Comments on: A Short KJV Detour (Part 2) http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/19/a-short-kjv-detour-part-2/ A Ministry of Shepherds' Fellowship Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:17:56 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: Webster http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/19/a-short-kjv-detour-part-2/#comment-9006 Tue, 20 Feb 2007 23:03:24 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/19/a-short-kjv-detour-part-2/#comment-9006 Typo report: Argument 1, Response paragraph 2 contains: "... did not use an addition ..." which probably should be "... did not use an edition ...". Typo report:
Argument 1, Response paragraph 2 contains: “… did not use an addition …” which probably should be “… did not use an edition …”.

]]> by: David Thatcher http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/19/a-short-kjv-detour-part-2/#comment-6578 Tue, 23 Jan 2007 16:58:05 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/19/a-short-kjv-detour-part-2/#comment-6578 The battle over preservation is always latent in this discussion. The sticking point is how to identify what has been preserved, or can we. The obvious answer is, that what has been preserved has always been available so then this would lead naturally to the Majority Text view; although the Majority Text view itself does not rest upon preservation. The CT scholars' response to this would be that we can't possibly presume to know how God preserved the text. The question here, is how evident and obvious would God choose to make His choice of preservation? Given that various text-types including mixed text-types have been in existance down through the centuries, is preservation a matter of where these types universally agree? The failure on the part of CT scholarship is in advancing a positive theory as to how God chose to preserve His word over the ages. It is similar to a defense attorney in court not having an alternate suspect. That's great that you can tell me I am mistaken, but what then is the truth? The battle over preservation is always latent in this discussion. The sticking point is how to identify what has been preserved, or can we.
The obvious answer is, that what has been preserved has always been available so then this would lead naturally to the Majority Text view; although the Majority Text view itself does not rest upon preservation.
The CT scholars’ response to this would be that we can’t possibly presume to know how God preserved the text. The question here, is how evident and obvious would God choose to make His choice of preservation?
Given that various text-types including mixed text-types have been in existance down through the centuries, is preservation a matter of where these types universally agree?
The failure on the part of CT scholarship is in advancing a positive theory as to how God chose to preserve His word over the ages. It is similar to a defense attorney in court not having an alternate suspect. That’s great that you can tell me I am mistaken, but what then is the truth?

]]> by: The Highland Host http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/19/a-short-kjv-detour-part-2/#comment-6467 Mon, 22 Jan 2007 11:49:44 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/19/a-short-kjv-detour-part-2/#comment-6467 On the KJV containing the Apocrypha: The AV (in the UK we prefer to call it the Authorised version) is an Anglican translation. The 39 articles of the Church of England, which predate the AV, state that (article 6) 'The other Books [Apocrypha] (as Hierome [Jerome, translator of the Latin Vulgate] saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine." The AV translators would all have had to agree to this statement at ordination, so of course they translated the Apocrypha. But they did not consider them on a par with the Old and New Testaments. On the KJV containing the Apocrypha: The AV (in the UK we prefer to call it the Authorised version) is an Anglican translation. The 39 articles of the Church of England, which predate the AV, state that (article 6) ‘The other Books [Apocrypha] (as Hierome [Jerome, translator of the Latin Vulgate] saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine.”

The AV translators would all have had to agree to this statement at ordination, so of course they translated the Apocrypha. But they did not consider them on a par with the Old and New Testaments.

]]> by: Paul Walker http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/19/a-short-kjv-detour-part-2/#comment-6428 Mon, 22 Jan 2007 00:05:29 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/19/a-short-kjv-detour-part-2/#comment-6428 Many don't realize that this same argument occurs for the various Spanish translations i.e. Reina-Valera vs. Version de 1960. By the way, the Reina-Valera predates the KJV. If older is better, the KJV folks need to learn Spanish. Many don’t realize that this same argument occurs for the various Spanish translations i.e. Reina-Valera vs. Version de 1960. By the way, the Reina-Valera predates the KJV. If older is better, the KJV folks need to learn Spanish.

]]> by: John Dekker http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/19/a-short-kjv-detour-part-2/#comment-6425 Sun, 21 Jan 2007 23:16:47 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/19/a-short-kjv-detour-part-2/#comment-6425 I don't think the response to Argument 1 has actually dealt with the argument itself. The thing is, a doctrine of inerrancy is useless without a corresponding doctrine of Providence. Otherwise we are merely locating the Word of God in a previous era. I don’t think the response to Argument 1 has actually dealt with the argument itself. The thing is, a doctrine of inerrancy is useless without a corresponding doctrine of Providence. Otherwise we are merely locating the Word of God in a previous era.

]]> by: Kent http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/19/a-short-kjv-detour-part-2/#comment-6396 Sun, 21 Jan 2007 02:06:46 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/19/a-short-kjv-detour-part-2/#comment-6396 Third paragraph, last line, I meant, "gospel according to Judas." Third paragraph, last line, I meant, “gospel according to Judas.”

]]> by: Kent http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/19/a-short-kjv-detour-part-2/#comment-6395 Sun, 21 Jan 2007 02:04:20 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/19/a-short-kjv-detour-part-2/#comment-6395 The trek that you describe David (Thatcher) seems very similar to the one taken by the religion professor at the University of North Carolina, Dr. Bart Ehrman. Ehrman made a profession of faith as a child growing up in Iowa and immediately began memorizing Scripture, believing that the Bible was perfect. He found out differently upon attending Moody Bible Institute, that the manuscripts had variants. Then he went to Wheaton and found out that we aren't sure that we have all the Bible. Finally, he went to Princeton to study under his adopted father (by his admission), Bruce Metzger, a liberal, but highly respected textual critic, often quoted by fundamentalists and the professors at places like Master's Seminary. There he finally settled that we can't be sure Scripture was inspired. Ehrman writes in his book, Misquoting Jesus, these tell-tale words: "This became a problem for my view of inspiration, for I came to realize that it would have been no more difficult for God to preserve the words of Scripture than it would have been for him to inspire them in the first place." I think a lot of people have had Ehrman's thought right before they push the eject button just like he did. We believe inspiration by faith. We should believe preservation by faith too. They are the same in that way. This article interestingly calls their own view the "balanced eclectic" view. However, it does not start with Sciptural presuppositions about preservation. Do you see any developed Bibliology on preservation given in the entire two days so far? We should be starting with Scripture on this issue. Instead, they start with philosophy and opinion and so-called history. It's nice when someone gets to call their own view "balanced." They made that name up for their own view. Nice, huh? Personally, I don't think it is balanced. An individual person should not have the authority to canonize Scripture every Sunday, determining what the Bible is right on the spot. You know what eclectic means, don't you? It's a fancy word. It means one person gets to choose what the Bible is. It is balanced because the person supposedly is balanced. It isn't, we can guess, balanced eclecticism when the person starts choosing what books of the Bible are in Scripture (not just the words). He starts asking why the gospel according to Jesus isn't in there too. Many quotes are given about translation and that makes it a confusing issue. We know that men can translate the words in many different ways. However, the Scriptural position is that God has preserved every word in the language in which it was written (Isaiah 59:21; Matthew 5:18; 24:35; etc.) and that every word has been generally accessible to every generation of believers (Matthew 4:4; Isaiah 59:21; etc.). God's Word is perfect and pure (Psalm 19:7, 8; 119:140). The position of God's churches through the ages is stated in the London Baptist Confession, which says concerning preservation: [The Old Testament and the New Testament] by his (God's) singular care and providence kept pure in all ages." These men (men like the authors of this article) will tell you that they believe that God's Words are found in the "multitude of the manuscripts," but most of them don't believe that themselves. They believe that there are certain places in the Old Testament that we still have no original language text, but that we can extrapolate by means of examining translation and then backtranslating from the Greek to the Hebrew. They also do not believe that we can be sure that we still have a perfect Bible. The trek that you describe David (Thatcher) seems very similar to the one taken by the religion professor at the University of North Carolina, Dr. Bart Ehrman. Ehrman made a profession of faith as a child growing up in Iowa and immediately began memorizing Scripture, believing that the Bible was perfect. He found out differently upon attending Moody Bible Institute, that the manuscripts had variants. Then he went to Wheaton and found out that we aren’t sure that we have all the Bible. Finally, he went to Princeton to study under his adopted father (by his admission), Bruce Metzger, a liberal, but highly respected textual critic, often quoted by fundamentalists and the professors at places like Master’s Seminary. There he finally settled that we can’t be sure Scripture was inspired. Ehrman writes in his book, Misquoting Jesus, these tell-tale words: “This became a problem for my view of inspiration, for I came to realize that it would have been no more difficult for God to preserve the words of Scripture than it would have been for him to inspire them in the first place.”

I think a lot of people have had Ehrman’s thought right before they push the eject button just like he did. We believe inspiration by faith. We should believe preservation by faith too. They are the same in that way. This article interestingly calls their own view the “balanced eclectic” view. However, it does not start with Sciptural presuppositions about preservation. Do you see any developed Bibliology on preservation given in the entire two days so far? We should be starting with Scripture on this issue. Instead, they start with philosophy and opinion and so-called history.

It’s nice when someone gets to call their own view “balanced.” They made that name up for their own view. Nice, huh? Personally, I don’t think it is balanced. An individual person should not have the authority to canonize Scripture every Sunday, determining what the Bible is right on the spot. You know what eclectic means, don’t you? It’s a fancy word. It means one person gets to choose what the Bible is. It is balanced because the person supposedly is balanced. It isn’t, we can guess, balanced eclecticism when the person starts choosing what books of the Bible are in Scripture (not just the words). He starts asking why the gospel according to Jesus isn’t in there too.

Many quotes are given about translation and that makes it a confusing issue. We know that men can translate the words in many different ways. However, the Scriptural position is that God has preserved every word in the language in which it was written (Isaiah 59:21; Matthew 5:18; 24:35; etc.) and that every word has been generally accessible to every generation of believers (Matthew 4:4; Isaiah 59:21; etc.). God’s Word is perfect and pure (Psalm 19:7, 8; 119:140).

The position of God’s churches through the ages is stated in the London Baptist Confession, which says concerning preservation: [The Old Testament and the New Testament] by his (God’s) singular care and providence kept pure in all ages.” These men (men like the authors of this article) will tell you that they believe that God’s Words are found in the “multitude of the manuscripts,” but most of them don’t believe that themselves. They believe that there are certain places in the Old Testament that we still have no original language text, but that we can extrapolate by means of examining translation and then backtranslating from the Greek to the Hebrew. They also do not believe that we can be sure that we still have a perfect Bible.

