|
“Let us walk by
the same rule, let
Contents
Report of Open Air Preaching……………………………..2
C H Spurgeon on Open Air Preaching……………………4
The Integrity of the AV Bible………………………………6
Isaiah 17:12, Acts 19:37
Is the King James Bible Perfect?…………………………..7
A Printer’s Error…………………………………………..11
The Authorized Version is not merely a Revision……….12
Contemporary English Version…………………………..13
New Testament in Modern English………………………14
Biblical Separation...………………………………………15
Calvinism Judged Greater than the Bible……………….15
“Say Christian Wouldst Thou Thrive”………………….16
Report of Open Air Preaching
19th March HITCHIN MARKET SQUARE. Once again
someone wanted to tell me nobody is listening. I thanked her for listening which she indignantly denied. An elderly man
stopped to tell me I was obviously sick in the head. He refused to accept a
tract that might have brought life to his sin-sick soul.
8th April LUTON
TOWN CENTRE. It seems everything is against the preaching of the gospel today.
The AA man is here occupying my usual stand. There is street entertainment at
the next, so I stood outside the town hall and immediately the street sweeper
arrived in his motorised sweeper. He stopped right in front of me, and remained
for half an hour, without cutting his engine. Eventually he went and I was able
to preach. The place where I usually stand is the cleanest piece of pavement in
all Bedfordshire!
17th April LUTON T C. I discover a new hazard. A
woman is stalking me. I didn’t know until she told me. This poor woman seems to
have mental problems and usually has her teen-age daughter in tow. She listened
to the gospel a few weeks ago and accepted a gospel pack which I now give out.
Since then she has taken to following me from my car to the town centre, which
means I must now park elsewhere. She does not show a real interest in the
gospel however.
23rd April HITCHIN
M S. I was disconcerted to find the square half filled by an open air café. I
thought there would be objections to my preaching and my old nervousness
returned. It was a warm day and plenty of people occupied the benches. So I
preached and there were no objections though all in the square could hear me.
Having a static congregation I preached a constructed message instead of using
my usual lateral approach. Two women approached me to say they were pleased to
hear the gospel being preached publicly. Nobody got up and went away while I
was preaching. I felt a surge of liberty and power while preaching (as I almost
always do) and I find it difficult to believe that nobody ever gets saved on
these occasions. I may not know about it until that glorious day of assessment.
29th April AYLESBURY
M S. While I preached a woman walked across the square in front of me and
stepped in front of a bus. Fortunately the bus was able to stop but the woman
was visibly shaken. No doubt she heard a little of the gospel as she crossed
the square. Pray for her and others who witnessed the scene. The brevity of
life was impressed upon those who remained to hear further preaching.
1st May LUTON.
MARKET HILL. Two Muslim children stopped to speak to me. The younger one
recognised me as a past teacher, and was very polite. He wanted to know why I
was preaching in the street so there was a good opportunity to witness to both
of them. They would not accept a tract. A few minutes later a group of older
Asian lads arrived. I thought they might be more difficult to deal with so I
asked the smallest one (whom I did not recognise) if he had attended Beech Hill
School. He said he had and assumed that I knew him. This caused some amusement
among his friends so he walked off and his friends followed him. These also had
been quite well mannered.
Most Asian youths I speak to—and
there a lot of opportunities—are courteous, though some discussions can become
a little vigorous. We have no illusions about the nature of Islam. It is a vile
religion that undermines the whole structure of civilisation. It keeps a myriad
souls in darkness and takes them down into hell when it is finished. It is not
the only religion to do this of course.
The favourite approach of Muslims
is to claim that the prophet of Deut.18 is Mohammed. We ask if Jesus was a
prophet, to which they will answer in the affirmative. We remind them of the words
of Christ, For had ye believed Moses, ye
would have believed me for he wrote of me (John 5: 46) and if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins (John
8:24)
2nd May LEIGHTON
BUZZARD. By the Cross, and looking down the High Street. The old road sweeper
came and sat on the steps of the Cross, to listen. Two young men, canvassing
for British Gas came over to debate with me. Three more young men joined them.
They thought it was wrong to say Islam was false. Should we then leave people
to die in ignorance? The gospel of God’s love demands that we alert souls to
their eternal danger through following a false philosophy whatever it may be.
A policewoman arrived. She had
received a complaint about somebody shouting. Having determined that no crime
appeared to have been committed, or was about to be committed, she left us to
our debate.
At the end only two young men
were left. One pulled out a gospel booklet that he had been given
elsewhere. His friend then accepted a
booklet, God’s Way of Salvation.
