Pray for the Bennetts in Australia as they with God's help and for His glory are seeking to establish: Western Plains Baptist Fellowship, and Gilgandra Baptist Fellowship as New Testament Baptist churches.
2 TIMOTHY 3:13
"…DECEIVING, AND BEING DECEIVED."
Missionary David C. Bennett, D. Min.
"Have you ever noticed that when you're of a certain age, everything seems uphill from where you are? Stairs are steeper. Groceries are heavier. And, everything is farther away. Yesterday I walked to the corner and I was dumbfounded to discover how long our street had become!
And, you know, people are less considerate now, especially the young, ones. They speak in whispers all the time! If you ask them to speak up they just keep repeating themselves, endlessly mouthing the same silent message until they're red in the face! What do they think I am, a lip reader?
I also think they are much younger than I was at the same age. On the other hand, people my own age are so much older than I am. I ran into an old friend the other day and he has aged so much that he didn't even recognize me.
I got to thinking about the poor dear while I was combing my hair this morning, and in doing so, I glanced at my own refection........Well, REALLY NOW ......... even mirrors are not made the way they used to be!
Another thing, everyone drives so fast today! You're risking life and limb if you just happen to pull onto the freeway in front of them. All I can say is, their brakes must wear out awfully fast, the way I see them screech and swerve in my rear view mirror.
The people who make bathroom scales are pulling a prank on me. Do they think I actually "believe" the number I see on that dial? HA! I would never let myself weigh that much! Just who do these people think they're fooling?
I'd like to call up someone in authority to report what's going on – but the telephone company is in on the conspiracy too: they've printed the phone books in such small type that no one could ever find a number in here!"
We laugh at this persons self deception but sometimes we are just like him. But then at times we are sadly deceived by others. Deception can take place in different ways and by different people. Some people deceive because they have been deceived themselves and have not yet discovered the deception. Sadly some people have been deceived and deliberately set out to deceive others. They have one goal and deception is one way of getting to the goal.
When dealing with the Text of the Bible you would think honesty would be a virtue and there would be no deliberate deception. Unfortunately that is not the case. The multitude of modern English versions had their birth in the 1800’s with the publication of the Revised English Version along with its New Greek Text. The deception entered with that New Greek Text. Dean of Chichester John W. Burgon (1831-1888) wrote in REVSION REVISED page 2 that "to construct a new Greek Text formed no part in the Instructions which the Revisionists received at the hands of the Convocation of the Southern Province." Burgon continues on page 6 that "It can never be any question among scholars, that a fatal error was committed when a body of Divines, appointed to revise the Authorized English Version of the New Testament Scriptures, addressed themselves to the solution of an entirely different and far more intricate problem, namely the re-construction of the Greek text." Burgon continues the same thought on page 97 that the "Revisionists have violated the spirit as well as the letter of their instructions, in putting forth a new Greek Text, and silently introducing into it a countless number of these and similar depravations of Scripture." There was deception in the 1800’s and that deception continues to this day. Will "scholars" seek to deceive? Yes, they will and they do.
There is a deception within "Fundamentalism" today. It has been in the "Fundamentalist" schools for years in the form of the Critical Greek Text. That deception is now moving into the "Fundamentalist" churches through the preachers who have been and are being taught in these schools. I attended a school which used the King James Bible in the classes and chapel. However, in Greek they used the UBS Second Edition Greek New Testament. I at the time had no idea this Greek Text opposed the Text underlying the King James Bible in thousands of places. By the good hand of God He directed me to a graduate school that promoted the King James and its Greek Text. I was introduced to the writings of John Burgon and others for which I am eternally grateful.
This paper is written in the spirit of Ephesians 4:15 "...speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ." Matthew 24:35 "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."
In AN OPEN LETTER TO DR. ARLIN HORTON, PRESIDENT PENSACOLA CHRISTIAN COLLEGE
May 22, 1998 Dr. Thurman Wisdom and twenty three other members of the Bob Jones University Bible faculty signed a letter saying "that Bob Jones University stands on the Word of God exactly where it has stood since its founding. We have always used the King James Version; and in recent years, in response to the confusion resulting from the Bible version debate, we have made the King James Version our official Bible. We require that it be used in all services and classes on campus. We believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible, and we believe that God has supernaturally preserved every one of His inspired words for us today. We would not hire or retain a faculty member who did not heartily subscribe to these vital truths."
Are the above statements made in that open letter signed by Dr. Thurmon Wisdom and twenty three others at BJU true? Does every faculty member believe God has "supernaturally preserved every one of His inspired words for us today?" Dr. Randy Jaeggli is a professor of Old Testament at BJU Seminary and signed his name to the open letter. Dr. Jaegglie signed his name to this open letter stating he along with twenty three others at BJU believed God has "supernaturally preserved every one of His inspired words for us today." However, on page 21 of the book FUNDAMENTALIST DISTORTIONS ON BIBLE VERSIONS (FDBV) we read that Dr. Jaeggli said that "As a matter of fact in the Old Testament, anyone who has really studied the Old Testament in any depth, realizes that from time to time he runs across apparent discrepancies from one passage to another. And if we do not hold to some textual criticism to make allowances for scribal mistakes as the scribes hand copied." (Emphasis added). According to this professor it is a FACT that in the Old Testament there are APPARENT DISCREPANICIES! According to this BJU professor there are in the Old Testament SCRIBAL MISTAKES! Does this sound like someone who would sign an open letter stating he believed God has "supernaturally preserved every one of His inspired words for us today."? Then on page 23 of the same book (FDBV) we read Dr. Jaegglie saying "We must have room for these scribal errors in the transmission of the text. And textual criticism takes into account the existence of these scribal errors and answers the question, O.K., of the available readings which one is correct." (Emphasis added). This is a professor at one of the majour strong holds for fundamentalism in America saying that those of us who study God’s Word "MUST have room for these scribal errors in the transmission" of the Word of God!! This doesn’t sound like supernatural preservation of the Words of God to me! In fact, I believe forty years ago if a professor at a fundamental school had made such statements as those just quoted he would have been fired immediately and tagged a liberal if not apostate. But that is not happening today. Why? Perhaps the situation we find ourselves in today concerning the Text of the Bible is what John Burgon foresaw in the 1800’s when he wrote "Who will venture to predict the amount of mischief which must follow, if the 'New Greek Text' which has been put forth by the men who were appointed to revise the English Authorized Version, should become used in our Schools and in our Colleges,-should impose largely on the Clergy of the Church of England?" page 345 REVISION REVISED. Are we now reaping in our "fundamental schools" the "mischief" of which Burgon was speaking?
Can you imagine a professor in a "Fundamental" school signing an open letter stating he believes God has "supernaturally preserved every one of His inspired words for us today" and then later openly without apology making statements that deny that very belief?! This is beyond my comprehension! I again stress this is a professor in what is considered by many the citadel of fundamentalism in America! However, this teaching did not begin with Jaeggli but has been in that school (and other "fundamental" schools) long before this professor signed this open letter stating he believed God has "supernaturally preserved every one of His inspired words for us today." To sign such a letter and then have the audacity to say "We must have room for these scribal errors in the transmission of the text." Are we being deceived by schools that have signed OPEN letters for all to read stating their professors "believe that God has supernaturally preserved every one of His inspired words for us today." and yet do not dismiss a professor who openly says the Old Testament has "apparent discrepancies" and "scribal errors"? If we continue to believe the words of the OPEN LETTER signed by these twenty four BJU professors we then want to be deceived!
Some years before I was involved in the debate over Greek Texts and English translations I somehow acquired a seven page paper titled QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT BIBLE TRANSLATIONS by a (now deceased) BJU graduate. He was at the time the pastor of an independent Baptist church in Ohio. This pastor graduated from Bob Jones University many years before Dr. Randy Jaeggli was on staff. This pastor had prepared this seven page paper with twenty four questions on the Bible translation issue "to acquaint people with a few of the questions that are raised and provide them with what we hope are proper answers to these questions." Of course the focus of the paper is to open the eyes of the reader to accept the new Bible versions and especially the New International Version based on the Critical Greek Text. The following are the twenty four questions and answers this pastor gave his people followed by my comments.
Question # 1. "What is a Bible translation?
It is the rendering into another language of the message contained in the original Greek and Hebrew languages in which the Bible was written?"
My Comment: Dr. D. A. Waite writes in DEFENDING THE KING JAMES BIBLE page 90 "The KING JAMES translators adopted a method of verbal equivalence; and formal equivalence, that is, the words from Greek or Hebrew were rendered as closely as possible into the English. The same is true for the forms of the words. This is called formal equivalence. We have verbs in English. We have nouns, adjectives, prepositions, participles, and so on. If the structure in the Hebrew language was such that it could be brought into the English in the same way, with the same forms, that is what they did. If you have a verb, they brought it over as a verb instead of changing it or transforming it into a noun."
