Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints - Jude 3
I do not believe that the faith spoken of here was once delivered, and then lost, and then regained by the church at some latter day restoration. I believe that the gates of hell have never prevailed against the Church of the Almighty God. I further believe that the same can be said about the Blessed Message which He gave to us - The Holy Bible, The Written Word of God!
I really do want to thank Brother Morgan for asking me to sit on this panel. I also appreciate being introduced as an �expert.� I don�t agree with that, I just appreciate it. An expert has been described as, �anyone who is more than one thousand miles from home.� Well, I�m only about three hundred miles from home so I have to disagree with his assessment of me. The most I could claim would be 30% of an expert. I can�t even, honestly, claim that!
What I really am is a liar. I mean that! In the handouts which we�ve prepared there is a green booklet which contains a manuscript saying that it is the study delivered by me at this meeting. It is not. I had intended for this to be my study, but I changed my mind. So, on the very cover of that booklet, I lied.
I can do that! I am a human being filled with all the human frailties that beset us as a race of men. My wife would even argue that I have more than my share. I guess I�m big enough for there to be room for them!
God, however, is not like that. He is not bound by our limitations. Not only will He do what He has said He will do, He also knows what it is that He wishes to do. He doesn�t have to think it over and come up with a better plan. He always has the best plan. He is perfect and perfection does not get better. It always stands perfect. That is His nature.
Why do I believe that this is so? Better, how do I know that this is so? I know that this is true because this Book tells me it is so. It is a somewhat circular reasoning I will admit. I trust this Book because of what It tells me about Its Author. Without this Book to tell me of God I would have very little knowledge of Him.
Because of this Book I understand that God cares for humanity so much that He sent His Son to die for our sins and that we may have salvation because of the death of Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary. As Christians we are a �people of the Book.�
That is one reason why this topic is so important to me.
I remember the first time that someone attempted to show off his intelligence by introducing doubt in the veracity of this Book. It upset me. This Book is important. Our doctrine, our knowledge of God, everything which we know - or ever hope to learn - of the spiritual world comes to us from this Book. We are rightly able to malign the Mormon who speaks of the �burning within his breast� only because we are able to say, founded on the Sure Word of God, �Thus saith the Lord!�
Without this Book we are, as the Apostle Paul would say, of all men most miserable! We either have this Book in its purity, or we have nothing - no knowledge, no hope, no possibility of a Savior. We might as well eat, drink and be merry for we know not Who, if anybody, holds the future - or even if there is a future to be held. We can not know without this Book.
I was assured, by those much more knowledgeable than I, that the King James needed to be corrected because the discoveries of the past three-and-one-half centuries had expanded our knowledge of what the original texts might have been!
I didn�t even catch, though I certainly should have, this simple admission that these experts were not all certain that they were correct. The only were assured that the King James Version was wrong!
These experts would deny any sort of admission such as this. But!, they did want us to remove, thus saith the Lord, and based on the sure Word of God, and This Book is the Word of God given to us today, and replace this with, �We think the original author might have said, or meant.�
That�s just not a good enough Word on which to base the eternal destiny of our eternal souls!
It was not hard to reason that if the new discoveries have made the text of the King James obsolete then the text of the Reformers was a flawed text. After all, if the new text is right (actually it only claimed to be closer to being right!) Then the old text is wrong. That was the only choice which I had. New texts right = King James Text wrong. I can understand that equation without resorting to any higher math! After all, with all the differences, only one text could be the True Word of God. The other text must not be the true text unless God wrote more than one Scripture!
Then I was assured that there was no need to be concerned because even though the King James Text was wrong, it was close. �After all,� I was assured, �there is �near agreement� in all the texts.�
I felt better until I found some of the minor differences. The last half of the 16th chapter of Mark was gone. The woman taken in adultery of John, chapter eight, was gone - at the very least she had moved! The ending of the Lord�s Prayer was not what I had been led to believe it was. And on, and on, and on,... Footnote and deletion followed insertion and explanation.
I mean, there were more than just a few spelling errors here! It was like Everett Dirkson, long time Senator from Illinois, used to say: �Spend a few billion her and a few billion there and pretty soon it adds up and you�re talking about real money.�
After a while it was apparent that the underlying Greek text of the King James and the underlying Greek text of the new versions were not the same texts!
There was only one, honest, conclusion: If the new versions are correct than the King James was wrong. And, if the King James Version was wrong, that means that God somehow lost control of His Word at some point in history. And, if God had lost control of His Word at some point in History, then He was either not an All Powerful God or He did not love His creature enough to preserve that Word. One or the other of these must be the final conclusion if the Greek Text which underlies the King James Version is wrong.
Either of these conclusions presents us with a God different from the One pictured in... Different from the One pictured in What? If the Text of the King James Version is wrong, extrapolating out the results of this conclusion leaves us with no Scripture to which we can turn as a trustworthy guide. We are left with nothing except a flawed view of Whoever, or Whatever, is in charge of this universe.
At this point we need to return to Theology 101 and find some things about God from General Revelation. General Revelation is that which we are able to deduce about God from the study of creation. This stands in contrast to Special Revelation which has to do with the Inspiration of Scripture.
When we look about us we realize that all that is here could not have happened by chance. Even science tells us that matter can neither be created or destroyed. Every explanation for the beginning of the universe runs into this fact. There has to be a First Cause which stands outside the current laws of science.
Without a First Cause we are left with that incongruity of reason of an eternal universe. This would have to be without beginning in the same sense as the theist would argue about God - without beginning and without ending. Always existent. To accept this is to reject the postulate that the only physical laws in this universe are those that exist now.
But, there would not be the possibility, in a non-theistic universe, of any intelligence which could alter those laws. Although the non-theist would argue that living beings may change over time, he would argue that those changes are the outcome of the laws of physics. �The laws,� would go the argument, � do not themselves change. They only produce change in the physical component.�
In a completely naturalist universe, no matter how many times we see the �big bang,� renew creation, there has to be matter to produce the elements of that event. Since the physical law is that matter can not be created or destroyed, from where does this matter come into existence?
It is not enough to say that the matter has always existed. If that were the case, entropy would have long since dissipated the energy from the stars into a universe of stasis. The result would be a sterile universe devoid of any possibility of life.
How much more reasonable is the argument of the theist that the universe, and all that is within, was created by a Being Who stands outside the restrictions of the physical laws of this universe. He is, indeed, the Author of those laws. He can apply, or override, these laws as He may wish. They are simply part of His Own creation.
We can study the works of His creation to understand something about this First Cause.
As we look about the universe we are struck with the fact of the great orderliness of that universe. It is not a glob of �stuff� here and there, but an orderly alignment of stars and galaxies.
As we move into the earth we see this even more. When we speak of an ecological system here on earth we are speaking of order. When we look at the balance of the creatures, even in their physical appearances - two arms, two eyes, ten fingers: a balance on the human which carries over into the animal and plant realms, we are looking at order.
What does this order tell us about the First Cause? First of all, this order tells us that the First Cause has intelligence. Order implies intelligence. This is not hard to understand. Any blind wind can scatter a ream of paper over a city block. It takes some sort of intelligence to bind that same paper into a book.
Since this First Cause has intelligence, It must also have personality. Therefore, we are not unscientific when we refer to this First Cause by the �Name� of God.
Second, when we see that God has laid out His creation with great symmetry, we see a great caring, or passion, for His creation. This creation was not simply something done on a whim, it was done with great love and care. In the human realm, anyone could allow his yard to �go to seed.� Only one who cares about his property is able to develop a garden. The Bible does make the point that we were created in His image - Genesis 1:26. God cares about this creation of His.
Third, because of all these �clues� about God in His creation, we are led to understand that He would wish to communicate with His creation. Because of the care which has been displayed throughout His creation we know that He wishes this communication to enhance - or make better - the lives of His Creature.
Also, the careful and caring God would want, obviously, that His communication be understood. This would imply a written record of His communication because a spoken or symbolic record would tend to become either incomplete or subject to change and misunderstanding by the creature. This will lead us back, with our understanding of God from nature, to a need for a written Scripture.
This, in turn, leads us back to our original problem. Can we trust Scripture if we can not trust the text which underlies the King James Version? Because of the aforementioned problems I do not believe that we can trust the Judeo-Christian Scripture if the text of the King James Version is flawed.
Does this mean that the Christian Scripture is false? No. Of course not! A comparison of the Judeo-Christian Scripture with the message found in the writings of other religious systems, from outside or inside of this tradition, reveals the Bible to have a deeper spiritual message. The Bible is on a deeper plane than the writings of the world�s other religious systems.
Besides this, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which is an incontestable fact of history, gives credence to the Judeo-Christian Scripture.
What must be false is the argument that the Traditional Text which underlies the King James Version is flawed.
That being true, we must re-examine the history of this Traditional Text of the King James Version.
Only a few centuries after the completion of the writing of the Scriptural Canon, there was a school in Alexandria, Egypt, where a man named Origen was a brilliant textual critic.
However, besides being brilliant, he was also an adherent of heretical views. This is not the place to go into most of these false views of his; only one is important to the current discussion. Origen believed that the Scripture must be �reasonable.� Anything with which he disagreed, or did not see as �reasonable� to his heretical views was to be cast aside.
This is important because he was a textual critic. He, and this school, made copies of the Scripture according to his understanding of what the Scripture should say.
This Alexandrian Text is not the same as the Traditional Text which underlies the King James Version. Westcott and Hort argued that this was because there had been an official revision of the text in the third century and that this Alexandrian Text was a pure text from before that time.
One reason they argued for the Official Revision was because they had to admit that the Traditional Text was the dominant text from the fourth century onward.
I believe that there is enough evidence from translations alone to establish the Traditional Text as dominant before this time as well!
Be that as it may, there is not a scintilla of evidence to support the fiction of the Official Revision and there are very few students of Biblical criticism, even among those who reject the Traditional Text, who would accept that scheme today.
However, in the mid-1800's Tischendorf, Hort, Westcott, and others accepted these flawed texts of Origen. They did so not because these were the best texts available, but because these Alexandrian manuscripts were the oldest available. Unfortunately, many of the modern critics - and most of the modern versions - agree with these texts instead of the Traditional Text.
One of the more flippant arguments made against the King James Version is, �Well, I guess if the King James was good enough for Paul, then it�s good enough for me.� The argument being made is that Paul, of course, did not use the King James. I really do not believe it is important that the King James Version was used by Paul; I do think it vitally important that the words of Paul were used by the translators of the King James Version! It is my, and I believe history�s, contention that this is the case.
When examined most of the arguments against the continued use of the King James Version have little more merit than this spurious argument.
Many would argue that the language of the King James Version is hard to understand for the listener of today. In truth, if one will only engage in a little study, the language of the King James Version may actually be easier to understand.
For example, one of the things said to be hardest to understand is the use of the Thee�s and Thou�s. When we realize that the pronouns Thee, Thou, Thy and Thine all speak in the singular tense while You, Your and Ye all speak in the plural tense, many passages become more clear to us.
The all purpose You of the modern version may be speaking of one person or a crowd of persons. The point might be made that the context of the passage would explain the usage of the word. That same point may be made of most of the �old and hard to understand� words of the King James Version.
The same sort of argument is made as to the figures of speech used in the King James Version. �After all,� we are told, �the culture of these people were different than ours.� The culture may have been different but the Words of God are timeless. I believe that there was a reason why Jesus Christ was called, �The Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world,� rather than, �The Great White Chicken of God...,� as I�ve been told has been done in one version by missionary translators. The Lamb would carry certain traits which God wished to use to describe the Mission and Person of Jesus. The �White Chicken� might not carry these traits.
May we recall that we are not dealing with the words of Shakespeare but with the Words of the Almighty God. Culture is a handy tool for humans; but, the Word of God is eternal!
The way we phrase something can be important. In the military the order stated, �We are going back to Hill 19 and we�re going to take it this time!.� given with enthusiasm is quite different from, �We have to go back to Hill 19. Make your peace with God before we try this.� Both give the same information; both are not equal in emotional response.
Let�s assume that God said what He meant to say in the manner He meant to say it.
Many of the modern translations will use Dynamic Equivalency or Paraphrase rather than translating word-for-word, as much as is possible, as did the translators of the King James Version.
One the subject of understanding we must realize that the Bible is not simply another book. It is The Book. As we read it, in an attitude of prayer and reverence, the Holy Spirit will guide us into the Message which God has for us today. The Original Autographs, of which we are so fond of speaking, were written long ago. They are long since passed into dust and ash. But, they were written under the inspiration of the Eternal God. He stands outside the limitations of time as the Constant Contemporary. These Words were preserved by His Holy Hand. They speak to us afresh today through his illumination.
While we are speaking of reading this Book in an attitude of prayer and reverence, may we make the point that the language of the King James Version, seeped as it is in the history of the English language, is itself an instrument which will help to prepare our hearts for worship.
The modern languages carry with them the hustle and bustle of the busy secular street. Distractions abound! The beauty and cadence of the King James Version carries to the ear of modern man a worshipful attitude of things timeless.
Of course, we do know that language is important. We also know that people can make unfamiliar language accomplish what they wish to accomplish.
I am reminded of a man in a small Western town who was running for public office. He wished to portray his family as one of the oldest, one of the most prestigious, one of the founding families of the town. To that end he was preparing an article explaining the great contributions of his ancestors. However, he found to his dismay that one of his great-uncles had been hung as a horse thief. He thought for some time as to how to handle this embarrassing news. It was finally entered into his article thusly: �Great-Uncle James died when the scaffolding gave way at a public event held in his honor.
Some of the great words of the King James Version have changed in meaning. I would believe that there are two things that we should do with this in mind.
First of all, we need to always compare Scripture with Scripture. We can only do this by being seeped in the totality of the Scriptural Message. If we read and study all of the sacred writ we will be less likely to succumb to a �proof text� passage that would lead us astray. Well, the passage would not lead us astray, obviously, but our lack of commitment to the entire canon of Scripture would allow us to misapply the passage.
The second thing which we need to do is to obey the words of Paul in II Timothy 2:15 where he says, �...study to shew thyself approved unto God...� It is not beneath the Christian to enlarge his vocabulary as he studies the Word of God. A good Bible dictionary will explain most of the words not understood by context.
You may have noticed that the above was directed toward Christians. �What about,� some would ask, �the unsaved. They need a Bible that they will be willing to read.�
Wrong! The unsaved, as a general rule, will not be interested in God�s Word. We, the Christian, need to pray for them, and witness to them, and lead them to the Lord, and disciple them into the faith - all with the leading of the Holy Spirit. No amount of updating the Word will remove the sin nature which separates unregenerate man from God. Indeed, to make the Scriptural Message weaker is to further the distance, from the human standpoint, of that gulf.
Most importantly, as we study the words of the King James Version translated as it is from the Traditional Text, we are studying the True Words of God in their English form rather than scrutinizing a false text from antiquity put into a modern package.
Another line of argument against the King James Version from the so-called �disputed� passages. Most of these are only disputed because they do not agree with the false Alexandrian text type. The dispute is in attempting to replace the True with the false!