24th May HITCHIN
M S. A fall a few days ago has slowed me down a little more. It takes longer
now to walk down to the square, but it is worth it all to get the gospel to
needy souls. A few souls were there to listen to the Gospel of God’s Grace. One
man who heckled on a previous occasion paused to heckle again. He was reminded
that one may mock the preacher but God is not mocked.
There is “another” gospel being preached in Luton¾and
in most other places too I expect. It is a gospel that does not call for
repentance, denies sin, needs no conversion, rejects the cross, and disbelieves
a future punishment of unbelievers in hell.
To hear this “gospel” one is
invited to CHRISTIANS FAITH MINISTRIES INTERNATIONAL, aka Limbury Baptist Church, “where dreams come through and hopes
are fulfilled” and where you can “Be who
God says you are” and you can “Be
inspired every Sunday, with life teaching to help you face the truth about life.
Rediscover your purpose and regain your true identity through biblical teaching.”.
This will appeal immensely to the
young man dreaming of an Aston Martin. It will appeal also to the man hoping
something very nasty will happen to his mother-in-law.
But who does God say you are? He
says you are a guilty sinner on the way to hell and in need of salvation. This
however is not the message of Limbury Baptist Church. It is not the message of
many Gospel Halls either.
Limbury Baptist Church was, when
I was baptized there more than forty years ago, in the Baptist Union and was
therefore apostate even in those days. I parted company with them as soon as I
realised this.
Present trends make the public
preaching of the cross all the more difficult. We become more and more despised
and our preaching remains foolishness to them that perish. The “say yes to Jesus” gospel is the message
of the day. A tract was published some yeas ago titled “The Modern Smooth
Cross”. Now we don’t even have the cross. It is now just modern smooth talk.
*****
C H Spurgeon on Open Air Preaching
.
I must linger a moment over Robert Flockhart of Edinburgh,
who, though a lesser light, was a constant one, and a fit example to the bulk
of Christ's street witnesses. Every evening, in all weathers and amid many
persecutions, did this brave man continue to speak in the street for
forty-three years. Think of that, and never be discouraged. When he was
tottering to the grave the old soldier was still at his post. "Compassion
to the souls of men drove me," said he, "to the streets and lanes of
my native city, to plead with sinners and persuade them to come to Jesus. The
love of Christ constrained me."
Neither the hostility of the police, nor the insults of
papists, Unitarians, and the like could move him; he rebuked error in the
plainest terms, and preached salvation by grace with all his might. So lately
has he passed away that Edinburgh remembers him still. There is room for such
in all our cities and towns, and need for hundreds of his noble order in this
huge nation of London—can 1 call it less?
No sort of defence is needed for preaching out-of-doors;
but it would need very potent arguments to prove that a man had done his duty
who has never preached beyond the walls of his meetinghouse. A defence is
required rather for services within buildings than for worship outside of them.
Apologies are certainly wanted for architects who pile up brick and stone into
the skies when there is so much need for preaching rooms among poor sinners
down below. Defence is greatly needed for forests of stone pillars, which
prevent the preacher from being seen and his voice from being heard; for
high-pitched
Gothic roofs in which all sound is lost, and men are killed by being compelled to shout till they burst their blood-vessels; and also for the wilful creation of echoes by exposing hard, sound-refracting surfaces to satisfy the demands of art, to the total overlooking of the comfort of both audience and speaker.
Gothic roofs in which all sound is lost, and men are killed by being compelled to shout till they burst their blood-vessels; and also for the wilful creation of echoes by exposing hard, sound-refracting surfaces to satisfy the demands of art, to the total overlooking of the comfort of both audience and speaker.
Surely also some decent excuse is badly wanted for those
childish people who must needs waste money
in placing hobgoblins and monsters on the outside of their preaching
houses, and must have other ridiculous pieces of popery stuck up both inside
and outside, to deface rather than to adorn their churches and chapels: but no
defence whatever is wanted for using the Heavenly Father's vast audience
chamber, which is in every way so well fitted
for the proclamation of a Gospel so
free, so full, so expansive, so
sublime.
The great benefit of open-air preaching is that we get so
many newcomers to hear the gospel who otherwise would never hear it. The Gospel
command is, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every
creature," but it is so little obeyed that one would imagine that it ran
thus, "Go into your own place of worship and preach the Gospel to the few
creatures who will come inside." "Go out into the highways and
hedges, and compel them to come in"— albeit it constitutes part of a
parable, is worthy to be taken very literally, and in so doing its meaning will
be best carried out.
