Audio Available from The Reformed Cast Interview on KJV-Onlyism


You can download tonight’s interview for free from ReformedCast.com. We covered a lot of ground, but there’s so much more to be said. I ended up basically just explaining the movement rather than getting into the nitty-gritty of the debate. I welcome your feedback, if anyone is interested in downloading the audio.

My thanks go out to Scott Oakland of The Reformed Cast for once again having me on his podcast.

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Audio Available from The Reformed Cast Interview on KJV-Onlyism

  1. bibleprotector April 26, 2011 / 3:57 am

    I listened to Bob’s talk, and found it informative, though I do not think that KJBOism came from Benjamin Wilkinson, but has obvious roots in earlier so-called “AV-olatry”, which was clearly a Protestant English phenomena. It is obvious that there was suspicion of modern versions in various denominations until the time that the NKJV came out. That general conservative attitude, which is the true basis of sound KJBOism, is not directly related to individuals such as J. J. Ray or David Otis Fuller.

    The biggest impact as far as the nuts and bolts of WHY the KJB is best, for me, was the revised 1984 edition of E. F. Hills’ book, and the first edition of the online manuscript lessons (circa 2000) by Thomas Holland.

    Bob explained his own view, which I think is essentially “losing one’s faith in the absolute preservation of Scripture”. He says he was TR-preferred, but was swayed away from maintaining the KJB’s reading at every place, because of the existence of variations in readings and possible errors. Now the fact is that plausible arguments can at places be made against the KJB’s reading, but there also arguments for the same reading the other way. Ultimately, the arguments against must beg the question concerning “we don’t know what the originals actually said, so we have to rely on the earliest, least corrupt witness”.

    This reminds me, Bob spoke of papyri being discovered which backed up Alexandrian readings. However, the reality is that far more Traditional Majority Received Text type manuscripts are being discovered, and these tend to uphold the KJB readings.

    This then leads to the issue of where the KJB differs with the T/M/RT. One example is Revelation 16:5. Very plausible sounding criticisms can be made of the KJB’s reading at that verse (again, by appealing to this idea that we don’t fully know, but what is most likely is what is in most of the few Greek copies of Revelation), but it is possible to argue for and defend the reading that the KJB has. Difficulties do not lead to losing faith in a sound KJBO view, rather, they are resolved by believing consistently with the Scripture and with a spiritual mindedness.

    I think that if people did what Hills suggested, they would be taking a step in the right direction: he said that no one who relied on the KJB would be led astray. I really wonder what the supposed dangers are of honestly standing for the KJB only: unless it may theologically prick wrong doctrines.

  2. bibleprotector April 26, 2011 / 7:32 am

    Bob Hayton mentioned a particular doctrine he is studying. I am all for thinking these ideas out properly, and I respectfully submit the following thoughts.

    The Bible, as it exists in the mind of God (and what a KJBO believes fully exists in English), does have passages which are not exactly identical. This phenomena — which gives rise to the accusation from mockers and the unlearned, that the Scripture is contradictory — actually is to do with the believing mechanism of the Christian: will he accept the Scripture, will he study to see it so; or will he question, and deviate from a narrow inerrancy view?

    To the learned, parallel passages are “complementary information”, they are vital to the structure of Scripture. Therefore, where different information is contained in parallel passages, the studying believer finds out why this is so, and it yields new and fresh information, which was perhaps not explicitly stated in a mere linear isolationist reading of Scripture.

    It is a great error then, to not only imply that the Scripture somehow is deficient, but to apply this phenomena which exists within the inspiration of Scripture to the translation of Scripture. That is, varying passages in the Bible, which are all perfect and part of one cohesive whole, are not the same as the many and varying imperfect translations which exist. To imply that God is the author of various translations and all the differences between them, and that somehow the truth is in them collectively, or when taken collectively, is incorrect.

    God has been able to use many imperfect translations, and His truth was not lost in history despite this scattering, but that does not lead to the idea that taking all or many variants somehow is truth or leads to truth. Like Scripture, which is deliberate information at every passage, so also is the perfect version/translation, which is one set of readings at every place. But the two phenomena are entirely different: variations of wording and particular information in inspiration as presented in parallel passages is the deliberate choice of God in inspiration; whereas, variations of wording and conceptual disparity in translations as presented in various versions is the product of scattering which exists in the world, that is, part of the operation of the spirit of antichrist.

    It was God’s judgment on sin which caused the formation of languages, and since the spirit of antichrist operates under God’s providence, its work in variously scattering the Scripture by burning, corruption or other attacks (where also Christians were bring the Scripture to various nations and scattering as sowers), was intended by God to work out toward the gathering of one supersuccessionary form, the English Bible for the world. It is not God who is multiplying translations today, but working toward the opposite: He is actually the one behind the phenomena of global English.

  3. Bob Hayton April 26, 2011 / 8:54 am

    Thanks for your feedback, BP. I will respond in more depth when I’m free today.

  4. Bob Hayton April 27, 2011 / 12:55 pm

    Dr. Maurice Robinson pointed out an error in your response, Bibleprotector, in an email to me.

    BP: This reminds me, Bob spoke of papyri being discovered which backed up Alexandrian readings. However, the reality is that far more Traditional Majority Received Text type manuscripts are being discovered, and these tend to uphold the KJB readings.

    Dr. Robinson: Quite incorrect, and reflective of KJVO-type propaganda. While there are numerous individual Byzantine *readings* that have been found in the early papyri (cf. Sturz), *none* of them are thoroughly Byzantine (p108 comes the closest), but reflect in general a mixture of Alexandrian and Western texttypes. In addition, it is quite obvious that not all Byzantine readings “uphold the KJB readings”.

    • bibleprotector April 28, 2011 / 5:13 am

      I was meaning “manuscripts”. I am referring to all the various manuscripts, including lectionary copies, which being discovered, which conform to the Byzantine text type.

      At this point the Alexandrian text type is in minority.

      Any new readings being discovered are not throwing a wrench into what stands (as I am sure most people would agree).

      I also do not find reasons to abandon the KJB by what is contained in recently discovered papyri.

  5. Bob Hayton April 27, 2011 / 12:58 pm

    Your points here BP are just what you want to be true tacked onto the history of the text. Hills himself admitted errors in the KJB, do you?

    If our faith is stretched by competing parallel accounts in Scripture, wouldn’t it be stretched in varying Bible translations differing slightly? I think so. And just like both accounts are inspired and therefore there is a way to make sense and learn from both, I think the same can be said in a sense with differing translations. You have thus far failed to convince me that your logical assumptions about what God would do in providing a word perfect Bible in English, are what the Bible actually asserts that God will do.

    • bibleprotector April 28, 2011 / 5:23 am

      I think Hills was not so much “admitting errors” as it was allowing for the possibility of a few minor errors in Revelation. I don’t agree with him. Hills did not stand for the absolute perfection of the KJB.

      I don’t think our faith is stretched by parallel passages if “stretched” means that God is being unreasonable, as though we have to virtually say “let God be true”, even though it defies all reason. I think that the proper view is that the faith which God demands is something which is supremely reasonable.

      “And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith.” (1 Thess. 3:2).

      If we limited ourselves to the original languages for a moment, it should follow that there is only one real sense there for every word at every place. It seems unlikely that suddenly, when it comes to translations, that we need more than one or to take many in concert in order to find this sense (or perhaps never find it but have a dozen possibilities of meaning). It does not really follow that God would have a singular truth, and yet when it came to bringing the “better covenant” to the nations, He should not be able to communicate it so clearly, but by multiplying and varying the translations as concurrent authorities, which would make God discordant and every word of none effect.

    • Bob Hayton April 30, 2011 / 10:24 am

      But what about interpretation, BP. Most agree there is only one correct interpretation from a given text. But the various denominations and churches today have much they don’t agree on when it comes to theology and interpretation. Using your logic, shouldn’t God have given us a completely accurate interpretation of the Bible too? God’s communication of the truth could be more direct, couldn’t it, to achieve more doctrinal unity?

      We can’t add our assumptions and expectations onto Scripture and sanctify our opinion by claiming the Bible teaches it too. We need to be very careful in that regard. I think KJV Only proponents fail in this.

  6. redgreen5 April 29, 2011 / 1:56 am

    bp:

    If we limited ourselves to the original languages for a moment, it should follow that there is only one real sense there for every word at every place.

    Well, no. As much as you might desire language to be a simple process, it doesn’t work that way. Since you do not know either NT Greek or OT Hebrew, you’re in a somewhat precarious position by making such a statement.

    The original languages are no different than English, German, or any other languages. All human languages are susceptible to multiple meanings of words. We use context to narrow that down.

    Moreover, the difficulty isn’t whether or not the original had one meaning; the difficulty is how should that be represented in a different, target language. There is not always a 1-to-1 mapping between languages on every word. There may be a 1-to-many mapping. For example, the English word “uncle” maps to two different words in Swedish; the first represents the father’s brother, while the second represents the mother’s brother. There are verb tenses in Greek that have no easily communicated English equivalent. All these situations create opportunity for the target language to lose information in the translation process. These are also opportunities for different translations of the same source language to exist.

    It does not really follow that God would have a singular truth, and yet when it came to bringing the “better covenant” to the nations, He should not be able to communicate it so clearly, but by multiplying and varying the translations as concurrent authorities, which would make God discordant and every word of none effect.

    What “does not follow” is that God would create an English version that could be used to correct even the original Hebrew and Greek, as you seem to believe.

    As for whether the message is communicated clearly or not, the evidence of millions of non-English speaking Christians agreeing not only on primary points of doctrine, but on secondary ones also – well; apparently the message was communicated quite well. And all without forcing them to believe in a perfect English version.

Comments are closed.