Herbert M. Wolf was a translator for the New International Version. He writes on page 177 in THE PURPOSE AND METHOD OF THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION THE MAKING OF A CONTEMPORAY TRANSLATION "In the Preface to the NIV, the Committee on Bible Translation states that SOMETIMES IT WAS NECESSARY to modify sentence structure and to MOVE AWAY FROM A WORD – FOR – WORD
Translation in order to be faithful to THE THOUGHT OF THE BIBLICAL WRITERS and to produce a truly accurate translation." (Emphasis added) It is important to note Mr. Wolf talks of the biblical writers THOUGHTS while translation has to do with WORDS. Mr. Wolf continues "While it may be true that at TIMES THE NIV TRANSLATORS HAVE BEEN GUILTY OF READING SOMETHING INTO THE TEXT, I would contend that OVERALL this version has achieved a high level of accuracy by its philosophy of translation." (Emphasis added).
Remember what Dr. Waite wrote saying "We have verbs in English. We have nouns, adjectives, prepositions, participles, and so on. If the structure in the Hebrew language was such that it could be brought into the English in the same way, with the same forms, that is what they did. If you have a verb, they brought it over as a verb instead of changing it or transforming it into a noun."
On page 183 of THE PURPOSE AND METHOD OF THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION THE MAKING OF A CONTEMPORAY TRANSLATION Mr. Wolf writes "Nouns may be translated as verbs, or perhaps conjunctions as prepositions."
On page 188 of THE PURPOSE AND METHOD OF THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION THE MAKING OF A CONTEMPORAY TRANSLATION Mr. Wolf writes that "no version that aims at accuracy is eager to depart from a literal translation too often. BELIEVERS WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE BILBE SAYS AS WELL AS WHAT IT MEANS." But "at times it is necessary to move away from a literal translation so that THE MESSAGE of the Scriptures can be clearly communicated." (Emphasis added).
Does the NIV faithfully render into English the "original Greek and Hebrew languages in which the Bible was written."?
Question #2 "Are all translations (versions) of the Bible reliable?
No. Some are not reliable. Perhaps they were done by incompetent people, or by theologically unsound people. Perhaps they were produced to forward the peculiar viewpoints of a cult (The New World Translation, Jehovah’s Witnesses)."
My Comment: Are these statements true? Is this pastor deliberately telling a lie or is he parroting something others have said? Perhaps he heard similar statements from his Greek professor at BJU? The New International Version (NIV) to which this church, under this pastor’s leadership, changed follows very closely with the Jehovah Witnesses New World Translation (NWT). Some examples of verses found in the King James Bible but omitted from the NWT and the NIV are: Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:26; Luke 17:36; 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 15: 34; 24:7 and 28:29. If the NIV follows so closely to the JW’S "Bible" may we question whether the NIV translators were "not reliable" or perhaps "incompetent" or "theologically unsound" people? It is a fact that the NWT Greek Text and the NIV Greek Text agree with one another in the omission of the above verses. Could the Greek Texts underlying the NIV and the NWT be heretical?
Question # 3. "Is there a difference between a translation and a paraphrase?
Yes. A translation is the result of a serious attempt to render the EXACT MEANING of the original Greek and Hebrew into the current language. A paraphrase takes greater liberty with the text and the author often expands the thoughts beyond the meaning of the original. Thus the paraphrase, at least in many instances, becomes more of a commentary than a translation. An example of a paraphrase would be Good News for Modern Man." (Emphasis added)
My Comment: DEFENDING THE KING JAMES BIBLE page 104 Dr. D. A. Waite says "If ‘translation’ is trans and latus, ‘lifting up and carrying over from one language to another,’ what is paraphrase? The word paraphrase comes from the Greek paraphrases which is para (along side, or near) and phrasis is ‘to speak’ from phrazein. It means: ‘To say the same thing in other words, …a re-statement of a text, passage or work, giving the meaning in another form;… To express, interpret or translate with latitude; to give the meaning of (a passage) in other language." (Webster’s, op. cit. p.610)" Dr. Waite on page 105 then writes that the NIV "paraphrases over 6,653 times."
Is the NIV a reliable translation? Is the NIV a translation a fundamentalist should use?
Question # 4. Are there any translations that are inspired by God and thus without error?
No. All translations are man-made. In cases where the translators were born-again believers the Lord no doubt helped give them wisdom in their work, but they did not receive the special superintending that the original authors of the Scripture received as mentioned in 2 Peter 1: 20-21. The following statement, typical of the position of some, would therefore be incorrect: ‘The King James Bible (A. V. 1611) is the inerrant Word of God….’ (‘The King James Contender’, April, 1980)."
My Comment: Dr. D. A. Waite on pages 245 and 246 of DEFENDING THE KING JAMES BIBLE answers the question as to if he believes the King James Bible is without translation errors? "Yes, I would say as far as translation errors that I haven’t found any either in the Old Testament Hebrew or in the New Testament Greek.I don’t like the word ‘inerrant’ of any English (or other language) translation of the Bible because the word ‘inerrant’ is implied from the Greek Word, theopneustos (2 Timothy 3:16) which means literally, ‘GOD BREATHED.’" God only breathed out Hebrew/Aramaic, and Greek and "Therefore, ONLY THE HEBREW/ARAMAIC AND GREEK CAN BE RIGHTLY TERMED ‘GOD BREATHED’ OR ‘INERRANT’!!" But as to the King James Bible Dr. Waite believes the King James translators picked the correct meaning for the Hebrew and Greek folloing "both the Hebrew and Greek grammar and English grammar. Therefore, I have not found any translation errors in the KING JAMES BIBLE." (Emphasis in the original).
A Christian can pick up his King James Bible and without hesitation say he has God’s Word in English.
Question # 6 "Do we possess the original manuscripts today?
No. The original manuscripts have long since disappeared."
My Comment: He is right that the original manuscripts have disappeared. But God has not left us without His Word and Words. Twenty four BJU professors signed an open letter stating "that God has supernaturally preserved every one of His inspired words for us today." Where are those "preserved" words? They are either in the many Critical Greek Texts that have been produced since Westcott & Hort’s (W & H hereafter) Critical Text or in the Text underlying the King James Bible (which Text Hort called villainous). Dr. Thomas Strouse in A SYLLABUS OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM page 13 writes that God promised "through the Holy Spirit (through the Priesthood of Believers) to not only inspire the Originals but to preserve His Word. He preserved His Word and the evidence affirms that God did so through the Traditional Text." The originals are gone but His Word and Words are not! Matthew 24:35 "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."
Question # 7 "How do we then know when we have an accurate Bible?
Through the meticulous process know as ‘textual criticism’ all existing copies of the Bible and parts of the Bible are examined, compared, and, following accepted guidelines, the original reading is determined. IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES IN TEXTUAL READING ARE RELATIVELY FEW AND ALMOST NONE WOULD AFFECT ANY MAJOR CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE." (Emphasis added)
My Comment: (1) If important differences in the textual reading are so few and no majour doctrine is affected why do these "scholars" continue to edit and re-edit their Greek Text? If no majour Christian doctrine is affected why then are the "scholars" not satisfied with the Greek Text underlying the King James Bible? There must be some reason?
(2) Have the translators of any of the new English versions (including the Revised Version of Westcott and Hort) been meticulously examined, compared all existing copies of the Bible and parts of the Bible? I think not! This belief will be shown later in this paper.
Question #8 "Could we say that God supernaturally superintended the preservation of His Word through the translation process with the result that the King James Version as we now have it, is in truth, the only accurate and trust-worthy translation?
Yes, we could say this (and some do), but it would not be an accurate statement. There is no Biblical evidence that supports this concept of preservation of the text."
My Comment: God’s original Words were written in Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek. Psalm 12: 6 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Dr. Thomas Strouse writes in the conclusion of his excellent Essay on PSALM 12:6-7 AND THE PERMANENT PRESERVATION OF GOD’S WORDS that "The structure, context and exegesis of the Masoretic Hebrew Text of Psalm 12 all argue forcefully and irrefragably for the promise of the everlasting preservation of the perfect Words of the Lord. This is one of several clear passages in which the Lord promised to preserve His canonical Words for every generation."
Dean John William Burgon defended the preservation of the New Testament through the multitude of manuscript copies when he wrote "The provision, then which the Divine Author of Scripture is found to have made for the preservation of His written Word, is of a peculiarly varied and highly complex description, First—By causing that a vast multiplication of Copies should be required all down the ages,—beginning at the earliest period, and continuing in an ever-increasing ratio until the actual invention of Printing,—He provided the most effectual security imaginable against fraud. True, that millions of the copies so produced have long since perished; but it is nevertheless a plain fact that there survive of the Gospels alone upwards of one thousand copies in the present day." REVISION REVISED, Conservative Classics, Paradise, PA pp8-9.
