This is a book I'm currently reading and I wanted to recommend it to you all. The author is Mickey Carter, who is the Pastor of Landmark Baptist Church in Haines City, Florida. My wife graduated from his Bible College, Landmark Baptist College, and this book was required reading in one of her classes. I found it in our bookshelf and it's been very useful in helping me understand why we believe God preserved His Word, and why the King James is that preserved Word. It's short and easy to read, and will give you a solid spiritual understanding of this issue. Click below for more detail:
Things that are different are not the same: The truth about the battle for the preserved King James Bible
Things that are different are not the same: The truth about the battle for the preserved King James Bible
10 comments:
Bro--you need to read THE KING JAMES ONLY CONTROVERSY by White--that will open a lot for you. I'm a student of Greek and Hebrew and you need to understand the logical fallacy--
See Matt 13.19, Mark 4.15, and Luk 8:12 and who stole the seed? If they're different and not the same, then what's going on here?
I don't think this person quite understands. Maybe I misunderstood, but anyway. It's not talking about things that are worded a tiny bit different. Those verses in Matthew, Mark, and Luke are worded just a little differently but say the exact same thing with absolutely no change in meaning. (If the four gospels were identical God wouldn't have made four of them; there would just be one.)Take Proverbs 18:24 for example. Comparing it between the KJV and the NIV, it is not the same at all and the NIV's translation doesn't even make sense. That is one of literally hundreds of extreme differences in meaning between versions and are therefore different, and not the same. It doesn't take an education in Greek and Hebrew to see that. And this person may be a student of said languages but I highly doubt he/she is an expert like the KJV translators. The King James is the preserved Word of God in the English language for very obvious reasons.
I find it hard to take any "scholarly" book with crossword puzzles seriously. The level of scholarship is extremely poor--what you'd expect from a man who received a D.D. from his own Bible college. Like Spurgeon once said, "Many a D.D. is a twiddley-dee-dee." Carter's work is chock full of logical fallacies, A Priori reasoning, and faulty evidence.
I have two questions for Carter: (1) Why are YOUR Anglicans and compromising puritans (the KJV translation committee) ok but Westcott & Hort are to be despised? Be consistent and condemn both groups of men if you don't believe in baptismal regeneration and mutated Romanism! Carter is the kind of character assassin that carefully chooses his targets according to his own presuppositions. (2) Why don't you give evidence of the corruption of text from primary sources? When was it corrupted, who did it, and what was their motive? Of course there aren't answers to these questions, except for those who assume them (like Carter). A Priori reasoning rules in this book.
Finally, Carter makes the classical mistake with Psalm 12:7--"Thou shalt keep *them*, O LORD, thou shalt preserve *them* from this generation for ever." This verse cannot grammatically refer to "the words of the LORD" in vs. 6 because the genders don't match. Vs. 7 refers back to the "poor" in vs. 5. Anyone with primary knowledge of Hebrew can verify this.
I love and trust the KJV, and I preach from it every week. This book is a black mark on the history of a wonderful translation.
Michael C
Adam wrote, "Take Proverbs 18:24 for example. Comparing it between the KJV and the NIV, it is not the same at all and the NIV's translation doesn't even make sense. That is one of literally hundreds of extreme differences in meaning between versions and are therefore different, and not the same."
Adam, if you don't have knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, then you are not qualified to make such judgments. Neither is Carter, since he cannot read God's word in the languages God gave it. Nor are you in any position to decide who is and who isn't a qualified translator ("expert like the KJV translators").
Like Carter, you are an armchair textual critic with inadequate education and experience to make such judgments. You have never seen the Biblical autographs or the manuscripts. You were not present when the KJV was translated. You are simply in no position to be dogmatic about anything as it regards Bible translation.
If my comments above are wrong, and you are indeed an expert in the Biblical languages, then please reconcile this for me:
James quoting Amos 9:11-12 in Acts 9:16-17 KJV
15And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, "16After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things."
Amos 9:11-12 KJV
11In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: 12That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this.
Notice the tremendous difference in meaning between Acts 15:17 and Amos 9:12. James is quoting from the Septuagint, the Bible of Jesus and the early church. This is a Greek translation of the OT completed in Alexandria, Egypt. It is based on lost Hebrew text far different than the Hebrew text the KJV is based on (the Masoretic text ca. 1,100 AD, from the Babylonian tradition).
So I ask you, If “things that are different are not the same,” did Jesus and the Apostles have the word of God? Apparently they believed so! James bases his argument in Acts 15 on a Greek translation of the OT that is different than the Hebrew Bible. And this is only one out of hundreds of cases.
Your only recourse is to call this a matter of "faith"-- faith not in what God has said concerning the matter, but what you "feel" is right, ultimately faith in yourself.
I think a better explanation of your problem is this. You, being a committed fundamentalist (as I am) have rejected the conclusions of modernism. However, you are still deeply committed to a post-enlightenment, scientific worldview. Thus you have adopted the reasoning of modernism, requiring a scientific explanation of the best text of the 5,645 extant NT texts, and which is the best translation of them. This kind of debate is a modern phenomenon. The community at Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) had various textual traditions of the Old Testament. They considered all equally to be the word of God. So the Apostle Paul can quote from the LXX and make his own translation more consistent with the Masoretic text. I urge you to abandon your modernist way of reasoning about the text as you surely have rejected Darwin and abortion.
Think about these things.