We ought actually to go into the streets and lanes and highways,
for there are lurkers in the hedges, tramps on
the highways, street-walkers and lane-haunters, whom we shall never reach
unless we pursue them into their own domains. Sportsmen must not stop at home
and wait for the birds to come and be shot at, neither must fishermen throw their nets inside their boats and
hope to take many fish. Traders go to the markets; they follow their customers
and go out after business if it will not come to them; and so must we. Some of
our brethren are prosing on and on to empty pews and musty hassocks, while they
might be conferring lasting benefit upon hundreds by quitting the old walls for a while, and seeking living stones for Jesus.
I am quite sure, too, that if we
could persuade our friends in the country to come out a good many times in the
year and hold a service in a meadow, or in a shady grove, or on the hillside,
or in a garden, or on a common, it would be all the better
for the usual hearers. The mere novelty of the place would freshen their
interest, and wake them up. The slight change of scene would have a wonderful
effect upon the more somnolent. See how
mechanically they move into their usual place of worship, and how
mechanically they go out again. They fall into their seats as if at last they had found a resting place; they rise to sing with an amazing effort, and they drop down before you have time for the doxology at the close of the hymn because they did not notice it was coming.
mechanically they go out again. They fall into their seats as if at last they had found a resting place; they rise to sing with an amazing effort, and they drop down before you have time for the doxology at the close of the hymn because they did not notice it was coming.
What
logs some regular hearers are! Many of them are asleep with their eyes open.
After sitting a certain number of years in the same old spot, where the pews,
pulpit, galleries, and all things else are always the same, except that they
get a little dirtier and dingier every week, where everybody occupies the same
position forever and forevermore, and the minister's face, voice, tone are much
the same from January to December -you get to feel the holy quiet of the scene
and listen to what is going on as
though it were addressed to "the dull cold ear of Death."
though it were addressed to "the dull cold ear of Death."
As a
miller hears his wheels as though he did not hear them, or a stoker scarcely
notices the clatter of his engine after enduring it for a little time, or as a
dweller in London never notices the ceaseless grind of the traffic; so do many
members of our congregations become insensible to the most earnest addresses,
and accept them as a matter of course. The preaching and the rest of it get to
be so usual that they might as well not be at all. Hence a change of place
might be useful; it might prevent monotony, shake up indifference, suggest
thought, and in a thousand ways promote attention and give
new hope of doing good. A great fire which should burn some of our chapels to the ground might not be the greatest calamity which has ever occurred, if it only aroused some of those rivals of the seven sleepers of Ephesus who will never be moved so long as the old house and the old pews hold together.
new hope of doing good. A great fire which should burn some of our chapels to the ground might not be the greatest calamity which has ever occurred, if it only aroused some of those rivals of the seven sleepers of Ephesus who will never be moved so long as the old house and the old pews hold together.
Besides,
the fresh air and plenty of it is a grand thing for every mortal man, woman and
child. I preached in Scotland twice on a Sabbath day at Blairmore, on a little
height by the side of the sea, and after discoursing with all my might to large
congregations, to be counted by thousands, I did not feel one half so much
exhausted as 1 often am when addressing a few hundreds in some horrible black
hole of Calcutta, called a chapel! I trace my freshness and freedom from
lassitude at Blairmore to the fact that the windows could not be shut down by
persons afraid of drafts, and that the roof was as high as
the heavens are above the earth. My conviction is that a man could preach three or four times on a Sabbath out-of-doors with less fatigue than would be occasioned by one discourse delivered in an impure atmosphere, heated and poisoned by human breath, and carefully preserved from every refreshing infusion of natural air.
the heavens are above the earth. My conviction is that a man could preach three or four times on a Sabbath out-of-doors with less fatigue than would be occasioned by one discourse delivered in an impure atmosphere, heated and poisoned by human breath, and carefully preserved from every refreshing infusion of natural air.
I once
preached a sermon in the open air in haying time during a violent storm of
rain. The text was, "He shall come down like rain upon the mown grass: as
showers that water the earth," and surely we had the blessing as well as
the inconvenience. I was sufficiently wet, and my congregation must have been
drenched, but they stood it out, and I never heard that anybody was the worse
in health, though, I thank God, I have heard of souls brought to Jesus under
that discourse. Once in a while, and under strong excitement, such things do no
one any harm, but we are not to expect miracles, nor wantonly venture upon a
course of procedure which might kill the sickly and lay the foundations of
disease in
the strong.
the strong.
