[bibleprotector]

How is this a "woeful disgrace"?

The KJB is in English. It is perfect.

What language is "never, never.”?

Does it match the KJB?

God has not called you to Americanize or Anglicize them but to evangelize them.

True, but what language is the perfect Word of God in?

What cultural foundation is best for national evangelisation? What nations of the world at this point have been the most Christianised? What language is their doctrines presented in?

Besides, even if you COULD teach everyone English

God can make it so, and it is not just one person doing the teaching. The Great Commission said for all believers to teach nations.

give them the words of God in their language.

Has there ever been a 100% exact or perfect Bible besides the KJB? Name any good Bible and the KJB is better. Even if you had one of Paul's letters, or a whole collection of Hebrew scrolls, the KJB would be better because it has all the Canon. (This is besides the fact that the KJB is accessible to the widest amount of people, etc.)

Outside of the Gospel itself, there is no greater gift you can give to a foreign people than the word of God in their own language.

But the Gospel = the Word. Look at 1 Peter 1:23, 25. It calls it incorruptible. Now the Word of God has come forth in many languages historically. But since the Word of God has never been manifested incorrupt in one book as far as a perfect text and translation, the full meaning of the passage must be the KJB for all the world before the end. That's not to say other Bibles were wrong. And many have been saved without the KJB. But in the future, for the best results with the full truth, the very best is the KJB for all. This is where we should aim for now.

And there are a number of verses which relate to even getting the Jews to learn English, namely, Isaiah 28:11 and Zephaniah 3:9.

You are out of touch with reality

Only in this day and age of apostacy and APETHY

And yet,

It's time for Bible-believers to quit with the "friendly fire"

While these William Carey folk and supporters are not "against" the KJB, they are not fully for it if they undermine its position of dominance (by a policy or assumption that it is not for every man), or think that they stand firm when they take "consideration of the Greek and Hebrew", which is to attempt to undermine the KJB itself. Clearly, there is no perfect text in Greek or Hebrew extant today. And there is no certain translation method present today. But if we take the KJB as supersuccessionary to the Hebrew and Greek, we are saying that it came from there, but is better than it for its perfection of text (criticism) and sense, that is, the KJB is the resolved form of the Scripture, unlike the (increasingly!) uncertain state of the original languages. Running back to the Hebrew and Greek other than from the basis of the KJB being received is futile. If you use the Hebrew and Greek to support the KJB, or inquire in a believing fashion, you will see that the KJB is always right. But this has been resolved time and again, that we can advance beyond concentrating on looking back at the Hebrew and Greek, and go forward into establishing the domination of the English Bible for the world, a task which finds providential favour.

[bibleprotector]

There is no 1 word available for "theopneustos" therefore they had to improvise in order to convey the Greek word properly into English. There is right now a team of Bible-believing Missionaries in Papua, New Guinea translating the word of God into the Pidgin dialect. They do not have a word for "modest" in Pidgin. So the translators had to do the same thing as the KJV translators did in 2 Tim. 3:16 with the translating of "theopneustos". They had to use several words to convey the English word "modest" into Pidgin.

God prepared English to be the vehicle for presenting the Word of God. The same cannot be said for Pidgin.

The authority of meaning or "proper" sense is not locked into the Greek. If God could not get it out of Greek, how could anyone be saved?

The solution for the PNG people is teaching them the English word "modest", rather than foolhardy adventures in cultural equivalency... we believe in the Lamb of God, but are they to have the pig or rooster of God?

Australian Colonial Policy was successful in PNG when they laboured to bring them up to our standard. Now we have people trying to reduce things to the standards of benighted worldly hearts. If the most successful missionary activity of the twentieth century carried the idea that the best-taught natives would have an English and western Bible College-style education, what must the standard now be, but to improve on this in line with the KJB.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Greetings, Manny. Nice to chat again.

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez

I'm sure you already knew these things about me from past conversations. I state my position for the sake of others.

Yes, your position has always been stronger than what is on the web-site.

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez

If I may be a little knit-picky, I disagree with referring to Scrivener's text as a "back-translation".

I agree that it is imprecise, and modified it later. "(ie. picking and choosing sources from Beza, Stephanus and other)". The problem with calling it a back-translation is that it can imply new translation. A better phrase would be back-reconstruction and I likely will switch to that in the future, or something similar (back-compilation, reverse-source-text .. hmmm, what is best). Perhaps "source reconstruction with Beza as the primary text".

