�EVERYONE� TRUSTS THE NEW TRANSLATIONS (Continued)
Not everyone does trust the new English language translations. Most of these are based on an eclectic base text which is not the preserved Words of God. There are, however, many who can see no difference between the various versions. They will argue that the different versions are simply �commentaries� on the Scripture.
This is not true. Almost none of the modern day English language versions of the Bible can be �commentaries� on the Scripture because they are not based on the inspired and preserved text of God. They are based on a faulty Greek text which has been cobbled together by men who reject the power and goodness of God to preserve His Own Words.
Many people accept these weak versions, however.
There is a tract, �Four Recognized Greek Scholars Has No Use For The Book �Which Bible.� Until They Read It For Themselves: Then They �Saw the Light!� �Which Bible,� of course, is a book by Dr. David O. Fuller which argues for the primacy of the King James Bible and the God inspired and preserved text which underlies it.
The tract argues that the crowd can be wrong;
�Adam Thompson of Cincinnati, Ohio, filled the first bathtub in America in 1842. Doctors predicted rheumatism! inflammation of the lungs! by using it! A ban on using bathtubs was published in Philadelphia, from November 1st to March 1st. The facts are on record. The Crowd can be wrong!
�In 1896 England still had a law prohibiting any power-driven vehicle from traveling over 4 miles an hour on public highways! The law said all such vehicles should be preceded by a man bearing a red flag! Once more - the crowd was wrong!
�Alexander Bell was called a fool when he exhibited his telephone at the Centennial Exposition. Today? We talk around the world over his invention. Once again - the crowd was wrong!
�When Westinghouse proposed to stop a railroad train with wind (air brakes) he also was called a fool. The crowd was wrong! Westinghouse was right!
�Goodyear was �booed� by everyone, but his wife. He worked for eleven years on vulcanizing rubber. Today? America runs on rubber! Once again - the crowd was wrong.
�Jenner discovered vaccination. He was Jeered! Some serious men predicted all animal diseases would be transferred to the human race! Yet Jenner erased the smallpox scourge by using his vaccine. The crowd was wrong! Again!�
What a foolish and unfaithful people we are when we accept the pontifications of men, even men in �great Bible colleges,� who deny the power and love of God. Folks, we can always trust God. Men? We can only trust them when they are trusting in God, themselves!
The same tract quotes Dr. Frank Logsdon, Scholar and Bible Conference Speaker. The section is titled, �MOST ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE AUTHORIZED VERSION - ABANDON REASON!�
I would go further, because of the preservation of the Traditional Text, most arguments against the Authorized (King James) Version abandon faith. It isn�t that the King James Bible is, Itself, inspired. It is that, almost without exception, the King James is the only English language translation on the market whose base is that inspired and preserved Traditional Text.
Logsdon asked the following questions.
�IF - the Authorized Version is not authentic - which is?
�IF - the Authorized Version is not God�s revelation, have we been deceived?
�DID - God wait 1900 years to reveal His true word?
�IF - the Authorized Version has been incorrect - what harm has resulted?
�IF - the True Revelation was lost - where was God when it happened?
�WAS - man left in darkness when the Authorized Version was his only Bible?
�WERE - we wrong those years in claiming the Authorized Version to be indeed God�s Word?
�WHY - has this present generation become so dissatisfied with the Authorized Version?
�ARE - we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?
�WHO - would risk his integrity in saying that any present-day volume excels the Authorized Version?�
I haven�t commented much in today�s session. The words of this tract speak powerfully enough on their own. I would like to again caution, however, that the King James Bible is not inspired. That inspiration lay upon the Words originally given. True copies of those Words, preserved by the power of God, are available today. In that the King James Bible is faithful to those Words lies the power of this English translation.
The blessing of God upon this translation is evidence that the text which underlies the King James Bible is the inspired and preserved Text of God. The lack of both blessing and power in the modern churches which have sold themselves under the fiction of the eclectic texts of man is further proof that the Traditional Text is that inspired and preserved Words of God.
In our next session we will begin to Compare the Competition.
