|
Contents
Report of Open Air Preaching...............................................2
The New Birth.........................................................................4
The Integrity of the AV Bible................................................5
Gen.37:3
2 Kings 8:26
2 Chron.22:2
Matt.6:13
Rom.5:11
What the Bible
Teaches........................................................8
The Preservation of
Scripture.............................................9
Proofs Vindicating the Traditional
Text..........................10
William Carey’s
Translations............................................12
John Bois’s
Notes.................................................................15
Lancelot Andrewes..............................................................15
“The Book of
Books”...........................................................16
REPORT OF OPEN AIR PREACHING
November 6th
LUTON MARKET HILL. The woman from the flower
shop came out to glower at me a couple of times but she made no attempt to
speak. A camera crew arrived and told me they wanted to interview me for a
channel 4 programme. They asked a few questions and as they gave me opportunity
to preach, that is what I did. While they were doing this a police car came by very
slowly, with its window down. I wondered if the flower lady had called them.
The last owner of her shop came out and mocked me several years ago. He went
bankrupt shortly after.
November 8th
LUTON, by the ARNDALE. Two young Muslim girls
asked if I had considered Islam. I told them that I had Christ; what need I
more? They told me they believed in Jesus, which is utter nonsense. The Jesus
they believe in is not the Lord Jesus Christ of Scripture, for He is the Son of
God, God manifest in the flesh as the Scripture teaches us; the Saviour of the
world. They soon went away, but I pitied them in their darkness and error. I
supposed that I was aware of the wickedness of Islam some forty years or more
before they were born.
November 28th LUTON, by the
ARNDALE. Today a JW woman wished to convert me. She insisted that we believed a
lot in common, so I started at the beginning by reminding her that the Lord
said ye must be born again. “That
was just for Nicodemus”, she replied. She didn’t understand that “ye” is plural.
A lot of folk have problems with the English language. Then she told me that it
didn’t apply to her because she is a Jehovah’s Witness! The JW’s are deeply
hostile to the Biblical doctrine of the New Birth. (see further comments below).
December 19th
HITCHIN MARKET SQUARE The town crier with his booming voice was
inviting people to visit Father Christmas in the local store. He tells me he is
a Christian and usually moves away so that I can preach without conflicting
with him. He told me today that he was doubling up as F C himself so I could
preach without interruption. He assured me that he would try to get the gospel
across while acting Father Christmas. He
is a good actor and can even get the gospel into Peter Pan, he said. It should
help convince children that the whole business of Bethlehem and the cross is
mythology. Yet here is a strange thing: having worked with children for over
thirty years, I discover that almost without exception, and despite being
raised in ungodly homes, children believe there is a God in heaven. By
adulthood, most have rejected such a belief.
December 22nd LUTON T
C. There was a noticeable increase in
mocking and jeering today, as there usually is at this time of the year.
Domestic violence increases as does drunkenness and crime. Deluded folk
associate this with the birth of Christ. The celebration of the CHRIST-MASS remains a blasphemous
pagan/romish rite.
January 12th LUTON T C. I
met an old Hungarian believer today. I have known her for some 30 or more
years. She stood next to me while I preached, to give me some support, she
said. I always appreciate that. I asked her where she was in fellowship these
days, and she replied with a knowing look, “If the Son therefore shall make you
free, ye shall be free indeed”. This
seemed to me to be a serious misapplication of Scripture, but she didn’t want
to discuss it.
The believer is
not free to do his own thing! From the beginning converts were added to the
local church (Acts 2:41). Free-lancers are not recognized in the word of God.
We are well aware of the state of things as we head up to the final and great
apostasy¾and the return of the Lord to gather up
His own. Yet conditions were bad at in the church at Corinth when Paul wrote to
them. Paul did not write urging folk to leave and find a better place, but to
put things right where they were. I think it was Spurgeon who wrote that if he
ever found a perfect church, it would be made imperfect immediately by his
arrival. It is incumbent upon us as believers to gather with those who are like
minded in the faith.
January 26th LEIGHTON
BUZZARD, BY THE CROSS. A young woman wanted to speak. As she did not interrupt
me, I stopped preaching to ask her what she wanted to say. Her question was,
“Why are you doing this?” My answer, “So that you will know the way to heaven.
