I. The Influence of Erasmus.
A. The person of Erasmus.
1. Erasmus was a great scholar. �Ten columns of catalogue of the library in the British Museum are taken up with the bare enumeration of the works translated, edited, or annotated by Erasmus.� (The King James Version Defended p. 196)
2. �Although not himself outstanding as a man of faith, in his [Erasmus�] editorial labors on this text he was providentially influenced and guided by the faith of others. In spite of his humanistic tendencies Erasmus was clearly used of God to place the Greek New Testament text in print, just as Martin Luther was used of God to bring the Protestant Reformation in spite of the fact that, at least at first, he shared Erasmus� doubts concerning Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation.� (The King James Version Defended p. 199)
3. �...he [Erasmus] became known as one of the world�s greatest humanists. A humanist at that time in history did not have a bad connotation. A humanist was simply someone who had gained a great deal of human knowledge. It was not viewed as a form of �religion� as that which is called Humanism today. There are �modern� writers who are not informed on this change in terminology. They have assailed Erasmus for being �a humanist,� not understanding the terminology refers to his great knowledge.� (The Lie that Changed the Modern World p. 137)
4. �He [Erasmus] had long grown tired of Rome�s exploitation, and spoke out against the Catholic Church and its abuses. In opposition to one of Rome�s greatest fears, the Scripture in the hands of the populace, Erasmus had been instilled with the intense desire to place the Words of God into the hands of the common people.� (The Lie that Changed the Modern World p. 139
5. Although he did stay within the Roman Church, Erasmus does not seem to have given her his complete allegiance. It is known that he refused the hat of a Cardinal of Rome when Pope Paul III made him that offer.
6. �...Erasmus tried to reform the [Roman Catholic] Church from within...� (The Lie that Changed the Modern World p. 138)
7. In his commentaries, �Calvin mentions Erasmus by name 78 times, far
more than any other contemporary scholar. Most of these references (72 to be exact) are criticism of Erasmus� Latin version and once (Phil. 2:6) Calvin complains about Erasmus� refusal to admit that the passage in question teaches the deity of Christ. But five references deal with variant readings which Erasmus suggested in his notes, and of these Calvin adopted three. On the basis of these statistics therefore it is perhaps not too much to say that Calvin disapproved of Erasmus as a translator and theologian but thought better of him as a New Testament textual critic.� (The King James Version Defended p. 204)
B. Influences upon Erasmus.
1. Erasmus was influenced by Laurentinus Valla (1405 - 1458). This well known scholar of the Italian renaissance held that language was important; he saw the decline of Greece and Rome due to a decay of their languages. He held a very high view of the Greek text of the N. T., favoring it over the Latin which he felt had not only addition but also omission from the Greek Text. (The King James Version Defended p. 196)
2. For centuries before Erasmus the Traditional Text was received as the true text of Scripture. Erasmus �...was not himself, indeed, notable as a man of faith, but his intention was to provide a text which would be purchased by the general public. Hence he was influenced by the faith of others, and this placed a restraint upon...� his work. In this way God providentially preserved His true text in printing. (Believing Bible Study p. 36)
3. Erasmus was influenced by the scholastic theologians of his day. They revered the Latin Vulgate as the True Text of Scripture. Many felt that to disallow this was to disallow the authority of the Roman Church. �No one at that time drew the logical but unpalatable conclusion that the Greek Church rather than the Roman Church had been the providentially appointed guardian of the New Testament text. ... Leo X, who was pope from 1513 to 1521 and to whom Erasmus dedicated his New Testament ... [and] Erasmus� close friends ... John Colvet, ... Thomas More and Jacques Lefevre, all of whom sought to reform the Roman Catholic Church from within...,� did share the view of �common faith� that the True Text did reside in the Greek Majority Text. Even the scholastic theologian Martin Dorp was finally persuaded by Thomas More to adopt this view. (The King James Version Defended pp. 196-197)
