Confusion

[Bro Blue]

Don't jump all over me for asking this please......I'm just asking.

With the multitude of translations today, are there any that blatantly contradict each other on key issues? Isn't there a lot of confusion as a result of this? I know that God is not the author of confusion. What are new converts and baby christians to do with such a smorgasbord of bibles to choose from?

 

[wheatpenny]

I don't know of any translations that contradict each other (except the NWT which is the version produced by the Jehovah's Witnesses). They just use different words to say the same thing. 

And what I usually tell new Christians is that if they already have a Bible, just use that one for now and worry about selecting a version later.  Since they all say the same thing, it doesn't matter which version they use.

 

[FSSL]

Don't jump all over me for asking this please......I'm just asking.

With the multitude of translations today, are there any that blatantly contradict each other on key issues? Isn't there a lot of confusion as a result of this? I know that God is not the author of confusion. What are new converts and baby christians to do with such a smorgasbord of bibles to choose from?

I was asked this at my ordination. One of my teens, in the audience, was obviously tickled by the question.

I taught my teens with the NIV in a church that was KJVP. There was no confusion, other than the typical what this verse means (interpretative issues).

Confusion is brought on by those who teach that the KJV is the only legitimate translation (without biblical support).

People can understand differing interpretations. They get confused with those who teach something the Bible does not even address.

 

[SAWBONES]

..Isn't there a lot of confusion as a result of this? I know that God is not the author of confusion. What are new converts and baby christians to do with such a smorgasbord of bibles to choose from?

Many "baby Christians" initially suppose that that there must be such a thing as "one best translation of all" in their own native language.

Many of them come to realize over time that such an expectation is unreasonably simplistic, and these folks eventually learn to appreciate the virtues of studying multiple translations and using the various helps (lexicons, commentaries, etc.) available.

Others never give up the idea of "one perfect translation", though, and unfortunately at least some of these tend to remain in spiritual immaturity or superstition, such as the "one perfect English Bible translation" onlyist types.

 

[FSSL]

They will contradict the KJV, which is fine, but will say it like this:  "the best manuscripts don't include this."  I might add they have no biblical support for that either.  The KJVO gets old.  But so does stomping on the KJV all the time.

When I was 14 years old, my dad got a NIV. I read through the Gospels and got to the end of Mark. I clearly remember my thinking. "Hmm... I never heard this before. Well... it makes sense to me." Then I moved on.

The idea of "God is not the Author of confusion" is in the context of the church where one speaks and another speaks on top of the other. The problem was that the church was not orderly. Certainly, everyone has their own little wrinkle about which Bible they prefer. That is not the kind of confusion (if it even is), that was being addressed by Paul. Paul was addressing "disorderliness/disturbance/rebellion"

This is just an overworked KJVO argument used without providing a context as to why Paul said "God is not the Author of confusion." It is the wrong interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:33 with a wrong application.

My point is: "Who is creating the confusion?" The one who says the KJV is our exclusive text? Or, those who believe that God's word has been translated over and over again, properly.

 

[Ransom]

I know that God is not the author of confusion.

Apparently, there is some confusion about the proper application of 1 Cor. 14:33.

Paul is talking about keeping order in church meetings. "Confusion" is the lack of "peace" (i.e. orderliness), not the lack of clarity.

What are new converts and baby christians to do with such a smorgasbord of bibles to choose from?

Give up in frustration, and never think of asking a friend for assistance. :

 

[Ransom]

jimmudcatgrant said:

I am not KJVO, FSSL, as you know, but some study bibles other than KJV bring on confusion as well.  They will contradict the KJV, which is fine, but will say it like this:  "the best manuscripts don't include this."

How is that "confusing"?  I would think that most people could probably intuit what that meant, given that they understood that for the majority of its existence, the Bible was copied by hand rather than printing press. They might not know what "the best manuscripts" are, but that's not confusion, it's just lack of knowledge.

I might add they have no biblical support for that either.

The "biblical support" is found in the manuscripts of the Bible which they say don't include the reading.

You seem to be using "biblical support" in an unusual way.  Generally speaking, it means "support to be found within the text and/or teachings of the Bible."  I might say that there is "no biblical support" for the fundy "standard" that men only have tapered haircuts and no facial hair.  I wouldn't say there was "no biblical support" for a particular fact of history, such as whether a particular passage was missing/added from this or that manuscript. You might as well say there is "no biblical support" for the Napoleonic Wars - an assertion which, while technically true, is answering the wrong question.

 

[Bro Blue]

I see your point in pulling the word confusion out of it's context in corinthians to a apply it to something else.


And as far as asking a friend for advice....what if that friend happens to be KJVO? ???

 

[FSSL]

You seem to be using "biblical support" in an unusual way.

Since the KJVOs claim that God intended for us to use the KJV exclusively, tell us where they get their support? KJVOs are intent on telling us that Psalm 12 teaches that the KJV is the purified version.

Most new Christians don't know one thing about textual criticism, that is how.  Did you when you first got saved?  Besides, when you say a ms is the best, you imply that it is closer to the original, which are not available, last I checked.  Also, why do you give the ones that attack the KJVO a pass when they say there is no scriptural authority?  Just wanted to point out there is plenty of hypocrisy on both sides, no offense.

Since we do not believe the Bible has any statement about the use of a particular version, the onus is on the KJVO who claims otherwise.

The anti-KJVO people say there is no biblical support for their belief, but they could use your argument against what I said then, right? Just saying, it cuts both ways.

No it doesn't... We never claim to have God telling us that the KJV is the only version. Since we do not make the claim, we are not compelled to make a biblical argument for the use of modern versions only.

 

[redgreen5]

No it doesn't... We never claim to have God telling us that the KJV is the only version. Since we do not make the claim, we are not compelled to make a biblical argument for the use of modern versions only.

 

Exactly.  What KJVO types (and their defenders) misunderstand is the concept of burden of proof.  There is no verse in the scriptures that says the KJV is the inspired Word of God.  Even KJVOs will admit that no such point-blank verse exists.  (Instead, their ridiculous position has to be derived and inferred by various schemes of scripture twisting.)

Since there is no such verse, then anyone making that claim has the burden of proof to demonstrate their case.  It's not the job of a skeptical audience to disprove their claims.  The KJVOs would love a system that said, "I'm right, unless you KJVO disbelievers are willing to expend time and energy to prove me wrong."  But it doesn't work that way.

Burden of proof is on the claimant, not on the audience.

 

[Winston]

Don't jump all over me for asking this please......I'm just asking.

With the multitude of translations today, are there any that blatantly contradict each other on key issues? Isn't there a lot of confusion as a result of this? I know that God is not the author of confusion. What are new converts and baby christians to do with such a smorgasbord of bibles to choose from?

No. This was dealt with a long time ago in "The King James Version Debate" by D.A. Carson, a short book that is worth its weight in silver.

No doctrines are changed from one version to another.  Now, when you get into Paraphrases like the Living Bible and NLT (Which I think is more paraphrase) there are some fuzzy sentences.

Someone said that the greatest problem in preaching is Fuzzy sentences.  I think that is true in translation as well. Although I am no expert by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Ransom]

Bro Blue asked:

And as far as asking a friend for advice....what if that friend happens to be KJVO?

Get smarter friends.

 

[Ransom]

jimmudcatgrant said:

Most new Christians don't know one thing about textual criticism, that is how.  Did you when you first got saved?

No, but you don't need exhaustive knowledge to avoid confusion. You only need sufficient knowledge. An explanation that would make sense of a footnote about "the best manuscripts" would have taken about five minutes, max.

Besides, when you say a ms is the best blah blah blah

Speaking of confusion, the remainder of this paragraph is a) not to the point; and b) apparently not addressed to me, since I have no clue what of my post you were answering.

The anti-KJVO people say there is no biblical support for their belief, but they could use your argument against what I said then, right? Just saying, it cuts both ways.

Not really. Only the KJV-only people are making theological claims, i.e. that God specially approves of the KJV in a way he does not approve of other English versions.  Since non-KJV-onlyists are not making theological claims, they don't require biblical support.

As someone else said above, it's a question of burden of proof. When the KJVers say that God approves only of the KJV, then it's up to them to show us where God says any such thing. The alternative (the non-KJV-only view) is simply the null hypothesis: that unless and until we're shown that support, we're free to believe God has never said any such thing.

 

[Bro Blue]

I take it that saying one is KJB preferred is better than KJVO? Are people going to harp on someone that says that they prefer the KJB because it was what was preached when they got saved and is satisfied with it? Are they still going to be accused of being ignorant and unwilling to broaden their horizons? If one says I'm going to hold onto my KJB and not knock the ones who use otherwise, would this be better? Being as there is no biblical proof for one to say matter of factly that X version is THE ONE?

 

[SAWBONES]

My point was that the study bibles that claim they are using the best mss (while basically downgrading the KJV) have no scriptural proof of that, scripturally speaking.

 

Most of the questions that may be asked about anything in the universe have "no Scriptural proof". We infer the mind or will of God, in a sense, via our knowledge of the trend of what the Scriptures say, in addressing most issues.
The Bible is not some sort of "life instruction book" or "guide to everything", and would certainly not be expected to speak specifically of the KJV or any other particular Bible translation!

As regards NTTC, those Bible versions translated from a "critical text" are not "basically downgrading the KJV"; their existence derives from the best current attempts to discern the earliest and most accurate form of the NT Scriptures.

There's in fact no implied reference to the KJV or TR at all in such efforts, just the recognition that the TR is a late, full, smooth, conflated text of the NT, and that as such, while typically inoffensive, it's nonetheless not the best text, if "best" means "closest to what the original authors wrote".

They only have their opinion, just as the KJVO have theirs. No one can prove anything against the originals.

To compare the weight of evidence in NTTC to any of the KJVO ideas is like comparing the Rock of Gibraltar to a piece of gravel.
And nobody has tried to "prove anything against the originals", so far as I know.

And some study notes are found in KJV bibles saying the KJV didn't use the best mss.  I am sorry, but I have a problem with that.

I'd suggest you leave preconceived concepts and cherished "pet" notions about "one perfect English Bible translation" behind, and honestly and objectively learn about Biblical manuscript history and the proper handling of Biblical manuscript evidence.

 

[Winston]

I take it that saying one is KJB preferred is better than KJVO? Are people going to harp on someone that says that they prefer the KJB because it was what was preached when they got saved and is satisfied with it? Are they still going to be accused of being ignorant and unwilling to broaden their horizons? If one says I'm going to hold onto my KJB and not knock the ones who use otherwise, would this be better? Being as there is no biblical proof for one to say matter of factly that X version is THE ONE?

I doubt anyone will harp on you.  But they may try to convince you that using a more readable and understandable translation will be beneficial to your spiritual life, that is, if you are a reasonable person, which you seem to be.

However, there are some anti-KJV people who feel it is their mission in life to fight tooth and nail against anyone who prefers the KJV, ad naseum.  Sometimes it looks like they just like arguing.  Most of them know that the King James Only crowd almost exclusively will not be convinced no matter what the proof provided.

 

[Winston]

I have seen both sides and both sides do think they are superior, yet the anti-KJV crowd does it very crafty at times.  You can't tell me that specifically referring to a KJV text (without calling it that), and then saying you used the best mss isn't a little bit arrogant.

Why must you pull out the arrogance card? There is no arrogance in understanding the sensible, logical deductions and understanding the history behind Erasmuses work. He depended on inferior mss. How is a dependence on Latin readings, to the exclusion of Greek mss, superior or even equal?

But you have to remember that according to some King James Translation advocates, Westcott and Hort were villified as demon worshipers. They must, then, have had evil motives, maybe to destroy the church of the living God. And anyone who believes in their reliance on Alexandrian or Sinatican texts is suspect.  I am not being sarcastic here. I am serious.  Dean Burgon was a hero to many of us back in the 70's.  He was a scholar. But he was not a King James only advocate. I read his Revision Revised and most of "The Last Twelve Verses of Mark."  He did not like their method, but he did not villify them.  He would not be a member of the society with his name in it, in my thinking.

So, what I am saying is that for someone who holds tenaciously to the King James, to give one inch to the "eclectic Text" advocates is tantamount to giving up the faith.  I know. I was there.  I wasn't rabid because those who led me were balanced, and it was at the beginning of the movement. But when we continued studying, and we read Westcott and Hort's Introduction to the New Testament, and then other books on textual criticism, we saw that there was no Bogey Man behind it.

 

[Winston]

Hort called the TR vile and villainous.  That sounds a little obsessed, don't you think? I mean, are we to believe that until Westcott and Hort came along, we had no word of God in English.  The anti-KJV want their cake and eat it too, not admitting the bias involved not just in the TR, but in the minority text of W and H as well.  Some of their conclusions were just as arbitrary as anything out there.

Have you read Westcott and Hort or Dean Burgon?

And I did not say that we had no word of God in English till Westcott and Hot came along. I just think that the demonising of those two men is wrong.

And I am not arrogant, at least in myheart, I attempt not to be, when it comes to textual criticism.  I recognize how vast a field and how limited is my own study and as I read the scholars, I see honest, balanced presentation, and find that the TR is not a reliable Greek Text.

 

[SAWBONES]

I have read Burgon, White, Metzger, Hill.  I have seen both sides and both sides do think they are superior, yet the anti-KJV crowd does it very crafty at times.  You can't tell me that specifically referring to a KJV text (without calling it that), and then saying you used the best mss isn't a little bit arrogant.  I won't bother to answer the rest of your post as it's your opinion just as I have mine.  Take care.  Just for the record, as you obviously think I am KJVO, I use the HCSB, ESV, NASB 95, NET, NRSV, NKJV, Geneva 1599, NLT, and recently the NIV 2011, as well as the KJV. Just playing the da with the anti-KJVO crowd.

I didn't assume you to be KJVO, but I was replying to your KJVO-type advocacy. There's simply no reason to either denigrate or deify the KJV, rather to recognize it for a time-honored and melodious English translation, based on fewer and more recent texts than we have now.

There are "anti-KJVO" folks here, definitely, but I think no anti-KJV people.

I too have read Burgon, Metzger, Hills and White.

Burgon defended the Traditional Text, but not the KJV in specific.

Hills plainly admitted that the KJV is not ideally perfect, and recognized several admitted errors in it, while still defending it over later English versions.

Metzger was a scholarly, reasonable and well-respected NT textual critic of the 20th century whose third edition of The New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration is the single best entry-level text in English on the subject of NTTC. He never vilified the KJV, he simply dealt with the NTTC evidence, which doesn't provide any support for "one Bible translation onlyism" of any flavor.

White's main offering is his book dealing with the numerous faults of KJVOism, and I've only read snatches of it, since I never needed to be disabused of KJVO notions.

I definitely tend to trust the findings and results of modern NTTC, but I make no exhorbitant claims for or against any "position" having to do with supposedly perfect translations of the Bible into other languages, nor do I venerate any particular compiled GNT text, as though exact knowledge were available about such things; I for one am exceedingly pleased to be convinced that at least 95% of the GNT text is certain, and that we have a number of very good translations of it into modern English, along with the "good ol' KJV".

I feel the whole fuss about "KJVOism" is actually pretty silly, and ultimately boring.

 

[Ransom]

jimmudcatgrant said:

No, Ransom, that is not true.  The other bibles are making theological claims as well, touting their bible over the KJV because of superior mss.

You've committed a categorical error. A theological claim is made when someone claims that the Bible teaches such-and-such; that is, theclaim has to do with the content of the Bible itself.  KJV-onlyists make theological claims all the time, whenever they appeal to particular proof-texts (e.g. Psalm 12) in order to support their theories.  They make these assertions about the KJV, and they place them in their church's doctrinal statements.

The translators of other Bibles are not making claims of theology when they say they are based on superior manuscripts. The Bible does not teach an inspired history of its transmission after it was completed. That would be an absurdity. Rather, they are making an historical claim about how the Bible has been passed down since the time of the apostles.

Just because they don't exclude the KJV doesn't mean they don't think their bible is superior.

And there's another category error. Claims of relative quality are not claims of theology.

They are just more subtle about how they put things.  Sneakingly so, sometimes. Are you really gonna say there is a distinction here?

Yes. I don't find it "sneaky" at all. It only looks so when you think your ox is being gored.