Only Perfect Translation?

[Hebrew Student]

Backwoods Presbyterian,

It is a bit misleading to call Dr. Letis a "Church Historian" in a way that makes it sound like his work was not related specifically to textual criticism. Especially when in fact all his academic career was focused upon textual criticism and his Ph.D work at Edinburgh was on textual criticism.

His studies on textual criticism, however, were only from a historical perspective. To my knowledge, he never picked up any text in Ugaritic or Akkadian, and had never studied comparative Semitic philology or Old Testament text criticism. He is relying on *historical* views from the seventeenth century. The history of Textual Criticism and Northwest Semitic Philology in the seventeenth century is not the same thing as studying these areas as a discipline.

Hence, I would say that my point remains valid. As Greg Bahnsen said, would you allow someone to operate on your heart who has never been to medical school and knows nothing about heart operations who is relying upon books on surgery that were written back in the seventeenth century? Such violates all common sense. Yet, for some reason, when it comes to God's word, this is the kind of care we take.

God Bless,
Adam

 

[py3ak]

py3ak,

I doubt anyone but an antiquary has that ultimate commitment.

I agree; my point was that, in some instances, there are means of concluding, given a person's ultimate commitment, what they would hold if they were consistent with those presuppositions. I suppose we do have to recognize the possibility that someone will be irrational, but we are talking about people who are contentiously seeking to be consistent as part of their ultimate commitments.

God Bless,
Adam

Only if the commitments they have are all known and understood: that may happen sometimes, but I suspect it is more often that our own projections and historical ignorance keep us from being able to predict the reactions of others in times past, certainly in any way that is useful for argument. There is no such barrier in drawing on admitted principles from historical figures to support a conclusion, but the authority of the figure extends to the principle, not to the conclusion.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

Hebrew Student,

I don't know if it's just me but using the argument that we have better understanding of Ugaritic and Akkadian does seem like a stretch to justify that we cannot trust the translation of the Old Testament in the KJV. I'm also not sure where you take the idea that the KJV translators were ignorant. I'm not a Greek or Hebrew scholar so I'm not going to get into language arugments, but I know a few skilled french linguist who are not familliar with spanish or portuguese although they are all derivatives of Latin. I'm not sure where you are going with this argument. Maybe I wrong but this seem again like another desperate mesure to descredit the KJV at any cost.

Most the of debate over bible versions revolves around disputed passages of the New Testament anyway.

 

[TimV]

I don't know if it's just me but using the argument that we have better understanding of Ugaritic and Akkadian does seem like a stretch to justify that we cannot trust the translation of the Old Testament in the KJV. I'm also not sure where you take the idea that the KJV translators were ignorant. I'm not a Greek or Hebrew scholar so I'm not going to get into language arugments, but I know a few skilled french linguist who are not familliar with spanish or portuguese although they are all derivatives of Latin. I'm not sure where you are going with this argument.

I think any advanced student of any language would agree with HS here. To major in Spanish in Spain you have to take 2 years of Arabic, because Arabic influenced Spanish, even if just a little. And clearly HS isn't saying you can't trust the Hebrew OT of the 1611 KJV. He's simply saying that with more information, often coming from related languages, a translator's task becomes much easier in the sense that he has more tools to help with his job. The difference between a pistachio tree and an oak tree doesn't make much difference in theology, but surely the Word of God is worthy of even efforts of those sorts! And obviously related languages can give very strong hints in those areas.

And HS isn't saying that any changes make any difference to core doctrines; you have all you need to know about salvation in the 1611 version of the KJV. But even Erasmus said that when better manuscripts come to light, you change the Bible. It's always been accepted to change the Bible, from the very earliest days of our faith. And with that there have always been reactionary movements to stop progress, like Augustine demanding Jerome not to use the Hebrew to translate the OT, but they all fail, inevitably.

 

[Hebrew Student]

py3ak,

No problem. I readily recognize that you cannot always tell someone's ultimate commitments, and that we should be careful about using such arguments, always making sure that the ultimate commitments are clear.

Fogetaboutit,

I don't know if it's just me but using the argument that we have better understanding of Ugaritic and Akkadian does seem like a stretch to justify that we cannot trust the translation of the Old Testament in the KJV. I'm also not sure where you take the idea that the KJV translators were ignorant. I'm not a Greek or Hebrew scholar so I'm not going to get into language arugments, but I know a few skilled french linguist who are not familliar with spanish or portuguese although they are all derivatives of Latin. I'm not sure where you are going with this argument. Maybe I wrong but this seem again like another desperate mesure to descredit the KJV at any cost.

Fogetaboutit, go back and reread my previous posts. The problem with your analogy is that Biblical Hebrew is a very ancient language, whereas French is a very common modern living language with multiple examples of the words in given literary work existing within French literature. Some of the vocabulary found in the Hebrew Bible occurs one time with no other occurrences whatsoever. That is why cognate studies are helpful-to help define these rare words. I mentioned the fact that the KJV translates the Hebrew ראם as "unicorns" in passages such as Deuteronomy 33:17. The passages in which this word occurs do not help us in terms of identifying this animal. The KJV translators, therefore, translated it as "unicorns" following the Greek Septuagint [μονοκερωτος]. The problem is that, not only are unicorns mythical animals, but also, we now have cognates from Ugaritic [r'um] and Akkadian [rimum] to help us with the definition. These words mean something like "wild ox," and that is how all major translations translate the passage today.

The reason this is an improvement is not because of the fact that we have a better understanding of Akkadian and Ugaritic; The King James translators knew *nothing* of these languages! Akkadian wasn't deciphered until the late ninteenth century, and Ugaritic wasn't even discovered until the twentieth century. I don't know how the KJV translators could be anything but ignorant of these matters.

I also brought up other translational issues: Proverbs 26:23 and Isaiah 18:7 where the KJV is either wrong or grossly misleading, and where the cognate studies have corrected the KJV. Not only that, but I also mentioned a text critical issue, Habakkuk 1:5 and Acts 13:41 where the KJV differs with itself! Also, this does not even count the numerous times in the KJV where the waw is simply translated as "and" where we know today that the way in which these waws are constructed in a Hebrew narrative convey various nuances of layering [foregrounding, backgrounding, etc.] within a narrative.

Again, all of these discoveries were post KJV, and thus, were not incorporated into the KJV. So yes, if those developments had not taken place in your time, then you would be ignorant of them.

Also, it is not a matter of "discrediting" the KJV. The KJV translators themselves allowed that translations should change as we learn more. It is not a matter of "discrediting" their work, but a refusal to allow the KJV translations to be blindly followed when it does contain many errors-some due to ignorance, and some due to simple mistakes. Thankfully, none of these have anything to do with any central Christian doctrine. If you apply the same hermeneutical procedures to the KJV and the ESV, looking at all scripture has to say, reading passages in their context, you will not come up with a different God, a different gospel, or a different Christ.

Most the of debate over bible versions revolves around disputed passages of the New Testament anyway.

No, I just think that most people aren't aware of the issues surrounding the Old Testament as much. To put it bluntly, you cannot be a dilettante when it comes to Old Testament textual criticism; it requires a ton of thought, and a real commitment if you want to learn it.

God Bless,
Adam

 

[Fogetaboutit]

Hebrew Student,

As I said I'm not qualify to debate hebrew or greek. Although I understand that some hebrew word might be hard to understand or translate I kind of doubt that the translators of the KJV had a mythical horse with wings in mind when they translated "unicorn", maybe a unknown horned beast, but I might be wrong. These translators were reformed men with strong oposition to paganism.

