we have and that we are unlikely to see a better translation in the future. The AV is very dear to me and I am very thankful to God for providing such an accurate (and elegant) version of His Word in my native language.

Me too, very thankful.

Originally Posted by HowlerMonkey

Having said that, I do not believe that the AV is perfect, there are a few (very few as the case may be) things that I believe could have been translated better. There are also a few errors in translation (such as Matthew 23:24 which should read "strain out" as in "filter out" but not "strain at").

I think you will find that most here are convinced there are no errors in the KJV, any error is in our understanding. This is usually going to be a sticking point on forums like this, you may want to check some of the introductory sections to get the lay of the land, so to speak.

Originally Posted by HowlerMonkey

I believe that the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts are the Perfect Word of God and that they always correct the English.

Well that poses a bit of a problem, because what you are saying is, you always correct the Bible with something that does not exist. There are no "originals." I think you will find that most here consider our KJV Bible to be the preserved, inerrant Word of God, that requires no correction in any language.

Originally Posted by HowlerMonkey

I think that many Christians have been very caviler in trading the time tested AV for one of the modern versions and I believe that the Church and the cause of Christ have suffered as a result.

Very true, on this we agree.

[Brother Tim]

HowlerMonkey said, [underlining mine]

Having said that, I do not believe that the AV is perfect, there are a few (very few as the case may be) things that I believe could have been translated better. There are also a few errors in translation (such as Matthew 23:24 which should read "strain out" as in "filter out" but not "strain at"). I believe that the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts are the Perfect Word of God and that they always correct the English. However, none of the errors that I have seen in any way changes the meaning. In other words while the AV is not perfect in word for word transmission, it is perfect as far I can tell in conveying the original intended meaning.

HM, I would like to comment on a few of the above statements, but first, I would like to know upon what authority do you come to your conclusions referenced by "I believe"? What source material do you have that causes you to determine "error"? Your answers will help me to respond more accurately. Thanks.

P.S. The "strain at" vs "strain out" has been debated extensively on this forum and elsewhere, so I won't bother starting that up again.

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

HowlerMonkey said, [underlining mine]
HM, I would like to comment on a few of the above statements, but first, I would like to know upon what authority do you come to your conclusions referenced by "I believe"? What source material do you have that causes you to determine "error"? Your answers will help me to respond more accurately. Thanks.

P.S. The "strain at" vs "strain out" has been debated extensively on this forum and elsewhere, so I won't bother starting that up again.

OK, there are a lot of comments/questions here since I left for work early this morning. I'll try my best to respond/answer as best I can, if I overlook anyone I am not intending to ignore or slight you, but you may have to remind me if you feel I have overlooked something important.

First I want to be very clear that I am in no way, shape or form an AV basher, I love God's Word and I love the AV, I spend time in it every day and I would not trade my old AV for a truck-load of any modern versions, I defend the AV against the attacks of modern scholars and those who believe that modern versions are better. I believe that the AV is THE English version that God has shown has His special blessing.

As far as source material, I have read a lot about this issue from both sides. I have come to believe that the claims of those who support use of the Critical Text manuscripts just don't hold water and thus I believe that ANY translation based on CT manuscripts will be flawed on that basis alone regardless of how good the translators might be.

I don't know a word of Hebrew, so I am in no position to comment in any meaningful way about the translation of the OT. I do know a little Koine Greek and I do have a Textus Receptus, I'm no Greek expert (far from it), but I do often compare the English of the AV with the Greek of the Textus Receptus. I hope that answers your question, but if not let me know and I'll try my best to expand on what I have said.

Originally Posted by HowlerMonkey

I don't know a word of Hebrew, so I am in no position to comment in any meaningful way about the translation of the OT.

Well there it is, like a dead catfish in the sunlight.
Why would you use the Hebrew to pass judgment on our KJV when you don't even understand a word of Hebrew...?

This follows your earlier position where you stated:

Originally Posted by HowlerMonkey
I believe that the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts are the Perfect Word of God and that they always correct the English.

Now please don't get offended brother, I sense you may be here for the right reasons. But you have to understand—this kind of thing comes up a lot here, and you have to see the problem with what I just confronted you with. It was not meant to derail you, again I suggest you tread softly here for a while and research the introductory areas before you proceed.

