textfiles/occult/CHRISTIAN/myth4.txt

[The following material is published by Way of Life Literature and is 
copyrighted by David W. Cloud, 1986. All rights are reserved. Permission is 
given for duplication for personal use, but not for resale. The following 
is available in booklet format from Way of Life Literature, Bible Baptist 
Church, 1219 N. Harns Road, Oak Harbor, Washington 98277. Phone (206) 675-
8311. This article is number four in a set of five booklets.]

MYTHS ABOUT THE KING JAMES BIBLE: 

Copyright 1986 by David W. Cloud. All rights reserved.

MYTH # 4: INSPIRATION IS PERFECT, BUT PRESERVATION IS GENERAL
By David W. Cloud

CHAPTER 1
THE NATURALISTIC VIEW OF PRESERVATION 

Another popular myth surrounding the King James Bible is the concept that 
while God inspired the Scriptures perfectly, He has preserved the 
Scriptures only in a more general sense. To put this another way, while 
inspiration was miraculous, preservation has been merely circumstantial. 

This thinking is common among evangelicals. It is also common among 
fundamentalists who have been trained in many of the large colleges and 
seminaries of our land. These contend that though the Bible was verbally 
inspired and infallible in the original autographs, there is no 
truly perfect Bible today. According to this position, none of the various 
editions of the Greek and Hebrew texts, nor the translations thereof, are 
absolutely perfect.

EXAMPLES OF THE POPULAR VIEW

Harold Lindsell exemplifies this persuasion. Lindsell is in the mainstream 
of the evangelical movement. He was vice-president of Fuller Theological 
Seminary; he taught at Columbia Bible College and at Northern Baptist 
Seminary; and he has served as Senior Editor of Christianity Today. In 1976 
Lindsell published The Battle for the Bible to warn of the downgrading of 
the doctrine of inspiration among evangelicals. Lindsell said, "This change 
of position with respect to the infallibility of the Bible is widespread 
and has occurred in evangelical denominations, Christian colleges, 
theological seminaries, publishing houses, and learned societies" (p. 20).

The point to note here is that Lindsell stands for the absolute perfection 
of the Bible AS ORIGINALLY GIVEN. Consider some statements from his book:

"Inspiration may be defined as the inward work of the Holy Spirit in the 
hearts and minds of chosen men who then wrote the Scriptures so that God 
got written what He wanted. The Bible in all of its parts constitutes the 
written Word of God to man. This Word is free from all error IN ITS 
ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS. ... It is wholly trustworthy in matters of history and 
doctrine. ... The very nature of inspiration renders the Bible 
infallible ... It is inerrant in that it is not false, mistaken, or 
defective. Inspiration extends to all parts of the written Word of God and 
it includes the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit even in the selection of 
the words of Scripture" (pp. 30- 31).
   
This is an excellent statement on the Bible's inspiration. The strange 
problem is that Lindsell does not believe such a Bible exists today. When 
it comes to the Bible today, Lindsell takes a rather different position. He 
says, "God did not shield Scripture when it became a part of history. ... 
F.F. Bruce has this to say ... `The variant readings about which any doubt 
remains ... affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian 
faith and practice'" (p. 37).

This is a different matter altogether. A Bible that is word-for- word 
inspired and absolutely perfect in every detail is a different thing from 
one that is only accurate in its basic historical facts and doctrines, one 
which contains hundreds of variant readings which might be wrong.

Lindsell's thinking as to existing Bibles is seen in that he has published 
a study Bible using The Living Bible, which is one of the worst 
translations in existence. In announcing The Lindsell Study Bible - The 
Living Bible, Lindsell said, "The Living Bible makes clearer what other 
translations render obscure. ... I recommend it highly." In 1972, while 
Lindsell was editor, free copies of The Living Bible were offered as a 
bonus for every new subscription to Christianity Today.

Lindsell fights for the absolute perfection of the original autographs of 
the Bible but he accepts practically any and every translation and 
paraphrase, regardless of the fact that these versions differ from one 
another in thousands of consequential particulars. In practice, therefore, 
Lindsell has no perfect Bible, as he has admitted.

Let me give another example of this thinking. James Boice was Chairman of 
the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, which in the 1980s held 
several conferences to explain and defend the doctrine of biblical 
inerrancy. Speaking of these matters, Boice said, "These are the great 
issues of the day, and they need to be dealt with, particularly by men and 
women who approach them on the basis of God's inerrant Word, our Bible" 
(Christian News, Sept. 16, 1985). 

That sounds great. But again, when it comes to existing Bibles, Dr. Boice 
changes his tune. In a letter dated Sept. 13, 1985, to Dr. Thomas Hale, 
missionary doctor in Nepal, Boice gave his opinion regarding translations. 
Earlier in 1985, Dr. Hale had visited our home in Nepal and had asked me 
for information on Bible versions. For the next few months we corresponded 
on these matters and I sent him some materials, including Which Bible 
edited by David Otis Fuller, and The King James Bible Defended by Edward F. 
Hills. As these communications proceeded, Dr. Hale wrote to Boice and asked 
his opinion of texts and translations. A copy of this letter was given to 
me by Dr. Hale. Consider an excerpt:

"I might add that the issue has come before the International Council on 
Biblical Inerrancy on several occasions and that every one of these men see 
the value of the newer texts in translations and are not defenders of the 
King James Version as the only text. Every man on this council is committed 
to inerrancy. Some prefer the King James Version and use it, for various 
reasons. But not one defends it or the textus receptus as the true and only 
valid text.    

"... people who defend the textus receptus ardently should know these facts 
[editor: Boice had voiced the timeworn arguments that 1) the majority of 
manuscripts which support the Received Text are supposedly inferior to the 
few that support the Westcott-Hort Text, 2) Erasmus supposedly was a 
humanist and did not have broad manuscript evidence]. It is not a Divinely 
given and specially preserved text of the New Testament. ...

"Let me say personally that the English text that I work from most often is 
the New International Version. IT IS NOT PERFECT, but it is a very good 
text and may well win a place in the contemporary church similar to the 
place held by the King James Version for so long. ... I must say, although 
I DO NOT ALWAYS AGREE WITH THE NIV, that GENERALLY it does a better job of 
translating the Greek text than the King James does."

