A short trip down the anti-KJVO rabbit trail

SO frustrating listening to a discussion against the KJVO position. This is a Blogtalk radio broadcast on mp3 I'm listening to, hosted by the owner of the blog Fundamentally Reformed that I've linked to in earlier posts. It's not a recent broadcast, 2007 I think, but I haven't found anything yet on his blog or related sites that disagrees with his points here. (Lost the link but if I find it I'll put it up). These are ex-fundamentalists, converts to the Reformed branch of the church, and just as they formerly completely swallowed the KJVO position they now are close to swallowing the Modern Versions propaganda equally uncritically:

Rejecting the NKJV proves one is KJVO?
They don't get it why the NKJV is not acceptable. The fact that the KJV had marginal notes convinces them that we ought to accept the NKJV because it also has marginal notes. He doesn't grasp that the objection to the NKJV notes is that they refer to the ALEXANDRIAN texts (yes, through the Nestle-Aland Critical Text for one) and they have the effect of denigrating the KJV's translational choices, and really, calling the Bible itself into doubt. I used the NKJV for years and those notes always annoyed me. Mostly they just distract from the text and I couldn't see that they offered anything of value. I found out from reading Burgon that the very similar [identical in some cases] notes in the 1881 Revised Version also misrepresent the facts, for instance referring to "other manuscripts" having such and such a different reading, which implies that it's worth taking those others into consideration, when the fact turns out to be, as reported by Burgon, that the source of the other reading is one or two texts and they are the Alexandrians which Burgon has taken pains to expose as corrupted.

He goes on to say: "So to reject the NKJV in favor of the KJV is to claim that there is something perfect about the KJV." No, it is NOT! The point is that the NKJV is NOT the pure updating of the KJV it claims to be. If it were, I for one would still be using it because for the most part I like its preservation of the "feel" of the KJV, and if a modernizing of the KJV were to be done -- under church authority by the best qualified for the job -- it could be a decent model for that effort.

But EVERYTHING that was taken into it from the Westcott-Hort legacy would have to be abandoned, everything, all the notes that refer to Nestle-Aland or other Alexandrian influenced Greek texts, every English word choice that derives from their work, and an EXTREME MINIMUM of changes, each one THOROUGHLY ACCOUNTED FOR, would have to be its guiding principle. This is because another problem with the NKJV is that it adopts many of the W-H readings in the English, which Burgon shows were not only an indefensible violation of their agreement to make the most minimal changes -- to the tune of over 36,000 changes -- but were also inferior choices for conveying the meaning of the underlying languages.

Ah, now he's quoting a marginal note from the original KJV: "This 36th verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies."

Lu 17:36 There shall be two men in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. [it's in italics in the KJV, indicating that it was added by the translators and isn't in the Greek]

This is a problem for a KJVO -- in fact I can see how it would be extremely unsettling to encounter such an admission of a difference in the texts if you've been told the KJV is absolutely perfect as is -- but it is not a problem for me because I don't expect it to be perfect. In the KJV I would expect the marginal notes to be enlightening. Not so the notes in the NKJV. Added later: A big difference is that the KJV translators wrote the marginal notes themselves, on their own work, showing alternatives to their own choices from the texts, of course supporting the superiority of their own choices in their own judgment, while the NKJV notes are alien interlopers from highly questionable sources, that have the effect of calling into doubt the work of the KJV translators who aren't around to defend their choices.

Is too much importance placed on the Biblical text?
They go on to talk about Bible inerrancy, which they both claim to share (I'm not doubting them), but in making the point that the majority of believers have not had a Bible for most of history, both B.C. and A.D., say "There is more to the Christian faith than the Bible." An unfortunate way of saying it. Putting it that way raises questions: It's not that there is "more to the Christian faith than the Bible" if what you mean is that there is more than God's revelation to His people, or God's word, because that leaves it open for claims to new revelation, which I'm sure is not the intention. God's word is also the spoken word, the preached word, it's also declared in the heavens (Psalm 19), and it's in the MEANING rather than in the specific word, at least in the translations.

Advantage in more versions?
They also think that having multiple versions is a help because it gives you the opportunity to compare how different conservative scholars chose to translate a word, which gives you more depth of understanding of the term. Sounds nice but a few comparisons of how different verses were translated in different versions, comparing all with Strong's, might show them that the claim that they are chosen for their meaning is highly questionable.

My own comparisons convinced me that most of the words chosen are all on the Strong's Concordance lists of English alternatives or synonyms for any particular Greek or Hebrew term, from which it seems they were chosen almost at random, chosen not as the best rendering of the meaning but simply to provide enough of a difference in the translation from other translations to qualify for copyright. In some cases I got the distinct impression that the LEAST LIKELY synonym was chosen from the list, as if the motivation were simply to distance the version from the KJV, make change for change's sake alone. Intentionally or not, the result is to undermine the ability of Christians to share in a standard Bible text, creating in effect a new Babel.

If this is the case, as I believe it is, the notion of increased depth of meaning is an illusion and the variety adds nothing for the believer, except a lot of unnecessary busywork that in the end detracts from the work of learning God's word in the light of the Holy Spirit. At the very least the same knowledge could be gained by consulting the Strong's synonyms for oneself, a whole Bible translation is not needed for that purpose.

Since I see it this way of course it grieves me tremendously, as I see Christians being deceived, treating as a great benefit something which is really a terrible disadvantage to the Church.

New versions serve the need for accessible language?
They also think the modern versions are merely motivated by a desire to get the Bible into the common people's English just as the original KJV was, along with the other early English translations.

If the KJV had been handled properly it would have been updated as necessary and this complaint would not hold water. As is, it doesn't hold very much water anyway in my opinion. It's a very flimsy excuse for the modern versions, which are mostly motivated by publishing companies wanting to have their own Bible to sell, which ultimately contributes to the new Babel, to confusion, not to anything beneficial for Christians.

AND the English in the new versions is NOT an improvement. GOT to get posts together to demonstrate this better than I have.

AND we don't need dozens of them for this purpose in any case.

This all misses the point!
Again, the problem with the new versions is completely missed by all those considerations. The main problems are:

1. They all rely on the Alexandrians to some extent or other, accepting Westcott and Hort's validation of these texts against the warnings of those who knew them to be corrupt in their time.

2. They all build from W-H's Revised Version, even from their translational choices apart from the Greek texts, substituting inferior alternatives completely gratuitously, creating only confusion, contributing nothing of real value.