Home » Posts tagged 'King James Version'
Tag Archives: King James Version
Answering the “Cultish” Wes Huff Podcast on King James Only (Part Two)
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
Answering the “Cultish” Wes Huff Podcast on King James Only (Part One)
Cultish from Apologia Studios
Shortly after Wes Huff appeared on Joe Rogan, he came on a podcast, which affiliates with Apologia Studios, called “Cultish.” The men who do this show are also trying to become viewer or listener funded. In other words, they think they should go full time doing what they do. Their show came on my radar because of Wes Huff’s interview by Joe Rogan. The number of hits on this episode showed the Joe Rogan effect two times removed, 58,000 plus having watched this “Cultish” episode.
Just listening to the interview with Huff to answer King James Only, I would tell them, Don’t quit your day jobs. No one should fund this and for many reasons. It’s a hot mess. So why answer it? I’m doing it because it offers an evaluation of what kind of gibberish and absolute gobbledygook addresses King James Only. It reminds me of the typical left-winged rubbish, such as the woman at CBS who said free speech caused the holocaust. It is on that level, so ignorant, it’s hard to fathom. I find myself just wagging my head.
Straw-manning Versus Steel-manning
Maybe you’ve heard the difference between steel-manning and straw-manning a position. Wikipedia gives a definition to steel-manning (in case you don’t know):
A steel man argument (or steelmanning) is the opposite of a straw man argument. Steelmanning is the practice of applying the rhetorical principle of charity through addressing the strongest form of the other person’s argument, even if it is not the one they explicitly presented.
These men, including Wes Huff, only straw-man the position. If someone were examining something to see if it is a cult (you know, out of concern for the cult member), he would want to give an accurate representation. They do not do that. This is in the nature of bias confirmation and speaking into the echo chamber.
Just to start, why does KJVO appear as a cult? That’s never explained. The subject matter doesn’t belong on a show about cults, but it’s low hanging fruit for the heavily tattooed Apologia crowd and its cohorts. If someone will call KJVO a cult, someone could easily call something an Alexandrian or Vatican text cult, and have similar grounds for it. If KJVO is a cult, how does calling it a cult help deliver someone, who embraces the King James Version as the Bible, from the cult to which he belongs?
The Vulgate Argument
The content of the podcast of part one begins actually around the six minute mark. The Cultish host asks Huff a question about bridging a gap between the Council of Nicea and 1611 and the King James Version, there seeming to be a crying need for a translation from the original languages in 1611. It’s not a bad question. Huff answers the question by saying that the contemporary view of Jerome’s Vulgate is similar to the KJVO view of the King James Version. He says the arguments for the Vulgate and the King James are about the same.
The Vulgate argument did not originate from Huff. It’s been around for at least fifty years, and it is a strawman. As the critical text became more and more accepted in evangelicalism, men began developing arguments against the prevailing view and King James Version support. Huff says the argument is that the Vulgate had been the Bible for a thousand years (404 to 1604) and the King James for five hundred years (1611 to 2025). Actually, five hundred years would span the period of the printed editions of the Textus Receptus (1516-2025) from which the KJV New Testament came.
Truth about the Vulgate Argument
It would be nice to have a conversation about these things from two sides. The acceptance of Jerome came from an apostate state church, those who also believed a false gospel and heretical works salvation. The true internal testimony of the Holy Spirit is not involved in the acceptance of Jerome’s Vulgate, as also seen in the Roman Catholic embrace of extra-scriptural tradition, Papal pronouncements, the magisterium, and apocryphal books. They did not look for preservation of scripture in the original languages or in making the Bible available for Roman Catholics.
The Textus Receptus and Hebrew Masoretic was received by those truly saved by grace through faith alone. They were the texts received by the churches as authentic. The Vulgate didn’t come from an original Hebrew or Greek Text. Jerome worked from the Greek Septuagint and Latin Translations, not original language texts. Later Jerome looked at Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament for the sake of accuracy, but he still stuck with Old Latin translations for his New Testament work.
Jerome didn’t translate from the Greek New Testament and consider that “the Bible of the church” as Huff invents on the spot. He does this on many different occasions when I’ve heard him in different podcasts. He says this with a face of total confidence, but it is absolutely untrue. Huff says that the Roman Catholic objection of an original language text is the same as the one of KJVO, that is, the Latin has been the Bible for one thousand years.
Original Language Preservation
Historically, after the fall of the Roman Empire and throughout the Middle Ages, there were limited vernacular translations due to low literacy rates and strict control over biblical texts by the Roman Catholic ecclesiastical authorities. They didn’t want translation work done from original language texts, but in keeping with the approved Latin Vulgate, which become increasingly less understood by the rank and file citizens of Europe.
The argument for the King James concerns the preservation and availability of the original words of scripture in their original languages. The churches agreed on these words for hundreds of years. These were Spirit indwelt men and churches operating therefore with the testimony of the Holy Spirit. This is the heritage of the King James Version, not a magisterium model of Roman Catholicism. When you read the bibliology writings of truly converted theologians for hundreds of years after the printing press, they embraced the infallibility of the apographa, the copies of scripture, identical to the originals by providential preservation.
Huff says the KJVO and the Jerome Vulgate were “almost the exact same argument.” This is just an ad hominem and strawman attack that is patently false. What Huff really thinks will come out in this podcast and I’ll point it out when we get there. It was only Roman Catholicism arguing for continued use of Jerome’s Vulgate, not true churches.
Further along, Huff says that the apostles quoted from the Greek translation of the Old Testament. This is itself a new and common argument from critical text supporters, advocating for a corrupt translation of the Old Testament as an authority. This makes way for support of a less than perfect text of the Bible, not the biblical or historical view of the church.
Earlier English Translations
From the Vulgate conversation, the other Cultish host asked Huff about the history of English translations of the Bible. He mentioned Wycliffe and then Tyndale, also saying that Tyndale died for translating the Bible into English. At his execution on October 6, 1536, Tyndale was accused of “Lutheran heresy” for including prologues and footnotes that criticized church doctrine and authority. The charges did not say Bible translation.
Huff fails to reveal that the earlier English translations also translated the Textus Receptus and the Hebrew Masoretic, so that the underlying text of the King James was received and reigned before 1611. He also does not mention that Henry VIII authorized the Great Bible and ordered the translators to compare with Tyndale’s work. The King James Version is very close to Tyndale. Huff later says that part. They obviously also relied on his work. Tyndale, even though not carrying the name Baptist, which no one used yet, was Baptistic, even as he took a believer’s baptism position, even against both Puritan and Anglican alike.
Editions of the Textus Receptus
The next argument against this “cult” of KJVO from Huff relates to the underlying text of the King James being a Texti Recepti, rather than one Textus Receptus. Again, this is a strawman. The editions of the Textus Receptus, although they differ in a very small number of ways, represent one text. Those who printed these editions didn’t see them as different texts. Every historian and scholar knows that. Those who like to point out the several editions are angling for the King James translators doing textual criticism, as another faux argument.
You really can’t say that the King James translators were looking at Hebrew and Greek texts from which to translate and then also say that no text existed for the King James until Scrivener’s in the late 19th century. These contradict one another and this brings us back to a absence of a needed steel-manning.
Huff called the editions of Stephanus and Beza “updates” of Erasmus. The editions are homogeneous because they are the same text with minor variations, explained as corrections of minor errors. This period of printed editions did not continue past the middle 17th century. The churches settled, this explained as the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit.
The text behind the King James Version was a settled edition from the printed edition period. Huff says the translators used the science and art of textual criticism, which is a revisionist spin on what they did. All of the words in Scrivener’s were available to the King James translators and the churches. They possessed the original language words translated in 1611. No one was saying, “We don’t have a Greek text.” No one. That’s a modern innovation from those whom Huff mimics with this argument.
Underlying Text and Preservation
Huff entraps himself at about 22:45 in the podcast, when he reads the title page of the Trinitarian Bible Society Greek New Testament, which says the underlying Greek text of the 1611 King James Bible. The key word there is “underlying.” It underlay the King James Version, not proceeded from it.
One of the hosts asks Huff at about 24 minutes what is the difference between the critical text and the Textus Receptus and Huff says the critical text is “a text that is produced.” Good answer. You’ve got a preserved text and then a produced text. The latter does not represent the biblical doctrine of preservation. It denies it. Huff never mentions it. The doctrine of preservation should be at the forefront, but it isn’t because they deny the biblical and historical doctrine of preservation of scripture. They see it as naturalistic, something humanly produced.
More to Come
From the Work of Beza in 1598 to Modern Skepticism and the Greek New Testament
F. H. A. Scrivener showed 190 differences between his printed text, representing the underlying text of the King James Version, and that of Theodore Beza‘s printed edition in 1598. This was eighty-two years after the first printed edition of the Textus Receptus (TR) in 1516 and thirteen years before the publication of the King James Version (KJV). Beza had more manuscripts than Erasmus did in his first edition, including Codex Claromontanus and Codex Bezae. He did not overhaul the received text, making some corrections while keeping much of the editions of Erasmus and Stephanus already established within and by church usage.
The number of words different are much greater between Beza 1598 and Erasmus 1516 than Beza 1598 and Scrivener’s, something like 1500 to 190. Scrivener’s, the representation of the text underlying the King James Version, is not Erasmus 1516, as much as critics use Erasmus 1516 text for their Textus Receptus criticism. The KJV translators relied on Beza 1598, which agreed with earlier printed editions of the Greek New Testament, but corrected errors based on words in available Greek manuscripts. The progress between 1516 and 1611 followed the creed, a mistake made in one copy was corrected by another.
The Approach of Theodore Beza
The small number of corrections in the 16th century printed editions of the Greek New Testament showed the consensus among Bible believing and practicing churches for the completion of this work. The doctrine of preservation guided the thinking that this would not continue as an ongoing, never-ending work. Theodore Beza approached his biblical text work with a strong theological conviction that God had preserved His Word through history. He indeed believed that the TR represented a divinely preserved text.