We can see that while Boice and the other evangelical leaders in the 
Council on Biblical Inerrancy are committed to the perfect inspiration of 
the Bible as a theological concept, they are equally committed to the fact 
that no such Bible exists today. They say the Received Text is not perfect. 
<The Received Text (Textus Receptus), also called the Traditional Text, or 
the Byzantine Text, is that type of "text which is found in the vast 
majority of the extant Greek New Testament manuscripts, which was adopted 
by Protestants at the time of the Reformation and used by them universally 
for more than three hundred years, and which forms the basis of the King 
James Version and other early Protestant translations" (Edward F. Hills, 
"The Magnificent Burgon," Which Bible?, p. 88).> The King James Bible is 
not perfect. The NIV is nice, but it certainly is not perfect. These men 
have no perfect Bible and do not believe such a Bible exists. Yet they are 
busy fighting for the absolute infallibility and verbal inspiration of the 
Bible! What Bible? A Bible that has ceased to exist. Further, these 
scholarly giants slander those who do believe in a perfect Bible and 
contend that WE are unreasonable troublemakers!

Note the intellectual pride which oozes from Boice's pen regarding those 
simpletons who believe the Received Text is the perfect, preserved Word of 
God:

"Let me say that the concerns of some of these people are undoubtedly good. 
They are zealous for the Word of God and very much concerned lest liberal 
or any other scholarship enter in to pervert it. But unfortunately, the 
basis on which they are operating is wrong, and I have always tried to do 
what I could in a gentle way to lead them to appreciate good, current 
evangelical scholarship where the Greek text and the translations are 
concerned. ... The situation is somewhat complex, and many people do not 
understand it as a result of that complexity."

This amazing scholarly pride characterizes the writings of all of these 
men, regardless of their theological bent. Anyone who refuses to accept the 
common scholarly line regarding texts and versions is an ignoramus. Dr. 
David Otis Fuller identified this phenomenon as "scholarolotry." These men 
conveniently ignore the fact that many intelligent, knowledgeable men 
reject the modern text and stand firmly upon the KJV. 
   
In the fundamentalist world a similar situation exists, particularly among 
Bible college professors and their ardent followers. Stewart Custer of Bob 
Jones University epitomizes this position. His book Does Inspiration Demand 
Inerrancy? is a fine defense of the perfect infallibility of the 
Scriptures--but only in regard to the so-called autographs. Consider: 

"Conservatives are not contending for the infallibility of any translation, 
but only for the infallibility of the original documents. ... `the record 
for whose inspiration we contend is the original record--the autographs or 
parchments of Moses, David, Daniel, Matthew, Paul, or Peter, as the case 
may be, and not any particular translation or translations of them 
whatever. There is no translation absolutely without error, nor could there 
be, considering the infirmities of human copyists, unless God were pleased 
to perform a perpetual miracle to secure it'" (p. 88).

In the book The Truth about the King James Version Controversy, Custer 
acknowledges that there is at least a 10% difference between the Greek text 
of the King James Bible and that of the modern Bibles. Yet of this vast 
amount of difference he concludes, "There is no fundamental doctrine that 
is at stake between these two families of manuscripts. ... God's 
preservation is not a continuing inspiration, but a preservation so that no 
teaching of the Bible would be lost."

The problem with this position is that it is based on human logic and not 
on the Word of God. The same God that perfectly inspired the Scriptures has 
promised to perfectly preserve the Scriptures--not merely its teachings, 
but its very words. What is wrong with believing in a continuing miracle? 
If Bible preservation is not miraculous, the doctrine of inspiration is 
meaningless. If inspiration was perfect but preservation is only general, 
the entire matter is vain jangling.

CHAPTER 2
THE EXTENT OF PRESERVATION

The bottom line in this matter is that the same Bible that claims to be 
perfectly inspired also claims to be perfectly preserved. My faith in this 
is not based on common sense (though it is sensible to believe that if God 
gave a perfect Bible He would preserve that very Bible). My faith in this 
matter is based on the promises of a God that cannot lie.

The men quoted previously, which represent a wide field of thinking, write 
volumes defining and defending what the Bible says about its own 
inspiration, but they are strangely silent on what the same Bible says 
about preservation. They take the position of faith in regard to 
inspiration but retreat to the position of skepticism in regard to 
preservation.

Jack Moorman, in his excellent manual Forever Settled, states the problem 
plainly: "A far better principle is given in Rom. 14:23--`Whatsoever is not 
of faith is sin.' If I cannot by faith take the Bible in my hand and say 
this is the preserved Word of God, then it is sin. If we do not approach 
the study of how we got our Bible from the standpoint of faith, then it is 
sin. If I cannot believe what God says about the preservation of His Word,    
then I cannot believe what He says about its inspiration either--all is 
sin."

Faith stands on the Word of God. Let us see exactly what the Bible says 
about this matter of its own preservation:

"The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of 
earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt 
preserve them from this generation for ever." Psa. 12:6-7

"The counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to 
all generations." Psa. 33:11 

"For the Lord is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to 
all generations." Psa. 100:5

"The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are 
sure. They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and 
uprightness." Psa. 111:7-8

"... the truth of the Lord endureth for ever. Praise ye the Lord." Psa. 
117:2

"For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven." Psa. 119:89

"Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded 
them for ever." Psa. 119:152 

"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous 
judgments endureth for ever." Psa. 119:160 

"The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall 
stand for ever." Isa. 40:8

"As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; My spirit that 
is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart 
out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of 
thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever." Isa. 59:21

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one 
tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matt. 
5:18

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Matt. 
24:35

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the 
Word of God which liveth and abideth forever." 1 Pet. 1:23

"But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by 
the gospel is preached unto you." 1 Pet. 1:25

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of    
this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him 
the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away 
from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part 
out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things 
which are written in this book." Rev. 22:18-19

The teaching of these passages is that God would preserve His Word in 
detail to every generation. This, and this alone, is the biblical doctrine 
of preservation. I call this verbal preservation. The scholars mock this 
position and sneeringly label it with derogatory terms such as "secondary 
inspiration," but I am convinced the Bible teaches miraculous inspiration 
and miraculous preservation.

