An amazing thing actually happened last night, October 31st, in Canton, NC. On Saturday, I was driving back from our Fall Festival and the local radio station reported this event as national news. A Baptist church full of Christians intentionally destroyed the Word of God. Copies of the Word of God were destroyed by cutting them to shreds. (The intent was to burn them but they got rained out). Christians destroying the Bible—how is that God-honoring or God-glorifying? Bibles which contained the gospel and the message of God’s redemption were destroyed. Bibles which told of God’s love for man and the story of salvation were destroyed. This event was billed as that which is pleasing to God—was it?
When has the destruction of His Word, or books that contain His Word, ever been pleasing to God?
The defense from Amazing Grace Baptist Church is that these Bibles only contain a perverted version of the Word of God because they are NOT the Word of God. In their opinion, only KJV Bibles are the Word of God. All other English Bibles translated into language that is less archaic are not acceptable. The old English must be preserved; anything less is not God-glorifying.
But why is this? Why did God choose to do something for English speaking people that He didn’t do for Hebrews, or Greeks, or those who speak Latin? Why did He do it only for English speaking people?
Why didn’t He do it for the Germans or the French?
Where is the prophetic promise to English speaking people that God would inspire an English translation that would be superior to all other translations?
God’s promises of the preservation of His Word are not unique only to a particular culture or language. Has not God preserved His Word in German? Has not God preserved His Word in Korean? The answer is YES—unequivocally YES!
But there is NO indication that God has chosen to stop permitting the translation of His Word.
Some ridiculously suggest: Only one of these renditions is the Word of God and it is the rendition that preserves the whosoever not whoever or the one that preserves the “th” in believeth instead of believes.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.
Is there a difference between eternal and everlasting? Or do both communicate the same truth? If both are acceptable words indicating life without end, then are both the Word of God when describing the life we receive from God to those who believe upon the name of Christ Jesus?
Now this does NOT mean “any old (or new) Bible will do,” but that certainly doesn’t mean I must burn anything that doesn’t meet my standard.
If you prefer the KJV, praise the Lord—but is it really God’s will to see less than KJV Bibles burned?
Since Roger Williams founded the first Baptist Church in Province, Rhode Island, Baptists have consistently stood for religious freedom.
If another Christian, who is a priest unto themselves before God and man, chooses to read a book from Pastor Rick Warren or do their devotions with the New International Bible, what right do I have to condemn them—isn’t that the role of the Holy Spirit to guide them in all truth?
Likewise, if I choose to bring to someone’s attention the failure to properly translate a verse in the TNIV, what right does someone else have to condemn me, in the execution of my pastoral responsibilities, before the flock that is called Berean Baptist Church?
If a precedent is set for burning books we don’t agree with, as an act that is pleasing to God, where does it end and who will ultimately make the final decision on what books are permitted in America and which ones are not permitted? Will we have a book czar?
I really don’t think anyone wants to go down that road, do we? I think the Book of Mormon is pure fiction having no value whatsoever—however, I am willing to fight for a Mormon’s right to have and read the Book of Mormon because I recognize that same right also preserves my right to have and to read the Bible (in any and all translations) as I am led by God the Spirit.
Baptists who burn Bibles and books, as a religious ceremony, are only one or two steps away from much more violent acts which surely could not be pleasing to our Lord who said, “Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God.”
You can be sure of one thing; no one thinks of burning books as an act of making peace.
There are some still alive today who can remember the first news reports of Germans burning Bibles in the months before the invasion of Poland and the start of World War II—what, my friends, is the difference?
Why was it wrong for Nazis to burn books before World War II, but today it is an act of worship, pleasing to the Lord, begun with prayer, associated with the body of Christ, done in a church and accompanied by hymns of worship and much rejoicing—how is that?
See for yourself how the pastor is promoting this church service on his website and is quite frustrated with other Baptists who chose not participate in such an event.
http://www.amazinggracebaptistchurchkjv.com/Download99.html
He even laments, why is it that Baptists will unite against the liquor industry but will not unite against the perversions of the Word of God—how is that?
Am I to compare a bottle of Jack Daniels to the NIV and have just as much a passion to destroy both? Is that how I am to think? I think not.
If I could only see the same definitive prohibitions against the ESV as I see against drunkenness, I would consider taking such a stand.
Ask me to show you where drunkenness is prohibited in the Bible, and that is easy to do.
If you prefer to show me a passage where the ESV translation committee did not do justice to the text, I will gladly listen to such an opinion and evaluate your position—but burn the entire book—is that really the correct solution?
If there was just one Bible verse that says God loves the KJV better than other translations—if there was just one Bible verse that indicates He prefers Elizabethan English to contemporary English--but the opposite is found to be true with the reality that the New Testament was written in common Greek. Jesus spoke to the common people in a way that the common person could understand what He said.
