💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › occult › CHRISTIAN › myth4.txt captured on 2022-06-12 at 16:17:57.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[The following material is published by Way of Life Literature and is copyrighted by David W. Cloud, 1986. All rights are reserved. Permission is given for duplication for personal use, but not for resale. The following is available in booklet format from Way of Life Literature, Bible Baptist Church, 1219 N. Harns Road, Oak Harbor, Washington 98277. Phone (206) 675- 8311. This article is number four in a set of five booklets.] MYTHS ABOUT THE KING JAMES BIBLE: Copyright 1986 by David W. Cloud. All rights reserved. MYTH # 4: INSPIRATION IS PERFECT, BUT PRESERVATION IS GENERAL By David W. Cloud CHAPTER 1 THE NATURALISTIC VIEW OF PRESERVATION Another popular myth surrounding the King James Bible is the concept that while God inspired the Scriptures perfectly, He has preserved the Scriptures only in a more general sense. To put this another way, while inspiration was miraculous, preservation has been merely circumstantial. This thinking is common among evangelicals. It is also common among fundamentalists who have been trained in many of the large colleges and seminaries of our land. These contend that though the Bible was verbally inspired and infallible in the original autographs, there is no truly perfect Bible today. According to this position, none of the various editions of the Greek and Hebrew texts, nor the translations thereof, are absolutely perfect. EXAMPLES OF THE POPULAR VIEW Harold Lindsell exemplifies this persuasion. Lindsell is in the mainstream of the evangelical movement. He was vice-president of Fuller Theological Seminary; he taught at Columbia Bible College and at Northern Baptist Seminary; and he has served as Senior Editor of Christianity Today. In 1976 Lindsell published The Battle for the Bible to warn of the downgrading of the doctrine of inspiration among evangelicals. Lindsell said, "This change of position with respect to the infallibility of the Bible is widespread and has occurred in evangelical denominations, Christian colleges, theological seminaries, publishing houses, and learned societies" (p. 20). The point to note here is that Lindsell stands for the absolute perfection of the Bible AS ORIGINALLY GIVEN. Consider some statements from his book: "Inspiration may be defined as the inward work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts and minds of chosen men who then wrote the Scriptures so that God got written what He wanted. The Bible in all of its parts constitutes the written Word of God to man. This Word is free from all error IN ITS ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS. ... It is wholly trustworthy in matters of history and doctrine. ... The very nature of inspiration renders the Bible infallible ... It is inerrant in that it is not false, mistaken, or defective. Inspiration extends to all parts of the written Word of God and it includes the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit even in the selection of the words of Scripture" (pp. 30- 31). This is an excellent statement on the Bible's inspiration. The strange problem is that Lindsell does not believe such a Bible exists today. When it comes to the Bible today, Lindsell takes a rather different position. He says, "God did not shield Scripture when it became a part of history. ... F.F. Bruce has this to say ... `The variant readings about which any doubt remains ... affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice'" (p. 37). This is a different matter altogether. A Bible that is word-for- word inspired and absolutely perfect in every detail is a different thing from one that is only accurate in its basic historical facts and doctrines, one which contains hundreds of variant readings which might be wrong. Lindsell's thinking as to existing Bibles is seen in that he has published a study Bible using The Living Bible, which is one of the worst translations in existence. In announcing The Lindsell Study Bible - The Living Bible, Lindsell said, "The Living Bible makes clearer what other translations render obscure. ... I recommend it highly." In 1972, while Lindsell was editor, free copies of The Living Bible were offered as a bonus for every new subscription to Christianity Today. Lindsell fights for the absolute perfection of the original autographs of the Bible but he accepts practically any and every translation and paraphrase, regardless of the fact that these versions differ from one another in thousands of consequential particulars. In practice, therefore, Lindsell has no perfect Bible, as he has admitted. Let me give another example of this thinking. James Boice was Chairman of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, which in the 1980s held several conferences to explain and defend the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. Speaking of these matters, Boice said, "These are the great issues of the day, and they need to be dealt with, particularly by men and women who approach them on the basis of God's inerrant Word, our Bible" (Christian News, Sept. 16, 1985). That sounds great. But again, when it comes to existing Bibles, Dr. Boice changes his tune. In a letter dated Sept. 13, 1985, to Dr. Thomas Hale, missionary doctor in Nepal, Boice gave his opinion regarding translations. Earlier in 1985, Dr. Hale had visited our home in Nepal and had asked me for information on Bible versions. For the next few months we corresponded on these matters and I sent him some materials, including Which Bible edited by David Otis Fuller, and The King James Bible Defended by Edward F. Hills. As these communications proceeded, Dr. Hale wrote to Boice and asked his opinion of texts and translations. A copy of this letter was given to me by Dr. Hale. Consider an excerpt: "I might add that the issue has come before the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy on several occasions and that every one of these men see the value of the newer texts in translations and are not defenders of the King James Version as the only text. Every man on this council is committed to inerrancy. Some prefer the King James Version and use it, for various reasons. But not one defends it or the textus receptus as the true and only valid text. "... people who defend the textus receptus ardently should know these facts [editor: Boice had voiced the timeworn arguments that 1) the majority of manuscripts which support the Received Text are supposedly inferior to the few that support the Westcott-Hort Text, 2) Erasmus supposedly was a humanist and did not have broad manuscript evidence]. It is not a Divinely given and specially preserved text of the New Testament. ... "Let me say personally that the English text that I work from most often is the New International Version. IT IS NOT PERFECT, but it is a very good text and may well win a place in the contemporary church similar to the place held by the King James Version for so long. ... I must say, although I DO NOT ALWAYS AGREE WITH THE NIV, that GENERALLY it does a better job of translating the Greek text than the King James does." We can see that while Boice and the other evangelical leaders in the Council on Biblical Inerrancy are committed to the perfect inspiration of the Bible as a theological concept, they are equally committed to the fact that no such Bible exists today. They say the Received Text is not perfect. <The Received Text (Textus Receptus), also called the Traditional Text, or the Byzantine Text, is that type of "text which is found in the vast majority of the extant Greek New Testament manuscripts, which was adopted by Protestants at the time of the Reformation and used by them universally for more than three hundred years, and which forms the basis of the King James Version and other early Protestant translations" (Edward F. Hills, "The Magnificent Burgon," Which Bible?, p. 88).