Where Did the King James Bible Come From?

Where Did the King James Bible Come From?

Adapted from [url=http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0184.asp]Let's weigh the evidence[/url]. Concerned that the whole issue of "Which Bible?" was confusing members of his church, Burton wrote this easy-to-read summary of the research of many gifted men in the field of Bible translation. Here is just a small portion of this very readable book.

There Are Two Kinds of Manuscripts:

Accurate Copies

These manuscripts represent the manuscripts from which the "Textus Receptus" or Received Text was taken.

They are the majority of Greek manuscripts which agree with each other and have been accepted by Bible believing Christians down through the centuries. It is from these manuscripts that the King James Bible was translated in 1611.

Corrupted Copies

These manuscripts represent the corrupted copies of the Bible, also known as the Alexandrian manuscripts. These manuscripts, many times, do not even agree with each other. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are part of this group. These are the manuscripts on which Westcott and Hort and the modern versions rely so heavily.

There are 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. These manuscripts agree together 95% of the time. The other 5% account for the differences between the King James and the modern versions.

The modern versions had to use the Textus Receptus, since it contains the majority of the surviving Greek manuscripts. The problem is that, when the Textus Receptus disagreed with the Vaticanus or the Sinaiticus, they preferred these corrupted manuscripts over the Textus Receptus.

That accounts for the 5% corruption in the modern versions. Even these two manuscripts agree with the Textus Receptus much of the time. When they do not agree, it is because Marcion (120-160 AD) or Origin (184-254 AD) or whoever, corrupted them.

Now, the fact has been established that the modern versions are different than the King James Bible (see LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE for numerous, verse by verse examples). But, we still need to answer the question: Why are they different?

There are at least 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts which contain all or part of the New Testament. Plus, there are translations into different languages which date back to within 100 years of the disciples. For example, the Peshitta is a Syrian translation from the 2nd century.

These manuscripts agree with each other about 95% of the time. The problem is, how does one determine what is right in the 5% of the places where the manuscripts do not agree?

Argument One

(Modern versions) "The Bible is just like any other book. It is not liable to Satanic attack. In order to find out what the original copy probably said, you just find the oldest copies available and use them.

"We don't have the exact word of God now anyway, so a few disagreements will not matter."

Argument Two

(King James Bible) "The Bible is not ‘just like any other book.' Satan hates it because it is the Word of God. Satan has been trying to destroy it ever since the Garden of Eden.

"However, God has preserved His Word for us. He preserved the Old Testament through the Levites as priests and He has preserved the New Testament through the body of believers through the witness of the Holy Spirit."

The vast majority of Greek manuscripts agree together. They have been passed down through the centuries by true Bible-believing Christians.

In 1516 Erasmus compiled, edited, and printed the Greek "Textus Receptus" (received text). This is the text that the Protestants of the Reformation knew to be the Word of God (inerrant and infallible). The King James Bible was translated from the "Textus Receptus."

The debate continues:

Argument One

(Modern versions) The oldest surviving manuscripts must be the most reliable. Therefore, when determining what manuscripts to depend on, the Vaticanus (350 AD) and the Sinaiticus (about 350 AD) should be accepted as correct (even if 998 other manuscripts disagree with them).

Argument Two

(King James) The oldest manuscripts (the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) are not reliable at all! But wait, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree with each other over 3,000 times in the gospels alone!

Facts About the Vaticanus

It was written on fine vellum (tanned animal skins) and remains in excellent condition. It was found in the Vatican Library in 1481 AD. In spite of being in excellent condition, it omits:

Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 46:28
Psalms 106-138
Matthew 16:2-3
The Pauline Pastoral Epistles
Hebrews 9:14-13:25
Revelation

These parts were probably left out on purpose.

Besides all that, in the gospels alone it leaves out 237 words, 452 clauses and 748 whole sentences, which hundreds of later copies agree together as having the same words in the same places, the same clauses in the same places and the same sentences in the same places.

The Vaticanus was available to the translators of the King James Bible, but they didn't use it because they knew it is unreliable. The Vaticanus also contains the Apocrypha.

Facts About the Sinaiticus

The Sinaiticus is a manuscript that was found in 1844 in a trash pile in St. Catherine's Monastery near Mt. Sinai, by a man named Mr. Tischendorf. It contains nearly all of the New Testament plus it adds the "Shepherd of Hermes" and the "Epistle of Barnabas" to the New Testament.

The Sinaiticus is extremely unreliable, proven by examining the manuscript itself. John Burgeon spent years examining every available manuscript of the New Testament. He writes about the Sinaiticus:

"On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness.

Letters, words or even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less that 115 times in the New Testament."

That's not all!

On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people. Some of these corrections were made about the same time that it was copied, but most of them were made in the 6th or 7th century.

Phillip Mauro was a brilliant lawyer who was admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court in April 1892. He wrote a book called "Which Version" in the early 1900's. He writes concerning the Sinaiticus:

"From these facts, therefore, we deduce: first that the impurity of the Codex Sinaiticus, in every part of it, was fully recognized by those who were best acquainted with it, and that from the very beginning until the time when it was finally cast aside as worthless for any practical purpose."

The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are the oldest, but they are not the best manuscripts!!!

That's where the modern translators went wrong! They foolishly accepted the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus simply because they were old.

They did not attempt to find out why they were so vastly different from the Greek text that real Christians have known to be the infallible Word of God.

When the modern versions say in the footnotes, "Some of the oldest mss. do not contain vv. 9-20," or "This verse not found in the most ancient authorities," they are taking their information from the corrupt and unreliable Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts!

Don't fall for the "oldest are the best" line! The oldest are not the best! For example, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus both leave out the last 12 verses of Mark, concerning the resurrection of Christ.

But, there is not one other manuscript, either uncial or cursive, that leave out this passage. There are 18 other uncial (capital letter) manuscripts that have the passage in and at least 600 cursives (small letter) manuscripts that all contain these verses.

The evidence is at least 618 to 2 against the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Yet, look in your modern version.

The New American Standard Bible puts all these verses (Mark 16:9-20) in brackets, saying that these verses probably were not in the original writings. The other versions use brackets or footnotes.

That's ridiculous!!! In a court of law, if you had 618 witnesses that saw something happen, and you had two witnesses that said they did not see it happen, would you accept the testimony of the 618 or the testimony of the 2?

You see, it is foolish for any translator to accept a manuscript simply because of age, without checking to find out where it came from and if it was reliable or not.

Why do the modern versions question the virgin birth of Christ, attack the doctrine of the deity of Christ, the infallibility of the Bible, the doctrine of salvation by faith and the Trinity?

(For the surprising answer to this and many other questions, read [url=http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0184.asp]Let's weigh the evidence[/url]

Hi hmmhmm...

I disagree with the "facts" and perspective of the publisher of this article (Jack Chick). If someone wants to know WHY a vast majority of textual scholars prefer the Alexandrian text type, why not simply speak with them?

That's what I did! I actually telephoned, emailed and wrote letters in the hope of corresponding with those individuals. Their "rationale" in regards to the manuscript preference is quite different from the reasons listed in this article.

:-)

ccchhhrrriiisss wrote:
Hi hmmhmm...

I disagree with the "facts" and perspective of the publisher of this article (Jack Chick). If someone wants to know WHY a vast majority of textual scholars prefer the Alexandrian text type, why not simply speak with them?

That's what I did! I actually telephoned, emailed and wrote letters in the hope of corresponding with those individuals. Their "rationale" in regards to the manuscript preference is quite different from the reasons listed in this article.

:-)

maybe i will do so myself brother :-) , somehow you are a great encouragement to me brother! Im interested in what kind of responses you might have had brother
. Maybe i set out on a "quest" of my own...

Where do we get the idea that the written word is infalible? I don't find it in the word. I know it was God breathed. Without the Spirit, who teaches us all things, the written word can lead us into all kinds of error. Satan used the written word to test our Lord, and he is still using it to deceive and distort the gospel of grace.
As for versions or translations , ask God to give revelation of the word, God can speak to me through any translation, but I preferr King James, because of it's closer to word for word text. For reading I prefer NIV , because some greek words donot have one english word to adequately describe the thought, and it,s modern english. Take the time to see how this version was translated, dont take someone elses word for it. love tom

thomasm wrote:
Where do we get the idea that the written word is infalible? I don't find it in the word. I know it was God breathed. Without the Spirit, who teaches us all things, the written word can lead us into all kinds of error. Satan used the written word to test our Lord, and he is still using it to deceive and distort the gospel of grace.

[i][b][color=0000CC]Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [/color][/b][/i]

[i][b][color=0000CC]Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. [/color][/b][/i]

[i][color=0000CC]Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. [/color][/i]

The Lord God is infallible. [i]The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.[/i]The law of the Lord, and the testimonies of the Lord are the Word of God. The Word of God is the rock on which our faith and hope is grounded on. That which is God-breathed is the essence of the Spirit of God. This God-breathed Word [u][i]must[/i][/u] therefore be infallible. If the Word of God were fallible, then God Himself would be fallible; and if God were fallible, He would not be God.
The written word of God will never lead men into error when it is read and understood as a complete, unified, and innerant whole. The devil has been manipulating, distorting and isolating individual verses outside of their context since the Garden of Eden. He did the same to Christ, and He continues to employ this very effective tactic to this day.
Every verse in the Scriptures must agree with every other verse in Scripture. If a man's use of a verse fails in this vital area, then this man is in error. Remember, the only thing dividing the old and new Testaments is the cross. Jesus said; [i]Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. [/i]
[i]For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.[/i]
For His glory
Aaron

So many people use the KJV, and since the Tyndale bible was used heavily for the KJV, I think..., why do not more christians use the Tyndale bible? Should it be used? I have ordered a reprint new testament version with modern spelling, no change to the wording save spelling, and am wondering if it can or should be used like the other bible versions?

Swordbearer- I love your quote at the bottom!

why do not more christians use the Tyndale bible

Another question to ask is why did King James outlaw the Geneva Bible? Which was already doing quite well without the need for another translation, and was largely based upon Tyndale's' work, as well as the work of John Calvin, John Knox, and some of the other Reformers in Geneva at the time.

Another question to ask is why did King James outlaw the Geneva Bible? Which was already doing quite well without the need for another translation,

and because God makes even the foolishness of men to praise him..

Competition perhaps?

If you are interested in the background to the King James Version, which is still my version of choice, I suggest you read...

[url=http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Secretaries-Making-James-Bible/dp/0060838736/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-2700504-0740642?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188752856&sr=1-1]God's Secretaries[/url] by Adam Nicolson

It is a fascinating account of the history behind the KJV.

roaringlamb wrote:

why do not more christians use the Tyndale bible

Another question to ask is why did King James outlaw the Geneva Bible? Which was already doing quite well without the need for another translation, and was largely based upon Tyndale's' work, as well as the work of John Calvin, John Knox, and some of the other Reformers in Geneva at the time.

Perhaps the best answer to this very good question is to say that God does indeed direct the afairs of men, and that He most certainly has a keen interest in the preservation of His word. Can man act outside of the will of God? Most certainly. However, it would be very difficult to say that the AV was not "authorized" by God, considering the tremendous fruit that has come from the use of this translation. Think of it; for 250 years this was THE english bible. Moody, Spurgeon, Whitfield, Wesley, Edwards, Finney, Nettleton; the Lord used these and many other great men of God as the instuments of some of the greatest revivals and movements of God in the history of the world. The only bible they had was the AV. I wonder if perhaps in all our "wisdom" and multitude of "bible translations", have we have lost something? Have we lost something of a reverance for the Word of God?

For His glory
Aaron

Would many read the KJV is they new that the King James was a homosexual?

What proof do you have of this? I hear this all the time, but have never seen any proof. I hear this just a little bit more often that I hear that Shakespeare wrote the KJV...

Shakespeare actually quoted more from the Geneva bible than the KJV.

From what I understand, Shakespeare was really Francis Bacon. While there was a real William Shakespeare, he was not intelligent enough to write the plays that are accredited to Shakespeare.

Bacon undoubtedly had an effect upon the translating committee as he was one of the great intellectuals in England at the time.

Ron I would be curious to see what you think of the ESV.

Also, if you could perhaps offer an explanation as to why there is not a better modernized KJV in print today?

Personally, I love the KJV, and find it quite easy to understand for the most part. There are words here and there that need some clarifying, but that does not ruin the version.

aren't the ESV translated from the WH manuscripts? so we cant compare it to the KJV, because it is not from same manuscripts, but it can be with the NIV or NASB or any of the other from the same manuscripts.

edit: i read wrong and there off my answer :)

Ron I would be curious to see what you think of the ESV.

why there is not a better modernized KJV in print today?

[color=0033FF]thus for loved the God the world that the Son his the onlybegotten he gave in order that all the believing (ones) towards (into} him not should perish but have life into the ages[/color]

How would get on with that as translation?

