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.
For more on this issue, check out my posts on the subject, or also my KJV Only Debate Resource Center.
Just wanted to be sure no one thought I meant anything sinister with the term “manifesto”. You could substitute “creed” or “confession” just fine.
I know the authors of these statements of affirmation and denial would receive this comment as a badge of honor, but I think their standard is unreasonably narrow. But that is characteristic of local church only independent Baptists. While they affirm in theory the possibility that a future literal version that is not based on the critical text could be affirmed by them as “faithful” and “perfect” according to their own personal definitions of those terms, in practice, it is unlikely that such a translation will be produced, which conveniently leaves them with only one option–what they’ve already got.
They might as well just say they prefer to use the text that has been used for centuries for the sake of the stability of tradition, than spend their time drawing up unrealistic standards that probably won’t ever be met in their eyes.
John,
I think you’re right. I find it somewhat humorous that with all the work that went into producing the NKJV, most KJV only folk still don’t use it.
The NKJV is the updated KJV everyone supposedly wants. It is based on the TR and the Masoretic Text. It is even closer to the Hebrew text underlying the KJV than the KJV is! And for the most part, it tries to be as literal as the KJV is.
But its not good enough, because Thomas Nelson Publishers were involved? As William Dudding pointed out in his comments under the post of his I link to above, King James’ ulterior motive was to silence the dissenting Geneva Bible’s notes. That is a fact. Whether Nelson was or wasn’t in the business of backing the NKJV revision/translation project strictly for the money, it still is at the very least not as bad of a motive as King James had! So why is the crown legit but an independent capitalistic printer not?
Thanks, as always, for your input.
Blessings in Christ.
Bob
Hey Bob-
Great Post. They say in point 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.” Then they turn around and say, point 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.” So they affirm something like the NKJV as long as Thomas Nelson doesn’t do it? They affirm it is possible to do a faithful translation, but then deny those who have the means, and scholarship to do it? Why not just say, we only affirm the KJV? I would like that better. There is no need to hide their intentions in affirmations and denials.
On another note- I find it interesting that they really have two things that they don’t like, (premises as it were). First, Dynamic Equivalence and second, the critical text. It does seem that they assume that both are linked, intrinsically. That is the false dichotomy. Formal equivalence can be done from the critical text, and there are many scholars who would not accept the premise that the critical text is faulty or “unfaithful”.
Gage Browning
Great thoughts, Gage. They really haven’t laid out a case in these points as to why the critical text should be shunned, quite yet.
Also there is a lot of wishful thinking in all of this. I suppose they’d call it faith, but can’t you and I have faith that God has preserved His Word and chose to give us even more accurate translations in the 20th century than we had in the 17th?
Here’s something I don’t understand: why are so many IFBers KJVO instead of Geneva Bible Only?
The Geneva Bible comes from the Textus Receptus, predates the KJV, and actually sounds more modern than the KJV does!
What makes the KJV superior? I don’t get it…
The Textus Receptus is a critical text.
The end.
Reg Joe,
Yeah, the Geneva Bible was supported for a long time by much more Biblically minded people than the KJV. At least as far as KJV Onlies would interpret church history.
Thanks for your thoughts!
Ryan,
If only they could see that. When we start bringing up the minor points at which the TR editions differ, and when we point out that the TR is based on a minority of Byzantine texts and differs considerably with the majority, they spin our discussion into a quibbling over minor things. And then they turn around and point out the bigger differences between the TR and the modern texts. Can’t they see they’re being inconsistent?
Oh, yeah, theirs is a faith position, I guess.
I’ll bet you guys can appreciate Bob letting you discuss it here. Why not step over to our place and discuss it with us there? We’ll be civil. Notice the sarcasm above, several times. One of the strongest MVO arguments is: KJV guys are mean.
Reglar Joe asks: “Here’s something I don’t understand: why are so many IFBers KJVO instead of Geneva Bible Only?” Here’s the Scriptural reason Joe. The churches did not accept the Geneva. The Geneva Bible wasn’t supported by New Testament Baptist churches, Joe. The Holy Spirit guides through the pillar and ground of the truth, through the one faith, the unity of the Spirit that exists between true churches. If the Geneva was superior, God’s people would have stayed with it, Joe. They didn’t.
Bob writes: “Yeah, the Geneva Bible was supported for a long time by much [sic] more Biblically minded people than the KJV. At least as far as KJV Onlies would interpret church history.” You think that the state-church people were more Biblically minded, Bob? That’s your interpretation of history, that God preserved the truth through Roman Catholicism. That’s the English separatist view. It was supported a long time by the reformed, but not as long as the KJV. That’s why you said “a long time,” and not “the longest time.”
Ryan writes: “The Textus Receptus is a critical text. The end.” So you’re saying that the Words of the TR were homogenized by means of so-called scientific laws of textual criticism? Look for the words “textual criticism” in history before 1800 Ryan. The End.
Bob writes: “Oh, yeah, theirs is a faith position, I guess.” This is very accurate Bob. Ours is the faith position, and yours is the “I guess” position. You nailed it with that statement.
