A BIT O' HISTORY
In the time of Jesus, there were liberals and conservatives, too. The Sadducees believed only in the material world. No spirit world, no afterlife, no resurrection. The Pharisees believed in all that Hebrew Bible had to say about the afterlife, resurrection, angels, and the spirit world. But then they went further. Not only did they believe in the Hebrew Bible, they also believed in the Oral Torah. Oral Torah was a set of oral traditions. The Hebrew Bible was the Written Torah. The Sadducees were idealogical descendants of the famous priest of Daviddic times, Zadok. They were aristocratic and wealthy. The Pharisees appealed to the lower classes, the every day man. Their name told you what they were about. It meant those who practiced holiness, those who separated themselves.(1) They were very like the theological conservatives of today. The Sadduces called themselves Israelites who loved the Torah, but felt free to pick and choose the Torah doctrines they wished to believe. They are like today's liberals.
AND TODAY?
Fast forward to today and visit the issue of Bible translations. On the one hand, we have those who have almost no regard for the sanctity of Scripture. The most important thing in translation philosophy to these folks is whether or not some folks like the translation. The big issue these days is gender. Instead of simply translating the Scripture in a straightforward and honest way, translators are sometimes actually instructed to shade the text to make it seem that men and women have the same role or that God is just as feminine as masculine.(2) They call this "gender neutral" translation. This is a lie.
More conservative folks believe the Scripture is inviolable, sacred. Translation is to be as literal as possible, as accurate to the text as possible. This much is good. Some however, like the Pharisees, add to Scripture. The Pharisees added the Oral Torah to the Written Torah, the Hebrew Bible. Some conservatives go beyond holding to a standard of straightforward, accurate translation without agenda. They have decided that a traditional translation is the only translation that can be used by real Christians. They have added their tradition to Scripture.
CHOICES YESTERDAY AND TODAY
So which of these two groups is closer to the truth? Neither is really biblical. One discards biblical ethics regarding the Scripture. The other honors the inviolability of Scripture. They just add a specific rule about exactly which translation to use and insist we all agree it's better than all others. It, in fact, is the Word of God in English, in their view..
Being a conservative Christian who affirms the inerrancy, sufficiency, necessity, and practical value of Scripture, I have long held a sympathy for the King James Only movement. I don't agree with them. I thought that they are trying to preserve the truth, but in a ham-handed way.
I WAS WRONG
Here's how I decided that. It took two definite steps.
The first step was biblical and logical. Biblically, it's evident in both Testaments that God disapproves of those who add to the rules and laws God has already placed on His people, just as much as those who discard part or all of them. Logically, if the answer to a math problem is missed, does it matter that my wrong answer was too high or too low? In most cases, no. And if God gives ten commandments, is it better to keep only eight or to keep all ten and add two of my own? Both disregard God's commandments. One says God is too harsh. The other says He's not harsh enough. Don't both implicitly criticize God?
For the last several years these thoughts have been rolling in my bald head and I can't find a way to excuse one while condemning the other. Indeed, in Deuteronomy 4 adding to God's words is condemned right along with taking some away. Both are wrong. Jesus, in Mark 7, confronted the Pharisees about the unbiblical requirement to baptize one's hands. Both the Sadducees and Pharisees hated Him. Romans 14 and Galatians both prohibit adding rules that aren't biblical.
A GREAT IRONY AND AN AWFUL DANGER
There's a great irony in the King James Only Movement. While they see themselves as preserving the Scripture, they aren't. They don't have all that much to do with the Scripture. Their rules actually prohibit them from studying the Scriptures, or at least from studying it well. For most of them, studying the languages isn't necessary. The KJV is inerrant and totally accurate, they say. This leads to a radical laziness. Biblical scholarship is limited to the study of the KJV. They steadfastly refuse to lift an finger to learn the languages so they can do proper exegesis. Further, in my experience most KJVO pastors simply aren't intellectually equipped to learn the languages. This, too, is sin. The leadership is to be made of men able to teach. And, yes, the KJV says so--II Timothy 2:22-24. Their pastors are mostly ignorant of the Scripture they say they are preserving and honoring. In my experience most don't even know the KJV all that well. I recently asked a KJVOer what he knew about the Divine Name. His answer had to do with "theos", the Greek word for God. He didn't even know the Divine Name. It's in the KJV, just like all good translations and "theos" isn't it.
How can purposeful ignorance be worship and obedience of the God of truth?
The King James Only Movement is a microcosm of something hideous in conservative Protestantism. This serpantine monster is a modern Phariseeism, the hubris that sneaks into a life or a group and adds rules God hasn't given us as if He'd forgotten them. This monster is dangerous. It can send you to hell while convincing you you're more righteous than anyone you know.
Conservatism is a term that tells you just what it is. Whether it's in politics, religion, or one's personal finances, it's an effort to conserve something valuable. It's a good thing.
That is, unless the thing conserved isn't all that valuable. And what if it's downright harmful or evil? That kind of conservativism has no place in the life of one who wishes to follow Christ. There is only one thing a Christian is to preserve, the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Nothing else. Pharisees add things.
It's easy to point out that the liberals are lying to us. They claim to be Christian, but deny the very doctrines of Scripture that have defined Christianity for 2000 years. It's a no brainer.
But can a good conservative be lying? Surely one intent on preserving truth and all the doctrines that make real Christianity can't be dishonest. Perhaps they are mistaken.Well, how did Christ deal with the Pharisees? Did He try to correct their mistakes or did He call them sinful? He called them sinful. The King James Only Movement is a sinful movement, just like the liberal movement along with their so-called gender neutral movement. Both are lying and both are liars. The KJVOers are no better than those twisting the Scripture to make gender points. The liberals want to discard God's commandments about the inviolability and sanctity of Scripture. The KJVOers keep those commandments and then add a few. You have to read only the KJV and you have to affirm the inerrancy of that translation. And with some you have to affirm the inerrancy of the underlying Greek text of the KJV New Testament, the Textus Receptus. None of these rules are in Scripture.
RIGHT UP TO DATE--THE SECOND STEP
Recent experience has confirmed what the Scripture says in regard to the danger in a godless, unbiblical conservatism, a conservatism of white knuckles and black souls. There is no such thing as a separation between our theology and our conduct. Creeds are deeds and deeds are the natural fruits of our creeds, Rick Warren not withstanding. Romans 12:2. KJVOers hold to a false doctrine. Can they hold to a lie and not be liars as I had once thought?
Not that long ago, right here on this blog a liberal named Frank Turk lied. He pretended to know the languages. He was defending gender-altered translations. This isn't surprising. Liberals lie. However, in the last few days, I've interacted on Facebook with a few KJVOers. They were calling anyone who uses other translations things like heretic and corrupt and accused me of denying the deity of Christ. One pretended to know all about textual criticism and actively plagiarized other websites, posting entire paragraphs as if he'd written them. Another pretended to know Hebrew. Yes, they lied and they lied a lot and they didn't seem embarrassed when I caught them. AND they didn't see the irony of lying in defense of truth.
Proverbs says this about those who add rules in addition to those given:
Do not add to His words Lest He reprove you, and you be proved a liar--Proverbs, chapter 30, verse 6. In other words, adders are liars.
I'm a slow learner.
Be holy,
Phil Perkins.
(1) Johnson, Paul; A History of the Jews; Harper and Rowe; New York; 1987; pp. 100-109.
(2) Holy Bible, New Revised Standard Version; Thomas Nelson Publishers; Nashville, TN; in the "To the Reader" section.
Posts
