My husband’s response to the Anonymous post:

Wow!!! The post below has gotten a lot of attention. I know that this type of comment seems almost mean spirited to a lot of people, but you do need to understand the mindset of the person who wrote this.

The KJV thing is a HUGE issue to some people. Not just a preference, but to them it is a fundamental theological truth which warrants separation from those who do not hold to it. It isn’t only that they think that the KJV is the only Bible that a person should read, but that it is the only Bible that can be called “God’s Word”. Some people even take it to the point of teaching that someone cannot be saved by the reading of any other version of the Bible. This is partly based on a horrible misinterpretation of the following verse:

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
– 1 Peter 1:23

They obviously see modern versions as the “corruptible seed”, thus no salvation possible. Many that hold this view believe that God used the KJV translators to correct the originals which were corrupted. In other words, they were inspired, thus the KJV is absolutely perfect without any error whatsoever. The problem, there is not a single verse of Scripture that would even slightly suggest that God would ever inspire a translation. How do you argue with someone who believes such a thing?

Not all KJV only advocates have this view, but I just used this as an example. Anonymous has probably been taught the KJV via the Textus Receptus position. This argument attempts to show that God has preserved His word through Bible believing Christians throughout the centuries.

The Textus Receptus position opposes textual criticism, the science of examining the variant readings in the manuscripts and applying scientific methods to determine how the original text most likely read. It opposes the use of the older manuscripts that have been discovered since the translation of the KJV. Many scholars believe that these older texts are closer to the original autographs than the line of manuscripts from which the Textus Receptus was compiled, known as the Byzantine line. These scholars believe that scribes, intentionally or unintentionally, have both deleted and added to the original writings in the process of making copies of copies of copies over hundreds of years. Evidence seems to support this due to the large number of variants within the line of manuscripts. Thus, we need to start with the older manuscripts, and utilize textual criticism to find the closest text.

Textus Receptus folk deny the need to restore the original, and say that preservation teaches that God preserved His word through the Byzantine line of texts. They believe that the older manuscripts were corrupted by Gnostics in the early years of the church, and that those manuscripts were put away to never be used again. They believe that the doctrine of preservation must mean that God preserved His word through the churches.

They often quote:

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
- Psalm 12:6, 7 (KJV)

Wow, that proves preservation!!!

No, it says nothing of preservation. Verse 6 speaks of the words of God, but verse 7 speaks of the people discussed in verse 5 and earlier. Check what the early church writers said about this verse and you will see that verse 7 is not to be interpreted to mean the words of God. A modern translation makes this clear (and so does reading the KJV in context):

The words of the Lord are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times.
You, O Lord, will keep them; you will guard us from this generation forever.
- Psalm 12:6, 7 (ESV)

The fact that this verse doesn’t teach preservation does not mean that the Bible does not teach preservation, because it is taught in other passages. What this example shows is that KJV folk will interpret scripture for their own purpose.

Just because the Bible teaches preservation, does not prove that it is preserved in any particular version. It doesn’t even prove that it is preserved in any particular text. So how do we know which line is preserved? We don’t. One group believes that God used the hand me down method, the other group believes in applying scientific methods to the manuscripts, starting with the oldest. The fact is, the Bible doesn’t say and no man can be sure of anything outside of the word of God.

The Byzantine priority does have much support among scholars. Men like Dean John Burgon of years ago, to men like Pierpont and Robinson, and Farstad and Hodges of today. These men give great arguments in favor of their position, but they cannot prove their position. And more importantly, they do not believe that the KJV is the only translation that is the word of God. They don’t even believe that the Textus Receptus is perfect. Farstad and Hodges published their own copy of the Majority Text, as well as Robinson and Pierpont. They are almost identical, but not exactly.

You see, the Textus Receptus is an eclectic text, compiled by a scholar named Erasmus. Erasmus used the manuscripts he had available to compile the TR. But Erasmus didn’t believe that his new Greek text was perfect. As a matter of fact, he went back and revised it several times. The KJV didn’t even use his final version. As a matter of fact, Erasmus left out many verses you would find in today’s KJV. Actually, the Textus Receptus wasn’t even called the Textus Receptus for many years later. The KJV translators didn’t even use the TR exclusively. Many times they used the Latin Vulgate. Many verses in the KJV agree with the Latin Vulgate. So, what I am saying is that the KJV translators knew that they were not working with a perfect Greek text.

Problems with proving a perfect Greek text is why many people today (often referred to as Ruckmanites) believe that the KJV had to be re-inspired. If you’re going to have a perfect Bible, but can’t prove that the text from which it came is perfect, what do you do? You claim that God made the new translation perfect.

The other issues involve the translations themselves. There are many translations available, most are good, and some are not. There are different techniques used to translate them. They are:

Literal: Almost every word is translated. They can be difficult to read. Examples: Young’s Literal Translation; J.P. Green’s Literal Version

Formal Equivalence: Most words are translated, but some freedom is given to make the text more readable (these are the best for serious study and reading) Examples of FE: KJV, NewKJV, ModernKJV, Easy-Reading KJV, Webster’s KJV, NASB, ESV

Dynamic Equivalence: This is a thought for thought translation. The translators are not concerned with making sure each word is translated (they interpret some of the text for you).
Example: NIV, NLT

Loose: These are merely a paraphrase (and you should stay away from them)
Examples: The Message, The Living Bible

Most modern versions use the text based on the older manuscripts, but some do not. The following versions use the Textus Receptus as their base text, just like the KJV: New KJV, Modern KJV, Easy-Reading KJV.

So you do have options for the Textus Receptus other than the KJV. Also, most modern version will list the Majority Text reading so you will know there is an alternate reading. This should cause you to study and find out why. The New KJV will also note the alternate readings (this does not make it bad, it makes you informed, and informed is a good thing).

The fact is that no translation is perfect. We have today what God wants us to have. If you believe it’s the KJV then good, go read it. But if you believe that other versions are just as correct, good. But separation based on a translation is just plain “silly”.

I could say much more, but my fingers are tired. Buy my book sometime. So in summary:

Generally, when a KJV via Textus Receptus teacher teaches, they will teach their theory as fact. They will never teach the opposing view. The opposing view is slandered and taken out of context. Those who listen to them and believe them are convinced that those who believe differently have been sold a lie of Satan. They often teach that people who use other versions are liberals. They will teach that Modern version readers have not studied for themselves. They will teach that they are in danger of leaving the church, and all sorts of crazy stuff.

Anonymous was not being mean spirited. Anonymous was just concerned for the spiritual life of Rachel. Anonymous was doing what he/she thought was right. Sometimes the way we do things are not always right. Many times what we want to say will come across wrong to the receiver. It’s okay though. Rachel and Amy are all grown up. They’ll be okay.

And I haven’t seen Rachel happier in years, and her relationship with the Father is closer than I have ever seen it. So, if she changed, rejoice with her. Our life is supposed to be one of conformity, and growth. She hasn’t left God, she has gotten closer than ever. She hasn’t gotten more worldly, she has became more like Christ.

Praise Jesus!!! Hallelujah!!! Amen!!!