PART THREE: RIDERS OF THE WRECKING MACHINE

THE REFORMATION AFFIRMED THE INERRANCY OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS COPIES During the 16th century Reformation Martin Luther, John Calvin and their followers said the Catholic insistence that the Church itself was equal to or above the Scriptures was wrong.  The reformers said that only the Bible can be our authority. This doctrine was called Sola Scriptura. The Roman Catholic Church challenged the Sola Scriptura of the Reformation in the Council of Trent (1545-63) by pointing out the scribal errors, and different readings in the copies of Scripture they had then. The Catholics apparently did not believe that the copies they possessed were inerrant.  The Reformers met this serious challenge by saying clearly and strongly that the copies of Scriptures they had were infallible and inerrant because of God's promise to preserve His words . In response to the Council of Trent, the Westminster Confession of Faith (1643) stated on the subject of the continuing infallibility and inerrancy of  copies Scripture that "The Old Testament in Hebrew … and the New Testament in Greek … being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them." The main Bible verse cited was Matthew 5:18, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." To go back to the argument that only the original autographs were inerrant is to give up one of the most important foundations of the Protestant Reformation. In giving that up, the mainstream evangelicals have opened the door for apostasy. The following is a quote from the preface to the 1611 King James version: The translators remark that the Roman Church made endless translations, each one more corrupt than the former: ". . .that certain Catholics. . .were in such an humor of translating the Scriptures into Latin, that Satan taking occasion by them, though they thought of no such matter, did strive what he could, out of so uncertain and manifold a variety of Translations, so to mingle all things, that nothing might seem to be left certain and firm in them, etc. . .What is to have the faith of our glorious Lord JESUS CHRIST with Yea or Nay, if this be not? Again, what is sweet harmony and consent, if this be?" That is exactly what the Westcott-Hort Wrecking  Machine has done.  It has made the New Testament  uncertain for the readers of the modern translations - and therefore  it has been successful  in weakening the authority of the Bible. WESTCOTT-HORT FOLLOWERS SAY  KJV HAS ARCHAIC LANGUAGE Many seminary trained people say the 17th century English of the King James is not understandable.  There are at least 827 words and phrases in the days of King James that have changed their meaning or are no longer used in our modern, everyday English language, such as  suffer, filthy lucre, quick, lunatick, wax, charity, But the meaning of these words can be understood, sometimes by the context in which they are used. Suffer means to allow something to occur. Filthy lucre is money. Wax is grow, and charity is the translation of agape love. It meaning is not limited to doing work for someone for free. They say the King James has archaic English  words.  2 John 10 is one example some opponents of the King James use as an example, which reads: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed"(KJV). "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him" (NIV). D. A. Carlson says "The plain truth of the matter is that the version that is so cherished among senior saints who have more or less come to terms with Elizabethan English, is obscure, confusing, and sometimes even incomprehensible to many younger or poorly educated Christians...For any preacher or theologian who loves God's Word to allow that Word to go on being misunderstood because of the veneration of an archaic, not-understood version of four centuries ago is inexcusable, and almost unconscionable' " (The King James Version Debate: A Plea For Realism, D. A. Carlson, Baker Book House, 1979, pp. 101,102) But some King James Version people say: The King James enemies are also wrong on its Elizabethian English.  After nearly four centuries, so little can be found to be archaic. Certainly there are "profound differences" between current and Elizabethan English. But, the language of the King James is not exactly  Elizabethan English! As a comparison will show, there is a great difference between King James English and the wordy, complex and often ambiguous Elizabethan style.  The English language after 1611 owes its development in part to the Authorized Version! "The King James Version was a model for the development of the English language. Its elegant but simple style had  an influence on English-speaking writers" (World Book Encyclopedia). This partially explains why the King James  English is more alive and  explicit while most other literary-type texts  from that period  are more  difficult to read. The English of the King James Version is not the English of the early 17th century.  It is biblical English, which was not used on ordinary occasions even by the translators who produced the King James Version. As H. Wheeler Robinson (1940) pointed out, one need only compare the preface written by the translators with the text of their translation to feel the difference in style.  The King James Version owes its greatness not to 17th-century English - which was very difficult - but to its faithful translation of the original. Its style is that of the Hebrew and of the New Testament Greek. Even in their use of thee and thou the translators were not following 17th-century English usage but biblical usage, for at the time these translators were doing their work these singular forms had already been replaced by the plural you in polite conversation (The King James Version Defended, Des Moines: Christian Research Press, 1984, pp. 218). Ye is a more exact word, for example, that calling a bunch of people you, because we use you to address a single individual. Here is the beginning of the preface to the KJV written by the KJV translators: "Zeal to promote the common good, whether it be by devising anything ourselves, or revising that which hath been laboured by others, deserveth certainly much respect and esteem, but yet findeth but cold entertainment in the world. It is welcomed with suspicion instead of love, and with emulation instead of thanks: and if there be any hole left for cavil to enter, (and cavil, if it do not find a hole, will make one) it is sure to be misconstrued, and in danger to be condemned. This will easily be granted by as many as know story, or have any experience." This is not the writing style the KJV translators used for their translation. The words of the King James version are often more lucid than those of the NIV. The writing style in the Preface is more complex than that of the 1611 King James Version Bible, whose wording is less complex and often more exact.  The style of the preface is more ambiguous to a modern reader, though it has some interesting points.   Cavil  they say "if it do not find a hole, will make one," for  example.    Cavil means to find a fault in something without good reason, to quibble.  The advocates of the new translations say the King James Version is flawed for modern readers because of its archaic language. And they say that the new translations with their modern English have all the doctrines of the Bible. ELABORATION IN THE KING JAMES If you compare  verses from the King James to those of the modern translations, you will find that many verses in the NIV and other modern versions are shorter, more abbreviated and not amplified or elaborated as much. The reason why the verses in the new versions are shorter, though not always, is because the Greek text behind the new versions generally has shorter wordings.  I will show this later with such texts as I John 5: 7-8 as examples.  Westcott and Hort set up their critical rules so that the shorter wording of verses in the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus would be used rather than the longer and more amplified or elaborated wordings of the Textus Receptus.  In the Bible, God often amplifies a thought as he chooses words to connect to  the mind, and  to communicate the  holiness and the inspiration linked with holiness. The human mind can more easily learn and remember a thought that is amplified and elaborated than a thought that is presented only in a very brief way.  I know that sometimes we can communicate more clearly with statements that are brief, but if we know our subject matter and can use words well, we can be more clear by expanding on that thought and associating it with different other ideas.  A person who at first  knows little of New Testament doctrines should be better able to learn and remember those doctrines from reading them in the King James than from the NIV or other modern versions. In part, this is because of the greater elaboration of the thoughts in the King James. So, after becoming more familiar with the 17th century English of the King James, a person wanting to learn  New Testament teachings can learn them more fully from the longer and more elaborated verses in the KJV  than from the shorter verses of the new versions. The King James reader may also be better able to remember the gist meanings of those doctrines than the reader of the NIV.  This is really an empirical question, and could be tested in experiments. Now, a person who has not read the Bible over and over for a time will have some difficulty in remembering exactly what verses say and exactly how a New Testament doctrine is stated.  Here again, the longer, more elaborated verses of the King James should help that person re-learn the verses and the doctrines, while reading them in the NIV should be of somewhat less help in the re-learning process.  Remember that the new versions play down, dilute, abbreviate and weaken some New Testament doctrines.  The teaching that Christ who is fully God and is always omnipresent but  took on the flesh of man in the material world to save us from our sin is one of these doctrines that is played down and weakened in the new translations.  This is because it is weakened in the Westcott-Hort Greek text. The longer wording of some verses in the King James,  its greater amplification and elaboration of meanings is one quality.  The actual individual words used is another issue dividing the King James Version from the modern versions. THE SPIRITUALLY POWERFUL WORDS OF THE KING JAMES Isaiah 66: 5  "Hear the word of the Lord, ye that tremble at his word:  your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said Let the Lord be glorified:  but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed." The English words that the King James translators chose to use in translating Hebrew and Greek words describe the nature of God and the doctrines God wants us to follow.  The words the translators chose work well upon the human mind, on our intellect as well as on our emotions. The words of the King James are effective and powerful in arousing awe for the Lord and in creating faith, at least in those who fully believe in that word of God. The King James English words  can put believers into a closer relation to God, to his greatness and can lead us to become more holy as God is holy.  The words can inspire us to separate from our own sins and from sinners and those who hold false doctrines. The KJV's words can help put us into a spiritual relation with  Jesus Christ, who is "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher..." Hebrews 7: 26 says "For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate  from sinners, and made higher than the heavens." On the other hand the words of the NIV tend to be more the uninspired and secular words of modern people in the world of the universities, the media, government and big business.  Of course, the promoters of the new Bible translations will say this is one of the reasons we should use the NIV, since  it uses the language of our time which we understand and not the "archaic" language of the old King James. Many of the words used in the NIV and in  other new versions are shown by Edinburgh University's Associative Thesaurus to be unholy, harmful, defiled, and anything but separate from sinners. That is, the associations these words evoke tend to be more unholy, harmful,  and defiled.  The KJV fulfills Tyndale's wish that the final English Bible "seek in certain places more proper English" (Dore, 2nd ed, pp. 23-24). Tyndale scholar, David Daniell agrees that "the Authorized Version's scholars tended to remove the Bible safely away from daily life" (Daniell, p. xiii). To fulfill God's requirement that man, "tremble at my word," it must be recognizable as his word. A close look at words such as – unto, ought, nought, wrought, twain, holpen, shambles, wist, hath, hough, flower, and servant – gives the reader insight into some of the qualities words in the King James use to put readers into contact with the Holy Spirit's communication to us.  How many have gone 'to' church, but not "unto" Christ? Although the KJV has a few special big  words, like "atonement" and "remission," most of its words are shorter than those in new versions and old English Bibles. . Isaiah 49: 2 says  "And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword:  in the shadow of his hand hath he hid me, and made me a polished shaft: in his quiver hath he hid me." Isaiah 49: 2 is saying that God can give us words to speak that penetrate sharply  into  minds and spirit.  And that is what happened to the King James translators who were inspired as they chose English words to translate those of Hebrew and Greek. Hebrews 4: 12 teaches that "...the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow,  and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Are the words of the NIV as faithful to Hebrews 4: 12 as are those of the King James?  Do the words of the NIV penetrate our minds, hearts and spirit to awaken us spiritually as those of the KJV do for those who fully believe?  And - don't forget, that the words of the NIV may not arouse us to fully believe as well as those of the KJV.  H.L. Mencken says , "The prevalence of very short words in English...[a] succinct, straightforward and simple tongue - in some of its aspects, in fact almost as a kind of baby-talk" In fact, English often does use fewer words and syllables than other languages  to describe something.  And it can be more lucid, explicit and specific in the meanings it conveys. I Peter 1: 23 speaks of being born again by the incorruptable word of God.  The words of the King James  can not only put us more easily into a spiritual contact with the Lord of glory, but the rhythms of the King James language are inspiring and help us remember scripture better. Children like the speech rhythms of the King James. Although T. S. Eliot may not have been the best Christian, he was a poet and understood language.  He said  that elevated writing, like that seen in the Bible, has a "...feeling for syllable and rhythm, penetrating far below the conscious levels of thought and feelings, invigorating every word" (Adam Nicolson, God's  Secretaries, NYC: HarperCollins, 2003, p. 223). Eliot is not talking about the writing style of the NIV, but about the King James. Albert Cook states that, "When we think of the high repute in which the Authorized Version is held by men of learning and renown, we must remember, too, that in a special sense it has been the great book of the poor and unlettered. The one book that every household was sure to possess was the Bible [KJV]...To many a poor man the English Bible has been a university, the kindly mother from whom he has drawn...a way of great speech" (The Cambridge History of English Literature, vol. 4, pp. 178-180). Again, H.L. Mencken, who was an unbeliever, has this to say about the King James: "It is the most beautiful of all the translations of the Bible; indeed it is probably the most beautiful piece of writing in all the literature of the world...[M]any learned but misguided men have sought to produce translations...in the plain speech of everyday. But the Authorized Version has never yielded to any of them, for it is palpably and overwhelmingly better than they are, just as it is better than the Greek New Testament, or the Vulgate, or the Septuagint. Its English is extraordinarily simple, pure, eloquent, and lovely. It is a mine of lordly and incomparable poetry, at once the most stirring and the most touching ever heard of" (Paine, p. viii). Here is an unbeliever praising the King James, while many of  those who say they are believers stick to the Westcott-Hort derived new versions, and do not agree with H. L. Mencken.  The advocates of the Westcott-Hort Wrecking Machine call us "King James Only" people and imply that we are authoritarians.  They say we want to control them and force the King James on them.

Reply