That's not entirely true. In every discussion I've ever seen, the KJV only side gives you "proof" after "proof" that scholars who advocate anything other than the KJV were homosexual, occultic, Gnostic and part of a mass conspiracy to undermine God's word by creating other translations. They say that other translations deny that Jesus was God or that His death was a sacrifice for our sin and that it was required for our salvation. What's funny is, I have and read New King James and New International versions in my home, and I've been reading them almost since I could read...and I don't deny that Christ was the Son of God, nor do I think His sacrifice was unnecessary for salvation.
Then, after the KJV Only-ists have presented their "proofs", the other side presents documentation to supply that most of the "proof" offered against men like Oregin or Wescott & Hort, etc., are in fact lies concocted by people who felt that any translation other than the KJV was heresy and were determined to slander anyone who tried to make another translation.
And then the KJVO'ists simply ignore the presented documentation.
Folks, I've seen the "contradictions" and "differences" between the KJV and the other translations, and they are meaningless. The main differences amount to this kind of example: If I say "I believe in God and I'm going to Heaven when I die" is that really any different than if someone else says "I believe in the Father and I will be with Him in Glory?" Other than aesthetically, no.
I should also point out that most KJVO'ists use circular reasoning. Boiled down, their logic is that they believe that the KJV is the preserved Word of God because God promised us that He would preserve His word. We know this, because it is in the Bible. But the other translations are not the Bible because they are not the preserved Word of the Lord. They are not the preserved Word of the Lord because they are not the KJV.
I'm no scholar, and I won't pretend I've devoted a lifetime of study to the subject of biblical translations. I also sincerely believe that this is the case for most KJVO'ists, only they will never admit it. Those who have "studied", I'm fairly certain took the evolutionists' method of "study", which is, study only scholars you know agree with your position, and if you accidentally come across anything that refutes your position, pretend it doesn't exist.
But I think delving into the "which scholar is right" argument dilutes and confuses the issue. It isn't about scholars. Scholar faith is legalism. I love the mock song that goes as follows:
My hope is built
On nothing less
Than Schofield's notes
And Moody Press
I dare not trust
The NIV
The RSV
Is heresy
That song kinda nails it for me. KJVO'ists may put their faith in God, but they don't put their faith in God ALONE. Mostly, their faith is on the KJV.
Now, what's funny is, even in my non-scholarly life, I've understood that the 1611 KJV is not the KJV we use today. The original 1611 KJV, which plenty of KJV'ists believe to be the only true KJV, contained the Apocrypha, which is ancient doctrine still used by the Roman Catholic church that has been proven non-canonical. If you run into a 1611 KJVO'ist, ask him if his Bible has books like I Esdras, II Esdras, the book of Tobit, the book of Judith, the book of Wisdom, or I and II Maccabees. Most likely it doesn't, and if that's true, then his KJV most likely came from 1739, not 1611.
Another problem with KJVO'ism is one of logic: they preach that the reason they are KJV only is that other translations add to or take away from the Bible. Again, circular reasoning. Perhaps there are words, or passages, present or not present in the KJV that are in other translations. But this starts out with the assumption that any difference between the KJV and another text automatically makes the other text wrong! Where is the proof there that it isn't the KJV that's wrong?
Besides, in preaching that only one translation is the true word of God and the others are corrupt, they are adding to the Bible (there is no passage that says the 1611 KJV is the only true Bible, so to say that it is adds to the Bible) and also taking away from it by refuting II Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness".
Paul doesn't qualify his statement. He doesn't say "all scripture that is in the KJV" or "all scripture based on the Textus Receptus" or ANYTHING that could lead one to say that Paul was advocating one translation and one translation only. Oh, and for those of you who think that the only reason the Bible doesn't say anything about the KJV is that it hadn't been commissioned or published yet, let me remind you how often the Bible predicts the future, and how eerily accurate the predictions that have already come true are, and how accurate the ones fulfilled in the New Testament were. If God wanted us to follow the KJV only, believe me, there would be a verse or passage saying "Those who will come after this generation shall speak a different language, and they shall hold only to the scripture authorized by their King, and their King's name shall be James." But God doesn't say that. He never says in His Word which version we should cling to. In fact, Paul says that ALL scripture is inspired by God. ALL of it. That means all translations as well. God can work through it, even if a few verses here and there might sound different if taken out of context.