The preacher who uses the KJV will, throughout His sermon, seek to help the congregation understand what the Bible is saying to the people and he, the preacher, speaks in the language of his people. He doesn’t seek to preserve the Elizabethan English with the way he speaks. And when there is a word like “concupiscence” in the text he is preaching from, notice how he stops and explains the word often using words found in other translations—indirectly, what is the difference?
Passages from the Psalms, originally written in Hebrew, are quoted to justify God’s love for Elizabethan English—how is that? I believe God is well pleased anytime a group of translators assembles with the primary purpose of giving a people the very Word of God in their own language beginning with the Septuagint and moving forward today.
If you prefer the Elizabethan English, Praise the Lord, I will fight for your right to love, cherish and use the KJV Bible with the exact same energy I will devote to preserving another brother in Christ’s right to use his ESV for which he has the same right to love, cherish and use.
That is precisely the religious freedom this great country we call America was founded upon, and we must fight to keep those precious rights with our very blood if that becomes necessary.
Showing posts with label Bible Translations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bible Translations. Show all posts
KJVonly and Being Doctrinally Sound
Is it possible for a church to be considered doctrinally sound and not use the AV or KJV Bible?
Some Baptist churches and preachers who are infatuated with one particular English translation would suggest that it is impossible for a church to be doctrinally sound if they don’t use the KJV or teach that the KJV is God’s Word for English speaking people.
The argument goes something like this: God has ordained that English speaking people use the KJV and since that English speaking church doesn’t use or strongly promote the KJV then they are not doctrinally sound.
Independent thinking people can quickly find the huge holes in this argument.
French speaking Baptists don’t use the AV/KJV Bible so they are NOT doctrinally sound—correct?
And the response is that’s ridiculous.
Of course, preachers, teachers and churches can be doctrinally sound without using the KJV—everyone knows that. Only an idiot could suggest that a French or Chinese speaking Christian must to use a KJV Bible or a derivative of it to be doctrinally sound.
Yet KJV-only Baptists who insist that one must use and read the KJV to be doctrinally sound have a higher and different standard that applies to English speaking Baptist Churches.
Where does this come from? What Bible text is presented to justify a doctrine or standard that teaches God has a Bible just for English speaking Christians?
These KJV-only Baptists believe that only one particular way of rendering the Greek to the English is God’s Word. For example “whosoever” in John 3:16 is the Word of God but a rendering of the same Greek word into “whoever” would not be the Word of God.
Most recently I ran across a KJV-only website that provided a chart of examples like this including “Saviour” spelled with 7 letters as acceptable but “Savior” spelled with only six letters is unacceptable—really? It is hard to imagine with everything we have to “earnestly contend for” that KJVO Baptists have time to contend for seven letters instead of six letter Saviors. Early fundamentalists would be appalled at what some are contending for today.
See for yourself the holes in this argument.
How could one take or quote 2 Timothy 3:16 in a Spanish, Chinese, French, or Korean Bible and then attempt to prove that 2 Timothy 3:16 justifies one particular translation. Yet, this is exactly what is happening.
The truth of God’s Word rises above one language and transcends languages.
Biblical truth is not limited to a particular people or language. Many Bible verses can be translated, in English, multiple ways:
• For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
• For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
Ask a KJVO’er, if it not acceptable to drop the “th” in believeth and render it “believes,” then why don’t we still use the original 1611. Why aren’t we trying to preserve the most ancient form of Elizabethan English?
Both renderings accurately communicate the truth of John 3:16.
There isn’t one Bible verse that suggests that English speaking Christians must use one particular Bible.
If there was such a verse it would have to be classified as prophetic in nature. For example, if Revelation 22.19 is used to justify the AV/KVJ Bible then one would have to conclude that John was speaking prophetically in this verse.
Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
“The book of this prophecy” would not be the book of Revelation that John wrote in Greek but the KJV Bible created in 1611. Once again, it is ridiculous to suggest that John was writing prophetically toward one particular translation, rendered one particular way, for one particular group of believers who prefer an Elizabethan way of speaking. This book of this prophecy is the book of Revelation—not the New Testament and not the Bible. The Bible as we know it was not fully assembled into books and bound together until decades after John wrote verse 19.
Does God prefer “ye” instead of “you?” Does God prefer “shew” over “show?” What matters most is an accurate, word for word, as literal and faithful translation as possible. Paraphrases are unacceptable for serious study and translations which communicate a liberal bias must be rejected, but every Bible doesn’t fall into the must be rejected category.
John R. Rice, W.B. Riley, and R.A. Torrey, all true fundamentalists, did not ever suggest or preach that one particular translation was perfect.
The important doctrine of inerrancy applied to the original manuscripts and not one particular translation.
One must stick their theological head in the sand in order to deny the textual variants among the manuscripts. But these variants do NOT compromise the absolute essential doctrines to be sound. Doctrines like:
1. The virgin birth of Jesus.
2. The sinless life of Jesus.
3. The substitutionary atonement of Christ for the sins of the world.
4. The bodily resurrections.
5. The imminent and personal return of Jesus.
6. Salvation by grace and grace alone through repentance and faith in Jesus.
7. The Trinity.
8. The deity and eternality of Jesus as the Christ and Son of God.
9. The inerrancy of the Word of God.
Let a church or preacher compromise of these essentials and he may be described as not being doctrinally sound, but what Bible translation a person prefers or uses does not fall into the same category.
The Apostle’s doctrine is the doctrine that must be followed to be sound and a translation that wasn’t even in existence cannot be elevated to the same category.
Then there is doctrine that must be followed, in addition to the above, that makes someone a Baptist. Things like:
1. The absolute separation of Church and State.
2. Only two church ordinances: The Lord’s Supper and Baptism
3. Believer’s baptism by immersion only is necessary for church membership
4. Priesthood of the Believer
5. Soul Liberty
6. Local church autonomy.
These are beliefs that separate Baptists from Methodist, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, etc. But again only an extreme minority within Evangelical or Fundamental Christendom would insist that a church had to use one special Bible in order to be doctrinally sound.
In respect for the Baptist distinctives of soul liberty and local church autonomy, let a church use what Bible it believes is the most accurate rendition of the Hebrew and Greek, but don’t judge a church as heretical—or not doctrinally sound—because it doesn’t use the same Bible or sing from the same hymnal.
Instead prove from the Word of God how a church isn’t doctrinally sound—quote verses and give examples.
Far too many Baptists are listening blindly to their pastor’s message without analyzing what he is saying for themselves. Make your pastor prove to you that his interpretation for the verse is grammatically, historically, and contextually correct. Pattern your study of his messages after the church at Berea who studied to see for themselves what the Scripture said.
Here is a simple but defining thought:
If a KJVonly Baptist can use 2 Tim 3:16 to prove that the KJV is the right Bible what keep an ESVonly Baptist from quoting the same verse to prove that the ESV is the right Bible?
Now if either desires to discuss translation procedures, textual bias, preferred original language families, and dynamic equivalency versus literal word-for-word renderings that is a completely different argument that must be discussed without Scriptural support. But let each commit to proving their case without attempting to manipulate a Bible verses—let them prove their case in a way that their members can understand the strength of one Bible translation over the weakness of another.
If he (your pastor) is fair, he will not attempt to prove one translation is inerrant. That is an impossible case to prove, unless he subscribes to the theory of double inspiration like Peter Ruckman of Pensacola, FL. But most KJV-only Baptists reject double inspiration while contending for perfect preservation—which is essentially talking out of both sides of one’s mouth—because the multitude of copies of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts prove that God chose not to lead the copyists the same way He led the authors—His Word is inerrant and infallible in the original autographs—which typically lasted only about a decade after they were first penned. The copies of the manuscripts contain minor differences. Today, we have copies of those manuscripts in sufficient quantity to give us tremendous assurance to the truth of the Bible, in as much as, it is properly translated from the oldest, best and majority of the manuscripts in the most conservative, literal and orthodox manner as possible. The AV/KJV version serves as a great example of such a Bible provided archaic words are understood with their archaic definition.
Some Baptist churches and preachers who are infatuated with one particular English translation would suggest that it is impossible for a church to be doctrinally sound if they don’t use the KJV or teach that the KJV is God’s Word for English speaking people.
The argument goes something like this: God has ordained that English speaking people use the KJV and since that English speaking church doesn’t use or strongly promote the KJV then they are not doctrinally sound.
Independent thinking people can quickly find the huge holes in this argument.
French speaking Baptists don’t use the AV/KJV Bible so they are NOT doctrinally sound—correct?
And the response is that’s ridiculous.
Of course, preachers, teachers and churches can be doctrinally sound without using the KJV—everyone knows that. Only an idiot could suggest that a French or Chinese speaking Christian must to use a KJV Bible or a derivative of it to be doctrinally sound.
Yet KJV-only Baptists who insist that one must use and read the KJV to be doctrinally sound have a higher and different standard that applies to English speaking Baptist Churches.
Where does this come from? What Bible text is presented to justify a doctrine or standard that teaches God has a Bible just for English speaking Christians?
These KJV-only Baptists believe that only one particular way of rendering the Greek to the English is God’s Word. For example “whosoever” in John 3:16 is the Word of God but a rendering of the same Greek word into “whoever” would not be the Word of God.
Most recently I ran across a KJV-only website that provided a chart of examples like this including “Saviour” spelled with 7 letters as acceptable but “Savior” spelled with only six letters is unacceptable—really? It is hard to imagine with everything we have to “earnestly contend for” that KJVO Baptists have time to contend for seven letters instead of six letter Saviors. Early fundamentalists would be appalled at what some are contending for today.
