KJV- The Impossibility
of the Contrary
Introduction
The purpose of this study is to establish
that the King James Version of the bible can more consistently function as
final authority for English speaking peoples in accordance with principles of
presuppositional apologetics. All other modern translations of various texts are
established upon the science of textual criticism and cannot yield absolute
final authority since the textual variants and the scriptures themselves would
be established upon some degree of probability; confusingly subjecting the
entire bible to the authority of science. Also we find within the bible itself
that the scriptures are preserved in book form of a text accepted by the saints
and many times the enemies of Christ (scribes and Pharisees). We assume during
this study that there is a basic degree of understanding of the King James
Version debate, but perhaps not so much of presuppositional apologetics. There
are many other works exposing the corruption in the new bibles which we
encourage the reader to prayerfully search out. We would hope by God’s grace to
zealously affect the reader to a deeper and more prayerful study of these
subjects so as to defend the scriptures and cause the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, to shine unto this
wicked and gainsaying generation.
The
Definitions
We start with empiricism because this is
what guides the historian and paleographer and the radiocarbon dating of the
manuscripts; it is their underlying philosophy. This is how they estimate the
age of the manuscripts. They have theories about how handwritings styles and
language evolved in certain areas over time and try to determine from this when
manuscripts were most likely to have been written. And once they decide the
probable age of the manuscripts they then conclude the earliest ones must
therefore be the closest to the original writings and thus the most accurate.
This is how modern texts are collated and where our new English translations
come from.
But we must realize that the discipline of historical research is not without bias and assumptions. (e.g. see the 1st Q&A here.) Historical information
does not come with a built in interpretation and the historian does not
directly study the historical phenomena only records of events. He does not
observe the past he must reconstruct it from the records by deciding what is
important, what events are causally connected, what events are related and so
forth. So they must construct hypotheses and look for particular records to
validate his particular assumptions; many times ignoring certain accounts which
other historians might find beneficial to their particular theory. So the
historian has a target he is aiming for from the beginning of his research
selectively using value judgments in finding explanations of events and thus
what information is more important, and which conditions are necessary for
certain outcomes. Cliodynamics proponents point out that over 200 explanations
for the fall of the Roman Empire have been proposed with almost no consensus on
which are or aren’t reasonable. Bertrand Russell facetiously gives an
interpretation of the existence of the United States; that basically if Henry
VIII's eyes had not been caught by Anne Boleyn his divorce would not have been
an issue, England wouldn’t have broken with the Papacy and remained Catholic
and the Americas would have been part of Spanish America.
Behind all of historical reasoning is
philosophy- such as conditions today are like they were back then; that there
is historical causation related to certain metaphysical laws; objective laws of
logic we use today apply in the past, etc. Every historical discussion of the importance
and meaning of historical facts must eventually come back to a discussion of
abstract principles; and
these principles must be made intelligible by your worldview.
Our culture today has been leavened in
fullness with the leaven of empiricism; which in philosophy is undermined by the
unsolved problem of induction. Empiricism is the philosophical view that true
knowledge is arrived at through empirical procedures and inductive
investigations generally understood as ‘science’; that is knowledge of greater
or lesser probability is arrived at through the senses. (In general the methods
of researching the physical world are systematized by John Stuart Mill’s five
basic methods of induction. They are briefly the method of agreement,
difference, joint method of agreement and difference, residues (what remains
after everything else is accounted for), and concomitant variation (the
increase or decrease of one factor is accompanied by the increase or decrease
in another).
This scientific probability approach to
finding ‘absolute’ truth has infected the thinking of Christian intellectuals
guiding the churches. In our consideration here we examine how it influences
the establishing of the scriptures in the minds of the church leaders. The
problem is that empiricism is not a worldview but the component of a worldview,
and the scriptures provide us with our Christian worldview. Science therefore
doesn’t establish the bible, but rather the bible establishes the basis for
science. Science should thank God for the ability to know and learn from his
upholding all things by the word of his power. Frank Borman on the Apollo 8 mission was amazed at the calculations of the scientists on earth predicting the lunar sunrise to the exact second. But in order for this to be possible God must control all things by his wisdom; and we made in his image able to reason.
Science presumes the inductive principle which
asserts that ‘instances of which we have had no experience resemble those of
which we have had experience’ and that the connexion between cause and effect,
being necessary for science to proceed, is a rational connection. As it turns
out however, apart from the revelation of scripture there is no rational self
evident connection between cause and effect and you are left with simply a
habit of the mind to associate any particular effect with any certain cause.
Even the minds tendency to expect a certain effect from a certain cause is
itself unwarranted- so that the mind should not expect the same expectation the
next time. For the mental connexion of a certain cause might yield the
expectation of some other effect the next time. And so the pure empiricist not
only should not expect fixed causes and effects or uniformities in nature but
also should not anticipate that his thoughts will be uniform from one instance
to the next. Thus strictly rationally speaking he not only cannot trust in the
assurance of physical laws neither can he trust his own thoughts if he does not start with Christ. For the
unifying force between the laws of nature and his mind is the God of scripture.
And the errors in his thinking are the effect of sin and pride in his heart.
There are a number of logical problems with
the belief that the only true knowledge is a posteriori or based upon observation
and ultimately our senses and is without presuppositions or bias. Here
are a few for consideration.
1. It is
circular. That is the belief that the only way to have true knowledge is by
observation assumes what it purports to prove. For if one tries to prove this
statement itself by citing examples then it engages in circular reasoning
and irrationality. But if it seeks to prove the statement some other way then
it will disprove the statement itself that it is the 'only' way to acquire true
knowledge.
2. It
commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent in logic. If A then B; B
therefore A. Example- If Einstein's theory of relativity is true then this atom
bomb will explode. This atom bomb did explode therefore his theory is true.
Using the same logic- If I am in Texas I am in the
U.S.A. I am in the U.S.A. therefore I am in Texas. Or a more famous
example; If stones are bread and bread is
nourishing then this bread will nourish me. This bread does nourish me
therefore this bread is a stone and stones are nourishing.
3. It is a
house divided- the pursuit of objectivity leads to pure subjectivity. As
atheist Bertrand Russell pointed out, we assume
things to be as they seem to appear. The grass is green, the stones are hard
and the ice is cold. But physics explains to us that greenness, hardness and
coldness is really quite different than we first think; actually we are
experiencing the effects of the grass, stones and ice upon ourselves. Thus
science seems to be at war with itself: when it most means to be objective it
finds itself plunged into subjectivity against its will. Our observation of a
stone is that it is hard and solid. But a scientist will tell us that the atoms
do not touch each other and they are in constant motion.
4. They make
unlimited conclusions based upon a limited number of examples. All crows are
black, because all the ones we have seen are black. Scientific theories have
infinite scope and no finite evidence can ever accurately decide between competing
ones.
5.
Empiricism assumes unlimited possibilities. So there can be no probability since there will
always be a possibility that
cancels it out.
There are a host of other problems beyond our
scope of consideration here, but these examples will serve to show us that
science is not and cannot be a worldview by itself. It must function within a
greater philosophical or religious system. It cannot be the basis of that
system as it depends upon the system. It is like the engine of a car; the
engine apart from the car will not get us anywhere.
Again we are simply exposing empiricism as the
foundation of evangelical textual criticism which promotes itself as the
champion of scriptural orthodoxy. As Christians we should seek to be as certain
as the Israelites who were “skilful in all wisdom, and
cunning in knowledge, and understanding science” (Dan.1:4); “avoiding profane and vain babblings,
and oppositions of science
falsely so called” (1 Tim.6:20).
