Article: James White discussing Romans 6:17 by Will Kinney

From Textus Receptus

Revision as of 07:23, 24 September 2011 by Nick (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision (diff) | Newer revision→ (diff)

James White

This whole post and numerous comments can be seen here at the forum called Iron Sharpens Iron - http://sharpens.blogspot.com/2009/07/james-white-reviews-his-debate-with.html (The amazing thing is that towards the end of this conversation the moderators at Iron Sharpens Iron decided to delete several of Steven Avery's and my pro King James Bible comments and they removed my whole last response to James White and then shut down the thread! These "No Bible is Inspired or Infallible" sites are rigged. When they see that they are not doing very well, they just delete and shut it down.)

James White, who does not believe that ANY Bible in any language is the complete, inspired, infallible and 100% true words of God, once again tries to find fault with the King James Holy Bible.

He comments and asks:

“Will Kenney....my, it has been a while. I see you are as dogmatically wrong as you ever were! :-)

So, tell me, Will...why did the KJV mistranslate the second person plural verb at Romans 6:17? I'd be interested in how your theory of "preservation" handles the mistranslations in the KJV? Do you default back to the TR at that point? Just wondering. :-)

James White

www.aomin.org

Hi James. Thanks for the question.

I will be happy to address this alleged error you think you have found. I will answer your question. I’m wondering however if YOU will address the accusations I have been making here at this forum about you. I have stated now several times that you, James White, do not believe that ANY Bible in any language is or ever has been the complete, preserved, inspired, infallible and 100% words of God. Do you affirm or deny that this is true?

If you do believe in the preservation and infallibility of the Bible, would you then clearly and in no uncertain terms tell us exactly where we can get a copy of this “infallible, preserved and complete Bible” so we can compare it to whatever we are using now to see the differences and similarities?

Or are you going to be as “dogmatically” evasive, slippery and nebulous “as you ever were”?

Now, let’s take a closer look at the King James Bible’s translation of Romans 6:17, and how such versions as the NKJV, NIV and NASB have translated it.

The NKJV, NIV and NASB basically all agree with each other. The NKJV says: “But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered.”

The NIV has: “But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted.” And

The NASB reads: “But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed”

In contrast the King James Bible says: “But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.”

The King James Bible translation is not wrong in Romans 6:17. They were well aware of what the Greek text reads since they have a marginal note that says “Greek - whereunto ye were delivered.”

The issue is not whether or not Romans 6:17 is a striclty literal translation (NO Bible translation is always strictly literal, not even your NASB or whatever it is you are now promoting these days as your “reliable translations”).

The issue is what does the verse mean. Were the Christians at Rome “handed over to the teaching” or was the teaching given to them? Is there any REAL or significant difference in meaning between the two expressions? And which expression flows more easily and is in keeping with the doctrine found in the rest of the New Testament?

Barnes comments on Romans 6:17 in his Notes on the New Testament -

That form of doctrine. Greek, Type. The form or type of doctrine means that shape or model of instruction which was communicated. It does not differ materially from the doctrine itself, "you have obeyed that doctrine," etc. You have yielded obedience to the instructions, the rules, the tenor of the Christian revelation. The word doctrine does not refer to an abstract dogma, but means instruction, that which is taught. And the meaning of the whole expression is simply, that they had yielded a cheerful and hearty obedience to that which had been communicated to them by the teachers of the Christian religion.

What we see in the book of Romans itself is that Paul took the preaching of the cross and the teaching to the people. “So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also. I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ...” Romans 1:15-16

Romans 3:1-2 “What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. “

Notice that the oracles of God were committed unto them; not that they were committed unto the oracles of God.

Romans 10:8 “The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach.”

The clear sense of the passage is that the Christians at Rome had received the message of the gospel and believed it.

You may think you have finally discovered some “mistranslation” in God’s Book, but there are lots of other Bible translators just as qualified as you who disagree with you on this. There are lots of other Bible translations that have the same or very similar meaning as that found in the King James Bible. Here are some of them.

Webster’s 1833 - Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin; but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

The 1994 21st Century Version - “But God be thanked that though ye were the servants of sin, now ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.”

