I. Many of the citations in this work will come from those who do not agree with the conclusions which I have reached. These citations have, generally, to do with the power of God to inspire and preserve His Word. It seems, somehow inconsistent to accept this power of God and yet hold to a belief system that postulates He either lost control of His Revelation or counted it so unimportant as to allow it to lie unseen by not only the Reformers and the eyes of pious men for several hundred years, but to allow it to be withheld from His Own Church, the Bride of Christ, for those many centuries.
II. I make no claim to be an expert. Neither would such a claim be made by any who know me well! I do, however claim to be able to read the works of those who are experts. It is trust in a God Who loved mankind enough to send not only the Living Word to offer atonement for our souls, but also the Written Word which testifies of Him, and Who is powerful enough to not lose control of His Revelation which leads me. It is a study of those who are experts which give credence to my blind faith.
III. There is nothing in this work which is not included in my larger work, God Keeps His Word. The purpose of preparing this smaller edition was to use it to give a primer, of sorts, to a local church group. I have been asked to prepare those notes I used in that service and I now offer them here.
THE PRESERVED WORD
(I Peter 1:23-25)
I. The False Tradition of Modern Man.
A. �Modern scholarship denies any role for providential preservation in determining the correct text to follow. The church lost the true text [it is alleged!] sometime around A. D. 300 ... This true text was recovered around A. D. 1881 and is found in modern versions.� (The Corruption of the Word p. ix)
B. The view of modern translation is that the Scripture contains the Word of God rather than that Scripture is the Word of God.
1. That this view is held may be denied by many, but it is the only logical outworking of the mind set that God either did not, or could not, preserve His Word.
2. �The liberals, at least many of them, believe that the Bible contains the words of God, along with some of the words of men and errors that they placed in the Bible.� (King James Fans? P. 38)
3. �Much of the learning and theological activity of the present hour is dedicated in 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. 78)
II. The Time-Line of Textual Variations.
A. It is with some hesitation that I even speak of textual variation. The vast majority (@ 95%) of all available texts agree with the Tradition text which underlies the King James Bible.
1. It would seem that variation is anything which disagrees with the Traditional Text.
2. There are, however, several groups of text-types which agree within their own variation.
B. The Alexandrian text-type.
1. �Origin, being a textual critic, is supposed to have corrected numerous portions of the sacred manuscripts. Evidence to the contrary shows he changed them to agree with his own human philosophy of mystical and allegorical ideas. Thus, through deceptive scholarship of this kind, certain manuscripts became corrupt. Evidently from this source our modern revised version Bibles and paraphrases have come.� (God Wrote Only One Bible. P. 34)
2. �The Alexandrians were always ready to suspect and reject New Testament readings which seemed to them to present difficulties.� (Believing Bible Study p. 47)
3. �The Alexandrian Text makers saw themselves as grammarians and tended to remove words to improve the style.� (The King James Version Defended p. 184)
C. The Western text-type. The Western editors saw themselves as interpreters and thus added to the text. (The King James Version Defended pp. 183-184)
D. The Heretical changes to the text.
1. �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...� (Which Bible? P. 2)
2. An example of this type of tampering with the inspired record is available today. I have over forty translation in my study; all but one of these will translate John 1:1 in the same general manner: �In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.� That one which is different is the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures - the official Bible of the Jehovah�s Witness cult. They do not accept the Trinity or the full Divinity of Christ. Their translation, based on this bias: �...in [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.�
E. The Neutral text-type. This is a fiction invented by Westcott and Hort in the middle 1800's, used to elevate the Vaticanus primarily - but also the Sinaiticus manuscript, to a position of superiority. They claimed that all other text-types were flawed. Only the Vaticanus, and sometimes the Sinaiticus, were to be trusted completely.
1. Westcott and Hort argued that the Antiochian text-type (they called it the
Byzantine), of which are the vast majority of all existent manuscripts, was an official revision. Proof, or any real evidence, of this is completely lacking and few accept this theory today.
2. Westcott and Hort further argued that the Vaticanus, and to some extent the Sinaiticus, were from an earlier, purer text that had escaped the non-existent �revision� they had postulated. Since the revision is not known to have ever happened, this part of their theory must also be treated with suspicion.
F. The Antiochian text-type.
1. This is also called the Byzantine text-type as well as the Traditional text-type. It is from this text-type that we have the true Majority and Received texts. This is the text which underlies the King James Bible.
2. �In the second century, a disciple by the name of Lucian founded a school of the Scriptures in Antioch. Lucian was noted for his mistrust of pagan philosophy. His school magnified the authority and divinity of Scripture and taught that the Bible was to be taken literally, not figuratively as the philosophers of Alexandria taught.� (Let�s Weigh the Evidence p.44)
3. �Antioch was the capital of Syria where the early believers were first called Christian (Acts 11:26).� In a few years the Syrian believers could be numbered in the thousands. Their Bible, the Peshitta [translated @ 150 A. D.], even today generally follows the Received Text.� (God Wrote Only One Bible p. 97)
4. �God further placed His stamp of approval upon the Traditional Text when He used it as the Text of the Reformation.� (The King James Version Defended pp. 111-112)
5. The term �Antiochian text-type� is used for clarity but is not accurate. This should, more properly, probably be called the Catholic (in the sense of Universal) text-type. It is not a localized text as the name might apply but rather is a text which is found in almost all areas of antiquity. Rather than flowing from a the non-existent Church Council Revision of which Westcott and Hort dreamed, this is simply the text which was copied, and carried and re-copied over and over by Christians as they spread throughout the ancient world.
III. The Testimony of the Translations of Antiquity.
A. �Some versions [i.e., translations] such as the Peshitto..., a Syrian translation, and
the Old Latin Vulgate ... Are actually older than out oldest uncial MSS. The Peshitto was translated from the Geek in about 150 A. D. The Old Latin Vulgate was translated about 157 A. D.� (An Understandable History of the Bible p. 63)
B. �...scholars have recovered copies of ancient translations in Latin, Syriac, Egyptian, Ethopic, Armenian, Gothic, etc. Some of these originated before our oldest existing Greek copies and thus testify to the contents of still earlier manuscripts. The great weight of this evidence is favorable to the �Received Text� underlying the Authorized Version.� (The Providential Preservation of the Greek Text of the New Testament p. 11)
C. �The point [of ancient translations] has an important bearing upon the question we are now examining. For, remembering that �we have no actual copies (i.e., original Greek Texts) so old as the Syriac and Latin Versions (i.e., translations) by probably more than 200 years� (The Traditional Text Burgon and Miller) and that �The oldest Versions are far more ancient than the oldest (Greek) manuscript� (Cannon Cooke), and remembering too that those venerable Versions prove the existence in their day of a standard Text agreeing essentially with our Textus Receptus, and it will be recognized that �the most ancient evidence� is all in favor of the latter.� (True or False p. 84)
IV. The True Text Available Today.
A. Falsely considered texts of the newer translations: �...all of our most ancient manuscripts derive basically from Egypt. This is due mainly to the circumstance that the climate of Egypt favors the preservation of ancient texts. ... It is, therefore, most likely that the text on which our modern translations rest is simply a very early Egyptian form of the text whose nearness to the original is open to debate.� (Which Bible? Pp. 28-29)
B. Faithfully collected true texts are available today.
1. �Any corruption of 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.� (An Understandable History of the Bible p. 66)
2. �The King James version is based upon the mainstream traditional wording found in a large percentage of the 5,000+ surviving copies of the New Testament that our ancestors handed down to us. The modern versions are based upon a small handful of copies that are very old but oppose the mainstream tradition at thousands of places.� (The Corruption
of the Word p. v)
C. Faithfully copied True Texts are available today.
1. There is reason to trust that the Traditional Text was best preserved. Since of the 27 Books of the New Testament, 17 were, �...written in or sent to the churches of this area [Greece and the surrounding lands],� they begin with the original autographs rather than copies. Since this true, it is also likely that they were the first to �...assemble them into one single New Testament cannon and to accord them full recognition...� This would, in turn, lead to even more careful copying. �Here it was preserved all through the Middle Ages and brought to Western Europe by learned Greek refugees after the capture of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453.� (Believing Bible Study pp. 45-46)
2. The Byzantine Empire had been the strongest power on earth, �...especially during the reign of Justinian I (527-565)... [But,] ....in 1453 Constantinople was invaded by ... Moslems and fell prey to its hordes.� The Christians and the Greek scholars fled �...into Europe with their Greek Testaments manuscripts.� They took with them, as well, the grammars based on the work of Dionysus Thrax. Theses, produced 15 centuries before, were - as Hills notes [The King James Version Defended], the same grammars which were used by the men who produced the first Greek New Testaments.� (Counterfeit or Genuine p. 202)
D. We may firmly consider the scholarship and tools of the translators of the King James Version. �The overwhelming majority of these manuscripts [which have been found in the 400 years since the time of the KJB publication] agree so closely that they may be said to present the same Greek Text.� (The Providential Preservation of the Greek Text of the New Testament p. 11)
V. Trust in the True Text Today.
A. In order to trust God we must be able to trust His Word.
1. �...the majority of textual critics believe that God preserved His text through the manuscripts discovered in the nineteenth century. They are saying, in effect, that God kept hidden from the Church the true text of the Word of God from some time around the ninth century until the discoveries of Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in the nineteen century.� (Counterfeit or Genuine p. 179)
2. �...if the True New Testament Text was lost for 1500 [or even just one
thousand] years, how can we be sure that it has ever been found again?� (The King James Version Defended p. 11)
3. It is not, as some have said, a question of the various translations being �commentaries� on the true text. The underlying text of the King James Bible and that of most of the modern versions is not the same text!
B. Inerrancy and Inspiration have a purpose.
1. �Although separate doctrines, the doctrine of preservation is very closely connected to the doctrine of inerrancy. Preservation is necessary in order to maintain an adequate view of inerrancy. Without preservation, the doctrine of inerrancy is only an academic question and has little bearing on the formation of doctrine and exegesis.� (Counterfeit or Genuine p. 187)
a. �If the text of the Scripture was not preserved, what was the need for having an inerrant original?� (Counterfeit or Genuine p. 178)
b. �The idea of defending the error-free status of lost autographs rings hollow.� (Is the Bible our Final Authority p. 8)
c. �No one can argue for the inerrancy of the Scripture and at the same time argue for changing it.� That is what is done by using a �...perverted and polluted Greek...� text as a basis for a translation. (Should We Use Strange Bibles p. 11)
2. �The idea that God watched over the transmission of His Word through the ages to ensure the purity of His revelation is called providential preservation. Providential preservation says that, although one copy will differ slightly from another, the differences are so minor that there will be hindrance to the correct understanding of the text. The true text has always been available to the providence of God.� (The Corruption of the Word p. ix)
a. �...if we no longer believe in the providential preservation of the New Testament, how can we believe in the infallible inspiration of the original New Testament manuscripts?� (Believing Bible Study p. 55)
b. �Can I believe in a literal Bible when it is said to be filled with errors and contradiction?� (Why I Preach that the Bible is Literally True p. 44)
3. We must remember that there is a marked difference between the Textus
Receptus and the underlying text of the newer translations. This is easily
understood when we realize that the Bible is not just another book. It has
the Hand of the Supernatural upon it. �...just as God will be active in its
preservation, Satan will be active in attempting to disrupt or destroy it.�
(An Understandable History of the Bible pp. 60-61)
C. Satan can be expected to attack the Word of God.
1. �The devil does not want anyone to be able to say, ;thus saith the Lord.� He wants people to say, �Yea, hath God said?� (Use the Bible God Uses pp. 4-5)
a. As soon as the Body of Jesus, the Word of God, returned to Heaven, Satan turned his fury to the Written Word of God. (The Battle for the Doctrinal Heart [tape])
b. Satan used to try to burn the Bible. Now he floods the market with versions. (The Authorized Version [tape])
2. The attack of Satan will spread confusion and falsehood.
a. One of the first things which we did in the Gulf War was to bomb the communication lines of Iraq. If we could not �take out� Iraq�s leader we could make it so that he could not easily communicate with his troops. Without communication of a unified battle plan resistance would be difficult. Isn�t that exactly what Satan is doing with the inferior textual base that lies as the source of most of the modern versions. Isn�t the question, �Is this or is this not part of God�s Word?�, a major part of the problem? Isn�t the question, �Why does your Bible say that and mine say this if both are inspired?�, a major part of the problem? Isn�t the statement that, �We can not really know what God said. The originals are gone and He didn�t bother to preserve His Word.�, the real problem?
b. The multiplicity of �versions� and �translations,� each saying something slightly different, leads to �proof texting.� We search from version and translation to translation and version, trying to find out what we want God to have said rather than submitting ourselves to what he has said.
c. �One of the stock arguments of the Jehovah�s Witnesses in defense of their blasphemy is that the text of the Authorized Version is
unreliable.� (The Providential Preservation of the Greek Text of The New Testament p. 26)
(1) Joseph Smith, of the Mormons, made the same claim.
(2) The conservative Protestant theologian who puts his trust in these modern versions is making the same claim!
3. The works of Satan produce the fruits of Satan. �The introduction of the �revised� versions, based on the �revised Greek� has produced a world full of infidels, agnostics and God-haters.� (Should We Use Strange Bibles p. 11)
VI. The True-Text and Trust in God.
A. A reliance upon the modern translation will foster several things.
1. Compromise with the enemy.
a. �Conservative �scholars� also agree with liberal �scholars� in their conviction that God could not preserve His words through history.� (An Understandable History of the Bible p. 203)
b. The area where the liberal and the fundamentalist come closest, where the atheist and the Christian agree, is right here. We doggedly affirm that we stand on the �Solid Word of God.� Then we question whether we can trust what we have or even if we really do have His Word. After all, if He lost control of �It� once, how do we know that we have �it� now?
2. Pride in ourselves.
a. �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 to show 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. The �old nature� exists in every person, even Christians. That will not change until the rapture. This nature manifests itself in an innate desire not to submit to the authority of God.� (An Understandable History of the Bible p. 169)
b. Many writers try to make the KJB controversy one of simple
scholarship. Their side is right while the KJB supporters are decidedly unlearned. But, it is more than this. It is also a theological dilemma.
(1) Do we have a God Who is able to protect His Message to man?
(2) Do we have a God Who cares enough about His Message to protect that Message.
(3) The side that trusts the Traditional text-type knows such a God as above. The other side does not, despite their protestations to the contrary.
3. A lack of trust in the things of God.
a. �Far from promoting an interest in believing Bible study among young people, these modern versions are much more likely to spread doubt and unbelief. For they all rest upon a foundation of naturalistic New Testament textual criticism.� (Believing Bible Study p. 54)
b. Matthew 4:3 - �If thou be the Son of God...� Shades of Genesis, chapter three! Satan is ever wanting to institute doubt, especially in the Word of God.
c. �If God has not preserved His Word, as He promised, then we do not have an infallible Word of God today. And if we do not have it today, we might as fell fold our tents and steal away, for we will never have it.� (Use the Bible God Uses p. 1)
B. The plan of God for us and for His Word.
1. We should trust that He can and has preserved His Word. See Daniel 12:9 - Why would Daniel have been told to seal the scroll, that it would be unlocked at the �time of the end,� if God were not able to preserve this prophecy? And, if this prophecy be preserved, why not the remainder of Scripture? Is it not ALL the Word of God?
2. We should use His Word! It is foolish to train a doctor and then give him poison for his patients, or to give a farmer diseased seed. Why give the Christian a false Bible to use to convert the world? (The Authorized Version [tape])
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Authorized Version, The (Sermon Tape); Pastor Jack A. Morman; Fundamental Bible Church; Los Osos, CA; 1991
Battle for the Doctrinal Heart, The (Sermon Tape); Pastor Jack A. Morman; Fundament Bible Church; Los Osos, CA; 1991
Believing Bible Study; Edward F. Hills, Th. D.; The Christian Research Press; Des Moines, IA; 1977
Corruption of the Word, The; Kevin James; Micro-Load Press; Williamsburg, NM; 1990
Counterfeit or Genuine; David Otis Fuller, D. D., ed.; Grand Rapids International Publications; Grand Rapids, MI; 1990
God Wrote Only One Bible; Jasper, James Ray; The Eye Opener Publishers; Eugene, OR; 1983
Is the Bible Our Final Authority; George W. Reid; Ministry, November 1991; v. 64, n. 11; pp.6-9
King James Defended, The; Edward F. Hills; The Christian Research Press; Des Moines, IA; 1984
King James Fans; E. L. Bynum; Tabernacle Baptist Church; Lubbock, TX; 1979
Let�s Weigh the Evidence; Barry Burton; Chick Publication; Chino, CA; 1983
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures; New World Bible Translators Committee; Watchtower Bible and Tract Society; New York, NY; 1961
Providential Preservation of the Greek Text of the New Testament, The; Rev. W. MacLean, M.A.; Westminster Standard Publications; Brisborne, NZ; 1983
Should We Use Strange Bibles?; D. P. Denton, The Voice of the Nazarene; v. 38, n 3; July-August 1991; p. 11
True or False?; Dr. David Otis Fuller, D. D., ed.; Grand Rapids International Publications; Grand Rapids, MI; 1973
Understandable History of the Bible, An; Dr. Samuel Gipp, Th. D.; Bible Believers Baptist Bookstore, Macedonia, OH; 1990
Use the Bible God Uses; E. L. Bynum; Tabernacle Baptist Church; Lubbock, TX; nd (tract)
Which Bible?; Dr. David Otis Fuller, D. D., ed.; Grand Rapids International Publications; Grand Rapids, MI; 1975
Why I Preach that the Bible is Literally True; W. A. Criswell; Broadman Press; Nashville, TN; 1969