[bibleprotector]

If someone says

I believe that the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts are the Perfect Word of God and that they always correct the English

they had better have perfect copies of the originals, or a sure method of finding out the actual Hebrew and Greek, and what they mean.

Even the translators of the King James Bible talked about the diversity of senses, and laboured to present a correct text rendering (rubbed, polished and perfected), so that they would present the Word of God in English. If it is sound (their word) and exact (their word) in Engish, how can it be altered?

If the originals are always correcting the English, when will the English be correct? The choice is either 1611 onward or never.

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish

Well there it is, like a dead catfish in the sunlight.
Why would you use the Hebrew to pass judgment on our KJV when you don't even understand a word of Hebrew...?

This follows your earlier position where you stated:



Now please don't get offended brother, I sense you may be here for the right reasons. But you have to understand—this kind of thing comes up a lot here, and you have to see the problem with what I just confronted you with. It was not meant to derail you, again I suggest you tread softly here for a while and research the introductory areas before you proceed.

I think you bring up a good point BroParrish and I am not offended at all. I am being honest in stating my position and in stating what I do know and what I don't know. I know a little Greek and not a word of Hebrew, so you are correct in pointing out that my position at least in reagrd to the OT is not one that comes from my own experience, but I was in no way suggesting otherwise.

I am saying that the Hebrew corrects the English, not that I use the Hebrew to correct the English.

At this point it might be wise of me to respectfully ask if you believe that the Greek and Hebrew are the perfect Word of God?

Well that poses a bit of a problem, because what you are saying is, you always correct the Bible with something that does not exist. There are no "originals." I think you will find that most here consider our KJV Bible to be the preserved, inerrant Word of God, that requires no correction in any language.

I may not have phrased what I said very well, but I believe the Hebrew Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and the Greek Textus Receptus are, line-for-line, word-for-word and letter-for-letter the perfectly preserved Word of God. Both of those documents do exist and are easy to locate.

I appreciate the replys so far, thanks for being nice!

[PaulB]

Dear Howler Monkey,

Thanks for sharing your stance with us all, I am quite new on this forum also.
Concerning your stance, I admire your heart but I differ with your conclusions.

The “originals” or the “Hebrew & Greek” as the final revelation of Divine authority reminds me of the arguments that the Muslims use when attributing their final, sealed & perfect revelation of God to bound up in Arabic. I don’t believe that God simply used the KJB like some secondary source of communicating the nearest that we could get to what He originally said at some point in history.
I believe that The KJB is the preserved word of God as it stands to the English speaking continents.

God doesn’t speak in Hebrew & Greek only He speaks in Spirit & I hear that in English (remember the tower of Babel? it was God who confused the languages in the first place and I believe that He speaks every one of them!)

Have you ever tried updating maths? You can’t because it is a fixed law – Neither do I believe it to be possible to update that which has been entrusted to us as stewards. I believe that we can expound what is written but we can not alter what is written.

If the motive behind the new version was really about “updating the English” as they claim, then Bible translations would have ceased at the production of the 1901 American Standard Version, or at the Latest with the NIV/Good news version.

I don’t believe for one minute that the explosion of new versions is down to a hunger to know what God really said in those long lost originals that never existed as a complete volume at any point in history. Neither is it really about updating archaic English, it is about doing away with the protestant Bible and destroying the concept of “Sola Scriptura” by subtly guiding us to back under the headship of Rome under the guise of so called “more accurate” protestant translations.

The way I see it is this; Bible correctors are using the devil’s algebra to determine what should and shouldn’t be in the Bible, (i.e. take away from it and you end up adding to it, add to it and you will end up taking away from it). The TNIV is a classic example of this (as are all the modern translations).
For more information on the TNIV I think that this guy does a great job;
http://www.elijahproject.com/

If there are words or verses that you are questioning then I am sure that there are more than enough resources available from scores of people on this site.

Before I finish I would like to say that now both of our colours are truly nailed to the mast, I am thankful for you sharing your stance & welcome you as a brother in Christ. After all this is a forum where we express ourselves to each other in love to both challenge & strengthen each other.

God Bless

PaulB