#####:
: Gary, the westcott/hort uknee inspired Greek NT text
is full of contradictions and in three distinct areas of the Gospel's,
the uknee's have attempted to disprove that Jesus Christ is the Messiah.
Tentmaker:
Objections Answered:
These are some of the "problems" we are told the NIV
and the NASB have. Most of these aren’t problems at all. For instance,
it is true that the NIV and NASB frequently speak of the "gospel" without
explicitly telling us in the same sentence which gospel. Yet we cannot
see how this reflects poorly on the NIV or the NASB. Rather than spend
time showing that many of the following aren’t problems at all, we will
simply show that the KJV is "guilty" of the same "errors" and say that
if someone really objects to these “errors” they had better criticize the
KJV as well.
· "Modern translations speak of ‘the gospel’ and
don’t always tell us which gospel (Rom 1:16)."
So does the KJV. See Mt 11:5; Mk 1:15; 13:10; 16:15;
Lk 4:18; 7:22; 9:6; 20:1; Ac 8:25; 14:7,21; 15:7; 16:10; Rom 1:15; 2:16;
10:16; 11:28; 15:20; 16:25; 1 Cor 1:17; 4:15; 9:14,16,17; 15:1; 2 Cor 4:3;
8:18; 10:16; Gal 1:11; 2:2,5,7,14; 3:8; 4:13; Eph 3:6; 6:19; Php 1:5,7,12,17;
2:22; 4:3,15; Col 1:5,23; 1 Th 1:5; 2:4; 2 Th 2:14; 2 Tim 1:10; 2:8; Phm
13; Heb 4:2; 1 Pe 1:12,25; 4:6
· "Modern translations tell us to ‘believe’ but
don’t always tell us what or who to believe (Jn 6:47)."
So does the KJV. See Mk 5:36; 16:17; Lk 8:50; Jn 1:7;
9:38; 11:15,40; 14:29; 16:31; 19:35; Ac 13:39; 21:20,25; Rom 1:16; 4:11;
Eph 1:19; Heb 10:39
· "The NASB refers to Christ as being ‘offspring’
(Lk 1:35)."
So does the KJV. See Rev 22:16
· "Modern translations refer to Joseph as being
Christ’s ‘father’ (Lk 2:33) and Mary and Joseph as being Christ’s ‘parents’
(Lk 2:43)."
So does the KJV. See Lk 2:48,27,41
· "One verse in the NIV is used by cultists to
prove that Christ was created (Mic 5:2)."
The same is true of the KJV. Cultists frequently use
Rev 3:14 to try to say that Christ was created. The KJV says that Christ
is the “beginning of the creation of God.” The NIV says that Christ is
the “ruler of God’s creation.” If we have to reject a translation because
cultists can abuse a verse in it, then we have to reject all translations
(and the original). This is why there is more than one verse in the Bible.
· "The KJV exalts Christ more than the modern
versions."
· Jn 1:18 - NIV, NASB call Christ God, but the
KJV doesn’t
· Titus 2:13; 2 Pe 1:1 - NIV, NASB call Christ
God but the KJV speaks of Christ and God as being two different people
· Rom 1:3 - KJV says that Christ was “made” (created?)
· Lk 1:35 - KJV calls Christ a “thing”. We believe
that He was a person before birth, not a “thing”. Also see Rom 8:26 where
the KJV calls the Holy Spirit “it”. We believe that the Holy Spirit is
also a person - not just an “it” like the cultists believe.
· "Most modern translations don’t use the reverent
‘thee’ and ‘thou’ when addressing God."
"Thee" and "thou" aren’t used as terms of respect in
the KJV. They are used to distinguish the second person singular from the
second person plural. As such, "thee" and "thou" are used whenever the
second person singular is used no matter who is being addressed. Certainly
Christ would never show reverence to Satan (the very idea is blasphemous)
and yet He addressed Satan as "thee" (Mt 16:23; Job 1:7,8). Greek doesn’t
have special pronouns for God; Hebrew doesn’t have special pronouns for
God; not even the KJV has special pronouns for God. If no one in the Bible
(including the Lord Jesus) used special pronouns for God, why should we?
How dare anyone suggest it is irreverent not to do so, since that would
be accusing Christ of irreverence! Now there are those who realise this
and yet, undaunted by the fact that they have no biblical support for their
tradition, still insist that we use "thee" and "thou" when addressing God.
They say this is because "you" is ambiguous (it can be singular or plural)
and therefore to use it (they claim) is to leave doubt as to whether we
are praying to one God or to many. All we will say is that it is both astonishing
and pathetic to see the lengths some Christians will go to in making ridiculous
accusations against their brothers in order to justify their traditions
rather than submit to the word of God alone. If they insist on claiming
that we are addressing a plurality of Gods clearly all rational, charitable
discussion has ceased.
· "Westcott and Hort [the men behind much of the
textual criticism that has been used in the production of more modern translations]
were liberals."
Argument ad hominem is a common method of attack for
people who have nothing substantive to say. Westcott and Hort were certainly
far from perfect, but the same can be said about Calvin, Luther, Wesley,
etc. And modern versions do not slavishly follow Westcott and Hort anyway.
If it were logically valid to reject their work because they were not theologically
perfect (and it isn’t), we would certainly have to reject the KJV as well
since Erasmus (the man behind much of the Greek text of the KJV) never
left the Roman Catholic church. (We might also point out that if Westcott
or Hort had ever written some of the things that the translators of the
KJV wrote in their dedication, KJV’ers would be vilifying them as blasphemers.
