A Short KJV Detour (Part 4)
January 23rd, 2007
This is the final part of our evaluation of the arguments used to support the King James Only position. We will return to the issue of charismatic gifts tomorrow:
ARGUMENT 8
Statement:
There is no evidence that the TR resulted from a revision and is thus a secondary text type. This is the supposition on the part of Westcott and Hort to account for the Byzantine text, of which the TR is a portion.
Response:
True. This revision is discounted by most scholars today and is the most obvious error in the entire Westcot-Hort theory.
ARGUMENT 9
Statement:
Textual critics are all rationalists and therefore incapable of desiring God’s truth or determining to preserve it. God would not use liberals, such as Westcott and Hort, to rediscover and resurrect true texts.
Response:
Not all textual critics are rationalists, nor are they unbelievers. To assume this is guilt-by-association in its purest form. It is simply not true that scholars necessarily deny the orthodox foundations of the Christian faith when they investigate all of the manuscript data to resolve textual variants. There have been many godly men, including Westcott, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Robertson, and Machen, who worked on these issues years ago. More recently, a group of committed believers worked on the New International Version, including such godly men as Laird Harris, Charles Ryrie, Gleason Archer, Kenneth Barker, John Davis, S. Lewis Johnson, Ken Kantzer, Homer Kent, Meredith Klein, Alfred Martin, Leon Morris, Barton Payne, Merrill Tenney, and Leon Wood. The issue of the King James Version versus modern translations of the Bible cannot be equated with the issue of fundamentalism versus modernism. By the way, few people today, believers or unbelievers, embrace all of the Westcott-Hort theory of textual criticism.
SUMMARY
Controversial claims have been made for the inerrancy of the King James Bible. The supporters of the “God wrote only one Bible” theology have mistakenly equated the 1611 King James Bible with the original manuscripts of the New Testament written in the first century. It is true that God wrote only one Bible, but it is also true that it was not the King James translation.
What approach should be used to determine the variant which accurately represents what God originally wrote? It is the opinion of the elders of Grace Community Church that the “balanced eclectic” approach is best. It gives equal weight to both internal and external evidence and it gives unbiased consideration to the various manuscript families without claiming one is better than another.
The argument that defends the Byzantine tradition by appealing to the fact that most manuscripts in the Greek New Testament represent the Byzantine text type is logically and historically weak. It is not a truism that a majority of manuscripts necessarily preserve the best text.
The argument that defends the Byzantine text by appealing to the providence of God is theologically false. The determination of the best variant in an individual case is not a theological issue alone, but is primarily a textual issue.
Textual arguments that depend on adopting the “textus receptus” and then comparing it to other text types are guilty of bias. To condemn a modern version because it does not include something that is included in the TR, or it adds something which the TR does not add, is to argue that the modern versions and their translators are guilty of adding to or subtracting from the true text. It could be equally true that those who translated or copied the TR were the ones who added or deleted text.
There is no necessary connection between the adoption of the Byzantine Text or the King James Version and the inspiration of Scripture. There are equally godly, scholarly men on both sides of this issue, all of whom strongly embrace the historic, orthodox understanding of the inerrancy and infallibility of the Scriptures. Adoption of the TR or King James Version should never be made a point of theological orthodoxy or ecclesiastical fellowship.
Bible versions such as the New American Standard Bible and the New International Version have been translated by godly men of demonstrated academic repute from the very best manuscript evidence that is available today. Incidentally, the manuscript evidence that is now available is far superior to that which was available to the King James translators in 1611. It should be noted that the New King James Version recently published by Thomas Nelson is not an improvement over the KJV. While the original intent was to do new translations from the Byzantine, or Majority, Text, what ultimately happened in the midst of the commercial endeavor was merely to change the English text by modernizing a number of archaic words.
