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

Turn in your Bible to 1XXX:ZZ

then everyone in the audience turns to the text and reads the same words, is ingrained on the American psyche. This is compounded when you have an audience (say in a fellowship meeting) with two or three different versions with different wordings.

Rob, I don’t see that as a problem. We have folks in our congregation who use multiple different versions. When I sit in a service, I often have a version different from the speaker. Has never been an issue.

I wasn’t speaking so much about the services of a local church. I was talking more about fellowship meetings.

[Don Johnson]

Rob, I don’t see that as a problem. We have folks in our congregation who use multiple different versions. When I sit in a service, I often have a version different from the speaker. Has never been an issue.

[Jay]

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.

There are plenty of Fundamentalists who already do, from my experience. We are doing it regularly here in Minnesota at MBA functions, and have for a few years, now. I imagine similar things could be said of the folks at Detroit, for another specific example. Just because some particular organizations or agencies haven’t yet done it doesn’t mean that their behavior is indicative of Fundamentalism as a whole.

Berry,

What Dave is saying is there is a middle ground between the two positions you have described that is more subtle but just as errant in its bibliology as the Ruckman version of KJVO. They do not simply prefer one manuscript stream; they denounce other manuscript streams as corrupted and untrustworthy perversions of God’s Word. They do not simply prefer the KJ version of the Bible in English, they denounce all other English versions of the Bible as containing varying degrees of corruption due to bad manuscript sources and/or bad translation philosophy and practice. For them, the Masoretic text is the one and only, true and pure copy of the OT in the original languages; the TR is the one and only, true and pure copy of the NT in the original languages; the KJ is the one and only, true and pure translation of the Bible in the English language; and all others are perversions of the truth in any place where they are not identical to the one and only accepted texts (Masoretic, TR, and KJ). This why so many of us have rejected statements like Sexton’s church uses (as one example) claiming the KJ is the only English version of the Bible they will accept. It is more subtle and nuanced than Ruckman (and other similar writers) but just as wrong.

Our current pastor has been at our church for just over 3 years now, and when he started, he did all of his preaching from the ESV. It was certainly different, even though I still opened my KJV (figuratively, as it’s on my iPhone) in the pew. Now, while I still notice the differences, it no longer seems strange. Our previous pastor had certainly prepared us, as he had recently moved to using the NKJV right after a series on the Bible version issue, so I don’t remember hearing any complaints over the new pastor not using the KJV.

Recently, one of our members went to be with the Lord after a battle with cancer, and her funeral was in a nearby city (since she had moved to stay with her family). It actually stuck out to me that they were using the KJV there, and even our pastor who spoke used it as well. The fact that it’s even noticeable makes it seem to me that even within fundamentalism use of the KJV is slowly shrinking, as I’m hearing less of it in other churches. One area I hope it never goes away is in the use of familiar passages at special times (like the Luke 2 passage). If it was good enough for the American TV audience and Linus, then …

Chip,

In the church I was a part of, there was no issue with using other language translations as long as they were from the right texts. The pastor (at least last I asked him) claimed to not be theoretically against a modern update to the KJV as long as it would have been from the “right” texts (and as I pointed out before, the NKJV doesn’t count because of the 7 or 8 differences between the source texts and those behind the KJV), so the position was technically not English KJVO. Practically, however, since no such English translation exists, and any that would come would likely not use the identical Greek and Hebrew behind the KJV, it results in English KJVO by default, even when it’s not seen that way by those holding the position. The change to that position over time (including the practical consequences of that change) was one of the main reasons I left that church for the church that I attend now.

I was only pointing out to Bert that at such a ministry, the obviously invalid arguments have been left behind, and it now comes down to a difference in position on textual criticism, and an insistence that any differences in the text mean corruption. Even though I don’t believe their position to be tenable given the textual evidence that God left for us, it’s also not one that is going to go away by arguing against Ruckman, W&H, Riplinger, Chick, and all the poster children for bad KJVO reasoning.

