The 1611 Moment

1611: The Year Everything in Bible Translation Changed

Many King James Onlyists will refute the above line, stating that we’re confusing their theories with those of Peter Ruckman. But I fully believe that everyone who is convinced that the Christian should be exclusively aligned to the King James Version and no other is saying this very thing. Some believe God re-inspired His Book in 1611. Others believe pre-1611 KJVs existed, but since 1611, there’s only one acceptable Bible. Still others believe in the same underlying premise of preservation, but don’t see all the words coming together in one volume until 1611. No matter what “camp” of King James Onlyism one may find himself in, the fact is he believes in “The 1611 Moment.”

The 1611 Moment is the pivotal time in church history that serves as the basis for revising the rest. It also divides the history of the transmission of the text into two eras. The two eras differ, depending on the particular position held within the KJV category:

Ruckmanite view – Most people will tell you that Ruckmanism means that God re-inspired His Word in 1611. A Bible college professor of mine always quoted Ruckman as saying, “The errors in the King James Version are advanced revelation.” I’ve always known this to be the view, though I’ve also heard that Ruckman himself has denied this charge. Dr. Sam Gipp, who is a Ruckmanite, said that a person who really wants to know the Word of God needs to learn English (John Ankerberg Show). On the same show, he said that what happened in 1611, though he denied it being re-inspiration, was (paraphrasing of course) a bunch of men (the KJV translators) came together and put together the words that God wanted them to put in what became known as the KJV. So let’s say that the Ruckmanite view is that God did something akin to inspiration in 1611.

Before 1611: Doesn’t matter. Sam Gipp actually replied to Dan Wallace’s question of, “Where was the Word of God before 1611” by saying, “I don’t know, I wasn’t there.” Since God did something akin to inspiration in 1611, what happened before is really not important.

Since the 1611 Moment: The KJV, and nothing but the KJV, even for other-language-speaking peoples, is the Word of God alone.

Trail of Blood view – I’m not sure if this sort of view has been pointed out before, but I refer to the “Trail of Blood View of Preservation” as basically the one that I was taught in Bible college. We can also call this the “It’s There Somewhere View.” Obviously, I get the label from J. M. Carroll’s Book, The Trail of Blood, which basically serves as an end-all textbook (though it’s paper-thin) to the question of Baptist origins for many independent Baptists. The basic premise is that independent Baptists like the groups of the 20th century can be found all throughout history if you just look hard enough (and revise along the way). Heretical groups like the Cathari along with questionable groups like the Donatists and Albigenses are listed as forerunners of modern day independent Baptist churches. Though some of them may not have believed the deity of the Lord Jesus, they were opposed to the state church or even practiced anabaptism, so they were included in the lineage. When a reconsideration is brought up against this view, one is quickly reminded that the “winners write the history books” and we must “take by faith” that these groups were all Baptists.

Likewise, the Trial of Blood view of preservation does the same thing. Since the premise of this view is based on biblical passages of preservation, and the conclusion of this view is that the preserved words are in the King James Version of 1611, then logically there must be a version that is just as much the Word of God as the KJV for Christians throughout the ages. However, it doesn’t have to be mainstream. It doesn’t have to be the most widely read or known. It simple has to exist. So it’s not the Vulgate, though the majority of Christians only knew of it for 1100 years. But less popular Bibles like the Italic, Old Latin, the Peshitta, and the Waldensen Bible make the list. Because some psuedo-scholars point out possibly Byzantine readings in these older versions, the Trail of Blood adherents believe they fulfill the requirements for a pre-1611 KJV. Where was the Word of God before 1611? Why, the Italic version of course! It is mainly this view that I am calling into question in this post.

The fact is that these versions do not fully agree with the King James. And this is the double standard. How can we approve of pre-1611 Bibles even though they’re different than the KJV, but whole-heartedly reject modern versions for their differences? In all likelihood, many modern versions are closer to the KJV than any of the Bibles listed on the “good” tree. The Peshitta, for example, omitted entire books from its NT cannon. This means the NIV, ESV, NET Bible and others are closer to the KJV than the Peshitta. Yet, the Peshitta enjoys a place on the “good line of Bibles” in many a King James Only work. From my analysis of Waite:

A number of scholars have refuted the idea that these early versions contained a “received kind of text.” They agree with the Byzatine platform in some cases, but it has been pointed out that it’s mainly the Western text they support, and only mimic the Byzatine when the Byzatine mimics the Western. Secondly, these versions also agree with the other text families and versions, often with a degree far exceeding the agreement with the Byzantine (James D. Price’s Book, King James Onlyism: A New Sect, shows the percentage for some portions. For example, the Italic version, which KJVO advocates claim is a TR prototype, agrees  42.4% of the time with the Latin Vulgate alone in the book of Thessalonians as opposed to 5.6% Byzantine alone.). A big problem is that most of the Bibles he lists do not contain late, secondary Byzantine readings like I John 5:7. Finally, these versions were also diverse and there’s disagreement as to their origins and date. For example, the idea that the Peshitta came from the 2nd century (about 150 AD) has long since been moved to the 4th century, though few KJVO actually bother to recognize this.

Before 1611: Prototypes of the KJV existed in various Bible versions throughout history.

Since the 1611 Moment: The KJV is the culmination of all Bible translations and serves as the only acceptable Word of God to English speaking people (and in many cases, the best basis for translating into other languages).

Moderate/Mainstream view – I don’t know if moderate or mainstream are appropriate terms for this view (I use moderate because the vitriol is significantly less than what is found in the works of Riplinger, Ruckman, and Marrs) , but I am referring to the one held by many in the independent Baptist movement who admit that there is no real prototype or photocopy of the KJV prior to the KJV. Many in the Sword of the Lord camp or Hyles camp probably hold this view, in addition to the Trinitarian Bible Society, David Cloud, Kent Brandenburg, D.A. Waite, and Thomas Strouse. Now, some probably have one foot here and the other in the Trail of Blood view, such as Waite, who would probably affirm this fact even though he still holds to the “line of good Bibles” argument (though instead of the good tree vs. bad tree analogy, he employs the line of “Byzantine text-type Bibles”). Their position is based on the idea that God preserves His words in the original languages.

So even though this group wouldn’t claim that the Peshitta or Italic is a pre-1611 KJV, they would still say they were the Bibles God gave to His people to make good His promise of the accessibility of His words. In other words, they are good Bibles whereas the modern translations are bad ones. Dr. Strouse answered Wallace’s question on the Ankerberg show by saying the Word of God was “in the Textus Receptus and in the Masoretic Text.” Not in one copy or version, but “in” these text streams, as if pre-1611 Christians went to church with a leather bound book that said “Textus Receptus” in hand. Whatever Bible version that may have been, it’s a good one – and the modern ones are bad ones. My question is, what’s the difference? Assuming the Old Latin is 5% different from the KJV and the ESV is 5% different from the KJV, why is the Old Latin suitable for its time whereas the ESV is not?

The double standard in both groups is: Differences in Translations are ok before 1611 but they are not ok after 1611. Though we are the ones often charged with confusing the public because we “don’t have a settled Bible” – the KJVO view has to admit of an unsettled Bible for 1,600 years of the church’s existence, until the 1611 Moment.

This chart was taken from a portion of my analysis of Dr. D.A. Waite’s King James Only seminars. Excuse me, but I use MS Paint to make my graphics. If someone can produce something better, please do!


Kent Brandenburg has repeatedly said on his blog that the Bible promises “general accessibility” of His words, in the original languages, to His people, through His church, to every generation. Yet those words aren’t found in a single volume until 1611, namely because 1) it is after the printing press and 2) the church (in the Westminster and London Baptist Confessions) declare their position on preservation during the reign of the King James. “General accessibility,” though, is rather elusive: how general are we talking? It seems the comma Johanneum, for example, was far from generally accessible until, at the very least, the 14th century. If one says that it is found in the Latin, that would contradict the original language argument. Others produce charts that claim the comma is found here and there, and though I would dispute those claims, is this really general accessibility? Yet, post 1611 (or post- Erasmus-third-edition-of-his-NT-text), the comma becomes much more accessible. After 1611, then, general accessibility turns into specific accessibility in one volume. Something changed in 1611. It is the 1611 Moment.

Before 1611: God’s words, in the original Hebrew and Greek, were preserved somewhere and were “generally accessible” to His church, even though not found in a single volume or family of manuscripts.

Since the 1611 Moment: The church has declared, after 1600 years of existence, that all of those words are perfectly preserved in the Masoretic Text and Textus Receptus which underlie the King James Version, and translations of these two texts are the only acceptable versions of the Bible.

Majority Text view: The view propagating the Byzantine platform, held by men such as the late Art Farstad and Zane Hodges, as well as Maurice Robinson and others, has been referred to as the “counting noses” theory of textual criticism; that is, the majority of manuscripts will lead us to the original reading of the Bible (this is an obviously simplistic definition). This view isn’t the same as the King James Only view, nor is it the same as the Critical Text view; it is somewhere in between. I really don’t have a problem with this view, though I disagree with it. It doesn’t look for a perfect, end-all translation, but is willing to admit textual variation and the need to revise. On the other hand, it is a bit more settled than the Critical Text view seems to be. Farstad has said he switched from the NASB to the KJV when he learned textual issues. Still, he eventually abandoned the KJV for the NKJV, which many consider to be the closest thing to the Majority Text in English. This view doesn’t quite have a 1611 Moment, but I bring it up because some in the KJVO camp confuse it with King James Onlyism, since KJVO literature sometimes says that the KJV NT is attested by 99%  – a majority – over and against the 1-2% that is usually given to attest to the Critical Text. However, it is estimated that the difference between New Testaments in the TR and CT is between 2%-7%, which means that 99% also attests to roughly 95% of the Critical Text. Even still, majority isn’t always right – and if one is to follow the majority, he would have to omit minority readings in the KJV, including the comma Johannuem.

Critical Text view: Now let me close in reminding the reader that all of the contributors to this blog have something in common: we were all King James Only and have since rejected the KJVO view. However, we may differ when it comes to how we get there. So I don’t speak for everyone when I make this conclusion, but for myself and anyone who wishes to attach his name to it:

The critical text view is the most consistent in this matter because we can apply it throughout history and up to today. That the Word spread and was copied so fast and variants crept in is no surprise, and that textual criticism was needed, in some fashion, in order to compile manuscripts and make translations was understood. It is still true today. There is no 1611 Moment, nor an 1881 Moment, nor a 2001 Moment. It is the continuing effort to hone the discipline of textual criticism and to arrive at the most accurate version. We don’t have the original nor a particular passage of scripture that tells us when we can finally say, “settled.” Therefore, the only thing that has changed, in the critical text view, is that the science of textual criticism has become more consistent and based on a larger array of evidence. The result is a text that is very likely more close to the original than before. Though every word may not be settled in the text, God’s Word – His message – still stands.

Before 1611: The church, through trial and error, discovers the authenticity of the canon of books and the canon of words which make up the scriptures, sometimes settling too early, but eventually revising, editing, and producing new versions.

Since 1611: The same as above, but becoming more consistent, more streamlined, and more accurate to the original text.