9 May 2008, 16 May 2008, 23 May 2008, 30 May 2008
No updates due to the hospitalization of Dr. DeWitt.
6 June 2008
COMPARING THE COMPETITION
This is a section that I seriously considered not putting in this study. After all, the thrust of this study has been to look at the concept that God has actually preserved His inspired Words to humanity. Although we have consistently held up the King James Bible as superior to the newer English language versions on the market, this is because of the fidelity of the King James to the historic Traditional Text. True, the King James, or Authorised Version, is a superior work of the translators art; but it is the base text which sets the venerable KJB above the newer translation.
The newer versions spring from a mindset which puts the best efforts of man above the preserving grace of God in their textual base. When Tischendorf found the Sinatic manuscript he was not traveling the world to see the sights. The purpose of his trip was the preconceived notion that God either could not, or would not, preserve His inspired Scripture. Tischendorf was looking for manuscripts which would bolster his arguments.
It is from men who hold this low view of Scripture that the tradition of the newer English language versions has continued. Although a very low percentage of the available evidence (between 5% and 15%, depending upon who is consulted) are in disagreement with the Traditional Text, it is upon this decidedly minuscule evidence that we are told to depart from the witness of the King James Bible to the historic Traditional Text.
With this, the very base text from which the various translations are constructed, in view, we are led to consider the competition to the King James Version.
James (The Corruption of the Word) speaks of the volume of changes made in these modern versions. Keep in mind that this body of change is the result of a different base text used in our modern versions.
Although the introduction of most of the modern translations will tell us that �nothing is wrong with the King James;� it just needs to be updated by �modern scholarship,� to peruse the pages of these translations is to find many differences. �Words are changed, added, and left out. Sometimes whole verses appear only in a footnote at the bottom of the page, if at all.�
There are those, taught by Bible College professors, who would argue that only about one half a page of difference is made between the historic Traditional Text and the modern eclectic texts of the newer versions. This view must suppose either very small print or very large pages. Just considering that the event of the woman taken in adultery is called into question along with the dismissal of the entire last half of the final chapter of Mark, and we find more than the half a page. Many more changes add to the volume of change.
This is a serious assault on the integrity, not to mention the faith accorded, of the Scripture. God�s Hand of preservation upon His inspired text, once removed from the doctrinal base of any church or college, means that there is no reasonable evidence to accept any doctrine or pronouncement in the entirety of the Scriptural record.
It is fair game to look for another authority in such a case because the authority of God and His Scripture has been compromised. Some will look to �church leaders.� such as the Pope of Rome as authority figures because of their historical leadership role in the church affairs of Rome. Other are already looking to �Bible Scholars,� and �Bible Critics,� as the venue for authority in matters of spiritual leadership.
This is entirely reasonable as the authority of the Bible as the unalterable Words of God has been denied. A changing world demands a spiritual anchor. Sadly, these persons offer no anchor. They only offer the deck of a ship without the rudder of the sure Words of God.
Criswell (Why I Preach that the Bible is Literally True) was speaking of liberal theologians when he said the following.
�Perhaps the most deadly persecution against the Bible of all time has materialized in the last 150 years. The German rationalistic host mounted against the Bible the fiercest and deadliest of all attacks. This assault has been taken up by the liberal theologians of England and American and continues unabated to this present day.�
This is, of course true. But, consider also just what this attack is centered upon. It is centered upon the concept that the Bible is not trustworthy as an eternal guide given to a time centric world. That is exactly the same construct of even conservative and fundamentalist institutions as they put out the message that the Bible was corrupted by time. Only the efforts of human men have managed to restore what God could not, or did not wish to, preserve for all generations; this is the message we are given.
This is an invitation to agnosticism.
MacLean (The Providential Preservation of the Greek New Testament) has argued this, as well. �One of the many proofs of the appalling apostasy of our day from the faith once delivered to the saints is the eagerness shown to discredit the Authorized Version of the English Bible on the one hand, and to popularize the other, modern versions based on untrustworthy manuscripts.�
Note, please, that MacLean attributes this to an attempt to supplant �untrustworthy manuscripts� in the place of the historic Traditional Text. Another false effort has been made, by many, to supplant this Traditional Text with the English of the King James Bible.
Both of these movements are false. The reason is the same. Both make an attempt to dismiss the God inspired and preserved text. Let us never forget that the value of the King James Bible is that it is true to the base text. That base text, the Traditional Text, is the authoritative and preserved Words of God.
The value of the King James Bible does not lie in those familiar words and phrases by which the English language has been ennobled. Neither is the value of the King James Bible shown through the obvious blessings which God has bestowed upon humanity when this translation has been used to spread the faith once delivered.
God has honored this translation, the King James Bible, because the translation committee believed that they were handling holy Words when they used the Traditional Text. They not only believed this, they acted upon that belief. Thus the King James Bible is true to the actual Words of God which make up the base of the translation.
Those who would say that the blessing of God has stamped the King James Bible as �inspired,� must be ready to say the same of Moody, and others, whose lives were blessed as they dedicated their lives to spreading the message that Jesus Christ died in time so that others might live in eternity!
Such is a ludicrous assumption. While honored of God, the King James Bible is not inspired of God. God blesses those that trust Him. This is something that the King James Bible has done in the commitment to remain true to the inspired and preserved Words of God from which the translation was made.
Conversely, we see a decided lack of the true power of God, even among the so called �Mega Churches,� sometimes especially so there, where the modern versions sit in the seat of honor. Modern day Christianity is a �wounded beast� as she has removed her trust from those true Words of God and replaced them with the eclectic texts of the words of man.
Gipp (An Understandable History of the Bible) has spoken of the counterfeits which crowd the pews and pulpits of the churches of the day.
�It must be remembered at this time that every New Bible is introduced as being �better than the Authorized Version.� It may also be noted that every false prophet is introduced as �better� than Jesus Christ. Mohammed has supposedly come to finish the work which Christ began. Charles Manson claimed that he was Jesus Christ. Sun Nyung Moon claims to have finished the job which Jesus Christ failed to finish. Jim Jones claimed to be Jesus Christ. The Beatles claimed to be more popular than Jesus Christ. ... A false prophet can always be recognized, because he attacks the true prophet. A false Bible can be recognized, because it attacks the true Bible.�
W. V. Grant, Sr., an old time Pentecostal evangelist often said that the existence of a counterfeit $20.00 bill is proof that a real $20.00 bill exists. No one would go to the time and trouble to counterfeit play money. It is the real thing that others attempt to cheapen with their own works. Such is also the case with the eclectic texts which are the basis of those modern day English translations.
Ignore the counterfeit and find the real. The King James Bible is based on the True, historic, inspired, and preserved Words of God.
God willing, we will continue this general discussion in our next session.
13 June 2008
COMPARING THE COMPETITION (Continued)
As I mentioned in our last session, the purpose of this study was not an intent to argue in the affirmative for the King James Bible. The main reason that this has often seemed my purpose is that the intent here was to study the fact that God did both inspire and preserve His Words to humanity.
These, inspiration and preservation, are two sides of the same proposition. Preservation without inspiration is a meaningless exercise. Inspiration without preservation is a foolish exercise. One without the other is just not logically sustainable. However, it is the base argument of the newer English language versions that the Scripture may have been inspired but the evidence is that it was never fully preserved. It is, these translation committee�s argue, only through the work of men that the original manuscripts have been nearly restored.
Note the phrase �nearly restored.� No critic involved with these newer versions, at least not to my knowledge, would argue that the original Words of the Scripture have been restored with certainty. They only seem to argue for a near restoration.
This, of course, is counter to the faith which the Christian should exercise in regards to God�s goodness and power. His goodness is shown in that He gave to His people in all ages His pristine message of Himself. His power is shown in that, completely contrary to the works of man, He has kept His Words available in all ages.
Since the King James Bible is based in the Traditional Text, which is the God inspired and preserved text of history I have seen the need to defend the King James Bible as opposed to those versions and translations based on this modern eclectic text of man.
The Trinitarian Bible Society (How We Got Our Bible) argues for the superiority of the base text of the King James Bible.
�At the present time there are about one hundred modern English translations, most of which are based on less reliable manuscript sources, were translated by scholars with less respect for the authority of the inspired Word and the eternal deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. �The Chief Subject of the Sacred Book...��
This is an argument, also, about many of these newer versions. They are somewhat �soft� in their record of the Scriptural argument about the deity of Christ. The reason for this �softness� is that they display less respect and regard for the authority of the inspired Words as they consider themselves as the final arbitrator of what is considered, and what is not considered, to be the actual Words of God.
Their base argument that God did not preserve His Own Words makes this mind set a necessity.
Gipp (An Understandable History of the Bible) argues the following about these man centered translation committees.
�Any honest, �Christian� scholar today who upholds Hort�s outmoded theory will be glad to tell you that there is no perfect translation of �the Bible� in English today. They will admonish each new translation as �a step in the right direction,� but even the newest translation is not without errors. This attitude is due to the fact that man�s human nature resents the idea that God could preserve His words without the help of �good, godly Christians,� and from the natural resistance of men to be in subjection to God.�
This is neither the attitude, nor the teaching, of one who is in subjection to God. This is neither the attitude, nor the teaching, of one who has a real faith in the God of the Scripture. This is a teaching which leads away from faith and toward apostasy. This is a teaching which leads away from the true power of the Spirit and towards the worship of the creature over the Creator.
That may sound harsh. But, the truth is that if we do not have a Bible we can trust, we do not have an authority we can trust to be the message of God. In such a case we are compelled to elevate man, the creature, to the stature of authority if we are to understand anything of God. Such is idolatry. Such is spiritual error.
Moorman (The Battle for the Doctrinal Heart) has studied this issue. He has found that in the modern versions the names �Jesus� and �Christ� are often separated and �Jesus� is often separated from �Lord.� In many cases �Jesus is often disassociated from statements of Deity.�
This is understandable when man has been made the true master of the message. After all, it is man who has the final say on the words accepted as authoritative in the modern eclectic Greek base of these newer versions. The concept of God�s Hand of preservation has been disallowed as an article of faith.
Gipp (An Understandable History of the Bible) makes another interesting observation. �It is evident ... That, no matter what the Bible salesman may say about being able to �find� the fundamentals in any of the new translations, they are still weaker on doctrine than the God-honoring Authorized Version.�
This is an admission that nearly any proponent of the newer translations will make. They know that the doctrinal base is weaker. �But,� they say, �all of the doctrines are in there. You just have to look a little harder to find them.�
I find two problems with this ideal. The first is simple. The rational for the modern versions is often stated as that they make the Bible more understandable. If this were true, why is it necessary to �look a little harder� to find cardinal doctrines of the faith?
It would seem that �look a little easier� would be the operative norm!
The second problem is also quite simple. The purpose of the study of Scripture is to find what God has said. If we are �looking a little harder� to find cherished doctrine, are not we the same as the cultist? This becomes a case of searching out what we believe rather than what God has said to believe.
In our next session we will begin to look at specific versions.
20 June 2008
COMPARING THE COMPETITION (Continued)
We looked at some of the generic errors of the many modern English versions during past sessions. The most outstanding error of these versions is that their basic reason for existence is a lack of faith in the preserving power of God over His Own Words. They all, almost without exception, argue that the Greek base of the King James Bible was a flawed Greek base. In a prideful argument they argue that they have managed to reconstruct what God either refused to, or was unable to, preserve.
Thus, they argue that their text is superior to the text of history.
My problem, well one of them, is: If God did not see fit for His inspired Words to be preserved, why is it not sinful to try to restore what God has cast aside? Are we not undoing the work of God when such a path is walked?
Even allowing for the correctness of the general assumption of a lost text (And, I do not believe this is even possible with God�s eternal and inspired Words!), by what rational is man more powerful than God in resurrecting a lost text? Does not this negate the leading of God? Does not this call into question all that God�s Words have said? Does this not remove the rational and basis for our faith if that faith be in a Creator God inferior to the created man?
