;)
Resolved: A Resolution for Next Year’s Annual Meeting
Posted by Andrew Wencl in Baptist Life, Bible & Theology
Anybody willing to present this resolution at next year’s Convention Meeting?
On The Archaic and Out-of-Date King James Version
June 2012 WHEREAS, Many Southern Baptist pastors and laypeople have trusted and used the King James Version (KJV) translation to the great benefit of the Kingdom; and WHEREAS, Multiple Bible publishers continue to produce the King James Version (KJV) which incorporates archaic and overly-literal methods of translation; and WHEREAS, Southern Baptists repeatedly have affirmed our commitment to the full inspiration and authority of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:15-16); and WHEREAS, This translation alters the meaning of hundreds of verses, most significantly by using archaic language and a later textual basis which adds words, phrases, and whole verses that do not appear in the original autographs; and WHEREAS, Although it is possible for Bible scholars to disagree about translation methods or which English words best translate the original languages, the KJV has gone beyond acceptable translation standards; and WHEREAS, Twenty-three percent of SBC pastors and fifty-one percent of non SBC pastors in 2004 preferred the KJV, and sixty-two percent of American adults in 2011 owned a KJV; and WHEREAS, The Southern Baptist Convention has passed a similar resolution concerning the TNIV in 2002 and the 2011 NIV in 2011; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana, June 19-20, 2012 express profound disappointment with King James I for this inaccurate translation of God’s inspired Scripture; and be it further RESOLVED, That we encourage pastors to make their congregations aware of the translation errors found in the KJV; and be it further RESOLVED, That we respectfully request that LifeWay not make this inaccurate translation available for sale in their bookstores; and be it finally RESOLVED, That we cannot commend the KJV to Southern Baptists or the larger Christian community.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
IMO, that makes the point rather well.
Touché
The KJV was good enough for Moses, Elijah and Paul, and it is good enough for me.
You are a brave man, Andrew.
Andrew,
I think this would be comparable to ObamaCare within Christendom, wouldn’t it?
Not me, since I would not begin to present something which so reeks of arrogant phariseeism.
Andrew, You and others continue to make the same mistake. You assume that “older is better” in Bible translations, when you don’t know for certain the veracity of those translations.
I’m not even saying they are not better, I’m simply saying that a great deal of supposition enters into the acceptance of such, and you do not allow for that possibility in your post.
The fact that most of the so-called older manuscripts have lain in Catholic archives for a thousand years or more, amidst people who were documented to have been trained in the alteration of documents, and suddenly they are the most authentic.
That the KJV uses archaic words is beyond dispute, but your philosophy of dismissing those manuscripts which have stood Evangelical Christianity in good stead for fifteen hundred years, simply supposedly new manuscripts have been unearthed is ludicrous in my opinion.
Mike,
Dave Miller picked up on my facetiousness. I’m not seriously suggesting anyone really present this resolution, just pointing out the “arrogant phariseeism” of the resolution on the NIV last year.
With that I blow a “razzberry” in your general direction
BTW/ I seldom use the KJV simply because of those archaic words. I use the NKJV which retains the tenor of the KJV and does not give it to us in prose.
There are many good versions. Many of which I study from. I’m not opposed to using new versions, NIV excepted.
I’m opposed to the attitude which so decries those who do no look at matters the same way we do.
Now, lest you think, I’m simply an uneducated boob, I’m a highly educated boob, having studied and taught in schools around the world.
Mike
[...] the KJV a gold watch, shake its hand, and let it fade into history. Andrew Wencl, at sbcIMPACT posted an article today which facetiously (I think) suggested a resolution for the 2012 SBC Annual Meeting calling us to [...]
Well Andrew…. I take it you don’t much care for the KJV. In its preface the KJV of 1611 states this… “far from condemning any of their labors that travailed before us in this kind, . . . acknowledge them to have been raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting remembrance.” The KJV editors were speaking of the Tyndale Bible, Coverdale’s Bible, Matthew’s Bible, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the Bishops’ Bible….which the KJV was pattern after the Bishop’s but leaned on many others……. It seems to point toward the publishing motives of an organization. I think some of those publishing endeavors continue to happen today, not too far from our own shopping malls.
Chris
Ok, Andrew. I’m afraid, I’m more than a little dense at times. I can say that I dislike the NIV because I don’t trust the editors. If they can arbitrarily choose to neuter God, then what else might they do/have done left unnoticed.
