JackHammer

The painter dipped his brush, and with a flourish, proceeded to add a stroke of light here and there. Mixing the colors carefully, he added here a touch, there a shade, in another place a shadow. Standing back and deep in thought, he carefully inspected the canvass, occasionally touching up, once wiping out, striving for just the right look. Though the work appeared to be complete, the artisan would not stop until satisfied that he had indeed created a masterpiece. And then, with a final stroke, he stepped back to admire his work and sighed with satisfaction. “Perfect!” he said.Of course it wasn’t. Nothing is. There were flaws. He knew it. Some were intentional. He was painting real life, not for a Kinkaid gallery. He had made some accidental mistakes too. Some he had tried to cover, some he would discover a year later. But when he said, “Perfect,” he didn’t mean “mistake-free.” He meant, “just what I wanted it to be.”

God created a perfect world. When God saw everything that he had made, behold, it was very good. But was it? Was it really? What about Adam? There was not found an help meet for him. God said that this was not good. So, what did God mean when He said that it was “very good?”

What about Adam and Eve? If it was very good, then why did God leave that chink in their armor that allowed them to sin? When God said it was very good, he must have meant something different than what we might think. Certainly, God created a perfect world. But by perfect we must not mean “flawless”. We must mean, “the way he intended it to be.”

God’s Word is inerrant. True believers affirm this. But the proof of inerrancy is not that a great preacher I know studied the Bible for his whole life and never once found an error. The Bible is not inerrant because we can prove it to be so. The Bible is inerrant because God says it is (Ps 12:6; 19:7, 8; 119:140; Pr 3:5).

Of course, this means that we assume that the Bible is inerrant. We presuppose the inerrancy of Scripture. And no amount of evidence to the contrary will shake us off of that conviction. Did God tell Abraham that the Egyptian captivity would last 400 years? Did it last 430 years? Couldn’t God just as easily have said 430? But he didn’t. God said 400. And Israel stayed for 430. And that is correct. That is what God intended. So, that is a part of perfection.

How many generations were there from Abraham to David? Matthew says there were fourteen. Count them for yourself, in the Old Testament. There are more than fourteen. We believe that the Bible is perfect. So, we are quite sure that there is an explanation. But no explanation is necessary for me. If there were no explanation at all, I would still believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. Matthew is right. So is the Old Testament.

And if you were to point out a “mistake” in the Bible – say the number of soldiers in David’s army (2 Samuel 24:9 says 800,000; I Chronicles 21:5 says 1,100,000), then I would simply reply (as I heard one preacher say) “mistakes must be a part of perfection.” We’ll not bore you with an explanation of this… we have a high view of God, so we strive to harmonize, not question. We walk by faith, not by sight.

How else can we explain some of the Bible’s ideas, ideas which true believers accept without hesitation, ideas which to the world appear contradictory? Take for instance the deity of Christ. God is not a man. Yet Jesus is a man. And Jesus is God. Therefore, God is a man. Isn’t that contradiction? God is not a man, and God is a man? Can the two ideas be true, both at the same time? Absolutely. Because God is the Lord. What God says is true. Perfectly true. We accept it, submit ourselves to it, believe it and therefore speak it. We fear the Lord, and therefore we know. And most if not all of those involved in this debate will concur. We accept the inerrancy of Scripture on these terms, but our opponents refuse to accept the inerrancy of preservation on the same terms.

Now, God promised to preserve His Word (Ps 12:6, 7 for starters). And whatever God does, He does perfectly. God requires men to live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. If God requires this, then God enables this. We have every word, perfectly preserved. Whatever God does is perfect – variants and all. It strikes me as a red herring when some insist that God didn’t promise to preserve these words “in one place.” First, we know that in at least one place, God’s words are “in one place” (Ps 119:89). But God’s words really are found in “one place.” They are in the one place God put them. They are in the family of texts and manuscripts which the churches have accepted through the centuries since Christ.

All this illustrates the double-standard. We have one standard for inerrancy when it comes to the inspired Word, and we have an entirely different set of rules when it comes to the preserved Word. As was demonstrated yesterday, we have a standard for canonicity (which the Bible does not teach), and then we deny that this standard could work for preservation (as the Bible does teach). The Bible was inerrant originally, but our opponents say that it has deteriorated ever since. It is not up to men to “save” the Bible. The Bible is inerrant, preservation is perfect, and it falls upon us to acknowledge that, and submit to God’s power(I Cor 2:5)

Should we look at evidence and history? Yes. But this is not any real justification for the approach which textual criticism takes. On this issue, it is not “whether” we look at evidence, but rather “which” evidence we look at. As was demonstrated yesterday, this is not a debate between scholasticism and fideism. This is a debate about which form of fideism we should use. Or rather, upon which rock do we place our faith. Faith in man, or faith in God.