She told me she was saved when she was five years old but the Lord had let her
down. She was now a heroin addict. I told her it sounded more that she had let
the Lord down. Then she whispered, “How can I get back to Him? Will He have me
back? Will I be punished when I get to heaven?” It was a great joy to assure
her that if she trusted in Christ, He would never leave her; that her sins were
all forgiven and blotted out. They could not be remembered again in heaven. She
seemed reassured at this and accepted a tract. Then it suddenly began to pour
with rain and off she went.
January 29th
LUTON T C. The old Salvationist came by.
Learning that I had a spare Bible with me, he asked if he could have it for his
landlady. He assured me he was reading the one I gave to him last year so I
gave him this one. Peter, who was standing listening, had also received a Bible
last year.
January 31st LUTON, MARKET HILL. There was no breeze so the sound carried very well. I could hear my voice echoing from the buildings farther down the street. The woman came out of her flower shop to glare at me yet again. She never speaks. A few days ago, 10,000 people thronged this square to listen to the speakers telling them that their future is bleak; that there isn’t much hope for anyone; that there’s a fight on for survival; that the prospects are dismal for the Vauxhall worker. What a message! And they all came out to hear it, standing in the cold for more than an hour.
Today a woman stopped and listened to the
preaching of the cross. There is a bright prospect for the believer. There is a
blessed hope. The battle is already won. But she wasn’t impressed and went
away. Such is the folly and the darkness of the human heart that rejects heaven
for hell.
People do listen
to the gospel. They are affected by it, though I’m often told by passers-by
that nobody is listening. Hard bitten press-men know that the gospel has an
effect on society. The Daily Telegraph on Monday 5th February asked,
concerning the killing of a little black boy in North Peckham, “where are the
preachers...?” It was suggested in the article that society is marked by moral
cowardice but if public figures spoke out, there would be less violence on the
streets. I am persuaded that the frequent presence of a street preacher in
Luton makes the streets of Luton that much safer. Maybe there is a preacher,
black or white, who is prepared to go into North Peckham on a daily basis.
Maybe a few folk might even get saved in the process.
THE NEW BIRTH
The doctrine of
the New Birth is a fundamental truth of the Bible. It is the truth most
misunderstood and abused throughout Christendom. Presidents and perverts claim
to have been born again. Papists claim that entrance into the Roman Church is
the new birth. False cults insist that water baptism is the new birth.
Anglicans boast of Baptismal Regeneration. Others such as the JW’s deny the New
Birth completely.
The “Reformed”
people have reformed the scriptural teaching of the New Birth into a mockery of
the truth.
A full page
article in the December 2000 Evangelical
Times reveals the error of Reformed Theology on this subject. Under the
heading The new birth, we read this,
We can certainly tell people how to come
to Christ for salvation. They must repent of their sins and put their faith in
Christ to save them. But repentance and faith proceed from the new birth.
In other words, when a person is born again that person is enabled,
by the new life that has been imparted to him or her, to repent and believe in
Christ. Repenting and believing are what we do. But the new birth is something
that only God can do. And God must do his work first.
Under Reformism then, we find born again
unbelievers, because their believing is subsequent to the new birth. We wonder
how soon after being born again does belief come. Is it instantaneous, so that
the born again has had no time to consider what he is believing? Does it take
years so that this person might even die before he comes to belief? These poor
souls will have eternal life, because the new birth brings eternal life, but
they are not saved, because they have yet to repent and believe. So a
contradiction is introduced because one cannot have everlasting life without
first believing (Jn.3:36).
From the first moment of the new birth a
soul is complete in Christ, and indwelt by the Holy Spirit. He is quickened,
made alive, who was previously dead in trespasses and sins. And from that
moment the soul is saved for all eternity. Of course it is the work of God to
save a soul. But repentance is the first thing.
Reformism denies the very first public
words of Christ, recorded in Mark 1:15, Repent
ye and believe the gospel. These
words were spoken to an unregenerate nation.
Peter proclaimed repent ye therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out.
Acts 3:15. Peter never mentioned the
new birth. He was speaking to unconverted, unsaved, unborn again people. Peter
stressed that the first priority is repentance.
Paul said God now commandeth all men everywhere to repent. Acts 17:30. God
was not commanding those born again to repent, neither was he commanding the
elect to repent. Those commanded to repent were ALL men EVERYWHERE. To say that
God commands all men everywhere to repent but that only a select company will
be permitted (given the power) to do it is to charge God with deceitfulness,
vindictiveness, malice and treachery. The Reformist error is a very serious
one.