A FINAL NOTE
The following quote from the helpful brochure published by Grace Theological Seminary and written by its president, Dr. Homer A. Kent, Jr., is a fitting capstone to this discussion of textual variants:
It needs to be remembered that the differences between the Alexandrian and Byzantine text types are not nearly as great as might be supposed. If one could remove the old English style from the King James Version so that the comparison would be fairer, the differences between these text types can be seen by noting the difference between the King James Version and the American Standard Version. The gospel is crystal clear in either version. It is regrettable that an issue is being made over this matter in evangelical circles, especially when some extremists are making one’s attitude toward the King James Version an article of faith, and unwarrantedly raising suspicions against those who do not. The issue is forcing many Christians to make a choice where they lack the necessary knowledge and skill to do so. How much better it would be to thank God that His Word has been preserved intact for centuries, and that the wealth of manuscripts assures us that none of the words have been lost. In a few cases, we may not be certain which of several variants is the original, but our problem is an embarrassment of riches, not of loss.
Thanks for this 4 part study. I am one of those who “lack the necessary knowledge and skill”, and am appreciative for helping me understand a little better.
“The gospel is crystal clear in either version. It is regrettable that an issue is being made … when some extremists are making … the King James Version an article of faith”.
I also am one who “lack the necessary knowledge and skill,” but have read each of your parts with interest and value. Question: Having mentioned, “Adoption of the TR or King James Version should never be made a point of theological orthodoxy or ecclesiastical fellowship,” is that also the practice of the Elders at Grace? Would you let someone who held to the KJV or TR, preach or teach at Grace? Could they share their conclusions in a small group format? Are there any such at Grace, the College or Seminary?
Just a side note. While Phil Johnson does not hold to a KJV only position, he does preach from the KJV all the time in his fellowship group and main service. The KJV is not banned at Grace or at the seminary or college.
This was a well thought out study and I thank you for that. You did include the test types plus the arguments for the KJV-only controversy.
I agree that there were godly men on the NIV committee. Yet, I disagree with the fact that the NIV is a version that should be used. The NIV is something called dynamic equivalence, which is “more inclined to reflect the interpretive opinions of the translator and the influences of contemporary culture,”(http://www.esv.org/translation/philosophy). There are very good versions out there which include: ESV, NASB, KJV, NKJV and a few more.
I thank you for what you have done in the KJV posts, very interesting and informational.
In Christ,
Andrew P.C.
Thanks for a great series of articles. They are simple and cursory but very helpful.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob Hayton
KJV Only Debate Resource Center
For those interested in a thorough treatment of this subject, I HIGHLY recommend a recently published book by Dr. James Price entitled, “KJV Onlyism: A New Sect.” It’s quite large and very thorough. I own several other books on the subject, but nothing that treats the subject as comprehensively and with as much detail.
It is available as a hardback ($29.99) at:
Tennessee Temple University Bookstore
1815 Union Ave.
Chattanooga, TN 37404
United States of America
423/493-4218
No, I don’t get paid to push this new book- I’m just a firm believer that works like this are desperately needed by churches/folks wrestling with and splitting over this issue. It has needlessely tangled and distracted people from the business of growing in the grace and knowledge of Christ and furthuring his kingdom. To him “who has ears to hear” (and $30 to spare), invest in this book!
Thank you for these articles on this issue. It is one that has interested me for the last 30+ years. And I have over the years drifted from one side of the issue to the other. I am currently leaning heavily toward the balanced eclectic approach.
I would like to comment about your judgment about the New King James Version of the Bible. You stated, “It should be noted that the New King James Version recently published by Thomas Nelson is not an improvement over the KJV.” Regardless of the original intent for this translation, I believe the final outcome has been a great help to me and many people who struggle with the archaic language of the KJV. The translation is very clear. I find it to be an excellent translation to teach and preach from since it is close to the KJV, which some of our church folks still use, and to the NASB, which some others use. It is helpful to have the marginal notes indicating the textual differences between the translation we read on the page and the readings of the Nestle-Aland critical text and the one published by the United Bible Society. It also indicates the different readings of the Majority text. I believe that even John MacArthur believes the NKJV to be a good translation seeing his study Bible first appeared in the NKJV.