And that is my main problem with KJVO'ism. It seeks to limit scripture, and by extension, limit God. One could take from their argument that God is weak and pathetic enough that He was able to preserve just the one true scripture, but completely unable to stop it being perverted by hundreds of other translations, each of which is totally corrupt and misleading. He left us the Bible, but couldn't stop all those fake Bibles from worming their way into churches. He allowed thousands, even millions, to be misled by corrupt, evil translations of man. When you think about it, that very thing means that God DIDN'T preserve His word. By saying that these hundreds of other translations are evil and leading people astray, translations which have found their way into MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of churches, that means God's Word wasn't preserved. If it was, He would find a way to destroy all other translations, or find a way to make it obvious that they are wrong. He hasn't done that, so either He lied when He said he would preserve His Word, or the other translations are also the preserved Word of God.
Here's another problem with KJVO'ism. They talk a good game about how corrupting other translations are, but cannot point to one example of a person who shows any unquestionable corruption, spiritual weakness, etc., that is a direct result of their use of other translations. Oh, they launch accusation after accusation of heresy, false doctrine, spiritual weakness or lack of salvation at any pastor or church who uses a different translation, but their only motive for attack on those pastors and churches IS their use of other translations. They cannot point to direct evidence of true corruption OTHER THAN they use the "wrong" translation.
Now, here's where the 1611 KJVO'ist is going to remind me of all those "false" churches who allow rock music in the church, who have cooperative programs and other ecumenical outreaches, let their women wear pants, etc.
It's clear that most 1611 KJVO'ists are all about restriction in ALL aspects of their lives.
But unfortunately for them, you can't use those as examples because there are thousands if not millions of churches who DON'T use KJV only and who also do not allow rock music, etc. in their churches. Not to mention that neither the KJV nor any other translation speak out either in favor or against rock music.
When I say "corruption" or "perversion", I mean walk into a church that uses another translation and point to examples where these people are openly leading their followers into occultic or Satanic activity. Or find the church using a different translation that teaches that Christ was not the Son of God, or that Mary wasn't a virgin when Jesus was concieved. After all, your primary arguments against the other translations were: 1) The scholars involved in those translations were atheistic, homosexual, occultic, gnostic, etc. and 2) That these other translations make it out that Jesus wasn't God's Son, that Mary was not a virgin, etc.
(BTW, that last one kills me. The argument is that other translations use the word "maiden" instead of "virgin", implying that she wasn't a virgin. What do they think the word "maiden" means? If they don't know, I'll tell them. It means "virgin." That's why the hymen was referred to in ancient times by the archaic term "maidenhead".)
I mean, if we are corrupted because of the NIV, NASV, RSV, etc., then show us our corruption! Point to one thing that conclusively shows that we have been led astray by those other translations.
I saw a message board post once that says it succinctly, and briefly:
It is quite unbelievable to me that there are people alive today who think God is so inept that He can only speak through the KJV.
Those of you who are KJVO's, could you answer something for me please? What grand claim of truth is there that only you have access to because you read the only "infallable" Word of God that myself and millions of other Christians are missing out on because they read other translations? And by this, I am not talking about one verse here or there that differs in translation. I am talking about the path to salvation and living lives changed by the Spirit of God. If your position holds ANY credibility whatsoever, one should expect to see a dynamic and unquestionable difference in discipleship and character since you claim to have the Word of God and all others are simply floundering with vain attempts to piece together half-truths.
Blessings,
Chad
This guy hits the nail on the head. Just what is it that we who use other translations are missing out on? Don't start talking about all the false scholarhood that went into those other translations, or the motivations behind guys like Oregin or Wescott & Hort, etc. Tell how it is that God is working through your KJV that he ISN'T working through my NKJV, NASV or NIV! I've never gotten an answer to this question.
