Bible Versions and Reformed Subjectivism
James White's excellent website has a retrospective on an old debate he had with Douglas Wilson of Credenda/Agenda and New St. Andrews concerning King James Onlyism. I remembered reading this several years ago when it was first published and being surprised to discover Reformed people being particular about Bible translations. Typically, the only people who insist upon the KJV are fringe fundamentalists who believe that the difference between the renderings "the Lord Jesus Christ" and "Christ Jesus our Lord" proves that all non-KJV Bible versions (including the New King James Version) are the work of a satanic conspiracy trying to undermine our faith in the scriptures.
Throughout the debate, Wilson insists that the forensics of the scripture text belongs to the church alone, and that the church acts with providential (near?) infallibility in its role as caretaker of the manuscript tradition. White brings up several instances where new manuscript evidence calls some of the traditional readings into question, as more ancient fragments and codices are discovered. Wilson won't take this at face value, insisting that this only represents the opinions of non-Christian scientists. For Wilson, there is no prima facie evidence concerning the text; there is only the "authority of the church" and the "authority of scientists."
This is superficially reminiscent of Roman Catholic rejections of sola scriptura. Catholic apologists claim that Scripture can't be authoritative apart from the institutional church, because without the institutional church, no one would know which texts the canon of scripture was composed of. This ignores the process the Council of Nicea used for determining the contents of the canon, which consisted largely in weighing the historical evidence for apostolic authorship of the various candidate documents and in examining the texts for consistency with the established canon of the Old Testament. It also invests the institutional church with the authority to declare or retract canonical teachings at any time, which is the death of the historic catholicity of the faith. How could the adherents to primitive Christianity share any fellowship with the followers of the ponderously complex religion modern Roman Catholicism has become?
Wilson's belief that the authority of the church is at stake over the authenticity of the Johannine Comma, etc. puts him in an intellectually awkward position. The Comma is unattested as canon in any source before the 4th century and poorly attested even in medieval manuscripts. All the evidence indicates that these dozen or so words were inserted into the text of 1 John long after it was written. Over and against this, Wilson is left defending the (misleadingly named) Received Text (TR) as axiomatic to the confessional church. The reliability of the TR turns into a sociological struggle for original authority between church and science.
Wilson may believe that there are no truly objective facts about ancient scripture manuscripts, owing to a presuppositional belief that man's noetic faculties are entirely corrupted by the Fall, and that I grant, but how far can one take this? Is a sinner incapable of distinguishing even the most trivial of facts? Is the observation that ancient manuscripts contain a slightly different rendering of a certain passage to be held as nothing but a damning deceit? Do we risk a return to a canonical geocentrism where every truth is relative to a social authority? Is giving the church this kind of ontological authority prudent in the light of WCF 25:5 [1]?
Wilson fears that if we allow new manuscript information to influence our view of the canon of scripture, there is no limit to how far the revisionism of the Bible can go. It is unclear where the impetus for this would come from. We have extensive documentation covering over 90% of the history of the transmission of the New Testament, and this history shows that the amount of corruption accumulated in the copies is vanishingly small, even miraculously small. We do not require artificial supports, such as an inspired Received Text, to support our trust in modern Bibles.
The authority of scriptural texts does not come from the imprimatur of the church, but from the supernaturally-invested infallible teaching authority of the prophetic and apostolic authors, attested by miraculous signs, and from the supernatural character of the texts themselves. The scriptures are robust to distortion through copying errors or faulty exegesis, containing great clarity of image and concept, extending through an intermeshing system of saving doctrine. It is the human heart and mind that are faulty. We should not rely on fallible church councils for that which God, in his providence, has enunciated and preserved.
[1] "5. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error: and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth, to worship God according to His will." Westminster Confession of Faith, Ch. 25.
posted by dug @ 7:11 PM
19 Comments:
"Typically, the only people who insist upon the KJV are fringe fundamentalists who believe that the difference between the renderings "the Lord Jesus Christ" and "Christ Jesus our Lord" proves that all non-KJV Bible versions (including the New King James Version) are the work of a satanic conspiracy trying to undermine our faith in the scriptures."
This is grossly (I say grossly!) misrepresentative of the KJVO position. It's about manuscripts. This is the one issue where James White becomes a propagandist and deceptive and dishonest (he's pretty on-the-mark in all other areas). The fact is, he's on the NASB translation committee, and he frankly has a problem reading Elizabethen era literature (because he hasn't read much classic literature of any era). Basically, he has no understanding of the style and rhetoric issues that make KJVO types see inspiration in the KJV. White also makes the mistake of mocking and putting in the worst light (and doing it dishonestly most of the time) people who see the KJV as inspired and the manuscripts it uses as being more pure. He doesn't need to mock, he can make his case and recognize the merits of the great Authorized Version translation at the same time, but he's kind of a pedestrian buffoon on this subject. He probably has no clue what the standing of William Tyndale is in the history of English prose, nor does he know anything about the ancient science of figures of speech which Bullinger resurrected and the KJV translators were versed in. There are many reasons KJVO people defend the KJV as an inspired translation and why KJVO people see the devil in the modern versions. Look into a bit deeper than White will guide you...
"This is grossly (I say grossly!) misrepresentative of the KJVO position."
Point taken. My intent was to describe why I went from ignoring the KJVO issue to paying attention to it. And I'm not the only person to notice that a lot of KJV defenders dwell on side-issues and conspiracy theories. Douglas Wilson remarked:
"...virtually the only defense one is likely to encounter for the KJV is a defense which appeals to the usage of Moses and Paul, who both spoke Elizabethan English (a little-known miracle), or the indisputable fever-swamp-fact that the translators of the NIV also belong to the Council of Foreign Relations, which in its turn is plotting to place all nations under a one-world government. Thus, non-KJV translations are seen by some for what they really are—nefarious preparation for THE BEAST."
Credenda/Agenda. Vol 10, Issue 1, Thema
"...the style and rhetoric issues that make KJVO types see inspiration in the KJV."
It sounds like you're using the word "inspiration" in a non-theological fashion. How would the beautiful prose or artistic diction of an English translation contribute to the authority and inerrancy of scripture? The trustworthiness of scripture has traditionally been rooted, not in its style, but in its content.
"...people who see the KJV as inspired and the manuscripts it uses as being more pure."
And this gets to my thesis: that the reliability of specific manuscripts comes not from the declarations of church councils (which "have often erred" - Luther), but from the internal evidence of the manuscripts themselves. Instead of relying on church tradition, we should be "carefully investigat[ing] everything from the beginning"(Luke 1:3) This is what Erasmus did in compiling the Textus Receptus. Why should that stop now just because people have gotten rather attached to certain sources?
"...why KJVO people see the devil in the modern versions."
I've seen several dozen examples of "the devil in the modern versions" and all of them have stemmed from grievously faulty logic (usually imputing sinister motives to even the most mundane differences from the KJV). If you have something you think is convincing, feel free to point it out, but please don't swamp me with huge lists of 'changes.' I'm not a Greek/Hebrew scholar, but most of these charges can be answered by simple reason.
What you should do is read things written by people with knowledge of the languages and of theology and who are not fever swamp types who have decided to reject the modern translations (they are all translated from the same corrupt manuscripts, that is why they are all rejected, by the way) and who now go with the King James Translation. It is these people that White is at his worst with in mocking and dishonestly tarring them with fever swamp tar. Also, read things written by actual translators of the modern versions who now reject those translations. This is a matter of the Spirit in one speaking.
It is true, though, that you get the Word of God even from a bad translation. The KJVO type says, though, if you can get the Word of God 100% from the KJV why settle for 98% or 70% from another version. True, a 70% version can effect you in terms of regeneration being effected in you (can save you). At least, anyway, use the best, most inspired version for your standard. Use others for commentary, if you must.
And, by 'inspired' what is meant is the work of the Holy Spirit in shepherding the Word into time and protecting it and seeing that it is available in a pure form. Also inspired means language itself. The King James contains elements in the very structure of the Hebrew and Greek that communicate between and beneath and above the text. These are the poetic elements of the KJV that a White is totally numb to. He just doesn't know literature or what makes inspired literature or how language delivers influence and impressions.
For an example, if you really know the Homeric epics, read a modern translation, then read George Chapman's Elizabethan era translations. You'll see how Chapman's translation has an inspiration in it that delivers more of the original than any modern translation. The Iliad and the Odyssey, as well, were poems in a 'biblical' dialect to their earliest readers. Homer is not Holy Writ, but it is the most inspired ancient work of poetry we have and the correlations to how it delivers what it delivers with the Bible are there. There are structural types in Greek historical writing that compare to writings in Holy Writ. Modern translators totally miss all of it. The King James translators were not only knowledgeable but inspired in understanding it.
White himself gets embarassed when preaching from his own NASB when he comes across a reading in the epistles of Paul where he has to stop and say, 'now don't get nervous, I know this rendering looks suspicious and it's not how it's rendered in the King James, but this is what this means' and he continues. I can't cite the verse where that happened (it's on one of his mp3s) but it was very funny considering his stance against the KJV. He has to explain a bad rendering on a MOST CRUCIAL VERSE in the NASB, and defend himself on the spot for using such a Bible with such a rendering. The new versions are jam-packed with these bad renderings, and deletions. The 'scholarship' behind the manuscripts they all use is pure 'Jesus Seminar, 19th century version' level. Spong level. It's as though Spong had prepared modern manuscripts that every - and I mean EVERY - modern translation uses today. The New King James Version supposedly doesn't use the new manuscripts, yet it actually does in many places which is why IT is on the devil list itself.
White will grant that the new manuscripts were horrible and drawn up by 'scholars' that were less than Christian, and in some cases downright satanic, yet his argument is 'they have been corrected over the years'. No. You can't make a pig pretty by making little corrections to its looks here and there over time. A pig is a pig.
Read this:
http://aomin.org/Schnoebelen.html
and see how White sounds like a Roman Catholic apologist defending the papacy and purgatory. If you can't see how weak White's responses are here in this, compared with how strong White can be on other issues, then you just won't see the weakness of the modern versions and so be it.
"The KJVO type says, though, if you can get the Word of God 100% from the KJV why settle for 98% or 70% from another version."
Well, I certainly don't want to be missing out on 30% of God's word. I'll tell you what. I'll throw my NIV away (it's a Ryrie Study Bible with Arminian/dispensational margin notes, so I won't miss it much) if you can show me a single doctrine that is contained in the KJV and has been "removed" from the NIV.
"And, by 'inspired' what is meant is the work of the Holy Spirit in shepherding the Word into time and protecting it and seeing that it is available in a pure form."
How do you reconcile the notion that God protects the purity of his word with the idea that there are "devil manuscripts" of scripture floating around containing "Spong level" theology? Does God's providential care over the scriptures extend only to the English translations and not to the Greek originals?
"These are the poetic elements of the KJV..."
This is an esthetic preference only that maketh not other versions the work of the devil. Why thinkest thou (ok, enough) that the KJV editors were the only people in history fluent in Greek and Hebrew? Many 17th century Presbyterians rejected the KJV for decades as a bad knock-off of the Geneva Bible. The Pilgrims came to America with the Geneva Bible, not the KJV.
"The New King James Version supposedly doesn't use the new manuscripts, yet it actually does in many places which is why IT is on the devil list itself."
My Orthodox Presbyterian pastor (from before I moved to New Mexico) was on the translation committee for the NKJV. He'd be a bit surprised to learn he helped "corrupt" the scriptures. His criticism of the NKJV: "too beholden to the KJV and TR." It even preserves the KJV translation error at Luke 2:14. I'm a bit concerned about how easy it is for versions of God's inerrant word to get on your "devil list."
The Puritan's prejudice against the A.V. didn't last and was based on the fact that the Geneva was their Bible, with their doctrine in its famous notes, and they didn't need a new Bible. But the A.V. drew most on the Geneva. It's all mostly Tyndale behind both.
As for changed doctrine read that link I provided (regarding Jesus sinning). You'll see that White never had an answer for that other than to ridiculously state that it was because the manuscripts said it. Yes, James, the corrupt manuscripts your modern translations are based on. That's sort of the point.
How do I reconcile that God protects His Word with the fact that the currupt translations exist? By the fact that the A.V. exists. That's what this is all about.
