RESPECT THE WORD (Continued)
I was watching some boxing on television a few minutes ago. It was pretty much a one sided fight. One guy was hitting the other and the other guy was just trying to hide under his gloves. One of the commentators said, �He�s giving too much respect. He seems afraid to throw his own punches because he�s afraid the other guy hits too hard.�
This made me think. �That is how we should respect the Bible. We don�t fight against it. We just accept what it says.� The difference in this, from the fight I was watching, is that the Bible, nor the Author, has no intention of hurting us. What the Bible has for us is for our betterment.
Barnhouse (The Bible Under Attack) says this about accepting the Bible. �It should be realized that the full authority of the Scripture was accepted by practically every branch of the church until about 200 years ago.� There may have been a dispute as to the authority accorded tradition during the Reformation, but the authority of the Bible was unquestioned.
Barnhouse continued.
Then men arose who, �...were afraid that the Bible could not stand the test of modern discoveries, and they turned away from its authority. The Roman Catholics excommunicated the men of their number who thus denied the faith. In Protestantism the liberal anti-biblical movement ran like a brush fire and became a principle source of strife, especially during the past century.�
Sadly, the Fundamentalist has joined with the Modernist in disrespect of the Bible. There are many otherwise sound Bible Colleges and Universities which have begun to cast doubt on the faithfulness of the Scripture as they argue against the preservation of the Words of God. They have invented a new theory of �concept� inspiration which, at its heart, argues that the Bible is not the Word of God; it merely contains the word of God.
God, they now argue, did not bother to preserve His inspired Words. He has only seen fit to preserve the general idea, or concept, of the �original manuscripts.� In doing so they have presented us with a fallible Bible which may be interpreted by the whim of the interpreter. �What God meant to say,� has replace, �Thus saith the Lord!�
The little tract, �Correcting the King James Version,� has caught the spirit of the day in far too many �Christian� colleges and pulpits.
�The preacher or teacher who professes to believe the Bible and then corrects it has just taught his students that the Bible has error ... And cannot be trusted... Where does the Christian go to find truth since no one has the originals...? A preacher or teacher should build faith in God�s Word, not destroy it�
Without a Bible which has a text that is trustworthy we are left with no sure word unless an �expert� is available to tell us what the Bible is really saying. It would be better to have a Bible we can trust so that we would listen to the voice of the Spirit rather than the voice of a person who has already decided that the Bible is not to be fully trusted.
During the �Dark Ages� the Roman Church withheld the Scripture from the people because it was believed that they would not be able to understand the teachings. The rule of faith was what the �Church� decided. The Bible was just not necessary. How close we have come to this construct when we are disallowed trust in the preserved Words of God.
The tract then continues.
�Apostasy is professing to believe something which [one] no longer [does] believe. ... The Apostate [is one who professes] to believe that the Bible is (present tense) the Word of God without error while in reality he believes the bible was (past tense) the Word of God. ... The Apostate while professing he has the Word of God does not believe that he has the genuine Words of God and severely criticizes anyone who does.�
Those are very harsh words. I do not begin to suggest that anyone who disregards the preserved Traditional Text is an apostate. Many are simply mistaken. Many are �brainwashed,� as it were, by the stance of the �professional.� Most have not even seen fit to honestly examine the facts. They have simply accepted the words of some �authority figure.�
Might it not be better to accept the Words of the Ultimate Authority Figure?
What I will say about those who refuse to accept the power and love of God to preserve His Own Words is that this is a stance which could easily be accepted by those who were apostate? What a strange place for the Fundamentalist to be found. After all, he is the one who is fond of saying, �Come out from among them.� Yet, there he stands!
A true respect for the Bible would equate to a trust in the Words of the Bible. A lack of faith in the preservation of the Words tends to lead to a situation where we �pick and choose� those words which we prefer rather than the Words upon which God has placed His stamp of Authority.
�I like this version because it speaks to me,� means that there are other �versions� which do not speak to you. If all of the versions were based on the Words of God, wouldn�t God speak through any, or all, of them?
Fuller (Which Bible?) stands in agreement that a lack of trust in the preserved Scripture leads to an assumption of trust in a man rather than God.