We are therefore not against science- but against science falsely so called.
Apart from the bible science is not intelligible.
Impossibility
of the Contrary
Before we can answer the question of which bible is final authority, we must understand our primary assumptions about evidence and knowledge itself. How is knowledge of anything possible in the first place? Presuppositionalism is applying and working out pre-commitments to a worldview in accounting for or making intelligible everything we encounter. Everyone starts with pre-commitments or presuppositions by which they decide what is or preclude what is not possible. All opposing worldviews will argue for their interpretation of evidence, and so worldviews must be evaluated and accepted or rejected for internal coherence in accounting for logic and science and morality. The only rational transcendent principle that can be uniformly and consistently defended is from the bible. So at the start we can see the task set before us. We are called upon to define and defend what the bible actually is because of the infection of empiricist and rationalist philosophies and textual criticism into the church in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
J.W. Montgomery defined textual criticism this
way ‘lower criticism or textual criticism is indeed a scientific activity,
because what it does is to take the manuscripts which have survived of any
ancient work it doesn't have to be the New Testament. And these manuscripts are
arranged in order of time. And one uses scientific techniques, the ink, the
paleography, the handwriting and in some cases radiocarbon, that sort of thing
and one dates the manuscripts and establishes families of the manuscripts so as
to see which ones were copied from which ones. In the course of doing this you
can eliminate copyist errors. and the lower critic works his way back and
finally he is able to provide the best resultant text. That is the text that is
closest to the original writing. There will be some variant reading but in general
it will arrive at the text which is as close to the original writing as is possible.' here-
Where earlier
scholars in general assumed when they ‘finally appealed’ to the “Greek codices”
they could ascertain final authority assuming a singular Greek & Hebrew
text-see the various Declarations here-
But alas this is dismissed as ignorance on their
part by our scientific brethren spoiled of final authority by empirical philosophy
and vain deceit (Col.2:8). Simply believing God providentially
preserved a manuscript tradition that many reformation confessions declared,
was not scientific enough for certain which loved the praise of men more than
the praise of God. The scripture, they say, should be shown to be accurate by
treating them as any other historical document in order to be ‘objective’ and ‘fair’.
But yet we cannot even begin our thought without dependence upon the doctrines
found in the bible; namely the foundations of logic, science and morality found
in the nature and purpose of the Creator. Knowledge is impossible unless the
bible is true; all other contrary worldviews fail with respect to the
possibility of knowledge and therefore cannot validate themselves. Here are
basic problems of epistemology (the study of how knowledge is possible) that
philosophers fail to account for.
Logic is eternal, abstract (not physical),
universal and unchanging; reflecting God's nature and thinking, and how we must
think (Isa.1:18, Job 38:36, Prv.2:6). One cannot know truth apart from logic.
Logic within the correct worldview will always lead to the truth. He made us in
his image to reason with him. God puts wisdom in our hearts and minds and
obligates us to be rational. Sin and pride cause us to err in our thinking
(Eph.2:3, 4:18, Tit.1:15, Prv.13:10).
Science is based upon God upholding all things by the word of his power (Psa.119:90-1, Heb.1:3, Col.1:17, Neh.9:6, Gen.8:22, 2 Pt.3:7). This is for his purpose revealed in prophecy of the scripture (Jer.31:35-6, 33:20-26). Likewise do we find design and order in nature as God reveals his wisdom in creation (Prv.3:19, Jer.10:12, Psa.19:1) as well as his invariableness (Jer.31:35-6, 33:25-6). This is seen as mathematics allow predictions and calculations, indicating wisdom/logic (Ex.35:31-5, 31:3-5) governs the creation (Job.38:32-3 Psa.104:19, Gen.1:14, Prv.8:27-31).
Morality is likewise an expression of God's nature, thus not an arbitrary directive that God can change from time to time (Mal.3:6). Scripture does not teach a view of God that falls into a voluntarist error.
Science is based upon God upholding all things by the word of his power (Psa.119:90-1, Heb.1:3, Col.1:17, Neh.9:6, Gen.8:22, 2 Pt.3:7). This is for his purpose revealed in prophecy of the scripture (Jer.31:35-6, 33:20-26). Likewise do we find design and order in nature as God reveals his wisdom in creation (Prv.3:19, Jer.10:12, Psa.19:1) as well as his invariableness (Jer.31:35-6, 33:25-6). This is seen as mathematics allow predictions and calculations, indicating wisdom/logic (Ex.35:31-5, 31:3-5) governs the creation (Job.38:32-3 Psa.104:19, Gen.1:14, Prv.8:27-31).
Morality is likewise an expression of God's nature, thus not an arbitrary directive that God can change from time to time (Mal.3:6). Scripture does not teach a view of God that falls into a voluntarist error.
God is just and
righteous and holy by his nature and so we are to be as he is (1 Pt. 1:15-16).
He puts his law in our hearts naturally (Rom.2:14-15) to know to choose the
good and refuse the evil.
The
Dilemma
We must confront the incessant stream of new
bibles all different by determination of copyright laws and ever changing
marketing ploys. The matrix in which this anomaly grows is a philosophical view
of New Testament textual preservation that there are objective truths regarding
history and science that unbelievers and believers can both come to agreement
in by consistently following the facts wherever they might lead us, so we can
treat the bible like any other historical document. Also assumed is the belief
that God preserved a history of how he preserved his words. This view seeks to
omit any reference or appeal to providence or God intervening in the affairs of
men in history (except as we will see they invariably appeal to it as a saving
device for their theories at the needed moment); but simply analyzing evidence
with objective tools of empirical reasoning consistently and follow the facts
wherever they lead.
This chimera of Christianity and Empiricism
comes to maturity in the field of textual criticism. Evangelical textual
scholars try to appear neutral and objective so as to be taken seriously by
agnostic and reprobate scholars. So they attempt to consistently apply
probability assumptions as to what is most likely to explain textual variants.
They believe the vast majority (90 plus %) of the original New Testament text
has been preserved unchanged and that essential doctrines are unaffected by the
remaining variants. Also they contend with their reprobate colleagues that the ‘tenacity
of the original text’ guarantees that ‘Once a reading occurs it will
persist with obstinacy. It is precisely the overwhelming mass of the New
Testament textual tradition which provides an assurance of certainty in
establishing the original text’.
(Basically they assume that early variations remain in the manuscript tradition
because scribes of a certain era were persistent. This of course says nothing
of the accuracy of the scribes before them.) So they insist that we do not have
95 pieces to the puzzle but we have 110 pieces and just have to sort through
the extra 10 pieces to make sure which ones fit and then we will reestablish
the original text completely. They also appear to assume that God preserved not
only the text but also the text in the original language and a history of how
he did it; and their ideas on the probability of its distribution guide them in
genealogical classification of the manuscript traditions. Again these are
beginning assumptions whereby they search for historical information and
documentation.
But their unbelieving colleagues don’t have
the same optimism and point out that this optimistic view is a theological persuasion
and not a historical one; and their evangelical colleagues are not being
consistently empirical at this point. We would also ask our evangelical
scholars if this is a historical
question or a theological question; also
should historians answer the question or the church of Jesus Christ? They note
that only the tiny population of evangelical scholars in this field believe
this, but the vast majority of scholars believe only that ‘the earliest form of
the text’ (which would be like a copy of a copy of a copy of the original text)
can be determined which is probably not like the “original text”. The majority
of leading textual scholars today are unbelievers and have abandoned the hope
of finding the original text. There are some passages where serious and very
smart scholars disagree about what the original text said, and there are some
places where- given probabilities based upon assumptions ‘we will probably
never know’. If evangelical
scholars want to insist that we have the original text somewhere, then how does
he know? (He will become theological here and appeal to providence.) In any
given place, and there are dozens of them, he will have differences of opinion
with every expert in the field. And knowing copying habits of scribes in later centuries will have no value in
determining
scribal habits of 1st
or 2nd century scribes so we must have ‘epistemological humility’ in
these matters. This is how ‘scholars of all other ancient manuscripts conduct
research and the New Testament should be no different’ if we are to be
consistent and objective and neutral.
Using the same ‘objective tools’ they both
agree that the earliest scribes were some of the worst scribes on record making
lots of mistakes. The task of the textual critic is to figure out what the
author of a text actually wrote, and to see why scribes modified it. The
judgments of the textual critic are ratings of probability since historians can
only establish what probably
happened. Despite the fact that scholars have been working diligently at these
tasks for 300 years, there continues to be heated differences of opinion. But
this historical probability is not like the probability in natural science
where repeatable laws and experiments can be duplicated. For this historical
probability is about willful human actions none of which come with their own
explanation; nor are governed by laws in any naturalistic sense. They are free choices
and mistakes that scribes made for unknowable reasons and presumably not
supernaturally influenced but rather only naturalistic explanations are allowed.
The Evangelical Christian textual scholar
operating in the science of textual criticism (having taken shape from an
infusion of naturalistic empiricism), investigates the preservation of the
scripture as an atheist would approach it and as they would approach any other
ancient document- purely naturalistic and no possible supernatural influence.
While they agree with each other that most of the New Testament original text
was preserved complete and the essential Christian doctrines are preserved-
they also agree that the original manuscripts are lost as well as the earliest
copies. But from the remaining Greek manuscripts and translations and citations
from ancient Christians, all of which contain hundreds of thousands of
variations, they both work on reconstructing the earliest form of the text. The
non-Evangelical scholars think they can only reconstruct an early form of the
New Testament while the Evangelical scholars believe that the original text itself
can be reconstructed. But they both are making their conclusions in terms of
probability of some type. Again, not the repeatable causal relations of natural
laws- but the complex dynamics of free will scribes under unknowable pressures
and influences.
But they will both speak in terms of
‘Intrinsic probability’ relating to what the original author is likely to have
written. Also ‘Transcriptional probability’ analyzing what the scribes were
most likely to have written. These are extremely
subjective approaches but it is all that they can do. They must make these
assumptions as though new evidence will not be discovered but yet be prepared
to revise their probabilities if they indeed are. And they are continually
searching for new discoveries. They both agree that these hotly disputed
variants could still take hundreds or thousands of hours of research to
conclude the authenticity of a single word in the Greek text. And even after
all that there’s not absolute certainty as to what the original text says. But
again this is the best they can do with empiricism trying to address a
theological question with a historical answer; a conclusion of some varying
subjective degree of probability based upon a self refuting philosophy.
A
Concrete or an Abstraction?
Our brethren of the contrary view appear to speak
double tongued and double minded utterances. ‘For’, they say, ‘the bible is only the original autographs which were
never in a single book’; thus were never a bible.
And yet simultaneously they declare ‘All the translations and texts are the
word of God, because they contain the essential doctrines which constitute
Christianity’. And so they are all the infallible word of God but yet none of
them are. That is, only in so far as they match the autographa, of which we are
not certain they are considered the words of God. But the word of God or the bible is not a reality. The ‘book of the LORD’
or the bible is an abstraction; an idea or a concept which was never a material
reality. It is like the frictionless plane or the rigid body of
conceptual science- it isn’t found in the real world. Every text or translation and every
manuscript in every language in all of history is errant they claim. But all of
them are close enough to the original
autographs that we call them the word of God. That is they can all function as
the word of God- i.e. essential doctrines; although none of them is the final
authority as the word of God- all are subject to correction.
All the variant readings which find their way
into modern ‘bibles’ leave us a strange dilemma; namely all who seek to
establish the doctrines of the faith for which they earnestly contend may use
different actual verses (from different bibles) to prove what they believe-
although the beliefs are the same.
Two
approaches
Should we use wisdom and knowledge to
determine what the bible is or should we use the bible to determine what wisdom
and knowledge are? Here are two positions taken on the preservation of
scripture. Firstly that God has preserved his words in translations of a book
that is self authenticating, and secondly that God has preserved his words in
multiple manuscripts, fragments, books and writings and it is the job of each
Christian to comb these documents and use scientific and historical research
and assumptions, then construct and translate for themselves a book containing
most of the words of God as originally given- with a high degree of probability.
Interestingly we know which fragments are scripture because we have it in our
hands to judge. We know an ancient manuscript is a copy of scripture because we
have a book to judge it against.
This
former is scripturally supported, the latter is scripturally condemned. One
depends upon the witness of the Spirit upon self authenticating grounds and
confirmed by the church, the latter upon empirical reasoning and the wisdom of
this world and is confirmed by historians. The former yields final authority,
with the latter every man does that which is right in his own eyes. The first endeavors
for the unity of the Spirit, of the same mind speaking the same things in words
which the Holy Ghost teacheth. The second speaks words which mans wisdom
teaches every one filled with his own ways. With the first the fear of the LORD
is the beginning of knowledge, with
the second, knowledge should end in
the fear of the LORD…very probably. Do we use history and archaeology and
paleography to examine the bible or the bible to evaluate these fields?
Modern Christian scholars, as we have
considered, highly esteem science and logic in the realm of bible apologetics
and manuscript authentication. They are in practice appealed to as judges of
the bible itself- what it actually is. And as I may so say, without all
contradiction the less is blessed of the better. But a problem that results
from this ignorance of Gods righteousness is the wrongfully perceived need to
establish ones own righteousness. Thus as it is written "my people have
committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and
hewn them out cisterns, broken cisterns that can hold no water" Jer. 2:13.
Having arrayed themselves in garments mingled in woollen and linen, they seek
to establish the historical and scientific trustworthiness of the scriptures,
and their general reliability. Yet in so doing they subjugate the truth of God
to philosophy and vain deceit, making it of none effect. They direct faith unto
the wisdom of men rather than the power of God. Professing themselves to be
wise in profane and vain babblings and oppositions of science falsely so
called, they have erred concerning the faith. For what are science and logic,
save that which the Creator of the ends of the earth reveal them to be in his
word, the bible? Therefore the truth contained in the bible must be initially
appealed to before research of any sort can be rationally founded.
Logic and science are trustworthy only if we
presuppose their universal and invariant nature, or that all things are upheld
by the word of His power. And that we are capable as created in his image, men
who can reason together with him. If then they are useful only because they are
what the bible reveals them to be, the latter cannot be the blessed of the
former. In order then to make use of logic and science we must presuppose the
bible itself. We must start with the bible, not end with it. The fear of the
LORD is the beginning of wisdom and
knowledge and not the latter end.
But in what form do we presuppose the
bible? We have seen that it is not an abstraction.