The Holy New Covenant 2004 - Rom 6:17 But thank God that, even though you were slaves of sin, you obeyed from your hearts that pattern of teaching which you were given.

Goodspeed 1923 - Rom 6:17 But, thank God! though you were once slaves of sin, you have become obedient from your hearts to the standard of teaching that you received,

Weymouth 1912 - Rom 6:17 But thanks be to God that though you were once in thraldom to Sin, you have now yielded a hearty obedience to that system of truth in which you have been instructed.

1995 Contemporary English Version - You used to be slaves of sin. But I thank God that with all your heart you obeyed the teaching you received from me.

The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ 1865 American Bible Union - Rom 6:17 But thanks be to God, that ye were servants of sin, but obeyed from the heart that form of teaching which was delivered to you;

Darby 1890 - But thanks [be] to God, that ye were bondmen of sin, but have obeyed from the heart the form of teaching into which ye were instructed.

God’s Word Translation 1995 - You were slaves to sin. But I thank God that you have become wholeheartedly obedient to the teachings which you were given.

The Spanish Reina Valera 1995 - Pero gracias a Dios que, aunque erais esclavos del pecado, habéis obedecido de corazón a aquella forma de doctrina que os transmitieron; - “you have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which they transmitted to you.”

Spanish Biblia en Lenguaje Sencillo 2000 (BLS) “Antes, ustedes eran esclavos del pecado. Pero gracias a Dios que obedecieron de todo corazón la enseñanza que se les dio. - “Thanks be to God that you obeyed with all your heart the teaching that was given to you.” Copyright © 2000 by United Bible Societies

The Spanish NIV (Nueva Version International) 1999 reads just like the KJB with - “Pero gracias a Dios que, aunque antes eran esclavos del pecado, ya se han sometido de corazón a la enseñanza que les fue transmitida.” - “You have submitted from the heart to that teaching that was given to you.”

The 1991 Italian New Diodati - “ma avete ubbidito di cuore a quell'insegnamento che vi è stato trasmesso.” -but you have obeyed of heart to that instruction that has been transmitted.”

The 1997 Italian La Parola e Vita - “avete ubbidito con tutto il cuore all'insegnamento che vi è stato dato.” = “you have obeyed with all the heart all the instruction that has been given.

1869 Noyles Translation - Rom 6:17 But thanks be to God that, though ye were the bondmen of sin, ye became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching which was delivered to you;

Worsley Version 1770 - Rom 6:17 But thanks be to God, that ye who were servants of sin, have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered to you:

The 1729 Daniel Mace translation - “but God be thanked, that you, who were the vassals of sin, have sincerely obeyed in the manner the gospel prescribed.”

The 2008 International Standard Version - “But thank God that, though you were once slaves of sin, you became obedient from your hearts to that form of teaching with which you were entrusted!”

The 2005 Faithful New Testament - “But grace [be] to God because you were slaves of sin, but you obeyed from the heart that type of teaching you were delivered.

The Easy English Bible 2006 Wycliffe Associates - Before, you were slaves to sin. But then you really obeyed the true things about Christ that people taught you. So, we should thank God because of that!

The 1995 God’s Words to the Nations online version - “You were slaves to sin. But I thank God that you have become wholeheartedly obedient to the teachings which you were given.”

The Good News Translation 1992 - “But thanks be to God! For though at one time you were slaves to sin, you have obeyed with all your heart the truths found in the teaching you received.”

The 1998 Third Millenium Bible - “But God be thanked that though ye were the servants of sin, now ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.”

The New Living Translation 1996 - “Thank God! Once you were slaves of sin, but now you have obeyed with all your heart the new teaching God has given you.”

Lamsa’s 1936 translation of the Peshitta - “But thank God that you, who were once the servants of sin, now obey from the heart that form of doctrine which has been delivered to you. “

The Complete Jewish Bible 1998 - “By God's grace, you, who were once slaves to sin, obeyed from your heart the pattern of teaching to which you were exposed;

The 1991 New Century Version - “In the past you were slaves to sin -- sin controlled you. But thank God, you fully obeyed the things that you were taught.”

The TNIV 2005 - “But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance.”

