 Winter 2000
No.23
“Let us walk by
the same rule”
Phil.3:16
|
Contents
Report of Open Air
Preaching………………………………2
The Integrity of the
AV Bible………………………………..4
Dan.3:25
Jer.23:30
Rom.16:24
2 Tim.2:21
NKJV Mutilation of
John’s Gospel…………………………7
Bible Society of
Scotland Offers Freedom…………………..9
King James 1
Attacked Again………………………………..9
The Glorification of
the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus…….10
The Providential
Preservation of the New Testament…….11
Letter…………………………………………………………14
“The Starry
Firmament”……………………………………16
REPORT OF OPEN AIR PREACHING
August 24th
AYLESBURY SQUARE. There were a lot of people
about today. One man told me he had been listening to me for some time, out of
sight. He had lots of questions, showed interest in the gospel, accepted a
tract and said he would like to come to our hall. When I reminded him he was a
sinner, his attitude changed and he wanted to return the tract. He told me he
held to the Baha’I faith . This seems to be a mixture of Islam and
Christianity. He believed in Jesus the prophet but did not believe in him as
his own personal Saviour. He did not believe that Christ is The Way, but that
He is one of many ways. His ‘Jesus’ bore no relation to the Lord Jesus Christ,
the Son of God. He was somewhat put out to learn this but left saying that he
would still like to come up to a meeting at our hall.
September 13th
LUTON T.C. The old Salvationist came by. He
reminded me that I had promised to get him a Bible and again I had forgotten. I
offered him the one I was using in the open air, which he was very pleased to
accept. Then he offered me a John’s Gospel, NKJV, which an Open Air Mission
preacher had just given him, farther up the street. I hadn’t been aware of any
other preacher. I was pleased to relieve him of this booklet, pointing out to
him that it was a false version. What a pity that these OAM folk use
perversions of Scripture in their work.
September 18th LUTON T.C. A young Jamaican posed an unusual question. He asked, “can God always be trusted?” It transpired that he was in this country on a visa which expired in three days time. He then had to return to Jamaica and he was quite depressed about it. I learned that he was a baptized believer and the people in his church were giving him conflicting advice. He was very confused. We discussed waiting on the Lord and being ready to accept His will even if it conflicted with our own desires. The blessing lies in obedience. If the Lord wanted him back in Jamaica, then that is where the blessing will be found. The last word: It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in princes. Ps.118:8. This appeared to comfort him and he left much happier than when he arrived.
September 26th HITCHIN Mkt. Sq. A warm day and a good audience. Nobody got up and walked away, though one woman heckled. I preached for about forty-five minutes. Afterwards, a man who had listened throughout came over and introduced himself as a believer who after conversion had left Romanism for the Greek Orthodox Church. He told me that his wife who had also listened throughout was an ardent believer but she didn’t want to talk to me. He was impressed by my preaching (so he said), entirely without notes, and he wanted to recruit me for his team that went down to Speakers’ Corner each month. I have never wished to be in some other man’s “team”. It seems that there are some who cannot preach at all unless they are directed by some committee. Maybe it is because they are doing it for filthy lucre’s sake.
September 2nd LUTON T.C. The great ‘Human Rights Charter’ came into operation today. I didn’t notice anything different. The Asians still mouth obscenities at me as they pass by. No doubt I can have them all locked up now, and anybody else who objects. Several years ago a passer-by objected to my preaching and called the police. The response from the policeman was that this is a free country and we enjoy freedom of speech. He stood and listened for a few minutes as I resumed my preaching, and then went on his way. (Perhaps he was a believer). Romish ‘liberties’ inflicted on us by Europe will not serve to promote the gospel but the word of God is not bound ¾and never has been.
October 13th
LUTON MARKET HILL. A man told me he was
impressed that I was being my own man, doing my own thing against the common
crowd. He listened while I assured him that I was not my own man ¾I have been bought with a price. I wasn’t doing my own thing¾I was doing the Lord’s work, preaching the gospel. I asked him where
he stood; was he doing his own thing? This question caused him some
embarrassment and he would not answer.
He took a tract before leaving.
October 17th
HITCHIN Mkt. Sq. There were 50 to 60 schoolchildren
(teenagers) in the square when I arrived, so I preached to them. They were
presumably waiting with their teachers to return to school. They all listened
very well and afterwards a group clustered round me to ask questions. The staff
made no attempt to intervene and several of the children took tracts before
departing. There was of course far more liberty than one might get in a school
visit. I am well aware (having been a schoolteacher for 30 years) that if I had
preached in a school assembly as I did on the square today, I would have been
banned for life.
October 18th
LUTON T C
A woman from Bucharest introduced herself to me. She had been brought up
RC, had got saved and spent some time with the Pentecostals before becoming
Southern Baptist. I commented that I had heard unfavourable reports about the
disorder among these people in the States but she insisted that they weren’t
all bad, which I was inclined to believe. She was working as a SB missionary in
Bucharest and they were seeing a lot of blessing, so she told me. She was
wearing jeans, so she probably wasn’t saved at all. (The Scriptural authority for this statement is 1 John 2:15. Worldy
people are NOT believers and believers are not worldly people.)
November 1st
LUTON.
The OAM folk were already occupying the place where I usually stand so I had to
go up to Market Hill. Not that I would have remained in my usual place anyway.
There was also a busker there. He didn’t seem to be troubling the OAM as they
weren’t preaching. They had a board and easel and were amusing passers-by with
their sketches. At least, they were giving out tracts and people were accepting them.
Market Hill is a
more open area and I stand looking straight down George Street, which is the
main shopping street in the town. At the far end is the town hall. Some time
ago a woman told me she could hear me that far away. When I replied by saying
“Praise the Lord”, she slapped my face.
As I write this
I hear of the persecution of believers in Laos. The authorities are demanding
that believers sign a declaration renouncing their faith. Failure to do so is
bringing imprisonment, torture and terrible suffering. These saints are
learning what it is to die for their faith.
THE
INTEGRITY OF THE AV BIBLE
Daniel 3:25
He answered and said, Lo, I see four men
loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of
the fourth is like the Son of God.
Nebuchadnezar
knew to whom he was referring. He said
(v28), Blessed be the God of Shadrach , Meshach, and Abednego,
who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him.
Nebuchadnezer
was not some untutored clod. He knew the history of the Jewish people and he
knew the Angel of the Lord, referred to
in v28, to be the Son of God. He did not say in v25, ‘the fourth is the Son of
God’ but he was saying that the fourth person in that fiery furnace had the
appearance of One who could not possibly be any other than the Son of God.
Believers today have no doubt either that it was the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son
of God, who stood with the three in their hour of need. We believe the
manifestation of the Son of God was for Nebuchadnezzar’s benefit as well as for
the three.
J N Darby had
different views. He translated the phrase as, the appearance of the fourth is like a son of God. He gives a footnote to this verse, which
reads, “ Or ‘of the gods’ Elah, Aramaic,
in the plural, corresponding to the Hebrew Elohim.’( in which case Genesis 1:1 might well be
in the beginning some gods (elohim)
created the heavens and the earth). Darby
grievously aligned himself with the Russellite (JW) perversion which reads the appearance of the fourth one is
resembling a son of the gods.
The NIV reads
the fourth looks like a son of the gods, together
with many other modern versions. This is not what Nebuchadnezer said and it is
not what Scripture says.
Daniel used
the Chaldee word Elah 48 times,
sometimes to indicate other gods but mostly with reference to his God. The
meaning in v25 is made crystal clear by the context.
If the
critics argue about the inclusion of the definite article¾ the
Son of God¾ when one is not present in the original, they align
themselves with the Russellites who in John 1:1 have the Word was a god which is a key statement in the JW heresy.
Jeremiah 23:30
Behold, I am against the prophets, saith the Lord, that steal my words every
one from his neighbour.
The neighbour
in this context was the ordinary man who should have been taught the word of
God by the prophet. The neighbours therefore were the common people, but they
were happy with what their prophets and priests were giving them. So, in
Jer.8:8,9 we read, the pen of the scribes in vain. The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and
taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the Lord.
The result of
this infidelity brought disaster to Israel. National life was destroyed and the
people went into captivity.
History
repeats itself¾because men will not learn¾ and again
there are religious leaders, self-styled bible teachers who fawn after the prophet-scholars
of our day. The result must be the same¾a
professing, but apostate, Christendom, disowned of the God of Heaven.
The critics
and modern versionists steal God’s words. They tell the people that words,
phrases, sentences, whole verses and passages ought not to be in the Bible.
Their own words they will insert. Their efforts do not produce increased
godliness and faith. What we see among those who “prefer” the NKJV or the NIV
is ungodliness, worldliness, and immorality. The judgment of God is against
such.
What will the
NIV make of Jeremiah’s words? ‘Therefore,
declares the Lord, “I am against the prophets who steal from one another words
supposedly from me”’.
The word
‘supposedly’ does not occur in Scripture. The NIVis not giving what they like to
call Dynamic Equivalence.The meaning
itself is changed to what the NIV thinks Jeremiah meant to say. What they were
stealing, says the NIV, may not have come from God at all, there is some doubt
in it. So they reject the preceding verse, Is not my
word like as a fire? Saith the Lord; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock
in pieces?
The NIV verse
regards this as no more than infighting among the prophet fraternity, stealing
from one another. Perhaps the NIV thinks it is no more than plagiarism . The prophets
were doing what the NIV does, i.e. giving false words to the people and passing
it off as the word of God.
Romans
16:24
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.
The enemies
of the Received Text and the Authorized Version of the Holy Bible are convinced
that here is a clear error. ‘the western authorities have it here instead of in
xvi.20b’ said F F Bruce in his commentary on Romans. How careless of them! They
are to be regarded as so stupid that they slipped the sentence in the second time
only four verses down the page. They didn’t notice that they had already
written the verse. Such is the contempt held by the mighty scholars for what
happens to be the word of God.
W E Vine in
his commentary on Romans is rather more crafty. He misses the verse out
entirely and without comment.
F E Stallan in his commentary on Romans (What the Bible Teaches), wants his
readers to know that ‘the RV, with most critical editors, rejects this verse as
an interpolation. It is substantially the same as v.20 with the exception that
the word “all” is included. If the verse is authentic it adds another note of
encouragement for the Romans from Paul.’ One must not think that Stallan was
more willing to accept the AV reading than was Bruce and Vine. His words ‘if
the verse is authentic’ means he did not trust his AV Bible, neither the RV,
nor any other version. His words cast doubt on the word of God as do all the
volumes in the What the Bible Teaches series.
The support for the inclusion of v.24 is overwhelming. It is found in Tyndale’s
Bible, also in the Great Bible, the Geneva, and the Bishops Bible. Stephens,
Beza, and Elzevir kept it. It is found in many MSS and in the vast majority of
cursive MSS. It is in the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Syriac, the Harclean and
is quoted by six of the so-called Early Fathers. We accept and believe what we
find in our Bible. This we do as believers always have done down through the
ages. From the evidence supplied, as with this verse under consideration, we
are reassured that our acceptance is not due to prejudice or vain tradition,
but because of faith in our God. It is faith in the God Who promised to
preserve His word and so clearly has done. Verse 20 was an encouragement first
to the saints at Rome, following a warning as to the division makers. Verse 24
concludes the whole epistle which is then followed by a doxology.
A word about them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned. Paul says mark them and avoid them. I learned as a young man in assembly fellowship that I could trust my Bible. Those who want to take my Bible from me and supplant it with another which is not Bible, I mark and avoid. There are those among us who openly and publicly scorn the AV Bible. They are division makers. Mark them and avoid them.
2 Timothy 2:21
If a
man shall purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour.
Peter Caws wrote,
Darby was preoccupied with purity of doctrine as a legal matter, and
was obsessed with the idea of separation. So much so, that he actually invented
and introduced into his translation of the Scriptures a gloss on 2 Timothy 2:21
that is not required by the Greek. The words ‘in separating himself from them’,
appears in brackets but have been accorded the status of the inspired Word. Belief and morals among the
Taylorites; Evangelical Times; Oct.2000.
Darby’s verse reads, ‘If therefore one shall have purified himself
from these, [in separating himself from them], he shall be a vessel to honour.’
The introduction to JND’s translation tells us that ‘square brackets
in the text (as in the verse quoted) indicate (a) words added to complete the
sense in English similar to those shown in italics in the Authorized Version;
or (b) words as to which there are variations in the original manuscripts.’
There are no variations relating to the
statement in this verse, so (a) applies. But Darby has done more than give the
sense. As Caws rightly points out, the words have been added to the page of
Scripture, and not supplied as a footnote so therefore they have been accorded
the status of the inspired Word.
The phrase, if a man therefore purge himself from these carries the sense of
the Greek fully. In the context Paul is calling for a complete separation not
only from evil things but from evil men. Darby was right, doctrinally, in his
addition, but very wrong to place it upon the page of what he would have to be
Scripture. He is wrong also to change the verb from ‘purge’ to ‘purified’,
which weakens the sense of the statement. Darby also changes the tense without
warrant.
Separation is a vital doctrine of
Scripture but Darby set the pattern which would lead Exclusive Brethrenism into
the cult it is today. It is a cult more deadly than Russellism, though not as
wide spread.
*****
NKJV MUTILATION OF JOHN’S GOSPEL
The John’s Gospel booklet referred to in
the open-air report is called “GOOD NEWS by John LIFE through the LORD JESUS”.
It carries the Open Air Mission logo on the front cover and is published by the
National Bible Society of Scotland.
In the first chapter there are more than
100 changes from the AV Bible. This is rather surprising as we are told that
the NKJV is no more than an update of the AV.
The first change is in verse two, the same being changed to ‘he’. Of course,
it may be argued that houtos is
translated he thirty-one times and ‘the same’ only twenty-eight times in the
AV. The use of he in this verse introduces an ambiguity and the NKJV is
not modernising the English but is
making a fresh translation.
V.12 tells us But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become
children of God. But Exousia is
translated ‘right’ only twice in the AV (Heb.13:10, Rev.22:14) and ‘power’
sixty-nine times. Again the NKJV weakens the force of the statement.
Teknon
can be translated ‘child/children’, as it is
seventy-seven times in the AV, or as ‘son/daughter’ twenty-one times in the AV.
The AV translators did not think it necessary to change from the earlier
English readings found in the Geneva Bible etc. The word son gives emphasis to
relationship, and for this reason the translators preserved the traditional
reading. Note 1 Cor.4:14, Phi.2:15, 1 Pet.3:6.
The Introduction to the 1979 NKJV New
Testament has this to say;
[S]crupulous care has been taken in the present
edition to honour and preserve the work of precision which is also the legacy
of the original translators. This purpose is achieved largely by careful
integration of present-day vocabulary, punctuation, and syntax wherever
obscurity exists.
Thus the AV Gospel of John is deemed to be obscure in more than 2000 places. But changing by to through in
John 1:3 etc. simply because the Greek dia
bears both meanings is needless and changes the meaning of the verse. All
things were made by him declares Christ to be the Creator of all things. All things were made through him means
Christ was the instrument through which another created all things.
‘Marriage’ is deemed to be obscure in John
2:1 and is replaced by ‘wedding’, so why do we not read in Heb.13:4 NKJV that
wedding is honourable?
A further claim
is made that ‘the New Testament of the New King James Bible is a useful and
accurate revision, based on the traditional Greek text underlying the 1611
edition of the English Bible’. One would expect therefore that tenses would
remain unchanged. One example among the many is 6:5, When Jesus then lifted up his eyes,
and saw a great company come unto him … is changed to ‘Then Jesus lifted up his eyes and seeing a great multitude coming
towards him… Those who do not believe in verbal inspiration will think such
changes are of little consequence.
In 4:29 is not this the Christ? The Samaritan
woman declares her recognition of the Son of God. The NKJV raises doubts by
making her say, ‘could this be the
Christ?’
We note that in line with all modern
versions, miracles are degraded to signs. So instead of This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee we have This beginning of signs Jesus did in Cana of
Galilee. (Jn.2:11) Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson had this to say about this
alteration:
The word
‘miracle’ is found, singular and plural, thirty-two times in the Authorized
Version of the New Testament. Alas! What desolation has been wrought by the
Revised! In twenty-three of these instances, the word ‘miracle’ has entirely
disappeared. In the case of the other nine, although the term is used in the
text, its force is robbed by a weakening substitute in the margin. While in the
Old Testament, it has disappeared from the Revised in the five instances where
it occurs in the Authorized. Modern liberalism finds consolation here. So the
Revisers have exposed believers in the bible to the ridicule of unbelievers
because they describe the supernatural events of the New Testament by
belittling words. To describe the supernatural in terms of the natural,
indicates doubt in the supernatural. If we persist in calling as mountain a
molehill, it is evident that we do not believe it is a mountain. The Revisers,
in persistently describing supernatural events by ordinary terms, have changed
doctrines respecting miracles. And if they made such fundamental changes in
these thirty-two New Testament texts,¾all there
was on the subject,¾what is
this, but systematic depravation of doctrine? –Our Authorized Bible Vindicated
The NKJV has followed the path of the
Revisers and has not maintained the standard set by the AV Bible.
Also, seeing that the NKJV committee
claims to be anxious to affirm their commitment to the traditional Greek text,
why do they in 81 footnotes in the gospel of John need to tell the reader what
is added or omitted by the NU-Text? Why do they omit to tell the reader what
they mean by NU-Text? What subtle mischief is this?
The NU-Text is of course none other than
the United Bible Society text which, so these people tell us, is virtually
identical to the old Westcott and Hort text; the very text criticized by
themselves in the NKJV New Testament edition.
The footnotes will raise doubts in the
minds of some as to the veracity of the word of God A footnote to 1:18 tells
the reader that the only begotten Son is
according to the NU-Text, the only
begotten God. This one example is enough to convince the Bible believer
that the NU-Text originates from the depths of hell. The NKJV people regard it
as important enough to put into their publication. It is to them a viable
alternative.
*****
BIBLE SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND OFFERS FREEDOM
The NBSS has
issued a leaflet titled “Freedom”. A perusal reveals its message to be totally
unrelated to the gospel with which we are familiar. The freedom proclaimed is
“not only from slavery and poverty, but from the power of sin which spoils our
lives. Jesus came, suffered, died and rose again to bring us freedom. Freedom
is what we have – Christ has set us free!
Galatians 5:1a ”.
The freedom
spoken of in Galatians 5 relates to the Mosaic law which Paul spoke of as the
yoke of bondage. So the Scripture reads, Christ
hath made us free. There is nothing about being set free. The NBSS
quote is from the CEV and is both a mutilation of the text and a misinterpretation
of the passage. Christ came to bring salvation. Those
entering into salvation through repentance
toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 20:21) are made (not set) free from sin and not merely its power), and become servants to God. Rom.6:22. Such then produce fruit
unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
All the quotes
in this leaflet are abuses of Scripture, but maybe the worst is seen on the
last page. I quote:
A prayer to say
Dear God
Thank you that Jesus destroyed sin’s power over us when he died on
the cross and rose from death.
Please set me free and teach me how to live a life that pleases you.
Help me to live in hope. Help me to share that hope with others.
Amen.
There is no call
to repentance in this, which makes it so deceitful. Many might think that to
recite these words will give them some sort of standing with God. Alas it can
only hasten their path to Hell.
Personally, I
will not use any tract that has a “prayer for the sinner to pray” in it.
KING JAMES 1 ATTACKED AGAIN
The following
words appeared in a Daily Telegraph article earlier this year.
While historians have always suspected
that the king who united the crowns of Scotland and England (as King James the
First of England) was homosexual, a new book claims to offer conclusive proof.
And in doing so, Professor Michael Young of the Wesleyan University in Illinois
appears ready to take on Scotland’s historical establishment.
Of course, we
are confident that Bible believing historians have suspected no such thing. So
why, after 400 years is this issue raised again? It most certainly was not
raised in his lifetime. James had been dead for twenty-five years when Anthony
Weldon, a known enemy of the king, wrote a paper calling James a homosexual. It
has also been pointed out that if James had been a Sodomite, then he would have
to be the only pervert on record to write a serious commentary on the book of Revelation, as well as a devotional book
entitled ‘Meditations on the Lord’s Prayer.’(see Final Authority by William P Grady.)
James was
devoted to his wife. Even the Daily
Telegraph points out that he had seven children, the last at the age of 50.
So why do
‘historians’ still lie about him. They can have no further evidence. The answer
is plain enough¾it is the Authorized (King James) Bible
that has to be at the heart of the attack.
*****
THE GLORIFICATION OF THE VATICANUS AND SINAITICUS
From Our Authorized Bible Vindicated; by Dr.
B G Wilkinson; 1930
“Why was it that at so late a date as
1870 the Vatican and Sinaitic Manuscripts were brought forth and exalted to a
place of supreme dictatorship in the work of revising the King James Bible?
Especially when shocking corruptions of these documents betray a ‘systematic
depravation’? On this Dean Burgon says: ‘The impurity of the texts exhibited by
Codices B and Aleph is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact. These are
two of the least trustworthy documents in existence…. Codices B and Aleph are,
demonstrably, nothing else but specimens of the depraved class thus
characterized.’ ” So wrote Benjamin Wilkinson,
These two depraved and Romish manuscripts
formed the basis of the Westcott/Hort text upon which all modern versions are
based. It is clear that all modern versions are therefore Romish and this is demonstrated
by Rome’s acceptance of them.
Wilkinson went on to write,
“As the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are
evidently the product of Gnosticism, what would be more natural than that the
Catholicism of Cardinal Newman and the Gnosticism of his followers, who flood
the Protestant churches, would seek, by every means possible, to reinstate in
leadership, Gnosticism’s old title-papers, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus?
….Westcott and Hort, great admirers of
Newman, were on the Revision Committee in strong leadership. Dean Stanley
believed that the Word of God did not dwell in the Bible alone, but that it
dwelt in the sacred books of other religions as well. Dr. Schaff sat in the
Parliament of Religions at the Chicago World’s Fair, 1893, and was so happy
among the Buddhists, Confucianists, and other world religions, that he said he
would be willing to die among them. The spirit of the Revisionists on both
sides of the ocean was an effort to find the Word of God by the study of
comparative religions. This is the spirit of Gnosticism; it is not true faith
in the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible.
….How far the new theology has been
adopted by the editors of the many
different kinds of modern bibles, is a question space does not permit us to
pursue. In the main, all these new editions conform to the modern rules of
textual criticism. ….
Will not God hold us responsible for
light and knowledge concerning His word? Can we escape His condemnation, if we
choose to exalt any version containing proved corruptions? Shall we not rather
avoid putting these versions on a level with God’s true Bible? And what is the
practical result of this tide of modernism which has largely engulfed England
and is sweeping the theological schools and popular Protestant churches in
America? It renders such a modernist missionary useless in the foreign field.
….
Uniformity in expressing the sacred
language of the one God is essential. It would be confusion, not order, if we
did not maintain uniformity of Bible language in our church services, in our
colleges and in the memory work of our children.”
The last one hundred years has seen the
steady slide of Christendom into apostasy. There may be many contributing
factors for this but the chiefest must be the rejection of the true word of
God. Christendom wants a liberal bible for a liberal society. Our preachers
complain that the people of God do not come out to listen to them as once they
did. One such preacher was heard to say recently that the only remedy was for
believers to get back to the word of God. But this man had just told us of the
errors contained in it. Our leaders are the men responsible for the decadence
in church life.
*****
THE
PROVIDENTIAL PRESERVATION of the NEW TESTAMENT
Edited by
W. MacLean, M.A. and published by permission
“Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God
written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testaments, all of
which are given by inspiration of God, to he the rule of faith and life. The
books commonly called the Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no
part of the canon of Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church
of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or else made use of, than other human
writings.” (The Westminster Confession of Faith, ch. I.)
“No sooner,” writes Dean Burgon, “was the work
of Evangelists and Apostles recognised as the necessary counterpart and
complement of God’s ancient Scriptures and became the ‘New Testament,’ than a
reception was found to be awaiting it in the world closely resembling that
which He experienced Who is the subject of its pages. Calumny and
misrepresentation, persecution and murderous hate, assailed Hint continually.
And the Written Word in like manner, in the earliest age of all, was shamefully
handled by mankind. Not only was it confused through human infirmity and
misapprehension, but it became also the object of restless malice and unsparing
assaults. (“ The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Vindicated and Established “ p. 10.)
Behind this
restless malice and unsparing assaults is the enmity of him who “was a murderer
from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in
him.” (John 8: 44). And never was there a day in which Satan’s restless malice
and unsparing assaults are so directed against the Written Word, through his
agents under the cloak of religion and scholarship so-called, than in this our
day of blasphemy and rebuke.
“Before our Lord ascended up to heaven,”
continues Dean Burgon, “He told His disciples that He would send them the Holy
Ghost, who should supply His place and abide with His Church for ever. He added
a promise that it should be the office of that inspiring Spirit not only to
bring to their remembrance all things whatsoever he had told them, but also to
guide His Church ‘into all Truth’ or ‘the whole Truth.’ (John 16: 13).
Accordingly, the earliest great achievement of those days was accomplished on
giving to the Church the Scriptures of the New Testament, in which, authorised
teaching was enshrined in written form, There exists no reason for supposing that the
Divine Agent, who in the first instance thus gave to mankind the Scriptures of
Truth, straightway abdicated His office; took no further care of His work;
abandoned those precious writings to their fate. That a perpetual miracle was
wrought for their preservation — that copyists were protected against all risk
of error, or evil men prevented from adulterating shamefully copies of the
Deposit — no one, it is presumed, is so weak as to suppose. But it is quite a
different thing to claim that all down the ages the sacred writings must needs
have been God’s peculiar care; that the Church under Him has watched over them
with intelligence and skill, has recognised which copies exhibit a fabricated,
which an honestly transcribed text; has generally sanctioned the one, and
generally disallowed the other.”
The great
theologian Dr. John Owen in the “Divine Original of the Scripture,” states,
“The providence of God hath manifested itself as no less concerned in the preservation
of the writings than of the doctrine contained in them; the writing itself
being the product of His own eternal counsel for the preservation of the
doctrine, after a sufficient discovery of the insufficiency of all other means
for that end and purpose. And hence the malice of Satan hath raged no less
against the Book than against the truth contained in it.” (p. 300)
“The doctrine of
the providential preservation of the Scriptures,” writes Dr. E. F. Hills, “was
not explicitly stated in any creed until the seventeenth century, when two
formulations appeared, the one in the Westminster Confession (1646) and the
other in the Swiss Declaration (1675). The Westminster Confession affirmed that
‘the Scriptures were immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and
providence kept pure in all ages.’ and the Swiss Declaration developed this
same doctrine more fully in the following words: ‘Almighty God not only
provided that His Word which is a power to every one who believes, should be
committed to writing through Moses, the Prophets, and Apostles, but also has
watched over it with a fatherly care up to the present time, and guarded lest
it might be corrupted by the craft of Satan or any fraud of man.’
“But the
doctrine of the providential preservation of Scripture is not merely a
seventeenth century doctrine. It is the doctrine of the Scriptures, and of
Christ Himself. Our Lord evidently believed that the Old Testament had been
thus preserved. There are two passages especially which clearly indicate this.
The first is Matt. 5, 18: “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle
shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” And the second is
Luke 16, 17: “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the
law to fail.” Here Jesus attributes greater stability to the text of the Old
Testament than to the heavens and the earth.
“Christ also
taught that the same divine providence which had preserved the Old Testament
would preserve the New Testament, too. In the concluding verses of the Gospel
of Matthew we find His “Great Commission” not only to the twelve apostles but
also to His Church throughout all ages, Go ye therefore and teach all nations.”
Implied in this solemn charge is the promise that through the working of God’s providence
the Church will always be kept in possession of an infallible record of
Christ’s words and works.
“The providential
preservation of the Scriptures is also a necessary consequence of their divine
inspiration. The God who inspired the Scriptures and gave them to His people to
be an authoritative guide and consolation cannot allow this perfect and final
revelation of His will to perish. Because God has inspired the Scriptures, He
has also preserved them by His providence.”
“The very concept of God’s providential
preservation of Scripture,” continues Dr. Hills, “involves this basic idea,
that God authenticates as well as preserves, that He has placed His Church in
actual possession of the genuine text. God chose the Jewish Church to be the
guardian of the Old Testament. Scriptures and the Greek Church to guard the
New, and at the time of the Reformation, Protestants received from the Jews and
the Greeks the genuine texts of Holy Scripture. Therefore, if the New
Testament really has been divinely inspired and providentially preserved, the
theory of Westcott and Hort cannot be correct because it has neglected the two
special factors which make the textual criticism of the New Testament different
from that of all other books.
“Since, therefore, God controls and directs all
the activities and processes of the universe, even the smallest, surely the
transmission of the New Testament down through the ages must always have been
the object of God’s special care and guidance. The nature and results of this
providential preservation of the New Testament text can be summarised in the
six following axioms of consistently Christian New Testament textual criticism — (a) The
purpose of the providential preservation of the New Testament is to preserve
the infallibility of the inspired original Text. (b) This providential
preservation concentrated itself on the Greek
New Testament text. (c) This providential preservation operated within the
sphere of the Greek Church. (d) This providential preservation operated through
the testimony of the Holy Spirit. (e) The text of the majority of the
manuscripts is the providentially preserved and approved text. (f) The text of
the majority of the manuscripts is the standard text.”
“The New Testament text, therefore, which is
found in the vast majority of the extant manuscripts is the providentially preserved
and approved text, the text upon which Almighty God, expressing Himself
providentially in the usage of the Greek Church, has placed His divine
sanction. This text is usually called the Byzantine
Text, because it was the text of the whole Greek Church during most of the
Byzantine Period (312 – 1453 AD). It is found not only in the vast
majority of the extant New Testament manuscripts but it is also very familiar
to the vast majority of Bible readers all over the world, for it is the text of
the King James Version and of the other early Protestant translations.”
“The Byzantine text then, found in the vast
majority of the New Testament manuscripts, is the text upon which God, working
providentially through the usage of the Greek-speaking Church, has placed the
stamp of His approval. It is the best extant text. It represents the inspired
original text very accurately, more accurately than any other New Testament
text which survives from the manuscript period. In other words, the Byzantine Text is the Standard Text[i] (Extracts from ch. 2 of “The King James
Version Defended!”). Taken from http://www.soft.net.uk/arden/
To be continued.
*****
LETTERS
Are there any books or leaflets exposing
the J.N.Darby translation, or even chapters given over to his works? I cannot find any other than snippets in
chapters about other translations in general.
The latest I heard, (in our meeting) was
in James 5:17 that instead of “prayed earnestly” J.N.D. says “prayed a
prayer” which the brother thought ‘much better’. If it were not so serious it would be
laughable. J.N.D. not only changes the
tense, but alters the words around, Lamb of God = God’s Lamb. (I was always
taught in English that the former was correct.)¾ Mrs P. (Email)
Dear Mrs P.,
there is very
little written about Darby’s translation. One reason I think is because it and
he were held in low regard by all outside assembly fellowship; All I can offer at the moment, apart from
various comments on individual verses from his translation, is what I gleaned
and published in Waymarks No.7 which I give below –
I have before me
a leaflet stating “What J.N. Darby thought of the Revisers, their R.V. (1881)
and the manuscripts they used”, being
quotes taken from the Letters of J.N.D. Vol.3. The first reads; “I
believe the old manuscripts (Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, etc.) have
been quite as much wilfully tampered with, if not more than others”. P.129, Jan. 1881.
Another reads; “As to the Revised Version I
think of it very badly indeed” p.188,
Oct. 1881 The Alexandrinus ms. And a few other mss of the same family were
seized upon by GREISBACH (1774-1805) to build a new Greek Text, to the rejection
of all other mss. This was followed by LACHMANN (1842-1850) who continued in
the same vein, rejecting entirely the Received Text which represents the
majority of mss. Their works were used by TREGELLES and then by TISCHENDORF to produce their Gk. Texts,
the latter having found the Sinaiticus ms. In a monastery waste bin which
caused him to adapt his text accordingly. All this was the basis of the
WESTCOTT& HORT text underlying the R.V.
Apparently Darby chose to rely on the same few mss. To the exclusion of
the Received Text in producing his New Translation, for he wrote:- “In
translating the Greek Testament..... I had Greisbach, Scholz, Lachmann open
before me, and Matthiae and others at my side, that when all agreed I might, if
no particular reason, translate from the common text of best editions.” LETTERS. DUBLIN 1854.
Darby invented a
hybrid text of his own that never had been Holy Scripture. If there was
disagreement, he did what all the critics do, choosing whatever he thought
best.
I have searched
for some time for an account of Darby’s conversion but no biographer gives one.
His doctrine of salvation was very ambiguous.
As to James 5:17
Darby reads “he prayed with prayer” Which makes gobbledegook of the English
language. That might be the literal translation but our translators were
intelligent men and recognized that not all Greek idioms could be translated
literally.
In this case
they could not use formal equivalence (which marks the AV out from the dynamic
equivalence of modern translations) so they gave the equivalent meaning which
is, “he prayed earnestly”. The word earnestly is not in italics in our Bible
showing it to be the true translation. Note the AV marginal ref.
You are quite
right too about the expression “Lamb of God.”
*****
“The Starry Firmament”
“The
starry firmament on high,
And
all the glories of the sky,
Yet
shine not to Thy praise O Lord,
So
brightly as Thy written Word.
“The
hopes that holy Word supplies,
Its
truths divine and precepts wise,
In
each a heavenly beam I see,
And
every beam conducts to Thee.
“Almighty
Lord, the sun shall fail,
The
moon her borrowed glory veil,
And
deepest reverence hush on high
The
joyful chorus of the sky.
“But
fixed for everlasting years,
Unmoved
amid the wreck of spheres,
Thy
Word shall shine in cloudless day,
When
heaven and earth have passed away.”
B G
Wilkinson? From Which Bible?
Waymarks is a tract published
quarterly and is usually sent out unsolicited. Its purpose is to encourage
open-air preaching and also to establish the confidence of the Lord’s people in
the Authorized Bible as being the true and only Holy Bible in the English
language. Further copies may be obtained upon request. This publication is a
personal exercise and is made free of charge. Waymarks may be freely copied but
acknowledgments should be given.
http://members.aol.com/waymarks/ All
Correspondence to:- Ron Smith
c/o
Waymarks
email: waymarks@aol.com
8 Newbury Close
Luton
Beds
LU4 9QJ
No comments:
Post a Comment