C. The methods of Erasmus� work.
1. �It is well known ... That Erasmus looked for manuscripts everywhere during his travels and that he borrowed them from everyone he could. Hence although the Textus Receptus was based mainly on the manuscripts which Erasmus found at Basel, it also included readings taken from others to which he had access.� (The King James Version Defended p. 198)
2. Erasmus was aware of the key readings of the Vaticanus, but rejected them. (The Battle for the Doctrinal Heart [tape])
3. Erasmus was familiar with many of the �problems� of the modern Textual critics. �...for example, Erasmus dealt with ... problem passages...� (Entire section: The King James Version Defended pp. 198-199)
a. �...the conclusion of the Lord�s Prayer (Matt. 6:13)...�
b. �...the interview of the rich young man with Jesus (Matt. 19:17-22)...�
c. �...the ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20)...�
d. �...the angelic song (Luke 2:14)...�
e. �...the angel, agony, and bloody emissions (Luke 22:43-44)...�
f. �...the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53 - 8:11)...�
g. �...the mystery of godliness (I Tim. 3:16)...�
h. �They were all mentioned in his notes placed with the text.�
4. �We do not say that the King James Version is infallible. There are changes that could be and should be profitably made, but we do say and with emphasis, there are no errors found therein. The four or five thousand extant Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, in whole or in part, agree in ninety-five percent of their contents with the text of Erasmus...� (A Comparison of the New American Standard Version with the King James Version pp. 14-15)
D. Vulgate readings included by Erasmus not included in the Traditional Text. (Entire section: The King James Version Defended pp. 200-202)
1. �Matt. 10:8 raise the dead, is omitted by the majority of the Greek
manuscripts. This reading is present, however, in Aleph, B, C, D, 1, the Latin Vulgate and the Textus Receptus.�
2. �Matt. 27:35 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted My garments among them, and upon My vesture did they cast lots. Present in Eusebius (c. 325), 1 and other �Casarean� manuscripts, the Harclean Syriac, the Old Latin, the Vulgate, and the Textus Receptus. Omitted by the majority of the Greek Manuscripts.�
3. �John 3:25 Then there arose a questioning between some of John�s disciples and the Jews about purifying. Pap. 66, Aleph, 1, and other �Caesarean� manuscripts, the Old Latin, the Vulgate, and the Textus Receptus read the Jews. Pap. 75, B, the Peshitta, and the majority of the Greek manuscripts read a Jew.�
4. �Acts 8:37 And Philip said, if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. As J. A. Alexander (1857) suggested, this verse, though genuine, was omitted by many scribes, �as unfriendly to the practice of delaying baptism which had become common, if not prevalent, before the end of the 3rd century [The Acts of the Apostles].� Hence the verse is absent from the majority of the Greek manuscripts. But it is present in some of them, including E (6th or 7th century). It is cited by Irenaeus (c. 180) and Cyprian (c. 250) and is found in the Old Latin and the Vulgate. In his notes Erasmus says that he took this reading from the margin of 4ap and incorporated it into the Textus Receptus.�
5. �Acts 9:5 it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. This reading is absent from the Greek manuscripts and in the Latin Vulgate known to Erasmus. It is present also at the end of Acts 9:4 in E, 431, the Peshitta, and certain manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate. In Acts 26:14, however, this reading is present in all the Greek manuscripts. In his notes Erasmus indicates that he took this reading from Acts 26:14 and inserted it here.�
6. �Acts 9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do? and the Lord said unto him, This reading is found in the Latin Vulgate and in other ancient witnesses. It is absent, however, from the Greek manuscripts, due, according to Lake and Cadbury (1933) [The Beginnings of Christianity], �to the paucity of Western Greek texts and the absence of D at this point.� In his notes Erasmus indicates that this reading is a translation made by him from the Vulgate into Greek.�
7. �Acts 20:28 Church of God. Here the majority of the Greek manuscripts read, Church of the Lord and God. The Latin Vulgate, however, and the Textus Receptus read, Church of God, which is the reading of Aleph, b, and other ancient witnesses.�
8. �Rom. 16:25-27 In the majority of the manuscripts this doxology is placed at the end of Chapter 14. In the Latin Vulgate and the Textus Receptus it is placed at the end of chapter 16, and this is also the position it occupies in Aleph, B, C, and D.�
9. �Rev. 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of this book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life. According to Hoskier [Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse], all the Greek manuscripts, except possibly one or two, read, tree of life. The Textus Receptus reads, book of life, with the Latin Vulgate (including the very old Vulgate manuscript FO, the Bohairic version, Ambrose (d. 397), and Haymo (9th century). This is one of the verses which Erasmus is said to have translated from Latin into Greek. But Hoskier seems to doubt that Erasmus did this, suggesting that he may have followed Codex 141.�
II. The Textus Receptus is not solely the work of Erasmus.
A. The texts.
1. There are at least 25 editions of the Textus Receptus. These do differ slightly one from the other. �Since the Traditional Text is not to be found in any one edition of the Textus Receptus and since the designation Byzantine text implies that the Traditional Text is only a local text, the best title to designate the Traditional Text is the �Majority Text.� (Counterfeit or Genuine p. 200)
2. The Traditional Text and the Textus Receptus are virtually identical. (The King James Version Defended p. 199)
3. �The printed text is commonly called the Textus Receptus (Received Text). It is the text which was used by the Protestant Reformers during the Reformation and by all Protestants everywhere for three hundred years thereafter.� (Believing Bible Study p. 34)
B. �Those who would trace the text of the KJV only back to Erasmus make a serious mistake. While it is true that Martin Luther chose the text of Erasmus to translate his German Bible, it is not true that this was the first Bible with the same readings. The Waldensians, who first mistook Luther for a friend, came down out of their mountain strongholds to compare their Bible with Luther�s. They found them to be the same.� (Use the Bible God Uses p. 4)
C. Erasmus died in 1536; Robert Stephanus (1503-59) published his own editions of the Textus Receptus in 1546, 1549, 1550, and 1551. In 1550 the pressure from the Catholic Church caused him to move his base of operations from Paris to Geneva. The most important of his editions was his third (although the first was the first to be divided into verses.) �In the margin of this edition [his 3rd, he] entered variant readings taken from the Complutensian edition and also 14 manuscripts, one of which is thought to have been Codex D. In text the 3rd and 4th edition of Stephanus agreed closely with the 5th edition of Erasmus.� (The King James Version Defended pp. 203-204)
D. �The first edition of what came to be regarded as the �received text� was not published till 1624.� (The Bible in the Making p. 210)
1. Bonaventure Elzevir, his brother Mather (and later Abraham, his nephew) published editions of the Textus Receptus in 1624 and 1633. �The Textus Receptus really was the text received by all. Its reign had begun and was to continue unbroken for 200 years. In England Stephanus� 3rd edition was the form of the Textus Receptus generally preferred, on the European continent Elzevir�s 2nd edition. Admittedly there are a few places in which the Textus Receptus is supported by only a small number of manuscripts, for example, Eph. 1:18, where it reads, eyes of your understanding, instead of eyes of your heart; and Eph. 3:9, where it read fellowship of the mystery, instead of dispensation of the mystery.� (The King James Version Defended p. 208)
2. �While this justly famous edition (the Textus Receptus) is later by some years (1624) than the publication of the A. V. (1611), the differences between it and its immediate predecessor, the Stephanus edition, are so few and unimportant that the two may be regarded for all practical purposes as one and the same.� (True or False p. 65)
E. �Kenyon [Handbook to Textual Criticism of the New Testament] points out that the preface and dedication to the text [of the Complutensian Polyglot] was derived from manuscripts loaned by Leo X from the Vatican Library. The editors indicate that they used the best possible manuscripts available, which may imply they exercised some selection and critical judgment. There is no evidence that manuscript B was used.� (Counterfeit or Genuine p. 203)
III. Providential Preservation and the Textus Receptus.
A. The Textus Receptus agrees closely with the Traditional Text.
1. There have been many �Greek New Testament manuscripts ... [which] have been discovered since the days of Erasmus and the Protestant Reformation, [and] approximately 90% of these manuscripts are of the Traditional or Textus Receptus type.� (Believing Bible Study p. 39)
2. �The Textus Receptus is the text type of 85% to 95% of all Greek Manuscripts. (Entire section: �King James Fans� (?) p. 40)
a. �This text type was the Bible of the Greek and Byzantine churches.�
b. �It was the text type of the Italic churches (not Roman0...�
c. �...and of the Gallic churches of Souther France...�
d. �...and of the Celtic churches of Great Britain.�
e. �It was the text type of the Waldensian churches (Baptist), going all the way back to the first Century. (See pages 194-215 of �Which Bible� by David Otis Fuller, 5th edition.)�
f. �It was the text of the Reformers, including Luther, Calvin and all the others.�
g. �It was the text type used by Tyndale and all the other early English translators...�
h. �...it reigned supreme until the advent of the Westcott and Hort text of the 1800's.�
B. The hand of God in the Textus Receptus.
1. The editors of the Textus Receptus (Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevir�s) were under the Guiding Hand of God. (Entire section: The King James Version Defended p. 193)
a. �...they were guided by the manuscripts which God in His providence had made available to them.�
b. �...they were guided by the providential circumstances in which they found themselves.�
c. �The common faith guided them.�
2. �It is customary for naturalistic critics to make the most of human imperfections in the Textus Receptus and to sneer at it as a mean and almost sordid thing. These critics picture the Textus Receptus as merely a money-making venture on the part of Froben the publisher. Froben, they say, heard that the Spanish Cardinal Ximenes was about to publish a Polyglot Bible. In order to get something on the market first, it is said, Froben hired Erasmus as his editor and rushed a Greek New Testament through the press in less than a year�s time. But those who concentrate in this way on the human factors involved in the production of the Textus Receptus are utterly unmindful of the providence of God. For in the very next year, in the plan of God, the Reformation was to break out in Wittenberg, and it was important that the Greek New Testament should be published first in one of the future strongholds of Protestantism by a book seller who was eager to place it in the hands of the people and not in Spain, the land of the Inquisition, by the Roman Church, which was intent on keeping the Bible from the people.� (The King James Version Defended p. 203)
C. �One of the leading principles of the Protestant Reformation was the sole and absolute authority of the Holy Scriptures. The New Testament in which the early Protestants place such implicit reliance was the Textus Receptus (Received Text)...� (The King James Version Defended p. 191)
IV. The Old Testament Text was preserved by the Priesthood. They copied and recopied the text faithfully. The New Testament recognizes the office of the Priesthood of the Believer. It is this priesthood which has preserved the New Testament text. Faithful copies made by faithful Christians and recognized by faithful Christians have preserved the true New Testament text. (Believing Bible Study p. 35)
V. �In principle, Rome was against the indiscriminate accessability of the Bible to the common people.� However, so greatly was the Bible available in England that Rome could not make inroads there. Thus it seemed necessary that there be an English translation, favorable to Rome, with �...such notes as would help its English-speaking adherents to hold their own in the course of ... Theological controversy.� (The Bible in the Making p. 137)
VI. The modern translations.
A. �None of the popular new versions are translated from the Textus Receptus...� (Use the Bible God Uses p. 4)
B. �According to Hoskier [A Full Account and Collation of the Greek Cursive Codex Evangelium], the 3rd edition of Stephanus and the first edition of Elzevir differ from one another in the Gospel of Mark only 19 times. Codex B, on the other hand, disagrees with Codex Aleph in Mark 652 times and with Codex D 1,944 times. What a contrast!� (The King James Version Defended p. 222)
GOD KEEPS HIS WORD - THOSE �OLD� KJV WORDS
I. Some of the words are hard to understand.
A. Many complain that the works in the KJV are hard to understand. �...it will be far better for us to expand our vocabulary in order to understand its terminology than to attempt to continually re-write the Bible.� (Modern Versions are Dangerous p. 6)
1. �...this principle [translating by Dynamic Equivalency] is in error because of the simple fact that the Holy Scriptures are not written in such low literary standard. ... It is impossible to translate a Bible throughout on a low literary level and have it be accurate.� (Dynamic Equivalency - A Frightful Influence on Fundamental Translation Work p. 5)
2. �...some English words in the King James Version are no longer in current use, or have changed their meaning over the years. ... This is nothing to become discouraged about. We can enrich our knowledge by adding new definitions to our words.� (Getting the Most From Your KJV p. 15)
3. Most of the words with which we claim to have difficulty are easily understood in the context of the narrative.
4. Any reasonably good commentary will enlighten our understanding of the meaning of those hard to understand word.
5. For any reader of the KJV I would recommend The Defined King James Bible (The Bible for Today Press, Collingswood, New Jersey). The God, and time, honored words of the King James are in the text of the Scripture. Those words which might cause confusion are highlighted with footnotes and are explained below, on the same page. The narrative still flows as God intended and answers to questions about the wording of the text are immediately available - without commentary or comment. God is allowed to speak His Own Words.
B. �The error lies in failing to understand that the Bible is not a churchy book but a heavenly book! The terms used in the Bible were not conceived by man, but given by inspiration of God!� (Dynamic Equivalency - A Frightful Influence on Fundamental Translation Work p. 5)
1. �...dynamic equivalency seeks to avoid the use of traditional ecclesiastical terms in translating the Bible.� (Dynamic Equivalency - A Frightful Influence on Fundamental Translation Work p. 5)
2. It would seem that Dynamic Equivalency (Paraphrase) translation is a method which seeks to make the Bible attractive to the unsaved (those who are spiritually dead!) By taking the deeper meanings of God�s Revelation from that revelation at the expense of the Child of God (who is the spiritually alive - or quickened!).
3. �...some things are �hard to understand� (2 Peter 3:16)!� (Dynamic Equivalency - A Frightful Influence on Fundamental Translation Work p. 6)
4. God�s command to mankind in Genesis three was that man should earn his bread by the sweat of his brow. This is one of the reasons that we understand theft, or gambling, to be wrong. These are attempts to bypass the command to work. By the same token, God has commanded that the Christian study (II Timothy 2:15). An attempt to lessen the Message of God, in the name of making that Message easier to understand, is surely as much of a ruse as those former example.
II. �...consider the use of thee and thou. ... Thee, thou, thy, and thine are all singular, while you, ye, and your are always plural in the King James Version.� (Entire Section: Getting the Most From Your KJV pp. 15-16)
A. John 3:7 - �Jesus addresses Nicodemus (thee) and says, �Ye (plural) must be born again.��
B. Luke 22:31-32 - �The �you� indicates that Satan is to sift all the disciples, and the �thee� reveals that Jesus had prayed for Simon Peter in particular.�
C. Matthew 6:6-7 - �The King James Version stands alone in making the distinction between private and public prayer.� �Thee� and �Thou� pray secretly. �Ye� should not pray repetitiously in public prayer. Note that Jesus repeated His private prayer (Matthew 26:44) at least three times.
III. Not everyone received the King James Version when it was first published.
A. �Ever since the Revised Version was printed, it has met with strong opposition. Its devotees reply that the King James met opposition when it was first published. There is a vast difference, however. Only one name of prominence can be cited as an opponent of the King James Version at its birth. The Queen, all the Church of England - all the Protestant world - was for it. On the other hand, royal authority twice refused to associate itself with the project of revision [of the Scripture in the 1881 Hort and Westcott revision], as did also the northern half of
the Church of England, the Episcopal Church of North America, besides a host of
students and scholars of authority.� (Which Bible? Pp. 300-301)
B. What opposition the King James Version did meet was over a translation of
God�s Word. The underlying text was never questioned as it is being questioned
today in the modern versions! That is a vast difference.
GOD KEEPS HIS WORD - THE KING JAMES VERSION
I. It is not the purpose of this study to do a history of the making of the King James Version. We will only briefly examine it.
II. �Although the Authorized Version has the best right to be called �the English Bible� because of its profound effect on both the English language and Religion, such a title can belong to no one translation. It is more accurate to speak of �the Bible in English.�� (The Memoirs Called Gospels p. 36)
A. �The original tongues referred to in the title [title page of the KJB] were the [then] current printed Hebrew Bible for the Old Testament and Beza�s printed Greek New Testament for the New. The �former translations� mentioned there include not only the five previous English versions ... but also the Douai Version, the Latin version of Tremellius and Beza, and several Spanish, French, and Italian [versions].� The KJV is mainly, though, a revision of the English versions which go before it; it does retain the influence of Tyndale. (The King James Version Defended p. 215)
1. �Even though the KJV only goes back to 1611, nevertheless it is based upon the text and versions which preceded it. These texts and manuscripts are the ones that Bible believers have used down through the ages. It is a known fact that 85% to 95% of all ancient manuscripts are in basic agreement with the KJV, but not with the modern versions.� (Use the Bible God Uses pp. 3-4)
2. �The translators that produced the King James Version relied mainly, it seems, on the altar editions of Beza�s Greek New Testament, especially his 4th edition (1588-9). But also they frequently consulted the editions of Erasmus and Stephanus and the Complutensian Polyglot. According to Scrivener (1884) [The Authorized Version of the Bible], out of 252 passages in which these sources differ sufficiently to affect the English rendering, the King James Version agrees with Beza and Stephanus 113 times, with the Stephanus against Beza 59 times, and 80 times with Erasmus, or the Complutensian, or the Latin Vulgate against Beza and Stephanus. Hence the King James Version ought to be regarded not merely as a translation of the Textus Receptus but also as an independent variety of the Textus Receptus.� (The King James Version Defended p. 220)
3. �The King James (Authorized) Version is an accurate translation of the Textus Receptus. On it God has placed the stamp of His approval through the long and continued usage of English-speaking believers. Hence it should be used and defended today by Bible-believing Christians.� (The
King James Version Defended p. 112)
B. The care taken by the translators of the King James Version. (Entire section: The King James Version Defended p. 216)
1. The thousands of marginal notes which the translators of the KJV put with it, giving more literal meanings, variant readings, and alternative translations, show the care which the translators gave to their task.
2. �As the marginal notes indicate, the King James translators did not regard their work as perfect or inspired, but they did consider it to be a trust-worthy reproduction of God�s Holy Word...�
III. Corrections of spellings, obsolete words, and modern punctuation have been made several times on the King James Version. (The King James Version Defended p. 217)
A. �There have been many manuscripts found since 1611, but there have been no new readings found. ... The fact is, that the King James translators had all the readings available to them that modern critics have available to them tody. ...although the Sinaitic manuscript was discovered over 200 years after the Authorized Version was translated, its READINGS were well known to the translators through the Vatican manuscript which was discovered in 1481 and also through the Jesuit [Douai] Bible, and English translation of 1582.� (The Answer Book p. 110)
B. Some argue, �If you�re going to trust the KJV, which one of the revisions are you going to trust?� �This retort, however, is very weak. All the editions of the King James Version from 1611 onward are still extant and have been examined minutely by F. H. A. Scrivener and other careful scholars. Aside from printer errors, these editions differ from each other only in regard to spelling, punctuation, and, in a few places, italics. Hence any one of them may be used by a Bible-believing Christian. The fact that some of them include the Apocrypha is beside the point, since this does not affect their accuracy in the Old and New Testaments.� (The King James Version Defended p. 230)
1. It should be noted that the translators of the King James Version did not place the Apocrypha within the Old Testament as did the Roman Catholic compilers. The KJV translators placed the Apocrypha between the Testaments - clearly marked off as non-canonical.
2. The Apocrypha was read by the people of the day in which the KJV first appeared as a devotional work much like we today might read and revere
Bunyan�s Pilgrim�s Progress, and yet not consider it as Scripture to be fully trusted or to build doctrine upon.
3. The Apocrypha was not considered to be inspired by either the translators of the KJV or by any Protestant body.
IV. It is true that there were many good and Godly opponents of the KJV when it was first published. It is my understanding, for instance, that the Pilgrim fathers forbade passage to the KJV on the Mayflower. However, this disapproval was over a translation and not over the true base text of the Word of God!
V. There is a theory of providential preservation which holds that the true text is in the Majority Text and, when the King James does not agree with this Text, it should be corrected. (The Corruption of the Word p. ix)
VI. There is also a view which holds to the theory of providential preservation which would say that God used the translators of the KJV to find the True Text and when the Majority Text (or any other text) would disagree with this [the KJV text], that these would be wrong and the KJV would be right.
A. Although I do believe that God did use these translators to preserve and propagate His True Text, I cannot agree that the English of the KJV can be used to correct the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic of the underlying text.
B. This view could lead to a veritable inspiration being conferred upon the text of the King James Version.
1. God inspired the Words, not the writers, of His Original Autographs. To move this inspiration from these words to the KJV would be to assume that He was mistaken in His first stab as inspiration.
2. God inspired the Words of His Original Autographs. To switch this inspiration from those original words to the words of any other language translation is to suggest that He is capricious in His pronouncements.
a. This calls into question our entire view of just Who God Is.
(1) If He is the God of eternity, He will not change His Word.
(2) If He is not the God of eternity, we can not be certain of any of His Words including those relating to our salvation and even our temporal lives.
b. This would make God time-centric in His eternal dealings with mankind.
3. God inspired the Words of His Original Autographs. To make a sort of
double inspiration of both those words and any translation is to suggest that He has, somehow, made perfection either more perfect, or has changed this perfection,
a. This is a contradiction in terms. God is the God of power, not of absurdity that He would contradict Himself.
b. This would leave our physical, moral and spiritual lives awash in a sea of uncertainty as we would be unsure that His Eternal Word to us would not be amended at a later date in time.
C. God has given us a word in the English which we can trust because it is His Eternal Word which has been filtered to accommodate our physical ears.
1. This can be true only via His Goodness toward us.
2. This can be true only so far as those English words are an accurate representation of His Eternal Words.
GOD KEEPS HIS WORD - SATAN HATES SCRIPTURE
I. �Satan desires to be worshiped. He has the ability to counterfeit God�s action, and definitely will be involved actively in attempting to destroy God�s Word and / or replace our confidence in that Word, while seeking to replace it with his own �version.�� (An Understandable History of the Bible p. 27
A. Satan used to try to burn the Bible, now he floods the market with versions. (The Authorized Version [tape])
B. �...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.� (An Understandable History of the Bible p. 49)
C. �There have been many attempts to adulterate and to destroy the Holy Scriptures, and every age has witnessed such assaults. As early as the second century such writers as Irenaeus describe attempts of heretics to corrupt the inspired records, and during periods of Roman persecution imperial decrees demanded the surrender and destruction of the copies cherished by many of the Lord�s people. In the Reformation period the Church of Rome sought to maintain its dominant position by burning not only the copies of the Bible, but also those who recognized the supreme authority of God�s Word.� (Which Bible? p. 2)
II. Satan attacks Christians.
A. �NOW ... the Christian is in a battle with the devil ... AND, the devil is out to destroy the Christian�s sword.� (Let�s Weigh the Evidence p. 12)
1. �The first question mark in the punctuation of the Bible is after the question put by Satan when he tempted Eve to doubt the Word of God. �Indeed, has God said...?� (Gen. 3:1)� (The Bible Under Attack p. 5)
a. The writer here cited uses the NASV, but his observation, nonetheless, remains true.
b. How ironic that the NASV, one of the translations which has a false foundation of the Alexandrian text, is used to point out this fact.
c. Notice the subtlety; Satan will allow truth to shine forth from a false base so that we may be deceived into trusting error. Our only sure safety lies in a reliance upon the True Word of God!
2. �We are saved by FAITH. BUT ... the OPPOSITE OF faith is DOUBT! Satan is using DOUBT and CONFUSION to try to destroy the Word of God!� (Let�s Weigh the Evidence p. 16)
B. �The �god of this world� directs his attack on the character and Person of the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word, and on the integrity and accuracy of the written Word of God - the Bible.� (Which Bible? P. 4)
1. �Satan came to tempt Eve. HOW DID HE DO IT????????? By casting doubt on God�s Word!!!!!� (Let�s Weigh the Evidence p. 16)
2. �From the very outset, when he cast doubt upon God�s Word in the garden with the question, �Yea, hath God said...?� he [Satan] has sought to corrupt or destroy that which God has caused to be written.� (Which Bible? p. 5)
III. Often the religious �professional� will do the work of Satan.
A. �The greatest enemies of the infant Christian church ... were not found in the ... heathenism which filled the world, but in the rising flood of heresy which, under the name of Christianity, engulfed the truth for many years. This is what brought on the Dark Ages.� (Which Bible? p. 186)
1. �How can we be sure that Jesus really said what these New Testament writers represent Him as saying? How can we be sure that Jesus really was the Son of God? Such is the logic of unbelief which begins with the use of these modern-speech New Testament versions and ends in complete uncertainty about everything.� (Believing Bible Study p. 55)
2. �The new versions are one more push down the road to a one world church. The New International Version advertises ... �The work is interdenominational ... Also thoroughly transdenominational. This new translation will be accepted widely.�� (Let�s Weigh the Evidence p. 84)
B. �Unbelieving scholarship is its own authority. It does not need any competition from a book!� (An Understandable History of the Bible p. 31)
1. �Much of the learning and theological activity of the present hour is dedicated to the attempt to discredit and destroy the authenticity and authority of God�s Word. The result of this is that thousands of nominal Christians are plunged into seas of doubt. Many of those who are paid to stand in our pulpits and defend the truth of God are now the very ones who are engaged in sowing the seeds of unbelief and destroying the faith
of those to whom they minister.� (Why I Preach that the Bible is Literally True p. 76)
2. �The �mischief� has been incalculable. The Hort theory and text have been perhaps the most effective weapons used by those who have made it their concern to defend and propagate their unbelief in the infallibility and authority of Scripture. ...[Those who] have propagated Hort�s theory and text (Nestle is essentially Hortian) bear a heavy responsibility for the growing doubt and disbelief throughout the Church.� (True or False p. 279)
IV. �Jeremiah concludes in chapter 17, verse 9, �The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?� Even a saved man has bad flesh. Give this flesh the authority to change God�s Word, and he will soon plant himself on God�s throne.� (An Understandable History of the Bible p. 158)
A. Speaking of the revisers of 1881: �Perhaps nineteenth century scholars needed something �new� to compete with the �new� theory of evolution to show that the church was not behind the times.� (The Corruption of the Word p. 5)
B. �The reason evolution is believed and taught as fact is not due to the evidence for it but rather to the need for it. Any natural miracle according to the atheist, the agnostic, and the secularist is preferable to a supernatural miracle that has God as its author.� (Why I Preach that the Bible is Literally True p. 107) [Compiler�s note: Any theory which holds, at the very foundation of it, that God lost control of His Message for any length of time makes that Message as well as it�s preservation a natural miracle rather than a miracle of God!)
V. �The Bible is true because it is true for me. The Holy Spirit bears witness with my spirit that I am a child of God and that therefore all the promises of holy Scripture are true in my case.� (Believing Bible Study p. 59)
GOD KEEPS HIS WORK
part 5