I have recently read some of the papers presented at the 2008 Urshan Graduate School of Theology Symposium. Notable was David Norris’s response to Patrick Dotson’s paper arguing that the Oneness movement must move beyond the King James Version if we hope to reach our modern generation with the Word of God. While others surely have done so, Norris is the first Apostolic minister I have encountered who has advocated for the use of other English translations, and made a case for the superiority of the Alexandrian text-type over the Byzantine text-type that undergirds the NT of the KJV.
October 5, 2009
Thinking to Believe 
October 6, 2009 at 6:02 am
Jason,
I am surprised at this. My pastor and our church uses other versions and have for some time now. My pastor teaches at UGST. We are UPC.
Lynne
LikeLike
October 6, 2009 at 7:54 am
Dotson’s arguments are not new. Practically every new translation seeks to connect with society with ostensibly accurate “hip” language. Most of the pastors I know (and I know a good many) who use the KJV as their primary text readily use other versions in their Bible studies. In fact, many of them have revival-oriented, large, growing churches. We’ve had no problem “connecting” with our generation.
Dotson comes nowhere near proving his point that use of the KJV inhibits growth. I am not arguing his conclusion is incorrect. I am saying his argument fails. He doesn’t like the KJV. Fine.
What is one supposed to make of Norris’ presentation? He attacks a caricature of of the arguments defending the Byzantine family and quite predictably finds it lacking rational heft. As you’ve noted in personal correspondence, it isn’t wise to attack your opponent’s weakest argument to prove your own.
I’m all for updating translations and I’m certainly not a “KJV-only” disciple. I’m only commenting on the persuasiveness of these presentations. They are not persuasive.
LikeLike
October 6, 2009 at 8:17 am
Scalia:
If you are for updating translations and are not a KJV-only disciple it is interesting that you do not find such presentations persuasive or at least useful. What has persuaded you of the need to update translations if indeed, as you are implying, the KJV is good enough?
LikeLike
October 6, 2009 at 8:56 am
Chad,
The key words you use are such presentations. I don’t think poor arguments are persuasive, even if I agree with their conclusions.
As our understanding of the ancient languages increases, there will be a commensurate need to update our translation(s).
LikeLike
October 6, 2009 at 9:12 am
Bravo Dr. Norris. Good point Jason. As another poster said however, it is nothing new. I think you even remember discussions we had with a KJVO on my blog awhile back.
http://evidentialfaith.blogspot.com/search/label/KJV%20Onlyism
Norris has also published his I AM: A Oneness Pentecostal Theology.
http://sales.pentecostalpublishing.com/productDetails.asp?guid=73FB77B4032A2D2FE044080020B266CA&c=BOOK&pid=22350&sid=507&ptc=PPH123
LikeLike
October 6, 2009 at 10:10 am
If the King James is the Bible, then why is it called a translation?
LikeLike
October 6, 2009 at 10:11 am
(Rather, if the King James Version is “the Bible,” then why does it call itself just a “Version” of the Bible?)
LikeLike
October 6, 2009 at 10:17 am
The best solution would be for the UPC to retain “the KJV.” (And not the real, original 1611 KJV with older spellings and errors and including the Apocrypha among the Scriptures, but the revised, modernist, worldly, pseudo-classical KJV currently in use.)
The same goes for TV sets, hair, makeup, dresses, and the rest of the lot.
If it’s God’s truth, it will prosper. If it is a false religion of man, it will shrink and die.
Simple as that.
LikeLike
October 6, 2009 at 10:19 am
Daniel Wallace is a noted Greek scholar and professor of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary. In his paper entitled “Why So Many Versions?” Wallace makes the following statement -“…we must remember that the King James Bible of today is not the King James of 1611. It has undergone three revisions, incorporating more than 100,000 changes!”
http://bible.org/article/changes-kjv-1611an-illustration
LikeLike
October 6, 2009 at 11:52 am
Lynne,
What is it precisely that you are surprised about?
