King James Version

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

I would like to take the opportunity to reply to Bro. Clifton's message


>Brother Kirk wrote:
>>
>> Sorry to burst the bubbles of any "King James Only" folks out there,
>> but there were many revisions of the 1611 version both before and after
>> 1769, but the best received is the "Blaney Revision" which we all
>> probably use on a regular basis.  Although the Bible itself is
>> infallible, translations are not.  I would even go as far to say that
>> today's KJV is probably not even the most accurate in translation in
>> light of various texts that have been discovered since its
>> translation.  But, it is still my favorite by far.
>>
>>
>
>With do respect to the very learned brother, I doubt I have a buble to
>burst.  I have spent much  the last three years reading different
>translations of the bible and studying the process of translation.  While
>I agree no translation is  infallible I can recommend the KJV on the
>following grounds:
>
>
>1: It is more accurate than most translations available.
>
>2: Words like emnity and superstion in their seventeenth century sense
>better reflect the Greek and Hebrew words they translate than any
>availible modern English words.
>
>3: It has a strong sense of poetry (lacking in modern translations) which
>permits a preacher to convey some very deep meanings to the congregation.
>
>4: It is relatively free of paraphrase.
>
>5: It has stood the test of time as litterature and a scholarly translation.




I am in total agreement with you on all of these points, Brother.



>If Brother Kirk simply wished to point out that other good translations
>are available, and Apostolics should not be afraid that they will loose
>the basic message of scripture because they have chosen the wrong
>translation (I assume none of us use the Jehova's Witnesses translation
>which is the then he is correct. I assume none of us use the
>Jehova's Witnesses translationwhich is the only one I am aware of being so bad
> it lacks the basic Apostolic doctrine  If on the other hand he
>disputes the idea the King James Version is the best translation, I must
>disagree.


First of all, allow me to apologize for, perhaps, overstating my position.
You are correct in assuming that I was attempting to point out that there
are indeed other good translations available and that we, as Apostolics,
should not hesitate to take advantage of the available scholarship.  I
certainly did not intend to propose that the KJV is flawed in some way that
other translations are not.  However, I wouldn't say it is the "best"
translation.  Neither would I say any other is the "best."  IMHO, there are
several good translations, each of which have their own strengths (and
perhaps, weaknesses) and I appreciate the merits of each.

Allow me to make a couple of brief points to illustrate my position a
little more clearly.


1) There are legitimate differences of opinion with respect to the "most
correct" translation of certain phrases among the various translations.
The grammatical construction of phrases that contain the Greek term "kai"
is a classic example (and one with which Oneness Pentecostals should be
aware).

In the below verses, the NIV and TAB often attribute the titles God and
Saviour both to Jesus Christ as opposed to the KJV standard of "God and our
Saviour, Jesus Christ."  There are several examples, but I will just give a
couple:

Titus 2:13
KJV  "the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ"
TAB  "our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ"

2 Pet. 1:1
KJV  "God and our Saviour Jesus Christ"
TAB  "our God and Saviour Jesus Christ"

Col. 2:2
KJV  "the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ"
NIV  "the mystery of God, namely, Christ"

Another important consideration to Oneness Pentecostals is the KJV's
insertion of the definite article "the" (which does NOT appear in the Greek
text) in many passages that are often cited by Trinitarians to demonstrate
the existence of Trinitarian thought in the Bible.  Take 2 Thes. 1:12 for
example.  The KJV reads "the grace of our God and *the* Lord Jesus Christ."
Now consider the literal rendering without the definite article: "the
grace of our God and Lord[,] Jesus Christ."  Quite a difference, huh?

There are other similar examples of difference in grammatical construction
between translations, but none of such theological or doctrinal
consequence.

2)  Some passages are more effectively communicated using more up-to-date
vocabulary and literary style.  This can have a fairly significant
theological impact at times.  Bro. DK Bernard has made us all aware in his
commentary on Romans that the word "atonement" as used in Romans 5:11 is
more appropriately rendered "reconciliation" as in the NKJV.  Similarly,
"propitiation" is more accurately rendered "atonement" as in the NIV.
Another fairly famous example of this is in Eph. 4:11,12 in which the
literary style of the KJV leads the reader to the assumption that the
"five-fold ministry" has three separate functions.  However, other
translations describe one function (which appears to be more in line with
the Greek text).

3)  Of course, there is always the argument about which texts are more
reliable.  There are literally hundreds of thousands of places in which
there are differences between the extant texts.  We are not talking about
differences in English translations here, but in the actual
Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic texts.  Who's to say which are the most reliable.
Since there is little doctrinal significance at stake and since most of the
variations are obvious scribal error, I personally don't see this a
determining factor as to which English translation is "better."



Having said all of this, my main point is that we as Oneness Pentecostals
should not cower away from other translations.  Some aspects of various
translations actually demonstrate Apostolic thought more clearly than the
KJV, as I think I have demonstrated above.  There is a great advantage in
having alternate English translations and we should be on the front lines
of scholarship defending the truths of God's inerrant Word.  I think in our
undue loyalty to the KJV we do ourselves a dis-service.  Pardon me for
saying so, but I think our preponderance on the KJV is often due to a
ignorance of other versions of the Bible.  We often see that some verses
are worded slightly differently and assume that it is some sort of
conspirancy to discredit God's Word when nothing could be further from the
truth.  There are several *scholarly* translations available.  (This is not
to say that there are some translations, or paraphrase versions, that are
seriously lacking in their accuracy.)  When we see a difference between two
translations, why do we (many of us) automatically assume that the KJV is
more accurate?  Personally, I have gained a more complete understanding of
God's Word from investigating some of the differences of opinion.  There is
not one English translation that is perfect--this includes the KJV.

Respectfully,

Bro. Kirk




**************************************
*                                    *
*        Kirk Van Ooteghem           *
*        University Libraries        *
*        Ball State University       *
*        00kmvanooteg@bsu.edu        *
*        vanoo@ecicnet.org           *
*                                    *
**************************************