Although I have already written an
article on the KJV version of the Bible, after receiving from a
reader the video posted below, I realized I needed to augment that
article by responding to the statements and accusations on this
video. I did this because these are the attacks being made by the
anti-KJV people, and people need to know how to respond to them. As I
address virtually every statement he makes (or at least tried to
catch them all) it isn't really necessary to watch it to understand
this article, as I do state what is said before responding to it. I
would however recommend that if you have not read my article that you
do so before reading this one, as I reference that article rather
than repeating here the facts that can be found there, to try to
shorten this already far too lengthy article.
My article on the KJV only issue:
The video:
The Myth of the King James Only by Tim
Conway
In listening to this gentleman, I hear
what God would label “enticing words.” Col. 2:4 “And this I
say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words.” I am
not saying this man is deliberately setting out to deceive people. I
believe he is merely reciting (as all pastors do) what he has been
taught in seminary. The problem with this is that seminaries teach to
their own bias. They do not present all sides of an argument, nor do
they countenance anyone challenging the status quo. Nor, it seems, do
they teach their students to investigate everything through the Word
of God, but rather to read voluminous commentaries on the books of
the Bible, the approved ones, naturally. They teach that
understanding comes from going to your commentaries and seeing what
the particular church “father” of that denomination's theology
says. God forbid that someone should study the Scriptures themselves
and let the Holy Spirit guide them into the truth, as the Bible tells
us to do. I once heard a young seminarian preach a sermon. Throughout
the entire sermon he would make a statement, and then to ensure that
he was honest about his thoughts, that he not be credited with any
that were not his own, he would say from whose commentary he got that
thought. I listened with interest as he quoted commentary after
commentary, never having a single thought of his own on the passage.
I found that quite telling of a seminary education. That is how they
are taught to study the Scriptures and compile their sermons. They do
not seem to have thoughts of their own in many cases.
Added to the fact that Mr. Conway has
not done the adequate research (as will be shown during the course of
this article), he speaks in an enticing way. His way of presenting
information is geared toward biasing a person against an idea, not
simply presenting facts.
To start, he states that any English
version of the Bible is the Word of God by first quoting a Scripture,
“Thy Word is truth.” The implication is that as long as it is
basically the general information that one finds in the Bible, it
isn't all that important how accurate it is. As if any version of the
Bible is going to be truthful, regardless of the translation. Granted
there should be a lot of truth in any version, but there might also
be some serious fallacies. These are the versions that need to be
avoided as they might lead to further error. Then he follows this by
saying that he doesn't read anywhere in the Bible where it says the
KJV is the only Bible.
Addressing that first statement, my
answer to that is, God's original Word in the original
language in the original manuscripts is absolute truth. Any
translation is only 1) as good as the source material and 2) as
accurate as the translators, who are fallible men, make it. And these
fallible men, decide how the manuscripts should be translated, or in
the modern versions, often paraphrased, although they do not use that
word. They say “translations” which is not necessarily so,
thereby putting their own ideas of what they think God should mean
into that “translation.” Even Mr. Conway admits that at the end
of his sermon.
As can be read in my article on the KJV
only issue, the KJV (over the course of its life) was translated
trying to keep as much as possible to a word for word translation
within the limitations of grammatical rearrangement and trying to use
the best textual evidence they could find at that time. They were
also under some restrictions imposed by the king, which over time God
weeded out. In the KJV, if understanding required an article (a, the)
or simple verb (is) to make sense in English, they would add it, but
it was deliberately put it in italics so that one might know that
there was no word in the original language and that that word had
been added. God oversaw and orchestrated this translation over a
period of time, making sure that the printer errors, or other errors
such as spelling were corrected over the course of time. As opposed
to the implication by the speaker in the video that these were major
changes in words or theology, the actual truth is that the vast
majority of errors tended to be in spelling, punctuation, and the
like. Tiny inconsequential things, not major things.
In contrast, the modern versions often
take all kinds of liberties with the original languages by
interpreting the word's meaning for you, rather than translating the
words directly, and often paraphrasing what is said, not only adding
many words that are not in the original, but not informing you that
these words are not actually there by italicizing them. They will
also delete not only words, but entire passages. Examples will be
provided further on.
Then Mr. Conway appeals to the Bible as
being the source to prove that a version is valid or not, saying that
the Bible does not say the KJV is the only version. Of course God did
not directly say what versions were good or bad. As if there would be
a list somewhere in the Scriptures saying “My Word can be found in
the ESV, NIV, NAS, KJV, but not in the ….etc.” It is a silly
appeal to make to prove one's point. That there exist very bad
versions is quite evident. How are we to know that? We use the brains
the good Lord gave us to determine what version is good or bad. We
look at the source material, the translation itself, the agenda of
the people behind the translation. All of these things must be
examined. To appeal to the Bible as the source to tell us whether one
is good or bad is rather a silly argument to use in the manner he is
suggesting. He's trying to appeal to the idea that if something is
not clearly stated in the Word of God, it just isn't so. Clearly he
is clutching at straws here to have some sort of reason for his
opinion.
The accusation is made that the modern
versions do not delete Scriptures, but that the KJV adds to them. But
all that is in the KJV can be found in the five thousand plus
manuscripts on which it is based. On the other hand, the few
manuscripts (about 1% of all existing manuscripts) of the text that
is used as the basis for the modern translations are missing much,
not to mention the sloppy copying in the few manuscripts they do
possess which leads one to ask, how careful were the original
copyists? The fact that these manuscripts also came from a gnostic
school would tend to make one wonder what they wanted changed or
eliminated and if that is why so much is missing from them. That
question as well as statistics and facts are addressed in my other
article.
This brings up a point about his
message. He does not until the very end distinguish that the KJV uses
entirely different manuscripts than the modern versions, and when he
does briefly mention it, he does not explain the differences between
these two sources. Again, this subject is covered in my other article
and is the very basis for why KJV proponents say that it is the
version one should use. Just in brief, the Majority texts are from
the area of Antioch and the first churches. The Minority texts came
from the gnostic schools in Alexandria. Does that fact alone not send
up red flags?
The next idea that he wants to implant
in his audience is that the idea that one version is more truth than
the others is an opinion of man, not what God's Word says. Again,
first He is basically saying that any English version is a
valid translation. But again in my article, I pointed out that the
manuscripts that are used for the modern versions are not the same as
the manuscripts used for the KJV. The majority texts are in agreement
with each other to a high percentage and are very numerous. They had
stringent rules about copying and recopying them. The minority texts
upon which the new versions are based, have all kinds of errors in
them and do not even agree among themselves. And there are some very
bad versions of the Bible as demonstrated below.
