THERE IS A BAPTIST EVANGELIST GOING TO APPEAR HERE IN PAHOKEE, FLORIDA TO B E SPEAKING ON THE SUPERIORITY OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE. HE INTIMATES THAT THE KING JAMES IS THE ONLY BIBLE THAT SHOULD BE USED IN CHURCH. I HAVE READ THE NEW CENTURY VERSION, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION, THE LIVING BIBLE, AND NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE. I HAVE READ THESE BECAUSE I WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE LANGUAGE AND VOCABULARY. IS THERE ANY VALIDIITY THAT THE KING JAMES BIBLE IS SUPERIOR TO THESE MENTIONED? PLEASE REPLY.

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2001

Answers

You any relation to "Patsy Ramsey?"

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2001

Ouch... first of all, turn your caps lock off, Horace ;)

Unfortunately, a there are a lot of Baptists lately spreading dissention in the body of Christ by claiming that the King James version is the only Bible anyone can use. I wrote an article with my opinion on the subject for my online column, "According to John", and I am posting it here for you.

MY OPINION ON THE KJV-ONLY CONTROVERSY

Often I hear people say that true Christians should only use the King James Version of the Bible, that it is the "Authorized" version and therefore "the very words of God for the English speaking world." Now I will by no means tell you that the KJV isn't "the very words of God" ... I believe it is!! I believe the King James Bible is a useful translation -- I use it when witnessing to cultists all the time! It is a version they accept and thus provides some common ground. It is also very poetic; definitely a literary masterpiece. But I also believe those very words of God also are in the other scholarly translations that exist out there. (Now there are some I do not believe are "the very words of God," which have serious problems ... but I will get into that at another time perhaps.)

First, some perspective. The King James version used the Textus Receptus, which was derived from only about half a dozen Greek manuscripts of the Byzantine family (a large family of several thousand manuscripts!), and the Latin Vulgate translation of the New Testament. Most contemporary translations (RSV, NASV, NIV, CEV, etc.) rely on manuscripts from the Alexandrian, Western, and Caesarean families as well as the Byzantine texts. In over 95 percent of the New Testament, readings are identical, word-for-word, regardless of the family. Of the remaining five percent, most of the differences between the texts are fairly irrelevant, such as calling the Lord "Christ Jesus" instead of "Jesus Christ," or putting the word "the" before a noun. Many are spelling variants, similar to the difference in spelling between the American "color" and the British "colour". Less than two percent would significantly alter the meaning of a passage, and absolutely none of them would contradict or alter any of the basic points of Christian doctrine. What we have, then, is a dispute concerning less than one-quarter of one percent of the Bible. The other 99.8% we agree on! So it is, almost literally, "much ado about nothing!"

How is the King James Version "Authorized"? Some people emphasize that the 1611 is "Authorized," as if the very word should silence all debate. They usually mean one of two things by it. One is that it is the only English version "authorized" by God. But that is a misleading use of the word. The KJV is only "authorized" insofar as King James of England authorized the Church of England, whom he presided over at the time, to undertake the translation, and the Church of England "authorized" it for general use in its churches. Another disengenuous manner in which people use the term "authorized" is to twist the meaning of the word to make it mean "authoritative," as in, the KJV is the only "Authoritative" English Bible. Which it does not mean. As many in my fellowship are so fond of saying, "WORDS MEAN THINGS!" To use words in this manner to say and mean things that were never intended is just plain dishonest.

Incidentally, the KJV is not THE Authorized version. It is, in fact, the THIRD Bible to bear the title "Authorized." I believe it was the Geneva Bible and the Bishops Bible that were numbers one and two. And I believe the Revised Standard also carries the appelation "Authorized" by the Church of England.

Did God work through translators in 1611 but not today? Why? The King James translators accepted the other existing English translations of their time - the Great Bible, the Bishop's Bible, the Geneva Bible, et. al. - as the authoritative word of God (see below) ... why is it inconcievable that God continues to move men to make newer, more up- to-date translations? Why should we assume that God stopped with the King James Version?

I hear many KJV-only proponents say we must only accept the 1611 King James Version. If we are only to accept the 1611 King James Version, which "1611" version should we use? The one actually printed in 1611, or one of the numerous revisions done between 1611 and 1616? (Especially the one where the printer accidentally rendered Exodus 20:14, "Thou shalt commit adultery?") Or perhaps the 1629 revision? How about 1644? Or the 1701 revision (which added Bishop Usher's dating system)? Or perhaps the 1762 revision (which added the italic type, indicating words added by the translators not found in the original languages), or the 1769 one (which, by the way, is the one you actually have in your hands today!)? And should we accept the Apocrypha? The 1611 edition of the KJV contains the Apocrypha! In fact, it was not removed until 1644 (because of objections by the Puritans)!

