My position explained

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Pastor_Bob, Mar 1, 2003.

  1. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    I have been on the Baptist Board for several months now. When I first became a member, my motivation was to join in the discussion regarding the KJV -vs- Modern Versions. I rarely posted in other forums. I was a self-proclaimed King James Onlyist. As a result of studying the issue and posting and reading the posts of others then studying to respond, the Bible Versions section of my library has grown by eight books since July of 2002.

    As I have stated in previous posts, the term KJVO is a broad expression that, IMO, inaccurately encompasses a whole host of ideas, philosophies, and beliefs. What I considered myself to be did not fit into the category labeled as KJVO here on the BB. There were tenets of KJV Onlyism that I did not agree with. Although I do not subscribe to what I would have considered as “radical” KJV Onlyism, I was, nonetheless, lumped in with the group as a whole.

    In this thread, I would like to define what I have observed here on the BB as KJVO. Then I would like to explain why I, based on this definition, will no longer claim the title of KJVO.

    The King James Only position to me holds to the following beliefs:
    1. The KJV as a translation is inspired.
    2. The KJV is the exclusive Word of God in this age.
    3. The KJV as an English translation is superior to the Greek readings of any Greek text.
    4. The KJV was re-inspired in 1611 and supercedes even the originals.
    5. The KJV must be the basis for translations into other languages.

    I cannot subscribe to the above-mentioned beliefs. I realize that some KJVOs would agree with all five tenets; some would agree with less. Having studied the issue, I cannot agree with any of them in their entirety.

    To their credit, those who hold such views are fiercely loyal to the Word of God. They will never be accused of questioning the inerrancy or infallibility of the Bible. Those who advance the KJVO philosphy are to be commended for their love of the Word of God. Their separatist instincts have, IMO, correctly sensed that the Modern Versions are connected with apostasy. But they have gone too far down the right road. They have rightly concluded that the KJV is the best, most accurate English translation, but they have gone farther than the historical or scriptural evidence allows.

    As I mentioned above, I will no longer accept the label KJVO, but rather I will take the Preserved Text or Received Text position. I define this view has holding to the belief that God has providentially preserved His Word through the traditional Received Text. This is the text that has been used by virtually all orthodox, Bible-believing churches from the second century to the present. 99% of all extant New Testament Greek manuscripts support the Received Text, which is the basis for the KJV.

    It is ironic and unfortunate that most would still say that I am KJVO and simply ignore the Preserved Text position that I offered. They will continue to lump me in with those with whom I disagree and “attack” my position as being KJVO. I understand this because, having studied the two, the KJVO position is much easier to attack.

    Some would create a red herring by combining the two positions. They then construct a straw man, assuming the Preserved Text position to be a part of the KJVO position and attempt to demolish it from their false premise. I’ve observed that it is invariably an attack on the KJVO position.

    This thread is in no way intended to offend my KJVO Brothers or to concede to my MV Preferred Brothers. I am simply stating, for the record, what my research on this issue has led me to conclude.

    I realze that this may draw a response from both sides of the debate. I will try to answer each question to the best of my ability as long as it is offered in the right spirit.
     
  2. LRL71

    LRL71
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pastor Bob,

    I'd say that you have explained your position VERY well! I was led to believe, from earlier discussions with you, that you took a much more 'typical' KJV-only position-- one that supported a 'perfectly inspired/preserved KJV'. I will reply further in details at a later time, but I'd say that your positions are much more sound than that of the KJV-only position. Needless to say, your position, as described above, is NOT one that can be construed in any way to be 'heretical'.

    LRL71 "Larry"

    [edited only to remove lengthy quote from above post]

    P.S., -- Sorry for quoting your quote! It was a long one.......

    [ March 01, 2003, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: LRL71 ]
     
  3. Author

    Author
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://abooks.com/images/aralph.jpg">

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let me also echo that you've expressed your position very well. Our God is a god of love and you express reason and reverance toward Him in both your answer and your position. I can only agree with you.

    There will be some in both camps who will not. [​IMG] But it's alright to think and question (God us the brains for that), so long as we eventually come to the right conclusions (and He gave us the guidance for that in his Holy Word). Which version of the Bible you use does not, in my opinion, matter at all so long as you use one and go to God in prayer to resolve any questions.

    --Ralph

    --Ralph

    [ March 02, 2003, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: Author ]
     
  4. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Man, I'm gonna have to take back half the bad things I've said about you! :rolleyes:

    That was a masterful presentation of your position and am personally, as a cyber-friend, glad to see you adopt both the position and the gracious attitude.