For Beza, the work of Erasmus and Stephanus was a heritage of the divine transmission of Scripture. Beza recognized this and aimed to keep intact the familiar readings embraced by the churches. The reception history played a crucial role in Beza’s decisions. Keeping these was a reliance upon divine providence. By accepting and printing familiar readings, he aimed to ensure that his edition would be embraced by those already accustomed to earlier versions.
Theodore Beza’s theological perspective influenced his textual choices. He believed that certain readings aligned with doctrinal truths central to an orthodox biblical theology. This belief led him to retain readings and make adjustments only when absolutely necessary.
The cessation of further printed editions of the Greek New Testament after the Elzevir Brothers 1633 arrived almost entirely because of the acceptance of the standardization of existing translations of the text. The text should reflect what people read. People in churches read translations, not printed Greek editions. This revealed the settling of an underlying Greek text in the nature of the canonization of scripture. The internal testimony of the Holy Spirit decided the end of this period through the unified testimony of the saints.
The Settling of the Text of Scripture
Samuel P. Tregelles in his An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament writes (pp. 33-35):
Beza’s text was during his life in very general use amongst Protestants; they seemed to feel that enough had been done to establish it, and they relied on it as giving them a firm basis. . . . After the appearance of the texts of Stephanus and Beza, many Protestants ceased from all inquiry into the authorities on which the text of the New Testament in their hands was based.
According to Tregelles, in the early 18th century, Richard Bentley wrote that the text of Stephanus could not have claimed greater authority if “an apostle had been the compositor” (p. 29).
The reception of the churches indicated a settled text. The saints in the churches understood God’s warning neither to add or take away from the words of this book (Revelation 22:18-19, Deuteronomy 4:2). The text of the Bible was not a personal playbox for the fiddling of scholars. Churches also trusted the providence of God. He was at work in the perfect preservation of scripture.
Changes from “the Enlightenment”
New changes of the text of the Bible did not again arise until what historians call “the Enlightenment.” The late 18th and 19th centuries, almost two hundred years later, brought the rise of skepticism towards traditional authorities, including religious texts. This cultural shift brought a new view as to how biblical texts were viewed and utilized. The rise of modernism, a different world view from previous centuries, introduced methodologies steeped in a critical approach to science and history. This rejected reliance on faith, supernaturalism, highlighted by a denial of miracles.
Scholars such as Jean Astruc and Julius Wellhausen introduced critical methods that questioned the previously accepted understanding of textual integrity. For instance, Wellhausen’s documentary hypothesis suggested that the Pentateuch was composed from multiple sources rather than being authored solely by Moses. This perspective led to a reevaluation of all original texts, suggesting they were not divinely inspired but rather products of historical and cultural contexts.
Secular Methodologies
Scholars began applying secular methodologies to analyze the scriptures. A new approach fostered an environment of interpretation through a historical-critical lens, resulting in conclusions that diminished spiritual significance. The adoption of modernist principles in seminaries blended scriptural beliefs with contemporary critical methods. It was a different epistemology, knowledge no longer attained by faith or at least primarily by faith, but mostly through human observation and reasoning.
Modernism’s focus on empirical evidence encouraged scholars to pay closer attention to textual variants found in different manuscripts. The rise of higher criticism during the modernist movement also played a crucial role in shaping how scholars approached biblical texts. This analytical lens affected how critical texts are constructed. It started with a rejection of the doctrine of providential, divine preservation and a bias toward naturalistic explanations. Scholars began integrating insights from fields such as linguistics and anthropology into their analysis of biblical texts, leading to new methodologies for understanding language use and cultural contexts within the New Testament.
Conclusion
The critical text of the New Testament did not arise from the heritage of the Textus Receptus. These represent two entirely different worldviews, epistemologies, and methodologies. Progress from Erasmus, Stephanus, to Beza represent supernaturalism, divine providence, orthodox biblical belief, and certainty. The Bible stood as final authority for faith and practice.
Modernism gave birth to the critical text out of a cradle of skepticism. It started with doubt in the work of God and the veracity of providential preservation. Human empiricism supersedes belief in God. For this reason, the text of scripture never stops changing with a hopeless future for a settled text. This undermines the faith of God’s people and hardens the hearts of the lost.
What Is the “False Doctrine” of Only One Text of the Bible? (Part Five)
Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four
So, no apology is necessary for saying there’s one Bible. Why? There’s one Bible. Is that Bible the King James Version? It is the underlying text. I recently heard someone say, the underlying text for the King James Version text didn’t happen until 1881. That’s someone not telling the truth. He’s at least not speaking to those who don’t believe that. He’s talking to his echo chamber or those who know little about the underlying text. It is not steelmanning the opposition, but purposeful misrepresentation — a work of the flesh. Call it what you want.
I’ve said again and again, the King James translators translated from something. They translated. The King James translators weren’t making the words up. The many English commentators for those centuries after the King James Version didn’t treat the translation like a text didn’t exist. They commented on that text, because they possessed it.