This will probablyl bring the roof down on my head but I think the battle for the KJV is probably lost. It is almost completely unintelligable now for youngsters in the 21st Century. In my preaching I have made a strategic retreat to the NKJV. :-o

Greetings bro Swordbearer in the Name of Jesus Christ by Whose Blood we are Saved.AMEN.

you said:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The "Word" here is not a reference to scripture but to Jesus Christ Himself so there is a distinction there. To be sure the word of God, that is Scripture is infallible not so much as the text is concerned (because some words can't be properly translated across languages) but in that the Spirit of God who Inspired men to write is Himself Infallible.

While bro Thomas said:

Where do we get the idea that the written word is infalible? I don't find it in the word. I know it was God breathed. Without the Spirit, who teaches us all things, the written word can lead us into all kinds of error. Satan used the written word to test our Lord, and he is still using it to deceive and distort the gospel of grace.

the idea of this infallibility may not be overtly stated but it is implied because Scripture is inspired by God who Himself is Infallible and Infallibility so anything associated with Him in this manner, as scripture is Of Him, is Infallible.

Grace and Peace are ours in Jesus.AMEN.

just a side note, i like to read the KJV and NIV and Good News. perhaps bro Thomas you may want to try the Young's Literal Translation. it reads quite differently from the KJV and i believe it may be more the literal translation of the original text. it is quite an interesting version.

Where do we get the idea that the written word is infalible? I don't find it in the word. I know it was God breathed.

God breathed but not infalible? Dear friend, did God have to catch his breath in a few spots?

Ironman has me thinking.....
The statement that the use of the greek word [i]Logos[/i] in John 1:1 is a title for the person of Christ is correct, but I am not sure that is where it stops. I am certainly no scholar, but I know that every name has a meaning, and I can't help but think that there is some connection between the person of Christ and His holy word. Also; the correlation between the Word, the Light and the "light of life" in 1 Jn 1:1 seems quite fascinating to me. Well, enough posting..... I have something to study. ;-)
In Christ
Aaron

Where do we get the idea that the written word is infalible? I don't find it in the word. I know it was God breathed. Without the Spirit, who teaches us all things, the written word can lead us into all kinds of error. Satan used the written word to test our Lord, and he is still using it to deceive and distort the gospel of grace.

It is the only possible conclusion to a series of biblical statements.

[color=0033FF]and because from a babe [u]the Holy Writings[/u] thou hast known, which are able to make thee wise — to salvation, through faith that [is] in Christ Jesus; [u]every Writing [is] God-breathed[/u], and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that [is] in righteousness, (2Timothy 3:15-16 YNG)

if them he did call gods unto whom the word of God came, (and [u]the Writing is not able to be broken[/u],) (John 10:35 YNG)

upon hope of life age-during, which [u]God, who doth not lie[/u], did promise before times of ages, (Titus 1:2 YNG)
[/color]

If the scripture is not infallible God is either a liar or in error.

[color=0033FF]Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar... (Romans 3:4 NKJV)[/color]

Hi Krispy...

I agree that people need to be careful about laying such allegations. Most historians agree that there is little credible evidence to substantiate such a rumor about his supposed homosexual behavior. Since few of us have been privileged to dig through the firsthand sources, it would be reasonable to request our fellow believers to refrain from laying shameful accusations that are merely based upon hearsay. Since little is recorded about the personal conduct and morality of such men, we would do well to avoid such chatter. This includes the allegations concerning the translators of both the KJV and the NIV -- as well as about King James himself. Without credible sources, such rhetoric turns mere gossip into slander.

However, I must once again point out that I disagree with your second assumption (..."[i]the "worldly church" has accepted the lie that the KJV is too hard to understand[/i]")). Both my wife and I are well educated. My wife's difficulty with the King James Version may derive from the fact that English is her second language. However, I must also confess that I sincerely feel that the language is more difficult to understand than modern English. In fact, I have seen (firsthand) a great number of individuals who have misinterpreted passages because of such an unfamiliarity with the language. I have also witnessed individuals who feel the need to utilize extra-Biblical sources in order to further their personal understanding of a passage or chapter.

I have heard "statistics" that claim the language of the King James Version can be understood by children. Which children? The children of the 17th Century? The 18th Century? The children who grew up reading and learning the King James Version? These "studies" certainly cannot be speaking of the children that I know! I know a great deal of educated adults who have difficulty in completely understanding the language, grammar, usage and meaning of King James era English. It is incredible that we can ignore the obvious -- that there are individuals who cannot make sense of some of the language.

I use (and will continue to use) the King James Version as one of my primary sources for studying the Word of God. However, I seriously doubth that an honest person could ever claim that the version is [u]still[/u] in the language of the "common tongue." The fact that most individuals (who are unfamiliar with King James English) are forced to utilize extra, outside sources (dictionaries, Bible dictionaries, commentaries, etc...) seems to go against the desire of the translators themselves. They sought to create a translation that didn't force people to turn outside of the Bible itself to understand the language.

I know several KJV-preferred individuals who are not keen on the NIV (or any other "modern" or Alexandrian translations) who still hope that a more modern TR version could be produced in today's English.

:-)

i have seen this version, and it would be superb for all who have a problem with some of the more difficult words in the KJV.

[url=http://www.thekjvstore.com/product_detail.php?sid=8f41dad1ad5e131a9fc8c2513904fcf5&mcid=1&pgid=87&PHPSESSID=f9b65d3249f4206a14318300d3d74d94]Defined KJV[/url]

what do you guys think about the 21st century kjv?? i have used it a couple of times on biblegateway and compared passages in it to the kjv and it was very close with updated spelling (names and cities) and sentence structure. i was really impressed. just wondering your thoughts if you have used it or seen it..

the rumors of King Jame's alleged homosexuality is just that... rumors. Never been prooved, and all the evidence points toward the opposite.

I was not defending King James, merely saying that spreading rumors about anyone is sin.

It's real easy to accuse the dead.

The Glory of the King James Version, lies in that it is truly and indeed even more than that.

The Glory of KJV King JAMES Version, is that really, in purity & essence-it is the KJV

KING JESUS Version
We must remember Christ is KING of Kings

The NIV is not the New International Version, it is the NIV

Never Inspired Verses

Hi Krispy...

Interestingly, on the NIV translating committee there was a homosexual. Dr. Virginia Mollenkott. This is not rumor, but a fact that she is very proud of, and has written several books justifying the homosexual "lifestyle" among so-called "Christians".

This is a quote from Dr. Mollenkott: "Dr. Palmer suspected that I was lesbian while I was working on the NIV; it was information I kept private at that time."

Dr. Marten Woudstra was also a professed homosexual as well, and was even more directly involved in the translation work of the NIV. Dr. Woudstra wrote many papers and articles about homosexuality, consistantly stopping short of calling it a sin.