> The King James Bible is not perfect. The NIV is nice, but it certainly is not perfect. These men have no perfect Bible and do not believe such a Bible exists. Yet they are busy fighting for the absolute infallibility and verbal inspiration of the Bible! What Bible? A Bible that has ceased to exist. Further, these scholarly giants slander those who do believe in a perfect Bible and contend that WE are unreasonable troublemakers! Note the intellectual pride which oozes from Boice's pen regarding those simpletons who believe the Received Text is the perfect, preserved Word of God: "Let me say that the concerns of some of these people are undoubtedly good. They are zealous for the Word of God and very much concerned lest liberal or any other scholarship enter in to pervert it. But unfortunately, the basis on which they are operating is wrong, and I have always tried to do what I could in a gentle way to lead them to appreciate good, current evangelical scholarship where the Greek text and the translations are concerned. ... The situation is somewhat complex, and many people do not understand it as a result of that complexity." This amazing scholarly pride characterizes the writings of all of these men, regardless of their theological bent. Anyone who refuses to accept the common scholarly line regarding texts and versions is an ignoramus. Dr. David Otis Fuller identified this phenomenon as "scholarolotry." These men conveniently ignore the fact that many intelligent, knowledgeable men reject the modern text and stand firmly upon the KJV. In the fundamentalist world a similar situation exists, particularly among Bible college professors and their ardent followers. Stewart Custer of Bob Jones University epitomizes this position. His book Does Inspiration Demand Inerrancy? is a fine defense of the perfect infallibility of the Scriptures--but only in regard to the so-called autographs. Consider: "Conservatives are not contending for the infallibility of any translation, but only for the infallibility of the original documents. ... `the record for whose inspiration we contend is the original record--the autographs or parchments of Moses, David, Daniel, Matthew, Paul, or Peter, as the case may be, and not any particular translation or translations of them whatever. There is no translation absolutely without error, nor could there be, considering the infirmities of human copyists, unless God were pleased to perform a perpetual miracle to secure it'" (p. 88). In the book The Truth about the King James Version Controversy, Custer acknowledges that there is at least a 10% difference between the Greek text of the King James Bible and that of the modern Bibles. Yet of this vast amount of difference he concludes, "There is no fundamental doctrine that is at stake between these two families of manuscripts. ... God's preservation is not a continuing inspiration, but a preservation so that no teaching of the Bible would be lost." The problem with this position is that it is based on human logic and not on the Word of God. The same God that perfectly inspired the Scriptures has promised to perfectly preserve the Scriptures--not merely its teachings, but its very words. What is wrong with believing in a continuing miracle? If Bible preservation is not miraculous, the doctrine of inspiration is meaningless. If inspiration was perfect but preservation is only general, the entire matter is vain jangling. CHAPTER 2 THE EXTENT OF PRESERVATION The bottom line in this matter is that the same Bible that claims to be perfectly inspired also claims to be perfectly preserved. My faith in this is not based on common sense (though it is sensible to believe that if God gave a perfect Bible He would preserve that very Bible). My faith in this matter is based on the promises of a God that cannot lie. The men quoted previously, which represent a wide field of thinking, write volumes defining and defending what the Bible says about its own inspiration, but they are strangely silent on what the same Bible says about preservation. They take the position of faith in regard to inspiration but retreat to the position of skepticism in regard to preservation. Jack Moorman, in his excellent manual Forever Settled, states the problem plainly: "A far better principle is given in Rom. 14:23--`Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.' If I cannot by faith take the Bible in my hand and say this is the preserved Word of God, then it is sin. If we do not approach the study of how we got our Bible from the standpoint of faith, then it is sin. If I cannot believe what God says about the preservation of His Word, then I cannot believe what He says about its inspiration either--all is sin." Faith stands on the Word of God. Let us see exactly what the Bible says about this matter of its own preservation: "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Psa. 12:6-7 "The counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations." Psa. 33:11 "For the Lord is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations." Psa. 100:5 "The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure. They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness." Psa. 111:7-8 "... the truth of the Lord endureth for ever. Praise ye the Lord." Psa. 117:2 "For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven." Psa. 119:89 "Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever." Psa. 119:152 "Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." Psa. 119:160 "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever." Isa. 40:8 "As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever." Isa. 59:21 "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matt. 5:18 "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Matt. 24:35 "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God which liveth and abideth forever." 