Post by lovelace on Aug 8, 2007 14:20:34 GMT -5
"KJV Only movement? Is the King James Version the only Bible we should use?"
Answer: Many people have strong and serious objections to the translation methods and textual basis for the new translations and therefore take a strong stance in favor of the King James Version. Others are equally convinced that the newer translations are an improvement over the KJV in their textual basis and translation methodology. GotQuestions.org does not want to limit its ministry to those of the "KJV Only" persuasion. Nor do we want to limit ourselves to those who prefer the NIV, NAS, NKJV, etc.
The KJV Only movement claims its loyalty to be to the Textus Receptus, a Greek New Testament manuscript compilation completed in the 1500's. To varying degrees, KJV Only advocates argue that God guided Erasmus (the compiler of the Textus Receptus) to come up with a Greek text that is perfectly identical to what was originally written by the New Testament authors. However, upon further examination, it can be seen that KJV Only advocates are not loyal to the Textus Receptus, but rather only to the KJV itself. The New Testament of the New King James Version is based on the Textus Receptus, just at the KJV is. Yet, KJV Only advocates label the NKJV as heretical just as they do the NIV, NAS, etc. Attempts have been made to "modernize" the language in the KJV, using the exact same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. An example of this is the KJV21 - www.kj21.com/. All the KJV21 does is update some of the archaic language of the KJV. Yet, it is rejected nearly as strongly as the NKJV and the other newer Bible translations. This proves that KJV Only advocates are loyal to the King James Version itself, not to the Textus Receptus.
Perhaps the ultimate proof of this fact is that KJV Only advocates have no desire or plan to update the KJV in any way. The KJV certainly does contain English that is outdated, archaic, and sometimes confusing to modern English speakers and readers. It would be fairly simple to publish an updated KJV with the archaic words and phrases updated into modern 21st century English. Other than the KJV21, this has not been done, and the KJV21 definitely has not been accepted. Any attempt to edit the KJV in any way results in accusations from KJV Only advocates of heresy and perversion of the Word of God. When the Bible is translated for the first time into a new language today, it is translated into the language that culture speaks and writes today, not the way they spoke and wrote 400 years ago. The same should be true of English speakers and readers. The Bible was written in the common, ordinary language of the people. Bible translations today should be the same. That is why Bible translations must be updated and revised as languages develop and change.
Our loyalties are to the original manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments, written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Only the original languages are the Word of God as He inspired it. A translation is only an attempt to take what is said in one language and communicate it in another. The modern translations are superb in taking the meaning of the original languages and communicating it in a way that we can understand in English. However, none of the modern translations are perfect. Every one contains verses that are at least somewhat mistranslated. By comparing and contrasting several different translations, it is often easier to get a good grasp on what the verse is saying than by only using one translation. Our loyalty should not be to any one English translation, but to the inspired, inerrant Word of God that is communicated by the Holy Spirit through the translations (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
Answer: Many people have strong and serious objections to the translation methods and textual basis for the new translations and therefore take a strong stance in favor of the King James Version. Others are equally convinced that the newer translations are an improvement over the KJV in their textual basis and translation methodology. GotQuestions.org does not want to limit its ministry to those of the "KJV Only" persuasion. Nor do we want to limit ourselves to those who prefer the NIV, NAS, NKJV, etc.
The KJV Only movement claims its loyalty to be to the Textus Receptus, a Greek New Testament manuscript compilation completed in the 1500's. To varying degrees, KJV Only advocates argue that God guided Erasmus (the compiler of the Textus Receptus) to come up with a Greek text that is perfectly identical to what was originally written by the New Testament authors. However, upon further examination, it can be seen that KJV Only advocates are not loyal to the Textus Receptus, but rather only to the KJV itself. The New Testament of the New King James Version is based on the Textus Receptus, just at the KJV is. Yet, KJV Only advocates label the NKJV as heretical just as they do the NIV, NAS, etc. Attempts have been made to "modernize" the language in the KJV, using the exact same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. An example of this is the KJV21 - www.kj21.com/. All the KJV21 does is update some of the archaic language of the KJV. Yet, it is rejected nearly as strongly as the NKJV and the other newer Bible translations. This proves that KJV Only advocates are loyal to the King James Version itself, not to the Textus Receptus.
Perhaps the ultimate proof of this fact is that KJV Only advocates have no desire or plan to update the KJV in any way. The KJV certainly does contain English that is outdated, archaic, and sometimes confusing to modern English speakers and readers. It would be fairly simple to publish an updated KJV with the archaic words and phrases updated into modern 21st century English. Other than the KJV21, this has not been done, and the KJV21 definitely has not been accepted. Any attempt to edit the KJV in any way results in accusations from KJV Only advocates of heresy and perversion of the Word of God. When the Bible is translated for the first time into a new language today, it is translated into the language that culture speaks and writes today, not the way they spoke and wrote 400 years ago. The same should be true of English speakers and readers. The Bible was written in the common, ordinary language of the people. Bible translations today should be the same. That is why Bible translations must be updated and revised as languages develop and change.
Our loyalties are to the original manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments, written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Only the original languages are the Word of God as He inspired it. A translation is only an attempt to take what is said in one language and communicate it in another. The modern translations are superb in taking the meaning of the original languages and communicating it in a way that we can understand in English. However, none of the modern translations are perfect. Every one contains verses that are at least somewhat mistranslated. By comparing and contrasting several different translations, it is often easier to get a good grasp on what the verse is saying than by only using one translation. Our loyalty should not be to any one English translation, but to the inspired, inerrant Word of God that is communicated by the Holy Spirit through the translations (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
