Category Archives: KJV Onlyism

An ‘Excellent’ KJV Question?

Posted by Dan C. on

clip_image002I came across the following question on FB recently:

Q: Why is it that the King James version is hard to understand compared to the other versions of the Bible?

On its face, that’s an excellent question, so I provided my best short answer:

It was written in 17th century English, the common English of its time. The question was about the KJV compared to other, more modern versions, some of which are really very good translations. I actually compared a particular verse in two English Bibles (KJV & NIV), and modern language Spanish, German, & Polish Bibles. The NIV was the English Bible closest to the Greek meaning, and the other foreign languages were also close to the Greek meaning. The KJV was an excellent translation in terms of 17th century common English, however 17th century common English is not today’s common English.

Then I scanned a lot of the other answers. Sadly, most of the other answers had little or nothing to do with the original, honest question (I thought was honestly resented), or so I thought it was. Then I came across the answer from the man who asked the question:

A: It’s because it’s not the Word of God. The translators were clergymen from the church of England.

I had not expected such a ‘silly’ answer, but it turned out that the FB page that posed the question is one that seems to be more of an “opinion” free-for-all/digital “food fight” than honest objective discussion. Well, never mind that, it’s still a good question, and it prompted me to review the history of the KJV.

I found a short but informative of the KJV published by the Encyclopedia Britannica that provided some interesting background information, the preparation leading up to the first published version of the KJV, as well as some interesting tidbits of information I did not already know. I found out that King James had an approved list of 54 revisers, although 47 scholars worked on the actual revision, organized into six companies that worked on assigned sections of the Bible at Westminster, Oxford and Cambridge.[i]

I also found a really good article published at Christianity.com that discussed King James’ motives for the revision, centering on the need for a Bible in the language of 17th century common people. The commissioning of the new revision of the Bible took place in 1604 at the Hampton Court in Londin and the influence of various segments of 17th century Christianity in England. Specific rules were adopted for the monumental translation effort. One of those was Rule #6 that stated: “No Marginal Notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek Words.” Also, James was looking for a single translation that the whole nation could rely on “To be read in the whole Church,” as he phrased it. He decreed that special pains be “taken for a uniform translation, which should be done by the best learned men in both Universities, then reviewed by the Bishops, presented to the Privy Council, lastly ratified by the Royal authority….”[ii]

Back to the Bible translation experimented I conducted in the mid-80’s when I was attending the Polish Language course at the Defense Language Institute in Monterrey, CA. I was attending a small church between Ft. Ord, where I was living, and Monterrey. The Pastor assisted by providing Greek language dictionaries.

I already summarized my little experiment at the top of this article, but I didn’t tell you what passage of scripture I used, John 1:5, KJV:

“And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.”

The other English translation I used was the NIV:

“The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.”

At first glance, there seems to be a slightly different meaning between the KJV and NIV. The former tells us that the darkness could not understand (comprehend) the light, while the NIV says that the darkness could not overcome the light. That was my 20th century brain kicking in.

What I found most interesting about that little bit of research was that the Polish modern language translation of that passage was closer to the original Greek than all of the other translations!

So What? What did I learn from that little FB question and the research from years ago?

1. As far as the original question is concerned, perhaps I need to not be so gullible when reading questions on FB posts. They often tend to be intentionally leading questions, designed with the ‘correct’ answer already in the mind of the questioner, who merely wants to demonstrate his/her deep and profound knowledge.

2. Concerning the 1611 KJV Bible and King James Onlyism, I remain convinced that to claim that one of the KJV versions (there are more than one) is as inspired as the original manuscripts/autographs is right up there with believing in a ‘flat’ earth, in more ways than one.

As a parting thought, or a Post Script, I would like you to read a small portion of the preface to the 1611 KJV itself and the words of the translators:

“The translators argue that all previous English translations can rightly be called the Word of God, even though they may contain some “imperfections and blemishes.” Just as the King’s speech which he utters in Parliament is still the King’s speech, though it may be imperfectly trans­lated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin; so also in the case of the translation of the Word of God. For translations will never be infal­lible since they are not like the original manuscripts, which were pro­duced by the apostles and their associates under the influence of inspira­tion. However, even an imperfect translation like the Septuagint can surely be called the Word of God since it was approved and used by the apostles themselves. But since all translations are imperfect, the Church of Rome should not object to the continual process of correcting and improving English translations of the Bible. Even their own Vulgate has gone through many revisions since the day of Jerome.”[iii]

You can read the entire preface online here.

[i] King James Version – Britannica Encyclopedia

[ii] Story Behind the King James Bible: How was it Created?

[iii] Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary The Embarrassing Preface to the King James Version – Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary (dbts.edu)

An “Interesting” Conversation

Posted by Dan C. on

I apologize for the length of this post, but I needed to transcribe it if for nothing else, to be able to reread and study it further. What follows is a FB Conversation I have been having with Harry Vartanian. The beliefs taught by Harry and Tom are sincerely held and maintained as rock solid truth.. They believe what they want to believe, and therefore are somewhat lacking in the intelligent and polite discourse. Through the years I have had similar discussions.    Please note that the FB group where this conversation occurred is a Public group in the public domain. Therefore, there are no privacy violations in this blog post.

Here is the post that started it all:

clip_image002

There was a particular small section of Tom Bacon’s teaching that specifically caught my attention:

clip_image004

He tells us that we are NOT supposed to believe the statements in 1 Cor 15:1-4, but we are to believe in the events in the statements (underlined below). He seems to also state that we only need to remember that our sins were forgiven when Christ died on the cross and it’s not necessary to repent of and confess our sins in the here and now. There’s a term for that, and we’ll get to it.

1Co 15:1-4 “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.”

Here is my reply to Tom & Harry:

clip_image006

I realize that I sounded harsh, but how can believing Paul’s teaching in the 1 Corinthian passage NOT mean believing in the events that are described therein?

Here’s the main part of Harry’s reply to my comment:

clip_image008

Never mind the silly remark that there was not even one contradiction in the earlier post(s) or his calling me ignorant, but note the emphasis on 1 Cor 15:1-4 being from the KJV. That’s significant. There are some KJV only folks that believe that if you read Paul’s gospel in any other translation than the KJV, you might be heading straight to hell. After all the 1611 KJV is just as inspired as the original texts (that no one has) of Scripture.

It was a really long reply with a lot of scripture passages that ‘proved’ his argument (NOT). He added that:

clip_image010

Still being rather flabbergasted at Harry’s ‘creative’ interpretations of Scripture, this is where I was bit by the “snark monster”:

clip_image012

To which he replied, explaining why he called me ignorant and reinforcing his certain conclusion that I was never saved, having rejected Paul’s gospel.

 

Back to square one? Not quite. Harry did reinforce his (and others’) position that everything having to do with forgiveness happened at the Cross and that’s that.clip_image014

So I decided I might want to try and end a most ‘interesting’ conversation and replied:

clip_image016

I figured that including a link to a good article about the Hyper Grace movement, preceded by an increased level of “snark” would do the trick (at least I said “probably” wouldn’t read the article and didn’t return the favor of calling him names. I was wrong. Here is his next volley:

 

His main points this time are 1) If you don’t leave the matter of forgiveness at the foot of the Cross but clip_image018also confess your sin and receive forgiveness in the here and now, you have rejected Paul’s gospel and are headed for the fiery furnace and 2) if you don’t rely on the KJV and nothing but the KJV you might be a spawn of Satan, along with anyone behind a pulpit who might consult other translations or doctrinally sound commentators.

My attempt early this morning (3 June, 2023) was this:

clip_image020

I meant every word of it, but at least didn’t use the “L” word. Since then, I received a comment from a Daryl Gass telling me “I read your article and see if hat the Author is mixing gospels! Now I will ask you to read mine to see clearly what the difference is between the gospel that Paul taught and the gospel the Jesus and the 12 apostles taught.”;

His article on a FB page called “The False Trinity god Rebuttal and Other Scriptural Truths. Thing is, I have to join the group since it’s a Private Group. Since he implies that Jesus and the Apostles taught “different” gospels, I admit I am curious.

Right now, I think I need a nap. This has been exhausting!