I agree with Dr. Jack Moorman that God providentially brought "forth a translation of the Bible which would sum up in itself the best of the ages. The Heavenly Father foresaw the opportunity of giving His Word to the inhabitants of the earth by the coming of the British Empire with its dominions scattered throughout the world, and by the great American Republic, both speaking the English language." Dr. Jack Moorman, FOREVER SETTLED pp 243,244.
In 1611 the English language was "in the very best condition to receive into its bosom the Old and New Testaments. The past forty years had been years of extraordinary growth in English literature. Prose writers and poets Spenser, Sidney, Hooker, Marlowe, Shakespeare, to name only the greatest had combined to spread abroad a sense of literary style to raise the standard of literary taste. Under the influence, conscious or unconscious, of masters such as these, the revisers wrought out the fine material left to them by Tyndale and his successors into the splendid monument of Elizabethan prose which the Authorized Version is universally admitted to be (Kenyon)." FOREVER SETTLED p 245.
The King James translators faithfully and accurately brought across (translated) the meaning of those preserved Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek words into English so that we can say our King James Bible "is the Word of God" in the English language!
Question # 9. "Are the Greek manuscripts which were used as the basis for the King James version more reliable than other manuscripts of the Greek New testament?
In 1633 there was published in Europe an edition of the Greek New Testament edited by Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir. Contained in an explanatory introduction to this edition was the statement (in Latin): "The text that you have is now received by all, in which we give nothing changed or perverted.’ The two words ‘text’ and ‘received’ became the basis for the phrase ‘Textus Receptus’ (TR) and is the particular Greek text some contend is the only valid one, and the King James Version, based, as they say, upon this text, is therefore the only valid translation. It needs to be noted, however, that the ‘Textus Receptus’ is not the ‘received text’ in the sense that it is approved by God as higher and more authoritative than other Greek manuscripts."
My Comment: Dr. Jack Moorman asks on p 74 of FOREVER SETTLED "What about the text referred to as Majority, Traditional, Byzantine, Syrian, Antiochan or Received?" Brother Moorman goes on to say "the MSS which fall under the category of ‘Received,’ though differing in minor details, show a very definite unity. They are family members that get along quite well."
Question #10 "Some English scholars of the New Testament by the names of B. F. Westcott and J. A. H. Hort did not accept completely the ‘Textus Receptus’ but followed what is called an ‘eclectic text.’ What does that mean?
‘Eclectic’ means something picked out of various sources. Westcott and Hort decided basically to take all of the various existing manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, study, compare and evaluate them according to accepted principles of textual study and thus formulate what they considered to be the original text of the New Testament.
Most modern translations follow the ‘eclectic’ method or the so-called ‘critical text.’ A ‘critical text’ is one which, rather than following a single manuscript or family of manuscripts, is derived from an examination of all the variant readings of the different manuscripts. Competent scholars, proceeding on laws pertaining to this science, make judgments as to which reading is the original."
My Comment: Wow, did you follow all that? Allow me to go through this point by point.
(1). When the pastor said W & H "did not accept completely the Textus Receptus" what did W & H really think of the Textus Receptus? Hort answers that question when he wrote in December 1851 saying "I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus.. Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late MSS.; it is a blessing there are such early ones" (Life, Vol.I, p.211). That is what he thought of the Greek Terxt underlying the King James Bible.
(2). As to W & H’s "accepted principles of textual study" and their effort to "formulate what they considered to be the original text of the New Testament" John W. Burgon writes that their "attempt to determine the Truth of Scripture on scientific principles, the work before us may be regarded as the latest outcome of that violent recoil from the Traditional Greek text, -that strange impatience of its authority, or rather denial that it possesses any authority at all, -which began with Lachmann just 50 years ago (viz. in 1831), and has prevailed ever since; its most conspicuous promoters being Tregelles (1857-72) and Tischendorf (1865-71)." REVISION REVISED pages 241, 242.
(3). Did W& H "take all of the various existing manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, study, compare and evaluate them" to "formulate what they considered to be the original text of the New Testament."? Burgon states that W & H believed Vaticanus "codex B is to be the standard: itself not absolutely requiring confirmation from any extraneous quarter. Dr. Hort asserts, (but it is, as usual, mere assertion,) that, ‘Even when B stands quite alone, its readings must never be lightly rejected.’ – (p. 557.)" REVISION REVISED p. 314.
On page 316 of REVISION REVISED Burgon states Hort’s position on manuscripts as " ‘A Text formed’ by ‘taking Codex B as the sole authority,’ ‘would be incomparably nearer the Truth than a Text similarly taken from any other Greek or other single document’ (p. 251)." Does this match what the pastor is telling his people?
Again on page 301 of REVISION REVISED Burgon states W & H’s fancy for the Vaticanus manuscript also known as B when he writes "All is summed up in the curt formula – Codex B!" He then states "Behold then the altar at which Copies, Fathers, Versions, are all to be ruthlessly sacrificed: -the tribunal from which there shall be absolutely no appeal: -the Oracle which is to silence every doubt, resolve every riddle, smooth away every difficulty. All has been stated, where the name has been pronounced of –codex B."
Those who follow W & H’s theory rely heavily on Codex B (Vaticanus). In the paper DATING THE OLDEST NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS by Peter Van Minnen we read: "We now have early and very early evidence for the text of the New Testament. A classified list of the most important manuscripts will make this clear. Numbers preceded by a P refer to papyri, the letters refer to parchment manuscripts.
ca. A.D. 200 250 300 350 450
Matthew P45 B Sin.
Mark P45 B Sin. A
Luke P4,P45,P75 B Sin. A
John P66 P45,P75 B Sin. A
Acts P45 B Sin. A
Romans-Hebrews P46 B Sin. A
James-Jude P72,B Sin. A
Apocalypse P47 Sin. A
"As you can see, from the fourth century onwards the material base for establishing the text of the Greek New Testament is very good indeed. The manuscripts Sin. (Sinaiticus), A (Alexandrinus) and B (Vaticanus) are almost complete parchment manuscripts. With the help of the earlier papyrus manuscripts we have been able to establish that the text of these three great manuscripts is to a large extent reliable. The papyrus manuscript P75 was the latest to be published, but it showed a virtually identical text to manuscript B. This settled the vexed question whether we have in the parchment manuscripts of the fourth and fifth centuries a safe guide to the original text of the New Testament. We have."
Note the authority placed on manuscript B? If the manuscripts agree with B then is "settled the vexed question whether we have in the parchment manuscripts of the fourth and fifth centuries a safe guide to the original text of the New Testament. We have."
(4). Consider the statement "Competent scholars, proceeding on laws pertaining to this science, make judgments as to which reading is the original." Are the only "competent" scholars those who come up with a Text opposed to the Textus Receptus? What are the laws upon which these scholars make these judgments "as to which reading is the original."? The pastor does not give the laws but they are probably the following principles taken from a compilation in Epp and Fee 1993, pages 157-8. References in parentheses are to sections of Hort's Introduction, from which the principles have been extracted.
1. Older readings, MSS, or groups are to be preferred. ("The shorter the interval between the time of the autograph and the end of the period of transmission in question, the stronger the presumption that earlier date implies greater purity of text.") (2.59; cf. 2.5-6, 31)
2. Readings are approved or rejected by reason of the quality, and not the number, of their supporting witnesses. ("No available presumptions whatever as to text can be obtained from number alone, that is, from number not as yet interpreted by descent.") (2.44)
3. A reading combining two simple, alternative readings is later than the two readings comprising the conflation, and MSS rarely or never supporting conflate reading are text antecedent to mixture and are of special value. (2.49-50).
4. The reading is to be preferred that makes the best sense, that is, that best conforms to the grammar and is most congruous with the purport of the rest of the sentence and of the larger context. (2.20)
5. The reading is to be preferred that best conforms to the usual style of the author and to that author's material in other passages. (2.20)
6. The reading is to be preferred that most fitly explains the existence of the others. (2.22-23)
7. The reading is less likely to be original that combines the appearance of an improvement in the sense with the absence of its reality; the scribal alteration will have an apparent excellence, while the original will have the highest real excellence. (2.27, 29)
8. The reading is less likely to be original that shows a disposition to smooth away difficulties (another way of stating that the harder reading is preferable). (2.28)
9. Readings are to be preferred that are found in a MS that habitually contains superior readings as determined by intrinsic and transcriptional probability. Certainty is increased if such a better MS is found also to be an older MS (2.32-33) and if such a MS habitually contains reading that prove themselves antecedent to mixture and independent of external contamination by other, inferior texts (2.150-51). The same principles apply to groups of MSS (2.260-61).