1 Pet. 1:23 "But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you." 1 Pet. 1:25 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 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." Rev. 22:18-19 The teaching of these passages is that God would preserve His Word in detail to every generation. This, and this alone, is the biblical doctrine of preservation. I call this verbal preservation. The scholars mock this position and sneeringly label it with derogatory terms such as "secondary inspiration," but I am convinced the Bible teaches miraculous inspiration and miraculous preservation. Psa. 12:6-7 summarizes the doctrine of Bible preservation. This passage promises that the pure words (not just thoughts or general teachings) of God would be kept to every generation. Preserved words. Not just the doctrines. Not just the historical facts. The words! This is verbal preservation, and it is exactly what the Bible plainly promises. Psa. 33:11 says God's thoughts would not be lost but rather would stand to all generations, and we know from passages such as 1 Cor. 2:12-13 that these divine thoughts have been expressed through divinely-chosen words. "Which things also we speak, NOT IN THE WORDS which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth..." Therefore we see that this promise in Psalm 33, too, is a promise of the verbal preservation of Scripture. Psa. 100:5, 111:7-8, and 117:2 tell us that the truth of God will stand forever and endure to all generations. This could mean that sound doctrine in general will be preserved, as those who take a naturalistic view of preservation contend, but this cannot be. We know that God's truth is not expressed to man merely in general doctrinal terms. Truth is expressed in divinely-selected words. Jesus said, "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth" (Jn. 17:17). He also said, "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Mat. 4:4). It is crucial that men have the very words of Scripture. God has not merely given man a pattern of truth; He has given the very form of truth in the Scriptures. It is this verbally inspired truth that the Old Testament is promising will be preserved. Psa. 119:160 adds the testimony that even the very earliest portions of God's Word, Genesis and the other writings of Moses, would be preserved. Psa. 100:5 connects Bible preservation with God's goodness and mercy. It is because God loves man that He has given His Book. Psalm 100:5 reminds us that the same love which motivated God to inspire the Scriptures, motivates Him to keep them. Isaiah adds his "amen" to this doctrine of preservation. According to Isa. 59:21, it is the very words of God which will be preserved. The Lord Jesus Christ is even more specific in His teaching about the preservation of Scripture. In Mat. 24:35 the Son of God promises that His WORDS will not pass away. And in Mat. 5:18, He says the very JOTS AND TITTLES of God's Word will not pass away! That is certainly verbal preservation. The Apostle Peter tells us with absolute authority that the Word of God is preserved perpetually, and this includes the Word which has been preached to us in the gospel writings. And by gospel writings we must understand Peter to mean the whole of the New Testament, not just the first four books, for Heb. 2:3 instructs us that the gospel "at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him." Capping off our brief survey of Scripture on this important doctrine is the testimony of Revelation. In the last chapter of this book man is given a dire warning not to tamper with its contents. Obviously this applies directly to Revelation, but it must apply equally to the entire Book of which Revelation forms the last chapter. Think about it. If mankind is forbidden from taking away from or adding to the contents of a Book, it must be obvious that God intends to preserve that Book in every detail. And note that it is the WORDS which man is forbidden to tamper with. "For I testify unto every man that heareth the WORDS of the prophecy of this book ... if any man shall take away from the WORDS of the book of this prophecy..." The WORDS! If God forbids man to tamper with any of the WORDS of the Bible, it is obvious that He intends to preserve those words so they will be available to man. If this isn't true, the warning of Rev. 22:18-19 is meaningless. In summary, we see that the Bible teaches God will preserve His Word in pure form, including the most minute details (the jots and titles, the words), and that this would include the whole Scriptures, Old and New Testaments. The biblical doctrine of preservation is verbal, plenary preservation, which is the only reasonable view in light of the biblical doctrine of the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Writings. Of what benefit are perfect writings which no longer exist? DOES PSALM 12:6-7 REFER TO GOD'S WORDS? There are those who do not believe Psa. 12:6-7 is speaking of the Word of God. These contend that this key passage refers rather to God's preservation of the godly men spoken of in Psa. 12:1. Doug Kutilek, professor at Baptist Bible College of Springfield, is a proponent of this, and R.L. Sumner has printed Kutilek's articles on this in The Biblical Evangelist. I wrote to Dr. Bruce Lackey about Kutilek's teaching on Psalm 12:6-7 and received the following excellent comments in February 1984: "I submit the following reasons for my not being moved away from my conviction that Psalm 12:6-7 does teach the preservation of Scripture. "1. His [Kutilek's] admission that `there are occasional exceptions to the principle of agreement in the Hebrew Bible (see Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar 135 o)' immediately shows that the preservation-interpretation is not automatically incorrect, grammatically, but is definitely possible. A somewhat similar situation exists in John 15:6, where `them' is neuter plural in Greek, and `they are burned' is a singular verb. Dana and Mantey, in A Manual Grammar of The Greek New Testament, on page 165, give the following statement: `A seeming exception to the above principle of syntax is the fact that a neuter plural subject regularly takes a singular verb (John 9:3).' Therefore, it is unwise to prove or disprove a position using the argument of gender and number. Anyone who studies languages knows that there are exceptions. "2. The argument listing various verses in Psalms where `keep' and `preserve' speak of people is not very weighty. Psalm 12:6-7 might be the only place in the whole book which uses these words to refer to things [other than people], but that would not disqualify the situation. Psalm 110:4 is the only verse in the Old Testament which teaches the Melchisedical priesthood of the Lord Jesus, but Hebrews 4:7 does not hesitate to make much of it! "3. The argument from context does not hold water, either. He says, `The basic thrust of the message of Psalm 12 is clear: the psalmist bemoans the decimation of the upright and the growing strength of the wicked.' Thus, he tries to show that verse 7, teaching preservation, would not fit. If this be true, neither would verse 6. Rather, the context is favorable to the preservation-interpretation. God's promise to save the poor and needy is given in verse 5; verses 6 and 7 are injected to show that His promise of verse 5 will never be broken. "4. In the last paragraph, he [Kutilek] says that those who apply these verses `to any doctrine of Bible preservation' are guilty of handling `the Word of God deceitfully and dishonestly, something unworthy of any child of God.' But earlier, he admitted that such illustrious interpreters as John Wesley, Henry Martyn, G. Campbell Morgan, and Kidner, agreed with the preservation-interpretation. Sounds like a mouse attacking elephants! They might have been wrong on some points, but they were certainly not deceitful and dishonest. "Some other verses which teach that God would preserve His Words for all generations are Psalm 33:11; 119:152,160; Isa. 59:21; Mat. 24:35; and I Pet. 1:25. Also, a comparison of Mat. 28:20 and John 14:23 shows that Christ's promise of His continual presence with us is fulfilled as we keep His words; thus His words must be available to believers `alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.'" Bruce Lackey, who died in 1988, was the Dean of the Bible School at Tennessee Temple when I attended there in the 1970s. He was a true scholar in every sense of the word. He was intelligent. He used the Greek language. He was a diligent and careful researcher. He was a highly accomplished musician. But he was also a Bible believer. His doctrine was always based on the Scriptures, not on logic. He was not afraid of rejecting the popular scholarly positions if they were contrary to the Word of God. I sat under Bruce Lackey's teaching for three years and was never, ever given the idea that my Bible was less than perfect. He never caused his students to question the Bible. If that is unscholarly, so be it. DERIVED INSPIRATION Those who mock the idea that there is a perfect Bible today claim that we are teaching a "continuing inspiration." That is not the case. I believe the Bible was inspired of God as it was given to the holy men of old (2 Peter 1:21). As accurate copies and translations of this inspired Scripture have been made, these also bear the holy impression of the originals. I believe an accurate translation of the Greek and Hebrew text can properly be called the inspired Word of God because its inspiration is derived from the original text. The King James Bible is an example. Let me make it clear that I do not believe the KJV is given by inspiration in the same way that original writings were. I believe it has derived its inspiration from the Greek and Hebrew text upon which it is based. Further I do not believe the King James Bible corrects the Greek and Hebrew, is better than the Greek and Hebrew, or a further revelation beyond the Greek and Hebrew. I believe the King James Bible is an accurate and beautiful translation of the preserved Scriptures and as such is the inspired Word of God--inspired derivatively, not directly. I do not believe there are mistakes in the King James Bible. I do believe there are places which could be translated more clearly. I do believe there are antiquated words which could be brought up to date. (Note I did not say should be, but could be.) To say, though, there are changes which could be made in the KJV is entirely different from saying it contains mistakes. I believe the KJV is superior to all other English versions--superior in its textual basis, superior in its method of translation, superior in the scholarship of its translators, superior in its time of translation. The key New Testament passage on the inspiration of Scripture is 2 Timothy 3:15-17. Verse 16 says, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God." This refers to the original giving of the Word of God. The thrust of this passage, though, is that Timothy should have confidence in the Scriptures that he possessed. Verse 15 says the Scripture Timothy had known from a child were "holy Scripture." What Scriptures had Timothy known? Were they the original autographs of Moses and David? Certainly not. Timothy had been taught either from copies of the Hebrew text or from a translation thereof, most likely the later since his father was a Greek and his mother and grandmother had instructed him (2 Tim. 1:5; Acts 16:1). Further, verse 17 encourages Timothy that the inspired Scripture was given to be profitable. Any definition of inspiration which does not involve this doctrine of profitability is wrong. God did not intend that His Word be inspired, then lost. The inspired Word of God has been kept by God. There is inspiration, and there is preservation, and this guarantees profitability. CHAPTER 3 THE PRACTICALITY OF PRESERVATION: CAN A TRANSLATION BE CALLED THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD? Very few people read the Bible languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) fluently. We have seen that Paul's doctrine of inspiration in 2 Timothy chapter three allows for copies and translations to be viewed as the inspired Word of God. Why not? If a translation is an accurate representation of the original Text of Scripture, what is wrong with saying that translation is the inspired Word of God? Many mock such an idea, though. Recently I received a paper written by a Bible college professor in Canada which maligned me for teaching that the King James Version is the inspired Word of God. It was clear that the man had misunderstood and misrepresented my position. In replying to the man and attempting to make my stand on the KJV clear, I sent him statements by certain men that I have high respect for. Consider some of the statements that I sent to this Bible college professor. In addition to statements by the Institute for Biblical Studies and the Dean Burgon Society, I am including ones by Pastor Bob Barnett of Calvary Baptist Church, Grayling, Michigan, who has some wonderful insight into the matter of Bible versions, and the late Frank Logsdon, who was on the committee which prepared the New American Standard Version and the Amplified New Testament. Logsdon later publicly disavowed his association with these versions and defended the King James Bible as the preserved Word of God. Each of these statements was written by intelligent, godly men, who are attempting before God to come to grips with exactly what the Bible teaches about preservation. A man certainly has the privilege of rejecting these statements, but to say that these men are unscholarly or that they do misjustice to the Scripture is slanderous: INSTITUTE FOR BIBLICAL TEXTUAL STUDIES STATEMENT ON PRESERVATION The Institute for Biblical Textual Studies was founded as an extension of Dr. David Otis Fuller's ambition to address the version issue and textual debate on a broader scale. The