Brothers, thank you for being loving yet firm. Thank you for standing for God's word it is so needed especially now. It is a blessing to KNOW we have God's word and we can read it, believe it, and live it. It is a comfort to God's people!
Good word, on so many people getting theology from debates and showing the foolishness of this. So many brothers seem to quote or rehash their favorite preacher or podcast theology, but do not have their own. Thank you for the research and discussion brothers.
Loving the podcast, looking forward to the next episode! I have a question about the KJV translation philosophy as it is applied in John 3:16, "ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων". My understanding is that a literal rendering of this would be "in order that all the believing", that this statement describes the set or group of all the believers, and that the type of faith described by the present participle πιστεύων is a faith that continues to believe, not a 1-2-3, repeat-after-me, point-in-time faith. The KJV translates this as "that whosoever believeth" which has resulted in thousands of sermons emphasisng the word "whosoever", preaching from this verse in the KJV the free will of man, that man by himself has the capable agency to believe or not believe. My understanding is that the standard word for "whoever" is the indefinite relative pronoun ὅστις, or the definite relative pronoun ὃς, the later especially when used with ἂν. Why do you think the KJV translators chose to translate John 3:16 in this fashion as opposed to a more literal rendering? Do you believe that their chosen English rendering has a greater semantic range than the underlying Greek which has led to many arminians, pelagians etc banging the drum of "whosoever"?
Hey bro! Thanks for the encouragement and the good question. The problem is not really with the translation but actually with people's lack of understanding of the English language. ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων can right be translated literally as "so that [with the result that] all the believing εἰς αὐτὸν into him" ; however, the KJV rendering "whosoever" is also equally as accurate. It does not mean "whosoever" as in, "anyone who might decide to chose to believe in Jesus", but rather "whosoever" as in "whoever it may be that is believing in Jesus will not perish." Let me know if that helps or you need more info!
Thank you for your show. Concerning people who attack the KJV, even when I was really just a default critical text guy, I always thought the only thing worse than a KJV-Onlyist is an Anti-KJV fanatic. I mean, come on, it's the Bible our grandparents were raised on. It's the Bible that brought English speaking existence into the world. And, let's be real, I had a harder time reading Shakespeare as a high school freshman than I do reading the KJV most days. And these people want to throw away this cultural heritage in the trash because....reasons. Really, really bad reasons.
actually, the vast majority of "KJO's" do not believe in a "re-inspiration" of the AV 1611 translation.... this is used so much today as a strawman against "KJO".... also, there are several "KJO" positions but very, very few really believe in an actual "re-inspiration"..... beyond that, as always, i love your podcasts on text and version issues... greetings from Norway :)
This is really great to know! Thank you for the information. What would you say is the defining factor of KJVO so we can be more accurate going forward?
I don't think we said that the vast majority of KJVO's believe in re-inspiration (unless we mis spoke), the point we intended to make was that such a view is actually a small aberrant view, however the most loud. Thanks for your support!
thanks, brothers.... i did not think that YOU were misrepresenting "KJVO", your podcast is a breath of fresh air on the text and version issue, seriously good work :) ... my comment was just a small note of "caution" when describing "KJO"... and, yes, i know you did not state that "the vast majority" of "KJO's" believe in "re-inspiration"... but, the "impetus" to my comment was that i have read "KJVO" literature since c. 1990 and consider myself comparatively well acquainted with the various forms of it, but admittedly there are so many forms and nuances that it is impossible to know all that there is to know.... being a norwegian living in Norway i would (naturally) not consider myself a "KJVO" person, but i have always been interested in the English version issue (but foremost the TR issue, NT Greek, TC, etc...)... so very often when listening to sermons or reading articles/books on the issue, from the other side of the question, i often notice the lack of exactness in describing "King James Onlyism", especially the point about "re-inspiration"... and when "KJO" is brought up, it's often stated that they believe that the KJV is "inspired"... and that is true, it is accurate to say that almost all "KJO's" believe it is "inspired" because they believe it is the word of God in English, for the English reader, ... many believe that the KJV is "perfect" and cannot be improved, others that it "should not" be improved upon,... but even Ruckman, notably in his earliest writings, in his contention: "correcting the Greek with the English", did not actually hold to "re-inspiration" of the AV, but rather, that when the English reader comes across a passage in which a pastor, a professor, Version or Greek text says something other than the AV1611, the reader should "correct the Greek with his English" AV text... early on in the fundamentalist-KJO debate on the KJV vs modern versions, there were ("simplistically") only two versions: the one underlying the AV1611/KJV and the one underlying the modern versions... and whenever a Greek teacher or a footnote stated: "the Greek says..." or "a better text is...", you could be certain that it was not referring to "the Greek" of the KJV... so the call was given, to "correct the Greek with the English" whenever someone or something deviated from the KJV English text... but later on there were many nuances in Ruckman's statements that led many to believe that he maintained that the KJV was "advanced revelation" compared to the underlying texts, compared to ALL texts, in the context of the English ("layman") reader... but he was in reality simply not using the "scholars' language" and the "technically" correct modes of expression, but rather the "layman's" language: trust your AV text whenever scholars correct it... even if "TR scholars" are correcting it, for the English text is perfect as it stands... and of course Ruckman believed there was some "special" work of God going on in 1604-11, etc... but "re-inspiration"? no... not even he admitted to that (even if he "sounds" very close sometimes... and often because there are nuances to consider simply because one states that "the KJV is inspired"...) ... but, back to "most" "KJO's" today: the question would be, what are the implications of such beliefs...? if the English text "cannot" be improved, would the implication of that be that the translation process was "inspired" to give us a "perfect" text...? no, almost none would say it was actually "re-inspired" in 1604-1611... but so many think this is the inevitable implication of such a belief... to say it was "God guided", "God led", "providentially guided", etc in its formation, is not the same as to say it was "re-inspired"... but, admittedly, for most people, it "sounds" as if it comes close at times... // sorry for this long comment,... concluding, i would say it is better to state that the "KJO" position "normally" is that the KJV is the "preserved" text in English, and that some say it is "perfect" or "perfectly preserved", "providentially preserved Bible in English", etc.... but we should avoid the the label of "re-inspired"... that would be more safe, i think.... :) --- h.e. Norway ---
The Bible, as a single, unified, and coherent volume, only exists in translation. The original language documents never became the "Bible" as we use the term. The "Bible" as we understand the word, must exist in translation, and thus the kjvo emphasis on the English version. To say that the KJV is not inspired would be, to them, to cause the Bible to vanish into thin air. The various printed editions of Greek and Hebrew will never be the Bible for 99.9999 percent of Christians.
Brothers, thank you for being loving yet firm. Thank you for standing for God's word it is so needed especially now. It is a blessing to KNOW we have God's word and we can read it, believe it, and live it. It is a comfort to God's people!
thanks for the show i appreciate your ministry so much
First! Really appreciate your ministry.
I'm reading bridge's book right now! So convicting, so true.
Good word, on so many people getting theology from debates and showing the foolishness of this. So many brothers seem to quote or rehash their favorite preacher or podcast theology, but do not have their own. Thank you for the research and discussion brothers.
Eugene Nida changed everything.
Loving the podcast, looking forward to the next episode! I have a question about the KJV translation philosophy as it is applied in John 3:16, "ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων". My understanding is that a literal rendering of this would be "in order that all the believing", that this statement describes the set or group of all the believers, and that the type of faith described by the present participle πιστεύων is a faith that continues to believe, not a 1-2-3, repeat-after-me, point-in-time faith.
The KJV translates this as "that whosoever believeth" which has resulted in thousands of sermons emphasisng the word "whosoever", preaching from this verse in the KJV the free will of man, that man by himself has the capable agency to believe or not believe.
My understanding is that the standard word for "whoever" is the indefinite relative pronoun ὅστις, or the definite relative pronoun ὃς, the later especially when used with ἂν.
Why do you think the KJV translators chose to translate John 3:16 in this fashion as opposed to a more literal rendering? Do you believe that their chosen English rendering has a greater semantic range than the underlying Greek which has led to many arminians, pelagians etc banging the drum of "whosoever"?
Hey bro! Thanks for the encouragement and the good question. The problem is not really with the translation but actually with people's lack of understanding of the English language. ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων can right be translated literally as "so that [with the result that] all the believing εἰς αὐτὸν into him" ; however, the KJV rendering "whosoever" is also equally as accurate. It does not mean "whosoever" as in, "anyone who might decide to chose to believe in Jesus", but rather "whosoever" as in "whoever it may be that is believing in Jesus will not perish." Let me know if that helps or you need more info!
Thank you for your show. Concerning people who attack the KJV, even when I was really just a default critical text guy, I always thought the only thing worse than a KJV-Onlyist is an Anti-KJV fanatic. I mean, come on, it's the Bible our grandparents were raised on. It's the Bible that brought English speaking existence into the world. And, let's be real, I had a harder time reading Shakespeare as a high school freshman than I do reading the KJV most days. And these people want to throw away this cultural heritage in the trash because....reasons. Really, really bad reasons.
actually, the vast majority of "KJO's" do not believe in a "re-inspiration" of the AV 1611 translation.... this is used so much today as a strawman against "KJO".... also, there are several "KJO" positions but very, very few really believe in an actual "re-inspiration"..... beyond that, as always, i love your podcasts on text and version issues... greetings from Norway :)
This is really great to know! Thank you for the information. What would you say is the defining factor of KJVO so we can be more accurate going forward?
I don't think we said that the vast majority of KJVO's believe in re-inspiration (unless we mis spoke), the point we intended to make was that such a view is actually a small aberrant view, however the most loud. Thanks for your support!
thanks, brothers.... i did not think that YOU were misrepresenting "KJVO", your podcast is a breath of fresh air on the text and version issue, seriously good work :) ... my comment was just a small note of "caution" when describing "KJO"... and, yes, i know you did not state that "the vast majority" of "KJO's" believe in "re-inspiration"... but, the "impetus" to my comment was that i have read "KJVO" literature since c. 1990 and consider myself comparatively well acquainted with the various forms of it, but admittedly there are so many forms and nuances that it is impossible to know all that there is to know.... being a norwegian living in Norway i would (naturally) not consider myself a "KJVO" person, but i have always been interested in the English version issue (but foremost the TR issue, NT Greek, TC, etc...)... so very often when listening to sermons or reading articles/books on the issue, from the other side of the question, i often notice the lack of exactness in describing "King James Onlyism", especially the point about "re-inspiration"... and when "KJO" is brought up, it's often stated that they believe that the KJV is "inspired"... and that is true, it is accurate to say that almost all "KJO's" believe it is "inspired" because they believe it is the word of God in English, for the English reader, ... many believe that the KJV is "perfect" and cannot be improved, others that it "should not" be improved upon,... but even Ruckman, notably in his earliest writings, in his contention: "correcting the Greek with the English", did not actually hold to "re-inspiration" of the AV, but rather, that when the English reader comes across a passage in which a pastor, a professor, Version or Greek text says something other than the AV1611, the reader should "correct the Greek with his English" AV text... early on in the fundamentalist-KJO debate on the KJV vs modern versions, there were ("simplistically") only two versions: the one underlying the AV1611/KJV and the one underlying the modern versions... and whenever a Greek teacher or a footnote stated: "the Greek says..." or "a better text is...", you could be certain that it was not referring to "the Greek" of the KJV... so the call was given, to "correct the Greek with the English" whenever someone or something deviated from the KJV English text... but later on there were many nuances in Ruckman's statements that led many to believe that he maintained that the KJV was "advanced revelation" compared to the underlying texts, compared to ALL texts, in the context of the English ("layman") reader... but he was in reality simply not using the "scholars' language" and the "technically" correct modes of expression, but rather the "layman's" language: trust your AV text whenever scholars correct it... even if "TR scholars" are correcting it, for the English text is perfect as it stands... and of course Ruckman believed there was some "special" work of God going on in 1604-11, etc... but "re-inspiration"? no... not even he admitted to that (even if he "sounds" very close sometimes... and often because there are nuances to consider simply because one states that "the KJV is inspired"...) ... but, back to "most" "KJO's" today: the question would be, what are the implications of such beliefs...? if the English text "cannot" be improved, would the implication of that be that the translation process was "inspired" to give us a "perfect" text...? no, almost none would say it was actually "re-inspired" in 1604-1611... but so many think this is the inevitable implication of such a belief... to say it was "God guided", "God led", "providentially guided", etc in its formation, is not the same as to say it was "re-inspired"... but, admittedly, for most people, it "sounds" as if it comes close at times... // sorry for this long comment,... concluding, i would say it is better to state that the "KJO" position "normally" is that the KJV is the "preserved" text in English, and that some say it is "perfect" or "perfectly preserved", "providentially preserved Bible in English", etc.... but we should avoid the the label of "re-inspired"... that would be more safe, i think.... :) --- h.e. Norway ---
The Bible, as a single, unified, and coherent volume, only exists in translation. The original language documents never became the "Bible" as we use the term. The "Bible" as we understand the word, must exist in translation, and thus the kjvo emphasis on the English version. To say that the KJV is not inspired would be, to them, to cause the Bible to vanish into thin air. The various printed editions of Greek and Hebrew will never be the Bible for 99.9999 percent of Christians.
I am empathetic to your imposition, but some of this argumentation is extremely basic, or from authority (man's)? Am I off base?