When I mentionned that the debate is usually surrounding the New Testament I meant that the Old Testament is more stable textually then the New Testament. The Hebrew Masoretic Text used by the KJV (Ben Chayyim) and the one use by newer vertion (Ben Asher) only differ in 9 places I believe. On the other hand the the TR and the CT differ in hundred of places.

 

[Hebrew Student]

Fogetaboutit,

When I mentionned that the debate is usually surrounding the New Testament I meant that the Old Testament is more stable textually then the New Testament. The Hebrew Masoretic Text used by the KJV (Ben Chayyim) and the one use by newer vertion (Ben Asher) only differ in 9 places I believe. On the other the the TR and the CT differ in hundred of places.

Actually, Ben Asher is a whole family of Masoretic manuscripts based upon the work of Aaron Ben Asher. There are two branches of the Tiberan manuscripts: the Ben Asher and the Ben Naphtali. There are three different types of Masoretic pointing-the Babylonian, the Tiberian, and the Palestinian.

Also, Jacob Ben Chayyim's text is a printed edition of this whole Masoretic tradition [including the Ben Asher branch of the Tiberian manuscripts].

You are correct that the Masoretic tradition, although it contains copy errors, is still well copied. The difficulty is that it is not just the Masoretic tradition we are looking at in OT Textual Criticism. Due to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we now know that the textual tradition which the Septuagint reflects, the Samaritan Pentateuch, as well as the Masoretic text all go back before the time of Christ. Hence, a reading in the Masoretic tradition may not be correct. There are times when the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, or one of the minor translations such as the Vulgate or the Peshitta show us examples where a copy error has occurred in the copying of the Masoretic tradition, sometimes long before it ever even got to the Masorites. Hence, it also requires knowing how translations work, and studying the translation techniques of these translations.

God Bless,
Adam

 

[Todd King]

Some of the vocabulary found in the Hebrew Bible occurs one time with no other occurrences whatsoever. That is why cognate studies are helpful-to help define these rare words. I mentioned the fact that the KJV translates the Hebrew ראם as "unicorns" in passages such as Deuteronomy 33:17. The passages in which this word occurs do not help us in terms of identifying this animal. The KJV translators, therefore, translated it as "unicorns" following the Greek Septuagint [μονοκερωτος]. The problem is that, not only are unicorns mythical animals, but also, we now have cognates from Ugaritic [r'um] and Akkadian [rimum] to help us with the definition. These words mean something like "wild ox," and that is how all major translations translate the passage today.

This is one problem I have with the newer translations, and maybe you can help answer this for me since you obviously are MUCH more knowledgeable than I regarding translation. Why do they worry about fixing unicorn, but they don't retranslate behemoth and leviathan to dinosaur or something similar? Obviously, these are the creatures being referenced, and it would bolster Creationism. By not changing these words, it seems they are capitulating to the "we have to make scripture match science" crowd.

 

[Hebrew Student]

Todd King,

This is one problem I have with the newer translations, and maybe you can help answer this for me since you obviously are MUCH more knowledgeable than I regarding translation. Why do they worry about fixing unicorn, but they don't retranslate behemoth and leviathan to dinosaur or something similar? Obviously, these are the creatures being referenced, and it would bolster Creationism. By not changing these words, it seems they are capitulating to the "we have to make scripture match science" crowd.

First of all, I have absolutely no sympathies for Darwinian evolution. While I agree that things change, as Francis Shaeffer said, Darwinian evolution doesn't answer either of the questions of the how or the why that are so crucial to any kind of inquiry. It is largely an ideology and a philosophy in terms of which paleontological data is interpreted.

However, I am unconvinced of the arguments that some creationists use in order to try to say that dinosaurs are in the Bible. First of all, when an atheist asks the question "Where are dinosaurs in the Bible," he is assuming that the Bible must be exhaustive in its listing of every possible animal that God has ever created. That is absurd. For example, where in the Bible do you find mention of a Tasmanian Devil? The point of the Biblical text is not to be a textbook in historical taxonomy, but to tell the story of redemption, from the fall of man, the failure of man to redeem himself, all of the way to the solution in Christ. Will there be some animals that are incidental to that story? Yes. However, the point of the Bible is not to give an exhaustive history of every animal that has ever walked the face of the planet.

Secondly, the main arguments for the idea that the Behemoth and Leviathan are dinosaurs are based upon the descriptions of the animals found in the text. The problem with this argument is that all one can say is that the descriptions are *consistent* with dinosaurs, not that the words themselves actually mean "dinosaur." All it would take is for someone to dig up a bilingual tablet or inscription which clearly identifies "Behemoth" and "Leviathan" to completely refute the argument, and thus, it is really an argument from silence. At best, what one can say is that "Behemoth" and "Leviathan" are consistent with dinosaurs, not that they actually are dinosaurs.

However, it is even worse than that. The problem is with the descriptions that are often used to make the identification:

Job 40:15-18 "Behold now, Behemoth, which I made as well as you; He eats grass like an ox. 16 "Behold now, his strength in his loins And his power in the muscles of his belly. 17 "He bends his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are knit together. 18 "His bones are tubes of bronze; His limbs are like bars of iron.

Some will argue, "what animal but a dinosaur eats grass and has a tail like a cedar? Certainly not the traditional Hippopotamus or Crocodile; their tails are much too small, and cedar trees are huge!" The problem is that the context does not seem to be addressing the *size* of the tail of this creature but its *strength* [v.16]. It is comparing the strength of his tale, bones and limbs to that of cedar trees, bronze, and iron, all considered very strong [Bronze and Iron were used to make weapons of war]. The same thing is true of the discourse on Leviathan, which simply talks about the inability of ancient weapons to tame him, and the fear which he puts in the eyes of men for that reason. Hence, I would say, simply taking the imagery in its context, there is very little reason to even say that the imagery necessitates an animal fitting the description of a dinosaur.

I would say it is far better to point out that it is not necessary to find dinosaurs in the Bible, and not get caught up in trying to argue that one unknown word is a dinosaur on the basis of similarities. Darwinism will still be false, whether we find dinosaurs in the Bible or not.

God Bless,
Adam

 

[Dearly Bought]

Adam,

I plan to provide a more detailed response regarding the texts previously mentioned. I have unfortunately been swamped with other responsibilities and unable to devote the time thus far. I do have a few comments to share initially. Unfortunately this will be a rather long post since I am responding to several assertions.

I am surprised that you believe I am somehow ignorant of Waltke and Dressler's views on textual criticism. I particularly selected Waltke's work due to the recommendation in your initial posting. It was my intention to demonstrate that advocates of modern eclectic textual criticism are divided among themselves regarding the advances you propose.

Since you have cited Bahnsen's comparison to the field of medicine no less than 4 times, I would like to note that it is a weak analogy. A great portion of the medical field falls within the realm of operational science. Through the use of the scientific method, each passing year of observation produces additional data for study. Medicines may be directly tested and repetition of results confirms theory. In contrast, philology and textual criticism are generally historical disciplines. The history of the Biblical text cannot be directly tested nor is it ever repeated.

Let’s also be careful to distinguish between issues of translation and issues of textual criticism. I don’t wish to defend the King James Bible as the only perfect translation of the Bible in English. As WCF I.viii states, the Hebrew and Greek texts are the final court of appeal. Challenges to the text of Scripture in the original language are my foremost concern. That being said, I do believe that the Authorised Version is “most accurate and trustworthy translation into English available” (see Principles of the Trinitarian Bible Society).

In regards to Behemoth, it seems that you have eliminated the possibility of the Bible definitively speaking of a dinosaur. How would we know if a Biblical passage referred specifically to a dinosaur if not from the description? I do believe that the Behemoth’s description most closely matches a sauropod dinosaur (see Could Behemoth Have Been a Dinosaur? By Allan Steel). Even if you attempt to argue that length or size are not to be included in the comparison with the tail, it still does not seem to fit other known animals. What other animals have tails with strength like a cedar? Furthermore, Steel shows that other elements of the passage besides the tail also identify the animal. As a bit of an aside, I would like to highlight Steel’s observation that the original Authorised Version featured a marginal note suggesting the elephant as a possible candidate. Obviously Todd and I would both disagree with this note, thus demonstrating that the issue at hand is not mere enslavement to the traditions of men.

I am glad that you reject Darwinian evolution. I am, however, curious to know if you affirm the historicity of the global flood, the Babel event, a young earth. Would you rather read Dever, Albright, Finkelstein, or Bryant Wood regarding Biblical archaeology? It seems to me that the answers to these questions have great bearing on the way one approaches the relationships between ancient Near Eastern cultures, their languages, and the Biblical text.

By the way, please feel free to call me Bryan.

 

[Hebrew Student]

Bryan,

I am surprised that you believe I am somehow ignorant of Waltke and Dressler's views on textual criticism. I particularly selected Waltke's work due to the recommendation in your initial posting. It was my intention to demonstrate that advocates of modern eclectic textual criticism are divided among themselves regarding the advances you propose.

Actually, the problem is much deeper than that. First of all, there are differences amongst people who support the KJV. You have everyone from Peter Ruckman clear down to the Dean Burgon society, and Theodore Letis. All of these men disagree with each other on so many issues. For example, Theodore Letis did not even believe in the inerrancy of the original autographs. Also, Peter Ruckman believes that we should edit the Hebrew and Greek to make it agree with the KJV. Does this somehow mean that I shouldn't take what you have to say as being correct on these issues simply because those who support the KJV disagree on these things?

As with the above examples of different "defenders of the TR," one must ask the reason why people are saying what they are saying. This requires knowing the history of the field. The issue of using Ugaritic in Biblical studies was greatly frowned upon during the time Dressler was writing due to the methodological freeforall that took place at that time. This was all brought about by one important scholar in the field of Ugaritic studies: a man by the name of Dahood. His commentary on the Psalms was a landmark in Ugaritic studies, because it had a mention of Ugaritic on just about every page. It seemed like Dahood could find a Ugaritic parallel under every bush. Scholars like Dressler at this time strongly reacted to this so called "pan-Ugaritism." It is not that they will not use Ugaritic; it is just simply that they believe that there should be a very small amount of input in its use in Biblical studies. Hence, they really overreacted to Dahood. This is the context out of which Waltke and Dressler are coming.

Hence, to cite scholars such as Waltke and Dressler whose heydays were back at the time when the scholarly community in general was very much opposed to Ugaritic parallels given their abuse by Dahood really doesn't prove much. The history and background of Ugaritic scholarship is necessary to understand why Dressler and Waltke are avoiding the use of Ugaritic at this point.

The fact of the matter is, I am only aware of two modern versions that do not translate it the way I said: the NKJV, because they are contentiously following the same text as the KJV, and the NASB. Other than that, the NIV, ESV, NAB, RSV, NRSV, NLT all have it exactly the way I said. Also, everyone who ends up disagreeing with what I have written all go back to Dressler's article, which I think is fundamentally flawed in the first place, largely because I believe he was trying to avoid the use of Ugaritic in Biblical studies.

Since you have cited Bahnsen's comparison to the field of medicine no less than 4 times, I would like to note that it is a weak analogy. A great portion of the medical field falls within the realm of operational science. Through the use of the scientific method, each passing year of observation produces additional data for study. Medicines may be directly tested and repetition of results confirms theory. In contrast, philology and textual criticism are generally historical disciplines. The history of the Biblical text cannot be directly tested nor is it ever repeated.

The point has nothing to do with testing or repetition. The point is that our knowledge can grow even in fields of history. That is all that is needed for the parallel to work. If you demand that increase in knowledge be used in your open heart surgery, why do you, inconsistently, not want to take these things into account, and simply go back to the MT or the TR? The study of the word of God is infinitely important, and simply going back to a time in history and making it the standard is not showing respect for the word of God, just as going back to a time in history, and only allowing your surgeon to avail himself of the medical books from the seventeenth century does not show respect for your life.

Let’s also be careful to distinguish between issues of translation and issues of textual criticism. I don’t wish to defend the King James Bible as the only perfect translation of the Bible in English. As WCF I.viii states, the Hebrew and Greek texts are the final court of appeal. Challenges to the text of Scripture in the original language are my foremost concern. That being said, I do believe that the Authorised Version is “most accurate and trustworthy translation into English available” (see Principles of the Trinitarian Bible Society).

Two things. First of all, the title of the thread is whether the KJV is the "only perfect translation." Hence, I was just responding to the topic of the thread. Second, I *did* deal with a text where the alleged ecclesiastical text contradicts itself in Habakkuk 1:5 and its quotation in Acts 13:41. Which reading is right? The MT at Habakkuk 1:5 or the TR at Acts 13:41? I would say that is impossible for a person holding the position you hold to answer, because if you say that the TR is correct, the the MT is not the preserved word of God. However, if you say that the MT is correct, then the TR is not the preserved word of God. The meanings are different, and it affects the interpretation of the entire first set of verses in Habakkuk depending on whether you take the reading found in the TR or the MT, and hence, the two cannot just be conflated together.

Yes, I am well familiar with the arguments of the Ecclesiastical text. That is not what this thread was about. I do think that the Ecclesiastical Text Theory is problematic, not only because I believe it ultimately leads to a rejection of Sola Scriptura, but also because it really can't help you in dealing with individual variants. All it says is, "The church said the MT is correct; shut up." That is hard use when you have to deal with specific variants such as Habakkuk 1:5 in the context of a debate with a Muslim.

In regards to Behemoth, it seems that you have eliminated the possibility of the Bible definitively speaking of a dinosaur. How would we know if a Biblical passage referred specifically to a dinosaur if not from the description?

I will return it to you. How would we know if the Bible ever spoke of a Tasmanian Devil? Since we don't know what the ancients called Tasmanian Devils, if it ever showed up in an ancient text, how would we know? Even if it were a description that was consistent with a Tasmanian Devil, how would you know that it wasn't a similar animal that likewise fit the description?

The point is, unless these words occur in inscriptions that clearly identify the animal, it is impossible to know. That is why the best one could say is that the description is consistent with that of a dinosaur, but one could never know something like that. Also, nor do I think it is important. Whether the Bible mentions dinosaurs or Tasmanian devils is only incidental and not central to its message.

I do believe that the Behemoth’s description most closely matches a sauropod dinosaur (see Could Behemoth Have Been a Dinosaur? By Allan Steel). Even if you attempt to argue that length or size are not to be included in the comparison with the tail, it still does not seem to fit other known animals. What other animals have tails with strength like a cedar?

When you say that someone is strong as an ox, does that mean that you are saying that they would be able to stay in a fight with an ox, since they, apparently, have equal strength to an ox?

Furthermore, Steel shows that other elements of the passage besides the tail also identify the animal.

Which I also pointed out are all likewise in the context of strength.

As a bit of an aside, I would like to highlight Steel’s observation that the original Authorised Version featured a marginal note suggesting the elephant as a possible candidate. Obviously Todd and I would both disagree with this note, thus demonstrating that the issue at hand is not mere enslavement to the traditions of men.

