Home » Posts tagged 'preservation' (Page 5)
Tag Archives: preservation
King James Only extremists: Abraham & Moses spoke English?
James White, in his book The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009) writes as follows:
There are small groups who go even further, claiming that the KJV was written in eternity and that Abraham, Moses, and the prophets all read the 1611 KJV, including the New Testament. These individuals believe that Hebrew is actually English, and when discussing religious topics they will not so much as use a single word not found in the KJV. (pg. 28)
Have you ever seen or heard of someone like this? Dr. White provides no written or other sources that these people exist.
The only individual I have ever met taking this view was when I was preaching in a church in North Dakota shortly after coming back from fighting for the Brits in Waterloo. This KJVO extremist rode into Grand Forks, ND, coming to church in his cowboy hat and boots, his rifle in one hand (to defend himself against the Jesuits) and a slurpee in the other (in case the sermon got long and he became thirsty), across the Golden Gate Bridge (it had recently been extended somewhat through a federal grant) on the back of Big Foot, accompanied by Little Red Riding Hood and Mary Poppins (both first-time visitors to church). This King James Only man not only thought that Abraham and Moses spoke English, but that the Scofield Reference notes in his Bible were written by the Apostle Scofield, one of the men who accompanied the Apostle Paul on his missionary travels.
Other than this King James Only person, I have never once in many years as a KJVO person in KJVO churches met or heard of such people. Have you? Surely James White is not exaggerating or creating a caricature here. I might start to exaggerate or caricature myself if I had to read a lot of Gail Riplinger and Peter Ruckman–their antics might rub off on me as well. In fact, I surely have committed the sin of exaggerating or caricaturing those who disagree with me at various times in my life. But surely that did not take place here. Right?
If you have actually met such people, please let me know about it in the comment section. If you have a shred of evidence for their existence that is in writing, that is much better. I may not be able to answer comments myself, however, until after my debate with Dr. James White this Saturday is over, Lord willing. Also, I am looking for comments that evaluate his claim, not that hurl insults at him (or at anyone else). Thank you.
–TDR (note: I switched this week with Dr. Brandenburg; I am posting today, he should post this Friday, Lord willing.)
James White / Thomas Ross debate format: King James Version vs. LSB
I am looking forward to my upcoming debate with Dr. James White. Please note the planned format below for the debate. Thank you very much for your fervent prayers and possible fasting for me and for the debate.
Debate Topic: “The Legacy Standard Bible, as a representative of modern English translations based upon the UBS/NA text, is superior to the KJV, as a representative of TR-based Bible translations.”
Affirm: James White
Deny: Thomas Ross
How the time will go:
Brief introduction to the speakers and an explanation of the character of the debate.
Opening presentation: 25/25
Second presentation/rebuttal: 12/12
Cross-examination #1: 10/10
Cross-examination #2: 10/10
Third presentation/rebuttal: 8/8
Concluding statement: 5/5
Very short break to gather any additional questions from the audience
Questions from audience the rest of the time.
For more information, see the James White / Thomas Ross debate page here.
Objections to Christians Learning Hebrew and Greek (7/7)
Post six in this series examined five common objections to Christians learning Greek and Hebrew. Part six followed the first five blog posts summarizing Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew, the Biblical Languages, which explained the value of learning the Biblical languages and explained that the languages are not too difficult to learn–indeed, Biblical Greek and Hebrew are easier languages to learn than modern English. This final post will examine some remaining common objections, #6-12 on pages 57-68 of Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew, the Biblical Languages.
6.) “The many computer tools and other study helps available today make knowledge of the original languages superfluous.”
Computer tools are certainly very valuable. However, they do not come close to eliminating the value of learning the languages themselves. Furthermore, the Christian who does not know Greek or Hebrew runs the serious risk of misunderstanding what his computer Bible software is telling him.
7.) “People have gone to big-name seminaries, learned Greek and Hebrew, and come back full of doctrinal compromise.”
Sadly, this has certainly happened. But it has been the consequence of compromise in the seminary and in the sinful heart of the person who compromises. It is not a problem with God’s Greek and Hebrew words.
8.) “There have been godly servants of the Lord who never learned the Biblical languages.”
There certainly have been godly servants of the Lord who never learned the Biblical languages. There have been godly servants of the Lord who never learned to read at all, or who were even unable to read because they were blind of possessed some other unfortunate handicap. That God can use illiterate Christians for His glory does not mean that learning to read has no value. No more does the fact that God can use Christians who do not know Greek and Hebrew serve as a sufficient cause to fail to learn the Biblical languages.
9.) “I have heard that learning the Biblical languages was useless.”
People who actually know Hebrew and Greek do not say that they are useless. Only people who do not know the languages seem to make this claim. Someone who voices this objection should be asked: “Do you claim that Hebrew and Greek are useless for understanding the Bible because of your experience and in-depth study of those languages, or are you making that claim from a position of ignorance?”
10.) “Learning Greek and Hebrew undermines the King James Version.”
Why? Does this objection assume that the translation cannot withstand scrutiny? Who is undermining the KJV then? The KJV translators would have viewed a low view of Greek and Hebrew as a Catholic false teaching. They would have viewed it as utterly antithetical to a Bible-believing Protestantism.
11.) “Maybe Protestants valued Greek and Hebrew, but Baptists did not.”
Such a claim is simply ignorant. Countless Baptists, from Hetzer and Denck who translated the Bible into German before Luther did, to William Carey, the “father of modern missions,” to expositors like Alexander Maclaren, to martyrs like Felix Mantz, to fundamentalists like James Josiah Reeve, to Landmarkers like Ben Bogard have viewed knowledge of the Biblical languages as tremendously valuable.
12.) “It is wrong for a woman to learn the original languages of Scripture.”
The New Testament commands women to “learn” (1 Timothy 2:11), and never even once states or implies that women are to be less committed to learning Scripture than men, or that they are only to learn the Bible in the vernacular but not in the original tongues. Why should women who have the holy duties of teaching other women teaching children (Titus 2:3-5; 1 Timothy 5:10, 14) be kept from the increased ability to understand, teach, and practice Scripture that comes from knowing Greek and Hebrew?
Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew, the Biblical Languages concludes:
[A]rguments against the study of Greek and Hebrew are unconvincing … [while] the reasons why Greek and Hebrew are extremely valuable, and clearly learnable, are compelling. May the Father who revealed His glory and redemptive mind and heart in the Hebrew and Greek words He gave His Son to deliver to His saints by His Spirit bless these facts to the flourishing of reverent study, loving practice, and bold proclamation of those infallibly inspired and perfectly preserved words to His eternal glory and the advance of His spiritual kingdom. Amen!
And to that conclusion, again I say, “Amen”!
–TDR
Go-To Page for the James White / Thomas Ross Bible Text and Version Debate
Thank you to all readers who are praying and/or fasting for me and for God’s kingdom and truth to be glorified and advanced in my upcoming debate with James White.
I have created a go-to page with information about the debate. Links to the video should be posted there when it becomes available, as well as being accessible on the KJB1611 YouTube and KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channels. The go-to page should be updated with specific debate times in case you wish to attend in person, as well as the debate livestream link which we are hoping to make available. So:
Click here to visit the go-to page for the James White / Thomas Ross Bible Text and Version Debate
–TDR
Christians CAN learn Greek and Hebrew-they are not too hard! Part 5 of 7
The first four blog posts summarizing the argument in Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew, the Biblical Languages explained the value of learning the Biblical languages. Clearly, knowing the languages is valuable. However, are they learnable? Aren’t Greek and Hebrew too hard to learn?
Actually, Greek and Hebrew are emphatically NOT too hard to learn. They are not too hard because of the following reasons, summarized from pages 40-51 of Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew, the Biblical Languages:
1.) Christians have their Almighty Father to help them learn the languages.
2.) The self-discipline involved in learning the languages can contribute to their sanctification.
3.) Scripture is not God hiding Himself. The Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament are God’s “revelation,” not God’s obscuring Himself.
4.) For century after century, Old Testament Hebrew and New Testament Greek were the languages of the common man, not of the elite few.
5.) A very high percentage of Koine Greek speakers picked it up as a second language, while having a different native tongue. So can modern English speakers today.
6.) The Hebrew Old Testament was comprehensible to the simple rural folk that comprised the large majority of Israel.