The poetic qualities of the A.V. that you mock are more than surface prettiness. There are structural elements in the original and figures in the original that communicate deeply God's truth that the modern translators don't even know exist. One of the most hilarious and pathetic instances of modern translators' ignorance is when they 'correct' the words of Satan in the New Testment (literally 'correct' the Word of God) because Satan misquotes Scripture to Jesus, but Satan was INTENTIONALLY misquoting the Old Testament in that passage, because that is one of the things Satan does. He twists Scripture. Your modern translators have corrected that for you. Feel comfortable with the modern translations? And remember: they're ALL based on the same currupt manuscripts. The same manuscripts James White himself admits were 'Jesus Seminar' level scholarship. He just thinks they're 'better' now, due to the thousands of micro decisions of seminary lads like himself. Wet fool.
"Wet fool." That would be James White on this particular issue of the KJV with which he is so sub par from his usual level of understanding...
Good evening, Mr. "t.",
"White never had an answer for that other than to ridiculously state that it was because the manuscripts said it."
Indeed, and as I remember, you believe that God preserved the English translation, but not the original Greek manuscripts. That doesn't strike you as a little bit...odd? God's preservation is reflected in a 17th century English translation and not in a 4th century Greek manuscript that the ancient church used?
"As for changed doctrine read that link I provided (regarding Jesus sinning)."
Ah, Yes, Matthew 5:22 contrasted with Mark 3:5.
Matthew 5:22-KJV-"...whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment..." (Jesus speaking)
Mark 3:5-KJV-"...[Jesus] looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts..."
Then, the NIV version:
Matthew 5:22-NIV-"...anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment."
Hmm. Seems like the NIV might have Jesus sinning. Then again, so does the KJV!
Ecclesiastes 7:9-KJV-"...anger resteth in the bosom of fools."
Whew! NIV to the rescue:
Ephesians 4:26-NIV-"In your anger do not sin: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, and do not give the devil a foothold."
So, the concepts of justified and unjustified anger with a Christian brother are preserved in the NIV. (Eph 4:25 indicates that v.26 is speaking about "the Body".) Even without the epistles, it's pretty clear that Jesus is not talking about mere emotional anger; he's referring to a grievance or a debt. "...if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you..." (Matt 5:23). "Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court." (v.25). This passage only becomes a problem in the NIV if you don't understand its theology.
"There are structural elements in the original...that the modern translators don't even know exist."
And you've gone and given away the secret!
"And remember: they're ALL based on the same currupt manuscripts. The same manuscripts James White himself admits were 'Jesus Seminar' level scholarship."
If the authors of the modern texts were engaged in some 19th century Jesus Seminar-like conspiracy to change the content of scripture, they did a manifestly wretched job of it. For each place they "removed" a given word or phrase (usually because manuscript evidence indicated that an ancient scribe originally inserted the phrase trying to 'harmonize' similar passages), they left 10 others untouched. The one profound observation that comes out of the modern texts is the miraculous agreement among all the ancient manuscripts. The fact that KJVO defenders are objecting to such modest differences only indicates the unity of the textual record, and my premise that the content of all mainstream versions is the same.
You're young with this issue. I'll wait until you explore it a little more in depth. Currently your echoing everything you've read from White.
Keep in mind: White's attitude toward the 1611 A.V. is rather strange. He reported on his trip to the British Museum and actually expressed that he was annoyed and angered that they had an edition of the original 1611 A.V. in the display room where he wanted to only see one of his precious corrupt manuscript sources. He's weird on the issue and right now you've got his infection. This really is a manuscript issue, and, though you state you don't want to see 'lists' of words and changes, this is really the core of the matter. These subjects are the easiest to make disingenous arguments and engage in sophistry on (which White doesn't flinch from doing). Read Theodore Letis on these subjects. White has been unconscionable in what he's written about Dr. Letis. Letis would be an example of the ultimate non-snake-handling 'dumb KJO only type', yet White has no other defense against him other than to portray him as such. Again, your young on this issue. Get both sides. And try to find a better advocate of modern translations than White. He's too compromised and weirdly negative on this issue. It's his worst subject. (I'm sure he considers Shakespeare to be 'dumb' too...)
"You're young with this issue."
In fact, I'm quite jaded with the issue. I grew up Charismatic and spoon fed the likes of Jack Chick, Gail Riplinger, "Rebecca Brown," Mike Warnke, Peter Ruckman, and others. These days, the list of evil plots we are warned against is endless, which is why I demand proof for extraordinary claims such as, "Modern versions are devil Bibles."
