Home » Posts tagged 'preservation of scripture' (Page 2)
Tag Archives: preservation of scripture
John 5:4 KJV/TR: Inspired Scripture or Inserted Invention?
John 5:4 appears in the Greek Textus Receptus, the English King James Version or Authorized Version (KJV / KJB / AV), and in other Received Text – based Bibles. However, it is omitted in many modern Bible versions. The verse reads:
John 5:4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
ἄγγελος γὰρ κατὰ καιρὸν κατέβαινεν ἐν τῇ κολυμβήθρᾳ, καὶ ἐτάρασσε τὸ ὕδωρ· ὁ οὖν πρῶτος ἐμβὰς μετὰ τὴν ταραχὴν τοῦ ὕδατος, ὑγιὴς ἐγίνετο, ᾧ δήποτε κατείχετο νοσήματι.
The variant actually concerns John 5:3b-5:4. The section in bold is what is omitted:
3 In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water. 4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
3 ἐν ταύταις κατέκειτο πλῆθος πολὺ τῶν ἀσθενούντων, τυφλῶν, χωλῶν, ξηρῶν, ἐκδεχομένων τὴν τοῦ ὕδατος κίνησιν. 4 ἄγγελος γὰρ κατὰ καιρὸν κατέβαινεν ἐν τῇ κολυμβήθρᾳ, καὶ ἐτάρασσε τὸ ὕδωρ· ὁ οὖν πρῶτος ἐμβὰς μετὰ τὴν ταραχὴν τοῦ ὕδατος, ὑγιὴς ἐγίνετο, ᾧ δήποτε κατείχετο νοσήματι.
Should we receive John 5:4 (or rather, John 5:3b-5:4) as part of God’s holy Word? Yes, we should. Why?
1.) In God’s singular care and providence it has been included in the Textus Receptus, and received by the churches. Scripture promises maximal certainty about its own text.
2.) John 5:4 has great support in Greek manuscripts. It appears in 99.2% of all Greek manuscripts. The United Bible Society’s Greek New Testament, which is biased against the Textus Receptus, nevertheless lists as supporting witnesses in favor of John 5:4 the following: A C3 K L Xcomm Δ Θ Ψ 063 078 f1 f13 28 565 700 882 1009 1010 1071 1195 1216 1230 1241 1242 1253 1344 1365 1546 1646 2148 Byz Lect ita,aur,b,c,e,ff2,j,r1 vgcl syrp,pal copbomss arm Diatessarona,earm,i,n Tertullian Ambrose Didymus Chrysostom Cyril.
Thus, for example, Tertullian explicitly comments on John 5:4 in his On Baptism (Tertullian, “On Baptism,” in Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. S. Thelwall, vol. 3, The Ante-Nicene Fathers [Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885], 671.) with no indication that anyone was questioning it. Undoubtedly, the testimony in favor of John 5:4 is both very extensive and very ancient. Its “appearance in an overwhelming number of surviving Greek manuscripts, its diffusion into the Latin and Syriac traditions (plus even some manuscripts of the Egyptian Bohairic version), along with its citation by fathers in both East and West … serve to underscore its age[.]” (Zane C. Hodges, “The Angel at Bethesda—John 5:4: Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 5,” Bibliotheca Sacra 136 (1979): 29.)
3.) John 5:7 does not make sense without John 5:4:
The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me.
If John 5:3b-5:4 is omitted from the Gospel of John, John 5:7 does not make any sense. What is the impotent man talking about?
4.) The Copper Scroll from Cave 3 at Qumran establishes that the spelling of the name as “Bethesda,” as found in the Textus Receptus and the vast majority of Greek manuscripts, is correct, while the alternative spellings that are featured in the tiny minority of MSS that omit John 5:4 (Bethsaida; Belzetha; Bethzatha) are incorrect. If the witnesses for omission are clearly wrong here, while the Textus Receptus is right, we should not be surprised if the Received Text is also right in including the passage.
5.) The theology of the passage fits with the rest of Scripture, although some have unreasonably questioned it. How can John 5:4 accurately record real events? I do not see why we should think that, in that period of time before there was a completed canon of Scripture and when the Jews, who desire a sign, were God’s nation and institution in a pre-Christian dispensation, that He could not have at unspecified intervals (John 5:4 does not say how often this happened) have miraculously healed people who came to this location through the instrumentality of angels. If demons contribute to at least some sicknesses and disease, why should we be surprised if God’s angels are associated with health? The area was destroyed by the Romans in A. D. 70, and so this miraculous action would have ceased by that point (if not earlier with the inauguration of the church as God’s institution, or even with Christ’s actions in John 5). Such miraculous healing could have been a sign that God’s special presence remained with His nation and people, even in the times of the Gentiles. Indeed, we should see that God even designed the entire place to point forward to Christ and to the manifestation of His glory as seen in John 5, after which the miracles likely ceased to take place there. The fact that, in this age when sign miracles (semeion) do not occur (although God works powerfully [dunamis] in His providential care and in many other wonderful ways) this verse can seem odd, and (in this dispensation) we are rightly highly skeptical about miracle claims, could easily explain why someone wanted to take the passage out and why a small number of people who were fine “correcting” the Bible were able to get the verse out of less than 1% of Greek MSS. One writer comments:
[I]t must be said that the miraculous intervention of angels in human life is so well established in the Bible, and so variegated, that only those who are uncomfortable with supernaturalism itself are likely to be genuinely troubled by the content of the verses under consideration. Indeed it may even be proposed that the reference to the angel is functional for Johannine theology. Already the Fourth Evangelist has pointed to the subservience of angels to the person of Christ by citing the Lord’s memorable words to Nathaniel, “Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man” (1:51). But here too the angelic ministration at the pool of Bethesda is markedly inferior to the ministry of God’s Son. Indeed, the seasonal and limited character of the healings the angel performed—and which were of no avail to the invalid described in this passage—are an appropriate backdrop for the instantaneous deliverance which Jesus brought to a man who had virtually lost all hope (cf. v. 7) while he lay forlornly in a place where God’s mercy seemed always to touch others, but never himself. The concept that Messiah is greater than the angels—despite the reality of their divinely appointed activities—lies implicitly in the background of the Johannine text. That this was an important theme for early Christianity no one will doubt who has read the opening chapters of the Book of Hebrews. Its appearance here, therefore, is hardly surprising. (Zane C. Hodges, “The Angel at Bethesda—John 5:4: Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 5,” Bibliotheca Sacra 136 [1979]: 38–39).
It is also unfortunate that anti-Received Text presuppositions lead to the exclusion of any consideration of John 5:4 in many modern books on the doctrine of angelology.
In conclusion, John 5:4 (John 5:3b-4) is part of God’s Word, just as inspired as the rest of the text. We should receive it with fear and trembling, reverence and love, as we do the rest of holy Scripture.
–TDR
Mark Ward / Thomas Ross Videos on King James Version English
As What is Truth? readers may know, Dr. Mark Ward, Bob Jones University graduate and Logos Bible software employee, produced a series of three videos (5/2/2024; 5/9/2024; 5/16/2024–note that I am making it quite easy to find his videos if you want to do so, while he made it difficult to locate the video of mine that he was responding to, which is unfortunate) on his YouTube channel entitled “More New KJV-Only Arguments” in which he responded to my “Is the King James Version (KJV) Too Hard to Understand? James White / Thomas Ross Debate Review 11” video (also here on Rumble, or here at FaithSaves). Here is the video as an embed:
I summarized my argument in the video here at What is Truth? in a previous post. Dr. Brandenburg wrote a post about how Dr. Ward said in these videos, concerning me, “I regard him as an extremist of a particularly dangerous kind, the kind that is super intelligent.” This comment by Dr. Ward definitely made me laugh. But watch out–this post is written by a particularly dangerous extremist. Has Dr. Ward warned about the Roman Catholic, Seventh Day Adventist, theologically modernist, and other sorts of damnable heresy that is published by Logos Bible software for whom he works? Maybe he has called this content that his employer publishes “dangerous” somewhere–I am not aware of it if he has. So I suppose all of that is fine, but saying English speakers should continue to use the Bible that has served them so well for 400 years–that is very, very dangerous. Millions of people are going to hell because of Roman Catholicism and theological modernism, but what is truly dangerous is anyone who would advise English speakers to use the Authorized, King James Version, despite a small number of archaic words it contains.
I pointed out in my video that the KJV’s English fits within the parameters of the linguistic difficulty of the original language texts of Scripture. Thus, since the KJV’s English is not harder than the Greek of the New Testament or the Hebrew of the Old Testament, we have an exegetical basis for concluding that we do not need, at this time, to revise the English Authorized Version. We also have an exegetical basis for determining when it would be appropriate to revise the English of the KJV–if it ever becomes significantly harder to read than the original language texts, then it is time for true churches to come together to produce a revision.
There are some serious problems in Ward’s response to my argument, although I appreciate that he actually offered a response. (James White just ignored it, so good for Dr. Ward.) I am not going to point out in this post all of the problems in his book claiming that the English of the KJV is too hard, or his serious inaccuracies in his three videos. I will, however, share with blog readers a comment I offered to part two of his three-part series. I have italicized my comment below and have added some explanatory words within it in bold.
Dear Dr. Ward,
Thank you for taking the time to review my “Is the King James Version (KJV) Too Hard to Understand? James White / Thomas Ross Debate Review 11” video in two videos (and apparently a third video coming).
In my comment I specified the name of the video he was critiquing so that people could actually watch it instead of just hearing his critique with a very limited ability to even find and hear first hand what he was arguing against.
Someone brought these videos to my attention and so I thought I should take a peek. I hope that both my video–which, of course, was not about anything you said in particular, but about Dr. White’s comments in our debate–and your response will contribute to Christians thinking Biblically about the issue of Bible translation, and evaluating their philosophy of Bible translation from a sola Scriptura perspective, instead of just creating whatever standard they wish. If my video and your responses lead to that happening, then something useful for God’s kingdom will certainly have been accomplished for His glory.
I really do mean that. I am glad that he made his videos, and I hope that people who are anti-KJVO will start to approach the question of Bible translation exegetically. Of course, if they do, they just might end up becoming perfect preservationists who use exclusively the KJV in English.
Lord willing, at some point I will create a response to your videos. You may not be surprised that I have not found your responses especially compelling, although I am looking forward to hearing what you have to say in part three.
Part three was also less than compelling. Brother Ward did not seem, in some places, to even grasp my argument accurately. For example, in part three Dr. Ward argued that if I was right then we should just add in archaic words when we make new translations, but my point was not about making new translations, but about when it is appropriate to revise an already extant translation. The idea that one should randomly decide to add in archaic words for fun has nothing to do with my argument. For the large majority of the time since God has given the canon of Scripture God’s people would have found more rare or hard-to-understand words in the Hebrew and Greek texts than there are in the KJV, but God never instructed His Apostles and prophets to make a revision of the Hebrew or Greek texts.
I was wondering if you would be so kind as to let me know: 1.) If, before I produced my video, you had written or set forth in any setting an exegetical basis for your position on Bible translations, other than your claim that the KJV is in a different language and so violates 1 Corinthians 14 on not speaking in foreign tongues in the church without an interpreter. I must say that I find the idea that 1 Corinthians 14 teaches that we must abandon the KJV, or at least its exclusive use in English, most unconvincing exegetically. I would like to confirm that you view my claim that we should evaluate what is appropriate for English Bible translations based on the level of difficulty of the Old Testament and New Testament Hebrew and Greek texts as a claim that is indeed “novel” or new to you, and thus as something that you never considered before writing your book Authorized?
It is not good if someone has written an entire book arguing that the KJV’s English is too hard to understand and has given a significant part of his life to turning people away from the King James Bible, and yet has never even thought about comparing it with the lingustic difficulty of the text God gave His people directly by the dictation of the Holy Spirit.
Dr. Ward’s argument that because 1 Corinthians 14 forbids utilizing the miraculous gift of tongues to speak Japanese in 1st century Corinth if there were no Japanese speakers present and no translation into the common language–Greek–or forbids miraculously speaking in the tongue of Zulu if there are no Zulu speakers present, therefore we need to reject the KJV because it is really a foreign language. This, to be kind, is less than convincing. To be blunt, it is ridiculous, and a painful abuse of 1 Corinthians 14. However, that is all the Scripture Dr. Ward has for his position that the English of the KJV is too hard. Would his argument prove too much–would it prove that the Jews in Ezra’s day should have revised the books of Moses, or that the Apostles should not have used the LXX, even when it is accurate? Yes. So we can be thankful that his claim from 1 Corinthians 14 is astonishingly off base. It was fine for the Jews in Malachi’s day to just read the Hebrew Pentateuch, even though their language had changed much more than the English language has between 1611 and today.
2.) If you could please also let me know how many times you have read the Greek NT cover to cover and / or the Hebrew OT, as well as what training in the languages you have, I would appreciate that as well. It will help me to be accurate in what I say in response to you, as I am sure we both believe accuracy is very important, as our God is a God of truth.
Dr. Ward never answered this question, and I suspect the answer is “zero” for both how many times he has read through the Greek NT or the Hebrew OT. There are not a few things that he says in his videos that make me rather strongly suspect this. They are not things one would say were he closely acquainted with the original language texts of Scripture.
Thank you very much. Let me say that I also appreciate that you provided a significant quote from my video and appeared to want to accurately represent me. I thank you for that.
I do appreciate that, as far as I can tell, Dr. Ward did not intentionally misrepresent my argument. Did he misrepresent it? Yes, but I think this was a matter of inaccuracy, not intentionality. I also need to keep in mind that his anti-KJVO side does not approach issues like this through exegesis, through looking at Scripture first to see what it says about preservation and Bible translation, so he is rather like a fish out of water here. I am glad he is trying. I wish he had plainly told his audience where they could find my argument so they could go ad fontes and compare what I actually said with what he argued against.
3.) I would also be interested in seeing if you have any grammatical sources for your claim that the difficulty in Luke-Acts, for example, versus the Johannine literature, is mainly because participles are placed in different locations, as well as your other grammatical claims. Some of the claims seemed quite unusual to my mind, and I would like to know if any Greek grammarians make such affirmations as you made.
He never provided any sources for his claims. I suspect that is because there are no such sources, as people who write Greek and Hebrew grammars are likely to be quite surprised by not a few of the arguments that Dr. Ward made. I do not think that those who have actually read Luke-Acts and the Johannine literature in the New Testament would say that the main or even the chief difficulty in harder NT Greek is knowing what adverbial participles modify. This statement sounds to me like the claim of someone who is not very familiar with the Greek of these books.
I may be into having sources for my claims more than most people who make YouTube videos, but I did not notice any grammatical sources cited in your videos.
That is the problem with producing YouTube videos instead of writing things down, or instead of doing face-to-face debate.
4.) When you spoke about a test that you had given to KJVO pastors that definitively proved that they did not understand the KJV themselves, I was interested and took the test, and had some KJVO folk take it as well. I must say that they did much, much better than did the people whom you surveyed. (I myself got a 19 out of 20, and I think that the one I got wrong was a problem with the question.)
I had never heard of his test, which he mentioned in part 1 of his video, until examining his video, part 1. I decided to take his test. One of the questions was:
“Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.”
(Proverbs 22:28 KJV)
This is a poorly designed question, because more than one of the answers fits both the meaning of the Hebrew word and the English translation in the KJV. Commenting on why the word “remove” here is (allegedly) archaic, Ward affirms:
The Hebrew here means “to displace [that is, to ‘cause (something) to move from its proper or usual place’] a boundary mark.” (HALOT/NOAD)
In 1611 “remove” in a context like this meant “to change position; to move a short distance or in a certain direction.” (OED)–just like the Hebrew. That sense, however, is marked as “Obsolete” in the OED.
Today, “remove” means to “take (something) away or off from the position occupied” or to “eliminate or get rid of” (NOAD).
However, the Dictionary of Classical Hebrew defines the Hebrew word here (in the tense used, the Hiphil) as follows:
Hi. 6.0.9 Pf. Q הסיג; impf. 2ms תַּסִּיג (תַּסֵּג); ptc. מַסִּיג, מַסִּיגֵי (Q מסגי, משיגי); inf. cstr. הסיג—1a. remove, move back, <SUBJ> Israel(ites) Dt 1914, seducer of wife 4QInstrb 2.46; subj. not specified, Pr 2228 2310 4QInstrb 2.38. <OBJ> גְּבוּל border Dt 1914 Pr 2228 2310 4QInstrb 2.38 2.46. <COLL> סוג hi. :: גבל set a border Dt 1914.
b. ptc. as noun, one who removes a boundary, <SUBJ> ארר pass. be cursed Dt 2717, דבר pi. speak CD 520, נבא ni. prophesy CD 520, עמד stand CD 520, שׁוב hi. cause to turn CD 520, תעה hi. cause to err CD 520. <CSTR> מַסִּיג גְּבוּל remover of a border Dt 2717, מַסִּיגֵי removers of Ho 510=CD 1915 4QDa 14 CD 520 (הגבול; =4QDa 3.27 גבול) 4Q424 39, משיגי הגב[ו]ל removers of the border 4QDf 12; כול מסיגי all the removers of 4Q424 39. <PREP> לְ of benefit, to, for 4Q424 39; introducing object 4QDa 14; כְּ as, like, + היה be Ho 510=CD 1915.
2. remove, carry away, intrans., <SUBJ> Israel(ites) Mc 614 (or em. תַּסֵּג you shall carry away to תַּשֵּׂג you shall reach, i.e. increase wealth; or em. תִּסָּגֵר you shall be delivered up, i.e. סגר ni.; unless סוג II hi. surround with fence). <COLL> סוג hi. || פלט hi. save Mc 614.
Note that this standard Hebrew lexicon–volume 1 of which was published in 1993–includes the actual English word “remove” in its definition of this word, but, supposedly, the KJV’s “remove” in Proverbs 22:28 is archaic. Has English changed a great deal since 1993, so that this Hebrew dictionary includes this alleged archaism, “remove”? Note as well that more than one of the options in Dr. Ward’s questionnaire would both fit the meaning of the Hebrew word and the English word.
Thus, his survey includes at least this allegedly “archaic” word in the KJV that is not archaic. The word is defined as “remove” in modern times in a modern standard Hebrew lexicon (one that, I might add, is never cited anywhere in Dr. Ward’s quiz–maybe he should have studied the Hebrew text a bit more carefully before producing his test, or at least before publishing it and making claims that are easily shown to be inaccurate.)
I am wondering if it is possible to get more information about who these people are. Are they Baptists? Are they people who believe in justification by works or baptismal regeneration and do not even have the Holy Spirit, as one finds even among various denominational “Baptist” groups if one goes house to house regularly in evangelism? Would they claim to be fundamentalists?
Who these people are is rather important. Dr. Ward said that only 7% of them knew the differences between “thee/thou/thy” as singular in the KJV and “ye/you” as plural. What? Seven percent? Who are these people? In our church the preachers all know, the adults are instructed, the children are instructed, and it is even in Bible study #1 in our evangelistic Bible study series. 93% of those who took his survey did not know this? Are his survey results verifiable, reproducible, and falsifiable–or are they none of the above? Why should we trust them?
Let me note that Mark Ward’s solution to people not knowing the difference between thee/thou/thy and ye/you is not to instruct them in the difference–it is to reject the KJV so that they are reading some modern version where you can NEVER know the difference. Quite a solution, no?
5.) I would be interested if you have done anything to encourage KJVO saints to do something like read KJVs that have the (small number of) archaic words defined in the margin of their Bibles, as do many study Bibles, the Defined KJV, etc.
I would love to find out I am wrong, but I think he has done exactly nothing to encourage saints who are going to cleave to their KJVs to understand them better by having them read editions of the Authorized Version where the archaic words are defined in the margin. I will applaud Dr. Ward when he donates the profits from his book against exclusive use of the KJV to purchasing copies of works that define its archaic words, such as David Cloud’s Believer’s Bible Dictionary, and donating those books to KJVO Christians. But I am not holding my breath.
If not, could you explain why you believe such a solution to your “false friends” idea is insufficient, and why what needs to be done is to replace the KJV with a multiplicity of modern versions that do things like take “hell” out of the Old Testament and replace it with that easy to understand and commonly used word “Sheol,” or attack the classical doctrine of the Trinity by changing the Son from being “only begotten” to being “unique,” or change the Son’s going forth from the Father in His eternal generation from being “from everlasting” to the Arian “from ancient days,” and so on, that would be appreciated. If you do not appreciate such changes in modern versions, I am wondering if you have any written sources or videos warning about them.
I am aware of exactly nothing written or taught by Dr. Ward warning about any of these serious corruptions–really evil “false friends”–in many modern Bible versions. Nor am I aware of Dr. Ward ever explaining why such a solution is more than sufficient to deal with the small number of KJV archaisms–just like there was not one word of criticism of Dr. James White’s inaccurate claims, the ones I was actually dealing with, in my video “Is the King James Version (KJV) Too Hard to Understand? James White / Thomas Ross Debate Review 11.” Only KJVO people deserve criticism, it appears.
