No. 75 OFFICIAL NEWS ORGAN OF THE DEAN BURGON SOCIETY
November, 2005 - March, 2006
|
 |
"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 28th Year Thank You!
Thank you to the members of the Dean Burgon Society. You have
helped make 28 years of the Dean Burgon Society a success. Your
continued help is needed. The battle for the recognition of
God's preserved Words in the traditional Hebrew, Aramaic, and
Greek texts and the best translation of the texts into the
languages of the world continues unabated.
DBSN Different
This issue of the Dean Burgon Society News will assume a
different look and will emphasize the response by members of the
Society to attacks (1) on the plenary, inspired, inerrant,
infallible, preserved Words of God, (2) on the best translations
of those Words, and (3) on individuals who defend those Words.
It is appalling to us who love His Words to see the imaginary,
false premises of men who are trapped in academia, who are
blinded by unbelief, and who attack the preserved Words of God
and men who defend those Words. It is one thing to ask a
question, seek an answer, or defend a position, but it is quite
another thing to be bitter, to twist the truth, and to practice
character assassination. This is a world wide problem and
articles from various areas that defend the preservation of
God's Words have been chosen. Therefore, the nature of this
issue of the DBS News will assume a different look.
DBS Next Year
The next annual meeting of the of the DBS will be hosted by
Pastor Monte at Calvary Baptist Church, Robbinsdale, MN. The
dates are July 19th and 20th, 2006. Mark your calender , now. We
would like to see you at these meetings if possible. Pray for
them.
by Dr. D. A. Waite
President of the Dean Burgon Society
The first article in this issue of the DBSN was written by Dr.
Jack Moorman, a DBS Executive Committee member who resides in
England. He is one of the world's foremost manuscript scholars,
a missionary, and a Baptist pastor. His article is a response to
articles by Dr. Dan Wallace, professor of New Testament studies
at Dallas Theological Seminary.
The second article is by Dr. Jeffery Khoo, Academic Dean of the
Far Eastern Bible College in Singapore. He presents clear
statements against vain attacks by those who denigrate the
defensive work of Bible believers such as Edward F. Hills, David
Otis Fuller, D. A. Waite, Thomas Strouse, David Cloud, Denis
Gibson, and others.
Dr. Thomas Strouse, Dean of Emmanuel Baptist Theological
Seminary, has crystallized the reasons for this issue of DBS
News by making these statements in an article written in 2001.
...those fellowships and educational institutions that tout
themselves as "bastions of fundamentalism" apparently fail to
recognize that the sword of theological separation swings both
ways. For them, separating from other fundamentalists is
"standing for the truth," but when others separate from them, it
is "sowing discord among the brethren." However, the Bible
clearly teaches that "the bastion of fundamentalism" is the
local church which is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (I
Tim. 3:15). That local New Testament (NT) churches have the
biblical responsibility to separate from all theological error
regarding any doctrine, including bibliology, is
non-controversial. Pastors and members of NT churches should not
be cajoled into thinking they are sowing discord when they
personally or collectively fulfill their God-given mandate to
separate from systems of theological compromise. ["Should
Fundamentalists Use the NASV," Sound Words from New England,
Vol. 2., Issue 1, June-August 2001]
by Dr. Jack A. Moorman
DBS Advisory Council Member
October 5, 2005
Dr. Wallace is professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas
Theological Seminary, and has written frequently concerning the
textual debate. Some ten or so articles listed on his Website
oppose the AV/TR position.
Dr. Wallace's Views Incorrect
The views Dr. Wallace expresses in Why I Do Not Think the King
James Bible is the Best Translation Available Today are
incorrect for the following reasons:
Reason #1
(1) The points raised against the AV/TR are the usual ones. They
have been raised and answered repeatedly and fully. Substantial
rebuttal is available in print and on the web. Dr. Wallace
should have, in fairness, made some acknowledgment of this. For
a thorough review of many of these and other points, see the
three recent books by Dr. D. A. Waite: Fundamentalist Deception
on Bible Pre- Preservation, Fundamentalist Misinformation on
Bible Versions, and Fundamentalist Distortions on Bible
Versions. It should be noted that Dr. Wallace is not a
fundamentalist.
Reason #2
(2) After disparaging the AV (and TR), Wallace does not tell us
which is "the best available translation!" He does not identify
a preferred replacement. This is not untypical today. In the
recent From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man book, no clear
direction is given as to what we should put in the place of the
AV. This is a tacit acknowledgment that nothing in any permanent
sense has taken the place of the AV. They find themselves in a
limbo!
Reason #3
(3) An attempt is made to put the first editor of the printed
Received Text in an unjustly negative light. "The man who edited
the text was a Roman Catholic priest and humanist named
Erasmus." Material is available today that gives a much fairer
perspective to Erasmus and his work. Edward Hills, The Kings
James Version Defended, is still one of the best sources. (See
also the sources in The Bible Version Question/Answer Database
by David Cloud). Erasmus (1466-1536) was of course Roman
Catholic as was nearly everyone else at that time. But, at his
monastery, he was far more of a continual student with a
voracious appetite for knowledge than a priest in the normal
sense. It is in this respect rather than in the modern atheistic
sense that he was a humanist. Many of his writings were scathing
against the Catholic Church. He died among his Protestant
friends and was buried in a Protestant cemetery. He had embraced
much of the teaching of the Reformation, but had not come out
openly in its support by formally leaving the Catholic Church.
Erasmus was acclaimed the greatest intellect of Europe, and
became the man of the hour to initiate the transfer of the
Traditional Text from manuscript to printed form. His Greek
editions provided the base for the great Reformation Bibles, and
lit the fire for the Reformation itself. Wallace and others
would like us to concentrate instead on his deficiencies, and
have us jump from Erasmus and his 1516 edition directly to the
AV of 1611. By this they seek to attach any deficiency in the
man and his work to the AV itself. Wallace will of course not
acknowledge that the AV was the product of nearly a century of
prayerful textual and linguistic refinement.
Reason #4
(4) Wallace would also have us make much of the publisher
Froben's haste in printing Erasmus' first edition (1516) before
the Spanish Cardinal Ximenes' Complutensian Polyglot Bible went
to press. He makes no mention that in the following year the
Reformation was to break out in Wittenberg, in which this first
printing of the Greek NT was to become a (in fact, the) major
impetus. This is a powerful demonstration of God's providence in
the timing of the publication. (See Hills, and also S.P.
Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text, p. 20).
Reason #5
(5) Erasmus "only used half a dozen, very late manuscripts for
the whole New Testament." Wallace ignores that Erasmus was
conversant with many manuscripts in his searches across Europe.
Those which he had before him at Basel for his 1516 edition can
be demonstrated to have been good representatives (See Hills,
p.198). David Cloud in his The Bible Version Question/Answer
Database has gathered a number of important citations on this
question, including the following:
For the first edition Erasmus had before him ten manuscripts,
four of which he found in England, and five at Basle…The last
codex was lent him by John Reuchlin…(and) ‘appeared so old to
Erasmus that it might have come from the apostolic age'.
(Preserved Smith, Erasmus: A Study of His Life, Ideals, and
Place in History, 1923).
‘If I told what sweat it cost me, no one would believe me.' He
had collated many Greek manuscripts of the N.T. and was
surrounded by all the commentaries and translations. (D'Aubigne,
History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, vol. 5, p.
157).
Reason #6
(6) Erasmus' manuscript of Revelation is said to have
been lacking in the last six verses (22:16-21), and was supplied
by referring to the Latin Vulgate. Herman Hoskier in his
massive, and I must add, difficult to use, Concerning the Text
of the Apocalypse, has shown that Erasmus may have had Greek
manuscript 2049 (Hoskier's 141) covering these verses (I 474-77;
II 454, 635). But whatever the case, Dr. Wallace should have
told the rest of the story; that is, if indeed Erasmus used the
Vulgate, in his later editions it was corrected by direct
reference to the Greek.
One notable exception is claimed to be 22:19 where the AV/TR
reads: "… shall take away his part out of the book of life."
This has fairly substantial support in other sources, but is
found in only three Greek manuscripts (296 2049 2067mg.). The
variant reading, though supported by the Greek, can hardly be
said to make sense: "… shall take away his part out of the tree
of life." In When the KJB Departs from the "Majority" Text, and
using Hoskier, I have listed support from the manuscripts,
versions, and fathers for eight passages in Revelation 22:15-21.
Reason #7
(7) Dr. Wallace repeats the familiar arguments against I John
5:7, and the circumstances of Erasmus "placing it in the text if
someone could show him a Greek manuscript containing the
passage, to which a manuscript was hastily prepared for that
purpose." A letter from the Erasmian scholar H. J. de Jonge to
Michael Maynard in 1995 puts the matter in a different light.
Quoting Erasmus in his dispute with Edward Lee, de Jonge says:
Erasmus first records that Lee had reproached him with neglect
of the MSS. of I John. Erasmus (according to Lee) had consulted
only one MS. Erasmus replies that he had certainly not used only
one MS., but many copies, first in England, then in Brabant, and
finally in Basle. He cannot accept, therefore, Lee's reproach of
negligence and impiety.
‘Is it negligence and impiety, if I did not consult manuscripts
which were not within my reach? I have at least assembled
whatever I could assemble. Let Lee produce a Greek MS. which
contains what my edition does not contain and let him show that
that manuscript was within my reach. Only then can he reproach
me with negligence in sacred matters.
>From this passage you can see that Erasmus does not challenge
Lee to produce a manuscript etc. What Erasmus argues is that Lee
may only reproach Erasmus with negligence of MSS. if he
demonstrates that Erasmus could have consulted any MS. in which
the Comma Johanneum figured. Erasmus does not at all ask for a
MS. containing the Comma Johanneum. He denies Lee the right to
call him negligent and impious if the latter does not prove that
Erasmus neglected a manuscript to which he had access. (Michael
Maynard, A History of the Debate over I John 5:7,8, p. 383).
Jeffrey Khoo points out:
Yale professor Roland Bainton…. agrees with de Jonge, furnishing
proof from Erasmus' own writing that Erasmus' inclusion of I
John 5:7f was not due to a so-called ‘promise' but the fact that
he believed ‘the verse was in the Vulgate and must therefore
have been in the Greek text used by Jerome'. (Kept Pure in all
Ages, p.88; cited from D. W. Cloud, The Bible Version
Question/Answer Database, p.343). See also And These Three are
One by Jesse Boyd, Wake Forest, 1999.
Michael Maynard's monumental work on the disputed passage will,
I think, demonstrate to many that this has not been a debate
over "thin air." His book chronicles the fact that defense of
the faith and defense of this passage frequently went hand in
hand. Beginning from the days of Cyprian of Carthage (died 258),
there is indeed substantial evidence for the passage. Cyprian
said:
The Lord saith, "I and the Father are one;" and again it is
written concerning the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, "And three
are one". (de Catholicae ecclesiae unitate, c.6)
Critics have argued that Cyprian was merely giving a Trinitarian
interpretation to verse 8. The spirit, and the water, and the
blood: and these three agree in one. The answer to this is
obvious; the figures of verse 8 cannot naturally be interpreted
as the Persons of the Holy Trinity. (See Hills).
Though missing in most Greek manuscripts, it nevertheless leaves
in them its footprint with the mismatched genders that result
when the disputed Words are removed. The loose ends do not match
up grammatically! Native Greek speakers find this "glaring."
Here in London, the printed Apostolos (the lectionary text used
in Greek Orthodox services) contains the passage.
Reason #8
(8) Wallace says of the AV translators: "These scholars, who
admitted that their work was provisional and not final (as can
be seen by their preface and by their more than 8,000 marginal
notes indicating alternate ren- derings), would wholeheartedly
welcome the great finds in MSS that have occurred in the past
one hundred and fifty years."
In neither The Dedication to the King, nor The Translators to
the Reader do I find an inference where the AV translators
"admitted that their work was provisional." To the King they
declare: "out of the Original Sacred Tongues…there should be one
more exact translation of the Holy Scriptures into the English
Tongue." And, to the Reader they write: "Truly, good Christian
Reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need
to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good
one…but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones one
principle good one, not justly to be accepted against." (pp. xv,
xvi). Wallace calls their work "provisional"; the AV translators
say it is "one principle good one."
Reason #9
(9) Regarding marginal readings, these provided a kind of
miniature commentary. In the comparatively few places where we
find them, those translators who "trusted in Him that hath the
key of David" (Translators to the Reader, p. xvi), showed by
inclusion in the text what their decision had been, while at the
same time giving insight into what the Original was capable of
expressing. In some cases they show a strictly literal rendering
which to translate directly into English would have been
awkward.
In only 104 instances (Scrivener) is a variant reading from
different manuscripts given. Here they show their awareness, but
not to the point of distracting the reader, and certainly not to
the point of Wallace's claim that the AV translators would have
"welcomed the great finds in MSS that have occurred in the last
150 years." Erasmus' knowledge of variant readings in Codex B is
well documented. In an attempt to persuade Erasmus of the
superiority of B, 365 variant readings were sent to him in early
November 1533, from Rome by the Spaniard Sepulveda (Maynard, pp.
87,88). Erasmus rejected these for his 1535 edition. They were
rejected by succeeding editors of the Received Text, and by the
great Reformation Bibles both in English and other languages.
The men of the AV knew where the dangers lurked in the
manuscript record. For example, Codex D, and the Clementine
Vulgate (a much more corrupt 1592 replacement for the Sixtine
edition), were at their disposal. They had the spiritual
discernment to reject the corrupt variants that these and other
sources presented.
Reason #10
(10) Wallace speaks of a "100,000 changes" being made to the AV
over the centuries. Nearly all of the changes were updated
punctuation and spelling, along with correction of some printing
errors. Dr. D. A. Waite's thorough research into this question
has shown that very little difference can be detected when
reading a 1611 edition and the AV of today. Among the 791,328
words in the AV only 421 showed a "change in sound." Of these
there were only 136 changes of substance, such as an added "of"
or "and". (See Defending the King James Bible, pp. 3-5, [B.F.T.
#1594] and B.F.T. #1294). When writers speak of many thousands
of changes, and especially Wallace with his "100,000" (!), we
wonder if they mean to be taken seriously. It is completely
false.
Reason #11
(11) In attempting to explain why the TR is fuller than the
Aleph-B text, ("The KJV is filled with readings that have been
created by overly zealous scribes"), Wallace repeats one of the
Westcott and Hort canons when he says: "textual evidence shows
me that scribes had a strong tendency to add rather than
subtract." It is in fact the opposite! Where there is deliberate
alteration, it is far easier to remove Words than to add them.
Given that there are nearly 2900 additional Words in the TR
(including the bracketed portions), let him explain how such
could have taken place without a mention in textual history of
the wholesale editing venture necessary to bring this about.
In view of the huge majority of manuscripts containing this
fuller text, with countless scribes involved, spanning many
centuries, covering a wide geographic area, Dr. Wallace must
also explain how it could have been done so consistently. How
could this vast majority of manuscripts show the same so-called
"additions"? How is it that he fails to see or admit that it is
far easier to take away from the few than to add to the many?
Wallace is at variance with other critical editors on this
point:
But these figures suggest strongly that the general tendency
during the early period of textual transmission was to
omit…Other things being equal one should prefer the longer
reading. (James R. Royse, "Scribal Tendencies in the
Transmission of the Text", The Text of the N.T. in Contemporary
Research, Ehrman and Holmes eds., 1995, p. 246).
The few manuscripts after being tampered with were generally
ignored by copyists. Nothing approaching an extended direct copy
or exemplar of either Aleph or B has been found! The search has
been "fruitless." (See T. C. Skeat, "The Codex Sinaiticus, The
Codex Vaticanus and Constantine," Journal of Theological
Studies, 50, pp. 619,20.). In fact Skeat goes on to say that
Aleph remained "a pile of loose leaves" for some considerable
time, (perhaps as much as two centuries!), before being bound up
(p. 609). Dr. Wallace must be pressed to explain how such a
thing could have befallen these few which he says are the "best
manuscripts."
Reason #12
(12) Wallace claims that "very few of the distinctive King James
readings are demonstrably ancient." In our book Early
Manuscripts, Church Fathers, and the Authorized Version (BFT
#3230 @ $20.00), there is a thorough manuscript-by-manuscript
evaluation of this question. The entire range of Greek
manuscripts, early versions, and fathers before 400 AD are asked
to vote on 356 distinctive and doctrinal AV passages. Overall
they vote strongly in favor of the AV. Regarding the Egyptian
papyri, all but six are fragments, and many of the doctrinal
passages are indeed missing. However, Harry Sturz in his The
Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism has
shown that there is considerable support for the other
distinctive AV readings in the papyri. The "Five Old Uncials,"
Aleph, A, B, C, D, have long been claimed as the sole domain of
the Critical Text. There is in fact among them considerable
support for the distinctive AV doctrinal passages. In Early
Manuscripts, Church Fathers, and the Authorized Version (BFT
#3230 @ $20.00), an investigation of five categories of Greek
manuscripts, eighteen categories of early versions, Tatian's
Diatessaron, and the fathers before 400 AD, show a decisive
preponderance of evidence for the AV/TR.
Reason #13
(13) Again, Wallace says: "There are over 400,000 textual
variants among the N.T. manuscripts. But the differences between
the Textus Receptus and the texts based on the best Greek
witnesses number about 5,000." He should have explained how he
arrived at 400,000. Had he gone to the trouble, he would have
tacitly revealed a very uncomfortable fact for his position. A
hugely disproportionate amount of the variation is to be found
among the relatively few manuscripts supporting the Aleph-B
text. The critical editors, Barbara Aland and Klaus Wachtel
admit this:
The papyri and majuscules are for the most part individual
witnesses: despite sharing general tendencies on the forms of
their texts, they differ so widely from one another that it is
impossible to establish any direct genealogical ties among them.
("The Greek Minuscule Manuscripts of the N.T.", The Text of the
N.T. in Contemporary Research, p.46).
If these few cannot agree among themselves, then how can Wallace
call them the "best Greek witnesses"? As so little of an Aleph-B
kind of manuscript is available, clearly early scribes did not
think them best. Nor did the scribes of the 8th/9th Centuries
think them best when they transferred the text from uncial to
minuscule script. Further, the manuscripts that were widely
copied are known to be strongly cohesive, with narrow variation
margins. Their variation is usually just enough to let us know
that they are independent productions with long transmissional
lines.
Reason #14
(14) Though admitting 5000 differences between the AV and modern
version text, Wallace seeks to downplay the extent of
difference. He says, "the two are remarkably similar" and "agree
98% of the time" and "that the vast majority of variations are
so trivial as to not even be translatable, (the most common is
the moveable nu…)."
He is wrong on the number of differences. In our book 8000
Differences (BFT #3084 @ $64.00), a total of 8,032 variation
units are listed. Not one of these is a moveable nu. A variation
unit may involve the spelling of a Word, substitution of
different Words, changing the order of the same Words,
frequently the removal of Words, and at times the addition of
Words. A variation unit may comprise anything from one Word to
many verses.
He is wrong to say that the two texts agree "98% of the time."
If there are a total of 140,521 Words in the Received Text, with
8000+ variation units of difference between it and the revised
text, and with many of these variation units containing multiple
Words, clauses, sentences, and even verses, then simple
arithmetic will show that a substantial part of the New
Testament has been affected.
In order to check further the list of variation units in my book
8000 Differences (BFT #3084 @ $64.00), a friend prepared a
computer-generated printout in which the two texts were
combined. In this, the unaffected portions of text are shown
along with the variations. Here, side-by-side the TR reading
(Scrivener) is underlined, and the Nestle-Aland is crossed out.
Vertical markings beside the text show further where a line of
Scripture is affected. This gives a remarkable visual
demonstration of the extent to which the lines of New Testament
text are affected.
He is wrong in saying, "that the vast majority of variations are
so trivial as to not even be translatable." Where, for example,
it is "only" the spelling of a Word, it will still affect the
sound of the Word and frequently the inflection and structure of
the Greek sentence. When we believe that "all Scripture is given
by inspiration of God" (2 Tim. 3:16), and that "every Word of
God is pure" (Prov. 30:5), questions will not be raised as to
which differences are "trivial," and which are not. If this is
how God breathed out His Words, then this is how it must stand!
The variation will often affect the English translation. Where
the variation is not translatable, a search of the list will
show that the underlying text is frequently weakened or lessened
in some way. This I suppose would be like having green grass
even though the root structure beneath has been weakened.
Reason #15
(15) Wallace tells us "most textual critics for the past 250
years would say that no doctrine is affected by these changes."
Yes, that is what they and he say, and it is false. Many of
God's faithful servants have over the years compiled long lists
of these alterations and omissions. They have set out clearly
the extent to which the great doctrines have been weakened and
undermined. It can only be due to peer pressure, scholarly pride
and wilful blindness that this statement is made. My own list of
356 passages gives a clear demonstration (see BFT #2956 @ $10.00
and (BFT #3230 @ $20.00). He cannot merely brush this aside by
saying: "Those who vilify the modern translations and the Greek
texts behind them have evidently never really investigated the
data. Their appeals are based largely on emotion, not evidence."
Yes, we are filled with emotion when we see our Bible treated in
this way, and we have also investigated the data.
Reason #16
(16) The AV English is said to be "difficult to understand."
Indeed, it is different. It is not like your morning newspaper,
but its English is not difficult, as a section-by-section
comparison with other translations will show. For a computer
generated analysis of this question see The Reading Ease of the
King James Bible by D. A. Waite Jr. (BFT #2671 @ $6.00). Here
using four readability formulas, (Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch
Grade Level, Flesch-Kincaid, Gunning Fog Index), Mr. Waite's
research shows the AV to be rated as "fairly easy." Though
nearly 400 years old, on the question of readability alone (i.e.
to understand what was written), the AV achieved approximately
the same scores as five recent versions. He also shows that AV
words are frequently shorter in syllables and letters.
In other respects, there is no comparison. A section-by-section
comparison will show that while the AV is a verbal and formal
equivalence translation (word for word from the original) rather
than the so-called dynamic equivalence. Its English has depths,
fountains, and is living and rhythmic. In contrast, modern
version English have been said to be "Formica flat," tepid,
wooden. Recent authors, often secular, have stressed this point.
The AV can be read aloud, memorized, and quoted with authority
and reverence. It has rhythm. It flows. Whereas, in public
reading, the cadence and timing of the NIV, NASV and NKJV is
flawed, with halts and breaks.
Meditation, memorization and earnest study are all greatly
diminished with the modern Bibles. They are not held dear as the
AV was. Perhaps the following quotation from Psalm 23:1 of the
Contemporary English Version gives a classic example of the
reason why.
You, Lord are my shepherd, I will never be in need. You let me
rest in fields of green grass.
The AV displays the full flowering of the English language, and
in fact shaped that language. It is not archaic or Elizabethan,
as comparison with that era will show. It was never
contemporary, but always a step apart from the common. In this
sense it is somewhat more refined than Tyndale's Version. It has
maintained a timeless reverence and grandeur that draws the
heart upward to God
Reason #17
(17) Wallace points to "Suffer little children," and "Study to
show thyself approved," as two examples of AV words "which no
longer bear the same meaning." I think he considerably
overstates the case. Yes, we could replace these with "permit"
and "give diligence," but the impact would be lessened. We could
change "noised about" to "reported," but the former gives a
better picture of what was actually taking place in Luke 1:65
and Mark 2:1. We could attempt to replace the "eth" verb endings
in the AV with a present tense or perhaps a past, but would find
that the "eth" (historical present) is not adequately translated
by either. (See, The New King James Bible, G. W. and D. E.
Anderson, Trinitarian Bible Society, pp. 12,13). We could
replace the "thees" and "thous" with "you," but would then
remove the means of distinguishing between singular pronouns
(thee, thou, thy), and plural pronouns (you, ye). With their
removal we would also be removing a more reverent form of
address to God.
Given the age of the AV, it is remarkable that so little is
archaic. Again, much more has been made of this than the case
warrants. Among the words generally termed archaic, I would
estimate from a list I have seen that not many over 35 or 40
would perhaps need a dictionary. Often, the context indicates
the meaning. A study of these so-called archaic words will show
that they frequently have a greater depth of meaning than their
modern replacements.
Reason #18
(18) Wallace tells us that "as the Greek has strain out a gnat";
the AV's "strain at" a gnat (Matt. 23:24) is "one very definite
error in translation." Wycliffe (1395) had "clensinge a gnatte,"
but the four Reformation Bibles before the AV (Tyndale,
Coverdale, Geneva, Bishops) read "strayne out a gnat." As
subsequent refinements to the AV text allowed this reading to
remain, it is highly unlikely, as some have suggested, that this
was a printer's error.
The AV translators made a decision to go against their
predecessors, and this likely for the following reasons:
(1) The word strain (diulizontes) is found only here in the N.T.
It is a present participle (rather than an aorist) and means to
strain or filter. The present participle indicates that an
ongoing rather than completed action is taking place. It points
to the effort involved, rather than that they actually succeeded
and got the gnat out. In 1729, Daniel Mace made a translation of
the N.T., and rendered the words, "strain for a gnat," which
conveys the same meaning as the AV.
(2) Only one gnat is involved. At first discovery of this tiny,
lone, solitary creature all else stopped. Rather than remove it
with a spoon, the entire contents must be filtered, suitable
cloths were brought, and with much show and ritual the filtering
process began. Thus "they strain at a gnat." That is, at the
first sight of only one gnat the filtering ceremony begins.
(3) When "out" is used in the N.T., we expect to see an
underlying Greek preposition, usually ek or apo. There is none
here.
Commentators as Poole, Henry, and Gill (non-revised) do not take
issue with the AV reading. See also:
www.geocities.com/brandplucked/strain.html
There is no proven gnat here for Dr. Wallace to strain at.
Reason # 19
(19) The second translation error alleged is Hebrews 4:8: "For
if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have
spoken of another day." Wallace says: "This sounds as though
Jesus could not provide the eternal rest that we all long for!
However the Greek Word for Jesus is the same as the Word for
Joshua. And in the context of Heb. 4, Joshua is obviously meant.
There is no textual problem here; it is rather simply a mistake
on the part of the translators, perpetuated for the last 400
years in all editions of the KJV."
Indeed the passage is not textual or for that matter
translational; this is exactly what the Greek says. It has
though been an interpretational issue. Translators are to
translate, rather than interpret. The men of the AV translated
the Hebrew O.T. names as they appeared in Greek. See for
example, the genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3. Notice that
they gave the same translation in Acts 7:45: "Which also our
fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the
possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face
of our fathers." By reading "Jesus" in Heb. 4:8, the AV followed
most of the English Bibles which came before: Wycliffe, the
Great, Tavener's, Matthew's, Bishop's and the Geneva; whereas
Tyndale and Coverdale read "Joshua." Wallace wrongly gives the
impression that this began with the AV.
Joshua was a pre-eminent Old Testament type of Christ. There is
agreement in their names. There is agreement in their work, both
led and lead into rest. By translating (actually
transliterating) rather than interpreting the Greek, this
parallel between type and antitype is clearly shown in the New
Testament. And to repeat, by this we are put on notice that both
have the same name.
It is also to be pondered (Josh.5:13-15), that on the eve before
Joshua led Israel across Jordan, he was on his face before
Jesus! Thus it was Jesus Himself who provided their way across
Jordan and into the Promise Land. But, the rest He then gave was
not the final rest. Type and Antitype are very close here.
The four examples Wallace gives of so-called archaic English and
incorrect translation have simply not made their point.
Reason #20
(20) Dr. Wallace concludes: "I trust this brief survey of
reasons I have for thinking that the King James Bible is not the
best available translation will not be discarded quickly." In
fact both for his own good and those who follow him, his
"reasons" should be "discarded quickly." It is a downward
course. After announcing that he no longer accepts passages as
John 3:13, John 7:53- 8:11, I Timothy 3:16, he says, "I find it
difficult to accept intellectually the very passages which I
have always embraced emotionally." And, matters will and do
slide further. The following is from a 9/12/94 article in
Christianity Today where Wallace praises Karl Barth and bemoans
bibliolatry.
One of the chief legacies Karl Barth left behind was his strong
Christocentric focus. It is a shame that too many of us have
reacted so strongly to Barth, for in our zeal to show the
deficiencies of his doctrine of Scripture, we have become
bibliolaters. (O Timothy, Oct. 94).
In The Synoptic Problem, which is available on his Website, he
supports the redaction approach to the Gospels. This theory
teaches that the Gospels were given, not by direct inspiration,
but rather by copying from each other, and from a common
secondary source. (See O Timothy, vol. 15-7, 98).
It is quite impossible to hold that the three synoptic gospels
were completely independent from each other. In the least, they
had to have shared a common oral tradition (p.1).
We shall see later that before the Gospels were written there
did exist a period in which the gospel materials were passed on
orally, and it is clear that this oral tradition influenced not
only the first of our synoptic Gospels but the subsequent ones
as well (p. 4).
The majority of NT scholars hold to Markan priority….This is the
view adopted in this paper as well (p.6).
One argument concerning Mark's harder readings…is the
probability that neither Luke nor Matthew had pristine copies of
Mark at their disposal…An intermediate scribe is probably
responsible-either intentionally or unintentionally-for more
than a few of the changes which ended up in Luke and Matthew
(note 49).
When verbal preservation is abandoned, a denial or weakening of
verbal inspiration will generally follow. In fact upon
examination one cannot really hold to the one without the other.
We can do no better in closing than to contrast the kind of
scholarship which characterizes support for today's versions
with that of the men who translated the AV.
Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light;
that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that
putteth aside the curtain, that we may look into the most holy
place; that removeth the cover of the well, that we may come by
the water; even as Jacob rolled away the stone from the mouth of
the well, by which means the flocks of Laban were watered
(Translators to the Reader, p. vii).
And in what sort did these assemble? In the trust of their own
knowledge, or of their sharpness of wit, or deepness of
judgment, as it were in an arm of flesh? At no hand. They
trusted in him that hath the key of David, opening, and no man
shutting; they prayed to the Lord, the Father of our Lord, to
the effect that St Augustine did; O let thy Scriptures be my
pure delight; let me not be deceived in them, neither let me
deceive by them. In this confidence, and with this devotion, did
they assemble together (p. xvi).
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 KJB, these anti-perfectionist,
anti-preservationist, anti-TR/KJB, 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 KJB, as some among them even
inexplicably profess love for the KJB—notwithstanding their
readiness to find fault with the KJB and/or the original
language texts (Words) underlying the KJB. 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-KJB 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
KJB like Edward F Hills, David Otis Fuller, David Cloud, and D.
A. Waite to Ruckman! This is hitting below the belt. He also
unjustly accused pro-KJB defenders of SDAism just because D. O.
Fuller quoted from SDA Benjamin Wilkinson who so happened to
defend the KJB as well in his book Our Authorized Bible
Vindicated (1930) [BFT #1123 @ $13.00]. 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 KJB 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: the
KJB is doubly inspired; the KJB is advanced revelation; the
English KJB is as or more inspired than the original language
Scriptures; the KJB can be used to correct the original language
Scriptures; there is no need whatsoever to study the Biblical
languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek due to an "inspired"
English translation; the KJB cannot be improved on (The Defined
King James Bible [BFT #3000] edited by Waite and Tow and
published by Bible For Today is certainly an improvement of the
KJB); the KJB is the only Bible that has gospel or salvific
content; those who do not use the KJB are condemned to hell; and
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 KJB. The KJB 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 caliber
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 defense of the KJB. The original
defense of the KJB 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 perfect
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 defense of the Trinity found
it most necessary also to defend 1 John 5:7 as found in the
underlying preserved Greek text of the KJB. By so defending the
KJB and its preserved underlying Greek text, is the TBS now SDA
just because Wilkinson at a later time happened to defend the
KJB 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 KJB. Founded
in 1892, the Bible League resisted the "Downgrade" controversy
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 [BFT #1123 @
$13.00], but in a footnote (pp.12-13-13) 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 defense of the KJB is a
"new doctrine" and a "new practice" has been very much the
tactic of anti-VPPists, anti-TRists, and anti-KJBists 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 KJB 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 KJB
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 KJB
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. [He is
also a DBS Executive Committee Member]) 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 (www.trinitarianbiblesociety.com/site/qr/qr571.pdf)
in 2005 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" (the underlined words 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 favorably 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 Words
underlying the Reformation Bibles best represented by the KJB.
The Texts Underlying the KJB as Identified by the Trinitarian
Bible Society
As a defender of the VPP of Scripture and the KJB, 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 KJB 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: 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). Amen!
Fuller Essay Contest
Any young adult in High School can enter this David Otis Fuller
Memorial Essay Contest which was named for a Pastor who was a
Vice President of the Dean Burgon Society until his death. The
theme this year is "The Superiority of the King James Bible over
the Today's New International Version." The essay should be from
1,000 to 2,000 words in length. The essay must be post marked by
June 2, 2006 and received by June 10, 2006. A winner will be
announced on June 23, 2006. You can visit the DBS Website at
www.DeanBurgonSociety.org for help and also call the founder
and organizer of the contest, Pastor J. Paul Reno (301-739-8585)
to learn more about the topic, details, prizes and entry form.
If you know any young person who might be interested, please
give their name, address, and phone number to Pastor Reno.
Today's Leaders
Remember, "Today's leaders were yesterday's young adults!"
|