*****
THE
INTEGRITY OF THE AV BIBLE
Genesis 37:3
Now
Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his
old age: and he made him a coat of many
colours.
The latest volume of John Ritchie’s What the Bible Teaches, a commentary on
Genesis, says about this verse:-
Our translation
“of many colours” (PASSIM-6446) derives from the ancient Greek versions, for
the word is not common. The word is found in Scripture only in this chapter and
in 2 Samuel 13:18,19 where David’s daughter Tamar had a similar garment – “for
with such robes were the king’s daughters that were virgins apparelled”. Most
modern translators prefer to translate the word as meaning “long” or
“long-sleeved”. A long or long-sleeved, robe might mark the favoured son out as
being above manual labour.
We note that modern translators are not
too sure what kind of a coat Joseph had. The AV is specific. The Ritchie
commentary tells us that our AV
translators had no idea what the Hebrew word meant so they had to go to
a later Greek translation.
In fact, the AV translators were aware of
the possibility of a different meaning to passim,
so they put the less likely meaning
in the margin. The word they put in the margin was “pieces”, not “long” or
long-sleeved” for which there is no authority whatsoever.
2 Kings 8:26
Two
and twenty yeas old was Ahaziah when
he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king
of Israel.
2 Chron.22:2
Forty
and two years old was Ahaziah when he
began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.
The Bible critics love these verses as
they seem (to them) to be a plain contradiction. The reason for this
contradiction (they say) is that some careless scribe made the error, writing
forty-two instead of twenty-two in 2 Chronicles.
This is very strange because most of the
alterations in the manuscripts are made by scribes correcting earlier errors (so they tell us). But they missed this
one. So one scribe got it wrong and for the next few millennia it was
accepted as a known error that nobody knew how to deal with until the NIV came
along and changed it without so much as a footnote to let you know that the
word of God had been altered.
There was no possibility of a scribal
error. Those who think so deny the verbal inspiration of Scripture. The
suggestion of scribal error is made out of ignorance because the Jews, and
later the Masoretes, took a most exquisite care in copying the manuscripts. Any
mistake would have been instantly noted and the whole page destroyed and
rewritten. The same care was taken with the New Testament documents.
The believer accepts the word of God as
it stands. He may not always understand it
and may not always have a slick answer to explain away difficulties. But
he does believe it. We do not have to have an “answer” in order to believe what
we read on the holy page. We believe it and then wait for the Holy Spirit to
teach us.
But the difficulty is not so great with
these verses. Here is one very simple explanation. The Chronicler is obviously
writing from a different viewpoint to that of the writer of the book of Kings.
In 2 Kings 8:26 Ahaziah was anointed king
at the age of twenty two but because of continuing conflict he was not able to
occupy the throne until he was forty two. And then it was necessary for the
inhabitants of Jerusalem had to
intervene.
Some like to tell us that there were two
Ahaziahs, uncle and nephew, and that sometimes close relatives are counted as
having the same parentage.
It has also been pointed out that Ahaziah
is sometimes referred to as Azariah and that 2 Chron.21:2 tells us of two
Azariahs, both sons of Jehoshaphat.
In any case we know that the Bible is
true.
Matthew 6:13
For
thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
These words
which were added to our Lord’s Prayer make it contradictory. It would be
useless to pray for God’s kingdom to come if the divine rule is already fully
operative in the earth. At the time these uninspired words were added to the
Lord’s Prayer, it was the general belief that Christ’s kingdom was ruling through the church-state
systems of Europe, hence this effort to make the Bible support the claim. ¾ www.bibletoday.com
Nolan as long ago as 1815 proved in An Inquiry into the Integrity of the
Received Text that this verse had existed from the beginning. As usual, it
is but a handful of depraved Romish manuscripts that omit it. Tatian quoted it
in his Diatessaron (150-160 AD).
Burgon wrote concerning the removal of this
text, and others, from the text of Scripture,
May we be
permitted to say without offence, that in our humble judgment, if the Church of
England, at the Revisers’ bidding were to adopt this and thousands of other
depravations of the sacred page,... she would deserve to be pointed at with
scorn by the rest of Christendom?
