A First Post
For the sake of full disclosure, there are wacky, wacky supporters of the King James Version with crazy arguments and positions. We have crushed them here. It does kind of remind me of liberals, who lure you into some type of advocacy of a piece of their agenda and then say nothing positive after seducing you as prey into adherence. These multiple version folk (MVF) use the craziest King James Version advocates as examples and when you separate yourself from those guys in a clear way, the MVF do not care. Nevertheless, I start this with repudiation of double inspirationists, English preservationists, and all spin-offs. Their existence does not and should not damage the biblical and historic position because those views actually have more in common in principle with multiple versionists.
So many things. Let me start with one today that happened. I talked to a MVF pastor face to face. He was a fundamentalist, independent, Baptist, Bob Jones type of guy. I like to have these types of interactions -- of great interest to me. In the middle of our talk while watching a mutual event, casual chat, I asked, "So what exactly is your problem with West Coast?" Speaking of the revivalist college in Southern California. He said, "I don't like their militant stand..." When he said that, I thought, "Militant stand?" Not sounding good so far. "....in separation over the use of the King James Version of the Bible." I waited for more, but that was it. That was his problem with West Coast.
I don't even think of the King James Version when I think of West Coast. They don't make themselves known by a stand on that English translation. Sure, they use the King James. But that's what bothers MVF about West Coast? I asked, "What about West Coast's ministry philosophy?" Ambivalence. No reaction. Not even an answer. That's all he had to say about West Coast. I'm thinking, "What about their gospel?" And that's what I was intimating with ministry philosophy, church growth technique. Nothing. This is wacky to me. Talk about an obsession. I knew he wasn't alone, because I hear the same kind of talk over and over. And they do not know what they are talking about or they are lying. I'm choosing the former.
It is wacky to me how much this bothers them. What difference does it make how "militant" West Coast is about using the King James if they preach a false gospel? Leave them alone and be glad you don't have anything to do with them. If they don't have anything to do with you, the more the better. Yes! But bothered that they exclusively use the KJV and that's what really gets to you? Someone is drinking the koolaid.
OK, that's a first example. Many say they believe in verbal, plenary inspiration. They are adamant about it. They see this as very, very important. If I asked about conceptual inspiration. No way! But the Bibles they use, the conceptual Word, not verbal or plenary. They have no problem that there are many errors in them. They call them copyist errors. I'm not saying that they aren't copyist errors. But they are saying that they are errors, and yet they believe in "inerrancy" of these Bibles with errors. However, for verbal and plenary inspiration, that can't have any of these errors in it. This doesn't work in the real world in almost any area, but they are fine with this kind of strange contradiction with the Bible. MVF believe in inerrancy! So no errors? "No, by inerrancy, we mean there are errors -- let me explain...." They can explain, but it shouldn't make any sense to someone who knows what the Bible says.
Another. MVF use any number of very good English translations of the Bible. They differ, but they are all good. They come from different texts, but that's fine too. And if you believe there is only one set of Words. No, no, no, no. No. Any number of some of the very good solid translations that each come from different words, but they are all good. Is this the biblical and historical view of the Bible? If you don't agree with this, they think something is wrong with you. And they will say that you have an aberrant bibliology if you don't believe this way. No one who would call himself a Christian believed like they do until the 19th century. They can't talk about history previous to the 19th century. Could there be a biblical position that originated in the 19th century? Can you believe that and not be wacky? I don't think so.
There is no logical basis for God -- Divine, sovereign, powerful -- and the permissible and the "best view' of His word is that there are errors in it. "We aren't sure what His words are, and yet He wants us to live all of His words obediently." Where is this taught? No where in the Bible. It is wacky that they think that faithful people should believe it. Wacky. The emperor is wearing no clothes.
Given that "The Bible" is the very first clause in their doctrinal statement, and that that clause states that the King James Version "is the only acceptable translation to be used in this college by faculty or students," I'd say that WCBC is known by this whether they wish to be or not. One wonders if foreign students are allowed to use other translations, even from the right texts, since their doctrinal statement doesn't leave room for that.
ReplyDeleteBriefly looking over the rest of their doctrinal statement (I didn't study it in depth), I don't see anything else that immediately stands out as a problem, so doctrinally, it appears that the KJV issue is indeed the biggest distinguishing issue between WCBC and your "Bob Jones type of guy."
And although I know you believe everything is of first importance, to those of us "Bob Jones type of guy[s]," doctrine most definitely is considered before other issues. That's not to say those other issues are not important, but doctrine comes first. And in this case, that one point is enough. There are many of us not familiar with WCBC and what ministry philosophy and practices that you might find objectionable. However, if there is disagreement on doctrine, most of us don't really need to know much more. Obviously, those of you in California will have a better idea, and if either of my children had been considering WCBC, I would have learned a lot more about them.
Gospel. I'm much more concerned with somebody's doctrine of God and salvation than with their Bibliology. A missionary recently contacted me and asked to come to my church to present his ministry. He is a KJVO guy and has that down pat. Unfortunately, he doesnt know theology and is modalistic - not intentionally; he just can't define what the Trinity is. On a brief questionaire I gave him about his theeology, he chose the modalistic UPCI definition. I put it on there as an option to purposely weed untrained missionaries out of the mix. But he sure knows what he believes about the KJV. Unbalanced, to say the least. Sad.
ReplyDeleteDave,
ReplyDelete"We use many different versions that differ from one another because exact words are not that significant." Would that be a good statement on the Bible, taken from biblical doctrine for you?
I'm surprised people aren't saying, "No! Your position is not the historical position!" Not hearing that.
West Coast might believe that God preserved His Word, and that's the biggest problem people have with them. Wacky.
Tyler,
ReplyDeleteA demon possessed women went around talking about how good Paul was. I'm not surprised you've got people who love the King James and preach bad, believe bad, and don't even teach what the KJV says. The Mormons use the KJV. They kinda have to since the book of Mormon steals from the translation as a translation from Reformed Egyptian. It's no wonder there is a musical called "Book of Mormon."
Bro B. Most of the differences between the various texts are of the same type as those between the various non-reverse engineered TRs, are they not? Meaning spellings, near word mistakes, etc?
ReplyDeleteAnd what words can someone using the ESV not obey (because they aren't there in the ESV) that the KJV user can? You're engaging in non sequiter here
Also, an aside to Tyler: Good for you, bro!
ReplyDeleteAnd a circle back to Bro B. Yes West Coast's gospel is problematic (was Geotsch always that way?) but they are known for the KJV thing since graduates must swear to return their diploma if they ever depart from the KJVO path.
Kent, do you insist that Greek words can have one and only one translation? For instance, is this the Word of God:
ReplyDeleteCharity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
And this is not?:
Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant,
As far as I know there is no variation in the underlying Greek here. But the English words are different.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
D4,
ReplyDelete"Most of the differences between the various texts are of the same type as those between the various non-reverse engineered TRs, are they not? Meaning spellings, near word mistakes, etc?"
The editions argument isn't a biblical argument. And you get the explanation for the variants in the historical writings of those that took the same biblical view as I'm reporting here. The congruity and harmonization and homogeneity of the TR is apples and sandstone in comparison to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
We should start with "what does the Bible say?" Do you like that? Shoul I assume you do? I think everyone should have to answer that question first, like they should with their view of old or young earth. Don't start with "science," but with what the Bible teaches.
"And what words can someone using the ESV not obey (because they aren't there in the ESV) that the KJV user can? You're engaging in non sequiter here."
It removes certainty. Doubt. We don't know. Not biblical doctrine. Aberrant. And changing words does change meaning except in new editions of truth, where we don't sweat the details, and not always details. TSKT has a whole chapter answering the question specifically.
D4,
ReplyDelete"And a circle back to Bro B. Yes West Coast's gospel is problematic (was Geotsch always that way?) but they are known for the KJV thing since graduates must swear to return their diploma if they ever depart from the KJVO path."
It's hard for me to explain John Goetsch, except for wanting success, be big time. And the people are fired up, a certain view of spirituality. It probably was actually him already, not a turn.
I get how that changing the words, if you think they are preserved, is a problem. Let's not change the words, seems like a good credo. I would be waiting to hear what the other view is. But I don't think this is what most characterizes West Coast---something you'll hear them push, who they are, their woof and warp.
Don,
ReplyDeleteGetting ready to land, so can't answer at the moment.
Just wanted to say that this is a very good, practical article. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteDon,
ReplyDeleteWe were landing and they were saying turn off electronic devices and hovering, so I couldn't even read it, but I didn't want you to think I was ignoring you.
After reading the comment, however, the issue isn't the translation, but the Words God inspired and preserved. I'm not sure if you were making an argument, that is, since you could translate it different ways and have it mean the same thing, the exact words of the original language text can be different or optional too? I don't think you are making that argument, but I'm checking.
D4,
ReplyDeleteESV doesn't even come close to basing their work on the TR. Bec. they use the USB4th/N-A27th, you can say goodbye to entire passages like these, much less words: Matt. 17:21; Matt. 18:11, 23:14. Unless, I misunderstood your point, D4. I am curious, are you a multiple version advocate?
Don Johnson,
ReplyDeleteI think there are many nuances in the King James Version that trump many a modern English translations. Example, Jer. 2:9. In the KJV, Jeremiah pleads with Israel. Many modern translations have him "contend" (ESV) or "charge" (NKJV) the people of Israel. That may not seem like a big deal to some, but I think that to be a difference in the attitude of Jeremiah.
I am not a "Ruckmanite." I am not a "Riplinger" advocate. But as I study the Bible, I have a great and growing respect for the KJV as an English translation.
Multiple version is really an unfair appellation. But I guess I'll wear it if you change the "folks" to "person" so I can be called an MVP.
ReplyDeleteD4,
ReplyDeletehahahahaha on mvp. Everything seems to relate to KJVO, so if there is a group that is called only, then someone who is not only would be what?
Not only but "Anything But"???
ReplyDeleteWell, I was just checking on the "one set of words" bit. I assume you mean that only applies to the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic?
And that would mean that English translations do not have to use precisely the same English word to translate the same Greek word, correct?
Which brings me back to the question, which I'll pose in a slightly different way:
Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant,
Are both of these statements the Word of God, or is only one of them the Word of God, and if only one, which one and why?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3