Loving the KJV?
About middle of first episode, Wes Huff says he loves the King James Version, even though he also says in the same paragraph that he doesn’t recommend the King James Version of the Bible. Those like Wes love almost every English translation of the Bible for some reason or another, even though they differ in their underlying text two to seven percent. He thinks the KJV is wrong on a number of passages — longer ending of Mark, woman caught in adultery, and the inclusion of 1 John 5:7. But that’s okay, because no one is completely sure anyway.
Certainty is what makes the “KJVO cult.” To not be a cult requires something more in line with confidence, which is not perfection. Even though I think Huff would support verbal, plenary inspiration of scripture, he doesn’t think we know with certainty what those words are. The underlying text of the King James Version, based on naturalistic presuppositions, is too long.
Tradition? Liking a Clean Narrative and Stability?
Huff then says, “There’s something about humans that like tradition.” He’s saying that support of the King James is because of tradition. I don’t know anyone who says that. He gives no evidence that this is the reasoning behind a continued use of the King James Version. Huff is flat-out wrong on this. Maybe tradition in the Church of England results in the continued usage of the King James Version in certain Anglican congregations, but this isn’t true of the confessional bibliology, ecclesiastical text, or perfect preservationist crowd.
Furthermore, Huff says, people “like a clean narrative” and “stability.” That’s it. He just knows what people really think that they don’t say that they think. They do anyways, because Huff knows better. But this isn’t true. They have scriptural and historical presuppositions. The verses that teach the perfect preservation of scripture guide the expectations about the Bible just like many other doctrines. This is living by faith and not by sight.
Dumbing Down “Perfect”
One of the hosts asks Wes Huff, “If your Bible is not perfect, then how can it be the Word of God?” Huff starts his answer with the words, “I think it begs the question by what we mean by perfect.” Then he says, “I don’t know if I would use the word perfect, because the word perfect implies flawless.” Huff explains that for most of recorded history, you couldn’t do a photocopy of something. You had to write things down and sometimes mistakes were made, Huff says — even with the printing press, giving the example of the infamous “Wicked Bible.”
Question: “Is the Bible a supernatural book?” Could God keep every Word perfect? Did He say He would? Then that’s what we believe — what God said He would do.
Scribal Errors and Debunking God’s Promise of Perfect Preservation
Huff says, “We can’t just brush over the way God has preserved His Word.” He introduces that statement with the reality of scribal errors found in the massive manuscript evidence. He says, “God included humanity into the process.” Huff is true in that men copied scripture and made errors in copying. What he doesn’t mention are these underlying scriptural presuppositions of providential, divine preservation and a settled text. Men have faith in the inspiration of the original manuscripts and they also must have faith in the perfect preservation of the Words of God, based on His promises.
When Huff says we can’t brush away the way God preserved His Word, he’s saying that God didn’t preserve every Word, which itself isn’t preservation. It is unbelief. The prevailing scholarly view is that words were lost. They don’t want to say that, that they are still attempting to restore a lost text, but that is their view. This is their so-called non-cultish view. God said He would keep them, they would be available, but they weren’t, and this is reality.
Hebrews 10:7
The primary host of Cultish asks Huff about an argument from Gene Kim, an online Bible teacher and pastor in Berkeley, California, where he refers to Hebrews 10:7:
Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
Kim says that God has more than just manuscripts, but a Book. I believe Kim makes a good argument in the line of a settled text of scripture. You can’t just slough it off, like Huff does. God says, “the book” here in Hebrews, a quotation too from Psalm 40:7. Believers would expect “the book,” one book, not just fragments and copies of mere individual books. “The book of Moses” isn’t just one book, but five books. Yet, it is “the book.”
The historical interpretation of “the book” in Hebrews 10:7 is not an anachronism, what Huff calls it. I know someone who hand copied the entire Bible (many have done this) and it is still “the book” as a manuscript, a manual copy, not a printed edition, of the Bible.
The Job of an Apologist
Exegesis
Huff and these men on Cultish are apparently apologists. What’s the point or purpose of apologists or apology? It is defense of what? Shouldn’t they defend what scripture says rather than defend a particular dogma that proceeds from a naturalistic presupposition, conforming scripture to a preconception? Instead, they undermine faith in a perfect Bible, because of the existence of textual variants. Where does denying verses of the Bible stop in the presence of “external evidence” that apparently disagrees with the teaching in the verses?
The historical, biblical interpretation of “the book” in Hebrews 10:7 is the present written scriptures as of the writing of Hebrews 10:7, which is the entire Old Testament, a singular book. “The volume of the book” is “the scroll of the book” both in Psalm 40:7 and Hebrews 10:7. A scroll speaks of a hand copy, that is still a book. This is simple exegesis that Huff will not engage. He ignores the biblical argument and instead shoots from the hip about the anachronism of “the book” as it relates to manuscripts, essentially creating a smoke cloud of obfuscation.
The Expectation of the Book
Huff says that these books, speaking of individual books of the Bible, “floated around independently.” According to scripture, these books were not “floating around.” We know that copies of individual books were sent and shared (Colossians 4:16).
The second host of Cultish then made a point that “the book” in Hebrews 10:7 is not the King James Version. Genius. Who says that? The Father said to the Son, “In the scroll of the King James Version it is written of me.” The point of Kim, I’m sure, is that saints should have an expectation of “the Book,” speaking of all the individual books into one book. What is controversial about that? He is saying that digging up all these fragments and portions of hand copies should not overturn the book God preserved and said He preserved.
“It Is Written”
Furthermore, a point I didn’t hear. Maybe Kim made it in his presentation. “It is written” is perfect indicative passive, meaning that it remains written in the writing of Hebrews. When was the volume written? Settled in heaven with the Father and the Son and continuing until the writing of Hebrews. This is teaching preservation of scripture. These apologists can’t dig into that, because it contradicts their naturalistic presuppositions, ignoring the doctrine of preservation.
I don’t know if Gene Kim thinks that “the book” is the King James Version or its underlying text (apparently, Kim is a Ruckmanite, which we oppose here vociferously). Either way, his point remains, that is, everything written in the book remains in the book. That is the underlying text from which the translation comes. That means the translation is “the Book.” Something is the Book. Kim is saying it is something. I am saying it is something. They are saying, it isn’t quite something. Maybe it is what is written. Probably not, because that’s “reality” as Huff says, which is his epistemology.
More to Come
Recent Comments