As to the "eclectic" method (also called dynamic equivalency) of translating Dr. Thomas Strouse in THE LORD GOD HATH SPOKEN page 23 says "There are several major problems with the theory of Dynamic Equivalency. (1) Dynamic Equivalency denies a Biblical view of inspiration. (2) Dynamic Equivalency confuses man’s spiritual blindness with cultural ignorance. (3) Dynamic Equivalency undermines the role of the pastor and the local church to apply the Bible to the congregation. (4) Dynamic Equivalency fails to communicate eternal truth."
Question # 11. "Were not Westcott and Hort liberal-leaning scholars who had a bias against a high view of Scripture and thus were incapable of correctly judging the evidence for a true text?
The theological position of both these men has been overdrawn by some in their zealot prove them wrong. We would not feel obligated to defend every statement they made or view they held, but such works as Westcott’s commentary on the Gospel of John are still held in high esteem by some conservative scholars today. Great conservative scholars (Warfield, Machen, etc.) of the past and present have held to the concept of the ‘eclectic’ text as propounded by these men."
My. Comment: These two men were not orthodox in their beliefs. This is substantiated by the following quotes from the diaries and letters of Westcott and Hort.
Oct. 22nd after Trinity Sunday - Westcott: "Do you not understand the meaning of Theological 'Development'? It is briefly this, that in an early time some doctrine is proposed in a simple or obscure form, or even but darkly hinted at, which in succeeding ages, as the wants of men's minds grow, grows with them - in fact, that Christianity is always progressive in its principles and doctrines" (Life, Vol.I, p.78).
Dec. 23rd - Westcott: "My faith is still wavering. I cannot determine how much we must believe; how much, in fact, is necessarily required of a member of the Church." (Life, Vol.I, p.46).
1847 Jan., 2nd Sunday after Epiphany - Westcott: "After leaving the monastery we shaped our course to a little oratory...It is very small, with one kneeling-place; and behind a screen was a 'Pieta' the size of life (i.e. a Virgin and dead Christ)...I could not help thinking on the grandeur of the Romish Church, on her zeal even in error, on her earnestness and self-devotion, which we might, with nobler views and a purer end, strive to imitate. Had I been alone I could have knelt there for hours." (Life, Vol.I, p.81).
1848 July 6th - Hort: "One of the things, I think, which shows the falsity of the Evangelical notion of this subject (baptism), is that it is so trim and precise...no deep spiritual truths of the Reason are thus logically harmonious and systematic...the pure Romish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than the Evangelical...the fanaticism of the bibliolaters, among whom reading so many 'chapters' seems exactly to correspond to the Romish superstition of telling so many dozen beads on a rosary...still we dare not forsake the Sacraments, or God will forsake us...I am inclined to think that no such state as 'Eden' (I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam's fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants" (Life, Vol.I, pp.76-78).
Aug. 11th - Westcott: "I never read an account of a miracle (in Scripture?) but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover some want of evidence in the account of it." (Life, Vol.I, p.52).
1858 Oct. 21st - Further I agree with them in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology as, to say the least, containing much superstition and immorality of a very pernicious kind...The positive doctrines even of the Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue...There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible" (Life, Vol.I, p.400).
1860 Apr. 3rd - Hort: "But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with. I must work out and examine the argument in more detail, but at present my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable." (Life, Vol.I, p.416).
Oct. 15th - Hort: "I entirely agree - correcting one word - with what you there say on the Atonement, having for many years believed that "the absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ Himself" is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit...Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy." (Life, Vol.I, p.430).
1865 Sept. 27th - Westcott: "I have been trying to recall my impressions of La Salette (a marian shrine). I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry bears witness; and how we can practically set forth the teaching of the miracles".
Nov. 17th - Westcott: "As far as I could judge, the 'idea' of La Salette was that of God revealing Himself now, and not in one form but in many." (Life, Vol.I. pp.251,252).
Oct. 17th - Hort: "I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and 'Jesus'-worship have very much in common in their causes and their results." (Life, Vol.II, p.50).
1867 Oct. 17th - Hort: "I wish we were more agreed on the doctrinal part; but you know I am a staunch sacerdotalist, and there is not much profit in arguing about first principles." (Life, Vol.II, p.86).
1890 Mar. 4th - Westcott: "No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history - I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did - yet they disclose to us a Gospel. So it is probably elsewhere."
From these statements these men were not orthodox. They had, I believe, a desire to do away with the God honouring Greek Text underlying the King James Bible.
Question # 12. "Does not the King James Version promote the doctrine of the deity of Christ more emaphatically in certain key passages than other more modern translations?
In a study of ten versions and how they render eight (8) key passages in the New Testament that have possible reference to the deity of Christ, the New International Version in its translation ascribes deity directly to Christ in 7 out of 8, the Modern Language Bible in 6 of the 8, the King James Version ascribes direct deity to Christ in only 4 of these passages. (cf. chart, The King James Version Debate by Carson, p.64.)"
My. Comment: The pastor does not list the eight passages but I will mention just a few Scripture passages where the NIV, NASV, Today’s New International Version (TNIV), and RSV are weighed in the balances, and are found wanting.
* The deity of the Lord Jesus and fulfillment of prophecy are found wanting in the new versions.
King James Bible reads Matthew 1:25 "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."
Revised Standard Version reads Matthew 1: 25 "but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus." (In question #22 you will note the pastor says the Revised Standard Version was produced "by men who in large part were liberals" so the RSV "would be ruled out" when choosing a good translation. However, NOTE how closely the RSV reads with the NIV which is this pastor’s favourite and the NASV which other "fundamental" pastors are using.)
TNIV Matthew 1:25 "But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus."
The word "firstborn" is eliminated in the NIV, NASV, TNIV, and the Greek Text the translators of these versions followed. Is "firstborn" an important word? It is for a couple of reasons. One, the word shows that Jesus was born of a virgin. Matthew 1:25 is the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy in 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
Of course the RSV has "young woman" rather than "virgin". RSV Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
This prophetic fulfillment in Matthew also proclaims the deity of the Lord Jesus. Secondly, the word "firstborn" implies Mary may have had, which she did, other sons. This of course denies the Roman Catholic doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity.
* The deity of the Lord Jesus is found wanting in the new versions and a shadow has been cast upon His deity through the elimination of the title Lord.
KJB - Matthew 13:51 "Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto him, Yea, Lord."
The NIV, NASV, RSV, and the TNIV eliminate "Lord" not only here in Matthew 13:51 but in Mark 9:24; Luke 9:57; 22:31; 23:42; Romans 6:11; 1 Corinthians 15:47and many other places. This is a title of deity and appears in the Greek Text underlying the King James Bible but not that of the NIV, NASV, TNIV or RSV.
* The New versions are found wanting in that they teach Lordship salvation.
KJB - Romans 10:9 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
RSV reads Romans 10:9 as "because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."
TNIV reads Romans 10:9 as "If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."
* The new versions are found wanting in the importance and necessity of the Blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sins.
KJB – Colossians 1:14 "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins."
RSV – "in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."
TNIV – "in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."
"Through his blood" is also omitted in the Jehovah Witness New World Translation.
The NIV, NASV, and TNIV follow along with the "liberal" RSV in the elimination of Christ’s blood in this verse. Is the blood of Christ important? 1 Peter 1:19 says it is precious. "But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot." What makes His blood precious? It is the blood of Christ! It is the blood of the virgin born Son of God, God the Son! IT IS SINLESS BLOOD! I can understand this cult omitting "through his blood" but "fundamentalists" defending versions and Greek texts that do the same I do not understand.
KJV – 1 John 5:7 "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin."
RSV – "but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin." WHERE IS CHRIST?
TNIV "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin." WHERE IS CHRIST? We have His humanity in Jesus but where is His deity in the term Christ? This was not sinful human blood that was shed there on the cross! This was the sinless blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, God’s Son, shed for sins!
I find at least two things interesting in this. The first is the NIV and the other new versions follow right after the RSV which fundamentalists rejected as liberal. Something has taken place between the 1952 RSV and the 1978 NIV. Has there been a deception? Secondly Jesus Christ did not have the blood of a human father flowing through His veins as He was the virgin born Son of God as prophesied in Isaiah 7:14 and fulfilled in the reading of Matthew 1:25 in the King James Bible as the firstborn son of Mary. The blood of the Lord Jesus Christ was "precious" blood and "divine" blood in that only His blood "cleanseth us from all sin."
From the English Revised Version to all the new versions based on the same corrupt Greek text they all "are weighed in the balances, and are found wanting."
Question #13 "Does the fact that verses, phrases, or words found in the King James Version are omitted in a modern translation (such as the New International Version) prove that such a translation has robbed us of a portion of God’s Word?
