More Musings on KJV Onlyism 2

I wanted to add some more notes to my blog discussion about the KJV controversy. So, here we are. I subscribe to a Oneness periodical that has a columnist that likes to juxtapose and/or suggest some deviation with other translations besides the KJV. I do wonder if some consider this version to be inspired. If they do I would say they are simply incorrect. We should move far from nuances that imply we believe an inferior translation is indeed "best" or even as is implied "inspired."
In the original 1982 Preface of the NKJV, "the New Testament Text" subsection included the following:

The New King James Version has been based on this Received Text, thus perpetuating the tradition begun by William Tyndale in 1525 and continued by the 1611 translators in rendering the Authorized Version.
In the revised Preface of the NKJV, "the New Testament Text" subsection of The Scofield Study Bible (NY: Oxford University Press, 2002, page xiv) and other Thomas Nelson Publisher reference editions now include the following:

In light of these facts, and also because the New King James Version is the fifth* revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts, the editors decided to retain the traditional text [explained earlier in the Preface as "first publilshed in 1516, and later called the Textus Receptus or Received Text"] in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major Critical and Majority variant readings in the footnotes.
*All five of these translations are historical revisions of the TR.

1. Coverdale Bible (1535) / The Great Bible (1539)
2. Geneva Bible (the Bible of the Pilgrims) (1557-1560)
3. Bishop's Bible (1568)
4. King James Version (Dr. Benjamin Blayney's final revision, 1769)
5. New King James Version (1982)

I think also that translations can serve various purposes and that is why we have multiple translations. I am not advocating all translations either. We are not in short supply that is for sure. The function of a text-base should be to provide an apparatus that can best offer original meaning. Personally, I do not like the picking and choosing of text types, e.g. Byzantine or Alexandrian. I believe all translations should take into consideration all streams of evidence, weighing each mss and using this larger eclectic reading to ascertain variants. Many, by the way, are untranslatable.

The impact of vernacular is important and that is why the KJV was revised, and needed to be revised IMHO. In fact, Daniel Wallace noted some time ago that the KJV had about 300 words that no longer had the same meaning. Not just that they were awkward, but archaic in the sense that the meaning does not translate to the reader properly.

The methodology of translation is different depending on the translation you may have. For example, there is formal/literal, functional/dynamic, and optimal equivalence. The NIV uses dynamic, the NKJV or ESV uses literal and the HCSB, a newer translation, utilizes the optimal. Optimal equivalence is basically a coming together of the aforementioned methodologies. The HCSB (Holman Christian Standard Bible) leaves passages like Mark 16:8ff and 1 John 5:7 in the main text but place them in brackets. This is an evolution of translation.

I am not Wallace but I would imagine there is much truth to that. Dr. Marvin Treece a few years ago, who is also a supporter of the TR, made a good point and I was captured by it. That is that there could be danger in placing the Word of God in such common vernacular and understanding. I am not opposed to the NIV, for sure, but I do see his point and believe we should support and teach a high regard for the Word of God. That is why our church does not use common vernacular versions in regular pulpit or congregational readings, except to make a point within a sermon or lesson.

When the Majority Text was being collected by Hodges and Farstad, William Pickering early on indicated that the Textus Receptus would differ from the Majority Text in 1,000 places. The number actually came to 1,838 places. In many of those places the Minority Text agrees with the Majority Text as it disagrees with the Textus Receptus.

Some verses are Luke 17:36, Acts 8:37, and I John 5:7 from the New Testament. The KJV renders 1 John 5:7:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. KJV
The English translation of the Majority Text of this passage reads:

For there are three that bear witness: EMTV
In addition, as in other other readings, such as Revelations 22:19. The KJV renders it:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. KJV
The English Majority Text Version renders it:

And if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, may God take away his part from the tree of Life, and from the holy city, and from the things having been written in this book. EMTV
It has been said that writers well-versed in textual criticism have abandoned the Textus Receptus as a standard text. J. W. Burgon, "Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do not, by any means, claim perfection for the Received Text. We entertain no extravagant notions on this subject. Again and again we shall have occasion to point out that the Textus Receptus needs correction."

Edward F. Hills was virtually the only 20th Century scholar, who could be called competent, in the mid-20th century writers who defended the supremacy of the Textus Receptus.

There are many arguments that could be presented against the Textus Receptus. It has been said, of Erasmus, to have followed the Latin Vulgate in numerous places and actually puts unique readings into the Greek mss that were are are consequently carried on today. There is also ecclesiastical conspiracy one may consider as well.

As you can see an argument for any particular text type is probably not wise. It is best to consider each mss and weigh that mss accordingly. All of them should be used and considered.

My argument has been that often times we reject various translations or ideas of mss based upon the tradition and preference of a particular translation, e.g. KJV. It has become, to some, an inspired translation. In my mind, men such as Matthew, Luke, the Beloved John, Paul, Peter have such privileges reserved to them.

I believe the KJV is a good translation. In it we can find Gospel truth. None of the variants and errors that we see heralded or alluded to can take away from any doctrine that we hold. Considering the history and additions of new mss evidence I cannot say it is the best.


Let Her Hair Grow: Part Two

By the NT period long hair was a ‘shame’ to a man (1 Cor. 11:14), although Paul made that statement to a church in Greece. Women, on the other hand, wore the hair long and practically uncut in both periods. The Talmud does mention women’s hairdressers, but the root of the word is ‘to plait’ [braid] rather than ‘to cut’. (New Bible Dictionary. Includes index. (electronic ed. of 2nd ed.). Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House.)

Other than three rare exceptions (Samson, Samuel, and probably John the Baptist), a Nazarite would always cut their hair after a specified time, usually 30 days according to the Jewish Mishna, not the Scriptures (Mishna, the first part of the Talmud, containing traditional oral interpretations of scriptural ordinances (halakhot, compiled by the rabbis about A.D. 200)), although double and triple vows for 60 and 100 days were sometimes made.

The Nazarite vow resembled the sanctified life of the priest, except that it was done spontaneously unto God by ordinary Israelites. This vow not only set a man apart but also shamed him, perhaps signifying the shame Jesus would endure. Some contend that since women took Nazarite vows (Numbers 6:2), they cut their hair as men did at the end of the vow. However, they have overlooked the fact that a woman’s vow was ALWAYS subject to her father’s or her husbands’ approval. Youth were also to confer with their parents. Obviously harmful, youthful zeal was to be avoided.

God Himself specifies this limitation in Numbers 30:1-16.

Num 30:1
Moses said to the heads of the tribes of Israel: "This is what the LORD commands:
Num 30:2 When a man makes a vow to the LORD or takes an oath to obligate himself by a pledge, he must not break his word but must do everything he said.
Num 30:3 "When a young woman still living in her father's house makes a vow to the LORD or obligates herself by a pledge
Num 30:4 and her father hears about her vow or pledge but says nothing to her, then all her vows and every pledge by which she obligated herself will stand.
Num 30:5 But if her father forbids her when he hears about it, none of her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand; the LORD will release her because her father has forbidden her.
Num 30:6 "If she marries after she makes a vow or after her lips utter a rash promise by which she obligates herself
Num 30:7 and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her, then her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand.
Num 30:8 But if her husband forbids her when he hears about it, he nullifies the vow that obligates her or the rash promise by which she obligates herself, and the LORD will release her.
Num 30:9 "Any vow or obligation taken by a widow or divorced woman will be binding on her.
Num 30:10 "If a woman living with her husband makes a vow or obligates herself by a pledge under oath
Num 30:11 and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her and does not forbid her, then all her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand.
Num 30:12 But if her husband nullifies them when he hears about them, then none of the vows or pledges that came from her lips will stand. Her husband has nullified them, and the LORD will release her.
Num 30:13 Her husband may confirm or nullify any vow she makes or any sworn pledge to deny herself.
Num 30:14 But if her husband says nothing to her about it from day to day, then he confirms all her vows or the pledges binding on her. He confirms them by saying nothing to her when he hears about them.
Num 30:15 If, however, he nullifies them some time after he hears about them, then he is responsible for her guilt."
Num 30:16 These are the regulations the LORD gave Moses concerning relationships between a man and his wife, and between a father and his young daughter still living in his house.

Since the entire point of his limitation was submission, and the Bible explicitly teaches that a woman’s hair is a symbol of submission, we should rightly believe that a women then let their hair be "unkempt" for the specified time, but they did not cut it at all. The vow at the maximum demands it simply be uncut. "As mentioned prior, there are at least three Biblical figures who did not cut their hair after taking the vow. In fact, the Talmud does mention women’s hairdressers, but the root of the word is "to plait" [braid] rather than "to cut". I said that it can be in a matter of personal sanctification."

The argument attempting to be made from those who reject the notion that a woman's hair should not be cut, in efforts to let the hair grow, is one from silence.

Some contend that while Paul taught men to have short hair, he himself took a Nazarite vow, basing this opinion on Acts 18:18:

"And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren and sailed thence into Syria and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow."

There are other interpretations, however, the "vow" referred to in this verse is from "euche" the same word used in James 5:15 for the "prayer" of faith. It is possible that Paul did not shave his head because he was finishing a Nazarite vow. Even if he did the New Testament church did not maintain this practice. It is possible that he had just been delivered from the court of Gallio, so he needed to cut (“kiero”) his hair because he was going to prayer. It is possible that Paul knew that God cared what his hair looked like.

Greek scholars A.T. Robertson and Marvin Vincent agree that it was not a Nazarite vow for it could only be absolved only in Jerusalem. It is possible that the hair was only polled or trimmed, cut shorter, not “shaved” for there is a distinction as both verbs are contrasted in I Corinthians 11:6 it is not clear what sort of a vow Paul had taken or why he took it. It may have been a thank offering for the outcome at Corinth.

In Acts 21, I believe Paul is making a point to those who are truly Messianic Jews that to be a believer you do not have to abandon all your customs. Paul did take a vow, if Nazarite I believe like Calvin that it refers to a "superstitious" inclination of Paul. Even if Paul or Messianic Jews, for that matter, (the only ones who could remotely come close to relevantly exacting such a vow) take the Nazarite vow, in some sense, it does not disprove anything by point of fact.

In my opinion a Messianic Jew could possibly or probably (if so inclined) take a Nazarite vow. The vow however, as well as their entire living, will be moderated by the natural order and that order indeed further clarified by the New Testament. They would be aware of Paul's writings as it relates to hair for both genders. I believe that is possibly why God did command the youth to defer to parents. They, being cognizant of the desires of God, would not allow their youth's zeal to violate another principle. Especially in light of the later inspired text of the New Testament.

It wasn't until Acts 15 that the Disciples could come to agreement upon Gentile salvation. The Jerusalem Council. I do not think Paul would have encourage a Gentile to do such a thing, even though he may have done one while being a Jewish believer.

In addition it wasn't until the outpouring of the Holy Spirit that we became the Temples of that same Spirit. At least in this way. Some things were tolerated by God yet not approved. No matter what we concluded about any Nazarite vow Paul states clearly that a man is not to have long hair, and he expounded this under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit which more clearly states what God desires of men and women through their bodies, not just our cerebral forefronts. I beleive some principles of the Old Testament move into the New Testament by spiritual principle. Jesus carried over almost everyone of the Ten Commandments into the New Testament. No longer do men simply murder with swords and spears but also through their tongues.

Let Her Hair Grow: Part One

I do not believe a woman should be concerned with cutting her hair unless it is an absolute dire need. Even then some women will not cut their hair. A lady recently told me, of Baptist persuasion, that when lice was very bad in her younger years, while attending public school, her father would still not cut her hair. I was actually not amazed that this type of principle or understanding was held apart from a Pentecostal voice. Nor am I suggesting it is amazing, indeed for a woman to let her hair grow is natural and does include the idea of not cutting. It is necessary however that we defend this point. This post will take for granted that you have read Paul's discourse in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 and are familiar with its contents.
In vs. 5 "uncovered" is Grk. akatakaluptos and it is an adjective. Katakaluptos means covered completely. Akatakaluptos means not completely covered. Scholars have traditionally noted an ellipsis in this portion of the passage. In other words the passage falls short of mentioning any kind of garment, or even a certain subject. I believe the ellipsis, or subject introduced in later verses is filled by hair. Hair being the subject not mentioned prior. The New Interpreters Study Bible (pg. 2051) notes:
It is unclear exactly what Paul had in mind; scholars suggest something shawl-like, long hair, or even a demure hairstyle.
The understanding that a material headdress is not being discussed here is not new. Scholars like W. J. Martin, L. B. Hurley, Alan Padgett, and most recently Richard Horsley support this view that long hair is the issue. Instead of citing them I will simply post an alternate rendering (vss. 4-7) offered in the margin notes of the NIV translation.
Or Every man who prays or prophesies with long hair dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with no covering of hair on her head dishonors her head—she is just like one of the “shorn women.” If a woman has no covering, let her be for now with short hair, but since it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair shorn or shaved, she should grow it again. A man ought not to have long hair The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 (electronic ed.). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
This should be evidence that this position has merit. C.A. Thiselton, a contributor to the, New International Greek Commentary on First Corinthians, concedes this and says the case for this argument is "strong"(See NOTES). Native Greek and NT Scholar, Dr. Spiros Zodhiates, also supports the view that veil wearing may have been temporary due to female new converts from the temples.
I think what we should truly come away from this text believing is that a woman's long/let to grow hair given to her, by God, is a covering to distinguish His own creation (gender differentiation). Indeed a woman's hair was given her before the art of clothing. These are profound facts for us to consider, as to not allow the profundity to be lost. As a point of gender distinction her hair it is to clearly be long, as in the sense of being distinguished from the man, who's hair should be short. Long as in length is not pertinent in some sense, yet it is still part of Paul's actual comparison in his argument that invoked nature (vss. 14-15, eg. long and short).
A woman was created for the sake of the man (yet still interdependent/interconnected, see vs. 12), and she should have a covering, which is an emblem or symbol of authority (vs. 10). Symbolizing that she is indeed in harmony with the Divine Order just mentioned by Paul (11:3-9). It is her glory, because the angels, who are onlookers ( vs. 10), are shocked by conduct outside of God's will (See NOTES). It is her glory, given her by God. It should have considerable care and attention as one of the chief characteristics that sets her apart in God's creation.
I believe a woman should not cut her hair. I believe that is indeed part of what the Scripture is intending to tell us (See 1 Corinthians 11:1ff). Let your hair grow. Have long hair, or much hair as it can also be implied from the text. As we all realize the length is in some sense not the main thrust, yet in some sense it is indeed close by. However, for the man a certain modification or moderation is yet seen by the contrast meaning of "covering" which involves the hair of a woman hanging down. A man's hair is a perfect contrast since it was not to be long like a womans, hanging down the head. That is Paul's contrast generally. That in itself is an obvious reference to "much hair" as that is what naturally distinguishes the genders. (See NOTES)
Paul attempted to appeal to humanity's sense of propriety (vs. 14), and at the least has told us that the issue is simple enough to be settled among themselves (vs. 13 "judge among yourselves"). Differing cultures have had differing concepts but most men, whether eastern or western, wear their hair short in contrast to the women. At the time of Paul's letter short hair was common on men. Men did wear long hair but they were exceptions mostly, at the time and at the very least location.
I beleive Paul is taking a step further and saying that it is natural for a man to have short hair and a woman to have long hair. Long hair is the meaning of the text, "uncut" is the implicit force of this meaning. That is why in some languages, when the implicit force will be lost, a much more direct meaning must be translated. Textual scholars agree that if a language loses the implicit force of this text (See NOTES) it must be translated more explicitly so that the implicit meaning is not lost. In other words, we cannot leave out the implied meaning of Paul's statements that a woman is to have "long" hair and does imply a sense of "uncut".
I am saying that we, as Pentecostals, should not divorce the meaning "uncut" from what Paul is saying because of outside influence. Some have ceased to teach this doctrine in relation to believers sanctification or holiness. I believe it appropriate to take his meaning of "long hair" and point out that it can rightly imply "uncut". If not then why do translators maintain we keep the implicit force?