When I spoke with the original publisher (the International Bible Society) about the slanderous allegations that have been made against the NIV, they pointed me to [url=http://www.ibs.org/niv/accuracy/NIV_AccuracyDefined.pdf]a webpage[/url] that helps answer some of these oft-quoted assertions. It was written by one of the translators, Dr. Ken Barker, and even answers the “homosexual” allegations that you just made. I’ve spoken to a number of translators, and let’s just say that I found their answers quite compelling.

The problem with such rhetoric (whether the persistent, slanderous homosexual allegations are made against a couple of the NIV translators or against KJV himself) is that it does not serve to strengthen an argument for any existing translation. Rather, it serves to call into question the validity of the other side’s belief. Like Lincoln said, “[i]You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong[/i].” In other words, you do not HELP a pro-NIV argument by attacking the KJV. You do not help a pro-KJV argument by attacking the NIV. Sadly, this sort of thing happens daily in our posts.

Interestingly, we cannot perform the same sort of “moral spot sweep” with the translators of the KJV (or even the Textus Receptus and Byzantine text-type). Little is known about the behavior or doctrinal beliefs of the men responsible for the translation of the King James. While we are aware of some stipulations and restrictions placed upon the KJ translators (such as the inclusion of archaic language and traditional and ecclesiastical terminology), we don’t know if doctrinal belief affected the translation process. Did any of their beliefs or instructions affect the translation’s output? Were all of these men Calvinists? Were all of these men Arminianists? Were they pre-trib, mid-trib or post-trib? Were they all moral and decent men? Did they take care of their families? Were they “yes men” to the established hierarchy of the Church or State? Were some of them advocates for any of the “High Church” type of ritualistic traditions? Were any of them proponents of the “[i]Divine Right of Kings[/i]?” Did any possible allegiance impede their duties? Alas – we can never know, with complete clarity, what type of men that these were. Further, we cannot know to what extent (if any) that their civil, doctrinal or moral beliefs entered into the translation. They have been dead for over 400 years, and their “inside information” has died with them. Now, we are regulated to a few secondhand sources about a few of these men. This is even more complicated when we consider the life of Eramus. When we consider the differences between the Byzantine and the TR, we can call into question the validity of the "preserved" argument.

Since it is nearly impossible to properly judge the complete integrity of the translators’ work, we are forced to consider the alternatives. The ultimate question in these discussions always comes back to the validity of the sources used, and the style of textual criticism responsible for the translation. Which source texts are superior? After my research, I don’t think that ANYONE can ultimately or definitively conclude either source is completely superior. Rather, I feel safe to see them simply as two separate sources. What if one source is more accurate in one instance but less accurate in another? Should we attack the entire source as a whole? Which style of textual criticism is more accurate in producing a translation that is faithful to the original intent? Krispy, we seem to share the same conclusion. We both view the KJV and the NIV as accurate academic translations taken from their sources. The difference, as I see it, is that you view the sources used for the NIV as inherently flawed or inferior to the Textus Receptus. I simply cannot take such a position. I understand both arguments. However, nothing that I have researched leads me to conclude that one set of sources is ultimately superior to the other. Even if I did believe that one source is ultimately superior, I cannot tell which. I don’t agree with the “preserved” argument – that God supernaturally “preserved” his verbatim word as a single source. Obviously, this arguments flaw lies in the fact that the original scribed documents are long since vanished and the fact that we are having such a discussion today. As a result, I cross reference both the NIV and the KJV (amongst many other Biblical sources). I simply remember the translation that I am reading might contain a different reading in the other translation.

My kids read it and understand it for the most part... as much as 11 and 12 yr olds can, and it is a part of our curriculum as homeschoolers. Just because the government schools have abandoned real education doesnt mean that we have to "dumb down" everything so we can be relevent. All that produces is "dumb downed" Christians.

I truly believe that it is ridiculous to claim that this lack of clarity (in meaning) is the result of the "dumbing down" of the modern Christian. Blame it on the public schools all that you want, but I seriously doubt that you will EVER meet anyone who is completely versed (and practiced) in 17th Century English. I am a product of secular education, where I graduated at the top of my class in a large high school and graduated Summa Cum Laude at a large university. Yet I still feel somewhat inadequate in some instances with the King James’ vernacular. If it weren't for the knowledge of God, context clues, and the power of educated deduction, I would probably feel just as lost as the typical college student feels with Shakespeare.

Although the King James is my primary source for Biblical study, I am still forced to consult commentary and era inclusive dictionaries (like Bible dictionaries -- which are often filled with personal or academic commentary). I do this in order to reinforce my suspicions about the meaning of a word or phrase. In fact, I suspect that this will be the case for nearly every person you know who reads and studies the KJV. Without a handy dictionary that includes the meaning of 17th Century English language, it would be difficult to fully understand some passages or words from the version. This seems to go against the [url=http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/pref1611.htm]wishes of the translators[/url]; particularly, the need to consult an outside source for clarity or explanation. While it is a wonderful thing to own a Bible, this seems like an admission that the Bible alone does not suffice in ascertaining the meaning of the words contained therein.

While Americans are far more educated than the Englishmen of 400 year ago, I suspect that Americans are less educated in the language of the 17th Century. As a result, the King James Version is no longer a version of the everyday “vulgar” tongue. Thus, we agree that an update of the King James version – taken completely from the version itself – would be a meaningful help for modern English speakers. Not only would it be faithful to the Textus Receptus, it would be much more clearly understood by all. I would place it on my desk, next to my beloved KJV and NIV translations.

:-)

Compare Daniel 3:25 in the KJV and the NIV?

bro Swordbearer (i would say this is an apt handle)

Greetings in Jesus' Name by Whose Blood we are Saved.AMEN.

you said:

The statement that the use of the greek word Logos in John 1:1 is a title for the person of Christ is correct, but I am not sure that is where it stops. I am certainly no scholar, but I know that every name has a meaning, and I can't help but think that there is some connection between the person of Christ and His holy word. Also; the correlation between the Word, the Light and the "light of life" in 1 Jn 1:1 seems quite fascinating to me. Well, enough posting..... I have something to study.

bro this brings me to something which i had wanted to share in the previous post to you but i was restrained by Holy Spirit. indeed there is a connection between the scriptures and God. That the Word was God we know to be a reference to Christ Himself because Christ [i][b]is[/b][/i] GOd. However it is not said of the scriptures that they are God but rather that they are [i][b]given by[/b][/i] or [i][b]inspired by[/b][/i] God so there is a difference. However the word being of God can't be separated from Him so in that sense it was with Him always.

may God reveal to you more in the course of your study into this matter in accordance to His promise to reward those who diligently seek Him (Hebrews 11 i believe)

Grace and PEace are ours in Jesus.AMEN.