Not the tradition I am talking about. I am talking about a blind following of the Masoretic Text or the Textus Receptus even when it is painfully obvious that the MT or the TR is wrong, or even that they contradict on another. That, obviously, has absolutely nothing to do with the identification of Behemoth.

I am glad that you reject Darwinian evolution. I am, however, curious to know if you affirm the historicity of the global flood, the Babel event, a young earth.

Absolutely, I affirm all of them. While I don't believe in the notion that the earth is exactly 6000 years old [as the issue of chronologies in the early chapters of Genesis is a major exegetical issue], I believe reading millions of years into the text is nonsense.

Would you rather read Dever, Albright, Finkelstein, or Bryant Wood regarding Biblical archaeology?

Actually, all of those folks are distasteful to me, except for Bryant Wood, and I can't comment on him because I don't recall reading anything by him. I would actually rather read my professors, Dr. Lawson Younger and Dr. James K. Hoffmeier.

God Bless,
Adam

 

[FedByRavens]

Psalm 143:2 And enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified. KJV

Psalm 143:2 Enter not into judgment with your servant, for no one living is righteous before you. ESV

 

[TimV]

Wow, Adam. Thanks for that link. Letis sure comes across rather badly on so many different levels.

If at the end of the seminar enough information will have come to light to cause all the earnest participants to cringe every time they hear the words "inerrant autographs," my job will have been well done indeed

 

[TimV]

Letis comes across like something out of a Monty Python skit, at least most of the time, then drops things like this quote from a guy named Aland:

"...it is undisputed that from the 16th to the 18th century orthodoxy's doctrine of verbal inspiration assumed... [the] Textus Receptus [PLEASE NOTE: NOT THE ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS]. It was the only Greek text they knew, and they regarded it as the 'original' text."

which is beyond stupid, since everyone from Calvin to Erasmus and Beza claimed certain parts of every version of the TR they had access to were wrong, and shouldn't have been included in the Bible.

James White and Greg Bahnsen spent all sorts of time trying to get Letis to deal with specifics points, but Letis and Sandlin acted like parodies of snobbish catty old ladies.

My booklet came out a few years before Mr. White's and is a much more serious work.

Theodore P. Letis

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Shawn,

I realize I’m getting to your query in the opening post almost 3 weeks late, but I’ve just recently returned to this country after being 9 years away – and then living a sort of nomadic life for half a year while my wife and I sought out an apartment here (in NYC), then got our container of stuff from Cyprus, and now unpacking and ordering our things in the apt – so please excuse my tardiness in responding!

It’s surely not in vogue in these days to hold that our God a) was able, and b) actually did, preserve through His providence the Old and New Testaments so that we have a reliable Bible true to the originals of the Prophets, Evangelists, and Apostles even in the minutiae of the readings, and this in an edition we can actually hold in our hands and say, “This is God’s inspired and preserved word.” Having asserted this, be it known that I do believe our God preserved all the Bibles used in Protestant Christendom, so that in the main – even if not in the minutiae – their preservation was adequate to the saving of souls and sustenance of the churches, and thus they are legitimate and true Bibles.

In post 4 above Bryan linked to my compiled Textual Posts in which, over the past few years, I have endeavored to present a reasoned, irenic, and scholarly defense of the position that this Bible preserved in the minutiae is the Authorized Version (aka the King James Bible, The Ecclesiastical Text, The Traditional Text, etc), in that it is the best English translation of the Greek Textus Receptus (seen in the “back translation” of Scrivener’s 1894 Greek NT) and the Hebrew Masoretic Text as seen in the Ben Chayyim edition.

So there are two fronts on which this assertion is contested: 1) The translation of the Hebrew and Greek into the KJV English, and 2) the appropriateness of these particular Greek and Hebrew text-types to be made the Standard of excellence, accuracy, and God’s preservation.

Now of course these texts may be translated other than the way the AV translators did, and in some instances a careful modernizing of the language might well be a great boon to the church, though it would be an undertaking rife with danger. There are also those who say, rather than give our sacred text over to the editors, let us just bear with the archaic words – educating those who come to them as to their meaning – and keep that which is tried and true, albeit at times difficult.

The other front of contention is, are these in fact the best texts of the Greek and Hebrew we have? Some among the Very Educated say – their words almost dripping with contempt – “Certainly not! We in the 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century have the benefit of numerous discoveries, archaeological, linguistic, and textual, the AV translators back in 1611 did not have, and of which they were ignorant!” Their presupposition in saying this (and this is a crucial concept) is that God will use the wisdom and knowledge of the academic community to sort through and ferret out the true text of the Old and New Testaments by means of the (allegedly) neutral science of Textual Criticism, and thus discern the Preserved Text: the Bible can be reconstituted from the plethora of manuscripts, versions, and variants by the knowledge and wisdom of man, and it doesn’t even matter if the scholars are believers or not. Though these scholars – some of them genuine Christians – themselves have grave doubts and skepticism regarding the efficacy of their methodology to arrive at the original text of God’s word! And if they doubt, what warrant have we for confidence in their endeavor?

On the other hand, we who hold to the AV assert that God promised to preserve His words in many places in Scripture, and we discern – in hindsight – that He fulfilled His promises in the 1611 work that has come to be called the King James Bible (as it was under king James it was undertaken). While God used fallible men and imperfect manuscripts, by His unfathomable power and wisdom He used these men and mss – and so ordered the things that came to pass – that those readings “by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages” (WCF 1:8) were brought together in His Providentially Preserved Bible at the time of the Reformation. To those who say the Translators were ignorant of needful knowledge, here is an answer to that, a refutation of the myth that the Reformation Editors Lacked Sufficient Manuscript Evidence. And since I’ve linked to an article by an IFB (Independent Fundamentalist Baptist) I should say that these folks have some of the best scholarship and research in the world-wide church, but they are disdained by some (not many, really) Reformed folks who hold them in abject contempt, and do all they can to discredit them. To be sure, there are some very unsavory and unlearned people among the IFBs, but the same can be said for the P&R as well! And just for the record, the view I hold is not what is termed “King James Only” as though the KJV was the only Bible of worth, but “King James priority”, meaning it is the one preserved in the minutiae.

In the link above to the article, Skepticism and Doubt Toward the Bible, it can be seen what the results of the increased knowledge and textual discoveries really are: confusion and the awareness that modern text-critical studies have come to a dead-end. A multitude of variant readings and no way to figure out what’s what. This is not of God.

Our heavenly Father gave us a Bible; it was a supernatural feat; He overrode the fallibility of men, and the imperfection of manuscripts, choosing in His sovereign power and wisdom from among the very best mss, and where these lacked He got the right readings into the text from other sources, using the various editors at the time of the Reformation. As with all other aspects of our faith, the production of our Bible – the Hebrew, the Greek, and the English (and the other languages that were later used) – was a supernatural work of God. It was not from the labor of man (though men were used), even as the original writing of the Scriptures was of God through men. Our salvation was by grace through faith; and we hold our Bible by means of the same spiritual principles.

This is sort of a brief overview of the Biblical position. Of course it will come under intense assault shortly after I post it. You can see the Scripture warrant behind this position in the articles referenced above in post 4.

In some respects it is exceeding odd that such an assault should come on the Bible of the Reformation (and using the weapons of Rome to boot – the variants from once-rejected mss), and that from the children of the Reformation. But then these are dark days we are entering into. Even the grand old Presbyterian and Reformed communions are slipping into the abyss of error and apostasy, and it is a hard lot for our children and grandchildren in times like these. The authority of the Bible has been shaken – by the very things at issue here in this discussion – sound doctrine fast on its heels, and the delicious pleasures and toys of our Babylonian culture, all conspire to ensnare our offspring and ourselves in the power of Satan.


Here’s a thread from a little over a year ago where a lot of the things discussed earlier in this present thread are dealt with.

I hope these things are of benefit to you, Shawn, and give you some background on the issues involved in this matter.

To close, I’ll link here to Wilbur Pickering’s The Identity of the New Testament Text, Chapter 5, The History of the Text. An interesting and helpful read.


Steve

 

[Galatians220]

May the Lord bless you, Steve. And happy Thanksgiving to you and to all here!

 

[TimV]

Some among the Very Educated say – their words almost dripping with contempt – “Certainly not! We in the 21st century have the benefit of numerous discoveries, archaeological, linguistic, and textual, the AV translators back in 1611 did not have, and of which they were ignorant!”

You don't have to be very educated, or rely on Rome, or have contempt for God's Word to say that if Erasmus had all 200 odd Byzantine Greek texts of Rev 16:5, and every single one of them uses Holy One instead of Lord, that Erasums would have used Holy One.

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

I've heard TR/KJV supporters bash CT supporters for quoting people like Metzger, who did not hold an evangelical view of the inerrancy of scripture. How many of them use Letis as one of their sources, and do they know he was wrong on the errancy of scripture?

I don't think this makes him wrong, but it does show that we need to be careful for any influences one bad view may have on the rest of their work.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Thanks, Margaret, the same to you!


TimV,

I’ll answer you by the answer I gave to James White on this verse [in this thread]:

You must be getting impatient to see what I have to say. To Revelation 16:5:

Among us there are two schools of thought concerning this text. One of them is that of E.F. Hills, who opined that it is a “conjectural emendation” and ought not be recognized as original; this would agree with the methodology of John Owen (noted above), although I do not know Owen’s view of this particular verse. According to Hills, and in principle by Owen, this is the proper domain of discerning the true text – within the parameters of the TR editions and mss, and not elsewhere. So there is no inconsistency when this camp of the AV / TR advocates select other TR readings and deny this one.

The other school, represented by Will Kinney, Dr. Thomas Holland, and others, have a presuppositional view that holds the providential preservation of God is to be seen in the fait accompli of the King James Bible deriving from the Hebrew and Greek Texts underlying it – and that this divine accomplishment by its very existence overrides evidentiary considerations to the contrary. Let me explain that.

The Lord promised to preserve His word. Psalm 12:6, 7. I am full aware that the modern versions reflect an exegetical tradition which makes verse 7 refer to the men rather than the words, and I have read what you say of these verses in your book, The King James Only Controversy (KJOC).

It remains that an entire exegetical tradition – a tradition upheld by both Jewish and Christian exegetes – has been suppressed by mere editorial fiat with bias, and manifests in the modern version renderings of this verse. This is not the only place where suppression of textual evidence occurs, as we shall see in further discussion of the Book of Revelation below.

To substantiate this allegation I give links to some sources (as I said I would, rather than encumber the discussion with too much material):

Peter Van Kleeck on Psalm 12:6, 7: http://www.wayoflife.org/otimothy/tl040003.htm [dead link - see post 51 with article below]
Will Kinney citing multiple authors on Psalm 12:6, 7: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...1&postcount=10

Above I cited Isaiah 59:21, and then Matthew 4:4 together with 2 Peter 1:3 as Scripture affirming that God would preserve his words; you say they are spread throughout the manuscripts, and by diligent effort the scholars may ascertain which are authentic and which are not; I (speaking for the latter mentioned school on preservation) say God in His providence preserved them in the main in the Byzantine texts, and in certain particulars – which had been lost in the Byz – through other versions, or through what appears as the mere “conjectural emendation” of the all-too-human Theodore Beza (or, in other cases, Erasmus). What you see as chance I see as design. What you see as merely human (and human failing, at that) I see as divine. This is the consistency I spoke of; some things I can’t explain in evidential terms, but can according to promises of Scripture. Again, you will say, “But it nowhere says how God will keep those (prophetic) promises of preservation.” We often discern the fulfillment of prophecy with hindsight. I believe my discernment (the KJV/TR view) of His fulfilling His promises has far greater merit and credence than yours.

The Lord preserved His word in the main, I reiterate, in the Byz, even though some passages were lost from it. Were I to go into this aspect of the transmission here (the losing or changing of passages) I would have to add a lot of material, so I will pass it by for now. At the time of Erasmus and the later editors of the Byz-cum-TR the Lord brought the true reading back.

You have said, James, that for Rev 16:5 the KJV phrase “and shalt be” has no Greek manuscript support, neither is it found in any English translation before the King James. You didn’t mention the Latin, as it is found in Beatus of Liebana’s compiled commentary on the book of Revelation (786 A.D.) where he uses the Latin phrase “qui fuisti et futures es”. In this compilation he was preserving the commentary of Tyconius (approx 380 A.D.). So there is manuscript support. Whether Beza knew of it or not, the 1611 translators may well have, and we do not know what manuscripts they had at their disposal, likely many more than we know of four centuries later.

Jack Moorman, in his, Hodges/Farstad “Majority” Text Refuted By Evidence (also titled, When the King James Departs from the “Majority Text”), says,

The King James reading is in harmony with the four other places in Revelation where this phrase is found.
1:4 “him which is, and which was, and which is to come”
1:8 “the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty”
4:8 “Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come”
11:17 “Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come”

Indeed Christ is the Holy One, but in the Scriptures of the Apostle John the title is found only once (1 John 2:20), and there, a totally different Greek word is used. The Preface to the Authorized Version reads, “With the former translations diligently compared and revised”.

The translators must have felt there was good reason to insert these words though it ran counter to much external evidence. (p. 102)

​

Moorman’s book available at Bible For Today WebStore search for item #1617.

I should add that in their respective commentaries on Revelation, G.K. Beale and Dennis E. Johnson both are of the view that “...the future-oriented member (‘who is to come’) of this threefold confession is deleted. When the bowls are poured out, the coming One will have come in holy justice.” (Johnson, Triumph of the Lamb, p. 227)

However, I see this as simply interpreting the text – the reading – they believed was the right one.

Sources used for 16:5:

Thomas Holland http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/rev16_5.htmOn Rev 16:5 and other verses [scroll down to near end of page]
Will Kinney http://brandplucked.webs.com/rev165shaltbe5810us.htm

Let me take an example from the NASB which is similar.

Deuteronomy 26:3 KJV “...I profess this day unto the LORD THY God, that I am come unto the country, which the LORD sware unto our fathers for to give us.” Here all Hebrew texts as well as the RV, ASV, NKJV, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV and Holman read either THY God, or YOUR God (which mean the same thing), but only the NASB follows the Greek Septuagint version and says: “unto the Lord MY God...” The footnotes in versions like Holman, ESV tell us this. Even the online NASB footnotes that the reading of “MY God” comes from the LXX, but that the Hebrew reads “your God”.

From Kinney: http://brandplucked.webs.com/nivnasbrejecthebrew.htm
​

The NASB uses a source other than the Hebrew (i.e., without any Hebrew support), other than most of the other modern versions, and you give us grief that the King James uses a version without Greek support? You say your methodology is at least consistent, whereas mine is not. If I were to say we always go by the majority of manuscripts, or even the majority within the Byz majority, then your charge would have weight; but that is not my method. I say we go by the Byz in the main, but infrequently, in certain cases, the Lord sovereignly breaks method in lieu of a wisdom above man’s wisdom and methods. You may not appreciate this, but it is consistent.

To sum on Rev 16:5: Whether one takes the Hills / Owen position that there may be minute variations within the narrow precincts of the TR manuscripts, or the Kinney / Holland view that God was able to and actually did restore the readings He had preserved elsewhere than the Byz to the text editions available to the 1611 translators, these two AV / TR options are, to my view (and many others) certainly at least as plausible as the hypotheses you formulate.


​

Johnathan,

I think you misconstrue Letis’ view on inerrancy. He was decrying what he termed “Warfieldian inerrancy”, where Warfield posited inerrancy for the autographs alone, and not for the extant apographs (copies) held by the Westminster divines. Letis also preferred the term “infallible” to “inerrant”. Some background here: B. B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and Biblical Criticism, and here.

I am sorry that for some reason the formatting in these old posts has broken down, so that indented paragraphs lose the spacing between what is just above and below them. It makes for harder reading, but please bear with it.

I will not be able to answer every objection and alleged discrepancy or error thrown at me, both as regards the NT and the OT, as it would never end. It is sufficient to state the foundation of the faith I have in God’s preservation – and the method thereof – for this overrides supposed “evidences” to the contrary. For example, were someone to marshal many “evidences” for the evolutionary model of origins, or supposed archaeological “proofs” against the existence of the patriarchal characters in Genesis (as has happened), we would not yield to these assertions even though many supposed proofs in their favor were presented, for we would stand on the foundation of Scripture, believing that God has spoken and given us knowledge, and that His knowledge supersedes the wisdom and knowledge of the world. Even so do we who hold the KJV priority view stand on the foundation of Scripture.

God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. Therefore will not we fear, though the earth be removed, and though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea. Though the waters thereof roar and be troubled, though the mountains shake with the swelling thereof. Selah. (Psalm 46:1-3)
​

 

[jandrusk]

I think there are few today who truly understand 21st century english

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Some of the links in my post 49 were not working, so I corrected them there.

I notice also that the link I gave for Van Kleeck’s article was not working (and the info is no longer available in convenient format), so I post below a brief excerpt from it. The gist of it is that the KJV’s rendering is a stroke of genius in that it incorporates both exegetical traditions – and which Jewish exegetes were also divided over – regarding the passage on preservation in Psalm 12:7.

------------

The Translational and Exegetical Rendering of Psalm 12:7 Primarily Considered in the Churchly Tradition of the 16th And 17th Centuries and Its Expression in the Reformation English Bibles: The Genius of Ambiguity, By Peter Van Kleeck.

The appropriate interpretation of Psalm 12:7 is not without question in the churchly tradition. Problems arise from the textual base chosen for the translation, Greek-Latin or Hebrew ... Contemporary Bible versions and the reciprocating confirmation of each other's validity give the dogmatic impression that as a result of new and better methodologies, the modern rendering is best and that past problems have been resolved.

A casual perusal of the popular literature on the subject of Bible texts and versions will show, however, that the Reformational Churches' expression of their common faith in Scripture's providential preservation of the texts in their possession is evaluated in an unsympathetic and pejorative manner. Scholars such as Bruce M. Metzger and Kurt Aland discredit the value of the Reformation Greek texts and subsequently the English Bibles on textual grounds. Metzger, giving a standard reply, writes,

"Partly because of this catchword [Textus Receptus] the form of the Greek text incorporated in the editions that Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevirs had published succeeded in establishing itself as 'the only true text' of the New Testament, and was slavishly reprinted in hundreds of subsequent editions.

It lies at the basis of the King James Version and of all the principal Protestant translations in the languages of Europe prior to 1881. So superstitious has been the reverence accorded the Textus Receptus that in some cases attempts to criticize or emend it have been regarded as akin to sacrilege" (Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, Oxford University Press, 1968, p. 106).
​

What these writers fail to say is that the Authorized Version is not an ad hoc English translation, but stands at the end of the 16th century English Bible tradition. ... To deny the Authorized Version on textual grounds is to do the same for the Bishops, Geneva, Great, Coverdale, Matthews and Tyndale Bibles going back to 1524.

It also questions the scholarship of the Protestant exiles of Mary's romanish persecution who had escaped to the safe haven of Geneva as well as the value of every 16th and 17th century commentator who based his work on Erasmus' Greek New Testament.

The bifurcation of the Reformation Bible tradition and the post-19th century English Bibles is seen in the New Revised Standard Version render[ing of] Psalm 12:7, "You O Lord, will protect us; you will guard us from this generation forever."

In a similar manner, the New International Version translates verse 7, "O Lord, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever."

In spite of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia reading "keep them" and "preserve him," both the NRSV and NIV have elected not to translate the Hebrew and have, in its place, substituted a translation from the Greek and Latin rendering of these two pronouns. By so doing, the editors of these translations have endorsed one exegetical tradition, the Greek- Latin, to the exclusion of the other, the Hebraic, and by doing so have censured any further debate within the Hebrew exegetical tradition itself. ...

This essay will show the diversity of the textual and exegetical tradition of Psalm 12:6-7 ... By so doing, the inadequacy of modern renditions of Psalm 12:7 will be exposed...

Michael Ayguan (1340-1416) ... On Psalm 12:7 Ayguan comments, “Keep them: that is, not as the passage is generally taken, Keep or guard Thy people, but Thou shalt keep, or make good, Thy words: and by doing so, shalt preserve him--him, the needy, him, the poor--from this generation...”

Martin Luther's German Bible ... Following the arrangement of this Psalm, Luther penned a hymn, two stanzas of which reflect his understanding of verse 6 and 7: ... "Thy truth thou wilt preserve, O Lord, from this vile generation..." In poetic form, Luther grasps the significance of this verse both for the preservation of those who are oppressed and for the Word of God. The two-pronged significance of this interpretation to both people and God's words in Luther's Psalter was to have wide-ranging significance in the English Bible tradition.

Calvin's Commentary on the Psalms ... in the body of the commentary he writes, “Some give this exposition of the passage, Thou wilt keep them, namely, thy words; but this does not seem to me to be suitable.” [Thus while Calvin did not believe Psalm 12:7 referred to the Word of God, he admits that others did hold this view in his day.]

Coverdale Bible, 1535 ... reads for [verse 7] of Psalm 12: "Keep them therefore (O Lord) and preserve us from this generation for ever." With the absence of "Thou shalt" to begin verse 7, there is a direct connection between 'words' and 'keep them.' In the first clause, Coverdale intended the words to be kept; in the second clause people are in view...

The Matthew Bible 1537. ... In Psalm 12:67 Rogers translated, "The words of the Lord are pure words as the silver, which from the earth is tried and purified vii times in the fire. Keep them therefore (O Lord) and preserve us from this generation for ever." Following Coverdale, Rogers makes a clear connection in his translation between the words being the antecedent to "them." ... The significance of Roger's marginal note is that two of the greatest Hebrew scholars referred to by the Reformation writers differed on the interpretation of "them" in Psalms 12:7. [Thus we see that the interpretation of this verse was also divided among Jewish scholars.]

The Third Part of the Bible, 1550. Taken from Becke's text of 1549 this edition of the scriptures contains the Psalter, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs. ... In verse 7 there is a note at them which states, 'some understand here certain men, some others word." Again, the translators and exegetes allowed breadth of interpretation of "them" to include people and words.

The Geneva Bible, 1560. ... The preface reads, "Then comforting himself and others with the assurance of God's help, he commendeth the constant vigil that God observeth in keeping his promises." The text reads, "The words of the Lord are pure words, as the silver, tried in a furnace of earth, fined seven fold. Thou wilt keep them, O Lord: Thou wilt preserve him from this generation forever." [The margin reads, "Because the Lords word and promise is true and unchangeable, he will perform it and preserve the poor from this wicked generation." Thus the Geneva took a position that verse 7 applies both to the preservation of the Bible and of God's people.]

Annotations by Henry Ainsworth, 1626. Briggs commends Ainsworth as the "prince of Puritan commentators" and that his commentary on the Psalms is a "monument of learning." ... Ainsworth states that "the sayings" [of Psalm 12:7] are "words" or "promises" that are "tried" or "examined" "as in a fire." He cross references the reader to Psalm 18:31; 119:140; and Proverbs 30:5, each reference having to do with the purity of the word.

Matthew Poole's 1685 Commentary of the Psalms ... writes at verse seven, "Thou shalt keep them; either, 1. The poor and needy, ver. 5 ... Or, 2. Thy words or promises last mentioned, ver. 6. ...

"In summary ... [t]he only sure conclusion is that there is no consensus within the English Bible tradition for the interpretation of "them" in Psalm 12:7 and it was precisely this lack of agreement within the tradition which was the genius of the ambiguity of the King James Version's rendering. ... by choosing a Greek-Latin basis the modern versions elect to overlook the Reformation's Hebrew basis for translation in Psalm 12:6-7; and the churchly tradition in the new versions is censored by not including a translation that is broad enough to include both interpretations--oppressed people and God's words" (Peter Van Kleeck, The Translational and Exegetical Rendering of Psalm 12:7 Primarily Considered in the Churchly Tradition of the 16th and 17th Centuries and Its Expression in the Reformation English Bibles: The Genius of Ambiguity, March 1993).

[end of Van Kleeck]

 

[timmopussycat]

TimV,

I’ll answer you by the answer I gave to James White on this verse [in this thread]:

You must be getting impatient to see what I have to say. To Revelation 16:5:

Among us there are two schools of thought concerning this text. One of them is that of E.F. Hills, who opined that it is a “conjectural emendation” and ought not be recognized as original; this would agree with the methodology of John Owen (noted above), although I do not know Owen’s view of this particular verse. According to Hills, and in principle by Owen, this is the proper domain of discerning the true text – within the parameters of the TR editions and mss, and not elsewhere. So there is no inconsistency when this camp of the AV / TR advocates select other TR readings and deny this one.

The other school, represented by Will Kinney, Dr. Thomas Holland, and others, have a presuppositional view that holds the providential preservation of God is to be seen in the fait accompli of the King James Bible deriving from the Hebrew and Greek Texts underlying it – and that this divine accomplishment by its very existence overrides evidentiary considerations to the contrary. Let me explain that.​

YIKES!!! Does everybody realize that the consequence of this view is? It is nothing less than an extension of apostolic authority to the KJV translators, something from which those men would have recoiled in horror.

​

 

[TimV]

Yes, I was waiting til I could calm down a bit before saying something about that too.

The other school, represented by Will Kinney, Dr. Thomas Holland, and others, have a presuppositional view that holds the providential preservation of God is to be seen in the fait accompli of the King James Bible deriving from the Hebrew and Greek Texts underlying it – and that this divine accomplishment by its very existence overrides evidentiary considerations to the contrary.

It's just the sort of reasoning that keeps the mainly fundamental baptist school of the KJVOnlies pretty much by themselves. To have the work of a Dutch Roman Catholic humanist, who himself said we should use better texts when we come up with them, trump literally every single copy of every Byzantine mss. we have today because God guided his hand is beyond the pale, no matter what type of spin you put on it.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Tim C., How does that follow? I think it was stated clearly enough that it is of God’s providence, not the activity of fallible men, that the Bible was preserved intact. As I have said elsewhere to similar objections:

Nor is there any fault in this! As though there were anything shameful or wrong with asserting that the Lord will preserve His every word, seeing as man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God (cf. Matt 4:4). As though the Almighty cannot preserve His word – which he has magnified above all His name (Ps 138:2 AV) – when He has preserved our lives and selves down to the very atoms that would comprise us these many millennia since He conceived us in His mind before the foundation of the world!

It is thought by some such a big deal for the Lord to have inspired and then preserved through His providence every word of His Bible. Consider though: He knew us and loved us with an eternal love, and chose us to be in Christ from before the creation of the world, that is, way before we existed in the material world. He thus preserved the specific genetic information in our DNA and the raw molecular material needed for the formation and manifestation of our beings all through the violent and ravaged history of the human race down to our day, so that we would be the very beings He had conceived in “eternity past”. That kind of preservation of keeping the genetic information intact – along with other manifold conditions – so that you would manifest as He knew you in ages past is even more remarkable than keeping His words through the prophets, the Lord Christ, and the apostolic writers intact down through the ages.

If you exist, why should not a providentially preserved Bible?

As though it were a shameful thing to trust that God could and did preserve His word intact in the texts underlying the faithfully translated English AV, and gave us in the English a Bible that has extreme fidelity to the providentially preserved apographs. In this day, I suppose, disapproval comes from “the wise and the prudent” and upon His “babes” – His trusting children (Matt 11:25).
​

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

P.S. Tim C., reading your comment again, it occurs to me you think I am attributing providential preservation to the English of the AV, which is not the case; that applies only to the Hebrew and Greek. The AV is but a faithful translation of those original languages. One might well say that the learned and godly translators were raised up by God for this task, and they were Spirit-led in their endeavors, but “apostolic authority” and divine inspiration pertained only to the Evangelists and Apostles and the writing of the original Scriptures.

 

[timmopussycat]

P.S. Tim C., reading your comment again, it occurs to me you think I am attributing providential preservation to the English of the AV, which is not the case; that applies only to the Hebrew and Greek. The AV is but a faithful translation of those original languages. One might well say that the learned and godly translators were raised up by God for this task, and they were Spirit-led in their endeavors, but “apostolic authority” and divine inspiration pertained only to the Evangelists and Apostles and the writing of the original Scriptures.

The words providential preservation actually start a rabbit trail by ignoring a key point. For God did not only preserve a particular text type. What He has in fact "providentially preserved" is every single NT MSS that we have. The question we face is how to determine which of the many MSS families or individual MS are closest to the autographs. And when manuscripts are discovered that are a) older than the earliest examples of the then best known MSS family, and b) significantly different from it, crying providential preservation in favour of any text family is simply a begging of the real question.

One may remark that it is almost incredible that God would leave his church with to rely on what may be the 2nd least accurate family of MSS for most of its existence, but 2 things can be said in reply. First, nobody has yet demonstrated that any doctrine of the evangelical Christian faith relies for its support on the Byzantine text type and second, given the extensive declension of the church from the biblical faith during most of the years that other text types were lost to sight, it is clearly observable that our God has continued the pattern of declension and revival of his church, often seen in the OT. A God who will allow his cause to take such "short-term" hits, some lasting centuries, cannot be expected to conform to our expectations about how he will preserve his truth in the world.

 

[TimV]

The fundamental baptist school of the KJVOnly hypothesis basically explains the deviation of Rev. 16:5 and several other verses in the King James Version from all existant Byzantine texts in this way:

1. God promised to preserve His Word.
2. He did so not in one single manuscript, but in a whole body of various, contradictory manuscripts, called the Byzantine family.
3. In the early part of the 16th century, God decreed that His Word would be written down, without any errors at all, in one place.
4. In the course of 300 years various editions of the Textus Receptus were purified until one of them contained the true Word of God.
5. Even though in places that edition of the Textus Receptus deviates from the Byzantine family, this must be viewed as the Word of God.
6. If anyone thinks this theory is illogical and not systematic, they are calling God a liar.

 

[MW]

What He has in fact "providentially preserved" is every single NT MSS that we have.

