Attempt at a Congenial Plea for the KJV

Topics related to Biblical languages.
SupermanFan
Sustaining Member
SupermanFan
Sustaining Member
Joined: July 31st, 2014, 8:33 pm

February 10th, 2018, 2:40 pm #41

Everyone involved on translating team holds to inerrnacy and inspiration of the Originals, so the Nkjv is to be seen as a solid translation in its own right.
David Chase
Pastoral Prayer team
Utica StoneyCreek Baptist Church
Quote
Like
Share

Markus Leoninus
Sustaining Member
Markus Leoninus
Sustaining Member
Joined: April 2nd, 2009, 3:11 pm

February 11th, 2018, 12:25 am #42

SupermanFan wrote: Everyone involved on translating team holds to inerrnacy and inspiration of the Originals, so the Nkjv is to be seen as a solid translation in its own right.
Belief in the inerrancy and inspiration of the original autographs is certainly a fundamental, essential, indispensable part of true Bibliology. No question at all about that.
However, on the part of translation teams and committees, this belief is not the be-all-end-all criteria for translation work. Nor can it serve, right by itself, as the be-all-end-all criteria for determining whether a given translation is a solid one in its own right.
One has to take into account the underlying translation philosophy or system adhered to by the translators in their approach to the original language texts. Also, one has to take into account that no translator has access to the original autographs. Translators must work with apographs, i.e., with manuscript copies of the originals. Good translators, then, must not only believe that God inspired the original autographs, thereby securing their infallibility and inerrancy right down to the very jot and tittle; good translators must also believe that God has providentially preserved the autographa in its entirety, right down to the very last jot and tittle, in a genuine apographa. Good translators, therefore, must make a determination about what is and what is not genuine apographa.

The translators of the KJV believed that the genuine apographa consisted of the Hebrew Masoretic Text for the Old Testament, and the Textus Receptus for the New Testament. In connection with New Testament translation, therefore, they definitely rejected the Alexandrian Text-type and stuck with the Byzantine Text-type. This, indeed, is what the leaders of the early church did when they first made determinations about the genuine apographa in connection with both Testaments, and when they determined the true Canon of Scripture. God, having inspired the autographa, also preserved the originals in a genuine apographa; and then, by His providence, enabled the early church leaders to identify that true apographa, and to Canonize it.
The translators of the NKJV may well all believe that God inspired the autographa, thereby securing its infallibility and inerrancy. But they evidently do not believe that God preserved the autographa in a genuine apographa consisting of the Hebrew Masoretic Text for the Old Testament and the Textus Receptus for the New Testament. This is clear from the fact that they do not stay entirely true to these original language texts even within the body of the main NKJV text itself . And this becomes even clearer from the fact that in their extensive marginal footnotes the NKJV translators supply variant readings from Text-types that were not recognized as genuine by the early church, nor by the translators of the Reformation and early post-Reformation era.

The marginal footnotes connected to the Old Testament translation in the NKJV contain many variants not in accord with the Hebrew Masoretic Text. There are also instances in which variants not in accord with the Masoretic Text find their way into the main text of the Old Testament as translated in the NKJV.
In connection with the New Testament, the footnotes of the NKJV contain approximately 500 references to variant readings from the so-called Majority Text, and a far higher number of variants from the Nestle/Aland/United Bible Society Critical Text from the Alexandrian Text-type. Further, variants at odds with the Textus Receptus are not entirely kept out of the main body of the NKJV translation of the New Testament. Malcolm Watts observes that "in the actual text of the NKJV New Testament there are a great many departures from the Received Text, where Critical Text readings have apparently been preferred and followed or other unwarranted changes have been made."
Because of the extensive references to variant readings in the footnotes, the NKJV translators set before readers a constant basis for doubting and speculating over the validity of the main text itself. This is rather self-defeating even for the NKJV translators. No doubt they hope that readers will make the NKJV their choice of translation. But when readers place more confidence in the footnote variants of the NKJV than in the main text itself, they will desire to go with a translation that, in its main text, adheres to the variants.


