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 the Septuagint : Series on English Translation Only position continued

The Septuagint

Series Part One           Series Part Two 
        
First, this ones a little more academic.  When the New Testament writers penned out the scriptures through inspiration of the Holy Spirit, what did they quote for authority in their sermons and argumentation?  Good answer: the Old Testament.  But not quite accurate enough.  The Old Testament Masoretic Text or the Septuagint?  A good Greek text lays these out.  If the Masoretic text, how good of a translation is it?  On the other hand, if they quoted repeatedly from the Septuagint, how good of a translation is it?  Think and research this before you answer.  

Application: if the first century apostles and Jesus himself quoted from a translation that was not word for word or rather dynamic in translation, what does that say for translations in English?  Often even when people agree with the position of the translators preface of the KJV, they still arbitrarily restrict themselves to certain English translations.  I would guess it is a result of a strong Fundamental position on both inerrancy and plenary (verbal) inspiration.  Simple logic to help people understand this:  If every word matters then an English translation that "best" or "most accurately" represents the original wording is most desirable.  This also takes into account changing vocabulary, spelling, etc.... This is a choice made, either by doctrine, associations or simple preference.

I would suggest this conversation is only heightened if someone denies the existence of the Septuagint.  Yes there are actually people who teach that the Septuagint does not exist (despite the fact there are actually physical manuscripts in existence).  History itself shows these claims our completely outside historic fundamental Christianity (this is yet another reason to quote history in every article to show how outside of historic Christianity a one English only position is).  I intend to produce a future article addressing NT quotations that make no sense, have no OT counterpart, and have no reasoning without an underlying Greek OT text.  

I think one reason many (or if not most) one English translation advocates deny a Septuagint is because of its rather loose translation in places and its inclusion of the Apocrypha.  Of course by this logic (line of reasoning) they must also reject their own KJV because it also included the Apocrypha.  I am currently looking at a facsimile copy of the KJV 1611 and it includes the Apocrypha.  I would suggest this is guilt by association inconsistently applied.

To begin there are roughly 350 direct quotations of the Old Testament by New Testament authors.  Nearly 20% of these come from the Septuagint (LXX).  One thing for certain provided through a Greek translation of the OT was that the common Greek speaking person could read it (that is, if they couldn't read Hebrew).

From here I will survey the NT texts in which the Septuagint is quoted. The task is simple: compare the NT Greek text to the OT Greek text of the Septuagint.  By comparison, if the Hebrew OT text was quoted then how would the NT quotation read (that is if quoted word for word and not paraphrased).

Historical voices on the translation issue

"Now though some translations may exceed others in Propriety, and significant rendering of the Originals; yet they generally, (even the most imperfect that we know of), express and hold forth so much the Mind, Will, and Counsel of God, as is sufficient...to acquaint a Man with the Mysteries of Salvation, to work in him a true Faith, and bring him to live godly, righteously, and soberly in this World, and to Salvation in the next"
(Benjamin Keach, Tropologia: A Key to Open Scripture Metaphors to which are prefixed Arguments to prove the Divine Authority of the Holy Bible, p. xxi; Quotation format borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC ).

"I design first to set down the text itself, for the most part, in the common English translation, which is, in general (so far as I can judge) abundantly the best that I have seen.  Yet I do not say it is incapable of being brought, in several places, nearer to the original.  Neither will I affirm that the Greek copies from which this translation was made, as always the most correct.  And therefore I shall take the liberty, as occasion may require, to make here and there a small alteration" 
(John Wesley, Notes on the Whole Bible-The New Testament, pp. 3-4; Quotation format borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

The KJV Translators Preface: The KJV 1611 One English Only Position Continued

The KJV 1611 Translators Preface

Series Part Two          Series Part One

This one is rather interesting.  Much damage has been done by Bible publishers for not including this translators preface in their English translations.  I highly recommend a Cambridge edition that includes the translator's preface.  You can google it if needed to read a copy.  It is rather interesting for modern users of an English translation to take a position on this particular English translation which even the translators themselves did not hold to.  I challenge anyone to read a modern copy of the translator's preface.  The simple process of educating yourself on what they actually taught and practiced should bear insightful.

So what exactly was the position of the translators of the KJV? Since most people will never purchase a KJV containing the original Translators preface I will list out by category pertinent categories and quotations take from the original preface.  Again, you can find a simple free copy on www.google.com and read it for yourself (in its entirety).  

Since multiple English translations already existed, what did they think of producing new translations,

"It is welcomed with suspicion instead of love, and with emulation instead of thanks: and if there be any hole left for cavil to enter, (and cavil, if it does not find a hole, will make one) it is sure to be miscontrued, and in danger to be condemned."

What did the translators believe about multiple Bible translations in English (or any other language), 

"Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."

What did the translators believe about word for word translations and modern translations,

"For is the kingdom of God to become words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely when we may use another no less fit, as commodiously?"

"Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be sound in this point."

"...it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence..." 

"There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother or neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places."

"doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily?"

"For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption."

"Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded." 

"They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other." 

"...we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men somewhere, have been as exact as they could that way."

What did the translators believe about English translations without errors or English translations that are beyond the reach of correction,

"Yet before we end, we must answer a third cavil and objection of theirs against us, for altering and amending our Translations so oft; wherein truly they deal hardly, and strangely with us. For to whomever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to go over that which he had done, and to amend it where he saw cause?"