Jason
LikeLike
October 6, 2009 at 11:53 am
Scalia,
I agree with Dotson that the KJV can be an impediment to understanding Scripture (particularly for the unchurched). I converted at the age of 16. I tried reading the KJV, but I got so frustrated because I didn’t understand all the thees and thous and archaic words, that one time I actually threw my Bible across the room (I had a temper)! I switched to the NKJV, but did take up the KJV again once I learned how to interpret 16th century English. But that is the problem. One should not first have to learn how to speak an older form of English in order to read God’s Word. It should be written in a form that is understandable to them. There are many instances in my life when I either failed to understand the Word of God, or misunderstood it, because I was reading from the KJV. I’ve even heard preachers mangle the Word of God because they failed to properly understand the English of the KJV.
What I did not care for in Dotson’s paper was his attempt to connect the importance of removing impediments to understanding God’s Word with the need to reach “postmodernists.” Personally, I don’t see what postmodernism has to do with the issue of Bible translations at all. Postmodernism rejects the Christian metanarrative in general, regardless of the translation. It doesn’t matter if the translation itself is in a common vernacular or an old one.
As for new translations, I think only a couple can be said to be written so as to sound “hip.” Most are written simply to be understood. Of course, some go for a more literal translation, while others go for a more interpretive approach. Likewise, some write at a higher level of English, while others write at a lower level of English.
What makes you say Norris was attacking a caricature of the arguments for the superiority of the Byzantine text?
Jason
LikeLike
October 6, 2009 at 12:01 pm
James,
What’s not new? That people in the UPC are accepting of translations other than the KJV, or moving away from the KJV? I agree. I’ve seen a lot of openness to using other translations, although I’ve seen little movement away from using the KJV from the pulpit.
I would like to get Norris’ book, but I’m not paying $25 for it. I’m not sure if he used WAP to print it, or if they are just distributing it, but they seem to over-charge for everything. A similar book on Amazon could be purchased for $15.
Jason
LikeLike
October 6, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Arthur,
Yes, good point. If one read the preface to the 1611 version they would read that the translators themselves realized that their translation could be improved upon. They surely didn’t see it as an inspired, final translation of God’s Word in the English language.
The KJV has actually gone through many more revisions. “Three” is the number of major revisions. That’s why whenever one says the KJV is the only Bible one should read, they should be asked, “Which KJV?”
Jason
LikeLike
October 6, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Jason,
I agree the language of the KJV can be an impediment for some if not most persons. My first reading of the Bible was not with the KJV, so I’m in complete sympathy with you (although I never would have thrown the Bible across the room!). 😉
I also agree with your take on Dotson’s postmodernism analysis. He doesn’t connect the dots and offers no substantive empirical data proving use of the KJV inhibits growth. Do they teach logic courses at his university?
I use the word hip rather loosely. Obviously, the intent of any translator is to make h/er translation readable and that will necessarily entail employing language that is culturally intelligible.
As to Norris, he devotes a couple of brief paragraphs describing the pro-Byzantine position; but anybody familiar with Burgon, etal, will recognize Norris’ depiction as grossly inaccurate. His tired use of Broughton’s quote (which Segraves obliterated in The Search for the Word of God) demonstrates the lens through which he is looking is clearly colored to his bias. As I said, a good argument fairly represents opposing opinions. To fail in that regard exhibits incompetence or dishonesty.
LikeLike
October 6, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Jason,
You said:
While others surely have done so, Norris is the first Apostolic minister I have encountered who has advocated for the use of other English translations….
That is what I am surprised about. My pastor uses other versions from the pulpit.
Lynne
LikeLike
October 6, 2009 at 3:07 pm
You guys are all caught up in the question of translations and are missing the fact that the Bible in any translation is Gods word. No amount of translation errors will ever be able to prevent Gods Word from edifying the true follower because they know Gods word is taught only by Gods Word (Jesus) and does not rely on your or my understanding but upon Gods truth.