[dcbii]

Chip,

In the church I was a part of, there was no issue with using other language translations as long as they were from the right texts. The pastor (at least last I asked him) claimed to not be theoretically against a modern update to the KJV as long as it would have been from the “right” texts (and as I pointed out before, the NKJV doesn’t count because of the 7 or 8 differences between the source texts and those behind the KJV), so the position was technically not English KJVO. Practically, however, since no such English translation exists, and any that would come would likely not use the identical Greek and Hebrew behind the KJV, it results in English KJVO by default, even when it’s not seen that way by those holding the position. The change to that position over time (including the practical consequences of that change) was one of the main reasons I left that church for the church that I attend now.

I was only pointing out to Bert that at such a ministry, the obviously invalid arguments have been left behind, and it now comes down to a difference in position on textual criticism, and an insistence that any differences in the text mean corruption. Even though I don’t believe their position to be tenable given the textual evidence that God left for us, it’s also not one that is going to go away by arguing against Ruckman, W&H, Riplinger, Chick, and all the poster children for bad KJVO reasoning.

I’ve run across this kind of bogus argument before. They claim they are not KJVO, but they are. They just don’t want all the baggage that identification brings with it tying them to more extreme versions of the position like Ruckman. The bottom line is anyone who claims that all other text streams or translations are corrupt is KJVO (not just not as good or less preferred, but corrupted and no longer the “pure” Word of God). This defies the biblical teaching on preservation and blasphemes God’s Holy Word in its various “non-accepted” forms.

[Greg Linscott]

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.

There are plenty of Fundamentalists who already do, from my experience. We are doing it regularly here in Minnesota at MBA functions, and have for a few years, now. I imagine similar things could be said of the folks at Detroit, for another specific example. Just because some particular organizations or agencies haven’t yet done it doesn’t mean that their behavior is indicative of Fundamentalism as a whole.

Great! I’m glad to hear that. There’s nothing I’d love to do more than bury this issue forever, but I know that’s unrealistic.

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.

Yes - and we need to start calling it false teaching instead of just extending a false grace that allows the propagation of error ‘because they are our brothers’ or ‘because they mean well’.

[dcbii]

Chip,

In the church I was a part of, there was no issue with using other language translations as long as they were from the right texts. The pastor (at least last I asked him) claimed to not be theoretically against a modern update to the KJV as long as it would have been from the “right” texts (and as I pointed out before, the NKJV doesn’t count because of the 7 or 8 differences between the source texts and those behind the KJV), so the position was technically not English KJVO. Practically, however, since no such English translation exists, and any that would come would likely not use the identical Greek and Hebrew behind the KJV, it results in English KJVO by default, even when it’s not seen that way by those holding the position. The change to that position over time (including the practical consequences of that change) was one of the main reasons I left that church for the church that I attend now.

I was only pointing out to Bert that at such a ministry, the obviously invalid arguments have been left behind, and it now comes down to a difference in position on textual criticism, and an insistence that any differences in the text mean corruption. Even though I don’t believe their position to be tenable given the textual evidence that God left for us, it’s also not one that is going to go away by arguing against Ruckman, W&H, Riplinger, Chick, and all the poster children for bad KJVO reasoning.

Dave, I believe my “KJVO” (the guy, who many of you probably know, calls it OKJV, but a difference without significance IMO) experience actually parallels what you’re talking about. The key IMO is that you can come up with a reasonable—maybe not a good, but definitely a reasonable—argument for any of the text families. One on age, one on usage, one on geography, and always some uncertainty about how good the copiers were in some areas, how the master text was kept and used, and the like. You accept one on faith, admit as much in your debates, and the whole thing becomes rather collegial.

