A. The Old Paths: The
Doctrinal Position of Life B-P Church
1. For the past 52 years Life B-P Church has been faithfully
holding forth the Word of Life (Philippians 2:16a). This is
particularly so in the high view of the Holy Scriptures that our
church has been promoting, as stated in our constitution:
“We believe in the divine, verbal and plenary inspiration of
the Scriptures in the original languages, their consequent inerrancy
and infallibility, and, as the Word of God, the Supreme and final
authority in faith and life;” (Article 4.2.1, Constitution Of
The Life Bible-Presbyterian Church).
2. Because of the emergence of many modern English Bibles today,
our church takes a strong stand for the King James Version, as stated
in the Doctrinal Positional Statement:
“We do believe that the Hebrew and Greek texts that were
used for the King James Version of the English Bible (KJV) were
providentially preserved by God and are therefore closest to the
original autographs of the Bible.” (In the Golden Jubilee
magazine, October 2000, 50 Years Building His Kingdom, p.64, emphasis
added)
3. We believe that this is fully
consistent with the system of doctrine commonly called “the Reformed
Faith” as expressed in the Confession of Faith as set forth by the
historic Westminster Assembly (see Article 4.1, Constitution Of The
Life Bible-Presbyterian Church), and especially with article 8 of
Chapter I of the Confession:
“The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language
of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which,
at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the
nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care
and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore
authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is
finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are
not known to all the people of God, who have right unto and interest
in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and
search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar
language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God
dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable
manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have
hope.” (emphasis added. For a better understanding of what is
meant here see Appendix B, p.8)
4. This view of Scripture which is also shared by various B-P
Churches, has always been understood all these years to mean that the
original writings of the Scriptures (called the Autographs) were given
by inspiration of God and have been providentially preserved
for us. Since our KJV Bible was translated from the texts that are
closest to the original, and is the best English translation of
these texts, we have no doubt that it is the very Word of God, and
is fully reliable.
B. The New Paths: The
Introduction of a New View
1. A new view of the Scriptures arose
recently. This view is given in detail in the article “A Plea for a
Perfect Bible” in the latest issue of the Burning Bush
(January 2003, Vol. 9 No.1). The following are some points about the
new view as expounded in this article (emphases added by
underlining):
-
The process of preservation of the Scriptures culminated in the
Hebrew and Greek texts underlying the King James Version.
“I believe the purity of God’s Word has been faithfully
maintained throughout the whole transmission of the
Traditional/Byzantine/Majority/Received Text, and is fully
represented in the Apographa of the Hebrew Masoretic Text for the
Old Testament and the Greek Textus Receptus for the New Testament
underlying the KJV. So I agree with David W Cloud, in his paper
quoting E F Hills, that “the KJV is accurate in all textual matters,
and if there is a difference between a KJV reading and any certain
edition of the Received Text, we follow the KJV” (i.e., the TR
underlying the KJV).” (p.7)
-
These texts surpassed all other editions of the traditional texts
existing at that time.
“If there exists a perfect TR, then which of the many editions
of the TR is perfect? It must be affirmed that all the editions of the
TR being from the pure stream of God’s preserved text are pure,
no doubt about it. But which is the purest? It is the TR
underlying the KJV.” (p.5)
-
The ones who were responsible for these texts were the
translators of the KJV.
“Whose TR? Not completely Erasmus’s, Stephen’s, or Beza’s,
it is a new edition of the TR which reflects the textual
decisions of the KJV translators as they prayerfully studied and
compared the preserved manuscripts.” (p.5)
d. God used the KJV translators to
restore absolute 100% purity to the texts in the year 1611, which was
during the time of the Reformation.
“I believe that in the fullness of time—in the most opportune
time of the Reformation when the true church separated from the false,
when the study of the original languages was emphasised, and the
printing press invented (which meant that no longer would there be any
need to handcopy the Scriptures thereby ensuring a uniform text)—God
restored from out of a pure stream of preserved Hebrew and Greek
manuscripts, the purest Hebrew and Greek Text of all—the
Text that underlies our KJV—that accurately reflects the original
Scriptures.” (p.9)
e. The result of this is that the Greek
and Hebrew texts underlying the KJV are the exact words of the
original writings, i.e. a virtual photocopy of the autographs.
“The word “closest should be interpreted to mean “purest.” Dr D
A Waite, President of the Dean Burgon Society, likewise understands
the statement to mean “that the words of the received
Greek and Masoretic Hebrew texts that underlie the King
James Bible are the very words which God has preserved down
through the centuries, being the exact words of the
originals themselves.” (p.4)
“As regards the Traditional Hebrew and Greek Scripture
underlying the KJV being a “virtual photocopy” of the originals, G I
Williamson did write to this effect in his commentary on the
Westminster Confession concerning preservation,…” (p.7)
f. Christians who use the KJV can
therefore claim to have a perfect Bible.
“I believe in a perfect God who has given us a perfect Bible.”
(p.12)
2. There is nothing wrong with using the
term “perfect” to describe the Bible. It is generally accepted by all
Bible-believing Christians to refer to the fact that the Scriptures
are reliable, sufficient, infallible and authoritative. E.g. “The
law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the
LORD is sure, making wise the simple.” (Psalm 19:7). This general
acceptance creates a problem when the term “Perfect Bible” is used
very often by advocates of this new view of Scripture:
·
Many have not understood what they mean when they refer to
their view as a “Perfect Bible”
·
The result is that many have mistakenly thought that there
is nothing wrong with it.
The following must be understood well:
a.
What the “Perfect Bible” Debate is NOT About
i. The debate
concerning the “Perfect Bible” is NOT about the original writings (or
the autographs) of the biblical writers (such as Moses, Peter or
Paul). These original writings, written in Hebrew, Aramaic and
Greek are directly inspired of God (verbal and plenary). It is,
therefore, inerrant, infallible (and obviously perfect). This is not
the issue in this debate. This is accepted without any doubt
whatsoever.
ii. The debate concerning the “Perfect
Bible” is NOT about modern versions derived from corrupt texts or
manuscripts. We have never promoted other versions and have held
to the time-honoured KJV as the most faithful and reliable English
Bible to be used exclusively for both public and private readings.
iii. The debate concerning the “Perfect
Bible” is NOT about God’s Preservation of His Word after the original
autographs were lost. We believe that God has fully preserved His
Word in the body of manuscripts (or texts or copies) after the
original autographs were lost. We uphold the Byzantine/Majority Texts
as the very Word of God.
Regrettably, all the above have been manipulated,
misrepresented and distorted to give the false impression
that those who do not agree with the advocates of the “Perfect Bible”
are attacking the very Word of God (see Appendix D, p.12) and
promoting unreliable versions such as the NIV.
b.
What the “Perfect Bible” Debate IS Really About
The real issue in the “Perfect Bible” debate concerns ONLY
the INTANGIBLE Hebrew and Greek Texts underlying the KJV. As can
be seen from the quotations taken from the article “A Plea for a
Perfect Bible” above, advocates of the “Perfect Bible” hold to the
view that the intangible Greek and Hebrew texts
(copies/manuscripts) underlying the KJV are THE preserved and
perfect texts. By this it means that these copies are a 100%
(exact) replica of the original autographs. The diagram below will
help you to understand this:
When advocates of this view claim that their Bible is perfect,
what they really mean is that they believe that the intangible texts
(and these texts alone) used in the translation of the KJV are virtual
photocopies of the autographs (not only closest).
The real issue is on the intangible Greek and Hebrew
texts underlying the KJV (and not on the original writings, as
some mistakenly believe). Are the texts underlying the KJV perfect and
therefore the preserved Word of God? This is what the stand of
“Perfect Bible” means when it is taught or preached. It is really
about the intangible Perfect Texts (and not the “Perfect Bible”).
The following table may help you to see the issues clearly:
|
The New Paths:
The “Perfect Bible” View |
The Old Paths:
The Constitutional Position of Life Church |
|
The Greek Textus Receptus and the Hebrew Ben Chayyim
Masoretic Text are the perfectly purified text, and the
virtual photocopies, i.e. an exact replica of the
original writings. |
The Greek Textus Receptus and the Hebrew Ben Chayyim
Masoretic Text are the closest, i.e. very close to the
original writings. |
|
“Kept pure in all ages” is understood to be a
dynamic process by which the purity of God’s words has been
faithfully maintained in the Byzantine/ Majority/ Received Text,
but through divine providence, fully represented only in the
intangible Textus Receptus that underlies the KJV, that
emerged at the end of the process. Christians who lived before
the end of the process did not have this intangible single fully
purified text.
Hence, God’s promise of preservation is ultimately
fulfilled in the existence of an intangible single fully
purified text, which would eventually be found only at the
end of the process. |
“Kept pure in all ages” is understood to be a “stable
maintenance process” i.e. God has willed that His promise of
preservation should be fulfilled in the continued existence of
the Byzantine/ Majority/Received family of texts.
Since this family of Greek Text existed prior to 1611,
Christians living before this period had always been possessing
copies of this pure Word of God throughout the ages. |
|
The end of the process is defined as the
translation of the text into English by the KJV translators in
1611. They did not have a single purified text in their hands,
but God guided their editing work. Their textual decisions from
among the extant texts were providentially guided, hence producing
in an English translation an intangible underlying text that
perfectly reflects the readings of the autographs.
In 1884 Scrivener edited the Textus Receptus (TR)
to closely represent the underlying text of the KJV. |
Since the purity of the text has been providentially
maintained all the time only within the Byzantine/ Majority/
Received Text, best represented by the various editions of
the TR, any one of these (all editions) may be taken
to be pure and true.
There is no need for us to play textual critic
to decide which edition is the ‘purest’ of all, or seek to
improve the intangible Greek and Hebrew texts which underlie
the KJV.
|
|
Any alleged copyists’ errors in the texts underlying
the KJV are only apparent errors and not errors at
all. The existence of true copyists’ errors is absolutely denied. |
Since preservation of the Scriptures is through
providence, copyists’ errors may exist in the underlying texts of
the KJV but they are so few and insignificant that
they do not affect the integrity of the Bible, nor do they distort
the message of God to man. |
|
Foreign language Bibles that are based on other
editions of the Textus Receptus can be deemed as the Word of God.
But the KJV is still greater than all of them, because it
is based on a Perfect Text. |
Foreign language Bibles that are based on other
editions of the Textus Receptus can be deemed not only as the Word
of God, but also as being of equal standing with the KJV. |
C. Which Path Should We Take?
1. C.H. Spurgeon once said, “No man can
add anything to the religion of Jesus. All that is consistent with
truth is already incorporated in it, and with that which is not true
it can form no alliance. There is nothing new in theology save
that which is false.” (A sermon on Colossians 2:10, emphasis
added)
2. The “old paths” position of the KJV
that we have been holding all this time is correct:
a.
The inerrancy and infallibility of the original autographs,
which are directly inspired by God. There is not a single error or
mistake and it is absolutely perfect.
b.
The Hebrew and Greek Texts underlying the KJV of the English
Bible were providentially preserved by God and therefore closest
to the original autographs. We do not ascribe perfection to it (i.e.
100% exact replica of the autographs) or say that it is THE preserved
text to the exclusion of other manuscripts within the family of
Received Texts.
c.
The KJV is a good, faithful and accurate translation and we
have no doubt that we have the very Word of God, and it is fully
reliable.
3. The word “closest” in our Doctrinal Positional Statement (see
p.1) is an adjective meaning nearest. It is used to make
relative comparison, i.e. among the body of manuscripts, there are
those that are close, others that are closer, and the texts underlying
the KJV are the closest (compared to the rest) to the original
autographs. It is the closest and not the exact replica of the
original. If closest means perfect, then why was not
perfect used in the first place?
4. The “old paths” position that we have been holding all this
time is the same position held by the Westminister divines,
the Reformers,
the KJV Translators, and even Dean John Burgon
who was the champion of the Textus Receptus in the 19th
Century against Westcott and Hort. Proverbs 11:14 says, “Where no
counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors
there is safety.”
5. The new view became prominent only in the last 30 years in
America and is held only by a small number of writers and
institutions, e.g. Dr Donald A. Waite.
It is NOT held by the majority of fundamental, Bible-believing
institutions, churches and writers (e.g. Trinitarian Bible Society,
and G.I. Williamson, author of The Westminster Confession of Faith
for Study Classes).
The first to propound this view was a Seventh-day Adventist, Benjamin
G Wilkinson (1872 – 1968) with his book Our Authorised Bible
Vindicated (1930). Wilkinson was also the first person to misapply
Psalm 12:6-7 as though it were a promise of the preservation of the
KJV.
Notably, others such as James Jay Ray, David Otis Fuller and Peter S
Ruckman have continued to use Wilkinson’s interpretation of this
passage.
6. What is the basis of abandoning our time-honoured “old paths”
position to embrace a new view that is held by only a few? We are not
looking at man or numbers. But has God not blessed Life Church in
the past 52 years while we held to this position?
7. Wherever this new view has gone, it has caused disagreement,
strife and splits among like-minded Fundamentalist brethren. This is
the testimony of some who have been to the U.S. If this new doctrine
is from God, why are there divisions, distresses, unhappiness and
repulsion?
8. It is not supported by the Bible verses that are cited as
proof texts for the doctrine of exact preservation of the Scriptures
(Psalm 12:6,7; Matthew 5:18; Matthew 24:35). What can be understood
from these verses is that the Word of God will be providentially
preserved rather than exactly preserved (See
appendix A, p.8).
9. It unbiblically restricts the number of Christians who
had Bibles that can be considered to be the verbally and plenarily
preserved Word of God. These include all manuscript copies of the Word
of God that existed before the KJV translation was made in 1611.
10. It discriminates against all non-English Bibles of the
Protestant Reformation. There is no biblical basis for such
discrimination (See Appendices C & E, p.10,13).
D. Conclusion:
1.
The Word of God in Jeremiah 6:16 speaks to us, “Stand ye in
the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way,
and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls….”
2.
We should continue to uphold solely and publicly as our Church
position on the Scriptures, that which is already stated in our Life
B-P Church Constitution and Doctrinal Positional Statement. And hence,
those who hold a different personal conviction or view from the Church
position should refrain from propagating their differing views to
Church members whether publicly or privately.
3.
Although we consider the “Perfect Bible” view to be untenable,
for the sake of brotherly love and harmony, we do not want to
discriminate against any persons who, on grounds of their own personal
conviction, would choose to believe that the texts underlying the KJV
are an exact replica of the original autographs. We believe “there are
truths and forms with respect to which men of good character and
principles may differ. And in all these, we think it the duty both of
private Christians and societies to exercise mutual forbearance toward
each other.” (Article 5.5, Constitution of the Life
Bible-Presbyterian Church).
4.
The difference between the position of the Church and the new
view is a very subtle one, and we do not want Satan to exploit this
and disrupt the harmony and mission of the Church. To forcibly
impose the new view on others (e.g. by name-calling or intimating
that they lack saving faith), brings no glory to God, and will only
discredit the Church of God. Let us therefore seek to observe the
following in our church, with God’s help:
a.
Ephesians 4:2,3 – “With all lowliness and meekness, with
longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Endeavouring to keep
the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”
b.
Hebrews 13:1 – “Let brotherly love continue.”
Appendices
A. Passages cited as proof texts for the “Perfect Bible” view.
1.
When these verses of Scriptures are interpreted correctly in
their own proper context, it will be seen that they cannot be used to
support the “Perfect Bible” view.
2.
Psalm 12:6,7 – “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.”
The vast majority of Bible commentaries
do not interpret this as a passage on preservation of God’s Word. They
take the words “Thou shalt keep them” and “thou shalt
preserve them” as God’s firm assurance that He will keep and
preserve His own people from harm (cf. v.5).
It is significant that this verse is not cited at all in paragraph 1.8
of the Westminster Confession (see p.1, A.3) as proof text for the
phrase “Kept pure in all ages”. The only verse cited is the next one:
3.
Matthew 5:18 – “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and
earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law,
till all be fulfilled.”
In the context of the passage, Jesus meant that every detail of the
Scriptures is vital and will not be abrogated, but fulfilled.
Therefore, as He said in the next verse, no commandment of God, even
the least commandment, is to be taken lightly – “Whosoever
therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach
men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.”
At the time that Jesus said these words, the Old Testament scriptures
had gone through a process of transmission by copying. Although the
scribes were very meticulous in their copying, it would be very
unlikely for the thousands of handcopied manuscripts of the OT
scriptures existing at the time of Christ to be all alike word and
letter-perfect copies of the autographs. This therefore implies that
the scriptures will be providentially preserved in the same way that
God had preserved it in the 15 preceding centuries.
4.
Matthew 24:35 – “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My
words shall not pass away.” (also in Mark 13:31 and Luke 21:33)
This verse must be interpreted in the context of the end-time
prophecies that Jesus gave in vv.4-34. It indicates the certainty and
reliability of all these prophecies. The words of Jesus will continue
to be certain, valid and trustworthy even after the universe ceases to
exist.
B. What is meant by the words “Kept Pure In All Ages” in the
Westminster Confession?
1.
The words of this article were written at the time when the
Reformers were fighting against the Roman Church's view that the
Hebrew/Greek texts of Scripture were so corrupted that they could only
rely on the Latin Vulgate. This is seen in the Council of Trent's
session 4 which states that “the Latin Vulgate should be held as
authentic in the public reading, disputations, preaching, and
expositions, so that no one should dare to reject it under any
pretext.” This had led the Roman Church to argue against the purity
of the sources, to be, as Turretin put it, “hostile to them, holding
that there is no certainty in the Hebrew text, that we should not
refer to the sources in controversies of faith, nor correct the
Vulgate version by them.”
2.
Hence, the words “kept pure in all ages” must be seen in that
context. The Westminster divines put it in there in response to this
Roman myth. If they had truly written it with the intention of
proving perfect preservation of Scripture, more would have been
written about it. The very fact that Matthew 5:18 was quoted was not
because it is the supreme proof text, but because it showed that the
Greek and Hebrew sources could be trusted since Jesus would fulfill
them perfectly, and Jesus was referring to these sources. If the
Roman myth was correct, then Jesus would have been wrong.
3.
A. A. Hodge, who was professor of Systematic Theology at
Princeton Theological Seminary, 1877-1886, wrote in his book, The
Confession of Faith - A Handbook of Christian Doctrine
Expounding the Westminster Confession:
“The section teaches,---
1. That the Old Testament having been
originally written in Hebrew, and the New Testament in Greek -- which
were the common languages of the large body of the Church in their
respective periods-- the Scriptures in those languages are the
absolute rule of faith and the ultimate appeal in all controversies.
2. That the original sacred text has come
down to us in a state of essential
purity.
3. That the Scriptures should be
translated into the vernacular languages of all people, and copies put
into the hands of all capable of reading them.
The true text of the ancient Scriptures is ascertained by means
of a careful collation and comparison of the following:-
1. Ancient manuscripts. The oldest existing
Hebrew manuscripts date from the ninth or tenth century. The oldest
Greek manuscripts date from the fourth to the sixth century. Many
hundreds of these have been collated by eminent scholars in forming
the texts of modern Hebrew and Greek Testaments. The
differences are found to be unimportant, and the essential integrity
of our text is established….”
(emphases added)
4.
Concerning the claim made by some that Article 1:8 teaches the
complete inerrancy of the “Received Text” and of the Protestant
translations based on it, Rowland S. Ward of Knox Presbyterian Church
in Australia, wrote:
Believing in the complete inerrancy of Scripture some conservatives
have adopted what might be called the Vulgate error (from the Roman
elevation of the Latin text). They hold that God's special providence
in preserving the sources “pure in all ages” (1:8) is such as implies
a “jot and tittle” view of preservation so that the “Received Text”
represents the original without the slightest variation. Many hold in
addition that, seeing 1:8 also says that translations enable the word
of God to dwell plentifully in believers, the translation employed by
the Westminster Divines (taken to be the KJV) must be precisely
accurate, otherwise it could not be called “the word of God.”
Whatever the superficial attractiveness of the logic of this claim,
it is contrary to the plainest facts. It arises from a simplistic
logic (not unlike that among some of the Anabaptists of the 17th
century) coupled with a reactionary conservatism. Matthew 5:18
(the jot and tittle passage) is not referring to the transmission of
the text of Scripture but to the authority of God's claims upon us,
The transmission of Scripture is not such that the sources have been
preserved with exactness in any particular manuscript but, as Owen
noted, in all the manuscripts. And we cannot say that providence has
preserved only some manuscripts since providence extends to all events
and thus to the preservation of all the manuscripts. Nor can we say
that providence tells us which manuscripts are the best ones: only
manuscript comparison and analysis can do that. In short, “pure” does
not mean “without any transcriptional errors” but it means something
like “without loss of doctrines and with the text preserved in the
variety of manuscripts.” Thus, in affirming that “the original texts
of the Old and New Testaments come down to us pure and uncorrupted”
Francis Turretin (1623- 87) states:
“The question is not, Are the sources so pure that no fault has crept
into the many sacred manuscripts...? For this is acknowledged on both
sides and the various readings clearly prove it. Rather, the question
is have the original texts (or the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts) been
so corrupted by copyists through carelessness (or by the Jews and
heretics through malice) that they can no longer be regarded as the
judge of controversies and the rule to which all the versions may be
applied? The papists affirm, we deny it ... for besides being in
things of small importance and not pertaining to faith and practice
... they are not universal in all the manuscripts; or they are not
such as cannot be easily corrected from a collation of the Scriptures
and the various manuscripts.” [Institutes, II: 10: 3, 8 (pp. 106,
108-9 of 1992 edition]
The “jot and tittle theory” cannot produce the allegedly perfectly
preserved text which is the ultimate standard of appeal. Even the
“Received Text” is not the best (NT) text that can be constructed from
the Byzantine family of manuscripts but, as we all know, is largely
the text constructed from a few manuscripts of that family and the
ingenuity of Erasmus. In fact, many adherents of this theory canonise
the King James Version, even affirm that God's elect always share
their faith in its complete inerrancy (pity those who have only the
“impure” stream of manuscripts) and appeal finally to it. Let William
Ames express the truth of the matter in his clear and judicious way:
“The Scriptures are not so tied to these first languages that they
cannot and ought not to be translated into other languages for common
use in the church. But among interpreters, neither the seventy who
turned them into Greek, nor Jerome, nor any other such held the office
of a prophet; they were not free from errors in interpretation. Hence
no versions are fully authentic except as they express the sources, by
which they are also to be weighed. Neither is there any authority on
earth whereby any version may be made absolutely authentic. God's
providence in preserving the sources is notable and glorious, for
neither have they wholly perished nor have they been injured by the
loss of any book or blemished by any serious defect- though today not
one of the earlier versions remains intact. From these human
versions all those things may be made known which are absolutely
necessary, provided they agree with the sources in essentials.
Hence, all the versions accepted by the churches usually agree,
although they may differ and be defective at several minor points.
We must not rest forever in any accepted version, but faithfully see
to it that a pure and faultless interpretation is given to the
church.” [William Ames (1576-1633), The Marrow of Theology, I
xxxiv, 27-33 (first edition, Latin 1623; English translations 1638;
1986).]
C. The
Implications of Holding to The “Perfect Bible” View
1. Non-English
Bibles of the Protestant Reformation Cannot Be “Perfect Bibles”.
a. It gives only KJV users the warrant to
say, “My Bible is perfect” but disallows all users of all non-English
Protestant Bibles (e.g. Luther’s German Bible, the Polish Biblia
Gdanska, the Spanish Reina-Valera Bible, and the French Martin’s
Bible) from making such a claim for their Bibles legitimately (See
Chart in Appendix E, p.13). Would the non-English speaking Protestants
who use these Bibles not protest against us for the right to make the
same claim for their Bibles, and be inclined to regard us as bigoted
English speaking brethren?
i.
There is no biblical basis for such discrimination. The
only basis that has been presented is this: That English was the
chosen language in which God chose to restore His Word to the original
purity of the autographs, because He foresaw that it would one day
become the international language of the world. This is very
subjective and speculative.
ii.
The international language has already changed several
times in history: Aramaic, Greek, Latin, Spanish, and English. Who
knows what the next international language may be after English? And
the English used today has some changes from the English of the 17th
century. Also English is not the language spoken by most of the people
in the world as per statistics:
b. The 12 most widely spoken languages,
with approximate numbers of native speakers, are as follows: Mandarin
Chinese, 836 million; Hindi, 333 million; Spanish, 332 million;
English, 322 million; Bengali, 189 million; Arabic, 186 million;
Russian, 170 million; Portuguese, 170 million; Japanese, 125 million;
German, 98 million; French, 72 million; Malay, 50 million. If
second-language speakers are included in these figures, English is the
second most widely spoken language, with 418 million speakers.
c. Also, why would God preserve His
Words in one language? Were not the autographs themselves written in
three languages, viz, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek? If we really want to
do something worthwhile for the Lord regarding Bibles, then we should
direct our attention to bringing a Chinese and Indonesian Bible that
is not based on the Wescott & Hort text.
2. No “Perfect Bible” Existed Prior
To The Texts Underlying The KJV
a.
This view also implies there was no single perfect verbally and
plenarily preserved copy of the Word of God in existence before
the time of the KJV translation, since it is very unlikely that any
single manuscript had all the same readings as the intangible text
underlying the KJV.
3. The KJV Translators Were Rendered
Infallible In Their Textual Choices, But Not Infallible In Their
Translation Work.
a. It is claimed that the KJV
translators were providentially guided to make all the right textual
decisions, so that all the correct readings were fully restored to the
Word of God through them. But if all their textual decisions were
providentially rendered infallible, why was their translation work not
also providentially rendered infallible? It is a known fact that the
1611 KJV, well-received as it was as the best available English
translation of the Scriptures at that time, still had its own
translational flaws and errors.
b.
Our current edition of the KJV differs from the 1611 edition in
almost 24,000 places. Some are merely modernisation of spelling,
punctuation, or other minor corrections; but many significant
differences exist – including changes in grammar, word order, adding
words, and deleting words. These changes do affect meaning.
c.
E.g. in Genesis 39:16, the KJV translators erroneously
translated “his” as “her” and in 1 Corinthians 15:6, they erroneously
translated “after” as “and”. In 2 Samuel 16:12 they omitted the word
“me”. All these errors of translation were corrected in subsequent
revisions of the KJV and are no longer found in our Bibles today. If
the Lord did not keep the KJV translators from making these mistakes
in translation, on what basis can they say that He kept them from
making errors in their textual choices of variant readings?
d.
If we were to believe that the KJV translators were rendered
infallible both in their textual choices and in their translation
work, we should change our Bibles to the 1611 edition of the KJV, or
at least to an edition that only modernises the spelling, punctuation
and does not incorporate the changes in grammar, word order and
additions or deletions of words.
4. We Would Have to Amend Our Church
Constitution To Include the “Perfect Bible” View.
a.
If we were to adopt the new view, it would be a serious
departure from the doctrinal position stated in our Church
constitution. It would mean that the Church has been in error for the
past fifty-two years.
b.
We would put our church in opposition to all the rest of the
B-P Churches that do not take this view. We would also put ourselves
against a great cloud of Bible-believing fundamentalists who have been
stalwart colabourers with us for many years.
D. Is Not
Holding the “Perfect Bible” View An Attack on The Word of God?
1.
Those who do not hold this new “Perfect Bible” view have been unfairly
compared with Neo-Evangelicals who attack the Word of God by teaching
‘Limited Inerrancy’ of the Scriptures. For example,
“Satan is up to his
tricks again. He is now trying to cast doubt in the minds of God’s
people that we do not have a perfect Bible. Satan is saying, “The
Bible is only without mistakes or errors in the area of salvation, but
in matters of science, history, or geography, it can make mistakes.”
Neo-evangelicals who teach this view say that we must not say the
Bible is the Word of God, but that the Bible merely contains the Word
of God. The devil is whispering a doubt into our ears, “Yea, hath God
said?” “Are you sure the Bible is perfect to the last jot and tittle?”
2.
It must be stated that ‘Limited Inerrancy’ attacks the
autographs and the process of inspiration – not the manuscript copies
that came in later (after the autographs were completed.)
3.
Limited Inerrancy originated with the rise of ‘German
Rationalism’ and unbelief, which caused many church leaders to elevate
so-called Science above the Scripture, and to feel increasingly
embarrassed by many of the “unscientific and historically inaccurate”
statements in the Bible. For example, ‘Science’ says that man evolved
from apes while the Bible says that he was created by God. In order to
resolve this dilemma and remain respectable to the world, the
erroneous doctrine of ‘Limited Inerrancy’ was invented, which was
later embraced by Modernists, and by Neo-Evangelicals today.
4.
This teaching of ‘Limited Inerrancy’ says that God accommodated
to the weaknesses of man during the process of Inspiration. Hence, the
Bible (in the autographs) is only infallible in the area of faith, but
it may make mistakes in other areas such as science or geography.
Clearly, Limited Inerrancy is a false teaching not in conformity with
Life Church doctrinal position.
5.
Hence, not holding to the new “Perfect Bible” view (eg. holding
to our Church doctrinal position on the handcopied manuscripts) does
not equate holding to Limited Inerrancy (pertaining to autographs);
nor does it make a person like a Neo-Evangelical. Otherwise, the
Reformers would also have to be considered as Neo-Evangelicals, which
is clearly a false allegation. In their understanding, there were
copyists’ errors that came into the text during the copying of
manuscripts of the Bible, but they were too few and insignificant to
affect the integrity and trustworthiness of the Bible.
6.
For example, while commenting on the discrepancy found between
2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2 regarding the age of king Ahaziah,
Matthew Henry (a contemporary of the Westminster Divines) pointed out
the following:
“Many good expositors
are ready to allow that this, with some few more such difficulties,
arise from the mistake of some transcriber, who put forty-two for
twenty-two, and the copies by which the error should have been
corrected might be lost. Many ancient translations read it here
twenty-two. Few books are now printed without some errata, yet the
authors do not therefore disown them, nor are the errors of the press
imputed to the author, but the candid reader amends them by the sense,
or by comparing them with some other part of the work, as we may
easily do this.”
7. The
Reformers’ faith in the Bible remained firm because they reasoned that
the sovereign God who permitted these few insignificant copyists’
errors to enter in MUST HAVE ensured that the integrity of the Bible
remains intact and completely reliable for man’s use.
8.
Since the position of the Reformers has been accepted to be orthodox
and correct even up to this day by the Reformed Community in general,
those who hold the same position they held should not be considered to
be less orthodox and biblical than them, much less be considered as
attacking the Word of God.
E. Chart on
Preservation
Respectfully submitted by:
