Walter the KJO Advocate, Part 1 - 02/23/2004
hi Ben! how's that for your 1%? could this be the same 1% that will "leaven the whole lump"? With no apology i must comment: by your choice of words i sense you are an educated man, perhaps a bible college of some kind...however your opinion on John 3:36 betrays stubborn, proud intellect,(blind?) because yes, a person will obey Jesus Christ if that person belives on Him, but will also obey Him without necesserily beliving on Him, that particular verse was written especially for the still unsaved-but searching. Look at some of the Catholics (i used to be one) they are sometimes the most sincere "believers" they want to obey Our Lord and they are as good at obeying Him as you and i, except of course REALLY believing on Him, 'cause if they really believed on Him they would never bow down to idols, pray to "mary" etc. and that's disobedience, but you and i disobey Him countless times every day! do we not? so simply put disobedience equals sin, obedience than would have to be sinlessness..... (and trust me, the unsaved will think that way!) do you see what i mean?...shall i guess some of your "disobediences" ...wouldn't you rather believe? My friend do you realize what kind of damage you did with this article? you see, it is no longer about "KJO", it is a COMPROMISE, i'm sure you are familiar with Matthew 24:4 and you just did your little part, for your own sake i hope it WAS just plain pride and ignorance....
[CM NOTE: Walter inserted here a table of comparisons of differences between the KJV and NIV. This made for twenty pages when printed, so for the sake of space, it will not be included here.]
CONTENDER MINISTRIES RESPONSE:
Hi Walter. Thanks for writing to Contender Ministries. We value your comments, questions, and concerns. Even though the only supports you provide are a long exerpt from someone else's article, I will try to answer those concerns. We typically do not have the time to review long emails, and I printed out 20 pages from you, so I only did some scanning of what you sent. Let me try to address the article you sent, and then your own comments.
First, let me address your rhetorical question, "how's that for your 1%?" Well, it actually lowers that number. The article you copied delves into approximately 200 verses of contention (the actual number is less than 200, as some verses are listed more than once). Yet there are 31,102 verses in the KJV. Therefore, based on those numbers, the contentious verses amount to just over 6/10ths of 1 percent (0.643%, to be precise).
Now, let's look at why those 200 verses are different. In some cases, words, phrases, or entire verses are missing from newer translations. Why is that? It's because those words, phrases, or verses are not present in the earliest and best manuscripts in existance (that had not been discovered at the time of the KJV translation.) The KJV translators used the Textus Receptus, based on a relatively few older manuscripts (12th century). They also used the Latin Vulgate (which is why the apocrypha ended up in the 1611 edition of the KJV...it was later removed). 1 John 5:7 is a different case. Even Erasmus (who compiled the TR) knew that it was not a verse that was part of the original text, having originated in later versions of the Vulgate, and did not intend to include it in the TR. History records that he succumbed to pressure by the Roman Catholic Church to include that as a verse. Yet in the texts that Erasmus used, and the thousands of older manuscripts since discovered, that verse is simply not in there. The NIV and NASB translators did not remove that verse to undercut the evidences for the doctrine of the Trinity. Rather, they did not include that verse because they were making a more accurate translation based on the oldest and best manuscripts available. Their decision does NOT undercut the Trinity. We firmly believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, and I wrote a long response to an emailer in which I used NIV verses to provide strong support for the doctrine of the Trinity. You can check it out in our mailbag. Some of the other differences come simply from translation differences. In many spots, the KJV translators either made erroneous translation of words, or picked the most obscure possible meaning for a word, when more common meanings of those words were well known. That is why they KJV translators encouraged readers to use a variety of translations, in order to get a fuller sense of Scripture. We agree. That's why we use the KJV, the NIV, and occasionally the NASB. Do you use a variety of translations?
The article you attached organized the verses into the following categories: The Deity of Jesus Christ, The Incarnation, The Virgin Birth, The Substitutionary Atonement, The Resurrection, The Ascension, The Trinity, Justification by Faith in Jesus Christ Alone, Inerrancy of Scripture, Masculine Deity, Satan, Man, Sanctification, Prayer, The Second Coming of Jesus Christ, Sin, The Judgment, Hell, The Gospel, and Bible Prophecy (including the second coming of Christ, the apostasy, Antichrist, Mark of the Beast, etc.). If you'll look at our statement of beliefs, you'll see that we believe what you believe. I challenge you to look through the website and find any article or statement that leads you to conclude that we do not believe in the sinful nature of man; the deity of Jesus Christ, His incarnation, Virgin Birth, full and complete atonment for sin; that salvation comes only through faith in His redeeming sacrifice; the Trinity; the doctrine of sin, heaven, hell, judgement, and atonment; the nature of satan and God; and the clear doctrines of end times events, to include the rapture and tribulation. I think you'll find you and we are in agreement on the key doctrinal issues!
I must point out an outright error (as opposed to opinion or omission) in the article you sent. The article claims that the newer translations confuse Satan with Jesus, because of differences in translating Isaiah 14:12. The KJV reads, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" The NASB and NIV read, "How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning" (or "O morning star"), son of the dawn." Why did KJV use "Lucifer" and modern versions use "morning star"? The term "Lucifer" comes from Jerome's Latin Vulgate, which the KJV translators sometimes used in their own translation. Lucifer was Jerome's Latin translation for "morning star." This word was used to refer to Venus, the morning star, and was applied figuratively to the pride and fall of the king of Babylon. The fact that Jesus referred to Himself in Revelation 22:16 as the "bright and morning star" does not mean He is calling himself Lucifer. My name (Benjamin) comes from Hebrew words meaning "son of the right", "son of the right hand", or "right hand son". My name in Arabic has the same meaning. However, if you told your son he's your "right hand man" or "right hand son", that doesn't mean you're naming him Benjamin.
Once again, if you find any key doctrinal issues that are in serious dispute between the KJV and NIV, please let me know? As a student of both versions, I find no doctrines present in one that are absent in the other.
Your objection to the translation of John 3:36 is noted. You choose to accept the more obscure meaning of the same word for which the NIV and NASB translators chose the more common meaning. That's certainly your prerogative. That verse does not undermine the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith in alone in the fully atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ that is evident throughout the NIV New Testament. Oh, and Matthew 24:4 is referring to false christs that will be present in the last days. Please tell us where we have made any claim to be a christ? The fact is, we haven't. You simply made a baseless and slanderous accusation. That seems to be a common theme in the emails we receive from KJO supporters. They are usually full of anger, hatred, vitriol, and baseless accusations. I've read the fruits of the Spirit in the three versions of the Bible we have on hand, and I don't see those qualities listed anywhere. And you know what the Bible says about producing good fruit (Matthew 7:17-20). Perhaps some in the KJO crowd should stop creating an idol about a particular translation of the Bible, and start spending more time reading one, praying, and practicing the life that Christ taught us and commanded us to live. Perhaps only then will nonbelievers be able to see the image of our Savior reflected in your life and truly desire that for themselves. Remember the words of 2 Timothy 2:23-24, "But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all [men], apt to teach, patient..." (Oh, by the way, the reason "men" is bracketed in the KJV, is because it is not found in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts. Something I don't see as a huge dilemma worthy of creating needless strife within the body of Christ.) May the Lord Jesus Christ bless you and open your mind and your heart, so you may worship Him in spirit and in truth (John 4:24).
Ben and Jennifer Rast