Kent said:
“I’ll bet you guys can appreciate Bob letting you discuss it here. Why not step over to our place and discuss it with us there? We’ll be civil.”
Thanks for the invite, Kent. I think my Geneva Bible question would’ve been off topic, and since your comment threads are growing (in size and numbers) I figured my question would get lost in the mayhem.
Kent said:
“Notice the sarcasm above, several times. One of the strongest MVO arguments is: KJV guys are mean.”
Funny. That’s what people say about us Calvinists. That we’re mean, that is.
Kent continues:
“Reglar Joe asks: “Here’s something I don’t understand: why are so many IFBers KJVO instead of Geneva Bible Only?” Here’s the Scriptural reason Joe. The churches did not accept the Geneva.”
They didn’t ??!?!!!??
Kent said:
“The Geneva Bible wasn’t supported by New Testament Baptist churches, Joe.”
You mean, New Testament Baptist Churches led by New Testament Baptists preachers like John Bunyan, who used the Geneva Bible?
Kent said:
“The Holy Spirit guides through the pillar and ground of the truth, through the one faith, the unity of the Spirit that exists between true churches.”
So basically, the KJV is superior because the Church(es) said so? Smacks of Romanism to me. Don’t they use the a similar argument for the defense of the Latin Vulgate?
Kent continues:
“If the Geneva was superior, God’s people would have stayed with it, Joe. They didn’t.”
We could say the same about the KJV.
I guess, in short, we know what the superior version is based on what most independent fundamental Baptist churches are using? (I’m assuming that is how you define “true churches”)
Joe, I’m not saying that no one used the Geneva. Sure they did, but when you look at history, the KJV won out, and won out just like the TR won out. The Holy Spirit lead and ultimately the Geneva died. It’s only making a come-back in a very, very minor way now because of (1) a resurgence of Calvinism, and (2) the argument over the KJV.
Yes, I think that New Testament Christianity has been and continues to be represented by separatist, independent Baptists. If not, Joe, who is it? I’m not saying every independent Baptist, but those who believe and practice Scripture. There are a lot more than you might think that have had nothing to do with the Hyles group or the Bob Jones group, but have been minding their own business with a very non-Arminian gospel and expositional preaching, but also the practice of separation.
Pastor Brandenburg,
I find it somewhat odd that you insist that God’s churches rejected the Geneva Bible. If you are going to only grant the status of “true church” to Baptists, then it is interesting to note that it was a whole bunch of conservative Baptists who were some of the first to actually make new Bible translations in the 1800s. They weren’t KJVs, by the way. These Baptists were concerned with the nontranslation (the transliteration rather) of the Greek word “baptizo” among other things. But in their translations, they utilized some of the recent textual findings and widely held beliefs concerning some of the readings. Many of those readings were later adopted by subsequent Bible versions.
So rather than God’s true churches being unanimous in upholding the KJV, they were creating new versions of their own.
Beyond that, the early fundamentalist leaders like W.P. Riley, John R. Rice, Richard Clearwaters, and many others, were not KJV onlies. Clearwaters affirmed that the ASV of 1901 was what fundamentalists (speaking for many fundamentalist separatistic true-church Baptists, and he would know since he was a prime mover among them for years and years) believed was the most accurate version.
It wasn’t until David Otis Fuller popularized the KJV only position that many of God’s churches started coming to a stricly KJV only position.
By the way, if you are going to be civil over on jackhammr.org, please be civil here. You can debate the issues, but try not to belittle and ridicule your opponents.
I try not to do that here, and most of my commenters try not to either. I know this is a gray area. But what I am seeing here is quite a bit more caustic than necessary. And that tone is present on jackhammr.org often as well. Particularly your exchanges with whoever Anvil and Adamant are in your recent local church only position.
Now I should say that you have been very cordial to me, for the most part. Maybe I am making a mountain out of a molehill, but you come on here saying you’ll be civil and then you blast away as if that is definitely not what you’d be.
Just an observation. And again it does nothing to counter arguments you put forth here, so I want to be clear about that.
One last thing: scientific laws of textual criticism notwithstanding, the TR was compiled using a critical method. Erasmus made critical decisions about texts and individual readings and compiled his text from multiple copies. He even backtranslated from the Latin in places. He left copious notes, so we have no doubts that he was utilizing a pre-text critical method. Sure textual criticism was in its infancy, but Erasmus was one of the first text critics.
Later text editors, like Stephanus and Beza, went out of their way to bring together alternate readings from other manuscripts and include them in the margins sometimes. Again the text of the TR is not an exact copy of any one manuscript, it was birthed from several and was constantly improved and edited.
This is textual criticism.
Bob,
I think it is good to take the low road with most people, that is, the humble road, gracious, etc., but not in every case. Adamant was caustic and wrong, and he got some of it back in return, because he needed it. And here, what about Ryan, and your statement. I would say, I just went after your what you said. You don’t like someone doing that. Don’t make the statements then, mocking at a “faith position,” I guess. This is all under “Dishing it out, and taking it.”
I’m not going to argue with your Geneva Bible superiority position, Bob. Mounds of material says otherwise. I expect people today, that don’t actually believe in perfect preservation, to be eclectic. What reason do they have for sticking with any settled text? They are in a non-stop mode of restoring the text, not a position they back up with Scripture. I wouldn’t say Clearwater (the man) represents the majority of independent Baptist churches. Some of his proteges didn’t get the message either: Chuck Nichols and David Sorenson, those both Clearwater products.
Bob. You know what I believe. Why not talk to me like you do? It comes across like a show when you don’t. Please don’t take that as caustic. You’re not always the victim.
I don’t care what Erasmus did. You know that. Erasmus’ wasn’t the text accepted by churches. Churches accepted the consummation of that time period. They didn’t choose, they recognized and received. The differences were very small between all the TR editions. You woefully misrepresent history to parallel what Erasmus accomplished and what Westcott and Hort did with their rules.
I’ll be dealing with this on our blog.
Pastor Kent,
Thanks for feeling free to comment on this. thread. For whatever it’s worth, I really appreciate your boldness, clarity, and passion for the truth.
Here’s my question for you (and it really is a question):
In your last comment you admitted:
“The differences were very small between all the TR editions.”
I say “admitted” because you obviously are admitting that actual differences did exist between the different TR editions.
So, how can someone holding your position genuinely claim “perfect preservation” beyond the autogropha if it is readily conceded that tangible differences (no matter how minor) do in fact exist among these selfsame post-autogrpahic copies?
To retort “the Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth” in this instance seems to me like an awfully dangerous (and convenient) dive into an ocean of subjectivism. That the Church is indeed the pillar and support of the Truth in no way erases the indisputable fact that real differences existed between the different TR edits.
If perfect (vs. adequate) preservation beyond the original manuscripts exists as you say, then why would the Church ever have to make a decision in the first place? Why would such differences between the TR versions not only exist but then also become conflated and mingled? If the Church is only to receive and recognize, how could there ever possibly have been a “second” or “third” (et. al.) edition to the TR, no matter how minor any changes may have been? How is this not double-talk or denial?
And, really, this is question. I am very interested in your answer.
Thanks,
Dave
Pastor B,
You said on my blog: Bob. You know what I believe. Why not talk to me like you do? It comes across like a show when you don’t. Please don’t take that as caustic. You’re not always the victim.
You said at the beginning of the discussion over on jackhammr.org: Bob, we have actually answered these kinds of questions before with you, but this may be your opportunity to do it in front of other people. That’s fine, but I wanted to give some context. You know you are welcome to comment here.
I am not sure if you get this or not. (Not trying to be disrespectful here.) But just because you gave me an answer, doesn’t mean that I should just bow down and put my tail in between my legs. You’ve told me what to believe, I guess. But just giving an answer doesn’t mean you have actually given me a satisfactory answer.
There were some questions that you said you’d deal with in the second book. Other questions you gave an answer, but it didn’t sit right or it didn’t seem to deal with all the sides of that particular problem to me. Even before I left your church and later left your textual position, the answers I was getting were not dealing with the questions I had adequately.
This is a debate. I am wondering how you handle different counter arguments. I haven’t memorized your book, and don’t have all your answers totally memorized. And for the sake of others I am arguing for my side and against yours. And you are welcome to, and have done, the same for your position.
This is no show, it is real.
Look for the words “textual criticism” in history before 1800 Ryan.
LOL. It’s all over the place before 1800. This idea that it started with Wescott & Hort, or Tischendorf, or whoever, is just not true.
I posted here because I actually read this blog, and you’ll notice I kept it short. I have about 150-500 pages of reading to do every night, and am not going to waste the time that the Lord gives me arguing with Onlies.
Bob, Ryan’s turn. Let’s be fair now. If you will be a faithful referee, I’ll promise to take the low road. Ryan, I read anywhere from 2-3,000 pages every night. Closer to two though usually.
Bob, you never ever behaved like questioning anything was difficult for you. That would sound like a revision of history. And you should also remember my not holding back in answering you.
Thanks Dave H. A lot of answers to the questions are coming on our blog throughout the month. I have never admitted that the TRs were the same. We have a whole chapter in our book on textual attack. I’m not saying you are making this argument, but those who do, I believe, are making a red herring argument with us. We take the historic position and that is not one that says there were no variants. Truly, I look at the position Bob recently takes as being in the heritage of Benjamin Warfield of Princeton regarding the doctrine of preservation. Most men that take the position don’t even know that, but that is where this came from. It is certainly not a Calvinistic heritage.
If you would look closely and I don’t mean it in a derogatory way, you would get your own answer by considering my article yesterday. Inductively the answer is found there. Then I make some very clear answers to questions that will answer it as well.
I belong to a Independent Baptist KJV only church. I’ve never heard our Pastor or any members question the salvation of people who hear the word in non-KJV versions.
I once belonged to a church that allowed any version and found created more problems for the members than just using one version.
I think those who think we question salvation of others through non-KJV version are misunderstanding the stance of Independent Baptist churches.
Bill,
I think you are correct that most KJV only Independent Baptist churches do not question the salvatio nof people who hear the word in non-KJV versions.
However, in Bible college I came across students who did. Or if they didn’t they came very close to that position. And beyond that, it is a fact that Jack Hyles and some of his guys have actually taken that position and even argued for it based off of a stretch of 1 Pet. 1:23-25.
So that position is out there. And Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger are known for having a similarly extreme position. Often when non-Independent Baptists think of KJV onlyism, they are thinking of the extreme forms represented by Hyles, Riplinger, and Ruckman.
So while you don’t hold that position, it is definitely common and widespread.
Pastor B.,
I don’t want to start a thread rehearsing history. But there were some answers that I wanted to believe and tried to, but eventually they did not settle my mind. Other times there were questions I said and felt were not answered, and felt odd about bringing up again. And then there were some that were unspoken.
As far as refereeing, I try to be fair. Ryan’s posts were so short and seemed more directed at the position and less the person. And his most recent comment seems like a simple answer to you. He was explaining why he didn’t want to debate on your blog. I think it is obvious that my doing so is taking a lot of my time too, and if I was busy in school as Ryan is, I could see why he would just through down his quick opinion here rather than risk being dragged into a blogging slug-fest (nothing derrogatory implied there, I have those on my blog occasionally too).
I guess he did call you guys “Onlies” but that could have been shorthand. I’ll monitor such name-calling in the future.
Alright we are past this now, I think. So let’s stick to the topic at hand. And for the rest of you, check out jackhammr.org and give me a hand! There is interesting debate happening over there, and at times I am a lone voice. I know in truth I represent a larger contingent of people on my side, but they don’t all necessarily know of jackhammr.org and/or choose not to enter the fray.
Imagine if I said this Bob, “I can’t really waste any more of my valuable time, time spent doing something that is actually profitable, talking to you.” I personally don’t care if Ryan says that and I don’t know him enough to have any kind of personal beef with him, but I take the time to point out always to you what they say, because you always bring this kind of thing up with us, as well as everyone on your side when they get in the fray. You have blinders on regarding your own side. You won’t admit that you were mocking a faith position earlier. That didn’t prove anything, just mocking it. I expect that from you, but just stop acting like that you are always the victim. I say this with a calm spirit and a smile, like I did when you asked me hundreds of questions while in our church.
This is what I meant: I have a very limited amount of time. I am not lying when I say I often read 500 pages a night in addition to working an almost full time job and going to class. I know the arguments about the text position and I know that you are not going to change my mind and I am not going to change your mind. It would be a waste of time, and my point was simply that I’m not obligated to go on anyone’s blog and debate with them.
My mind can be changed by the truth. I yearn for Scriptural presuppositions from the other side on this issue. After several books written in recent years, where I dig in enthusiastically, what I get is a revision of historic meaning and application of texts and a revision of the historic orthodox position on preservation.
Pastor Kent,
One straightforward question, please:
Which TR is the perfectly preserved Text?
Dave,
I believe the TR is the perfectly preserved text. I recognize the time-honored “more than one TR,” but not really–one TR, many editions. Which edition is what you are asking? Our position has never been about a single edition. Here’s the position: God preserved every word, every jot and tittle, and that they were generally accessible to believers of every generation. My believe is that all the words were available, that this is essentially 1598 Beza, but the churches accepted the text behind the KJV. This is what the churches agreed upon, and since the Holy Spirit moves through the churches, this is what God guided believers to. I believe it was perfect, because that is what God said He would do—perfection.
Now two straightforward questions for you. 1) Where in Scripture do we see that God would canonize 66 books? 2) Why don’t you recognize the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Peter? They’re in the minority, but they’re very old?
Since the NKJV keeps coming up, let me clarify one thing for you all over here. I understand our desire to read into what is being said/not being said, but I would point out that we did not say that we reject the NKJV because of Thomas Nelson. We simply said that we deny that Nelson has any authority to translate Scripture.
Here’s what another man (Douglas Wilson) said about the NKJV in his book Mother Kirk (p. 55-56)
“Another option is the result of scholars who have accepted the task of a scholarly reconstruction of the text but believe that the widespread acceptance of the minority readings is misguided. They have produced what is called the Majority Text (MT). A modern translation which refers to the MT in its marginal notes is the New King James Version (NKJV). In other words, they have come up with a traditional answer but with a suspect, modern method.”(6)
And his footnote says: “Hodges and Farstaad, Majority Text? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994). See also Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Pub., 1977, 1980).”
All,
I was surprised last night to find this thread going over here, and was a little perturbed at what I saw as, shall we say, “smack talk” going on. But that just demonstrates the difference that a different perspective makes in how we perceive. I thought Kent’s comments were in the same tenor and tone of what I was reading, so I was surprised (though not really) by Bob’s response to Kent’s tone. I would point out that these things are subjective.
When it comes down to it, I realize that the modern-day animal known as the KJVO tends to be a bit on the cranky side. We’ve made our bed, so now I suppose we must sleep in it. I think that if you will actually read what we are writing, you will find a difference, but you will also find that we are passionate about what we believe to be the truth.
That being said, please don’t question our integrity on the issue. We have said things that would not be your standard KJVO fare. However, we debated these things among ourselves for some time, particularly the call for a new edition. Ultimately, we decided that it would be best for us to be transparent on this issue. Yes, we really do think there needs to be an update. No, we are not trying to hide our intentions in affirmations and denials.
But hey, I understand why you would be suspicious… after all we’re “onlies”.
Kent,
Thank you for clarifying: “Our position has never been about a single edition.” I think it is important those who say they uphold your position as well as the many KJVO folk with whom you would share deep disagreements hear that statement very clearly. To say “essentially” the 1598 Beza is quantum leaps from saying “exclusively” the 1598 Beza.
By admitting that the “perfectly preserved” copy cannot be found (exclusively/exhaustively) in any one single edition of the TR is insightful. One of the questions it begs: ‘Why not, then, include the Vulgate into the lineage of the TR corpus allegedly received by the Church?’ Another one might be: ‘How can we trust an English version which was based on only one edition of the TR? I.e., if the perfectly preserved text cannot be delimited to one single edition exclusively, how can the transmission from only one of those editions be perfectly or comprehensibly reliable?’
It certainly seems like your position purports a loftier-than-reality view of the origin and development of the TR. Which is why I fear a revisionist history, or at least a deep distrust of otherwise widely-accepted history, is commonplace in your camp. Texts like Luke 1:1-4 should caution presuppositional apologists (of whom I am) not to undermine nor belittle the possibility and validity of historical research processes.
Answers to your questions:
1) Obviously, nowhere.
2) Red herring number two: for the same reason I don’t accept the Book of Mormon. Aside from considerations of time, location, population, etc., textual research is eminently concerned with questions of authenticity and thematic integrity.
Respectfully,
Dave
Hi,
Sorry to leave the discussion for so long. Every member of the family (except for maybe 1) was sick this weekend. We’ve been battling the bug, and hence I haven’t been keeping my nose in the discussions here and elsewhere. Hope you all understand.
Now Pastor Mallinak quoted Douglas Wilson on the NKJV, or so he said. But all I read was a mistrust in the Majority Text. Wilson affirmed the NKJV has alluded to the readings of the Majority Text in its footnotes. But he did not say that it followed the Majority Text’s readings. Take a minute and look up the key differences between the MT and the TR, places like 1 Jn. 5:7, Acts 8:37, and etc., and you will not find the NKJV leaving out those texts. They may discuss them in the footnotes, but not the text. And you can get NKJV’s without the footnotes, I’m sure. The NKJV used the TR for the Greek and a similar Hebrew text for the Hebrew as did the KJV.
First Bob, Your no response to your brother’s post here shows again your double standard about civility. His note is uncivil.
Now Dave,
I was hopeful of real conversation, but with this answer, you have broken that down. I will make a few comments, but I’m not going to talk with you any longer on the issue. You posed as though you were serious about a conversation, even said so, but it is obvious that you were not. My evaluation of you is that you just want to win an argument. I wish you cared about the truth. What you should be concerned about is whether your position is Scriptural. You don’t have a grasp on what the Bible teaches and I’ll reveal how that is the case from your “answer” here.
I wish you could start by rejoicing in the Scriptural doctrine of preservation, but you don’t do that. I haven’t heard anyone on your side do that.
You put these words in my mouth: “By admitting that the “perfectly preserved” copy cannot be found(exclusively/exhaustively) in any one single edition of the TR is insightful.” Anyone reading what I wrote would know that I didn’t make that point at all, and yet you say that I said it. Do you see how dishonest this is on your part? I said the text behind the KJV. You happen to know that we can get that text in one edition today in Scrivener’s 1894, but the single edition is not what the Bible specifically teaches. Why is it a big deal to you if KJVO people hear this? That shouldn’t mean anything to you, but it does manifest your motives. You have expressed them. They were not out of a zeal for the truth, but to create some sort of divide among KJV supporters. I hope you wouldn’t be surprised to find out that I care about what the Bible says and much less about what people think about my support of what it says. It would help you a lot if you were more concerned about what Scripture taught and less about what your group thinks of you.
I’ve already answered your Vulgate question, but you have proven that you aren’t paying attention and that you don’t really care about the answers. For anyone reading, the Latin is not the language in which Scripture was written.
How can we trust that we got a translation from a perfect text? I’ve explained that too, but you can only believe so much providence. You would say you believe God keeps you despite multitudes of sins on your part. You would say that God inspired Scripture despite thirty plus human authors over 1500 years. You would say that you believe in canonization by means of a miracle of providence. You are selective with your miracles. Canonization of books doesn’t have any backing from Scripture and yet you believe in that. You call my questions red herrings. Well, that’s disrespectful. They are parallel to the questions you asked me. We show you what Scripture says on preservation, oh ye of little faith, and you instead believe so-called “scholars” and “textual critics” to have a Bible with errors in it. Shame on you.
Dave, we don’t have any old copies of the book of Mormon, so we are talking apples and oranges. Textual research, there is your basis for your view of preservation. You depend on textual research. That’s how you come to your position on the books and the text. That is sad, because that isn’t anywhere in Scripture, and you betray your professed presuppositional apologetic. Luke 1:1-4 doesn’t tell us that God will preserve history. You put the “evidence” and “history” ahead of Scripture.
Respectfully,
Kent
fundyreformed…
I thought you’re comments were interesting because Peter Ruckman has actually spoke at our church on many occassions. Honestly…I was/am unaware that he was considered extreme with the whole KJV ans savlvation debate.
I’ve probably heard him speak at our church about 10 times…and agree that he definitely thinks all other versions of the Bible our inferior or watered down from the truth compared to KJV….However…I have heard him say that he does not question the salvation of fellow brethren using other versions…but does say that he believes the devil uses these other…more untruthful versions….as a way to slightly change the truth to deceive believers about the sovereignty of God
Sorry about all the bad grammar and some words not being spelled correctly…i.e…our instead of are…I’m doing this at work at type quickly without much chance to edit
Bill,
Again this is what is commonly said of Ruckman. If you have ever read his bulletin/paper that he puts out, you will see he is quite vitriolic to say the least to his opponents. I have seen him claim Spurgeon and other great preachers of the past as basically being Satan’s agents, because of their not being KJV only. To elevate this issue to that height seems very wrong.
He, even by fellow KJV onlies, is noted as being very abrasive in his speech, even using questionable language or worse. Also he has been divorced four times and has some other strange beliefs, from what I was taught about him in a college class (mind you a KJV only college).
Now it is a fact that Hyles took that extreme position, and apparently Ruckman doesn’t. But some of the things Ruckman has said throughout the years would make it seem like he had.
Again the issue for me isn’t whether Ruckman does or does not hold this position. Rather, there is such an extreme position out there. Also, it seems from many things Ruckman says, that his position is close to that extreme. The kind that would demonize almost anyone who is not KJV only.
Again I could be wrong in including Ruckman’s name. But Ruckman has been touting his position for 35 years, and the term “Ruckmanite” has been used as a synonym for “KJVO extremist” long before I took up my pen. And again it is KJVOs who are calling Ruckmanites extreme. Many KJVOs, like D.A. Waite don’t want to be included as of the same position as Ruckman. And indeed, David Cloud and D.A. Waite have received there fair share of invective from Ruckman, even though they are both committed KJV onlyists.
Pastor Brandenburg,
I am quite at a loss to see how “uncivil” Dave’s comment was. He may have misunderstood you. But I don’t think he intentionally tried to twist your words. He took them to a conclusion you wouldn’t agree with, but then he is debating you here.
And he specifically lessened the force of statements which could be seen as uncivil in the third paragraph by using terms like “it seems”, and “I fear”. Nothing seems extremely uncivil to me. He called some of your questions “red herrings”. You have done the same with others, how is that “disrespectful”?
Pastor Brandenburg,
One serious question: Do you believe that all of God’s Words are found exactly in any one Greek text (NT) or Hebrew text (OT)? Or do you believe that their translated equivalents are found all in one translation edition(NT or OT)?
Bob, first, it all depends at where it is directed. That’s the point I’m making. How can you expect me to follow your standard, and it is your standard for me, not mine for me, when you don’t uphold it with Dave? I could go through in great detail, but just to start, he never was interested in opening his mind to anything. His tone changed once I answered his question. It was a tactic. “Be nice so he answers your questions and then soar in for the kill.” Words like “quantum leap” are the same kind of thing I would say that you would say is uncivil. It is a stinging statement. You have blindspots, that’s what it comes down to. I think you either be consistent or you just leave alone this line of tack that you make almost every time I’m here. You started with that with me, and then pointed out what you thought were specific examples. I defended myself and you recanted ZERO. The only time you wanted the conversation about “style” to be done was when it was pointed at you, and then you were all “let’s talk about content.”
This whole exercise in TR edition is simply to take the KJV vector argument, which then goes to say, “see, you’re a Ruckmanite.” Or, the “the KJV translators are textual critics.” Both of these are wrong, and we have explained how, and it falls on completely deaf ears. It refuses to understand the point. When we write the second book, we will show this in detail, but men in the 1600, 1700, and 1800s in their preaching referred to the Greek text when they preached the KJV, so guess what? THEY HAD THE TEXT!! They had it, they read it, and they referred to it in their sermons. It wasn’t as if there was no text to which they could refer until Scrivener’s 1894 came out.
These men also believed they had every word available. That is the historic position. Your position is the new invention. I don’t really hear you guys arguing against that either. If you go through most of the modern quotes, 80-90 percent of them are a translation issue.
Dave says that the canonicity issue is a red herring. That works as propaganda, but it isn’t true. Why 66 books? Answer that. Is all there is to it, doctrinal clarity, so any old text that is doctrinally clear now a possibility of in the Bible? His answer is avoiding the issue of canonicity, which in and of itself is tell-tale. The other option is that he is ignorant, it seems, I think, perhaps.
I believe that the churches agreed on the KJV, hence the text behind the KJV, since they knew they came from a Greek and Hebrew text. I recognize that you can find men that will not agree with this, but are they taking a Scriptural position on preservation, and show me what they have written on preservation. Without that, they are not contributing to Scriptural teaching on this.
Kent,
Thanks for questioning my motives. I figured it’d only be a matter of time. You’ve become a bit predictable, you know.
For whatever it’s worth, I actually am trying to have a Biblically-guarded/guided “openness” to the truth. I am genuinely seeking to better understand your historically unique and logically complex position. But in the process, I do hope that the Holy Spirit will keep my heart humbled to the Truth, so as to help me adjust and change my thinking where I need to.
And what about you, Kent? Are you honestly approaching this conversation with an “open mind” and a humble posture? Perhaps you are; so I’d better be careful not to play God on you. But from observable evidence you yourself might have to defend against the accusation of an ulterior motive.
I wanted to make certain and establish (after truly hearing it from you clearly) that you did not ascribe to the necessity of one-edition. And I wanted to alert other KJVO persons to this, not to unnecessarily divide anyone, but rather to help them see that there are deep-seated differences between most of them and your particular persuasion (in my estimation). Why should any of them naively assume that they’re on the same page with you when in fact they’re not. Card-playing is unhelpful in any theological debate, including this one.
Yes, actually I am very ignorant. I am a foolish thing chosen by Christ who has the added fortune of a normal/less-than-normal intellect. I certainly never want to exult in ignorance. But honestly, in comparison to so many others…I really am. Despite having studied three years of NT Greek in college, including a couple of classes Textual Criticism, I want to authentically go on record as admitting to be an overall ignoramus. Really. Whatever I say, surely better be tested by the grid of Scripture. I make no claim to infallibility nor superiority.
I labeled your questions as “red herrings” for what I thought were good reasons.
Regarding canonicity, isn’t that an immature question? I mean, it’s an argument from silence that can slice both ways. Scripture neither reveals nor prohibits the idea of canonicity. And I think I understand where you might be going with such a question: if I admit to such Biblical silence on a subject so obviously significant to orthodoxy, then I shouldn’t easily dismiss your claims to the mode/definition of perfect preservation even though Scripture therein remains similarly silent. I agree. But I still think it’s an inane question. That’s why I label it as a “red herring.” It has nothing to do with the essential theological sustainability of arguments for or against your position (or mine).
The second question probably surprised me the most. I mean, why do you yourself reject the Gospel of Thomas? Because it is “old” or in the “minority”? I certainly hope there are more weighty and more bluntly obvious reasons why you would dismiss such patently spurious documents. Then why would you expect anything less in regards to my orthodox rejection of the same? Like I said, sure smells like a red herring to me.
What might puzzle me most about your position (as I currently struggle to understand it) is your seeming outright ostrich-denial of “textual criticism.” It’s as if you view the very phrase as demonic, let alone any hint of its core concept. So that deeply puzzles and amazes me. What’s so scary about criticizing, analyzing, discerning, making decisions about a text? For goodness’ sake, how on earth does one go about “receiving” any text if he doesn’t thereby make some decision or distinction between that text and another one he perceives as inferior?
Let’s face it, Kent, whether you like it or not we now have somewhere of in the ball park of 5,500 extant partial (a few whole/almost whole)copies of what is assumed to be the canonical Greek NT. This vast array of textual copies arise from at least four distinct textual families (so researches assert), apparently surviving from varying generations throughout the history of the Church (from very old to much more recent). Now…what do you do? Just pretend to close your eyes (faith, right?) and feel your way to the “right one” (which isn’t one single copy/edition after all, we’ve established). But even then you’re making a decision, and have thereby inescapably engaged in that nefarious sin of textual criticism. If I am grossly misunderstanding your disdain for “textual criticism,” by all means, please enlighten.
In conclusion, I hope we all take 1 Timothy 6:4 to heart. While I am all about pursuing and defending the Truth, I do wonder if even my own rantings have foolishly contributed to great waste of Kingdom time and energy. Maybe not. But let’s be careful. And I hope to practice what I preach.
Kent, I really urge you ask yourself if you aren’t taking great pains in seeking to invent or discover or perpetuate endless ambiguities and arguments and historical re-makes to support a wildly unique and woefully complex (I say, contradictory) position. I hope I’ve been more clear now in expressing my profound befuddlement with your claims.
Respectfully,
Dave
So Pastor B., are you saying that the KJV is the retainer of all the preserved words of the canon? Are you going with 1769 or the 1611. If I could point out places where the KJV departs from all known texts, would you still say it is mistake free? Would you still say it contains all the preserved words?
This question is important, because if the KJV is “ratified” by the decision of the churches, which KJV did they ratify, and how are they absolutely sure of each and every word. Or do the churches not see having each and every word as all that important, considering they are fairly sure of almost all the words?
If I were David Hayton, I would come on here in all caps and write out a prayer asking God to forgive David for his blatant incivility…
But I digress. Of course it wasn’t incivil. Nor was it disrespectful at all. Only Kent’s was… predictably. Right, David?
[...] blogs out there. Sorry! Lastly, this week I have been entangled in the KJV Only debate both here (on my blog) and at Jackhammer. So I have been blogging, but you all may not have noticed. (By [...]
For the record, Dave’s last post was a little tough. But he had just been dismissed out of hand, for what I did not consider was an uncivil comment. This last comment may be “uncivil”, but it is in response to a comment that virtually wrote Dave off.
Also for the record, Dave came on here saying he did not see what I saw in Kent Brandenburg’s comments.
Enough about “tone” now. I’ve made my case, and you guys have made yours. Let’s deal with the question I brought up in #42. Or let’s deal with some of the things Dave brought up in #41. Or let’s deal with any other issue. Or let’s move back over to jackhammr.org.
And for those of you reading, come on out into the open and let me know where you stand and what you think! Were there good arguments made by the KJVO side? Do you understand what Pastors Brandenburg and Mallinak are advancing about this issue? Do you think I am wrong on some point? Let me know, I’m all ears!
Bob,
1) You don’t represent Scripture.
2) You don’t represent a historic position.
3) You are left with a Bible with errors in it, a position that I don’t think a huge number of people in the pew of New Testament churches has historically accepted.
4) Miracles can be done for canonicity, because how else did these people know what books. They also had to settle on books. We have no historic record that churches actually did finally settle on books, unless you count the state church council of the Roman Empire. This is a faith position. [For the record, you are radically inconsistent, huge double standard, on your "tone" standard.] Somehow the Holy Spirit could perform a miracle of providence in guiding us exactly to 66 books, but He could not do it with Words—THIS IS YOUR POSITION—when Scripture does say “words” but does not say “books.”
5) Your position is basically no position, only an attack on ours without stating a position that comes from Scripture. Like the textual critics of the mid 19th century, you push the eject button on the doctrine of preservation.
Bob,
Keep up the good work; and don’t move from the gospel.
Matthew 7:1-6
7:1 “Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.
6 “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.
Steve
Pastor B.,
Alright now. You firmly believe me to be wrong. I understand that you are serious about this. Please don’t think that I’m not serious either. I have thought through what I believe and I remain unconvinced of your position. I don’t think you’re right about this.
But, would you be so kind as to answer my questions from comment #39 and my follow up in #42? I wonder as to why you won’t answer these questions. I still haven’t got a definitive answer from you on this, and I am interested to know what your position with regard to these questions really is. Please go on record and explain your answer to these questions.
I plan on answering your comment #47 in a post sometime this week.
The short version of that post is as follows:
1) I believe I do represent Scripture and that you are stretching Scripture to say I’m not.
2) I believe that my position is every bit as historic as yours. In fact in some ways yours is a relatively novel position in some respects.
3) You have yet to claim that all of God’s Words are found in any one text edition or English translation edition. Therefore, you need more than one copy at least to be able to point out all of God’s Words. If that is fine with you, it should be fine for me. I believe God’s Word is preserved perfectly, and in some small points the Bible I hold in my hand departs from the autographs, but not in any substantial measure and not enough to affect the overall doctrinal content of Scripture.
4) I believe a miracle was done in preservation, in the sense of Providence. God led his people to preserve each and every word in the multiplicity of copies. Just like God did not drop down a list of 66 books out of the sky, neither did he drop down one printed text with all the preserved Words either. He has led his church to largely accept the current critical text.
5) Wait for my forthcoming post to see my position as it relates to Scripture. You could phrase your position as an attack on the current status quo (and the status quo for the last hundred years + for the church). And in fact, historically, your position was birthed from attack and not from a study of God’s Word on the issue. At least that is how I see the history of that position.
Again, one last time, please answer my questions from #39 and #42!
Thanks.
I answered #39 in #40. I answered #42 in #40. You just don’t like my answer because it doesn’t provide a “gotcha” moment for you. You want to unwrap your James Price material to form a smokecloud on the doctrine of preservation.
As for what else you said, you are saying that the text the church used, from at least 1517 to 1881, a time period that is inarguable from history, had 7% of the Bible inaccessible or unavailable, a period of nearly 400 years. You are saying that the text that the churches did settle on was actually wrong. You are saying that the product of an invention of man’s reasoning that comes about through human processes improved upon what God had done and the churches had recognized.
And now you are going to show me how that this position is Scriptural. I’ll be waiting. One word comes to mind though: Picasso. That’s what it will look like when you were done. Enough confusion will be caused that it will look like a piece of modern art.