BlazedbyGod wrote:
Compare Daniel 3:25 in the KJV and the NIV?

"The Son of God," or "A son of the gods" (Daniel 3:25)?

By Doug Kutilek

[Reprinted from “As I See It,” vol. 3, no. 11, November 2000]

One verse that has been repeatedly summoned into service by those who hold to the “King James Only” position as proof positive that modern English versions are in reality perversions is Daniel 3:25. In the KJV, the fourth man in the furnace is identified as “the Son of God” (or, “sonne of God,” as spelled in the original 1611 edition). In contrast, the American Standard Version of 1901 identifies him as “a son of the gods.” The New American Standard Version and the New International Version agree with the ASV here (the New King James Bible follows the KJV in the text, but has the ASV rendering in the margin).

The accusation made against the rendering in the ASV et al. is that they have removed a clear reference to the second person of the Trinity and have substituted for it a flabby, vague reference to a mere son of the (pagan) gods, thereby debasing this proof text of the pre-incarnate existence of Christ, as well as his Deity. (This all assumes that the fourth man in the furnace was a theophany, an interpretation rather more generally assumed than proved).

Rather than ‘dogmatize peremptorily,’ I prefer to ask, “But what are the facts in the case? Have the ASV et al. mistranslated the original text, and thereby fallen into error, or did in fact the KJV mistranslate the passage, and the ASV set it right in English?” We shall seek to answer this question intelligently, rather than be carried away with judgment-blinding prejudice and unsupported presupposition.

This particular verse in Daniel, along with the whole section 2:4b-7:28 is in the Aramaic language, rather than in Hebrew like most of the rest of the Old Testament. Aramaic (also sometimes called Chaldee and Syriac) and Hebrew are sister Semitic languages (the family also includes Arabic, Akkadian, Ugaritic, Ethiopic, Phoenecian and a few even more obscure tongues). As a result, Aramaic and Hebrew have a number of related words and also have similar, but not identical, grammar. One of their differences is crucial at this point.

In the Aramaic original of Daniel 3:25, the phrase represented in English by “the Son of God/a son of the gods” is bar-elahin. Bar is a singular noun, meaning “son” and is commonly found in the New Testament, for example, in proper names: Barnabas, Barabbas, Bar-Jonah, etc., literally meaning “the son of X.” Its equivalent in Hebrew is ben, as in Benjamin, Ben-Hur, and Ben Gurion. Bar is here in the construct state, meaning it is grammatically joined to the word that follows it, and therefore means “son of.” So far, no problem.

Elahin is a masculine plural noun, denoting “gods”; the singular form is elah, or, with the definite article attached, elaha. The Arabic equivalent in allah. The Hebrew equivalent of elahin is elohim. But just here, usage in Hebrew and in Aramaic diverge. In Hebrew, though plural in form, the word elohim is the usual word for God (as in Genesis 1:1 and thousands of other places). Less commonly, it (that is the plural form) is also used of false gods (plural), and of human civil authorities. There is in Hebrew a singular counterpart to elohim, namely eloah, but it is comparatively rare in the OT, occurring just 57 times, with all but 15 of these being in Job, which displays numerous dialectic and linguistic peculiarities. Nearly all the rest are in poetic parts of the OT, or in passages influenced by Aramaic.

When we examine the Aramaic portion of the OT (besides Daniel 2:4b-7:28, Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26 and Jeremiah 10:11 are also in Aramaic), we discover that there is a clear distinction between the use of the plural form elahin and the singular elaha. When the true God is spoken of, the singular elaha is invariably used (the singular is also used of false gods when referred to individually, as in Daniel 3:14; 4:5; etc.). The plural form elahin is used only of false gods, especially in the phrase, “the spirit of the holy gods” (4:5; 4:6; 5:11; etc.), words spoken by pagan polytheists from their perspective. The use of the plural form with reference to the one true God does not occur in the Aramaic portion of the OT. It must also be noted that the phrase bar-elahin in Daniel 3:25 does not have the definite article in the original Aramaic; that would be bar-elahayya.

Taken together, these facts--namely, that elahin is plural, and has no definite article here--combine to show that to translate bar-elahin as “the Son of God” is to overtranslate the words, indeed to mistranslate them. The precise, literal English equivalent of bar-elahin is “a son of the gods,” as the ASV, NASB and NIV have it. It should not surprise us to find a pagan king who acknowledged and worshipped many gods speaking of the appearance of a supernatural person as “a son of the gods.” Nebuchadnezzar was yet a pagan (he had just erected an idol of gold and compelled his subjects to worship it). In Daniel 3:28, the king refers once again to the fourth man in the furnace, this time by the designation “angel,” which suggests that the two terms, “angel” and “a son of the gods,” were synonymous designations.

Let us consider briefly how this phrase was handled in pre-KJV translations.

There exist two major pre-Christian Greek versions of Daniel (several others exist only in fragmentary quotes), that of the Septuagint (now preserved in only two manuscripts and a Syriac version; it was early on abandoned by the Christians in favor of the other Greek version). The other is ascribed to Theodotion, though it precedes his time by at least 2 centuries (it is this version which is found in virtually all extant manuscripts of the “Septuagint”).

The Septuagint, apparently under the influence of v. 28, translates bar-elahin as aggelou theou, which in English could be either “an angel/messenger of God,” or “an angel of a god,” (the Greek here has no definite article, and since the Greek language lacks an indefinite article, whether to supply it or leave it out in translation is a matter of interpretation and English style). Theodotion reads huio theou, which would correspond to either “a son of God,” or “a son of a god.” In both Greek versions, the Aramaic plural noun elahin is translated as though it were a singular.

There is no Jewish Aramaic Targum of Daniel (or of Ezra) since the book was originally in part in Aramaic already. There is however an ancient Syriac version of Daniel (translating the Aramaic of Daniel into Syriac would be roughly equivalent to “translating” Shakespeare’s early 17th century British English in “Hamlet” into late 20th century American English. It is rather more “up-dating” than translating). The Syriac version simply reproduces the bar-elahin of the original.