Men who didn’t write commentaries knew the original languages and they were preaching from a text they believe was kept pure through all the ages. They believed that because God promised it. So it wasn’t? By faith we understand that it was.
Recognition of Textual Variants
A fourth concern I’ve heard is the reality that church men have long recognized textual variants and acknowledged their existence. I don’t know who doesn’t know this. Since we know that variations exist between printed editions of the Greek New Testament, then we know scribal errors were made in hand copies. Come on! This is a red herring!
Our scriptural presupposition is not that individual manuscripts or printed editions are perfect. It isn’t even the ink or parchment, one perfect physical manuscript that survives from the beginning. The opposite. We believe in the perfect preservation and availability of the words of scripture. That’s what the Bible talks about. Godly church leaders called this, an error in one copy is corrected in another.
Error in One Copy Corrected in Another
Richard Capel wrote:
[W]e have the Copies in both languages [Hebrew and Greek], which Copies vary not from Primitive writings in any matter which may stumble any. This concernes onely the learned, and they know that by consent of all parties, the most learned on all sides among Christians do shake hands in this, that God by his providence hath preserved them uncorrupt. . . .
As God committed the Hebrew text of the Old Testament to the Jewes, and did and doth move their hearts to keep it untainted to this day: So I dare lay it on the same God, that he in his providence is so with the Church of the Gentiles, that they have and do preserve the Greek Text uncorrupt, and clear: As for some scrapes by Transcribers, that comes to no more, than to censure a book to be corrupt, because of some scrapes in the printing, and tis certain, that what mistake is in one print, is corrected in another.
Another presupposition is attack on scripture. Sometimes errors are purposeful. It took the providential handiwork of God to ensure preservation occurred through the means revealed in scripture.
Gaslit Arguments
Critical Text New Consensus, Voice of Holy Spirit
Certain various arguments seem like gaslighting to me. Here’s one: the critical text is or could be the consensus text among believers now, and this is the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking. I don’t think anyone really believes this. What’s wrong with it though, if anyone even takes it seriously?
Preservation means availability. A text not available isn’t preserved. The critical text isn’t a text that ever existed. It’s a “Frankentext” with hundreds of lines of text with no manuscript evidence. It was not available.
The church believed in perfect preservation and agreed on the text. It was settled. Modernism came up with a new text based on rationalism. That wasn’t the Holy Spirit or the church.
You don’t have something preserved, that’s the Holy Spirit, and then men replace it and now that’s the Holy Spirit. A close parallel would be restorationism. That means something is lost and the Holy Spirit returns it to what it was. The modern text doesn’t proceed from preservation or agreement of the church. It is an invention used just for what seems like gaslighting from people who don’t believe in any of what they’re saying.
English Prejudice?
Another faux argument considers an accused English prejudice. Again, these are all just reactions to already established scriptural presuppositions. Reformation era Dutch, German, Spanish, and French translations come from slightly different TR editions that some say belie a settled text or perfect preservation. Why English and not these other language translations?
Other major world languages have the similarity of all with long-time translations from the Hebrew Masoretic for the Old Testament and Textus Receptus for the New. None of them translated a critical text. That narrows it down to essentially the same text, but it’s true that each of them does not translate from an identical text. For some critical text supporters, this apparently opens a gap to drive through a critical text. To them, this must needs indicate some level of eclecticism or acceptance of it.
Again, I don’t think the critics are serious when they make the accusations of English prejudice toward an apparent bias toward the King James Version. English speaking people are embracing the King James Version. Those supportive of the King James Version also celebrate the availability of these Reformed era translations from essentially the same underlying text. They are happy about the similarity and the availability. They’re all much better than a modern critical text. There isn’t fighting between these various language translations all from the similar text.
Critical text supporters and King James critics are the ones highlighting the few differences in underlying text. They’re doing this only to undermine a doctrine of perfect preservation. They’re also trying to make it an issue of English prejudice, which there isn’t.
Why the King James?
I hate answering this question, because I doubt the sincerity of those asking. They don’t believe in the same presuppositions or even the same source for the contradictory presuppositions. I’ve been asked many insincere questions, especially teaching jr. high for decades in our school. Those kids liked asking the same type of questions to attempt to pit the teacher against their parents.
Maybe some KJV supporters have an English bias. Myself and many, if not most, don’t have one. I am just reading and calling what happened. Biblical Christianity took hold through the English and then the English sent missionaries to the whole world. English in fact became the lingua franca of the whole world. It would be like saying that there was a Roman bias for a thousand years. No, the Roman Empire ruled the then-known world. It’s just reality. The dollar is the world reserve currency. Neither is this an English bias.
Scriptural presuppositions require a settled text. To believe what God said on this, people have to bite down on what occurred. It’s like acknowledging fulfilled prophecies. What God said would happen did occur in the real world. Believing requires accepting this. If acceptance or reception (the canonicity argument) and the testimony of the Holy Spirit through believers direct to the very words, then there must be those words. It really isn’t a hard call to say it’s the English. This isn’t a prejudice. It is a conclusion. Faith requires a conclusion. Rejecting that is faithless.
