From 1967 until 2002 one of the
prominent editors of the United Bible Societies translating committee was
Jesuit Cardinal Carlo Martini. Think about that for just a minute. Let it soak
in. An important member of the organization that creates 80% of the world’s
Bibles was a Jesuit priest, once even thought of as a candidate for pope. The
United Bible Societies includes the American Bible Society, best known for The Good News translation and the Contemporary English Version. Without
accusation, just asking, do you believe that there is no Roman Catholic
influence in modern Protestant Bibles? The online catechism of the Catholic
Church uses quotations from the Revised
Standard Version and the New Revised
Standard Version of the Bible. The Revised
Standard Version was a revision of the American
Standard Version from a translating committee led by Philip Schaff,
mentioned previously. His version was the American version of Westcott and
Hort’s Revised Version, beloved by
the fundamentalists of the era of the publication of The Fundamentals and applauded in those essays as the most accurate
Bible.
Without
being as bold as Ruckman and leaving out a lot of other evidence what do you
think is most likely? Many of you will say, “what difference does it make?” As
I quoted previously the Bible is the foundation to Protestant belief, and the
Bible only. The Roman Catholic Church places the opinions of its men of
letters, the “Doctors of the Church,” Popes, and tradition on an equal par with
the Bible or even higher. That puts an important division between myself and
them regarding the question we are pursuing here regarding the Bible. I cannot
regard Augustine or Pope John Paul II on an equal par with Jeremiah or Paul.
But, let’s move on.
Modern
evangelical scholar Eugene Nida, of the American Bible Society, classified
translating types. The King James Bible
is considered as translated using “Formal Equivalence” or word-for-word translating
trying to maintain not only what the words actually mean but even the grammar
and syntax of the original languages. Modern Bibles are translated using
“Dynamic Equivalence,” a sense-for-sense translation using the translators’
opinions, world-view, biases, and prejudices to render what they think or want
you to think is what the text actually means rather than what it actually says.
Think about that for a few minutes. Just wrap your mind around it.
The King James translators were the finest minds
of their time and secular scholars like Olga Opfell and Adam Nicolson in books
like The King James Bible Translators and
God’s Secretaries have affirmed this
was so and that the King James Bible
was produced at a unique point in history and was a project that could not have
been made, in their estimations, at any other time. Secular scholars who
contributed to the Harvard Literary Guide
to the Bible expressed how faithful it was to the grammar and syntax of the
manuscripts from which it was translated. Many others have confirmed how
important that Bible was to the development of the English language.
The way it
is designed and constructed is incredible and I would say beyond human
planning. For instance, in most cases if you look at words connected by the
word and you will typically find
their meaning in synonyms. By looking at this verse can you tell me what a cumbrance is?
Deuteronomy 1:12 How can I myself alone bear your cumbrance, and your burden, and your
strife?
It is a burden, a hindrance, and an
impediment, a burdensome strife. On rare occasions and does not contact words with synonymous meanings in context but
links opposites, antonyms, as in the following.
Philppians 4:12 I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound:
every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry,
both to abound and to suffer
need.
At other times, words that might be
difficult for us today are defined by looking at the words surrounding them in
other passages nearby. In this example I want to point out that the word eschew is not that uncommon today as I
even read it in a sports article online not long ago. Its just that we don’t
normally use it in everyday speech.
1Peter 3:10 For he that will love life, and see good
days, let him refrain his tongue
from evil, and his lips that they
speak no guile: 11 Let him eschew evil, and
do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it.
So, you see eschew means in this context to refrain
one’s tongue from evil
There are italicized words that
denote the editors filling in a word that is not found in one language but is
clearly meant to be there by comparison to a Bible quote from another language
although that’s not the only usage of italicized words. Here, I italicize Bible
verses I’m using anyway so you will need to look at a King James Bible to see this.
Deuteronomy 8:3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to
hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy
fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread
only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the
mouth of the LORD doth man live.
In this verse word is italicized, meaning that it is not literally in the Hebrew
text but is implied. How can you know they understood at the time of Jesus that
word should be in that verse? Well,
because it is provided in the Greek text from which the New Testament came.
Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man
shall not live by bread alone, but by every
word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Italicized words are important. To
include them is honest and to exclude them is deceitful.
Sometimes the Bible defines words by
word substitution. This provides us the meaning the Holy Spirit wanted from the
context. In the following Jesus is quoting from the prophet Isaiah. When you
compare the two verses you can see by word substitution that, in the contexts, gospel means good tidings or good news, the
poor are the meek, along with other concepts that require a study of their own
to understand.
Luke 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach
deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at
liberty them that are bruised, 19 To
preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
Isaiah 61: 1 ¶ The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath
anointed me to preach good tidings
unto the meek; he hath sent me to
bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening
of the prison to them that are
bound;2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the
day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
But, besides the mechanics, the way
it is constructed for our learning, our edification, reading and believing the
Bible can keep us from sin.
Psalm 119:11 Thy
word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.
The Bible says in Philippians 2:10,
11;
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should
bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that
every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
But, yet, God’s words have been
placed above God’s name.
Psalm 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and
praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast
magnified thy word above all thy name.
Jesus said that God’s word was truth itself by which
we are sanctified or set apart for
God’s purpose.
John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
So, tell me, if you believe this is
so, when a modern critic picks up this Bible that was translated the most
faithfully from the manuscripts and early versions of the Bible most prevalent
in the first fifteen centuries of the faith and says, “a better rendering of
this word would be,” how can you trust him when these critics also say about
their own translating efforts and the lexicons, or Greek dictionaries, which
they use to get their definitions in the book, Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography;
“The fact is
that opinions will very often differ over the precise wording of lexical
definitions even - or perhaps, especially - after careful consideration of a
proposed definition.”
“…there is
the fact that even the latest lexicons derive their material from their
predecessors, and a great deal of it has been passed on uncritically over the
course of centuries.”
“…we cannot
know for certain that what we find in front of us when we look up a word is
sound.”
“…all the
existing lexical entries in all our dictionaries are now obsolete and await
reassessment in the light of the full evidence, or at least checking to see if
there is further evidence to be added.”
“Lexicons
are regarded by their users as authoritative, and they put their trust in them.
Lexicons are reference books presenting a compressed, seemingly final statement
of fact, with an almost legal weight. The mere fact that something is printed
in a book gives it authority, as far as most people are concerned. And understandably:
if one does not know the meaning of a word, one is predisposed to trust the
only means of rescue from ignorance. Yet this trust is misplaced.”
Bernard
A. Taylor, John A. L. Lee, Peter R. Burton &Richard E. Whitaker, Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography:
Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker
And I’m supposed to pick up a modern
Bible version that provides me with nuggets of “truth” like 1982’s the New King James Version, which is neither
new nor is it King James.
Matthew 11:3 and said to Him, “Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?”
The Coming One,
capitalized, is a title given to a new-age messiah to come by the Satanist,
Alice Bailey in the 1940s. What does the King
James Version say, translated faithfully from its foundational documents?
Matthew 11:3 And said unto him, Art thou he that should
come, or do we look for another?
There is a huge difference between
asking if Jesus was the predicted Jewish messiah to come and asking if He was a
new-age, Satanic avatar, no different than Buddha or Mohammed, sent to
enlighten mankind and urge him a little further on the way to enlightenment.
Maybe the New King James Version
translators weren’t aware of this connection. Well, if I’m aware of it and I’m
not an expert in anything, I’m pretty sure they were.
How can I trust modern versions
translated based on dynamic equivalence, telling me what I should think rather
than just laying it out for me truthfully, when the Holman Christian Standard
Bible deletes the majority of a very important verse in 1John 5:7 which reads
in the KJV like this?
1John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in
heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
And by the way, author Michael
Maynard in his A History of the Debate
Over 1John 5:7-8 pointed out very carefully how this verse was either
quoted or alluded to in every century of Christianity. Where is it in your
Bible?
How can I take your modern version
like 1978’s New International Version seriously
when at Mark 16:9-20 you have this note, “[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have
verses 9–20.]” Really? I’ve read that of the 620 capital letter manuscripts
call uncials that have this part of
Mark in them 618 have the last twelve verses of Mark. 618 out of 620. Scholars
like John Burgon even wrote a book entitled The
Last Twelve Verses of Mark proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the
traditional ending is the right one. Only the darlings of the modernists, the
Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, whose phoniness would take an entire sermon
to discuss, don’t have them. So, I’m supposed to believe you when you rip out
of the Bible;
Mark 16:9 ¶ 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.
So, when Philip is
talking to the Ethiopian eunuch and the court official asks him if there is a
reason why he shouldn’t be baptized the following takes place.
Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said,
See, here is water; what doth
hinder me to be baptized? 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.
So, why does your New
American Standard Bible have a footnote saying, “Acts 8:37 Early mss do not contain this verse”
when it is found in the earliest complete Bible, the Old Latin, from the second century, and quoted by church “fathers”
like Irenaeus in the same century, and others later like, Cyprian, Ambrose, and
Augustine. Should two manuscripts of disputed credibility, Vaticanus and
Sinaiticus, and the modern scholars who love them, be allowed in your head,
saying, “Yea, hath God said?” (See Genesis 3). What’s going on here really?
What about
the Old Testament? The King James Old Testament, representing the Second Great
Rabbinic Bible compiled many Old Testament manuscripts, versus the modern Old
Testament text complied by Rudolf Kittel, father of Nazi apologist Gerhard
Kittel, found in many fundamentalist pastors’ libraries.
The Old
Testament text was settled before the King
James translators began their work based on many, many manuscripts while
modern translations give credence to Kittel’s work, based primarily on one
manuscript, the Leningrad Codex.
Are you
seeing a pattern here? The common usage of the Bible for two thousand years,
thousands of manuscripts, writings of the early church fathers, and ancient
versions on one hand, The King James
Bible; and on the other hand, three questionable manuscripts; Codices Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Leningrad. Based on the latter you want
me to give up my Bible. Right.
Now, let me
tell you something. I’m on my 63rd reading of the KJV. It compels you to read it over and
over again, maybe not as obsessively as me, but you should have read it for at
least as many times as the years you’ve been a Christian if you believe it is God’s
book. I ask you how many times you’ve read or listened to your NKJV, NIV, HCSB,
or NASB? Maybe you have gone through them cover to cover but most people I talk
to haven’t even read the Bible through from cover to cover one time. I guess it
tough when some verses are just missing.
This Bible
changed my life. It reproved me of sin, comforted me, exhorted me, and edified
me. It made me a different person than who I was before I believed that it was
what God wanted us to have. I’ve only given you one or two examples of dozens
so as not to get bogged down in why I believe modern translating attitudes and
modern methods, lexicons, etc. are wrong in their attack on the Bible I use and
that, more importantly, uses me.
I am not a
scholar. I oversimplified things because they are very simple. We have a Bible
that has come down to us from our spiritual ancestors as the authoritative,
definitive word of God. We have modernists who want to make us question its
truthfulness and even abandon it. What I’m telling you is they ‘got no game.’
Their arguments are the empty and vain ramblings of men and women, mostly men,
who want to place the thought in your head, mimicking Satan’s own words.
Yea,
hath God said?
The modern,
particularly, evangelical scholar sets up two competing authorities; your Bible
and his. Then, he encourages you to settle the issue with his opinion, which,
as I said, isn’t worth much. I’m just a regular person but if you are going to
convince me that the Bible that put me here right here writing every day about
God’s word, exploring it, studying it, loving it, is wrong then you’re going to
have to do better than you’ve done.
The King James translators wrote a
letter to the reader which is no longer published in most KJVs, which is
unfortunate. In it they praise the power of the Bible. Here is a short excerpt
of what was written;
But now what piety without truth? what truth
(what saving truth) without the word of God? What word of God (whereof we may
be sure) without the Scripture? The Scriptures we are commanded to search. John
5:39. Isa 8:20. They are commended that searched and studied them. Acts 17:11
and 8:28,29. They are reproved that were unskilful in them, or slow to believe
them. Matt 22:29. Luke 24:25. They can make us wise unto salvation. 2 Tim 3:15.
If we be ignorant, they will instruct us; if out of the way, they will bring us
home; if out of order, they will reform us; if in heaviness, comfort us; if
dull, quicken us; if cold, inflame us.
They
hammered out and revised and worked for long years to produce the greatest
Bible the world has ever known using the Greek texts used by the majority of
Christians for over a thousand years compiled by scholars from hundreds of
manuscripts. This Traditional Text or
Majority Text became known after the KJV was published as the Textus Receptus, Latin for the ‘text we
have received’. This Received Text
agrees with the earliest Bible versions like the Syriac Peshitta, the old Latin
Vulgate, and the Italic Bible from the second century. They compared their work
with the work of other translators, the Traditional
Text compiled by Erasmus and others, Bibles in other European languages and
ancient languages, and they revised and studied and revised and studied their
own work. Some commentators, studying the method that the KJV translators used have said that each verse in that Bible was
reviewed 14 times.
Modern
Bibles are different because they are translated from different manuscripts,
called the Minority Text. Supposedly, they say, it is the true text rediscovered
by the Westcott-Hort committee. So, what they are telling us that the Bible was
lost from 500AD to 1880. Do you really believe that? Or is something else going
on?
I want to
close with something I said earlier, This Bible changed my life. It reproved me
of sin, comforted me, exhorted me, and edified me. It made me a different
person than who I was before I believed that it was what God wanted us to have.
I will continue to trust it and to believe it is God’s word for us,
providentially preserved. I hope you will consider what I’ve said spoken and
written from the point of view, not of a scholar or even particularly bright
person, but from someone who stands on a rock and will not be removed from it.
No comments:
Post a Comment