Friday, 2 March 2007

Strictly AV...

A much debated and controversial topic indeed... So i thought i would put my two-penneth in, and let my "readers" know my beliefs on it.

Now as you know, i'm not a "bear of very many brains" and the following thoughts are one i have gleaned from studying and praying over different pieces of literature about different versions... I will put my reasons for being AV first, and then i will list the differences in texts, or lack of them in the modern versions, or some of them at least, just to prove my point. I pray that you would approach this piece with an open mind, and don't take the version you use for granted, study it and find out for yourself why you read it and what your convictions are concerning it. I hope that this makes sense, i apologise for any grammatical or spelling mistakes that may occur :)

I have been brought up using the AV, my mum came out of a wildly charasmatic church, and several churches because of their ecumenical stances, and as she came out of them she studied in-depth the modern translations and the AV (she was previously NIV). Now as i have grown up, she has explained this to me, why she changed versions etc. and encouraged me to make my own choices and decide my own convictions, which are decided upon the AV. I think to some degree, the church you belong to decides what version you will use, especially if you have been attending it since you were very little, it's just the natural course of things. it doesn't mean you stick with using that once you get older, but in my case i did and do :) My church is AV, it was set up about 12 years ago and is now a constituted part of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, Calvanistic in doctrine etc. etc., there is a link to the website on my "Escape Routes".

Deuteronomy 4:2 - "Ye shall not add unto the word which i command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which i command you."

Galatians 1:6 & 9 - "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:... As we said before, so say i now again, If any man preach and other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

I begin, the reason i hold to the Authorised Version of the Scriptures is this: i believe that it is the closest translation to the original God-inspired, infallible manuscripts, the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic Text. We are SO blessed to have God's Word in our own language, and no, i do not believe that the AV is a perfect translation, i do not believe that it is inerrant or infallible. I believe that the original texts are, but not all of us have the blessing of being able to understand Greek and Hebrew, and praise the Lord, he has provided us with a good translation of the Scriptures in our own tongue.

Where did it all go wrong then? Why don't i believe that the "modern" versions of Scripture can be trusted? As i said, although i read the AV, i don't think it's perfect, so what are my problems with the new versions of Scripture? My problem is that they were translated, either wholly or partly, using a faulty and corrupted manuscript. The corruption can be traced back to 200 A.D. when there lived one of the world's most foremost theologians whose name was Origen. He was a textual critic and is supposed to have "corrected" various portions of the original manuscript. Evidence to the contary shows us that he actually changed them to suit his own human philosophy of mystical and allegorical ideas. They consistenly undermine the deity of our Lord and cut out important verses, e.g. Act.s 8:37 and Matthew 18:11. If you look in any modern version, these 2 verses are completely omitted. Altogether there are 650 variants in the modern versions, regularly changing "Christ" to "Jesus", missing "Jesus" out altogether, and often missing WHOLE VERSES out.

The passage which struck me most was that in Luke 4:4 (concerning Christ's temptation in the wilderness), in my AV Bible it reads as follows:
"And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God." [emphasis mine]

In the NIV it reads as follows:
"Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone.' "

Where is the most important part of the quote? But by every word of God. And it's completely missing. That was one of the verses that convinced me, another was this, John 5:6 (concerning the man with the infirmity by the pool of Bethesda), in my AV Bible it reads as follows:
"And Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been now a long time in that case, he saith unto him, Wilt thou be made whole?" [emphasis mine]

In the NIV it reads as follows:
"When Jesus saw him lying there and learned that he had been in this condition for a long time, he asked him, "Do you want to get well?" [emphasis mine]

As we can see, the NIV clearly undermines the deity of Christ, undermines the fact that He is the all-knowing, all-powerful Son of God, becuase he had to LEARN that the man had been infirm for a long time.

Compare the following verses from the four Gospels with an AV and an NIV and make your own conclusion:

Matthew - 1.25, 4.18, 5.44, 8.29, 16.20, 17.21, 18.11, 19.9, 23.14
Mark - 2.17, 6.11, 7.16, 9.44, 9.46, 11.26, 15.28, 16.9-20
Luke - 2.33, 4.4 & 8, 7.22, 11.2,4 & 11, 12.31, 17.36, 22.44, 22.57, 23.17, 24.40
John - 1.18, 3.2, 5.4, 6.69, 7.53-8.11, 9.35, 16.16, 19.39

Now i am no great theologian, i'm not particularly clever, i rely on God's grace alone to help me understand His precious Word, but this is my conviction and i will stick with it until God shows me otherwise. I have shared with you my views as best as i can. I will leave you with this verse: "These [the Bereans] were more noble that those in Thessalonica, in that they received the Word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so."

Search the Scriptures, don't take my Word for it, i'm only human.

1 comment:

Josh said...

Wow! This lived up to my expectations ;). I shall digest and then contemplate a reply.