The Confession makes a distinction between general providence and that special providence by which God cares for His church. WCF 5.7, "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." The preservation of the holy Scripture, so that it is kept pure and entire in all ages, is ascribed to "the singular care and providence of God," WCF 1.8. It is a categorical mistake to regard the preservation of the Scripture as a part of the general providence of God only.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Tim C, you said,

The words providential preservation actually start a rabbit trail by ignoring a key point. For God did not only preserve a particular text type. What He has in fact "providentially preserved" is every single NT MSS that we have. The question we face is how to determine which of the many MSS families or individual MS are closest to the autographs. And when manuscripts are discovered that are a) older than the earliest examples of the then best known MSS family, and b) significantly different from it, crying providential preservation in favour of any text family is simply a begging of the real question.

The issue for me in this – what I consider the “key point” – pertains to the variant readings which almost always omit key sections of Scripture, such as parts of the Lord’s prayer (in Matt 6 and Luke 11), the last 12 verses of Mark’s gospel, the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:11), “God” in “God was manifest in the flesh” removed in 1 Tim 3:16. Although in the ESV’s Matt 1:7, 10 the correct reading is changed from Asa to Asaph and Amon to Amos in Christ’s genealogy, removing His royal forebears in lieu of a psalmist and a prophet. And this primarily on the basis of codices Aleph ([SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE]) and Vaticanus (B). Metzger stood by the reading and said that Matthew just made a mistake.

These two “earliest” manuscripts, [SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE] and B, although they are the among the oldest, and are considered the foundation of the modern critical Greek texts, differ between themselves in 3,036 places in the gospels alone! In a court these contradictory witnesses would impugn each other’s testimony.

Okay, God preserved all the extant mss, but as with plants, we are to use our discriminatory powers when selecting those to eat, and likewise among the manuscripts – that we do not ingest poison. The question is, did God preserve a text – a Bible – that accurately reflects the originals?

The scholars – the text-critical Greek experts – who labor using the supposedly most reliable mss, excluding as you term it “what may be the 2nd least accurate family of MSS” (I assume you are referring to the Byz), themselves express grave doubts and skepticism about ever finding out the original text of the NT.

Meanwhile, I have a Bible God preserved, not only in the main (as He did with all the Protestant Bibles), but in the minutiae, the nuances of which view I hold in this regard I noted here.

 

[alhembd]

py3ak,

You mean they might decide they don't like the older manuscripts on examination?

Why would they not like them if their ultimate commitment is "older is better?"

God Bless,
Adam

Dear Adam,

Martin Snyder on this thread has pointed me to some of your comments. I work for the Trinitarian Bible Society. I am also a student at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. I have now been here in Jerusalem for two years.

For clarification: though the Trinitarian Bible only sells the Authorised Version (King James, Blayney edition, with marginal notes), and though we still affirm very much that the Authorised Version is the best overall translation of the Scriptures in English, we are not King James Only. We cannot be. We also sell the Dutch Staten Vertaling, the Diodati Bible, the Alameida Portuguese Bible, and we are working on an update of the 1961 Reina/Valera Spanish Bible. Between these Reformation era translations, there are minor differences: and we acknowledge that, at times, a rendering given by the Staten, for example, is better than that of the AV.

With regards to the argument that "the oldest manuscript is generally the best" - you are likely not familiar with the work of a very famous scholar over here in Israel by the name of Edward Yechezqel Kutcher. Kutcher studied for years in yeshivas in Europe before making aliyah to Israel in 1931. He then studied at the Merkaz HaRav Yeshiva in Jerusalem. After that, he began studies at the Hebrew University. He lectured on linguistics at the University, became a full professor in 1961, and, in the 1960s, became one of major contributors to the famed HALOT lexicon. He added numerous references to Mishnaic and Aramaic roots to many of the entries. Kutscher was also a member of Hebrew Language Academy.

From 1948 to 1958 Kutscher did an intensive study of the Great Isaiah Scroll, comparing and contrasting it to the ben Asher text of the Leningrad Codex, and with many old Hebrew manuscripts and epigraphs recently found in Israel, including the Lachish letters and the Hezekiah inscription found in the aqueduct that comes into the city from the mountains, and that empties into the Pool of Siloam. Kutscher also compared the Isaiah Scroll and the ben Asher text linguistically with the Armana Letters of the 13th century B.C., which, as you know, are in Akkadian. He also compared them both to Mishnaic Hebrew, a later dialect of Hebrew that emerged in about the 5th century B.C., after the Babylonish Captivity. He likewise compared them both to early and late dialects of Aramaic.

Kutscher proved that the Leningrad Codex, a manuscript copied in 1008 - 1009 A.D., nonetheless had a text 600 years older than the text found in the Great Isaiah Scroll, a manuscript copied in the 3rd century B.C.

Now: how did Kutscher do this?

Well - you will have to read the book, but I can give you some highlights. You can get an excellent English translation of the book, but copies of it right now are quite rare. Perhaps Trinity Evangelical Divinity School has a copy. I believe that Dallas Theological Seminary has a copy. Brill did a publication of the English translation in 1974 (by Elisha Shomron).

Through his intensive linguistic analysis, Kutscher found that, although the Great Isaiah Scroll was clearly copied from a Hebrew text of the Masoretic strain, nonetheless, it had been heavily edited. Many of the words are replaced with Aramaic or Mishnaic Hebrew words. Virtually all of the hapax legomenon are thus replaced with Aramaic and Mishnaic words. So also are many obscure and hard-to-understand words.

Also, the spellings of words in the Isaiah Scroll are changed throughout, to reflect the later spelling standards of Mishnaic and Qumran Hebrew, both of which had a high number of matres lectiones, since, by the 3rd century B.C., many were forgetting how Biblical Hebrew was actually pronounced. Kutscher also proved that the Isaiah Scroll - as is the case with the Dead Sea Scrolls in general - is rife with copying mistakes.

On the other hand, the ben Asher text of Isaiah throughout reflects the older spelling standards of classical Biblical Hebrew, and of older Semitic languages in general. It also preserves all the hapax legomenon, which are archaic words, as he proves in his analysis, comparing them with older Hebrew inscriptions and with older Semitic languages like the Armana letters.

Kutscher's work The Language and Background of the Great Isaiah Scroll is 530 pages long, and the pages are 8.5 by 11. It is a massive work. Kutscher concluded that the Qumran scribes were amateurs who were not at all committed to copying the actual text that was before them. They felt free about modifying the text in an attempt to make it a more popular edition, readily understood by the common man. He said also that the scribes clearly lacked the manuscript copying skills that were meticulously taught in the famous schools of Tiberias and Babylon.

Accordingly, Kutscher proved the text of Isaiah in the Leningrad Codex to be an older text and better text than that of the Great Isaiah Scroll of Qumran.

Interestingly, Kutscher also believed the Byzantine Text of the Greek to be the better and more reliable text of both the Greek Septuagint, and the New Testament. Kutscher was also a Greek scholar, a LXX scholar, who heavily referenced the New Testament for data on the Aramaic dialect of Jerusalem during the time of Jesus. Kutscher came to believe that the work of the Egyptian scribes of the Alexandrian text was similar to that of the Qumran scribes - the work of amateurs, not at all committed to copying the actual words set before them. Kutscher said that, just as the Leningrad Codex, which is 1000 years younger than the Great Isaiah Scroll, nonetheless has a text 600 years older than that of the Isaiah Scroll, so also the Byzantine Text of the New Testament, which is primarily of the Middle Ages, has nonetheless an older text that the papyri of the third and fourth centuries.

You should read this book!

Cordially,

Albert Hembd
Jerusalem