Nuts and Bolts 007: The King James Only Movement

Like much of fundamentalist “argument” this KJV only rests on argument without any facts. To merely say it is the “one God endorses” is to say not anything at all. I have tried to get to the bottom of this for years, and have come to only one conclusion–the KJV offers a translation that says what the reader wants to find–support for his/her own personal opinion on things. Otherwise, seemingly intelligent people cannot simply refuse to consider the actual EVIDENCE to the contrary. But that is what is true of fundamentalism in general–it’s all wrapped in psychological need as opposed to actual critical thinking.

I guess it is more accurate to call The Message a paraphrase. Sorry.

Geoff wrote-

“We need ALL the tools available to us to make sense of Scripture”

We need many of the tools we have been given, but not all of the tools available. Some tools are counter-productive.

Here’s what Spurgeon had to say on the matter, and I think he hit the mark.

“But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.’ (John 14:26)

There are different meanings of the Greek word ‘paraclete’, which is translated here as “Comforter”. Early translators employed transliteration, having left the original word in the Greek but translated it into or alphabet to form the word ‘paraclete’. As a name of the Holy Spirit, ‘Paraclete’ has some other meanings besides “comforter”. Frequently it means “monitor”, “teacher”, or “instructor.” Often it means “advocate,” but the most common meaning of the word is “comforter.” Still, we can’t pass over those other meanings without saying something about them.

“Holy Spirit as Teacher”-
Jesus Christ had been the official instructor of His saints while He was on Earth. They called no man Rabbi except Christ. They sat not at the feet of men to learn their doctrines, but they heard them directly from the lips of Him who spoke as no other man has ever spoken. When Christ was to leave, where would people find another infallible teacher? Should they go to a Pope in Rome to be their infallible oracle? Should they lean on the councils of the church to decide all knotty points? Christ said no such things.

‘And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another comforter, that he may abide with you forever’. (John 14:16)

Inserting the name of Instructor for Comforter, we can see Christ prayed for us to be sent another Instructor to be the person to explain Scripture, to be the authoritative oracle of God, who will make all dark things light, who will unravel mysteries, who will untwist all knots of revelation, and who will make you understand what you could not discover had it not been for His influence. No man ever learns anything correctly unless he is taught by the Spirit. No man can know Jesus Christ unless he is taught by God.”

I’m probable getting off subject. Humble tradesman out.

Mjason, you wrote,

“Inserting the name of Instructor for Comforter, we can see Christ prayed for us to be sent another Instructor to be the person to explain Scripture, to be the authoritative oracle of God, who will make all dark things light, who will unravel mysteries, who will untwist all knots of revelation, and who will make you understand what you could not discover had it not been for His influence. No man ever learns anything correctly unless he is taught by the Spirit. No man can know Jesus Christ unless he is taught by God.”

I’m probable getting off subject. Humble tradesman out.”

I do not think that anyone actually disagrees with this. What everyone disagree with is that “being taught by God” somehow necessarily excludes “being taught by scholarship, commentaries, tools, ministers etc.”

I think it was said best in a hermeneutics book I read years ago. Who is more presumptuous: the person who who spends years reading and learning what other people have said about the Bible and how to understand the Bible, or the person who feels he has such a good connection with the Holy Spirit that he need not know what the Holy Spirit has revealed to others?

Daniel Wallace offers some interesting insight into the Comma Johanneum.

This longer reading is found only in eight late manuscripts, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these manuscripts (2318, 221, and [with minor variations] 61, 88, 429, 629, 636, and 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest manuscript, codex 221 (10th century), includes the reading in a marginal note which was added sometime after the original composition. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek manuscript until the 1500s; each such reading was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the reading appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either manuscript, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until AD 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant, since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. The reading seems to have arisen in a fourth century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church.

SOURCE

I just don’t understand how people can cling to the KJV in the face of such publicly accessible and clear evidence! It’s such dogmatism and wilful blindness.

Glenn was blocking my posts from “Andrew Patrick” and my email address. If this posts with the different name and email link, that’s proof. Rather, it seems that Glenn will cannot tolerate to face the evidence on the 1 John 5:7 issue.

That has to be your most dishonest stunt yet, Glenn.

OK people, let’s have this out once and for all on 1 John 5:7. Now, assuming Glenn hasn’t blocked this by site, this may get posted, and if so, the original post will follow in the same manner.

It seems that you are vindicated, Glenn. You were not carrying through on your bluster, unless WordPress grants you some sort of control to ban posts with specific text, or of a certain length. I apologize.

Yet, you should know better to taunt with words like:

I think the KJV-only movement is guilty of this kind of bias, and the way they handle (or do not handle) the evidence surrounding the Comma is a classic case of just that.

If you fight on this, you shall lose.

Anyway, here’s the first half of the previous post that I thought Glenn was blocking. Maybe it will post in parts:

* * *

Hello people.

In an attempt to introduce myself, it seems that Glenn is specifically trying to target me with this blog article. From another blog, he noticed that I used the King James text as an example of the classic “to day shalt thou be with me in paradise” and he started trying to assign a label of “KJV-Only” to me.

The relevant background for this discussion can be found at these two pages:

http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/index.php/luke-2343-and-soul-sleep/comment-page-1/#comments

http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/index.php/luke-2343-and-soul-sleep/comment-page-2/#comments

Now that the background context of his blog article is realized, I would address some of these statements on their merits. There is really too much to address all at once, but since there has been so much smack-talk about “serious scholarship in theological and biblical studies” let’s address Erasmus, the Textus Receptus, and 1 John 5:7.

After all, Glenn brought up the subject, and it should be able to be discussed entirely outside of any accusations of “King James Onlyism.” Unless, of course, Glenn was trying to associate anyone who might quote 1 John 5:7 as an “intellectual black hole” that shouldn’t be ever “seriously considered.”

