DEFENDING GOD'S WORD ONLINE - 02_01

Bible Versions Article - BV.0101_02_01

social_media_nav_bar

SHARE THIS ARTICLE WITH YOUR FRIENDS and FOLLOW

Part 1 of 6 - LOST in the CONFUSED MIND of a FORMER KJV-ONLY TURNED PENTECOSTAL BIBLE COLLEGE STUDENT

LOST 00 (this intro): LOST 01: LOST 02: LOST 03: LOST 04: LOST 05 (Summary): LOST 06:

From: DH
Sent: January-10-10 3:39 PM
To: answers@bereanresearchinstitute.com
Subject: KJV

To my fellow brother and/or sister in Christ,

I am sure you are sincere in what you are doing with your website and I applaud you for standing for what you believe. I formerly held to at least one of your beliefs but after much unbiased research with a genuine desire for truth, I am 100% positively confident that I was misled when I received that teaching which you hold to. I am talking about the KJV only teaching and the lies surrounding modern translations. I share this to you assuming that you are a man who is more interested in Truth=Jesus Christ than religion. I challenge you to have the mind of a true Berean and search to see if what I have to say is true and do as Paul emphatically instructed pastor Timothy:

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness." -2 Tim 2:15-16 (KJV)

Please, I beg you to consider that if you are wrong and these (all but the NWT) other translations really are viable translations, then you are fighting against the Word of God, His very life Saving Gospel! It is imperative that you research this teaching from an unbiased position because lest you do I am not sure you would be considered innocent in the sight of God for this offense because it has now been brought to your attention. I am here to warn you in love!

Your claims about Bible translations are simply not accurate. The arguments posed by proponents of this belief are built upon academic irresponsibility, a disregard for scholarly textual criticism and lack of a true desire to know truth especially if it conflicts with their own preconceived notions and pet doctrines. In other words, their own foolish pride prevents them from discovering and embracing the truth. May it not be so with you!

I have a book that I would love to send to you for free that addresses this false teaching in detail and with thorough citations. He answers every lie that you and I have both heard from KJV only proponents. The book is The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? by James R. White. If you are interested in truth and want this book I would be honored to send it to you.

I do love the KJV but just for fun do you really know what these terms mean in the KJV:

"overcharged with surfeiting"
"conversation" (has nothing to do with speaking)
"wimples"
"mufflers"
"asswage"
"brigandine"
"carefulness" (not what you might think)
"careless" (ditto above)
"pygarg"
"sheepcote"
"sackbut"
"pommels"
"turtle" (not an amphibian)
"taches"
...and I could list hundreds more.

I leave you with one question to ponder: Does a Chinese man who seeks to know God in His Word have to learn 17th century English to read the Bible?

Please send me an email with your address if you want the book I am offering you. May God bless you in all truth and love in Christ Jesus!

May the Lamb that was slain receive the reward of His suffering!

From: Mike
Sent: January-10-10 9:35 PM
To: "DH"
Subject: RE: KJV

1. Thank you for taking time to write to us. ... You say that you are "100% positively confident that [you were] misled when [you] received that [same] teaching which [I] hold to. [You were] talking about the KJV only teaching and the lies surrounding modern translations." I am not sure what you mean by "KJV only" teaching. I do not believe what many people accuse me of believing when they refer to "KJV Only". By whom were you misled? What specific points were taught to mislead you?

2-4. [E]

5. I would like to examine some of the unbiased evidence with you (evidence that stands alone, and is completely independent of personal opinion.) I would also like to address the points you raised, as follows:

a. ARCHAIC WORDS:

1) [Regarding your list of words], Do these "archaic" words make the King James Bible weaker than new versions? No. Can I understand what they mean? Yes. Anyone can research the meaning of words and increase their level of understanding. That is what learning is all about. That is partly why God commanded us to "study".

