w Latin
version, he wrote a letter in 383 A. D. to the person commissioning the
translation stating: "Thou compellest me to make a new work out of
an old so that after so many copies of the Scriptures have been dispersed
throughout the whole world I am as it were to occupy the post of arbiter,
and seeing they differ from one another am to determine which of them are
in agreement with the original Greek. If they maintain that confidence
is to be reposed in the Latin exemplars, let them answer which, for there
are almost as many copies of the translations as manuscripts. But if the
truth is to be sought from the majority, why not rather go back to the
Greek original, and correct the blunders which have been made by incompetent
translators, made worse rather then better by the presumption of unskillful
correctors, and added to or altered by careless scribes." It was Jerome's
contention that in his day a number of manuscripts existed that had been
"altered, " "corrected," and otherwise corrupted by
"careless scribes" and "incompetent translators," and
the only way to insure the new Latin translation was to be accurate was
to allow him to go to the majority of the Greek manuscripts that were in
common usage in his time. Unfortunately, has Roman masters did not allow
him to do so, and his Vulgate was simply a revision of the already existing
corrupt Latin versions. The Greek manuscripts. There are at present about
5,255 manuscripts of the New Testament in existence, and approximately
90% of those manuscripts follow the Traditional text. Let's take a closer
look at these manuscripts to see what they are. 1. The Papyrus fragments
are small pieces of papyrus, which is a type of paper made from the papyrus
plant which grows in Egypt. This paper is very brittle, and crumbles easily
when handled. Most of these fragments are broken pieces with a few verses
on them. The oldest existing manuscripts are these papyrus fragments, or
papyri. These manuscripts date from the second century (100-200) A. D.,
to the seventh century (600-700). Frequently the earliest papyri support
the distinctive Traditional readings. These Traditional readings caused
a problem for those who hold to the Critical text, providing a strong witness
for the early existence of the Traditional text. One of the oldest, the
fragment called P66, which dates to the second century (100-200) A. D.,
gives strong support for the Traditional text in over 25% of its readings,
thus destroying the theory of the proponents of the Critical text that
states the Traditional text did not originate until the mid- fourth century
(350 A. D.). However, care should be taken not to overstate the evidence
of the papyri as they will often side with the Critical text against the
Traditional text. 2. The Uncials are Greek manuscripts that are written
in all capital letters. These uncials or majuscules as they are sometimes
called have no punctuation or spaces between the letters. As of this writing
there are 274 uncials dating from between the third century (200-300 A.
D.) to the tenth century (900-1000 A. D.). Over 85% of the readings from
these uncials follow the Traditional text. 3. The Cursives, sometimes called
minuscules, are Greek manuscripts written in what we would call "longhand",
or cursive writing. During the ninth century (800-900 A. D.) the scribes
who were responsible for the copying of the New Testament abandoned the
uncial (all capital letters) script in favor of the small-lettered cursive
(minuscule) script. There are about 2800 of these cursive manuscripts,
and the overwhelming majority of these (90%) side with the Traditional
text. The textual implication of this change of writing style has often
been overlooked in the textual debate. Jakob van Braggen says: "It
is assumed that after this transliteration process the majuscule was taken
out of circulation.... The import of this datum has not been taken into
account enough in the present New Testament textual criticism, for it implies,
that just the oldest, best,ot;To claim, therefore, inerrancy for the King James Version...is to
claim inerrancy for men who never professed it for themselves..."
No one, that I am aware of, is claiming inerrancy for men, but only for
the words of God. This position is, I believe, a straw man, attempting
to ascribe to us something we do not believe, and then condemn us for believing
what they claim we believe. I believe the AV is vested with derivative
inspiration, due to its having been carefully translated from the inspired
words of the original language texts contained in the Traditional Masoretic
(Bomberg's Second Rabbinic Bible, as edited by Rabbi Abraham Ben Chayyim),
and the Traditional Greek (Byzantine or TR) text. I consider the Stuttgartensia
and Alexandrian (WH) texts, from which all modern bibles are translated,
to be corrupt. This is, I believe, easily demonstrated by the egregious
errors contained in the versions translated from them. If we believe the
AV has derivative inspiration, we must re member, where inspiration (even
derivative inspiration) goes, inerrancy (also derivative) must, of logical
necessity, follow. If inerrancy does not follow inspiration, we produce
the absurdity of an "inspired" error! I believe the AV is inspired
and inerrant because the preserved original language manuscripts from which
it is derived are both inspired and inerrant, when correctly copied, which
virtually all of the textual evidence suggests is assuredly the case. The
charge of errors in the AV is an unfounded charge. The so-called errors
are usually the result of an insufficient knowledge of the etymology of
the English words used by the translators. Just a little knowledge of the
English language clears up a great number of these so-called errors. Th
ere are only about 268 words in the A.V. (out of 773,692, a rate of only
.00035) that are not currently used in English (wot, wist, etc), or have
changed meaning (Easter referred to the vernal equinox in 1611, the time
of the Jewish Passover, but now refers either to Resurrection Sunday, or
a secular holiday involving an egg laying rabbit(?)). I believe it is easier
(and safer) to educate God's people as to the changes in English than to
tamper with the Bible. So then, it seems clear to me that Dr. Riley believed
there were still a few of the "old conception" men in his day
that still believed in an inerrant AV, that they were mostly old men, and
were soon to pass away. If these men were old men when Riley wrote his
book, they must have dated to at least the latter part of the 19th century.
Over one hundred years ago, a group of "old conception" men existed
who still believed in the inerrancy of the AV. This appears to indicate
the "King James Only" position is not of recent origin. Thus
we can see, in Riley's day, a group of men still existed who believed,
"(1) the Bible was finished in heaven and handed down, (2) the King
James Version was absolutely inerrant, and (3) its literal acceptance was
alone correct." (Page nine of Riley's book as quoted by Dr. George
W. Dollar in his book "History of Fundamentalism in America",
Page 114) We can easily see that W. B. Riley (1861 - 1947), understood
this group of men to believe exactly as the "King James Only"
crowd does today, and believed it long before any of the contemporary antagonists
were born! The challenge of one scoffer to "Name one person who believed
in the inspiration or inerrancy of the King James Version prior to 1950
and I'll send you $1000", has just been answered (please send the
money to me at the address in the front of this book!). Unfortunately Riley
himself did not hold this position, and his successor, Richard V. Clearwaters,
went on to study at the University of Chicago Divinity School (Masters
in Greek Literature) under Goodspeed. In 1923 Dr. Edgar J. Goodspeed published
his "New Testament: An American Translation," based on the corrupt
Critical (Wescott and Hort) Text. Goodspeed convinced Clearwaters that
the Critical Text as published by Wescott and Hort was superior to the
Textus Receptus that Clearwaters had been originally willing to accept,
and that others believed had been "handed down" from heaven.
This accounted for the fact that while I was a student at Central, Dr.
Roland McCune (now president of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary) taught
Old Testament from the New American Standard Bible, and more recently,
the new president, Dr. Ernest Pickering, often preached from the New International
Version. Most recently, Dr. Larry Pettegrew, Professor of Historical and
Systematic Theology, wrote a paper entitled "The King James Only Religion",
in which he states that those who hold the King James Only position are
in fact (1) not fundamentalists, (2) doctrinally deviant, (3) of a "new
view that was not held by the prominent Bible teachers, pastors, and leaders
of early historic fundamentalism" (in spite of the fact that the founder
of the very seminary that now supports him believed these men pre-dated
him!). He goes on (and on and on) to say "...there are some poor translations
in the King James Version. When the Anglicans translated the Greek word,
'baptizo,' for example, they were afraid to translate it as 'immerse.'
So they simply transliterated it as 'baptize.' Most Bible-believing Baptists
would consider that a mistake." It never ceases to amaze me that so
called scholars, who obviously consider themselves to be well educated,
can spout such nonsense. Any person who knows how to read can look up the
word "baptize" in the Oxford English Dictionary (any good college
library will have one) and see that the word "baptize" did not
enter the English language in 1611 via a transliteration of the Greek word
"baptizo", but rather, had been in common usage in England for
over five hundred years, having come into the English language via the
French "baptiste", at the time of the Norman invasion under William
the Conqueror in 1066 A.D.! A look at the word "immerse" in that
same dictionary will reveal that at the time the King James translators
were working, the word immerse did not mean the same as it does now, to
submerge in, but at that time meant "to fill and co-mingle with"
as a sponge soaks up water. No intelligent person would suggest today such
a meaning for baptism, yet these so-called scholars are constantly assaulting
our ears and intellects with such nonsense! If a student of mine handed
in a paper full of such errors in simple research I would give him an "F",
and make him start over. Too bad Central doesn't have such a standard for
its faculty. Much that I learned at Central was the product of the old
Northern Baptist thinking, as modified by the more liberal mind set of
the University of Chicago Divinity School, including the uncritical acceptance
of the conservative orthodox position on inspiration. Many of my professors
had been educated, not in independent Baptist schools, but in colleges
and seminaries that can best be described as either conservative protestant,
or former Northern Baptists who left the convention but brought much of
the furniture and baggage with them when they came out. Their teaching,
of course, reflected the conservative protestant, or, at best, the conservative
Northern Baptist position. This problem of college and seminary professors
continues today. When the Independent Baptist movement began here in the
United States, much of the leadership of the new movement decided to start
their own colleges and seminaries. As these new schools grew and the leadership
began to look for additional faculty members they soon realized the only
men who were academically qualified were eduthe local church for the work of the ministry and the edifying of the
body of Christ, we see in Ephesians 4:11-12, "And he gave some, apostles;
and some prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the
edifying of the body of Christ." There are a couple of things I would
like to point out here. First, the gifts of these specially equipped men
is given to the local church, for the work of the local church ministry,
and for the building up of the local church. Nowhere is the so-called para-church
organization, or College, or Seminary mentioned, and nowhere is the "Scholar"
mentioned as a specially equipped man who has been given the guardianship
of the oracles of God! Second, when you read the description of the last
specially gifted man who is given to the local church for its benefit,
you will see that man is called a pastor/teacher. There is no semicolon
between pastor and teacher, as there is between all of the other titles,
because it is all one gift, vested in one man. Therefore the scholars may
not usurp the title "teacher" in this context unless they are
also bearers of the title and office of pastor. I am of the opinion that
we must guard very carefully the office and title of pastor. I have heard
camp directors and nursing home chaplains referred to as "pastor"
so-and-so. A pastor is a pastor only if he is the shepherd of a flock of
born-again, baptized believers, organized, and assembled together, having
the ordinances, and officers of a true New Testament Church. In reference
to that term "scholar", don't get me wrong, I have no problem
with scholarly thinking. The men that I studied under, Dr. Richard V. Clearwaters,
and Dr. George W. Dollar were, and still are, two of the most scholarly
men who have ever lived. Dr. Dollar is, in my opinion, the worlds foremost
expert on Church History, especially as it pertains to fundamentalism in
America. However, both of these good and Godly men also held the office
of pastor. Dr. Clearwaters was pastor of Fourth Baptist Church in Minneapolis
for over forty years, and Dr. Dollar was co- pastor of that same great
church during his entire tenure at Central Baptist Seminary. The "scholar"
that I am referring to is the man who does not hold the office of pastor,
but usurps the duties of that office, and often looks down upon the mere
pastor from the lofty heights of academia, thanking God he is not like
other men, such as this lowly pastor! Getting back to our subject, we see
that the preponderance of the evidence clearly points to the antiquity
and superiority of the Traditional Hebrew and Greek texts. These Traditional
texts are the only texts that have been in uninterrupted use from the time
of the close of the canon of Scripture (about 100 A. D.) until the present,
thus fulfilling the requirement of being "preserved" for every
generation. Why is it, then, that so many otherwise good pastors do not
take the Traditional text position? I believe there are two reasons for
this. The first is ignorance. Many pastors have been educated in the Critical
text position in Bible College and Seminary, and almost every College and
Seminary in the country has been infected with the Modernist position that
the Scriptures are somehow less than God says they are. Almost every school
today has bowed the knee to a Modernistic Baal in the area of Manuscript
Evidence, and joined hands with the enemy of our souls in his attempt to
continue asking his lying question "Yea, hath God said?" These
deceived men have accepted all that they have been taught as if it were
the Gospel itself. They may have heard of the other position, but have
not given it any serious thought, nor have they investigated for themselves
to find the truth. They have put their faith in their College and Seminary
professors, and that is that! The second reason is less wide spread, but
much worse. There are men who are aware of the other position, and even
have much of the evidence available to them, but because of their pig-headed
stubbornness and sinful pride they are incapable of admitting that they
may have been wrong. There are none so blind as they who will not see.
So, we may conclude, based upon the evidence, that any translation, in
order to be a correct and accurate rendering of the inspired words of God
must be based on the Traditional texts of the Old and New Testament, which
brings me to my next point. The Translators. The King James Bible was not
translated by any one man, or even by one group of men, but by six groups,
or committees, meeting in the cities of Cambridge, Westminster, and Oxford,
England. These men began their work in 1604 and completed it in 1611. In
the cities of Westminster and Oxford there was one committee on the New
Testament in each city. In Cambridge there was a committee on the Old Testament
and one for the Aprocrypha. Yes, the original committee for the translation
of the King James Bible included the Apocrypha, however, the translators
did not believe the Apocrypha was inspired, but translated these non-canonical
books because of their historical significance. These six committees were
made up of fifty-seven men altogether, each committee having about ten
men on it. I believe these fifty-seven men were superior to any man or
committee of men that has translated any Bible since the translation of
the King James Bible. By way of illustration let's look at the qualifications
of just a few of these great men. Dr. John Hardinge headed up the Oxford
Group. Dr. Hardinge was Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford. Dr. John
Reynolds, the originator of the translation project, who presented the
idea to the commission appointed by King James to study divisions in the
Church of England, died before the Authorized Version was published. Dr.
Richard Brett was one of the world's foremost experts in Latin, Greek,
Chaldee, Arabic and Ethioptic languages. Dr. John Harmer, Professor of
Greek at Oxford was a noted linguist having mastered not only Greek, but
Latin and Hebrew as well. Dr. Edward Lively, Regius Professor of Hebrew
at Cambridge, died in 1605 before the work was truly begun. Dr. Lawrence
Chaderton was skilled in Greek and Hebrew, and a student of the ancient
Jewish writings called "The Rabbis." Dr. Thomas Harrison was
noted for his skill in Hebrew and Greek idioms. Dr. Robert Spalding, successor
to Dr. Lively as Professor of Hebrew at Cambridge. Dr. Lancelot Andrews
was selected to work on the Old Testament at Westminster, and worked on
twelve books, Genesis to 2 Kings. Dr. Andrews spoke almost all of the languages
spoken in Europe in the seventeenth century. He majored in language at
Cambridge University, especially studying the Oriental tongues. Dr. Andrews
is said to have been completely fluent in fifteen languages, and had his
private devotions in the Greek New Testament, and kept a journal of his
devotions written entirely in Greek. Dr. William Bedwell was also selected
to work on the Old Testament at Westminster, working on the same books
as Dr. Andrews. Dr. Bedwell was not only fluent in Hebrew and other Oriental
languages, but produced a translation of the Epistles of John in Arabic
and Latin. He also wrote an entire Arabic dictionary by himself! At the
time of his death Dr. Bedwell was working on a Persian dictionary which
is still in the Bodlian Library at Oxford. Dr. Bedwell's knowledge of the
Shemitic and Cognate languages of Hebrew, Persian, Arabic, Syriac, Aramaic,
and Coptic made him an uncontestable expert on the translation of the Hebrew
Old Testament into English. Dr. Miles Smith was in the Old Testament group
meeting at Oxford, and was selected to translate the books from Isaiah
through Malachi. Dr. Smith was so familiar with the Hebrew, Syriac, and
Arabic languages that they were as familiar to him as his native English.
Dr. Henry Savile was selected to work with the group that was to translate
the New Testament at Oxford. He was chosen to translate the Gospels, the
Book of Acts, and the Revelation. Dr. Savile was said to be as great a
mathematician as he was a Greek scholar. He was chosen to tutor Queen Elizabeth
in both mathematics and Greek. Dr. Savile was not only famous for his translation
of the great history of Tacitus from Latin into English, but also translated
the mathematical work of Euclid on geometry from Greek into English. However,
Dr. Savile was most famous for his editing and translating of the complete
works of John Chrysostom, one of the most famous of the early Greek church
fathers, from the Greek into English. This was a work similar in size to
eight very large dictionaries! Dr. John Bois was a New Testament translator
at Cambridge. At the age of five he had read the entire Bible in Hebrew.
At the age of six he could write the Hebrew language in "a fair and
elegant" hand. He was equally skilled in Greek. He was one of the
twelve, two from each committee, who were sent to make the final revision
at Stationer's Hall in London. On top of all of his other duties, he was
the secretary for the final revision committee, taking notes on all of
the meetings. It is largely through his notes that we have knowledge of
the inner workings of the committee in this day and age. The above cited
men were of such stature that they cannot be equaled today. Our system
of education is not nearly as thorough as was the educational system that
produced these great men. There is not a single translator of any modern
version that can even come close to the stature of these great men. Our
King James Bible is superior to all others not only because it is translated
from superior texts, but because it was translated by superior translators.
Their Superior Technique. It is important to understand that the King James
Bible was translated quite differently from the other English versions
that are on sale today. Here is a brief overview of the technique used
to translate our English Bible. Team Effort. Each translator had to translate
all of the books assigned to his group by himself, then all of the translators
from the group would meet together to discuss which of the translations
was best. After all of the committee, working together, had decided which
translation was the best, a copy of the translation of the book would be
sent to one of the other cities where another committee was working, and
they would meet and review the other committees' translation, while the
first committee was reviewing the second committee's translation. This
process would continue until all six committees had reviewed every book
that had been translated. Then the book would be reviewed again by the
committee of twelve, two from each of the six committees. If they found
any problems, they would send word to the committee responsible for the
translation, and their reasons for translating the problem passage in that
way would be reviewed. In the end, all of the people on all of the committees
would have to be in total agreement before the translation was considered
to be complete, and they would go on to the next book! Such a painstaking
team effort is unheard of today, which probably explains why there is so
much disagreement as to the proper translation of the Bible today. There
is almost a "Bible of the Month" club, bringing out some "new,"
"better," and "easier" version before the last one
has had a chance to be read. Verbal Equivalence. The King James Bible Translators
used a translation technique that is known as "verbal and formal equivalence."
This simply means that when a word was to be translated, the translator
would find the "verbal equivalent" in English. This does not
imply that the King James Bible is always a "word-for-word" translation,
for there are many Greek words that cannot be accurately translated into
one English word. Sometimes it takes two, three, four, and even five English
words to give us the proper meaning of the single Greek or Hebrew word
being translated. A perfect example of this is found in 2 Timothy 3:16,
where one Greek word qeopneustos (theopneustos) is translated using five
English words, "given by inspiration of God." Many of the so-called
"scholars" love to point out that the "correct" translation
of this word is "God-breathed." WRONG! The correct translation
is "given by inspiration of God!" The term "God-breathed"
is not action specific. In other words, when you read "God-breathed"
it doesn't tell you anything about the action. "God breathed His Word"
gives us very little information. Did God breath out, or in? And how did
God breathing affect His Word? But when you read "given by inspiration
of God," you realize that God has breathed into His Word the breath
of life, making the Word of God a living thing! Everything that God breathes
the breath of life into becomes an eternally living entity. When God breathed
into Adam (mankind in federal headship) he became an eternally living entity
(every person that was ever born is alive today, somewhere!). So also with
His Word. You can see then that the term "God-breathed" focuses
our attention on God, when He, in this context, wants us to focus our attention
on His Word, thus the correct translation "given by inspiration of
God!" Formal Equivalence means that when a word is translated from
the Greek into English, the form of the word must be carried into the new
language. In other words, if the Greek word is a noun, the English word
must take the same form, that is, a noun. If the Greek word is a verb,
the English word must be a verb. If the Greek word is a pronoun, the English
word must be a pronoun, and so on. Also, implicit in formal equivalence
is the number of the word, such as singular or plural. If the Greek is
singular, then the English must also be singular, if plural, the translation
must also be plural. Past tense must always be translated as past tense,
future tense as future, perfect tense as perfect, and so on. There is a
fellow in Los Angeles who has circulated a tape in which he claims that
the word "is" in 2 Timothy 3:16 is in italics, and therefore
has no support in the Greek, and it is perfectly alright to change it to
"was." According to this fellow's less then brilliant deduction,
the passage should read "All scripture "was" given by inspiration
of God." He doesn't believe the Bible which we have today is inspired.
He must think it has expired. The problem with this fellow is that he doesn't
have a clue about the Greek language. The reason the King James Translators
added the word "is" keeping the passage in question in the present
tense (as is the Greek), is that they understood that everything that God
breathes into is eternal. You will notice that the second "is"
before the word "profitable" is also in italics. Does anyone
in their right mind suggest we change this word to "was", indicating
the Scriptures are no longer profitable? All Scripture is inspired, and
all Scripture is profitable. None of the modern English versions follow
this verbal and formal rule of translation, but rather use a system of
translation they refer to as Dynamic Equivalence. Dynamic is a word that
means moving, or changing. The idea behind Dynamic Equivalence is that
the modern translators feel free to change the words that God inspired
anytime they feel like it to produce a "better" translation.
If the translators feel like changing a noun to a pronoun, they just do
it. If they feel like changing a word from singular to plural, they just
do it. If they feel like changing an article from definite to indefinite,
they just do it. They add to, subtract from, and change the words to "better
preserve the idea, or meaning, or sense, or concept of the original",
while ignoring the words that the Holy God of Heaven has inspired. Did
God say that His ideas, or meaning, or sense, or concepts were inspired,
or did he say that His words were inspired? I believe His words are inspired,
and no man can presume to change the words of God with impunity. Our present
day English Bible, the Authorized Version, is the culmination of over seven
hundred years of refinement and purification (Psalm 12:6; 19:8). The first
known Word of God in English was the Lindisfarne Gospels dating to about
700 A.D. These were in Latin with an Anglo-Saxon interlinear translation
added about 950 A.D. In about 1000 A.D., Aelfric translated a condensed
version of the first seven books of the Old Testament. However, due to
the Norman invasion in 1066, French became the dominant language of England,
and the Anglo-Saxon tongue became obsolete. In the fourteenth century,
English was again dominant, and by the fifteenth century French had almost
disappeared. In about 1300 the Ormulum appeared, translated by Orm, an
Augustinian monk. This work was originally the Gospels, but later Genesis
and Exodus were translated into English. About the same time, Richard Rolle
translated the Psalms into Early Middle English, of which 170 manuscripts
still survive. John Wycliffe (1330-1384) was the first known translator
of the entire Bible into English. His first translation was published in
about 1400, and a later edition, revised by John Purvey, appeared at a
somewhat later time. Tyndale, born in 1494, translated the Bible out of
the Greek and Hebrew and published a New Testament in 1525, based on the
first printed Greek New Testament, published by Erasmus in 1516. Tyndale
was betrayed by a friend, and was martyred on October 6, 1536, for the
crime of giving the people the Word of God in their own language. It has
been claimed that as much as eighty percent of the King James Bible is
taken from the Tyndale Bible, and thus he has been called the Father of
the English Bible. The ecclesiastical authorities hated this Bible so much
that only a small fragment of the 1525 edition still exists, in the British
Museum, and only two copies of the second edition, published in 1533 are
known to exist today. All the rest were burned by the ecclesiastical authorities
of that dark day. Myles Coverdale published a work called "The First
Complete Bible to be Printed in the English Tongue" in about 1535.
This was mostly based on Tyndale's work, with Martin Luther's German translation
used for comparison. This work also contains some corruptions from the
Latin Vulgate. In 1537 a Bible was published with a title page suggesting
that the translator was Thomas Matthew. The publisher is now known to have
been John Rogers, who was an associate of Tyndale, and much of the work
had probably been done by Tyndale prior to his death, and the balance was
done by John Rogers working from Tyndale's notes. Later editions in 1540
and 1541 contained a preface by Archbishop Cranmer and became know as the
Cranmer Bible. Coverdale revised the Matthew Bible into what became known
as the Great Bible, due to its large size (9 by 15 inches). This Bible
was used in most Anglican churches from about 1538 until it went out of
print in 1569. Ironically, this Great Bible was widely received, while
at the same time John Rogers (Thomas Matthews) was imprisoned and later
martyred (in 1555). It was through this Matthew's - Cranmer - Great Bible
(all of which was just a republication of Tyndale's 1535 edition) that
the most influence was exerted on future English versions. During the reign
of Catholic Queen Mary (1553-1558) no Bible was printed in England, but
a group of men in Geneva, Switzerland, produced an English version called
The Geneva Bible in 1560, with a second edition published in 1562. The
New Testament was edited by William Whittingham, who was married to John
Calvin's sister. Calvin wrote an introduction to this work. The Geneva
Bible was the Bible used by Shakespeare, John Bunyan, Oliver Cromwell,
and which was carried to America by the Puritans. Called "The People's
Bible", it was pre-eminent among English Bibles for seventy-five years.
From 1560 until 1644, 140 editions were published. The first Bible printed
in Scotland, and used to start the Scottish Revivals under John Knox, was
the Geneva Bible. The verse divisions of Roberre Estienne (also called
Robert Stevens and Stefanus), originally employed in his Greek New Testament
of 1551, were used in the Geneva Bible. The popularity of the Geneva Bible
motivated the ecclesiastical authorities of the Church of England, after
the crowning of Queen Elizabeth, to publish a Bible which could enjoy the
authority of the Church of England. Archbishop Parker appointed a committee
to work on the new version. This committee was to use the Great Bible as
their starting point, and were to compare it to the Greek and Hebrew. Unfortunately,
these men were not of the caliber of those who had produced the Geneva
Bible. Their finished product was called The Bishop's Bible, and contained
very few changes from the earlier work, relying heavily on the Great Bible,
and the Geneva Bible, which were, of course, the Tyndale Bible published
under other names. Nineteen editions were printed from 1568 until 1606.
The next, and last, Bible of real importance was now ready to arrive on
the scene, The Authorized Version of 1611, which we have already dealt
with. As you can see, the English Bible has been the product of over seven
hundred years of preparation, purification, and publication. Conclusion.
The Bible itself teaches that it is the Words of God that are inspired,
and not just the thoughts, ideas, and concepts, as the proponents of the
Critical text argue. Those inspired words have been preserved by God in
the Traditional Hebrew and Greeks texts, and those superior texts have
been translated by superior men using superior techniques to give us an
inspired, inerrant, infallible Bible. The unfortunate conclusion we are
forced to come to is that the proponents of the Critical text do so due
to the influence of Modernists, and Modernistic thinkers and educators
in the Colleges, Seminaries, and Bible schools where these men received
their educations. The Bible debate is not new. It is the latest battle
in the continuing war between the Modernists and the Fundamentalists, and
the sooner we identify the enemy, who will snatch away our Bibles, the
sooner our erring brothers will become aware of the fact that they have
come under the influence of the malignant spirit of Modernism and take
the necessary steps to cleanse their minds, hearts, and pulpits of the
poison that is destroying otherwise good men everywhere we look. We as
Baptists believe the Bible is the very foundation of our faith. It is the
Bible that tells us of Jesus, our Saviour. It is the Bible that tells us
of heaven, our eternal home. It is the Bible that tells us of the unquenchable
fire of hell, reserved for all those who die without Christ. It is the
Bible that tells us of the coming time of great tribulation, and of the
coming glorious Millennial Kingdom. If we lose our Bibles, we lose all
of these great doctrines of our faith. If we begin to doubt the absolute
trustworthiness of our Bibles, we will begin to doubt all of the doctrines
taught therein. We must guard our Bibles. We must be defenders of the faith.
If not, we will surely forfeit everything we hold most dear. As David asked,
"Is there not a cause?" Think about it.
REFERENCE BIBLIOGRAPHY Burgon, John W., "The Last Twelve
Verses of Mark," Grand Rapids: Associated Publishers and Authors,
Inc., no date. _____________, "The Revision Revised," Collingswood,
N. J.: The Bible for Today, 1981. Cloud, David W., "Myths About the
King James Bible," Oak Harbor, WA: Way of Life Literature, 1986. 1219
North Harns Road, Oak Harbor, WA 98277 Coats, Daryl R. "Baptist Dippers,
and Immersers", Unpublished paper: Cody, WY, 1981. Colwell, E. C.,
"The Significance of Grouping of New Testament Manuscripts,"
New Testament Studies, IV, 1957-1958. Custer, Stewart, "The Truth
About The King James Version Controversy," Greenville: Bob Jones University
Press, Inc., 1981. Dollar, George W., "A History of Fundamentalism
in America," Published by the Author, 612 Peacock Trail, Haines City,
FL 33844, 1983. ______________, "The Fight for Fundamentalism,"
Published by the Author, 612 Peacock Trail, Haines City, FL 33844, 1983.
Fuller, David Otis, "Counterfeit or Genuine: Mark 16? John 8?"
Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1975. _____________,
"Which Bible," Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids International Publications,
1970. Gipp, Samuel C., "The Answer Book," Shelbyville, TN: Bible
and Literature Missionary Foundation, 1989. _____________, "An Understandable
History of the Bible," Pottstown, PA: Bible Believers Press, 1987.
Hills, Edward F, "Believing Bible Study," Junction City, Oregon:
Eye Opener Publishers, 1967. ____________, "The King James Version
Defended," Des Moines: The Christian Research Press, 1956. Jackson,
Harry D., "A Comparison of Several Verses of Critical Importance,"
Unpublished Chart, Rochester, NY: 1973. _____________, "Biblical Authority,
The Rock Upon Which We Stand," Fairfield, CA: Calvary Baptist Church,
1992. Madden, D. K., "A Critical Examination of The New American Standard
Bible," Sandy Bay, Tasmania, Australia: 1975. Massey, Homer, "Where
is the Word of God Today: A Look at the Kings James Version Controversy,"
Virginia Beach: Tabernacle Baptist Press, 1981. Metzgar, Bruce, "Chapters
in the History of New Testament Textual Criticism," Grand Rapids:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1963. Moser, M. L., Jr., "A Critique
of the Living Bible," Little Rock: The Challenge Press, 1973. Paisley,
Ian R. K., "The New English Bible: Version or Perversion?", Belfast:
Martyrs Memorial Free Presbyterian Church, no date. Parvis, M. M., "The
Nature and Task of New Testament Textual Criticism," The Journal of
Religion, XXXII, 1952. Pickering, Wilber, "The Identity of the New
Testament Text," Nelson Publishing Company, 1980. Ray, John J., "God
Only Wrote One Bible," Eugene, Oregon: Eye Opener Publishers, 1955.
Strong, James, "A Concise Dictionary of the Words of the Hebrew Bible,"
New York, Nashville: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1980. Strouse, Thomas M., "Gnosticism
and the New Testament Text", Virginia Beach, VA, Tabernacle Baptist
Press, no date. Waite, D. A., "The Theological Heresies of Westcott
and Hort," Collingswood: The Bible for Today, 1979.
Questions or comments?
Dr. Cassidy