More to Come
What Is the “False Doctrine” of Only One Text of the Bible? (Part Four)
Most of what we believe occurs like the following. One, we read the Bible with a grammatical, historical interpretation or hear right preaching of the Bible. Two, we believe what we read or hear and that becomes our beliefs. Three, we look for the fulfillment of scripture in the only world to live it, the real one here on earth. Four, we apply the Bible by practicing it according to the right thinking of and about it.
In its context, the Bible teaches its own perfect preservation in the language in which it was written. There really is no other kind of preservation in the Bible. Something less than perfect is in fact not preservation. If it is not the language in which God gave scripture, that’s not preserving what He gave. He gave it in that language for a reason. It would communicate what He wanted.
Preservation
Because scripture teaches the perfect preservation of this one Book and all of its individual Words, then we believe that. Then we look for its fulfillment. I am open to fulfillment of scripture that is not what I think, an alternative to it. I have not heard anything close to an acceptable alternative. The fulfillment I believe glove fits what I see in the Bible. It happened like God said. Sure, we’re missing some of the historical detail, but that’s normal in belief, which corresponds to faith is not by sight.
When I go to apply what I believe about the preservation of scripture, I can see that it is the Hebrew Masoretic for the Old Testament and the Greek Textus Receptus for the New Testament, based on all the scriptural presuppositions. What Mark Ward says does not move me, because he never starts with scriptural presuppositions, even in his rare 1 Corinthians 14 exegesis, which would apply only to translation anyway, not the doctrine of preservation.
The List Again
For easier reading and review, this series left off covering the following five points, concerns expressed for awhile by Mark Ward, for which he prays for an apology:
- One, they don’t sufficiently acknowledge archaic English in the King James Version, semantic changes, the worst of which Ward calls “false friends.”
- Two, they say God preserved every Word in the original language text, but they won’t point out the preserved printed edition of the Textus Receptus that represents that.
- Three, they keep using the King James Version, so making the Bible opaque to the average reader, even though modern versions from the same underlying text are available.
- Four, they won’t admit that church men have long recognized textual variants and acknowledged their existence.
- Five, the underlying text behind the King James Version didn’t exist in a single edition until Scrivener in the late 19th century, who himself didn’t support the Textus Receptus.
This is not Ward’s official list. I’m making it his list from what I’ve read of him, and I’m now to number three.
Modern Versions of the Same Text as the King James Version Are Available
Ward concludes that unwillingness to embrace a modern version of the same text as the King James Version indicates some kind of deceit on the part of those who claim dependence on the underlying text of the King James Version. If underlying text is really the issue, men can and should switch translation to a more readable or intelligible one. Ward has a bit of a point here. What’s with these men still using the King James Version with a hundred or more unintelligible English words? He contends that using a definition list of the difficult words or marginal notes doesn’t cut it.
Misunderstood words is a problem for a translation. When translators work at translating, they do have the audience in mind. First, they try to translate exactly the meaning of the word and according to its usage in the context. The King James translators did that, but some of the words now mean something different to a contemporary English audience or they mean almost nothing at all.
An Explanation of Translation
As a preacher of the Bible to English speaking people, I explain to my audience what the original author intended for either the Hebrew or the Greek. Right now I’m preaching through three books: Sunday morning, Matthew, Sunday night, Genesis, and Wednesday night, Revelation. This is my second time in my life through Matthew, fourth through Genesis 1-12, and at least fifth through Revelation. I’m going to give you just one sample from the texts I preached on Sunday in Genesis 3. I talked about Genesis 3:8, which says this in the King James Version:
And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.
I mention just one word — the word “cool.” Isn’t it cool that this is the first use of the word “cool” in the Bible? So cool. “Cool” translates the Hebrew, ruach, which is almost always “wind.” It is also the Hebrew word that refers to the Holy Spirit. It does. So is “cool” the right translation of ruach? Did the KJV translators get it wrong with “cool.”
Ruach
The word ruach comes with an article, so it is “the cool.” It is not “a cool.” It isn’t just any cool at this juncture in the early history of the world. It refers to one particular time in the day when a breeze would blow through the Garden where Adam and Eve lived. That breeze made the temperature more cool at a particular time that Moses’ audience and people living on earth, reading this, would understand. The sun would set, which caused a breeze. It’s not so much to communicate the temperature though as it did to describe a time Adam and Eve would meet with God.
Shouldn’t people know that “cool” was a breeze or a wind? Is “cool” really better? The NIV, ESV, NASB, and the NKJV all translate ruach here “cool,” even though it is a very exceptional translation. Would an English reader, who doesn’t look at the Hebrew, know that “wind” was involved? I would say, “No, they would not.” They wouldn’t know that. This happens a lot too and far more times in an English translation than a hundred times. Is it is sin? Of course not.
The word God inspired is ruach, which is also what He preserved. That’s the major issue for me. Every translation will still require digging to understand it. I don’t think one hundred English words now with semantical changes change the dynamics enough to merit a new translation, especially in light of the glut of English translations. I want to explain that, as I have many times before.
