Home > King James Only, The Word, Voegtlin > The Importance of Faithfulness to the Word

The Importance of Faithfulness to the Word

February 5, 2007

Do you want to be part of the “initiated”? OK, I’ll let you in on a secret. Only those with the highest levels of intelligence can ponder this great mystery. Ready?

In 1 Corinthians 4, The mysteries of God refers to the gospel. And the gospel is a part of the whole Word of God that has been entrusted to the ministers of Christ.

Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover it is required in stewards that a man be found faithful. ~~1 Corinthians 4:1-2

Faithfulness is the requirment of stewards. A steward is someone who has been entrusted with the management of another person’s property.

Of

This preposition denotes generally two things: production and possession. So it is with the Word of God. It came from Him; it is yet His.

I hold in my hand my Bible. The paper and ink and leather are mine. But the Words are God’s. They came from Him. They are yet His. As a steward, I cannot add to the words he has given. If I did, would they continue to be His words? I dare not take away from the words he has given. Who am I to steal from my master?

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. ~~Deuteronomy 4:2

Faithfulness is the requirement of stewards. Faithfulness expresses itself in many ways.

  • I believe my master
  • I trust my master.
  • I obey my master.
  • I honor my master.
  • I do, to the best of my ability, what he would do.
  • I’m faithful to Him.
  • I’m faithful to His Word
Advertisements
  1. February 5, 2007 at 10:04 pm

    Jeff,

    You wrote:

    “I hold in my hand my Bible. The paper and ink and leather are mine. But the Words are God’s. They came from Him. They are yet His.”

    Are you referring to a Greek TR here or an English KJV? What are you holding when you say this?

    If you are referring to an English KJV then you are stating that a translation is the “words of God.” Do you believe this? If they are God’s Words then they must be the preserved, inspired Words. Otherwise, are they non-preserved, non-inspired Words of God?

    Now, don’t accuse me of “double inspiration.” I don’t believe any such nonsense. That is why I always put “preserved” before “inspired” when speaking of a translation. God didn’t need to re-inspire anything in 1611. He had already breathed the Words, and they were simply translated.

    The Words God breathed out (inspiration) have been preserved in the Masoretic/TR (preservation). These have been accurately translated in the KJV. Therefore, it is the preserved, inspired Words of God translated in English. That is what I believe, how about you?

    Can I preach the Word of God without using a TR or not? Am I preaching non-God breathed Words? Must I have a TR in order to really have the Scriptures? Does the Bible I preach have the guarantee that it will not return void? Is it “quick and powerful . . .?” Is it “like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?”

    Or, must I learn Greek and Hebrew so that I can really have the Word of God?

    These are questions that your original affirmations bring up in my mind. I hope you men address them.

    God bless all of you and you are a blessing. Keep on hammering and I’m enjoying having a little part.

  2. February 5, 2007 at 10:28 pm

    I think you put an important point on the lower shelf for every one to take.

  3. February 6, 2007 at 11:20 am

    Bobby,

    I think your questions are good, and reveal the way we talk. I don’t have a problem with someone saying that they are holding God’s Word, that when they read their English Bible, they are reading God’s Words. In fact, most Sundays when I read my text, I preface it with a statement like “these are the words of God.”

    At the same time, God preserves His words and Word in the languages in which He gave them. He did not promise to preserve them in translations of what was given. He promised to preserve His Word, and we have a faithful translation of that.

    That being said, there could be other faithful translations. There could be more than one translation that we could use. And, we could hold those up and say, “These are the words of God.”

    But if we want to make a faithful translation into Portugese, we must rely on the Greek and Hebrew, so that we can really have the Word and words of God.

    And yes, Pastors must learn the Greek and Hebrew so that they can really have the Word of God.

  4. February 6, 2007 at 3:24 pm

    Bobby said, “Are you referring to a Greek TR here or an English KJV? What are you holding when you say this?”

    First, let me say that when I said that, I was making a point about being faithful to the Word and to the Lord. I do not want to lose the focus of the post. We must be faithful. We are stewards of the words of God.

    Second, I understand that questions arise.

    Third, this is a very academic, specifically “denotative” discussion. So, what we say here could have conotations we don’t agree with.

    Bobby said, “If they are God’s Words then they must be the preserved, inspired Words. Otherwise, are they non-preserved, non-inspired Words of God?”

    This is not an absolute conclusion. As you mention in another comment, if I have a copy of the French translation of your masterwork, I do have your work and (pretty much) your words. But did you write the work in French? No. Do I have your exact words? No. Could something have been “lost in translation”? Yes. They do not have to be the preserved, inspired words of God to be God’s Word. For me, the answer to one question helps: Did God breathe in English? If not, nothing in English is inspired (God breathed).

