Home > Brandenburg, The Word > The Real History of the One Bible Doctrine

The Real History of the One Bible Doctrine

September 3, 2010

No matter what the issue or the doctrine is, you have at least some problem if you cannot establish historic precedent for it.   Part of the tactic or strategy for enabling or allowing a new position that has not been taken or believed is to create some type of history of it.   For instance, advocates of same sex marriage want people to see it in the fourteenth amendment.   After reading that into a mid-nineteenth century law, they proceed to attack their opponents as hateful bigots who don’t care about a constitutionally protected right.   So step two of inventing a new history is to attack the old or original or real history, to make it look like it was never the history at all.  If you can get as many spokesmen as possible repeating the new history, people will just believe it.  And then they’ll think that the old history is the one that was invented.  Especially if it is convenient for people to take the new position.

A lot of people can be wrong.  A few people can be right.  Jesus reveals that point in Matthew 7:13-14.  But when it comes to doctrine, not everybody is going to be wrong.  Why?  Some will depart from the faith, but not everyone (1 Tim 4:1).  The gates of Hell will not prevail against the pillar and ground of the truth (Mt 16:18, 1 Tim 3:15).  So if a several or multiple Bible belief were in fact authoritative and true, we would see at least some Christians believing it in history.  But, alas, we do not.  All we read before the 19th century is one Bible.  We don’t find a multiple Bible doctrine in history.  We have it today, but it started somewhere after the church started and the Bible was complete.  In other words, men came up with that belief.  It isn’t original.  It’s a man-made doctrine.  I would be happy to report otherwise if it were true.  But I can’t, because it isn’t.

The larger point is that the Bible itself teaches one Bible.  That’s how all those Christians came to their position.  They just believed God.  Just like there was no theistic evolution position until the 19th century.   Christians just believed the biblical account in Genesis.  You don’t find the multiple Bible position in history before the 19th century because the Bible didn’t teach it, so Christians didn’t believe it.

So nobody believes in multiple Bibles then, right?  Well, no.

Sure, but it is only unbelievers or liberals who take the multiple Bible position, correct?  Wrong again.  Now you’re also a conservative if you believe that.  You are still fundamentalist if you believe that.

And if you believe in one Bible?  Sorry, but you are a silly, almost brainless, schismatic, thoughtless dufus.  You’ve got to be.  That’s the way this whole thing will work with no history.  People who take the original position can’t be taken seriously for the new position to work.  I mean, you can’t say that you believe in the Genesis account of creation, can you?  It’s the same kind of thing here.  Exactly.

To top all of this off, a whole new history of one Bible has been created out of whole cloth.   The standard fake history, akin to same sex marriage being in the 14th amendment, is that the one Bible doctrine came from Benjamin Wilkerson, a Seventh-day Adventist, in a book he wrote in 1930.  That’s very important.  Wilkerson was in a cult (of course).   So the nuts who believe this, as you would expect, started with a cult.  And then a Baptist pastor did a little less than plagiarize Wilkerson.  That was David Otis Fuller, and he spread this new teaching all over.  So there we go.  Not true.  But part of the overall necessity of eliminating the real history of the original doctrine to make room for the new.  I recently read this related comment:

And fundamentalists like to make any traditional view sanctified with the full authority of Scripture behind it. At least that’s the tendency of some. So the [one Bible] position found how to connect itself to Bible preservation in a way to make the view doctrinally based.

This comment wasn’t even questioned.  It is now blindly assumed by many.   The idea here is that a preferred position was invented in 1930, one convenient to certain Christians, one Bible, and then these went to the Bible to commandeer verses for the cause.  That is a lie.  In this case, it is definitely a purposeful lie, propaganda-like.

When I’ve had discussions with those considered to be the greatest experts for multiple Bibles, they agree that the historic doctrine is one Bible.  They know that’s what Christians believed.  When you read the bibliology of Christians, those justified by faith, and creeds and confessions from the same, no one believed in multiple Bibles.  All of them believed one Bible.  They came to that belief from Scripture itself.  Their conviction for one Bible originated from the promises of God’s Word.

All the history I read for multiple Bibles goes back to Benjamin Warfield at Princeton in the late 19th century.  That’s where the teaching of multiple Bibles began.   So you’ve had one line of doctrine about one Bible, and then diverting from that stream of orthodoxy, forming a new path, is Warfield.  Others followed.  And since then they have invented a fake history and attacked and degraded the true.

John Adams, in 1770 in his defense of the British soldiers who participated in the Boston Massacre, said:

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

The fact is that Christians have always believed in one Bible.  Whatever may be the wish or inclination of the multiple Bible people, they cannot alter that fact.

Advertisements
  1. September 4, 2010 at 7:13 pm

    I assume that when you say ‘one Bible’ you are saying one Bible version. Did Wycliffe not believe this when he translated the Vulgate? After all, he had the Vulgate and an earlier Anglo-Saxon translation. After Wyfliffe, why would any further English translations exist if earlier ones already existed?

    Regardless, if church history bears out that the church has only accepted a single translation in each language, simply provide some quotes to that effect throughout the centuries.

    Better yet, since we are to form our doctrine from Scripture itself, provide Scripture to defend your view regarding translation.

  2. September 4, 2010 at 11:16 pm

    Andrew,

    You should assume that when I say “one Bible,” I mean that there is “one Bible.” That’s what you should assume.

    I’ve written a lot about the history. I’m not going to rewrite it here. But I’m sure it will be easy for you to show me the DOCTRINE of multiple Bibles in church history. And I am talking about the doctrine. I’ll await that evidence that you assuredly have at your fingertips.

    Thank you.

    • September 5, 2010 at 2:30 pm

      Are you asking me to provide evidence that there have been various translations used throughout the centuries? How about 5th Century when Syriac Peshitta, Coptic, Greek, and Latin Bibles were in common use in different places? How about today when there are translations in German, Spanish, Chinese, etc.? We don’t need a Pope’s imprimatur for God’s Word to be authoritative.

  3. Duncan
    September 5, 2010 at 2:10 pm

    I find it amazing that Wycliff came to all the things that he did out of the Vulgate, which was already corrupted from what Jerome originally translated. However, as he knew neither Greek nor Hebrew it was from the Vulgate that he would translate, and his book on the canon and supremacy of Scripture is one of the most comprehensive ever written.

    Nonetheless, though Wycliff’s translation was a good one for its time and the material he had to work with, it was flawed serriously. As I said before, the Vulgate had been corrupted by unfaithful copyists, so God raised up Tyndale, under the influence of Luther and Zwingli, two translate the Bible from the original, uncorrupted sources (not those which came from the school of Clement of Alexandria’s Gnosticism).

  4. September 5, 2010 at 4:12 pm

    Andrew,

    Do you talk to everyone this way? I’ll give you one more shot. I’m asking that you give me historic evidence of a DOCTRINE (that’s why I put it in capitals earlier) of multiple Bibles.

    Please answer this question to help you get what I’m talking about if you really don’t get it, and you’re being serious.

    Do you think there is one Bible?

  5. d4v34x
    September 7, 2010 at 7:53 am

    Bro. B.

    Kevin Bauder, D.A. Carson, James White, and on down the line would all affirm there is one Bible.

    There is a difference between multiple Bibles and the question of how to choose between textual variants.

    • September 7, 2010 at 2:02 pm

      d4,

      Bauder’s book is called “Only One Bible?” So he himself knows that this is the “one Bible” versus “multiple Bibles” choice.

      My main point, of course, is that we can’t find more than one Bible to be an acceptable doctrine, and it is acceptable to everyone who is a multiple Bible person.

  6. d4v34x
    September 7, 2010 at 2:16 pm

    I think that is an unfortuntate bit of equvocation he’s doing there. Perhaps to be provocative. If pressed, he would probably say versions or editions rather than Bible, strictly speaking.

    My main point is that everyone agrees that God inspired one Bible.

    • September 7, 2010 at 2:44 pm

      The “one Bible” designation, however, clarifies this issue. Things that are different cannot be the same. If you have one “Bible” with 5,000 differences from another “Bible,” they are either both not the Bible or only one is the Bible. One doctrine says that we’ve always had the Bible since the inspiration of that Bible and the other says that the Bible was lost to a certain degree of acceptability (essentially 7%).

      A Bauder or a White or a Carson would say to me that the “Bible” that is different in 5,000+ places than the other “Bible,” actually both are acceptable. They are both the Bible.

      My post says this hasn’t been acceptable before. This is only recently acceptable by those who call themselves Christians. And it isn’t based on Scripture. I understand that multiple Bible men have, since taking their position, looked for some biblical justification, but they didn’t start with the Bible to get their position.

      One faith. One Bible. One God. ‘More than one Bible’ isn’t even a Christian worldview.

  7. d4v34x
    September 7, 2010 at 6:30 pm

    I’ve read /The Great Gatsby/ more than once. It might be my favorite American novel. On the last page of one copy I read there is a word that has eight letters. In another copy I’ve read, that word is changed (from one real word to another real word) by the addition of the letter “i”. From one perspective, the two words, both adjectives, are similar, but they mean distinctly different things. Both however fit and make sense in the sentence. A little bit different sense, but sense. And the overall meaning of the final few sentences is unchanged.

    I’m sure there are other minor differences between the two copies, so how many /Great Gatsby/’s are there?

    I think this shows the error of the false dilemma you present in: “they are either both not the Bible or only one is the Bible.”

  8. Frederick Santal
    September 8, 2010 at 4:12 am

    Is a ‘Living Bible’ version of the Great Gatsby the Great Gatsby?

    Now let’s say Fitzgerald’s manuscript for the Great Gatsby was taken over by political-correct social engineering academics who decided much of the language Fitzgerald used was unacceptable and changed it, deleted it, etc. Then they published a version of the Great Gatsby based on their new manuscript. Is that the Great Gatsby?

    Your Great Gatsby hasn’t been around long enough to get the treatment the forces of darkness have been given the pure and whole Word of God (Traditional Text), hated by liberals, false teachers, and heretics of all stripes.

  9. d4v34x
    September 8, 2010 at 5:05 am

    We’re not talking translation theory, paraphrase, or gender-neutral language.

  10. September 8, 2010 at 7:09 am

    Pastor Brandenburg –

    Yes, you are correct. I did not understand your position. I *thought* you were referring to the KJV as the ‘One Bible’ – I’ve heard others make that case. I thought you were saying that no other translation could be acceptable, even in another language – that is why I was trying to state that in any given century, the Bible was translated into several other languages, and each of those groups would consider the translation they received as the Bible.

    Regarding your statement about modern Bibles not being Bibles, because the textual criticism that goes into their underlying text assumes that portions of Scripture were ‘lost to a certain degree of acceptability’ – wouldn’t you agree that this is the KJVO position as well? After all, any given printed TR is a textual critical work and the KJV itself contains readings (more than 1 John 5:7; but especially that one) that were lost from the Byzantine tradition.

    If this is not the right forum for this question – I have no problem if you delete it.

  11. Joshua
    September 8, 2010 at 7:45 am

    Interestingly enough, as always the primary challenge of “show us your doctrinal history” is going unanswered. Out comes the attacks and equivocation on the KJV – historical support for critical text multiple Bible theory still strangely lacking. Perhaps it’s hiding with all those Scripture texts that the Godly modern textual critics used to substantiate their endeavours.

    If anyone sights these two mythical beasts, wake me.

  12. September 8, 2010 at 10:12 am

    D4,

    Your Gatsby story illustrates the problem. We’re talking about God’s Word, where authority proceeds from verbal inspiration. Gatsby is not an inspired book nor does God stand behind it. God still holds sway over His Book. The multiple Bible crowd says no theological presuppositions should nor will guide us to the truth. They ignore the one Bible doctrine held by Christians.

    Andrew,

    The question of your second paragraph I don’t mind answering. It is the most common question from critical or eclectic text advocates. Because of that, I’ve answered it many times and especially at my blog, What Is Truth. I think you can find an answer there. “Textual critical work” misrepresents the TR historically, but I would rather keep this on thread.

    Again, where is the doctrine for the multiple Bible position? This is what someone should be able to produce. I’m talking about doctrinal presentations by believers from Scripture that teach a multiple Bible position. Men didn’t start believing in one Bible in 1930.

    Joshua,

    Correct again.

  13. September 8, 2010 at 11:08 am

    Thanks for the pointer to your article at the other blog. I’ll be glad to understand your position better.

    Regarding the ‘multiple Bible position’ – I can’t answer where the multiple Bible position is derived from b/c I’ve never heard of it before.

  14. d4v34x
    September 8, 2010 at 1:17 pm

    Bro. B. There are obvious differences in the origins of the Bible vs. TGG. Neither I nor any E/CTer confuse that. However, a specific focus on the word for word preservation illustrates at legit point, at least IMO.

    As for the central thrust of this article, I declare it red herring. I’ll bet anyone would be hard pressed to find any serious historical writings about whether there are “one” or “multiple” Bibles. (See Andrew’s point above.)

    The central issue of this whole debate is the nature of the promise of preservation.

    The real challenge is to present historical evidence for or against the /express/ belief that God states that every last Word will be identifiably preserved to every generation.

  15. d4v34x
    September 8, 2010 at 1:18 pm

    For clarification, E/CTer above refers to Eclectic/Critical Texter.

  16. Frederick Santal
    September 8, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    >We’re not talking translation theory, paraphrase, or gender-neutral language.

    My analogy specifically went beyond by first sentence into manuscript analogy. Maybe you should read an entire comment before responding. If you did read the entire comment I’d advise reading more slowly.

  17. Frederick Santal
    September 8, 2010 at 3:30 pm

    The following is a very telling little coda Steve Rafalsky added to a long response to a Critical Text proponent on the PuritanBoard. It is very much worth reading because it is the very words of the critical text scholars themselves:

    *******
    After all that has been said above, David, we look again at — and evaluate — your comment (at the end of post #126): “In conclusion I do not see a major issue with the ESV translators, the use of older manuscripts, and applying of *the science of textual criticism* to our modern bible.” [Emphasis added]. Okay. . . . And here is a sampling of the results of your alleged “science of textual criticism” on text critics in the 20th century:

    “The ultimate text, if ever there was one that deserves to be so called, is for ever irrecoverable” (F.C. Conybeare, History of New Testament Criticism, 1910, p. 129)

    “In spite of the claims of Westcott and Hort and of van Soden, we do not know the original form of the gospels, and it is quite likely that we never shall” (Kirsopp Lake, Family 13, The Ferrar Group, Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1941, p. vii).

    “…it is generally recognized that the original text of the Bible cannot be recovered” (R.M. Grant. “The Bible of Theophilus of Antioch,” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 66, 1947, p. 173).

    “The textual history that the Westcott-Hort text represents is no longer tenable in the light of newer discoveries and fuller textual analysis. In the effort to construct a congruent history, our failure suggests that we have lost the way, that we have reached a dead end, and that only a new and different insight will enable us to break through (Kenneth Clark, “Today’s Problems,” New Testament Manuscript Studies, edited by Parvis and Wikgren, 1950, p. 161).

    “…the optimism of the earlier editors has given way to that skepticism which inclines towards regarding ‘the original text’ as an unattainable mirage” (G. Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles. A Disquisition upon the Corpus Paulinum, 1953, p. 9).

    “In general, the whole thing is limited to probability judgments; the original text of the New Testament, according to its nature, must remain a hypothesis” (H Greeven, Der Urtext des Neuen Testaments, 1960, p. 20, cited in Edward Hills, The King James Version Defended, p. 67.

    “… so far, the twentieth century has been a period characterized by general pessimism about the possibility of recovering the original text by objective criteria” (H.H. Oliver, 1962, p. 308; cited in Eldon Epp, “Decision Points in New Testament Textual Criticism,” Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, 1993, p. 25).

    “The primary goal of New Testament textual study remains the recovery of what the New Testament writers wrote. We have already suggested that to achieve this goal is well nigh impossible. Therefore, we must be content with what Reinhold Niebuhr and others have called, in other contexts, an ‘impossible possibility’ ” (R.M. Grant, A Historical Introduction to the New Testament, 1963, p. 51).

    “…every textual critic knows that this similarity of text indicates, rather, that we have made little progress in textual theory since Westcott-Hort; that we simply do not know how to make a definitive determination as to what the best text is; that we do not have a clear picture of the transmission and alternation of the text in the first few centuries; and accordingly, that the Westcott-Hort kind of text has maintained its dominant position largely by default” (Eldon J. Epp, “The Twentieth Century Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism,” Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 43, 1974, pp. 390-391).

    “We face a crisis over methodology in NT textual criticism. … Von Soden and B.H. Streeter and a host of others announced and defended their theories of the NT text, but none has stood the tests of criticism or of time. … [F]ollowing Westcott-Hort but beginning particularly with C.H. Turner (1923ff.), M.-J. Langrange (1935), G.D. Kilpatrick (1943ff.), A.F.J. Klijn (1949), and J.K. Elliot (1972ff.), a new crisis of the criteria became prominent and is very much with us today: a duel between external and internal criteria and the widespread uncertainty as to precisely what kind of compromise ought to or can be worked out between them. The temporary ‘cease-fire’ that most—but certainly not all—textual critics have agreed upon is called a ‘moderate’ or ‘reasoned’ eclecticism … the literature of the past two or three decades is replete with controversy over the eclectic method, or at least is abundant with evidence of the frustration that accompanies its use…” (Eldon Epp, “Decision Points in New Testament Textual Criticism,” Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, 1993, pp. 39-41).

    “…we no longer think of Westcott-Hort’s ‘Neutral’ text as neutral; we no longer think of their ‘Western’ text as Western or as uniting the textual elements they selected; and, of course, we no longer think so simplistically or so confidently about recovering ‘the New Testament in the Original Greek.’…We remain largely in the dark as to how we might reconstruct the textual history that has left in its wake—in the form of MSS and fragments—numerous pieces of a puzzle that we seem incapable of fitting together. Westcott-Hort, von Soden, and others had sweeping theories (which we have largely rejected) to undergird their critical texts, but we seem now to have no such theories and no plausible sketches of the early history of the text that are widely accepted. What progress, then, have we made? Are we more advanced than our predecessors when, after showing their theories to be unacceptable, we offer no such theories at all to vindicate our accepted text?” (Eldon J. Epp, “A Continuing Interlude in NT Textual Criticism,” Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, (Eerdman’s, 1993), pp. 114, 115).

    This is what the New Testament Greek scholars think of your vaunted “science of textual criticism”! Whence, pray tell, cometh your optimism when the experts in the field have none? Are you seeking to lead us down their woeful path in your naïveté? Please, spare us the pangs – the death throes – of a discipline gone awry! With good reason did Theodore Letis call this the “post-critical” age!
    *******

    Please read the above, d4. Those are the words of your collective authority. Don’t shrink back from or pass over blithely what they tell you.

  18. Joshua
    September 8, 2010 at 6:30 pm

    “…we no longer think of Westcott-Hort’s ‘Neutral’ text as neutral; we no longer think of their ‘Western’ text as Western or as uniting the textual elements they selected; and, of course, we no longer think so simplistically or so confidently about recovering ‘the New Testament in the Original Greek.’…We remain largely in the dark as to how we might reconstruct the textual history that has left in its wake—in the form of MSS and fragments—numerous pieces of a puzzle that we seem incapable of fitting together. Westcott-Hort, von Soden, and others had sweeping theories (which we have largely rejected) to undergird their critical texts, but we seem now to have no such theories and no plausible sketches of the early history of the text that are widely accepted. What progress, then, have we made? Are we more advanced than our predecessors when, after showing their theories to be unacceptable, we offer no such theories at all to vindicate our accepted text?” (Eldon J. Epp, “A Continuing Interlude in NT Textual Criticism,” Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, (Eerdman’s, 1993), pp. 114, 115).

    The first thing that hit me when I read this quote was the wonderful way in which Modernist endeavors repeat the pattern. Armed with new theories, the fleet of modern textual criticism unmoored itself from faith, Scripture and historic doctrine, and sailed proudly forth to “recover” the original text. A hundred years later we find this fleet floundering, it’s original theories discarded and nothing to show for it’s efforts but mass confusion and hundreds upon hundreds of contradictory texts and translations – yet still utterly convinced that the original jettisoning of Scripture-based reasoning was for the best. It bears a striking resemblance to the fleet of Darwin and the churches that threw in their lot with them – nearly all original tenants of that theory discarded, with no fruit but chaos, yet it mutates and lives on because of a blind faith in “science”. I’ll never understand why men cannot see the stark parallels. All faithless ventures and worldly reasoning go this way. The ones that surprise me the most are the evangelicals and fundamentalists jeering at Darwin’s fleet while their own has the same underpinnings and origin.

  19. Russell
    October 8, 2010 at 1:13 pm

    Let’s go back. Way back to the beginning. If you want the original “Bible” step back and learn the Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek languages (and the dialects used by the various authors) and you have the One True Bible. I am a firm believer in Sola Scriptura and that the Word of God is whole and complete, but don’t bother yourselves with psudo-intelectual arguments over weather King Jamie’s Version or the NIV or any other TRANSLATION is whole scripture or not. Remember your first calling found in the Great Commission. We need to be in the business of leading others to salvation in Christ Jesus and not giving each other pithy, venomous slams that in the grand scheme of things mean nothing!

  20. October 8, 2010 at 6:15 pm

    Russell,

    Every week when I’m preaching the gospel to folks, I open my Bible to do that.

    I especially appreciated your “psudo-intelectual (sic) arguments” point, in particular the irony. Second to that was the “weather (sic) King Jamie’s Version.” You came in strong with both of those. I loved them.

    Thanks for dropping by.

  21. d4v34x
    October 9, 2010 at 7:04 am

    Bro. B., It might have been better had you spelled that “droping”. You has to contextualize, yo!

    :^)

  22. Russell
    October 12, 2010 at 8:31 pm

    Pastor Brandenburg-
    If you demean all of your congregation the way you did me, then I feel sorry for them. If you are a pastor then why aren’t you showing the love and humility of Christ? If we are to allow God to use us according to his will and purpose, we must first start by taking on the attributes of Christ and reflect His attitude. I in no way meant to offend, as I too am a deep apologist for Christ and believe in Scripture. All I want to point out is the history of KJV. It was the first bible produced by the King and carried his seal. It was translated to be able to be read by all and does actually paraphrases text. (As does NIV TNIV ESV etc.)If you study and know the inaccuracies found in any translation, then what does it matter what translation one uses? Where is it found in scripture that the KJV is the final translation? Is it a literal translation of the original text? I think not.

    I will be praying for you and your ministry that Jehovah will bless it and use it for the furtherance of HIS Kingdom

  23. October 12, 2010 at 9:09 pm

    Russell,

    So what was your point with “pseudo-intellectual” and “King Jamie,” other than to be offensive?

    What kind of apologist are you, would you say? That is, what is the method of apology you use and your epistemology?

    Do you know Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic? I would assume you would if you don’t think the King James is a formal equivalent.

    And to answer your questions, I think it is a good idea to study Scripture in its original languages. No Scripture says that the KJV is the final translation. It isn’t a literal translation—you are correct. The word order in the original languages isn’t the same as a translation. But none of those questions relate at all to the point, because I am talking about the words in the original languages from which translations come.

    • Russell
      October 13, 2010 at 7:48 am

      King Jamie is a term of endearment I use for KJV. It is the Bible I learned from as a child and still use for my church Bible drill team. My 2nd grade Sunday school teacher used to refer to the KJV as King Jamie and it has just always stuck. So no, no disrespect intended.

      All I meant by pseudo intellectual was that sometimes when Christians debate over any faucet of theology especially when it is only to show how smart we are or to prove our point it can get venomous and that is not what God intended. We need to show the fruits of the spirit. The focus is not on ourselves but on Christ and His devine way. It is not about what we think!

      I do not have the time now nor enough space here to explain my epistemology but *mostly believe the Baptist Faith and Message 1963 but I also do accept parts of 2000 as well. I do know enpugh enough Greek and Hebrew to get by not fluent yet but can carry a conversation. That is thanks to my old pastor thanks

  24. October 13, 2010 at 11:57 am

    Russell,

    Your original comment came across like what we call a “drive-by” in internet lingo. It did seem offensive and so I answered accordingly. It also jumped to conclusions about my (and many others’) position, which is the nature of a “drive-by.” You concluded that we were English preservationists, when I said nothing that smacked of that, at all, in the post I wrote.

    So you may have felt demeaned, but I think you are going to have to buck-up a little, because you came on strong. You shouldn’t expect to come on strong like you did and then not to get something strong in return.

    The only “King Jamie” type of reference I have ever heard was used as a pejorative against KJV supporters. You are the first ever that I’ve seen use it, that would say it is endearing, especially in the context of the other jab, “pseudo-intellectual.”

  25. John Gardner
    October 13, 2010 at 4:44 pm

    John Piper says, “if you want to get something [a bible] where all the words are there, then get the ESV, the NASB, or the New King James…”

    SOURCE:

  26. October 14, 2010 at 2:28 pm

    John,

    I think it’s kind of interesting that John Piper says ESV, NASV, and then New King James togther. Why? Because the words of the two former and the one latter are at least 5% different in just the New Testament. If words are important, then it would seem that he would have captured that difference. And by the way, I’m not talking about the English, but the Greek text behind those three translations. Two are from the shorter critical text and the other from the longer textus receptus. The NKJV is longer, i.e., has more words, than the others. So I would say the same thing about Piper’s usage of the ESV.

    • John Gardner
      October 14, 2010 at 4:56 pm

      Exactly. I was thinking of entire verses like Acts 8:37, John 5:4, and Mark 15:28, not to mention the many partials like Luke 4:4, Rom. 8:1, and 1John 5:7.
      How does one preach from the ESV’s 1 Sam. 13:1?
      Saul was . . .[a] years old when he began to reign, and he reigned . . . and two[b] years over Israel.
      Ellipsis, that gives new meaning to a 3-point sermon!

  27. October 14, 2010 at 5:27 pm

    Very funny on the three point sermon, John. Ha. Ha.

  28. Russell
    October 18, 2010 at 2:56 pm

    Kent-
    Don’t confuse strong with catty. I spoke the Truth in love and was not a bit sarcastic or making a stab at anyone. Nor, did I say anything about you being an English preservationist. I just simply don’t understand the stance on KJV as being the end-all translation. I understand you are young and eager and have a wealth of knowledge concerning theology, but when you come off so defensively you loose a little bit of credibility. Do not lash out in anger. Remember Proverbs 14:29- He that is slow to wrath is of great understanding: but he that is hasty of spirit exalteth folly. God Bless!

  29. October 18, 2010 at 3:42 pm

    Russell,

    First, you mentioned learning the original languages if we wanted to get the one Bible. Well, anyone who reads here knows we believe that Bible is preserved in the original languages, not in the English.

    Second, calling someone “pseudo-intellectual” is not just strong, but it is offensive. So you really can’t play the victim here after having done so.

    Third, we don’t expect French and Spanish, etc. people to use the KJV. It’s the text behind the translation that is the issue, which you still seem to be missing related to our position.

    Fourth, who lashed out in anger? I didn’t feel one iota (to use some Greek) of anger toward you. Zero. Not one tremor on the anger-meter.

    Fifth, I appreciate your acknowledgment of my youth. I am young and eager. 😀

    Sixth, I don’t know what you mean by defensive, but I wouldn’t call what I wrote any kind of big reaction to you.

    Come back again, Russell.

  30. Russell
    October 18, 2010 at 9:10 pm

    Okay no, let’s review what I said: “don’t bother yourselves with pseudo-intellectual arguments over weather King Jamie’s Version or the NIV or any other TRANSLATION is whole scripture or not.” I didn’t call anyone a pseudo-intellectual, I was calling the argument pseudo-intellectual. Big difference. That is all.

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