KJV Onlyism - Why?

[deMontfort]

Some of them go beyond that: Believing that the KJV was new revelation and that the Greek and Hebrew originals (including the Textus Receptus) were to be corrected by the divinely inspired KJV. That was Peter Ruckman’s position.

 

[thephilosopher6]

Yeah, they’re the most radical out of an already radical system. The bunch I encountered and interacted with were more moderate in their approach. Here’s a little something from their website:

We believe that the Bible; the sixty-six books in the Old and New Testaments, is the verbal-plenary Word of God, that it was given by inspiration of God, that it is therefore, inerrant and infallible, and that it is the sole authority in all matters of faith and practice. We believe that God preserved His Word through the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text for the Old Testament and the Traditional Received Greek Text for the New Testament. The King James Version is the only English translation used today that is translated strictly from these texts, and therefore we accept it alone as God’s preserved, verbal, plenary, inspired, inerrant, infallible Word for English speaking people. (other versions may contain much of God’s Word, but they also contain many errors and have many omissions.) Ps. 12:6-7, Ps 119:89, II Timothy 3:16-17, II Peter 1:21

http://lighthousebaptistct.org/doctrine-of-lbc.html

 

[deMontfort]

There’s several really good vids on You Tube on the subject. Some are debates where you can really see these guys in action.

 

[PeterT]

You’re thinking of the NAB. That’s the Catholic translation. The NASB is a Protestant translation through and through. Unlike the NAB, the NASB is a very formal (word for word) translation. The NAB is more a dynamic equivalency (thought for thought).

The original 1970 NAB was a very dynamic translation. But with every revision, including the latest one, the NABRE has become a more and more formal translation of the Bible (though still not to the extent of the RSV-2CE).

 

[commenter]

I once car pooled with a Baptist who relied on the KJV. That version was her starting point, or template, for everything. For instance, if a newer translation did not confirm a point of doctrine that was clearly intended by the KJV, she regarded the new translation as lacking. If the new translation supported some doctrine that the KJV did not, then she considered the new translation as flawed, for “adding doctrine” to the bible.

This illustrates one of the arguments against Sola Scriptura. If you use doctrine to choose your bible, and then use bible as the only source of doctrine, it is circular reasoning.

 

[commenter]

Does the term “formal translation” mean the same thing as “literal translation”?

 

[Vonsalza]

Does the term “formal translation” mean the same thing as “literal translation”?

Generally, yes. And it’s not always a good thing.

Translated literally, some texts yield “reveal the nakedness of”. This is an ancient Jewish idiom for “engage in coitus”. Without that particular education, you’d have missed the intended meaning of the text. So some translators will yield it as such - which is sometimes called dynamic translation.

If you’re not fluent in the biblical languages and the popular turns of phrase that were used when they were written, you need a bible that uses both formal and dynamic translation, depending on the text.

---

For Catholics, I hear a lot of good things about the Ignatius Bible and the Jerusalem Bible.

 

[DaveBj]

Generally, yes. And it’s not always a good thing.

Translated literally, some texts yield “reveal the nakedness of”. This is an ancient Jewish idiom for “engage in coitus”. Without that particular education, you’d have missed the intended meaning of the text. So some translators will yield it as such - which is sometimes called dynamic translation.

If you’re not fluent in the biblical languages and the popular turns of phrase that were used when they were written, you need a bible that uses both formal and dynamic translation, depending on the text.

You bring up a good point. My own personal preference (and other people will certainly disagree), is to stick to formal / literal translation of the text itself, and to explain the unfamiliar idioms and euphemisms in footnotes.

D

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Generally, yes. And it’s not always a good thing.

Translated literally, some texts yield “reveal the nakedness of”. This is an ancient Jewish idiom for “engage in coitus”. Without that particular education, you’d have missed the intended meaning of the text. So some translators will yield it as such - which is sometimes called dynamic translation.

If you’re not fluent in the biblical languages and the popular turns of phrase that were used when they were written, you need a bible that uses both formal and dynamic translation, depending on the text.

You bring up a good point. My own personal preference (and other people will certainly disagree), is to stick to formal / literal translation of the text itself, and to explain the unfamiliar idioms and euphemisms in footnotes.

D

I forget the name of the translation, but one of my bible school buddies bought a hyper literal, word-for-word (as close as possible, anyway) translation of the bible.

It was so jarring to read that it was difficult to glean meaning from it.

It read like “He went into with unto her in prevarication of which the day ended.”

 

[DaveBj]

Yeah, you get the hard-to-read word-for-word translation in the interlinear Bibles that have to stick to the word order of the original languages.