]]> by: David Thatcher http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/19/a-short-kjv-detour-part-2/#comment-6387 Sat, 20 Jan 2007 19:49:02 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/19/a-short-kjv-detour-part-2/#comment-6387 I used to be KJVO. The first problem to crack my thinking was various atheists and Muslims asserting that the Bible contradicted itself. I bought some books dealing with the issue but many times noticed them explaining some alleged contradictions as corruptions in the original language texts. Well this didn't sit well with me... if the original language text had been corrupted and that erroneous reading produced the contradiction in the KJV, then the KJV couldn't be perfect, could it? I spoke to my KJVO pastor and he advised getting Ruckman's book, "Errors in the King James Bible." Of course, Ruckman never resorts to blaming errors in the manuscripts; to do so would be to undercut his own position. But some contradictions explained in more popular books as original language text corruptions he didn't address at all; others had good alternative answers; but some of his answers were stretched beyond credability, in order to avoid the answer of text corruption. I wasn't satisfied. A year later, still KJVO, I continued to research this issue in search of a satisfactory answer- honestly, to prove my KJVO position. I didn't need to change. I hate being on the opposite side of KJVOs- it's rather lonely and sometimes painful, being an issue of fellowship with them. The next big hit to crack the nut of my KJVO thinking was the discovery that there wasn't _one_ "TR," there were many TRs, and they were not the same. I learned that Erasmus 1st edition lacked the infamous I Jhn 5:7. I learned that the italics in the 1611 KJV were based on Beza, and that the italics in the 1769 KJV were based on Stephanus. How could the KJV translators possibly know which TR to follow? What was their source of guidance? I had not been raised a Ruckmanite. I was taught to be KJVO because it was based on the best text. But which text is the best text? All of them apparently; the KJV translation team consulted the TRs, the older English versions including the Catholic Douay-Rheims, and the Vulgate. F.H.A. Scrivener attests to the fact that the TR was not always followed. What best text? No best text. The reason for believing the KJV to be the only Bible we should use vanished. The only reason left is to believe, without a shred of evidence, that God put a direct mandate on the KJV and perfectly guided the translator's choices without their knowledge. I don't have that much faith. I went back to a Byzantine Text position for awhile. I read the NKJV a bit. I had a family member throw it away because they thought it was causing bad luck for our house. (no kidding!) For the KJVO, their TR-only position is not as important as being KJVO; if the TR-only position does not support KJVO than they will switch to blind faith. The only reasons to discrimate between versions are two. 1) Textual transmission theory and 2) Translation philosophy. A KJVO is naturally Majority Text/Formal Equivalency. So a KJVO should accept other translations that match that criteria, but they don't, showing that they are "proof texting" their position. I am now an agnostic as regards textual transmission. I don't really think we can know for certain and the differences aren't great enough to force a decision, at least on my part. I do remain Formal Equivalency, so as such I look to the KJV and NKJV on the MT side and to the ESV and NASB on the CT side. I will use Dynamic Equivalency translations for perspective; but the Formal translation will always decide for me when in conflict. I have chosen to remain in service alongside KJVO brethren, although they don't always count me as a true fellow-laborer. With this choice comes a requirement dictated by Christian grace to exclusively use the KJV with them. As a die-hard KJVO IFB, the majority of what I believed was written in blood. In other words, it could not be differently; it was an essential; it was worth fighting for. More and more, these things have switched to being written in either pen (not worth fighting over) or even pencil (not worth differing over.) But so many who write their KJVO position in blood will skewer those who write it in pen or pencil. For this reason alone my position on the issue remains in pen; I could relegate it to pencil theoretically but to do so would allow me to join ranks with the type of people who have this terrible attitude. I used to be KJVO.
The first problem to crack my thinking was various atheists and Muslims asserting that the Bible contradicted itself. I bought some books dealing with the issue but many times noticed them explaining some alleged contradictions as corruptions in the original language texts. Well this didn’t sit well with me… if the original language text had been corrupted and that erroneous reading produced the contradiction in the KJV, then the KJV couldn’t be perfect, could it?
I spoke to my KJVO pastor and he advised getting Ruckman’s book, “Errors in the King James Bible.” Of course, Ruckman never resorts to blaming errors in the manuscripts; to do so would be to undercut his own position. But some contradictions explained in more popular books as original language text corruptions he didn’t address at all; others had good alternative answers; but some of his answers were stretched beyond credability, in order to avoid the answer of text corruption. I wasn’t satisfied.
A year later, still KJVO, I continued to research this issue in search of a satisfactory answer- honestly, to prove my KJVO position. I didn’t need to change. I hate being on the opposite side of KJVOs- it’s rather lonely and sometimes painful, being an issue of fellowship with them.
The next big hit to crack the nut of my KJVO thinking was the discovery that there wasn’t _one_ “TR,” there were many TRs, and they were not the same. I learned that Erasmus 1st edition lacked the infamous I Jhn 5:7. I learned that the italics in the 1611 KJV were based on Beza, and that the italics in the 1769 KJV were based on Stephanus. How could the KJV translators possibly know which TR to follow? What was their source of guidance?
I had not been raised a Ruckmanite. I was taught to be KJVO because it was based on the best text. But which text is the best text? All of them apparently; the KJV translation team consulted the TRs, the older English versions including the Catholic Douay-Rheims, and the Vulgate. F.H.A. Scrivener attests to the fact that the TR was not always followed. What best text? No best text.
The reason for believing the KJV to be the only Bible we should use vanished. The only reason left is to believe, without a shred of evidence, that God put a direct mandate on the KJV and perfectly guided the translator’s choices without their knowledge. I don’t have that much faith.
I went back to a Byzantine Text position for awhile. I read the NKJV a bit. I had a family member throw it away because they thought it was causing bad luck for our house. (no kidding!) For the KJVO, their TR-only position is not as important as being KJVO; if the TR-only position does not support KJVO than they will switch to blind faith.
The only reasons to discrimate between versions are two. 1) Textual transmission theory and 2) Translation philosophy. A KJVO is naturally Majority Text/Formal Equivalency. So a KJVO should accept other translations that match that criteria, but they don’t, showing that they are “proof texting” their position.
I am now an agnostic as regards textual transmission. I don’t really think we can know for certain and the differences aren’t great enough to force a decision, at least on my part. I do remain Formal Equivalency, so as such I look to the KJV and NKJV on the MT side and to the ESV and NASB on the CT side. I will use Dynamic Equivalency translations for perspective; but the Formal translation will always decide for me when in conflict.
I have chosen to remain in service alongside KJVO brethren, although they don’t always count me as a true fellow-laborer. With this choice comes a requirement dictated by Christian grace to exclusively use the KJV with them.
As a die-hard KJVO IFB, the majority of what I believed was written in blood. In other words, it could not be differently; it was an essential; it was worth fighting for. More and more, these things have switched to being written in either pen (not worth fighting over) or even pencil (not worth differing over.) But so many who write their KJVO position in blood will skewer those who write it in pen or pencil. For this reason alone my position on the issue remains in pen; I could relegate it to pencil theoretically but to do so would allow me to join ranks with the type of people who have this terrible attitude.

