Correspondence with Prof David Engelsma
The following shows e-mail correspondences
between Prof. David J. Engelsma of the Protestant Reformed Church (USA)
and Philip Tang regarding the errors of VPP-KJVonlyism. Prof. Engelsma
is the author of many articles, pamphlets, books on
conservative,evangelical and reformed Christianity. He is also the
Professor of Dogmatics and Old Testament at Protestant Reformed
Theological School.
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 03:37:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Philip Tang"
Subject: The KJV Bible and our present task.
To: "Prof. David Engelsma"
Dear Prof. Engelsma,
I greet you in the blessed name of our Lord and
Saviour, Jesus Christ.
My name is Philip Tang and I am from Singapore.
I had the honour of meeting members from the church that your denomination
set up (the ERCS).I remember fondly the fellowship I had with Pastor
-----(if he stills remember)more than ten years ago.
I read your simple (to understand) and profound
article "Modern Bible Versions." In your article you gave very good
reasons why we should continue with the use of the KJV. I wholly agree
with you. However our pro-KJV position has been discredited by groups of
mainly (dispensational?) independent baptist. The more extreme group (Ruckmanites)
believe that the KJV has replaced the Greek and Hebrew texts as the
autographa.
The other group (Dean Burgon Society(DBS)),
asserts that the KJV translators in 1611 restored the Greek (TR) and
Hebrew(masoretic) texts to be indentical (word-for-word) with the
autographa. They dress-up their teaching by calling it the verbal plenary
preservation (VPP) of scriptures.
Currently, some members in my denomination
(Bible-Presbyterians) have been accused by faculty members from the Far
Eastern Bible College (FEBC) as liberals because they do not subscribe to
the view that the KJV is 100% perfect. The FEBC has close links with Dr.
D.A.Waite from DBS.
From your article you have stated clearly that
you do not believe that the KJV is perfect. But I would like to know
whether you have addressed this teaching (heresy?) more fully or whether
that you have proven from the Scriptures and church history that
KJVonlyism is a form of progressive revelation and post-canonical
inspiration.
Thank you and God bless
philip.
From: "David Engelsma"
To: philiptangkh
Subject: kjv
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 14:43:01 -0400
Dear Mr. Tang,
It is good to receive
your message.
I am thankful that
you have found my pamphlet on "Modern Bible Versions" useful.
I have not written
concerning the foolish error that identifies the KJV with the original
documents of the Bible. But you are certainly correct in rejecting these
extreme views. The KJV is a translation. It is a sound, faithful
translation, expressing both the words and thoughts of the Hebrew and
Greek texts of the Old Testament and of the New Testament in the
equivalent, appropriate, correct English words and thoughts. No doctrine
is corrupted or misrepresented. The KJV is still the best English
translation available. But it is not without deficiencies, as every
translation will be. It does not translate every text in the best way.
Therefore, the minister must make his sermons, not from the KJV, but
from the Hebrew and Greek originals (which themselves are not the
autographa). When necessary, he may and should correct the translation
of the KJV, although he need not, and ought not, do this often, so as to
disturb the confidence of the people. These deficiencies do not involve
doctrine, but they do involve obscuring sometimes the thought of the
text.
My grounds for
repudiating the foolish, divisive teachings of those who identify the
KJV with the autographa are mainly three:
1)
Historical and factual: the autographa date from before Christ
regarding the Old Testament and from the first century after Christ
regarding the New Testament, whereas the KJV dates from A.D. 1611.
Therefore, the KJV is not the autographa;
2)
Biblical: Scripture (in II Tim. 3, II Pet. 1, and other places)
attributes inspiration and therefore perfection to the original
documents written by the prophets and apostles, not to any translation.
Those who attribute this perfection to a translation are making a claim
that lacks all biblical basis; and
3)
Textual: comparison of various passages in the KJV with the
Hebrew and Greek originals demonstrates that the KJV fails to render the
text as clearly as it should, and even in cases, wrongly, though never
with the result that the truth of the gospel is compromised.
The preservation of
the originals (autographa), which is certainly true and which the
Reformed believe, does not imply a word-for-word preservation even in
the Hebrew and Greek texts, much less a word-for-word preservation in
any translation. Nor is this necessary.
I would have a
question for these extremists: is the translation of the Bible in the
Dutch version also a word-for-word preservation of the autographa? in
Luther's German version? in the Polish version? What about the places
where these versions differ with the KJV and with each other?
Greetings.
Cordially in Christ,
Prof. David J.
Engelsma