I at least would rather have a Bible that teaches Athanasian Trinitarianism but uses “conversation” in an older sense meaning “conduct” than a Bible that has a nice new “conduct” translation but undermines the holy Trinity in some verses (while, thankfully, still supporting it in others).
Wouldn’t you?
Also, please feel free to get in touch with me if you ever change your mind about being willing to publicly dialogue or debate on this matter.
I have offered to debate him multiple times and he has refused. Could it be that his position is not defensible in open debate? Could it be that his whole case would fall apart if he had to do what Christ and the Apostles did in the Gospels and Acts, namely, debate and refute their opponents face-to-face?
I happen to think there would be more profit from a face-to-face encounter where we both have equal time to present our case than there is in your producing videos on your YouTube channel that are mainly preaching to your choir while I do the same on my KJB1611 channel with videos that will mainly be watched by people who are already convinced of the perfect preservation of Scripture. Finally, thank you for complementing me as being “super intelligent.” That was very kind of you. The “very dangerous” part, maybe not so much, but I suppose we can’t have everything. I am not planning to respond to any comments here, as I am not convinced that YouTube comments are the best place to engage in scholarly discussion, but I will look forward to hearing from you if you are able to answer my questions. Thanks again, Thomas
Dr. Ward did respond to my comment as follows:
Ross has said he won’t reply here. So I’ll reply to just two items for the sake of my viewers. (No reply on nos. 1, 2, and 5.)
Why do you think he does not want to answer questions #1, 2, and 5? It isn’t because I won’t reply on his YouTube channel in the comment section. Doesn’t he want me to have the best and most accurate information for when I actually respond to him, God willing? Surely it is not because he does not have a good answer to those questions. Right?
3. I mentioned in the video that I was offering my thoughts as a reader of the Greek New Testament; I self-consciously chose not to cite authorities here.
Does he cite authorities somewhere else, then? Where? Anywhere? I thought it was interesting that after I asked this question in part 2 of his three part series, in part 3 he mentioned that he had started reading a book on Hebrew discourse analysis. Great, good for him. He never said a word about my actual question–how much of the Hebrew Old Testament itself, and Greek New Testament itself, has he actually read?
4. All of the information I am able to release publicly about the participants in the study is available at kjbstudyproject.com, on the Demographic Data page that is linked in the main navigational menu. I refer interested viewers there.
The demographic data seems to indicate that the people who took his survey were not Mormons or Oneness Pentecostals, if the people who took the survey told the truth. So that is useful, and I appreciate that he pointed that out. But there is still something very wonky with his survey results. And, of course, we have no way of verifying, corroborating, or falsifying that whatever people said in the survey is actually the truth. Dr. Ward claimed his survey was “definitive,” when it is incredibly far from anything of the kind. But I do appreciate him pointing to that “Demographic Data” page, even though I wish he had taken the time to make sure that words like “remove” are actually archaic by spending just a bit longer looking at standard Hebrew lexica before putting his survey out.
Let me end this blog post by reiterating that, while his attempt to deal with my Biblically-based case for the English of the KJV is solely reactive, in that he never thought of actually seeing what God’s objective standard is for Bible translation by looking at the language level in Scripture until I brought this to his attention, by the grace of God, I am thankful if his videos at least get people to start to thinking that way.
Also, again, this is by no means a comprehensive response to his three videos or to his book–just a few thoughts to whet your appetite.
Finally, let me point out that this exchange illustrates why those who believe in the perfect preservation of Scripture and the Authorized, King James Version should learn the Biblical languages, especially if they are spiritual leaders. The large holes in his argument are much more easily visible if one knows Hebrew and Greek.
–TDR
New List of Reasons for Maximum Certainty for the New Testament Text (Part 3)
ANSWERING AGAIN THE “WHAT TR?” QUESTION
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.
Introduction for Point 5, the Next Point
Long ago, I completed the answering of every question from opponents on the issue of preservation, versions, etc. Nothing new has arisen for many years. What keeps me writing is the accusation that our side does not answer questions. I have written long, very complete answers. The norm of the opposition focuses on one little piece of an answer and takes it out of context. This happens in a lot of debate situations, so I understand it.
This series of posts again tries to help someone understand, who still doesn’t. The writing through the years has helped some. They’ve testified of that. For most though, they don’t care. It seems like a waste of time to keep talking to them.
My Approach for this Series
My approach for this series of posts is presenting scriptural principles, presuppositions, or promises as premises to a conclusion. I could further show how that these points represent historical biblical doctrine, interpretation, or application, but I won’t for this series. I’ve done that many times. I want to keep it simple here.
What I’m writing for this series, I’ve never seen from the critical text and modern version side. I still have not read a work that attempts to lay out a doctrine or biblical defense of naturalistic textual criticism to prove it is the historical Christian position. None do that because it’s absent from scripture. I’m not a reconstructionist like him, but I agree with this statement by R. J. Rushdoony:
Consider what happens when the Received Text is set aside and scholars give us their reconstruction of the text. The truth of revelation has thereby passed from the hand of God into the hands of men. Scholars then establish the true reading in terms of their presuppositions…The denial of the Received Text enables the scholar to play god over God. The determination of the correct word is now a scholar’s province and task. The Holy Spirit is no longer the giver and preserver of the biblical text: it is the scholar, the textual scholar.
The critical text and modern version side just takes shots at our positions. They have written several books like this, among the notable by D. A. Carson, James White, faculty from notable Bob Jones University grads, and then the Central Baptist Theological Seminary faculty. They don’t show biblical presuppositions or a presence in historical theology, because they don’t exist.
Without further adieu, I continue.
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.
In 2017, I wrote the following:
Evangelicals and fundamentalists argue for the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. This is important to them. With the qualities of canonical books present, how would the church recognize them? Because men are depraved, they couldn’t assess the divine qualities of canonical books except by the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. This is not as private revelation, but to help people overcome the effects of sin so that they might distinguish actual scripture. Even evangelicals believe that the consensus of the church is a key indicator of which books are canonical.
Scripture has divine qualities characteristic of its author, the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit indwells believers. Believers respond to what the Holy Spirit wrote, because He knows what He wrote. That’s how the argument goes. The Holy Spirit was not only at work in the origination of the Bible, but He also is at work within the people who receive the Bible. Donald Bloesch writes (p. 150, Holy Scriptures):Scripture is a product of the inspiring work of the Spirit, who guided the writers to give a reliable testimony to God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ. Its canonizing is to be attributed to the illumining work of the Spirit, who led . . . . the church to assent to what the Spirit had already authorized.
Spiritually Discerned
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
Unity of the Spirit
Saints of the first century knew the books the Holy Spirit inspired and the ones He didn’t. They copied the ones He inspired. They received those as the Word of God. The saints agreed on what the books and the words were. They copied and distributed them.
The agreement of the saints or of true churches resulted in a multitude of almost identical copies. As history passed the printing press era, they agreed or settled on the text of the Bible. One could and should call the agreement, “the unity of the Spirit” (Ephesians 4:3). What is that?
Every true believer possesses the Holy Spirit in him. He guides, leads, reproves, teaches, etc. The Holy Spirit will not on the inside of a believer lead, guide, or teach in a different way. He won’t contradict Himself. He is One.
The same Holy Spirit, Who inspired the Words of God, knows those Words still. He does not need to reinspire Words. Instead, He can direct His people to the correct one, when a copyist errs. The churches for hundreds of years did not agree on the critical text. That text did not make its way to God’s people. They received the, well, received text. They thought that the work of the Holy Spirit.
What I just wrote above is not mysticism. It is what we read in scripture. It is how we see the Holy Spirit work. Providence and the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit fulfilled God’s promise of preservation.
Historical Agreement
Related to the above, The Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646 reads:
V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.
The Gallican Confession (1559) reads:
We know these books to be canonical, and the sure rule of our faith, not so much by the common accord and consent of the Church, as by the testimony and inward illumination of the Holy Spirit, which enables us to distinguish them from other ecclesiastical books.
Thiessen wrote in his Introduction to the New Testament:
The Holy Spirit, given to the Church, quickened holy instincts, aided discernment between the genuine and the spurious, and thus led to gradual, harmonious, and in the end unanimous conclusions. There was in the Church what a modern divine has happily termed an ‘inspiration of selection’.
All the above statements fall within the teaching of many different scriptures on the Holy Spirit and the Words of God. The Holy Spirit leads through the agreement of His people. This is a reason Paul tells Timothy that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15).
How Does The Testimony of the Holy Spirit Work?
When believers recognize the work of the Holy Spirit, they attest to scriptural presuppositions, principles, and promises. Those will not contradict the Holy Spirit. This is the meaning of testing whether something is of the Holy Spirit. Naturalistic explanations don’t pass the test.
A true church is the temple of the Holy Spirit. The unity of Spirit is seen in the agreement of a true church. Churches received the received text (the textus receptus). At the end of an era, they agreed to stop publishing editions of the textus receptus. Was that the Holy Spirit testifying through the churches that believed and practiced the Bible? This fits the scriptural teaching and the model.
This principle, presupposition, or promise of the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit is not the only one of these. It is crucial though.
More to Come
New List of Reasons for Maximum Certainty for the New Testament Text (Part 2)
ANSWERING AGAIN THE “WHAT TR?” QUESTION
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.
Ahhh certainty, what some people call “epistemic hubris,” but I digress. One thing that modern version and critical text supporters are certain about? You can’t be certain about the text of the New Testament. They’re certain of that. And how do they know with such certainty so as to call people dangerous and extremist, who are certain? They know the same way that any one of you are certain that Covid arose from an animal in a wet market in Wuhan, China. You can’t be certain about the text of scripture even though scripture teaches certainty on the text of scripture. No, only a degree of confidence somewhere less than the efficiency of Tide detergent.
So I can get behind a keyboard and be a tough guy. That’s easy. But what about putting a blog where my mouth is. Let us continue.
Meaning of Kept
In His high priestly prayer in John 17, Jesus says in verse 6, “They have kept thy word.” “Kept” is the Greek word tareo, which BDAG says means:
1. to retain in custody, keep watch over, guard . . . . 2. to cause a state, condition, or activity to continue, keep, hold, reserve, preserve someone or something.
