TRUTH OR LIES?
Jeffrey Khoo
Academic Dean, Far Eastern Bible College, Singapore
Accusers and Allegations
A number of websites seek to attack and destroy the
verbal and plenary perfection of the Bible. They claim that the Bible is
verbally and plenarily inspired (VPI) but not verbally and plenarily
preserved (VPP). Simply put, they want Christians to believe that the
Bible was only infallible in the past but no longer infallible today.
In attacking the present infallibility and inerrancy of
the Scriptures and the identification of an existing infallible and
inerrant Scripture in the original languages in the inspired and preserved
Hebrew and Greek words underlying the Reformation Bibles best represented
by the KJV, these anti-perfectionist, anti-preservationist, anti-TR/KJV,
pro-Westcott-Hort, and pro-modern-versionists falsely accuse believers of
the present perfection of Scriptures as schismatics, heretics and even
cultists by linking them to Ruckmanism and Seventh-Day Adventism (SDAism).
Their writings imply that it is simply unscholarly and even sinful to
suggest that Christians today indeed possess a 100% infallible and
inerrant Bible.
Henceforth, I will refer to such propagators of untruth
generally as "the accusers," bearing in mind that not all of them share
exactly the same beliefs with regard to the VPP and the KJV, as some among
them even inexplicably profess love for the KJV—notwithstanding their
readiness to find fault with the KJV and/or the original language texts
(words) underlying the KJV. The title of "arch-accuser" goes to Doug
Kutilek who contributed a chapter to the faith-denying and doubt-casting
book called One Bible Only? authored by the faculty of Central
Baptist Theological Seminary (with support from Bob Jones University). In
that book, Kutilek maliciously and mischievously paints with a broad and
contemptuous brush all pro-KJV advocates as Ruckmanites.
If Kutilek had kept his criticisms of Ruckman to
Ruckman alone we would not have cared, but he linked sound defenders of
the KJV like Edward F Hills, David Otis Fuller, David Cloud, D A Waite to
Ruckman! This is hitting below the belt. He also unjustly accused pro-KJV
defenders of SDAism just because D O Fuller quoted from SDA Benjamin
Wilkinson who so happened to defend the KJV as well in his book Our
Authorized Bible Vindicated (1930). This is a common tactic by
detractors to mislead, to paint white as black so that people will not see
the white but only the black, and to make people think that the black they
see is indeed white. Such sophistry is usually employed by those who have
no case or a weak case, who have to resort to such low blows to score
their points in order to look credible.
VPP is Not Ruckmanism
It is a well-known fact that authors like Hills,
Fuller, Cloud and Waite by no means defend the KJV in the way Ruckman
does. It is clear from the writings of Hills, Fuller, Cloud and Waite that
they do not espouse at all the beliefs of Ruckman that:
(1) the KJV is doubly inspired;
(2) the KJV is advanced revelation;
(3) the English KJV is as or more inspired than the
original language Scriptures;
(4) the KJV can be used to correct the original
language Scriptures;
(5) there is no need whatsoever to study the
Biblical languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek due to an "inspired"
English translation;
(6) the KJV cannot be improved on (The Defined
King James Bible edited by Waite and Tow and published by Bible
For Today is certainly an improvement of the KJV);
(7) the KJV is the only Bible that has gospel or
salvific content;
(8) those who do not use the KJV are condemned to
hell; and
(9) all non-English speaking believers must learn
English to know the Truth.
Hills, Fuller, Cloud and Waite are all essentially
speaking of the infallibility and inerrancy of the inspired Hebrew,
Aramaic and Greek Scriptures behind the Reformation Bibles best
represented by the KJV. The KJV does not stand independently or
separately. It is dependent on its original language source texts, and
these source texts (words) known by various names—Byzantine, Majority,
Received—are the infallibly preserved apographs of the inerrant
autographs.
As far as non-English translations or versions of the
Bible go, all non-English speaking believers are encouraged to use the
Bibles they have in their own native tongue, but they ought to use that
version which is closest to the inspired and preserved Byzantine, Majority
and Received texts, and as far removed as possible from the Alexandrian,
Minority, and Westcott-Hort texts. They ought also to use a Bible that is
translated by means of the verbal equivalence method (word-for-word)
rather than the dynamic equivalence method (thought-for-thought) in
keeping to the twin doctrines of VPI and VPP. Biblically and theologically
trained pastors and teachers are necessary to teach faithfully the whole
counsel of God, expounding from the inerrant Hebrew and Greek Scriptures
God has infallibly preserved, namely, the Masoretic Text and the Textus
Receptus of the Protestant Reformation, all the truths that God has given
using the best version or translation the people have in their hands.
VPP is Not SDAism
Dr Benjamin Wilkinson (an SDA) does not own the King
James Bible. The King James Bible was not translated by SDAs but by
Reformation and Protestant scholars of the highest calibre during the
reign of King James in the early 17th century. The King James
Bible is for everyone who loves the Bible and desires to have the best and
most faithful English Bible ever produced for their meditation and
edification. Neither does Wilkinson own the "copyright" to the Biblical
doctrine of VPP which belongs only to the Lord Jesus Christ who said in
all three Synoptic Gospels, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my
words shall not pass away" (Matt 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33).
Wilkinson did not pioneer the defence of the KJV. The
original defence of the KJV may be traced to the Trinitarian Bible Society
(TBS) which was originally founded in 1831 to defend the biblical and
fundamental doctrine of the Trinity and the 100% deity of Christ—hence its
name "Trinitarian." The clearest proof-text for the doctrine of the
Trinity is 1 John 5:7, "For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." This
most excellent verse has been scissored out by Westcott and Hort, and the
modern versions. The TBS in its defence of the Trinity found it most
necessary also to defend 1 John 5:7 as found in the underlying preserved
Greek text of the KJV. By so defending the KJV and its preserved
underlying Greek text, is the TBS now SDA just because Wilkinson at a
later time happened to defend the KJV and its underlying Greek text too?
Note that the TBS is stoutly against Westcott and Hort, and the modern
versions, and even considers the NKJV untrustworthy.
The Bible League is another early defender of the KJV.
Founded in 1892, the Bible League resisted the "Downgrade" in Great
Britain. The modernists were throwing out one doctrine after another
including the foundational and indispensable doctrine of the divine
inspiration and total inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures. The Bible League
was founded to contend earnestly for the historic Christian Faith. Since
its inception, the League has endeavored "[t]o promote the Reverent Study
of the Holy Scriptures, and to resist the varied attacks made upon their
Inspiration, Infallibility and Sole Sufficiency as the Word of God."
Insofar as the Bible versions issue is concerned, the Bible League
unashamedly holds to the view that "the Authorised Version is the most
accurate and faithful English Bible translation available today." Its
latest publication (2004), a 126-paged book authored by Alan J Macgregor
and titled Three Modern Versions is a most timely critique of the
NIV, ESV and NKJV. It is significant to note that Macgregor quoted
Wilkinson’s Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, but in a footnote
(pp12-13) Macgregor wisely explained his use of Wilkinson’s material thus:
It must be pointed out here that while there is
some good material in Dr Wilkinson’s book, there are also a number of
inaccuracies. He was a Seventh-day Adventist (a fact that many who
quote from him fail to reveal). Some who support the use of modern
versions of the Bible allege that one of the reasons for Dr.
Wilkinson’s strong opposition to the Revised Version of 1881 was that
it altered two verses which Adventists regard as proof-texts in
support of their doctrines: Acts 13:42 (which they regard as teaching
the necessity of Gentiles keeping the Sabbath or Seventh Day), and
Hebrews 9:27 (which Adventists believe teaches soul sleep). I have
sought to be selective in the quotes I have used. Some might argue,
why quote from him at all, if he was a member of a cult? The answer is
that despite his Adventist views … there is nonetheless some sound
evidence in his book that rightly exposes facts concerning the
Westcott and Hort Text, and the errors of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. He
also provides solid, factual support for the superiority of the
Received Text.
This allegation that the belief in the verbal and
plenary preservation of the Scriptures and the defence of the KJV is a
"new doctrine" and a "new practice" has been very much the tactic of
anti-VPPists, anti-TRists, and anti-KJVists to vilify the fundamental
doctrine of the infallible preservation of the inspired words of the Holy
Scriptures to the last jot and tittle as promised by our Lord Himself in
Matthew 5:18, and the goodness of the KJV and its underlying Hebrew and
Greek Texts, so that the unknowing populace would automatically shun the
good old doctrine of VPP, the good old TR, and the good old KJV without
consciously giving them a second thought. Some of the accusers even claim
to be "preserving our godly paths" (Jer 6:16)! Can this be so?
New Attacks, New Terms, Not New Doctrines
David Cloud rightly says that such new attacks against
KJV defenders "has increased in intensity in recent years and is finding a
home even among those who claim to be Fundamentalists and Bible-believing
Baptists." Cloud quoted from the Rev Dennis Gibson (a minister of the
gospel who has served in Presbyterian and Baptist churches since 1958, and
a regular contributor to the international devotional guide—Read, Pray
and Grow) who in a letter to him dated April 19, 1995 wrote, "I see a
real hostility that has been generated in the minds of some of the
younger pastors. There does not seem to be, on their part, a serious
interest in dealing with this issue … It is the hostility, however, that
is troubling. Sides are forming and deep prejudices are evident. To be ‘a
King James man’ is not a term of opprobrium. This opposition is within
‘so-called’ evangelicalism, not as in the past, from the liberal-modernist
camp."
Is it no wonder that the Trinitarian Bible Society,
noting a significant change in theological climate in Christendom, felt
compelled to issue a comprehensive statement in 2005
(www.trinitarianbiblesociety.com/site/qr/qr571.pdf) defining what it
believes to be the Doctrine of Scripture? D P Rowland, the General
Secretary of TBS wrote in the Society’s Quarterly Record
(April-June 2005), "Today, as has been stated, things are very different.
The doctrine of Scripture has been, and is being, assailed on every side;
not least from within many branches (including those taking the name of
‘evangelical’ and ‘reformed’ and may I add ‘fundamentalist’) of the
so-called ‘Christian Church’ of our day. The Committee, therefore,
considers it necessary for the Society clearly and unambiguously to state
where it stands on this most fundamental of all doctrines" (words in
italics are mine).
New assaults on the foundational and indispensable
doctrine of the infallible preservation of the inerrantly inspired words
of Holy Scripture require updated statements and more definitive terms to
affirm Christianity’s fundamental beliefs concerning the forever
infallible and inerrant Scripture, hence our term—"Verbal Plenary
Preservation"—as expressed in the Constitution of the Far Eastern Bible
College, and True Life Bible-Presbyterian Church:
(1) We believe in the divine, Verbal Plenary
Inspiration (Autographs) and Verbal Plenary Preservation (Apographs)
of the Scriptures in the original languages, their consequent
inerrancy and infallibility, and as the perfect Word of God, the
Supreme and final authority in faith and life (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet
1:20-21; Ps 12:6-7; Matt 5:18, 24:35);
(2) We believe the Hebrew Old Testament and the
Greek New Testament underlying the Authorised (King James) Version to
be the very Word of God, infallible and inerrant;
(3) We uphold the Authorised (King James) Version
to be the Word of God—the best, most faithful, most accurate, most
beautiful translation of the Bible in the English language, and do
employ it alone as our primary scriptural text in the public reading,
preaching, and teaching of the English Bible.
What is the real problem today? Is it not the unequal
yoking of "reformed" and "fundamentalist" theology with the
textual-critical method of Westcott and Hort and the "inerrant autographs
alone" view of Warfield, their resultant corrupt text and modern
perversions? Why are "reformed" people agreeing with certain fundamental
Baptists who castigate the doctrine of special providential preservation
as a "new doctrine," non-existent before 1648 and the Westminster
Confession? Why are certain Biblical fundamentalists well-known for their
Biblical conservatism and separatism speaking favourably of rationalistic
methods of Biblical criticism, modernistic critical texts, and the
ecumenical and neo-evangelical modern versions? Has there not been a
downgrade today within reformed Christianity and historic fundamentalism?
If so, is this not a backsliding away from the 16th and 20th
century Reformation movements?
Prayer and Plea
Our sincere and earnest prayer is that Bible-believing
and Bible-defending Christians would not just believe and defend the
Verbal Plenary Inspiration (VPI) of Scripture, but also the Verbal Plenary
Preservation (VPP) of Scripture. The Bible was not only infallible and
inerrant in the past (in the Autographs), but also infallible and inerrant
in the present (in the Apographs). These Apographs are the providentially
and specially preserved Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and texts underlying
the Reformation Bibles best represented by the KJV.
The Texts Underlying the KJV as Identified by the
Trinitarian Bible Society
As a defender of the VPP of Scripture and the KJV, I
praise the Lord for the Trinitarian Bible Society’s latest position
statement on the Bible as published in its Quarterly Record,
April-June 2005. The TBS identifies and describes the underlying texts of
the KJV as follows:
"The Trinitarian Bible Society Statement of
Doctrine of the Holy Scripture" approved by the General Committee at
its meeting held on 17th January 2005, and revised 25th February 2005
declares:
The Constitution of the Trinitarian Bible Society
specifies the textual families to be employed in the translations it
circulates. The Masoretic Hebrew and the Greek Received Texts are the
texts that the Constitution of the Trinitarian Bible Society
acknowledges to have been preserved by the special providence of God
within Judaism and Christianity. Therefore these texts are definitive
and the final point of reference in all the Society’s work.
These texts of Scripture reflect the qualities of
God-breathed Scripture, including being authentic, holy, pure, true,
infallible, trustworthy, excellent, self-authenticating, necessary,
sufficient, perspicuous, self-interpreting, authoritative and inerrant
(Psalm 19:7-9, Psalm 119). They are consequently to be received as the
Word of God (Ezra 7:14; Nehemiah 8:8; Daniel 9:2; 2 Peter 1:19) and
the correct reading at any point is to be sought within these texts.
The Society accepts as the best edition of the
Hebrew Masoretic text the one prepared in 1524–25 by Jacob ben Chayyim
and known, after David Bomberg the publisher, as the Bomberg text.
This text underlies the Old Testament in the Authorised Version.
The Greek Received Text is the name given to a
group of printed texts, the first of which was published by Desiderius
Erasmus in 1516. The Society believes that the latest and best edition
is the text reconstructed by F.H.A. Scrivener in 1894. This text was
reconstructed from the Greek underlying the New Testament of the
Authorised Version."
Amen!
Can the accusers fault the TBS for letting us know
which texts have been preserved by the special providence of God and used
by the TBS as its final point of reference in all its work? If they
find fault, it may be because they want to paint VPP as merely a theory
with no specific texts that can be found or identified in practice (i.e.
in the real world). If VPP is destroyed or undermined by them, the
immediately underlying original Hebrew and Greek apographs become of no
consequence and it would then not matter if Christians use perverted
modern versions since such versions can also claim to be ultimately
traceable to the unavailable autographs. VPI
without VPP can lead to the floodgate being opened for the inclusion of
the heretical Gnostic gospels and perverted modern Bible versions.
The above TBS statement, similar to the Preamble
I wrote in my booklet—KJV: Questions and Answers—published by Bible
Witness Literature Ministry in 2003, is stricter and more definitive. The
Preamble is reproduced in full below:
PREAMBLE
A Personal Affirmation of the 100% Inspiration and the
100% Preservation of the Original Language Scriptures Underlying the King
James Version
(1) I do believe in the divine, verbal and plenary
inspiration of the Scriptures in the original languages, their
consequent inerrancy and infallibility, and as the Word of God, the
Supreme and final authority in faith and life.
(2) I do affirm the biblical doctrine of
providential preservation that the inspired words of the Hebrew OT
Scriptures and the Greek NT Scriptures are "kept pure in all ages" as
taught by the Westminster Confession.
(3) I do believe that the Texts which are purest
and closest to the autographs of the Bible are the Traditional
Masoretic Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, and the Traditional Greek
Text for the New Testament underlying the King James Version.
(4) I believe that the purity of God’s words has
been faithfully maintained in the
Traditional/Byzantine/Majority/Received Text, and fully represented in
the Textus Receptus that underlies the KJV. Providential preservation
is not static but dynamic.
(5) I do believe that God’s providential
preservation of the Scriptures concerns not just the doctrines but
also the very words of Scripture to the jot and tittle (Ps 12:6-7,
Matt 5:18, 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33, Rev 22:18-19).
(6) I do not deny that other faithful Bible
translations, including foreign language ones, that are based on other
editions of the Textus Receptus can be deemed the Word of God.
(7) I do believe that Scripture cannot contradict
Scripture, and hence there can be no discrepancies in the Bible. All
alleged discrepancies are only apparent and not actual. Principles of
harmonisation should be employed to offer possible solutions, but
calling such discrepancies "scribal errors" is not one.
(8) I do not believe we need to improve on the TR
underlying the KJV. I do not want to play textual critic, and be a
judge of God’s Word. I accept God’s special hand in His providential
work of Bible preservation during the Reformation.
May the Reformation cry that is based on the
Reformation Bible ring loud and clear today—not Sola Autographa
but Sola Scriptura!
"For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the
truth" (2 Cor 13:8).
|
