Most of you have only peeked at our KJV Only debate here. Some may not have even done that! Well I wanted to give you a quick status note, and also a programming bulletin.
By now the comment thread under my post “A KJV Only Manifesto” has equalled (or surpassed) the highest number of comments I’ve yet had on any post around here. So the discussion has been steady and at times fierce. Generally the debate has been level headed, but tensions have risen of late.
I asked these questions:
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)? [comment #39]
and later:
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? [comment #42]
I received this answer and no more:
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….
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. [from comment #40, see also comment #50]
Now you be the judge: did he answer the question?
Well this same pastor just posted a new post at Jackhammer where he agreed that Kevin Bauder nailed the issue with the following quote form p. 26 of One Bible Only? Examining the Exclusive Claims of King James–Onlyism:
Again\””this point cannot be overemphasized\””perfect preservation demands that all of the words and only the words that were in the originals be present. If the King James-Only controversialists begin to equivocate on this point, they have really given away the debate. If they can admit that a legitimate margin of error exists within their sources, then they do not really believe in perfect preservation at all; they do not really believe that all of the very words of God must be preserved to have the Word of God. If they are willing to recognize two dependable sources that differ on even a single word, then, in principle, they agree with our position. They ought to change the theological, doctrinal judgments that attend their view and admit the whole controversy is simply an academic debate over acceptable percentages. Our discussion should turn from theologizing to the doing of textual criticism. [quote from Kevin Bauder, quoted in this post at Jackhammer]
So, if Pastor B. agrees that the issue boils down to whether we have every Word of God available in one place (readily accessible), then he should be able to answer my questions. He should also see why my questions are so important in this debate.
I’ll end this long post now, but check out my response to this latest offering by Pastor B. over at Jackhammer by clicking here [if that link doesn't work it is the 3rd comment on this post].
One last thing, I have promised to bring forth a post here in the next couple days that shows how my position on this issue is not a denial of Scripture. I plan to provide the Scriptural backing for my position. For those of you not interested in this discussion, sorry! But I have to tackle this subject when it comes up. Hope you understand!
Dr. James White has been covering textual criticism on the last three programs of the Dividing Line. He quotes someone else all the time when he says, “They have exchanged truth for certainty.” I think that sums it up.
I read your comments and Pastor B’s response. He hasn’t faced or answered the issues and he won’t because he can’t. He would have to give up certainty to do it.
Don,
That’s kinda what I said on my post over on the KJV-only thread. I quoted Dan Wallace’s statement about ‘certainty replacing truth’ in his article on Bible.org. KJV-onlyists’ interpretation of certainty is that if the text of the Bible is ‘certain’ (ideally, yes, but only an omniscient God knows the exact wording of the text, and that hasn’t been revealed to us, and additionally, God hasn’t providentially preserved the text of the Bible in the way that KJV-onlyists insist that God should have), God would have done so that can be demonstrated objectively and theologically. Neither assumption can be substantiated.
I have answered the questions. You just don’t like the answers, Don, because you would have to give up “scholarship,” “academia,” “rationalism,” and elitist uncertainty to like them. I have put many questions here that haven’t been answered and won’t because they don’t have a Scriptural position. Instead, they resort to ad-hominem, very much what we see when Jesus confronted the religious leadership.
Kent,
I highly doubt this is what you’re saying, but your comment above sounds like you equate rational thinking, scholarship, academia and “elitist uncertainty” (whatever that means) with usurping ultimate (God’s) authority in our lives as Christians. Since when did God ever forbid us mortal men from using the analytical minds he has given us? The unbelieving world would eat us for breakfast for suggesting that we put our brains into park. That sounds like a blind faith rather than a reasonable faith.
Back to “elitist uncertainty.” What do you mean by that? What is its opposite? Humble certainty (aka childlike faith)?
Having a high view and respect for the AV with the desire to use it exclusively is certainly an individual’s own perogative. It is a morally legitimate endeavor and not one which should fall under close scrutiny. Yet, what has come to be known as “KJV-onlyism” should be considered seperately.
Anytime you add an “ism” to a word, you are creating a philosophy of the thing your describing. We must proceed with caution when creating this type of philosophical defense as to not come into conflict with the very Word while trying to guard our own convictions about how to use and apply it.
The emergent movement, part of post-modernism, participates in an elitist uncertainty about the meaning of Scripture. They hover above teaching about homosexuality, saying that we can’t really be certain, so we’re going to admit uncertainty, because we are the true thinkers, the real thinkers. They deny the doctrine of perspecuity, which is an actual doctrine in Scripture to come to this position. This seems like an odd position to come to for those who don’t take it, but I believe your positions are odd for someone who doesn’t take it.
I don’t mind being called a perfect preservationist, or a Baptist, or a whole lot of labels. I just want them to be Scriptural. I also don’t mind being considered by some to be a sect. The Romans thought Christians were a sect of Judaism. I can’t help it that people who won’t believe don’t understand.
Preservation, accessibility, perfection, canonicity, and sufficiency of Scripture are all taught in Scripture. You shouldn’t deny those to fit into academia. My view is the one taken by people of the Bible really until rationalism and then when Benjamin Warfield redefined providence, equating it for the first time with modern textual criticism. This is like an evolutionary day age theory, saying that God created, yes, but He used evolution to do it. I reject that for a Scriptural point of view, a grammatical historical point of view.
Are you guys settled on a 66 book canon? Where does the Bible say we are to be settled any certain number of books. Shouldn’t we be considering the inclusion or exclusion of different books? Even in the reformation, some thought James to be non-canonical. I don’t, but if you are to be consistent with your evidenciary position, we do have old, doctrinally feasible books. If we are not settled on what the Words of Scripture, when that is taught in the Bible, then why is it we are settled on the books of Scripture? David Hayton would just call this a red herring. Even the “scholars” don’t consider it a red herring—they put it in the same category. At least explain Scripturally why it isn’t.
I read the A.V. and I’ll defend why I read it until the cows come home, but I don’t bother trying to win people over to reading it if they don’t want to. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.
I wouldn’t consider myself as an advocate of KJV-onlyism, but I prefer it to any other.
https://www.armensblog.com
Armen,
Thanks for coming over and letting your opinion be heard. Let me reitirate that I like the A.V. too. People legitimately prefer it, for any number of reasons, and I respect that. When they make using the A.V. as a matter of separation or a chief doctrinal tenet, then we start having some problems.
At the end of the day, you are right: we can’t convince anyone, necessarily, to hold to our position. But when the issue becomes doctrinal and divisive, some kind of defense or interaction becomes necessary.
I checked out your blog, and it looks really good. I pray God blesses you in your walk with Him. Feel free to come on over here any time you’d like. I might drop by now and then on your turf. (Ah, but their are too many good blogs out there!)
Blessings in Christ,
Bob Hayton
Armin,
A perfect Bible is a chief tenet for me. Since God said the Bible was perfect and since we believe the Bible is Words and All of Them (verbal plenary), I think that the veracity of God is at stake. The veracity of God is important to me. In Revelation 22:14, 15, God said he had terrible punishment for the one who added to or took away from the. In the TR that is a continuous taking and adding away. In the CT that is an aorist, point action addition, taking away. So which is it? Is it a continuous taking or adding, or a point action adding or taking away. Bob, maybe you could get a creative use of the aorist for that one to make it a present. Anyway, they ironically corrupt the meaning of a text that warns about tampering with the text.
It is important Armin, and worth separating over as well. Not because of us, of course, but because of God. He’s worth it.
By the way, Armen, I only missed one letter of your name, but that’s no problem to CT people, as long as you still get the meaning.
The Free Presbyterian Church to which I belong ONLY permits the A.V. to be read and preached from in the pulpits, and I think this is good. Why?
Well, if you started to permit other versions it wouldn’t be long before the unlearned would be reading from something like ‘The Message’ or other trash like that. Some boundaries are vital to keep some sort of order.
In my opinion, there is no version BETTER than the AV, however some others are possibly PERMISSIBLE.
Every blessing!
Kent,
This is extremely late, but I just wanted to point out that aorist subjunctive verbs in Greek are not as simple as you imply.
The aorist subjunctive (which both the á¼Ï€Î¹Î¸á¿‡ ["add"] and ἀφέλῃ ["take away"] of vss. 18, 19 are in modern editions) are timeless (i.e., have only aspect) — but no *necessary* aspectal stress.
They are used here in 1st class (or 5th class, depending on which classification you use) conditional statements (á¼á½±Î½ protases with future indicatives in their apodoses).
They are simply stating a factual supposition: if A is done, then B will happen. They could be emphasizing punctiliar (point) action, or they could be emphasizing nothing in particular.
The present subjunctives found in the TR (á¼Ï€Î¹Ï„ίθῇ, ἀφαιÏῇ) could be emphasizing the linear nature of the action, though they may also be emphasizing nothing in particular. (And presents can be used for punctiliar action too, don’t forget, as with the present indicative λέγω in John 3:3, k.t.l)
You’ve left out the fact that both present and aorist subjunctives *can be* used interchangeably *without* implying anything *necessarily* about aspect (such as for stylistic reasons like meter or whatever other non-textual reasons why one might prefer either of the tense indicators).
You’ve set up the false dilemma that both the present and aorist subjunctives must strictly stress different aspects, and that the aorist subjunctive must stress the punctiliar aspect. Even granting the first of those requirements for the sake of argument, the aorist subjective can in fact leave the aspect undetermined, which would mean that in such a case, the present subjunctive is a (compatible) subset and the dilemma dissolves.
And further, are you really saying that the presents in the TR *are* stressing aspect!? If so, what kind of present aspect is it? Is it general (it’s OK to add to, or take away from, God’s Word, as long as it is only once)? is it progressive (it’s OK to add and take away, just don’t do it more and more)? habitual (it’s OK to add and take away, just don’t do it all the time)?
It’s very obvious that the stress is NOT on some form of linear aspect, but is rather punctiliar (which is why the KJV translates the presents in the TR as “shall take away” and “shall add”); it could even be ingressive if the aorist readings are adopted (i.e., “shall begin to add [now that it's complete], &c”).
So you have one of two options: insist that present subjunctives must stress some type of linear aspect, and reject the TR readings; or, accept that present subjunctives may not be stressing any particular verbal aspect, and accept both readings as valid. Either way, students of modern editions of the Greek New Testament have no problem.
The 3rd comment on the post doesn’t exist in the present.