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez

.. some of these men have a sincere desire to help people by providing them the pure words of God. They are doing the best they know how to figure out what is the best way to do that.

I agree. There is an isolationist tendency among King James Bible defenders that allows our opponents to ignore the foundational base of our position.

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez

I disagree with referring to the KJV translators' choice of wording (God forbid) in this instance as Dynamic Equivalence.

From my way of thinking, a "dynamic equivalence" translation can, on occasion, be an accurate translation, more meaningful and accurate that a slavishly literal translation. However if you view DE as ipso facto a bad thing, then you need a more involved construct, as you have given. A Formal Equivalence translation can, on some occasions, be un-literal (e.g. some idioms in either the source or target language). I just allow for calling those occasions "dynamic equivalence" and you are concerned that this would represent or allow a DE translation philosophy, an understandable concern.

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez

2 Tim. 3:16 when they translated the 1 compound word "theopneustos" into 5 english words "given by inspiration of God"..

Yes, but I would not consider the result of a phrase representing a single word to have much to do with the "Dynamic Equivalence" question, since the single word has component parts of the phrase.

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez

The KJV translators were experts in the original languages on a level that today’s pseudo-scholars will never attain to.

Right, no comparison. Likely, very few today can take an unpointed Hebrew text and give a sermon in English fluently, directly out of the text. Similar with Hebrew and Greek "lexicon scholars". This stumbling limitation is the soft underbelly of today's computer-oriented scholarship. The folks (with an occasional exception) simply are not fluent masters of the languages, as were the Oxford and Cambridge and Westminster scholars of the 1600s. Publish or perish, consult on a version, study arcane cognates, but no simple, powerful depth and clarity. No living, breathing, daily conversation, study and understanding of the languages. Replaced by looking into an Akkadian cognate and running around town to pick up a roast beef sandwich and dozens of media and puter and scholarly diversions ; of little import. I've had enough discussions with the 'experts' today to tell that their brain synapses tend to be somewhat frazzled as well, it seems more important to them to try to prove the Bible is unpure or unknown or strange than simply the pure and perfect word of God.

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez

Those who criticize the KJV translators for translating an idiom in the original languages (mA genomia) into an idiomatic expression in the receptor language (God forbid) fail to appreciate the expertise of the KJV translators for this proper methodology.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez

Keep in mind that we are dealing with EXCEPTIONS here.

Right, most verses and sections do not have these types of questions.

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez

it is an error to refer to exceptions in word for word translation as Dynamic Equivalence because the dynamic equivalence method of translating is not concerned with conveying the most literal sense of the source but rather the most "understandable" sense for the reader.

Since "dynamic equivalence" historically was a term used for a translation as a whole, I'll consider only using it in that regard in the future.

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez

Bro. Avery, you obviously must have skimmed through the articles. Dr. Rex Cobb was trying to explain that both the KJV and the original languages should be used when translating into another language.

The main statement begins as follows:

1. A translation should always be based upon the right source text: For the Hebrew Scriptures, (i.e. the Old Testament) the Masoretic Text ...For the New Testament, the Received Text as edited by Dr. Scrivener in 1894

No mention of the King James Bible, the closest is point #8.

8. Translation efforts should be compared to long-established Received Text translations to verify accuracy in translations.

Which is still not a direct reference.

They also have.

11. Translators should remember that the grammar of the original languages “trumps” the grammar of the national language. This may create some “unusual phrasing” but it preserves accuracy.

This could be read as "trumping" the King James Bible grammar.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[Manny Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

The KJB is in English. It is perfect.

What language is "never, never.”?

Does it match the KJB?

You obviously totally missed the point and didn't read carefully. What this Bible translator was explaining is "never, never" is the "expression" being conveyed in all three translations: Greek - "ma genomia", English - "God forbid", and Spanish - "in ninguna manera". This is an idiomatic expression. An idiomatic expression must be translated as an idiomatic expression in the receptor language otherwise it will be an awkward rendering and not make any sense. The KJV translators translated a Greek idiom (ma genomia) into an English idiom (God forbid) which is the strongest way in English to convey the idiomatic expression of "never, never". That was the point that in your zeal you totally missed.

And yes the KJV is perfect. And so if another translation is to render this expression perfectly they must do the same thing the KJV translators did when dealing with this idiomatic expression. They must translate the idiom using the strongest expression possible in the receptor language that conveys the idiomatic expression of the source language.

