|
An Understandable History of the Bible |
| by Samuel C. Gipp |
| ||
Sections
There are just two kinds of
Christians. (Are all saved or not? We cannot tell; only God knows the heart.) One kind is that earnest,
honest number who are ever anxious to have the FACTS of a vital issue so they
may talk intelligently and stand for the TRUTH. The second kind are that
multitude of Christians (fundamentalists for the most part) who just do not wish
to be confused by the FACTS. Lenin, one of the founders of
communism, for once told the truth when he said, "Facts are
stubborn things." Indeed they are. There are so many plain FACTS
favoring the King James Version as being nearest by far to the originals
(which it IS) and far, FAR more accurate and authoritative than all
of the modern versions combined (which it IS), that it is
indeed a riddle wrapped up in a puzzle how so many truly born again, blood
bought Christians, when presented with the FACTS, become angry or sarcastic and
just do not wish to be confused by the FACTS. IF, kind reader, you are the
latter, may I be so bold as to suggest, if not urge, that you waste no time
reading further. This book is filled from end to end with FACTS that are fully
documented and they bring the whole Bible version issue into clear-cut focus.
There are no "gray" sections to it, it is all black and white. I confess there was a time in
my ministry when I extolled, read from, and recommended from the pul- pit some Bible
version that had just been published, solemnly stating, "This is the
nearest to the originals...easier to read...clarifies difficult phrases that
are weighed down with archaic words which need to be eliminated so the sense
will be better under- stood." When the Holy Spirit convicted me of this
sin, I asked His forgiveness, and He gave it. I keep always in mind, and REmind
as many as possible, that we face as of NOW the most vicious and
malicious attempted assassination of the character, the name, the Word of God
ever done on planet Earth since those blasphemous words were first uttered in
Eden, "YEA, HATH GOD SAID?" I have spoken to many in
meetings in this country and Canada and have stated flatly that this is a life
and death matter, for IF we do not have an infallible, pure, inerrant Holy Word
of God NOW (NOT in the originals which have been lost forever
centuries ago) to rest our weary souls upon for time and eternity, THEN
we have but one alternative or option, "Let's eat, drink and be merry, for
tomorrow we die and go to hell." I also keep issuing a
friendly warning - IF you SEE this issue and take your stand openly
and unashamedly for the King James Version as being your final, absolute
Authority, the true Holy Word of God, THEN you will lose friends and
make enemies. I gladly add that I keep on finding the NEW friends I
have made because of this issue, I would not exchange for the old friends I may
have lost - FOR ANYTHING! Some fifty years ago or more
when I entered the ministry, I knew THEN as I know NOW I had
the final absolute Authority from God Himself to guide me through this dark
tunnel called LIFE, beset on every side by Satanic traps. If I had not known
this for sure, I NEVER would have been a minister. I refuse to play
the hypocrite. Without God's true, inerrant
Word and His eternal Son the Lord Jesus Christ, "GOD MANIFEST IN THE
FLESH" Who has saved me by his grace and has done so much for me, and
still does, and will do throughout the long reaches of eternity, I say without
these two ironclad, life-giving FACTS, THEN the Bard of Avon would be
absolutely right when he defines LIFE in one of his plays; "LIFE IS A TALE TOLD BY
AN IDIOT, |
There is a controversy raging
today across America and around the world. Where is the Word of God? Answers to that question come
in all shapes and sizes. Some say that we do not have the Word of God anywhere
in this world. Others say that it is found in the Bible but is only that
portion that "speaks" to the individual. Some say it lies hidden,
locked up in the ancient languages in which it was originally written. Some say
we have every word wrapped up in one volume. Still others say that our English
translations are reliable but faulty at best. Where is the Word of God? This is an age of change and
confusion. The world without Christ is lost in a turmoil of fear and
indecision. Yet to this world, we Christians who have trusted Christ as our
personal Saviour, are taking, and have been taking for many centuries, a
message of hope, Jesus Christ. We make many claims for this
Saviour of all mankind. We claim that He was all man, and yet He was every bit
God. We claim that He was begotten by God through a virgin. We claim that he
lived among men for over thirty years but never once committed a sin. We all
know of His death on the cross. It is we Christians, however, who claim that
His death was not a symbolic gesture of a rebel dying for a "cause,"
but instead we say that it was part of a masterful plan by God Himself through
which He could make us acceptable in His presence. We claim that the blood shed
by Jesus Christ on that terrible, old, wooden cross was God's own blood, and
that it made the divine and complete atonement for the sins of all the world.
But our seemingly outlandish claims do not stop at the cross. We claim still
further that this same Jesus Christ was removed dead from that cross and then
buried, only to raise Himself from that grave three days and three nights
later. Then we claim that this supposed "dead" man walked this earth
for an additional forty days. This visit was climaxed, we say, when He, in plain
view of His disciples, rose bodily into Heaven to be seated at the right hand
of God. We bold sounding Christians
don't stop there, for on top of all this, we claim that Jesus Christ has not
left this world without a hope. We say that He is calling out a people to
Himself in this generation. We claim that through faith in His atonement, by
simply "calling upon the name of the Lord," we shall be saved. Not to
be stopped yet, we go on to say that we can predict future world events
including what we call the rapture of the believers. Still later we say that
this same Jesus Christ will return bodily to Jerusalem to set up His kingdom
and reign one thousand years. "Wild
claims! Outrageous! Unfounded superstitions!" shout our critics. Our
critics are quick to attempt to disqualify our claims -- to disprove them --
for these claims are completely contrary to the humanistic philosophy through
which mankind is attempting to "bring in the kingdom." Our critics
continue, "If the claims of these peculiar people -- these Christians --
are correct, then there is no excuse for not accepting them and repudiating the
misguided philosophies of all the humanists, the politicians, and the
socio-religious community. They can't be right! There is too much to
lose." So they seek to discredit our claims. Wild claims?
Seemingly. Outrageous? No more than some of the theories put forth by
scientific "freethinkers" of our day. Unfounded superstitions? Never!
And this is where the battle has raged for centuries and will continue to rage.
If all we had to back up our claims was our multiplied words expressing nothing
more than our opinions, then we are no better than our "scientific"
adversaries. No, these are not vain words or trumped up theories. We have a
Book! Oh, what a Book! Every claim that we make is contained in it. We
open it and let the arguments of our critics do battle against it with spears
made of rubber on horses with feeble legs. They are repulsed; defeated;
humiliated. They regroup and send in artillery, mortars, and missiles only to
find that the Word of God is better fortified than a concrete bunker. Then
suddenly it cuts them to ribbons, and they retreat wounded, grumbling, and
fear-bound. What was it about this Book that so aptly handled them and remains
unharmed? Its words! For this is not a novel. This is not a fiction
thriller. This is not a "science" book which must be rewritten every
few years to "keep up with the changing times." No, this is God's
Book, the Bible. This is God's Book, filled with God's words.
Immortal, indestructible, infallible, immovable and unchanging. What a
marvelous Book! What power! What an awful enemy to the silly theories of
mankind. The Bible. It stands tall, towering
high above its enemies. And it is ours! I shall never
forget the day I trusted Jesus Christ as my own personal Saviour. I was twenty
years of age. I was wild, rebellious and unhappy. I was lost and on my way to
Hell. I knelt at an altar where a great man of God took the Bible and leafed
through it, showing me the truths of salvation. Just before he led me in
prayer, he, in his wisdom, played a trick on me, a trick that God used to set
the course for my life. He looked over at me and asked, "Do you believe
that Jesus Christ paid for all your sins?" I replied, "Yes." "Do you believe that He
will save you if you ask Him to?" "Yes." Then the trick! "How do
you know it?" "Because you told
me!" I replied somewhat impatiently and a little put out. I had come to
get saved, and I felt like I was getting the run around. I saw no need at all
for that last question. "NO" What! No? What was going on
here? I had come to get saved, and now I was being made to look like a fool. I
had been intentionally set up just so that I would give the wrong answer! I was
angry! I was embarrassed! If his telling me how to be saved wasn't how I knew
it, then how was I supposed to know? I looked him dead in the eye and blurted
out my response almost demandingly, "Then, why?" His next action took me
completely off guard, but it plainly answered my question. He held that open
Bible up in front of me with one hand, tapped its open pages, and said with grave
finality, "Because this Book says so!" I was shocked! I remember
looking at that precious open Bible, and while trying to fathom this great
truth that had just been expounded before me, I said to myself, "You mean
that Book has that much power?" I knew the answer was yes. Then I humbly
bowed my head and my heart and put my faith and trust in Jesus Christ,
accepting His payment as my own. But I have never forgotten the lesson taught
to me so powerfully on the day of my salvation. The Bible. What a powerful Book! It needs no man's approval to assert its authority. The Bible. The Book that no man can conquer. The Bible. That faithful message from God. Never changing; never weakening. Standing defiantly as perfect, as authoritative, in a world that claims nothing can be perfect and that rebels at the thought of any authority, especially that of a book. The Bible. It is God's Book. |
Anyone who has ever played a
game, been involved in any kind of competition, or conducted any type of
scientific investigation knows that "ground rules" must be
established at the beginning. It is far better to know the rules before
beginning the investigation rather than to try to establish them as you go. If we are going to make a
study of the preservation of the Word of God, the rules we shall follow must be
established now. The rules we establish now will have a
direct effect on the conclusion reached at the end of our investigation. We
must be cautious as we seek to found these rules. We must free ourselves from
prejudice. We must establish rules which, firstly, will not contradict each
other and, secondly, rules that can and will be applied fairly to all evidence
examined. As in any issue with two
sides, the conclusion can not please all. Those to whom the conclusion is
favorable will commend the investigation for its fairness, while those to whom
the conclusion is unfavorable will obviously seek to discredit the method used
in arriving at such a conclusion. With this in mind, the most important portion
of our investigation will not be what evidence we examine, but the rules by
which we interpret that evidence. Much of the material to be
examined is not new but holds huge amounts of truth which have been locked up
and unusable due to the previously unfair method by which its testimony was
evaluated. To insure that this testimony will be thoroughly heard in an
unprejudiced court room, this writer seeks to establish plain, unprejudiced,
and spiritually sound rules by which to judge the witnesses. The voices of some
learned men will no doubt be heard to protest, while the voices of others,
equally as learned, will be heard to agree. The writer will not appeal to
either of these voices for approval but will seek to establish rules which even
those who disagree with the conclusion must admit are fair. These rules will
judge all the evidence fairly and completely so as to wring every bit of
worthwhile testimony from them. We must deal in facts and deal with the facts
fairly. As one scholar so aptly put it, "My leading principle is to build
solely upon facts -- upon real, not fanciful facts -- not upon a few favorite
facts, but upon all that are connected with the question under
consideration." First and above all in
importance, it must be remembered that the Bible is a spiritual book. If we
divorce this fact from our minds, it will be impossible to arrive at a valid
conclusion. Let me explain. First, God had His hand in
its inception. The passage that so quickly comes to the mind of all
fundamentalists is II Peter 1:19-21: 19 "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye
do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until
the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any
private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but
holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Note that Peter is stating
that the written Word is more sure than God speaking from heaven, a
voice which Peter himself heard (vs. 17, 18). There are many
"side-show evangelists" that would have us believe that God
"spoke to me last night." Peter says that God's verbal commands and
precepts are not as sure as His written words. Verbal statements are
not binding. They cannot be proven. But written words are not so
fluid. When God chose to put His words down in writing, He made an irreversible
decision. We can now hold Him to His words. Once those words have been written,
they are irrevocable. A God who would bind Himself to us so inescapably must
love us and truly desire for us to have His words and to be sure of them.
Peter also states that the
writers of Scripture did not write under their own power, but "holy men of
God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." God wants us
to see that He had His hand in it from the beginning. The words of those
original autographs were not the thoughts of God, but His very words, which
brings to mind a question. Why did God inspire His word perfectly? Obviously
the answer comes back, "So that man could have every word of God, pure,
complete, trustworthy, and without error." Amen! That statement touches
the heart of any fundamental, Bible-believing Christian. And yet, what if God
gave those precious words only to those early writers, then lost them in
history, diluted them with heretical teachings, and then locked them up in
prison where few could visit them and none could trust them? What if
these words and manuscripts, which have long passed off the scene, were the
only perfect words God ever gave us? What if it was impossible for us
ever to obtain those words for ourselves, in this present generation? Why did
God inspire them? Why write a perfect Book and then lose it? Why provide those
closest to Christ with a perfect Book but us, 2,000 years later, with a book
that is only a shadow of truth at best? A book filled with mistakes, spurious
passages, and doubtful readings! This is inconsistent with God's nature. The question is: Could God,
who overcame time (about 1,700 years transpired from the writing of the oldest
Old Testament book to the closing of the New Testament in 90 A.D.1)
and man's human nature to write the Bible perfectly in the first place, do the same
thing to preserve it? Let us look to see what the authority
says about such a thing happening. Psalm 12:6, 7 "The words
of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified
seven times. Thou shalt keep them O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this
generation for ever." Note verse seven! "THOU
shalt keep them O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation
for ever." The Bible, God's Word, says
that God will preserve His words. Verse six mentions the "words of the
LORD" and the "them" of verse seven is referring to those
"words." No, apparently the all-powerful God of creation will not
preserve His "thoughts" or "ideas," but He will preserve
His very words! Is He capable of that? Jeremiah 32:17, 27 "Ah
Lord GOD, behold thou has made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and
stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee:... Behold, I am the
LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?" Is a miracle too
hard for the God of miracles? Was the creation too hard for God? Was the flood
too hard for God? Was the parting of the Red Sea too hard for God? Was the 40
years of manna too hard for God? Was the virgin birth of Christ too hard for
God? Was the collection of the 66 books of the Bible written over a period of
1,700 years too hard for God? Was overcoming the human nature of the sinful
writers too hard for God? Is preserving the words of those writers too hard for
God? I think that inspiration
would be far harder to believe than preservation. Why is it that men of faith
sound out their convictions so loudly on the above mentioned doctrines (and
others) in which their faith cannot be pressed to the limit, but they suddenly
shrink from the thought that God, who could write His Book perfectly,
could preserve it? Why is it so easy to believe that God's great
miracles are all in the past, but He cannot work one now? Where are those
"words" that Peter spoke in II Peter 1:19-21? Where are those
"words" which David spoke of in Psalm 12:6, 7? Where are those
"words" which Jesus Christ Himself spoke of in Matthew 24:35 when He
said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not
pass away." Have those precious and
perfect words from the pens of Moses, David, Isaiah, Daniel, Matthew, Peter, Paul,
Luke, John and others been cast into oblivion? Have they fallen to the ground
to be trampled under foot of men, only to be replaced by something not
as pure, not as perfect, not as reliable, which we
'Bible-believers' are forced to pretend is the Word and the words of
God when we are in the pulpit, but in the quietness of our studies or in our
private conversations we let our infidelity and fear show as we check off
"mistake" after "mistake?" Is this God's method? I trow not. For if God wrote the Bible perfectly in the "originals," but we cannot have those same words in a volume of that Book today, then it would seem that He wasted His time inspiring it perfectly in the first place. We who are so far removed from the New Testament times need His every perfect word far more than Matthew, Luke, John, or Peter or the others who saw Jesus Christ in the flesh! They had their memories. They had His touch still on their brow. They had His words still ringing in their ears. All we have is the Book. All we have is the words bound between those black covers. It is essential that they be His every word, for they are all we have! So well has Wilbur Pickering put it when he said: "If the scriptures have not been preserved then the
doctrine of Inspiration is a purely academic matter with no relevance for us
today. If we do not have the inspired words or do not know precisely
which they be, then the doctrine of Inspiration is inapplicable."
2 Yes, if God has not preserved
His words as He said that He would (Psalm 12:6, 7), then He has done something
which He has never done before. He has wasted His time! The inspiration of the
original manuscripts was in vain if we do not have those very same words in
English today. So then we see that it is
important to any seeker of truth to always keep in mind that the Bible is
different from all other books, in that God had His hand in it. It is a spiritual
book. Anyone undertaking a study of the evidence of the New Testament, or
any other portion of Scripture, who does not take this into consideration
cannot possibly arrive at the correct conclusion. Ground rule
number one is: It is always to be remembered that the Bible is a spiritual book
which God exerted supernatural force to conceive, and it is reasonable to
assume that He could exert that same supernatural force to preserve. This brings
us to our next logical step. If God was active in the conception and
preservation of the Bible, then the supreme negative force in nature must
be active against it. This Book has an adversary.
Satan is against it! The Bible is a tangible item.
Like most books, it is printed on paper with ink. As mentioned above, however,
it must be remembered that it is a spiritual book in which
God has had a positive and an active part. It must also be remembered that
there exists in the world a supreme negative power, Satan. One general truth that we all
know concerning Satan is that he at one time had a position in Heaven. Iniquity
was found in him, and he was cast out. What was his offense? He wanted to be
worshipped as God! Remember that. The Bible records in Isaiah 14:13,
14, "For thou hath said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will
exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the
congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the
clouds; I will be like the most High." He wanted to be
worshipped as God!
Satan has not changed his goals. He still desires to be worshipped as God. To
be worshipped as God, he must imitate God. Satan is the great counterfeiter.
From beginning to end, the Bible records Satan's constant efforts to imitate
and replace God. In Genesis chapter three, we find Satan implying that he knows
more than God, and from this point, he influences mankind into obeying him.
When Moses displays the miracles of God through the plagues of Egypt, Satan's
magicians counterfeit as many plagues as they possibly can. Monasteries, mosques and huge
cathedrals cover the globe as a testimony to his religious fervor and as clear
evidence of his ability to extract worship from his followers. Call him
Lucifer, Baal, Ashteroth, Mary or any other name, but allow him the liberty,
and he will take a portion of truth and twist it in such a deceitfully
convincing way that if possible he could "deceive the very elect"
(Matthew 24:24). In Matthew chapter four, we
find Satan's last desperate plea to Jesus Christ was that He "fall down
and worship me." Satan is the great
counterfeiter.
For every genuine manifestation of God, Satan produces hundreds of carbon
copies. Look at the record: One God - many
"gods" Whenever God manifests His
power through some positive action resulting in a miracle, Satan manifests his
power in a counterfeit, but deceiving, way in an attempt to "steal"
God's deserved reverence. Note in Revelation chapter 13
how many times the word "worship" occurs in reference to Satan in the
form of the Anti-Christ. Notice also that this worship comes as a direct result
of Satanic, counterfeit miracles which are all imitations of similar true
miracles performed by God, by His prophets, or by Jesus Christ, which
resulted in God being worshipped. God knew of Satan's "standard operating procedure" and tried to warn Israel of his ability to counterfeit God's miracles. Deuteronomy 13:1-3 "If there arise among you a prophet, or a
dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the
wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other
gods, which thou has not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not harken
unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your
God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart
and with all your soul." Notice that God is aware of
the false miracles and is awaiting the outcome. To resist Satan's false
miracles is to turn your heart toward God. This is what happened with
Job. This is what would have happened with Eve if she had rejected his counsel.
Satan
wants to be worshipped. This is Satan's motive. Let us look briefly at a scriptural
record of the method he used in dealing with his arch-enemy, Jesus Christ. 1. Satan makes a direct approach to achieve his goal. Matthew 4. 2. He produces many "christs" to God's one Christ. Matthew 24:23, 24. (Christ had many witnesses. Even after death there were over 500 witnesses at His resurrection appearance. I Cor. 15:16). ( 1Cor. 15:6 ) 3. Satan can produce only two false witnesses to refute the testimony of many, and their witness does not agree. Matthew 26:60, Mark 14:50.
4. He produces a lie attempting to prove that the original Christ has been lost
and is nowhere to be found. This leaves the field open for his anti-christs.
Matthew 28:13, 14. Now remember, Satan desires
to be worshipped as God. Remember he is "the great counterfeiter." Now look at
the three most important things God has given to the world: 1. Jesus Christ - through Jesus Christ, God's plan of salvation has been wrought, and God has displayed to the world the coming King. Jesus Christ is now in heaven. 2. Christianity - The born again believers regenerated by the power of God, upon their accepting Christ's payment for their sins. The Christians reside on earth, physically separated from their Saviour.
3. Bible - The crowning work of the Holy Spirit. It is the lifeline
of the earthbound Christians to the Heaven-seated Saviour. If heaven were real, and it
is; if Jesus Christ died for our sins, and He did; if salvation were free, and
it is; if Jesus Christ is coming back to get His church, and He is; if He will
someday rule on a throne in Jerusalem, and He will; but if we have no Bible
to tell us these things, we would not know them! Truth does no good if we
do not know about that truth! The Bible is God's medium through which He tells
us all that we know about Him. If Satan can eliminate the
Bible, he can break our lifeline to Heaven. If he can only get us to doubt its
accuracy, he can successfully foil God's every attempt to teach us. The Holy
Spirit will lead us into all truth, but every truth He leads us to will be in
the Bible. If Satan is going to be consistent with his nature, he must attack
the Bible, the Word of God. Our second
rule to keep in mind, then, is: Satan desires to be worshipped. He has the
ability to counterfeit God's actions and definitely will be involved actively
in attempting to destroy God's Word and/or our confidence in that Word, while
seeking to replace it with his own "version." The two rules
which we must keep in mind at all times are: 1. It is always to be
remembered that the Bible is a spiritual book which God exerted supernatural
force to conceive; and it is reasonable to assume that He could exert
that same supernatural force to preserve. 2. Satan desires to be worshipped. He has the ability to counterfeit God's actions, and definitely will be involved actively in attempting to destroy God's Word and/or our confidence in that Word, while seeking to replace it with his own "version." |
For approximately one hundred
years now, a battle has been raging over the question, "Where is the Word
of God?" Surely we Christians cannot
expect a Christ-rejecting world to accept our Book as its authority. We can, of
course, expect rebellion. We can expect the world to make attempts to discredit
the Bible's reliability. The battle of the lost theologians against the Bible
has been waged since the Garden of Eden. But the war that I am
referring to is not the war between the lost world and born again
Christians. For the last one hundred years the same kind of war has been raging
within Christian ranks! Up until the late 1800's there was, generally speaking,
only one Bible, the Authorized Version. There had been others, but the translation
instituted by King James I in 1603 A.D. and published in 1611 A.D. had become
known not just in England, but throughout the entire world as the
"Authorized" Version. It is a historical fact that the King James
Bible had become known as the "Authorized" Version due to its
universal acceptance among Christians of the world, and not due to a
proclamation from King James himself. Hills states: "Although it is often called the 'Authorized
Version,' it actually was never authorized by any official action on the part
of the Church or State. On the contrary, it's [sic] universal reception by the
common people of all denominations seems clearly to be another instance of the
providence of God working through the God-guided usage of the Church."3 Ruckman points out: "As
anyone knows, the A.V. 1611 had no royal backing, no royal promoting, no act of
Parliament behind it, and the University Press was allowed to print any
other version of the Bible along with it." 4 McClure states concerning the King James Bible: "Its origin
and history so strongly commended it, that it speedily came into general use as
the standard version, by the common consent of the English people; and required
no act of parliament nor royal proclamation to establish it's [sic]
authority."5 As well, the footnote from
the above reference in McClure's book reads as follows: Says Dr. Lee, Principal of the University of Edinburgh: "I do
not find that there was any canon, proclamation, or act of parliament, to
enforce the use of it. 'The present version' says Dr. Symonds, as quoted in
Anderson's Annuals, 'appears to have made its way, without the interposition of
any authority whatsoever; for it is not easy to discover any traces of a
proclamation, canon or statute published to enforce the use of it.' It has been
lately ascertained that neither the King's private purse, nor the public
exchequer, contributed a farthing toward the expense of the translation or
publication of the work." Then in the mid to late
1800's a theory was initiated by two scholars of the names Brooke Foss Westcott
and Fenton John Anthony Hort. This is the theory that the Traditional Text was
a "conflate" text produced by editors and not merely by scribes.
Their theory has remained over the years, as Darwin's theory of evolution has remained,
just a theory. It has never been proven and has in fact lost
support over the years. Fuller confirms this when he records Martin's statement
that "the trend of scholars in more recent years has been away from the
original Westcott-Hort position."6 Their theory will be looked
at in depth in a later chapter of this book. By 1870
England was ripe for Westcott's and Hort's radical ideas, and their Greek Text
was used by the Revision Committee of 1871 and by every revision and version
ever since. The battle began! Which text
is closest to the "originals?" And, of course, the ultimate question:
"Do we have a perfect Bible in English today?" Today, three-quarters of the
way through the Twentieth Century, Christianity is still divided over the
question, "Do we have a perfect Bible in English today?" This battle
will probably continue for the remainder of this century and well on into the
next, if the Lord tarries His coming. Do we have a perfect Bible in
English today? This is not an amazing question at all. In fact, it is quite a
natural question that comes to every Christian at one time or another. Surely a
naive babe in Christ would never approach an unbelieving scholar with this
question and then lay the Bible in his hands so that he may do with it as he
pleases. Surely he would not lay God's book at man's mercy. If he would, he
should not be surprised when the scholar's answer, flowing in terms not easily
understood, comes back, "No." Unbelieving scholarship is
its own authority. It does not need any competition from a book! Unregenerate man goes about
believing a theory that man has evolved and was not created. Yet when
this theory is examined scientifically and logically, it cannot
be proven to be true. Does this upset the unbeliever? No. He just sets
about to believe his theory, for he knows that believing it allows him to be
his own final authority. He also knows that to reject the theory of evolution
means he must accept creationism as true, and this he has avowed in his heart
not to do. He does not want to be associated with a few fanatics! Why is it that this type of
reaction is found when dealing with Christian scholarship concerning the Bible?
Ask a Christian scholar to tell you where the Word of God is, and he will tell
you, "in the Bible." Yet, hand him any English Bible, and he will
reply, "It's not there." How can we as fundamental Bible-believers
tell people from our pulpits that the Bible is "infallible, without error,
the very words of God" and then step out of the pulpit and allege to be
able to find a mistake in it? This would not seem so serious if "the
infallible Word of God" was not one of the doctrines that separates us
from the world. We take pride in thundering forth that we are not as
the unregenerate world, without an absolute guideline. We have a
guideline. We have the guideline, the Word of God! Then we
hold our open Bible up for all to see and shout, "This is God's Word! It's
perfect, infallible, inerrant, the very words of God!" Yet in our hearts
we are saying, "I believe all this about the original; this is just a
mistake-filled translation." Most fundamentalists today
vehemently reject the thought that God has preserved His words in English. We
have "the Bible" they say, but it isn't in any one English version.
Most fundamentalists never truly realize the weight of their statements when
they say that we have no perfect English Bible. Anyone who has studied even a
little about Greek manuscripts knows that the Word of God isn't found in any
of the Greek texts when translated literally. What has started this
controversy? From whence has this division of the brethren come? The first
answer that comes to the mind of some Christians is that this division has been
caused by a small group of fanatics who think that only the King James Bible is
the Word of God, and who refuse to face the facts that the oldest and best
manuscripts support the new translations flooding Christianity. Strangely enough, history
points to just the opposite being true. The text used by the Authorized Version
has been used from the time of the early church until today by true Christians.
It is supported not only by the vast majority of manuscripts existent today but
also by those of the highest quality and oldest reading. It has been used
throughout history with the blessing of God among His born again believers. It is only a
recent occurrence that Biblical Christianity has begun to use the inferior
Roman Catholic manuscripts and asserted that they are better. This is
the mistake garnered by the errant "scholarship" of Wescott and Hort.
These people are the new young sect of Christianity who will not accept the
oldest and best. Usually unsuspectingly, they put their support to manuscripts
which are decidedly Roman Catholic in doctrine and history. It is we
who are sure we hold the true words of God brought down through the centuries
by the blood of our martyred Christian brethren. Ironically, those that take
up the "new" versions, with their "better" Greek text, are
voluntarily taking up the Bible which their early Christian brethren refused to
use, a refusal that brought the Roman Catholic Church, the historic enemy of
the Truth, crashing down on them. That same Roman Catholic Church is still
active against the Truth today, only now many Christians are using her Bible. I know that these are strong
statements. I intend throughout this work to prove their truth, but I state
now, that I do not intend to bring railing accusations on those brethren who do
not agree with me. I will state that they are wrong, prove that they are wrong,
and attempt to point out their position in regard to God's revealed Word. I do not
intend however, to forget that they are my brethren (those who have trusted
Jesus Christ as their own personal Saviour) and will treat them as beloved. The Shot Heard 'Round the World This one
hundred year war of words started back when the supporters of the Oxford
Movement (apostates) realized that they must discredit the Reformers and
Fundamental theologians in order to support their Roman Catholic Greek Text in
place of the Received Text. Their salvo was returned by men like Burgon,
Wilson, Scribener, Mauro, Hoskier, Cook, Salmon, Beckett, Malan and Wilkenson,
and continues today with many of our modern day scholars. On both
sides of the issue, men are called fanatic, heretic, cultist, Bible-rejecter,
demon-possessed and more. These two sides have fought until the facts about
which they fight are obscured by the dust of the battle. They call each other
names until the student of Scripture finds reputable men on both sides
of the controversy damaging their potential influence by using some adjectives
which, indeed, are very descriptive but totally unnecessary. I am not a soft
city gentleman who thinks we should all sit around and talk in quiet tones
while sipping tea and eating "brunch." I am a militant Bible-believer
who hates the devil, sin, heresy, and apostasy. Yet, I think it is
time that we who claim to be "fundamentalists" step back and look to
see who our enemy really is! The subtle
Roman Catholic Church has assumed the position of the lad who told two of his
enemies, "You and he fight ... I'll hold the
coats!" After all, is not "divide and conquer" one of the oldest
military strategies known to men? The fundamentalists have laid their coats at
the feet of "Holy Mother Church" and for the past 100 years proceeded
to "knock each others' block off." Is it any wonder that the Pope
smiles so much? Who is our enemy? Let's find him and fight
him. Today it seems, on both sides, that we are concerned more with
finding fault with the people that we disagree with rather than
what they teach. Let me make this statement: If what I believe about
the King James Bible can be disproved, I will gladly trade it in for the
"right" Bible. We have an enemy,
and I believe we should be verbal and active against that enemy, but I
feel it is time that we realize that our enemy is not our brother. It
is the one holding his coat! The part of the Roman
Catholic Church in the affair is similar to that of a soldier leaping into the
foxhole of the enemy, only to find that all of the enemy soldiers have
strangled each other! Occasionally on either side
we will be forced to face a railer, but instead of "writing him off"
we will have to be charitable and look past his railing to see what his facts
say. If we can disprove his facts, we need not worry about his mouth! "Am I therefore become
your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" Galatians 4:16. What we must
do as men of understanding is look into these statements and the questions
which they naturally provoke. "For the prophecy came
not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were
moved by the Holy Ghost." II Peter 1:21. Did God inspire His Word
perfectly in the original autographs? "The words of the LORD
are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them O LORD,
thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Psalms 12:6, 7. Has God preserved
His words? "Heaven and earth shall
pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Matthew 24:35. Do we have Christ's words, or
have they "passed away?" The first verse, II Peter
1:21, guarantees that God was active in originating His Word in the first
place. "Inspired" we call it. Inspired perfectly, without any error.
God was the all-powerful agent in seeing to it that sinful man wrote down His
Word flawlessly. The second verse, Psalms
12:6, 7, claims that God is not only the agent in writing His words (verse 6)
but is also the primary agent in preserving His words. Note that the subject is
God's words, not His "thoughts." In the third verse, Matthew
24:35, Jesus Christ, God in the flesh reinforces what Psalm 12:7 has already
said. Christ said that His words would not pass away before heaven or
earth. Heaven is still above us, and I am relatively sure that the earth is
still beneath our feet, so the words of God must be here, within our grasp. Somewhere.
If His words are only in Greek, then he has restricted their usage to an elite
number of scholars. This, however, was never Jesus Christ's method when He was
on this earth. He always went past the religious, scholarly minority and took
His words to the common people. Until then, only the Pharisees had
possessed God's words in the form of the completed, accepted Old Testament
books, and although they were well educated and very religious, they were found
to be taking advantage of the common people. Christ eliminated this problem by
going directly to the common people of His day. The Gospel is to all. God
gave His Word to every person and gave the Holy Spirit as a guide to all truth
(John 16:13) in spite of the Roman Catholic teachings that only the
"clergy" are allowed to interpret the Scripture. If God's words are locked up
in the "Greek Text," then once again education is a prerequisite to
having the Word of God and knowing what it says. This type of philosophy would
have eliminated Peter and John from the ministry, for they were "unlearned
and ignorant men." They were unlearned, and the Bible states that they
were ignorant as though incapable of learning. Yet, "they had
been with Jesus"! (Acts 4:12, 13). Jesus Christ made the difference,
giving Peter a great understanding of Scripture! Notice his delivery in Acts
1:15-22, 2:14-36, 4:8-12. He understood, though unlearned and ignorant.
Education, though beneficial, is not a necessity for being used of God.
I am not anti-education or anti-college, but the first requirements are that a
person has "been with Jesus" (Acts 4:13) and that they realize and
believe that the written Word which they have in hand is "more sure"
than God's spoken Word. Now today we know that it is
easy to "be with Jesus." The Bible says in Romans 10:9, "That if
thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine
heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." In
John 14:20 it says, "At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and
ye in me, and I in you." But what about the second
half? What about a written Word that we can believe is "more sure"
than God speaking from heaven? A Word which the Bible claims God has exalted
above all of His name? (Psalms 138:2). Can we have God's words today in our
common language? While on the
subject of a common language, let me point out that many opponents of the
infallibility of the Authorized Version say that if God put a perfect Bible in
English, He is also obligated to furnish such a translation in every other
language. There must be a perfect Bible in German, French, Japanese and all of
the other languages of the world. Unfortunately for them, this argument will
not stand. There were many languages on this earth at the time that God chose
to put it in Hebrew. There were hundreds of languages on this earth also, when
God chose Greek for his New Testament. Matthew 13:18, Acts 13:46, 28:28, and
Romans 11:11 show that God this time was going to be taking His message to the
Gentiles, so He furnished it in the common language of the day -- Greek. Question: When would the two
Testaments be combined into one perfect Book? Answer: As soon as God chose
a language to become common to the entire world. Germany, Spain, France and
most of Europe were soon to be overly influenced by Rome. No language there.
There have been great Latin and Syrian translations, but these languages never
became common to the entire world. God needed an island of purity, a
nation not shackled by Romanism, and a language so descriptive and simple that
it could best deliver His message. These needs were satisfied in England. Here
was a people who threw off the bondage of Rome and a young language which was to
creep into every corner of the world, from the Arctic to the Antarctic, and
from England and America to Moscow and Peking. English is the language of
this world! English is taught to Russian
pilots, because it is universal. It is learned by Oriental businessmen,
because it is universal. It was the first language spoken on the
moon! English is spoken the world over. This is the language God would
use. Being a God of purity, He would want to use it in its purest form. The
English of the King James Bible has been known to be the finest form of the
language ever used. McClure praises the Authorized Version in this manner: "The English language has passed through many and great
changes, and had at last reached the very height of its purity and strength.
The Bible has ever since been the great English classic. It is still the
noblest monument of the power of the English speech. It is singularly free from
what used to be called 'ink-horn terms' that is, such words as are more used in
writing than in speaking, and are not well understood except by scholars."7 The English language was, in
the 17th Century, just solidifying. It had been a fluid language, made up of
elements of Danish, Old Norse, Latin, Greek, French, and many other dialects. In about 1500, major changes
in vocal pronunciation, inflection, and spelling simplified and helped solidify
the language.8 This was all in preparation for the ultimate English
work, the Authorized Version of 1611. Many claim today that since
the Authorized Version was printed in the common English of that day, that the
Bible should be retranslated into the common English of today, but this is not
a valid claim. It must be remembered that the English used in the Authorized
Version was not only the common language, but it was also the English language
in its purest form. The English language has degenerated from what it was in
1611 to what it is today. Those claiming to put the Bible in "modern
English" are actually, though possibly not intentionally, trying to force
the pure words of God into the degenerated vocabulary of today! What a disgrace
to God's Word! What a shame to those who propose such a thing! A charge
often brought against the Authorized Version is that it is full of
"archaic" words. But are we to make the Bible pay the penalty of our
own irresponsibility in not keeping our language pure and descriptive? Would we
not be richer to learn the meaning of those nasty, old, "archaic"
words and add them back into our own vocabulary? Would we not be making the
Bible poorer by depriving it of its descriptive style? Are these words truly
"archaic?" I have seen stores today that still advertise
"sundry" items. Perhaps the store owner didn't realize that it was
supposed to be archaic. Perhaps it is like the fish caught off the Atlantic
Coast a few years ago which was supposed to have been extinct for over one
million years. Of course it was extinct! It just didn't know
it! Science said it was extinct, so it must be. (They first had better
prove that the world was here one million years ago.) Let us look at the word
"conversation" in Philippians 1:27 and see how God chose the most
descriptive words He could. Is not "conversation" a much
more descriptive term than "life?" When we realize that our life speaks
to people then we must live our Christianity, not talk it.
The Authorized Version obviously gives us a deeper meaning. What about words whose usage
has definitely been dropped from modern English? Those words which are just not
used anymore? What shall we do with them? In answer to this question, let us
remember that the Bible is The Word of God. We "Bible
people" claim to accept its authority in all matters of faith and
practice. But do we? Do we accept the Biblical practice of how to deal with situations
today? Would we be willing to accept the Biblical example of how to
deal with words whose meanings have changed? Let us look and learn and follow
the Bible example of handling "archaic" words. Surely the
Bible, God's Word, cannot be wrong! Let us look at I Samuel chapter 9. 1. "Now there was a man of Benjamin, whose name was Kish,
the son of Abiel, the son of Zeror, the son of Bechorath, the son of Aphiah, a
Benjamite, a mighty man of power. 3. And the asses of Kish Saul's father were lost. And Kish
said to Saul his son, Take now one of the servants with thee, and arise, go
seek the asses." (I Sam. 9:1-3) These verses give us the
circumstances involved. After searching fruitlessly for his father's asses,
Saul decided to give up, fearing that his father, Kish, may begin to worry
about Saul and his servant. 6. "And he said unto him, Behold now, there is in this
city a man of God, and he is an honourable man; all that he saith cometh surely
to pass: now let us go thither, peradventure he can shew us our way that we
should go. 7. Then said Saul to his servant, But, behold, if we go, what
shall we bring the man? for the bread is spent in our vessels, and there is not
a present to bring to the man of God: what have we? Now let us watch very
carefully, for an "archaic" word is about to make its appearance in
the next verse. But before it can, God inserts a note to the reader! 9. "(Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to enquire of
God, thus he spake, Come and let us go to the seer: for he that is now called a
Prophet was beforetime called a Seer.)" (I Sam. 9:9) God knows that the word
"seer" is no longer in common usage; it is archaic. He
defines it so that we will better understand His choice of words. Is this
changing the text? No! Look at the following two verses. 10. "Then said Saul to his servant, Well said; come, let
us go. So they went unto the city where the man of God was. Notice in verse 11 God leaves
the "archaic" word in the text! He does not change
it to "prophet." He does not change the text. God gives us a
definition of the word which He chose to use in the text, but He does not
give us a "modern" or "updated" edition. This is the Biblical
example of how God handles an "archaic" word without rewriting
the text. "We
fundamentalists accept the authority of the Bible in all matters of faith and practice."
I suggest we practice this method. Define what a word, whose
definition has become cloudy through the changes in the English language,
really means. I am not advising "running to the Greek." I am advising
"running to the dictionary" and letting the text stand as it reads
without the derogatory remarks about "archaic" words and "out of
date usage." Let us respect God's text more than that. God has given us every word;
we do well to accept them from Him as they are and not attempt to
"improve" on them. As one great preacher said, "The Bible
doesn't need to be re-written, it needs to be reread." I concur. Born
again Christians are intended to be "Bible people." Are we not
expected to read the Book we claim so loudly to believe? Upon receiving a lengthy
letter from home, does a lonely soldier proceed to the third page to begin his
reading? After page 3 does he "speed read" page 4, skip page 5, and
read half of page 6? Does he attempt to understand the last page and then
proceed to the first? Ridiculous isn't it? Yet it describes the Bible reading
habits of many of God's people. Obviously, our soldier, so far away from the
home he loves and the writer of his letter, is going to devour every word
of this letter and upon finishing it, he will read it again -- every word.
God sent us, His homesick
soldiers, a "letter from home," yet we steadily refuse to read it. He
didn't give us the whole Book just so that we could read the Psalms. We are
expected to read Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy as well as John, Acts, and
Romans. The same author who inspired I and II Corinthians placed every bit as
much inspiration into I and II Chronicles. We are to read Malachi as well as
Revelation. God has given us every word of the Bible. We are to start
at the beginning and read every word! Upon reaching Revelation 22:21,
we are not expected to quietly lay the Bible aside as if our work has been
done. We are to begin afresh at Genesis 1:1. There are only two events that
should stop a Christian from reading through his Bible continuously, cover to
cover: death and the rapture. All other "reasons" are really weak
excuses. We are to read the Book! Many exclaim, "But I
can't understand it! There are portions with deep and difficult meanings."
They find a difficult passage, give God approximately five minutes to deliver
the answer, and then turn to a "better translation" or a Bible
commentary for the answer. They are like the four-year-old child who wishes to
drive a car. He sincerely wants to drive a car. His motive for wanting to drive
may be pure. He believes that he can handle the job, and he wants the answer now.
He will not only be refused permission to drive the car, but he as yet won't
even be allowed on a bicycle. He cannot handle anything larger than a tricycle.
As he matures, he will "graduate" to bigger and more complicated
things. This is true with our English
Bible. We begin to read through it for the first time and ask God a question,
the answer of which we just cannot handle until our fourth or fifth or sixth
time through. We sincerely want the answer. Our motive may be pure. We believe
that we can handle the answer, and we want it now. God will not show
us on our first time through the Bible what He has ready for us on our
tenth or eleventh time through. We must grow, and there are no
shortcuts. A shelf full of Bible commentaries and other translations is an
attempt at a shortcut, but it will not work. I am not opposed to Bible
commentaries. I am opposed to their de-emphasizing the Bible and replacing the
Holy Spirit. I am in favor of intensifying our reading time in the only
authority we have, the Authorized Version! But why the Authorized
Version? Who says we have to use only this particular translation? Why couldn't
some other version be perfect in English instead of the Authorized Version? To get the answers to these questions, we will have to take our hands off each other's throats long enough to examine the evidence which has come down to us through history. First, let's study where the manuscripts came from. |
Family Feud The
manuscripts and their classifications and readings will be studied in later
pages. What we shall do now is closely scrutinize the primary centers from
which our extant manuscripts have originated. It will be revealed in later
study that Biblical manuscripts (MSS) are divided into two general groups.
These two groups have been found to disagree with each other in many areas.
Every English Bible in existence today will be found to proceed more or less
from one of these two groups. The fact that there is one God plainly
tells us that there can be only one correct reading concerning any
given discrepancy between these two groups. Obviously, prior to comparing
readings, it will be beneficial to investigate the ancient centers from which
our two basic groups proceed. Earlier, we established two
"ground rules." It will be relevant to our study to review those
rules at this point, and to keep them in mind as we continue. Firstly, we
established that the Bible is a spiritual book which God exerted supernatural
force to conceive, and it is reasonable to assume that He could exert that same
supernatural force to preserve it. Secondly, that Satan desires to be
worshipped. He has the ability to counterfeit God's actions and definitely will
be involved actively in attempting to destroy God's Word and/or our confidence
in that Word, while seeking to replace it with his own "versions." The fact that the
disagreement between these two families is centered around points of deity or
doctrine tells us that one of them must be the preserved text, as
found in the original MSS, while the other is a Satanic forgery. Satan attacked
Jesus Christ (Matthew 4:1-11) and will try to replace Him in the future
(Revelation 13:1-8). Are we to believe that Satan,
a sworn enemy of Truth, is not going to attempt to disrupt the travel of God's
Word through history? Would he dare let the only tangible item which God has
left us remain unattacked? No, Satan cannot afford to allow the Holy Scriptures
to be unmolested. He will obviously be heard to be its loudest textual critic
and will attempt to eliminate God's true Word while replacing it with
his own Satanic counterfeit. With this in mind, we shall
begin with the original autographs and trace the history of these two families
of MSS. Jesus Christ
always worked through His followers. It is only logical that He would look to
His followers as instrumental in the preservation of His words. The New Testament was a
paradox. It was completely foreign to anything that the world had ever known.
Until the time of Christ, the world was Biblically divided into two groups. One was the Jews. They were
known as God's "chosen people." Their religious practices were
founded on the teachings of the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings
(thirty-nine books which comprise our present Old Testament). They awaited their
Messiah, the ruler who was expected at any time to come to earth and set up a
Jewish kingdom based in Jerusalem. The other group spoken of in
Scripture is the Gentile population of the world. The Gentiles are also
referred to as a group by the term "Greeks." They were very
religious, but heathenistic in practice. This is noted by the Apostle Paul.
When in Athens he mentioned that the city was "wholly given to
idolatry" (Acts 17:16). After seeing them carry out their religious
duties, he concluded, "I perceive that in all things ye are too
superstitious" (Acts 17:22). The Gentile world was caught up in the
fantasies of Christless education, philosophy, and religion. Another location of pagan
religious practices was Rome. In Rome were found temples built for the worship
of many pagan gods and goddesses. A few of these are Jupiter, Apollo, and
Minerva. Still another pagan city
known for its education and philosophy was Alexandria, Egypt. Famed for its
library and school, it was a center of education during the centuries prior to
the New Testament era. It was known to have received much of its philosophy
from Athens about 100 B.C. When the Christian church
appeared, made up of born again believers, it was looked upon as a rather
strange group of people. The Jews rejected it because its patrons claimed that
Jesus Christ was the Jewish Messiah. The Gentiles rejected Christianity because
of the Christians' claims that salvation was complete and that one could know
that they had eternal life. This ran contrary to the teachings of pagan
philosophy that nothing can be known for sure. It also made their heathen
religious practices worthless, not to mention all of their beautiful temples. The New Testament church
needed a place to grow. It needed a location that was far away from the
prejudices of the Jewish religious community centered in Jerusalem and the
Gentile philosophical community. It needed a location that would be
advantageous to the spreading of the gospel. Such a location was realized when,
after the death of Stephen, the believers traveled to Phenice, Cyprus, and
Antioch (Acts 11:19). But it was Antioch that the Holy Spirit chose for the
base of Christian operations. Antioch was founded by
Seleucus I about 300 B.C. Its location was of prime importance to the gospel
since it was built at the crossroads of ancient trade routes from Mesopotamia
to the Mediterranean and from western Arabia to Asia Minor. It also has a
seaport on the Orontes River. In addition to the secular
history of these two areas, let us examine what the Bible says
concerning them. The law of first mention is
important, as the first mention of a subject usually sets the light in which
that subject shall reside in the Bible narrative. Since one of
the two families of MSS originated in Alexandria, Egypt, we shall first look at
Egypt. Egypt is first mentioned in Genesis 12:10. "...Abram went down into
Egypt to sojourn there...." but verse 12 says, "Therefore it shall
come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they shall say, This is
his wife: and they will kill me, but they will save thee alive." (Genesis
12:12). Immediately we find a negative air about Egypt in the Bible. Notice
that Abram's fear concerns the line of Christ, Satan's first enemy. "And the Midianites sold
him into Egypt unto Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh's, and captain of the
guard." (Genesis 37:36). Here we find Joseph sold into slavery in Egypt.
This also is negative. "Therefore they did set
over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for
Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses." (Exodus 1:11). In this verse
we see Israel, the people of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, persecuted in Egypt, a
type of the world. Verses 15 and 16 show that Satan's attack was once again on
the seed through which the Lord Jesus Christ would come. In Exodus 20:2, Egypt
is called "the house of bondage." In Deuteronomy 4:20, God calls
Egypt "the iron furnace." God forbids Israel to carry
on commercial activities with Egypt in Deuteronomy 17:16. "But he shall
not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the
end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you,
Ye shall henceforth return no more that way." Notice this final sentence
gives the solemn warning, "Ye shall henceforth return no more that
way." In Jeremiah 46:25 we find God
promising punishment on Egypt. "The LORD of hosts, the God of Israel,
saith; Behold, I will punish the multitude of No, and Pharaoh, and Egypt, with
their gods, and their kings; even Pharaoh, and all them that trust in
him:" Look at Ezekiel 20:7.
"Then said I unto them, Cast ye away every man the abominations of his
eyes, and defile not yourselves with the idols of Egypt: I am the LORD your
God." Here we find that God commanded Israel not to be associated with
Egypt's idolatry. The last of our references
compares Jerusalem in apostasy to Sodom and Egypt. "And their dead bodies
shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom
and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified." (Revelation 11:8). This is only a small cross
section of the Biblical references to Egypt, but I believe we see that God's
attitude towards Egypt is not positive. Now let's zero in on the city
of Egypt which will concern our study, Alexandria. Alexandria is
first mentioned in Acts 6:9. "Then there arose certain of the synagogue,
which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and
Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen."
Here we find that Jews from Alexandria were partially responsible for the
stoning of Stephen. Also in Acts 18:24 we find
Apollos was from Alexandria. Although he was later saved and became a great
disciple of Christ, he was first associated with inadvertently misleading the
people of Ephesus in Acts 19:1-3. We have now looked at what the
Bible has to say concerning Egypt in general and Alexandria in particular.
Since we accept the Bible in
all matters of "faith and practice," we should take care to remember
that God takes a negative approach to Egypt. Do we have any right to ignore
God's displeasure and approach Egypt in a "positive" manner? Solomon
was by far wiser than we are, yet he ignored God's clear warnings. For example,
I Kings 3:1 says, "And Solomon made affinity with Pharoah king of Egypt,
and took Pharoah's daughter, and brought her into the city of David, until he
had made an end of building his own house, and the house of the LORD, and the
wall of Jerusalem round about." Also, I Kings 10:28 says, "And
Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt, and linen yarn: the king's merchants
received the linen yarn at a price." (cf. Deuteronomy 17:16). We find that
ignoring God's Word led to the heart being turned away from the Lord and after
other gods (I Kings 11:3, 4). This resulted in abominable acts on his part (I
Kings 11:5, 8)and finally brought God's judgment in I Kings 11:9-43. Certainly, if wise Solomon
could fall by accepting Egypt in spite of God's clear condemnation, we would do
well to take care before we buy any "horses out of Egypt." God may
not be pleased with such actions. Now let us
see what the Bible says about the city of Antioch. Antioch is first mentioned in
Acts 6:5 when Nicolas, a Christian from Antioch, was chosen to be one of the
first deacons. So we see that the first time Antioch is mentioned, it is in a positive
light. Antioch is mentioned again in
Acts 11:19. Here, it is a refuge for Christians from persecution. In the
Scripture Antioch represents a "type" of the new life given to
believers after having accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour. To fully understand the light
in which the Bible presents Antioch in Acts 11, we must look at the context in
which chapter 11 is written. In the preceding chapter (Acts 10) God plainly
shows that He is calling out a following from among the Gentiles. In the
following chapter (Acts 12) God shows that He is not going to use
Jerusalem as the center of the New Testament church (Acts 12:1-4). Antioch, the
new center, is away from the Gentile centers of Alexandria, Athens, and Rome
and the Jewish center of Jerusalem. Antioch symbolizes the Christian's new
life, apart from the heathenism of the Gentiles and ritualism of Judaism. II
Corinthians 5:17 says, "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new
creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."
When a Gentile is saved, he is to leave his heathenistic lifestyle for a new
spiritual location in Christ. Likewise, when a Jew is saved, he is to leave his
ritualism for a new spiritual location in Christ. In Galatians 3:28 Paul states
that, "There is neither Jew nor Greek...for ye are all one in Christ
Jesus." In I Corinthians 10:32 he divides mankind into three groups,
"Jews...Gentiles...the Church of God." As God gives born again man a
new spiritual location, He also gave His new young church a new physical
location. Please notice that after Acts
chapter 12, the other apostles are left alone at Jerusalem and are mentioned
only one last time in the narrative. This is in Acts 21:18 where they briefly
rejoice in Paul's report and then get preoccupied with the law! Paul
in Galatians 2:11 had to rebuke Peter of this very thing when he came to
Antioch and tried to exercise the same legalistic teaching of Judaism on the
New Testament church there. Obviously God was using Antioch and Antiochian
Christians to forge a new practice of worshipping Him, different from the Old
Testament Judaism and the Gentile mythology and heathenism. Acts 11:20
shows the beginning of God's settlement in Antioch. "And some of them were
men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the
Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus." In Acts 11:22, Barnabas, one of the
most important figures of the New Testament, moves from Jerusalem to Antioch.
He is the man who is responsible for Paul being in the ministry. It was
Barnabas who went to Tarsus to get Paul, then named Saul, in Acts 11:25. Upon
finding him, Barnabas brought him back to Antioch, not Jerusalem (Acts 11:26).
So we see that the primary figure of the New Testament church actually began
his ministry in Antioch. Paul had visited Jerusalem in Acts 9:26-29 and had
even preached there, but his ministry to the Gentiles really began when he
departed from Antioch in Acts 13:1-3 with Barnabas. We must also notice that it
was at Antioch that the disciples were called "Christians" for the
first time (Acts 11:26). In verse 27 of Acts 11 we find that the prophets from
the Jerusalem church left it to settle in Antioch. In verse 29 of Acts 11, we
even see that it was necessary for the Christians at Antioch to send relief
down to their brethren in Jerusalem. As we mentioned before,
Paul's first missionary journey originated from Antioch in Acts 13:1-3. The
Bible states in verse 2 that the Holy Ghost "called" them. It was in Antioch
that God chose these men. Upon returning from their trip (Acts 14:26-28) they
came back to Antioch, not Alexandria; not Jerusalem. When some "Christian"
Judaizers came up to Antioch from Jerusalem and began to teach the believers
there that, "Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot
be saved" (Acts 15:1), Paul and Barnabas confronted them. Afterwards, Paul
and Barnabas went down and spoke with the apostles concerning this. They formed
a council and returned to their beloved Antioch with a written statement to the
effect that Judaism had no hold over the New Testament church. Upon returning to Antioch,
Paul and Barnabas took with them chosen men of the Jerusalem church, Silas
being one of them (Acts 15:22). They all returned to Jerusalem but Silas (Acts
15:33,34), and he is the only one whom we find recorded in New Testament
history. After Acts chapter 11 and the move to Antioch, God used only those
who left Jerusalem and settled in Antioch! Such is the case with Paul,
Barnabas, Silas, and Mark. Paul and Barnabas reside at Antioch (Acts 15:35) and
depart from there again in verse 40. Notice that Paul sets his
mind to go back to Jerusalem in Acts 20:22, knowing that it is against God's
will as we find in Acts 20:23; 21:4, and again in 21:10-12. He goes to
Jerusalem in spite of God's warning against it and is seized in Acts 21:30,
thus beginning the end of his ministry! This plainly teaches that a Christian
is not to return to his "old" life in any way, shape, or form and
should stand firm in his "new location" in Christ. It also shows that
if there will be any center for New Testament Christianity, it will be found in
Antioch. It may well be that many of
the "originals" that we have heard so much about were written right
there in Antioch! Egypt is a type of this
world. Antioch is a type of a Christian's new life in Christ. Which one do you
think that God would use to preserve His Word? God will not do anything
contrary to His nature. It would not be consistent with God's nature to use
Alexandria, Egypt to preserve His Word when He paints such a dismal picture of
it in Scripture. In fact, there is no record of any of the New Testament
Christians ever visiting there. Antioch, on the other hand, was greatly used by God as the center of New Testament Christianity. Paul never took up residence in Jerusalem, but always returned to Antioch. Looking from the spiritual and practical aspect, Antioch would obviously be the logical location of the true Bible text. |
It would be extremely
beneficial at this point if we could simply produce the original autographs for
examination. This would greatly simplify the operation of establishing
correctly the New Testament text. But this simply cannot happen. It has long
been acknowledged by scholars that we no longer have the "originals."
They have long since passed from the scene. This is due to the fact that
scribes were known to have destroyed worn out MSS after they had copied them.
Apparently the early church valued the words of the original more than
the original itself. Therefore, the readings of the originals must be preserved
with us somewhere, or else God's words have "passed away" which we
surely know, from the Scriptural record, cannot happen. (Psalms 12:6, 7 and
Matthew 24:35). We must review the witnesses of the Bible record which have
come to us through history. We will be required to keep two things in mind: 1. There is a marked disagreement between the two basic families
of readings. 2. Due to the truth above, we must remember our spiritual
considerations as well as historical. Remember, the Bible is like no other
book. All other books are written and then cast adrift on the sea of time; this
is not the case with the Bible. We must remember that God had His hand
in its inception and will be seen to have His hand in its journey through
history to the present. It must also be remembered that just as God will be
active in its preservation, Satan will be active in attempting to
disrupt or destroy it. The "hard" evidence
at hand today available for our examination consists of three groups: 1. Copies - Since there are no originals, every record of
Scripture will be a copy. Copies are divided into three groups: In early copies the words were written end to end with no space in
between. Words like God, Son, Father were abbreviated in this manner: God - gd,
Son - sn, Father - ftr. Later MSS separated the words for ease of reading. An
example is shown here:
"No-man-hath-seen-gd-at-any-time-the-only-begotten-sn- Some miniscules were composed in book form instead of a scroll.
These are known as codice (plural). Codex is the singular form. These also were
written on either papyrus or vellum. In some cases, all that remains of a
scroll or codex are fragments. B. Majuscules or Uncials -- These are equivalent to the upper case
letters of our alphabet. In the same verse as above, John 1: 18, letters of our
alphabet would appear in this manner in an uncial MSS: NOMANHATSEENGDATANY Majuscules MSS exist in fewer numbers than miniscules and do not
appear until the 4th Century. C. Lectionaries -- These are equivalent to the
"responsive readings" found in the back of today's hymnals. Due to
the shortage of copies of Scripture, lectionaries were used to put key verses
into the hands of the people. In many cases their readings are very early,
i.e., closer to the originals. 2. Our second group of Biblical witnesses are the ancient versions.
God chose to write the New Testament in Greek, but He did not choose to keep it
in Greek only. The early Greek MSS were translated into other languages in
order that the true Word of God could be put into the hands of people in other
lands. Some versions such as the Peshitto (or Peschito), a Syrian translation,
and the Old Latin Vulgate (vulgate means "vulgar," i.e.,
"common") are actually older than our oldest uncial MSS. The Peshitto
was translated from the Greek in about 150 A.D. The Old Latin Vulgate was
translated about 157 A.D. Other well known versions are the Gothic, Sahidic, Bohairic, and
Coptic. 3. Our third group is the early church fathers. These are
the men who led the Christians in the first few centuries after the New
Testament was completed. We have record of their early sermons, books, and
commentaries. They will be able to provide us with much information on disputed
passages. Many may have seen the original autographs. Here we now have our three
sources of information. They are copies, versions, and church
fathers. These three groups combined to give us in excess of 5,250
witnesses.9 Over 3,000 of these are Greek MSS.10 With
this many extant MSS, versions, and the fathers for reference, we should have
little trouble determining the Greek text of the original New Testament
autographs. These
surviving witnesses of the Greek New Testament text which we now possess are
found to generally fall into two groups, or "texts." This is where we
begin to find some major problems. We find that these two texts disagree
consistently concerning the major doctrines of the Bible. They are found to
disagree on readings concerning the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, the blood
atonement, Christ's second coming, the deity of Christ, and many other
fundamental Christian doctrines. It is for this reason that we must examine our
witnesses to determine if their testimony is accurate (God's text) or if they
are fraudulently misleading (Satan's text). Remember our ground rules!
The first of
these two texts which we will examine is the Majority Text. This is the text
which will be found to uphold the major Christian doctrines which are so vital
to our fundamental beliefs. The Majority Text has been
known throughout history by several names. It has been known as the Byzantine
Text, the Imperial Text, the Traditional Text, and the Reformation Text, as
well as the Majority Text. This text culminates in the Textus Receptus or
"Received Text" which is the basis for the King James Bible, which we
know also as the Authorized Version. I do not desire to add one
more name to the list, but in the interest of finding the most accurate term to
describe this text, and due to its universal reception by orthodox Christians
through history, we shall refer to this text as the "Universal Text."
Dr. Hills justifies this
choice: "There is now greater reason than ever to believe that the
Byzantine Text, which is found in the vast majority of the Greek New
Testament manuscripts and which was used well-nigh universally
throughout the Greek Church for many centuries, is a faithful reproduction of
the original New Testament and is the divinely appointed standard by which all
New Testament manuscripts and all divergent readings must be judged."11
(Emphasis mine.) We describe this text with
the term "Universal," because it represents the majority of extant
MSS which represent the original autographs. Professor Hodges of Dallas
Theological Seminary explains, "The manuscript tradition of an ancient
book will, under any but the most exceptional conditions, multiply in a
reasonably regular fashion with the result that the copies nearest the
autograph will normally have the largest number of descendants."12
Even Dr. Hort is forced to
admit this as Professor Hodges points out in his footnote, "This truism
was long ago conceded (somewhat grudgingly) by Hort. A theoretical presumption
indeed remains that a majority of extant documents is more likely to represent
a majority of ancestral documents at each state of transmission than vice
versa."13 Professor Hodges concludes,
"Thus the Majority text, upon which the King James Version is based, has
in reality the strongest claim possible to be regarded as an authentic
representation of the original text. This claim is quite independent of any
shifting consensus of scholarly judgment about its readings and is based on the
objective reality of its dominance in the transmissional history of the New
Testament text."14 Any corruption to the New
Testament text would obviously have to begin after the original
autographs were completed, or there would be no originals to corrupt!
If the originals and the first corruptions of those originals multiplied at the
same rate, the correct text would always be found in the majority of MSS. Add
to this the fact that the orthodox Christian Church would reject the
corruptions and refuse to copy them, and we would find that the correct text
would be in the vast majority, universally accepted as authentic, while the
corrupt text would be represented by an elite minority. These are exactly the
circumstances which exist in the MS evidence available today! Fuller records,
"Miller has shown that the Traditional Text predominated in the writings
of the Church Fathers in every age from the very first."15 The Universal Text is that
which travels north from Jerusalem to Antioch, the "gateway to Europe,"
heading for England. Upon arrival in England it would be ready for translation
into the language through which God has chosen to spread His Gospel - English. From Antioch (remember our
study of Antioch), the Universal Text was sent up into Europe. From there it
spread through Syria and Europe through its translation into the Syrian
Peshitto version and the Old Latin Vulgate. There are still 350 copies of the
Peshitto in existence today as a testimony to this widespread usage in the
years since 150 A.D. The Old Latin
Vulgate was used by the Christians in the churches of the Waldenses, Gauls,
Celts, Albigenses, and other fundamental groups throughout Europe. This Latin
version became so used and beloved by orthodox Christians and was in such
common use by the common people that it assumed the term "Vulgate" as
a name. Vulgate comes from "vulgar" which is the Latin word for
"common." It was so esteemed for its faithfulness to the deity of
Christ and its accurate reproductions of the originals, that these early
Christians let Jerome's Roman Catholic translation "sit on the
shelf." Jerome's translation was not used by the true Biblical Christians
for almost a millenium after it was translated from corrupted manuscripts by
Jerome in 380 A.D. Even then it only came into usage due to the death of Latin
as a common language, and the violent, wicked persecutions waged against true
believers by Pope Gregory IX during his reign from 1227 to 1242 A.D. 16
The Old Latin
Vulgate had come into existence no later than 157 A.D. The Latin version of
Jerome, translated by order of the Roman Catholic Church, was published in
about 380 A.D. It was rejected by real Christians until approximately 1280 A.D.
The Roman Catholic Church chose the name "Vulgate" or
"Common" for Jerome's translation in an attempt to deceive loyal
Christians into thinking that it was the true common Bible of the people. This
is the same tactic used by the New Scofield Reference Bible (1967) and the
Common Bible (1973). The former claims to be an Authorized King James Version,
when in fact it is not (check the margin). The latter's name falsely implies
that it is the Bible in "common" use, when in fact the Bible in common
use is the Authorized Version of 1611! It would seem that such deception lacks
a little in Christian ethics, if not honesty. It is plain to see that the
Universal Text has not only been universally accepted by the faithful
Christians down through the centuries, but it was responsible for keeping the
Roman Catholic Church contained to southern Italy for years. It was not until
the Roman Catholic Church successfully eliminated this Book through
persecutions, torture, Bible burnings, and murder that it could capture Europe
in its web of superstitious paganism. Perhaps we should learn a
lesson. Where the Universal Text of the King James Bible reigns, God blesses.
Once it is eliminated for a less "clean" text, God withdraws His
blessing. Oh, that America could but look at what has happened to England since
the corrupt Revised Version was published! Perversion has been the father of
every "revision" since, on either side of the Atlantic. Yes, the sun
began to set on the British Empire in 1904, when the British Foreign Bible
Society changed from the pure Textus Receptus to the Egyptian text
collated by Eberhard Nestle.17 The other
text which we must investigate is the Minority Text. This is the text which is
found to be untrue to the beloved doctrines of Scripture such as the virgin
birth, the deity of Christ, the blood atonement, the Trinity, and others. This
is also the text which is used in every translation of the Bible since the
Revised Version of 1881. Its two outstanding
trademarks in history are that orthodox Christianity has never used it
and that the Roman Catholic Church has militantly (read that
"bloodily") supported it. We shall say more about this matter later. The Minority Text is also
known as the Egyptian Text, (remember our study of Egypt), the Hesychian Text,
and the Alexandrian Text (remember our study of Alexandria), which was the
basis for the critical Greek Text of Brooke Foss Wescott and Fenton John
Anthony Hort. The Wescott and Hort Text of 1881 was collated with Weymouth's
third edition and Tischendorf's eighth edition by Eberhard Nestle in 1898 to
become what is known as the Nestle's Greek New Testament.18 This is
the text used in all "modern" translations. The most notable MSS in the
text consist of a handful of uncial MSS of the 4th and 5th Centuries. These
uncials have been found to be error ridden and untrustworthy and found even to
disagree among themselves. One of these MSS is called
Sinaiticus and is represented by the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet,
Aleph. This MS from all outward appearances looks very beautiful. It is written
in book form (codex) on vellum. It contains 147 1/2 leaves. The pages are
15" by 13 1/2" with four columns of 48 lines per page. It contains
many spurious books such as the "Shepherd of Hermes," the "Epistle
of Barnabas," and even the "Didache."19 This MS has
survived time well, but being in good physical shape by no means makes its
contents trustworthy. The great Greek scholar, Dr.
Scrivener, points this out in his historic work A Full Collation of the
Codex Sinaiticus. He speaks concerning correctional alterations made to
the MS: "The Codex is covered with such alterations...brought in by at
least ten different revisors, some of them systematically spread over every
page, others occasional or limited to separated portions of the MS, many of
these being contemporaneous with the first writer, but for the greater part
belonging to the sixth or seventh century."20 Dr. Alfred Martin echos this,
"Aleph shows the works of ten different correctors down through the
centuries."21 The corrections are so
obvious as to induce Dr. Burgon to comment therefore on Dr. Tischendorf's
willingness to exalt this badly marred MS: "With the blindness
proverbially ascribed to parental love, Tischendorf follows Aleph, though the
carelessness that reigns over that manuscript is visible to all who examine
it."22 May I note here that Dr.
Tischendorf was the discoverer of Codex Sinaiticus. He found it in St.
Cathrine's Monestary on Mt. Sinai in February of 1859. It was, of all places,
in the wastebasket!"23 Since this MS was of the 4th
Century, Tischendorf, deceived by the outmoded philosophy "older is
better," immediately altered his 7th edition of the Greek New Testament in
over 3,500 places. He had claimed that this 7th edition (1856-59) had been perfect
and could not be superceded. His 8th edition (1865-72), based primarily on
Aleph, was apparently 3,500 times more perfect! Another MS
belonging to this family is called Vaticanus. It is often referred to by the
letter "B." As its name implies, it is in the Vatican library at Rome
(remember our enemy). No one knows when it was placed in the Vatican library,
but its existence was first made known in 1841. This MS is also in the form of
a book and written on vellum. It contains 759 pages which are 10" by 10
1/2" with three columns of 41 lines per page. This Codex omits many
portions of Scripture vital to Christian doctrine. Vaticanus omits Genesis 1:1
through Genesis 46:28; Psalms 106 through 138; Matthew 16:2, 3; Romans 16:24;
the Pauline Pastorial Epistles; Revelation; and everything in Hebrews after
9:14.24 It seems suspicious indeed
that a MS possessed by the Roman Catholic Church omits the portion of the book
of Hebrews which exposes the "mass" as totally useless. (Please read
Hebrews 10:10-12). The "mass" in conjunction with the false doctrine
of purgatory go hand-in-hand to form a perpetual money making machine for Rome.
Without one or the other, the Roman Catholic Church would go broke! It also
omits portions of Scripture telling of the creation (Genesis), the prophetic
details of the crucifixion (Psalms 22), and, of course, the portion which
prophesies of the destruction of Babylon (Rome), the great whore of Revelation
chapter 17. Vaticanus, though intact
physically, is found to be of very poor literary quality. Dr. Martin declares,
"'B' exhibits numerous places where the scribe has written the same word
or phrase twice in succession."25 Dr. J. Smythe states,
"From one end to the other, the whole manuscript has been traveled over by
the pen of some...scribe of about the tenth century."26 If Vaticanus was considered a
trustworthy text originally, the mass of corrections and scribal changes
obviously render its testimony highly suspicious and questionable. The corrupt and unreliable
nature of these two MSS is best summed up by one who has thoroughly examined
them, John W. Burgon: "The impurity of the text exhibited by these codices
is not a question of opinion but fact...In the Gospels alone, Codex B (Vatican)
leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times. It bears traces of
careless transcriptions on every page. Codex Sinaiticus abounds with errors of
the eye and pen to an extent not indeed unparalleled, but happily rather
unusual in documents of first-rate importance. On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40
words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters and words, even whole
sentences, are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately
cancelled; while that gross blunder whereby a clause is omitted because it
happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than
115 times in the New Testament."27 If we are to be thorough and
discriminatory in our evaluation of the true New Testament text, then we must
not - we cannot - overlook these facts. How did these MSS come into
being? How did it happen that they should be beautiful to the eye, yet within
contain such vile and devastating corruptions? It seems that these uncial MSS
along with the papyrus MSS included in this category all resulted from a
revision of the true, or Universal Text. This revision was enacted in Egypt
(remember our study of Egypt) by Egyptian scribes! Prior to documenting this
statement, it will be needful to identify several of the uncial and papyrus MSS
which will be referred to in the documentation. These are uncial manuscripts A,
B, C, D, and Aleph. Also included are the Chester Beatty Papyri, designated as
P45, P46, P47, and the Bodmer Papyri, designated as P66 and P75. It seems that
this type of text was a local text of Alexandria, Egypt (remember our
study of Alexandria) of which Eusebius made fifty copies to fulfill a request
by Emperor Constantine. Unfortunately Eusebius turned to the education center
in Egypt and got a "scholarly revision" instead of turning to Antioch
for the pure text which was universally accepted by the true Christians. Why would Eusebius choose
Alexandria over Antioch? Primarily because he was a great admirer of Origen, an
Egyptian scholar. Origen, though once exalted by modern day Christianity as a
trustworthy authority, has since been found to have been a heretic who
interpreted the Bible in the light of Greek philosophy (remember our study of
Athens). He propagated the heresy that Jesus Christ was a "created"
God.28 This is a false doctrine clung to by Jehovah's Witnesses of
our day, who strangely enough get their teaching from the corrupt Alexandrian
Text's rendition of John 1:1-5 and John 3:13, a corruption which Origen is
responsible for when he revised the Universal Text to read in agreement
with his personal heresy! Origen himself said,
"The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are
written."29 Which explains Bishop Marsh's statement,
"Whenever therefore grammatical interpretation produced a sense which in Origen's
opinion was irrational or impossible, in other words was irrational or
impossible according to the philosophy which Origen had learned at Alexandria,
he then departs from the literal."30 (Emphasis mine.) Dr. Adam
Clarke claims also that Origen was the first person to teach purgatory.
31 Where did
this "Local Text," from which all new Bible translations since 1881
are rendered, originate? Let us see what evidence scholars have unearthed in a
search to discover its source. Kurt Aland "proposes
that the text of P75 and B represent a revision of a local text of Egypt which
was enforced as the dominant text in that particular ecclesiastical
province."32 Professor Hodges assures us,
"Already scholars are willing to concede a common ancestry for P75 and B.
We can postulate here that this common ancestor and P66 meet even further back
in the stream of transmission...It is quite possible, then that all three
manuscripts go back ultimately to a single parent manuscript in which this
emendation was originally made."33 Dean Burgon remarks, "As
for the origin of these two curiosities, it can perforce only be divined from
their contents, that they exhibit fabricated texts is demonstrable. No amount
of honest copying - preserved in for any number of centuries - could by
possibility have resulted in two such documents. Separated from one another in
actual date by 50, perhaps by 100 years, they must needs have branched all from
a common corrupt ancestor, and straightway become exposed to fresh depraving
influence."34 Dr. Edward Hills concludes,
"The best way to explain this situation is to suppose that it represents
an intentional neglect of the Traditional Text on the part of those ancient
Alexandrian scribes who kept revising the text of Paprus 75 until finally they
created the B text."35 He also states Aland's
opinion: "Aland thinks it possible that the Chester Beatty Papyri also
came from this same place."36 That tedious lawyer and
former Supreme Court Justice, Philip Mauro, has aptly determined, "It
should be observed, before we proceed with this question, that the agreeing
testimony (where they do agree) of the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS cannot be
properly regarded as having the force of two independent witnesses; for there
are sufficient evidences both internal and external to warrant the conclusion
that these two Codices are very closely related, that they are, in fact, copies
of the same original, itself a very corrupt transcript of the New
Testament."37 He also states, "It is
admitted on all hands that the Text used as the basis of the Authorized Version
correctly represents a Text known to have been widely (if not everywhere) in
use as early as the second century (for the Peschito and Old Latin Versions,
corroborated by patristic quotations afford ample proof of that). On the other
hand, it is now known that the two Codices we are discussing represent anything
but copies of a bad original, made worse in the copying."38 It also seems generally
agreed that this Local Text was used for a basis of the 50 Bibles which
Eusebius supplied to Constantine. The noted Greek scholar, A.T.
Roberson, states, "Constantine himself ordered fifty Greek Bibles from
Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, for the Churches of Constantinople. It is quite
possible that Aleph and B are two of these fifty, though the actual copying was
probably done in Egypt or by Egyptian scribes."39 Gregory adds, "This
manuscript (Vaticanus) is supposed, as we have seen, to have come from the same
place as the Sinaitic Manuscript. I have said that these two show connections
with each other and that they would suit very well as a pair of the fifty
manuscripts written at Caesarea for Constantine the Great."40 To which Burgon and Miller
testify, "Constantine applied to Eusebius for fifty handsome copies,
amongst which it is not impossible that the manuscripts B and Aleph were to be
actually found."41 Dr. David Fuller finalizes,
"Age alone cannot prove that a manuscript is correct. B and Aleph probably
owe their preservation to the fact that they were written on vellum, whereas
most other documents of that period were written on papyrus. Many students,
including Tischendorf and Hort, have thought them to be two of the fifty copies
which Eusebius had prepared under the order of Constantine for use in the
churches of Constantinople. They are no doubt beautiful manuscripts, but their
texts show scribal carelessness. B exhibits numerous places where the scribe
has written the same word or phrases twice in succession. Aleph shows the marks
of ten different correctors down through the centuries. Burgon's excoriation of
Wescott and Hort's method cannot be considered too strong in the light of the
facts concerning the character of these two manuscripts."42 Who
could be responsible for the corruption of the universally accepted text of the
New Testament? Wilkenson reports,
"Beginning shortly after the death of the apostle John, four names stand
out in prominence whose teaching contributed both to the victorious heresy and
to the final issuing of manuscripts of a corrupt New Testament. These names
are: 1. Justin Martyr; 2. Tatian; 3. Clement of Alexandria; and 4.
Origen."43 The Local Alexandrian text
fell into disuse about 500 A.D. while the original Universal Text was spreading
true Christianity throughout Europe. Hoskier reports this in his
statement: "Those who accept the Wescott and Hort text are basing their
accusations of untruth as to the Gospellists upon an Egyptian revision current
200 to 450 A.D. and abandoned between 500 to 1881, merely revised in our day
and stamped as genuine."44 So we see that once a pure
copy of the Universal Text had been carried down into Egypt, it was recopied.
During the process of this recopying, it was revised by men who did not revere
it as truly the Word of God. This text was examined by the critical eye of
Greek philosophy and Egyptian morals. These men saw nothing wrong with putting
the Book in subjection to their opinion instead of their opinion being in
subjection to the Book. This process produced a text which was local
to the educational center of Alexandria, Egypt. This text went no farther than
southern Italy where the Roman Church found its unstable character perfect for
overthrowing the true Word of God which was being used universally by the true
Christians. At this point, I believe it will be helpful to study the ruthless Roman Catholic Church to more clearly understand her part in all new translations of the Bible since 1881. |
"It is necessary to
salvation that every man should submit to the Pope." (Boniface VIII Unum
Sanctum, 1303.)
"For by grace are ye
saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of
works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2:8, 9.
Here lie two totally
contradictory statements. They cannot both be correct. The one which you
believe will depend on which authority you accept.
The Roman Catholic Church has
long been antagonistic to the doctrine of salvation by grace. If salvation is
by grace, who needs "mass?" If salvation is by grace, who needs to
fear purgatory? If Jesus Christ is our mediator, who needs the Pope? If the
Pope cannot intimidate people into obeying him, how can he force a nation to
obey him?
The true Bible is the
arch-enemy of the Roman Catholic Church. Rome can only rule over ignorant,
fear-filled people. The true Bible turns "unlearned and ignorant" men
into gospel preachers and casts out "all fear."
Rome must find a way to
supplant the true gospel with "another gospel." The only way to do
this is to eliminate our faith in the Word of God.
Rome received the corrupted
Local Text of Alexandria, Egypt and further revised it to suit her own needs.
Some scholars call this revision the "Western" text. This, of course,
makes it part of the already corrupted text and, therefore, still contains the
Local Text readings. This text suited the Roman Catholic Church well, since it
attacked the doctrines of the Bible. Rome is wise. To attack salvation by grace
directly would expose her plot to all. So instead she used subtly. The Roman
Catholic Church strips Jesus Christ of His deity, separates the divine title
"Lord" and "Christ" from the human name Jesus, having the
thief on the cross address Him as "Jesus" instead of "Lord"
(Luke 23:42). It also removes the testimony to His deity in Acts 8:37, and it
eliminates the Trinity in I John 5:7.
You may ask, "Would not
a weakening of the place of Jesus Christ weaken the Roman Catholic Church's
reason for even existing?" The answer is "No." The Roman
Catholic Church does not even claim to represent the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Romanist Karl Adam admits this: "We Catholics acknowledge readily, without
any shame - nay with pride - that Catholicism cannot be identified simply and
wholly with primitive Christianity, nor even with the Gospel of Christ."45
The vacancy left by the
removal of Christ would be easily filled by Mary and other "saints"
along with a chain of ritualism so rigid that no practitioner would have time
to really "think" about the true gospel.
The true
gospel was fast spreading all over Europe due to the Old Latin translation of
the Universal Text into the "vulgar" or "common" language.
This Bible became known as the "Vulgate" since it was used so commonly
all over Europe.
Rome enlisted the help of a
loyal subject by the name of Jerome. He quickly translated the corrupt Local
Text into Latin. This version included the Apocryphal books, fourteen books
which no Bible-believing Christian accepts as authentic. To insure its success
over the Old Latin, the Roman Catholic Church gave it the name
"Vulgate," meaning "common." There was one problem which
the Roman Catholic Church did not anticipate, the same problem which
the businessmen publishing new versions cannot seem to avoid. The common
people recognized the true Word of God because the Holy Spirit bears witness to
it! They refuse to accept other versions!
True, many versions have been
sold in the past and are being sold now. Yet, this is primarily due to the
media "blitz" by which EVERY new Bible has been introduced since
1881. This is the same tactic used by Satan in Genesis chapter 3. Notice his
first recorded words. Do you believe that Satan just walked up to Eve and
asked, "Yea, hath God said?" No! In Genesis 3:1 we are picking up in
the middle of a conversation, possibly one of many. Satan paved the
way for his attack on God's Word by a little "softening up"
publicity. Christians today do not realize that they "need a better
translation" until they are told so by the Bible salesman a few times. Suddenly,
they "realize their need" for a translation which is "closer to
the originals." (Most of these Christians have never even read
the one they have.) The next thing they know, they have eaten the fruit, and God's
blessing is gone. To get God's blessing back, obviously, they need the
next "thoroughly reliable" translation.
This is not an overstatement.
An example of the "Bible business" is revealed by Dr. Edward Hills.
He speaks in reference to the committee of the American Standard Version promising
not to publish their translation at the same time as the English Revised
Version. He points out, "They promised not to publish their own revised
edition of the Bible until 14 years after the publication of the English
Revised Version (R.V.), and in exchange for this concession were given the
privilege of publishing in an appendix to this version a list of the readings
which they favored but which the British revisers declined to adopt."46
It was obvious to these "contenders for the faith" that two
new Bibles hitting the market at the same time just would not be conducive to good
profits. These men are obviously "led by the spirit" but I am
not entirely sure it is "Holy." It is a sad thing when men make
merchandise of the Word of God.
The name "Vulgate"
on the flyleaf of Jerome's unreliable translation did little to help sales. The
Old Latin Bible, or "Italic" as it is sometimes called, was held fast
by all true Christians who upheld the authority of the Bible over the authority
of education.
Dr. Wilkenson informs us in
reference to the Old Latin, "Not only were such translations in existence
long before the Vulgate was adopted by the Papacy, and well established, but the
people for centuries refused to supplant their old Latin Bibles by the
Vulgate." He records Jacobus' words, "The old Latin versions were
used longest by the western Christians who would not bow to the authority of
Rome - e.g. the Donatists; the Irish in Ireland, Britain, and the Continent;
the Albigenses: etc;"47
Dr. Wilkenson also records
the words from the "Forum" of June 1887, "The old Italic
version, into rude Low Latin of the second century, held its own as long as
Latin continued to be the language of the people. The critical version of
Jerome never displaced it, and only replaced it when the Latin ceased to be a
living language, and became the language of the learned. The Gothic
version of Ulfilas, in the same way, held its own until the tongues in which it
was written ceased to exist."48
So we see that the Vulgate of
Jerome was unused and unwanted by the true Christians for over nine hundred
years. This caused the Roman Church much grief. There was only one remedy to
the situation, eliminate the "other" old, archaic Bible. If it was
necessary to violently eliminate the people who used this faithful
translation, then they did it.
The Roman
Catholic Church has long been known for its persecution of true New Testament
Christians. Beginning in about 600 A.D., persecution hounded these
Christ-honoring, Bible-loving people. Pope Gregory I went so far as to
systematically destroy and alter historical records pertaining to these
Christians. Concerning one group, the Waldenses (or Waldensians), Dr. Gilly
reports, "It is a singular thing, that the destruction or rapine, which
has been so fatal to Waldensian documents, would have pursued them even to the
place of security, to which all, that remained, were consigned by Morland, in
1658, the library of the University of Cambridge. The most ancient of these
relics were ticketed in seven packets, distinguished by letters of the
alphabet, from A to G. The whole of these were missing when I made inquiry for
them in 1823."49
Gilly also enlightens us with
this report of the actions of Rome: "The agents of the Papacy have done
their utmost to calumniate their character, to destroy the records of their
noble past and to leave no trace of the cruel persecution they underwent. They
went even further - they made use of words written against ancient heresies to
strike out the name of heretics and fill the blank space by inserting the name
of the Waldenses. Just as if, in a book written to record the lawless deeds of
some bandit, like Jesse James, his name should be stricken out and the name of
Abraham Lincoln substituted. The Jesuit Gretserin a book written against the
heretics of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, put the name Waldenses at the
point where he struck out the name of these heretics."50 We
find that Rome's wicked persecutions of the Waldenses culminated in a
devastating massacre of their number in 1655.51 They were hounded as
"heretics" until the mid 1800's when their persistence paid off and
the vile actions against them ceased.52
A major blow
to the authority of Rome came in 1517, when a young Catholic priest by the name
of Martin Luther nailed his historic 95 theses on the church door in
Wittenburg. The nail drove deep into the hearts of truly born-again Christians
who had for centuries been laboring under the tyranny of the Roman Catholic
Church. The people flocked to their new, brave leader. From this, Lutheranism
was established, but even more important, the fires of the Reformation were
kindled.
The tide of the Reformation
soon came sweeping across all of Europe until it washed the very shores of
England. The already weakened authority of Rome was devastated by the onslaught
of truth. Two-thirds of Europe was swallowed up in what can probably be
referred to as the greatest spiritual awakening of all time. The Reformation
was vital to the then future translation of the King James Bible. England, too,
had been shackled to the hierarchy of Rome. It was the removal of these
superstitious bonds that created the spirit in England of the supremacy of the
Scripture which was prevalent at the time of the translation of the King James
Bible. This would not have been the case had Luther not sparked the
Reformation.
The most vital and immovable
weapon in Luther's arsenal came in the form of his German translation of the
New Testament of 1522. This put the pure words of the Universal Text back into
the hands of "Bible-starved" Christians. The Reformation ran wild
across the continent, fueled by this faithful translation. Rome at this point
was totally helpless to stop it. The Papacy needed something with which to
fight this dreaded scourge of truth. It turned in desperation to two different
sources.
In 1545 the Roman Catholic
Church formed the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent systematically denied
the teachings of the Reformation. The Council decreed that
"tradition" was of equal authority with the Bible. It decreed also
that justification was not by faith alone in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. In
fact, it stated that anyone believing in this vital Bible doctrine was cursed.
The Council's exact words are: "If anyone saith that justifying faith is
nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's
sake or that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified, let
him be anathema."53 (Emphasis mine.)
We now see that the Roman
Catholic Church is guilty of officially cursing Jesus Christ! Would
God use this church to preserve His Words?
The Council of Trent was
viewed by the Protestants as somewhat of a "paper tiger." It
certainly did not hold any authority over them. The barn door appeared securely
locked, but the horse was triumphantly roaming all over the countryside! Yet
there was to be an enemy much more feared than the boisterous Council of Trent
- the Jesuits!
The Society of Jesus was
founded in 1534 by a Spaniard by the name of Ignatius Loyola. Loyola was born
don Inigo Lopez de Racalde, in the castle of Loyola in the province of
Guipuzcoa in 1491. He was known as a youth to be treacherous, brutal and
vindictive. He was referred to as an unruly and conceited soldier. Loyola was
wounded at the siege of Pampeluna in 1521. Crippled by a broken leg and plagued
by a limp the rest of his life, he sought "spiritual" conquests.54
Loyola produced an elite
force of men, extremely loyal to the Pope, who would set about to undermine
Protestantism and "heresy" throughout the world. Their training would
require fourteen years of testing and trials designed to leave them with no will
at all. They were to learn to be obedient. Loyola taught that their only desire
would be to serve the Pope.
The head of the Jesuits is
called the "Black Pope" and holds the title of General, just as in
the military. That they were to be unquestionably loyal to this man and their
church is reflected in Loyola's own words, "Let us be convinced that all
is well and right when the superior commands it," also, "...even if
God gave you an animal without sense for master, you will not hesitate to obey
him, as master and guide, because God ordained it to be so." He further
elaborates, "We must see black as white, if the Church says so."55
What would be
the method used by the Jesuits to achieve their goals? Would it be military
might? Would it be acts of daring? Would it be a violent revolution to install
a Roman sympathizer as ruler? No, these actions would all have their day of
usefulness, later.
The Jesuits were to be the
Vatican's "plainclothesmen." They were founded to be a secret
society, a society that was to slide in behind the scenes and capture the
positions of leadership. The Jesuits knew that to capture the leaders
of any particular country or organization is to conquer the entire body.
Edmund Paris, the noted
French author and leading authority on the Roman Catholic Church, has written
many books exposing the true spirit and goals of the Vatican. He
points out, "Politics are their main field of action, as all the efforts
of these 'directors' concentrate on one aim: the submission of the world to
the papacy, and to attain this the 'heads' must be conquered first."56
The Jesuit priests were not
required to dress in the traditional garb of the Roman Catholic priests. In
fact, their dress was a major part of their disguise. They presented themselves
to the world in a variety of manners. They passed themselves off in a number of
ways. Paris asserts that this is still true today, "It is the same today:
the 33,000 official members of the Society operate all over the world in the capacity
of her personnel, officers of a truly secret army containing in its ranks heads
of political parties, high ranking officials, generals, magistrates,
physicians, faculty professors, etc., all of them striving to bring about, in
their own sphere, 'Opus Dei,' God's work, in reality the plans of the
papacy."57
They have often been known to
join the religious persuasion which they wish to destroy. Having done this,
they would manifest all of the destructive force at their hands to weaken and
tear down their sworn enemy of "Protestantism." Paris again reports
just such an event which took place in Scandinavia in the late 16th Century,
"In 1574 Father Nicolai and other Jesuits were brought to the recently
established school of technology where they became fervent Roman proselytizers,
while officially assuming Lutheranism."58 Dr. Desanctis points
out, "Despite all the persecution they (the Jesuits) have met with, they
have not abandoned England, where there are a greater number of Jesuits than in
Italy; there are Jesuits in all classes of society; in Parliament; among the
English clergy; among the Protestant laity, even in the higher stations. I
could not comprehend how a Jesuit could be a Protestant priest, or how a
Protestant priest could be a Jesuit; but my Confessor silenced my scruples by
telling me, omnia munda mundis, and that St. Paul became a Jew that he might
save the Jews; it is no wonder therefore, if a Jesuit should feign himself a
Protestant, for the conversion of Protestants."59
Murder is not
above the "means" which might be necessary to reach the desired
"end." The General of the Jesuits will forgive any sins which are
committed by the members of this Satanic order. In reference to the Jesuit
General it is stated, "He also absolves the irregularity issuing, from
bigamy, injuries done to others, murder, assassination ... as long as these
wicked deeds were not publickly known and this cause of a scandal."60
That the
Jesuit priests have such liberties as murder is reflected in the following
lengthy quote from Paris' book The Secret History of the Jesuits. "Amongst the most criminal jesuitic maxims, there is one
which roused public indignation to the highest point and deserves to be
examined; it is: 'A monk or priest is allowed to kill those who are ready to
slander him or his community.' So the order gives itself the right to eliminate its adversaries
and even those of its members who, having come out of it, are too talkative.
This pearl is found in the Theology of Father L'Amy. There is another case where this principle finds its application.
For this same Jesuit was cynical enough to write: 'If a Father, yielding to
temptation, abuses a woman and she publicizes what has happened, and because of
it, dishonours him, this same Father can kill her to avoid disgrace!'"61 In 1572, the Jesuits, with
the help of Prince Henry III were responsible for the St. Bartholomew's Day
Massacre. At this infamous event, which took place on August 15, 1572, the
Jesuits murdered the Huguenot (Protestant) leaders gathered in Paris for the
wedding of Princess Margaret, a Roman Catholic, and Henry of Navarre, a
Huguenot. The murders inspired Roman Catholics to slaughter thousands of
Huguenot men, women, and children. Henry of Navarre was not killed but was
forced to renounce Protestantism, although his renounciation was insincere, and
he remained a Protestant until 1593. The number of victims in this Jesuit
conspiracy is estimated to be at least 10,000.62 In 1589, when Henry
III was no longer useful to the Roman Catholic Church, he was assassinated by a
monk by the name of Jacques Clement.63 Clement was called an
"angel" by the Jesuit priest, Camelet.64 Another Jesuit
priest by the name of Guigard, who was eventually hanged, taught his students
that Clement did nothing wrong. In fact, he voiced his regrets that Henry III
had not been murdered earlier at the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre. He
instructed them with lessons such as this: "Jacques Clement has done a
meritor-ious act inspired by the Holy Spirit. If we can make war against the
king, then let us do it; if we cannot make war against him, then let us put him
to death ... we made a big mistake at the St. Bartholomew; we should have bled
the royal vein."65 The Jesuits' murderous ways
were not yet completed in the history of French Protestants! When Henry III was
murdered, Henry of Navarre a Huguenot, came to power. A hope for Catholic
rebellion never materialized, and Henry IV was allowed to reign. In 1592, an
attempt was made to assassinate the Protestant king by a man named Barriere.
Barriere admitted that he had been instructed to do so by a Father Varade, a Jesuit
priest.66 In 1594, another attempt was made by Jean Chatel
who had been taught by Jesuit teachers and had confessed to the
Jesuits what he was about to do.67 It was at this time that Father
Guigard, the Jesuit teacher previously mentioned, was seized and hanged for his
connection with this plot.68 In 1598, King Henry IV issued
the Edict of Nantes, granting religious freedom to the Huguenots. They were
allowed full civil rights and the right to hold public worship services in
towns where they had congregations. This was the last straw!
Henry IV had to be eliminated! This time the Jesuits would allow for more
careful planning. Edmund Paris details the assassination of King Henry IV: "On the 16th of May, 1610, on the eve of his campaign against
Austria, he was murdered by Ravaillac who confessed having been inspired by the
writing of Fathers Mariana and Suarez. These two sanctioned the murders of
heretic "tyrants" or those insufficiently devoted to the Papacy's
interests. The duke of Epemon, who made the king read a letter while the
assassin was lying in wait, was a notorious friend of the Jesuits, and Michelet
proved that they knew of this attempt. In fact, Ravaillac had confessed to the
Jesuit Father d'Aubigny just before and, when the judges interrogated the
priest, he merely replied that God had given him the gift to forget immediately
what he heard in the confessional."69 THIS is the spirit of our
enemy! THIS is the ruthlessness of the Roman Catholic Church against those who
will not bow their knee to Rome! Would God use this church to preserve His
Word?
Wherever there is a
conspiracy against God's people or God's Word, there seems always to be the
shadow of a Jesuit priest near. Often they present themselves as seemingly
innocent to the proceedings around them when, in fact, they are the driving
force behind such plots against God's work.
It is often said that you can
tell a lot about a man by taking a close look at his enemies. If a man is
disliked by Communists, then that shows that he is a non-Communist and
considered dangerous to their cause. If a man is disliked by the Roman Catholic
Church, then this shows that he is not useful in spreading the Roman Catholic
dogma.
This same thing is true of
the Bible. What did the Jesuits, the sworn enemy of truth, think of the
Authorized Version?
To show the
hatred of the Roman Catholic Church against King James for initiating a
translation which would not use the corrupt Latin Vulgate or the Jesuit Bible
of 1582, we must quote from Gustavus Paine's book, The Men Behind the King
James Version. The account recorded took place in 1605-1606. "The story is too involved to give detail here, but on
October 26, the Lord Chamberlain, Monteagle, received an unsigned letter
begging him to stay away from Parliament on the day it opened. He took the
letter to Robert Cecil, who on November 1 showed it to the king at a midnight
meeting. The King shrewdly surmised a good deal of what it meant. Monday, November 4, an agent of the royal party found in a cellar
beneath the House of Lords a man named Guy Fawkes, disguised as a servant,
beside piles of faggots, billets of wood, and masses of coal. The agent went
away. Shortly Monteagle and one other came and talked, but gave no heed to
Fawkes, who was still on guard until they were about to go. He told them he was
a servant of Thomas Percy, a well-known papist. Still later, at midnight,
soldiers found Fawkes booted and spurred and with a lantern outside the cellar
door. He had taken few pains to conceal his actions. They dragged him into an
alley, searched him, and found on him a tinderbox and a length of slow match.
In a fury now, they moved the faggots, billets and coal and came upon barrel
after barrel of powder, thirty-six barrels in all. Fawkes then confessed that
he meant to blow up the House of Lords and the king. On November 6, Percy, with others, rushed into an inn at
Dunchurch, Warwickshire, with the news that the court was aware of their plan.
By the 8th the whole attempt had dearly failed. When Parliament met a week
after the stated day, the King, calm, gracious, and splendid told what had happened
and then adjourned the meeting. At first Fawkes refused to name any except
Percy who, with others, was killed in the course of a chase. In time he gave
the names of all, who would have blown up the House of Lords 'at a clap.' Guy Fawkes was baptized at St. Michael le Belfrey, York, April 16,
1570, son of Edward Fawkes, a proctor and advocate in the church courts of
York. The father died and the mother married a Papist. In 1603 Guy Fawkes went
to Madrid to urge that Philip III invade England. Thus he was a confirmed
traitor, though egged on and used by more astute plotters. Some of these men had been involved in the rising of the Earl of
Esses. A number were former members of the Church of England. Most of them had
some land and wealth. They were all highly disturbed beings, throwbacks, who
meant to subvert the state and get rid of King James. Church and state, they
were sure, must be at one, with fealty to the Pope. For nearly a year, the plotters had been digging a tunnel from a
distance, but had found the wall under the House of Lords nine feet thick. They
had then got access to the cellar by renting a building. They had planned to
kill the King, seize his children, stir up an open revolt with the aid from
Spaniards in Flanders, put Princess Elizabeth on the throne, and marry her to a
Papist. Though all but one, Sir Everard Digby, pleaded not guilty, the court,
such as it was, condemned them all to death. That same week they were all
hanged, four in St. Paul's churchyard where John Overall, the translator, could
have looked on and four in the yard of the old palace. Three months later came the trial of Henry Garnet, a Jesuit,
thought to be head of the Jesuits in England. Brought up a Protestant, he knew
of the plot but had shrunk in horror from it, though he left the chosen victims
to their fate. The court condemned him also to die. All this concerned the men at work on the Bible. At Garnet's
hanging, May 3, in St. Paul's churchyard, John Overall, Dean of St. Paul's took
time off from his translating to be present. Very gravely and Christ-ianily he
and the Dean of Winchester urged upon Garnet 'a true and lively faith to
God-ward,' a free and plain statement to the world of his offense; and if any
further treason lay in his knowledge, he was begged to unburden his conscience
and show a sorrow and destination of it. Garnet, firm in his beliefs, desired
them not to trouble him. So after the men assigned to the gruesome duty had
hanged, drawn, and quartered the victim Dean Overall returned to St. Paul's and
his Bible task."70 Thus the "Gunpowder
Plot" failed. As usual, where there was treachery there was a Jesuit. Did the failure of this plan
stop the Jesuits? Of course not. Garnet had allowed this drastic plan to be
carried out too soon. He had forgotten the Jesuit rule to act a little at a
time "surtout, pas trop de zele" (above all, not too much
zeal). Let it be
remembered, Jesuits do not give up. They would have to bide their
time. They would once again resort to undercover activities as they had so many
times before. Their task would be a difficult one, yet for the unfaltering
Jesuits, not impossible. They would have to discredit the Reformation. They
would have to dislodge the Universal Greek Text from the firm position it held
in the minds and hearts of English scholarship. They would have to
"wean" Protestantism back into the fold of Rome. To do this they
would use the same plan as they had in similar situations: captivate the
minds of scholarship.
Men have long been worshippers
of education. If an educator makes a claim, the "common" people will
follow, because they have convinced themselves that anyone with that
much education can't be wrong.
Evolution has been accepted
as a fact by the average American because educators claim that it is
true. The fact that they can produce no evidence to substantiate their theory
is incidental. Education says it is so!
The Jesuits' task was to
entice Protestant scholarship back to Rome. They knew that they could not wean
the leaders of Protestantism back into Rome as long as the stubborn
"heretics" clung to the pure text of the Reformers. This Bible would
have to be replaced with one which contained the pro-Roman Catholic readings of
Jerome's Vulgate and the Jesuit translation of 1582. It would be necessary to
"educate" the Protestant scholars to believe that their Reformation
Text was unreliable and that their Authorized Version was "not
scholarly." Once thus programmed, the egotistical scholars would
spontaneously attack their own Bible and believe that they were helping God.
The most important objective
to be realized would be to replace the Bible as the final authority.
The Authorized Version had
become a mightier foe than Rome had anticipated as Dr. McClure points out:
"The printing of the English Bible has proved to be by far the mightiest
barrier ever reared to repel the advance of Popery, and to damage all the
resources of the Papacy. Originally intended for the five or six millions who
dwelt within the narrow limits of the British Islands, it at once formed and
fixed their language, till then unsettled; and has since gone with that
language to the isles and shores of every sea."
What the
Roman Catholics had always dreaded had come to pass. The Word of God was
translated from the true text into the clearest form of the common language,
English. Protestants had long refuted and neutralized Roman Catholicism by the
phrase, "The Bible says so." The Roman Catholic Church had been built
on about 10% twisted Scripture and 90% superstition. Where men were ignorant,
it could rule by playing on their fears. But, when the "ignorant and
unlearned" people received Christ as personal Saviour and clung faithfully
to the King James Bible, they were not only immovable but could easily refute any
heresy, be it Catholic or otherwise.
The job of
the Jesuits would be aided by the natural process of time. Every major
religious persuasion follows a natural pattern which is nearly impossible to
avoid. They begin in the form of a revival, not a week long revival
meeting, but a spiritual awakening which leads its followers away from the
world system and into Bible literalism. The Reformation is a good example.
People drew nearer to the Bible, believed it literally, and the end result was
a revival which swept Europe and drew people out of the Roman Catholic
system.
The next step is education.
The infant Reformation had nowhere to send its converts to learn the Bible. It
certainly could not allow them to return to the Roman school of philosophy for
their education. So the second step is to build your own schools and train your
own preachers and teachers.
The third step is culture.
Once a movement has established itself, it forms its own culture. This process
takes from 50 to 100 years. After this period of time, the movement has proved
to the world that it is not a "fly by night" outfit but is a force to
be reckoned with. This was true of Lutheranism, as it is now true of
Fundamentalism.
Fifty years ago, a
Fundamentalist preacher was considered a backwoods "hick" with no
education and was able to preach nothing more than "hell, fire, and
damnation." Today, the world has awakened to the fact that Fundamentalism
is a powerful force. Fundamental churches are found to be the largest and
fastest growing in the country. Television and magazines are producing special
stories concerning the Fundamental movement. The election of 1980 showed the
amount of influence that Fundamentalism could have. Fundamentalism has proven
that it is here to stay.
This acceptance produces a
kind of "home-grown" arrogance. This is not a derogatory comment, but
is true.
When the preachers of the
Reformation graduated from basements and dungeons to the pulpits of the
largest, fastest growing churches in Europe, they realized that they had fought
their way to victory. As they saw their colleges grow and multiply, they prided
themselves in the job they had done. But the new-found ease of life began to
make a subtle change. They found themselves beginning to appreciate the
"finer" things of life. A pastor who had been satisfied in the early
days of the Reformation with a basement and one candle for light to preach by,
twenty-five years later found himself in a fine, clean, functional building. As
his congregation grew and space was needed, the church built bigger buildings,
but the new buildings passed from functional simplicity to a "touch of
elegance." The chandeliers became more ornate. The ceiling became higher.
The pews were more comfortable. The windows saw the use of stained glass, a
Roman Catholic custom. The pastor found social acceptance in the community.
Each succeeding building was "bigger and better" with more elaborate
masonry. The preachers and people began to find time to "appreciate"
the arts and sciences. The Christians soon had a culture which was separate
from but parallel to that of the world. This left the door open for the next
and final step, apostasy.
The preachers became
"clergy." Their separated lives and Biblical education led to Phariseeism.
Their colleges expanded from just training ministers to covering a wider
spectrum of occupations. Basic Bible courses were supplemented by a study of
"the arts."
Revival is from God. Education is necessary to
the training of God's ministers, but culture is a product that appeals to the flesh.
Once the flesh is allowed to offer its preferences, apostasy sets in.
Standards become a little more lax. College professors are hired according to
their academic abilities first and the spiritual convictions second.
Statements like "We must have the best" and "I want to be
first-class" are used to comfort the fears of anyone who feels that the
churches and schools seem a little worldly. Of course, a school administrator
might find himself thinking, "The average Christian doesn't understand our
minute changes. They aren't educated like we are."
There suddenly appears a
Christian with an open Bible, who points out Scripture which
may condemn the new found "culture" of a church or school. The school
amazingly finds itself in the same position as the Roman Catholic Church, refuted
by an ignorant Christian who believes the Bible. Which is to be the
final authority, the school or the Bible? Time after time, education has found
that it has come too far to turn back. "We are!" came the answer from
Oxford, Cambridge, and Westminister in England. "We are!" came the
answer from Harvard, Princeton, and Yale in America. Education has conceived
culture and given birth to apostasy!
England in
the early 1800's was ripe for apostasy. The Reformation had come a long way
since Luther nailed his theses on the door of Wittenburg. It had traversed
Europe with the truth, leaving in its wake churches and schools that
represented the pure text of Scripture. The educational foundation had been
laid, upon which culture was built. Gone were the attempts to blow up
Parliament. Gone was the fear of ending up like Tyndale for believing "the
Book." Gone was the reign of terror inflicted by "bloody" Mary.
The churches built around the Authorized Version were rich and prosperous. The
colleges, from their meager beginnings, had become great universities, pressing
on with higher education. There were a few "common" people who still
feared Rome, but the "educators" knew that their fears were
"unfounded." England was ripe for a transfer of authority from the Bible
to education, and Rome was willing to supply the education. The
absolute reign of the Authorized Version would soon end.
The
Authorized Version had withstood countless attacks, but it would now be subject
to a systematic campaign to exhalt several authorities to a position
equal to it. These perverted "authorities" would then join forces to
portray the Authorized Version as weak, unreliable, inaccurate, outmoded, and
generally untrustworthy. Once the Authorized Version had been successfully
dethroned, education would be free to exalt whatever authority it desired to.
The Roman Catholic Church, of course, would be close at hand to see to it that
the authority which was to be exalted would be in agreement with its own
corrupt Latin Vulgate.
The authorities to be exalted
as equal with the Authorized Version came from several different quarters, but
all with the same intent. Replace the Universal Text of the Authorized Version
with the Local Text of Alexandria, Egypt.
One of the
authorities which would be used to discredit the Authorized Version was
"textual criticism."
Textual criticism is known as
a "science." By being called a science, it will be accepted by the
educated mind. It is a process which looks at the Bible as it would look at the
uninspired writings of any secular writer. This one fact alone means that the
power of God to preserve His Word is ignored in favor of the naturalistic
method of evaluating the "chance" of God's Word being preserved.
Textual criticism allows God to "inspire" His originals, but seeks to
replace God as the active agent in preserving His Word.
Earlier we established that
the Bible was a spiritual book, that God was active in its conception,
and that it would be reasonable to assume that God could be just as active in
its preservation.
One might ask at this point
if textual criticism could not be the method which God used to preserve His
Words? The answer is unequivocably, "No." Here are the reasons why:
Textual critics look at the
Bible today through the same eyes as the Egyptian scribes did who
perverted the Universal Text to construct the Local Text centuries ago. Those
well-educated scribes thought that the Bible was subject to them
instead of them being subject to the Bible. This outlook allowed them
to eliminate the power of God from their minds and make whatever changes they
deemed necessary to reach a conclusion which seemed logical to them. They
were the Holy Spirit in their minds!
Today textual critics do the
same, in that, before they ever start their work, they are convinced that God
cannot preserve His Word without their assistance. Scholars today believe that
God inspired words but preserved thoughts.
Another reason why textual
criticism could not be the method God used to preserve His Word is that it comes
from Rome.
The Catholic Encyclopedia
states, "A French priest, Richard Simon (1638-1712), was the first who
subjected the general questions concerning the Bible to a treatment which was
at once comprehensive in scope and scientific in method. Simon is the
forerunner of modern Biblical criticism ... The use of internal evidence by
which Simon arrived at it entitles him to be called the father of Biblical
criticism"72
The same source also mentions
the Catholic scholar Jean Astruc:
"In 1753 Jean Astruc, a
French Catholic physician of considerable note published a little book, Conjectures
sur les memoires originaux dont il parait que Moise s'est servi pour composer
le livre de la Genese, in which he conjectured, from the alternating use
of two names of God in the Hebrew Genesis, that Moses had incorporated therein
two pre-existing documents, one of which employed Elohim and the other Jehovah.
The idea attracted little attention till it was taken up by a German scholar,
who, however, claims to have made the discovery independently. This was Johann
Gottfried Eichhorn ... Eichhorn greatly developed Astruc's hypothesis."73
The same source also speaks
of yet another Roman Catholic infidel:
"Yet, it was a Catholic
priest of Scottish origin, Alexander Geddes (1737-1802), who broached a theory
of the origin of the Five Books (to which he attached Joshua) exceeding in
boldness either Simon's or Eichhorn's. This was the well-known 'Fragment'
hypothesis, which reduced the Pentateuch to a collection of fragmentary
sections partly of Mosaic origin, but put together in the reign of Solomon. Geddes'
opinion was introduced into Germany in 1805 by Vater."74
Dr. Benjamin Wilkenson
records how the naturalistic, unsaved Roman Catholic scholars judged in favor
of the perverted Egyptian manuscripts: "Some of the earliest critics in
the field of collecting variant readings of the New Testament Greek were Mill
and Bengel. We have Dr. Kenrick, Catholic Bishop of Philadelphia in 1849, as
authority that they and others had examined these manuscripts recently exalted
as superior, such as the Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Beza, and Ephraem, and had
pronounced in favor of the Vulgate, the Catholic Bible."75
Stop and think!
Naturalistic as
opposed to spiritual. Unsaved as opposed to saved. Roman Catholic
as opposed to Biblical. These men conceived and developed theories
which attacked the reliability of Scripture and judged in favor of the perverted
Egyptian manuscripts.
Are these men and methods
worthy of fellowship? Would a perfect and righteous God use such a hodgepodge
of infidelity to preserve His hallowed Words? Some may say that
textual criticism is good if carried on by good, godly Christian men. This
cannot be true. The "mass" is a Roman Catholic invention
contrived to prevent people from knowing the truth. Would the mass be
"good" if performed by good, Bible-believing scholars? Of course not!
Elisha took poison and made it fit to eat, (II Kings 4:38-41). We
cannot! Neither can we take a method instigated by the Roman Catholic Church in
order to overthrow the Bible and filled with the poison of Romanism and miraculously
make it fit to use! Textual criticism is a "science" (falsely
so-called - I Timothy 6:20) whose authority we cannot accept in place
of the Bible.
Another
authority by which to judge and down-grade the absolute authority of the Authorized
Version is to change the meaning of the translation and the words used in
Scripture.
First the student is taught
that he must not accept a word as it is in the Authorized Version. He is told
to study the Greek or Hebrew words to see if there is another way the word
could be translated. The student, with the purest of motives, proceeds to a
lexicon or a Greek or Hebrew dictionary and discovers to His horror that the
translators of the Authorized Version have translated the word improperly!
In truth, the exact opposite has happened. The lexicon and/or
dictionary has defined the word improperly! The poor, naive,
well-meaning student does not know it, but he has been "headed off at the
pass."
Years before this poor
student ever turned the first page of his lexicon, Roman Catholics provided
the pages he would turn! Let me explain. If the student can be taught to
doubt the accuracy of the translation of any given word in the Bible, then we
will turn to a lexicon or dictionary to find the "'true" meaning. He
does not realize it, but in doing this, he removes the Bible from its
position as final authority and bestows that honor upon an uninspired lexicon
or dictionary. All this leaves Satan to do, is to provide that student with
a lexicon or dictionary which reads the way he (Satan) wants it to! This
is a subtle and dangerous precedent. Most often, it is taught in complete,
innocent sincerity.
This is much like the phrase
used to explain the Communist's takeover of many countries which were once
thriving with many missionaries: "The missionaries taught us to read,
but the Communists gave us the books." (The Communists do not argue about
the proper translation of Marx.)
Many unsuspecting colleges
teach their students to accept the lexicon or dictionary as an authority above
the Bible, but the lexicons and dictionaries are provided by the infidels.
John R. Rice points out the
result of such "authority switching" while discussing Isaiah 7:14 in
the Revised Standard Version: "The most active opposition to the Revised
Standard Version has been about changing the translation of Isaiah 7:14 from,
'Behold, a virgin shall conceive,' to 'Behold, a young woman shall conceive and
bear a son.' Dr. Luther Weigle, chairman of the translators, said that in the
Hebrew English lexicon the word 'alma' means simply 'young woman,' not
necessarily 'virgin' and he said that the word for 'virgin' in the Hebrew is
'bethulah.'" He did not tell you, however, that the lexicon he uses was
prepared by unbelieving critics.
Gensenius, the German
orientalist and biblical critic, is described in the Encyclopedia Britannica in
these words: "To Gensenius, who was an exceptionally popular teacher,
belongs in a large measure the credit of having freed Semitic philosophy from
theological and religious prepossession, and of inaugurating the strictly
scientific (and comparative) method. His chief work, Hebraisches u. Chaldais- ches Handworterbuch
(1810-1812), has passed through several editions (Eng. ed.: Francis Brown, S.R.
Driver and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old
Testament, 1907). Gensenius, a notorious liberal, specialized in changing the
theological terminology of the Bible into that of liberals. Brown, Driver, and
Briggs, translators of the lexicon in English were, all three of them, radical
liberals, and two of them were tried in the Presbyterian church for outrageous
infidelity."76 Wilkenson reports that two of
the infamous Roman Catholic scholars previously mentioned also entered into the
practice of providing definitive works. "Simon and Eichhorn were
co-authors of a Hebrew Dictionary."77 Such infidelic works are
accepted because they are produced by "great scholars." They are then
used by good, godly men who do not realize the price of bowing to unbelieving scholarship.
Another important step in
subtlety removing the authority of the Authorized Version is to exalt the
unreliable MSS of the Local Text of Egypt. This will be commented on later. Let
it suffice for now to reveal the man who laid the groundwork for just such a
move. His name was J.J. Griesbach (1745-1812).
Griesbach divided the extant
MSS into three groups. One was called the "Constantinopolitan" family
which is our Universal Text. The other two were known as "Western"
and "Alexandrian."
As can be expected, Griesbach
was not a Bible believer. In fact, he stated, "The New Testament abounds
in more glosses, additions, and interpolations purposely introduced than any
other book."78 He was also antagonostic to any verse which
taught the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. Whenever possible he
devised means to cast doubt on such passages. He said, "the most
suspicious reading of all, is the one that yields a sense favorable to the
nourishment of piety (especially monastic piety). When there are many variant
readings in one place, that reading which more than the others manifestly
favors the dogmas of the orthodox is deservedly regarded as suspicious."79
It is strange indeed that Dr.
Griesbach should expect orthodox Christians to manipulate the book which they
truly believe to be from God, in order to teach Christianity more fervently. He
never mentioned any apprehension that heretics might delete and alter doctrinal
passages. What kind of scholarship is it that naturally suspects born-again
Christians of an act bordering on sacrilege, but never doubts the integrity of
infidels? Is this God's method?
Whatever it was that
possessed Griesbach to suspect Christians of such criminal acts also possessed
two of his followers. Hill explains: "Westcott and Hort professed to 'venerate' the name of
Griesbach above that of every other textual critic of the New Testament. Like
Griesbach they believed that the orthodox Christian scribes had altered the New
Testament manuscripts in the interest of orthodoxy. Hence like Griesbach, they
ruled out in advance any possibility of the providential preservation of the
New Testament text through the usage of believers. But at the same time they
were very zealous to deny that heretics had made any intentional changes in the
New Testament text. 'It will not be out of place,' they wrote, 'to add here a
distinct expression of our belief that even among the numerous unquestionably
spur-ious readings of the New Testament, there are no signs of deliberate
falsification of the text for dogmatic purposes.' The effect of this one-sided
theory was to condemn the text found in the majority of the New Testament
manuscripts and exonerate that of B and Aleph."80 Thus the Local Text,
supported by the Roman Catholic Church, became an authority equal to or higher
than the Universal Text of the Authorized Version in spite of the many
doctrinal changes. After all, Griesbach, Westcott, and Hort had already
established that heretics never falsify Scripture--only Christians do!
As the infidelity of men such
as this is accepted as authorative, Christians begin to look to their Bible
with more and more skepticism. What more could Satan desire?
Are these men to be blamed
for their failure to accept the Bible as infallible, or have they been
unsuspecting dupes of a plan much bigger and far more serious than they could
have ever suspected? Let us see.
One man who
became greatly responsible for the fall of England to a sympathetic acceptance
of Roman Catholic ideas was Cardinal Wiseman (1802-1865).
Wiseman was the prime mover
in installing the Roman Catholic Church back on the shore of England. He was
born and raised in England. He went to Rome to study under Cardinal Mai, the
editor of the Vatican Manuscript.
Wiseman had a desire to see
England return to the fold at Rome. One of the major obstacles to this was the
supremacy which the Authorized Version held there. Where the Authorized Version
prevails, Rome cannot.
While in
Rome, he was visited by several Neo-Protestants. He was instrumental in
"weaning" these men back into subjection to the Pope. One of his
visitors was William Gladstone (1809-1898),who was to become prime minister of
England. He was a man known for his change from being a Conservative to a
Liberal.
Another visitor was Anglican
Archbishop Trench, who returned to England to promote a revision of the
Authorized Version and even joined the Revision Committee of 1871.
Still another was John Henry
Newman. Newman was the brilliant English churchman who was a leader of Oxford
University and the English clergy.
Newman was close friends with
Herrell Froude. Froude, Wilkenson tells us, was the son of a High Churchman,
"who loathed Protestantism, denounced the Evangelicals, and brought up his
sons to do the same."81
These two, Newman and Froude,
joined affinity with John Keble. Keble, like Froude, was of High Church
background. He was strongly anti-Protestant and anti-Evangelical.82
Newman and Froude visited
Wiseman in Rome in 1833. Having been taken in by the beautiful architecture of
Rome's cathedrals and the solemn grandeur of the high masses, the two Oxford
professors inquired of Wiseman as to what terms the Roman Catholic Church would
require to accept the Church of England back into the Roman Church. Wiseman's
reply was cold and clear: The Church of England must accept the Council of
Trent. At this, Newman left Rome stating, "I have a work to do in
England," a work indeed, in which he, Froude, Keble, and Edward Pusey
joined forces to swing England back to Rome and to remove their primary
adversary, the hated King James Bible.
Newman, brilliant man that he
was, provided the strong intellectual leadership needed. Pusey was the
moralist, and Keble spoke through the delicate words of the poet and captivated
the hearts and minds of many an unsuspecting young scholar. Any who lacked a
strong stand on Bible principles would be easy prey for these apostates.
Newman, in fact, was so taken
in by the spell of Rome that he, in 1845, left the Church of England and
formally joined the Roman Catholic Church, following a similar apostate, named
Ward, who had written a book teaching the worship of Mary and "mental
reservation." Mental reservation is the act, condoned by the Roman
Catholic Church, of lying to keep from revealing your ties to Rome. Wilkenson records Newman's
betrayal: "Public sentiment was again aroused to intensity in 1845 when
Ward, an outstanding Tractarian, published His book which taught the most
offensive Roman views, Mariolatry, and mental reservation in subscribing to the
Thirty-nine Articles. When Oxford degraded him from his university rights, he
went over in September to the Church of Rome. It became very evident that
Newman soon would follow. On the night of October 8 Father Dominic, of the
Italian Passionists, arrived at Newman's quarters in a downpouring rain. After
being received, he was standing before the fire drying his wet garments. He
turned around to see Newman prostrate at his feet, begging his blessing, and
asking him to hear his confession. Thus the author of Lead Kindly Light
passed over to Rome, and within one year 150 clergyman and eminent laymen also
had joined the Catholic Church."83 Where was Wiseman through all
of this? He was naturally close at hand. In 1836, three years following Newman
and Froude's visit, he had moved to Ireland to supervise the Oxford Movement
through his paper, the "Dublin Review." Wiseman was described as,
"a textual critic of the first rank, and assisted by the information
seemingly passed on to him from the Jesuits, he was able to finish the
facts well calculated to combat confidence in the Protestant Bible."
84 (Emphasis mine.)
England had graduated from
"revival" to "education," and her "education" had
developed into her own unique "culture." From there, the Roman
Catholic Church was willing to supply the apostasy.
Today in
colleges and churches across America and around the world, truly good, godly
men who love the Lord Jesus and sincerely desire to serve Him, are
unsuspectingly propagating the Roman Catholic method of textual criticism. The
result is that Christian soldiers who go out to fight Rome, either with a
perfect Bible which they have been taught to doubt, or else an unreliable
translation of the Rome-supported Local Text, which is worthy of all suspicion.
Education in America has come
to the place of either having to swallow its pride, admit it has been wrong,
and return to the true Bible; or else make another more vehement attack on the
Authorized Bible in hopes of finally silencing it and its supporters, in the
hope of hiding its mistake. Christians be warned! The Revised Version did not
ring the death note for the King James Bible. It rang the death note for
England!
All of the translations before and after 1881 which were going to replace the Authorized Version lie silently in the "grave" right now. Those which do not, shall soon join their ranks in the halls of the "improved," "thoroughly reliable," "truly accurate," and "starters of a new tradition," dead. They have failed to start one revival. They have failed to induce Christians back to reading their Bibles, and have only succeeded in casting doubt on the true Word of God. The question is, can we repair the damage already done and proceed from here? The answer is YES! |
In this chapter we will be
looking at some of the common misrepresentations of the Authorized Version.
Many of these misrepresentations are unintentional. Most of the comments
against the Authorized Version are, in fact, simply repetitions of what the
commentator heard from a pulpit, read in a book, or learned in a classroom.
Most of the fervency against
the Authorized Version is not so much due to a conscious hatred against the
Book, as much as it is a show of one's education. This fact, which is a
conscious malice, is then coupled with the "flesh" or "natural
man," which may be an unconscious malice, to form a constant antagonism
toward the true Word of God. This "old nature" exists in every
person, even Christians. It will not change until the rapture. This nature
manifests itself in an innate desire not to submit to the authority of God.
Satan realizes this and uses
it to his own advantage by giving the flesh ammunition to fight a battle which
it naturally wants to fight. The sad result of this spirit of judgment is that
the Word of God never really gets a fair trial.
Today it is widely
taught and accepted that God wrote the originals perfectly, but that there is
no perfect translation. Yet, there is no scripture that teaches any such thing!
This teaching is based on logic, man's logic. Christian educators of today say
that it is absurd to believe that God could use sinful men to translate His
Word perfectly. Such a supposition of a perfect translation is no more absurd
than the teaching that God used sinful men to write the Bible perfectly in the
originals! Every argument for innerrant, infallible
inspiration applies also for innerrant, infallible preservation. It is
the same God!
If a believer in perfect
inspiration says that God overpowered the writers' ability to make a mistake,
the believer in perfect preservation can also state that God overpowered the
translators' ability to make a mistake. It can also very happily be pointed out
that a man who claims that God preserved His Words can at least PRODUCE what
he claims to believe in!
I personally
believe that God has perfectly preserved His Word in the King James or
Authorized Version. I can at least produce a King James Bible to show what I
believe in. Any person who claims that God inspired the original autographs
perfectly, cannot produce those original manuscripts to prove it! I do not
believe that the King James Bible is a new inspiration. "Inspiration"
starts with a blank sheet of paper, a man of God, and God. I am saying that the
Authorized Version is every word of God that was in the original autographs, preserved
to this day. "Preservation" starts with God's manuscripts, a man of
God, and God. The end result of both is the same: the perfect Word and words of
God. It only makes sense.
Many of today's preachers and
self-proclaimed scholars slam their fists down on their pulpits in simulated
"righteous indignation" while holding a Bible over their heads and
loudly proclaim, "This Book doesn't 'CONTAIN' the word of God, it IS
the Word of God! Perfect! Infallible! Without admixture of error!" to the
delight of the audience. But ask them, while out of their
pulpit, if they believe that THE BOOK IN THEIR HAND is truly without error, and
they immediately go into a song and dance routine about "just a
translation OF the Bible" and say something about "Forever,
O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." Try pressing the issue,
and they will question your authority to do so (Matthew 21:23), and if you
persist you will be labeled a "Ruckmanite."
All for simply believing that
this "godly man" really believed what he had said when he was
performing behind his pulpit!
We have
studied the history of the MSS, of the New Testament, and the historical plans
and attempts to overthrow God's preservation of His Word. We have seen that the
vast majority of MSS and of historical evidence points to the Authorized
Version as God's preserved Word. Still, there is an air of antagonism against
the Authorized Version. Strange as it may seem, the only things which Roman
Catholics, apostates, Protestants, and fundamentalists can agree on is that the
King James Bible should be eliminated! This striking truth in itself should be
enough to shock born-again Christians into scrutinizing their position to make
sure of which side of the fence they are on. When we find ourselves aligned
with Satan's church against Scripture, we find ourselves in a very dangerous
position. This is especially true when we consider what the result would be if
these groups were successful in abolishing the King James Version. The
elimination of the Authorized Version finds us without a Bible, at which time
we find Rome rushing to the rescue with her 1582 Jesuit translation, and the
anti-God Local Text of Alexandria. Knowing that no fundamentalist would
consciously use a Roman Catholic Bible, the Roman Church has obliged us by
changing the cover to Revised Version, American Standard Version, Good News for
Modern Man, the Living Bible, the Amplified Bible, the Jerusalem Bible, the
Common Bible, the New International Version, the New Scofield Reference Bible, and
many more. The story is true; the names have been changed to protect the
guilty.
Rome realized that there is
not one of these new Roman Catholic translations which will ever replace God's
Authorized Version. Her plan is to get any one of these translations to replace
the Authorized Version in any group of Christians. Let the fundamentalists use
one of the Revised Standard Version's "twin sons," the New American
Standard Version or the New International Version. Convince the young people
that they cannot understand the "thees" and "thous" in
God's Authorized Version and hand them a "Good News for Modern Man"
or a "Living Bible." Promote each new translation of the Local Text
of Alexandria, Egypt, as "thoroughly reliable" or "more accurate,"
until the Authorized Version is removed from the hearts of Christians little by
little.
How many young "preacher
boys" have had their faith in God's PERFECT Word trampled and destroyed
while they sat in independent, fundamental Bible colleges where they
thought that they were safe?!
How many found themselves,
upon graduation three or four years later indebted to their "alma
mater" for teaching them what the "originals really said" and in
so doing saved them from being drawn into that group of "King James
fanatics," that "lunatic fringe," that "cult"?
They found themselves leaving
college with the confidence (?) that the Book under their arm was NOT perfect,
and thanking God for the school that had shown them that!
The only person happier than
they were was the Pope. After all, who wants someone who speaks with authority?
(Mark 1:22)
It must be
remembered at this time that every new Bible is introduced as being
"better than the Authorized Version." It may also be noted that every
false prophet is introduced as "better" than Jesus Christ. Mohammed
had supposedly come to finish the work which Christ began. Charles Manson
claimed that he was Jesus Christ. Sun Nyung Moon claims to have to finished the
job which Jesus Christ failed to finish. Jim Jones claimed to be Jesus Christ.
The Beatles claimed to be more popular than Jesus Christ.
Notice that Jim Jones did not
claim to be Mohammed. Notice that Moon did not claim to be the replacement for
Buddha. All of the false prophets attack Jesus Christ. Notice that the Good
News for Modern Man does not claim to be better than the American Standard
Version, but it does claim to be better than the Authorized Version. Notice
also that the New International Version does not claim to be better than the
American Standard Version; it claims to be better than the Authorized Version.
A false prophet can always be recognized, because he attacks the true prophet.
A false Bible can be recognized, because it attacks the true Bible.
LET ME
ALLEGORIZE FOR A MOMENT. The claims of the new Bibles are strikingly similar to
the claims of the famous "Super Sack" grocery bag which has swept the
country. The bag producers wanted to cut production costs. The "old
reliable" double bag was just about indestructible when it came to doing
its job, but it was too costly to produce. The manufacturers came up with the
idea of producing an inferior product but calling it "superior."
It has happened to us all.
One day, on a trip with our wives to the grocery store, we picked up our
groceries and noticed the bag. It wasn't a double bag! "They've made them
cheaper," we thought. Then we noticed an official looking statement on the
side: "This new Super Sack is made from a new high strength paper. There
is no double bagging needed."
"Well," we
realized, "then it isn't an inferior product after all. It's new and
better. That's good to know."
We "bought the
pitch." In our trusting, childlike manner, we believed that the
"Super Sack" was better than the "old reliable" double bag,
just because someone told us that it was.
"This new Super Sack ...
no double bagging needed."
How many times have these
words echoed through my head as I heard a horrifying, tearing sound. I watched
as the cans rolled across the grocery store parking lot. I watched the flour
break open in the back seat of the car. After getting the survivors into the
car, we headed for home.
"This new Super Sack ...
no double bagging needed."
We hear that sound! We watch
broken eggs as they pour their contents out into the driveway. The cereal has
broken open, and now the neighbors dog picks up our last package of hamburger.
We make a wild dash for the house, leaving a trail of canned goods, broken
jelly jars, and spilled milk in our wake. We arrive at the back door holding
nothing more than a large piece of brown paper with words on the side reading:
"This Super Sack is made from a new high strength paper. There is no
double bagging needed."
At times like that, standing
there, surveying the damage, I can hardly frame the proper words with which to
thank the manufacturers for blessing me with this wonderful, new, improved
"Super Sack."
This "Super Sack"
philosophy has existed in the field of Bible translations for years.
Every new translation
published appears first with a giant "media campaign" directed at the
Christian community. This campaign is designed to tell the Christians that they
"need" this new translation, because the Christians do not know it.
This is not an overstatement but is proven true by the Preface to the New
American Standard Version of 1963. The last paragraph in the Preface begins
with this statement:
"It is enthusiastically
anticipated that the general public will be grateful to learn of the
availability, value and need of the New American Standard
Version." (Emphasis mine.)
The Lockman Foundation has
admitted translating a Bible that the general public doesn't know that it
needs! It is intended for the general public to realize that they
"need" this Bible when they read the advertisement. This is just like
a laundry detergent.
Let us look
into the way in which this "Bible advertising" works.
We read a few Christian
periodicals and observe that a new translation has been published. It is, of
course, compared to the Authorized Version. The "mistakes" of the
Authorized Version are revealed to show us the "need" for a new
translation. Next, this new translation is unveiled with exclamation of
"thoroughly reliable," "true to the Original Greek," and
"starting a new tradition." We read but are skeptical.
We proceed to the
"Bible" book store to look over this new translation. After having
the "sales pitch" from the man behind the counter, we leave carrying
a grocery bag (Super Sack) full of "new," "modern,"
"easy to read" translations in which we are assured that "all of
the fundamentals can be found." On the way home, we decide to try out these
"more accurate," "Christ exalting" versions.
We meet a
Jehovah's Witness. In the following discussion we try to convince him that
Jesus Christ was not a created God. He shows us John 1:18 in his "New
World Translation." It reads that Christ was the "only begotten
God." We snicker. "That's just your version," we say, reaching
for a New International Version. To our amazement it also reads "only
begotten God!"
Being fully embarrassed, we
change the subject to the trinity. "I John 5:7!" we exclaim. Now
we've got him! We turn to I John 5:7 in the "Good News for Modern
Man." "There are three witnesses," it says.
Our Jehovahs Witness asks,
"So, what does that teach?" We stammer, "Wait a minute," as
we reach for a New American Standard Version. "And it is the Spirit who
bears witness, because the Spirit is truth."
"So how is the trinity
taught from that verse?" he demands.
With our face glowing red and
phrases like "thoroughly reliable" and "faithful to the
originals" spinning through our head, we desperately grab a New King James
Version.
"For there are three
that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and
these three are one." I John 5:7.
"There it is! There it
is!" We exclaim, "See there, the Trinity!"
"Read the footnote on
it," he states calmly. "Out loud!"
"The words from 'in
heaven' (v. 7) through 'on earth' (v. 8) are from the Latin Bible, although
three Greek mss. from the 15th Century and later also contain them."
"You see," says our
adversary, "it doesn't belong there."
Thankfully he hasn't got any
more time to talk, and he leaves.
We tear our "Super
Sack" slightly as we pick it back up and head for home, not quite
understanding what has taken place. In our mind we hear the Bible store
salesman saying, "But I can find the fundamentals in these new
versions."
In an attempt
to boost our own morale, we try to lead a man to Christ. We tell him the
simplicity of conversion. We relate to him how easy it was for the Ethiopian
eunuch. We open a Revised Standard Version to show it to him. We read Acts 8:36
and then the next verse, verse 38. "Wait just a second; I seem to have
skipped over a verse," we say apologetically.
We read verse 36, then
carefully run our finger across the line to the next verse, verse 38! There is
no verse 37! This eunuch never believed on the Lord Jesus Christ!
"Excuse me," we
apologize. "I seem to have picked up the wrong Bible." We lay down
the Revised Standard Version and pick up the New American Standard Version. We
read again. This time we arrive at verse 37.
It says, "See
footnote."
"No thank you!" we
say to ourselves.
Having lost his train of
thought, our lost friend walks off shaking his head and wondering why
Christians don't know their Bibles better.
Of all things, we run into an
infidel before we can reach the safety of our home.
"Jesus Christ was not
God in the flesh," he states.
"Oh yes He was!" we
retort confidently, happy to have the opportunity to redeem ourselves for the
bad showing earlier. "Look at I Timothy 3:16."
We pick the Living Bible.
"But the answer lies in
Christ, who came to earth as a man...."
"There's no 'God' in
that verse," he declares.
The statement of the salesmen
comes to mind again. "But I can find the fundamentals in these."
"Where?" we ask
ourselves returning to the Revised Standard Version.
"He was manifested in
the flesh...."
"Where is God?"
demands our infidel. We wonder the same thing!
"He appeared in human
form," says the Good News for Modern Man.
"He who was revealed in
the flesh," states the New American Standard Version.
"Where is God?"
demands our infidel with finality.
"I don't know. I really
don't know," we reply with our heads down in sorrow.
We drag our wounded spirits
home. Words cannot describe our "gratitude" to the Lockman Foundation
and all the rest of those "godly, conservative scholars" who gave us
these "accurate, reliable, true to the original" translations. We
hear a horrifying, tearing sound as we reach the back door.
The next morning the garbage
man finds a garbage bag full of brand new, unused "Bibles" covered by
a large, torn piece of brown paper with the words on the side saying:
"This new Super Sack is made from a new high strength paper. There is no
double bagging needed."
No thank you, we will stick with
our "old, reliable" King James, 1611.
The story has been an
allegory, but the philosophy it describes is very true.
We shall now look at some of
the complaints against the Authorized Version. Remember, being able to
"find the fundamentals" in a version is not enough. This was the
claim of the corrupt Revised Version! As Wilkenson points out, "There are
many who claim that the changes in the Revised Version did not affect any
doctrine."
The problem with this
statement is that even if the major doctrines can be found in these new Roman
Catholic Bibles, these doctrines always appear in a watered down form.
Yes, the blood of atonement
can be taught in spite of the removal of the word "blood" from
Colossians 1:14. The doctrine of the blood atonement is found in other
passages. The danger is this. Where the Authorized Version teaches a given
doctrine in maybe thirty different places, the New American Standard Version
may teach the same doctrine in only twenty. The New International Version may
only teach this doctrine in fifteen passages. The next "new and
improved" version may teach it only three or four, until it is reduced to
only one passage. How then can we teach a new convert this "major"
doctrine from only one passage?
All of the doctrines, which
today's fundamentalists claim to be able to "find" in these new
translations, have been taught to these same fundamentalists through the use of
a King James Bible. How will the next generation of Christians learn pure
doctrine from a watered down Bible? How can we even call something a
"major" doctrine which is taught only in one or two verses?
Remember, Satan is not
worried at all about what people think of Jesus if he can just keep us from
being able to prove that He was virgin born, shed His blood for our sins, rose
from the dead, or is coming back physically. Without scripture to prove the
above, Jesus was just a man.
The new Bibles have no blood
in them, no Lord, no second coming, nor other vital doctrines. In other words,
the new Bibles have all of the convictions of B.F. Westcott.
Many Christian educators,
(especially scholars) claim that the scholarship of today is greater than that
of the days of King James. How can they say such a thing? How can men who say
that the Bible teaches that everything will get worse and worse with time claim
that education is the exception? We see the signs of apostasy all around us.
They are evident in world economic systems. They are evident in educational
systems. They are evident in the apostasy of religious groups which were
formerly loyal to the Bible. They are evident in the worldly learnings of many
once separated Christian colleges. Are we to believe that
"scholarship" has avoided the "downhill progress?" That is
far from being realistic.
Scholar for scholar, the men
on the King James translating committee were far greater men of God than
Westcott, Hort, or any other new translator. They were not only educated in a
powerful, anti-Roman atmosphere, but they looked at the MSS which they handled
as the Holy Word of God. They state such in the Dedicatory to King James:
"So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish
persons at home or abroad, who therefore will malign us, because we are poor
instruments to make God's holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the
people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness; or if, on the
other side, we shall be maligned by self-conceited brethren, who run their own
ways, and give liking unto nothing, but what is framed by themselves, and
hammered on their anvil...."
As can be seen, they
considered themselves "unworthy instruments," for these were humble
men.
Compare the words of the King
James translators to the pride of the anonymous Lockman Foundation:
"The producers of this translation were imbued with the
conviction that interest in the American Standard Version should be renewed and
increased. Perhaps the most weighty impetus for this undertaking can be
attributed to a disturbing awareness that the American Standard Version of 1901
was fast disappearing from the scene. As a generation "which knew not
Joseph" was born, even so a generation unacquainted with this great and
important work has come into being. Recognizing a responsibility to posterity,
the Lockman Foundation felt an urgency to rescue this noble achievement from an
inevitable demise, to reserve it as a heritage for coming generations, and to
do so in such a form as the demands of passing time dictate. It is
enthusiastically anticipated that the general public will be grateful to learn
of the availability, value and need of the New American Standard Bible. It is
released with the strong confidence that those who seek a knowledge of the
scriptures will find herein a source of genuine satisfaction for a clear and
accurate rendering of divinely-revealed truth."196
The mysterious Lockman
Foundation seems not only to believe that they have done us a great service,
but seems also to feel that we "ignorant" members of the general
public should be grateful to them for their "clear and accurate"
translation. Of course we are grateful. We are just as grateful to the Lockman
Foundation as we are to the manufacturers of the "Super Sack." Their
products seem to be equal in quality.
As stated earlier,
the translation of the King James Bible was achieved at a "parenthesis of
purity" in English history. It was produced during a brief period
following the overthrow of Roman authority and prior to the apostasy of the
Church of England. It was translated in the era when the still young English
language was at its height of purity. Dr. McClure succeeds in aptly describing
this esteemed company of translators:
"As to the capability of those men, we say again, that, by
the good providence of God, their work was undertaken in a fortunate time. Not
only had the English language, that singular compound, then ripened to its full
perfection, but the study of Greek and of the Oriental tongues and/or
rabbinical lore had then been carried to a greater extent in England than ever
before or since." "This particular field of learning has never been so highly
cultivated among English divines as it was at that day. To evidence this fact,
so far as necessary limits will admit, it will be requisite to sketch the characters
and scholarship of those men, who have made all coming ages their debtors. When
this pleasing task is done, it is confidently expected that the reader of these
pages will yield to the conviction, that all of the colleges of Great Britian
and America, even in this proud day of boastings, could not bring together the
same number of divines equally qualified by learning and piety for the great
undertaking. Few indeed are the living names worthy to be enrolled with those
mighty men. It would be impossible to convene out of any one Christian
denomination, or out of all, a body of translators on whom the whole Christian
community would bestow such a confidence as is reposed upon that illustrious
company, or who would prove themselves as deserving of such confidence. Very
many self-styled "improved versions" of the Bible, or of parts of it,
have been paraded before the world, but the religious public has doomed them
all, without exception, to utter neglect."197
As Dr. McClure has already
stated, to fully apprciate the depth of true scholarship present at the
translation of the King James Bible, it is necessary to investigate the
character of the individuals on the translating committee. His excellent book, Translator
Revived, will be the primary source of the following brief biographical
comments.
Dr. Lancelot
Andrews, a member of the Westmenster Company is known for his linguistic
ability.
"Once a year, at Easter, he used to pass a month with his
parents. During this vacation, he would find a master, from whom he learned
some language to which he was a stranger. In this way after a few years, he
acquired most of the modern languages of Europe."198
"He was not a man of 'head knowledge' only. He was a man of
great practical preaching ability and an ardent opponent of Rome. His
conspicuous talents soon gained him powerful patrons. Henry, Earl of
Huntington, took him into the north of England, where he was the means of
converting many Papists by his preaching and disputations."199 "As a preacher, Bishop Andrews was right famous in his day.
He was called the 'star of preachers.'" 200 Dr. Andrews was also known as
a great man of prayer. "Many hours he spent each day in private and family devotions;
and there were some who used to desire that 'they might end their days in
Bishop Andrews' chapel.' He was one in whom was proved the truth of Luther's
saying, that 'to have prayed well, is to have studied well.'"201 Although he was a mighty
preacher and prayer warrior, he was not "above" the people around
him. "This worthy diocesan was much 'given to hospitality,' and
especially to literary strangers. So bountiful was his cheer, that it used to
be said, 'My Lord of Winchester keeps Christmas all years 'round.'"202 Lastly we review his ability
as a translator of the Word of God. "But we are chiefly concerned to know what were his
qualifications as a translator of the Bible. He ever bore the character of a
'right godly man,' and a 'prodigious student.' One competent judge speaks of
him as 'that great gulf of learning!' It was also said, that 'the world wanted
learning to know how learned this man was.' A brave old chronicler remarks,
that such was his skill in all languages, especially the Oriental, that had he
been present at the confusion of tongues at Babel, he might have served as the
Intepreter-General! In his funeral sermon by Dr. Buckzidge, Bishop of
Rochester, it is said that Dr. Andrews was conversant with fifteen
languages."203
Dr. John
Overall was another of the King James translators. He, too, was known for his
opposition to Roman rule. He was present at the hanging of the Jesuit Henry
Garnet, mastermind of 'the Gun-powder Plot.'
In spite of his opposition to
Rome, he had an interest in individual souls and urged Garnet to make a true
and lively faith to God-ward."204
Dr. Overall was vital to the
translation because of his knowledge of quotations of the early church fathers.
Without a man with such knowledge it might have been impossible to verify the
authenticity of passages such as I John 5:7. This verse has a multitude of
evidence among church fathers, though its manuscript evidence suffers from the
attacks of Alexandria's philosophers.
This disputed
verse is known among textual circles as the "Johannine Comma." Dr.
Edward Hills records some of the evidence in its favor:
"The first undisputed citations of the Johannine Comma occur
in the writings of two fourth century Spanish bishops, Priscillian, who in 385
was beheaded by the emperor Maximus in the charge of sorcery and heresy, and
Idacious Clarus, Priscillian's principal adversary and accuser. In the Fifth
Century the Johannine Comma was quoted by several orthodox African writers to
defend the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals, who
ruled North Mrica from 439 to 534 and were fanatically attached to the Arian
heresy. About the same time it was cited by Cassiodorus (480-570) in Italy. The
Comma is also found in r, an old Latin manuscript of the fifth or sixth
century, and in the Speculum, a treatise which contains an old Latin text. It
was not included in Jerome's original edition of the Latin Vulgate, but around
the year 800 it was taken into the text of the Vulgate from the old Latin
manuscripts. It was found in the great mass of the later Vulgate manuscripts
and in the Clementine edition of the Vulgate, the official Bible of the Roman
Catholic Church."205
It was also cited by Cyprian
in 225 A.D. 206
This is one hundred and
seventy-five years before Eusebius penned the Vatican manuscript.
We can see then that Dr.
Overall's contribution to the translation would be of the utmost importance. No
"modern" translation has so candidly investigated the evidence of the
church fathers.
Dr. Hadrian
Saravia, another learned translator, was as evangelical as he was scholarly.
McClure reports:
"He was sent by Queen Elizabeth's council as a sort of
missionary to the islands of Guernsey and Jersey, where he was one of the first
Protestant ministers; knowing, as he says of himself, in a letter, 'which were
the beginnings, and by what means and occasions the preaching of God's Word was
planted there.' He labored there in a two-fold capacity, doing the work of an
evangelist, and conducting a newly established school, called Elizabeth
College."207
He too, as any truly
dedicated soldier for Christ, was a constant foe of Rome. In 1611 he published
a treatise on Papal primacy against the Jesuit Gretser.
He is said to have been
"educated in all kinds of literature in his younger days, especially
several languages."208
Dr. John
Laifield was another man of unique talents which lent to his extraordinary
value as a translator. Of him it is said: "That being skilled in
architecture, his judgement was much relied on for the fabric of the tabernacle
and temple."209
Dr. Robert
Tighe was known as "an excellent textuary and profound lingtlist."210
Dr. William
Bedwell was "an eminent Oriental scholar." His epitaph mentions that
he was "for the Eastern tongues, as learned a man as most lived in these
modern times."
"He published in quarto an edition of the epistles of St.
John in Arabic, with a Latin version, printed at the press of Raphelengius, at
Antwerp, in 1612. He also left many Arabic manuscripts to the University of
Cambridge, with numerous notes upon them, and a font of types of printing them.
His fame for Arabic learning was so great, that when Erpenius, a most renowned
Orientalist, resided in England in 1606, he was much indebted to Bedwell for
direction in his studies. To Bedwell, rather than to Erpenius, who commonly
enjoys it, belongs the honor of being the first who considerably promoted and
revived the study of the Arabic language and literature in Europe. He was also
tutor to another Orientalist of reknown, Dr. Pococke."211 "Some modern scholars have fancied, that we have an advantage
in our times over the translators of King James' day, by reason of the greater
attention which is supposed to be paid at present to what are called the
'cognate' and 'Shemitic' languages, and especially the Arabic by which much
light is thought to be reflected upon Hebrew words and phrases. It is evident,
however, that Mr. Bedwell and others, among his fellow-laborers, were
thoroughly conversant in this part of the broad field of sacred
criticism."212 In addition to his work on
the Authorized Version, Dr. Bedwell left several other contributions to his
age: "Dr. Bedwell also commenced a Persian dictionary, which is
among Archbishop Laid's manuscripts, still preserved in the Bodelian Library at
Oxford. In 1615 he published his book, A Discovery of the Impostures of
Mahomet and of the Koran. To this was annexed his Arabian Trudgeman. "Dr. Bedwell had a fondness for mathematical studies. He
invented a ruler for geometrical purposes, like that we call Gunther's Scale,
which went by the 'Bedwell's Ruler'. "After Bedwell's death, the voluminous manuscripts of his
lexicon were loaned to the University of Cambridge to aid the compilation of
Dr. Castell's colossal work, the Lexicon Heptaglotton."213 Dr. Edward
Lively was known as "one of the best linguists in the world ... Much
dependence was placed on his surpassing skill in Oriental languages."214
Dr. Lawrence
Chaderton was raised a Roman Catholic and encouraged by his family to become a
lawyer. He traveled to London where he was converted to Christ and joined the
Puritan Congregation there. 215 It is said that:
"He made himself familiar with the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew
tongues and was thoroughly skilled in them. Moreover he had diligently
investigated the numerous writings of the Rabbis, so far as they seemed to
promise any aid to the understanding of the Scriptures."216
Dr. Chaderton was a powerful
preacher who lived to the age of one hundred and three. A preaching engagement
in his later years was described as follows:
"Having addressed his audience for two full hours by the
glass, he paused and said, 'I will no longer trespass on your patience.' And
now comes the marvel; for the whole congreagtion cried out with one consent for
God's sake, go on! He accordingly proceeded much longer, to their great satisfaction
and delight."217
Dr. McClure leaves us to
ponder the direction scholarship has taken in these modern times. "For
even now people like to hear such preaching as is preaching. But where shall we
find men for the work like those who gave us our version of the Bible?"
Dr. Francis
Dillingham was so studied in the original languages that he participated in
public debate in Greek.218
Dr. Dillingham was another
soldier for Christ who took aggressive action against the teaching of Rome.
"He collected out of Cardinal Bellarmine's writings, all the concessions
made by the acute author in favor of Protestantism. He published a Manual of
Christian Faith, taken from the Fathers, and a variety of treatises on
different points belonging to the Romish controversy."219
Dr. Thomas
Harrison, it is recorded, was chosen to assist the King James translation due
to his knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. In fact his ability served him well in
his duties as Vice-Master of Trinity College in Cambridge.
"On account of his exquisite skill in the Hebrew and Greek
idioms, he was one of the chief examiners in the University of those who sought
to be public professors of these languages."220
John Harding
was an ardent scholar of whom it is said concerning his ability: "At the
time of his appointment to aid in the translation of the Bible, he had been
Royal Professor of Hebrew in the University for thirteen years. His occupancy
of that chair, at a time when the study of sacred literature was pursued by
thousands with a zeal amounting to a possession, is a fair intimation that Dr.
Harding was the man for the post he occupied."221
Dr. John
Reynolds had been raised in the Roman Catholic Church. As Chaderton, he too
trusted Christ and became a Puritan. The attributes leading to his position on
the translation committee are recorded as follows: "Determined to explore the whole field and make himself
master of the subject, he devoted himself to the study of the Scriptures in the
original tongues, and read all the Greek and Latin fathers, and all the ancient
records of the Church."222 His aggressive nature toward
the false teachings of his former church are exemplified in the following
record: "About the year 1578, John Hart, a popish zealot, challenged
all the learned men in the nation to a public debate. At the solicitation of
one of Queen Elizabeth's privy counsellors, Mr. Reynolds encountered him. After
several combats, the Romish champion owned himself driven from the field."
"At that time, the celebrated Cardinal Bellarmine, the
Goliath of the Philistines at Rome, was professor of theology in the English
Seminary at that city. As fast as he delivered his popish doctrine, it was
taken down in writing, and regularly sent to Dr. Reynolds; who from time to
time, publicly confuted it at Oxford. Thus Bellarmine's books were answered,
even before they were printed."223 His skills in Hebrew and
Greek made his appointment to the company of translators a wise one. While on
his death bed, it is recorded: "The papists started a report, that their famous opposer had
recanted his Protestant sentiments. He was much grieved at hearing of the
rumor; but too feeble to speak, set his name to the following declaration:
'These are to testify to all the world, that I die in the possession of that
faith which I have taught all my life, both in my preachings and in my
writings, with an assured hope of my salvation, only by the merits of Christ my
Savior."'224 Dr. Richard
Kilby was a man worthy of the position of translator. One incident in his life,
which occurred shortly after the Authorized Version had been published,
suffices not only to reveal his depth, but also the dangers of the
self-esteemed "scholars" changing the translation of even one word in
God's Book.
"I must here stop my reader, and tell him that this Dr. Kilby
was a man so great in learning and wisdom, and so excellent a critic in the
Hebrew tongue, that he was made professor of it in this University; and as also
so perfect a Grecian, that he was by King James appointed to be one of the
translators of the Bible, and that this Doctor and Mr. Sanderson had frequent
discourses, and loved as father and son. The Doctor was to ride a journey into
Derbyshire, and took Mr. Sanderson to bear him company; and they resting on a
Sunday with the Doctor's friend, and going together to that parish church where
they were, found the young preacher to have no more discretion than to waste a
great part of the hour allotted for his sermon in exceptions against the late
translation of several words, (not expecting such a hearer as Dr. Kilby) and
showed three reasons why a particular word should have been otherwise
translated. When evening prayer was ended, the preacher was invited to the
Doctor's friend's house, where after some other confidence, the Doctor told
him, he might have preached more useful doctrine, and not filled his auditor's
ears with needless exceptions against the translation; and for that word for
which he offered to that poor congregation three reasons why it ought to have
been translated as he and others had considered all them, and found thirteen
more considerable reasons why it was translated as now printed."225 Dr. Miles Smith
was the man responsible for the preface to the King James Bible. This preface
is no longer printed in the present copies of the Book. He had a knowledge of
the Greek and Latin fathers, as well as being expert in Chaldee, Syriac, and
Arabic. "Hebrew he had at his finger's end." 226 And so
was the Ethiopic tongue. Dr. Henry
Saville was known for his Greek and mathematical learning. He was so well known
for his education, skilled with languages and knowledge of the Word, that he
became Greek and mathematical tutor to Queen Elizabeth during the reign of her
father, Henry VIII. 227 Dr. McClure tells us,
"He is chiefly known, however, by being the first to edit the complete
works of John Chrysostom, the most famous of the Greek Fathers." 228
We could go on and on
concerning the scholarship of the King James translators, but we have not the
space here. Dr. McClure's book, Translators Revived, is recommended
for an in-depth study of the lives of these men. It should be noted that these
men were qualified in the readings of the church fathers which prevented them
from being "locked" to the manuscripts, causing early readings to be
overlooked. This is vastly better than the methods used by modern translators. It should also be recognized
that these men did not live in "ivory towers." They were men who were
just as renowned for their preaching ability as they were for their esteemed
education. It is a lesson in humility to see men of such great spiritual
stature call themselves "poor instruments to make God's Holy Truth to be
yet more and more known." We shall now
briefly examine a few of the translators of the Revised Standard Version. The
reasons that we shall examine these revisors are as follows: First, it is due to the secrecy
surrounding translations such as the New American Standard Version and the New
International Version. The Lockman Foundation has elected to remain anonymous.
This is, of course, the safest method, as it prevents investigative eyes from
discovering truths such as those we shall see concerning the Revised Standard
Version translators. The translating committee of
the New International Version is also nameless. We are assured of their
"scholarship" although words without proof ring of a snake oil salesman
in the days of the Old West. Of course, it must be admitted, they are both in
the "selling business." Secondly, we have chosen to
examine the Revised Standard Version translators because they are of the exact
same conviction concerning biblical MSS as Westcott and Hort, Nestle, the
Lockman Foundation, the New Scofield Board of Editors, and the majority of
unsuspecting college professors and preachers across America today. Namely,
they believed the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS are more reliable than the God-preserved
Universal Text. Thirdly, due to this mistaken
preference for Roman Catholic MSS, EVERY Bible translation since 1881 is linked
directly to the Revised Version, and had nothing to do with the Authorized
Version. These new translations follow the same MSS family as the Revised
version. This family is the Local Text of Alexandria, Egypt and has no
relationship whatsoever to the Authorized Version. It is the text which Satan
has altered and promotes as a replacement for God's Universal Text. All modern translations, such
as the New American Standard Version, are linked to the Revised Standard
Version of 1952, which is a revision of the American Standard Version of 1901,
which was originally marketed as the American Revised Version - an
American creation growing from the English Revised Version of 1881. Edgar
Goodspeed was on the Revised Standard committee. Goodspeed did not believe in
the deity of Jesus Christ. He looked at Jesus Christ as a social reformer who
gave His life as a martyr for a "cause." Goodspeed said, "Jesus'
youth was probably one of the dawning and increasing dissatisfaction with the
prevalent form of the Jewish religion in Nazareth and in his own home. HE DID
NOT IN THOSE EARLY YEARS SEE WHAT HE COULD DO ABOUT IT, but he must have felt a
growing sense that there was something deeply wrong about it, which should be
corrected."229 Goodspeed continues, "He
faced the question of his next step in his work. He had no mind to die obscured
in some corner of Galilee, to no purpose. A bolder plan was now taking shape in
his mind. He would present himself to Jerusalem ... publicly offer them their
Messianic destiny, AND TAKE THE CONSEQUENCES. And he would do this in ways that
would make his death something that would never be forgotten, but would carry
the message to the end of time. Yet how could this be done?" 230
Goodspeed also, like
Westcott, seemed to think it necessary to explain away Christ's miracles. Here
we see what he thought took place at the feeding of the five thousand: "He took the five loaves and two fishes and looked up to
heaven and blessed the loaves, and broke them in pieces, and gave them to the
disciples to pass to the people. He also divided the two fishes among them all.
And they all ate, and had enough. JESUS' SIMPLE EXAMPLE OF SHARING ALL he and
his disiciples had with their guests must have MOVED THOSE GALILEANS as it
moves us still. THEY COULD NOT DO LESS THAN HE HAD DONE. THEY FOLLOWED HIS EXAMPLE.
He simply showed the way, and they gladly took it." 231 Goodspeed called Genesis the
product of an "Oriental story teller at his best." 232
Julius
Brewer, another revisor, stated, "The dates and figures found in the first
five books of the Bible turn out to be altogether unreliable." 233
Henry
Cadbury, another member of the Revised committee, believed that Jesus Christ
was a just man who was subject to story telling. "He was given to
overstatements, in his case, not a personal idiosyncrasy, but a characteristic
of the Oriental world." 234 He also doubted the deity of
Christ. "A psychology of God, if that is what Jesus was, is not
available." 235 Cadbury, like Westcott, was a
socialist, and he attempted to fit Jesus Christ into the same mold. "His
(Jesus') gospel was in brief, a social gospel." 236 Walter Bowie
was another revisor who believed that the Old Testament was legend instead of
fact. He says in reference to Abraham, "The story of Abraham comes down from
the ancient times; and how much of it is fact and how much of it is legend, no
one can positively tell." 237 In speaking of Jacob
wrestling with the Angel, he says, "The man of whom these words were
written (Genesis 32:31) belongs to a time so long ago that it is uncertain
whether it records history or legend." 238 Bowie did not believe in the
miracle of the burning bush. "One day he (Moses) had a vision. In the
shimmering heat of the desert, beneath the blaze of that Eastern sun, he saw a
bush that seemed to be on fire, and the bush was not consumed." 239
Clarence
Craig was one of the revisors who denied the bodily resurrection of Christ.
"It is to be remembered that there were no eyewitnesses of the
resurrection of Jesus. No canonical gospel PRESUMED to describe Jesus emerging
from the tomb. The mere fact that a tomb was found empty was CAPABLE OF MANY
EXPLANATIONS. THE VERY LAST ONE THAT WOULD BE CREDIBLE TO A MODERN MAN WOULD BE
THE EXPLANATION OF A PHYSICAL RESURRECTION OF THE BODY." 240 Craig also held Westcott's
view that Christ's second coming was a spiritual coming, not physical. "In
other words, the coming of Christ is to THE HEARTS of those who love him. IT IS
NOT HOPE FOR SOME FUTURE TIME, but a present reality of faith." 241
Strangely enough, Craig is
found to agree with the position of the present day "godly Christian
scholars" who believe that God is not able to preserve His Word. "If
God once wrote His revelation in an inerrant book, He certainly failed to provide
any means by which this could be passed on without contamination through human
fallibility...The true Christian position is that the Bible CONTAINS the record
of revelations." 242 Frederick
Grant was in agreement with Westcott and Hort's belief in prayer for the dead.
"It would seem that modern thought...demands that if prayer be real or
effective at all, it shall not cease when those who have gone before advance,
as by a bend in the road beyond our sight...must we cease to pray for them? The
answer is CEASE NOT TO PRAY, for they are living still, in this world of the
other, and still have need of prayers." 243 Willard
Sperry shows his dislike for the gospel of John in the following statement.
"Some of these sayings, it is true, come from the Fourth Gospel (John),
AND WE DO NOT PRESS THAT GOSPEL FOR TOO GREAT VERBAL ACCURACY IN ITS RECORD OF
THE SAYINGS OF JESUS." 244 It is a known fact that all
liberals attack John's gospel, due to the fact that it makes the strongest
statements of the four gospels concerning the deity of Jesus Christ. William Irwin
believed that the Jewish prophets inflated the position of God in the Bible.
"The prophets were forced by the disasters that befell to do some hard,
painful thinking. THEY WERE FORCED BY THE HISTORY OF THEIR OWN TIMES TO REVISE
THEIR MESSAGES AGAIN AND AGAIN IN ORDER TO KEEP UP WITH THE PROGRESS OF THE
AGE. THE ASSYRIANS AND THE BABYLONIANS FORCED THEM TO REVISE THEIR CONCEPTION
OF YAHWEH FROM TIME TO TIME UNTIL THEY FINALLY MADE HIM GOD OF THE
UNIVERSE." 246 Fleming James
was yet another Bible revisor who was as much an infidel as any secular college
professor in America today. He said concerning Moses' authorship of the first
five books of the Bible, "The idea has been shown by scholars to be
untenable on many grounds. The view that now prevails is that through these
five books, there were FOUR DIFFERENT STRANDS OF NARRATIVE WHICH HAVE BEEN
PIECED TOGETHER to make the present story...Two are older and more reliable as
history, two proceed from later time and are so coloured by later ideas that
they can hardly be called history at all." 246 This almost coincides with
Fenton John Anthony Horts' belief concerning the synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark,
and Luke. "I quite agree that it is most essential to study each
Synoptist by himself as a single whole. Only I should add that such a study
soon leads one to the fact of their having all largely used at least one common
source, and that fact becomes an additional element in their criticism." 247 We also find that he doubted
the miracle of the Red Sea crossing. "What really happened at the Red Sea WE CAN NO LONGER KNOW;
but scholars are pretty well agreed that the narrative goes back to some
striking and pretentious event which impressed both Moses and the people with
the belief that YAHWEH had intervened to save them. THE SAME MAY BE SAID OF THE
ACCOUNT OF THE PLAGUES." 248 Concerning Elijah's action in
2 Kings 1:10, he said, "The narrative of calling down fire from heaven
upon soldiers sent to arrest him is PLAINLY LEGENDARY." 249 Millar
Burrows finalizes the true convictions of the revisors in his statement,
"We cannot take the Bible as a whole and in every part as stating with
divine authority what we must believe and do." 250 Earlier we studied the
beliefs of Drs. Westcott and Hort. We can see how all of these men fit together
so well and were able to completely reject God's text in favor of Rome's. Many
may make a defense for new translations in claiming that these men are
"liberal" scholars, while today's modern translations such as the New
American Standard Version and the New International Version are translated by
"conservative" scholars. This claim is an empty one, though, because
concerning which MSS are to be judged as "best, most reliable,
etc...," "conservative" scholars of the day agree wholeheartedly
with the conviction of the "liberal" revisors of the 1881 and 1952
revision committees. They BOTH believe that the Roman Catholic text found in
Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, etc., is better than the Universal Text of the
Authorized Version. Conservative
"scholars" also agree with the liberal "scholars" in their
conviction that God could not preserve His words through history. We see then that the men of
the King James Bible were men of great education, education which was tempered
by true spirituality and biblical convictions. They were used by God as
instruments in His plan for the preservation of His words. They were not
"inspired" to write a new revelation. They were empowered by the Holy
Spirit to preserve that which had already been written. This is what God had
promised in Psalms 12:7. Another one
of the assaults on the Authorized Version is that the early editions contained
the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments. In defense, we shall list the
seven reasons why the Apocrypha was NOT considered inspired by the Authorized
Version translators. 'The reasons assigned for not admitting the Apocryphal
books into the Canon, or list, of inspired Scriptures are briefly the
following:
For these and other reasons
the Apocryphal books, which are all in Greek, except one which is extant only
in Latin, are valuable only as "ancient documents, illustrative of the
manners, language, opinions, and history of the East." 25l We see then that the King
James translators did not accept the books of the Apocrypha as inspired by God.
Still another
complaint against God's Authorized Version is the manner in which certain Greek
words have been translated. Today's "God-honoring" scholars
"love the Lord and His Bible" but are quick to point out and attack
any seeming inconsistency in translation in the Authorized Version. Even the
most infinitesimal Greek article is attacked under the guise of seeking to give
a more "grammatically correct" translation. This is the claim
consistently made by the translating groups, such as the anonymous Lockman
Foundation. This is all very noble
sounding. It puts into one's mind a picture of these "hard working
scholars" slaving away to remove all of the "mistakes" from the
Authorized Version so that we can finally have the pure "Word of
God." This is the farthest thing from the truth. The truth is that the new
"Bibles" are translated by men who first, desire to eliminate the
detested Authorized Version and second, though never admittedly, to make money
in the "Bible business." Sad as that is to think, it is true. The problem with their
hypercritical examination of the Authorized Versions is that the same
scrutiny is never applied to their own work. Dr. Peter S.
Ruckman, who is known for being very Burgonian in his comments, is nonetheless
an outstanding authority in manuscript readings. In several of his works, he
has done no more than to examine the new translations under the same unyielding
eye with which the modern translators examine the Authorized Version. Before examining any of his
findings and the evidence of the critical apparatus of Nestle's 23rd edition,
it must first be remembered that the present day translations and translators
act under the premise that the Nestle's Greek New Testament is the closest to
the original text. Nestle's text is basically Westcott and Hort's text, which
is in turn primarily Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, as Dr. Wilkenson has recorded. "It was of necessity that Westcott and Hort should take this
position. Their own Greek New Testament upon which they had been working for
twenty years was founded on Codex B and Codex (Aleph), as the following
quotations show: "If Westcott and Hort have failed, it is an overestimate of the
Vatican Codex, to which (like Lachman and Tregelles) they assign the supremacy,
while Tischendorf may have given too much weight to the Sinaitic Codex." 252 All modern translators give B
and Aleph unbalanced superiority, assuming them to be more accurate because
they assume that they are older. They unfortunately overlooked
the fact that the Universal Text has MSS just as old, plus the backing of the
church fathers. They also seem not to realize that Egypt is NOT the location
for the pure text - old manuscripts maybe, but not pure readings. Modern translators build
their arguments for changing the Authorized Version readings around two very
loose rules:
This sounds very good except
for one small problem. What happens when the oldest reading conflicts
with the majority? The answer is: Do what you want as long as you do not
agree with the Authorized Version. This is not an over statement, but it
describes the animosity which modern scholarship has for the text of the
Authorized Version. Following will be examples of
translations in which modern translators break all their own rules of
translating in order to eliminate the readings of the Universal Text of the
King James Bible. The readings to be examined
are those which have been pointed out by Dr. Ruckman. We shall compare his
references to the footnotes in the critical apparatus of Nestle's 23rd Edition,
unless he states such evidence already. The English translation to be examined
will be the New American Standard Version, since it is the one which is assumed
by most fundamentalists to be sound. First, the verse to be
discessed will be quoted from the Authorized Version, then it will be quoted
from the New American Standard Version. The word, words, or passage in question
will be italicized. AV: "As it is written in the prophets, Behold I send my
messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee." NASV: "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold, I
will send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way." Here the New American
Standard Version sticks with the premise of using the "oldest"
reading. The phrase, "Isaiah the prophet" appears in the Hesychian
(Local Text) family represented primarily by B, C, and Aleph. The problem arises when you read
the remainder of verse two and then verse three, the Old Testament quote in
verse two is NOT from Isaiah! It is quoted from Malachi 3:1. Verse three
is from Isaiah. (Isaiah 40:3) Malachi plus Isaiah does not equal
"Isaiah the prophet;" it equals "the prophets." The reading "the
prophets" is found in W along with the Textus Receptus (Universal Text)
which is represented by E, F, G, and H in the gospels. It is also found in the majority
of witnesses. Also it was cited in 202 A.D., 150 years before
Vaticanus or Sinaiticus. 253 Immediately we run into the
problem of the "oldest" versus the "majority." It happens
though that neither of these two groups is to be judged just because
of what they represent. The deciding factor is, which group reads with
the Universal Text? That group is the correct group. In sticking with the Local
Text, the Lockman Foundation has managed to print a Bible with a MISTAKE in
it! It is obvious that the reading "Isaiah the prophet" is wrong,
because Isaiah never said what is quoted in verse two. Why would anyone try to hide the quote by
Malachi? Dr. Ruckman explains, "You see, the quotation from Malachi was
reference to Jehovah God the Father! If anyone were to find this reference,
they would see that "thy" and "thee" of Mark 1:1,2 is the
"me" of Malachi 3:1!" 253 Thus the deity of Christ is
hidden in the New American Standard Version even though it claims to
"confirm" the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately for the egos of
the nameless Lockman Foundation, the Lordship of Jesus Christ was
"confirmed" in the wilderness in Matthew chapter four, and God did
not have to wait over 1900 years for them to "confirm" it. AV: "And it came to pass while he blessed them, he was parted
from them and carried up to heaven." NASV: "And it came about that while He was blessing them, He
parted from them." Here we see a portion of
Scripture where both the "oldest" and "majority" texts read
in favor of the Authorized Version. The inconsistent Lockman Foundation
has omitted the phrase "and carried up into heaven" (kai ephereto eis
ton houranan) which is in P75, a papyrus MS of the second
century, as well as the entire Receptus family, plus A, B, C, E, most other
witnesses, and every Latin copy. On what "weighty"
evidence does the Lockman Foundation remove the bodily ascension of Jesus
Christ? On the weight of ONE copy of Sinaiticus and ONE copy
of D. As stated before the only
rule which is consistently kept by supposed "godly Christian
scholars" is the practice of attacking the Authorized Version reading
because it upholds the deity of Christ. It might be advisable for us
to look at Acts 1:1,2. "The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that
Jesus began both to do and teach. "Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he
through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had
chosen:" You will notice that Luke
claims that his "former treatise" (the gospel of Luke) ended with a
record of Jesus being "taken up." But in the New American Standard
Version's translation of Luke's gospel, Jesus Christ does NOT ascend,
but He is left standing flat-footed on the Mount of Olives. Thus, we see that
if the gospelist, Luke, could examine both a King James Bible and a New
American Standard Version, he would quickly expose the New American Standard
Version as a fraudulent adulteration of his 'former treatise." In other words, "If the
King James Bible is good enough for the disciple Luke, then it's good enough
for me!" AV: "And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem
with great joy." NASV: "And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy." In the case of "And they
worshipped him" (proskunesantes auton), the New American Standard Version
translators actually lose a witness, for in Luke 24:52 even Aleph
joins the innumerable mass of witnesses in favor of the King James translators'
scholarship. This leaves D to stand alone against several thousands of
MSS which uphold the deity of Christ. With evidence like this, it
seems somewhat hypecritical to hear "good, godly men" deride Erasmus
for using only five MSS, which represented the oldest and the majority, to
collate his text, a text which upholds our Savior. While here we see the
Lockman Foundation's corrupters use a minority of the minority
to attack two major doctrines of the Bible, the bodily ascension and the deity
of Christ. The argument may be forwarded
that "I can still find these doctrines in the New American
Standard Version." Yes, but not in as many places as in the
Authorized Version. There is NO Bible which upholds Christ's deity as
much as the Authorized King James Version. AV: "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that
needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." NASV: "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a
workman who need not to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of
truth." The critics of the Authorized
Version often complain that the scholars of the translation of 1611 have
translated a Greek word with an English word which supposedly does not
correspond with the correct meaning. This makes the modern translators seem
very sincere in that they present themselves as if they would never do
such a thing. Here in 2 Timothy 2:15 we find them guilty of that very thing for
which they assail the King James translators. The Greek word the King James
translators translate "rightly dividing" (orthotomeo) means just
that. The Analytical Greek Lexicon (Zondervan 1970) has it as "to
cut straight." There is no Greek evidence for the two words
"handling accurately." The Greek word for 'handle'(pselapho) is found
in I John 1:1. The Greek word for "accurate" (doloo) does not
appear in the Bible. These two words together in no way resemble
the Greek word used in II Timothy 2:15 and correctly translated "rightly
dividing." As Dr. Ruckman points out, "The Greek word for 'rightly
dividing' is found in all four families of manuscripts, all cursives and
uncials, of any century." 254 It might be good to note here
that Nestle's Greek Text does not even give an alternate reading! The question which naturally
arises in our mind is, "Why would anyone want 2 Timothy 2:15 to read
"handling accurately?" The answer is found in the preface to the New
American Standard Version in which it (the NASV)is called a translation of
"linguistic accuracy." 255 In other words the Lockman
Foundation says, "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a
workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of
truth." The Lockman Foundation then says that IT has handled God's Word
accurately! To pat one's self on the back so often and so obviously must make
for tired arms. Let us look at a word change
which is designed to keep the Roman Catholic Church "in business." AV: "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one
for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous
man availeth much." NASV: "Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and
pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a
righteous man can accomplish much." Confession of sins
has been a teaching of the Roman Catholic Church for centuries. The Greek word for
"faults" (paraptomata) is found in MSS E, F, G, H, S, V, Y, and
Omega, plus the rest of the Receptus family and the greater number of
all remaining witnesses. Nestle's text inserts "sins" (tax amarties)
with NO manuscript authority, and the misguided men of the Lockman Foundation accept
it with no evidence. Perhaps there are more Jesuits lurking in the shadows
than we think! Anyone accepting an alternate reading with no evidence CANNOT
be credited with acting ethically or scholarly. One last passage shall
suffice: AV: "Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had
found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?" NASV: "Jesus heard that they had put him out; and finding him, He
said, 'Do you believe in the Son of Man?'" Here once again the
"conservative scholars" of the New American Standard Version and
other "Bibles" have attempted to water down the deity of Christ. The word for "God"
(Theou) is found in MSS E, F, G, H, S, V, Y, Omega, Theta, the majority of the
remaining miniscules, most of the remaining witnesses, plus the entire Latin
tradition. The Greek word
"man" (anthropouo) is upheld by one Twentieth Century Greek scholar. It is strange indeed that the
Lockman Foundation is quick to strip Jesus Christ's Godship away from Him.
Here, the "conservative" scholars of the secret Lockman Foundation
are in complete agreement with the "liberal" scholars of the Revised
Standard Version. These are strange bedfellows! I am certainly glad that the
translators of the Christ-exalting Authorized Version never "slept"
in this bed. This is, of course, NOT a
"God-honoring" translation. I know that the deity of Christ "can
be found" in other places in the New American Standard Version, but it now
"can be found" in one less place than in the Authorized
Version. Would John, in penning the
gospel that is intended to exalt Jesus Christ as God, use the term "Son of
Man"? Dr. Ruckman explains: "One of the great critical dictums for correcting the A.V.
1611 Greek manuscripts is that 'one should always choose language and
expressions most charcteristic of the author.' Well, what in the world would
possess a man who was acquainted with John's style (in the Gospels), to
suddenly write "Son of man" where Jesus is dealing with a sinner on
matters of doctrinal belief? Is this characteristic of John? It isn't in any 20
passages, anywhere, in the Gospel of John! "The Son of God" is the
correct reading, and the ASV, RSV, and all the new 'Bibles' are greatly in
error, 'not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.'" 256 The Apostle John NEVER called
Jesus Christ the "Son of Man" anywhere in his gospel when dealing
with a doctrinal belief. Furthermore, the context of the book defines the
correct translation in that the multitude cried for Jesus Christ's crucifixion
in John 19:7 because "he made himself the Son of God." (Greek: huion
Theos heauton epoinsen.) This statement so struck the already frantic Pilate,
that "he was more afraid" (John 19:8) at which time he hurried back to
where Jesus Christ was waiting and asked, "Whence art thou?" Pilate
realized that there was something supernatural about Jesus Christ. It is too
bad the elusive Lockman Foundation has never come to such a realization. We have looked at only a few
passages where modern translators have made unwarranted changes in God's Word.
The result is a change in doctrine. It is evident then that, no matter what
Bible salesmen may say about being able to "find" the fundamentals in
any of the new translations, they are still weaker on doctrine than
the God-honoring Authorized Version. I repeat, EVERY new "Bible" is doctrinally
weaker than the King James Authorized Version. Why then should any school
or preacher use a "Bible" in which they must "search" to
prove doctrines which are more than evident in the King James Bible? If we
honor Jesus Christ, then we should just naturally choose and use the Bible
which honors Him the most. In case after case, the Christ-honoring Bible is
found to be the King James Bible. Finally, it
must be remembered that the Authorized Version is the only Bible ever released
without fanfare. The Revised Version, the
American Standard Version, the Revised Standard Version, the New American
Standard Version, the Living Bible, the Good News for Modern Man, the New
International Version, the New King James Version, and all other new
translations have been published with a great advertising "blitz."
They have all attempted to replace the Authorized Version in the study, in the
pulpit, in memorization, and in the hearts of believers. They have all failed.
Those which have not failed are destined to fail, except for one. To explain
the last statement, let us look at a few facts. For every truth which God has,
Satan has many counterfeits and then one ultimate counterfeit. Look at
the following example:
We see from the above example
that there is one true God. Satan has many false "gods" for people
in this world to worship. Satan himself is the ultimate "false
god."
We further see that there is
one true Christ. Satan has many spirits of anti-Christ. During the tribulation
there will be a manifestation of "the Antichrist."
God has one true church made
up of born-again believers. Satan has many congregations serving him on this
earth today. During the tribulation the ultimate Satanic church located in Rome
(Babylon the Great) will again be in power.
God has preserved His Words
in one Bible. Satan has many "Bibles." I believe it seems certain
that someday in the future he will have one ultimate Satanic "Bible."
It will probably be called a "New Authorized Version."
Notice that in the examples above, the
"many" counterfeits seem to run in conjunction with the Church Age.
Satan's ultimate counterfeit is always manifested during the Great
Tribulation when the Holy Spirit has ceased to deal with mankind. I believe
that there is a time when Satan will have an anti-bible exalted as the true
Word of God just as surely as he will have an Antichrist exalted as the Son of
God. It seems likely that this will not take place until the great Tribulation.
Until then, God will be exalted, Jesus Christ will be
exalted, Christ's church will be exalted, and the Authorized
Version will be exalted.
In spite of
the publicity campaigns to sell "Bibles," they all fail. The American
Standard Version is a prime example. It was heralded as a replacement for the
King James when it was published in 1901. Twenty-three years later it went
broke and sold its copyright to the National Council of Churches. Was God's
hand on this "Bible?" If so, WHY wasn't it accepted and used by
Christianity even MORE than the Authorized Version? Was Satan able to overcome
God's Will? If God's hand was not on the American Standard Version, why would
the Lockman Foundation try to "resurrect" it?
"The producers of this translation were imbued with the
conviction that interest in the American Standard Version should be renewed and
increased.
"Perhaps the most
weighty impetus for this undertaking can be attributed to a disturbing
awareness that the American Standard Version of 1901 was fast disappearing from
the scene." (From the Preface of the New American Standard Bible.) 257
If God wouldn't use the
American Standard Version, WHY would the Lockman Foundation want to? If God's
blessing was on the American Standard Version, and it died in twenty-three
years without even a minor revival, HOW has the Authorized Version
lasted nearly four hundred years in spite of all of the "better
translations" which God has supposedly been "blessing"? Of course, there is no answer for these questions, unless it is admitted that God's Bible is the Authorized Version and that He will preserve it whether the Christian educators can help it or not. God will continue to use this English version of sthe Universal Text and will continue to ignore the English versions of the Local Text, no matter who the fundamentalist is that recommends them and no matter what size college may use them. Advertisement will not help. |
In this book we have observed
the battle which rages in fundamental circles concerning the question
of the perfect English translation. We have taken a scriptural
look at the localities from which we have obtained the extant MSS.
We have looked closely at the
witnesses and have examined their testimony in light of our two ground rules,
and in respect to their place of origin and faithfulness to the Lordship of
Christ.
We have taken a careful look
at the true enemy of the Word of God, the Roman Catholic Church. In so
doing, we have examined Rome's efforts and goals concerning the overthrow of
the God-honored Universal Text. We have seen that in the past, this
organization has been ruthless in her attempt to exterminate both Christians
and their Bible. We can be confident that her goals have not changed.
We have looked into the lives
of the two men who were primarily responsible for the successful overthrow of
the Universal Text in textual criticism, and have discovered that they were not
the "godly conservative scholars" which many brethren claim they
were.
Lastly, we have looked at the
Authorized Version, a Bible which has lasted through time in spite of major
efforts by fundamentalists and liberals both to replace it with the
Roman Catholic Local Text of Alexandria, Egypt. We have compared the
scholarship and piety of the King James translators to the liberal and
infidelic standards of the revisors of 1881 and 1952, who have been faithfully
followed by the Lockman Foundation and other modern translators. We have
briefly investigated the manuscript readings in a Christ-honoring
light.
Throughout this work we have
answered some of the common innuendoes hurled at God's Authorized Version, such
as "archaic words," supposed authorization by King James, supposed
"better" MSS being in favor of new translations, etc.
What is the conclusion?
The conclusion is that first,
we Christians who call ourselves "Bible-believing fundamentalists"
need to realize that the true enemy to the King James Bible is Rome. Christian
colleges should closely examine their curriculum and philosophy of
teaching concerning its relationship to the Authorized Version. Preachers
should remove all new "Bibles" from their pulpits and private
studies, realizing that Rome's teaching moves very subtly.
Secondly, it is time to turn
away from the teaching that Westcott and Hort were two born-again,
Bible-believing scholars. They were not. They and their long-dead theories
concerning the Bible should be treated with all the sincerity with which Darwin
and his theory are treated in Christian circles.
Thirdly, it is hoped that
Christian preachers and teachers would direct their zeal for the Lord in more
positive action than in attempting to destroy the Christians faith in God's
perfect Word, and to insult or ruin fundamental brethren who disagree with them
concerning the history of the manuscripts. I believe that parties on both
sides have been extremely guilty of attacking each other with such zeal as to
be a source of never ending joy for the Roman Catholic Church.
Brethren who believe the
Authorized Version have been sadly maligned due to a misteaching on the part of
those who do not believe it. Believers in the Authorized Version attempted to
"fight fire with fire." This has left a sad division in fundamental
circles. A faithful return to the Authorized Version will not only be honoring
to God, but will be helpful in mending the wounds of nearly one hundred years
of warfare with the wrong enemy.
There is no Bible that exalts
Jesus Christ any higher than the Authorized Version. There is no Bible that has
ever been more blessed by God than the Authorized Version. There is no Bible
which is more hated by Satan and the Roman Catholic Church than the Authorized
Version. There is no Bible which is more clearly translated nor is any easier
to read than the Authorized Version. There is no Bible which teaches doctrine
more clearly than the Authorized Version.
I love the Lord Jesus Christ.
I love His Book. I am thankful for His graciousness in giving me a perfect
Bible in English. To show my appreciation, I intend to read it, believe it,
learn it, memorize it, promote it, defend it, love it, keep it, and most of
all, be in subjection to God's authority through it. In appreciation, I will
not change it - not a colon or a comma, not even an italicized word, not a
chapter, nor a verse marking. Nor will I condemn the parts I do not understand.
I will not "correct" the parts I do not like. I will exalt Jesus
Christ and give His Book any benefit of the doubt. I will not worry about
"what the Greek says" but will accept the "English" God has
given me. It is a spiritual Book. God's Hand is on it. I need no more. No other
version comes close to it nor ever will. There is no reason that it should be
replaced, for it is every word of God preserved in English and placed in my
hand. It is up to me to place it in my heart.
As the very great man of God,
Lester Roloff, once said, "The Bible - we don't need to rewrite
it, we need to reread it!"
What more can be said about
this grand Book than what it says about itself?
Psalms 12:6, 7 says,
"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of
earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,
thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
Thank you, Lord, for your perfect Bible, the Authorized King James Bible. |
Burgon, John, The Last
Twelve Verses of Mark, (Associated Publishers and Authors Inc., Grand
Rapids, 1881). Burgon, John, The Revision
Revised, (Conservative Classics, Paradise, 1883). Clarke, Donald, Bible
Version Manual, (B.T.M. Publications, Millersburg, 1975). Cummons, Bruce, The
Foundation and Authority of the Word of God, (Massillon Baptist Temple,
Massillon, 1973). Fuller, David, Counterfeit
or Genuine, (Grand Rapids International Publications, Grand Rapids, 1975). Fuller, David, True or
False, (Grand Rapids International Publications,Grand Rapids,1973). Fuller, David, Which
Bible? , (Grand Rapids International Publications, Grand Rapids, 1970,
1971). God's Inspired Preserved
Bible, (Peoples
Gospel Hour, Halifax, 1979), p. 20. Hills, Edward, Believing
Bible Study, (The Christian Research Press, Des Moines, 1967). Hills, Edward, The King
James Version Defended, (The Christian Research Press, Des Moines, 1956). Hort, Arthur, Life and
Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, (Macmillan Press, New York, 1896). Karl, Adam, The Spirit of
Catholocism, (MacMillan, New York, 1928), p. 2. King James Dedicatory, (Oxford Press, 1611). Lockman Foundation, New
American Standard New Testament Preface, (Gospel Light Publications,
Glendale, 1971, Volume 6). Machen, Gresham, New
Testament Greek for Be- ginners, (The Macmillan Co. Collier-Macmillan
Canada, Ltd., Toronto, 1923). McClure, Alexander, Translators
Revised, (Maranatha Publications, Worthington). National Council of the
Church of Christ, Revised Standard Version, (Thomas Nelson and Sons,
1972). Nestle Eberhard, Novum,
Testamentum Graece, (United Bible Societies, 1898). New Standard Encyclopedia, (Standard Educational Corporation,
1977). Paine, Gustavus, The Men
Behind the KJV, (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1959). Paris, Edmond, The Secret
History of the Jesuits, (The Protestant Truth Society, London, 1975). Ray, James, God Wrote Only
One Bible, (The Eye Opener Publishers, Junction City). Rice, John, Our
God-Breathed Book - The Bible, (Sword of the Lord Publishers, Murfreesboro,
1969). Ruckman, Peter, Manuscript
Evidence, (Pensacola Bible Press, Pensacola, 1970). Ruckman, Peter, Monarch of
the Books, (Pensacola Bible Press, Pensacola, 1970). Ruckman, Peter, Satan's
Masterpiece! , (Pensacola Bible Press, Pensacola, 1974). Ruckman, Peter, The Bible
Babel, (Pensacola Bible Press, Pensacola, 1964). Smyth, Paterson, How We
Got Our Bible, (James and Pott Co., New York). Standridge, James, Do We
Have an Infallible Bible Today, (Cook Road Baptist Church, Mansfield,
1973). Westcott, Arthur, Life and
Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, (The Macmillan Co., 1903). |
|