A Fork In The Road

Preface



A Fork In The Road


To begin, let me say that most likely there is nothing in this little ‘critique’ that I haven’t heard or read before, and certainly nothing here that will surprise me. It is claimed that our critic is “extremely educated in the topic and has researched plenty”. Well, we’ll see about that. Much education on textual criticism & manuscript evidence is false evidence made to order and twisted information used to prove what someone wanted to prove. “Jared went to NBBC and graduated from Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary.” What did Jared get from this seminary?

From their website [http://www.cbs.edu/about/statement-of-faith.html], the statement of faith, under the heading of The Holy Scriptures, is the following statement. “We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the verbally and plenarily inspired Word of God and inerrant in the original writings. The sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments are the complete and divine revelation of God to man, and therefore, are the final authority for faith and life (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20-21).” Notice that their belief of inspiration is in some non-existent, unavailable writings. Then, they say that the Old and New Testaments are the final authority for faith and life. Their authority lies in something that no longer exists although they word their statement in the present tense to deceive you into thinking that they actually have a written authority. “The Old and New Testaments are the final authority for faith.” Which Bible are they referring to? The King James Bible? The New International Version? The New American Standard Version? Neither of these is the answer. They don’t believe in an inspired translation. How about the Greek text? If this is the answer, then, which Greek text? There is no final authority for faith. They are lying.

So what did Jared get from this seminary concerning the Bible version issue? He got deception. What then do you expect from Jared’s ‘extreme education in the topic’? You can expect extreme deception from start to finish.

I have personally studied the Bible version issue, including Bible Version Comparison, Bible History, Manuscript Evidence, “How We Got Our Bible”, and etc. for twenty years. I have read the standard slop that is considered to be scholarly material, The King James Version Debate (1979) by D.A. Carson and The King James Only Controversy (1995) by James White. I have read ‘middle-of-the-road’ type material such as Biblical Criticism (1957) by Wick Broomall and Thy Word Is Truth (1957) by Edward J. Young. These two works are actually very good but as a Bible believer, you must make applications to the word of God instead of the ‘originals’. I have also read other standard works, General Biblical Introduction (1937) by H.S. Miller, The Highest Critics Vs. The Higher Critics (1896) by L.W. Munhall and many real Bible believing works on the subject.

On page 18, Carson poses the question, “how can we know what the Holy Spirit inspired the New Testament authors to write?” And then he wastes 128 pages of ink without ever answering the question. His subtitle is A Plea for Realism. At the end of the second chapter of rubbish, after destroying the Christian’s faith in the Bible, Carson has the nerve to say, “The result is a certain word from God”. I plead for realism. He goes on to say, “The aim of the textual critic is to ascertain, as precisely as possible, what reading of any particular passage is closest to the original, or accurately reflects the original. The first step is to classify the manuscript evidence in such a way as to make it manageable.” ‘Manuscript evidence’, he says? He failed to give you the first piece of manuscript evidence before stating his opinion of the responsibility of the textual critic. The first evidence is the fact that no original of any of the 66 Bible books exists. Do you know what that means? It means that the ‘aim of the textual critic’ is impossible. This shows you that ‘Scholarship’ has the wrong aim to start with. Obviously, if you start going down the wrong road, you will end up at the wrong place. ‘Scholarship’ ends up with no certainty of the words of truth.

“Manuscript evidence” (by the way) can only lead you so far but can never lead to certainty, because manuscript evidence is a shifting sea that can never be certain.” [Jim Leichty.]

All Biblical doctrines, except the doctrine of the Bible, are built on the scriptures. 'Scholarship' builds their doctrine of Biblical Inspiration and Preservation, instead, on so-called 'manuscript evidence'. Bible believers, however, build their doctrine of inspiration and preservation on the 'manuscript evidence' of the scriptures themselves. In other words, the scriptures themselves are the manuscript evidence.

Like with all other doctrines, what we believe concerning the Inspiration and Preservation of the scriptures, what counts is "What saith the scriptures?" not "what saith the scholars?"

On page I, James White begins his forward with the following statement. “In this age of uncertainty, the last thing we need is the suspicion that the Word of God is somehow faulty and misleading.” This statement gives the impression that the writer believes that the Bible is not faulty or misleading. So let us assume at the start that James White is honest and that he is a Bible believer and let us follow. Let’s look at some other ‘manuscript evidence’.

For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Where did this piece of manuscript evidence come from? It’s in your Bible. It is 1 Thessalonians 2:13. Look it up. According to this ‘manuscript evidence’, a Christian should receive the word of God not as the word of men. You know what the ‘scholars’ say about your King James Bible. They say that it is merely the word of men. Did you know that? They say, “No translation can be inspired”. They say that your English King James Bible that you hold in your hand is not the word of God, but the word of men. “God gave the originals by inspiration but translations are not given by inspiration of God”. Your King James Bible says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God”. Is your King James Bible the word of God? If so, we wouldn’t want to ‘suspect that it is somehow faulty or misleading’. Remember, “The last thing we need is the suspicion that the Word of God is somehow faulty and misleading”. So if it’s not faulty or misleading, we are going to believe what 1 Thessalonians 2:13 and 2 Timothy 3:16 say.

According to 1 Thessalonians 2:13, a Christian is to receive the word of God as the truth and as the word of God. 2 Timothy 3:16 says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God”. Is your King James Bible scripture? Of course it is. So now that you receive the word of God as it is in truth, the word of God, you will believe what it says. And when you believe it, it will effectually work in you. Read 1 Thessalonians 2:13 again. Now let’s correct D.A. Carson. The aim of the textual critic is to believe the word of God and allow it to work effectually. Okay?

Okay. Now we can continue. Now we actually have some basis to what we are doing. With D.A. Carson, you are trying to do something absolutely impossible because you don’t even have a real starting point. Your starting point doesn’t exist. All you will do is run around in circles and end up with less knowledge and certainty than you started with. However, with the Bible believing method, we have a real starting point. We have manuscript evidence that we can believe and know the certainty of. We have the word of God that works effectually.

Is James White actually honest? Of course not. When he says ‘the Word of God’, he means the original manuscripts. Watch this. This is how his statement reads in his mind: “In this age of uncertainty, the last thing we need is the suspicion that the original manuscripts of the word of God are somehow faulty and misleading.” I know this is what he means because he doesn’t believe any book in existence today is the word of God. There are churches with statements of faith that say, “We believe the Bible is the infallible, preserved, inerrant word of God in the original manuscripts”. There are some who are not honest enough to include those last four words even though they should. If you ask him, James White would not apply his statement to any translation. He suspects that every translation of the words of God is somehow faulty and misleading.

In the critique, two books are recommended, "The King James-Only Controversy" by James White and "From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man: A Layman's Guide to How We Got Our Bible".

Let’s hear another recommendation, you know, a second opinion. “The ensuing treatise is intended to be a brief Manual on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament for ordinary students of the Bible, and to induce those who may be disposed to enter more deeply into the important subject of it to prosecute further research in “The Plain Introduction” of Dr. Scrivener, the learned works of Dean Burgon, and in other well-known sources of information upon Textual Criticism.”

Dean John William Burgon is the champion of the defence of the King James Bible against Westcott and Hort’s Greek text and the Revised Version of 1881-1884. He wrote “The Last Twelve Verses of Mark” (1871), “The Revision Revised” (1883), “The Traditional Text” (1896), and “Causes of Corruption” (1896). John Burgon, in fact, proved that the Revised Version should never have been published nor received as the word of God by the body of Christ at all.

Our second opinion, Edward Miller, M.A., said, “I lay down my pen with the conviction derived from the accomplishment of my work, that every Reader who would really understand, and form an opinion for himself upon the great questions at stake, must bestow on the problem which has suddenly emerged into prominence a considerable amount of individual, unprejudiced attention. He will be able to see with which of the two contending parties the Truth must lie: but he must approach the problem in a calm, judicial spirit, must require Proof (as far as Proof is attainable) instead of putting up with Hypothesis, and above all must never cease to exercise a large amount of vigilant sagacity, -in fact, of Common Sense.” [A Guide To The Textual Criticism of the New Testament, 1886.]

Again, Mr. White’s statement is “In this age of uncertainty, the last thing we need is the suspicion that the Word of God is somehow faulty and misleading.” We may be in an age of uncertainty although we do not, in fact, need to be uncertain of the words of God or the words of truth.

More Manuscript Evidence:

Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge, That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee? (Proverbs 22:20-21)

According to this evidence, God wrote his counsels and knowledge that He would make you certain of the words of truth. This means that you can believe and trust the word of God. When you read the word of God, you can know and be certain that you are reading the words of God and the words of truth.

Remember there are two contending parties. The truth lies with one party and not the other. One party believes that you can be certain of something that does not exist and yet cannot be certain of anything that does exist. The other party (the Bible believers) believes the opposite, that you can be certain of the existing scriptures, but cannot be certain of the non-existent originals. Now with this preface and a Bible believing spirit, and remembering also the advice of Edward Miller – “never cease to exercise a large amount of common sense”, we are ready to proceed.