Home » Search results for 'king james version' (Page 13)
Search Results for: king james version
The Doctrine of Inspiration of Scripture and Translation (Part Five)
Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four
God Gave Words in their Original Languages and Preserved Them
In Scripture
Part of the story of the doctrine of inspiration of scripture and then its translation relates to languages. God immediately inspired the original manuscripts of scripture in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. God gave scripture in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. God also used His church in an institutional sense or His true churches to give witness to Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. This fulfilled the scriptural instruction to keep the Lord’s Words.
The Lord Jesus Christ said in Matthew 5:18, “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” A jot is the smallest consonant in the Hebrew alphabet. A tittle is a vowel point, which is small. Some evangelicals say the tittle is a part of a Hebrew letter that distinguishes it from another Hebrew letter. Either way, jots and tittles refer to Hebrew letters. That says that God promised to preserve what He gave by inspiration, which is the original text.
In History
Jesus Christ Himself, God in the flesh, says that ‘not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from the law.’ The Lord establishes one particular detail of preservation. That detail is this: He preserves His Words, the very letters, in the language in which they were written. We can see that churches believed this point of Jesus in the London Baptist Confession, when it says:
The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them.
Text, Translation, and Meaning
Churches should and do go to the original texts for their final appeal in all controversies of religion. This answers the question, “How did people understand the passage who heard it in the day of its writing?” The final appeal does not go to an English translation.
Someone could then ask, “Does everyone then need to know the original languages?” The same London Baptist Confession says next:
But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read, and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.
I did not write Matthew 5:18. I did not write the London Baptist Confession on that point that Jesus made. However, I believe Jesus and what true churches believed and taught on this doctrine. For sure, I’m not abnormal on this.
A bit of logic could come into play. If the true Word of God was an English translation in the 17th century or an edition of it in the 18th century, could true churches believe and live what God said for the previous sixteen centuries? Anyone should ask that. If man lives by God’s Words, it assumes He possesses them. Part of the doctrine of preservation is the doctrine of availability. Denial of general accessibility is denial of God’s promise of perfect preservation of scripture.
Studying the Original Text of Scripture
Meaning
For someone reading this essay today, you should know that you can look up a word in the English translation to find the Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic word. I know many who put in the effort to do that. Even those who never took one day of a course in biblical languages can know the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic word. In the church I pastor right now, when I refer to a Greek word, a man looks it up on his phone to see. The one, who does not know original languages, checks me out. I welcome it.
Grammar and Syntax
I would expect further study than the meaning of the words in their original language, but that is a very good start. A great one. Yes, people should know grammar and syntax, but I find that a large majority of people do not know grammar or syntax in any language. Some of the people who criticize our use of original languages here do not rely on grammar and syntax either.
For a moment, consider the expertise of grammar and syntax, even in an English version. Isn’t that an expertise too? Does the Bible come with a grammar book? Does scripture come with a syntax guide? It doesn’t. In a sense, someone uses a glossary of extra-scriptural terms to apply to the study of the Bible.
The words “verb,” “noun,” and “adjective” are outside of God’s Word. To be consistent, original language deniers should criticize the requirement of grammar and syntax. “Don’t make me learn the word ‘participle’!” I don’t know; maybe they complain about that too. Perhaps they are grammar deniers as well.
You will miss a portion of the meaning of scripture if you rely only on a translation. It helps to know the range of semantic meaning of a word. You can understand from the original text the tense, mood, or voice of verbs or participles. Going to the original text for meaning will help a student of God’s Word. God gave His Words in those original languages.
Points in the Text Not In Translation
Hebrew Acrostics
Did God give the book of Lamentations in a Hebrew acrostic? Yes. Someone cannot see that in a translation. Does that also affect the interpretation of the book? Yes. The third chapter is a triple acrostic by starting triplets of verses with the same Hebrew letter. This also provides a chiastic structure that tips the point of the whole book in the absolute middle of the book.
Several Old Testament passages structure each section of poetry to start with a successive letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Psalm 119 is a well-known example of this, but also Psalms 9-10, 25, 34, 37, 111, 112, 145, Proverbs 31:10-31; and Nahum 1:2-8.
Poetic Word Plays
The Lord also used poetic word plays all over the Hebrew Old Testament one cannot see in a translation. Does God expect someone to recognize those word plays? Yes. You will start seeing word plays in the early chapters of Genesis and then continue seeing them all the way through the Old Testament.
In Genesis 1:2, “without form and void” translated tohu and bohu in the Hebrew, which is paranomastic, a rhyming effect. We don’t get this rhyming effect in English. One aspect of beauty or aesthetics are these devices of language. God gives them to us, not to miss them.
“One of his ribs” in Genesis 2:21 and “bone of my bones” in Genesis 2:23 are a Hebrew word play. God (and Moses) reverse the consonants of “rib” and “bone.” It’s intentional and easily spotted in Hebrew, but not in a translation. We are meant to see the life connection between “rib” and “bone.”
God uses an obvious pun between Adam and the Hebrew word ’adamah, meaning “earth.” The Hebrew ’adam means “man.” In the chapter introducing the first man, Genesis 2:5 says, “there was not a man [‘adam] to till the ground [‘adamah].” Later then, Genesis 3:19 says, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust [‘adamah] shalt thou return.” These Hebrew word plays are distinct from a translation.
God cares about these word plays. He used them. They mean something. He has not shelved them for translations of the original text. When someone cannot see an acrostic or poetic word play, He does not witness something God wrote. Any true believer should want to know this. It is a reason why God gives churches pastors.
Different Words
In the King James Version, the translators translated different Greek words with identical English words. They also translated identical Greek words with different English words. Someone would not know that by the translation. I ask you to consider 1 Corinthians 13:8:
Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
“They shall fail” and “it shall vanish away” both translate the same Greek word, katargeo. You would not know that by the translation. I believe it is very helpful to know that, even for the interpretation of the passage. “They shall cease” translates a completely different Greek word than the other two in the series, and yet all three are translated differently, as if there are three different words. There are just two, not three.
On the other hand, “miracle” translates two Greek words: semeion (Acts 4:22) and dunamis (Mark 9:39). You would not know that by the English translation. Sometimes, very often, the translators translated semeion, “sign,” as if “miracle” and “sign” might be something different.
Do we decide the words and the meaning by the English translation? Do we now say, there are three different words in 1 Corinthians 13:8? Do we say that miracle is just one word, because that’s the way it looks in the English? Our decisions on these issues come from the original text, not the translation.
Originalism
Obeying God by rightly dividing the word of truth (1 Tim 2:15) requires originalism. Originalism means the original biblical text ought to be given the original public meaning that it would have had at the time that God gave it by inspiration. The Bible doesn’t change in meaning from the original text given to the original audience of scripture. The text means what the author meant and he wrote it in an original language. Scripture cannot mean something different than what it originally meant.
God preserved His Words to fulfill His promise of preservation. He did it for the right understanding of meaning. God also preserved those Words because His communication of meaning comes through those original Words. An accurate translation of a perfectly preserved text is not superior to the perfect preserved text. That translation comes from that text.
The Doctrine of Inspiration of Scripture and Translation (Part Four)
In the history of Christian doctrine, true believers through the centuries have been in general consistent in their position on inspiration. When reading historical bibliological material, homogeneity exists. Changes emerged with modernism in the 19th century and then many novel, false beliefs sprouted up. In many cases, men invented new, wrong positions on inspiration in response to other erroneous ones, a kind of pendulum swing.
Summary
To begin here, I will summarize what I have written so far in this series. God inspired sacred scripture over 1600 years, using 40 human authors. John Owen wrote concerning human authors:
God was with them, and by the Holy Spirit spoke in them — as to their receiving of the Word from him, and their delivering it to others by speaking or writing — so that they were not themselves enabled, by any habitual light, knowledge, or conviction of truth, to declare his mind and will, but only acted as they were immediately moved by him. Their tongue in what they said, or their hand in what they wrote, was no more at their own disposal than the pen in the hand of an expert writer.
God breathed a product of almost entirely Hebrew and some Aramaic Old Testament and completely Greek New Testament letters and words. Then He used His institutions, Israel and the church to keep those words, preserve and distribute them. The London Baptist Confession reads:
The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them.
Immediate Inspiration
And Remain Inspired in Copies
The inspiration of the “original manuscripts” believers called “immediate inspiration,” to distinguish from ongoing inspiration of preserved words and accurate translations of the preserved words. The preserved words and readings, “the original texts,” remained inspired. Francis Turretin wrote:
By the original texts, we do not mean the autographs written by the hand of Moses, of the prophets and of the apostles, which certainly do not now exist. We mean their apographs which are so called because they set forth to us the word of God in the very words of those who wrote under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
“Apographs” are the copies of the original manuscripts or the copies of the copies. What about a translation from the preserved, inspired original text? Is that inspired?
And Remain Inspired in Accurate Translations
In the last post (the third one), I showed 1 Timothy 5:18 among other places in the New Testament indicates that an accurate translation is scripture. An accurate translation as sacred scripture remains inspired. This is seen in Peter’s preaching in Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost. Peter used Psalms 16, 110, and Joel 2 in the sermon. The audience heard those translated to Parthian, Mede, Elamite, Mesopotamian, Cappadocian, Pontus, Asian, Phrygian, Pamphylian, Egyptian, Libyan, Cyrene, Latin, Cretan and Arabian (Acts 2:9-11).
Supportive Materials
Rather than quote and write about the same thing that Jon Gleason already wrote, I point you to his post on the subject of the continued inspiration of a translation. I will, however, reproduce two quotes from A. W. Pink he used:
The word “inspire” signifies to in-breathe, and breath is both the means and evidence of life; for as soon as a person ceases to breathe he is dead. The Word of God, then, is vitalized by the very life of God, and therefore it is a living Book. Men’s books are like themselves—dying creatures; but God’s Book is like Himself—it “lives and abides forever” (1 Peter 1:23). . . . .
The Holy Scriptures not only were “inspired of God,” but they are so now. They come as really and as truly God’s Word to us, as they did unto those to whom they were first addressed. In substantiation of what I have just said, it is striking to note “Therefore as the Holy Spirit says, Today if you will hear His voice, harden not your hearts” (Heb. 3:7, 8); and again, “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says (not “said”) unto the churches” (Rev. 2:7).
He also refers to a journal article, written in 1982 by Edward W. Goodrick that mirrors Pink and others who predated B. B. Warfield. You should also read the article by Thomas Ross, entitled “Thoughts On the Word Theopneustos, “given by inspiration of God” in 2 Timothy 3:16, and the Question of the Inspiration of the Authorized Version.” For many biblical reasons, one should consider an accurate translation of the preserved original text to be inspired and sacred scripture.
Conclusion
Because of erroneous views of double inspiration and English preservationism today, I advocate the terminology, “immediately inspired,” and just for more clarity, “derivative inspiration.” Perhaps best, one should say “given by inspiration of God” and then continued inspiration in preserved original texts and accurate translations of those texts. I consider the King James Version the inspired Word of God.
The Doctrine of Inspiration of Scripture and Translation (Part Three)
Statements for Consideration
Consider these three statements:
The King James Version is divinely inspired.
God immediately inspired the King James Version.
God gave the King James Version by inspiration.
Do all three have the same meaning? Are all three true? If not all three are true, then is any one of them?
I will answer these questions. To start, let’s read the first part of 2 Timothy 3:16 again: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God.” The King James Version translators (KJVT) translated the three Greek words: pasa graphe theopneustos. We have only this statement on inspiration, because it’s the only time theopneustos (“God breathed”) is found in the New Testament. Other passages elaborate or apply.
The Considerations from Scripture
God Breathed Out
2 Timothy 3:16 says God breathed out “scripture.” Inspiration applies in a technical and specific sense to these sacred writings that come from God. God inspired the product produced, not the men. Yes, 2 Peter 1:21 says “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” That doesn’t contradict the truth of 2 Timothy 3:16. It elaborates. Inspiration, however, applies to sacred scripture alone according to 2 Timothy 3:16.
Inspiration occurred when God breathed sacred scripture (graphe). Again, depending on the context, graphe (scripture) refers to inspired writing. It does in 2 Timothy 3:16.
The Exclusion of Two Statements Above
God breathed out all sacred scripture. The KJVT, and I agree, took pasa graphe theopneustos as ‘given by inspiration of God.’ When given, the sacred scriptures were either Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. That excludes the KJV from scripture given by inspiration of God. Therefore, that excludes two of the above statements:
God immediately inspired the King James Version.
God gave the King James Version by inspiration.
I’m saying these two statements are false ones. They are saying, I believe, the same thing, meaning “God inspired” and “God gave by inspiration” are the same [An early comment by Jon Gleason in the comment section explain the London Baptist Confession position of “immediate inspiration”].
To come clean at this moment, until now I never took it upon myself to come to sufficient, completed thinking on the exact subject of these posts. I’m not done considering it, but I have arrived at sufficient enough thought to write this post (the third in a series so far). A comment I wrote last week, I edited because it disagreed with what I am writing here.
God Immediately Inspired Some Translation
“Scripture Saith”
As of this moment, I believe God inspired some translation. Which translation did God inspire? He inspired at least these translations:
John 19:37, “And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.”
Romans 9:17, “For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.”
Romans 10:11, “For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.”
1 Timothy 5:18, “For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.”
James 4:5, “Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?”
God inspired all of these translations. . . . in their original Greek. He gave these by inspiration. In almost all of these, you are reading translations of translations, English translations of Greek translations from the Hebrew text. I use these specific verses because they say, “scripture saith.” If sacred scriptures say it, it means God said it.
“Have Ye Not Read Scripture?”
Jesus also used the language, “have ye not read this scripture”:
Mark 12:10-11, “And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner: This was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?”
He translated a copy of the Old Testament Psalm 118:22-23. He again calls a Greek translation of the Old Testament Hebrew, “scripture.” Jesus and the Apostles also did more than just translate. In anticipation of this question, I say that Jesus targummed. Even the dictionary definition of targum says:
an ancient paraphrase or interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, of a type made from about the 1st century AD when Hebrew was declining as a spoken language
God inspired everything in the New Testament, including Jesus’ interpolations inserted into a translation of an Old Testament text.
“Spoken By the Prophet”
Other examples apply. The New Testament often says the two words, “spoken by,” referring to translated Old Testament scripture:
Matthew 2:17-18, “Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.”
Matthew 27:35, “And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.”
Acts 2:16-21, “But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: . . . . . And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
Equating a Translation of a Copy with a Copy
Above are three of at least twenty “spoken by” passages in the New Testament. 1 Timothy 5:18 above gives unique information. Paul translates to Timothy an Old Testament text (Deuteronomy 25:4) and quotes a New Testament one (Luke 10:7), and he calls them both, “scripture.” He equates what we could call a translation of a copy of the Old Testament with a copy of the New Testament by calling them both, “scripture.”
Unlike what B. B. Warfield later asserted in his book on inspiration, copies are sacred scripture and accurate translations of copies are “scripture.” I contend, based upon 2 Timothy 3:16, that upon the completion of the canon, God did no more breathing out of translations. However, I also contend that accurate copies and accurate translations of those copies are in fact “scripture.” I also contend that these accurate copies and accurate translations are inspired. What God inspired, breathed out, remains inspired and breathed out. That occurs also with a translation in light of further New Testament elaboration.
The King James Version Is Divinely Inspired
Because of what I explain above, I believe one of the three statements, “The King James Version is divinely inspired.” I say that because it remains inspired. Insofar that the King James Version is an accurate translation of a perfectly preserved text, it is inspired by God. This is how anyone can say about the King James Version, it is the inspired Word of God.
I might disappoint some of you with the following. The King James Version is not the only inspired translation. Any accurate translation of a perfectly preserved copy is also inspired. When I say translation, I also mean translation into any language, not just English. That also means that if I sit down and do an accurate translation of a perfectly preserved copy, that too is inspired. If it is what God said, even in a translation, then it is also scripture.
No one translates today by inspiration of God. God by providence enables translation. He created language for translation. Verses above say a translation is scripture, so a translation of scripture can be scripture. An accurate translation of scripture is scripture. As scripture it remains inspired.
The Doctrine of Inspiration of Scripture and Translation (Part Two)
Support for the KJV
We know the King James Version translators (KJVT) in 2 Timothy 3:16 italicized “is” in “is given” because no verb exists in the text of that verse. They gave the verse a smoother reading, but they were also telling the reader that verb did not exist. That’s why they used the italics. I have no problem with what they did, and I’m not correcting it.
I like the KJVT translation of 2 Timothy 3:16. Even though they used eight English words to translate three Greek ones and they supplied “is” twice, I support all that. I like it and support it more than most of my critics, who might say I’m correcting the KJV. In fact, they correct the KJV. They also mangle 2 Timothy 3:16 and read into it something not said by God in the verse.
Gnomic Present
The KJVT wrote, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God.” They knew there were multiple usages of the present tense, one of them a “Gnomic Present.” Matthew 7:17 is an example of the Gnomic Present, which says, “Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.” The KJVT used the Gnomic Present in their translation of 2 Timothy 3:16.
The Gnomic Present expresses a general truth without reference to time. That perfectly communicates the three Greek words to begin 2 Timothy 3:16. That general truth is that all scripture, sacred scripture, is given by inspiration of God. That includes every word and all of them from Genesis to Revelation in the language in which they were written.
Here are some other general truths said in Gnomic fashion. No scripture is given in English. All scripture is given in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
Is Given By Inspiration of God
The canon of scripture closed with the last Greek word of the book of Revelation at the end of the first century AD. God stopped giving scripture. Jude characterizes scripture in Jude 1:3 as “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” “Once” means “once for all.” “Was delivered” is aorist tense, so completed action. “The faith” is the complete body of God’s truth, which Jesus says is sacred scripture (John 17:17). Once God completes delivering the faith, which He did with the book of Revelation, then it is over. That completed for all time all inspired writing delivered by God.
English wasn’t a language in the first century. God didn’t give any more sacred scripture after the first century. With the completion of sacred scripture, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek were the only languages in which God gave sacred scripture.
Notice that the KJVT write, “given.” Their translation says sacred scripture is given by inspiration. It is not translated by inspiration. Do you believe in the translation of 2 Timothy 3:16? Many seem to take an entirely different doctrine of inspiration of scripture than the KJVT did.
Not Changing Sacred Scripture
I’m not advocating changing a word in the KJV. However, if someone changes a word in the KJV, he is not changing sacred scripture. No one should charge him for that. He is changing a translation of sacred scripture. It is why the KJVT called their work, a “version.” It is a version. I quote the definition of “version” from the fabulous Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:
3. The act of translating; the rendering of thoughts or ideas expressed in one language, into words of like signification in another language. How long was Pope engaged in the version of Homer?
4. Translation; that which is rendered from another language. We have a good version of the Scriptures. There is a good version of Pentateuch in Samaritan.
The publishers of the Textus Receptus do not call it a “version.” It isn’t a translation. They call it Novum Testamentum, which is Latin for “New Testament.” Men translate from these Greek texts into the English and other languages.
Men changed the words of the King James Version in 1769. They didn’t change scripture. They changed the English translation of the same original language text. Scripture doesn’t change. Translations of scripture do change.
The Doctrine of Inspiration of Scripture and Translation
2 Timothy 3:16
Three Words
The classic location for the doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible is in 2 Timothy 3:16. It reads:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
The first part provides the doctrine, which says: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God.” Those eight words translate three Greek words: Pasa graphe theopneustos. Pasa is an adjective that means “all” and modifies the noun graphe, which means “writing” or “scripture.” For instance, the latter’s verb form, grapho, means, “I am writing.” BDAG says the verb means “to inscribe characters on a surface.” The noun refers to the characters inscribed on the surface of a writing material.
The Meaning of the Words
Graphe in a specific way refers to sacred scripture, depending on the context. It is a technical word for scripture. The Apostle Paul employs that technical usage in 2 Timothy 3:16.
Theopneustos is another adjective modifying graphe. It means literally, “God breathed.” The KJV translators translated that one adjective, “is given by inspiration of God.”
Some people use “is” as a reason to say that theopneustos functions like a present tense verb. They use the present tense to say that inspiration continues in a translation. Even the original Authorised Version printed “is” in italics to say it was not in the original text. The translators are communicating that they supplied the word “is.” No one should treat it like it is part of the original text.
Putting together the first three Greek words of 2 Timothy 3:16, “God breathed the characters inscribed on a surface.” It was not the men inspired. It was the writings inspired. God breathed out writings. What ended on the writing surface came from God.
Inspiration, Preservation, and Translation
God also preserved those words He breathed in the original manuscripts. The words He preserved are still the ones God breathed. They remain inspired.
When someone translates God’s inspired words into another language are those inspired? God did not breath out those words. However, if they are translated in an accurate way, a faithful manner, into the host language, those words have God’s breath in them.
The New Testament treats Greek words that translate well the Hebrew words of the Old Testament like they are the words of God. Jesus treats His Greek words of His translation of the Old Testament as if they are the Words of God. However, that doesn’t mean that God breaths out a translation. The former and the latter are two different actions or events.
False Views and the True One
It is important that a version of scripture translate the original language words in an accurate manner. The King James Version translators made an accurate translation of the original language text, both Old and New Testaments. God’s breath is in the translation. In that way we can call it inspired. However, God did not breath out English words. He did not breath out new English words later after breathing out Hebrew and Greek ones.
Part of why it is important to get inspiration and translation right is because of two false views. One is double inspiration. This says that God inspired the King James translation like He did the original manuscripts. Two is English preservation, where God apparently lost the original language words, so He preserved His words anew in the English language. Again, both those views are false.
2 Timothy 3:16 instructs people in the doctrine of inspiration. The only time that inspiration occurred was when holy men wrote the original manuscripts. God inspired every one of their words and all of them.
Ruth 3:15: “he” or “she” went into the city? 1611 & 1769 KJV
Ruth 3:15, in the widely-used 1769 revision of the King James Bible, reads:
“Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and she went into the city.”
However, the 1611 edition of the KJV reads:
“And he said, Bring the vaile that thou hast vpon thee, and holde it. And when she helde it, he measured sixe measures of barley, and laide it on her: and he went into the citie.”
Scrivener’s 1873 edition of the KJV likewise reads: “Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and he went into the city” (The Cambridge Paragraph Bible: Of the Authorized English Version [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1873], Ru 3:15.)
The New King James Version-which is not just a new King James Version, and which here does not follow the 1611 KJV’s reading-has “she”:
Also he said, “Bring the shawl that is on you and hold it.” And when she held it, he measured six ephahs of barley, and laid it on her. Then she went into the city. (NKJV)
Other modern Bible versions are likewise divided between “he” and “she.” For example, the NIV and NRSV read “he,” while the ESV, LSB, and NASB read “she.”
Which is correct? How do we know? We have discussed various features of the Hebrew Massoretic text on this blog before, such as whether the Hebrew of the name “Jehovah” hints at the incarnation of the Son of God. What do Hebrew manuscripts and Hebrew printed texts read? What about the LXX, the various editions of the Latin Vulgate, other ancient sources, and English Bibles before the KJV? The picture below, from the Hebrew Textus Receptus, the Masoretic text edited by the Hebrew Christian Jacob ben Chayyim, gives the answer (Matthew 5:18):
While both readings in Ruth 3:15 are doubtless factually accurate, since both Boaz and Ruth actually entered the city, the inspired reading, the one dictated by the Holy Spirit to the original penman of Scripture, is “he,” not “she.” Why? Please read my analysis of the passage in this link to find out, and feel free to comment upon it here (but please read it first before commenting). Thank you.
–TDR
Scripture Is Science
Science
The English word “science” occurs only once in the New Testament, referring to “science falsely so-called” (1 Tim 6:20). What is often called “science” really is “science falsely so-called.” What is science? Merriam-Webster online gives the following definitions:
1 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study
b : something (such as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
3 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws
4 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
“Science” translates gnosis in the King James Version, a Greek word that appears 29 times in the Greek Textus Receptus. Every other time, the KJV translators translated it “knowledge.” The English word “science” comes from the Latin scire, “to know,” and so science lays claim to knowledge. That doesn’t clash with definitions that I see for science in Merriam Webster, unless someone wanted to get more technical. I’m especially talking about the definition that includes obtaining and testing something with the scientific method.
Scripture Is Scientific?
In an earlier piece, I wrote, “Scripture is scientific.” After a friend challenged me, I changed that to, “Scripture is science.” I’m not sure I would want to call scripture, scientific, because that means something different. That is based on the principles and methods of science, which I don’t think is true of scripture.
One usage of gnosis is Colossians 2:3, which speaks of Jesus Christ, saying: “In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” Paul reveals that all the treasures of knowledge are in Jesus. Obviously Jesus knows everything, all mysteries and all knowledge (1 Corinthians 13:2). When we listen to Jesus, and He says nothing in scripture about something, it is less important than other knowledge. He still knows it all and gives whatever someone needs.
Is observation or the testing of the scientific method the only way of knowing what we know? Someone might challenge the Genesis account of creation as science, because it isn’t observable or testable. In that way, scripture isn’t scientific. However, if science is knowledge, can we say we know the origin of everything? I’m not saying, believe it, but know it. We do know it from reading Genesis 1. Scripture is science.
The Hearing of Faith
Scripture says a lot of “I know,” “we know,” and “ye know.” What scripture calls the “hearing of faith” (Galatians 3:2, 5) is knowledge. Faith comes by hearing the Word of God. Scripture is the superior means of knowledge and the basis of faith. What God says in His Word is always true. What God says, we know, because it is true. He wants us to believe what we know from scripture, and belief comes after knowing.
Abraham questioned God’s covenant because he and Sarah were childless and old. God reaffirmed His promise in Genesis 15:4-5, and Abraham “believed in the LORD” (Genesis 15:6). God “counted it to him for righteousness.” God promised, “I will make of thee a great nation” (Genesis 12:2) and “in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed” (Genesis 12:3).
Abraham questioned God in Genesis 15:1-2 because his empirical “knowledge” said “no children.” If he went to a doctor, a scientist of sorts, that doctor would say, “No on child birth for you and Sarah.” How would he know? After God spoke to Abraham, Abraham believed what He said. God counted it for righteousness. What God said was science.
Was Abraham righteous? Did he know that? Yes, because God said he was. When Abraham was to offer Isaac in Genesis 22, he would offer him. Why? Hebrews 11:19 explains. He knew God was able to raise Isaac up. He knew that. Is that science? Would an empiricist have raised the knife to sacrifice his son? God Himself also offered his own Son and raised Him up.
True Science
If one considers empiricism, Eve saw that the tree was good for food (Genesis 3:6). Scoffers in 2 Peter 3 thought highly of their knowledge, mocking the truth of the second coming. God prohibited the tree to Eve. And He promised the second coming. Those are knowledge. 2 Peter begins with this teaching on science (knowledge) [1:3]:
According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue
In Genesis 22:18 God said, “And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” The Apostle Paul comments on this promise from God in Galatians 3:16:
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Paul reports that “seed” is singular. It’s speaking of Christ, which parallels with Genesis 3:15:
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Incorporate Galatians 3:8 with the above:
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
God would justify the heathen through faith. The heathen would believe in the seed, that through the seed they shall be blessed. Their faith also counts for righteousness.
The way to blessing for the world is through Jesus Christ. That’s not what science says. Science says population decline, one world government, the center for disease control, and reducing emissions in farming. The hearing of faith proceeds from knowledge. Knowledge informs of the truth of eternal blessing.
10,000 Out of 10,000
God backs up scripture with mathematical probability. Everything He said would happen, happened. All that He says will happen, will happen. 100 out of 100. 1,000 out of 1,000. 10,000 out of 10,000. Nothing else brings that kind of record. We know what He says. It’s why the Apostle Paul could and should say (2 Timothy 1:12):
For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.
This isn’t a leap in the dark. We know. God holds us accountable, based upon knowledge.
Transcendent
Transcendental truth, goodness, and beauty are outside of what men call the “scientific method,” process, and peer consensus. Someone can know the transcendentals, but they come by means of the revelation of God. They are self-evident, because God revealed them. They dovetail with the miracles of the Bible. God upholds all things. He intervenes in what He made and according to His will or His purposes.
As one example, God commands us, “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth” (Ephesians 4:29), without informing us what corrupt communication is. The Lord assumes we know what it is. Some still deny it, but this is truth suppression. God reveals this knowledge and requires another hearing of faith.
Pleasing God requires knowledge. The knowledge informs the faith that pleases God. This is not a secret knowledge, but it won’t be found by those who refuse to seek it with their whole heart (Jeremiah 29:13-14).
Four Views On the Spectrum of Evangelicalism: A Book Review
I recently listened on Audible through the book Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism, contributors Kevin Bauder, R. Albert Mohler Jr., John G. Stackhouse Jr., and Roger E. Olson, series editor Stanley N. Gundry, gen eds. Andrew David Naselli & Collin Hansen (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011). The four views presented are:
Fundamentalism: Kevin Bauder
Confessional Evangelicalism, R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
Generic Evangelicalism, John G. Stackhouse, Jr.
Postconservative Evangelicalism, Roger E. Olson
When I listen through a book on Audible I usually listen through twice, since it is easier to miss things when listening to a book than it is when reading one.
For most of the book, I was cheering for Kevin Bauder, for reasons which will be clear below.
Let the Wolves In!
Roger Olson’s View
Beginning with the bad people who are fine letting the wolves in: Roger Olson argues that “inerrancy cannot be regarded as necessary to being authentically evangelical. It is what theologians call adiaphora–a nonessential belief” (pg. 165). What is more, “open theists [are] not heretical” (pg. 185). Evangelicals do not need to believe in penal substitution: “there is no single evangelical theory of the atonement. While the penal substitution theory (that Christ bore the punishment for sins in the place of sinners) may be normal, it could hardly be said to be normative” (pg. 183). However, fundamentalism is “orthodoxy gone cultic” (pg. 67). Deny Christ died in your place, think God doesn’t know the future perfectly, and think the Bible is full of errors? No problem. Let a Oneness Pentecostal, anti-Trinitarian “church” in to the National Association of Evangelicals (pg. 178)? Great! Be a fundamentalist? Your are cultic.
Summary: While Christ says His sheep hear His voice, and Scripture unambiguously teaches its infallible and inerrant inspiration (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:16-21) as the Word of the God who cannot lie, and penal substitution is at the heart of the gospel, Dr. Olson thinks one can deny these things and not only be a Christian but be an evangelical. Let in the heretics and the wolves!
Let Some of the Wolves In!
John Stackhouse’s View
John G. Stackhouse, Jr. is only slightly more conservative than Dr. Olson. For Dr. Stackhouse, “open theists are, to my knowledge, genuine evangelicals” (pg. 132). No! But at least anti-Trinitarian Oneness Pentecostals who have a false god, a false gospel, and are going to hell are not evangelicals (pg. 204). Does something so obvious even deserve a “Yay”?
What about penal substitution? “substitutionary atonement is a nonnegotiable part of the Christian understanding of salvation, and evangelicals do well to keep teaching it clearly and enthusiastically” (pg. 136). One cheer for Dr. Stackhouse. But then he goes on:
But suppose somebody doesn’t teach it? Does that make him or her not an evangelical? According to the definition I have been using, such a person might well still be an evangelical. Indeed, the discussion in this section takes for granted that some (genuine) evangelicals are uneasy about substitutionary atonement, and a few even hostile to that idea. But they remain evangelicals nonetheless: still putting Christ and the cross in the center, still drawing from Scripture and testing everything by it, still concerned for sound and thorough conversion, still active in working with God in his mission, and still cooperating with evangelicals of other stripes. Evangelicals who diminish or dismiss substitutionary atonement seem to me to be in the same camp as my evangelical brothers and sisters who espouse open theism: truly evangelicals, and truly wrong about something important. (pgs. 136-137)
So the one cheer quickly is replaced by gasps for air and a shocked silence, as the heretics and the wolves come right back in again. Dr. Bauder does a good job responding to and demolishing these justifications of apostasy and false religion.
Write Thoughtful Essays Showing that the Wolves Need Critique, but
Let the World and the Flesh In and Don’t Be A Fundamentalist Separatist:
Al Mohler’s View
R. Albert Mohler, Jr. calls his view “Confessional Evangelicalism,” although he never cites any Baptist or any other confession of faith in his essay. He thinks you do actually need to believe Christ died in your place, open theism is unacceptable, and an inerrant Bible is something worth standing for (1.5 cheers for Dr. Mohler, led by very immodestly dressed Southern Baptist cheerleaders who know that God made them male and female, not trans). However, Dr. Mohler does not believe in anything close to a Biblical doctrine of ecclesiastical separation. His Southern Baptist denomination is full of leaven that is corrupting the whole lump. His ecclesiastical polity is like the Biden administration on the USA’s southern border–claiming that there are a few barriers that keep out people who are trying to creep in unawares while millions of illegals come pouring in with a nod and a wink.
Dr. Bauder makes some legitimate criticisms of Dr. Mohler, while also being much more cozy with him than John the Baptist or the Apostles would have been. Dr. Bauder says that Mohler is “doing a good work, and that work would be hindered if I were to lend credibility to the accusation that he is a fundamentalist” (pg. 97). That is Bauder’s view of the false worship, the huge number of unregenerate church members, the spiritual deadness, the doctrinal confusion, and the gross disobedience in the Southern Baptist Convention. Hurray? Dr. Bauder’s discussion is not how the first century churches would have worked with disboedient brethren (2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14).
Separate From the Wolves, but Not From Disobedient Sheep:
Kevin Bauder’s “Mainstream Fundamentalist” View
Kevin Bauder is a self-identified “historic fundamentalist.” (But what if there never was a unified “historic fundamentalism”?) He is the only one of the four contributors who actually thinks that ecclesiastical separation needs to take place. So two cheers for Dr. Bauder! Bauder argues: “the gospel is the essential ground of all genuinely Christian unity. Where the gospel is denied, no such unity exists” (pg. 23). Therefore, “Profession of the gospel is the minimum requirement for visible Christian fellowship. The gospel is the boundary of Christian fellowship” (pg. 25). Bauder does a good job showing that people must separate from those who deny the gospel, or those who fellowship with those who deny the gospel. Two more cheers for Bauder.
However, Bauder warns about what he calls “hyper-fundamentalism,” which is actually Biblically consistent separatism (and which gets no voice to defend itself in this book). He has strong words for the “hyper-fundamentalists”–stronger than the way he voices his disagreements with Mohler:
One version of fundamentalism goes well beyond the idea that I summarized earlier in this essay. It could be called hyper-fundamentalism. Hyper-fundamentalism exists in a variety of forms. … [H]yper-fundamentalists sometimes adopt a militant stance regarding some extrabiblical or even antibiblical teaching. For example, many professing fundamentalists are committed to a theory of textual preservation and biblical translation that leaves the King James Version as the only acceptable English Bible. When individuals become militant over such nonbiblical teachings, they cross the line into hyper-fundamentalism. … [H]yper-fundamentalists understand separation in terms of guilt by association. To associate with someone who holds any error constitutes an endorsement of that error. Persons who hold error are objects of separation, and so are persons who associate with them. … [H]yper-fundamentalists sometimes turn nonessentials into tests of fundamentalism. For example, some hyper-fundamentalists assume that only Baptists should be recognized as fundamentalists. Others make the same assumption about dispensationalists, defining covenant theologians out of fundamentalism. Others elevate extrabiblical personal practices. One’s fundamentalist standing may be judged by such criteria as hair length, musical preferences, and whether one allows women to wear trousers. … Hyper-fundamentalism takes many forms, including some that I have not listed. Nevertheless, these are the forms that are most frequently encountered. When a version of fundamentalism bears one or more of these marks, it should be viewed as hyper-fundamentalist. It is worth noting that several of these marks can also be found in other versions of evangelicalism.
Hyper-fundamentalism is not fundamentalism. It is as a parasite on the fundamentalist movement. … Mainstream fundamentalists find themselves in a changing situation. One factor is that what was once the mainstream may no longer be the majority within self-identified fundamentalism. A growing proportion is composed of hyper-fundamentalists, who add something to the gospel as the boundary of minimal Christian fellowship. If the idea of fundamentalism is correct, then this error is as bad as dethroning the gospel from its position as the boundary.
Another factor is that some evangelicals have implemented aspects of the idea of fundamentalism, perhaps without realizing it. For example, both Wayne Grudem and Albert Mohler (among others) have authored essays that reverberate with fundamentalist ideas. More than that, they and other conservative evangelicals have put their ideas into action, seeking doctrinal boundaries in the Evangelical Theological Society and purging Southern Baptist institutions.
Mainstream fundamentalists are coming to the conclusion that they must distance themselves from hyper-fundamentalists, and they are displaying a new openness to conversation and even some cooperation with conservative evangelicals. Younger fundamentalists in particular are sensitive to the inconsistency of limiting fellowship to their left but not to their right. (pgs. 43-45)
By Bauder’s definition, the first century churches would have been “hyper-fundamentalist” parasites. (Note that Bauder also makes claims such as: “Some hyper-fundamentalists view education as detrimental to spiritual well-being” [pg. 44]. There is probably a guy named John somewhere in a “hyper-fundamentalist” church that thinks education is a sin, and there is also probably a lady named Mary in a neo-evangelical church who thinks the same thing, and a big burly fellow named Mat in a post-conservative church who agrees with them, but nothing further about these sorts of claims by Bauder needs further comment. So we return to something more serious.) Do you separate over more than just the gospel? Do you, for example, separate over men who refuse to work and care for their families (2 Thess 3:6-14)? You are a parasite, just as bad, if not worse, than people who do not separate at all. Do you separate over false worship (“musical styles” to Bauder), since God burned people up for offering Him strange fire (Lev 10:1ff)? You are bad–very, very bad. Let the strange fire right in to the New Testament holy of holies (1 Corinthians 3:16-17)!–even though God says He will “destroy” those who do such a wicked thing. Do you take a stand for the perfect preservation of Scripture–as did men like George S. Bishop, one of the contributors to The Fundamentals (see, e. g., George S. Bishop, The Fundamentals: “The Testimony of the Scriptures to Themselves,” vol. 2:4 [Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2005], 80ff.)? You King James Only parasite! Do you seek to follow the Apostle Paul and the godly preacher Timothy, and allow “no other doctrine” in the church–not just “no other gospel,” but “no other doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:3)? Do you repudiate Dr. Bauder’s schema of levels of fellowship to seek what Scripture defines as unity: “that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Corinthians 1:10)? You are bad–very, very bad. You should be rejected, and we should join hands, instead, with evangelicals like Mohler who write essays that we “reverberate” with while they work in a Southern Baptist Convention teeming with unregenerate preachers and church members which almost never obeys Matthew 18:15-20 and practices church discipline. If you think Scripture is not kidding when it says men with long hair or women with short hair is a “shame” (1 Corinthians 11:1-16), or you do not want the women in your church to be an “abomination” (Deuteronomy 22:5) by wearing men’s clothing like pants, then you are certainly, certainly beyond the pale. Corruptions in our culture do not matter-let them into what should be Christ’s pure bride! Everyone knows that the loving thing to do is to allow half the congregation to be an abomination so that they can fit in with our worldly, hell-bound culture.
Dr. Bauder at least says one should separate over the gospel, and he does a good job proving that Scripture requires churches to do that. He has numbers of effective critiques of positions to his left. He clearly has studied history and is a thinker. But he does not present a Biblical case for consistent separatism-very possibly because consistent ecclesiastical separation is only possible when one rejects universal “church” ecclesiology for local-only or Landmark Baptist ecclesiology, and views the local assembly as the locus for organizational unity, while Bauder believes in a universal “church” and must somehow accomodate Scripture’s commands for unity in the body of Christ to that non-extant entity. As the book A Pure Church: A Biblical Theology of Ecclesiastical Separation demonstrates, churches must separate from all unrepentant and continuing disobedience, not just separate over the gospel. Dr. Bauder’s view is insufficient. Furthermore, his critique of what he labels “hyper-fundamentalism” is inconsistent. If the “hyper-fundamentalists” do things like separate too much and take stands for pure worship, are they thereby denying the gospel? If not, why does Bauder think they should be repudiated and separated from?
One other important point: some of those who would repudiate Dr. Bauder’s view as too weak are themselves to his left, not his right. For example, the King James Bible Research Council and the Dean Burgon Society, prominent King James Only advocacy organizations that would claim to be militant fundamentalists, are willing to fellowship with anti-repentance, anti-Lordship, anti-Christ (for does not “Christ” mean “the Messiah, the King, the Lord”?) advocates of heresy on the gospel as advocated by Jack Hyles, Curtis Hudson and the Sword of the Lord, and the so-called “free grace” movement of Zane Hodges. Fundamentalist schools that stand for gender-distinction and conservative worship, such as Baptist College of Ministry in Menomonee Falls, WI, are willing to fellowship with people who believe the truth on repentance and the gospel as well as with anti-repentance heretics at Hyles Anderson College and First Baptist (?) Church (?) of Hammond, Indiana like John Wilkerson. If you think Kevin Bauder’s Central Baptist Seminary is too weak, but you yourself do not separate even over the gospel, but tolerate false views of repentance or other heresies on the gospel that Paul would not have tolerated for one hour (Galatians 1:6-9, 2:5), you need to reconsider your position.
Take a stand–follow God. Allow “no other doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:3). Separate not just on the gospel, but from all unfruitful works of darkness (Ephesians 5:11). You may be excluded from the book Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism, with its more liberal contributors viewing you as “cultic” and the most conservative contributor viewing you as a “parasite” and a “hyper-fundamentalist,” but that is fine-God your adopted Father, Christ your gracious Redeemer, and the blessed Holy Spirit, who has made your body and your congregation into His holy temple, will be pleased. The needy sheep in your flock who had a faithful pastor will embrace you and thank you as they shine like the sun in the coming glorious kingdom, as you led them to faithfulness to Christ and a full reward, instead of compromise. If Christ does not return first, your church may, by God’s grace, continue to pass on the truth and to multiply other true churches for centuries, instead of falling into apostasy because of a sinful failure to consistently practice Biblical separation.
Get off the spectrum of evangelicalism entirely and follow Scripture alone for the glory of God alone in a separatist, Bible-believing and practicing Baptist church. You will be opposed now, but God will be glorified, and it will be worth it all, when we see Jesus.
–TDR
Note: Links to Amazon are affiliate links.
Peter Ruckman, KJV Only Blasphemer
Peter Ruckman, the notorious King James Only advocate, is a blasphemer.
Why do I say this? I have never read a book by Peter Ruckman from cover to cover. I tried reading one years ago but it was too vitriolic for me; I felt defiled reading it, so I stopped. Now recently I had the privilege of debating evangelical apologist James White on the topic of whether the King James Version and the Textus Receptus are superior to the Legacy Standard Bible and the Textus Rejectus. In James White’s King James Only Controversy he painted the moderate mainstream of KJV-Onlyism with such astonishing inaccuracy. James White makes arguments such as (speaking about the translation Lucifer for Satan in Isaiah 14:12): “The term Lucifer, which came into the biblical tradition through the translation of Jerome’s Vulgate, has become … entrenched … [y]et a person who stops for a moment of calm reflection might ask, ‘Why should I believe Jerome was inspired to insert this term at this point? Do I have a good reason for believing this?’”[1] Dr. White argues: “Anyone who believes the TR to be infallible must believe that Erasmus, and the other men who later edited the same text in their own editions (Stephanus and Beza), were somehow ‘inspired.’”[2] Of course, White provides no sources at all for any King James Only advocate who has ever claimed that Jerome, Stephanus, Beza, or Erasmus were inspired, since no such sources exist. As I pointed out in the debate, Dr. White makes bonkers claims like that KJV-only people think Abraham and Moses actually spoke English (again, of course, totally without any documentation of such people even existing).
Thus, James White’s astonishing inaccuracies made me wonder if he is even representing Peter Ruckman accurately. I have no sympathy for Peter Ruckman’s peculiar doctrines—as the godly, non-nutty, serious thinker and KJV Only advocate David Cloud has explained in his good book What About Ruckman?, Peter Ruckman is a heretic. I am 100% opposed to Ruckman’s heretical, gospel-corrupting teaching that salvation was by works in the Old Testament and will be by works in the Millennium. It makes me wonder if Ruckman was truly converted, or if he was an example of what was often warned about in the First Great Awakening by George Whitfield and others, namely, “The Dangers of an Unconverted Ministry.” I am 100% opposed to Ruckman’s disgraceful lifestyle that led him to be disqualified to pastor. I am 100% opposed to his ungodly language, to his wicked racism, to his wacky conspiracy theories, and to his unbiblical extremism on the English of the KJV. At the same time, however opposed I am to him, as a Christian I am still duty-bound to attempt to represent his position accurately. The way Dr. White badly misrepresented the large moderate majority of KJV-Onlyism made me wonder if James also misrepresented Dr. Ruckman.
As a result, I acquired a copy of Ruckman’s response to James White’s King James Only Controversy, a book called The Scholarship Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Professional Liars? (Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 2000). The title page claims: “This book exposes the most cockeyed piece of amateur scholarship that ever came out of Howash University.” Based on the title, it was already evident that I would be in for a quite painful and dreary time going through the book, but God is a God of truth, and nobody, not even Peter Ruckman, should be misrepresented by a Christian. Christians must be truthful like their God, who cannot lie (Titus 1:2).
While Christians should not misrepresent anyone, I found it hard to cut through the slander and hyperbole and bloviations in Ruckman’s book as I attempted to get to something substantial. Ruckman can say things such as: “Irenaeus quotes the AV one time and the NASV one time. … Eusebius (later) quotes the King James Bible four times and the NASV once” (pg. 117). Peter Ruckman has an earned Ph. D. from Bob Jones University. He knows that the NASV and the KJV/AV did not exist when Irenaeus and Eusebius lived. He knows that the English language did not yet exist. (I wonder if James White’s completely undocumented affirmation in his King James Only Controversy—which he also declined to prove any support for at all in our debate—that some KJV-only advocates believe that Abraham and Moses spoke English derives from a misunderstanding some Nestle-Aland advocate had with a Ruckmanite who followed his leader in making outlandish verbal statements, and those outlandish verbal statements became, in James White’s mind, a real group of people who actually thought that the Old Testament prophets spoke English, although he has no evidence such a group ever existed, somewhat comparable to Ruckman saying that Irenaeus and Eusebius quoted the Authorized Version and the New American Standard Version.) Of course, at this point I am speculating on something that I should not have to speculate upon, since James White has had decades to provide real documentation of these KJV-only groups who allegedly think English was the language spoken in ancient Israel, but he has not done so.
I did discover something that made me wonder if the statement White quotes about Ruckman and advanced revelation in English were similar exaggerations. Note the following from Ruckman’s book, on the first two pages:
“Scholarship Onlyism” is much easier to define than the mysterious “King James Onlyism.” For example, while “using” (a standard Alexandrian cliche) the Authorized Version (1611), I recommend Tyndale’s version (1534), The Great Bible (1539), The Geneva Bible (1560), Valera’s Spanish version (1596), Martin Luther’s German version (1534), and a number of others. Here at Pensacola Bible Institute, our students “use” (the old Alexandrian cliche) from twenty-eight to thirty- two English versions, including the RV, RSV, NRSV, ASV, NASV, Today’s English Version [TEV], New English Bible [NEB], New World Translation, [NWT], NIV, and NKJV. Our brand of “King James Onlyism” is not the kind that it is reported to be. We believe that the Authorized Version of the English Protestant Reformation is the “Scriptures” in English, and as such, it is inerrant until the alleged “errors” in it have been proved “beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt” to be errors. Until such a time, we assume that it is a perfect translation. No sane person, who was not criminally minded, would take any other position. In a court of law, the “accused” is “innocent until proven guilty” (i.e., O. J. Simpson) … Since not one apostate Fundamentalist (or Conservative) in one hundred and fifty years has yet been able to prove one error in the Book we hold in our hands (which happens to be written in the universal language of the end time), we assume it is the last Bible God intends to give mankind before the Second Advent. God has graciously preserved its authority and infallibility in spite of “godly, qualified, recognized scholars” in the Laodicean period of apostasy (1900-1990), so we consider it to be the final authority in “all matters of faith and practice.” We go a little beyond this, and believe it to be the final authority in all matters of Scholarship. That is what “bugs the tar” (Koine, American) and “beats the fire” (Koine, American) out of the Scholarship Only advocates who are in love with their own intellects.[3]
Notice that Ruckman himself “recommends” Bibles other than the KJV, such as the Tyndale, Geneva, and Textus Receptus based foreign language Bibles. At least in this quotation, he does not say God re-inspired the Bible in 1611, but he says that the translation should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, as is proper in a court of law. That is a much more moderate position than James White attributes to him.
So is it possible that the extreme statements James White quotes on pg. 27 of The King James Only Controversy are hyperbole on Ruckman’s part? (Ruckman has plenty of hyperbole—even in the quotation above, I cut out a weird statement he made about David Koresh.) I cannot prove that James White was deliberately misrepresenting Ruckman—Ruckman’s style is too bizarre for one to easily determine what he actually means (another of many, many reasons why I cannot and do not recommend that you read any of his books). However, from this statement we can see that if one wishes to prove that Ruckman actually believes something it is important to be very careful, as he not only makes large numbers of uncharitable and nutty attacks on others, but many hyperbolic statements.
Unfortunately, as years ago I was not able to finish a Ruckman book because it was bursting with carnality, so this time I was not able to finish Ruckman’s critique of James White’s King James Only Controversy because it was not just carnal, but blasphemous. On page 81 Ruckman takes God’s name in vain, reprinting the common curse phrase “Oh my G—” in his book. A search of its electronic text uncovers that Ruckman blasphemes again on page 269, 308, 312, 452 & 460. He could do so elsewhere as well, but those statements are enough, and I am not excited about searching for and discovering blasphemy. The Bible says: “I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me. A froward heart shall depart from me: I will not know a wicked person.” (Psalm 101:3-4). If we were living in the Old Testament theocracy, Peter Ruckman would be stoned to death for blasphemy. We are not in the Old Testament theocracy, but His blasphemous language is still disgusting, abominable, and wicked in the sight of the holy God. That someone who claimed to be a Christian preacher would write such wickedness is even more disgusting. Ruckman was a “Baptist” the way Judas or Diotrephes or Jezebel was a Baptist. He would be subject to church discipline if he snuck in unawares and became a member of our church.
So did James White misrepresent Peter Ruckman? White’s representation of the non-wacko large majority of KJV-onlyism was far from accurate, so I wondered if he even got Ruckman right. From what I read of Ruckman’s book before Ruckman started to blaspheme, I thought it was possible that James White did not even get Ruckman right, although with Ruckman’s pages bursting with carnality and total weirdness I could see why getting Ruckman wrong would be easy to do. I am unable to determine definitively one way or the other whether James White was accurate on Peter Ruckman’s position (or if Ruckman himself was even consistent in explaining himself) since I am not going to read a book by someone who breaks the Third Commandment while claiming to be a Baptist preacher. That is disgusting to me, and ineffably more disgusting to the holy, holy, holy God. Ruckman’s critique of James White’s book deserves to go in the trash, where its filthy language belongs.
I do not recommend James White’s King James Only Controversy because it does not base itself on God’s revealed promises of preservation and because of its many inaccuracies. I do not recommend Peter Ruckman’s critique of James White’s King James Only Controvesy because it is not only weird and carnal, but repeatedly blasphemous. Certainly for a new Christian, and possibly for a mature one, the recycle bin could well be the best place for both volumes.
–TDR
[1] James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009), 180–181.
[2] James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009), 96.
[3] Peter Ruckman, The Scholarship Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Professional Liars? (Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 2000), 1-2.
The White-Ross Debate: Who Won?
Watch the Debate
White and Ross Arguments
White’s Presentation
In mid-February, James White debated Thomas Ross about which was better, the Legacy Standard Bible (LSB) or the King James Version (KJV). White argues with an entirely naturalistic presupposition, saying that only manuscript evidence shows the underlying text of the KJV, the Textus Receptus (TR), is worse than that of the LSB, the Nestles Aland critical text (NA). Furthermore, he says the KJV uses archaic words and has less information for an accurate translation of certain technical words. He also tries to demonstrate some translation errors in the KJV, not in the LSB.
Ross’s Scriptural Presuppositions
Ross argues with a scriptural presupposition. The TR is superior to the NA based on the doctrine of preservation. The TR meets God’s promises of preservation in His Word. Ross asserts and then proves that scripture teaches verbal plenary original language preservation by means of true churches for every generation of believers. He also shows this identical teaching is the historical position clearly believed by the church, relying on the same passages. The NA is absent from its confessions or published materials. The TR only fits a scriptural and historical presupposition.
On the other hand, Ross shows that we know that the NA text was not in use for at least 1000 years. That isn’t preservation. Founders and proponents of the critical text, such as Wescott and Hort, deny the scriptural and historical doctrine of preservation. Like White, they take an only naturalistic presupposition and method. This alone is enough to say the TR/KJV is superior to the NA/LSB, because the latter does not proceed from biblical presuppositions or methods.
Naturalistic, Manuscript Evidence
Conjectural Emendations
In addition, even using naturalistic means, the sole criteria of White, Ross shows the NA is inferior to the TR. Ross gives evidence that the editors of the NA 27th edition, the underlying text for the LSB, used over 100 “explicit conjectural emendations.” He provides two examples of this in Acts 16:12 and 2 Peter 3:10. This debunks the one apparent example of conjectural emendation in the TR in Revelation 16:5.
Over 100 conjectural emendations is worse than the one example of White. Reader, do you understand the truth here? It’s a hypocritical argument that doesn’t work. Please do not give a blind eye to this out of sheer loyalty to White and his winning a debate. This is the truth. It shouldn’t matter how fast Thomas Ross said it. Speaking fast is a red herring as an argument.
No Manuscript Evidence
White asserts no manuscript evidence for one NT reading, the one in Revelation 16:5. He says there is light evidence for one word in Ephesians 3:9 and the Comma Johanneum in 1 John 5:7. Ross shows there is no manuscript evidence for at least 41 separate lines of text in the NA, evidenced by Swanson in his New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Variant Readings Arranged in Horizontal Lines against Codex Vaticanus. None of this occurs in the TR. Based on the ratio of Matthew and Mark text to the rest of the New Testament, that would result in 191 total for the NT.
How could textual critics publish a text like described? Even as a so-called science, textual critics don’t see their work as a science at all. Ross quotes this from Metzger and Ehrman in their foremost book on textual criticism. They don’t see anyone able to refer to the text as an original text. This strongly contradicts the position of the church based on biblical presuppositions. Ross quotes White himself in his debate with Douglas Wilson, that we will never have a certain text.
On the issue of the text alone, Ross blows away White. The TR is by far a superior text. When White mentions the papyri, Ross shows him the earliest, P52, a piece of the gospel of John that is identical to the TR. After praising the papyri, White changes tunes and says that it was a very small fragment, attempting to have it both ways. Relying on Pickering and Hoskier, Ross shows how that there are long sections of identical readings of the TR in the manuscripts. He includes photos of these.
White Attacks on Ross
White tries to attack the KJV by bringing up one possible conjectural emendation, one for which apparently Beza says he had a manuscript. One word in Ephesians 3:9 has limited manuscript support. He attacks the TR reading in 1 John 5:7. White doesn’t rely on scriptural presuppositions. Counting manuscripts and their age, that’s what he’s got. This is not how believers approached this issue. White himself says that the NA wasn’t available for hundreds of years. He speaks like this is a good thing. It is an obvious admittance, that Ross pointed out, that God did not preserve his text.
To be honest, White should accede to the Ross argument about no manuscript evidence for NA readings in 41 places in Matthew and Mark. Instead, he starts talking like they don’t matter for the translation. This shows a double standard. He attacks the TR in Revelation 16:5, one place, and excuses 41 places. He even apologizes for the NA27, the basis of the LSB, what he’s trying to defend in the debate. White says he doesn’t trust the editors, but he does his own textual criticism.
The Translation Issue
White spends some time on the translation issue. Ross answered him. The Granville Sharp rule doesn’t hurt the translation of the KJV in Titus 2:13. The LSB is fine there. Ross makes the point that Jude 1:4 fits the Granville Sharp in the KJV, while in the LSB, it does not. That point received crickets from White. Relating to the lexical issue of technical terms, Ross says that they’re still difficult to understand for identifying what those animals and minerals were. The lexical aids can help in understanding, but they do not resolve this issue in either the KJV and LSB.
Ross and White spent time discussing the translation of the Hebrew of Yawheh or Jehovah (or LORD) in the Old Testament. Ross referred to the pronunciation of the vowel points, a fine argument. Ross also gave a good answer on “servant” or “slave.” The Hebrew word is not always our modern understanding of “slave.”
Other Problems for White
White said he believed we have all the words in all of the manuscript evidence, and yet he contradicts himself in 1 Samuel 13:1, pointed out by Ross. White doesn’t believe there is a manuscript with the wording of that verse. I guess people don’t care about that contradiction. He doesn’t believe in preservation, we know that from his Douglas Wilson answer, exposed by Ross in the debate.
As well, White referred to a Hebrews reference to the prophet Jeremiah. He said the author quoted the Greek Septuagint, essentially arguing that the author of Hebrews and then Jesus in the Gospels used a corrupt text. Modern critical text advocates use this Septuagint argument as a kind of scriptural presupposition.
Ross gave White a good answer on the Septuagint question, referring to the theology of John Owen. Owen answered this point in his writings. He also quoted the introduction of a standard academic text on the Septuagint by Jobes and Silva, taking the same position as Owen espoused. This debunks the false view that Jesus and other NT authors would have quoted a terribly corrupted text and translation of the Old Testament.
Style Points?
In the end, White had to attack Thomas Ross for his style, reading too fast and having too many slides. Come on. Keep it to the subject at hand. Easily, someone could attack White for style. White broad brushes TR and King James supporters with inflammatory language all the time. When Ross shook his hand at the end and gave him a book, White sat there looking disdainful. White attacked his character after the debate, saying he was showing off. He almost always name-drops and mentions his debate of Bart Ehrman and his 180 debates as automatic winning credentials.
In the comment section of the videos, people attack Ross for mentioning winning the debate. They are debating. If White won, his followers would say this again and again. It’s a picky criticism. There is criteria for a debate. Ross negates the affirmative of White and puts him on the defensive. That’s the definition of winning a debate.
Answering Questions
Some people have said that Ross didn’t answer White’s questions. I ask them, which did he not answer? They are silent. White, attacking Ross for perfect preservation, something the debate wasn’t about, tries to catch Ross in a gotcha moment by asking about Revelation 16:5. Ross says that he sympathizes with Beza’s having a manuscript with the word there. That is an answer.
White asks Ross if the King James translators could have done a better job in Acts 5:30. Ross said they were both fine, but KJV wasn’t wrong. That is an answer too. Like Ross, I believe the KJV is an accurate translation. That doesn’t mean I or he wouldn’t translate it differently.
On sheer content alone, Ross crushed White in this debate. He wins because of his scriptural presuppositions. The Bible is the truth. Where the Bible speaks, that is reality. Anything that contradicts it is false. Even on the evidence, Ross won, because based on White criteria, he showed the NA had weak to no manuscript evidence. White tried to avoid this, just by saying that Ross misrepresented the evidence. Ross didn’t. White was not prepared for this argument. It’s not going to change either, because that evidence is still true.
Recent Comments