A. Hembd notes that, "In a statement of purpose for the New King James Version, the Thomas Nelson Publishing Company set forth this aim, among others:
" 'to produce an updated English Version that follows the sentence structure of the 1611 Authorized Version as closely as possible. As much of the original King James Version as possible will be preserved. The intention is to clarify the 1611 translation by the use of current words, grammar, idioms, and sentence structure so that this edition of the King James Version will speak to the individual reader in a clear and accurate manner. The intention is not to take from or alter the basic communication of the 1611 edition but to transfer the Elizabethan word forms into twentieth century English. [Arthur L. Farstad, The New King James Version in the Great Tradition (Nashville, TN, USA: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), p. 34].

"Thus we see that Thomas Nelson initially proposed a mere language update of the Authorised Version (though this certainly was not the result, as shall become obvious).
"The preface to the New King James Version tells us that the NKJV translates the Old Testament from the Hebrew Masoretic Text, as did the Authorised Version. It also tells us that the NKJV uses the Textus Receptus in the Greek for its New Testament translation. [Holy Bible: New King James Version(Nashville, TN, USA: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1982), p. vi].
"Relatively speaking, the New King James Version is better than the other modern versions because its actual text is not based on the modern critical Greek text. Yet we must also state firmly that we do not deem it a faithful translation. Indeed, we cannot recommend it at all. We must to the contrary note its... grave defects....

"Instead of staying as close to the text of the Authorised Version as possible, as the guidelines originally stated, the New King James translators made many unnecessary translational changes and mostly for the worse, as we shall demonstrate. Contrary to what the original purpose was stated to be, the NKJV is a new translation, not a mere language update. Not only that, the translation changes impact key doctrines of the Scripture, such as the eternal punishment of the lost in hell. The doctrinal impact of the changes made by the NKJV is heightened when one considers the inclusion of the readings of the NestleAland/UBS text in the NKJV margin. These marginal readings make potential doctrinal impacts upon key doctrines such as the incarnation of Christ and His eternal Godhead, as we shall itemise.

"We now consider the New King James Version translators’ equivocal and duplicitous commitment to the Textus Receptus of the Greek. We quote the following from David Cloud’s Web site article entitled What about the New King James Version? It should be noted that we do not personally endorse all that Mr Cloud has to say concerning the Providential preservation of the text. Nonetheless, we must take note of what he relates below concerning the executive editor of the Old Testament of the NKJV, and how that editor views the Received Text of the New Testament:
" 'We have corresponded with the executive editor of the Old Testament portion of the NKJV, Dr James Price. In April of 1996 he admitted to me that he is not committed to the Received Text and that he supports the modern critical text in general:
" ‘I am not a TR advocate. I happen to believe that God has preserved the autographic text in the whole body of evidence that He has preserved, not merely through the textual decisions of a committee of fallible men based on a handful of late manuscripts. The modern critical texts like NA26/27 [Nestle-Aland] and UBS [United Bible Societies] provide a list of the variations that have entered the manuscript traditions, and they provide the evidence that supports the different variants. In the apparatus they have left nothing out, the evidence is there. The apparatus indicates where possible additions, omissions, and alterations have occurred… I am not at war with the conservative modern versions [such as the New International Version and the New American Standard Version]’. (James Price, e-mail to David Cloud, April 30, 1996). [ David Cloud, What about the New King James Version? https://www.wayoflife.org/database/what ... rsion.html ].

