The Best Cure for KJVOism: A Real 1611 KJV

As you say, the Translators’ Preface would be especially valuable to read and understand. (And the second word “understand” is the key one.) Merely reading and understanding the section on “An Answer to the Imputations of our Adversaries” would do the trick, I think.

And if they did not understand the older English, they could purchase the booklet from the ABS that contains the original preface in a facsimile, the same in Roman type and an updated “translation” of the preface.

Then again, perhaps the whole KJVO thing is a judgment on the arrogance of Americans.

Just want to point out that there are several varieties of KJVO and not all of them believe that the KJV contains no translation errors, no alternative textual selection, etc.

But for those that do, a 1611 facsimile is a great eye opener. The margins are full of “or this” and “or that” alternatives.

(The very unprofessional photos are mine. Picked up a copy yesterday for the church library.)

Bill… I’m curious: what does “the arrogance of Americans” have to do with it?

I appreciate the way the author related the issues to the “fault lines” of KJVO positions today.

I also appreciate knowing there are inexpensive copies out there. Everyone’s looking for a deal!

Could “arrogance of the Americans” refer to our assumption of the superiority of English? As in, those living in Europe or other parts of the world, cannot but rub shoulders with other languages frequently. They thus are intimately aware of the issues inherent in translation. Most people in Europe are bilingual. Contrast that with Americans who believe earnestly that their country is superior to all others, and that people coming to their country should just learn English. In that mindset, why shouldn’t English be the last best thing when it comes to languages and Bibles, for that matter? And not understanding how translation works, many assume any deviation from the English of one translation is necessarily a capitulation from God’s Word.

Is that what you’re getting after, Bill?

I used to attend a church that went to KJVO while I was there. I bought one of the older reprints (with Roman type and the included Apocrypha) as a bit of a tweak for both sides. The non-KJVO side couldn’t tell me that 1. I didn’t really have a 1611 copy and 2. that it would be impossible for people today to read it. I used it as my main church Bible for probably about 8 years or so until I switched to an iPhone as my main Bible. For the KJVO side, I had the preface to the reader, the notes about variants in the margins, and so on, so when I heard all about the best texts, I could point out that the KJV scholars weren’t 100% sure about every word either (fewer mistakes is little help when your contention is that the text behind the translation is perfect).

In short, I agree with the author that having a copy is a good defense against most unthinking KJVO-ism, but it also shows just how good and usable the 1611 still is, even though it isn’t ideal for many who aren’t educated in reading skills. I’d like to have one of these in e-format to add to my iPhone, but that probably seems backwards to most.

I did just order one of the new reprints to be able to have one with the old Gothic type.

Because the supporting texts are the issue for me, I carry my 1599 Geneva as my tweak. If it was good enough for the Pilgrims it’s good enough for me.

[Bob Hayton] Most people in Europe are bilingual. Contrast that with Americans who believe earnestly that their country is superior to all others, and that people coming to their country should just learn English.

Well, since I married a German citizen, I determined to learn German and I did. I fully expect to use it and I do when I am in Germany, which is fairly frequently. However, by the same token, I do in fact expect people coming here to learn English. That’s not just an American perspective. Germans expect that people immigrating there learn German. I’ve read plenty about that in their news and commentary. Like us, they are concerned about immigrants not integrating themselves into the culture. For an extreme example of this, try traveling to France sometime. I’ve noticed that many will only attempt English with you if you demonstrate that you know another besides English, even if it isn’t French. (When I did that, they almost invariably concluded that I was Swiss, not American, since of course, Americans are anything but bilingual.)

I do appreciate the perspective that learning another language has given me on the whole Bible translation issue, and how difficult and complex it is, and why the KJV doesn’t really matter to non-English speakers.

(By the way, even though I think immigrants to America should learn good English, I’m not one of those who thinks we should take the KJV to other countries and attempt to force them to learn English to read the Bible, just in case the argument in your post was going that way.)

So I do think your point about Americans’ arrogance and English is well taken, though I think believing people should speak English in America is not really part of that problem.

For years I’ve used the KJV’s Letter to the Translators and excerpts from my 1611 KJV facsimile copy by Nelson (apparently now out of print: http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Bible-1611-James-Version/dp/0840700415/) as core tools to teach a proper view of the origins of the Bible, and to counter the KJVO views. The original 1611 has the marginal translation variations and included Apocrypha (!), which for some reason is not referenced in KJVO circles much.

(In “another life,” I was a bookstore manager at FBBC. People would come in looking for the 1611, and I’d take them to the only copy we had - the Nelson facsimile. The puzzled looks were rewarding. ;>D)

I am for accurate, literal translations, of which the KJV is one (of the few), but it is just that — a translation (or more accurately, the 5th revision of the Tyndale NT). I like to jokingly refer to myself as “New King James Only,” as I admire the marginal references to the NU and M texts (in the spirit of the KJV translators in giving accurate information about alternative or ambiguous translating options).

Thanks for writing the article. An honest look at the true “original KJV” would silence most KJVO views and statements. The Letter to the Translators is wonderfully written, and could precede any newer (good) translation or revision. It is definitely something worth promoting (it has been published by itself, as I have a copy, but I cannot find reference to it on Amazon). Along with facsimile pages, these are GREAT tools for teaching the truth about translations.

I can’t claim to speak for Dr. Lowry, but I have had the opportunity to have slightly-greater-than-passing acquaintance with him. :) I trust I’m not misrepresenting him, but I think Bob pretty much nailed what he was getting at, at least in the context of this discussion. I imagine my dad was also making a broader generalization about how the rest of the world or at least Europe perceives Americans. We tend to see ourselves as always right and to think our way of doing things is always the best way. The KJVO issue is merely one example of that problem.