After all it is the Lord Jesus whose appearance is "as of the Sun in his
strength", not King James.)
· "Newer translations don’t have the majesty of
the KJV."
At the risk of sounding flippant, neither did the originals.
The New Testament was not written in majestic Greek, but in everyday Greek.
If anything, this lack of “majesty” makes newer translations more accurate.
· It is true that many modern translations and
paraphrases are bad, but so are many older ones. And attacking the Living
Bible or others is not a valid way of criticizing the NIV or the NASB.
· "Modern translations are paraphrases - they
aren’t literal like the KJV."
The ASV, the JND and the NASB are more literal than the
KJV.
· "The NIV had people from several denominations
on the translating committee. This distorts the translation."
We cannot see where this is worse than having all of
the translators from one denomination, the Church of England.
· "Modern translators leave out many words, phrases
and verses that are in the KJV. The Bible tells us not to take away from
God’s word (Dt 4:2; Rev 22:18,19)."
Those verses also tell us not to add to God’s word. If
those words, phrases and verses were not in the original, then modern translations
are faithful and it is the KJV than is unfaithful. It ought to go without
saying that the reason theses verses are not in the NIV or NASB is that
the people behind those translations don’t believe they were in the original.
We might also point out that the NIV and NASB have removed a substantial
chunk of the original KJV - the Apocrypha. We cannot see how supporters
of the KJV-only position can unhypocritically say that it isn’t acceptable
to remove words, phrases and verses from the KJV but you can remove whole
books. Finally, the KJV "leaves out" important words as well. For example
"through Jesus Christ our Lord" in Jude 25.
· Along the same lines as the previous objection,
pointing to differences between the KJV and modern translations proves
very little that isn’t already known by everyone and proves nothing that
is relevant to this topic. It does not prove that modern translations are
imperfect, it only proves they are not the KJV (as most people can guess
without the KJV scholars to tell them). It only proves that at least one
of the translations is wrong in that verse. The KJV might be wrong, the
modern translation might be wrong or they both might be wrong. To criticize
modern translations because they differ from the KJV is begging the question.
We already know they differ from the KJV - that is why we use them. The
question is, do they differ from the word of God?
· "The KJV was followed by tremendous revival,
so we know it is God’s translation. Have the modern translations been followed
by revival?"
The fact that God uses something has no bearing on whether
or not He approves of it. He used an evil spirit, Assyria, Judas’ betrayal
of Christ, and many other things that we wouldn’t dare suggest He approves
of. (We could also point out that this could be argued the other way. We
could say, "Look how many cults use the KJV!" since more cultists use the
KJV than all modern translations combined.) We aren’t saying that God doesn’t
approve of the KJV, but we are saying that even if we accept the assertion
that it was followed by revival and modern translations haven’t been, it
certainly wouldn’t prove the KJV is better. Finally, if this argument were
valid, it would mean that the KJV would be better than the originals since
much of the original didn’t produce immediate revival (e.g. Jeremiah).
· "Look at all the liberalism that has come into
the church. And most liberals use a modern translation."
Of course this hardly proves that modern translations
are responsible for liberalism. Most liberals are young. Does this mean
that young people should be avoided? We would also add that this too can
be argued both ways. Liberalism (which generally involves taking away from
God’s word) is no worse than legalism (which generally involves adding
to God’s word). And most legalists use the KJV!
· "The KJV is the easiest translation to memorize."
To begin with, this is a completely subjective statement.
Whereas it may be easier to memorize for some people, it is much harder
to memorize for others. This is merely a personal preference which some
people have and it conflicts with the personal preferences of others. We
suggest that those who really love the truth will stick to objective truth
rather than imposing their personal, subjective preferences on others.
(We might also point out that the people who make this claim are people
who have heard and used the KJV all their lives. Of course it’s easier
for them to memorize! If they had grown up on the Living Bible they would
find it easier to memorize. Certainly that wouldn’t mean that the Living
Bible is the best Bible!) Secondly, even if it were true that the KJV was
absolutely the easiest translation to memorize rather than just being easier
for those raised on it, what would that prove? Are we expected to believe
that the easier something is to memorize the more accurate it is? It seems
to us that most people in Canada have found "Frosty the Snowman" easier
to memorize than Psalm 119. Does that mean that "Frosty" is more accurate?
Most Christians find Psalm 23 easier to memorize than 1 Chronicles 3. Does
that mean Psalm 23 is more accurate?
· "You’re putting your faith in scholars, not
in God."
It is surprising how frequently this objection comes
up. What is even more surprising is that if one continues talking to the
person who offers it, it isn’t long before they are quoting a scholar of
their own to criticize modern translations. The fact is that a reader of
the NIV or NASB is no more putting their faith in scholars than a reader
of the KJV. As we will see later, the various Greek texts behind the KJV
were compiled by "scholars" and the KJV was translated by "scholars." Why
is it okay for the KJV to be assembled and translated by scholars, and
for its supporters to have libraries of KJV-only books written by their
scholars, yet not acceptable for the NIV and NASB to be assembled and translated
by "scholars?" As happens all too frequently in this debate, there are
apparently two sets of rules.
BACK - Newer
Posts - Spirit
of the Word -
Covenant
Eschatology - Introductory
Note - New Stuff
