Challenging 'Final Authority' and the Grady Deceit
Posted by Michael A. La Framboise on Wednesday, November 23, 2011
As iron sharpens iron,
So a man sharpens the countenance of his friend.
NKJV
Iron sharpeneth iron;
so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.
KJV
Proverbs 27:17
(Early 2004)So a man sharpens the countenance of his friend.
NKJV
Iron sharpeneth iron;
so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.
KJV
Proverbs 27:17
Dear Jeremy,
Indeed you're more than a cousin, you are my friend; and it is a joy to be sharpened by your wisdom.
Although I will briefly mention the NIV in this E-mail, it is not my intention, nor my purpose to persuade your opinion of it, per se. There are only two reasons I will address it at all: To prove a point I attempted to make earlier to you; and to point out that Grady is misleading, and that to a fault.
My main purpose in this E-mail is take Grady to task for his outlandish and unsubstantiated remarks. I will focus on the NKJV, as it pertains to us specifically. We are already in agreement over our preference of the Textus Receptus, therefore I will only attempt to show you that the translation of the NKJV is above reproach when it comes to serious scrutiny, and may be trusted every bit as much as its venerated predecessor. I believe that Grady will prove this to you as we look into each of his claims.
The bottom line on other major translations, in my view, is this: if there be any corruption (and we both recognize the possibility of that, as revealed to us by the early Church Fathers.), it came at the hands of ancient Gnostic copyists; NOT by contemporary English translators.
So my aim is not to get you ready to purchase your first NIV, but rather for us to take a good look at Mr. Grady's claims against all that is not the KJV. Perhaps along the way, we shall be enlightened as to why I prefer the NKJV; but as long as I know you actually read your o.g.- KJV and enjoy it as God intended you too, I shall never try to convince you to use any other... even mine.
First, I would like to address Exodus 12:5.
That's where the NIV uses the word "animals" instead of "lamb". Here is the NIV rendering of Ex 12:3-5:
3 Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this month each man is to take a lamb for his family, one for each household.
4 If any household is too small for a whole lamb, they must share one with their nearest neighbor, having taken into account the number of people there are.
You are to determine the amount of lamb needed in accordance
with what each person will eat.
4 If any household is too small for a whole lamb, they must share one with their nearest neighbor, having taken into account the number of people there are.
You are to determine the amount of lamb needed in accordance
with what each person will eat.
5 The animals you choose must be year-old males without defect, and you may take them from the sheep or the goats.
Grady uses verse 5 out of context (pg. 289, 5th paragraph) to imply that the NIV translators were attempting to nullify the validity or significance of Jesus Christ being our Passover Lamb. As you no doubt already see, nothing could be further from the truth. Obviously Grady simply didn't notice the 3 "lamb" references in the previous 2 verses, which make it impossible to understand the "animals" in verse 5 to refer to anything but "lambs". Not to mention the fact that verse 5 itself restricts the application of the term, "you may take them from the sheep or the goats." The fact that goats are also mentioned, may give us insight into the mind of the NIV translators. In English "lamb" refers to a young sheep, as "kid" refers to a young goat. So when it came to translating verse 5, the word "animals" was chosen, because in the latter part of the verse it is connected with both sheep and goats; but "lamb" may only refer to the first. This has support from the Hebrew in that the underlying word for "lamb" is a generic term for a member of a flock; whether it be a sheep or goat. Finally, we need to remember that the NIV is a translation of dynamic equivalence: thought for thought; rather than word for word. Therefore the conclusion must be made that, in this instance, the NIV is not only a good translation, but also an accurate one; not to mention fairly literal at that.
Next I would like to point out a blatant example of twisting the facts. It causes me not only to question Grady's character (as do other parts of the book), but also his intelligence and perceived expertise (as most of the book brings into question).
On pg. 289, paragraph 3, Grady surmises that the NIV translators used the "African" (notice the racist undertones; also see pg. 310, second paragraph of lower section; and pg. 186, line 9) X (Sinaiticus) and B (Vaticanus) manuscripts as their guide in translating the term "nose-ring" in Genesis 24:22. This is interesting since X and B are Greek manuscripts of the Scriptures; while the Hebrew behind Genesis 24:22 refers to a nose ring anyway as Strong's concordance defines it. Grady is plainly misleading his readers as he arbitrarily points to X and B, no doubt trying to imply some "nicolaitan" corruption.
Chapter 17, which deals primarily with the New King James, is interesting to me in that not a single example that stands any scrutiny is ever employed. To the contrary some examples unwittingly lead one to certain weaknesses in the Old KJV.
In the first 6 pages no textual criticisms are yet made (only silly conclusions) with the exception of one on page 303, 5th paragraph. It concerns Romans 1:25, and the word "changed" vs. "exchanged": NKJV is the more literal, accurate rendering as any textual analysis will prove. It's here we realize that Grady has done no homework, and the chink in his armor is revealed. He considers a change in the KJV English rendering enough to accuse would-be translators of malevolence and blasphemy. The Old English rendering becomes more important to Grady than accuracy-- this is problematic for one looking to him for truth.
We understand, however, where he's coming from after reading his ludicrous statements on page 23; the most insane being found in paragraph 4, "...Inspiration can indeed rest upon translation". How about that Darwin, an evolving Bible! For the truth behind the dung of page 23, learn what the Septuagint is; otherwise his arguments would indeed be stumblers.
Finally on page 305 Grady gets into the text. First at the top of the page, he scoffs at the NKJV for its claim of "clearer meanings". I simply refer you to page 306, 7th example; and 309, top. If you can tell me off the top of your head what a "flagon" is, or perhaps explain, "Ammi-nadib" (If you guess the Queen of Naboo, you're wrong.)-- then you win. By the way, in these references the NKJV is the more literal/accurate.
In the 3rd paragraph of page 305, Grady declares the NKJV to contain over 100,000 alterations from the KJV, with the comment that, "the [NKJV Translator] scholar can take whatever license he desires." This is a vicious remark with no evidence to support it. Of course there are thousands of differences; that would be the case if ONLY the "thees" and "thous" were updated. Let us remember the NKJV never professes to be identical to the KJV (if it was, it wouldn't be new), rather a new translation after that time honored tradition. These changes, once again refer to the English variations; there simply are no departures from the underlying Hebrew and Greek, and that is what matters, and it is the only thing which should matter to true Bible Believing Christians! This is simply misleading on Grady's part. Another foolish argument with no rationality, nor logic behind it.
In paragraph 6 of page 305, Grady provides 3 examples where the NKJV variates from the Old KJV. In all three cases the NKJV is true to the Hebrew. In the first instance, Job 17:1, both the old and new KJV renderings are supported by the Hebrew. However, in the next two the NKJV is more literal and accurate. Notice Grady's implication as he refers to, "the pronoun switch of, 'its rising is from...' " in Psalm 16:6. The pronoun in the KJV is "His"; Grady would almost lead you to believe that maybe this reference was originally to God. In actuality, it refers to the sun, and the word "His" doesn't even appear in the Hebrew; here the NKJV is the more literal and accurate. The unicorn example, isn't worth mentioning, since we know that I win on that one already.
Next we come to Grady's 36 examples from Song of Solomon. (Pages 306-310)
Examples 8, 9, 11, and 23 only deal with the differences between Old English and new. The NKJV has only updated the language.
Examples 1,2,3,7,10,13,14,16,20,21,22,24,25,26,27,29,30, 32,33,35, and 36 all prove the NKJV to be the more literally accurate translation.
Examples 12 and 17 prove to be more literally accurate in the Old KJV.
Examples 4, 5, 6, 15, 18, 19, 28, 31, and 34 are all equally supported by the underlying Hebrew in either translation.
Grady's point in the above references is that the NKJV agrees more with modern translations, than with the KJV. I could reverse that argument against the KJV in Amos 4:4. In that verse both the KJV and NIV agree in DYNAMIC (Thought for thought) interpretation; whereas the NKJV translates the literally accurate rendering from the Hebrew.
Amos 4:4
bring your sacrifices every morning,
and your tithes after three years:
KJV
Amos 4:4
Bring your sacrifices every morning,
your tithes every three years.
NIV
Amos 4:4
bring your sacrifices every morning,
and your tithes after three years:
KJV
Amos 4:4
Bring your sacrifices every morning,
your tithes every three years.
NIV
Amos 4:4
Bring your sacrifices every morning,
Your tithes every three days.
NKJV
Your tithes every three days.
NKJV
On Page 310, lower section Grady waxes eloquent, and that without a shred of truth to back him up!
Paragraph 2, concerning the "nose ring", has already been addressed.
In paragraph 3 Grady asks concerning any true benefit in the NKJV, "where is the treasure?" I would answer that it is in a truly accurate translation, as we have seen the NKJV to be. He speaks of a rehash of Westcott and Hort even though his examples come from the Old Testament, wherein they have no influence in modern translations. (No influence whatsoever in the NKJV)
In the remaining paragraph between pages 310 and 311, the NKJV is proved to be more accurate in all 4 instances.
If anything, Grady has proved beyond reasonable doubt, the NKJV is worthy of any Christian's (Fundamental Baptist or otherwise) consideration in study and devotion. Grady has furthermore so proven the careful translation of the NKJV, any Independent Fundamental Baptist preacher should feel quite confident in using it for Church. I know I feel better.
Grady goes on from here to criticize the New Scofield KJV. I have no use for Scofield; when it comes to Study Bibles, I am quite comfortable with the Open Bible. However, I would point out three things which destroy Grady's credibility.
#1 page 312, 3rd paragraph concerning Deut. 4:2.
The Words” Anything" (NSRB), or "Ought" (KJV) are both unsupported by the Hebrew and unnecessary in the English.
#2 Page 312, 4th paragraph, 1st example concerning Gen 49:6.
This is hilarious because Grady makes the comment, "Since when is an oxen and a wall the same thing?!" Good question Mr. Grady, now you're thinking analytically. It so happens the KJV translators mistakenly translated the Hebrew word for "oxen" as "wall". Indeed the words look very similar, but the fact remains that the true translation is found in the NSRB, as well as the NKJV.
#3 Page 313, 4th paragraph, concerning 1 Sam 13:1
According to the Masoretic [Hebrew] text that has come down to us. bªmaalªkow shaa'uwl ben-shaanaah (Hebrew transliteration) cannot possibly be rendered... "Saul reigned one year," but can only mean "Saul was a year old when he became king." This is the way in which the words have been correctly rendered... this is the way in which the text has been understood...but all that follows from that is, there is an error in the text, namely, that between ben (OT:1121, strong's) and shaanaah (OT:8141) the age has fallen out-- a thing which could easily take place, as there are many traces to show that originally the numbers were not written in words, but only in letters that were used as numerals. This gap in the text is older than the Septuagint version (285 B.C.), as our present text is given there.
(from Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament)
This is a can of worms that Grady is undoubtedly unprepared and unable to open. This is very similar to his flat-out dumb statements on page 163. The whole page is non-sensical, but paragraphs 3 and 4 take the cake for idiocy. Talk (as he does) about opening Pandora's box, no kidding! But he is the one who is absolutely unprepared. His argument is COMPLETELY unfounded and impossible to sustain. It's interesting though, because I agree with him concerning the wisdom of the italicized words in that instance; but don't slander those who seek not to add to the text something that truly is not there.
My point on the Grady book is this, he is setting his readers up for a fall that could potentially destroy their Faith. A person who has adopted the Grady view of preservation will be forced to toss out the Scriptures completely, as they will never fit into his contrived and irrational box. I hope they throw out Grady instead; but more than likely, because of the sensitivity of the issue, they'll be stumbled into disbelief.
The KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, NLT, will all benefit the believer Spiritually. Why Grady disagrees with that is beyond me, and quite honestly, it's beyond him: as he has no solid evidence to the contrary.
Let me once again say this, I prefer Textus Receptus for my New Testament (all major translations use the same Hebrew text for the O.T.); however, I do NOT believe the major English translations which use the alternative, to be misleading: and I do encourage you to challenge me on this statement.
May I say this in closing. I have come to the conclusion (only by testing Grady's own words to the facts) that this Grady book is an instrument of Satan, which only serves to divide the Body of Christ. I say that based upon the fact that this book, as we have both seen, is founded upon lie after lie after deception, after slander, after prejudice, after hypocrisy. I only took you through a chapter or two. But the rest of the book is just as dishonest. Sure, there may be some truth amidst the foolishness, but that doesn't make this book "truthful". Since Satan is the Father of Lies (if I may take a Grady leap), then this book is a product of the Devil. Now don't let me simply get away with these inflammatory remarks! They are purposely and especially fiery, as to invoke a challenge. Friendly Fire that is, designed to get your intellectual juices flowing my way!
The King James Bible has a remarkable history, and has left its mark and legacy upon the English speaking world. I hate to see it's reputation (for accurately conveying God's truth) tarnished by this nut.
I love talking to you about this subject.
I will wait anxiously for your reply.
Your cousin, Michael
ps. now take me to task if necessary. Don't hold back, just do more homework than Grady did.
[Addendum; not part of original E-mail.]
I thought to myself, Jeremy would love this!
1 Sam 25:22
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall...
1 Sam 25:34
...any that pisseth against the wall...
1 Kings 14:10
I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall...
1 Kings 16:11
...he left him not one that pisseth against a wall...
1 Kings 21:21
I will bring evil upon thee, and will take away thy posterity, and will cut off from Ahab him that pisseth against the wall...
2 Kings 9:8
I will cut off from Ahab him that pisseth against the wall...
I like how Adam Clarke deals with these passages.
This expression certainly means either men or dogs, and should be thus translated, "if I leave any male"; this will answer both to men and dogs, and the offensive mode of expression be avoided; I will not enter further into the subject: Bochart and Calmet have done enough, and more than enough; and in the plainest language too.
(from Adam Clarke's Commentary: 1 Sam 25:22)
Of course when I came across this uniquely KJV phrase, it soon came to my remembrance the rantings of one, William Grady. If you would notice the first 3 paragraphs/10 lines of page 2 in Final Authority. Here Grady takes note of an off color translation in the Living Bible which uses the term, "toilet". Once again, I am led to believe that Dr. Grady hasn't done his homework; or simply hasn't read through his own KJV! Certainly "pisseth against the wall" is more offensive than "toilet".
Personally, I'm thankful that in the future when I teach through this passage (I'll soon be in Joshua, so it's on the distant horizon.), I will have the politeness of the NKJV in a mixed audience.
REPLY FROM DR. GRADY
08/11/04
Dear Jeremy:
I am sitting in a motel room working on my new book. My publishing deadline is the first of November. It is an 800 page hardback book that I started January, 1999. I don't even have a copy of Final Authority in my room. I could not begin to get sidetracked scrutinizing this man's long list of complaints about my book. Besides, I obviously am not a "scholar" like he is! Although the only infallible preacher in the world is John Paul I, (i.e., I have never assumed or claimed that my book was inconsistency free) the overall thesis is right regarding FINAL AUTHORITY. His nit picking will NEVER change the facts of the Satanic foundation of the entire modern Bible movement (i.e., Wescott and Hort, the corrupt RV Committee proceedings, the depravity of the Alexandrian text, etc.)
Your friend's silly remark that I am being used of Satan to DIVIDE the body illustrates my point. Satan has been dividing the once unified body (with respect to the singular usage of the KJV) with each new translation (Read my forward about John Burgon)
The main problem is the sprit this guy has projected in his e-mail. He is obviously very impressed with himself and is trying to lord over you. What the two of you have in common escapes me. I'd strongly suggest that you find a Bible believer for a friend (Amos 3:3)
Again, forgive me for not being available to "debate" your "friend" but I rarely take the time to answer any of these kind of people. They are a dime a dozen and if I gave them my time I couldn't keep writing. Tell your "friend" I was too intimidated to answer his objections. Then get in your prayer closet and as God to tell you which version to read.
Sincerely,
Dr. Grady
blog comments powered by Disqus