ANSWERING AGAIN THE “WHAT TR?” QUESTION

Part One     Part Two     Part Three

1.  God Inspired Specific, Exact Words, and All of Them.
2.  After God Inspired, Inscripturated, or Gave His Words, All of Them, to His People through His Institutions, He Kept Preserving Each of Them and All of Them According to His Promises of Preservation.
3.  God Promised Preservation of the Words in the Language They Were Written, or In Other Words, He Preserved Exactly What He Gave.
4.  God’s Promise of Keeping and Preserving His Words Means the Availability of His Words to Every Generation of Believers.
5.  God the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity, Used the Church to Accredit or Confirm What Is Scripture and What Is Not.

Introduction to Point 6.

I hear many, what I would call, dishonest arguments.  Those occur all the time from proponents of the critical text or multiple modern versions.  Let me give you a couple, three, but with my focus on one in particular.  One of these is the usage of the KJV translators for support of the critical text and modern versions.  I agree the translators made room for improvements to their translation.  They didn’t see the translation as the end of improvement in translation.  They weren’t talking about improvements on the underlying text.  That’s either incompetent or dishonest as an argument.

How can I be the dummy version of KJVO if I agree with the translators on the issue of improvement?  I can’t be, yet this is what critical text or modern version people do all the time.  Their posing as non-confrontational and with a cheery Christian spirit is nothing more than a ruse.  They will treat you well if you budge to a significant degree toward their positions.  That’s all.  If you don’t, you get sent down the garbage disposal.

Pavlovian

There’s something Pavlovian to these modern version advocates.  Young fundamentalists so want their favor, that they salivate to their positive reinforcement.  This corresponds to turning on the light.  The favor acts as a lure to behavior adjustment.  Favored treatment is not an argument, yet is is the most convincing one in a feeling oriented world.

Can someone say the King James Version is inspired and support the 1769 update?  I ask Ruckmanites this question all the time.  Modern version advocates won’t acquiesce because they want to keep this second faux argument alive.  If I approve a 1769 update, why would I not approve another one?  Not doing an update is not the same as not approving of one.  I’ve said often recently that King James Version advocates won’t update the King James Version under the pressure of modern version adherents, who don’t even use the King James.  This really should be the end of this, but it won’t.

Latin Vulgate or Church Hierarchy Attack

The third bad argument from modern version proponents, the one on which I focus, has several layers.  They say the King James is the Latin Vulgate to KJVO like the Latin Vulgate was to Catholics.  This is to smear KJVO with Roman Catholicism.  One of the layers is that it puts Roman Catholic-like power to the textual choices, putting the church over scripture.  This is a category error.

Scripture, the authority, teaches that the Holy Spirit uses the church as the Urim and Thummim.  God directs God’s people to the books and the words of the scripture using the church.  The church is not taking preeminence over scripture by obeying scripture.

These false arguments remind me of the flailing of a losing boxer at the end of a match.  Or, a basketball coach clearing the bench at the end of the game and the substitutes treating the final three minutes like they’ve won the game.  No, they’re losing.  These are not landing a single blow.  They are what experts call “garbage time.”  It’s just stat padding and not contributing toward winning at all.

6.  God Declares a Settled Text of Scripture in His Word.

Settled Word

Scripture is not amoebic.  Its boundaries don’t shapeshift like the Stingray nebula.  The Bible doesn’t ooze and alter like the Hagfish.  God declares in His Word a settled text of scripture.  The Bible is a rock, not shifting sand.

God describes His Word as forever settled (Psalm 119:8-9).  Deuteronomy 4:2 says:

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Proverbs 30:6 instructs:  “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”  At its very end, the Bible says in Revelation 22:18-19:

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

One cannot take away or add a word to a text that isn’t settled.  No possibility of guilt could come to a person for adding or taking away from something unsettled.  These warnings assume the establishment of the words.  All the principles, presuppositions, and promises  from scripture relate to the settlement of the text of the New Testament.

Considering the Nature of God

What God says in scripture about scripture should make sense, considering the nature of God.  In Malachi 3:6, God says:  “For I am the LORD, I change not.”  The immutability of God, one of His attributes, provides a basis for trusting Him.  God communicates the trustworthy nature of His Words with relations to His preservation of them in Isaiah 59:21:

As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth,, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

Isaiah 40:8 says something similar:  “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.”

Received Text Mindset

Modern version and critical text advocates know that printed editions of the received text of the New Testament in the 16th and 17th centuries have few and minor variations.  When I say “few and minor,” I’m not making a point that those variants do not matter.  They do.  The attitude at the time sounded like what Richard Capel wrote:

[W]e have the Copies in both languages [Hebrew and Greek], which Copies vary not from Primitive writings in any matter which may stumble any. This concernes onely the learned, and they know that by consent of all parties, the most learned on all sides among Christians do shake hands in this, that God by his providence hath preserved them uncorrupt. . . .

As God committed the Hebrew text of the Old Testament to the Jewes, and did and doth move their hearts to keep it untainted to this day: So I dare lay it on the same God, that he in his providence is so with the Church of the Gentiles, that they have and do preserve the Greek Text uncorrupt, and clear: As for some scrapes by Transcribers, that comes to no more, than to censure a book to be corrupt, because of some scrapes in the printing, and tis certain, that what mistake is in one print, is corrected in another.

The variation did not yield an unsettled nature.  No, “what mistake is in one print, is corrected in another.”  They knew errors could come into a hand copy or even a printed edition.  However, that did not preclude the doctrine of preservation and a settled text.  God would have us live by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

More to Come