John Vaughn: Whither from Here? A Way Forward on the Text and Version Issue

[Anne Sokol]

i just have a few odd comments to make on this subject. I attended Dr. Minnick’s church when he did a great series on this.

Shaynus wrote:

My prediction: when people start going to jail over not performing same-sex marriages in this country, this issue will look silly.

Sadly, probably not. Man, Ok, so here in Soviet times, people were paying fines, going to jail, etc. big time, but did they have these issues? Oh, yes. No makeup, no this, no that… I think it’s human nature no matter in what time we live.

But the Russian Christians going to jail weren’t arguing about the King James, right? The question isn’t what Christians on the other side of the world will be fighting about while we’re going to jail, it’s about what we’ll be fighting about.

…..I’ve got to note that persecution in itself is not a guarantee of better doctrine, as I’m told of all kinds of interesting theologies coming out of developing countries where Christians do face death. It’s like ignoring critical theology to focus on trivialities is part of our nature or something.

I draw the line at fighting over what’s worth fighting about.

:D

[Shaynus]

But the Russian Christians going to jail weren’t arguing about the King James, right? The question isn’t what Christians on the other side of the world will be fighting about while we’re going to jail, it’s about what we’ll be fighting about.

the article cited was the Intro to the current Frontline magazine. This issue’s theme is the translation debate. So for a better read on the direction of the FBFI, here is a listing of the pertinent articles:

September/October FrontLine Contents:

Remembering the Difference between Doctrine and Preference
Kevin Schaal

We cannot hold as doctrine something that the Bible does not teach.

http://www.proclaimanddefend.org/2014/10/21/remembering-the-difference-between-doctrine-and-preference/

We cannot hold as doctrine something that the Bible does not teach.

The Doctrine of Preservation
David R. Shumate

The debate about texts and translations should be viewed as an opportunity.

Major Positions on Preservation
David Shumate

Why the Differences between Bible Versions?
Kevin Schaal

This is a fair question, but, really, the answer is not a secret.

The Making of the King James Version
John C. Mincy

How did such a great work happen?

Lessons from the Preface, “The Translators to the Reader,” of the KJV 1611
John C. Mincy

The translators expected much opposition to the KJV.

FWIW:

• Kevin Schaal, Chairman, FBFI Executive Board (EBoard)
• David Schumate, Secretary, FBFI EBoard
• John Mincy, Emeritus EBoard member

[Bert Perry]

…..I’ve got to note that persecution in itself is not a guarantee of better doctrine, as I’m told of all kinds of interesting theologies coming out of developing countries where Christians do face death. It’s like ignoring critical theology to focus on trivialities is part of our nature or something.

OK: this issue will seem silly to those who care about critical theology vs trivialities? I guess that was implied in the statement. To him who has ears.

[JohnBrian]

Mike Harding wrote:

It is a very beautiful, literal, and accurate translation of God’s Word. Could become the next KJV in the years to come.

I grew up on the KJV and whenever I need to search Bible Gateway for a verse I usually use the KJV because I am more familiar with it. When I was pastoring, my preaching Bible was a Thompson Chain that my wife bought for me years ago, after the TC that was my dad’s (given to him in 1966) wore out. I mentioned in a Sunday service how much I would like to have a TC- NKJV and a few weeks later one appeared on the front pew of the church anonymously (although I knew which couple had placed it there).

I presently carry a thinline NKJV to church, but since my eyesight is getting worse with each passing year, I generally use the ESV on my phone during the service. I guess I could leave my Bible at home but I’m sure that I would feel undressed walking into church without a Bible in my hand.

I agree with Mike that the ESV is likely to become the primary Bible in the not too distant future.

It’s got quite a ways to go.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2014/march/most-popular-and-…

isn’t good form to comment at this point in the discussion. I really want to speak to this article, though, and had to join SI first :).

Key factors, I believe, in determining the value of a translation of the Scriptures, are (1) accuracy and (2) clarity. A translation should accurately reflect, to the degree linguistically possible, inspired truth in its original form. It should also be understandable to the people reading it. One would think Gospel-spreaders everywhere and fundamentalist Baptists in particular would not only “not prohibit the mention of other translations nor prescribe a particular translation” but should enthusiastically promote the dissemination of the Scriptures in the spoken language of 21st century Americans and other English-speaking people groups.

Having shepherded our church through the transition from solely using the KJV to embracing good current English translations, I know that implementing this kind of change in a context of traditionalism is not easy and comes with a price. But I view it as necessary to ministering effectively in our surrounding community and to future generations.