On the one hand, the fideism of the critic rests on the ability of forensics to determine which words belong and which do not. Higher critics seek to determine what the content should be. Lower critics seek to determine what the words should be. They trust scholarship. They trust their own ability. They accept what the detectives tell them. They seek to establish.

Our form of fideism differs greatly. They want to establish, we simply accept. They seek to determine what are the words of God, we seek to recognize what are the words of God. They prove, we receive. They would have us all investigating for fingerprints and DNA, trying to decide what should be included and what should not, what the “best” words are. They strive to create an error-free preservation, rather than accept that preservation is without error. We simply accept what believers have accepted through the centuries.

And to refute our approach, they point out the errors. This is a typo. That is obscure. This shouldn’t even be here. We can’t be sure. God preserved content. Words could be better translated. On and on the critics march. They have rejected Modernism’s unbelief, and have swallowed its major premise. They seek perfection – God hasn’t kept it perfect, so it is up to them to perfect God’s work. They seek perfection, a perfection of their own creation. A mistake-free perfection. And they believe that through the power of forensics, they can achieve this.

If I were to paint a picture, I would struggle to get the picture to transfer from my mind to the canvas. Artistic I am not. When I finally gave up, I would not be satisfied with my painting. However, if a master sets to painting, with brush and paint and easle, he will find a satisfaction with his finished product. He will pour all of his creative energies into the task, and will only stop when he can say, “That’s it. That’s what I wanted.” Nevertheless, his work will be flawed. He is human. Some mistakes he could not see, some he could not help.

But when God set to creating, the flaws that one could find were design features. This is what God intended. This is what God has done. This is perfect. We accept and receive what God has given, not what man has made. Our faith rests on God and on His work, not on man and his.

We affirm that perfection should be defined, not as “without mistakes,” but as “what God has given and preserved.” His way is perfect, His will is good.

In a New Testament manuscript dating from the fourth century, Codex Vaticanus (so named because it was found in the Vatican library), a scribe copied in Hebrews 1:3, “Christ manifests [Gk: phaneron] all things by the word of his power.” That is a different reading than the one found in most manuscripts available, which say, “Christ bears [Gk: pheron] all things by the word of his power.” Some centuries later, another scribe read Vaticanus and decided to change the unusual word “manifests” to the more common reading “bears”—erasing the one word and writing in the other. A few centuries later a third scribe read the same manuscript, noticed the alteration his predecessor had made, and he erased the word “bears” and rewrote “manifests.” This third scribe wrote this derisive comment in the margin concerning the second scribe: “Fool and knave! Leave the old reading, don’t change it!”

That one difference does alter the interpretation of the text. Saying that Christ reveals all things is different than saying that He bears or keeps all things.

Copyists of the text of the Old and New Testament through the years have changed the words found in the original, so that almost every copy is different. We also don’t have one scrap of the original parchment of one book of the Bible, so we are dependent on copies for our readings of the Scripture. Most Christians agree that there is one perfect copy in heaven (Ps. 119:89). That heavenly edition does not do us much good down here, so if based upon Scriptural promises we believe that God has both perfectly preserved and also made accessible every one of His Words for us on earth, how did that happen?

SOME STORIES

Story #1 

In the late 1830s one young and particularly ardent scholar became convinced that it was his mission to restore the Bible as close as possible to its original condition. He wrote his fiancee, “I am confronted with the . . . struggle to regain the original form of the New Testament.” This young man was named Lobegott (German for “Praise God”) because before he was born, his mother had seen a blind man and surrendered to the superstition that this would cause her child to be born blind. When he was born healthy, she dedicated him to God by calling him Lobegott Friedrich Constantine von Tischendorf. He first made his reputation concerning a fifth-century Greek manuscript, Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, which was erased in the twelfth century so its vellum pages could be reused to record some Syriac sermons. The pages had not been thoroughly erased, so Tischendorf used newly discovered chemical reagents to help bring out the handwriting so producing the first successful transcription of this early text. The accomplishment induced people to provide financial support for journeys that led him to the foot of Mt. Sinai and the Convent of St. Catherine in May of 1844.

Visiting that monastery he saw in the middle of the great hall a large and wide basket full of old parchments. He was told by the librarian that two heaps of papers just like these had already been committed to the flames. Amid the remaining pile were many sheets of a copy of the Old Testament in Greek, and the monastery allowed him to take only a third or forty three pages, since his excitement aroused their suspicions as to the value of the parchment. He could take no more.

Nine years later he returned and could find no trace of it. In 1859 under the patronage of Czar Alexander II of Russia, he set out again but with repeated failure until the very last day. Then he was invited to the room of the convent’s steward and discussed with him the Greek Old Testament. The steward told him, “I too have read a Septuagint,” and he pulled from the corner of his room a copy wrapped in red cloth. Tischendorf recounts:

I unrolled the cover, and discovered, to my great surprise, not only those very fragments which, fifteen years before, I had taken out of the basket, but also other parts of the Old Testament, the New Testament complete, and in addition, the Epistle of Barnabas and a part of the Pastor of Hermas.

Today Codex Sinaiticus rests in the British Library as a part of its permanent collection, prominently displayed in its manuscript room. 

Story #2 

In December, 1945, Egyptian fellahin rode their camels out to the Jabal al-Tarif, a huge cliff near the Nile River honeycombed with caves. They came in search of sabakh, a natural fertilizer they used to nourish their crops. Hobbling their camels at the foot of the cliff, the men began to dig in the soft soil around a massive boulder resting against the cliff face. Striking something hard, they swiftly uncovered a red earthenware jar nearly a meter high. Fearing that the jar might contain an angry jinn, or spirit, the men hesitated. Quickly the legends of treasure buried in the caves of the Jabal al-Tarif overcame their fear. Muhammad Ali al-Samman raised his mattock and smashed the jar with a single blow. Golden dust, he swore afterwards, flew out of the jar and vanished into the air. However, among the shards of pottery the men found no gold, only some old books bound in cracked leather. Disappointed, Muhammad Ali carried the books and loose papers home and dumped them on the floor near the oven. For several nights, his mother fed the fire with sheets of the papyrus.

The remaining texts, after a torturous journey through the black market, were eventually identified by scholars as Christian gospels missing for nearly two thousand years. Bound in tooled gazelle leather, the 52 manuscripts were turned over to the Coptic Museum in Cairo, and teams of scholars from Canada, Germany, Scandinavia and the United States have worked together to decipher the poems, prayers and sayings that were translated from the original Greek into Coptic, an African language that transposes hieroglyphics into an alphabetical mode.

Story #3 

When Napoleon seized the Vatican in 1809 he exiled the Pope to Avignon, transported the Vatican library to France in 50 wagons, and carried off a prize to Paris—a fourth century Greek manuscript of the Bible. There it remained until 1815 when it was finally returned to Rome along with its owner. The manuscript was known by scholars to exist in 1475 when it was listed in a catalogue of manuscripts in the Vatican Library. Vatican authorities kept it under lock and key desperately hoping this recently rediscovered treasure would be soon forgotten. The Catholic Church considers the manuscript dangerous because it shows so clearly how corrupt their Vulgate is. But in 1845, a young English scholar, Samuel Tregelles—self taught—applied for permission to investigate this find in the Vatican library. Unable to avoid granting permission, the Vatican put every obstacle in his path. He was not allowed to take pen or paper with him, he was searched going in and coming out, and two clerics stood by him to turn the pages so he could not look too long at any one passage. Before he left, he was only allowed six hours to examine the text.

In 1866 Lobegott Tischendorf was granted permission to once more examine this manuscript. He was also given many restrictions; only 14 days and three hours each day. However, with his photographic memory he was able to publish the most perfect edition of the manuscript which had yet appeared in 1867. This forced the Vatican to finally publish a copy, Codex Vaticanus, in 1881.