Advertisements

87 thoughts on “The 1611 Moment

  1. JasonS March 18, 2010 / 10:27 pm

    Damian,
    Great post. I appreciate the time and effort put into this.

  2. fundyreformed March 19, 2010 / 1:56 pm

    Yes, Damien, this is great stuff here.

  3. Chris Cole March 19, 2010 / 5:53 pm

    The thing that I find most intriguing here is that some KJVO folks commend historical sects for opposing the state church, yet hold to a state-sponsored and -approved Bible version. An “authorized” church is bad, but an “authorized” Bible is great!

  4. Chris Poe March 19, 2010 / 11:54 pm

    I know this post is not intended to be an exhaustive treatise, but I did want to offer a few points of clarification about the Majority Text (MT) view.

    If I’m not mistaken, Maurice Robinson calls his view “Byzantine Priority” because in some cases what he believes to be the correct reading is not the majority reading.

    Also, I’m aware of no MT or non KJV Only Byzantine advocate who believes that the Comma Johanneum is original. The only people I’ve come across who believe that are TR Onlyists and usually KJV Onlyists, whether they admit to the latter or not. These are usually the same folks who also defend the KJV’s inclusion of the word Easter, etc.

    The NKJV updates the language of the KJV and fixes some obvious mistranslations. (This fact alone of course is enough to put it on the bad Bible list.) Thus I suppose the NKJV could be said to be closest to the MT.

    However the textual basis of the NKJV is the Scrivener Text (the TR) with the MT and critical text (NU) differences from the TR noted in the margin. Farstad wanted to use the Majority Text, but Nelson did not want to go there.

    Most of the differences between the TR and MT are in Revelation, perhaps more than the rest of the NT put together.

    • JasonS March 21, 2010 / 7:23 am

      Christian,
      Glad you found us and left a comment. We need folks like you to drop a line from time to time.
      Jason

  5. Kent March 23, 2010 / 11:35 am

    I’ll be coming back here, just saw this, and I’ve got to go teach. You don’t get it right, however, Damien. And you also don’t get it right historically. You don’t. So stop sighing.

  6. Kent Brandenburg March 23, 2010 / 1:39 pm

    Your presentation here represents a very skewed view of history. It isn’t an accurate view either. Now you may think that is just my opinion, but this is the view of historians, and I would just be the reporter. Maybe that matters to you, maybe not. I would hope that it does.

    To start, let’s just put aside the Ruckmanites, who have a non-historic and non-scriptural view, the latter of which you failed to mention, I would think, because you may not think that we can get a correct view of preservation from the Bible alone.

    It’s not as though 1611 is what it’s all about. Things did get settled on certain dates, however. For instance, lots of stuff happened before 722 BC, but that was the date that the Assyrians took the northern 10 tribes of Israel. The Byzantine Empire fell in AD 1453 but there were a lot of dates before that one that led to its fall.

    You should relate to this as we would the canon of scripture as well. When was the canon complete? Do you have a date for that? Was it complete with the writing of Revelation? For sure in the 1st century. However, churches didn’t agree what the books were until later. They agreed between AD 200 and 400, but then we really have another agreement that occurred in 1647. Does that mean there was no canon between 100 and 1647? Of course not. So this is how you are skewing history.

    In your above article, as it relates to what I believe, and men like me, you don’t mention scriptural presuppositions. We don’t think we come to true belief and practice through evidence, historical or scientific, really through man’s observations, but through revelation, through Scripture. We believe that because of the sinfulness of man and how that we can be and likely will be wrong without the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the Bible. So our position comes from Scripture.

    Scripture shows perfect preservation of all the words and availability or general accessibility to every generation of believers. You rightly said that we believe that position. It’s what is in the Bible. What God inspired in the original languages, He also preserved for us to live by. Here’s where you go wrong. I want to assume that you don’t purposefully misrepresent me so that you can mock a straw man that you say is what I believe. But I’m not happy about what you do. You’ll get kudos from your group, but at the expense of the truth.

    You write this:

    “Kent Brandenburg has repeatedly said on his blog that the Bible promises “general accessibility” of His words, in the original languages, to His people, through His church, to every generation. Yet those words aren’t found in a single volume until 1611…”

    That first sentence, you are correct, this is what I repeatedly write. However, I don’t and haven’t ever wrote the next line. I don’t say that they weren’t in a single volume. What I say is that I don’t know based on history what was the shape of what men had available. I just believe what God said He would do. I run into trouble, as is obvious–so do you, when I try to get my doctrine from guessing what men had and didn’t have in a period when it is impossible to know based on some kind of human observation. What we have today from those time periods likely doesn’t represent what they had. We know from reading today what men wrote then that they had documents hundreds of years ago that we do not still have today. This is where we have to believe what God said He would do. What is important is that I, like men before me, believe what I possess is perfect. That I trust God on that. I assume, because of my presuppositions, that this is what men believed, because it is what I see in scripture.

    My assumption is that God would guide His people to every Word. I have to look at what God did and believe that. I can’t believe in something that wasn’t available and believers don’t and never have claimed was a settled text. The eclectic text people are proud that they DON’T have theological presuppositions and that they allow the so-called evidence to lead them to the truth. I’m not talking about scriptural truth, but scientific “truth,” which is something a little more than guessing. This is post-enlightenment rationalism and humanism. I wish you would recognize this, or if you do, at least be willing to admit it. That’s where it came from. Then it infiltrated American evangelicalism through the influence of German rationalistic universities on American professors.

    I can’t prove and neither can you that men possessed one whole perfect copy of Scripture before the printing press. It’s hard to prove what men had because we have so little as a basis that could prove that. Textual critics get really excited if they find and possess one whole hand copy of the NT in the Greek that differs from another whole copy in thousands and thousands of words. Believers didn’t accept that text, however. We know it wasn’t accessible for hundreds of years since the invention of the printing press.

    You say there is not a passage that says a date when we can say that the words are “settled.” That is a strawman. We don’t have a date that says we can be settled on the 66 book canon either, but men did settle, and that settling was based entirely on theological, scriptural presuppositions, a model that you should continue to follow for the Words, especially since Scripture itself teaches that those are what God’s people will be settled about (Rev 22:18-19). God’s people have believed in a settled text and a settled canon. That is historic doctrine. Your ongoing unsettled text still to be undetermined by means of extra-scriptural, non-scriptural presuppositions is the novel belief about this.

    • Damien T Garofalo March 23, 2010 / 4:26 pm

      Alrighty,

      First off you tell me that I may not be able to get a view of preservation from the Bible alone. Yet you constantly stress the supposed historical merits of your view. History means something to you (as it should) and it means something to me. I wouldn’t (and haven’t) accused you of neglecting the Bible simply because you care what Christians believed, you shouldn’t do it to me. We both understand the implications of historical Christianity. I take it further than just what they believe, I also take into consideration what they had.

      I also don’t grant to you that I’m skewing history. I’m offering different views. That’s all. Different strands of King James Onlyism differ in their approaches and even presuppositions, but in all of them, 1611 seems to change the game. And by the way we can look back into biblical history and see the significance of 722 BC and 586 BC, with a lot of biblical literature expounding on those days, but my point is we don’t have that for the year 1611.

      I didn’t talk much about biblical presuppositions, true. This is one blog post, not an exhaustive treatise. This entire blog exists to delve into several aspects of this issue, including those scriptural presuppositions. By the way, I’m still convinced of my position scripturally, and haven’t budged on Jesus’ use of another version in the temple, which I truly believe is very significant. You may disagree but don’t tell me I’m not scriptural.

      Now brother Kent please understand this: I have tried, the more I get to understand your position, to represent it to the best of my ability. I would never purposefully distort your position to “mock a straw man” as you accuse me of. And by the way this is a blog about issues, so those who agree with my position on this issue are going to chime in with their agreements. It’s not necessary to criticize the ‘kudos’ that I have received as if we’re some sort of group in conspiracy to take you and others down.

      On to the quote, which I must say is a misleading attempt at writing at my part, for which I apologize. When I said:

      “Kent Brandenburg has repeatedly said on his blog that the Bible promises “general accessibility” of His words, in the original languages, to His people, through His church, to every generation. Yet those words aren’t found in a single volume until 1611…”

      I wrote that as a summary of your position – the whole thing. In other words the part that says “yet those words. . .” isn’t my refutation of your position, but your position itself. You say that the original language words don’t have to be found in a single volume, mss, etc, in order for God’s promises to be true. I’m only saying what you said, and sorry if it was unclear.

      And yes, God’s people have accepted settled texts, and often amended that later. That’s the point here. If we say the 1611 KJV is the settled text, then the texts that were “settled” prior to 1611 we wrong, quite simply. Christians can be wrong, no? And we do know what many Christian groups have. We have patristic sources, we have lectionaries, we have old versions, etc. There are some gaps in history, but there’s a big story that we can’t ignore.

      I hope you at least can engage in some of the argumentation used here, or at the very least agree that those who DO try to look for pre-1611 settled texts (like the Peshitta, etc. – arguments that you may not agree with anyway) are being inconsistent. So I take it you assume that the comma johanneum was generally accessible in every generation after the first century?

  7. Kent Brandenburg March 23, 2010 / 1:50 pm

    I want to help Chris Cole out here. First, they weren’t historical “sects” that opposed the state church. They were churches that opposed the state religion. There is no such thing as a “state church” in scripture, which where we get the truth. Those two terms, “state” and “church,” are mutually exclusive. I would be glad for you to show me scripturally how that such a state institution represents a biblical teaching on “church.” Second, the text behind the KJV was not some kind of state sponsored text. It was the text received by the churches. The state sponsored a translation of that text, but that is besides the point. The churches agreed on the text and used the translation. People liked that translation, not because it was “authorized,” but because the best translators in the world did the translation.

    I’m being extremely kind in this response.

    • Chris Cole March 23, 2010 / 5:21 pm

      Kind or not, Kent, you have your facts wrong. Protestants, at least outside the Church of England, in both Great Britain and in the first New World (Anglophone) colonies preferred the Geneva Bible. King James saw that version as undermining his claim to divine right. So, once the new Authorized Version was completed, he made it illegal to publish ANY English version OTHER than the AV. The churches didn’t choose the AV; state coercion forced it upon them.

      And please read my original response more carefully. I certainly didn’t advocate a state church. I was commenting on the view of some, mentioned in the original post, in favor of sects opposed to the state church, while simultaneously advocating a state-authorized Bible translation.

  8. Yin Sayne March 23, 2010 / 9:06 pm

    Brandenburg’s attempt to link Inspiration to Preservation seems to sound a little like special pleading. First, he presupposes that preservation should be like inspiration. Then it’s preservation must be like inspiration. And the short slide down the slippery slope ends with Ta-da, it’s just like inspiration.

    Thing is, neither the Bible nor history promises that inspiration is anything like preservation or vice versa. There’s not a verse that promises that God’s Word is “forever … settled on earth,” not in 325, nor in 1611, nor in 1881, nor even in 1900. There seems, however, as I recall, a verse that says it’s “forever … settled” somewhere else.

    And, coming to history, there’s even less support for the notion that something special happened in 1611.

    So perhaps it’s time to move on from Brandenburgism and labour for the things that do edify.

