"...(W)hat is the real issue(-) text types or the preservation of a particular English version?"

Thank you my friend, for expressing thoughts that I have been having for some time.

I was just a child in the 1950’s when I heard “discussions’ over Bible versions. I’ve failed to find documentation for for my recollections, but I seem to remember that the pastor said things about newly discovered ancient manuscripts that were being used as “excuses for rewriting the Bible”. Methinks that if the debate had remained over text types things we’d be better off.

I was recently in a conversation with a brother who said, “I can get along with almost any translation as long as all the verses are there.”

Personally I like my King James and really enjoy my Geneva. Maybe I’ll just go back a translation until a new one based on my favorite text comes along that’s better than what I have.

Good question! I think the argument of the KJV‘ers which says that they prefer it because it was translated from a superior text is a lie. Most don’t know beans about the texts supporting the KJV and some even lie and say that the NKJV was not translated from Masoretic Text and T.R. This link is a personal letter from James D. Price, Ph.D. (O.T. editor of the NKJV to Gail Riplinger dealing with her accusation that the NKJV was not translated from the same text as the KJV: http://www.jamesdprice.com/images/Ripplinger_February_15,_1994.doc See pages 2-4. When you get down to it, it isn’t a textual issue at all, but a belief that the KJV is alone the word of God and a perfect translation. As far as I’m concerened even though many KJV‘ers wouldn’t say they believe in double inspiration, how do you believe it is a perfect translation apart from believing in double inspiration?

[Jonathan Charles] Good question! I think the argument of the KJV‘ers which says that they prefer it because it was translated from a superior text is a lie. Most don’t know beans about the texts supporting the KJV and some even lie and say that the NKJV was not translated from Masoretic Text and T.R. This link is a personal letter from James D. Price, Ph.D. (O.T. editor of the NKJV to Gail Riplinger dealing with her accusation that the NKJV was not translated from the same text as the KJV: http://www.jamesdprice.com/images/Ripplinger_February_15,_1994.doc See pages 2-4. When you get down to it, it isn’t a textual issue at all, but a belief that the KJV is alone the word of God and a perfect translation. As far as I’m concerened even though many KJV‘ers wouldn’t say they believe in double inspiration, how do you believe it is a perfect translation apart from believing in double inspiration?

SIGH!!

Brother Ron,

I highly respect those who freely admit they simply prefer the KJV, and I’m all for leaving lots of personal latitude on this issue. But I want to understand that position better. If I may probe your thoughts a little…

[Ron Bean] Personally I like my King James and really enjoy my Geneva. Maybe I’ll just go back a translation until a new one based on my favorite text comes along that’s better than what I have.

1) What is it about those versions that you “like” and “enjoy” as opposed to others?
2) Why is it your “favorite text?”
3) What criteria will you use to determine if a future translation is “better” or not?

Thanks for your thoughts!

[Jonathan Charles] Good question! I think the argument of the KJV‘ers which says that they prefer it because it was translated from a superior text is a lie. Most don’t know beans about the texts supporting the KJV and some even lie and say that the NKJV was not translated from Masoretic Text and T.R. This link is a personal letter from James D. Price, Ph.D. (O.T. editor of the NKJV to Gail Riplinger dealing with her accusation that the NKJV was not translated from the same text as the KJV: http://www.jamesdprice.com/images/Ripplinger_February_15,_1994.doc See pages 2-4. When you get down to it, it isn’t a textual issue at all, but a belief that the KJV is alone the word of God and a perfect translation. As far as I’m concerened even though many KJV‘ers wouldn’t say they believe in double inspiration, how do you believe it is a perfect translation apart from believing in double inspiration?

Jonathan-

That’s not always true - I know several KJVO‘ers [I am not referring to the double inspired people; more along the lines of very strongly KJV-Preferred] who are more knowledgable about text types that most here, and they are KJV users because of the study that they’ve done on text types.

Having read some about this topic, I think that what you are saying is generally true, but there are quite a few, esp. older KJV-Only-Preferred people, including on this website, who do know and understand the text issue quite well.

Perhaps “lie” is too strong a word, but I think if you could get them (KJVers) to say something about the NKJV which is translated from the Masoretic Text (there are about 8 miniscule differences between the BHS and the Masoretic text) and the T.R. they would either deny that it was translated from the same texts or they would simply refuse to accept it because it really isn’t a textual issue at all. Some have seen the doctrinal statements from fundamentalist schools and churches that say they believe that God’s Word has been preserved in the Masoretic text and the T.R. thus they use the KJV. If they would not allow for the NKJV then it isn’t really a textual issue for them (though they say it is), it is really an issue of believing that the KJV is a perfect translation.