"So there you have it. The executive editor of the Old Testament of the New King James Version does not advocate the Greek Textus Receptus at all; he is an advocate of the Nestle-Aland critical Greek text, by his own admission. Not only that, the principal editor overall of the New King James Version, Arthur L. Farstad, was also coprincipal editor, along with Zane Hodges, of the Hodges-Farstad majority text, a Greek text that makes nearly 1,900 changes to the Textus Receptus. ( Ibid.) No wonder the editors of the New King James wish to present us with their textual apparatus of alternate Greek readings; they do not believe in the Textus Receptus, they advocate other Greek texts! Says Dr Farstad in his preface to the New King James:
" 'Today, scholars agree that the science of New Testament textual criticism is in a state of flux. Very few scholars still favor the Textus Receptus as such, and then often for its historical prestige as the text of Luther, Calvin, Tyndale, and the King James Version.
" 'For about a century most have followed a Critical Text (so called because it is edited according to specific principles of textual criticism) which depends heavily upon the Alexandrian type of text. More recently many have abandoned this Critical Text (which is quite similar to the one edited by Westcott and Hort) for one that is more eclectic. Finally, a small but growing number of scholars prefer the majority text, which is close to the traditional text except in the Revelation. (Farstad, New King James Version, p. vii).

"Thus, we see that Dr Farstad deprecates the Textus Receptus. New Testament textual criticism is in a state of flux, he tells us; the old is no longer good, he implies. Very few scholars still favour that old-fashioned Textus Receptus, which was once universally recognised by the Church as the Providentially preserved and pure text of all ages, and which once held universal sway as the Byzantine text for 1,400 years, the last nearly five hundred years as the printed Textus Receptus. But no, we must now set aside that old-fashioned text; we must turn instead to the Greek texts favoured by the real scholars: either to the critical text, which is favoured by most, or to the new socalled Byzantine majority text which is favoured by an increasing minority of scholars. Thus, the editors of the NKJV will now do us a great favour by setting forth to us these better readings in the margin, these better readings which they have given in English in the margin, these better readings which overthrow and undermine the authority of the translation from the Textus Receptus we see in the main body of the text.
"What we have just said is no overstatement, but is a necessary consequence of what Dr Farstad has said. Apparently the Textus Receptus is no longer to be regarded as the Providentially preserved Greek text because it was compiled by a ‘committee of fallible men’ using ‘a few late manuscripts’, as Dr Price has told us. If, as we are told by Dr Farstad (who was co-editor of the Hodges-Farstad majority Greek text which is at major variance with the Textus Receptus in over 1,000 places), that scholars today hold for the most part to either the critical text or the majority text and therefore those texts are better than the Textus Receptus, then one of those texts and a translation made from one of those texts should be what we read. Therefore, it follows that the Textus Receptus, and its faithful translation, the Authorised Version, should be set aside.
We endeavour, the Lord helping us, to address the matters set forth above, along with the translational problems of the NKJV...."
~ From An Examination of the New King James Version, Part 1
http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.tbsbibles. ... nd+Text%22

Malcolm H. Watts notes that "The so-called Majority Text, edited by Zane Hodges and (the same) Arthur Farstad of Dallas Theological Seminary, was published in 1982. In the ‘Preface’ it is stated that this text is only of a provisional nature, implying that no-one can be sure yet that we actually have the entire Word of God, and also that the Word we do have may need to be amended in the future when more of the extant manuscripts have been collated and examined. To quote the exact words of Hodges and Farstad: ‘It should therefore be kept in mind that the present work, The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, is both preliminary and provisional. It represents a first step…’. [ Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad, The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text (Nashville, TN, USA: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982), p. x]. Yet even as it is, this Majority Text contains nearly 1,900 changes to the Received Text, including the omission of such Scriptures as Matthew 27.35; Acts 8.37; 9.5,6; 10.6b; and 1 John 5.7."
~ From  The New King James Version: A Critique, by Malcolm H. Watts
http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.tbsbibles. ... tique_.pdf

I hate to say it but, as Watts and others clearly demonstrate, it appears that the publishers of the NKJV (Thomas Nelson) and those responsible for the "Preface" to it, have misled many readers with quite a bit of false advertising. Such readers are led to think initially that the NKJV is simply the same KJV of the 17th century but with updated spelling. Some readers will never dig beneath the surface and discover that this is simply not the case. They really ought to dig, however, for then it will become clear to them that they should return to their old KJV, because it is based entirely upon the genuine, providentially preserved apographa, the Hebrew Masoretic Text for the OT and the Textus Receptus for the NT. The NKJV is not so based. It is not a modern improvement of the KJV via updated English but is actually quite a new translation; and a deficient one at that.
Quote
Like
Share

SupermanFan
Sustaining Member
SupermanFan
Sustaining Member
Joined: July 31st, 2014, 8:33 pm

February 13th, 2018, 7:20 pm #43

Do you hold to the authenticity then of the Apocrypha, as the 1611 team had that included in their translation?
Also, do you hold that God preserved ONE single Greek perfect text, even though Erasmus Himself used 5 different ones?
Think most reputable textual critics would see it more that the Lord preserved to us in the thousands of manuscripts and variants available to us today His word to us.
David Chase
Pastoral Prayer team
Utica StoneyCreek Baptist Church
Quote
Like
Share

Markus Leoninus
Sustaining Member
Markus Leoninus
Sustaining Member
Joined: April 2nd, 2009, 3:11 pm

February 13th, 2018, 11:02 pm #44

SupermanFan wrote: Do you hold to the authenticity then of the Apocrypha, as the 1611 team had that included in their translation?
Also, do you hold that God preserved ONE single Greek perfect text, even though Erasmus Himself used 5 different ones?
Think most reputable textual critics would see it more that the Lord preserved to us in the thousands of manuscripts and variants available to us today His word to us.
David, I am amazed that you ask me if I believe that the Apocrypha is authentic, since I believe that you know very well that I hold no such thing.
Fact is, David, you know me from a now defunct site, going back several years ago. We both know the site I'm referring to. And you know me from this site, also. Thus you know that I am a strong advocate of the Westminster Standards and of the 2nd London Baptist Confession of 1689, both of which specifically state as follows:
The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon (2nd LBC adds "or rule") of the Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in ("to", 2nd LBC) the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.  (Luke 24:27, 44; Rom. 3:2; 2 Pet. 1:21).
~WCH, I:3; 2nd LBC of 1689, I:3

David, if you have a bad memory, friend, I do not chide or rebuke you for it. I'm more than happy to refresh your memory if need be. But I suspect your memory in this connection serves you well enough. Therefore, I ask, why do you ask me a question like that about the Apocrypha when you already know the answer to it?

The Apocrypha has been contained in many translations or editions of the Bible both before the Reformation era and beyond. This was largely a traditional thing, and was also in some cases a legal requirement on the part of heads of state who could wield the sword, or inflict prison time, for non-compliance. Reformed scholars and theologians, however, have always consistently pointed out in their confessions and creeds, in their commentaries, and in their theological treatises, that the Apocrypha is not inspired, infallible, inerrant Scripture. This is, of course, my own position. And if I were a publisher of the KJV of the Bible today, and of translations in other languages from the Hebrew Masoretic Text of the OT and the Greek Textus Receptus of the NT, none of the translations/editions published would contain one iota of the Apocrypha. After all, I am personally not bound to apocryphal tradition in any sense, and there is this little thing in the States called the 1st Amendment to the Constitution that guarantees I have a perfectly legal right, even by that secular standard, to leave the Apocrypha out.  

I do hold that God preserved the original autographa within a genuine apographa. This is also the teaching of God Himself in Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20-21, 23-25; Ps. 12:6-7; Isa. 59:21; 40:8; Matt. 5:18; 24:35). This should be very clear to you already... if, indeed, you are actually going over what I've said and, further, what I've linked with regard to this.
Translators, such as Erasmus, Stephanus, the Elzivirs, and those behind the KJV of 1611, worked from many manuscripts... from the Byzantine Text-type, of course, and not from the Alexanrian Text-type. And I believe that God, in His providence, led them, progressively, to note carefully any mistakes made by scribes and to use the best renderings gathered from all the available Byzantine manuscripts. The scribal mistakes were not deliberate alterations to the meaning or emphasis of the doctrinal content of the original autographa. They were mistakes in spelling, or in the order of words or phrases in a sentence or passage. And by the time the translators of the KJV of 1611 had completed their work, the result was that we have in the KJV a highly refined and polished translation of the genuinely preserved apographa.

I repeat what all the links in this thread have established from the very best scholarly defenders of the Byzantine Text-type and the KJV; namely, that the Alexandrian Text-type was rejected by the early church leaders. It was the product of Gnostic heretics. Early church leaders knew this. Translators of the Reformation and early post-Reformation era were quite aware of this, also, and did not use the Alexandrian Text-type for translation. Modern textual critics and translators since Westcott & Hort have used the Alexandrian Text-type, and fashioned their Greek NT's upon that Text-type. Hence, all the variants in the newer versions, not to mention significant departures outright from the Textus Receptus, are to be found in the newer versions. I am convinced this takes modern Christians further away from the original autographs. It does not bring them "closer" to them.
The simple fact is, God led the early church leaders to set the Alexandrian Text-type aside. Thus also, in His providence, he led the translators of the Reformation era to do the same.
The original autographs were given by inspiration of God, and God also preserved the autographs via a genuine apographa (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20-21, 23-25; Ps. 12:6-7; Isa. 59:21; 40:8; Matt. 5:18; 24:35), as noted many times already. But I feel this cannot be stressed enough, especially in light of the problems created by modern textual criticism. Thankfully, because God not only inspired the autographa, but has preserved it in a genuine apographa, therefore the infallible and inerrant Word of God has been in the possession of the church from the very beginning. The view of modern textual critics, however, is that not until the advent of men like Westcott & Hort has the church come "closer" to the originals through modern versions that use the Alexandrian Text-type, along with the fabricated critical Greek texts that are based upon that Text-type. 

The approach to Holy Scripture on the part of modern textual critics in the Westcott & Hort tradition, and the translation philosophy of these critics, is of a profoundly naturalistic sort. It proceeds upon the basis of considerable pseudo-science, as opposed to what Edward F. Hills and others refer to as "the logic of faith".  Basically, they treat Scripture with a decided lack of respect for its supernatural origin and preservation, and thus fail to distinguish it as they should from ancient books or literature not inspired by God. Hence all the problems, all the contention and strife, all the confusion in connection with Bible versions today. 
David, if ever you and others so affected ever break free of the baneful influences of modern textual criticism upon your minds, you will be able, with the KJV in hand, to affirm with maximum faith and confidence that you hold the infallible and inerrant Word of God, complete, entire, and fully reliable, in your hands.

And I believe that all of this is proven in the many articles and books that I have linked in this thread.
Quote
Like
Share

SupermanFan
Sustaining Member
SupermanFan
Sustaining Member
Joined: July 31st, 2014, 8:33 pm

February 14th, 2018, 4:23 pm #45

I am just suggesting that there is room with both the Reformed/Calvinistic churches, and in the Church in proper, to be able to accommodate that the Greek texts used, regardless if TR/MT/CT, would be legit, and that the versions made off of any of them would be legit also. I still do not think that the scriptures nor the Confessions require it to be just TR/Kjv .
David Chase
Pastoral Prayer team
Utica StoneyCreek Baptist Church
Quote
Like
Share

Markus Leoninus
Sustaining Member
Markus Leoninus
Sustaining Member
Joined: April 2nd, 2009, 3:11 pm

February 14th, 2018, 10:31 pm #46

SupermanFan wrote: I am just suggesting that there is room with both the Reformed/Calvinistic churches, and in the Church in proper, to be able to accommodate that the Greek texts used, regardless if TR/MT/CT, would be legit, and that the versions made off of any of them would be legit also. I still do not think that the scriptures nor the Confessions require it to be just TR/Kjv .
I notice that you've provided no actual basis for anything you've been "suggesting" throughout the thread. The statements I've made, the quotes from others I've posted, and the articles and books I've linked to, all collectively provide thorough-going, sufficient answers to all your suggestions and objections.

Basically, you are "suggesting" the same thing over and over again. The only real difference from one post/response to the next is a rearrangement or re-phrasing of your suggestions, and/or objections.
With all due respect intended, David, I can see no point in going round and round and round again with you over ground already covered. Until you come up with something further and more substantial I will simply refer you back to all that has been sufficiently set forth up to this point.

🙂
Quote
Like
Share

SupermanFan
Sustaining Member
SupermanFan
Sustaining Member
Joined: July 31st, 2014, 8:33 pm

February 16th, 2018, 3:20 pm #47

The reason was that regardless of what textual experts that I could list here, you have already decided from the KJVO perspective that they are in bed with the evil Critical Greek text, so would be dubious and suspect...
There is NO textual/Scripture support for the TR/KJVO poistion, but do see one can prefer them for use, but one cannot say the other Greet texts are not legit, nor the modern English versions from them.
David Chase
Pastoral Prayer team
Utica StoneyCreek Baptist Church
Quote
Like
Share

Gord
RTI Guru
Gord
RTI Guru
Joined: June 13th, 2009, 2:24 pm

February 16th, 2018, 8:07 pm #48

SupermanFan wrote: The reason was that regardless of what textual experts that I could list here, you have already decided from the KJVO perspective that they are in bed with the evil Critical Greek text, so would be dubious and suspect...
There is NO textual/Scripture support for the TR/KJVO poistion, but do see one can prefer them for use, but one cannot say the other Greet texts are not legit, nor the modern English versions from them.
Perhaps you need to take some time to prayerfully read, and comprehend the links provided before assuming someone has already decided.  You obviously have missed the mark with your own assumption by coming to a conclusion that is not even in the ball park.
Quote
Like
Share

SupermanFan
Sustaining Member
SupermanFan
Sustaining Member
Joined: July 31st, 2014, 8:33 pm

February 16th, 2018, 10:08 pm #49

Gord wrote:
SupermanFan wrote: The reason was that regardless of what textual experts that I could list here, you have already decided from the KJVO perspective that they are in bed with the evil Critical Greek text, so would be dubious and suspect...
There is NO textual/Scripture support for the TR/KJVO poistion, but do see one can prefer them for use, but one cannot say the other Greet texts are not legit, nor the modern English versions from them.
Perhaps you need to take some time to prayerfully read, and comprehend the links provided before assuming someone has already decided.  You obviously have missed the mark with your own assumption by coming to a conclusion that is not even in the ball park.
I thought that the response was appropriate, as have been gracious in allowing others to have the TR/Kjvo position, but think that there are very credible supporters for other positions also, and that we should be getting in the Church into debating if the Nas or Esv are even a legit translation, as they are just as legit as the Kjv itself.
David Chase
Pastoral Prayer team
Utica StoneyCreek Baptist Church
Quote
Like
Share

Markus Leoninus
Sustaining Member
Markus Leoninus
Sustaining Member
Joined: April 2nd, 2009, 3:11 pm

February 17th, 2018, 12:38 am #50

SupermanFan wrote: The reason was that regardless of what textual experts that I could list here, you have already decided from the KJVO perspective that they are in bed with the evil Critical Greek text, so would be dubious and suspect...
There is NO textual/Scripture support for the TR/KJVO poistion, but do see one can prefer them for use, but one cannot say the other Greet texts are not legit, nor the modern English versions from them.
David, it is not at all the case that I have forced or compelled you to keep the "textual experts" that you refer to in the background. In fact, nothing I've said or brought forward should predispose you to do that. Indeed, if I were in your shoes and I really believed that there were experts in modern textual criticism who could bolster my position, I would not hesitate to bring them, their witness, their testimony, their analyses, forward.

Friend, you've had every opportunity to bring in your experts. You still have that opportunity. But if you continue not to bring them forward, that is your decision and your decision alone. You should not blame me for what you do or do not do.

Men like Dean John William Burgon, Edward F. Hills, Theodore P. Letis and others from whom I've quoted and to whom I've linked are all textual experts. Their support and defense of the Byzantine Text-type, the Textus Receptus, and the authorized KJV is extensive. It covers the field. No relevant stone is left unturned. They've rallied proof of their position from the Scriptures themselves, from the testimonies and decisions of the early church leaders, from the scholars and theologians of the Reformation and post-Reformation era; and have also in most cases fleshed out the position of all their distinguished forebears. In the process of their analyses they have dealt with Gnostic and Papal error; and with advocates of modern textual criticism, with their theories and claims, at great length... from Westcott & Hort right on down the line, to men like Bruce Metzger, Kurt Aland, and so on.
 