]]> by: Kent http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/19/a-short-kjv-detour-part-2/#comment-6318 Sat, 20 Jan 2007 04:40:22 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/19/a-short-kjv-detour-part-2/#comment-6318 I just read through parts one and two. One key point in your BACKGROUND from part one was vague to the point of inaneness, #3, which reads: “God never promised the perfect preservation of the original manuscripts, but He did promise to preserve their content.” The wording leaves a hole through which to drive in the doctrine of preservation. First, I don’t know of anyone that is arguing for the teaching that the actual, physical, tangible original manuscripts (the ink and papyrus) will be perfectly preserved. I’ve never heard anyone teach that, so it seems to be an inane point, yet with a purpose. Second, “content” is vague, I think purposefully. Did God preserve the ipsissima vox or verba? Do we believe in content inspiration or verbal plenary inspiration? “Content” seems to be a new, non-Scriptural doctrine. Shouldn’t we take our Bibliology from the Bible? What are “jots” and “tittles”? Is that arguing for “content?” “Content” allows room for a truck to drive through the doctrine of preservation. My question is: Do you believe that the words, the vowels and consonants, are preserved in the currently existing manuscripts? When I say words, vowels and consonants, I mean Hebrew and Aramaic words of the Old Testament and the Greek words of the New Testament. Third, Jesus said that man shall live by every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God (Mt. 4:4). Do you believe, Scripturally, that every Word of God has been generally accessible to believers by which they can live? Have God’s Words been nigh unto believers in every century? I just read through parts one and two. One key point in your BACKGROUND from part one was vague to the point of inaneness, #3, which reads: “God never promised the perfect preservation of the original manuscripts, but He did promise to preserve their content.” The wording leaves a hole through which to drive in the doctrine of preservation.

First, I don’t know of anyone that is arguing for the teaching that the actual, physical, tangible original manuscripts (the ink and papyrus) will be perfectly preserved. I’ve never heard anyone teach that, so it seems to be an inane point, yet with a purpose.

Second, “content” is vague, I think purposefully. Did God preserve the ipsissima vox or verba? Do we believe in content inspiration or verbal plenary inspiration? “Content” seems to be a new, non-Scriptural doctrine. Shouldn’t we take our Bibliology from the Bible? What are “jots” and “tittles”? Is that arguing for “content?” “Content” allows room for a truck to drive through the doctrine of preservation. My question is: Do you believe that the words, the vowels and consonants, are preserved in the currently existing manuscripts? When I say words, vowels and consonants, I mean Hebrew and Aramaic words of the Old Testament and the Greek words of the New Testament.

Third, Jesus said that man shall live by every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God (Mt. 4:4). Do you believe, Scripturally, that every Word of God has been generally accessible to believers by which they can live? Have God’s Words been nigh unto believers in every century?

]]> by: Eddie http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/19/a-short-kjv-detour-part-2/#comment-6305 Fri, 19 Jan 2007 22:55:45 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/19/a-short-kjv-detour-part-2/#comment-6305 Does anyone know what happened to the original manuscripts? Eddie Does anyone know what happened to the original manuscripts?
Eddie

]]>