See for yourself the holes in this argument.
How could one take or quote 2 Timothy 3:16 in a Spanish, Chinese, French, or Korean Bible and then attempt to prove that 2 Timothy 3:16 justifies one particular translation. Yet, this is exactly what is happening.
The truth of God’s Word rises above one language and transcends languages.
Biblical truth is not limited to a particular people or language. Many Bible verses can be translated, in English, multiple ways:
• For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
• For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
Ask a KJVO’er, if it not acceptable to drop the “th” in believeth and render it “believes,” then why don’t we still use the original 1611. Why aren’t we trying to preserve the most ancient form of Elizabethan English?
Both renderings accurately communicate the truth of John 3:16.
There isn’t one Bible verse that suggests that English speaking Christians must use one particular Bible.
If there was such a verse it would have to be classified as prophetic in nature. For example, if Revelation 22.19 is used to justify the AV/KVJ Bible then one would have to conclude that John was speaking prophetically in this verse.
Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
“The book of this prophecy” would not be the book of Revelation that John wrote in Greek but the KJV Bible created in 1611. Once again, it is ridiculous to suggest that John was writing prophetically toward one particular translation, rendered one particular way, for one particular group of believers who prefer an Elizabethan way of speaking. This book of this prophecy is the book of Revelation—not the New Testament and not the Bible. The Bible as we know it was not fully assembled into books and bound together until decades after John wrote verse 19.
Does God prefer “ye” instead of “you?” Does God prefer “shew” over “show?” What matters most is an accurate, word for word, as literal and faithful translation as possible. Paraphrases are unacceptable for serious study and translations which communicate a liberal bias must be rejected, but every Bible doesn’t fall into the must be rejected category.
John R. Rice, W.B. Riley, and R.A. Torrey, all true fundamentalists, did not ever suggest or preach that one particular translation was perfect.
The important doctrine of inerrancy applied to the original manuscripts and not one particular translation.
One must stick their theological head in the sand in order to deny the textual variants among the manuscripts. But these variants do NOT compromise the absolute essential doctrines to be sound. Doctrines like:
1. The virgin birth of Jesus.
2. The sinless life of Jesus.
3. The substitutionary atonement of Christ for the sins of the world.
4. The bodily resurrections.
5. The imminent and personal return of Jesus.
6. Salvation by grace and grace alone through repentance and faith in Jesus.
7. The Trinity.
8. The deity and eternality of Jesus as the Christ and Son of God.
9. The inerrancy of the Word of God.
Let a church or preacher compromise of these essentials and he may be described as not being doctrinally sound, but what Bible translation a person prefers or uses does not fall into the same category.
The Apostle’s doctrine is the doctrine that must be followed to be sound and a translation that wasn’t even in existence cannot be elevated to the same category.
Then there is doctrine that must be followed, in addition to the above, that makes someone a Baptist. Things like:
1. The absolute separation of Church and State.
2. Only two church ordinances: The Lord’s Supper and Baptism
3. Believer’s baptism by immersion only is necessary for church membership
4. Priesthood of the Believer
5. Soul Liberty
6. Local church autonomy.
These are beliefs that separate Baptists from Methodist, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, etc. But again only an extreme minority within Evangelical or Fundamental Christendom would insist that a church had to use one special Bible in order to be doctrinally sound.
In respect for the Baptist distinctives of soul liberty and local church autonomy, let a church use what Bible it believes is the most accurate rendition of the Hebrew and Greek, but don’t judge a church as heretical—or not doctrinally sound—because it doesn’t use the same Bible or sing from the same hymnal.
Instead prove from the Word of God how a church isn’t doctrinally sound—quote verses and give examples.
Far too many Baptists are listening blindly to their pastor’s message without analyzing what he is saying for themselves. Make your pastor prove to you that his interpretation for the verse is grammatically, historically, and contextually correct. Pattern your study of his messages after the church at Berea who studied to see for themselves what the Scripture said.
Here is a simple but defining thought:
If a KJVonly Baptist can use 2 Tim 3:16 to prove that the KJV is the right Bible what keep an ESVonly Baptist from quoting the same verse to prove that the ESV is the right Bible?
Now if either desires to discuss translation procedures, textual bias, preferred original language families, and dynamic equivalency versus literal word-for-word renderings that is a completely different argument that must be discussed without Scriptural support. But let each commit to proving their case without attempting to manipulate a Bible verses—let them prove their case in a way that their members can understand the strength of one Bible translation over the weakness of another.
