2 December 2005
INSPIRATION AND PRESERVATION (Continued)
This week I will do something that a really do not like to do. I will be very negative in my arguments against those with a differing theological stance. I do disagree, of course, with those who deny the Biblical doctrine of the preservation of Scripture. It's just that I do not like to be negative in my remarks toward another.
People do not do things because they think those things wrong. Neither do they teach false doctrine because they wish to mislead, but, sometimes they do both. It is not that they are bad people - in the natural. It is just that they are mistaken in some area.
Why would someone be mistaken in doctrine. Generally it has to do with the pride in one's intellect or training. Generally, also, it has to do with a lack of faith in the goodness and power of God. This may be rationalized as simply being "honest about the problems." But, there are no problems associated with God. There are only problems in our understanding of His promises.
That is one of the basic problems that cause one to disallow the possibility that God could have, or would have, preserved His Scripture.
The basic premise of the non-preservation of Scripture is based in a rationalistic, rather than a deistic, belief. It looks at the transmission of Scripture as simply another factor in the natural world order. In the natural world we see decay and disorder in the memories of man the further they are from the facts of history.
My recollection, for instance, of the War Between the States would not be a very compelling remembrance of the facts. I wasn't there. The only thing I might know would be something that I had heard from someone else. It would not be within my province to decide whether or not those I heard had told, or written, the truth. Their stories may have been the memories of old men, or the reconstruction of old letters written by the combatants. But, were they true? I wouldn't know. The stories may have been embellished by selective memory. They could be simply lies made to tell a good story.
Some argue that the Bible stories were such as this. They argue for a late writing of the Scriptural Books. They argue that the stories are embellished so that they would "read" better, or give a better position for someone's arguments.
But, the Bible is God's Word. It did not "evolve." Neither was it simply handed down in a wily nil manner. When we speak of the Message of God to mankind we are speaking of something that is of eternal consequence. Can we argue that God would allow His special message to be tainted by the sands of time? We can not if we accept the premise that there exits a God powerful enough to protect His Own preserved Message to mankind.
We must also view this scenario of preservation with the obvious fact that God had a special interest in setting forth this Message. That fact preconditions a need to understand that the message is important to Him. It also follows that this means that it would be expected that He would exert His providential power to protect that message from the forces of Satan and the follies of man.
The Bible is not simply another book from antiquity. The argument that this Book is not preserved - perfectly - is to argue that no special providence is attached to the transmission or care of the message which God considered as so important that He communicated it to mankind in a written form.
It would seem that the argument that the Scripture is not providentially preserved by the Hand of God stems from a soul-fear that the critics might just be right in their assessments of the non-supernatural character of the Book. The christian (small case), then feels a need to find an answer to protect his concept of god (small case) from the onslaughts of more intelligent people.
This seems to grow from a fear that one may "lose" his faith in the onslaught of the advancement of human intelligence unless he finds a way to combat the argument of the skeptic. How much better would it be if we simply trusted God and view the skeptic for what he is - an enemy combatant in the Spiritual War. We must pray for this skeptic. We must seek to win him to the Lord he denies. But we have no need to fear him. "...greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world." (I John 4:4b) That verse still applies!
It is worth noting that Satan has always sought, from the "Yea, hath God said..." of the Garden down through the ages even until this present time, to cast doubt upon the Word of God. Satan understands the importance of the message of God to humankind. Satan seems to understand that fact even more than many "religious intellectuals" of our own time.
There has always been a sub group among those who claim the Name of Christ, to downplay the importance of the Scripture. These have always been those who have lead their followers into error.
It is interesting to note, also, that the case began among a more substantial group of Christians - even conservative, doctrinally sound Christians! - to question the security of the preservation of the Scripture, in the middle part of the nineteenth century. This would coincide with the beginnings of the Darwinian theories of naturalistic scientists/
It would seem as though the Christian community felt the need for a "new" view of the old Book in order to make the study of Scripture seem more "up-to-date" so that the Book, Itself, would be palatable to "modern" man.
This mindset, to view the Scripture as a simple book from antiquity which had been flawed by men, stems from a low view (no view?) Of the Power and Person of God.
The truth of the matter is that the natural laws are predated by God. He created those laws to serve His purpose. As the Creator of the physical universe, God has the right, more importantly the power and demonstrated will!, to supersede - and to intercede within! Those laws in any way He might decide. It should not be hard to consider that He would intercede to protect that which He felt important.
God interceded with the natural order of things on this earth to produce the flood of Noah so that mankind could be turned back on to a righteous path. God interceded upon the natural order of society when He called Abraham to father a people for His name. God interceded upon even the spiritual nature of this universe when He sent His Son to die on a cross so that salvation from sin would be available to mankind.
Would not simple logic demand that the Book which bears these truths to humanity would also be under the active protection of God? Faith is a charismatic (powerful) gift from God. (Ref. Ephesians 2:8-9 - The gift of God to us is the faith that we must exercise to access the salvation which God offers.)
Do we honestly believe that man is more powerful than God and can thus rip His gift of a preserved Scripture from our hands and His churches?
To doubt the preservation of the Word of God is to doubt the goodness, power, and very Words of God. This was the root of the sin of Eve as she succumbed to the tempter's faulty version of the Word of God, the goodness of God, and the power of God.
Eve should have realized that she could never, no matter how intellectually enticing the temptation, become a god. She could only put herself in opposition to the One True God of the Universe.
Consider the results of Eve's sin of mistrust, and pride, when it concerned her very relationship to God, upon the physical universe of her and Adam.
Consider, also, the results of this lack of faith, even in the partial sense, upon the spiritual realm of the church and society of today as we rebuke the Lord and His Word with our pride and rejection.
Once again, God's Word is eternal because God is eternal. God's Word is preserved because God is concerned about His creation. God's Word is secure because God's churches are secured through his promise. He has not been without a witness to the Truth since the founding of His church. There have always been men and women who have not bowed the knee to Satan's attacks. But, these have always bowed the knee to the Lord of Glory.
Neither has there been, or could there be if God is both Good and Powerful - during this church age of time when His Word is to guide those who are within His churches - when His written Word has been lost to mankind. To attempt to "reconstruct" that which was never lost is both a sin of unbelief directed toward the majesty of God and an exercise of collaboration with Satan.
***
9 December 2005
INSPIRATION AND PRESERVATION (Continued)
When we consider the false doctrine that God could not, or would not, preserve His Own Word for His Own churches, we begin to see a weakening of faith in the Word and a shift in that faith towards the "professionals" who decide what is, and what is not, His Word. But, as Bancroft (Christian Theology) has well noted, "...if the Bible loses, or loosens its hold upon us as an infallible standard of truth and action, everything else, as we are beginning to realize, goes down with it into the same abyss of doubt."
We see the truth of this statement in the "church world" of today. Old standards, which were taught as Biblical truths, have given way to the concept of "What does modern man desire." Rather than preaching the Bible as Truth, we have study groups which poll the populace to find what they would like to have a church provide. Rather than continuing to, as the Bible has commanded (see I Corinthians 1:21), to rely upon the "primacy of preaching," we are beginning to offer religious drama, dance, concert, and "coffee groups" as the defining portions of our ministries.
About the only place this is not happening, among the English speaking churches, is among those who have held to the King James Bible. This is not because the KJB is special in and of itself. Although, we must note that the hand of God has been seen active among those churches which have historically used this Book. The special thing about the KJB is that it, almost alone among the English renditions now upon the market, is based upon the true, preserved Word of God - the Traditional Text.
The other "versions," almost without exception, have moved from this text with the faith dogma that God could not, or did not, preserve His Word. This is a faithless faith which has made man, and his study and intellect, the determining factor of what God is allowed to say.
Bynum (Use the Bible God Uses) notes that, "The charge is often made that we believe in double inspiration. They mean by this, that we are teaching that the King James translators were inspired of God. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is God's word that is inspired."
The translating committee of the King James Bible used the God preserved Traditional Text. It is upon this underlying textual base that we respond, in faith, to the message of God.
It is important to note, as we previously have noted, that the translators of the King James Bible were not inspired. Neither, for that matter, were those who penned the original autographs of the Scripture inspired. It was the Words which were inspired. Barnhouse (The Bible Under Attack) speaks of this when he says, "...it is very important to note that the Bible nowhere states that the men who wrote the Bible were inspired men: only their writings were inspired..."
If the men who originally penned the words were inspired, the words were of time. These men, holy men to be sure, were physical men of time. They have all passed into Glory. But, if as the Bible teaches, the inspiration lay upon the very words themselves, then the words are eternal because God is eternal.
The Bible is one of God's gifts to humanity. It is God's message to mankind. The Bible is the reminder from God that there is a better way to walk, the way we were created to walk within, than the walk of sinful mankind. The Bible is the road map that He has given to mankind, so that men may return to His loving arms - as He had intended in the creation!
To suggest that God either could not, or did not, preserve His Word is to suggest that God is weaker than man. It is to suggest that man could dispose of God's gift to humanity. It is to suggest that our salvation is not secure because the very Word of God is not secure.
It is to suggest that the God of Love is not all that interested in the creature of His creation.
It is important what we believe in as pertains to the doctrine of the preservation of the Scripture because it has impact upon all of our belief system. It also has impact upon our view of the very Love of God which He has shone out to mankind.
***
16 December 2005
INSPIRATION AND PRESERVATION (Continued)
For the past couple of weeks I've been guilty of carrying somewhat of a hostile attitude towards those who would disagree with my position on the doctrine of the preservation of the Scripture. I really don't like to be that way.
Still, I find little that I can reach in the way of agreement with those who would disparage the providence of God in the preservation of His Word. It would seem to me that to agree with them would be to disagree with Christ. That just doesn't seem to be, really, much of an option. The problem in agreeing with them is that Jesus carried an attitude of trust toward the Scripture. He treated the Scripture as an authority.
Those who would disagree with the preservation of the Scripture would seem to be at odds with the teaching of Jesus. Inspiration without preservation is absurdity. God is not The God of Absurdity. He is the God of Love. Would He ever allow His message, His important message!, to mankind to be lost to the very churches He founded and those souls for which Jesus died to give the gift of eternal life? I cannot imagine such a scenario! I do not believe that the Bible allows for such a careless God.
About the authority of the Scripture, Criswell (Why I Preach that the Bible is Literally True) argued that, "The authority of the Scripture rests upon the deity of Christ." That may sound somewhat like just "preachifying words." It isn't. If we honestly believe in the deity of Jesus Christ, then we must understand that His attitude toward spiritual things is that which we ought also to adopt.
We need to see the way which Jesus treated the Scripture, His attitude toward the Truthfulness of that Scripture, and follow His example. If we accept the fact that He lived a perfect life, then we must consider His life to convey true teaching for our own lives and outlooks as did His words.
The attitude of Jesus toward the Scriptures of the Old Covenant was absolute trust and reliance. If Jesus, God incarnate, would follow this example, how could we possibly doubt the truth - and by extension the preservation! - of those Scriptures which the Holy Spirit has entrusted to us in this day.
For an example, Jesus did not defeat Satan in the wilderness by any display of His Eternal Godhead. Satan was defeated in the wilderness of temptation. Barnhouse (The Bible Under Attack) notes that Satan was defeated by the Man, Christ Jesus, Who knew that His Bible was trustworthy. "What light [this] shed on the mind of Christ! 'It is written...' / 'It is written...' 'It is written...' That was enough. Victory was won by wielding the Word of God, 'living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword (Heb. 4:2)."
A note about the above citation. This reference is from the NASV. I do not accept this as an accurate translation of God's preserved Word. This is simply because this version does not use, as it's base text, the Traditional Text. It is one of many (most!) of the modern translations which use an eclectic text as a base rather than relying upon the God preserved Word. This does not make the person who used this version a bad person. It does make him mistaken on this issue.
The great Reformation theologian, John Calvin (Calvin's Institutes) argued that, "...the highest proof of Scripture is uniformly taken from the character of him whose word it is."
With this thought in mind we must consider the Scripture to be of the same "stuff" as is God. II Timothy 3:16 reminds us that Scripture was created by the inspiration of God. The fact of inspiration is tied into the very fabric of Scripture. Since the word "inspiration" means "breathed out," we must understand that the Scripture is the very living words of God. As such it is not subject to decay or diminishment.
Barnhouse (The Bible Under Attack) reminds us that, "...Christ so identified Himself with the Scripture that it is impossible to touch one without touching the other." To denigrate Scripture as simply another book of the ancients, or even as an originally inspired but now flawed book, is to similarly denigrate Jesus. Both are gifts to the physical world of humanity from the spiritual world of God. Neither can be subject to the hands of man or Satan. As One is eternal, so is the Other.
Some of the above citations come from books which use modern translations. As noted in my foreword, not all of the works cited have agreed with my conclusions. It is, however, the strong stand which those works have taken on the importance of the doctrine of the inspiration of the Scripture which I cite. Nonetheless, I do believe that it is incredible that one who can believe so strongly in the inspiration of the Scripture can still hold to a system in which God is said to have lost control of His true text, or to believe that Satan or man have wrested this inspired material from the hands of God and replaced those Words with false texts for centuries of time!
Without the true Preservation of the Scripture, these is no rational for insisting upon any true inspiration of the Scripture. It is not possible that we can point, with any degree of trust, to a word which we allege to be possibly false! Criswell (Why I Preach that the Bible is Literally True) said it himself: "It is not difficult to understand a biblical critic who cares nothing for its divine Saviour, doubting the veracity of the Scriptures, but it is strange to find a believer professing his faith in the Lord and then disregarding Christ's doctrine of the inspiration of the Book."
It is equally difficult to understand how one would argue for inspiration and then argue that man does not have the true text of a lost Scripture. Either God did, in reality, inspire the Word - and we have it today - or He did not inspire it in the first place. God is the God of History. He has infinite intelligence. He would not be so slow as to inspire that which He knew would be lost!
Next week, the Lord willing, we will begin a new section of this work. We will begin to examine the facts of some of those old manuscripts of Scripture.
***
23 December 2005
THE OLD MSS.
We begin a new section of this study this week. In the past section there was ample room for me to "preachify." Much of the study of the parallels between inspiration and preservation gave ample possibility for me to insert my own opinions and observations. This section is quite different.
We begin this week to consider those ancient manuscripts which give evidence to the Word of God. It is quite easy to see that there is not much "elbow room" for me to talk. Facts are facts. That is all they are. They can't be changed. They can only be displayed. My contention is that these facts will clearly show that the Traditional Text, upon which the King James Bible is based, are superior to those which are used to underlie the various modern day versions.
There are several "text types" which we find as we examine the record. Sometimes these are called "families." I even do this myself, from time to time. That is, however, a misnomer. They are families in the sense that most of the aberrant texts can be traced back to a common source or ancestor.
Those which are of the Traditional Text, however, are found over the entire world into which the various churches of God were placed. These are not a simple "family." They are a generation.
The other text types are "step children" within the generations of this family. Those of the aberrations are not "blood kin." Some have tried to graft them into the "family tree." But, these are not of the same "Blood Line." They are simple pretenders who have been altered to appear the same. However, an examination of their DNA will find that they are not of God. They are only cosmetically enhanced, by the tempter, to appear as the True Word. They are false, fabrication, and ultimately fatal to the soul need of the redeemed of the Lord.
The first of these text types is that of the Alexandrian. Hills (Believing Bible Study) has explained why these are as they are. "The Alexandrian family consists of those New Testament documents which contain that form of text which was used by Origen. ... And also by other Church fathers who, like Origen lived at Alexandria. ... Westcott and Hort (1881) distinguished between the text of B and the text of other Alexandrian documents. They called this B text Neutral, thus indicating their belief that it was a remarkably pure text, which had not been contaminated by the errors of either the Western or Antiochian texts. Many subsequent scholars, however, have denied the validity of this distinction."
This copy, B, is known as the Vaticanus because it was discovered in the Vatican library. It is upon this text which the modern language translations will generally be based. It differs often from the Traditional Text.
Hort and Westcott argued that the Traditional Text was a departure from the Alexandrian. They believed that B was the original text. They argued than an early church council had made a decision to rewrite this text; from this revision came our Traditional Text. Since this was seen as an action of a powerful church council, all of the existing texts of the B type were changed. Only this one, and a few others, were able to escape this revision. Thus the Word of God was said to have changed, and to have been lost to mankind for over one thousand years.
Among the problems with the above revision theory is that history records no record of such a revision. Today we would call it "a conspiracy theory," and would give it little credence. Almost no one today accepts that this revision conference ever took place. Yet, too many still hold to the fiction that B is a purer, and earlier, text.
This is one of the "earliest and best" texts that we find mentioned in the footnotes and margins of our Bibles in this day.
This text is certainly one of the oldest texts which we have available. But, it is a far stretch to consider this text as "best" as it is at variance in, literally, thousands of places with the Traditional Text.
Gipp (An Understandable History of the Bible) gives the true story of the birth of this Vaticanus. "...once a pure copy of the Universal Text [the Traditional Text] had been carried down into Egypt, it was recopied. During the process of this recopying, it was reviewed by men who did not revere it as truly the Word of God. ... These men saw nothing wrong with putting the book in subjection to their opinion instead of their opinion being in subjection to the Book."
We will see, a little later, why they were so disposed to make these changes. For now, however, consider how much this attitude of theirs mirrors the attitude of the revisors of today. These men, too, make themselves the master of the Word. They pick and choose which words and section their own scholarship is disposed to allow into their texts. If they accept a word as "in," then it is considered to be God's Word. If they do not accept a word, that word is not considered as God's Word.
They are, thus, the master's of what God is allowed to say!
As to those who made changes, Hills (The King James Version Defended) observes that, as early as the 2nd century departures from the Traditional Text began. The Western editors saw themselves as interpreters and thus added to the text. The Alexandrian Text makers saw themselves as grammarians and tended to remove words to improve style. The minor texts (Caesaren and Sinanitic Syrian) made their own changes, though they sometimes agree with the Traditional Text.
Please note that the early changes made to the pure text would mean that the earliest available manuscripts would not necessarily be the best.
However, these local variations would not have wide distribution. They would tend to remain a small quantity. The pure text, copied and recopied in the churches of God, would have a much superior quantity of distribution. We can reasonably assume that the largest number of copies, if they have a history of such distribution from the earliest times, would be the original texts. This is a description of the Traditional Text. It is historically, and numerically, attested as the preserved Word of God.
Some have attempted to argue that each of the "families" should count for one argument. In doing this they dilute the strong testimony that the Traditional Text is the dominant text of history.
Of the Alexandrian, Hills (Believing Bible Study) says, "The Alexandrians were always ready to suspect and reject New Testament readings which seemed to them to present difficulties." Basically Origen, and his allies in Alexandria, believed that nothing in Scripture could be at variance with their human reasoning.
This sort of attitude is the same as would be among the critics of today who argue for eclectic texts culled from various sources. To these persons, their own intellect is more reasonable than God's preservation.
Gipp (An Understandable History of the Bible) observes that, "The Minority Text is also known as the Egyptian Text. ... The Hesychian Text, and the Alexandrian Text. ... which was the basis for the critical Greek Text of Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort." This text continues to be the base of the texts which form the basis for almost all of the modern translations.
Next week we will begin to look at some of the alterations which the Alexandrian Text has made in regards to the Traditional Text which underlies the King James Bible.
***
30 December 2005
THE OLD MSS. (Continued)
This week we will look at some of the alterations which Hills (The King James Version Defended) has pointed out as having been made by the Alexandrian text type.
To make this a little more understandable: The abbreviation "Pap" refers to Papyrus, with the number by which that papyrus is known following it. The abbreviation "WH" refers to the work of Westcott and Hort. These men were responsible for the English revision of 1881. Their work has been the basis of the newer translations which have abandoned the preserved Traditional Text with the mindset that God's True Word was lost to His churches for over a thousand years.
The designation "B" is given to the Vaticanus, while "Aleph" refers to the Sinaiticus. These two are the oft mentioned "oldest and best" which are referenced in the margin of most of your Bibles as overriding the Traditional Text of the King James Bible. While we agree that these two are among the oldest testimonies, we will see that they are far from the "best."
I will quote the verse from the King James Bible. Then, in quotation marks, I will list the comment of Hills on each of these verses. Finally, I will add some small comment of my own about the deviation from the Traditional, preserved, Text.
First we look at Luke 10:41-42. Jesus said, "And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things; But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her."
"Luke 10:41-41. One thing is needful. Traditional Text, Pap 45 (dated 225 A.D.), Pap 75 (dated 200 A.D.). Few things are needful, but one ... B, Aleph, WH, footnotes of R.V., A.S.V., R.S.V., N.E.B. This Alexandrian alteration makes Jesus talk about food rather than spiritual realities."
When the passage is read within its context we see that Martha was "cumbered about" with the serving of the food. Jesus reply to her in this passage was that there were things more important than the simple serving of physical food. There was a need to be spiritually aware of the Savior.
The fact that Jesus said, "Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.", is ample proof that this passage is not speaking of simple food. Food would be a commodity which would depart from Mary. It was the spiritual realities which would not depart from her.
As in the case of the woman at the well (John, chapter four) where Jesus considered her estimation of the well water as a bridge to speak of the "water from which one would never thirst again," Jesus was using the fact of the preparation of the physical food to teach a spiritual truth. The Alexandrian reading would obscure this spiritual fact with physical implication.
Luke 12:31 reads, "But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you."
"Luke 12:32 Seek ye the kingdom of God. Traditional text, Pap 45. Seek ye His kingdom. B, Aleph, WH, R.V., A.S.V., R.S.V., N.E.B., A similar Alexandrian alteration is made in Matt. 6:33, where B alters the text still further into, But seek ye first His righteousness and His kingdom."
Notice that the shift from "the kingdom of God," to "His kingdom," removes the spiritual reality of that kingdom. "His kingdom" could refer to a Caesar, an Alexander, a Herod, anyone who ruled a temporal country. "The kingdom of God" is a clear reference to a spiritual reality of power and glory of which Jesus taught. Such a downgrading of the kingdom reference is a subtle shift away from the Biblical teaching of the deity of Christ.
Luke 15:21 reads, "And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son."
"Luke 15:21 B, Aleph, D add Make me as one of thy hired servants. As Hoskier (Codex B and its Allies) observes, this tasteless Alexandrian addition (accepted by WH and placed in the footnotes of modern versions) spoils the narrative. In the true text the prodigal never pronounces which he had formulate in vs. 19. As soon as he beholds his father's loving face, they [those words] die upon his lips. This addition is not found in Pap 75."
It would be well to remember that when we read the Scripture of God we are reading the Words of God. Our focus, if we are to be true to His Words, is to accept what He has said rather than what we might imagine He might have said.
This parable is an illustration of the repentant sinner who accepts the redemption offered by Jesus through His substitutionary work on Calvary. May we note that Galatians 4:5 tells us that we have received the "adoption of sons" through the salvation experience. Although we might view our state as unworthy, it would wrong to face the Father Who has granted us pardon and voice a rejection of His adoptive acts.
It would be unseemly to suggest that Jesus would teach such disrespect.
Luke 23:35 reads, "And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God."
"Luke 23:35, saying, He saved others, let him save himself, if this is the Christ, the chosen of God. Traditional Text. they said to Him, Thou saved others, save thyself if thou are the Son of God, if thou art Christ, the chosen. D ..., saying, He saved others, let him save himself, if this is the Christ, the Son of God, the chosen. Pap 75, saying, He saved others, let him save himself, if he is the Son, the Christ of God, the chosen. B. We see here that the Traditional Text was altered by the Western text at a very late date. Then this alteration was adopted in part by Pap 75 and then in still a different form by B."
This is a subtle addition. Notice that the Biblical phrase "the Son of God" is added to the preserved text. Now, I would have no problem with these words except it is not what God said. It was added. Man has no right to add to the text which God has delivered.
What could have been the purpose of the modifiers in this place? My guess, and that is all this is, is that they were trying to separate the Persons of God and Jesus. I feel that they were trying to downplay the deity of Christ.
If this were the case, and I don't know that it was, they were unwittingly building a stronger case for His deity. They were making reference to the Virgin Birth.
This also could have been a case for Mariolitry. We know that the concept of the "Queen of Heaven" is not a Biblical doctrine. It comes from the Babylonian religion, filtered through the Egyptian church. Since the Alexandrian documents were from Egypt, this is another possibility.
I really do not know the reason for these additions. But, I do know that we have not the right to add to the Words of God. Had He meant to have that in His inspired Word, He would have placed it therein.
Might the fact that God did not choose to include the phrase "the Son of God" in this passage be with purpose? May we consider that Jesus, at the point of the Cross, was most pointedly fulfilling His office as the son of man. He was sacrificing Himself in our place as the atonement for our sin. To obscure this fact is to obscure the glory of the incarnation: God became man.
This is one of the things that is so insidious about the spurious texts. Satan is very clever when he seeks to change the wording of the Word. Sometimes the changes just seem to make sense to us. The problem with this is that we then are relying upon our own reasoning rather than the revealed Word of God.
Luke 23:45 says, "And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst."
"Luke 23:45 And the sun was darkened. Here Pap 75, Aleph, B, C, L, Coptic, WH, R.V., A.S.V., R.S.V., N.E.B., read the sun having become eclipsed. This rationalist explanation of the supernatural darkness at the crucifixion is ascribed to the Jews in the Acts of Pilate and to a heathen historian Thallus by Julius Africannus, but, as Julius noted, it is impossible, because [as Plumer notes in The Gospel According to Luke] at Passover time the moon was full."
There could not have been an eclipse of the sun at the time of the Passover. The moon, being full, is at the opposite side of the earth - from the sun - and could not move into the path of the sun to cause an eclipse.
This is another example of a trait of Origen and his allies. They believed that nothing in true Scripture could be at odds with their human reasoning. Thus, they were predisposed to change that with which they did not agree.
John 1:15 reads, "John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me."
"John 1:15 John bare witness of Him and cried saying, This is He of whom I spake, He that cometh after me, etc. Traditional Text, Pap 66 (dated 200 A.D.), Pap 75. John bare witness of Him and cried saying (this was he that said) He that cometh after me, etc. B, WH & footnotes of R.V., A.S.V. This Alexandrian alteration, this was he that said, makes no sense. It had already been stated that John was speaking."
I just can't resist noticing that this abomination of an English sentence, is from that genre of Bible translation which is "easier to read and understand." Actually, I don't know that this easier to understand.
This insertion makes it appear that John was quoting someone else. Who was he quoting? Could John have simply been being sarcastic toward his questioners by implying that they had said someone else would come along to replace John? "You think you are so great. Tomorrow there will be someone greater than you on the scene."; this the questioners might have suggested. Now, this flight of fancy of mine is not part of the Scriptural record; neither is the insertion of the Alexandrian text.
Once again the insertion of the Alexandrian tends to confuse, rather than make clear, the message of the Word of God.
John 8:39 reads, "They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham."
"John 8:39 If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. Traditional Text. If ye are Abraham's children, do the works of Abraham. Pap 66, B, WH, R.V., A.S.V., and footnotes of N.E.B. If ye are Abraham's children ye would do the works of Abraham. Pap 75, Aleph, D. Here we see that the Traditional Text has the original reading. This was altered at a very early date by Pap 66, who was followed by B and in modern times by WH, R.V., A.S.V., and N.E.B. (Footnotes). Then, also at a very early date, the scribe of Pap 75 combined the first two readings in an ungrammatical way, and he was followed by Aleph and D."
The primary difference here lies in the use of one word. "Were" is replaced with "are." The difference is spiritual. Of course these men were the physical descendants of Abraham. But, are they the spiritual descendants of this great man of God?
In Romans 2:28-29 Paul considers the spiritual state of the leaders of Judaism in his day. "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."
Jesus was considering the New Covenant of His Blood. Faith is the medium of response toward God in consideration of His sacrifice on Calvary. The men to whom Jesus was speaking were zealous in the keeping of the Law, but they were disdainful of the Savior to Whom the Law was a guide. In doing this they were guilty of disrespecting that very Law they claimed to serve. Because of this they were shown to be not the spiritual descendants of Abraham.
Jesus said, "If ye were," implying that they were not of Abraham. The Alexandrian text says, "If ye are," implying that they are of Abraham but mistaken in some point. Mistaken they were; but, the mistake was that they rejected He of Whom the Law spoke. In doing so they rejected the very faith of Abraham and were not partakers of that spirituality.
John 10:29 says, "My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand."
"John 10:29 My Father, who gave them to Me, is greater than all. Traditional Text, Pap 66, Pap 75. That which my Father hath given unto Me is greater than all. B, Aleph, WH & footnotes of R.V., A.S.V., R.S.V., N.E.B. This alteration is of great doctrinal importance, since it makes the preservation of the saints depend on the Church rather than on God."
The Roman Church teaches that salvation comes through the church via her ordinances. Remember that Constantine was the true father of the Roman Church. When he established the national church as Christianity, he also ordered that fifty copies of the Scripture be procured to place within these churches. These Bibles were copied from the Alexandrian texts. This is but one explanation of one of the errors of the Roman Church.
Had sad it is that the church world of today is returning to a reliance upon these same texts as the touchstone for their newly translated Scriptures. Doctrinal danger awaits when we forsake the God given, preserved Word of God.
Next week we will continue on the same general path as we discuss some of the heretical passages in the Alexandrian Text.
ARCHIEVE PAGE
DECEMBER