A large �Bible College� in South Carolina is famous for instructing their students to preach from the King James Bible but to study from the New American Standard. This seems, to me, to be a case of chicanery. It is also, again it seems to me, failing to give the �true� Words of God to the people in the pew. If they really believe this they are guilty of purposefully keeping the pure words of God, in their estimation, from the churches they serve.
A sad commentary on the mindset of these people.
Bynum (King James Fans) argues that too many fundamentalist�s are not aware of the difference in the base text between the King James Bible and the modern versions. �Unfortunately far too many fundamentalists have been almost totally unaware of what has been going on. They did not realize that the New American Standard Version and the New International Version have been translated from the same corrupt text type as all the modernistic versions.�
The man in the pew is told there is no real difference between the versions. The newer versions are only linguistic updates of archaic language. Reading the footnotes of these modern versions should put the lie to that falsehood. Too many passages are torn from the Bible. Too many passages are called into question. Too many passages are slanted toward error.
I will say that the New American Standard Version is a very good translation. Unfortunately, it is a very good translation of a very poor text. The point is, it makes no difference how close the translation follows its base text is that base text is faulty. The base text of the New American Standard is based on minority texts and rejects the bulk of the evidence which favors the text which underlies the King James Bible.
Gipp (An Understandable History of the Bible) also argues against the texts which underlie the newer versions.
�Many may make a defense for new translations in claiming that these men [who gave us the 1881 translation] are �liberal� scholars, while today�s modern translations such as the New American Standard Version and the New International Version are translated by �conservative� scholars. This claim is an empty one, though, because concerning which MSS are to be judged as �best, the most reliable, etc...� �conservative� scholars of the day agree wholeheartedly with the convictions of the �liberal� revisors of the 1881 and 1952 revision committees.�
My son is a very good cook. If I give him a badly written recipe, and he follows it exactly as it is written, the outcome will be bad food. His skill at cooking will not make a bad recipe into a gourmet meal. It is the same with these newer versions which are based on eclectic texts of man. They cannot produce a God honoring product if they use a God denying recipe of texts.
James (The Corruption of the Word) argues for the superiority of the base text of the translating committee of the King James Bible.
�A careful study shows that the modern versions (the New International Version and the New American Standard are examples) vary considerably from the traditional King James Version. They do so because modern scholars have changed the fundamental New Testament Greek text used by early scholars who translated the King James. ... It is true that there are more manuscripts to consider now than at the time of the King James. But almost all manuscripts discovered since then tend to agree largely with those ones used by the early King James scholars. Only a few later discoveries vary greatly. These are the ones that modern scholars use for their New Testament text.�
About these new discoveries, we must emphasize that there have been no discoveries of new readings since the production of the King James Bible. The translating committee of the King James Bible had all the readings which are available today. Most of these reading are contained in the Douay Rheims Catholic Bible produced in 1582 - nearly thirty years before the King James Bible was translated.
The canard that �new discoveries� have placed the Traditional Text into the ash heap of history is simply not true!
The Prophecy Bible also speaks of the validity of the new eclectic texts.
�The manuscript preferences cited in many contemporary translations of the New Testament are due to recent reliance on a relatively few manuscripts, discovered in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Dependance on these manuscripts, especially two, the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts, is due to the greater age of those documents. However, in spite of their age, some scholars have reason to doubt their faithfulness to the autographs since they often disagree with one another and show other signs of unreliability.�
Again, even these discoveries did not give new readings. Their readings were already available. However, the great age of the two mentioned MSS have given them some influence upon modern Bible critics. One wonders why this is so since they are obviously so often at odds with the Tradition Text, and with each other. There are thousands of differences between the two in just the Gospels. Large portions of the text are missing as well.
The text of Nestle� is the most prominent text in use in the newer editions of the modern texts. However, as Gipp (An Understandable History of the Bible) has noted, �Nestle�s text is basically Westcott and Hort�s text, which is in turn primarily the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.�
The text of the King James Bible was the text of the Reformation. This was the text that led the way from error to trust in the Words of God over the words of man. Fuller argues that even �Wycliffe�s translation of the Bible in English was two hundred years before the birth of Luther. It was taken from the Vulgate and, like its model, contained many errors. Therefore the Reformation lingered.�
God blessed Wycliffe and his work in giving a rendition of the Scripture into the English language. But, this version was not based on the pure Traditional Text. While blessed, the power of God was held back by the lack of His pure Words.
Likewise, there are many who are blessed by the newer texts. But, in the overall scheme of things, the church as lost her power in the world as she has abandoned the pure Words of God.
Gipp (An Understandable History of the Bible) quotes another one of my sources when he relates this quote from Hills (The King James Version Defended). I quote it from Gipp because this is where I first found it.
�An example of the �Bible business� is revealed by Dr. Edward Hills [The King James Version Defended]. He speaks in reference to the committee of the [Old} American Standard Version promising not to publish their translation at the same time as the English Revised Version. ... It was obvious to these �contenders for the faith� that two new Bibles hitting the market at the same time just would not be conducive to good profits.�
Sadly, this observation has a ring of truth to it. Although the King James Bible was published under the auspices of the Crown. This was not the same as a modern international copyright under which these newer versions are published.
As with so many modern song writers (�God gave me this song and it�s mine! You can�t use it until you pay me royalties!), many of these modern publishers produce a copy of The Word of God and then deny it to the public unless the royalties are paid.
No matter. We have the true Words of God, faithfully translated into the English, in our old King James Bibles.
In our next session we will take a look at the New American Standard Version.
27 June 2008
COMPARING THE COMPETITION (Continued)
As I�ve stated before, the purpose of this study was not to show the superiority of the Authorized, or King James, Bible. Our purpose was to study the transmission of the textual base so that we could understand that we have a trustworthy Bible in our time. Since the unifying factor of almost all of the modern English language versions is the belief that the true Words of God were lost to humanity for nearly one thousand years, until unearthed and reconfigured by Hort, Westcott, and a host of other men beginning in the nineteenth century, we have argued for the superiority of the King James Bible whose translating committee used the Traditional Text. They, the King James translators, believed in the preserving power of God in relation to His Own Words.
Still, many - maybe most - Bible Colleges in our time, even the Fundamentalist Colleges whose theology should cause them to mistrust and eclectic and nonpreserved text, will argue that the New American Standard Version is the �most accurate Bible on the market.�
I wouldn�t completely argue with these men. I, too, believe that the NASV is a very accurate translation. Unfortunately, it is a very good translation of a very poor text. Although many do not understand that it is so, the base text of the NASV is very compatible with the English Revised Version of 1881 (Hort and Westcott) and the Revised Version (Of the National Council of Churches) which was published in 1952. Many conservative pastors railed against the RSV while rallying around the NASV even though the two are similar in their base texts.
Dr. Jack Moorman (The Battle for the Doctrinal Heart) has found one of the many problems with the modern eclectic texts. �The underlying text of the modern versions ... comes up short with regard to names and titles of Deity.� For example, he notes that the NASV has �...the Name Jesus ... found 73 fewer times, �Christ� ... found 43 fewer times, [and] �Lord� ... found 85 fewer times [than in the King James Version]...�
A �good,� or even a �great,� translation does not make up for a lack of fidelity to the inspired and preserved text of God.
Bynam (�King James Fans�) sees a problem with even the preface for the NASV.
�It was originally written as guidelines for the translators to follow, but when the New American Standard Version was published, it was printed as the preface.� At first Logsdon did not examine the translation, �...but when he began to hear criticism of it, he found that there was no truthful answer. He could not refute the arguments against the NASV...� He now [at the time the cited work was first written] �...is going up and down the land, repudiating the NASV and the other new versions. He now recommends only one version, The Authorized Version of 1611 (KJV).�
I need to mention that I visited the local city library, and my own library of course, and it seems that the name of preface of Dr. Logsdon is mission from the newer copies of the NASV. In light of Bynam�s revelations above, this is a reasonable detail to expect.
A word of full disclosure. There are very few 1611 King James Bibles on the market. Most would be somewhat hard to read. There have been several revisions of the King James Bible. Most of these revisions had to do with spelling and updating the type face. However, it is equally important to note that not a single one of these �revisions� had anything to do with the base text from which the original 1611 version was translated.
Personally, I use and recommend the Cambridge 1769 text. A very fine edition of this text, the Defined King James Bible, is available from The Bible for Today of Collingswood, New Jersey, USA. This edition, I have a copy next to my computer - it is the edition I use, has the full text of the King James Bible. The footnotes, at the bottom of the page, only identify words which are obscure or have changed in meaning. The right text and the right understanding are necessary if we are to really study the Words of God in an English Bible.
Getting back to a look at the NASV, Burton (Let�s Weigh the Evidence) has provided a couple of instances where the translation actually attacks the Words of God.
The first of these mentioned comes from Luke 4:4. Although the verse in the NASV agrees with the King James in saying that man �shall not live by bread alone,� it fails to note that there is something by which man must live. �...but by every word of God...�
Also, the NASV joins with most modern English language translations, II Timothy 3:16 is given as �All Scripture that is inspired...� This is an implication that some Scripture is not inspired.
Actually, it would be hard to argue for any inspired Scripture if it were actually lost for nearly one thousand years. After all, if God were so interested in being precise with His message that He inspired that message, would he have allowed it to be lost to His true churches and the Christians of those churches?
Further, if that message was lost by means beyond His control, can we really accept any pronouncement from such a weak God? Indeed, how can we know, of a certainty, anything about God if the message were so sloppily transmitted?
Burton also notes that the NASV changes I Thessalonians 2:13 from �...the truth of the Word of God,� to �...the truth of the Word of God�s message.� �IF we can�t trust the Bible as the actual Word of God, then we don�t have any final standard in which we can trust.�
This is one of the many problems associated with the concept of a lost and reconstructed textual base. We have no real authority except the word of man. We have lost the Authority of the Word of God because we no long are certain that we really have it available. After all, it was lost once, how do we know that we have even an approximation of it now. We have only the word of men, sinful men such as ourselves!
You will notice that since the popularity of these new eclectic textual bases that man has been finding more and more �texts of antiquity� to champion as �possibly a reasonable text which was only banned from the Bible because it disagreed with �the powers that be of the time.�� Thus, the Bible is further attacked as simply the words of man rather than the Words of God.
If the critics are correct and the Words were lost for a time, why couldn�t we assume that �The Gospel of Judas,� for example, belongs in the canon? If the Words of God were not inspired, finalized, and preserved by the Spirit of God, why shouldn�t we add Joseph Smith�s �Book of Mormon� to the mix?
What is our Standard if it is not the Eternally Preserved Word�s of the Almighty God of Creation and Eternity! Truth? We have no standard except the pronouncements of men. God is no longer on the Throne of His Own Word. That is the consensus that must be reached if we have a lost Gospel which has only been �restored� by sinful mankind.
Bynam (�King James Fans�) speaks of the text of the NASV.
�...in the 1960's when the NASV was published, many fundamentalists accepted it because they were told that it was fundamental and had been translated by conservatives. However, no list of translators has ever been published and so we do not know who translated it. Yet, we know that they followed �In most instances the 23rd edition of the Nestle Greek New Testament,� according to the preface. The Nestle Greek Text is based on the Westcott and Hort theory and their text. So, no matter how fundamental the scholars were, their version could never be correct when translated from a corrupt text.�
The last part of this quotation is very important. It doesn�t matter who the translators were. It is admitted that they appeared to do a very fine job of translating. But, they did not translate the inspired and preserved Words of God. They translated an eclectic text cobbled together by men who argued that God did not preserve His Own Words.
What we have, in reality, is a book called �The Holy Bible,� which purports to be the �Word of God in the English.� However, it is based upon a text which argues that God�s true text was lost to His churches and people for a thousand years. Somehow, this seems to indicate very poor workmanship in the sword we are asked to carry into spiritual battle.
In our next session we will consider the NIV and the Moffett translations.