We’ve asked Germans before how they would describe Americans in one word and inevitably the word seems to be “proud.” The same might be said about all sinful humans, but we Americans seem to take the lead.

Aaron, et al, the fact that most Americans speak only English and their attitudes towards all other languages, etc. was what I was referring to. And yes, more than once we heard the word “proud” or “arrogant” used of Americans while we were in Germany.

But that point was also a generalization - always dangerous and REALLY dangerous on a blog. :)

[B-Lowry] Aaron, et al, the fact that most Americans speak only English and their attitudes towards all other languages, etc. was what I was referring to. And yes, more than once we heard the word “proud” or “arrogant” used of Americans while we were in Germany.

Yes, it’s kind of sad. I pretty much WAS one of those before I married a European… I mean, of course everything is always better here, isn’t it? Amazing how actual information shoots down a lot of your assumptions.

But that point was also a generalization - always dangerous and REALLY dangerous on a blog. :)

Well, that particular generalization is pretty easy since Americans generally make themselves easy targets in this area.

Originally, I was really only responding to the part of Bob’s post that mentioned expecting people to speak English when they come here. I think that’s a separate topic from being arrogant about thinking the whole world should just learn English, even when we are visiting *their* country.

Yes generalizations can be dangerous! And I probably over did my treatment too….

Dave (dcbii) said:

“So I do think your point about Americans’ arrogance and English is well taken, though I think believing people should speak English in America is not really part of that problem.”

I would actually agree, to a certain extent, with the last line. I was more describing America and how it might be perceived that this is not wise. However, while I think immigrants should seek to learn English, it often will take more than one generation. Sometimes our insistence on English smacks of racism, to a degree. It took the Swedes two or three generations before the Swedish speaking churches around here in Minneapolis, adopted English. I find that thought enlightening in the whole immigration debate. But that is definitely a topic for another day and another thread!

Thanks again,

Bob

There are other languages? When did that happen?

Aaron,

Rest easy. The other languages are just fictitious (Klingon, Hobbitese). No need to worry. (worry-eth?)

Since most discussions about KJV Only get polarized, and since Bill, David and I know each other well and share similar experiences, I am happy to give a little relief to the discussion by relativizing what they have said:

Ask an Irishman what he thinks of the Birtish; ask most Europeans their impression of the French; ask the Turkish, Dutch or African people what they think of the Germans; Ask the Germans what they think of the Chinese. They will all answer with “Arrogant” or “Proud.” I have had South American Christians tell me that certain other South American Christians who come to Europe trying to change everything are “arrogant.” Americans do not have a corner on pride. Pride often has to do with power, or the perception of power.

Germans have likewise told me to my face that Americans are stupid, and that the downfall of the US is imminent because Americans practice such poor nutrition. Whenever my freinds begin to wax eloquent this way, I respond, “Like McDonalds, you mean.” “Yes, that too,” they respond. “Well,” I answer, “that’s your problem. We all know that there is only one superpower in the world, the US, and that the Americans have been devouring McDonalds hamburgers for decades. Maybe people here are missing something!”

All that said, it is a bit of arrogance to propound to people of a different language that one of your English translations is better than anything they have ever produced. After all, how many American preachers had the entire Latin NT memorized, like Martin Luther, before they began translating?

Bill and David: die Ablenkung bitte verzeihen!

How’d we get to McDonalds? Oh yeah… KJVO & American arrogance.

FWIW, Jeff, tell your German friends that McD’s sells so much stuff now you can actually eat “healthy” there now if you want to. I was visiting relatives in Illinois a couple weeks ago. We were out and about a good bit and grabbing fast food. It was so hot all I wanted to eat was “fruit smoothies” - with real fruit and yogurt, no less. Had a lot of them. I’m pretty sure they did me little more good than the Big Mac, but Mrs. Obama would have been proud.

Anyway, Roland, I’ve heard the counterargument before that the KJVO translators just didn’t happen to be clued in on how perfect their work was and the fact that it represented the preserved word of God in English.

I’m not too worried about it. Their own words deflate that argument at a gut level. It is possible to see the translators’ view of things and still hold to a “perfect KJV” view of some kind, but once you know how they viewed it, the sails are much lacking in wind.

What we actually have is gracious providential use of the KJV by God in mighty ways for generations. We should rejoice in that. I don’t think we’re improving the scenario by trying to make something “more” out of it.

[RPittman] Evidently, you’re assuming that the KJV translators were conscious of their role in preservation. This point doesn’t carry much weight if we view preservation as God working through the actions of men to preserve His word, which does not require the men’s intended purpose or their awareness of their role. You implied argument may be cogent for you in your paradigm but others have reason to question and discount it. Sorry, but it simply doesn’t clinch your case.

I’ve present no “case” or any argument whatsoever. I’ve only affirmed thoughts in the article by my own practices.

I am wholly against the KJVO movement, having been exposed to it early in my adult life, and working through it over several years in my own mind. When I first had the opportunity to preach in a small southern (small “s”) Baptist church and referred to a Greek definition from the Strong’s, I was gently chided that I was undermining the authority of the KJV…

I believe that the KJVO movement does precisely what it attempts to prevent by adding to the Word of God.

The Letter to the Translators simply counters a large number of arguments posited by KJVO proponents and arguments that I have been exposed to, all of which are profoundly ignorant if compared to the Letter. From memory only, the Letter to the Translators preemptively argues against many objections, a few of which are: (1) the need for a “new” translation when other good translations exist; (2) the desire to translate into understandable language so that even the vulgar man behind the plow can understand it; (3) the value of previously translated works (answering the question, “Is what we have had not the Word of God then?”), etc. The Letter to the Translators is profoundly opposed to the KJVO movement on many fronts.

The original with the Apocrypha and the marginal variants is a huge counter to many arguments of KJVO-ism today. The fact that proponents do not use the 1611 (which is largely unreadable by the average person today without much difficulty) is another brazen example of the shallowness of many KJVO people.

I am an ardent proponent of accurate, literal translations, of which there are few. To the best of pastors’ ability, I believe they are required to study from the original languages before coming to conclusions. Translations are only best efforts of the translators, but they cannot replace original language study, which is essential to proper interpretation.

I am not sure what you are talking about in the KJV translators’ role in preservation. No idea.

[RPittman] My point was simply that the argument from the translators’ preface does not necessarily refute a KJVO position. What most KJV opponents fail to realize is that the KJVO is not a monolithic movement. KJVO describes people of differing views of what KJVO means and for differing reasons. Thus, for arguments against a KJVO position to be effective, one must accurately state the KJVO position and then refute it. For many in the KJVO camp, the issue is more about preservation and a received text rather than what you perceive as the standard KJVO position. Quite frankly, none of your arguments move me. It’s more of the same old pabulum. I think too many KJVO opponents are listening to one another for their take on what KJVO is.

I’ve made no attempt to argue. I have simply stated, briefly, a few of my own views which relate directly to the posting. The nature of this posting does not appear to attempt to be the end all for the KJVO controversy.

I do believe that the Letter to the Translators does counter and refute many of the KJVO arguments (that I have heard first hand), as does an examination the original 1611 itself. It may not address views of the KJVO believers in their entirety. It most certainly does address a large number.

I also consider the arguments of the Received Text (or the Majority Text) at a different level than the preservation arguments of the KJV, and have not commented on this at all, as it is outside the scope of the brief posting about a particular piece of evidence regarding the KJVO discussion.

I understand that men can work under the direction without being aware of it. I also understand that men can overstate what the Word does say, and create new “fundamentals” which did not historically exist.

I am further aware that categorizing comments as “the same old pabulum” does not consist of evidence or argument itself, and really is a comment that serves no beneficial purpose in this short discussion.

I have not listened to any KJVO opponents, nor have I read their books. I have come up through the ranks of them as a young adult and drawn my own conclusions from my own study and observations, in part of which was my own discovery of the Letter to the Translators.

I do believe that the KJVO arguments at all levels have been used to create needless division in the body of Christ, and they have separated well-intended people (and thus weakened the cause of Christ), and they have distracted the Church from making of disciples to the arguing over something that simply is not clearly stated Scripture.

Feel free not to be moved. I make no effort to do so.

[RPittman] Furthermore, my observation was limited to the fact that the translators’ preface does not necessarily refute KJVO arguments if the arguments are about divine preservation and the continuity of a received text. Did the translators have to be consciously aware of divine preserving influence if preservation is true? For sake of argument, were the inspired writers of Scriptural necessarily aware of divine inspiration at the moment of their writing? How do you know? Did they all say, “We are writing divinely inspired Scripture,” or did we reason that? Either way, you must admit that the translators preface carries no more weight than any other men’s opinions, modern or ancient. It does not carry the force of Scripture. Furthermore, the translators said exactly what we would expect them to say given their time and place in history.

This would equally apply to the words and views of those holding the KJVO only positions. The Word never says that the KJV is/will be the word of God for the English speaking people, either implied or explicitly stated. That, in my opinion, results in adding to the Word of God that they attempt to defend.

How about in the same sense that God described His creation as ‘good’? Was it perfect? It was exactly what He wanted it to be, wasn’t it? Just a thought.

So Roland, do you live here in Europe?

I think I would have to agree with the president’s wife on getting American youth in shape. Still, all those changes at McDonalds! To think that they aren’t running full-throttle carb-salt-fat menu really makes you sad. If they are losing their identity, maybe America really is going downhill.

[RPittman] LOL :-)

Argument: I’ve written nothing to document, persuade, or move. If showing affirmation to the article is presenting an argument in your view, enjoy.

Vacuum: The arguments against the KJVO movement are not created in a vacuum, but by those that study the Word (both what it says and what it does NOT say). I would suggest that it is possible to anyone to come to similar conclusions presented in this article by anyone exposed to some of the KJVO arguments by reading the Letter to the Translators and/or viewing the original 1611 without input. I did (having attended a KJVO church for 2 years). Truth is not a vacuum.

Blasting: If calling something “old shoe” is a form of argument, you’ve won - I’m not sure how to respond. I have not blasted or ridiculed anyone. I have shared my experiences and observations and conclusions. Don’t take it personal. Personally, I do consider the KJVO a divisive heresy, which is extreme by its very nature, that has caused more harm than those who seek to correct it (by my own experiences).

Pabulum: You have my biography detailing my life’s experiences AND my vocabulary list? LOL ;)

The field is all yours, my friend. I’m afraid there is more heat than light here. I do agree with the premise of the posting, and have agreed with its ideas long ago, and have regularly taught such as part of my 25 years of pastoring to help believers avoid the ditches of KJVOism. (No LOL here…)

[RPittman] I don’t think this attitude and position is representative of most KJVOs. Most will say something like this: “The KJV is God’s Word for the English-speaking people.”

We hear what’s said, but we’re not so naive as to not know the implications.

:)

Let’s see, the Roland Pittman KJVO check list…

Calling your opponents’ arguments pabulum, fiddle faddle, hogwash, humdrum, balderdash, hokum, poppycock, twaddle, horsefeathers, etc…CHECK!

Objecting to an opponent’s argument but not staying what, specifically, you believe about the matter…CHECK!

Next up…stating that your opponents’ arguments are all based on rationalism!

[RPittman] Let’s see, the Roland Pittman KJVO check list…

Calling your opponents’ arguments pabulum, fiddle faddle, hogwash, humdrum, balderdash, hokum, poppycock, twaddle, horsefeathers, etc…CHECK!

Objecting to an opponent’s argument but not staying what, specifically, you believe about the matter…CHECK!

Next up…stating that your opponents’ arguments are all based on rationalism!

While I do get some sharpening from Roland’s arguments on occasion, I had to laugh at this. You nailed it!

[RPittman] Furthermore, my observation was limited to the fact that the translators’ preface does not necessarily refute KJVO arguments if the arguments are about divine preservation and the continuity of a received text.

Yes, a “KJVO argument” that doesn’t claim a word perfect translation or a word perfect text would not find any difficulties with the translators’ stated views. I think I pretty much said that in my first post in the thread.

But most variants of KJVO claim one or the other or both. It’s pretty rare to find a preservation or text argument that does not strongly imply that the TR used for KJV is a word-perfect preserved edition of the Greek NT… and that the KJV is the word-perfect preserved English version.

But I have met some who use the KJV exclusively and believe using other versions is “wrong,” even though they acknowledge that the KJV has a translation error here and there and that the TR is incorrect here and there. For them, the TR is the right text “type” and the KJV is an especially blessed rendering of it into English. “KJVO” is probably not the best term for this attitude given how it differs from views that have come to characterize—apparently—the majority of KJVO folks.

[RPittman]

[Jeff Brown] So Roland, do you live here in Europe?

No.

Roland

Please excuse my delayed response. I only asked because I did not want to negate your evaluation on the basis of your own experience if you lived here. I have experienced several preachers teaching exactly what I have mentioned here in Europe (i.e. the KJV is superior to any translation in your other language). I have also experienced Germans believing it.

[RP] What is a translation error? Aaron, would you please define it for me? Is it not the exact word, although it may be synonymous?…

They take many forms. We don’t have to define it to know that it exists. Human beings make mistakes.

[RP] Also, what is “a word perfect text?” Are you saying there is a one-to-one word correspondence to the Greek NT?

That would be a good question for those who claim they have such a text. I can’t speak for them.

But to clarify, “text” refers to the Greek itself, not any translation of it. “Text” is what you begin with; “translation” is what you end with. But I don’t think any of those who hold to “word perfect translation” define that in terms of the number of words used in the receptor language. But you’d have to ask them I guess.

Most KJVO advocates today claim two things:

• word perfect Hebrew and Greek texts
• a word perfect translation of those texts
  

[RP]… Could it be that the English language has been so strongly pressed into the mold of Biblical language from the KJV that the context of the words give the words semantic content that comprise “a word perfect text?”

I don’t know what this has to do with anything. In any case, it’s circular. The English language could not possibly have been in this KJV-influenced condition when the KJV was created. (I’m assuming here that by “text” you mean “translation”)

[RP] My final point is that one doesn’t necessarily need to claim “a word perfect text,” in the way it is commonly understood, to be KJVO and believe the KJV to be the inspired Word of God preserved for modern speakers of English.

Yes. I’ve already stated that a couple of times. But why anybody who believes the KJV is imperfect would want to claim to be “KJVO” is a bit of a head-scratcher for me. A case for exclusive use of KJV that makes no claim to KJV perfection is a very different view from what is now the majority KJVO perspective.

One more thing…

It isn’t really possible to claim that KJV is “the” inspired word (as in “the one” inspired word in English) and simultaneously deny that it is “a word perfect translation.”

Well, I should say, it’s possible to claim that, but it’s not possible to make any sense claiming it.

If it is not word perfect, then some other English translation might be made that is a bit better—or one might already exist that is a bit better. So a denial of “word perfect” status effectively claims the possibility of improvement and legitimizes the effort to make something better.

Can’t really reject ‘word perfect’ and also reject alternative translation work.

I understand but I think you are experiencing some of the KJVO fringe elements. I hope this is not representative of the majority. Are you near an American military facility? If so, Ruckman has a following among the military. Also, I’ve heard of missionaries who only made translations into native languages from the KJV.

The instances of which I am thinking occurred in ministries of American missionaries in Germany and France. In no case that I know of, did they have anything to do with American military facilities. The writings of Ruckman had an influence on the missionary in one of those instances.

But my point is validated. Coming to a country with the view that your particular translation is better than anything in their language is arrogance. If I have experienced several of those, it has doubtless happened many times.

Enough said, I think.

Roland, I think it’s obvious what these terms mean… and also obvious that defining them precisely is not necessary. Any reasonable range of definitions works just fine, and you can take your pick.

Nevertheless, some very basic definitions…

“Translation errors” are mistakes made by translators in the process of translating.

“Word perfect” means every word is there either as God inspired it (in the case of the texts) or as God providentially produced it (in the case of translations).

Of course, some KJVOs believe the translators were inspired. But many, maybe most now, do not.

I don’t know how to make my other main point any clearer than I already have. It has nothing to do with any particular idea of the meanings of words. If a translation is perfect, then there is no reason to seek an alternative. If it is imperfect, then there is reason to seek an alternative.

Therefore, if one believes a translation is not perfect, one may not categorically reject subsequent translation work.

Unless… a possible counter-argument (which you haven’t made, so I guess I’ll argue both sides of this!) might be to take the position that the KJV is not perfect but is as perfect as it is possible for any translation to be. This view would allow someone to deny that the translation is perfect and simultaneously claim that no other translation ought to be attempted.

But there’s a downside to that: as hard as it is to make a case that the KJV is perfect, it’s even harder to make one that it’s imperfect but cannot be improved upon.

[RP] Let me approach it from a different angle. Would you please thoughtfully answer this question: Do you believe that the Word of God is bound eternally in static semantic content of human language represented by the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek of the original autographs written over hundreds of years in the style and vocabulary of the human amanuensis? If so, how can you say any translation is the inspired Word of God?

It can be said far more plainly.

God inspired the Scriptures in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Men of old spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. He did not inspire any translations.

[RPittman] So, it follows, I think, that we must have a standard for determining a “translation error” exists. What is the benchmark? How do we differentiate between error and non-error? …. You need a standard for comparison to say it is imperfect. One can’t measure without an instrument and scale for comparison.

….

Have I categorically rejected subsequent translation work? NO! I do reject translation based on faulty modern textual critical theory.

A lot of talk about standards, benchmarks, instruments, and such, but how was “modern textual critical theory” determined as “faulty”?

And if it can’t be proven to be faulty, what do we do? Find another standard by which to whack the modern versions?

Roland, I appreciate your tenacity, but there’s just no argument in your reply that I can identify. I provided definitions and you’re acting like I didn’t. I explained that any simple definition would do, but you reply as though I were claiming no definition exists.

You’re producing alot of words but not engaging.

I’ve made a few very simple, clear assertions. As far as I can tell, they still stand. I think I’ll not bother to repeat them.

Nobody who holds to an orthodox view of inspiration believes that God has inspired any translations.

Edit.. OK, I will repeat some of them. I seem to have some kind of genetic compulsion.

Here’s the whole argument I’ve made in lots of other threads… and parts of it in this thread already.

Premise1: the KJV translators made mistakes

Argument:

• Humans make mistakes
• The KJV translators were humans.
• Ergo, the KJV translators made mistakes
  

Objection: God could keep them from making mistakes.

Defense: He can, but we would need authority for claiming that He did. The authority would be the Scriptures. Do the Scriptures teach that God will keep translators from making mistakes? They do not.

The premise stands.

Objection: Define “mistakes”

Defense: Any ordinary definition will do. Webster is fine.

The premise stands.

Objection: If there’s no definition the argument fails (or something like that)

Defense: The objection is spurious because saying “any def. will do” is not saying “there is no def.”

The premise stands.

Premise2: in principle, new translation work in English is a worthy pursuit

Argument:

• The KJV is not perfect (see Premise1)
• We should strive for a translation that is as excellent as possible
• Ergo, efforts to make better translations are worth attempting.
  

Objection: define “perfect”

Defense: any standard dictionary definition will do

The premise stands.

Restatement/application of Premise2: it doesn’t make sense to admit the KJV is imperfect and also insist that it cannot be improved on and that no other translations should be made or used.

I’m sorry, but I guess I’m slightly daft. But based on the response below, I can’t find the standard, benchmark, instrument, or whatever by which to judge “modern critical theory” as “faulty.”

Was it the Scriptures? Was it a presuppositional something (which Mister Brandenburg proposes and his disciple Ferguson promotes)? Or was it something even more convoluted than that?

But why not take a step back?

Why worry over “modern critical theory” if God has been fulfilling His promise of preservation even if heaven and earth pass away? He preserved it through the hands of card-carrying Alexandrians who doubtless doctored the nonexistent LXX and the Qumran community. He preserved the text through the non-Masoretic-leaning hands of the first-century scribes and the Apostles. He did so through Jerome’s redactive hand. And right on through Popes Clement and Sixtus something, Erasmus and Beza, Luther, the Tridentine Councillors, the Anglo-Catholic Lancelot Andrewes, the Baptist-biting Bishop Bancroft, Tischendorf, the evil twin brothers Westcott and Hort, the High Anglican Dean Burgon, the SDA Don Ben Wilkinson, right on through our time, the DAs Waite and Carson, and so on and so forth.

In each of those ages, Bible believers have always affirmed the preserved Word/s as the very Word/s of God, sometimes at the cost of their lives at the hands of the pious establishment, who always found some clever argument against the most readily accessible Word/s. But time seems to have proven those establishments wrong and vindicated God’s Word to the ploughboys over and again.

[RPittman]

[J Ng]

[RPittman] So, it follows, I think, that we must have a standard for determining a “translation error” exists. What is the benchmark? How do we differentiate between error and non-error? …. You need a standard for comparison to say it is imperfect. One can’t measure without an instrument and scale for comparison.

….

Have I categorically rejected subsequent translation work? NO! I do reject translation based on faulty modern textual critical theory.

A lot of talk about standards, benchmarks, instruments, and such, but how was “modern textual critical theory” determined as “faulty”?

And if it can’t be proven to be faulty, what do we do? Find another standard by which to whack the modern versions?

Good question! You are perceptive to understand what I’m doing and have called me to account. I hope that you will as effectively understand my answer.

I assume that you understand the concept of paradigms. For an idea to be credible, it must be coherent, consistent, and cogent within its own paradigm. However, the same concept may not be so in another paradigm. Allow me to specify that I do not consider myself to think and operate in the paradigm of Modernity. As D. A. Carson has recognized, epistemology may be thought of as Pre-Modern, Modern (Modernity), and Post-Modern. Modernity is based on rationalism. Given the data, man can put the pieces together. Most modern Christians are modernist in this sense although they must inject an idea of presuppositionalism to make it work for their Christian faith.

One poster on SI boasted, “Give me the presuppositions that the Bible is the Word of God and it is true and I can prove everything else.” Well, that is just not true because there has to be hundreds, perhaps thousands, of other presuppositions along the way. Furthermore, the same poster said that “he knew the Bible was true because the Holy Spirit provided confirmation in bringing him to faith in Christ.” Now, this is a good answer but it simply doesn’t square with his rationalism in establishing other things. I deny that Modernist methodology and rationalism give us truth. Modernity believed that if methodology properly applied would result in knowledge with certainty. This methodology was defined in the scientific method, which has given us great advances in science and technology. Even so, we have not and never will arrive at an absolute understanding of even the physical universe, much less things beyond our observations. Thus, I reject the Modernist paradigm. I hold to a paradigm of faith and reason.

Additionally, I switch between paradigms in my arguments. Because most posters do not share my paradigm, I use the Modernism paradigm in many of my arguments. Rationalism can be used to defeat rationalistic ideas. This is legitimate because ideas may be judged false if they fail to be cohesive and consistent in their own paradigm. In supporting my own ideas, however, I must change the paradigm, which most fail to understand.

Regarding translation errors, my point, obviously, is that one must have a standard or benchmark to judge something called error. A translation or text is a physical entity that is comparable to a standard or benchmark (i.e. another text that is the correct one). In other words, it is measurable. we must have a standard to declare that a thing does not meet the standard. This is consistent in a rationalistic paradigm, I think. This is not a problem for me because I accept by faith on reasonable evidence before me the concept of divine preservation in a received text. Because I am not a Modernist, I don’t need to explain every question or detail for certainty. On the other hand, the Modernist has a problem because the evidence falls short of the demands of his rationalistic methodology. I think my argument holds here. You didn’t seem to contest this idea though.

A theory, on the other hand, is not measurable as a physical entity. It is simply ideation. However, we do have a means of testing theories of physical phenomenon by the scientific method. Theories are accepted when they prove workable. However, the problem with a theory of textual criticism, we must have some way to measure its workability. Theory that cannot be shown to be workable is discarded as faulty. How can you prove the modern theories of textual criticism are workable—i.e. we are closer to the originals? The modern theories textual criticism fall short of their own paradigm’s requirements.

There are lots of gaps and more to be said but I’m tired and have something else to do.

[RP] I have not even said that He protected them from making errors. I really don’t know how He did it but I do know there are lots more possibilities than you are seeing. For the sake of argument, let’s just assume that the translators made some errors although we don’t know what errors are and what specific errors they made. Could God have conformed the English language around the KJV to make it His inspired Word?

On other possibilities… with respect to error in translation, there are only two. It either has errors or it doesn’t.

God did not inspire any translations. Translations partake of the quality of inspiration to the degree they are faithful to the original languages. KJV is not special in that regard. It is “inspired” in the same sense that the NASB, ESV or NKJV are.

As I’ve said before, I prefer not to use the word “inspired” in reference to any translation unless I have time to explain what I mean. It’s usually not worth the trouble to say it at all.

Since we believe in verbal inspiration, and words in any non-original language are different words, these translated words are not the words God inspired. They can only approximate them.

About preservation, I’ve explained my view on that at some length in the past. It hasn’t changed. God did not promise that we would have His word preserved in any translation or even that we would have every word of it in an original language text that we know for certain has every word.

As for authority for the claim that KJV is perfect. One could argue that Scriptural authority is not necessary to back that claim. But neither I nor anyone else is required to accept whatever authority is being used instead. It cannot rise to the level of biblical doctrine if it is not taught in the Bible.

[RPittman]

[J Ng] I’m sorry, but I guess I’m slightly daft. But based on the response below, I can’t find the standard, benchmark, instrument, or whatever by which to judge “modern critical theory” as “faulty.”

Perhaps I was so wordy that it got lost. It’s really quite simple: modern critical text theory doesn’t live up to its own paradigm. No one can show that it is workable.

So, by this attempt to find internal contradictions, can we assume that you have no external standard by which to judge modern critical theory?

Cuz, frankly, the various and constantly morphing King James Only theories don’t quite come across as internally coherent either to outsiders.

To be candid, I don’t think there exists an inspired, infallible theory of textual criticism outside of biblical assurances that God does preserve His Word. Some Christians adopt a more scientific approach in trying to determine the “original text.” Others take a more mystical/fideistic approach. Time will tell, but the Spirit, I believe, will still lead Jesus’ followers into all truth.

[RPittman] Yes, this is true and to be expected because outsiders are trying to enforce a different paradigm on KJVO. KJVO is not coherent and consistent within a rationalistic paradigm. It is based on reasoning from a faith-based position of preservation.

Well, in that case, those of us who believe the Scripture to make good reasonable sense to the Spirit-enabled mind and reject the self-validating fideism of other “faith-based” platforms (Ozmanian Pentecostalism comes to mind) will simply have to treat KJBOism in that same category.

While a non-KJBO bibliology is (I believe) more logically coherent and consistent (though not perfectly so, though it attempts to be), what’s far more important is whether it is consistent with the teaching and example of the external standard called the Scriptures. The Bible nowhere tells us to reject the evidence that God leaves through His creation and His Word, to suspend the use of our mental faculties for some esoteric “faith-based” (yet revelation-rejecting!) theory, and insist on a theory of Onlyism that departs from the biblical record and concurs most closely, ironically enough, with the Romish (Tridentine) dogma on the Scriptures.

If I may so boldly suggest, let’s have a closer look at Luke, Paul, our Lord Himself also, and see how they approach and esteem the Scriptures, and compare all that with the bibliology of KJBOism and Trent. Then apply those findings to the extant MS evidence all around us. I think the level of concurrence between Scripture and realia will be surprisingly substantial, and one need not concoct a “faith-based” (which I think is anything but) position of a single-version onlyism to be faithful.