    I feel a greater kinship with the KJVpreferred crowd than I like to admit. [​IMG]
     
  5. Harald

    Harald
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2001
    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bob 63. I think you stated your position admirably and well. I even copy pasted it into my files, which I rarely do with posts on this forum. I can fully respect your position, as I cannot see anything in what you stated that conflicts with revealed Scripture, nor with the "classical orthodox" doctrine of bibliology. As I have earlier said myself is one of those who consider themselves Textus Receptus-only or -preferred as respects the New Testament Scriptures. Myself think the wisest thing is to view and evaluate the existing versions, including KJV, and the versions problem, from a Received Text position. The 5 point KJVO position you touched upon I think is one that does not hold up to facts and truth, and when this faulty versionological foundation cracks its overthrow will not be easy to recover from for those having adopted such a position. I think none of the Baptists of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries held to the said KJVO position, if some did they were a small minority.

    Harald
     
  6. Refreshed

    Refreshed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    901
    Likes Received:
    0
    After lurking for a long while on the bible version issue (and every other issue in every forum), Pastor Bob has stated my own position in a way that is more eloquent than I could myself. Thus, a "Ditto" will have to suffice.

    Jason :D
     
  7. The Harvest

    The Harvest
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Messages:
    468
    Likes Received:
    0
    As a "radical" KJBO here are my responses. I'm not going to argue with anyone about this on here. I'm not going to defend myself or any others. I'm just stating my beliefs like Pastor Bob did.
    I don't agree with this. I believe God inspired scripture in its origination and then divinely preserved it throughout its various generations and languages until it reached its final form (the KJB).

    I agree 100% with this statement.

    I agree 100% with this statement.

    Disagree with this. See my response on #1.

    I agree 100% with this statement.

    [contents of a Private Message deleted]

    God preserved His Words through the translators of the 1611. The "errors" that were "corrected" in these so-called revisions were typographical, spelling or typesetter deviations from the original 1611 brought about in later printings. In 1848 the Committee on Versions to the Board of Managers of the American Bible Society who were in charge of preserving the purity of the original text of 1611 met for the purpose of further revision, and in 1850 they completed their work. This was done to ensure that the English version of 1611 was the standard one being published in America. So the current version of the King James Bible is correct and free from all typesetting errors and spelling errors just like the 1611 was before it hit the press. The corrections that were made to the AV are NOTHING compared to the "corrections" that have been made with all these modern versions.

    God gave us His Words. He inspired them and then He preserved them, just like He said He would in Ps 12:6-7. I believe God. Not man.

    [ March 03, 2003, 12:23 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Bob 63 ]
     
  8. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    In response to several PMs, let me add the following to what I posted above:

    The reason I can no longer agree that the KJV is the exclusive Word of God for this age is because there are other Bibles translated from the Received Text into other languages that are equally the Word of God.
    * Luther's German Bible
    * The French Version of Olivetan of 1535
    * The Reina Spanish Version of 1569
    * Beza's Greek New Testament of 1598
    * Elzivers' Greek New Testament of 1624
    * and others

    All of these are from the same Greek text that underlies the KJV. I would no more tell a Mexican that his Bible is not the Word of God than I would tell an German that his is not. They come from the same source; they are equally the Word of God.

    I could say that Luther's German Bible is the preserved Word of God for German speaking people.

    I could say that the French Olivetan is the preserved Word of God for French speaking people.

    I could say that the Reina Spanish Bible is the preserved Word of God for Spanish speaking people.

    I could say the KJV is the preserved Word of God for English speaking people.

    All of the statement above would be true because they are all equally the Word of God as they are derived from the preserved lineage of Greek texts.

    As I stated above, my position is that of a Received Text position. I still cannot endorse the MVs. I still use the KJV exclusively.
     
  9. David A Bayliss

    David A Bayliss
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2003
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen Pastor Bob.

    When I first came to this country if any one asked me if I was KJVO I would probably have said yes because it is all I use (or at least it is my authority).

    Having come across the 'five points of KJVonlyism' I have found myself frantically backing away from any KJVOnly association.

    But yes. KJV is still THE English translation.

    DAB
     
  10. I Am Blessed 24

    I Am Blessed 24
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    44,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    And a resounding AMEN!

    [​IMG]
    Sue
     
  11. Archangel7

    Archangel7
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree 100% with this statement.
    </font>[/QUOTE]I would have to disagree with this statement. My difficulty is with the word "exclusive," since English Bible translations before the KJV (e.g., the Geneva Bible) and after the KJV (e.g., the NKJV) are also the word of God.

    I agree 100% with this statement.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Again, I would have to disagree. No translation can ever be superior to the original language text because of nuances and idioms in the original language which cannot always be rendered with complete accuracy in the target language. Furthermore, this statement is disproved by actual instances where the KJV fails to capture the full meaning of the Greek text (see here for examples).
     
  12. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with Archangel7 for the same reasons, especially on superiority. No translation can even be superior to the texts that the translators used.
     
  13. Doubting Thomas

    Doubting Thomas
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,616
    Likes Received:
    6
    You explained that well, PastorBob. I use the NKJV myself, but I'm basically with you on the Received Text.
     
  14. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would be much more amenable to your position if the TR were corrected to the majority text in places where the support for the TR reading is weak or nil.
     
  15. JonHenry

    JonHenry
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2002
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    0
    As just another echo on the screen, I have to admit that the version topic was what drew me to become a member of the BB. As a matter of fact, I further admit that my actual Bible reading time suffered as a result (too much time reading arguments). I corrected that, & only come to the board to peruse the opinions & learn (sometimes).
    I am much more settled on the debate, & am glad for both the MV- & TR-preferred sides that they have settled their stances on the Word of God. We have an anchor -- God's Word.

    Most importantly, I have also learned to completely ignore the KJVO side as defined in the original post @ the top. I'm way too busy to have time for that.

    God Bless
     
  16. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,075
    Likes Received:
    102
    Since this is so civil, do those who hold the TR position mean the TR or the Majority Text position as reflected in Scrivener? Or do I misunderstand?
     
  17. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,158
    Likes Received:
    322
    I call myself TRO Scrivener 1894/5.
    This is the distilled text underlying the KJV.
    I treat it as the virtual Word of God, though should believing scholarship find a word in need of correction I would be open to it.

    I don't believe its the Christian thing to do to heap ridicule and contempt on those who sincerely hold to one of the W&H texts.
    Neither do I break fellowship with them.
    After all they need me show them which is the correct variant! [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    HankD
     
  18. LRL71

    LRL71
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0

    In reference to Pastor Bob's analysis of the KJVO arguments, I would like to also address the issue of 'preservation' of the Bible text. I have noticed that Harvest (a KJVO) and Pastor Bob (a TR/Majority Text-only) both have some work to do about how to define what preservation means, especially in light of what the Scriptures say about the subject-- which is nothing at all. I think that both positions, regardless of their respective conclusions on preservation, pre-suppose their argument that God did in fact perfectly preserve His Word in *only* the KJV or TR/Majority Text. Here's the problem: where did God say that He would perfectly preserve His word into any one translation, group of translations, Greek manuscript(s), or Greek text(s)? Now, I don't think that one's presuppositions should, on its own merit, make one conclude-- without any Scriptural basis-- that their position is the right one to take; you cannot make a doctrine of the Bible out of one's own personal preference or presuppositions (that would be called heresy-- especially in this case it would be adding to the Word of God). I have yet to see how one can prove that God preserved *perfectly* His Word into any one translation or Greek/Hebrew manuscript, let alone into any translation or Greek/Hebrew texts as if they read *exactly* as the originals do. It's perfectly fine to have the *opinion* that any one translation or group of translations, or one Greek/Hebrew manuscript or text-type of Greek/Hebrew manuscripts, but don't say that God did this with either the KJV or TR/Majority Greek text. This is tantamount to adding to what God has spoken through His Word!

    To address the Psalm 12:6&7 issue as to whether it teaches 'providential preservation', consider an earlier analysis of that text below from a post I made last October:
    ** Sorry for the length!**

    Regarding the 'possibility' of Psalm 12 referring its meaning to the preservation of words rather than of the 'poor' and 'needy', I will add a little more proof that this verse is NOT teaching the preservation of words. Let me demonstrate this to all, which I will paraphrase from Doug Kutilek's pamphlet and the Hebrew OT text:

    Some have implied that Psalm 12:5-8 is proof of the doctrine of providential preservation. I would urge anyone to read an article by Doug Kutilek, "Why Psalm 12:6,7 is not a promise of the infallible preservation of Scripture", which I will briefly outline from his pamphlet.

    Grammatical proof of my assertion is as follows:
    Pronouns indicate the presence, whether expressed or implied, of an antecedent (previous) noun. Verse 7 declared that God will keep *them* and preserve *them*, but what is the antecedent to these pronouns? Based on the English text (and I will only use the King James), there appears to be two possibilities: words, in verse six-- and this one is the closest relative, or in verse five, which are the 'poor' and 'needy'. The pronoun in verse 7 ('them') is plural, and solely based on the English tense, it could be ambiguous as to its antecedent. Now, here's the kicker.....
    We have a Hebrew text underlying the translation of the English KJV. When we look at the Hebrew, the ambiguity is perfectly clear! Hebrew, like many other languages, has a feature inherent that English lacks: grammatical gender. In English, we don't have gender; an example to demonstrate its foreign concept to those who only know English is like this: in German, the word 'spoon' is of the masculine gender, for 'knife' it is neuter, and for 'fork' it is feminine. The use of gender in other languages than English is a common practice. Hebrew works the same way, that is, different words have different genders, and the pronouns *must* match the gender, case, and number *exactly*! This is how we know what 'them' in verse 7 refers to.

    In the Hebrew of Psalm 12, the pronouns translated 'them' in verse 7 are both masculine gender. The first 'them' in verse 7 is plural in number, while the second is singular (literally, 'him'). This means that the antecedent noun can be expected to be masculine in gender and plural in number. Now, the KJV-onlyist has a problem with using this verse to prove that it teaches a 'providential preservation' doctrine: in verse six, the Hebrew word for 'words' is a *feminine* plural noun in both cases, while the words 'poor' and 'needy' in verse 5 are both masculine and plural! Gender and number antecedents of 'them' is not 'words' (of verse six), but the 'poor' and 'needy' of verse 5!

    Further consideration is in the usage of the verbs translated "keep" and "preserve". The verb translated "keep" from Hebrew is shamar. The occurrences of the verb shamar in Psalms will shed light upon the true meaning of the text in Psalm 12, and I will quote the following verses from the Psalms (KJV):
    12:7--Thou shalt "keep" them
    16:1--"preserve" me
    17:8--"keep" me
    25:20--O "keep" my soul
    41:2--The Lord will "preserve" him
    86:2--"preserve" my soul
    ** Also see the following verses:
    89:28, 97:10, 116:6, 121:3, 121:4, 121:5, 121:7, 121:8, 127:1, 130:3, 140:4, 141:9, 145:20, and 146:9.
    If you can see in the preceding verses, the object of the verb shamar is always a person, people, or group of people, or pertaining to people. The usage of this verb with the object being other than 'person' or 'people' would be foreign in its usage. This verb is consistent with its usage in the Psalms to refer only to people and not to, as some may want to concede, referring to "words" of Psalm 12:6.

    Again, the usage of the second verb translated "preserve" (in Hebrew, natsar) will shed its light upon the consistent meaning of Psalm 12. Consider the following cases of the usage of natsar in the Psalms:
    12:7-- thou shalt preserve them
    32:7-- thou shalt preserve me
    64:1-- preserve my life
    140:1, 4-- preserve me
    141:3-- keep the door of my lips

    As with the Hebrew verb natsar ("preserve"), when God is the *subject* of the verb, the object being preserved is 'people' or pertaining to a person or people. The supposition that this is referring to 'words' of verse six is not supported by either of the Hebrew verbs used in translating "keep" and "preserve".

    In either case, the verb usage in Hebrew does NOT reflect the view that Psalm 12:6-7 is referring to God preserving His words, but rather that God is keeping and preserving the 'poor' and 'needy'! Based on the clear evidence from grammar and its proper explanation of the context from the Hebrew text, it can be concluded that Psalm 12:6-7 says nothing about the doctrine of providential preservation.

    ***
    Needless to say, Psalm 12 cannot be a proof verse that God preserved His Word *perfectly* or otherwise. Another problem would arise as to its application if it did: God did not say how, what, or through who He would preserve His word, and it could not have been applied to the KJV or the TR/Majority text.

    Let us be careful not to inject a foreign concept into something that God did NOT clearly speak about. No two Greek or Hebrew manuscripts read exactly alike, and we cannot base a 'doctrine' on something that is truly false!
    [​IMG]
     
  19. Faith Fact Feeling

    Faith Fact Feeling
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    0
    While everyone is getting their cards on the table, I will also. I have given my testimony on a couple of threads now. I duly accept the unenviable position on this thread as KJBO. I agree wholeheartedly with the comments of “The Harvest”. I have studied and studied this issue for many years now. The more I pray and study, the more I am convinced the KJB is God’s preserved word. I believe it was a miracle that occurred nearly 400 years ago when the KJB was translated. I believe that is when God fulfilled his promise in Psalms 12:6-7 (in the KJB “only”).

    I understand Pastor Bob 63’s position. That position would be my second choice. I have found myself drifting toward this position from time to time over the years (no offense intended Pastor Bob 63). The TR preservation position is much more palatable to the well educated Christian lay people and scholars of today. The peer pressure of man can be overwhelming in this day of rampant apostasy. But I keep coming back to how the word of God speaks. When I survey the word of God (KJB) it just does not speak like the scholars and scientists of today, and when I read the new versions, I hear the words of men intermingled with the words of God.

    Men speak about good things that sometimes come out of evil events, and how something can be perfect, yet flawed at some level. The word of God is different. The word of God speaks resolutely in absolute terms, not relative terms. God says “a little leaven leaventh the whole lump”. God says something is good or bad, period. The men of Sodom were evil. Did the men of Sodom never do anything good? How about their children? Their wives? Why did God destroy them all with fire? What about the pre-flood world? Was everyone completely evil? Did they never do anything that was good? Did they not even do good to their children? Why did God drown them all? Could not a partial case be made for these instances in history that some good, however insignificant, was present? Men can and do question these judgements based on these grounds. And what about David? God said he was a man after His own heart, but yet he murdered a man and took that man’s wife. How was it that he could get by with this, and still be put up on such a pedestal by God?

    As someone who spends most of their time defending the inerrancy of Biblical accounts, I know how men reason. They reason using facts, they reason using history, they reason using human logic. God said He chose the foolish things of this world to confound the wise, and that He has made foolish the wisdom of this world. Jesus actually thanked the father for hiding spiritual insights from the wise and prudent. I see so many wise people that are completely and bewilderingly confused about things that are so simple. The Jewish people carried the Lord’s sword until the Lord came in the flesh. The Gentiles then carried the sword for a while in the Greek. Then evil men, and their evil church-state regime, locked God’s words away for a millenium. The Bible says the entrance of thy word bringeth forth light. This is exactly what happened during the reformation. God’s words reentered the scene, and brought with it light, and this light was the light of God’s words.

    The entrance of God’s words is why we are here today in America debating this issue without fear of persecution. My German forefathers left Germany in 1715 during the Palatine migration. Preachers traveled Europe preaching the promise of religious freedom in the new land. The best and brightest, and the most spiritual, departed Europe and came to North America. Our country was originally composed of some of the most spiritual, godly men in the history of humankind. After breaking the chains of darkness that had gripped God’s people for 1000 years, there was no holding us back. The winds of God were at our backs. God in His divine providence formed this nation and separated us from the nation that locked up His word. One nation, under God, indivisible. God’s sword was handed off to the English speaking people of the reformation. It is not locked-up in some dead language. Can’t you see, it is America that carries God’s sword. We took this sword and scourged the countryside with preaching that convicted sins, and brought men to their knees to repent before God almighty. It was a spiritual revival the likes of which have not been seen before or after, a revival so great it was dubbed “The Great Awakening”. But we stopped using this wonderful sword God gave us. We have grown enlightened over the years, and we have fallen asleep spiritually. Our ears have become dull of hearing, and our eyes blinded. We have become complacent in our wealth, prosperity, and military might. We know not that we are wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked. We have turned the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped the creature more than the creator. We will not endure sound doctrine, but we instead heap unto ourselves ear tickling teachers and preachers. Jesus told the scholars of his day, you can discern the face of the sky, but not the signs of the times.

    You do not believe God preserved His words in the most eloquent form of the language of the last days? O ye of little faith. The KJB has not become too difficult to read. It is the kiss of God on a lost and spiritually blind world. No, we have put the sword on the shelf. After all, what could be wrong with changing a word here or there, or paraphrasing what God actually meant. Oh nothing, just damn the whole human race, that’s all (just ask Eve). Jesus said “man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God”. I, for one, believe He has preserved “every word” of it.
     
  20. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    FFF, well said. almost thou persuadest me to be a KJVO. [​IMG]

    [ March 04, 2003, 01:55 AM: Message edited by: am ha'aretz ]
     

Share This Page

Loading...