Jesus uses the word tareo a few verses later in verse 12, saying:
While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
The word kept that Jesus uses in verse 6, He defines in verse 12. Twice he says He “kept them.” And then He says, “None of them is lost.” If someone keeps something or someone, then nothing or no one was lost. If something or someone is lost, it or he was not kept. Let’s say Jesus originally saved 100,000 people, but in the end only 99,995 or so were saved. He couldn’t say, “None of them is lost.” Five of them were lost. If you were one of the five, you would take a change in the definition of “kept” very seriously.
Consider this dialogue.
“I gave you those fifty marbles. Did you keep them?”
“Yes.”
“So how many do you have?”
“I have 48 of them.”
“I thought you said you kept them.”
“I did.”
“No you didn’t; you lost two of them. That’s not keeping the marbles. That’s losing.”
That’s a basic tutorial on the concept of keep or preserve.
Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic Words
The Bible promises preservation of what God gave, inscripturated, or inspired. What He gave were words almost exclusively in Hebrew and Greek, and a few in Aramaic. What He gave He also kept or preserved. God didn’t give, inscripturate, or inspire English words. He gave Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic words and those were the ones He also kept or preserved.
What Jesus said in Matthew 5:18 corroborates this obvious idea of kept or preserved. Jesus said:
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.
Jesus was speaking of the Old Testament and a jot and a tittle were both Hebrew letters, not some other language. Again, this was not a promise to preserve one particular manuscript or physical scroll. In its context (Matthew 5:17-20) it did mean that scripture, its letters and words on pages, would remain available to read and heed.
4. God’s Promise of Keeping and Preserving His Words Means the Availability of His Words to Every Generation of Believers.
Availability or General Accessibility
Keeping means availability. Availability means general accessibility. Scripture shows this again and again. God kept the words for people to know and obey. Keeping them for His people to whom He gave them means their availability for those people to use.
Saying “general accessibility” means that someone may not have his own copy of scripture at home. The words were available in general for believers in general. Words not generally accessible were not the words God kept for His people. Because a single ancient manuscript was on earth somewhere does not mean it was available or generally accessible. It wasn’t. God’s people did not have it to read and heed.
Versus Buried Text View
A doctrine of availability accompanies a true doctrine of preservation. I call the alternative a “buried text view.” Critical text proponents are still searching for lost hand copies and ancient translations for the sake of restoring a lost text. Every time a person or organization announces that he or it found a very old page of scripture, critical text scholars relish with great expectation to find new information for possible purposes of correction.
Those who believe in perfect preservation for every generation of believer do not expect to find a buried or lost text that will correct the present text of scripture. They believe in preservation and availability. That lost copy was not available. It couldn’t be what God preserved or kept.
New Testament Language of the Received Text
The language, “received text,” elicits the truth of availability. Something not available was not received by anyone. “Received text” itself, as a description of the preserved New Testament text, comes from scripture.
Gospels
Matthew 13:19-20, 22-23, “When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side. But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it.
He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful. But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.”
Luke 8:13, “They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.”
John 17:8, “For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.”
Acts
Acts 2:41, “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.”
Acts 8:14, “Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John.”
Acts 11:1, “And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.”
Acts 17:11, “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”
Epistles
1 Thessalonians 1:6, “And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost.”
1 Thessalonians 2:13, “For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.”
James 1:21, “Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.”
How could believers or churches receive God’s Word or Words if they were not available? They couldn’t. But this was not the case. They could receive His Words because of the general accessibility of them for every generation of believer.
More to Come
Reformed Systematic Theology v. 1, Joel Beeke & Paul Smalley
I recently finished reading Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology vol. 1: Revelation and God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019). I had purchased it on Logos Bible Software and, because I thought it had lots of good features, also purchased a physical copy with Reformation Heritage Books (which may be cheaper than getting it on Amazon, which I linked to above with an affiliate link. They currently have the entire four volume set at a heavily discounted price. I have not read volumes 2-4 (yet!) so I cannot comment on their quality.) I read almost all of the 1158 pages of the book on my phone in small snippets of time, such as when going up and down in an elevator, or standing in a line, and so on. I am about 60 pages into volume two, reading it in the same way. Let me commend to you being purposeful with the time God gives you; there are many time-suckers on a typical cell phone and on the Internet, but you can choose to avoid them and do something useful when you have a minute or two or five here and there.)
Positive features of Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology vol. 1: Revelation and God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019).
There are many positive features of volume one of Reformed Systematic Theology. These include:
1.) The book consistently seeks to make doctrine practical. While it seeks–and achieves–theological precision, it consistently applies doctrine to life. The book does not just seek to increase one’s mental comprehension of Biblical teaching, but seeks to be the instrument of the Holy Spirit in applying the truth of Scripture to transform the whole man. As Dr. Beeke is the president of the Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, we should not be surprised that, as an heir of the Puritans, he seeks to apply doctrine practically to life. The authors explain their purpose in writing as follows:
This systematic theology explores the classic teachings of the Reformed Christian faith from a perspective that is biblical, doctrinal, experiential, and practical. Today’s churches need theology that engages the head, heart, and hands. Too often, we have compartmentalized these aspects of life (as if we could cut ourselves into pieces). The result has been academics for the sake of academics, spiritual experience without roots deep in God’s Word, and superficial pragmatism that chases after the will-o’-the-wisp of short-term results. The church has suffered from this fragmented approach to the Christian faith. However, we have learned from the Reformers, the British Puritans, and the Dutch Further Reformation divines an approach to Christianity that combines thoughtful exegesis of the Holy Scriptures, rich exploration of classic Augustinian and Reformed theology, an experiential tone that brings truth into the heart, and practical applications for life.
Joel R. Beeke, “Preface,” in Reformed Systematic Theology: Revelation and God, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), 17–18.
This practical emphasis is commendable, and it makes the book an edifying read.
2.) Reformed Systematic Theology is consistently conservative, evangelical, and Reformed in its theology. While Scripture does not teach Calvinist soteriology, if one is aware of the standard imbalances in Reformed doctrine, there is not much else in terms of “bones” to spit out while one eats the meat. There are no unexpected strange doctrines, but a solid presentation of the doctrines of revelation and of the infallible, inerrant Bible and of the God of Scripture, with the only things that are off being the standard errors of Reformed theology (in terms of theology proper, getting too close to making God the author of sin by saying that He decrees sin and justifying the horrifying Calvinist doctrine of reprobation). While I would not just hand this book to a new Christian and tell him to believe everything it says, I would not be concerned about giving it to someone training for the ministry who knows the problems with Reformed doctrine and is inoculated against them from Scripture. I believe people in the latter class could be greatly blessed by much good Biblical explanation and practical application in this book.
3.) Reformed Systematic Theology uses the King James Version as its base Bible version. I believe that Dr. Beeke preaches from the KJV, so this is not surprising, but it is still refreshing to not have to read lots of quotations from inferior modern Bible versions. On occasion the ESV is quoted, but the large majority of the time it is the KJV, which is a blessing for King James Only Christians.
4.) Interestingly, Paul Smalley is a Reformed Baptist, while Joel Beeke is a Reformed paedobaptist. I cannot agree with the paedobaptism, but I am thankful that at least one of the two authors is a minister in a Baptist church, even if it is a Reformed Baptist congregation.
5.) When it is appropriate Beeke and Smalley make warnings such as: “Worldliness diminishes a man’s soul and makes him petty; knowing God ennobles a human being.” (Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology: Revelation and God, vol. 1 [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019], 509). It is great to read a systematic theology that warns against worldliness and points one, instead, to knowing God as the cure for it!
6.) The book discusses doctrines, such as Divine simplicity, that I am afraid that graduates from many Baptist Bible colleges and institutes will give you a blank stare if you ask about them. (Do you know what Scripture teaches about Divine simplicity? If not, maybe you should read the part of Reformed Systematic Theology about that doctrine and find out what it is.)
7.) My physical copy of Reformed Systematic Theology is a quality hardcover book that is well-made and easy to read. It is also written in well-written and engaging English. It is scholarly and excellently done.
Concerns with Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology vol. 1: Revelation and God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019).
1.) My major concern is, naturally, that the Bible does not teach unconditional election and reprobation, limited atonement, or irresistible grace in salvation (and, depending on how one defines things, total depravity and the perseverance of the saints could also have problems). Reformed Systematic Theology is unabashedly Reformed. One who has not already read independent Baptist systematic theological works such as Robert Sargent’s Landmarks of Baptist Doctrine from Bible Baptist Church Publications would be well-advised to start there before reading a Reformed systematic theology, even one that has the commendable features mentioned above.
2.) While I am thankful that Reformed Systematic Theology uses the Authorized, King James Version, it does not have a section on the preservation of Scripture. The book’s outline on the doctrine of revelation is at the bottom of this blog post (please see down there).
You can see that there is a lot of good stuff in there. However, there is nothing either supporting or denying the perfect preservation of Scripture. One who recognizes that he has all of God’s Words in the Old and New Testament Textus Receptus will not have his faith attacked, but neither will he have it confirmed.
3.) I also do not want people who read this book and are encouraged by its good English, its many edifying and encouraging practical applications, and its solid theology in many areas to become improperly enamored with Reformed paedobaptist theology. I do not doubt that Dr. Beeke is a sincere and converted man whom I expect to see in heaven, but the special presence of Christ is not in his Reformed paedobaptist organization. If you can explain and defend why Reformed soteriology is wrong and why, in the doctrine of God, Scripture does not teach that God ordains sin or unconditionally reprobates people for His glory (!!), you may get many blessings from this book. Maybe you will even find it engaging enough to read the whole thing on your phone while waiting in lines and going up and down in elevators and the like.
–TDR
Here is the outline of the section on the doctrine of revelation. I did not take the time to re-introduce all the tabination, so please pardon the fact that everything is just in a straight line.
X. Theological Fundamentals of Divine Revelation
A. Biblical Terminology of Divine Revelation
1. Old Testament Terminology
2. New Testament Terminology
B. Basic Biblical Perspective on Divine Revelation (Genesis 1–3; Psalm 19)
1. The Revelation of the Sovereign God to His Image Bearers
2. The Revelation of God by His Creation (General Revelation)
3. The Revelation of God by His Word (Special Revelation)
4. The Response of God’s Servants to His Word (Applied Revelation)
C. Summary Statement on the Biblical Doctrine of Divine Revelation
X. General Revelation
A. General Revelation: Biblical Teaching
1. Revelation around Man in Creation
a. General Revelation of the Divine Nature
i. It Reveals God to a Limited Degree
ii. It Reveals God in an Open and Plain Manner
iii. It Reveals God according to His Will
iv. It Reveals the Invisible God
v. It Reveals God’s Divine Nature
vi. It Reveals God throughout History
vii. It Reveals God through His Created World
b. General Revelation of Divine Wrath in a Fallen World
2. Revelation within Man
a. General Revelation according to the Image of God
b. General Revelation via the Human Conscience
3. The Use and Efficacy of General Revelation
a. The Universal Knowledge Granted through General Revelation
i. God Exists, and Created All Things
ii. Atheism Is Folly
iii. God Has a Unique Nature as God
iv. Idolatry Is Wicked
v. God Holds Man Accountable to His Moral Law
vi. Sinners Are under God’s Wrath and without Excuse
b. The Universal Response of Mankind to General Revelation
c. The Proper Christian Use of General Revelation
i. The Church’s Missiological Use of General Revelation
ii. The Church’s Doxological Use of General Revelation
B. General Revelation: Philosophy and Science
1. Christianity and Rational Philosophy
a. Not Necessary in Order to Know and Glorify God
b. Teaches Some Valid and Useful Truths
c. Proposes Systems of Thought Antithetical to the Gospel
d. May Be Used Only with Radical, Biblical Critique
e. Recognizes Legitimate Methods of Reasoning
2. Christianity and Empirical Science
a. Operates with Delegated Authority
b. Can Investigate Nature with Confident Rationality
c. Must Work from a Posture of Intellectual Humility
d. Must Realize That Its Conclusions Possess Only Human Certainty
e. Should Pursue Knowledge with Prayerful Dependency
f. Limited by Its Ultimate Insufficiency to Make Us Wise
g. Must Work with God-Fearing Integrity
h. Should Make Use of Its Findings to Promote Grateful Doxology
C. General Revelation: Natural Theology and Theistic Arguments
1. Various Rejections of Natural Theology and Theistic Arguments
a. Karl Barth
b. Cornelius Van Til
2. Toward a Biblical, Reformed Approach to Theistic Arguments
a. God Testifies to Himself through the Natural World
b. Belief in God Is a Valid Presupposition of Human Thought
c. The Proper Posture of Human Reason Is to Fear God as His Servant
d. The Sinner’s Mind Is Alienated from God, and Cannot Reason to Its Creator
e. The Philosophy of Non-Christians Is Distorted by Satan
f. A Right Use of Reason Depends upon the Spirit-Illuminated Word
g. Christians May Make Rational Arguments from Creation to God
h. Christians May Use Arguments to Show the Foolishness of Those Who Deny God
i. The Wise Use of Theistic Arguments Varies with Culture and Education
j. Christians Should Beware of Glorying in Human Wisdom
k. Theistic Arguments Are Appeals to Divine Witness in Creation
l. Theistic Arguments Are at Best Like the Law That Convicts but Cannot Save
D. Some Historical Perspective on Natural Theology and Theistic Proofs
1. Ancient Roots of Natural Theology
a. Pagan Literature: Varro, Plato, Aristotle, and Zeno
b. Early Christian Apologists: Aristides, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian
c. Early Greek Fathers: Athanasius, the Cappadocians, and John of Damascus
d. Latin Christianity: Augustine
e. Assessment of Ancient and Early Christian Natural Theology
2. Medieval Development of Natural Theology
a. Muslim and Jewish Scholarship: Avicenna, Averroes, and Maimonides
b. Christian Medieval Scholasticism: Anselm and Thomas Aquinas
c. Assessment of Thomist Natural Theology
3. The Reformation’s Critical Interaction with Natural Theology
a. Critique of Natural Theology: Luther and Calvin
b. Critical Appropriation of Theistic Arguments: Vermigli, Junius, and Turretin
c. Assessment of Early Reformed Views of Natural Theology
XI. Special Revelation: Theological Introduction
A. Special Revelation: Biblical Teaching
1. The Trinitarian, Mediatorial Work of Special Revelation
a. The Son Is the Only Mediator of Divine Revelation
b. The Father Is the Sovereign Author of Divine Revelation in the Son
c. The Spirit Is the Effective Agent of Divine Revelation in the Son
2. The Finite Human Character of Special Revelation
3. The Manifold Historical Modes of Special Revelation
a. Supernatural Verbal Revelation
b. Supernatural Visual Revelation
c. Supernatural Providential Revelation
d. Supernatural Incarnational Revelation
4. The Personal, Propositional Content of Special Revelation
B. Errors Regarding Special Revelation
1. Special Revelation Extended to Hierarchical Tradition
2. Special Revelation Subordinated to Human Reason
3. Special Revelation Diffused to Harmonize All Religions
4. Special Revelation Redefined as Holy Encounter
5. Special Revelation Confined to Historical Events
XII. The Bible as the Word of God
A. The Word of the Prophets and Apostles Is the Word of God
1. The Word of God Preached through the Prophets and Apostles
2. The Written Word of God: The Old Testament
3. The Written Word of God: The New Testament
B. The Spirit’s Inspiration of the Written Word of God
1. The Reality of Verbal Inspiration
2. The Extent, Meaning, and Implications of Inspiration
a. Extent: Plenary Inspiration
b. Meaning: God-Breathed Word
c. Implications
i. Authority
ii. Veracity
iii. Sufficiency
iv. Clarity
v. Necessity
vi. Unity in Christ
vii. Efficacy
XIII. The Properties of the Written Word
A. The Authority of the Bible
1. The Source of the Bible’s Authority
2. Biblical Authority and the Church
3. The Authentication of the Bible
4. Biblical Authority versus Personal Autonomy
5. Practical Implications of Biblical Authority
B. The Clarity of the Bible
1. The Perspicuity Controversy
2. Practical Implications of Biblical Clarity
C. The Necessity of the Bible
1. The Necessity of the Gospel for All Mankind
2. The Publishing of the Gospel in Written Form
3. The Preservation of the Gospel to the End of the Age
4. Practical Implications of the Bible’s Necessity
D. The Unity of the Bible in Christ
1. The Great Theme of the Bible
2. The Manifold Forms of Christ’s Revelation
3. Practical Implications of the Bible’s Unity in Christ
E. The Efficacy of the Bible by the Spirit
1. The Word and the Spirit of Conviction
2. The Word and the Spirit of Life
3. Practical Implications of the Bible’s Efficacy by the Spirit
F. The Inerrant Veracity of the Bible
1. Inerrant Veracity Defined
2. Inerrant Veracity Clarified
3. Biblical Teaching on Scripture’s Inerrant Veracity
4. Practical Implications of the Bible’s Veracity
5. Objections to Inerrancy
a. Human Fallibility
b. History Is Not Essential to Religion
c. Contradictions with Modern History and Science
d. Contradictions in the Bible
e. Theological Novelty
H. The Sufficiency of the Bible
1. Biblical Sufficiency Defined
2. Biblical Sufficiency Clarified
2. Biblical Teaching on Scripture’s Sufficiency
3. Practical Implications of the Bible’s Sufficiency
XIV. The Cessation of Special Revelation
A. Arguments for Charismatic Continuationism
1. God’s Ancient Promise
2. The Eschatological Last Days
3. Cessation at Christ’s Second Coming
4. The Spirit’s Ministry to the Body
5. Edification of the Saints
6. God’s Command
7. Historical Movements
8. Personal Experiences
9. The Reality of the Supernatural
10. The Silence of Scripture
B. The Uniqueness of the Apostolic Age
1. The Apostles of Jesus Christ
2. A Biblical Pattern of Miraculous Ministry in History
3. Apostles in Pentecostal and Charismatic Churches Today
C. Practical Implications of the Apostles’ Ministry
1. We Must Receive the New Testament as the Word of God
2. We Should Distinguish between Modern Teachers and the Apostles of Jesus Christ
3. We Must Beware of False Apostles and Prophets Working Wonders
4. We Must Seek the Power of the Holy Spirit
D. The Cessation of Revelatory Gifts Such as Prophecy
1. The Finality of Christ
2. The Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets
3. The Fallibility of Modern “Prophets”
E. Pastoral Concerns about Evangelical Prophecy
1. Continuationism Tends to Put People in Bondage to Individual Leaders
2. Continuationism Tends to Put People in Bondage to Presumptuous Beliefs
3. Continuationism Tends to Put People in Bondage to Human Thoughts, Impressions, and Feelings
XV. Applied Revelation for Practical Fruit
A. Personal Fruit of Applied Revelation
1. Personal Faith in the Scriptures
2. Personal Study of the Scriptures
3. Personal Experience through the Scriptures
B. Familial Fruit of Applied Revelation
C. Ecclesiastical Fruit of Applied Revelation
1. Transformation in Corporate Life
2. Balance in Pastoral Ministry
3. Zeal in Evangelism
4. Dependency in Leadership
5. Priority in Education
6. Saturation in Worship
D. Societal Fruit of Applied Revelation
E. International Fruit of Applied Revelation
F. Doxological Fruit of Applied Revelation
Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology: Revelation and God, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), 29–35.
Hebrew Shema / Deuteronomy 6:4-6 Chant / Trope / Cantillated
Deuteronomy 6:4, the Shema, is the most famous verse of the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible for Jews. The Hebrew text has a complex system of accent marks that provide exegetically significant information; in addition to the accents providing one of four levels of disjunction in the text (that is, providing pauses that divide words with four levels of strength), or emphasizing conjunction (that words are to be read together). The Lord Jesus affirmed that God would preserve the Hebrew vowels and accent marks until heaven and earth pass away-the words of the Old Testament themselves, not merely the consonants, are inspired:
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. (Matthew 5:18)
Historically, the inspiration of the vowels has been affirmed, and receiving the Biblical testimony to the inspiration of the words, not the consonants only, of the Old Testament is apologetically and intellectually defensible.
So what does the Shema and the following two verses sound like when sung or chanted following the Hebrew accent marks? You can hear the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) in a synagogue, but if you do not want to go to one, and want to hear the following passage of the Torah chanted:
Deut. 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
Deut. 6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
Deut. 6:6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:
Then please watch or listen to the following brief video:
or watch the video on Rumble by clicking here or on YouTube by clicking here.
Whether or not one learns to fluently sing or chant, students of the Hebrew Bible should learn to identify the Hebrew accent marks, just like they can identify English periods, commas, and semicolons. Courses in Hebrew should teach the people of the God of Israel and those who trust in Israel’s Messiah the accents, rather than ignoring them and teaching only the consonants and vowels.
This blog has pointed out in the past that the Authorized, King James Version does a good job representing the Hebrew accents in English (although the punctuation system in English is different and simpler than that of Hebrew).
You might be able to have more doors open in witnessing to Jews if you memorize at least the Shema, Deuteronomy 6:4, in Hebrew. If Then share with them the truth in the “Truth from the Torah” pamphlet. If you have one of the Jewish evangelistic shirts here, by memorizing the Shema you will be able to chant the Hebrew text on the front of your shirt.
If you can at least read the Hebrew alphabet it should not be that hard to memorize this passage–the greatest commandment of all, according to the resurrected Messiah, Son of God and Son of Man, the Lord Jesus (Matthew 22:37-38). Just copy the audio of the video to your phone or other electronic device and get your device to play the Hebrew over and over again, and before you know it you will have the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) and the greatest commandment (Deuteronomy 6:5) memorized in Hebrew. Put these glorious words in your heart (Deuteronomy 6:6), where you can savor them, love them, and ever the more obey them.
–TDR
King James Bible Onlyism & No Pre-Christian LXX Ruckmanism
Peter Ruckman, King James Bible Only or King James Only extremist, denied (after a fashion) that the LXX or Greek Septuagint existed before the times of Jesus Christ. Ruckman wrote:
Finally we proved, by documented attestation from dozens of sources (pp. 40–68), that no such animal as a B.C. “Septuagint” (LXX) ever existed before the completion of the New Testament. We listed ALL of the LXX manuscripts, including the papyri (pp. 45, 48–51). There was not to be found ONE manuscript or ONE Old Testament Greek “Bible,” not ONE Greek fragment or ONE piece of a Greek fragment written before A.D. 150, that ANY apostle quoted, or that Jesus Christ quoted. Not ONE. And even the date A.D. 150 is “fudging,” for Aquila’s “Septuagint,” (supposedly written between A.D. 128 and 140), was not published by Origen till after A.D. 220. Aquila’s text (A.D. 128–150) is not extant; it has not been extant since A.D. 6.
No apostle quoted any part of Ryland’s papyrus 458 (150 B.C. supposedly). Not ONCE since our first book was published (Manuscript Evidence, 1970), has any Christian scholar in England, Africa, Europe, Asia, or the Americas (representing ANY University, College, Seminary, or Bible Institute—Christian or otherwise), ever produced ONE verse of ONE part of any verse of a Greek Old Testament written before A.D. 220. (see above) that ANY New Testament writer quoted. This means that 5,000–6,000 lying jacklegs had been given twenty-seven years to produce ONE piece of evidence for the Greek Septuagint the New Testament writers were supposed to have been quoting. In twenty-seven years, the whole Scholars’ Union couldn’t come up with ONE verse. They “stressed out.” As a modern generation would say: “totally outta here!” (Peter Ruckman, The Mythological Septuagint, pg. 6
Before the time of Ruckman, I am not aware of any serious advocate of King James Onlyism, the Textus Receptus, or the perfect preservation of Scripture who denied that the LXX existed before the times of Christ. This is because a Ruckmanite denial of a pre-Christian LXX is historically indefensible. The King James translators certainly believed that the LXX existed before the times of Christ. Christians who believe in the perfect preservation of Scripture, and who consequently believe in the Greek Textus Receptus and the King James Bible, should reject Ruckman’s historically indefensible and confused argument. The KJVO movement should purge itself of Ruckmanite influences, including in this area.
Please note that–as is typical for Ruckman–his argument quoted above is confusing and incoherent. It seems that he is arguing that there is no such thing as a B. C. LXX, and that there is not “ONE manuscript … not ONE Greek fragment or ONE piece of a Greek fragment written before A. D. 150.” From Ruckman’s foul well, the idea that there is no pre-Christian LXX has spread to many quarters. But note Ruckman’s incredible qualification: “that ANY apostle quoted, or that Jesus Christ quoted.” Many readers will miss this astonishing qualification, for Ruckman, even in his radical anti-LXX book, indicates full awareness that there are papyrus fragments of the LXX that exist (e. g., Rylands papyrus 458) and that are pre-Christian. So now some KJVO advocates, through making the unwise decision to read Ruckman and then misreading him, are arguing that the LXX did not exist before the times of Origen, which is totally indefensible.
Rylands papyrus 458: Pre-Christian Evidence For the LXX
In addition to such small fragments, it is probable that we have an entire Greek scroll of the minor prophets from Nahal Hever that is pre-Christian. But even the small fragments above demonstrate the existence of the book from which the fragments come.
Nor is it wise to dismiss the documentary evidence, such as the Letter of Aristeas. (Have you ever read it? You should, at least if you are going to comment on whether there was a pre-Christian Septuagint or not. At least it isn’t full of carnal language and racism like Ruckman’s works). If you actually read the Letter of Aristeas you will see that it not only speaks of the translation of the Old Testament into Greek centuries before the times of Christ, but it says that there were already multiple Greek versions extant before the LXX was made. Is the Letter to Aristeas infallible history, like Scripture? Of course not. Should we just dismiss everything it says and conclude there is no historical basis for any of it? No, we should not do that either. We would not have much world history left if we dismissed every source completely if we found any errors in it. Furthermore, Philo and Josephus discuss the Septuagint, as do many writers in early Christendom. It would be very strange for all of these sources to be discussing a translation that did not even exist yet. It is actually very much expected that the Jews would translate the Old Testament into Greek, since pre-Christian Judaism was an evangelistic, missionary religion that sought to spread the knowledge of the true God to the whole world.
Within a lot of confusion, carnality, and equivocation in Ruckman’s argument, there are certain elements of truth within his comments on the LXX. Others have made these points in a much more clear and much less confusing way, including in blog posts concerning the LXX on this What is Truth? blog. (See also here, here, and others.) What truths should KJVO people hold to in relation to the LXX?
1.) The LXX was never the final authority for the Lord Jesus and the Apostles; the final authority was always the Hebrew text (Matthew 5:18). They never quoted the LXX where it mistranslated the Hebrew. Indeed, since most scribes of the LXX were in the realm of Christendom, there is every reason to think that they would backtranslate NT quotations into the LXX text. Unlike the nutty idea that there was no pre-Christian LXX, the idea that scribes would move NT quotations back into Greek LXX manuscripts is well-supported and has been advocated widely, from people like John Owen in the past to the evangelical authors Jobes and Silva in their modern introduction to the LXX. (Please see my discussion and quotations of this matter in slides 155ff. from my King James Only debate with James White.) That the LXX was never the final authority does not mean that the NT writers never quoted or alluded to the LXX. Modern KJVO evangelists or missionaries to, say, China may quote the Chinese Bible where it is an accurate translation, but not where it differs from the preserved Greek text accurately translated in the KJV. There is no reason to say that, where the LXX accurately translates the preserved Hebrew text, the NT does not quote or allude to it. There is reason to say that this does not happen where the LXX is inaccurate.
2.) Speaking of the LXX does not mean that there was a single, authoritative, universally recognized translation. Indeed, both the ancient sources such as the Letter of Aristeas and significant parts of modern scholarship on the LXX recognize that there were multiple Greek translations of the Hebrew Old Testament. There was no “THE” LXX in the sense of a single, authoritative, universally recognized translation. The LXX did, however, exist in the sense that the Old Testament was translated into Greek, more than once, before the times of Christ.
3.) Instead of pretending that the Septuagint is a myth, King James Only advocates should reject the Ruckmanite fable that the LXX did not exist before the times of Christ and instead advocate the position held by pre-Ruckman defenders of the Received Text and of the KJV (and which has never been wholly abandoned by perfect preservationists for the Ruckmanite myth), namely, that the LXX is a valuable tool for understanding the linguistic and intellectual background of the New Testament, but it is never the final authority for the Old Testament–the Hebrew words perfectly preserved by God are always the final authority (Matthew 5:18). Christ, who as Man was fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, would almost certainly have delighted to read the Greek LXX, although He would have had a holy hatred for the mistranslations in it and been grieved at how in some books it is much less literal than in other texts (the Pentateuch is quite literal; some books of the Writings, not so much). The Son of Man, the best of all preachers as the incarnate Word, would have had perfect grasp of the Hebrew text and would also be aware of what the Greek Bible said. Recognizing that many of those to whom He would preach the gospel would not know Hebrew, and wanting to minister to them in the most effective way, he would have had a mastery of the Greek Old Testament as well as the Hebrew Bible. A missionary to Japan would read the Bible in Japanese so he could effectively minister to the Japanese. The Lord Jesus and those who followed His example among His Apostles and other disciples would have read the Bible in Greek so that they could minister to those who spoke only the world language-Greek. I would recommend that those who have gained fluency in New Testament Greek, and have read their Greek New Testament cover to cover, go on to read through the LXX as well, as it provides valuable background to the New Testament. They should, however, like their resurrected Lord, recognize that the LXX is never the final authority for the Old Testament. They should rejoice in the Greek Bible when it is accurate, grieve when it is inaccurate, and always make the perfectly preserved Hebrew text their final authority as they study, preach, teach, love and obey the Old Testament.
–TDR
King James Bible & Sam Gipp, Peter Ruckman & Gail Riplinger
Who is King James Only Advocate Sam Gipp?
Sam Gipp is an extremist defender of the King James Bible (also known as the King James Version or Authorized Version) of 1611 (KJB / KJV / AV). Gipp has been heavily influenced by the “Baptist” heretic Peter Ruckman, having graduated from Ruckman’s Bible institute, and having received an honorary doctorate from Ruckman’s educational institution. His views are also very similar to those of Ms. Gail Riplinger. Thus, Sam Gipp is a representative of Ruckman’s brand of King James Onlyism (KJVO).
While I strongly disagree with Mr. Gipp on his Ruckmanism, I am thankful that he preaches the gospel, as far as I know, and I trust that people have been born again through his preaching. I rejoice that there will be people in heaven who are there because the Spirit used the Word through the (very!) imperfect vessel of a Ruckmanite preacher (Mark 9:38-39; Philippians 1:15-18).
I do not know if Mr. Gipp agrees with Ruckman’s gospel-corrupting heresy that people in different periods of time have been and will be saved by faith and works together, although if Gipp does not agree with it, he certainly does not separate from and plainly warn about Peter Ruckman’s false gospel and tell everyone to separate from Ruckman and his many heresies and blasphemies. Gipp does follow Ruckman in calling black people “nig–r”; he calls on white people to start regularly using this inappropriate term for blacks. He also makes foolish statements that undermine the gospel and will cause unbiblical offense (Mark 9:42), such as: “I hope you racists enjoyed this racist rant by a fellow racist. Tell your racist friends about it.” (Sam Gipp, “‘Racist’ the New ‘N-word,’ August 1, 2020. Bold print reproduced from the original.)
Dr. Gipp also agrees with Ruckman’s unbiblical KJVO extremism. For example, in Gipp’s Answer Book, he says: “The King James Version we have today … is the very word of God preserved for us in the English language. The authority for its veracity lies not … in the Greek Received Text” (pg. 24; note that the KJV is not said to be authoritative because it accurately translates the ultimately authoritative Greek text, but is allegedly authoritative independent of the Greek Received Text.). “QUESTION #30: The King James Bible is a mere translation from Greek to English. A translation can’t be as good as the originals, can it? ANSWER: A translation cannot only be “as good” as the originals, but better” (pg. 69; the humorous and embarrassingly bad reason provided is that when Enoch and others were “translated” to heaven, they were better afterwards than before, along with two other texts where the English word “translation” appears that have absolutely nothing to do with rendering the Bible from one language to another.). People should be “convinced that the King James Bible is the infallible Word of God” and therefore “remove those little so called ‘nuggets’ from the imperfect Greek” (pg. 115) to study only the English of the King James Version. Gipp’s Answer Book offers many words of praise for Peter Ruckman (pg. 89) but not one syllable of warning.
Sam Gipp: Ruckmanite Extremism
I recently was at an event where Christians from a variety of backgrounds were present. I was able to have a conversation with a sincere Christian man who, unfortunately, had been strongly influenced by Sam Gipp’s view on the King James Bible. (I would not be surprised if he simply wanted to have certainty about Scripture rather than really being excited about Ruckman’s claims of alien breeding facilities run by the government, Ruckman’s carnal language, and so on.) A friend of mine mentioned to him that I had debated James White on the King James Version. This brother in Christ asked me what I thought of Gipp. I said I would be happy to debate him, too. (That was the Biblically faithful answer, but not the answer this Christian brother wanted to hear, I suspect.) I would indeed be happy to debate Dr. Gipp on a proposition such as: “Because God has preserved His Word in the English language, study of the Greek and Hebrew texts of Scripture is detrimental or, at best, useless.” If Gipp will affirm this, I will deny it in any venue that is, within reason, mutually agreeable to both of us. I can be reached through the “contact us” page here if Dr. Gipp is open.
This Christian brother influenced by Mr. Gipp proceeded to argue that nobody really knew Greek, because it is a dead language. He seemed to think that there is no reason to look at the Greek and Hebrew texts of Scripture (a conclusion also advocated by fellow KJVO radical Ms. Gail Riplinger in her book Hazardous Materials: Greek and Hebrew Study Dangers).
When I asked this sincere Christian brother if he knew where the actual Greek words spoken by Christ and recorded by Matthew, Mark, and the other New Testament writers. were, he said that he did not know where the Greek words of the New Testament were; but he believed the King James Version was perfect. This Christian man referred to an argument made by Gipp in his Answer Book allegedly proving that agapao and phileo have “absolutely NO DIFFERENCE” (pg. 93, Answer Book–capitalization in the original) in meaning because it is not easy to backtranslate them from English into Greek, and, therefore, there is no need to look at Greek for anything (pgs. 93-94). What Gipp’s argument actually proves is that backtranslating is no easy matter and that the phileo and agapao word groups have significant overlap in their semantic domain; the leap from conclusions about these specific words to the conclusion that Greek is useless is breathtaking and totally without merit, of course. One could, with the same argument, prove that clearly distinct Hebrew and Greek words for miracles are absolutely synonymous, or prove that any number of other words that have overlap in their semantic domains actually have “absolutely NO DIFFERENCE” in meaning.
Sam Gipp’s Ruckmanism is Wrong Because It Violates Scripture
There are a number of reasons why I disagreed with my dear brother and his advocacy of Ruckmanism as filtered through Sam Gipp.
First, and most importantly, his position is unscriptural. It denies the perfect preservation of Scripture, instead arguing for a sort of restoration of an unknown and lost Bible. When the Lord Jesus said:
Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4).
He was teaching that man must live by every single one of the Hebrew and Greek words that were penned by Moses, the Old Testament prophets, and (proleptically) by the New Testament apostles. The Lord Jesus was not talking about English words when He spoke Matthew 4:4 in Greek. When Isaiah 59:21 says that God’s Words would be in the mouths of every generation of the saints from the time that they were inspired and forever into the future, the Holy Ghost through Isaiah was not making a promise about English words. The words that were in the mouths and in the hearts of the saints, near them and not far off (Romans 10:6-9; Deuteronomy 30) were not English words, but Hebrew and Greek words (and, of course, a little bit of Aramaic). When David and his greater Son rejoiced in the pure words of God that would be preserved forever (Psalm 12:6-7), He was speaking about Hebrew words, not English words. Hebrew has jots and tittles (Matthew 5:18)–the Lord speaks of the smallest Hebrew consonant, the yod, and the smallest Hebrew mark on the page, the vowel chireq (a single dot; consider also the Hebrew accents). When this Christian brother said that he did not know where the Greek and Hebrew words of God were, he was denying the perfect preservation of Scripture. Ruckmanism is too weak on the preservation of Scripture.
Second, the Ruckmanism of Ruckman, Gipp, and Riplinger, which denies that one should utilize Hebrew and Greek, changes God’s glorious and beautiful revelation into hiddenness. God is not hiding Himself in His Hebrew and Greek words. He is, in ineffable beauty and glory, revealing Himself. To downplay in any way the very words chosen by the Father, spoken by Christ, and dictated by the Holy Spirit through the original authors of Scripture is wrong, wrong, wrong. It is 100% wrong to say that we should not look at or study those words. No, we must love them, trust in them, read them, memorize them, meditate upon them, and (if necessary) die for them. I do not doubt the sincerity of my Christian brother who was influenced by Gipp, but it is wickedness to downplay in any way the actual words spoken by the Holy Spirit because of something as ridiculous as the fact that Enoch was better off when he was “translated.”
The two reasons above are the most important ones. Ruckmanism violates Scripture’s promises of preservation and changes the original language words that were the delight of our sinless Savior upon earth, and for which the New Testament Christians were willing to die, into a closed book.
Ruckmanism is Wrong Because It Simply Is Not True
There are also many other reasons why Ruckman, Gipp, and Riplinger are wrong when they tell people not to look at the Greek and Hebrew texts of Scripture. There actually are many “wondrous things” (Psalm 119:18) that God has placed in the Greek and Hebrew texts of Scripture for His children’s instruction and delight, from puns to elements of poetry to syntactical structural markers and discourse elements, that do not show up in even a perfectly accurate English translation. (You can see many of these in my study on why learning Greek and Hebrew is valuable, especially for Christian leaders). Unfortunately, Sam Gipp in his Answer Book does not even acknowledge, much less deal with, these facts. He assumes that ascribing value to Greek and Hebrew necessarily means the English of the Authorized Version is inaccurate, when that simply does not follow. For example, consider Acts 5:34-42:
34 Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space; 35 And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men. 36 For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought. 37 After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed. 38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: 39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God. 40 And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. 41 And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name. 42 And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.
:34 ἀναστὰς δέ τις ἐν τῷ συνεδρίῳ Φαρισαῖος, ὀνόματι Γαμαλιήλ, νομοδιδάσκαλος, τίμιος παντὶ τῷ λαῷ, ἐκέλευσεν ἔξω βραχύ τι τοὺς ἀποστόλους ποιῆσαι. 35 εἶπέ τε πρὸς αὐτούς, Ἄνδρες Ἰσραηλῖται, προσέχετε ἑαυτοῖς ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τούτοις, τί μέλλετε πράσσειν. 36 πρὸ γὰρ τούτων τῶν ἡμερῶν ἀνέστη Θευδᾶς, λέγων εἶναί τινα ἑαυτόν, ᾧ προσεκολλήθη ἀριθμὸς ἀνδρῶν ὡσεὶ τετρακοσίων· ὃς ἀνῃρέθη, καὶ πάντες ὅσοι ἐπείθοντο αὐτῷ διελύθησαν καὶ ἐγένοντο εἰς οὐδέν. 37 μετὰ τοῦτον ἀνέστη Ἰούδας ὁ Γαλιλαῖος ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς ἀπογραφῆς, καὶ ἀπέστησε λαὸν ἱκανὸν ὀπίσω αὐτοῦ· κἀκεῖνος ἀπώλετο, καὶ πάντες ὅσοι ἐπείθοντο αὐτῷ διεσκορπίσθησαν. 38 καὶ τὰ νῦν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀπόστητε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων τούτων, καὶ ἐάσατε αὐτούς· ὅτι ἐὰν ᾖ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἡ βουλὴ αὕτη ἢ τὸ ἔργον τοῦτο, καταλυθήσεται· 39 εἰ δὲ ἐκ Θεοῦ ἐστιν, οὐ δύνασθε καταλῦσαι αὐτό, μήποτε καὶ θεομάχοι εὑρεθῆτε. 40 ἐπείσθησαν δὲ αὐτῷ· καὶ προσκαλεσάμενοι τοὺς ἀποστόλους, δείραντες παρήγγειλαν μὴ λαλεῖν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, καὶ ἀπέλυσαν αὐτούς.41 οἱ μὲν οὖν ἐπορεύοντο χαίροντες ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ συνεδρίου, ὅτι ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ κατηξιώθησαν ἀτιμασθῆναι.42 πᾶσάν τε ἡμέραν, ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ καὶ κατ’ οἶκον, οὐκ ἐπαύοντο διδάσκοντες καὶ εὐαγγελιζόμενοι Ἰησοῦν τὸν Χριστόν.
In this passage, Gamaliel makes the famous statement that if the Christian religion “be of men, it will come to nought: but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.” The translation in the King James Version is perfectly accurate. However, Greek has several different ways to express the conditional idea of an “if” clause. A Greek 1st class conditional clause assumes the reality of the condition, while a Greek 3rd class conditional clause ranges from probability to possibility; it is the difference between a petite woman struggling with heavy groceries telling a muscular body builder, “If you are so strong, help me!” (that would be a Greek 1st class conditional) and one of two evenly-matched boxers in a ring saying, “If I win our boxing match, I will be the champion” (which would be expressed using a Greek 3rd class conditional). In Acts 5, Gamaliel’s “if this counsel or this work be of men” is a Greek 3rd class conditional clause, while “if it be of God …” is a 1st class conditional. Gamaliel’s balancing a 3rd class with a 1st class conditional clause indicates that he assumes–correctly–that what the Apostles was preaching was actually from God, and the Jewish leadership could not overthrow it–indeed, attempting to do so was to fight against God.
There is nothing wrong with the KJV’s translation of this passage–English simply does not have different words for “if” like Greek does, and that is not the KJV translators’ fault. The Authorized Version is perfectly accurate, but there still is value in studying the Greek words dictated by the Holy Ghost through Luke. Is this a question of a major doctrine? No, of course not. But does it affect how an expository preacher explains this passage? Yes. Why should the hungry children of God not have everything that their Father wants for them? Why should some of the food the Good Shepherd has for His little lambs in the infallible Greek words of the Book of Acts be kept from them?
The argument of my Christian brother that nobody really knows Koine Greek because it is a dead language (Hebrew seems to be left out of this argument, as it is the living tongue of the nation of Israel) is also invalid. Imagine if someone in China is born again and then adopts a Ruckmanite view of the King James Version. He does not care if he learns to engage in conversation in English–he just wants to read the KJV. His goal is to read a particular written text, not to gain conversational ability. He does a lot of work and becomes fluent in reading Elizabethan English, progressing to the point where he can sight-read and translate into Chinese large portions of the KJV, although he never takes the time to learn how to, say, order a hamburger at McDonalds or talk about the weather tomorrow. Would a Ruckmanite say that this person really does not know English? Would he not say that he has learned what is by far the most important thing in English–learning to read the Bible? Would he say that this Chinese Christian should not use the KJV to shed light on his Chinese Bible? No, he would be completely in favor of this Chinese Christian comparing his Chinese Bible with the King James Version.
Let us say that this same Chinese Christian, as a result of carefully studying his King James Bible, discovers that he should not set aside Greek or Hebrew. He reads verses like: “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha” (1 Corinthians 16:22) and realizes that the KJV itself, by transliterating instead of translating “Anathema” and “Maranatha,” is calling on him to look at the original language text. He therefore learns Greek the same way he learned English. He does not care if he can order a gyro in Koine Greek, or talk about a YouTube video in Koine Greek, but he progresses to the point where he can sight-read large portions of the Greek New Testament and translate it into Chinese. Can we say that this Chinese Christian does not know Greek? Is it wrong for him to use his knowledge of Greek to gain insight into his Chinese Bible? How can we say that he can use English to gain insight into his Chinese Bible, but not Greek?
Furthermore, let me add that, if he is starting from scratch, this Chinese Christian would find mastering the Greek of the New Testament easier than achieving fluency in English. There are the same number of vocabulary words in the Greek New Testament as there are words known by the average four-year-old child, and far fewer words in the Hebrew Old Testament than the average eight-year-old knows. The simple country farmers that were the large majority of the population in ancient Israel, and the slaves and lower-class people who were the large majority of the members of the first century churches, could understand the Bible in Hebrew and Greek. Learning the English of the KJV is a harder task (if starting from scratch) than learning the Greek of the New Testament or the Hebrew of the Old Testament. Because Ruckmanites are–conveniently–overwhelmingly native English speakers, they assume (without proof) that English, with all its irregularities, exceptions, and complications, is an easy language and that Greek and Hebrew are much more difficult, and ask why God would hide his Word in the hard languages of Greek and Hebrew instead of preserving (re-inspiring? re-revealing?) it in the easy English language. It would actually be more accurate to ask: “Why would God hide His Word in the difficult language of modern English, instead of preserving it in the easier languages of Koine Greek and Biblical Hebrew?” What is more, dare we say that God is not allowed to inspire and preserve a perfect, canonical, complete revelation in a language that becomes a dead language? Has God’s Word failed, because languages change over time? God forbid!
Believe the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible:
Reject Ruckman, Gipp, and Riplinger
There are many other problems with Ruckmanism. Reject Ruckman’s heresies on the gospel, Ruckman’s racism, Ruckman’s carnal spirit, and Ruckman’s many other bizzare doctrines and practices. Reject the extremism on the KJV of Peter Ruckman, Sam Gipp, and Gail Riplinger. Their indefensible position leads many away from the KJV to embrace modern versions. Instead, believe God’s promises of the perfect preservation of His Words. The Hebrew and Greek Textus Receptus contain all the words God inspired and preserved. Since the KJV is a fantastically accurate translation of those inspired and preserved Hebrew and Greek Words–the ultimate and final authority for all Christian faith and practice–its English words are authoritative and have the breath of God on them. All Christians in the English-speaking world should be King James Only. None of them should be followers of Peter Ruckman, Sam Gipp, or Gail Riplinger.
–TDR
The Nestle-Aland Greek Text is Based on 0% of Greek MSS: #14
My fourteenth debate review video of the James White / Thomas Ross debate on Biblical preservation or King James Onlyism goes through John 13 and examines every single variant between the Nestle-Aland Textus Rejectus and the Received Text or Textus Receptus. It is valuable to those who watched the debate, since it proves that Dr. White cannot be consistent when he attempts to prove the superiority of the Nestle-Aland text and modern English versions by attacking the Received Text based on one word in Ephesians 3:9 and one word that is in some TR editions in Revelation 16:5. His text has orders of magnitude more minority readings than does the Textus Receptus, so his attacks are not just like him pointing one finger at the KJV while four fingers point back at his LSB; rather, it is like a millipede pointing one leg at the KJV while all his other legs are pointing at the LSB.
However, the analysis in this video is also very helpful for those who never end up watching the debate. (I discussed debate-specific matters that relate to what is examined in video #14 in video #13.) While I do not doubt that I am biased, since I created the video, I believe it would be valuable for anyone who is entering the Baptist ministry and is going to confront textual-critical issues, valuable for any student of Biblical Greek who wishes to understand the overall differences between the TR and the NA/UBS Greek text, and valuable for any Christians who wish to have a level of understanding of the matter of Biblical preservation beyond what is rudimentary.
In this video, I demonstrate that in John 13 alone, the Nestle-Aland text rejects:
90% or more of Greek manuscripts 43 times
95% or more of Greek manuscripts 42 times
99% of Greek manuscripts or more 28 times
99%+ of Greek manuscripts 18 times
100% of Greek manuscripts in John 13:2.
Extrapolating for the entire New Testament from John 13, the Nestle-Aland text rejects:
99% of Greek MSS c. 4,680 times
90%+ of Greek MSS c. 11,180 times.
I also demonstrate that in vast numbers of short sections of text the Nestle-Aland text does not look like any known Greek manuscript on the face of the earth, and that even Nestle himself, from whom the Nestle-Aland text is named, recognized that the critical texts extant in his day were a patchwork that never existed in real space and time in textual history. The Nestle-Aland or United Bible Society Greek text is indefensible Scripturally, historically, and rationally.
I would encourage all defenders of God’s preserved Word in the Textus Receptus to learn, understand, and use these facts as they stand for the perfect preservation of Scripture. I believe these facts are not as well known in King James Only circles as they should be.
I also demonstrate in this video some facts about the Textus Receptus and how it compares to printed Majority Text editions that are not well known. While there certainly are minority readings in the TR–approximately 1% of the time when there are variants–and there are good reasons to follow the TR in this small percentage of Greek text for Scriptural and historical reasons–there are also plenty of places in all printed Majority Text or Byzantine Priority editions–whether that of Hodges / Farstad, Robinson / Pierpont, or Pickering–where the printed Majority Text follows a minority of Greek manuscripts while the Textus Receptus follows the majority. In fact, in John 13, while the TR and the Byzantine priority text editions were very close to each other, the TR actually follows the majority of Greek manuscripts in more letters in the chapter than does any printed Majority Text edition. The fact that the TR frequently follows a majority of Greek manuscripts when printed “Majority Text” editions do not is also a fact that is not well known enough in King James Only circles.
You can watch the video using the embedded link below, or view it at FaithSaves.net, Rumble, or YouTube.
These are important facts. Christians who believe in the perfect preservation of God’s Word can rejoice in them. Those who defend modern English versions and the corrupt United Bible Society / Nestle – Aland Greek text from which they are translated need to both understand and explain why these things are so, and why they are defending as God’s Word a patchwork text that never existed in real space and time in the history of textual transmission.
–TDR
Q, Synoptic Gospel Dependence, and Inspiration for the Bible
May 17, 2024 / 10 Comments on Q, Synoptic Gospel Dependence, and Inspiration for the Bible
Does it matter if one adopts a belief in “Q” and rejects the historic belief that the synoptic gospels–Matthew, Mark, and Luke–are independent accounts? What happens if one rejects this historic belief for the theory, invented by theological liberalism and modernism but adopted by many modern evangelicals, that Mark was the first gospel (instead of Matthew), and Matthew and Luke depended on and altered Mark, using a (lost) source called “Q” that just happens to have left no archaeological or historical evidence for its existence? What happens if we adopt source, tradition, and redaction criticism? Let me illustrate with the comment on Matthew 25:46 in John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 1034–1037. Nolland is discussing how to go behind the text of Matthew’s Gospel to what the historical Jesus said (which he assumes is different); he is discussing what Matthew added and changed from what Christ originally said, which, supposedly, was handed down in little bits of tradition here and there, and which Matthew used, along with his dependence upon Mark and Q. I have added a few comments in brackets within Nolland’s commentary.
Nolland-who is considered “conservative,” not a liberal, by many, and his commentary in the NIGTC series representative of a broadly “evangelical” commentary series–makes the common and unreasonable assumptions that Matthew, who would have been there to here Christ teach and who was controlled by the Holy Spirit, needed to depend upon tiny fragments of tradition passed down here and passed down there by who knows who, and also borrow from Mark (who was not there, like Matthew was). Through this whole process what Christ actually said got changed, and so we need to attempt to reconstruct what Jesus Christ actually said by going behind Matthew’s Gospel to the hypothetical, reconstructed words of the historical Jesus.
This anti-inspiration nonsense affects evangelical apologetics. When I debated Shabir Ally he could not believe that I denied that there was a “Q” document and that the gospels were dependent on each other. Other Christians that Shabir debated accepted that these lies were true.
This sort of anti-inspiration and anti-historical nonsense about Q, sources, and redaction is all over evangelicalism and just about completely controls theological liberalism. It even infects portions of those who call themselves fundamentalist, chiefly among those who deny the perfect preservation of Scripture and so are not King James Only. Beware of “evangelical” commentaries on the Gospels and “evangelical” leaders who adopt critical methods and deny the Biblically faithful and historically accurate view that the synoptic gospels are independent accounts and give us eyewitness testimony.
–TDR