The Demands of Logic
May 3, 2007
The King James Version of the Bible is the perfectly preserved and inspired Word of God. Though skeptics roar against this fact, and hurl their fiery darts of criticism, the truth remains: this is the one and only Bible for English speaking people.
Have you ever heard the argument that the King James Version is too hard to be understood or that all the “thee’s” and “thou’s” are just too archaic? Critics of the Bible come up with many different arguments to try to somehow justify their preconceived ideas. For, you see, if there is a Bible, then there must be a God, and if there is a God, then that means we are accountable to that God. We then are responsible to find out Who that God is and what He wants us to do. However, these “competent scholars” know much more than God and therefore have no need of a Bible unless they themselves write it to their own liking. The Bible that convicts them of their sin must go. No Bible equals no God.
Did you know, however, that the English of the King James Version (KJV) is written only on a fifth grade reading level? Surely this is not too hard for “competent scholars” to read – is it? And the whole matter of “thee” and “thou” really isn’t that hard to figure out. “Thee” means “you” and “thou” means “you”. Nevertheless, the matter goes deeper than these petty surface arguments. The real argument is not about the actual words used. The controversy lies in the message.
Why are there no critics saying we need new versions of Shakespeare in the modern vernacular? His work has many of the same archaic words and yet he is lauded as a sheer genius. It is the very archaic language that many English scholars find so intriguing.
Dr. Robert O’Briant states, “The reason Biblical English seems so different is because it is different. The English of the Bible has never been spoken in any society at any time. Just look at its contemporaries in the field of literature, Shakespeare for example. Was his language the same as the language of the KJB 1611? I trow not! The English of the Bible is Biblical English. The translators were not only master of the original languages but also masters of excellent English. God had allowed our language to reach its peak in clarity and conciseness and brought together men who had completely mastered it to bring about a book that so clearly expressed His words that it has been the envy of critics for almost 400 years. There is not one word in the Bible that cannot be defined by a good English dictionary.”[i]
It is not that these men cannot understand, but rather that they don’t want to understand. These “scholars” make their own bible so they may feel justified in living the way that they want.
It is absolutely vital to the church that we have the very words of God. The words in the original text (commonly known as autographs) were not just the thoughts of God, but they were His very words. If God wrote the Bible perfectly in the originals, yet we cannot have those same words in a volume of that book today, then it would seem that God wasted His time in inspiring them in the first place.[ii]
Is God not able to give to us the very words that He wants us to have? Is a miracle too hard for the God of miracles? Was creation too hard for God? Was the virgin birth too hard for God? Was the collection of the 66 books of the Bible written over a period of 1,700 years too hard for God? Was overcoming the human nature of the sinful writers too hard for God? Then is preserving the words those writers penned too hard for God? Inspiration would seem far harder to believe than preservation.
Wilbur Pickering put it well when he said, “If the scriptures have not been preserved then the doctrine of inspiration is purely an academic matter with no relevance today. If we do not have the inspired words, or do not know precisely which they be, then the doctrine of inspiration is inapplicable.”[iii]
The question would then naturally arise, “On which translation does God have his hand, and which of the over 200 English translations are we to choose?” This should be a fairly simple question since all we have to do is find the one that contains every word of God. After all, God promised that He would preserve every word (Matthew 4:4, Psalm 12:6-7, Matthew 5:18). All we have to do is find out what the originals say.
Unfortunately, the originals don’t exist anywhere today, nor have they for a very long time. Scribes were known to destroy old worn out manuscripts (MSS) after they had copied them. (Apparently the early church valued the words of the originals more than the originals themselves!) In fact the original of Genesis has never even touched the original of Revelation, or the original of book of Psalms for that matter. All the original autographs of the Bible have never been compiled together in one book. To say that God’s perfect Word is only in the originals is to say God’s complete revelation to man has never existed anywhere at anytime.
How then are we to find the very Words of God? Well, we can look at history. Dr. Gipp cites three groups of “hard” evidence available today.
First there are copies. Since there are no originals, every record of Scripture will be a copy. Copies are divided into four groups: Miniscules, Majuscules (or Unicals), Lectionaries, and Papyrus fragment.
The second group of Biblical witnesses is the ancient versions. God chose to write the New Testament in Greek, but he did not choose to keep it in Greek only. The early Greek MSS were translated into other languages in order that the true Word of God could be put into the hands of the people in other lands. The Armenian version is referred to as the “Queen of Versions” because of its unusually high number of extant copies (1,244). This is especially significant when considering that the translation, made in 400 A.D., matches the readings in the King James Bible.[iv]
The third group is the early church fathers. These are the men who led the Christians in the first few centuries after the New Testament was completed. We have record of their early sermons, books, and commentaries. They are able to provide us with much information on disputed passages. Many have seen the original autographs.
Dr. Grady adds, “To illustrate the contributing value of the church fathers, the writings of Tettullian, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen, and Clement of Alexandria have supplied us with 30,147 Scripture citings alone. When we consider that the great majority of their quotations agree with the Textus Receptus (the text from which the King James Bible was taken) their worth is even more appreciated. However, when it is further discovered that all five men died anywhere between 20-150 years before Aleph and Codex B (the two supposedly “oldest and best” MSS from which all modern versions are taken) were copied, the readings of the King James Bible are established beyond question.”[v]
These three groups combined give us in excess of 5,250 witnesses. About 4,489 of these are Greek MSS.[vi] With this many witnesses it should not be very hard to find the Greek text of the original New Testament autographs. Upon examining these witnesses, it is soon seen that all of them fall into two basic groups, or “texts”. We also find that these two texts consistently disagree with each other concerning the major doctrines fundamental to the Christian faith. These doctrines include the virgin birth of Christ, the blood atonement, Christ’s second coming, the Trinity, and the deity of Christ.
The first of these two groups is the Majority Text (having gotten its name because the majority of the witnesses fall into this category). This text is found to uphold the major fundamental doctrines which the majority of the historic Christian church has supported.
This text culminates in the Textus Receptus or “Received Text”. It is this text which is the basis for the King James Bible.
Dr Grady points out, “Once again, the outstanding feature of the Received Text is its high percentage of agreement among so many thousands of independent witnesses. This agreement is often placed at 90 percent; in other words, 90 percent of all existing manuscripts agree with one another so miraculously that they are able to form their own unique text. In contradiction to such unity, the remaining 10 percent comprises a selection of manuscripts that will both agree with the majority text in many particulars while disagreeing wildly in others. Again, let it be stated that many of these variant readings are also unique to the individual manuscript containing it; where the 10 percent disagree from the majority, these departures also disagree with each other!”[vii]
The second of these two groups we will look at is the Minority Text. This text is found to be untrue concerning the major fundamental doctrines of Christianity. This is also the text used in every translation of the Bible since the Revised Version of 1881.
It is said of the Minority Text (or Wescott and Hort Text), “Its two outstanding trademarks in history are that orthodox Christianity has never used it and that the Roman Catholic Church has militantly (or “bloodily”) supported it.”[viii]
Another piece of this puzzle may be added when we consider the translators of each work. Almost immediately after James I became the king of England, one thousand ministers sent a petition termed the Millenary Petition. The purpose of this petition was to hold a conference to discuss the many alleged abuses in the national church. The Hampton Court Conference was arranged and then held on January 14, 16, and 18 in 1604. A new translation of the Bible was not on the agenda of the king, but it was an indirect result.
James was quoted as saying, “I wish some special pains were taken for a uniform translation which should be done by the best learned men in both Universities, then reviewed by the Bishops, Presented to the Privy Counsel, lastly ratified by Royal authority, to be read in the whole Church, and none other.”
So according to the king’s desire this resolution was made, “That a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek; and this to be set out and printed, without any marginal notes, and only to be used in all churches of England on time of divine service.” Six months after this proclamation was made the king the appointed 54 of the most learned men he could find to make up the six translation companies that would take on this task. Two of the companies would be at Oxford, two at Cambridge, and two at Westminster. At the time the translation was begun in 1607, only forty-seven men remained. Some had resigned because the issue was too controversial, and a few had died.[ix]
Dr. Grady writes, “The men on the translation committee of the King James Bible were, without dispute, the most learned men of their day and vastly qualified for the job which they undertook. They were overall both academically qualified by their cumulative knowledge and spiritually qualified by their exemplary lives. Among their company was men who, academically, took a months vacation and used the time to learn and master an entirely a foreign language; wrote a Persian dictionary; invented a specialized mathematical ruler; one was an architect; mastered oriental languages; publicly debated in Greek; tutored Queen Elizabeth in Greek and mathematics; and of one it was said, ‘Hebrew he had at his fingers end’.”[x]
These men include men like John Bois, who when he was only five years old, was taught to read Hebrew by his father. By the time he was six, he could not only write the same, but in a fair and elegant manner. At fifteen he was renowned for corresponding with his college superiors in Greek. He was well respected, and renowned for his devoured sixty grammars. He studied on his feet and rested only on his knees.
Another of the translators, Lancelot Andrews, was conversant in 15 languages! Another, Miles Smith, was known as “a very walking library”. Many of these men entered Oxford and Cambridge between the ages of 14-17. Of the forty-seven men thirty-six had their Doctorate in Divinity.
John Spencer had been on the Greek faculty at Corpus Christi College since 19 years of age. John Rainolds was known as “a living library, a third university,” and also as the “most prodigiously seen in all kinds of learning; most excellent in all tongues.”
It should also be noted that these men were not just dry theologians but also accomplished preachers and balanced Christians. They were well respected by the people of their day. Richard Brett was proficient in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Chaldee, Arabic, and several Ethiopian tongues, but mostly known as a faithful friend, a good neighbor, and a diligent preacher.[xi]
In contrast if we look at the lives of the translators of almost all of the modern translations, the exact opposite is true. Not only are they not as well educated or naturally as gifted but the very testimony of their Christian lives is witness to the fact that the Word of God has little or not impact on them. The principles they stand for do not line up with traditional Christian faith. They simply do not live up to the high standards set by this group of 47 scholarly men.
It is plain to see the effects of the two “sides” of Biblical texts. History is the greatest witness of all. God uses the archaic language of the King James Bible to convey His precise meaning and most definitely blessed all those who take Him at His word. This is not only evident by the exemplary lives of the translators (which the translators of all modern versions lack) but also by the test of time. Although it took only seven years to complete, for almost four hundred years it has shined above all other books and any attempts to “improve” it!
[i] Robert O’Briant, Common Sense in the Midst of Conflict, (Universal Publishing Inc., Iron Station, 2000), p. 51
[ii] Samuel C. Gipp, An Understandable History of the Bible, (Bible Believers Baptist Bookstore, Macedonia, 1997) p. 21
[iii] David Fuller, Which Bible?, (Grand Rapids International Press, Grand Rapids, 1973), p. 269
[iv] William P. Grady, Final Authority, (Grady Publications, Schererville, 1993), p. 35
[v] Grady, p. 36
[vi] Gipp, p. 61-64
[vii] Grady, p. 28
[viii] Gipp, p. 69
[ix] O’Briant, p. 96-103
[x] Grady, p. 156
[xi] Grady, p. 157
Comments
Got something to say?
