Jason's Story
My story is short. I’m not sure about short and sweet, but it is short.
I was raised in the southern part of the USA, “away down south in Dixie.” My raising was in a Christian home. We were Baptists, and I remain a Baptist.
Our particular group of Baptists is a group that is very exclusive and somewhat anti-intellectual. In fact, much more so that most IFB’s with which I’m acquainted. We were also KJVO.
The funny thing is that there never were any reasons given for our being KJVO. I was eighteen years of age when I heard my first argument in favor of KJVO. It was just assumed that we were that, and no mention was made of it in an effort to defend it.
As time went on I felt the “need” to defend KJVO’ism. Thus I found “Let’s Weigh The Evidence.” Later I found David Cloud. I must say that David Cloud’s ministry has many good points. Though I do not know him personally, I have corresponded with him some and found him to be a generous person. It was through his generosity that I got a couple of his books, though I could not afford them. His KJVO books in my library are extensively underlined. I had found someone who could give a reasoned defense of the King James Version Only position.
So I thought.
There was a problem, however. I simply could not find myself declaring holy men who loved Jesus heretics even if they did use other translations of the Scriptures. I could not line up with what were sometimes very extreme and harsh attitudes toward those who used translations other than the KJV. If one loved the Scriptures it would seem that they would love their brothers in Christ. That did not seem to be the case, though, among the KJVO people. They seemed to be very divisive.
As time went on, I could not find it logical to take the all or nothing position of the KJVO position. After all, suppose that there were errors in other versions. Why should that mean that they were totally bad? The Word of God is God’s Word wherever it is. It is God’s Word even if there are mistakes in places. Of course, I’m not speaking of the inerrancy issue, but translation issues and issues concerning textual variants.
That led me to lean toward a Textus Receptus Only position, then to a King James Preferred position.
As a matter of fact, I still prefer the King James Version for several different reasons that I may present in the future.
Finally, a few weeks ago I read “The King James Only Controversy” which led me to realize that the “scholarly” arguments in favor of KJVO’ism were flawed.
So, here I am today, loving my KJV, but referring to other translations, and finding myself feeling a little more free in Christ.
Tags: KJV, KJV-onlyism, KJVO, story, Testimony
I agree that various people holding to a KJBO view have not all been very intelligent. However, I believe that when the case is properly examined (a lot of “examination” has been objectionable), then there is, I think, a case for the KJB which is reasonable.
It is interesting that the book by James White has caused some people to “abandon” the KJB. I have found that this book is part of a great fog which covers the entire issue, and that the “King James Only Controversy” is more about outwitting low intelligence pro-KJBO arguments rather than dealing seriously with more substantive issues.
A big basis of the issue actually comes down to how we define freedom and liberty. James White and others seem to be actually promoting a kind of humanism where we can be “free in Christ” like an anarchy where everyman does what is right in his own eyes. It is very appealing, and it is very wrong.
Other issues include the proper understanding of various editions of the King James Bible, and properly understanding what the translators said in their prefatory works. It is interesting that some folk do not see verses which promise the preservation of Scripture as even having that meaning, but deny the doctrines of preservation as taught in the Scripture.
Bibleprotector,
I’m not following you in paragraph 3 here. I’ll be posting a review of White’s book here in the next month or more. Jason links to his review of it at his blog, too.
A general non-specific dislike of the book doesn’t help explain what’s wrong with it.
Oh, and preservation will be covered here in the near future as well.
Blessings,
Bob
Jason,
Welcome aboard. Great first post, too.
In Christ,
Bob
Bob,
Thanks for asking me to contribute.
Jason
Bibleprotector,
To be honest, I have no idea what you mean about White promoting some sort of spiritual anarchy. Perhaps you would like to present us with some quotations from the book so we could understand what you mean.
At the same time, White presents some very intelligent responses to the issues raised by th KJVO folks. There are intelligent people who are KJVO. Intelligent people argue for that position. Please remember that I have read Cloud’s arguments. I believe he is an intelligent man. On the other hand, I have not been able to maintain that position due to the fact that, intelligence notwithstanding, the arguments fail.
In the end, you have committed a serious fallacy in your response here: you have sought to shoot the messenger and have actually presented and ad hominem argument instead of presenting logical and well-reasoned claims for your position.
Please remember that charity is of the utmost necessity.
I shall not question your intelligence in this matter.
Please do not question ours.
In Christ Alone,
Jason
I will explain what I mean a bit further, since it relates to Jason’s statement “finding myself feeling a little more free in Christ”.
Basically, I think that some people feel like they are “repressed”, and that if someone comes along and says, “we should use the KJB only”, it grates against them, because they have a doctrine that goes something like “I choose what standards I want to adhere to”.
James White says, “The role of Christian freedom”. And, “The use of a particular English translation of the Bible is surely a personal choice.” Notice that this means that if someone said God guided them to the KJB, or that the Spirit or those of Christ’s body said, “use the KJB”, he would count it as false, because personal choice apparently trumps doctrine, practice, tradition, etc.
Again, White says, “I firmly believe that if people wish to use the KJV, they should feel free to do so.” Surely this is an anarchic position where every man does what is right in his own eyes.
What are essentials and non-essentials? God’s Word is an essential issue for the Christian, therefore it cannot be left to the individual to decide for themselves, or merely to make informed decisions. There is such a thing as Christ the King. It is not a constitutional monarchy, nor a democracy, nor an anarchy. The Bible talks about being servants to righteousness, therefore the Bible version issue cannot be a free market where we hope people come to the best vendors.
White says, “But while quick to grant this freedom to others, it cannot be expect that this freedom would be given by those who have joined the KJV Only movement. For them this is not an issue of freedom, but of doctrine, belief, and faith.”
I believe that what White is calling “freedom” here is actually bondage and slavery to: 1. error, 2. scholar’s unsettled opinions, and 3. the mysteries, e.g. what might or really is in the Greek or Hebrew.
Bibleprotector,
Thanks for clarifying your statements. I am happy to respond.
First of all, I did not reference White in my statement. I was always fearful to refer to other translations due to thinking it was a sin.
I now recognize my freedom to do so. Thus I was speaking from my own experience.
Next, I would think that you are reading too much into the statement of White’s due to the fact that he is not stating HOW one would choose a translation to use. Thus you are actually putting words into his mouth…I’ll grant that the book is not in front of me at the moment, so I may have missed something; but I am convinced that he is being misrepresented.
Finally, the bondage to scholars and their opinions exists on either side of the issue, if one were to look at it in that manner. One can be in bondage to Hills, Cloud, Gipp, Ruckman, et al just as they can be in bondage to Cloud, Kutilek, etc.
By the way, there is no mystery about what is in the Hebrew and Greek. The issue of whether or not we can be sure of Scripture is a smoke screen. NO vital doctrine or detail in Scripture is invalidated by textual variants.
I am glad the air is cleared somewhat.
Certainly, people can be uncritically following teachings on both sides of the issue.
Also, there is a mystery in regards to what actually IS the correct reading/text of the Hebrew and Greek, since textual variations are not settled in any final, authoritative, standard and/or generally adhered to form.
Moreover, there is a mystery in regards to the sense, but at various places not only is there controversy as to meaning, but new translations are made by and by.
Finally, the vital doctrine of the authority of Scripture itself is called into question if textual variants are not allowed to be resolved. It is one thing to admit variants exist. It is quite another to reject the idea that they can be solved. Moreover, while in the variety of senses there is not really a slight upon the doctrine of salvation, there is a slight on various other doctrines. Most importantly, textual variants that exist are indeed threatening salvation, the nature of Scripture, etc. This is evident by the types of textual variations shown in Codices ALEPH and B. However, in the normal spread of normal variations in the “majority”, it must be said that there is no way that there should be doubts upon salvation to anyone who used such manuscripts. The same can be said for the variations which are found between Tyndale’s work and the King James Bible. Of course, I think it best and proper to accept a final representative and uphold it as standard.
Bibleprotector,
Thanks for coming back.
It would indeed be nice to settle all the variants.
I’m not sure if we have a post here dealing with variants, or not, because I’m a new contributor. That would be the place to take this discussion, though.
I will say this one thing: I, too, wish the issue were settled. There’s probably too much subjectivity involved in choosing which to use in a translation. At the same time, the KJV marginalia contained variant readings because the translators believed it would cause the people to study more, think more, and learn thereby.
Who would determine the final representative of which you speak?
I would clarify that we aren’t saying the textual variants are unresolvable. There are widely agreed upon textual standards.
Bibleprotector, the more you explain your views and expound from your perspective, the more I think you are just another run-of-the-mill KJV Only proponent. You have your own peculiarities but at the end of the day have the same basic aversion to any sense of uncertainty about the text and read your views back into how you understand Scripture.
You are certainly welcome and I hope we’ll have good interactions, but we are unconvinced of your position from both the standpoint of Scripture’s witness to its own preservation and the historical/textual data.
Bob,
Yes, I believe you are correct that the issue of variants could be resolved. I’m sure that most of us wish that it were.
Thankfully, that need not lessen our confidence in the reliability of Scripture.
As a matter of fact, Pickering’s article that is posted on Bibleprotector’s site shows differences in variants. What it does, while seeking to dismiss an eclectic text, is demonstrate that the issue can indeed be resolved by working harder to choose the best reading which would be in harmony with the rest of the Scriptures.
The Puritans used the Geneva Bible and the 1599 version of the Geneva Bible is what the Pilgrims brought with them to America. A Puritan would tell you that the KJV is a “softer” version of the Geneva Bible which uses much more direct language. King James took great offense at the Geneva Bible because some of the Puritan’s footnotes prasied righteous people for defing the king’s decrees to commit murder etc.
The KJV, though a fantastic preservation of God’s Word, was not written by the Apostles nor the prophets or Moses and therefore not directly inspired. To say so is blasphemy. In fact it was a public relations coup to unite the puritans with the bishops of the church of England.
Jesus indicts teachers of the law who are ignorant of it. John 3. Men of such ignorance should get their facts straight or resign their pulpits until they do. No one is perfectly knowledgable of the entire council of God, however, some things such as what constitutes the inspired texts have been clearly settled both in scripture itself and by the early church fathers.
I am in a church that is wholeheartedly KJV Only. I have a NIV study Bible at home and have lately been to the point of feeling like it’s practically a sin to read it. I have been researching this and came across your article. I do know of some intelligent people in the church, I don’t think it’s a matter of intelligence. After all, there are some very smart scientists who believe we all came from monkeys. He’s smart but dead wrong. Anyway, I do see both sides of the story after reading many sites. How would you (or anyone else reading this) respond to 2 Timothy 2:15? The new versions completely remove the word “study”. That removes the importance of studying God’s word, not just being “diligent”. What about the important verses that have been completely removed from the KJV? I did find another site that also showed how the KJV has words added or missing from the original manuscripts. No one actually has the originals, even the Greek and Hebrew texts that exist today were copies of the originals.
One more question, what is your opinion of Gipp? I saw someone else mention him and I am disturbed of some IFB’s practically idolizing the man. I heard him preach and although he is good, he is also very negative and stereotypes everyone into categories. Just plain mean if you ask me.
Thank you!
Mom2Many,
I like your user name
I’m not sure where you’re going with the intelligence statement. I’m sure there are smart people on both sides of the debate.
My response on 2Tim 2:15 is that it does indeed mean “give diligence” or “be diligent” or even “do your best.” That is the meaning of the Greek at that point. Newberry, who edited an interlinear NT based upon the Textus Receptus translated it as “be diligent.” The issue is not so much whether or not studying is encouraged. The issue is whether or not we should be true to the original languages. “Study” in KJV days meant more than simply to read, think, and meditate. It meant to work hard at something. Translating it “be diligent” does not change the meaning. Our present day understanding of study actually is what presents us with the incorrect understanding. English has changed, and this is one of the words that has changed with the passing of time.
Perhaps some of the other contributors can help with the charts you saw. If you can, please provide us with a link. The only ones I have seen were not based upon original languages, but comparing the KJV with other versions to show what was allegedly changed.
As far as the originals are concerned, it is true that we do not have the autographs. We do, however, have very old manuscripts that take us back very near to the time of the apostles. We are not left without God’s Word.
I cannot comment on Gipp. I do hope to leave personalities out of my articles as much as possible and deal only with ideas and principles.
Please allow me to encourage you to study the issue, but have confidence that you have God’s Word before you. Don’t allow this issue to cloud your mind and your judgment. Rejoice that you have God’s Word. Your NIV is God’s Word. There will be translator’s mistakes in there. There are issues with the KJV…even if you do not call them mistakes, at least the language is archaic and we miss things if we are not careful. Personally, I still read, study, and preach out of my KJV. I don’t anticipate changing that. God’s Word can be found in other translations, too. The KJV translators affirmed as much in their preface to the reader.
Thanks for writing.
Thank you, Jason. I didn’t know that about the word “study” just as I’m sure our Sunday School teacher does not realize that. I do of course still love my church but I am having issues with these things taking over my brain! I can’t stop thinking about the negativity that they have for all others. For example, if my daughter wants to go to Bible college, they act like she has to go to certain ones. There is one she is looking at and the only thing I can find they are against is that the school has stopped using the KJV exclusively, they are not against it. I guess I’m just confused. How can they act this way? There are many other issues of course, like in any church, no one is perfect. I’m a new member there and just feel like no matter where I go, I find something wrong and end up going somewhere else. I’m not going to do that again, it’s not good for the kids but how would you suggest I just push all this out of my mind? I’m really struggling with parents at that church being pushed away like our authority is not what matters, only church leaders’ authority. They are extreme in other areas as well but my kids are happy there. Ok, I probably went off topic. I do see your side on the KJV Bible and I think what I will do is continue to study my NIV at home and use my other one at church and just feel confident that God can be pleased with me. I’m here to serve Him, not them.
Mom2Many,
I know your children are happy, but I can assure you that a heavy-handed authoritarian leadership has potential to do them much harm.
When they get older they will begin to question that, and will either learn to be silent people who accept the pat answers of the leadership, or they will rebel against it and wind up who knows where.
Let me encourage you, not to leave the church immediately, but seek guidance about it. Also, check out reformedfundamentalism.ning.com and interact with the folk there.
May God bless and encourage you on your journey.
Mom2many,
Glad to read your comments here. I would have said much the same as Jason did. I feel for you with your current church situation being a bit oppressive. There are certainly sincere Christians there, and the answer for everyone is not necessarily to cut and run anytime there is a problem with your church.
The contributors to this blog all have dealt with other issues besides the KJV issue. You can read my story on my blog called Fundamentally Reformed (but my story is a bit long and wordy!).
Don’t be afraid to be the authority (with your husband) for your kids. Don’t be afraid to ask questions and look for answers. Trust God and seek His face. In time He will direct you to the right place and give the right answers.
We’d love to help, and the ning site is a good place to read other’s stories and see how God is moving in others with similar experiences.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob Hayton
Thanks, Jason, I’ll add you to my Favorite’s list and read you from time to time.
Have just read your story, Jason.
I encourage you to go to my web site and scroll to SEPARATION and from there to King James Version Only for my position as a 76 year old
pastor who has been a Fundamentalist pastor since 1956. Take special note of what John R. Rice (founder of Sword of the Lord) has written on the subject. I am grieved to observe Fundamentalists fighting each other when we should be united exposing the Liberals instead.
God bles you. Mal Bicker
Mal,
Thanks for stopping by.
I shall indeed read your post.
I agree that we should not be fighting over this, it we are fighting simply for the sake of fighting.
On the other hand, when folks’ salvation is questioned, their holiness and commitment to Christ is questioned simply on the basis of the translation that they use, they must have information to help them stand firmly in the gospel truth that we are accepted in Christ by grace. That is my desire for this blog, as it is, I think, the desire of the other contributors. We can all certainly grow in grace and graciousness. Please pray that we shall do so, and that we will frame our arguments and our posts correctly and in the right spirit.