Now
if we have received the things which are of God, things we speak in words which
the Holy Ghost teacheth, then we have indeed received these same words which
the Holy Ghost teacheth. If we are the pillar and ground of the truth as the
church, and we are gathered out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and
nation, then we have heard the words which the Holy Ghost teacheth, every man
in our own tongue wherein we were born. We have heard spoken in our tongues the
wonderful works of God. And this is no marvel for shall he that hath formed the
tongue not speak? But I say have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went
into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. Since faith
cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God, he said unto them, Go ye into
all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. God therefore teacheth
all nations to observe all things whatsoever Christ hath commanded, not in
words which mans wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth. As the
church was built among all nations all things that Christ taught were
translated. Christ built his church and is with us even unto the end of the
world. Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning,
not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were
moved by the Holy Ghost. Thus if 'it is written', and the 'scripture saith',
then we must have it. Or if Christ rebuked us for erring in not knowing 'the
scripture', or asked us ‘What is written in the law? how readest thou?’,
how could we then be judged? He that rejecteth me, saith the Lord, and
receiveth not my words, shall be judged in the last day 'by the word that I
have spoken'. And as Christ saith unto John, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven
churches, and again, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches, he
would not give an uncertain sound or speak as a barbarian. Yea blessed are they
that hear the word of God, and keep it. For except he utter by the
tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? Now
these things were not written for their sakes alone, but for our sakes no
doubt, these were written. If then they are written for our admonition then
they must be written so that we know the meaning of the voice. If Moses wrote
for our sakes ten thousand words in an unknown tongue, what shall it profit us?
Why then should it be thought a thing incredible with God that we should
receive with meekness the engrafted word in our own tongue?
It is not incredible that God would preserve his words in translations, as the word of the truth of the gospel went into all
the world. Neither is it incredible that his words would be preserved in a
book. For this is how he does it in the book. Keeping in mind Deut. 29:29 The secret things
belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong
unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law. And 1 Cor.2:10, 13 But God hath revealed them unto us by his
Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. Which
things also we speak, not in the words
which man's wisdom teacheth, but which
the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
His
words are placed in a book and sent unto the churches, or copied and kept by
the scribes and priests. For example:
Deut.17:18
…he shall write him a copy of this
law in a book out of that which is
before the priests the Levites:
Deut.
28:58 If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are
written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name,
THE LORD THY GOD; (also Deut.28:61, 29:20, 29:27, 30:10)
Ezra
6:18 And they set the priests in their divisions, and the Levites in their
courses, for the service of God, which is at Jerusalem; as it is written in
the book of Moses.
Acts
1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms
Acts
7:42 …as it is written in the book of the prophets…
Daniel
12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book
Isaiah
34:16 Seek ye out of the book of the
LORD, and read:
Isaiah
30:8 Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book,
that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever:
Rev.
1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou
seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in
Asia;
Rev.22:18-19
For I
testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto
these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his
part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things
which are written in this book.
Words
mean thoughts
If we are being scriptural with
the word 'word' as in 'every word of God' it means saying. For
example:
Rom.13:9 "if there be any
other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely,
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
Gal.5:14 "For all the law is
fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself."
Acts 28:25 "...Paul had
spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto
our fathers,26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye
shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not
perceive:27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and
their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they
should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their
heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.28 Be it
known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles,
and that they will hear it.
(Also see Col.1:5, 2 Thes.3:14,
Act.10:44, 13:15, 1 Cor.12- "word of wisdom" and "word
of knowledge" would mean a thought or saying).
I think almost every time (if
memory serves me) the word ‘word’ appears in the KJV it means saying.
Gen.15:1 After these things the word
of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am
thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.
Ex.12:35 And the children of
Israel did according to the word of Moses; and they borrowed of the
Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment:
This concept goes a long way in understanding many of the variations found historically in the majority of manuscripts and various translations. Or even between the gospel accounts and New Testament references to the Old Testament. It does not pose a problem for the balanced KJV only perspective we are exploring here.
Also of note is sometimes the same thoughts are conveyed in different words- “And Naboth said to Ahab, The Lord forbid it me, that I should give the inheritance of my fathers unto thee…for he had said, I will not give thee the inheritance of my fathers”(1 Ki.21:3-4).
Another
example of different words used to state the same idea is found in 2 Kings 4. “And she said, Nay, my
lord, thou man of God, do not lie unto thine handmaid.” (v16)
with “she
said, Did I desire a son of my lord? did I not say, Do not deceive me?” (v28) When Jesus told Martha "Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?" in John 11:40, this appears to be a summary of his word to her in v 23-26. (See also Jn.13:10-11)
It would also appear that God providentially would preserve his words in a book written to the people in their language. Which is not an absurd thought since the New Testament quotations of the Hebrew Old Testament result in inspired translations; just as Daniel in Babylon or Moses in Egypt.
Scholars, who take the second position despite
their contrary assumption must start
with the bible. And not (as they assume) extract it out of fragments and
manuscripts using science falsely so called and thus proceed to assemble the
bible. In other words, the translator didn't start with the manuscript, neither
the textual critic with multiple pieces of text. They started with the faith in
Christ they received from translations of already assembled books, already in
use and approved by the churches; and then researched these fields using the ‘essential
doctrines’ found in translations the whole time. When they find an ancient
manuscript they compare it to what they have in texts and translations to
recognize it. Again it should be observed that to accept as an axiom the belief
that the bible is extracted from manuscripts by scholarship using inductive
methods, is to deny the doctrine that God providentially preserved his book
historically the way he did it as revealed in the scripture itself. “I have found the book of the law in the house of the
Lord”- 2Ki.22:8. As well as set ones face as
an adamant stone against the axiom that the bible is presupposed as a complete
book and guides one through any subsequent study of historical or manuscript
evidence, or even translating. In other words it is approached
presuppositionally by the impossibility of the contrary, instead of
evidentially as spoiled by naturalistic and humanistic philosophies of science.
To cavil that to do thus and receive a text is to submit to men, is to simply
disapprove of some men over other men. Or some men over ones own self. There is
no other choice. This was warned against by the KJV translators in their
dedicatory epistle, when they anticipated being "maligned by selfconceited
Brethren, who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing, but what is
framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil". And to accept the approach
that God preserved his words in pieces and every man is obligated to find and
assemble the pieces, likewise gives (if we are being consistent) individual man
authority to decide which books are canonical, and also to join yourself to the
number of self conceited brethren afore mentioned. All men will ultimately
submit to the work of other men (“I have laid the foundation and another
buildeth thereon”- 1 Cor.3:10). They just choose which men they prefer over
other men based upon the two approaches they start with. The real problem is
when the providence of God is appealed to in back of the men they prefer (and
it will have to be at some point), it will have to be judged as to which men
have been providentially directed by God to the preserving of his book (like
king James for example- Prov. 21:1). How one thinks God preserved his words will
guide the seeking of an answer to this question. If you believe that he
preserved them in scraps leaving a historical trail then you will believe that
you must round up the scraps as a historian assembling a grand empirical puzzle
and assemble them yourself using assumptions and probability, trusting in a
form of self grandeur. Humbly asserting ‘God providentially guides me as I
assemble and translate his book for myself’. You that follow this way that
seemeth right unto a man will no doubt flatter yourselves with assertions that
you are trying to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good, as
admonished by the apostle in 1 Thess.5:21 (see Prov.21:2). Not knowing that
proving all things requires the spiritual man to compare spiritual things with
spiritual. Nevertheless you are proving the things which the Holy Ghost
teacheth by things which man’s wisdom teacheth (empiricism). Therefore the
contrary is in thee. Rendering to
scholars and academics the commission to find out what actually constitutes the
bible, because in your view it is still an open question. And you thereby
undermine the presuppositional argument by subjecting the bible to the science
and archeology of human reasoning and put leaven into the bible itself. You
claim that God preserves his words in an unbiblical manner, not speaking
according to the word (Isa.8:20). You subvert any real final authority, sowing
discord among brethren by raising doubts about every translation in every
language, and every Greek and Hebrew text, in all history rendering men double
minded and overthrowing the faith of some. You cast odium upon the self
authenticating nature of the scripture by the testimony of the Spirit, and
raise up the doctrines of men, the work of the craftsman in its place which
affirm the position of evidential scholarship to judge what is a word of God
and what is not. And giving place for great blasphemy of the name of God and
his doctrine among his enemies.