I don’t think we needed a resolution condemning it, I just don’t understand why folks use it.
There are just too many good versions out there.
Sorry, for the failure to realize recognize your satire.
Mike
Mike,
Where do they neuter God? I honestly have not heard that.
That was “sneaky” satire
Actually, my neuter comment wasn’t meant as satire. Oh the joys and pains of ambiguity!
[Content removed]
Dave Miller is in error with respect to the KJV being good enough for Moses, Elijah, and Paul. The KJV was translated in 1611 by order of the court of King James. This, I am sorry to say, was several thousand years after Moses or Elijah, and almost 1600 years after Paul. If you are going to debate an issue, sir, please get your facts straight!
I have also noted in discussing the value of using the KJV as opposed to other translations the the KJV only exists in English. Since there are many people who believe the KJV is the the only spiritually correct version, I must ask the obvious: do they believe that folks who use a German or Spanish or French or Chinese version of the Bible are in danger of hell’s fire? And just so someone doesn;t get me wrong, I do not endorse this resolution, simeply because I believe that each Christian is free to read and study God’s word in any translation he so choses, and no man has the right or obligation to dictate which version is to be used.
Frank,
You sometimes need to read carefully, and have your satire antenna up, when you read articles (and comments, such as Dave Miller’s comment) here.
Greetings Andrew,
You raise some interesting questions. Please seem my reply/comment to Dave Miller regarding this.
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
I have been a little involved with the kjv controversy for year. Got involved years ago with the Amplified Translation. It was highly recommended so I bought one. It is virtualy useless, impossible to memorize and doctrinal problems abound. I have approx. 17 transaltions on hand. With the lone exception of the KJV all of them have doctrinal errors. Did you know that to gain a USA copyright, there has to b a significant difference from previous translations? This whole thing is mostly a money making scam and ought to be resisted
Indeed Mr. Bunch. For example:
Examine Matt. 10:10, Mark 6:8, and Luke Luke9:3.
ESV – staff or no staff?
10 no bag for your journey, nor two tunics nor sandals nor a staff..
8 He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff
3 And he said to them, “Take nothing for your journey, no staff,
KJV – staves (staff plural)i.e you can take 1 staff but only 1
10 Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves
8 And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only
3 And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves,
Blessings
“Lone exception”?
No translation is perfect, not even the KJV. The word translated “staves” in the KJV is the same word translated “staff” in Mark 6:8. That is, they are both singular. The KJV intentionally tries to correct what it perceives as an “error” in the Biblical text.
The NET Bible notes offer some insight: “Neither Matt 10:9-10 nor Luke 9:3 allow for a staff. It might be that Matthew and Luke mean not taking an extra staff, or that the expression is merely rhetorical for “traveling light,” which has been rendered in two slightly different ways.” I lean towards the first option.
Ah, the inspired study notes…;). I’m aware that it is rhabdos in all three occassions, but in the Greek text underneath the KJV it is plural in Matt. and Luke and singular in Mark, thus avoiding the error. The ecletic text versions have the error. What is Nestle-Aland up to now, version 27?
What good is inspiration without preservation?
John,
The Greek is singular. What Greek texts have a plural?
The one underneath the KJV.
ραβδους Matt. 10:10
ραβδον Mark 6:8
ραβδους Luke 9:3
The Greek texts underneath the KJV and the ESV, NASB, HCSB, NIV, etc. are significantly different.
Blessings
John,
I just looked up the TR. It is singular in all three instances. The only way you can find a plural is if you start with the KJV and translate it into Greek.
You want to cite a source? Go to http://www.biblegateway.com and select the 1894 Scrivener New Testament (Greek) and look at the 3 verses. Then select the 1881 Westcott-Hort New Testament (Greek) and look at the 3 verses and tell tell us which one has all 3 singular.
Blessings
John,
Scrivener started with the King James Bible and tried to match it up to the Greek, recognizing that the KJV didn’t follow any one specific Greek manuscript. In this case, he could not locate a Greek manuscript that had the word in the plural, so he translated the plural “staves” back into a plural “ραβδους” like you see in the 1894 Scrivener New Testament.
