# Australian Free Church and the KJV



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Apr 6, 2011)

This is on the Wikipedia article for the AFC:

The AFC _was established in 1979 when Eric Turnbull was removed from being a minister of the Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia for "refusing to desist from teaching that the King James Bible is the very Word of God to the exclusion of other translations._

If this is correct, would not the AFC be considered KJVO? If this is NOT correct, how should the article read?

I ask this knowing Rev. Winzer will have a clear answer to this.


----------



## MW (Apr 6, 2011)

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> This is on the Wikipedia article for the AFC:


 
I attempted to rewrite the article with references to factual online material, but my attempt was rejected. It suits certain men, like the one who has contributed the Wikipedia article, to portray the position as KJVO. Such gentlemen demonstrate that they really do not understand what is at issue when conservative reformed people speak out in preference for the AV. There is a world of difference between "preference" and "exclusivity." The former looks at the work of the Holy Spirit in the church throughout the ages, sees the superiority of a certain textual tradition, discerns the dignity and accuracy of a specific translation over others, and adheres to that translation in preference to others which are deemed inferior. As a matter of wisdom, that translation is used in the pulpit and recommended to others. At the same time, it is acknowledged that whatsoever is true, just, lovely, etc., in other translations, is equally worthy of consideration. It is similar to the way in which one would seek for a pure church. Other churches are accepted as valid, but because some things are amiss it is necessary to issue cautions with respect to attending upon them.

A number of years back the Banner of Truth Trust issued a book which showed the deficiencies of the NIV. Prior to that Tyndale Press issued the work of O. T. Allis, which demonstrated the failures of the RSV. Somewhere over the last twenty years reformed folk have dropped the mantle and started to view translations as if they were all created equal. This has gone hand in hand with a sad decline in biblical knowledge.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 7, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> I attempted to rewrite the article with references to factual online material, but my attempt was rejected.


I reversed that fellow's edits. Let's see if it sticks this time. 

EDIT: Looks like the fellow and I will be in an editing war for the time being. He reversed my reversals, and I responded in kind. Guess escalation will be needed.

AMR


----------



## MW (Apr 7, 2011)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I reversed that fellow's edits. Let's see if it sticks this time.


 
Not sure how you did it; but thanks, Patrick. Is there some organisational hierarchy with regard to editing? or is it usually first in first served?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 7, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> Not sure how you did it; but thanks, Patrick. Is there some organisational hierarchy with regard to editing? or is it usually first in first served?


It is simply first come, first served. He obviously has a watch alert set for the page and is getting notified when it changes, so he reversed my reversals. I responded in kind. Looks like escalation will be needed.

You will probably have to assist with the process. After three reverts in a 24-hr period an automatic 24-hr ban is applied to further reversions. This means you would need to undo his changes and he will run out of reverts. Once he does, I can file an Edit Warring complaint. If that fails I can then take things to arbitration.

It may help if there is some background or refutation evidence you can supply for his assertions on the Turnbull matter. For example, the page could be edited by you to actually contain this Turnbull matter, but properly supported by the facts and with any references. This way his present slant would will not carry much weight in arbitration.

The whole process is painfully slow, but if you are determined to get the article reflecting truth, I am willing to help you as much as I can.

AMR


----------



## MW (Apr 7, 2011)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> The whole process is painfully slow, but if you are determined to get the article reflecting truth, I am willing to help you as much as I can.


 
It is painful, and perhaps too convoluted for me to follow. Thanks for the offer. I think I may work on something more detailed and call in your services when I have more time to follow the process.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Apr 7, 2011)

Wikipedia is wrong! How amazing! Glad to see someone in the know is correcting this (hopefully!)


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 7, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> It is painful, and perhaps too convoluted for me to follow. Thanks for the offer. I think I may work on something more detailed and call in your services when I have more time to follow the process.


My recommendation would be a re-write of the entire entry, with sections that include the controversy the fellow is referring to. It would then be hard for him to continue to reverse the edits when the substance of his current edits are included, albeit modified for a more accurate accounting. I obviously have no understanding of the matter in question, so you would have to be the submitting editor of such a revision.

AMR


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Apr 7, 2011)

Any sources that say the AFC is NOT KJVO?


----------



## MW (Apr 8, 2011)

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> Any sources that say the AFC is NOT KJVO?


 
Yes; there is a publication from the minister himself, E. S. Turnbull, called "Mountains of Myths Moved by Faith in the Word of God." On p. 27, he explicitly recognises that there might be a preference for other true translations, and he also speaks of the need to compare the translations with the Hebrew and Greek underlying them:



> "Where then is that pure unadulterated word? ... Is it then the Authorised Version?" they ask with derision. And we answer, yes, indeed it is, and the Gaelic Bible, and the Bibles of the Reformation such as Luther's Bible, and the Dutch States General Bible and the English Geneva Bible and Tyndale's Bible. And then with just as much derision they say, "But what about the variations? What about the differences? What about the fact that the Authorised Version was hard pressed to replace the Geneva Version for many years in England?" We answer, *these are merely questions of preference for a true translation*. *By all means let these translations be compared with the Received Text of Scripture in the original Hebrew and Greek underlying them*. Certainly train our ministers in the original tongues, but they can never be lawfully asked to correct or alter or find the true text. That was settled in Heaven. They are never to imagine that the text must be reconstructed. God constructed that text once and for all, from all eternity, and by his singular care and providence has kept it pure.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Apr 8, 2011)

> There is a world of difference between "preference" and "exclusivity." The former looks at the work of the Holy Spirit in the church throughout the ages, sees the superiority of a certain textual tradition, discerns the dignity and accuracy of a specific translation over others, and adheres to that translation in preference to others which are deemed inferior. As a matter of wisdom, that translation is used in the pulpit and recommended to others. At the same time, it is acknowledged that whatsoever is true, just, lovely, etc., in other translations, is equally worthy of consideration. It is similar to the way in which one would seek for a pure church. Other churches are accepted as valid, but because some things are amiss it is necessary to issue cautions with respect to attending upon them.



Very well said, I wish more denomination/churches would adhere to this position, in general there is a lack of awareness as to why someone would prefer the AV or a translation based on the TT as opposed to the CT and most of the time this is what causes frictions. Pretty much every christian that I know have been warned to flee KJV Onlyism, plus most seminaries only teach the CT position. This builds a huge wall when trying to explain why I prefer the textual tradition behind the AV.


----------



## MW (Apr 8, 2011)

Fogetaboutit said:


> Very well said, I wish more denomination/churches would adhere to this position, in general there is a lack of awareness as to why someone would prefer the AV or a translation based on the TT as opposed to the CT and most of the time this is what causes frictions. Pretty much every christian that I know have been warned to flee KJV Onlyism, plus most seminaries only teach the CT position. This builds a huge wall when trying to explain why I prefer the textual tradition behind the AV.


 
It is very similar to the way evolution rules the roost in secular education. Creation is laughed out of the classroom as something unworthy of consideration. One would hope that Christians might learn from their own experiences and be careful not to prejudice other Christians in the same way.


----------