Second, once more he appeals to the
Bible itself as the authority to determine whether a version is good
or not. The only thing the Bible says is that God will preserve His
Word. God does not directly tell us by name where that preserved Word
is to be found. He expects us to use our knowledge and brain to
determine that. If all Bibles are equal, does that mean that the
newly made Queen James Version by the homosexual community is just as
valid as the King James Version? Obviously not all English versions
are created equal. How about the Word on the Street version? It is
made to be conversational, the vulgar language of the common man,
which this gentleman seems to be very big on. Let's take a look at
Genesis 1:1-4 “First off, nothing. No light, no time, no substance,
no matter. Second off, God starts it all up and WHAP! Stuff
everywhere! The cosmos in chaos: no shape, no form, no function—just
darkness ... total. And floating above it all, God’s Holy Spirit,
ready to play. Day one: Then God’s voice booms out, ‘Lights!’
and, from nowhere, light floods the skies and ‘night’ is swept
off the scene.” This is certainly in the vernacular. Everyone
should understand it, but is it really accurate? It might not seem
all that different from the original in this verse, as far as
relating the idea, but there is some vital missing information.
Information that can mean all the difference between believing in
creationism or evolution. What of other more difficult verses?
Accuracy matters in God's Word.
Mr. Conway brings forth another
argument that the KJV advocates say that God inspired the KJV
translation, but there is not a bit of evidence in the Bible to prove
that true. Notice how in every case his argument comes back to a sly
method of trying to convince people that what he is saying is correct
by appealing to the Word of God not saying something, rather
than saying it. There are many things that are not directly
addressed in the Word of God, but our common sense and research
should lead us to the truth of a situation. He is deliberately
manipulating people's minds to accept a fallacy, that all English
Bibles are created equal. They are not. The research I presented in
such an encapsulated form in my other article should explain that. If
you desire more proof, there are many books on the subject with a
great deal of information. As to being inspired, if anyone does make
that claim about the 1611 KJV Bible, then they do so out of a
zealousness to protect God's Word, not really understanding what the
KJV went through to become the Bible we now have. God did, I believe,
oversee and orchestrate all the events that came together to give us
the Bible we have today, and directed men to bring it to that point
through the corrections made over the years. If that can be called
“inspired” then I guess it would be inspired, but I prefer to say
that God has preserved His Word and the place where I feel I can most
truly find His preserved Word in the English language is in the form
of the Authorized King James Version of the Bible.
What follows next is the posing of
questions that actually seem to question God's wisdom. He asks - What
did people do before the KJV in 1611? (As if waiting that long was a
mistake.) English was not a language at the time of Christ, and it
went through several changes before it became the language we know
today. We cannot even understand Old English and barely make heads or
tails of Middle English. We can still understand the language of the
KJV, even with those few archaic words that it uses, as well as the
thees, thous, and thines. There was a Middle English Bible by
Wycliffe, but God waited until English had gotten to the point where
it would last to the end of days relatively still understood in its
form, before creating an English Bible.
Another question posed is, what do
people of other languages around the world do? (As if God has to
provide a Bible in every language in the world.) What he is doing is
implanting the idea that any translation in any language must be
God's preserved word and a good translation, because God wants
everyone to have it in their own language. There is something to
consider here. When God gave the Old Testament through his prophets
and historians to Israel, His Word was only for Israel, and so He
gave it in the language they spoke, Hebrew and a small portion in
Daniel in Aramaic. When Jews began to be Hellenized some scholars put together the Septuagint in Greek (the world language of the time) for
those people. When the New Testament was written, it was written for
the world at large. And what was the world language of the time?
Greek. So God had his writers use that world language that permeated
throughout the known world of the time, thereby ensuring that there
was someone in all parts of the world (for traders had to speak Greek
in order to do business) who would understand what His Word said.
When the world language was becoming English, at that perfect point
in time (as God's timing is always perfect) God started moving in the
hearts of people to bring forth a new translation. There were several
different ones before one stood out and stood the test of time to
last to today.
The statement is made that the scholars
of the KJV stated that all the English translations were the Word of
God. They did state this, but was it completely true? Is his using
this as a defense valid to say that all translations are God's
preserved Word? Wycliffe translated his Bible from the Latin
Vulgate. Here is what we know of that Bible.
“In the 1490’s another Oxford professor, and the personal physician to King Henry the 7th and 8th, Thomas Linacre, decided to learn Greek. After reading the Gospels in Greek, and comparing it to the Latin Vulgate, he wrote in his diary, “Either this (the original Greek) is not the Gospel… or we are not Christians.” The Latin had become so corrupt that it no longer even preserved the message of the Gospel…” (http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/) This would cast some doubt on the accuracy of the Wycliffe translation, as that is what he used. So not every single English translation was truly the Word of God, for this one was corrupt due to its text source. The rest of the early versions were actually based upon the good texts, although it is hard to say whether they were as accurate as they could have been. The fact that they have fallen out of favor of the populace and that the KJV has been the primary English Bible for centuries would tend to lead to the conclusion that God did not think them as good as the KJV.
The accusation is made that Erasmus did
not translate from the Greek text but translated from the Latin
Vulgate back into Greek to create his Textus Receptus. In fact he did
have Greek texts for almost all of the Scriptures and did use them
almost exclusively. He felt the Latin Vulgate was corrupt, so set
about correcting that problem as well, by creating a new Latin
version. “..the great scholar Erasmus was so moved to correct the
corrupt Latin Vulgate, that in 1516, with the help of printer John
Froben, he published a Greek-Latin Parallel New Testament. The Latin
part was not the corrupt Vulgate, but his own fresh rendering of the
text from the more accurate and reliable Greek, which he had managed
to collate from a half -dozen partial old Greek New Testament
manuscripts he had acquired. This milestone was the first non-Latin
Vulgate text of the scripture to be produced in a millennium…”
(ibid.)
Now we must look again at the
accusation that he translated from the Latin Vulgate. Is there any
truth to that? Yes, there is some truth in it. “....there are
numerous instances where he edits the Greek text to reflect his Latin
version. For instance, since the last six verses of Revelation were
missing from his Greek manuscript, Erasmus translated the Vulgate's
text back into Greek. Erasmus also translated the Latin text into
Greek wherever he found that the Greek text and the accompanying
commentaries were mixed up.. (wickipedia) So it is acknowledged that
Erasmus did have to fudge a few places where there were problems.
Does that mean God could not protect His Word, knowing that this
would eventually be used as the basis for the English Bible? No, it
does not. God did not do a complete work in a moment. He orchestrated
the creation of this Bible over a long period of time, refining it
along the way. So does that mean that we should then just lump it
with the rest of the Bibles and say, so then it doesn't matter if it
is accurate or not, so the modern versions are acceptable? No, it
does not. There is much more to the matter than that.
What Erasmus did do was to create a
fresh Latin rendering of the text from the Greek text. Furthermore
it says, “The 1516 Greek-Latin New Testament of Erasmus further
focused attention on just how corrupt and inaccurate the Latin
Vulgate had become, and how important it was to go back and use the
original Greek (New Testament) and original Hebrew (Old Testament)
languages to maintain accuracy… and to translate them faithfully
into the languages of the common people, whether that be English,
German, or any other tongue.”
((http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/))
Erasmus did his level best to try to see that his Textus Receptus was
as accurate as possible and faithful to the majority texts that were
available at that time. This is all one can ask.
