The Narrow Path Ministries

I am posting an email I received today, along with my response:

Dear Steve,

The church I attend holds to the King James only translation, all other versions are considered wrong. I do not agree with this. I also disagree with their view on escatology. My concern is leading my family in the right direction. My daughter attends their christian academy where she is taught these views and at home I teach her otherwise. She is only in third grade, can this be a problem for her in the future? Or are these secondary issues that should be overlooked? Do you feel that I should look for another church that holds my same views on these issues?

Thanks!

R---




Hello R---

It is not ideal for you to have to "unteach" your daughter on a regular basis the things she is learning at church and school. The problem is that, if she believes you, she may come to disrespect the church leaders and her teachers. This might make it hard for her to learn anything from them, because she will always be wondering if they are right or not. Contrariwise, if she respects the church and her teachers' authority, she may come to have doubts about yours.

People who believe in the King James Only usually have other abnormalities in their Christian lives as well. This view only thrives among those who hold a fairly irrational, and even superstitious, view of scripture, which forgets that the Bible was originally written in Hebrew and Greek, that it was not even translated into English until about 1600 AD, many centuries after it was written and had been the standard of faith for Christians for a millennium and a half, and that there is no promise of God in scripture that guarantees that the 1611 translation would be less flawed than were those made before it, or those that would come after it. I don't mind if people believe the KJV is the best translation (I lean that direction myself). However, if they believe it is the most perfect translation that could possibly be made in the English language, they are irrational, unscriptural, and poorly informed. They exhibit a dangerous degree of pettiness, which makes them willing to major on minors and to demonize good Christians who translated (or who use) modern translations. In addition, such people are often very legalistic in their overall approach to Christianity

Differences over KJV-Onlyism and eschatology are secondary matters, which I can tolerate in others. If it were merely a matter of you fellowshipping with such people, I would not find cause for alarm in it, but since you have a family to protect, I would be concerned that you not expose them to a form of Christianity that is likely, eventually, to either turn them off to Jesus (as they have misperceived Him) or else to cause them to interpret Christianity in a way that will turn other people off to Jesus (as they misrepresent Him).

It can be hard to leave a church where you have established friendships, and especially if you are depending upon their school program for your children's education. However, I would be very concerned over the matters I have mentioned above. The King James Only movement has many of the dynamics of a cult, and I would not wish to have my young children fellowshiping primarily with those who insist upon this doctrine.

I know not every family is able to do so, but if you could possibly home-school your children during the earliest years of their education, you could guarantee that you remain the primary influence in the formation of their ideas about Christ, and you could save a lot of money over the Christian school option.

I would also recommend finding a more balanced fellowship for your family--at least while your children are growing up.

God bless you.

Greetings Steve,

I appreciated your reply to R---. I see matters pretty much the same way.

Maybe this is not a really important point, but I must admit I was a little stunned to read the following in you post:

People who believe in the King James Only usually have other abnormalities in their Christian lives as well. This view only thrives among those who hold a fairly irrational, and even superstitious, view of scripture, which forgets that the Bible was originally written in Hebrew and Greek, that it was not even translated into English until about 1600 AD.

[Underlining mine]

I actually double-checked to see whether it was indeed you who wrote it.

John Wycliffe (1320-1384) translated the entire Bible into English.

But even he wasn't the earliest. The first to translate the entire Bible into English was Alfred the Great (849-899). Parts of it had been translated into English even before Alfred's time.

The English of Alfred's time was substantially different, and a modern reader would have difficulty with it (at least I do).

Here is Alfred's translation of the Ten commandments, and the Lord's prayer:

Ara thinum fæder and thinre meder that the Drighten sealde the, that thu sy thy leng libende on eorthan.
Ne slea thu.
Ne stala thu.
Ne lige thu dearnunga.
Ne sæge thu lease gewitnesse with thinum nehstan.
Ne wilna thu thines nehstan yifes mid unrihte.
Ne wyre thu the glydene goda ohthe seolfrene.

Anyone familiar with low German may notice the resemblance. The following is Alfred's translation of the Lord's prayer:

Uren Fader dhis art in heofnas,
Sic gehalged dhin noma,
To cymedh dhin ric,
Sic dhin uuillla sue is in heofnas and in eardho,
Vren hlaf ofer uuirthe sel vs to daeg,
And forgef us scylda urna,
Sue uue forgefan sculdgun vrum,
and no inleadh vridk in costnung al gefrig vrich from ifle.