True, but what language is the perfect Word of God in?

What cultural foundation is best for national evangelisation? What nations of the world at this point have been the most Christianised? What language is their doctrines presented in?

A Missionary's job is not to promote their "culteral foundation" or teach English. His job is to preach the Gospel and teach the word of God.

God can make it so, and it is not just one person doing the teaching. The Great Commission said for all believers to teach nations.

God can do anything He wants to do. But God also allows man to exercise his freewill. And if a person who is proud of his culture, race, and language refuses to be Americanized and Anglicized, the only way you are going to reach them is through their language and in their culture (in so far as that culture is not sinful or paganistic). That is how Paul operated (read 1 Cor. 9:19-23) and every other God-called Missionary that ever ministered to a foreign people.

Has there ever been a 100% exact or perfect Bible besides the KJB? Name any good Bible and the KJB is better. Even if you had one of Paul's letters, or a whole collection of Hebrew scrolls, the KJB would be better because it has all the Canon. (This is besides the fact that the KJB is accessible to the widest amount of people, etc.)

Well then this becomes a game of semantics then because you are defining "better" as "most complete". I am discussing the accuracy of words not canon. That is the issue. We're talking about TRANSLATION.

I believe that any people can have a Bible just as accurate and good as the KJB if that translation has the same basis (the Received Texts) as the KJV and every word in that translation is not in conflict with the words in the KJV. Newsflash - Jesus was not an Englishman.

But the Gospel = the Word. Look at 1 Peter 1:23, 25. It calls it incorruptible.

No, the Gospel is not the Word. The Gospel is defined in 1 Cor. 15:1-4:

1Co 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

1Co 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Now the Word of God has come forth in many languages historically. But since the Word of God has never been manifested incorrupt in one book as far as a perfect text and translation, the full meaning of the passage must be the KJB for all the world before the end. That's not to say other Bibles were wrong. And many have been saved without the KJB. But in the future, for the best results with the full truth, the very best is the KJB for all. This is where we should aim for now.

You are basing your position upon an assumption. You are assuming that between 100-1611AD there was never a complete canon of the perfect word of God in any language. But even if the Bibles that the Waldenses, Albigenses, Bogomils, Paulicians, and other Christians of old used were not as complete as the KJV, that does not prove that the KJV is the END of God's promise to preserve His words. God gave us the KJV and we can now use the KJV as the standard to produce His pure words into other language.

And there are a number of verses which relate to even getting the Jews to learn English, namely, Isaiah 28:11 and Zephaniah 3:9.

That is ridiculous to use these verses as some sort of argument against translating God's words into other languages. Isa. 28:11 is not a reference to anybody learning English. It is a reference to the Apostolic sign gift of "speaking in tongues" according to Paul the Apostle in 1 Cor. 14:21-22. And Zeph. 3:9 is a Millineal context that has no bearing upon Missionary work or the work of Bible translating today.

While these William Carey folk and supporters are not "against" the KJB, they are not fully for it if they undermine its position of dominance (by a policy or assumption that it is not for every man), or think that they stand firm when they take "consideration of the Greek and Hebrew", which is to attempt to undermine the KJB itself. Clearly, there is no perfect text in Greek or Hebrew extant today. And there is no certain translation method present today. But if we take the KJB as supersuccessionary to the Hebrew and Greek, we are saying that it came from there, but is better than it for its perfection of text (criticism) and sense, that is, the KJB is the resolved form of the Scripture, unlike the (increasingly!) uncertain state of the original languages. Running back to the Hebrew and Greek other than from the basis of the KJB being received is futile. If you use the Hebrew and Greek to support the KJB, or inquire in a believing fashion, you will see that the KJB is always right. But this has been resolved time and again, that we can advance beyond concentrating on looking back at the Hebrew and Greek, and go forward into establishing the domination of the English Bible for the world, a task which finds providential favour.

You are wrong on so many accounts here. First off you are totally wrong, in fact you're sowing discord amongst the brethren, by accusing these men of undermining the KJB just because you don't agree with them on a few particulars. Considering the Greek or Hebrew in the process of Bible translating is not undermining the KJB. That is stupid! God preserved for us His words in Greek, Hebrew, English, and many other languages, and there is nothing wrong if a Bible translator wants to avail himself of all the resources God has given him in order to provide a foreign people with the Word of God.