The Latin Vulgate of Jerome (ca. 400 A.D.) was the dominant Bible translation in all of Western Europe throughout the Middle Ages. All the vernacular versions made there during the Middle Ages were made from it (including Wycliffe’s English version), and all the Reformation-era versions including and especially the KJV show the unmistakable influence of the Vulgate on every page. Jerome reads in Daniel 3:25 “filio Dei” which, due to Latin’s complete absence of articles definite and indefinite, might be understood as either “a son of God” or “the son of God.” [Whether Jerome had a mastery of Aramaic (as he had of Hebrew and Greek) is an open question, as far as I know. I’ve never seen any reference to his knowing Aramaic.] Because of the pervasive influence of the Vulgate on the KJV, it is not unlikely that the KJV’s “the Son of God” translation was a mimicking of the Vulgate’s rendering.

Besides the Vulgate, Jerome also wrote a commentary on Daniel which appeared some years before his Vulgate translation. His remarks cast some light on his understanding of the passage before us, and so we reproduce it here (following Gleason Archer’s English translation)--

“As for the appearance of the fourth man, which he asserts to be like that of a son of God, either we must take him to be an angel, as the Septuagint has rendered it, or indeed, as the majority think, the Lord our Savior. Yet I do not know how an ungodly king could have merited a vision of the Son of God. For that reasoning one should follow Symmachus [a 2nd century A.D. Ebionite who made a revised translation of the Septuagint], who has thus interpreted it: ‘But the appearance of the fourth is like unto the sons,’ not unto the sons of God but unto gods themselves. We are to think of angels here, who after all are very frequently called gods as well as sons of God. . . . But as for its typical significance, this angel or son of God foreshadows our Lord Jesus Christ, who descended into the furnace of hell, . . . .”

Advancing to the Reformation era, we find that Martin Luther’s German translation of the words is “ein Son der Goetter,” that is, “a son of the gods,” corresponding precisely to the English ASV, etc.

John Calvin commented on v. 25: “the son of a god. No doubt God here sent one of his angels, to support by his presence the minds of his saints, lest they should faint . . . . A single angel was sent to these three men; Nebuchadnezzar calls him a son of God; not because he thought him to be Christ, but according to the common opinion among all people, that angels are sons of God, since a certain divinty is resplendent in them; and hence they call angels generally sons of God. According to this usual custom, Nebuchadnezzar says, the fourth man is like a son of a god. For he could not recognize the only-begotten Son of God, since, as we have already seen, he was blinded by so many depraved errors.”

It merits noting that Scripture itself refers to angels as sons of God in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; and also, so I think, Genesis 6:2, 4.

Of English versions antedating the KJV, the one most closely followed by the KJV is the Geneva Bible of 1560. At Daniel 3:25, we find “the sonne of God.” The KJV, apparently, merely reproduced the Geneva Bible unaltered. The Geneva Bible here has a significant marginal note: “For the Angels were called the sonnes of God, because of their excellencies; therefore the King called this Angel, whome God sent to comfort his in these great torments, the sonne of God.” These remarks clearly indicate that they did not consider the fourth man to be a theophany/Christophany. Their opinion here as commonly elsewhere, is in harmony with the published opinion of Calvin.

As long ago as the first quarter of the 19th century, Methodist commentator Adam Clarke addressed the issue of how Daniel 3:25 should be translated. After quoting the KJV, he remarks: “A most improper translation. What notion could this idolatrous king have of the Lord Jesus Christ? For so the place is understood by thousands. Bar-elahin signifies a son of the gods, that is, a Divine person or angel; and so the king calls him in ver. 28: “God hath sent his ANGEL, and delivered his servants.” And though even from this some still contend that it was the Angel of the covenant, yet the Babylonish king knew just as much of the one as he did of the other. No other ministration was necessary; a single angel from heaven was quite sufficient to answer the purpose, as that which stopped the mouths of the lions when Daniel was cast into their den.”

I myself have long assumed--without prior detailed investigation--that Daniel 3:25 was a theophany, even while acknowledging the superior accuracy of the ASV over the KJV at this point. However, upon closer consideration, I must now agree with our friend the Methodist. It was an unnamed angel, a created being and not the Creator Himself, who appeared in the fiery furnace, just as it was an angel and not God Himself who appeared in the den of lions with Daniel (in the 6th chapter of Daniel, there is little dispute about this matter).

Let us hear the end of the matter: the ASV, NASB, NIV and NKJB margin give a literal English translation of the inerrant Aramaic original. Their interpretation of the text exactly corresponds with that of Luther some 400-plus years earlier. It is certainly not some new “higher critical” attack on the Scriptures. Rather, it is a precisely accurate English rendering of the original, and thereby acknowledges and honors the infallible nature and absolute authority of the inspired original text. The KJV merely reproduced the reading of its great predecessor, the Geneva Bible, which in turn precisely followed the Latin Vulgate, which in its turn literally followed the Greek translation of Theodotion. While precedent for the KJV’s translation can therefore be cited, nevertheless, the ASV et al., are squarely based on the ultimate and sole infallible authority, the Scriptures as originally written. That settles the matter for the individual who genuinely accepts that authority.

As for who the fourth man in the furnace was: while the view that it was a theophany, a pre-incarnate appearance of the Second Person of the Trinity is the prevailing view (no doubt in part due to the incorrect renderings of Theodotion, Jerome, the Geneva Bible, and the KJV), that it was a created angel has been long-held by devout and doctrinally orthodox scholars, from Calvin to the Geneva Puritans to Adam Clarke, and no doubt many others before and after them. One’s interpretation of this passage is certainly not a test of orthodoxy. And rather than being a reason for condemnation, the translation “a son of the gods” as found in the aforementioned English versions is a mark in their favor, rather than a cause for reviling them.

One probable answer: Aliens!

So not aliens then?

Reformer: great Miss Teen USA maps reference.

Hi BlazedbyGod...

Verse by verse and version by version literary comparison is not very helpful in that these translations are taken from two completely different sets of sources. They usually differ because their sources differed.

The NIV used an eclectic form of textual criticism that took into account a wide number or manuscript witnesses, with the translators deciding upon which they felt was best and most accurate. Nearly every translation (including the KJV) used a limited form of eclecticism -- with the translators of the KJV consulting a few other translations (largely, the English "Bishops Bible") as well as the Textus Receptus.

In regards to this particular verse (Daniel 3:25), the KJV and NIV translates the verse as follows:

KJV: "He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like [b]the Son of God[/b]."

NIV: "He said, 'Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like [b]a son of the gods[/b].'"

Reina Valera-Antigua (1569):
"Respondió él y dijo: He aquí que yo veo cuatro varones sueltos, que se pasean en medio del fuego, y ningún daño hay en ellos: y el parecer del cuarto es semejante á [b]hijo de los dioses[/b]." (a son of the god[u]s[/u])

NASB (1901): "He said, "'Look! I see four men loosed and walking about in the midst of the fire without harm, and the appearance of the fourth is like [b]a son of the gods[/b]!'"