2) But one need only look at the list of difficult words in the NIV to realize that the King James is much easier to read in most places, so (at best) this argument alone cannot tip the balance of evidence in favour of one or the other. For example, from the NIV, what do these words mean?:

a) "filigree" (Ex 28:20)

b) "pinions" (Deut 32:11)

c) "blunted". (Ps 58:7)

d) "Nubians". (Dan 11:43)

e) "cors" (I Kings 4:22);

f) "portico" (I Kings 6:3)?

g) "poultice" (II Kings 20:7)?

h) "satraps"? (Est 3:12)

i) "portent" (Is 20:3)?

j) "mina" (Luke 19:6)?

k) "carnelian"? (Rev 4:3)

I could continue for a long time with more examples. A child in grade five or younger could easily read what these words really are from the King James.

3) If a person studies any trade or profession he will need to learn new words specific to that trade or profession. The words are often very difficult to learn – especially in earth sciences, bio-sciences and/or medicine. No one argues that those words need to be tossed out in favour of new words, and no one demands that an author of any published book, or the author of any newspaper article go back and re-write his book or article to make the words more understandable, simple, or modern. It is completely the responsibility of the reader to get a dictionary or to conduct other research ("study to shew thyself approved unto God") in order to understand what the author meant by his words. So, it is fallacious and wrong to argue that the King James Bible is weaker because of its use of these words. In fact, research shows the opposite.

b. IS KJV THE ONLY WORD OF GOD?

Regarding your question about whether a Chinese man needs to learn 17^th century English to understand God's word, I would have much to say, but will keep it to this for now:

1) I do not believe or teach that the King James Bible is the only word of God; and as far as I know, I have never met anyone who believes such a thing (although people who are contentious frequently assume that I and others believe that to be the case.)

2) There is no doubt that the English language is now the global language. It was prophesied to be so in the bible. God obviously knew that. So, IF God wanted the King James Bible to be his ONLY word, he certainly made provision for that. But I am inclined to believe that his word is accurately translated into other modern languages as well.

3) But, whether it is, or is not, accurately translated into other languages is irrelevant. The fact remains that the King James Bible is the only word of God in English. New English versions are not. That is not a conclusion based on opinion. It is based on evidence. God's word wouldn't have errors, omissions, and contradictions. But the new versions have all of these.

6. Now regarding some of the unbiased evidence that proves the superiority of the King James Bible over all new versions, I would ask you to comment on a few things, as follows:

a. You referred earlier to "17^th century English". The fact that you mentioned this leads me to believe that you were never really taught the reasons behind the issue. I have no doubt that someone taught you what they themselves believed. But, it does not appear that you really know the reasons why ONLY the King James Bible can be the word of God in English. That is why I am interested in hearing more of your testimony and what the specific issues are which led you away to believing that new versions – as erroneous as they are – are also the words of God.

b. Here are some specifics. The King James Bible uses what you call "17^th century English". You write that as if that would be inferior to modern English. The fact is that King James English is magnificently superior to modern English.

1) The use of "est" and "eth" endings in the King James Bible is universally transferable to other languages in identifying second and third person structures, respectively. New versions do not convey this information, clearly making them inferior.

2) The use of pronouns such as "Ye", "Thee", "Thou", "Thine", etc in the King James Bible identifies and distinguishes plurals, singulars, objective and subjective parts of speech. The new versions do not convey this information, clearly making them inferior.

7. These are not opinions. These are unbiased facts of English grammar. If you are unfamiliar with them, you can research them in more detail beginning with our article on Pronouns in the King James Bible:

8. I look forward to knowing the details of your testimony and your thoughts regarding these reasons I have presented for rejecting the new versions and for citing them as counterfeit copies of God's word.

Mike.

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (I Thess 5:21)

GO TO NEXT/PREVIOUS:

LOST 00 (intro): LOST 01: LOST 02: LOST 03: LOST 04: LOST 05 (Summary): LOST 06: