Category: Issues

various issues within fundamentalism specifically or evangelicalism as a whole

The Bible & the KJVO Debate, Part 2

~ fundyreformed ~ 13 Comments

In the introduction to this series, I tried to explain briefly why the KJV Only debate is so important: KJV Onlyists are framing the issue as a matter of faith. By faith, you must believe the KJV is the only completely faithful Bible today. And a  rejection of  the KJVO position is a rejection of faith. In short, you must really be, despite claims to the contrary, someone who prizes human reason over faith in God’s Word.

In the face of such claims, this debate becomes important. If true, any non KJVO Christians are not much better than Bible deniers like Bart Ehrman. If false, these claims are at the least very wrong headed, and they have the potential to lead many astray. Because of these claims, KJV Onlyism has often caused  severe divisions in the Body of Christ, harming institutions, fellowships, churches, and even families.

Having set the stage, let me now detail my plan for this series. In a nutshell, I want to show how Scripture applies to this whole debate. To do this, I want to examine the Scriptural arguments marshalled by KJV Onlyists for their position. I also plan on showing how Scripture both supports and teaches the non KJVO position. And then I want to look to the Bible to see what else we can find that will speak to the debate as a whole.

This post will attempt to detail the main Scriptural arguments that are said to support or teach the KJV Only position. Right here near the top, I should briefly define what I mean by “KJV Only”. The KJV Only position declares that the KJV is the only Bible version that English-speaking people should use. Some advocates of the position would downplay the importance of knowing Greek and Hebrew for Bible study, and strictly stick to the English of the KJV. Others, take a more moderate approach and prefer the Greek and Hebrew texts presumed to underly the KJV. But since  their textual choices are guided by the choices the KJV translators made, “KJV Only” is an apt descriptor.

The arguments I will detail here are those made by the moderates. I myself was a convinced KJVO moderate for several years, and so this position is foremost in my mind as I write these posts. While there are many other arguments for the  KJVO  position, this post centers on those which are said to provide the position’s Scriptural basis.

The above chart is an attempt to express visibly the chief Biblical arguments for the KJVO position. As I walk you through the chart, I will be referring to the arguments or statements  by color. The orange statements, are all said to be taught explicitly by Scripture. Thus you will see a dark black arrow pointing from the Bible to those arguments. Some of those statements are also supported by  hollow arrows. These represent logical arguments flowing from the Scriptural teaching. For instance, a perfectly inerrant inspiration is claimed to be useless without a perfect preservation. This argument is not a Scriptural teaching, per se, but is considered a “corollary” of a Scriptural argument. So KJVO advocates claim that perfect preservation is taught both by clear Scriptural teaching, and by the neccessary corollary of inspiration.

Other colored arguments are not explicitly affirmed in Scripture. The purple ones are very closely related to Scriptural affirmations, however. Everything above the dotted line represents the Scriptural frame of reference that KJVO-ists take to the evidence at hand. So what is above the line shapes their presuppostional approach to the debate. Everything below the line represents successive logical arguments and deductions made by KJVO-ists. Given these deductions, other conclusions follow with the end result of separation over this issue.

Now that I’ve walked through the chart, let me briefly walk through the arguments. Before doing so, let me make clear that on several of these poinst, non KJV Onlyists would happily agree. But we will get into the non KJVO position later. So again, what follows will be my attempt to  argue for the KJVO position following their reasoning.

The Bible explicitly teaches its own inerrancy and (plenary, verbal) inspiration [Perfect Inspiration]. The Bible also explicitly teaches the perfect preservation of that perfect inspiration. 2 other Biblical lines of reasoning are made for perfect preservation. First, a perfect inspiration is  meaningless without a perfect preservation. The second line of reasoning is twofold. It is assumed that since each word and letter was inspired perfectly, not having total certainty about those words and letters would leave us with a Bible lacking authority. And since God gave the Bible to be our authority, He must needs preserve each word and letter perfectly to preserve that authority. [This is what is meant by the purple statement in between Perfect Inspiration and Perfect Preservation.]

The Bible also teaches that all the words of the Bible will be accessible to God’s people always. This idea is also supported logically by perfect preservation, for if God took the trouble to preserve His words perfectly, then surely he would make them accessible too (otherwise that would seem to defeat the whole point). This point also finds support in the logical arguments for perfect preservation. If perfect preservation is required for there to be value in and authority from perfect inspiration, then perfect accessibility is required too. Perfect accessibility, then, leads inevitably to the assumption that all of God’s words would generally be identifiable. In other words, these accessible words would be easy to spot. They would likely be in one manuscript for the most part, or in one manuscript tradition or in one printed text or Bible version. Even if they’re not all in one manuscript, it should be fairly easy to identify where they are, since they are perfectly accessible.

Finally, the Bible teaches that God’s people will generally just receive God’s Word. They don’t question it or judge it, or determine that it should be God’s Word. They receive it and recognize it.

These Biblical arguments predispose the KJV Onlyists to make the following conclusions based on the textual evidence we see. The Greek Textus Receptus (TR) and Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) were received by God’s people. They have been and are accessible, and obviously they were preserved. Therefore, the TR and MT are the only true Bible. Or, only Bibles translated from the TR and MT would be true Bibles. Hence, we should separate from anyone who rejects our belief that the KJV (as the only faithful and received Bible translated from the TR and MT) is the only true Bible.

This  was obviously a reduction of complex argumentation. In future posts, I will give the Biblical passages which KJV Onlyists use to support each point, and I will deal with the exegesis of them. I also plan to test the Scriptural arguments and logical assumptions given above. So stay tuned for future installments of “The Bible and the KJV Only Debate”.

Click   here   for all posts in this series.

The Bible and the KJV Only Debate

~ fundyreformed ~ 17 Comments

Anyone familiar with the KJV Only Debate knows that it is the quintessential “hot button” topic. Proponents of KJV Onlyism, which would be most people who insist that the KJV is the only acceptable English version, are very serious about this issue. Why? Because it is a matter of faith.

Many of you might be rolling your eyes right now. Let me guess why. 1) This whole KJV debate sounds very strange to you. 2) You are weary of this debate and see so many more important things to focus on. 3) You use  the KJV and love it, but you don’t want to make this whole issue a big deal. 4) This whole issue seems so complex that you wonder how it can be so clear as to be dogma.

I can understand why people don’t get this issue. The endless debates get old real quick. But this is why it is important. KJV Only adherents, insist that if you really believe the Bible and if you really believe God’s promises, you must conclude like they do about the KJV. And if you don’t, your a doubter. When faced with historical or textual evidence which seems to contradict their position, the ever resilient KJV Onlyist will appeal to faith. He may not be able to prove it, but he can surely believe it. And isn’t this what we normally encourage with other issues (creationism, inerrancy, inspiration, miracles, etc.)?

Just because I don’t agree with the KJV Onlyists, does not mean I (and other non-KJV Onlyists) don’t love and respect the Bible. And I believe the Bible has much to say about the KJV Only debate. So I am planning a series of posts which detail what the Bible teaches with regard to this debate. You’re reading the introduction to that series. Let me conclude this post with some important, and somewhat lengthy quotes by Dr. Kevin Bauder from One Bible Only? Examining the Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible (Kregel, 2001). These quotes and this post will set the stage for the issues I plan to address in these posts.

The question is not whether the Bible contains a promise that God will preserve His Word. King James-Only advocates go much further. They insist that God has preserved His words and preserved them exactly in a singular, identifiable, and accessible form. So the question is whether the Bible contains a promise that God will preserve, word for word, the text of the original documents of Scripture in a particular manuscript, textual tradition, printed text, or version. [pg. 158]

The core issue in the King James-Only controversy is whether one must have the very words of God (all of the words and only the words of the autographs) to have the Word of God….Does possessing the Word of God depend upon the exact preservation of all of the words and only the words of the original documents of Scripture in an accessible form? If so, what text of Scripture teaches us this premise? Where are the exact words of the originals to be found, and what passage of Scripture assures us of the location of this accessible manuscript, manuscript tradition, published text, or version? If the advocates of the King James-Only position cannot answer these questions with explicit, biblical, reasonable, and verifiable evidence, then they ought to stop defending their position as if it were a question of doctrine…. [pg. 164]

Click   here   for all posts in this series.

Where We're at in this Whole Debate

~ fundyreformed ~ 13 Comments

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!

A KJV Only Manifesto?

~ fundyreformed ~ 67 Comments

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.

Calvinism, Pain, and Scrutiny

~ fundyreformed ~ 9 Comments

This is just a brief post to let you know Time magazine recently interviewed Al Mohler regarding his Calvinism, and his recent near-death hospital stay. He did recover fully, by the way. But Time’s interview gives a fascinating insight into how secularism looks at both Christianity and Calvinism. This is definitely worth a quick read.

Here it is. (HT: Ryan DeBarr)