Inspiration, preservation, double inspiration, and a partridge in a pear tree.

This thread is here to continue the rabbit trail that began in the thread about separating from KJVO churches.

 

My dear Bro. Karl asks: Is there a source or a link (audio or text) to your pastor’s last sermon from the book “Bel and the Dragon”? Or “1 Maccabees”?

This is one of the points of logic that has always escaped me as we discuss the Authorized Version of 1611. The books of the Apochrypha were included in a translation that - according to the church’s DS - “has been divinely preserved to date in the Authorized Version of 1611, and, therefore, is the truth without any admixture of error for its matter.” If this is so, why don’t the churches who adhere to this belief regularly teach from the Apochryphal books (as in “Teaching the Whole Council of God”)?

And if they do not teach from the Apochryphal Books because they believe that those teachings contain error, how can they hold the position that Scripture “… has been divinely preserved to date in the Authorized Version of 1611, and, therefore, is the truth without any admixture of error for its matter”?

 

I’m not attacking, nor am I looking for a fight. I simply do not understand how these issues can be resolved and the position still be tenable. KWIM?

Yes, Bro. Karl, I do knwo what you mean. My response is:

The KJV translators, as I understand it, included the Apocrypha merely for its historical value- it was placed in between the OT and NT, and not integrated into the text as other Bibles did and do. It was not considered divine any more than we would consider Scofield’s notes or the many charts in a Thompson Chain, even though we value the information and insight they provide.

When I said that the reason there were several editions of the KJV from 1611 to 1769 was to correct printing errors and make changes to the spelling of certain words, Eric said: Either “the 1611 edition is without any error” OR “the 1611 edition needed correcting.” If preservation in English is, in fact, a Divine work, any error is impossible.

I completely reject the notion that a printing error, font style, or spelling change would render God’s Word as faulty. It is changes to the text itself  based on corrupted manuscripts, such as Vaticanus, that I object to. Also- translations were named for the person who authorized it- and the KJV was first printed in 1611, authorized by King James. In publishing, the name of a book does not change with each printing, nor does it matter how many times an edition of a book is published, because the text remains the same. No matter how many times a book is printed, the initial printing date is always acknowledged as the date that the book came out, and not the date of any additional printing runs.

This conversation started as a discussion about my church’s Doctrinal Statement, and I’ve answered them to the best of my ability. If you are going to get out tweezers to try to pick my church apart, I am going to leave the room. I think it is a legitimate function of a Doctrinal Statement to be up front about any requirements that might come into play if a person wanted to be, say, a Sunday School teacher, but being KJVO is not a requirement for membership, nor do we ‘separate’ based on version issues. Sometimes doctrinal issues arise from debates about what a text actually says, and we base our interpretations of Scripture on the KJV/TR. We separate on grounds of false doctrines relating to the Gospel and issues of unrepentant immoral and unethical behavior.

I can’t explain it in a way that will satisfy every critic and criticism, and I shall not attempt to do so here. If you have additional questions that I have time to answer, then this thread may continue. If it doesn’t, I will not be heartbroken. If you feel you need to ‘separate’ from me, then I will respect that and not send you any homemade chocolate fudge this Christmas.

 

6163 reads
Rev Karl's picture

Susan wrote:
This conversation started as a discussion about my church’s Doctrinal Statement, and I’ve answered them to the best of my ability. If you are going to get out tweezers to try to pick my church apart, I am going to leave the room.

Please don't leave the room. All the knives are sheathed. All weapons holstered and on safety. :bigsmile: I have never wanted any conversation on this topic to be any more than just that: a conversation. No arguments, no fights. My closest and dearest friends in the ministry are KJVO. I am not. We love each other in the Lord. We worship, work and witness together. It's not a point of contention.

If the primary function of our church was to promote and defend the KJVO, I would not have joined. Because the the primary function of our church is to promote and defend the Gospel, we enjoy a wonderful Christian fellowship.

As we do here on SI.