I am not an evangelist for the NKJV, I haven’t used it in any significant way in years. I mainly use the ESV.

Dr. Straub says: “If there is a movement in fundamentalism arguing for a modern translation of the TR, I would be happy to know of it.”

I will put a plug in for my seminary alma mater, FBTS in Ankeny.

Their professors are very balanced in their approach to the whole translation/text issue. In fact, they approach the matter with so much integrity that they have been known to attract even some TR or KJV-only folks who may not agree with their conclusions, but appreciate the way they handle the subject.

Also, they are a bit unique among non-KJV-only schools of higher theological education as they use all three modern Greek texts (UBS, NA & MT) and the resident faculty primarily uses the NKJV.

[Jonathan Charles] Perhaps “lie” is too strong a word, but I think if you could get them (KJVers) to say something about the NKJV which is translated from the Masoretic Text (there are about 8 miniscule differences between the BHS and the Masoretic text) and the T.R. they would either deny that it was translated from the same texts or they would simply refuse to accept it because it really isn’t a textual issue at all.

As Jay pointed out, that’s not true for all “KJVers.” I have and use an NKJV, and that is what is used in the pulpit of our church. However, because of familiarity, I still prefer the KJV for my own use, recognizing that there are some for whom that translation would not be the most readable. You’d be correct that a number of KJVO types do not accept the NKJV. But there are those of us who believe that age is not necessarily the overriding factor when evaluating texts, and believe the majority/Byzantine/TR text family(ies) to be the best, without believing the KJV to have any special anointing from God (other than the obvious way it has been used through history), and therefore do use and recommend the NKJV. In my own case, that doesn’t stop me from using modern CT translations like the NASB, ESV, and sometimes even the NIV, because they are often useful. You have to recognize that there is a large variation between the different KJV positions, so yes, I’d say “lie” is too strong a word to describe all “KJVers.”

[Eric R.] Brother Ron,

I highly respect those who freely admit they simply prefer the KJV, and I’m all for leaving lots of personal latitude on this issue. But I want to understand that position better. If I may probe your thoughts a little…

[Ron Bean] Personally I like my King James and really enjoy my Geneva. Maybe I’ll just go back a translation until a new one based on my favorite text comes along that’s better than what I have.

1) What is it about those versions that you “like” and “enjoy” as opposed to others?
2) Why is it your “favorite text?”
3) What criteria will you use to determine if a future translation is “better” or not?

Thanks for your thoughts!

After enjoying a relaxing weekend off from work and SI, I finally have a moment to respond to your questions.

Jonathan’s use of the word “lie” (for which he has since apologized) just reminded me how nasty both sides of this debate can be. (I’ll asume that his inference of some of us not knowing “beans” was not intended to be a personal attack on my family name ;) )

When I was first introduced to the textual debate, I was told that the oldest manuscripts were the best and most accurate manuscripts and that they proved that Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11, Acts 8:37, and some other passages could not be accepted as the Word of God with certainty. (I’ll save the debate on I John 5:7 for another thread.) Footnote comments such as “John 7:53 to 8:11 is not found in the older manuscripts but it sounds so like Christ that we accept it as authentic and feel that too omit it would be most unfortunate” made me want to do more personal study into the issue rather than just accept what I was hearing. As a result I came to the personal conclusion that God has preserved His Word in all of the manuscripts we have and that the majority/Byzantine/TR text families are the best. I am simply one of those who believe that age is not necessarily the overriding factor when evaluating texts.

As to your questions:

1) I love the English language. I like the distinctive of the second person in the personal pronouns (John 3:7). I like some of the words in my Geneva (1599). “Runagate” is a good description of a “renegade” as a someone who would “run at a gate”. The Geneva translation of John 1:1 is superb. “In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God.”
2) I’m beginning to like the Geneva more and more (I’m on my second time through) but I preach from the KJV simply because of a life long familiarity with it. I do use other versions for personal study.
3) Personal taste and accuracy of translation. I just didn’t like the NKJV as much as my KJV and frankly some of the footnotes in the original editions (i.e. “best” manuscripts) bothered me. I thought the NIV was lacking in some areas (I still can’t figure out how or why they turned a spider into a lizard in Proverbs 30:28 :) I’m currently working my way through an ESV.

Hope this helps. Have a great day serving our Savior.