JackHammer

We just received box after box of our second addition of Thou Shalt Keep Them:  A Biblical Theology of the Perfect Preservation of Scripture (TSKT).  This book takes many of the passages that teach the preservation of Scripture and exposes them word by word to flesh out what the Bible says about this historic doctrine.  TSKT is written by seven different pastors and also shows what Scripture says about its own availability and how it was preserved.

There is no other book like this.  It would be great to have as a reference or to read one chapter at a time in your leisure.  Through the Bible your confidence will grow in the Word of God.  You will be better prepared to defend your position presuppositionally or you may just be wondering what the Bible does say about its own preservation.  TSKT will give it to you.  This is a landmark work that could turn into a classic, since there is nothing else of its kind.   The best defense of the doctrine of Scripture is what God Himself says about His Word.

Because we printed so many copies on this run, we can offer it to you for $14 per copy.  $12 for 2.  And $10 for 3 or more.  If you write me, we can offer you a bookstore rate as well for your church.  We sold out of the first run in less than a year.  This is a new, revised edition that makes thirty pages worth of changes to make the first edition even better.  This is a copy that you want to have.

You can order it at our website.  Or you can order it from me at betbapt@flash.net.   We will charge just what it costs us for shipping and handling in addition to the cost of the book.  Folks, if we want independent Baptists to write, then we need to buy their books and encourage others to buy them.  We can do this with confidence if we know that it is well done.  Here are 315 pages of text with a massive bibliography, a tremendous glossary at the front of the book, and a Scripture and topical index.  It is a very practical book.  Order now!!!

Regarding the issue of preservation, on a basic level there are those who believe that God has perfectly preserved His Word, and there are those who believe that God has not.

Those who believe that God has not perfectly preserved His Word typically will say something like this: The Bible is inerrant in the originals, however…the however indicating that copyists and translators and the human element has corrupted the perfection of the originals.

We can divide those who deny perfect preservation into two different camps. On one side are those who deny the inerrancy of Scripture altogether (we call them modernists). Opposed to the modernists, though not entirely separate from them are those who believe that God preserves His Word in a sort of Theistic Evolutionist way, through man discovering new copies and gaining new understanding of Greek, “finding new light through scholarship.” Modern Versions have come from these “Critical Text” promoters.

Opposite these MVO’s (Modern/Multiple Versions Only), we have those who believe in Perfect Preservation (commonly referred to as KJVO’s). The KJVO’s can also be divided into two camps. On the one hand, we have those who believe that God has perfectly preserved His Word in the English Language, which we can call English Preservationists. On the other side, we have those who believe that God has perfectly preserved His Word in the Original Languages. We can call them Original Language Preservationists. Both sides will hold to the King James, and both sides agree that God has perfectly preserved His Word. But the two sides differ on a number of important issues.

I wish I would have understood that division before writing the infamous “Plea for an update…” Having spent a significant amount of time debating for the side of the King James Version, I was a bit taken back by the personal attacks launched against me over that one article. Honestly, I was blindsided by it. I have always known, in the back of my mind, that it wasn’t enough to be King James Only, that one could not simply hold the position, but that he must also “say it” right. One’s membership card will not be adequate. KJVO’s must have two forms of identity and pass the shibboleth. Even as a KJVO, I’ve often felt that a discussion of the issue was like a walk on eggshells. So, I wasn’t surprised that I slipped up. After all, I’ve never been one for tiptoeing.

What surprised me was not the fact that I said the wrong thing. That never surprises me. What surprised me was the massive efforts from busybody pastors (some my friends, some not so friendly) who set the phone lines ablaze all across the country rallying the troops against me. What disappointed me was the efforts of some to stir up strife within my church. What disgusted me was the move of some to cut me off without so much as a trial, let alone any effort to set me straight. I heard about many phone calls that were made about me, but had only one phone call made to me. The pastors who did this should be ashamed. The conduct was frankly ungodly, and I cannot be silent about it. Short of naming names (y’all know who you are) I’ll simply say that I will be more wary of “friendship” in the future.

But that aside, it forced me to give more attention to the differences between the English Language Preservationists and the Original Language Preservationists. I am not an English Language Preservationist. I should be clear about that first. But from my little seat in the bleachers, I am noticing that the English Language Preservationists have done much to damage our cause and to hijack our position. As you read, notice the influence that English Preservationists have had on the King James Only position, and then consider this my attempt to isolate their position and refute it.

English Preservationists

I would not purposely misrepresent the position of anyone, and since I consider those who are English Preservationist to be on our side, I especially do not want to misrepresent theirs. Of course there are a variety of differences even amongst those who are of this persuasion, so I’ll try to recognize that and not spend too much time on the extreme views that are not necessarily shared by all.

I’ve attempted here to identify the basic tenets of this position, boiling down to the essential elements. Forgive me where I have left too much skin hanging on the bones.

1. Basically, the English Preservationist believes that God wrote the King James Bible, in much the same sense that God wrote the Bible. God used men to do the work, but God wrote them both.

