Calvary Baptist Seminary: A Plea for Realism: The Version Debate Lives On

In what circles is the KJV thing a really big issue nowadays?

It seems like the churches that I’m familiar with that are KJV only are slowly (or not so slowly) going downhill.

West Coast in Lancaster is spoken of highly here by some—they are KJVO.

[Matthew Richards] West Coast in Lancaster is spoken of highly here by some—they are KJVO.
OK. Gotcha.

I was thinking of a church in our home town in FL that says something about KJV 1611 on their sign. They’re attendance is down to almost nothing. It seemed like I had seen several like that.

The more moderate KJV churches are doing okay (by moderate I mean that they prefer to use the KJV and even only recommend it but wouldn’t go so far as to say that using another translation is not using the Bible, etc.), but it does seem like a lot of the “old time churches” that were really big into it are getting smaller (i.e. Windsor Hills— Oklahoma City and others that are similar).

[RPittman] The whole argument is predicated on a rationalistic epistemology that has not dealt effectively with the notion that God has supernaturally preserved His Word in a single, identifiable text. Even so, the nature of the matter precludes its investigation and proof by scholarship. Furthermore, this methodology is based on disproving or failing to disprove hypotheses and it is incapable of establishing an universal proof. Thus, rationalism cannot establish this position because it cannot disprove the alternatives.

While this is true, the real problem for those who aren’t KJV-only isn’t that they can’t disprove it, it’s that the burden of proof lies on those who say that the KJV is God’s only anointed Bible to prove that the Bible declares this will be the case (not proven by the KJVO advocates). For a KJVO person to just state “We believe the KJV (or the MT/TR for those ‘softer’ KJVO types) is the only acceptable version of God’s word to man,” and then throw a few barely related or completely unrelated scripture references around and expect it to be accepted as evidence any more than what you tend to call “rationalism” is completely unreasonable. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. However when the word of God states that not one jot or tittle will pass from the law, that makes no statement at all about a particular copy, TR, KJV, or otherwise. So-called “faith” that the KJV or TR (neither of which came into existence until fairly recently) is exactly what God is referring to here is not the kind of faith that comes by hearing the Word of God.

Most of us who are not KJVO (and I’m KJVP, by the way) are not standing up and saying that the KJV *isn’t* God’s word. It’s the KJVO people saying that other translations are not God’s word, that they are corrupt, perverted, etc. I understand you don’t accept arguments you label as rationalism. Fine. But don’t wonder so much when everyone else can’t accept blind fideism being equated with “reasonable faith.”
Did it ever occur to these scholars that perhaps intentional scholarship, a human endeavor subject to the frailties of the human state, cannot establish that which is supernatural and transcends the scope of human reason.

Which is exactly why we can’t make dogmatic statements beyond what God has revealed to us in scripture. (Personally, I would add inescapable logical conclusions of things stated clearly in scripture to that as well, for principle and application, but you would call that “rationalism.”) Will God preserve his Word? Yes, he has revealed that to us. Will that word be preserved ONLY in the TR? That has not been revealed to us and cannot be stated dogmatically (at least not with scriptural support).

Since your view does not require observation or evidence, I wonder at your surprise and disappointment at it being called NOT “realistic,” since realism depends on both of those things. I would think you want to completely disclaim a “realistic” view as being part of a paradigm you don’t accept.

Dave Barnhart

[RPittman] This article brings nothing new or persuasive to the table. It’s the same old stuff that that this particular view has brought to the table upon each preceding debate. Why do we chew the same old cud and think it is something new or innovative?
Observations: The author did not claim “new or innovative”. He said
[Part 1] virtually every semester, I find myself drawn into a discussion with a “concerned” pastor or prospective student whose first question is ‘what version or Greek text do you use in the classroom?’
AND
[Part 1] While I am not so naive to think that this three-part blog posting will persuade those deeply entrenched in a particular tradition, I would like to take this opportunity to state the position of Calvary Baptist Seminary and express my heartfelt desire that a spirit of Christian grace and forbearance might characterize the ongoing discussion.
So there you have it … for anyone who wondered … the official position of Calvary Baptist Seminary
[RPittman]…. God has supernaturally preserved His Word in a single, identifiable text.
Isn’t it a problem, however that there is no single identifiable text behind the KJV (or any other version)
[Part 2] Specific to the version issue, it should be noted that Erasmus, the individual often associated with the Greek text behind the KJV, had less than eight Greek manuscripts (all Byzantine in character and none earlier than the 10th century) when he prepared his now famous Greek NT. Even so, in evaluating the limited manuscripts he possessed ([red] with no two identical in every reading), Erasmus had to make text-critical decisions. Furthermore, the 1611 King James translators made extensive use of two of Beza’s Greek NT editions, both of which reflected text-critical decisions. Thus, the King James Version, like virtually every translation before and since, is based upon a text whose preparation involved text-critical decisions. That is not meant as a criticism, but merely an oft-overlooked fact.

