Textual Criticism and its dangers
| TEXTUAL CRITICISM and its Dangers (Collated from Waymarks 1-52) Textual Criticism is sometimes referred to as LOWER CRITICISM. See my notes on HIGHER CRITICISM at the bottom of this page.
David Cloud observed that all the standard works he had read on textual criticism (he lists twelve) focus strictly upon man and his puny efforts concerning the Bible. They do not proceed upon the principle that the Bible is supernaturally given and preserved. To which this writer concurs, having read most of the same books. We urge believers to beware of Bible teachers and expositors who make much of textual criticism. Beware of those who tell you that the critical text gives more accurate readings. Critical texts (used for all modern versions) are the invention of Romanists - the founders of Textual Criticism (Wilkinson; Our Bible Vindicated; p.103). The changes made in the text are NOT the result of superior modern scholarship. THE PERVERSITY OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM
Moorman points out that the critics are well aware that the manuscripts on which the AV is based have a pedigree earlier than the 4th C. AD. They pretended that a composite text had been invented in the 4th C. to account for the predominance of the AV-style Bible that was in existence at that time. This AV- style Bible, which the critics labelled 'Byzantine' was so universally recognised by those early believers that it could not have begun its existence suddenly in the 4th c. but must have been in circulation a long, long time before that. Concerning the two Romish mss, otherwise known as the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus, no scholar has been allowed to examine the latter. It is kept under lock and key in the The pure flow of manuscripts comprises the majority of mss. From these have come pure translations such as the AV and corresponding versions in other languages. We have to make up our minds where we stand on the issue. Do we prefer a corrupt bible to a pure Bible? Do we follow men who promote modern versions or do we listen to those to those who recognise the AV as being wholly the word of God in the English language? Does God raise up men to be teachers of his Word knowing that they will be forever finding fault with it? If any should be deluded into thinking that textual critics are GODLY scholars, reading their works will show that they are neither godly nor scholars. I give the following piece of information, taken from the internet. I believe it displays a view which is held commonly by modern-day critics.
|
Not 'it is thought…', or 'one theory is…' but it WAS written pseudonomously. That is quite dogmatic. The debate that raged earlier over the authorship of 2 Peter is ended. The men in the know have made a pronouncement. Peter never wrote Peter. If there were no internal evidence as to authorship (as with Hebrews) we might just wonder who did write it, but then we read verse one, Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.
If the critic is correct, and if my belief in verbal inspiration is sound, then God inspired a lie. But critics do not believe in any kind if biblical inspiration, as can be seen in the statement made above. They believe that the New Testament was composed from stories passed on by word of mouth. They believe the theories of theology were developed after apostolic times and the bible stories were adapted to fit their theological views. So a man might write pretending he was Peter because this is what they think Peter might have wanted to write if he had been able.
If we do not have a Book that is given by inspiration of God, then all we have indeed is a book of fables and mythology. These critics give their lives to what they regard as little better than fairy stories. They are opposed to the idea of supernatural overruling in the affairs of men, particularly in relation to the formation of Scripture. They do not believe in miracles. Some of them have attacked the deity of Christ. They are not Bible believers. On that ground alone they are not to be trusted. I have read a great many of their books (I have more than 400 books dealing with Bible criticism and related subjects), and I find certain words and phrases largely missing from their works (unless they are used in a derogatory manner). Words like salvation, being born again, the work of the Holy Spirit, inspired of God; spiritual words and phrases are lacking.
Their works are not scholarly. There is as much scholarship behind textual criticism as there is behind the theory of evolution. How can true scholarship be found in that which attacks the things that God has established? Professing themselves to be wise they became fools. Josh McDowell in his book Evidence that Demands a Verdict Vol.2 shows up the shallowness of their scholarship. He wrote, "The anti-supernaturalist bases his thinking on the presupposition that God has not intervened in history. Therefore he rejects evidence indicating the supernatural no matter how convincing." P.16.
Here is another lie taken from the internet.
| |
| "The New King James Version [NKJV] will always correspond exactly with the KJV, because the NKJV is not a modern translation. It is only a modern-English rewording of the original KJV, minus the Apocrypha. (The apocrypha was included in the original KJV) |
We presume R N Cramer regards himself as an authority in his subject, seeing that he puts this information on the internet. We presume he has investigated the evidence, i.e., he has actually compared the NKJV with the AV Bible. If so he has wilfully overlooked a large number of discrepancies. Some are listed below:-
Acts
Acts 8:9 bewitched " " astonished
Rom.1:25 changed " " exchanged
Rom.4:25 delivered for " " delivered because of
2 Cor.2:17 corrupt " " peddling
These are not instances where words have been modernised. They are different words. I give these few examples to show that Cramer's statement is not true.
More serious is the fact that whole phrases are omitted. And shall make him of quick understanding Isaiah 11:33, and But he shall appear to your joy, Isaiah 66:5, are missing from the NKJV with many more well attested verses.
The Apocrypha was included in the first edition, 1611 of the AV Bible under duress. The translators did not want it. They sandwiched it between the two testaments but it is interlaced in Romish versions. The second edition omitted it and it has been out of all reputable publications of the AV Bible ever since.
UNCRITICAL NATURE OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM
The following paragraph is taken from HOMOEOPATHY What are we swallowing? I quote it here because it reveals a similar attitude that many take towards modern versions. The author, Stephen Ransom, is quoting Donald Gould, the former editor of New Scientist who warns of the dangers we invite by adopting laissez-faire reasoning in relation to homoeopathy.
| |
| "Why not make the most of what the non-conformists have to offer and [reject] uncharitable logic? There is, I suggest, a powerful reason for rejecting this superficially attractive option. Truth is a fundamental value. If we accept uncritical thinking in one area of our lives for the sake of convenience or because of the popular appeal of a seductive myth and the short-term comfort to be gained by believing in the unbelievable, or because the false answer lets us pretend we are completely coping with a painful problem we haven't truly tackled, then we are all the more likely to adopt the same strategy in other situations, from dealing with the family, to managing the national economy, and from chairing the parish council to handling the arsenals of nuclear weapons. The result is likely to be unhappy and stands a decent chance of proving a disaster. Irrational beliefs are always dangerously corrupting, even when they only relate to the cause and cure of piles." |
Homeopathy has been shown to have its roots in the occult. Those following this practice will inevitably have their minds warped against spiritual values and their minds will become closed to the truth.
The same uncritical thinking has been applied to the subject of modern versions. Along with alternative medicine we have the alternative bible. The only cry that matters is that it "works". The alternative bible is said to be easier to understand, and therefore better. Sources do not matter, though they are shown to be corrupt. The modern alternative bible must be good, they say, because scholars produced it.
But scholars can be most unscholarly in their work as was Hahnemann the father of homoeopathy. He was a very clever man. He was also a freemason and dabbled in the occult. Westcott and Hort, who "fathered" the RV were also scholars who applied unscholarly principles to their work. They concocted theories concerning the origin of the Received Text that have no foundation in history and have subsequently been shown up as false. They also dabbled in the occult.
Those who insist in promoting the critical text-the Greek text that serves the modern versions-are frequently found to be very uncritical towards that same text. They close their minds to its glaring inconsistencies. One major inconsistency being the huge conflict between the two leading mss of the critical text, the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. They differ in hundreds of places.
They close their minds also to the character of the so-called scholars of the critical text. Almost to a man they have been shown up as apostates who deny the truths of the word of God.
They close their minds to the methods used by these Textual Critics. They are governed by opinions rather than facts. Their opinion is that the Bible is no different from any other book and their methods of deducing what was in "the original" can be applied to any book.
THE CRITICAL TEXT AT THE END OF THE 19TH CENTURY
Nestle's Text
Nestle produced his Greek New Testament in 1898. Westcott and Hort had already produced theirs. JND had already produced his translation from a variety of Greek texts according to his whim. Nestle's text (17th ed.1941) was used to produce the N.T. of the RSV in 1946. The 'Here's Hope Jesus Cares for you Roman Road Edition of the New Testament New American Standard, 1960' used the 23rd ed. Of Nestle's Text.
Not all modern versions follow Nestle of course. The RSV Catholic Edition, 1993, is based on the UBS 3rd ed. Greek Text, now replaced by the 4th ed. Which is identical to the Nestle-Aland 27th ed. Greek Text. Confused? Doesn't Satan intend you to be?
Now some facts about Nestle himself. Firstly, in common with all textual critics, he did not believe in verbal inspiration. He wrote of 'the possibility that what the author wrote…. Was not what he thought or intended to be read'. (Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, p23; Williams and Norgate; 1901).
He did not think that God wanted to preserve His word beyond Apostolic days, for, writing of the disappearance of the original manuscripts he wrote, 'Their disappearance is readily understood when we consider that the greater portion of the New Testament, viz. the epistles, are occasional writings never intended for publication, while others were meant to have only a limited circulation'. Ibid. p156)
So the book we call the Holy Bible is not really God's book anyway. Nestle thought that God never intended the Church to have any settled, enduring Book. This gives men licence to mess around with it just as they fancy. Certain men crept in unawares. You recognise them today when they pronounce from the platform, 'The Nestle Text renders it.…'
Nestle taught that the NT is to be regarded as no different to any other work of literature. He wrote, 'the task and the method [of textual criticism] are the same for all literary productions.' Thus any element of faith is rejected together with divine intervention in the giving of Scripture and its preservation. He goes on, 'the task is to exhibit what the original writer intended to communicate to his readers.' (Ibid.p156). Note "intended"! The concern is not with what was actually written but what the critics think the writer intended to write if only he could have expressed himself satisfactorily.
That is the history of textual criticism. Most alterations to Scripture were made in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD by heretics such as Origen who thought they knew better than the writers of Holy Scripture what should actually by on the sacred page. Modern critics now spend their time shuffling through a few ancient manuscripts looking for changes that will substantiate their warped views of /Scripture. We point out that the vast majority of manuscripts support the text of the AV.
That modern critics believe that the NT writers needed to be corrected from time to time is seen when G D Fee wrote, 'For the early Christians, it was precisely because the meaning was so important that they exercised a certain amount of freedom in making the meaning clear.' (Studies in the Theory and Method of NT Textual Criticism; 1993;p195). What a wicked smear! We have an alleged example in Mk.1:1. The critics tell us that Mark actually wrote 'It is written in the prophet.' And then he quotes Malachi and Isaiah, not appreciating that they were two separate prophets. Early Christians realising Mark's blunder altered the reading to the form found in the AV, as it is written in the prophets. If that should be true then obviously neither form can be God-breathed Scripture for God cannot inspire error and God does not inspire alterations to His word.
THE CRITICAL TEXT AT THE END OF THE 20TH CENTURY
There are essentially two Greek texts upon which th NT mat be translated. One is the Received Text from which the AV has been translated and the other is what is currently described as UBSGNT4. This is the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament Fourth Edition. It is regarded as identical to the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament 27th Editing and has come to be adopted as the Standard Greek New Testament upon which all modern translations are based.
It is called a Critical Text because it is based on the works of modern textual critics who regard the Received Text as uncritical, i.e. there was little discernment as to the 'best' mss. to be used. Many of our brethren, when referring to the Critical Text, do not know what that text is. Basically it is the Westcott/Hort text from which sprang the RV, and is which has evolved into the UBSGNT4 which its compilers confess to be virtually identical to the W/H text.
The UBS was formed in 1955 under the management of NIDA, a notorious apostate and enemy of the word of God. The first UBSGNT was produced in 1966. The second edition came out in 1968 with Carlo Martini of the Pontifical Biblical Institute on the editorial committee. Martini is tipped to be the next pope. From this time all GNTs, and therefore all new translations, have been dominated by
The UBSGNT uses a rating system in its apparatus to indicate the degree of presumed reliability of its text and variant readings. They are:-
{A}The text is certain.
{B}The text is almost certain.
{C}The editors had difficulty in deciding which variant to place in the text.
{D}The editors had great difficulty arriving at a decision.
What this means is that every time there is a different reading available, it is either placed in the text if regarded as [A], or placed as a footnote if regarded as {B}, {C} or {D}.
What is not so clear is that readings peculiar to the Received Text are discounted entirely. That is, verses found only in the AV have been abandoned as not worth considering at all. We are not surprised to learn that the {A} variants are predominantly from the Vaticanus/Sinaiticus mss.
The text itself is virtually the same as W&H's 19th C. text. It is just that there are now far more {A}'s given in the apparatus. This means that although very little alleged improvement in the text has actually been made by the critics in the last 100 yeas, they are now fully persuaded that they have been right all along.
Kent Clarke, in his book Textual Optimism; A Critique of the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament; Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. realizes that these critics have gone too far. If they become too optimistic about the text, they put themselves out of work; further revisions become unnecessary. He urges that there must still be doubts about the Greek NT even after 100 plus years. But we say that believers have had no doubts for the last 2000 years.
These are more of Clarke's observations:-
The NT text needs to be updated regularly, 'Progress in the study of the New Testament textual criticism inevitably makes it necessary to bring printed editions of the NT up to date at regular intervals. It is therefore not surprising that Nestle's Text has undergone twentysix revisions since 1898.' the idea of a settled word of God is not acceptable to critics. They certainly do believe in an evolving bible.
IS THE KING JAMES VERSION PERFECT?
When a salesman disparages his wares, we think his business must be in trouble, or perhaps he is going to change his line. M Penfold of Penfold Book and Bible House finds fault with the Holy Bible in a leaflet titled Is the King James Version Perfect? Is his attack on the Authorized Version because he now sells the perverted NKJV, we ask? What else drives a man to attack the word of God? Mr Penfold has for many years sold only the Authorized Version of the Holy Bible, together with a range of books defending the AV Bible. He published a leaflet in 1994 with the title The N.I.V. and G.N.B. Shocking – Exposé- in which he used the AV Bible as a standard by which to judge the NIV and the GNB. Furthermore, in this leaflet he gave "Seven Reasons for Keeping to the Authorized Version".
The first reason is "Its New Testament is based on what is now called the Textus Receptus (sometimes called Majority, Traditional or Byzantine Text). This text is backed up by 95% of all Greek manuscripts. It is accurate and has been faithfully preserved." Mr Penfold now denies this but hasn’t given any evidence why he now thinks this to be false.
The second reason "it is a formal equivalence translation, as near word for word as possible". So we plainly shall find nothing better.
Thirdly, "It was translated by a committee of spiritual scholars of unparalleled learning". That means even yet unsurpassed, including the NKJV committee.
Fourthly, "It emphasises the deity and Lordship of Christ.
Fifthly, "It is free from doctrinal error".
Sixthly, "It has no verses or passages missing". So what is this nonsense of looking for other manuscripts, if we have it all and it is accurate? We note that the NKJV subtly questions the authenticity of forty-five verses in its margin.
Seventhly, "It is easier to memorise, and easier to read than the NIV".
In his current attack on the AV he points out what he thinks are mistakes in the Bible. He refers to the Bible as the "KJV". He mocks those who believe this Bible to be wholly the word of God, describing them as "KJV onlyites".
If Mr Penfold insists that he is not referring to the Holy Bible but to a version of it, he falls foul of the trade descriptions act, for he has sold AV Bibles with the words "Holy Bible" stamped upon the cover.
The words "Holy Bible" imply that within the covers of the book is to be found the whole word of God without error, without loss and without addition. This is the view held for hundreds of years, now under attack in these closing days of God’s grace.
In order to attack the Holy Bible, Penfold describes an American group that he has stumbled upon, "mainly independent Baptists from the USA, [who] have come to hold an erroneous view that the KJV is not just a very good, or even the best translation in the English language, but that it is absolutely perfect and faultless." But we suggest that the true Bible believer will indeed have such an implicit trust in his Bible, and this is the historic position.
Penfold alleges that one of the leaders of this "KJV Only" movement is Dr Peter Ruckman of Florida, This thrice married man, who holds to a number of strange doctrines does not lead any but his own little cult as Mr Penfold knows very well, having spent some time in his home in Florida. He is not representative of the vast majority of Bible believers. Am I to reject my Bible because M Penfold has found a few extremists who make false claims for it? Of course not, we are told, "a simpler solution would be to update words whose meanings have changed." An attempt to do this was made with the NKJV, with disastrous results. Then there will have to be another update next year as language changes even more. The salesman finds he cannot make a living from one unchangeable Book!
M Penfold responded to my request for a copy of his leaflet with these words,
| ….I have only had two written responses to my leaflet. One from D- and one from A- , both fanatical Ruckmanites. Speaks for itself. Other than that a good number of more balanced folks have spoken of great help received. ….I can just see the next edition of Waymarks with the main headline "Penfold apostatises"- however, I have long believed that KJV perfectionism is an error and a divisive one at that, and having seen some of the damage it has done I decided to balance the ship as far as our own booklist is concerned and publicly make it clear that while we stand for the TR and the KJV we do not accept the perfection theory. Regards, Michael |
Michael knows that Waymarks does not carry main headlines. He says that he has "long believed that KJV perfectionism is an error" but we can remember NOT SO LONG AGO that Michael tenaciously defended the position he now rejects. As far as "Penfold apostasies" is concerned, we need only to add, "you said it!". But we do not believe every person who questions the integrity of the AV Bible is an apostate. Some are believers who have been misled and misinformed by other brethren. Some are young believers, confused by the barrage of modern versionism put up by Satan.
Michael doesn’t say what is this damage done by having a total trust in one Bible mightily blessed of God over hundreds of years. He doesn’t explain why believing in a perfect Bible is divisive. But we have seen the damage done to the faith of young believers who are told by leading brethren "the AV is wrong here". And there is nothing so divisive as the proliferation of modern versions. He assumes that only unbalanced folk will write for his leaflet.
We wonder what kind of people are they who are helped by being told the Authorized Version Bible is defective in thousands of places. Are they pleased to learn that the Bible mightily blessed and used of God for 400 years is at last proved to be faulty? How can a thoroughly negative piece of writing help anybody apart from the writer, who charges folk 30p a time to read it?
Here is another strange thing ¾ many of the supposed errors discovered by Mr Penfold are well answered in some of the books he sells! Is he not familiar with his own goods? Does he not believe in them? Two I have in front of me are Unholy Hands on God’s Holy Book by David Cloud, and The King James Version Defended by E F Hills. These are highly recommended to the believer who wants the answers to the malicious smears being made against the Holy Bible Authorized Version.
Now here are some of errors that Michael lists.
"The 1850 KJV differs from the 1611 edition in 75,000 details." He doesn’t tell his readers that very nearly ALL of those 75,000 involve changed spelling; v to u, so "vntill" becomes "until" and sometimes u is changed to v, as "euill" becomes "evil". f becomes s, and I becomes j.
Dr Waite points out that only 421 changes can be detected by the ear. Penfold draws attention to this as a Big Thing. He forgets to tell his readers that there are 791328 words in the AV Bible. That’s about 0.05% of the words changed sufficiently for the ear to detect. It doesn’t imply that the meanings of these words has changed. Out of those 421, only 136 are actually different words. An example is "…he came and worshipped him" (Mark 5:6) becomes he ran and worshipped him.
Of course there were printer’s errors made in 1611AD. What a miracle that there were not more with printing then in its infancy. But these were discovered and corrected in later editions. One has to be very devious to suggest that printer’s errors are mistakes in the word of God.
M Penfold has built up his straw man, calling him a "KJVOnly advocate" and advises his readers to ask what he thinks is an unanswerable question, "where was God’s word in 1610?". M Penfold then puts his answers into the mouth of Mr Strawman but fails to give the answer any Bible believer will give. Where was the word of God in 1610AD? It was in the hands of believers on the Continent. The Waldensians for 1000years had their Old Latin translation based on what became known as the Received Text. That is, their Bible was the same as mine, the word of God.
Thus it is a misnomer to call English speaking Bible believers "KJV Only advocates.". God has not promised to maintain His word in every known language across the world at all times. But there never has been a time when the word of God was not available in its entirety to believers somewhere in the world. At present the Authorized Bible is the only faithful translation in the English tongue (and in this, I do believe, it is superior to any Bible in any other language.) I find no substitute for my AV Bible so if M Penfold wants to mock me for it let him continue.
M Penfold speaks of imperfections in the Holy Bible. (Sorry Michael, MY Bible IS the Holy Bible and ONE imperfection¾ one fly in the ointment¾ would cause it to stink, to become unholy.). These "imperfections" were answered 100 years ago. The imperfections are in the darkened minds of those who seek to savage the word of God.
This offensive leaflet closes with a quote from J Burgon. It is quoted out of context making us think that M Penfold had not troubled himself to read J Burgon beforehand.
He quotes
| |
| "…that by perpetual miracle, sacred manuscripts would be protected all down the ages against depraving influences of whatever sort, was not to have been expected; certainly was never promised" (The Revision Revised, p.335) |
The quote presented in this manner is dishonest and deceitful for Burgon in the very next sentence wrote,
| |
| "But the Church, in her collective capacity, hath nevertheless as a matter of fact been perpetually purging herself of those shamefully depraved copies which once everywhere abounded within her pale. "What, in the meantime, is to be thought of those blind guides those deluded ones who would now, if they could, persuade us to go back to those same codices of which the Church hath already purged herself? To go back in quest of those very |
The NKJV (sold by Penfold Book and Bible House, but not listed in his catalogue) is certainly a step back into those depraving influences, which were recognised for what they are from the beginning.
Another argument used in the Penfold leaflet is that some passages are "almost impossible to understand without a study aid of some kind. What use is a ‘perfect’ English translation if you can’t understand parts of it? Take for instance II Cor 6v11-13. What does this mean…?"
Most of us have a very good study aid; we were taught to read English when we were children. When a man claims to have been saved a quarter of a century or more and then asks, what does this mean? We ask, has he only just started reading his Bible. Did he not discover the answer years ago? Did he not have an elder or a father to explain it to him?
In any case, the AV is written in plainer and simpler English than any modern version. Peter wrote concerning Paul’s epistles, in which are some things hard to be understood (2 Peter
Penfold closes with a false surmise;
| |
| If God, before the invention of printing, kept His promise of preservation by letting the word of God exist as a complete entity across thousands of manuscripts, but not in any single perfect manuscript, there is no need, nor is it possible, to confer infallibility on one English translation today. |
So is God then the Author of confusion? All should know that by the middle of the 2nd Century the New Testament writings were collected in one Book. It was available in the Syriac tongue, and in Old Latin. These were in agreement with each other and have been referred to by some as the Byzantine Text.
J Moorman, in his book For Ever Settled, says
| |
| The King James Bible had hardly begun its career before the enemies commenced to fall upon it. Though it has been with us for [more than] three hundred years in splendid leadership —a striking phenomenon—nevertheless, as the years increase, the attacks became more furious. If the Book were a dangerous document, a source of corrupting influence and a nuisance, we would wonder why it has been necessary to assail it since it would naturally die of its own weakness. But when it is a Divine blessing of great worth, a faultless power of transforming influence, who can they be who are so stirred up as to deliver against it one assault after another. (p. 191) |
Despite all the efforts of the critics, Clarke bemoans the fact that 'All the [75] critical editions since 1881 are basically the same as Westcott & Hort's text....All are founded on the same Egyptian recension....' p53. '... We have made little progress in textual theory since W&H and whatever significant second act is to follow....' p121.
Note that ! They are waiting for the great WHATEVER. One of them will perform a conjuring trick and out of his hat will come the great and final Greek Text. The critics will all receive their 'golden handshakes' and we can all go home to bed.
But they know they are beaten. They know there is no golden text waiting to be discovered. The Sinaitic dustbins (from whence came the Sinaitic mss of the RV) have been well scoured. There is nothing for them but more miserable W&H. the1000's of mss discovered since W&H only serve to vindicate the Received Text. This is acknowledged by Clarke, '....The new papyri discoveries have apparently shown that an early form of Syrian/Byzantine readings...existed prior to the fourth century, and perhaps as early as the second century'. So these are just brushed aside as coming from one depraved source. Well, we know that is the situation with the critical text. It comes from a polluted source. A text that describes Joseph as the father of the Lord Jesus hardly came from a pure source.
THE CORRECTED TEXT
| |
| "If we must receive the Corrected Text of M. Griesbach, [regarded by many as the father of modern textual criticism], to the exclusion of the Greek Vulgate [=Received Text], we must accept it as a demonstrative proof of the general corruption of the sacred text, and of the faithlessness of the traditional testimony on which it is supported, for a period extending from the apostolical to the present age. One of the first positions laid down in his critical theory, and implied in the conclusions which it involves, is, that the two principal Classes of Text out of which his edition is formed, have been interpolated in every part of them for that period. One of the last consequences which that theory tends to establish, is, that the only remaining Class of Text existing in the Greek Vulgate, and against which the immense number of 150,000 various readings has been collected, has existed in its present state of corruption nearly 1400 years. If these conclusions are unavoidable, there seems to be no reservation by which the doctrinal integrity of the sacred Scriptures can be saved. If the apostolical age has thus erred in its testimony, and its evidence has been further corrupted in the primitive age; whatever be the text, which is gathered out of the immense number of various readings, which make up the sum of their testimony, it may be as well any other text, as that which the inspired writers originally delivered to the church." -Fred Nolan; An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate; 1815. |
What Nolan pointed out, well nigh 200 years ago, and 66 years before the RV was published, was that if the sacred text has been corrupted from the beginning then we have no hope of certainty as to the word of God. Further; statements concerning the faithfulness of God in preserving the Scriptures are false.
The work of the Textual Critic is to iron out all that he sees as corruptions in the Scriptures. This is the very foundation stone of Textual Criticism. It is the heart of modern versionism. Griesbach published his Greek NT in
Ours is no blind adherence to an antiquated and forlorn book. The word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword. Heb.4:12. Our Book is living. It has an inherent vitality, and if it can age and fall into decay, then so can God. It is His word. More than that, it is Christ. His name is called The Word of God. Rev.19:13. Attacks on the Scriptures are attacks on Christ. If the written Word can be proved defective then Christ is proved to be defective.
THE STATUS QUAESTIONIS
In 1995 a book was published titled 'The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research; Essays on the Status Quaestionis.' Edited by B D Ehrman and M W Holmes.
The title cries unbelief. The use of Latin in the title is to give the impression that the work is scholarly. The text of the New Testament requires no contemporary research. It did in the 16th century and Erasmus, Stephens and the Elzevir brothers applied themselves to this, producing what became known as the Received Text. This text was accepted as the true text by believers in the 16th century and since. A fundamental reason for its acceptance was its agreement with early translations, documents, and quotations from the Fathers. This agreement is evidence that it is the text 'handed down' by the early church. The majority of all the Greek mss bear testimony to this text.
The text requires no contemporary research because it is a settled text. The critics hold to an evolving text, but they are running out of steam. Hence on the cover of this book we read, "Repeatedly one hears that rigor mortis has set in for textual criticism of the New Testament. But the present publication suggests that in place of lamentation one ought to celebrate the pains a number of scholars have taken to ensure revival of the patient. Much of the credit for resurgence of interest in the discipline goes to Dr. Bruce Metzger, to whom this volume is dedicated." -F W Danker;
Metzger is a notorious heretic. He tells us that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, and that the miracles performed by the Lord did not happen. He denies any supernatural involvement in the giving of Scripture. Be assured that any further research from these critics will result in deeper apostasy. Lutheran theology has very little to do with sound Biblical doctrine.
The title of the book is false because it assumes an incompetent God Who took the trouble to give His word by inspiration to selected men but found Himself unable to preserve it. The critics tell us that the text could not be preserved intact word for word from the beginning because it was in the hands of weak and failing men who were liable to make mistakes in the transmission of the text. We answer that those men who first set down the word of God in writing were also weak and failing, but not in the matter of writing Scripture. They were then under the direct supervision of the Spirit of God. Since then the Scriptures have remained IN THE HAND OF GOD. He has chosen to use puny believers in the transmission of His word and if God gave His word by inspiration in the first place, it seems incredible to me, that He would then abandon His word to the vicissitudes of fate.
The first essay in the book deals with the papyrus manuscripts. These are of course the oldest documents of the NT. The critics hold that 'oldest is best' but this is a false surmise, because we must ask, why have certain mss survived and not others? First we note that no 1st century ms has survived (i.e. no original ms) The papyri discovered range from the 2nd to the 8th centuries. After that papyrus was no longer used.
All 96 extant papyrus mss were found in
There is a fourth text type that gets a brief mention since none of this type has been preserved among these earlier relics in the sands of
The believer sees no problem in the absence of Byzantine type papyri in
E J Epp confesses in this book that of the 47 earliest papyri, dating up to the turn of the third/fourth centuries, 'it remains doubtful, therefore, whether it can be said that in these forty-seven mss the NT text can be studied in the original'. His reason for saying so is the number of different readings that occur even among these few mss. The critics do not even know which was copied from which. We are assured however that these Egyptian copyists were not believers (i.e. were not saved men). Believers were faithful in their copying. In any case we believe that the original mss-the autographs-ended their days close to where they were originated, on the northern side of the
A note about the copying of Scripture.
A bible critic once offered a challenge. He said that it is impossible to copy any piece of prose without making a lot of mistakes. He argued that this explained the multiplicity of differences in the various manuscripts.
His statement is misleading, first because there is a remarkable unity in the majority of manuscripts. Only a few manuscripts display a depravity in the text. They are well known and are the ones 'preferred' by the critics. Two in particular being the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. They are preferred because in many instances they attack the deity of Christ and the critics DO NOT BELIEVE IN the deity of Christ.
Second, it is not impossible to copy without making many mistakes. Our critic suggested one might try copying the Gospel of John. I have copied longhand the first ten chapters. I made five errors in all; I spotted them myself; I changed them, and none affected the meaning of the sentence. For example I wrote Nathaniel instead of Nathanael; can instead of Can etc.
Believers were very meticulous in their copying of the first manuscripts because they knew they were handling Spirit given Scripture, the word of Life. Monks and professional scribes began to make copies but they did not think accuracy was too important. Later other illiterate monks made copies and decorated them with pretty pictures to make money. They were indifferent to the text itself. Today these ancient mss are worth great sums of money, but did you ever hear any person taking interest in what was actually written on them?
HIGHER CRITICISM
Whilst we accept a spiritual investigation into the background details of the Bible, as to authorship of the various books etc., what is known as HIGHER CRITICISM is a perversion of satanic origin, being the work of unconverted rationalists.
It involves a rank denial of plain statements of Scripture, often in relation to the miracles, and questions many of the historic facts of the Bible without offering conclusive evidence to the contrary.
A genuine believer does not, indeed cannot, follow this path. One of the first evidences of new life in a soul is the acknowledgement that the Bible is what it claims to be, the word of God, given by inspiration and without error. That this is questioned by many of our own brethren only highlights the apostasy of our day. If we have not such a book then we have an incompetent God who cannot keep His promises. But the indwelling Holy Spirit teaches the soul from the moment of conversion the truth of God's word.
The person who holds a conviction that there is error in the Bible will need to look to his own soul as to whether he is in possession of eternal life.
Doubts and anxieties may be caused by heeding the teachings of the Higher Critics, but a believer waiting on the Lord will gain assurance that these men are deceivers. All their lies were answered more than a hundred years ago.
The psalmist wrote I will delight myself in thy statutes: I will not forget thy word. Ps. 119:16. He would not have delighted himself in flawed statutes. Any who even think that there are faults in the Word will soon forget the Word. They will have little time for it. They wil not be men and women of the Book.
An example of the unbelief of the Higher Critics is found in their questioning of the chronology of Luke 3:1,2.
So, we quote Prof. Findlay: "Luke's attempt to relate the beginning of the ministry of Jesus to the life of the larger world creates two or three difficulties. Does 'the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar' date from AD 11, when Tiberius was made Augustus's colleague, or AD 14, when Augustus died? Probably the former."
Note that this professor could offer no more than "probably". He rated his own intellectual powers as of higher value than the recorded word of God. He gave no evidence for his opinion.
We turn to another rationalist on the same passage. I quote Prof. Plummer: "It is impossible to determine this with certainty. Good authorities (Zumpt, Weiseler, Weiss) plead for [AD 11] which makes the gospel chronology run more smoothly."
They "plead"! No evidence comes from these German rationalists. Believers are not impressed by this nonsense. they know that the Scriptures were given by inspiration of God, so that although Luke (and other writers of Scripture) were not omniscient, they were nevertheless divinely guided to record only truth by the omniscient all-seeing Spirit of God.
All the arguments of these scoffers follow the same pattern and can be dealt with in the same way.
As far as the first two chapters of Luke's Gospel are concerned, they have often been under attack, no doubt because of their content. It is here that we read in detail concerning the incarnation of Christ by means of a virgin's womb.
Some describe the opening words of Luke as of "classical" style, (Plummer), and others suggest that these verse are "poetical". There is an inference there that another writer, other than Luke, was involved. If that were so then 1:3 reveals that writer to be a liar and makes a liar of Luke who claims authorship for the whole. But there are no valid grounds for questioning the authorship of any part of Luke's Gospel, or for any part of Scripture for that matter.
It has been alleged that Luke's reference to Theudas (Acts
Impossible for the Spirit-led Luke to err, we say, but possible for Gamaliel and obviously so for Josephus. Again we say, believers are not bamboozled by the utterances of unconverted critics, clerics, and commentators.
Let God be true, but every man a liar. Rom.3:3
CHURCHES CORRUPTED BY HIGHER CRITICISM
The following is taken from an article first published about 100 years ago. The article is "Experiences of Assembly Life -Bypaths and their Dangers"; Present Truth Vol.10, No.113. 1999. I find myself in full accord with the doctrinal and practical teachings expressed. There was one paragraph, however, that stood out,
| |
| -"For as 'the churches' become more and more corrupted by the 'Higher Criticism' and avowed sceptical opinions of some of their Professors and Ministers, they must give up most of the vital truths of the gospel." |
I was thankful when I was received into the fellowship of a little gathering of the Lord's People more than forty years ago that I found myself in a company free from the taints of modernism. I have never wanted to be anywhere else.
As the years passed by I discovered with deep regret that the errors of Bible Criticism were as rampant among us they are throughout Christendom. For while most of our brethren disclaim Higher Criticism they seem unaware that the "Higher" sprang out of the "Lower" Criticism which they have embraced with so much enthusiasm.
| |
| "Criticism is divided into Lower, or textual, and Higher. Lower or textual criticism confines itself to testing the various editions of a work by examining the style, words, phrases and figures used in the text, until by this process it is able to settle the correct text; for until we have an accurate copy of the original there will always be some question as to the safety of the conclusions drawn. The 'Lower Criticism' having done its work in settling the text, in steps the 'Higher Criticism'….to ascertain and to settle….legitimate questions….is the person whose name is attached to the book really the Author?" Chapters on the Higher Criticism; F J Kirby. |
Our brethren from the start have swallowed the Lower Criticism lie. Darby, Kelly, Vine, Newberry were all influenced by rationalistic scholars. So today the text is questioned from all our platforms. "The AV is wrong here", "a better rendering would be", "the critical text puts it", "the original says", "this is an interpolation", that is a gloss", and so on. The result is faith in the inspired word of God is disturbed and vital truths of the Gospel are certainly being neglected. Preaching designed to bring a soul under deep conviction of sin is rarely heard among us. Repentance is no longer called for and a conversion experience is missing from the lives of not a few in fellowship among us.
Higher Criticism cannot be divorced from the Lower. A proof of this may be seen in the change made to Deut.1:1.No longer is it this side
A CRITICAL LEXICON by E W BULLINGER
This work was first published in 1908 and is now reprinted. A reviewer tells us that this work "offers the English reader considerable help in determining 'at one view, the Greek word with its literal and derivative meanings... for every word in the English NT'. The preface claims 'that many useless arguments would be saved if it were known precisely what was the exact force of the words' in a particular passage of Scripture!'"
We point out repeatedly that the Englishman does not need to know any Greek word. I also point out that I am not opposed to scholarship and learning. I am a schoolteacher. But we do have a settled standard definitive Bible. It is not evolving as is the so-called Greek text. The yearning to get back to the Greek is the product of rationalism. It is a rationalism that is not satisfied with what our God has given us in the Authorized Bible. I find such lexicons as Bullinger's fascinating, but not spiritually beneficial.
But note what the reviewer tells us. "Many useless arguments would be saved if it were known precisely what was the exact force...". The Greek lexicon (Bullinger's or Vine's, or maybe even Thayer's, becomes the final court of appeal. It is no longer "What sayeth the Scripture?" but what sayeth Bullinger (or Vine)? If there is "a useless argument" over the word of God, it can now be settled at the shrine of Bullinger. The Scripture warns us to shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. 2 Tim.2:16. When a man gets up in the Bible Reading to tell us what the Greek word is (because he has had time to look it up in Vine/Bullinger) it is mere profane and vain babbling.
Now a little about Dr. Bullinger. He was an Anglican cleric. (Yes, I know one or two of them have been believers.) This one had some very weird ultra-dispensationalist doctrines which gave rise to the cult of Bullingerism.
This is what he taught: "The four gospels are Jewish and do not apply today at all. Acts covers a 'transition period' and only when we come to the prison epistles is the 'Dispensation of mystery' revealed. Thus the church which is Christ's Body began, so it is claimed, not on the day of Pentecost, but some thirty years later. As for the ordinances, Baptism and Breaking of Bread, they belonged to the Acts period and have no place now, this being a spiritual dispensation."
The above is the extreme opposite to a-millenialism and is quoted from W Bunting's article on a-millenialism published in Assembly Testimony March/April 1962.
Can a man holding to doctrinal error be a reliable source for the understanding of the word of God? Beware the idol of apostate scholarship set high upon its gilded pedestal. Remember too when you look up a Greek word you are not reading what the word means, you are learning what the scholar tells you it means.
Bullingerism continues today in the "Berean Trust". One of their chief men was Charles Welch . Their HQ is Wilson St. Chapel,
REDACTION CRITICISM (aka Composition Criticism)
Redaction Criticism teaches that the gospels were not written by direct inspiration of God but by copying material from secondary sources (see Waymarks No.14 Misleading Views.
David Cloud in his monthly magazine, 0 Timothy, Vol.15, issue 7, 1998 gives six reasons why redaction criticism is false. I give just his headings below.
| |
| ‘1 If the redaction theories of the Gospels are true, we do not have an infallible account of Christ’s life. 2 If the redaction theories of the Gospels are true, we will never know for sure what part of the Gospels are fallible words of men and what part is the infallible Word of God. 3 Those who accept redaction theories are not edifying the flock; they are entertaining the scholars. 4 The alleged contradictions and problems within the Gospels which are raised by those who promote redaction criticism have been answ -ered satisfactorily without resorting to redactionism. 5 One of the errors which leads to theories such as redactionism is to focus on the method of inspiration rather than on the product. 6 1 believe redaction criticism is of the devil.’ |
Redactionists may be recognized by their use of words such as ‘the Synoptic problem’, ‘the composition of the Scriptures’, ‘the lost manuscript’, ‘Mark wrote his gospel first’, ‘the historical Jesus’.
Redactionists hold blasphemous views of Christ. Norman Perrin wrote, ‘the early church... .saw no reason to distinguish between words originally spoken by the historical Jesus bar Joseph from
We know too that the gospel accounts were given by inspiration of God so that we have faithful and true records of the life and ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ. it is therefore mere idle speculation as to which was written first.
The following is quoted from Believer’s Magazine ,Oct. 98, p.302:- In the previous article on Inspiration we found that there was a human element in the composition of scripture; divinely prepared men were used by the Holy Spirit to write in prose or poetry containing figurative and even symbolic language at times.’
There we have it again — ‘the composition of scripture’. In other words Scripture writers were not led to set down the inspired word. they were instead ‘used’ in its composition This is the Higher (Redaction) Criticism that we thought was dead fifty years ago
CRITICS ON THE RUN
D Wallace, a textual critic, wrote in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research; Eerdmans; 1995,
| |
| For the first two-thirds of the twentieth century, NT critics could speak with one accord: the TR had finally been laid to rest. …. |
The situation today is disturbingly different. Gone is the era when KJV/TR advocates could be found only in the backwaters of anti-intellectual American fundamentalism. A small but growing number of students of the NT in
We are reminded in this of how the Jews from
What a shock too for those critics who had laboured for so long to destroy the AV Bible only to discover that it is still very much alive, and hadn’t died at all. It must be understood that this is the purpose behind textual criticism, to destroy the written testimony of God. The struggle to arrive at the original text is merely a subterfuge. The critics confess that this goal will never be reached. However, the "original text" is ever with us, and we have it in the AV Bible.
We are seeing an awakening to the true Scripture and we are thankful for it. There are now many good books available defending the AV and the TR. The books by E Hills and Otis Fuller should be on every Bible believer’s bookshelf together with Burgon’s classic Revision Revised.
Wallace goes on,
| The Majority text movement…. began immediately after the epoch-making publication of Westcott and Hort’s The New Testament in the Original Greek and concomitantly the RV of the NT (1881). |
The AV Bible is not based solely on the Majority Text. Neither is it solely based on the TR. There are verses in the AV Bible that are neither in the Majority Text nor the Textus Receptus. Believers need to understand this. Jack Moorman has dealt adequately with this seeming problem in his books Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version and When the KJV Departs from the "Majority" Text. In these he supplies the ms evidence for each reading peculiar to the AV.
What complaint do the critics have against Burgon? They allege that he wrote with a vitriolic pen but they never give examples. He spoke the truth. I have read his book very carefully and I believe he spoke the truth in love. But here is their main complaint,
| The bedrock of Burgon’s text-critical views was a belief in verbal-plenary inspiration and the doctrine he inferred from it, providential preservation. On this foundation he constructed four arguments (which remain the main arguments of the Majority text theory to this day): (1) a theological a priori that God has preserved the text and that such a preserved text has been accessible to the church in every age; (2) an assumption that heretics have, on a large scale, corrupted the text; (3) an argument from statistical probability related to the corollary of accessibility (viz., that the majority is more likely to contain the original wording); and (4) a pronouncement that all early Byzantine MSS must have worn out. (ibid) |
The person who demurs at Burgon’s first point can hardly be saved. It is therefore at this first and most critical point that we separate ourselves from the critics. Textual critics have shown themselves notoriously hostile to the doctrines of verbal plenary inspiration and the preservation of Scripture. It is not possible to maintain these doctrines and to accept modern versions at the same time. Burgon’s other three points have been well enough established by other writers.
It is also false to suggest that Burgon was the first to stand against the critics. D Cloud in his book For Love of the Bible writes of the following men who stood for the AV/TR.: H J Todd MA published A Vindication of Our Authorized Translation in 1819, J W Whittaker MA published a defense of the AV in 1820. Then follow fifteen biographies of other 19th Century AV scholars. One other who deserves mention is Fred Nolan who in 1815 published his Inquiry into the Integrity of the Received Text. This book shows the corruption of the Alexandrian Text and demonstrates the verbal integrity of the Received Text. Nolan deals in depth with 1 John 5:7; 1 Tim.3:16, and Acts 20:28.
Wallace next criticizes E Hills as the man who ‘nearly seven decades’ later takes up the cause of the traditional text. He has this to say about him,
| He argued even more strongly that did Burgon from providential preservation, for in his view the TR and not the Byzantine MSS per se was the closest text to the autographs. His dogmatic convictions about providential preservation led him to conclude that Erasmus was divinely guided when he introduced Latin Vulgate readings into his Greek text! (ibid p301.) |
If divine guidance is denied to Erasmus then it must be denied to every translator. For why should any other translator receive it and not Erasmus? Critics will be quite happy with this of course. Their intellectual powers will not need the interference of the Holy Spirit.
If we believe it is God’s Book, divinely given, then we are confident that God will oversee its preservation from its origin and throughout the remainder of time, for the benefit of His people.
Having dismissed Hills, Wallace also dismisses the TR, believing that the Hodges / Farstad Majority Text of 1982 is the only serious opponent of the ‘Critical’ Text. Any still holding to the TR/AV will be regarded as anti-intellectual fundamentalists.
Wallace claims that,
| The Majority Text revealed concretely that the Byzantine text-type had been poorly represented by the TR. (ibid. p302). |
As though these are three different texts, or ‘text-types’. The Authorized Version is essentially the Majority text but there are some very significant differences. The Majority text excludes passages such as Acts 8:36,37 and 1 John 5:7. See again J Moorman’s book.
Wallace concedes that while both Majority and TR advocates may hold to verbal inspiration and preservation, the Majority defenders do not notice
| that to grant to preservation the same doctrinal status as verbal inspiration is to deny their own claims for the Majority text and to affirm the TR.(ibid. p306.) |
But Wallace will have the Majority defenders winning the day against the TR advocates, because they, the Majority defenders will not make the same fideistic leap that the TR people make. Their fideism, he writes
| is stripped naked at the bar of logic and empiricism…. A theological a priori has no place in textual criticism. (ibid. p306, 309) |
There Wallace spells it out again for us. The heart of the battle lies between faith in God and human wisdom; between saved men and women who know their God and unconverted scholars. This is why there are two bibles, the Authorized, and the rest (whether based on the Westcott-Hort-Nestle-UBS text or on the Hodges-Farstad Majority text.)
Only those who hold solidly to the AV Bible can hold to Verbal Inspiration and the Preservation of Scripture. The textual critic declares himself to be an unbeliever and we are to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness (Eph.5:9, Rom.13:12).
Thirty years ago Eldon Ladd, a leading American Textual Critic, proclaiming himself to be an Evangelical, sought to bring to an end ‘the bitter fundamentalist-modernist controversy which raged in the early twenties’ a consequence of which ‘has been the strongly negative attitude toward biblical criticism assumed by some of the successors to the fundamentalists of the 1920’s. Such people, according to Professor Ladd, insist that the critical method is basically hostile to the evangelical faith, and they have continued to oppose it’.
The essays in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research , and in particular, Wallace’s essay, show why fundamentalists (i.e. saved Bible believers) will continue to oppose modern textual criticism.
Ladd failed in his mission. His book The New Testament and Criticism did not impress Bible believers. One statement, given in his introduction and repeated on the back cover shows why he failed. It is this,
| The central thesis of his book is that the ‘Bible is the Word of God given in the words of men in history,’ and as such its historical origins must be reconstructed as far as possible. |
The child of God believes the Bible is the word of God given in the words of God, set down by chosen men and directed by the Holy Spirit so that every sentence, every phrase, every word, every syllable, and every jot and tittle recorded is that which God required to be recorded, without error, without human addition and without human subtraction.
Christ said, my words shall not pass away, Mat.24:35. The words of men do. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. 1 Tim.6:3-5.
The Bible is not comprised of the words of men. It is the critic who causes strifes of words and the injunction in this context is from such withdraw thyself.
Beware Bart Ehrman
Ehrman is an outstanding scholar and a leading world expert in Textual Criticism. His works have a great impact on the production of modern versions of the New Testament.
But Ehrman has been described in the Washington Post,
He claims to have had a “born-again experience” while he was a sophomore, but later abandoned this position, preferring to accept the teaching of his apostate professor, that Mark in his gospel made a mistake. This put Ehrman well on the road of apostasy himself and he ended up denying fundamental Bible teaching, in particular the resurrection of Christ. It was not long before he believed the Bible to be full of error.
On the American TV show The Colbert Report ( which I watched) Ehrman said he was an agnostic and did not believe in God.
He wrote,
I began seeing the New Testament as a very human book. The New Testament as we actually have it, I knew, was the product of human hands, the hands of the scribes who transmitted it. Then I began to see that not just the scribal text but the original text itself was a very human book. This stood very much at odds with how I had regarded the text in my late teens as a newly minted "born-again" Christian, convinced that the Bible was the inerrant Word of God and that the biblical words themselves had come to us by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. As I realized already in graduate school, even if God had inspired the original words, we don't have the original words. So the doctrine of inspiration was in a sense irrelevant to the Bible as we have it, since the words God reputedly inspired had been changed and, in some cases, lost. Moreover, I came to think that my earlier views of inspiration were not only irrelevant, they were probably wrong. For the only reason (I came to think) for God to inspire the Bible would be so that his people would have his actual words; but if he really wanted people to have his actual words, surely he would have miraculously preserved those words, just as he had miraculously inspired them in the first place. Given the circumstance that he didn't preserve the words, the conclusion seemed inescapable to me that he hadn't gone to the trouble of inspiring them.—Whose Word is it? Continuum, 2006: p.211.
The truly born again soul is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and CANNOT apostatise.
Ehrman studied under Metzger, another notorious apostate, and is now the leading Bible critic. He is determined to destroy all trust in the Scriptures and faith in God. He is no different from all the Textual Critics who have gone before him.
ANSWERS to a Correspondent’s Criticisms of the AV Bible
"Your note....I hope will not lead to the polarising of the saints"....
Polarisation began when the first copy of the R.V. was brought into the assembly. The recovery of assembly truth in the 19th century was made through the only available version, the A.V. There was no other bible used. This Newsletter (Waymarks) is intended to bring saints back to a united stand.
We understand you to mean that my urging believers to hold to the AV Bible is divisive. This is a very serious charge to make, but it is aimed essentially against the word of God. We know that some of our leading Bible expositors are declaring the AV Bible not to be the word of God. There is only one thing we can do with these men and that is to shun them. I do not sit under the ministry of men who fault my Bible.
"No-one has any right to tell another what bible they should use"
Not even elders in the assembly? Must we tolerate confusion? Must we say nothing when we know that modern versions are the work of unregenerate men who have used lies and deceit to produce their work? If the elders in the assembly may not speak on such a fundamental matter, what may they speak on?
"If [the AV Bible] leads to defective understanding of the mind of God, then one who is better taught may well, in love, seek to enlighten, as Aquilla and Priscilla or Apollos.
No child of God was ever led to a defective understanding because he used the A.V. Bible. That the Bible God has used and blessed for 400 years could lead a saint astray in any respect is a thought that sullies the mind. In 46 years of Christian experience I have yet to meet one individual better taught through the use of modern versions. Note also that Aquilla, Priscilla and Apollos used the same Masoretic text-based Hebrew Scripture; (that on which the A.V. is based). There is no evidence that they read the Greek Septuagint.
"In those countries where English is spoken, although I have no figures to back up the supposition, it would not surprise me if souls were brought to the faith by other means than by the A.V. of 1611, in greater numbers than by that revered translation.
What are these "other means"? Appeals, squashes, youth nights, coffee mornings, ladies tea-parties, pentecostalist froth and bubble? Or do you mean "other versions", though after 400 years the A.V. is still the world's best seller. Agreed, God is sovereign and a soul might come across a fragment of the pure Word of God amongst the 5000 changes made in every modern version, and be saved by it.
"It might surprise us greatly to know just what translation God has been pleased to use in people's salvation, and to feed them with spiritual food."
Well, never mind the Reformation! Just think of the mighty revivals of the 19th century. There have been no revivals since the modern versions began to proliferate.
"God is not restricted. Who can tell Him what He ought to use?
But may we not expect God to use His own Word—that which was settled in heaven before the world was made? Would He use the words of lying men, as Westcott and Hort have been shown to be?
"The language (Paul and his company) spoke was "colloquial", for they aimed to reach the people"
I cannot find evidence of this. The N.I.V. uses colloquial speech with grievous results. I would certainly never preach in colloquial English, for this would cheapen the gospel and I want people to understand what I am saying.
"It is the content of the message that counts....A postman would lose his job if he decided he would only deliver packages of a certain colour."
He might lose his job more quickly if he started to deliver unauthorised mail !!
ONE BIBLE ONLY?
The attack on the King James (AV) Bible continues unabated. There is a faction within the so-called evangelical world which is not content with promoting modern versions of the Bible, but is resolved to destroy our time-honoured Bible together with those who hold to it. These men are neither Romanists, nor Russellites but wish to be known as conservative, fundamentalist, evangelical Christians. Many of them prove to be neo-evangelical ecumenists.
Some of these have issued a book, One Bible Only?; Kregel; 2001., containing articles by D R McLachlan, K T Bauder, D K Kutilek, R E Beacham, R W Milliman, L D Pettegrew. All of these are associated with the Central Baptist Theological Seminary,
The gist of this book is that it is erroneous to believe that the word of God exists in total any one version or translation of the Bible. They insist that the true word of God lies scattered through multitudes of manuscripts. They say God never intended that His word would be preserved within the covers of one Bible. However, they assure us that any bible can safely be regarded as the word of God as the differences between them are of little consequence. One fly in the ointment is for them a trivial thing.
They go on to say that those they describe as belonging to the King James Only Movement are ignorant, controversialist, divisive, heretics, unorthodox in doctrine and practice (these are their words), and ought to be excommunicated.
But they cannot excommunicate those who have never been in fellowship with them.. Modern versionism goes hand in hand with worldliness and liberalism, and those who love the world are not saved. We do not seek fellowship with them.
We think these men are disturbed by the growing number of students applying to their seminary who hold to the AV Bible, and this is what lies behind the publication of this book.
They use the same attack as the Mohammedans: "The Bible has been changed." (I’ve spoken to a number of these people about this, and not one could tell me how, where, or what has been changed in the Bible). Our scholars allege that the AV Bible has been changed in thousands of places. They include in this the thousands of spelling changes where the ‘f’ is changed to the modern ‘s’.
They insist that there is no faithful Masoretic text because of errors in copying. This we show to be another lie. The care of the scribes and the Masorites in copying the Hebrew Scriptures was exquisite to the extreme.
These writers accuse Bible believers of "demonizing" Westcott and Hort. The evidence is that they "demonized" themselves. All the quotes I have read concerning these two men originate from their own pens. They admitted to experimenting with Spiritism. They have not been quoted out of context. Origen too is to be held in admiration because he was a scholar. This is the man who taught that the Lord was a created angel.
We come to the heart of the matter in relation to the doctrine of Verbal Inspiration. The modernist view is that inspiration applies only to the autographs (the original manuscripts) and when they disappeared then inspiration ended.
| The fact that zealous but misguided men of the past have ascribed inspiration and infallibility—a quality possessed by only the original Scriptures—to translations in Greek, Aramaic, Latin, Syriac, and German would lead us to suspect that some people might be inclined to make similar unfounded claims regarding some English Bible version. P.42. |
Yet even in the preface of One Bible Only? We find quoted all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. Why do they not say what they believe, —All Scripture WAS given by inspiration of God. The clear implication of the AV statement is that the Scripture, given by inspiration of God, still exists. Kutilek regards this as a heresy. The original manuscripts do not exist but God did not abandon His word to the sleight of men such as Origen, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Westcott, Hort, Nestle, Aland, Metzger, Darby as is alleged. The inspired word of God was carried forth by ordinary faithful believers through the centuries and none of it has been lost in translation. Otherwise the words all Scripture is given by inspiration of God are meaningless, and Scripture does not exist today anywhere.
The Myth of the Q Manuscript
Bible critics have been always critical to the doctrine of divine inspiration of the word of God. They reject the possibility of Scripture being God’s revelation to man. Thus they have to invent theories relating to the origin of Scripture. The apparent similarity of passages in the gospels is put down to folk-lore or the borrowing of the gospel writers from a common source.
About 150 years ago a theory was developed that Matthew and Luke based their gospels on Mark and a mythological document called Q. there remains not a shred of evidence to support this view and even Westcott was sceptical of it.
Q is an utterly mythological invention, a product of the Enlightenment. Nobody had heard of Q until the 19th Century. When I came across references to Q in my studies half a century ago I took it to be what it is—a rationalistic invention of the higher critics of the 19th C. designed to destroy faith in the inspired word of God. I thought it was no more than a fad of the 19th C. But this thing is again growing in popularity among the scholars. We shall soon have our devout conservative Bible teachers quoting it as an authority. You will know there is a movement in this direction when the public men begin referring to the “Synoptic Gospels” Synoptic means sean together, and relates to the first three gospels. From there you go to the common source view. The believer knows the common source is the Spirit of God and will then include John. The synopticists reject God and trust in their own creation of fables.
The Q myth has now been trumped by Thomas L Brodie. He tells us that there is a better source and more reliable than Q. He calls it Proto-Luke .It is based on the Septuagint. (The Birthing of the New Testament; Sheffield Pheonix Press; 2004).He writes:
In the long term, Proto-Luke works better [than Q]. It accounts for almost all Q texts, either directly ,indirectly (through its influence on the Mathew and canonical Luke0, or in conjunction with Matthew’s Logia. And it accounts for far more gospel data, beginning with Mark’s gospel. Inother words, it solves more problems than Q and does so more comprehensively.
The modern ploughboy, particularly if he is a born again Bible believer, will know this to be mere scholarly claptrap. The Spirit of God gave the word which we now have in our own tongue. I only bother to include this nonsense because in short time our eminent brethren will be quoting it from the platforms.
It must follow that if the early gospel accounts were produced from some yet undiscovered source, be it Q or Proto-Luke, there is no reason why they should not be further modified as new “discoveries” are made. Modern textual critics regard the verbal inspiration of Scripture as a discredited theory and if there ever was such it could apply only to the autographs. These disappeared almost as soon as the ink was dry so nobody can be too sure about anything today. Hence theories as to the transmission of Scripture abound.
Bart D. Ehrman has his theory. He has written about it in his book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture; the Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of Scripture; OUP;1993.
He writes
Theological disputes, specifically disputes over Christology, prompted Christian scribes to alter the words of Scripture in order to make them more serviceable for the polemical task. Scribes modified their manuscripts to make them more patently “orthodox” and less susceptible to “abuse” by the opponents of orthodoxy.
The Orthodox in early church history were those who predominated against the Heretical. Ehrman insists that it is not a matter of which party was right; he does not wish to make a judgment. It is just that the stronger side were officially the Orthodox. So they changed the Scriptures to accommodate their theology. Thus they produced the Byzantine text so-called to which our AV Bible is so closely related. We conclude therefore that they must be the heretical who in our day are so furiously changing the text back —to what we call the Alexandrian text. These “heretics” which include Metzger, Aland, those mentioned above, and many others, are now the Orthodox and born again Bible believers are the heretics.
But saved scribes would never have altered the text. They believed in the verbal inspiration of Scripture and knew from the beginning what was inspired and what not because the apostles knew and would have taught them thus. (2 Peter 3: 16) Saved men and women do NOT set out to deceive. Those first Christian copyists had a deep reverence for the word of God and believed every jot and tittle to be given of God. There is no way they would have thought to improve on what God had given.
It would not be feasible for one scribe to make his alteration and this to be found in all the copies of the “Orthodox”! The vast majority of the manuscripts of the “Orthodox” agree with each other. Only a few such as the Vaticanus and the Siniaticus show themselves to be seriously mutilated. The only way universal agreement could have been obtained (if God had not given the word in the first place) would be by the collusion of all copyists. This is more or less what Westcott and Hort thought had happened when they invented their recension theory —a theory which was very quickly discredited.
Believers would not consider altering the text because they believe God’s word was settled in heaven. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. (Ps.119: 89). Believers seek to continue in the faith grounded and settled, (Col.1: 23) and there is nothing more unsettling to faith than to be told that the Bible is defective in so many places, so much of it having been changed.
Believers do not accept an evolving Bible but this is the warp and woof of textual criticism. Ehrman begins his book with these words,
The one level I will be concerned with in the present study involves manuscripts of the evolving Christian Scriptures—what would eventually be called the New Testament.
Ehrman, as far as I can determine, has never made a claim to being saved. Not many Textual Critics are saved. A settled definitive Bible is a fundamental to the faith. Without it faith cannot exist. His bible may be freely altered, as all modern versions are. We are now getting updates of updates.
Ehrman mentions many alleged scribal interpolations. Some of these have been dealt within past issues of Waymarks. There is not one interpolation in my Bible.
Here is one evidence out of many listed by Ehrman where he believes the “orthodox” corrupted the text. It is in relation to the virgin birth of Christ. See my comments above, AV Verses Vindicated, Lk. 2: 33,48.
Ps.11:3 If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?
The foundation of our faith is settled in the word of God. Eph. 2: 20 tells believers that they are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone. If harm is to be done to the cause of Christ and to His people, Satan must do it through attacks upon the foundations. The Scriptures must be destroyed. This, the believer knows, is an impossibility for the word of God endureth for ever. But believers must be urged to question its authenticity—“hath God said?” was Satan’s first lie, right back in the Garden of Eden.
Satan has many apostate scholars in his employ who will impugn the word of God, but he knows believers will take little notice of them so he must use men who use the Conservative⁄ Fundamental label. He uses good, well taught Bible preachers.
THE ROMISH ATTACK ON SCRIPTURE
From the 19th century
the Bible Societies, until today the Bible Society which produces almost all the modern versions is well influenced by
Tyndale’s Protestant text was soon followed by others, Coverdale’s Bible 1535, ‘Matthew’s’ Bible (J. Rogers) 1537, the Great Bible 1539 (often know [sic] as Cranmer’s because of his preface to the 2nd edition.), Taverner’s 1539, the Geneva (Whittingham) 1560, and the Bishop’s Bible’ [sic] 1568; to which should be added the English translations of Erasmus’ Latin New Testament in 1540, and of Beza’a in 1576, the latter, by Tomson, replacing the New Testament in the Geneva Bible (from 1603). (The Authorized Version, 1611, of course, came after both
The above were the texts of which Dr Allen, president of Douay College, wrote in 1578: ‘Our adversaries , however, have at their fingertips from some heretical version all those passages of Scripture which seem to make for them, and by a certain deceptive adaptation and alteration of the sacred words produce the effect of appearing to say nothing but what comes from the Bible. This evil might be remedied if we too had some Catholic version of the Bible, for all the English versions are most corrupt…. If his Holiness shall judge it expedient, we ourselves will endeavour to have the Bible faithfully, purely, and genuinely translated according to the edition approved by the Church, for we have men most fitted for the work’.
The task was entrusted to Gregory Martin – The History of the Rheims-Douay version p.261
The 1958
We give below a comparison of some of its readings with the AV and the NIV. We note the similarities between the Westminster Version and the NIV readings of which
Matt. 1: 25
AV- And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son:
NIrV.- “But he did not have sex with her until after she gave birth to a son”. In this wretched perversion not only is the Romish lie of the perpetual virginity of Mary maintained but the discrete language of the AV is replaced with gutter phraseology.
Luke 14: 5
AV. -Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit….
WV.- “Which of you, if his son or his ox fall into a well…”
NIrV “Suppose one of you has a child or an ox that falls into a well…”
Griesbach, Greek scholar (?) and notorious Bible hater appears among the first (Critical Greek and English Testament; Bagster; undated 19th C.) to produce a Greek New Testament (1805 AD) reading uios (son) in place of onos (ass)
John 1: 18
AV. -No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
WV.- “God no man hath seen at any time; God only-begotten, whom is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”
NIrV.- “No-one has ever seen God. But God the One and Only, is at the Father’s side. And he has shown us what God is like.”
J. Moorman comments: “This is the classic Gnostic perversion with its doctrine of ‘intermediary gods.’ It is the trademark of corruption in the early Egyptian manuscripts which unfortunately spread to some others.” (Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version; BFT)
John 3: 13
AV.- And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
WV. “No one hath gone up into heaven but he who hath come down from heaven, the S on of
NIrV. “No-one has ever gone into heaven except the One who came from heaven. He is the Son of Man.”
The omnipresence of the Son is denied by omitting the final phrase.
Col. 1: 14
AV.- In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.
WV. “In whom we have redemption,”
NIrV. “Because of what the Son has done, we have been set free. Because of him, all our sins have been forgiven”.
through his blood is omitted in most modern versions. This omission prevents forgiveness of sins.
Col. 2:11
AV. -In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ.
WV. “In him again it is that ye were circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, the stripping off of your fleshly body.”
NIrV. “When you received Christ, you were also circumcised by putting away your sinful nature. Human hands didn’t circumcise you. Christ did.”
We note that Scofield follows the Romish text, calling for the omission of “the sins of” in his notes. The NIrV goes even further, claiming an end to our sinful nature so teaching sinless perfection – a nature that has nothing in it that can respond to sin. So we are all gods.
1 Tim. 3: 16
AV. -God was manifest in the flesh
WV. “Who was manifested in flesh.”
NIrV. “Jesus appeared in a body.”
WV and NIrV both deny the Lord’s deity.
2 Tim. 3: 16
AV.- All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.
WV.”Every scripture is inspired of God.”
NIrV. “God has breathed life into all Scripture.” The NIrV teaches here that Scripture first existed without life.
Hebrews 1: 3
AV. …When he had by himself purged our sins…
WV.- “Having made a cleansing from sin.” By removing “our”, the implication is the cleansing was from His own sin. It is a highly blasphemous reading.
NIRV.- “He provided the way for people to be made pure from sin.” This also is a denial of Christ’s sacrificial death. “The way” might be by ritualistic observances or self-effort. It was not a way at all. It was by Himself. “People” denies any personal application. It was our sins.
James 2: 20
AV.-But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
WV. -“Faith without works is idle.” So the vain man refuses to admit to his dead ( therefore non-existent) faith .
NIrV.- “You foolish person! Do you want proof that faith without good works is useless?” Both these perversions teach that you
can have faith and therefore be right with God without the slightest evidence of it in one’s life.
James 5: 16
AV.-Confess your faults one to another,
WV.- “Confess ye therefore yours sins to one another.” The change from faults to sins legitimizes the confessional box, and opens the way for lasciviousness. Lustful appetites are whetted by learning about the sins of others.
The AV word faults translates paraptoma, which can mean a lapse or unintentional error. The common verb for sin is hamartano.
This is the word that appears in v.15, if he have committed sins. These two words are NOT synonyms. Wilful sin is dealt with in v.15, faults are dealt with in v.16. Confusing these two issues is a serious error. Wilful mistranslation is a very serious sin.
NIrV- “So admit to one another that you have sinned.” These folk again follow the Romish lie.
1 Peter 2: 2
AV.- As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby.
WV.- “Yearn for uncontaminated spiritual milk, that thereon ye may grow unto salvation.”
uncontaminated spiritual milk so the word is removed.
J Moorman adds, “A classic salvation by works alteration which despite its uncial and versional support, cannot possibly be right.
The NIV/NASV translators did not translate literally here!!”
1 John 5: 7-8
AV. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
WV.- These verses are missing the underlined words
These words are also missing from most modern versions. Those who have any doubts as to their integrity need to read Michael Maynard’s book A History of the Debate over 1 John 5: 7-8; Comma Publications. Read also the T B S leaflet Why 1 John 5.7-8 is in the Bible. Particularly, read Jack Moorman’s When the KJV departs from the “Majority” Text, ch.6; B F T.
Rev. 5: 10 (Also see Rev. 1: 6)
AV.- And hast made us unto our God kings and priests, and we shall reign on the earth.
WV. “And hast made them a kingdom and priests to our God and they shall reign upon the earth.”
NIrV. “You have made them members of a royal family. You have made them priests to serve our God .They will rule on the earth.”
All the Bible critics have followed Greisbach with this alteration. Only only the sovereign in a kingdom can reign Not all members of a royal family can rule/reign at the same time. But God has made His people kings and they ALL will reign.
Rev. 22: 14
AV. Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life.
WV. “Blessed are they that wash their robes, in order that they may have aright to the tree of life.”
NIrV. “Blessed are those who wash their robes. They will have the right to come to the tree of life.”
There is massive manuscript evidence for the RT/AV reading. The WV/NIrV readings are popish.
The Scholar’s Nearly Accurate bible
“It is only in regard to one word in a thousand that the textual critics, by laborious comparison of manuscripts, have to determine the exact reading of the original text.” ¾A McD. Redwood; The Faith¾A Symposium;p327; P & I Ltd. 1952. (This book has been reprinted.)
When will they ever learn? The same old lies are still being propagated. Inspect any modern version since 1952 and see if only one word in a thousand is changed. And how did they select that “one word” in a thousand? By turning to seriously depraved (acknowledged to be so by themselves) manuscripts that had been known and rejected by the early church. Of course, these men had never seen the original text and so felt free to invent their own.
Redwood then quotes Kenyon’s book The Story of the Bible¾
It may be disturbing to some to part with the conception of a Bible handed down through the ages without alteration and in unchallenged authority; but it is a higher ideal to face the facts, to apply the best powers with which God has endowed us to the solution of the problems which they present to us; and it is reassuring at the end to find that the general result of all these discoveries and all this study is to strengthen the proof of the authenticity of the Scriptures, and our conviction that we have in our hands, in substantial integrity, the veritable Word of God.
Kenyon, along with all scholars, thought that only ignoramuses believed in the preservation of Scripture. Kenyon thought it more noble to rely on his own intellect to decide what is Scripture and what is not. He was proud to announce that through all his endeavours he very nearly had a bible he could trust.
Redwood, perhaps realizing that Kenyon’s views seriously undermine faith, and writing in a book supposedly giving a symposium of the faith, lamely closed his chapter How we got our Bible with these words¾
Let it be stated categorically that all the authorities in the field of textual criticism assure us that no single doctrine of the Gospel is affected by any of the variations still unexplained.
Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they? But “the authorities... assure us”? Are we not able to read for ourselves? Are we so ignorant that we don’t know what the “doctrines of the Gospel” are? What about the variations that are explained? Do we ignore them? Which are these unexplained ones and why can they not be explained?
In any case we know that doctrines are affected. David Cloud in his book Myths about the Modern Bible Versions lists fifty doctrines removed, weakened, changed, or added in the UBS Greek Text and the Modern Versions.
Because of these views put out by leading brethren in a past generation we have now a situation where anything goes. A few years ago brethren would read publicly from the AV Bible and then tell us why the JND New Translation or the Revised Version was superior. Now we find audacious men who mount the platform and read from the NIV or the NKJB. We have a situation of confusion and a decline in faith.
Beware Double Talk
“We believe this solemn truth [a literal hell fire] because we believe God’s holy word”. Harold Paisley (Ian’s brother); Words in Season; * 2002.
“It is our view that this is indeed the correct language of the text... “Death where is thy victory” 1 Cor.15: 55, RV.
Harold Paisley; Words in Season; May 2002.
Death in v.55 is translated from thanatos O death, where is thy sting? (AV).
But the Authorized Bible reads O grave, where is thy victory. Hades in every other place but here is translated hell. It is never translated death and doesn’t mean death though the dead are there. Thus H Paisley believes his “view” to be superior to the word given by the Holy Spirit. His “view” is that two or three Alexandrian Greek Manuscripts, rejected by believers from the beginning, are superior to the vast majority of manuscripts which comprise the Received Text on which our authorized Bible is based.
When H Paisley says “we believe God’s word” he is guilty of double talk. He believes a bible of his own making. “Death where is thy victory” is NOT God’s holy word. It is not His word a all.
It is double talk when a man states publicly (in this case J Hunter, internet audio) “we believe the Bible to be inspired” and then a few minutes later, announces only the original manuscripts were free from error. So we conclude he believed in a bible not free from error yet inspired of God. This view impugns the righteousness of God, charging Him with inspiring error.
It is double talk when a man tells his audience “the Bible can be trusted” but believes it to be less than perfect, flawed in many places due to scribal mistakes etc. His audience doesn’t know which are the mistakes and what is genuine.
It is double talk to suggest that God could keep men from error in writing the autographs (original manuscripts) but has been incompetent ever since; unable because of human fallibility, to preserve the Scriptures from error. If this should be true then God must be charged with dishonesty. The Bible contains numerous promises to the preservation of Scripture. Ps. 12: 6,7; Ps. 119: 89; Mtt. 24: 35; John 10: 35; 1 Peter 1: 22-25. etc.