LikeLike
October 7, 2009 at 11:19 am
Lynne,
I see. I know of only one pastor who preaches consistently out of a translation other than the KJV/NKJV. The rest use them, and may even quote from them at times, but still use the KJV most of the time from the pulpit. But none of these guys are “advocates” (in the sense of trying to get others to do the same) for using a different translation for preaching, and none of them have ever put something in print.
Jason
LikeLike
October 7, 2009 at 11:23 am
Grant,
What you say is partially true. Indeed, there’s not a translation out there that one cannot get the Gospel truth from. They are all the Word of God in a general sense. But, in the micro-level, not all translations give you the same amount of the Word of God. If they mistranslate something, or are using a Hebrew or Greek text that does not accurately preserve the original text, then what you are reading is not the Word of God in that particular area. That’s why it is important to discuss the merits of various translations.
I disagree that Jesus teaches us God’s Word. We learn it through the written revelation God has provided us (Bible), not by Jesus directly. Maybe you mean something else.
Jason
LikeLike
October 7, 2009 at 6:17 pm
That is the very point I am trying to make apparent. Jesus is the Word of God. The word of God was sacrificed to fulfill the Jewish Law Covenant not replace it. It is only through faith in Gods Word, not Jesus Christ the man, that we are saved. The Jewish people are and always will be Gods Chosen, The rest of mankind can now be guaranteed eternal life because of the Jewish Law Covenant being FULFILLED. Jesus told even tha Apostles not to be called Teacher or Rabbi or Raboni because there is and always will be only one teacher and that is Gods Word.
At least that is my humble opinion. Grant
LikeLike
October 8, 2009 at 3:02 am
Grant,
One has to be careful when saying that any translation is God’s word as there are translations that disagree with one another (such as John 1:1 with JWs) as well as the fact that “The Message” is ‘technically’ a translation yet I will refuse to consider it God’s Word and will view it more as a commentary.
Jason,
The main problem is not that it needs changing, but what to replace it with… While my baptist church uses the NIV, that itself is starting (in my eyes) to get old yet with what would I replace it with? NKJV, NASB, ECV???
LikeLike
October 8, 2009 at 10:24 am
Grant,
Your position is not that of Scripture. Jesus was very clear, and so were his followers, that one must believe in Him if they are to be saved. Jesus said He was the door, and that one must come to the Father by Him. He said that unless one believes that He is, they will die in their sins. He said he was the way, the truth, and the life. The list could go on and on. Jesus not only spoke the words of God, but was the very word of God Himself incarnate. Jesus didn’t just deliver the message; He was the message Himself.
Jason
LikeLike
October 8, 2009 at 10:32 am
I appreciate your point on the Bible being a commentary. I also feel that is true. I believe it to be Gods commentary on his relationship with mankind as He sees it or “His Word”. To me that is evident in the silence that descended when “The Word” died. Worshiping the physical representation of Gods’ Word instead of the true Spiritual purpose is like worshiping the creation instead of the creator
LikeLike
October 8, 2009 at 10:32 am
Scott,
Yes, that is an important question. I’m not convinced, however, that we have to settle on a single translation. I use several translations. My primary Bible is the ESV. That is what I use for normal Bible reading, and for teaching. But I also use the NET and NASB for study purposes. I’ll consult others as well, such as the KJV and NIV.
I’ve been speaking more from a private perspective of what a Christian might do in the privacy of his/her home. It may be advisable, however, for a pastor to choose one translation to use as his primary pulpit translation. More than likely, many of his saints will follow suit.
But whether we are talking about private use or church use, one must have relevant knowledge of the differences between translations to make an evaluation and judgment. For example, I chose the ESV because I think its textual base is the closest to the original, I like their translation theory (more toward the literal end of the spectrum), and the literary level of English it is written in.