    • fundyreformed March 23, 2010 / 11:06 pm

      So perhaps it’s time to move on from Brandenburgism and labour for the things that do edify.

      We try not to revel in controversy for its own sake. This blog aims to help influence those caught up in KJV onlyism. We’ve been a help to some, and hosting reasonably clear-headed debates like this is also a help to others.

      I understand the tendency to think this is all a waste of time, let’s go edify. But I think there’s a place for this.

      Thanks for dropping by and leaving your thoughts. I think you are right on with regard to the “special pleading”. Also there’s only so much assuming that historical proof exists that one can do….

      Again, thanks and God bless,

      Bob Hayton

  9. Kent Brandenburg March 23, 2010 / 9:27 pm

    Chris,

    I’ve only got a moment, but the text behind the KJV is essentially the same text as that which is behind the Geneva Bible. The differences are miniscule compared to what we have with the modern versions. And again, I’m mentioned the text, so I don’t know what facts I got wrong on that.

    What I caught was that you said “sects” opposed a “state church.” So I did read you write. The actual churches were what you called “sects” and the state religion is what you called a church. I read that very carefully.

  10. Kent Brandenburg March 24, 2010 / 12:30 am

    Damien,

    I would still be glad to see a developed bibliology of preservation from a critical text guy. They don’t start with that. And then if they do, it’s too bad, but it isn’t anything that you can find anywhere else in history. Usually that should be a problem. I’m assuming this probably doesn’t sound nice to you.

    Regarding the development of this Luke 4 tact as a kind of biblical basis for CT, I find several problems, and that’s without dealing with Luke 4. We’ve been there and done that. That view of Luke 4 that says Jesus was fine with a corrupted text that varied from the original autographs assumes too much. Do we have a passage that teaches, that propositionally reveals that God would not keep every Word to be available to believers of every generation? Answer: No. We do have the opposite. So like every other doctrine, you don’t use a Luke 4 to read into the propositional, plain passages something other than what they say. You read the plain, propositional teaching into what is happening in Luke 4. And what you come up with is exactly what John Owen came up with, it is targumming. You really are stretching to get a new doctrine of imperfect preservation from Luke 4. I hope you get what I’m talking about. This is how we should harmonize scripture. For instance, I don’t look at 1 Corinthians 15:29, baptism for the dead, and read that into the passages about salvation and baptism. Do you understand the problem with that hermeneutic? Christians haven’t believed that way about God’s Words.

    As far as dates are concerned, you kind of missed or avoided my point. I led up to the canonization of scripture. Did we have a canon before 1647? Yes. But churches did settle on a 66 book canon officially at that time. Some were still questioning it, but did that mean that believers did not see 66 authoritative books of the Bible before that? No. There is not other text, but the one behind the KJV that claims to be a settled text of Scripture. And I say text again for Chris’ sake, who like many reads past me into the English preservationist view. So if the canon was settled in the 1st century and then again in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries, why did believers settle on it again in 17th century, Damien? And why 1647? Was 1647 a magical year for canonicity? No, you can read what they wrote, and they believed that the apographa was the same as the autographa.

    You can make a scriptural point, but that doesn’t mean that I have to believe you’re scriptural. I don’t think the Church of Christ view of baptism is scriptural and they would say that where scripture speaks, they speak, and where it is silent, they’re silent. I think you get that.

    I’m glad that you understand that you are preaching to the choir here at this blog. They aren’t very critical of their own. You ought to think about what that might mean. Could you handle criticism from one another? Maybe not.

    I’m saying that the sentence, starting with “yet those words” does not represent my position. I do believe that every generation has access to every Word. That doesn’t mean that the existence of textual variants meant that God’s people were not able to identify what the very Words of God were. Neither does it mean that they didn’t possess a perfect copy.

    When you write, “God’s people have accepted settled texts, and often amended that later,” you’re missing the point. There was a settled text, not an accepted settled text—one too many adjectives there. You have to have a text that is perfect to add or take away a word from it.

  11. Kent Brandenburg March 24, 2010 / 12:39 am

    Yin Sayne,

    Is that really your name?

    I really didn’t make some special connection between inspiration and preservation. So you’ll have to argue with the guy that said that. We’ve got promises of inspiration and we approach that by faith. We’ve got promises of preservation and we’ve got to approach that by faith. I’ve also got promises of justification and I’ve got to approach that by faith. So there’s my connection. Look at what the Bible teaches. It is the sane way to approach Scripture.

    You quoted Psalm 119:89. I’m happy to know that God’s Word is settled in heaven, but I really don’t buttress my belief about preservation and availability on that one verse. It wouldn’t be sane for me to do that.

    I do think something special happened in 1611 and it wasn’t special education.

    I’d be happy for you to move on from whoever you are reading and look at Scripture.

  12. CD-Host March 24, 2010 / 2:16 pm

    Kent —

    You ought to think about what that might mean. Could you handle criticism from one another? Maybe not.

    Well as someone who is a critical text guy… With the exception of Willi Dudding they have handled my criticisms / comments which are from well to their the left fine. For that matter so have you, mostly on your blog.

  13. Kent Brandenburg March 24, 2010 / 5:12 pm

    Thanks CD. I would have assumed you would criticize from the left, even as I do from the right, but I’m talking about the guys in their own club. Are they really so monolithic that they have so little criticism to offer their own cadre?

  14. Damien T Garofalo March 24, 2010 / 9:07 pm

    I would suggest reading us more. There are disagreements here. And this point has really no merit, as if it’s so wrong for authors of the same blog to agree on most points.

  15. Joe March 30, 2010 / 12:59 pm

    “This blog aims to help influence those caught up in KJV onlyism.”

    This blog is primarily for those who hate that KJVO people trust the KJB.

    • Damien T Garofalo March 30, 2010 / 1:07 pm

      Joe,

      Thanks for stopping by. We appreciate interaction – however, this comment isn’t really interaction. I find it rather ironic that in your other comment you accuse Jason of an ad hominem attack and then use this comment to do that very thing to us. You don’t know our hearts. You don’t know our motivations. All you can do is take us at our word and respond to what we’ve written. I’ll tell you what I believe – I think King James Onlyism is false teaching. I do feel strongly about it. But I don’t hate anyone who holds to it or anyone for holding to it. What I don’t like is the misinformation that is rampant on the internet to promote such a doctrine, and this blog aims to help influence those caught up in that. I hope you can hold in your personal opinions and begin to interact with us so that we can provoke one another to think these issues through.

  16. Joe March 30, 2010 / 3:18 pm

    “I hope you can hold in your personal opinions …”

    It is certain that you would like for me to parrot your personal opinnions, but I don’t share yours. I will choose just not to write any comments on such a biased opinioned site in the future. Because ….

    IF I CANNOT SHARE MY PERSONAL OPINION THEN WHAT IS THE POINT OF INTERACTING AT ALL.

    Boy!

  17. Damien T Garofalo March 30, 2010 / 4:16 pm

    sorry, Joe, let me clarify – you can offer your opinions here, but what I meant was not your opinions on who you think we are or what motivates us to write. Stick to the issues, not personalities. Thanks, and by all means, interact!

  18. Joe March 31, 2010 / 9:22 am

    Damien,

    Thank you for clarifying. I am a KJB reader. Because I quote it, I am often attacked for using it. I saw in your blog responses a tendency for many to attack its use. I quoted a statement that, to me, is really an attack on anyone that believes that the KJB is a “perfect” Bible. It sounds caring, but it is not: “This blog aims to help influence those caught up in KJV onlyism.” This is an assumptive statement that classes KJB using Christians as less than non-KJB Christians. I am sorry for over reacting.

    What I will suggest to all your contributors and yourself is not a scholarly thing. Yet I think that it may clarify for all what KJB folks understand. (At this point I need to express that for about the first 15 years of my Christian life, I used a different Bible than the KJB. I did not begin using the KJB instantly nor as a result of any “KJVO” persuasion. I was seeking solid proof to clarify Biblical doctrine. That proof was both physical and spiritual, and I was desperate for it at the time. The versions, as I found out much later, that were based upon the eclectic Greek, did not meet this need.)

    The suggestion: Use the KJB exclusively for several months. Get familiar with the unfamiliar words. Use it for study, use it for just reading. Please take a positive approach to this task. Then test yourself for clarification of doctrine.

    I know several folks who have done this.

    Thank you for listening (reading),

    Joe

    • JasonS March 31, 2010 / 11:38 am

      Joe,
      We, here at KJVO Debate blog, have been exclusive users of the KJV in the past. We still respect and love the KJV. We do not deny its usefulness and goodness. We KNOW what the KJV is. We used to stand staunchly against ANY version other than the KJV. We do not oppose the KJV.
      We do deny that it is the ONLY Bible that is of God. That is what we are countering. We are opposed to the idea that the King James Version is the only Bible for us today.
      To say that other versions are not clear on doctrine is also a misrepresentation of the facts. The NASB and ESV in particular are very good translations that are used by many Bible expositors due to their clarity in that respect.
      Thanks for commenting.

  19. Kent Brandenburg March 31, 2010 / 12:05 pm

    JasonS,

    Let’s completely take the term “KJV” out of the equation and replace it with the the term “Bible.” Let’s even get out of our head for the moment the concept of “translation.”

    The Bible is not paper. It isn’t ink. It is Words made from letters. Scripture presents one Bible, one set of Words. Since the Bible is so dependent on Words, since that is what it is, Words, you can’t say that there are two Bibles or four Bibles or ten Bibles and yet they are all the same. That is not possible. It’s like this: 4 does not equal 5. Or, 93 does not equal 100. Those are not the same, but in this we are supposed to say that they are the same. They are not.

    Now if someone were dealing with the Iliad and Odyssey by Homer, and you had 7% word differences, you might say that they were both the Iliad and Odyssey. But with the Bible, unless the very Words don’t matter, you can’t say that two books that are 5-7% different are both the Bible. This flies in the face of what Scripture says about itself. So as we view this in a doctrinal way, we don’t have a basis for accepting two different sets of words as the same. I will not join you in that idea. And I am talking about 5-7% difference between the CT and the TR. You’ve got bigger problems if you look at the differences between the manuscripts of the CT.

    Now you may say that the words don’t change any doctrine. We have established that is not true in Thou Shalt Keep Them, our book (which you can buy here: http://www.amazon.com/Thou-Shalt-Keep-Them-Preservation/dp/0974381705/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1270054256&sr=8-1 incidentally). Does the Bible tell us what doctrine is or do we determine what Bible we believe by what doctrine it contains? Because they are not the same. I’m not saying that they teach two different gospels, but that’s not a standard that we would expect either by what the Bible teaches. They do teach different doctrine though.

    What you are asking us to accept though, JasonS, is to accept more than one Bible. Do you see that? You make this very statement: “We do deny that it is the ONLY Bible that is of God. ” Can you imagine an unbeliever getting a hold of that? It would be confusing. “You mean there is more than one Bible?” I can hear him say. Answer from you: “Of course.” Well, that seems rather strange. I don’t accept the two Bible idea. It isn’t scriptural. This is where faith comes in.