    Bobby said, “The Words God breathed out (inspiration) have been preserved in the Masoretic/TR (preservation). These have been accurately translated in the KJV. Therefore, it is the preserved, inspired Words of God translated in English. That is what I believe, how about you?”

    Yes and No: the KJV is the preserved, inspired Words of God translated INTO English — the KJV is not the preservation of the words God breathed out. It’s a translation.

    Can I preach the Word of God without using a TR? YES

    Am I preaching non-God breathed Words? YES

    Must I have a TR in order to really have the Scriptures? If by Scriptures you mean exactly the words of God, YES. (Would I need your masterwork in the language you wrote it to have exactly the words you intended to convey your meaning?)

    Does the Bible I preach have the guarantee that it will not return void? Why Not? It’s God’s Word

    Is it “quick and powerful . . .?” Is it “like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?” YES

    Or, must I learn Greek and Hebrew so that I can really have the Word of God? Again, If you want the words He breathed, YES

    Bobby said, “These are questions that your original affirmations bring up in my mind. I hope you men address them.”

    I hope you are getting answers. I wonder if they are acceptable.

  5. February 6, 2007 at 8:36 pm

    “And yes, Pastors must learn the Greek and Hebrew so that they can really have the Word of God.”–Dave Mallinak

    Sholarship-onlyism.

    Maybe that is what we should call this series of articles.

    I suppose your statement is also good for every church member. They need to learn Greek and Hebrew to really have the Word of God. Maybe we all should just lay down our translations and sit at the feet of the Hebrew and Greek scholars so that they can tell us what really is the Word. Of course, until we learn Hebrew and Greek we can’t “prove all things.” Oops. That’s not really the Word of God, so maybe I can’t quote it in a response like this.

    Where do I even begin? Here I am pastoring a church, but I’m not really preaching the Word of God. But, then you say it is the Word of God, but just not the preserved Word of God. So, it is the non-preserved Word of God. Huh? So, anyway, I’m pastoring this church, but I’m doing so (according to you) without really having the Word of God. So, I can’t really preach the Word of God, because I can’t read it because I can’t read Greek and Hebrew.

    At any rate, maybe I should just quit the pastorate and devote my time to learning Hebrew and Greek. I’m sure that you have mastered those two languages to the point that you can stand and preach from the really real Word of God. So, maybe I should come to your church and learn the languages? Then, I’ll start preaching in Hebrew and Greek. But, wait a minute! Nobody around here speaks Hebrew or Greek! This is a mess.

    Maybe we’ll just have to divide up God’s people into two classes: Hebrew and Greek scholars in the first and everyone else in the other. Us little people that only read/speak/write English can just sit at the feet of the scholars and trust whatever they throw out. That would probably be safest. It could almost be like the Catholics with Latin mass.

    Perhaps the best way to tackle this is to beging going door-to-door offering Hebrew and Greek classes so that the lost can hear the really, really, real Word of God in the “original languages” so that they can be convicted by the Word. Besides, “faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word” (I know that’s not really the Word of God, but it is the best I can do for now.) So, if they learn Greek and Hebrew and can then listen to the Hebrew and Greek, they can be convicted and then be saved.

    Man, o man. This is a mess. This is sad. This is disappointing, guys.

    How do I live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God? Again, my apologies for not quoting from the real Word of God. How do I obey Matthew 4:4? I guess that the Lord is really telling me there to master Hebrew and Greek so I can obey whatever it says in Greek there. Of course, there are so many others that also cannot obey this command. That is, of course, unless they line up before the scholars so that they can reveal what really is the Word of God.

    My position again: The Lord God breathed out the Scriptures. They are the inspired Word of God. He promised to preserve every word and even every jot and tittle. He has done that in the Masoretic and TR. They are the inspired, preserved Word of God. They have been translated into English in the KJV. So, I have the inspired, preserved Word of God translated in my language, the KJV.

    I deny scholarship-onlyism as detrimental to the faith that the people of God in the English-speaking world have in their copy of the Word of God.

  6. February 6, 2007 at 8:40 pm

    Jeff,

    I love you and Dave and Kent. I am confused by your response. It seems that you are saying that I don’t have the preserved Word of God in the KJV, but I’m supposed to believe that the promises pertaining to the preserved Word of God apply to it–this non-preserved Word of God.

    This is a confusing position.

  7. February 6, 2007 at 9:17 pm

    Why does a translation have to be the exact words of the author?

    Yes, you have a translation of the preserved, inspired Word of God.

    Did God breathe in English?

  8. February 6, 2007 at 9:40 pm

    Jeff,

    First, the article is good. I will probably copy it and give it to some of the men in the church.

    Second, knowing what you are affirming leaves me boggled while reading your article. You say, “I hold in my hand my Bible. The paper and ink and leather are mine. But the Words are God’s. They came from Him. They are yet His.”

    You are not referring to a TR here, but your KJV. That is what you teach and preach from. You say the words are God’s and they are yet His. But, then you tell me that His words are really only in the Hebrew and Greek. Do you tell your SS class this? “Hey, class. Turn in your Bible to read some words that are God’s Words, but they really aren’t.”

    You quote passages from the KJV to prove your point, but then explain that those passages are not really the Words of God. Then why quote them?

    Wouldn’t you be consistent if you just put up the Hebrew and Greek words?

    You claim that we can claim for the KJV the promises about the Words of the God, but then you say they aren’t really the Words of God.

    Don’t you see the inconsistency here?

    My suggestion is that you all focus on defending the Masoretic Hebrew and the TR Greek as the Words of God. Then, defend the KJV as the exclusive English translation of the preserved, inspired Words of God. We should be promoting confidence in the KJV, not casting doubts in the minds of the members of the NT churches.

  9. February 6, 2007 at 10:04 pm

    Bobby, show me a passage that defends preservation in a translation.

  10. February 6, 2007 at 10:06 pm

    Bobby said, “My suggestion is that you all focus on defending the Masoretic Hebrew and the TR Greek as the Words of God.”

    That’s what we are doing!

    Bobby said, “Then, defend the KJV as the exclusive English translation of the preserved, inspired Words of God.”

    True, but we need an updated edition.

  11. February 6, 2007 at 10:10 pm

    Bobby said, “You are not referring to a TR here, but your KJV. That is what you teach and preach from. You say the words are God’s and they are yet His. But, then you tell me that His words are really only in the Hebrew and Greek. Do you tell your SS class this? “Hey, class. Turn in your Bible to read some words that are God’s Words, but they really aren’t.””

    I’ll tell my SS class God spoke to us in Hebrew and Greek. We have a translation of that that we can trust.

    Of course I don’t say that they really arent’t God’s words in my SS class — please don’t ask silly questions.

  12. February 6, 2007 at 10:15 pm

    One more thing right now. I don’t think we are taking away confidence in the KJV. If we believe in preseration in the language in which it was written then we have to answer where that differs from the KJV. We have to answer that. We can’t give pat thirty second sound-bytes. We can’t lie either. For instance in Ruth 3:15, the King James does not come from the Hebrew Masoretic. The Masoretic is “he went,” and the KJV says “she went.” So which are the Words? the Masoretic or the English in this case? I believe the translators gave a sense of the context in this case, but my view of preservation is that it is, “he went,” because I go with the Hebrew text. Strouse talks about this on p. 154 in our book.

    I don’t believe it takes away from confidence in the KJV.

  13. February 6, 2007 at 10:18 pm

    Bobby said, “You claim that we can claim for the KJV the promises about the Words of the God, but then you say they aren’t really the Words of God.”

    Remember Mario Monette? He’s teaching a class about your book to French people. They have a question about the particular words that you wrote. He would be lying to say you wrote in French when really you wrote in English and he translated it into French. He can tell them what you meant. He can relate to them what you said in their own language. But if he tells them exactly what you wrote, he will be speaking in English.

    Same with you and me. If I want to know exactly (word for word) what God breathed, I’m going to have to get it from the MS/TR. That’s the point.

    I said earlier, “So, what we say here could have conotations we don’t agree with.”

  14. February 7, 2007 at 8:25 am

    Jeff said,

    “True, but we need an updated edition.” Are you speaking ex cathedra here?

    Or, is this the determination of a NT church? Is this because the KJV can’t do the job anymore? Is this because people can’t study a few minutes to understand some words that may not be used everyday, but are not “wrong” words?

  15. February 7, 2007 at 8:35 am

    Bobby, show me a passage that defends preservation in a translation. –Kent

    Kent,

    The Masoretic/TR is the inspired, preserved Words of God. They have been translated into English in the KJV. The KJV is God’s inspired, preserved Words translated into English. It is the exlusive English translation that can make that claim.

    The TR is the “received” Word spoken of in John and seen being received through Acts, mentioned in 1 Thes, etc. The received Word translated in English is the KJV. It is the Received Bible for the English world. I preach from the received Word and I preach a “received-Bible mindset” (Credit to T. Strouse) from the KJV. I teach that we, in the English speaking world, need to receive the KJV. We don’t need to rewrite it, re-word it, re-work it. We need to receive it. It doesn’t need changed, criticized, or corrected. It changes, criticizes, and corrects us.

    I have no problem preaching through a passage and telling of the meaning of the Greek words that were translated into the English word we are reading. I like to show how various Greek words were translated into different English words. It helps us reach an understanding of what the word means. But, I believe it is harmful and damaging to correct the Received English Bible that the church has as they hear the preaching. I’m not going to sit in judgement of the Received Bible that I have.

    Hope that helps and tell Pork I said, “hi.”

  16. February 7, 2007 at 8:45 am

    Bobby said, “Maybe we all should just lay down our translations and sit at the feet of the Hebrew and Greek scholars so that they can tell us what really is the Word.”

    Actually, isn’t that what we are doing when we “pick up” our translation – the King James Bible?

  17. Gary Johnson
    February 7, 2007 at 9:14 am

    If the inspiration isn’t preserved in the words, they have no life giving quality.

    Genesis 2:7
    “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

    God breathed life into Adam and that same “God breathed life” was put into the scriptures.

    “All scripture is given by inspiration of God,”

    As our Bro. Mitchell pointed out, we are not talking about “double inspiration”, but if the inspiration isn’t preserved, we don’t have life. The new versions of course are corrupted and contain no ‘life’, and of course the fruit of the tree is rotten as we see by those who follow them. No you won’t find a verse that says God’s words will be preserved in a translation, but then you won’t find one that says they won’t be either. So the discussion has come down to the matter of can God’s word be translated, and still have all the qualities that are described in the scriptures that it gives to itself. In Jesus’ day, we will assume he spoke Hebrew when he preached. (Acts 21:40) God’s words. Yet when it was written down, it was written in Greek. Nobody seems to have trouble with that translation.

    Just some thoughts for you all to consider.

  18. February 7, 2007 at 1:27 pm

    I’m feeling balanced today; someone said balance is getting shot at from both sides. 🙂 Gary, hi. I’m putting this in CAPS, because I am SCREAMING IT. WHO IS SAYING THAT THEY DON’T BELIEVE THE WORDS ARE PRESERVED? I have only expressed perfect preservation of every Word. The Words must be in the language in which it was written. THAT’S WHAT THE BIBLE DOES TEACH (Matthew 5:19). WE ARE TO GET OUR DOCTRINE FROM THE WORDS, NOT FROM SILENCE! One side wants me to say preservation is found in both the original language and in the English. The other side wants me to say that the KJV translators mistranslated.

    Bobby and Gary, what do you do when certain copies of the 1611 and 1769 differ in translation? Ruth 3:15 is a case of that. I go with the Masoretic Text, “he went.” Some of the early copies printed in 1611 said “he went.” This was changed to “she went.” The Masoretic text says, “he went.” I don’t think it is a wrong translation, even as scholars differ on what they think it should be translated. However, the Masoretic reads “he went,” so that is what I believe was preserved. Do you see no difference between “he” and “she” or do you think those two words can be used interchangeably (see, I can be funny/sharp too)? 🙂

    Should people know that the 1611 and the 1769 differ in at least 300 places? You can say that they differ mainly in spellings, etc. But that does change letters and words. Our belief is that the graphe, the Scripture (the very markings on the page) that was inspired, is perfectly preserved, jot and tittle, that is, letters. If letters are changed, then how does that apply to the translation? It doesn’t.

    When we start getting into the breath in the Words as if the actual letters don’t matter as long as there is “breath” or “spirit” in them, we open ourselves up to things like, “we see the voice of Jesus in the Gospels and not the very words of Jesus”—the life giving voice (vox) rather than the very words (verba).

    I believe that there is power in the words, but not otuside of interpreting them correctly. We can’t pull them out of context and expect power from them, as if just having a copy of Scripture can ward away evil spirits.

    Here’s the thing about editions, guys. The KJV has already been updated several times and it hasn’t been since 1769. Are we more Godly than those that wanted it updated? Were those people being mislead when they OK’ed a new edition? I don’t think any of us think that, because we are all using an updated edition. We are not questioning preservation by bringing up the idea of a new edition. The churches must agree and they haven’t. Does bringing up the idea constitute heresy? Because I think that would be strange.

    🙂 🙂 🙂 :0

  19. February 7, 2007 at 2:23 pm

    Is there basically a difference between ‘throughly’ and ‘thoroughly’ (2 Tim. 3:17)?

    A friend of mine warned me about this ‘change,’ although I tend to think that this is no change at all. I should have asked him why, but that day is gone. Is this good, bad, or ugly? and WHY? (I sure hope to get a thorough answer).

  20. Gary Johnson
    February 7, 2007 at 2:26 pm

    Without digging into all my files for information, I will just shoot from the hip.

    1611 to 1769

    Yes, there were some “changes” made, as they were correcting printing errors. Not being so blessed as we are with the F7 button to check all the spelling errors, or anything else that those sliding letter print machines had to deal with. (for lack of the right name)

    Also spelling was updated from 1611 to 1769 as we know, such as sope to soap. But if you were to read the earlier editions, to the ear they would sound the same. Romans 10:17, Heb 11:6. I have no problem letting people know of the differences, because then they can better understand the attacks of the critics who try to use those editions to promote the need for another translation in the English language.

    There was an older preacher I had spent some time with before he went on to be with the Lord, a brilliant man with doctorate degrees in Biblical Languages. He told me that in all of his studying, he could not find fault with any word in the King James Bible. He said it was a perfect translation. I believe that is what the King James translators set out to do, as they wrote in the Epistle Dedicatory. I see no purpose to give any more ammunition to those who would cast doubt on the book so many love and trust. Without explaining the reason for the edition changes, and using those changes to promote the need for a new edition, a false message is being sent about the work of the translators.

    Having never heard of the matter in Ruth 3:15 until this discussion, I will assume it would be in the printing error category.
    So I find it a non-issue to discuss different editions of the King James, and what took place then certainly does not warrant any need to update it now.

    Also I don’t believe any one is challenging your defense of the preservation of the words in this forum, it just seems as though the topic went from KJVO to Masoretic / TR only as we have read the articles and responses.

    I will continue to stop in and read and obverse as the month rolls along, and probably say very little, the weather is too nice this time of year in Arizona to spend all your time at the keyboard. 🙂

  21. February 7, 2007 at 2:42 pm

    Gary, I’m sure the weather is great, the Colorado River is beautiful. It’s raining here, but I’m rejoicing. We do need the rain, especially so we don’t hear the calls for rationing in the summer. It’s a keyboard kind of day, actually, Northern California.

    I have always respected the English only guys. I don’t think we must have Greek/Hebrew. My respect comes out of their firm belief in preservation and availability.

    If the churches don’t want to update, it won’t be updated. Things have been done though, and people haven’t complained, i.e., the Waite Defined KJ. If we think people don’t understand the word, we certainly can explain it, but why not update it. People are going to get their confidence, as they should, from teaching the Bible on preservation. If we show them what God says, that’s where they will get their faith. People are going to hear about these things, and I think it is better to have the truth on the table, on top of the fact that God wants us to honor Him by taking a position reflected in the English translation that we so love.

  22. February 7, 2007 at 9:21 pm

    Gary,

    You reminded me of Harold Sightler. He always said he didn’t consider himself a Greek Scholar, though he was highly educated in it at Furman. It was his declaration that in all of his studies he never found a single error in the KJV and accepted it as God’s inspired and preserved Words translated into English.

    I was going to bring up the translations of Jesus’ words. For instance, when he quoted Scripture to Satan, this must have been in Hebrew. But, then, it was translated into Greek. Which was inspired? What He said or what was written by Matthew. Other instances could be given.

  23. February 7, 2007 at 9:25 pm

    Dave said,

    “Bobby said, “Maybe we all should just lay down our translations and sit at the feet of the Hebrew and Greek scholars so that they can tell us what really is the Word.”

    Actually, isn’t that what we are doing when we “pick up” our translation – the King James Bible?”

    No, Dave. We are receiving what has been delivered. We are holding fast that which is good and that which has been proven. We are humble and appreciative that God has given us His words translated into our language. We are thanking God that we have the Bible in our mother tongue. We are not sitting in judgement of the Word of God. That is what “we” are doing here. Thanks for asking.

  24. February 7, 2007 at 9:30 pm

    Bobby said, “Which was inspired? What He said or what was written by Matthew.”

    This type of argumentation just opens up too many problems to even try to start considering it.

  25. February 7, 2007 at 10:17 pm

    Jeff,

    I contend that your argumentation that we have the word of God, but the not-preserved, not-inspired Word of God “just opens up too many problems to even try to start considering it.” I also contend that your hopes of revising the KJV brings up so many issues it makes my head hurt! So, I guess we’ll both just have to live with our problems.

    Have a good one.

  26. February 7, 2007 at 10:29 pm

    Has God preserved every inspired word?

  27. February 7, 2007 at 11:10 pm

    See but I have not said that we have the not-preserved, not-inspired Word of God. You have said that I’m saying that.

    I can hold the inspired, preserved Word of God in my hands and I can read it if I put forth the effort.

    And with a lot less effort, I can read a faithful translation of it when I read the King James Version.

  28. Chris Stieg
    February 8, 2007 at 7:13 am

    I think this discussion is helpful. I do not think that it damages faith in the KJV / Received texts. If faith is to have any substance, it must stand up to inquiry.

    Concerning the differences between 1611 and 1769, it is true that the vast majority of them are spelling changes. But, for example, in 1 John 5:11, there is a difference between “Son” and “Son of God”. If that were the difference between KJV and NKJV, it would be said that is a substantive difference.

    Concerning “having the Word of God in our hands”, it’s really pretty simple. God inspired in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. God preserved in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic (the simplest understanding of Divine preservation). We have God’s Word available today in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, just as it has always been. Men translated from Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, into English, as well as other languages. Thus I have no problem with saying, “This is God’s Word”, when speaking of my English Bible, my Korean Bible, or my Greek Bible. It doesn’t lose its quality of being “God’s Word” when it is translated. As long as we recognize it is a TRANSLATION of God’s preserved Word. Why does it have to be so difficult?

  29. February 8, 2007 at 7:33 am

    So, Jeff. Where is this inspired, preserved Word of God that you can hold in your hand and read. Is it Beza, Stephanus, Scrivener? Which edition? Or, do you have to have all of them and pick and choose which is right and collate your own?

    The words have been translated into English. Our KJV is the received Bible for the English world. As of today it is the exclusive received Bible in English. It is the exclusive English translation that can be held up as the translation of the inspired, preserved Words of God originally given.

    Can you agree with that paragraph?

  30. February 8, 2007 at 7:37 am

    Chris,

    It is not a matter of being difficult. I, and many like me, understand exactly what Jeff and Dave are saying. We are simply questioning why they are saying it. Implications that we are not as intelligent as you don’t really accomplish anything in the discussion.

    Do you believe that, as of today, the KJV is the exclusive English translation that can be held up as the translation of the inspired, preserved Words of God originally given? Or, do you believe that their are other English versions that can be referred to as “the Word of God?”

    You believe that translations can be called “the Word of God.” Do you believe that they can be referred to as “the preserved Word of God” or do you actually believe they are the non-preserved Word of God? Do you believe, like Dave, that preachers must learn Hebrew and Greek “to really have the Words of God.” Not, difficult. Just trying to see where you are coming from.

  31. February 8, 2007 at 7:40 am

    So, Bobby. Where is this exclusive received Bible in English? In the 1611, 1629, 1638, 1762, or 1769?

    “The words have been translated into English” Which ones? “Is it Beza, Stephanus, Scrivener? Which edition?”

    Do you see where gnat straining gets us?

    The important thing is being faithful to the Lord and His Word.

  32. February 8, 2007 at 7:57 am

    Bobby said, “As of today…..”

    Yes Bobby, but what about tomorrow? You even allow for that in your OWN statement.

    Does someone who says that we should think about tomorrow and faithfully update the KJV have to be considered as one who is weakening the position of the KJV.

    With that reasoning you weaken the position of the KJV by not saying that the KJV is the exclusive received Bible in English for eternity!

    If in the future it could be updated, when will that be? 100 years? 50 years? just so long as you are not alive to see it? 25 years? or 10 years?

    What we’re talking about has been broached already by Waite’s Defined KJV? Kent already mentioned that. Did you fail to see that? What’s so bad about making “spake” to be “spoke”?

  33. February 8, 2007 at 7:58 am

    Jeff,

    Why not answer the questions? Especially the one asking if you agree with the last paragraph!

    I’m calling your hand here. I don’t think you can’t read a Beza, Stephanus, or Scrivener in any edition. You read, study, preach and teach from the KJV. I know the position of your church. I know the position of your missionaries. You say that to really have the Word of God we must know Greek and Hebrew. But, the church you are a member of and minister in was not built on Greek and Hebrew. It has been built by the Lord Jesus Christ through the preaching of the King James Bible. Yet, that is not the “real Word of God.”

    I don’t have to have all the answers, Jeff, because I have a simple, NT, received Bible mindset. I don’t have anyone to impress and I’m not seeking to have those to the left of me give the quiet applause and say, “he’s got a very balanced and scholarly sound to him.”

    God gave the Words. He insured that they were translated into English. When I hold up a KJV and preach it, I can say with confidence, “Thus saith the Lord.” I can use a Stong’s and Vine’s to help people understand a passage. I can tell them that this word was also translated into these other English words. I can tell them that to help reach an understanding of what the passage is revealing to us. But, I’m not passing myself off as someone who has the “real Word of God” while they are stuck in their ignorance with what can only be referred to as a translation. I’m not sitting in judgement of the received English Bible that God has given to us.

  34. February 8, 2007 at 8:02 am

    Jeff,

    I think our King James Bible should go unchanged to the last generation. We are living in a time of apostasy. We don’t need to be changing what God has given and what has been powerfully doing the work. We need to be preaching it and obeying it.

    Besides, when so many languages have no translation of the TR/Masoretic, why would we want to spend time messing with the one that is perfect in English? Don’t you think we ought to do something for Cambodia first?

  35. February 8, 2007 at 8:07 am

    Jeff,

    I do not have Waite’s defined. My understanding is that the text is unchanged, but there are definitions given for words that are not commonly used today. If he has changed the text that really has nothing to do with me. Waite is not actually someone that I stand shoulder-to-shoulder with. I would not be a member of the DBS.

  36. February 8, 2007 at 8:12 am

    Bobby,

    I may be wrong, but I think we’re yelling past each other. I feel like you are looking for trouble in what we (Dave, Kent and I) are saying. We are calling for faithfulness to the Word of God, for English speaking people that is the KJV. We are also saying that local churches should be the ones that set the parameters on an update to the KJV, not others. We are part of local churches, so we are saying, “when an update comes along we (local churches) should consider diligently the preserved words that God inspired–the ones he spoke in Hebrew and Greek.

  37. February 8, 2007 at 10:00 am

    A few quick thoughts…

    I know I’m jumping in on this conversation, so I’ll be brief.

    Bobby (nice name, by the way!) said:

    Maybe we all should just lay down our translations and sit at the feet of the Hebrew and Greek scholars so that they can tell us what really is the Word.

    Please remember that people who did not knjow Greek and Hebrew had to do that before William Tyndale started the ball rolling for English Bible translations. And as yet there are people who have no Bible translation in their language either.

    Also remember the Lollards? The guys who followed John Wycliffe–the morning star of the Reformation? They used his translation from the Latin Vulgate into English. It definitely had problems, but was much better than nothing in English.

    Finally, just wanted to mention that Jay P. Green has 2 new Bible translations: his Literal Translation and his Modern King James Version. He works from the 1894 Scrivener’s TR for his versions. Now are you prepared to say they aren’t God’s Words?

    Just wanted to provide some food for thought for you guys in this discussion. It is a needed discussion, because it is helping clear up some slightly misguided assumptions.

    Blessings in Christ to you all,

    Bob Hayton

  38. February 8, 2007 at 10:04 am

    Bobby,

    Just some thoughts…

    You said, “I, and many like me, understand exactly what Jeff and Dave are saying. We are simply questioning why they are saying it.”

    First, the position that we have espoused is Jeff, Dave, and KENT. Although Jeff and I are fine with taking the rap alone.

    Second, what we have said consistently is that God preserved His Word in Greek and Hebrew — in the original languages. We insist that preservation lies there, not in ANY translation. You have extended that to mean that we are saying that the KJV is NON-inspired, NON-preserved. Although we have not said that, I understand that it plays best to your argument to spin it that way. So, I’ll let it go. But then, if we play by your rules, we will be accusing you of arguing double inspiration. When Kent asked you for a Biblical defense of preservation in a translation (#9), you did not try (#15).

    Now then, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Our faith does not rest in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. That applies in two directions here. First, since God did not say that he would preserve His Word in translations, I don’t believe that preservation rests in translations. Secondly, God is able to oversee, to providentially ensure that we can have a reliable translation of God’s Word. We (Jeff, KENT, and I) are all committed to the King James Version. We trust it. We hold to it. We believe that God superintended it. We believe it to be reliable and trustworthy. It is God’s Word in English. But if we go to translate the Bible into Cambodian, we think it should come from the original languages. I think you would agree with that statement, wouldn’t you?

    Third, you said, “The words have been translated into English. Our KJV is the received Bible for the English world. As of today it is the exclusive received Bible in English. It is the exclusive English translation that can be held up as the translation of the inspired, preserved Words of God originally given.”

    I can recognize what is going on here. Jeff asked you (basically) which one is the “exclusive” received Bible — the 1611, or the 1769. I realize that you are arguing against any other update, so Jeff’s question is relevant. If you are saying that there can be no more updates, that the 1769 is the ONLY received Bible, then that means that the 1611 is NOT the received Bible, and I cannot agree with that statement.

    Fourthly, in #23, you didn’t really answer my question, did you. I will admit something here — for your sake, Bobby. Over the past few years, I have come to the conviction that I need to take study of the original languages seriously. I was taught differently then that. It might disturb you to know that it was Kent’s preaching and emphasis on this that convinced me that I can’t really honor God’s words if I refuse to study them. I am a pastor, I am a father, I am a principal. So, correcting this will take some time. Fortunately, my church has enabled me to study the words with the help of my computer. So, I am learning to look. When we want to know what a word means, we can either look in Webster’s 1828 (or some other dictionary), or we can look at what God said, and try to understand the nuances of the original language. Far from urging what you called “scholarship-onlyism”, I am simply acknowledging what God has done, and urging us to study that way.

