Home » Posts tagged 'Hebrew' (Page 2)
Tag Archives: Hebrew
The Hand of God on the KJV Translators: James White Debate 8
The King James Version translators did not claim that they wrote under the same kind of supernatural control that the apostles and prophets received to infallibly record Scripture in the original languages. But did they claim that God’s special providence, His good hand, was with them? Yes!
Continuing the debate review videos on the James White on the King James Version / Textus Receptus vs. the Legacy Standard Bible / Nestle-Aland text, review video #8 looks at the fact that the KJV translators claimed that the “good hand of the Lord” was “upon” them in their translating work, referring to this language in Ezra and Nehemiah for the special providence of God.
In other words, the KJV translators referred their translation work neither to merely the general providence of God—they are stronger than that—nor to a series of continual miracles—that is more than they affirm—but to the special providence of God, so that the Word is by “his singular care and Providence kept pure in all Ages” (London Baptist Confession of 1689).
Furthermore, Scripture teaches that God’s providence is by no means imperfect; He can preserve a “pure Word … in all ages” through special providence without the active intervention of one or more miracles after the miracle of dictating the original manuscripts, as the book of Esther, for example, makes very clear.
Learn more by watching the video below:
You can also watch debate review video #8 in the embedded link above, or see it on Faithsaves.net, YouTube or Rumble.
Please subscribe to the KJB1611 YouTube and the KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel if you would like to know when more reviews are posted. Thank you.
–TDR
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.
Were the KJV Translators KJV Only? James White KJVO debate 7
Continuing the debate review videos on the James White on the King James Version / Textus Receptus vs. the Legacy Standard Bible / Nestle-Aland text, review video #7 examines whether the KJV translators were KJV Only. (Note that to avoid the historical fallacy discussed in review video #2 obout whether the KJV translators would have been KJV Only today or supported modern versions–as James White claims–I am dealing in review video #7 with actual historical facts, based on actual information, not speculating on what woulda coulda shoulda happened if people who are not alive today were alive in a counterfactual world in my own imagination.) What does the “Translators to the Reader” says about the Authorized Version in comparison to earlier English Bibles?
The KJV translators were thankful for the earlier Textus Receptus-based English Bibles, but, building upon their foundation, they view the KJV as “better.” Variations from the Textus Receptus, even the relatively minor ones in the Latin Vulgate, were viewed as inferior to any Textus Receptus based Bible. How much worse, then, would a modern version that varies far more from the Received Text have been viewed? Find out in the video below!
You can also watch debate review video #7 in the embedded link above, or see it on Faithsaves.net, YouTube or Rumble.
Please subscribe to the KJB1611 YouTube and the KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel if you would like to know when more reviews are posted. Thank you.
–TDR
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
James White / Thomas Ross Debate: KJV Translators & KJVO (4)
When I recently debated James White on the preservation of Scripture, Dr. White claimed that the KJV translators would have been “completely” on his side in the debate, were they alive today. I have produced a number of review videos examining this claim, as part of a video series which will, Lord willing, go through the entire debate. In video review #4 we begin to examine the “Translators to the Reader,” KJV prefatory material, and compare what the translators actually believed to what James White claimed for them. This examination uncovers that the KJV translators believed things about the inspiration and preservation of Scripture that are consistent with the Bibliology of verbal, plenary inspiration and preservation of the KJV-only and Confessional Bibliology movements, but are not consistent with the anti-inspiration and anti-preservation views that brought us the Nestle-Aland Greek text. Believing Scripture on its own inspiration and preservation leads by good and necessary consequence to the superiority of the Textus Receptus to the modern Nestle-Aland text. The “Translators to the Reader” also favors English translational choices in passages such as John 5:39 that are supported by the context and are found in other Reformation-era Bibles but are rejected by modern English versions. Thus, the KJV translators would favor their own translational choices, also found in other Reformation-era Bibles, to translational choices found in modern English versions. The KJV translators would view their original language base and translational choices as superior to those of modern versions.
The weakness of James White’s arguments explain why debate reviewers generally claimed that the perfect preservationist side came out ahead in the debate.
You can watch debate review video #4 in the embedded link above, or see it on Faithsaves.net, YouTube or Rumble. If you like the content, please “like” the videos, and consider subscribing to the KJB1611 YouTube and the KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel if you would like to know when more reviews are posted. Thank you.
–TDR
Remarriage After Divorce: Continual Adultery? Christ’s View
According to Jesus Christ and the New Testament, is remarriage after divorce continual adultery? Christ is clear that putting away or divorcing one’s spouse and marrying someone else when one’s spouse is still alive is a wicked sin, and the consummation of that second marriage is an act of adultery, making the people who commit that sin adulterers:
2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. 3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? 4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. 5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. 11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. (Mark 10:2-12)
A (very) small minority of people in Christendom teach not only that the act of remarriage is an act of adultery, but that one is living in continual adultery with a second spouse, and, therefore, needs to abandon that second spouse and go back to his or her first husband or wife. Some Amish groups that are confused on the gospel adopt this false teaching, as do some Mennonites (who also very largely are confused on the gospel by denying eternal security and confused on the church by denying the necessity of immersion in baptism). There are very few groups that get the gospel and the church correct that adopt this false teaching on leaving one’s spouse to go back to a former husband or wife.
The Lord Jesus Christ does NOT teach that someone should go back to his former husband or wife if he or she commits the sin of remarriage. The remarriage was a sin, one that should be repented of with sorrow. However, some sins, once they are committed, do not allow one to go back to what would have been right formerly. After Israel sinned by faithlessly refusing to enter the Promised Land (Numbers 14), God punished them by swearing that they would have to dwell in the wilderness for forty years. After they decided not to go up, it was too late for them to change their mind and go into the land. Some of them tried, and God was not with them:
39 And Moses told these sayings unto all the children of Israel: and the people mourned greatly. 40 And they rose up early in the morning, and gat them up into the top of the mountain, saying, Lo, we be here, and will go up unto the place which the LORD hath promised: for we have sinned. 41 And Moses said, Wherefore now do ye transgress the commandment of the LORD? but it shall not prosper. 42 Go not up, for the LORD is not among you; that ye be not smitten before your enemies. 43 For the Amalekites and the Canaanites are there before you, and ye shall fall by the sword: because ye are turned away from the LORD, therefore the LORD will not be with you. 44 But they presumed to go up unto the hill top: nevertheless the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and Moses, departed not out of the camp. 45 Then the Amalekites came down, and the Canaanites which dwelt in that hill, and smote them, and discomfited them, even unto Hormah. (Numbers 14:39-45)
The same situation takes place after a remarriage. The sin of divorce should not have been committed (Malachi 2:16), and the sin of remarriage should not have been committed (Mark 10:2-12), but once these grave sins have been committed, there is no going back. It is an abomination to divorce a second time and go back to a former husband and wife, according to the Lord Jesus Christ. How do we know this?
Remarriage-Go Back To the First Spouse?
Jesus Christ Did Not Teach One Should Go Back to a Former Spouse
Because The Old Testament Taught It Is An Abomination To Do So
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 reads:
1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. 3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; 4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
As explained elsewhere on this blog by both Dr. Brandenburg and in my article “Divorce, Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Remarriage, and New Testament teaching,” Scripture is clear that going back to a former spouse after a remarriage is an abomination before Jehovah, something that God Himself hates. What is an abomination to Jehovah is not just a sin for Israel, but for all people at all times; as the Gentiles had defiled the land by abominations, so Israel must not defile the land by committing this abomination. Thus, it is clear that someone who has sinned by entering a second marriage should not sin again by leaving his current spouse to go back to a former one.
Remarriage-Go Back To the First Spouse?
Jesus Christ Did Not Teach One Should Go Back to a Former Spouse
Because The Passages In the New Testament Misused to Claim This Do Not Teach It
Luke 16:18 reads:
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ γάμων ἑτέραν μοιχεύει· καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀπολελυμένην ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς γαμῶν μοιχεύει.
pas ho apolyōn tēn gynaika autou kai gamōn heteran moicheuei; kai pas ho apolelymenēn apo andros gamōn moicheuei.
The verb “committeth adultery” (μοιχεύει, moicheuei) is in the Greek present tense (cf. also Mark 10:11-12; Matthew 5:31-32). People with a surface-level understanding of Greek have concluded from this fact that one who has remarried is committing continual adultery every time the act of marriage takes place. However, the verbs “putteth away” and “marrieth” are also in the present tense, yet are clearly not continual and ongoing actions. As someone with a deeper knowledge of Greek will recognize, the present tense forms in Luke 16:18 clearly fit the syntactical category of the gnomic or timeless present—continual marriage ceremonies, continual divorces, and continual adultery are not at all in view, any more than the present tense verbs in Galatians 5:3; 6:13 specify continually getting circumcised or the present tense verb in Hebrews 5:1 specifies being ordained to the priesthood over and over again. An examination of pages 523-524 of Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) illustrates that the syntactical features requisite for identifying a gnomic present appear in this context. Luke 16:18 does not teach that those who have committed the grievous sins of divorce and remarriage should commit another abomination (Deuteronomy 24:4) by leaving their current spouses for the previous ones. Rather, in this passage the “present … [specifies] [a] class … of those who … once do the act the single doing of which is the mark of … the class … [as in] Luke 16:18” (Ernest De Witt Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek, 3rd ed. [Edinburg: T&T Clark, 1898], 56-57). The destruction of one family unit through remarriage, the physical consummation of which is an act of adultery, is bad enough; it must not be compounded with a further abomination. Please see my study Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew for more information on both Deuteronomy 24 and Luke 16:18.
Thus, Scripture is clear that one who has committed the sin of remarriage should not go back to his or her former spouse. God teaches that it is an abomination to do so. The Lord Jesus Christ, who revealed the Old Testament by His Spirit in His prophets, taught that it is an abomination in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Christ did not contradict what He affirmed in the Old Testament in the Gospels. Remarriage while a spouse is alive is the wicked sin of adultery, but those who have committed that sin are now bound to remain with their new spouses until death do them part.
–TDR
James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Inaccuracies
As many blog readers are aware, God gave me the privilege of debating Dr. James R. White, author of The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009, orig. pub. 1995) on King James Onlyism a few months ago (if you have not seen the debate, you can watch it here.). Our specific debate topic was:
“The Legacy Standard Bible, as a representative of modern English translations based upon the UBS/NA text, is superior to the KJV, as a representative of TR-based Bible translations.”
I believe that the debate went well, to the glory of the God who has perfectly preserved His Word and in answer to the prayers of many of His saints. Since the debate, I have been working on a series of debate review videos, a few of which are now live, and many more of which should go live relatively shortly (I would have some new ones live already, but had some issues with audio quality). I must confess that in reviewing the arguments made by Dr. White I have been impressed with their weakness. During the debate itself I was delighted that he did not bring up anything that I was not expecting or that there were not readily available answers, but post-debate review has revealed even further weaknesses with his case. What kind of weaknesses? Subscribe to my Rumble or YouTube channel (or both) to find out when I discuss them there. (I probably will comment on them here at What is Truth? as well, so you can also just keep your eyes on this blog.)
James White has on numbers of occasions indicated that he wrote The King James Only Controversy in merely a handful of months, and, unfortunately, the evidences for his rapid composition are most numerous. One example that we discussed here at What is Truth? before the debate was his astonishing affirmation–backed with no written sources or any evidence of any kind–that some King James Only people think Abraham, Moses, and the Old Testament prophets all actually spoke English, not Hebrew. While these people do appear to exist in Dr. White’s imagination, there does not appear to be any documentation of their existence in the real world. Even if one is not King James Only, creating straw-men, inaccurate arguments is not what one would want in a treatment of the issue under discussion.
Another example of the many astonishing and inaccurate claims of nutty radicalism by King James Only advocates appears in Dr. White’s discussion of people who allegedly think various people outside of the original writers of Scripture were inspired. (Biblically speaking, even the original writers were not inspired–their writings, not their persons, were authored by the Holy Spirit without any error; but saying “Peter was inspired” or “Moses was inspired,” while not accurate, is not as nuts as what James White is claiming.) What am I talking about? Consider the following arguments James White employs against King James Onlyism:
Anyone who believes the TR [Textus Receptus] 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 … [y]et none of these men ever claimed such inspiration. (pg. 96)
We pause only long enough to note that the KJV Only advocate … has to believe that Theodore Beza … was divinely inspired” (pg. 105)
“The KJV translators were not infallible human beings” (pg. 115)
Yet a person who stops for a moment of calm reflection might ask, “Why should I believe Jerome was inspired[?] … Do I have a good reason for believing this?” (pg. 181)
No citation of any King James Only advocate who believes in the inspiration of Jerome, or Erasmus, or Beza, or Stephanus, or the entire group of King James Version translators, appears. James White does quote Edward F. Hills on page 96–specifically denying that the Textus Receptus was produced under inspiration or through a Divine miracle. Quotations by any prominent (or obscure!) advocate of King James Onlyism, or any KJV Only school, or church, or even a kid in the third grade in a KJV Only Sunday School affirming that Jerome, Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, or the entire group of King James Version translators were inspired does not appear. They do not seem to exist in the real world, but only in the imaginary world that contains King James Only advocates who think that Abraham, Moses, and the prophets spoke Hebrew.
James White’s The King James Only Controversy, unfortunately, has many such inaccuracies and misrepresentations. It does not fairly and accurately present the positions of the belief system it seeks to refute. Consequently, while it may convince people who do not know anything about the King James Only movement that being KJVO is crazy, it will not be very effective convincing those who believe in the superiority of the preserved Word in the Textus Receptus and Authorized, King James Version. Rather than being silenced by the power of James White’s critique, they are likely to be disgusted by the inaccurate straw-manning of their belief system.
–TDR
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.
Biblical Languages Summer / Christian School Teacher Course
Do you have more time in the summer? A Christian school teacher (and other school teachers, support staff, and others who work in school settings) may often have more time during the summer. Interest has been expressed in having classes in both the Biblical languages, and it has also been asked if there is a way that a faster pace could be pursued during the summer with a slower pace during the Fall and Spring school semesters. I am exploring this as an option, and knowing how much interest there is, and what the specific needs are of prospective students are, would be a significant fact in evaluating how to move forward for the glory of God.
If this is something that you or a Christian school teacher, or other people at your church would be interested in, please contact me, either reaching out to me on my website or contacting my church. Also, please read the study Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew on my website here. (There is a seven part summary of that work on the blog here, starting with part 1 here, and then with part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, and part 7 here.) That study may also prove edifying to you even if you do not intend to learn the languages yourself, as it provides a balanced view from a perfect-preservationist, pro-KJV perspective on both the wonderful value of vernacular translation and the enduring importance of the Biblical languages, especially for Christian leaders or prospective leaders.
As I believe is demonstrated in Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew, the Biblical languages are very valuable for understanding, obeying, preaching, and teaching God’s infallible Word, and they are also accessible and learnable. If you are fluent in English, you have already achieved a level of linguistic achievement that is significantly harder than learning the Greek of the New Testament or the Hebrew of the Old Testament. That is not to say that one can learn the languages without work and dedication, but learning them is a reasonable and attainable for a very high percentage of the people of God if they, by grace, have the Spirit-produced diligence at learning them.
We would intend to follow the curriculum set forth here for Greek, one that has worked, not just for lingusitic geniuses, but for people who have families and full-time jobs. I am in the process of redoing the Hebrew curriculum before the next time, God willing, I get to teach that language, as I am adjusting the methodology towards one that recognizes the insights of second language acquisition theory and therefore teaches Biblical Hebrew more like (although not completely like) the way one would learn Spanish or French or German. This should both help students with learning the language and with retaining it once classroom work is over. With both languages the goal is to help students reach the point where they can read the inspired Old or New Testament text on their own and develop their sermons and other teaching messages directly from the text revealed to the apostles and prophets and preserved by God for our instruction and delight today.
Tuition should be $190 / credit hour for a 4 credit hour course. Auditors can audit for $100 / credit hour, but for most people actually taking the class for credit is better. Churches with numbers of interested students can reach out to me as well. Students who genuinely cannot afford the class, especially those in countries outside of the United States with a much higher poverty rate, can also have their pastors reach out and explain their situation and we can evaluate what options are available.
–TDR
Recent Comments