Is the Authorised Version (AV) out of
date?
Samuel James McBride Oct 2002
1- What is meant by the Authorised Version?
KJV: 1611
2- Is the language of the AV not out of date in the modern
setting?
3- If we continue to accept the AV, isn’t it incongruous
to use "you and yours" in prayer?
4- What is meant by verbal and plenary inspiration?
5- What is wrong with the NIV
and why are some verses left out?
6-Who arranged the order of books in the Old Testament and
New Testament?
7- What do we understand by Textual Criticism?
8- Is there part of the Old Testament missing?
What about the Apocrypha?
Why is the NIV so different from the KJV?
There are two basic reasons for this.
Most of the difference is due to the way they
translated the Hebrew and Greek.
For the NIV translators, the most important thing was
to give the equivalent of the idea or thought found in the Original. They
didn’t feel tied down to the actual words. It was better, they thought, to
communicate the idea rather than the words.
This concept is called the "dynamic equivalent" theory
of translation.
Opposed to this is the "formal equivalent" theory.
This strives to be as literal as possible, consistent with being a
reasonable form of English. Tyndale was an expert at this.
The other reason why the NIV is different is common to
nearly all modern
translations. This is due to the Textual Critics
having whittled away some of the words and verses from the (mainly Greek)
text of the Original.
Textual Criticism = the scholarly examination of how
the original text was transmitted to us. It checks the ancient sources
Manuscripts
Versions in ancient languages (Latin, Syriac, Coptic
etc.)
Patristic Quotations (ancient Christian writers
quoting Scripture )
For the past 200 years most New Testament Textual
Criticism has been naturalistic. That is, the critics treated the Bible
"like any other book".
"All ancient writings should be examined in the same
way".
Objection: But the Bible
is not like any other book!
Objection: Most Textual
Critics are unbelievers.
Objection: God has promised
to preserve his Words (Ps 12)
Over 200 years of concentrated effort has resulted in
unbelieving scholars selecting a minority group of corrupt readings from
dodgy manuscripts which tend to denigrate the Person of Christ and His
Deity, and elevating these by calling them "the most reliable" or "The most
ancient authorities" and displacing the Majority Text readings from our
Bible.
What’s wrong with the NIV?
Much every way. . .
Rupert Murdoch (a Papal Knight) owns it.
Harper-Collins owns Hodder & Stoughton which bought Zondervan the Christian
company that started publishing the NIV. It is purely a commercial
enterprise.
It is an evolving work. It is not fixed or final in
any way. The Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) continually convenes to
change it periodically. This of course means that (like Microsoft software,
you continually need the latest upgrade)
It has now embraced the feminist "gender-equality"
agenda. The latest NIV is an "inclusive language" version. It states: "it
was recognized that it was often appropriate to mute the patriarchalism of
the culture of the biblical writers through gender-inclusive language when
this could be done without compromising the message of the Spirit". [
Completely impossible ! !]
Try these examples:
Matthew 23.32: "Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your
ancestors [fathers]!"
Acts 19.38: "If, then, Demetrius and his associates [the
craftsmen] have a grievance against anybody [any man],..."
"Brethren" disappears --- replaced by "brothers and
sisters".
Philippians 3.1: "Finally, my brothers and sisters
[brethren], rejoice in the Lord!"
"Man" as a generic word must go. It upsets the feminists.
And so we get. . .
Psalm 8.4-6: "...what are mere mortals [is man] that you
are mindful of them [him], human beings [the son of man] that you care for them
[him]? You made them [him] a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned
them [him] with glory and honour.
James 2.20: "You foolish person [O vain man], do you want
evidence that faith without deeds is useless?"
But "kings" remains unchanged. We will be brought before
kings (Matthew 10.18) Not "kings and queens" ! ! (wonder why no change here ?)
The following are points C & D of the NIV CBT’s declared
policy on Gender Inclusive Translating.
"C. Authors of Biblical books, even while writing
Scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit, unconsciously reflected in many ways, the
particular cultures in which they wrote. Hence in the manner in which they
articulate the Word of God, they sometimes offend modern sensibilities. At such
times, translators can and may use non-offending renderings so as not to hinder
the message of the Spirit.
D. The patriarchalism (like other social patterns) of the
ancient cultures in which the Biblical books were composed is pervasively
reflected in forms of expression that appear, in the modern context, to deny the
common human dignity of all hearers and readers. For these forms, alternative
modes of expression can and may be used, though care must be taken not to
distort the intent of the original text."
Note the slippery imputation of nasty cultural baggage against the Biblical
writers. Bible language reflects Patriarchalism. This upsets modern females, who
"feel left out". We are obliged to mess with God’s Word to make them feel valued
and "included". Well, if you start on that path, where will it all end? Take the
Willow Creek church in USA, a leading force in pushing Gender Equality. Their
policy states "when the Bible is interpreted comprehensively, it teaches the
full equality of men and women in status, giftedness, and opportunity for
ministry," despite "a few scriptural texts [that] appear to restrict the
full ministry freedom of women."
On Gender Neutrality, here’s a quote from a 100% secular
writer. Emily Nussbaum, in her article "The His and Hers Bible" which appeared
in the "New York Times Magazine" on Sunday, February 10, 2002:
"Like any Brown semiotics major, conservative Christians know that symbols
matter; they affect the way we view the world. A gender-neutral Bible is one
step closer to a gender-neutral society. And while liberals and feminists might
support such a goal, they should still join in the fight against degendering the
Good Book. For copy-editing the contradictions out of the Bible is not the same
thing as resolving them -- it merely papers over the problem, literally. * * *
To translate the Bible this way is understandably tempting, but it's also a lie.
. . .A truly gender-neutral interpretation of the Bible would quickly begin to
fall apart at the seams -- laws about rape or slavery rising up like invisible
ink from ancient parchment. One solution, of course, is to reject the Bible
entirely. Another is to regard it merely as a parable whose historical
foundation can be ignored. But for anyone who wants to take religion seriously,
neither solution truly suits. Instead, it seems necessary to confront the
contradictions in the text -- to keep the pronouns as they are and wrestle
instead with the messy truth, like, well, manly Jacob with his angel. It's a
more difficult task, but it's the only honest way out."
Note how candid she is. Of course she’s wrong to suppose
that there are any contradictions in the Bible. . . at least not in the Hebrew,
Greek or KJV !
The order of books in the Hebrew Old Testament:
A- Genesis/ Exodus/ Leviticus/ Numbers/ Deuteronomy =
The Pentateuch
B- Joshuah/ 1&2 Samuel/ 1&2 Kings =
The Former Prophets
Isaiah/ Jeremiah/ Ezekiel/ Hosea/ Joel/ Amos/ Obadiah/
Jonah/ Micah/ Nahum/ Habakkuk/ Zephaniah/ Haggai/ Zachariah/ Malachi =
The Latter Prophets
C- Psalms/ Proverbs/ Job/ Song of Solomon/ Ruth/
Lamentations/ Ecclesiastes/ Esther/ Daniel/ Ezra/ Nehemiah/ 1&2 Chronicles.
= Hagiographa
This order is the same as the First Century: Proof =
Matthew 23:35 "from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zecharias the
son of Barachias whom ye slew between the temple and the altar" [i.e. all the OT
martyrs from Genesis 4 to 2 Chronicles 24 --- comprising the whole of the Hebrew
Old Testament]
Thus the Lord Jesus Christ acknowledged the same Hebrew OT
as we have today.
It was complete then, and it’s complete now.
The three main divisions(A,B,C above) of the Hebrew OT are
called "The Law the Prophets and the Psalms"Luke 24:44 [ Psalms being the first
and chief book of that third section, hence in that context "the Psalms" stands
for the whole Hagiographa]
The CANON of SCRIPTURE
(Kanwn)
, a RULE (cf. "cane")
This means the collection of books which constitutes
Scripture. Originally it referred to books that were read from the lectern in
Church - - - hence it came to refer to the Holy Scriptures.
The Apocrypha.
What is the Apocrypha?
Who wrote it?
When was it written?
Why did the Lord Jesus Christ or
Apostles never quote from it?
Why is it not in our Bible?
Why does the Church of Rome
insist that it is an essential part of Inspired Scripture?
What errors are in the Apocrypha?
ajpo>kruf
a, Greek word meaning
" hidden"
1. 1 Esdras.
2. 2 Esdras.
3. Tobit.
4. Judith.
5. The rest of the chapters of the Book of Esther, which
are found
neither in the Hebrew nor in the Chaldee.
6. The Wisdom of Solomon.
7. The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach, or
Ecclesiasticus.
8. Baruch.
9. The Song of the Three Holy Children.
10. The History of Susanna.
11. The History of the Destruction of Bel and the
Dragon.
12. The Prayer of Manasseh, King of Judah.
13. 1 Maccabees.
14. 2 Maccabees
In the Council of Trent (1546) the R.C. leaders tried to
stop the Protestant Reformation. They couldn’t stand the Reformers showing from
Scripture that justification by faith excluded human merits based on good works.
But the Apocrypha had some handy tips.
In Tobit, the angel Raphael tells Mr. Tobit that
almsgiving will help take away his sins.
Also in 2 Maccabees there is support for praying for the
dead. Very useful. So they decided they needed to upgrade the status of the
Apocrypha to full status as Holy Scripture. Hey presto, what was regarded for
1800 years as uninspired human literature, had suddenly become inspired. Just to
make sure everybody got the point, a stern Anathema is added by the Council of
Trent against anybody who doesn’t agree.
But Paul has got there first. Galatians 1 tells us the
Anathema is on the Apocrypha!
GALATIANS 1:8 But though we,
or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel
unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let
him be
accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any
man preach any other
gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be
accursed.