Weighing Reasons
As much as semantical changes might give a reason for another translation of the same underlying text of the King James Version, reasons also exist for not doing it. Men weigh those reasons against each other.
One, the King James Version is a standard.
Two, churches accepted and accept the King James Version for centuries.
Three, the King James Version passed the test of time.
Four, it should not be easy to change the Bible.
Five, churches are familiar with the language of the King James Version and it becomes the lingua franca of a church.
Six, churches memorize the King James Version and a new translation would upend that to a large degree.
Seven, churches who believe in the underlying text of the King James Version would agree to do that among them or from their midst (not based on critical text supporters like Mark Ward goading them).
Eight, churches would need to cohere to a monumental task to provide a new standard.
A Conclusion
Having weighed reasons, I don’t believe King James Version churches are ready for a new translation or update. I think I would know that as well as almost anyone. The kind of talk I have in this piece is not something Mark Ward deals with. What I’m saying is real. It matters. Ignoring it is unhelpful and even condescending. It does not smack of Spirit control.
More to Come
What Is the “False Doctrine” of Only One Text of the Bible? (Part Two)
The average non-church going person and even church goers see the glut of English Bibles and often say, “There are different Bibles.” I’ve heard it dozens of times through the years. Is that true? Is there really more than one Bible? The answer is “no.” God inspired only one Bible, certain exact words, and then He also preserved one Bible with the same exact words in the same language in which they were written. The so-called existence of “many Bibles” undermines authority for the one and only Bible. Believing in one Bible doesn’t require an apology. That belief is a true one.
An Apology
Mark Ward just wrote the following:
One of my life’s long-term prayers is that someone of stature within KJV-Only circles will publicly apologize for promoting false doctrine.
Then he explained the reason:
Ultimately God only knows what moral culpability individuals bear for teaching things that aren’t true and thereby dividing the body of Christ. God only knows who is a victim and who is a perpetrator, or what proportions of perpetrator and victim a given person represents. But I just can’t imagine that all this untruth and division that’s been generated by KJV-Onlyism could occur without individual people sinning—sinning against the teaching of 1 Cor 14 that edification requires intelligibility, sinning against commands for unity and for sound doctrine, sinning against God’s providential opportunities for doing better study.
In part one, I examined Ward’s charge of division for which he prays for an apology. Above you can also see he charges men with not telling the truth. That I know of, I haven’t taught anything on this subject that isn’t true. No one has shown me one thing that I’ve said that is false, which is an important prerequisite for apologizing about saying something not true. That’s all I can say on that part as an answer to Mark Ward’s prayer. He’ll have to get more specific with me if he wants that particular apology. I’m a phone call away for any apology if he’s been praying for one.
Logic and Ambiguity
In recent days, Ward declared that KJVO leaders sin for having the KJV as their church Bible. For you reading, who don’t know much about Ward, this explains his use of 1 Corinthians 14. There is a kind of syllogism that with Ward gets this to the sin category for me and others. I’m trying to help you understand Ward’s thinking here. I’ve made his logic into a syllogism.
Major Premise: Knowing to do good and not doing good is sin.
Minor Premise: Edification is good and because unintelligibility prohibits edification, allowing or causing unintelligibility is not doing good.
Conclusion: Therefore, allowing or causing unintelligibility is sin.
I can agree with the soundness of the syllogism. What’s wrong? There’s an informal logical fallacy called, equivocation.
The equivocation fallacy refers to the use of an ambiguous word or phrase in more than one sense within the same argument. Because this change of meaning happens without warning, it renders the argument invalid or even misleading.
Intelligibility and unintelligibility of themselves are ambiguous. Like many other words and even concepts in scripture, someone can make them mean what he wants them to mean. A believer should define a word in scripture based on how the author uses it. Mark Ward defines intelligibility in a particular way that does not fit 1 Corinthians 14. Many people have explained that to him. I haven’t seen him listen on this and almost anything else. He has a bias toward his own thinking.
Language and 1 Corinthians 14
Paul portrayed a situation in 1 Corinthians 14 where someone spoke in an unknown language. People couldn’t understand it without a translator. Only with an accurate translation could someone understand a foreign language. The conclusion: stop speaking in an unknown or foreign language. There it is.
1 Corinthians 14 is in a three chapter section (12-14) on spiritual gifts. It especially deals with an abuse of the gift of tongues. The actual gift of tongues, as seen in Acts 2, means known languages. The point is understanding the language. Those chapters are not about semantical changes in the same language, but about reining in the abuse of tongues.
Semantic changes occur in the Bible itself and the Bible doesn’t sin when it does that or allows it. Words change in meaning as one reads through the Bible itself. Sometimes the progression of the biblical narrative results in some changes in meaning.
I’m not writing to protect semantic changes in an English translation of God’s perfectly preserved words. We want to know what those words mean and all the other ones too. 1 Corinthians 14 deals mainly with speaking in gibberish, that is, in a language that can’t be know at all. It’s not even a language. That doesn’t edify.
