Summary of Fundamentalist
|I.||The camouflage of the BJU connection|
|II.||The questions regarding the publisher of The Mind of Man|
|III.||The subject of divisiveness in this book|
|IV.||The problem of an improper spirit|
|V.||The attack on D. A. Waites qualifications|
|VI.||The inaccurate remarks regarding the King James Version of 1611|
|VII.||The books curious statements/mistaken notions/outlandish assertion on Westcott and Hort|
|VIII.||The misleading statements about the preservation of Gods Word|
|IX.||The erroneous assertions of a dependence upon Erasmus by the Textus Receptus and the KJV|
|X.||The compromising view regarding Neo-evangelicals and unbelievers|
|XI.||The illogical view of the KJV|
|XII.||The deceptively compromising position on Bible versions|
|XIII.||The pitiable ignorance of these anti-KJV|
The following is a summary and a digest of my remarks at the Dean Burgon Society meeting in Elkton, MD, in an attempt to discuss my book, Fundamentalist MIS-INFORMATION on Bible Versions. It was a 50' message in all. The video and audio recording of the exact words I used is available by ordering either the video or audio at 1-800-JOHN 10:9.
In The Mind of Man there is a misleading absence of evidence of the connection between the book and Bob Jones University. For a book that is in so many ways a product of Bob Jones University, the book itself is strangely silent on this fact. It would seem difficult to avoid concluding that each factor in publication (including promoters, authors, editors, and publisher) made a studied effort to hush the BJU involvement in this book. Whatever reason prompted this silence, only they know for sure. What briefly follows are ten ways in which this dangerous book on Bible texts and versions is related to BJU.
A. The plans for The Mind of Man began in the office of Dr. Bob Jones III, the BJU President. This is according to the tape-recorded testimony of the books general editor, Dr. James B. Williams, at a rally held on July 4, 1999. Yet, this fact is never mentioned in the book.
B. The Committee on the Bibles Text and Translation (hereafter re- ferred to as "the Committee") was selected by two BJU men. This Committee was formed in August of 1998. The seven members of this Committee hold the copyright on The Mind of Man. Dr. Williams stated that he and Dr. Bob Jones III each selected three members for the Committee. How are these two men related to BJU? Dr. Williams is a member of the BJU Board of Trustees, and Dr. Bob Jones III is the BJU President. Again, this connection is never mentioned in the book.
C. The proposed lack of connection between the Committee and any organization. First of all, the statement by Dr. James B. Williams, general editor of The Mind of Man seems rather misleading (intentionally or not): "We want a committee thats not affiliated with any kind of organization at all completely away from all of it" (transcript of a tape from a rally held on July 4, 1999). Without any speculation or suggestions at this point, just giving the facts should certainly be sufficient evidence that this goal was not achieved. In actuality, the very opposite came about.
Of the seven on the committee, three were selected by Dr. Williams,: Rev. John K. Hutcheson (a BJU graduate and a member of the BJU Cooperating Board of Trustees), Dr. Mark Minnick (a BJU graduate and a member of the BJU Bible faculty), and Dr. Randolph Shaylor (a BJU graduate), not to mention Dr. Williams himself (a BJU Board of Trustees member). Two others were chosen by Dr. Bob Jones III himself: Dr. J. Drew Conley and Dr. Mark R. Simmons (both BJU graduates). The third man chosen by Dr. Jones III did not accept and was not named. Does six out of seven being related to Bob Jones University sound like a committee that is "not affiliated with any kind of organization at all," or does it, rather, sound like one that is closely connected with BJU? One must wonder how strongly they really wanted to not be affiliated with any kind of organization.
D. The relation to BJU of those who endorsed the book. On the back cover of The Mind of Man there are six special endorsements for the book. Every one of the six endorsers (100%) is a BJU graduate. In fact, one of them, Dr. Rod Bell, is a member of the BJU Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees. The other BJU graduates who endorsed the book are Dr. David C. Innes, Dr. Les Ollila, Dr. Ernest D. Pickering, Dr. Bob Taylor, and Dr. John Vaughn.
E. The relation to BJU of the authors of the book. Nine of the twelve authors whose articles appear in the book have some kind of relationship to BJU. Note the (sometimes multiple) connections of these nine authors.
1. Dr. James B. Williams BJU Board of Trustees member and The Mind of Man general editor
2. Rev. John K. Hutcheson, Sr. BJU graduate and member of the BJU Cooperating Board
3. Dr. Mark Minnick BJU graduate and member of the BJU Bible faculty
4. Dr. Randolph Shaylor BJU graduate and managing editor of The Mind of Man
5. Dr. Ernest Pickering BJU graduate
6. Dr. J. Drew Conley BJU graduate
7. Dr. Mark E. Simmons BJU graduate
8. Dr. Keith E. Gephart BJU graduate
9. Dr. John C. Mincy BJU graduate
F. The relation to BJU of the academicians who were consulted. Certain men (whom the book termed "academicians") each read a chapter or chapters of the book and then made suggestions to the authors. Three of the eight academicians listed have BJU associations: (1) Dr. David Beale is a BJU graduate and a member of the BJU faculty, (2) Dr. Sam Horn is a BJU graduate, and (3) Dr. Ernest Pickering is a BJU graduate.
G. The relation to BJU of the USA publisher of the book. The United States publisher of this book is Tom Knudson. He is about 29 years old. His father was a BJU staff member for a number of years.
H. The relation to BJU of the release of the book. The book rally in behalf of the book was held at the Mount Calvary Baptist Church in Greenville, South Carolina, on Sunday evening, July 4, 1999. The pastor of this church is Dr. Mark Minnick, a BJU graduate and a member of the BJU Bible faculty. All seven members of the Committee were present, as well as another of the authors, Dr. Keith Gephartseven of these eight authors having BJU associations (as mentioned above).