Thankfully, the KJV was revised; you probably couldn't read the actual 1611 version today anyway. I've tried, its almost incomprehensible. The spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and use of italics have been changed throughout. For instance, John 3:7 in todays KJV (the 1769 revision) says, "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." In 1611 it read, "Marueile not that I saide vnto thee, Ye must be borne againe."

To their credit, the 1611 translators, like modern translators, included marginal notes offering more precise or alternate translations. (For example, it indicated that "a worshipper" in Acts 19:35 is literally "the temple keeper" in Greek.) Also, verses which had poor manuscript support were noted, such as Luke 17:36. Unfortunately, all of their marginal notes and alternate readings have been removed from modern editions of the KJV. But the 1611 translators had no illusions that their work was by any means a perfect work. In fact they themselves said as much.

In the original 1611 edition, a section was printed from "The Translators to the Readers," which has also been removed from later editions. (It is excellent reading!!!) Here are some excerpts from that document which which are very enlightening, outlining how the original King James translators felt about their translation and about translations in general:

"We desire that the Scripture ... may be understood.... What can be more available thereto than to deliver God's book unto God's people in a tongue which they understand?" "[There is] No cause therefore why the Word ranslated should be denied to be the Word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it." I have no doubt that were the King James translators alive today, they would undertake to make a modern, current translation in today's English, a "tongue which [we could] understand." They also understood that translating was a scholarly art, and imperfections would be present no matter how "perfect" you wanted a translation to be. They had no illusions that their translation was by any means "perfect."

"... [a] variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures." "We affirm and avow that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession ... contains the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God." The King James translators had no concept of "King James only." They believed that since translating was a scholarly art, and not an exact word-for-word production (the construction of Greek, Hebrew and English being quite different), the more translations you could make use of the better you could grasp the sense of the original languages. Indeed, there was a great uproar when the KJV was published. The people who were using the Geneva Bible at that time were saying, "We already have the Word of God in English! We don't need another translation!" The same was being said by those who used Tyndale's translation and the Bishops' Bible. But the King James translators had no such exclusivism in mind, finding all scholarly translations to be profitable, and indeed, to be the Word of God.

Please realize I am not by any means bashing the KJV or saying one should not use it. If you want to use it, go for it! But I personally believe to say that the KJV is the only version an English-speaking person should ever use is presumptuous, legalistic and divisive, and is not supported by either good scholarship nor by the original translators of the KJV themselves.

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2001

I think this is a very interesting problem you have posed. I like the response of John Wilson. Very informative. Very factual.

I have run into several Baptists who tell me that I am going to hell because I use a "satanic Bible" (any version other than the KJV). The preacher and members of a Baptist church in Newport, OR, went so far as to tell me that "only the KJV is inspired" and that all other versions were wrong, including the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts from which the KJV was translated.

I honestly do not understand the mentality of such people. I often wonder what goes on in their minds when they have to ask why Jesus would used "satanic bibles" (not KJV Bibles) when He walked on earth. To me, this whole debate is beyond logic and I pray that the people who try and stir it up all the time would gain Godly wisdom and see the folly of their logic.

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2001

Personally, I like the KJV. I prefer the literal type translation that allows you to 'see behind the text' to the Greek better than the loose interprative dynamic equivilence style of the NIV. The NIV is easy reading though. Sometimes, if I want to read heavy poetry or narrative, the NIV is good for getting the gist of a passage.

I've actually got a KJV-only uncle. He preaches to an Independant Baptist church. He's educated- an engineer, so it's hard for me to see how he could believe this stuff. Usually, it seems like the Independant Baptists are the KJV only people. There may be some in the Southern Baptist, but I think they are alittle more reasonable about the whole issue. I have a sister who use to go to an Independant Baptists church and she believed this stuff, too.

I don't know about my uncle's church, but some Independant Baptist churches are of that subset of soutehrn fundamentalists who really look up to their preachers. The preacher may preach bluntly 'the way it is' (sometimes the way it aint.) Imo, his idea that the KJV is inspired and all other translations are satanic is just plain ignorant. The apostles didn't use the KJV. There is a joke that goes 'If the KJV was good enough for the apostle Paul, i'ts good enough for me.' There is also a joke stanza to 'Give me that ol' time religion that goes something like this:

'Give me that King James Bible. It was good enough for Paul. It was good enough for Paul. It was good enough for the apostles. It's good enough for me. "

The joke, of course, is that the KJV was from 1611, and the apostles didn't use it. There are some serious translation problems in the KJV, and that little Trinitarian ad-on from Erasmus from the texts the KJV was translated from.

The KJV was translated from the textus Receptus. this guy named Erasmus- a humanist Roman Chatolic contemporary of Luther had used a type of textual criticism to come up with this text. The texts used were primarily Antiochan texts.

Some later works rely more heavily on texts found in Egypt. The Antiochan church was known for orthodoxy more than the Egyptian area. The Egyptian texts had a lot of manuscripts. Some of the KJV people try to use the argument that the Egyptiantexts are unrealiable and that the newer translations which rely more heavily on the large number of Egyptian manuscripts. (I think there is a technical name ofr the Egyptian manuscripts that I can't think of at the moment.) Usually this is the reasoning of the more reasonable KJV proponents.

This line of reasoning doesn't really work for KJV only stance, since the NKJV uses the Antiochan manuscripts and seems to be the same style of translation of the Bible as the KJV, but in modern English. They use the same style as the KJV, but translate into Late Modern English instead of Early modern English. the NKJV is not a translation from the KJV.

The KJV only people usually use a bunch of illogical arguments. For example, the version is 'authorized.' But the Anglican church later authorized another translation. Who authorized it? King James? Something you might point out is that the 'original 1611 translation' also included the Apocrapha. Ask the guy if the KJV is inspired, does that make the apocrapha inspired. Ask him, if the whole thing is inspired, is the dedication at the front of the KJV inspired? If it is, he should believe the part about consulting other translations and the original languages of the Bible. The dedication to the KJV shows us that these others translations and the original manuscripts are valuable. Of course, let's hope he's not a nutcase that thinks the dedication to the king is inspired, too.

Something else you might want to point out is that the Pilgrims brought the Geneva Bible over with them, instead of the KJV- a political compromise between the Bishop's Bible and the Geneva bible. Parts of the the KJV come right out of the Geneva Bible. At least Matthew 10 does. I looked at a Geneva Bible and it was the same as the KJV, with that old font type of course. If God revealed the KJV why would be copy pages out of the Geneva Bible? How could the Geneva Bible, another translation besides the KJV, be bad, if parts of it are quoted word for word in the KJV?

Another thing you might bring up if you get a chance to discuss this issue is the issue of whether the 'J's in the preachers KJV are satanic. After all, the original 1611 KJV used 'I's instead of 'J's. Are the 'J's in later editions, including the modern ones, actually satanic? I'm being facetious of course, but these type of questions might teach people to think before they believe something what the preacher tells them.

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2001

We had a discussion on this on tis board some time ago. I recommended several books about the subject. To the novice, I will still recommend "The King James Only Controversy" by a guy named White (I forget the first name) which is available in any Christian book store. While it isnt perfect in its presentation, it is pretty well rounded for all sides (even though he disagrees with the KJV- only positions).

I personally have a serious problem with the KJV-only-ers. While *some* of thier points are valid, there are many of their primary proponents who push this issue to the point of being cultic. Please do the research before making up your mind! If you want more information, please email me. I don't check this board as often as I used to, so email would be a quicker way of contact.

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2001

SOME BAPTIST CAN BE EXTREMELY RADICALLY. I HAVE VISITED MANY CHURCHES DURING MY WALTZING THROUGH THIS WORLD, AND MANY SO CALLED BELIEVERS IN "MY LORD-JESUS-CHRIST" ARE JUST SIMPLY NUTTS. GOD HAS TAKEN HOLD OF MANY, MANY, MANY, FAMILY TREES AND SHAKEN THEM UNTILL ALL THE NUTS FALL OUT. THE LORD IS SAYING TO ME KNOW; 2:45pm, 22nd-FEB-2001 PERTH TIME AUSTRALIA, "THE ONLY BIBLE ONE READS & BELIEVES, IS IF THE BLOOD IS MENTIONED. ONLY IF THE BLOOD IS NOT MENTIONED, DON'T READ." AND THE MOST INPORTANT WORD IN THE HOLY SCRIPTURES IS, "LOVE". WE SHOULD BE FOCUSING ON LOVE & LOVEING ONE ANOTHER. MERCY TOWARDS ONE ANOTHER. REPENTANTS. FORGIVEING ONE ONOTHER. LOVE, LOVE, LOVE, LOVE, LOVE, LOVE

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2001