I would also like to recommend a couple of good articles that appear in the Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal. They are written by Dr. William W. Combs, who is Academic Dean and Professor of New Testament at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary in Allen Park, MI. They are entitled “THE PRESERVATION OF SCRIPTURE” and “ERRORS IN THE KING JAMES VERSION?” Both of these articles would support, I think, the position of this series of articles here. You can find them listed at this link – http://www.dbts.edu/journals/index_iss.asp
A book that has been a great help to me on this subject is “differences between bible versions” by Gary Zeolla. I highly recommend it.
I was KJVO when I was a new believer, hearing cracks about the ‘Nearly-Inspired Version” (NIV), etc. It was until I studied the issue that I realized how untenable that position was.
Once I broke from that deception, I was able to read the Bible — seemingly for the first time — in comprehensible English! I did not realize the richness of God’s Word I was missing because I was laboring with antiquated English. I missed meaning in some verses, and read meaning into other verses that wasn’t there!
There have even been times where I’ve grown very sympathetic to the translators of the Reformation period. These men didn’t have any of the Word of God in their language — let alone antiquated versions! Thank God for those men who stood bravely in their day, not allowing the “Vulgate-onlyism” of the Roman Catholic Church (among other things) to keep people from the Word of God in their own language. And while the situation is quite different, I thank God that men who knew the time of the KJV’s general usage was passing set out to keep the Bible in the vernacular of the people.
Thank you for this great series. I hope that KJVO advocates will honestly reflect upon this issue, experience freedom from unfounded standards placed on them, and come to enjoy the fullness of God’s Word in our modern vernacular. May we each continue to grow to a deeper knowledge of God in His Word.
I still use my King James sometimes, but I change the thous to yous, and the thys to yours, and the trow nots to don’t believe, the our conversation to our lives etc. This language is also a blessing to speak sometimes, as in the hymns, and Shakespeare.
My basic Bible is NKJ, and my church leans on the NAS.
Again, this has been very helpful.
My brother told me not to be deceived, and that the King James was written by Jesus, with the chapters and verses included. He is very, very convinced of that. The other versions are from the enenmy of our souls.
Shaun, I’d like to borrow your fine thought, and pray that my brother and others would find “freedom from unfounded standards placed on them”. Amen.
“with the chapters and verses included”
An interesting side note, the Geneva Bible (1560) was the first to include the chapter & verses.
It was also the first to include explanatory notes – including the ones hated by King James which lead to his desire for a new version. You see, the notes by those pesky Reformers allowed disobedience to tyrannical kings
Pulpit Live writes: “The determination of the best variant in an individual case is not a theological issue alone, but is primarily a textual issue.” This is a position that says that God lacked the power and wisdom to preserve His Word, so man must constantly restore it through humanly derived means, not to perfection, but to a place where “no important doctrine is lost.” The Scriptural position on preservation is that God has verbally, plenarily preserved every Word of God so that they would be generally accessible to every generation of believers. Despite purposeful or unintentional textual alterations as predicted by Scripture, God through miraculous providence has kept a perfect Bible in the language in which it was written primarily by means of His institutions, Israel and then the church.
Francis Turretin (not a part of “the KJVO sect” or the MVO sect) wrote in the 17th century:
“Nor can we readily believe that God, who dictated and inspired each and every word to these inspired (theopneustois) men, would not take care of their entire preservation. If men use the utmost care diligently to preserve their words (especially if they are of any importance, as for example a testament or contract) in order that it may not be corrupted, how much more, must we suppose, would God take care of his word which he intended as a testament and seal of his covenant with us, so that it might not be corrupted.”
Richard Capel, one of the Westminster divines, wrote:
“[W]e have the Copies in both languages [Hebrew and Greek], which Copies vary not from Primitive writings in any matter which may stumble any. This concernes onely the learned, and they know that by consent of all parties, the most learned on all sides among Christians do shake hands in this, that God by his providence hath preserved them uncorrupt. . . . As God committed the Hebrew text of the Old Testament to the Jewes, and did and doth move their hearts to keep it untainted to this day: So I dare lay it on the same God, that he in his providence is so with the Church of the Gentiles, that they have and do preserve the Greek Text uncorrupt, and clear: As for some scrapes by Transcribers, that comes to no more, than to censure a book to be corrupt, because of some scrapes in the printing, and ‘tis certain, that what mistake is in one print, is corrected in another.”
