Is it Possible to Free a Believer's Conscience from Bondage to the One English Translation? (My Thoughts)

Is it Possible to Free a Believer's Conscience from Bondage to a One English Translation Position? (My Thoughts Only)

What actual ingredients would be necessary to free a person's conscience from believing only one English translation is appropriate?  Or to believe God has only preserved his word (providentially) in one English translation (or for that matter in only one Greek text)?  What steps are needed to help members of a local church to reach this ability?  This assumes that this position is even necessary or desirable.  Please remember this implies two things: one, they are not currently violating their conscience in using a different English translation; and two, the conscience can be taught, shaped, and re-calibrated via the scriptures.  

First, it begins with local church leadership.  The one pastor or lay-elders (whatever the polity), need to be involved proactively.  If your preaching displays that the text doesn't matter then don't expect the congregation to think otherwise.  If you actually preach and teach as though the text or underlying Hebrew and/or Greek matter, then perhaps your congregation will be more on board (but this is no guarantee).  Does the leadership actually teach the people?  Do they just throw a book at them to read?  Worst case scenario, the pastor wants to push ahead faster than the congregation.  Don't fall backwards if there is a church split (pushing too fast).  If people don't want to follow where you (alone) want to go, maybe you should slow down or rethink that particular route.  It would be much better to take things slower than to speed up and hit a wall.

Second, it begins with believers who desire to know the historic truth on the Bible translation position.  If they are content not knowing and remaining in that condition, it makes things very hard.  However, if the congregation is actually taught (through painstaking time and effort) to read and study the scriptures for themselves, this does present a better working environment.  It must be said that church attendance is not always a guarantee of Christian maturity (but you just got to wonder when some people never show up Sunday evening or Wednesday night).

Third, our standard for determining truth is not subjective experience.  It is the scriptures alone.  In God's providence certain English translations have been especially used of God in Christian circles.  From a sales perspective, certain translations have far outsold the others?  Some have even taken on their own distinct theological flavor (especially depending on who endorses them).    Remember not to confuse the theology or life-styles choices (evangelism, convictions, etc...) of the individual with the actual objective teachings of scripture.

Again these are just thoughts I have collected and experienced having lived in six different states within a multitude of different churches.  This also comes with graduate level seminary degrees from two different seminaries within fundamental Christian circles.  And yes there will always be overlapping agreements and alternative disagreements between schools.  Again I say this only because I've seen it really work well and I also have seen it turn our very ugly.  I've seen where people will not study, learn and grow.  I've also seen the reverse where people do grow and mature in their understanding of the historical position on the translation issue.  Just to be fair, even mature Christians will disagree on this issue.

As always, comments encouraged.

Voices from history on the Translation issue, 

(1910) "Inspiration is affirmed, of course, only of the original documents, now no longer extant.  Many mistakes may have been made by copyists, and some interpolations by officious scribes and translators are fallible.  It is the part of reverent criticism to seek, by careful examination and comparison of all existing documents, to detect errors and restore as far as possible the Scriptures in their original purity" (A. T. Pierson, Knowing the Scriptures, p. 21; Taken from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

(1910) "One evening he remarked that no one claimed verbal inspiration for the English Bible-although that was remarkably accurate-but only for the text of the original writings.  "Then," exclaimed a gentleman rising in the front seat, "if we cannot read the original we might as well have no inspired Bible at all."  "Well," replied the lecturer quickly, "my daughter, who is a missionary in Japan, recently sent me a photography of her child whom I have never seen.  No doubt it is not a perfect likeness.  Do you suppose that I said, as I looked upon it, that is not the original and therefore I might as well have no grandchildren at all?" (Arthur T. Pierson: A Biography; By Delaven Leonard Pierson, p. 284; borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist, Greenville, SC). 

Don't forget (whatever your view on the English Translation issue) we should be on the same side

Don't forget (whatever your view on the English Translation issue) we should be on the same side

The disciples were faced with a similar issue in the first century while traveling with the Messiah.  They wanted to destroy everyone who did not cross every "T" and dot every "I" the way they did.  However, I would suggest we don't always treat each other as if we are.  Of course, it goes without being said, doctrine does exist on many different levels.  Some are non-negotiable while others are open for disagreement.  I would suggest that the translation issue has been lifted up by some here in America to the level of primary importance.  Not just inerrancy or inspiration but an actual English translation.

Jesus' response is very applicable to us today,

"And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.  And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us."  (Luke 9:49-50)

That being said it should help to provide some motivation for how we handle those who disagree with us on the English translation issue.  Or for that matter the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts.

Do both sides hold to inerrancy?  I would suggest, yes (although I think we have different definitions at times).  Please note, I am not including in this category those who deny Biblical inerrancy.

Do both sides hold to plenary verbal inspiration?  I would suggest, yes (although I think we have different definitions a times).  Please note, I am not including in this category those who deny plenary verbal inspiration.  

Do both sides believe God has preserved his word?  I would suggest, yes (although they will disagree as to the "means" of preservation).

I could be wrong in applying these verses to the translation issue (and for that matter any other issue).  Perhaps it is wrong to apply this to doctrinal areas (depending on the level--primary, secondary, etc...).  But it does help provide a simple theological grid for dealing with others who are actually doing something to expand the Christ's Church.

This doesn't mean stop preaching and teaching the truth.  Warn and instruct you congregation (and your family).  Just don't forget we are on the same side.

Comments encouraged.

The English KJV 1611 Only Position is a Plea for Their Own Exclusive Authority

The One English KJV 1611 Only Position is Really a Plea for Their Own Exclusive Authority

Series Part One           Series Part Two       Series Part Three     Series Part Four 

As strange as it may sound.  After a thorough reading of One English Translation Only (KJV1611) literature and websites, it is clear that authority is a major concern of the advocates of this position.  For example, I went through one text supporting their position which only contained about ten chapters but it contained over 100 references to authority. Not just authority in general but where to find it.  They don't always agree but I think I can clearly extract several common threads.  Authority and where it is found is a key issue.  Let's be clear: even though many of their motives may be different, and no doubt are different, the product is the same.  But just to be clear, all my verse, chapter and book memorizing still comes from the KJV.  Not for academic reasons but for the churches we seem to attend.  Yes, we've had to deal with our children quoting other English versions for their kids clubs.  This is an issue, howbeit a local church issue.

First, they believe (whether correct or not is another issue) that God has promised to providentially preserve his word and they alone in history know where it is.  It just happens to be the primary Hebrew and Greek texts underlying their choice of a One primary English Translation (the KJV).  Now to be fair, many in fundamentalism (many of whom I know personally) are translating the Scriptures into modern (non-English spoken languages).  So its okay to translate the Greek and Hebrew into some tribal dialect just not into modern English?  I would suggest to my KJV only advocates that they should learn from this practice.  Just like the KJV translators tried to put the scriptures into the language of the people.  Not just another edition with archaic words defined in the margins.  They were driven to make good translations better and more readable.

Second, this claim of authoritatively knowing God's chosen means of preservation is also expanded upon through employing the systematic theology category of providence.  As they teach, God in his providence, only preserved his word in one particular Greek text (and not in any other text).  Stephanus? Beza? TR?  Just to be clear, according to their position, providence cannot (is not allowed to) extend to over 5000 available manuscripts in vast agreement (this is simply dismissed as history not providence).  Providence is only allowed (contrary to all history) to cover the texts underlying the one English only position.  Is there any text in scriptures that states God chose to use a Traditional text or Received Text?  No.  There is only a default defense of the Hebrew and Greek texts underlying their choice of a One primary English Translation position. This is not a straw man.  This is a simple default position.  They believe in only using one English translation.  Therefore, they will vehemently defend what underlies it and attack all other positions unceasingly (including personal and ecclesiastical separation, an issue which also needs to be addressed).   

Third, as just noted, any and all positions on other Greek and Hebrews texts (including the Septuagint "LXX") are a threat to their chosen position.  They alone believe they have this authoritative truth preserved in the manuscripts which coincidentally are the basis for a One primary English Translation position.  To disagree with their position is to disagree with how they understand God's claims of preserving his word.  This line of thinking only perpetuates itself if people in churches remain uneducated on the historic position on this issue.  This is only enforced by leadership who never address the issue or only encourage this view of the scriptures.  Then what is needed is information to free a bound conscience (this we will address in a future article).

