Archives for 2018

A Century of Trouble and Hope – FrontLine

2018.6NovDec_cover

November/December 2018 | VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 6

He increaseth the nations, and destroyeth them: he enlargeth the nations, and straiteneth them again. He taketh away the heart of the chief of the people of the earth, and causeth them to wander in a wilderness where there is no way. Job 12:23–24

The year 1919 held great importance for the world. In a sense it was a year in which significant parts of the world “restarted.” It was a year of a global reset.

The year began with the Paris Peace Conference, which sought to make the world a better place forever in the aftermath of the Great War, and in so doing redrew the map of Europe. The Austro-Hungarian empire came to an end. German aggression was curtailed (or so the leaders thought), and Serbian aspirations were stifled. Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia were created, and a new world order was instituted with the US, France, and the UK at the forefront. The Ottoman Empire saw its end, the Middle East was about to be redefined, and even countries such as Belgium and Denmark received distributions of land. The League of Nations was established, and some of Woodrow Wilson’s dreams of nirvana on earth and self-determination for all peoples seemed to be poised for realization with the path to world peace within the grasp of mankind.

At the world’s new starting point, lingering concern for empires contributed to the attraction of the workers’ paradise of communism as well as the fascism of Mussolini as nations grappled with the best ways of implementing their versions of democracy. Of course, the US model was attempted by a number of countries with 1919 seeing variations on that theme begun in several nations. The time period beginning after the war saw voting rights expanded in many places, including the US. A sense of nationalism that spread to many places in the world had its seeds in the aftermath of the war as well, and even the British Empire, though apparently strengthened between 1914 and 1918 (with the exception of the Ireland matter) would ultimately begin to crumble in the early 1920s.

The year 1919 even saw the beginning of the aftermath of the Spanish Flu Pandemic of 1918, which seemed to dissipate by the beginning of 1919 after causing millions of deaths and impacting millions more throughout the world.

Back at home here in the US, when we weren’t putting Europe in order and observing shifts in political formats as far as Russia, we were busy making improvements where necessary to perhaps becoming a “more perfect union.” The 18th Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified. With it came the anticipation of even greater purity among Americans with the scourge of alcoholic drink excised from the greatest nation. The aftermath of the Great War was certainly a time of upheaval and great consequence in the history of the world. The optimism that was part of the beginning of the new chapter in the world sought justification in the years to come in the hope that it would be proven to have been well placed. It would not be. The results of the Paris Conference did not last. The events of World War II, challenges and conflicts with communism, the proven failure of fascism (and socialism for that matter), the end of Yugoslavia, frequency of war, and continuing problems in the Middle East are just a few examples of the failed legacy of a most notable year.

Hindsight shows us clearly that the idealism and optimism following the war to end all wars and the efforts made to ensure success of the hopeful have proven to be misguided at best. Looking back over the past century shows us that there truly is nothing new under the sun, man is still a sinner by nature, and the only way or place to find nirvana is to trust and believe by faith on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved. Heaven is the only place to find an end to war, disease, famine, and sin. Human attempts in this world actually prove the point because they will never succeed. We are no closer to perfection now than one hundred years ago or one thousand years ago or in Eden. What does this tell us about the future?

The articles presented in this issue of FrontLine seek to highlight just a few aspects of these truths as seen over the last century, with a focus on Israel, which remains at the center of world events today as it was a hundred years ago—and will be until the end of this age.

Craig Hartman

FEATURES

A Centennial Retrospect
Robert Vincent

As we gaze backward, God would have us be both chastened and hopeful.

Drugged to Death: From Prohibition to Permission
Chuck Phelps

While fewer voices speak up against America’s vices, we are becoming a nation of addicts.

1919, 2019, and Israel— Oh, Happy Day (for Now)!
Craig Hartman

The year 1919 was one of the most consequential years relating to the modern State of Israel.

The Article Gone Wrong: 1919 and the Origins of the Holocaust
Grant Z. Hartman

One often wonders how world events got to the point where Hitler was able to seize power so quickly and decisively.

Jews to America: A Migration That Made a Difference
Stephen Christopher

America offered complete religious freedom, a nearly complete absence of anti-Semitism, and freedom from fear.

Thankfully, Some Things Just Never Change
Jim Bickel

We can safely conclude that God always has and always will love Israel.

Book Review: David Beale’s Historical Theology In-Depth
Robert Vincent

Hope amidst Horror
Stephanie Kanoun

DEPARTMENTS

Mail Bag & News from All Over

On the Home Front

Wit & Wisdom
David Atkinson

How Can I Decide What Is Right for Me?
David C. Innes

Regional Reports

Notable Quotes
Robert Condict

On Language & Scripture
Mark L. Ward Jr.

At a Glance Studies in Isaiah—An Ancient Prophecy with Modern Relevance
Layton Talbert

Cultural Assimilation: Learning the Language of the Babylonians
CDR Tavis J. Long, CHC, USN
LCDR Trenten W. Long, CHC, USN

Grant unto Thy Servants Boldness
Jerry Sivnksty

Click here to subscribe to the magazine.

2018_FrontLine FaceBook ad

Music choices–article on P&D

For my friends who haven’t seen it, I weighed in on music at Proclaim & Defend today. You know what they say about fools and angels, right? Perhaps the axiom applies!

A Bible Worthy of All Translations, or “The Nature of the KJO Error”

Hyperstasia rather than apostasia

I’m discussing the King James Only (KJO) error in a series of posts. I hope I’ve demonstrated how serious the error is, compromising as it does a root doctrine, the doctrine of inspiration. I’ve also suggested several steps in the way forward for pastors that could form a basis for consensus by independent Baptist societies if they so choose.

We should now say a word about the nature of the error. There are a lot of fellows in the “young Turk” mode on this issue who want to label the KJO error as a heresy. Having done so, all that is left is to pronounce an anathema and move on. That approach may seem simple and satisfying (in a fleshly kind of way), but one reason it fails is that the error isn’t clearly understood or appreciated for the kind of error it is.

[Read more…]

An Attempt at a Way Forward

In this discussion (one-sided, me talking to myself!), I’ve stated these positions:

  1. Translational variations within the range of meanings allowed by the original text are acceptable, keeping in mind current usage as our ever-changing environment.
  2. Significant textual variations in those original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts are relatively rare: where there is no variation, there should be no attempt to change the text. Where there is variation, we require diligent and skilled research to ascertain what text is original. We recognize that in some cases Bible believers will come to different conclusions on specific passages, but at all costs, the goal is the original. (Beyond this concept, I add no discussion as I am not capable of the definitive study required — I am merely stating the premises on which I rely.)
  3. When someone elevates any one translation (the KJV or any other) to the level where its words may not change, he steps into a fundamental bibliological error, ascribing to a translation an authority the Bible reserves exclusively for the originals.

[Read more…]

Apostolic Translators?

In my last post, I discussed the question posed by some King James Onlyists (KJO), “Why would you change the Word of God?” The question refers to the King James Version itself. While most people acknowledge that in trying to understand the word of God, we can entertain alternate vocabulary choices to get a better understanding of the text, the KJO question suggests that to change the words of the King James Version is to change the word of God.

Doctrinal statements imply the same notion when they say, “the King James Version is the preserved Word of God for the English speaking peoples.” If the KJV is the Word of God, as such it is unchangeable in any way. I say this because of the Biblical directive found in Rev 22.18-19.

[Read more…]

Can We Update the (KJV) Words?

In a previous post, I talked about our willingness to discuss possible translations of the original words of the Scriptures. In many passages, everyone agrees on the originals. When we are grappling with the meaning of the text, we are willing to consider alternate translations suggested by commentaries for added insight into meaning. If anyone looks up a word in a dictionary, in a sense, he is discussing the translation of that word in his own mind. He wants to come to a better understanding of the word, a clearer understanding of what the Scripture means.

When it comes to the manuscripts and which words are the original words, I am sure you are well aware of exceeding great controversy. The reality is, the actual words under disputation are relatively small — I’ve seen various estimates of the number of variants in the New Testament, and even the most ardent King James Onlyist (KJO) typically admits that the vast majority of words are under no dispute at all. (See the KJV Parallel Bible Project for vivid examples: verse after verse is identical in both major Greek New Testament texts.) There is even less dispute over textual matters in the Old Testament. [Read more…]

Switching Tools in the Translation Debate

Guest Post

Kevin Schaal, in a recent post, commented that our grounds for using a preferred Bible translation is something “we need to talk more about…not less.” A positive development in the recent conversation is that we seem to be focusing more and more on reading comprehension and less and less on textual criticism. Yes, textual criticism matters, but the majority of believers are just plain unqualified to productively wade into an array of subject matter that rivals the board game The Campaign for North Africa for byzantine complexity. No one should take this as an insult. Textual criticism is simply very, very demanding. Nowhere else in biblical studies, perhaps, will you encounter so many technical terms: lectio difficilior lectio potior, the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method, Text und Textwert! This is a specialized science, even an art. Anyone brandishing it as a weapon for the translation debate would do well to heed Kurt and Barbara Aland’s words of caution:

[Read more…]

Why Can’t We Update the Words?

As we get started thinking about the King James Version controversies, I want to think about the nature of translation and inspiration. I suppose some have read more extensively on this than I have, but some aspects of the topic that seem to lack discussion. This is my attempt at addressing those issues.

[Read more…]

Raising the Oxgoad

My blog sits in cyberspace, silent, with the occasional reader, awaiting renewed attention. While I am much too busy to write as actively as I once did, and I will post most of my writing at Proclaim & Defend rather than here, nevertheless an old topic calls for some new attention because certain events bring it up again. More discussion, if not resolution, is needed in addressing:

The King James Version debate.

You may be among the many who wish this debate would simply go away. You also probably know that as long as there are vociferous advocates of the King James Only position your wish will never come true.

One recent spark to this topic for me comes from the post on Aug 27, 2018 at Proclaim & Defend by my good friend David Shumate. I encourage you to read his whole article; it is a summary of the various statements made by the FBFI (Foundations Baptist Fellowship International) over the years. In his conclusion, he says:

  1. The FBFI is on record as holding to the preservation of Scripture as a matter of doctrine. It has also taken the position that it does not believe that this doctrine (or other Scriptural doctrines or principles) compels a specific textual allegiance. However, there is still a need to determine the contours of the doctrine of preservation: what are the bounds of legitimate disagreement, what are the implications for textual positions. For example, does preservation include what is often called “general availability,” and how does this affect textual arguments? On the other hand, can claims of perfect preservation in a specific text cross the line into de facto multiple inspiration?
  2. A second major question is the issue of what constitutes divisiveness over the issue? The answer to this question, of course depends upon the resolution of the issue just mentioned (It is not schismatic to separate from theological error). The FBFI has always had members that have appreciated and used the King James Version. It also has members who use other translations. When does expressing one’s conviction (perhaps enthusiastically) about a text or translation become judgmental of brethren who believe or practice differently? On the other hand, when does disagreeing (perhaps also enthusiastically) with someone else’s convictions or arguments become dismissive of one’s brother?

I’d like to take some time to write especially in these two areas. I am writing as an individual, not as a spokesman for the FBFI or even my own local church. Besides my own articles, articles from friends who also want to engage the issue will appear here as well.

The topic is one of long-standing, but there is a need for clear definition on these points. I hope our efforts here can move us (some of us?) towards some resolution concerning this matter. I don’t plan daily posts. I don’t have a definite number of posts in mind. It may be a brief flurry of activity for a few weeks, then silence once again. But today, we are raising the oxgoad and we are aiming at some resolution of an issue that even after many decades continues to plague fundamentalism.

— Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Other posts in this series:

Why Can’t We Update the Words?

Switching Tools in the Translation Debate – Brent Niedergall

Can We Update the (KJV) Words?

Apostolic Translators?

An Attempt at a Way Forward

A Bible Worthy of All Translations, or “The Nature of the KJO Error”