That last line is the historic position on preservation of Scripture: “‘Tis certain, that what is in one print, is corrected in another.”
The Scriptural teaching of canonization is not the canonization of books, but of words. The Holy Spirit, Whom we trust has moved upon holy men in inspiration and in guiding His churches to the 66 books in canonization has also led His people to a perfect Hebrew and Greek text of Scripture through preservation.
I also agree that we can use different versions of the Bible to a point, however. There are new “Bibles” that are not holding to the Word of God at all. A new bible is coming out from the feminist group that calls God Father and Mother…a great deception here since only Satan is known by the male and female gender. The Message was analyzed by a former New Ager and many New Age thoughts were found in it. I would definitely stay away from modern translations of the Bible. There are many good resources to be had in many different Bibles i.e. The MacArthur Study Bible and The Reformation Study Bible to name a few. These two have notes at the bottom of the pages to explain Scripture when needed. There are also good commentaries written by trusted theologians to help explain Scripture. When we reach to The Message or other versions such as this one, we are really just being lazy in our study habits and are unwilling to do hard work to get at the meat of the Word. Most Americans have lost their concentration abilities due to TV and have a hard time digging into the Word of God. I know that I certainly could sharpen up my studying skills and the length of time that I put into studying the Scriptures.
Revelation 22:18…..”For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book”:
Rev. 22:19….”And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”
These are solemn warnings and God means business. “Our God is a consuming fire”. The NIV directors are mostly catholics and one woman (catholic) on the board is a self professing lesbian and dabbles in the occult.
I myself, find KJV the most trusted because if you take the time to pray about it and ask the Lord what He thinks, He will show you. Just take the time to juxtapose the KJV and many of these new alternative versions and you will clearly see some scriptures are slightly diminishing the authority and diety of Christ Jesus by replacing many words (due to copyright laws but something more malevolent or nefarious I believe). Do you not think at all that Satan is behind some of it, after all he has been trying to deny Jesus Christ His authority since he was created…..why would he stop at bible versions? I am just saying please be discerning. It matters to God.
Also the name Jesus Christ is being removed more and more in these new versions because in the new world order we need a new world (neutral) religion that the masses will accept…so you can fill in the blanks. Lord can mean any lord…..just not Jesus Christ, the Living God.
I am sure that most people who read will think I am overreacting or what I say is ridiculous….well that’s fine but I just know those are my sentiments and I will stick to them. Evil is lurking everywhere and Satan and his cohorts are on the move 24/7.
Sarah,
Of course there are New Age thoughts in the message, There are New Age thoughts in the KJV! I’m not advocating the message, but we need more substantial claims than “ITS A NEW AGE BIBLE, RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!” I really have trouble beleiving that the KJV debate is still on… it just bafffles my mind.
Good critique of the movement, And y’all were far more gentle then I can be over it.
Nate…….
Since my comment is awaiting moderation, which is fine, I will add a comment to you so there is no misunderstanding. And if there continues to be a misunderstanding then that is something I cannot control.
First of all, you do not have to post my comment. This is your ministry, not mine so I will not take it offensively. However,
I get this feeling that perhaps you have felt that I have been “attacking” you and this ministry of “Grace to You” ever since I have been submitting comments back in Oct. on the Lordship debate.
May it be known to you that I have absolutely nothing personal against you or Grace to You nor was I attacking anyone. The fact that I am communicating to you now should be enough evidence that I am not your enemy. People diagree ALL THE TIME. I wonder though is it because I am a woman who doesn’t easily submit to certain teachings that makes me “unruly” or “devisive”. I don’t know, maybe I am wrong, it’s just that some Christian men feel that women should be SILENT and have no assertions, as if the Holy Spirit doesn’t work in their life because it’s only the men who are supposed to teach. My comments were never intended to teach any man, they simply were just my convictions in which I am very passionate about and people who have known me for years, know this is the way I’ve always been. I have never been one to try to “fit in”, so people will like me.
When I said a couple days ago that “you need not any man teach you” using I John 2:27, I WAS NOT implying that this ministry or you, Nathan, are terrible teachers and that “Sarah” should not listen to you. I said that, because everything should be tested like the Bereans. That would show ourselves a student of the word, rightly dividing the truth (whether we are a man or a woman). I would think that every Godly pastor would be delighted to know the sheep were digging into the Word and studying it to “see if these were so”.
In any event there is not much more I can say to help you understand that just because I don’t agree with everything you say or Phil Johnson or John MacArthur say doesn’t mean that I am your enemy or against you. May God be with you all.
Grace and Peace.
Cindy,
Thanks for your explanation. Please know that we did not feel attacked or personally offended by your comments. In fact, we did not manually delay (“moderate”) your comment — it was, rather, flagged by our automatic spam filtering software.
Because we are constantly receiving spam comments, we have our spam filters set very high. Any comment from a new contributor, and any comment with certain “flag” words, automatically puts that comment in a moderation queue. We then go through that queue and approve those comments that are not spam.
Because your earlier comment included the word “lesbian” it was automatically flagged. Then, this evening, when we went through the moderation queue, we approved it as soon as we saw it was not spam. We apologize for the delay, and also for any misunderstanding that delay may have caused.
Thanks,
Nate B. for Pulpit
“The NIV directors are mostly catholics and one woman (catholic) on the board is a self professing lesbian and dabbles in the occult.”
The KJV was translated under the authority of a King and established Church which persecuted and killed Protestant Reformers.
The KJV is not a Protestant translation, its an Anglican one. The Church of England differed little at that time from its Roman counterpart. The translators even took into consideration the Roman Catholic English translation of the Vulgate (the Rheims New Testament) during their translation process.
By the way, I’m not arguing against the KJV – just trying to show that this argument is easily turned around (though perhaps some translations like the ESV cannot have such a charge made against them?).
“I myself, find KJV the most trusted because if you take the time to pray about it and ask the Lord what He thinks, He will show you.”
This is the same thing the Mormons tell me.
Echindod,
I would suggest that you explain what you think constitutes New Age thought before stating that what I said is of no consequence and can’t be used to warn others. I didn’t make this up. I don’t believe me off hand but at least do the research before blowing me off. I for one am not big on id’ing New Age thought, but I do take people’s word when they have experience on the matter. If you mean by your statement that since the KJV promotes peace and so does the New Agers then this equals the same types of thought, then you’re going out on a limb. What I mean by New Age thinking in The Message is that there are some prayers and Psalms that are written in the same wording as New Ager prayers. Particular words which “belong” to New Ager jargon are found in The Message.
This just sounds too good to be true. Could you please list some speceific examples? The New Agers borrow alot from the Bible, (As do most cults especially those from the Western Hemisphere that have grown up in a ‘christianized’ enviroment). You can’t just sling mud at the Message, you need to say something substantive about it.
A good example: In Malachi 2 God is condeming the preists for their fake worship. The text uses some pretty strong language. The Message says something like “That will show them.” wow. Yeah, I bet that will. For as much horn blowing that Petterson does about it being from the Greek and the Hebrew, he too often just misses the point of the passage. That is a substantive critique. The Message fails on the standards it tries to accomplish.
Now back to the New Age claim. Parrallels don’t cut it. To say that the Message borrows New Age thought and jargon, You have to establish a “Trail of Dependency.” Where did he get it? When did he get it? Why did he use it? Is their further evidence in his extensive writing to claim that he is a memeber of the New Age Movement? If so where? Which book, what page number, etc.
Claiming that the Message is a New Age bible, is a serious charge, and the burden of proof is on those that claim it.
The other thing is that it sounds like a Back Pew Legend (Kind of like an urban legend just baptized). Too often we as conservative Christians jump on these things without fully investigating them…
If I cared much about the New Age Movement or the King James, I could probebly find some more parrallels for you, but the peace one is there and I think you for clarifing my point, thats really about all I was saying.
