The Bible is our sole authority for faith and practice. You know what that means, don’t you? Gotcha! That’s what it means. Why? Well, because you can’t show me a verse in scripture that says that rock music is wrong. So that means it’s right. Game over! “I just want to do what scripture says and (sniff) these separatist Baptists keep trying to hold me to an unscriptural standard.”
God’s Word says nothing either about crack pipes, four letter words, cigarette smoking, men wearing dresses or skirts, sporting a nazi swastika, burning a cross in your front yard, and preaching in a clown suit every Sunday behind a pulpit that looks like a bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken. And this line of argumentation—“you can’t prove in scripture”—is growing. By the way, I don’t think it’s true. I do believe these things can be proven from the Bible. That’s how God’s Word works. Doctrines don’t have to be formed with only explicit mentions. The Bible teaches in principle. That’s clear. But this is a growing movement, and I do believe that you now see it in fundamentalism.
This is how it has worked. First, the supernatural quality of Scripture itself was questioned with higher criticism, that it was just a book written by men. Second, the actual words of Scripture were questioned with textual criticism. Scientists use natural processes, separate from theology, to determine what God’s Words are. Now men aren’t sure. Third, we can’t know what Scripture means, because there are so many different interpretations and opinions. Fourth, we don’t know how to apply Scripture, because when you make application, you’re just giving your opinion—it’s not something that Scripture actually says. All of this is in the realm of an attack on truth. Truth itself is being pummeled. Fundamentalists have begun accepting at least two, three, and four above, but number one definitely got the ball rolling. All of it combined attacks certainty and authority. Without certainty and authority, Christian living becomes affected, obedient and holy living grow cold.
The third and fourth of the above four relate to the question of this post. A couple of points come to mind. These attack the doctrine of perspicuity. God says Scripture is plain. We can know what he means. Another is the history of interpretation and application. Historic doctrine comes into play and this itself is based upon Scripture. It does matter what churches have said and believed. If it is a new doctrine, it should be questioned heavily. God says we can know what Scripture means, so we would assume that we wouldn’t see a total apostasy of a particular meaning or application of the Bible.
Application relates to second premise issues. Scripture tells us something like “let no corrupt communication proceed from your mouth.” That’s the first premise. The second premise is that certain words are corrupt. Those may not be in scripture, but we can know that they are corrupt. We are going outside of the Bible to discern what corrupt communication is. God’s Word assumes that we can know what corrupt words are. This discernment of true application in the real world affects a whole range of Christian living and obedience to God.
I want to connect this now to the preservation of Scripture issue. Over at SharperIron, Aaron Blumer wrote this in a comment:
I really think it serves everyone well if a vocabulary can be established that folks on all sides recognize. But at some point I fully expect PTPers [particular text preservationists] to resist that because many of them do not want the debate itself to be clear. That is, they do not want what the disagreement is really about to be clear. The reason is that when the debate is properly framed as really being mainly about what the Scriptures say, they can feel that this is not a winning approach for them. If they grant that, they lose the biblical doctrine debate and I think some of them know this or at least sense it. They fear that they will have to admit that they cannot claim their view is legitimate “biblical doctrine” but rather is a position based on other criteria.
Once that happens, you have to grant the other side an equal playing field in evaluating the external evidence. This they want to avoid because if it’s not a true biblical doctrine, then we merely have a difference of opinion about history and there is nothing to “preach” on the subject–and neither side’s legitimacy as fundamentalists can be called into question, etc.
It’s a very hard path to walk for those who are already deeply vested in PTP as an article of faith–because of years of preaching it and serving up polemics based on it.
By the way, if we wanted to misrepresent Aaron, we wouldn’t be linking to his article and then quoting a big swath of his material. Aaron says that we do not want the debate to be clear. And he concludes this based upon what? That we don’t accept his assessment of the text of Scripture, one that differs from the historic doctrine of preservation. And this manifests what according to him? That we really are uncomfortable arguing our position based only upon Scripture? We’re the only ones arguing this doctrine from Scripture. Aaron nor anyone else that I have ever read has presented a biblical doctrine of preservation from the critical text point of view.
The way that Aaron presents us is that perfect preservationists really feel like that coming just from Scripture is really not a winning approach to use. What? That’s our only approach. That is the approach that we want, to discuss what the passages on preservation say. We want to get our view from the Bible. That’s where we got our view.
The issue here is that the preservation passages must be applied. What is taught in the passages must be fleshed out in the real world. For instance, in John 17:8 Jesus prays to the Father: “For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee.” The verse says that the apostles and those like them in the future (cf. v. 20) will receive God’s Words. The verse doesn’t say “what” those Words would be, but it does say that they would have them, receive them, so they would know them. They would receive them, not correct them or alter them. So we look for what we see in that verse in the real world. We believe that we can and will know what the words are from this and other passages.
Aaron also applies this verse to the preservation of Scripture. He believes he possesses twenty-seven books of the New Testament, but neither this passage nor any other passage says anything about twenty-seven books of the New Testament. But Aaron believes there are twenty-seven books of the New Testament because of verses like this one in Scripture. God’s people would be able to identify God’s Words. They would receive them. However, the application of the verses are second premise. We look to see what God’s people received. So this is a doctrine that comes from Scripture. We like arguing from Scripture, but it also extends to the application of those verses.
Really Aaron in this comment let’s his predisposition out of the bag. He wants to smack down the scriptural doctrine of preservation, and it seems using whatever means necessary to do that. He wants to portray perfect preservationists as men who are not comfortable with only sticking to Scripture. I’m comfortable with what the Bible says. It’s where I get my position. And it is also a view that I see held by Christians in history. That too is a biblical doctrine.
Aaron really insults perfect preservationists by saying that we have a position that we’ve been preaching, are deeply vested in it, and that’s why we can’t give it up when he comes along and shows us that it really isn’t in scripture. That’s fairly arrogant. He hasn’t come close to debunking or overturning the scriptural and historic position. There is no protection of a vested interest as he accuses wrongfully. Just because men don’t agree with his criticisms doesn’t mean that they are desperately hanging on to their guns and religion. He’s missing some key aspects to our arguments for the doctrine of perfect preservation. And so far he has refused to answer scriptural questions, which is ironic considering his accusations.
“Can you prove it from scripture?” The Bible teaches preservation of every Word of God to every generation of believer. Believers will receive His Words. They will be led to them by the Spirit. The Bible is perfect. It is pure. It is settled. Those teachings lead us to conclusions. Aaron makes conclusions too. He believes there are twenty seven books in the New Testament. He believes there are a particular number of books in the Old and New Testaments. He doesn’t believe that there are books that are up for grabs. But he doesn’t have a verse that teaches this. He takes that position by applying verses from Scripture. It is no less truth after he does.
I'm glad that Gary Webb expllained in the last post were you believe that the perfect word for word preservation is. My only question is which edition is the perfect one? I mean if there has been even a small jot or tittle changed then how is this perfect word for word preservation. Please forgive me for saying this, but honestly, isn't that like a word of faith teacher with a broken arm "claiming and believing" that his arm isn't broken, when it is? Maybe God is preserving it like in 2 Kings 22 or like in Jude were the Archangel Michael argued with Satan over Moses' body. Maybe God wants to make sure that we are not worshiping or placing the words over the message.
It's the gospel message that is important. It doesn't matter if you put a KJV or an NASB bible in the hands of a true seeker, he will find the gospel message and be saved.
Gary,
How do you know there are twenty seven books in the NT? Why those twenty seven and not others?
The words and the message cannot be separated. To do otherwise is to follow in the footsteps of the heretics such as Karl Barth (who called the Bible a 'paper pope'), Paul Tillich (who said God does not exist unless men want him to), Rudolph Bultmann (who memorised the entire NT in Greek but did not believe a word of it), Dietrich Bonhoeffer (strongly influential in the founding of the WCC, denied that Jesus literally rose from the dead, and an atheist), Emil Bruner (an atheist) William Hamilton (saying that God is dead to the believer), et c. One thing these men all had in common was in separating the message from the words – if one word is lost, the message is lost, especially as Scripture repeatedly says that the words are preserved. As a for-instance, when Athanasius argued against Arius at Nicea, one of the bishops who sided with him was a man named Peter (I may be mistaken about his actual name), who said that the text Arius used (that underlying the modern versions) was corrupted. Arius argued from John's Gospel record, and this man Peter said that he had seen the original in Ephesus, compared it to what Arius used, and said it was corrupt. The text which Athanasius used is that which underlies my King James.
Gary,
Here is your statement: "Maybe God wants to make sure that we are not worshiping or placing the words over the message."
How could we have a message without the exact words?
Take the 2 Bibles you listed: KJB versus NASB. In John 7:8 the NASB has Jesus lying to his brothers – on the basis of a different reading. In John 3:13 the NASB leaves out the only clear statement of the omnipresence of Jesus during His incarnation ("which is in heaven"). In Matthew 8:15 the NASB leaves out the key words "against thee" which totally transforms the meaning & application of that passage. The NASB removes every single mention of the ascension in the Gospels (by footnote in Mark 16). The NASB removes the only statement of the trinity in I John 5:7 – even though that omission violates the requirement of the Greek grammar. Obviously, these are only a few of the differences in the "message" between the 2 Bibles. For several years I read the NASB in my devotions, but not any more.
The Gospel message is important, & our Lord said we are to "live by EVERY word."
I really don't have time for this, so I'm just going to say what I have to say and back out…
Just because a person MIGHT can get saved reading a modern "bible" doesn't mean that that "bible" is the infallible Word of God, anymore than God speaking through Balaam's ass made the ass a prophet.
In fact, the NASB, ESV, NIV, et al, present a FALSE Jesus and a FALSE gospel, and the state of affairs today demonstrates that so CLEARLY that one must be willfully blind to miss it.
I have seen COUNTLESS souls irreparably damaged and destroyed by these modern "bibles", so that they are so far gone spiritually and mentally, having been INFESTED and MOLESTED by the FALSE dogma in the FALSE Jesus and the FALSE gospel of modern "bibles", that they will NEVER recover and actually MEET the TRUE Jesus in the unmistakable supernatural miracle of the new birth.
For a DEMONSTRATION — a word which FEW understand anymore — but for a DEMONSTRATION of just ONE example out of REAMS UPON REAMS of examples of the FALSE Jesus and the FALSE gospel that the NASB, ESV, NIV, et al, project, go here —
http://lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/indictment_of_ignorance.htm
Kent,
Their is only 27 Books in the NT, because the others did not pass the sniff test i.e. Canonicity.
Claymore,
These men could have a perfect word for word bibles and they would still be in error. They obviously were not regenerated Christians, thus did not have the Holy Spirit guiding them.
I do enjoy reading your statements as your knowledge and understanding of Church history is very impresive. I will concider myself truly accomplished, if I can eventually obtain half of your historical knowledge.
Gary Webb,
Ok, I'll have to admit that you caught me in regards to the NASB, as I have only looked at it a couple of times ( it didn't really flow for me). I would assume (but don't know) that there would be footnotes with disclosures within the NASB. I'll have to look into it.
I did find comfort that you did not mention anything wrong in regards to the NASB's OT, as I still believe that just as the Bareans could find the gospel message in the OT, so can a true seeker with the help of the Holy Spirit. 🙂
To all,
My point still stands that if one jot or tittle is changed, then how is it that you think that you have word for word preservation. Was there or was there not changes made to the TR? Was there or was there not changes made to the KJV over time?
Kent,
I've been thinking in regards to your 27 books question and I can understand why you would prefer the KJV, but I have not seen any evidence to support perfect word for word.
Aaron,
I keep asking you to give me the Scripture that teaches that the text of Scripture would be ambiguous, but you will not provide it. I can give you the verses that teach that the text of Scripture will be perfect (like Matthew 5:18-19). Are you going to answer this question or not?
Lamblion,
Do you put God in a box? I've seen JWs and Mormons do a 180 and come to a saving knowledge of Christ, leaving their former cults behind.
You said that these countless souls will "never recover".
Sounds like you don't have much faith in the power of God.
Honest question. Do you just write these people off as just Hell bound, or do you at least pray for them.
I don't mean to be criticle, but I do not see the fruit of the Spirit in you ( at least in your posts). If you do not have a compation for the lost, you may want to examine yourself. If you know what I mean.
Gary, I find no viable alternative than perfect providential preservation of the TR as to say that there is one scribal error or such like leaves us in a sticky wicket. If there is one scribal error, why not two, or twenty, two thousand? One would be a fool not to admit that there have been some changes to the KJV over time, but to my knowledge, these are generally confined to the realm of a mutating language – Thomas Ross may correct me if I am mistaken on this point. The differeces between the CT and TR are generally mutilations by the Gnostics, such as in the blasphemous Trimorphic Protennoia (A document that I do not recommend as it is devilish).
I write off people whom the Holy Spirit directs me not to pray for any longer. That is a very sobering time.
As Bunyan and many others have noted, the world is full of people who have passed their day of grace, and when the Holy Spirit no longer allows me to pray for a person whom I had once prayed for, it is as sobering a time as there can possibly be.
Of course, those who are babies in the Lord or who have never truly met Jesus Christ in the unmistakable supernatural miracle of the new birth have no clue what I'm talking about, but those who truly have met Jesus Christ in the unmistakable supernatural miracle of the new birth and who have experience in the Holy Spirit know all too well what I'm talking about.
As Bunyan also noted, Cain and Esau and Ishmael passed their day of grace LONG before they ever died, and yet they did far better in this world AFTER they passed their day of grace than they did before time.
The FACT is, God uses MEANS, and just as Judas passed his day of grace the SECOND he betrayed the Son of Man, so is there a point of no return for many in this world.
But as I said, only those who have truly met Jesus Christ in the unmistakable supernatural miracle of the new birth and who have experience in the Holy Spirit truly know and understand this.
And the corruption of modern "bibles" have deceived many, and to their eternal ruin.
As a follow up to the previous post, allow me to share this brief quote from Bunyan, just one of MANY I could produce from him and others relative to this matter…
"As there is a thing like grace, which is not, so there is a sin, called the sin against the Holy Ghost, from which there is no redemption; AND THIS SIN DOTH MORE THAN ORDINARILY BEFALL PROFESSORS… Wherefore, when we know that a man hath sinned this sin, we are not to pray for him, or to have compassion on him." John Bunyan, The Strait Gate
Moreover, to assert that I don't have a heart for the lost can only be interpreted as one who has never read a SCINTILLA on my website, nor as one who knows even the FIRST thing about me personally.
Now, I will not be responding in the future here.
However, the fact that I am not responding does NOT mean that I do not have an answer, but rather, I will no longer place myself under the burden of a moderated forum.
I don't fault Kent for doing it this way, but I just will not further subject myself to this type of moderation. If Kent wants to change it so that all comments are posted immediately, even though still retaining the right to delete posts that are foul and out of line, that would be a different story.
Again, it's Kent's blog and he has the right to run it the way he sees fit, but I don't like the lag time between comments, as it doesn't fit my schedule, and I'm sure others find it this way as well.
As it is, we must wait until the comment is posted, which can take a very long time, and where it will not be in a convenient time frame for us to respond.
Again, I am not being critical of Kent for operating it this way. I am just saying that I would prefer instantaneous postings, and if that is not going to occur, then I will no longer participate.
Claymore,
I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my question, but can you explain the several editions after the TR's first publication?
Gary Webb,
The scripture verse you are seeking can be found in the book of Aaron 1:17. 😉
I do not claim to be omniscient concerning the various editions. I think in some cases it may be a mistaken term for the various printings, but I cannot be sure on that. In apologetics, even the brightest minds may go over into heresy if they do not stop questioning, as they try to follow to what seems like a logical conclusion and find error. The best I can personally say is that I will be willing to ask it of God when I meet Him. Nontheless, I take His Word in its most literal form when it speaks of the very words of God beig forever preserved. There is no other position to take that does not in some way leave us open to doubt whether or not God truly said something. Just as the first temptation to humans began with "Yea hath God said" so we find the liberals and modernists such as Westcott and Hort, Nestle and Aland, and many others taking their texts from the gnostic libraries in Nag Hammadi and Alexandria and spreading the question as to whether God truly said the things that are recorded in Scripture.
Gary Webb,
I was wondering if you would like to comment on the question that I gave to Claymore.
I was also wondering what you think of Young's Literal Translation as it also uses the TR. It agrees with the KJV on 1 John 5:7, but is probably more true to the teaching of trinity than the KJV. In Romans 8:16 the KJV refers to the Holy Spirit as itself, while the YLT I believe more accurately translates the Holy Spirit as himself (as a side note the NASB says himself also). Your thoughts.
Okay, this one last post… -:)
The reason the KJB translated the word for Spirit as "itself" in Romans 8:16 is because that is exactly how it reads in the Greek. The Greek word for "spirit" is a NEUTER noun.
Just as we might refer to a baby as "it", or as we might refer to many other substantives as "it" where we are describing not so much the personality of the individual but his acts or influences.
Furthermore, the Holy Spirit could have EASILY referred to himself in the masculine gender here in Romans 8:16 had he wanted to, for he did exactly that in other passages of Scripture, such as John 15:26 where he used the demonstrative pronoun concerning himself in the MASCULINE gender.
In shorit, it is FAR BETTER to translate the Scriptures as they are actually WRITTEN rather than our fallible OPINIONS as to how they SHOULD have been written.
As was noted by a book undertaken by linguists from Harvard University Press…
"At its best, which means often, the Authorized Version has the kind of transparency which makes it possible for the reader to see the original clearly. IT LACKS THE NARROW INTERPRETIVE BIAS OF MODERN VERSIONS, and is the stronger for it… Through its transparency the reader of the Authorized Version not only sees the original but also learns how to read it."
Claymore,
Sorry, I missed your last post when I made my last statement (I think that it is because of the lag time that Lamblion was talking about. I'm not complaining as Kent usually posts my comments within about 10 minutes from me posting).
In regards to the different editions, there were corrections and changes made. I can give you some examples if you would like later ( I cannot right now as I'm not at home and I sent my last post while waiting at the DMV).
I agree with you that God is not a liar, God's ways are higher than our way's and if he meant that he would preserved every word, than I believe him. I just don't see where he did it in the TR. The TR may be the best that we are aware of, but it can be proven to have a slight jot or tittle problem.
Lamblion,
Wow, how do you respond so fast? Do you get notification?
Are you saying that there were absolutely no "opinions" used when translating from Greek to English in regards to the KJV.
If you don't respond I'll understand, as you have stated a couple of times that you were not going to post again.
If I get a chance I'll try to spend some time reading your blog.
I will begin by apologizing for “harping” about faith once again. I am certain, however, that the entire problem with modernists views of Biblical preservation and interpretation is due entirely to a misunderstanding of what “the faith of God” really is. We (they) have left the Biblical definition of faith.
It is entirely possible that a man may “come to Christ” through human “faith” which is not the “faith of God” put into them by the Holy Ghost. Look at the next Scriptures: (John 12:35-43)
“Then Jesus said unto them, Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you: for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth. While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light.These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them. But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him. Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.”
“… among the chief rulers also many believed on him ….”
Did these men experience salvation? To what would they attribute their “faith”? Their faith came from first and second-hand experience. They saw miracles, they witnessed many others obtaining true faith from God and really believing. Their “faith” was a human faith based upon physical evidence and popularity. It did not serve them well because they “loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.”
Today's modernists argue for 27 New Testament books because it is an obvious popular opinion among Christians, not because faith tells them that these books are the ones containing God's words. In the same way, they accept the later (modern) “popular opinion” that we may scientifically determine the true words of God. Yet all the men searching have never and will never determine those words by the means they are using, namely, through human reasoning, historical evidence, or any observable evidence. In the writings of the earliest Christians, as I understand it, before a canon council was held, the 27 books were known. How can this be, asks the modernist?
Observable evidence is not necessary for faith. Historical evidence is not necessary for faith. Popular opinion (among Christians) is not necessary for faith. In fact, all observations and experience may work against faith if one considers any of these things first. (Of course faith will be proven later by evidence, but if it is not yet proven by evidence – such as Abraham seeing Christ's day and rejoicing in it – it is still true.
I think sometimes we, who have true faith, are pulled into the faithless arguments and begin to use the same faithless methods in attempt to reveal the truth. Only God can reveal it through the faith he gives. Never-the-less, we do still need to argue because our argumentation may be a witness for them that have faith. Yet the bottom line lay in the real definition of the faith of God given to men so that they may know truth.
Joe V.
Hmmmm…maybe because I only hear the sound of crickets in regards to the TR editions is because I posted just before the weekend.
You say that Christians had the 27 books before the canon was completed to which I can agree. I can also have the the faith that God can preserve his every word. Maybe because of the dark ages God sealed up or hid some perfect word for word copies (or originals) to reveal them later, as he did in 2 Kings 22. The word of God that we have today is a perfect preservation of his message. The minor jots or tittle problems within the TR do not effect His message at all. There is nothing lost in its translation.
I will again refer to my word of faith teacher example in regards to your veiw of the TR, as you can see through the editions (not just extra printings), that the TR is not perfect word for word preservation. No where in scripture can you find God saying that he will preserve his word through "progressive preservation".
I am not disheartened by the fact that I have not found a perfect word for word translation, as my trust is in God and his ways are higher than mine. If he meant that he would preserve every jot and tittle, than I know that somewhere he has.
I will not look at the (TR) and call it God's promised without a tittle of error word when it is not, unless you can show me "progressive preservation" in the Bible.
Gary, the answer to your question about editions of the TR is answered in many other places on this website, on my website, at Way of Life literature's website, and many other places. If you do a little searching you can find detailed answers. There is no need to reinvent the wheel, so that is probably why nobody reprinted what has been said many times elsewhere here.
Also, the TR is not a translation, and your affirmation of "progressive preservation" is a straw-man.
I don't have time right now to say more–but read–or Interlibrary Loan at your public library for free– the book Thou Shalt Keep Them, gen. ed Kent Brandenburg, and some of the books on the subject by David Cloud, and you should have plenty of answers.
Thomas,
I'm going to be very busy over the next couple ov weeks and thus I will not have much time for library research. Can you or someone give me a quick explanation as to how the TR is word for word perfect when there were changes made between the editions. Gracious
Gary,
If you really want to know, your questions are answered on this blog, like Thomas said. Look in the right hand column and click on those articles. You'll find answers. It's very easy.
An answer to the question of "Which TR" by Edward Hills, PhD in textual criticism:
“The King James Version is a variety of the Textus Receptus. The translators that produced the King James Version relied mainly, it seems, on the later editions of Beza’s Greek New Testament, especially his 4th edition (1588-9). But also they frequently consulted the editions of Erasmus and Stephanus and the Complutensian Polyglot. According to Scrivener (1884), out of the 252 passages in which these sources differ sufficiently to affect the English rendering, the King James Version agrees with Beza against Stephanus 113 times, with Stephanus against Beza 59 times, and 80 times with Erasmus, or the Complutensian, or the Latin Vulgate against Beza and Stephanus. HENCE THE KING JAMES VERSION OUGHT TO BE REGARDED NOT MERELY AS A TRANSLATION OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS BUT ALSO AS AN INDEPENDENT VARIETY OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS.
“The King James translators also placed variant readings in the margin, 37 of them according to Scrivener. To these 37 textual notes 16 more were added during the 17th and 18th centuries, and all these variants still appear in the margins of British printings of the King James Version. IN THE SPECIAL PROVIDENCE OF GOD, HOWEVER, THE TEXT OF THE KING JAMES VERSION HAS BEEN KEPT PURE. NONE OF THESE VARIANT READINGS HAS BEEN INTERPOLATED INTO IT. …
“This comparison indicates that the differences which distinguish the various editions of the Textus Receptus from each other are very minor. They are also very few. According to Hoskier, the 3rd edition of Stephanus and the first edition of Elzevir differ from one another in the Gospel of Mark only 19 times. Codex B, on the other hand, disagrees with Codex Aleph in Mark 652 times and with Codex D 1,944 times. What a contrast! …
“BUT WHAT DO WE DO IN THESE FEW PLACES IN WHICH THE SEVERAL EDITIONS OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS DISAGREE WITH ONE ANOTHER? WHICH TEXT DO WE FOLLOW? THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IS EASY. WE ARE GUIDED BY THE COMMON FAITH. HENCE WE FAVOR THAT FORM OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS UPON WHICH MORE THAN ANY OTHER GOD, WORKING PROVIDENTIALLY, HAS PLACED THE STAMP OF HIS APPROVAL, NAMELY, THE KING JAMES VERSION, OR, MORE PRECISELY, THE GREEK TEXT UNDERLYING THE KING JAMES VERSION. This text was published in 1881 by the Cambridge University Press under the editorship of Dr. Scrivener, and there have been eight reprints, the latest being in 1949. In 1976 also another edition of this text was published in London by the Trinitarian Bible Society. We ought to be grateful that in the providence of God the best form of the Textus Receptus is still available to believing Bible students (Edward F. Hills, The King James Bible Defended, The Christian Research Press, 1973, pp. 218-223). [The King James Bible Defended is available from Bible for Today, 900 Park Avenue, Collingswood, NJ 08108. The entire book is also on the web at http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdefen.htm%5D
"But also they frequently consulted the editions of Erasmus and Stephanus and the Complutensian Polyglot . . . of the 252 passages in which these sources differ sufficiently to affect the English rendering, the King James Version agrees with Beza against Stephanus 113 times, with Stephanus against Beza 59 times, and 80 times with Erasmus, or the Complutensian, or the Latin Vulgate against Beza and Stephanus."
So, how did they choose among the readings? This is not a question I've ever heard answered here.
Thomas,
Thank you for the help. Kent has a few dozen posts on perservation and that's alot of reading to find the one that answers my question. I tried your site and found a post that basically had my question in its title, but it keep sending me to google docs (I think that I must be to low tech).
I'll try to spend some time reading about the KJV's TR, but I gotta tell you, so far I'm not seeing the "strawman" in my progressive preservation statement.
Thank you again for sharing with me some of your time and knowledge, it is greatly appeciated.
I think that because I read Thomas' post late last night that I misunderstood it. I don't need to do any more research into the TR as Dr. Hill seems to perfectly answer my question. Thank you again for the info Thomas.
If all of you are holding to what Dr. Hill stated, than I think that I have a better understanding of your preservation belief. It seems that you are all putting your faith in the Textus Receptus KJV edition used for the 1881 KJV. Am I right?
Dr. Hill's own statement backs up my "progressive preservation" theory. He states that the translators looked to the various TR editions (which WERE NOT in total agreement)to come up with this newly inspired edition. So again I ask you gentlemen, where in scripture does it say that God will preserve his every word through "progressive preservation". What about the other 365 years when people where forced to use the corrupt (obviously not word for word)TRs. As Gary Webb stated "How can we have a message without the exact words?" Once again Dr. Hill acknowledges the minor differences between the TRs.
At least my belief is scriptural i.e. If God meant word for word than it must be a 2 Kings 22 situation. I do not limit God as to how he preserves his word. I do not think that the belief that God inspired men to go through mildly corrupted texts to receive his perfect exact words is scriptual.
D4,
We have answered this question many times, because it is a bit of a one string banjo with multiple versionists. Some form of it is the most asked question. It is the GOTCHA question. We give the same answer that was given by Westminster divines, by Hills as quoted by Thomas above, and others. Based on scriptural presuppositions, we look for the agreement of the churches (John 16:13; 17:8), what Hills calls the "common faith." It's the same basis that you have for 27 books in the NT. I can't think that there is any other reason why Aaron or others won't answer questions about 'how do we know we have 27 books.' That is the only text that claims preservation, claims perfection, and was agreed upon for 350 years, generations of Christians. No other text fits the biblical model, the presuppositions based upon scriptural teaching.
Gary,
We were all waiting for this moment, when you wanted to have your answers. I've personally gone through the same type of "gotcha" situation several dozen times. It would have been nice to have just cut to the chase. You really answered your own question when I asked how we knew there were 27 books. You answered it yourself Gary. That is the 'gotcha' moment. You said they passed the "sniff" test. "Sniff" test with whom? The Holy Spirit led the churches, guided them into all truth, and the churches received the books. We should also assume based on scriptural presuppositions that they received the Words. And they did.
And you obviously don't get it. Men had settled on the Words behind the KJV for those 300 plus years. Those Words were available and agreed upon. Did they use B and Aleph during those 350 years? No. Those words were not available and God's people had not received those Words.
Okay, let's just say I'll post when I feel like it. -:)
The fact is, the assertion by Gary and others of the "different" TR's is itself a red herring. I defy them to go through the various editions of the TR and pick out the differences that actually carry over into translation into English. After they're done with those, I defy them to further find the differences that actually alter the meaning of the text. I have actually done this with Stephanus 1550 and Scrivener's TR, which proabably is as diverse as it gets.
Go for it. You will be sorely disappointed if you think you're going to find a different text, because you won't.
In short, the one glaring FACT that has not been mentioned here is the FACT that the TR is a HOMOGENEOUS text, UNLIKE the text of B and Aleph and the Critical Text that modern "bibles" are based on.
And the other FACT that keeps being ignored by CT proponents is the FACT that B agrees MORE with the TR than it does with Aleph, and Aleph agrees MORE with the TR than it does with B.
Not only did Burgon and Hosier, who both collated these manuscripts state that, but also since by the late 90's I was the only living human who had likewise collated B and Aleph in the NT, I have confirmed what Burgon and Hoskier decreed.
Not to mention the FACT that B and Aleph contain grammatical and phililogical solecims in approximately every third verse, or slightly less.
Not to mention the FACT that B and Aleph have simple geographical errors, simple historical errors, simple archaeological error, and BLANTANT doctrinal errors.s
Ad nauseam.
Go to my website and look under Articles | Textual Criticism | Indictment Of Ignorance and then scroll down to the phrase "After all, what can be said of manuscripts…" for just a VERY, VERY, VERY BRIEF example of the character of B and Aleph.
Lamblion,
You definately have more time on your hands than I do. If you are ever in Virginia I might have to go listen to you in person, as maybe a church or classroom setting would help things to sink in better.
I don't have time at this monent to show the differences that actually carry over to English, but I'll try to post by tomorrow. In regards to the words that alter the meaning of the text, I'm in agreement with you. I said that the TR is perfect in regards to message. From Genesis to Revelation God's word is preserved. Where we disagree is that you believe that every jot and tittle literally is in the TR/KJV. To me that is to easy to refute, as you can see the differences amongst the TRs. It is not a faith issue as God did not promise that he would preserve word for word in this manner. Remember my word of faith teacher example.
Kent,
How we have 27 books and how we have the TR/KJV is like apples and oranges. The 27 books can be proven to be inspired because they past the "sniff test" i.e. apostolic origen, universal acceptance, liturgical use, consistent message. Sure the Holy Spirit guided these men, but they didn't just blindly believe, the Holy Spirit gave them a system.
The TR passes the "sniff test" in regards to message, but even a child can see the minor errors.
Lamblion,
Great website you have!
Joe V.
Thanks, Joe V. By the way, I meant to say a big hearty AMEN to your comment earlier. That really brightened my day to see a like-minded soul. You hit the nail on the head.
Gary,
You really don't get to make up your bibliology as you go along and it must come from the Bible. Gary, show me the verses that gave believers the basis by which the 27 books pass the sniff test. There has been debate and there still is about what the 27 books of the NT are. You'll find that the TR passes the same tests.
And then, what are "the minor errors" in the TR? Also explain how you determine that they are errors?
The point I was making, Gary, is that the differences are not only minor, but they are also few and far between compared to the CT and B and Aleph.
Furthermore, there isn't a person on this planet who can PROVE that there is an error in the KJV or the TR that underlies it.
Oh, I know there are plenty of "experts" who can't even pronounce Greek properly, let alone speak it, who assert errors in the KJV, but as I said, they are the VERY SAME PEOPLE who have altered tons of definitions, such as monogones and theophuestos without an IOTA of justification, and of course, as I said, they can't even pronounce Greek properly, let alone speak it.
Same with the MT of the OT, that is, the Masoretic Text that the KJV is based on. Once again, it is charged with error mainly by people who can't speak Hebrew.
But that's not even the main thing. The FACT is, the Hebrew MT cannot really be understood without a THOROUGH knowledge of the Masora. The KJV tranalators were absolute MASTERS of the Masora, unlike ANY so-called "scholar" today.
Psam 22:16 (22:17 in the Hebrew) is a perfect example. Leaving the textual variant aside, for manuscripts in the KJV days had a variant for "pierced", unlike any extant manuscripts today, nevertheless, leaving the textual variant aside, the Masora CLEARLY supports the KJV reading of "pierced", even though the straitforward Hebrew word in the Leningrad Codex (another corrupt manuscript) does not.
But of course, the section of the Masora that deals with this word is not found in the Psalms. It is found in Numbers (if I remember correctly) and Isaiah, where the reference to that word is made, a little fact that ONLY people who are masters of the Masora would know, as the KJV translators did.
Finally, a tree is known by its fruits. The fruit of the KJV answers as face to face with regard to fruit, and both Jesus Christ and his Spirit have borne witness to the KJV, UNLIKE any other text.
Bunyan, who had more knowledge of the Word of God in his little fingertip than all the Greek and Hebrew scholars combined, believed by the Holy Spirit within him that the KJV he held in his hands was an exact replica of the autographs, and he said so.
Nor would Bunyan have disputed that there were minor differences in the TR. Yet he still believed the KJV he held in his hand was the inerrant, infallible Word of God.
That's because Bunyan, unlike you, understood how God actually works.
If you want to try to refute something, go to my website under the textual criticism section and just try to refute my article on 1 Timothy 3:16. That verse in and of itself is all that genuinely born again Christian needs to see.
By the way, the statement by LambLion that no extant Hebrew MSS have the KJV reading in Psalm 22:16 is false. I have an article on this text on my website.
Kent wrote: "And he concludes this [that we don't want the debate to be clear] based upon what?"
Based on discussion threads right here at this site… though at SI also… and also TSKT.
Here's the evidence:
– repeated characterization of my view as saying God is not able to maintain perfect texts through human beings.
– repeated lumping of my view with rationalism, the "text critical view" etc.
– repeated blurring of important distinctions by characterizing those who have a different view of preservation as not believing in preservation at all
– repeated misreading of very clear statements (such as the introductory paragraphs of part 3 where I summarize points of agreement and bring the real question info focus.)
Kent wrote: "That we don't accept his assessment of the text of Scripture, one that differs from the historic doctrine of preservation. And this manifests what according to him? That we really are uncomfortable arguing our position based only upon Scripture?"
Well, people who give my articles a fair read will notice that I have said a tiny bit more than "They disagree with me therefore they are uncomfortable arguing solely from Scripture!"
What they'll see is that I've carefully interpreted the passages the PTP view relies upon. And if they read TSKT alertly, as well as discussions here and at SI, they will see lots of characterizing of me and my articles and a great deal of energy expended dodging the real question and the particulars of how I've answered it.
The real question
"Do the Scriptures teach that God overcomes human error to enable preservation in the form of a word perfect text?"
If you were really interested in a biblical debate, you would stop referring to "the text critical view" and "history" and "rationalism" and "God is not able" and all these other evasive maneuvers and just talk about the verses involved.
Kent wrote: "He takes that position [Bible= the 66 books] by applying verses from Scripture."
Actually no, I do not. I have a few a priori beliefs. They include: God exists, He has revealed Himself to us in the Bible (which consists of the 66 books we have today).
But as I say this, I'll point out one more time that the canonicity question is just another "Hey! Look over there!" So you won't notice that what really matters is whether the verses that are alleged to teach perfect text preservation really teach that.
So I'm saying, "Hey! Look back here! …at the Book. What does it really say?" Don't be distracted.
So Satan said, "Hey! Look back here! …at the Rule. What does it really say?" Don't be distracted.
And Eve did so and was deceived.
Anon. Two can certainly play at that game.
20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. 21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? 22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
Game?
Pastor Blumer,
The Canonicity argument isn't a dodge. You are going to extreme lengths to avoid answering that. If an atheist asked you why just 66 and not the Gospel of Judas too you wouldn't just claim apriori. Please answer that question – it relates specifically to the issue at hand and the interpretation of Scripture. That argument is being used to expose hypocricy in your position that you are truely interested in basing what you believe off Scripture. Your refusal makes it look like you only insist on using Scripture when it is convenient.
Secondly, Kents claim that no one is developing a belief based off Scripture that supports MVO is still holding true. What you have written is not a developed and supported theology built on the Bible but is still an argument AGAINST something. An argument to pry the door open enough that you feel comfortable rejecting PTP. No doubt you think it's a good argument, but you're still falling short of showing us that you have a doctrine based off Scripture.
Kent tried to show you the difference between a doctrine of the Scriptures vs "scorched-earth-argument-against-so-I-don't-have-to-believe-that-if-I-don't-want-to". That's what his post attacking inerrancy and inspiration was. I'm convinced you completely missed his point there – he was showing you how easy it is to nitpick a doctrine you don't like vs just letting the Scriptures talk.
The doctrine of inspiration stands because it is the plain reading of Scripture – not because it appears impervious to the 10000 arguments the truely dedicated can level against it. In the same way, the plain reading of Scripture leaves us expecting PTP. Just because you can dig up a few arguments against isn't going to change that. That's really what Kent was looking for from you – not an argument against but a simple here is what the Bible says thus here is what we expect. You put up a good argument against, but you haven't delivered on that front.
Below is what Aaron wrote as evidence that I want to just misrepresent and obfuscate his position in order to somehow win a debate here. Actually, I'm interested in what God says about preservation. But I want to at least deal with these, as I said I would, in order for this to be OK. Again, however, I offered to send my post to Aaron in advance so he could correct misrepresentations and we could avoid all this beforehand, but he refused. So it can't at all be my wanting to misrepresent him. He hasn't cleared up his misrepresentations, but I haven't found the other side to be interested in that, and their people aren't required to do that in my experience.
OK, here we go, first by showing the misrepresentations he said I made, separated by two lines. My comments on the other side of each.
=================
Here's the evidence:
– repeated characterization of my view as saying God is not able to maintain perfect texts through human beings.
=================
Aaron says he believes that God is able to maintain perfect texts through human beings. But Aaron also says that man's sinfulness prohibited that. And if God had said He would overcome man's sinfulness to preserve every Word, then He would believe that. However, He says God didn't say that. Yet, God did say, according to Aaron, that He overcame man's sinfulness for inspiration of the original manuscripts.
====================
– repeated lumping of my view with rationalism, the "text critical view" etc.
====================
Adam hasn't said he is text critical. He, however, has been giving arguments so far for the text critical view. I understand that Aaron wants me to think that he's just being objective. That's fine. I don't see it that way and I'm calling it as a I see it. I can't speak for Aaron's intentions. I can only speak for what I read of him.
=====================
– repeated blurring of important distinctions by characterizing those who have a different view of preservation as not believing in preservation at all
=====================
When we're arguing about an "every word" preserved Bible, and someone doesn't beleive he has every Word, I don't think of that as preservation. I'm supposed to believe that in order not to mischaracterize him, but I don't believe that, and I've explained it. I think the normal usage of perfect preservation is, well, perfect preservation. This is where the marble illustration comes in.
====================
– repeated misreading of very clear statements (such as the introductory paragraphs of part 3 where I summarize points of agreement and bring the real question info focus.)
======================
I may have misrepresented Aaron. I apologize to him if he thinks I have. It could be that he didn't state it well. Let's just say I misrepresented him and I apologize. I already said we should move on from that.
So there's our answer. I'm not trying to do a red herring, a smoke screen, a straw man, or anything else. People are going to have to judge.
Aaron says, let's keep it to scripture, and I answered his criticism of our scriptural arguments. I don't think his grammatical points hold water at all. None. And then I add a few articles that I wrote recently on Is 59:21 and Rev 22:18-19 to add to that. There are others that I will write about here or there that were not in TSKT 1.