Version Perversionfrom Reason-of-the-Hope.com
"God's Word" -- the name we give to the Bible. The meaning of that title, however, may not be consistently understood by those who use it. With the rise of Neo-orthodoxy after the turn of this century, came the idea that since God's thoughts are not our thoughts, and the mind of God is so far above that of man, doctrinal truth as expressed in the Bible could not directly emanate from God.
The limits of man's language and understanding would of necessity corrupt truth. Therefore, the argument goes, while the Bible contains the general concepts of truth, that truth of God is hidden among the words of man.
The words of the Bible are not the direct words of God, but rather the attempts of man at putting into words the truth concepts that God attempted to communicate with him. Neo-orthodoxy was immediately rejected by true orthodoxy. It was not only scripturally incorrect, but the argument lacked logical sense as well.
In its promotion of the disparity between the mind of God and the minds of men, it actually began placing limits on the infinite God's ability to communicate.
True, fundamental orthodoxy has always understood that God, although high above man in every way, can in His infinite capacity to communicate, and will in His infinite capacity for love, provide man with what he needs to know for that salvation bought for him through Christ. "God's Word" for the true believer, therefore, means simply that" the words of God.
Today the arguments of neo-orthodoxy do not shake true fundamentalism as they did years ago. Another doctrine, however, is being touted which, like neo-orthodoxy, twists a good idea into a perverse end. The good idea is that God miraculously preserves His Word through the ages so that we can have confidence that what the Bible says is that which comes from God.
The twist that overzealous yet confused men place on this idea culminates in the perverse thought that the KJV, today's most widely existing Bible, must by reason of preservation be inspired, inerrant, and therefore the only Bible able to be called "God's Word."
The KJV was translated in 1611 (with several revisions spanning the next several years). The translation was made from what we now refer to as the Textus Receptus the current form of which was published in 1707. Although the main thrust of our discussion now is not an exhaustive attempt at the historical evidence, a brief look at the history of our current translations is necessary to establish a starting point.
Background
After the histories and letters which make up our New Testament (NT) were written, they were copied several times for the purpose of dissemination to all of Christendom. Obviously, maintaining the accuracy of Paul's, Peter's, John's, and the others' writings was important.
As time progressed and copies increased, certain church men, copyists, and groups began to concern themselves with collecting the manuscripts (mss) for purposes of coordination and preservation.
From the commonality of the wording, specific manuscripts can be grouped into three "families": Western, Byzantine, and Alexandrian (technically there is a fourth group called Caesarean; however, it includes only the Gospel of Mark). The oldest of the Byzantine manuscripts is from about the middle of the 4th century.
It includes by far the greatest number of manuscripts totaling about 4500. It is important to remember that these are not 4500 complete copies of the NT, but rather 4500 portions of the NT sometimes overlapping, sometimes not.
In A.D. 1516, Erasmus completed a compilation of the known existing Byzantine mss into a single common Greek New Testament. Many stories exist about some of the doubtful methods used in his compilation. One of the more widely known of these stories includes the fact that Erasmus had only one manuscript of the book of Revelation.
That manuscript lacked the final six verses of the book. Erasmus simply went to his Latin Vulgate (the Latin NT) and translated those last six verses from Latin back to Greek. Another example of shoddy scholarship surrounds the inclusion of I John 5:7 in Erasmus' work.
Not a single Greek manuscript contained this verse. It was, however, in the Latin Vulgate. When Erasmus completed his edition without the verse, the Roman Catholic hierarchy insisted he include it. Erasmus promised that if they could show him one manuscript that had the verse, he would then include it.
The church officials left him alone for awhile, then came back showing him two manuscripts that they "found" which had the verse. Erasmus, though doubting the reliability of the manuscripts, kept his word and included the verse in his Greek NT which has since found its way into our KJV.
Erasmus' Greek NT underwent several revisions. Others following Erasmus revised this standard Greek text several more times. The version used in 1611 from which the KJV was translated was not the final revision. Three more revisions in the 1600s and one in 1707 were necessary before reaching what we today call the Textus Receptus. The name Textus Receptus, or Received Text, was first applied in 1624, but firmly established in 1707.
What is astounding is that no single manuscript in the Byzantine family completely agrees with the Textus Receptus!
Therefore, and obviously, the KJV does not fully agree with any single manuscript.
The Textus Receptus is often defended by using terms such as the Majority Text. This is in reference to the fact that the Byzantine family encompasses the majority of the manuscripts in existence (some 4500 of the 5000 known).
However, as in the examples of I John 5:7, the latter verses of Revelation, and Acts 8:37, several times verses have found their way into the Textus Receptus and, therefore, the KJV, that are based on a decided minority even of the Byzantine manuscripts.
Both the Alexandrian and Western families include older manuscripts dating from the 2nd century. From these manuscripts (which were not available to Erasmus at the time of his compiling work) comes the text upon which the New American Standard Bible (NASB), the New International Version (NIV), and most other modern translations were based.
Most modern scholars find that the Alexandrian manuscripts were widely attested in the early 2nd century (directly opposing the KJV-only view that the Alex mss were found only in Egypt and secreted away by those who recognized them to be wrong).
Without delving into the more scholarly pursuits of textual criticism, we can simply advance the one argument that the Alex mss are today widely considered to be the more reliable of the manuscripts by virtue of their age. They are, indeed, the closest copies to the originals. Some may argue that since the Byz mss were more widely copied and disseminated, they seem to have been recognized as the truest form.
The acceptance of the Alex mss a full two centuries prior to the Byz mss (and less than one century after the originals), however, is a strong argument for their veracity. Zealousness in making copies does not necessarily arise from purity of the manuscript.
This brief background will help us in understanding the new twist put forth in favor not only of the KJV being the only trustworthy translation, but also of the KJV being supreme in history as God's only inerrant, infallible Word.
Argument for preservation resulting in inerrant KJV translation
Those not familiar with the current debate may be somewhat incredulous of the notion that there are those, including supposed scholars, arguing for the acceptance of the KJV as God's only inspired, inerrant Word.
The reasoning behind it begins with a laudable acceptance and devotion to God's personality of love and care along with His regal attributes of omnipotence and immutability. Out of love and concern for all His children He gave His Word so that men may know how to best please and glorify Him.
His plan of salvation is communicated to us through that Word. And that Word (both in the person of Christ and His written record), He promised, will be kept the same yesterday, today, and forever. We, the beneficiaries of Christ's loving and sacrificial atonement, receive our salvation through faith alone. Faith in God, His attributes, and His Word ought, then, to be absolute.
No problems yet. But now comes the spin. Since God's love and concern is for us today, and since He wishes to communicate to us today, God must preserve not only the doctrines and message of His Word, but the very words themselves used to convey those doctrines and that message.
Notice first that the argument is not whether God could preserve the very words. The argument states that God must preserve the words He used to be consistent in love, concern, and communication.
For those who truly love God and oppose the KJV-only mentality, this point requires resolution. If the proposal is indeed correct, no further argument need be made: the KJV-only position must be correct. But the proposal is not correct.
Let's take an analogy out of common, 20th century life. A father tells his son, "Use your money wisely. Give a portion for the work of the Lord; spend what you need for necessities; set aside a little for vacation and other legitimate entertainment, and invest the rest for future years."
The son lives by this advice. When he becomes a father, he passes along the counsel to his own son. He says,
"Son, let me give you some good instruction my father gave me. He told me that I ought to use my money wisely. He told me first to give part of my money to the Lord for His work. He also told me to pay for the needs that I had. A small portion of my money should be kept for vacation and other good and right entertainment. The rest of the money should be designated for the future by investing it now."
Was the advice the same? Does it match in all principles of teaching? Is the spirit the same? We can safely answer, "Yes," to these questions. What is more, we can definitively state that the son faithfully preserved the advice of his father in passing it to his son. The exact words were not used, but everything the father intended was brought forward, and nothing unintended was added.
Preservation of God's Word for those for whom God loves and cares can be accomplished without preservation of the exact words. The argument that if the exact words were not used, false doctrine could more easily slip in, while true of something ordinary handed down over centuries, can't be true of a document preserved by God.
That is what preservation is: God miraculously overseeing the copying and translating of His Word over the centuries so that no doctrine is lost or twisted. Men may twist the doctrines as they read and apply them, but the true, untwisted teachings are still there in His Word, preserved by God.
Inspiration of the Original Autographs
Arguing for the superiority of one family of manuscripts over another is one thing. Being so zealous in your attachment to a particular translation as to denounce all others as not only inferior, but antichristian and Satanically inspired is quite another.
Several logical inconsistencies float about in this sea of delusive zeal. The most destructive of these is the heretical notion that the original writings of the prophets and apostles were not inspired. This statement is made by some KJV-only adherents as if somehow it will lend more credence to the worship of the KJV.
After all, it is much simpler to say the KJV is perfect and anything that differs with it must be ignored. Not as much study then needs to take place. Remember, there is no manuscript that agrees entirely even with the Greek from which the KJV NT was translated. The easy thing to do, therefore, is dismiss all historical documents.
Obviously to any thinking person, this is absurd. Could it be possible that God would declare something recorded in the writings of Paul; that that declaration were somehow wrong; then later God corrects it through His preservation in translating into the KJV?
Could the God who the KJVers believe can so perfectly preserve even the letter of the KJV law, be unable to convey perfectly His message to the original writing prophets?
What madness to state the originals were not inspired but believe the translation is! And, in fact, if the originals were not inspired and perfect, what truly is the meaning of the act to preserve? In effect, God would not be preserving anything in the KJV; He would be initiating His Word.
One obvious point of logical inconsistency for the KJV-only mentality is in II Timothy 3:16. The KJV translates it, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God. . ." Now, as Paul wrote this, was he referring to Scripture he knew existed in his time or Scripture to be developed in 1611?
If the inspired Scripture he referred to was of his time, then the idea that the originals were inspired by God was not a "new" idea of the 19th century as some KJVers would have us think. II Timothy 3:16 is also not the only verse on inspiration. The writers knew that what they had was indeed from God.
KJVers defend their translation by saying that its over 400 years of use in the world's most common language is evidence of God's providential care for this one translation alone. The fact that English is the world's unofficial common language now does not mean it has been for the last 400 years.
Quite the contrary is true. Only this century has the English language begun its dominance. And at the beginning of the English dominance in this century, we have had the translation of the New American Standard Bible from the oldest known manuscripts. A pretty good case for NASB-only could be created out of this.
The fact is, however, that no translation can claim inspiration in the sense the originals both were inspired and claimed inspiration. God does, however, marvelously, supernaturally, and carefully preserve all doctrines originally given in both the Byzantine manuscripts and the Alexandrian manuscripts: in both the KJV and the NASB.
Inspiration, creation, trinity, virgin birth, resurrection, necessity for salvation, accomplishment of salvation, application of salvation, return of Christ, and on and on: all doctrines are faithfully found. The doctrine not found in either text or supporting manuscripts is the notion that a single translation would be the inspired Word of God.
That idea is an added doctrine that Paul warned against in Galatians 1:8: a doctrine that Paul denounced as heresy: a doctrine that Paul stated the proclaimers of were to be accursed!
Reason-of-the-Hope.com
HOME PAGE Lion of Judah Christian Apologetics