Institute is committed to: -- the immediate, verbal, plenary inspiration of the original writings of Scripture and that they are therefore inerrant and infallible. This inspiration is unique, applicable both to the process of giving the original writings and the writings themselves which are that product; -- the verbal preservation of the Greek Received Text as published by the Trinitarian Bible Society; -- the verbal preservation of the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text of Daniel Bomberg, as edited by Jacob ben Chayim; -- the position that translation is not an inherent boundary to verbal preservation. The breath of God, product, not process, conveyed by translation from the immediately inspired language copies of Scripture into any providentially prepared receptor language will impart to that translation infallible authority and doctrinal inerrancy inherent in the original language copies. Such a translation by the internal witness of the Holy Spirit, both with and through that translation, will evidence to the believer its own self- attestation and self-authentication whereby God asserts himself as the supreme Authority to that culture. For the English speaking world this revelation of God's authority is preserved in the Authorized Version. THE DEAN BURGON SOCIETY STATEMENT ON PRESERVATION We believe that the King James Version (or Authorized Version) of the English Bible is a true, faithful, and accurate translation of these two providentially preserved Texts [the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text and the Received Greek Text], which in our time has no equal among all of the other English Translations. The translators did such a fine job in their translation task that we can without apology hold up the Authorized Version of 1611 and say, "This is the Word of God!" while at the same time realizing that, in some verses, we must go back to the underlying original language Texts for complete clarity, and also compare Scripture with Scripture. ... Bible inspiration and Bible preservation are supremely important. The undermining or destroying of either doctrine renders the other meaningless. If the Bible is not verbally, plenarily, and inerrantly inspired, and if inspiration does not extend to all matters of which the Bible speaks, it does not matter if the Bible has been preserved or how it has been preserved. It also follows that if the Bible has not been preserved it does not matter how it was inspired. (From the Committee Statement on Bible Preservation of the Dean Burgon Society) FRANK LOGSDON'S STATEMENT ON PRESERVATION Providential preservation is a necessary consequence of Divine Inspiration. Most arguments against the Authorized Version abandon reason! If the Authorized Version is not authentic, which is? If the Authorized Version is not God's revelation, have we been deceived? Did God wait 1900 years to reveal His true Word? If the Authorized Version has been incorrect, what harm has resulted? If the True Revelation was lost, where was God when it happened? Was man left in darkness when the Authorized Version was his only Bible? Were we wrong these years in claiming the Authorized Version to be indeed God's Word? Why has this present generation become so dissatisfied with the Authorized Version? Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this? Who would risk his integrity in saying that any present-day volume excels the Authorized Version? BOB BARNETT'S STATEMENT ON PRESERVATION "I remain in the tradition of Dr. [D.O.] Fuller and many, many others in declaring the authorized King James Bible to be the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God in English. In an attempt to avoid confusion, I have accepted the wisdom of using modifiers to explain and qualify these terms when they are questioned. "I understand that in theological circles, it is not scholarly to claim inspiration, inerrancy, or infallibility for any one-language Bible. Yet, all of us agree and say in public that the Bible is inspired, inerrant, and infallible. When some make that claim, they are referring only to the original autographs of the Bible. When others make that claim, they are referring both to the original autographs and also to the apographs from which the authorized King James Bible was translated. When some of us make that same claim, we are speaking of the total traditional Bible line preserved by divine providence from the autographs, continuing through the apographs, and manifested in English today through our authorized King James Bible. When laymen hear each of us speaking they often assume we are all talking in agreement about the same Bible. "In reality, if inspiration be limited to the languages of the original autographs, then logically an Englishman must master four languages before he can claim to accurately know and communicate God's inspired scriptures to other English speaking people. He must master Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek as well as his own English tongue. This elevates the accurate ministry of God's inspired scriptures to a small handful of scholars who have spent many years in diligent preparation for a few years of ministry. It renders the average pastor and masses of believers submissive to the Bible interpretation of these scholars. This violates the scriptural principles of Acts 17:11. ... "By faith I believe my authorized King James Bible is inspired. I do not believe the KJB translators were inspired, neither were the English words they used. I do believe the KJB derives its inspiration, its inerrancy in doctrine, and its infallible authority from the accurately translated apographs of the original autographs of Holy Scripture. The KJB is inspired, not directly, but derivatively. ... It is inspired in the "logos," but not the "rhema." By this we mean the English letters and words are not inspired, but the truth they communicate in the English language is inspired and alive. This same inspired truth has continued from the original God-breathed Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into our English language. This results in an infallible body of truth, through which the Spirit of Truth can lead the English speaking Bible-believer unto all truth. We cannot adequately defend the accuracy and authority of the authorized KJB without defending its inspiration. "Satan's primary attack upon the Bible today is not upon the original autographs; they are gone. It is not upon the remaining apographs of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Scriptures. Few people have the ability to read, study, and know them. The authorized King James Bible is the greatest danger to Satan in our generation. It is the Bible he hates and attacks the most. While we cannot defend the KJV separate from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek roots from which it comes, neither can we effectively share our faith in these apographs