The New International Reader’s Version 1996 - “You used to be slaves of sin. But thank God that with your whole heart you obeyed the teachings you were given!”

The New Life Version 1969 - “At one time you were held by the power of sin. But now you obey with all your heart the teaching that was given to you. Thank God for this! “

The 2001 Easy to Read Version - “In the past you were slaves to sin--sin controlled you. But thank God, you fully obeyed the things that were taught to you.”

The 1968 Jerusalem Bible - “You were once slaves of sin, but thank God you submitted without reservation to the creed you were taught.”

The 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible - “Thanks be to God, though once you were slaves of sin, you sincerely obeyed that rule of teaching which was imparted to you.”

The Bible in Worldwide English 1993- “You were at one time slaves to wrong things. But I praise God that you obeyed what your teachers taught you. And you obeyed because you wanted to obey.”

So, how about it James? Do you have any Bible in any language that you believe is or ever was the complete, inspired, preserved, infallible and 100% true Holy Bible? Does it have a name? Is it in print somewhere? Or is it just a hypothetical, imaginary Bible that exists solely in your own mind?

Looking forward to your clear and unambiguous answer.

Will Kinney

James White then finally “answers” in this way. I will break his answer down into smaller parts and comment on them as we go.

James White opens with: “I see that Will Kinney has not only chosen to turn this combox into his own private blog forum, but he's brought others along with him. I wonder---is the Internet not big enough for KJV Onlyists to create their own websites, their own blogs, and ply their position there? The zealous promoters of this abuse of the venerable KJV surely behave in an...odd way.”

Hi James. Having read through your “answer” let me first point out the very obvious. You did not answer my simple and direct question to you. I asked you: “So, how about it James? Do you have any Bible in any language that you believe is or ever was the complete, inspired, preserved, infallible and 100% true Holy Bible? Does it have a name? Is it in print somewhere? Or is it just a hypothetical, imaginary Bible that exists solely in your own mind? Looking forward to your clear and unambiguous answer.”

You completely avoided it James.

Now, to address what you did say. The King James Bible issue was first brought up at this forum by one of your own fans.

The first comments mentioning the KJB were made by Fardawg who said: “I used the KJV above since it seems you prefer this, but I used the NKJV before. Not that it matters, unless your tactic is to use the KJV as some kind of magical divination tool. I like to use what seems to be the clearest translation so people won't get confused by 17th century English.”

Then another brother (whom I did not know at the time and whom I most certainly did not “bring along with me”) posted something in defense of the KJB. Then Fardawg posts: “As I said before I am not going to go back and forth on the KJV, however I would ask you what I ask all KJV onlyists I run into. Can you show me a Greek text that reads exactly like the KJV? And I don't mean the back-translated Scrivener edition. If God preserved his word in the exact words of the KJV then you should be able to tell me. I would also like to see ANY Bible that reads exactly like the KJV in every instance before 1611.”

It was only at this point that I actually came on board and began addressing some of the issues Fardawg brought up.

Yes, the King James Bible believers have their own forums, but does this mean that we are not allowed to post on forums where people are constantly criticizing the King James Bible and alleging all kinds of “errors, mistranslations, and wrong texts”? Are we not allowed to stand up and defend our beliefs in the pure words of God in the very places where it is being attacked? You yourself write an entire book which attempts to point out what you think are undeniable errors in the King James Bible (all the while not believing yourself that any Bible in any language is the preserved, pure and 100% true Bible) but then we are not allowed to confront you publically about your own beliefs about The Scriptures and address your allegations of “errors and problems with the King James Bible”?

James White continues: “Be that as it may, I had to laugh when I finally scrolled back far enough through all the cut-and-paste postings of various KJV Only diatribes that we could have read a dozen other places on the net, to find Will Kinney demonstrating, once again, the complete double standards of the KJV Only movement. While men like DA Waite and Sam Gipp RAIL against the inclusion of textual and translational notes in modern translations, what does Kinney make reference to? A KJV translational note! Wonderful! I think it's great that folks can see that the KJV translators made a choice, BUT THAT THEY KNEW THEIR CHOICE WAS NOT THE FINAL WORD. That was my whole point! Their rendering is NOT the formal translation of the text (as a later writer noted, though I am uncertain whether his particular discussion would be relevant to the state of koine studies in 1604-1611), but is, at best, somewhat interpretational. Of course, all translations are a mixture of formal and less formal renderings, just as is the KJV, but it is the KJV Only proponent (not the KJV translators) who is attempting to establish a 17th century Anglican translation as the final word. And here we have clear evidence that the constant question-begging of Mr. Kinney and those like him (Show us a perfect, inerrant Bible!) is simply hypocritical: for if he is willing to allow the KJV translators this kind of freedom to allow for TWO renderings, then what happens to his own position? Which is it, Mr. Kinney? Do you apply the same standards to modern translations you apply to the KJV? You and I both know the answer to that one.”

First of all Mr White, I find it interesting that you refuse to answer my very simple and direct question about your belief in the existence of a complete, inspired, preserved and 100% true Bible in any language, and instead began the whole dialogue with me and came back as well with statements that characterize me, my position and my comments as “dogmatically wrong as ever”, “cut and paste diatribes” and “simply hypocritical question-begging”.

Is it perhaps because you are so uncomfortable and fearful of actually admitting to the Christian public the truth about the fact that you do not believe there is or ever was such a thing as a complete, preserved, inspired and 100% true Bible in any language, that you feel you need to characterize my asking you about it as mere “question-begging”?

How do you think we should characterize your repeated attempts to dodge, avoid and escape at all costs actually coming out with a clear statement about what you REALLY believe about the existence of an infallible and complete Bible?

By the way, in my defense of the KJB’s translation of Romans 6:17 I made reference to a marginal note simply to point out that the KJB translators were not ignorant of what the Greek says, but they were guided by God (my belief) to put into THE TEXT what God wanted to be there. I and all other King James Bible believers I know of defend only the TEXT of the KJB as being the inspired and 100% true words of God. YOU, on the other hand, defend NO single text found in any Bible in any language as being the inspired and 100% true words of God.

And how do you know “THAT THEY KNEW THEIR CHOICE WAS NOT THE FINAL WORD. “ Were you there? Did you talk with them about it? Why did they know what the Greek says but instead wrote the text the way they did? It is interesting that you profess a belief in the absolute sovereignty of God “who worketh all things after the counsel of His will” and yet you cannot see God’s sovereignty in giving us “the book of the LORD” in any language or at any time in history ever.

James White closes with: “Now, I have no interest in combox wars. I do not have the time to keep up with Mr. Kinney. I have less than a week before I fly to Australia for two debates and a large amount of lecturing and teaching, and as soon as I return I have a matter of days before further debates against atheists, lectures on NT reliability, etc. But if Mr. Kinney wants to discuss such things as the KJV's acceptance of textual emendation by Beza, for example, or the list of mistranslations I provided in the King James Only Controversy, he knows I do a live webcast called The Dividing Line. Just yesterday I interviewed Dan Wallace for an hour on that program. It was very educational and edifying. The number (877-753-3341) is toll free. I will be doing two more programs before I leave for Australia, so, if he wants to air his views, there is his chance.

James White

Well, James, I’m sorry first of all that you brazenly avoided anwering my simple and direct question to you about what you REALLY believe about “The Bible”. So instead you tell us how busy you are and so won’t be able to participate in the discussion. Then you suggest I call you on your program. Yes, I know how those programs work. You are in control of the discussion; not me. You decide when to take a station break; not me. When you get too uncomfortable with my questions that you do not want to answer (just like you did here) then you tell us “Times up. Gotta go. I’ve got things to do and other people to talk to.”

Anyway, James, I thank you for your initial question. It only makes me dig deeper into God’s precious words as found only in the King James Bible and increases my faith in the Book. If at any time in the future you want to discuse or debate the Bible version issue on a public forum of your choice, I will be happy to do so. I would only hope you would then have the honesty and integrity to actually answer the simple question I still have for you - “So, how about it James? Do you have any Bible in any language that you believe is or ever was the complete, inspired, preserved, infallible and 100% true Holy Bible? Does it have a name? Is it in print somewhere? Or is it just a hypothetical, imaginary Bible that exists solely in your own mind? Looking forward to your clear and unambiguous answer.”

Will Kinney