If he (your pastor) is fair, he will not attempt to prove one translation is inerrant. That is an impossible case to prove, unless he subscribes to the theory of double inspiration like Peter Ruckman of Pensacola, FL. But most KJV-only Baptists reject double inspiration while contending for perfect preservation—which is essentially talking out of both sides of one’s mouth—because the multitude of copies of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts prove that God chose not to lead the copyists the same way He led the authors—His Word is inerrant and infallible in the original autographs—which typically lasted only about a decade after they were first penned. The copies of the manuscripts contain minor differences. Today, we have copies of those manuscripts in sufficient quantity to give us tremendous assurance to the truth of the Bible, in as much as, it is properly translated from the oldest, best and majority of the manuscripts in the most conservative, literal and orthodox manner as possible. The AV/KJV version serves as a great example of such a Bible provided archaic words are understood with their archaic definition.
THE ISSUE OF INERRANCY IN FUNDAMENTALISM Part I
INTRODUCTION
At the turn of the twentieth century, those involved in the Protestant movement, later identified as Fundamentalism, were actively engaged in the defense of the inerrancy of the Word of God in the original manuscripts against liberal theologians who believed the Bible contained falsities. Liberal theologians believed the Bible contained truth but was not entirely without error. This was especially prevalent in Germany where liberals like Rudolf Karl Bultmann denied the supernatural and the truthfulness of Scripture in cases where it presents narratives that cannot be explained by science. Narratives like the creation of Adam from the dust of the earth or the virgin conception of the Son of God are examples of Scriptural accounts that liberals challenge as fictitious or mythological. Higher criticism, with origins also in Europe, attacked the credibility of Scripture with various theories denying the traditional orthodox understanding of authorship. One example was the JEPD theory or Documentary Hypothesis advanced by Julius Wellhausen which denied the traditional understanding that Moses authored the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua.
Fundamentalists, from various mainline denominations, like R.A. Torrey, C.I. Scofield, A.C. Dixon, W.B. Riley, J. Gresham Machen, J. Frank Norris, John R. Rice and countless other pastors and professors, fought against attacks on the authority and truthfulness of the Bible. According to Dr. David O. Beale, of Bob Jones University, these fundamentalists did not agree on every interpretation of the Bible, especially in the area of eschatology, but they did unite on the “Bible alone, without question, as the divinely and verbally inspired, inerrant, and authoritative Word of God.” Dr. P.D. Feinberg gives significant credit to “Princeton theologians Archibald Alexander, Charles Hodge, A.A. Hodge, and B.B. Warfield as modern formulators and defenders of the full inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture.”
It is nearly impossible to overemphasize the importance a fundamentalist places on the authority and reliability of the Bible. For over one hundred years fundamentalists have held the inerrancy of the Bible as a supremely important fundamental of the faith once delivered by the Lord Jesus and His Apostles. However, it appears that at the turn of the century, some fundamentalists have also begun to fight over the inerrancy of one particular translation—the King James Bible—with the same intensity and energy of their forefathers at the previous turn of the century. Dr. William W. Combs, of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, writes “today there are those who teach that one Bible, the KJV, has no errors. Certainly, no one is arguing, or has apparently every argued, that any other English translation is without error.” But today fundamentalist professors, preachers, and papers like the Sword of the Lord are more concerned with defending the preeminence of the KJV Bible than the inerrancy of the original manuscripts. Sword of the Lord Publishers, first online Article of Faith presents the KJV Bible as inerrant. The fight has changed and the preeminent fundamentalists of the twentieth century would not agree with some of the fundamentalists of the twenty-first century concerning what is and is not inerrrant. The purpose of this paper is to familiarize the reader with the original fight that began in the 1900s and the transition that has occurred in the some camps of the fundamentalist movement in the present age.
At the turn of the twentieth century, those involved in the Protestant movement, later identified as Fundamentalism, were actively engaged in the defense of the inerrancy of the Word of God in the original manuscripts against liberal theologians who believed the Bible contained falsities. Liberal theologians believed the Bible contained truth but was not entirely without error. This was especially prevalent in Germany where liberals like Rudolf Karl Bultmann denied the supernatural and the truthfulness of Scripture in cases where it presents narratives that cannot be explained by science. Narratives like the creation of Adam from the dust of the earth or the virgin conception of the Son of God are examples of Scriptural accounts that liberals challenge as fictitious or mythological. Higher criticism, with origins also in Europe, attacked the credibility of Scripture with various theories denying the traditional orthodox understanding of authorship. One example was the JEPD theory or Documentary Hypothesis advanced by Julius Wellhausen which denied the traditional understanding that Moses authored the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua.
Fundamentalists, from various mainline denominations, like R.A. Torrey, C.I. Scofield, A.C. Dixon, W.B. Riley, J. Gresham Machen, J. Frank Norris, John R. Rice and countless other pastors and professors, fought against attacks on the authority and truthfulness of the Bible. According to Dr. David O. Beale, of Bob Jones University, these fundamentalists did not agree on every interpretation of the Bible, especially in the area of eschatology, but they did unite on the “Bible alone, without question, as the divinely and verbally inspired, inerrant, and authoritative Word of God.” Dr. P.D. Feinberg gives significant credit to “Princeton theologians Archibald Alexander, Charles Hodge, A.A. Hodge, and B.B. Warfield as modern formulators and defenders of the full inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture.”
It is nearly impossible to overemphasize the importance a fundamentalist places on the authority and reliability of the Bible. For over one hundred years fundamentalists have held the inerrancy of the Bible as a supremely important fundamental of the faith once delivered by the Lord Jesus and His Apostles. However, it appears that at the turn of the century, some fundamentalists have also begun to fight over the inerrancy of one particular translation—the King James Bible—with the same intensity and energy of their forefathers at the previous turn of the century. Dr. William W. Combs, of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, writes “today there are those who teach that one Bible, the KJV, has no errors. Certainly, no one is arguing, or has apparently every argued, that any other English translation is without error.” But today fundamentalist professors, preachers, and papers like the Sword of the Lord are more concerned with defending the preeminence of the KJV Bible than the inerrancy of the original manuscripts. Sword of the Lord Publishers, first online Article of Faith presents the KJV Bible as inerrant. The fight has changed and the preeminent fundamentalists of the twentieth century would not agree with some of the fundamentalists of the twenty-first century concerning what is and is not inerrrant. The purpose of this paper is to familiarize the reader with the original fight that began in the 1900s and the transition that has occurred in the some camps of the fundamentalist movement in the present age.
A Letter from a Preacher
This morning I received an email asking me to direct soldiers who are PCSing (moving) to community X to independent Baptist church XYZ. Obviously before I can make such a recommendation I have to investigate, so I did what I would expect every member of BBC to do. I went to their website and pulled up their statement of faith. I copied what their website said for your review. Item number one dealt with the Word of God. I appreciated that. Communicating one's stand on the Bible in the beginning is very important. So let's take a moment and examine this statement and see what we think. Now BBC uses the KJV and believes it to be a very good literal word for word translation of the Bible. Our Articles of Faith makes it clear that the KJV is the Bible we use, but this article of faith from church XYZ communicates a different message. Let me show you what I mean.
Church XYZ
WHAT WE BELIEVE
1. ABOUT THE SCRIPTURES. We believe that only the Authorized King James Version (1611) is the inspired, preserved, and infallible Word of God.
First, I have to wonder why are we including the 1611 date? The 1611 AV KJV Bible is not readily available for purchase. It is impossible to get it in a good study Bible. Furthermore, the font types, character variations and different spellings would make it nearly impossible to read and comprehension would be exceptionally low.
Second, why would one include the 1611 date when the 1611 AV KJV was published and distributed with the Apocrypha? It had 80 books not 66 books. Now I know this preacher doesn't have the Apocrypha in his preaching Bible, and I am sure he does not reference any of the Apocrypha books, but it is important to realize that a direct reference to 1611 implies something. But what is the point of pointing someone to a date that isn't truly reflective of the Bible the church uses? BBC uses the KJV but not 1611. We use the most recent revision; the Authorized King James Version on my Logos Bible software is dated 1769.
Third, notice what is inspired, preserved and infallible—the 1611 is inspired, preserved and infallible. The translators were inspired, but there isn't a single Bible verse that justifies this statement. The original authors of the 66 canonical books were the ones inspired. That's what the Bible teaches. There are NO prophetical references to a time in the future in which God would inspire one particular group of translators unlike he has or ever will inspire such a group. Be careful joining a church in which the article of faith cannot be substantially supported by multiple scriptural references.
Fourth, the AV KJV is in English. Where is the scriptural support justifying God's exceptional love for English speaking people over and above all other languages? BBC has a Spanish body of Christ within the body of Christ—according to the above statement, only English speaking people have access to the inspired, preserved and infallible Word of God. How can this be? We also have a Korean Pastor in our congregation. Am I to tell him that unless he learns English and has a KJV Bible in his hands as he preaches he too cannot stand on the inspired infallible Word of God? What arrogant position. Where is the Bible proof that God is a respecter of English speaking people above others? Where are the prophetical references indicating God would in the future do something special in 1611 unlike anything he had previously done or would do again with a group of translators? I have heard all the arguments that God has used and blessed the KJV. I will submit to you that German scholars could have said the same thing concerning Martin Luther's biblical translation work in German. You can also be sure that there is a Korean Bible that God is blessing beyond the scope of the KJV in Southeast Asia as His Word is accurately translated into hundreds of languages all over the world, and it is NOT returning VOID.
What about when Jerome translated the Greek NT into Latin—what was that?
What about when Jews translated the Hebrew OT into Greek creating the Septuagint often quoted and referenced by Jesus and the Apostles—what was that?
What about the Tyndale Bible? What about the hundreds upon hundreds of Baptist preachers who use the NASB—are they all also NOT using something that is inspired and infallible? Notice very carefully the statement above uses the word ONLY. ONLY means ONLY.
There are some serious holes in the above statement of faith that should serve as significant red flags.
One must ask what other personal preferences will this preacher attempt to make authoritative as a matter of doctrine without sufficient Scriptural support. If he is willing to do it with his favorite translation, what is going to stop him from doing the same with a particular flavor of music he prefers or what about a particular style of dress—where does it end?
In Galatians 2, Paul confronted Peter to his face. Preachers who are declaring something as Scriptural which isn't must be confronted. A favorite or preferred translation is fine and acceptable, but don't take it too far.
KJV Onlyism
There is a small, albeit outspoken, minority of Baptists who are confused on an important issue. With great conviction, they purport what they believe to be a biblical truth. Unfortunately, they do so with no biblical evidence. This doctrine that they preach with great exuberance has found a name in fundamentalist circles: "King James Onlyism."
This should be of great concern to anyone who is adamant about the authority of the Word of God.
Independent Baptists have consistently been reactionary preachers. When some new evil has found its way into modernity or post-modernity, we have been militant in our stance against it. We are not called "fighting fundamentalists" for nothing. And throughout the years, our stance has often been correct and necessary.
And in the last few decades, the Christian market has been flooded with numerous new Bible translations. A few have been very good literal translations. Some have been very poor. It has become imperative that pastors and church leaders clearly teach the difference between the two.
However, some Baptists have decided to forgo teaching the difference between good and poor translations, and have adopted a more severe stance; namely, that the King James Version is the only perfect translation of the Bible.
The KJV only stance is not very old. In my library I have a book by Jack Hyles, a very influential Baptist pastor in the late 20th century. In this book on the study of the Revelation, Pastor Hyles corrects the King James Bible with phrases like "better translated." The book was written in 1967. Pastor Hyles later changed his position, and in the last two decades of his life, was one of the most vocal leaders of the KJV only charge.
His conversion, and the conversion of many others, to the KJV only position was an overreaction to the introduction of some poor modern translations—the NIV is an example. They were correct in pointing out the errors in the NIV, just as we should be cautious of the TNIV, NLT or The Message. These are paraphrases and should be read as such.
King James Onlyism has evolved since its inception around 30 years ago. In the small Baptist circles where it is perpetuated, it has become something of a litmus test, unfortunately. KJV only churches are known to spend extraordinary amounts of preaching and teaching time defending the honor of their favorite translation and less time on things of more importance, i.e. the gospel of Jesus Christ. They routinely break fellowship with other believers over this singular issue, and end up doing more harm than good.
They label anyone who retranslates the KJV into more accurate and clear wording a "bible corrector." This is both a serious, and usually unsubstantiated, claim.
The point that needs to be understood and emphasized is that the teacher is not correcting the Bible—he is correcting the particular word selected by the translation committee.
Furthermore, 400 years have passed since the translators converted the ancient Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic words into the Queen's English. The English language is a constantly evolving organism. 400 years has produced countless significant changes in our figures of speech, colloquialisms, and common definitions. These changes must be accounted for. That is what a preacher, who wants to accurately teach the inspired Word of God, must do.
And sometimes the Bible teacher must say "No, the translators were not perfect; they were not inspired, and they didn't get it right." We are on very dangerous ground when we elevate the translation of a 17th century linguist over the original intent recorded by the Apostle Paul.
John R. Rice repeatedly pointed to Acts 12.4 as a classic example where the translation scholars were not perfect and chose to translate the Greek word pascha which means "Passover" as "Easter."
We can't go back and ask them why they did this. We know that pascha occurs 29 times in the New Testament and 28 of those times it was rendered Passover. We also know that when we examine the same verse in any other Bible it is not rendered "Easter."
Now this is what it comes down to this for the reasonable person—there are only two possible scenarios.
1. A person believes by faith that the translators and everyone who subsequently has been involved in the changes that have occurred with the AV, since 1611, have all been inspired and uniquely led by the Holy Spirit unlike any other group of translators.
Or,
2. These godly scholars made a mistake and should not have selected the word Easter for the Jewish Festival of Passover.
The extreme minority position clings tightly to the first scenario. "Easter" for some reason was the perfect choice and not a single group of translators since 1611 have got it right. In this case, the KJV corrects the Greek NT and it is now held in a higher position of authority. The BBC Articles of Faith do not support scenario 1 because the church articles of faith state that the original manuscripts were inspired and we don't have any original manuscripts that contain a Greek word for the holiday "Easter."
Therefore, scenario two is the only position acceptable for BBC. The Bible is perfect, preserved and prized, BUT the translators were not perfect and did not get it right in Acts 12.4.
Passover is the right word and anyone who teaches the holiday Easter is not teaching the Word of God—they may be reading from the Word of God but if they let their people walk away with the understanding of a pagan holiday involving bunnies and eggs, instead, of the correct word Passover—they have not delivered the Word of God.
Easter in Acts 12.4
There is a small, albeit outspoken, minority of Baptists who are confused on an important issue. With great conviction, they purport what they believe to be a biblical truth. Unfortunately, they do so with no biblical evidence. This doctrine that they preach with great exuberance has found a name in fundamentalist circles: "King James Onlyism."
This should be of great concern to anyone who is adamant about the authority of the Word of God.
Independent Baptists have consistently been reactionary preachers. When some new evil has found its way into modernity or post-modernity, we have been militant in our stance against it. We are not called "fighting fundamentalists" for nothing. And throughout the years, our stance has often been correct and necessary.
And in the last few decades, the Christian market has been flooded with numerous new Bible translations. Only a very few have been good literal translations. Some have been very poor. It has become imperative that pastors and church leaders clearly teach the difference between the two.
However, some Baptists have decided to forgo teaching the difference between good and poor translations, and have adopted a more severe stance; namely, that the King James Version is the only perfect translation of the Bible.
The KJV only stance is not very old. In my library I have a book by Jack Hyles, a very influential Baptist pastor in the late 20th century. In this book "Let's Study the Revelation", Pastor Hyles corrects the King James Bible with phrases like "better translated." The book was written in 1967. Pastor Hyles later changed his position, and in the last two decades of his life, was one of the most vocal leaders of the KJV only charge. He took the position to the extreme that an English speaking person needed to hear a gospel presentation from the KJV to be saved.
His conversion, and the conversion of many others, to the KJV only position was an overreaction to the introduction of some poor modern translations—the NIV is an example. They were correct in pointing out the errors in the NIV, just as we should be cautious of the TNIV, NLT or The Message. The Message is a paraphrase and should be read as such.
King James Onlyism has evolved since its inception around 30 years ago. In the small Baptist circles where it is perpetuated, it has become something of a litmus test, unfortunately. KJV only churches are known to spend extraordinary amounts of preaching and teaching time defending the honor of their favorite translation and less time on things of more importance, i.e. the gospel of Jesus Christ. They routinely break fellowship with other believers over this singular issue, and end up doing more harm than good.
They label anyone who retranslates the KJV into more accurate and clear wording a "bible corrector." This is both a serious, and usually unsubstantiated, claim.
The point that needs to be understood and emphasized is that the teacher is not correcting the Bible—he is correcting the particular word selected by the translation committee.
Furthermore, 400 years have passed since the translators converted the ancient Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic words into the Queen's English. The English language is a constantly evolving organism. 400 years has produced countless significant changes in our figures of speech, colloquialisms, and common definitions. These changes must be accounted for. That is what a preacher, who wants to accurately teach the inspired Word of God, must do.
And sometimes the Bible teacher must say "No, the translators were not perfect; they were not inspired, and they didn't get it right." We are on very dangerous ground when we elevate the translation of a 17th century linguist over the original intent recorded by the Apostle Paul.
John R. Rice repeatedly pointed to Acts 12.4 as a classic example where the translation scholars were not perfect and chose to translate the Greek word pascha which means "Passover" as "Easter."
We can't go back and ask them why they did this. We know that pascha occurs 29 times in the KJV New Testament and 28 of those times it was rendered Passover. We also know that when we examine the same verse in any other Bible it is not rendered "Easter."
Now this is what it comes down to this for the reasonable person—there are only two possible scenarios.
1. A person believes by faith that the translators and everyone who subsequently has been involved in the changes that have occurred with the AV, since 1611, have all been inspired and uniquely led by the Holy Spirit unlike any other group of translators.
Or,
2. These godly scholars made a mistake and should not have selected the word Easter for the Jewish Festival of Passover.
The extreme minority position clings tightly to the first scenario. "Easter" for some reason was the perfect choice and not a single group of translators since 1611 have got it right. In this case, the KJV corrects the Greek NT and it is now held in a higher position of authority. The BBC Articles of Faith do not support scenario 1 because the church articles of faith state that the original manuscripts were inspired and we don't have any manuscripts that contain a Greek word for the holiday "Easter."
Therefore, scenario two is the only position acceptable for BBC. The Bible is perfect, preserved and prized, BUT the translators were not perfect and did not get it right in Acts 12.4.
Passover is the right word and anyone who teaches Acts 12.4 as the holiday Easter is not teaching the Word of God—they may be reading from the Word of God but if they let their people walk away with the understanding of a pagan holiday involving bunnies and eggs, instead, of the correct word Passover—they have not delivered the Word of God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)