"But the difference that appeareth between our Translations, and our often correcting of them, is the thing that we are specially charged with; let us see therefore whether they themselves be without fault this way, (if it be to be counted a fault, to correct) and whether they be fit men to throw stones at us: O tandem maior parcas insane minori: they that are less sound themselves, out not to object infirmities to others."

Finally, what did the translators believe about the need to have English translations in the modern tongue and vocabulary of the people, not in an archaic language from the past,

Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob's well (which is deep) without a bucket or something to draw with; or as that person mentioned by Isaiah, to whom when a sealed book was delivered, with this motion, "Read this, I pray thee," he was fain to make this answer, "I cannot, for it is sealed."

"But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar."

Quotes from History on Translations,

"The holy Scriptures viz. the Originalls Hebrew & Greek are given by Divine Inspiration & in their first donation were without error most perfect and therefore Canonical...no translation can possibly express all the matter of the holy originalls, nor a thousand things in the Grammar, Rhetoric, & character of the tongue."
(The Works of John Smyth, fellow of Christ's College, ed. W.T. Whitley, vol. I, pp. 279-280; Quotation format borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

"Translations contain the word of God, and are the word of God, perfectly or imperfectly, according as they express the words, sense, and meaning of those originals.  To advance any, all translations concurring, into an equality with the originals, ... much more to propose and use them as means of castigating, amending, altering any thing in them, gathering various lections by them, is to set up an altar of our own by the altar of God, and to make equal the wisdom, care, skill and diligence of men, with the wisdom, care, and providence of God himself "
(Of the Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of the Scripture, in Works of John Owns, vol. XVI, p. 357; Quotation format borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

So as you can tell a modern movement that claims God chose both the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts was not held by the translators themselves.  In addition, claiming that God will only use (or has only chosen or blessed) one English translation is not correct now nor was it believed by the translators of the King James Version.

We must still address where doctrine, history, and charity meet.
Read. Be educated.  Comments as always encouraged.

The Fundamental Baptist Fellowship (FBFI) and English Translations, Discernment, and Christian Charity

The Fundamental Baptist Fellowship (FBFI) and the Modern One English Only Position

This organization or fellowship of Fundamental Baptists meets multiple times each year (according to region and otherwise).  They also produce a magazine entitled "Frontline" several times each year. Back in 1995, and subsequently they have produced statements concerning the English Only Position.  I personally know probably over a hundred members of this fellowship and have been a member of multiple of their churches.

Series Part One

Below in its complete form is a copy of their statement as written in the year 1995.  This statement is just as true today as it was over twenty years ago when it was written.  (The Bold headings are my own take away summary statements and should not be misinterpreted as to represent the original authors of the FBFI positional document).  You have the original statement to draw your own conclusions.

Christians should hold to their own position on English translations with love, a clear conscience, and a well-informed historical perspective (especially within practicing Fundamentalist local churches).

"In light of the considerable discussion among fundamentalists about the issue of manuscripts and textual theories, no particular belief about the best textual theory should be elevated to the place of becoming a core fundamentalist belief.  Fundamentalists may hold the doctrine of inspiration with equal strength without embracing the same belief about textual criticism."

Christians should compare their English translation of choice with the original languages (whatever your choice of manuscripts may be).

"Additionally, proper evaluation of the doctrinal integrity of any particular English translation can only be done by examining its faithfulness to the original languages, not by comparing it to another English translation.  While the process of comparing it with other translations may be profitable for matters of clarity and readability, this process cannot pass as the test of doctrinal accuracy since it is illegitimate to check one copy by another; one must compare the copy to the original."

Christians should exercise great care in whatever English translation they use.  This extends to homes, local churches, and organizations.

"In a day when translations abound, fundamentalists must exercise careful discernment in both the selection and rejection of translations.  Some professing fundamentalists have wrongfully declared one translation to be the only inspired copy of God's Word in the English language and have sought to make this a test of fundamentalism."

Christians should put forth effort to study the original languages and not to rely solely on English translations.

"Since no translation can genuinely claim what only may be said of the original, inspired writings, any attempt to make a particular English translation the only acceptable translation of fundamentalism must be rejected."

(resolution passed at the 75th annual meeting at Faith Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

Below are some additional principles I have derived concerning this issue of English translations (I apply these to myself and family, not to those outside my home).

First, I have for years memorized verses, chapters, and books of the Bible using a particular English translation.  I have no necessary or compelling reason to change this daily practice.

Second, I have been blessed to have multiple years of Greek and Hebrew seminary level training.  This enables me to dive deep into my scriptural study of grammar and syntax.  I have no necessary reason to limit myself to word studies or an English translation.

Third, I completely understand local churches and institutions set their own policies for public teaching and preaching (either by the pastor, elders, or the congregation).  Therefore, in those capacities of verbal ministry, I do restrict myself to their policies concerning English translations.

Fourth, I have not (to my knowledge) ever actually taught against (from a local church pulpit or in a classroom) against the position of that particular local church on English translations.

Finally, I (and my family) understand that both (in the past and potentially in the future) we will have to leave local churches due to the nature and manner in which this English translation only position is addressed (both in teaching and demeanor).

Historical Quote from History on Translations

"We do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession ... containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God....No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it....Whatever was perfect under the sun, where Apostles or apostolick men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's Spirit, and priviledged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?" (The Translators to the Reader, p. xix)

Read, learn, be educated.  soli deo gloria

Comments as always encouraged.