    Now you may say that you believe there is only one Bible, but you don’t know what the Words are. You can’t, if you are CT/eclectic, ever claim to know what the Words of God are. You may think that you can’t know. If that’s true, then how do you know what the 66 books are? Perhaps that’s less of a leap with your mind. Your mind can handle 66 books. Your mind can handle rejecting the Epistle of Barnabas for instance or the Shepherd of Hermas. Why? It doesn’t relate to what Scripture says, it again comes down to being rational to you.

    How rational are many of the events of Scripture? Esther. Jonah. Genesis 1. Genesis 3. Every Gospel. Revelation. And how rational are many of the events? We receive them by faith. Abraham did that many times—going to the Promised Land, offering Isaac, etc.

    JasonS and others here, join us in faith in, in the belief in, the providential, perfect preservation of Scripture in the language in which it was written. Without faith it is impossible to please God.

    • JasonS March 31, 2010 / 9:21 pm

      KB,
      As a man my elder I wish to be respectful to you. You honestly make it difficult.
      First you take my statement about “only Bible” and misuse it. I believe it is abundantly clear that I meant “only translation”. We both know that.
      I refuse to accept that the KJV is the only translation that God accepts and regards. The KJV translators did not even believe that. It is evident that they expected others to follow them and improve upon it.
      As regards doctrinal changes, I have seen none as of yet. I’m sure that I’m not as widely read as you, but I’ve looked at different translations on and off for the last twenty years and have yet to find that any translation (excepting the NWT) I’ve seen in any way changed any Christian doctrine into an anti-Christian doctrine. Personally, at this point I am convinced that you are way off on the issue.
      While there are differences from translation to translation, we both know that the end result is still a text that is essentially the same in meaning. I have not stated that i don’t know what the Words of God are. Please do not attribute to me a position that I do not hold. Anyway, we both know that there is little uncertainty about the words. While there are many variants, they are not so extremely diverse as to leave us wondering what God actually said. That argument is a red herring.
      In your concluding paragraph you call me to faith. That is very strange, as I trusted Jesus as my Savior above twenty-five years ago. I trust Him. I trust His Word and preach it six times per week to the two flocks with which I have been entrusted. I trust His grace. Simply because I don’t trust your belief about the issue does not make me faithless. You have reached much too far with that statement. As one who is a pastor, I’m sure you should know better than that.
      Is this the way that you deal with everyone who disagrees with you? If so, that is a shame. To this point I have not called your faith into question. Why do you question ours? You know that we are committed to the fundamental truths of Christianity. Please use reason with us instead of this sort of rhetoric. We can have no discussion otherwise.

  20. Joe March 31, 2010 / 12:42 pm

    JasonS,

    Perhaps because you have a Biblical foundation from exclusively using (and I assume hearing) the KJB, you are blind to the different (and I think aberrant) ways the CT based versions actually present or support (or not support) true doctrine. I can honestly say that when 1 Timothy 3:16 does not explain the mystery of godliness beginning with God being manefest in the flesh, then I as a believer cannot comprehend from that scripture just what that mystery really is. This is a single instance of the CT based versions usually not supporting the doctrine of the Godhood of Jesus Christ. In fact, Arians are very comfortable with this [newer] interpretation of 1 Timothy 3:16. Not initially aware of these types of differences, I am now very aware of them. In this light, I understand that I was “cheated” of the fullness of doctrine for the first 15 years of my Christian walk.

    You, on the otherhand, quite possibly would never notice such a “slight” change of words because you already have been correctly taught the proper doctrine. I am concerned about new Christians that, in addition to not having what I consider a proper Bible, find themselves in apostate churches. We both are aware that much apostasy reigns in so many of our institutions considered Christian churches.

    I have to agree with Mr. Brandenburg’s previous message. With so many differences between the KJB and among the multiple varieties, things are quite confusing to young Christians and unbelievers. (I recently heard “The Message” quoted. I find that “version” occultic. Granted, it is one that lies closer to the extreme edge, but if one accepts the others in this post-modern atmosphere, who can argue that it is not “just as good” or “good enough”?

    In His Service

    Joe

    • JasonS March 31, 2010 / 9:26 pm

      Joe,
      In the end, a good literal translation as opposed to a paraphrase would help the young Christian. Second, I did not grow up with the foundation that you think I did. I grew up in a legalistic, fundamentalist church. I had to study on my own to learn theology, and learned it from folks who didn’t use the KJV.
      The differences between the KJV and other translations are typically minimal. We are not in doubt about what God said.
      What about what is “just as good”, or “good enough”? How about the argument that calls for an essentially literal translation? Leland Ryken presents a good argument for that in Understanding English Bible Translation.
      Thanks for your comments.

  21. Joe March 31, 2010 / 11:10 pm

    JasonS,

    “The differences between the KJV and other translations are typically minimal.”

    Since the Hebrew and Greek from which the KJB was translated is different than that from which most modern English versions after 1937 were translated from, I do not agree at all with your statement. This is what most Christian who do not know the root differences, and all very young Christians will take at face value. This is a premise used by those who would have us KJB folks believe as well, and give up our faith based logic for using the KJB. Perhaps this is the very thing that caused some of the folks who began with the KJB to move away from it.

    I am sorry you had such legalistic roots. Some of those here that may defend the KJB are going to also leave me alone (meaning no support) as well as most of you non-KJB folks with my next set of statements. I did not come from IFB roots. I have been involved with Pentecostals, but with them almost any Bible was used. It was the Bible that the Holy Ghost had me search to get me out of the Pentecostal camp.

    I do hold that the KJB IS the inspired word of God. I believe and have been freed with the knowledge of the doctrines of Grace. I am much “Reformed” in all my doctrine, even with leanings toward Amillennial eschatology. I am agreed on believer’s baptism, and view baptism and communion as symbolic ordinances. But I will not go as far as either Piper or Sproul in adding any of my works as justification for my final salvation. My point being, that some KJB users are not at all in the camp as those most often discussed by non-KJBers.

    I also have found that many who say they believe the Bible is God’s word in both KJB and non-KJB camps never really read and study it. Most are content to just listen to someone else, and many times just parrot the ones talking. There is also a tendency for many in the non-KJB camp to think that they are too educated to use the KJB. This is pride, and I am not accusing anyone here of this; I have had friends who have done this. I am most often belittled as if I am unintelligent by bloggers on other sites for quoting KJB verses. I have read of pastors from a certain seminary I won’t mention take pride in belittling what they refer to as the King Jimmies! I have also had comments containing almost nothing except KJB verses deleted from sites, and a follow up unfairly accusing me of being off topic and rude. (I guess God was rude.) In fact, in the next article to this one, the comments were closed, and Will Kinney was shut down with the last words by you. And yet the author of the article calls other Christians “a scourge to the church”, “deceivers”, “not worth answering or trying to convince of anything because you are a fool”. This is what I am used to hearing from your side, and it is ugly. Yet even you, who I have found to be a truly Christian minded fellow, have sided with the author of that argument and for no other reason (so far as I can see) than that he agrees with your opinion.

    I also do not appreciate calling the King James Bible a version.

    I mean no offense by any of this. There are many sides to this issue. I do appreciate being able to post these things here.

    I cannot help but to be faithful to that which I do by faith, else it would be sin for me. I am convinced by the logic of faith that the KJB is the English Bible that has the inspired words of God for daily use. Since the other books referred to as Bible versions vary significantly, I cannot, in faith, use them. Would you have me do anything differently from what my Lord has shown me to be right? Am I a fool by William Dudding’s definition? Am I a deceiver? Am I a scourge to the church? Should I not point out Arianism in critical text derived versions in 1 Timothy 3:16? Should Will Kinney quit writing articles about the other versions? Is he a fool?

    In His Service,

    Joe

    • JasonS April 1, 2010 / 11:55 am

      Joe,
      I shall leave you to your conclusions.
      The only thing that I shall say is that the previous article on which the comments were closed was not a blanket statement about all KJVO believers. Nor do I think it was targeted at you. At least I don’t think it was intended that way. Sometimes it is possible for us to come across as doing so, though. Perhaps Will will shed some light on his words. I will also not comment on WK’s character and call him names. That’s why the comments were closed on the other post- bad discussion, of which ad hominems were a major part. I don’t go for that. I’m glad that you don’t either.
      Thanks for weighing in and discussing this with us.

  22. Kent Brandenburg April 1, 2010 / 12:03 am

    JasonS,

    Do you think someone is genuinely attempting to be respectful if he announces to someone before the world how difficult it is to be respectful to him? Not agreeing is not the same thing as being disrespectful.

    You write, “First you take my statement about “only Bible” and misuse it. I believe it is abundantly clear that I meant “only translation”. We both know that.”

    But this is where you, sir, are either deceptive or ignorant. I would like it to be otherwise, but those are the only two choices I can see. The King James is the ONLY translation in the English that comes from the Hebrew Masoretic and Textus Receptus. The NKJV does not come from the identical text as the KJV. I trusted others for a little while that said that was the case, because I hadn’t checked it out, but since then I have found it it isn’t true. The KJV and the NKJV are translated from different original language texts. So we’re still talking about two different texts, JasonS. So, are you still saying those are the same Bible? That has nothing to do with the KJ translators preface, which has only to do with translation. They weren’t advocating a translation from a different text as theirs, so that whole paragraph is a moot point that you should have been able to catch from my comment.

    Our book, TSKT, shows several doctrinal changes. They represent two entirely different practices of Scripture. You will not practice the same with the CT/eclectic as you will the TR. It affects how the Christian life is lived. If we are to live by every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God, then someone is going to be wrong. The “turning Christian doctrine into anti-Christian doctrine” is way to ambiguous and could be read many different ways. No one is saying anti-Christian. Uzzah carried the ark different than what God said and was killed for it. That didn’t make him anti-God, but the difference was obviously important to God and to him.

    You say, “I have not stated that I don’t know what the Words of God are.” OK, then what are the Words of God, JasonS? Which are the Words of God. The CT and the TR differ by 7%. Which ones are God’s Words? The CT committee doesn’t claim to know what God’s Words are. So do you believe you know what the Words are or do you not? Yes or No will suffice. You say there is little uncertainty about the Words?

    You say, “While there are many variants, they are not so extremely diverse as to leave us wondering what God actually said.” If you take the Hebrew text behind the KJV and the one behind the modern versions, you will have two different dimensions for the temple in Ezekiel. By what dimensions will it be built, JasonS? If we are not wondering what God actually said, which one will it be? If this is a sure thing, this is an easy call for you. Is that a red herring? Do those dimension just not matter?

    I questioned your faith in what God said about the preservation of His Word, the historic position of the church. Is it possible for you to waver in your faith? Does your faith need strengthening? If it is true that you might not be as well read, is it not also possible that you need to learn something? Why is someone teaching you difficult for you to respect?