Fuller quotes Bissell [Origin of the Bible]: �When you are confused or perplexed by a variety of versions, you would be obliged to go to some learned pundit in whom you reposed confidence, and ask him which version he recommended; and when you had taken his version, you must be bound by his opinion.�
The multiplicity of �versions� leads to a lack of respect for the Words of God.
An article in Battle Cry, �But Dad, Which One is God�s Word�, gives a picture of the problem. When the version from the pulpit differs from the version in the pew, people are discouraged from reading along during the message. They do not �check out� the �holy man� and therefore give him too much respect - with, conversely, not enough respect for God�s Word.
I have about forty different versions and translations in my study. I will use them for research when writing. I will never use them for devotional or preaching. They, generally, NOT ALWAYS!, say nearly the same thing. But, if they were to be placed one on top of another they would produce a real �Tower of Babel.� They profess to lead to God but their voices are so disconnected, and often argumentative, that they cannot find Him. The only anser to this problem is to move from them and repopulate the earth with the pure Words of God.
Barnhouse (The Bible Under Attack) finds the truth. �The liberal critic exalts himself as the supreme court, subjects the text of the Bible to his own rational process, and comes to a decision concerning the validity of any sentence. ... As a follower of Christ, I submit to the bible. It judges me in all things, and its judgement is final.�
This was said of the liberal critic. But it also applies to the conservative critic who has decided that the true text has been lost. He searches among the various manuscripts of antiquity, ignoring the vast majority of text which support the Traditional Text, and finds the words with which he agrees. These, the words which the critic has chosen, are the only true text in his eyes. That is, this is the only true text until his next revision.
The truth is that anywhere from 85% to 95% of the texts agree with the Traditional Text. Why not simply accept what God has preserved?
In our town we have a standing committee which meets to suggest new ordinances and laws. That is their sole purpose. Consequently they are often finding new things that must be addressed. And our liberties and quality of life declines with their interference.
The Bible critics are of the same ilk as that standing committee. There purpose is to find the �original words� of God. These people become unneeded when we accept the Words of God which He has preserved. These people continue to make their own case for their importance even as they, unwittingly I am fairly certain, reduce the need for the people in the pew to have any trust in God.
The tract, �Correcting the King James Bible� talks about the authority figures which attempt to stand above the Scripture.
�The Catholic Priest sets himself up as an authority over the Bible and encourages the people to listen to him rather than the Book. The teacher or preacher who corrects the Bible sets himself up [as] the authority for people to listen to, rather than the Bible, is just like the priest. No wonder Bible reading is done by so few.�
I might also note that many of these new versions and translations are now adding the Apocrypha, in the body of the text, to their efforts. Could it be they understand that their efforts have produced Bible�s without authority? Could they be seeking the �authority� of tradition?
Gipp (An Understandable History of the Bible) has provided a picture of the people of God wandering from the Book of God.
He points out that a revival, or an �awakening� leads people away from the world and into the Book. Since the people of this revival need Bible training, educational establishments are begun. The people are taught the way to live. This is good. Unfortunately, this leads to a �Christian culture� which, in turn, can lead to lives being conditioned by culture rather than committed to convictions. This then leads to apostasy as the people of God become more like the people of the world. This may lead from God�s Word as man finds his own words to be so �logical� and �scientific.�
Doesn�t this sound like the world we live in? We are busy petitioning Congress to pass laws to protect God that we have neglected to properly serve Him with our lives and witness. We have begun to teach a cultural salvation even as we preach a more Biblical salvation. We subject the wold about us with a message that all they need to do is to live the �Christian lifestyle.�
In doing this we fail to heed the Words of the Book which teach that the �Christian lifestyle� is unattainable by those who are bound in sin. This leads, humanly speaker, to a great barrier to our primary message: Jesus Christ died in time so that others could live in eternity.�
Let us never build antagonism toward our Savior. He reaches out in love. He does not react in hate.
Gipp gives a picture of the move from faith to formalism in England.
�England had graduated [at the time of Westcott and Hort and the revisers] from �revival� to �education,� and her �education� had developed into her own unique �culture.� From there, the Roman Catholic Church [via Codex Vaticannus] was willing to supply the apostasy.�
This, Codex Vaticannus, remains the primary source, along with Aleph, for the modern Bible critic and translator even in our day.
Now, the charge that the Roman church was �willing to supply the apostasy,� is a little extreme. This was not her purpose. Rome believes what she believes. Unfortunately, what she believes does not always square with the message of God as revealed in His inspired and preserved text.
There is a model for churches which many accept. The model is that the first generation of the church is very much on fire for God. They are converts and are anxious to live this new found faith. The second generation has been brought up in the church. They keep to all the creeds and beliefs of the first generation. But, the fire is not there. This second generation has been taught the faith while the first generation had �caught� the faith. Whereas the first generation had an emotional attachment, the second generation has a head understanding.
By the third generation the fires have pretty well be banked. In place of the fires of conviction is a cold formality of doctrine. This third generation is not as likely as was the first, or even the second, to bring up their children to see the church as important.
This is not, of course, a hard and fast rule. It is, to often, a reality.
It is also a reality that when a people give up their Bible base of the Traditional Text, we see that they begin to shift from a fervor to experience God and move to a formalistic, cultural religion. In time even the culture of their religion begins to suffer. This can be especially seen in the United States as we have moved in the past fifty years to become a Biblically illiterate people and a post Christian culture.
Even our colleges and universities which were founded as religious training schools have suffered this fate. The school I began in was originally a Bible Institute. Later they became a Bible College. Now, although they continue to pay reverence to the history, they are simply another college with a Bible department.
Other large Christian schools have continued to pay lip service to the Bible but they no longer teach of a Word which is verbally and plenarily inspired. Nor do they consider the fact of the preservation of God when they consider the text that is taught in their Bible classes. They continue to teach the same doctrine, for now. But, they do so without the same power.
We need to respect the Words of God.
In our next session we will consider the canard that �Everybody Trusts the New Translations.�
11 April 2008
�EVERYONE� TRUSTS THE NEW TRANSLATIONS
I would guess that the proper question to ask at this point is: Does everyone trust the new translations? The answer, sadly, would be: Pretty much.
Here are a couple of anecdotal illustrations: A few years ago there was a religion columnist of a local weekly newspaper. This man was a rank heretic in most of his theology. He was also very abrasive when anyone would dare disagree with his Pontifications. He did, however, use the King James Bible in his theological outbursts. He claimed that this was because the King James Bible was the preferred Bible of the National Council of Churches.
This, alone, should have made one question the theological qualifications of the correspondent.
After a short time of reading the column I began to question the man on some of his statements. I tried to be positive so I commended him on his choice of Bible translation. Although, I did point out that the large religious organizations did not accept the King James Bible., I told him that he had chosen the Bible founded on the base of the preserved texts.
The outcry from the Fundament/Evangelical wing of local Christendom was loud. They all agreed with my general thesis that this man was wrong. They had no argument with my exposition of the Scriptural message. But, they certainly did not agree with my argument that the King James was the superior English language translation.
The argument seemed to be that I could argue doctrine with the columnist. I could point out the flaws in his arguments. But, I needed to come back the reservation of intelligenceia about the translations.
Most of the standard arguments came in. I was told that there were 400 years of new discoveries. I was not told, of course, that there were no new discoveries of �readings� in all those years.
I was told that the men of the translation committee of the Authorised Version were simple �bumpkins� without the expertise of the modern critics. Apparently the people making these claims had never studied the lives of the men on that committee. It would be well nigh impossible for such a solid group of intellectually prepared men to be assembled in our day!
I was told that none of the modern colleges and universities would agree with my stand that the King James Bible, the Authorised Version, was based on the correct texts of antiquity. This is true, of course. It is to the intellectual, and the spiritual, shame of these institutions that they disregard such a overwhelming proportion of the evidence pointing to the preserved text.
Several years later I was visiting at a local para church agency. Several of the client men were out and about, listening to the conversation. The local director was berating me for accepting the preserved Words of God as underlie the King James Bible. The more I attempted to divert the conversation, in light of the client men around us listening, the more strident his arguments came against me.
Let�s see, it is always those who accept the King James Bible who are the �agitators,� isn�t it?
In the past few months I have been quite often on the internet. On one such occasion a question was asked, at a Christian Q & A site. The question concerned what was the proper text. Some of the responders had argued for the King James Bible and the text which underlies this venerable translation.
One man wrote in and said that he had found over three thousand errors in the text of the King James Bible. He had not, of course. What he had found was over three thousand times the King James Bible was correct and the eclectic text of the modern day English language versions were wrong.
Fuller (Which Bible) gives the reason for this hostility, humanly speaking, toward the King James Bible and the text which underlies it�s words. �The present generation of Bible students, having been reared on Westcott and Hort, have for the most part accepted the theory without independent or critical examination.�
Those who have examined the evidence, not from a college classroom where the professor is a �believer� in the theories of Westcott and Hort, but from independent sources, have found the facts that give credence to the faith that God has preserved His Own text.
Any reasonable, Bible based theology would demand that God had preserved His Words. Any rational consideration of the God Who is presented in the Scripture would demand that God had preserved His Words. Any responsible Christian historian would look at the Bible versions, based on the Traditional Text, of the Reformation Churches would see the proof that God has preserved His Words.
To argue otherwise is to assert that God either could not, or would not, preserve His Words to man. Such a concept argues against the love of God in that it alleges that He has not provided His true Text to His churches and the Christians of those churches, the Bride of Christ, for hundreds of years.
Such a concept argues against the power of God as it alleges that the efforts of man have thwarted the efforts of God in that man has denied to humanity that which God produced for humanity.
To argue otherwise is to argue against the wisdom of God in that this construct supposes that God inspired a Word which He must have known would be lost.
Finally, to argue otherwise is to argue against the original inspiration of the Words of God in that the Words of God are of Eternity. They are not subject to decay in a time centric manner. Therefore, if the words have been lost, if only the general concept has been retained, God must not have inspired the writing. A simple �concept� without the words from which it came, is not a sure word. It is a word based on the slippery ice of man�s intellect rather than on the solid Rock of the Mind of God speaking to the hearts of man.
I am considering only the Christian in the above. We know that the non Christian would not be disposed to hold to the preserved and inspired Words of God. It is sad when the Believer and the non Believer find common ground in spiritual matters.
In our next session we will consider some of the reason that many do not accept God�s text.
18 April 2008
�EVERYONE� TRUST THE NEW TRANSLATIONS (Continued)
Why would a Christian, especially a �Fundamentalist� Christian refuse to accept the concept of a preserved Scripture? As we have pointed out over and over, the concept of inspiration is meaningless without a preserved Scripture. Indeed, without a preserved Scripture there is no rational for an inspired Scripture.
Is it a lack of faith in the power of God which argues for a �lost� Scripture which must be �reconstructed� by the best efforts of man? I would argue that if one actually believes that God allowed His originally inspired text to be lost, it was in His Divine will that such happen. To attempt to reconstruct that which God has allowed to be lost seems an effort to thwart the very will of God. This is a problem!
Is it a pride in presenting one as an �intellectual� which causes an person who would otherwise hold the Scripture in high regard to argue against the preservation of the text? I, personally, think this is a large part of the reason. While the Fundamentalist argues that he accepts God despite whatever anyone else might say, this �ain�t necessarily so.�
It was fear that the works of Darwinian geological thought which caused the popularization of the �Day Age,� and �Gap� theories of Genesis. I am not arguing that these are necessarily wrong. I am arguing that the popularization of them was an attempt to �harmonize� a view of the physical sciences with the Scriptural record.
After all, we do need to help God out of some of the fixes He�s gotten Himself into.
When Tischendorf found the Sinaiticus he found that for which he had been looking. The postulate was that the Scripture must have been �changed� over time. After all, the concept of evolution would demand this change. Man�s inability to correctly copy demanded this change. No thought was really given to the ideal that God might have had good reason to oversee the preservation of His Text.
Tischendorf was not on a vacation when he approached the Catholic Monastery where he found his text. He was searching for older texts so that he could �correct� the Traditional Text.
When I�m planning on making an egg sandwich I will go to the refrigerator and look for eggs. I won�t go to the pantry and find a can of tuna; that�s not what I�m after. Same concept with Tischendorf, et. al.; he had no faith that God had preserved His Text. He was looking form something else.
Actually, the reason�s one might have for discounting the power and love of God to preserve His Text are unimportant. A few weeks ago I could not get my van to start. I was preparing for a tow truck to take it to a local garage so they could install a new started. The driver of the tow truck is a friend. He quizzed me about what might be wrong. Then he took a wrench and adjusted the cable to my battery. The van started immediately thereafter.
I believed that I needed a new starter for my van. I was so convinced that I was ready to pay a tow truck and a garage the money needed to get that new starter. I was wrong. It didn�t matter that I was convinced; when the evidence was correctly considered, I was wrong!
Denton (Should We Use Strange Bibles) has commented upon this same principle as it applies to those who trust the works of man rather than the preservation of God.
�But, honest or not honest, when one believes an UNTRUTH, it dose not change the character of the untruth. It is still untrue. And the statement that the modern versions of the Bible are based upon the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament is still untrue regardless of who believes it or who propagates it.�
While the writing may be early, the text that they put forth is not the earliest, pure text. Rather it is a corruption of that earlier, pure text.
Fuller (Which Bible) argues the basic tenet of accepting the new eclectic texts. �When a man writes a book and seeks to gain a point by saying �All scholars agree,� I wish to know who the scholars are and why they agree. Where do they get their evidence from to start with?�
One might also ask why the great preponderance of all the evidence is either ignored are cited as �untrustworthy.� Has the power of God to preserve His text suddenly become �untrustworthy.� Why are nine out of ten pieces of evidence called �wrong?� Is it not more reasonable, even discounting pure faith in the power and love of God, that the one is an aberration? If, after all, ten people witness a car crash and nine of them say the offending car was red, while only one of them says the offending car was purple with yellow dots, which rendition would be the more believable?
Greene (The Word Above All) argues against the new eclectic texts of the modern day English language translations. �In this day and hor there are many men, liberals and modernists, who are adding to and taking from the Holy Bible. They say they are bringing the Bible up to date, but when they stand before God they will be held responsible for adding to and taking from God�s Holy Word.�
The West Point Military Academy would not send her soldiers into battle with bullets that only seemed to be real. She would not trust to conduct a war with �new� bullet simply for the sake of having something new. The Army tests, and retests, its munitions. If something �new� fails the text, they will return to the �old� which has proven to work. Why would a university send its �preacher boy�s� out into a Spiritual War with a Bible that is not working?
Is the purpose to please God, and to walk in His power, or is the purpose to please men and appear �cutting edge?�
�So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.� (Isaiah 55:11) If these new texts, and the translations made from them, are really the pure, true Words of God, where is the Power? God said that He promised that His Word would not return to Him void.
Don�t talk to me about a �latter day falling away.� Talk to me about the Power of God to say what He means and mean what He says. Talk to me about His faithfulness to do what He has promised. Talk to me about His power to do that which His will seeks to accomplish.
The Defined King James Bible gives these meanings to the word �void� in the above verse: �Empty, useless, ineffective, invalid.�
In years past, with the preaching of the Bible translated from the Traditional Text, the world witnessed conversions to true salvation in Jesus Christ rather than a �falling away� from the faith that we see in our churches and church attendance today.
Churches used to just preach the Bible and trust the Spirit. Today we have moved to �focus groups� which seek to transform the �church mission� to the wants of the unsaved rather than standing firm, with a God empowered Bible, and say, �Thus saith the Lord!�
There may well be a �falling away� among the apostate church. But, what we are seeing is a �falling away� of the Christian who sits in a church which claims to hold to the old Gospel, the old Book, and the old faith.
Problem is, it ain�t the �old Book.� It is a �new� Book culled from �old� texts which were produced by human reason rather than preserved by the Spirit of God.
The Spirit of God is still in this world. The Christian is still in this world. But, we have become a �...salt which has lost his savour...� (Matthew 5:13) Without the power of the true message of God, we have become a people �...trodden under foot of men.�
The Christian, armed with his faith in HIS Book, used to be a leavening influence upon the society of men around him. In years past, with the preaching of the Bible translated from the Traditional Text, the society of the world was less prone to the sort of individual violence and harshness of interpersonal relations which we now witness.
I am not saying that the world was perfect in years past. Sin abounded then as well. But, I am saying that the influence of the Christian, filled with the Spirit and armed with the Words of God, was an influence for good. The Christian is now more marginalized; his values are not scoffed at, as in years past. Those values are challenged as improper and immoral.
What has happened? Has the word of God somehow lost its power to convict? Has the Word begun to return void? Or, have we, the Christian world, substituted the pure Word of god for a false text which has not the power of God within?
Yes!
Praise God this attitude seems to be changing. We are beginning to see a return to faith in the pure Words of God. We forget, sometimes, that God is the God of History. He is, ultimately, in charge.
Not all will return. I believe that these newer translations of eclectic texts, inferior texts, will become the means of uniting the churches into a great ecumenical church of the Tribulation era. We already are seeing this begin to happen. �Inclusive� Bibles are being marketed. They are proud that they are Bible�s for all Christians; the denomination does not matter.
Neither, apparently does the concept of �fundamental,� �Evangelical,� �Main Line,� �Apostate,� or any other �brand name� matter. Folks, the true Words of God will separate the wheat from the chaff. It is instructive to notice which of the above are more motivated by the eclectic texts of man than by the preserved Text of God.
The Apocrypha was included in early editions of the King James Bible. We have spoken of this before. It was placed between the Testaments. It was clearly delineated as �non canonical.� It was placed for �devotional� readings, as we might read �The Pilgrim�s Progress.� It was not placed for either Bible study or preaching.
Today we have this same Apocrypha placed with the text of the Old Testament. These words of man are given the imprimatur of Scripture by too many of these new editions. These �Holy Bibles� are not �Wholly Bibles.� We have need to be on guard that we do not sully our spirit with the spirit of the age.
In our next session we will consider that there are many who have not �bowed the knee to Baal.� There are many who do accept the Traditional Text of God.
25 April 2008
�EVERYONE� TRUSTS THE NEW TRANSLATIONS (Continued)
The truth is, of course, that not �everyone� trusts these new translations which are based on a new text. I know that the anthem is that this is the old text �restored.� Tain�t so, McGee. I will agree that the base text of the newer English language versions is an ancient text. I will not agree that it is the original text. It is an ancient flawed text.
This new text may be called the �oldest and best,� but, as �Sportin� Life� said in �Porgy and Bess,� �It ain�t necessarily so!� My son has a bulldog. I can claim that this is a dachshund. I can proclaim this with conviction and sincerity. That dog is still a bulldog. There�s an old joke: What do you call a dog with no legs? Doesn�t matter; call him whatever you want. He still ain�t coming to you.
These new texts can be called anything one wants to call them. Doesn�t matter. They are still not the texts which God originally inspired and preserved.
Therein is the crux of the problem. There is a one thousand year period when these new texts were not available to the churches which contain the redeemed. This is a reasonable scenario. God would not have left His churches without His message. To say that God would have allowed this is to allege that God is either impotent or unfaithful.
I ain�t ready to say either. And, I take issue with anyone who does make this claim!
But, besides just this writer, there are actually real scholars who do accept the Traditional Text as God�s preserved Text. Hills (The King James Version Defended) mentions three of these scholars from the past one hundred and thirty years, or so.
Hills mentions Burgon. �Because of [Burgon�s] learned defense of the Traditional New Testament text he has been held up to ridicule in most of the handbooks on New Testament textual criticism; but his arguments have never been refuted.�
This summer, God willing, I will be going to Wisconsin to speak at a society which is named for Dean Burgon. At the annual Dean Burgon Society meetings there will be many speakers, all - except me! - who are real experts in their fields. Their words will not be considered by many, even so called Christian, colleges and universities. These men are not following the �party line� that the true text was somehow lost in history. Thus debate is not stifled, it is not even considered. And the fiction of a faithless God is continued without dissent or inspection.
Ben Stein has a movie out right now. It is called �Expelled.� In the movie the case is made that real scientific debate is disallowed on many subjects. There is no effort to reach truth because the fiction of a godless Dawinianism is the scientific faith of the day. Issues like Intelligent Design are not even considered, much less discussed, much less examined, because it is a heresy against the doctrine of neo Darwinism. The great strides made in molecular biology in the past two hundred years are explained away without disturbing the orthodox construct.
This is the same thing that is happening today in textual criticism. Men like Burgon, and Waite, today, are ridiculed for standing for a God of power and love Who has preserved His Own Word. But, their arguments are not answered.
Hills also mentions Kuyper. �Abraham Kuyper (1894) [Encyclopaedic der Heilige Godgeleerdheid], ... who pointed out that the publication of the Textus Receptus was �no accident,� [affirms] that �...the Textus Receptus, as a foundation from which to begin critical operations, can in a certain sense, even deserve preference.��
I want to remind you that the phrase �Textus Receptus� means �Received Text.� In other words, what Kuyper was defending was the concept that there was a text which was received by the churches from antiquity. That Text is the Received Text. It is the text of history. The Textus Receptus is a form of the Traditional Text, or vice versa. The point is that this is the preserved text of God. It is not the eclectic text of man.
Finally, Hills also mentions Pieper. �...Francis Pieper (1924) [Christliche Dogmatic], ... Emphasized the fact that, �in the Bible which is in our hands we have the word of Christ which is to be taught by and in the Church until the last day.��
The argument is that we need to pay heed to the Bible which is of the inspired and preserved Text which underlies the King James Bible. To go after �Bibles� founded on the eclectic texts of men is wrong. It is not honoring God to cast aside that which He has inspired and preserved for our edification and instruction.
Gipp (The Answer Book) argues for accepting the King James Bible. This is nearly the only Bible on the market in our day which is based on the Traditional Text.
�QUESTION: If the King James is really perfect, how can so many preachers and scholars be wrong about it? ANSWER: the majority is always wrong.�
Now, I do take issue with Gipp at this point. I do not believe that the King James Bible is perfect. But, even with this caveat, the King James Bible is closer to perfect than other Bibles on the market because of the fidelity given to the Traditional Text by its translating committee.
Following his theme that the majority is �always wrong,� Gipp speaks of salvation as a point in this argument.
�In Matthew 7:13, 14 Jesus points out a great Bible truth. The majority of the population will not get saved. Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. This passage teaches us that the majority of people on the earth at any given time will wrongly reject Christ and go to Hell.�
Gipp then lists several other Bible examples of the majority being wrong.
�Even a casual look at the Bible will show that the majority is always going to be wrong.�
�The majority of people rejected Noah�s preaching and died in the flood.�
�The majority of people perished in Sodom and Gomorrah.�
�The majority of Israel worshipped Aaron�s calf in Exodus 32.�
�The majority of Israel rejected the ministry of prophets such as Jeremiah.�
�The majority of people rejected Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry.�
�The majority of people alive today reject Jesus Christ as the Saviour of the World.�
�It would seem that throughout history, it has always been a small group of people who have had a heart soft enough to accept God�s revealed truth.�
This is the real problem in our day. It is the revealed truth of God, His inspired and preserved Text, which is being rejected. History, and this includes recent history, shows that when a people reject the preserved Text of God the power of God is lifted from those people. No one can argue that the churches have the same power in society in general as they had fifty years ago when the King James Bible, based on the Traditional Text, held sway in the churches of the land.
Today we have churches sponsoring focus groups, trying to find a way to restore what once was a mighty army of God�s people. Check out the �books� of the churches of the land. They are dying on the vine. Those growing are either holding onto the pure Words of God, or they have jettisoned any true trust in God. The former are blessed and blessing; the latter are mere social clubs and community outreach centers more focused on �programs� than on true soul winning.
Gipp continues, �The fact that the majority of Bible �scholars� and preachers reject the King James Version is entirely Scriptural. And WRONG.�
When I first read the words of Gipp I was prepared to argue. �Not �always� wrong. The majority might be �usually� wrong, but not �always.�� I had overlooked the spiritual dynamic. That naturalistic human soul does not wish to be placed in subjection to God. Therein is the problem. It is true, in spiritual matter the majority IS always wrong!
In closing, for this session, we have a quotation from �How We Got Our Bible.�
�It was very significant that while the American astronauts were encircling the moon they read and broadcast to the world the story of creation - not from a modern version, not from an American version, not from the R.S.V. or N.E.B., but from the Bible of the English-speaking world - the Authorized Version - an acknowledgment that this still has its preeminent place even in this age of modern science.�
It is not just that the words are familiar and comfortable. It is that the words are based on the Words of God.
In our next session we will continue to look at instances where the crowd has been wrong.