of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Scriptures to an English speaking world without preaching and defending the KJV." We conclude this section with the words of Bruce Lackey: "Faith which is based on a clear promise is stronger than objections which are raised by our lack of information. Since God has promised to preserve His Word for all generations, and since the Hebrew and Greek which is represented by the King James Version is the Bible that has been received from ancient tradition, and since God has so singularly used the truth preached from this Bible, I must follow it and reject others where they differ." CHAPTER 4 THE CONSEQUENCE OF PRESERVATION If the Bible has been perfectly preserved, what does this tell us about the Bible situation today? There are four important consequences of the doctrine of Bible preservation: 1) I must accept the Received Text as the Word of God, 2) I must reject the Westcott-Hort text and its allies, 3) I must reject those modern versions based upon the Westcott-Hort text, and 4) I must reject the so-called Majority Text which seeks to modify the Received Text. I MUST ACCEPT THE RECEIVED TEXT AS THE WORD OF GOD Believing the Bible to be preserved by God, we can look back on the history of the transmission of the Scriptures to see the hand of God in the preservation of a certain text. God's stamp of approval has been upon the Received Text underlying the King James Bible. John Burgon, the distinguished author of Revision Revised, gave this testimony to the antiquity of the Received Text: "The one great fact which especially troubles him [Dr. Hort] and his joint editor [Westcott] (as well it may) is the Traditional Greek Text of the New Testament Scriptures. Call this text Erasmian or Complutensian, the text of Stephens, or of Beza, or of the Elzevirs, call it the Received or the Traditional, or by whatever name you please--the fact remains that a text has come down to us which is attested by a general consensus of ancient Copies, ancient Fathers, and ancient Versions." Burgon, one of England's chief linguistic scholars, knew what he was talking about. One of his accomplishments was collecting and indexing more than 86,000 quotations from the writings of ancient church leaders. (More than 4,000 of these were from writers who died before the year 400 A.D.) He also collated more than 350 Greek manuscripts which had been previously unknown to the scholastic world. Burgon was in a perfect position to know what Bible text was used by Christians down through the centuries. When he says that the Received Text is the one attested by general historic consensus, we can be sure that it is. Few men have possessed more knowledge of their subject than John William Burgon. Further, Burgon was a Bible respecter. While we do not excuse the fact that he was a high church Anglican, we do praise the Lord that the man believed the Book. In this he followed in the footsteps of the King James translators themselves. One of Burgon's peers testified in 1888, "From first to last, all my reminiscences of Dean Burgon are bound up with the Bible, treated as few teachers of divinity now appear to regard it, as God's Word written; `absolute, faultless, unerring, supreme'" (Wilbur Pickering, "Contribution of John William Burgon to New Testament Criticism," True or False?, p. 217). Dr. D.A. Waite, in his book The King James Bible's Superiority, lists the following historical witnesses to the Received text which underlies the King James Bible: The received text was used by: The Churches in Palestine The Syrian Church at Antioch The Peshitta Syriac Version (150 A.D.) Papyrus #75 The Italic Church in Northern Italy (157 A.D.) The Gallic Church of Southern France (177 A.D.) The Celtic Church in Great Britain The Church of Scotland and Ireland The Pre-Waldensian Church The Waldensian, 120 A.D. onward, (The Early Church Period 100-312) The Gothic Version of the 4th century Codex W of Matthew in the 4th or 5th century Codex A in the Gospels in the 5th century The vast majority of extant New Testament manuscripts The Greek Orthodox Church The present Greek Church (the Byzantine Period (312-1453 A.D.) All the churches of the Reformation The Erasmus Greek New Testament (1516) The Complutensian Polyglot (1522) Martin Luther's German Bible (1522) William Tyndale's Bible (1525) The French Version of Oliveton (1535) The Coverdale Bible (1535) The Matthews Bible (1537) The Taverners Bible (1539) The Great Bible (1539-41) The Stephanus Greek New Testament (1546-51) The Geneva Bible of 1557-60) The Bishops' Bible (1568) The Spanish Version (1569) The Beza Greek New Testament (1598) The King James Bible (1611) The Elziver Brothers' Greek New Testament (1624) Waite reaches the conclusion that "the Received Text in the New Testament is the Received Text--the text that has survived in continuity from the beginning of the New Testament itself. It is the only accurate representation of the originals we have today!" Edward Miller, a British scholar who published several important books on the subject of textual criticism at the turn of the century, gave this summary of the period from Chrysostom to the invention of printing: "The great feature in this period was the rise of the Traditional Text into a predominance which was scarcely disputed" (Edward Miller, A Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, pp. 103,104). It is evident that the Bible text commonly received among God's people from the 1st to the 17th century is the text which underlies the King James Bible. It is also evident that most of the Bibles translated throughout the world during the great missionary era of the 17th to 19th centuries were based upon the Received Text. This includes the Bibles translated by the Reformers and Baptists into the languages of Europe, as well as the non- Catholic missionaries who traveled throughout the globe--William Carey in India, Adinoram Judson in Burma, Henry Martyn in Persia, and great numbers of other godly missionaries across the world who translated Bibles into the languages of the people. The vast majority of these Bibles were based upon the Received Text. What this means is this: The majority of Bibles of centuries past contained the verses and words which are disputed by the new texts and versions. They contained Matt. 17:21; 18:11; 21:44; 23:14; Mk. 7:16; 9:44; 9:46; 11:26; 15:28; Lk. 17:36; 24:12; 24:40; Jn. 5:4; Acts 8:37; and Rom. 16:24--all of which are omitted or put in brackets in the new versions. The old missionary Bibles contained the words "God" in 1 Tim. 3:16, "firstborn" in Matt. 1:25, "begotten" in Jn. 1:14, and "the Lord" in 1 Cor. 15:47. All of these are key references to Christ's deity which are removed in the new Bibles. Further, no questions are raised in the old missionary versions regarding the authority of Mk. 16:9-20 or 1 Jn. 5:7-8, as we find in the new texts. History tells us that the Received Text is clearly the preserved Word of God. Further, the King James Bible is the only English Bible translated from the Received Text which bears God's stamp of approval. The King James Bible has endured and increased in popularity for more than three centuries. It was the undisputed English Bible through the 1600s, the 1700s, the 1800s, and most of the 1900s. In the words of Dr. Waite, who has diligently researched matters surrounding Bible texts and versions, "You can trust with confidence the King James Bible in the English language as the most accurate reflection of the original Hebrew and Greek text we have--and probably will have until the Lord returns in the Rapture of the Church. Read it! Study it! Memorize it! Understand it! Believe it! Practice it!" Contrary to this sweet confidence in a preserved Bible, the Preface to the Revised Standard Version gives the popular viewpoint of those who support the modern texts and versions: "...the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision of the English translation. ... The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying." This same thinking is voiced by Neil Lightfoot in How We Got the Bible, a popular text on the transmission of Scripture: "The King James Version rests on an inadequate textual base. ... The text underlying the King James was essentially a medieval text embodying a number of scribal mistakes that had accumulated through the years ... The revisers of 1611 ... simply did not have at their disposal the many manuscripts which are now known. ... All of which means that the King James is a translation of an inferior Greek text..." By faith in God's promise to preserve His Word, I know that the above thinking cannot be true. If the Received Text and the King James Bible are corrupted, God did not preserve His Word. Rather, He allowed a corrupted text to become the world's undisputed Bible. Since this cannot be possible, I place my confidence in the venerable Received Text. I will not allow anyone to take one line of it from me. WE MUST REJECT THE WESTCOTT-HORT LINE OF TEXTS The Westcott-Hort Greek Text was published in 1881 in conjunction with the publication of the English Revised Version. The popular new Greek texts since 1881 are revisions of the Westcott-Hort Text and are significantly different from the Received Text. There are two reasons why the doctrine of preservation results in rejection of the Westcott-Hort Text. First, the Westcott-Hort textual line must be rejected because it was a discarded text. As we have seen, the Received Text was the one which was preferred by God's people through the centuries. The readings adopted by Westcott and Hort, the Revisers of 1881, and critical authorities since, had been rejected as spurious in prior centuries. Erasmus had access to the Westcott-Hort readings, but he rejected them. The King James Translators had access to the Westcott-Hort readings, but they rejected them. Luther rejected the Westcott-Hort readings. The translators of all the other great Protestant versions rejected the Westcott- Hort readings. The great missionary translators such as William Carey and Adinorim Judson rejected the Westcott-Hort readings. I, too, discard the corrupted Westcott-Hort readings! Second, the Westcott-Hort textual line must be rejected because it was a lost text. The most significant changes which Westcott and Hort introduced into their volume were based upon the readings of manuscripts which had been hidden from use during the previous three hundred years--chiefly the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. The Vaticanus manuscript was locked away in the Vatican library during the era of the great missionary period of the 17th to 19th centuries. While it's readings were known by textual researchers--including Erasmus--it did not come into favor until Westcott and Hort incorporated many of its readings into their Greek text. Likewise, the Sinaiticus manuscript was kept in a monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai, and was not available to the public until after it was found by Count Tischendorf in 1844. The doctrine of Bible preservation forces me to reject these manuscripts as spurious. If these were the preserved Word of God, they would not have been hidden away during those crucial centuries. Third, the Westcott-Hort textual line must be rejected because it is a different text. There is a critical difference between the Westcott-Hort Text and the Received Text. Dozens of verses and thousands of important words are omitted in these new texts--verses and words which were in the Bible for centuries. Everett Fowler made extensive studies of the Westcott-Hort Text, the Nestle Text, the United Bible Societies (UBS) Text, and many of the modern English versions based upon these, comparing them with the Received Text and the King James Bible. When the UBS Greek New Testament (a revision of the Westcott-Hort Text which is the most popular Greek text today in Christian education and translation work) is compared with the Received Text, we learn the following: 2,625 words are omitted 310 words are added 18 entire verses omitted; 46 verses questioned by the use of brackets 221 omissions of names regarding the Lord God 318 other different omissions having substantial effect on meaning TOTAL WORD DIFFERENCES 8,674 (Fowler, Evaluating Versions of the New Testament, p. 9). The point is this: If the Bible Societies' Text (there are only 250 or so word differences between the Westcott-Hort Text and the United Bible Societies' Text) is assumed to be the nearest to the verbally inspired original text, then the Received Text includes over 8,000 Greek words not inspired of God, including 18 to 46 entire spurious verses, and dozens of portions of verses. The difference amounts to roughly the same amount of material as that contained in 1 and 2 Peter combined. Not only are the new texts and versions quantitatively different from the Received Text, but they are qualitatively different. A great many of the differences are doctrinally significant. For example, the removal of the word "God" in 1 Tim. 3:16 in the new texts, deletes one of the most powerful testimonies in the Bible to the fact that Jesus Christ is God. The removal of the word "Lord" in 1 Cor. 15:47 deletes another powerful testimony to Christ's deity. The removal of Acts 8:37 deletes the eunuch's testimony of his faith in Christ prior to baptism. A convenient list of 200 of the significant changes in the UBS Greek Testament is available in the New Eye Opener pamphlet. This can be obtained from Way of Life Literature. Myth # 3 in this series of booklets also deals with the doctrinal differences in the versions. There can be no doubt that the Westcott-Hort textual line is significantly different from that which underlies the King James Version and the other great Protestant translations which have been so honored and singularly blessed by God for 400 years. The truth that God would preserve His Word obligates me to reject these new Greek texts as perversions of the Word of God. I will not allow any reading of the God-honored Received Text to be removed from my Bible. WE MUST REJECT THE MODERN VERSIONS Another consequence of Bible preservation is that we are forced to reject the modern versions. Since these versions are based upon the Westcott-Hort type text, they carry the corruptions of that text. They omit dozens of verses and thousands of important words which were in the Received Text through the centuries. This includes the New American Standard Version and the New International Version. The most significant differences between these versions and the King James Bible are textual differences. WE MUST REJECT THE MAJORITY TEXT WHICH SEEKS TO MODIFY THE RECEIVED TEXT I would mention one final consequence of God's preservation--the rejection of the so-called Majority Text. Until recently the term "majority text" was used as a synonym for the Received Text. This changed in 1982 with the publication by Thomas Nelson of The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text edited by Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad, both of Dallas Theological Seminary. It claims to be a corrected edition of the Received Text. The editors' goal was to consider the textual evidence among existing Greek manuscripts for each New Testament word and phrase. If a reading is attested by the majority of manuscripts, it is retained. Otherwise, it is rejected. Other evidence to the authenticity of readings, such as ancient versions and writings of Christian leaders, is not taken into account by Hodges and Farstad--only the Greek manuscripts. There are almost 1900 differences between the Textus Receptus and the Hodges-Farstad Text, many of these highly consequential. Thus, while this matter is not as serious as the problem between the Received Text and the Westcott-Hort Text, it is something which must be faced. For example, I Jn. 5:7-8 is omitted in the Hodges-Farstad Text. While there is manuscript evidence for this reading, it is true that the majority of existing manuscripts do not support it. Thus Hodges-Farstad would have us delete this powerful reference to the Triune Godhead. The author's booklet Slipping Away from Preserved Scripture: Examining the Hodges- Farstad Majority Text gives more information on this matter. The fact is that while the Received Text is a form of the majority text, it is not entirely a majority text. The reason for this is simple: In determining the true reading of Scripture, there are essential factors beyond merely examining extant manuscripts. The important point is this: The editors and supporters of the this new "majority" text would leave us in a situation similar to that found among the proponents of the other modern versions. They don't believe we have a perfect Bible and they make light of those who do. In the introduction to the Hodges-Farstad Text, the editors admit that they do not believe they are presenting a perfect Bible to their readers: "The editors do not imagine that the text of this edition represents in all particulars the exact form of the originals. Desirable as such a text certainly is, much further work must be done before it can be produced. It should therefore be kept in mind that the present work, The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, is both preliminary and provisional." @PARABEFORE2 = Wilbur Pickering, who has written in defense of the Received Text and against the Westcott-Hort Text in general, is a proponent of the new Majority Text. He, too, does not believe there is yet a perfect Bible. Note some of Pickering's statements: "We do not at this moment have the precise wording of the original text." "When all this evidence is in I believe the Textus Receptus will be found to differ from the original in something over a thousand places." "Most seriously misleading is the representation that I am calling for a return to the Textus Receptus ... While men like Brown, Fuller and Hills DO call for a return to the TR as such, Hodges and I do NOT. We are advocating what Kurt Aland has called the majority text." (quoted by Jack Moorman, When the KJV Departs From the `Majority' Text) In The Identity of the New Testament Text, Pickering tells his readers, "Hodges ... will be very happy to hear from anyone interested in furthering the quest for the definitive Text." After almost 2,000 years of church history, the best that Hodges, Farstad, and their allies can offer is a "provisional" New Testament and a "quest for a definitive text." I'm sorry, folks, but I don't want it. I believe God's promises that He would preserve His Word, even the jots and tittles. I don't have to set out in search for the preserved Word of God. It's not lost! My confidence is not in man; it is in Almighty God. I have an absolute authority, and I refuse to play the scholar's game. By the way, Hodges and Farstad were key players in the production of the New King James Version. Approximately 500 footnotes appear in the NKJV which give the supposed "majority readings" over against the Received Text readings, thus deceiving people into thinking that these readings should replace those of the KJV. Future editions of the NKJV will reflect even more of the research of Hodges and Farstad as they and their cohorts plow ahead with their "quest for the definitive text." I praise God that we are not left to drift upon the unsteady seas of modern critical scholarship. As a consequence of faith in God's promises to preserve His Word, I can reject all of these new texts and Bibles and can cleave confidently to the faithful Received Text-based King James Version. "Can the matter be so simple?" you say. Why not? Has God not spoken on the subject? My friends, God has not allowed His Book to be lost. Faith does not have to answer every question the skeptic can throw at it. The Trinity is believed, though we are at a loss to explain the details of it, and those who do not believe it mock us because we cannot answer all their questions. The fact of the Bible canon is believed, though we cannot describe every step whereby the canon was sealed. We have the complete Bible, and that is enough for the man who has faith in God. Yet those who refuse to accept the Bible as the Word of God mock us because we cannot answer all their questions. Likewise, we believe that the Bible has been perfectly preserved because God has said so, though we are at a loss to explain some of the difficulties with this position. Again, those who reject the doctrine of preservation mock us because we cannot answer all their questions. Let them mock. We have God's promise on these things. What do we care if some think we are foolish or unlearned? Was that not the charge brought against the first Christians by their proud detracters? Dear friends, believe God and do not allow any man to shake your confidence in His perfect, preserved Word.