Real Concerns
Even if someone spoke an actual foreign language in a miraculous way, he wouldn’t edify the hearers if they didn’t know the language. That or unintelligible gibberish is the context of verse 9, when Paul says, “utter by the tongue words easy to be understood.” He is not talking about a word here and there of the same language as the hearers, which has endured a semantic change. Edification would still occur with that. I’m not saying it’s not a problem. It is. But it isn’t a sin.
Calling sin the continued endorsement of the King James Version as the English Bible for a church is such an exaggeration, so excessive, by Mark Ward, that it reminds me of the games Pharisees played with words, as recorded in the Gospels. It is blowing a concern way out of proportion.
I’ve written a lot about this through the years, but my bigger concern is a distortion of the gospel and perverted preaching. Many, many who use the King James Version for decades and longer have preached a false gospel and now for half a century at least have just used the King James. It’s not because of archaic words that they do this. They do it because of perverted theology and probably in many instances a lack of conversion. I hear almost nothing about that from Mark Ward. No. Even when he is with someone who massacres the true gospel, he says nothing as long as that person gives an inch on his false friend teaching.
More to Come
The New King James Version Does Not Come From the Same Text as the King James Version
In recent days at his youtube channel, Mark Ward again compared the New King James Version (NKJV) with the King James Version (KJV). This goes back a few years, when Ward wrote a blog post that said that the NKJV and the KJV came from an identical Greek New Testament text. In the comment section, I started giving him examples of differences, five at a time. I provided these examples after he made his claim. His claim did not come from his own personal research. After continuing to give examples about five at a time, that showed his claim was wrong, Ward admitted that the two texts were not the same in at least six places.
Systematic Search
The standard as to whether the NKJV and KJV are different, however, is not the few differences that I found in the little time after Ward made his claim. Ward speaks about the differences as though there were just six that really don’t matter much to the meaning of the text. He does not mention that he did not find these variations himself. He also treats those six like they represent all of the differences. It’s just not true though. I hardly looked for examples and found the few ones that I sent him without any systematic search.
Since Mark Ward won’t stop misrepresenting the issue of the differences between the text underlying the NKJV and the KJV, I decided to start a more systematic search in my spare time. I began in Matthew 1 to start chapter by chapter through the New Testament, and I’m to the fifth chapter of Mark So, this is just Matthew — one gospel — and then Mark 1-5. That doesn’t mean that I found every example, because I don’t have a copy of the text for the NKJV. Perhaps one doesn’t exist.
If someone were trying to study and teach from the NKJV and use the original languages, what text would he use for that study? I’m asserting there is none. It doesn’t come from the same text as the KJV so an underlying text of the NKJV, that same as that translation, is not available. That’s a tough one, wouldn’t you say?
Examples
To find my examples, I had to look at the two translations and compare them. When I saw differences, then I went to the Greek text to see if these differences were the result of a different text. Again, Mark Ward didn’t do this work. He doesn’t look for these examples. How does someone report something like fact that he doesn’t even know? All of the examples to which Mark refers came from my finding them for him.
Without further adieu, below are the most recent examples I found of differences between the underlying text of the NKJV and the KJV [CT=Critical Text, TR=Textus Receptus].
Matthew
- 1:18—KJV, TR, ”as,” gar versus NKJV, CT, no “as,” no gar
- 7:9-10—KJV, TR, “if he ask,” aorist versus NKJV, CT, “if he asks,” future
- 9:17—KJV, TR, “perish,” future middle versus NKJV, CT, “are ruined,” present passive
- 9:22—NKJV, CT, strepho, versus KJV, TR, “turned him about”epistrepho, “turned around”
- 10:19—KJV, TR, “shall speak,” future versus NKJV, CT, “should speak,” subjunctive
- 13:36—NKJV, CT, “explain,” diasapheo versus KJV, TR, “declare,” phrazo
- 16:17—KJV, TR, kai, “and” versus NKJV, CT, no kai, no “and” to start verse
- 18:6—KJV, TR, epi, about,” versus NKJV, CT, peri, “around”
- 19:5—KJV, TR, proskalleo, “shall cleave” versus NKJV, CT, “be joined,” kalleo
- 20:20—KJV, TR, ”of,” para, versus NKJV, CT, apo, “from”
- 21:25—KJV, TR, para, “with” versus NKJV, CT, en, “among”
- 22:10—KJV, TR, hosous, “as many as” versus NKJV, CT, hous, “whom”
- 23:34—KJV, TR, kai, “and” versus NKJV, CT, eliminates kai, no “and”
- 27:3—KJV, TR, apestrephe, “brought again” versus NKJV, CT, apostrepho, ”brought back”
Mark
- 1:16—KJV, TR, de, “now” versus NKJV, CT, kai, “and”
- 2:15—KJV, TR, to, “that” versus NKJV, CT, no to, no “that”
- 2:21—KJV, TR, kai, “also” versus NKJV, CT, no kai, no “also”
- 4:18—KJV, TR, no eisin, “they are” versus NKJV, CT, eisin, “they are” (in italics but in so doing accrediting the CT)
- 5:6—KJV, TR, de, “but” versus NKJV, CT, no de, no “but”
These are nineteen more examples after looking at about one and a third New Testament books. I don’t want to keep searching for these. Rather, I would wish for the other side to defer and just admit that the NKJV translators did not use the same text. In other words, I don’t want them to keep challenging this assertion. The NKJV is not the NKJV. It would come from the same text as the KJV, one would assume, if it were a “New” King James Version. The NKJV comes from a less different text than most modern versions, but it does come from a different text.