The 1611 KJV translators did not have the 1894 Scrivener New Testament. The Greek manuscripts they had did not have it in the plural. They accepted the first interpretation: “It might be that Matthew and Luke mean not taking an extra staff” and thus put the word in the plural so the meaning (an extra staff) could be easily extrapolated from the text.
This is not really a “doctrinal error” on the part of the KJV or the modern translations. It’s a pointless argument to say the newer translations have “doctrinal errors” because you can’t come to the conclusion that Jesus meant an extra staff without a plural form of the word “staff”.
Hi AW,
There is really no such thing as “the Greek”. There are thousands of Greek manuscripts and the overwhelming majority of the them are much closer to the Greek Words underneath the KJV than they are to that of the Greek words underneath the ESV, NASB, HCSB, NIV, etc. Do you have any citations for how you know Scrievner’s intentions, methods, etc.? Or how you know exactly what the KJV translators were using and not using?
Errors in the ESV are fodder for skeptics and scoffers, don’t edity the saints, and make trouble for inerrancy and the doctrines of God.
God is inerrant.
The Bible is the Word of God
The Bible is inerrant.
Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’” ESV
Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. KJV
Blessings
John,
The KJV is just a translation. It is not inspired.
The KJV translators could not have used something that didn’t exist in their day (i.e. Scrivener’s TR). There are multiple instances (this “staves” incident included) where the KJV rendering is not supported by any Greek manuscripts.
Scrivener wrote a book about textual criticism and I would suggest you check it out. You can read it on GoogleBooks for free. He believed in textual criticism.
The KJV is just as susceptible to error as the modern translations. It is the Greek (not just the majority, but the original) that should be the standard, not an English translation, whether the KJV, ESV, or NIV for that matter.
How is, “Take nothing for your journey, no staff” (Luke 9:3 ESV) and “take nothing for their journey except a staff” (Mark 6:8 ESV) not a contradiction?
Blessings
Hi AW,
I’m aware that the KJV is an English translation. Where did I claim the English was/is inspired? I believe the Greek and Hebrew words underneath the KJV are the inspired Words of God. What do you believe?
By the way, here is what Adam’s Clarke commentary says on Matt. 10:10:
“Nor yet staves – Ραβδον, a staff, as in the margin, but, instead of ραβδον, staff, which is the common reading, all the following MSS. and versions have ραβδους, staves, and CEFGKLMPS. V. ninety-three others, Coptic, Armenian, latter Syriac, one of the Itala, Chrysostom, and Theophylact. This reading is of great importance, as it reconciles this place with Luk_9:3, and removes the seeming contradiction from Mar_6:8; as if he had said: “Ye shall take nothing to defend yourselves with, because ye are the servants of the Lord, and are to be supported by his bounty, and defended by his power. In a word, be like men in haste, and eager to begin the important work of the ministry. The sheep are lost-ruined: Satan is devouring them: give all diligence to pluck them out of the jaws of the destroyer.”
Blessings
John,
You say the Bible is inerrant and then give a comparison between the KJV and the ESV, irregardless of what the original Greek actually said.
Even still the difference between staff and staves is negligible. It is certainly not a “doctrinal error”.
Andrew,
I just consulted “The Englishman’s Greek New Testament,” which presents the 1550 text of Stephanus:
Mt. 10:10 – RABDON (singular). (Erasmus 1521 has RABDON.) (Complutensian Polyglot has RABDOUS.) (Beza 1598 has RABDON.) (Scrivener 1887 has RABDON in the text, and RABDOUS in the apparatus.)
Mk. 6:8 – RABDON (singular). (Erasmus 1521 has RABDON.)
Lk. 9:3 – RABDOUS (plural). (Erasmus 1521 has RABDON here.) (Beza 1598 has RABDOUS here.) (Scrivener 1887 has RABDOUS in the text and RABDON in the apparatus.)
I also looked over the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Text (2005 edition) and in Hodges-Farstad:
Mt. 10:10 – RABDOUS (plural)
Mk. 6:8 – RABDON (singular)
Lk. 9:3 – RABDOUS (plural).
And, a quick check of NA27 showed that RABDOUS is supported in Mt. 10:10 not only by Byz but also by C L W, Codex Vercellensis, and Codex Bobbiensis. (NA27 provides no note about this variant in Luke 9:3.)
What is your basis for stating that in the TR, “It is singular in all three instances.”?? The TR itself is in flux at Mt. 10:10 and Luke 9:3; Erasmus and Stephanus and Beza are not in 100% agreement.
