It seems that one question that keeps cropping up over and over again is this:

..tell us where we can get a copy of this complete, inspired and 100% true Holy Bible you seem to want us to think you believe in. Tell us what it is called, or was called and if any copy of it exists in print.Do you have such a Book? Or is it just that you like the philosophical and hypothetical concept of an inspired and infallible Bible but don’t really have one?  (See here.)

One of my first posts on the King James Only issue was a commentary on the King James “Translators to The Reader”.  Here is what the translators said:

..we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God…

I expect to find the Word of God in every faithful translation of the Scriptures.  So, too, did the translators of our beloved Authorized Version.

These men also said:

..No cause therefore why the Word translated should be denied to be the Word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.
For whatever was perfect under the sun, where Apostles or apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?

Do you understand what they’re saying?  They ask why a translation should be denied to be the Word of God simply because there are some errors in translation.  In fact, they ask the question, “What perfect Bible is to be found except the one that was given under inspiration?”  These men believed in the inerrancy of the originals, yet recognized that every translation that would be made would have human errors in it due to the fact that God was not renewing the process of inspiration.

It would serve us well to understand, too, that these men didn’t embrace the KJVO concept of preservation.  They accepted that they/we have the Word of God, but they did not present a belief that God would preserve it without printing errors (such as the Wicked Bible) or translation errors.  They knew that God would preserve His  Word in spite of those things, and they expected God’s people to be reasonable enough to understand that.  In fact, should one read the whole of the “Translators to The Reader”, they would find that the ones from whom these men expected to receive opposition were the Roman Catholics.

Why, then, do these KJVO believers accept the translation work of these men, but reject their words concerning translations?  Why, then do they insist on tearing up churches, schools, fellowships, friendships, and spewing vitriolic words and ad hominem arguments?

Methinks the KJVO believers don’t truly embrace the work of the King James Version translators as much as they profess.

Where  is this perfect Bible, then?  Look at the one in your hand, or on your desk.  Is it a translation made by those who seek to be true to God’s Word?  It is the Word of God.

Much is often made of the text families from which Greek texts such as the Textus Receptus and NA/UBS come.  Alexandria is said to be home to heretics, while Antioch is held to be home to the lovers of truth.

This post is purposefully short, and is intended to be built upon later as time permits.  I simply want to notice two things here:

1.  If the above statements about Alexandria (from which the Alexandrian family comes) and Antioch (home of the Byzantine text family) are true does that make the claims of Byzantine superiority correct?  The answer is “no”, it does not make the claim of the superiority of the Byzantine text to be true.  Why?  Because the argument is fallacious.  The fallacy is called the “genetic fallacy”.

“Genetic Fallacy: Where someone condemns an argument because of where it began, how it began, or who began it.”

2.  The above statements about Antioch and Alexandria are not totally true.  For example, one of the great debates of early Christendom was the debate about Arianism.  Arius essentially was anti-Trinitarian.  Arius was taught by a Lucian of Antioch.  He was opposed by a Trinitarian believer named Athanasius, who was from Alexandria.

When we look at this we find that Antioch’s teaching was not as pure as the Byzantine purists would have us to believe.  Neither was Alexandria quite so heterodox as they claim.  In fact, the School of Antioch was not totally orthodox in their views, holding to adoptionism, and Nestorius (father of the Nestorian heresy) received some training there.

These brief thoughts should remind us that the answer to the textual issue simply will not be decided by the geographical origins of the Greek texts.

(Note: wiki articles accessed 01/23/2010 and are subject to change.)

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.  (Ps. 12:6-7)

If Ps 12:6,7 speaks of God’s words being kept without error, and kept pure, why was there ever a “Wicked” Bible?¹

You will remember that the “Wicked” Bible had a misprint.  The misprint omitted the word “not” in the commandment, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” (Exodus 20:14)

Thus, it read, “Thou shalt commit adultery.”

It certainly makes one wonder how the preserved Word of God was allowed by God to become so very corrupt.

The point of this article? If we were to speak of God’s preserving His Word, we should speak of His keeping His Word from becoming so adulterated as to become:

1.  Lost and unrecoverable

2.  So corrupt as to encourage immorality (By the way, that is precisely why this “Wicked” Bible is a collector’s piece.  Only about eleven of one thousand copies survived.  The rest were destroyed because of the error.  One only wonders how the rest evaded destruction.  They are known to be in error, thus there is no danger of their being a danger to morality.)

3.  So corrupt as to teach anything that contradicts the essence of Christianity.

Let us honestly ask ourselves a question:  Do the modern Bible versions that are produced by honest translators and publishing houses (Watchtower, Seventh Day Adventists, and other cults’ translations are excluded from this.) actually encourage immorality, or contradict the essence of Christianity?  It is obvious that God has kept His Word.  It has not become lost.  Neither do I know of any honestly produced modern Bible translation that encourages immorality or promotes doctrines that are heterodox.

It seems that God has indeed preserved His Word, and that across a number of translations that attempt to be faithful to the original language texts.

¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_Bible Accessed 08/03/2009

Much is said these days about the preservation of Scripture logically flowing from the inspiration of Scripture. To be honest, I would not take much time to debate that particular viewpoint, and would assent to it. After all, what good is an inspired Bible that will not be preserved for all generations?

On the other hand, preservation is seen by many to be an issue of textual families (Antiochian/Byzantine) and compiled texts such as the Textus Receptus and the King James Version.

It is the latter that came to mind when I read the following:
“..God provided for its inscripturation, so that His revelation now comes to us, not in the form of deeds and events, but as a description of these. In order to guard against volatilization, corruption, and falsification, He gave it permanent form in writing.”

Berkhof, Louis Systematic Theology pg 141; Grand Rapids, MI; Eerdmans

Note what Berkhof said; not that the revelation would be preserved in a certain textual family, or version, but that the revelation would be preserved in words. In other words, a written record of Divine revelation would suffice to preserve the revelation. Spoken words, and the spoken interpretations of the deeds seen, and revelations experienced are easily corrupted. Just imagine playing the gossip game in which a message is whispered from person to person only to mangle the message terribly by the end of the game. Such is the nature of the spoken word. The written word is different. It is difficult to modify and change a written account after it has gone through multiple copies that are identical.

What is the relevance of this to the issue of preservation today? The significance is that we have the written record of revelation today. The various manuscripts that are in existence today are manifold. They also agree much more than they disagree, and where they do disagree the disagreement does not change a single important doctrine. Neither do the disagreements between manuscripts change Biblical morality. Thus it is that we contend that “ the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth … containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God.” (The King James Version Translators Preface to The Reader)

Oh, I know we can get into a “jots and tittles” discussion. Honestly, that is a topic for another time. What is necessary for us to see is that we have Divine revelation preserved for us in many translations, and not in a lone English translation that is neither understood by people who can’t read English nor by many who do.

God gave us His revelation in verbal form, and we have it with us still today. That is what we must remember to be the important issue.

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.

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?

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 >>

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.)

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.

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.

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?