2. The English Preservationist believes that the Bible has always been preserved in one form or another throughout New Testament history. However, they also believe that when the King James Bible was written, it was written to preserve Scripture, and that from 1611 on (or for some, from 1769 on), the English version became the standard, and that it is now the place where God is preserving His Word. This is key to understanding the English language position.

3. I don’t know of any English Preservationist who would claim INSPIRATION for the King James Bible (including Ruckman, from what I’m told). Most English Language Preservationists will deny “secondary inspiration” though they believe that the English version is inspired. However, every English Preservationist would say that inerrancy applies to the Version itself.

4. Amongst the English Preservationists, there is some disagreement as to whether any other language could also have their own perfect translation. Some believe that the English translation is the preserved word for all languages. Others believe it to be the preserved word for English, while Spanish or Chinese could have their own preserved word.

5. Some (not a few) English Preservationists believe that with the writing of the King James Version, preservation was perfected. This point also is essential to understanding the English-only position.

Original Language Preservationists (OLP’s)

1. The OLP’s believe that God preserved jots and tittles (Mt 5:18), and that not one has passed. Thus, God has perfectly preserved His Word.
2. Therefore, the OLP’s believe that the Word of God is perfectly preserved in the Textus Receptus for the NT, and in the Masoretic Hebrew for the OT.

• The OLP’s believe that God canonized words through the faithful copying of His people, and that through those words, we have the 66 books of the Bible, which are also canonized.
• Some will object that among the various copies of the TR, there are numbers of textual variants. And this is true. In fact, there is about 93% agreement amongst the existent copies of the TR. 
• Those of the CT/eclectic position will argue that because there is about 7% disagreement amongst the copies, therefore we should all study the texts scientifically to determine the “best” reading. Thus, they rely on forensics and science to render the correct reading.
• The Original Language Preservationists believe that this is an entirely faithless approach, and in addition, that this is disobedient to Scripture. 

3. That brings up the third main fundamental of the OLP. The OLP believes that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth (I Tim 3:15), and thus that the local churches throughout NT history have received the Word of God as it is, and have accepted it.

• Put another way, the local churches (what we refer to as The Church) did not determine what the Word of God is, but rather they gave important testimony to what the Word of God is. They did not set out to scientifically prove, based on evidence, what the “best” word was. Rather, they received and accepted the words as kept by the churches.
• In other words, throughout New Testament history, the accepted readings were used. That is, up until the last 150 years or so.
• Again, this was accomplished through the faithful copying of believers throughout the ages.
• The copies that have survived and have seen widespread usage are the copies that we accept to be the preserved Word of God.

4.  For the Original Language Preservationists, this is where the King James Version enters the scene, and explains why we are King James Only.

When the KJV was written, the English-speaking world had two English Bibles available: the Geneva Bible and the Bishop’s Bible. The English-speaking world was deeply divided between these two Bibles, and the KJV effectively settled the dispute. As evidence, the Geneva and the Bishop’s Bible are museum pieces today. You normally won’t order one from a Christian bookstore or catalogue. But the King James Version is the most widely distributed Bible in the History of the World. Truly, the churches settled on this Bible. It is the “Church Bible.”

In 1894, Scrivener assembled the Textus Receptus used by the King James Version translators into one distinct edition. So, we have the Bible which English-speaking churches have held to for almost 400 years, and we have the underlying Greek and Hebrew editions. We can be sure then that we have the perfectly and Providentially preserved Word of God in the Masoretic Hebrew for the Old Testament, and in Scrivener’s TR for the New Testament.

Reconciling the two positions

Now, when we put the two positions (English Preservation/Original Language Preservation) side-by-side on the ole table, we see clearly that there is a difference between the two. Both accept by faith that God has perfectly preserved His Word. On that we can agree. Both agree that the King James Bible was Providentially given to the churches. We can agree on that as well.

Since I believe firmly in the Sovereignty and Providence of God, I also can loosely agree with the English-only assertion that God wrote the King James Bible. I can agree in this sense and only in this sense… I believe that God was involved in the writing, and that God was guiding these men to choose this word and not that one.

However, I do not believe that God was involved in the writing of the KJV in the same sense that God was involved in the writing of, say, the book of Romans, or of the Psalms, or of Ruth. Did God write the King James Bible? The King James is not inspired in the same sense as Hebrews and James are inspired. The English words are not God-breathed. If I were to make a comparison, I would have to say that God wrote the KJV in the same sense that God wrote the U.S. Constitution. The Providence of God was clearly involved in both, and we see his hand in each. But the U.S. Constitution is not God-breathed, nor does it have the same life in it as the inspired words of Scripture.

I want to be careful here, because I know that this will offend some. I’ll do my best to be void of offense, if the reader will give his best effort to understand what I am arguing here. The words that God-breathed were Greek and Hebrew words. There was no need for God to re-breath those words in English. Nor do I believe that the English words were divinely inspired. Otherwise, God would have given the words in English to begin with.

Along with that, I disagree with the notion that when the King James Bible was written, preservation moved from Greek / Hebrew to English. God promised to preserve jots and tittles (Mt 5:18), not commas and semi-colons (or, perhaps more accurately, not dotted i’s and crossed t’s). Nor is there one verse in all of Scripture that ever indicates that God would preserve the Bible in any language other than the language in which God gave the Bible.

In addition, I disagree with the notion that any further editions of the 1611 would be “changing the Bible” or “re-writing the Bible.” Preservation did not begin in 1611, nor did it reach its final destination that year. Since the closing of the canon, God has been providentially preserving His Word, and God’s Word is preserved. Translations neither add to nor detract from the perfection of Providence.

If God has preserved His Word, then God’s Word is preserved. Translations cannot change that. The issue of Modern Translations is not that it undermines the preservation of God’s Word. It cannot do that. It might undermine our understanding of preservation, but it cannot undo what God has done. Preservation is preservation, and translations are just that. Translations.

I was truly amazed at some of the accusations that were hurled around a few months ago. I have never said that I wanted to “re-write the Bible.” I have never said that I wanted to “change the Bible.” I was not saying that before, and I am not saying that now. I have never called for a new version. I don’t think we should try to get a new version.

When Wycliffe wrote his translation in 1380, he was neither “re-writing” nor “changing” the Bible. He was writing a translation. When Tyndale wrote his in 1525/1530, he was not “re-writing” the Bible. He was not “changing” the Bible. He was writing a translation. In 1611, when the King James Bible was written, these men were not “changing” or “re-writing” the Bible. And when the next edition of the King James Bible was written, the Bible was not changed. To say that I ever argued for “re-writing” or “changing” is a gross slander, and those who perpetrated this lie should be rebuked before all.

They say hindsight is 20/20. There are times, however, when hindsight drags its heels in getting to the full 20/20 status. Like Johnny staring out the back bus window, I find myself watching the scenery come into clearer focus.

When I wrote the post on updating the King James, I wrote it in the context of defending (at times vehemently) the King James Only position. It certainly was not intended as an attack, nor was it intended to undermine confidence in the KJV. I am King James Only. I am not ashamed to be numbered among those who have defended her purity. I could not find a better group of men with which to associate myself than those who take the position of King James Only. Our detractors have called us “lemmings,” along with other less than flattering titles. I’ll say for all to hear that I gladly stand with the lemmings.

That being said, I realize now that my “update” post alienated many. Read the rest of this entry →

Normally, doctrinal statements start with Scripture. They are a careful presentation of what Scripture says on a subject, topic, or issue, which would in essence be “what the Bible says” about it. If we were to teach on the doctrine of preservation, we would lay out what the Bible reveals on the issue in a contextual and organized way, leaving no stones unturned to find out what God said about it in His Word. That’s what we, the One Bible people, have done. We major on what the Bible says. Only after this will we mention the history and other external evidences.

MVO:  No Scripture

You will not see this with the MVO advocates. They provide no developed, organized system of teaching on preservation, none of them. Their idea of a Biblical presentation is to attack the exegesis and application of the One Bible presentation. This really has become the tradition of MVO and textual criticism. They don’t tell you what the Bible teaches about its own preservation. Despite having no Scripture, they really want you to think that they represent the historical point of view. They want you to think that the One Bible people, who do present Scripture, don’t have any history previous to the middle of the 20th Century.

Mount Calvary Baptist Church of Greenville, SC, where Mark Minnick pastors, put together one of their “histories,” as did Mike Sproul and a cast of MVO advocates (BJU) in God’s Word in Our Hands. I dare you to find anything that Doug Kutilek has written on what God’s Word says about its own preservation. These people do not seem to be interested at all about what the Bible says about it.

Mount Calvary and Mark Minnick did not provide a booklet with exegesis on the Bible doctrine of preservation. They provided you a pamphlet with quotations of men. The Ambassador-Emerald “Translation Committee” wrote an entire volume with no Scriptural presentation and followed it with another 400+ tome, subheaded “The Bible Preserved for Us,” that starts with historical quotes. You won’t find Scripture until p. 83, and again, that is mainly attempting to debunk the One Bible position, that lasts up to p. 117 and that is all, pp. 83-117. God’s Word Preserved, the Mike Sproul book in which within the entire 405 pages he alone is called Dr. Sproul, including on the front cover, has zero Scriptural teaching on preservation. None. You would think he would have been able to find some teaching on preservation for a book called God’s Word Preserved. The way he defended his position is with quotes of men. Just quotes; that’s all.

Our book, on the other hand, Thou Shalt Keep Them, is 315 pages of only Biblical teaching. We exegete several of the passages (not all) that reveal the doctrine of preservation. We could have written something almost double that size, if we included all the passages.

One of the reasons they do not give Scripture is because several of them do not believe Scripture teaches preservation. They admit this themselves. Some of the major, most quoted spokesmen for the MVO side, don’t believe preservation is promised in Scripture. William Combs of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary writes concerning his own side:

In an an article entitled “Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism,” by Daniel Wallace, we find what is apparently the first definitive, systematic denial of a doctrine of preservation of Scripture.

That is quite an overstatement by Combs. Many liberals have denied preservation. Many do not believe that the Bible teaches inspiration or preservation. He must mean the first denial of preservation by a “conservative.” Denial of preservation and “conservative” go together in this new paradigm. Combs adds W. Edward Glenny, a major contributor to the volume, One Bible Only?, out of Central Seminary in Minnesota.

They are not strong about Scripture teaching the doctrine of preservation, so what is their position on history and preservation? Sadly, they don’t give a historic presentation either. They give you quotes of men mainly addressing the translation issue. The first two quotes by Trusted Voices are also the first for Mike Sproul:

The holy Scriptures viz. the Originalls Hebrew & Greek are given by Divine Inspiration & in their first donation were without error most perfect and therefore Canonical … no translation can possibly express all the matter of the body originals, nor a thousand things in the Grammar, Rhetoric, & character of the tongue. ~~John Smyth

Now though some translations may exceed others in Propriety, and significant rendering of the Originals; yet they generally, (even the most imperfect that we know of), express and hold forth so much the Mind, Will, and Counsel of God, as is sufficient … to acquaint a Man with the Mysteries of Salvation, to work in him a true Faith, and bring him to live godly, righteously, and soberly in this World, and to Salvation in the next. ~~Banjamine Keach

What do these two quotes do to eliminate the Scriptural and historical view on perfect preservation that we represent? Nothing. They only refute a view that says that English has replaced the Hebrew and Greek text of Scripture. These two quotes do nothing to dispel what we believe and what Scripture teaches on preservation. We wholeheartedly agree with them. A large majority of their quotes read like these two. Only close to or after the Revised Version of 1881 do they find quotes that attack the Scriptural position on preservation. This is their so-called “history.”

MVO:  No History

Since the MVO position is not even historical, let alone Scriptural, where did it originate? This is important to understand. Many liberals believed what the MVO advocates teach. When did it become the position of the more conservative? This is easy to see. One would think that the Westminster Confession and Baptist Confessions (London, Philadelphia) would get in the way of changing the historic view of preservation. They have and do. But then came along the well-respected Presbyterian, Princeton (Ivy League) theologian, Benjamin Warfield. Warfield read into the Westminster Confession and into its “providential care,” textual criticism. You’ll find it on pages 239-241 in Vol. VI of his Works:

It (the WCF) admits of no denial that they explicitly recognized the fact that the text of the Scriptures had suffered corruption in process of transmission, and affirmed that the “pure” text lies therefore not in one copy, but in all, and is to be attained not by simply reading the text in whatever copy may chance to fall in our hands, but by a process of comparison, i.e. by criticism (p. 239).

In the sense of the Westminster Confession, therefore, the multiplication of copies of the Scriptures, the several early efforts towards the revision of the text, the raising up of scholars in our own day to collect and collate MSS, . . . . are all parts of God’s singular care and providence in preserving His inspired Word pure.

Warfield reads schizophrenic in that section. In one moment he is espousing the historical position and in the next he does what you read above. The fake history of the MVO began with these writings of Warfield. Warfield inserted a history into the Westminster Confession that contradicted what these men said they actually believed. His invention is much different than the conclusion of the well respected Westminster expert, E. D. Morris, who wrote concerning the divines:

As a Professor in a Theological Seminary, it has been my duty to make a special study of the Westminster Confession of Faith, as have I done for twenty years; and I venture to affirm that no one who is qualified to give an opinion on the subject, would dare to risk his reputation on the statement that the Westminster divines ever thought the original manuscripts of the Bible were distinct from the copies in their possession.

My reading of the Puritan writings mirrors Morris’ assessment. Benjamin Warfield brought textual criticism into a “conservative” doctrine of preservation of Scripture much like evolutionists brought theistic evolution into the Bible.

They have their own fake history, but they are also bold enough to provide us with our history too. They don’t have time to look at what Scripture says, but they do have a lot of time to concoct a new history for the perfect preservation view. Sproul spends a huge chunk of his book (pp. 209-245) creating a fraudulent history of the One Bible view, tracing it back to a Seventh Day Adventist, Benjamin Wilkinson, through David Otis Fuller, all beginning in the 1930’s in the United States. I have no doubt that some have been influenced by these two men, but this is not the history of the doctrine of preservation. Personally, I have never read Fuller or Wilkinson and don’t possess either of their books on the issue. They may have been defending One Bible, but they didn’t originate a view of perfect preservation, a doctrine which is as old as Scripture itself.

Conclusion

God-fearing saints in Baptist churches for centuries have believed in the perfect preservation of Scripture. And they still do. When they open their Bibles to study or to listen to preaching, they believe that they hold in their hands God’s Word, inspired and perfectly preserved. They don’t take that position from any scholars or historians. They have read it themselves in their own Bibles.

As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.  Isaiah 59:21

In Mike Sproul’s book, God’s Word Preserved, a title full of irony for anyone who actually does believe what Scripture teaches on the preservation of itself, Keith Gephart writes under his watchful care:

Brandenburg’s book posits an interpretation of Scripture regarding the method, means, and location of God’s preserved Word that was unknown to godly fundamentalists before the late twentieth century. As Mike Sproul demonstrates in chapter four of his book, godly fundamental and separatists leaders of past and present looked at the same verses as these men and have come to completely different conclusions regarding their meaning (p. 394).

No one should say that fundamentalists do not take this position of perfect preservation. If they do, as Michael Sproul often does in his book, they have obviously not interacted with George Sayles Bishop, one of the authors of The Fundamentals (Vol. II, Chap. 4). Consider this quote from The Doctrines of Grace by Bishop (p. 35):

We take the ground that on the original parchment, the membrane, every sentence, word, line, mark, point, pen-stroke, jot, tittle, was put there by God. On the original parchment. Men may destroy it. To say that the membranes have suffered in the hands of men, is but to say that everything Divine must suffer, as the pattern Tabernacle suffered, when committed to our hands. To say, however, that the writing has suffered ‘the words and the letters’ is to say that Jehovah has failed. The writing remains. Like that of a palimpsest, it will survive and reappear, no matter what circumstance, ”what changes come in to scatter, obscure, disfigure, or blot it away. Not even one lonely “THEOS” (”GOD” was manifest in the flesh, 1 Tim. 3:16) written large by the Spirit of God on the Great Uncial “C” as, with my own eyes I have seen it ‘plain, vivid, glittering, outstarting from behind the pale and overlying ink of Ephraem the Syrian’ can be buried. Like Banquo’s ghost, it will rise; and God himself replace it, and, with a hammer-stroke, beat down deleting hands. The parchments, the membranes decay; the writings are eternal as God. Strip off the plaster from Belshazzar’s palace, yet Mene! Mene! Tekel! Upharsin! They remain.”

Sproul writes concerning me in his book without ever contacting me first: “This is an amazing slander” (p. 149). For this “amazing slander,” he refers to this line, “So much of what functions as documentation also depends on craftily pulling a quotation from its context, either the context of the book itself or the context of history.” Read the rest of this entry →

Should the Lord tarry for, say, another 200 years, the 1769 edition of the King James Version, the edition that most use today, would hardly be adequate. In fact, it would be the equivalent of reading Beowulf in the original. The Bible would be out of reach for all but the most educated.

I point this out on purpose. I understand that most of those who are persuaded of the King James Only position also believe that the Lord’s Return is imminent. Several friends of mine believe that we will not finish out this year, or that the Lord will return within the next two years, or hold to some similar viewpoint. Certainly, this is possible. It is equally possible, however, that Christ will not return in the next two years, that he will in fact tarry for another, say, 200 years. In which case, it would be ungodly to insist that those Christians should still be using the 1769 edition of the King James Version.

Nevertheless, some will no doubt continue to insist. In the early days, men like Tyndale gave their life so that the average man could have the Bible in his own language. And the hard-liners of today will eventually undo that purpose. The King James Version was finished in 1611. After that, there were 14-16 updates and editions, each one intended to bring the version up-to-date. For some reason, we stopped updating it in the 1700’s. And as a result, we have a version today that is badly in need of an update.

The scenario I used at the beginning of this post is admittedly an understatement. We have to start somewhere in our thinking, and for those of the more rabid persuasion of KJVO, 200 years out might get them thinking. But I wouldn’t be honest if I said that I myself believe that we should wait 200 years before attempting a new edition.

I can only please some of the people some of the time, but I can offend some people all of the time. I am not careful to tiptoe around this issue. Some, no doubt, will be offended. But then, some have made the art of taking offense their life’s calling. I guess I shouldn’t be proud of myself for offending them. That’s just too doggoned easy.

There are objections to updating the King James Version. No doubt some will object that the edition we have is just fine. Our fathers used it, their fathers used it, and their father’s fathers used it, so we can (or should) too. TRADITIO-O-O-O-N! TRADITION! TRA-DI-TION! I can hear the song playing in my head even as I type. Tradition is obsessive-compulsive. You could give up Tradition if only Tradition would let go of you.

But I’d ask those who feel a strong loyalty to the 1769 edition to consider a few arguments. First, what if we had no editions of the KJV after 1611? No doubt some enjoy reading “ye” for “the.” No doubt some don’t mind having an extra “e” tacked on to the ends of many of the words. But for the bulk of Christians, the 1611 is simply out of reach. I’ve read the Mayflower Compact. I’ve read from William Bradford’s Of Plimoth Plantation. They are not easy reading. So, newer editions have been a blessing to us.

Secondly, we really can’t argue that the 1769 is the final and perfect edition. Nor can we argue for the exclusivity of the 1769. After all, if the 1769 is the exclusive preserved Bible, then the 1611 is not, nor are any of the other editions between the 1611 and the 1769. If it was lawful to make a new edition in 1769, then it certainly is lawful to make one now.

Thirdly, while the readers of this blog might breeze through the language of the 1769 edition King James Bible , many Christians struggle mightily. We need to be careful here, lest we transgress the law of God by our tradition. Wouldn’t this issue also fall under the category of loving our neighbor? When we insist that our neighbor should “figure it out…” we essentially make the law of God of none effect by our tradition.

As a pastor, I have on more than one occasion had to deal with God-fearing believers, discouraged in their pursuit of God by the difficulty of the King’s English. Why would we not want to help them? If we refuse to allow the King James Version to be updated, we will eventually come to the place when the average English-speaking person will not be able to read the Bible. Even now, readers struggle with those infamous “antiquated” words, or with fun phrases like “I wist not whence they were” and “to whit,” and with the never-ending stream of –eth and –est attached to the ends of so many words.

Now, I should say here that I’ve been reading the King James for my entire life. So, I don’t struggle to read it. Apart from a short time in my early years when my dad gave me one of those “four translation” Bibles, I’ve never read anything else. Being a student of God’s Word has given me an ability to grasp the words, for the most part. Other times, I’m thankful for Matthew Henry, John Gill, Adam Clarke, and Albert Barnes.

But not everyone can say this. Especially (though not limited to) those who have been burdened with a public skool ejication. Some struggle valiantly to make heads or tails out of their Bible. Others compromise: when they come to those parts that are out of reach, they do like you and I do when we come across a Latin phrase in a commentary… they skim over it. So to me, this issue is as much about loving your neighbor as it is about anything else.

We can make a new edition. And we should. We should make one for the sake of those for whom the 1769 edition of the King James Bible is out of reach. We should make one for the sake of unbelievers who get lost in the language. We should make one for our children, for our grandchildren, lest they should be discouraged. Just as we set step stools by the drinking fountain so the little ones can reach it, so we should make a new edition of the King James Version.

Of course, some will ask why we should update the King James at all. Why not simply use one of the other versions that are out there? Since we have taken a full month to explain our position on this, I will avoid giving a long answer to that question. Please read the other posts we have made on the issue if you struggle to understand our position.

A brief answer would be that the majority of the modern versions rely on the Critical Text, and translate using “dynamic equivalence” rather than “formal equivalence.” A faithful translation, as we have contended, will translate from the Received Text, and will concern itself with translating every word, inasmuch as possible.

Probably the one modern version that comes the closest to meeting that criteria would be the New King James Version. And, no doubt, some will wonder what could possibly be wrong with using that version. We have three main issues with the New King James. First, the translators used an eclectic approach to the text, as is evident in their footnotes and marginal references. Secondly, as Douglas Wilson said, they “have accepted the task of a scholarly reconstruction of the text but believe that the widespead acceptance of the minority readings is misguided… in other words, they have come up with a traditional answer but with a suspect, modern method.(1)” In other words, they engaged in a little “textual criticism” of their own, though not to the extent of the major modern versions. Thirdly, the New King James has not met with the wide acceptance of the churches.

I should expound on the third point briefly. Bible versions and translations should not be individualistic. It isn’t “up to me” or even “up to my church” to decide which books should be in the canon, or which text should be used. According to God’s plan, as Kent detailed here, God’s churches lend their witness, a very important and vital testimony, to the Word of God. The churches lend their witness to the books, the chapters, the verses, the words, and yes, to the translations.

Some have argued that the King James Bible was written to undermine the Geneva Bible. Others, however, have pointed out that historically, England was deeply divided between the Bishop’s Bible and the Geneva, and that John Reynolds urged King James to commission a new version that would unite the churches. The fact is, the churches did settle on this version of the Bible, and for nearly 300 years, the King James Bible was the Bible of choice for English-speaking people.

Over the last 100 or so years, modern versions have gradually undermined the allegiance that English-speaking churches had to the King James Bible, so that today, we find ourselves once again deeply divided over an acceptable Bible version. The New King James has done nothing to alleviate this problem. If anything, the NKJV has added to the problem.

For those reasons, we do not believe that the New King James Version could meet the criterion for a settled Bible for New Testament churches. Wilson called the Authorized Version “the last true ecclesiastical version,” and called for a new edition of that (2). We concur. In hopes of getting an updated KJV, we must work towards a consensus among churches to that end.

See this clarification to this post.

_____________________
Footnotes:

(1) Douglas Wilson, Mother Kirk: Essays and Forays in Practical Ecclesiology (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2001), p.55-56

(2) Ibid., p.60

When we got it started, the word faithful was used many times. 

1. We affirm that on the issue of versions, our most important duty is to be faithful to the Word and words of God.

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 . . . .  

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.

For some this may be a new term to the topic of preservation and translations. A term I have heard much more is the word “accurate.” While not promoting inaccuracy, I want to point out that accuracy is not the most important quality for a translation. There are some translations that claim to be “more accurate” than the King James Version. I’ve not studied the details, but the gist of the claim is that the choice of English words to represent the Hebrew and Greek of the text is more accurate to today’s meaning than the choice of the King James. Now that may be true, but accuracy is not as important as faithfulness.

I stated in my first post in this series,

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?

Let me further state that a faithful steward trusts his master. He is not continually second guessing him. He takes his word and he takes him at his word. An unfaithful steward could relay accurately a message that the master did not give–someone else gave it. The same is true of a translator or a version. An unfaithful translator can give a very accurate translation of something that is not the complete words of God. An accurate translation of a “second-guessing” text is not faithful. Accuracy is important, but its importance is secondary to faithfulness. So, what constitutes a faithful version?

In a faithful version, the translators diligently strive to give an “every word” rendering of the faithfully received Hebrew and Greek text. To the best of their ability, they would give the translated word (for us, English) that best conveys the meaning of the original word or words. They faithfully give the words and form (or usage), not merely the sense. All the while, they acknowledge their own (and their language’s) limitations, admitting that they cannot preserve the precise meaning.

Precision and accuracy are important. But faithfulness is moreso. The faithful translator starts with trust in his Master (the received Word), then attempts to faithfully (accurately) relay the message.

Not everyone who calls himself even a conservative evangelical believes that God promised in the Bible to preserve every Word.  W. Edward Glenny writes: “[N]o statement in Scripture . . . can establish the doctrine of the preservation of the text of Scripture.”  However, most professing fundamentalists admit, even if grudingly, that the Bible teaches its own preservation.  Usually, they will quickly add:  “It doesn’t teach how.”  So they say they believe in the reality of the preservation of the Words of Scripture, but not the means by which preservation would take place. 

THE MEANS OF PRESERVATION 

God does say how. In the Old Testament He used Israel and in the New Testament, the church (study the Hebrew word for “keep” [shamar and natsar] in the OT and the Greek word, tareo, in the NT). “Unto [Israel was] committed the oracles of God” (Romans 3:2). The nation passed it down generation after generation (Acts 7:38), also using the family to do so (Deuteronomy 11:18-21).

Colossians 4:16 provides a case study for seeing how the church would keep God’s Words: “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 epistle from Laodicea.” Likewise, in 1 Thessalonians, Paul wrote, “I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren” (5:27). From Thessalonica believers everywhere were to get their copies of this canonical epistle. The Jews copied, passed down and along, and read the Old Testament; and the churches continued this pattern in the New Testament. A large majority of the copies of Scripture that we possess come from the region of Asia Minor (the Byzantine empire) where Paul started His churches. This Scriptural understanding of the means of preservation is stated by Richard Capel in 1658:

God committed the Hebrew text of the Old Testament to the Jewes, and did and doth move their hearts to keep it untainted to this day: So I dare lay it on the same God, that he in his providence is so with the Church of the Gentiles, that they have and do preserve the Greek Text uncorrupt. (Capel’s Remains, London, 1658, p. 83)

CANONIZATION

Closely related to how the churches preserved God’s Words is the doctrine of canonicity. Scripture teaches the canonicity of the Words of God. Christ promised “that when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13). Early church believers recognized canonical writ, even as Peter in 1 Peter 3:15-16 writes: “[O]ur beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 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.” Peter knew that what Paul wrote was Scripture. The Holy Spirit guided His churches generation after generation to copy and then agree upon His Words. The canonization of the Books were a logical extension of the Scriptural doctrine of canonization of Words.

That the Spirit would lead New Testament churches into all truth is a matter of faith. That very faith has manifested itself in agreement on what the Books of the Bible are, and just as much what its Words are. Recognition of God’s Words is not a science, but an act of Divine intervention and illumination. The churches made copies of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, not the other books. The proverb for the perfection of the Words was: “What mistake is in one copy is corrected in another.” Through His Spirit God would preserve His Words through His churches.

Was canonization a miracle?  Yes.  Was canonization by supernatural divine intervention?  Yes.  In canonizing Scripture did God the Holy Spirit work through the churches, directing them to the Words inspired by God?  Yes.  Was canonization an act of inspiration?  No. Canonization and inspiration are two different acts of the Holy Spirit.  A belief in canonization is not some form of double inspiration. The leading of the Spirit in identifying His Word to the believer and protecting His Words from error is the ongoing operation of God by which He preserves His Words.

To discredit the mighty, gracious activity of the Almighty, His preservation of His Words, some have questioned this doctrine, accusing it of recent origins.  Believers, however, have historically applied this to the Word of God, even as we read in the Westminster Confession: “[O]ur full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.”

On the other hand, the brand new doctrine, concocted from human reasoning, is the “science” of textual criticism, leaving the doubtful care of God’s Word to a handful of man-made criteria, crafted by men who rejected the doctrine of divine preservation. We shun this novel humanistic approach for God-ordained reliance on the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Several times the New Testament says something like it does in 1 Thessalonians 2:13, “When ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God,” which mirrors what Jesus said in John 17:18, “For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them.” Even on the day of Pentecost, conversion is described as “they that gladly received his word” (Acts 2:41). The churches received God’s Words as led by the Holy Spirit, so it is no wonder that the terminology used to name their first printed copies in 1633 was textus receptus (TR), the mindset of God’s churches through history. As the Holy Spirit bore witness in the believer’s hearts to the Words of God, they received them.

No single individual can be the pillar and ground of the truth. The Holy Spirit directs through the church, not through one man. Agreement on the text of Scripture comes from the unity of the Spirit.  In contrast, eclecticism is the practice of one man choosing the Words of God, essentially canonizing Scripture on the spot, regardless of what churches have already agreed.

Finally, after centuries of handwritten copies, the printing press was invented and God gave the churches the opportunity to bring the text of Scripture into one printed edition. The English speaking people had uniquely responded to the Word of God. They, more than any one culture, devoted themselves to the Bible in their own language. After their finest scholars finished their translation of the Bible in 1611 (the King James Version), their churches agreed upon it as the Word of God. The Words of God were settled for the people of God. For at least 300 years after, the KJV was the Bible for God’s English-speaking believers. The Spirit canonized the Words of Scripture through the churches.

CONCLUSION

The Bible does tell us how God would preserve all of His Words.  He would use His congregation to do it, Israel in the Old Testament and the church in the New.   By means of the Holy Spirit, God used the congregation of the righteous to recognize and then settle on the Words of Scripture.  Revelation 22:18-19 warns against adding of taking away from the Words of this Book.

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:  And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

If the Words of Scripture were not settled, no one could possibly violate God’s instructions here.  God did lead His people into Truth and continues to keep His Words by means of His Spirit through the churches.

The Works of John Owen (1616-83):  Vol. 16

But my present considerations being not to be extended beyond the concernment of the truth which in the foregoing discourse I have pleaded for, I shall first propose a brief abstract thereof, as to that part of it which seems to be especially concerned, and then lay down what to me appears in its prejudice in the volumes now under debate, not doubting but a fuller account of the whole will by some or other be speedily tendered unto the learned and impartial readers of them. The sum of what I am pleading for, as to the particular head to be vindicated, is, That as the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament were immediately and entirely given out by God himself, his mind being in them represented unto us without the least interveniency of such mediums and ways as were capable of giving change or alteration to the least iota or syllable; so, by his good and merciful providential dispensation, in his love to his word and church, his whole word, as first given out by him, is preserved unto us entire in the original languages; where, shining in its own beauty and lustre (as also in all translations, so far as they faithfully represent the originals), it manifests and evidences unto the consciences of men, without other foreign help or assistance, its divine original and authority.

***********************************

It can, then, with no color of probability be asserted (which yet I find some learned men too free in granting), namely, that there hath the same fate attended the Scripture in its transcription as hath done other books. Read the rest of this entry →

Attempting to be neutral in one’s intellectual endeavors (whether research, argumentation, reasoning, or teaching ) is tantamount to striving to erase the antithesis between the Christian and the unbeliever. Christ declared that the former was set apart from the latter by the truth of God’s word (John 17:17). Those who wish to gain dignity in the eyes of the world’s intellectuals by wearing the badge of “neutrality” only do so at the expense of refusing to be set apart by God’s truth. In the intellectual realm they are absorbed into the world so that no one could tell the difference between their thinking and assumptions and apostate thinking and assumptions. The line between believer and unbeliever is obscured.

Such indiscrimination in one’s intellectual life not only precludes genuine knowledge (cf. Prov 1:7) and guarantees vain delusion (cf. Col. 2:3-8), it is downright immoral.

Greg Bahnsen in Robert Booth, ed., Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith (Nacogdoches, TX: Covenant Media Press, 1996), pp.7-8 (emphasis his)

Presuppositional apologetics is best summarized by Paul in 2 Corinthians 4:3:

We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak;

In other words, we fear God so that we can understand and know. As Bahnsen correctly says (p. 20),

To make God’s word your presupposition, your standard, your instructor and guide, however, calls for renouncing intellectual self-sufficiency – the attitude that you are autonomous, able to attain unto genuine knowledge independent of God’s direction and standards. Instead of beginning with God’s sure word as foundational in their studies, they would have us think that they begin with intellectual self-sufficiency and (using this as their starting-point) work up to a “rational” acceptance of Scripture.

So, believers are set apart from unbelievers by their assumptions (John 17:17 again). The believer assumes that Scripture is true, no matter what it says. The unbeliever assumes that all Scripture must be tested by other evidence. Cornelius Van Til, in his book The Defense of the Faith (1), traces this autonomous desire of man all the way back to the garden of Eden, where Satan challenged Eve to “go to as many as possible of those reputed to have knowledge.” Of course, in Eve’s case, there were only two “reputed to have knowledge.” God commanded Eve not to eat of the fruit, “for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.” In deciding these things, Van Til reminds us, God would have us to know first “what do we know” and after this, “how do we know it.” Satan urged Eve to first consider “how do we know it” while ignoring the question of “what do we know.”

So, Eve stepped out and became her own authority, took the neutral position, and decided for herself. God said, “thou shalt surely die.” Satan said, “Ye shall not surely die. For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” But ultimately, the woman made herself the final and ultimate authority.

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Read the rest of this entry →