Dr. Jones other book, Ripped From The Bible.
I. PRESERVATION OR RESTORATION?
THE KEY ISSUE - PRESERVATION
Gentle reader, may the LORD grant you patience and grace to perceive the issue which will be unfolded before you to the end that you may be grounded and established.
Even in fundamental circles the issue relating to the various modern translations of the Bible is controversial. It is not merely the question of "inspiration". The crux is that ofpreservation. Has God preserved His Word perfect for us today, or was it only perfect in the "original" autographs? If God has not preserved His Word perfectly, we must assume that we are preaching and teaching from a book that is not completely reliable as the "original" autographs are no longer accessible.
If we believe that the Bible isstill the inerrant Word of God, we must then deal with the problem of determining which version is the true Word of the Living God. Logic dictates that two opposing statements cannot both be true (we reject the Hegelian Dialectic). Therefore, two contradicting "Bibles" cannot both be the inerrant Word of God. This author proclaims from the outset that the "King James" or "Authorized Version" is the Word of God translated into the English language to the extent that it is the final authority in all matters of conduct and faith.
Furthermore, as the modern translations since 1881 often differ from the King James Bible in wording as well as doctrine, and since two conflicting texts cannot be infallible, perfect and inerrant, the reader must of necessity make a choice. That which follows is intended to assist the seeker to clearly discern the truth of the matter for himself.
Moreover, that which follows is not intended to be an intellectual treatise. The uncompromising stand is taken herein that God gave us His pure Word in the original autographs, and that He has preserved it in its pure form unto this day - and will continue so doing forever. Indeed, preservation is the only issue separating the Biblicist 1 from other professing Christians; yet, the traditional viewpoint has always been that God not only gave mankind His pure Word but that He also assumed the oversight of its preservation as well. Over the years, this position has deteriorated and the contemporary view is that God has not protected the Scriptures, that they are not available in a pure form, and that this necessitates their recovery by reconstructing them from the manuscripts which have survived to this day.
SCRIPTURAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS STUDY
Beloved, ... it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith ... (Jude 3) A Chronology of the Old Testament: A Return to the Hebrew Text , (Collingswood, NJ: Bible For Today Press, #2427, 1993), p. 6. The following definition is adapted from the preceding which is the author's Ph.D. dissertation. By "Biblicist", this author does not merely refer to a fundamentalist or a Biblical scholar as many dictionaries so define. By it, much more is intended. The word connotes one who, while taking both the immediate and the remote context into account, interprets and believes the Word of God literally. This necessitates that the person so designated has chosen to believe God's many promises that, despite all textual criticism objections to the contrary, he would forever preserve His infallible Word. Moreover, the meaning intended to be conveyed by this word carries with it the concept that such a person trusts that the Hebrew and Greek B Textus Receptus (the Authorized Bible) which is today at his disposal is a fulfillment of those promises. Sadly, even among the pastors and seminary professors, most of today's conservative evangelical Christians do not qualify to bear this appellation which many in the not too distant past bore, counting the cost while enduring the shame.
This is what we, by God's grace, are going to do - contend for the faith. No one has to defend Jesus or the Word of God. God is perfectly capable of defending Himself and His Word. Nevertheless, He tells us to contend for the faith as there is a great issue before us today. The question is - where is the Word of God? Which version is the real Bible? Why do the different versions not read the same? These are good questions and they beg to be answered.
Other Scripture pertinent to this inquiry may be found in II Tim. 2:23-26:
"But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will."
Many Christians have been taken captive by the devil concerning the Bible manuscripts. As will be revealed, the questions regarding the reliability and authenticity of the Word of God are neither foolish nor unlearned. The ultimate purpose in all of this is to restore - to meekly instruct those who are either in error or simply do not understand the issue with regard to the various translations, in order to bring them to the truth:
That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: (Eph.4:14-15) So that everybody may grow up - we are attempting to assist in that process but in so doing some things have to be said which may seem hurtful for the moment. It is not our intent to do so.
THE ISSUE - JUST WHAT IS AT STAKE?
God teaches us that the purpose of Scripture is to lead us to Christ and then to guide our lives (John 5:39-40). God did not give the Scriptures for the purpose of scholarly intellectual exercise. Yet that is what they are being used for by many. This is one of the major problems plaguing the Church today. As we enter this study, we need to consider carefully the following questions:2
- Would God inspire a text and then allow it to become lost?
Within our diverse denominational backgrounds are found various confessions of faith. These statements of faith concerning the Holy Scriptures, particularly within conservative evangelical backgrounds, always say something to the effect that we believe that God gave the original Scriptures inerrant. We profess to believe in the originals, that they were divinely inspired by God - God breathed. Now we say that, intending it as a statement of faith, but we shall soon come to see that it is in reality a statement of unbelief! This study is designed to bring us to grips with this issue. But first, the second question: - If God did inspire a text, would He not preserve it?
The New Testament was written in Greek whereas the Old Testament was mostly authored in Hebrew. It may surprise many to learn that there are no original manuscripts of the Bible available today. The Old Testament scribes destroyed the scrolls upon which Scripture was written as they became worn, and "dog eared" from so much handling. When they copied out a new one, they destroyed the old so that the earliest Old Testament manuscript now in existence is dated about 900 A.D. This is called the Hebrew Masoretic Text. It was the earliest witness to the text of the O.T. that we possessed until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls which contain some parts of the Old Testament, especially Isaiah. Likewise, We possess no "original" New Testament manuscripts - none of the "autographs" which the apostles wrote have been preserved. This brings us to the third question. - Could we expect counterfeits of the originals to be in circulation?
Is there someone who has always hated God's Word, wanted to destroy it, and has attempted to cloud man's mind and heart about its validity? In other words, as we read the Bible, is there any evidence that somebody has founded a "Yea, has God said" society? According to Genesis 3:1, Bible corruption began with Satan. Satan is the original Bible revisor. When he confronted Eve in the garden, he added to God's Word, he subtracted, he diluted and finally substituted his own doctrine for that which God had said. We find this occurring today. People are trying to add books to the Old and subtract words from the New Testament. Nothing has changed. We need to understand that the devil is promoting this continuing attack on the Word of God.
THE ORIGINAL "AUTOGRAPHS" AND "PRESERVATION"
We are expected to believe in the "INSPIRATION" without believing in the "PRESERVATION" of the Scriptures. We are being asked to believe in the inspiration of the "originals" without believing in the preservation of the text of the Scriptures. It is a statement of unbelief when we say that we only believe that the original autographs were inspired. What we really are saying is that we do not believe that we have the infallible Word of God on this planet, or at least in our hands, at this moment. Let us consider that statement scripturally:
But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (II Tim.3:14-17).
Here God tells us His purposes in giving us the Scriptures: "... for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." Do we actually believe that God allowed them to become lost after giving them? If so, how could He use them to accomplish these purposes?
Now we know that we do not have an original. The question is has God preserved His Word - the original text - although not the original piece of paper or vellum on which it may have been written?
The observant reader will note that in the above cited verses given through Paul to Timothy no reference is being made with regard to the "ORIGINAL" Scriptures. Look at verse 15. Paul says to Timothy, "from a child you have known the Holy Scriptures which are able to make you wise unto salvation." Paul is obviously not speaking of the "ORIGINAL" New Testament Scripture. Second Timothy was penned about A.D. 65. Further, Timothy was old enough to join Paul and Silas c.53 A.D. (Acts 16:1-4). Thus, when Timothy was a child, there was no New Testament collection of Scripture anywhere. Nor was Paul speaking of the "ORIGINALS" of the Old Testament for there was not an original Old Testament piece of paper or vellum extant at that time. Wrestle with this! Come to grips with it! These are the verses upon which many of us base our faith and say we believe in the "ORIGINALS". Yet these very verses are not speaking of the original manuscripts! But are the copies inspired? The Bible itself clearly teaches that faithful copies of the originals are also inspired.3 The word "Scripture" in II Timothy 3:16-17 is translated from the Greek word "graphé". Graphé occurs 51 times in the Greek New Testament and at every occurrence it means "Scripture" - in fact, it usually refers to the Old Testament text.
A perusal of the N.T. reveals that the Lord Jesus read from the "graphé" in the synagogue at Nazareth (Luk.4:21) as did Paul in the synagogue at Thessalonica (Acts 17:2). The Ethiopian eunuch, returning home from worshipping at JerusalI, was riding in his chariot and reading a passage of graph´ (Acts 8:32-33). These were not the autographs that they were reading; they were copies - moreover, copies of copies! Yet the Word of God calls thI graphé --and every graphé is "given by inspiration of God" (II Tim.3:16). Thus, the Holy Writ has testified and that testimony is that faithful copies of the originals are thIselves inspired. Selah!
Therefore, it all comes down to a promise given by God - that He would preserve the text which He gave us. Timothy never saw an original when he was a child of either the Old or New Testament, yet in verse 16 God says that what Timothy learned as a child was given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. Now if God were talking about something which had been lost and/or is no longer true and accurate, why did He give verse 17?
WHAT DOES GOD HIMSELF PROMISE CONCERNING THE SCRIPTURES?
Let us examine some verses where God has promised both to give and protect His Word.
"Then said the Lord unto me, Thou hast well seen: for I will hasten my word to perform it." (JerIiah 1:12)
Here God says He is watching over His Word to perform it - to make all that He has said come to pass.
God did not promise to keep the original piece of material upon which His words were given. He says His Words SHALL NOT PASS AWAY. Therefore, this promise dIands that we still have thI on planet earth.
Jesus also says, "Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." (Mark 8:38)
Why this verse if God has not preserved His Word? "But the word of the Lord endureth forever." (I Pet.1:25) This is a direct quote of Isaiah 40:8. God has said that His Word will endure forever! He did not promise that the original piece of paper, rock or vellum would exist forever but that He would preserve the Word - forever. "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth; but the word of our God shall stand for ever." (Isaiah 40:8)
".. for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." (Psalm 138:2)
Look at that! God says He has magnified His Word above His name! That is incredible for supposedly THE name was so sacred to the Jews that they did not even pronounce it.
Thus, on the basis of God's many promises we declare and proclaim to you that we have in our hands the absolutely infallible inerrant Living Word of Almighty God - that God has promised to keep His Word as revealed through these Scriptures. But there is more!
"The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shall keep them, O Lord, thou shall preserve them from this generation forever." (Psa.12:6, 7)
This is a promise from God! Christian, do you believe it? He says He will preserve it. He did not just promise to give the originals pure and free from error - He promised to preserve the text forever!
"He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." (John 12:48)
Since God's Word will judge us, are we to believe that God will judge us by something which He meticulously gave us and then lost along the way? Would it be just and fair of God to judge us with these words if they are no longer trustworthy - to hold us accountable when our guide is not 100 percent reliable?
In Matthew 5:18, Jesus said not "one jot or one tittle" shall change in the Word of God. Specifically, He was speaking of the Old Testament. We are being taught today that perhaps the Old Testament is not true, that it is full of contradictions, scribal errors, etc., but Jesus said that it was true and unerring - even to the smallest detail - and He was not referring to the originals, but to copies of copies of copies.
"Do you not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" (John 5:45-47)
Was Jesus speaking of the "originals"? No, for they did not have the originals. They had copies of copies of copies of the originals yet Jesus said "not one jot or one tittle" had been changed. If God has only promised the "ORIGINALS" to be pure then Jesus erred in His assessment of the Scriptures. Should these statements of Jesus concerning the Scriptures be inaccurate then He is not Lord, no longer all knowing, no longer all God.
"Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." (John 5:39-40)
The ultimate purpose of the Scriptures is to lead us to Christ - and then to guide our lives. If the Scriptures are not accurate, if they have been changed or altered, if they have been lost so that we no longer have the Word of God, how can we come to Christ for they are the Holy Spirit's implement to testify of the Lord Jesus.
As set forth in the preceding paragraphs, we have Scripturally demonstrated that faith in the preservation of the text is a basic Bible doctrine. Furthermore, the context of these many promises is not that God's Word is to be preserved in a jar somewhere in a cave or desert, lost for hundreds of years waiting to be found and restored to the believing remnant of the Church. The context is very clear in Second Timothy 3:16-17 that the inspired Word was given by God as a deposit to the Body of Christ "that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all
GOD'S METHOD OF PRESERVING THE SCRIPTURES
In selecting Hebrew and Koine1 (koinh = common or everyday) Greek for the languages in which He would originally give the Bible, God revealed His wisdom, foreknowledge and power. Both of these tongues became "dead languages" within several hundred years after each respective canon was established. By this, the words became "frozen in time". None of the words or their meanings could change. They were, as Latin, dead languages from which one cannot subtract or add. In contrast, English is a living language and as such new words are constantly being added and old words remain in a state of flux. Their meanings may change or take on new or different connotations.
In Old Testament days, the Levitical priests copied and preserved the Living Words of God. Throughout Scripture, the scribes were of the tribe of Levi (Mal.2:7; Deu.3l:25; Deu.17:18). Ezra the priest was also "the ready scribe" of Israel (Ezr.7:1-11). This method of preserving the text was extremely successful as the Lord Jesus bore witness that not "one jot or tittle" had been altered in the 1500 years from Moses to His day.
As to the accuracy of the Hebrew Old Testament in our day, Bishop Kennicott did a study of 581 manuscripts of the Old Testament which involved 280,000,000 letters.2 Out of that 280,000,000, there were 900,000 variants. Although seemingly large to the reader, it is only one variant in 316 letters which is only 1/3 of 1%. But there is more. Of those 900,000 variants, 750,000 pertain to spelling - whether the letter should be an "i" or "u". This has to do with vowel points for the purpose of pronunciation which were added c.600 A.D. by a group of Jewish scribes known as the Masoretes. Thus we are left with only 150,000 variants in 280,000,000 letters or only one variant in 1580 letters, a degree of accuracy of .0006 (six ten thousandths). Indeed, most of those variants are found in only a few manuscripts; in fact, mostly in just one corrupted copy.
The Dead Sea Scrolls of Isaiah agree with the Hebrew Masoretic Text (the Hebrew Old Testament with the vowel points added to aid in pronunciation). The earliest extant Masoretic Text is dated c.900 A.D. Almost no changes have occurred in the Book of Isaiah. Isaiah 53, for example, contains only one word of three letters which is in doubt after nearly eleven hundred years of copying. In a chapter of 166 words, only 17 were different - 10 were spelling, 4 were conjunctions.
Actually, the Masoretic Text is the true text, not the Dead Sea Scrolls, even though the Scrolls are more than a thousand years older. The Dead Sea material was not written by Jews who were given the charge by God to protect them. They were not of the tribe of Levi. They were Essenes, a Jewish cult of ascetics whose teachings were rife with heresies. Similarly, the Septuagint3 manuscripts exhibit considerable significant differences among them- selves and disagree with the Hebrew Masoretic Text in many places. Both cannot be correct. As the Hebrew Masoretic text is the inerrant, infallible Word of God - the Septuagint should be seen as spurious and rejected. We cannot even be certain that the LXX which we have extant today (c.350
1 A dialect of the Greek language that flourished from the time of Alexander the Great to the barbarian invasions which overtook the Roman Empire after the 4th century A.D. It was replaced by "Byzantine" Greek until 1453 at which time the "Modern "Greek stage superseded it. Koine is singularly the language of the N.T.
2 Rene Pache, Inspiration and Authority of Scripture, (Chicago, IL: Moody Bible Institute, 1969), pp. 189-190.
3 Floyd Nolen Jones, The Septuagint: A Critical Analysis, 3rd ed., rev. & enlarged, (Collingswood, NJ: Bible For Today Press, #2161, 1994). A spurious Greek Old Testament supposedly written for the library of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, 285-246 B.C. The story of its origin abounds in legend. It is often designated by LXX after the 70 translators reputed to have produced the translation.
A.D.) is a faithful reproduction of the c.260 B.C. original (if such an early translation actually ever existed in the first place).
But in the New Covenant, all become priests through the new birth in Christ Jesus. As in the Old Covenant, God gave the New Testament text into the hands of the priesthood of believers, both laymen and elders. The early Christians copied, wrote and preserved it. Most of the early Christians were not wealthy. They often wrote on paper which would be comparable to that of a daily newspaper. Most were not trained scholars or scribes, but they copied with fear in their hearts. They knew that God had warned four times that there would be a curse on anyone who added, subtracted or altered in any way the Word of God (Deu.4:2; Prov.30:5-6; Psa.12:6-7; Rev.22:18-19). As believers, they would never deliberately alter the Holy Scriptures for they would have believed in the curse that these verses proclaimed. The only persons who would deliberately change the true text would be blasphemers who did not believe the warnings. In context, these verses forewarn not so much of accidental miscopying but of willful alterations.
Although the New Testament scribes may have left out a "thee" or an "and" as they copied, they copied as carefully and meticulously as possible for they believed with all their hearts and souls that these were God breathed words. They had made a commitment to follow the Lord Jesus under great persecution from the emperors. Many of the scribes gave up their very lives as well as the lives of their whole families, keeping that commitment while being crucified, fed to the lions, etc. For modern scholars who sit comfortably in air conditioned surroundings to accuse these dedicated souls of deliberately altering the Scriptures is almost unforgivable. Poor writers, some may have been, but the high degree of accuracy found in their work is not present in those writings which are being put off on the church today as being the "oldest and most reliable" manuscripts.
The church at large is inattentive and dulled to these warnings. We tend to think because someone has been to the seminary, has on a white collar with robe, holds his hands in a pious manner with a devout look upon his face, says he is a minister, perhaps speaks in tongues, and says nice things about Jesus, that he is a man of God.
Even demons say nice things about Jesus. The first demonic person encountered by Jesus in the Book of Mark was at the synagogue (church). The demon possessed person said, "I know who you are. You are the Holy One of God." He spoke well of Jesus but did not speak the whole truth.
Jesus is Jehovah God - the Creator - come in the flesh! The demon did not give forth the full import as to Jesus' personage, but he did say something nice about Him. Today we get lulled to sleep with people who say some nice things about Jesus. But both Jesus and Paul said beware for there are wolves in sheep's clothing. Today these wolves are in the flock as preachers, scholars, seminary professors, teachers etc. and they are attacking the Word of God while the unsuspecting sheep graze on unaware.
Corruption of the New Testament text had begun by the time of Paul. The following was preserved for us by the Holy Spirit through Paul in II Corinthians 2:17: "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God ... ." Bible corruption, beginning in the garden of Eden, was out of control as early as the time of Paul. In other words, when the original apostles were here, they had trouble over the purity of the Bible text. This is confirmed and enlarged upon in II Corinthians 4:2:
Peter adds that all of Paul's writings were Scripture and that men were wrestling against them at the cost of the destruction of their own souls (II Peter 3:16).
If many were corrupting the Word of God during the days of the Apostles, it is possible that we could find a first century document which did not contain the original reading. It could have been altered and thus be corrupt even though very old for Paul and Peter said many were corrupting the Word of God in the first century A.D.
People today are reading from so many different translations that they begin to believe that they can translate or interpret the Bible in any way they desire. The King James Bible says that there is but "one" interpretation of Scripture (although there are many applications).
Mark 12:37 contains these words - "... And the common people heard him gladly." Nothing has changed. This is still true. The common people still hear Jesus and the Word of God gladly but more and more in churches and seminaries it is no longer believed that we have the Word of God. We are being told in conservative seminaries and Bible colleges that we do not have the infallible Word of God and that we have lost its text. Are we to believe that God has preserved the canon of the Bible but not the text?
If you are born again of God by the blood of Jesus Christ, through simple faith in Jesus Christ - believing in His virgin birth, His death to pay for our sin, and His resurrection which confirmed that He is God Almighty come in the flesh - then it follows that you believe that God gave the canon (the books which belong in the Bible). Are we now to believe that He did not give or preserve for us the text - that is, what those God chosen books actually said?
In order to fully expose the wickedness of these wolves within the flock of God, we shall have to review the story of the 1881 revision and contrast it to that of the 1611 King James translation. It is quite a story and in order to disclose it, we shall have to examine the lives and beliefs of some of the men involved. As a result, some might say that our thesis is an "ad hominem" and therefore not valid, for it draws on emotions and feelings - that it is a personal attack upon the men involved. Such is not the case. We have not erected any "straw men" to attack. Rather our account is that of an exposé, an exposé which will reveal that the Church has, for centuries, been intimidated into following the scholarship of brilliant - yet habitually unregenerate - men.
However, no unsaved person can teach us ANYTHING about the Bible that we really need to know. They may be brilliant scholars of Greek and/or Hebrew. They may be able to explain how to conjugate Greek and Hebrew verbs, but they cannot explain or clarify Scriptural context because they do not know. They may know all about Assyriology, Egyptology, Astronomy, the History of Babylon, the archaeology of Israel, etc., but such information is not really necessary to the understanding of the Holy Writ. The Scripture is a fully self contained revelation.fs Were other data necessary to its comprehension God would have included it in The Word.
With reference to these bold assessments, the Scripture proclaims that the natural (unregenerate) man cannot receive the things of God ... "nor can he know them" (I Cor.2:9-14). Ephesians 4:18 says that their "understanding has been darkened". Romans 1:28 teaches that they have reprobate and depraved minds. Matthew 13:14-15 says that they hear with their ears, but they do not hear with their understanding and their hearts. Despite their scholarship and their brilliance, they do not see and hear - they cannot perceive. However, the Christian by virtue of the new birth may have his perception opened by revelation from the Living God.
This is thus not an ad hominem. We need to understand that the men who have led us into today's position have been, for the most part, lost and godless (albeit "religious and devout") and that we are blindly following their erroneous logic of textual criticism.
For the past several decades most conservative fundamental Bible colleges and seminaries have been perpetuating a significant weakening of the faith of their students with regard to the inerrancy of the Scriptures. The result is that today most Church pulpits are now filled by these students who have since become pastors. The scenario is similar and familiar almost no matter where one goes. As the young impressionable man of God enrolls for study and preparation to become a pastor, he is soon informed that the New Testament was written in Greek. Consequently the student eventually finds himself enrolled in a first year Greek course.
The moment the student enters the class, a peculiar phenomenon occurs. Not yet knowing Greek, he immediately finds himself placed at a great disadvantage. What is the effect upon him from the spiritual standpoint? Very soon, the professor will subjugate the young man under his authority - not merely as an older man or as a teacher, but with regard to all spiritual matters by virtue of his knowledge of the Greek language. The clear impression that is conveyed toward the student is "You don't have the Word of God. It is written in Greek. You just don't know the 'Holy' language. I do." So at the onset, the student is placed in submission under a teacher who may or may not love the Lord or believe in the verbal inspiration and preservation of the Scriptures.
Having been thus subjugated to a Greek scholar, further adverse ramifications will follow shortly. The mind tends to accept as fact that the student never knows as much as his teachers. If he did, most teachers would soon convince him to the contrary. We tend to elevate teachers to a high intellectual pedestal, and many teachers assist us in so doing. In the mind of the learner, his Greek or Hebrew professor usually remains a spiritual authority and the professor feels likewise.
Being subjugated to a Greek faculty, the young impressionable student is unaware of what is transpiring. The final authority for his life is no longer the Holy Scriptures which brought him to the Lord and set his soul on fire. Final authority has become the Greek lexicons and his Greek professor, the scholar, rather than the Word of God and the Holy Spirit. This is accomplished by subtly convincing the inexperienced student that he doesn't have the Word of God at his disposal. He soon begins to wonder if it even exists.
The real issue here is that of authority. Authority is the controversy of the universe. If the Bible is not really the infallible Word of God, then what is final authority? Is it the Greek/Hebrew instructor? "Mother Church"? the Pope? the head of one's denomination? one's local preacher or Bible teacher? Thus someone has placed himself between the laity and God by virtue of his knowledge of Greek. The church at large is being told: "You laymen simply do not know the language and therefore cannot understand God or doctrine as we who know Greek and/or Hebrew."
This is the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, found in Revelation chapter 2; a doctrine which Jesus Christ says He hates. The term "Nicolaitan" was originally applied to a group of people who plagued the first century church by its pretensions to having divine authority. Although some have speculated that it could have referred to a group named after the early deacon, Nicolas of Antioch (Acts 6:5), there exists no reliable record of such a cult. The name itself comes from the Greek words "Nikao" ("to conquer" or "overcome") and "laos" ("people", especially in context here of the laity, the laymen). Thus, we have a clergy priest class taking authority over and dominating the people, the laymen.
The Roman Catholic Church in particular has exercised such a practice for years. One of the means by which Rome has accomplished this unbiblical dominion has been that of continuing to use the Latin language - a language which laymen no longer understand - during the conducting of the various ceremonies, especially mass.
Today most Protestant Churches and their seminaries are guilty of the same sin and, again, the means is that of language. When the laity attend church and/or Bible studies, they hear preachers and teachers say "The ORIGINAL Greek says" or "Your Bible may say thus and so, but the ORIGINAL Greek says something different." As mentioned previously, this is occurring at the seminary where the professor affirms "You just don't know the language."
Gradually something happens in the heart and mind of the student. He wonders "how do I know that I am reading that which the LORD actually inspired and gave through the prophets, apostles and other men of God? After all, most of the preachers, teachers and the commentaries are saying 'but the original Greek says'."
Some seeking to circumvent the problem may reply - "Well, the final authority is Jesus, only Jesus." The problem with such a statement is that Jesus has not physically shown up at anyone's home for nearly two thousand years and audibly said what He meant (Mat.24:23-27). It sounds very spiritual to say that Jesus is the final authority. After all, He is - and thus the statement is "true truth". But what many people mean by such an affirmation is that since no one alive today has spoken to the Lord Jesus physically and heard Him reply audibly, if the Bible is not the Word of God - then there is no final authority on the earth. Again, the real issue at stake is that of final authority.
And so, again, we say, would God inspire a text and then allow it to become lost? Would He not preserve it as He promised so many times? And if He preserved it would He not keep it in the hands of His followers for their use and instruction? Would He only preserve it within jars in caves and the like or in the obscure inner recesses of the vast library of a harlot church, having been lost
there for centuries? Are we to understand His promises to preserve the Word as being fulfilled in such a context - really?
Today most seminary instructors ridicule or play down the King James translation to the student at the onset by statements such as "The original Greek says this or that. The King James is really not so bad but of course we have learned a lot since it was written", etc. Amazingly, we have been blinded in believing that we know more about Greek today than people did four hundred years ago. But is that a reasonable position? Does not all logic, common sense and experience tell us the farther one goes from the original source, that less will be certain?
So after the student's confidence in the King James Bible has been totally diminished, he is informed that the original Bible was given in Hebrew and Greek and that the original was inspired. The learner is then reminded that all he has is a translation and as such, it is not inspired. After a little more time in the class during which the teacher continues harping on the originals, suddenly the student is informed "There are no originals! We don't have an original. We don't have a single first century document of the Bible." This is devastating to the faith of the young inexperienced would-be man of God. He has been told that the King James isn't the faithful Word of God; that the originals were the only true, accurate, authentic Word; and then informed that there are no original manuscripts of either the Old or the New Testament.
This is soon accentuated by introducing the student to the "variant readings" between the existing Greek MSS (we shall discuss this subject later). How can the young pastor now face his congregation and say, "Almighty God says", or "thus saith the Lord". His faith in God's Word has been demasculated by such wicked faculties. The man of God who cannot quote Scripture with an assured "thus saith the Lord" is but a shorn Samson, not yet aware that the Philistines have already had their way with him. Young men with hearts on fire for God walk into the classroom and a Greek scholar belittles the Word of God and destroys their faith in the Bible. These same professors then incredulously tell us "Despite all the changes we have made in translation recently, not one single basic doctrine has been altered in any way."
But they have! By their tactics, they have altered two of the most important doctrines of all. They have altered the crucial doctrine of "preservation" to that of "restoration" - and most text critics do not believe that such restoration is even any longer possible. Moreover the fall out from this places another of the most basic doctrines under attack, the doctrine of the divine inspiration of the text. Consequently, in so doing, they have destroyed the faith of many such that they no longer are certain that they have God's Word in their hands. The teacher has perpetuated that which happened to him years before when he was the student. The evil cycle is now complete. We have turned full circle to a different pope.
Again, we are being asked to believe in the inspiration of Scripture without believing in the preservation of the sacred Writ. We are being taught at nearly all the conservative fundamental seminaries that God gave an inspired text but could not (or did not) quite protect or preserve it. As a result, part was lost somewhere along the way and text critics are supposedly engaged in the arduous process of restoring to the world the original readings. Whereas that which follows may at times seem somewhat complicated, the only question the inquiring reader need ask himself is: "Is it reasonable that God gave man His pure infallible Word and then allowed it to become so corrupted over time that He (we) was left to call and rely upon unregenerate men to restore it?" One can but wonder how a believing Christian scholar, pastor, or layman could allow himself to become so deceived as to fall into the snare of considering only the "originals" to be trustworthy. Most assuredly, their faith did not begin there. God "lost" portions of His Word? Was not that rather awkward of Him?
1 Floyd Nolen Jones,
2 Peter S. Ruckman, The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, (Pensacola, FL: Pensacola Bible Press, 1970), p. 29.
3 Edward W. Goodrick, Is My Bible the Inspired Word of God, (Portland, OR: Multnomah Press, 1988), pp. 61-62.
Chapter 1-PRESERVATION OR RESTORATION?
Chapter 2-BIBLICAL COMPARISONS DEPICTING THE MAGNITUDE OF THE PROBLEM
Chapter 3-THE 1881 REVISION
Chapter 4-THE "TEXTUS RECEPTUS"
Chapter 5-THE GREEK TEXT OF WESTCOTT AND HORT
Chapter 6-HOW HORT CONTROLLED AND SEDUCED THE 1881 COMMITTEE
Chapter 7-THE HORTIAN-ECLECTIC THEORY REFUTED
Chapter 8-THE BELIEVING FRAME OF REFERENCE
Chapter 9-THE CONCLUSION OF THE MATTER
Appendix A-THE PERICOPE OF ADULTERA
Appendix B-THE JOHANNINE COMMA
Appendix C-EXAMPLES OF MODERN CRITICISM
Appendix D-HISTORY OF TEXTS TRANSMISSION
Bibliography
Index
Dr. Thomas Holland's 12 Lessons on the King James Bible
Take The Bible Test
For a more complete Table Of Contents, click HERE
"Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." -Mark 8:38
1996
Twelfth Edition
Revised and Enlarged
(First Edition 1989)
FLOYD NOLEN JONES, Th.D., Ph.D.
© FLOYD JONES MINISTRIES, INC.
8222 Glencliffe Lane
Houston, Texas 77070
Duis mi elit, aliquet id euismod egestas, venenatis sit amet lectus.