KJV Onlyists often spins out memes and various short posters to spread their disinformation, conspiracy theories, half truths and lies in the internet more particularly in social media and being an active internet user I often come across them.
The particular text in dispute here is 2 Timothy 2:15 wherein it is alleged that the NIV “Fails to teach how to get God’s approval” The guy who posted the meme then made a side comment that Modern translations “ . . .. made a change only for the sake of changing things to get their copyrights, make money, and to undermine the Christian’s faith in an inerrant Bible.” Here’s the meme and below is my counter argument to the issues.
The Greek in dispute is the word “σπουδάζω spoudazō” Greek dictionaries and lexicons give their meanings as follows:
- The Key dictionary of Greek NT gives the meaning as: from 4710; to use speed, i.e. to make effort, be prompt or earnest: — do (give) diligence, be diligent (forward), endeavour, labour, study.
- Greek’s strong dictionary: to use speed, i.e. to make effort, be prompt or earnest: — do (give) diligence, be diligent (forward), endeavour, labour, study.
- NT Word Study Dictionary: spoudásō, from spoudḗ (4710), earnestness, diligence (2 Pet. 1:5). To be diligent, earnest, or eager. (I) Generally, with the inf. (2 Tim. 4:9, 21; Titus 3:12). (II) To make every effort to do one’s best, to be eager, with the inf. (Gal. 2:10; Eph. 4:3; 1 Thess. 2:17; 2 Tim. 2:15; Heb. 4:11; 2 Pet. 1:10, 15; 3:14; Sept.: Is. 21:3).
- Mounce Greek dictionary: to hurry; be bent upon, Gal. 2:10; to endeavor earnestly, strive, Eph. 4:3 → make effort; strive.
- NAS Greek dictionary: to make haste, hence to give diligence: —diligent(6), eager(2), make every effort(3).
- Newman Greek dictionary: do one’s best, spare no effort, work hard
- Thayers: (a later form for the early spoudasomai, cf. Krüger, sec. 40, under the word, vol. i, p. 190; Buttmann, 53 (46); (Winer’s Grammar, 89 (85); Veitch, under the word)); 1 aorist espoudasa; (spoudē, which see); from Sophocles and Aristophanes down; a. to hasten, make haste: followed by an infinitive (cf. speudō, 1), 2 Tim. 4:9,21; Titus 3:12 (others refer these examples to b.; but cf. Holtzmann’s Commentary on 2 Tim. 2:15). b. to exert oneself, endeavor, give difference: followed by an infinitive, Gal. 2:10; Eph. 4:3; 1 Thess. 2:17; 2 Tim. 2:15; Heb. 4:11; 2 Pet. 1:10; 3:14; followed by an accusative with an infinitive 2 Pet. 1:15.*
I can cite more dictionaries but I guess the 7 dictionaries above are more than enough to prove my point and that is that modern translations are not wrong in rendering it as “Do your best” as this is one of the meanings of the word “σπουδάζω spoudazō “ is in the underlying Greek text. Further you need also to consider that such phrase taken into context of the entire verse refers to “accurately handling the word of truth” so it is totally wrong to say that the KJV is correct and modern translations are wrong. (And the OP accuse modern translations of “neglecting” the context ? tsk tsk tsk)
I could do that to the KJV, cherry pick one word and say hey look this is wrong because this means such and such while this English word is better because this means such and such without considering the entire context wherein the KJV has used such word. I wouldn’t do that, but KJV Onlyists sadly do that. I am not surprised at all that KJV Onlyists would do that, they couldn’t even see that their position is riddled with illogical consistencies having been brainwashed so much by the lies and half truths of the position.
“ . . .. made a change only for the sake of changing things to get their copyrights, make money, and to undermine the Christian’s faith in an inerrant Bible.” – Really and the English Crown didn’t make money off the KJV ? Such a hypocritical statement. Just to clarify to the readers about the so called “copyright” issue that KJV Onlyists capitalize on considering the following facts and arguments:
Argument #1: It is not true that there are changes in the words of modern translations because they just want to get a copy right. Except for the NKJV, modern translations are a fresh translation from the copies of the originals. They did not copy the KJV and just changed the words just to get a copy right. This is the fact and all translation committee that worked on modern translations labored for years just to make a new translation from the copies of the original. They never resorted to considering the KJV. Further if what you mean is that they changed the words from the copies of the original to get a copy right that does not also make logical sense as the originals and copies thereof do not have a copy right.
Argument #2 Considering the economic angle, did you not know that even if the KJV does not have a copy right and there is a reason for that. Back then (In 1611) there were no copy right laws hence it appears that it has no copyright. Further even if copy right laws say that an intellectual creation is protected from the moment of creation, the duration of a copyright only runs within the lifetime of the author plus 50 years after his death after that the work falls into the public domain. Hence it could be said that because of age, the King James is already in the public domain and anybody can just copy it without asking permission from anyone.
However the fact of the matter is that the KJV has something that protects it even stronger than a copyright. Take note “In the United Kingdom, the right to print, publish and distribute it is a Royal prerogative and the Crown licenses publishers to reproduce it under letters patent. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland the letters patent are held by the Queen’s Printer, and in Scotland by the Scottish Bible Board. The office of Queen’s Printer has been associated with the right to reproduce the Bible for centuries, the earliest known reference coming in 1577. In the 18th century all surviving interests in the monopoly were bought out by John Baskett. The Baskett rights descended through a number of printers and, in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Queen’s Printer is now Cambridge University Press, who inherited the right when they took over the firm of Eyre & Spottiswoode in 1990.” (Metzger, Bruce M.; Coogan, Michael D., eds. (1993). The Oxford Companion to the Bible. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504645-5.)
So there once again I have debunked the wrong textual criticism, translation approaches, illogical, conspiracy laden claims of KJV Onlyists.
Hi ! my name is Zigfred Diaz. Thanks for visiting my personal blog ! Never miss a post from this blog. Subscribe to my full feeds for free. Click here to subscribe to zdiaz.com by Email
You may also want to visit my other blogs. Click here to learn more about great travel ideas.
Leave a Reply