SOME HISTORY

The New Testament was completed when John finished Revelation in A.D. 90. We know they were making copies and circulating them. Colossians 4:16 reads, “And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the from Laodicea.” Early Christianity spread like wildfire across the Roman Empire, so rapidly that by the end of the second century Christian groups were proliferating everywhere there despite efforts to stop them. Tertullian, living in the port city of Carthage in North Africa 100 years after John’s Revelation was written, boasted to outsiders that “the more we are mown down by you, the more we multiply; the blood of Christians is seed!” Assemblies of them were popping up everywhere; some were taking off, but going the wrong direction, orthodox doctrine eroding. This widespread movement was becoming enormously diverse, so that the leadership faced the problem of how to unify Christianity so that it could survive its enemies. From the breadth of the materials preserved from that period, we know that many other books were written besides the twenty-seven in the New Testament. Several of those books were mentioned and refuted by Irenaeus in his five book treatise, Against Heresies. Irenaeus also made these statements in those writings:

In like manner he also . . . . retains unchangeable in his heart the rule of the truth which he received by means of baptism. . . . [T]his class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith. . . . For the baptism instituted by the visible Jesus was for the remission of sins.

Those statements manifest no true conversion for Irenaeus. He, however, was the man who most scholars see as responsible for the canonization of the New Testament text, also despite the fact that he himself never listed the twenty-seven New Testament books. He is most often given credit for nailing down the four Gospels by writing in Against Heresies:

It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout the world, and the pillar and ground of the Church is the Gospel . . . it is fitting that she should have four pillars.

Does that sound like good evidence for the four Gospels to you? The final decisions among all of these varied groups about which books should finally be considered canonical were not automatic or problem free. We are able to pinpoint the first time that any professing Christian of record listed the twenty-seven books of our New Testament as the books of the New Testament. The first surviving instance of anyone affirming our set of books as the New Testament was Athanasius, the powerful bishop of Alexandria, in A.D. 367. Even that did not settle the issue historically—debates continued for decades, even centuries. 

SOME QUESTIONS

Is there any passage in Scripture that lists the twenty-seven books of the New Testament? How can anyone be sure that the original New Testament did have twenty-seven books? We don’t have the originals. Does the Bible even teach canonicity of books? Why did canonization take so long? Do you believe that God used these three discoveries of texts recounted above in order to restore the New Testament back to a condition closer to the original manuscripts? How could we possibly have a perfect Bible when no two hand-written ancient copies are alike? How does anyone know what the Word of God actually is? Is canonization a natural process? Is having errors in the Bible a suitable position for you?  Do you believe God preserved Words or the Content of Scripture?

Do you want to be part of the “initiated”? OK, I’ll let you in on a secret. Only those with the highest levels of intelligence can ponder this great mystery. Ready?

In 1 Corinthians 4, The mysteries of God refers to the gospel. And the gospel is a part of the whole Word of God that has been entrusted to the ministers of Christ.

Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover it is required in stewards that a man be found faithful. ~~1 Corinthians 4:1-2

Faithfulness is the requirment of stewards. A steward is someone who has been entrusted with the management of another person’s property.

Of

This preposition denotes generally two things: production and possession. So it is with the Word of God. It came from Him; it is yet His.

I hold in my hand my Bible. The paper and ink and leather are mine. But the Words are God’s. They came from Him. They are yet His. As a steward, I cannot add to the words he has given. If I did, would they continue to be His words? I dare not take away from the words he has given. Who am I to steal from my master?

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. ~~Deuteronomy 4:2

Faithfulness is the requirement of stewards. Faithfulness expresses itself in many ways.

• I believe my master
• I trust my master.
• I obey my master.
• I honor my master.
• I do, to the best of my ability, what he would do.
• I’m faithful to Him.
• I’m faithful to His Word

Not all KJVO’s* are created equal. I say that as one who is committed to the King James Version, and as a pastor whose church is and has been committed to the King James Version. I say that because among the KJVO’s, there remains much controversy about how KJVO we need to be. For some, we are too KJVO. For others, we are not KJVO enough. There is a temptation to cower before the traditions of men – ever seeking to exalt themselves above God. We must not do this. We stand before God, not before men. We answer to God, not men. Sin is transgression of God’s law. It involves transgression of or want of conformity to the law of God. Before we decide that a brother is in sin, we must hold him up to God’s law, not man’s tradition.

Mark 7:3-9, 15 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables. Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.

It is my goal to give a Scriptural position on this issue, and specifically, to reiterate what we are saying and what we are not saying. That means it is not my goal to place myself in anyone’s “camp”. We need to be careful on this issue. It seems that every different brand of KJVO wants to lay down the law as to “how” KJVO we’re all supposed to be. I have no problem with setting a Scriptural standard. But many in the King James camp want to add a list of their own traditions to the mix, and want to set their own standard.