BTW, in regard to the entirety of arguments against the scholars...well. God spoke through a donkey, a bush, a murderer, a drunk, a thief, etc. Just who are you to say he can't speak through those other scholars?
I should state for the record here that we non-KJVO'ists do not reject the KJV. We do not feel that the other translations are replacements for it. Many, and I would even say most of us love the KJV and hold it to be a beautiful scripture. Many even prefer it. You will find almost nobody (and those you do find certainly do not speak for the majority) who thinks the KJV is not scripture. I say that to combat the perception by KJVO'ists that we who say it's not the only scripture are in fact trying to claim that it isn't scripture at all, and that we want to attack it. Nothing could be further from the truth. KJV is very much the Word of God. It just isn't the ONLY format that the Word of God is acceptable in.
In my final statement against the whole "your scholars are wrong and mine are right" argument, let me refer you to another quote by the same man on the message board (this guy should write books!):
I also find it interesting that adherents to KJVO, like yourself and others on this thread, continually debunk scholarship and yet appeal to scholarship to "prove" their own position.
Notice that I have not appealed to scholarship at all in my post - I readily admit that I have not read extensively on either side of this debate. What I do know, however, is that God's Word is more than just words on a page that KJVO'ers seem to idolize. God's Word is living, breathing and eternal and it is not your efforts or mine that make it right or wrong or come alive through this or that translation, but it is the work of the Holy Spirit that makes God's Word BE God's Word. Not dead scribes who penned it.
What the KJVO'ists do is they make their translation of the Bible more important to them than God Himself. They make it their idol, placing more emphasis on the validity of the KJV than on Christ. In so doing, they completely discount the wonders God has worked in the lives of countless men and women who have never even cracked open a KJV. They would have you believe that none of these people are saved, even going to the point of trying to prove that the very blessings of God on their ministry (ei: the number of souls being saved) is direct proof that they can't be saved because they're "loved by the world."
(Somehow, this argument becomes null and void when you turn it back around on them. I know a minister who boasts on his website that he has seen hundreds if souls saved at his church, but he also speaks against a popular minister who has saved THOUSANDS if not MILLIONS through his ministry. This other pastor saving so many souls is evidence that he's loved by the world, but the hundreds of souls being saved by this guy are proof of how Godly he is. Right.)
I believe in an almighty, powerful God who can work through anything and anyone, even the numerous translations of His Word, each of which may differ slightly but succeed greatly in getting across the main point: Christ's love for us, His sacrifice in our place, the need for salvation, and God's plan of salvation.
Praise God for all those translations!
EDIT:
In another message board debate, I had a man try to answer my question of what ways I've been corrupted or not shown the true gospel. Well, first he tried to side-step the question as follows:
That is not the issue in this debate.
The issue is whether the modern bible versions are based upon textual corruptions and are therefore corrupted forms of the Word of God. And there is overwhelming evidence that this is indeed the case.
Okay...so...the issue is the corrupt text that the new translations are based on. The issue apparently is NOT how those "corrupt" texts ACTUALLY CORRUPT US. How are they corrupt? What ways do those texts corrupt us? He does TRY to answer later on, but all he really does is accuse:
The fact that the true Gospel is rarely preached in evangelical churches which use modern versions is one indication. The Emergent Church Movement is another indication.
Okay. So apparently ALL churches who use other translations "rarely" preach the gospel and are each and every one involved with the Energent Church movement. Does he have research to back this up? I'm curious.
Then he points fingers at me, a man he's never met:
The way that your thinking has been corrupted (along with many others) is that you probably do not accept the last twelve verses of Mark as genuine Scripture, and you probably believe that John 7:53-8:11 is spurious. If that is the case, your thoughts about God's Word have been corrupted. And these are only two of scores of glaring examples.
Hmm. I had no idea that I didn't think the Great Commission was true scripture. I also didn't realize that I thought the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery that Jesus refused to stone was "spurious." This guy started trying to tell me I was corrupted because I discounted those passages, and I DON'T. This is again based on the false idea that non-KJVO'ists reject the KJV. It's apparently all or nothing with these people. I'm either King James Version only, or I reject King James Version utterly.
No comments:
Post a Comment