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

[RPittman]

[Matthew Richards]

[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.

Ahhhhhhh … that’s what I thought you were referencing … the standard old argument. Well, the real issue of Scriptural text came to a head with the proposal of a specific critical text theory by Westcott and Hort. This theory was opposed by John William Burgon, popularly known as Dean Burgon, and other godly men. I believe this predates Mr. Wilkinson considerably but there was a Fundamentalist grassroots opposition to the RSV when it was introduced that predates Fuller, Ruckman, and Hyles. They, no doubt, capitalized on this grassroots movement.

My point is that the Wilkinson-Fuller-Ruckman-Hyles scenario is a red herring. Whereas it is true that these men all held some form of KJVOism, the similarity ends there. You cannot compress all KJVO views into this narrow venue.

Here is a novel idea foreign to some within Fundyism…exercise discernment.

Yeah, you need to be careful of whom you read and listen.

No translation of Scripture is inerrant—there are always some problems.

So, how do you arrive at this conclusion? 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 KJV is God’s Word.

Amen! I agree but you seem to think that God’s Word contains errors according to your preceding statement.

Praise the LORD for the KJV! Copies and translations of Scripture are inerrant insofar as they are true to the inerrant autographs.

Were there no inerrant copies?

Do you believe that the King James Version is perfect?

Yes, it says what God intended to say. It is the Word of God. Would you anything less the Word of God?

Do you believe that it has zero translational or textual mistakes?

Matthew Richards

Matthew, you need to retool your question. What are “translational or textual mistakes?” Think through the ramifications before you answer.

Sorry, dear friend, but Dean Burgon was not KJVO. He did not believe in a perfect Received Text nor in a perfect KJV—his own words prove this. Looks like you are dead wrong on your red herring but feel free to try again. The new-fangled doctrine of KJVO did not really present itself until the Seventh Day Adventist, Wilkinson in the 1930’s. If you read the Fundamentals and their position on the Scripture you will understand that KJVOnlyism was utterly rejected.

Copies and translations are inerrant insofar as they reflect the inerrant originals. I believe there are translational and textual mistakes in every translation but that is OK—these mistakes do not affect any cardinal doctrines. Jesus didn’t quote along with the KJV when quoting the OT so I am OK with the same. So let me try again, do you believe that the KJV is free of any translational or textual mistakes? Consider how you answer before you utter a retort—you are on very dangerous ground here…LOL!

Matthew Richards

Thanks Greg, indeed all translations but the latin are vulgar!

RPittman,

Since you seem to be the only KJVO advocate on the thread, can you introduce me to the KJVO position?

I do know a small bit about textual criticism, but quite frankly, I do not know a lot about the specific beliefs or reasons of KJVO. I have heard bits and pieces, but only from a non-KJVO perspective.

To be transparent, I would follow an eclectic text base.

So, since I know so little of your position can you introduce me as if I was an ambivalent to KJVO in two to three paragraphs?

Thanks.

P.S. For those of you know are non-KJVO but understand that position I would rather hear it straight from the horse’s mouth.

Will leave most for “the horses’ mouth,” but want to point out that there is not a single KJVO view. James White and others have categorized the variants. Some KJVOs believe the KJV is imperfect but is nonetheless the best available English translation and that it is foolish to use less than the best. Some might term this KJV-preferred, but these are not always satisfied with that term.
Another group holds that the KJV is uniquely preserved and perfect on that basis. Usually this view includes the idea that there is one preserved translation in each major language group (some say “one reformation era” translation).
Another group holds that the KJV translators were inspired during the process of translation. Usually this includes the idea that Greek texts can be corrected from the English and that foreign language Bibles should be translated from the KJV.

There are other variants as well, I’m sure.

RPittman, because I have never done that much study on Burgon (we briefly discussed him in Greek Seminar in college), was his opposition to Westcott and Hort due to their theory of textual criticism, their primacy of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and or…? Thanks.

If you would not mind just breaking it down for me, I don’t have the time to start another book atm. Even if you wanted to just email the response to me so as not to start any discussion on it here, I am fine with that. I really would like to know.

RPittman, when Matthew asked you this question, “Do you believe that the King James Version is perfect?” you replied, “Yes, it says what God intended to say. It is the Word of God. Would you anything less the Word of God?”

Are any other English translations “perfect”? If so, which one(s)? If not, why not?

RPittman, you originally asked when the KJVO heresy started and when I said the Seventh Day Adventist, Wilkinson, you “corrected” me and reached desparately for Dean Burgon. To answer your question, an original would be what Paul or Moses actually wrote as they were carried along by the Holy Ghost.

Sorry you have to come down to my level here—I am Hyles-High and Hyles-Anderson trained. I sat under the great KJVO heretics of Bill Grady and Jack Hyles! ROFLMBO!