13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Thus, while we are King James Only, we aren’t “King James Enough” for some, and are “Too King James” for others. None of these things move us. We must stand on the Word, and only on the Word. And when it comes to this issue regarding the preservation of the Word, we especially must take up our stand on defensible (and thus, Scriptural) ground.

With that in mind, we want to give a basic summary of our position. During the course of this month, we will be breaking this down to further explain what we mean. We welcome comments, criticisms, and concessions at this time. Please keep in mind that we will defend these things later.
What we are saying, what we are not saying:
1. We affirm that on the issue of versions, our most important duty is to be faithful to the Word and words of God.

2. We deny that innerrancy for a particular English Version of the Bible is necessary. We neither affirm nor deny innerrancy of versions – it is a non-issue.

3. We affirm that perfection should be defined not as “without mistakes” but as “what God has given and preserved.”

4. We affirm that God promised to Providentially preserve His Word in the original languages.

5. We therefore affirm that whatever God has preserved can be said to be perfect, regardless of whatever “mistakes” someone might dredge up.

6. We deny that canonicity and preservation are separate issues. Canonicity refers to words, not merely books and chapters, and canonicity is a recognition of what God has preserved, rather than an establishing of what should be included.

7. We deny that preservation rests in any translation, including any English translation.

8. We affirm that translations should be chosen, not particularly for their “accuracy” as for their faithfulness.

9. We deny that any form of “dynamic equivalence” can be considered to be faithful. We deny that any modern version that utilized “dynamic equivalence” can be considered faithful.

10. We affirm that “formal equivalence” is the only faithful method of translation.

11. We deny that reliance upon the Critical Text could be considered faithful. We do not say, however, that the Critical Text could not be considered to be the Word of God on any level whatsoever. We deny that the Critical Text could be considered a faithful text of the Word of God.

12. We affirm that the body of texts known as the Received Text and the majority text have been proven through the years to be a faithful text of God’s Word.

13. We affirm that any version which attempts to translate either the Received Text or the majority text faithfully by means of Formal Equivalence can be considered a faithful translation.

14. We deny that it is a “sin” (i.e. “transgression of God’s law”) to read an unfaithful version. (Mark 7:15)

15. We deny that there could never be any other English version of the Word of God that would be faithful.

16. We affirm that the 1769 edition of the King James Version should be updated. We affirm that plans should be made so that this can be accomplished in the not too distant future.

17. We deny that any publishing house, including Thomas Nelson, Inc. has any authority either to create a version of Scripture or to write a new edition of Scripture.

18. We affirm that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, and therefore the church itself (i.e. local churches) must take charge of the care and maintenance of the Bible.

19. We deny that any parachurch organization can be considered “the church,” and therefore we deny that parachurch organizations can or should have any part in the translation or care of Scripture. We include parachurch “Bible” colleges, no matter how scholarly their professors.

20. We affirm that an educated laity, skillful in languages, adept at handling Scripture, faithful to the written Word of God, and diligent in preserving, inasmuch as is humanly possible, can handle the Word of God and translation issues far more adequately and reliably than any other organization of man’s invention.

* KJVO is “Internet lingo” for those who are King James Only.

Unlike Sharper Iron, we’ll let you.  They have other, more important issues to debate.  But we aren’t afraid.  We won’t hurt anybody either.  We’re harmless.  Really.  Like warm, fuzzy Teddy Bears.  We’re not mean.  Really, we aren’t.  Don’t let that Brandenburg guy kid you.  He might sound like he’s growling, but really he’s just purring like a cuddly wittle ole’ puddy tat.  He won’t hurt you.  Promise.  Can’t you hear the music in the background?  He’s come to the garden alone, and the dew shook off of the roses.

We’re King James Only.  And we’re liable to ruffle some King James Only feathers.  But we’ll let you hammer that out.  We aren’t afeerd of a little fight.  After all, we’re ‘Fatt’n Fundamentalists.’  And it shows.

This Month Only.  King James Only.  And all those who aren’t.  You might be surprised what we might say.  Then again, you might not be.  You might not agree with us.  We might not agree with you.  But what’s a little disagreement among friends?  Can’t we all just get along?

I’ll tell you what: we’ll get along with you, if you’ll get along with us.  Better yet, we’ll agree with you, if you’ll agree with us.