Home > Brandenburg, King James Only > Certainty or Uncertainty: Perfect Preservation or Multiple Versions

Certainty or Uncertainty: Perfect Preservation or Multiple Versions

February 14, 2007

God wants us certain. Satan wants us doubting. We put on the “helmet of salvation” against Satan’s fiery darts because God wants confidence (Eph. 6:17). God takes away all excuses; we are “without excuse” (Rom. 1:20). The Bible is full of unquestioning assurance. Faith is the “assurance of things hoped for” (Heb. 11:1). Paul was “confident of this very thing” (Philip. 1:6), “for he was persuaded” (2 Tim. 1:12). These things, God said, were written “that ye may know” (1 John 5:13), because God “cannot lie” (Titus 1:2). God says, “Thou shalt surely” (Gen. 2:17) and Satan says, “Thou shalt not surely” (Gen. 3:4).

The Preservation Issue

I’ve noticed that people often have their favorite textual position advocate or book. Years ago Central Seminary, in the twin cities area of Minnesota, published a booklet explaining their position on the text of Scripture. It was quite controversial, mainly because it point-blank stated that the Bible did not expound its own preservation. In 2001 it was expanded into a book, One Bible Only?, and it became more popular with an added, major contribution from Kevin Bauder, now the Dean at Central. Bauder is more objective and more civil than most MVO (Multiple Version Only) proponents, and he does a good job at putting his finger on the crux of this issue when he writes in the Introduction (p. 26):

Again—this point cannot be overemphasized—perfect preservation demands that all of the words and only the words that were in the originals be present. If the King James-Only controversialists begin to equivocate on this point, they have really given away the debate. If they can admit that a legitimate margin of error exists within their sources, then they do not really believe in perfect preservation at all; they do not really believe that all of the very words of God must be preserved to have the Word of God. If they are willing to recognize two dependable sources that differ on even a single word, then, in principle, they agree with our position. They ought to change the theological, doctrinal judgments that attend their view and admit the whole controversy is simply an academic debate over acceptable percentages. Our discussion should turn from theologizing to the doing of textual criticism.

In a personally refreshing way, Bauder nails the issue. They believe the Bible has errors and we don’t. Of course, one omission or deletion and we don’t have a perfect Bible any more, and with that one flaw in Scripture, we lose the crystal clear certainty that the Bible and its doctrine of preservation is all about. We suddenly become Central, Detroit, Bob Jones, Maranatha, Pillsbury, Calvary, Faith, Masters, Northland, Clearwater, Desiring God, and others. They don’t believe that the Bible they have in their hands is without error. They’re not satisfied with just holding that position; they want everyone to become at least as uncertain as they are. They do not so much attempt to make it a Scriptural issue—they generally profess that the Bible does not teach anything specifically about the preservation of itself.

Because this is the issue, it is also the reason why the MVO crusaders push their perfect preservation opponents toward admitting merely one error in the text. That’s all they need, as Bauder stated, so with that goal they endeavor through various means to box the one-Bible believers into conceding a single mistake in the text.  If they succeed this becomes “an academic debate over acceptable percentages” of uncertainty.

Historical Explanation

To understand how those who profess New Testament Christianity arrived at this position we must go back into history. In the eighteenth century, rationalism came to Europe. During the time of rationalism, which is also known as the enlightenment, coming out of the Dark Ages man believed that he could solve all problems with his own mind. He began to worship his mind. He was in awe of his mind. He felt that he had the mental capacity to understand everything and solve all problems. God, it was believed, didn’t interfere in the affairs of men when men were so supremely intelligent they could handle their own affairs. At best, God created the world and just let it go. And now it was up to man. And so they decided that since the mind of man was ultimate, anything that the mind of man could not conceive or understand wasn’t true. And so they went to the Bible and anything that didn’t seem rational, reasonable, logical, intellectual was eliminated and thus all the miracles in the Bible were denied, this was taught by the likes of Immanuel Kant, G.W.F. Hegel, and Friedrich Schleiermacher. The central activity of this movement theologically was and is to criticize the Bible. Before, the Bible criticized man, but now the Bible is up for the shellacking. This denial of the supernatural ultimately became modernism.

Today’s innovation in theology is called postmodernism which is most recently manifested in the emerging church movement. The emergents take the posture that the Bible isn’t completely clear, that no one can really know what it means. They take that as an academically, theologically, and socially superior position to the certainty crowd. Most of the “conservative” Bible critics don’t even like that amount of uncertainty, but where do you think that it all started? It all began when men decided that it was acceptable to believe that one error was found in God’s Word, when men stopped trusting what God said and launched into a period of interminable Bible “restoration.” When Europe opened the doors and pulled in the Trojan horse of rationalism, intellectualism and the enlightenment, it lost its faith totally and became liberal and dead.  That’s where we’re headed for, if we haven’t already arrived, in the U. S.

The Biblical Position: The Position of Certainty

Scripture claims perfection for itself (Psalm 19:7; 119:140). The Bible teaches perfect preservation in the languages in which it was written (Matthew 5:18—”jot”, “tittle”). The graphe (Scripture) was the actual markings on the page, the letters and words (2 Timothy 3:16), and those are what God promised to preserve. The Bible teaches general accessibility (Matthew 4:4; Isaiah 59:21) of those Words to every generation of believers. The Holy Spirit, Who inspired every Word, continues to know every Word, and it is He, the Spirit of Truth, Who indwells true churches (1 Corinthians 3:16), Who guides them “into all truth” (John 16:13). Churches agreed upon the Words of the Ben Chayyim Hebrew Masoretic Text and the several editions of the Textus Receptus (essentially 1598 Beza), settling on the Words of the text behind the King James Version of the Bible (found today in Scrivener’s 1894 Greek text). This stated position is also the historical position of the Lord’s churches, despite the creation of a new but fraudulent history made-up by the proponents of uncertainty.

We have grounds for translations of the original languages in that the Greek New Testament quotes (in Greek) parts of the Hebrew Old Testament. We can say that an accurate translation of God’s Word is God’s preserved Word. We believe we have this in the King James Version of the Bible.

The Naturalistic Position: The Position of Uncertainty

On the uncertainty side of New Testament preservation of Scripture, three major positions exist. None of them believes that Christians possess a perfect copy of the Bible. The Critical Text is the Greek text of the New Testament that is the product of late 19 century textual criticism (a general description for everything from Westcott and Hort–1881 to the United Bible Society Fourth Edition); the New Testament text behind almost every modern Bible version. Textual Criticism is a division of Biblical criticism in which men judge extant copies of the text of Scripture and attempt to reconstruct the presumably lost readings of the original manuscripts. As it relates to textual criticism, Biblical criticism is an ongoing means of determining which words are closest to those of the original manuscripts. The criteria for weighing the manuscripts are the same as those used in the criticism of ancient secular literature.  According to someone who has actually counted the words, the Critical Text differs than the Received Text of the New Testament by 7%.  Of course, we’re only talking about degree of certainty.

Majority Text is the terminology that for a long time was generally synonymous with the Received Text in that a vast majority of extant manuscripts support the Received Text. Two modern published texts are also called The Majority Text, one edited by Arthur Farstad and Zane Hodges (1985) and the other by Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont (1991). These two published editions of the Greek New Testament result from the same rationalistic philosophy as the Critical Text, the premise that the Word of God has been lost, and, therefore, must be restored, in this case, by means of counting manuscripts.  Some like the Farstad and Hodges text because its only 2% different than the Textus Receptus.

Eclectic Text is a description of a text formed from varied manuscripts of potentially different text types that is based upon the choosing of a person or group in accordance with his or its subjective criteria. The English word “eclectic” comes from a Greek word which means “to choose.” Eclecticism says that almost any Christian in any era can choose what the Words of Scripture are. Recently a website that is a proponent of this position defined their “balanced eclectic position” as:  “Each text type is to be evaluated independently without premeditated bias as to which manuscript family is most authoritative. It also posits that internal and external evidences are to be considered equally. This school basically suggests that each textual variant be investigated thoroughly and considered on its own merits.” With eclecticism a pastor or teacher can decide the very week he makes his presentation what he thinks God’s Words may be.

What’s Wrong?

What’s wrong with uncertainty? Uncertainty starts with man’s reasoning, his interpretation of history, or what he thinks is evidence and conforms the text of Scripture to his thinking. If that sounds like rationalism; well, it is. New versions are regularly published, determining based on updated research what presently has the best chance of being the Word of God. The criteria is primarily a long-standing group of principles that are very similar to those used as a basis for analyzing secular literature. There is no guarantee that the text actually is the majority text. Not all of the manuscripts have even been collated and counted by which this decision could even be made. This let’s you choose what God’s Words are based on your own unique textual criteria, where you can get personally involved in restoring the text of the Bible. None of these reflect a Biblical position on the preservation of Scripture.

The Bible is replete with guarantees and assurances. In Matthew 4:4 the Lord says, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” Man shall live by every word that proceeds out of His mouth. He shall. That promises every Word and the accessibility of those Words. I don’t have to prove it from history. I just accept it by faith. God said it and that settles it. I’m certain.

Advertisements
  1. Steve
    February 14, 2007 at 8:21 am

    Supposing that one does not embrace the King James Only position of preservation, what specifically becomes *uncertain* that is of Any real and serious consequence concerning that which we must know, believe and do as Christians? Is there any guarantee or assurance concerning the things “that pertain to life and godliness” that we lack by not embracing the perfect preservation belief advocated by KJV Onlyism? If so, please explain what they are.

    Also, knowing that we “do not live by bread alone but by every word…”, and knowing also that Every word that proceeded from the mouth of God could not possibly have been contained in the Bible, what are we to do, knowing that we haven’t heard/read every word that God ever uttered in time? Are we then lacking something because we don’t *literally* live by Every word of God?

    This business of certainty vs. uncertainty, as characterized by KJVO advocates, seems to always paint a picture that allows only one of two options: 1) embrace/believe in perfect preservation- and with that embrace Only 1 specific translation- the KJB by faith, or 2) take the tailspinning fall into skepticism and unbelief as embraced by the likes of Bart Ehrman. This picture, IMHO is VERY dangerous, and fails miserably at accurately portraying that which actually has occured in history in the process of God’s words being abundantly preserved in the extant mss. (I believe Daniel Wallace has rightly described this as an embarrassement of riches). This false dichotemy presented by KJVO advocates is precisely the thing which actually creates unbelief and skepticism about the Bible amongst both believers and unbelievers. People are being forced to embrace either one of two (dare I say) irrational views. But now I suppose that by advocating rationality and historicity I’ll be tarred and feathered as a “rationalist” simply because I choose to think and to examine the evidence from history that God in his wisdom has given his people.

    I hate to burst your bubble, but whatever uncertainties I may have by not embracing KJV Onlyism (and by using the NIV) are completely trivial and inconsequential, and have had ZERO impact on my “growing in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ” for the past 25 years.

  2. February 14, 2007 at 10:00 am

    This is an excellent and Biblical article.

    “We have grounds for translations of the original languages in that the Greek New Testament quotes (in Greek) parts of the Hebrew Old Testament. We can say that an accurate translation of God’s Word is God’s preserved Word. We believe we have this in the King James Version of the Bible.”

    Amen!

  3. February 14, 2007 at 11:14 am

    Okay, you admit the issue surrounds having “all the words and only the words [of God]” as Bauder says. Without having all and only the words of God, then we don’t have the Word of God. That is what I am understanding you to be saying here. Apparently the KJV is the place where all these words are (or that which shows us which Greek and Hebrew words are THE Words of God).

    So then if I can show that the there are indisputable errors in the TR (you guys have not admitted preservation via Latin). And if I can show indisputable errors in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text (abbreviated as BC-MT for simplicity’s sake). And if I can show an indisputable error in the KJV, then you should be over a barrel.

    Hebrew error = Ps. 22:16. The Vulgate and Septuagint read “pierced my hands and my feet” and KJV agrees with them. The Hebrew BC-MT has “like a lion my hands and my feet”. 2 Hebrew mss do have the correct reading but you would have to know that when approaching the BC-MT. So therefore teh BC-MT does not represent all and only God’s Words in Hebrew.

    Greek error = Rev. 16:5 All TRs have “which art, and wast, and shalt be” No Greek mss have this reading. The reading the majority of Greek Mss have is “which art, and wast, the holy one”. E.F. Hills admits this is an error. Jack Moorman cites no Greek evidence for this verse. (More examples of TR errors would be Rev. 17:8 TR = “and yet is” Greek says “and shall come”. Also Rom. 7:6 “that being dead” (gen.) TR vs. Greek “we being dead” (nom.). Acts 9:6b also is in Latin only, no Greek mss.)

    KJV error = Is. 13:15 KJV says “every one that is joined unto them will fall by the sword” no Hebrew support for that at all. Hebrew text (BC-MT) says (and all Heb. mss) “every one that is captured will fall by the sword”. Apparently the KJV translators misread the Hebrew vowel points here, as a minor change produces this difference.

    Also the KJV departs from the TR’s reading at 2 Tim. 1:18 where it adds the words “unto me” (not italicized mind you) after “ministered”. All TR editions do not have any Greek words which would indicate adding “unto me”. The Latin Vulgate does have the words “unto me”. So the KJV departs from the TR here. Either the TR is right or the KJV is right, both can’t be right here.

    There are also some translation issues with the KJV. I already talked about translating “elpidos” (hope) as “faith” in Heb. 10:23 (mind you if someone only has the English they won’t know that God inspired “elpidos” and not “pistis” at this point. Also Acts 19:37 says “robbers of churches” but the Greek shows it to be “robbers of temples”. This would be confusing to an English only person. It is not an accurate English translation there. Also there is the printing error at Matt. 23:24 “strain at” rather than “strain out”. The word describes someone sifting/straining flour and picking out the smallest gnat. In English the picture you get is of someone swallowing a gnat and “straining” this is a misleading translation on this point.

    Now granted these are minor issues. But you yourself have admitted that if just one word is found to be missing, then we don’t really have God’s Word.

    Now are you going to renig and say miniscule differences and minor “mistakes” don’t matter? Or are you going to deny that these errors exist? Or will you modify your position to allow for a very slight bit of deviation.

    If you do the latter, you are welcome to say it is better to have questions on only a few words, rather than a few hundred or more words. That is an academic debate. But You can’t dogmatically claim that allowing for more than a few words missing is inherently wrong. Because you yourself would allow for a very few words to be missing.

    This is one of the arguments that Bauder and the authors of that book go on to deal with.

    To prove that I am not coming up with this stuff from thin air, please reference this article published by Dr. William Combs of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, “Errors in the King James Version?”

  4. February 14, 2007 at 11:15 am

    Please check my blog on Thursday or Friday for my Biblical defense of my position, by the way.

  5. February 14, 2007 at 2:34 pm

    Steve is new. Welcome Steve. I”m going to answer yours in the text. I’m going to put me in bold to distinguish between us.

    Supposing that one does not embrace the King James Only position of preservation, what specifically becomes *uncertain* that is of Any real and serious consequence concerning that which we must know, believe and do as Christians?

    Well, if one does not accept perfect preservation, then one denies what God said about preservation, just to start. You also no longer have an inerrant Bible. I guess that might affect somebody’s attitude about Scripture. Then you have to deal with all the actual false doctrine that comes in with the variants of the Critical Text. The practice of Matthew 18:15-18 changes, just as one example.

    Is there any guarantee or assurance concerning the things “that pertain to life and godliness” that we lack by not embracing the perfect preservation belief advocated by KJV Onlyism? If so, please explain what they are.

    The Westcott and Hort Greek text says echwmen (pres. subj) in Rom. 5:1, instead of echomen (pres. ind), which means instead of “we have peace with God,” it is “we may have peace with God.” In Matthew 5:22, the TR says “angry without a cause” and the CT says “angry.” That changes doctrine and practice. I can keep giving you more. I hope it matters, Steve.

    Also, knowing that we “do not live by bread alone but by every word…”, and knowing also that Every word that proceeded from the mouth of God could not possibly have been contained in the Bible, what are we to do, knowing that we haven’t heard/read every word that God ever uttered in time?

    So you take a position, Steve, that says that Scripture is not sufficient? Words that man lives by are words that are accessible. Consider Isaiah 59:21on this as well. I’ve heard this argument before, but it seems rather desperate in light of a historic interpretation of these Words.

    Are we then lacking something because we don’t *literally* live by Every word of God?

    I don’t see how this helps you, Steve. No, we’re not lacking beause we do have those Words. If you could acknowledge that, it would be good too.

    This business of certainty vs. uncertainty, as characterized by KJVO advocates, seems to always paint a picture that allows only one of two options: 1) embrace/believe in perfect preservation- and with that embrace Only 1 specific translation- the KJB by faith,

    It is logical to say that we have only one Bible. The illogical statement is that we have more than one Bible. His Words are nigh unto us, even in our mouth, indicates that we will have the Words. To say we have options about something that is “settled,” would contradict the nature of Scripture.

    or 2) take the tailspinning fall into skepticism and unbelief as embraced by the likes of Bart Ehrman.

    I don’t take this position, per se. I do believe that the corrupted versions contain the Words of God. I believe someone can be saved by means of them, but that is not God’s standard for Bibliology. He wants us to believe what He said He would do.

    This picture, IMHO is VERY dangerous, and fails miserably at accurately portraying that which actually has occured in history in the process of God’s words being abundantly preserved in the extant mss. (I believe Daniel Wallace has rightly described this as an embarrassement of riches).

    I am thankful for the embarrassment of riches. I believe many, many copies were made because it was the Bible. It’s great to think about. Of course, we are not embarrassed with a great numbers of texts that look like Vaticanus and Sinaitcus. We have a very few of those. My thing is not just to be thankful for copies, but to believe what God said. I don’t see how that could be dangerous. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Sin is never good.  I feel sorry for Daniel Wallace, and actually, I feel sorry for Dallas Theological Seminary for a lot of reasons.

    This false dichotemy presented by KJVO advocates is precisely the thing which actually creates unbelief and skepticism about the Bible amongst both believers and unbelievers. People are being forced to embrace either one of two (dare I say) irrational views.

    Dichotomy—division into two parts, two mutually exclusive, opposed, or contradictory groups. The false dichotomy is that the error filled Bible and the perfect Bible are not mutually exclusive. The false dichotomy is a pure Bible that has errors in it. So I do believe that you are guilty of the false dichotomy.

    But now I suppose that by advocating rationality and historicity I’ll be tarred and feathered as a “rationalist” simply because I choose to think and to examine the evidence from history that God in his wisdom has given his people.

    I’m not sure you are a total rationalist, but in this one area you are.

    I hate to burst your bubble, but whatever uncertainties I may have by not embracing KJV Onlyism (and by using the NIV) are completely trivial and inconsequential, and have had ZERO impact on my “growing in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ” for the past 25 years.

    Charismatics will say the same about their sign gifts, but that doesn’t mean sign gifts haven’t ceased. I don’t base my doctrine on experience.   Growth is change.  We change through sanctification by the truth.  The truth says God preserved all His Words and made them accessible, so perhaps you could change on this too and glorify God in it.

  6. February 14, 2007 at 11:47 pm

    Bob,

    A quick fire for your attacks on the Bible. I’m only going to deal with what you call textual errors. I don’t want to start getting into all your attacks on translation, because that is less the issue with me.

    Psalm 22:16—Gill refutes what you are saying or are miming that others have said. I’m not going to cut and paste his dealing.

    My Scrivener’s has the KJV reading of Rev. 17:8. Matthew Henry, who wrote in the early 1700s doesn’t question “and yet is.” Gill says that the Vulgate and Ethiopic leave out the last clause, but he doesn’t say it shouldn’t be in there.

    John Owen in his Dissertation on Divine Justice, chapter three, quotes the KJV verbatim.in Rev. 16:5, and he was a Greek scholar. Of course, Scrivener’s has the same Greek. Combs talks like he knows that the translators did not have that text. He can’t prove that.

    Romans 7:6, what Combs calls indisputable, was quoted by Jacobus Arminius, who died in 1609, “that being dead wherein we were held,” in his works. Calvin, who knew and used the Greek, said “that being dead wherein we were held.” Gill and Matthew Henry both use the same. They knew Greek.

    Combs will get standing ovations from his guys. He doesn’t prove it though. The burden of proof at this point is on him.

  7. February 15, 2007 at 12:03 pm

    I should have known you’d try to dodge the bullet! Let’s try again here.

    Rev. 16:5 and Rev. 17:8 are in your Scrivener’s TR. They are in all TRs. However they are in no Greek manuscripts. Now I went back and doublechecked Moorman, and I believe he does find one Grk mss for Rev. 16:5, but I’m not sure if it has the exact reading of the TR or just a similar reading. On Rev. 17:8, he cites no Grk mss (in his book comparing the TR to the Maj. Text) and no evidence from any versions at all. On Rev. 17:8 it would be good to read what E.F. Hills says about it here [scroll down to 2 (g) to read what he says on that verse.] Also you can read what he says about Acts 9:6 just a little bit above (g).

    The issue is that at least for Rev. 17:8 there is no mss support of any kind for that TR reading. With Acts 9:6 the originator of the TR claims to have gotten his reading from the Greek of Acts 26, and that he included the verse due to its presence in Latin. There is no Greek mss support for Acts 9:6, yet it is in the TR.

    So in these cases it is an error in the TR, we are talking about. Just saying its in the TR doesn’t disprove anything. Please cite a Greek mss which has it. And if you can’t, then why should we think this TR reading is not illfounded?

    On Rom. 7:6, you offer no real defense. Okay, those guys knew Greek. I know it well enough to be able to read the TR’s reading. The TR is in error there. The KJV correctly renders the TR, but the reading in the TR (the nom. case ending as the TR has it for apothanontes rather than how ALL Greek mss have it, a apothanontos–the difference is one letter in Greek) is wrong. No Greek mss support that reading. Hills claims that Beza introduced this reading as a conjectural emendation. [Again see the link above and scroll down to 2 (j)]

    On Ps. 22:16, I was mistaken. Apparently the qere (Hebrew marginal reading) is “pierced”, but the text of the MT is wrong there. So for another example, look up Josh. 21:36-37. Both of these verses are omitted in the BC-MT (indeed all MTs, I believe). I don’t believe they are in the qere either. They are in Latin and the LXX and the Syriac, and also in the KJV. But they aren’t in the MT at all. They are in a few Hebrew mss, but this still leaves the BC-MT in error on this point.

    Also you haven’t told us how an English only person would know that the Greek does not have “unto me” at 2 Tim. 1:18. The Latin has it, and it is very proper to assume the KJV translators followed the Latin and departed from the Greek TR there.

    Also you didn’t deal with the KJV error on Is. 13:15. It is an ommission of one of God’s words, or so your position would say.

    Isn’t it odd, too, that on the one hand if you can find even 1 Greek mss that has a reading that the TR later used, then you are happy and good with that. But on the other hand before the TR was produced, general accessibility would demand way more than just one mss having that reading!

    Your defense didn’t prove it to me. No standing ovation here. Please deal with the questions at hand.

    Thanks

  8. February 15, 2007 at 1:42 pm

    Bob,

    What is obvious to me, although I’m sure it is not to others, I believe, because they reside in the same barrel as you, is that you have been drawn in by the seduction of the rationalist Bible critics with a low view of God’s providence, of preservation, and of Scripture period. I would not at all be surprised that you don’t think so, but that is the thing with the seduction–it’s the frog in the kettle–you don’t see it anymore.

    You don’t answer my concerns incidentally, but question answering and concern answering only goes one way with your crowd, as it did with Jesus—check to see if they answered His questions. No, they just walked away, but they had a well-organized sacral society built around them, as do you, that propped them up in their true insecurity and uncertainty. You guys scoff away and leave blank anything about canonicity. You don’t have to produce anything to explain your belief in a canon, or why it should be settled. Nothing has to be settled except that canon with no Scriptural backing for that. You will find that the explanations are the same, which is why the silence. As they say, the silence is deafening.

    Yes, you can bring up some situations that I can’t give a ton of historic “evidence.” But then, your position doesn’t need anything, because it isn’t perfect and you can always change the Bible on any given day and then change back all depending on how the wind blows. Let me say that I don’t envy your position, it’s just a very convenient position.

    You say “please deal with the questions.” I dealt with your questions. You’re not going to prove the Bible wrong to me. I’ll be looking for that positive, Scriptural presentation that you have promised. You definitely should publish it because it hasn’t been done. I’m not holding my breath that you’ll come up with anything either. I could probably write what you’ll say and post it, because it won’t be positive. It will be a hit piece again. You guys could draw up your positive position and put it on the back of a postage stamp.

    For me, what I said is enough. I don’t feel strongly inclined to come up with a better answer for the very few and very remote examples you bring to me. It is like an atheist bringing up the so-called “contradictions” in Scripture. We harmonize. My belief is that they had the text. They behaved like they had it, so I believe they did. They translated from something. Just because I can’t provide for you what they translated from, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. I’m at the library close to the church, since I don’t have a personal hook-up here at the church, and I have 5 minutes left, so I will be sending this no matter what in that time period.

    I’m not going to produce Greek or Hebrew Manuscripts for you. I’m settling on what the Words are. You can look for your 5-20 different scenarios to shake the faith in what God said He would do, but those are the very places, I believe, that I get to show faith in the Lord. I don’t care how He got those Words into the text. He wrote the originals, no one has them, and churches have settled on these, so I accept that. I will probably get better explanations over time. I like the ones I produced for you in ten minutes. I believe God is working providentially. That means I believe miracles took place. The things you bring up are barely in miracle category.

    That may bother you, because you are a history and evidence man, well, at least on this issue, because you choose to be. I’ll deal with your selected passages later. You made a “mistake” on Psalm 22:16. You were wrong in other words.

    Until then.

  9. February 15, 2007 at 1:54 pm

    I get to be on another computer here with another slot of minutes, so I’m going to write more. You are going to send me all over the place attempting to “prove” to you whether there is a manuscript or not, when I have a Greek New Testament, a Hebrew Old Testament, that churches have used for centuries. One interesting thing about this is that you aren’t even sure, which is obvious. Why? You are reading what someone else wrote about it, what good argument that they said you should use. You haven’t actually yourself looked at Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, or ben Asher or any of the others, because you can’t. But you better, because that is what you are all about, either that or trusting the Bruce Metzgers of the world, who are the father-teachers of the Bart Ehrmans of the world. So you don’t actually prove anything, and you are asking me to refute things that you have read someone else say. When I do, it’s a mistake and let’s move on to another place to question Scripture. And when you’re done, do you get certainty? No. You’ll never have it, because you guys don’t even believe in settling, that the Bible teaches we should have all the Words (all the books, yes, and for no Scriptural or even evidential reason–that’s what makes your position a laugh to the men who actually teach at Princeton and Harvard where you get your textual criticism books to cause uncertainty to those that have certainty). I actually do like looking at your passages, but right here I have no text, no book, no Bible, or anything else in this public library that would allow me to even look at it, but I’ve given you good answers.

    You are trusting in someone to get your material. I quote Owen and Henry and Gill and guys that were much closer to the period I’m talking about, and they were fine with what they had, but not you. You are the CPS with a bias toward guilt, toward variants. You can’t say they were corruptions, because variants is your business. You can’t say that they are corruptions because that would mean that we could know, we could be certain, but since we can’t with your position, then they are just raw material in a math equation, something to pour between test tubes in the laboratory. I’ve got to see some other threads, so I end here for sure now.

  10. February 15, 2007 at 4:54 pm

    One more question for Bob. Can you read Hebrew? That would help people with the word “indisputable” that you use. And second, do you actually have a copy available of the Bomberg 1524/25, the ben Chayyim? One that you are looking at to make your decisions on this.

  11. February 15, 2007 at 5:16 pm

    THE BOB LIST (What he calls dodging bullets, because he wants errors in the Bible)

    Psalm 22:16—Brought up, Bob later said it was a “mistake.” WRONG.

    Revelation 16:5—Gill says there was a Greek copy that did have this.

    Revelation 17:8—Here Gill intimates that there was Greek backing for this. He says old versions left it out, but does not mention, as he would, that no Greek manuscripts were available for this.

    Romans 7:6—I stick with my answer from before. I like that answer. If I can give more for it in future months and years, I will, but I’m fine with what I already said.

    Isaiah 13:15—-see the Qere, read Keil and Delitzch.

    Josh. 21:36-37.—Read Keil and Delitsch. Good answer again, that fits our view of preservation. And also shows that you are WRONG again.

    2 Timothy 1:18—Gill deals with this—he writes: “the words may be understood of the things which Onesiphorus had ministered to Timothy”

  12. February 15, 2007 at 8:46 pm

    Kent,

    Interesting thread. A few good natured questions – no arguments intended (if you’ve answered these previously, please point me in the right direction)

    1. Do you ever “rephrase” KJV english while you preach? (e.g., “wot” = know)

    2. Do you believe Bibles for foreign languages should be translated from the TR or the KJV?

    3. You stated in point #13 of the “KJVO Manifesto”. We affirm that any version which attempts to translate either the Received Text or the Majority Text faithfully by means of Formal Equivalence can be considered a faithful translation.” Other than the KJV, which English versions do you feel meet these guidelines? Do you hold those English versions on the same plane as the KJV?

  13. February 15, 2007 at 10:09 pm

    Alright. First let me thank you for dealing with these issues further. Your answers reveal more of what your position actually is. That does help me in understanding it. Thanks.

    Now in comment #6 you call this list my “attacks on the Bible”. You are assuming your position is right and mine wrong and that really isn’t the best debating technique. It might be effective but it is arguing on the basis of what we are actually still trying to establish. Just wanted to mention that.

    I am trying to write my article and keep up with the debate over here. I really think it would be worthwhile for me to interact with some of what you said in comments 8-10. It is possibly the meaty part of this whole particular thread. It was good in that you clarified your position. But I’ll have to come back to that.

    Right now in this post, I’m pushed for time so I’ll only deal with the Hebrew passages.

    [1] Explanation

    First, you ask if I can read Hebrew and if I own a Ben Chayyim text. I will be honest: no and no. I ordered a Ben chayyim a long time ago and there was a mix up…

    This however, does not mean I am ignorant. I understand how to use the tools I have, and the online tools available. I understand Strong’s numbering system, and can make sense of lexicons, etc. I also have a fairly good grasp of Greek, although I probably lean on grammars too much still.

    You also claim I am just reading this stuff. Yes I am, and no I am not just relying on what others say. I own at least 30 books on this whole issue, I have several reference tools, and I utilize online commentaries and lexicons and interlinears alot. I am the kind of person who is conscientious with details and I second guess myself a lot, that translates into me checking and doublechecking all the facts I have come to accept. I cross reference and double check things.

    [2] Admission [Ps. 22:16]

    Now on Ps. 22:16 I did make a mistake. But not totally. Based on my reading of Hills and others I thought that “they pierced” was not in the Qere (Hebrew margin). It seems from Gill and Calvin that it is. However when I brought this up to Tom Ross, he looked in his Hebrew Bible and wrestled over this verse a while. It seems the way the KJV translates it, it is not an exact translation of the Qere. So he fell back on the 2 Hebrew mss which have the reading like the KJV has, and wrote a one or two page paper on that verse. So it didn’t seem like an open/shut case to me after that. I knew there was some Hebrew support and said as much. But I didn’t know it was in the Qere.

    [3] Question

    By the way are you going to say whether you believe you should go with the BC-MT text’s readings (Kethiv) always? Or join the KJV in using the Qere (Marginal reading) sometimes. According to a reputable source: 305 times.

    Now, I did some more fact checking and I think you still are up against a wall with Is. 13:15 and Josh. 21:36-37.

    [4] Online Tools

    There is a very simple way (and I just learned about this simple method tonight actually, during my fact checking/double-checking) to see what the Qere (marginal) reading and what the Kethiv (text) reading is in any number of passages. The tool is available at blueletterbible.com. Please go to this link to learn more. Anyways, whenever you look up a verse in Blue Letter Bible (which defaults to the KJV, by the way), it will always give you the chapter with each verse separated out, and then it has some letters on the side that you can press to give you extra Bible helps (commentaries, dictionaries, grammar help, and interlinear/concordance). So, for instance, if you go to Is. 13:16 (yes, vs. 16) you can then click on the ” C ” and you will come up with this page. There if you look at the last two Hebrew words, you will find that the first one, is what the KJV translators went by. The second one to the far left just says “(Kethiv reading)”. This means (and again click on the Kethiv reading link to learn more) that the word right above the Kethiv reading is the Qere reading. At this place the KJV departs from the Kethiv (text) reading and goes with the Qere (marginal) reading. Blue Letter Bible says this happens about 305 times.

    [5] Isaiah 13:15

    Now this becomes important because that last link to Is. 13:16 and then this one to Is. 13:15 are important in my defense here. I went and read Keil and Delitzch to try to see what you were saying. [If anyone is interested, you can go to Biblecentre.net and get very inexpensive ($20 or even just $10 per year) access to online commentaries like Keil and Delitzch and tons of other resources.] Now, I can see from what they say how a quick perusal (which I suppose was what you did) would make you assume they were saying that an alternate reading was in the Qere. However if you notice closely, there only arguing for one word versus another, and there only citations about one word versus another had to do with vs. 16. They dealt with verses 15 and 16 together in one verse. Now the link to Is. 13:16 shows us that there is a marginal reading used by the KJV there. But the link to Is. 13:15 does not indicate there is any marginal reading used.

    The words in question are saphah (like K&D have it) [or caphah as Blue Letter Bible transliterates it] and saphach. The difference is just one letter (not sure if it is a vowel or consonant). Again that is saphah [Strongs # 5595] and saphach [Strongs #5596]. The KJV translation treats the Hebrew as if it had the word saphach [5596]. And indeed, that word does appear in chapter 14:1. But the Hebrew text has saphah [5595]. There is no Qere (marginal) reading at all for this verse. Now if you look up Keil and Delitzch, you will see that they quote the KJV, then they give their own translation and in discussing that, they explain the word saphah[5595] and what it means. This indicates that they are working off of the Hebrew text at this point and that they don’t bother to tell us that the KJV doesn’t translate the word right [or that it treats the word as if it is 5596].

    All of that to say, we still have a problem in Is. 13:15 if you insist that the KJV has all of God’s Words. The Hebrew text uses 5595 and the KJV treats it like it is 5596. Now for the benefit of people only using a Strong’s concordance, the fact that “join” is mentioned as a rendering of 5595 is not any support at all. Strong’s will list the different ways that word was translated in the KJV at the end of its definitions. Again looking at the Blue Letter Bible links, (and pressing “view more” where you see the beginning of the lexicon entry”) you will find Gesenius Hebrew Lexicon which does not give “join” as a possible meaning of this Hebrew word. Instead it can mean “captured” or “cast away/swept away”. I double checked Brown Driver Briggs, and they agree that “join” is not an option for 5595. To summarize, 5595 (saphah) means “captured” or “carried away”, and 5596 (saphach) means “attatched” or “joined”. The KJV says “joined” and the Hebrew Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text says “captured”. Only one can be correct.

    Now, hopefully that explains how I come to my understanding here. I never just took Comb’s word for it. In fact I have a copy of the 1611 edition and I doublecheck things with its reading too. And it does say “ioyned” [joined].

    [6] Joshua 21:36-37

    You simply said to read Keil and Delitsch on this one. I did and I’m confused. How does that help you?

    Here is all that Keil and Delitsch say about this issue on these verses:

    (Note: R. Jacob ben Chajim has omitted vv. 36 and 37 from his Rabbinical Bible of the year 1525 as spurious, upon the authority of Kimchi and the larger Masora; but upon insufficient grounds, as these verses are to be found in many good MSS and old editions of an earlier date than 1525, as well as in all the ancient versions, and could not possibly have been wanting from the very first, since the Merarites received twelve towns, which included the four that belonged to Reuben. In those MSS in which they are wanting, the omission was, no doubt, a copyist’s error, occasioned by the homoioteleuto’n (see de Rossi variae lectt. ad
    h. l.
    , and J. H. Michaelis’ Note to his Hebrew Bible).) [note: the italics and bold here were exactly how the online K&D commentary I referenced showed it.]

    So what these guys are saying is that Ben Chajim (Chayyim) removed these verses from his edition of the Masoretic Text. Subsequent Masoretic Text editions have left those verses out. Now yes, this does show that at one time some Hebrew texts (handwritten only, I believe) had the two verses. And again, regarding these verses I previously said: “They are in a few Hebrew mss, but this still leaves the BC-MT in error on this point.” I believe the verses should be there, but according to Keil and Delitsch, and also according to Dr. James D. Price in a paper he prented to The Evangelical Theological Society: Southern Region in 1986, a copy of which I have, these verses are not in the Bomberg edition of the MT (also known as the Ben Chayyim edition).

    Now Blue Letter Bible does show Hebrew for those verses, and I am not sure why. If you have a Bomberg/Ben Chayyim, could you look them up and tell us what you find? Perhaps someone restored them in later Bomberg reprints, I’m not sure.

    But what Keil & Delitsch say, 2 very learned Hebrew authorities, is that these verses aren’t in Ben Chayyim’s text. So this leaves us with 2 options. Either the KJV is correct and these are God’s Words, or the BC-MT is correct and these are not God’s Words. If you uphold the KJV (as I believe you’ve made clear), you are forced to admit that the BC-MT must be in error at this point.

    [7] One more example

    My list does not end with these examples by the way. And the Hebrew text provides more examples of places where the Hebrew Masoretic Text is in error. Again that is places where the Masoretic Text (Ben Chayyim) has a reading that the KJV does not have or use.

    One more example for you would be Numbers 11:25. The verse ends with this phrase in the KJV: “and did not cease”. The Hebrew text (Ben Chayyim) has yacaph [Strongs # 3254] which means “to add” and the grammar of the Hebrew their makes it mean “and added not”. The Vulgate and the Targum have a different word (don’t know which Hebrew word or Strongs #) which means “to cease” and with the grammar in this passage means “and ceased not” or “and did not cease”. It is obvious then, that the KJV left the Hebrew text here and preferred the Vulgate and Targum reading. The LXX goes with the Hebrew text here, by the way. Also there is no Hebrew Qere (marginal) reading on this point. And there is no marginal note with alternate reading in the KJV either (there also wasn’t a marginal note in the KJV at Josh. 21, Ps. 22, or Is. 13:15). And I checked both Gill and Keil and Delitsch, and they support what I have said here about Numb. 11:25. So this is yet one more example where the Hebrew BC-MT is wrong, or else the KJV is wrong.

    [8] Conclusion

    I just want to remind you that you yourself have said that the issue comes down to this: if there is even one error, we cease to have God’s perfect Word. You have insisted God’s churches have agreed on God’s Words when they agreed on the text behind the KJV. You have also stated preservation rests in the original languages. When the KJV itself and the texts behind it differ, which is God’s Word? There appears to be at the very least one error here. Does this then make either the KJV or the Hebrew Masoretic Text not God’s Word?

  14. February 15, 2007 at 10:16 pm

    For sake of time, and also because I am working on a post concerning the Scriptural support for my position, I will hold off on dealing with the Greek passages I mentioned above again. I will come back to them soon, Lord willing.

    Of course if my Hebrew proof here stands, my argument is conceeded.

    And let me reiiterate: this is not an attack on the Bible. This is simply the discussion of certain facts. This is the evidence we have, and it should bear on this discussion. On every one of the “errors” I have mentioned, there appears to be an absolute answer as to what the correct text should be. The evidence is overwhelming for the correct reading. I would just say that at some of these places the KJV, TR, or Masoretic Text is wrong. It was a mistake and no conscientious corruption. At others of these places, the KJV agrees with modern versions about the reading, and it is only the TR or the Masoretic Text which is wrong. Anyways, as I deal with the Scriptural side of my position over on my blog in the near future, some of these questions will hopefully become more clear. No, I am not attacking the Bible, I sincerely believe I am upholding It.

  15. February 15, 2007 at 11:31 pm

    Hey Regler Joe,

    I just went with my dad and son to the Cal/Oregon game. Oregon was #15 and Cal won in an upset, the fans mobbing the court at the end. Anyway, I’ll answer your questions in bold.

    1. Do you ever “rephrase” KJV english while you preach? (e.g., “wot” = know)

    I read the English and essentially prepare and preach from the Hebrew and Greek. I am preaching in Isaiah on Sun. AM, Mark on Wed. PM, and a series on sanctification on Sun. PM. So for Isaiah, I study it in the Hebrew, Joe, and for Wed, in the Greek. So I do a lot ‘splainin, where I rephrase. I give the sense of the text, as it says in Nehemiah.

    2. Do you believe Bibles for foreign languages should be translated from the TR or the KJV?

    TR…I’m part of a plan right now to help with a Cambodian translation from the TR and Heb. Masoretic. I wouldn’t be doing the Cambodian side of things. :)  I may do nothing, but I’m in on the ground floor conversation.

    3. You stated in point #13 of the “KJVO Manifesto”. We affirm that any version which attempts to translate either the Received Text or the Majority Text faithfully by means of Formal Equivalence can be considered a faithful translation.” Other than the KJV, which English versions do you feel meet these guidelines?

    Joe, right now I can’t say that I personally know any others than the KJV. I think we need to be very careful before we make an endorsement of this kind of thing. I presently believe that the NKJV does not entirely come from the same OT text. I know they came from a text very close to ben Chayyim, with very few differences, and in those differences they used the ben Chayyim, except in a few cases. That among other things makes it unendorsable for me either.

    Do you hold those English versions on the same plane as the KJV?

    I presently don’t hold other English versions on the same plain. I think they can be useful for study, but to say that this faithfully represent the preserved text of Scripture, I only endorse the KJV.

  16. February 15, 2007 at 11:43 pm

    Bob,

    You say this: “And let me reiiterate: this is not an attack on the Bible. This is simply the discussion of certain facts.”

    Oh really? The KJV and the text behind it has stood the test of time, has been the Bible of God’s people for centuries, accepted by God’s people, and settled upon by God’s people. Sure it’s been attacked, and that’s what I believe about what you are doing. Especially someone who doesn’t even look at these texts that you talk about. You make a big deal about me not answering question when I answer them, and you don’t answer mine. Everyone sees that. The burden of proof really is upon you, and it is a standard way too high for you to reach.

    And here’s why especially.
    1) You don’t know what they had available from which to translate in 1600.
    2) You don’t really know what was the basis of the editions of the TR. You really don’t. You and others can do your best to extrapolate, but you really do not know to this fine degree. Where you think you know, you talk like you know, but you are not depending on something as reliable as Scripture to know.
    3) You do not know what what the King James Translators had to use to come to their translation in 1611. They had the power and authority of the entire British Empire, the most powerful empire in the world, to get whatever they needed. They assembled the greatest assembly of scholars. History tells us that the basis of their work, a lot of it, got burned in a fire afterwards. So we don’t really know what all happened. That’s why we don’t hear in tremendous detail about their decision making.
    4) KJV unified the Bishops and the Geneva division. It brought people together. It became the Bible for the English speaking people. Unbiased unbelieving historians say that. Christians of many stripes agreed on the KJV. And it is what we read being preached. I read Jonathan Edwards and I read the KJV, and I read him referencing the Greek behind it, because he had it.

    You don’t want the Bible to be settled. It’s sad really. You want to keep the whole thing of textual criticism going and going and going. Like Bauder said in my article above, in his last line. With what I read in Scripture, that is not how I see God work.

    One last thing. I have no idea what you are talking about in your post #14. Very odd. You never, ever brought up a passage in Numbers.

    One more thing, Bob, and this is very important.  You think that the point of my blog post here was to encourage you to find that error so I could be uncertain.   The point of your attack is to find the error, but I am not myself looking for or expecting an error.  I believe what the Holy Spirit has done, and it is settled for me.  It isn’t for you and it won’t be.  You should consider another question I proposed to someone on your blog, that is, if we are warned neither to add or to take away from Scripture with big penalty, Rev. 22:18, 19, how could anyone add or take away from something that isn’t sure, that isn’t settled, that is meant essentially to be added to or to be taken away from through textual criticism?  I’ve asked a lot of questions you haven’t answered.

  17. February 16, 2007 at 12:05 am

    Pastor Brandenburg,

    I think one of my comments is in your moderation queue. Possibly because I have a few links in it. That is the comment I referred to with the Numbers thing. The way my browser shows it, the comment where I say “oops” is number 15 not number 14.

    I did a really long comment which dealt only with the Hebrew mss. I really did look up the passages, but without that comment you wouldn’t know it!

    Anyways, if you look for that comment you should be able to find it and okay it. Or one of the other guys at Jackhammer could help. Let me know if you need me to reproduce it. I’ll save a copy just in case.

  18. February 16, 2007 at 7:43 am

    Now that my comment has reappeared (the one I was talking about is # 13), you will notice that I intend to take up some of those questions. In fact I am starting to address them on my blog.

    I understand you don’t intend this post here to be a call for someone to show you 1 error. Nevertheless, you have affirmed your position to be such that if just 1 error could be shown, then we don’t have God’s Word. I am fine with God’s Word not resting in one TR or MT edition or one KJV edition. I am fine with God utilizing Latin and other ancient languages besides Hebrew/Greek to help in his preservation process. My faith in the Word is not shaken.

    I am trying to demonstrate that you can’t affirm the MT (Ben Chayyim), TR (any edition) and KJV (1611 or 1769) all at the same time and equally. If there is a mistake in any one of these (and I contend there are minor mistakes in all of them), then according to you and your position that means they are not faithful and trustworthy–they are not the Word of God. To me, the admission of a few minor mistakes would not make me conclude that way. I don’t see the need to absolutely know for certain what each and every word (and its spelling) is in order for me to be confident that I have the Word of God. This does not mean I think that the words haven’t been preserved, by the way.

    Again I’ll expound more on this later.

    I’m interested to hear your response, now to comment #13.

    Blessings in Christ,

    Bob Hayton

  19. February 16, 2007 at 1:21 pm

    Bob and everyone else, listen up,

    This is huge. We start with a doctrinal statement about the Bible, about inspiration, preservation, etc. and then we interpret history based upon our doctrine. We start with what God says and then move out. Everything is guided by that.

    Keep listening. If you start with history and “evidence,” and then form a doctrinal statement, it will affect greatly that doctrinal statement. A person will conform the Bible to his predisposition from history and evidence. It is like the scoffers in 2 Peter 3 who conformed their view of Christ’s coming to their own lusts.

    This idea that we have replaced the truth with certainty makes for a sound byte, but look at the statement. Since when has certainty and truth been separate? They go together.

    We have never stated, ever, that we believe that preservation is found in one edition of the TR or the Masoretic. I’ve said this over and over. Yet, that is still what Bob is arguing again. It is a strawman. Do you understand how? He isn’t arguing against the position we stated or against the position that we believe or the historic position. I have quoted Turretin and we will quote many others to show our position truly is the historic position. However, Bob is not demonstrating anything by looking for more of these. Bob doesn’t believe that the Bible is or ever will be settled. That cannot be a Scriptural position. It isn’t possible if you look at what the Bible says about itself. If it isn’t settled, again, then why the Books? That is a subjective opinion. It doesn’t come from Scripture.

    I said Kevin Bauder says one error and it isn’t perfection. I believe that is true, but if you read what I said right afterwards, I said the crux was: They believe there are errors and we don’t. The point wasn’t: If we can point out errors, then you guys have to go with our position. No.

    Bob has his lists that are put out by various guys on the internet. He probably has them on his favorites list.  They speculate on texts on what the translators were doing, arm chair textual quarterbacks, referencing each other, in many cases never actually looking at the text themselves. When they get done, what will they have? More Godly and faithful people? No. They’ll get people who doubt the Word of God more than they did before. And that is good? They think it is. It is not only wrong, but it does great damage. But it is wrong. I’m not pushing the button to say I don’t want to answer everyone of Bob’s questions, but I’m not going to do a bunch of work to show all the textual evidence we presently possess that may or may not represent all of it, just so Bob can keep not caring.

    Now Bob is going to make up a doctrinal statement to show what he believes. He is NOW working on that. Shouldn’t have he had his doctrine FIRST?  Doctrine guides what we do. It becomes our policy. We see this in history, like the Monroe Doctrine which guided decisions about American foreign policy.  Bob is going to cobble together something that will fit his position. He’s looking at what Kevin Bauder said in this book and what this website says, and what Kutilek has written, and what this expert says is good.  That’s how Bob works. I got my positions from exegesis of texts. I didn’t get it from books. And I’ve not arrived, but I have a definite position that is my road map. I’m solid with it. I find most guys have nothing. They just react and react, and protect, and meander along looking to try to trip everyone else up so that they can be like them.

    I have noticed that Kevin Bauder has started talking about Canonicity. He’s Johnny Come Lately. He wrote an article in the Baptist Bulletin, the GARBC, deal, so Bob, there’s a source for you. The Da Vinci Code and Bart Ehrman has led to some looking at what to say about this. It’s going to be tough. Why? Bauder really has very little to use for canonicity that really isn’t also stating our position on preservation, even applies more so to preservation. It’s a tough thing to avoid Ehrman and Elaine Pagels and avoid preservation at the same time. Impossible really.

    So Bob brings up different passages, says they might not be in the ben Chayyim. He has no ben Chayyim, but he read it somewhere and he’s throwing it at me, and if I answer it, does he rejoice? No. He keeps looking for errors. The Bible is guilty until proven innocent. He finds a place in numbers. He tries to make sure Gill and Keil and Delitsch, too old exegetes, won’t blow him away. Aha, Aha, I found one, he exclaims. This is indisputable, well, at least as much as the last one was that was actually wrong, but who cares? And this one actually does come from known Hebrew manuscripts. All of these manuscripts are Masoretic. In just a few cases not ben Chayyim, but so few that we can say that the text behind the KJV is ben Chayyim. Bob points out all those to everyone, for what reason? Why? The churches agreed on the ben Chayyim essentially. There are editions of the Masoretic too. It’s just that we get caught up with the TR editions because there are more variants.

    I’ve answered all this already. It’s rehash. We believe in preservation of words, general accessibility, perfection, and the recognition of the churches. The Bible is settled. I’m not in the restoration business. Bob is. Many are. They always will be, unless they get the received text mindset and get under the conviction of Scripture. His saints gladly receive His Words.

  20. February 17, 2007 at 11:42 pm

    “He is NOW working on that. Shouldn’t have he had his doctrine FIRST?”

    Actually, for the record, what Scripture said in relation to this issue played a big part in my abandoning TR Onlyism. I am not coming up with anything new, here. I am just taking the time to put it all down.

    Don’t have time to respond in full, just wanted to clarify on this issue.

    Any word on your position with regard to the Qere vs. Kethiv yet?

  21. February 17, 2007 at 11:47 pm

    “Aha, Aha, I found one, he exclaims. This is indisputable, well, at least as much as the last one was that was actually wrong, but who cares?”

    Yeah, don’t forget. You were wrong on Is. 13:15. It isn’t in the Qere, and Gill doesn’t mention that issue. Gill’s translation sides with the Hebrew against the KJV.

  22. February 18, 2007 at 9:32 pm

    Bob,

    It will be new. And I can see you already moving the same as everyone else. You tell us that you are working on something, and we wait and wait and we get a statement of what you think we believe wrought with problems. Also with subtle ridicule. So you are right in that it isn’t new that the position of the MVO crowd is to start by bashing the Scriptural position of perfect preservation. Then they call that their doctrine of preservation. They don’t have one. Read most of the recent articles and books—Combs, Sproul, Mind of Man, God’s Word in Our Hands, Only One Bible?—everyone of these books claim to be a book about preservation and have no established position. They simply attack the Bible and attack other’s positions. The only one that did a little work was God’s Word in Our Hands, but then attempted to do their best to explain it away.

    They are afraid to touch preservation except to smack someone else’s view. And this idea that you studied the Bible on preservation and that’s a big reason why you left this view. That I don’t believe at all. You made a dozen changes in a few years, and I didn’t hear of any of them until after you left.

    Regarding Isaiah 13:15, I didn’t mention Gill. I don’t this is a tack to take with you anyway, looking at every one of these issues when, as I’ve already said: 1) You don’t have a settled text, i.e., don’t believe in preservation as Scripture presents it, 2) We don’t believe that the KJV came from a single edition or manuscript (I’m not going to rehash that), 3) You can’t prove what they did or didn’t have.

    Even if I answered every one of your questions, it wouldn’t make any difference to you, because you don’t start with Biblical presuppositions, sadly.

  23. February 20, 2007 at 2:45 pm

    “A quick fire for your attacks on the Bible. I’m only going to deal with what you call textual errors. I don’t want to start getting into all your attacks on translation”
    “you have been drawn in by the seduction of the rationalist Bible critics with a low view of God’s providence, of preservation, and of Scripture period.”

    This kind of accusation that someone is “attacking” the Bible or they are being “seduced” by liberals are what keep poor simple folk like myself out of the debate because we really hate getting labeled. So, to avoid the labels of being considered heretics and haters of God’s word, we just embrace the KJV Only position without asking the hard questions like Bob did. If this position is the real deal, then why can’t the textual problems be answered with proof real proof?

    “You can look for your 5-20 different scenarios to shake the faith in what God said He would do, but those are the very places, I believe, that I get to show faith in the Lord. I don’t care how He got those Words into the text. He wrote the originals, no one has them, and churches have settled on these, so I accept that.”

    There’s the blackballing again, then if we should accept that the TR is perfect, then why can’t we find certain Greek mss to back what we are saying are absolutely perfect? Faith. That’s it, and I’m fine with that answer, even for my personal favor of the KJV, but it’s not good enough for a defense. How do I know God created the world? Faith….plus He has left me with a ton of irrefutable scientific evidence to back up my faith in His claim to have done it.

  24. February 20, 2007 at 6:25 pm

    William,

    I appreciate your interaction. What is the difference between Bob and you? Bob was in our church for two years, and I as well as other men answered all of the questions He could riddle us with for two years. He asked them tough and and he asked them regularly. We very graciously answered them, even when he was disrespectful. I’m not going to get into all the details, but once He left us, within a year he pushed the eject button all at once on about ten to twenty different beliefs. His pushing of the eject button, IMO, is not just related to having things “proven” to him doctrinally. I patiently helped him at cost. When he pushed the eject button, he did not interact with us at all. He did interact with his young brother, who had moved into the John Piper orbit. From a personal standpoint, there were many reasons why this would be a convenient move for Bob that I am not going to deal with here; that makes this even worse. He also knows our position on this. So he is not asking to get answers, like you might be. And for Bob, when his questions are answered, since he does not now start with Scriptural presuppositions, as you might, I don’t expect a change.

    Now for your questions. William, I can get into the textual questions. All of them are answered with one of these answers:
    1) The Hebrew words behind the KJV are found in the Hebrew Qere or Kethiv, written in the text or in the margins.
    2) The Hebrew words behind the KJV in a few minor instances, but enough to make non-perfect-preservationists to go apoplectic, are found in other Hebrew manuscripts.
    3) The Greek words behind the KJV are found mainly in the 1598 Beza.
    4) In other instances, the Greek words behind the KJV are from another edition of the TR or from some other Greek manuscript that was available at the time.
    5) We don’t know all of the materials that were available to the KJV translators—some of it burned in a fire shortly thereafter.
    6) The translation issues are answerable, but it does not change the fact that they were translated from Hebrew and Greek Words.

    William, we have a ton of evidence for the KJV and the text behind it, but that will not ever be enough for guys who start with science and history and then go to the Bible and conform it to fit their view. They have not and will not settle on the Words, and that does not fit a Biblical presupposition. Their position can absolutely contradict Scripture and that is not a problem for them. Don’t you see that they can call us out on their certain textual issues (which can’t really even be proven ultimately—we have to trust what other men have said, which is not on par with Scripture), but it is not fair for us to call them out when their position clashes with a Scriptural view of preservation? Why do you not expect Bob to come up with a legitimate answer for the passages of Scripture that his view contradicts?

    Did you realize that there are no doctrinal problems with the TR, but there are many of them with the CT? What does that mean to you?

  25. February 20, 2007 at 7:30 pm

    Thanks for your answer. I see that there is some history behind the debates between you and Bob. That makes a little more sense of the tension. Aside from all that though, I agree with your presuppositional approach to the subject. We must take what God has said first, and then make sense of it all. I have the same philosophy when it comes to Baptist Church History. God promised perpetuity to His church, and history bares record that even through the great apostacy of the Dark Ages, God preserved a remnant until the Great Reformation when the gospel exploded everywhere.

    Anyways, the difference between Bob and me from what I can tell so far are as follows: I am not a 5-point Calvinist, I don’t agree with Piper’s beliefs on the Charismatic gifts, and I do believe that the KJV/Majority Text/TR/Byzantine texts are the superior manuscripts. However, I don’t have a problem with the NKJV since it comes from them. I do know that there are no doctrinal errors in the TR but alot of the “so-called” doctrinal errors that are reported in the newer texts, don’t appear to me that they change doctrine. To have the name of Jesus without the title of Christ in a couple of verses doesn’t change the doctrine of His Divinity, because there are clear references to His Divinity in many other places in the newer texts. That’s just my opinion based on my studies so far. My opinions on the KJV issue are still evolving since there is so much information that I have not gathered yet.

  26. February 20, 2007 at 8:50 pm

    William,

    Thanks again. “All the doctrines there” does not fit with the perfection that the Bible describes itself. We have all the doctrines in the CT, but there are still errors there, and that is unacceptable. Plus, what about the doctrine of preservation itself, along with all its nuances? I am not even talking about the names of Christ. I never use those in the argumentation. That can go both ways, for one. Sometimes the CT has a fuller title here and there than the TR does for the Lord. My beef are the actual errors. We have them listed in two chapters in our book Thou Shalt Keep Them. I mentioned some of them in the thread over at Pulpit Live under the name “Kent.”

    I believe in the perpetuity of the church too. I don’t believe in a kind of visible perpetuity, but in a spiritual kinship by faith. I believe churches should start churches as the pattern, and that a church should have authority from another church as it gets started, however, I don’t think I am expected to trace that authority back to Christ. That is where I believe we have some verticality. Of course, this is a different subject, but they do relate, as you said, and I think the text issue is similar.

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: