Thu-7-Jan-2010 - My thoughts on the KJV – Part III Changes & Omissions part C

 [At this point, I'm really irked. I've NEVER struggled so hard to publish an entry.~A~] 

To extend the inquiry, one each of the three book-types (Gospel, Pauline epistle, General epistle) were surveyed. The resulting data confirms the readability of the KJV.

Check this out:

“Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech. (KJB) II Cor. 3:12 

The NASB substitutes "lividness of speech" here and carries this confusing and condescending vocabulary from cover to cover.

If I came across the phrase “lividness of speech” I wouldn’t even know what it meant!

Now. You may notice that all my links come from one source. It was fairly easy for me to find the same information online that I have in the books on my desk … three books by Rev. D.A. Waite, two books by Gail Riplinger, the book by R.B. Ouellette.

But, just in case, here are a few more links. I am not saying I agree with every argument, but that they are great resources if you want to dig into this issue a bit.

John Calvin Hall’s open letter

Way of Life Literature Article

“Basically, those were the revisions up to 1769. The question is, how great were those revisions? How much was the wording changed? That is why I compared the present day Old Scofield King James Version and read the original 1611 and looked not just at the spelling changes. Some say there are 40,000 to 50,000 changes, and if you listened to them you would think we don't have anything like the original today. That would be a tremendous number of changes in my judgment. More confusion. They want an excuse to give us a "new" King James Version. That is why they give the history of the changes, to make us think this is JUST ONE MORE CHANGE. If there are 40,000 to 50,000 changes, they are related, by and large, to spelling differences, NOT to changes in the meaning or sounds of words.

For instance, take John 9, the account of the man born blind. Now, the word "blind" in verse 1 is spelled "blinde." It's a change. But is "blind" any different from "blinde"? If that is a change you're talking about, it doesn't affect the ear. Now, in the second verse, "sin" is spelled "sinne." That is a change. Then the word "born" is spelled "borne." But the sound is the same. What I did, was to count only the changes that could be HEARD. And from Genesis to Revelation, did I get 30,000? No. Did I get 20,000? No. 1,000? No. I got 421 changes to the ear, that could be heard, out of the 791,328 words. Just 421. That is actually one change out of 1,880 words. As for those 421 changes to the ear--most of them minor, just changes in spelling.

There were ONLY 135 SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES that were different words. The others were only 285 minor changes of form only. Of these 285 minor changes, there are 214 very minor changes such as "towards" for "toward"; "burnt" for "burned"; "amongst" for "among"; "lift" for "lifted"; and "you"; for "ye." These kinds of changes represent 214 out of the 285 minor changes of form only. Now you're talking about only 136 real changes out of 791,328 words. Many people imply that the King James Bible is completely changed from what they had in 1611, that there are THOUSANDS of differences. You tell them about the mere 136 changes of substance plus 285 minor changes of form only. (D.A. Waite, Defending the King James Bible).”

So, I would claim to be reading from an English translation dating back to 1611, regardless of spelling.

And this is so long that I have to wrap up my discussion of the readability issue.

~Ashley~

• 2 Comments • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

Thu-7-Jan-2010 - My thoughts on the KJV – Part III Changes & Omissions part B

Okay, I think it had something to do with the formatting. The tables just made the whole thing all wonky.

So, my lovely husband removed the tables. *************************************************************************************************************

 

	HARD WORD (NASB)	EASY WORD (KJB)
Matt.1:11, 1:17	deportation	carried away
Matt.1:20	considered	thought
Matt.2:1, 2:7	magi	wise men
Mark. 2:21	unshrunk	new
Matt. 2:16	environs	coasts
Luke 3:17, Matt. 3:12	winnowing fork	fan
Luke 11:33, Matt. 5:15, Mark 4:21	peck-measure	bushel
Matt. 5:19	annuls	break
John 16:8	concerning	of
I Thess. 2:17	having been bereft of you	being taken from you
I Thess. 2:18	thwarted	hindered
I Thess. 5:1	epochs	seasons
I Thess. 5:14	admonish	warn
2 Thess.2:3	apostasy	falling away
2 Thess. 2:3	lawlessness	sin
2 Thess. 3:2	perverse	unreasonable
2 Thess. 3:6	aloof	withdraw
I Tim.1:15	foremost of all	chief
I Tim. 2:8	dissensions	doubting
I Tim.2:9	discreetly	sobriety
I Tim. 3:2	prudent	sober
I Tim.3:2	respectable	of good behavior
I Tim. 3:3	pugnacious	striker
I Tim. 3:3	uncontentious	not a brawler
I Tim.3:8	sordid	filthy
I Tim. 5:12	previous pledge	first faith
I Tim. 6:3	advocates	teach
I Tim.6:4	conceited	proud
I Tim. 6:10	a pang	sorrows
2 Tim. 3:2	arrogant	proud
Titus 1:6	dissipation	riot
Titus 1:7	sordid	filthy
Titus 3:2	to malign no one	to speak evil of no man
Titus 3:2	uncontentious	to be no brawlers
Titus 3:10	factious	heretick
Phil. 2:1	consolation	comfort
Phil. 2:30	deficient	lack
Heb. 2:17	propitiation	reconciliation
Heb. 5:10	designated	called
Heb. 7:2	apportioned	gave
Heb. 12:1	encumbrance	weight
James 1:2	encounter	fall into
James 1:11	in the midst	in his ways
James 5:11	blessed	happy
I Pet.4:4	dissipation	riot
I John 5:10	borne	gave
Rev.1:3	heed	keep
Rev. 1:9	perseverance	patience
Rev. 2:2	perseverance	patience
Rev. 2:3	perseverance	patience
Rev. 3:10	perseverance	patience
Rev. 2:23	pestilence	death
Rev. 4:1	standing	was
Rev. 5:11	myriads of myriads	ten thousand times ten thousand
Rev. 6:8	ashen	pale
Rev. 6:8	famine	hunger
Rev. 6:8	pestilence	death
Rev. 7:15	spread His tabernacle over	dwell among
Rev. 9:11	abyss	pit
Rev. 11:7	abyss	pit
Rev. 11:9	laid in a tomb	put in graves

  (It refers to the two witnesses, so graves plural are needed.)

So much, again, that it baffles me. If the KJB needed changed, because it was difficult to understand, then why use harder words, and crank up the grade level altogether?

Here is the math behind it, just in case anyone is interested in that:

“The Flesch-Kincaid research company's Grade Level Indicator betrays the strictly black and white nature of the issue showing the new version's true colors. The KJV ranks easier in 23 out of 26 comparisons. (Their formula is: (.39 x average number of words per sentence) + (11.8 x average number of syllables per word) - (15.59) = grade level. The first chapter of the first and last books of both the Old and New Testaments were compared. (All complete sentences, whether terminating in a period, colon, or semi-colon, and all incomplete phrases ending in a period, were calculated as 'sentences'.)

(Okay, this is having to be posted in bits and pieces. I do not know why!!!!)

~Ashley~

• 0 Comments • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

Thu-7-Jan-2010 - My thoughts on the KJV – Part III Changes & Omissions

This is such a huge topic. I wish I could do it justice! There is soooo much information out there … I try to choose one topic, but it is very intertwined. So bear with me if I wander about!

Again, just to clarify, I’m not doing this series to be argumentative. I just want to share what I know, hopefully in a fairly humble fashion!

There are two primary sources for Bible texts. Antioch and Alexandria. There is the ancient text, and the one reconstructed about 125 years ago.

They do not agree.

I also do not trust Westcott and Hort, the primary translators of the Greek manuscript used today, but more on them soon! J

An example of what I would consider a change: in the KJB it says in John 7 that Jesus Christ says “I go not up yet unto this feast.”

The NIV quotes our Lord as saying “I go not up to the feast.”

And since He does go to Jerusalem, this shows Him saying He won’t do something which He then does.

These sort of things, such as the omission of the last twelve verses of Mark, and the absence of Acts 8:37 …. These things I find very troubling. I have to trust the Bible that I’m reading.

I have been asked by an individual if my Bible contained Acts 8:37. Of course it did! Could he read it? Certainly! It is such an important verse, it shocked me that it wasn’t in some Bibles!

If my Bible is only partly inspired, which part? If it is only partly preserved, which part? Such questions are of vital, critical importance!

I am the woman that was horrified as a little girl to learn what “abridged” meant. Ever after, I have searched for “complete and unabridged” classics, please.

Let a lone my Bible.

Another example:

2 Timothy, 3:16 KJB

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”

2 Timothy, 3:16 ASV

“Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.”

So which is it? All scripture? Or just the inspired ones?

We need to know if it is “God [who] was manifest in the flesh” or “He who was manifest in the flesh ….” (NIV & NAS)

As Ouellette says: “I am happier with the questions I cannot answer than the questions that the other side cannot answer.”

That pretty much sums it up for me.

Examples of omissions would be stuff like this. Let’s just pick on the NKJV, since it is supposed to primarily change the “thee’s” and “thou’s”.

“Lord” is removed ….. 66 times

“God” is removed ……51 times

“heaven” ……….. ……50 times

“repent” ……………… 44 times

“blood” …………… ….23 times

“hell” ……………… ….22 times

JEHOVAH ---------------- gone ENTIRELY

“new testament” -------------- won’t find it

“****ation” ---------------- gone

“devils” ------------------------ gone

The Greek Textus Receptus is ignored over 1,200 times. In the Old Testament, the ben Chayyim Masoretic text was replaced with the Biblia Hebaica from Stuttgart (ben Asher).

Basically, the KJV and the NKJV aren’t even based off the same documents.

It seems to me that they should be, if they are “only” updating the language!

I am reading a harsher Bible, that much is certain! I wonder sometimes what these words are replaced with. Don’t you? You can say “turn from your sin and be saved” instead of “repent”. But what do you replace “heaven” with? Why replace “Lord” and “God” with “He”? What purpose does it serve?

Why remove the name Jehovah entirely?

These things trouble me, I’m just say’in.

Now, let’s consider the fact that the KJB is harder to read.

Okay. Some of the phrasing is weird, I suppose. (I’ve read it since I was 6yo, so I don’t notice it so much any more.)

I do know after Jonathan started reading the KJB his use of grammar just …. Wow. I appreciate all the words he’s picked up. But mostly it just exploded his vocabulary and grammar. Of course, I grew up reading classics, and such, and spoke fairly refined English until I was teased about it in my early 20’s. Now we are about on the same page, which is lovely. I don’t find it as easy to talk over his head as I used to.

So whatever else it did, reading the KJB together leveled the playing field for us grammatically speaking. Didn’t happen overnight, but it happened. J

But let’s address the issue that it’s going to be harder to comprehend. Here are just some words that have been made harder instead of easier. I have seen pages and pages and pages of this stuff ….Here are some comparisons that are online.

 See part II and I'll see if I can successfully break this into two parts ....

~Ashley~

• 2 Comments • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

Thu-31-Dec-2009 - Thoughts on the KJV of the Bible – Part Two- Common Misconceptions

Yay! I got feedback on my last post! That makes me so happy that people are interested and/or willing to discuss and talk about this topic.

And, it rather gave me a starting point for this post ... which I need because there is sooooooo much to cover. ~smile~

So, this post is going to be about some of the common misunderstanding about the King James Bible.

And, remember, I'm not trying to bash anyone over the head with this, I just want to share what I have learned and I believe. So don't go feeling attacked, here! You can disagree with me, that's fine. Let's just keep it civil. ;)

Also, keep in mind that I haven't started to defend why I think the KJV translation is a good one, in this post I'm just going to clear up some issues raised in the comments yesterday. (If I don't respond to some particular point, it's probably going to be addressed in the future, lol!)

