Home » Search results for 'king james version' (Page 14)
Search Results for: king james version
The Trinitarian Bible Society and Its Position on Scripture
Four days ago the Trinitarian Bible Society launched this video, called, “Upholding the Word of God.”
I appreciate their stand on scripture. What they present is what, I believe, many Christians across the world say they believe. What the above video explains is also why they believe it.
Scriptural Presuppositions
The Trinitarian Bible Society starts with scriptural presuppositions. Their practice of Bible publication arises from their biblical beliefs about the Bible. This is how it should be. It’s also what we do not see with those on the critical text side. They do not emphasize or most often even teach at all what is the scriptural basis of their position. Their position does not have a biblical mooring.
Someone who appears and speaks often in the above video is Jonathan Arnold, who is also pastor of the Westminster Baptist Church in London. My wife and I visited that church twice on trips to England. I appreciate this younger man’s stand on the Word of God in a time of much attack on the doctrine of scripture. He is now the General Director of the Trinitarian Bible Society.
Many pastors across the world use the Greek New Testament, textus receptus, printed by the Trinitarian Bible Society. They also print an entire original language Bible in the received text of the Old (Hebrew) and New (Greek) Testaments.
Separatist Heritage
The Trinitarian Bible Society is by history and, therefore, by definition a separatist organization. It started from a split from the British and Foreign Bible Society over spreading Unitarianism, hence, Trinitarian, and over scripture, therefore, Bible. As an indication of how significant people thought that was, two thousand gathered for the first meeting at Exeter Hall in London in 1831. Could they get that many to gather for that separatist purpose today?
The British and Foreign Bible Society allowed a Unitarian as an officer. Unitarian at the time became the doctrinal position du jour. It’s a familiar theological term now, unitarian, but it really does encapsulate almost every major theology error in the history of heresy. It was essentially Socinianism, which taught works salvation and anti-Trinitarianism. Unitarians denied not only the deity of Christ but also the miracles of the Bible. They did away of the authority of scripture.
For a long period of time, we would call Socinianism or Unitarianism theological liberalism. Most liberal churches in whatever denomination are Socinians or Unitarians. In many ways, we would say they don’t believe anything. They are drawn together by their denial of scriptural and historical doctrine, which is to say, they deny the truth.
Overall
I have attended many churches affiliated with the Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS) in England. Some strong churches exist who would not fellowship with the Trinitarian Bible Society, but very few. A majority of the strongest churches in England, where the best representation of New Testament Christianity exists, associate themselves with the TBS. This says much about the outcome or consequences of the received text of the original languages of scripture and the King James Version, which these churches support and propagate.
I differ from most of these Trinitarian Bible Society affiliated institutions in ecclesiology, eschatology, and dispensationalism versus covenant theology. That saddens me, but it does not take away the joy I have for what they do believe. I rejoice in that. I have more in common with these churches than I do most other Baptist churches today.
The churches affiliated with the Trinitarian Bible Society believe an orthodox, true position on the Trinity and about the Lord Jesus Christ. They preach a true gospel, including repentance and Lordship. TBS type churches utilize reverent worship. They are active in their evangelism of the lost. Their churches are not worldly churches. Their preaching of scripture is dense and thorough. They rely on scripture for their success. I am not saying these doctrines and practices are all that matter, but they do distinguish the Trinitarian Bible Society affiliated churches.
Objections to Christians Learning Hebrew and Greek (7/7)
Post six in this series examined five common objections to Christians learning Greek and Hebrew. Part six followed the first five blog posts summarizing Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew, the Biblical Languages, which explained the value of learning the Biblical languages and explained that the languages are not too difficult to learn–indeed, Biblical Greek and Hebrew are easier languages to learn than modern English. This final post will examine some remaining common objections, #6-12 on pages 57-68 of Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew, the Biblical Languages.
6.) “The many computer tools and other study helps available today make knowledge of the original languages superfluous.”
Computer tools are certainly very valuable. However, they do not come close to eliminating the value of learning the languages themselves. Furthermore, the Christian who does not know Greek or Hebrew runs the serious risk of misunderstanding what his computer Bible software is telling him.
7.) “People have gone to big-name seminaries, learned Greek and Hebrew, and come back full of doctrinal compromise.”
Sadly, this has certainly happened. But it has been the consequence of compromise in the seminary and in the sinful heart of the person who compromises. It is not a problem with God’s Greek and Hebrew words.
8.) “There have been godly servants of the Lord who never learned the Biblical languages.”
There certainly have been godly servants of the Lord who never learned the Biblical languages. There have been godly servants of the Lord who never learned to read at all, or who were even unable to read because they were blind of possessed some other unfortunate handicap. That God can use illiterate Christians for His glory does not mean that learning to read has no value. No more does the fact that God can use Christians who do not know Greek and Hebrew serve as a sufficient cause to fail to learn the Biblical languages.
9.) “I have heard that learning the Biblical languages was useless.”
People who actually know Hebrew and Greek do not say that they are useless. Only people who do not know the languages seem to make this claim. Someone who voices this objection should be asked: “Do you claim that Hebrew and Greek are useless for understanding the Bible because of your experience and in-depth study of those languages, or are you making that claim from a position of ignorance?”
10.) “Learning Greek and Hebrew undermines the King James Version.”
Why? Does this objection assume that the translation cannot withstand scrutiny? Who is undermining the KJV then? The KJV translators would have viewed a low view of Greek and Hebrew as a Catholic false teaching. They would have viewed it as utterly antithetical to a Bible-believing Protestantism.
11.) “Maybe Protestants valued Greek and Hebrew, but Baptists did not.”
Such a claim is simply ignorant. Countless Baptists, from Hetzer and Denck who translated the Bible into German before Luther did, to William Carey, the “father of modern missions,” to expositors like Alexander Maclaren, to martyrs like Felix Mantz, to fundamentalists like James Josiah Reeve, to Landmarkers like Ben Bogard have viewed knowledge of the Biblical languages as tremendously valuable.
12.) “It is wrong for a woman to learn the original languages of Scripture.”
The New Testament commands women to “learn” (1 Timothy 2:11), and never even once states or implies that women are to be less committed to learning Scripture than men, or that they are only to learn the Bible in the vernacular but not in the original tongues. Why should women who have the holy duties of teaching other women teaching children (Titus 2:3-5; 1 Timothy 5:10, 14) be kept from the increased ability to understand, teach, and practice Scripture that comes from knowing Greek and Hebrew?
Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew, the Biblical Languages concludes:
[A]rguments against the study of Greek and Hebrew are unconvincing … [while] the reasons why Greek and Hebrew are extremely valuable, and clearly learnable, are compelling. May the Father who revealed His glory and redemptive mind and heart in the Hebrew and Greek words He gave His Son to deliver to His saints by His Spirit bless these facts to the flourishing of reverent study, loving practice, and bold proclamation of those infallibly inspired and perfectly preserved words to His eternal glory and the advance of His spiritual kingdom. Amen!
And to that conclusion, again I say, “Amen”!
–TDR
Should True Churches Ascribe Perfection to the Apographa of Scripture? pt. 2
Confidence, Absolutism, or Skepticism?
A recent panel of friends decided on three categories of faith in the text of scripture: confidence, absolutism, and skepticism. They chose “confidence” and determined the other two to be false. Further explained, our present text of the Bible has what they consider minimal errors, which yields overall maximum confidence.
Absolutism posits zero errors, relying on a presupposition from a biblical and historical doctrine of preservation. The panel said no one can be, nor should be, absolute or certain with the text of scripture. The Bible may say that the text is certain, but the facts or the science say otherwise. Scripture may say that God preserved every Word, but since He didn’t preserve all of them, those passages must mean something else.
Those just confident in the text, but not certain, foresee a sad future for absolutists. In their experience, they witnessed other absolutists go right off the cliff after the awareness of errors in the text of scripture. They love those people. They are trying to save them. The key is to manage expectations. By encouraging the expectation of only minor errors, but overall stability (what is often called “tenacity”) of the text, they will prevent a doomsday mass exodus of future absolutists. This reads as a kind of theological pragmatism, using human means to manipulate a better outcome. Remaining fruit requires human adaptation.
Skepticism, like absolutism, the panel of friends said also was bad. There is no reason to be skeptical about a Bible with minor errors. Not only do we not know what all the errors are, but we do not know how high a percentage there is. The confidence collective says, “Don’t be skeptical and don’t worry either, it won’t affect the gospel; you can still go to heaven with what’s leftover from original inspiration.”
Faith in Preservation of Scripture Not Arbitrary
The words of God are not arbitrary in their meaning. If scripture teaches that God preserved every one of His words for every generation of believers, then He did. You must believe God. You do not say you believe Him and then put your head in the sand. Let me further explain.
If someone asks, “So what were the words that God preserved?” you give an answer. If you will not (and I mean “will not”) give an answer, then you do not believe what He said He would do. Denying is the opposite of believing. You also don’t answer with something like the following: “I know God preserved every word, but I don’t know which words they are. I just hope that at some time in the future — ten, a hundred, a thousands years from now — I can say I do know what they are.
Furthermore, if you say that you believe what God said about His preservation of His inspired words in the language in which He inspired them, your position must manifest that belief. Standing, as Mark Ward did in his latest video production, and saying, “I do not have a perfect copy of the Greek New Testament” [I typed that verbatim from his latest production (at 48 second mark)], does not arise from faith in what scripture teaches on its own preservation. For the believer, the teaching of scripture forms the standard for his expectation of what God will do. This is his presupposition.
No Percentage of Preservation Less Than 100 Percent
Scripture does not teach the moderate preservation of scripture. It does not teach a high percentage of preservation. The Bible does not reveal nor has historic Christianity believed that God preserved “His Word,” an ambiguous reference to the preservation of something like the message of God’s Word.
When you start reading the New Testament, it refers to Old Testament predictions of Jesus. Based on those presuppositions, you receive Jesus. The Old Testament presents the correct ancestry. Jesus fulfills it. It prophesies a virgin birth. He again fulfills it. And so on. Then in the real world, you receive Jesus Christ. This is a model for faith. This is how Simeon and Anna functioned in Luke 2.
If you read Daniel 11 and the predictions there of future occurrences, as a believer you would believe them and then start looking for their occurrence in the real world. Faith follows a trajectory that starts with scripture. Scripture does not say how many books the Bible would have. Various truths in scripture guide the saints to the sixty-six canonical ones.
The Scriptural Expectations of Churches
The church, so the historical belief of true churches, expected a standard sacred text, a perfect one, based on scriptural principles, despite the existence of textual variants. Then they received that text. They believed those principles, the doctrine which proceeded from scripture, during an era of slightly differing printed TR editions. They still believed in one settled text.
In Mark Ward’s orbit, the bases for rejecting a perfect text are the variations either between manuscripts or early printed editions. That is enough for him and others to say that we do not have a perfect copy of the Greek New Testament. They mock those who believe in a single perfect Bible. They only accept multiple differing Greek New Testaments and multiple differing versions. Scripture doesn’t teach this.
As I wrote earlier, the doctrine of preservation is not arbitrary. An actual single Bible in the real world comes with it. When you don’t believe the latter, you don’t believe the former. Not believing the latter is akin to saying you know (so believe in) God and then not as a practice or lifestyle keep His commandments (cf. 1 John 2:3-4). John says this person is a liar.
Mark Ward can mock the fact that I and others believe the perfect text is the one behind the King James Version, but that belief proceeds from all the various truths in scripture about preservation (which we explicate in Thou Shalt Keep Them). We start with scripture. Ward starts, like a modernist, with sensory experience or what one might call empirical evidence. This approach to knowledge brings constant revision. It is why James White will not rule out future changes in the text based on potential new manuscript discoveries.
A New Line of Attack on Scriptural Doctrine of Preservation
A new line of attack from Ward is pitting the King James against an early Dutch translation of the textus receptus. He imagines a Dutch believer offended when an English one calls his Statenvertaling (translated in 1635) “corrupt.” The translators of that Dutch version attempted to produce a translation for the Dutch like the King James Version. English believers applaud that. They haven’t and they wouldn’t call it corrupt.
Ward is correct in pointing out that the two translations come from a slightly different TR edition of the New Testament. That means they cannot both be right. Both could not represent perfect preservation. One is slightly wrong. Ward puts “corrupt” in the mouths or minds of King James Version advocates against the Statevertaling. They wouldn’t call it corrupt anymore than they would any TR edition.
I don’t know of any angry Statevertaling supporters, standing on its differences from the King James Version. No Dutch reaction to the English exists, such as that when Peter Stuyvesant stomped his wooden leg upon New Netherland becoming New York in 1664. Instead, the Dutch followed a Christian belief in the received text and its faith in divine preservation.
Abraham and Bonaventure Elzivir were Dutch. Their printings of the textus receptus (1624, 1633, and 1641) were essentially a reprint of Beza 1565. Their printings were elegant works, a grand possession for a Bible student. They wrote in Latin in their preface: “Therefore you have the text now received by all in which we give nothing altered or corrupt.” That sounds like textual absolutism to me.
Hints at English Supremacy?
Ward suggests a charge of English supremacy in a sort of vein of white supremacy or English Israelism. Advocates of capitalism do not proceed from Scottish supremacy. Majority text supporters do not arise from Eastern Roman supremacy or Byzantine supremacy. Beza and Stephanus were French. Are TR onlyists French supremacists? I don’t follow a French text of scripture. Or maybe better, Huguenot supremacy. This is another red herring by Ward. It’s sad to think this will work with his audience.
I do not see the trajectory of true churches passing through the Netherlands and the Dutch Reformed. I don’t trace it through the Massachusetts Bay Colony either. Each has a heritage with important qualities. Ward tries to use this argument to justify errors in the Greek New Testament, the mantra being, “various editions differ with errors found everywhere.” This is not what the Christians of that very time believed. They did not believe like Ward and his textual confidence collective. These 17th century believers were absolutists.
False Equivalents and Historical Revisionism
Ward calls the differences between the Dutch Bible and the King James Version with their varied TR editions, “text critical choices.” He uses another informal logical fallacy called a “false equivalent.” He takes modern critical text theory and projects it back on the textual basis of the Statevertaling. The translation proceeded from the Synod of Dort as a Dutch imitation of the King James Version. The point wasn’t changing anything.
Labeling the differences in TR editions “text critical choices” is also historical revisionism. Ward revises history to justify modern practice. Modern historians deconstruct the past to challenge the status quo. History does not provide the desired outcome. They change the history and construct new meaning in the present.
I see modern textual critics undermine a true historical account by exaggerating certain historical details or components. Two examples are the so-called backtranslation of Erasmus in Revelation and then a conjectural emendation of Beza. Advocates of modern textual criticism latch on to these stories and construct them into a revision of the historical account.
While men like Ward and others use false equivalents and historical revisionism, it does not change what the Bible, perfectly preserved for believers, says about its own preservation. Everyone will give an account for their faithfulness to what God said. He will make manifest the damage teachers do by creating or causing doubt or uncertainty concerning the text of His Word.
Should True Churches Ascribe Perfection to the Apographa of Scripture?
Mark Ward and Ruckmanism
A friend of mine alerted me to a reference of me in a Mark Ward production. It came under a click-bait title: “10 Ways to Avoid Ruckmanism.” I would contend I’m further away from Ruckmanism than Mark Ward himself, and I’ll explain that.
In his first few sentences of a youtube video, Ward asserted Ruckmanism as a fringe of a group that would include me. What does this accomplish really, attempting to smear anti-Ruckman people with a label of Ruckmanism? To start, I reject that assertion. I repeat. I reject the assertion of Mark Ward that Ruckmanism is a fringe of a group that includes me and others like me.
Ward asserts Ruckmanism to be a friinge of King James Onlyism, which associates Ruckman with the men who hold a standard sacred text or confessional bibliology. I renounce Ward’s grouping. Ruckman fits with a group that denies the original language preservation of scripture. He is with their group. Perhaps on their fringe.
Ruckman and now his followers take a rather exotic variety of rejection of the preservation of the original language scripture that God inspired. Since God by His singular care and providence did not keep pure through all ages the scripture He inspired, He started over and reinspired new words in English.
Ruckman believed and taught that God breathed out an English translation long after the inspiration of the Old and New Testament books, something labeled “double inspiration.” Ruckman denied God kept what He inspired, which was Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words. That cannot be a fringe of those who believe that God did keep what He inspired. That is a total disconnect from what I and others like me believe. I refuse the association with Ruckman that Ward makes to smear those with a biblical and historical position.
Deny God Kept Pure What He Inspired in Original Languages of Scripture
Who does not believe that God kept pure what He inspired? Modern textual critics. Multiple versionists. Peter Ruckman. Ruckmanites. Bart Ehrman. Daniel Wallace. The group with whom Ward associates.
I would include Ward with the names in the last paragraph. He should be in the list. Ward, however, I anticipate would say that He believes that God did preserve every Word of God in the mulitiplicity of the manuscripts (hand written copies). It is a nebulous position, because it never settles on what the words are that God preserved. In a face to face debate, I think it would take less than a minute to find that Ward does not believe that God preserved all His inspired words in the multiplicity of the manuscripts.
I have argued with enough Ruckmanites to know that they are not a fringe of what I and others like me believe. They reject what we believe because they do not believe in the perfect preservation of the original Hebrew and Greek text. God preserved His Words through the churches in copies. He inspired the original autographs (autographa) and then preserved them in the apographa. Ruckmanites disavow that.
Straw Man or Red Herring Logical Fallacy
In the same production, Ward begins talking about me at the 25:51 mark, which continues until 31:14. To equivocate our position with Ruckmanism, Ward uses an informal logical fallacy best known as either a “red herring” or a “straw man” argument. He labels the point of this section: “Don’t ascribe perfection to the King James translators’ text.”
At the end of the section Ward says that the vile Peter Ruckman ascribes perfection to the King James translation. Ward swaps “perfection of text” for “perfection of translation.” Ruckman does not ascribe perfection to the original language text of scripture. Maybe Ward thinks his uncritical audience will not see or know the difference. I assume Ward knows what he’s doing.
Are they really Ruckmanites who believe the following?
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.
What’s Wrong with Ward’s Assessment of Thou Shalt Keep Them?
A translation is a work of men, but the preservation of scripture is the work of God. What’s wrong with what Ward says in the section on perfection of the text? Not necessarily in this order, but. . . .
- He compares the differences between editions of the textus receptus (TR) with the same significance as the differences between the TR and the modern critical text.
This kind of comparison is deceitful. The Wescott and Hort Greek New Testament (WH) is very close or about the same as the critical Greek New Testament of the Nestles-Aland 28th edition (NA), the most recent update of the critical text. They are 99.5% the same. There are 5,604 differences between the WH and Scrivener’s edition of the TR, which amount to 9,970 words. There are 190 differences between the Scrivener’s and the 1598 TR edition of Beza. The quality of those differences is also vastly different.
- He says that no one answers why the original language text behind the King James Version is a standard sacred text instead of other language translations of the TR.
Perfection of Text Behind KJV
Ward says that he looks and he looks and cannot find anyone who explains why the text behind the King James Version gets treated with perfection and the Dutch and Portuguese do not. When I hear Ward say this, I think he must be joking. In the quotation he himself uses from our book, Thou Shalt Keep Them, we explained:
Although the words of the printed editions do vary, albeit seldom, there is a comprehensive testimony to the agreement among the churches over the canonicity of the Words as there was canonicity of the books. At this time the English speaking churches became a large majority of the New Testament churches, and they agreed on the King James Version and the text behind it. The obedient churches speaking the next most prominent languages also agreed on the Textus Receptus as the New Testament.
This paragraph, which Ward himself quoted, and the context of the chapter give the answer to Ward. Many other biblical principles apply, which our book covers. One was the reception of true churches. Churches received the Words of God. The Lord’s sheep hear His voice. They have the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. Scripture promises that God would lead His saints into all truth, and that the Word, all of His words, are truth (Jn 16:13, 17:8, 17). Preservation of words also meant accessibility, “kept pure in all ages.” The Westminster divines did not view the original manuscripts distinct from the copies in their possession.
The Received Text
If churches expect a perfect text based on scriptural presuppositions, then they also receive that text. Scripture also teaches a settled text (Rev 22:18-19). Churches did not keep printing new editions of the TR in the 17th, 18th, and most of the 19th centuries. They were settled on the text.
Other language believers other than English ones translated the TR into their language. When we read the Westminster Confession and the London Baptist Confession, we are not reading Dutch or Portuegese confessions. Christians today almost exclusively refer to English confessions. Those confessions reveal presuppositions for which we receive a perfect text of scripture. I suggest that believers of all languages who translated from the TR would not quibble with a belief in a settled, perfect text. Their reception of the TR came out of the same belief about divine preservation of scripture.
- He treats the editions of the TR and the unique edition of the TR behind the KJV as a product of modernistic textual criticism.
Distinct Methodology
The principles that distinguish the critical text from the TR differ from the principles that distinguish TR editions from each other. Mark Ward knows this. In an essay or video production, he treats their distinct methodologies as the same. He knows they are different. Copyists made errors in copying. That did not prevent perfect, divine preservation of scripture. An error made in one copy was corrected by another copy.
Eclectic or critical text or modern version proponents don’t start with scriptural presuppositions, which is the basis of the difference in methodology for their text versus the TR. The TR reveals its methodology in its name. Received Text. TR proponents are not attempting to restore a text as critical text advocates, never coming to the knowledge of a true text. TR supporters receive what God preserved. That is also the language they use to describe their method. They started with scriptural presuppositions and applied theological tests to their work.
Logic of Faith
My friend, Dave Mallinak, wrote the following to me in recent days:
I believe that the words God gave – the “breathed-out words” He inspired – are perfectly preserved, despite the difficulties in demonstrating perfection (due to variants). I approach preservation the same way I approach inerrancy. I can’t clear up every difficulty. I don’t believe I need to in order to hold to the inerrancy of Scripture, and I don’t believe I need to in order to hold to an every word preservation.
Perfection is a presupposition. The TR editions are homogenous unlike Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, old manuscripts the main basis of the critical text. Hoskier famously counted 3,036 variations between those two manuscripts in the gospels alone.
Believers do not ignore variations. However, these difficulties do not cancel the doctrine of preservation, just like difficulties do not eliminate inerrancy. Ward does not refer to this element of faith. Hills called it the “logic of faith.”
- He looks at inspiration as divine and preservation as human.
God used men to write scripture and He used men to preserve it. Believers’ ascription of perfection to preservation of a text of scripture arises from their belief in biblical teaching on preservation. In inspiration, “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:21). Men spake. Men wrote. God used men for inspiration and preservation. The Apostle Paul says in Romans 3:2 that to the Jews “were committed the oracles of God.” Canonicity, a biblical doctrine, relates to God’s people agreeing by means of the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit what the books and the words were.
More to Come
Learn Greek and Hebrew? Reasons Christians Should, part 4 of 7
Is it valuable for Christians learn the Biblical languages, Greek and Hebrew? Continuing to summarize Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew, the Biblical Languages, Christians should learn Greek and Hebrew because:
1.) Greek and Hebrew help the believer to practice God’s Word and be conformed to the image of the Lord Jesus Christ. The more closely one beholds Christ’s glory in the mirror of Scripture, the more conformed to His image the Christian becomes–and Greek and Hebrew help believers see that ineffable glory.
2.) Greek and Hebrew help the Christian teach God’s Word to others. Every one of the Greek and Hebrew words of Scripture is inerrant and infallible, and must be preached and taught to all of the Lord’s saints in true, Baptist churches.
3.) Greek and Hebrew help believers to compose quality Christian literature.
4.) Greek and Hebrew are essential for Baptists to make faithful translations of Scripture into the many world languages that still lack God’s holy Word. It may be tolerable for an evangelist / missionary to translate Scripture from English if he does not know Greek and Hebrew, but it is far, far better to translate from the original languages. The Ruckmanite / Riplingerite idea that one must translate foreign language Bibles from English rather than Greek and Hebrew is evil.
5.) Greek and Hebrew contribute to bold preaching.
6.) Greek and Hebrew powerfully aid in apologetics, evangelism, and in the refutation of error. Whether before crowds in a public debate or one-on-one at a door, knowing the Biblical languages helps in evangelism and in defending the faith.
7.) Greek and Hebrew help Christians defend the Authorized, King James Version. Attacks on the KJV by proponents of modern versions can be answered far more effectively if one knows Greek and Hebrew himself and so can respond much more effectively to allegations of mistranslation in the KJV.
Much greater detail appears in the first forty pages of Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew, the Biblical Languages.
–TDR
Does the KJV mistranslate with the phrase “God forbid”?
The phrase “God forbid” is relatively frequently asserted to be a mistranslation in the King James Version:
Me genoito … means literally, Be it not so, and which might properly be paraphrased by our emphatic “Never!” but which … with small warrant … [has been] seen fit to paraphrase by using the semi-profane expression, “God forbid.” There are fourteen such mistranslations in the epistles of Paul according to the King James version.” (John William McGarvey and Philip Y. Pendleton, The Four-Fold Gospel [Cincinnati, OH: The Standard Publishing Company, 1914], 593.)
The phrase appears in both the Old and New Testaments, in English, in the following texts:
Gen. 44:7 And they said unto him, Wherefore saith my lord these words? God forbid that thy servants should do according to this thing:
Gen. 44:17 And he said, God forbid that I should do so: but the man in whose hand the cup is found, he shall be my servant; and as for you, get you up in peace unto your father.
Josh. 22:29 God forbid that we should rebel against the LORD, and turn this day from following the LORD, to build an altar for burnt offerings, for meat offerings, or for sacrifices, beside the altar of the LORD our God that is before his tabernacle.
Josh. 24:16 And the people answered and said, God forbid that we should forsake the LORD, to serve other gods;
1Sam. 12:23 Moreover as for me, God forbid that I should sin against the LORD in ceasing to pray for you: but I will teach you the good and the right way:
1Sam. 14:45 And the people said unto Saul, Shall Jonathan die, who hath wrought this great salvation in Israel? God forbid: as the LORD liveth, there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground; for he hath wrought with God this day. So the people rescued Jonathan, that he died not.
1Sam. 20:2 And he said unto him, God forbid; thou shalt not die: behold, my father will do nothing either great or small, but that he will shew it me: and why should my father hide this thing from me? it is not so.
1Chr. 11:19 And said, My God forbid it me, that I should do this thing: shall I drink the blood of these men that have put their lives in jeopardy? for with the jeopardy of their lives they brought it. Therefore he would not drink it. These things did these three mightiest.
Job 27:5 God forbid that I should justify you: till I die I will not remove mine integrity from me.
Luke 20:16 He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid.
Rom. 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
Rom. 3:6 God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?
Rom. 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
Rom. 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Rom. 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
Rom. 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
Rom. 7:13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
Rom. 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
Rom. 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
Rom. 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
1Cor. 6:15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
Gal. 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
Gal. 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
Gal. 6:14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.
Does the KJV mistranslate the Hebrew and Greek phrases in question? The answer is a clear “no”! The phrases are idiomatic phrases that involve the invocation of God. Please see my new article at FaithSaves.net on this topic, “Is ‘God Forbid’ a Mistranslation in the KJV (King James Version)?” for more information.
No verse in Scripture promises that God would give English speakers an infallible translation in their language, although one would expect God’s special providence to be upon the Bible He knew would be that of the world-language for many years. Nevertheless, King James Only believers do well to have a knee-jerk reaction in favor of KJV renderings, as, in vast numbers of instances, the KJV’s translation decisions prove to be justifiable, and critics prove to be wrong.
–TDR
35th Anniversary of the Church I Planted in California, pt. 1
Yesterday, October 18, was the day of the 35th anniversary of the church I planted in the San Francisco Bay Area. Some want to know how it occurred. Bethel Baptist Church now is a solid church in a very, very liberal area, hostile to Christianity, with 3 1/2 acres debt free in the most expensive housing market in the country and a K-12 school. How did this occur?
In 10th grade, I knew I wanted to preach. When I knew that and surrendered to it, it changed me. My priorities changed. I still played sports, still took my regular classes, had my friends, but the Bible, my preparations for that role, moved to the top. During study hall, I pulled out my Bible first. I studied for Bible classes first. I took Greek for my language in my jr and sr years. This allowed me to skip first year Greek in college, and take second year Greek my Freshman year. I majored in biblical languages.
I had already acquiesced to biblical evangelism. I preached the gospel the best I could in different ways. I started preaching door-to-door. I talked to competitors about the Lord after sporting activities. I preached sermons in high school when I had the opportunity and worked with children in church, while in high school.
At one point, someone preached in college chapel about preaching. I had never made it public in a service. I knew it in tenth grade. At that point, our “youth pastor” had young men preach. I signed up and preached. That’s when I knew. In college, I came forward at an invitation, as prodded by this revivalist, to say I was doing this. It is a marker for me at the most. I started arranging everything in my life to fit this future goal. It affected me every day. It still does.
Let me throw something into this story that’s important. My parents sacrificed a lot for me. They both worked to keep my brother, sister, and I in school for jr. high and high school. They allowed and contributed to many opportunities. When I started taking Greek, it was because my dad took Greek. I carried Greek cards on my belt loop and went over my alphabet and vocabulary. I knew that before I ever took first year Greek. No one made me do that. I did it because it emulated my dad taking Greek. It’s not popular to support and honor parents today. My parents did a lot. In whatever way someone opposes what I do, it challenges what they did too. My mom still mentions that to me. It’s personal to her.
I minored in speech in college. All the aspects of leading a church plant require communication. I agree with the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 2 that it does not depend on excellency of communication. Being a part of a speech department meant dramatic productions and oral interpretation. I took advantage of almost every opportunity to communicate in front of people to where it became totally natural to me, when it wasn’t at the beginning of this journey.
I applied to counsel at a Christian camp the summer before my Freshman year in college. I counseled the whole summer at Camp Joy in Whitewater, Wisconsin under the leadership of the late Charlie Hatchett. That helped me. I’m not saying that it’s something someone should do, but I dealt with the salvation of young people under a very good philosophy held by Camp Joy. The camp wanted true conversions and Brother Hatchett emphasized that. Including winter retreats, I counseled 35 or so weeks of camp over three years. I worked with a lot of younger people during that time. It was a good experience for me then and for my future.
My Freshman and Sophomore years, I was voted president of those two classes, then my Junior year, the whole student body voted me Vice President of the student body. I was President my senior year. All that required a lot for leadership then and in preparation for the future.
The summer after my junior year, I traveled with a college team and we put on the lives of Adoniram Judson and Michael Sattler. We played instruments, me trumpet, and sang. I saw many churches in those travels, and I saw the Western United States, where we traveled. I had never been there. Now I witnessed the needs of the West, what was there and what wasn’t there. Something clear, the San Francisco Bay Area may be the neediest area of the entire United States.
During high school, I wrote an essay for the primary high school English teacher. She later became the Dean of Women for the college. She praised my essay. She said, “You can write.” Her positive reinforcement changed my life as a writer. I continued to work at writing the best I could. Fundamentalism was not doing a good job of preparing writers. They still don’t do that well. I didn’t know one person who wrote a book. It’s important to write in the work of the Lord. The Bible itself is writing. Paul wrote epistles.
I kept working at writing. Others noticed it. The Dean of Students, the late Terry Price, and his wife Colene, did Vacation Bible Schools in the summers, and they asked me to write their scripts for their puppet programs every summer. I wrote scripts for the summer groups, the Victory Players, the life of Balthasar Hubmaier and others. Obviously taking college and graduate classes, I wrote many papers. As much as I tried to do a good job, all that writing helped me. I learned how to research, read and comprehend large amounts of material very fast, document, and summarize. All this moved toward planting a church in the San Francisco Bay Area in 1987.
For twelve years, I was member of Calvary Baptist Church in Watertown, WI. I worked with teens. I produced programs for the Wisconsin state youth conclave. The church and its pastor, William Lincoln, and other pastoral staff, encouraged work for the Lord. No one impeded me. If I wanted it, they allowed it. I kept this up.
Growing into fundamentalism, I got a pretty decent music philosophy. The major musicians had an okay philosophy. I don’t go further than that, because it was still undeveloped and weak compared to biblical teaching on worship. I participated in a lot of good music. I sang in Handel’s Messiah seven straight years. I sang in many choirs. All of that aided future worship of God in the church. I’m glad for the impact of the late Monte Budahl and then Don Degraw.
Between my senior year and first year of graduate school, I worked in a so-called pastor-preacher boy program at Lehigh Valley Baptist Church under Tim Buck. This church was just a few years old, started by Calvary Baptist Church in Lansdale, PA. On staff was a former college graduate. My friend Dwayne Morris and I went there with the plan of attending Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary. We did much different work in that church, living with the assistant pastor on his second floor. They helped me develop organization. I started a filing system. I determined to have a huge tract rack like Lehigh Valley. All those would characterize our church in the future.
I didn’t stay in Pennsylvania and attend Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary. I attended a pastor-preacher boy conference at Calvary in Lansdale, where professors from the seminary attacked and mocked the King James Version and biblical standards of Christianity. The seminary doesn’t exist any more, perhaps because of this same reason. If I got one thing from those men, they did a thorough and credible job at breaking down and explaining a text of scripture, something I didn’t hear in person much while in college.
No one affected my theological development than Thomas Strouse. Dr. Strouse still pastors and trains pastors. He taught half my grad classes. I still consider him one of the most important teachers in the country. He put in tremendous amount of work to prepare one of his students.
I wanted to pastor a church in graduate school. I did. I became an intern pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Church in Elkhorn, Wisconsin. While I served as Student Activity Director of the college and finished my last year of graduate school, I pastored that church. I taught adult Sunday School every week and preached Sunday morning and evening services. I was doing three different series every week. Also, I sang solos for special music. I wasn’t a soloist, but my solos affected one elderly lady in the church to where she had me sing a solo at her 50th anniversary celebration. I think those were the final solos of my entire life.
To Be Continued
Mark 7:4 and the Baptism of Tables–Video
Mark 7:4 reads:
And when they come from the market, except they wash [baptidzo], they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing [baptismos] of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
This passage is the best attempt in Scripture if one wishes to argue against dipping or immersion for baptism. “Surely the Jews did not immerse their tables in water!” many pro-pouring or pro-sprinkling Protestants and Catholics have argued.
This issue was discussed in the past on the blog; see part 1 here and part 2 here.
People have also attacked the King James Version for rendering the Greek word baptidzo as “baptize” instead of as “immerse.” Is that a valid criticism? Did King James or the KJV translators have an evil motive, and were they trying to hide the fact that baptism is immersion?
If you would like to watch a video that answers these questions, please check the discussion in my first year Greek class #23 here on YouTube, or see the same video on Rumble, or go to 5:23 into the video embedded below:
The discussion of baptidzo continues through 22:55 on the video.
This passage does not prove sprinkling or pouring for baptism because the evidence is actually clear that the Jews did indeed immerse their dining couches or tables. Also, there was no conspiracy to hide the fact that baptism is properly by immersion, as King James himself was immersed (as an infant), as were the English monarchs before him. A strong anti-immersion push actually developed only several decades later at the Westminster Assembly, where requiring immersion for baptism lost by the narrowest of margins–one vote.
–TDR
New Testament Greek for Distance Students Fall 2022
Lord willing, I will be starting a 1st semester introductory Greek class which can be taken by distance students in September 2022. If you are interested, see the post below, the schedule here, and more information here, and then please click here to contact me.
What Will I Learn in Introductory NT Greek?
We will be learning introductory matters such as the Greek alphabet, and then the entire Koine Greek noun system, after which we will get in to verbs in the indicative mood. A second semester to follow should cover the rest of the fundamentals of Greek grammar. At the end of the course, you will be well prepared to begin reading the New Testament on your own. You also will, I trust, have grown closer to the Lord through your growth in understanding and application of His Word, will have grown in your ability to read, understand, teach, and preach the Bible (if you are a man; women are welcome to take the class as well, as they should know God’s Word for themselves and their families and teach other women and children), and will be prepared to learn Greek syntax and dive deeper into exegesis and more advanced Greek study in second year Greek. You will learn the basics of New Testament Greek grammar, syntax and vocabulary, preparing you to translate, interpret and apply Scripture. Recognizing the importance of using the original languages for the interpretation of the New Testament, you will acquire a thorough foundation in biblical Greek. You will learn the essentials of grammar and acquire an adequate vocabulary.
The course should be taught in such a way that a committed high school student can understand and do well in the content (think of an “AP” or Advanced Placement class), while the material covered is complete enough to qualify for a college or a seminary level class. There is no need to be intimidated by Greek because it is an ancient language. Someone who can learn Spanish can learn NT Greek. Indeed, if you speak English and can read this, you have already learned a language—modern English—that is considerably more difficult than the Greek of the New Testament. Little children in Christ’s day were able to learn Koiné Greek, and little children in Greece today learn modern Greek. If they can learn Greek, you can as well, especially in light of principles such as: “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me” (Philippians 4:13).
The immense practical benefits of knowing Greek, along with plenty of edifying teaching, will be included. The class should not be a dry learning of an ancient language, but an interesting, spiritually encouraging, and practical study of the language in which God has given His final revelation. It will help you in everything from preaching and teaching in Christ’s church to answering people’s objections in evangelism house to house to understanding God’s Word better in your personal and family time with the Lord.
Furthermore, you will be learning Greek in such a way that at the end you will actually know it. That is, this course, and successor courses in 2nd year Greek (syntax) and 3rd year Greek (book exegesis of Ephesians and Romans), are designed for you to actually know the language at the end, so that you can draw closer to the Lord, be more effective in preaching and teaching God’s Word, and reap the other tremendous benefits of learning Greek the rest of your life. Greek is not an agonizing drudgery you should barely survive and at the conclusion of which you forget everything you learned. The course sequence will teach you to preach expository messages, or teach Scripture, so that the main points of your sermons or lessons are what the main points of the passage are, powerfully impacting those you are shepherding with the sharp sword of the Word. As, by God’s grace, you learn the language and regularly read the Greek New Testament, God’s final glorious revelation will become familiar to you the way the Bible in French or German or Spanish is familiar to native speakers of those languages, and both you and others will be transformed as you behold the glory of Jesus Christ in the mirror of Scripture by the Spirit in a greater way (2 Corinthians 3:18).
What Textbooks Will I Use in Introductory NT Greek?
Required class textbooks are:
1.) Greek New Testament Textus Receptus (Trinitarian Bible Society), the Greek NT underneath the Authorized, King James Version:
alternatively, the Greek New Testament Textus Receptus and Hebrew Old Testament bound together (Trinitarian Bible Society):
2.) William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, ed. Verlyn D. Verbrugge, Third Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009) (Later editions of Mounce are also fine, but please do not use the first or second edition.):
4th edition:
3.) William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek (Workbook), ed. Verlyn D. Verbrugge, Third Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009)
4th edition:
4.) T. Michael W. Halcomb, Speak Koine Greek: A Conversational Phrasebook (Wilmore, KY: GlossaHouse, 2014):
4.) T. Michael W. Halcomb, 800 Words and Images: A New Testament Greek Vocabulary Builder (Wilmore, KY: GlossaHouse, 2013):
Recommended texts include:
5.) Danker, Frederick William (ed.), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3rd. ed. (BDAG), Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000. This is the only text that you can buy for Accordance Bible Software or Logos Bible Software and then use as a Bible software module instead of having a physical copy. All other books should be physical.
6.) The Morphology of Biblical Greek, by William D. Mounce. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Company, 1994
(Note: Links to Amazon are affiliate links. To save money on buying books on the Internet, please visit here.)
We are using Speak Koiné Greek as a supplement to Mounce because studies of how people learn languages indicate that the more senses one uses the better one learns a language. Speaking and thinking in Greek will help you learn to read the NT in Greek. We are using Halcomb’s 800 Words and Images because learning Greek vocabulary with pictures and drawings helps to retain words in your memory (think about how children learn words from picture books). Mounce is a very well-written and user-friendly textbook, and Halcomb’s works will make the material even more user-friendly.
What Qualifications Does the Professor Have to Teach Greek?
I have taught Greek from the introductory through the graduate and post-graduate levels for a significant number of years. I have read the New Testament from cover to cover in Greek five times and continue to read my Greek New Testament through regularly. I can sight-read most of the New Testament. I am currently reading the Septuagint through as well; I am about halfway through the Pentateuch and am also reading Psalms. I have also read cover to cover and taught advanced Greek grammars. While having extensive knowledge of Koine Greek, students of mine have also thought my teaching was accessible and comprehensible. More about my background is online here.
My doctrinal position is that of an independent Baptist separatist, for that is what is taught in Scripture. Because Scripture teaches its own perfect inspiration and preservation, I also believe both doctrines, which necessarily leads to the belief that God has preserved His Word in the Greek Textus Receptus from which we get the English King James Version, rather than in the modern critical Greek text (Nestle-Aland, United Bible Societies).
What Do I Need to Get Started?
Unless you live in the San Francisco Bay Area, you will need a computer or other electronic device over which you can communicate. We can help you set up Zoom on your computer in case you need assistance with that.
The class should begin in early September, 2022. The class will count as a 4 credit college course. Taking the class for credit is $185 per credit hour. The class can be audited for $100 per credit hour. Auditors will not take tests or be able to interact with the class. Taking it for credit is, therefore, likely preferable for the large majority of people. When signing up, please include something written from your pastor stating the church of which you are a member and his approval for your taking the class. A church that utilizes the class as part of its seminary, college, or institute curriculum may have alternative pricing arrangements; please direct questions to the leadership at your church for more information. Students with clear needs who live outside of North America and Europe in less well-developed countries in Africa or Asia (for example) may qualify for a discount on the course price. One or two students located in any part of the world who are able and willing to help with video editing also would qualify for a course discount.
For any further questions, please use the contact form here.
I am thinking about starting a 1st year Hebrew class for distance students soon as well. Please also let me know if you are interested in learning the language in which God revealed the majority of His infallible revelation.
–TDR
Recent Comments