7.) The Greek New Testament was comprehensible to the slaves and lower class people who constituted the large majority in the first century churches.
8.) It is harder to master modern English than it is to learn to read the Greek New Testament or Hebrew Old Testament.
9.) English speakers assume English is an easy language while Greek and Hebrew are allegedly difficult, but their assumption is invalid–because we have already mastered English, we do not think much about what was involved in learning the language. Someone starting from scratch would more easily learn to read Greek or Hebrew than he would learn to master modern English.
10.) The vocabulary of the average four-year-old child is larger than the number of words one must learn to gain a solid grasp of the Greek New Testament or the Hebrew Old Testament.
11.) The inspiring examples of those who learned the languages as children, or without grammar books, or despite extremely pressing work commitments, or in the face of other hardships, show that learning the Biblical languages is eminently attainable.
12.) Numbers of countries world-wide are officially trilingual, while fifty-five nations are officially bilingual. There is no reason why people in these countries can master two or three languages in order to make money and efficiently function, but Christians cannot learn Greek and Hebrew in order to better know God and His Word.
The facts above are important, both to encourage people who are contemplating learning the languages and to refute Ruckmanite notions that Greek and Hebrew are impossibly difficult, so one must simply stick to English, not even use Greek or Hebrew lexica, and ignore the treasures God has laid up for His people in the Hebrew and Greek tongues.
–TDR
Learn Greek and Hebrew? Reasons Christians Should, part 4 of 7
Is it valuable for Christians learn the Biblical languages, Greek and Hebrew? Continuing to summarize Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew, the Biblical Languages, Christians should learn Greek and Hebrew because:
1.) Greek and Hebrew help the believer to practice God’s Word and be conformed to the image of the Lord Jesus Christ. The more closely one beholds Christ’s glory in the mirror of Scripture, the more conformed to His image the Christian becomes–and Greek and Hebrew help believers see that ineffable glory.
2.) Greek and Hebrew help the Christian teach God’s Word to others. Every one of the Greek and Hebrew words of Scripture is inerrant and infallible, and must be preached and taught to all of the Lord’s saints in true, Baptist churches.
3.) Greek and Hebrew help believers to compose quality Christian literature.
4.) Greek and Hebrew are essential for Baptists to make faithful translations of Scripture into the many world languages that still lack God’s holy Word. It may be tolerable for an evangelist / missionary to translate Scripture from English if he does not know Greek and Hebrew, but it is far, far better to translate from the original languages. The Ruckmanite / Riplingerite idea that one must translate foreign language Bibles from English rather than Greek and Hebrew is evil.
5.) Greek and Hebrew contribute to bold preaching.
6.) Greek and Hebrew powerfully aid in apologetics, evangelism, and in the refutation of error. Whether before crowds in a public debate or one-on-one at a door, knowing the Biblical languages helps in evangelism and in defending the faith.
7.) Greek and Hebrew help Christians defend the Authorized, King James Version. Attacks on the KJV by proponents of modern versions can be answered far more effectively if one knows Greek and Hebrew himself and so can respond much more effectively to allegations of mistranslation in the KJV.
Much greater detail appears in the first forty pages of Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew, the Biblical Languages.
–TDR
Should Christians Learn Greek and Hebrew? Yes! Part 2 of 2
While not all Christians need to learn Greek and Hebrew, knowledge of the Biblical languages has historically been viewed as necessary for students in Biblical seminaries, colleges, and institutes. Why?
Summarizing the first five pages of the study Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew, the Biblical Languages, the answers to this question include:
1.) Jesus Christ learned Greek and Hebrew. if the Savior learned and honored the Greek and Hebrew languages, those who follow Him can do likewise.
2.) Learning Greek and Hebrew shows reverence for God’s inspired and preserved revelation. Belief in verbal, plenary inspiration and verbal, plenary preservation leads to the study of Hebrew and Greek as a necessary consequence.
3.) Greek and Hebrew powerfully aid the study of God’s Word. Many conclusive examples are supplied in the larger study which this blog post is summarizing.
4.) Greek and Hebrew help one observe more accurately and thoroughly, understand more clearly, evaluate more fairly, and interpret more confidently the inspired details of the Biblical text.
5.) Accurate translations are authoritative in their substance, and so it is proper to refer to the English Authorized Version as inspired in a derivative sense. However, there are details of God’s inspired revelation that can only be understood by those who know Greek and Hebrew. One can affirm not only that the KJV is inspired whenever it is accurate, but even that it is perfectly accurate and has no errors in translation, and still see tremendous value in learning Greek and Hebrew.
Indeed, study of the Biblical languages is a good and necessary consequence of the fact that God has revealed Himself and His will in Hebrew and Greek words.
Please read the entirety of the first five pages here, and feel free to comment on them below. May they prove edifying, whether or not one ever learns the Biblical languages of Greek and Hebrew.
–TDR
Does the KJV mistranslate with the phrase “God forbid”?
The phrase “God forbid” is relatively frequently asserted to be a mistranslation in the King James Version:
Me genoito … means literally, Be it not so, and which might properly be paraphrased by our emphatic “Never!” but which … with small warrant … [has been] seen fit to paraphrase by using the semi-profane expression, “God forbid.” There are fourteen such mistranslations in the epistles of Paul according to the King James version.” (John William McGarvey and Philip Y. Pendleton, The Four-Fold Gospel [Cincinnati, OH: The Standard Publishing Company, 1914], 593.)
The phrase appears in both the Old and New Testaments, in English, in the following texts:
Gen. 44:7 And they said unto him, Wherefore saith my lord these words? God forbid that thy servants should do according to this thing:
Gen. 44:17 And he said, God forbid that I should do so: but the man in whose hand the cup is found, he shall be my servant; and as for you, get you up in peace unto your father.
Josh. 22:29 God forbid that we should rebel against the LORD, and turn this day from following the LORD, to build an altar for burnt offerings, for meat offerings, or for sacrifices, beside the altar of the LORD our God that is before his tabernacle.
Josh. 24:16 And the people answered and said, God forbid that we should forsake the LORD, to serve other gods;
1Sam. 12:23 Moreover as for me, God forbid that I should sin against the LORD in ceasing to pray for you: but I will teach you the good and the right way:
1Sam. 14:45 And the people said unto Saul, Shall Jonathan die, who hath wrought this great salvation in Israel? God forbid: as the LORD liveth, there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground; for he hath wrought with God this day. So the people rescued Jonathan, that he died not.
1Sam. 20:2 And he said unto him, God forbid; thou shalt not die: behold, my father will do nothing either great or small, but that he will shew it me: and why should my father hide this thing from me? it is not so.
1Chr. 11:19 And said, My God forbid it me, that I should do this thing: shall I drink the blood of these men that have put their lives in jeopardy? for with the jeopardy of their lives they brought it. Therefore he would not drink it. These things did these three mightiest.
Job 27:5 God forbid that I should justify you: till I die I will not remove mine integrity from me.
Luke 20:16 He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid.
Rom. 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
Rom. 3:6 God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?
Rom. 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
Rom. 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Rom. 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
Rom. 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
Rom. 7:13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
Rom. 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
Rom. 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
Rom. 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
1Cor. 6:15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
Gal. 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
Gal. 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
Gal. 6:14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.
Does the KJV mistranslate the Hebrew and Greek phrases in question? The answer is a clear “no”! The phrases are idiomatic phrases that involve the invocation of God. Please see my new article at FaithSaves.net on this topic, “Is ‘God Forbid’ a Mistranslation in the KJV (King James Version)?” for more information.
No verse in Scripture promises that God would give English speakers an infallible translation in their language, although one would expect God’s special providence to be upon the Bible He knew would be that of the world-language for many years. Nevertheless, King James Only believers do well to have a knee-jerk reaction in favor of KJV renderings, as, in vast numbers of instances, the KJV’s translation decisions prove to be justifiable, and critics prove to be wrong.
–TDR
The Blue Trinitarian Bible Society Greek New Testament or Scrivener’s Greek New Testament
Someone said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. When I hear a critique of the perfect preservation view, standard sacred text view, or verbal plenary preservation view, it almost always focuses on ‘which text is the perfect text of the New Testament.” In the White/Van Kleeck debate, White asked this kind of gotcha question, which Textus Receptus edition is identical to the autographs? A person then waits for the answer.
In the Van Kleeck/White debate, White asked Van Kleeck whether Scrivener’s TR is the perfect Greek text. He said, “Yes.” I’m not saying it’s a good argument, but it works well with a certain audience.
I watched a critical analysis of Van Kleeck in the debate, and the podcast started with the moment White asked Van Kleeck that question. The critical analysis is essentially ridicule of the most inane variety. The young man in the podcast with three other men simply repeated Van Kleeck’s answer and then summarized it with a mocking voice. They didn’t explain why Van Kleeck’s answer was wrong. It just was. Why? Because it is so, so strange and ridiculous.
The critical text side does not have a settled text. If the question were reversed, that side would say it doesn’t know, unlike it’s proponents might say about knowing the 66 books of the Bible. They would say that’s knowable, even though the oldest extant complete twenty-seven book manuscript of the New Testament dates to the fourth century. Books are knowable. The words are not. Why? No biblical reason, only naturalistic ones. The same reasons could be used to debunk any doctrine of the Bible.
I believe Van Kleeck said that Scrivener’s or the blue Trinitarian Bible Society Greek New Testament is identical to the autographs of the New Testament because that corresponds to His bibliological position. If someone says he believes the biblical and historical doctrine of scripture, his saying there is a perfect text conforms to that belief. If he did not know what the text was, he would also admit that he doesn’t believe what the Bible says about itself or what churches have believed about what the Bible says about itself. An alternative is to change the historic and scriptural doctrine of bibliology to fit naturalistic presuppositions.
A biblical methodology that proceeds from a biblical bibliology must fit what the Bible says about itself. Because of this, it believes that the agreement of the church is evidence. This is the unity of the spirit. I’m not going to continue through every aspect of a biblical bibliology but all of those components combined lead to an agreement on one text. Van Kleeck had the audacity to utter it with confidence. I’m assuming that his confidence and assertiveness comes from faith that comes by hearing the Word of God.
Van Kleeck attacked the presuppositions of White in the White/Van Kleeck debate. He wanted to expose the naturalism. White wouldn’t answer the questions and the moderator would not require an answer. White also took the offensive by saying that the audience also was offended by the questions. It’s a common tactic of the left, when they “channel” everyone in the United States by speaking for “the American people.” Van Kleeck asked if there was even a single verse of the New Testament that was settled, guaranteed never to change with a future find of older manuscript evidence. White would not answer.
A vast majority of the opponents of the biblical and historical view on the preservation of scripture say the Bible doesn’t say how God would preserve scripture. I like to say that the whole Bible describes how God would do it. The Bible is very clear about how God said He would preserve what He said. If He told us how, that castigates all the means other than how He said, which includes modern textual criticism.
Very often, even among the standard sacred text proponents, they will not say what the perfect edition is. They anticipate the reaction. They ready for the ridicule. If it isn’t that blue Trinitarian Bible Society textus receptus, then what is it?
Mark 7:4 and the Baptism of Tables–Video
Mark 7:4 reads:
And when they come from the market, except they wash [baptidzo], they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing [baptismos] of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
This passage is the best attempt in Scripture if one wishes to argue against dipping or immersion for baptism. “Surely the Jews did not immerse their tables in water!” many pro-pouring or pro-sprinkling Protestants and Catholics have argued.
This issue was discussed in the past on the blog; see part 1 here and part 2 here.
People have also attacked the King James Version for rendering the Greek word baptidzo as “baptize” instead of as “immerse.” Is that a valid criticism? Did King James or the KJV translators have an evil motive, and were they trying to hide the fact that baptism is immersion?
If you would like to watch a video that answers these questions, please check the discussion in my first year Greek class #23 here on YouTube, or see the same video on Rumble, or go to 5:23 into the video embedded below:
The discussion of baptidzo continues through 22:55 on the video.
This passage does not prove sprinkling or pouring for baptism because the evidence is actually clear that the Jews did indeed immerse their dining couches or tables. Also, there was no conspiracy to hide the fact that baptism is properly by immersion, as King James himself was immersed (as an infant), as were the English monarchs before him. A strong anti-immersion push actually developed only several decades later at the Westminster Assembly, where requiring immersion for baptism lost by the narrowest of margins–one vote.
–TDR
Recent Comments