Psa. 12:6-7 summarizes the doctrine of Bible preservation. This passage 
promises that the pure words (not just thoughts or general teachings) of 
God would be kept to every generation. Preserved words. Not just the 
doctrines. Not just the historical facts. The words! This is verbal 
preservation, and it is exactly what the Bible plainly promises.

Psa. 33:11 says God's thoughts would not be lost but rather would stand to 
all generations, and we know from passages such as 1 Cor. 2:12-13 that 
these divine thoughts have been expressed through divinely-chosen words. 
"Which things also we speak, NOT IN THE WORDS which man's wisdom teacheth, 
but which the Holy Ghost teacheth..." Therefore we see that this promise in 
Psalm 33, too, is a promise of the verbal preservation of Scripture.

Psa. 100:5, 111:7-8, and 117:2 tell us that the truth of God will stand 
forever and endure to all generations. This could mean that sound doctrine 
in general will be preserved, as those who take a naturalistic view of 
preservation contend, but this cannot be. We know that God's truth is not 
expressed to man merely in general doctrinal terms. Truth is expressed in 
divinely-selected words. Jesus said, "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy 
word is truth" (Jn. 17:17). He also said, "It is written, Man shall not 
live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of 
God" (Mat. 4:4). It is crucial that men have the very words of Scripture. 
God has not merely given man a pattern of truth; He has given the very form 
of truth in the Scriptures. It is this verbally inspired truth that the Old 
Testament is promising will be preserved.

Psa. 119:160 adds the testimony that even the very earliest portions of 
God's Word, Genesis and the other writings of Moses, would be preserved.

Psa. 100:5 connects Bible preservation with God's goodness and mercy. It is 
because God loves man that He has given His Book. Psalm 100:5 reminds us 
that the same love which motivated God to inspire the Scriptures, motivates 
Him to keep them.

Isaiah adds his "amen" to this doctrine of preservation. According to Isa. 
59:21, it is the very words of God which will be preserved.

The Lord Jesus Christ is even more specific in His teaching about the 
preservation of Scripture. In Mat. 24:35 the Son of God promises that His 
WORDS will not pass away. And in Mat. 5:18, He says the very JOTS AND    
TITTLES of God's Word will not pass away! That is certainly verbal 
preservation. 

The Apostle Peter tells us with absolute authority that the Word of God is 
preserved perpetually, and this includes the Word which has been preached 
to us in the gospel writings. And by gospel writings we must understand 
Peter to mean the whole of the New Testament, not just the first four 
books, for Heb. 2:3 instructs us that the gospel "at the first began to be 
spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him."

Capping off our brief survey of Scripture on this important doctrine is the 
testimony of Revelation. In the last chapter of this book man is given a 
dire warning not to tamper with its contents. Obviously this applies 
directly to Revelation, but it must apply equally to the entire Book of 
which Revelation forms the last chapter. Think about it. If mankind is 
forbidden from taking away from or adding to the contents of a Book, it 
must be obvious that God intends to preserve that Book in every detail. And 
note that it is the WORDS which man is forbidden to tamper with. "For I 
testify unto every man that heareth the WORDS of the prophecy of this 
book ... if any man shall take away from the WORDS of the book of this 
prophecy..." The WORDS! If God forbids man to tamper with any of the WORDS 
of the Bible, it is obvious that He intends to preserve those words so they 
will be available to man. If this isn't true, the warning of Rev. 22:18-19 
is meaningless.

In summary, we see that the Bible teaches God will preserve His Word in 
pure form, including the most minute details (the jots and titles, the 
words), and that this would include the whole Scriptures, Old and New 
Testaments. The biblical doctrine of preservation is verbal, plenary 
preservation, which is the only reasonable view in light of the biblical 
doctrine of the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Writings. Of what 
benefit are perfect writings which no longer exist? 

DOES PSALM 12:6-7 REFER TO GOD'S WORDS? 

There are those who do not believe Psa. 12:6-7 is speaking of the Word of 
God. These contend that this key passage refers rather to God's 
preservation of the godly men spoken of in Psa. 12:1. Doug Kutilek, 
professor at Baptist Bible College of Springfield, is a proponent of this, 
and R.L. Sumner has printed Kutilek's articles on this in The Biblical 
Evangelist. I wrote to Dr. Bruce Lackey about Kutilek's teaching on Psalm 
12:6-7 and received the following excellent comments in February 1984:

"I submit the following reasons for my not being moved away from my 
conviction that Psalm 12:6-7 does teach the preservation of Scripture.

"1. His [Kutilek's] admission that `there are occasional exceptions to the 
principle of agreement in the Hebrew Bible (see Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar 
135 o)' immediately shows that the preservation-interpretation is not 
automatically incorrect, grammatically, but is definitely possible. A 
somewhat similar situation exists in John 15:6, where `them' is neuter 
plural in Greek, and `they are burned' is a singular verb. Dana and Mantey, 
in A Manual Grammar of The Greek New Testament, on page 165, give the    
following statement: `A seeming exception to the above principle of syntax 
is the fact that a neuter plural subject regularly takes a singular verb 
(John 9:3).' Therefore, it is unwise to prove or disprove a position using 
the argument of gender and number. Anyone who studies languages knows that 
there are exceptions.

"2. The argument listing various verses in Psalms where `keep' and 
`preserve' speak of people is not very weighty. Psalm 12:6-7 might be the 
only place in the whole book which uses these words to refer to things 
[other than people], but that would not disqualify the situation. Psalm 
110:4 is the only verse in the Old Testament which teaches the 
Melchisedical priesthood of the Lord Jesus, but Hebrews 4:7 does not 
hesitate to make much of it!