Bibleprotecter, with all due respect for your defense of the KJB, you are totally out of touch with reality. I would love to see you go to some of the backwards tribes in New Guinea, or Indonesia, or South America, and other places in this world and see you try to teach these people English so that they can read the KJB and be saved. It'll never happen. And God is not going to twist everyone's arm to learn English for you. That is why God will call someone else to minister to them instead of you because while you would be wasting your time trying to minister in English to a non-english speaking people, souls are dying and going to hell, and the most efficient way to reach these people is in their language. Ask ANY God-called Missionary that ever lived on this planet.

[Manny Rodriguez]

Bro. Avery,

As usual, we seem to be on the same page on most of this. The only responses to your statements I offer are the following:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Yes, but I would not consider the result of a phrase representing a single word to have much to do with the "Dynamic Equivalence" question, since the single word has component parts of the phrase.

I only brought that up to demonstrate that an exact word for word equivalent is not always possible. I was using that example to preface my next statement that idiomatic expressions are also an example of when a literal translation is not possible. (bearing in mind that such are exceptions and exceptions prove the rule) Nevertheless, I'll try to be more clear next time.

The main statement begins as follows:

1. A translation should always be based upon the right source text: For the Hebrew Scriptures, (i.e. the Old Testament) the Masoretic Text ...For the New Testament, the Received Text as edited by Dr. Scrivener in 1894

No mention of the King James Bible, the closest is point #8.

8. Translation efforts should be compared to long-established Received Text translations to verify accuracy in translations.

Which is still not a direct reference.

They also have.

11. Translators should remember that the grammar of the original languages “trumps” the grammar of the national language. This may create some “unusual phrasing” but it preserves accuracy.

This could be read as "trumping" the King James Bible grammar.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Dr. Cobb's whole point to the article is that those insisting that the Bible should only be translated from the KJV and those insisting that the Bible should only be translated from the Greek & Hebrew are both wrong. All resources should be considered.

Dr. Cobb's last statement was, "So, do we translate from the English or the Greek? Yes—and from the Portuguese too!"

[stephanos]

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez

Then if you are a King James Bible-believer, you are cutting your nose to spite your face. You must not realize that Scrivener's Greek Text of the TR is the most accurate edition of the TR in that it is the ONLY Greek Text that was made to mirror the KJV. Here is an official statement from the Trinitarian Bible Society concerning the Greek Text they print (read carefully and learn):

Right, I had realized this. What I was saying is that these guys are clearly TR guys by their statement. I also was commenting on my concerns about Scrivener. He was a Bible corrector, not on the level of what we have today, but a corrector none the less.

Oh and I still agree with Bibleprotector on teaching english vs translating the entire KJB into another language.

Peace and Love,
Stephen

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by stephanos

Scrivener ... was a Bible corrector, not on the level of what we have today, but a corrector none the less.

However the work we are discussing is not a "corrector" work, it is simply the accurate King James Bible NT reflection into Greek, the single-source text, if the King James Bible translators had used a single source. A scholarly work that was well done.

The problem comes when it is placed, stated or implied, as superior to the King James Bible. The author of the work is not the problem, Edward Hills or another could have conceptually produced the work, Scrivener did so, a lot of labour. And appreciated on this end.

Shalom,
Steven

[Manny Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by stephanos

Right, I had realized this. What I was saying is that these guys are clearly TR guys by their statement. I also was commenting on my concerns about Scrivener. He was a Bible corrector, not on the level of what we have today, but a corrector none the less.

Oh and I still agree with Bibleprotector on teaching english vs translating the entire KJB into another language.

Peace and Love,
Stephen

Scrivener was a Bible "corrector" in the similar sense that John Wesley and Noah Webster (author of the 1828 Websters Dictionary that Bible Believers hold so dear) were considering that they also authored their own revisions of the English Bible. These men had no disdain for the Traditional Texts or the KJV like Westcott and Hort and supporters of the Alexandrian Text crowd did/does. As the KJV was going through its purification process between 1611 and the 1800s, many of these men sincerely thought there was more work to be done. Of course, we now know that they were wrong. But I wouldn't put Scrivener in the same category as Westcott, Hort, Nestles, Nida, Aland, and others who manifested a real disdain for the KJV. Scrivener opposed Westcott and Hort and wrote extensively in disproving their translating theories, criticizing their corrupted Greek text, and uplifting the Received Texts of which the KJV was based upon.