The little tract, ‘Should We Trust the New International Version?’ is typical of other booklets and pamphlets of a similar nature. They line up verses or portions of verses that appear in the King James, then show that the NIV omits these verses or portions, and then state in a caption, ‘NIV Omits Too Much of the Bible!’ The deduction is that if you leave out anything found in the King James Version you have left out part of the Bible! This is manifestly preposterous and has never been the position of reputable evangelical scholars even those who would defend the King James as the best version. The question that must be asked is not, ‘Is the verse, phrase, or word in question found in the King James Version?’ but rather, ‘Is it found in the original Hebrew or Greek text in which the Word of God was written?’ "
My Comment: (1). If one believes the Text underlying the King James Bible are the preserved Words of God and the translators were faithful in bringing those Hebrew and Greek words over into the English language but the new versions omit the same words and often entire verses then I would have to say they "have left out part of the Bible!"
However, will anyone who is involved in textual criticism know when they have "found the original Hebrew or Greek text in which the Word of God was written?" It doesn’t seem they will as they continue to re-edit their Critical Greek Texts.
(2). The pastor asks "not, ‘Is the verse, phrase, or word in question found in the King James Version?’ but rather, ‘Is it found in the original Hebrew or Greek text in which the Word of God was written?’ " Let us compare the Greek Text underlying the King James Bible with one of the Critical Texts. For this comparison we have used the UBS 2nd Edition Greek New Testament. In the preface to this Critical Greek Text we read "The Committee carried out its work in four principal stages" of which one was "on the basis of Westcott and Hort’s edition of the Greek New Testament." Page v. For our study we will note only whole verses which are omitted from the Critical Greek Text. I will also make a note if it is omitted in W & H’s favourite codex B (Vaticanus). It should also be noted there are hundreds of words and phrases omitted from the Critical Greek Text. According to Dr. D. A. Waite the Critical Greek Text drops enough Greek words that you lose the entire books of 1 and 2 Peter! That is important to most Bible students!
Matthew 17:21 "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."
This verse is omitted in the critical Text and W & H’s favourite manuscript B (Vaticanus).
Matthew 23:14 "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation." Omitted from the critical Greek Text and including W & H’s favourite manuscript B (Vaticanus).
Mark 15:28 "And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors."
Omitted from the critical Greek Text and including W & H’s favourite manuscript B (Vaticanus).
Mark 16: 9-20 are in brackets with notes leaving the impression this passage may not be a part of the gospel of Mark. Of course the passage is totally omitted in B (Vaticanus).
Luke 22:43, 44 "And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.
And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground." Omitted from the critical Greek Text and including W & H’s favourite manuscript B (Vaticanus).
John 5:4 "For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had."
Omitted from the critical Greek Text and including W & H’s favourite manuscript B (Vaticanus).
John 7:53 – 8:11 "And every man went unto his own house. Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." Omitted from the critical Greek Text and W & H’s favourite manuscript B (Vaticanus).
Acts 8:37 "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Omitted in the Critical Greek Text and by B (Vaticanus).
Acts 24:7 "But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands." Critical Greek Text omits this verse as does B (Vaticanus).
Acts 28:29 "And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves." This verse is omitted in the Critical Greek text UBS 2nd Edition and of course in B (Vaticanus).
As I stated earlier this study did not take into account all the single words and phrases omitted in the Critical Greek Text. Again it is worth noting that according to Dr. D. A. Waite the Critical Greek Text drops enough Greek words that you lose the entire books of 1 and 2 Peter!
Question #14. "Why are some words, phrases, or verses found in the King James Version omitted from such contemporary versions as the NIV?
Because competent translators, after poring over and evaluating all available manuscripts containing a particular passage, and applying accepted rules of textual criticism, have concluded that the passage was inserted at a later time and was not a part of the original text. The science of textual criticism and the laws which govern it will not be discussed here. Again, reliable translators are not concerned primarily with whether or not a passage is found in the King James or some other version, but is it a part of the original text written by the human authors of holy Scripture.
An example of the above would be the passage in 1 John 5:7-8 which in the King James reads as a defense of the Trinity. However, the majority of Greek manuscripts do not contain these words and they are thus omitted in newer versions. There is a footnote in the NIV noting that later manuscripts of the Vulgate (Latin translation) contain these words. The omission in the NIV and other versions does not deny, question, or minimize the doctrine of Christ’s deity. It simply means that translators have tried to be honest, careful, and accurate in rendering the original text into another language. The omission of a few passages which do not have strong textual support in no wise denies the deity of Christ nor cancels out the multitude of other passages that clearly teach His deity."
My Comment: Let us consider a few points in consideration of what has been said in the paragraphs above.
(1) The pastor said that these are "competent translators" who have pored over and evaluated "all available manuscripts." Again I draw your attention to W & H’s love for manuscript B (Vaticanus). Sir Frederick Kenyon says that Westcott and Hort "made the Vaticanus the sheet anchor of their edition." He went on to say that "Hort’s verdict is therefore emphatically in favour of the B group, in which he finds none of the marks of deliberate or licentious alteration, and which he therefore feels justified in labeling as Neutral. Above all he pins his faith to B." Sir Frederick Kenyon pp 87 & 168 THE TEXT OF THE GREEK BIBLE.
(2) Are we too believe the translators of the NIV and all the other new versions have pored over and evaluated "all available manuscripts containing a particular passage"? There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts scattered around the world and I personally do not believe any of these modern translators have pored over and evaluated "all available" manuscripts! The translators of today’s modern version would rarely if ever see or touch an authentic textual manuscript. These translators would use an already written Greek New Testament such as that produced by the United Bible Societies. This UBS Greek New Testament has the Greek text with notes directing the user to the Manuscript Apparatus at the bottom of the page. In THE MAKING OF A CONTEMPORAY TRANSLATION Chapter 4 page 68 Ralph Earle writes "What Greek text was used by the translators of the NIV New Testament? It was basically that found in the united Bible Societies’ and Nestle’s printed Greek New Testaments, which contain the latest and best Greek text available." There was no "poring over and evaluating all available manuscripts." Are the statements made by this pastor and others who parrot these teachings deceiving or have they themselves been deceived?
(3) As to the example of 1 John 5:7-8 Dr. Jack Moorman in FOREVER SETTLED writes on p. 206 that "The first undisputed citations of the Johannine comma occur in the writings of the two 4th century Spanish bishops, Priscillian, who in 385 was beheaded by the Emperor Maximus on the charge of sorcery and heresy, and Idacius Clarus, Pricillian’s principal adversary and accuser. In the 5th century the Johannine comma was quoted by several orthodox African writers to defend the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. Who ruled North Africa from 439 to 534 and were fanatically attached to the Arian heresy. And about the same time it was cited by Cassiodorus (480-570) in Italy. The comma is also found in an Old Latin manuscript of the 5th and 6th century, and in the Speculum, a treatise which contains an Old Latin text." Dr. Moorman continues on page 207 that "the omission of the Johannine comma involves a srammatical difficulty. The words spirit, water, and blood are neuter in gender, but in 1 John 5:8 the spirit, the water, and the blood are personalized and that is the reason for the adoption of the masculine gender. But it is hard to see how such personalization would involve the change from the neuter to the masculine. For in verse 6 the word Spirit plainly refers to the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity. Surely in this verse the word Spirit is ‘personalized,’ and yet the neuter gender is used. Therefore, since personalization did not bring about a change of gender in verse 6, it cannot fairly be pleaded as the reason for such a change in verse 8. If, however, the Johanine comma is retained, a masculine gender becomes readily apparent. It was due to the influence of the nouns Father and Word, which are masculine. Thus the hypothesis that the Johannine comma is an interpolation is full of difficulties."
Dr. D. A. Waite holds a B. A. in Classical Greek and Latin from the University of Michigan, a Th. M. in New Testament Greek Literature and Exegesis from Dallas Theological Seminary, an M. A. in Speech from Southern Methodist University, a Th. D in Bible Exposition from Dallas Theological seminary and a Ph. D in Speech from Purdue University. With these credentials Dr. Waite is a credible authority and he comments on the Johanine comma in the booklet CENTRAL SEMINARY REFUTED ON BIBLE VERSIONS page 64 where he says "By way of conclusion so far as external evidence is concerned, there are a great number of external witnesses to the authenticity of 1 John 5:7-8. There is internal evidence as well. If you take out the portion of 1 John 5:7-8 the syntax or the grammar of the Greek is not as it ought to be. This is syntactical and internal evidence. If you include this verse the genders of masculines and feminines and neuters correspond. Gender as a rule of grammar normally coincides. If you take out these 24 words the gender does not go together as it should. This is internal evidence which shows that these words in 1 John 5:7-8 are genuine words."
Question #15 "Is the King James Version the ‘only true Bible?’
One brother has authored a booklet which is representative of the position of others. It is titled, God Wrote Only one Bible (by J. J. Ray). He defends the concept that the ‘Textus Receptus’ and the King James Version comprise that true Bible. But it should be remembered that neither the ‘Textus Receptus’ nor the King James constitute the ‘Bible’ that God wrote! That Bible was found in the original manuscripts, authored by the inspired penmen of God."
