Why I am no longer KJVO

07-14-2008, 04:16 PM

Hi all:

I used to be KJVO for the last couple of years ... I'm not here to make trouble, just to share with you some thoughts that I've had which has moved me from KJVO to KJVE (KJV-excellent) ...

If I'm not mistaken, God created earthly representations of heavenly/spiritual realities - e.g. carrying the Ark through the desert represents Christ's in the desert, animal sacrifices for Christ's sacrifice, the tabernacle as a model of heaven, etc. I have probably crossed over into some eisegesis below, but if there are clear earthly/spiritual metaphors in Scripture, could not the metaphor possibly be extended to the Scripture itself?

First; We are told in John that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." As I'm sure we would all agree here, Christ Jesus is the Word, and He is God. Jesus Christ is Perfection. God, through the indwelling of His Holy Ghost in a human host, Mary, gave birth to the Living Word, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

In the same manner, the Scriptures in the Original Manuscripts, as penned by the prophets, apostles, etc. "which the Holy Ghost" (1Cr 2:13) taught, were "given by inspiration of God" (2Ti 3:16) as they were "moved by the Holy Ghost" (2Pe 1:21). God, through the indwelling of His Holy Ghost in human hosts, gave birth to the written Word, the Scriptures in the Original Manuscripts.

Second; The Lord appointed 12 men to be his closest disciples, the apostles. Eleven were faithful witnesses. One, Judas Iscariot, was not.

Similarly, the Original Manuscripts were copied, and most have been identified as belonging in two textual families. First is the Byzantine Text, loosely synonymous with the Majority Text. Second is the Alexandrian Text, itself loosely synonymous with the Minority, or Critical Text. This latter Text is also associated with Egypt, which, in my understanding, is a model for the Earth as a whole (as opposed to Israel, a model for Heaven). Is the Majority Text a representation for the faithful majority of the apostles, and the Minority Text for the unfaithful Judas (who may have appeared to be faithful, on the surface)? Wescott and Hort, the "fathers" of the Minority/Critical Text, insisted on treating Scripture like any other ancient (human) text, and in the process denied recognition of the supernatural in the Written Word. So did Judas when he denied recognition of the supernatural in the Living Word.

Third; Taking a grand view of Christian history, and based on a Dispensational view of the Seven Church Ages in Revelation, the Ephesus age would be the early church/Apostolic age wherein most were faithful. The Smyrnan age was where Christians were being persecuted. The Pergamos Age represents the rise of the Roman Catholic Church where paganism and idolatry were commingled with the truth. Thyatira represents the Dark Ages, Sardis the Reformation, Philadelphia the rise of (conservative & faithful) Evangelical Christianity, and Laodicea the modern age where ecumenism (commingling of falsehood with truth) reigns. "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction." (2Pet)

Now we see a similar development of Scriptural/Textual transmission throughout history; In the early church era (Ephesus/Smyrnan), the Byzantine/Majority text was generally used throughout the Christian World at the time. With the growth and establishment of the Roman Catholic Church (Pergamos/Thyatira), we see truth mixed with apostasy in the predominant translation at the time: The Latin Vulgate, translated by Jerome from false books from the Old Latin (e.g. Manasses, etc.), from the Aramaic, Septuagint, and a mix of Byzantine (Majority) and Alexandrian (Minority) text types. During the Reformation (Philadelphia), generally the Byzantine/Majority Texts, and the Textus Receptus (as a representative) were used in most translations during that time, until Westcott and Hort. Thence onwards (Laodicea), we have Bible Societies attempting a form of ecumenism with textual criticism, yet generally upholding the Minority/Alexandrian Text. False prophets, and false teachers, anyone?

What does this all mean to me?

Just as Jesus is the only perfect Living Word of God, it is now my thought that the Original Scriptures are the only perfect Written Word of God. Jesus appointed twelve apostles, of whom one was apostate; in a similar sense, we have direct and faithful copies of the Original Scriptures in the form of the Majority/Byzantine Text, and unfaithful ones in the Minority Text. The unfaithful apostle, and the unfaithful Text, may appear on some level to be faithful on the surface, but in the details are apostate. The faithful apostles transmitted their faith to their disciples, and to their disciples after that, and so forth, to the modern age. In the same vein, we have copies of the Original and copies of the copies, etc. today. All mankind, even true disciples, are fallible; yet at the same time, in God's grace we are still counted to be among the adopted in Christ. So too are the copies of the Scriptures; each may vary slightly in difference, yet all may be counted to be the Word of God. How are we to distinguish between a true Christian and a false prophet? "Ye shall know them by their fruits" (Mt 7:16), and so, the Written Word and copies as well. We witness the bold and faithful men of God in the Sardis and Philadelphian ages overflowing with fruit while they utilized the Majority/Byzantine Text and their translations. Shouldn't we do the same?

Should I prefer the Textus Receptus over the Byzantine/Majority Text? If the metaphors and representations I've outlined above holds true, then wouldn't it be like saying "I am of Paul; and another, I [am] of Apollos", that is, following one apostle and diminishing the others? Note that at the Council at Jerusalem, we see that a decision was made, not between one apostle and the Holy Spirit, but by the collective agreement and judgment of all of the apostles as they were led by God. Continuing the metaphor, should we not consider the collective agreement reading between the Majority/Byzantine text types (including the Textus Receptus)?

Should I elevate and enthrone the KJV above other translations and original language manuscripts and yes, even the Original themselves? Not if I wouldn't elevate a Gentile human (Pope?) over the Jewish King and God.

What about the fact that the Lord states that "Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever" (Ps 12:7). Well, it's not clear from the verse as to where God will preserve His Word. In Psa 119:89 the Lord says that "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." Perhaps, just as the Living Word is settled in heaven right now, His perfect, preserved Original is also in heaven?

I believe that the KJV is a faithful and true translation, by faithful and wise men of God, of a faithful and true representative (Textus Receptus) of the Majority/Byzantine Text, which, itself is a faithful witness to the Original. This is why I will continue to use the KJV as my primary translation. However, I will not diminish other faithful Byzantine/Majority Text translations, as, it seems to me, that they should also be faithful branches growing from the common Root."we shall be like him" 1 John 3:2

Post Script:
What I have written above is the products of my own thoughts and in prayer with God, and is currently a rough draft. I apologize in advance for any errors; they are wholly mine, and I encourage you to reveal and deconstruct them.

Blessings in Christ Jesus,
Jonathan (jondarien@hotmail.com)

Menu