The Byzantine Text supports RABDOUS in Mt. and Lk, and RABDON in Mk (which yields a non-problematic text, since in Mark, Jesus grants permission to take a single staff, and in Mt. and Lk, in the Byzantine Text, Jesus is prohibiting the taking of more than one staff).
And, considering that the text is Mt=plural/Mk=singular/Lk=plural in the Byzantine Text, it is obvious that your claim that “The only way you can find a plural is if you start with the KJV and translate it into Greek” is absurd.
Your claim that this reading involving “staves” is an example “where the KJV rendering is not supported by any Greek manuscript” is also absurd, inasmuch as the KJV’s English text (plural in Mt, singular in Mark, plural in Luke) matches the reading of the Byzantine Text.
Are you sure you have any idea what you are talking about?
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
James,
Thank you for your research. I will gladly admit that it appears the KJV translators would have had access to renderings with “rabdous” in the plural. I was wrong. Yet that still doesn’t show how “rabdous” over “rabdon” is that important. A rendering in the singular is not a contradiction.
How is, “Take nothing for your journey, no staff” (Luke 9:3 ESV) and “take nothing for their journey except a staff” (Mark 6:8 ESV) not a contradiction?
Blessings
John,
I’ve already explained how it is not a contradiction. If it is a contradiction, then the KJV also has a contradiction:
Acts 9:7 “And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.”
Acts 22:9 “And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.”
Dear Andrew:
Not to stray far from the initial subject, but:
The contradiction you propose between Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 does not touch inerrancy. It can be easily resolved, either by (1) granting that although Paul’s memory failed him, it was no fault of Luke to correctly report an incorrect statement, or (2) granting that Paul’s companions heard a voice, but not the distinct words being said, or (3) by proposing (a la Archer) that the phrase in 22:9 refers not to the physical act of hearing but to the act of understanding which accompanies it.
But I do not see how you have really explained how the critical text – the base-text of the ESV – does not pose a problem when Mt. 10:10, Mk. 6:8, and Lk. 9:3 are taken together. Let’s review: in Mt. 10:10, Jesus tells the apostles, “Do not acquire a bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals nor a staff.” In Mk. 6:8, “He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff – no bread, no bad, no money in their belts – but to wear sandals and not put on two tunics.” And in Lk. 9:3, Jesus said, “Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not have two tunics.”
I reckon that the alleged discrepancy between Mt. 10:10 and Mk. 6:8 can be resolved by noticing that Matthew uses a term that refers to things in addition to what the apostles already have; thus, it is not inconsistent to allow, or even prescribe, that one staff be taken, while simultaneous forbidding the acquiring of staffs. So we can set aside the reference from Matthew.
But how do you reconcile Mk. 6:8 — “take nothing for their journey except a staff” – with Lk. 9:3 – “Take nothing for your journey, no staff”???
The NET’s first proposal, which you mentioned – that Luke might mean not taking an extra staff – looks like sheer speculation, especially since Mark has AIRWSIN and Luke has AIRETE. And the NET’s second proposal seems particularly desperate, since no evidence at all is offered to support the claim, apparently pulled from the clear blue sky, that somehow saying “Do not take a staff” is a rhetorical way of saying “travel light.”
Is that the best explanation you’ve got with which to maintain the inerrancy of the critical text of Luke 9:3?
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
James,
What would it take for you to believe the critical text does not present an error here? It seems that nothing would convince you.
Whether you like my explanation or not, I’ve presented it and feel there is little value in continuing the debate about such a trivial thing–plural vs. singular.
I think I’ve made my point that I believe we should attempt to discern what the original manuscripts actually said, and that this work will never be done because we humans are fallible.
If the Greek underlying the KJV is the closest to the original, then the KJV-only camp has the biggest problem with preservation because certain verses (such as 1 John 5:7-8 or Acts 8:37) disappeared entirely from the historical record only to reappear centuries later.
The fact that the KJV does not follow one Greek manuscript or even what the Majority text reads shows the translators engaged in some kind of textual criticism even in their day. Unless God supernaturally intervened to keep them from error, why should we end our analysis of the text with the KJV?
Inspiration without preservation is a “divine waste of time.” Most agree that God gave us His perfect word…but then His word is lost? Can a God so intervene in the affairs of man to insure that His word is transmitted perfectly? Why would God do this only in the originals and then allow His word to be lost for future generations?
