Yuku free message boards

In another thread, dcforrey wrote:

---

My own position is the same as the KJV translators. They believed that the Word of God is absolutely perfect, and yet every English translation (including their own) contained blemishes and uncertainties in the wording.
They apparently didn't see a contradiction in that position. So long as a translation adequately communicated the essentials of the Christian faith it could be considered the perfect Word of God, even though it contained those blemishes and uncertainties in translation.

www.ccel.org/bible/kjv/preface/pref1.htm

Here is some of what the KJV Translators believed:

1. They considered the Scriptures to be perfect.

In the section THE PRAISE OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES we read the following:

"The Scriptures then being acknowledged to be so full and so perfect, how can we excuse ourselves of negligence, if we do not study them, of curiosity, if we be not content with them?"

"And what marvel? The original thereof being from heaven, not from earth; the author being God, not man; the inditer, the holy spirit, not the wit of the Apostles or Prophets; the Penmen such as were sanctified from the womb, and endued with a principal portion of God's spirit; the matter, verity, piety, purity, uprightness; the form, God's word, God's testimony, God's oracles, the word of truth, the word of salvation, etc.; the effects, light of understanding, stableness of persuasion, repentance from dead works, newness of life, holiness, peace, joy in the holy Ghost; lastly, the end and reward of the study thereof, fellowship with the Saints, participation of the heavenly nature, fruition of an inheritance immortal, undefiled, and that never shall fade away: Happy is the man that delighted in the Scripture, and thrice happy that meditateth in it day and night."


2. They believed that Bibles should be revised periodically to make sure they are understood.

In the section called "A SATISFACTION TO OUR BRETHREN" they wrote:

" Now what can be more available thereto, than to deliver God's book unto God's people in a tongue which they understand?"

" How many books of profane learning have been gone over again and again, by the same translators, by others? Of one and the same book of Aristotle's Ethics, there are extant not so few as six or seven several translations. Now if this cost may be bestowed upon the gourd, which affordeth us a little shade, and which today flourisheth, but tomorrow is cut down; what may we bestow, nay what ought we not to bestow upon the Vine, the fruit whereof maketh glad the conscience of man, and the stem whereof abideth forever? And this is the word of God, which we translate."

" Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, do endeavor to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us."

"... but let us rather bless God from the ground of our heart, for working this religious care in him, to have the translations of the Bible maturely considered of and examined. For by this means it cometh to pass, that whatsoever is sound already (and all is sound for substance, in one or other of our editions, and the worst of ours far better than their authentic vulgar) the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished; also, if anything be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place."

In the section "AN ANSWER TO THE IMPUTATIONS OF OUR ADVERSARIES" they wrote:

" Yet before we end, we must answer a third cavil and objection of theirs against us, for altering and amending our Translations so oft; wherein truly they deal hardly, and strangely with us. For to whomever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to go over that which he had done, and to amend it where he saw cause?"

" But the difference that appeareth between our Translations, and our often correcting of them, is the thing that we are specially charged with; let us see therefore whether they themselves be without fault this way, (if it be to be counted a fault, to correct) and whether they be fit men to throw stones at us:"


3. They believed that even poor translations that contained "imperfections" and "blemishes" could be considered the Word of God.

In the section called "AN ANSWER TO THE IMPUTATIONS OF OUR ADVERSARIES they wrote:

" Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verum ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, etc. [Horace.] A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) [James 3:2] also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it."

" The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men do confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy of the appellation and name of the word of God."

4. They believed that there were places in the Text where the wording was uncertain, and that in those places it was wrong to be dogmatic about what the correct wording should be. In each case where they were unsure of the correct wording they chose one of the readings to become part of the text, and then put the alternate reading in the margin. However, they still believed that important doctrines were still clearly represented in the Scriptures as a whole. They believed that using a variety of translations was useful to help a person find out the "sense of the Scriptures".

They wrote a section titled "REASONS MOVING US TO SET DIVERSITY OF SENSES IN THE MARGIN, WHERE THERE IS GREAT PROBABILITY FOR EACH" (Notice that the title indicates that in some cases there is a "great probability" that either of two different wordings could be correct).

Here is the entire section:

"Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be sound in this point. For though, "whatsoever things are necessary are manifest," as S. Chrysostom saith, [S. Chrysost. in II. Thess. cap. 2.] and as S. Augustine, "In those things that are plainly set down in the Scriptures, all such matters are found that concern Faith, Hope, and Charity." [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christ. cap. 9.] Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from the loathing of them for their everywhere plainness, partly also to stir up our devotion to crave the assistance of God's spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference, and never scorn those that be not in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek in many things ourselves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve upon modesty with S. Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est debitare de occultis, quam litigare de incertis, [S. Aug li. S. de Genes. ad liter. cap. 5.] "it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain." There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother or neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts and precious stones, etc. concerning the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christian. cap. 14.] so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded. We know that Sixtus Quintus expressly forbiddeth, that any variety of readings of their vulgar edition, should be put in the margin, [Sixtus 5. praef. Bibliae.] (which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we think he hath not all of his own side his favorers, for this conceit. They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other. If they were sure that their high Priest had all laws shut up in his breast, as Paul the Second bragged, [Plat. in Paulo secundo.] and that he were as free from error by special privilege, as the Dictators of Rome were made by law inviolable, it were another matter; then his word were an Oracle, his opinion a decision. But the eyes of the world are now open, God be thanked, and have been a great while, they find that he is subject to the same affections and infirmities that others be, that his skin is penetrable, and therefore so much as he proveth, not as much as he claimeth, they grant and embrace."

It appears (to me, at least) that the translators saw a distinction between the Scriptures in a general sense and the various translations of the Scriptures, including their own. That would explain why they could call the Scriptures "perfect" while also writing that various translations could have "blemishes" and yet still be considered the Word of God. It could also be that they used the word "perfect" in reference to the truth of the Word of God, rather than to any given particular wording of that truth. In other words, if the translation adequately communicated the truth it could be considered Scripture even if it was not worded perfectly.

Where is the valid evidence that shows that the KJV is better than the 1560 Geneva Bible in every one of its renderings? The 1560 Geneva BIble could validly be considered better and more accurate than the KJV in some renderings when compared to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

Shain1611 wrote:

And all those who continue to attack the messenger and not the message.

Those who are without sin cast the first stone.

The women has ignited a fire storm that no honest anti-King James man or women has been able to stop. So what they do is the only thing that all scums bags do and that's attack the personality of that person.

Shain1611, do you practice what you preach? In at least some of your posts you seem in effect to attack personally those who disagree with your opinions, even calling them names [one example could be your use of "scum bags"]. You seem to tolerate, accept, and even agree with those who falsely claim that believers who disagree with your views and interpretations are actually "mocking and attacking the Bible." Disagreeing with the opinions and claims of a certain view is not being "anti-KJV." Valid documented evidence has been provided at this forum that shows that Gail Riplinger bears false witness against the NKJV translators in some of her incorrect accusations against the NKJV and its translators. Have you ever read Dr. James D. Price's paper entitled "The False Witness of G. A. Riplinger's Death Certificate for the New King James Version" that documents a number of false accusations? Pointing out inaccurate and incorrect claims or statements that Riplinger has made would not be attacking her personally.

In her tract attacking and misrepresenting the NKJV, Gail Riplinger claimed that the "NKJV copies Jehovah Witness Version" at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 by having the rendering "Joshua" instead of having the rendering "Jesus" as the KJV does. Part of this tract was also published in the Church Bus News (April-June, 1996, p. 26). Riplinger had earlier claimed that the "new versions use dynamic equivalencies frequently, such as translating 'Jesus' as "Joshua' in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8" (New Age Bible Versions, p. 127). Riplinger and Beebe asserted that "the NKJV even turns 'Jesus' into "Joshua' in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8" (Church Bus News, July-Sept., 2002, p. 17). Peter Ruckman claimed that Acts 7:45 "has been purposely mistranslated in the ASV and New ASV as 'Joshua'" (Problem Texts, p. 338). Were the KJV translators following a Jehovah Witnesses' reading when they stated in the margin of the 1611 concerning their reading "Jesus" at Hebrews 4:8 the following: "That is Joshua"? A mark by "Jesus" at Hebrews 4:8 in the Geneva Bible referred to this marginal note: "He speaketh of Joshua the son of Nun." Waite's Defined KJB gave the following note for "Jesus" at Hebrews 4:8: "i.e. Joshua (Heb equivalent of Jesus)" (p. 1589). At this verse in his multi-volume commentary, David Sorenson wrote: "The New Testament name Jesus is also a translation of the Old Testament name Joshua. Clearly, it is Joshua at the end of the exodus which is so referred to here" (p. 32).

Several of the early good English Bibles have this same rendering as the NKJV. At Hebrews 4:8, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's Duoglott, Great, Taverner's, and Whittingham's have "Joshua." At Acts 7:45, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, and Great Bibles have "Joshua." Were the majority of the earlier 1500's English Bibles which have "Joshua" at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 copying the 1950's Jehovah Witnesses' Version? Did the old Peshitta Syriac follow a Jehovah Witnesses' reading in these verses? The Peshitta even adds "the son of Nun" to make sure that it is clear that Joshua is referred to in Hebrews 4:8. Did John Wesley in 1754 copy a Jehovah Witnesses' reading in these verses? All the editions of Luther's German Bible published during Luther's lifetime have "Josua" (Joshua) at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8. Would Ruckman claim that Tyndale and Luther purposely mistranslated Acts 7:45? Would Ruckman claim that Tyndale's and Luther's Bible were "inferior" translations produced by critics?

The 1808 translation by Charles Thomson, signer of the Declaration of Independence and secretary of the Continental Congress, has "Joshua" at Acts 7:45 as did the 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists. The 1866 American Bible Union New Testament has "Joshua" in both these verses. The 1833 Webster's Bible has the center column note "or, Joshua" at Acts 7:45 and "That is, Joshua" at Hebrews 4:8. The 1917 Scofield Reference Bible has the center column note "Joshua" at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8. The 1657 Dutch Annotations has at Jesus at Acts 7:45 the following: "That is Joshua, the son of Nun, whereby we see that the names Joshua and Jesus are all one name." Concerning Acts 7:45 in his commentary, David Sorenson asserted: "The Jesus mentioned in verse 45 is a reference to Joshua" (p. 365).

The fact should be obvious that a 1950's Jehovah Witnesses' Version did not even exist when the old Syriac, Luther's German Bible, and several of the early English Bibles had the reading "Joshua" in these verses. It is also interesting to note that Wally Beebe's 1975 Bus Worker's Edition of the KJV has "Joshua" in the text at Acts 7:45 and that it has a note listing "Joshua" as an alternative translation at the end of Hebrews 4:8. Would Riplinger say that Beebe's Bus Worker's Bible copied from the Jehovah Witnesses? The Liberty Annotated Study Bible [KJV], the Criswell Study Bible [KJV], and the Rice Reference Bible [KJV] also have "Joshua" in the text at Acts 7:45.

The evidence is clear and overwhelming that it was wrong and false to claim that the NKJV copies the Jehovah Witnesses' Version at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8. Check these verses in my second appendix. In his commentary on the Gospel of Luke, G. Campbell Morgan observed that "Jesus is merely the Anglicising of the Greek name; and the Greek name rendered Jesus is the Greek form of a very well known and common Hebrew name, Joshua; and Joshua is really an abbreviation of the name Jehoshua" (p. 40). In his commentary on Acts, J. Vernon McGee noted about 7:45: "Jesus in this passage refers to Joshua. Joshua is the Hebrew name, and Jesus is the Greek" (p. 83). In his 1857 commentary on Acts, J. A. Alexander stated: "Jesus, the Septuagint form of Joshua, occurs also in Heb. 4:8, and in both cases creates some confusion in the minds of English readers" (p. 294). Bullinger maintained that "Jesus=Joshua, the son of Nun" at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 (Lexicon, pp. 422-423). In his commentary on Acts, H. A. Ironside wrote: "The word 'Jesus' here of course is really Joshua. It is the same name, but we somehow think of 'Jesus' as applying only to our blessed Saviour" (p. 173). Concerning this verse in the 1839 Baptist edition of the Comprehensive Commentary edited by William Jenks and Joseph Warne, this is stated: "The tabernacle was brought in by those who came with Jesus, that is, Joshua, as, for distinction-sake, and to prevent mistakes, it ought to be read, both here and Hebrews 4:8" (p. 38). The ABS's Committee on Versions commented: "Thus in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8, we find the name Jesus, which the common reader will naturally refer only to the Saviour; while in reality it is simply the Greek form for Joshua, and should properly have been so written" (Statements, p. 7). It could also be noted that the New Testament used the name "Jesus" to refer to a man also called "Justus" (Col. 4:11).

Riplinger's false claim, which seems to attempt to condemn the NKJV by associating it with a cult, is based on the ad hominem (poisoning the well) fallacy. Did Riplinger intend or desire to injure the good name and reputation of the NKJV translators by making these false, and perhaps even slanderous, or libelous statements concerning the NKJV? Does not Riplinger's claim "bear false witness" against the NKJV and its translators (Exod. 20:16, Prov. 6:19, 14:5, Rom. 13:9)?