Page 72 - Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible Christianity. Based on the King James Bible

BIBLE VERSIONS

the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, the Atonement, Inspiration, solve a problem of divergent textual readings by prayer
or Preservation); we only have to believe God’s Word. or by the inner illumination of the Holy Spirit; but only
Our faith must therefore be in God, not in man (i.e., not by an extensive knowledge and skill in the science of
in human scholarship, in the KJV translators, in textual criticism” (Ladd, The New Testament and
Erasmus, or in John Burgon or some other defender of Criticism, 1967, p. 81). This is an unbelieving position.
the traditional Reformation text). The Bible is a supernatural and spiritual Book and
7. I believe in trembling before God’s Word (Ps. nothing about it can be known apart from the
138:2; Pr. 30:6; Is. 66:2; Re. 22:18-19). The Scripture is application of spiritual tools.
not an ordinary book; it is the Word of the Living God Though some evangelicals and fundamentalists who
and as such one must exercise extreme caution in use textual criticism might claim that they also are
handling it. Even to tamper with the words of a human following the Holy Spirit, the principles of textual
author is a serious matter and there are laws against it, criticism are contrary to this. David Sorenson observes:
but how much more serious is it to tamper with the “Some proponents of the critical text may claim that the
words of Almighty God! I have read dozens of books by Holy Spirit has led them as well. However, the working
textual critics, and there simply is no fear of God in their editors of the critical text are steeped in rationalistic
approach to the words of Scripture. The textual critic philosophy and scientific reconstruction of the text.
approach is strictly a matter of human scholarship and Their entire philosophical base is not inclined to such a
the Bible is simply another book. Fundamentalist notion of seeking the leading of the
8. I believe in the necessity of the Holy Spirit (1 Co. Holy Spirit” (Touch Not the Unclean Thing, p. 58, f 30).
2:12-16; 1 Jn. 2:20, 27). Apart from the Holy Spirit, WHY WE HOLD TO THE KING JAMES BIBLE
nothing about the Bible can be properly understood. 1. WE HOLD TO THE KING JAMES BIBLE BECAUSE
Unregenerate men who lack the Spirit are not qualified THE MODERN CRITICAL TEXT CAME FROM EGYPT, A
in this field. The book From the Mind of God to the Mind HOTBED OF THEOLOGICAL HERESY.
of Man claims that it doesn’t matter if textual critics are The Greek text underlying the modern versions can
skeptics. “… a textual critic may be an unbeliever when be traced to Egypt in the early centuries following the
it comes to the Bible’s doctrinal truths. But when it death of the apostles. It is called the Alexandrian text
comes to the Bible’s text--to this question of the Bible’s after the Egyptian city of Alexandria, which was a center
words--a textual critic is initially little more than a of learning during the early centuries of the church age.
reporter” (From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man, p. The article “Textual Criticism and the Alexandrian Text”
71). In his mistitled book “The Truth of the King James at the www.earlham.edu web site summarizes the
Only Controversy,” BJU professor Stewart Custer standard view of modern textual criticism as follows:
uncritically cites the following men in his “Select
Bibliography” -- Bruce Metzger, Kurt Aland, Eberhard “This text arose in Egypt and is generally conceded
to be the most important one. Westcott and Hort,
Nestle, Alexander Souter, B.F. Westcott, and F.J.A. Hort. who named this the Neutral Text, thought that
He does not think it is important that his readers know Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus had
that to a man these critics blatantly denied the infallible preserved a pure form of the Alexandrian type of
inspiration of Scripture. This approach is wrongheaded text.” Jacobus Petzer admits: “… the vast majority
in the extreme! A wise position was that of Joseph of textual scholars today agrees that the
Philpot, Fellow of Worcester College, Oxford, and editor Alexandrian text is most probably the closest
of The Gospel Standard. In 1857 he gave six reasons representative of the original text available
against a revision of the KJV, the first being that the today” (Petzer, “The History of the New Testament
biblical scholars of that day were “notoriously either Text,” New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis
tainted with popery or infidelity” (Joseph Charles and Church History, edited by B. Aland and J.
Delobel, 1994, p. 25). And Peter van Minnen, in
Philpot, “The Authorized Version of 1611,” The Gospel Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts,
Standard, April 1857). That was true then and it is even concludes: “It is to be noticed that all the
truer today. Philpot then asked an important rhetorical manuscripts listed above come from Egypt. The
question, “And can erroneous men, dead in trespasses papyri … Sinaiticus … B [Vaticanus] … We owe the
and sins, carnal, worldly, ungodly persons, spiritually early Egyptian Christians an immense
translate a book written by the blessed Spirit?” The debt” (http://www.clt.astate.edu/wnarey/Bible
biblical answer is NO! %20as%20Literature%20documents/
Modern textual criticism, which gave us the modern content2.htm).
Bible versions, is not founded upon dependency upon Egypt is not the place where the Spirit of God gave
faith or the Holy Spirit or any of the aforementioned the New Testament Scriptures. God chose to the deliver
things. Textual critic George Ladd wrote: “One does not the Scriptures to churches in Palestine, Syria, Asia

72 Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible & Christianity