A short trip down the anti-KJVO rabbit trail

SO frustrating listening to a discussion against the KJVO position. This is a Blogtalk radio broadcast on mp3 I'm listening to, hosted by the owner of the blog Fundamentally Reformed that I've linked to in earlier posts. It's not a recent broadcast, 2007 I think, but I haven't found anything yet on his blog or related sites that disagrees with his points here. (Lost the link but if I find it I'll put it up). These are ex-fundamentalists, converts to the Reformed branch of the church, and just as they formerly completely swallowed the KJVO position they now are close to swallowing the Modern Versions propaganda equally uncritically:

Rejecting the NKJV proves one is KJVO?
They don't get it why the NKJV is not acceptable. The fact that the KJV had marginal notes convinces them that we ought to accept the NKJV because it also has marginal notes. He doesn't grasp that the objection to the NKJV notes is that they refer to the ALEXANDRIAN texts (yes, through the Nestle-Aland Critical Text for one) and they have the effect of denigrating the KJV's translational choices, and really, calling the Bible itself into doubt. I used the NKJV for years and those notes always annoyed me. Mostly they just distract from the text and I couldn't see that they offered anything of value. I found out from reading Burgon that the very similar [identical in some cases] notes in the 1881 Revised Version also misrepresent the facts, for instance referring to "other manuscripts" having such and such a different reading, which implies that it's worth taking those others into consideration, when the fact turns out to be, as reported by Burgon, that the source of the other reading is one or two texts and they are the Alexandrians which Burgon has taken pains to expose as corrupted.

He goes on to say: "So to reject the NKJV in favor of the KJV is to claim that there is something perfect about the KJV." No, it is NOT! The point is that the NKJV is NOT the pure updating of the KJV it claims to be. If it were, I for one would still be using it because for the most part I like its preservation of the "feel" of the KJV, and if a modernizing of the KJV were to be done -- under church authority by the best qualified for the job -- it could be a decent model for that effort.

But EVERYTHING that was taken into it from the Westcott-Hort legacy would have to be abandoned, everything, all the notes that refer to Nestle-Aland or other Alexandrian influenced Greek texts, every English word choice that derives from their work, and an EXTREME MINIMUM of changes, each one THOROUGHLY ACCOUNTED FOR, would have to be its guiding principle. This is because another problem with the NKJV is that it adopts many of the W-H readings in the English, which Burgon shows were not only an indefensible violation of their agreement to make the most minimal changes -- to the tune of over 36,000 changes -- but were also inferior choices for conveying the meaning of the underlying languages.

Ah, now he's quoting a marginal note from the original KJV: "This 36th verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies."

Lu 17:36 There shall be two men in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. [it's in italics in the KJV, indicating that it was added by the translators and isn't in the Greek]

This is a problem for a KJVO -- in fact I can see how it would be extremely unsettling to encounter such an admission of a difference in the texts if you've been told the KJV is absolutely perfect as is -- but it is not a problem for me because I don't expect it to be perfect. In the KJV I would expect the marginal notes to be enlightening. Not so the notes in the NKJV. Added later: A big difference is that the KJV translators wrote the marginal notes themselves, on their own work, showing alternatives to their own choices from the texts, of course supporting the superiority of their own choices in their own judgment, while the NKJV notes are alien interlopers from highly questionable sources, that have the effect of calling into doubt the work of the KJV translators who aren't around to defend their choices.

Is too much importance placed on the Biblical text?
They go on to talk about Bible inerrancy, which they both claim to share (I'm not doubting them), but in making the point that the majority of believers have not had a Bible for most of history, both B.C. and A.D., say "There is more to the Christian faith than the Bible." An unfortunate way of saying it. Putting it that way raises questions: It's not that there is "more to the Christian faith than the Bible" if what you mean is that there is more than God's revelation to His people, or God's word, because that leaves it open for claims to new revelation, which I'm sure is not the intention. God's word is also the spoken word, the preached word, it's also declared in the heavens (Psalm 19), and it's in the MEANING rather than in the specific word, at least in the translations.

Advantage in more versions?
They also think that having multiple versions is a help because it gives you the opportunity to compare how different conservative scholars chose to translate a word, which gives you more depth of understanding of the term. Sounds nice but a few comparisons of how different verses were translated in different versions, comparing all with Strong's, might show them that the claim that they are chosen for their meaning is highly questionable.