Mr. Conway spends a lot of time
denouncing Erasmus version of the Textus Receptus as being very
inaccurate and references this at the beginning as being the only
Textus Receptus, yet at the end admits the following. “The Textus
Receptus terminology is vague. Lots of men added to it. There are
different versions and varieties.” Yes, the Textus Receptus has
become much more than Erasmus' version. The KJV is based upon the
Majority texts. Revisions were made both to it and the Textus
Receptus as new manuscripts came to light. Is this not the way it
should be? Correcting any faults to make it as accurate as possible
rather than leaving in errors?
We then find that Tyndale made an
English translation from this parallel Bible of Erasmus. “William
Tyndale wanted to use the same 1516 Erasmus text as a source to
translate and print the New Testament in English for the first time
in history. Tyndale showed up on Luther's doorstep in Germany in
1525, and by year's end had translated the New Testament into
English. Tyndale had been forced to flee England, because of the
wide-spread rumor that his English New Testament project was
underway, causing inquisitors and bounty hunters to be constantly on
Tyndale's trail to arrest him and prevent his project. God foiled
their plans, and in 1526-1526 the Tyndale New Testament became the
first printed edition of the scripture in the English language.”
(ibid.)
During this time, the Reformation was
changing some of the apostate doctrines, and the people needed to be
able to have the Bible themselves, not rely on priests to tell them
what it said. This was what prompted people to start translating it
into the language of the people. Luther in German and Tyndale in
English. This was followed by Coverdale's Bible, the Matthew-Tyndale
Bible, the Great Bible, and the Geneva Bible. All based on the Textus
Receptus. By this time, the reformation was well under way, which was
a movement back to the truth of Scripture, and the English language
had become modernized, so as to make even us today be able to
understand what it says, as opposed to Old or Middle English. While
the KJV retains some (not all that many that it is a problem) archaic
words, it is only at maximum found to be a fifth grade reading level,
which most people should be able to read. In fact it has been found
that the reading level increases slowly from Genesis through
Revelation, allowing a reader who reads it in chronological order to
slowly improve and understand what is written, through what comes
before. As for the thees, thous and thines, these words were archaic
at the time of the translation. It was decided to include them so as
to make clear the difference between a singular “you” and plural
“you” which is not distinguishable in English. This was for the
sake of accuracy, which should be applauded. And no matter what
people might say, they understand what thee, thou, thy, and thine
mean. Nor do I thinketh that people cannot understandeth when a verb
possesseth an “eth” at the end.
The reason God had the entire Bible
translated into English was because it was the next world language on
the rise. The Scripture was in two languages, Hebrew and Greek.
English pulled it all together. (While Latin may have done this
before English came along, the Vulgate was a very corrupted text and
not what God wanted people to have.) Today English is taught in
pretty much all countries of the world as a second language, as it is
the world language. This makes the KJV available to people in every
country. Those who want to get the closest possible translation to
the truth can access a KJV or as many do these days, they study
Hebrew and Greek and look to the originals (copies naturally)
themselves.
What might be the problem with
translating the Bible into all these other languages, which has been
done? Well, in some of the more primitive cultures, they do not have
equivalent words. Let me give an example. One Wycliffe Bible
translator that I knew was telling how they were living with this
primitive tribe and trying to learn their language, so they could
give them the Bible in their own vernacular. It turned out that they
didn't know what a lamb was. But a pig was a revered animal, so this
translator chose to translate it as Jesus Christ, the pig of God.
Does that sit well with you? Considering that in the Old Testament a
pig was an unclean animal, and when they translate that portion it
will set up a serious dilemma for the people of this language, not to
mention we know that it is blasphemy to call Jesus a pig regardless
of how this culture may view them, do we still want to say that all
translations are equally valid and that we should even attempt to put
the Bible in every language? In a situation like this, would it not
be better to teach people English, and find a way to show them the
things they may not be familiar with, such as a lamb, so that they
may read the Word of God in as close to the original as possible?
Next he implants the idea that it is
arrogant (and who wants to be considered arrogant?) to think that
only the English speaking world has the true unadulterated Word of
God. No, the Word of God can be found in three languages, Hebrew,
Greek, and English. I can't speak for the other language
translations. I do not know what source material they are using for
these translations. Nor do I know how they are being translated, as
pointed out earlier with the Wycliffe translator. I do know that God
has used the languages that have been the most important over the
course of history, in the creation of His Word throughout the
centuries. As for the use of Latin, it has already been mentioned
that the Vulgate, which was the Bible of the Catholic church, was
terribly corrupt. However the Vaudois Bible which was handed down to
the Waldensians was a Latin translation that was created apart from
the Latin Vulgate and Catholic Church, and might have been more
accurate.
It is next brought up that God has
promised to preserve His Word. Yes, He has. But He has not said He is
going to do it in hundreds of different translations. He used one
language for the Old Testament. He used one language for the New
Testament. And He used one language for the combined Testaments (the
other language Bibles such as Luther's have not become the main
Bibles of the world). It falls to us to find the preserved Word and
try to use it. There have always been scholars who teach these
languages throughout history. Most serious scholars try to learn the
original languages of Hebrew and Greek to do their studying. Most of
the world teaches the English language. And there are concordances
that translate and define the Hebrew and Greek words for us, if we
cannot learn the original languages. As a great many missionaries
were sent out by the English speaking world, who then learned the
language of the people to whom they were sent, they could teach the
people what the Word of God said. This partially explains why God
would want a good Bible in English. As so many people were illiterate
in these countries to whom missionaries were sent, Bibles in their
language were not a necessity for a long time. And these missionaries
could teach them English so that they could learn to read the Bible.
So having the Bible in English was not such a detriment as is
implied. It is only within the last couple of centuries when people
in all countries started becoming literate (often through the work of
missionaries) that the need for Bibles for everyone became more
important. With men now reading God's Word entirely for themselves,
would it not make sense that Satan would plan on some strategy to
attack that, so that men would not be getting the truth? It only
makes sense that he would. He would not want the truth of God in the
hands of every man. So at the same time that literacy was on the
rise, so also did these modern versions start coming into being.
Coincidence? I think not.
The speaker then quotes and misuses the
verse that says that there will be people saved from every nation,
tribe, and tongue, as if this is proof that God's Word should and has
been properly translated into many tongues. Of course there will be
people from every tribe and tongue. That was why missionaries were
sent out. To bring the gospel to the world according to God's
mandate. That has nothing to do with what language God uses to
translate the Bible. It's a red herring, as they say. Something to
lead you down the wrong road or in this case to a wrong conclusion.
Something that has nothing to do with the matter.
Once more the speaker demotes the KJV
to being one translation among many. It is not simply one translation
that is no better or worse among many. First, it is as word-for-word
translation as is possible, rather than a paraphrase, and it is the
only one that has come from the valid manuscripts. To a version, the
modern ones come from the corrupted manuscripts of the minority texts
out of the Alexandrian School which was known for its heretics. It
was a gnostic school.
He continues to harp on the fact that
the Bible itself does not say that the KJV is the only true
translation. Of course it doesn't state it as such. Does it say that
the only true Hebrew text is the Masoretic text, or the only true
Greek text the Majority manuscripts? Does it say any particular texts
are the correct texts? These are historical facts that must be
investigated to determine the truth. He keeps appealing to the Bible
as the only source of truth, and it is truth, but it does not hold
all the history of the world between its covers. God gave us a brain
to figure these other things out. By continuing on a regular basis to
appeal to the Bible as his proof, due to its lack of saying anything
on the subject, he is implanting the idea that if something isn't
mentioned in the Bible, then it cannot be truth. This in itself is a
lie. And it shows that he has no real evidence to present. He only
has innuendos and attacks to offer. But if he really would accept
what the Bible says, as the Bible does in a way say something about
this matter, I can give him a verse that does absolutely without
question negate all of the modern versions as being valid. Isaiah
19:14 “The LORD hath mingled a perverse spirit in the midst
thereof: and they have caused Egypt to err in every work thereof,
as a drunken man staggereth in his vomit.” This tells us that God
has mixed into all the works of Egypt, a perverse spirit that causes
everything that comes from there to be in error. If we are to believe
the Bible, to which the speaker is constantly appealing to tell us
which version is valid, then it is telling us that the modern Bibles
translated from the manuscripts that come out of Egypt should not be
used as they are in error, does it not? Egypt is the home of the
worship of Osiris and Horus. The all-seeing eye. The religion upon
which the Masons base their freemasonry religion. Nothing spiritual
coming out of Egypt is to be trusted, for it comes from a place with
perverse spirits who control every work.
We are then told that KJVers say that
the KJV is the only inspired English version. There may be some
people who erroneously think that the original English words of the
1611 were inspired, and maybe many or even most of them were, but I
do not think that most KJVers use the term “inspired” to refer to
the English translation in that way. We understand that it is
inspired in the sense that it used copies of the originally inspired
manuscripts in the original languages (majority texts) as the basis
for the translation. Not that there were not some errors that might
need fixing over time. The 1611 KJV is not the exact same text as the
one we have today. He repeats that several times. This is a truth.
And what I have quoted below may explain some of the problem. That
God needed to work out man's tampering is not debated. But the truth
remains, that it is the only Bible using the accurate, inspired texts
for its foundation.
The fact that Mr. Conway twists the way the word “inspired” is used by most of us and then proves his point by demonstrating that the KJV took a while to get to the point it is, misrepresents the truth of the matter, which again is, it is the original texts that matter the most.
He makes the comparison that the
original translators put in marginal notes, but Paul didn't write
marginal notes on his letters. No. First, Paul was the original
author and was inspired. Second, translating is not like initially
writing something in a language. Sometimes translating is extremely
difficult due to the differences in language. A marginal note may
have been made to try to get across a word or concept that could not
easily be explained in English without some note. That is trying to
avoid error, not showing error. Again, the point is that the English
translation was not “inspired” as much as orchestrated by God,
and needed to have man's errors worked out, but the originals, such
as Paul's letter in the original Greek, were inspired, and
therefore the KJV is better having had as its basis the accurate
manuscripts at the start.
He brings up the point that even in the
original language texts used, that there were some differences. Yes,
there were and this was addressed in my first article. But the
differences were minor in most cases, being merely words that usually
fell into the categories of articles, conjunctions, etc. Not in
theological concepts. The fact still remains, that even within the
differences between these majority texts, they are still in harmony
with each other to a great extent, while the minority texts are in
complete disharmony among themselves. Refer back to my article to see
the facts on this. And the theological differences between the
majority and minority texts is radical in some cases, as can be
demonstrated with this verse.
Philippians 2:5-7 “Let this mind be
in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of
God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself
of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was
made in the likeness of men.” The verse in question in particular
is verse 6, “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery
to be equal with God.” This verse as written says that Christ, in
the form of God did not think it robbing God of any of His glory or
position to be equal with God. In other words, He was not robbing God
of anything to accept the worship of men, or when He declared that He
and the Father were one. This was true even in His human form. This
is the mystery of the Trinity. God the Father and God the Son are
both God.
The particular version of the Bible
that Mr. Conway likes is the ESV. So let us look at the ESV and see
what it says. “who, though he was in the form of God, did not count
equality with God a thing to be grasped.” Wait, the way I
understand this as worded, it says that even in His deity form, He
did not try to grasp at such a thing as equality with God. In other
words, He did not consider Himself being the equal of God, even when
in His godly (not human) form. Neither did He think it something He
should try to attain. Is that saying the same thing? No, it most
certainly is not. This translation demotes Christ out of the Trinity
to merely a lesser person, although higher than anyone else.
Let us look at some other modern
versions' translation of this verse.
NAS “who, although He existed in the
form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,”
Hmm, that means the same as the ESV.
American Standard Version “who,
existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality
with God a thing to be grasped.” Now there is a verse that I find
grammatically difficult. This is supposed to be easier?
World English Bible “who, existing in
the form of God, didn't consider equality with God a thing to be
grasped.” Almost identical to ESV and ASV.
New King James (2000) “Who, being in
the form of God, thought it not a thing to be grasped to be equal
with God.” (The New KJV is not
the same as the KJV.) This sounds as if it means the same as the
others.
They all seem to say the same sort of
thing, which is not surprising given that they all come from the
minority or Egyptian texts
A couple other versions that I found
interesting were:
English Revised Version “who, being
in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with
God.” This makes it sound as if Christ almost had contempt for
being equal with God and did not consider it any great thing.
One other version that I found
interesting given the complaint that the KJV is hard to understand
was the Darby Version of this verse. “who,
subsisting in the form of God, did not esteem it an object of rapine
to be on an equality with God.” I
have to admit, I had no idea what the word “rapine” meant. I have
never seen it before and I read extensively. Who on earth decided
this word was understandable and easier than the KJV rendering of
“robbery”? In looking it up I found it means, according to my
thesaurus, “rape.” In my vocabulary robbery and rape are two
decidedly different things. Christ did not esteem it rape to be equal
with God? Is that really a good translation? First the word rapine is
not understandable, and second it is not a good word to use to
describe the Son's relationship to the Father.
Interestingly, one of the teachings
that the gnostics (the Alexandrian school from which the minority
texts came) taught was that Jesus was merely a human who attained
divinity through gnosis and taught his disciples to do the same. It
was not his death that brought salvation, but spiritual
enlightenment. He was a “messenger of light”. Oddly enough it is
this very teaching that has resurfaced in the modern “spiritual”
movements such as New Age and even in UFO groups, that Jesus was
either merely a human of a higher spiritual level, or a superhuman,
or part alien, or whatever you want to call him. The point being that
as this idea starts permeating the church, (and it has) this verse
now reconciles that teaching for Christians, for it says that Christ
did not consider himself the equal of the God of the universe. He was
merely a higher being. The KJV, though, would immediately refute that
teaching. So we can see that verses that teach the Trinitarian
concept would be a threat to this gnostic teaching and would need to
be removed. And that is the very case in the Johannine Comma which is
another name for the controversial verse 1 John 5:7 “For there are
three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy
Ghost: and these three are one.” This verse is only found
in the KJV Bible.
Now the speaker makes a great point of
using this verse to prove the error of the KJV. According to him, and
I am not calling him a liar, but merely saying that he has listened
to a person who taught him this and believed it without checking
himself, he says that out of the thousands of Greek texts, this verse
only appears in one text, Codex 61. Well, he should have done his
homework, for that is not the only place this verse is mentioned. It
is also mentioned in #88, 221, 429, 629, 636, 918, and 2318. Added
to these manuscripts, it is found referenced in the writings of the
following church fathers.
200 AD Tertullian,who quoted the verse
in his Apology, Against Praxeas. Tertullian
was not that far removed from the original manuscripts of the actual
authors of the New Testament. If he were aware of the verse, surely
it existed. And we see he is not the only one familiar with it.
250 AD
Cyprian of Carthage referenced it in On the Lapsed, On the
Novatians.
350 AD Priscillian
referred to it in Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum,
Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol xviii, pg. 6.
350 AD Idacius
Clarus in Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by
Migne, vol. 62, col 359.
350 AD Athanasius
in De Incarnatione
398 AD Aurelius
Augustine use it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against
Sabellianism.
415 AD Council of
Carthage appealed to it when debating Arian belief.
450-530 AD Several
orthodox African writes quote the verse when defending the doctrine
of the Trinity against the Vandals. The writers are:
Vigilius Tapensis
in Three Witnesses in Heaven
Victor
Vitensis in Historia persecutionis,
Fulgentius
in The Three Heavenly Witnesses
500 AD Cassidorus
in Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol.
70, col. 1373.
550 AD Old Latin
ms has it
550 AD The Speculum
has it
750 AD
Wianburgensis referred to it.
800 AD Jerome's
Vulgate has it (brought into the Vulgate in 800 AD)
1000s AD miniscule
#635 has it
1150 AD miniscule
#88 has it
1300's AD miniscule
#629 has it
159-1400 AD Vaudois
Bibles have it
1500 AD ms 61 has
it – This is the one mentioned by Mr. Conway.
He says that people should do their
research. I agree. He should have done more himself. He says that
every doubtful passage can often be found in the early writings of
the church fathers. This helps to give credence to the verse. Well, 1
John 5:7 can be found in many of those writings as seen above. I
believe this is enough evidence to say that the verse is a valid
piece of the Scriptures. And it is the only verse which so totally
and clearly teaches the concept of a Trinity. The fact that the
gnostics did not accept this doctrine would make it very important
that this verse be removed from their manuscripts and that is exactly
what we find.
Are
there any other verses that remove this doctrine? Yes, we find there
are. 1 Timothy 3:16. The KJV reads, “And without controversy
great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh,
justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles,
believed on in the world, received up into glory.” This says
clearly and unmistakeably that God was manifest in the flesh. This
is telling us that Jesus was God. Not just the Son, but God himself.
This goes along with Philippians 2:6 and 1 John 5:7. What do the
modern versions say? Let's again start with the ESV. “Great
indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in
the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among
the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.” Who was
manifest here? “He.” The understood He in this is Christ, as it
is in the KJV version, but look at the difference. Jesus is no longer
God. He is merely “He.” What of the other versions?
NIV “Beyond all question, the mystery
from which true godliness springs is great: He appeared in the flesh,
was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among
the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.”
New Living Translation “Without
question, this is the great mystery of our faith: Christ was revealed
in a human body and vindicated by the Spirit. He was seen by angels
and announced to the nations. He was believed in throughout the world
and taken to heaven in glory.” This one clearly says Christ, not
God.
NAS “By common confession, great is
the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was
vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the
nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.”
ISV “By common confession, the secret
of our godly worship is great: In flesh was he revealed to sight,
kept righteous by the Spirit's might, adored by angels singing. To
nations was he manifest, believing souls found peace and rest, our
Lord in heaven reigning!” Notice the addition of “souls found
peace and rest”. These words aren't in the manuscripts at all. This
is a paraphrase.
ASV “And without controversy great is
the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the spirit, Seen of angels, Preached among the nations,
Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.”
ERV “And without controversy great is
the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh,
justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached among the nations,
believed on in the world, received up in glory.”
Need I put any more? Here are three
different verses that teach that Christ is God in the flesh, part of
the Trinity, that have been altered, if to not deny it, to not verify
it either. Mr. Conway says the KJVers complain that doctrines are
under attack with these modern versions, but he says they are not. Is
that true? Clearly the idea that Christ is one of the Trinity and the
equal of God is a doctrine that is being removed as much as possible
from the newer versions. Here are three verses alone. How many more
might there be that I have not discovered? And when one considers the
lie that Satan is now propagating, that Jesus was not God but an
enlightened evolved individual, one that shows us how to become as He
was, is it not apparent that these versions help his agenda? It is
said that if one searches the Scriptures that these little changes
don't matter, for the doctrines are in there somewhere. That may very
well be true, but it is also very true that people are not studying
or even reading their Scriptures. They are relying on their pastors
and teachers to tell them what is in the Bible and when those pastors
do not truly believe in the Word of God, they can use these changed
verses to twist the doctrines to fit what they want the people to
believe. If you do not believe this, then from where do cults like
the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Campingites come? They use altered
verses to create new doctrines and because the people look at the
words and don't look any further, their interpretation makes sense
given what the verse says, and they lead people astray. And therein
lies the very problem which the speaker denies.
He makes the accusation that KJVers
don't want to admit to the truth of all the changes that the KJV has
gone through. Possibly that is because many are unaware of some of
the facts. Unfortunately even people in the KJV camp do not study as
they should. I, however, am addressing his allegations and
explaining them. But it remains that the real problem is one which he
is still avoiding. The problem comes back to that fact that the KJV
is based on the majority texts, and the Textus Receptus which
translated is “The Received Text” meaning the one that earlier
churches accepted as the best possible manuscript evidence. The
modern versions use as their texts ones edited by the gnostic school
in Egypt.
He brings up the problem of the
original KJV including the apocrypha. The apocryphal references had
to do with the fact that we are speaking of the Church of England
which was an offshoot of the Catholic Church, which accepts the
apocrypha as cannon. It took God pulling His people out of those
churches to also clean up His Word to the English speaking world.
Again, this took time, as God refined this translation, but that does
not negate the real problem, which as I keep reiterating is, the
source material for the translations.
Mr. Conway makes the point that the
translators admitted in some places it was hard to translate exactly.
In some cases they provided alternative translations (marginal
notes). Of course it was difficult. Anyone who speaks a second
language knows this when they try to translate what they are saying
in one language to another. Every language is slightly different and
sometimes there is simply no way to translate word for word. You do
the best you can, but the only way to convey as accurate a meaning as
possible is to sometimes give several alternative translations,
trying between them to convey what the original is saying. Including
all of the information - various possibilities of the obscure
passages - ensures that in time if someone were to find which was
correct, it can be corrected.
