“Pious Drudges” Evangelist Dwight Smith Responds to Dr. Kevin Bauder’s Now, About Those Differences, Part 23
It was my ninth grade year at Fourth Baptist Christian School in Minneapolis, MN. I had finished classes for the day and was just stopping by to see my youth pastor. He was a good youth pastor, and in many ways, one of the best that I would have. He took these few moments to disciple me. We chatted for a while and somehow began discussing the Bible.
In the course of conversation the Version Issue came up. He began waxing eloquent on the “pros” or “cons” of different Bible versions. Because of the training he was receiving from Central Baptist Theological Seminary, he believed that all Bible versions in spite of their omissions and additions were the Word of God. He failed to consider the possibility that the Devil just might be interested in polluting and distorting God’s Word, and he dismissed the concerns of those who by conviction held to the King James Version. As he was expressing his far reaching knowledge of Biblical languages, he stopped short and motioned for me to come behind his desk. When I did, he pointed to his open Bible where he had turned to Acts 8:37. I looked down to see where, with a black pen, he had completely blotted out these essential words. In the course of his discourse he said, “You see, Dwight, this verse is not in the original manuscripts.” Who knows what practical benefit he hoped to impart by believing and then teaching this to me. I didn’t think to ask if he had ever seen a copy of the original manuscripts. I didn’t know that he had received this “profound” information from some liberal, Christ-denying author. He was simply parroting what he had heard some seminary professor (naïve at best, deceptive at worst) say about the Bible. In his mind, it was only the logical step to completely mark out portions that “did not belong” in the Sacred Text. For these and a myriad of other Biblical reasons, I have chosen to hold to the Received Text and the King James Bible, and to reject the Westcott & Hort Text and all modern translations. This happened in the 1980’s. Apparently at Central, not much has changed.
The current president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Kevin Bauder, has been offering, for all who care to read, a wide smorgasbord of self-conflicting and Bible-deficient tomes. In part 22 of his series he dismissed the need to expound on 2 Thess. 3. This is a sad display of what happens when a man or institution turns to human reason instead of the Bible for their moorings. In his most recent installment, he levels another illogical attack against anyone who holds to the King James Bible and its underlying Received Text. To his credit, he did differentiate between those who simply hold to the above mentioned position and those who believe in double inspiration, or that one can only be saved from the King James Version, and a few other aberrations. However his most recent diatribe is flawed on several counts.
If there were time, we could show that his attack misses the point of why some brethren have come to these convictions. We simply believe that this issue is a part of defending the great doctrines of the Inspiration of the Scripture (I Timothy 3:16-17, II Peter 1:19-21), the Preservation of the Scripture (I Peter 1:23-25, Psalm 12:6-7), the Infallibility of the Scripture (Proverbs 30:5-6) to name a few. We believe that the Devil has, since Genesis 3, tried to alter, distort, confuse, and pervert God’s Word (Genesis 3:1, 4-5; Luke 4:10). We believe “That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4). We believe that adding to or taking away from the Word of God is a direct violation of Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:6, Revelation 22:18-19 and brings the severest of God’s judgments. We believe that every generation has had and will have a perfect copy of God’s Word available to them (Isaiah 59:21). This is the point Bauder completely misses of why we hold to this conviction.
If we cared to, we could at length address Kevin Bauder’s cloaked love for and affinity to the founder of his institution, Richard V. Clearwaters. Bauder attempts to quote Clearwaters as being on his side of the argument. In fact, Clearwaters was not. He said on page 86 of his autobiography On the Upward Road, “All of the Bible is important. Jesus referred to even jots and tittles. We cannot say this part is important in the Bible and this part isn’t important. If we were to remove some part of the Bible at some time and place, it will be missed.”
Again on page 87 he stated
“Every word is important, a Biblicist will appeal to the words and all the words of Scripture.” On page 88 he declared, “If you violate one part, you violate it all. It’s all a solid unit put together. So I think a Biblicist gets to be a lonely person first of all because he is called a ‘literalist’ or a ‘worshipper of a black book’. He believes the whole Bible is inspired, every word and every jot and tittle…Many translators do violence to the Word of God. For instance ‘Through the blood of His cross’ Phillips omits the word ‘blood’, so that it reads, ‘Sacrifice of the cross’. These self-styled translators are diluting (polluting might be a better term) the Bible by twisting it to accommodate their updated theology.”It doesn’t sound like Bauder and Clearwaters are on the same page.
If we so chose, we could highlight his misunderstanding or misrepresentation of a “middle of the road” position. He, along with others of his ilk, is trying to redefine terms such as Historic Fundamentalism, New Evangelicalism, Conservative Evangelical, etc. In other words, he is attempting to shift things to the left while claiming all along that it is just the center he is calling people toward. This sounds like some political double speak I’ve heard recently.
If we wanted, we could underline that, while he is for the time being president of a Theological seminary that claims to be Biblical in every way, and while he is allegedly instructing men in the ministry both onsite and online concerning pertinent Biblical topics, he does not cite one verse of Scripture, KJV or otherwise, to back up his arguments. This absence of an appeal to and from Scripture is a common characteristic of Kevin’s writings though the school over which he presides claimed Isaiah 8:20 as its founding and theme verse. We could underline this discrepancy if we wanted to, but we won’t.
If there were enough space, we could emphasize that he never once mentioned that this is a textual issue at its core. One would expect more intellectual understanding from the current president of a seminary. If there were more space, we would address this, but space is limited.
If we desired, we could note Bauder’s papal like edict to “in his opinion” tell us all when, where, and from whom to separate without one Biblical reason to do so. Again this seems strange coming from one who professes to know so much (23 installments at this point) about the matter of our “differences.” If we desired, we could note this, but desire is waning.
What we’d like to highlight is a couple of significant matters. First, Kevin Bauder, tells us that he prefers the King James Version, that he preaches and teaches from it, has memorized it and even quotes it. He declares the King James Version to be the Word of God, states that it is authoritative, and holds it in high esteem. However, when someone else says they too prefer the King James Bible, but for reasons other than Kevin Bauder’s, we are to separate from them. This is just arrogance!
Second and most interesting are the implications of his call for wholesale separation from those who believe the Bible. When naming several good churches and institutions, Kevin summarily lumps them into a hyper-fundamentalist category. Then he associates them in the same broad brush with Billy Graham and Harold J. Ockenga? He then declares that these “hyper-fundamentalists” should be separated from with more speed and more publicity than even the “grandchildren” of the above mentioned compromisers.
Just what does this mean, Dr. Bauder? There are thousands of young people who matriculate each year to Bible-believing schools such as Ambassador, Baptist College of Ministry, West Coast, Heartland, PCC, Crown, New England Baptist, Golden State, and others. Have they missed the will of God for their lives? Should the students attending these schools immediately sever their enrollment? Should they then come flocking to your bastion of life and “truth?” Should the pastors who support and preach for these institutions refuse to do so immediately at your word? What about the evangelists who hold to the King James Bible for reasons different from your own? Should the pastors who have them scheduled cancel their meetings on the spot? Should the missionaries who hold to a King James Bible position be dropped because they haven’t checked in with and been cleared for support by Kevin Bauder or Central Seminary?
And what of the many good men who have given us helpful, solid, and balanced information on such a crucial subject as the Word of God? Should men like Bud Calvert, Dell Johnson, Joel Mullinex, Rick Flanders, Ron Comfort, Sam Davidson, Kevin Folger, John Goetsch, Lloyd Streeter, and a host of other wise men be cut off, ignored, and rejected because they don’t line up with your line of thinking? How about the creationist, Henry Morris, who in his life not only defended creationism, but also the King James Bible? Should his writings and teachings on this subject be ridiculed and dismissed?
Should we follow your lead to separate from, ignore and disdain the “hyper-fundamentalists” who in spite of graduating from Central, came to their own personal conviction that the Received Text and the King James Bible should be embraced and the modern Eclectic Text and its offspring versions should be rejected? These would include such godly men as David Sorenson and Charles Surrett to name a few. Are you calling for separation from these men as well?
Are you implying that Bob Jones University should no longer host their long time friend Ian Paisley who wrote “My Plea for the Old Sword?” Though he is not even a Baptist he has enough sense to note the folly of embracing modern versions and their underlying false text.
Does this mean that you are even calling for those who worship at the altar of the French theologian John Calvin to immediately halt their study of his writings? After all, even he held only to the Traditional Text that underlies the King James Version. Kevin Bauder, just what exactly do you mean by this call for a full-blown separation from the proponents of the King James Version and the Received Text?
The irony of this whole matter is this. While Dr. Bauder is trying to tell Independent Fundamental Baptists to separate from those who simply believe the Bible and denounce the Devil’s attempt at perverting it; he is, along with others, leading an all out charge back into the realm of the New Evangelical camp! He has an undeniable affection for the conservative evangelicals, and claims they are not like their “grandfathers.” A compromiser is still a compromiser even if he is called a “conservative.”
Consider for a moment these “conservative evangelicals.” These are the ones who accept and overlook pedo-baptism (John Piper, Ligon Duncan). These are those who play rock music in their public worship services and teen gatherings (John MacArthur, John Piper, Al Mohler, Mark Dever, etc. ad nauseum). These men associate freely with liberals and new-evangelicals such as Billy Graham (Al Mohler) and such as Rick Warren (John Piper). These are the conservative evangelicals who remain in a denomination that promotes women preachers (John Piper). These so-called conservative evangelicals who teach that the Charismatic sign gifts are active and should besought after today (Piper, Mahaney). All of these men and others, who Kevin instructs us to welcome with open arms, are constantly promoting the aberrant heresy called Lordship Salvation. One question being asked is, “Which is more grievous, to believe the King James Bible for reasons different than Kevin Bauder or to promote the Amillenialism of Mark Dever and his allegorical interpretation of Bible prophecy? This is just to scratch the surface of their errors, and yet we’re being lectured by an out of touch seminarian on why we should embrace these men and separate from those who just believe the old Black Book! What gives?
A well respected pastor friend of mine shepherds a church in a northern state. The former pastor of this church was a young Central graduate, who sat under the tutelage of Kevin Bauder. This former pastor was teaching about the Bible during a Sunday school class. Because of his aforementioned training and the unbiblical bias that accompanies it, he was teaching that the Words of God are here, there and everywhere, lost in the sea of extant manuscripts and various and sundry translations. Needless to say, this created confusion amongst the church members. Some of them began to question him and his conclusions. One converted Catholic church member held up his King James Version and asked, “If what you are saying is true, is this the Word of God?” The former pastor responded, “No!” That church member shrugged and said, “What’s the use?” Then he walked out and hasn’t darkened the door of any church since. If what the former pastor is teaching is true, why should he? Brethren, the answer of this former pastor is wicked unbelief, and it is time we call it just that!
Now when unbelief calls for separation from belief, and at the same time leads the naïve to unite further with unbelief, all under the guise of belief, someone should stand and clarify the matter. Kevin Bauder, let’s settle this here and now. Those of us who happen to believe that God did inspire his Word and preserve it for every generation; those of us who unashamedly hold to the Received Text and the King James Version of the Bible and reject all modern translations that flow from the Westcott & Hort Text; those of us who do believe that the Devil is and has been working to pervert, omit and add to God’s Words; we have long since been suspicious of your direction and motives. Now we know who you really are. If you and your friends want to leave us to hold hands with and draw those you seek to influence into the chilled night air of New Evangelicalism, the door is wide open and they will happily receive you.
On September 6, 1977, Ronald Reagan spoke in his daily two minute radio broadcast on the subject of the Bible. What he said was fascinating. He showed such simple child-like faith in the Word of God that all would do well to emulate. As he showed the King James Bible to be the best-selling book in the entire history of printing, he questioned the newest attempts made to improve it and “make the Bible more readable and understandable.” He went on to compare the beautiful and accurate language of the King James Version with the cheap, inaccurate, and irreverent language of the modern versions. He concluded by saying,
“The sponsors of the ‘Good News’ version boast that their Bible is as readable as the daily paper – and so it is. But do the readers of the daily news find themselves moved to wonder, ‘at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth’? …Sadly the tinkering and general horsing around with the sacred texts will no doubt continue as pious drudges try to get it right. It will not dawn on them that it has already been gotten right.”Mr. President, another “pious drudge” in Plymouth, MN, has officially decreed that it has not been gotten right. In fact, according to him, folks like you and me should be immediately severed from his world. Mr. President, thanks for the warning.
Evangelist Dwight Smith – dwight@dwightsmith.org
Evangelist Dwight Smith Ministries
For Related Reading:
A Letter from Dr. R. V. Clearwaters to Kevin Bauderby Evangelist Dwight Smith
“It is astounding to me that in many of your recent writings on a professedly fundamental, Baptist site, you seem to constantly extol the ‘virtues’ of evangelical Protestants while, at the same time, deriding the ‘vices’ of Fundamental Baptists…. I have observed an inordinate affection towards pseudo-intellectual teaching and a disdain for old-fashioned, confrontational, Bible preaching…. I am grieved when I see you lauding extreme Calvinists who are not even Baptists. Brother Bauder, they and their ilk are not responsible for founding the school called Central…. Dr. Bauder, all given appearances seem to indicate you are intentionally trying to lead those who follow your writings, the students of Central, and even Central itself away from the Testimony upon which it was founded and into the compromising orbit of protestant evangelicalism.”Muddying the Clearwaters by Ps. Marc Monte
“Kevin’s charge that ‘the most forceful defenders of the gospel are no longer to be found within the Fundamentalist camp’ constitutes nothing short of slander. Perhaps Dr. Bauder does not know the fundamentalists I know. I can name scores of pastors who regularly and rigorously defend the gospel…. Dr. Clearwaters understood that the local church was charged with the propagation of the truth. He founded a seminary, not to undermine local church authority, but to bolster the prestige of pastors in their efforts of defending the faith.”Kevin Bauder: It Won’t Fly With Those of Us Who Know
Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran to Join Mark Dever at Lansdale: Is This a Fundamentalism Worth Saving?
John MacArthur Refreshes Kevin Bauder’s Short Term Memory: “Conservative” Evangelicals Extended Christian Recognition to Roman Catholics
Site Publisher’s Note:
My personal preference for preaching/teaching and study is the KJV, believing it to be the most reliable version of God’s Word today. I do, however, allow for other believers soul liberty and autonomy of the local church to choose as they feel lead.
Brother Lou,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your kindness in posting my response to Dr. Bauder. I hope it will help in influencing young and old alike to the truth of God's Word and away from men's flawed opinions.
Dwight Smith
Brother Dwight:
ReplyDeleteMy pleasure to provide you this Internet venue to express your reaction to and opinion of Keven Bauder's article.
Yours in Him,
LM
Lou, this is extremely disappointing. Do you hold to these same views as Smith regarding the KJV?
ReplyDeleteEvery single text used to promote the KJV position can be used against it. What was God's word before the KJV? Why did the KJV translators change God's word? And on and on...
By allowing this to be posted on your site with your approval, I take it you are in full agreement. Can you tell me plainly if you aren't or if this was just an alternate voice to Bauder?
Josh:
ReplyDeleteThanks for asking. Please refer to the Site Publisher's Note I included at the end of the article.
I knew when I offered/agreed to post this for Dwight that I was going to be hung in the court of public opinion for it.
I opened my blog for Dwight to have a public Internet venue from which to address and respond to Kevin Bauder's article.
Incidentally, I heard from a college faculty member about two weeks ago. He mistakenly thought I was KJVO and was giving me the business over it. I was able to help him understand he was mistaken.
Any further questions on the article feel free to direct them to Brother Dwight's attention.
Thanks again,
LM
Josh,
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly is wrong with Brother Smith's translation position?
Did you even read it?
I have a couple of questions for evangelist Smith. Which edition do you hold to as the Word of God: one of the five editions put out by Erasmus; Estienne's revision of Erasmus' fourth edition; one of Beza's editions; or Scrivener's edition published posthumously in 1894?
ReplyDeleteAlso, since you agree that Clearwaters was not King James Only, how do you explain Clearwater's statement quoted in Bauder's article: "Those in the main stream of Fundamentalism all claim the American Revised of 1901 as the best English translation"? Thanks.
If Lou was okay with me pointing out my problems with his position I would, but I wasn't trying to sidetrack this into that discussion.
ReplyDeleteYour call Lou.
Josh:
ReplyDeleteDr. Ketchum directed these questions to you, which pertain to the subject matter of the article. I would kindly request that you please address these.
“What exactly is wrong with Brother Smith’s translation position? Did you even read it?”
Thanks,
LM
The application of any of these verses can be used for any translation. Applying them to only one betrays a willful belief in theory instead of the sure Word of God.
ReplyDeleteI will stick to paragraph 4 for this.
1. We simply believe that this issue is a part of defending the great doctrines of the Inspiration of the Scripture
The translation of the KJV has nothing to do with how God inspired holy men to write in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
2. the Preservation of the Scripture
The scripture presents preservation as a necessity for the church to exist. However, to apply preservation to the KJV again can be used against them. What was God's word before the KJV? Which KJV edition is correct? Which TR edition is correct? Why did the translators feel the need to change God's perfectly preserved word? And on and on.
The use of Ps 12 here is especially out of line. How in the world was the Hebrew text referring to an english translation 2.5 millennia later? It wasn't. Further, what God is promising to keep in that text are the people, not the scriptures. An examination of this text in hebrew reveals that rather obvious point.
3. the Infallibility of the Scripture
The KJV does not have any special claim to the infallibility of the scripture. Since God inspired languages other than english, it is the work of men and men only to put it into english. Explicit or not, any attempt to assign the KJV with infallibility on par with the originals elevates the work of men to the work of God.
4. We believe that the Devil has, since Genesis 3, tried to alter, distort, confuse, and pervert God’s Word...We believe “That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God”...We believe that adding to or taking away from the Word of God is a direct violation of...and brings the severest of God’s judgments...
So far so good because this is actually based in scripture and not speculative theory.
5. We believe that every generation has had and will have a perfect copy of God’s Word available to them
And here is where it goes wrong again. Where does the Bible say this? What about all those years the english went without scripture? What about all the people who still lack the scripture. This premise is speculative theory, not theology.
Now this could go on and on but I don't want to. I wanted to stick with actual scriptural passages that were used. I don't care what version Clearwaters or anyone else uses. The original fundies in the modernist fight primarily used the ASV. Who cares? The ironic thing is that the fundamentalists would have rejected KJVO theology as being based in rationalism and not exegesis.
Just wanted to say one other thing. I don't know Dwight. I doubt our paths will cross. I have no personal animosity or vendetta against him or any association he has.
ReplyDeleteHis bibliology though is neither fundamental nor historically accurate. Claiming such a thing as by God's grace I will never change is disturbing when such obvious, glaringly inaccurate statements are made.
I raised this following question on another blog discussing this issue. Maybe I can get an answer here.
ReplyDeleteI note that the discussion of the extreme of double inspiration in the KJV is one of disdain, and rightly so.
However, why no discussion of the other extreme in Textual Reconstructionism in statements like: “We do not believe that God has preserved His Word perfectly and miraculously in any manuscript or group of manuscripts, or in all manuscripts.” (from W. Edward Glenny, Larry Pettegrew, and Roy Beacham, The Bible Version Debate, Central Baptist Seminary, Mpls., MN, pages 99 & 131)
If this statement is true, we have NO FOUNDATION FOR OBJECTIVE FAITH OR PRAXIS! If this statement is true, everything we have in any original language text or derivative translation of such texts must be in question and therefore subjective. Therefore, the only avenue left to moral praxis is rationalism.
I am going to plop myself down in the "vehemently anti-modern version" camp. I could read the KJV, the Geneva or Luther's German and be quite happy. Having come to this conclusion from personal study before ever hearing of the dreaded KJVO issue, I will leave it to Cor 1:18, which even the earlier of the corrupted versions did not mess with. It was not until later that any updated modern versions dared have the audacity to change it. It's part of the apostasy though so it is to be expected.
ReplyDeleteBack to 1 Cor 1:18, either you "are saved" or you "are being saved". If you "are being saved" you have higher and much more urgent matters to attend to. Go to the Cross and come back to discuss this after you "are saved".
Look up, the salvation process is not completed at justification. Romans 8 explains that justified is but a part of it. We are being sanctified and will be glorified. To say that we are being saved is not a theological problem unless one thinks that justification is an ongoing process, like catholicism.
ReplyDeleteLook up, which KJV edition do you believe is the perfect Word of God?
ReplyDeleteLance, which edition of the TR is the perfect Word of God in greek? Why don't any of the KJV that exist perfectly follow it?
Brethren, the issue is not so much Bible translations as it is Bible texts. Without oversimplifying the situation, there are two basic families of Greek manuscripts. One is known as the Taditional Text or Textus Receptus. This is the text that the church of the Lord Jesus used throughout her history up until the late 1800's. The newer text, published for the general public in the late 1800's, is known as the Critical Text. It differs in thousands of places from the Received Text and, with the critical apparatus of the Nestle/Aland editions, offers thousands of additional varient choices to the reader. Because this text was compiled from a small number of unrelated, sometimes sharply differing manuscripts, the Critical Text is an eclectic text. Scholars took a little from here and a little from there, producing a text that the penmen of Scripture wouldn't readily recognize. It was a truly new text, and scholars of that day recognized it as significantly new and different from the TR. Drs. Westcott and Hort (compilers of the popular critical text) did not downplay the differences; rather, they emphasized them.
ReplyDeleteBecause there are undeniable differences between the two text families, one is left with a decision: Do I continue to use the Scriptures that the church has used for 1800 years? OR Do I accept the scholars' eclectic text and make changes of my own as I see fit? For me, this issue is one of FAITH. Believing that Christians from the time of Christ onward had the New Testament, I simply accept the traditional text manuscripts as God's Word. The new texts provide interesting discussion and are an academic curiosity,but--for me--the authority is what it has always been, the traditional texts. If that is a crime or "extremism" or theologically "hetrodox," then all of the church, the Reformers, the anabaptists, and every individual Christian studied the sacred text was in the same boat. Remember, the critical text is a "johnny-come-lately" text. I have, by simple faith, believed that the church of the Lord Jesus has had His words from the first century onward. Ultimately, it comes down to faith: faith that the scholars have finally discovered the New Testament and that one day they will give us the final copy OR faith that God gave the word and sovereignly superintended its preservation throughout the history of the church. The question, "What Bible did they read before the KJV?" misses the mark. The question should be, "What text did the church use before the Critical Text?" and the answer is,"the Traditional Texts, the Textus Receptus."
Brethren, the issue is not so much Bible translations as it is Bible texts. Without oversimplifying the situation, there are two basic families of Greek manuscripts. One is known as the Taditional Text or Textus Receptus. This is the text that the church of the Lord Jesus used throughout her history up until the late 1800's. The newer text, published for the general public in the late 1800's, is known as the Critical Text. It differs in thousands of places from the Received Text and, with the critical apparatus of the Nestle/Aland editions, offers thousands of additional varient choices to the reader. Because this text was compiled from a small number of unrelated, sometimes sharply differing manuscripts, the Critical Text is an eclectic text. Scholars took a little from here and a little from there, producing a text that the penmen of Scripture wouldn't readily recognize. It was a truly new text, and scholars of that day recognized it as significantly new and different from the TR. Drs. Westcott and Hort (compilers of the popular critical text) did not downplay the differences; rather, they emphasized them.
ReplyDeleteBecause there are undeniable differences between the two text families, one is left with a decision: Do I continue to use the Scriptures that the church has used for 1800 years? OR Do I accept the scholars' eclectic text and make changes of my own as I see fit? For me, this issue is one of FAITH. Believing that Christians from the time of Christ onward had the New Testament, I simply accept the traditional text manuscripts as God's Word. The new texts provide interesting discussion and are an academic curiosity,but--for me--the authority is what it has always been, the traditional texts. If that is a crime or "extremism" or theologically "hetrodox," then all of the church, the Reformers, the anabaptists, and every individual Christian studied the sacred text was in the same boat. Remember, the critical text is a "johnny-come-lately" text. I have, by simple faith, believed that the church of the Lord Jesus has had His words from the first century onward. Ultimately, it comes down to faith: faith that the scholars have finally discovered the New Testament and that one day they will give us the final copy OR faith that God gave the word and sovereignly superintended its preservation throughout the history of the church. The question, "What Bible did they read before the KJV?" misses the mark. The question should be, "What text did the church use before the Critical Text?" and the answer is,"the Traditional Texts, the Textus Receptus."
Mr. Lucas,
ReplyDeleteI am not interested in getting into a discussion on Textual issues with you. It is usually a waste of time.
My concern is the way Brother Smith was treated by you because of his Textual position and by Brother Bauder. I do not need to defend his position. He is perfectly capable of doing so himself.
I have limited knowledge of Brother Smith. I have had dinner with him and his family on two occasions and a few hours of conversation with him about theological issues. I found him to be a sincere and humble man of God with a genuine love for the Lord Jesus and a genuine desire to bring God glory through his ministry. I have heard him preach about a half dozen times and have been blessed on each occasion.
My objection is to the fact that you and Brother Bauder have relegated him and his ministry to obscurity by labeling him a "hyper" Fundamentalist. That is unjust. It is an attempt to put a "mark" upon him, and men like him, that diminishes his ministry. I think that becomes an evil. This labeling of "hyper" Fundamentalism with a very broad brush is irresponsibly divisive. Brother Smith's textual position is a very balanced position if you would seriously look at it without your prejudices.
I do not like it when people disagree with me, but that does not immediately translate into not liking the people that disagree with me.
Pastor Monte:
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for the layman's terms breakdown of a difficult, sometimes misunderstood, subject matter.
God bless you,
Lou
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJosh
ReplyDeleteNearly any pre-laodicean Bible is a reasonable one.
I could take you to task on your justification answer but it would do no good. How about in light of 2 Tim 2:23 you save your [] questions and just go to the Cross.
Lance, nothing in my post was critical of Dwight personally. I never referred to Dwight as hyper anything. I never referred to Bauder's article or anything contained in it. I kept my complaints to interpretive issues surrounding the texts Dwight referred to. I pointed out where I agreed with Dwight. You need to rethink your complaint against me as it was wholely inaccurate.
ReplyDeleteLook up, you didn't answer my question. You present this picture of newer versions equaling corruption. Your claim cannot survive an honest inquiry.
ReplyDeleteInstead of appealing to 2 Tim 2, perhaps study the issue out some more. Impugning God's word is a serious matter.
Regarding justification, what exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree that it isn't a process? In other words do you believe it is?
Just because the scripture refers to "saved" does not mean it refers to justification. How do you disagree with this?
Monte, the information you posted is inaccurate to say the least. The TR was put together by a catholic priest named Erasmus. He had fragment pieces that overlapped. He used textual criticism in deciding which reading was best. Do you really trust a catholic priest to decide which portions of God's word are really God's word?
ReplyDeleteThe Majority Text is something different from the TR. The TR disagrees with the MT in many places. In fact, for any who can read greek, here is a site that shows the differences.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/robinson-scrivener.html
It is just not true to suggest the church used the TR through the centuries. The invention of the TR by a catholic in 1516, who used latin to backtranslate into greek a portion of Revelation, followed by its multiple revisions (it may have been as many as 14), disprove any notion that it is the historical text.
The KJV has gone through multiple revisions as well. Changing my question to what was God's word before the critical text doesn't solve the problem. What was God's word before the TR then Marc?
Look up, I just caught the pre-laodicean line. When did the laodicean age begin?
ReplyDelete@ Marc Monte - When you said "What Bible did they read before the KJV?" misses the mark. The question should be, "What text did the church use before the Critical Text?" and the answer is,"the Traditional Texts, the Textus Receptus."
ReplyDeleteWhy don't we just update the TR without the archaic old english? Wouldn't that be the same if the meaning actually resides in the Greek?
Note to All:
ReplyDeleteMy primary reason for posting Evangelist Smith’s response to Kevin Bauder was to give him an on line venue from which to reply. While I appreciate the passion and concerns for the various views I am not inclined to host a long running debate on the subject. I did appreciate the tone and way Marc Monte laid out the debate. Lance Kechum posts important considerations, notes and questions as well.
If you want to present a view that you hold on either side feel free to do so. If you do consider Col. 4:6 as you compose and then post.
LM
Hello gentleman. This is your local hyper-fundamentalist just getting over his morning dose of Ridlin (sp?). Thanks for letting me in to this conversation.
ReplyDeleteJosh, you asked about several matters in relation to preservation. Thanks for the questions. Before answering the statement, it will help my understanding of where you are coming from if you answer these two question. Do we have the inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God today? If so, where?
Thanks for your time.
Dwight, I already know where you are going with your questions. You are trying to prove that nonKJVO people have no bible that they believe is the inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God today.
ReplyDeleteI will say this plainly upfront: I believe that I have in my hands the inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God when I preach.
Here is the problem with your question. God promised to preserve his word, but he did not specify how (such as its earthly location, availability, etc).
The question is loaded. I can turn it around and ask you, did people before the KJV have the inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God prior to the translation of the KJV? There were multiple english translations. The KJV at one time was a modern translation that differed from the previous ones. Why would the KJV translators CHANGE the word of God?
This whole issue of Conservative Evangelicalism is nothing new. It is very similar to the Conservative Baptist controversy that began in the early 1960's at the Conservative Baptist Seminary in Colorado.
ReplyDeleteDr. Clearwaters wrote an excellent, but little read, book entitled The Great Conservative Baptist Compromise published by Central seminary Press. I am not sure if this book is still available.
An interesting article is the STANDING RESOLUTION OF FOURTH BAPTIST CHURCH adopted April 1, 1959 published in the above book on pages 200-202. I would be curious if that Resolution is still "Standing."
I do have in my possession a 6 (six) page handout that Dr. Clearwaters used on April 23, 1974 in a Workshop I believe at a Central Seminary Founders meeting. At the conclusion of that workshop paper, Dr. Clearwaters wrote:
"At the present time, only two translations are recommendable: the “King James Version” and the “New American Standard Bible.” The “King James Version” is unsurpassed in the beauty of its language, even if it may sound somewhat archaic to modern ears. It continues to be the translation that is most often quoted and memorized by conservative Christians in the English–speaking world. The “New American Standard Bible” is unsurpassed in its accuracy and its fidelity to the Greek text. Its language is also very readable."
Lucas,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "You need to rethink your complaint against me as it was wholely inaccurate."
Not in my opinion. You objected to Brother Lou even giving Brother Smith a voice. If you did not think him to be "hyper" about his position, why the objection?
I wrote an article on this kind of "censorship" back in July:
http://lineuponlinedmm.blogspot.com/2010/07/census-consensus-and-censorship.html
Josh, the KJV translators along with All the other translators prior to the Westcott and Hort did not have a compiled critical text upon which to base their translations neither did they desire it. The Received/Traditional Text is called that for a reason. It was received by Bible believers. The other was rejected by Bible believers. That narrows and nearly eliminates your line of reasoning.
ReplyDeleteAgain, as Monte stated, this is a textual issue.
BTW, I'm glad to hear you believe the Bible to be "incapable of error: Unerring; and not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint" and "free from and exempt from error." You also said you believe it is God-breathed. This is a very good step, and I'm thankful.
However, if your line of thinking is so, that "God promised to preserve his word, but he did not specify how (such as its earthly location, availability, etc)." How do you really know that you have the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God.
Do you have the answer to my second question?
Dwight
Lance, you need to reread what I objected to. Dwight can believe whatever he wants. I missed where Lou had a note about his personal belief at the bottom of the article.
ReplyDeleteDwight, you are just avoiding the issue. The very thing you try to pin other versions down on is the same problem anyone could say about the KJV. Let's keep this at the textual issue.
1. Do you believe the manuscripts, which did not contain the full NT, edited by a catholic priest are the preserved word of God?
2. If you answer yes to No. 1, where was the preserved word of God before Erasmus got his hands on it and why was it okay for him to change it?
3. The Received Text was called that prior to the critical text being used. There is no relation to the name of Erasmus' edition verses the critical text.
4. If you still hold to No. 1, which edition of the TR was the right one? Erasmus himself published 3 different editions.
For example, when Luther translated the TR into a german Bible, he didn't translate 1 Jn 5:7 because it was missing in the first 2 editions of TR.
On a personal note, I don't trust Catholics for my Bible. I don't trust Anglicans either. I have never been able to figure out why some baptists are so bent of defending both of those groups at the same time over the same issue which is a fundamental issue.
To all,
ReplyDeleteI was going to sit this one out but I thought I would pass along some pertinent information to this text issue that far too many people either willfully ignore or just don't know.
First, as had already been noted, there are three Greek texts, The Traditional (or TR), the Critical Text and the Majority Text. Since the Traditional text was the first to be compiled in this group, I will use its numbers as a baseline. There are 140,521 words in the Traditional Text. The Critical Text AGREES (emphasis on purpose) with the Traditional text 93%. There is a difference of 9970 words between them, mostly from additions and subtractions. The Majority Text AGREES (again emphasis on purpose) with the Tradition Text 98.7%. There is a difference of 1838 words. If you would look at those differences you will note that some are word order differences, which anyone who has taken Greek knows, is of no real consequence to the understanding of the Greek. Yes, I know that there are other differences and some are significant (the ending of Mark, John 7:53-8:11, Acts 8:37, the Johannine comma, to name a few). Okay, pull out the textual apparatus that is found in the Nestle-Aland/the UBS/and the Hodges-Farstad Majority Text and examine the manuscript evidence and come to your own conclusion. There has been far too much cloaking of the truth on both sides. Some are willing to highlight the differences without actually examining the evidence and others seek to downplay the differences, again without examining the evidence. Search online for an excellent supplemental aid by Dr. Rodney Decker, NT Textual Criticism Reference Charts.
For the one who sought to question Erasmus because of his Catholic connection. Would you also question Martin Luther who was also a Catholic monk? God used His Word to bring Luther to Himself. A reading of Erasmus' life and you find one who, though he remained in the Catholic Church, was not one to blindly follow her teachings. He was an outspoken critic of the church. Did he leave the church or was kicked out? No, but don’t try to play the church card to negate the positive contribution that Erasmus played in the Reformation. There was a proverb in those days, “Luther hatched the egg that Erasmus laid.”
To the one who brings up Erasmus’ Revelation ending which he back translated from the Latin: since it is still in the TR, compare the last six verses of the TR to the CT. You will see only a handful of differences. Yes, this needs to be examined but stop and think and realize what Erasmus did. With the exception of just a few words he accurately put into Greek from Latin the end of the book of Revelation. Question, could you do that? That was no simple feat.
I’m done, feel better now.
Textus Receptus
ReplyDeleteThe Received Text
1. Desiderius Erasmus (1467-1536) chose the Bysantine text to translate an English Bible for a Basle printer named Froben who would print this text in 1516. Although this was not the Received Text, it laid the groundwork for it.
2. Simon Colines (a printer from Paris; 1534) attempted to produce the first critical edition of the Greek N.T.
3. Robert Estienne (stepson of Colines) continued Colines’ work and produced four editions from 1546-1551 at Paris, France, and later Geneva, where he fled because of persecution for his protestant beliefs.
4. Theodore Beza continued Estienne’s work and produced a series of nine editions of the Greek N.T. beginning from 1565. It was this text that would later become the Textus Receptus.
5. William Tyndale made a translation from the Latin Vulgate (The Wyclif Bible). Later he sought to make a translation from the Greek and Hebrew although receiving much resistance from Rome. In 1525 they printed his N.T. text. Over 90% of the words of his translation passed into the KJV and about 75% into the RSV.
6. Two Elsevir brothers (one of them Stephanus) published seven editions of the Greek N.T. between 1624-1678. The Latin preface to their 2nd edition stated, “You have therefore the text now received by all, in which we give nothing altered or corrupt.”
a. The words received text (textum receptum) of this advertisement passed into common use.
b. The phrase Textus Receptus (Received Text) described the printed form of this text of the Erasmus tradition. It became the Recieved Text for continental Europe.
c. The 3rd edition of the Stephanus Elsevir became the Textus Receptus of Great Britain and the United States.
I believe in an inspired and inerrant Bible in the original manuscripts. I believe that God has preserved His Word providentially rather than supernaturally. I am familiar with some of the passages that are often used to support a supernatural preservation of God's Word. But as a dispensationalist, I am forced to admit that these passages cannot truly refer to the supernatural preservation of the Bible. I believe that it is a testament to the providential preservation of the Bible that we have 8000 manuscripts available to us that agree with each other 98% of the time. All of those minor disagreements are differences such as "You all must do this" and "We all must do this." No doctrine is compromised by these minutiae.
ReplyDeleteErasmus' Textus Receptus was rushed to the market in successful attempt to be the first printed Greek NT. Unfortunately, his work suffered due to the haste in which he compiled it. He used whatever texts were available -- only a handful -- and had to reverse translate the last part of Revelation from the Latin. His work has been subsequently revised a number of times. It is a monumental work, but it is not perfect. It is still a critical text -- just based on less information and published earlier. Text-critically speaking -- and I would argue logically -- the scholarly work that went into the Nestle-Aland text is superior to the Textus Receptus -- not that there's much of a difference between them. No matter how you look at it, there was no received text for the first 1500 years of Christianity. I find it a little hard to believe that one magically appeared after all that time. So who is making the best guess concerning textual choice? The person who believes that one man operating for monetary reasons, 500 years ago and with very limited resources was able to compile the best text? or the person who believes that a group of contemporary, conservative scholars with a wealth of resources and a much larger sample were able to provide an accurate text?
The KJV is a good translation. I grew up using the KJV and I usually use the KJV when I'm at church. But like all translations it occasionally reflects the biases of the translators (baptize instead of immerse). It is 400 years old and a continent removed from American Christianity. What is a "superfluity of naughtiness?" It was very meaningful and accurate for a 17th century Englishmen -- not so for us today. My eyes were opened to the need for an updated translation when I realized that I had to translate the English text to English-speaking people! How much of my sermon is explanation of 17th century English grammar and vocabulary? And what am I teaching my people about their ability to study Scripture if I have to retranslate the English for them? I believe that everybody should have the Bible available in their language -- and in America -- the KJV is not written in that language. If we are committed to true biblical preaching - interpretation and communication of the text, then we should use a text that the people are able to read and understand. Elementary children are usually unable to understand the KJV. They should be able to read God's Word without taking a class in Elizabethan English first.
So, as is mentioned above, why not have a modern translation from the TR? The differences between it and the critical text are minor -- if you use the TR as the text for a translation that is accurate and readable, then I will gladly use it.
Todd:
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your extended commentary and enjoyed reading your take on this discussion.
LM
To Josh,
ReplyDeleteYou stated, “On a personal note, I don't trust Catholics for my Bible. I don't trust Anglicans either. I have never been able to figure out why some baptists are so bent of defending both of those groups at the same time over the same issue which is a fundamental issue.”
So, what Bible do you read, if you don’t trust Catholics and Anglicans? While I would agree with you that I find Catholicism and Anglicanism as departures from the truth of Scriptures, you are broad brushing this text/translation issue rather haphazardly with such a statement. If we are not to “trust” Catholics and Anglicans for our Bible then we must dismiss, the Latin Vulgate (granted, who is reading Latin these days), Wyclif’s Bible, Tyndale’s Bible, Coverdale’s Bible, Matthew’s Bible, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Bishop’s Bible, the King James Bible, also to be included are all the more modern translations which are based upon the Critical Text since the men who compiled the Critical Text (Westcott and Hort) were Anglicans and as such by your statement cannot be trusted so any English translation based upon their text cannot be trusted either.
I guess that leaves you with finding an English translation of, say, an ancient translation (like the Peshitta, unless of course you can read Syriac then you don’t need the English translation) so that Catholics and Anglicans are not part of the translation process.
When I uphold Erasmus, or the KJV translators, or whoever in this discussion, I am upholding their accomplishment (a complete Greek NT or an English translation) which was done, for the most part, in spite of their particular –ism not because of their particular –ism. Just because we acknowledge something notably done, this does not mean that we are accepting completely who that person is or what that person has done. I may congratulate Tiger Woods for his outstanding accomplishments on the golf course but that by no means, means that I am in favor of his off the course behavior. Yes, he’s tarnished his image but it does not lessen the validity of what he accomplished.
The KJV has been updated several times since 1611. The last official update was 1769, with other non-official publisher updates since then. (The Thomas/Nelson KJV differs in spelling somewhat from the standard KJV.)
ReplyDeleteNo reasonable person opposes the possibility of making such a translation. In today's controversial atmosphere, however, it probably wouldn't fly. Be careful, however, about jettisoning all the "archaic" words. The "Thees and Thous" are not in the KJV for "reverence," nor are they there because that's how people talked back then. Generally speaking, they didn't. "Thee, Thou, and Thine" are personal pronouns that ALWAYS refer to a singular antecedent.
"You, your, and ye" have a plural reference. This is how the KJV translators distinguished singular and plural personal pronouns as reflected in the Greek. The NKJV does not make this distinction, and blurs the interpretation. For example, Luke 22:31 speaks of being "sifted as wheat." Both KJV and NKJV translate the pronoun as "you," "Satan hath desired you." In the next verse, Jesus says He prayed for Peter. The KJV says "thee, thy," indicating Peter was singled out for the prayer. The NKJV just says "you, your"--not indicating the singular. Here's the point, according to the KJV and the Greek text, Satan desired to sift you--plural--all the disciples. Jesus prayed specifically for Peter--singular--and encouraged him to strengthen the others. Just reading the NKJV, one would conclude that Satan only wanted to sift Peter and that the Lord prayed for him. The NKJV failed to make the distinction, but the KJV does.
This is just one example of many that could be sited. In other words, some of the "archaic" words are there because there is no contemporary word that can represent the Greek and Hebrew. A good study Bible with marginal references can help clear up any definition problems.
Also, just as we're constantly bombarded with new vocabulary in the area of technology and forced to learn it, it wouldn't hurt us at all to relearn some older words and their definitions. I don't think it's beyond any normal person's ability to learn a new word now and then.
Thanks for your thoughtful question.
My Textual position is essentially the same as Evangelist Smith and Pastor Monte.
ReplyDeleteI think it is extremely divisive and unjust to refer to people who believe in Textual Criticism within the Majority Text (Byzantine Text Group) as Hyper-fundamentalists and to propose those that believe in the highly subjective Eclectic Textual Criticism and Textual Reconstructionism as true Fundamentalists. That is just not the case historically. This kind of wide brush tactic is irresponsible.
Just so we understand what some of these other texts outside of the Byzantine Text Group are, see below:
Texts included within Eclectic Textual Criticism
I. Codex Aleph (Sinaiticus): Found by Constantine Tischendorf (1859); Originates approx. mid 4th Century.
A. Originally contained both O.T. and N.T.
B. Presently contains: parts of Genesis; Numbers; 1 Chron.; 2 Esdras; Esther; Tobit; Judith; all prophets (except: Hosea, Amos, Micah, Ezek., Daniel, 1 & 4 Macabees); all the N.T. with the Epistle of Barnabas and a large part of the "Shepherd of Hermas".
C. It is a close ally to Codex B (Vaticannus) except in the Gospel of John, which agrees with Codex C (Ephraemi Syri Recriptus).
D. In Revelation (B is no longer extant in Revelation) it allies with the Chester Beatty Papyri (200 A.D. It contains most of Paul’s letters) and quotations from Origen.
E. It is an uncial manuscript (all capital letters run together) on vellum parchment.
F. This text, along with a consensus of B became Westcott’s and Hort’s, so called, Neutral Text.
II. Codex B (Vaticanus): Originates approx. early 4th century.
A. Originally contained both O.T. and N.T. and part of Apocrypha.
B. The first 45 chapters of Genesis are missing as well as part of II Sam., some Psalms, the end of Hebrews, and all of Revelation.
C. One of the scribes of Aleph also wrote part of B.
D. It represents a lot of editorial activity rather than an uncontaminated original Greek text. This is also true of Aleph.
E. Westcott and Hort subjectively stated that B frequently preserved the original text when it differed from Aleph.
F. B was the basis of the Westcott-Hort Text, but not strictly so, in that much of the Westcott-Hort Text was established on the basis of eclectic criticism.
III. Codex C (Ephraemi Syri Recriptus): Alexandrian text type; originated 5th century. It is a Palimsest (erased and rewritten).
A. Contains parts of Job; Proverbs; Ecclesiastes; Wisdom of Solomon; Ecclesiaticus; Song of Songs, and all N.T. books except 2 Thessalonians and 2 John.
B. Revelation is close to A, although in Rev. 13:18 the number of the "beast" is given as 616 following the Arminian tradition.
IV. Codex D (Bezae; named after Theodore Beza, who gave it to Cambridge University in 1581). Originates in 4th or 5th century.
A. Bilingual text; Greek on left paging, Latin on the right.
B. Contains the four gospels, Acts, and a small fragment of 1st John; perhaps it had Revelation originally.
C. Possibility it is of western origins, but also possible it originated at Jerusalem or Alexandria.
D. It, along with the Byzantine text, was the text that would later become known as the Received Text or Textus Receptus which in turn would be the basic text used in the translation of the King James Version.
V. Codex A (Alexandrinus): Originated approx. 5th century.
A. Contains the whole Bible plus 1 and 2 Clement (Psalms of Solomon are lost).
B. Acts and the Epistles ally B and P46.
C. Revelation is the best single witness to the complete text and closely allies with C.
Dr. Ketchum:
ReplyDeleteThanks for this helpful study guide.
Prior to you wrote, "I think it is extremely divisive and unjust to refer to people who believe in Textual Criticism within the Majority Text (Byzantine Text Group) as Hyper-fundamentalists and to propose those that believe in the highly subjective Eclectic Textual Criticism and Textual Reconstructionism as true Fundamentalists. That is just not the case historically. This kind of wide brush tactic is irresponsible."
Yet, that kind of irresponsible broad-brush demonization has been the MO of Bauder and those who he is trying to influence. When I read it I am reminded of the Clinton's of the 90's- their infamous politics of personal destruction. Coming from a politician is one thing, but from a seminary president is most disconcerting.
Furthermore, I believe it is another of Bauder’s redirects away from what the true Differences are in the evangelical camp. He devotes many words to his view of Fundamentalism, which many see as a revisionist history, as a means for by-passing, with hardly a mention, the many egregious issues with the evangelicals such as their Charismatic theology and the well-know ecumenical compromises with unbelievers, apostates and the disobedient.
LM
Marc, at the risk of sounding smarter than I actually am, exegetical work must take place on the level of the original languages. The person who knows nothing of greek can still pull out at the very least a strong's or something else.
ReplyDeleteThe people who can "relearn" words they never will use in modern speech can also learn the greek words that cause confusion. Your example of Peter is a perfect example to learn some basic greek over old english.
There are numerous Papyri also included within the stir-pot of Eclectic Textual Criticism such as the Chester Beatty and Bodmer Papri.
ReplyDeleteNew Testament Papyri: In spite of their early dates, the reliability of the Papyri is generally considered reduced by the scholars by the fact that non-professional scribes copied many of them and shows a subsequent lack of attention to small details. Many of them were probably personal copies made for their own use.
Many of the modern English translations have been greatly influenced by these early Papyri, by attempting to reconstruct the text of the Greek N.T. by examining each variation of these various pieces.
This approach to textual criticism is called Eclecticism, in that the critic picks and chooses one reading from all the readings on a case-by-case basis. This type of textual criticism has proven itself to be very subjective. Although a particular Greek text is said to be the basis (working base) of the translation, the critics deviate from the text at will. This is the case with the RSV, NASB, NIV, and the TEV.
Most modern English translations generally followed one of the editions of the Nestle Text (or Nestle/Aland Text), but with extensive eclectic license.
The United Bible Societies’ Nestle/Aland Text, which is recognized as the text most accepted by the academic community as representing the best attempt at reconstructing the original text of the Greek N.T., is an eclectic text. Many scholars agree that, in most part, this new text still looks much like the Westcott/Hort Text. The New Revised Standard Version (1990), the revision of the TEV, and the revision of the Living Bible all reflect the eclectic text of UBS#3\NA#26.
1. ASV (1901); Basically translated from Codex Aleph & B (Westcott\Hort)
2. RSV (1946); Based on Nestle text (17th ed.; 1941); eclectically influenced by the Chester Beatty Papyri (P45, 46, 47)
3. NASB (1960); Based on the Nestle text (23rd ed.; 1957); eclectically influenced by both the Chester Beatty and Bodmer Papri
4. NIV (1973); Based on UBS (1st ed.; 1966); Eclectic text
5. TEV (1966); Same as above
6. NEB (1961); highly eclectic text with no apparent base text
7. NJB (N.T.; 1986); same as above
Dr. Richard Clearwaters wrote in a book entitled The Great Conservative Baptist Compromise referring to a six-page pamphlet he had written (both published by Central C.B. Press):
ReplyDelete“I have treated the usage of this word [schism] in Paul’s Corinthian correspondence which has been so much misunderstood. In this paper I show how the true cause of the schism at Corinth was not Personalities, Party Spirit, or Human Leaders as so many have thought! These were only secondary causes which really had their rise in the primary cause, ‘INTELLECTUALISM’ (see I Cor. 1:18, 21, 26; 2:5) like the New Evangelicalism of today. Once you see this it is easy to see how in that day, as now, the so-called body of Christ’s church at Corinth suffered schism because it had in it members who were Natural (unsaved); Carnal (worldly and unseparated saved Christians); and Spiritual (Biblically separated and consecrated Christians); AND ALL THREE OF THESE CLASSES OF CHURCH MEMBERS TRYING TO INTERPRET THE WORD OF GOD AND TRANSLATE IT INTO THEIR OWN FRAME OF REFERENCE! Some of these were the first New Evangelicals in the history of Christianity, and they also wanted to avoid a definite definition of the fundamentals of the faith so they could preserve their latitude of interpretation.” (caps in original)
Josh, I agree with you that it won't hurt anyone to learn some Greek and even Hebrew. I had several years of both while in college and grad school. At the same time, it won't hurt someone to learn a bit of Old English.
ReplyDeleteA while ago, I read the entire set of Left Behind novels just out of curiosity. There were more words in those novels that I had to look up, than I have ever had to look up in my King James Version. Truth be told, this whole argument that we need a new version is unfounded.
Feel free to answer my second question whenever you have time.
Thanks,
Dwight Smith
Lou, thank you for hosting a blog where folks are not censored or kicked off just because of a disenting opinion. What a pitifully small little world that must be.
ReplyDeleteDwight
Dwight:
ReplyDeleteThanks for that. I have some rules that I enforce, but seldom have to.
I don't mind guests interacting and asking difficult questions as long as the tone is right.
There are some who try to post here whose comments I do not allow to appear. If they’d lose the vitriol, judging motives and season with salt they’d have a better chance of getting a hearing here.
Kind regards,
Lou
Dwight, the Word of God is found in any faithful translation of the greek/hebrew/aramaic.
ReplyDeleteMy position is the position of the fundamentalists.
Regarding translation theory, I believe it is critical that it is done as exact as possible. I do not consider the NIV to be a faithful translation. I put it on par with other paraphrases.
For those who asked, the quote I referred to in the book entitled The Great Conservative Baptist Compromise is found on page 61 of that book.
ReplyDeleteI did a search on the WWW for this title and found three used copies that were available at the time of the search. Central may still have copies.
I really don't have a dog in this fight, but I will observe that to say "Truth be told, this whole argument that we need a new version is unfounded" seems to be an unfounded comment. The KJV translators themselves clearly expressed their desire for the Word of God to be available in the tongue of the people reading it. That is one of the reasons it was updated periodically up until 1769. Try reading the 1611 version sometime! The argument that the language of the KJV doesn't need some linguistic updating is extremely idealistic. There's nothing inherently "holy" about Elizabethan English Sometimes older is not always better!
ReplyDeleteBrother Lou,
ReplyDeleteJust last Thursday my Dad showed me an ESV MacArthur Study Bible that was sent to him by John MacArthur. He is not a follower, but is on their mailing list. I picked it up and noticed its origins. It is based on the corrupt RSV that many of our forebearers withstood. Bob Jones Sr., John R. Rice, R. V. Clearwaters and others, to name a few stood vehemently against this product of liberal, rationlistic thought. The RSV changed "virgin" of Isaiah 7:14 to young woman. It removed the "blood of Christ" in several places. Though the ESV cleans up some of these errors, it still removes from some portions and adds to in others.
The Blood is absent from Colossians 1:13-13Acts 8:37 is removed, as it is in the NIV. At the last half of Mark 16, though present, a very clear and bold note right in the middle of the text tells us it really isn't supposed to be. Yet this version is the most popular amongst "conservative evangelicals" (new evangelicals) and the "fundamentalist" new evangelical wanna-bes. This is a slippery, compromising slope. When a man or institution chooses these watered down "versions" of the Bible, they are stepping into the quagmire of compromise and error.
One should not have to pick up his Bible to see what has been removed or added to it! He should have absolute confidence that it is all there and in tact. He shouldn't have to wait for some liberal "scholar" to confirm or deny what is written in the old black Book!
As the last week has illustrated there is a great and growing divide amongst Fundamental Independent Baptists. Many believe, as do I, that God inspiried His Word and preserved in the Traditional Received Text and its offspring. Some believe that God inspired His Word and it is everywhere. Its up to us to accept it all, deletions and additions alike, as God's Word. Or, in a "scientific, eclectic" fashion select what is or what is not God's Word. This latter approach is wrong and should summarily be rejected by Bible-believers.
In a matter of days, we will begin to celebrate the timelessness of the KJV that has lasted 400 years. It has reached this milestone, not because of the "beauty of its language," but because it was based upon the correct, and uncorrupted Text of Scripture. The ESV is just the newest en vogue fad, used by marketers to make another dollar. After perusing this version, I told my Dad, it will not last, because it is based on the corrupted, rejected Alexandrian Text and because it deletes and adds to the Scripture at whim, and as such, it does not have the blessing of Almighty God upon it. If we wait a few more years, another English version will come forward claiming to be the best thus far.
Thanks for your willingness to post this article and host this discussion. I stand with you in your defense of the gospel and your offense against error.
Your friend,
Dwight Smith
Brother Dwight:
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing some additional thoughts. I'll consider them a close to the lively discussion we've had here.
I do also appreciate your help in our stand for the defense of the Gospel.
Yours in His service,
Lou