Fourth, I believe another reason these individuals can never acknowledge the existence and authority of the Septuagint is the Apocrypha.  Not to mention the original one English translation they hold to originally contained the Apocrypha (which is inconsistent with their own 1611 position).  What does this mean?  They are so adamant against the inclusion of the Apocrypha (and rightly so).  The London Baptist Confession and Westminster Confession held to this position.  Nothing new here.  My concern is that in their desire to avoid this document they refuse to accept the historical reality of the Septuagint.  Take your pick, this is a simple throwing out the baby with the bath water or guilt by association (just don't extend it to the original KJV).

Finally, we should take care in placing all adherents of a one English Translation into the same box together.  This is just a reminder from their own literature.  They disagree among themselves as to the authority of an English translation.  They disagree among themselves concerning comparisons with Greek and Hebrew texts, or even with other English translations.  Don't forget there are even groups who would want to correct original manuscripts or call it sin to use any other version.  So lets not lump them all together.  Many fundamentalist colleges and seminaries still have the KJV as their official public position for ministry (preaching and teaching).

Questions to Ponder:
1) Did God chose the English language to providentially preserve his word?  The way the one English translation position is defended it is really hard to avoid this conclusion.  If not, how about the underlying original language text (question two)?

2) Did God chose to providentially preserve only the Hebrew and Greek texts underlying their one English translation only position?  If yes, I would extend the question: Are you then willing to create an English translation (today) from these texts?  If your answer is "no," then go back to previous question.  

Did you just default to an English KJV 1611 only position?
  
Really these questions drive at the heart of this issue.  They truly believe authority is only found in their one English translation.  This one source of authority is why they can never agree to the production of a modern translation (even from the Hebrew and Greek texts) which they alone believe God used to preserve his word.

Instead of a new translation.  They will produce dictionaries for the hundreds of archaic and outdated terms.  (I have one of these dictionaries).  They will produce English Bibles with all the outdated terms defined for the reader.  I think they may be trying to make a 400 year old English translation readable for modern Christians instead of a modern translation for modern Christians.  Again, we still need to address conscience related issues in  a future article.

Historical quotes on the translation issue,

"Allowing all due honour to the English translation of the Bible, it must be granted to be a human performance, and, as such, subject to imperfection.  Where any passage appears to be mistranslated, it is doubtless proper for those who are well acquainted with the original languages to point it out, and to offer, according to the best of their judgment, the true meaning of the Holy Spirit.  Criticisms of this kind, made with modesty and judgment, and not in consequence of a preconceived system, are worthy of encouragement." (Andrew Fuller, "Works," vol. III, p. 810; Borrowed from Trust Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

"I lay no claim to the inspiration of every word in the various versions and translations of God's Word.  So far as those translations and versions are faithfully and correctly done, so far they are of equal authority with the original Hebrew and Greek.  We have reason to thank God that many of the translations are, in the main, faithful and accurate." 
(J. C. Ryle, Old Paths, p. 20; Again borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

Thoughts?  Comments as always encouraged.

The Value of Septuagint Quotations in the NT in discussing the KJV 1611 Hebrew Old Testament Position

Septuagint Quotations in New Testament and the KJV 1611 Hebrew Old Testament Position

Series Part One           Series Part Two       Series Part Three  

One of the tenants of the KJV English Translation only position is the non-existence of the Greek translation of the OT (the Septuagint "LXX").  This line of defense is focused toward KJV only advocates who at least attempt an academic position based on the underlying Greek and Hebrew text.  At face value this might not make sense to the normal reader.  Here's the issue many (if not most) of the KJV only adherents believe that God providentially preserved the Hebrew manuscripts underlying the Old Testament.  It is this OT text that the NT writers and speakers quote.  This includes writers such as the Matthew, Luke, Paul, etc....  This would also extend to include Christ's own quotation of the OT.  

Of course, it goes without saying the KJV English only position has no value for the underlying Hebrew and Greek text and won't be bothered by this position anyway.  Their position is an English text only position.  This position is even farther from the historic position of Christianity for both inspiration and preservation.  This position seems to foster a following in churches where academics are discouraged and local church pastors just don't address this issue (exegetically or historically). 

Just by way of reminder many of the KJV only advocates who actually use the Greek and Hebrew texts deny the existence of the Septuagint.  It must be said (to be academically honest) not all adherents who believe God preserved the underlying Traditional Greek Texts deny the existence of the Septuagint.  For example, the very study Bible I use every day for reading, study and memorizing was published by a company that is strongly KJV in their position (both underlying Greek and Hebrew texts also).  At the same time they acknowledge the existence of the LXX and their notes on occasion point out the fact that the NT verses are quoting from the Septuagint and not the underlying Hebrew text.  So this is obviously something they are not ashamed of or threatened by in being academically honest.

So let's begin with some examples.  Just for sake of time (don't forget there are roughly 350 OT quotations) in the NT, we'll limit our discussion to the epistle of Romans.  But to be fair this same process could be repeated in any of the NT gospels or epistles quoting from the LXX.  If I counted correctly (you're welcome to count on your own), Romans contains 63 OT quotations (22 from the LXX, and 41 from the Masoretic text).  In all the NT, the LXX only makes up for about 20% of the quotations.  So its certainly not the normal mode of operation when scripture was penned.

So what evidence do we look for to determine this quotation source?  Well, the verse quoted may contain words only found in the LXX (not in the Hebrew text).  This position could also be reversed, the Hebrew text might have a wording which the LXX does not contain.  Second, the NT quotation might be verbatim word order for the LXX (this as well could be said for verbatim quotes from the Hebrew text).  

Let's take some examples.

Romans 1:17 quotes from the Hebrew, "the just shall live by his faith."  As far as I can tell, the Hebrew text in Habakkuk 2:4 uses a preposition translated with the English gloss "by" that more correctly reflects the text quoted in Romans 1:17.  Here for example the Hebrew text best represents the preposition, whereas the LXX does not.

Romans 2:24 quotes from the LXX, "for the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles."  This comes from Isaiah 52:5.  If you will note (even in your English KJV text) the NT prepositional phrase, "among the Gentiles" does not appear.  The LXX contains this wording and the Hebrew text does not.  So how could Paul quote from the Hebrew text that did not exist?  Obvious, he quoted from the LXX.

How about some simple examples.  Many times the NT quotes the LXX verbatim.  This should make it simple to recognize.

Consider Romans 3:13b, "the poison of asps is under their lips."  This is quoted from Psalm 140:3.  The LXX reflects this exact Greek sentence verbatim.  

NT Gk (ἰὸς ἀσπίδων ὑπὸ τὰ χείλη αὐτῶν·)

OT Gk (ἰὸς ἀσπίδων ὑπὸ τὰ χείλη αὐτῶν)

Or another from Romans 3:14, "whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness."  This is quoted from Psalm 10:7 and is another verbatim example.

What about a more complicated example in quotation?  Romans 9:29, "Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha."  Take note of the three terms: Sabaoth, Sodom, and Gomorrha.  This is an example where the Hebrew is transliterated into Greek "Sabaoth" and is quoted by the NT as such.  Similar idea with Gomorrha and Sodoma, the terms are transposed.  Easy to see how the exact Greek wording is maintained.

Lastly, (but certainly not the last of the NT evidence), one of my favorite LXX quotations.  See Romans 10:16, "Lord, who hath believed our report?"  Compare this with your English KJV, "Who hath believed our report?"  OT is Isa 53:1 translated from the Hebrew text.  Notice any difference?  So what one word is different?  Lord.  Yes, the LXX contains the reference to God and the Hebrew text does not.  Can you image if this were reversed as often used by English KJV advocates.  Usually sounds something like, "They took Jesus out of the Bible!"  This is a simple textual issue.  The NT writer quoted the LXX and not the Hebrew text.

We could quote more  but this should be sufficient.  The rest you can compare on your own. 
So this may not cancel out every claim of KJV only advocates but it should help show some of the faulty reasoning involved.  First, the KJV writers were not KJV only see previous article).  Second, one major premise of many KJV advocates belief in textual preservation is faulty.  Again a simple effort put forth to educate yourself goes along way in refuting error in many local churches. 

More to come.  As always, comments encouraged.

Quotes from Church History on the Translation issue:

"We have no right to expect infallibility in transcribers and copyists, before the invention of printing.  But there is not a single doctrine of Scripture which would be affected or altered if all the various readings were allowed, and all the disputed or doubtful words were omitted." (J. C. Ryle, Old Paths, p. 29; borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

"It was at her study table that she read her Bible by seven o'clock in the summer and eight o'clock in winter; her Hebrew Bible, Greek Testament, and lexicons being at hand." (Francis Ridley Havergal, Memorials of Francis Ridley Havergal, by Marie Havergal, p. 259; again today borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).