Is this
how we approach these sciences which purport to bring more certainty to the
scriptures and greater probability to the great and precious promises? Do we
assume the scripture lacked the certainty that these sciences provide in great power
and mighty to save? Are we to take innumerable and textually varying
manuscripts from history, arrange them in certain orders, develop theories and
assumptions of origin, evolutionary development and scribal habits, and impose
them upon the manuscripts? And say ‘These be thy gods O Israel”? While offering
sacrifices of praise to ‘science’ arrayed in the Babylonish garment the world
hath woven? This is where we find ourselves if we listen to the prophets
seduced by the adulteress of this world, that Jezebel of empiricism. These
prophets find themselves charmed by her fair speech, flattered by her scarlet
lips, solacing themselves in her favor. She saith- You can have your ‘bible’
just bow to ‘science and logic’. You can worship your God if you keep him out
of these ‘independent objective truths’ which are supreme in authority. Your
bible must pay homage to them and be their vassal. These prophets and pastors that go down to Egypt for help (Isa.31:1).
Truth
without Text
How, ever do our ‘scientific’ brethren find
and construct the autographa? They have created quite a conundrum for
themselves. How do they maintain the validity of presuppositionalism by
allowing the bible to reign over and save science, while also allowing science
to reign over and save the scripture?
Scholars have whatever
doctrine is needed for the transcendental argument for the truth of Christ, in
all orthodox (theologically fundamental) translations. But the problem arises
when one begins to encounter the differences among these same translations, and
attempts to determine which verses are the words of God. (e.g. Can these verses
be used to teach the deity of Jesus Christ? -1 Tim.3:16, John 3:13, 1 Cor.15:47, 1 Jn. 4:3, 5:7, Act20:28, Rev.1:11, Phil 2:6, 1 Jn. 3:16, Mic.5:2, Heb.2:16, Phil.2:6, Acts 8:37,Lk.23:42, Mark 9:24, John 8:11) If you try to presuppose some words of
God so that you can proceed to ratify the rest, then the latter is not as sure
as the former because they will always need additional support from textual
science. But we cannot move
from presupposing the truth taught in all the bible versions in general to a
particular translation arbitrarily. Certain steps must take us there. If this
is a theological question then we must ask if this was the condition of the
book of the LORD in the scripture. Were there various translations competing
for supremacy in the bible where God teaches us about preservation? Did the
Lord and the apostles and Jews argue over the intrinsic probability of one
variation over others? No; they seemed to understand and agree that the
‘scriptures’ were a reference to the same thing (Mt.21:42,22:29, Lk.2:21, 24:27, 45, Jn.5:39, 7:38, 42, Ac.1:16, 17:2, 11, 18:28). Empiricism appears to have had no
authority in the bible yet this is the foundation of modern bibles.
If you presuppose none
of the verses to establish the fundamental doctrines of Christianity you can
never get your foundation laid for there is no where to put it nor any building
material. You have no epistemological starting point. Either all the verses
become guilty until proven innocent, or all the verses are innocent until
proven guilty.
To assume they are all guilty generates
incoherence, trying to use the truth (biblical epistemological presuppositions)
of the verses without the verses. It
would require moving backward in time. It is like removing your original
foundation, being suspended in air standing upon no foundation and rebuilding
one piecemeal underneath one empirical fact at a time. You cannot accept the
verses to believe in the truth of Christianity (as the foundation of your
science), and then pretend to suspend dependence upon these same verses while
you prove them independently (as an autonomous scientist/scholar). So for all
the verses to become guilty doesn’t work since to remove the truth of scripture
is to remove any and all certain knowledge.
What if we assume all the verses in any one
translation are innocent- that is infallible? And when we encounter a variation
such as an omission or an addition of a verse, we investigate that one verse in
question using the truth taught in the rest of the scripture. We apply the
science of textual criticism to it and validate it or discard it. One problem
(as mentioned above) is that once this is decided to be an omission and it is
reinserted into the text it will forever be in need of empirical support. Can
probability generate infallible truth? Or can iron mix with miry clay? But this
they do, for they try to unite the act of presupposing the words of God in
order to practice their science, with the practice of empirical science to save
the words of God. You will have to consider why are there numerous bibles that
are all different and then realize that the new bibles are the result of empiricism
applied to preservation; where the King James Version predated this unequal
yoking. The Authorized Version sought to revise and diligently compare the
former translations in other languages to produce a more exact translation in
English. They did not create a new text based upon analyzing probable scribal
habits and dating Greek manuscript ages. There was no classification of text
types at this time (Byzantine, Alexandrian, Caesarian, Western). The dedication
of the Authorized Version records the translator’s goals- “that out of the
Original Sacred Tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our
own, and other foreign Languages, of many worthy men who went before us” they
would produce “one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the
English tongue”. The new bibles are translating texts newly assembled from the
latest advances in scribal habit analysis.
A second problem is that when one verse is
called into question, doubt is cast upon the rest of them. For if pieces of the
whole are not certain, how do we know the whole is certain? ‘Well we presuppose
them, that’s how we are certain’. But you have to examine one verse at this
point; so how do you know which of the other verses you are presupposing are
certain? Let’s take our example above- say you are presupposing Jesus Christ as
the one by whom are all things and for whom are all things, the image of the
invisible God. Yet while believing this doctrine you discover that several of
the verses you used (1 Tim.3:16, John 3:13, 1 Cor.15:47, 1 Jn. 4:3, 5:7, Act20:28, Rev.1:11, Phil 2:6, 1 Jn. 3:16, Mic.5:2, Heb.2:16, Phil.2:6, Acts 8:37,Lk.23:42, Mark 9:24, John 8:11) are textual variants. Eventually you will be
forced to question which particular verses are indeed sure (empirically) and
presuppose them so that your foundation can be solid. However you will also thereby
confirm that you know the majority of the New Testament is preserved because of
historical and empirical considerations. Again you are forced to separate the
truth of scripture from the text of scripture. A double minded man is unstable
in all his ways.
Likewise thirdly you will call into question
God’s omnipotence in the preservation of His words though his church (not
secular paleographers and historians anymore than trusting biologists to
validate the resurrection of Christ). For you start with that presupposition
when you start with the bible; shall you then leave it while you discard parts
(or add parts) of the very book you presupposed at the beginning?
What if we suppose then that every verse
called into question is omitted and we simply have what’s left over? Assuming
the church all through recorded history wrongly received and used as scripture
variant readings. We will still need to construct a theory to determine what are
variants (which manuscripts or patristic writings?) and why in order to
separate the variants from the rest of the book (variant x is from manuscript
tradition y which is older and more reliable and should not be excluded, etc.).
We will need to consider who the ancient church fathers are by their doctrines
and how their teachings match the ones we have today in the Book. Still forced upon
us is the presupposing of particular verses which teach the transcendental
truth that we need to start with. Again we are left judging the Book with empirical
science founded upon truth backed by no particular text. It is confusion.
This doesn’t appear to be a historical
question to be answered by empiricists using probabilities. It should be
decided through the church of Jesus Christ the pillar and ground of the truth.
Scripture
on the Scripture
What significance are the originals? Then opened he their understanding, that
they might understand the scriptures-
Lk.24:45 I think it is interesting that every place in the bible that the word
scripture is used it is a reference to copies and translations in use at that
time- search the scriptures yourself! All scripture is given by
inspiration of God, and is
profitable- from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures- 2 Tim.3:15-16 It is argued that the reference to
scripture in v 16 is of the originals in spite of the immediate context.
As we saw from the bible God commands us: “Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read”.
When searching the scripture we learn that God providentially preserves his
words for us to read (in a book see above). First from the numerous promises for
example:
Isa.59:21 As for me, this is my
covenant with them, saith the Lord; My spirit
that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart
out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy
seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever.
Isa.40:8
The grass
withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
Prv.22:12 The eyes of the Lord preserve knowledge, and he overthroweth the words of the
transgressor.
Eccl.3:14 I know that,
whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any
thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.
Psa.119:160 Thy word is true from
the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.
v86 All thy commandments
are faithful: v90 Thy faithfulness is unto all
generations:
Psa.146:6 Which made heaven, and
earth, the sea, and all that therein is: which keepeth truth for ever:
Matt.5:18 For verily I say unto
you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass
from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Deut.30:11 For this
commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither
is it far off.
Psa.33:11 The counsel
of the Lord standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.
Psa.12:6-7 The words of
the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a
furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O
Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this
generation for ever.
1 Chr.16:15 Be ye
mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand
generations;
Psa.111:7-8 The works
of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure. They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and
uprightness.
Psa.100:5 For the Lord is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all
generations.
Isa.30:8 Now go,
write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the
time to come for ever and ever:
Matt.28:19-20
Go ye therefore, and teach
all nations…Teaching them to observe
all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.
So we can see from a perusing through of the scripture
that there are numerous assurances that God will watch over his truth to
preserve it to all generations. If we look in the New Testament we can see that
the Lord and the apostles (and their enemies) testified that they had the words
of God in their hands while it had been given by inspiration centuries before:
2 Pet. 1:19-21 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that
ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn,
and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that
no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For
the prophecy came not in old time by
the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy
Ghost.
Matt.22:31 …have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses
and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things
concerning himself.
Luke 20:28 … Moses wrote unto us…
v37 … that the dead are raised, even Moses
shewed at the bush…
John 10:34-5 Jesus
answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the
scripture cannot be broken;
Heb.10:15 Whereof the
Holy Ghost also is a witness to us:
for after that he had said before…
Acts
28:25 Well
spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers,
Mark
13:14 … But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken
of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth
understand,)
Rom.15:4 For whatsoever things
were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience
and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
Rom.4:3
…
For
what saith the scripture? v17 As it is written… v23-4 Now it was not written
for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for
us also…
Rom.11:4
But what
saith the answer of God unto him?
Matt.19:4
…
Have
ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and
female… v7…Why did Moses then command…
Matt.22:29 …Ye do err, not knowing
the scriptures
John
5:38-9 And
ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. Search the scriptures;
for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of
me.
Acts
2:16 … this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel… v25 … David speaketh
concerning him… v31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his
soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. V34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself,
The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand…
Matt.1:22 Now all this
was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the
prophet, saying…
Over and over again the apostles, their
adversaries and the Lord Jesus himself bear record that they read and had
access to what was originally written. The text was preserved to them even
though the original autographs were lost. But is it impossible for God to fully
communicate in any language? Some man will say ‘There can be no inspired
translations’; and yet we find this very thing all through the bible. Josephs
correspondence in the Egyptian tongue (Gen.42:23) was recorded in inspired
Hebrew. Likewise was Moses’ speech with Pharaoh (Ex.2:10) in Egyptian. Daniels
words were spoken many of them in the tongue of the Chaldeans (Dan.1:4) and yet
translated into Hebrew as was the unknown tongue in Daniel 5:24-28 after it was
translated into Chaldean. How many dozens of verses in the New Testament are
quoting the Old Testament and are inspired translations; and so inspired
translations are scriptural and reasonable and historical. Conservative
scholars must answer how Jesus and the disciples supposedly spoke Aramaic (according
to historians) yet the New Testament was written in Greek- did it lose
something in the translation because, as they say, ‘you always lose something
in the translation’.
Variations and Corruptions
Now it is true that we do not know
empirically which manuscripts were intentionally added to or deleted from. Nor
is it sure who were involved in adding or in deleting; neither their motives.
But when we look at the product certain apparent trends materialize. We do know
that the mystery of iniquity worked in Paul’s day (2 Th.2:7) and the spirit of
antichrist was already in the world (1 Jn.2:18, 4:3), and that this spirit
working in the children of disobedience seeks to deny and diminish the glory of
the Lord Jesus Christ in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and
knowledge. The volume of variants relating to the person and work of Christ
evince a design by the prince of the power of the air to undermine the
foundations with questions as- ‘hath God said?’ Unbelieving scholars today tell
us that the deity of Jesus Christ- that the Word was made flesh- is a myth that
was the result of later Christians embellishing upon previous stories. They are
the first to point out that the ‘older more reliable’ manuscripts contain less
of this expanding of the worship of Christ as the divine God man.
Consider these variants (not an exhaustive
list related to the topics) and ask if this was just chance or scribes trying
to ‘expand their piety’ or if maybe the serpent is more subtil in his devices
than our scholarly shepherds would have us aware.
The verses
teaching the deity of Christ that we have already pointed out are called into
question- 1 Tim.3:16, John 3:13, 1 Cor.15:47, 1 Jn. 4:3, 5:7, Act 20:28,
Rev.1:11, Phil 2:6, 1 Jn. 3:16, Mic.5:2, Heb.2:16, Phil.2:6, Acts 8:37,
Lk.23:42, Mark 9:24, John 8:11.
Christ was worshipped while in the body of his flesh- Lk.23:42,
24:52, Mt.8:2, 9:18, 15:25, 18:26, 20:20, Mk.5:6, Gal.4:7, Col.1:14
Questions of the certainty of his resurrection- Mk.16:9-20,
Ac.1:3, 2:30, Lk.13:32, Eph.5:30, Jn.16:16
Omitting or diminishing the person and titles of the Lord
Jesus Christ- Mic.5:2, Mt.1:25, Mt.5:22 with Mk.3:5, did Jesus sin? (Compare
with Mk.1:41 in new bibles) Mt.12:6, 41-2, Mk.11:10, Lk.2:33, 23:42, Jn.3:13, 6:69,9:35, 8:1-11(only God forgives-Mk.2:7, Lk.5:21- in this passage Christ forgives
in beautiful mercy) Ac.4:27, 30, 19:4, 10, Rom.1:16, 16:24, 1 Cor.5:4-5, 9:1,
15:47, 16:22-3, Gal.4:7, Eph.3:9, 14, Col.1:2, Phil.2:6, 1 Th.1:1, 1 Tim.3:16,
Tit.1:4, Heb.1:3, 3:1, 1 Jn.1:7, 3:16, 4:3, 2 Jn.3, Jd.4, Rev.1:8-9, 11, 5:14,
12:17.
Imaginations and Probabilities
The general guideline that the modern textual critics use to
determine an original reading is this- Assuming only naturalistic
probabilities, choose a variant that best explains the rise of other variants.
For example- Romans 8:1 There
is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk
not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Some manuscripts have the full
reading here- some have it without “but after the Spirit”- and some have it
without “who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit”. They say that the
earliest attestations have the shorter reading. So what do they do? They
conclude that it is most likely that a scribe was internally compelled by his
aversion to God’s free grace and added “who walk not after the flesh”. And yet
another scribe somewhere else at some later time probably compelled by some
theological persuasion himself felt that he should add “but after the Spirit”
and so this is how we have received the fuller reading… probably.
And so the wisest in this worldly system,
trained in the empirical sciences search out and analyze the variety of
fragments and manuscripts in order to establish the book that they ultimately
must presuppose in the beginning of
their studies. They find discrepancies and various readings amongst all the
collection. A collection that although very large is not complete enough to
form a perfect theory of preservation and transmission. Diligent as they should
be in their field of study they cannot wait for the next generation of scholars
to pass better judgment on what is ever increasing before them; they thus craft
a variety of ideas related to the copyists and the copies based on imaginations
and probabilities.
Some
suppose that there are additions in the texts because men added them. Why did
men add to them? Some scholars suppose it is conflation, expansion of piety, parallel
influence and harmonization very probably by well intentioned scribes. Those on
the contrary feel that the words are deleted by heretics in an attempt to cast
doubt upon the veracity of certain doctrines. In neither camp is there a ‘more
sure word’ of history nor is this a historical question. They are both judging
what the infallible original autographical words are by fallible suppositions
and probabilities; such as:
·
Some think we should as a rule follow the
fuller text in all cases.
·
Some think we should assume it in some
cases; each case should be independently examined, no ‘artificial rule’ applied.
·
Some
think we should prefer the shorter readings because copyists were more likely
to add than leave off when copying, or to insert new material feeling that it
was safer to make texts match.
·
Some
think that marginal notes ended up in the text because of the economic strain
of poor scribes. Scribes just could not afford to buy new writing materials
every time they made mistakes because they were usually economically
challenged. And every time they made a mistake they couldn’t ball up the material
and toss it in the waste basket.
·
Some
think scribes had a propensity towards repeating phrases when copying.
·
Some
think scribes were more likely to leave off than add, as statistics relating to
human nature imply.
·
Some
think
a scribes ‘piety expanding’ better explains the fuller readings and should therefore
be rejected.
·
Some think that if a disputed passage is
in question and there are parallel passages, the reading that disagrees with the parallel passages
should be chosen, because scribes likely tried to smooth them out.
·
Some think we should apply statistical
probability to recover the original readings.
·
Some think the majority of witnesses
should rule.
·
Some think an eclectic approach is better.
·
Some think the older manuscripts are more
reliable, and we know the older ones by carbon dating and paleography (not a
presupposition-less endeavor).
·
The more difficult reading is to be
preferred, according to some, because scribes (‘as a rule’) generally tried to
smooth out (change) difficult readings.
·
Some say the reading that doesn’t reflect
doctrinal bias should be chosen.
·
Some think every New Testament reading
must have a corresponding Greek manuscript. It is supposed that God preserved a
transmission history in Greek manuscripts.
·
Some think early translations hold some
weight in deciding a reading.
·
When variant readings are found assume
that there is some form of evolution of content. So that for example reading A
says one thing, B another, and C has both A and B, you should assume that C
came after A and B. And some well meaning scribe probably tried to put them
both in there, thereby reducing your decision to reading A or B.
·
Of course always presupposes that you have
enough evidence to conclude anything at all.
Now
all of this cannot be known to be true in any sense in which the bible
prescribes as assurance- only probably true. And to rate the probability of
such things is itself rather dubious. Why assume purely naturalistic
explanations? Why assume Latin manuscripts can’t have readings closer to the
original than some Greek manuscripts if many copies and translations were
quickly distributed in the early years of the church? Why assume these
questions can even actually be answered by historians? Other assumptions in
evaluating textual variants are scribal habits- “One of the most important
advances in our knowledge of the Greek manuscripts since the days of King James
comes from the area of scribal habits.” Others also join the chorus stating
that the science of comparing different and inconsistent manuscripts to
determine which are closest to the originals have notably improved since the
1600's. To rely on scribal habit to explain textual matters is to bind
the scripture to the altar of worldly wisdom and probability. The ‘more sure word’ we saw at a
distance turns out to be only a ‘basic reliability of the documents’. Infallibility becomes probability, and the
holy word of God is commonly placed among all other historical writings to be
judged by a variety of blends of empiricism and theory driven critics.
The fact
is there are innumerable theories about timelines of writing styles, writing
materials, writing techniques, writers/copyists, which make basic assumptions
which are not provable but yet are imposed upon historical pieces of information
(and assuming there is sufficient information to conclude anything) to try and
compose a workable theory. Again, historical information does not come with a
built in interpretation, rather the historian tries to assemble the history
based upon certain assumptions inevitably employed. These competing theories
search for particular clues and evidences and assign certain values to them
based solely upon the assumption with which they started. But God has not
promised to preserve a history of the manuscript traditions, rather He has
promised to preserve His words. How then do we know the correct family of
manuscripts and the correct readings if not empirically? By what is consistent
with the presuppositional method of reasoning.
Internal
Witness
Is the empirical/inductive method the only way
we can to validate scripture? Is a revelatory/subjective approach irrational? We
ask again- is the question of scriptural preservation more of a historical
question or more of a theological question. If Christ’s sheep hear his voice,
and are guided into all truth by his Spirit to know the things freely given by
God, even in words which the Holy Ghost teacheth, then looking at what the
church, the pillar and ground of the truth, has received and used and has
demonstrated as a door to the manifestations of the Spirit should be sufficient
evidence to the humble in spirit. The self attesting nature of scripture is
appealed to by John Calvin in his Institutes (Book 1 Ch.VII sec.4-5, Ch.VIII
sec.1,V), the Westminster confession (IV, VIII,IX, X), Belgic confession
(Articles5 and 7) the 1689 London Baptist Confession, also in the larger
Westminster catechism (question4) the
1658 Savoy Declaration #5. These all appealed to the self attesting
witness of the Spirit to the scripture, even though, as Calvin asserted, in
face of the murmurings of the wicked, certain worthy persons “have not a clear
proof at hand to silence them” (reference above). He contends that the Spirit
confirms the faith of the godly “inwardly”. The 1689 Confession states the “authority
of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, dependeth not upon
the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God”. The Spirit taught these believers inwardly
well before the empiricist’s discovery of the “oldest most reliable
manuscripts”. Were they misled? Perhaps they should have waited for modern
dating methods to confirm the oldest manuscripts. Why would God providentially
allow the reformers to receive a text that is cursed (for the additions
Rev.22:18), for it is argued that they used this text by default and not
choice.
If the Spirit will inwardly teach the meek of the things freely given by God, how is it that one would search in vain for proponents of the infallibility of any new translation or text? They testify out of their own mouths that no translation or text is infallible. They affirm that the Spirit elevates none of the new texts or translations to that level of final authority. Also asserting that contradictory versions are equal, even if one has added to Gods words and one has taken away from Gods words. Now while it is understood that the KJV translators likewise did not claim inerrancy, it is also understood that what Paul asserted to be his own judgment and opinion (1 Cor.7:6, 25) is scripture. The 1689 Baptist confession, and the Westminster confession elevated the Greek and Hebrew originals to the status of final appeal (VII), they continued their assertion by faith in Gods “singular care and providence” by which he “kept pure in all ages” these same Greek (including Mk.16:9-20 and Jn.7:53-8:11) and Hebrew books (Old and New Testament). They made no appeal to handwriting analysis, or scribal habits in their confession regarding final authority. They did not appeal to dating methods as handwriting styles (letter size and punctuation, artistic embellishments etc. comparing to styles on other secular ancient documents with a clear date) types of material used upon which to write and with which to write (ink), the existence of books verses scrolls, as though they provide a clear simple timeline- give or take 50 to 100 years (as opposed to complex events dictating dynamic and unpredictable changes).
Neither they nor the KJV translators debated about which originals, summarily they held to a real tangible final authority; which is called into question in this modern era of science falsely so called, because they apparently weren’t scientific enough for our modern scholarly class. As our modern minded brethren contend here- ‘this was because these sciences weren’t developed yet’ we must ask them why in God’s providential leading did he allow the reviving of the churches to be based on such faulty manuscripts? Brethren consider that the question cannot be answered scientifically or historically for epistemological reasons as well as extreme limitation of information; but must fall back upon the internal witness of the Spirit and self authentication of God and dependeth not upon the wisdom of men.
(That they indeed held to a divinely preserved
text and did not follow the assumptions of naturalistic empiricism can be seen
in the bemoaning of the fact by 2 leading proponents of the critical approach
to the New Testament- Kurt & Barbara Aland “The Text of The New Testament”
pg6-7 "Yet no real progress was possible as long as the Textus
Receptus remained the basic text and its authority was regarded as
canonical...Every theologian of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (and
not just the exegetical scholars) worked from an edition of the Greek text of
the New Testament which was regarded as the "revealed text." This
idea of verbal inspiration (i.e. of the literal and inerrant inspiration of the
text), which the orthodoxy of both evangelical traditions maintained so
vigorously, was applied to the Textus Receptus with all of its errors..."
https://books.google.com/books?id=RtcUAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA5&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false)I would like to point out in closing that some of the same arguments that Josh McDowell used in 'The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict', to prove the authenticity of "the bible" can be, and is used in defense of the KJV. For example:
1. Unique in its influence on civilization pg.15
2. Unique in its influence upon Literature pg.14 (and the English language)
3. Unique in its survival through criticism pg.9
4. Unique in its circulation pg.7-8
His reasonable conclusion was not that this proves the bible is the word of God, but superior to all other books. And obviously for my purpose the KJV and its underlying text, is in these respects superior. And since God moved King James to authorize it (Prov.21:1) we ought to think a bit differently on these issues and quit pretending to be followers of science falsely so called, and humble ourselves under his mighty hand.
A
Canon and a Text
When we consider what we call the bible we not
only must consider a text but also a canon. The question of the books contained
in the canon is likewise beyond the scope of science or history to answer. But
what we find of interest is that there was no authoritative council advising
the church on which books of the New Testament to receive. The church was not
structured in such a way that there was a central authority that all had to
submit to (we do not have the time here to explain the rejection of popery and
the church state). In matters of authority the church (the pillar and ground of
the truth- 1 Ti.3:15) had its leaders and apostles as the foundation (Ep.2:20,
1 Co.12:28) but corporately was truth received and established in contrast to
ipse dixits, just as the Acts 15 counsel reveals. The apostles and elders
considered and addressed the matter at hand, then “pleased it the apostles and
elders with the whole church” (v22). The Bereans did not just accept Paul on his
own say so but “searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so”
(Ac.17:11). If a disciple “shall neglect to hear the church” he would be as a
heathen (Mt.18:17) as authority was invested in the local bodies of believers.
The gates of hell would not prevail against the church (Mt.16:18) but the
Spirit would guide them into all truth (Jn.14:26, 16:13) specifically
concerning seducers and deceivers (1Jn.2:26-27). His sheep “follow him: for
they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow”. (Jn.10:4-5, 27) When
scriptures were given to particular churches they were instructed to cause them
to be read by other believers (Col.4:16, 1 Thess.5:27) in order to hear “what
the Spirit saith unto the churches” (Rev.1:11, 2:7, 11, 17…etc.). It was received
not as the word of men but as it is in truth the word of God which effectually
worked in those that believed (1 Thess.2:13). Inscripturation was in real time
(1 Cor.14:37, 2 Pet.3:16, 1 Tim.5:18 w/ Lk.10:7, Ac.13:25 w/Jn.1:27, Lk.3:16)
as the gospel was already delivered by Christ and the apostles and already being
defended (Lk.1:1-4, Heb.1:1-2, 2:3-4, Gal.1:8-12, Jd.3). This was what the Jews
were told to expect when That Prophet arose (Deut.18:15, 18-19, Jer.31:31-4)
that God’s words would be spoken by him like unto Moses (Ac.3:22-4).
We do not intend to investigate all the
debates surrounding the canon of 66 books that the New Testament church
recognized but simply to parallel the canonization process with the acceptance
and use of a particular text, and observe that the same dynamics can be
appealed also in establishing the authority of a text. And why not- are the
guides of history and science more sure? It seems consistent with our current
discussion to point out as self evident that historians cannot provide us with
a canon of which books should be included but only of which books were included
and some reasons why. In the same way historians cannot tell us which text
should be used only which ones were used to the extent that they are able. And
so as consistent with biblical teaching regarding the building of the church
upon the foundation of the apostles and by divine direction provided by the
Spirit according to the one who can swear by no greater than himself, we see
the canon established from the ground up by independent local churches and
believers recognizing its divine authority. (Consider the ant and the locust.) Not
from a top down Nicolaitane like imposition of conclusions by authoritative councils;
but with the absence of any centralized authority over the churches distributed
through the world and not lorded over by some seeking dominion over the faith
of others. Not by many wise men after the flesh not by many mighty and noble, but rather by the foolish and weak, by the ignorant and unlearned. (1 Cor.1:26-8, Ac.4:13) The local believers were not told that they must use these 27 New
Testament books alone as scripture by any supreme council or popish figure. And
yet providentially and internally they were led into agreement embracing “those things which are most surely believed among us”
(Lk.1:1). Would establishing a text be a more significant effort? I trow not.
In order to avoid the logical error mentioned in this argument it seems to
conform to heavenly patterns to establish the text of scripture in the same
manner as the canon was established- providence and internal witness of the
Spirit minus an empirical priest imposing imaginations upon the book of the
LORD. Receiving a text just as a canon was received (apart
from the immediate authority of the apostles and those who ministered with them). So that the question is
not so much ‘is the church able to recognize accurately which books belong in
the canon’ but rather ‘is God able to communicate accurately?’
When we take into account the omnipotence of
God and his promises to preserve his word (see above) it seems absurdly
barbaric to speak in terms of ‘lost books of the bible’. Behold he that keepeth
Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep; and he magnifies his word above all his
name. If this book we hold in our hand is corrupted then heaven and earth
should have passed away with the dissolving elements. If his word has been
rendered of none effect by forces outside his control then there can be no
knowledge of anything. We could not know that his word has been corrupted
because all knowledge would be
impossible. But more sure than the physical laws is the word of his power, and
the bible provides us with the necessary preconditions of intelligibility. Disregard
the book and knowledge unravels and logic disappears into the sea of randomness;
assurance becomes phantasmal, a specter embraced in a dream. The contrary is
therefore impossible.
https://www.baptistboard.com/threads/presuppositionalism-and-kjv-onlyism.11566/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1z47lDalpH4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SRWafRSCqs
Douglas Wilson and James White
https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/textual-issues/a-disputatio-from-the-past/
I believe God's word!
ReplyDeleteLet God be TRUE and EVERY man a liar.
He has spoken and He will yet speak again.
I agree- God's word is the foundation of science not the reverse.
ReplyDelete