KJV COMPARED

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

[130 (about 2 typed pages) of text follow]

Bro Clyde wrote:

> you might be surprised what is in those new
> bibles! Westcott and Hort, the principle re-translaters of the greek
> text in the 1800's were members of a "new age" group. 

Home economist Gail "God And" Riplinger incorrectly identified Bible
scholar B.F.  Westcott as an occultist, when in fact the occultist was
another Westcott, W.W. Westcott.

On the other hand, Erasmus, who compiled the Textus Receptus from which
the KJV came, was a Roman Catholic priest and humanist scholar.  The
KJV translating committee was composed of 54 baby-sprinkling Anglicans.

The Westcott boo-boo on Riplinger's part is only one among many errors
of fact in her book _New Age Bible Versions_.  Another book, _Manuscript
Evidence_, by Dr Peter Ruckman, similarly gives "facts" that are just
plain wrong.  For example, Ruckman claims the Septuagint dates from the
2nd Century A.D. and that the Codex Sinaiticus was found in a trash can.

I read the dedication at the front of the AV this morning -- neat
stuff!  It says specifically that the NEW translation was commissioned
so that the Word of God would not remain hidden because of the use of
older, obscure texts -- it would be a Bible for the common people!
This was REVOLUTIONARY in 1611, and the KJV had it's fair share of
controversy back in its early days.

The people liked the language of some of the older English
translations, and similar arguments about "taking away from the word of
God" that we see about the NIV or NASB _et al_ were made about the KJV
back then. In fact Bro McNair wrote just the other day:

> The best way to prove this to you  is to back up  what  I am  saying 
> with  scripture  so  that  you  can  see for yourself that there are
> indeed omissions (200 in fact!)

Never mind that many of these "excluded texts" are at least footnoted
and that it completely ignores the textual arguments (which can be very
real!) which underlie the choices made by the translators.  But, since
we're not talking about fairness or real scholarship here :-) (c'mon
brethren, smile), I'll proceed to do a similar hatchet job to the KJV.
Please remember, I'm only applying the same techniques used by Gail
Riplinger to discredit the newer translations to demontrate folly
of her arguments.

    ------------------------------------------------------------

Jude 25:
     "To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion
     and power, both now and for ever. Amen" (KJV).

     "To the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and
     authority, through JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD, before all ages, now and
     forevermore! Amen" (NIV).

* The KJV leaves out "Jesus Christ our Lord" -- it's a New Age conspiracy
to conceal the deity of Christ!

John 14:14:
     "If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it" (KJV). 

     "You may ask ME for anything in my name, and I will do it" (NIV). 

* Again, the KJV is concealing the deity of Christ.  The NIV clearly
shows who you should ask: JESUS (since he's the one talking), while the
KJV translation omits this.

     *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *

This next note just illustrates a kind of side issue, that of the fact
that the KJV translating committee inserted quite a bit into this
"word-for-word" translation.  This is going to be of any translation,
of course.

Acts 16:17:
     "The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are
     the servants of the most high God, which show unto us THE way of
     salvation" (KJV).

     ". . . who declare to us A way of salvation" (Young's Literal).

* Young's Literal uses the T.R.  The KJV (*and* the NIV!) incorrectly
translates the article "the," which Young correctly translated "a."
The correct reading is "A way of salvation" _not_ "THE way of salvation."

"Waitaminute Richard, WHAT ARE YOU SAYING??  That Jesus isn't the
only way??"

No, not at all -- please look at the context, at who is doing the
speaking: a demon possessed girl!  Why would a devil possessed girl say
"these men... show us THE way of salvation"?  This passage about why
Paul had her silenced never made sense to me until I learned what this
sorceress _actually_ said: that these men show _a_ way of salvation!
The devil doesn't want you to know the truth, but instead want you to
believe the New Age dictum that there are multiple paths to heaven.

According to Dr Robert Young, who created the Young's Literal
Translation, there are about two thousand instances where the definite
article has been completely omitted from the KJV text, and even more
where the translators *inserted* the definite article where it's not
called for.

    ------------------------------------------------------------

Please don't interpret any of the above as saying that I'm "anti-KJV"
-- I'm not.  I didn't present any kind of real argument other than to
apply the techniques used by Gail Riplinger and her friends to the
KJV.  These arguments are centuries old, and were once applied directly
to the KJV itself!

We're talking of a perspective dating not in the decades or even
generations, but one of five hundred years or more!  Seeing the
individual veins on the leaf of a tree is indeed a good thing, but
seeing the whole picture -- the entire forest -- is also a wondrous
sight to behold.  The KJV-only debate, which has been going on for
thirty years or more, is the tree.  The forest is the whole history of
the KJV and Biblical manuscripts.

Saying that the KJV is the only true Word of God does make things a bit
simpler for the Christian I suppose, and decreeing that
"interpretations" must be in some psuedo-olde-English makes the task of
"discernment" and little less complex (I suppose the Book of Mormon
must be authentic since Joseph Smith wrote it in his version of
fake-archaic-English), but life and the Christian walk is not a
simple matter!

Richard Masoner
richardm@cd.com