"3. The argument from context does not hold water, either. He says, `The 
basic thrust of the message of Psalm 12 is clear: the psalmist bemoans the 
decimation of the upright and the growing strength of the wicked.' Thus, he 
tries to show that verse 7, teaching preservation, would not fit. If this 
be true, neither would verse 6. Rather, the context is favorable to the 
preservation-interpretation. God's promise to save the poor and needy is 
given in verse 5; verses 6 and 7 are injected to show that His promise of 
verse 5 will never be broken. 

"4. In the last paragraph, he [Kutilek] says that those who apply these 
verses `to any doctrine of Bible preservation' are guilty of handling `the 
Word of God deceitfully and dishonestly, something unworthy of any child of 
God.' But earlier, he admitted that such illustrious interpreters as John 
Wesley, Henry Martyn, G. Campbell Morgan, and Kidner, agreed with the 
preservation-interpretation. Sounds like a mouse attacking elephants! They 
might have been wrong on some points, but they were certainly not deceitful 
and dishonest.

"Some other verses which teach that God would preserve His Words for all 
generations are Psalm 33:11; 119:152,160; Isa. 59:21; Mat. 24:35; and I 
Pet. 1:25. Also, a comparison of Mat. 28:20 and John 14:23 shows that 
Christ's promise of His continual presence with us is fulfilled as we keep 
His words; thus His words must be available to believers `alway, even unto 
the end of the world. Amen.'" 

Bruce Lackey, who died in 1988, was the Dean of the Bible School at 
Tennessee Temple when I attended there in the 1970s. He was a true scholar 
in every sense of the word. He was intelligent. He used the Greek language. 
He was a diligent and careful researcher. He was a highly accomplished 
musician. But he was also a Bible believer. His doctrine was always based 
on the Scriptures, not on logic. He was not afraid of rejecting the popular 
scholarly positions if they were contrary to the Word of God. I sat under 
Bruce Lackey's teaching for three years and was never, ever given the idea 
that my Bible was less than perfect. He never caused his students to 
question the Bible. If that is unscholarly, so be it.

DERIVED INSPIRATION

Those who mock the idea that there is a perfect Bible today claim that we    
are teaching a "continuing inspiration." That is not the case. I believe 
the Bible was inspired of God as it was given to the holy men of old (2 
Peter 1:21). As accurate copies and translations of this inspired Scripture 
have been made, these also bear the holy impression of the originals. I 
believe an accurate translation of the Greek and Hebrew text can properly 
be called the inspired Word of God because its inspiration is derived from 
the original text.

The King James Bible is an example. 

Let me make it clear that I do not believe the KJV is given by inspiration 
in the same way that original writings were. I believe it has derived its 
inspiration from the Greek and Hebrew text upon which it is based. 

Further I do not believe the King James Bible corrects the Greek and 
Hebrew, is better than the Greek and Hebrew, or a further revelation beyond 
the Greek and Hebrew. I believe the King James Bible is an accurate and 
beautiful translation of the preserved Scriptures and as such is the 
inspired Word of God--inspired derivatively, not directly. 

I do not believe there are mistakes in the King James Bible. 

I do believe there are places which could be translated more clearly. I do 
believe there are antiquated words which could be brought up to date. (Note 
I did not say should be, but could be.) To say, though, there are changes 
which could be made in the KJV is entirely different from saying it 
contains mistakes. I believe the KJV is superior to all other English 
versions--superior in its textual basis, superior in its method of 
translation, superior in the scholarship of its translators, superior in 
its time of translation.

The key New Testament passage on the inspiration of Scripture is 2 Timothy 
3:15-17. Verse 16 says, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God." 
This refers to the original giving of the Word of God. The thrust of this 
passage, though, is that Timothy should have confidence in the Scriptures 
that he possessed. Verse 15 says the Scripture Timothy had known from a 
child were "holy Scripture." What Scriptures had Timothy known? Were they 
the original autographs of Moses and David? Certainly not. Timothy had been 
taught either from copies of the Hebrew text or from a translation thereof, 
most likely the later since his father was a Greek and his mother and 
grandmother had instructed him (2 Tim. 1:5; Acts 16:1). 

Further, verse 17 encourages Timothy that the inspired Scripture was given 
to be profitable. Any definition of inspiration which does not involve this 
doctrine of profitability is wrong. God did not intend that His Word be 
inspired, then lost. The inspired Word of God has been kept by God. There 
is inspiration, and there is preservation, and this guarantees 
profitability.

CHAPTER 3
THE PRACTICALITY OF PRESERVATION: CAN A TRANSLATION BE CALLED THE INSPIRED 
WORD OF GOD?
   
Very few people read the Bible languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) 
fluently. We have seen that Paul's doctrine of inspiration in 2 Timothy 
chapter three allows for copies and translations to be viewed as the 
inspired Word of God. Why not? If a translation is an accurate 
representation of the original Text of Scripture, what is wrong with saying 
that translation is the inspired Word of God? Many mock such an idea, 
though. Recently I received a paper written by a Bible college professor in 
Canada which maligned me for teaching that the King James Version is the 
inspired Word of God. It was clear that the man had misunderstood and 
misrepresented my position. In replying to the man and attempting to make 
my stand on the KJV clear, I sent him statements by certain men that I have 
high respect for.

Consider some of the statements that I sent to this Bible college 
professor. In addition to statements by the Institute for Biblical Studies 
and the Dean Burgon Society, I am including ones by Pastor Bob Barnett of 
Calvary Baptist Church, Grayling, Michigan, who has some wonderful insight 
into the matter of Bible versions, and the late Frank Logsdon, who was on 
the committee which prepared the New American Standard Version and the 
Amplified New Testament. Logsdon later publicly disavowed his association 
with these versions and defended the King James Bible as the preserved Word 
of God.