As far as "TR guys", I think its high time that Bible-believers start realizing that there is life outside of Ruckman (no disrespect to Doc intended, my Pastor is a PBI graduate) and that not everyone who doesn't dot their I's and cross their T's like we do are the enemy. Take these men on the William Carey Bible Society for example. You may not agree with them on their interpretation of Inspiration or their emphasis on the original languages. But these men are criticized by the same Bible correctors and the anti-KJV crowd that we combat. Dr. Waite is just as despised by Bob Jones University as Dr. Ruckman is. One church, of whom I know the Pastor personally, lost his entire staff and most his members because he invited Dr. Waite to his church to teach on the Bible issue. BJU issued statements to these church members that they could no longer be affiliated with BJU if they attended this church. Here is a Pastor and church who are being persecuted for their stand on the Bible, yet some "Bible-believers" would look at that Pastor and say "His stand is not good enough" or "He's just a TR guy and not a REAL Bible-believer like I am" because of his association with Dr. Waite.

I know Dr. Waite personally. I am a member of his Dean Burgon Society. I also know the men of the William Carey Bible Society. I consider most of them as personal friends. I have preached for at least 3 of them. I have sat down with these guys and talked extensively about many issues concerning the KJV debate. And every one of these guys will not hesitate to tell you that there is not one shred of error in the KJV. Every one of these guys will tell you that the Modern Versions, even the NKJV, are corrupt, perverted, and so on. These men have a true zeal and love for God's pure words just as much as any man that was ever associated with Dr. Ruckman. These men receive just as much heat from the Alexandrian Text crowd as any man from Ruckman's crowd ever did. If you don't think so, read anything by James White, James Price, Micheal Sproul, or any other Bible apostate. These "TR guys" are on the right side of the fence. We agree on a whole lot more than we disagree with concerning the Bible issue. Yet some "Bible-believers" are so narrow-minded that they are incapable of thinking outside of the box. Forget about working together like saints of old did for the cause of Christ.

I will say this for these so-called TR guys, at least these guys do more than just sit back and complain and criticize their own. These guys are actively involved in aiding Bible translators, raising funds for worthy Foreign Bible projects, supporting Bible translators, printing the KJV and KJV equivalent foreign translations, providing Missionaries with the information they need on the situation of Foreign Bibles, writing books to defend the KJV and inform people, and actually engaging with the Alexandrian Text crowd to try to convince them of the truth. These guys are getting the job done while others are sitting on the sidelines trying to find what technicalities they disagree on so that they can make a big deal of it.

I have more respect for those that are actually trying to do something to help the pure words of God grow and multiply rather than those who just sit back and shoot their own crowd. And I'm a Bible-believer.

[stephanos]

Brother Manny,

I'm just trying to make it clear that I don't stand on the TR, but rather the AV 1611. If these guys believe the King James Holy Bible is the inerrant infallible Word of God preserved in the English Language then I could work with them. But I could not work with men who think that in order to understand the AV1611 I need to be able to read and understand the TR (whatever edition). This is the feeling I get from the website you linked to, that is that they think it is necessary to go to the Greek and their lexicons in order to get some sort of higher understanding of the Scriptures. This is an error taught by a lot of pseudo-KJBO folks that I feel strongly about. Now, that being said, I am all for standing with these men against the cult of Alexandria, and its scholars. I myself am no scholar and my understanding of the textual issues behind King James Bible Onlyism is rather simple, but my faith in the AV1611 is anything but simple. It quite literally defines me as a Christian, and a Bible Believer.

For Jesus' sake,
Stephen

[Manny Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by stephanos

Brother Manny,

I'm just trying to make it clear that I don't stand on the TR, but rather the AV 1611. If these guys believe the King James Holy Bible is the inerrant infallible Word of God preserved in the English Language then I could work with them. But I could not work with men who think that in order to understand the AV1611 I need to be able to read and understand the TR (whatever edition). This is the feeling I get from the website you linked to, that is that they think it is necessary to go to the Greek and their lexicons in order to get some sort of higher understanding of the Scriptures. This is an error taught by a lot of pseudo-KJBO folks that I feel strongly about. Now, that being said, I am all for standing with these men against the cult of Alexandria, and its scholars. I myself am no scholar and my understanding of the textual issues behind King James Bible Onlyism is rather simple, but my faith in the AV1611 is anything but simple. It quite literally defines me as a Christian, and a Bible Believer.

For Jesus' sake,
Stephen

Fair enough. I don't disagree with anything you said here.