It is not the Greek that was used to transmit God’s truths throughout the previous 15 centuries before the King James…it was the Old Latin Bible. Greek was not the lanugage of the world; Latin was. I am not referring to the Latin Vulgate of Jerome and Roman Catholicism.
There was no Greek Bible until Erasmus collated the Greek text in 1516. The Syriac Peshitta and the Old Latin were the main Bibles in the world, not Greek. So as questions arise concering concerning the Greek of Acts 8:37 and 1 John 5:7, they are moot. God gave His word to man in Greek but the churches quickly tranlsated the word of God into Latin and Syriac (the languages of the masses and the true churches).
I believe the verses mentioned read as the King James presents them, but the proof of their veracity does not come from differing versions of the Textus Receptus but from the underlying Latin support. There are other verses that prove this point too.
Because of “Calvary” (Luke 23:33 KJV)…word no longer found in the modern versions.
Doug,
Your premise is completely unprovable. The “preserved text” cannot be traced back to an original if it disappears from one language group and reappears in another.
What is more, even the KJV translators recognized the superiority of the Greek texts.
Hi AW,
The heart of the matter is inerrancy, not the number of staves that were taken by the 12. Ascribing a contradiction to God’s Words ascibes a contradiction to Him, which is no small thing. I would hope publishing falshoods like; “The fact that the KJV does not follow one Greek manuscript or even what the Majority text reads. . . ” wouldn’t be trivial either. You’ve already been corrected once.
You have a contradiction in the Greek words under your translation. The burden of proof is on you.
It’s easy to be condescending and drop strawmen like the OP and comment #3. But maybe you should research the issue a little before posting such things. Reading some Kent Brandenburg, David Cloud, Dean Burgon, and the WCF chapter 1 section 8 would be a good start.
John,
I’ve already explained that there was no contradiction. Though there are other suggestions, all the commenters here have agreed that Jesus meant not taking an extra staff. We disagree as to whether or not the Greek must have been (or must be) plural to convey that. You see a contradiction. I do not.
Also, the KJV does vary from the Majority Text and take a minority reading (1 John 5:7-8 would be a perfect example). The TR had to be reconstructed because there was no single Greek document that existed with the Greek rendering the KJV followed. We might say it was a kind of “eclectic text.” Please explain how I’ve stated a falsehood.
While we’re recommending some good books, I would suggest the KJV Only Controversy by James White or the KJV Debate by D.A. Carson.
Andrew,
You asked, “Please explain how I’ve stated a falsehood.”
You stated, “the KJV does not follow one Greek manuscript” and again
“there was no single Greek document that existed with the Greek rendering the KJV followed.”
Barnes notes that 1 John 5: 7 is found in Codex Montfortianus and Ravianus. Go here if you want more: http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/1john5n7.html#greek
If you want to argue against minority readings then you might want to look into just how many minority readings the Critical Text contains. The CT is also called the Minority Text by the way.
If you follow the line from Westcott & Hort to Warfield to Metzger, you’ll end up with you know who?…Ehrman!
Blessings
John,
You misunderstand me. I am saying that the KJV used their own “eclectic text”. The translators had to pick and choose which rendering they thought was best. Though they generally followed the Majority Text, they differed from it at times.
AW:
So you think the preserved text had to remain in Greek and only in Greek? Why, because modern scholarship says it has to be so? There are over 5,000 extant Greek manuscripts but none were collated until Erasmus…so where was the Bible at this time (in a book)? The Greek text is constantly being updated and this is because we are finding out that the lost manuscripts contain the preserved word of God and the church has been duped for 2,000 years?
Also, the reason for the King James differing from the Majority text is when the majority does not support the preserved word of God. The King James translators used various other language translations…for what purpose? To translate the preserved word of God into English.
Reading Carson and White will only cause one to have a lesser appreciation for God’s word because these men do not believe that you can put your hands on the preserved word of God anywhere.
Go to Bibledoug.com and read “What’s Right vs James White” from the book One Book Stands Alone and see the problems that you run into when a man stands in judgment upon the word of God.
Still Because of Calvary (Luke 23:33 in a King James Bible).
Doug
Gents,
I believe we’ve come to the end of the usefulness of continued debate. It has been fun, but I believe it is high time we say our goodbyes and focus on more productive uses of our time. Cheerio!