KJV- The Impossibility of the Contrary
Introduction
The purpose of this study is to establish that the King James Version of the bible can more consistently function as final authority for English speaking peoples in accordance with principles of presuppositional apologetics. All other modern translations of various texts are established upon the science of textual criticism and cannot yield absolute final authority since the textual variants and the scriptures themselves would be established upon some degree of probability; confusingly subjecting the entire bible to the authority of science. Also we find within the bible itself that the scriptures are preserved in book form of a text accepted by the saints and many times the enemies of Christ (scribes and Pharisees). We assume during this study that there is a basic degree of understanding of the King James Version debate, but perhaps not so much of presuppositional apologetics. There are many other works exposing the corruption in the new bibles which we encourage the reader to prayerfully search out. We would hope by God’s grace to zealously affect the reader to a deeper and more prayerful study of these subjects so as to defend the scriptures and cause the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, to shine unto this wicked and gainsaying generation.
The Definitions
We start with empiricism because this is what guides the historian and paleographer and the radiocarbon dating of the manuscripts; it is their underlying philosophy. This is how they estimate the age of the manuscripts. They have theories about how handwritings styles and language evolved in certain areas over time and try to determine from this when manuscripts were most likely to have been written. And once they decide the probable age of the manuscripts they then conclude the earliest ones must therefore be the closest to the original writings and thus the most accurate. This is how modern texts are collated and where our new English translations come from.
But we must realize that the discipline of historical research is not without bias and assumptions. (e.g. see the 1st Q&A here.) Historical information does not come with a built in interpretation and the historian does not directly study the historical phenomena only records of events. He does not observe the past he must reconstruct it from the records by deciding what is important, what events are causally connected, what events are related and so forth. So they must construct hypotheses and look for particular records to validate his particular assumptions; many times ignoring certain accounts which other historians might find beneficial to their particular theory. So the historian has a target he is aiming for from the beginning of his research selectively using value judgments in finding explanations of events and thus what information is more important, and which conditions are necessary for certain outcomes. Cliodynamics proponents point out that over 200 explanations for the fall of the Roman Empire have been proposed with almost no consensus on which are or aren’t reasonable. Bertrand Russell facetiously gives an interpretation of the existence of the United States; that basically if Henry VIII's eyes had not been caught by Anne Boleyn his divorce would not have been an issue, England wouldn’t have broken with the Papacy and remained Catholic and the Americas would have been part of Spanish America.
Behind all of historical reasoning is philosophy- such as conditions today are like they were back then; that there is historical causation related to certain metaphysical laws; objective laws of logic we use today apply in the past, etc. Every historical discussion of the importance and meaning of historical facts must eventually come back to a discussion of abstract principles; and these principles must be made intelligible by your worldview.
Our culture today has been leavened in fullness with the leaven of empiricism; which in philosophy is undermined by the unsolved problem of induction. Empiricism is the philosophical view that true knowledge is arrived at through empirical procedures and inductive investigations generally understood as ‘science’; that is knowledge of greater or lesser probability is arrived at through the senses. (In general the methods of researching the physical world are systematized by John Stuart Mill’s five basic methods of induction. They are briefly the method of agreement, difference, joint method of agreement and difference, residues (what remains after everything else is accounted for), and concomitant variation (the increase or decrease of one factor is accompanied by the increase or decrease in another).
This scientific probability approach to finding ‘absolute’ truth has infected the thinking of Christian intellectuals guiding the churches. In our consideration here we examine how it influences the establishing of the scriptures in the minds of the church leaders. The problem is that empiricism is not a worldview but the component of a worldview, and the scriptures provide us with our Christian worldview. Science therefore doesn’t establish the bible, but rather the bible establishes the basis for science. Science should thank God for the ability to know and learn from his upholding all things by the word of his power. Frank Borman on the Apollo 8 mission was amazed at the calculations of the scientists on earth predicting the lunar sunrise to the exact second. But in order for this to be possible God must control all things by his wisdom; and we made in his image able to reason.
Science presumes the inductive principle which asserts that ‘instances of which we have had no experience resemble those of which we have had experience’ and that the connexion between cause and effect, being necessary for science to proceed, is a rational connection. As it turns out however, apart from the revelation of scripture there is no rational self evident connection between cause and effect and you are left with simply a habit of the mind to associate any particular effect with any certain cause. Even the minds tendency to expect a certain effect from a certain cause is itself unwarranted- so that the mind should not expect the same expectation the next time. For the mental connexion of a certain cause might yield the expectation of some other effect the next time. And so the pure empiricist not only should not expect fixed causes and effects or uniformities in nature but also should not anticipate that his thoughts will be uniform from one instance to the next. Thus strictly rationally speaking he not only cannot trust in the assurance of physical laws neither can he trust his own thoughts if he does not start with Christ. For the unifying force between the laws of nature and his mind is the God of scripture. And the errors in his thinking are the effect of sin and pride in his heart.
There are a number of logical problems with the belief that the only true knowledge is a posteriori or based upon observation and ultimately our senses and is without presuppositions or bias. Here are a few for consideration.
1. It is circular. That is the belief that the only way to have true knowledge is by observation assumes what it purports to prove. For if one tries to prove this statement itself by citing examples then it engages in circular reasoning and irrationality. But if it seeks to prove the statement some other way then it will disprove the statement itself that it is the 'only' way to acquire true knowledge.
2. It commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent in logic. If A then B; B therefore A. Example- If Einstein's theory of relativity is true then this atom bomb will explode. This atom bomb did explode therefore his theory is true. Using the same logic- If I am in Texas I am in the U.S.A. I am in the U.S.A. therefore I am in Texas. Or a more famous example; If stones are bread and bread is nourishing then this bread will nourish me. This bread does nourish me therefore this bread is a stone and stones are nourishing.
3. It is a house divided- the pursuit of objectivity leads to pure subjectivity. As atheist Bertrand Russell pointed out, we assume things to be as they seem to appear. The grass is green, the stones are hard and the ice is cold. But physics explains to us that greenness, hardness and coldness is really quite different than we first think; actually we are experiencing the effects of the grass, stones and ice upon ourselves. Thus science seems to be at war with itself: when it most means to be objective it finds itself plunged into subjectivity against its will. Our observation of a stone is that it is hard and solid. But a scientist will tell us that the atoms do not touch each other and they are in constant motion.
4. They make unlimited conclusions based upon a limited number of examples. All crows are black, because all the ones we have seen are black. Scientific theories have infinite scope and no finite evidence can ever accurately decide between competing ones.
5. Empiricism assumes unlimited possibilities. So there can be no probability since there will always be a possibility that cancels it out.
There are a host of other problems beyond our scope of consideration here, but these examples will serve to show us that science is not and cannot be a worldview by itself. It must function within a greater philosophical or religious system. It cannot be the basis of that system as it depends upon the system. It is like the engine of a car; the engine apart from the car will not get us anywhere.
Again we are simply exposing empiricism as the foundation of evangelical textual criticism which promotes itself as the champion of scriptural orthodoxy. As Christians we should seek to be as certain as the Israelites who were “skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science” (Dan.1:4); “avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called” (1 Tim.6:20). We are therefore not against science- but against science falsely so called. Apart from the bible science is not intelligible.
Impossibility of the Contrary
Before we can answer the question of which bible is final authority, we must understand our primary assumptions about evidence and knowledge itself. How is knowledge of anything possible in the first place? Presuppositionalism is applying and working out pre-commitments to a worldview in accounting for or making intelligible everything we encounter. Everyone starts with pre-commitments or presuppositions by which they decide what is or preclude what is not possible. All opposing worldviews will argue for their interpretation of evidence, and so worldviews must be evaluated and accepted or rejected for internal coherence in accounting for logic and science and morality. The only rational transcendent principle that can be uniformly and consistently defended is from the bible. So at the start we can see the task set before us. We are called upon to define and defend what the bible actually is because of the infection of empiricist and rationalist philosophies and textual criticism into the church in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
J.W. Montgomery defined textual criticism this way ‘lower criticism or textual criticism is indeed a scientific activity, because what it does is to take the manuscripts which have survived of any ancient work it doesn't have to be the New Testament. And these manuscripts are arranged in order of time. And one uses scientific techniques, the ink, the paleography, the handwriting and in some cases radiocarbon, that sort of thing and one dates the manuscripts and establishes families of the manuscripts so as to see which ones were copied from which ones. In the course of doing this you can eliminate copyist errors. and the lower critic works his way back and finally he is able to provide the best resultant text. That is the text that is closest to the original writing. There will be some variant reading but in general it will arrive at the text which is as close to the original writing as is possible.' here-
Where earlier scholars in general assumed when they ‘finally appealed’ to the “Greek codices” they could ascertain final authority assuming a singular Greek & Hebrew text-see the various Declarations here-
But alas this is dismissed as ignorance on their part by our scientific brethren spoiled of final authority by empirical philosophy and vain deceit (Col.2:8). Simply believing God providentially preserved a manuscript tradition that many reformation confessions declared, was not scientific enough for certain which loved the praise of men more than the praise of God. The scripture, they say, should be shown to be accurate by treating them as any other historical document in order to be ‘objective’ and ‘fair’. But yet we cannot even begin our thought without dependence upon the doctrines found in the bible; namely the foundations of logic, science and morality found in the nature and purpose of the Creator. Knowledge is impossible unless the bible is true; all other contrary worldviews fail with respect to the possibility of knowledge and therefore cannot validate themselves. Here are basic problems of epistemology (the study of how knowledge is possible) that philosophers fail to account for.
Logic is eternal, abstract (not physical), universal and unchanging; reflecting God's nature and thinking, and how we must think (Isa.1:18, Job 38:36, Prv.2:6). One cannot know truth apart from logic. Logic within the correct worldview will always lead to the truth. He made us in his image to reason with him. God puts wisdom in our hearts and minds and obligates us to be rational. Sin and pride cause us to err in our thinking (Eph.2:3, 4:18, Tit.1:15, Prv.13:10).
Science is based upon God upholding all things by the word of his power (Psa.119:90-1, Heb.1:3, Col.1:17, Neh.9:6, Gen.8:22, 2 Pt.3:7). This is for his purpose revealed in prophecy of the scripture (Jer.31:35-6, 33:20-26). Likewise do we find design and order in nature as God reveals his wisdom in creation (Prv.3:19, Jer.10:12, Psa.19:1) as well as his invariableness (Jer.31:35-6, 33:25-6). This is seen as mathematics allow predictions and calculations, indicating wisdom/logic (Ex.35:31-5, 31:3-5) governs the creation (Job.38:32-3 Psa.104:19, Gen.1:14, Prv.8:27-31).
Morality is likewise an expression of God's nature, thus not an arbitrary directive that God can change from time to time (Mal.3:6). Scripture does not teach a view of God that falls into a voluntarist error.
God is just and righteous and holy by his nature and so we are to be as he is (1 Pt. 1:15-16). He puts his law in our hearts naturally (Rom.2:14-15) to know to choose the good and refuse the evil.
The Dilemma
We must confront the incessant stream of new bibles all different by determination of copyright laws and ever changing marketing ploys. The matrix in which this anomaly grows is a philosophical view of New Testament textual preservation that there are objective truths regarding history and science that unbelievers and believers can both come to agreement in by consistently following the facts wherever they might lead us, so we can treat the bible like any other historical document. Also assumed is the belief that God preserved a history of how he preserved his words. This view seeks to omit any reference or appeal to providence or God intervening in the affairs of men in history (except as we will see they invariably appeal to it as a saving device for their theories at the needed moment); but simply analyzing evidence with objective tools of empirical reasoning consistently and follow the facts wherever they lead.
This chimera of Christianity and Empiricism comes to maturity in the field of textual criticism. Evangelical textual scholars try to appear neutral and objective so as to be taken seriously by agnostic and reprobate scholars. So they attempt to consistently apply probability assumptions as to what is most likely to explain textual variants. They believe the vast majority (90 plus %) of the original New Testament text has been preserved unchanged and that essential doctrines are unaffected by the remaining variants. Also they contend with their reprobate colleagues that the ‘tenacity of the original text’ guarantees that ‘Once a reading occurs it will persist with obstinacy. It is precisely the overwhelming mass of the New Testament textual tradition which provides an assurance of certainty in establishing the original text’. (Basically they assume that early variations remain in the manuscript tradition because scribes of a certain era were persistent. This of course says nothing of the accuracy of the scribes before them.) So they insist that we do not have 95 pieces to the puzzle but we have 110 pieces and just have to sort through the extra 10 pieces to make sure which ones fit and then we will reestablish the original text completely. They also appear to assume that God preserved not only the text but also the text in the original language and a history of how he did it; and their ideas on the probability of its distribution guide them in genealogical classification of the manuscript traditions. Again these are beginning assumptions whereby they search for historical information and documentation.
But their unbelieving colleagues don’t have the same optimism and point out that this optimistic view is a theological persuasion and not a historical one; and their evangelical colleagues are not being consistently empirical at this point. We would also ask our evangelical scholars if this is a historical question or a theological question; also should historians answer the question or the church of Jesus Christ? They note that only the tiny population of evangelical scholars in this field believe this, but the vast majority of scholars believe only that ‘the earliest form of the text’ (which would be like a copy of a copy of a copy of the original text) can be determined which is probably not like the “original text”. The majority of leading textual scholars today are unbelievers and have abandoned the hope of finding the original text. There are some passages where serious and very smart scholars disagree about what the original text said, and there are some places where- given probabilities based upon assumptions ‘we will probably never know’. If evangelical scholars want to insist that we have the original text somewhere, then how does he know? (He will become theological here and appeal to providence.) In any given place, and there are dozens of them, he will have differences of opinion with every expert in the field. And knowing copying habits of scribes in later centuries will have no value in determining scribal habits of 1st or 2nd century scribes so we must have ‘epistemological humility’ in these matters. This is how ‘scholars of all other ancient manuscripts conduct research and the New Testament should be no different’ if we are to be consistent and objective and neutral.
Using the same ‘objective tools’ they both agree that the earliest scribes were some of the worst scribes on record making lots of mistakes. The task of the textual critic is to figure out what the author of a text actually wrote, and to see why scribes modified it. The judgments of the textual critic are ratings of probability since historians can only establish what probably happened. Despite the fact that scholars have been working diligently at these tasks for 300 years, there continues to be heated differences of opinion. But this historical probability is not like the probability in natural science where repeatable laws and experiments can be duplicated. For this historical probability is about willful human actions none of which come with their own explanation; nor are governed by laws in any naturalistic sense. They are free choices and mistakes that scribes made for unknowable reasons and presumably not supernaturally influenced but rather only naturalistic explanations are allowed.
The Evangelical Christian textual scholar operating in the science of textual criticism (having taken shape from an infusion of naturalistic empiricism), investigates the preservation of the scripture as an atheist would approach it and as they would approach any other ancient document- purely naturalistic and no possible supernatural influence. While they agree with each other that most of the New Testament original text was preserved complete and the essential Christian doctrines are preserved- they also agree that the original manuscripts are lost as well as the earliest copies. But from the remaining Greek manuscripts and translations and citations from ancient Christians, all of which contain hundreds of thousands of variations, they both work on reconstructing the earliest form of the text. The non-Evangelical scholars think they can only reconstruct an early form of the New Testament while the Evangelical scholars believe that the original text itself can be reconstructed. But they both are making their conclusions in terms of probability of some type. Again, not the repeatable causal relations of natural laws- but the complex dynamics of free will scribes under unknowable pressures and influences.
But they will both speak in terms of ‘Intrinsic probability’ relating to what the original author is likely to have written. Also ‘Transcriptional probability’ analyzing what the scribes were most likely to have written. These are extremely subjective approaches but it is all that they can do. They must make these assumptions as though new evidence will not be discovered but yet be prepared to revise their probabilities if they indeed are. And they are continually searching for new discoveries. They both agree that these hotly disputed variants could still take hundreds or thousands of hours of research to conclude the authenticity of a single word in the Greek text. And even after all that there’s not absolute certainty as to what the original text says. But again this is the best they can do with empiricism trying to address a theological question with a historical answer; a conclusion of some varying subjective degree of probability based upon a self refuting philosophy.
A Concrete or an Abstraction?
Our brethren of the contrary view appear to speak double tongued and double minded utterances. ‘For’, they say, ‘the bible is only the original autographs which were never in a single book’; thus were never a bible. And yet simultaneously they declare ‘All the translations and texts are the word of God, because they contain the essential doctrines which constitute Christianity’. And so they are all the infallible word of God but yet none of them are. That is, only in so far as they match the autographa, of which we are not certain they are considered the words of God. But the word of God or the bible is not a reality. The ‘book of the LORD’ or the bible is an abstraction; an idea or a concept which was never a material reality. It is like the frictionless plane or the rigid body of conceptual science- it isn’t found in the real world. Every text or translation and every manuscript in every language in all of history is errant they claim. But all of them are close enough to the original autographs that we call them the word of God. That is they can all function as the word of God- i.e. essential doctrines; although none of them is the final authority as the word of God- all are subject to correction.
All the variant readings which find their way into modern ‘bibles’ leave us a strange dilemma; namely all who seek to establish the doctrines of the faith for which they earnestly contend may use different actual verses (from different bibles) to prove what they believe- although the beliefs are the same.
Two approaches
Should we use wisdom and knowledge to determine what the bible is or should we use the bible to determine what wisdom and knowledge are? Here are two positions taken on the preservation of scripture. Firstly that God has preserved his words in translations of a book that is self authenticating, and secondly that God has preserved his words in multiple manuscripts, fragments, books and writings and it is the job of each Christian to comb these documents and use scientific and historical research and assumptions, then construct and translate for themselves a book containing most of the words of God as originally given- with a high degree of probability. Interestingly we know which fragments are scripture because we have it in our hands to judge. We know an ancient manuscript is a copy of scripture because we have a book to judge it against.
This former is scripturally supported, the latter is scripturally condemned. One depends upon the witness of the Spirit upon self authenticating grounds and confirmed by the church, the latter upon empirical reasoning and the wisdom of this world and is confirmed by historians. The former yields final authority, with the latter every man does that which is right in his own eyes. The first endeavors for the unity of the Spirit, of the same mind speaking the same things in words which the Holy Ghost teacheth. The second speaks words which mans wisdom teaches every one filled with his own ways. With the first the fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, with the second, knowledge should end in the fear of the LORD…very probably. Do we use history and archaeology and paleography to examine the bible or the bible to evaluate these fields?
Modern Christian scholars, as we have considered, highly esteem science and logic in the realm of bible apologetics and manuscript authentication. They are in practice appealed to as judges of the bible itself- what it actually is. And as I may so say, without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better. But a problem that results from this ignorance of Gods righteousness is the wrongfully perceived need to establish ones own righteousness. Thus as it is written "my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewn them out cisterns, broken cisterns that can hold no water" Jer. 2:13. Having arrayed themselves in garments mingled in woollen and linen, they seek to establish the historical and scientific trustworthiness of the scriptures, and their general reliability. Yet in so doing they subjugate the truth of God to philosophy and vain deceit, making it of none effect. They direct faith unto the wisdom of men rather than the power of God. Professing themselves to be wise in profane and vain babblings and oppositions of science falsely so called, they have erred concerning the faith. For what are science and logic, save that which the Creator of the ends of the earth reveal them to be in his word, the bible? Therefore the truth contained in the bible must be initially appealed to before research of any sort can be rationally founded.
Logic and science are trustworthy only if we presuppose their universal and invariant nature, or that all things are upheld by the word of His power. And that we are capable as created in his image, men who can reason together with him. If then they are useful only because they are what the bible reveals them to be, the latter cannot be the blessed of the former. In order then to make use of logic and science we must presuppose the bible itself. We must start with the bible, not end with it. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge and not the latter end.
But in what form do we presuppose the bible? We have seen that it is not an abstraction.
Now if we have received the things which are of God, things we speak in words which the Holy Ghost teacheth, then we have indeed received these same words which the Holy Ghost teacheth. If we are the pillar and ground of the truth as the church, and we are gathered out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation, then we have heard the words which the Holy Ghost teacheth, every man in our own tongue wherein we were born. We have heard spoken in our tongues the wonderful works of God. And this is no marvel for shall he that hath formed the tongue not speak? But I say have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. Since faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God, he said unto them, Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. God therefore teacheth all nations to observe all things whatsoever Christ hath commanded, not in words which mans wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth. As the church was built among all nations all things that Christ taught were translated. Christ built his church and is with us even unto the end of the world. Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Thus if 'it is written', and the 'scripture saith', then we must have it. Or if Christ rebuked us for erring in not knowing 'the scripture', or asked us ‘What is written in the law? how readest thou?’, how could we then be judged? He that rejecteth me, saith the Lord, and receiveth not my words, shall be judged in the last day 'by the word that I have spoken'. And as Christ saith unto John, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches, and again, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches, he would not give an uncertain sound or speak as a barbarian. Yea blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it. For except he utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? Now these things were not written for their sakes alone, but for our sakes no doubt, these were written. If then they are written for our admonition then they must be written so that we know the meaning of the voice. If Moses wrote for our sakes ten thousand words in an unknown tongue, what shall it profit us? Why then should it be thought a thing incredible with God that we should receive with meekness the engrafted word in our own tongue?
It is not incredible that God would preserve his words in translations, as the word of the truth of the gospel went into all the world. Neither is it incredible that his words would be preserved in a book. For this is how he does it in the book. Keeping in mind Deut. 29:29 The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law. And 1 Cor.2:10, 13 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
His words are placed in a book and sent unto the churches, or copied and kept by the scribes and priests. For example:
Deut.17:18 …he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:
Deut. 28:58 If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD; (also Deut.28:61, 29:20, 29:27, 30:10)
Ezra 6:18 And they set the priests in their divisions, and the Levites in their courses, for the service of God, which is at Jerusalem; as it is written in the book of Moses.
Acts 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms
Acts 7:42 …as it is written in the book of the prophets…
Daniel 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book
Isaiah 34:16 Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read:
Isaiah 30:8 Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever:
Rev. 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia;
Rev.22:18-19 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Words mean thoughts
If we are being scriptural with the word 'word' as in 'every word of God' it means saying. For example:
Rom.13:9 "if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
Gal.5:14 "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
Acts 28:25 "...Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers,26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.
(Also see Col.1:5, 2 Thes.3:14, Act.10:44, 13:15, 1 Cor.12- "word of wisdom" and "word of knowledge" would mean a thought or saying).
I think almost every time (if memory serves me) the word ‘word’ appears in the KJV it means saying.
Gen.15:1 After these things the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.
Ex.12:35 And the children of Israel did according to the word of Moses; and they borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment:
This concept goes a long way in understanding many of the variations found historically in the majority of manuscripts and various translations. Or even between the gospel accounts and New Testament references to the Old Testament. It does not pose a problem for the balanced KJV only perspective we are exploring here.
Also of note is sometimes the same thoughts are conveyed in different words- “And Naboth said to Ahab, The Lord forbid it me, that I should give the inheritance of my fathers unto thee…for he had said, I will not give thee the inheritance of my fathers”(1 Ki.21:3-4). Another example of different words used to state the same idea is found in 2 Kings 4. “And she said, Nay, my lord, thou man of God, do not lie unto thine handmaid.” (v16) with “she said, Did I desire a son of my lord? did I not say, Do not deceive me?” (v28) When Jesus told Martha "Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?" in John 11:40 this appears to be a summary of his word to her in v 23-26. (See also Jn.13:10-11, compare 2 Chr.36:22-3 & Ezra 1:1-3)
It would also appear that God providentially would preserve his words in a book written to the people in their language. Which is not an absurd thought since the New Testament quotations of the Hebrew Old Testament result in inspired translations; just as Daniel in Babylon or Moses in Egypt.
Scholars, who take the second position despite their contrary assumption must start with the bible. And not (as they assume) extract it out of fragments and manuscripts using science falsely so called and thus proceed to assemble the bible. In other words, the translator didn't start with the manuscript, neither the textual critic with multiple pieces of text. They started with the faith in Christ they received from translations of already assembled books, already in use and approved by the churches; and then researched these fields using the ‘essential doctrines’ found in translations the whole time. When they find an ancient manuscript they compare it to what they have in texts and translations to recognize it. Again it should be observed that to accept as an axiom the belief that the bible is extracted from manuscripts by scholarship using inductive methods, is to deny the doctrine that God providentially preserved his book historically the way he did it as revealed in the scripture itself. “I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord”- 2Ki.22:8. As well as set ones face as an adamant stone against the axiom that the bible is presupposed as a complete book and guides one through any subsequent study of historical or manuscript evidence, or even translating. In other words it is approached presuppositionally by the impossibility of the contrary, instead of evidentially as spoiled by naturalistic and humanistic philosophies of science. To cavil that to do thus and receive a text is to submit to men, is to simply disapprove of some men over other men. Or some men over ones own self. There is no other choice. This was warned against by the KJV translators in their dedicatory epistle, when they anticipated being "maligned by selfconceited Brethren, who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing, but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil". And to accept the approach that God preserved his words in pieces and every man is obligated to find and assemble the pieces, likewise gives (if we are being consistent) individual man authority to decide which books are canonical, and also to join yourself to the number of self conceited brethren afore mentioned. All men will ultimately submit to the work of other men (“I have laid the foundation and another buildeth thereon”- 1 Cor.3:10). They just choose which men they prefer over other men based upon the two approaches they start with. The real problem is when the providence of God is appealed to in back of the men they prefer (and it will have to be at some point), it will have to be judged as to which men have been providentially directed by God to the preserving of his book (like king James for example- Prov. 21:1). How one thinks God preserved his words will guide the seeking of an answer to this question. If you believe that he preserved them in scraps leaving a historical trail then you will believe that you must round up the scraps as a historian assembling a grand empirical puzzle and assemble them yourself using assumptions and probability, trusting in a form of self grandeur. Humbly asserting ‘God providentially guides me as I assemble and translate his book for myself’. You that follow this way that seemeth right unto a man will no doubt flatter yourselves with assertions that you are trying to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good, as admonished by the apostle in 1 Thess.5:21 (see Prov.21:2). Not knowing that proving all things requires the spiritual man to compare spiritual things with spiritual. Nevertheless you are proving the things which the Holy Ghost teacheth by things which man’s wisdom teacheth (empiricism). Therefore the contrary is in thee. Rendering to scholars and academics the commission to find out what actually constitutes the bible, because in your view it is still an open question. And you thereby undermine the presuppositional argument by subjecting the bible to the science and archeology of human reasoning and put leaven into the bible itself. You claim that God preserves his words in an unbiblical manner, not speaking according to the word (Isa.8:20). You subvert any real final authority, sowing discord among brethren by raising doubts about every translation in every language, and every Greek and Hebrew text, in all history rendering men double minded and overthrowing the faith of some. You cast odium upon the self authenticating nature of the scripture by the testimony of the Spirit, and raise up the doctrines of men, the work of the craftsman in its place which affirm the position of evidential scholarship to judge what is a word of God and what is not. And giving place for great blasphemy of the name of God and his doctrine among his enemies.
Is this how we approach these sciences which purport to bring more certainty to the scriptures and greater probability to the great and precious promises? Do we assume the scripture lacked the certainty that these sciences provide in great power and mighty to save? Are we to take innumerable and textually varying manuscripts from history, arrange them in certain orders, develop theories and assumptions of origin, evolutionary development and scribal habits, and impose them upon the manuscripts? And say ‘These be thy gods O Israel”? While offering sacrifices of praise to ‘science’ arrayed in the Babylonish garment the world hath woven? This is where we find ourselves if we listen to the prophets seduced by the adulteress of this world, that Jezebel of empiricism. These prophets find themselves charmed by her fair speech, flattered by her scarlet lips, solacing themselves in her favor. She saith- You can have your ‘bible’ just bow to ‘science and logic’. You can worship your God if you keep him out of these ‘independent objective truths’ which are supreme in authority. Your bible must pay homage to them and be their vassal. These prophets and pastors that go down to Egypt for help (Isa.31:1).
Truth without Text
How, ever do our ‘scientific’ brethren find and construct the autographa? They have created quite a conundrum for themselves. How do they maintain the validity of presuppositionalism by allowing the bible to reign over and save science, while also allowing science to reign over and save the scripture?
Scholars have whatever doctrine is needed for the transcendental argument for the truth of Christ, in all orthodox (theologically fundamental) translations. But the problem arises when one begins to encounter the differences among these same translations, and attempts to determine which verses are the words of God. (e.g. Can these verses be used to teach the deity of Jesus Christ? -1 Tim.3:16, John 3:13, 1 Cor.15:47, 1 Jn. 4:3, 5:7, Act20:28, Rev.1:11, Phil 2:6, 1 Jn. 3:16, Mic.5:2, Heb.2:16, Phil.2:6, Acts 8:37,Lk.23:42, Mark 9:24, John 8:11) If you try to presuppose some words of God so that you can proceed to ratify the rest, then the latter is not as sure as the former because they will always need additional support from textual science. But we cannot move from presupposing the truth taught in all the bible versions in general to a particular translation arbitrarily. Certain steps must take us there. If this is a theological question then we must ask if this was the condition of the book of the LORD in the scripture. Were there various translations competing for supremacy in the bible where God teaches us about preservation? Did the Lord and the apostles and Jews argue over the intrinsic probability of one variation over others? No; they seemed to understand and agree that the ‘scriptures’ were a reference to the same thing (Mt.21:42,22:29, Lk.2:21, 24:27, 45, Jn.5:39, 7:38, 42, Ac.1:16, 17:2, 11, 18:28). Empiricism appears to have had no authority in the bible yet this is the foundation of modern bibles.
If you presuppose none of the verses to establish the fundamental doctrines of Christianity you can never get your foundation laid for there is no where to put it nor any building material. You have no epistemological starting point. Either all the verses become guilty until proven innocent, or all the verses are innocent until proven guilty.
To assume they are all guilty generates incoherence, trying to use the truth (biblical epistemological presuppositions) of the verses without the verses. It would require moving backward in time. It is like removing your original foundation, being suspended in air standing upon no foundation and rebuilding one piecemeal underneath one empirical fact at a time. You cannot accept the verses to believe in the truth of Christianity (as the foundation of your science), and then pretend to suspend dependence upon these same verses while you prove them independently (as an autonomous scientist/scholar). So for all the verses to become guilty doesn’t work since to remove the truth of scripture is to remove any and all certain knowledge.
What if we assume all the verses in any one translation are innocent- that is infallible? And when we encounter a variation such as an omission or an addition of a verse, we investigate that one verse in question using the truth taught in the rest of the scripture. We apply the science of textual criticism to it and validate it or discard it. One problem (as mentioned above) is that once this is decided to be an omission and it is reinserted into the text it will forever be in need of empirical support. Can probability generate infallible truth? Or can iron mix with miry clay? But this they do, for they try to unite the act of presupposing the words of God in order to practice their science, with the practice of empirical science to save the words of God. You will have to consider why are there numerous bibles that are all different and then realize that the new bibles are the result of empiricism applied to preservation; where the King James Version predated this unequal yoking. The Authorized Version sought to revise and diligently compare the former translations in other languages to produce a more exact translation in English. They did not create a new text based upon analyzing probable scribal habits and dating Greek manuscript ages. There was no classification of text types at this time (Byzantine, Alexandrian, Caesarian, Western). The dedication of the Authorized Version records the translator’s goals- “that out of the Original Sacred Tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our own, and other foreign Languages, of many worthy men who went before us” they would produce “one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English tongue”. The new bibles are translating texts newly assembled from the latest advances in scribal habit analysis.
A second problem is that when one verse is called into question, doubt is cast upon the rest of them. For if pieces of the whole are not certain, how do we know the whole is certain? ‘Well we presuppose them, that’s how we are certain’. But you have to examine one verse at this point; so how do you know which of the other verses you are presupposing are certain? Let’s take our example above- say you are presupposing Jesus Christ as the one by whom are all things and for whom are all things, the image of the invisible God. Yet while believing this doctrine you discover that several of the verses you used (1 Tim.3:16, John 3:13, 1 Cor.15:47, 1 Jn. 4:3, 5:7, Act20:28, Rev.1:11, Phil 2:6, 1 Jn. 3:16, Mic.5:2, Heb.2:16, Phil.2:6, Acts 8:37,Lk.23:42, Mark 9:24, John 8:11) are textual variants. Eventually you will be forced to question which particular verses are indeed sure (empirically) and presuppose them so that your foundation can be solid. However you will also thereby confirm that you know the majority of the New Testament is preserved because of historical and empirical considerations. Again you are forced to separate the truth of scripture from the text of scripture. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
Likewise thirdly you will call into question God’s omnipotence in the preservation of His words though his church (not secular paleographers and historians anymore than trusting biologists to validate the resurrection of Christ). For you start with that presupposition when you start with the bible; shall you then leave it while you discard parts (or add parts) of the very book you presupposed at the beginning?
What if we suppose then that every verse called into question is omitted and we simply have what’s left over? Assuming the church all through recorded history wrongly received and used as scripture variant readings. We will still need to construct a theory to determine what are variants (which manuscripts or patristic writings?) and why in order to separate the variants from the rest of the book (variant x is from manuscript tradition y which is older and more reliable and should not be excluded, etc.). We will need to consider who the ancient church fathers are by their doctrines and how their teachings match the ones we have today in the Book. Still forced upon us is the presupposing of particular verses which teach the transcendental truth that we need to start with. Again we are left judging the Book with empirical science founded upon truth backed by no particular text. It is confusion.
This doesn’t appear to be a historical question to be answered by empiricists using probabilities. It should be decided through the church of Jesus Christ the pillar and ground of the truth.
Scripture on the Scripture
What significance are the originals? Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures- Lk.24:45 I think it is interesting that every place in the bible that the word scripture is used it is a reference to copies and translations in use at that time- search the scriptures yourself! All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable- from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures- 2 Tim.3:15-16 It is argued that the reference to scripture in v 16 is of the originals in spite of the immediate context.
As we saw from the bible God commands us: “Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read”. When searching the scripture we learn that God providentially preserves his words for us to read (in a book see above). First from the numerous promises for example:
Isa.59:21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever.
Isa.40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
Prv.22:12 The eyes of the Lord preserve knowledge, and he overthroweth the words of the transgressor.
Eccl.3:14 I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.
Psa.119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.
v86 All thy commandments are faithful: v90 Thy faithfulness is unto all generations:
Psa.146:6 Which made heaven, and earth, the sea, and all that therein is: which keepeth truth for ever:
Matt.5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Deut.30:11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
Psa.33:11 The counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.
Psa.12:6-7 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
1 Chr.16:15 Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations;
Psa.111:7-8 The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure. They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness.
Psa.100:5 For the Lord is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.
Isa.30:8 Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever:
Matt.28:19-20 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations…Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.
So we can see from a perusing through of the scripture that there are numerous assurances that God will watch over his truth to preserve it to all generations. If we look in the New Testament we can see that the Lord and the apostles (and their enemies) testified that they had the words of God in their hands while it had been given by inspiration centuries before:
2 Pet. 1:19-21 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Matt.22:31 …have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
Luke 20:28 … Moses wrote unto us… v37 … that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush…
John 10:34-5 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Heb.10:15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before…
Acts 28:25 Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers,
Mark 13:14 … But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,)
Rom.15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
Rom.4:3 … For what saith the scripture? v17 As it is written… v23-4 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also…
Rom.11:4 But what saith the answer of God unto him?
Matt.19:4 … Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female… v7…Why did Moses then command…
Matt.22:29 …Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures
John 5:38-9 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Acts 2:16 … this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel… v25 … David speaketh concerning him… v31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. V34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand…
Matt.1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying…
Over and over again the apostles, their adversaries and the Lord Jesus himself bear record that they read and had access to what was originally written. The text was preserved to them even though the original autographs were lost. But is it impossible for God to fully communicate in any language? Some man will say ‘There can be no inspired translations’; and yet we find this very thing all through the bible. Josephs correspondence in the Egyptian tongue (Gen.42:23) was recorded in inspired Hebrew. Likewise was Moses’ speech with Pharaoh (Ex.2:10) in Egyptian. Daniels words were spoken many of them in the tongue of the Chaldeans (Dan.1:4) and yet translated into Hebrew as was the unknown tongue in Daniel 5:24-28 after it was translated into Chaldean. How many dozens of verses in the New Testament are quoting the Old Testament and are inspired translations; and so inspired translations are scriptural and reasonable and historical. Conservative scholars must answer how Jesus and the disciples supposedly spoke Aramaic (according to historians) yet the New Testament was written in Greek- did it lose something in the translation because, as they say, ‘you always lose something in the translation’.
Variations and Corruptions
Now it is true that we do not know empirically which manuscripts were intentionally added to or deleted from. Nor is it sure who were involved in adding or in deleting; neither their motives. But when we look at the product certain apparent trends materialize. We do know that the mystery of iniquity worked in Paul’s day (2 Th.2:7) and the spirit of antichrist was already in the world (1 Jn.2:18, 4:3), and that this spirit working in the children of disobedience seeks to deny and diminish the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. The volume of variants relating to the person and work of Christ evince a design by the prince of the power of the air to undermine the foundations with questions as- ‘hath God said?’ Unbelieving scholars today tell us that the deity of Jesus Christ- that the Word was made flesh- is a myth that was the result of later Christians embellishing upon previous stories. They are the first to point out that the ‘older more reliable’ manuscripts contain less of this expanding of the worship of Christ as the divine God man.
Consider these variants (not an exhaustive list related to the topics) and ask if this was just chance or scribes trying to ‘expand their piety’ or if maybe the serpent is more subtil in his devices than our scholarly shepherds would have us aware.
The verses teaching the deity of Christ that we have already pointed out are called into question- 1 Tim.3:16, John 3:13, 1 Cor.15:47, 1 Jn. 4:3, 5:7, Act 20:28, Rev.1:11, Phil 2:6, 1 Jn. 3:16, Mic.5:2, Heb.2:16, Phil.2:6, Acts 8:37, Lk.23:42, Mark 9:24, John 8:11.
Christ was worshipped while in the body of his flesh- Lk.23:42, 24:52, Mt.8:2, 9:18, 15:25, 18:26, 20:20, Mk.5:6, Gal.4:7, Col.1:14
Questions of the certainty of his resurrection- Mk.16:9-20, Ac.1:3, 2:30, Lk.13:32, Eph.5:30, Jn.16:16
Omitting or diminishing the person and titles of the Lord Jesus Christ- Mic.5:2, Mt.1:25, Mt.5:22 with Mk.3:5, did Jesus sin? (Compare with Mk.1:41 in new bibles) Mt.12:6, 41-2, Mk.11:10, Lk.2:33, 23:42, Jn.3:13, 6:69,9:35, 8:1-11(only God forgives-Mk.2:7, Lk.5:21- in this passage Christ forgives in beautiful mercy) Ac.4:27, 30, 19:4, 10, Rom.1:16, 16:24, 1 Cor.5:4-5, 9:1, 15:47, 16:22-3, Gal.4:7, Eph.3:9, 14, Col.1:2, Phil.2:6, 1 Th.1:1, 1 Tim.3:16, Tit.1:4, Heb.1:3, 3:1, 1 Jn.1:7, 3:16, 4:3, 2 Jn.3, Jd.4, Rev.1:8-9, 11, 5:14, 12:17.
Imaginations and Probabilities
The general guideline that the modern textual critics use to determine an original reading is this- Assuming only naturalistic probabilities, choose a variant that best explains the rise of other variants. For example- Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Some manuscripts have the full reading here- some have it without “but after the Spirit”- and some have it without “who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit”. They say that the earliest attestations have the shorter reading. So what do they do? They conclude that it is most likely that a scribe was internally compelled by his aversion to God’s free grace and added “who walk not after the flesh”. And yet another scribe somewhere else at some later time probably compelled by some theological persuasion himself felt that he should add “but after the Spirit” and so this is how we have received the fuller reading… probably.
And so the wisest in this worldly system, trained in the empirical sciences search out and analyze the variety of fragments and manuscripts in order to establish the book that they ultimately must presuppose in the beginning of their studies. They find discrepancies and various readings amongst all the collection. A collection that although very large is not complete enough to form a perfect theory of preservation and transmission. Diligent as they should be in their field of study they cannot wait for the next generation of scholars to pass better judgment on what is ever increasing before them; they thus craft a variety of ideas related to the copyists and the copies based on imaginations and probabilities.
Some suppose that there are additions in the texts because men added them. Why did men add to them? Some scholars suppose it is conflation, expansion of piety, parallel influence and harmonization very probably by well intentioned scribes. Those on the contrary feel that the words are deleted by heretics in an attempt to cast doubt upon the veracity of certain doctrines. In neither camp is there a ‘more sure word’ of history nor is this a historical question. They are both judging what the infallible original autographical words are by fallible suppositions and probabilities; such as:
· Some think we should as a rule follow the fuller text in all cases.
· Some think we should assume it in some cases; each case should be independently examined, no ‘artificial rule’ applied.
· Some think we should prefer the shorter readings because copyists were more likely to add than leave off when copying, or to insert new material feeling that it was safer to make texts match.
· Some think that marginal notes ended up in the text because of the economic strain of poor scribes. Scribes just could not afford to buy new writing materials every time they made mistakes because they were usually economically challenged. And every time they made a mistake they couldn’t ball up the material and toss it in the waste basket.
· Some think scribes had a propensity towards repeating phrases when copying.
· Some think scribes were more likely to leave off than add, as statistics relating to human nature imply.
· Some think a scribes ‘piety expanding’ better explains the fuller readings and should therefore be rejected.
· Some think that if a disputed passage is in question and there are parallel passages, the reading that disagrees with the parallel passages should be chosen, because scribes likely tried to smooth them out.
· Some think we should apply statistical probability to recover the original readings.
· Some think the majority of witnesses should rule.
· Some think an eclectic approach is better.
· Some think the older manuscripts are more reliable, and we know the older ones by carbon dating and paleography (not a presupposition-less endeavor).
· The more difficult reading is to be preferred, according to some, because scribes (‘as a rule’) generally tried to smooth out (change) difficult readings.
· Some say the reading that doesn’t reflect doctrinal bias should be chosen.
· Some think every New Testament reading must have a corresponding Greek manuscript. It is supposed that God preserved a transmission history in Greek manuscripts.
· Some think early translations hold some weight in deciding a reading.
· When variant readings are found assume that there is some form of evolution of content. So that for example reading A says one thing, B another, and C has both A and B, you should assume that C came after A and B. And some well meaning scribe probably tried to put them both in there, thereby reducing your decision to reading A or B.
· Of course always presupposes that you have enough evidence to conclude anything at all.
Now all of this cannot be known to be true in any sense in which the bible prescribes as assurance- only probably true. And to rate the probability of such things is itself rather dubious. Why assume purely naturalistic explanations? Why assume Latin manuscripts can’t have readings closer to the original than some Greek manuscripts if many copies and translations were quickly distributed in the early years of the church? Why assume these questions can even actually be answered by historians? Other assumptions in evaluating textual variants are scribal habits- “One of the most important advances in our knowledge of the Greek manuscripts since the days of King James comes from the area of scribal habits.” Others also join the chorus stating that the science of comparing different and inconsistent manuscripts to determine which are closest to the originals have notably improved since the 1600's. To rely on scribal habit to explain textual matters is to bind the scripture to the altar of worldly wisdom and probability. The ‘more sure word’ we saw at a distance turns out to be only a ‘basic reliability of the documents’. Infallibility becomes probability, and the holy word of God is commonly placed among all other historical writings to be judged by a variety of blends of empiricism and theory driven critics.
The fact is there are innumerable theories about timelines of writing styles, writing materials, writing techniques, writers/copyists, which make basic assumptions which are not provable but yet are imposed upon historical pieces of information (and assuming there is sufficient information to conclude anything) to try and compose a workable theory. Again, historical information does not come with a built in interpretation, rather the historian tries to assemble the history based upon certain assumptions inevitably employed. These competing theories search for particular clues and evidences and assign certain values to them based solely upon the assumption with which they started. But God has not promised to preserve a history of the manuscript traditions, rather He has promised to preserve His words. How then do we know the correct family of manuscripts and the correct readings if not empirically? By what is consistent with the presuppositional method of reasoning.
Internal Witness
Is the empirical/inductive method the only way we can to validate scripture? Is a revelatory/subjective approach irrational? We ask again- is the question of scriptural preservation more of a historical question or more of a theological question. If Christ’s sheep hear his voice, and are guided into all truth by his Spirit to know the things freely given by God, even in words which the Holy Ghost teacheth, then looking at what the church, the pillar and ground of the truth, has received and used and has demonstrated as a door to the manifestations of the Spirit should be sufficient evidence to the humble in spirit. The self attesting nature of scripture is appealed to by John Calvin in his Institutes (Book 1 Ch.VII sec.4-5, Ch.VIII sec.1,V), the Westminster confession (IV, VIII,IX, X), Belgic confession (Articles5 and 7) the 1689 London Baptist Confession, also in the larger Westminster catechism (question4) the 1658 Savoy Declaration #5. These all appealed to the self attesting witness of the Spirit to the scripture, even though, as Calvin asserted, in face of the murmurings of the wicked, certain worthy persons “have not a clear proof at hand to silence them” (reference above). He contends that the Spirit confirms the faith of the godly “inwardly”. The 1689 Confession states the “authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God”. The Spirit taught these believers inwardly well before the empiricist’s discovery of the “oldest most reliable manuscripts”. Were they misled? Perhaps they should have waited for modern dating methods to confirm the oldest manuscripts. Why would God providentially allow the reformers to receive a text that is cursed (for the additions Rev.22:18), for it is argued that they used this text by default and not choice.
If the Spirit will inwardly teach the meek of the things freely given by God, how is it that one would search in vain for proponents of the infallibility of any new translation or text? They testify out of their own mouths that no translation or text is infallible. They affirm that the Spirit elevates none of the new texts or translations to that level of final authority. Also asserting that contradictory versions are equal, even if one has added to Gods words and one has taken away from Gods words. Now while it is understood that the KJV translators likewise did not claim inerrancy, it is also understood that what Paul asserted to be his own judgment and opinion (1 Cor.7:6, 25) is scripture. The 1689 Baptist confession, and the Westminster confession elevated the Greek and Hebrew originals to the status of final appeal (VII), they continued their assertion by faith in Gods “singular care and providence” by which he “kept pure in all ages” these same Greek (including Mk.16:9-20 and Jn.7:53-8:11) and Hebrew books (Old and New Testament). They made no appeal to handwriting analysis, or scribal habits in their confession regarding final authority. They did not appeal to dating methods as handwriting styles (letter size and punctuation, artistic embellishments etc. comparing to styles on other secular ancient documents with a clear date) types of material used upon which to write and with which to write (ink), the existence of books verses scrolls, as though they provide a clear simple timeline- give or take 50 to 100 years (as opposed to complex events dictating dynamic and unpredictable changes).
Neither they nor the KJV translators debated about which originals, summarily they held to a real tangible final authority; which is called into question in this modern era of science falsely so called, because they apparently weren’t scientific enough for our modern scholarly class. As our modern minded brethren contend here- ‘this was because these sciences weren’t developed yet’ we must ask them why in God’s providential leading did he allow the reviving of the churches to be based on such faulty manuscripts? Brethren consider that the question cannot be answered scientifically or historically for epistemological reasons as well as extreme limitation of information; but must fall back upon the internal witness of the Spirit and self authentication of God and dependeth not upon the wisdom of men.
(That they indeed held to a divinely preserved text and did not follow the assumptions of naturalistic empiricism can be seen in the bemoaning of the fact by 2 leading proponents of the critical approach to the New Testament- Kurt & Barbara Aland “The Text of The New Testament”
pg6-7 "Yet no real progress was possible as long as the Textus Receptus remained the basic text and its authority was regarded as canonical...Every theologian of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (and not just the exegetical scholars) worked from an edition of the Greek text of the New Testament which was regarded as the "revealed text." This idea of verbal inspiration (i.e. of the literal and inerrant inspiration of the text), which the orthodoxy of both evangelical traditions maintained so vigorously, was applied to the Textus Receptus with all of its errors..." https://books.google.com/books?id=RtcUAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA5&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false) I would like to point out in closing that some of the same arguments that Josh McDowell used in 'The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict', to prove the authenticity of "the bible" can be, and is used in defense of the KJV. For example: 1. Unique in its influence on civilization pg.15 2. Unique in its influence upon Literature pg.14 (and the English language) 3. Unique in its survival through criticism pg.9 4. Unique in its circulation pg.7-8 His reasonable conclusion was not that this proves the bible is the word of God, but superior to all other books. And obviously for my purpose the KJV and its underlying text, is in these respects superior. And since God moved King James to authorize it (Prov.21:1) we ought to think a bit differently on these issues and quit pretending to be followers of science falsely so called, and humble ourselves under his mighty hand. A Canon and a Text When we consider what we call the bible we not only must consider a text but also a canon. The question of the books contained in the canon is likewise beyond the scope of science or history to answer. But what we find of interest is that there was no authoritative council advising the church on which books of the New Testament to receive. The church was not structured in such a way that there was a central authority that all had to submit to (we do not have the time here to explain the rejection of popery and the church state). In matters of authority the church (the pillar and ground of the truth- 1 Ti.3:15) had its leaders and apostles as the foundation (Ep.2:20, 1 Co.12:28) but corporately was truth received and established in contrast to ipse dixits, just as the Acts 15 counsel reveals. The apostles and elders considered and addressed the matter at hand, then “pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church” (v22). The Bereans did not just accept Paul on his own say so but “searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Ac.17:11). If a disciple “shall neglect to hear the church” he would be as a heathen (Mt.18:17) as authority was invested in the local bodies of believers. The gates of hell would not prevail against the church (Mt.16:18) but the Spirit would guide them into all truth (Jn.14:26, 16:13) specifically concerning seducers and deceivers (1Jn.2:26-27). His sheep “follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow”. (Jn.10:4-5, 27) When scriptures were given to particular churches they were instructed to cause them to be read by other believers (Col.4:16, 1 Thess.5:27) in order to hear “what the Spirit saith unto the churches” (Rev.1:11, 2:7, 11, 17…etc.). It was received not as the word of men but as it is in truth the word of God which effectually worked in those that believed (1 Thess.2:13). Inscripturation was in real time (1 Cor.14:37, 2 Pet.3:16, 1 Tim.5:18 w/ Lk.10:7, Ac.13:25 w/Jn.1:27, Lk.3:16) as the gospel was already delivered by Christ and the apostles and already being defended (Lk.1:1-4, Heb.1:1-2, 2:3-4, Gal.1:8-12, Jd.3). This was what the Jews were told to expect when That Prophet arose (Deut.18:15, 18-19, Jer.31:31-4) that God’s words would be spoken by him like unto Moses (Ac.3:22-4). We do not intend to investigate all the debates surrounding the canon of 66 books that the New Testament church recognized but simply to parallel the canonization process with the acceptance and use of a particular text, and observe that the same dynamics can be appealed also in establishing the authority of a text. And why not- are the guides of history and science more sure? It seems consistent with our current discussion to point out as self evident that historians cannot provide us with a canon of which books should be included but only of which books were included and some reasons why. In the same way historians cannot tell us which text should be used only which ones were used to the extent that they are able. And so as consistent with biblical teaching regarding the building of the church upon the foundation of the apostles and by divine direction provided by the Spirit according to the one who can swear by no greater than himself, we see the canon established from the ground up by independent local churches and believers recognizing its divine authority. (Consider the ant and the locust.) Not from a top down Nicolaitane like imposition of conclusions by authoritative councils; but with the absence of any centralized authority over the churches distributed through the world and not lorded over by some seeking dominion over the faith of others. Not by many wise men after the flesh not by many mighty and noble, but rather by the foolish and weak, by the ignorant and unlearned. (1 Cor.1:26-8, Ac.4:13) The local believers were not told that they must use these 27 New Testament books alone as scripture by any supreme council or popish figure. And yet providentially and internally they were led into agreement embracing “those things which are most surely believed among us” (Lk.1:1). Would establishing a text be a more significant effort? I trow not. In order to avoid the logical error mentioned in this argument it seems to conform to heavenly patterns to establish the text of scripture in the same manner as the canon was established- providence and internal witness of the Spirit minus an empirical priest imposing imaginations upon the book of the LORD. Receiving a text just as a canon was received (apart from the immediate authority of the apostles and those who ministered with them). So that the question is not so much ‘is the church able to recognize accurately which books belong in the canon’ but rather ‘is God able to communicate accurately?’ When we take into account the omnipotence of God and his promises to preserve his word (see above) it seems absurdly barbaric to speak in terms of ‘lost books of the bible’. Behold he that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep; and he magnifies his word above all his name. If this book we hold in our hand is corrupted then heaven and earth should have passed away with the dissolving elements. If his word has been rendered of none effect by forces outside his control then there can be no knowledge of anything. We could not know that his word has been corrupted because all knowledge would be impossible. But more sure than the physical laws is the word of his power, and the bible provides us with the necessary preconditions of intelligibility. Disregard the book and knowledge unravels and logic disappears into the sea of randomness; assurance becomes phantasmal, a specter embraced in a dream. The contrary is therefore impossible. I debated these ideas in 2005 at the links below, if you are interested in seeing common misunderstandings against the position I was presenting: (with a little less patience back then perhaps...) https://www.baptistboard.com/threads/continued-presuppositionalism-and-kjv-onlyism.11585/ https://www.baptistboard.com/threads/presuppositionalism-and-kjv-onlyism.11566/ Here are some relevant and interesting exchanges: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1z47lDalpH4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SRWafRSCqs Douglas Wilson and James White
Comments