Susan R's picture

EditorModerator

Quote:
Because the the primary function of our church is to promote and defend the Gospel, we enjoy a wonderful Christian fellowship.

I agree, and that is why I don't think the issue of Bible versions MUST be a separation issue- unless it strays out-of-bounds of propriety and priority, which can happen in either 'camp'.

So, Bro. Karl- how do you like your chocolate fudge- plain or with walnuts? But since I'm allergic to walnuts, you'll get plain regardless. Biggrin

Ron Bean's picture

Is one allowed to be considered orthodox if one simply refuses to accept the critical text and the reasoning supporting it?

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Mike Harding's picture

Providence is not the same as miraculous. If one argues that divine providence necessitates inerrancy, then it is an on going miracle of inspiration. That being the case we are back to double, triple, ad infinitum adnauseum--inspiration. This view of preservation is not defensible historically, exegetically, or theologically. I refer our readers to the excellent articles on preservation in "God's Word In Our Hands" available thru BJU press. Also, James Price's recent book on King James Onlyism is the definitive work on this subject--a full 40 years in the making. His detailed recording of the history of the King James Translation is remarkable, and it will clearly dispel any notion that the English translation was the product of perfect, miraculous preservation.

Pastor Mike Harding

Bob T.'s picture

Ron Bean wrote:
Is one allowed to be considered orthodox if one simply refuses to accept the critical text and the reasoning supporting it?

Ron,

if one is involved in thinking about the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts they are involved in critical textual matters. If they accept certain manuscripts and reject others they are involved in accepting a critical text. The KJVO advocate cannot prove by internal biblical evidence that the KJV or any textual manuscripts behind it is superior or divinely protected. They attempt to present some verses on preservation and apply them as God promising a perfectly preserved and inerrant version. This they then apply to the KJV though the verses do not so name the KJV. Their application becomes opinion without scripture. Since these same verses on preservation appear with the same meaning in the NKJV, NASV, ESV, RSV, NIV, and other translation, you could take your pick and apply them to just about any translation and claim it as divinely preserved. You could claim the 1960s "Dog patch" translation was the divinely preserved text for the English language (there was such a translation). Also, as you most likely are aware, good scholars have handled these scriptures and shown why they view them as being misinterpreted.

Some believe that some manuscripts are a better reflection of the originals than others. The NKJV translation favors the Byzantine text. Where there is a difference they go with the Byzantine family of manuscripts. The NASV favors the Alexandrian family of manuscripts. If one favors the so called "textus receptus" manuscripts as best that is their opinion. I think they are wrong but that is their conclusion based on their analysis. That becomes their accepted critical text.

The problem comes when one accepts certain manuscripts and rejects others and then attempts to claim divine intervention occurred in such a way as to protect their accepted manuscripts from error. Other manuscripts are then presented as not so divinly preserved and heresy. Some will go a step further and claim such divine superintendents in a translating process and then claim divine endorsement for a version such as the KJV. Since these claims are made without any scripture to specifically point to these preferred manuscripts or a resultant translation, they are made based on evidence external to the scriptures themselves. All such evidence comes from the use and application of some sort of critical method being used and applied. Such evidence is then but human opinion.

Ron, one is not unorthodox if they reject some textual critical claims and accept others. However, if they claim divine intervention for the text or manuscripts they accept then they go beyond the scriptures themselves and thus provide a false basis for Christian truth claims. They then become entangled in heresy regarding the revealed word of God. They have a truth base that transports divine endorsement beyond Apostolic endorsement and authority to others that have no scripture giving them such an endorsement. They joint the truth foundation of Ellen White and the Seventh day Adventists, the Christian Science, Mormons, and Sun Yung Moon and the Moonies. They become heretics with regard to the the doctrine of revelation and preservation.

Those who believe that divine preservation of the scriptures is providential and not by superintending intervention do so based on the phenomena of scripture, the statements of scripture, and the phenomena of the present available evidence of the manuscripts and translations. Of the over 5100 manuscripts and fragments found, no two are in complete agreement. That's right, there is some difference, though small, in them all. Yet none differs so as to place any doctrine in doubt. God has preserved the truth of His word.