It was never the “general belief” of the saints of God that Christ’s
kingdom was ruling through the church-state systems. It is the kingdom of GOD
that is referred to. David spoke of it in 1 Chron.29:11, Thine, O LORD, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the
victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O LORD,
and thou art exalted as head above all. The sovereignty of the eternal God extends
through all ages and the time is fast approaching when Christ will rule on
earth for a thousand years. The words of the thief on the cross were, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy
kingdom. (Lk.23:42). He wasn’t thinking of heaven either, as the Lord made
plain in His answer.
Romans 5:11
....
we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received
the atonement.
Some commentators (Newell on Romans) like to tell us that the
atonement is an Old Testament subject, not taught in the New Testament.
Reconciliation replaces Atonement.
F
E Stallan, in What the Bible Teaches says
this about this verse,
The word
rendered “atonement” in the AV is better rendered “reconciliation”. In v.10 the
verb form (katalasso) is given; in
this verse it is the noun (katallage).
The work of atonement is the offering of Christ on the cross as a sacrifice
[Stallan doesn’t agree with Newell – R. S.]. This could not be received by
mankind. What has been received is the reconciliation, the change of state from
being enemies to being “accepted in the beloved” (Eph.1:6). Reconciliation is
the effect of atonement.
If the atonement is not a New Testament
truth, then, as Stallan shows, we cannot be reconciled either. This raises the
issue; why then is it necessary to tamper with the English translation? Some
will tell us it is for the sake of consistency, because only one root Greek
word is used throughout. The beauty of the English language is in its breadth.
In multitudes of places there are many English words that can adequately
translate one Greek word. The AV translators gave expression to this when Dr
Smith wrote, “For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables? [keep in
mind that Dr Smith was writing about translation
and not about inspiration – R.
S.].Why should we be in bondage to them, if we may be free? Use one precisely,
when we may use another no less fit as commodiously?” Translating for King James; John Bois’s notes edited by Ward Allen.
We point out that this is not the same as
that practiced by the modern versionists. The AV translators nevertheless used formal equivalence whereas the modern
practice is to use dynamic equivalence.
In the verse under revue, you will note
that at “atonement” in the AV Bible, a marginal alternative is given, i.e. “or,
reconciliation”. This instructs us
that the translators considered the choice of translation carefully and were
all agreed that “atonement” was the better word for this particular verse,
though they had translated the Greek word differently elsewhere. We can say
that ALL the translators were in agreement, for in the case of different words
being suggested, John Bois recorded them and gave the reasons why they should
not be included in the body of the translation. He made NO notes on Romans
5:11, so we conclude that ALL were agreed that "“reconciliation"
would have no more than a marginal reference.
We learn then, that in 1611AD “atonement”
and “reconciliation” were almost synonymous
but that “atonement” carried the fuller meaning in this instance.
The Romish Douay version of 1582AD was
the first English bible to change from “atonement”. The word is found in
Tyndale, Geneva, etc. I have copies of all these books mentioned and have
checked it out for myself. I also have a
facsimile 1611AD Bible. Rome is behind all modern versions. Would that our
brethren who love to appear scholarly would check out the facts for themselves
also.
Atonement in the 16th century
meant at-one-ment (according to my etymological dictionary). The believer has
received this being at-one-ment with God and thereby is reconciled to God. What
joy we have in God! I believe in the New Testament teaching of atonement
because I read it in my New Testament.
*****
WHAT
THE BIBLE TEACHES
The editor of What
the Bible Teaches tells his readers that “all the authors share the
conviction that the Bible in its entirety is the Word of God.” But the first
contributor, the author of the Genesis commentary, wrote concerning 4:8, (p.50),
Verse 8 also contains a verbal oddity. It opens with the
incomplete statement, ‘And Cain told Abel his brother...’ (RV). The Septuagint
reads, ‘And Cain said to his brother Abel, Let us go out into the field/plain’
If this is a correct reading then a clause has dropped out of the Hebrew
manuscripts because it had an ending similar to the next clause. This is the
solution followed in the REB, NIV and other versions; it is also noted in the
RV margin. This text would lead smoothly into the account of the murder, but it
is difficult to be sure it is correct.
The author lacks the conviction that
verse eight is the word of God in any version!
He thinks that a part of the Bible has got lost, or else it has been tampered
with making it difficult [for the critics] to be sure it is correct. Thus
verbal inspiration is denied. The words of Matt.11:25 are pertinent in this
connection: Jesus answered and said, I
thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these
things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
On page 26, the author quotes two verses
from the RV; “waste and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep”, and
“God...formed the earth and made it; he established it, he created it not a
waste, he formed it to be inhabited”.(Isa.45:18). These two spurious readings
favour the “Gap Theory” which teaches that God didn’t originally create the
world a waste but by Gen.1:2 it had become so. Therefore the first “day” of
creation actually begins at verse two. This is implied in the commentary:
The process of
creating order continues throughout the six days.