D

 

[commenter]

DaveBj:

Vonsalza:

Generally, yes. And it’s not always a good thing.

Translated literally, some texts yield “reveal the nakedness of”. This is an ancient Jewish idiom for “engage in coitus”. Without that particular education, you’d have missed the intended meaning of the text. So some translators will yield it as such - which is sometimes called dynamic translation.

If you’re not fluent in the biblical languages and the popular turns of phrase that were used when they were written, you need a bible that uses both formal and dynamic translation, depending on the text.

You bring up a good point. My own personal preference (and other people will certainly disagree), is to stick to formal / literal translation of the text itself, and to explain the unfamiliar idioms and euphemisms in footnotes.

D

I forget the name of the translation, but one of my bible school buddies bought a hyper literal, word-for-word (as close as possible, anyway) translation of the bible.

It was so jarring to read that it was difficult to glean meaning from it.

It read like “He went into with unto her in prevarication of which the day ended.”

The original NAB bible translators went unto her in prevarication of which the day’s political correctness ended in yoke to contemporary secular trends. Behold, I would smite them if I could. Put thy trust in literal translations that may jar thine ears but not thy mind and heart. Suffer me to do mine own gleaning of alternate meanings in footnotes, as I choose.

 

[DaveBj]

The original NAB bible translators went unto her in prevarication of which the day’s political correctness ended in yoke to contemporary secular trends. Behold, I would smite them if I could. Put thy trust in literal translations that may jar thine ears but not thy mind and heart. Suffer me to do mine own gleaning of alternate meanings in footnotes, as I choose.

Well played, commenter, well played

D

 

[Vonsalza]

I totally get the point.

But the obvious counter is that every translation requires SOME dynamic interpretation just to make the darned thing understandable in your language. To make it flow in a way English flows.

Completely, 100% literal translations are often incomprehensible (and miss important idioms) and 100% dynamic translations likely bury too much important meaning.

The solution is the hardest to divine - it’s somewhere in the middle.

 

[mcq72]

Seriously?

I guess whoever made that “argument” didn’t carry the thought all the way through - couldn’t a group of people all recite out loud from, say, an NIV?

lol…so, would you like the mass liturgy to be a bit different at every church ?

 

[mcq72]

Instead of a sermon one week, my pastor had us go to a back room and watch an hour-long documentary on why the KJV is the only acceptable translation. I zoned out pretty fast,

Hi B, glad you didn’t totally zone out, you remembered two points to share…you have very strong opinions to zone out…if something bugs me i become more critically attentive.

 

[mcq72]

There was no point in being critically attentive in this case. Even if I could point out the various reasons why the video wasn’t worth two cents, nobody would listen. I wouldn’t be able to change anyone’s mind. I already know the problems with King James-Onlyism, so it’s not like there was much to learn from the video. But it could have served as a good comedy. I don’t mean to be rude towards anyone’s beliefs. I used to be a King James-Onlyist myself. It’s just that I have a very hard time taking beliefs like KJV-O, biblical literalism, and other similar beliefs seriously.

well, just got done posting elsewhere to give honor where honor due, and certainly the KJV is or at least was at one time in history, worth 2 cents.

i think it is wise to look at who is doing the translating, and discern any possible bias, intentional or not. That is one good thing coming out of this onlyism, one thing they condone, even to be applied to themselves

 

[jtavington]

I grew up with the KJV. As an English major, I love it. Ask me to quote any remotely well known Bible passage, and I’ll give you the KJV. But I use the NASB and RSV for my own use because they’re Catholic and easier to read.

 

[deMontfort]

I grew up with the KJV. As an English major, I love it. Ask me to quote any remotely well known Bible passage, and I’ll give you the KJV. But I use the NASB and RSV for my own use because they’re Catholic and easier to read.

You mean the NAB…NASB is a Protestant Bible.

 

[deMontfort]

Oh, I certainly do love the KJV. I grew up reading it and I admire its poetic language and the ancient sense that one gets when reading it. I don’t think it’s the best translation, but it is a beautiful one. I’m not against the KJV as long as it includes the deuterocanonical books, I’m only against the claim that the KJV is the only acceptable Bible translation.

That’s a good attitude to have. I’m a firm believer in using a number of translations as the nuances between passages can help gain a fuller understanding.

I have a small number of hard copies, but I have around 9 different translations in my Verbum program.

 

[deMontfort]

Funny thing, over on my old eSword program I actually have a legit 1611 King James. The KJV that is seen 99% of time today is the 1769 Blaney revision.