My own comparisons convinced me that most of the words chosen are all on the Strong's Concordance lists of English alternatives or synonyms for any particular Greek or Hebrew term, from which it seems they were chosen almost at random, chosen not as the best rendering of the meaning but simply to provide enough of a difference in the translation from other translations to qualify for copyright. In some cases I got the distinct impression that the LEAST LIKELY synonym was chosen from the list, as if the motivation were simply to distance the version from the KJV, make change for change's sake alone. Intentionally or not, the result is to undermine the ability of Christians to share in a standard Bible text, creating in effect a new Babel.

If this is the case, as I believe it is, the notion of increased depth of meaning is an illusion and the variety adds nothing for the believer, except a lot of unnecessary busywork that in the end detracts from the work of learning God's word in the light of the Holy Spirit. At the very least the same knowledge could be gained by consulting the Strong's synonyms for oneself, a whole Bible translation is not needed for that purpose.

Since I see it this way of course it grieves me tremendously, as I see Christians being deceived, treating as a great benefit something which is really a terrible disadvantage to the Church.

New versions serve the need for accessible language?
They also think the modern versions are merely motivated by a desire to get the Bible into the common people's English just as the original KJV was, along with the other early English translations.

If the KJV had been handled properly it would have been updated as necessary and this complaint would not hold water. As is, it doesn't hold very much water anyway in my opinion. It's a very flimsy excuse for the modern versions, which are mostly motivated by publishing companies wanting to have their own Bible to sell, which ultimately contributes to the new Babel, to confusion, not to anything beneficial for Christians.

AND the English in the new versions is NOT an improvement. GOT to get posts together to demonstrate this better than I have.

AND we don't need dozens of them for this purpose in any case.

This all misses the point!
Again, the problem with the new versions is completely missed by all those considerations. The main problems are:

1. They all rely on the Alexandrians to some extent or other, accepting Westcott and Hort's validation of these texts against the warnings of those who knew them to be corrupt in their time.

2. They all build from W-H's Revised Version, even from their translational choices apart from the Greek texts, substituting inferior alternatives completely gratuitously, creating only confusion, contributing nothing of real value.

How the Fundamentalist KJV-Onlies have polarized the debate

Just found this blog, which also advertised the Moorman-White debate. Haven't found a discussion of the debate there yet. The blog owner is an ex-fundamentalist, now Reformed, in fact attending John Piper's church, so it's interesting for me to compare our different experiences, since I've been Reformed (Calvinist) for some years but am not completely happy with it. I have no fundamentalist background at all, but I have found what I consider to be some good studies of the Bible Versions issue among the fundamentalists, and I reject most of the Reformed contributions to the debate because they completely accept Westcott and Hort and their legacy.

I did spend some time on an extreme fundamentalist forum a few years ago and that was quite an experience: "hidebound" comes to mind. I got kicked off for refusing to affirm that the KJV is perfect as is (probably also for admitting to being a Calvinist, though this wasn't the immediate reason, also probably for arguing in favor of the woman's head covering -- they believe 1 Cor 11:2-16 requires long hair). I learned quite a bit about the KJV Only arguments while there, some of which are good.

Coming from the other direction as this blog owner does, I can see that he may be led into arguments I've now rejected. As I sift through the pages related to the site I am impressed with how much the fundamentalist emphasis is on proving the KJV to be perfect. That part of the debate I tend to avoid, as I don't think it's the point, that's why I'm not a KJV-Only and that's why it's very frustrating when their position is imputed to me. When I run across claims that the KJV is MASSIVELY flawed, of course THEN I may get into the fray. But I accept that there are bound to be some things about the KJV that need to be changed, and the Textus Receptus as well.

For me the KJV is the Standard but I don't regard it as perfection itself, merely the historically established benchmark that should have been left in place, gradually and reverently updated and corrected as necessary from time to time, instead of overthrown by the Revised Version of 1881, especially considering the dishonesty of the committee involved, the false Greek texts they substituted in place of the Textus Receptus, which they were certainly not authorized to do, and the 36,000+ changes they made in the English, that amounted to a defacement of the King James Bible.

All that is to me a horrendous crime and a disaster for the church. This is not a KJV-Only argument as such but because the debate has so often been cast in those terms, because the fundamentalist KJV-Onlies are so aggressive about their position, it's hard to get a hearing for this.

Their opponents aren't any better, as they sometimes spend all their effort against the extremists like Ruckman as if there is no other point of view.

The main legitimate job for me is arguing that the Alexandrian texts and the English substitutions are unworthy and a disaster for the Church, not that the KJV is perfect.