But before [my italics] this orderly
distinction of things which differ was established, a series of steps had to be
gone through. Initially the earth “was waste and void; and darkness was upon
the face of the deep” (RV). In Isaiah we learn (45:18) that “God... created it
not a waste”.
The AV Bible has The earth was without form, and void. (1:2) That is, in the initial
act of creation the earth was unformed and unfilled. Isaiah 45:18 tells us he created it not in vain, he formed it to
be inhabited. The earth was not created to
no purpose, but that it might be inhabited.
The translators of the AV were well aware
that the same Hebrew word occurs in both passages, but with obviously different
shades of meaning. If the meanings should be the same then a contradiction
exists and the only acceptable explanation is the Gap Theory where a
cataclysmic disaster occurs between the first two verses of Genesis, and God
has to start again. Pember in his book Earth’s
Earliest Ages taught the existence of a pre-Adamic race. The Gap Theory
denies that sin came in by one man.
*****
THE
PRESERVATION OF SCRIPTURE
Has God promised to preserve Scripture
for all time, or not? D K Kutilek assures us that God promised no such thing
and that “proof-texts for this doctrine, such as Psalm 12:6-7; Matthew 5:17-18;
and Matthew 24:35; are without exception
misinterpreted and misapplied.” [my italics]. From “AS I SEE IT” vol.2,
no.3, March 1999.
Kutilek believes that every Bible
expositor ¾without exception¾who doesn’t agree with his rationalistic views is in error. Kutilek
fails to state what his interpretation of these verses is. Neither does he
refer to the many other verses on this subject, such as Psalm 119:89; Isaiah
40:8; Luke 21:33; 1 Peter 1:21,23. All these verse together show that the
doctrine of the Preservation of Scripture is clearly taught within Scripture
itself.
The denial of preservation requires the
mutilation of Scripture. We see this in the critical mistranslation of Ps.12:7
in the NIV, O Lord you will keep us safe
and protect us from such people for
ever. The Roman Catholic NRSV also has “us”
but maintains “this generation” instead of “such people”.
However, the Jewish “Jerusalem Bible”
translates the Hebrew exactly as the AV reading, showing that verse seven
qualifies verse six. That is, the words of the Lord are to be kept and
preserved henceforth and for ever.
The AV reads, Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation
for ever. “Them” refers back to the
pure words of verse six.
Kutilek attempts to claim J Burgon as an
ally, opposed to preservation, and quotes “That by a perpetual miracle, Sacred
Manuscripts would be protected all down the ages against depraving influences
of whatever sort,¾was not to be expected; certainly, was
never promised. Revision Revised; p.335.”
This statement, standing alone, would certainly imply that Burgon did not believe
in the supernatural preservation of Scripture. But Kutilek omits Burgon’s very
next statement, “BUT the Church, in her collective capacity, hath nevertheless¾as a matter of fact¾been
perpetually purging herself of those shamefully depraved copies which once
everywhere abounded within her pale.”
Burgon went on to say “A few such copies linger on to the present
day. The wounds were healed, but the scars remained,¾nay, the scars are discernible still.” And that was written more
than 100 years ago!
It is plain that Burgon knew which were
the depraved copies. So do we. They remain, but conversely, if Burgon knew what
was false, he obviously knew what was true.
Concerning Burgon’s first statement,
quoted by Kutilek. We read not that Burgon said that SCRIPTURE preservation was
not to be expected, but that SACRED MANUSCRIPTS could not be expected to be
preserved in their purity through all ages. But the pure manuscripts have
always been known, for, says Burgon, believers rejected the depraved copies.
One such (Codex Sinaiticus) turned up in a popish dustbin in the 19th
Century. Another, which had been thrown out long since by true believers was
found hidden in the Vatican (Codex Vaticanus).
These two depraved manuscripts remain the
basis of modern bible versions.
*****
PROOFS VINDICATING THE TRADITIONAL OR STANDARD TEXT
(continued from Waymarks No.23)
1. PRINTED EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT
“For many centuries before the Reformation,”
writes the Rev. T. H. Brown, “Greek Scholarship was virtually non-existent in
Western Europe. In 1453 Constantinople, the eastern capital of the eastern part
of the Empire and the centre of the Eastern Church, fell to the Moslem
invaders. One far-reaching result of this calamity was that Christian scholars
with a knowledge of Greek, and with Greek copies of the Holy Scriptures in
their possession, fled to Western Europe where their influence gave a new
impetus to the study of the Greek language.
It has been said of this period that ‘Greece rose from the grave with
the New Testament in her hand.’
Among the next
generation of Greek scholars was Erasmus of Rotterdam, who prepared an edition
of the Greek New Testament from five manuscripts in repute at that time. This
edition was printed in 1516 and was followed by four later editions. At Alcala
(Complutum) University, in 15O2, Cardinal Ximenses gathered manuscripts and men
under the direction of Stunica, who published the “Complutensian Polyglot” in
1522, again from comparatively few manuscripts. Robert Stephens, relying
largely upon Erasmus and Stunica, and with a possible sixteen manuscripts at
his disposal, produced editions of the Greek text in 1546, 1550, 1551 and 1559.
In 1552 he withdrew to Geneva and joined the Protestant cause. Theodore Beza
produced five editions of the Greek between 1559 and 1598. These followed Stephens
fairly closely, although Beza had some ancient manuscripts not available to
Stephens. The Elzevir Brothers’ 1624 edition printed at Leyden has much in
common with those of Stephens and Beza. The Elzevir text announced itself as
the “Textus Receptus” (Received Text) and since that time Stephens’ 1550
edition has been known as the “Received Text” in England, while the Elzevir
edition of 1624 has had this title on the Continent.
2. THE PROTESTANT TRANSLATIONS
The Protestant
versions in England and on the Continent in the 16th and 17th centuries were
based on these editions of the Greek text. These early printed Greek editions
were themselves based on comparatively few manuscripts, which have nevertheless
proved to be representative of the Greek text embraced many centuries earlier
throughout the Greek Church.
The English versions of Tyndale, Coverdale,
Matthews (or Rogers) , the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Bishops’
Bible and the Authorized Version were all based upon this little company of
Greek documents, in which was preserved
the Greek Text generally received throughout the Greek
Church since the Apostolic ages.
THE AUTHORIZED VERSION
At the Hampton Court Conference of 1604 the
Puritan leader Reynolds made the suggestion — which was first opposed and then
adopted by the Conference with the enthusiastic approval of King James I — that
there should be a new translation of the Holy Scriptures in English, to replace
the different versions then in common use. Fifty-four men, including High
Churchmen (not to be confused with Roman Catholics) and Puritans, the greatest Hebrew and Greek scholars of the age,
formed six companies to undertake the task. Using their Greek sources and the
best commentaries of European scholars, and referring to Bibles in Spanish,
Italian, French and German, they expressed the sense of the Greek in clear,
vigorous and idiomatic English. In 1786 Dr. Geddes wrote, “If accuracy and
strictest attention to the letter of the text be supposed to constitute an
excellent version, this is of all versions the most excellent.” Bishop
Lightfoot affirmed that this version was the storehouse of the highest truth
and the purest well of our native English. “Indeed,” he wrote, “we may take
courage from the fact that the language of our English Bible is not the
language of the age in which the translators lived, but in its grand simplicity stands out in contrast to the ornate and
often affected diction of the literature of the time.’
*****
WILLIAM
CAREY’S TRANSLATIONS
( from www.biblebelievers.com/carey)
“The first
Bengali version of the whole New Testament Carey translated from the original
Greek before the close of 1796. The only English commentary used was the Family
Expositor of Doddridge, published in 1738, and then the most critical in the
language. Four times he revised the manuscript, with a Greek concordance in his
hand, and he used it not only with Ram Basu by his side, the most accomplished
of early Bengali scholars, but with the natives around him of all classes.
In another letter
to Ryland, he takes us into his confidence more fully, showing us not only his
sacred workshop, but ingenuously revealing his own humility and self-sacrifice:
‘10th December 1811.--I have of late been much impressed with the vast
importance of laying a foundation for Biblical criticism in the East[my italics], by preparing grammars of the different
languages into which we have translated or may translate the Bible. Without
some such step, they who follow us will have to wade through the same labour
that I have, in order to stand merely upon the same ground that I now stand
upon. If, however, elementary books are provided, the labour will be greatly
contracted; and a person will be able in a short time to acquire that which has
cost me years of study and toil.’ ”
We are not told what “original Greek”
edition Carey used, but Griesbach’s Greek N T was available and his stated
interest in Biblical Criticism suggests he would have used it. I asked TBS if
they could enlighten me on the matter and was told that it is uncertain what
text he used. I conclude, therefore, that Carey left no notes as to how he
conducted his work though an inspection of his Bengali Bible would clear the
matter up. Griesbach was the father of
modern Textual Criticism and was not a believer.
George Smith in
his biography of Carey wrote, “...with an accurate judgment in the state of
scholarship and criticism at the opening of the [19th] century,
Carey always insisted that he was a forerunner.... Dr Ryland, Carey’s mentor,
was an accomplished Hebraist and Biblical critic for that day... Carey’s
success led to the formation in 1804 of the British and Foreign Bible Society”.
The International Bible Society boasts
“The modern Bible translation movement, begun by William Carey in India, has encompassed
the globe”.
C P Hallihan, writing about Carey in the
TBS Quarterly Record, issue no.554, p7 has this to say, “He also responded to
the demands of reading the Bible in such other tongues as he knew, which tends
to prevent unconscious and unchallenged acceptance of understanding based on
the ‘accidents’ of one’s own language.” I asked TBS concerning this statement, “Does C P Hallihan
mean that one translation cannot adequately convey the word of God?” and Mr
Hallihan replied, “I most certainly did not have any meaning in mind as to the
adequate conveyance of Scripture Truth in translation, only the possible
deficiencies in the human use of a translation.” He did not define these
deficiencies.
So what are
these “accidents” of one’s own language? Must I learn foreign languages lest I
form unconscious and unchallenged understanding of Scripture as I find it in my
English Bible? Matt.11:25 applies here also.
*****
JOHN
BOIS’S NOTES ON THE AV TRANSLATION
John Bois was a member of the Cambridge
group of translators who played a major part in the final revision of the
entire AV Bible. His father taught him Hebrew when he was five years old. He
was admitted to St. John’s College, Cambridge, at the age of fourteen, becoming
a fellow four years later. While still a freshman he became outstanding in
Greek. He was such a grammarian that he was familiar with sixty different
grammars, including Latin. His ability as a linguist led him to be chosen for
the final committee of review charged with delivering the single master copy of
the finished translation to the printers.
Bois’s notes, made during the final
edition of the AV bible before publication, were deemed to be lost until
Professor Ward Allen found them in the Corpus Christi College library in Oxford
in 1964. These notes he then published in facsimile in 1969, in his book, Translating
for King James.
The care and precision that went into the
AV translation is revealed in his notes. Notes were made only where Bois
considered the words of the translating committee to be inadequate in bringing
out the full meaning of the Greek. However, though his recommendations were not
always accepted, it is evident that great consideration went into every word
used in the AV Bible.
Ward Allen gives several examples of
Bois’s notes in his introduction to demonstrate their use in the translation,
revision, and printing of the Authorized Version of the Bible. I give two
examples below to show Bois’s scholarly approach in translation and to reveal
how the modern approach frequently destroys the meaning of the passage. A study
of all the examples in Allen’s book will bear this out.
1 Peter 1:11
Bois’s
note; unto what, or what manner etc. the Spirit etc. had reference¾and the great glorie.
AV: ...searching what,
or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify,...
This note is
significant for two reasons: it occurs at a verse which makes one of the
clearest statements in the New Testament of the divine inspiration of Holy
Scripture; but despite the clarity of the general tendency of the verse, the
exact meaning is disputed among English translations. Indeed, the particular
meaning is still disputed¾e.g.,
“what time or manner of time the
Spirit... did point unto” (RV); “what person or time was indicated by the
Spirit” (RSV)
It rejects the
direct phrase of those translations [Tyndale,
Geneva, Bishop’s, Rheims] to
which the translators had been directed.... The note, then, sets up a distinct
reading of a significant verse. And the distinction of the reading rests in the
substitution of “what” for the “which” of the Rheims bible.
The AV Bible alone maintains the pure testimony to the divine inspiration of
Scripture in what it was that the
Spirit of Christ did signify.
1 Peter 3:18
Tyndale:...and was kylled, as
pertayninge to the flesshe: but was quyckened in the sprete.
Geneva
Bible:... and was put to death concerning the flesh, but was quickened in the
spirit.