Young's Literal (1898): "He answered and hath said, `Lo, I am seeing four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the appearance of the fourth [is] like to [b]a son of the gods[/b].'"

Darby's Translation (1890): "He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like [b]a son of God[/b]."

Louis Segund (1910): "Il reprit et dit: Eh bien, je vois quatre hommes sans liens, qui marchent au milieu du feu, et qui n'ont point de mal; et la figure du quatrième ressemble à celle d'un [b]fils des dieux[/b]." (son of the god[u]s[/u])

Vulgate (405): "stans autem Azarias oravit sic aperiensque os suum in medio ignis ait" (no reference)

Sep: " στὰς δὲ Αζαριας προσηύξατο οὕτως καὶ ἀνοίξας τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ ἐξωμολογεῖτο τῷ κυρίῳ ἅμα τοῖς συνεταίροις αὐτοῦ ἐν μέσῳ τῷ πυρὶ ὑποκαιομένης τῆς καμίνου ὑπὸ τῶν Χαλδαίων σφόδρα καὶ εἶπαν"

Talmud: "‏עָנֵ֣ה וְאָמַ֗ר הָֽא־אֲנָ֨ה חָזֵ֜ה גֻּבְרִ֣ין אַרְבְּעָ֗ה‎25 ‏עָנֵ֣ה וְאָמַ֗ר הָֽא־אֲנָ֨ה חָזֵ֜ה גֻּבְרִ֣ין אַרְבְּעָ֗ה שְׁרַ֙יִן֙ מַהְלְכִ֣ין בְּגֽוֹא־נוּרָ֔א וַחֲבָ֖ל לָא־אִיתַ֣י בְּה֑וֹן וְרֵוֵהּ֙ דִּ֣י רביעיא רְֽבִיעָאָ֔ה דָּמֵ֖ה לְבַר־אֱלָהִֽין׃ ס" (a son of the gods)

:-)

The same trick of old-the sad part is, in the beginning it was just a woman who fell for it-nowadays men & women all over the world are...

Genesis 3:1-5
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

If God is one God, which He undoubtly is-why does He supposedly need 100 different Words or versions-

Doesn't John 1:1 speak of the Word of God,....in singular format, even in Revelations alike.

God is not the author of confusion, yet KJV, NIV, NASB, NKJV all differ from one another-so I guess some believe without consciously admitting it-that God is confused and can't keep His own Word preserved?

I will say again, God's Word is inspired in every language so that ALL people could have it-The Hebrew & Greek are NOT the only "inspired" . The Holy Bible KJV version in Spanish is inspired, in German, it's inspired, in Korean.etc....

Inspired means comes from God, from or of divine intelligence.........

The Word is not inspired simply because or by the LANGUAGE-but rather the Mind behind the language-which both are God's

Hi Blazed...

I will say again, God's Word is inspired in every language so that ALL people could have it-The Hebrew & Greek are NOT the only "inspired" . The Holy Bible KJV version in Spanish is inspired, in German, it's inspired, in Korean.etc....

Remember, however, that the KJV is [u]NOT[/u] available in any language other than its 17th Century form (well, it has been revised several times -- the version we now have was completed in 1850). Even a word by word translation from 17th Century King James English would be impossible to understand by today's Spanish speakers. An eclectic approach would have to be implemented in order to prevent confusion from the changed English to English venacular when attempting to create a Spanish or French KJV.

:-)

Greetings in Jesus' Name by Whose Blood we are Saved.AMEN.

bro Blazed

you said:

Doesn't John 1:1 speak of the Word of God,....in singular format, even in Revelations alike.

The "Word of God" in John 1:1 is not the bible but Jesus Christ.

[b]1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.[/b]

This is Jesus Christ who [i][b]is[/b][/i] God. There is nowhere in the bible where it says that the scriptures [i][b]are[/b][/i] God but we know very well that the scriptures are [i][b]of/inspired by[/b][/i] God. See if you can put "Scripture" in where "Word" is in reference to what then happened in the beginning, the word continues:

[b]2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. [/b]

you can't put "scripture" in this verse anywhere and have it make sense since this "Word" is what made all things and in which there was the light and life of men. That's not the scripture, that is Jesus. Now in a very real sense the sciptures were also with God at this time since they are of Him and can't be separated from Him but they are not God in the sense of Jesus being God according to the reference to "Word" in John 1:1.

Now about the preservation of the word of God, it is not so much in the text that the word is preserved. Yes i have been blessed by the KJV, yes i have been blessed by the NIV and the YLT and the GNB also without missing anything. There are things which can't be translated fully across languages even if we had the very original texts hence some versions read a bit differently. There are various aspects of God which come across in different versions for example in the KJV, the language is old but there is a reverence for God which comes through, in the NIV, the language is easier to understand but there is a nearnerss of God which comes through to me in that version which i don't necessarily always have a sense of in the KJV. So what shall we say then? If each of these versions brings out a distinct aspect of the Manifold Nature of God, how does it happen? How is the word then preserved if languages lose things in translating from one to another? it is in that the Spirit of God from Whom the scriptures came is Himself Unchanging and Unhindered by the limitations of language. i mean this same Spirit makes intercession for us (as Paul said) with groanings which can't even be uttered! do you really think that the preservation of the word of God is limited to text only in light of this? Not on your life! The thing which matters is the Spirit of God for without Him, it doesn't matter that we have the very papyri (or whatever Moses wrote on) Moses wrote the first 5 books in front of us, it profits us nothing without Him Who alone is able to Illuminate for us what He Inspired Moses to Write.

Grace and PEace are ours in Jesus.AMEN.

Hi Krispy...

I have not posted rumors. I've posted facts... straight from the horse's mouth... their own words.

It seems somewhat disingenuous to include such a statement as if to contend that Dr. Mollenkott's lifestyle somehow became engrained or even reflected into the NIV. This is just as ridiculous as saying that the sinful lifestyle of King James I (or any of the other KJV translators) was also engrained or reflected into the KJV. Ironically, we cannot perform such a motivational "spot check" into the lives of the KJV translators -- because they have been dead for over 400 years! Thus, we should be extremely careful when using such examples, particularly when the same rationale can be used to call into question our own beloved version.

