No. 71 OFFICIAL NEWS ORGAN OF THE DEAN BURGON SOCIETY July-October, 2004

"The Words of the Lord are pure Words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." (Psalm 12:6-7)

The Dean Burgon Society's Conference A Blessing

Thank You! The annual meeting held at Heritage Baptist University in Greenwood, Indiana was a great success and blessing. President Rev. Russell Dennis, Jr. and his staff were very helpful and worked hard for us all. The meals served were excellent. The times of fellowship were much appreciated. The DBS meeting was declared the best in years by many of those attending. The spirit at the meeting was wonderful. The messages were excellent and were well received. Everyone involved deserves a BIG thank you. Dr. Waite, the President of the Dean Burgon Society, was VERY pleased with the annual meeting. We are already looking forward to our next meeting at Toronto Baptist Church in Toronto, Canada at executive committee member Dr. Gary La More’s son-in-law’s church on July 20 & 21, 2005. Place the dates on your calendar now! Please obtain a passport for easier crossing of the Canadian border. There will be more details in the next issue of the DBSN

Memorial Note

The DBS wishes to announce the home- going of a Christian soldier to his reward. Dr. M. James Hollowood, a longtime pastor and educator, who was an original founder of the DBS and who was truly a friend and a supporter, passed away on July 23, 2004. His funeral was held in New Holland, PA on July 25^th. Many members of the DBS attended. We will miss him greatly. A memorial page is being established on our Website to honor members who have gone to their reward.

Special Items

Special items that need to be noted from the annual meeting are: (1) The DBS News has increased to eight pages. We need your financial help to continue this endeavor. Please contribute by sending a tax deductible contribution to the DBS at Box 354, Collingswood, NJ, 08108. (2) The annual conferences will be placed on the Internet by streaming video as soon as the necessary preparations have been made. (3) Several new books were commissioned. One work is called The Answers To 100 Questions Concerning: Are The Words Of God Preserved. The other work is a compilation of two of Dr. Jack Moorman’s books into one volume. (4) The DBS Executive Committee requested that a home school curriculum be developed to assist parents to educate their children concerning the issues of preservation of God’s Words. A committee was appointed to pursue this worthy cause. (5) The DBS Executive Committee established the position of Missionary/Representative (MR) to assist local churches and others in their educational and defensive efforts. The MR was also sent by his local church to assist the DBS in this effort. Dr. H. D. Williams, newly elected Vice-president of the DBS, was appointed and commissioned as the MR for the DBS. An Internet page is being established on the DBS Home Page to assist with this endeavor at: www.Dean BurgonSociety.org. Dr. Willi- ams’ home phone is 706-219-2153. Please assist the DBS with all these much-needed efforts by prayer, by financial support, by participation, by purchasing the books when released and by utilizing the MR position.

Meeting Tapes

In case you could not be at the annual conference, you may order audio tapes (9 audio cassettes BFT #3200/1-8@ $24 + $5 S&H) or video tapes BFT #3200DV1-3, 3 DVD’s, 6 hours each, @ $35 + $5.00 S&H) The DBS Women’s tape is also available. It is BFT #3201VCR or DVD @ $15 + $5 S&H.

Daniel Waite did an excellent job on both the VCR’s and the DVD’s of our DBS 2004 meetings at Heritage Baptist University. We have already received several orders. Why not order your copies TODAY!!

Editor’s Corner

by Dr. D. A. Waite

There are a few things I would like to bring up in this issue of our Dean Burgon News.

New DBS Leaders

As you might not know, all of the terms of our Dean Burgon Society leaders expire every year at the DBS Annual Meeting. They re-elected provided they each complete satisfactorily the Annual DBS Questionnaire and are elected for the coming year by the DBS members present and voting.

(1) DBS Executive Committee. Our DBS Bylaws limit this Committee to 19. The following 19 brethren were elected for this coming year to the DBS Executive Committee: (1) Dr. Robert J. Barnett (Vice President, MI); (2) Dr. David C. Bennett (Australia); (3) Dr. Clinton Branine (IN); (4) Dr. David Brown (WI); (5) Dr. Kirk DiVietro (Secretary, MA); (6) Dr. Bob Doom (NC); (7) Leroy Ehredt; (8) Pastor Denis Gibson (Canada); (9) Pastor Bill Hendricks (IL); (10) Pastor J. David Hollowood (PA); (11) Dr. Gary E. La More (Canada); (12) Dr. Jack A. Moorman (England); (13) Douglas O. Nielsen (MN); (14) Pastor J. Paul Reno (MD); (15) Walter A. Schmidt (MN); (16) Dr. Thomas M. Strouse (CT); (17) Daniel Waite (Treasurer, NJ); (18) Dr. D. A. Waite (President, NJ); and (19) Dr. H. D. Williams (Vice President & Missionary Representative, GA).

(2) DBS Advisory Council. There is no limit to the DBS Advisory Council. These brethren advise and recommend to the Executive Committee various things for the benefit of the Society. The following 15 brethren were elected for this coming year to the DBS Advisory Council: (1) Col. Pedro Almeida (MD & Brazil); (2) Dr. J. Michael Bates (CT); (3) Dr. Edward E. Dewitt (IL); (4) Ted Grasser (Webmaster, WI); (5) Charles

Griggs; (6) Pastor Ed Guerrant (CT and Papua New Guinea); (7) Stephen Hollowood (PA); (8) Dr. Don Jasmin (MI); (9) Dr. Jeffrey Khoo (Singapore); (10) Paul Ramnarine (MN); (11) Mark T. Reno (MD); (12) Dr. Edward Smith (PA); (13) Dr. David Sorensen (MN); (14) Dr. S. H. Tow (Singapore); and (15) Dr. Gary Webb (NC).

Deification of our King James Bible Is Idolatry

By Pastor D. A. Waite, Th.D., Ph.D.

I. Introduction

You might wonder why I have chosen this title for my editorial for this issue of the Dean Burgon News. I used it because I believe there are many who use and defend our King James Bible to the extent of making it into DEITY or GOD. They DEIFY the King James Bible (KJB). This is called DEIFICATION. All such action is plain and simple IDOLATRY. Does this sound shocking? Yes, but hear me out.

II. Definitions

First of all, what does "DEIFY" mean?

A simple definition is:

"1 To make a god of; rank among the gods

2 To look upon or worship as a god

3 To glorify, exalt, or adore in an extreme way; idolize"

Secondly, what does "DEIFICATION" mean? A simple definition is:

"1 the act of deifying

2 the state of being deified"

Are you, or is someone you know, making of our King James Bible into a Deity or God? Some people charge some followers of our King James Bible of being a "paper Pope." Are you DEIFYING this great Book? Are you guilty of DEIFICATION of the King James Bible? This charge is often made against those of us who hold the King James Bible to be the only accurate translation of the verbally preserved Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words which underlie it. They accuse some of "worshiping" their Bible more than the God of the Bible. This is a false charge so far as I am concerned, but it might be true for some. Is it true for you? Read on, and then answer the question for yourself.

This is one of the most controversial matters among those who use and defend the King James Bible. We must define our terms when speaking about "inspiration."

III. The Bible’s Inspiration

A. The source of this DEIFICA- TION. There is only one place in the entire New Testament where the English word, "inspiration," is used. This place is 2 Timo- thy 3:16 where we read:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

B. The Interpretations of This Verse.

1. The Wrong Interpretation. Those who DEIFY the King James Bible believe that this verse includes and refers to the King James Bible. If indeed it refers to the KJB, these people are absolutely correct. "Given by inspiration of God" would mean that every Word in the AV 1611 was "given by inspiration of God." They would then be right in their DEIFICATION of that book.

2. The Right Interpretation. The proper interpretation of this verse is that it refers solely and uniquely to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words that God gave originally in the Old and New Testaments. Since God has promised and has fulfilled His promise to preserve accurately these Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Words, those words that underlie the King James Bible are the very ones that were "given by inspiration of God."

If there is any DEIFICATION of the Words, then those Words which God gave should be DEIFIED and exalted as being directly from God Himself..

3. The Greek Word Used. The five English words in the KJB, "given by inspiration of God," are a proper translation of one Greek word. That Greek word is qeovpneusto" (theopneustos). This is a compound word made up of two other Greek words. "Theo" is short for "Theos" which means "God." "Pneustos" is an adjective from the verb, "pneo" which means "to breathe." The literal meaning of this Greek word, qeovpneusto", is "God-breathed." "Given by inspiration (or breath) of God" is a good translation of this Greek word.

IV. The Results of Interpretations

A. The Results of False Interpreta- tion. Those who believe that the words, "given by inspiration of God" (2 Timothy 3:16) refer to the King James Bible are really saying that every word of that Bible was "God-breathed" or "breathed out by God" rather than translated by men from the God-preserved Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words underlying it. This false position has a number of serious results.

1. Which King James Bible Contains Those Alleged "God-Breathed" Words? From my book, Defending the King James Bible (pp. 198-99), here are a few of the 1611 Authorized Version revisions:

"17. 1611, Authorized Version, The Holy Bible.

Special Editions Of The Authorized Version came out as follows: 1613, 1616, 1617, 1618, 1629, 1630, 1633, 1634, 1637, 1638, 1640, 1642, 1653, 1659, 1675, 1679, 1833, 1896, 1904.

Curious Editions Of The Authorized Version came out as follows:

(1) 1611, Great "He" Bible, (Ruth 3:15, "and he went into the city.")

(2) 1611, Great "She" Bible, (Ruth 3:15), "and she went into the city.")

(3) 1611, "Judas" Bible, (Mat. 26:36, "Judas" for "Jesus.")

(4) 1631, "Wicked" Bible, (Ex. 20:14, omits the "not.")

(5) 1638, "Forgotten Sins" Bible, (Luke 7:47).

(6) 1641, "More Sea" Bible, (Rev. 21:1, "There was more sea.")

(7) 1653, "Unrighteous" or Field's Bible, (1 Cor. 6:9, "unrighteous shall inherit.")

(8) 1702, "Printers" Bible, (Ps. 119:161, "Printers have persecuted.")

(9) 1711, "Profit" Bible, (Isa. 57:12, "shall profit" instead of "shall not profit.")

(10) 1716, "Sin On" Bible, (John 5:14, "sin on more" for "sin no more.")

(11) 1717, "Vinegar" Bible, (Luke 20, "parable of the Vinegar" instead of "Vineyard."

(12) 1746, "Sting" Bible, (Mark 7:37, "sting of his tongue" not "string."

(13) 1792, "Denial" Bible, (Lk. 22:34, Philip denies Jesus instead of Peter.

(14) 1801, "Murderers" Bible, (Jude 1:16, "murderers" used instead of "murmurers."

(15) 1802, "Discharge" Bible, (1 Tim. 5:21, "I discharge" instead of "I charge."

(16) 1804, "Lions" Bible, (1 Kings 7:19, "out of thy lions" instead of "loins."

(17) 1805, "To-Remain" Bible, (Gal. 4:29, "to remain" inserted instead of a comma.

(18) 1806, "Standing Fishes" Bible, (Ezek. 47:10, "the fishes shall stand" instead of "fishers."

(19) 1807, "Ears to ear" Bible, (Mat. 13:43, "ears to ear" instead of "to hear."

(20) 1810, "Wife-Hater" Bible, (Lk. 14:26, "hate not . . . and his own wife" instead of "life.")

(21) 1823, "Camels" Bible, (Gen. 24:61, "Rebekah arose, and her camels" instead of "damsels."

(22) 1829, "Large Family" Bible, (Isa. 66:9, "not cease to bring to birth" instead of "not cause to bring forth."

(23) undated, "Fool" Bible, Psalm 14:1, "The fool hath said in his heart there is a God" instead of "there is no God."

I believe this shows plainly that our King James Bible was translated and then printed by fallible human beings. Which of the many King James Bibles was the one, if any, that was "God-breathed"?

2. It Is Impossible For our Righteous God to "Breathe Out" the Apocrypha of 1611. The God of the Bible is absolutely "righteous" (Psalm 7:9; 11:7; 116:5; 119:137; 129:4; 145:17; John 17:25; 2 Timothy 4:8; 1 John 2:1; Revelation 16:5).

Yet, in the Apocrypha of the AV 1611 (the original AV), there are contained the following things three of the seven things listed by Alexander McClure against it:

"5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scripture, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Macabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places. 6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. 7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassinations and magical incantation." (Alexander McClure, Trans- lators Revived, pp. 185-86).

Our "righteous" God could not by any means be a party to "breathing out" this Apocrypha which the King James Translators included in their AV 1611 Bible. This was a serious error, but it was not God’s error, it was the error of these men.

V. A Proper Assessment

I personally believe that our King James Bible is the only accurate translation in the English language of God’s inspired, preserved Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Words that underlie it. Because of this, I can hold up my King James Bible and say "In this Bible, we have the Words of God in English." DAW

Pastor’s Corner

Codex Sinaiticus: It Is Old But Is It The Best?

By Pastor David L. Brown, Ph.D.

I have a number of interesting old Bibles in my library. One is a huge two-volume King James Bible that was printed by John Baskett in 1716-1717. There are only 24 copies of this particular Bible known to exist. It is more than 280 years older than the King James Bible I preach from every Sunday. If you follow the line of thinking of the modern textual critics, I should probably go back to the Basket Bible to confirm the text of the Cambridge Bible I use. However, this would be a grave mistake because this old Bible has two nicknames; the first is the Vinegar Bible, because it titles Luke 20 as "The Parable of the Vinegar" instead of "The Parable of the Vineyard." The second name given to this Bible is "The Basket Full of Errors," because there are so many typographical errors in this Bible. This certainly is a good illustration that the oldest is not necessarily the best!

I have another huge two-volume Bible in my collection. It is an exact facsimile edition of Sinaiticus. The New Testament was printed in 1911 and the Old Testament in 1922. I have been carefully reading the introductory materials and pouring over the text of ALEPH or Codex Sinaiticus. This is one of the manuscripts that textual critics assert is the oldest and the best! But is it? Allow me to quote Kirsopp Lake, the person who prepared the introduction of the New Testament volume.

"The Codex Sinaiticus has been corrected by so many hands that it affords a most interesting and intricate problem to the palaeographer who wishes to disentangle the various stages by which it has reached its present condition…." (Codex Sinaiticus - New Testament volume; page xvii of the introduction).

What is the writer talking about? Did you note the phrase "to disentangle the various stages?" This indicates that there is a scribal problem with this codex and it is a BIG problem. Tischendorf identified four different scribes who were involved writing the original text. However, as many as ten scribes tampered with the codex throughout the centuries. Tischendorf said he "counted 14,800 alterations and corrections in Sinaiticus." Alterations, more alterations, and more alterations were made, and in fact, most of them are believed to be made in the 6th and 7th centuries. "On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people." Tischendorf goes on to say,

"…the New Testament…is extremely unreliable…on many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40, words are dropped…letters, words even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled. That gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same word as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament."

That brings me to the problem of the di homoeotéleuton omissions in Sinaiticus. The word di homoeotéleuton is Greek for "because of a similar ending." Here are some examples of the sloppy work of the scribes.

Note: In the following passages the italicized, bold words are omitted in Sinaiticus…

1 Cor. 13:1-2. "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. [2] And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing."

Here the scribe had copied the verse up to the end of the first "and have not charity," but when he looked up to his example again to continue copying, his eye fell upon the second occurrence of the phrase, from which he continued, omitting all of those words between the two occurrences of the phrase.

Now a more complicated example:

1 Cor. 15:25-27. "For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. [26] The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. [27] For he hath put all things under his feet."

Here it is not immediately clear what has happened. But when it is known that in some early manuscripts the order of clauses is as shown below, once again we see that the scribe's eye has jumped from the first occurrence of a phrase to the second occurrence:

[27] "For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. For he hath put all things under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death."

And in the very next verse another such omission:

1 Cor. 15:27-28. "But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did subject unto him all things. 28 And when there shall be subjected unto him all things, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."

These di homoeotéleuton omissions number about 300 in the New Testament of Codex Sinaiticus. They are not taken seriously as variant readings by the editors of critical editions and in fact are not even mentioned in the notes of the critical editions of currently used translations. But, the sloppy scribal work, as in "The Vinegar Bible" precludes this old manuscript as being characterized as "the best" does it not?

I turn your attention once again to the introductory material in the Sinaiticus facsimile in my library. Kirsopp Lake says there were three groups and even a four groups of correctors that altered the codex. First, there were the "post Caesarean" possibly even those "at the monastery of St. Catherine’s on Mt. Sinai." Second, there were "the intermediate correctors, of which certainly the earliest, and possibly all belonged to Caesarea. They are probably no earlier than the fifth nor later than the seventh century." Third, there are the early correctors, all probably "belonging to the forth and certainly no later than the fifth century." Finally, the latest correctors altered the manuscript probably in the twelfth century.

While Codex Sinaiticus may be old (or may not be since it was corrected into the twelfth century), it is obvious that it is corrupt. And yet, Sinaiticus is one of the two key manuscripts that form the basis of modern Bible versions.

Space does not allow me point out the mutilation of Codex Vaticanus (B). Perhaps I will have the opportunity of sharing this with you in another article. But I can tell you this; I use the King James Bible because 99% of all the manuscript evidence supports the Textus Receptus that underlies it.

Finally, I have one suggestion, as I close. If you are not acquainted with the Greek, you can study the alterations and changes that have come into the New Testament by Sinaiticus and Vaticanus through Westcott and Hort by getting "The Doctored New Testament" (BFT #3138 @ $25 + $5 S&H) by D.A. Waite, Jr. It is available from Bible For Today or the Dean Burgon Society (Call 856-854-4452).

Apologetic Section

THE PLAIN SENSE OF SCRIPTURE

by H. D. Williams, M. D.

(1) Throughout the Scripture, the "bottom line" for God’s judgment of a nation, group, or individual is their obedience to His Words. [Ex. 19:5, Deut. 11:26-28, 1 Pe. 1:2, 21-25, 2 Co 10:5]

(2) God’s reaction is delight and blessings if His Words are observed and kept. [e.g. Deut. 28:2 (voice = God’s Words), 1 Sam. 15:22, Jer. 9:24, Jer. 31, Jos. 1:7-9a]

(3) The antithesis to obedience to God’s Words is befittingly called in the Words of God backsliding [Hebrew, showbab (Jer. 3:22); Greek, apostasia, falling away (2 Thess 2:3); or aphistemi, depart from the faith, (Heb. 3:12)]

(4) There are many examples of backsliding in the Scriptures [e.g. Pro. 1:32, Jer. 3:6, 22, Heb. 5:11-6:12, Heb. 10:38, 2 Pe 2:20,].

(5) One can see evidence of God’s warnings to and displeasure with a backsliding nation, group, or person in many places in the Scripture. [Prov. 14:14, 2 Thes. 2:3, 1 Tim. 4:1]

(6) Careful observation of passages throughout God’s Holy Words reveals the reason He gives for "backsliding." [e.g. Isa. 8:20, Jer. 3:13, 6:10, Zeph. 3:2, 5, 9 (one language, one consent = one Bible)]

A "picture" of these six principles is God’s warnings to the nation Israel. Jeremiah says, "The Lord said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot. [Jeremiah 3:6] "Go and proclaim these Words toward the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the Lord; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger for ever." [Jeremiah 3:12]

The reason for their backsliding and for His warnings is clearly given in the following verse: "To whom shall I speak, and give warning, that they may hear? behold, their ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot hearken: behold, the Word of the Lord is unto them a reproach; they have no delight in it." [Jeremiah 6:10, see Jer. 3:13 also] [my emphases]

Invariably, backsliding can be traced to neglect, rejection, or deceit related to: (1) God’s Words [Jer. 6:10], (2) His promise to preserve His Words, [Psa 12:6-7, Psa 119, Mat 24:25, 1 Pe. 1:23-25] and (3) their availability [Deut. 30:11-14], which are for wisdom, judgment, protection, and salvation. [e.g. 2 Kings 22, Note in these verses God preserved His Words; Psa 5; Psa 10]

Invariably, God admonishes us to be mindful of his Words always.[1 Chron. 16:11-15, Psa. 105:5]

Invariably, man does not continue to teach the next generation God’s Words as commanded. The admonition to teach our "seed" God’s marvelous works and Words is soon forgotten. [Deut. 11:19, Ex. 18:20, Joel 1:3, 2 Tim 2:2, 1 Chron. 16:12, Psa 78:11]

Invariably, man forgets God’s Words are not lost or far away [Deut. 30:11-14, 17, 19, 1 Pe. 1:23-25]

Invariably, man finally assumes the position of God, and declares like Satan "Yea, hath God said." Doubt is kindled, faith is destroyed, and innocents succumb to man’s rationalism. [Gen 3:1, Rev. 20:2-3, Ex 23:7]

Invariably, and subsequent to the above, man either casts God’s Words away or changes them to suit his beliefs [e.g. Jer. 36, 2 Co. 2:17].

Invariably, God warns us to avoid these steps throughout the Scriptures [Deut. 4:2, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19].

Invariably, man turns to whoredoms (idols and fornication) precipitated by man’s words to seek delight and guidance. [ Nu. 14:33, 2 Chron. 21:11, Jer. 3:2, Eze. 16:25, 36, Hos. 1:2, 4:12, Na. 3:4, Isa 23:17, Rom. 1:29, Jude 1:7, etc.]

Invariably, man denies the clear meaning and sense of the Words of Scripture, which leads to neglect, rejection, or deceit related to God’s Words. Obviously, we have come "full circle." "Backsliding" is a spiral that eventually leads to destruction. It is repeated throughout history. God’s "plain" Words are ignored.

The golden rule of interpretation is: "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studies in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise. God in revealing His Word neither intends nor permits the reader to be confused. He wants His children to understand." [Dr. D. A. Waite, Ephesians, p. 10]

All of the above reminds this author of a physician’s warnings to his patients about the dangers of smoking, which can lead to cancer, emphysema, arterial disease and death or his warnings to a patient concerning fornication, which can lead to divorce, venereal disease, despondency, and death. The physician’s words "make common sense," and there is need to "take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning" because they make "plain sense" in light of the histories of nations, groups, and individuals.

However, most patients do not heed "the plain sense" of the words, and continue in their folly. They rationalize their continued prosperity [lack of immediate problems] and carelessness by statements such as, "Well, I have to die from something." Often they accuse the physician of being "overly concerned." After disaster strikes, everyone, including the affected patient, is perplexed at their denial of the likely consequences of their behavior. The patient is perplexed at their denial of: "When the plain sense of the words makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studies in the light of related words and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise." Until disaster strikes, the words of the physician are unto them a reproach to their lifestyle; they have no delight in them.

The "Great Physician" [God] says this: "For the turning away [backsliding] of the simple shall slay them, and the prosperity of fools shall destroy them." [Proverbs 1:32] The backsliding from what? Obviously from God’s Words, because He goes on to say, in the next verse, "But whoso hearkeneth unto me [my counsel, see Prov. 1:30] shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil."

It seems to this author that the statements make "plain sense." There are many other statements in God’s Words that make "plain sense."

Psalm 89:34 "My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips."

Matthew 24:35 "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my Words shall not pass away."

Matthew 5:17-18 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. [18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law [His Words], till all be fulfilled." [my addition] [A jot is the smallest Hebrew letter like our "," and the tittle is the difference between two Hebrew letters.]

1 Peter 1:23-25 "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. [24] For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: [25] But the Word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the Word which by the gospel is preached unto you." [my emphasis]

These Words do make "plain sense." Therefore, how can there be several different original language texts; for example, the Hebrew Masoretic Text versus the Samaritan Hebrew Text or the Greek Critical Text versus the Greek Traditional Text. They exhibit thousands of differences between the texts. They all proclaim to be the "Words of God." In light of the above, someone is lying. Is it God? Is it man?

The evidence is that many men are mistaken, misled, or liars. God’s Words have been preserved. He is not a liar. His Words are "truth." He did not say that only his "message" would be preserved, but that the very letters of His Words would be preserved [e.g. Psa 12:6-7] and available [see the verses above]. He presents the concept of their availability early in the Scriptures [Deut. 30:11-15] and reiterates it many times. [Ps 147:19-20, Isa 45:19, Rom 10:6-8, 2Ti 3:14-17, Pr 2:1-5; 3:13-18; 8:11; 16:6; Mt 12:42; Jn 6:27; Ac 8:27-40]

What strikes anyone discordantly who studies this topic are the comments by many Bible college and seminary professors. For example, James Price, Tennessee Temple University, states, "One may infer the doctrine of preservation from statements in "5" the Bible, but the explicit term ‘preserve’ (or its derivatives) is never used in the KJV of the written Word of God" [James Price, e-mail to Dr. David Cloud, Dec. 20, 2000, Fundamen- talists Following Textual Critics in Deny- ing/Questioning Biblical Preservation.]

Another example is Samuel Schnaiter, who is on the Bible faculty at Bob Jones University. He states, "With regard to preservation, however, no Scripture explicitly declares anything of this sort of guidance to apply to the manuscript copyists as far as the precise wording of the text is concerned. Some have deduced such supernatural guidance from Scripture. They note passages that promise God’s Word shall never perish or be lost. However, such promises of preservation in view of the wording variations must apply only to the message of God’s Word, not its precise wording" [Schnaiter, Relevancy of Textual Criticism, 1980. op cit. Dr. David Cloud]

Many more "scholars" representing schools across this land and around the world such as Bruce Metzger, Eugene Nida, etc. make similar statements. However, God’s Words were not written to "scholars," but to all men in "plain words," and, especially, to those with the indwelling Holy Spirit. [Rom 8:9, 1 Cor 3:16, Eph 1:13] "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studies in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise." There is nothing in the Words of Scripture, nothing in history, or nothing stated by "great men" [Job 32:9] that should cause anyone to get trapped into modernistic rational thinking that declares only the "message" of God is preserved. It is irrefragable that the Scriptures plainly state His Words will be preserved. It does not matter who tries to counter the clear testimony of the Bible by retranslation, twisting the "plain sense," or ignoring "clear" passages to make them fit their theology. The preserva- tion of God’s Words is a fact!

Contrary to discordant testimonies of straying men are the many pleasing testimonies of godly men who have stood for the preserved Words of God. Horatius Bonar (1808-1880) wrote in his book Our Ministry, How It Touches the Questions of the Age in 1883, "Man is now thinking out a Bible for himself; framing a religion in harmony with the development of liberal thought."

Dr. Robert Barnett, Vice-President of the DBS, in his 1991 message to the Dean Burgon Society reported on Dr. Edward F. Hills’ position on preservation of the Words of God, saying, "Let Dr. Hills tell us in his own words: ‘How do we take our stand upon divine revelation? Only in one way, namely through the logic of faith. 'For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.' (John 3:16). Since this Gospel is true, these conclusions logically follow: First, the Bible is God's infallible inspired Word. This must be so, because if our salvation depends on our believing in Christ, then surely God must have left us an infallible record telling us who Jesus Christ is and how we may believe in Him truly and savingly. Second, the Bible has been preserved down through the ages by God's special providence. This also must be so, because if God has inspired the Holy Scriptures infallibly, then surely He has not left their survival to chance but has preserved them providentially down through the centuries. Third, the text found in the majority of the biblical manuscripts is the providentially preserved text. This too must be true, because if God has preserved the Scriptures down through the ages for the salvation of men and the edification and comfort of His church, then He must have preserved them not secretly in holes and caves but in a public way in the usage of His Church. Hence the text found in the majority of the biblical manuscripts is the true, providentially preserved text. Fourth the providential preservation of the Scriptures did not cease with the invention of printing. For why would God's special, providential care be operative at one time and not at another time, before the invention of printing but not after it? Hence the first printed texts of the Old and New Testament Scriptures were published under the guidance of God's special providence."

Dr. Hills says, "In regard to Bible versions many contemporary Christians are behaving like spoiled and rebellious children. They want a Bible version that pleases them no matter whether it pleases God or not. ‘We want a Bible version in our own idiom,’ they clamor. ‘We want a Bible that talks to us in the same way in which we talk to our friends over the telephone. We want an informal God, no better educated than ourselves, with a limited vocabulary and a taste for modern slang.’ And having thus registered their preference, they go their several ways. Some of them unite with the modernists in using the R.S.V. or the N.E.B. Others deem the N.A.S.V. or the N.I.V. more ‘evangelical.’ Still others opt for the T.E.V. or the Living Bible. But God is bigger than you are, dear friend, and THE BIBLE VERSION WHICH YOU MUST USE IS NOT A MATTER FOR YOU TO DECIDE ACCORDING TO YOUR WHIMS AND PREJUDICES. IT HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED FOR YOU BY THE WORKINGS OF GOD’S SPECIAL PROVIDENCE.... Put on the spiritual mind that leads to life and peace! Receive by faith the True Text of God’s holy Word, which has been preserved down through the ages by His special providence "6" and now is found in the Masoretic Hebrew text, the Greek Textus Receptus, and the King James Version and other faithful translations!" (E. F. Hills, The King James Version De- fended, pp. 242,43, by Dr. David Cloud). [our emphasis]

One of the finest Baptist scholars alive is Dr. D. A. Waite, President of the Dean Burgon Society, whose credentials cannot be surpassed by any scholar alive today. The title of one of his many books, Defending the King James Bible: A Fourfold Superiority, gives away his belief. In the first chapter of his book, he states, "In a very real sense, the Bible is a TIMELESS BOOK, that is, it will never have an end. It will never cease to exist. There will never be a year or a century, either now or in the future, when it can be accurately said, ‘The Bible is no more. It has disappeared. It has evaporated.’"

"In the first chapter of this book, let us look at fifteen of the many verses in God's Word having to do with what we refer to as the preservation of the Words of the Bible, or ‘Bible preservation.’ You may be asking yourself, ‘Do we have the Words of God today?’ or, ‘Are the Words of God intact today?’ I believe every one of the Words of God has been preserved or kept right down to the present. There are two strong reasons for this.

(2) The second reason I believe in Bible preservation is that God has always kept His promises in the past, and we assume that He will keep up this perfect record in the present and on into the future." [my emphasis]

Lastly, let us "hear" the words of another great scholar who has gone on to his reward and whose name graces the Dean Burgon Society, "O let it be our great concern,–yours and mine,–to preserve with undiminished lustre the whole deposit of Heaven-descended teaching which is the Church’s treasure!...Like runners in a certain ancient race of which we all have read, let it be our pride and joy,– yours and mine, – to grasp the torch of Truth with a strong unwavering hand; to run joyously with it as long as the days of this earthly race shall last; and dying, to hand it on to another, who, with strength renewed like the eagle’s, may again, – swiftly, steadily, exult- ingly, – run with it, till he fails! ... So, when the Judge of quick and dead appeareth, – so let Him find you occupied, – O young men, (many of you my friends,) who are already the hope of half the English Church! So faithfully may we, Brethren and Fathers, one and all, be found employed, when He cometh, – whose answer to the Tempter is emphatically the text of the present solemn season, as well as a mighty voucher for the Divine origin, and sustaining efficacy of that Book concerning which I have been detaining you so long, – "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone; but by every Word that proceedeth out of the mouth of GOD!"

This author would like to leave the backsliders with the following thoughts. The King James Bible has been used for almost 400 years to the great benefit of many who are now with the Lord. Why do you contend with God’s storehouse of knowledge and blessing? The godly men and women, who have relied on the KJB and the Words behind it, did not start the strife that is plaguing the churches. Without a doubt this author believes that all of these godly men and women would like to state to the backsliders, "Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers." [2 Tim. 2:14] Let the desire for profit, position, and prestige go! Rely on the "plain sense of Scripture." Quit your "backsliding." The Lord God cries out, "Return, ye backsliding children, and I will heal your backslidings." [Jer. 3:22a] Your response should be, "Behold, we come unto thee; for thou art the Lord our God." [Jer. 3:22b]

Professor’s Corner

Scholarly Myths Perpetuated On Rejecting the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament

by Dr. Thomas M. Strouse

Paul warned Timothy about promoting fables (i.e., myths [muthoi]) in the Ephesian church. He stated "Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do." (I Tim. 1:4). Biblical critics have rejected the Hebrew Masoretic text of the OT and perpetuated historical myths about the language and text of the OT. Several fallacious corollaries stem from these diabolical myths.

The popular expression of the mythical views of the language and text of the OT follows these fallacious assumptions: 1) The language God gave Adam in the garden is unknown. No one knows what the divinely given "mother tongue" was. 2) The Hebrew language, in consonantal form only, evolved from the Canaanite language around 1200 BC.¹ 3) Through Alexander the Great Greek culture and language permeated the Mediterranean Basin resulting in the wide spread usage of the Greek OT (LXX). Christ and the early Christians used the LXX for evangelistic purposes.² 4) The LXX flour- ished between 200 BC and AD 100 in the Near East. After this period the Hebrew language came back in vogue among the Jews.³ 5) Somewhere between AD 600-1000, the Masoretic scribes invented a vowel pointing system for the consonantal Hebrew text,⁴ resulting in the inaccurately transliter- ated name, Jehovah, among other infelicities.⁵ 6) The Reformers used the inferior Masoretic text for their translations of the OT. 7) Critical Biblical scholarship (19th century) realized the MT was inferior and began to correct it with the Greek OT translation (LXX), the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), and other ancient authorities. Critical scholars are still tweaking the Hebrew text in order to give some assurance to Christians of what God has said in the OT.⁶ 8) Christians should thank God for textual critics who have restored the OT and NT texts to such an advanced degree of certainty and authority. 9) Furthermore, since Christ and the Apostles used the loose and poor LXX as their translation, Christians then have the precedence to use a similar quality of translation today, especially as found in the modern translations.

These historical myths and supporting corollaries diametrically oppose the reception of the Masoretic text as the Hebrew text behind the Authorized Version. The perpetuation of these deceptive propositions seriously weakens confidence in the Authorized Version. Yet if these are truly myths then why do Bible scholars of all stripes, including fundamentalists, perpetuate them? The writer’s purpose for this brief essay is to expose the non-biblical nature of these scholarly lies and repudiate them with Scripture. Several of the aforementioned fallacious and presumptuous corollaries will be scrutinized with Scripture and Biblically repudiated: 1) The original language of Adam in the Garden and the mother tongue until the Tower of Babel is unknown. 2) Biblical Hebrew evolved out of the Canaanite language as a consonantal text only. 3) Christ and the Apostles used the LXX to evangelize the Gentiles. 4) The Masoretic scribes invented vowel points for the inspired consonantal Hebrew text. 5) Christians should thank textual critics for restoring the original texts of Scripture that God chose not to preserve.

Myth Number 1:

The Original Language the Lord gave to Adam is unknown

The Lord God created Adam and gave him a working vocabulary and capability for language. This divinely originated language was perfectly suited for Adam to think concepts and enunciate words for clear expression and communication. The first recorded human words were Adam’s response to God’s creation of Eve. Adam said, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man" (Gen. 2:23). Adam’s first recorded statement has a significant element in it called the paronomasia or word pun. He punned on the name "man" (‘ish) with the word, woman, (‘ishshah) which means "from the man." Gill argues that this pun is not found in other ancient versions:

"This paronomasia does not appear in the Syriac version, nor in the Chaldee paraphrases of Onkelos and Jonathan. The Syriac uses Gabra for a man, but never Gabretha for a woman, not even in places where men and women are spoken of together...The Syriac or Chaldee language will not admit such an allusion as is in the text. Just a Gabra is used for a man, and Gabretha for a woman, so Itta, and Ittetha, and Intetha or Antetha, are used for a woman, but never Itt for a man...this seems to prove that the language Adam spoke to his wife must have been the Hebrew language, and consequently is the primitive one."⁷

Hebrew students recognize that there are numerous other puns in the Hebrew language, many of which are not translatable in any language, even the English of the KJV, in Gen. 1-11.⁸ Gen. 11:1 is pivotal because Moses states "And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech." Prior to the tower of Babel there was one mother tongue created by God.⁹ Jehovah divided this original language into many to disunite man’s rebellion (Gen. 11:6-9). Zephaniah the prophet pre- dicted for the Millennial reign of Christ there would be the restoration of the original tongue, stating "For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent. (Zeph. 3:9). What would this language be for the people to call upon Jehovah, the God of Shem (Gen. 9:26)? Would it be Akkadian, German, or English? It would be the language of the Shemites or the Jews, who trace their lineage back to Shem (cf. Gen. 10:21-31; 11:10-32). In fact, the Scripture calls Abram "the Hebrew" (‘eber) because he was a descendent of Eber, in whose generation the mother tongue (Hebrew) was last universally spoken before the tower of Babel (cf. Gen. 14:13;10:21).¹⁰

Whatever the mother tongue of humanity was, it should have many descendants in the present languages and therefore traceable for modern linguists. Modern linguists, holding to the evolution of language, dismiss the possibility that Hebrew could have been Adam’s language. They would rather hold that language evolved from a series of grunts into highly sophisticated languages, including the lately developed Hebrew. Not only is this approach unbiblical but it is refuted by languages which trace their roots back to Hebrew. In a significant and enlightening new work, Isaac Mozeson demonstrates beyond any "coincidence" that over 22,000 English words trace their roots back to Hebrew. He states,

"Don’t worry if you’ve never read anything on language, or if you’ve never heard a Hebrew word. You will soon know that you’ve never heard a word that wasn’t Hebrew...Hebrew vocabulary has as much affinity with English as it has with Arabic. More English words can be clearly linked to Biblical Hebrew than to Latin, Greek, or French. Most known English words or roots are treated in this book...The last group of Westerners to take up the lost paradise of Hebrew included 17^th century Englishmen like John Milton and his Puritan counterparts in colonial America...The curriculum of Harvard was full of Hebrew, and an early graduate theses at Harvard concerned Hebrew as the Mother tongue. Noah Webster’s etymologies (discredited for 200 years now) were full of English words traced to "Shemitic" sources. Most significant of all, if a vote in the Continental Congress had gone the other way, America, and much of today’s world, would now be speaking Hebrew."¹¹

Darwin’s book The Origin of Species: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life (1859) dethroned from its rightful reign the position that the Hebrew language was the original language God gave Adam in the Garden of Eden. This very title bespeaks of the impact evolution would have on all academic disciplines, including not only sociology but also linguistics. Bible commen- tators prior to this publication embraced the views of a recent creation of the universe and of Hebrew as the original tongue. Davis affirms the history of this latter point in the following:

The Scripture demands that the original language of Adam was Hebrew. That this is the case is based on the puns Moses used in Gen. 1-11 that have not been duplicated in ancient versions. Furthermore, Zephaniah’s prophecy concerning the restoration of the original language to praise Jehovah, and the designation of Abram the Hebrew requires the aforementioned premise that Hebrew was the mother tongue. Extra-biblical arguments such as linguistic studies tying English with Hebrew and the contrived schemes of evolutionists powerfully corroborate the truth that Adam spoke Hebrew.

Footnotes For This Section