I am here revising and tweaking the past writing “My View of King James Only.” This is primarily because I believe it too readily acknowledged the bogus categories created by James R. Whiteout White – which I now reject as polemic, confusing, and doing more harm than good to fruitful discussion.
I consider myself “King James Only.” Unlike some, I am not bothered by association with the terminology. However, I find myself at odds with different ideas proclaimed in my own “camp,” in addition to not fitting how others perceive of or categorize us. I think it will be good (for me, and perhaps my readers) to again clarify by own thoughts and ideas.
I believe the Scriptures are inspired, infallible, inerrant, trustworthy, and our only rule of faith and practice. The autographs are inspired and inerrant in the most direct and immediate fashion.[i] The Holy Spirit moved on men (2 Peter 1:19-21), the result being that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God (cf. 2 Timothy 3:16-17). In that sense, neither copy nor translation is on par with the original, that is, in the sense of the “autograph” being the time and place where the divine transaction between God and his penman occurred. This does not mean we should doubt having the word of God in the present tense. All scripture is given by inspiration.
I accept phrasing used by Francis Turretin – authentic formally & authentic materially. Doubtless I have a slightly nuanced meaning. The scriptures in their present condition may not be “authentic formally” because they are not the original form or writing on the original media. They are “authentic materially” because the same truth is expressed in words that are providentially preserved. The word of the Lord is forever settled in heaven (Cf. Psalm 119:89). The original documents were written on perishable media (think “paper”[ii]). The original text, the words of God, survive and exist without the original media. The original message is not a physical object that has perished. It is a living word that is preserved. God’s message is not lost, when copied or translated accurately.
I accept the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts as equivalent to the autographs, and the King James Bible as the trustworthy available English translation of those words (texts). Or, as Edward Hills and others might put it, the King James Bible is a representative TR text (“the King James Version ought to be regarded … as an independent variety of the Textus Receptus,” Hills, King James Version Defended). King James advocates receive the traditional texts of the Old and New Testaments, rather than try to reconstruct them. Why? Either the text we have received is preserved by God, or we don’t have an accurate or preserved text. If we don’t have a received/preserved text, we neither can have an authentic text nor even know whether we have a true representation of the autographs. The advocates of the critical text must admit that we are all in the same leaky boat if they are correct.
I believe that the Scriptures are inspired by God; that the original words (but not the original media) are preserved by God; and that the preserved words have been accurately translated into languages other than the original languages.[iii] In the English language, I believe the King James Bible represents this work of God, is an accurate translation of the originally inspired words, and can therefore confidently be considered the inspired words of God, preserved and translated. (Some people express it this way: Copies and translations have derivative inspiration. Derivative means not original, i.e., secondary. That seems okay to me. I’m not sure, however, that everybody means the same thing when they use the terminology.) I do not believe the King James translators were inspired. I believe King James Bible can be referred to as inspired and inerrant because it accurately reflects the original documents, the preserved original language manuscripts, and the copies derived from them – all of which are both inspired and inerrant. I do not believe that God’s words are only preserved in English.[iv]
Unlike some in the “King James Only” camp, I do not spend much of my time on tirades against other printed translations of the Bible.[v] I am loathe to say that the words “Jesus wept” (John 11:35) or “Eber, Peleg, Reu” (1 Chronicles 1:25) somehow are no longer God’s words when printed within the lids of the American Standard Version, Christian Standard Bible, New International Version, or the Revised Standard Version. When the Douay-Rheims Version (DRA, 1899 American Edition) says in John 14:6 “Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me” it is a clear testimony that Jesus is the only way, even though contained in a Catholic translation. This is not an endorsement of these Bible translations, but a simple acknowledgement that God’s word cannot be bound or broken! (Compare 2 Timothy 2:9, John 10:35, & Isaiah 55:11, for examples). Wherever it is accurately translated – even in translations with which I otherwise disagree – God’s word is God’s word! (To be clear, I do disagree with specific ways words and verses are translated in other Bibles and discuss such things. For example, read my essays on John 7:8 or Luke 3:36.)
The King James Bible translators, in The Translators to the Reader, put it this way:
“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. As the King’s speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.”
God’s word is resilient; it is powerful and persistent; it cannot be bound or broken. Bury it and it will rise again! John 6:63 “…the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” (Jeremiah 23:29, Ephesians 6:17)
[ii] Much of the scripture, so it is believed, was originally written on papyrus, a writing material made from a papyrus or reed plant. We get our English word paper from the word papyrus. It may not seem troublesome to scholars to discuss our “not having” the inspired writings, but it is troublesome to destroy the people’s confidence in the Bible.
[iii] “Another rendering of the authentic version is itself also Sacred Scripture, so long as it has been translated into other languages as devoutly as possible, and corresponds to it precisely and completely—as much, at least, as this can be done. Such translation is not only permitted and useful (contrary to what certain papal teachers have determined), but also entirely necessary (Acts 2:4, 6, 11; Nehemiah 8:8, 9, 14, 18), so that it may be of use to all people (Deuteronomy 31:11; Colossians 3:16), and so that it may be understood, read, and heard by all people and those of any kind—also lay-people.” – Synopsis Purioris Theologiae, or Synopsis of a Purer Theology
[iv] Some people think – some even insist – that “King James Only” implies or means this.
[v] Nevertheless, the multiplying of translations, in and of itself, causes a great deal of confusion with bad consequences. By “tirades” I have in mind rants that call modern translations things like the “Energized Satanic Version,” as well as the condemning of all translators or users of modern texts to eternity in hell. There is plenty of room for and need of pushback against bad translations of bad texts, bad translations of good texts, and good translations of bad texts. If a translation includes some of God’s truth, we should acknowledge that while pointing out the errors.
No comments:
Post a Comment