1. Thiselton, A. C. (2000). The First Epistle to the Corinthians : A commentary on the Greek text (824). Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.

2. W. Harold Mare, "1 Corinthians," in The NIV Study Bible, ed. Kenneth Barker (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1985), 1748.

3. Women in certain cultures do not grow what can relatively be called long hair. When we look at a woman and see her hair to her waist or mid back we might suggest that is indeed long. That is not all that we should take from this text. The hair should essentially be "let" to grow.

4. “Long hair” translates a verb meaning "to wear long hair," "to let one's hair grow long." In some languages the translation must be "to have much hair."

The UBS Handbook Series
. Copyright (c) 1961-1997, by United Bible Societies

5. To wear long hair as part of one's attire - 'to have long hair, to appear with long hair, to wear long hair.' gunh\ de\ e)a\n koma=| do/ca au)th=| e)stin 'if a women wears long hair, it is a pride for her' 1 Co 11:15. In a number of languages it may be necessary to translate koma/w as 'to let one's hair grow long' or 'not to cut one's hair.'

Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domain. Copyright (c) 1988 United Bible Societies, New York. Used by permission.

6. Some tend to marginalize the Pauline epistles. It should be readily known however that 1 Corinthians is one of the earliest manuscripts from the New Testament Scriptures that Christendom currently enjoys. It is dated to be a copy from around 50 AD. This date actually predates the Gospels themselves and comes around 20-25 years after the death of Christ. The actual writing of 1 Corinthians could possibly be a couple years after the death, burial, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ. A profound testimony to the truths found in this book of sacred Scripture, deity of Christ, resurrection, etc.


God Has Blessed America

I am disturbed by the notion and, now in fact, reality that Barak Hussein Obama is an actual candidate for presidency of this great United States of America. I have nothing against the color of his skin, nor his lineage in actuality. It is his indoctrination or his epistemological structure. What does he know, and how does he know what he knows? This indeed is a scarier notion than the former, that was indeed a notion but now a fact.

Black Liberation Theology (BLT) is an aberrant construct that has no predominant influence in the man or woman of our presidency. Obama's Pastor, Jeremiah Wright (17 years), made it clear to Sean Hannity that BLT is what he believes and preaches. In some sense the entire Obama family are disciples and have been for almost 20 years. I have sat under my Pastor for less than that amount, but close, and am fully conscious of the effects of such long term relationships. Even with that little fact, I feel I can rationally scope the horizon of Obama's understanding of the Bible and Christianity and realize it is not Christian in any sense that we should rightly know.

It is also more than what American ideology should know or experience. Uniquely American ideals, early ones at least, and philosophies consisted differently than what they are rapidly becoming today. What of citizenship? National sovereignty? These goals are what made our American identity, but are now becoming relics. Maybe that is why there is an electoral college? (TIC) The church is not the only place touched by liberalism and the fall out of post-modernity.

God has made us free-will creatures. He will not violate our will by forcing us. He has constituted us as thinking creatures as well. Evolution is not an answer for the state of our being, and neither is our thinking equipment there as an evolutionary spare tire. We indeed are part of history making. We help to determine future events that we will one day reflect upon or even possibly have imposed upon ourselves.

God has blessed America. What is America doing with her blessings? He has not damned her, she needs the Church to be light and alive in this hour and not dark and dead. At some point, North America has to become a priority in our prayers, our thinking, and our priorities. I say our prayers need to be bigger, to have hope in dreams and visions from our Lord; and never get disconnected from Him. We are here, and here we are. With and through Him we are the only real hope for the world filled with misinformation. We must be salt and light like never before. We must make a difference, here and now. Not only in the next 24 hour period of our existence but also before our time here is done, or before time as we know it is no more.

Adversus Trinitas

"...unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins." (John 8:24 ESV)