Why Does It Matter?
Why does any of this matter? It isn’t a translational issue in this case, but one of the underlying text. This is presuppositional. God promised to preserve every Word. If that’s true, which it is, then this relates to the doctrine of preservation of scripture. Mark Ward and others act like they don’t even understand it. They rarely to never mention it.
In a recent video on this same issue, Mark Ward went on the offensive against the King James Version. It wasn’t a new attack. This is the point. Textual critics say one short phrase in Revelation 16:5 wasn’t in any known manuscript, but was instead a conjectural emendation by Beza (read about this issue here). It is not a phrase that appears in a majority of presently preserved Greek manuscripts. I carefully wrote that last sentence, because a translation of the Latin of Beza doesn’t say it was a conjectural emendation, but instead he wrote:
Therefore, I am not able to doubt but that the true reading should be as I have restored it from an ancient manuscript [hand-written] codex of good faith, truly ο εσομενος.
Men like myself and others with our presuppositions from scripture believe this is what Beza did, not conjectural emendation.
A problem that Ward would not mention in his offensive against the King James Version is that almost all modern versions, ones that he supports, come from a minority of the manuscripts. Not only that, but in hundreds of lines of text in the underlying text of the modern versions there is zero manuscript evidence. They have no manuscript support. Yet, Ward and many, many others, who deny the biblical and historical doctrine of preservation, have no problem advocating most for those modern versions that translate that text.
****************************************
Addendum
I don’t plan on continuing to keep looking up more examples. It wasn’t as those examples did not present themselves as I looked. This makes the point of variations in the textual basis between the NKJV and the KJV. What made this tough is that the NKJV translators said, no differences, and yet there are.
If you trusted the translators, then you didn’t know the differences. Perhaps you never checked. Yes, there’s a difficulty sometimes in deciding translational differences. I tried to find the ones where the differences would or could reflect a difference in the text. A variant needed to exist for me to use the example. It’s easy to come later and defend it as a translational choice, but there is a there, there. If you want to criticize, you could try to do that, and I could just keep looking for more too. This is something perhaps you haven’t done, that is, look on your own.
If you haven’t looked on your own, maybe you could do that, if it matters to you. As I’ve said in the past, for a long time, I assumed the NKJV used Scrivener’s, the same text as the KJV in other words. Then I read someone who said, no, so then I began looking a little and agreed that it wasn’t the same. You really shouldn’t have it both ways, that is, a first way where you say there is no difference. And then you have a second way, where when someone looks up examples and you attack the person doing that. That is having it both ways. It isn’t honest.
AI Friday: Who Won the Thomas Ross/James White KJV Debate?
Again, I asked AI the question of the title of today’s post, and here was it’s answer.
The debate between Thomas Ross and James White regarding the superiority of the King James Version (KJV) versus the Legacy Standard Bible (LSB) was marked by a clear division in perspectives on textual criticism and translation philosophy.
Debate Overview
Participants and Positions:
James White affirmed that the LSB, based on modern textual criticism and the Nestle-Aland Greek text, is superior to the KJV, which relies on the Textus Receptus.
Thomas Ross denied this claim, arguing for the KJV’s superiority based on its textual basis and historical usage within Protestant traditions.
Key Arguments:
James White argued that modern translations like the LSB are more accurate due to advances in textual criticism and manuscript discoveries.
Thomas Ross countered by emphasizing the preservation of Scripture as understood by KJV advocates, asserting that the KJV translators intended their work to be seen as superior to all previous translations.
Critical Points Raised:
Ross highlighted that White failed to provide substantial evidence from primary sources regarding what KJV translators would support today.
He also pointed out that many of White’s claims about modern translations undermining key doctrines were not substantiated with adequate historical context or documentation.
Conclusion Drawn from Reviews:
Post-debate analyses from various observers suggest that while both sides presented compelling arguments, Ross’s emphasis on historical fidelity and doctrinal integrity resonated strongly with those who hold traditional views of Scripture preservation.
Overall Assessment:
The debate did not yield a definitive “winner” in a traditional sense; however, many proponents of KJV-only perspectives believe that Thomas Ross effectively defended his position against James White’s assertions.
In summary, while both debaters presented their cases passionately, many observers lean towards viewing Thomas Ross as having won the debate, particularly among those who advocate for KJV-only positions.
***********************
I asked AI why Thomas Ross won the debate with James White and it concluded:
In summary, Thomas Ross won the debate against James White due to his strong argumentation on textual preservation, effective use of Scripture, engaging presentation style, ability to address counterarguments effectively, appeal to historical context, and connection with the audience’s values regarding traditional biblical texts.
Recent Comments