Maybe the Frontline articles and the response to them will become a catalyst. Possibly younger and/or visionary members of the FBFI constituency will advocate moving toward a position of not only tolerating/accepting the use of accurate current English translations, but welcoming and encouraging it. I hope so.

you read the other articles in the issue. As they are all written by members of the Executive Board, I’d say they represent as an official position as one is going to get at this time. The tenor of all of them is anything but KJVO.

Rob,

I know all the authors reasonably well. None are KJVO in the least. My view is that Fundamentalism needs to embrace the use of good, reliable, accurate, up-to-date translations (NKJV, NASB, ESV). We keep caving to the KJVO crowd by insisting that one must use the KJV exclusively in our preaching, writing, verse citation. Practically speaking, the KJVO position ends up being our position.

and I agree Fundamentalism is practicing functional KJVOism, at least in fellowship gatherings and publications.

[Mike Harding]

Rob,

I know all the authors reasonably well. None are KJVO in the least. My view is that Fundamentalism needs to embrace the use of good, reliable, accurate, up-to-date translations (NKJV, NASB, ESV). We keep caving to the KJVO crowd by insisting that one must use the KJV exclusively in our preaching, writing, verse citation. Practically speaking, the KJVO position ends up being our position.

[Rob Fall]

and I agree Fundamentalism is practicing functional KJVOism, at least in fellowship gatherings and publications.

And it is long past time for Fundamentalism to take the plunge and allow the use of other translations in their public gatherings and publications. Just do it, break the ice, and get it over with. The longer they put it off, the worse and more painful the consequences of delay.

Per Jay’s comment, I would argue that fundamental churches not only need to recognize and use the newer translations, but also to denounce the tactics of many KJVO activists. If enough KJVO activists are reminded that insulting Westcott, Hort, and Aland is not an argument, then maybe we can love and enjoy the KJV without it becoming a point of division.

[Bert Perry]

Per Jay’s comment, I would argue that fundamental churches not only need to recognize and use the newer translations, but also to denounce the tactics of many KJVO activists. If enough KJVO activists are reminded that insulting Westcott, Hort, and Aland is not an argument, then maybe we can love and enjoy the KJV without it becoming a point of division.

I think this strategy will eventually work for those who are just hanging on to the KJV for reasons of tradition, etc., but of course for those who hold to the KJV over textual reasons, they already realize what you are saying here. Even if you haven’t run into them, there are those who aren’t English inspiration, devotees of Riplinger, or whose main argument is trying to discredit Wescott and Hort, etc., but who believe the texts behind the KJV (and they do believe there are differences between the KJV texts and those of the NKJV) are the only good texts. I’m not in that camp, but I am acquainted with them (I was in a church that changed to that position), and just telling them to in essence “get over it” is not going to work.

If your church is like that, I suggest you find another one rather than cause trouble over the KJV issue. For some, this is just not going to go away, and if your belief is different and you are not the pastor, I think separation is the better course. And if you are denouncing activists, you should be just as careful with what you are accusing them of as you expect them to be with KJV arguments. Not all KJVO types are the same, and arguing against a straw man is never helpful.

Dave, you’re misreading me. I have no trouble with people who come up with real reasons why they believe any manuscript or family of manuscripts is a better rendition of the New Testament. If you tell me you prefer the Alexandrian/eclectic texts because they’re older, no problem. If you tell me you prefer the Majority Text because it’s more numerous, comes from closer to the original documents, may be more consistent, and was used by native Greek speakers, no problem. If you tell me you prefer the Textus Receptus because (in one of its 32-odd variants) of its association with western European churches and some hints that the ancients may have had access to such manuscripts, no problem.

For that matter, if you tell me you prefer the KJV because it resonates in the English-speaking world (or at least did), because its differing pronouns and verb endings enhance understanding, or simply because you’re used to it, no problem.

What I object to is the kind of thing one will see from Ruckman, Sorenson, Chick tracts, and the like; when there is no real appeal to ancient documents to demonstrate any claim about the manuscripts, where transparently false claims are made about them (e.g. “6000 of them are identical”), or when character allegations are presented against those who spent their lives giving us the Scriptures as if that somehow proved they altered the text, or when differences in translation are presented as a defect in the more modern translation without any appeal to the original text, then I’ve got a problem.

Make sense? And we need to come out against that sort of thing, because it’s falsehood that (a) undermines the authority of all manuscripts and hence the Bible and (b) tells the world that Christians don’t care much about the truth. And those are real, big problems.