Kay Jay Vee Potpourri

Mike Harding writes:

Most of the arguments in the KJVO debate have been adequately answered in the numerous books written by both Fundamentalists and Conservative Evangelicals.  Dr. Bill Combs has written extensive articles in the DBTS journal debunking the false theories of KJV Onlyism.

In the past, I wrote a post debunking the false assertion that Combs has refuted the presuppositions for perfect preservation of scripture, so I'm not going to repeat that -- it's still there to read.  Combs's articles weren't written for people like myself -- it's obvious they were written for his own people with their minds already made up.

Bill Hardecker in a comment section of my last two posts (here & here), wrote:

Conservative evangelicals and historic fundamentalists have no problem standing on the Scriptures alone for their apologetic on the inspiration of the Holy Bible. They got the doctrine of inspiration down pat. Inspiration is recognized, received, yea even canonized. But where may we find their doctrine of preservation? It is virtually non-existent. Many (dare I say all) modern evangelical/fundamental Systematic Theology textbooks contain next to nothing. Differing from systematic theology but nonetheless systematic in their theology, The historic confessions recognizes the preservation of Scriptures. 

I've written many pieces here, making the same point.  They ignore the historic doctrine and the biblical presupposition.  They disregard the absence of a doctrinal statement, which would undergird their position.  The critical or eclectic text position did not proceed from teaching of scripture.  All I've read in dealing with preservation of scripture, as I've pronounced multiple times here, is a criticism of the biblical and historical position.  That's all you're going to get.  You can't find a biblical eclectic or critical text presupposition, because it doesn't exist.

What does it mean that modern textual criticism and its accompanying modern versions deviates from biblical and historical doctrine?  Something that divides from orthodoxy, what is that?  I think folks like myself have been very respectful, too much so probably, to the purveyors and those acceding to this novel and different view from the stream of orthodox doctrine.  Like God in Isaiah 41:21, I say, "Produce your cause, saith the Lord; bring forth your strong reasons," and I get nothing.  Daniel Wallace refers to a journal article that he wrote, one that is now typical, that is full of errors.  I've found that nobody cares.  They are angry when one points them out.

Harding hints at a biblical proof for his position without saying that it is one.  Not only isn't it a proof, but it comes with very serious consequences if one takes his assertion to its completion.  He said:

The fact that the LXX is quoted throughout the NT by the NT authors is proof enough that the KJVO understanding of miraculous, perfect preservation in one line of manuscripts is not biblical. 

This is the only argument I have ever read as an attempt to go to scripture to provide biblical support for a critical or eclectic text position.  I could say, at least its proponents are trying, except that the implications are so very bad (I'll explain briefly, but I have already here and here).  It isn't actually a biblical position, because it's not making a point from biblical teaching or propositional statements, but based upon an assumption that scripture does not make, that is, the New Testament quotes the Septuagint.

One, for more than any other reason, the LXX is by almost everyone's estimation, a corrupt translation.  It doesn't match up with the Hebrew Masoretic.  This would be saying that Jesus quoted a known corrupt Bible and was fine with it.  I've not read any of the proponents deal with the implications of their own argument.  They throw it out as a reactive argument, not the way to do theology, I guess, because either it doesn't matter to them or they haven't thought through its ramifications to a high view of scripture.

Two, we don't have a biblical basis for Jesus' usage of the LXX, because He exclusively follows the divisions of the Hebrew Old Testament, not the LXX (cf. Luke 24:44).

Three, the usage of the Old Testament in the New is not identical to the LXX either.  Very often the usage of Jesus follows the Hebrew Masoretic.

Four, a historical and biblical position with a high view of scripture is the one taken by John Owen in his biblical theology, and men at least need to deal with Owen.   Owen didn't say, like Harding assumes, that the usage of the Old Testament was "fact" and "proof" of authentication of the LXX.

Much more could be said here about Harding's LXX statement, but it's thrown out, as I see it, for people ignorant of what's going on or what it means.  It opens a can of worms that's bigger than what these men think is a KJVO problem.  In other words, it creates a far bigger problem to deal with a perceived problem.

I can't take the time to answer every clueless statement, but I want to answer one as a representation of what I believe.  Someone named Darrell Post writes unchallenged:

Kent not only believes the 'preservation passages' refer to the written copies, he has proposed which copies are the right ones.

Scripture teaches the preservation of words and that's what I believe.  Scripture is written.  That's part of a biblical belief.  A copy is something that is written, so all the words and every one of them are available in copies.  I've never said I believe one perfect copy has made its way through all the way through history.  All those like Post, who do not believe that God preserved every and all of His words in written form, do not believe what God said He would do.  The denial of preservation is an unproven assertion.  The existence of textual variants doesn't prove God didn't do what He said He would do in preservation of scripture.

Regarding a graspable, comprehensible translation, the vernacular argument, Andy Efting asks:  "Regarding the Defined KJV -- doesn't the fact that there is a need for this type of thing prove Mark's point?"  Mark Ward says use many translations for the purpose of understanding.  I don't know if he makes that point in his book, but he's made it multiple times in interviews about the book and articles related to the book.  The Defined King James aids in understanding, and Mark Ward implies or assumes that every translation should be compared with multiple translations.  A Defined King James (read editorial review and consider whether that Bible is doing what Ward says that he wants) seems to be right in the wheelhouse of what Mark Ward wants, definition of terms that alleviate the "false friends" to which Ward refers.

Someone said that Ward's argument for the update of the KJV, to rid it of false friends and archaic words, hasn't been answered.  I have answered it multiple occasions even before Ward made his argument (here, here, and here especially), but also after he wrote the book (here).  I'm not opposed to an update according to certain parameters based upon biblical teaching or principles.   As almost anyone knows, there are already multiple updates already done, which themselves illustrate why it is wrought with so many harmful possibilities (as one example consider the very weird and expensive update called "The Pure Word," which I have a copy and have examined).

I ask, why are critical or eclectic text men so interested in separating men from the King James Version?  They say that they want more people to understand the Bible and these people are losing out.  I have a hard time believing it.  Love wants to believe the best, and I want to, but I also know not to be gullible.  I'm more concerned that these same men don't believe the biblical and historical doctrine of the preservation of scripture.