[RPittman] Furthermore, the article is not an impartial survey of the positions or an objective look at the issue. The title, Plea for Realism, stacks the deck against those of a differing view inferring that they are not realistic. It would appear that those who appeal to objectivity are not objective themselves.
The new-fangled teaching of the KJVO is what is tired…few here get tired of hearing the orthodox Christian and historic Fundy view that Scripture is inspired and we have reliable translations to study and follow! Praise the LORD for the Sacred Writings we enjoy as English speaking believers! BTW, I am a member of a KJVP church and believe it is a wonderful translation.

Matthew Richards

What is unrealistic is this statement:
[RPittman] God has supernaturally preserved His Word in a single, identifiable text.
There is NOTHING you can support this statement with.

…rationalistic epistemology that has not dealt effectively with the notion that God has supernaturally preserved His Word in a single, identifiable text.

…Of course, the real question is the matter of scholarship and Scripture. Which is superior if scholarship is the determiner of Scripture whether in translation, interpretation, or reliability?

…unless we are back to the preservation of God’s Word being dependent upon scholarship, which raises scholarly decisions above the Word

The whole rationalism/scholarship vs. Scripture thing is a false framing of the debate and a distraction from the real issue.

What does the Bible itself teach? If the Bible teaches that it will be continuously preserved in a single identifiable text, then to say otherwise might be exalting scholarship above Scripture. If it does not teach this, then yes—human beings must use their minds and exercise discernment in striving to identify the correct text in places where we have discrepancies in the MSS.
So the real issue is do we have a promise of this kind of preservation or not? There is no Scripture vs. rationalism conflict if the Bible does not teach this view of preservation. If there is no teaching in Scripture of this kind of preservation it is also true that people copying the Scriptures since OT times have had to compare MSS and make judgments about which are correct—and the whole “textual criticism” bogeyman is also a fantasy.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

[RPittman]
[Matthew Richards]
[RPittman] Furthermore, the article is not an impartial survey of the positions or an objective look at the issue. The title, Plea for Realism, stacks the deck against those of a differing view inferring that they are not realistic. It would appear that those who appeal to objectivity are not objective themselves.
The new-fangled teaching of the KJVO is what is tired…few here get tired of hearing the orthodox Christian and historic Fundy view that Scripture is inspired and we have reliable translations to study and follow! Praise the LORD for the Sacred Writings we enjoy as English speaking believers! BTW, I am a member of a KJVP church and believe it is a wonderful translation.

Matthew Richards
So, how recent is this “new-fangled teaching of the KJVO is [that] is tired[?] ” I’m not sure to which specific teaching you are alluding. My statements are predicated on the simple premise that the KJV is the inspired Word of God in English. Either it is or it isn’t. I’ll let you quibble about the other scholarly problems or ramifications that you may have with this issue. Please clarify your meaning.

Furthermore, do you equate the “orthodox Christian and historic Fundy view that Scripture is inspired and we have reliable translations to study and follow” to the Biblical teaching or what Scripture teaches. If so, how do we identify the reliable translations? Scholarship? Are there unreliable translations? How do we identify them. And do all the translations teach the same doctrine or the same thing? How so being diverse?

Of course, the real question is the matter of scholarship and Scripture. Which is superior if scholarship is the determiner of Scripture whether in translation, interpretation, or reliability? It would seem to my simple mind that scholarship assumes ascendancy if it determines what is and what is not Scripture. Finally, no one has explained to my satisfaction the role of the Holy Spirit in the scholarly definition, translation, textual criticism, and interpretation of Scripture. How does the Holy Spirit interact with reasoning and human scholarship?
Wilkinson started the ball rolling in the 1930’s and Fuller brought the heresy from the Seventh Day Adventists to the fundy planet in 1970. Obviously Ruckman took up the fight as well and Jack Hyles entered the fray as a “johnny come lately” when his personal scandals began coming to light and he needed to circle the wagons.

Here is a novel idea foreign to some within Fundyism…exercise discernment. No translation of Scripture is inerrant—there are always some problems. The KJV is God’s Word. Praise the LORD for the KJV! Copies and translations of Scripture are inerrant insofar as they are true to the inerrant autographs. Do you believe that the King James Version is perfect? Do you believe that it has zero translational or textual mistakes?