Matthew Richards

[RPittman] Aaron, I know that you, like me, are probably writing on the fly but I think you misappropriated a quote. I did not write the above. That’s okay, Aaron. We all make mistakes—it’s the human thing. :bigsmile:

I love that this happened in this thread particularly.

As for those articles, the writer indicates that they are more to give basic answers about the position of the school rather than give in depth support for those positions. Not sure why there would be criticism for him not doing what he didn’t set out to do.

[RP] I think you misappropriated a quote.

Guilty!
…as if the topic isn’t confusing enough to people already. Gotta stop staying up so late.

However…
I don’t think there’s a response here to this one yet… (and I think I quoted the right person that time)

[AB]

[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)

As a graduate of Pensacola Christian College (A definite proponent of the KJVO position), and a current student at Calvary Seminary, I have seen both sides. I would point out that RPittman has failed to answer the argument presented in the articles, simply resorting to making rather serious accusations against the man writing. Answer his arguments. Not with links to Dean Burgon, I’ve read his works.
The various comments about the history of the debate leave out certain elements, namely…history. The debate over versions is hardly recent. There was a similar debate regarding the Vulgate, there were riots in Philadelphia, resulting in deaths, when people attempted to bring in the KJV. Its hardly new. But some men in the more recent past have clung to the KJV as a hill to die on. Interestingly enough, when I came to Calvary, I was defensive. I might be openminded about some things, but not my Bible. It wasn’t until I did something unthinkable that my mind was changed. I actually read the works of men like W&H, Metzger, etc. PCC obviously forbids that, you simply read what KJVO proponents say about such men. I realized quickly that I had been lied to. Boldfaced deception, misrepresentation. When all one reads is the works of Burgon, Touch Not the Unclean Thing , and other such works, you hardly get an accurate or honest representation.

I know my response may seem somewhat rambling…coming late to the discussion like this, there was far too much to comment on. If this warrants a response from RPittman, please…leave the thinly-veiled sarcasm and mocking of logic to other posts. I’ve had far too much of it used in indoctrination attempts as an excuse for not having logical arguments.

RPittman,
i’ve read the articles and the thread. I think i understand your general assessment.
One question that i’ve rarely heard answered is, “What is the point?” You embrace a KJVO position, many don’t. Our church uses the ESV. It is thriving and growing, people are being saved, lives changed, missionaries sent out. I would wager 50% of our church is unaware of the existence of the KJV. Yet they read their bibles, pray, rear their children according to God’s word and share their faith.

What is your practical conclusion regarding the ministries of those who do not agree with your position? In your system of thought, how do you classify the fruit of service for those who do not align with your position? This is not a gotcha question. I am seriously curious.

[quote/ No, you’re overstating your case. It’s just a closed mind and uncritical belief. The other side is just as blind.Since you don’t know the men or statements to which I was referring, you are hardly qualified to say that I am overstating it. Let me correct myself that I was not referring to all proponents of the view, just the certain men that taught me.

It has always interested me that the recently converted are the most zealous, adamant, and knowledgeable.

If I came across as zealous, adamant, and considering myself “knowledgeable more so than anyone else here, I apologize. However, the fact that only recently did I find the answers that I had been looking for long ago does not make me any less qualified than yourself to speak on the topic, and as adamantly and knowledgeably as you. I do ask forgiveness from you for daring to enter the argument, considering that, as you insinuate, I am unaware of the issues you and others have debated for so long. I know what Johnson and Lettis said. I was not outright rejecting everything. However, there are problems, huge ones, with their arguments.

And, the ex-KJVOers lambaste anyone who reads the KJV exclusively as an ignoramus, liar, cheat, embezzler, and guilty of moral turpitude.

Did I call you an ignoramus? A liar, cheat, or any of the other names you mention? I don’t recall doing it. I do recall you saying that your logical arguments were too great for my closed mind.

However, I read them critically, daring to question, probe, and draw conclusions on my own.

Again, you insinuate and assume about me. I make every attempt to read critically, probe, and most assuredly draw conclusions on my own. If certain of my experiences have taught me anything, it is not to accept anything I am taught or told at face value without thinking it through for myself.

I have not answered your arguments, admittedly. Partially because your arguments consisted of calling me a neophyte, close-minded, Modernist, Johnny-come-lately, slanderer…and I think I got them all. By extension, because you link those accusations not to what I said specifically, but rather to the fact that I hold the opposing view, you also named everyone else who has posted opposing views as the same. You don’t see those as serious accusations? Unwarranted, given that your argument was

I see no rationale for printing or disseminating it except as a means of swaying the unlearned. It is not the balanced, reasonable view that it portends. It is selling its own particular viewpoint.