Echindod,
why all the screaming and stomping of your feet? You want someone to do your research for you then here you are. Note: one actually has to read the info for himself unless that person can pay someone to read it to him. I would start with the last site first but that’s just me. No, I won’t do anymore research for you just in case this doesn’t satisfy your “I want proof for your mud slinging actions!”
http://www.seekgod.ca/messageoverview.htm
http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/themessage.htm
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/eugenepeterson-the-message.html
yeah. those are some high quality resources.
I take it you couldn’t find someone to read these links for you.
(
Here’s a reference that Brian Flynn sent to me just for you. I am assuming that you know of him. He was a former New Ager and has published books. His website is http://www.onetruthministries.com if you don’t know him and want to check him out.
http://www.crossroad.to/Bible_studies/message.html#_ftn1
The “balanced eclectic” position defies a presuppositional apologetic, Scriptural exegesis, and history.
It seems to me that rejecting a “balanced electic” position equates to a patent rejection of any further evidence that could shed light on the text of scripture. And it is precisely this ignoring of evidence (ie. examination and comparison of newly discovered mss) that the world will criticize us for. It don’t think it’s reasonable to operate that way. Christians should never be unwilling to exam and scrutinize all available data. And we also have to realize that in the grand scheme of available textual data, such examination only amounts to very slight degrees of impact- and doesn’t result in a mire of doctrinal uncertainties that KJV Onlyists insist upon.
Steve,
To be genuinely open-minded, someone must be willing to believe something. If not, he closes his mind to everything. My Bibliology on preservation is not constantly evolving. I can learn more, but the essence of it, I have settled: presuppositional apologetics equals perfect preservation, general accessibility, and church agreement (canonization). These truths point to the text I receive. Not until Benjamin Warfield or Princeton put his spin on the Westminster Confession did providential preservation mean modern textual criticism.
If I reject a “balanced eclectic” position based upon the three reasons I gave, that does not assume that I don’t look at the CT, the Dead Sea Scrolls, or the gospel of Judas for that matter. I am not, however, especially concerned if I come off to the world looking like an unlearned and ignorant man as long as the world takes knowledge that I’ve been with Jesus.
Your “slight degrees of impact” happens to be “errors.” Another word for errors is “errancy.” That, to me, is a great deal of impact, considering what I profess about the Bible, that is, that it is completely pure. The “balanced eclectic” says it is “completely pure, wink, wink.”
Sarah,
You won. I am livid. But I have some things to get done before I can prepare a response. So stay tuned and I will try to leave a link to my response here. (Seeing how the message dosen’t really relate to the King James issue because I am not sure one can discern the Greek or Hebrew text that underlies most of the Message).
Echindod,
I’ve put this one to bed and so should you. I’m sure Nate doesn’t appreciate either one of us acting as immature and unchristian as we both have been acting on his site. I for one apologize for reacting to your statements against my statements. Let’s part in peace.
[...] http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/23/a-short-kjv-detour-part-3/ [...]
I use to be a vehement KJV onlyist. God used Gail Riplinger to show me the errors of my ways. I did an extensive study of KJV onlyism at my blog for anyone interested:
My Journey Through KJV onlyism
Fred
A Scriptural discussion on the doctrine preservation is going to be held at this site, http://www.jackhammr.org/ , the entire month of February.
Kent –
Where do you think the TR came from? The answer is, textual criticism, based on the best (we hope) texts available at the time.
Why was Erasmus’ effort such an accomplishment? Because a standard Greek text had NOT been generally available before that time — there had only been widely dispersed handwritten (manuscript) copies.
So, if textual criticism is wrong, then KJV is tarred just as much with that brush as any other modern translation. Textual criticism, historically, is how translators, including the KJV translators, pick which texts to translate. Users of all translations continue to promote exegetical preaching and use presuppositional or evidentiary apologetics as applicable — why shouldn’t they?
The KJV Only debate raises passions so high, I have not been able to find a single place to read a balance presentation of reasoned arguments on both sides — only advocacy sites. *sigh*