I know that some of you are weary of the KJV Only debate. I am too. Especially today. But I think it is an important issue as it keeps part of Christ’s body divided (needlessly in my opinion). And so much of it comes from misunderstandings and confusions. It isn’t a simple subject, to put it simply 🙂
Anyway, this month the men over at Jackhammer will be discussing the issue. And unlike Sharper Iron, they are willing to allow a free-for-all debate, which seems to inevitably blossom wherever this issue is discussed. They, as the blog name implies, are not afraid to “hammer away” on this and any other issue. And their rules are quite simple.
Don’t understimate these men. I respect the fact that they are educated and honest, and most of all they respect Scripture. Nevertheless, I differ with them on this and other issues. But their side is worth hearing out. Particularly on this KJV Only debate. If only their position would rule the day for KJV Only folks… Then perhaps we would not have people question the salavation of those led to the Lord from non KJV versions. And other equally nonsensical and dangerous postions would be avoided, too.
Well, in reading one of their posts, I saw a “manifesto” of sorts. And it is definitely not your average KJVO fare. And right now, they are getting comments and questions from two different sides concerning these points. So what do you think? If you want to know what I do, just go read the discussion at this post by Pastor Dave Mallinak, where these points were first given. I reproduce them in full here for your benefit. So if you’re afraid to join their discussion, just tell me what you think? As a KJV preferred guy, Will Dudding gave his interesting thoughts in a blogpost here that is definitely worth reading.
Call me crazy, but I’m interested to hear what you think.
1. We affirm that on the issue of versions, our most important duty is to be faithful to the Word and words of God.2. We deny that innerrancy for a particular English Version of the Bible is necessary. We neither affirm nor deny innerrancy of versions \”“ it is a non-issue.
3. We affirm that perfection should be defined not as \”without mistakes\” but as \”what God has given and preserved.\”
4. We affirm that God promised to Providentially preserve His Word in the original languages.
5. We therefore affirm that whatever God has preserved can be said to be perfect, regardless of whatever \”mistakes\” someone might dredge up.
6. We deny that canonicity and preservation are separate issues. Canonicity refers to words, not merely books and chapters, and canonicity is a recognition of what God has preserved, rather than an establishing of what should be included.
7. We deny that preservation rests in any translation, including any English translation.
8. We affirm that translations should be chosen, not particularly for their \”accuracy\” as for their faithfulness.
9. We deny that any form of \”dynamic equivalence\” can be considered to be faithful. We deny that any modern version that utilized \”dynamic equivalence\” can be considered faithful.
10. We affirm that \”formal equivalence\” is the only faithful method of translation.
11. We deny that reliance upon the Critical Text could be considered faithful. We do not say, however, that the Critical Text could not be considered to be the Word of God on any level whatsoever. We deny that the Critical Text could be considered a faithful text of the Word of God.
12. We affirm that the body of texts known as the Received Text and the Majority Text have been proven through the years to be a faithful text of God\’s Word.
13. We affirm that any version which attempts to translate either the Received Text or the Majority Text faithfully by means of Formal Equivalence can be considered a faithful translation.
14. We deny that it is a \”sin\” (i.e. \”transgression of God\’s law\”) to read an unfaithful version. (Mark 7:15)
15. We deny that there could never be any other English version of the Word of God that would be faithful.
16. We affirm that the 1769 edition of the King James Version should be updated. We affirm that plans should be made so that this can be accomplished in the not too distant future.
17. We deny that any publishing house, including Thomas Nelson, Inc. has any authority either to create a version of Scripture or to write a new edition of Scripture.
18. We affirm that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, and therefore the church itself (i.e. local churches) must take charge of the care and maintenance of the Bible.
19. We deny that any parachurch organization can be considered \”the church,\” and therefore we deny that parachurch organizations can or should have any part in the translation or care of Scripture. We include parachurch \”Bible\” colleges, no matter how scholarly their professors.
20. We affirm that an educated laity, skillful in languages, adept at handling Scripture, faithful to the written Word of God, and diligent in preserving, inasmuch as is humanly possible, can handle the Word of God and translation issues far more adequately and reliably than any other organization of man\’s invention.