[RPittman]

[J Ng] To be candid, I don’t think there exists an inspired, infallible theory of textual criticism outside of biblical assurances that God does preserve His Word. Some Christians adopt a more scientific approach in trying to determine the “original text.” Others take a more mystical/fideistic approach. Time will tell, but the Spirit, I believe, will still lead Jesus’ followers into all truth.

One of my major criticism of modern textual criticism is the role of the Holy Spirit? Where is the Holy Spirit in modern rationalistic scholarship?

If I may reframe the question, where is the Holy Spirit in any kind of scholarship at all?

If one must take a blind (sans Scripture/reason) leap of faith on bibliology, why stop there?

Yet I believe there is sufficient (though perhaps not to our depraved minds satisfaction at times) evidence/guidance in the Word (2 Tim. 3:15 - 17) for bibliology as for any other part of Christian faith and practice. The question is whether we’re willing to accept that evidence rather than our own concocted “faith-based” paradigm.

Thank you, Aaron, for clearly stating your position. I’m not sure why it is so difficult to understand. It is the orthodox view of Scriptural inspiration and translation that has been held down through the centuries.

[RPittman]

If I may so boldly suggest, let’s have a closer look at Luke, Paul, our Lord Himself also, and see how they approach and esteem the Scriptures, and compare all that with the bibliology of KJBOism and Trent. Then apply those findings to the extant MS evidence all around us. I think the level of concurrence between Scripture and realia will be surprisingly substantial, and one need not concoct a “faith-based” (which I think is anything but) position of a single-version onlyism to be faithful.

Whoa! You’ve just pulled a slick one and sucked the whole argument back into a rationalistic Modernist paradigm. This is a slight of hand trick. Maybe I misunderstood you or maybe you tricked me. You’re not using Scripture as an external standard but you are interpreting it by rationalism within your own paradigm. You try to make your argument credible and close your case by avowing your view is Scriptural, yet you’ve given no Scriptural evidence or proof, only your generalizations. Your whole argument is built on your own inferences, reasoning, and conclusions rather than statements from God’s Word. This makes my views only contrary to your opinions, not against the Word of God.

Furthermore, much of what you say is an inaccurate portrayal of what we believe. You try to win your argument by extremes. Nowhere have I advocated rejecting observable evidence or suspending the “use of our mental faculties.” But I do believe that revelation trumps reason. Of course, you may say that we have to suspend the use of our mental facilities to believe in miracles because they go against what we observe and reason. And there’s the little insertion of “yet revelation-rejecting!” What part of revelation does the KJVO reject? Please specify? It only goes against your human reasoning of “if God doesn’t say it in Scripture, then it’s isn’t so.” Now, where does Scripture teach this? It doesn’t. It’s only your opinion, which is not on the same level as Scripture. This accusation of rejecting revelation can be turned and hurled at you just as easily because you are trying to make the Scriptures say what they don’t say.

Furthermore, you are inconsistent in denigrating the KJVO faith-based beliefs because the Scriptures do not specify them, yet you accept the process of canonization, which embodies the same idea of preservation, that is not specified in the Scriptures either. Do you accept the Apocrypha as inspired Scripture? How do you know? Where does the Bible say? A similar process for rejecting the Apocrypha is used in acceptance of the KJV and rejecting MVs, yet you deny it is valid in the KJVO argument. Where is your internal consistency, man? Furthermore, I challenge you to find one quote in any of my posts where I say the Scriptures teach the KJVO position. The Scriptures provide a reasonable basis for faith in preservation, which may eventually come down to a KJVO position.

Easy there. I think you may have missed out the Scriptural teaching part I mentioned (but didn’t proceed to list). So before we bail and grasp Mister Brandenburg’s straw of trying to tie textual transmission to the recognition of the canon, a desperate last-minute trick of KJBOism, let’s look at the http://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/NTChart.htm Bible’s own teachings/examples :

1. In Luke 4:17 - 21, Jesus accepts as Scripture the text of a Bible in Isaiah 61 that is neither the Masoretic nor LXX texts. The dynamic equivalent meaning is there, but the forms are quite different (drastically, as in whole phrases).
2. In Galatians 3:6 (and Romans 4), Paul leans away from the Masoretic towards the LXX in quoting Gen. 15:6.
3. In 1 Peter 4:18, Peter stands with the LXX over the Masoretic when quoting Prov. 11:31
   So here we have a divine standard that’s external to ourselves. It may not be good enough for the KJBOs, frankly. Perhaps the OT should’ve been inscribed on golden plates and installed in the Smithsonian. But it’s good enough for the rest of us who believe the Bible is sufficiently well preserved and translated. Nowhere do we see Christ or Peter or Paul snubbing a verse and saying it’s a mere paraphrase or an Alexandrian corruption or some product of modern critical analysis. They rather affirmed those quotes, be they from the LXX, Masoretic, or someplace else, as no less than Scripture, i.e. God’s very word/s.
   
   That’s the reason we need to take a step back and not be too hasty to concoct a manmade theory, hence perhaps inadvertently ignoring or rejecting the divine revelation. Yes, we need to interact with the MSS and their translations and also use our heads in working out a usable text, but then we also need to affirm with the NT writers and our Lord Himself that what we’re dealing with are God’s Word and not poor wannabes of some arbitrary textual standard (magically conferred the patina of “accepted” or “received”) that isn’t even represented in any single MS.
   
   Sadly, what often happens is that KJBOs come into churches and, using their favourite version as standard, point to readable versions of God’s Word in people’s hands and hiss, “Yea hath God said?” creating doubt, confusion, and even church splits. That’s something we do not see in Christ’s or His apostles’ ministries.

Roland: on definitions. Seriously, grab a dictionary and pick one. The argument I’m using does not require any special definitions.