He makes the point of the fact that
there are thousands of manuscripts with slight variations and that it
makes translating difficult. First of all, these are slight
variations in minor things, not major changes in the meaning of a
text. Second, the fact that there are so many manuscripts helps to
decide which is correct. But the Bibles he promotes do not have
thousands of manuscripts to help them come to the truth. The
manuscripts for the modern versions are about 1% of the existing
manuscripts. That is not very many for comparison. And they do not
agree with each other as the majority texts do to a very high
percent, as he admits. They are also full of copyist errors. Which
is the better?
He attacks the translation using the
word “baptize” as being a transliteration rather than a
translation, saying that the Greek “baptizo” should have been
translated by the word “immersed”, therefore it is a less
accurate translation. Why do Baptists call themselves Baptists and
not Immersists? Because the word “baptize” in English carries a
greater significance than just to immerse someone in water. One does
that to take a bath. To immerse someone simply means to dunk them
under water. To baptize someone means that not only should they be
immersed (although some churches changed this to mean sprinkle) but
that there is a statement of conversion that goes along with it.
Anyone who understands the history of baptism (and I have an article
on this in my archives), knows that immersion baptism (called the
mikva in Hebrew), was a regular part of the conversion process in
Judaism and as such carried over into the Christian church at its
inception as immersion. This was the only method of baptism in the
early church. That is exactly what the New Testament writers meant
when they used the word “baptizo” and that is originally what it
would have meant to the early Christians before the Catholic Church
changed it to sprinkling.
So when it said in Greek “baptizo”
as written by the original authors of the Bible, it would have
automatically in Greek meant immersion to the readers. The English
word “baptize” is not just a transliteration, it is the English
word for that procedure. There is no other word to convey this
concept of a public conversion display using water. To simply immerse
someone in water does not baptize them. One does not baptize
themselves every day; they take a bath. Yet to take a bath is to
immerse oneself in water. There is something more needed for it to be
a baptism. It requires a public statement of faith before someone
else, as well as being immersed. We do not call a baptism in any
church an “immersion” as in “John was immersed tonight.”
There needs to be something more conveyed in the message. We say
“John was baptized tonight, by immersion.” We define the
word “baptize” by saying it was by immersion. The point
being that baptism was the ritual of coming under the water when
announcing one's conversion. At the beginning a baptizo was always by
immersion. It was the Catholic church who, incorporating the
Babylonian Mysteries, changed the meaning of what a baptism was
(immersion) to sprinkling, which is what was done in the Mysteries.
That does not negate the word “baptism” as an accurate
translation. It is the only word that truly describes the entire
event – a public statement of faith, accompanied by being immersed
in water. Again, he is manipulating the facts to try to divorce
people from the idea that the KJV is the most accurate rendition we
have of the original Word of God.
Speaking of baptism, it is interesting
given what I said above, that baptism requires not only immersion,
but must be accompanied by a statement of faith, that we find that
the latter is removed from the modern versions in Acts 8. Sprinkling
is not Scripturally defensible, given what is taught in the passage
in Acts 8:36-38 if verse 37 is not removed, but it is removed from
all modern translations. Let's look at that passage. “And as they
went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch
said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? [37]
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.
And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of
God. [38] And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and
they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and
he baptized him.” In all the modern translations it jumps from the
eunuch asking Philip what stops him from being baptized, to being
baptized. In all of those cases there is no response that anything
more is needed. They simply stop the chariot and down he goes to the
water to be baptized. No confession of faith was required. The KJV
demands that there must be a belief, which must be confessed. A baby
cannot do this. So which is the problem? That the word “baptizo”
should have been translated “immersion”? Or is it that the
confession of faith before baptism has been removed allowing room for
infant baptism by sprinkling?
It is pointed out that the KJV had
critics. Yes the KJV in its inception had its critics. It obviously
still has critics today or I would not be writing this. And yes it
needed some revising to remove the Catholic/Church of England
influences, which God did. As for the original translators saying
that other translations, even the least of them, was the Word of God,
this was valid in that they used the Textus Receptus as their source.
The fact is, whether he realizes it or not, he is saying that people
were seeking to make it more exact, more perfect, which makes it more
trusted to be the truth and the one we should use. In truth that is
what the translators themselves said. Not that they sought to make a new translation per se, but that they were seeking to make what they
already had more accurate. This process of continuing to refine it
only made it the most accurate translation possible, not something to
be shunned. Have the modern Bibles ever put themselves through such
scrutiny to improve themselves? No. They let their errors stand. As
for it being profitable to look at the various English translations
of the Textus Receptus when studying, this may be profitable. However
as shown at the beginning and throughout this article, that is not
true of the modern versions, due to the gross errors inherent in them
due to the manuscripts used as their source.
Once again, he misdirects people in
that he points out that even the original manuscripts are not exact,
but only vary within a very small 2%, and concedes that the KJV is a
good translation of those very accurate manuscripts. This is a very
true statement. He states that no other piece of literature has been
sustained with such accuracy and that God has preserved His Word.
Again a true statement. But good deception always comes in the form
of fallacies wrapped in truth. And this truth is used in a less than
honest way to mislead people. That is because what he fails
to point out at this juncture, after saying these truthful things, is
that it is not these manuscripts that are being used for these modern
translations. And the minority texts have a far greater variance than
2%. Much further. So which are you going to trust to give you as much
truth as possible? The one Bible which uses as its foundation the
texts where even he admits God has preserved His Word, or the ones
based upon the corrupted and altered texts?
He points out that when the KJV was
first translated, people faulted it for being too simple to read. In
fact, it has been determined that it is no higher than a 5th
grade reading level, in spite of people saying it is hard to read,
and that it progresses from beginning to end in a progressive
fashion. In other words, it is in a 5th grade reading
level at the end, but a lower grade reading level at the beginning.
Is this a problem, or does this show us that God orchestrated it to
be written that way so that even the least intelligent among us can
understand it? In some of the modern translations there are some
places where the verbiage is so convoluted and difficult that it is
almost impossible to understand, while the KJV is easily read.
He attacks the KJV as being archaic. He
uses the word “suffer” as an example and says it means “allow.”
He says that because that is how his Bible (and other modern Bibles)
translates it, as “let, “allow,” or “permit.” He should
have checked to see if he and his translation were correct, for it is
not. That is not what the word “suffer” (from the Greek
“aphiemi”) means. It means “to send forth” or “yield up”
which is not the same as “allow, let, or permit” which is how
all the modern versions have translated it. It is more than just
indulge them if they want to go visit with Christ, it means to hand
them over and deliberately send them to Christ, knowing that to turn
something over to Christ means it is on a permanent basis. It is not
just to be obliging to let the child do what it wants at that moment.
There is a much deeper meaning here. We are to hand over our children
to Christ....... permanently. To not just let them go, but to release
all rights of ownership, to give them away. To sacrifice them to His
service, not just temporarily stay out of their way if they want to
go visit with Him. The word “suffer” now makes much more sense in
our modern sense does it not? For giving up your child makes one
suffer in the very way he says this term does not apply. Yet he says
this is not a translation of God with an anointing upon it?
He next finally admits that the KJV is
based upon “longer” manuscripts and that the modern ones are
based upon “shorter” ones. That they are not based upon the same
manuscripts. But that in and of itself is deceptive wording. The
words should not be “longer” and “shorter” but “more
prolific” and “barely any” documents. He argues that while
KJVers say that the modern translations have taken away from the Word
of God, that KJV has added to it. So which is correct? Should we go
with thousands of documents that reaffirm something, or a few
documents that can't agree on a lot of things? Which is the sensible
path?
He tells the people that the
manuscripts were hand written, and so if a copier made an error, the
error was there. Yes, in the manuscripts from Alexandria that is
exactly how things were done. Verses were often copied twice by
mistake, sometimes they crossed out their errors, but in the majority
texts that is not how the copying was done. They were scrupulous in
their copying. They did not tolerate mistakes in the same way, for
the very reason that they did not want to promulgate errors. Most
manuscripts are not complete due to their age and falling apart. So
yes, they have to be pieced together, but within the fragments
themselves, there were not the kind of errors in the original copying
that one would find in the Alexandrian texts. The manuscripts that
mainly had all these errors and notes he is speaking of were the
minority texts, not the majority texts, but he never delineates that
fact. He makes statements in certain contexts without clearly
defining them and lets the listener draw conclusions that may not be
correct.
He equates older with being more
accurate, which as I showed in my previous article on the KJV Bible
does not mean a thing. It depends on how careful the copiers were,
and the documents that were found in Alexandria had very many
mistakes in them. The reason they were found in the trash is because
they were considered faulty. They had been abandoned long before as
no good. Without stating the entire truth, that the 2% variable is
only found in the majority texts, he says again that God has
preserved His Word. I agree.....in the majority texts with their 2%
variance.
He makes the truthful statement “There
are inferior Bibles. There are translations that their translational
philosophy is not even intended to be word for word. But I like that.
I want a Bible and I hope you want a Bible that we're getting as
close to the truth....we want it readable....we just don't want all
our word structures in the same order as you find in the Greek. We
want it readable. But we do want a good healthy solid, strong... I
mean in English language you know probably the most scholarly
translations today would be the new King James Bible, the New
American Standard Bible, they're good scholarly translations.” So
first he says that he likes that the translators' philosophy is not
intended to be word for word? I am sure he must have misspoken when
he said that, because surely he would not sacrifice accuracy for
readability? He is correct that there are inferior Bibles. He wants a
Bible as close to the truth as possible? Then why use the modern
translations from the gnostic school? Do we really want our Word of
God coming from them? And if concerned about readability, often the
readability is not made easier in the paraphrasing. If he truly wants
a healthy, solid, strong, scholarly English translation, there simply
is no better translation than the KJV.
He makes the statement, “Steer away
from translations where the translators themselves are being forced
to interpret. And then putting their interpretation down. Because if
their interpretation isn't right....You know when you go in and you
just wanna word for word equivalent and you're looking for the
equivalence, sometimes when you don't understand exactly what the
original is saying, because you did the word for word equivalence,
even though the translation is somewhat ambiguous, in other words,
it's difficult to figure out, at least you've been faithful to the
text. If you as the translator say well I think that means this and
you go away from the original wording, and now you just put your
thought about what you think it means, if you're wrong, you're wrong.
I think that's a dangerous way to interpret scripture. And the
looser, the more you get these paraphrases of scripture, the more
likely you're going to get translation that the translator's actually
giving their interpretation and the more they do that, the more
there's a possibility that they are going to misinterpret.”
The point is well made. This is exactly
the problem. The original Minority manuscripts were tampered with and
the gnostics put a lot of their own interpretations into it. And as
he said, if their interpretation is wrong, where does it lead? To
further error of course. He says that if something is difficult (as
sometimes the KJV is) is it not better to remain faithful to the text
rather than have somebody's idea as to what that text meant? I agree
whole-heartedly, which is why I use the KJV. It is the best
translation out there, in spite of the difficulties. He even says
that to interpret Scripture any other way is dangerous. Why? Because
it will lead to misinterpretation and error. Why is it that he cannot
see the very point he is making?
He compares the stand for the KJV as
the same sort of problem that occurred when the KJV came out. He
equates it with people not wanting to give up their traditions and in
some cases considers it idolatry to only accept the KJV as the truest
English translation of God's Word. To that I can only say that I
can't speak for why the people initially were against the KJV, maybe
they were simply being cautious, who knows. I do know that the reason
most KJV only people take that stand now is because we have looked at
the evidence and realized that there is a very good reason for taking
this stand. I have outlined much of it in my previous article and
this article. If someone can argue with those facts and wants to
continue to use the modern versions, well that is their choice. As
for me and my house, we will serve the Lord, to the best of our
ability in truth, and that includes the using the best source of His
Word that we have available to use.
The speaker states “My main reason
for going from a translation derived from the Textus Receptus, away
from that was not primarily a textual matter. It was an evangelistic
matter. I want Scripture in the common man's language. And when I
have preachers stand in our pulpit whether that by myself or anybody
else, I want us preaching in the common man's language.”
So let me understand this. He moved
away from the KJV, not for textual reasons, in other words, he didn't
think that textually the modern versions were better. He moved to the
modern versions for evangelistic reasons. Why is going to a modern
translation better for evangelism? He states that he wants preaching
in the common man's language. Nothing says that a preacher has to
preach in KJV language. No preacher still talks as if they were
living with Shakespeare, so the statement seems a little ridiculous.
A preacher should be able to take the text and preach upon it even if
it is in the KJV language. And many do.
Another statement he makes. “Shortly
after I made the switch to the ESV, I went to a church where the King
James Version was the accepted version. It's the one you had to
preach from if you were going to preach in the pulpit there. And I
sat there and it was during a conference time and a man came up and
he preached on a text and it might have been in 1 Timothy chapter 1,
if I remember right. That man took the first 20 minutes of that
sermon to put words in the text into the common man's language.
Because in the King James Bible its not. He took 20 minutes and when
he was done, what he said was almost verbatim of what I had in my
ESV.” I have a hard time believing that the man spent twenty
minutes trying to merely rephrase a KJV verse or two into the
language of ESV. I am sure he preached on that passage. But is that
not what I suggested he do? Take the KJV and put it in the language
of the modern man as he expounded upon it? So was it necessary for
him to use the ESV, or was it better to start with an accurate as
possible translation and expound upon it from there? I think Mr.
Conway is exaggerating quite a bit to try to favor his view. If one
must go to this extreme, is that not just showing us that he really
does not have real evidence to back up his opinion? And does this not
just prove my point that a man can use the KJV and preach in the
common man's language without having to sacrifice an accurate text?
Finally in the last couple of minutes
of his sermon he admits to the truth. “If you do all of your
studies, and you become convinced that you want to go with the
textual family of the majority texts or the textual family of the
received text, away from these Alexandrian texts, you see there's
different groups within this whole assortment of texts that we have,
but if you feel compelled to go, then go to the New King James,
because that's gotten rid of a lot of the archaic language.”
He finally in the last minutes admits
that the modern versions are based upon the Alexandrian texts.
Something that he has not disclosed to the people during the course
of the talk. He admits that there are two textual families that do
not agree. He barely mentions it, and does not give them any
information about what these two families are, nor why they are
different. For to do so might give some of them pause and make them
consider that they are using corrupt Bibles. If he were being honest
with them, he should have given them the entire truth. If he is so
sure of his position, why hide the truth?
As for the New King James Version, the
NKJV does not follow the same Hebrew and Greek texts as the
Authorized KJV. It even changes wording between editions. Many
meanings of hundreds of verses have drastically been changed and some
even paraphrased. This has resulted in doctrinal issues being
corrupted and contradictions being introduced. It also changes many
of the words to words that are actually more difficult to understand
than the original. It should not be used any more than any of the
other modern versions.
Aside from the accuracy of the text,
there is a literary quality to consider. The KVJ is a poetic Bible.
But it has been discovered that the Old Testament in particular was
written to be sung. Yes, the entire Old Testament is a song, not just
the Psalms. And the music was discovered to have been written into
the original Hebrew text. Being such, it was written poetically in
the original language. This makes sense, as it was and still is the
custom to sing the Scriptures in Judaism. And this was a wise choice,
for not only does God like to be sung to and about, it makes the
Scriptures much easier to memorize that way. What a great God we have
to do that for us.
Looking at this subject from a
completely different perspective, we get some insight from a literary
critic, rather than a Bible critic. Here is what we find. Mr. David
Norton, a Professor of English at Victoria University of Wellington,
New Zealand and author of A History of the Bible as Literature,
The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible, and
A Textual History of the King James Bible wrote
the following in his introduction in the Penguin Classics KJV Bible
which he edited.
“William
Blake as he was beginning to learn Hebrew wrote to a correspondent,
'I read Greek as fluently as Oxford scholar & the [New] Testament
is my chief master: astonishing indeed is the English translation, it
is almost word for word, & if the Hebrew Bible is as well
translated...we need not doubt of its having been translated as well
as written by the Holy Ghost.' Modern readers who can read this Bible
in the light of the originals can share this astonishment. More than
many recent versions, it trusts the original texts, believing that
their way of saying things can speak with clarity, without much
resort to paraphrase.” (pg xiv)
“Its
language is, of course, antiquated, and this presents the reader with
both challenges and rewards. The challenges are the old grammatical
forms (these only take a little getting used to), a number of
unfamiliar words and the changed sense of some words. The rewards are
a language that is usually highly meaningful (there are places where,
like the originals it can be obscured) and also highly pleasing. The
King James Bible offers the reader both the meaning of the Bible and
a religious or aesthetic experience of language that no modern
translation can match. For instance, after Adam and Eve have eaten
fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the King James
Bible has Adam give this simple reply to God. 'And the man said, “The
woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I
did eat.”' (Gen. 3:12) The meaning is clear except perhaps for 'she
gave me of the tree', but in context it is obvious that he is saying
she gave him fruit from the tree. The language is simple, almost
entirely monosyllabic English, without a trace of pretence to
grandeur. Only the archaic form, 'thou gavest', marks it out as
biblical English. It is when one listens to it that its power becomes
obvious. Two words stand out, 'she' and 'did'. 'The woman...she gave'
places the stress on her in a way that 'the woman...gave' could not.
Then 'I did eat' rather than 'I ate' gives a strong sense of Adam's
guilt, as if he was saying, 'yes I did. I ate from the tree'. As well
as these ringing words, stressing both accusation and confession,
there is a rhythm to the verse. The last ten words make a pentameter.
Milton recognised this, and 'she gave me of the tree, and I did eat'
became a line of Paradise Lost
(1667).
Modern
versions usually stay close to the King James in this verse. Here is
the New International Version: 'The man said, “The woman you put
here with me – she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate
it.”' It is still powerful, but not as powerful. There are no
uncertainties of meaning, nor any archaism, but the rhythm has almost
vanished, and there are several touches, all of them associated with
a move from literal translation towards paraphrase, which make it
less effective. The dash before 'she gave me' underlines the effect
of having the subject stated twice (as it is in the Hebrew), but it
goes along with changes that make Adam close to vindictive in his
attitude to Eve. 'The woman you put here with me' is a bitter
statement, as if Eve were inflicted on him. The sense of Eve as a
gift is lost – 'The woman whom thou gavest to be with me'; lost
too is the parallel between Eve being given and Eve giving – 'she
gave' (the Hebrew uses the same verse in both places). The change at
the end of the verse, 'and I ate it', comes about not just because
modern translators are uncomfortable with using 'did', but because
the New International Version, paraphrasing for clarity, has added
'some fruit' (not in the Hebrew), and so must finish it with 'it'
(again not in the Hebrew).
I have
kept the Hebrew in sight in discussing this example because most
readers of the Bible would agree that fidelity to the meaning of the
originals is essential, and that felicity of language is less
important. Every detail in the King James rendering of the verse
comes from the Hebrew. The excellence of the writing comes from the
excellence of the Hebrew. Yet the language of the King James does
matter for its own sake. Beauty and truth are not always close
companions, but they can never be entirely divorced. 'Worship the
LORD in the beauty of holiness,' cries the Psalmist (Psalms 29:2,
96:9). If beauty if lacking, some of the holiness is lost.” (pgs.
xiv, xv)
Notice
that the author of these quotes mentions that the verse is
monosyllabic. As said earlier, the KJV Bible has a very simple
reading level at the beginning. The words are not hard. Next, note
how the sense of the text goes from acknowledging Eve was a gift, to
an accusation that she was foisted upon him and he is bitter that she
was, because all has been lost because of her. Adam not only accuses
Eve in the modern translations, he also blames God. Likewise the
confession of guilt and absorbing some of the blame is lost. And some
words are added that are not in the original. So while the
understanding of the mechanics of what transpired is not changed in
the modern translation, the attitude of Adam does change, which
changes the text from conveying exactly what God wants conveyed, to
putting man's interpretation of what Adam felt upon it. It is a
subtle change, and maybe doesn't seem all that important, but how do
we not know that further along there are changes like this that are
far more consequential? And as is pointed out, the beauty of the
lyricism of the language is lost too.
The
author of this passage also makes a statement that he believes to be
true, but which I do not think is. He says, “most readers of the
Bible would agree that fidelity to the meaning of the originals is
essential, and that felicity of language is less important.” It
would seem from Mr. Conway in his video (and the vast majority of Christians that use corrupt Bibles, because they are "easier" to read) that the felicity of language far outweighs the fidelity to the meaning of the original. Few people
seem to think fidelity to the meaning of the original is essential, except for the KJV only crowd. Is
that not a sad state of affairs? How do you think God feels about
that attitude?