My Comment: Unfortunately we do not have the original manuscripts upon which God’s inspired Words were written but our good and gracious God has not left us without His Word and Words. Dr. Thomas Strouse lists four characteristics of the Majority Text underlying our English Bible, the King James Bible in A SYLLABUS OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM by The Bible For Today, Collingswood, NJ. Dr. Strouse writes "The Characteristics of the Majority text.
It is the text of Christendom for 1800 years.
It is the text of 80%-95% of all extant texts of NT.
It is theologically fuller than any other texts.
It is a complete text, as against incomplete texts of others.
The Results of the Majority Text – Since God inspired the very words of His revelation, He is concerned that we have these very words, and hence He has preserved His inspired words."
In the Dean Burgon Society’s Articles of Faith under the heading of The Bible we read that "the Texts which are closest to the to the original autographs of the Bible are the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text for the Old testament, and the Traditional Greek text for the New Testament underlying the King James Version (as found in the ‘Greek Text underlying The English Authorized Version of 1611’ as published by THE TRINITARIAN BIBLE SOCIETY in 1976).
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, 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 verse, we must go back to the underlying original language Texts for complete clarity, and also compare Scripture with Scripture." Amen!
Question #16 "Are the variations in readings between the various Greek manuscripts a cause for concern on the part of the average layman? Do these variations in some way cast doubt on the actual existence of the Word of God?
No. This should not be a cause for concern. Dr. H. S. Miller in his word, General Biblical Introduction declared ‘These variations include such matters as differences in spelling, transposition of letters, words, clauses, order of words, order of sentences, reduplication, etc. No doctrine is affected, and very often not even the translation is affected.’ J. A. H. Hort in Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek stated: ‘the amount of what can in any sense be called substantial variation is but a small fraction of the whole residuary variation and can hardly form more that a thousandeth part of the entire text.’
Stanly Gundry observes, ‘Most ‘textual problems’ are considered resolved by most textual critics…Actually, most of the discrepancies that need study by the textual critic are trivialities; and most of these questions are considered resolved. Only a few outstanding problems remain, and those do not affect doctrine or divine command to us.’ ("What Happened to Those King James Verses?") Moody Monthly, November, 1980, p. 46)."
My Comment: Twice we read in the above remarks that no doctrine is affected. Is this true or not? Dr. D. A. Waite in DEFENDING THE KING JAMES BIBLE page 137 sites Dr. Jack Moorman’s book DOCTRINAL PASSAGES. Dr. Waite writes that "Brother Moorman takes up in some detail (with manuscript evidence) a total of 356 DOCTRINAL PASSAGES that are affected by variations in Greek manuscript readings between the Received Greek Text that underlies the KING JAMES BIBLE, and the Revised Greek Text of Westcott and Hort, Nestle-Aland-26th, and others. There are 5,604 places where these two texts differ. This involves 9,970 Greek words." (Emphasis in the original).
Dr. Waite in DEFENDING THE KING JAMES BIBLE sites the doctrines affected by the Critical Greek Text are (1) THEOLOGY PROPER (2) ECCLESIOLOGY (3) ANGELOLOGY (4) SATANOLOGY (5) BIBLIOLOGY (6) ESCHATOLOGY (7) SOTERIOLOGY and (8) CHRISTOLOGY. How can any preacher or professor say these "changes should not be a cause for concern."? Are these pastors and professors deliberately deceiving the people or have they been deceived and know no better?
Question # 17. "Is it true that the great fundamentalists of the past have utilized exclusively the King James Version and would use no other?
This is not true. Ample evidence could be given to show that great fundamental leaders such as R. A. Torrey, C. I. Scofield, James Gray, W. B. Riley and many others used and sanctioned translations other than the King James."
My Comment: I am not 100% sure what versions these men sanctioned but I know what the churches from the First Century to 1800 sanctioned. On pages 45 – 48 in DEFENDING THE KING JAMES BIBLE Dr. Waite gives 37 Historical Evidences supporting the Text underlying the King James Bible.
"a. Historical Evidences for the Received Text during the Apostolic Age (33—100 A. D.)
All of the Apostolic Churches used the Received Text.
The Churches in Palestine used the Received Text.
The Syrian Church at Antioch used the Received Text.
b. Historical Evidences for the Received Text during the Early Church Period (100—312 A. D.).
The Peshitta Syriac Version, (150 A. D. the second century). This was based on the Received Text.
Papyrus #75 used the Received Text.
The Italic Church in Northern Italy, (157 A. D.) used the Received Text.
The Gallic Church of Southern France (177 A. D.) used the Received Text.
The Celtic Church in Great Britain used the Received Text.
The Church of Scotland and Ireland used the Received Text.
The Pre-Waldensian churches used the Received Text.
The Waldensians (120 A. D. and onward) used the Received Text.
c. Historical Evidences for the Received Text during the Byzantine Period (312—145 A. D.)
The Gothic Version of the 4th Century used the Received Text
Codex W of Matthew in the 4th or the 5th Century used the Received Text
Codex A in the Gospels (in the 5th Century) used the Received Text
The vast majority of extant New Testament manuscripts all used the Received Text. This includes about 99% of them, or about 5,250 of the 5,255 MSS.
The Greek Orthodox Church used the Received Text
The Present Greek Church still used the Received Text
Historical Evidences for the Received Text During the Early Modern Period (1453 – 1831 A. D.)
The churches of the Reformation all used the Received Text
The Erasmus Greek New Testament (1516) used the Received Text.
The Complutensian Polyglot (1522) used the Received Text.
Martin Luther’s German Bible (1522) used the Received Text
William Tyndale’s Bible, (1525), used the Received Text.
The French Version of Oliveton (1535) used the received text.
The Coverdale Bible (1535) used the Received Text.
The Matthew’s Bible (1537) used the Received Text.
The Taverners Bible (1539) used the Received Text.
The Great Bible (1539-41) used the Received Text.
The Stephanus Greek New Testament (1546-51 used the Received Text.
The Geneva Bible (1557-60) used the Received Text.
The Bishop’s Bible (1568) used the Received Text
The Spanish Version (1569) used the Received Text.
The Beza Greek New Testament (1598) used the Received Text. That is the Greek text the KING JAMES BIBLE WAS BASED ON, USING THE 1598, 5TH edition of Beza.
The Czech Version (1602) used the Received Text.
The Italian Version of Diodati (1607) used the Received Text.
The KING JAMES BIBLE (1611) used the Received Text.
The Elziver Brother’s Greek New Testament (1624 used the Received Text.
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."
Question #18 "If the King James Version is the ‘Word of God’ in some unique sense that is not true of other versions, then do non-English-speaking peoples not have the Word of God?
Obviously there is a problem if one English version is the ‘Word of God’ above all others. What of all the thousands of believers who have the Bible in French, German, or some other language? Are they deprived of the true Word of God?
To speak of proper, evangelical translations of Scripture as ‘perversions’ is not wise nor in good taste."
My Comment: God inspired the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek Words which were written by the human authours to comprise the original autographs. Since those original autographs are long since gone what we have left are copies. I along with many believe the very Words of God are preserved in the Texts underlying the King James Bible. Therefore, if those "supernaturally preserved" Words are faithfully taken across (translated) into the receptacle language whether it is English, Spanish, French, etc. we then have the Word of God, the Bible in that language.
Question # 19. "What is the most popular translation of the Scriptures in use today?
The most widely-used translation is the King James Version. It was completed in 1611 A. D. by Biblical scholars in England and its name is derived from King James I, the reigning sovereign of the time. It is a greatly-loved rendition of the Scriptures, having served the English-speaking church for over three and one half centuries."
My Comment: The King James is the Bible of the modern missionary movement and the great revivals throughout the English speaking world.
Question # 20. "Why has the King James Version been so popular?
Because for the most of the three and a half centuries it has been virtually the only English version available on any large scale to the average person. All commentaries, dictionaries, and other Bible study aids utilized it as the text to which they referred. Popular reference Bibles such as the Scofield Reference Bible used the King James. People were brought to Christ through the preaching of the king James and were taught from it after their conversion. Its language is familiar to believers who were raised in Bible-teaching churches. It deserves a place of high esteem among English translations."
My Comment: Dr. Jack Moorman writes on pages 251, 252 of FOREVER SETTLED "Take out the old ‘sword of the Spirit’ that makes hippies blush when it appears on the street conner, that makes College professors nervous when it is brought into the classroom, that disturbed Westcott and Hort so badly they devoted a lifetime to getting rid of it; get that old battered Book that was corrupted by Origen, hated by Eusebius, despised by Constantine, ignored by Augustine, that was ridiculed by the ASV and RSV committees; that razor-sharp blade which pierced Mel trotter, Adonirum Judson, Dwight L. Moody, and B. H. Carroll to the soul and made Christians out of them, which pierced Charles Darwin, Huxley, Hobbes, Hume and Bernard Shaw to the soul and infuriated them, that word which was preached to the heathen in every corner of the earth, that word which has been used by the Spirit of God for 19 centuries to make fools out of scientists, educators and philosophers, to overthrow Popes and Kingdoms, to inspire men to die at the stake and in the arena; that infallible, everlasting BOOK which Angels desire to look into, and before which Devils tremble when they read their future; and if you don’t know, by now which Book this is we are talking about, you never will.