However, to arrive at either an open or closet KJVO position, you always need to come up with an argument that not only is your favored text family superior, but the others are not just different, but defective, intentionally so, and that it matters theologically. Now as far as I can tell, there is no contemporary evidence that any copyist was ever accused by his peers of adding, or removing, a passage from a manuscript. Nor is there any credible evidence that Westcott, Hort, Nestle, or Aland did anything but tend to prefer Alexandrian manuscripts by dint of age in assembling the eclectic text. We’ve had a century to discredit it and their method, and….crickets. Nor have there been any theologians who have produced a compelling case for why the inclusion, exclusion, or modification of certain passages makes a theological difference.

(you will get some who claim that the exclusion of some Trinitarian formulations undermines the doctrine of the Trinity or the Deity of Christ, but my take is that they really demonstrate nothing beyond the fact that they don’t know how to make a good Biblical argument for either, and that they’re quite unfamiliar with John 1:1)

So if you don’t have contemporary documents demonstrating a textual crime, and you don’t have a serious argument demonstrating the significance of the errors made, what are you left with? Well, you can make things up (in which case history buffs like myself are likely to catch you in the act), or you can resort to the genetic fallacy (in which case logical dillettantes like myself will catch you in the act).

In other words, even among the more “sane” KJVO activists, I don’t see a lot of room for them sneaking in past someone who knows what to look for, logically and historically speaking. Make sense?

However, to arrive at either an open or closet KJVO position, you always need to come up with an argument that not only is your favored text family superior, but the others are not just different, but defective, intentionally so, and that it matters theologically.

And that’s the root issue. This issue cannot exist without casting doubt on the ability of God to protect and sustain the church via the Word of God. It’s that simple.

In my opinion - and based on the years of discussion on this subject in the KJV forums - the only King James issue has done far more harm to the Church over the last 40 years or so because it directly attacks the Person of God and the church in a few areas:

1. God’s ability to preserve - because we can’t really know which version is right, so we have to use the KJV.
2. God’s honesty and power - because He is unable to maintain his Word, which He promised to do.
3. Furthermore, the people that are been the most passionate about this issue (generally, and in my opinion) are those who love foolish controversies (Titus 3:9) and empty quarrels (I Timothy 1:6). Most of them are divisive and argumentative - people to be marked and avoided, not welcomed and dialogued with (Titus 1:10, Jude 1:19, I Timothy 3:2-3).

It’s not a matter of idle speculation or fun talk. It’s a very serious and pointed attack on who God is, and it imitates the Liar’s question from Genesis - “Yea, Hath God said?”

Yes, God hath said. And He still says to this day - via the all sufficient and sustaining Word, as presented in the Bible.

“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.”

You can’t put churches in an either/or box as to their reasons for using the KJV. There are other reasons other than textual arguments that churches may have to preach with one consistent version, and those churches are not enablers or “caving in” to the KJVO cause. In fact, many of these churches have stood their ground against the militant KJVOs in their congregations at great member and financial loss.

I agree. David Innes is on record as being any thing but a KJVO advocate. However, when preaching he still starts in the KJV (though in the course of a message he’ll make stops in the NASB and the Nestle-Aland Greek NT). The KJV is HSBC’s pew Bible.

[Barry L.]

“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.”

You can’t put churches in an either/or box as to their reasons for using the KJV. There are other reasons other than textual arguments that churches may have to preach with one consistent version, and those churches are not enablers or “caving in” to the KJVO cause. In fact, many of these churches have stood their ground against the militant KJVOs in their congregations at great member and financial loss.

Barry,

When I speak at some Fundamental Colleges or FBFI meetings or write articles for some Fundamental publications, I am usually told that I must use the KJV. Functionally speaking, it becomes a KJVO position. I am not talking about a church deciding which version it chooses to use. I think there is a general fear of offending the KJVO constituency and that fear shapes policy.

Mike Harding’s summary seems to be spot on. When a school, publication, or meeting host tells you to ONLY use the KJV, that is KJVO in practice, regardless of what they say.