1. False Statement: All King James people force other language cultures to use the King James Bible.

As I said in yesterday's post, if I have to learn Greek, or Hebrew, or early Church History, or see the originals to know what the Bible truly says ... then I'm in trouble. Because I don't have time for that. I do not know how long I have in this life, but it is probably too short. ;)

And in the same way, I don't expect other people to have to learn English in order to hear the Word of God. What a tragedy that would be! What a stumbling block that would place between people and Salvation, just like me needing to know Greek would hinder me.

So, to clarify, I think the KJV is a proven, accurate English version.

2. False Statement: All King James people believe that the King James is advanced revelation or “second inspiration” and therefore negates all other Bible in any language.

Oh, yuck. I like what Ouellette says about this idea: “This thinking would be cultic.”

And, it relates well to one of my comments. I am not saying that the KJV is the only accurate translation …. Many, many Christians died to give us the Bible in English. Many more died because they then read it in English, be in the Tyndale, or Wycliff, or Geneva Bible.

I am not saying the KJV is the only accurate translation. I would probably argue that it is the most accurate translation since 1611 … but why that is will be in a future post.

3. False Statement: All King James people believe the Bible should be worshipped like God Himself.

Eh, to me this one doesn’t need much refuting IMO. Ouellette says “This is a misrepresentation of our belief that God’s Word should be our final authority.” I haven’t come across this idea, so I will simply believe him, that some people do think this. I do believe God’s Word should be our final authority, but I don’t think it should be worshipped like God Himself.

Because we respect God, I do think we should be careful who we trust to translate His word.

But worshiping a Bible? No.

4. False Statement: All King James people believe that a man can only be saved from a King James Bible.

I agree with this!!!!

Now, this said, there are many instances where we might change something as we grow in the Lord. Rahab lied about the spies, and I have always wondered how she felt when she heard the 10 Commandments for the first time and realized the God who saved her from destruction abhors lying. Yet she was spared because she lied because she believed in what little she knew about God, and His People.

I believe salvation comes when you seek God with all your heart. It’s not the version of Bible you have, or where you are (praise Him!), or what-not. It is the condition of your heart, and God will meet with you. I believe when you seek Him, He will be found of you. The Ethiopian man had part of a scroll containing Isaiah! Usually, at least here in America, we can have the entire Bible in our personal possession. Aren’t we exceedingly blessed?

Just because you were saved in a certain place, or reading a certain version, or with a certain person, doesn’t mean you necessarily “owe” any of your Salvation to that thing/person (doesn’t mean you don’t, either, lol). But I think we should be careful, because often we seek to use whatever tool it was that was used to bring us to Christ, thinking it will be just as effective as a tool to reach others.

Everyone is not the same, and we can’t expect movies, dramas, books, sermons, or a particular version of the Bible, etc, to have the same effect on others. It is the Spirit of God that saves.

I am sure we all know of people who were saved through and in circumstances we would never recommend to others!

 Salvation is of God! I am so thankful that He can see our hearts, and not just the outsides of us. ~smile~

So, these are some common misconceptions. There are even more misconceptions that are held about the KJV, but that is another post. ~smile~  For today, I wanted to clarify some things about what I do not believe in.

Thanks for reading!

~Ashley~

• 5 Comments • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

Wed-30-Dec-2009 - Thoughts on the KJV of the Bible – Part One - My Core Issue

***Disclaimer: As always, I'm not really  hoping to convince anyone of anything. What I would like to do, eventually, over a period of days? weeks? give a well-thought out tretease of my own position. So those that disagree with me/us, know at least we've thought about it quite a bit, we aren't just dogmatically holding onto a tradition of some sort that we picked up somewhere and thought sounded good.*** 

J’s Grandma loaned us a book recently, titled A More Sure Word – Which Bible Can You Trust? By R.B. Ouellette.

It’s good.

In fact, I never found a book that has stated our position as succinctly, so politely, and so completely. It covers all of the areas where I’m uncertain of the newer translations.

I would love to buy a copy of this book for multiple people. Since I can’t afford that, and even if I did buy it for them, chances are they wouldn’t read it, and because I want desperately to discuss this, I’m going to blog it. It could be a long series. The nice thing is, I can’t be interrupted. The bad thing is, a lot of people still might not bother to read it all.

But I will have something I can point to, and say “Here is what I know. Let’s discuss it!” For the sake of “online discussion” all of your comments are welcome, but it might be two-three posts in the future they are actually discussed. I don’t know! I’ll do the best I can, if  anyone wants to talk about this.

There is a section in the book on common misconceptions about the “KJV only”. It makes me want to weep! Finally, someone that understands what we’re saying and what we aren’t, and has put it into print. Finally! (I will post many of these things in later posts.)

Several points in this book just express our heart in this matter. Here is one.

• Ouellette says in researching for his book, he only met one person who had studied as much or more on the topic.

When I was getting to know my future husband, we had a brief discussion once about Bible versions. J told me “I feel all versions are good and beneficial.”

I responded, “I will not argue with what you think or what you feel is true. I have researched this, and spent time studying it. I would love to discuss this, and be convinced of a different position. But you cannot convince me with what you “think” is right, or “feel” is right.”

It seems to me that most people look up a few things that support their view, and leave it at that.  They get one or two points they will argue, but they don’t really want to hear counter-arguments, and that is that. Case closed, though they have never looked beneath the surface.

So, arguments that start off with I feel or I believe or even I’ve heard that are just empty and defensive in my opinion.

So, my core issue?

Preservation. Did God preserve His inspired word?

Here is what this book says is the non-KJV fundamentalist position:

1. Only the original autographs were inspired.
2. Copies can be trusted to the extent that they conform to the originals.
3. We have no originals
4. God has not promised to preserve His Word.
5. The Word of God is not found exclusively in any on translation, manuscript, or family of manuscripts.
6. We can observe from history that God has preserved His Word through the 5,600+ extant manuscripts
7. We scholars will find it for you eventually.

Now, I don’t know about all of this, but I have heard points 1, 2 & 3 made.

Which leads me to my main point, the crux of the matter for me:

If what I am reading is not inspired, then it has errors. If it has errors, then it’s not 100% true, which means I can’t trust it.

Why do I read my Bible, then????????

If I need to know Greek for a complete understanding, if I need to know Hebrew, if I need to be taught the oral tradition …. If I have to know early church history …. If I have to have the “hard” passages explained to me ….

If I cannot trust what I read, there is no point.

None!

I’m not sure this is very clearly understood.

If I cannot find a Bible, written in English, that I can trust, and argue, and defend, then I cannot die for what I believe. Because it might just sound that way at this point, but the original idea, in the original documents, might have said something different.

And I cannot know what those thoughts are.

So I can’t be dogmatic about anything I find in my English Bible.

A lot of people died because they believed only what they could read in the English Bible. Why die for points you can’t be certain of, for an uninspired (untrue) text?

Of course, we shouldn’t ever be convinced of anything simply because someone dies for it. But it is a weighty point to consider. How has the Scripture (in English) been viewed in the past? And then we must decide if they were misguided (though sincere) or if they died for God, in defense of God’s Word.

So now you know where I stand on this issue. I believe that:

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” Matthew 24:35

Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? By taking head according to they word.” Psalm 199:9

The counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations. Psalm 33:11

As Ouellette says, “God preserves His Words not so that we can argue over which text is correct; rather, He has preserved His Word so that we can spread it to every creature.”

Amen!

~Ashley~

• 7 Comments • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

Page


WiddlyTinks.com

Wedding Countdown at WiddlyTinks.com

10% off coupon codes

1 of 7
Last Page | Next Page