Each of these statements was written by intelligent, godly men, who are 
attempting before God to come to grips with exactly what the Bible teaches 
about preservation. A man certainly has the privilege of rejecting these 
statements, but to say that these men are unscholarly or that they do 
misjustice to the Scripture is slanderous:

INSTITUTE FOR BIBLICAL TEXTUAL STUDIES STATEMENT ON PRESERVATION

The Institute for Biblical Textual Studies was founded as an extension of 
Dr. David Otis Fuller's ambition to address the version issue and textual 
debate on a broader scale. The Institute is committed to:

-- the immediate, verbal, plenary inspiration of the original writings of 
Scripture and that they are therefore inerrant and infallible. This 
inspiration is unique, applicable both to the process of giving the 
original writings and the writings themselves which are that product; 

-- the verbal preservation of the Greek Received Text as published by the 
Trinitarian Bible Society;

-- the verbal preservation of the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text of 
Daniel Bomberg, as edited by Jacob ben Chayim;

-- the position that translation is not an inherent boundary to verbal 
preservation. The breath of God, product, not process, conveyed by 
translation from the immediately inspired language copies of Scripture into 
any providentially prepared receptor language will impart to that 
translation infallible authority and doctrinal inerrancy inherent in the 
original language copies. Such a translation by the internal witness of the 
Holy Spirit, both with and through that translation, will evidence to the    
believer its own self- attestation and self-authentication whereby God 
asserts himself as the supreme Authority to that culture. For the English 
speaking world this revelation of God's authority is preserved in the 
Authorized Version. 

THE DEAN BURGON SOCIETY STATEMENT ON PRESERVATION

We believe that the King James Version (or Authorized Version) of the 
English Bible is a true, faithful, and accurate translation of these two 
providentially preserved Texts [the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text and 
the Received Greek Text], which in our time has no equal among all of the 
other English Translations. The translators did such a fine job in their 
translation task that we can without apology hold up the Authorized Version 
of 1611 and say, "This is the Word of God!" while at the same time 
realizing that, in some verses, we must go back to the underlying original 
language Texts for complete clarity, and also compare Scripture with 
Scripture. ...

Bible inspiration and Bible preservation are supremely important. The 
undermining or destroying of either doctrine renders the other meaningless. 
If the Bible is not verbally, plenarily, and inerrantly inspired, and if 
inspiration does not extend to all matters of which the Bible speaks, it 
does not matter if the Bible has been preserved or how it has been 
preserved. It also follows that if the Bible has not been preserved it does 
not matter how it was inspired. (From the Committee Statement on Bible 
Preservation of the Dean Burgon Society)

FRANK LOGSDON'S STATEMENT ON PRESERVATION

Providential preservation is a necessary consequence of Divine Inspiration. 
Most arguments against the Authorized Version abandon reason! If the 
Authorized Version is not authentic, which is? If the Authorized Version is 
not God's revelation, have we been deceived? Did God wait 1900 years to 
reveal His true Word? If the Authorized Version has been incorrect, what 
harm has resulted? If the True Revelation was lost, where was God when it 
happened? Was man left in darkness when the Authorized Version was his only 
Bible? Were we wrong these years in claiming the Authorized Version to be 
indeed God's Word? Why has this present generation become so dissatisfied 
with the Authorized Version? Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic 
deception in all of this? Who would risk his integrity in saying that any 
present-day volume excels the Authorized Version? 

BOB BARNETT'S STATEMENT ON PRESERVATION 

"I remain in the tradition of Dr. [D.O.] Fuller and many, many others in 
declaring the authorized King James Bible to be the inspired, inerrant, 
infallible Word of God in English. In an attempt to avoid confusion, I have 
accepted the wisdom of using modifiers to explain and qualify these terms 
when they are questioned. 

"I understand that in theological circles, it is not scholarly to claim 
inspiration, inerrancy, or infallibility for any one-language Bible. Yet, 
all of us agree and say in public that the Bible is inspired, inerrant, and    
infallible. When some make that claim, they are referring only to the 
original autographs of the Bible. When others make that claim, they are 
referring both to the original autographs and also to the apographs from 
which the authorized King James Bible was translated. When some of us make 
that same claim, we are speaking of the total traditional Bible line 
preserved by divine providence from the autographs, continuing through the 
apographs, and manifested in English today through our authorized King 
James Bible. When laymen hear each of us speaking they often assume we are 
all talking in agreement about the same Bible.

"In reality, if inspiration be limited to the languages of the original 
autographs, then logically an Englishman must master four languages before 
he can claim to accurately know and communicate God's inspired scriptures 
to other English speaking people. He must master Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek 
as well as his own English tongue. This elevates the accurate ministry of 
God's inspired scriptures to a small handful of scholars who have spent 
many years in diligent preparation for a few years of ministry. It renders 
the average pastor and masses of believers submissive to the Bible 
interpretation of these scholars. This violates the scriptural principles 
of Acts 17:11. ...

"By faith I believe my authorized King James Bible is inspired. I do not 
believe the KJB translators were inspired, neither were the English words 
they used. I do believe the KJB derives its inspiration, its inerrancy in 
doctrine, and its infallible authority from the accurately translated 
apographs of the original autographs of Holy Scripture. The KJB is 
inspired, not directly, but derivatively. ... It is inspired in the 
"logos," but not the "rhema." By this we mean the English letters and words 
are not inspired, but the truth they communicate in the English language is 
inspired and alive. This same inspired truth has continued from the 
original God-breathed Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into our English language. 
This results in an infallible body of truth, through which the Spirit of 
Truth can lead the English speaking Bible-believer unto all truth. We 
cannot adequately defend the accuracy and authority of the authorized KJB 
without defending its inspiration.

"Satan's primary attack upon the Bible today is not upon the original 
autographs; they are gone. It is not upon the remaining apographs of the 
Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Scriptures. Few people have the ability to read, 
study, and know them. The authorized King James Bible is the greatest 
danger to Satan in our generation. It is the Bible he hates and attacks the 
most. While we cannot defend the KJV separate from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and 
Greek roots from which it comes, neither can we effectively share our faith 
in these apographs of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Scriptures to an English 
speaking world without preaching and defending the KJV."

We conclude this section with the words of Bruce Lackey: "Faith which is 
based on a clear promise is stronger than objections which are raised by 
our lack of information. Since God has promised to preserve His Word for 
all generations, and since the Hebrew and Greek which is represented by the 
King James Version is the Bible that has been received from ancient 
tradition, and since God has so singularly used the truth preached from 
this Bible, I must follow it and reject others where they differ."   

CHAPTER 4
THE CONSEQUENCE OF PRESERVATION

If the Bible has been perfectly preserved, what does this tell us about the 
Bible situation today? There are four important consequences of the 
doctrine of Bible preservation: 1) I must accept the Received Text as the 
Word of God, 2) I must reject the Westcott-Hort text and its allies, 3) I 
must reject those modern versions based upon the Westcott-Hort text, and 4) 
I must reject the so-called Majority Text which seeks to modify the 
Received Text.

I MUST ACCEPT THE RECEIVED TEXT AS THE WORD OF GOD

Believing the Bible to be preserved by God, we can look back on the history 
of the transmission of the Scriptures to see the hand of God in the 
preservation of a certain text. God's stamp of approval has been upon the 
Received Text underlying the King James Bible. John Burgon, the 
distinguished author of Revision Revised, gave this testimony to the 
antiquity of the Received Text: 

"The one great fact which especially troubles him [Dr. Hort] and his joint 
editor [Westcott] (as well it may) is the Traditional Greek Text of the New 
Testament Scriptures. Call this text Erasmian or Complutensian, the text of 
Stephens, or of Beza, or of the Elzevirs, call it the Received or the 
Traditional, or by whatever name you please--the fact remains that a text 
has come down to us which is attested by a general consensus of ancient 
Copies, ancient Fathers, and ancient Versions."

Burgon, one of England's chief linguistic scholars, knew what he was 
talking about. One of his accomplishments was collecting and indexing more 
than 86,000 quotations from the writings of ancient church leaders. (More 
than 4,000 of these were from writers who died before the year 400 A.D.) He 
also collated more than 350 Greek manuscripts which had been previously 
unknown to the scholastic world. Burgon was in a perfect position to know 
what Bible text was used by Christians down through the centuries. When he 
says that the Received Text is the one attested by general historic 
consensus, we can be sure that it is. Few men have possessed more knowledge 
of their subject than John William Burgon. 

Further, Burgon was a Bible respecter. While we do not excuse the fact that 
he was a high church Anglican, we do praise the Lord that the man believed 
the Book. In this he followed in the footsteps of the King James 
translators themselves. One of Burgon's peers testified in 1888, "From 
first to last, all my reminiscences of Dean Burgon are bound up with the 
Bible, treated as few teachers of divinity now appear to regard it, as 
God's Word written; `absolute, faultless, unerring, supreme'" (Wilbur 
Pickering, "Contribution of John William Burgon to New Testament 
Criticism," True or False?, p. 217).

Dr. D.A. Waite, in his book The King James Bible's Superiority, lists the 
following historical witnesses to the Received text which underlies the 
King James Bible:   

The received text was used by: 

The Churches in Palestine
The Syrian Church at Antioch 
The Peshitta Syriac Version (150 A.D.)
Papyrus #75
The Italic Church in Northern Italy (157 A.D.)
The Gallic Church of Southern France (177 A.D.) 
The Celtic Church in Great Britain 
The Church of Scotland and Ireland 
The Pre-Waldensian Church
The Waldensian, 120 A.D. onward, (The Early Church Period 100-312)
The Gothic Version of the 4th century 
Codex W of Matthew in the 4th or 5th century 
Codex A in the Gospels in the 5th century 
The vast majority of extant New Testament manuscripts
The Greek Orthodox Church
The present Greek Church (the Byzantine Period (312-1453 A.D.)
All the churches of the Reformation 
The Erasmus Greek New Testament (1516) 
The Complutensian Polyglot (1522)
Martin Luther's German Bible (1522)
William Tyndale's Bible (1525) 
The French Version of Oliveton (1535)
The Coverdale Bible (1535) 
The Matthews Bible (1537)
The Taverners Bible (1539) 
The Great Bible (1539-41)
The Stephanus Greek New Testament (1546-51) 
The Geneva Bible of 1557-60)
The Bishops' Bible (1568)
The Spanish Version (1569) 
The Beza Greek New Testament (1598) 
The King James Bible (1611)
The Elziver Brothers' Greek New Testament (1624) 

Waite reaches the conclusion that "the Received Text in the New Testament 
is the Received Text--the text that has survived in continuity from the 
beginning of the New Testament itself. It is the only accurate 
representation of the originals we have today!" 

Edward Miller, a British scholar who published several important books on 
the subject of textual criticism at the turn of the century, gave this 
summary of the period from Chrysostom to the invention of printing: "The 
great feature in this period was the rise of the Traditional Text into a 
predominance which was scarcely disputed" (Edward Miller, A Guide to the 
Textual Criticism of the New Testament, pp. 103,104).

It is evident that the Bible text commonly received among God's people from 
the 1st to the 17th century is the text which underlies the King James 
Bible.
   
It is also evident that most of the Bibles translated throughout the world 
during the great missionary era of the 17th to 19th centuries were based 
upon the Received Text. This includes the Bibles translated by the 
Reformers and Baptists into the languages of Europe, as well as the non-
Catholic missionaries who traveled throughout the globe--William Carey in 
India, Adinoram Judson in Burma, Henry Martyn in Persia, and great numbers 
of other godly missionaries across the world who translated Bibles into the 
languages of the people. The vast majority of these Bibles were based upon 
the Received Text.

What this means is this: The majority of Bibles of centuries past contained 
the verses and words which are disputed by the new texts and versions. They 
contained Matt. 17:21; 18:11; 21:44; 23:14; Mk. 7:16; 9:44; 9:46; 11:26; 
15:28; Lk. 17:36; 24:12; 24:40; Jn. 5:4; Acts 8:37; and Rom. 16:24--all of 
which are omitted or put in brackets in the new versions. The old 
missionary Bibles contained the words "God" in 1 Tim. 3:16, "firstborn" in 
Matt. 1:25, "begotten" in Jn. 1:14, and "the Lord" in 1 Cor. 15:47. All of 
these are key references to Christ's deity which are removed in the new 
Bibles. Further, no questions are raised in the old missionary versions 
regarding the authority of Mk. 16:9-20 or 1 Jn. 5:7-8, as we find in the 
new texts.

History tells us that the Received Text is clearly the preserved Word of 
God.

Further, the King James Bible is the only English Bible translated from the 
Received Text which bears God's stamp of approval. The King James Bible has 
endured and increased in popularity for more than three centuries. It was 
the undisputed English Bible through the 1600s, the 1700s, the 1800s, and 
most of the 1900s.

In the words of Dr. Waite, who has diligently researched matters 
surrounding Bible texts and versions, "You can trust with confidence the 
King James Bible in the English language as the most accurate reflection of 
the original Hebrew and Greek text we have--and probably will have until 
the Lord returns in the Rapture of the Church. Read it! Study it! Memorize 
it! Understand it! Believe it! Practice it!"

Contrary to this sweet confidence in a preserved Bible, the Preface to the 
Revised Standard Version gives the popular viewpoint of those who support 
the modern texts and versions:

"...the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the 
nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery 
of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James 
Version was based, made it manifest that these defects are so many and so 
serious as to call for revision of the English translation. ... The King 
James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that was 
marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries 
of manuscript copying."

This same thinking is voiced by Neil Lightfoot in How We Got the Bible, a 
popular text on the transmission of Scripture:    

"The King James Version rests on an inadequate textual base. ... The text 
underlying the King James was essentially a medieval text embodying a 
number of scribal mistakes that had accumulated through the years ... The 
revisers of 1611 ... simply did not have at their disposal the many 
manuscripts which are now known. ... All of which means that the King James 
is a translation of an inferior Greek text..."

By faith in God's promise to preserve His Word, I know that the above 
thinking cannot be true. If the Received Text and the King James Bible are 
corrupted, God did not preserve His Word. Rather, He allowed a corrupted 
text to become the world's undisputed Bible. Since this cannot be possible, 
I place my confidence in the venerable Received Text. I will not allow 
anyone to take one line of it from me. 

WE MUST REJECT THE WESTCOTT-HORT LINE OF TEXTS

The Westcott-Hort Greek Text was published in 1881 in conjunction with the 
publication of the English Revised Version. The popular new Greek texts 
since 1881 are revisions of the Westcott-Hort Text and are significantly 
different from the Received Text. There are two reasons why the doctrine of 
preservation results in rejection of the Westcott-Hort Text. 

First, the Westcott-Hort textual line must be rejected because it was a 
discarded text. As we have seen, the Received Text was the one which was 
preferred by God's people through the centuries. The readings adopted by 
Westcott and Hort, the Revisers of 1881, and critical authorities since, 
had been rejected as spurious in prior centuries. Erasmus had access to the 
Westcott-Hort readings, but he rejected them. The King James Translators 
had access to the Westcott-Hort readings, but they rejected them. Luther 
rejected the Westcott-Hort readings. The translators of all the other great 
Protestant versions rejected the Westcott- Hort readings. The great 
missionary translators such as William Carey and Adinorim Judson rejected 
the Westcott-Hort readings. I, too, discard the corrupted Westcott-Hort 
readings!

Second, the Westcott-Hort textual line must be rejected because it was a 
lost text. The most significant changes which Westcott and Hort introduced 
into their volume were based upon the readings of manuscripts which had 
been hidden from use during the previous three hundred years--chiefly the 
Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. The Vaticanus manuscript was locked away in 
the Vatican library during the era of the great missionary period of the 
17th to 19th centuries. While it's readings were known by textual 
researchers--including Erasmus--it did not come into favor until Westcott 
and Hort incorporated many of its readings into their Greek text. Likewise, 
the Sinaiticus manuscript was kept in a monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai, 
and was not available to the public until after it was found by Count 
Tischendorf in 1844. 

The doctrine of Bible preservation forces me to reject these manuscripts as 
spurious. If these were the preserved Word of God, they would not have been 
hidden away during those crucial centuries.
   
Third, the Westcott-Hort textual line must be rejected because it is a 
different text. There is a critical difference between the Westcott-Hort 
Text and the Received Text. Dozens of verses and thousands of important 
words are omitted in these new texts--verses and words which were in the 
Bible for centuries.

Everett Fowler made extensive studies of the Westcott-Hort Text, the Nestle 
Text, the United Bible Societies (UBS) Text, and many of the modern English 
versions based upon these, comparing them with the Received Text and the 
King James Bible. When the UBS Greek New Testament (a revision of the 
Westcott-Hort Text which is the most popular Greek text today in Christian 
education and translation work) is compared with the Received Text, we 
learn the following:

2,625 words are omitted
310 words are added
18 entire verses omitted; 46 verses questioned by the use of brackets
221 omissions of names regarding the Lord God 
318 other different omissions having substantial effect on meaning
TOTAL WORD DIFFERENCES 8,674 (Fowler, Evaluating Versions of the New 
Testament, p. 9). 

The point is this: If the Bible Societies' Text (there are only 250 or so 
word differences between the Westcott-Hort Text and the United Bible 
Societies' Text) is assumed to be the nearest to the verbally inspired 
original text, then the Received Text includes over 8,000 Greek words not 
inspired of God, including 18 to 46 entire spurious verses, and dozens of 
portions of verses. The difference amounts to roughly the same amount of 
material as that contained in 1 and 2 Peter combined. 

Not only are the new texts and versions quantitatively different from the 
Received Text, but they are qualitatively different. A great many of the 
differences are doctrinally significant. For example, the removal of the 
word "God" in 1 Tim. 3:16 in the new texts, deletes one of the most 
powerful testimonies in the Bible to the fact that Jesus Christ is God. The 
removal of the word "Lord" in 1 Cor. 15:47 deletes another powerful 
testimony to Christ's deity. The removal of Acts 8:37 deletes the eunuch's 
testimony of his faith in Christ prior to baptism. 

A convenient list of 200 of the significant changes in the UBS Greek 
Testament is available in the New Eye Opener pamphlet. This can be obtained 
from Way of Life Literature. Myth # 3 in this series of booklets also deals 
with the doctrinal differences in the versions.

There can be no doubt that the Westcott-Hort textual line is significantly 
different from that which underlies the King James Version and the other 
great Protestant translations which have been so honored and singularly 
blessed by God for 400 years.

The truth that God would preserve His Word obligates me to reject these new 
Greek texts as perversions of the Word of God. I will not allow any reading 
of the God-honored Received Text to be removed from my Bible.
   
WE MUST REJECT THE MODERN VERSIONS

Another consequence of Bible preservation is that we are forced to reject 
the modern versions. Since these versions are based upon the Westcott-Hort 
type text, they carry the corruptions of that text. They omit dozens of 
verses and thousands of important words which were in the Received Text 
through the centuries. This includes the New American Standard Version and 
the New International Version. The most significant differences between 
these versions and the King James Bible are textual differences. 

WE MUST REJECT THE MAJORITY TEXT WHICH SEEKS TO MODIFY THE RECEIVED TEXT

I would mention one final consequence of God's preservation--the rejection 
of the so-called Majority Text.

Until recently the term "majority text" was used as a synonym for the 
Received Text. This changed in 1982 with the publication by Thomas Nelson 
of The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text edited by Zane 
Hodges and Arthur Farstad, both of Dallas Theological Seminary. It claims 
to be a corrected edition of the Received Text. The editors' goal was to 
consider the textual evidence among existing Greek manuscripts for each New 
Testament word and phrase. If a reading is attested by the majority of 
manuscripts, it is retained. Otherwise, it is rejected. Other evidence to 
the authenticity of readings, such as ancient versions and writings of 
Christian leaders, is not taken into account by Hodges and Farstad--only 
the Greek manuscripts. 

There are almost 1900 differences between the Textus Receptus and the 
Hodges-Farstad Text, many of these highly consequential. Thus, while this 
matter is not as serious as the problem between the Received Text and the 
Westcott-Hort Text, it is something which must be faced. For example, I Jn. 
5:7-8 is omitted in the Hodges-Farstad Text. While there is manuscript 
evidence for this reading, it is true that the majority of existing 
manuscripts do not support it. Thus Hodges-Farstad would have us delete 
this powerful reference to the Triune Godhead. The author's booklet 
Slipping Away from Preserved Scripture: Examining the Hodges- Farstad 
Majority Text gives more information on this matter. 

The fact is that while the Received Text is a form of the majority text, it 
is not entirely a majority text. The reason for this is simple: In 
determining the true reading of Scripture, there are essential factors 
beyond merely examining extant manuscripts. 

The important point is this: The editors and supporters of the this new 
"majority" text would leave us in a situation similar to that found among 
the proponents of the other modern versions. They don't believe we have a 
perfect Bible and they make light of those who do.

In the introduction to the Hodges-Farstad Text, the editors admit that they 
do not believe they are presenting a perfect Bible to their readers: "The 
editors do not imagine that the text of this edition represents in all 
particulars the exact form of the originals. Desirable as such a text 
certainly is, much further work must be done before it can be produced. It    
should therefore be kept in mind that the present work, The Greek New 
Testament According to the Majority Text, is both preliminary and 
provisional."

@PARABEFORE2 = Wilbur Pickering, who has written in defense of the Received 
Text and against the Westcott-Hort Text in general, is a proponent of the 
new Majority Text. He, too, does not believe there is yet a perfect Bible. 
Note some of Pickering's statements: 

"We do not at this moment have the precise wording of the original text."

"When all this evidence is in I believe the Textus Receptus will be found 
to differ from the original in something over a thousand places."

"Most seriously misleading is the representation that I am calling for a 
return to the Textus Receptus ... While men like Brown, Fuller and Hills DO 
call for a return to the TR as such, Hodges and I do NOT. We are advocating 
what Kurt Aland has called the majority text." (quoted by Jack Moorman, 
When the KJV Departs From the `Majority' Text)

In The Identity of the New Testament Text, Pickering tells his readers, 
"Hodges ... will be very happy to hear from anyone interested in furthering 
the quest for the definitive Text." 

After almost 2,000 years of church history, the best that Hodges, Farstad, 
and their allies can offer is a "provisional" New Testament and a "quest 
for a definitive text." I'm sorry, folks, but I don't want it. I believe 
God's promises that He would preserve His Word, even the jots and tittles. 
I don't have to set out in search for the preserved Word of God. It's not 
lost! My confidence is not in man; it is in Almighty God. I have an 
absolute authority, and I refuse to play the scholar's game.

By the way, Hodges and Farstad were key players in the production of the 
New King James Version. Approximately 500 footnotes appear in the NKJV 
which give the supposed "majority readings" over against the Received Text 
readings, thus deceiving people into thinking that these readings should 
replace those of the KJV. Future editions of the NKJV will reflect even 
more of the research of Hodges and Farstad as they and their cohorts plow 
ahead with their "quest for the definitive text."

I praise God that we are not left to drift upon the unsteady seas of modern 
critical scholarship. As a consequence of faith in God's promises to 
preserve His Word, I can reject all of these new texts and Bibles and can 
cleave confidently to the faithful Received Text-based King James Version. 
"Can the matter be so simple?" you say. Why not? Has God not spoken on the 
subject? My friends, God has not allowed His Book to be lost. 

Faith does not have to answer every question the skeptic can throw at it. 
The Trinity is believed, though we are at a loss to explain the details of 
it, and those who do not believe it mock us because we cannot answer all 
their questions. The fact of the Bible canon is believed, though we cannot 
describe every step whereby the canon was sealed. We have the complete 
Bible, and that is enough for the man who has faith in God. Yet those who    
refuse to accept the Bible as the Word of God mock us because we cannot 
answer all their questions. Likewise, we believe that the Bible has been 
perfectly preserved because God has said so, though we are at a loss to 
explain some of the difficulties with this position. Again, those who 
reject the doctrine of preservation mock us because we cannot answer all 
their questions.

Let them mock. We have God's promise on these things. What do we care if 
some think we are foolish or unlearned? Was that not the charge brought 
against the first Christians by their proud detracters? Dear friends, 
believe God and do not allow any man to shake your confidence in His 
perfect, preserved Word.