Hi Paidion,

Thanks for the correction.

I do not recognize the translations made prior to the 14th century (e.g., that of Alfred) to be in what we today would recognize as English. I know that it was technically the language that eventually evolved into modern English, but no church today is likely to opt for the "Alfred-Only" position in choosing an authoritative English Bible.

I am aware of the work of Wycliffe, in the 14th century, and of Tyndale, in the 16th. I did not include them in my reckoning of the translation of the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into English because Wycliffe did not translate from the Hebrew and Greek, but from the Latin Vulgate, and Tyndale, though working from the original languages, did not translate the whole Bible, but only the New Testament and fragments of the Old. Even the "English" of these venerable translations would be nearly impossible for modern readers to decipher.

"The Coverdale Bible" (1535) was translated from the Latin and from Luther's German translation. However, Coverdale's "The Great Bible" (1539) professed, in its extended title, to be "truly translated after the veryte of the Hebrue and Greke textes"--though it appears to have been a mere revision of John Rogers' revision of Tyndale's work.

Among the many 16th-century English translations to appear prior to the King James Version, several probably did rely mostly on the original Hebrew and Greek texts, so my statement was actually off by about a century. Instead of saying "until about 1600 AD," I should have said "until the 16th century." I do stand corrected.

In any case, translations from the original languages into something we could recognise today as intelligible English were not attempted until the 16th century. My point (though technically mistaken) is essentially unaltered by the adjustment.

People who believe in the King James Only usually have other abnormalities in their Christian lives as well.

Unfortunately, I usually find this to be true as well. It also seems to me that the unfounded notion that “God preserved his word through the KJV” becomes a part of their faith system…i.e. they believe they are defending the word of God and if the KJV is shown to be an imperfect translation then their faith itself is challenged. Which, to me, explains the hard-nosed reaction to anyone who opposes their view.

John Wycliffe (1320-1384) translated the entire Bible into English.

What many who hold the “KJV only” position are not aware of is that there were several English translations before the KJV. They include Tyndale’s NT in 1526, the Coverdale Bible (the first complete bible in 1535), Matthews Bible, The Great Bible, the Bishop’s Bible etc...

Another thing many who hold the KJV only position are not aware of is that the Geneva translation of 1560 was much more popular than the KJV early on. The Geneva (the first translation done by a group of translators as opposed to an individual) was preferred because Protestant Christians felt much more comfortable with the translation being done by the Reformers in Geneva. They had less trust in a translation being provided via the Church of England. Therefore, the KJV was poorly received in the first few years. It wasn’t until it was ordered that the KJV was to be the only translation read in the Church (Hence, the name Authorized Version) that it became popular.

I know I got off topic a little but I just wanted to through that in.

BTW…Great advice Steve…I hope he e-mails you again to let you know how things are going. It’s a very delicate situation and I pray that God will lead his family though.

Steve

anothersteve wrote:

People who believe in the King James Only usually have other abnormalities in their Christian lives as well.

Unfortunately, I usually find this to be true as well.....

John Wycliffe (1320-1384) translated the entire Bible into English.

What many who hold the “KJV only” position are not aware of is that there were several English translations before the KJV. They include Tyndale’s NT in 1526, the Coverdale Bible (the first complete bible in 1535), Matthews Bible, The Great Bible, the Bishop’s Bible etc...

While I would agree that a common thread among King James Onliers is a pull towards excessive fundamentalism, we need to be cautious of commiting the Ad Hominem fallacy. Simply affirming that trend doesn't necessarily negate the original conclusion.

Personally, I use the KJV for serious Bible Study for the following reasons:

- I believe it to be the most accurate, generally speaking
- It is the only readily available translation not subject to international trademarks and copyrights

For more information on what the KJ Onliers scruples are, I suggest the following webpage:

http://www.av1611answers.com/

I disagree with much of what is said, but it is a good place to start in order to learn some of their viewpoints and the arguments they use. I know that Bible accuracy is important, but I also realize that we can easily miss the Person Who is the Truth. Besides, I still think that "King James" and "Bible" don't really go well with each other.

Sorry Steve for getting a little off track, but I wanted to throw in my two cents.

Paidion wrote:Here is Alfred's translation of the Ten commandments, and the Lord's prayer:

Ara thinum fæder and thinre meder that the Drighten sealde the, that thu sy thy leng libende on eorthan.
Ne slea thu.
Ne stala thu.
Ne lige thu dearnunga.
Ne sæge thu lease gewitnesse with thinum nehstan.
Ne wilna thu thines nehstan yifes mid unrihte.
Ne wyre thu the glydene goda ohthe seolfrene.

Anyone familiar with low German may notice the resemblance. The following is Alfred's translation of the Lord's prayer:

Uren Fader dhis art in heofnas,
Sic gehalged dhin noma,
To cymedh dhin ric,
Sic dhin uuillla sue is in heofnas and in eardho,
Vren hlaf ofer uuirthe sel vs to daeg,
And forgef us scylda urna,
Sue uue forgefan sculdgun vrum,
and no inleadh vridk in costnung al gefrig vrich from ifle.

Thanx for the gaelic/german/english melting pot of a language translation! Wow, tis' very similar to low German, hence English being essentially a Germanic language.

I believe Paidion was citing the following wiki article on English translations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_tr ... _the_Bible

While I would agree that a common thread among King James Onliers is a pull towards excessive fundamentalism, we need to be cautious of commiting the Ad Hominem fallacy. Simply affirming that trend doesn't necessarily negate the original conclusion.

Agreed

For more information on what the KJ Onliers scruples are, I suggest the following webpage:

http://www.av1611answers.com/

Thanks for the link, but I've heard KJVonly arguments for over 20 years now from people I've known and know. Early in my walk I found a number of the arguments somewhat convincing. I've also read a fair amount in order to look into the issue for myself. I was going to give you a link to a debate/discussion between the principle translators of the NKJV, NIV, NASB and three KJVonly proponents who hold doctorates( I always like to hear the most learned people on an issue in the same room!!). Unfortunately it's not free anymore Needless to say, I thought the modern translators provided a much stronger argument.

Personally, I use the KJV for serious Bible Study for the following reasons:

- I believe it to be the most accurate, generally speaking
- It is the only readily available translation not subject to international trademarks and copyrights

It makes sence to use the KJV if you want to quote sections of scripture in a book or study for public use and not worry about copywrite infringements.
As far as serious Bible study, I don't think in terms of a particular version per se. Different versions have different things to offer. More important to me in serious study is Bible software. It helps me get a good look at the greek text for myself. If I knew ancient Greek I guess that would be even better!

God Bless
Steve

Steve wrote

The problem is that, if she believes you, she may come to disrespect the church leaders and her teachers. This might make it hard for her to learn anything from them, because she will always be wondering if they are right or not.

Steve, I've been thinking about what you wrote here. I'm assuming that you're referring to an environment where the consideration of alternative views is not encouraged. Correct?

Thanks,
Steve

I am thinking of a young girl in the third grade. If I remember being that age, and my own children being that age, correctly, kids have not developed their independant critical thinking skills very thoroughly, at that stage. They tend to trust authorities (preferably their parents).

When we send children to school or take them to church, we are implying to them that those who speak to them in those situations are reliable and safe to learn from. I think a conflict between the views of the parents, and those of the teachers can be confusing to a child.

On the other hand, I do remember, in the second grade, disagreeing with my teacher about evolution...but, in my objections, I was not referencing anything my parents had directly told me on the subject. I was contrasting what the school was telling me with what I remembered of the opening verses of Genesis.

Of course, my parents had taught me to believe the Bible. The teacher backed-down when I questioned her, so I did not come away realizing that she did not believe in the Bible. If she had told me the Bible was not true, in contrast to what my parents had taught me, I am not sure what effect it would have had.

Hi Steve,
It certainly wasn’t my purpose to “correct” you. I just thought I might be able to offer some further information of which you may not have been considered or of which you may not have even been aware. I am not certain whether or not that has been the case.
However, I would like to comment on the following statement which you made in your reply (I know this is getting off topic, but I won't do this again on this thread):

I am aware of the work of Wycliffe, in the 14th century, and of Tyndale, in the 16th. I did not include them in my reckoning of the translation of the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into English because Wycliffe did not translate from the Hebrew and Greek, but from the Latin Vulgate

My understanding is that the King James Version, and textus receptus itself had as their main sources, not the original languages, but Jerome’s Vulgate (405 A.D.)

Recently, when considering Jeremiah 3:7, I discovered that some translations render the passage in such a way that God thought or said that Israel would return to Him, but she didn’t. What God thought would happen, didn’t in fact happen. Open theists use this verse to support their thesis that the choices of people cannot be known in advance, but only predicted, and that the best of predictions do not always materialize.

Then I noticed that certain other translations render the passage in such a way that God commands the Israelites to return to Him, but they don’t.
I grouped together all the translations available to me which translated the verse as if God were commanding Israel to return to Him. I called this “Group 1.” They were:

Group 1 AV, Douay, JB2000, KJ21, NKJV, RWebster.

In Group 2, I placed those which translated it as if God were thinking or saying that Israel would return to Him, rather than commanding them to return:

Group 2 ASV, Darby, ESV, NASB, NIV, RSV, NRSV

I have not studied Hebrew, and so I thought perhaps the translators of The Jewish Study Bible would have striven for the best possible translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. If anyone has a mastery of the Hebrew language, surely it would be scholars such as this.

I would like to quote from The Jewish Study Bible, the translation (with commentary) commissioned by the Jewish Publication Society. Harry M. Orlinsky, Professor of Bible at Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute of Religion (New York) was asked to serve as editor-in-chief for the new translation, along with H.I. Ginsberg, Professor of Bible at the Jewish Theological Seminary, and Ephraim A. Spesier, Professor of Semitic and Oriental Languages at the University of Pennsylvania, as fellow editors. Associated with them were three rabbis: Mark Arzt, Bernard J. Bamberger, and Harry Freedman, representing Conservative, Reform, and Orthodox branches of Judaism.

What follows is their translation of the passage in question:

I thought: After she has done all these things, she will come back to Me. But she did not come back; and her sister, Faithless Judah, saw it. Jeremiah 3:7 The Jewish Study Bible

We see that these scholars translated the verse similarly to the Group 2 translators.

We find that there are other commonalities within each group:
All translations in Group 1, state that God will take the offender’s part from the Book of Life. For example, here is the KJ21 translation:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life and out of the Holy City, and from the things which are written in this book.

Whereas, all of the translations from Group 2, state that God will take the offender’s part from the Tree of Life. For example, here is Darby’s translation:

… if any one take from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book.

But why this difference? After all, “book” (biblos in Greek) is a very different word from “tree” (xulon in Greek). Whichever of the two that John used in Revelation may not have any great theological impact, but the fact that a group of translators used the incorrect word tells us a great deal about their translations. The fact is that all known Greek manuscripts before Erasmus read "tree of life" instead of "book of life" as in the textus receptus. Where did the reading "book of life" come from? When Erasmus, was compiling his Greek New Testament (completed in 1516), he had access to only one manuscript of Revelation, and it lacked the last six verses, so he took the Latin Vulgate and back translated from Latin to Greek. Unfortunately, the copy of the Vulgate he used read "book of life," unlike any Greek manuscript of the passage, and so Erasmus introduced a unique Greek reading into his text. Since the first and only "source" for this reading in Greek is the printed text of Erasmus, any Greek New Testament that agrees with Erasmus here must have been simply copied from his text. The fact that all textus receptus editions of Stephanus, Beza, et al. read “book of life” shows that their texts were slavish reprints of Erasmus' text and not independently compiled editions, for had they been edited independently of Erasmus, they would surely have followed the Greek manuscripts here and read "tree of life." Erasmus can be excused. He used the only text available to him --- the text of the Vulgate. Those who had the Greek texts cannot be excused, and certainly the modern translators in Group 1 cannot be excused since many Greek manuscripts of the verse are now available. It shows that these translators are slavishly following the textus receptus whose translation of the verse is based directly or indirectly on the mistake in the Latin Vulgate.

One more important observation. all of the translations from Group 1 include the Comma Johanneum, that is, the words from I John 5:7,

For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

None of the translations from Group 2 include the Comma.

The words of the Comma Johanneum are found only in eight late manuscripts which originate from the 16th century. The earliest of these manuscripts contain the words as a note added to the text. There is no evidence of this reading in any Greek manuscript before the 16th century. Erasmus didn’t include it in his Greek New Testament, and so it must have been added later. However , the Comma made its way into the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek New Testament (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church.

After his first edition appeared (1516), there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek manuscripts that included it. Then someone named "Roy" or "Froy" produced one at Oxford in 1520.

Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this manuscript sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text.

All of this is further evidence that the translations within Group 1 are not independent translations, but rather the translators slavishly copied the Greek from Textus Receptus (indirectly from the Latin Vulate) without consideration of older manuscripts.