Of course it, and those of us who agree, are selling our viewpoint. Would you expect me to sell your viewpoint? How can you see no rationale for printing/disseminating a view that disagrees with your own? Could it be, rather than a means of swaying the unlearned, which casts a shadow on motives, simply another putting forth of the opposing view, which gives it as much rationale as you or those who hold your view have for putting your view out? You’re right, the door swings both ways. The arguments in the article are nothing new. It is the same “pabulum” that has been used for the past decade or more. But the accusation, given as it without anything to show it as “pabulum,” could equally be turned against you. You are simply repeating the same old pompous pabulum used by those of your viewpoint for decades. You are selling your own viewpoint.

But then, I suppose my closed mind has simply precluded the chance of persuading me with unsupported accusations of following Modernist epistemology. Would it not be far more beneficial, and sponsor much more beneficial and interesting discussion to approach it from the viewpoint that both sides have strengths and weaknesses, neither side has the corner on logic, and neither side has the right to arrogantly dismiss the other as closed minded or somehow, to put the “logic” statements simpler, just plain stupid?

[RPittman] Although KJVOers have the reputation of trying to force their views on others, the other side is equally guilty. It seems that many MV‘ers feel that they must win over the KJVO folks to justify their own position.

I have never seen or heard of an “MVer” destroying KJVs, calling them “false bibles”, or claiming that the KJV was not God’s Word. On the other hand I have seen and heard all of those things from KJVOs regarding all other English translations. The very nature of the argument is that most KJVers believe that they have a perfect translation and all others are found wanting. The “MVers” believe that there are multiple versions that are God’s Word. The “MVers” are not equally guilty here. The “MVers” are just concerned about unorthodox error infecting the church—I hope they win over as many KJVOs as possible!

Matthew Richards

[RPittman] It has always interested me that the recently converted are the most zealous, adamant, and knowledgeable. The converted chain-smoker is the one who will knock the fag out of another’s mouth when he or she starts to light up. The former foul-mouth braggart, who could make a sailor blush, will shush one in a moment for saying, “Fiddle-dee.” It’s the AAA (sic) folks who snatch the bottle from one’s lips and warn him or her of cirrhosis and DT’s to come. The former food junkie will push his or her favorite health food fad down your throat. Likewise, ex-Fundies boast of their status in recovery and try to achieve catharsis through an unrelenting rant against Fundamentalism and its excesses. And, the ex-KJVOers lambaste anyone who reads the KJV exclusively as an ignoramus, liar, cheat, embezzler, and guilty of moral turpitude.

RPittman, please give the documentation for this statement: “And, the ex-KJVOers lambaste anyone who reads the KJV exclusively as an ignoramus, liar, cheat, embezzler, and guilty of moral turpitude.”

Is that what Dr. Huss did in his blog? He did state that he comes from a KJVOnly background. Please document where he, or any other ex-KJVOnly, called you or any other KJVO an “ignoramus” a “liar,” a “cheat,” and “embezzler” and “guilty of moral turpitude” because of your opinion of the KJV.

Is that what you think Dr. Huss is doing in his article? Did he call anyone any names whatsoever? Did he claim that those who are KJVOnly are embezzlers?

Can you produce the evidence for your claim?

[RPittman]

[dmicah] RPittman,
i’ve read the articles and the thread. I think i understand your general assessment.
One question that i’ve rarely heard answered is, “What is the point?” You embrace a KJVO position, many don’t. Our church uses the ESV. It is thriving and growing, people are being saved, lives changed, missionaries sent out. I would wager 50% of our church is unaware of the existence of the KJV. Yet they read their bibles, pray, rear their children according to God’s word and share their faith.

What is your practical conclusion regarding the ministries of those who do not agree with your position? In your system of thought, how do you classify the fruit of service for those who do not align with your position? This is not a gotcha question. I am seriously curious.

I’m not your judge—your accountability is to God. You and your church are free to worship God according to the dictates of your conscience and beliefs. I have no compulsion to force my own beliefs upon you although I am happy to debate the positions. The problem is when someone of another persuasion begins teaching my people differently. Although KJVOers have the reputation of trying to force their views on others, the other side is equally guilty. It seems that many MV‘ers feel that they must win over the KJVO folks to justify their own position.

I do think there are some practical ramifications to using MV’s though. I don’t have the time to go into these now but perhaps I’ll pick it up later … . then, you know how one never comes back to a thing … . .

With all due respect, you didn’t answer the questions. I didn’t ask you to judge my heart or hold me accountable. I know that our church is free to worship however it deems fit. I wasn’t engaging in a discussion about forcing beliefs on others. I asked for your opinion. You are adamant the KJV is the only bible that the Spirit of God has preserved perfectly. What then is your opinion, your thoughts, your deductions, your assessment of the ministries of those who do not maintain your system of thought?