Glenn has made several false irresponsible statements on this sub-topic alone. I shall try to avoid speculating on his motives, but I will list several examples:

Example one:

The “received text” or Textus Receptus is the name given to the Greek New Testament, compiled by Erasmus, from which the KJV was translated.

By itself, this might seem like a harmless error, but it shows sloppy scholarship, and considering the bald-faced arrogance already shown, it shall not pass. Thirty seconds with Google (or any decent book on the subject) would have provided this information.

From http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_48.asp
“It is Beza’s edition of 1598 and Stephanus edition of 1550 and 1551 which were used as the primary sources by the King James translators.”

If you don’t trust Chick tracts, go to any of the other umpteen sources you get from Google. I chose that one at random. I am not personally fond of Chick tracts (and that is an understatement.)

At this point it is hard to evaluate what he means by the rest of his paragraph… is he referring to the text used for the translation of the Authorized Version, or does he mean the text compiled by Erasmus?

(to be continued…)

Mjason,

Sorry. I misread your post as an endorsement of Spurgeon.

So anyone who presents alternative views is “lying”? Andrew, seriously, when you resort to rejecting alternative views that way you just confirm what I suspect of KJV-only advocates. As for your talk of “a raving bigot that worships their own intellect” – this alone is sufficient reason to simply roll my eyes and ignore you forever. You’re obviously not serious about listening to anyone, any more than you think I am. Just look at the way you carry on!

You’ve spent considerable time reproducing the way that you would respond to an argument that nobody has made here, an argument about Codex Montfortanius. But I don’t see why you would do this when nobody has mentioned it.

Looking at your citations from the fathers, they appear to confirm what I have seen, namely that the specific verse is only evidenced from Latin sources from the fourth century. Cyprian does not quote the verse at all, as you know, and may well be simply drawing on the allegory that Wallace speaks of, which eventually found its way into Latin copies of the Epistle. So as far as Patristic evidence goes, your evidence conforms to Wallace’s claim nicely. So much for that attack on his character as a liar.

But that really only leaves your appeal to Codex Wizanburgensis. However, you used this as a counter example when someone had referred to the lack of early Greek Witnesses. But this is not a Greek witness, so I fail to see the point of this appeal. Perhpas this resource might assist you. Note in particular:

NOTE: Some KJV-only writers claim that there is a Greek manuscript named “Codex Wizanburgensis” that contains the Comma. But that is an 8th century Latin Vulgate manuscript, not Greek. Thanks to Jan Kraus, who located it, we know that it is “nr. 99 in the Weisenburg collection in the Herzog August library in Wolfenbuttel (‘Codex Guelferbytanus 99 Weissenburgenis’). It is the so-called ‘Weissenburg Augustine’, containing homilies by Augustine, in which also the Catholic Epistles, the Letters to Timothy, Titus and Philemon, and some other works are found…”
Kraus concludes: “It provides no more than an interesting part of the rather wild latin-only transmission of the gloss.”

You obviously didn’t know this. Now you do. Rather than fly off the handle and accuse you of lying, as you unfairly did to Wallace, I will simply ask that now that you realise this, you change your mind about extant Greek manuscripts that contain this Comma.

Will you?

Addendum:

Wallace wrote:

Indeed, the reading appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either manuscript, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until AD 1215…

The full text of 1 John 5:7 can also be found in Greek lectionaries 60 and 173. These are indeed “Greek witnesses” even if they are not complete codices.

Lectionary 60 dates to 1021 A.D.
Lectionary 173 older, dating to the tenth century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lectionary_60
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lectionary_173
http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/1john5n7.html

Finally, there are at least two Greek lectionaries (early didactic texts usually containing copious scriptural citations) in which the Comma appears (Lectionaries #60 and #173).

This does technically contradict the statement by Wallace.

Glenn,

You wrote quite a long paragraph explaining how your use of theological slurs, labeling, haphazard categorizing, and inflammatory language does not make you a religious bigot. Yet, I have nothing to judge you by except your actions and your words. If you want to be seen as fair and objective, start acting fair and objective.

Your response indicates that you are anything but fair and objective. You have refused to do basic research, even from links that have been put in front of you. This is the mark of one who is scholastically deficient, not of someone who is truly sincere in willing to look at all the evidence.

Additionally, some of your responses lead me to question your rational or intellectual capacity, or even your honesty. The most reasonable (and least accusing) explanation for these are prejudice and bias. I will demonstrate by example:

Glenn wrote:

First off, we (now) agree, it seems – or at least you’re prepared to agree – that there are no Greek NT manuscripts that contain the Comma prior to the late date that Wallace refers to. You’re now ready to accept that he was right after all.

Absolutely not, Glenn, and you should know better.

1) Surely you understand the difference between “there are no manuscripts [fitting said criteria]” and “we are not aware of any surviving manuscripts [fitting said criteria].”

This shows me that you are either careless in your wording, or biased to where it affects your judgment. A third option might be that you are deficient in the area of mathematical reason.

Notice that Wallace at least worded his statement correctly:
“This longer reading is found only in eight late manuscripts…”

Although… Wallace forgot to mention that almost all the Greek manuscripts containing 1 John are considered “late manuscripts.”

2) Did you forget that I just demonstrated how Wallace made a false statement in post 24, and I have also maintained that his conclusions that he presents as fact are erroneous and without basis in fact (in the same paragraph, no less?) You do not have my specific agreement, and you shall receive no blanket endorsement of Wallace from me.

The way you phrased your question, it seems you were prepared to take any agreement and try to portray it as a blanket endorsement. You cannot change his statement after I’ve proven him wrong, and then ask me to agree with what he supposedly “meant” to say. I shall not say he is a liar, but he does make false statements.

