Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Comment on the Wescott and Hort manuscripts/KJVO issue

On another blog, I posted a response to a blog post about the modern translations being based off of the Wescott and Hort manuscripts, but it was removed. I once again ask why, if the modern manuscripts are based off of corrupt text, and the KJV is the only valid version for the English speaking people, why haven't major theologians accepted this thinking through the ages? I still have not heard of one doctrine that has been compromised or the name of one respected theologian who accepts this false teaching. I would think that if those who are well studied in theology and have been well respected, then they would know a bit more than those of us who are limited in our knowledge. I'm asking a legitimate question and the silence that I'm getting in response to the question confirms that the idea of the KJV being "right' and the other versions being "wrong" is a false belief.

As for the Wescott and Hort, here are a few sites that have information on that issue:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/kutilek1.html
http://hipandthigh.blogspot.com/2006/05/were-b.html (this has other posts that are excellent on this subject)

Here are some variations within the texts of the Received Texts - or the Textus Receptus:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/received.html


Once again, I'm certainly not against the KJV and think that if someone wishes to use that as their primary Bible, then that's wonderful. I've used the KJV and have memorized much Scripture in that version (thanks to my few years in a Christian school in the 70s) and my pastor primarily uses this version as the version he preaches from. However, as time has gone on, more and more manuscript evidence has been found and it has given us a richer, more accurate understanding of God's Word to us. As I said, there is no doctrinal difference between the manuscripts and we can be secure that whether we use the KJV, the NIV or the ESV, we ARE reading God's Word. We know that God did not stop working in 1611 in preserving His Word and even today, there are common languages who have Bibles that are being used to bring people to salvation that are not based on the Textus Receptus. That speaks volumes to me.

12 comments:

Sheree said...

I think there comes a point when people have to accept each others differing beliefs. You can't win them over and they can't win you over and it comes to a standstill. Continuing to argue the point becomes useless and begins to put the Lord on the back burner because your focus comes off of Him and on to other things.

There are theologians on both sides of the issue. I am sure that the have all studied it extensively before making a decision. Who is to say who is right or wrong? There have been theologians on both sides of the fence on many issues. I guess its something you have to pray about and make a decision about thru that prayer.

I know that for me, we are KJV only. I won't bother to argue the rights or wrongs of it because there is no way that I would convince you that KJV is the only text. I am sure, on the other blog, that the blogger felt the same way.

Theologians over time have come to so many different choices that none of us really know who is right and who is wrong. Look at issues like pre-destination. Some theologians believe that we are called by God and were chosen before we were ever born...others believe that we are not pre-chosen but come to the Lord thru our own choice. Both sides have knowledgeable men who have studied the issue and prayed about it and are popular among the people. Who knows who is right?
You ask why well known theologians would say this was wrong, or right? Well, they studied it..both sides. Some chose to believe KJV only, others chose to use different versions. I am sure that neither side made the choice lightly.

Argueing just damages our testimony.

Ofcourse this is my opinion and I am quite sure you will disagree...but I wanted to throw that out there.

Mamame said...

Sheree - I agree with you that there are different ideas with Biblical support on both sides such as election/free will (Calvinism/Arminianism). However, there is no Biblical support for the KJVO ideology and there are NO well-respected theologians who have believed in it either. As I said, that speaks volumes to me. Charles H. Spurgeon and Dr. John R. Rice are just two theologians who did not believe in the KJVO stance and I honestly do not know of ONE who believes that the KJV is the only English Bible that is true.

So, you say that theologians over time have come to different conclusions about the KJVO argument, I do ask for names. Names of respected, valued men of God who have decided that any new manuscripts that we have - and have been researched, tested and proven - are worthless and not worthy to be used.

Michelle said...

Pastor Tony Hutson
Dr. Shelton Smith
Dr. Samuel Gipp
Dr. Jack Trieber
Dr. Clarence Sexton
Jack Schaap & Lester Roloff (I can't remember if they hold doctorates or not)

Mamame said...

Michelle - That is a list of current KJVO advocates - pastors who stand for the KJVO stance. These are not "well respected theologians". Having a doctorate does not a reputable theologian make.

Shelton Smith is the publisher of the Sword of the Lord that was begun by Dr. John R. Rice who was definitely NOT KJVO - and the SOTL now taking that stance is going against his wishes.

Jack Schaap has some pretty icky teachings and I would certainly not put him in any list of "reputable" teachers no less theologians.

Michelle - An interesting thread that you might want to read on Baptist Board is one called "KJVO" Beginnings dated March 29 of last year. Dr. Rice's grandson is involved in the discussion and it's very interesting coming from someone who lived through the KJVO controversy.

Michelle - Don't I remember you really liking John MacArthur? How do you reconcile that to your KJVO stance? He obviously doesn't take the same position.

Michelle said...

I'm familiar with the thread.

As for MacArthur, or anyone who isn't KJV only, I've never once stated that you can't be saved reading the other versions. Or that you're going to you know where if you don't read the KJV. It's not a salvation issue.

Oh and I haven't really been listening to him lately.

And I do know that the men in my list are respected preachers. And very learned men.

Sheree said...

We can still enjoy authors and theologians just because we don't agree with them. I enjoy your blog even though I don't agree with you...same basic concept.
You can respect and like someone and enjoy them without agreeing.

Thankyou Michelle for posting the list. I appreciate it.

I am going to bow out of the discusion now, because there is nothing that I feel I can say that will affect you feelings on this Ann. I see no point in frustrating myself or anyone else with a discussion that ends in both of us hitting a brick wall. I respect you enough not to want that.

Mamame said...

Michelle - They might be respected pastors in the KJVO arena but I can say that they are not in the rest of the Christian world.

Sheree - That's fine that we're going to disagree on this. I'm just trying to post MY understanding of the issue and having a place to post my own thoughts on this. I also do not like to see something that is not true being passed on as truth - I know you've seen that on PH and I still feel strongly about such things. Some things are not important but if it's in error according to Scripture, then I'll speak on it.

Thursday's Child said...

I'm going to weigh in with Ann on this one. Partly because I agree with her and partly because she's outnumbered. LOL

I think when she mentioned "well respected theologians" she meant those who through the centuries have been respected and admired across denominations. There are theologians who manage to speak to all people at some point and time. None of these have claimed that only the KJV (or any other Bible for that matter) is the only correct text.

While the pastors that Michelle mentioned may be very well-respected pastors, they just aren't too well known outside their particular spheres.

I know I'm a life-long Lutheran but I've read websites and belonged to Christian forums, etc. where people of different Christian traditions have influenced me a lot (some for the better, some not) and I've never heard of these names before. While I have heard of theologians other than Luther, such as Wesley, Knox, Spurgeon, etc, and I enjoy listening to MacArthur even if I don't always agree with him on matters of doctrine. I tend to trust the more time-tested writers but also the more widely known and respected current scholars.

I'm not saying these pastors aren't as capable or as knowledgable, just not as widely known and not particularly time tested. (I'm assuming they're contemporary scholars. Correct me if I'm wrong.)

I hope I've presented my case respectfully to all of you. If I've inadvertently offended anyone, please forgive me. I love all 3 of you sisters.

Prairiehomemaker said...

The bottom line for me is, studying them side by side, I see no difference other than semantic word use. The doctrines are still there.
Sin is still called sin, salvation is still achieved through Christs death on the cross. All the commands to the church are all in there.
That is what is important. I still study all o them side by side.
Hugs
mel

Sheree said...

I am leaving this comment here since I have no other way to comment on something you said. This is a c&p from another blog you posted on:

quote from ann:
Sometimes a blog is the only way to discuss an issue and to shut down one side is pretty childish, IMO
It does seem unfair to not be able to address what others are saying in their blogs - to not even see the blog unless you are "approved" to see it, yet they can come and comment on your own and say stuff. In my experience, those who shut down their blogs to the public tend to be those who are close-minded and do not want to hear the other side. They've made up their minds and they don't want to hear what could possibly challenge their ideas.
end quote.

I don't know if you are referring to me or not, but since I recently went private and also recently commented on your blog, I will assume so.
I would like to say that I did not come to your blog to argue. I came to read because I enjoy it. I am sorry you feel that my comments were meant to be arguementative (although I did say I wasn't going to argue because we are both set in our opinion so argueing would be useless for us). My blog is private not so that I can have everyone agree with me..there are many who disagree with me on many subjects. I went private for 2 reasons. The first was because my first blog was receiving nasty comments from memebers of your favorite message board consistently being nasty for the last couple weeks that I had it open. Once I let the issues go, the others didn't. I decided to start a new blog that, reason #2, didn't have all the ill feelings that my old one did.
Being private keeps those ugly people from following me and also opens up the door for more private people to comment who chose not to before and it also protects them from those nasty commenters as well. I actually enjoy being private though I do miss alot of folks who read my first one.
I guess my point is that while I might comment on one person's blog does not mean that I go back to my own private blog and make a post about the same thing for a group who senselessly agree...my readers are of vast and varied opinions and aren't afraid to say so...so rest assured that I am not over at my blog commenting about anyone else's.
I do apologize for commenting on your blog since it bothers you that mine is private and you can not...retaliate? or return the favor...or whatever.
And since this is the only way i have to contact you, I put it here...as blog author you can delete it or leave it..as is your choice.

Mamame said...

Sheree - The comments on Mel's blog are not addressed at you. I do get bothered by blogs going private for reasons other than being able to post private things about family and such. I'm being careful about what I post on my blog so far because of the fact that it's public. What I don't get it shutting down someone from commenting on a blog - yet commenting on that person's blog about the same thing. I've had comments that disagreed with me and I'm going to post them because I know that there's no other format for me to see them and respond to them. I'm OK with using my blog as a format for discussion even if I don't agree with the comment. We run a small circle around here - many of us know each other and have had dealings with each other for a number of years now. However without common boards or lists, the blog is the only way to communicate and comment. But I would expect that it should be allowed both ways.

Sheree said...

I do understand that, Ann. But at the same time, there are reasons for going private that aren't always just to get one's own way. I went private simply because I was tired of the nasty comments that just never stopped after I left PH. They literally continued until I put the blog private. There is no one invited to see my old blog, I simply am not ready to delete it yet. I did start a new blog and would happily invite you if I had your email addy.
That invite is for anyone actually who wants to read, I have yet to refuse to give an invite. The thing is that sometimes you have to move on and let go (not you specifially but you in general) and there were some who just not willing to let that happen. It isn't fair to me or any of the folks who do enjoy reading my blog to have to deal with that, and sure, I did enable the comment moderation, but *I* still had to look at the comments and they were not pretty and all it did was upset me. This way, I am able to move on without the ugliness. I am finding that I am also able to be much more free and open with what I post about me and my family, and some of my readers are much more free to comment as well.
I don't know why others take their blogs private, but as I said, anyone is welcome to read as long as they just let me know they want to, kwim? This just enables me to remove troublemakers all together rather than just deleting their comments.
I hope that makes sense? I didn't do it to be selfish or cruel or to get folks who only agree with me because that isn't what I want.I mean, its not about "hand choosing" who reads, its about keeping out the ones who can't play nice.

As I said, anyone who wants to read what I write, just drop me an email at fiveyounguns@yahoo.com and I will happily send one.