Riders of the Wrecking Machine: Part Three

THE REFORMATION AFFIRMED THE INERRANCY OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS

Bernard Pyron

During the 16th century Reformation Martin Luther, John Calvin and

their followers said the Catholic insistence that the Church itself

was equal to or above the Scriptures was wrong. The reformers said

that only the Bible can be our authority. This doctrine was called

Sola Scriptura.

The Roman Catholic Church challenged the Sola Scriptura of the Reformation

in the Council of Trent (1545-63) by pointing out the scribal errors,

and different readings in the copies of Scripture they had then. The

Catholics apparently did not believe that the copies they possessed

were inerrant. The

Reformers met this serious challenge by saying clearly and strongly

that the copies of Scriptures they had were infallible and inerrant

because of God's promise to preserve His words . In response to the

Council of Trent, the Westminster Confession of Faith (1643) stated on

the subject of

the continuing infallibility and inerrancy of copies Scripture that "The Old

Testament in Hebrew … and the New Testament in Greek … 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."

The main Bible verse cited was Matthew 5:18, "Till heaven and

earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law,

till all be fulfilled."

To go back to the argument that only the original autographs were

inerrant is to give up one of the most important foundations of the

Protestant Reformation. In giving that up, the mainstream evangelicals

have opened the door for apostasy.

The following is a quote from the preface to the 1611 King James version:

The translators remark that the Roman Church made endless translations,

each one more corrupt than the former: ". . .that certain Catholics. .

.were in such an humor of translating the Scriptures into Latin, that

Satan taking occasion by them, though they thought of no such matter,

did strive what he could, out of so uncertain and manifold a variety

of Translations, so to mingle all things, that nothing might seem to

be left certain and firm in them, etc. . .What is to have the faith of

our glorious Lord JESUS CHRIST with Yea or Nay, if this be not? Again,

what is sweet harmony and consent, if this be?"

That is exactly what the Westcott-Hort Wrecking Machine has done. It has made

the New Testament uncertain for the readers of the

modern translations - and therefore it has been successful in weakening the

authority of the Bible.

WESTCOTT-HORT FOLLOWERS SAY KJV HAS ARCHAIC LANGUAGE

Many seminary trained people say the 17th century English of the King

James is not understandable. There are at least 827 words and phrases

in the days of King James that have changed their meaning or are no

longer used in our modern, everyday English language, such as suffer,

filthy lucre, quick, lunatick, wax, charity, But the meaning of these

words can be understood, sometimes by the context in which they are

used. Suffer means to allow something to occur. Filthy lucre is money.

Wax is grow, and charity is the translation of agape love. It meaning

is not limited to doing work for someone for free.

They say the King James has archaic English words.

2 John 10 is one example some opponents of the King James use as an

example, which reads:

"If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him

not into your house, neither bid him God speed"(KJV).

"If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take

him into your house or welcome him" (NIV).

D. A. Carlson says

"The plain truth of the matter is that the version that is so

cherished among senior saints who have more or less come to terms with

Elizabethan English, is obscure, confusing, and sometimes even

incomprehensible to many younger or poorly educated Christians...For

any preacher or theologian who loves God's Word to allow that Word to

go on being misunderstood because of the veneration of an archaic,

not-understood version of four centuries ago is inexcusable, and

almost unconscionable' " (The King James Version Debate: A Plea For

Realism, D. A. Carlson, Baker Book House, 1979, pp. 101,102)

But some King James Version people say:

The King James enemies are also wrong on its Elizabethian English.

After nearly four

centuries, so little can be found to be archaic. Certainly there are

"profound differences" between current and Elizabethan English. But,

the language of the King James is not exactly Elizabethan English! As

a comparison will show, there is

a great difference between King James English and the wordy, complex

and often ambiguous

Elizabethan style.

The English language after 1611 owes its development in part to the Authorized

Version! "The King James Version was a model for the development of the

English language. Its elegant but simple style had an influence on

English-speaking writers" (World Book Encyclopedia). This partially

explains why the King James English is more alive and explicit while

most other literary-type texts from that

period are more difficult to read.

The English of the King James Version is not the English of the early

17th century. It is biblical English, which was not used on

ordinary occasions even by the translators who produced the King James

Version. As H. Wheeler Robinson (1940) pointed out, one need only

compare the preface written by the translators with the text of their

translation to feel the difference in style. The King James Version

owes its greatness not to 17th-century English - which was

very difficult - but to its faithful translation of the original. Its

style is that of the Hebrew and of the New Testament Greek. Even in

their use of thee and thou the translators were not following

17th-century English usage but biblical usage, for at the time these

translators were doing their work these singular forms had already

been replaced by the plural you in polite conversation (The King James

Version Defended, Des Moines: Christian Research Press, 1984, pp.

218). Ye is a more exact word, for example, that calling a bunch of

people you, because we use you to address a single individual.

Here is the beginning of the preface to the KJV written by the KJV translators:

"Zeal to promote the common good, whether it be by devising anything

ourselves, or revising that which hath been laboured by others,

deserveth certainly much respect and esteem, but yet findeth but cold

entertainment in the world. It is welcomed with suspicion instead of

love, and with emulation instead of thanks: and if there be any hole

left for cavil to enter, (and cavil, if it do not find a hole, will

make one) it is sure to be misconstrued, and in danger to be

condemned. This will easily be granted by as many as know story, or

have any experience."

This is not the writing style the KJV translators used for their

translation. The words of the King James version are often more lucid

than those of the NIV.

The writing style in the Preface is more complex than that of the 1611 King

James Version Bible, whose wording is less complex and often more

exact. The style of the preface is more ambiguous to a modern

reader, though it has some interesting points. Cavil they say "if

it do not find a hole, will make one," for example. Cavil means to

find a fault in something without good reason, to quibble.

The advocates of the new translations say the King James

Version is flawed for modern readers because of its archaic language.

And they say that the new translations with their modern English have

all the doctrines of the Bible.

ELABORATION IN THE KING JAMES

If you compare verses from the King James to those of the modern

translations, you will find that many verses in the NIV and other

modern versions are shorter, more abbreviated and not amplified or

elaborated as much.

The reason why the verses in the new versions are shorter, though not

always, is because the Greek text behind the new versions generally

has shorter wordings. I will show this later with such texts as I

John 5: 7-8 as examples. Westcott and Hort set up their critical

rules so that the shorter wording of verses in the Vaticanus and

Sinaiticus would be used rather than the longer and more amplified or

elaborated wordings of the Textus Receptus.

In the Bible, God often amplifies a thought as he chooses words to

connect to the mind, and to communicate the holiness and the

inspiration linked with holiness. The human mind can more easily learn

and remember a thought that is amplified and elaborated than a thought

that is presented only in a very brief way. I know that sometimes we can

communicate more clearly with statements that are brief, but if we

know our subject matter and can use words well, we can be more clear

by expanding on that thought and associating it with different other

ideas.

A person who at first knows little of New Testament doctrines should

be better able to learn and remember those doctrines from reading them

in the King James than from the NIV or other modern versions. In part,

this is because of the greater elaboration of the thoughts in the King

James.

So, after becoming more familiar with the 17th century English of the

King James, a person wanting to learn New Testament teachings can

learn them more fully from the longer and more elaborated verses in

the KJV than from the shorter verses of the new versions.

The King James reader may also be better able to remember the gist

meanings of those doctrines than the reader of the NIV. This is

really an empirical question, and could be tested in experiments.

Now, a person who has not read the Bible over and over for a time will

have some difficulty in remembering exactly what verses say and

exactly how a New Testament doctrine is stated. Here again, the

longer, more elaborated verses of the King James should help that

person re-learn the verses and the doctrines, while reading them in

the NIV should be of somewhat less help in the re-learning process.

Remember that the new versions play down, dilute, abbreviate and

weaken some New Testament doctrines. The teaching that Christ who is

fully God and is always omnipresent but took on the flesh of man in

the material world to save us from our sin is one of these doctrines

that is played down and weakened in the new translations. This is

because it is weakened in the Westcott-Hort Greek text.

The longer wording of some verses in the King James, its greater

amplification and elaboration of meanings is one quality. The actual

individual words used is another issue dividing the King James Version

from the modern versions.

THE SPIRITUALLY POWERFUL WORDS OF THE KING JAMES

Isaiah 66: 5 "Hear the word of the Lord, ye that tremble at his word:

your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake,

said Let the Lord be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and

they shall be ashamed."

The English words that the King James translators chose to use in

translating Hebrew and Greek words describe the nature of God and the

doctrines God wants us to follow. The words the translators chose

work well upon the human mind, on our intellect as well as on our

emotions. The words of the King James are effective and powerful in

arousing awe for the Lord and in creating faith, at least in those who

fully believe in that word of God.

The King James English words can put believers into a closer relation

to God, to his greatness and can lead us to become more holy as God is

holy. The words can inspire us to separate from our own sins and from

sinners and those who hold false doctrines.

The KJV's words can help put us into a spiritual relation with

Jesus Christ, who is "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from

sinners, and made higher..."

Hebrews 7: 26 says "For such an high priest became us, who is holy,

harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the

heavens."

On the other hand the words of the NIV tend to be more the uninspired

and secular words of modern people in the world of the universities,

the media, government and big business. Of course, the promoters of

the new Bible translations will say this is one of the reasons we

should use the NIV, since it uses the language of our time which we

understand and not the "archaic" language of the old King James.

Many of the words used in the NIV and in other new versions are shown

by Edinburgh University's Associative Thesaurus to be unholy, harmful,

defiled, and anything but separate from sinners. That is, the

associations these words evoke tend to be more unholy, harmful, and

defiled.

The KJV fulfills Tyndale's wish that the final English Bible "seek in

certain places more proper English" (Dore, 2nd ed, pp. 23-24). Tyndale

scholar, David Daniell agrees that "the Authorized Version's scholars

tended to remove the Bible safely away from daily life" (Daniell, p.

xiii).

To fulfill God's requirement that man, "tremble at my word," it must

be recognizable as his word. A close look at words such as – unto,

ought, nought, wrought, twain, holpen, shambles, wist, hath, hough,

flower, and servant – gives the reader insight into some of the

qualities words in the King James use to put readers into contact with

the Holy Spirit's communication to us. How many have gone 'to'

church, but not "unto" Christ?

Although the KJV has a few special big words, like "atonement" and

"remission," most of its words are shorter than those in new versions

and old English Bibles. .

Isaiah 49: 2 says "And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword: in

the shadow of his hand hath he hid me, and made me a polished shaft:

in his quiver hath he hid me."

Isaiah 49: 2 is saying that God can give us words to speak that

penetrate sharply into minds and spirit. And that is what happened

to the King James translators who were inspired as they chose English

words to translate those of Hebrew and Greek.

Hebrews 4: 12 teaches that "...the word of God is quick, and powerful,

and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing

asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a

discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

Are the words of the NIV as faithful to Hebrews 4: 12 as are those of

the King James? Do the words of the NIV penetrate our minds, hearts

and spirit to awaken us spiritually as those of the KJV do for those

who fully believe? And - don't forget, that the words of the NIV may

not arouse us to fully believe as well as those of the KJV.

H.L. Mencken says , "The prevalence of very short words in

English...[a] succinct, straightforward and simple tongue - in some of

its aspects, in fact almost as a kind of baby-talk"

In fact, English often does use fewer words and syllables than other

languages to describe something. And it can be more lucid, explicit

and specific in the meanings it conveys.

I Peter 1: 23 speaks of being born again by the incorruptable word of

God. The words of the King James can not only put us more easily

into a spiritual contact with the Lord of glory, but the rhythms of

the King James language are inspiring and help us remember scripture

better. Children like the speech rhythms of the King James.

Although T. S. Eliot may not have been the best Christian, he was a

poet and understood language. He said

that elevated writing, like that seen in the Bible, has a

"...feeling for syllable and rhythm, penetrating far below the

conscious levels of thought and feelings, invigorating every word"

(Adam Nicolson, God's Secretaries, NYC: HarperCollins, 2003, p. 223).

Eliot is not talking about the writing style of the NIV, but about the

King James.

Albert Cook states that,

"When we think of the high repute in which the Authorized Version is

held by men of learning and renown, we must remember, too, that in a

special sense it has been the great book of the poor and unlettered.

The one book that every household was sure to possess was the Bible

[KJV]...To many a poor man the English Bible has been a university,

the kindly mother from whom he has drawn...a way of great speech" (The

Cambridge History of English Literature, vol. 4, pp. 178-180).

Again, H.L. Mencken, who was an unbeliever, has this to say about the

King James:

"It is the most beautiful of all the translations of the Bible; indeed

it is probably the most beautiful piece of writing in all the

literature of the world...[M]any learned but misguided men have sought

to produce translations...in the plain speech of everyday. But the

Authorized Version has never yielded to any of them, for it is

palpably and overwhelmingly better than they are, just as it is better

than the Greek New Testament, or the Vulgate, or the Septuagint. Its

English is extraordinarily simple, pure, eloquent, and lovely. It is a

mine of lordly and incomparable poetry, at once the most stirring and

the most touching ever heard of" (Paine, p. viii).

Here is an unbeliever praising the King James, while many of those

who say they are believers stick to the Westcott-Hort derived new

versions, and do not agree with H. L. Mencken. The advocates of the

Westcott-Hort Wrecking Machine call us "King James Only" people and

imply that we are authoritarians. They say we want to control them.