================================
At least this site and its links may help me stick to the important points.
Here I'm just going to post a list of links.

http://www.fundamentallyreformed.com/kjv-only/
http://www.fundamentallyreformed.com/2007/02/06/a-kjv-only-manifesto/
Article on the 400th anniversary of the KJV at a fundamentalist site, Sharper Iron.
KJV Only Debate

John MacArthur discussion on the whole controversy:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Fundamentally Reformed Partner Sites
KJV Only Research
Forums at KJV Only Research.

A Few Leftover Scattered Notes on the Moorman-White Debate

Remembering more of the debate. I'll listen again if it's made available.

Happened to run across Burgon's reference to the finding of Sinaiticus in a waste basket in a convent, in his Revision Revised. Now I can't find where he said that although I thought I'd marked the page -- senior moment I guess. But he certainly did say it. The point of course is that James White said in the debate that this common belief is false, that no manuscript was found in a waste basket, so now it remains for someone to come along and prove it one way or the other by quoting from the writings of its finder.

FOUND IT: page 319 of Revision Revised, with a footnote to the source in Tischendorf's description of its discovery, p. 23. Don't have that document of course so it still remains to find the actual statement in it.

Another thing I remember from the debate is White's concern to answer the leaving out of references to the deity of Christ in the Alexandrian texts and the Bibles based on them, by identifying one place where they affirm His deity that the KJV doesn't. This simply obscures the fact that many such references ARE missing from the Alexandrians that are present in the KJV, not to mention whole passages that are also missing.

Then he objected to the description of any passages as "missing" at all because this implies a standard, the KJV and its Textus Receptus of course, from which they are missing. From his point of view this would be begging the question although from the other point of view his objection is an insupportable usurpation of the prior claim of the KJV to be the standard. The reasoning in support of the KJV as the standard seems to me to be irrefutable, as Moorman elucidated at the very beginning of the debate. If I get to hear it again I'll take notes.

White also said that describing them as "added" is misleading as well, but really, either they were subtracted or they were added, there are no other alternatives, and Westcott and Hort did theorize that they were added into the Byzantine line, since they take the Alexandrians as the standard. There is really no choice, you take one or the other line as the standard.

Another point I just remembered: White says he isn't in favor of all the different Bible versions, which was good to hear, and that the reason for so many is that the different publishing companies would rather produce their own than pay for another's.

He didn't mention the point I've heard and repeated here that all the gratuitous changes are due to the requirement that each version be different enough from the others to qualify for copyright.

What a horrendous mess all this is. It shouldn't be talked about casually it seems to me, but exposed as a great evil.

One more thing, White said that the KJV translators did not know anything about the Alexandrian type of manuscript. I thought Moorman said something that implied that they did but I'm not sure. White insists that if they had they'd have welcomed and used it. HIGHLY unlikely if you grasp any of Burgon's criticism of them.

The "Archaic Language" flap

This was brought up in the Moorman-White debate. White gave a list of some of the archaic terms. These are words in the KJV nobody today recognizes, he said.

Of course this is supposed to be a slam at the KJV, but I couldn't help thinking that although language does change over time and there would be nothing wrong with a judicious choice of alternatives for what is really a very short list, perhaps instead we should lament the very fact that the words are no longer recognized, as this is simply because the KJV was eclipsed by the 1881 desecration of the Bible. Martyn Lloyd-Jones points out that its English was to be credited with raising the standard of the language in general, including for the common people. But no longer. Now we have the dumbed-down versions.

I know I have to get around to documenting this better than I have so far, can't just go on declaring it, have to give examples. It involves tedious comparisons so I put it off.

I did make comparisons with the first part of Psalm 91, and posted on them in this blog. This isn't an example of dumbing-down, however, but in fact an example of the use of mystifying technical language, but off the top of my head I'd point to the ridiculous substitution of the unfamiliar term "pinions" for the simple English term "feathers" in the KJV. I have to admit that all by itself the choice of that term makes the NASB a horror to me -- an experience that is repeated the more I read in that version.

However, there is nothing in principle against updating the KJV. It should be done with GREAT care by the RIGHT people, that's the thing, and that may be impossible. That's why whenever I acknowledge that it can, maybe even should, be done, I vacillate. What we have at the moment is so many manglings of the Bible I hate to suggest that we could improve things in any way with another revision. But in principle, yes, a VERY CAUTIOUS updating SHOULD be done.

