KJV "given by God"?

[steve]

I received the following email today after saying, on my morning show, that the KJV's rendering of a certain word had been corrected in the NKJV and other versions. The letter was as follows:

[quoting me:]"... some people don't like to debate since word is used in the King James Bible ... but the greek word actually means strife and so the modern versions have fixed that..."

Once you start down the path of changing the King James Bible to read what you want it to read, there is no end to the depths of apostacy you will reach. No wonder you are soft-peddling Roman Catholicism.

Correcting the King James Bible means you think you have access to a higher authority than God who gave us that book.

You don't.

I responded:

Hi Mack,

Apparently, you are unaware that the KJV was not supernaturally produced. It was translated by ordinary men, good Greek and Hebrew scholars, from its original languages. It was not the first English translation to be made, nor was it the last. In that respect, the KJV is like other translations.

The main difference between the KJV and the NKJV is that those who worked on the latter had the advantage of better understanding of the ancient Hebrew and Greek languages as the result of 400+ years of continuing discoveries since 1611. God did not "give" us the KJV. He gave us documents in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Every English translation is the result of certain linguists' best efforts to convey the original thought into a more modern language—namely, English.

The Greek noun "eris" is translated as "debate" in Romans 1:29 (KJV). According to the Greek concordances and lexicons, this word means "contention, strife, wrangling"—which is precisely what I said on the air. Do you have some Greek sources that would support another view?

Another word, the Hebrew word "riyb" is translated "debate" in the Old Testament. However, it is not considered a negative thing. In fact, there is the exhortation in Proverbs 25:9—

"Debate thy cause with thy neighbour himself; and discover not a secret to another."

If Solomon can advocate debating your cause, in some instances, then it is a mistake to think that what Paul condemns in Romans 1:29 is "debate."

I know that there are people who are threatened by the thought that their favorite version might be subject to correction by the improved Greek and Hebrew knowledge gained through more recent discoveries, but I can't allow the irrational fears of such people to prevent me from saying what is demonstrably true on the air.

Can you tell me of any doctrine of the Christian faith that rests upon the KJV alone, and which cannot likewise be found in every other reputable English translation?

Thanks for sharing your opinions,

Steve Gregg

[mattrose]

KJV-Onlyism is certainly one of the most interesting phenomena in our Christian culture

I really think it comes down to a natural desire for 'certainty.' Some people just aren't comfortable with the idea that we don't have a 100% perfect book. The reality is just too messy for them, with too many people involved. They can't figure out why God would subject something so important to the realm of flesh.

It's a pretty anti-incarnational mindset when you think about it.

[steve]

Well-said, Matt.

[brody196]

soft-peddling Roman Catholicism

??

I don't think this guy has ever listened when Tom calls in...

[steve]

This man may think I treat Tom too much like a "brother"—a term unworthy of a Roman Catholic..

[Paidion]

I really think [KJV-Onlyism] comes down to a natural desire for 'certainty.' Some people just aren't comfortable with the idea that we don't have a 100% perfect book. The reality is just too messy for them, with too many people involved. They can't figure out why God would subject something so important to the realm of flesh.

I agree.

But isn't KJV-Onlyism but a subset of particular inspirational theories? The proponents of the verbal dictation theory or even proponents of some verbal inspiration theories, believe in an infallible Bible without either theological or factual errors — a Bible outside of which there is no inspiration. Wouldn't your statements apply equally well to those people?

The problem with all these views is the difficulty or impossibility of establishing what authorities define the inspired writings. Or do we individually select them for ourselves through our studies. I am beginning to get the impression that some think that is what I am doing. Not so. I do consider the historical dispute in the early church over the books to be "received". I have similar difficulties in determining which books of the New Testament are truly apostolic and not pseudonymous — not that I am in any way qualified to make a correct decision in that regard.

[jriccitelli]

My first Bibles were King James and I studied it hard, because it was hard to study (beautiful and memorable for sure, but difficult to read).
After spending years of going over King James with Mormons I am convinced the reason they have such a hard time seeing the obvious in the text is the difficulty in reading the Old Testament in old English. I truly thinketh it is a tactic of Satan to keep people shackled to this ancient version of a language that is not even used today, is not this what the Catholic church did to the people by holding unto the Latin for 2000 years ('Now' whos peddling Roman Catholicism?).
I would like these KJV Onlys to be all given a copy of the 1611 KJV and try and read that, that’s right try reading a 1611 version it may as well be Latin. And try handing your KJV only to a Spanish or Chinese only speaking person, this is such a ridiculous position to hold; http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/161 ... =1&verse=1

Moses the Prophets and Iesus all spoke in the common language of their day and tried to use common and everyday terms so to be easily understood.

Thouest mayest knoweth that thine 'Nu American Standard Version' (my favorite) is the trueth and hast been giveth fromth God.

[steve]

I just received a reply from my original correspondent. He wrote:

All atheists agree with you - they also claim the AV was not 'supernaturally produced' but is merely a human product. Bird of a feather flock together.

But the Bible says, 'All scripture is given by inspiration of God,' 2 Timothy 3:16.

Instead of believing the Book that God to the Christian Church as the touchstone of truth for 400 years and which has saved hundreds of millions of people ('Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.' Mt. 7:20), you instead chose to believe some unidentified 'Greek concordances and lexicons' ... shame on you.

Are those lexicons inspired? Is Alice Liddell's daddy your god? Apparently so.

The AV already demonstrated that the word 'debate' had different conotations - so your excersion into Greek cloudland only served to make you appear 'smart' to the dummies who listen to you on the radio - but who became 'stupid' in their eyes? Why that would be God who gave us the King James Bible.

Like the Holy Ghost appreciates having an infidel on the radio attack his Book with snide comments!

And where exactly did you chose to attack the Bible? That would be in Romans 1 in the section dealing with faggots:

'And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.' v. 27

Now go visit with your homo buddies who also read 'Greek concordances and lexicons' and they can explain to you that the verse has nothing to do with a 'loving same-sex relationship between consenting adults' ... puke, puke, puke.

Anybody who has witnessed for the Lord Jesus Christ to sinners in the public streets knows exactly what you are up to because we run into it all the time. There isn't one agnostic, atheist, or sex-pervert who hasn't learned the gimmick about the King James Bible being 'just a translation' and so 'nobody can say for sure' what was in the original ... blah blah blah.

The AV is not 'subject to correction' - BUT YOU ARE BY IT. 'Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.' Heb. 4:13.

In every instance where you thought you were correcting the AV, you were only proving your infidelity and agnosticism. Sad.

But the Bible Believer believes the Bible: 'For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.' 1 Thess 2:13.

Yes, God can write an English Bible that he expects us at this time to believe as scripture - and he did exactly that in 1611. Psalm 12:6-7. 'The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.'

It is a simple matter of faith. Can God write a Bible in English? Can he use the Holy Ghost to translate his words?

'If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.' 1 Cor 14:27

One interpret - as in ONE. If 150 different 'scholars' stood up in Corinth to each give their own version, they would all be wrong - only ONE would be right. That one would be the one gifted by God with the interpretation, no matter whether anybody liked what he had to say, or how he said it.

That includes re-stating to make it 'easier' -- in fact, Paul was so hard to be understood that even Peter acknowledged it: 'As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.' 2 Peter 3:16. That's you - taking Paul's writings ('debate') and wresting the words because you don't like them.

So God gave the church men with the gift of supernatural interpretation and n.b., 'critical scholarship' is NOT listed as a spiritual gift. All 'interpretation' comes from God: 'And Joseph said unto them, Do not interpretations belong to God? ' Genesis 40:8; 'this secret is not revealed to me for any wisdom that I have more than any living, but for their sakes that shall make known the interpretation to the king,' Daniel 2:30.

And translation keeps God's words present with us even though the so-called 'originals' have all disapeared: 'By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.' Heb. 11:5.

So your question is entirely wrong-headed - and notwithstanding your weasle-word 'reputable' it would cover the 'New World Translation' that the JW cult put out (which agrees with the NASV in John 1:18 among many other places).

Doctrine only comes from the Bible, and once you allow for re-writing the Bible according to whim, you have no doctrine. Can you tell me one alleged doctrine of Christianity that I can't demolish in 5 seconds with a reference to ambiguities in manuscripts, Greek, Hebrew, or what was 'possibly in the original' ???

Even if you don't know that, the Devil certainly knows it, and that is why he put out hundreds of lexicons and versions.

'In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.' Judges 21:25.

... And with no King James Bible as final authority, every man believes that which is right in his own eyes.


God help you.

Can you imagine the impression this man makes on the unbelievers he "witnesses" to?

[mattrose]

Wowza....

This is on par with a KJV-onlyist I talked to once that said "In heaven there will be God the Father, God the Son, and God the King James Version."

Interesting that he mentions 'you'll know them by their fruit' and then has this sort of attitude

And what does he mean by 'so called originals' ? Is he doubting that there were original manuscripts? What does he even mean?

But other than everything he said, he did make some really good points

I think it is a little strange that such a person would pick on you, Steve, since you actually like (prefer?) the KJV.

[steve]

He doesn't know what my attitude toward the KJV might be. He just responded to my saying "The KJV translates it this way, but the Greek word means this." I guess I am in the same class with the atheists. His reasoning was rather air-tight, don't you think?