However, that are real areas in some of the Greek copies which could be addressed. Anyone who has ever copied a long report will understand that most of these, honestly, disputed passages have to do with portions which were inadvertently left our by the copyist.
Also, there are true copyist errors. Anyone who has ever had the misfortune to view my work before we put a spell-check program on the computer has seen numerous evidence of copyist error. These copyists were human and prone to error. The sheer number of copies made would have guarded against these errors. While one or two copies may have been flawed, the great bulk of the manuscript evidence favors the Traditional Text.
Besides copyist error, it is easy to understand why some of the passages may have been left out from some of the manuscripts. The pious, seeing the story of the woman taken in adultery from the eighth chapter of John, missing from a copy would not be overly alarmed. Many in the early church had trouble with this passage, feeling that it gave too great a dignity to the woman who had thus sinned.
The second or third century copyist who found a copy of the crucifixion account without the prayer of Jesus, �Father, forgive them...,� would not be unduly concerned. Relations between the Jewish community and these early Gentile Christian churches were so strained that the Christian copyist might well agree with the faulty manuscript that Jesus did not pray for His executioners - who were felt, in the final analysis - and wrongly so!, to be the Jew.
God may have used part of the Jewish community in Jerusalem, and the Roman soldiers, as instruments to crucify His Son. But, Jesus died for my sins. He took my place in judgement for my sins. It was my sins which placed Him on the cross. And, if you are a born again child of the King, you must make the same admission.
Revelation 13:8 gives this insight: �...the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.� It was not an accident, it was not a bully overpowering our Lord, it was not a surprise to Him, that sent Jesus to the Cross of Calvary. It was for this very purpose that He came into this world. Let us not lay blame on anyone�s doorstep and treat them ill for the death of Jesus on that old rugged cross. Let us praise Him that He willingly went to this place so that we could have salvation from our sins and peace with God. Glory to His Name.
We are told that, based on a study of the words used in Mark 16:9-20, that this passage is spurious. Of course we are not told that those same touchstone words are missing from whole chapters earlier in Mark! The argument could give us reason why this passage would be deleted, not why it - or any the above - would have been added to nearly every single manuscript not centered in Egypt!
This is true in most cases. There are reasons why these, and some other like passages, might be deleted from the sacred page. But, there is little reason why they would have been inserted into most witnesses.
There are also deliberate errors made by various heretics who wished to further their own teaching. We may recall that this was one of the methods by which Origen settled upon his text. He wanted only that which agreed with, or was reasonable to, his theology.
This brings us to another point about these disputed passages. The most trusted manuscripts of the modern versions come from Egypt. This is the land of the Alexandrian, the Origen, Text. In this area have come some very old texts.
There are two reasons why these ancient texts are available to the modern critic. One is that the climate of Egypt is warm and dry. This lends itself to the preservation of these old manuscripts. Simply put, they are less likely to rot away in this region.
However, this may only mean that they are old copies of an inferior text. Their age makes them no better than the copyist who worked upon them. Their age only makes them available.
Another fact is that the true copies were a precious commodity to the ancient Christian. They were expensive in time and coin. These copies were used, and reused, until they had to be replaced because they were literally falling apart! They were often burned if they were found during the persecutions.
The fact that an old manuscript is still around makes it suspect. Why was is not �used up� as were the other copies? Why did not the authorities burn this copy? What was it that caused this copy to survive? Could it not be that these were set aside because the original owner recognized them as flawed?
These ancient texts do not agree with the Traditional Text in far too many areas. If they are the, or at least close to the, true copies of the original autographs we must conclude that God has lost control of - or willingly withheld from His Church, the true Text of His Inspired Word for a period of one thousand years - or more! If the Traditional Text is not the True text then we must also conclude that His Church, the Bride of Christ, has sought and received blessings for centuries from a false text which He did not inspire.
This would make inspiration a sham and the sovereignty of God very suspect. This would also remove any impetus for a correct text to be found and used in this day. If falsity be blessed, then long live ignorance!
The argument about the discoveries of the past three-hundred-and-fifty to four hundred years fails to take into account what has been discovered. Many are of flawed documents. About the rest, there have been no new discoveries of text �families.� All of the readings which we have today were available to, and used by, the translators of the King James Version. They simply rejected much of what modern man accepts.
There are other �Straw Men� used to argue against the King James Version. �Which King James Version are you using? After all, these have been seven revisions of it.� It is important to note that those revisions had mostly to do with spelling and grammar. None touched on the textual base from which the King James was translated.
The argument is made that, �You just want to retain what is old and comfortable. The same thing happens every time there is a new translation. Look at the Pilgrims. They would not even allow a copy of the King James Version on board the Mayflower. They wanted the old Bishop�s Bible.� I do understand that this is true.
What is also true is that the argument was not then, as it is now, over the True Text which underlies the translation. Unless the translation is based on the Words which God gave, it is only a true translation of a false text and is not the Word of God!
�Erasmus,� we are told, �was not a Godly man. Therefore the Textus Receptus was flawed and from it the King James Version.� Once again, a straw man without merit. Although Luther used the Greek edition of Erasmus as a base for his German Bible, the translators of the King James Version used other sources. Besides this, Erasmus was only one of many who made Greek editions which bore the appellation of Textus Receptus. Further, the words of even his text were not the words of Erasmus; he only edited a copy of the Traditional Text.
Scholarship is thrown up as the last defense against the King James Version. �None of the smart people accept the King James. The Religious Professionals do not accept the King James.� This sounds very much like the argument made by the evolutionist. It also holds about as much water as the evolutionist argument. It is not important what one believes. It is important what is true.
Besides, not everyone agrees that the King James, or the Traditional Text, is flawed. Many sound scholars, with good reason, accept both.
There are some very good argument for the King James Version.
I wrote earlier about the so-called text families. There are three main types of these which are normally mentioned which agree together within their groups. There is the Traditional, the Alexandrian, and the Western text types. There are a few other text types, but so few as to be called aberrations. I maintain that since 85% to 95% of all manuscripts, early lexicons, writings of the church �fathers,� and the early versions, agree with the Traditional Text, that all texts which are not of the Traditional Text type are aberrations.
From the time of the Reformation, and as its basis, the Traditional Text has been blessed by, and used by, God in His work in this world. His stamp of authenticity is upon the King James Version and the text which underlies that version.
Further, from all that we know of God from general revelation, we must accept the Traditional Text. The purposes of God, the power of God, the principles of God all cry out that He would not have allowed His True Text to lie hidden for 1000 years - 1000 minutes - or 1000 seconds! He gave this Message to mankind, to His Own Church, and would not withdraw It until It had accomplished Its purpose and Its prophecies had come to pass.
Finally, from all that we know about God from special revelation, we must accept the Traditional Text. God is pure. His Word will not become more pure as we continue to unearth fragments to correct some cosmic hoax He has played upon us in regards to that Word and Message.
Mankind either has this Word, and has it now, or we must accept as fact that we�ve never had It and never will. We can not look for the next discovery to shed more light upon the text so that we can come closer to the original. To say this is to admit that we do not now have His Word.
God is immutable. He does not change. Neither will His Word. The same argument which was just made above would also apply here.
God is All-Powerful. He could preserve His Word if He chose to do so. We have just argued that this would be His Will.
God also loves His Church. We are the Bride of Christ. It is near blasphemy to allege that He would allow His Church, historic, to be without His Word.
Jesus Christ, Himself, said that the Old Testament was preserved (Matthew 5:18). Daniel, the writer of the Book which bears his name, was told that his prophecy would last until the end of times (Daniel 12:9). Should we expect any less from the New Testament which carries the glorious news that Jesus Christ died to save sinners?�
Based on the evidence, I think not!