Michael C
PS: By the way, early Baptists were loath to carry around a King James Bible when it came out for two reasons: (1) It's connection to the Anglican church resulting in Catholic translations of words like "baptize" (instead of immerse) and "bishop" (instead of overseer). (2) They felt the version was politically motivated. The King of England wanted the translation primarily to unify the Puritans and the Church of England--hence the divided translation committee. Thus, early Baptists held onto their Geneva Bibles as long as possible.
Wow, Michael C. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Is not even the acceptance of the LXX a result of modern scholarship. Most of your argument is based on your own modernistic assumptions.
Bottom Line:
1. Every Word of God is Pure
2. Not a jot will pass away
3. The only text left on the playing field that comes close to that level of preservation is the text behind the King James. You need to read John Owen and John Burgon before you push White on these poor souls.
Tim
Tim,
Please re-read my previous post more carefully before reading this response. It is evident that you’ve missed what I was trying to communicate.
You wrote, “Is not even the acceptance of the LXX a result of modern scholarship.” Paul and Jesus both quote the LXX repeatedly (Paul at least 40 times!). Do you think they were influenced by Modernism? Moreover, as I wrote above, it is clear that in Acts 15:17 James is quoting Amos 9:12 from the LXX, not the Masoretic Text. [Did you even look up the references to see where they are different?] Would you say that James or Luke (who recorded the account) is a Modernist? The LXX was the most widely distributed and trusted version of the OT in the 1st Century, thus the NT is filled with quotes from the LXX. It is irrational to accuse someone of Modernism because they accept the Bible used by Jesus, the Apostles and the early church fathers. ***If you would like to dispute this point, please provide convincing evidence that the NT never quotes the LXX.***
“Most of your argument is based on your own modernistic assumptions.” This accusation is slanderous and patently false. If you re-read my previous post fairly and accurately, you would see that my entire point is that the KJO movement, though it rejects the conclusions of Modernism, is the product of Modernistic thinking. I wrote, “You are still deeply committed to a post-enlightenment, scientific worldview. Thus you have adopted the reasoning of modernism, requiring a scientific explanation of the best text of the 5,645 extant NT texts, and which is the best translation of them. This kind of debate is a modern phenomenon.” The “bottom line” is that I agree that “Every word of God is pure” and “Not a jot will pass away.” But I don’t believe that you (or David) are qualified or capable of deciding which words are God’s pure words. At least you’ve provided no solid evidence, only a loosely-stated opinion.
Michael
PS: I’ve never read White. Is he good?
No. He sucks on the subject. A snake in the grass. I am not looking for good 'scholarship' on bible commentary. I just want the truth. You can be the professor or the plowman, I don't give a rip about 'scholarship'. It can often be well presented error. "Scholarship" should never be a litmus test for truth. It is neither milk or meat..its balogny. That's just another way to intimidate people. Give me the crossword puzzles for the meek and simple any day.
Westcott and Hort were Anglicans to, but they just happened to be apostates....unbelieving bible correctors with corrupt manuscripts.
Brian
Let's see... if I were Satan... and wanted as few people to read God's word as possible, I would... hmmm.... let me think about this a second. I know! I would convince people that the only preserved word of God was in a 400 years old translation written on a grade level many will not quite comprehends (and will give up reading) while convincing people that the perfectly good readable translations are works of apostate people. Yeah... that's what I would do... convince people that perfectly good edifying Bibles are the work of Satan! He's really enjoying this.
RevDave, maybe, just maybe, Satan would try to counterfeit the real thing in hundreds of different ways to cause as much confusion as possible. But Satan wouldn't do that, or would he?
"And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." (2 Corinthians 11:14)
Things that are different are not the same. What a a clear, non-confusing, simple truth! All these (per)versions of the Bible only cause doubt and confusion. But,...
"God is not the author of confusion" (1 Corinthians 14:33)
Why I personally use only the KJV
There are only two ways of choosing which Bible you are going to use:
1) By reading and believing what GOD says about His Holy Word.
2) By listening to men using academic 'higher criticism' - which GOD addresses: Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the
tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. (Col 2:8)
I am a layman who graduated from High School in 1964 - I am certainly not a scholar, secular or Biblical. I been a follower of JESUS CHRIST for several years,
and am with no apology a user of only the KJV. My personal understanding after much reading, study, learning Scripture verses, and prayer is to believe exactly
what THE LORD says of Himself - that He has perfectly preserved His Holy Word in the English language in the KJV:
Then came the word of the LORD unto Jeremiah, saying, Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me? (Jer 32:27)
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.(Matt 5:18)
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
(Matt 24:35)
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I
command you. (Deut 4:2)
What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. (Deut 12:32)
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
(Prov 30:5-6)
Read and heed: Rev 22:18-21!!! and Prov 22:17-21!!!
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
(2 Tim 3:16)
Read: 2 Cor 11:3; Is 57:15-16; 2 Tim 2:14-17
-----------
Can you expect severe ridicule if you choose to read, study, learn Scripture from, and pray using only the KJV - YES.
My dearest CHRISTian Brother is a Kenyan Pastor with no Bible School or Seminary training - his comment about other 'versions' of Bible is that they are
'shallow'!
--------
Your personal choice of which 'translation' and / or 'paraphrase' of the Word of GOD that you use is entirely yours.
I am not, nor will I be a judge of your personal choices and decisions.
I pray that you will respect my personal belief, faith and trust - for you will not change them.
--------------------
Bro. ‘Nick’ Nicholas - 30 May 2014
Post a Comment