The King James Bible and ancillary issues

[Haruo]

[James]

Let us not forget that the Hebrew/Greek Textus Receptus from which the KJV was translated was created by Erasmus who translated the Latin Vulgate into Hebrew or Greek as required to fill in the gaps in the best manuscripts of Hebrew and Greek available in that day.

[Jason Wolfe]

Wow, okay. Right out of the gate Haruo has posed this question to me, "What gives you such a high regard for the Church of England's Authorized Version of 1611 (presumably as updated, mostly as regards spelling, 150 or so years later), and do you believe each language that has a Bible in it has one version that is the perfectly preserved word of God in that language?" in replying to my greeting/welcome thread (or whatever that's called), and has created this thread for me to respond to his question, AND emailed me because I haven't responded to it yet! HAHA! Sorry, I'm not trying to avoid the subject, I've just been busy.

Anyway, why do I have such a "high regard" for the King James Version? I consider that to be more a testimonial sort of question than an argumentative question. So I'm just going to answer that question by telling you how it is I came to that position. I wasn't raised in KJVO Baptist church. This isn't something I believe as a result of my tradition, family, or friends. In fact, almost all my family and friends disagree with me! It's bit of a long and complicated story, actually. I used to be vehemently against King James Onlyism. I thought it was the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. I watched James White debate Jack Moorman, and considered the King James Only position to be so weird and stupid that I didn't give it another thought for about a year.

At that point I had started listening to King James Only preachers on the internet, not because I had switched to that position, but just because I happened to like their preaching in general. But as a result of listening to their preaching that topic kept coming up, and I was confronted with it and forced to actually consider it and take it seriously for the first time. I still thought it was ridiculous, so rather than actually give it a fair hearing I decided to read "The King James Version Debate" By D.A. Carson, and, OF COURSE (!), "The King James Only Controversy" by James White. I had expected that reading those books would solidify me in my position as well as give me ample ammunition for refuting KJVO.

Those books ended up having the opposite affect. I found myself becoming very skeptical of textual criticism as a whole. In thinking about what I had read in those books I realized that I couldn't hold that position without employing a double standard. For example, I'm a young earth creationist. Why do I believe in YEC? Because I read it in the Bible. It is not because the arguments and evidence provided by YEC scientists is overwhelmingly more compelling than that of the evolutionary scientists. Now, don't get me wrong, I have read my fair share of YEC literature, and I do think they have good evidence and arguments, not only AGAINST evolution, but FOR YEC. But that's NOT why I hold that position, I believe it because I read it in the Bible, and I would believe it even if there wasn't a shred of scientific evidence for it. Okay? So, an evolutionary scientist can take a bone, and invent a really interesting just-so story about that bone, what creature it's from, what that kind of creature evolved from, what it evolved into, etc. and he can tell me his fun little bone stories until he's blue in the face, and I just don't care. A special, privileged group of intellectuals can play in the dirt and make up whatever stories they want, but I have revelation from God saying otherwise. I hope that makes sense.

But, then when it comes to the Bible I’m supposed to trust a special, privileged group of intellectuals who make up just-so stories about old yellow pieces of paper? I laugh at Richard Dawkins when he says in “The Greatest Show on Earth” that there is no evidence for a transitionary link between rabbits and leopards, but it definitely has to exist because evolutionary theory says so, but then I’m supposed to take James White seriously when he claims to somehow know exactly what a scribe was thinking and doing that caused a particular textual variant to appear in a particular manuscript? Why?

Am I supposed to believe prestigious scholar Craig Blomberg when he says, “Because of similarities in language and content, it has traditionally been assumed that Matthew and Luke drew upon Mark’s earlier gospel in writing their own.” (Case for Christ, pg. 26) Or am I supposed to believe Greg Boyd when he says, “They’re failing to recognize that an increasing number of scholars are expressing serious reservations about the theory that Matthew and Luke used Mark.” (Case for Christ, pg. 118)? Or maybe Gary Habermas when he says, “First, not everybody believes Mark is the earliest gospel. There are scholars, admittedly in the minority, who believe Matthew was written first.” (CFC, pg. 236)?

Again, I laugh at Dawkins when he tells me to believe him without any evidence just because his theory says something MUST be true, but then I’m supposed to take Blomberg seriously when he says that the parts of Matthew and Luke that aren’t similar to Mark must have been taken from a different document called “Q”, which he describes as being “just sayings or teachings of Jesus, which once MAY have formed an independent, separate document.” (CFC, pg. 26) and also says, “It’s nothing more than a hypothesis” (CFC, pg. 26)? Really? Or how about when apologist William Lane Craig says, “This passion story was APPARENTLY taken by Mark from an even earlier source” (CFC, pg. 209)? What is that? What do you mean it was “apparently” taken from an earlier source? Was it, or wasn’t it? What evidence do you have? Why are you even talking?!

Blomberg claims, “We find that Paul incorporated some creeds, confessions of faith, or hymns from the earliest Christian church.” (CFC, pg. 34) and then goes on to explain, “If the Crucifixion was as early as A.D. 30, Paul’s conversion was about 32. Immediately Paul was ushered into Damascus, where he met with a Christian named Ananias and some other disciples. His first meeting with the apostles in Jerusalem would have been about A.D. 35. At some point along there, Paul was given this creed, which has already been formulated and was being used in the early church.” (CFC, pg. 35). Craig agrees, “For one thing, the burial is mentioned by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, where he passes on a very early creed of the church.” (CFC, pg. 208). And Gary Habermas says of this supposed 1 Corinthians 15 “creed”, “I would concur with the scholars who believe Paul received this material three years after his conversion, when he took a trip to Jerusalem and met with Peter and James.” (CFC, pg. 230). Okay, what’s the problem? What these distinguished scholars don’t seem to understand is that Paul himself denies this as even a possibility!

Galatians 1:11-12

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

What astonishes me is how these Christian scholars defend the Bible by implicitly and functionally denying it’s inspiration. Look what they say about the Gospels, Matthew and Luke were written from Mark, and anything they say that isn’t found in Mark they got from some mysterious nonexistent source, “Q”. How was Mark written? Peter told him everything. How do we know that? Bruce Metzger says it comes from “early tradition” (CFC, pg. 66). But wait a minute, tradition also says Paul wrote Hebrews, but these same scholar utterly reject that, so…what’s going on here? They never say anything like, this book of the Bible was written by inspiration of God. It always has to have been from either an eyewitness or some earlier source that even if it doesn’t exist, definitely had to have existed? Sound familiar?

How do they explain Jude 14-15?

14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

Where in the world did Jude get that information? It’s not found in Genesis, or in any other book of the Bible? Oh! Of course, it’s sooooo simple! Jude MUST have had access to the Book of Enoch! As long as it didn’t come from Jude being moved by the Holy Ghost to speak the inspired words of God, because that would just be silly!

Then we have William Lane Craig dismissing the guards guarding Jesus’ tomb because, after all, “ONLY Matthew reports that guards were placed around the tomb” (CFC, pg. 211) and because, “it’s too disputed by contemporary scholarship.” (CFC, pg. 211). Clearly someone with a lot of reverence for God’s holy word.

I don’t trust scientists when they date rocks according to their various scientific dating methods, but I’m supposed to trust scholars who date manuscripts, according to Bruce Metzger, “from the style of the script.” (CFC, pg. 62)? Because that doesn’t sound arbitrary at all!

My point is that I simply do not trust what the “experts” say. By the way, I’ve never read “The Scholarship Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Professional Lairs?” By Peter Ruckman. I’m not a “Ruckmanite” (I’m not even a dispensationalist!). I came to this mistrust of scholars simply by reading their own books, and considering what they said to be a bunch of baloney!

This didn’t happen automatically. I spent months reading other books, watching films, reading articles, listening to sermons, praying, and reading and comparing a lot of different Bibles. I went back and forth believing the King James to be the perfectly preserved word of God, and just thinking it’s a superior translation, but not necessarily perfect. I kicked around the idea of being a majority text advocate, but eventually I found myself where I am today.

Of course, not trusting contemporary textual criticism in no way necessitates believing KJVO. I believe that the Bible is the final authority in ALL matters of faith and practice. If that is really true, that means that God’s word testifies of itself as truly being God’s word. I believe that, as a person indwelled by the Holy Spirit, I have the ability to identify God’s word.

John 14:26

26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

So the Holy Ghost will teach me all things…except which Bible contains all the perfectly preserved words of God? Is that not a thing?

1 John 2:27

27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

I don’t think I need to become fluent in three different languages (especially Koine Greek, and Hebrew, which are reconstructions of dead languages) in order to identify God’s word, nor do I need to be an expert in ancient manuscripts, because I need not that any man teach me, because, once again, the Holy Spirit’s job is to teach me all things.

John 10:27

27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

When I hear the King James Bible being preached, I believe that the Holy Spirit testifies to me that I am hearing the voice of my shepherd.

I know that many people will reject KJVO, because they know a little about how the KJV was translated and how the TR was put together, etc. and they don’t find them to be completely trustworthy. Someone has already done that in this very thread. I understand where you’re coming from; I used to think the same thing. But I believe that all that is really irrelevant. I believe, totally without any background knowledge on how these Bible’s were translated, that we can take two Bibles and compare the finished products with each other in order to determine what the true word of God is. I’m not saying to start with the King James as your final authority a priori and then use it to knock down every other translation. I’m saying, in the same way a diamond expert can take the finished product of a diamond, and the finished product of a cubic zirconium, and can just look at them, study them, and tell you which one is which without having to know any facts about how those two particular products were formed, the same thing can be done with Bibles, regardless of any background knowledge on how they were translated.

I realize this sounds extraordinarily subjective, but it’s not as bad as you think. So, to answer the other question posed to me of what do I do about the apocrypha, since that was published in the first edition of the KJV? Is that the word of God? First of all the KJV translators did NOT consider the apocrypha to be the word of God. Did you know that? None of the Protestants considered it to be inspired. It was included simply for its historical value. Did you know the Catholics don’t call those books the “apocrypha”? They call them the “Deuterocanonical” books. The KJV translators also placed the apocrypha in between the two Testaments. Have you ever flipped through a Catholic Bible? That’s not where they’re placed; they’re dispersed throughout the Bible. So it’s wrong to assume that the 1611 KJV presented the apocrypha as the inspired words of God, because that’s simply not true.

Furthermore, I challenge you to read the apocrypha and tell me it’s not obviously a forgery! Read the Book of Proverbs and then read Ecclesiasticus, and tell me which one is the word of God. This is easily done with all forgeries. Read any of the actual Gospels and then read the “Gospel” of Thomas, and tell me which one is the word of God. If you have the Holy Spirit it’s obvious! Is that too subjective? Is that not “scholarly” enough for you? Well, even respected scholar Bruce Metzger said of the early Christians who canonized the books of the Bible:

“They could hear the voice of the Good Shepherd in the gospel of John; they could hear it only in a muffled and distorted way in the Gospel of Thomas, mixed with a lot of other things.” (CFC, pg. 69)

In conclusion: I believe that, though all Bibles contain many of God’s words, they are not, as a whole, as a final product, the word of God. But I believe that the King James Bible, through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, has testified of itself to me as the word of God in the English language. And yes, any other book that contains the inspired words of God in its language, is the word of God in that language. There’s nothing special about English or any other language, all that matters is that it contains the accurately translated inspired words of God.

If you actually read all that, give yourself a pat on the back.

1 Corinthians 2:4-5

4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

1 Corinthians 2:13-14

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

[Sandy]

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Welcome Jason, I sorry for not saying that in the Welcome forum. I am glad for you that the KJV works for you. The bit of bible that I have memorized are primarily from the KJV but I struggled mightily to read it with real understanding for years. And then I was introduced to a new testament in an English format that i could understand more easily. things I had been taught from the KJV began to become more clear. And so I started looking for OT scripture in a form of English that i could comprehend more readily Which led me to the RSV OT of 1952. The New Testament version that had been helpful was by, Helen Barrett Montgomery Published in 1924. Sadly after several moves I can not locate my copy of that original edition. When the NIV Came along I loved the ease of reading and use it for inspirational personal daily reading. However when I really want to get into devotional reading and STUDY, I go To the New RSV Annotated. I have threatened to cut it up and have it rebound because as it is it is difficult to handle due to my severe Arthritis.

Today I suggest to new Christians that they stick to a version that translated by a committee rather than by a Individual.

As I say I am glad the KVJ works for you. However having been on these boards in this site from day one, I doubt you will find many followers for the KJV only. I hope you stick around and join in on some of the other discussions.

God Bless you

[Haruo]

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

If you didn't have the New Testament, you would not know there was a Jesus, or a Holy Spirit.

[Haruo]

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

I believe the Holy Spirit is very much an extremely important guiding force in Christian faith, not in the "Pentecostal" or Charismatic way of creating a highly emotionally charged situation to manipulate an audience, but in a very dynamic way that infuses the receptive person, and provides real guidance and depth of experience with God. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe the sign gifts are dead, but I see a difference between a genuine tongues experience, or a healing, than in the counterfeit variety.

But if the same Holy Spirit inspired the writers of scripture, then there should be consistency between what someone claims is "Spirit Led," and what they read and interpret in the Bible, regardless of which testament. If a written word describing a matter of faith isn't accurate, or is in error, then so is the faith. Inconsistency isn't a characteristic of God, and when we seem to see that it is, we're the ones who aren't understanding.

[Tim Bonney]

[Ed Pettibone]

[KeithE]

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

[Tim Bonney]

But Sandy, you stated that without the New Testament we'd not know about Jesus.

This is just another way of making the Bible necessary to salvation, or co-redeemer with Christ. All you need is Jesus and I have a hard time believing that the Church Jesus created would not have found means to spread the gospel. Yes, they chose to use the written word through the canon of scriptures, through the creeds of the Church, through information passed down through the Church in worship and the sacraments (ordinances if you prefer). The Bible is a powerful means of sharing the gospel but the Church created the Bible, the Bible didn't create the Church. Jesus created the Church. And the Church has and was already using other means to spread the gospel.

After Jesus created the Church people like Paul, Silas, Barnabas, etc. sent off on evangelistic missionary journeys following Christs great commission which they knew about before any New Testament was completed. So the early Church was in fact spreading around the world before the canon was complete. If, for some reason, the New Testament had not been created it seems to me that the early Church would have continued to spread through other means because it was already spreading.

[Mrs Haruo]

"If, for some reason, the New Testament had not been created it seems to me that the early Church would have continued to spread through other means because it was already spreading."--Tim

It wasn't the Bible that brought me to Christ, as much as the actions of His avowed followers. My parents didn't attend church, and my father had a very dim view of "organized religion" as he calls it. I read a Gideon's New Testament I found in my brother's stuff he left behind when he joined the Navy and said "Everything Ieave behind in my room is yours when you move into it, but that didn't make a Christian out of me. The actions of Christians I knew brought me around.

[Sandy]

[Tim Bonney]

Sandy,

I have no problem acknowledging the truth and authority of the Bible. I just don't make it the 4th member of the Trinity or treat it as it is on the level with Jesus.

[KeithE]

[Haruo]

That red letter piece weighs heavily in the minds of SDAs.