godlycook's Blog

Advertisement

forgot login?
Languages
Help

Bringing people together in love and faith

My Blog

Blogs > godlycook > WHAT IS MAN'S CHIEF END ?

WHAT IS MAN'S CHIEF END ?

For the Glory of God.

Title View |

IF THIS BE FROM MAN	Mar 9, 2006 10:10 am 779 Views
In the fifth chapter of the Book of Acts; we have recorded the advice of Gamaliel concerning the Apostles and their message of Christ as the promised Messiah. Gamaliel suggested that if the massage the Apostles were bringing was of men and not of God; that nothing would become of it, but if it were of God there was nothing they could do to over-throw it; less they be found fighting against God ( see Acts 5:33-39 ). Sound advice; perhaps .....perhaps not. Though Gamaliel's advice could have been more decisive, and less pragmatic; there was some wisdom in what he said. The KJV only advocates would be wise to think more like Gamaliel concerning the sovereignty of God over His Word. They seem to forget that the KJV had it's opponents when it was first under-taken; as a new translation of the word of God into the language of the people. It too was viewed as a perversion of the Word of God. Yet in spite of its critics the KJV went on to be the most widely read English Bible on the planet. Until just recently it was the most popular Bible found in American homes. All of this in- spite of those critics who swore to die, before they would use such a perversion of the Word of God. When God is in control who can stop it ? Today in-spite of the critics; the NIV has surpassed the KJV as the most widely read English translation of the Bible and again ......... who can stop it, if its of God ?
	16 Comments

IF THE BOOK OF EZEKIEL WERE MADE INTO A MOVIE

Mar 8, 2006 8:43 pm
673 Views

1 comment, 11 votes

DID THE APOSTELS QUOTE FROM THE GREEK SEPTUAGINT ?	Mar 7, 2006 9:39 pm 797 Views
Some here at BigChurch seem to want to deny the fact; that the writers of the N.T. quoted from the Greek LXX. The Septuagint is the first and probably most important of a number of ancient translations of the Hebrew OT into Greek. Nor was it by accident that God chose to have the ancient Hebrew text translated into the Greek LXX; for the Greek language became the language of the people. Both the Hebrew and Greek languages were the two most eloquent languages on the planet. With the Hebrew language you could say more with fewer words, and with the Greek language you could say the same thing several different ways. God chose to use these two languages to give His written Word to mankind. It's important to not put God into a box and limit the languages He has chosen to use or to try and limit which translations of the Bible we can use. The LXX is of use for us in two different ways: 1. It's valuable in aiding us in our understanding of the OT pre-Christian era. 2. It's an important tool for use in textual criticism and can be helpful in bringing light on the original MS of the Bible. As an example in several places the Masoretic Text and the LXX do not agree. Just by comparing Amos 9:11-12 with Acts 15:16-17; James quotes Amos, yet his quotation agrees in general with the LXX, which is very different from the Masoretic Text. A different example of how the LXX is useful is Psalm 22:16 where the Hebrew Bible reads " like a lion my hands and my feet " is rendered in our English Bible's " they pierced my hands and my feet "; which follow the LXX. Questions For the KJV onlyist: 1. Where in the Bible does God guarantee that any translation ( or translator ) of the Bible, anyone who copies the Bible, anyone who teaches the Bible or anyone who preaches the Bible will be infallibly correct ? 2. Why did the translators of the KJV expect; that others would one day make theirs even better ? 3. Did our Pilgrim forefathers have the wrong Bible; when they brought the Geneva Bible with them ? 4. If the KJV differs from the Greek text; should we correct the English so it agrees with the Greek; or should we correct the Greek so it agrees with the English ? 5. Why did the Lord Jesus and the Apostles quote from the Septuagint, even though it differed from the original Hebrew scriptures in places and was not a perfect translation.
	6 Comments

Something else For Bryan	Mar 6, 2006 9:37 pm 709 Views
The Great Which Bible? Fraud by Doug Kutilek * [Originally published in Baptist Biblical Heritage, Summer 1990, Vol. I, No. 2] David Otis Fuller 1903-1988 Benjamin G. Wilkinson Seventh-day Adventist 1872-1968 The single book most responsible for the “King James only”/”Textus Receptus only” view gaining wide acceptance is Which Bible?, edited by the late David Otis Fuller. First appearing in 1970 (a date not without significance), the book was revised and updated several times, the latest edition being the fifth, which runs 318 pages--with indices, 350. (All page references to Which Bible? will be to the fifth edition). The greater part of the book addresses the issues of the Greek texts and English translation, that is, lower criticism, though the second longest article (37 pages) in the book focuses on the subject of destructive higher criticism. This is a completely separate matter which some of the writers in Which Bible? do not seem to recognize. Besides Fuller, there are eleven other writers represented in this compilation, not all of whom accept Fuller’s views of the KJV and TR. The quality and accuracy of the articles varies widely. Some are excellent and others are exceptionally poor. Most of the articles average a mere dozen or fewer pages in the book; two are as long as thirty to forty. But the overwhelmingly longest contribution, running to 146 pages (46% of the book), is that of Benjamin G. Wilkinson. This section is in reality a nearly complete reprinting of ten chapters of Wilkinson’s sixteen chapter book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, published in 1930, and which in its full form ran 259 pages. Who was Benjamin G. Wilkinson? Fuller prefaced his efforts with a two page introduction headed, “About the author of Our Authorized Bible Vindicated” (pages 174, 175). Only the first paragraph says anything about Wilkinson, and one page merely reproduces Wilkinson’s own foreword. Here is the total of what Fuller told the trusting reader about Wilkinson: Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Ph.D., is all but unknown to the world of scholarship, but once his book is carefully considered it will be evident that here is a scholar of the first rank with a thorough knowledge of the subjects about which he wrote. Dr. Wilkinson taught for many years in a small and obscure Eastern college. For this excellent work which he produced he secured copyrights in both England and America back in 1930. [Which Bible?, page 174] Fuller went on to laud Wilkinson’s book: Dr. Wilkinson’s book is...a cogent presentation of little known facts along with a thrilling review of the battle that began in Eden with Satan’s skeptical question, “Yea, hath God said?” and has continued unabated until this present hour. With such a surfeit of Bible translations and such profound confusion existing in Christian circles, Dr. Wilkinson’s work will go a long way in bringing into proper focus and perspective the whole question on where final authority lies and just what we can trust with confidence in the midst of this multiplicity of versions. [Which Bible?, page 174]. Fuller was apparently including Wilkinson in his remarks in the “Acknowledgements” (preceding the “Contents” page) when he wrote: The writers of some of the articles quoted in this book are now with the Lord, having faithfully served Him in their generation as earnest contenders for “the faith once delivered to the saints.” Wilkinson died in 1968; Which Bible? appeared in 1970. When I (Doug) first read Which Bible? while in Bible College in the early 1970’s, the vague reference to Wilkinson teaching at a “small and obscure Eastern college” sparked my interest. Try as I might, for over fifteen years I could find no information on Wilkinson beyond what Fuller gave. I had no idea what “Eastern college” Fuller referred to. The only reference to Our Authorized Bible Vindicated I could find beyond Which Bible? was a mere listing in the bibliography of H. S. Miller’s General Biblical Introduction, a Bible College textbook. I thought it strange that no one but Fuller was aware of such a man who would be described as “a scholar of the first rank with a thorough knowledge of the subjects about which he wrote” and whose writing could be called, “this excellent book.” My long unanswered questions about Wilkinson and his school were answered in a surprising way. I (Gary) spoke at the annual meeting of the Dean Burgon Society (of which Fuller was a founding member) in July, 1989, in Grafton, Illinois. While at dinner with the president of the Dean Burgon Society, Dr. D. A. Waite, I asked him if he knew anything about the background of Dr. Benjamin G. Wilkinson. He said in a voice just above a whisper, “He was a Seventh-day Adventist.” I asked him if Dr. Fuller knew that. Dr. Waite said, “Yes, but he didn’t like to mention it because he knew how people might react.” With this bit of information in hand, we decided to pursue the subject further. What we discovered surprised even us. We secured a copy of the 1930 edition of Our Authorized Bible Vindicated. From the title page, we learned the name of the “small and obscure Eastern college.” It was Washington Missionary College, a Seventh-day Adventist training school. (This is today Columbia Union College, 7600 Flower Avenue, Tomoka Park, MD 20912). Not only did Wilkinson teach there for many years, the title page identified him as “Dean of Theology!” Therefore, he was head of the theology department of a recognized cult’s training college! Through an acquaintance, we sought additional information about Wilkinson directly from the Adventists themselves. From Andrews University, a preeminent Adventist school in Berrien Springs, Michigan, we received the following official obituary, which appeared in the Seventh-day Adventist publication, Review and Herald, May 2, 1968. Wilkinson, Benjamin George--b. June 20, 1872, Hamilton, Ont., Canada; d. Jan. 25, 1968, Riverdale, MD. His family became Adventists through the reading of The Great Controversy. In 1891, he began to study for the ministry at Battle Creek College. The following year, he began evangelism in Wisconsin. He received his B.A. degree in 1897 at the University of Michigan. He became Dean of Theology at Battle Creek College that same year. He was called to the presidency of the Canadian Conference in 1898. The following year he became dean of theology at Union College. From 1901 to 1905 he was president of the Latin Conference (now Southern European Division). During those years, he started our work in Rome, Paris, and Spain. Maude Morrison became his wife in 1902, and to this union two sons were born, both of whom preceded him in death. Upon his return to the United States he labored in the Columbia Union holding evangelistic services in large cities, such as Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Washington, D. C., and Charleston, W. Va. For five years he was Dean of Theology at Washington Missionary College. In 1908 he received his Ph.D. degree from George Washington University. In 1909 he became president of Columbia Union Conference, which responsibility he carried for more than 10 years. His wife died in 1911, and in 1914 he was united in marriage with Dorothy Harris. To this marriage a son was born, Dr. Rowland Wilkinson, who survives. In 1920, he became president of the Kansas Conference. For a time he served as temporary mission superintendent in Haiti. In 1923, he became president of the East Pennsylvania Conference. Following this he gave 24 years of consecutive service to Washington Missionary College. From 1936 to 1946 he served as president of the college. He retired from active work after 56 years of service. Two of his literary productions are Truth Triumphant and Our Authorized Bible Vindicated. From this it is readily apparent that Wilkinson wasn’t just an Adventist, but Wilkinson was one of Adventism’s leading propagators and proselytizers. He headed numerous Adventist Conferences (roughly equivalent to a diocese), served in various important capacities of their schools, and was a zealous missionary in far-flung fields of the world. It is evident why Fuller did not like to mention it! Note that Fuller did not even hint that Wilkinson taught in a religious institution, only “a small and obscure Eastern college,” which could make it a secular “college” and even more “obscure” in the mind of the reader. Who would have known from reading Which Bible? that the facts on Wilkinson were available from a Seventh-day Adventist University? Lest the reader be in doubt whether Seventh-day Adventism is a cult, consider the following: Adventism historically has taught as fact that the soul sleeps between death and resurrection and that during that period neither the saved nor the lost have conscious existence; that Sabbath-keeping is an essential part of having post-conversion sins forgiven; that Sunday observance is the mark of the beast and all who accept it will be lost; that Satan, not Christ, ultimately bears the Christian’s sin; that Jesus inherited a sinful human nature, and that Jesus’ Divine nature died on the cross; that Ellen G. White was a true “prophetess” of God, who experienced visions and received new revelations from God. This is but a brief list of Adventist errors (for a solid treatment, see The Four Major Cults by Anthony C. Hoekema, pages 89-169). Fuller’s calculated and deliberate obscuring of Wilkinson’s true identity as an important theological instructor for a cult is a deplorable deception. He knowingly withheld damaging information about Wilkinson. This amounts to fraud. The Oxford English Dictionary defines “pious fraud” as “a deception practiced for the furtherance of what is considered a good object; especially for the advancement of religion.” That is EXACTLY what Fuller did in concealing the facts about Wilkinson. Once again, he “put on a hairy garment in order to deceive” (Zechariah 13:4). Such behavior is inexcusable. Fuller must have concluded that the end did justify the deceptive means. As part of this premeditated fraud, Fuller sought to remove telling remarks and references which would have clued the reader to Wilkinson’s background. The most blatant of these is Fuller’s deletion of a footnote on page 215 of Which Bible? (corresponding to page 42 if Wilkinson’s original edition). As the reproductions accompanying this article show, Wilkinson quoted the Seventh-day Adventist “prophetess” Ellen G. White as authoritative. Fuller kept the quotation in, but concealed the source by deleting the footnote. How many thousands have read this page, not being aware that they were reading from a foundational book of Adventism, E.G.White’s The Great Controversy. Wilkinson, while quoting from White, dropped (following the words “hatred and persecution”) White’s description of the Waldenses as those “who kept the true Sabbath,” which would have warned the reader that something was not right (The Great Controversy, page 62; page 65 in other editions). Wilkinson, of course, was not disagreeing with White or concealing his true views, just shortening a quotation--a different intent than Fuller! This is not the only place where Fuller deleted a Wilkinson reference to White. On pages 60-61 of Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, Wilkinson quoted two lengthy paragraphs from White’s The Great Controversy. Had Fuller not deleted both this quotation and the corresponding footnote, they would have appeared on page 233 of Which Bible? immediately before the first full paragraph on that page. This brings us to one very disturbing aspect in Fuller’s editing of Our Authorized Bible Vindicated: nowhere does he indicate that he has edited Wilkinson’s book in any way (contrast Fuller’s introduction to the article in Which Bible? titled, “Codex Vaticanus and Its Allies,” by Herman Hoskier, pages 134-143, where it states that the article constitutes only extracts of a larger work; and compare the introduction on page 144 to an article by Alfred Martin). Wilkinson was heavily edited by Fuller--six of Wilkinson’s sixteen chapters were omitted altogether (and in these some of Wilkinson’s most blatant Adventism surfaces). He also deleted an additional 23 pages in the chapters he retained. Repeatedly, Fuller added to the information with his own supplementary formats to correct or “clarify” some grossly inaccurate or misleading remark made by Wilkinson. (Fuller by no means caught all of Wilkinson’s blunders; many persist unamended in Which Bible?). However, Fuller never identified these changes as his own. As a result of this massive editing job, the reader has no way of telling what is Wilkinson’s and what is Fuller’s, and much of Wilkinson’s Adventism is concealed. There are additional evidences of Wilkinson’s Adventism concealed by Fuller via editorial deletion. Here are some specifics from the original Our Authorized Bible Vindicated: on page 110, Wilkinson condemns the Revised Version’s changing of Hebrews 9:27 from “the judgment” (KJV) to “judgment”(the RV is in precise, literal agreement with all Greek texts, which have no definite article before “judgment” here). Why does he object? Because they “changed the meaning from the great and final judgment to judgments in the intermediate state,” the latter of which, with their “soul sleep” teaching, Adventists have historically denied. Of course, the Bible plainly teaches that both saved and lost men are fully conscious after death, the one experiencing constant joy, the other continual agony (Luke 16:19-31; 23:43; 2 Corinthians 5:8; 2 Peter 2:9, RV; etc.). Wilkinson again objects to Hebrews 9:27, RV, on page 208-9. Wilkinson similarly objects to the RV translation of Job 19:25-26, because it teaches conscious existence in the intermediate state between physical death and resurrection (pages 193-4). On pages 199-200, Wilkinson objects to Mark 7:19, RV, which alters the KJV’s “purging all meats” to “making all meats clean.” Adventists were the original health-food faddists (Kellogg’s, the cereal maker in Battle Creek, Michigan, was founded by an Adventist; many Adventists today are strict vegetarians or adhere to Old Testament dietary regulations). Wilkinson displays Adventist views in saying, “In the Old Testament system of sacrifice, God never accepted the offering of an unclean beast. Moreover, he forbade the use of unclean meats as food...Who said that the Revisers had the right to alter what God anciently ordained?” (page 199). However, the making of all foods “clean” is plainly taught in Romans 14:1-14, 20. In other words, to make a cultist’s book acceptable to fundamentalists, Fuller had to delete a “doctrine of demons” (I Timothy 4:1-4). On page 199, Wilkinson objects to Acts 13:42, RV, which does not expressly mention the Gentiles meeting together on the Sabbath day, as the KJV does. Wilkinson defends the KJV because: ...we see that the great truth announced by Christ, that “the Sabbath was made for man” (Mark 2:2, was brought home to the Gentiles. All this is lost in the Revised Version...Does not this affect Fundamental doctrine? “Fundamental” to an Adventist perhaps, but not to a Bible-believing Baptist. This brings up the evident reason why Fuller obscured Wilkinson’s identity and took out his Adventist teachings. He knew that fundamental Baptists would not follow the lead of an Adventist author. In this context, one Adventist reference Fuller overlooked is on page 202, specifically the quote and footnote mentioning the book, History of the Sabbath, by J. N. Andrews and L. R. Conradi. This Andrews is the Andrews for whom the Adventist school, Andrews University, was named. Andrews was a devoted Adventist from the movement’s beginning in the 1840’s and served as a pioneer “missionary” for Adventism in Europe, a field, ironically, where Wilkinson would also serve a generation later. This book, first published in 1873 and originally written by Andrews alone, is the classic Adventist defense of their Sabbath doctrine; indeed, it solidified and established the “orthodox” Adventist view, and was heavily plagiarized by Ellen G. White in The Great Controversy. Those who are familiar with both the book by Wilkinson and the one by Andrews are aware of strong similarities in themes and treatment of specific verses in their defenses of Adventist doctrine. A great deal more could be said, but this must suffice. Wilkinson was a leader among Adventists. Fuller knew it, and concealed the truth. Of this, there is no doubt. The last sentence of Wilkinson’s chapter on “The Rising Tide of Modernism and Modern Bibles” (before a closing “NOTE”) reads, “Let the many versions be used as reference books, or books for study, but let us have a uniform standard version” (Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, page 251). Fuller must have thought Wilkinson’s statement needed improvement, for he certainly took it upon himself to amend it as he saw fit. Instead of the sentence ending with the words, “uniform standard version,” Fuller places a comma after “version” and adds, “namely, the venerated King James Version” (Which Bible, page 311). Wilkinson nowhere says whether he would disallow the possibility that a future revision of the KJV could become a “standard version.” He only said, “let us have a uniform standard version.” Why did Fuller have to add, “namely, the venerated King James Version”? Limitations of space prevent a systematic analysis of Wilkinson’s errors, though we plan to give them full exposure in our next issue of Baptist Biblical Heritage [see “Wilkinson’s Incredible Errors” by Doug Kutilek]. Suffice it to say they are legion--he is wrong about the nature of the Textus Receptus, he is wrong about the Waldensian Bible, he is wrong about the Old Latin version, the history of the English Bible, the origin of the Revised Version, and a good deal else. In short, the book is aptly described in a quotation (regarding a different subject) employed by Wilkinson himself: ...if tried by the rules of right reasoning, the argument is defective, assuming points which should by proved;...it is logically false, being grounded in sophisms;...it rest in many cases on quotations which are not genuine...on passages which, when collated with the original, are proved to by wholly inefficacious as proofs. [Which Bible? page 265] SUMMARY If you could influence thousands of fellow believers, would you willfully and deliberately lure your brethren into a cultist’s camp, and encourage them to depend on him as authority, quote his words as true, and look to his scholarship as the basis for their views regarding the Scriptures? Fuller did. If you were describing the long-time Dean of Theology at a cult’s missionary training college, would you say that he had faithfully served the Lord in his generation and had earnestly contended for the faith once delivered to the saints? Fuller did. If you were planning to reprint the work of cultist to bolster a particular view you held, would you be so dishonest as to conceal the nature of that cultist’s doctrinal views? Fuller was. If you were trying to win adherents to your doctrinal position, would you be so underhanded as to pass off a grossly defective and inaccurate book as a remedy for “profound confusion” in Christian circles?” Fuller was. Some have described the “KJV only”/”Textus Receptus only” group as a cult. The fact that half of a foundational book of the entire movement is the work of a leader in the Adventist cult suggests that this description is correct. Have you been trapped unaware of the facts? We doubt seriously if very many Christian educators are aware that they have Seventh-day Adventist literature in their curriculum, and that Christian booksellers have been stocking the work of a cultist. They are, however, at least as long as they continue to use and carry Which Bible?. PRINTER VERSION * This article was originally co-authored by Doug Kutilek and another author.
	4 Comments

Something For Bryan	Mar 6, 2006 9:09 pm 618 Views
The Conspiracy Behind the New Bible Translations By: Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D. This is the first in a series of occasional short essays from the “Professor’s Soap Box.” It is not intended to be a detailed exposition; rather, it is meant to give you food for thought and to challenge some popular ideas. Introduction The first major English translation of the Bible to appear since the King James (1611) was the Revised Version of 1881. Since then, numerous English translations have sprung up, almost all of which have used a different textual basis from the one found in the KJV. This difference is especially seen in the New Testament. Simultaneously published with the RV was the Greek text of Westcott and Hort, two Cambridge scholars. This Greek text had been in the works for 28 years, coming to light on May 12, 1881. It was accompanied by an introductory volume, which gave the rationale for the choices made. Westcott and Hort were able to convince the vast majority of New Testament scholars of the truth of their textual choices. Essentially, they argued that the Greek text behind the KJV NT was inferior and late. Of course, as is well known, the Greek text used in 1611 was for the most part based on about half a dozen very late manuscripts (none earlier than the 12th century AD). These manuscripts were used by Erasmus in 1516 when he published the first Greek NT.1 (We’ll discuss this point more in a later essay.) But these few manuscripts (MSS) came from a much larger pool. In fact, for the most part they looked very much like the majority of Greek MSS of the medieval ages. But Westcott and Hort (WH) said that this majority text was late and inferior. They preferred the five great uncial MSS (known by their letters, Aleph, A, B, C, D), all of which dated from the fourth or fifth century, as well as early versional and patristic evidence. Two MSS in particular, B and Aleph, were favorites of WH. Both came from the fourth century. How did WH dethrone the Textus Receptus and the Greek MSS that stood behind it? They accomplished their task with three arguments: (1) The Byzantine text (i.e., the group of Greek MSS behind the Textus Receptus) was not quoted by any church father before AD 325, while the Alexandrian text was amply represented before that period. (2) The Byzantine text was shown to depend on two earlier traditions, the Alexandrian and Western, in several places. The early editors of the Byzantine text combined (or conflated) the wording of the Alexandrian and Western traditions on occasion, while nowhere could it be shown that the Alexandrian combined Western and Byzantine readings or that the Western combined readings of the Alexandrian and Byzantine. (3) The Byzantine text, upon closer examination, proved to be inferior in its wording, either by not conforming to the author’s wording or moving in a predictable direction (such as by adding clarifying words). Thus, with these three arguments, WH demonstrated that the Byzantine text was late (the patristic argument), secondary (the conflation argument), and inferior (the internal evidence argument). Although some of the particulars of their overall view have been questioned today, most NT scholars find this general scheme to be a compelling argument against Byzantine superiority. Hence, the overthrow of the Textus Receptus. Conspiracy or Evidence? What, then, has motivated the vast majority of NT scholars to embrace the earliest MSS as better representing the original wording of the NT? In a word, evidence. WH’s argument was solid. Interestingly, in WH’s day only one NT papyrus fragment was known. Now, almost 100 have been discovered. These antedate the great uncials by as much as two hundred years! What is most significant about them is that not one is Byzantine. But if the Byzantine text was the original, why did it not show up in either patristic evidence or MS evidence until much later? In fact, for Paul’s letters, the earliest Byzantine MSS belong to the ninth century. The earliest Alexandrian witnesses? Second century. Ever since WH’s text and the RV were published, a vitriolic counter-attack has come from KJV circles. We are not here interested in the debate about the English translation per se; our concern is over the textual basis, the MSS behind the translation. The attack has taken several forms, including denial of WH’s major points, vilification of these early MSS, or vilification of the scholars who embrace them. Our concern in this essay is only with the latter two points. (You may wish to consult my articles on the majority text for a discussion of the first point.) As for the vilification of the early MSS, John W. Burgon, then Dean of Chichester (southern England), argued that early scribes conspired against the faith. If they did so, they were singularly incompetent in their task, for they left too many things unchanged. (F. H. Scrivener, considered by many KJV fans to be the greatest textual critic of the nineteenth century [partially because he was sympathetic to much of what Burgon was saying] argued against this conspiracy theory.) In fact, they even changed some texts in a misguided attempt at making them more orthodox! Actually, all scribes did this. As is well known, the Synoptic Gospels have many parallels between them. Sometimes the wording is exactly the same between two or more; sometimes there are interesting differences. But all scribes at times changed the text of one gospel to conform it to another. If the great uncials conspired against the faith, as Burgon supposed, then why would the scribes of each of these, independently of one another, try to harmonize the gospels? Take John 4:17 as an example. In this passage Jesus is speaking to the woman at the well. At one point he says to her, “Go, call your husband and come here.” To this she responds, “I don’t have a husband.” Jesus responds, “Correctly you have said, ‘A husband I don’t have.’“ In virtually all Greek MSS, Jesus changed the word order of the woman’s statement (putting “husband” first in the sentence, making it emphatic). This was intentional. It is as if he were saying, “Lady, you’ve got someone at home--but he’s not your husband!” But significantly, two early MSS change the wording. The scribes were apparently troubled by the fact that Jesus, though purportedly quoting the woman, did not quote her exactly. It seemed to be an affront to their view of either the Lord’s character or the accuracy of the Bible. One of them changed Jesus’ words to an indirect quote: “Correctly you have said THAT a husband you do not have.” Another changed the woman’s words to conform to the word order of Jesus’ words! Apparently he couldn’t imagine the Lord quoting her other than exactly. Hence, the Lord quoted her OK, but she said it wrong in the first place! So her words were changed. These two MSS, Aleph and D, illustrate the piety of the scribes. Their corrections were misguided, to be sure. But they could hardly be charged with conspiratorial motives. Burgon’s view that these early MSS were up to no good is seen to be a prejudiced pronouncement--and one that virtually no NT scholar has since followed (even those who advocate the majority text theory). But what about the other conspiracy theory? New Age Conspiracy? More recently, KJV only advocates have argued that the scholars who produced the WH text and those who embrace it belong to a global conspiracy. They often charge that the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, salvation by grace, etc. is destroyed by these scholars. Some say that a New Age conspiracy is behind the modern translations. In response, just a few points should be made. First, conspiracy theories are increasing among evangelicals nowadays, and this is a troubling sign. By their nature, conspiracy theories ask the reader to be completely skeptical toward one view while adopting the other, without an examination of the evidence. (One recent book that pushes a conspiracy theory actually has thousands of factual errors and misrepresentations in it, all of which go unchallenged by those sucked in by its aura.) I am reminded of the many popular books I have seen sold in Christian book stores that have a jacket blurb on the back cover: “The Devil doesn’t want you to read this!” More often than not, this line is used by an author who has nothing of substance to say and simply wants to get his book sold. Further, it is a haughty claim. The devil doesn’t want us to read the Bible; but to elevate any merely human production to Satan’s hit list of forbidden books is both disingenuous and pompous. Once the cry of conspiracy is raised, a cloud of suspicion is cast over one side of the issue. It never examines the flimsy basis of its own position, but throws acidic one-liners and ad hominem arguments at the opposition. Often, in this particular issue, those who hold the opposing viewpoint are simply labeled as “servants of Satan,” and their translations are called “bastard bibles”! Mark Noll has recently written a masterful book entitled, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. In it he speaks about how American evangelicals have decided to chuck their brains for the sake of the party line, or for experience, or for emotionalism, etc. But the history of Christianity up through last century was of a different ilk. The Church felt that at least some of its number should be scholars--men and women who dedicated their minds to God, who cultivated the life of the mind. The fact that conspiracy theories about Bible translations are getting readily accepted in several circles indicts evangelicalism. To be blunt, this trend is symptomatic of the dumbing down of Christians in this country. Evangelicals are increasingly holding down the anti-intellectual fort, without engaging in serious debate with others. Second, if there really is such a conspiracy, then why do the majority of evangelical, Bible-believing seminaries and Bible colleges use modern translations and the Greek MSS behind them? If the faithful wish to find fault with the beliefs of these schools, then they should attack head-on their beliefs, rather than that they use the wrong Bible. But the issue is always the same: wrong Bible must mean, by implication, wrong beliefs. But the beliefs are not examined. Third, let me camp on this doctrinal issue a bit. What doctrines are at stake? Is the deity of Christ? Surely not. Evangelicals embrace the deity of Christ, regardless of which Bible they use. And they find verses in their translation to back it up. Some studies in fact have shown how the deity of Christ is better supported in the NIV, NASB, etc. than in the KJV. How about the virgin birth? Again, no. Evangelicals embrace that. One of the best defenses of the virgin birth was written by the founder of Westminster Seminary, Gresham Machen, a man who did not think that the MSS behind the KJV were the best. How about inerrancy? The Trinity? Salvation by grace? Justification by faith? You name it, whatever the evangelical doctrine--it is not compromised by these new translations or the MSS behind them. This is the real issue. What doctrines are changed if we change our Bibles? Westminster Seminary still follows the Westminster Confession; Trinity Evangelical Divinity School still embraces its strong doctrinal statement, as does Dallas Seminary its statement. Grace Seminary, Talbot, Western, Denver, Capitol, etc. Yet, the vast majority of the faculty at these schools use the modern translations and the ancient MSS that stand behind them. Where is the cause and effect relationship between new translations and heresy? Now, to be sure, conspiratorialists can find heretics who use these modern translations. That is beside the point, however. Why? Because an equal if not greater number of heretics can be found who embrace the KJV. (In the 1800s, in fact, the KJV became the ping-pong ball in English debates over the deity of Christ. Those who argued for the deity of Christ appealed to the Greek text, since the KJV translators had not accurately translated some of the passages.) This is similar to what Peter says in 2 Peter 3:16: “Some things in [Paul’s] letters are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the rest of the Scriptures.” The real issue is whether thoroughly orthodox folks can be found standing behind these modern translations. Yes, they can, and predominantly so. The faith delivered once for all to the saints is not in danger from these new translations. The real danger is in deflecting Christians from our mission in life, to share the good news of Jesus Christ with a dying world, compassionately, and clearly. So, is there a conspiracy today? My answer may surprise the reader: yes, I believe there is. But the conspiracy has not produced these modern translations. Rather, I believe that there is a conspiracy to cause division among believers, to deflect our focus from the gospel to petty issues, to elevate an anti-intellectual spirit that does not honor the mind which God has created, and to uphold as the only Holy Bible a translation that, as lucid as it was in its day, four hundred years later makes the gospel seem antiquated and difficult to understand.2 It takes little thought to see who is behind such a conspiracy. 1 Erasmus’ text went through five editions. Others took up where he left off, but essentially kept the text virtually the same. One of the editions of Theodore Beza, done in the late 1500s, constituted the text behind the King James NT. By 1550 the third edition of Stephanus’ Greek text included in the margin textual variants from several witnesses, but the text was still largely that of Erasmus. By 1633 this text had gone through some more minor changes, but was stable enough that the edition published by the Elzevirs was called in the preface the “the text now received by all,” or the Textus Receptus. Interestingly, this was more publishers’ hype than consensus, for many if not most NT scholars had long noted the inherent weaknesses in this text. The text published was thus, even in the seventeenth century, more a text of convenience than one of conviction. 2 One of the arguments sometimes heard is that the nonbeliever cannot understand the gospel. 1 Cor 2:12-14 is cited as proof of this statement. The KJV is thus held up as the best Bible because nonbelievers cannot easily understand it! This argument refutes itself, however. First, this is a perversion of 1 Cor 2:12-14; that text essentially says that the nonbeliever does not understand because he does not welcome the gospel. His problem is one of volition more than cognition. Second, if this argument were true, then we might expect a new believer suddenly able to comprehend Elizabethan English. But that is not the case: new believers have just as difficult a time understanding the KJV as nonbelievers. Third, why is it that unbelieving Shakespearean scholars have little difficulty understanding the words of the KJV? Fourth, by way of analogy: the NT was written in Koine Greek or “common” Greek. It was the language of the day--easily understood fromAthens to Rome, from Carthage to Jerusalem. Should not our modern translations also be easily understood? To be sure, some of the concepts are not easily grasped, even for mature believers (Peter said as much about Paul’s writings). But why make the language a stumbling block? The cross alone should be the stumbling block. It is sufficient.
	0 Comments

THE CHURCH AND THE TRIBULATION

Mar 6, 2006 1:44 pm
668 Views

4 Comments, 17 votes

Sinless Perfection ?

Mar 4, 2006 5:06 am
658 Views

3 Comments, 21 votes

Which Bible ?

Mar 2, 2006 6:59 am
1106 Views

32 Comments, 35 votes

Can Christians be possessed by demons ?

Mar 2, 2006 6:43 am
1349 Views

31 Comments, 48 votes

Demon possessed

Mar 1, 2006 8:27 pm
734 Views

3 Comments, 16 votes

1 2 3 4 5 ... 10 ... 20 ... 30 ... 34 35 36 37 38 ... 40 41 42

To link to this blog (godlycook) use [blog godlycook] in your messages.

61 M

January 2009

Sun

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

1

2

3

41

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Recent Visitors

Visitor	Age	Sex	Date
wantedbygod	59	F	1/7
longing4more	49	F	1/5
Sojourner45	63	F	1/5
reallysaved2	50	F	1/4
mshopeful2	43	F	1/4
fratello	46	M	1/3
BristerBate	55	M	1/2
Sweethoney2007	48	F	12/28
sharloa	61	F	12/26
meow33744	50	M	12/25

Most Recent Comments by Others

Post	Poster	Post Date
INTO A NEW YEAR	reallysaved2	Jan 4 8:56 am
MERRY CHRISTMAS !!!	Sweethoney2007	Dec 28 2:25 pm
PRAY FOR DENNIS!!!	godlycook	Dec 18 5:18 am
THE HYPE ABOUT THE UN-FAIRNESS DOCTRINE ?	unloved	Dec 8 1:19 pm
THE 44TH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES	BristerBate	Dec 6 5:33 am
HAPPY THANKSGIVING!!	gmarti	Nov 28 4:33 pm
HE MUST JUMP TOO	reallysaved2	Nov 20 5:30 pm
STRONG-WILLED WOMEN ( A man's imput )	ladylightwalker	Nov 20 12:03 pm
THE ELECTION IS FIXED!!!!	godlycook	Nov 16 8:30 pm
WHO SAVES YOU ?	nivekyaj	Nov 7 8:25 pm
REPUBLICANS FOR CHOICE ????	ladylightwalker	Nov 5 1:22 pm