    • JasonS April 1, 2010 / 12:22 pm

      I agree that disagreement is not necessarily being disrespectful. Saying things such as “But this is where you, sir, are either deceptive or ignorant” is very disrespectful. You cannot expect me to listen to you when you do such as that. That is precisely why I have have seldom, of ever, responded to any of your comments here.
      The differences between texts surely do not show up with great significance where I have read. Practically every version that I pick up is read at crucial points. Though Joe mentioned 1Tim3:16, we still find that a difference in one place does not over turn the majority of the teaching concerning the deity of Christ or the Trinity. Why seek to claim such?
      Over and over and over these claims are made, yet I find no single Christian doctrine overthrown by any new translation that comes from the Critical Text. The proof is in the pudding….dish it up for us. That’s all I know to say about that issue. Point out these places for us to consider and discuss.
      “The “turning Christian doctrine into anti-Christian doctrine” is way to ambiguous and could be read many different ways. No one is saying anti-Christian.” That is what seems to be insinuated when statements are made about doctrinal differences between versions.
      KentB, surely you can bring something a little more relevant to the discussion than the dimensions of the temple. 1. That will not be something that affects our lives and doctrines. 2. I think I have already stated that the Word of God is perfectly preserved in that we have words enough to understand His will and purpose for us. Your approach to perfection and my understanding are different. I am convinced the Scriptures are perfect in that they accomplish what God intends them to accomplish by expressing what God intends to be expressed. Errors in transmission have not affected that. It is not a matter of whether the dimensions are not important. I’m not building the temple, and I have a feeling that the temple will not be built using Ezekiel for a blueprint. Also, it may be that your text is incorrect. I’m not so sure that you have the certainty that you think you do. It is a matter that it is not relevant to how I trust the Lord or grow in His grace. That is the problem with this whole KJVO issue: nit-picking that is irrelevant, and yet you folks can’t see it.
      Finally, yes my faith need strengthening. All of us can waver. I can always learn. I have a huge appetite for learning. It is not difficult for me to respect someone trying to teach me. They simply have to address me with a good attitude. That’s all that I ask, and it’s not too much.
      Let’s keep on the topic from now on, and not question someone’s faith or integrity. We can have a discussion then that will profit us both.
      JasonS

  23. CD-Host April 1, 2010 / 6:39 am

    Jason —

    You have a lot to respond to here.

    But I would comment on

    How about the argument that calls for an essentially literal translation? Leland Ryken presents a good argument for that in Understanding English Bible Translation.

    By mentioning the big problem with Rykand’s argument is that the ESV isn’t essentially literal. It takes liberties on virtually ever verse. I wrote an essay on this a while back Is the ESV essentially literal. Not only that most study bibles don’t even correct. I just did a recent one on another verse where almost all the study bibles (with the exception of the NISB and the NET) choose a highly non literal translation and then don’t mention the issue to the reader. http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2009/07/venus-translation-vs-transculturation.html.

    I’m in favor of “essentially literal” but it is really hard to find in English and the ESV doesn’t even attempt it. Th marketing department talks about it all the time, but the bible translation team openly disagrees with the marketing team so the effect is a very dishonest marketing campaign. Mark Strauss has done the best study Why the English Standard Version (ESV) should not become the Standard English Version.

    I’ve said it before. You want essentially literal you are going to have to move left.

    • JasonS April 1, 2010 / 12:24 pm

      CD,
      Can you fix your second link?

  24. CD-Host April 1, 2010 / 8:20 am

    Kent —

    We do deny that it is the ONLY Bible that is of God. ” Can you imagine an unbeliever getting a hold of that? It would be confusing. “You mean there is more than one Bible?” I can hear him say. Answer from you: “Of course.” Well, that seems rather strange.

    Why do you think an unbeliever would have problems with that? Consider something like Homer, and all the translations. That’s the case with just about any other important translated book. For example there have been 5 new translations of Dante’s Divine Comedy in the last 15 years into English and there are about another half dozen or so that are still widely read.

    I don’t see why an unbeliever would have any problem here.

  25. CD-Host April 1, 2010 / 10:53 am

    Hi there is a comment of mine stuck in moderation. I think because it has 3 links. Can you moderate this OK and delete this message?

  26. Kent Brandenburg April 1, 2010 / 1:11 pm

    CD Host,

    My point isn’t about translation, but about the text. You probably knew that Christians historically and biblically make a big deal about the Bible being the very Words of God and not just His “message” or His “concepts.” I’ve never made a huge deal at all about a new translation. I give my own translation every week when I preach from the original language text. However, to say that the very Words aren’t a big deal as long as we have the same message has a lot of problems. And to say they are the “same Bible” when they have different Words, I just don’t accept that. But JasonS thinks we should, and that is the orthodox position.

  27. Kent Brandenburg April 1, 2010 / 1:25 pm

    JasonS,

    If you held yourself to your own standard, you are at least as disrespectful or more so, which is why we should just let cease that whole vein of the conversation. You like having people agree with you. Or to say it in such a watered down fashion that it doesn’t hardly matter what they have said. That’s what it seems.

    If the differences between the texts didn’t matter, then why has the text been changed at least 27 times by the NA committee? Everyone could have just kept the TR and preserved the doctrine of preservation. Obviously they have mattered, but they don’t matter to you, perhaps, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t matter.

    You don’t like my Ezekiel example, which I thought would be an easy one for you to visualize because if you were building something and the two different dimensions, they couldn’t be the same. But that one doesn’t matter to you, even though it is in scripture. My point is that they can’t be the same, which disrupts your whole point of them being the same. But if it has to be practical to you, then you should consider the example of the omission of “against thee” in Matthew 18:15, or for your sake, “against you.” The KJV says “If thy brother shall trespass against thee,…” and the NASV says, “If your brother sins…,” omitting the “against you.” I’m giving you one example and I don’t think it is respectful for you to simply mock it and move on (which is what you did, just for your information) like you did with my Ezekiel example. All of our church discipline will be different dependent on which text we are using. Do you understand that? I will hope that preciseness and following what God said matters to you—which is why I gave you the Uzzah example, which you ignored in what could be perceived as offensive fashion, but which I will overlook out of care for you. And I refer to your statement that we are “nitpicking about something that is irrelevant.” Irrelevant to whom?

    Notice how that you say concerning Ezekiel, “it may be that your text is incorrect.” I noticed “your text” and the words “may be.” In other words, you are uncertain which one is correct. However, one thing you can agree on, I would hope, is that they are not the same.

    • JasonS April 1, 2010 / 2:09 pm

      KB,
      “If you held yourself to your own standard, you are at least as disrespectful or more so, which is why we should just let cease that whole vein of the conversation. You like having people agree with you. Or to say it in such a watered down fashion that it doesn’t hardly matter what they have said. That’s what it seems.”
      “I’m giving you one example and I don’t think it is respectful for you to simply mock it and move on (which is what you did, just for your information) like you did with my Ezekiel example.”

      Your response shows why I was initially reluctant to engage you. You are guilty of the very thing of which you accuse me. You attack a person instead of dealing with principle alone, then refuse to admit what you’ve done. You then attribute things to me that are not so. I do not want things watered down. I do want them presented kindly and without ad hominems. Obviously my tone was strident and offensive. For that I do seriously and sincerely apologize. I am battling allergies and let it affect me too much. Respond to the above as you wish. I shall leave it here and simply restate my apology for being testy.

      Sure the words matter. That is not what I’m implying. I’m stating that we have the words, and even if there are times that a synonym is given in one variant instead of what the TR has, the message is still there. Words convey meaning. That is what they are supposed to do. We have sufficient certainty of the words that allows us to know what God said. Every single word being preserved exactly is not the issue so much as it is that the words convey the meaning God intended. The KJV translators understood that, so they used italics to show where they had to work a little harder on the translation and give us an additional English word so as to convey the meaning. Do I convict them of adding to God’s Word? Not at all. I applaud them for having the wisdom and integrity to do exactly as they did. So I do the same today for those who seek to faithfully translate God’s Word for us.

      As far as the church discipline issue, what is the sin in comparing the texts? It seems that the KJVO brethren are the ones who insist dogmatically that they are absolutely correct and without error on that issue. The blessing of multiple translations is the fact of variant readings that often shed more light on the issue at hand. I believe the KJV translators actually encouraged the consideration of variants for the purpose of learning.

      As far as the Uzzah example, I did not ignore it, but neglected it by oversight. Mea culpa. The issue of Uzzah’s death is much more complicated than you present, I think. Uzzah KNEW he was doing wrongly, as did David. Willfully changing the order of God is sin. The rate of agreement between texts is so great that we are relatively certain of the words. The message comes through pretty plainly in KJV and modern translations. For this analogy to work, I think you would have to attribute the motive of willfully changing God’s Word to modern translators, and I don’t know that one can do so in the majority of instances.

      It is not a matter of irrelevant to whom, but irrelevant to what? It is irrelevant (Ezekiel’s temple dimensions) to our spiritual growth. Concerning the differences, I have not taken the time to go read in Ezekiel, but taking you at your word, I shall concede a difference. The issue is that we should appreciate that the difference is there, try to resolve the difference, and accept the fact that one is incorrect. Which one? You say KJV. I admit that I do not know. I have not studied that passage to see. I do know that I’ve been given nothing but your word that the KJV is correct. That is insufficient for me. KJV may be correct there, but it does not nullify the fact that NASB, ESV, NKJV are God’s Word. It simply gives us a comparison to go on that would enable us to use them all together for the purpose of growing and learning. Again, that’s the blessing of multiple translations.

  28. Joe April 1, 2010 / 2:43 pm

    The heart of the matter is simply that there can only be one Bible that is the word of God and has the words of God. That one Bible can exist in multiple languages, Hebrew, Greek, English, Spanish, etc. We have, in this terrible discussion, come down to two major factions concerning the English language Bible: 1) those that understand that the KJB, translated from ben Chayyim Masoretic Hebrew text and Textus Receptus Greek is the word of God and contains all the words of God, and 2) a multitude of varying versions translated from ben Chayyim (before 1937) or ben Asher Masoretic Hebrew text (after 1937) and a variety of eclectic Critical (new) Greeks texts.

    Simple logic: they can’t all be the words of God! Which one(s) are the word of God?

    The logic of faith loudly proclaims that the KJB is the one. All the intellectual arguments in the world cannot change this fact.

    Joe

    • Chris Cole April 1, 2010 / 4:18 pm

      You make a leap of logic here. Even if I accepted your premise that one can accept only one Bible version as the word of God, that would not logically lead to your conclusion that that one must be the KJV. I could equally as logically choose any version. Your conclusion is capricious. In addition, the phrase “textus receptus” isn’t as unitary as you apply it. One major problem is that Erasmus’s Greek text had gaps, which he filled by back-translating from the Latin. He originally didn’t include the trinitarian formula of I Jn 5:7, because it wasn’t found in the Greek documents available to him. He added it later when a Jesuit apologist produced a Greek text of it, probably also back-translated from Latin. Those gaps were filled in Greek documents not available to Erasmus, but rather available later. Thus in several ways, your premises do not sustain your conclusion.

  29. Kent Brandenburg April 1, 2010 / 2:52 pm

    JasonS,

    Please stop with the reluctance to engage thing. Nobody is bleeding. The only time I bring this up is when it is brought up—style—as an argument. You say I’m guilty of what I’m accusing you. I don’t think I’m guilty. I’m not holding you to my standard. I’m holding you to your standard. I don’t think myself obligated to apologize to every offense you say has been committed against you. The only thing that offended me was this “offense” that you keep having. It’s like the offense that the Democrats right now have to the reaction to their health care bill. The offense itself becomes the issue and it should be left alone. What they are saying is that they are dealing with neanderthals, which is how your criticisms come across. Now moving along.

    I don’t have much more to say, because there isn’t much more to say. We don’t believe the same about what scripture says. I believe that the message does change with the change of Words, on top of the fact that we are promised a perfectly preserved Bible. I believe that God uses the church to point out Scripture, that He has already done that. I don’t believe that individuals get to decide what the Words or Books of Scripture are.

    Ezekiel 40:49

    NIV

    The portico was twenty cubits wide, and twelve cubits from front to back. It was reached by a flight of stairs, and there were pillars on each side of the jambs.

    KJV

    The length of the porch was twenty cubits, and the breadth eleven cubits; and he brought me by the steps whereby they went up to it: and there were pillars by the posts, one on this side, and another on that side.

    One has a porch 12 cubits front to back and the other one of 11 cubits. One is relying on the Hebrew Masoretic and the other on an edition of the LXX.

    You say it is not a matter of irrelevant to whom. Why? Because you say so. I say it is relevant to God, that’s Who. He doesn’t want His Word changed. And He wants His temple built like He said. And that’s why I bring up the Uzzah issue. You seem to imply that all that mattered was Uzzah’s attitude, not the fact that he touched the ark. I don’t know where you get anything about Uzzah’s attitude in any translation or text.

    Anyway, I hope the best for you JasonS.

  30. JasonS April 1, 2010 / 3:15 pm

    “You say it is not a matter of irrelevant to whom. Why? Because you say so. I say it is relevant to God, that’s Who. He doesn’t want His Word changed. And He wants His temple built like He said. And that’s why I bring up the Uzzah issue. You seem to imply that all that mattered was Uzzah’s attitude, not the fact that he touched the ark. I don’t know where you get anything about Uzzah’s attitude in any translation or text.”
    There you go again, twisting my words. I did not say Uzzah’s attitude was the issue. I stated that David and Uzzah willfully went against God’s will as He had expressed it. You keep on about my taking offence, yet you keep giving it. Address the issue instead of twisting words and there will be no offence.
    I hope the best for you, too.

  31. Kent Brandenburg April 1, 2010 / 3:33 pm

    OK, JasonS, show me where it says that Uzzah willfully defied God’s command on how to carry the ark, which is what I meant by “attitude.” He didn’t just touch it, you say he wanted to do it differently than what God said. Show me that.

    • JasonS April 1, 2010 / 5:11 pm

      KB,
      Surely you can’t be serious. The prescribed manner for carrying the ark was on poles of a sort that went through the rings. David instead put it on a cart. Uzzah was a party to that, and touched it in an attempt to steady it. Even if Uzzah was simply following David’s orders, he was willfully defying God’s command by doing so.
      Here are David’s words:

      “For because ye did it not at the first, the LORD our God made a breach upon us, for that we sought him not after the due order. ” (1 Chronicles 15:13, KJV)

      You and I simply are unable to communicate, I guess.
      I’m sorry for that, because I truly believe you’re an intelligent person from whom I could learn, no matter how much I might disagree.
      I trust you enjoy resurrection Sunday.
      In Christ alone,
      JasonS

  32. CD-Host April 1, 2010 / 3:54 pm

    Kent —

    OK I get it. Though I can’t see how the original Greek TR can be “the Word” in a literal sense and the KJV can be “the word” in a literal sense. Either “the Word” transcends the boundaries of a particular expression of it or it doesn’t. Obviously the TR and the KJV differ from one another quite substantially, for example there are verb tenses present in the TR not present in the KJV and visa-versa.

    I suspect, using your language, that most unbelievers who are familiar with translations would probably say that any given English translation contains a similar message not even the same. Each translation creates a distorted prism allowing most of the message to get through and only by careful study, involving multiple translations at the very least, can one get to the entire message.

    I have a post on views of translation and you seem to be presenting a quite different one. But it might be helpful in terms of comparatives.

  33. Joe April 1, 2010 / 4:02 pm

    Exodus 25:14-15 “And thou shalt put the staves into the rings by the sides of the ark, that the ark may be borne with them. The staves shall be in the rings of the ark: they shall not be taken from it.”

    Confirmed in 1 Chronicles 15:15 “And the children of the Levites bare the ark of God upon their shoulders with the staves thereon, as Moses commanded according to the word of the LORD.”

    So Moses commanded the ark to be carried on the shoulders of the Levite priests.

  34. Kent Brandenburg April 1, 2010 / 4:05 pm

    CD,

    I’m not saying anything at all about translation. Nothing. I haven’t given my view of translation either. I’m not talking about that at all. All I’m saying is that two volumes that have two different sets of words are not the same.

    They say there isn’t only one Bible. I believe that’s news to God.

  35. CD-Host April 1, 2010 / 4:07 pm

    Joe —

    can only be one Bible that is the word of God and has the words of God. That one Bible can exist in multiple languages

    I know this sounds obvious to you but to me it doesn’t even make sense. I can’t follow how a book can transcend language, i.e. there is a unique word of God at the same time in Spanish and Chinese, and at the same time not transcend language “there can be only one Bible”. Can you explain this?

  36. CD-Host April 1, 2010 / 4:23 pm

    Kent —

    I really am not understanding this. I know we have done this before but I don’t see how the MS/TR and the KJV can both be the word of God if word for word matters.

    Does the the word of God start:

    :ץראה תאו םימשה תא םיהלא ארב תישארב

    or

    In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

    ________

    I just don’t see how both can literally be the word of God in a way that does not transcend a particular expression in language. I agree with the point you are making to Jason about specific words but I don’t see how that doesn’t equally apply if you accept the legitimacy of the original languages. Wills position makes sense because he doesn’t. The only bible that exist today is the KJV, but yours is different. And I apologize if I am being stupid but I just can’t seem to grok it.

    • JasonS April 1, 2010 / 6:19 pm

      CD,
      Since you must be getting something from KB that I’m missing about specific words; translate for me, please.

  37. Kent Brandenburg April 1, 2010 / 4:39 pm

    CD,

    I’m only referring to the original language text. I recognize that God didn’t preserve English Words and that those Words are not the same as the Words He wrote and preserved.

    Chris,

    It’s hard to take what you are saying seriously when you repeat that story about the “Jesuit apologist” that influenced Erasmus, when that has been disproved as authentic long ago. It’s an urban legend.

    You’ll find the evidence against it here ( https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/retrieve/1699/279_050.pdf ), written in 1980.

    • Chris Cole April 1, 2010 / 9:27 pm

      My source was “A Visual History of the English Bible”, by Donald Brake, vice-president of Multnomah Bible College and Seminary, 2008, p. 225. He gives the name of the Jesuit as Lopez de Stunica. The argument over the historicity of the story is beyond my expertise. However, it doesn’t effect my point, i.e., that the Greek New Testament text under the name of Textus Receptus itself underwent change, including the insertion of the Comma Johannum. Therefore, it is unsupportable to claim a special status for the TR on the basis that other manuscripts have been updated with new discoveries. I especially object to preferring a manuscript formed in part by back-translation from Latin over other, all-Greek manuscripts.

  38. Joe April 1, 2010 / 4:41 pm

    CD-host:

    Simple. Who created languages? Well God did. He can place his word in any language.

    Do you not believe this?

    Ken:

    Did you not read my answer to your question to JasonS?

    Joe

  39. Kent Brandenburg April 1, 2010 / 4:46 pm

    Joe,

    I have no doubt that Uzzah died because he disobeyed the passages to which you referred, but JasonS is going further than that and saying that Uzzah knew how God had commanded him to carry the ark and willfully disobeyed. I don’t see that in the text anywhere unless I’m missing it and JasonS could point me to it.

    • JasonS April 1, 2010 / 5:14 pm

      KB,
      I’m assuming that the priests et al of David’s day had knowledge of their duties.
      I suppose you’re assuming that they were ignorant.
      Different presuppositions.

  40. CD-Host April 1, 2010 / 5:05 pm

    Kent —

    I’m only referring to the original language text. I recognize that God didn’t preserve English Words and that those Words are not the same as the Words He wrote and preserved.

    OK this is a bit of a shock what I think you are saying. So let me rephrase this into my own language and tell me where I am misunderstanding.

    (1) The MS/TR is the preserved Word of God.
    (1a) The MS/TR is the only preserved Word of God.
    (2) The KJV is a translation of the Word.
    (2a) Other translations are bad because they use alternate texts for their underlying language.

    Is that correct? I know you don’t like the word translation, but I’m not sure how else to phrase this.

  41. CD-Host April 1, 2010 / 5:21 pm

    Joe —

    Simple. Who created languages? Well God did. He can place his word in any language.
    Do you not believe this?

    No I don’t, but what I believe isn’t relevant. I’m trying to figure out what you are saying.

    1) Can you give me the specific text in Greek that is God’s word?
    2) Can you give me the specific text in another language (say Spanish) that is God’s word.
    3) Does God’s word exist in Latin and if so which Vulgate (or some other text) is it?

    Now if God can place his word in any language than his word is transcendent of specific linguistic features. If so
    4) What prevents their from being multiple expressions of God’s word in a single language?

    5) How does a believer know if there is a Word of God in his language?
    5a) How does a believer know which version in his language is the actual Word of God?

    Thanks for helping me work this!

  42. Kent Brandenburg April 2, 2010 / 12:48 am

    JasonS,

    You should probably review your Uzzah story, because it doesn’t say he was the priest. He was the son of Abinadab, in whose house the men of Kirjath-jearim placed the Ark when it was brought back from the land of the Philistines. I hope pointing that out doesn’t offend you. I don’t agree with you, but I’m afraid that if I point out something that doesn’t agree with you, you’ll be offended. That’s what makes it tough for you and me to talk.

    So I don’t assume willful disobedience from him. I think he thought he was doing a good deed by reaching up to stop the ark from falling. But he got killed for touching it, not for the attitude in which he touched it or for the willfulness in which he touched it. If he was willingly touching it, I would think that he would have just got it over with and touched it much sooner than when it began falling of the cart.

    CD,

    (1) The MS/TR is the preserved Word of God. YES
    (1a) The MS/TR is the only preserved Word of God. YES. THERE MUST BE A SETTLED TEXT TO WHICH SOMEONE COULD ADD OR FROM WHICH ONE COULD TAKE AWAY. THE CHURCH AGREED ON THE MS/TR. IT WAS THE ONLY TEXT EVER CONSIDERED TO BE PURE. ETC.
    (2) The KJV is a translation of the Word. THE KJV TRANSLATED THE MASORETIC AND TR.
    (2a) Other translations are bad because they use alternate texts for their underlying language. OTHER VERSIONS TRANSLATE FROM DIFFERENT WORDS. WHAT IS DIFFERENT CANNOT BE THE SAME. THAT’S BEEN ABOUT MY ONLY POINT TO JASON S.

    • JasonS April 2, 2010 / 7:24 am

      KB,
      I did not specifically name Uzzah as a priest, but said priests, et al.
      I agree that he thought he was doing a good deed by steadying the ark. Nevertheless, he seems to have been among the faithful in Israel who should have known better. Good intentions do not negate the sinfulness of sin.
      I thought you didn’t bring up the issue of style in a discussion unless someone else brings That was unnecessary and certainly not helpful to our discussion when I thought we were just beginning to get on an even keel.
      RE: your comment to CD on versions from the MT/TR. What about the NKJV or MKJV/KJV21?

  43. Kent Brandenburg April 2, 2010 / 12:52 am

    Chris Cole,

    Did you know that the KJV wasn’t translated from Erasmus’ text? We could go around and around on 1 John 5:7-8, but there is textual basis for the “comma,” grammatical basis for it. I have faith it is there because of the acceptance by the church. I don’t regard forensic science without theological presuppositions as a trustworthy basis for canonicity of Words.

  44. CD-Host April 2, 2010 / 8:36 am

    Kent —

    OK that makes sense.
    I read your article on the NKJV and I get that. I see what you are saying, there is some bleed through in the text notes of non preservationist views. Its hard for people to work in a dedicated and serous way on stuff they in heart think is dead wrong and while Thomas Nelson’s people try very hard to neutral they probably (to pick extremes) agree with Brian McLaren much more than they do with you on theology. Its easier when they have do something like the John MacArthur bible because there they can focus on the mechanics of publishing and be indifferent to content.

    But what about something like Jay Green’s MKJV or his Interlinear translation (MS/TR). Would you consider that God’s word?

  45. CD-Host April 2, 2010 / 8:56 am

    Jason —

    Since you must be getting something from KB that I’m missing about specific words; translate for me, please.

    Kent since I am paraphrasing you here please feel free to correct. The way I read Kent’s argument is a syllogism.

    Prop 1: God’s Word is not a collection of content free ideas but instead carries with it specific language. I.E. even though we don’t have a theological principle based on whether the porch was 11 cubits or 12 cubits, that is still a part of the bible.

    Prop 2: Because of this given (2) statements A and B which are contrary only one at most can be God’s word. “One has a porch 12 cubits front to back and the other one of 11 cubits”, only one of those statements at most can be true.

    Prop 3: There exist contradictions of this type between modern original language texts and the church’s traditional text, which carry through to their associated translation. For example the NIV vs. KJV on the size of the porch.

    Conclusion — Either the KJV is false in some places or the NIV is false in some places. They cannot both be God’s word.

    Corollary — Because Prop 3 is empirically obvious to reject the conclusion you will either need to reject:

    Prop 1 in which case you will end up as a theological liberal
    Prop 2 in which case you will end up as a postmodernist

    Again Kent feel free to correct, contradict…..

    • JasonS April 2, 2010 / 3:43 pm

      CD,
      Thanks for putting it that way. I did understand that from KB. The thing is, I agree that things which are different are not the same. He and I do not differ on that. We do differ in that we see preservation from different perspectives.
      The argument I’ve tried to present is that for the Word of God to be perfectly preserved is for it to be preserved in a manner that will allow it to be profitable for the purpose that God sent it to accomplish. It does not have to be an absolutely exact verbal correspondence. Nowhere in Scripture is that promised. What does have to happen in preservation is that it does have to be a correspondence that is sufficient to convey the mind and will of God. The difference from the TR to the CT is not so vast that the mind and will of God is seen in such a largely different way in one as to make it not representative of what was given to us by inspiration.
      Never the less, I’m leaving this discussion, as he and I are getting nowhere fast. Perhaps we can discuss it at a later date with more profit.

  46. Joe April 2, 2010 / 3:40 pm

    CD-Host,

    I am sorry you do not believe that the God who created a tiny gnat with all its biological complexity also created the universe with its multitude of galaxies too many and too large for us to even comprehend cannot keep his word in any language that men speak. (This is compliments of my friend Bill.)

    Where is faith?

    Below, please find the answers to your questions.

    1) Can you give me the specific text in Greek that is God’s word?

    Textus Receptus

    2) Can you give me the specific text in another language (say Spanish) that is God’s word.

    I think it is the Reina Valera Gomez.

    3) Does God’s word exist in Latin and if so which Vulgate (or some other text) is it?

    The Old Italic (But Latin is not used much any longer; it is certainly not a language used for normal conversation.)

    Now if God can place his word in any language than his word is transcendent of specific linguistic features. If so
    4) What prevents their from being multiple expressions of God’s word in a single language?

    I am not sure I understand the question because of its structure. I think there can be multiple expressions for original idioms.

    5) How does a believer know if there is a Word of God in his language?

    The Holy Ghost will tell him.

    5a) How does a believer know which version in his language is the actual Word of God?

    The Holy Ghost will tell him.

    ——————————-

    Chris,

    I speak of the logic of faith. You’ll sometimes get a humanly (so-called) logical answer from me, but I have reached into my sinful nature, my natural man, for such an answer. I have a great tendency to this very think since I am an engineer. I also think some of your information about Erasmus is way out of date, or plain wrong.

    Which Bible do you think God has told you is the inerrant one?

    Kent,

    Thanks for your clarification. I did not understand that component of why you were asking the particular question.

    I must say that I especially agree with your statement to Chris about 1 John 5:7

    In His Service.

    Joe

    Joe

  47. Kent Brandenburg April 2, 2010 / 4:06 pm

    CD,

    I would use any translation that comes from the Masoretic or TR in whatever language it could be translated.

    JasonS,

    I too very clearly understand what you believe about preservation of Scripture, what you think Scripture says about it. I would truly like to see that expanded somewhere with the references. It is new teaching. I have trouble accepting something so novel without biblical basis. You too would be the rare if not solitary critical text person who would have fleshed out in a systematic way the positive scriptural presentation of his position. And I say positive, because I don’t see a criticism of the historic position to be an actual position. I do hear, however, that you don’t see it my way and that you think scripture says something in the way of these two sentences or phrases:

    “to be preserved in a manner that will allow it to be profitable for the purpose that God sent it to accomplish”

    “it does have to be a correspondence that is sufficient to convey the mind and will of God.”

    Even if you are able to put something together from Scripture, it would be a tough sell for me, I know, since I would think that this doctrine would have surfaced before the 21st century, if it were of God.

    One more thing. I don’t think we went nowhere. I finally got an admission, after CD explained it, that you understood what I was saying, and then finally I got your view of preservation. I hadn’t heard it up to that point.

    Joe,

    Thanks.

    • JasonS April 2, 2010 / 4:30 pm

      KB,
      Ok. I’m glad you feel that we got somewhere. Perhaps I’m too pessimistic.
      I think you missed the fact that I essentially told CD that I understood you all along, but thought surely I must be missing something. I think it obviously boils down to preservation.
      For the sake of keeping things on topic, let’s take the preservation discussion over here. https://kjvodebate.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/psalm-126-7-preservation/
      This is a very busy weekend, so I may not get back to you. I have left you a comment on the above linked post, though.
      Thanks,
      JasonS

  48. CD-Host April 2, 2010 / 5:13 pm

    Kent —

    I would use any translation that comes from the Masoretic or TR in whatever language it could be translated.

    Then I guess I’m a little confused why you and lots of other people consider you a KJVonlyist? It seems to me you just considered several other bibles in English to be perfectly acceptable. You sound more like a “TRonlyist” In some sense.

    So, I guess the other question I’d ask, if I were going to grant that the TR was preserved rather than created in 1522 is: “what about the Eastern Church?” They were using Greek texts which correspond roughly to the Majority Text. Why was preservation successful in the West but not in the East?

    BTW thanks for meeting me 1/2 way in terms of language! This has been a good dialogue since I’m seeing your position clearly.

  49. CD-Host April 2, 2010 / 6:30 pm

    Joe —

    Thank you for that list. So I some follow up questions. Is there some systematic way you are picking those bibles? It seems that those bibles differ enormously from one another. Just to pick examples the Old Italic (Vetus Latina)

    1) Isn’t a uniform text but rather a collection of translations. It is like saying “Evangelical bible translation in 21st century America”

    2) Even if it were a single bible it uses the LXX for the OT consistently. The differences between the Old Testament in the Vetus Latina and in the KJV are larger than those between the KJV and say NRSV.

    The RVG is pretty close to the KJV so no issue there.

    Then there is this answer, I won’t push too much but I think it is worth asking

    CD: How does a believer know if there is a Word of God in his language?
    Joe: The Holy Ghost will tell him.

    I guess I’d be a little hard pressed to see how you would implement that standard. Certainly for example the Message translation has Evangelicals who will say the Holy Ghost led them when they first read it, and in earlier years “The Living Bible” had a similar effect.

    An even more clear cut example is in the 7th day Adventist church. That church has used the KJV for many years, and the “official” study bible is a KJV with notes from Ellen White’s writings. Desire of the Ages (her commentary) quotes exclusively from the KJV. Yet in the last decade or so their membership (many of them claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit) have been moving towards the Clear Word translation (7th day adventist paraphrase). In other words you have hundreds of thousands if not millions of Christians moving further away from the KJV and Orthodox Christian translations based on inspiration.

    So what’s going on here.
    1) Are they failing to understand the Holy Spirit?
    2) Are they getting different guidance than you from the Holy Spirit?
    3) Something else?

    And let me take this standard of personal inspiration even further. Using that standard what could you say to a Mormon?

    Its OK if you don’t have an answer to this. But this is why the Holy Spirit leading doesn’t really settle KJVonly issue. It is not much different than “I like strawberry ice cream”.

  50. Joe April 2, 2010 / 7:32 pm

    CD-Host,

    You are not really after answers to any of your questions by me. This is extremely obvious when you mention heretical sects such as SDA’s and Mormons. I would not talk with them about details of Biblical things as I thought we were doing. I would give them the Gospel.

    Again, I am sorry that you don’t have a Bible that you are sure is God’s inerrant word. Perhaps I should also be more humble and admit that I don’t really have a Bible that I can trust 100% either. Maybe I just ignorantly assumed the wrong thing about how God preserves his word. Maybe I got it all wrong that he even said he would preserve his word. I ought to listen to folks like you who are much more qualified to explain the reality to folks like me. Still, it hurts a little to find out that I am so wrong on this issue. What hurts more is that perhaps I will have to quit trusting that the KJB is 100% correct. The real problem I have is that when I look at all the variations, I can’t, on my own, determine what is right. I also don’t know who to believe on these interpretation issues. You are all arguing all the time on what the Bible really means. I am back to square one. I thought when I started reading the KJB, doctrine was clarified for me. Now I just don’t know anymore.

    Also, I am not a certified authority on these issues. You and the folks you agree with are apparently very educated in the various languages, and all the various Greek / Latin / Spanish / Chinese / etc. Bibles that exist. I am not interested in competing in spiritual things.

    Perhaps I would do better by not contributing to this blog. Maybe I can just read it and learn from you.

    I am sorry for entering my obviously ignorant thoughts. I hope you can forgive me. I am ashamed that I can’t answer you. My faith just is not enough, I see that now.