It is NOT any English translation published since 1800."
Question #21 "Why would it be thought advisable to use a translation other than the King James Version for the public teaching and preaching of the Word?
There are compelling reasons why some fundamental pastors and teachers are now employing versions other than the King James in their teaching and preaching. (These versions are most generally either the New American Standard Version or the New International Version.
a. The average person today is not conversant with the Elizabethan language in which the King James is written. The English language has changed considerably over more than 350 years (Between 1611 and 1901 the English dictionary was revised 40 times!)."
My Comment: There are several problems with the new versions such as the NASV and NIV and the biggest number one problem is the Greek Text underlying them. Some people unknowingly believe the new versions just update words but that is not the case. These new versions are based on a whole different Greek Text and that Text is not a good one. Dean John Burgon well said in REVISION REVISED page 365 that "The Text of Drs. Westcott and Hort is either the very best which has ever appeared, --or else it is the very worst; the nearest to the sacred Autographs, --or the furthest from them. There is no room for both opinions; and there cannot exist any middle ground." I know which side I am, do you?
b. "The continued use of a version whose language is not contemporary lends credence to the idea (held by many already) that true Bible Christianity is outdated, passé, and irrelevant to a modern world."
My Comment: Those who promote the new versions often use this argument but D. A. Waite, Jr. has done a study comparing the readability of the King James Bible compared to the readability of the ASV, RSV, NASV, NIV, NKJV, and the NRSV. This detailed study is called THE COMPARATIVE READABILITY OF THE AUTHORIZED VERSION and may be obtained from the Bible For Today 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108. From the indepth study Don Waite did there is no doubt the OLD KING JAMES BILE fares well. To use this argument of ease of reading is not valid. Dr. D. A. Waite mentions the readability of the King James Bible in DEFENDING THE KING JAMES BIBLE page 50 where he writes "As far as the READABILITY INDEX is concerned, here are some levels for the KING JAMES BIBLE based on the computer English program ‘RIGHT WRITER.’
For Genesis 1 Readability = 8.13 8th Grade
For Exodus 1 Readability = 7.94 8th Grade
For Romans 1 Readability – 9.74 10th Grade
For Romans 3:1-23 Readability = 5.63 6th Grade
For Romans 8 Readability = 7.72 8th Grade
For Jude 1 Readability = 10.11 10th Grade
This certainly puts the lie to the charge that the KING JAMES BIBLE is too difficult to understand."
The Mother of all New Versions, the 1881 English Revised Version, and its underlying New Greek Text concocted by W & H was certainly not easier to read according to Dean of Chichester, John William Burgon. In REVISION REVISED page vi he said "The English (as well as the Greek) of the newly ‘Revised Version" is hopelessly at fault. It is to me simply unintelligible how a company of Scholars can have spent ten years in elaborating such a very unsatisfactory production. Their uncouth phraseology and their jerky sentences, their pedantic obscurity and their unidiomatic English, contrast painfully with "the happy turns of expression, the music of the cadences, the felicities of the rhythm’ of our Authorized Version. The transition from one to the other, as the Bishop of Lincoln remarks, is like exchanging a well-built carriage for a vehicle without springs, in which you get kolted to death on a newly-mended and rarely-traversed road. But the ‘Revised Version’ is inaccurate as well; exhibits defective scholarship, I mean, in countless places."
c. "Large numbers of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts have been discovered since the days of the King James Version was translated.
Today translators have access to textual information that the translators of the King James did not have. In many cases this information enables them to produce a more accurate translation than was possible in 1611 A. D."
My Comment: So what? According to Ralph Earle in his chapter THE RATIONALE FOR AN ECLECTIC NEW TESTAMENT in the book edited by Kenneth Barker THE PURPOSE AND METHOD OF THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION THE MAKING OF A CONTEMPORAY TRANSLATION page 68 Earle says the Greek text used by those who translated the NIV New Testament was "basically that found in the United Bible Societies’ and Nestle’s printed Greek New testaments, which contain the latest and best Greek text available." Then he writes "In many passages there is no way of being absolutely certain as to what was the original reading because the best Greek manuscripts, both earlier and later ones, have variant readings. In such cases the translators were asked to weigh the evidence carefully and make their own decision." (Emphasis added). Note twice he said they had the "best" manuscripts but even having the "best" in the end it all came down to their making their "own decision." Then on page 69 Earle writes that "Fortunately, we now have a little over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, in whole or in part. By careful comparison of these we can weed out most errors made in copying." Earle then concludes his chapter saying the NIV Committee on Bible Translation "have all sought earnestly to represent as accurately as possible what seems to be, as nearly as we can determine, the original text of the New Testament." (Ephasis added). If this is the kind of "Bible" you desire, based on the "best" manuscripts riddled with "errors made in copying" but weighed by the translators and then they "making their own decision" as to "what seems to be" "as nearly" as they "can determine, the original text of the New Testament" then you have it in the NIV. But as for me I will stay with the Bible God has used for over 300 years in blessing the English speaking world with revivals and great missionary movements, the King James Bible!
The pastor continues under heading c., "The translators of the King James Version used the best texts they had available. The oldest Hebrew manuscripts they had dated from about 500 – 900 A. D. The oldest Greek manuscripts they had dated from the middle ages. Now the latest manuscript finds have given us a Hebrew text for at least portions of the Old Testament dating back to 200 B. C. and some New Testament manuscripts going back to 400 and 500 A. D."
My Comment: As to this statement I will make two points. (1) The Old Testament Hebrew text that underlies our King James Bible is that which Christ and the Apostles used. You cannot get any better than that! Dr. Robert Dick Wilson was a teacher at Princeton Seminary. Of his Old Testament study Dr. D. A. Waite on page 35 of DEFENDING THE KING JAMES BIBLE says that "The results of those 30 years study (that is what Wilson wrote of his own study of Scripture in the Hebrew) which I have given to the text has been this: I can affirm that there’s not a page of the old Testament in which we need have any doubt. We can be absolutely certain that substantially we have the text of the Old Testament that Christ and the Apostles had which was in existence from the beginning." Dr. Waite then continued "Here is a man who studied, and studied, and found the Masoretic Hebrew Text to be accurate and solid. So I see no reason why we should have any other foundation for the Old Testament than the Masoretic Hebrew Text that underlies the KING JAMES BIBLE, the Daniel Bomberg edition, edited by Ben Chayyim—the 2nd Rabbinic Bible of 1524-25." (2) This pastor is saying that since the King James was translated there are now "some New Testament manuscripts going back to 400 and 500 A. D." which the translators of our King James Bible did not have or were not aware of. Is that true? John Burgon says in his book REVISION REVISED pp 257, 258 that "The Traditional Greek text of the New Testament, -the Textus Receptus, in short,-is, according to Dr. Hort, ‘BEYOND ALL QUESTION’ the ‘TEXT OF THE SECOND HALF OF THE FOURTH CENTURY.’" How about that Mr. Pastor?
d. "The principal purpose of the preacher and Bible teacher is to make clear the Word of God to his hearers. In the estimation of many the message of God in His Word can be more intelligibly presented through the use of a translation in the contemporary language of the people. It should be noted that while large numbers of people raised in fundamental churches love the King James Version and have a strong sentimental attachment to it, they really do not comprehend its meaning in numerous passages because of the obscurity of the old English it employs. Some pastors and Bible teachers feel that the heavy responsibility of making clear God’s message virtually compels them to make use of a contemporary-language translation so as to accomplish this purpose."
My Comment: Again I direct the reader to obtain a copy of D. A. Waite Jr.’s THE COMPARATIVE READABILITY OF THE AUTHORIZED VERSION from the Bible For Today 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108. In this book it is demonstrated the King James is as easy to read if not more so than the ASV, RSV, NASV, NIV, NKJV, and the NRSV. Remember 1Corinthians 2:14 "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 2Peter 3:16 "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."
Question # 22. "What are some guidelines by which to judge a translation?
Why would one translation be chosen over another? Certain considerations would guide in the choice.
Is it a true translation?
Paraphrases such as the Living Bible would not be suitable since they are really ‘commentaries’ on the text rather than true translations."
My Comment: In DEFENDING THE KING JAMES BIBLE page 104, 105 Dr. Waite says the "NEW AMERICAN STANDARD…paraphrases over 4,000 times. The NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION is even worse. It paraphrases over 6,653 times." Dr. Waite concludes saying "Paraphrase is interpretation rather than accurate translation."
b. "Is it produced by men who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture?
Translations such as the Revised Standard Version produced by men who in large part were liberals would be ruled out."
My Comment: In DEFENDING THE KING JAMES BIBLE Dr. D. A. Waite writes on page 39 that "The edition of Nestle/Aland Greek New Testament 26th Edition that I have has with it, in parallel columns, the English of the REVISED STANDARD VERSION, WHICH IS COPYRIGHTED BY THE national council of churches, THE APOSTATE-LED Council."
Now what Greek text underlies the NIV which this pastor achieved in getting his church to use? On page 68 of THE PURPOSE AND METHOD OF THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION THE MAKING OF A CONTEMPORAY TRANSLATION we read "It was basically that found in the United Bible Societies’ and NESTLE’S printed Greek New Testament…" (Emphasis added). On page 69 in DEFENDING THE KING JAMES BIBLE we read "This Nestle/Aland Greek text was named for Eberhard Nestle, a German, and Kurt Aland, also a German. It was made up by a committee consisting of Kurt Aland (who is an unbeliever), Matthew Black (an unbeliever), Carlo M. Martini (A Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church), Bruce Metzger (who is from Princeton, a man who demonstrated his apostasy as editor of the Reader’s Digest Bible), and Alan Wigren (from Chicago, an apostate also)." Again I state that on page 68 of THE PURPOSE AND METHOD OF THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION THE MAKING OF A CONTEMPORAY TRANSLATION we read "It was basically that found in the United Bible Societies’ and NESTLE’S printed Greek New Testament…" (Emphasis added).
Was this pastor deceived or is he deceiving? You decide if the NIV is really any more reliable than the RSV. The NIV translators followed the same corrupt Texts as the RSV translators.
"c. Is it the product of a group of translators?
One-man translations (Moffatt’s, Phillip’s) have limitations because they are the results of only one person’s ideas. Checks and balances are needed which are provided by a group approach.
d. Is it readable and does it have clarity?
This is important. To what extent does the translation communicate to the hearer?"
My Comment: If the Text underlying the translation is corrupt the translation can be no better. As to the readability of the King James Bible and the ASV, RSV, NASV, NIV, NKJV, and the NRSV I again I direct and urge the reader to obtain a copy of THE COMPARATIVE READABILITY OF THE AUTHORIZED VERSION by D. A. Waite Jr. from the Bible For Today 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108.
Question # 23 "What should be our attitude toward those who use a translation produced by evangelical scholars who believe the Word of God, but which is different from the translation we prefer?
We should guard our attitudes very carefully. Some personas who are ardent advocates of the superiority of a given translation are harsh and even vitriolic in their descriptions and condemnations of those who use any other translation than the one they view as ‘approved.’ Such attitudes and words should be avoided.
Some view those who approve a translation different from the one they use as leaning toward liberalism, as new evangelicals, or, at best, as dangerous compromisers. This is very unfair and unjust assessment.
Those, for example, who hold that the ‘Textus Receptus’ and the King James Version constitute the true text should certainly be respected and given the liberty to hold this view. On the other hand, those who hold to a different view such as that of an eclectic text, and who employ a translation other than the King James in their ministry should be allowed the privilege of doing that without being castigated, maligned, or placed under a cloud of suspicion as possible collaborators in ‘perverting’ the Word of God.
Bitterness in our hearts toward other brethren is sinful no matter what the cause. It is most lamentable when it issues from differences of opinion over Bible translations."
My Comment: I agree a bitter spirit is never justified. Our dogmatism on the King James Bible and the Texts underlying it may (to those with whom we disagree) seem as unloving but that is not the case. Most men I know in the defense of the King James Bible and its underlying Texts exemplify Ephesians 4:15 "... speaking the truth in love" so those who hear "may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ." We believe with our whole being the statement signed by the twenty four BJU men in the open letter that states "God has supernaturally preserved every one of His inspired words for us today." We believe it but do they? Their words do not match what they put their signature to. We do not count them as an enemy but we admonish them as a brother, 2Thessalonians 3:15. When these twenty four men from BJU sign an open letter saying they believe "in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible" and "believe that God has supernaturally preserved every one of His inspired words for us today." and then say there are "scribal errors in the transmission of the text" they ought to be warned and admonished! You cannot have it both ways BJU professors. Dr. Waite has a good saying in his book DEFENDING THE KING JAMES BIBLE on page 43 "Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other." He states the Greek Text underlying the King James Bible and the Greek Text underlying the other versions are not the same. The Nestle/Aland Greek Text which the NIV uses (as well as the UBS Greek Text according to Ralph Earle) omits 2,886 words that are found in the Received Text. These 2,886 Greek words are equivalent to dropping the entire books of 1 and 2 Peter in the English Bible. Is this something insignificant? Are 2,886 words a minor detail? I think not! Galatians 4:16 "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" Are we the enemy when we confront the issue of words missing and doctrine affected by the Critical Greek Text and those English versions based on it? I wish someone would have shown me earlier the differences between the Greek Texts and the result in the English versions. I believe we are a friend and not an enemy. Proverbs 27:6 "Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful."
Question # 24. My pastor is using a translation other than the King James Version in his preaching and/or teaching. I am confused when trying to follow in my King James Version. What should I do?
The best thing to do is purchase a copy of the version your pastor is using (assuming, of course he is a fundamental preacher and using an acceptable version). Bring this version with you to church and thus you will be able to enjoy and benefit from the ministry of the Word. You can still use your King James or other version for private study."
My Comment: We will see more of this confusion in the churches. Why? Because, schools such as BJU do not fire professors that will sign an open letter saying they "believe that God has supernaturally preserved every one of His inspired words for us today." but then say the Old Testament has "apparent discrepancies" and "scribal mistakes as the scribes hand copied."
The men coming out of BJU are taught double standards when it comes to the Words of God. They are taught to believe in inspiration and preservation but at the same time to believe there are discrepancies and scribal errors in God’s Word. That baffles me! BJU states that the King James Bible is their "official Bible". If the King James Bible is BJU’s "official Bible" why are so many of their graduates moving churches from the King James Bible to either the NIV or NASV?
A professor who believes there are "discrepancies" and "errors" in the Bible cannot with confidence teach students Bible Word "preservation"! Professors such as those at BJU who can say they believe in Bible preservation and at the same time believe there are errors in the Bible are deceiving their students who in turn will deceive the churches.
In the past Bob Jones University has turned out many fine preachers within the Fundamentalist movement. However, the direction BJU continues to take on the Greek Text issue will have a detrimental effect on fundamentalism in the United States and around the world. Bob Jones University has done more to spread the Westcott and Hort Critical Greek text than any other school in the United States of America. Many of the professors in Fundamental schools promoting the Westcott and Hort Greek text and the new versions based on that Text are graduates of Bob Jones. Some of these schools are Central Baptist Seminary, Detroit Baptist Seminary, Dallas Theological Seminary, Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary, and Clearwater Baptist College. These schools and their professors are parroting what they were taught at BJU. What they learned at BJU they are now propagating at Central, Detroit, Calvary, and Clearwater. The sad facts are that training preachers a weak view of Bible preservation and following the ever changing Critical Greek New Testament Text will result in:
This change from the King James Bible to a new version will result in: 1. some of the Fundamental Independent Baptist Churches splitting over the issue.
2. the people in the pew becoming confused as to whether we have the Words of God or not.
3. some of these once separatist churches will become more ecumenical through the use of the NIV, NASV, or TNIV. It may take a few years but it will happen.
4. ultimately there will be a preaching of unorthodox doctrine. This will happen! According to Dr. Waite’s extensive study on the subject there are 5,604 places where the Critical Greek text underlying the new versions differs from the Greek Text of the King James Bible. Dr. Waite says that involves at least 356 doctrinal passages! All of this will eventually affect the doctrinal preaching of the new generation of preachers from Bob Jones and these other schools.
The Fundamentalists rejected the liberal’s Revised Standard Version
in the 1950’s (mainly over its translation of Isaiah 7:14) but they are
now accepting the NIV and NASV of the new evangelical! Time will tell if
this low view of preservation will weaken the preaching and separatist
position of future Fundamentalism.
Missionaries David and Pamela Bennett
The Bennetts Serving the Lord in Australia Since 1979.
E-Mail: email@example.comBlog: www.bennettsnews.blogspot.com.au/
Address: Dr. and Mrs. Bennett, PO Box 1241 Dubbo NSW 2830, AUSTRALIA
Send Support to: The Bible For Today Baptist Church --
c/o Dr. and Mrs. Bennett Mission Fund --
Send e- mail to Webmaster@BibleForToday.org with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright © 2012 - 2013 David and Pamela Bennettt - All Rights Reserved Worldwide.