The KJVO movement is heavy on scare, but light on evidence. The reason I begged off the lists of "changes" in the modern versions is that I've seen them all, and they follow one formula:
1. Find some word or group of words that is in the KJV, but which was altered in or removed from the modern versions for lack of manunscript support. (Never consider passages that are missing from the KJV and present in the modern versions.)
2. Claim that the alteration or removal of these words represents the loss or corruption of a doctrine and that the whole of the Christian faith hinges on these particular words being rendered just the way they are in the KJV.
3. Insinuate, or state outright, that these words were altered or removed for some sinister reason, because an ancient scribe or modern manuscript curator disagreed with a particular doctrine.
4. Bully, belittle, or anathematize anyone who tries to suggest an ordinary explanation for the difference.
When presented with lists of modern version "corruptions," a level-headed outsider is left wondering where the controversy comes from. The things that happen in the manuscript tradition are exactly as you would expect them to be over 2000 years of faithful manual copying by pious scribes: you get an occasional typo or skipped line and an occasional attempt to "clarify" what were inferred to be errors and omissions by earlier scribes, usually by inserting words into one passage copied from a parallel passage (which the modern versions often restore to their original form). Sometimes margin notes got moved into the body text. In the end, all the variation we see in the ancient manuscripts is accounted for this way. The Word of God is remarkably preserved.
Does believing that God has failed to preserve the scripture texts throughout history give you comfort? Is it gracious to condemn as heretics long lists of Christians who don't share your taste for Elizabethan English? Doesn't it bother you that KJVO exponents like Riplinger and Ruckman exhibit the demeanor of blustering Philistines while talking about the Bible with Christian ministers? Is this what you signed up for when you became a Christian?
When I observe that the only way to defend King James Onlyism is to insult other Christians, I find that I want no part of it.
Get a library card and discover inspired literature, Dug. You'll appreciate the inspired elements of the Authorized Version after you go through that. Certainly you won't get such giddy, dumb pleasure in 'refuting' the King James Version. What you are left with now is the Word of God translated by shallow, man-centered academics who know classical rhetoric and inspired prose like Air America talk show hosts know Mozart scores.
Well, "c.t.,"
By now it's apparent that you're filtering everything I say, and that the integrity of the modern translations is not something you're willing to consider. At some point in your life, you heard or read somebody who drew you in to his cause with a fearful sermon and angry denunciations, and told you that everyone who came after him was a very demon from Hell, sent to deceive you. I just wish someone had been there to talk to you first, before you got psychologically invested in this "mission," to give you the other side at a time when you might have been receptive to it. As it is now, your commitment to this has apparently crowded out any commitment to Christian charity or union, and for this I am sad. You don't even know me, and yet you hate me.
This is the prison you have chosen for yourself: the lonely isolation from those who do not think exactly as you do, the constant vigil against other Christians who have every critical belief in common with you, and whose counsel you might gain from. You've chosen to be at war not only with the saeculum, but also with the vast majority of the church, the body of Christ. You don't need to go down this path. You can trust God that you will not fall. The world is not full of lying signs. The providence of God is written in the heavens.
You're way over the top. I came to a valuation of the A.V. as a person with experience in classical literature and literature in general. As I stated quite clearly, a person can be saved reading a bad translation. If a translation even has only 70% (I think is the percentage I pulled from the aether) of God's Word in it it can effect regeneration when regeneration is effected by the Word and the Spirit.
There's a detail I touched on that seemed to go over your head: with any great work of literature (Homer, even a Grimm's tale, but certainly the living language and God's Revelation of the Holy Bible) it can be in the ragged seeming 'inconsistancies' and other seemingly 'off' readings that higher meaning and connections can be delivered. The A.V. maintains this. (It maintains it both by the m.o. and wisdom of the translators and also by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit which reaches foundationally to the manuscripts used by the A.V. as well, but take that or leave it, it's not a matter for a court of law but a matter of a different kind of discernment.) Modern translations almost universally don't. Sometimes the things are erased by the decisions made at manuscript-preparation level and not even by the translators ("This is obviously a scribal error, and we must correct it and erase it from the manuscript.") I gave the example of the devil misquoting Scripture and how modern translators have hilariously (and sad in a viciously moronic way) 'corrected' that; there are many other elements along the same lines.
Much of Holy Writ is delivered in higher visual language and in the structure of the books themselves and the entire whole of Scripture itself. It is in these elements that classical rhetoric and poetry have crucial and practical import regarding meaning. You talk of doctrine and meaning that is all surface and at the level that your waking mind can catch and ponder, but the Bible doesn't just communicate at that level.
There's more to this than you currently are hip to Horatio, which is why I said you are young on this issue. You didn't like hearing that and gave some bio about your horridly pedestrian upringing and influences and what books and people you've read, but just entertain the possibility that you are currently missing alot on this subject...
"..it can be in the ragged seeming 'inconsistancies' and other seemingly 'off' readings that higher meaning and connections can be delivered."
"Much of Holy Writ is delivered in higher visual language and in the structure of the books themselves and the entire whole of Scripture itself."
"...doctrine and meaning that is all surface and at the level that your waking mind can catch and ponder, but the Bible doesn't just communicate at that level."
Leaving aside the stuff about whether the modern versions are corrupt, I think here is where the difference lies between you and I. I believe, after the Westminster Confession, that "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men." (WCF 1:6) The Bible is not an occult book, it is the record of God's revelation of Himself to mankind. The true meaning of the scriptures is in the history it details, not in "Bible codes" or esoteric teachings tied to chance artifacts in the wording and structure of one particular translation. When someone tries to read meaning between the lines of scripture, he comes up with something entirely the product of his own speculation, and it does not endure.
Many teachers have come up with odd doctrines by playing extensive word games in the KJV, assigning great meaning to particular word combinations. Yet, the translators of the KJV disclaimed that they were creating a "special" version of the Bible, and even weren't especially disciplined about rendering Greek words consistently into English. People forming doctrines around the accidents (meaning insignificant chance details) of the KJV are like people finding images of saints in their tortillas. The imagination pulls out something that is not there.
The "plainness" of the scripture's teachings vis-a-vis mysticism is the subject of an article I will write shortly.
"When someone tries to read meaning between the lines of scripture, he comes up with something entirely the product of his own speculation, and it does not endure."
You totally miss what was said. Scripture communicates at different levels, and it's not dependent on what your little waking level of thinking and understanding can pick up. What the WCF says is true. What is needed for salvation is clear to the mind. Yet the Holy Scriptures is higher visual language as well (think, for one instance, types; when a person first trudges through Leviticus or sections of other books with endless description of the Tabernacle or rituals of sacrifice or what not that person usually will not know that they are picking up types that correlate to Jesus Christ and His work. The reader doesn't HAVE to. I.e. the reader doesn't have to pick this up for his salvation, and yet it's there, and it communicates to the reader at higher levels inside the reader and opens up meaning when the reader does get to the New Testament revelation of Jesus Christ and His work.)
The New Testament validates these readings in the Old Testement (regarding types). This is 'higher visual language'. The Bible has this language throughout. It is not the same as necessary doctrine that saves, yet it is there as well. This - and other similar higher visual language aspects of the Bible, is where the men are separated from the boys regarding translation. I mentioned Homer as an analogy. Modern translations of Homer read like house painting (everything surface and smoothed over) compared to George Chapman's (much more difficult to read) inspired translations from the late 1500s early 1600s. You simply 'get more' Homer when you read Chapman than when you read any of the 20th century translations. This is not a matter of translation accuracy as much as a matter of language itself and what language carries within it, as well as what a translator knows about language and how a translator is able to use language.
Again, put any essays on the subject on hold and look into the subject a little more. Certainly beyond what White has to offer.
http://www.pbministries.org/articles/miscellaneous/which_version.htm
A long article. You owe it to yourself and those you already may have (or may in the future) influence on this issue to read and accept or demonstrate you can make a credible argument against each point.
Paragraph by paragraph, respond to it. Each detail and charge in each paragraph. No matter how long it takes. If you should decide, before finishing, that you can't counter what is contained in this article, then an awakened conscience would dictate you accept the truth and act on it now and in the future.
"Scripture communicates at different levels, and it's not dependent on what your little waking level of thinking and understanding can pick up."
When it comes to Scripture, I prefer my waking understanding to my sleeping understanding. The apostles warned that false teachers would come after them, and would wrest the scriptures to their own advantage. The author of Acts commends the Christians at Berea for searching the scriptures to verify the truth of what Paul taught. (17:11) Paul instructs his followers to "examine everything carefully" (I Thes. 5:21 NASB). There is no way to test "nuances" or "literary intuitions," especially ones that cannot survive outside of the particular language of the King James Version.
"What the WCF says is true. What is needed for salvation is clear to the mind. Yet..."
The WCF says more than this. It says that scripture is clear about "...all things necessary for [God's] glory, man's salvation, faith, and life..." This is all encompassing. What more can you offer to one who already has everything? Some Christian groups make "salvation" out to be simply an initiatory experience, granting "fire insurance," with other graces or experiences necessary to make one a whole Christian (a holiness experience, speaking in tongues, a deeper commitment), but this is contrary to scripture, which says, "For whom [God] foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified." (Rom 8:29-30 NKJV) Christian conversion is not piece-wise.
"Yet the Holy Scriptures is higher visual language as well (think, for one instance, types; when a person first trudges through Leviticus..."
I encourage you to explore Leviticus in a modern translation. You'll find everything is there, just as you'd expect it to be in a faithful rendition of the scriptures.
"This is not a matter of translation accuracy as much as a matter of language itself and what language carries within it, as well as what a translator knows about language and how a translator is able to use language."
And this is where the KJV shows its limitations. The study of language has advanced a great deal since the 17th century. It was only recently that the chiastic structure of Hebrew prose and poetry was (re)discovered, which now informs the visual layout of most modern versions. Consistent rendering of words like the names of God, or even ordinary words is now a standard practice in Bible translation. It wasn't in 1611. The KJV renders the same Greek phrase ("was accounted to him for righteousness" - Gen. 15:6) four different ways in Rom. 4:3, 4:9, 4:22, and Gal. 3:6, creating verbal distinctions where none exists in the original. The KJV even predates consistent English spelling, which didn't immediately follow the development of the printing press (see this page sample and notice how the translators spell the word "he" differently in verses 3 and 4. You'll also note that this version differs quite a bit from what you'd call the KJV, because the KJV has been updated many times after 1611). Considering what an imprecise translation the KJV is compared to the modern translations, why would one expect the KJV to make clear things the modern versions obscure? Quite the opposite would be the case, I'd imagine.
--
"Paragraph by paragraph, respond to it. Each detail and charge in each paragraph."
I'm going to respond to a URL with a URL: http://www.raptureready.com/rr-kjvo.html
The bulk of the article you cite is an unattributed close paraphrase of Jack Chick's comic book "Sabotage?," the contents of which I am well aware of. It contains the familiar slanders of Brooke Foss Westcott (whose name the author consistently misspells) and Fenton John Anthony Hort, anglican clergymen, whose work you can examine here. For all the talk about how hard these men tried to corrupt the Bible, they come up with only a few shaky examples of the "corruptions," which the above article handles well. The example where the KJV is missing the name of Christ in a place where the NIV has it is an interesting turnabout:
"For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form" (Col 2:9 NIV)
"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Col 2:9 KJV)
Now, if I were Gail Riplinger, I could get an entire chapter out how the KJV tries to deny the deity of Christ, which is why I find her methods to fall short of common standards of ethics.
The pbministries.org article and the Jack Chick comic upon which it largely is based are fiction. The article identifies no author and contains no citations. Its claims are easily falsified by consulting any history text. Jack Chick has been exposed for promoting so many frauds (Alberto Rivera, John Todd, "Rebecca Brown" -- I know more than I should about these people, having been hoodwinked as a teenager) that few reputable Christian retailers carry his materials anymore. This is why I said before that I wish someone had been around to give you the straight facts before you got psychologically invested in this pulp. Everybody wants to believe they have the inside track on the "secret story" that the establishment is denying. Why else would The Da Vinci Code sell so well?
OK, Dug. You're a liberal Christian I can see.
And your retreat from the challenge of taking on that article paragraph by paragraph has been registered. (Yes, you smeared it with a bogey-man, but that allows you to avoid all the facts in it, doesn't it, Dug?) Manuscript facts are the death blow to your modern translations. You defend what is of the devil. So be it.
Read your Roman Catholic approved manuscripts. Read your defiled Word of God. Buy everything the devil tells you. And do it to feel comfort in not having to make any effort to be able to read language that is slightly more demanding than the New York Times.
Carry on.
I'm sorry you feel that way. May God grant clarity to His word and unity to His people.
Blessings,
dug
Post a Comment
<< Home