A. V.:...being put to death in the
flesh, but quickened by the Spirit...
Bois’s
note: or, who was indeed put to death according to the flesh, but quickned
according to the spirit.
The translators
of the A. V. made two alterations in their wording from the interpretation
which they had received from earlier versions. In introducing the preposition by, and in capitalizing Spirit, the translators of the A. V.
referred the phrase to the Resurrection. They may have worded their solution in
this way to avoid a popular but heretical view of the day which held that the
flesh referred to Christ’s divine nature. The text of the A. V. precludes the
possibility of one’s falling into this error. The note suggests that certain
revisers objected to such a severe limitation of the meaning. The alternative
permits an ambiguous reading of the text: “according to” extends the reference,
so that one reads, “to the degree that the transformation of the flesh and
spirit at death is effected.” Such a reading maintains the balanced structure
of the Greek but prevents the heretical interpretation of the flesh as Christ’s
human nature and the spirit as Christ’s divine nature.
The scholar, Ward Allen, shows again with
this verse, the exquisite care taken by the A. V. translators. A precise
formally equivalent translation of the Greek is made which at the same time
preserves its theological meaning.
We note, looking through Bois’s notes,
that the underlying Greek text was not challenged, apart from a handful of
references to Beza’s Greek New Testament. The Greek Text, which became known as
the Received Text, was regarded as settled and established.
It may be asked, why should not reference
be made to other Greek New Testaments today (and there are plenty of them). The
reason the Greek Texts of Greisbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott
and Hort, Nestle, Aland etc. are rejected by Bible believers is because all of
these are based on manuscripts which have been shown up as depraved.
The manuscripts of
the A. V. Bible have a proven pedigree. The A. V. translators were well aware
of the existence of spurious manuscripts.
*****
LANCELOT
ANDREWES
Lancelot Andrewes was an outstanding
scholar who served as chairman on the translation committee for the AV Bible.
It is said of him,
There was his
proficiency in languages, fifteen modern and six ancient (Lain, Greek, Hebrew, Chaldee,
Syriac, and Arabic), which led Fuller to remark that he was ‘so skilled in all
(especially Oriental) languages, that some conceived that he might, if then
living, almost have served as an INTERPRETER-GENERAL in the confusion of Tongues.’ There was his
encyclopedic knowledge of the Greek and Latin classics, of the Fathers¾both Eastern and Western¾of the
Ancient Church, of the Canonists and Schoolmen. There was his detailed
historical scholarship....
It is sometimes
suggested that Andrewes was an Arminian in his theology. That is true only in
so far as he rejected the Calvinist doctrine of predestination. ¾ Lancelot Andrewes 1555-1626; Paul
A Welsby; SPCK 1964.
Andrewes was a godly man who, though a
High Churchman (not to be confused with the modern High Church of England), was
sympathetic to many of the Puritan values.
Where are such men as Andrewes and Bois
and their company among today’s translators? Why do the modern critics decry
the learning of the XVIth century? Is it because they are evolutionists and
think that their intellect has somehow grown superior to that of four hundred
years ago? They have learned nothing in relation to the Scriptures that our AV
translators did not know. They are certainly not godlier. We do not know of any
modern textual critic having the linguistic ability that the AV men had. Yet
“scholarship” is the object of adoration on the modern altar.
Modern scholarship has proved itself so often
to be apostate. It does not approach the Scriptures in faith, but declares that
the Bible can be handled in the same way as any other book. It declares that
inspiration applies only to the “original” manuscripts and that only the
textual scholars can restore the Bible to anything near the original. It tells
us that this work of restoration has no hope of completion. It tells us that
God cannot keep His promises.
Thank God the “babe” in Christ knows
better.
“The Book of Books”
Within
this ample volume lies
The
mystery of mysteries.
Happiest
they of human race
To
whom their God has given grace
To
read, to fear, to hope, to pray,
To
lift the latch, to force the way;
But
better had they ne’er been born
That
read to doubt or read to scorn.
Sir
Walter Scott 1771-1832
_____________________________________________________________________
Waymarks is published quarterly and is
usually sent out as a tract, 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.
We are
sometimes accused by those of differing views of showing a lack of love and of
being critical of the saints. We love all those who love Christ but it is not
love to Christ to condone error or to ignore it. It is also necessary to
identify sources of information so that statements made may be verified by my
readers.
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