I. The relation to BJU of the sale of about 1,300 more copies of the book. According to a letter from one of the members of the Committee (dated July 16, 1999), about 1,300 of the books were sold at the World Congress of Fundamentalists, which was held in July 1999 on the BJU campus.
J. The Relation of BJUs president, Dr. Bob Jones III, to the book. According to the letter referred to above (July 16, 1999), Dr. Bob Jones III, the BJU president, was given a copy of the book by Dr. James B. Williams on Tuesday evening at the World Congress of Fundamentalists on the BJU Campus. In the presence of the entire Congress from all over the world, here is a description (from the letter) of what happened:
"The book was introduced at the World Congress of Fundamentalists last week. Dr. Bob Jones III had also been sent an advance copy. When Dr. Williams made a formal presentation to Dr. Bob on Tuesday evening of the Congress, Dr. Bob held up the book and called it the most significant book for Fundamentalism in this decade, no, in this century. . . ." [tape transcript of the July 4, 1999, book rally]
Is the above quote from the letter or from the tape transcriptor both?
A. The claims of the book and its backers.
1. The publishers. Dr. Minnick the publication rally (July 4, 1999) said that this Greenville press was connected with the Belfast Press. Moreover, on the title page the name of the alleged publisher is given. Below the seal are the words
Greenville, South Carolina Belfast, Northern Ireland."
2. The publication manager. Also at the rally, Tom Knudson, of Emerald Press in Greenville, was introduced as the manager of the publishing house.
B. The facts regarding the books publication.
1. The book was NOT published in Ireland. The owner of Ambassador Productions in Belfast is a Mr. Lowery. He is a member of Dr. Ian Paisley's church in Belfast. Mr. Lowery didn't even have a copy of this book as of September 1, 1999, even though it had been published at least two months earlier, sometime prior to July 1, 1999. If a publisher had really "published" a book, three things would normally be true: (1) he would have seen the proofs of the book, (2) he would know what was in the book, and (3) he would have a copy of the book in his possession. At least as of this writing, none of these three things is true. This indicates that The Mind of Man is a United States production all the way.
2. The book was NOT published at the alleged Greenville location. In July 1999 one of my friends went to the Greenville, South Carolina, press that allegedly published The Mind of Man, and, at that time, they didn't even have a telephone. It's a small office. They have no facilities for printing. There are no printing presses there. Is there a possibility that it is a front for Bob Jones University Press? There arent too many other conclusions one could reach, considering the facts.
3. The publication manager DOES have a connection to BJU. The publication manager of this book is Tom Knudson. He is about 29 years old. His father was a BJU staff member for a number of years.
A. The false claims in The Mind of Man.
1. The false claim that the history of the Bibles text argue for unity. "Despite the minor differences, the committee, the authors, the academicians, and the respected Fundamentalist leaders whose recommendations grace this volume's cover do all agree that the biblical and historical facts on the text, transmission, and translations of Scripture argue eloquently for the unity, not division, of God's people on these issues. We are one in our concern that unlearned or unscrupulous leaders are driving an unnecessary wedge between Fundamentalists over these very issues that would actually further unite us if the true facts were allowed to speak for themselves" ("Text and Translation Committee Disclosure," The Mind of Man, p. xii).
2. The false claim that the division over the text of Scripture is unnecessary. Dr. Williams alleged that "The translation controversy, which arose from the immediate ranks of Fundamentalism, has created unnecessary confusion and division" (The Mind of Man, p. 2).
B. The facts about unity and division.
1. There are too many differences for unity. How can there be unity when the Greek New Testament text espoused by some of these men is the false Westcott and Hort Greek textthe basis for almost all contemporary translations (including the New International Version and the New American Standard Version)? This false text differs from the Textus Receptus that underlies our King James Bible in over 5,604 places. This false Greek Text adds to, subtracts from, and in other ways changes Scripture.
2. The division is necessary for truth.
a. Their book indicates it. Is this division "unnecessary?" No, this is most necessary. Even the existence of The Mind of Man demonstrates this. Why a 243-page book, if it is unnecessary?
b. Truth proves it. For true, biblical Fundamentalists, there is no more serious matter than the identity of their Bible. I maintain that the entire thrust of The Mind of Man, backed by BJU president Dr. Bob Jones III, the BJU graduates, staff members, Executive committee members, Board of Trustees members, and Cooperating Board of Trustees members is to promote trust in and dependence on an entirely untrustworthy New Testament Greek text, which was constructed by Egyptian Gnostic apostates and heretics. Thus, a division on this point separates the "sheep" Fundamentalists and the "goat" Fundamentalists (if I may be permitted to use these two animals without implying that either group is unsaved). Some Fundamentalists used to stand for the King James Bible and its underlying Hebrew and Greek texts but have now come out of the closet, as it were, and are standing for the same original language texts as used by the modernists and liberals, apostate Roman Catholics, apostate Protestants, and compromising Neo-evangelicals. They have rejected the ancient texts of the Fundamentalists, the Hebrew and Greek texts that underlie the King James Bible. To use any other texts is to be false to historic Fundamentalism!
3. The division was caused by those who have used texts other than the Textus Receptus. Who caused the "division"? In other words, which group has disrupted the unity among Bible-believing Christians, those who hold to the King James Bible and the Textus Receptus or those who advocate (or at least allow for and/or approve of) modern versions and other Greek texts? The answer is clear at least according to the facts of history. Bible-believers were united by the King James Bible and the Textus Receptus long before modern versions and texts arose.
4. Unity at the expense of truth is not right. Our side not going over to the Westcott and Hort side just to erase a division among Fundamentalists. That side is wrong. I have a thousand titles to prove that those (including BJU) who use and defend the Westcott and Hort Text (and the versions based upon it) are wrong for attacking the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic Hebrew Text which underlie our King James Bible. We are not going to be united with those who continue to hold the wrong text of Scripture and to misinform believers in so many areas of this subject. It is far better to be divided by truth (and be on the side of truth) than to be united by error.
5. We can be reunited if this BJU group and others return to the Textual Receptus. The only unity possible is for these present defenders of the heretical Westcott and Hort Greek text to come back over to the truth of the traditional Received Text that underlies the King James Bible! There would be no more division if Dr. Minnick and the other authors of The Mind of Man would come over and join us. Then well really have true unity rather than division.
A. The professed proper spirit of The Mind of Man. Dr. Ernest Pickering, in the preface to The Mind of Man, claims that "It contains a proper spirit. ... The authors of this work have presented their information objectively and without attacks on the character of their opponents" (The Mind of Man, p. ix). Perhaps Dr. Pickering did not read the entire book, but, in any case, what he wrote is not an accurate reflection of the book.
B. The unwarranted accusations against us.
1. Dr. Pickering himself seems to be clearly referring to those of us who adhere to the Textus Receptus and the King James Version when he asserts that "Too often, those who write on this subject of manuscripts and translations have been acrimonious in their tone. There have been vilification of character, personal attacks, and a generally unchristian spirit" (The Mind of Man, p. ix). He would not be expecting the reader of that statement to be referring to his side of the text and translation issue, would he?
2. The general editor of The Mind of Man, Dr. J. B. Williams, in the introductory section, called his opponents part of a "parade of misinformers" (The Mind of Man, p. 7). Does that sound like a proper spirit? Also, after naming four alleged misinformers (including myself) he declares that "In general these are devout, sincere, well-meaning men" (The Mind of Man, p. 7). Yet, just two pages later, he claimed that the committee agreed that "The authors of these articles should acknowledge the sincerity and honesty of those who hold to either the Majority Text, the Textus Receptus, or Critical Text view, even though they may arrive at different conclusions" (The Mind of Man, p. 9). Evidently Dr. Williams himself believesor, at least, he is implying thatnot all who hold to the Textus Receptus are sincere and honest. He, however, fails to specifically name anyunless by naming me and three others he is hoping the readers will doubt our sincerity.
It gives me no pleasure to have to state and then answer this books insinuation that I supposedly lack both biblical language training and theological understanding. Yet, this is just one more area of this books deceptiveness and errors.
Dr. Williams wrote (The Mind of Man, p. 4) that
"problems have increased because of the mass of misinformation that has been proclaimed from the pulpits and spread in print by those who because of their lack of theological understanding and biblical language training are not qualified to speak to the issues."
He elaborates somewhat (p. 7) when he asserts that
"There are others who have joined in this parade of misinformers including D. A. Waite, E. L. Bynum, Jack Chick, and Walter Beebe. The list increases with time as more unqualified proponents of the KJV Only view join in the confusion."
Since I am mentioned by name as one of the "parade of misinformers," Dr. Williams is attacking my training and understanding. Lets look at these supposed lacks in their logical orderbiblical language training and then theological understanding.
My biblical language training was at the University of Michigan (1945-48) and at Dallas Theological Seminary (1948-53). It included 66 semester hours of Greek and 25 semester hours of Hebrew, a total of 91 semester hours in biblical languages. This does not include 27 additional hours in other foreign languages8 in Latin, 8 in French, and 11 in Spanish. Moreover, four of the five residency degrees I have earned (M.A., Th.M., Th.D., and Ph.D.) included research theses and/or dissertations that required handling Greek and Hebrew (as well as dealing satisfactorily with documentation and evidence). One wonders if Dr. J. B. Williams, or any other of the authors of The Mind of Man, or even this books "academicians" (or Bob Jones III) can match these qualifications in the biblical language training, let alone exceed them. Hopefully no one besides Dr. Williams would seriously question that someone with such training is qualified to "speak to the issues."
What, though, about my theological understanding? I graduated from the Dallas Theological Seminary after four years of residence classes. I was a straight "A" student, receiving my Master of Theology (Th.M.) degree with high honors. I was taught by Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, president and founder of Dallas Seminary, for four years, 1948-1952. I was also taught by Dr. John F. Walvoord, who succeeded Dr. Chafer as president, and many other theologians and teachers during those years. After these four years, I went on for two more years and got my Doctor of Theology (Th.D.) degree from Dallas. Does Dr. Williams accusation that I have a "lack of theological understanding" imply that Dallas Theological Seminary was not an academically good school or that somehow my graduating with high honors did not include good theological perception? The burden of proof is his. What more does he want?
In this connection it should be noted that the disclosure statement of the Committee on the Bibles Text and Translation states that "unlearned OR unscrupulous leaders are driving an unnecessary wedge between Fundamentalists over these very issues" (p. xii, emphasis mine). It would seem fair to ask the committee (and Dr. Minnick in particular) whether I am considered "unlearned" or "unscrupulous." For, besides the training in Bible languages and theology, I went to Southern Methodist University for a Master of Arts (M.A.) degree in Speech. Then I went for two more years of resident graduate work at Purdue University, graduating with a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree in Speech. Hopefully, the fact of such training would destroy the false charge of being unlearned.
VI. The inaccurate remarks regarding the King James Version of 1611
A. The misstatements in The Mind of Man regarding the 1611 King James Version.
1. The gross exaggeration of the number of changes between 1611 and now. Dr . Mark Simmons wrote that "the King James Version of the Bible ... is not the same as that published in 1611. In fact hundreds of differences have accumulated onto the printed page" (The Mind of Man, p. 147).
2. The erroneous assertion about the Apocrypha. Dr. Simmons wrote about the Apocrypha that
"the inclusion of the Apocrypha by the translators leads one to believe that all eighty books are Holy Scripture" (The Mind of Man, p. 155).
3. The mistaken application of Matthew 5:18 to the King James Version. Dr. Simmons asked "Didn't God say that one jot or one tittle would not pass away? How can we have all of these differences in the numerous editions of the KJV? How can my version be based on a 1769 revision if one jot or one tittle was not to pass away?" (The Mind of Man, pp. 163-64).