You keep saying, without demonstrating (not even attempting to demonstrate)... "There is NO textual/Scripture support for the TR/KJVO poistion".

In point of fact, the fundamental basis of support for the Byzantine Text-type and, by logical extension, the support for the Textus Receptus and the KJV, comes directly from Scripture. God, having inspired the autographa, surely also preserved it in a genuine apographa (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20-21, 23-25; Ps. 12:6-7; Isa. 59:21; 40:8; Matt. 5:18; 24:35). He did so quite thoroughly, as becomes His absolutely perfect nature and work, and He has done it from the very beginning.

The Westminster and Baptist divines of the mid 17th century knew this very well, and state that the Scriptures "being immediately inspired by God" were also "by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages"; thus the apographa, the providentially preserved record of the autographa, are "therefore authentical". (WCF, I:8; 2nd London Baptist CF of 1689, I:8).

Both confessions also tell us that, "As the providence of God doth, in general, reach to all creatures; so after a most special manner, it taketh care of His Church, and disposeth all things to the good thereof." (both Confessions at V:7)  1 Tim. 4:10; Amos 9:8, 9; Rom. 8:28; Isa. 43:3, 4, 5, 14.

David, do you really believe that our absolutely sovereign, loving, gracious, and altogether perfect God waited until the late 18th century to place His complete, pure, entire, infallible, and inerrant Word into the hands of His people?

Oh, wait... modern textual criticism does not quite fully affirm these things about Scripture. It tells us that the Alexandrian Text-type, the multiple critical Greek texts based upon that Text-type and, consequently, the modern versions based thereon, only bring God's people today "closer" to the original autographa.

David, do you really believe that God used Gnostic heretics to produce a handful of mutilated texts, doctored to reflect their heretical views; and that He then decided to just leave those mutilated texts tucked away in Alexandria somewhere for discovery centuries later by unbelievers who would then foist them upon the church as genuine Scripture?

Or do you believe that God, in His perfect providence and care, raised up genuine Bible-believing scribes and leaders in the earliest days of the church to set forth genuine apographic copies of the original autographa; and that ultimately manuscripts by the thousands, in consistent agreement, would establish for all time the genuine apographa, now identified as the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Byzantine Text-type; the received Ecclesiastical, Canonical Text and what is now known as the Textus Receptus?

David, do you believe that God in His perfect providence and care for the church led Papal authorities to keep the Scripture out of the hands of the people, and that He led those authorities to be the sole interpreters of it, in order that they might control what the people did and did not believe?

Or do you believe that God raised up men like Tyndale and Wycliffe who would hazard their safety and lives to make sure the people had the clear Word of God translated from genuine texts into their own tongues, and placed for their faith, edification, and life into their hands?

David, do you believe that the scholars of the Reformation were not led by God in His singular care and providence to produce the translations of their time, based solidly and squarely upon the genuine apographa?

Or do you believe that God haphazardly waited and then raised up men like Westcott & Hort, Metzger and Aland... who are on the record in their own words rejecting fundamental doctrines of the Bible... to now tell us otherwise benighted modern Christians (who are more enlightened than the early church and the Reformers if we are to believe what the modern critics tell us) what is and what is not the true Word of God?

Consider this statement from Dr. J. Cremmenga:
"In discussing the Biblical text, it is, regrettably, necessary nowadays to be aware that some acknowledged textual experts are unbelievers or liberals. Equally regrettably, these experts are no longer taking a lonely stand in this regard against the bulk of the church: church officers in quite a few denominations must also be regarded as liberal and sometimes non-Christian. These textual experts do not believe that Scripture is the Word of God, or that its text and doctrine are divine Truth. To them, the Bible is just another, human, book: useful perhaps for building a career on or to study out of mere academic interest but of no eternal merit. Such textual analysts have no qualms about handling Scripture in a destructively critical manner, contrary and detrimental to its Truth.

"Furthermore, it is distressing that many of them carry out this work while in the pay of some church or church-sponsored university or seminary, whose own harm is thereby also assured. This does not usually weigh heavily on such experts’ consciences, however; they are quite happy to pursue their careers of studying the presumed vicissitudes and defects of the Scripture text. But what they will not brook is the thought that God really has inspired His Word and preserved it intact throughout history."

~ From The Lord Has Preserved His Word: The Doctrine of Holy Scripture, its Providential Preservation and its Faithful Translation, p.9
http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.tbsbibles. ... s-Word.pdf

Behold, then, the implications of modern textual criticism! Behold the conclusions to which a consistent modern critic is led!

The great pastoral theologians of Westminster wrote:
WCF, I.10  The supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.  (Matt. 22:29, 31; Eph. 2:20; Acts 28:25).

Their Baptist brethren agreed, and wrote:
2nd LBC of 1689, I:10  The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved. ( Matthew 22:29, 31, 32; Ephesians 2:20; Acts 28:23).

I submit that modern textual criticism of the Westcott & Hort variety is now a part of what these divines meant when they spoke of "doctrines of men, and private spirits". And when these doctrines are compared to Biblical teaching and sound principles of scholarship and theology of a most practical nature (be it said, for this matter is not merely academic), they are weighed in the balances and found wanting. They do not submit themselves to the Supreme Judge, i.e., the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

Finally, read carefully and weigh well a statement from that great Reformed Baptist, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, whose comments on the higher criticism that was coming into vogue just before he died are certainly applicable to the modern-day predicament that textual criticism of the Westcott & Hort variety has placed us in.

Spurgeon said:
“Believe in the inspiration of Scripture, and believe it in the most intense sense…. If you adopt theories which pare off a portion here, and deny authority to a passage there, you will at last have no inspiration left, worthy of the name.

“If this book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility? We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde of little popelings fresh from college. Are these correctors of Scripture infallible? Is it certain that our Bibles are not right, but that the critics must be so? The old silver is to be depreciated; but the German silver, which is put in its place, is to be taken at the value of gold. Striplings fresh from reading the last new novel correct the notions of their fathers, who were men of weight and character. Doctrines which produced the godliest generation that ever lived on the face of the earth are scouted as sheer folly.

 “But where shall infallibility be found? "The depth saith, it is not in me"; yet those who have no depth at all would have us imagine that it is in them; or else by perpetual change they hope to hit upon it. Are we now to believe that infallibility is with learned men? Now, Farmer Smith, when you have read your Bible, and have enjoyed its precious promises, you will have, to-morrow morning, to go down the street to ask the scholarly man at the parsonage whether this portion of the Scripture belongs to the inspired part of the Word, or whether it is of dubious authority. It will be well for you to know whether it was written by the Isaiah, or whether it was by the second of the "two Obadiahs." All possibility of certainty is transferred from the spiritual man to a class of persons whose scholarship is pretentious, but who do not even pretend to spirituality. We shall gradually be so bedoubted and becriticized, that only a few of the most profound will know what is Bible, and what is not, and they will dictate to all the rest of us. I have no more faith in their mercy than in their accuracy: they will rob us of all that we hold most dear, and glory in the cruel deed.

 “This same reign of terror we shall not endure, for we still believe that God revealeth himself rather to babes than to the wise and prudent, and we are fully assured that our own old English version of the Scriptures is sufficient for plain men for all purposes of life, salvation, and godliness. We do not despise learning, but we will never say of culture or criticism: "These be thy gods, O Israel!"

(emphases mine, ML)
 
Source: Charles H. Spurgeon, “The Greatest Fight in the World,” quoted by Christian documentarian, Chris Pinto
http://www.noiseofthunderradio.com/arti ... bible.html
Quote
Like
Share