NC Church Burns Bibles On Halloween Friday, Nov 6 2009

A few weeks ago we posted about a North Carolina church that planned to burn Bibles and other Christian materials on Halloween.

I had hoped that the media coverage would have made them slink back into their cave like a member of  the Taliban, but it seems to truly have taken place.

The Wall Street Journal has an article about this event and has titled it Burnt Offerings.

What irony!

You see, it was on October 31, 1517 that Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses on the door of the church in Wittenberg.  This act is marked as the official beginning of the Protestant  Reformation.  One of the hallmarks of the Reformation is the fact that the Scriptures were translated into the vulgar, or common, language.  No longer was it locked up in Latin and inaccessible to the common man.

While we respect and love the King James Version we must say that the burning of Bibles is more in tune with Halloween than it is with Reformation Day and Reformation faith.  There is more satanic movement behind the burning of Bibles than there is true, Biblical faith and principle.

As a Burnt Offering the burning of Bibles is more in line with the wicked act of king Jehoiakim instead of the spirit of righteous Jeremiah.

Let it thus be stated, then, that the Burnt Offering of Amazing Grace Baptist Church is unacceptable to God, and is probably akin to the strange/foreign fire of Nadab and Abihu.

Leave a Response »

 

More KJVO Drivel Hot off the Press Thursday, Nov 5 2009

Joe Esposito from Pacific Baptist Church in Long Beach CA has written another rag for the inspiration and infallibility of the KJV. Here it is: http://www.pacificpublications.org/?p=339

Here’s what the book is about:

“During the past few years, an issue (for which many Fundamental Baptists seemed to be settled) has arisen that has caused a great stir within our movement. We now have Fundamental Baptist brothers claiming to be King James Only men out of of one side of their mouths while out of the other they indirectly, and in some cases directly, criticize teh very same King James Bible.  Without realizing it, they are casting a long shadow of doubt on its validity as the inerrant and infallible words of God.

This book is this authors feeble attempt to “sound the trumpet in Zion” and to herald out a warning and a call for prudence as well as a call to common sense among many Fundamental Baptist brethren.  May the Holy Spirit use this book in some small way to keep us from starting the slide down the slippery slope of compromise concerning the FINAL AUTHORITY of God’s inspired and preserved words as found in the King James Bible.”

2 Responses »

 

A Question For All Who Wish to Comment in Reply Monday, Nov 2 2009

I am looking for an interlinear NT.

I would like one that contains some manner of  justification for the reading chosen.

At this point I have two based on the TR, but would like one based on the TR with variants noted with a justification for their inclusion.  I would also like one based upon the latest UBS of Nestle that would also have the same.

Any suggestions?

5 Responses »

 

Understanding the Printed Greek Texts Sunday, Nov 1 2009

Now that we’ve looked at the different text types from the extant  MSS , we need to proceed to the next step in the process of how we got our Bible. The next step is to compile the extant MSS, compare them  look for differences in the readings and make educated decisions about which reading is the right one. Then when the evidence has been weighed and measured, then a standardized Greek NT or Hebrew OT must be compiled so that a translation can be made into the receptor language.  So, let’s look at these standardized Greek texts and how they came into being. The process by which scholars compare MSS and make decisions as to which reading was the original is called “textual criticism”. This is not to be confused with “Higher Criticism” which is the study of events in the Bible and then determining whether the events, people, and sayings are really true. This is generally an academic endeavor by liberals who want to disprove the Bible from the start. Textual Criticism, however is simply the process by which the original reading of the Bible is discovered in the multitude of MSS available.

1. The Textus Receptus

The first one I want to talk about is what has been called “the Received Text” in Latin “textus receptus”. This is really the first of the text that for the most part, your KJV and NKJV is translated from. The history of this text begins with a man named Desedrius Erasmus who was really the first textual critic. Erasmus was born in 1466 and lived during the time of the Reformation. He was a brilliant Roman Catholic scholar who became famous for his writings.  He was an upright and moral man, but there’s little evidence that he ever was born again because he never left the Catholic Church when there was ample opportunity to do so in the middle of the Reformation. Church historian Philip Schaff writes of Erasmus:

“He desired a reformation by gradual education and gentle persuasion within the limits of the old Church system.  He disapproved of the violent measures of Luther and Zwingli, and feared that they would do much harm to the cause of learning and refined culture, which he had more at heart than religion. The truth is that Erasmus was a critical scholar and not a man of action or of deep conviction.  AT  best, he was a moralist, he went through no such religiouns experiences as Luther, and Luther early wrote of Erasmus that he “feared Erasmus knew little of the grace of God.”

In the year 1515, Erasmus was in England when a printer named John Froben pleaded with him to put together a Greek NT that would make a great product for both of them to profit from and also be a blessing to the church scholarship. Erasmus gathered all the Greek MSS he could find in Basle England, and came up with five, none of which contained the entire NT (all were dated 12^th century or later). He had to borrow a MSS of Revelation from a friend but it lacked a sheet containing several of the last verses. In this case, he took readings from the Latin Vulgate and translated them back into Greek. All of his MSS were of the Byzantine text type because that was all that was available back then. He could have used Codex Vaticanus which is Alexandrian, but for some reason turned it down. It could be because of all the scribal errors that would have slowed down his work. After all, he was in a hurry to be the first one to print a NT Greek text.

A year later, he published his first edition in 1516 and it was dedicated to Pope Leo X.  However, because he did this work in such a hurry, there were a many typographical errors. Afterwards, he made corrections and in the succeeding years, five editions were printed. Erasmus’ work made it possible to now translate a version of the Bible into another language from the original languages. Luther used his second edition for his famous German translation.

Some years later between 1546-1551, a Reformer named Robert Estienne aka Stephanus was a royal printer in France who carried on the work of Erasmus’ textual work with 15 other MSS and during his life, he printed four editions of the Greek NT which included a critical apparatus. This was a marginal writing that documented his decisions on which readings he chose and why.

Then again sometime between 1565-1604, another man came on the scene to further the textual work. His name was Theodore Beza. He was the successor to John Calvin. He took over Calvin’s ministry when he died and was a well respected scholar.  He published about nine editions of the improved text. This last edition of the Greek Text was used in 1611 to translate the King James Version.

Afterwards in 1633, two brothers, Abraham and Bonaventure Elzevir continued the textual work of Beza and published several more editions.  In an advertisement, they wrote in Latin: “You have therefore a text now received by all, in which we give nothing altered or corrupt.” This is where the name Textus Receptus came from and from now on, we will refer to it as the TR.

Later on in 1707, a man named John Mills published another edition of the TR where he continued the Textual work by looking at over 100 MSS.

So far what we’ve seen is that the TR went through at least 20 editions and I believe it was further updated by Fredrick Scrivener in the 1800’s. Many KJVO advocates like to say that the TR is the preserved Text, but then the question is raised: which TR? There are at least 20 editions of them. Again, we go back to our understanding of Biblical Inspiration and preservation. God did not tell us he would preserve His words in one MSS family, one published text or any translation from any of those texts.

2. The Majority Text

The next text I’d like to take a look at is the majority text which also comes from the Byzantine Text Type.  Many times, people mix up the TR with the MT. This is a mistake because the TR doesn’t always favor the Majority text readings. There are minority readings in the TR and conversely, in the KJV also. Like we mentioned before, I John 5:17 is one of those examples of a minority reading. The Byzantine text type makes up the vast majority of the 5487 ancient MSS.  What is interesting is that there are 1838 different readings from the MT and the TR. So far there has only been two publications of a Greek Text taken from the MT published in 1982 and 1985 by Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad by Nelson publishers. The MT has not yet been the basis of any English translation although the NKJV favors some of the MT readings and thus differs from the TR and the KJV in some places as a result.  Although in the past there has not been a lot of favor for a MT position in modern scholarship, scholars like Harry Sturz have been championing the MT as the favored text based on early witnesses to the Byzantine text type as superior to the early witnesses to the Alexandrian text type.  The earliest Church Father to witness to a Byzantine text-type in substantial New Testament quotations is John Chrysostom (c. 349 — 407); although the fragmentary surviving works of Asterius the Sophist († 341) have also been considered to conform to the Byzantine text. The earliest translation to witness to a Greek base conforming generally to the Byzantine text is the Syriac Peshitta; usually dated to the 4th century; although in respect of several much contested readings, such as Mark 1:2 and John 1:18, the Peshitta rather supports the Alexandrian witnesses.

Personally I would prefer an accurate “word for word” type of English translation from the Byzantine MT over the TR and if one was to be translated, I would consider using it as my preferred version over the KJV. However, at this time, the KJV and the NKJV are the only two versions in English that come from the same Byzantine text type and so I prefer them.  The other advantage that the Byzantine MT has is the use of the churches through out history.

2. The Eclectic or Critical Text

Since the discovery of Codex Sinaiaticus in the 1840’s, most textual scholars have believed that the older Alexandrian MSS more accurately resemble what the originals would have said above what the later Byzantine MSS witness. So, the first Greek text based on the Alexandrian MSS was published by Tischendorf in the 1849’s , who found Codex Sinaiaticus.

After his work, the textual work that is most notable is that of Brook Foss Westcott and Fenton Anthony Hort. These men were two Anglican bishops who worked for nearly 30 years with the two oldest MSS (Sinaiaticus and Vaticanus) to compile a new textual base for translation that was published in 1881. At this point in the discussion, a lot of accusations are raised against these two men; some true and some not true.

Here’s an example of a false accusation by Gail Riplinger, the author of “New Age Versions”:

“Riplinger accuses Westcott of being a “spiritualist,” although there is no evidence of this in any of Westcott’s or his son’s books. In New Age Bible Versions, Riplinger states:

The Greek Text used to translate the NIV, NASB and others was an edition drastically altered by a Spiritualist (one who seeks contact with the dead through seances), who believed he was in the “new age.”

Here Riplinger cites Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, Vol. 2, by Arthur Westcott. There is nothing in the book implicating Westcott as a “spiritualist”; the page cited contains a letter written by the Bishop in 1898, concerning the uncertainty of changing times as a new century was about to begin and the Industrial Revolution was advancing more rapidly. In the letter, Westcott notes “the struggles of a new age.” The “new age” Westcott is referring to was the “new era” of change. The term “New Age”, as it is used today, was not yet heard of in 1898.

Anyway, some of the things that I have seen that are attributed to their writings seem to question the six day creation which was pretty clear that he didn’t believe. I’ve read other things said about him such as in David Sorenson’s book where he obviously is looking for something to use against him such as on page 113, 115. I am not an expert on these men, and have not read much of their writings and I am reluctant to cast a judgment upon them especially since much of what I have seen written against them is not true.

Westcott and Hort put together a new set of rules by which to weigh textual evidence instead of counting it. They believed that each MSS family could be traced back to a common relative by which the others had been copied and that no matter how many MSS there were in a particular family, it should be weighed with the same amount of importance as a MSS where there are very few copies. They basically believed that the older MSS that had been recently found in their day were the most accurate to the originals and that their readings should be favored when they differed from the Majority of MSS. They taught that if there were two readings that differed, the more difficult reading should be preferred because they presumed that scribes would simplify rather than complicate the text and that the shorter reading should be preferred because scribes would include more possible variants rather than exclude any possible words from the text. They felt that the Byzantine text was conflated – it included extra words and phrases in order not to leave any that are possibly legitimate parts of the sacred text. However, Harry Sturz, the MT advocate notes that in numerous cases, such apparent conflation in older MSS are found in even the Alexandrian MSS. So, this idea can’t be fully trusted. Using these kinds of rules of textual criticism, they put together their Greek NT which became the basis of the 1901 American Standard Version.

Later in 1898 Eberhardt Nestle published another Greek NT comparing Westcott and Hort’s work with Tischendorf’s. In 1927, his son Erwin Nestle continued published the 13^th edition of his father’s work and in 1950 another man named Kurt Aland became Erwin Nestle’s associate in the textual work. The latest edition of the Nestle Aland text was published in 1993 in it’s 27^th edition. In the most recent editions, this text has given more serious consideration to the readings of the Byzantine MSS.

The United Bible Society led by Eugene Nida had also published its first Greek NT in 1966 and four editions have been published since, the last of which was published in 1993. This Greek text is very similar to the Nestle Aland 27^th edition. What troubles me about the UBS is editorial board have overseen these Greek NT’s. There is a Roman Catholic, a Greek Orthodox and several theological liberals.

3. What is the difference?

The TR has 140,744 words  100% point of reference for the sake of comparison.

The MT has 140,259 words  99.65% compared to the TR

The NA27 has 138,019 words. 98.06% compared to the TR

There are few verses which the NA27 and the MT do not include in their texts. Almost 10% of the 2725 TR words not included in the NA27 are in just 17 passages. Three of these passages are not included in the MT either. All of these passages appear in the NA27 and MT footnotes.

The absence of these passages is not necessarily due to some conspiracy, but to the ancient testimony of Greek Bibles used by Christians living in the first few centuries. Almost all the modern versions also carry these verses in the margins. In addition to these 17 passages absent from the oldest MSS, there are 6 more which include up to 31 verses, yet in the modern versions, these verses are given the benefit of the doubt and are put in. Not one of those variants from the older MSS changes any doctrine that cannot be found elsewhere in the scripture.

Conclusion: All modern versions of the English Bible are translated from the NA 27 or the UBS 4^th Edition and none use the old Westcott and Hort Greek NT. The only two that have not been translated from one of these texts is the KJV and the NKJV. Because of the fact that these Alexandrian MSS have been hidden for so long and the church got along fine using Byzantine type of MSS to base their translations on; and so many questionable people have been on the editorial boards of these many editions of the critical text, I am not inclined to trust their scholarship.

Even so, after I spent hours reading all kinds of diatribes against Westcott and Hort, Nestle and Aland and the United Bible Society in the attempt to convince the reader that their Greek texts are totally corrupted and of the devil. The truth is, the differences are so small, it boggles my mind that some of these authors would spend their entire lives trying to destroy these men’s reputations when their Greek texts have such a small difference. Like I said before, you have to weigh the evidence and make a decision yourself as I have and I’d rather stick with church history and the reformers text than the modern text, but in the end, it doesn’t make as big a difference as the controversy has made it out to be.

For the record, here are the major variants that I mentioned earlier:

The 17 Minor Variants

Matthew 17:21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

Matthew 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

Matthew 23:14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

Mark 7:16 ¹⁶ If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

Mark 9:44 ⁴⁴ Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Mark 9:46 ⁴⁴ Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Mark 11:26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.

Mark 15:28 And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.

Luke 17:36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

John 5:3b-4 …of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water.  ⁴ For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Acts 15:34 ³⁴ Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.

Acts 24:6-7 nd would have judged according to our law.  ⁷ But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,

Acts 28:29 And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.

Romans 16:24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

1 John 5:7-8 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.  ⁸ And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

The other SIX major variants

Matthew 12:47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

Matthew 21:44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

Mark 16:9-20 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.  ¹⁰ And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.  ¹¹ And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.  ¹² ¶ After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.  ¹³ And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.  ¹⁴ ¶ Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.  ¹⁵ And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.  ¹⁶ He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.  ¹⁷ And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;  ¹⁸ They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.  ¹⁹ ¶ So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.  ²⁰ And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

Luke 22:43-44 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.  ⁴⁴ And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

John 7:53 – 8:11 And every man went unto his own house.  ^KJV John 8:1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.  ² And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.  ³ And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,  ⁴ They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.  ⁵ Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?  ⁶ This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.  ⁷ So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  ⁸ And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.  ⁹ And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.  ¹⁰ When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?  ¹¹ She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Romans 16:25-27 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,  ²⁶ But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:  ²⁷ To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.

Leave a Response »

 

Book Review: Understanding English Bible Translation Thursday, Oct 29 2009

Understanding English Bible Translation: The Case for an Essentially Literal Approach by Leland Ryken

My rating: 5 of 5 stars
Understanding English Bible Translation: The Case for an Essentially Literal Approach
By
Leland Ryken
ISBN-10: 1433502798
ISBN-13: 9781433502798

The one who avoids this book due to a fear of it being overly scholarly and hard to understand will certainly make a mistake. While the book is indeed well researched and intelligently written, it is also easy to read and to understand.
Ryken deals with the differences between dynamic equivalent translations of the Bible (those that translate in a more thought by thought manner) and formal equivalent translations (those that attempt to translate word for word).
Ryken claims that an essentially literal translation, or a formal equivalent translation is more to be desired than a dynamic equivalent.
Why? He gives a number of reasons. Two of these reasons stand out to me above all others. One is that the dynamic equivalent translations are not consistent. They vary from one translation to the other so that one is not sure which translation is correct. This leads to a destabilized text. It leads people to wonder which is correct. Another reason is that dynamic equivalent translations often present commentary instead of translation. Thus the reader gets the understanding of the translator, but doesn’t always get the understanding of the underlying text.
An essentially literal translation, however, seeks to translate word for word the original language into the receptor language. For the subject at hand, that language is English, because that is the language with which Ryken deals. (As an aside, I read one person who took issue with Ryken because things don’t always work as well when translating into languages other than English. Ryken specifically states, however, that he is only dealing with English and understands that other languages present significant challenges in this respect.) With an essentially literal translation, there may be variance in the words used to translate, yet they will still yield basically the same understanding when compared one to the other. An essentially literal translation will also present essentially the same words and phrases as the original texts so that the reader will be reading basically the same thing that the Biblical writers presented to their original readers.
As one who grew up under the King James Version and still uses it today, I was impressed that this author respects the KJV instead of breezily dismissing it. In fact, he claims (and I think, rightly so) that all essentially literal translations follow the same philosophy as the translators of the KJV.
In a day when there is much confusion over Bible translations and translating philosophies this book is a breath of fresh air. I believe it also brings some needed clarity to the debate. I could only wish that everyone saw the need for an essentially literal translation.

(This book provided for review by Crossway Publishers.)

View all my reviews >>

9 Responses »

 

The Providentially Preserved Manuscripts Wednesday, Oct 21 2009

In this post, I want to lay out the manuscript evidence, or at least a synopsis or summary.  This is what God has preserved that we can observe today. We’ll look at both Old and New Testament texts.

The Old Testament Text

Deuteronomy 17:18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:

A. The Masoretic Text

The Masoretic text of the Old Testament is the basis of our OT Bible today.  The name comes from “editors” who produced and safe guarded the OT manuscripts for many years (AD 500-1000).  These men carefully formed a system by which to copy scripture.

EG: They counted the number of times each letter of the alphabet occurs in each book; they pointed out the middle letter of the Pentateuch and the middle letter of the whole Hebrew Bible and made even more detailed calculations than these.  The Masoretic text comes to us from the influence of the Ben Asher family in the 9^th-10^th centuries.  There are also manuscript witnesses to another family of texts from the family Ben  Naphtali and between the two, there are very little differences.  Within the Masoretic text family, there was a particular manuscript of great importance called the Leningrad Codex, which is the oldest complete manuscript of the entire Old Testament which was probably copied in the year 1008.  Most translations after 1937 have used this text and others before, such as the KJV were translated from 1524-25 Blomberg edition prepared by Jacob Ben Chayyim who was a Jewish Christian.  Both manuscripts are Masoretic texts and the differences are very small and inconsequential.

B. Other Hebrew MSS

The Dead Sea Scrolls – discovered by a shepherd throwing rocks in the caves in 1947. These were preserved for thousands of years by the Eseenes, an ancient Jewish sect of isolationists. The scrolls were copied in the first century. The difference in these manuscripts in comparison to the other extant manuscripts of the OT is amazingly small. God certainly preserved His OT words with intense care and accuracy.

Other MSS of the OT were found at the Masada site where the Jews held out against the Romans and were finally crushed. Those few manuscripts date back to 66-73AD. A few others that date back to the first and second century have also survived.

2. The New Testament Manusripts

There are, at this time over 5000 partial or whole manuscripts of the New Testament text and only 50 of these contain the entire NT. These MSS range from the time of the first century to the 12^th century and they also represent a wide array of different types of writing, paper, and geographical locations from where they originated from. These copies of NT MSS can be put into five main categories:

Papyri – Made from papyrus. It was a kind of paper made of reeds in the marshy areas of the Nile River and other waterways. Few of these MSS survived since this kind of paper easily disintegrates over time. Unicals – This term refers to MSS written in all CAPS. This was the writing used of literary works in its day. It’s more formal, takes longer to write and was mostly written on Vellum (animal skins) for longer lasting life of the document.  There are over 260 extant manuscripts of this style.

Minuscules – About the 9^th Century a reform in handwriting took place, with the result that a cursive script using smaller letters was adopted to produce books. They were faster to write, took less space on a page and as a result, most extant MSS of NT books are minuscules.

Lectionaries – These are church reading books containing select portions of Scriptures to be read on set days according to liturgical order.

Early Church Fathers’ testimony – The other source of NT MSS is to look at the quotations of Scripture from the sermons and letters of the early church fathers as a witness to what they would have been reading as the Bible, even if there are no extant MSS to back up one of their quotations.  There are so many commentaries and sermons by the early church fathers, that if all of the copies of MSS were to disappear, you could still reproduce almost the entire NT with just their quotations!

15 Responses »

 

NC Church to Burn Bibles for Halloween Wednesday, Oct 14 2009

Based upon a twisted view of Scripture, a NC church intends to burn Bibles and other literature on Halloween.  (See story here and here.)

It seems that Amazing Grace Baptist Church (Where is the grace in the sort of activity that they are carrying on?) is a King James Only church and considers all other English translations of God’s Word to be satanic.  They also consider Southern Gospel Music, Contemporary Christian Music, and the books of Billy Graham to be satanic, it seems.

The list of authors whose books will be burned is as follows:

“Westcott & Hort , Bruce Metzger, , Rick Warren , Bill Hybels , John McArthur, James Dobson, Charles Swindoll , John Piper, Chuck Colson, Tony Evans, Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swagart, Mark Driskol, Franklin Graham , Bill Bright, Tim Lahaye, Paula White, T.D. Jakes, Benny Hinn , Joyce Myers, Brian McLaren, Robert Schuller, Mother Teresa , The Pope , Rob Bell, Erwin McManus, Donald Miller, Shane Claiborne, Brennan Manning, William Young, etc.”

Let it be known that this is not right.  It is not gracious.  It is not charitable.  It does not show the Spirit of Christ.  It is not Biblical.  It is not the behavior of a Biblical Fundamentalist.  Historically, Biblical Fundamentalists have respected God’s Word wherever it was found.  This burning of Bibles is simply a new form of modernism that sets up man as the authority over God’s Word so that he can judge right and wrong by his own standards.  It seems that Scripture is not sufficient for this sort of “fundamentalist”.  He must go beyond Scripture, but in so doing, he condemns Scripture, thus making himself the final judge and arbiter of what is right.

It is my prayer that Bible believers all over our nation will lift up their voices and cry out against the graceless wickedness of Pastor Marc Grizzard and Amazing Grace Baptist Church.

(Originally published on Fundamentally Changed.)

9 Responses »

 

KJVO’ism, John 1:18, And The Eternal Sonship of Jesus Tuesday, Oct 13 2009

The Eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ

(Originally Posted on Fundamentally Changed)

The eternal sonship of Jesus is a very important doctrine. It is also a doctrine that cannot be fully comprehended by mortal man. On the other hand, mortals must this doctrine as being true. Remembering that God is spirit and is not bound by time, space, and material/bodily constraints, will help us to more readily accept this truth. Being the Son of God means that Jesus is God. The Son has the nature of the Father. This means that the Son is eternal. Though He was begotten and not made, the Son is eternal. While these things are hard to be understood, let us attempt to attain a rudimentary knowledge of them.

God The Father Begat God The Son

As we consider the fact that God the Father begat God the Son we must see that the nature of God demands the understanding that this begetting is neither temporal nor physical. It is an eternal begetting because the Son is God and God is eternal. The Father did not beget the Son in time. Neither is it a physical begetting, but it is spiritual in nature. Numerous New Testament verses testify that God the Father is the Father of Jesus (2Cor 1:3; Eph 1:2,3;3:14; Col 3:19;1Pet 1:3 are a few examples.).

John gives us a wonderful and rich passage concerning the eternal generation of the Son by the Father. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. ” (John 1:1-3,14) KJV The Father’s glory shines forth in His only begotten Son who is the image of the Father.

Before Jesus was ever begotten in the womb of the virgin Mary He was the Son of God. The sonship of Jesus is not a physical sonship, but a spiritual one. As Isaiah prophesied of the coming of Jesus, he told us, “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” ( Isaiah 9:6) KJV This passage tells us that Jesus was the Son before He became a man; He was given as the Son. Not only so, but He is one with His Father, which tells us that the Son of God is God. We again read, “ For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.” ( John 3:16,17) KJV The Son was given and sent thus testifying to the fact that Jesus was the Son before He became a man.

There has never been a time when God in all of His glorious perfection did not have a complete comprehension of who He is. Never has there been a time in which God did not have a full understanding of all His nature and His deeds. In the midst of this perception that God has of Himself is to be found the fact that God delights in Himself; He is the happy God (1Tim 1:11). This idea, love, delight, and contemplation of His own perfections is so complete that it stands forth as another person. This person is the second person of the Godhead, the Son of God. This is a begetting in a spiritual sense because the One begotten is truly the eternal offspring of the Father. The Son is eternally begotten, because there has never been a time that God has not had this perfect delight in, and understanding of, who He is. This means that the Son is eternal, having no temporal beginning. It also means that the Son is indeed divine in all facets of His nature. “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.” (Hebrews 1:1-8) KJV This passage speaks volumes about this wonderful truth. It tells us that the Son is of the same character as the Father, that He is the Son who is begotten of God, is due worship, and is God. God the Father plainly declared that He begat the Son, saying “ For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?” ( Hebrews 1:5) KJV God the Father spoke from Heaven on two different occasions acknowledging Jesus as His Son. “And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” ( Matthew 3:16,17) KJV “While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.” ( Matthew 17:5) KJV

The Father’s Witness to The Son

The Father bore witness to the Sonship of Jesus at least three times while He was on earth. The first was at His baptism: “And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3:16,17) KJV The second time was when He spoke to Peter, James, and John in the Mount of Transfiguration: “ While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.” (Matthew 17:5) KJV Finally, the Father testified of the Sonship of Jesus when He raised Christ from the dead. Paul said that He was “ declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.” (Romans 1:4) KJV This is, I believe, a faithful representation of the Sonship of Jesus Christ, our Creator and Redeemer.

Why This Issue on The KJVO Debate Blog?

Someone may ask why we would choose to deal with this doctrine on the KJVO Debate blog. The reason is that there are those who declare that the differences between the King James (Authorized) Version and the post KJV versions in John 1:18 are heretical differences. This aim of this article is to show that calling Jesus the only begotten God is by no means heresy. In fact, we have used the much revered (and worthily loved) KJV to do so.

Here is the verse as seen in the KJV, ESV, and NASB:

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995 (electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version.) (Jn 1:18). Bellingham WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side,he has made him known.

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Jn 1:18). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

No one has seen God at any time;the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Jn 1:18). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

We grant that there is indeed a difference to be found. The difference is in words, but not in doctrine. The difference could probably be explained to us by scholars on either side of this issue. It is not our intention to deal with the textual issue in this article. It is our intent to show that the doctrine of the eternal sonship of Jesus Christ is in both the KJV and the newer versions.

It is not heretical to declare that Jesus was begotten of the Father. Jn 1:14 tells us that He is the only begotten of the Father. The ancient confessions declare that He was “begotten, not made.” We have seen above that it is orthodox truth to believe that Jesus is the only begotten of the Father. To call Jesus the only begotten Son of God is to declare that Jesus is God from all eternity; to declare that He has no beginning nor ending.

Sadly, in their zeal for the truth of God’s Word, many King James Only-ites are found guilty of heresy by denying the eternal sonship of Jesus Christ. The heresy is not found on the part of those who accept the newer versions, but on the part of many KJVO believers. (The newer versions actually make the deity of Christ clearer in this verse. ) KJVO believers would do well to open up their Bibles and a good theology so as to learn of God the truth of His Word on this point.

2 Responses »

 

A Play On Words And A KJV Translation Monday, Oct 12 2009

Evangelical Textual Criticism blog posts about a newly published fragment on 1 Pet. 2:3.  Peter Kirk at Better Bibles Blog explains how it reveals a play on words in 1Pet 2:3.

It seems that the fragment presents Christos (Christ) instead of chrestos (good). Thus the verse would read “if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is Christ” instead of “if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.” (ESV)

That is very interesting.

Even more interesting is the fact that the KJV says “If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.” The thing is that “gracious” does not seem to be anywhere as near the meaning of chrestos as “good”. After all, the average, well-read Christian who does not consider the Greek will think of “gracious” as related to unmerited favor in some manner, and not to kindness and goodness.

I wonder why this was translated by the KJV translators in this manner?

2 Responses »

 

A Chick Tract “Attack” Thursday, Oct 8 2009

If you have heard of “Chick tracts”, you have earned “authentic fundamentalist pedigree” status.  They are the favorite of many a fundamentalist I knew.  Some of them are quite good, and the comic strip draws you in to the message of the tract.  But the sensationalist nature of a comic-strip gospel is secondary to the over-the-top conspiratorial tone and the in-your-face ultra conservative Christian message.

I have seen quite a few Chick tracts in my day, but I’m not sure I had stumbled across this one.  Or if I had, I wasn’t yet free of my fundamentalist KJV onlyism.  “The Attack” is a tract about Satan’s attack on the Bible.  And yes, some of the biggest conspiracy theories of all time play second fiddle to the tale you’ll read here.

The tract is filled with half truths, bare assertions, and undocumented slander.  Apparently the Jesuits teach in most evangelical Bible colleges, incognito.   The Vulgate is to be avoided, yet 1 John 5:7 is the litmus test for having a proper, unadulterated Bible.

I can’t say any more right now, I might say more in the comments.  But the tract speaks for itself.  And thanks to the world wide web, you can read it all for yourself.  Check out Jack Chick’s “The Attack”.  Let me know what you think!

One last thought: if you see no problem with the exaggerations and ultra-simplification of this important issue, as given in Chick’s tract, then you deserve the “tin-foil hat” title, that Fred Butler so astutely explains.

10 Responses »