:-(

reformer wrote:
Do you have this in an audio format!! that is pretty impressive. Now I feel pretty dumb, thanks!! LOL

If you're talking to me, no I don't have that article in audio, but here's the website I got it from.

http://www.kjvonly.org/

Jordan

Hi Krispy…

Did I say this? No. I was responding to the accusation that King James was gay, therefore the implying that the KJV was somehow inferior. There is no proof that he was, we've shown that. I have shown that there were, in fact, two homosexuals involved with the translating committee of the NIV.

As for the “proof” concerning two supposed homosexual members of the translating committee, you haven’t provided any evidence other than a quote without citation. I have only heard of the one homosexual woman (Dr. Mollenkott) who was at all involved with the NIV – and she was actually married and raising children during her early, brief and limited involvement. She was not at all involved in the translation process, but was merely consulted about English language grammatical structure during the mid 1960s. I provided [url=http://www.ibs.org/niv/accuracy/NIV_AccuracyDefined.pdf]this documentation[/url] that refutes your allegation. As for your claim about a “Dr. Marten Woudstra “, I have never found any evidence of this ANYWHERE except within the many extreme [i]KJV-only[/i] websites (which tend to cite one another or other secondhand, [i]KJV-only[/i] books). In fact, your statement reads that Dr. Woudstra was a “professed” homosexual -- a statement that the International Bible Society completely refutes. The IBS acknowledges only that Dr. Mollenkott was briefly consulted during the early days of the NIV – and limited to some English language style consultation. At the time, Dr. Mollenkott was a married (she married her college sweetheart from Bob Jones University), self-professed evangelical who was known academically as an expert in English idiom style and usage. During that brief time, she had never “professed” any homosexual tendencies. The IBS further states that, had they known that this wife and mother was a closet homosexual, she would have been immediately dismissed. As it is, she was not a TRANSLATOR. Dr. Mollenkott’s work was extremely brief, minor and played no role in the actual translation of the book. As for the claims about Dr. Woudstra – nothing can be found. The IBS stated in their email that these claims are simply not true (LIES). The reason that I asked for citation is to remedy between what is truth and what is mere “intelligent sounding” gossip.

However, I would not be as concerned about that, if I was you, as I am about the fact that not everyone on the translating committee comes from a back ground of sound doctrinal teaching. Not all were evangelicals.

For instance, have you ever heard of Lancelot Andrewes? He was the Bishop from the Church of England who oversaw the translation of the King James. He was a close friend of many powerful Government officials, including King James I. He was so close to and highly esteemed by James that Andrewes actually assisted in the coronation of James. In fact, Lancelot Andrewes actually accompanied James on a trip to Scotland in order to convince the Scots of the supremacy of the Church of England over the Presbyterian teachings. As the lead translator and senior editor, Lancelot Andrewes headed the “First Westminster Company.” This company was responsible for translating the first portion of the King James Version – from Genesis through Kings. As a Bishop in the Church of England, Andrewes was far from what one would consider “evangelical.” He was a strong advocate of “High Church” practices, which included the adoration (of saints), the embracement of traditional feasts, liturgical prayers, penance and the “change in the elements” Eucharist. Lancelot Andrewes was a public advocate of the “Divine Rights of Kings,” the controversial teaching that argues that since God has risen up a king to the throne, “it is wrong to ever contradict or challenge his authority in any matter.” There is some criticism that Lancelot Andrewes was part of the reason that the King James Version retained some traditional terminology that had become part of Church practice (such as the retain of the name “Ecclesiastes”). Most of this information is compiled from both Paul Welsby’s biographical work entitled [i]Lancelot Andrewes, 1555-1626[/i] and Henry Isaacson’s 1650 work entitled [url=http://anglicanhistory.org/andrewes/isaacson1650.html][i]An Exact Narration of the Life and Death of the Late Reverend and learned Prelate, and painful Divine Lancelot Andrewes, Late Bishop of Winchester.[/i][/url]

Why did I bring up Lancelot Andrewes? I did so to display the speciousness from your statement about the possibility of non-Evangelicals on the committees responsible for translating the NIV between 1965 and 1978. We seemingly adhere to a double standard when we call into question the academic integrity of the translation because of the possibility of non-Evangelicals serving on the committee when one would be hard pressed to even find a single “evangelical” on the committee that translated the KJV. From all that I have read about the translators of the KJV, they all seem to have been faithful and sincere members of the established Church of England hierarchy.

As for providing you with every little bit of information about where I get my resources... I'm not going to do that. It's all right out there, and if I spent all my time documenting every single assertion I make on this forum it's all I would do. I suppose I could make myself look smarter and more intimidating too if I demanded documentation everytime someone disagreed with me.

If you think I'm posting bogus info, proove me wrong. I dont have a problem with that.

Why did I ask for a source citation? It wasn’t to make anyone look “[i]smarter and more intimidating[/i].” You made a very damaging accusation about -- not only two individuals – but the academic integrity of a translation of the Scriptures. Your comments about supposed homosexual translators and possible non-evangelicals working on the translation seem to infer that the translation is filled with heavy bias. At the same time, you seem to have grown exceedingly frustrated when someone invoked the same sort of charges with the King James Version.

This long, ongoing argument about the supposed supremacy of one particular translation (or sets of sources) has grown quite tedious. Some individuals are so convinced one way or the other that there is no longer any need for discussion. Instead, the forums have become a means of opinion proselytization. Sadly, I must confess that I have sometimes been guilty of the “[i]my way or the highway[/i]” mind-set.

Krispy, you often provide great insight into the translation process, and you present a far more balanced look at the issue than the more extreme [i]KJV-only[/i] adherents. My position in the entire debate is quite different from an “either/or” position. Rather, I just can’t find enough evidence to completely embrace one set of sources over another set of sources. There are many compelling arguments for the Textus Receptus. However, there are many compelling arguments against the supremacy of the Textus Receptus. Likewise, there are many compelling arguments for and against the other text sources. Again, there are many strong arguments to validate the KJV as the best translation taken mostly from the TR. Yet I cannot deny the existence of compelling testimony that indicates the possibility of human interference with the translation process. And I find the argument that either the Textus Receptus –or- the King James Version to be the one and only “perfect, preserved Word of God” to be inherently flawed. The King James Version, of course, has gone through several revisions. But even the translators admitted to have sorted through various TR texts before deciding upon the “correct” idiomatic form.

Thus, after much study, there is only one conclusion that I can make in good faith. I hold the King James Version as an adequate translation taken from the TR (while also consulting other preexisting translations). I also deem the New International Version (1978) as the best translation using an eclectic method of textual criticism. While I prefer the King James Version because of the many free and useful study tools available, I also use the NIV and regard it as a faithful, scholarly translation that is far easier to understand for the common American.

:-)

Please how can you help me to grow in faith to God?