Matthew Richards

[RPittman]
[Jonathan Charles] What is unrealistic is this statement:
[RPittman] God has supernaturally preserved His Word in a single, identifiable text.
There is NOTHING you can support this statement with.
No, your assertion is unrealistic because you must possess omniscience to support it. You cannot categorically state NOTHING exists unless you have exhaustively included all knowledge in your search. There are many ideas and much knowledge that you have not encountered. So, in effect, you are making a statement of faith—i.e. what you believe. Perhaps you ought to go back and think this thing through again.
I know what a universal negative proposition is; you are on logically shaky ground as well. Just as one cannot omnisciently say “God hasn’t preserved His Word is a single text,” you cannot omnisciently say that He has when God has not revealed that to us. Maybe you out to think this thing through again.

We need to get back to the truly inspired word of God in America today. This version is far more accurate and far more beautiful than any of these modern perversions.

It has been used as THE Bible of the church for 17 centuries. We need to get back to the inspired Vulgate text, translated by that saintly man Jerome.

Our pastor’s need to get into the Latin text and expound the true Word of God! After all the Word of God says, ” Omnis Scriptura divinitus inspirata utilis est ad docendum, ad arguendum, ad corripiendum, et erudiendum in justitia.” Epistola B. Pauli Apostoli ad Timotheum Secunda 3:16

This Bible is the true word of God “jota unum aut unus apex non praeteribit!”

Forrest Berry

[Forrest] We need to get back to the truly inspired word of God in America today. This version is far more accurate and far more beautiful than any of these modern perversions.

It has been used as THE Bible of the church for 17 centuries. We need to get back to the inspired Vulgate text, translated by that saintly man Jerome.

Our pastor’s need to get into the Latin text and expound the true Word of God! After all the Word of God says, ” Omnis Scriptura divinitus inspirata utilis est ad docendum, ad arguendum, ad corripiendum, et erudiendum in justitia.” Epistola B. Pauli Apostoli ad Timotheum Secunda 3:16

This Bible is the true word of God “jota unum aut unus apex non praeteribit!”

I like it, Forrest. The Vulgate is the only inspired, inerrant Word of God; all other translations are just vulgar!

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

[RP] I know what a universal negative proposition is; you are on logically shaky ground as well. Just as one cannot omnisciently say “God hasn’t preserved His Word is a single text,” you cannot omnisciently say that He has when God has not revealed that to us. Maybe you out to think this thing through again.

No, he’s right. “Universal negative?” Would it be a universal negative for me to say that there is no evidence that I’m a toad? You don’t have to be omniscient to take a proposition off the table for lack of evidence.
[RP] Apply this same standard to canonization and what do you have? Using the same arguments and criteria, you are forced to deny canonization.

Actually, I’ve never claimed that lack of biblical teaching for an idea proves the idea is false. Rather, it proves that the idea does not have biblical authority and must be supported by external evidence. It’s true that canonization is a bit of a sticky wicket. But it’s also true that the case of canonization is not parallel to case of word perfect preservation.
Historically, Christians have agreed that the true Scriptures are self-attesting and the church has simply recognized them. But this has not been done without a thought process and criteria. The criteria have included things like apostolic proximity, self-consistency, doctrinal agreement with the rest of Scripture, etc.
But there has never been any Christian consensus that each individual word is self attesting and we need only recognize it. If we try to take that position, we immediately run into the problem of criteria. Whatever is in the majority of known MSS? Whatever makes a doctrine seem stronger? Whatever makes for better grammar and style? Since scores of the differences are obscure details, there are no criteria that clearly point toward which words would be canonical. In a few cases, there is a point of doctrine. In quite a few there is just about nothing of consequence.

About textual criticism, the modern theory & practice are not monolithic. There are competing schools of thought. But they are all doing the same thing the ancients had to do: compare and decide. Majority texters have to compare MSS to determine majority readings (which differ from TR readings in several places). I don’t know if there are really any pure Westcott-Horters left, but WH had their theories and many text critics draw some from WH but have have their own ideas about to weight things like geographical spread of a reading, MS family, quality of individual MSS, etc.
[RP] So, how do you arrive at this conclusion? [that there are no inerrant translations] Is it not by a rationalistic process rather than Scripture. Can you establish this by Scripture as you ask the KJVO proponents to do?

The basic problem with this reasoning is that we are not comparing equal assertions. If I understand you right, Roland, your view is that Scripture teaches word perfect preservation. Since this is an assertion about what Scripture teaches, Scriptural evidence is required. If your assertion was that external evidence indicates word perfect preservation (or even just “word perfect preservation is true”), no Scripture would be required… only the external evidence.

But the assertion you are attempting to counter here is that external evidence shows there are no inerrant translations. People who believe the Bible do need two lines of evidence for this: 1) the external evidence and 2) the absence of Scriptural teaching to the contrary.

If the assertion you are attempting to counter were that the Bible teaches there are no inerrant translations, then you’d have a strong argument in asking what the biblical evidence for that is. But nobody’s really making that claim here I don’t think.
(As it turns out, there is some biblical evidence for that, but that’s another long post)

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.