    The scholarship must come from somewhere. If in fact you are “receiving what has been delivered”, then you are sitting at the feet of Greek and Hebrew scholars – which the KJV men were. I don’t have a problem with doing that. I don’t think you do either.

  39. February 8, 2007 at 4:51 pm

    I do believe that Dave, Jeff, Bobby, and I believe the same on this, except with some minor differences on how we approach explaining it. Bobby believes that preservation is in the languages in which the Bible was written, because that is the position that we can defend with the Bible, English or Greek. We don’t need to read Scriveners, Beza, or Erasmus to know that God preserved His Words perfectly. A translation is God’s perfectly preserved Word if it is translated accurately. We believe that the KJV is accurate. So what are we saying? We are saying that the KJV is God’s preserved Word. I would say all four of us receive the KJV text. We’ll even get to that point this month on the blog here. Nobody is saying that anyone has to become a Greek and Hebrew scholar to have God’s preserved Words. I do think that it is worth encouraging men to be as knowledgeable as possible as it applies to the Word of God. We all know that our wisdom does not stand in man’s wisdom, but God’s. Dave makes a good point. We are commanded to study. Is it possible we are also creating damage if we discourage someone from looking up the actual Greek or Hebrew Word and finding out how it is used throughout the rest of the Old and New Testaments? I grow tired of someone telling me that I might be “correcting the King James” (I don’t get this in my church). We could always be more diligent, but lets not discourage diligence either. I call men of God to study the Greek and the Hebrew. We’re not attacking men who don’t know it, but let’s not glory in not knowing it either.

    When people attack the KJV translation, I think it is good to have the best answer possible. That attack on translation does not affect one bit the doctrine of preservation. However, we should know something about why there were differences between 1611 and 1769 and why the translation sometimes seems different than the text from which it comes. All of our answers, however, will come with faith, a strong belief in God’s providence, and a defense of the KJV.

    Can we move on? I think its time. Let’s start smacking the other side now. I think this present issue is NOT a major issue. We aren’t going to do an update of the KJV for awhile, because we aren’t going to get the true churches to agree to do it. We may not have the men who can do it. I just talked to a man that both you and I know and respect greatly, Bobby, and I’ve heard him say before and he said today something that he says more strongly than me, and that is that we should be able to get an update but we won’t. The men who can do it will likely think it better to get the Heb/Gk text into languages that don’t have a good translation.

  40. February 8, 2007 at 8:38 pm

    Kent said:

    “A translation is God’s perfectly preserved Word if it is translated accurately. We believe that the KJV is accurate. So what are we saying? We are saying that the KJV is God’s preserved Word. I would say all four of us receive the KJV text.”

    And

    “I call men of God to study the Greek and the Hebrew. We’re not attacking men who don’t know it, but let’s not glory in not knowing it either.”

    Kent, Dave, and Jeff. I like what you men have written today. I’m not going to answer line-by-line, but I can say a hearty “Amen” to what I have quoted from Kent here. If this is the position the three of you hold, then I agree with it. You know the statements that I disagree with, but this I can affirm. God bless you.

  41. Chris Stieg
    February 8, 2007 at 8:59 pm

    [Chris,

    It is not a matter of being difficult. I, and many like me, understand exactly what Jeff and Dave are saying. We are simply questioning why they are saying it. Implications that we are not as intelligent as you don’t really accomplish anything in the discussion.]

    Sorry, that’s not what I meant to imply. I’m just saying, let’s keep it simple. Why play a semantic game? I don’t think you disagree with what I stated (but I suppose I could be wrong), that God inspired His Word in Greek and Hebrew, preserved it, and it is translated into English and other languages. Therefore those versions are a translation of what is preserved and inspired. It’s simple. When I say, “This is the Word of God” (about a vernacular translation), I know what I mean by that, and no one thinks that I am teaching double inspiration. However, in a technical definition, it must be spelled out precisely. Thus, in a technical sense, the KJV is not the inspired, preserved Word of God; rather it is a translation of the inspired, preserved Word of God. But no one on any side is saying that a translation loses the authority and effectiveness of the original.

  42. March 7, 2007 at 3:53 pm

    I have a question: why do some in this thread keep stating God breathed out the Scriptures? The word used is “inspiration” – that means “breathed in” – otherwise it would be “expiration.” Even the Strong’s Concordance indicates that this Greek word means “divinely breathed in.” Is it just semantics here, or are there different things being said?

    Please critique this post for me. EXpiration or INspiration? I would really be interested in what any here have to say (referring specifically to those that are KJVonly – I am not interested in turning my Blog into a war zone – I am KJVonly, and the issue of KJV vs mv’s is not up for debate with me). Thank you.

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: