Bontrager Happenings

[GeoBQn]

Mitchell Bontrager just started a blog.

mitchellbontrager.blogspot.com

And when I say the Bible, I mean the word-perfect, un-changing word of God. The one that Psalms 12 speaks of when it says, "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." God has preserved His word just like He said He would, and for the English-speaking people, he has preserved it in what we know as the King James Bible, also referred to as the Authorized Version. The only reason I can know that what my Bible says is true, is because the Bible I'm readin' hasn't changed since it was written, and it isn't gonna change! Talk about "Standin' on the Promises"! If you don't like what I just said, that's ok. I love ya even if you disagree. Just remember this- my Bible says it's perfect, but I have never met anyone who says your Bible is. Since Psalms 12 promised that God would preserve His words, you might want to figure out where it is that He preserved them. I'll do a whole post on this issue later, so now back to why I'm starting this blog.

(Emphasis mine)

When people were asking how the bolded parts meshed with the reality of the KJV version being translated from another language, he posted this response:

Thank ya'll for reading my blog; just wanted to clarify something. While I believe that God has shown me that the King James Bible is the Bible for the English-speaking people, I am not here to debate or argue my point. I don't have nearly all the answers for some of the questions people have about the Bible, but God does; if you are unsure on which Bible to read, just ask God to show you.

My goal for this blog is simply to encourage others to live for God; I'm not trying to start a debate forum. Read the Bible, ask God for wisdom, and go evangelize a lost and dying world!

Of course. A blog with comments enabled is not the place to start a debate or ask questions to the author about what he wrote.

Also, 13-year-old Denver got a gun for his birthday.

[Closed Womb]

I am not here to debate or argue my point.

Translation: I am not here to argue my point (you are just supposed to accept what I say without question, just as my wife and children do. Insolent readers!)

I almost feel bad for them sometimes. They have heard things, accepted without questioning, and then don't know what to do when someone offers some evidence to the contrary. It must be hard to have your imperial beliefs questioned, logically disputed, even proven wrong. I think the KJV not being the "original" bible shocks Bontrager just as much as it would shock me to say that grass isn't green or my name isn't Closed Womb.

[GeoBQn]

Mitchell is 20 years old and not married yet, but I'm sure the part about "wife and children" will apply when that day comes.

[Closed Womb]

Mitchell is 20 years old and not married yet, but I'm sure the part about "wife and children" will apply when that day comes.

Oh, yes! Confused Mitchell and Marlin. I thought it was kind of odd for a dad to have a blog, but with KJV and guns being featured...

[Maude]

I posted the following reply, though it's not likely to see the light of day:

If you aren't interested in critique, you shouldn't post your thoughts online for all the world to read. Anonymous was right to point out the falsehood in your previous post - that the KJV bible is unchanged. A lot gets lost in translation, so unless you're reading the bible in its original Hebrew and Greek, respectively, your claim is bogus. Consider an internet search, at the very least, to broaden your perspective. Knowledge is a wonderful thing.

[JesusFightClub]

The KJV-fetish thing is so weird it's untrue. The adherents to that are like the Truthers we discussed in the other thread really. Picking on tiny points to justify a huge and utterly crazy theory. I've seen some even say you aren't saved or aren't a "real" Christian if you don't use the KJV.

Tho I be but a sinful atheist ;) I have read the Bible all the way through three times (twice using an NIV, which is my preferred translation, and once with the KJV, which while beautiful is open to misinterpretation due to language changing) and possess(ed) two other translations, the JW's New World Translation (which is hideous) and The Message, which is hideous for a different reason. The Message has long since gone to a charity shop, but I still have the NWT, two KJVs and an NIV. I've also read the NT translated into Scots and into specifically Glaswegian Scots, which was quite cool. Also when I was little I had the "Children's Bible" which is a Bible without the gross bits in (so, quite short then :lol: ).

Reason being, I like translation and find it interesting. But from my Christian days, a long time ago now, no-one ever thought what translation you used had any bearing on your Christianity. Some people like KJV the best, so when we were in chapel we often heard readings from the KJV, but in our Scripture class we used the NIV. The teacher explained to us when we got confused. We were asked specifically to bring the NIV to school, but only because it's easier for children to understand, not because "it is the best and other translations are sinful" like the KJV-onlyists claim.

The only two I would think are dodgy from the list above are the Children's Bible (it's a very mutilated text, but despite that I don't see why you couldn't still be a Christian and only use it) and the NWT, which would make me look a bit askance at your claim to be a mainstream Christian ;) It's an utterly horrible and downright incorrect in places attempt to shoehorn JW teachings into the Bible. I really hate The Message because I think it distorts the rather beautiful language of Scripture, but I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be a preferred Bible for anyone it speaks to. Why not, really? A Bible's a Bible.

Sorry for rambly post, it's a subject that's interested me since I was young. And I wonder - is this KJV-onlyism a new thing? I never heard this growing up, and it bewilders me. The religious people I knew would have been rather bemused by The Message, but would have accepted it as a Bible, and seen the NT being translated into Scots as a good thing because they were proud Scots and thought a beautiful language and a beautiful text. I guess some more old fashioned types would have disapproved, but no one ever said "One translation, that's your lot."

[chaotic life]

The origins of the KJV only fetish is actually quite innoculous and most Fundies would be totally embarrassed if they knew and believed it.

It is really quite simple. Even in my fundie-lite upbringing, KJV only behaviors were not strong in any fundie organisations. BUT KJV was common to be seen in churches and conferences and rallies. If something was being put up on a projector or printed in a bulletin, etc it was almost always in KJV.

NIV used to be under copyright and for a long time KJV was the only version of the Bible that was not copyrighted. So, anyone who wanted to reproduce any part of the Bible HAD to use KJV or risk copyright infringement violations. NIV is out of copyright now, the Geneva Bible is in public domain, many versions of the Bible not in public domain now simply allow you to use them for worship purposes and just won't allow you copy the entire text. So, the need to rely on KJV is no longer an issue for churches. It is clear when that occurred that churches had to decide whether to expand their horizons or stick with what was commonly used previously and lots of fundie churches opted to decide the reason they used KJV was because it was the only legitimate version, which they didn't hold as a belief before that point.

[EmiGirl]

My Husband (a former Gothardite and still fundie-medium) only uses the KJV. I think a lot of it has to do with being raised ATI, but he will actually give his reasons. He says his main reason is the version of the Greek used to translate the KJV is different than the one used to translate other ones. He claims the other versions were translated by a Greek version that was held by the Catholic church for many many years and he doesn't trust the Church left it intact since it doesn't always have the same verses/words as the one that was used to translate the KJV. I don't know all the details myself, but even after having taken Ancient Greek in college and translated the vast majority of the NT myself during those semesters, I think the NIV is just as good. The pastor at our church however preaches from the the English Standard Version.

[mirele]

The origins of the KJV only fetish is actually quite innoculous and most Fundies would be totally embarrassed if they knew and believed it.

It is really quite simple. Even in my fundie-lite upbringing, KJV only behaviors were not strong in any fundie organisations. BUT KJV was common to be seen in churches and conferences and rallies. If something was being put up on a projector or printed in a bulletin, etc it was almost always in KJV.

NIV used to be under copyright and for a long time KJV was the only version of the Bible that was not copyrighted. So, anyone who wanted to reproduce any part of the Bible HAD to use KJV or risk copyright infringement violations. NIV is out of copyright now, the Geneva Bible is in public domain, many versions of the Bible not in public domain now simply allow you to use them for worship purposes and just won't allow you copy the entire text. So, the need to rely on KJV is no longer an issue for churches. It is clear when that occurred that churches had to decide whether to expand their horizons or stick with what was commonly used previously and lots of fundie churches opted to decide the reason they used KJV was because it was the only legitimate version, which they didn't hold as a belief before that point.

This is actually incorrect. The KJV is in copyright in the United Kingdom. It's under a perpetual Crown copyright. However, we Colonists threw off those shackles and the KJV entered the public domain here, where it quickly became the overwhelming Bible version available on the frontier (those Catholics and their Douay-Rheims version notwithstanding).

The NIV is still under copyright and, due to US copyright laws, will likely be under copyright until well after we're dead. What's happened with the NIV is that it's under challenge by an alphabet soup of Bible versions, so many I can't even begin to list them. But there was a period, probably in the late 80s-early 90s when the NIV was really "the Nearly Infallible Version" for a lot of evangelical Protestants.

As for Bontrager's initial assumption about the unchanging KJV, I'd like to beat him over the head with a 1769 revision of the KJV. Seriously, the version we have now is that of 1769, not the one of 1611.

The Wikipedia article on the KJV gives us this example of the differences, using the first part of 1 Corinthians 13 as an illustration:

1. Though I speake with the tongues of men & of Angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brasse or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophesie, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge: and though I have all faith, so that I could remoove mountaines, and have no charitie, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestowe all my goods to feede the poore, and though I give my body to bee burned, and have not charitie, it profiteth me nothing.

1. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

The article then adds:

In these three verses, there are eleven changes of spelling, nine changes of typesetting, three changes of punctuation, and one variant text – where "not charity" is substituted for "no charity" in verse two, in the erroneous belief that the original reading was a misprint.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized ... xt_of_1769

If you read the article, the reason there was a standard text of 1769 was because of the number of ERRORS that had crept into the KJV printings (which, if you're aware of how things were printed then, couldn't easily be corrected).

When people talk about the KJV, one should ask them if they mean the version of 1611 or 1769. Because I would bet money that 99.999 percent of them mean the 1769 version and have never seen even a facsimile of the 1611 version. I have, and it takes work to read. Plus it has all sorts of "popish innovations," like the Apocrypha and church feast calendars, because the KJV was intended to be used by the Anglican church and not by a bunch of "let's make it up as we go along" preachers in America 400 years later.

[Seven Severn]

I grew up with (and still have) a copy of the Revised Standard Version. In my congregation of the United Methodist church is was the go-to translation and might still be, for all I know. I never see this version mentioned nowadays. Did it fall out of fashion? For a confirmation present I received a copy of the Living Bible (my name engraved and everything). The appeal of the Living Bible at the time ('70s) was that is was in contemporary language. It was a fad for a brief bit and died a quick and merciful death. Does anyone remember it? I still have my copy, but it's packed away; haven't cracked it since I got it.

[crawfishgirl]

In college, I took an English class on the bible (it was a literature class, and not a religion class). One of our assignment options was to compare and contrast a verse from the bible using different bible versions. I chose the same verse in 5 different bibles, and interestingly the meanings differed quite a bit in some of those versions. I think that many of these people should stop taking everything so literally, since cultures and word definitions change over the years, and the translators' biases and/or misunderstandings of a word or phrase can also affect each version. Even the lord's prayer is different between the protestant and catholic versions (the protestant version has a verse at the end of it that the catholics don't have).

I don't remember which verse I used for that class, since I attended college in the 80's - it's been too long now.

[Visionoyahweh]

Proper Gun Safety: Holding it Upside Down!

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Or just shoot 'em, and let God sort it out.

Someone ask them about Nicaea?

[docmom]

No, no Mr. Bontrager. My version of the bible "The world according to docmom" is the only true version. I know this because it says so, right at the beginning "This is the only true version anyone who thinks its the KJV is wrong". If your version doesn't say this, it's wrong. And I won't argue with anyone. If you need to argue, you should go and pray for forgiveness.

I just love the argument that it's true because it says it's true.

[GeoBQn]

The NIV is still under copyright and, due to US copyright laws, will likely be under copyright until well after we're dead. What's happened with the NIV is that it's under challenge by an alphabet soup of Bible versions, so many I can't even begin to list them. But there was a period, probably in the late 80s-early 90s when the NIV was really "the Nearly Infallible Version" for a lot of evangelical Protestants.

On Messianic Keepers at Home, there was someone calling for a boycott of the NIV version because the parent publishing company prints books with--gasp!--LGBT themes.

[Visionoyahweh]

On Messianic Keepers at Home, there was someone calling for a boycott of the NIV version because the parent publishing company prints books with--gasp!--LGBT themes.

The bible has LBGT themes too. Just not positive ones.

[GeoBQn]

The picture seems even more sinister in light of this news article:

"12-Year-Old Accidentally Kills Cousin with Shotgun He Got For Christmas"

http://thecontributor.com/12-year-old-u ... as-present

[ILoveJellybeans]

Why does a child need a gun?? If guns are legal there at least needs to be an age limit on them! Kids are not responsible enough to handle them properly and could accidentally shoot someone, which will traumatise them for life.

[Miggy]

My fundy-in-laws and their friends all use KJV and usually argue that it is correct because it was the first English version. My response that Tyndale's translation was earlier never goes down very well. There are two main argument against KJV; language and bias. Although translated in 1611, the bishops used language that was already archaic. Even the people of the day had issues reading it so there is no hope for us now. It is also recorded that King James sort out men for the task of translating the bible who held the same beliefs he held. There are verses were the translation doesn't quite match the original and it is due to the personal beliefs of the king swaying those doing the translating. I really wish home-school would include the history of religion as well as practice of religion. If you are going to live your whole life by something, you really should try to understand it fully.

Completel off topic but ... I really enjoy when fundies argue about creation/evolution based on the seven "days" of the creation and the "days" when people brought Moses gifts. They are always ignorant of the fact that one is kiros and one is kronos. (Quite different meanings.) It is always good to carry a translation Bible when you have fundy-in-laws. (One page is Hebrew or Greek, the opposite is the same text in English.)

[misslady]

I grew up with (and still have) a copy of the Revised Standard Version. In my congregation of the United Methodist church is was the go-to translation and might still be, for all I know. I never see this version mentioned nowadays. Did it fall out of fashion? For a confirmation present I received a copy of the Living Bible (my name engraved and everything). The appeal of the Living Bible at the time ('70s) was that is was in contemporary language. It was a fad for a brief bit and died a quick and merciful death. Does anyone remember it? I still have my copy, but it's packed away; haven't cracked it since I got it.

My Presbyterian church uses the New RSV. I don't know when that came about though.

I have a Living Bible floating around someplace. It's a hoot.

[Miggy]

Contemporary English Version is quite funny too, 'cause, like, it's like, ummm, listening to, aarrrr, like, teenage girls speaking.

At least one of the New Testaments has been done as text speak which I would love to read.

I have noticed that some of the less extreme fundy bloggers also use the American Standard Version. I always take that as a clue they are probably fundy-lite rather than full-on-fundy. Being in Aus, I have never seen this version. It is probably quite good but in my head I hear the NIV read in a Louisana accent. (Something similar to those guys from Swamp People that we need subtitles to understand.)

[JesusFightClub]

http://sco.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Laughton_Lorimer

[Dysfundamental]

My Husband (a former Gothardite and still fundie-medium) only uses the KJV. I think a lot of it has to do with being raised ATI, but he will actually give his reasons. He says his main reason is the version of the Greek used to translate the KJV is different than the one used to translate other ones. He claims the other versions were translated by a Greek version that was held by the Catholic church for many many years and he doesn't trust the Church left it intact since it doesn't always have the same verses/words as the one that was used to translate the KJV. I don't know all the details myself, but even after having taken Ancient Greek in college and translated the vast majority of the NT myself during those semesters, I think the NIV is just as good. The pastor at our church however preaches from the the English Standard Version.

No offense to your husband, because I know he's just been repeating misinformation that was told to him, but that's complete nonsense. The Greek texts the King James Version translators used were Beza's; Beza was indeed a Protestant, but his edition of the NT was only slightly different from his source work, Estienne's editions, which were prepared for the Catholic King of France and had imprimaturs from Catholic archbishops. Estienne did his research in the library of the Catholic university, La Sorbonne.

None of Beza's changes to Estienne's text were made on doctrinal grounds.

[EmiGirl]

No offense to your husband, because I know he's just been repeating misinformation that was told to him, but that's complete nonsense. The Greek texts the King James Version translators used were Beza's; Beza was indeed a Protestant, but his edition of the NT was only slightly different from his source work, Estienne's editions, which were prepared for the Catholic King of France and had imprimaturs from Catholic archbishops. Estienne did his research in the library of the Catholic university, La Sorbonne.

None of Beza's changes to Estienne's text were made on doctrinal grounds.

No offense taken by me! You're probably right. He was raised anti-Catholic and has unfortunately passed it on to my family and a good portion of my church. So basically if a Catholic touched it it's evil. lol

[Miggy]

Am I the only one who sees the name Bontrager and hears that little Duggar boy (can't remember which) trying to pronounce the name? I really hated that episode! :evil:

[Coconut Flan]

Didn't Jim Bob also butcher their "dear friends'" name?