Caution is certainly required, EXTREME caution. Even KJV supporters are sometimes unable to cope with its archaic language, but this can go way beyond the clearly archaic terms. I know of some who are unable to cope with even ordinary words. I know of one who doesn't know that "dumb" means "unable to speak," but imposes a modern slang understanding on the term. He also has NO idea what the word "mirth" means, having never encountered it anywhere before apparently. This sort of thing makes me cringe, and really, it just speaks to the current level of illiteracy more than to anything to do with the Bible itself. I certainly don't want the Bible dumbed down (in the modern slang sense) to his level, I'd like to see him brought up to its level.

So deciding just what constitutes an archaic term that really truly does need to be updated is already a problem that needs to be addressed. As Jack Moorman pointed out in the debate today, some of the KJV terms capture the original meaning of the Greek and Hebrew better than any term we might substitute for them today. In that case, they should be retained and people should be educated up to their standard.

Then there is the general complaint that the language of the KJV is somehow hifalutin while the Greek of the New Testament was in the language of the common people, justifying the abominable English of some of today's versions. This was James White's answer to Jack Moorman in the debate today, as Moorman had noted that the KJV doesn't read "like the morning paper" but "sounds like the Bible."

THIS DOES NOT MEAN KJV ENGLISH IS grandiose or over the common person's head. Moorman did try to say that "Bible language" doesn't mean that, but in fact the KJV has always been known for its simplicity of expression, yet that its simplicity is appropriate for conveying the majesty of its subject. I agree. I think it takes a literary dead ear to prefer modern cadences and expressions suitable for the morning paper. That is NOT the sense in which the koine Greek was the common man's Greek. And the KJV translators themselves affirmed the importance of writing in a manner so that the Bible would be "understanded of the people." (That's in the Martyn Lloyd-Jones quote I posted on earlier in this blog -- which I now see imputes that quote not to the KJV translators but to the Protestant Reformers. My mistake. Here's that post.)

The fact that this sort of problem becomes big in people's minds unfortunately does not bode well for an intelligent updating of the KJV in our time, much as it might be desirable.

The Moorman-White Debate today in London

So I watched the debate between Jack Moorman and James White and as with just about every debate I've ever heard I end up frustrated. I suppose it's a good thing for at least allowing the basic controversy to get an airing from time to time, but it produces a garbled version of the controversy overall. Truth really doesn't stand a chance in such a format.

Now I'd like to see a transcript of the debate so I can take it apart myself. I'd also like to see a list of all the controversial points that get raised on this subject, very briefly and succinctly stated so they can be ranked in order of importance and pondered at leisure. One problem is that there are too many issues and the attention paid them is not always in proportion to their importance -- although some attempt at controlling this problem was made here at times. 90 minutes is a very short time for dealing with even the most important questions, and side issues just waste time.

Partly what's frustrating is the role allowed to the audience, in studio as well as by email. Some of them raise some of the core issues, which of course can't be given the time they deserve, but the overall effect of audience participation is bedlam. Arguments from complete ignorance and confusion are allowed to take up part of the precious 90 minutes allotted for the entire debate. Very frustrating. Perhaps it's a good thing to get an impression of just how confused people are on this subject, but a very little goes a long long way.

Most books on the subject are frustrating in a similar way because they tend to focus on the writer's particular hobbyhorse and miss the big picture -- or at least miss other people's hobbyhorse issues.

Jack Moorman started out with some very good statements about why the KJV should be regarded as the standard English Bible. They were very good, but James White didn't address them. He preferred to change the subject to specific questions about the content of various verses and texts, of course seeming to challenge Moorman by implying faults in the KJV that would discredit his position. This is mind-rattling. I have no doubt he can be answered but it becomes nearly impossible to juggle the issues in one's mind when this is the method of operation.

It's good for James White to state that the most important thing we want to get at is what the original writers said. Who can disagree? On that point Pickering states that although of course the scholarly effort is always in that direction, we can never finally know exactly what they said in every case, all we have in the end is faith in God's preservation of His word to us, and that HAS to mean the previous English versions, not the 1881 overthrow. But not enough could get discussed in such a short time to compare the two sides.

Tired and frustrated.

DEBATE WED FEB 2 @ 1 PM west coast (4 PM east)

THIS IS A VERY INTERESTING DEBATE. I'm listening now to Jack Moorman's introductory statements.

TUNE THIS IN!

Dear Friends,
Dr. J. A. Moorman has notified us that his 90 minute debate with James White on live TV in London concerning:

Are the modern translations on a par with the
King James Bible ?

will be held this Wednesday, Feb. 2, 2011, at 4 pm, Eastern Time (NY time) (9 pm UK time, which is 5 hours ahead). You can click in to the debate live by going to:

http://www.revelationtv.com/watch_now

Dr. Moorman is a member of the Executive Committee of the Dean Burgon Society and a Bible and a manuscript scholar. Dr. White is a modernist who believes the modern Bibles and texts are satisfactory and has made a career out of debating the issues related to this debate.

We hope you will click in and watch this monumental debate. It should be informative and interesting. You do not want to miss it.

Please forward this email to all of your friends.

In Christ,
H. D. Williams, M.D., Ph.D.

TOP@theoldpathspublications.com
www.theoldpathspublications.com

The Damage Done to God's Church, to Christendom, to the English Language

Just a little quote or two from Cloud's book, For Love of the Bible. I can hardly read anything on this subject any more without bursting into tears over the evil that has been done to the Church by the Bible revisions, a state of mind I'm sure few can grasp. Comes from spending so much time reading about it, deepening my knowledge of the horror. I do wish of course that others would also acquire a sense of the hurt done to the Church brought about by this Trojan Horse "gift" from the "scholars."

Let me emphasize that much of the opposition to the Revision was voiced by men who, though believing the King James Bible could be improved, were convinced it should not undergo revision. Following are three of the reasons they had for this position:

(1) The revision would not be wise, inasmuch as the Authorized Bible is an ancient Standard for the English-speaking world and as no revision could take its place, the division of authority that would accompany any such revision would result in far greater evil than any possible advantage. Cloud, FLOTB p 127 (the other two reasons bottom of this post)

We should all weep because this is exactly what has happened. We've lost the ancient standard and are reaping the far greater evil AND HARDLY ANYONE NOTICES. They go on blithely accepting and even celebrating this miserable situation as if it were a great blessing to the church, accepting the loss of well-memorized and frequently quoted passages that either no longer exist in our Bibles or have been usurped by disgustingly ugly and stupid replacements. When in doubt themselves, pastors consult their lexicons and their commentaries to choose among these ugly and stupid alternative readings INSTEAD OF CONSULTING THE HOLY SPIRIT, Who is put aside in this time-consuming busywork. He was put aside in the making of the Revision itself and in every new version that spun off it and He is put aside now.

Here's another quote, on the reception of the English Revised Version at the time by "the great majority of the people to whom the Bible was dear:"

[They] hailed the Revised Version with pleasure; bought it when it appeared with eagerness; glanced over its pages with interest; and then returned to the Authorized Version. ... The men who had inherited the Puritan love for the very letter of the Scriptures were many of them indignant at proposed changes which would rob them of texts familiar in their mouths as household words. T Harwood Pattison, the History of the English Bible, pp 163-64, in Cloud FLOTB, p. 127

...WOULD ROB THEM OF TEXTS FAMILIAR IN THEIR MOUTHS AS HOUSEHOLD WORDS!!!

But not for long, as by our generation it's a done deal, we've BEEN robbed! Robbed of this rich cultural heritage that had the very words of God on English-speaking lips for centuries. They are still in countless quotations in English literature, though I wonder how many could even recognize them any more as they are now blasted to the four winds by a cacophony of moronic substitutions.

The most vocal supporters of the modern Bible versions are literary Philistines as well as spiritual deadheads who have no sense of the cultural heritage that has been destroyed by their crass enterprise. Oh how they have succeeded at that destruction too, as if they had themselves intended it! The people who have been deprived of this spiritual heritage haven't enough knowledge any more even to shed a tear over its destruction, yet no nuclear bombs or Richter 9 earthquakes could have done more to destroy the English Church, and therefore Western Civilization, and invited all the other grenades lobbed in the growing Apostasy and the consequent Culture Wars. By undermining faith in God's word. By undermining the English language itself.

That's what happens when profane hands touch the ark of God.

Just to round things out, Cloud concludes his list of the reasons the 1881 revision was opposed:

(2) The revision would not be godly, inasmuch as the spiritual and theological climate of the late 1800s was too decadent to produce a godly revision of the KJV.

Sadly borne out in the result of the revision that was nevertheless done anyway.

(3) The revision would not be honest, inasmuch as many of those who would be involved in producing the revision were not to be trusted.

Sadly, this dishonesty is well documented by J W Burgon.