Jason
LikeLike
October 8, 2009 at 10:35 am
Grant,
Jesus received worship. Why? Because Jesus was not an independently existing man in whom God merely dwelt (if he were it would be idolatrous to worship him), but the very humanity of God. God became a man (Jn 1:14). That doesn’t mean He was transmutated into a man, but that He took up a human existence. The person of Jesus is the person of God, and Jesus’ body is the body of God in virtue of the fact that God assumed it when He assumed human nature.
Jason
LikeLike
October 9, 2009 at 7:07 am
Well said, Jason!
Lynne
LikeLike
October 10, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.(AV 1611). Rather than cut and paste the entire Bible here, I suggest you go back to whatever translation you prefer and reread it, this time looking for Gods truth not yours . Jesus consistently avoided being Deified by the masses, consistently said he did only what his Father told him to and is presently enthroned at the right hand of his Father and Creator, God. I pray for you but remember it is God who answers. Grant
LikeLike
October 11, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Grant,
Jesus is said to be the uncreated creator (Jn 1:1-3), the image of the invisible God (Col 1:15), the exact imprint of God’s nature (Heb 1:3), and our great God and Savior (Tit 2:13; 2 Pet 1:1). Thomas called Jesus God and worshipped Him, and Jesus accepted this (Jn 20:28). Jesus is identified as the YHWH of the OT: compare Is 40:3 with Mt 3:3, Zech 14:3-4 with Acts 1:9-12, Is 43:11 with Jn 17:24.
Jason
LikeLike
October 11, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Grant,
This would be incomplete if I didn’t mention Jesus’ own testimony concerning His identity:
He claimed to be visible representation of Father (Jn 14:7-10); He expected people to honor him just as they honor the Father
(Jn 5:23); He invited people to pray to him
(Jn 14:14); He encouraged people to place their faith in him just as they did in God (Jn 14:1); He claimed preexistence (Jn 8:56-58; 17:5); He claimed to be able to change God’s laws (Mt 5:31-32); He claimed the right to forgive sins (Mt 9:1-6); He claimed to be the one who will raise the dead on the last day (Jn 5:21, 25-29); He claimed to be the judge of all men (Mt 16:27); and He claimed to have all authority in heaven and earth (Mt 28:18). These things could not be said of anyone other than God Himself. So either Jesus is God incarnate, or He is a blasphemer as the Jews said.
Jason
LikeLike
November 10, 2009 at 3:16 am
Jason: Jesus did not invite anyone to pray TO him he said the only way to the Father was THROUGH him. Just as it was in the beginning.
LikeLike
November 10, 2009 at 12:10 pm
John 14:14 “If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.”
Jason
LikeLike
November 10, 2009 at 5:07 pm
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.
12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.
15 _ If ye love me, keep my commandments.
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Context is very important when you quote the Bible, and you wonder how we get so much confusion. Please understand Jason I dont expect you to believe me I only hope you will believe God’s Word. All my love, Grant
LikeLike
November 10, 2009 at 6:11 pm
And?
LikeLike
November 12, 2009 at 11:47 am
and you are entitled to believe whatever you desire, that is included in God’s gift of life. I believe God when he says he is ONE God, not a holy trinity, He is a jealous God and will not share his rightful worship with ANY other being as he is the only existence that does not have to rely on the prescence of anything or anybody to sustain or create life. As I said you believe what you want .I am perfectly willing to trust in his decision concerning my own life that in cludes both fleshly and resurrected. All I am asking of you is to put more trust in Him and less in yourself.
All my love
Grant
LikeLike
November 12, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Grant,
You are speaking nonsense now and ignoring the very issues you raised. I am not trusting in myself, and for you to suggest so is prepostorous. Apparently anyone who disagrees with you must not be trusting in God.
Furthermore, I am not a Trinitarian. I am Oneness. You need to do a little more research before you put your fingers to the keyboard.
Jason
LikeLike