Glenn wrote:

As for this “Codex Montfortanius” business, I never said “straw man,” but it’s certainly a wasted argument here because nobody is making the argument … that you want to rebut concerning that manuscript. I should have been clearer in my description of Erasmus’ inclusion of the Comma. Yes, it existed in a manuscript that was provided to him, but he knew better. That’s what I was getting at – he knew that it did not belong, and he only included it when objectors provided him with a Greek text that included it.

It was Codex 61, written by a friar named Roy (or Froy) from Oxford that was then quickly provided (produced?) and given to Erasmus, ensuring the inclusion of the Comma in the third edition.

Now you are repeating the myth. You just protested that no one was making the argument, and then you go and use it yourself, with scarcely a pause. I don’t think you are even familiar with your own argument.

“Most certainly knew better?” That was a dishonest accusation, Glenn, and certainly one that has no basis in fact or evidence. Even a basic reading of the statements of Erasmus demonstrates that he knew it was a legitimate reading, but had not included it because he lacked the Greek text.

Glenn wrote:

Second, we agree that absolutely none of the early Greek fathers quoted the Comma.

Absolutely not.

This, again, is a demonstration of the mathematical fallacy of failing to recognize the difference between surviving evidence and actual fact. You are employing a form of sophistry.

It is quite possible that many Greek fathers quoted the text of 1 John 5:7 both in normal speech and in their writings. It would be correct to say that we are not aware of any surviving evidence in the writings of early Greek fathers.

Do you understand the difference? I am being objective and implementing basic mathematical reasoning. Your statement is irrational and depends upon an illogical assumption that we have access to every statement spoken or written by every Greek father.

This assumption of yours seems to be fueled by prejudice and bias.

Glenn wrote:

Third, we agree none of the Latin Fathers who use the phrase found in the Comma and who clearly quote it in any context until the fourth century.

Glenn, this is an absolutely false statement, and considering what you are responding to, your claim of “agreement” is totally dishonest. You know full well that we have no such agreement.

I just finished citing Cyprian [a Latin Father] who cited the text in question in the context of scripture in 285 A.D. Check, and double check, this contradicts your claim of “agreement.”

Glenn continued:

That brings us to Cyprian, from the late third century. As you know – since you quoted him – he never quotes the Comma (which is why we must agree that no Fathers quoted it until the fourth century).

Again, what is with these absolutely false statements? You have an observable habit of saying “As you know” and then inserting a statement which your opponent has just demonstrated is false, and then pretending that your version was agreed upon all along.

Additionally, you failed to address any of the material points concerning his quotation from 1 John 5:7:
1) It is given in the context of scripture
2) It is prefaced with the same authoritative prefix used by Paul and Christ of “it is written”
3) Additionally, he specified that “again” indicating that it was written in the same sense as his preceding scriptural quote from John

As a substitute, you have substituted a fanciful story that lacks any sort of basis in known fact. Is that what you call “serious scholarship?”

Glenn wrote:

Notice that Cyprian says that this was “written of” the Father, Son and Spirit. He doesn’t use it as a proof text that states that the Father, Son and Spirit. He believes that it refers to them.

No, he first says “the Lord says” and quotes John 10:30 and then immediately follows with “also it is written” and quotes from 1 John 5:7.

Your introduction of the claim that Cyprian is attempting to “prove” the “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” is a straw man argument, and irrelevant to the point at hand.

It is hard to believe the acrobatics you will go through to try to claim Cyprian is not saying what he is saying. If I understand your argument correctly, it seems that you are claiming that Cyprian is instead referring to the 1 John 5:6, even though there is no reference to anything in 1 John 5:6.

Again, I cannot be sure what you are saying, but I think if you actually came out and stated your theory succinctly instead of dodging around it would look plenty silly.

Summarizing, your response was intellectually dishonest (it failed to address any of the material points I had raised) and your counter-theory was not grounded in facts or evidence. You have not convinced me that you have set aside your prejudice, or that you are attempting to be objective.

Glenn wrote:

So while you seem absolutely certain that Cyprian must have been referring to the Comma, you’ll have to agree that he never quotes it, and can easily be seen as evidencing a move from interpretation to text in what Kraus called the “wild Latin-only transmission” of this gloss (which is what I take it to be).

You have no such agreement, and your failure to address any of the points I raised does not convince me of your sincerity.

Cyprian certainly does quote 1 John 5:7. What were you waiting for, a chapter and verse reference, like “(see I John 5:7)?” Are you forgetting that chapter and verse divisions are not part of the Greek text?

Glenn concludes with:

Of all the possible places from which to defend Textus receptus, the Comma is probably the worst.

Any amount of evidence is irrelevant when speaking with someone who has already prejudiced themselves against considering all evidence and reasonable conclusions.

You have not answered material points, you have failed to answer direct non-rhetorical questions, you give leading statements that misrepresent my position, you have neglected to research whole classes of supporting evidence, and your reasoning is biased and irrational.

If you were fair and objective and truly seeking to consider all evidence, we would be talking about Greek grammar by now.

And if we extended your reasoning fully, we would omit the entire text of 1 John from our Canon, seeing that it has only survived in a small minority (about 10%) of Greek manuscripts.

I will deal with one more erroneous statement from Wallace:

Wallace wrote:

This is all the more significant, since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity.

From this statement, I judge that Wallace is lacking in his theological, historical, and exegetical ability. I John 5:7 does not affirm the doctrine of the Trinity, rather it contradicts an opposing argument such as Arianism or Unitarianism.

I had requested (multiple times) that you avail yourself of information that you were lacking, and I provided two web pages. One of these was: http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/1john5n7.html

From our Trinitarian author:

As such, the Johannine Comma would not have been useful in dealing with these heretics. Indeed, saying that “these three are one”, is something to which the Sabellians would have agreed, though for a different reason than orthodox Trinitarians. Sabellians would just as willingly have cited the Comma to prove their position that the three were one in PERSON, not in essence. As such, there is no reason why any early patristic writer would have been inclined to find the Comma particularly useful against this particular heresy. We note that Tertullian, even at that early period in which he wrote, found it necessary to strenuously emphasise that the unity of the three in one was a unity of essence, not person. This is quite explicable in view of the fact that Tertullian was directing his arguments against Praxeas, who held to Monarchian theology. In general, though, the patristics probably would have been disinclined to rely upon these verses to defend the Orthodox view of the Trinity, as the verses could just as easily be turned back against them and twisted to support the Sabellian heresy.

We could also obtain supporting documentation from non-Trinitarian sources, including people that describe themselves as Unitarian and Monarchian. However, please remember that this discussion is about the integrity of our source text, not about its doctrinal ramifications.

It is obvious to me that you have not attempted to avail yourself of any of the relevant material to this discussion. Your entire aim seems to be to prevent any of the relevant evidence that would be required for considering a Greek minority reading from reaching the public discussion.

If you have convinced me of anything, it is that you are not sincere. I find this especially hypocritical considering you were just joining in in accusing so-called “King James Onlyists” of refusing to face the evidence, or being able to make rational decisions. You exhibit the exact same traits that your original blog condemned.

Why does the Majority Greek text demonstrate flawed grammar that is resolved when the full text of 1 John 5:7 is included? Are you prepared to say that you do not believe the original Greek text was inspired?

Since you will not answer material points, nor direct questions, and your statements lack basic logic, and you refuse to address the evidence at hand, this serves as a sufficient demonstration why these discussions usually get no where, because there is seldom an interest in an honest sincere discussion of the relevant evidence.

Proverbs 26:4-5

The thing about using Scripture to point out the speck in someone else’s eye is that it is akin to making yourself “The Holy Spirit”.

Ironically, Andrew claims that being called a “KJV-only’ist” is a slur, and yet a quick google search finds that Andrew calls HIMSELF a “KJV-inerrantist” which is, in effect, the PC way of saying the same thing. It just trying to remove the “baggage” that comes with the term “KJV-only’ist”. Of course, he will no doubt deny that, but that, in effect is proof that it is true.

The thing is, a KJV-only or a KJV-inerrancy adherent has an axe to grind, and that is evidenced in Andrew’s writings. Not only here, but on scribed, which you can find by googling his name. Honestly, I cant believe Glenn has wasted this much time.

well, for that reason I too am glad..

ah well.

(Better put some ice on your forehead, Glenn, from where you’ve been banging it on the wall….)

I somehow suspected that Glenn would still try to insert “the last word” even though he said he was exiting.

The claim that “manuscript evidence is against 1 John 5:7 is erroneous.” If Glenn hadn’t blown out his logic circuitry, we would have been able to address said evidence.

Glenn, you exited the debate with lies and accusations. You cannot now claim that you would have “won anyway” had we been able to continue and address the Old Latin (from AD 150), the full spectrum of quotations from early fathers, internal evidence, and the actual grammar of the Greek text in question.

Your proposed reading is an incorrect reading on its face and this is plain to see for anyone who can competently read Greek and who understands Greek grammar!

For Geoff,

I try to use words with precision. When I said I was a “King James Inerrantist” that means that I have been actively testing the King James translation for any instance of error for over ten years, and this probably constitutes far more serious testing and research than any one of these casual mockers have done. Thus, when I used this adjective, it means that when I say that I cannot find an error in the King James text, it is because I have actively tried to break it.

Glenn already demonstrated that the term “King James Onlyist” is used as a derisive slur, and is intentionally made so broad that it is not even useful as a descriptive. Obviously, I use quite a bit more than the King James text, and I probably avail myself of more translations that most of you here. Just drop the use of the slur. If you know it is offensive, why would you continue to use it?

I dare suggest that you have far less testing and evidence for your conclusions.

For Jared,

When I say that Glenn was lying about what I said, did you not go back and check the posts in question to determine the actual statement? Did you not notice that he was refusing to answer basic questions that would be required to proceed with a normal rational discussion? It is not fair to suggest that I have conjured unfair accusations when they are demonstratively true.

You asked when people started considering the Authorized translation as inerrant scripture. I have two answers for you. The first is that there are people who have commented (or complained) that the Authorized text has been treated as inerrant and inspired all the way back to when it was first produced. The second is that it doesn’t matter a bit if one is willing to test a claim on its merits.

That’s what I’m failing to see from this group: an ability to set aside their prejudices and judge a thing on its merits. I had to do this myself, so it’s not like I’m asking anything unreasonable.

But I am beginning to think that the lot of you are insane, when you call black white, and white black, when you applaud lies, and then accuse the person who objects about being lied about, when you slander people as being “unwilling to look at evidence” yet you yourselves are the ones unwilling to examine the basic elements involved in a challenge you started.

Coming back to this again: I don’t think there’s a one of you that has any clue what I’m talking about concerning the Greek grammar, and Glenn made sure he derailed the discussion so none of you could find out. I haven’t heard anyone else ask about it, so I am left to conclude that you don’t care about examining the evidence.

Well, I’m not going to dance to entertain a rigged game. If anyone cares, they can ask me directly (follow my web page for an email link) or you can start your own research from the links I provided.

-Andrew

When I said I was a “King James Inerrantist” that means that I have been actively testing the King James translation for any instance of error for over ten years

Uh-huh.

The AV rendering Sheol, Hades, and Gehenna all as “Hell” is an error. You (being someone who holds to conditional immortality) know this full well.

Please stop being dishonest.

My guess is that you’ll try to either 1. define “error” in a ridiculously narrow way, or 2. argue that two utterly different concepts like Sheol and Gehenna can be properly referred to by the same word.

I look forward to your rambling, five page reply to this. Bring your A game this time, junior.

Ron, don’t even get me started on some of the simply awful KJV choices in translating Greek and Hebrew words. How’s this for an unbelievably misleading statement about Jesus after his death and prior to his resurrection: “thou wilt not leave my soul in hell.”

This awful choice was certainly not made because they just spoke that way about people and graves. Dualists in 1611 knew what they meant by “soul” and pretty much everyone in english speaking Christendom had a concept of “hell” that was not the grave.

I am so grateful that some modern translations have delivered us from such attrocities.

Geoff mused:

KJV-onlyist is only a derisive slur if you think it is. I dont think it is, and I am sure Glenn does not either, I certainly dont use it that way. It is merely a term to describe a cult of people who approach Scripture in a certain way

Of all of the inane statements that one has got to really take the cake. You do realize that calling someone a “cult” is itself a theological slur? Since you will not define “approach Scripture in a certain way” this makes your evaluation impossible to evaluate.

You do not seem to have the courage or the integrity to define what you mean by that statement. But you’re not alone: neither did Glenn. He’s an expert at dodging questions. I still haven’t got an answer from him with whether he considers the text of the original Greek autographs to be inspired!

Ron rambled:

The AV rendering Sheol, Hades, and Gehenna all as “Hell” is an error. You (being someone who holds to conditional immortality) know this full well.

Please stop being dishonest.

Act 2:27 Tyndale
(27) because thou wilt not leve my soul in hell nether wilt suffre thyne holye to se corrupcio.

William Tyndale is on the record as being one of our most outstanding champions of what you call “Conditional Immortality.” William Tyndale rendered sheol, hades, tartarus, and gehenna as the English word hell. One could say that Tyndale agrees with the Authorized Translation, but it’s really more accurate to say that the Authorized Translation agrees with William Tyndale.

I think you should stop and learn what the English words “soul” and “hell” actually mean, before spouting any more nonsense. You have fallen into a trap of believing the lies of your enemy, and letting them re-define the words for their own advantage.

I am reminded of a joke, where two Kiwis are building a house. Every now and then one of them will reach into his bucket, and toss a nail over his shoulder.
“Wait a minute, what are you doing that for?” asks his friend.
“These nails are in error” says the first Kiwi. “Look, the head is on the wrong side of the nail!”
“You fool!” replied his friend. “Those are for the other side of the house!”

Truthfully, were the nails actually in error, or was it that the Kiwi did not properly understand the function of nails? Should we not be skeptical when someone comes up with a “solution” of nails with heads on both sides, so they can be used by Kiwis that can no longer be expected to know how to use these old-fashioned nails?

Stop throwing away the nails, and if you cannot figure out how to use them properly, at least save them for the other side of the house! And what was your suggestion? “Start introducing mythological places named “Hades” and “Sheol” into the scriptures?” Do you know what “Hades” actually means when used in normal English speech? It’s the abode of a Greek god who tortures its occupants! Even if you attempt to ignore this connotation, it remains a Place designated as a Proper Noun.

Ironically, right now I am engaged in a debate with an Eternal Conscious Torment Calvinist who has allowed that the language of my Authorized Text, as read in Modern English, uses language that completely annihilates the devil. He claims that his “modern translations” fixes this “problem” because his versions render the devil immortal and the eventual victim of Eternal Conscious Torment.

Maybe most of you have been too blinded by prejudice to see it, but the Authorized Text is the best translation you could have to prove “soul sleep” and “conditional immortality.”

I am also hearing unfounded claims from all sides that are ignorant of what they criticize. For example, Queen Elizabeth revised the laws of the church, ruling that their preachers should only preach what was in the Bible, and also removed the previous rule that required teaching the “immortal soul.” And if anyone here has ever read any of the writings of the King names James, you might find that he sounds a lot like modern day “Conditional Immortality” folks. And let’s not forget that 80% of the Authorized Text was first written by William Tyndale!

Of course, you will disbelieve this, because you are prejudiced, and you have your mind made up already, and you needn’t do any research. You call yourselves “true scholars.”

Eze 28:3 KJV
(3) Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee:

You don’t seem to have any proper concept of who your friends and enemies are in this field. Ron just called William Tyndale “dishonest” and accused him of purposely inserting translation errors to harm “Conditional Immortality.”

I suggest you all stop acting like “intellectual black holes” and try doing a little legitimate research for a change. Try figuring out what the word “soul” means, for example. You could try reading your Bible and observing the context in which it is used in the AV text (which would keep it free from “immortal soul” propaganda.)

http://www.titanic.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=thread&topic_id=1518&forum=3

How many poor souls perished on that bitterly cold clear night?

For that matter, the very existence of the term “immortal soul” demonstrates that the word “soul” does not indicate something immortal, which is why they have to attach the word “immortal” to it. In our example from the Titantic forum, it is acknowledged that souls perish. You all could benefit so much from learning basic vocabulary and grammar.

Likewise, why are you letting your opponents redefine a word like “hell” for you without so much as a fuss, instead of insisting that they use it in the fashion as it is used in our Bible? It is a well-recognized truism that the key to winning a debate is to define your terms. I let my Bible define its own terms. It works remarkably well this way.

Hell is where things are “cast out” and as such it usually represents death. It makes no difference whether this is the first death or the second death, because death is still the total annihilation of thoughts and consciousness regardless of the cause of death.

And according to the King James text, in death your actual thoughts perish (see Psalm 146:4.) Many modern versions change that to a simple perishing of “plans” to make it compatible with the “eternally conscious immortal soul.”

“It’s perfect in the King James, just the way they worded it,
It’s hell if it’s the gravedom, otherwise it’s grave or pit.”

“Peculiar Brother Bird”, author anonymous

If you don’t understand the author’s meaning here, think about it a little more closely. There is a slight difference between “grave” and “gravedom” even if the two words are related.

If you read your Bibles a little more closely, you’d understand how well this translation of hell works. You have none of the snags of presumed “intermediate locations” and the Old Testament integrates perfectly with the New. Likewise, if you read ahead to Revelation, it might actually make sense to you for a change:

Rev 20:14 KJV
(14) And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

I’m not sure if you caught that, so I’ll be clear. Hell is not a fire by itself, rather hell is going to be cast into the fire, and set on fire, during the day of judgment. Hell is closely linked with “death” as can be easily observed from its parallel structure in this verse. And when you combine “hell” and “fire” you get “hell fire.” This is so simple.

I am continually amazed at the unchristian behavior I see on this blog. You are acting like a pack of unashamed bigots: you rail and mock, you don’t even bother pretending to be open-minded, and then you actually brag about your ignorance.

And when I say that you brag about your ignorance, I mean it. I notice that still no one has attempted to read any version of 1 John 5:7 in the actual Greek. How is this that any of you have deluded yourselves into thinking that you have attempted to evaluate all the evidence?

Mat 5:21-24 Tyndale
(21) Ye have herde howe it was sayd vnto the of ye olde tyme: Thou shalt not kyll. For whoso ever kylleth shall be in daunger of iudgemet.
(22) But I say vnto you whosoever is angre with hys brother shalbe in daunger of iudgement. Whosoeuer sayeth vnto his brother Racha shalbe in dauger of a cousell. But whosoeuer sayeth thou fole shalbe in dauger of hell fyre.
(23) Therfore whe thou offrest thy gifte at the altare and their remembrest that thy brother hath ought agaynst the:
(24) leue there thyne offrynge before the altre and go thy waye first and be reconcyled to thy brother and then come and offre thy gyfte.

You have mocked the scriptural admonitions to go to your brother in private, and likewise I imagine you will ignore Christ’s words above in the same fashion. If your true nature is an accusing bigotry, and if you are unwilling to act like Christians, then I shall have no more fellowship with you (Ephesians 5:9-11.)

Andrew:

“You do realize that calling someone a “cult” is itself a theological slur?”

Odd words from someone who claims to like to use their english “correctly”.
“Cult” is a term that can refer to any religion, or subset of persons within a religion. Those of us who have studied the OT will have read countless times, scholars referring to the religion of Israel as “the cult of Israel”. They did not mean anything bad by it, its just a term to refer to their belief system.

In this case I CORRECTLY used the term to refer to a “subset of Christians” who believe (in an inaccurate/false/unorthodox manner) that the King James version of the Bible is inerrant/the only version that really contains God’s words.

Yet again, its not a term meant in a derogatory manner, its just an accurate, normal, descriptive term. Any baggage associated with it is purely on your side.

You just keep proving your bias over and over…

Geoff:

FYI, in America, the word cult is popularly used to refer to aberrant offshoot religions– similar to how the word sect is used in England (and I’m assuming other Commonwealth countries).

It is also used the way you mentioned, but in my estimation, less commonly, or only in certain contexts. I do think Andrew showed his bias by being hasty to assume you were using the pejorative, American sense of the word.

Anyway, just trying to save Andrew from typing up a ten page internet research paper replete with citations from urbandictionary.com

As much as I would love to ignore this flock of backbiting popinjays, this recent branch of misinformation that Glenn is spreading about William Tyndale needs to be put to rest:

Glenn wrote:

Unfortunately, William Tyndale rejected conditional immortality. Unless there’s an important source that I’m not aware of, he affirmed the torments of hell taught by the majority.

Have you ever tried looking at the phrase “conditional immortality” to figure out what it means? To cut to the chase, it stands in direct opposition to the doctrine of the “immortal soul.”

You seem to have neglected a very important resource. Like William Tyndale.

William Tyndale, from “An Answer to Sir Thomas More”

“The true faith putteth the resurrection, which we be warned to look for every hour. The heathen philosophers, denying that, did put that the souls did ever live. And the pope joineth the spiritual doctrine of Christ and the fleshly doctrine of philosophers together; things so contrary that they cannot agree, no more than the Spirit and the flesh do in a Christian man. And because the fleshly-minded pope consenteth unto heathen doctrine, therefore he corrupteth the Scripture to stablish it.”

What can we glean from this passage?
1) William Tyndale preached the resurrection
2) He considered this in direct opposition to the “immortal soul”
3) He credited the “immortal soul” to heathen philosophy
4) He said that the Pope consented to this heathen doctrine
5) He said that the Pope corrupted the scripture

It would be hard to find stronger words against the doctrine of “immortality of the soul” and Tyndale has now defined that when he speaks of the resurrection, this is “conditional immortality.”

I read the entire text of “An Answer to Sir Thomas More” several years ago, complete with the unusual sixteenth-century spellings, just to make sure these famous quotes were really there, and not taken out of context. It had all this, and much more.

Glenn wrote:

He did affirm soul sleep, however …

“He did affirm soul sleep?” You act like you’ve never read Tyndale at all. Tyndale did not merely “affirm” soul sleep. He actively preached it, and considered it part and parcel with the resurrection of the dead. “Soul sleep” is the heart of “conditional immortality.”

http://www.hol.com/~mikesch/luther-tyndale.htm

In 1529 More had strongly objected to the “pestilential sect” represented by Tyndale and Luther, because they held that “all souls lie and sleep till doomsday.”

Maybe you don’t understand this, but when a Christian says that death is a sleep, that is the essence of “conditional immortality.” The wages of sin is death, and the punishment of the lake of fire brings the second death.

John Calvin actively campaigned against William Tyndale and Martin Luther, and he understood the connection, which we can demonstrate from his special tract that he wrote against “the imaginary sleep of the soul.”

John Calvin wrote in his “Pychopannachia”:

And even the error itself has, I see, been aggravated. At first, some only vaguely alleged THAT THE SOUL SLEEPS, without defining what they wished to be understood by “sleep.” Afterwards arose those yucokonoi, who murder Souls, though without inflicting a wound. The error of the former, indeed, was not to be borne; but I think that the madness of the latter ought to be severely repressed.

Even through we are required to read through the hateful bias of John Calvin, it can be easily seen that the two concepts are not only connected, they are ultimately inseperable. When one seeks to prove “conditional immortality” the natural starting point is to define what the Bible means by “death.”

Continuing on I want to draw attention to his methods:

Both are unsupported by reason and judgment; but it is not so easy to persuade others of this without openly refuting their vanity, and exposing it, so to speak, to their face. This is only to be done by exhibiting it as it appears in their writings. They are said to circulate their follies in a kind of Tracts, which I have never happened to see. I have only received some notes from a friend, who had taken down what he had cursorily heard from their lips, or collected by some other means.

John Calvin admitted that although he could only refute this “nefarious herd of Anabaptists” by addressing their arguments as it appears in their writings, he then admits that he is answering without bothering to ever read any of their writings. That reminds me a lot of the Beretta blog, for some reason.

Glenn continued:

… (but I’m fairly sure he was a dualist nonetheless).

And what would that have to do with anything? You imply this as a slight. We are more than raw matter. Have you not read the scriptures?

God said:

Mat 10:28
(28) And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

1Th 5:23
(23) And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Jas 2:26
(26) For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

The scriptures use these terms, and they are not always synonyms.

Glenn wrote:

It’s a shame that he adopted the misleading language of his age with words like “hell” and “soul.” The modern translations are vastly superior on that score.

“Hell” is not misleading. It’s where you cast things out, it is how one refers to the realm of death, and it also means “unseen” or “covered” being derived from the Germanic “hel” and the Hebrew “sheol.”

When people start making up their own doctrines about the meaning of death, that is the source of confusion. The correct solution is to counter the false doctrine that the soul is immortal, and prove this by the scriptures. False teachers are misleading, and although they may use all sorts of words, the answer is not to ban the dictionary!

Peoples of all cultures and religions understand “hell” as the realm of death, but not everyone agrees with how the word is interpreted or applied in context. Hebrew and Greek are filled with words that require interpretation from context, and English is no exception.

In fact, the distinction between “hell” (before judgment) and “hell” (after judgment) is irrelevant when one considers the final state of death, that is, an utter cessation of thought and consciousness. It is a far better translation than the introduction of a bunch of fanciful locations, which would be more in line with Papist theology: Limbus Patrum, Purgatory, and so forth…

Have you failed to notice that the Eternal Conscious Torment theologians have a field day with interpreting “Sheol” and “Hades” and “Gehenna” as different locations? Your so-called problem is a result of intellectual laziness, and your so-called solution has already been tried and failed.

Glenn continued:

Anyone who has actually read the theological writings of those who lived in the days of Tyndale knows that they did indeed use “soul” in a dualist sense and “hell” to refer to a conscious state after death.

And what theological writings are you bragging about reading? It doesn’t seem like you’ve taken much care to read Tyndale, even.

Besides Tyndale, and John Frith, I’ve also read the writings of King James. He speaks of the soul remaining in its own resting place, until the latter day. King James did not say that the souls of the dead are alive, or in heaven. Does “the Daemonologie” count as a theological writing of that day?

King James, second book of his Daemonologie

… and besides that, the soule once parting from the bodie, cannot wander anie longer in the worlde, but to the owne resting place must it goe immediatelie, abiding the conjuction of the bodie againe, at the latter daie.

I have several quotes from King James that are similar in this regard. Nothing in any of his three books of the Daemonologie affirm an “immortal soul” or speak of the souls of the dead abiding in heaven, or being punished in hell. He does speak of the resurrection, “at the latter daie.”

From his third book of the Daemonologie:

What more is the reste troubled of a dead bodie, when the Devill carryes it out of the Grave to serve his turne for a space, nor when the Witches takes it up and joyntes it, or when as Swine wortes uppe the graves? The rest of them that the Scripture speakes of, is not meaned by a locall remaining continuallie in one place, but by their resting from their travelles and miseries of this worlde, while their latter conjunction againe with the soule at that time to receave full glorie in both.

Again, if one is willing to read without prejudice, you have to admit that his language points to the resurrection of the dead. He speaks of death as the “resting” of the soul. James believed in “Soul Rest” and the bodily resurrection of the dead at the “latter daie.”

You should see what he says concerning those that claim that Saul was actually seeing the real “spirit of Samuel”, which is a traditional “anti-soul-sleep” argument that is still being used to this very day!

King James, from his first book of Daemonologie

As to the next, that it was not the spirit of Samuel, I grant: In the proving whereof ye neede not to insist, since all Christians of whatso-ever Religion agrees vpon that: and none but either mere ignorants, or Necromanciers or Witches doubtes thereof.

It would seem that King James would consider modern theologians that use said passage to dispute that the souls of the dead sleep until the resurrection as “mere ignorants.” I’ve even heard that argument from people who give King James lip service!

Perhaps you were too prejudiced to notice this previously. Or perhaps you never thought to read these types of writings to see if these folks were really biased in the way you claim. I dare suggest both.

I’m also going to ask you to consider two quotations, from two different people:

First, from William Tyndale:

And ye, in putting them (the departed souls) in heaven, hell, and purgatory, destroy the arguments wherewith Christ and Paul prove the resurrection … And again, if the souls be in heaven, tell me why they be not in as good case as the angels be? And then what cause is there of the resurrection?”

I imagine that you would probably continue to criticize William Tyndale, for even using the term “hell” in the same context as put forth by Sir Thomas More. Contextually, this “hell” that Tyndale spoke of was the mythical Roman Catholic hell. This is clear from context.

Second, from Jesus Christ:

Luk 16:23-24
(23) And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
(24) And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

Jesus here uses the word hades in the context of fire and torments. Why don’t you criticize Jesus for speaking of this mythological Hellenized hell (capitalized Hades) in this fashion? Shouldn’t he have picked a better word? Surely you are wiser than Daniel, so you might well correct Jesus too.

Glenn continued:

Just look at the works of those who affirmed those things, and you’ll see that the langueg is the same. Much better language was available to Tyndale.

Tyndale was proficient in eight languages. He was far more talented in this regard than you, and far more qualified to translate the scriptures. He gave everything he had, including his social standing, his inheritance, his education, his work, his safety, his own life, and the life of his friends.

The language that Tyndale chose shaped the future of the English language. “Hell” and “soul” are the correct words, even if you are so theologically deficient to be unable to figure out how to use them. You continue to make a plea based upon a case of ignorance.

Glenn continued:

As I have explained here at this blog, Tyndale himself complained at the fact that there was one word “hell” used to translate both Sheol and Hades (or the Latin infernus) on the one hand, and Gehenna on the other, and felt the need to step in and explain the distinction.

I took a look at your referenced blog. It was one of the most irresponsible pieces on William Tyndale that I have ever seen.

Your supporting source is a partial quote, taken out of context, ignoring all of his plain statements on this matter, and twisted to misrepresent Tyndale’s doctrinal stance all together. Not that any of your readers noticed, but your link to your source returns a 404 Not Found error. I suspect that your source was simply the one-page preview from Google books.

Let’s take a good look at this quote that you’ve twisted around backwards:

Last Page of Tyndale’s New Testament:

Hell: it is called in Hebrew the valley of Hennon. A place by Jerusalem, where they burnt their children in fire unto the idol Moloch, and is usurped and taken now for a place where the wicked and ungodly shall be tormented both soul and body, after the general judgement.

What has Glenn implied here? He would have us read this as “tormented without end of life” to comply with his accusation of William Tyndale.

After all, if he cannot be expected to read Cyprian and recognize a clear quote of 1 John 5:7, and he will claim that I have “already agreed” with him when when all I have done was to loudly protest to the contrary, then how can we expect him to honestly represent what Tyndale meant 500 years ago? He has demonstrated a strong external bias against all of these parties.

Every Christian doctrine of the judgment includes torment of the body and soul following judgment! This is affirmed by the so-called orthodox position, annihilationists, and universalists alike. What is contended is the nature and duration of this torment:

1) The “orthodox” position claims that the victim is immortal, so the torment never ends,
2) The “conditional immortality” position claims that the victim is mortal, so the torment ends when the victim expires
3) The “universalist” position claims that the victim is immortal, and shall be redeemed into bliss after a finite period of torment

Considering that Tyndale strongly decried the heathen doctrine of “immortality of the soul” and multiple times gave strong statements that we sleep in death, and that our hope is the resurrection, this is not a contradictory statement.

“Conditional Immortality” does not mean that the wicked shall be whisked out of existence without torment. They shall be bodily resurrected, face judgment, and he shall destroy body and soul in hell.

Luk 12:47-48
(47) And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
(48) But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

Glenn concluded:

Given this, I don’t know why he didn’t just use better terms. Tyndale ought not to have used language of his peers.

Tyndale didn’t use the language of his peers. That would be Latin. He translated the Bible into the language of the people, into English, in words they commonly understood.

I suppose if you were trying to translate the Bible, you would invent totally new words. And when a Sir Thomas More came along and put a spin on those words, you would make a new translation, and keep trying to stay one step ahead of him?

Hell has always been the realm of the dead, the grave, the ground, where things are unseen, representing death, decay, and destruction.

Soul has always been the actual man, the essence of our being. We are obviously more than our sum of material parts, and this is apparent to anyone who reads the scripture, or even for someone who acknowledges free will and has taken an introductory philosophy course. Without a spiritual component, we are biological wind-up machines.

Mat 10:28 Tyndale
(28) And feare ye not them which kyll the body and be not able to kyll the soule. But rather feare hym which is able to destroye bothe soule and body into hell.

William Tyndale, answering his accusers:

“I call God to record against the day we shall appear before our Lord Jesus, that I never altered one syllable of God’s Word against my conscience, nor would do this day, if all that is in earth, whether it be honor, pleasure, or riches, might be given me.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell

The modern English word Hell is derived from Old English hel, helle (about 725 AD to refer to a nether world of the dead) reaching into the Anglo-Saxon pagan period, and ultimately from Proto-Germanic *halja, meaning “one who covers up or hides something”

http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/articles/pages/712/Hell.html#ixzz0qr0X4kCU

Interestingly, the term Hell itself is pagan in origin, deriving from Old Norse Hel, the goddess of the realm of the dead and the underworld in Scandinavian mythology.

Hmmm….. it’s the English version of the Old Greek Hades! How is this an innappropiate translation now? Weren’t you suggesting that only gehenna should be translated as hell?

continuing…

However, the word appears (as helle ) in Old English about 725—that is, after the conversion to Christianity—in Ælfric’s version of Genesis 37:35: “ic fare to minum sunu to helle” (“I will go down into the grave unto my son mourning” in the King James version). Hell is only used literally in Anglo-Saxon.

Read more: Hell

You were tossing around labels like “intellectual black hole” and accusing others of being “diametrically opposed to learning.” It seems to me that this is a more apt description of yourself. Is it not written, that we should take the beam out of our own eye, before attempting to remove the speck from another?

Mat 7:3-6
(3) And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
(4) Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
(5) Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
(6) Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

You should also substantiate your claims before publishing them on your blog. If you are concerned with intellectual honesty, you should retract your “Tyndale” blog. Your accusation depends upon adding the word “immortal” when he is famous for stating that the soul is not immortal.

If you prize scholarship so much, then start doing your own research. And yes, this is a long post, but I prefer to say this only once, since I have no desire to banter back and forth with you or your fanboys any longer.

Martin, the issue studied by textual criticism is not whether or not the Bible is true. Instead, it studies the evidence to determine which manuscripts are closer than others in content to the original autographs, and by comparing all the available manuscripts, ancient quotations and other available material, it seeks to make judgements on what the original autograph most likely said.