Tuesday, June 12, 2007
king james is not the only bible
I am going into issue I do not want to so you can leavwe them and I point to the blog. I do not like the KJV. I want to talk on why tonight. I start out with some reasons
1 It is hard to read. God did not make his book so hard to read
2 I do not like the theroy that a bunch of manuscripts were wrong and I think it is stupid to think folks think this.
3 Gail R's book is a Joke and it just did not prove it
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/riplinger3.htm
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=664
http://answers.org/bookreviews/newagevers.html
Riplinger
Gail Riplinger has written a book New Age Bible Versions. A mailing list I was on was spoiled by a certain King James Only person, whose name I will not mention. He was abusive and posted foolish barrages consistently. He constantly referred to Riplingers book and offered to send copies to people. When I replied and said if he posted me a copy I would read every word he wrote back and said he was an invalid with no money. I still don't own a copy of this book, for I am not prepared to spend my money on it, but I have read portions of it, and I am disgusted.
Riplinger makes claim after claim, that involve quantum leaps of logic and are inconsistent in application. Her entire work is a myriad of conspiracy theory, and effectively relegates all modern translations of the Bible to being a "New Age" plot. I am truly saddened that many people have been deceived by this book (A pastor recently relayed on Compuserve's Worship forum about a lady who, after reading this book, destroyed all the non-King James Version Bibles at her Church. When confronted by the Pastor she exclaimed that "they" had got to him!) It is a sad blight on Christianity that many people do not take the time to think, for Riplinger's book is a farce and riddled with holes.
Riplinger claims that constant usage of the term "One" for God in the New International Version means that the NIV is actually referring to Satan, for God is not explicitly named. No evidence is offered to substantiate such a claim, but nevertheless, it is invalid for an abundance of examples of such usage may be found in the King James Version! Consider the "high and lofty One" of Isaiah, for one example.
Riplinger further tries to make use of a discrepency between the Lord's Prayer in one of the Gospels with its equivalent in the King James Version. She claims that the differences are due to the prayer actually being to Satan in the NIV! Amazing, but this is what she says - again, with not a shred of explanation or even logic. However, Riplinger fails to comment that the Lord's Prayer, in a form agreeable to her, occurs in the NIV, in a different gospel. If the NIV were a new age conspiracy, then surely it would be consistent in such demonisation, one would think.
4 Masters College and John Macartur do not like it
5 It is to legalistic and not found in grace but in churches that are into the law
http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm
http://www.allabouttruth.org/king-james-only-faq.htm
Here are some other reasons
First, the accusation that modern versions compromise the truth is clearly fallacious. If the modern translations were part of some grand conspiracy to excise biblical doctrine, it is strange that these give full support to orthodox beliefs. Indeed, comments White, "Some KJV advocates are surprised to note that the KJV does not do as well as some modern versions when it comes to providing clear, understandable translations of the key, central passages in the New Testament that testify to the full deity of Jesus Christ."[17]
The argument for the Textus Receptus is a bit more complex. Let it suffice to say that most conservative scholars prefer an "eclectic" approach to the manuscripts, "in that each reading is examined on its own merits and no absolutely overriding rule is used to artificially decide each variant."[18]
Furthermore, the Byzantine text-type, which formed the basis for the King James Version, is lacking in the earliest manuscripts. Instead, the Bible of the early centuries of the Church resembled a more ancient, that is an Alexandrian text-type.[19] This doesn't mean that textual critics automatically favor older readings. But such manuscripts certainly ought to be given due consideration in the quest to uncover the original.
Finally, the desire for absolute certainty when it comes to textual matters, while understandable, is not realistic. History has left us with numerous extant manuscripts. These not only differ from each other, but none are flawless representations of the autographs. Even the King James is not without imperfection. For example, "a dozen or so readings in the KJV find no support in any Greek manuscript whatsoever."[20]
King James defenders are often critical of those who choose other Bible translations. Yet the King James Bible itself is fraught with a number of difficulties. For one, the King James Version is not as uniform and simplified a translation as its more radical adherents would like to believe. Indeed the Textus Receptus—a Byzantine type text that is often given high priority by King James defenders—is a collation of various textual readings.[21 Therefore, "to claim a particular text-type is inerrant is meaningless because a text-type is established by comparing manuscripts, grouping those with most features in common, and accepting the most probable readings."[22]
Next, the King James Bible is based on a number of relatively late manuscripts, none earlier than the tenth century. To arbitrarily assert that older texts (e.g., Alexandrian) are inferior surely begs the question. A more balanced approach would be to give appropriate weight to a variety of manuscript families and to then decide (based on internal and external criteria) which best reflects the original.[23] As mentioned above, this allows for both confidence and progress. Confidence results from a realization of the overall continuity between the many variants when it comes to major doctrine, while progress (and humility) is facilitated through diligent research. At any rate, the King James Only mentality only works to impede spiritual and intellectual integrity.
Finally, there is something to be said concerning the archaic language of the King James Bible. At times, its antiquated terminology has been a stumbling block to modern readers/hearers. Not only are certain words outdated (e.g., thou, ye), but some terms actually mean something entirely different today than they did when originally penned (e.g., prevent in 1 Thessalonians 4:15). Indeed, if one sure sign of a good translation is that it successfully relates the ancient text to contemporary people, the King James Version is swiftly becoming an inadequate vehicle of communication.
Missing verses
Interestingly enough, many a King James Only person has strived to claim that other translations (particularly the New International Version) are in error for they omit verses that are included in the King James, such as I John 5:7.
However, this is not a claim that supports the King James Version, and its continual use should really be abandoned by any reasonably intelligent King James' Only person - for it is a meaningless claim. It only has a basis if one pre-assumes that the King James Version is correct, and the basis by which all other translations should be judged.
Any person should be able to see that if a verse is missing from a translation, then two possible things have occurred. Either it is missing from the second translation, or it has been added to the first. Both are possible - and although a reading may appear to strengthen a doctrine, should we not strive to find precisely the words used by the original authors - which may not have included the extra verse!
Nevertheless, even if such a claim were true, the King James Only people are inconsistent in their application of it. For one example, the words and we are are missing from I John 3:1 in the King James Version. Could one then claim that the translators sought to diminish the concept that Christians are the children of God?
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorigin.html
http://www.revneal.org/Writings/errorof.htm
http://home.wi.rr.com/rationlchristian/KJVFront.htm
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/kjvdebat.html
I am going to stop here so read the links and if you go to not agree with them tell me We go from there
1 It is hard to read. God did not make his book so hard to read
2 I do not like the theroy that a bunch of manuscripts were wrong and I think it is stupid to think folks think this.
3 Gail R's book is a Joke and it just did not prove it
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/riplinger3.htm
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=664
http://answers.org/bookreviews/newagevers.html
Riplinger
Gail Riplinger has written a book New Age Bible Versions. A mailing list I was on was spoiled by a certain King James Only person, whose name I will not mention. He was abusive and posted foolish barrages consistently. He constantly referred to Riplingers book and offered to send copies to people. When I replied and said if he posted me a copy I would read every word he wrote back and said he was an invalid with no money. I still don't own a copy of this book, for I am not prepared to spend my money on it, but I have read portions of it, and I am disgusted.
Riplinger makes claim after claim, that involve quantum leaps of logic and are inconsistent in application. Her entire work is a myriad of conspiracy theory, and effectively relegates all modern translations of the Bible to being a "New Age" plot. I am truly saddened that many people have been deceived by this book (A pastor recently relayed on Compuserve's Worship forum about a lady who, after reading this book, destroyed all the non-King James Version Bibles at her Church. When confronted by the Pastor she exclaimed that "they" had got to him!) It is a sad blight on Christianity that many people do not take the time to think, for Riplinger's book is a farce and riddled with holes.
Riplinger claims that constant usage of the term "One" for God in the New International Version means that the NIV is actually referring to Satan, for God is not explicitly named. No evidence is offered to substantiate such a claim, but nevertheless, it is invalid for an abundance of examples of such usage may be found in the King James Version! Consider the "high and lofty One" of Isaiah, for one example.
Riplinger further tries to make use of a discrepency between the Lord's Prayer in one of the Gospels with its equivalent in the King James Version. She claims that the differences are due to the prayer actually being to Satan in the NIV! Amazing, but this is what she says - again, with not a shred of explanation or even logic. However, Riplinger fails to comment that the Lord's Prayer, in a form agreeable to her, occurs in the NIV, in a different gospel. If the NIV were a new age conspiracy, then surely it would be consistent in such demonisation, one would think.
4 Masters College and John Macartur do not like it
5 It is to legalistic and not found in grace but in churches that are into the law
http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm
http://www.allabouttruth.org/king-james-only-faq.htm
Here are some other reasons
First, the accusation that modern versions compromise the truth is clearly fallacious. If the modern translations were part of some grand conspiracy to excise biblical doctrine, it is strange that these give full support to orthodox beliefs. Indeed, comments White, "Some KJV advocates are surprised to note that the KJV does not do as well as some modern versions when it comes to providing clear, understandable translations of the key, central passages in the New Testament that testify to the full deity of Jesus Christ."[17]
The argument for the Textus Receptus is a bit more complex. Let it suffice to say that most conservative scholars prefer an "eclectic" approach to the manuscripts, "in that each reading is examined on its own merits and no absolutely overriding rule is used to artificially decide each variant."[18]
Furthermore, the Byzantine text-type, which formed the basis for the King James Version, is lacking in the earliest manuscripts. Instead, the Bible of the early centuries of the Church resembled a more ancient, that is an Alexandrian text-type.[19] This doesn't mean that textual critics automatically favor older readings. But such manuscripts certainly ought to be given due consideration in the quest to uncover the original.
Finally, the desire for absolute certainty when it comes to textual matters, while understandable, is not realistic. History has left us with numerous extant manuscripts. These not only differ from each other, but none are flawless representations of the autographs. Even the King James is not without imperfection. For example, "a dozen or so readings in the KJV find no support in any Greek manuscript whatsoever."[20]
King James defenders are often critical of those who choose other Bible translations. Yet the King James Bible itself is fraught with a number of difficulties. For one, the King James Version is not as uniform and simplified a translation as its more radical adherents would like to believe. Indeed the Textus Receptus—a Byzantine type text that is often given high priority by King James defenders—is a collation of various textual readings.[21 Therefore, "to claim a particular text-type is inerrant is meaningless because a text-type is established by comparing manuscripts, grouping those with most features in common, and accepting the most probable readings."[22]
Next, the King James Bible is based on a number of relatively late manuscripts, none earlier than the tenth century. To arbitrarily assert that older texts (e.g., Alexandrian) are inferior surely begs the question. A more balanced approach would be to give appropriate weight to a variety of manuscript families and to then decide (based on internal and external criteria) which best reflects the original.[23] As mentioned above, this allows for both confidence and progress. Confidence results from a realization of the overall continuity between the many variants when it comes to major doctrine, while progress (and humility) is facilitated through diligent research. At any rate, the King James Only mentality only works to impede spiritual and intellectual integrity.
Finally, there is something to be said concerning the archaic language of the King James Bible. At times, its antiquated terminology has been a stumbling block to modern readers/hearers. Not only are certain words outdated (e.g., thou, ye), but some terms actually mean something entirely different today than they did when originally penned (e.g., prevent in 1 Thessalonians 4:15). Indeed, if one sure sign of a good translation is that it successfully relates the ancient text to contemporary people, the King James Version is swiftly becoming an inadequate vehicle of communication.
Missing verses
Interestingly enough, many a King James Only person has strived to claim that other translations (particularly the New International Version) are in error for they omit verses that are included in the King James, such as I John 5:7.
However, this is not a claim that supports the King James Version, and its continual use should really be abandoned by any reasonably intelligent King James' Only person - for it is a meaningless claim. It only has a basis if one pre-assumes that the King James Version is correct, and the basis by which all other translations should be judged.
Any person should be able to see that if a verse is missing from a translation, then two possible things have occurred. Either it is missing from the second translation, or it has been added to the first. Both are possible - and although a reading may appear to strengthen a doctrine, should we not strive to find precisely the words used by the original authors - which may not have included the extra verse!
Nevertheless, even if such a claim were true, the King James Only people are inconsistent in their application of it. For one example, the words and we are are missing from I John 3:1 in the King James Version. Could one then claim that the translators sought to diminish the concept that Christians are the children of God?
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorigin.html
http://www.revneal.org/Writings/errorof.htm
http://home.wi.rr.com/rationlchristian/KJVFront.htm
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/kjvdebat.html
I am going to stop here so read the links and if you go to not agree with them tell me We go from there
Comments:
<< Home
Gail Riplinger books, videos & audio's contains multiple errors, lies, the majority of which are the gross misquoting of other people. In particular, a large portion of the misquoting is of the Bible, B.F. Wescott and F.J.A. Hort. See her divorces and marriages info.
The New Bible Translations are more correct than the old ones and just about everything Gail Riplinger says in her books, videos and audio's is a Lie. Please Don't be deceived by Gail Riplinger. Gail is slamming God's Holy Word in the new translations. For further info on Gail Riplinger please see:
avpublications.org
Post a Comment
The New Bible Translations are more correct than the old ones and just about everything Gail Riplinger says in her books, videos and audio's is a Lie. Please Don't be deceived by Gail Riplinger. Gail is slamming God's Holy Word in the new translations. For further info on Gail Riplinger please see:
avpublications.org
# posted by 
: 9:36 PM
: 9:36 PM << Home