    In His Service (but certainly inferior)

    Joe

  51. Kent Brandenburg April 2, 2010 / 7:45 pm

    Joe,

    You’re right to trust what God has already done. It is the logic of faith as you said. But I think you are speaking tongue in cheek here to some degree, or as Paul would say, you speak as a fool. Trust the Lord. Be certain. No need to debate it.

  52. Kent Brandenburg April 2, 2010 / 7:46 pm

    Oh, and one more thing Joe. Faith is not inferior. It pleases God. This subject is above all of our heads. As is justification and all the doctrines. We know because of Him.

  53. Joe April 2, 2010 / 8:14 pm

    Kent,

    You have it right. Thank you for your edifying words. I was speaking as a fool. But what if I were really serious? What about so many younger Christians who have also begun in faith? I can speak for some of them. As I may have mentioned before, until God demonstrated the KJB to me, I walked for 15 years without clarity in major doctrines. In my spirit I believed, but my mind was not convinced.

    Unfortunately, I would never have entered into this “fray” had preachers and others not attacked me so viciously for using the KJB. They did mean it for evil, but God meant it for my strengthening. Now I speak of the KJB as a true believer. It IS the word of God, and it contains ALL the words of God. It has not changed since the days of George Whitfield, Charles Spurgeon and Jonathan Edwards, great preachers who also believed it to be the inspired word of God. (Oh, that preachers would preach today as they did then. But without their faith, those today are crippled in their actions, restricted by their questionable texts. Thank God, some pastors do still believe as did they!)

    Even the sweetest of those here and elsewhere who argue for the eclectic Greek texts and, frankly, the eclectic English versions, do their very best (worst?) to destroy the faith of those who are settled with the KJB. Yet they never once offer anything positive toward helping one find God’s word. Their combined message is as you and others have stated. They do not think God preserved his words, or at least their definition of preservation is not in the dictionary, and they offer no version that can settle doctrine. They talk about no major doctrines changed, but you and others agree that major doctrines are changed. They suggest to the faithful that they cannot have faith in this area. And our churches are weaker than ever, but filled with so many “Burger King” Christians, beginning with “have it your way” bibles. Post modernism is dripping in all their writings such that all good conversations end with “agree to disagree” statements. Their truth is different from your truth, but it’s “OK”. In some cases, and true to the characterization of post modernism, they may belief that there is truth, but they do not believe that they will ever know it.

    Jesus said he was truth.

    I really still believe the KJB is the inspired, inerrant word of God and contains all the words of God. I am TR biased and I believe that the ben Chayyim Hebrew is correct. I am also really unconcerned with cults that use the KJB wrongly. They really ought to switch to a “Burger King” bible that lets them “have it their way”. (I think the JW’s did that.)

    For your edification I write, please keep the faith and don’t back down. For me, I am really just better one on one and face to face. God has convinced me the KJB is correct from spiritual experience. And I am comforted in that I can go to his word and confirm the experience. He IS who he says he IS. He does what he says he does and will do. I have found God to be faithful in ALL things, and especially so in giving his people his words to live by.

    In His Service,

    Joe

  54. CD-Host April 2, 2010 / 10:56 pm

    Joe —

    Well I’m not sure how to respond your note to me and your note to Kent are very different in their effect. So let me just throw out a few comments….

    First off it wasn’t my intention to upset or embarrass you. What was my intention was to figure out what you were saying. Now I did suspect that those arguments really were weak. But you hadn’t outlined a theory yet.

    No I was not being unserious in talking Ellen White, I rather like her. Though I did think the analogy was very apt. Besides the situation that is going on with the adventists you both make claim to direct revelation from God which enhances your understanding of scripture. If you think about what you have been saying, it essentially amounts to that we should all use the KJV of the bible because of some private revelation. Would you even choose a meal at a restaurant based on my claims about what my imaginary friend told me? While you are attacking postmodernism, the fact is this idea that truth is subjective and private subject to non-reasonable forces is pretty much the central idea of postmodernism. Far from rejecting postmodernism you are embracing it.

    I personally don’t think you or she gets to chat with an infinitely knowledgeable and infinitely intelligent being about your theology. I think you both are externalizing your own emotions and giving divine revelation the credit for stuff you came up with. But if I were wrong and one or both of you had a revelation, I going to have to choose since you consider her a “heretic” and thus you both can’t be right. So given the public information available to me I’m far more likely to believe that the one of you that actually had a revelation was the chick whose bible commentary is one of the, if not the most widely read commentaries written in the English language and has influenced tens of millions and has altered the face of Protestantism in ways that has effected hundreds of millions.

    It is not your faith that is not strong enough, it was your collection of facts. You got in trouble because no one ever bothered to mention to you before that the Italic was translated from the LXX and not Hebrew.

    What destroyed my faith were the little lies I was told to bolster my faith. If they were lying about the little stuff then maybe….. and as I kept looking and deeper I kept finding places where piety had overruled accuracy. And that was how the onion of my faith got peeled away layer after layer after layer until there was nothing left. While I was never taught about second century Waldenses using an “Italic” version based on the received text that was popular all over Europe until the KJV came along,… such a teaching would have thrown the real fundamentals of the faith into doubt. You want to build faith not destroy faith, the first prerequisite is truth. People have faith in the UBS process (how the critical text is constructed) because there is no question that they are producing the best texts they are capable of producing and honestly stating their level of certainty including both affirming and non-confirming evidence for every tentative conclusion they draw. That’s how you build faith.

  55. Joe April 2, 2010 / 11:01 pm

    CD-Host,

    What you have just written about me is the most evil thing I think anyone who even pretends to be a Christian has ever said.

    I have spoken in Biblical terms. Ellen White spoke in her own power.

    I now see exactly what you and your group are up to, and God does not approve!

    Why didn’t you just ban me from even writing?

    • JasonS April 3, 2010 / 9:25 am

      Joe,
      You have misunderstood CD on this issue. Please go back and read again what he said.
      It is offensive to your sensibilities because you’ve probably never had to face such a claim before. I understand that. On the other hand, CD did not make it a personal matter, but a matter of logic based upon your statements.
      He’s simply presenting to you why the “led by the Holy Ghost” argument is weak. One needs more than that to prove his point to others.
      We don’t want you to leave, and CD can’t ban you. In fact, if he were a contributor, he’d probably be more tolerant than some of us.
      You’re welcome to keep on discussing with us. Even if we never agree, we can still find ourselves learning.

  56. Joe April 2, 2010 / 11:32 pm

    CD-Host,

    Actually, a little research has revealed that the Old Italic or Latin Vulgate of AD157 was translated from Hebrew and Greek, not the LXX.

    Perhaps you were thinking of the later Roman Catholic “Old Latin Vulgate”.

    Never-the-less, I am pretty much through with corresponding with you on YOUR site.

  57. CD-Host April 3, 2010 / 9:07 am

    Joe —

    1) This isn’t my site. You notice on the left hand side under “Contributors” I’m not listed. If you click on on my name at the top of the post that will take you to my side. There is a plethora of offensive topics there. The authors of this site are people who are trying to stay within fundamentalism while also trying to pull in the good from the Neo-Evangelical movement. My site is very much further to the left than that.

    2) Ellen White would also claim to speak biblically. Desire of the Ages is a biblical commentary in every sense. I linked to it, see for yourself. One of the reasons I like this site is that the authors while fundamentalist do not jump to conclusions based on ignorance. They reject right wing hysteria. “X doesn’t agree with me theologically therefore I shouldn’t listen to them about anything” is one of the traits they are trying to free Fundamentalism of “Hysteria, misinformation, rancor and hype”

    3) Now onto dealing with you on the basis of evidence. Where can I get a copy of this Old Italic Vulgate translated in 157 from the Hebrew and the Greek?

  58. Joe April 7, 2010 / 12:13 pm

    CD-Host,

    1) Sorry. You are so well received by the non-KJB folks, and the name “host” led me to think you were an administrator of the site.

    2)Ellen White is not part of the discussion.

    3) I don’t think there are any copies, although I do think I read somewhere that someone did have a copy. It is well written of in historical books.

    Finally, I am not planning on writing to this site again. You and the blog owners may think you are interested in a variety of opinions, but you are very obvious about the fact that you really are only interested in variations in minor points concerning the CT based bibles, or on more KJB smearing. In my absence, I read a number of the articles and paid particular attention to the folks who you complimented. One makes no sense, another is proud of “annoying King Jimmy Onlyists.” I don’t have time for people who claim the name of Christ, ban serious Christians, and herald folks who don’t practice what they preach.

    So, CD-Host and others: Please, no more questions, I am not going to respond again.

    Joe

    • fundyreformed April 7, 2010 / 12:44 pm

      Joe,

      Sorry to see you go. I should add one clarification. CD-Host is not a professing Christian. We allow interaction with him when he brings up good points about evidence and textual matters. He picks apart arguments well and generally is worthy of discussion, but we don’t all interact with him. And certain lines of argumentation do not get followed when it comes to him.

      We try hard not to mock KJV Only proponents. We desire to interact with them charitably and try to convince them of the truth. We want to answer questions and provide insight into why honest Christians disagree when it comes to this topic.

      Blessings in Christ,

      Bob Hayton, founder and chief-moderator of this site

    • JasonS April 8, 2010 / 1:01 am

      I, too, wish that Joe would not go. I think Joe is a tender person who loves the truth. He has simply wandered into this blog and found himself challenged. Being challenged is often difficult to handle, especially when one doesn’t know how to respond. I certainly understand that.
      I do hope Joe will return to discuss this with us further, and will realize that we still love the KJV.

  59. CD-Host May 1, 2010 / 11:11 pm

    JasonS —

    Didn’t see this comment before. the period bound with the link in the original: corrected link.

  60. Steven Avery July 21, 2010 / 9:55 am

    Hi Folks,

    Damien:
    For example, the idea that the Peshitta came from the 2nd century (about 150 AD) has long since been moved to the 4th century, though few KJVO actually bother to recognize this.

    Yet the very reason this historic understanding of an early Peshitta translation was moved to late was because it was not compatible with the Lucien recension idea of Hort (now discarded, but the skeleton textual edifice built upon it remains). The five missing books of the early Peshitta is very strong evidence that the original translation was done before the canon was settled .. ie. 2nd century rather than 4th century.

    We “recognize” the “moved” date .. and consider it almost surely flawed, a date change of convenience.

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

    • Damien July 21, 2010 / 10:09 am

      “though few KJVO actually bother to recognize this”

      Obviously, you’re one of the few 🙂

    • Steven Avery July 21, 2010 / 11:52 am

      Hi Folks,

      This is well-known.

      The King James Version Defended – Edward Hills
      http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdcha7.htm

      (e) The Evidence of the Peshitta Syriac Version
      The Peshitta Syriac version, which is the historic Bible of the whole Syrian Church, agrees closely with the Traditional Text found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts. Until about one hundred years ago it was almost universally believed that the Peshitta originated in the 2nd century and hence was one of the oldest New Testament versions. Hence because of its agreement with the Traditional Text the Peshitta was regarded as one of the most important witnesses to the antiquity of the Traditional Text. (continues)

      Dean Burgon is here.

      Revision Revised
      http://books.google.com/books?id=nXkw1TAatV8C&pg=PA275

      Shalom,
      Steven

Comments are closed.