“Mistakes” - gaffs, oversights, missteps, errors, miscalculations, misjudgments, goof ups, boo boos.

“Perfect” - not having any mistakes.

“Word perfect text” - I’m pretty sure I already defined that one: an edition of original language OT or NT (or both) in which every single word is exactly the word God inspired.

“Word perfect translation” - defined that already, too. It’s tougher to define, because there really can be no such thing. But speaking for those who believe the KJV is such a translation (weird that I have to provide definitions on behalf of a view that is not my own… but anyway…) what they usually mean, apparently, is that every single word of the KJV is an exactly correct representation of the meaning of the underlying Heb/Grk text. “Exactly correct” means that translating it any other way would be to make it incorrect. Hence, the translation cannot be improved. It’s perfect.

Again, I’m aware not all KJVOs take this position, but, again, it’s odd to me that someone would want to claim to be “KJVO” if they do not take this position. If you believe the KJV is not perfect you have to at least be somewhat open to the idea that someone may eventually improve upon it (whether anyone has yet is another issue).

[RPittman] One of my major criticism of modern textual criticism is the role of the Holy Spirit? Where is the Holy Spirit in modern rationalistic scholarship?

This is an interesting angle. The question wasn’t aimed at me but I’ll take a stab at it.

First, I’d ask Where is it written that we should expect the aid of the Spirit in doing this kind of work? Second (obviates the first) I would ask, where is it written that the Spirit cannot work through the intellect and can only guide in “nonrational” ways? It seems to me to be an odd limitation to place on the God who created the intellect to insist that He cannot operate through it but must only guide in mysterious and intuitive or “felt” ways.

It’s not like infidels invented reasoning. The “rational” is God’s creation and must be brought under His dominion. (2Cor.10:5. “Imaginations” is logismos and means something like “arguments” or “reasonings.”) But we do not bring it under His dominion by taking what He created and declared good and calling it evil. Rather we do so by yielding it to what He reveals and employing in His service.

[RPittman] All that you’ve given is more rationalistic arguments without any Scriptural statement. I know you’ve given examples and inferences you claim are Scriptural but these are inferences nonetheless and do not carry the weight of Scripture. You argument is just as much “manmade theory” as any KJVO arguments are. You are not holding more closely to Scripture than your opposition.

The problem here is not inferring from Scripture. That’s something we ought to do, and the Spirit helps us do that—some call it illumination (but maybe you don’t believe in that either). The problem, really, is inferring from one’s own construct, however pious that might be, which is what KJBOs have done, without—and in opposition to—the numerous examples in Scripture.

When we follow the examples of our Lord and the Apostles, we do not follow a “manmade theory” as you allege. We did not come up with any theory. We simply ask WWJD. So, when Jesus and Paul and Peter and John look at a non-KJB Bible, they affirm it as God’s Word, the Scripture. When we look at non-KJB Bibles, we affirm the same thing. But when KJBOs look at a non-KJB Bible, what do you say/hiss?

(as for Brandenburg, he’s googlable, all over)

[RPittman] I am tired of the whole KJVO debate. …. There are other questions but there is no use wasting time if no one wants to intelligently discuss them. I’m outa here!

This is quite sad, but I guess I’ll have to let it go. As my dad, a dear servant of the Lord, always stressed from the example of the Temptation of Christ, always stick with the Scripture—“It is written … it is written … it is written,” thrice.

We could speculate all we want on whether or not there’s some philosophical connection between canonization and preservation, or whether the KJB or Latin Vulgate or NIV should be accepted presuppositionally, or any of a whole pile of debatable things. As is increasingly evident, a thinker over such things I am not.

However, where the Scripture and its implications are painfully plain, and keep getting shafted as “own turf and personal beliefs,” “trivia,” “a harangue of the same old arguments,” I’m sticking with Scripture and its implications. What I did get from this exchange was how much more scholastic KJBO wishes to be (as compared to their “mindworshipping” counterparts) and how little Bible, inferred or otherwise, it has for a basis or wishes to interact with.

[J Ng] So before we bail and grasp Mister Brandenburg’s straw of trying to tie textual transmission to the recognition of the canon, a desperate last-minute trick of KJBOism,

[RP] Did Brandenburg make this argument? I wasn’t aware that he did. Could you please document the place because I would be interested in reading what he had to say about it.

Thou Shalt Keep Them, p.197

[RP] This is totally irrelevant now. This has gotten so sidetracked that the main point was lost long ago. I was headed toward pressing you to rationally prove there are mistakes in the KJV translation if you have no standard to compare. How can you know there are mistakes? Also, there are different understandings of word perfect.

Of course, now that I’ve done it it’s irrelevant.

How can we know there are mistakes. Already made that argument:

1. People make mistkes

2. The KJV translators were people

3. The KJV translators made mistakes

He makes that argument on his blog with some regularity as well.

[Aaron] How can we know there are mistakes. Already made that argument:

1. People make mistkes [Just noticed an irony there… I misspelled ‘mistakes’]

2. The KJV translators were people

3. The KJV translators made mistakes

Just thought of a flaw in this, so I’ll argue with myself a little. It can be fun. (When you argue with yourself, you’re guaranteed to win.)

Premise 1 has a flaw. Even though people make mistakes (and premise 2 is rock solid, I think!), they do not make them continuously, and they occasionally do something without mistakes, per se… and even more often, do something without mistakes of a particular kind.

I once wrote a (very short) post with no typos in it.

Defense: the more complex the activity, the more likely mistakes become. In the case of translating the entire Bible from Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic—pretty complex. The likelihood of zero mistakes is really, really small.

(Which brings us back to the article: the translators themselves were confident enough that they had not made every judgment call flawlessly that they included gobs of “or this” notes in the margins.)