The basis of the KJBO argument
Posted: 27 May 2014, 17:51I was thinking about what was really at the basis of the KJBO debate. I believe it is about the authority of Scripture itself.
If reduced to essentials, I think ultimately that the anti side is arguing that God does not provide a final standard of Scripture today, on the basis of the fallibility of man (emphasising that the autographs have been lost), while I think that ultimately the pro side is arguing that God would provide a final standard today, as consistent with His having given an inspired exemplar in the first place (emphasising the ability of God).
Kevin Bauder, the co-author of a “scholarly” anti-King James Bible only book called “One Bible Only”, on page 21, states, “This book will dispute the King James-Only teaching by insisting that we can know what God said, even if we do not have every single word with which He said it. The authors of this book will address the very heart of the controversy. Can we hold up an imperfect manuscript copy, and imperfectly edited text, or an imperfectly translated version, and rightly say, ‘This is the Word of God’? The authors of this book, in harmony with the vast majority of Bible believers throughout history, will insist that we can. Humanity can know what God has revealed; we can know His works and His ways; we can know how He sees us and what He has done for us; we can know what He demands of us. Most of all, we can know Him, for the Bible is His Word, even when it contains some imperfectly copied or translated words.
“‘Not so!’ insist the King James-Only advocates. If humans have lost any of the words, then they have lost the Word. It is not enough that the meaning has been preserved; if we do not have all of the exact words, then we do not have the Word. Without every one of the actual words of God, all we are left with is human guesses about what God might have meant to say.”
I will now comment on what he wrote:
The problem of this thesis is that knowledge is communicated by words, and as each word has a separate and individual meaning, and that the very order and use of words influences meaning, perhaps by subtle shades, once it is granted that it is impossible to have every single word, it really is an anti-Word position.
This is because the Word position is to start from the Word itself, and to see what it says of itself, and to see that God has fulfilled the obligations which He has stated about Himself.
If the anti-KJBO claims that he cannot be certain as to what exactly the words are to begin with, and therefore has no perfect set of words to investigate where such a promise is contained and implied, then we must point to the time when God certainly had the true words, namely, when they were first inspired.
If God in inspiration said that His Word would be present to every last jot and tittle, then we may believe today in what we see of the Word, that we must find it in one form correct to every last jot and tittle. We start from the assumption (that is, faith) about what we do not see with our eyes (autographs) but believing their content, as is understood by seeing what we have received by a believing view of the Word throughout Church history, which means that the King James Bible today would be our starting point, since it is this version which is connected, and very strongly, to this tradition and idea.
Thus, the starting point from the anti-view is not Scripture, but human reason. They are starting from an extra-Biblical philosophy that man and chance factors effect God’s originally inspired word, and what we look at today to begin our investigation (whatever Scriptures) are already viewed with these “glasses”.
Our “glasses” by which we view what we see must start from the Bible today, and therefore be to authenticate itself, which is accused by others as being “circular reasoning” (or worse, “blind faith”).
However, their view has already the built in assumption, namely, that what is seen with the natural eyes must be the result of errors, and the work of God is therefore limited to human experience (I cannot see God preserving exactly, but only generally, therefore God does provide us with His Word generally, not word-exact).
We really cannot do so today, however, plenty of good and true Christians have. Any Christian living in, say the reign of Queen Elizabeth the First, could have held up something like this and believed it to be true, nevertheless, they were aware that there were imperfections in the setting forth of those things.
We cannot allow that the situation of those former years has continued on without change. Especially since they viewed a gathering and a purification in their day, of which we see the final result.
The modern view claims to be striving to get things better, but in effect, it knows it is making only more variety, raising more questions, and ultimately stating that there cannot (emphatically) be an exact word for word knowledge of the Scripture, and that translations are never infallible.
The Scripture itself indicates that there was a scattering, as well as gathering, and that there would be a process of purification. If a modern versions places himself in the category of scattering, or somewhere in the gathering, they have not yet arrived at the conclusion. The point is that they have as their central tenant that they cannot (and are basically prohibited by God) to arrive at the end of the gathering. This is why all their “refining” is haywire.
It is clear that believers in the Reformation were looking toward a gathering and completion, and that the King James Bible users have generally accepted that this has come to pass. In fact, the King James Bible movement exists because people recognised this to be so.
The problem then is that the modernist is rejecting the King James Bible from being the end and finality, because of their naturalistic and relativist approach or assumptions. When they look at the King James Bible, they “see” “errors”. They are denying the fundamental premise that truth would be self-authenticating, because they approach the King James Bible from outside of Scripture, or as people externally looking upon it rather than on the basis of its own intrinsic authority which God has providentially revealed.
The very plain problem is that a man with such a view cannot point to one set of words (and each word has its own meaning) as being exactly, certainly, completely the very words of God. Whereas the King James Bible only believer can point to the King James Bible as the very Word of God, and show that God has chosen the English language to present His final standard. (The fact that the final standard is a translation rather than a critical work in the original languages is another step which confounds those who do not believe that God has promised and revealed one exact form of His Word today.)
It follows that the God who have the Word must also keep it preserved, even if it were scattered, He should be able to gather.
God has been able to work with sufficient forms of Scripture, but His will is (and it is consistent with His nature) to have a standard Bible. Certainly various Bibles can be called the Word of God, but the actual Word of God in an exact form must be in only one Version. There is no necessity that this perfect version existed all the time, as long as God’s words were not lost in history, but God has proven Himself strong by gathering and forming by His providence one fully correct form of His words, which is the King James Bible.
Although people may have a fair idea of God’s Word without having a perfect copy or form, ultimately, the power to back up the truth of Scripture is to be able to have one Bible.
This confounds the atheist all the way to the religious scoffer, for though they will find every reason to reject it, the signs are all there that the King James Bible is God’s providentially appointed Bible for the last days.
It seems incredulous to the modern versionist that Anglicans from 17th century England who had less manuscript evidence than today were able to get God’s word 100% correctly gathered and translated in one version. But this is a divinely appointed test. God requires people to believe His Word, regardless of how “alien” it might seem to the natural mind.
The whole issue to them is like this: “From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report. For the bed is shorter than that a man can stretch himself on it: and the covering narrower than that he can wrap himself in it. For the LORD shall rise up as in mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work; and bring to pass his act, his strange act.” (Isaiah 28:19–21).
If reduced to essentials, I think ultimately that the anti side is arguing that God does not provide a final standard of Scripture today, on the basis of the fallibility of man (emphasising that the autographs have been lost), while I think that ultimately the pro side is arguing that God would provide a final standard today, as consistent with His having given an inspired exemplar in the first place (emphasising the ability of God).
Kevin Bauder, the co-author of a “scholarly” anti-King James Bible only book called “One Bible Only”, on page 21, states, “This book will dispute the King James-Only teaching by insisting that we can know what God said, even if we do not have every single word with which He said it. The authors of this book will address the very heart of the controversy. Can we hold up an imperfect manuscript copy, and imperfectly edited text, or an imperfectly translated version, and rightly say, ‘This is the Word of God’? The authors of this book, in harmony with the vast majority of Bible believers throughout history, will insist that we can. Humanity can know what God has revealed; we can know His works and His ways; we can know how He sees us and what He has done for us; we can know what He demands of us. Most of all, we can know Him, for the Bible is His Word, even when it contains some imperfectly copied or translated words.
“‘Not so!’ insist the King James-Only advocates. If humans have lost any of the words, then they have lost the Word. It is not enough that the meaning has been preserved; if we do not have all of the exact words, then we do not have the Word. Without every one of the actual words of God, all we are left with is human guesses about what God might have meant to say.”
I will now comment on what he wrote:
insisting that we can know what God said, even if we do not have every single word with which He said it
The problem of this thesis is that knowledge is communicated by words, and as each word has a separate and individual meaning, and that the very order and use of words influences meaning, perhaps by subtle shades, once it is granted that it is impossible to have every single word, it really is an anti-Word position.
This is because the Word position is to start from the Word itself, and to see what it says of itself, and to see that God has fulfilled the obligations which He has stated about Himself.
If the anti-KJBO claims that he cannot be certain as to what exactly the words are to begin with, and therefore has no perfect set of words to investigate where such a promise is contained and implied, then we must point to the time when God certainly had the true words, namely, when they were first inspired.
If God in inspiration said that His Word would be present to every last jot and tittle, then we may believe today in what we see of the Word, that we must find it in one form correct to every last jot and tittle. We start from the assumption (that is, faith) about what we do not see with our eyes (autographs) but believing their content, as is understood by seeing what we have received by a believing view of the Word throughout Church history, which means that the King James Bible today would be our starting point, since it is this version which is connected, and very strongly, to this tradition and idea.
Thus, the starting point from the anti-view is not Scripture, but human reason. They are starting from an extra-Biblical philosophy that man and chance factors effect God’s originally inspired word, and what we look at today to begin our investigation (whatever Scriptures) are already viewed with these “glasses”.
Our “glasses” by which we view what we see must start from the Bible today, and therefore be to authenticate itself, which is accused by others as being “circular reasoning” (or worse, “blind faith”).
However, their view has already the built in assumption, namely, that what is seen with the natural eyes must be the result of errors, and the work of God is therefore limited to human experience (I cannot see God preserving exactly, but only generally, therefore God does provide us with His Word generally, not word-exact).
Can we hold up an imperfect manuscript copy, and imperfectly edited text, or an imperfectly translated version, and rightly say, ‘This is the Word of God’?
We really cannot do so today, however, plenty of good and true Christians have. Any Christian living in, say the reign of Queen Elizabeth the First, could have held up something like this and believed it to be true, nevertheless, they were aware that there were imperfections in the setting forth of those things.
We cannot allow that the situation of those former years has continued on without change. Especially since they viewed a gathering and a purification in their day, of which we see the final result.
The modern view claims to be striving to get things better, but in effect, it knows it is making only more variety, raising more questions, and ultimately stating that there cannot (emphatically) be an exact word for word knowledge of the Scripture, and that translations are never infallible.
The authors of this book, in harmony with the vast majority of Bible believers throughout history, will insist that we can.
The Scripture itself indicates that there was a scattering, as well as gathering, and that there would be a process of purification. If a modern versions places himself in the category of scattering, or somewhere in the gathering, they have not yet arrived at the conclusion. The point is that they have as their central tenant that they cannot (and are basically prohibited by God) to arrive at the end of the gathering. This is why all their “refining” is haywire.
It is clear that believers in the Reformation were looking toward a gathering and completion, and that the King James Bible users have generally accepted that this has come to pass. In fact, the King James Bible movement exists because people recognised this to be so.
The problem then is that the modernist is rejecting the King James Bible from being the end and finality, because of their naturalistic and relativist approach or assumptions. When they look at the King James Bible, they “see” “errors”. They are denying the fundamental premise that truth would be self-authenticating, because they approach the King James Bible from outside of Scripture, or as people externally looking upon it rather than on the basis of its own intrinsic authority which God has providentially revealed.
Humanity can know what God has revealed; we can know His works and His ways; we can know how He sees us and what He has done for us; we can know what He demands of us. Most of all, we can know Him, for the Bible is His Word, even when it contains some imperfectly copied or translated words.
The very plain problem is that a man with such a view cannot point to one set of words (and each word has its own meaning) as being exactly, certainly, completely the very words of God. Whereas the King James Bible only believer can point to the King James Bible as the very Word of God, and show that God has chosen the English language to present His final standard. (The fact that the final standard is a translation rather than a critical work in the original languages is another step which confounds those who do not believe that God has promised and revealed one exact form of His Word today.)
‘Not so!’ insist the King James-Only advocates. If humans have lost any of the words, then they have lost the Word.
It follows that the God who have the Word must also keep it preserved, even if it were scattered, He should be able to gather.
It is not enough that the meaning has been preserved; if we do not have all of the exact words, then we do not have the Word.
God has been able to work with sufficient forms of Scripture, but His will is (and it is consistent with His nature) to have a standard Bible. Certainly various Bibles can be called the Word of God, but the actual Word of God in an exact form must be in only one Version. There is no necessity that this perfect version existed all the time, as long as God’s words were not lost in history, but God has proven Himself strong by gathering and forming by His providence one fully correct form of His words, which is the King James Bible.
Without every one of the actual words of God, all we are left with is human guesses about what God might have meant to say.
Although people may have a fair idea of God’s Word without having a perfect copy or form, ultimately, the power to back up the truth of Scripture is to be able to have one Bible.
This confounds the atheist all the way to the religious scoffer, for though they will find every reason to reject it, the signs are all there that the King James Bible is God’s providentially appointed Bible for the last days.
It seems incredulous to the modern versionist that Anglicans from 17th century England who had less manuscript evidence than today were able to get God’s word 100% correctly gathered and translated in one version. But this is a divinely appointed test. God requires people to believe His Word, regardless of how “alien” it might seem to the natural mind.
The whole issue to them is like this: “From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report. For the bed is shorter than that a man can stretch himself on it: and the covering narrower than that he can wrap himself in it. For the LORD shall rise up as in mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work; and bring to pass his act, his strange act.” (Isaiah 28:19–21).