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…]

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…]

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…]

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”