B. The facts regarding the 1611 King James Version.
1. There have been relatively few changes between 1611 and now. Dr. Simmons statement is misleading. How many "hundreds of differences" does he imply between 1611 and now? It sounds as if he is saying that the differences between the KJV of 1611 and the KJV we read today are enormous.
That is not true. I analyzed the original 1611 as printed by Nelson Publishers, which I suppose has done an accurate job. While I read it, I listened to the King James Bible of today, the Oxford edition of the 1917 old Scofield Reference Bible . I compared (BFT #1294 @ $2.50+$3.00 S&H) how they sounded to my earnot the spelling, punctuation, or capitalization. I could hear only 421 differences. Included in those differences are the words where one can hear the difference, but it is the same worde.g., "toward" and "towards," "among" and "amongst," "you" and "ye," "burnt" and "burned," and "lift" and "lifted." If you take away these similarities even though I could hear them as distinctions to my ear you have left only 136 different words from the original 1611 King James Bible to the 1917 Oxford edition. Since when is that "hundreds of differences?" Most of the differences involve spelling or punctuation. For example, in 1611 "sin" was spelled "sinne." It is pronounced the same. It looks different, but it is the same word. We need not worry about the changes since 1611. To say that 136 changes are "hundreds" of changes is indeed misleadingespecially when 136 is compared to the almost 800,000 words in our King James Bible.
2. The inclusion of the Apocrypha in the 1611 King James Version does NOT imply that it is Scripture. Unlike the Roman Catholic Bibles, where the Apocrypha books are interwoven with the canonical books, the Apocrypha books were placed in a separate section in the original 1611 King James Bible. They are inserted after the book of Malachi and before the book of Matthew.
As far as the implication that the Apocrypha was Holy Scripture or that perhaps the King James Bible translators thought they were, I would refer Dr. Simmons to the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England. After listing the 39 Old Testament books, which they call "Canonical Books," the fourteen Apocryphal books are listed. They are not listed among the "Canonical Books." They are not "to establish any doctrine." The Apocrypha books did not stay very long in the King James Bible, and they are not in the King James Bible today.
3. Matthew 5:18 applies to the text of Scripture, not its translations. When the Lord Jesus Christ spoke those words, He promised that neither the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet nor the smallest distinguishing part of a Hebrew letter would "pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." This is a clear verse for Bible preservation of the original Hebrew text and, by extension, for the original Greek text. The Lord Jesus Christ was not speaking of English (or Spanish, French, German, Russian, or any other modern or ancient language). Dr. Simmons must know. Surely he must have been taught better at Bob Jones University.
VII. The books curious statements/mistaken notions/outlandish assertion on Westcott and Hort
B. F. Westcott was an Anglican bishop, and F. J. A. Hort was a professorboth in late 19th-century England. It is surprising, to say the least, that someone that knows anything about the beliefs (or lack thereof) of Westcott and Hort would think that these Bible critics were believers and Fundamentalists.
A. The fate of these two heretics. Yet, Dr. Williams asserted that
"Both these men [Westcott and Hort] are now with the Lord and cannot defend themselves against half-truths that have been made into lies" (The Mind of Man, p. 4).
These men are "with the Lord"? Absolutely falseunless they somehow secretly repented after writing their books. Let me simply quote some of their writings. If you believe that these men were saved, you have another view of what truth isand what salvation meansthan do I.
1. A Westcott statement on miracles (written August 11, 1847). B. F. Westcott unambiguously made this assertion:
"I never read an account of a miracle, but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability and discover some want of evidence in the account of it" (Life and Letters of B. F. Westcott, by Arthur Westcott, his son, vol. I, p. 32a book, incidentally, in the BJU library).
Do you think this man who feels the "improbability" of the miracles in the Bible is now with the Lord? I do not believe that. I believe he is lost and in hell.
2. A Westcott statement on Genesis 1-3 (written March 4, 1890) to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Again, regarding a specific miraculous section of Scripture, he had this to say:
"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, gives a literal history. I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think that they did" (Life and Letters of B. F. Westcott, by Arthur Westcott, his son, vol. I, p. 69).
Does Dr. Williams believe that this man that denies the historicity of the first three chapters of Genesis is "with the Lord"? Bible-deniers do NOT enjoy heavenly bliss after death.
3. Westcotts denial of the Resurrection. Westcott denied the resurrection of the flesh. "They [opinion in England and Catholic theologians] held uncompromisingly to the opinion demanded by the Apostles Creed, and affirmed the Resurrection of the Flesh. . . . Bishop Westcott is really the author of the great change. He entirely abandoned belief in the resurrection of the flesh as formulated in the creed, but he never said so. On the contrary, he used all his matchless powers of shading language so that the change from white to black appeared inevitable, natural, indeed scarcely perceptible" (Immortality and The Modern Mind, by Kirsopp Lake, pp. 38-40also in the BJU library).
By his clever "shading language" Bishop Westcott camouflaged the fact that he had "abandoned belief in the resurrection of the flesh." Here is a complete denial of the bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. How can a person who denies Christs bodily resurrection be saved ("with the Lord")?
Kirsopp Lake continues:
"He [that is, Bishop Westcott] writes, for instance, in The Historic Faith, page 136, as follows: I believe in the resurrection of the flesh. [He is quoting these words from the Apostles Creed before he comments on them and denies them.] . . . the "Flesh" of which we speak as destined to a resurrection is not that material substance which we can see and handle and measure by properties of sense" (ibid.).
Lake sums things up in this fashion:
"Thus he explained that when the creed spoke of the resurrection of the body it did not mean the resurrection of the flesh, though both in the Greek and Latin originals it said so, but it was confirming the survival of personal identity" (ibid., p. 136).
How can Dr. Williams believe this man to be orthodox? How can BJU professor Dr. Stewart Custer also believe him to be orthodox, as he stated in his book on the King James Version? Both these BJU men seem to be ignoring the plain facts in order to defend the Westcott and Hort text and view of textual criticism. For those who desire further evidence of the heresy of these Bible critics, additional quotations can be found in The Theological Heresies of Westcott and Hort (BFT #595, 76 pages @ $4.00+S&H) and Westcott's Clever Denial of Christ's Bodily Resurrection (BFT #1131, 38 pages @ $4.00+S&H). Incidentally, two other books you can order from The Bible for TodayThe Life and Letters of Bishop B. F. Westcott (BFT #1866, 928 large pages @ $45.00+S&H) and The Life and Letters of F. J. A. Hort (BFT #1867, 997 large pages @ $48.00+S&H)contain 1,925 pages of documentation and are in the library at BJU.
B. The "Fundamentalism" of Westcott! Dr. Williams issues an interesting challenge. Speaking specifically of Bishop Westcott he says that
"Another church paper labeled Westcott a liberal. I have three of Westcott's commentaries in my library, and I challenge anyone to find one sentence that would be a departure from Fundamentalist doctrine" (The Mind of Man, p. 4).
In response it must be said again that Westcott was a "liberal." Let me take up Dr. Williams challenge.
In my book The Theological Heresies of Westcott and Hort (BFT #595 (@ $4.00 +S&H) I have evaluated three of Westcotts commentaries (on Johns Gospel, Hebrews, and Johns Epistles), perhaps the same three that Dr. Williams has. I also made a study of two of Horts commentaries. In the 1,291 pages in these five books I noted 125 statements that are "departures from Fundamentalist doctrine." Here are just 5 examples.
1. Westcotts Belief in the Universal Fatherhood of God. Westcott wrote about John 10:29 that
"The thought which is concrete in v. 28 is here traced back to its most absolute form as resting on the essential power of God in His relation of universal fatherhood (emphasis added)" (Westcott, Gospel of John, p. 159).
The doctrine heresy Westcott taught here is not a "Fundamentalist doctrine." Has this doctrine now been adopted as "Fundamentalist" by Dr. Williams, The Mind of Man committee, the eight academicians who "confirmed its factual correctness" [The Mind of Man, p. xii], Dr. Bob Jones III, and all the Fundamentalist institutions represented? It is a blasphemous, apostate doctrine. According to John 8:44, those who are lost have Satan as their "father." Only regenerated Christians have God as their "Father." God is not the Father of all people.
2. Westcotts heretical view of the efficacy of Christs redemptive work. Commenting on John 1:29, Westcott said that
"The parallel passage in the Epistle shews that the redemptive efficacy of Christs work is to be found in his whole life (He was manifested) crowned by His Death." (Westcott, Gospel of John, p. 20)
The doctrine taught here is not a "Fundamentalist doctrine." The "redemptive efficacy of Christs work" is not found "in His whole life." Rather, it is found in His blood, shed on the cross of Calvary (1 Peter 1:18-19).
3. Westcotts heretical view regarding eternal life. Again, note Westcotts non-Fundamentalist viewpoint:
"(1 John 5:20) The life eternal is essentially present, so far as it is the potential fulfillment of the idea of humanity . . ." (Westcott, The Epistles of John, p. 217).
The doctrine taught here is not a "Fundamentalist doctrine." It is an apostate doctrine. While life eternal begins the moment a person is born again, it cannot in any way be said honestly and Scripturally that "life eternal is essentially present." Consider just two statements of the Lord Jesus"in the world to come eternal life" (Mark 10:30) and "he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal" (John 12:25). The contrast is between time and eternity.
4. Westcotts heretical view that Christ had sin." We find another heretical idea in Westcotts comment on John 1:51.
"(John 1:51) All that truly belongs to humanity, all therefore that truly belongs to every individual in the whole race, belongs also to him" (Westcott, The Gospel of John, p. 35).
This statement is unqualified. If, indeed, "all" that belongs to all human beings also belongs to the Lord Jesus Christ, this would include the Adamic sin nature and sin itself. Thus, if words mean anything, Westcott denied the impeccability of Christ. Yet, the Lord Jesus asked "Which of you convinceth me of sin? . . ." (John 8:46), and Peter referred to Christ as the on "who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth" (1 Peter 2:22) . Hebrews declares that Christ "was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15).
5. Westcotts limitation of Christs full moral perfection. Finally, please note another Westcott error about Christ.
"(Hebrews 2:10) The conception of it is that of bringing Christ to the full moral Summary of Fundamentalist MIS-INFORMATION on Bible Versions 11 11 power and dignity. . . . This perfection was not reached till after death" (Westcott, The Book of Hebrews, p. 49).
This is a bold denial of Christs complete perfection while on earth. We must reaffirm that Westcott is not stating a Fundamentalist doctrine. Has this doctrine now been adopted as "Fundamentalist" by Dr. Williams, The Mind of Man committee, the eight academicians who "confirmed its factual correctness" (The Mind of Man, p. xii), Dr. Bob Jones III, and all the Fundamentalist institutions represented?
VIII. The misleading statements about the preservation of Gods Word
A. The declarations.
1. Dr. Minnick, writing about the Greek manuscripts B and Aleph, asserted that "Both preserve the very words in which the Holy Spirit testified to our Lord's deity" (The Mind of Man, p. 97).
2. Dr. Shaylor approvingly quoted James M. Gray as saying that "as to the New Testament at least, we have in 999 cases out of every thousand the very word of that original text" (The Mind of Man, p. 24).
3. Again, Dr. Minnick maintained that "we still have in our King James Version, or other accurate translations, the very Word of God" (The Mind of Man, p. 94).
4. Moreover, Dr .Mincy declared that "Bible believers can read, for example, the King James Version, the New American Standard Version, or the New King James Version and believe with all confidence that they are reading God's Word" (The Mind of Man, p. 144).
5. Similarly, Dr. Shaylor wrote that "God has made His revelation available to others than those to whom it was immediately given by preserving His truth in written form. He guaranteed the veracity of these writings by using the special method of imparting His truth that we know as inspiration" (The Mind of Man, p. 16).
B. The difficulties.
1. The necessity of choosing a text. These two manuscripts (B and Aleph) differ from the Textus Receptus in thousands of places, including in the passages that deal with our Lords deity. Thus, he (and everyone) must make a choice as to which manuscripts (or which readings in particular passages) are actually conveying "the very words" chosen by the Holy Spirit to convey the truth of Jesus deityand other truths as well. If B and Aleph, then Dr. Minnick should be candid and publicly reject the King James Version, since the KJV does not agree with the additions, subtraction, and other changes that B and Aleph make in "the very words" of Scripture. No, B and Aleph do not preserve the words of Scriptureat least not all of them. Let me cite just one example of the many places where these two manuscripts do not testify to our Lord's deity. Instead of the correct rendering of 1 Timothy 3:16 as found in the KJVnamely, "God was manifest in the flesh"the NASB has "He who was revealed in the flesh," and the NIV has "He appeared in a body." Thus, both the NASB and the NIV, following Aleph, omit the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.
2. The necessity of choosing a reading. The problem with Dr. Shaylors use of James Grays true statement is that Dr. Shaylor holds that, although we havein percentages99.9% of the original text, neither he nor anyone else can say which variants among the thousands are correct. The authors, academicians, and others associated with The Mind of Man maintain that we have almost all of the original text of Scripture but that, unfortunately, no one knows exactly what it is.
3. The necessity of choosing a version. The problem here is that the King James Version differs in many renderings from other translations, including any that Dr. Minnick would consider accurate. Thus, he must make a choice as to which translation he considers most accurate; otherwise, he is, in essence, saying no more than the Neo-orthodox, who maintain that the Bible contains the Word of God rather than that it is the Word of God.
4. The necessity of choosing what actually has been preserved. The New American Standard Version has a completely different Greek New Testament text in 5,604 places, amounting to 9,970 Greek words that have either been added, subtracted, or changed in some way. The New King James has at least 2,000 examples of dynamic equivalence and failure to translate accurately from the proper Hebrew and Greek texts. When these versions differ so much from the King James Bible, the only way the authors of The Mind of Man can say that they are reading "God's Word" is to redefine the meaning of "God's Word" and say that it now means only God's message (thoughts, ideas, or concepts). This, to me, is not Bible preservation. If the actual words are not preserved, then some truth must be lost in the process.
IX. The erroneous assertions of a dependence upon Erasmus by the Textus Receptus and the KJV
A. The assertion of false statements.
1. By Dr. Williams. Again, Dr. Williams wrote that
"The same reasoning would apply to the Textus Receptus, which is based on the work of Desiderius Erasmus. Erasmus, whose Greek text is said to be the basis of the KJV translation, was a Roman Catholic priest who never left the Roman Church" (The Mind of Man, pp. 4-5).
2. By Dr. Minnick. The same errors are asserted by Dr. Minnick when he wrote that "We can be thankful that Erasmus stuck to his convictions since it was one of the editions of his Greek New Testament that became the basis for what came to be known as the Textus Receptus. This Greek text is, in turn, the basis for our King James Version New Testament" (The Mind of Man, p. 76).
For a Fundamentalist University to have a teacher on their faculty who manifested such ignorance of the King James Bibles textual base is as amazing as it is appalling.
3. By Pastor Ashbrook. Pastor Ashbrook erroneously claimed that "The history of the Textus Receptus begins with Desiderius Erasmus" (The Mind of Man, p. 101).
4. By Dr. Mincy. In referring to the translators of the King James Bible, Dr. Mincy wrote that "they primarily used ... Beza's Text of Erasmus for the New Testament" (The Mind of Man, p. 135).
B. The correction of false statements. There are two tremendous falsehoods in these brief statements by Dr. Williams and Dr. Williams. Evidently they have merely parroted misinformation that emanates from Bob Jones University and other such schools who believe these errors.
1. The Textus Receptus is NOT based on the work of Desiderius Erasmus. The Textus Receptus is a text that has been handed down from generation to generation. It had its origination in the Apostolic era, when the New Testament was written. Erasmus merely put these manuscripts into print in A.D. 1516. Putting something in print does not mean that that text originated with the printer.
Allow me to quote part of what Dean Burgon approving quoted (Revision Revised, pp. 11-12) from the pen of Bishop Ellicott (the Chairman of the English Revised Version of 1881), followed by a statement of Burgon himself:
"The manuscripts which Erasmus used differ for the most part, only in small and insignificant details from the bulk of the cursive manuscripts. The general character of their text is the same. By this observation the pedigree of the Received Text is carried up beyond the individual manuscripts used by Erasmus . . . That pedigree stretches back to a remote antiquity. The first ancestor of the Received Text was at least contemporary with the oldest of our extant manuscripts, if not older than any one of them.."
Burgons comment: "By your own showing therefore, the Textus Receptus is, at least, 1550 years old" (ibid., p. 390). How could the Erasmus Greek New Testament Text be the base of the "Textus Receptus," which was in 1883 at least "1550 years old"?
2. The King James Version is NOT based on the Greek text of Erasmus. The error of Drs. Williams and Minnick of claiming Erasmus Greek text as the basis for the KJV has been wrongly taught at Bob Jones University for years. The same error has been perpetuated by BJU graduates and in other Fundamentalist schools as well. The fact of the matter is that the Greek text of Erasmus came out in 1516. The King James Bible was based on the text of Beza's 5th edition, which came out in 159882 years later than the text of Erasmus.
3. The history of the Textus Receptus did NOT begin with Erasmus. The history of the Textus Receptus began in the early apostolic period with the writers of the Greek New TestamentPaul, Peter, John, James, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Jude. It did not begin in A.D. 1516 with Desiderius Erasmus' copy of the Greek New Testament. It began with the manuscripts that were copied and recopied by the churches. How can the result of the Textus ReceptusErasmus Greek text be the start of that text? Pastor Ashbrook, along with many others, has the cart before the horse.
4. Bezas text was NOT Erasmus text. The King James Bible was not based on the 1516 text of Erasmus. It was based on Bezas 5th edition text of 1598, which was 82 years later. Bezas text was his own. It was NOT the "Beza's Text of Erasmus."
X. The compromising view regarding Neo-evangelicals and unbelievers
It is sad to see not only the BJU men involved in The Mind of Man but also regrettably numerous others depend upon and heap praise upon "scholars" who hold weak or totally erroneous views of the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture (and other cardinal doctrines of the Faith). Note their perspective and how misguided they are.
Dr. Minnick states that
"there are critics of the biblical manuscripts who have no intent to criticize them. These scholars are specialists who have dedicated their lives to the exacting discipline of analyzing the various factors about manuscripts. . . . these specialists have a role that is even more important to us. . . . someone must compare the thousands of extant manuscripts. . . . Such a person is called a 'textual critic.' . . . I must clarify that a textual critic may, in fact, be an unbeliever when it comes to the Bible's doctrinal truths. But when it comes to the Bible's text to this question of the Bible's wordsa textual critic is initially little more than a reporter" (The Mind of Man, p. 71).
So, what is the major problem in his remarks? Simply put, such an outlook on unsaved textual criticism is either a tragically naive or a flagrantly deceptive. How can he seriously think that someone who is consciously rejecting the gospel of Gods grace and other cardinal Bible doctrines can be even partly objective regarding the Bible? Who would ever believe that educated, informed scholars who reject the person and work of Christ would work and write simply as a "reporter"rather than (probably subtly) undermining (criticizing) Bible manuscripts?
We dare not trust unbelievers to just act as reporters. Their judgement is misleading because they are lost and bound for hell. I wouldn't trust them. The departure from the Textus Receptus was led by German and then English unbelievers. Ironically, BJU veteran authors favor the false Westcott and Hort Text of B and Aleph for example, Dr. Marshall Neal, Dr. Thurman Wisdom, Dr. Stuart Custer, Dr. Samuel Schnaiter, and Dr. Edward Panosian (as well as Dr. Mark Minnick). It is sad that Fundamentalists are comfortable with joining with Neo-evangelicals in following these unbelievers.
I do not trust Westcott and Hort, because they were apostates and unbelievers. These apostate "textual critics" did not even believe that the original writers produced inerrant originals. Regarding the New Testament they wrote that "corruptions [that] came in ... may be due to the original writer" (Westcott and Hort, Introduction to the Greek New Testament, 1881, p. 280).
We can not trust unbelievers to handle our Bibles. That's what's wrong with the Nestle-Aland Greek text. You have five unbelieving apostates that are handling that text. (1) Bruce Metzger is an apostate from Princeton; (2) Kurt Aland is an apostate from Munster, Germany; (3) Matthew Black is an apostate from St. Andrews (Edinburgh, Scotland); (4) Allen Wikgren is an apostate from the University of Chicago; and (5) Cardinal Carlo M. Martini is an apostate Roman Catholic cardinal.
Pastor Ashbrook asserted that
"The limitations of the Textus Receptus cannot be ignored. . . .To use an illustration, the Textus Receptus is the Model T Ford of the new Testament text. The Model T was a great triumph in the world of transportation, but it was only a first step into the present automotive world. . . .Today we have many more Greek manuscripts to be compared. Is it not logical to think that the readings preserved in these manuscripts most of them much older than those Erasmus had would take us closer to the inspired text that those 'holy men of God' spoke? Has God preserved the text of the inspired Scripture only in the Textus Receptus or has He preserved it more fully in the manuscripts now in our possession?" (The Mind of Man, p. 106).
Notice the confusion here. Pastor Ashbrook is just as bad in his putting the cart before the horse in this matter as he was with the Textus Receptus/Erasmus error. He's saying that the text that underlies our King James Bible, the Traditional Textus Receptus Text (representing over 5,210 manuscripts), is like the Model T Ford that has served its usefulness and now must be abandoned for newer models.
My friend, I believe that the Greek text that underlies our King James Bible contains the very Words that Peter, Paul, John, James, and the other New Testament writers wrote. Have those words gone out of style like the Model T Ford"? Should we scrap these words of the Traditional Text? Should we scrap over 99% of the manuscript evidence in favor of less than 1% of the evidence provided by Pastor Ashbrooks B and Aleph answer to the Model T Ford?
Which is the real Model T Ford of Greek manuscripts? Which Greek text should be discarded and thrown away as being useless in determining the original text? Is it the Traditional Text (the Received Text, the Textus Receptus) or is it the heretical Gnostic Text of Westcott and Hortbased on B (Vatican) and Aleph (Sinai) manuscripts? I maintain clearly that it is the Westcott and Hort Text that must be abandoned as the Model T Ford, not the Textus Receptus that underlies the King James Bible. Pastor Ashbrook, and most of the other authors in The Mind of Man are confused. They do not know which Greek text is the "Model T Ford" and which is not.
Herman Hoskier (Codex B & Its Allies, pp. 468-69) gives the true picture of the false Westcott and Hort Model T Ford Greek text and its history:
"Those who accept the W-H [Westcott and Hort] Text are basing their accusations of untruth as to the Gospelists upon an Egyptian revision current 200 to 450 A.D. and abandoned between 500 to 1881, merely revived in our day and stamped as genuine. . . The plain fact is that Aleph/B/C/L/ Delta/Psi really represent but one document and that one at variance with all others; but, as explained above, it is anything but a `neutral' document."
It is this "Egyptian revision current 200 to 450 A.D. and abandoned between 500 to 1881" that is the genuine Model T Ford. The Textus Receptus is the strong and useful model that will carry Christian believers on into the Millennial reign of the Lord Jesus Christ and beyond.
The Textus Receptus is like a river; wherever you take a sample, it is virtually the same text. The stream of the Traditional Text that started with the Apostolic times. It's a river that runs down through history. All Erasmus did was to pick up some manuscripts from that river, all of which are basically the same. They are virtually identical manuscripts except for the Westcott and Hort type of 45 or so.
Erasmus picked up his manuscripts from Basle, Switzerland. When working on his Complutensian Polyglot, Cardinal Ximenez obtained his from Spain and various other places. Yet the Erasmus Text and the Complutensian Text are virtually identical. Why? Because they came from the same river of truththe Traditional Text manuscripts that form over 99% of the present evidence.
According to The Mind of Man (p. 8), the committee behind the book agreed upon "an agenda," the second of its six parts being "To expose the two extreme positions of the King James controversy: KJV Onlyism and KJV Discreditism." Lets look at this goal in detail.
First, there is no definition given of either "KJV Onlyism" or "KJV Discreditism"either at this point in the book or anywhere else. This failure to define ones terms in any battle of words, especially in one surrounding the words of Scripture, is indeed a major shortcoming.
Second, the definition or description of "extreme" is likewise notable by its absence from this book. By process of elimination, it would seem that the books intent is to cast itself as the third alternative to these two extremesthus, one must conclude a middle-of -the-road position. That is, the book seems to want to defend the King James Version but compliment and use other versions and hold to the Greek manuscripts that would, in fact, undermine the KJV. In other words, the BJU-affiliated committee, authors, editors, and backers of this book seem to want to have their cake and eat it too.
Third, if, in actuality, the committee is referring specifically to the Peter Ruckman position, certainly that is an "extreme." He, of course, believes that the King James Version takes precedence over the manuscripts upon which it is based. However, if the committee is seeking to lump my position together with his, that would seem to be not only quite unfair but also inaccurate. I stand for the Greek and Hebrew texts which underlie the King James Bible and for the King James Bible itself as the best translation in English.
Fourth, it is worthy of note that The Mind of Man spends very little time exposing the so-called "KJV Discreditism" position. The book, in the main, attacks the one "extreme" but fails to do anything comparable against the other "extreme." In point of fact, I have looked in vain for any criticism of the so-called "Majority" Text or the Westcott and Horts critical text, but there is only great disparagement of the Textus Receptus. That, to me, seems to smack of hypocrisy.
Fifth, it is, in fact, true that ostensibly the authors are crying out against "KJV Discreditism," yet they themselves are examples of discrediting the King James Bible by scuttling the Greek New Testament text on which it is founded (i.e., the Textus Receptus). As noted above, one of the authors compares the Textus Receptus to the Model T Ford, concluding that it should be jettisoned and thrown away (The Mind of Man, p. 106). Any writer, any school, any institution of any kind that throws out the Textus Receptus Greek Text that underlies the King James Bible effectively throws out the King James Bible which has been founded upon it. There are no two ways about it. So, my friends, dont be taken in by the siren songs of these King James Bible "lovers" who "treasure" it, yet destroy its underlying Greek text. This syrupy deception should be avoided like the plague.
One example is sufficient, since the general attitude and thrust of each author certainly confirms what J. Drew Conley expresses. He makes a startling admission. Note both what he says and what he does not say.
"I love Shakespeare and Spenser. I read the Puritans. Ive spent years working on a substantial education, and I continue to learn. But apart from modern English translations or a literal rendering of the Greek or Hebrew text, I do not usually gain the kind of comprehension necessary for my own spiritual growth, let alone for teaching others. For me to expect members of the congregationespecially new convertsto devote themselves to profitable study of a Bible in an unfamiliar language is certainly wishful thinking at best" (The Mind of Man, p. 193).
First, note his expression of love for the writings of Shakespeare and Spenser, not for Scripture. Now, we must not assume that he does not love Scripture, but it would at least seem fair to conclude that he loves the King James Version less than he loves Shakespeare and Spensermaybe even than the Puritans!
Second, he almost boasts about his education that still continues. One must wonder, though, if somehow he managed to omit from it simply the words from the King James Version he claims (pp. 192-93) have changed in meaning and/or are no longer in use. How, we must ask, can he love reading Shakespeare and Spenser while not being able to comprehend the KJV? He conveniently fails to note ANY words found in the KJV that are not found in Shakespeare, Spenser, and the Puritans.
Third, he claims that he does not "usually" (which, linguistically, must mean at least 51% of the time) comprehend Scripture enough for his own spiritual growth except in modern version or from "a literal rendering of the Greek or Hebrew text." Now, we would not want to make judgments about his spiritual life. Yet, assuming he is at least willing to learn, what can one conclude? It would that his mind is so closed when reading the King James Version that nothing penetrates or produces growth. He surely cannot be saying that he has grown so much spiritually that God cannot used the KJV "usually" in his life! Such a man is truly to be pitied.
Fourth, he claims it is "wishful thinking" to expects believers to study Scripture in "an unfamiliar language"referring, we must assume in a belittling way to the KJV. Regrettably, he fails to include the role of the pastor-teacher in expounding Gods Word. Moreover, it would seem that he must be ignorantwilfully or notof the thousands (conservatively speaking) of new converts who eagerly use the King James Version and grow thereby.
Truly, Pastor Conley is protesting too much against the time-honored and
still powerful KJV. Not unlike the other chapters by the others authors of The Mind of Man,
he is exaggerating to the point of error, he is disgracefully belittling what God has used for
nearly 400 years and is still using mightily in the lives of those humble enough and committed
enough to Him. Such perverted ideas and views of these Bob Jones University graduates,
associates, and sympathizers must be rejected. They certainly have not proved their case. They
have simply let themselves be used to try to divide and confuse Gods people in this vital
matter of Gods Word. May those who truly love the Lord continue to cling to "the old
rugged cross" and the Book that most clearly and completely explains and exalts itthe
King James Version!