Do not try to preach against the wind, for it is an idle
attempt. You may hurl your voice a short distance by an amazing effort, but you
cannot be well heard even by the few. I do not often advise you to consider
which way the wind blows, but on this occasion I urge you to do it, or you will
labour in vain. Preach so that the wind carries your voice toward the people,
and does not blow it down your throat, or you will have to eat your own words.
*****
The Integrity of the AV Bible
Isaiah 17: 12
Woe to the multitude of many people, which make a noise like the roaring of
the seas;
The
NIV does away with woe so we read, “Oh,
the raging of many nations¾
They
rage like the raging of the sea.” The
NRSV has “Ah [which makes it an expression of admiration], the thunder of many
peoples…” . JND doesn’t like woe either so he has “Ha! A tumult of many
peoples!” Ha can be an expression of joy.
We
do know that the AV translates the Hebrew word hoh’ee as “ah” in seven places. This is why it is vital to consider
the context.
But now we find much worse;
the AV itself is tampered with. A friend tells me she has acquired a Cambridge
AV Bible with this “woe” printed in capitals. My facsimile 1611AD does not have
capitals and I cannot find the word capitalised in any other edition. It is the
practice for the first word in each chapter to be capitalised and as a new
paragraph begins at 17: 12 this may be the reason for capitals here. However,
new paragraphs are indicated by the ¶ symbol and capitals are not needed.
Acts 19:37
For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess.
Critics claim “robbers of
churches” to be wrongly translated. The Greek word is hierosulous and should read “robbers of temples”. But the Ephesians
recognised only one temple, that of Diana. It is clear that the word has a
broader meaning here and so the AV men used “church” in the sense allowed by
the O E D.—“Applied to other (chiefly
modern) religious societies and organisations”. An example of older usage is
seen in Sir Thomas More ( In Heresyes,
1528: “Ye doo persecute them as the
churche of the Paynims [i.e. pagans] did”
So we understand that Paul could
not be charged with desecrating any
religious buildings.
The defect is not in the
translation but in the understanding of those who criticise it.
*****
Is the King James Version Perfect?
When a salesman disparages his
wares, we think his business must be in trouble, or perhaps he is going to
change his line. M Penfold of Penfold Book and Bible House finds fault with the
Holy Bible in a leaflet titled Is the
King James Version Perfect? Is his attack on the Authorized Version because
he now sells the perverted NKJV, we ask? What else drives a man to attack the
word of God? Mr Penfold has for many years sold only
the Authorized Version of the Holy Bible, together with a range of books
defending the AV Bible. He published a leaflet in 1994 with the title The N.I.V. and G.N.B. Shocking – Exposé- in which he used the AV
Bible as a standard by which to judge the NIV and the GNB. Furthermore, in this
leaflet he gave “Seven Reasons for Keeping to the Authorized Version”.
The first reason is “Its New
Testament is based on what is now called the Textus Receptus (sometimes called
Majority, Traditional or Byzantine Text). This text is backed up by 95% of all
Greek manuscripts. It is accurate and has been faithfully preserved.” Mr
Penfold now denies this but hasn’t given any evidence why he now thinks this to
be false.
The second reason “it is a formal
equivalence translation, as near word for word as possible”. So we plainly
shall find nothing better.
Thirdly, “It was translated by a
committee of spiritual scholars of unparalleled learning”. That means even yet
unsurpassed, including the NKJV committee.
Fourthly, “It emphasises the
deity and Lordship of Christ.
Fifthly, “It is free from doctrinal error”.
Sixthly, “It has no verses or
passages missing”. So what is this nonsense of looking for other manuscripts,
if we have it all and it is accurate? We note that the NKJV subtly questions
the authenticity of forty-five verses in its margin.
Seventhly, “It is easier to
memorise, and easier to read than the NIV”.
In his current attack on the AV he points out
what he thinks are mistakes in the Bible. He refers to the Bible as the “KJV”.
He mocks those who believe this Bible to be wholly the word of God, describing
them as “KJV onlyites”.
If Mr Penfold insists that he is
not referring to the Holy Bible but to a version of it, he falls foul of the
trade descriptions act, for he has sold AV Bibles with the words “Holy Bible”
stamped upon the cover.
The words “Holy Bible” imply that
within the covers of the book is to be found the whole word of God without
error, without loss and without addition. This is the view held for hundreds of
years, now under attack in these closing days of God’s grace.
In order to attack the Holy
Bible, Penfold describes an American group that he has stumbled upon, “mainly
independent Baptists from the USA, [who] have come to hold an erroneous view
that the KJV is not just a very good, or even the best translation in the
English language, but that it is absolutely perfect and faultless.” But we suggest that the true Bible believer
will indeed have such an implicit trust in his Bible, and this is the historic
position.
Penfold alleges that one of the
leaders of this “KJV Only” movement is Dr Peter Ruckman of Florida, This thrice
married man, who holds to a number of strange doctrines does not lead any but
his own little cult as Mr Penfold knows very well, having spent some time in
his home in Florida. He is not representative of the vast majority of Bible
believers. Am I to reject my Bible because M Penfold has found a few extremists
who make false claims for it? Of course not, we are told, “a simpler solution
would be to update words whose meanings have changed.” An attempt to do this
was made with the NKJV, with disastrous results. Then there will have to be
another update next year as language changes even more. The salesman finds he
cannot make a living from one unchangeable Book!
M Penfold responded to my request
for a copy of his leaflet with these words,
….I have only
had two written responses to my leaflet. One from D- and one from A- , both
fanatical Ruckmanites. Speaks for itself. Other than that a good number of more
balanced folks have spoken of great help received.
….I can just
see the next edition of Waymarks with the main headline "Penfold
apostatises"- however, I have long believed that KJV perfectionism is an
error and a divisive one at that, and having seen some of the damage it has
done I decided to balance the ship as far as our own booklist is concerned and
publicly make it clear that while we stand for the TR and the KJV we do not
accept the perfection theory.
Regards,
Michael
Michael knows that Waymarks does
not carry main headlines. He says that he has “long believed that KJV
perfectionism is an error” but we can remember NOT SO LONG AGO that Michael
tenaciously defended the position he now rejects. As far as “Penfold apostasies”
is concerned, we need only to add, “you said it!”. But we do not believe every
person who questions the integrity of the AV Bible is an apostate. Some are
believers who have been misled and misinformed by other brethren. Some are
young believers, confused by the barrage of modern versionism put up by Satan.
Michael doesn’t say what is this
damage done by having a total trust in one Bible mightily blessed of God over
hundreds of years. He doesn’t explain why believing in a perfect Bible is
divisive. But we have seen the damage done to the faith of young believers who
are told by leading brethren “the AV is wrong here”. And there is nothing so
divisive as the proliferation of modern versions. He assumes that only
unbalanced folk will write for his leaflet.
We wonder what kind of people are
they who are helped by being told the Authorized Version Bible is defective in
thousands of places. Are they pleased to learn that the Bible mightily blessed
and used of God for 400 years is at last proved to be faulty? How can a
thoroughly negative piece of writing help anybody apart from the writer, who
charges folk 30p a time to read it?
Here is another strange thing ¾ many
of the supposed errors discovered by Mr Penfold are well answered in some of
the books he sells! Is he not familiar with his own goods? Does he not believe
in them? Two I have in front of me are Unholy
Hands on God’s Holy Book by David Cloud, and The King James Version Defended by E F Hills. These are highly
recommended to the believer who wants the answers to the malicious smears being
made against the Holy Bible Authorized Version.
Now here are some of errors that
Michael lists.
“The 1850 KJV differs from the
1611 edition in 75,000 details.” He
doesn’t tell his readers that very nearly ALL of those 75,000 involve changed
spelling; v to u, so “vntill” becomes
“until” and sometimes u is changed to v, as “euill” becomes “evil”. f becomes
s, and I becomes j.
Dr Waite points out that only 421
changes can be detected by the ear. Penfold draws attention to this as a Big
Thing. He forgets to tell his readers that there are 791328 words in the AV
Bible. That’s about 0.05% of the words changed sufficiently for the ear to
detect. It doesn’t imply that the meanings of these words has changed. Out of those
421, only 136 are actually different words. An example is “…he came and
worshipped him” (Mark 5:6) becomes he
ran and worshipped him.
Of course there were printer’s
errors made in 1611AD. What a miracle that there were not more with printing
then in its infancy. But these were discovered and corrected in later editions.
One has to be very devious to suggest that printer’s errors are mistakes in the
word of God.
M Penfold has built up his straw
man, calling him a “KJVOnly advocate” and advises his readers to ask what he
thinks is an unanswerable question, “where was God’s word in 1610?”. M Penfold
then puts his answers into the mouth of Mr Strawman but fails to give the
answer any Bible believer will give. Where was the word of God in 1610AD? It
was in the hands of believers on the Continent. The Waldensians for 1000years
had their Old Latin translation based on what became known as the Received
Text. That is, their Bible was the same as mine, the word of God.
Thus it is a misnomer to call
English speaking Bible believers “KJV Only advocates.”. God has not promised to
maintain His word in every known language across the world at all times. But
there never has been a time when the word of God was not available in its
entirety to believers somewhere in the world. At present the Authorized Bible
is the only faithful translation in the English tongue (and in this, I do
believe, it is superior to any Bible in any other language.) I find no
substitute for my AV Bible so if M Penfold wants to mock me for it let him
continue.
M Penfold speaks of imperfections
in the Holy Bible. (Sorry Michael, MY Bible IS the Holy Bible and ONE
imperfection¾one
fly in the ointment¾would
cause it to stink, to become unholy.). These “imperfections” were answered 100
years ago. The imperfections are in the darkened minds of those who seek to
savage the word of God.
This offensive leaflet closes
with a quote from J Burgon. It is quoted
out of context making us think that M Penfold had not troubled himself
to read J Burgon beforehand.
He quotes
“…that by perpetual
miracle, sacred manuscripts would be protected all down the ages against
depraving influences of whatever sort, was not to have been expected; certainly
was never promised” (The Revision Revised, p.335)
The quote
presented in this manner is dishonest and deceitful for Burgon in the very next
sentence wrote,
“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.
“What, in the
meantime, is to be thought of those blind guides¾those deluded ones¾who
would now, if they could, persuade us to go back to those same codices of which
the Church hath already purged herself? To go back in quest of those very
Readings which, 15 or 1600 years ago, the Church in all lands is found to have rejected with loathing.
The NKJV (sold
by Penfold Book and Bible House, but not listed in his catalogue) is certainly
a step back into those depraving influences, which were recognised for what
they are from the beginning.
Another argument
used in the Penfold leaflet is that some passages are “almost impossible to
understand without a study aid of some kind. What use is a ‘perfect’ English
translation if you can’t understand parts of it? Take for instance II Cor
6v11-13. What does this mean…?”
Most of us have
a very good study aid; we were taught to read English when we were children.
When a man claims to have been saved a quarter of a century or more and then
asks, what does this mean? We ask, has he only just started reading his Bible.
Did he not discover the answer years ago? Did he not have an elder or a father
to explain it to him?
In any case, the
AV is written in plainer and simpler English than any modern version. Peter
wrote concerning Paul’s epistles, in
which are some things hard to be understood (2 Peter 3: 16). It may be that
this is the crux of the matter. To understand the English Bible one must be
saved and one must apply spiritual discernment and one must wait on the Lord in
prayer and meditation. The Holy Spirit teaches us all things.
Penfold closes
with a false surmise;
If God, before the invention of printing, kept His
promise of preservation by letting the word of God exist as a complete entity
across thousands of manuscripts, but not in any single perfect manuscript,
there is no need, nor is it possible, to confer infallibility on one English
translation today.
So is God then
the Author of confusion? All should know that by the middle of the 2nd
Century the New Testament writings were collected in one Book. It was available
in the Syriac tongue, and in Old Latin.
These were in agreement with each other and have been referred to by some as
the Byzantine Text.
J Moorman, in
his book For Ever Settled, says
The King James Bible had hardly begun its career before
the enemies commenced to fall upon it.
Though it has been with us for [more than] three hundred years in
splendid leadership —a striking phenomenon—nevertheless, as the years increase,
the attacks became more furious. If the
Book were a dangerous document, a source of corrupting influence and a
nuisance, we would wonder why it has been necessary to assail it since it would
naturally die of its own weakness. But when it is a Divine blessing of great
worth, a faultless power of transforming influence, who can they be who are so
stirred up as to deliver against it one assault after another. (p. 191)
*****
A Printer’s Error
Does a printer's
error in one edition mean that the AV Bible is defective? Then throw away your
Zodhiates Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, published by AMG Publishers,
Chatanooga, USA. In this Bible your conversation is no longer required to be
honest among the Gentiles, for we read, at 1 Peter 2:12 “Having your conversation
among the Gentiles.”
Also in this
edition,
“firstbegotten”
becomes “first-begotten”
At the end of
Hebrews 1:10 the colon is replaced by a full stop.
In Hebrews 1:11
the first semicolon is changed to a comma and the second semicolon is changed
to a colon.
“stedfast” in Hebrews 2:2 becomes “steadfast”, and
“recompence” becomes “recompense”.
I compared only two passages but
there is enough to tell us that the Zodhiates text has been edited. Note the
statement in the preface:
I. The text is the most commonly
used King James Version.
The
Newberry AV Bible is not a standard AV Bible either.
“who”
becomes italicised in Newberry at Hebrews 1:1 and “unto” becomes unto”
“Hath”
is decapitalized, and his becomes His in v2 and the second “hath” is
italicised.
This pattern
continues throughout. The translators of the 1611AD Bible were very careful.
Where an English word was needed to give a proper meaning to a passage but was
not found in the Greek then they italicised the word so that all might be
aware.
Newberry was not satisfied with
this arrangement so as well as giving misleading marginal notes, he also
modified the AV text.
*****
The Authorized Version is not merely a Revision
Modern
Versionists often allege that the AV is merely a revision of the 15th
C. versions, namely the Bishop’s Bible, Geneva Bible etc. The allegation is
made on the basis of a statement made by the Translators and found in their Translators to the Reader. They wrote,
We never thought from the
beginning that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a
bad one a good one, but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones,
one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our
endeavour, that our mark.
This
statement, wrenched out of context, has been taken to mean that the AV Bible is
no more than a revision of earlier English versions. This is not a new view.
Sir James Burges in 1818 quoted the above statement and proclaimed that
The authors….fulfilled [King James I’s] intentions,
not by making a new Translation, the remotest design of doing which they
disclaimed, but by collating and revising the former Translations. A Vindication of our Authorized Translation;
1819; J H Todd; p.13.
Todd
laid to rest this misinformation in his book published in 1819. Any today may
see Burges’s error simply by reading Translators
to the Reader for themselves. In it we find described the manner in which
the AV Translators set about their work. I give a brief account below.
The translators worked in
groups of six. Each group had a particular section of the Greek or Hebrew
Scriptures to translate. They started therefore, with either the Masoretic or
the Greek Received Text in front of them. A passage would be read audibly and
if all were in agreement the reading continued. Any member might challenge at
any point and then all would consider the precise translation required. They
used all the helps available and were free to approach other scholars not
involved in the translation. They looked at the Vulgate of Jerome, and at the
Septuagint but they were not bound by them. In fact they confessed to their
gross imperfections.
When all the group
were agreed they would move on. Each group would then check the work of the
other groups. So they arrived at a translation
in which all were agreed. Difficult words or phrases were to be noted in the
margin.
Having
established a sound translation they resolved not to change the English of
Tyndale and Coverdale where they adequately expressed the true meaning of their
translation.
They
were not interested a new Translation as such, but that one good Bible might be
produced to replace the numerous other English versions.
Todd
tells us that Selden, a contemporary of the Translators, wrote in his Works,iii. 2009, The English Translation
of the Bible [AV] is the best Translation in the world, and renders the sense
of the Original best, taking in for the English Translation the Bishops’ Bible,
as well as King James’s. This verdict was based on a scholarly examination of the
Translation.
Todd
also writes of the comments of Dr Geddes, that “The highest eulogiums have been
made on the Translation of James the First both by our own writers, and by
foreigners. And indeed, if accuracy, fidelity, and the strictest attention to the
letter of the text, be supposed to constitute the qualities of an excellent
Version, this of all versions, must, in general, be accounted the most
excellent. Every sentence, every word, every syllable, every letter and point,
seem to have been weighed with the nicest exactitude, and expressed either in
the text, or margin, with the greatest precision.”
Again,
“Their reverence for the Sacred Scriptures induced them to be as literal as
they could, to avoid obscurity; and it must be acknowledged, that they were
extremely happy in the simplicity and dignity of their expressions. Their
adherence to the Hebrew idiom is supposed at once to have enriched and adorned
our language.”
*****
Contemporary English Version
“Contemporary” means
something for the present time—just a passing fad. The CEV was first published
in 1991 (NT) and 1995 (OT). The edition in front of me is the HarperCollins
2000.
There
is no indication given to the reader as to the underlying Hebrew/Greek Texts.
It is not the Received Text of the AV Bible. However the introduction tells us,
The CEV is reliable,
because the translation team has done its homework. (p.ix)
The leader of the
translation team was Barclay Newman, a liberal rationalist, who expressed his
hostility towards fundamentalism and despised the evangelical faith.
The
deep unreliability if the version is seen throughout but we note in particular
Phil.2: 6,7. The AV reads, Who, being in
the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself
of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the
likeness of men:
The
CEV reads “Christ was truly God. But he did not try to remain equal with God.
Instead he gave up everything and became a slave, when he became like one of
us”.
This
is a highly blasphemous statement. It tells us that in Manhood Christ
surrendered His deity (which includes His inability to sin) and became a
sinner—like every member of the human race. Men are slaves to sin.
*****
New Testament in Modern English
By J B
Phillips
This
is the J B Phillips paraphrase, first published in 1960. I have the paperback
HarperCollins edition, published in 2000.
This
work is a paraphrase and not a translation. Phillips was not a Greek scholar.
He began in classics at Cambridge but had to switch to English in which he
graduated with a second class honours.
He
begins his introduction by stating,
I would like to make it
clear to my readers that this new edition is in fact a new translation from the
latest and best Greek text published by the United Bible Societies in 1966.
Thus this work may be
rejected at the first sentence. (but I have spent some time reading through
it). It contains all the errors and mutilations of Scripture found in versions
following the UBS text. (For example, see 1 Tim. 3:16 etc., There is no Acts 8:
37).
But
of the man himself this has been said; J B Phillips was a universalist,
believing that all men are the children of God; He denied that hell is a place
of eternal torment; he believed that new birth is a mere “change of outlook”;
he believed that demons are merely the “storm centre of the personality”; he
denied the Blood Atonement; he did not believe the Bible is faultless and he
denied verbal inspiration; he did not believe Satan to be a real creature; he
denied and questioned many of the Bible’s miracles; he called the ascension of
Christ a parable. — quoted from the Fundamental
Baptist Library CD-ROM.
*****
Biblical Separation
We are to separate
ourselves from:-
·
Those who are
unsound as to the doctrine of Christ. Receive
not such (2 John 9:11). There are those who teach that the Lord, while here
on earth, was capable of sinning. Others teach that His incarnation was by
means of a foetal implant in the womb of Mary. Those who teach a limited
atonement (that Christ did not die for all) deny the work of Christ. Any
entertaining false notions concerning the deity and perfect humanity of Christ
must not be received.
·
Those who peddle
false doctrine. Reject (Titus 3:10).
It is not only the doctrine we reject, but the heretic himself. Those who teach
the “Gap Theory” undermine the doctrine of salvation, denying that sin entered
into the world by one man. Reformed Theology is also false teaching. The
doctrine that the inspiration of Scripture pertains only to the original
documents reflects upon the integrity of God. The insinuation that the Bible
contains errors is evil.
·
Those who foster
divisions. Avoid them (Romans 16:
17). It is NOT divisive to hold to the one Bible that has brought about the
conversion of multitudes through the last 400 years. It is divisive to bring
modern versions into the assemblies of God’s people.
·
Those who walk
out of rank and will not obey the word. Withdraw
from such (2 Thes. 3: 6,14). These men deny the apostolic tradition; they
refuse the faith once and for all delivered. They are disobedient to the
Scriptures. They sit in judgment on the word of God.
We
learn of certain of our chief brethren who will not read publicly certain
verses of Scripture because they judge then to be erroneous. Some of them also
hold to Calvinistic doctrine and are dedicated to preserving a religious system
rather than upholding the truth. It does not remain possible to maintain
fellowship with these individuals. If this is regarded as harsh or legalistic
it will be a judgment on the Book which directs us to conduct ourselves thus.
*****
Calvinism judged greater than the Bible
The Rev Canon Ian Pulford, writing to the English
Churchman, in the Jan25/Feb1 2002 issue, speaks of “…the Reformed Faith on
which the Word of God, the Bible, and the Book of Common Prayer are based…”
One needs to be aware that there
are some who really do think that Calvin was greater than Moses, the Prophets
and the Apostle Paul, and that the Bible was based on his teaching. It is
probably not accidental that this writer treats the word of God and the Bible
as two separate entities, both on a par with a sectarian prayer book.
Say, Christian, wouldst thou thrive
Say Christian, wouldst thou thrive Revere the sacred
page;
In knowledge of the Lord? To
injure any part
Against
no Scripture ever strive, Betrays, with
blind and feeble rage,
But tremble at His word. A
hard and haughty heart
If aught
there dark appear The
Scriptures and the Lord
Bewail thy want of sight; Bear one tremendous name;
No
imperfections can be there The
written and the incarnate Word
For all God’s words are right. In all
things are the same.
(Joseph Hart)
Waymarks is published quarterly and is sent out as a tract. 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 without alteration
but acknowledgements should be given.
|
http://members.aol.com/waymarks
email: waymarks@aol.com |
|
All Correspondence to:- Ron Smith
c/o Waymarks
8 Newbury Close Luton Beds LU4 9QJ |
No comments:
Post a Comment