We all accept a critically examined text of some sort. We must do so if we reject others and have a theory for doing so.

Rev Karl's picture

Susan R wrote:
Quote:
Because the the primary function of our church is to promote and defend the Gospel, we enjoy a wonderful Christian fellowship.

I agree, and that is why I don't think the issue of Bible versions MUST be a separation issue- unless it strays out-of-bounds of propriety and priority, which can happen in either 'camp'.

So, Bro. Karl- how do you like your chocolate fudge- plain or with walnuts? But since I'm allergic to walnuts, you'll get plain regardless. Biggrin


Chocolate Fudge: Smile Memories of Friday nights as a child, sitting with Mom, watching The Flintstones, eating hot fudge out of the pan, a spoon for Mom and a spoon for me...

Unfortunately, due to medical conditions that have gotten WAY out of control, even the *smell* of fudge is no longer allowed. But the memories are... MMMmmmmm!

As to propriety and priorities... I remember going into churches as an adult, and the primary focus of their advertising, literature, ministry was just the topic under discussion. As a student at "The University" (30 years ago) I got to travel with a team representing the school. I remember being greeted at the door of the van, my feet not even on the ground, and hearing "I hope you brought your King James Bibles with you!"

It's all about Jesus! I stand amazed that God could ever love me. I am even more amazed that He could ever use me. Praise to Him! Glorify His name!! Worship Him in the beauty of holiness. Serve Him with Gladness.

I know this is a simplistic question, but why would we want to talk about anything else???

Susan R's picture

EditorModerator

Rev Karl wrote:
As to propriety and priorities... I remember going into churches as an adult, and the primary focus of their advertising, literature, ministry was just the topic under discussion. As a student at "The University" (30 years ago) I got to travel with a team representing the school. I remember being greeted at the door of the van, my feet not even on the ground, and hearing "I hope you brought your King James Bibles with you!"

I think this kind of stuff is silly. It reminds me of Jordache jeans and Members Only jackets and Izod shirts- just another way to create some kind of adolescent exclusivity. I think the technical term for it is "yuck". My husband had to elbow me once because I was making gagging noises at a meeting where a preacher was doing the Rah-Rah-Sisboombah act ("Can I get an "Amen!"") in the pulpit. I admit it- I'm an ornery lil' stinker sometimes.

Quote:
It's all about Jesus! I stand amazed that God could ever love me. I am even more amazed that He could ever use me. Praise to Him! Glorify His name!! Worship Him in the beauty of holiness. Serve Him with Gladness.

I know this is a simplistic question, but why would we want to talk about anything else???


Hmmmm, not even Monday Night Football? Or Chicken Alfredo at The Olive Garden? Or the new Half Price Bookstore just up the road?

Just kiddin' around- I know what you mean, Bro. Karl. We can get caught up in matters that ultimately don't do anything to make us embrace holiness or be moved with compassion towards others in gratitude for the love and mercy that has been showered on us. I burst into tears almost every time I read Isaiah 57:15- and I almost never cry- but that verse hits me like a ton of bricks every time.

Daniel's picture

Bob, I am not sure, but I think when Ron mentioned the critical text, he was talking about the Minority Text as opposed to the Majority. (I have heard the Minority referred to as the critical text, since I believe the UBS GNT is probably the most known and used critical text at the moment.) And going off of what Ron said in the other topic, I don't think I would call his friend a heretic. (Not that you did, but a cursory reading may make it appear so. It did for me.) He has just chosen to prefer the Majority Text (possibly TR) over the Minority. (I prefer the Majority over the Minority. Unfortunately, I have to use the UBS GNT to get the MT reading in the apparatus.)

Bob T.'s picture

Daniel wrote:
Bob, I am not sure, but I think when Ron mentioned the critical text, he was talking about the Minority Text as opposed to the Majority. (I have heard the Minority referred to as the critical text, since I believe the UBS GNT is probably the most known and used critical text at the moment.) And going off of what Ron said in the other topic, I don't think I would call his friend a heretic. (Not that you did, but a cursory reading may make it appear so. It did for me.) He has just chosen to prefer the Majority Text (possibly TR) over the Minority. (I prefer the Majority over the Minority. Unfortunately, I have to use the UBS GNT to get the MT reading in the apparatus.)

I was pointing out reality which goes beyond labels. The KJVO position also has a critical text though it is not so labeled.

Ron Bean's picture

Bob T. wrote:
Daniel wrote:
Bob, I am not sure, but I think when Ron mentioned the critical text, he was talking about the Minority Text as opposed to the Majority. (I have heard the Minority referred to as the critical text, since I believe the UBS GNT is probably the most known and used critical text at the moment.) And going off of what Ron said in the other topic, I don't think I would call his friend a heretic. (Not that you did, but a cursory reading may make it appear so. It did for me.) He has just chosen to prefer the Majority Text (possibly TR) over the Minority. (I prefer the Majority over the Minority. Unfortunately, I have to use the UBS GNT to get the MT reading in the apparatus.)

I was pointing out reality which goes beyond labels. The KJVO position also has a critical text though it is not so labeled.

I understand what Bob is saying. Technically speaking any text would be a "critical" text. I was referring to the Minority Text.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Eric R.'s picture

Being one of the blazers of the rabbit-trail in the other thread, I thank you, Susan, for setting up shop for us over here.

I've been away for a few days, but I would like to restate a question I asked over there, and hear feedback.

Eric R. wrote:
Since church doctrinal statements are simply the outlining of what the church believes Scripture to teach, each point is usually followed by a listing of references from which that specific doctrine is taken. I'm curious, what verses are cited in the DS teaching that God will preserve His Word in a particular translation a millennium-and-a-half in the future?

This question has directly to do with the issue that Bob T. is raising in comment #5 above. By articulating this teaching (in a doctrinal statement) as a belief, on par with other beliefs, such as the Inspiration of Scripture or the deity of Christ, a church is elevating it's personally-held opinion to the level of doctrine, and thus falls under the condemnation of Christ in Matthew 15:9

Quote:
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

If this is not true, then please share with us the Scripture references cited which teach divine preservation in one particular translation or manuscript.

Dave G's picture

Hi all...o/

I'm new, so try not to snap me up in one bite, k?

I'll throw my two cents in ('course, they're made of mostly zinc now, so not actually WORTH two cents) in this KJVO thing:

I've done quite a bit of reading on both sides of the issue, and I'm convinced that more modern translations are less accurate than the pinnacle of the Reformation, which is the AV1611 / KJV, specifically the 1769 revision. I've also seen first hand by comparing translations side by side what's been left out of the newer ones when compared with the older ones, and what the KJV looks like compared to the Majority Text.

In addition, translations using what's referred to as "Dynamic Equivalency" I refuse to even deal with personally, since DE is essentially man putting his own words in place of God's, IMO. Through many years of listening to both sides, I'm sticking with the KJV, since I believe it to be the most accurate available. I'll put up with the "thees" and "thous", thank you...;)

While I believe that God's Word is contained in some of the newer translations, I'm a hardliner for every "jot and tittle".

As for *separating over a particular translation*, tough question: Only if the passage definitely contradicts what's said in the KJV will I take exception, such as sneakily inserting a "not" where one wasn't, or leaving out entire sections that used to be there.

I mean, if it says, "In the beginning was the Word..." and some other translation says, "before the whole sh-bang, the Son was sittin' tough..." I'm going to really have a problem...;P

Byzantine makes me warm and fuzzy, Alexandrian...not so much.

Dave.

Sola Scriptura, both mentally and physically.
That means no other books about Bible interpretation on my shelf, sorry...;)

1 John 2:27-29

gsm's picture

Does anyone know the history behind any translation in a language other than English?