By DR. THOMAS M. STROUSE
(Presented to the National Leadership Conference, Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary, Landsdale, PA 19446-4749, on Feb. 29, 1996)
DR. THOMAS M. STROUSE, DEAN Tabernacle Baptist Theological Seminary 717 N. WHITEHURST LANDING ROAD VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23464 (804) 420-1960
Early in His ministry the Lord Jesus Christ was tempted by Satan. The Lord answered the tempter with three references from Deuteronomy (Mt. 4:1-11). The first answer is significant. "It is written, man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (v. 4, cited from Dt. 8:3). This response summarizes the Lord's bibliology.
1. He affirmed the doctrine of the verbal, plenary inspiration of the autographa by stating the source of Scripture--"the mouth of God."
2. He affirmed the authority of Scripture, and consequently its infallibility and inerrancy, by upholding it as a standard by which "man shall live."
3. He affirmed the doctrine of the verbal, plenary preservation of Scripture by the expression. "It is written (gegraptai). The perfect tense which He utilized expresses a completed action with a resulting state of being (A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 1934, p. 858ff). In effect, the Lord said "It was written and still is written."
The Lord's own clear teaching on the doctrine of Scripture must be the foundation upon which Fundamentalism builds its doctrine of bibliology. This author will demonstrate strong theological and historical support for fundamentalists to hold to the doctrines of the verbal, plenary inspiration of the autographa, the authority of Scripture, and the verbal, plenary preservation of Scripture. He will show how these doctrines relate to the Authorized Version (AV).
Bibliology, or the doctrine of Scripture, demands precise terms. In view of the fact that these terms can mean different things to different people, the author provides the following definitions for significant bibliological terms.
Inspiration refers to "the process whereby the Holy Spirit influenced the writers of Scripture to record accurately His Words, the product being the inspired Word of God" (Thomas M. Strouse, The Lord God Hath Spoken: A Guide to Bibliology, Virginia Beach, VA: Tabernacle Baptist Theological Press, 1992, p. 38).
Dual Inspiration refers to the process of inspiration including not only the autographa but also extending to a translation (i.e., the AV), and is also known as Ruckmanism after the one who has popularized this view--Peter Ruckman.
Autographa refers to the original writings of the Old Testament (OT) and New Testament (NT). Infallibility refers to the inability of the autographa to contain mistakes or to err.
Inerrancy refers to the fact that the autographa does not have error (R.C. Sproul, Explaining Inerrancy: A Commentary, Oakland, CA: International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, 1980, p. 25). Preservation refers to the Providential Preservation of the very words of the autographa in the extant Hebrew and Greek manuscripts (MSS).
Textus Receptus (Received Text) refers to the Greek NT edition found in the tradition of Erasmus, Stephens, and Beza and so-named after the 1633 Elzevir edition. Beza's 1598 edition is the basic text from which the AV was translated. [The New Testament: The Greek Text Underlying the English Authorized Version of 1611, London: The Trinitarian Bible Society, 1977, 480 pp. The Trinitarian Bible Society, established in 1831, has produced this Greek edition which corresponds to F. H. A. Scrivener's The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Text followed in the Authorised Version.]
Textus Criticus (Critical Text) refers to the Greek NT edition based on the textual theory of B.F. Westcott (1825-1901) and F. J. A. Hort (1828-1892) and is essentially manifested in the 26th edition of The Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament and the 3rd edition of The United Bible Society Greek New Testament (UBSGNT).
Textus Maioritas (Majority Text) refers to the Greek NT edition based upon the majority readings of extant MSS (Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad, eds. The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982, 810pp). [Because of the close agreement between the TR and MT, the Textus Receptus has been called the "Majority Text" up until 1982, when Hodges and Farstad's The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text was published.]
Textual Criticism refers to the science of restoring the original text of an ancient writing using the extant MSS. Proper understanding of these bibliological terms is essential to discerning the parameters of bibliological issues.
Textual scholars agree that the parameters of the New Testament textual debate are determined by the difference between the TR and the CT on the one hand, and between the TR and the MT on the other. The textus receptus has 140,521 Greek words. The textus criticus changes (primarily by adding or subtracting) 9,970 Greek words (Donald Waite, Defending the King James Bible, Collingswood, NJ: The Bible For Today Press, 1992, p. xii). This results in a 7% difference between the CT and the TR. Thus, the TR and the CT are identical with respect to 93% of their words, but differ with regard to 7% of their words. The TR and the textus majoritas are found to be identical with respect to 98.7% of their words and differ in 1,838 words, or about 1.3% (Daniel Wallace, "The Majority Text Theory: History, Methods and Critique," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, June 1994, p. 194). There is no argument about the 93%, or about the 98.7%,8 in which the texts agree. Vital questions suggest themselves, however, concerning the words which are different. This, indeed is where the textual debate centers. Are the variants within the range of differing words significant? What approaches to textual criticism should be applied to the variants within the area of textual disagreement to determine the original reading? And if these differences are significant, to which text (the TR, the CT or the MT) should one hold?
The significance of the 93% agreement of the wording of the TR and the CT is that where these texts agree the wording is identical to the autographa. For instance, John 1:1 & 2 illustrates the significance. The words en arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos outos en arche pros ton theon ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God"). In all three Greek editions, the TR, the CT, and the MT, these words are identical and in the same order. There are no textual variants for these verses. These verses are part of the 93% agreement of the texts. The very wording of Jn. 1:1 & 2 is identical to the wording of the autographa! There is no reason to doubt that the Lord has inspired these words in the autographa. And it is quite clear that He has preserved them in the MSS through the centuries, along with the remaining 93%. One wonders who would deny that all such words are identical to the autographa, or that they are the preserved words of God. After all, they are extant and they are found in all of the Greek MSS. There can be no question concerning the significance of the area of common ground between the MSS.
The 7% variance is significant as well. There are three positions one may take concerning the significance of the 7% variant readings. Some take the ill-advised position that these variants are not at all significant. But, to hold such a position is indicative of a very low view of the inspiration of Scripture. Can both the TR and the CT, with nearly ten thousand different word variations between them, be equally verbally inspired of God? Obviously not. Any position which allows a low view of inspiration is utterly untenable for any true fundamentalist. Others hold that the variant readings do matter, and that the CT readings are to be preferred above the TR readings, believing that the CT is based upon better texts, primarily a and B. Generally speaking, the proponents of this view allow for the dispute to be essentially a "matter of opinion," with each man being fully assured in his own heart. The third position, the one being put forward in this essay, is that the TR is essentially equivalent to the autographa and best represents the inspired and preserved Word of God. As the remaining portion of this essay will show, the 7% variant reading between the TR and the CT are of the utmost significance.
The textual debate centers around the doctrines of inspiration and preservation of Scripture. Has God inspired His Word? Is that inspiration verbal inspiration? If God has verbally inspired His Word, has He preserved His Word? If the Lord has preserved some of His inspired words, has He not preserved all of His inspired words? These, in the view of the author and many concerned fundamentalists, are the questions which suggest the true significance of the 7%, or the 1.3%, variant readings being so passively assimilated into the ranks of Fundamentalism.
That verbal inspiration of Scripture demands verbal preservation of Scripture is a major tenet of this paper. There are several views of Preservation which are prevalent.
Some actually suggest that inspiration of Scripture is enough, that there is no need for preservation. This No Preservation view cannot be taken seriously among fundamentalists. Indeed, if there are no preserved words of God today, then there are no fundamentalists today. In this case any so-called Bible a man wants to use really is just as good as any other.
The common view is the Partial Preservation view which maintains that God has preserved the 93%, or 98.7%, while the remaining 7%, or 1.3%, has not been preserved. Those who hold this view engender serious difficulties for themselves. The burden of proof falls upon them to show why the Lord would preserve 93% of His words, and leave 7% to be cast into the crucible of human rationalistic thinking and literary critical methodology.
Still others hold to what might be called the Heavenly Preservation view. According to this view Ps.. 119:89, which say, "Forever, O Lord, Thy word is settled in heaven," teaches that God has indeed preserved His inspired words, in heaven. [The preposition could be translated "by" instead of "in," rendering the verse, "For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled by heaven."] But this view causes consternation among fundamentalists because the preservation of God's words in heaven (but not on earth) does little good on earth. God presumably inspired His Word to begin with because man, being a sinful race, and living in a world system crafted by the Enemy of Truth, desperately needs Divine revelation of Truth if he is to have any hope in time or eternity.
To depart from the solid rock of the verbal plenary inspiration of the autographa is to abandon the only sure revelation of truth and to cast aside the Providential Preservation view of Scripture is to take the first step upon that perilous journey.
The real issue beneath the textual debate between the TR and the CT is whether or not God, having verbally inspired His Word, has indeed cast 7% of it into the furnace of rationalism. Those who hold that the TR is essentially equal to the autographa believe themselves to be on solid footing Biblically, Theologically, Practically and Historically.
The Bible is permeated with statements about the Lord preserving His Scripture for believers, such as Psm. 12:6-7; Psm. 78:1-8; Psm. 105:8, Psm. 119:111, 160; and Eccl. 3:14. [Modern translations follow a variant reading from the Masoretic Text for Psalm 12:7 and change the message from the preservation of the words of Scripture to the preservation of believers ("him," i.e., every one of the words, versus "us"). This change based on a textual variant eliminates the doctrine of preservation of Scripture from this passage.] Along with the previously cited Mt. 4:4, New Testament passages such as Mt. 5:17-18, Mt. 24:35 and I Peter 1:23-25, affirm the doctrine of the Providential Preservation. Two significant passages which the author will address are Jn. 12:48 and Jn. 17:8.
In reference to the former verse, Christ said "The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last." The expression "the word" translates ho logos and it refers to the totality of Christ's canonical words. One must expect that Christ's canonical and inscripturated words will be the ever-present standard by which all mankind will be judged.
The latter verse, Jn. 17:8, states, "For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me." The verse teaches that Christ's responsibility before the Father is to give His believers the Father's words (remata). Several questions must be answered. What and where are these words? Has Christ fulfilled His responsibility in preserving the Father's words to His immediate audience and to future generations (cf. v. 20)? The answer to the first question is that the Father's words are the canonical Scriptures. The second question must be answered in the affirmative. The Lord Jesus Christ has the power, character and means to preserve the Scriptures. Not only has the Lord preserved His Word to His immediate audience, but He has preserved it through their word (logou, e.g., the NT Scripture) for future generations.
This passage also teaches the Christian's responsibility toward Christ's preserved words of the Father. Christ states that believers "have received them." The word "received" translates elabon which is a 3rd person, plural, 2nd aorist, indicative, active verb from lambano and it means "take" or "receive." The believer's responsibility is not to restore the 4th century text (i.e., Westcott and Hort) [Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, pp. 124-146] through the science of textual criticism (advocates of modern versions), but to receive the providentially preserved words of Christ. When the doctrine of Providential Preservation is rejected or ignored, all that is left is man's imperfect and rationalistic efforts. Biblically, Christians have had the expectation from this passage to receive the providentially preserved words from the Father, through Christ, through the autographa of the apostles. Believers of the 17th century confirmed their belief in receiving the providentially preserved Scripture by naming the common Greek text the textum...nunc ab omnibus receptum ("the text now received by all").
A very large number of the changes, omissions, and additions in the CT are of theological significance. The full name and title of the Lord Jesus Christ is changed repeatedly. Entire portions of Scripture, such as Mk. 16:9-20 and Jn. 7:53-8:11, included in the TR MSS, are left out. CT proponents often argue that these changes affect no doctrine, but what about the doctrine of Providential Preservation which is inextricably woven with the foundational doctrine of verbal, plenary inspiration? If words are added, omitted, or changed, how can these doctrines remain unaffected. CT proponents generally take issue with the charge that the texts underlying the CT are examples of texts tampered with by early Gnostics. But the NT is full of warnings about incipient Gnosticism. It is naive indeed to think that these early false teachers did not tamper with the Greek NT in support of their false doctrine (Strouse, pp. 89-97. Cf. also Wilbur Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Inc., Publ., 1977, pp. 107-110). That Satan attacks the Word of God is entirely noncontroversial. That his attack upon the NT underlies many of the variant readings of the CT which certainly have theological significance cannot be easily rejected (Ernest C. Colwell, What Is the Best New Testament? Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1952, p. 53).
Perhaps the strongest theological argument for holding to the TR as the preserved words of God is simply that the position itself arises from a strong sense of the mighty power and faithfulness of God Himself. TR adherents believe in a God Whose wisdom foresaw the need for an inspired and preserved Scripture, and Whose omnipotence guaranteed that men throughout Christian history would have one. One wonders about the theology of those who are still in the process of deciding upon the best of numerous readings in their Greek NT.
In simple practical terms the TR is superior to the CT. With regard to textual credibility and fidelity the TR family of texts (which is by far the largest group, approximately 90% of extant MSS) is literally remarkable. Variants among these texts are few. Variants between the texts underlying the CT, however, are on such a large scale as to stagger the textual scholar who considers them. For example, in the Gospels alone there are 7,578 differences between B and the TR, and 8,972 differences between a and the TR (John W. Burgon, The Revision Revised, Paradise, PA: Conservative Classics, n.d., p.12). From these facts it is evident that even among the two favorite texts of the CT adherents there are thousands of differences! How can these variant readings among the CT supporting texts be sorted out and any single dependable text restored?
In practical terms the TR adherent has enormous assurance when he preaches from any passage of Scripture in his Bible, confidently believing all of it to be the Word of God. But what must the CT adherent or MT adherent do when he preaches from a passage which has variant readings? Does he decide himself or take the editor's variant reading? It is hard to imagine such a ministry having any solid footing, especially if expository preaching is being attempted.
The Historical Argument
By examining historical documents such as confessions and statements of faith, the bibliologist may ascertain the validity of this proposition that Christians have maintained the doctrine of Providential Preservation of Scripture. For instance, The Westminster Confession of Faith (1643-48) states,
"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. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope" (The Westminster Confession of Faith, Philadelphia, PA: Great Commission Publications, n.d., p. 4).
Baptists in the past have held to Providential Preservation as well. For instance, The New Hampshire Confession (1833) states,
"We believe that the Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired, and is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction {italics mine}; that it has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter...and therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the world, the true centre of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried" (William Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1983, pp. 361-362).
Since other confessions such as The Swiss Confession (1675), Articles of Faith of the Baptist Bible Union of America (1923), The Baptist Faith and Message (1925) of the Southern Baptist Convention, etc., affirm the doctrine of the Providential Preservation of Scripture as well, the argument is established that Christians have held to this doctrine historically.
The TR is to be preferred far above the CT and the MT on the basis of Biblical, Theological, Practical and Historical arguments.
Is the doctrine of the Providential Preservation of Scripture a watershed for fundamentalists? It is apparent that some bibliological ignorance and confusion abounds among fundamentalists. The fundamentalist must be cautious not to reject in toto the doctrine of the Providential Preservation of Scripture. Moreover, the fundamentalist must be careful not to embrace rationalistic positions such as conceptual preservation [the original words inspired but only the concepts of the autographa are preserved] or redactionism. [Redactionism comes from the German word redaktion and means "editorship." In the so-called "synoptic problem," liberals believe the Scripture writers were redactors who "edited" (i.e., corrected or changed) the words of Christ to suit their context. Fundamentalists should avoid the apostate position that Matthew, Mark and Luke did not accurately record Christ's very words.]
If the fundamentalist is ignorant about or has rationalistic views concerning the 93%, how will he treat the 7%, or the 1.3%? The doctrine of the Providential Preservation of Scripture will become a watershed for Fundamentalism if the fundamentalist does not understand the parameters of the textual issue.
The Comma Johanneum (I Jn. 5:7,8) is the classic verse for illustration of the Providential Preservation of Scripture. No fundamentalist would deny the truth of this verse, which states, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." However, the italicized portion is not supported by the majority of MSS. Consequently, based on the textual theories of the Critical Text and of the Majority Text, the Johannine Comma is omitted. This omission creates a major grammatical problem of mixed genders. The masculine "witness" becomes the controlling participle of the neuter nouns "spirit and "water." When the author challenged several international Greek scholars such as Dr. Don Wilkins, Dr. Dan Wallace and Dr. Art Farstad concerning the grammatical problem, only Farstad responded, and that response was the historical argument that trinitarians would have used this verse, if it were available, in the Trinity debates (Which English Translation of the Bible Is Best for Christians to Use Today?, Transcript, Chattanooga, TN: The Ankerberg Theological Research Institute, 1995, pp. 27-28). The tenacity of this test, in the face of the continued onslaught of heretics and scholars, is an example of the Providential Preservation of Scripture (Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate over I John 5:7-8, Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995, 383 pp.).
Fundamentalists should acknowledge some related facts that help establish the parameters in the textual issue.
1. Holding to a sound doctrine of bibliology, including verbal, plenary inspiration and preservation, does not make one guilty of "Bibliolatry." Instead, it is a manifestation of one whose heart worships the Lord Jesus Christ deeply.
2. Holding to a sound doctrine of bibliology, including verbal, plenary inspiration and preservation, does not place one in the camp of those who believe in "Incorruptible Seed Salvation." Those who hold that the TR/AV reflect the preserved words of God nevertheless hold that there is enough of the truth in Bible translations based on inferior texts and inferior translation techniques to bring a sinner to saving faith in Jesus Christ.
3. Holding to a sound doctrine of bibliology, including verbal, plenary inspiration and preservation, does not mean holding to the position of "Dual Inspiration" or "Advanced Revelation."
The author believes that both the CT and the MT, and their corresponding versions, are inundated with problems. Although both Greek editions are belabored with methodological problems [both the CT and the MT utilize the fallacious and feckless genealogical methodology of Westcott and Hort] the CT is laden with a major philosophical difficulty; its Greek text records at least three errors which undermine the doctrine of inerrancy. The first error is a historical error. In Mt. 1:7, 10, the CT opts for an erroneous reading which substitutes for the two kings of Asa and Amon in Christ's kingly lineage the psalmist Asaph and the prophet Amos. [When the author confronted Dr. Kenneth Barker, general editor of the NIV, at the John Ankerberg studio on July 8, 1995, about this textual error, he reflected his cavalier attitude about bibliology by stating "When we revise the NIV, we will fix this problem."] The second error is a scientific error. In Lk. 23:45, the CT uses the variant eklipontos, "was eclipsed," a scientific impossibility for the Passover, instead of the TR reading eskotisthe, "was darkened." Finally, the third error contradicts Christ's words. In Jn. 7:8, the Lord Jesus states that He is not going to the feast and then He goes to the feast. The CT uses the negative ouk, "not," instead of the TR reading oupo, "not yet." These three errors demonstrate that the textual editors of this Greek edition have a very low view of inspiration and inerrancy, and they also prove that they cannot be trusted with God's inerrant Word.
Two criteria arise with regard to the value of a translation of the Bible. 1) How reliable are its original language texts? 2) How reliable is it as an accurate translation? The preceding paragraph examines the first criterion. Translational techniques such as formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence [fundamentalists should become familiar with David Cloud's Dynamic Equivalency: Death Knell of Pure Scripture, Oak Harbor, WA: Way of Life Literature, 1990, pp. 1-43) relate to the second criterion. Translations utilizing the formal equivalence technique generally reflect a word for word translation and the cultural, social, political and religious backdrop of the original audience. Translations, especially the modern versions, adopt the dynamic equivalence technique and use more paraphrase and give contemporary renderings. Generally speaking, the AV is an example of formal equivalence and the TEV and NIV are examples of the dynamic equivalence technique. Translators can take the dynamic equivalence technique to an extreme, as evinced in the Black Bible Chronicles (or popularly known as the "Rap Bible") published by Oxford University Press, which states for Ex. 20:7, "You shouldn't diss the Almighty's name, using it in cuss words or rapping with one another. It ain't cool and payback's a monster."
The unsettled text of the CT and the uncertain translational techniques of the modern versions should be sufficient cautions to the fundamentalist about moving away from the certainty of the standard, received and authorized Bible. [The "Preface" of The New King James Bible, Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc., Publ., 1982, pp. iii-viii, gives an excellent contemporary and scholarly defense for the TR/AV heritage and critique of the modern texts and translations.]
The author has some concerns for fundamentalism. Why would some want to move away from the tried and reliable 400 year heritage of the TR/AV for new translations based on uncertain textual techniques and unproven spiritual value. After all, the AV has been identified with fundamentalism for many years. James Barr makes an astute observation:
For fundamentalist society as a whole the Authorized Version functioned as the direct and immediate expression or transcript of divine revelation...The virtual use of only one English version, and it one originating within very traditional early seventeenth-century Christianity, thus indirectly but very powerfully supported the alienation of the fundamentalist public from, and its opposition to, the positions, interests and methods from which all biblical criticism grew and on which it depended (James Barr, Fundamentalism, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1978, pp. 210-211).
Others make the same claim for the AV with fundamentalism. The new-evangelical Robert Gromacki admits that the AV is the Bible of fundamentalism (Robert Gromacki, New Testament Survey, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974, p. xii). Fundamentalist leader Ian K. Paisley preached a sermon in the World Congress of Fundamentalism at Bob Jones University Campus in 1983, citing the resolution of the congress on the Holy Scriptures: "We recognize the unique and special place of the Authorized King James Version providentially preserved by God in the English-speaking world" (Ian R.K. Paisley, "The Authority of the Scriptures vs. The Confusion of Translations," Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University, August 1983, cassette).
Some popular myths concerning the AV need to be dispelled. One myth states that the AV is not readable. However, the readability of AV is comparable to that of modern versions such as the NKJV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, and NIV when the four readability formulas of the Flesch Reading Ease Index, the Flesch Grade Level Index, the Flesch-Kincaid Index and the Gunning Fog Index are applied (D. A. Waite, Jr., "The Reading Ease of the King James Bible," The Dean Burgon Society [1978-1994] Messages from the 16th Annual Meeting, Collingswood, NJ: the Bible For Today, 1994, pp. 70-128). Another myth suggests that new papyri finds require new translations. However, textual theories have already been advanced, and new discoveries do not affect the theories. Some espouse the myth that "we have been here before," referring to the resistance to new translations. It is one thing to acknowledge that 17th century Christians resisted the AV in favor of the Geneva Bible; it is another thing to compare this resistance with the current resistance toward replacing the AV with the NIV. A fourth myth is that modern versions are outselling the AV. Philip Stoner, Vice President of Biblical and Religious Reference Publishing, responds to David Cloud:
"In your fax dated March 27th {1995}, you mentioned a statistic that the NIV version leads the King James Version in sales since 1986. This perspective is usually based on data reported by Spring Arbor Distributors which footnotes in their report that these figures are based on their distribution only. ALL GENERAL DISTRIBUTORS SELL MORE KJV THAN NIV" (David Cloud, For Love of the Bible, Oak Harbor, WA: Way of Life Literature, 1995, p. 183).
None of the approximately 300 English translations from the 17th century to 1991 has ever been as popular as or has replaced the AV. [Laurence Vance lists 291 English translations from 1653 to 1991 in A Brief History of English Bible Translations, Pensacola, FL: Vance Publications, 1993, pp. 103-112. Cf. also Jack P. Lewis, The English Bible From KJV to NIV: A History and Evaluation (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982), 451 pp.] Will fundamentalists who have accepted the MT some day use the new, improved, revised, "26th edition," Majority Text? Will fundamentalists who have accepted the ASV, and then the NASV, and now the NIV, some day end up promoting the "Rap Bible Only" movement? Ruckman and Hyles have skewed off in the extreme of one direction. Will there be fundamentalists who skew off to the extreme in the other direction? Where will this all end?
This author believes that Beza's 1598 Greek Edition of the New Testament is essentially equivalent to the very words of the NT autographa. This view is based on Christ's promises of Providential Preservation of Scripture, on the inextricable relationship between the doctrine of verbal, plenary inspiration and the doctrine of verbal, plenary preservation, on the practical consideration that 93% of it is without doubt the preserved text, and the remaining 7% has been universally "received" by Christians as authentic, and on the historical validation that this is the received, standard, and authorized text of multitudes of believers. MAY FUNDAMENTALISTS UNDERSTAND AND PROCLAIM THE GREAT BIBLIOLOGICAL TRUTHS OF INSPIRATION, INERRANCY, INFALLIBILITY AND PRESERVATION, SO THAT FUTURE BELIEVERS WILL HAVE THE SAME OPPORTUNITY AND ASSURANCE OF MICHAIAH, WHO "HAD HEARD OUT OF THE BOOK ALL THE WORDS OF THE LORD" (JER. 36:11).
Barr, James. Fundamentalism, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1978
Burgon, John. The Revision Revised, Paradise, PA. Conservative Classics n.d.
Cloud, David. Dynamic Equivalency: Death Knell of Pure Scripture. Oak Harbor, WA. Way of Life Literature. 1990
_____________. For the Love of the Bible. Oak Harbor, WA. Way of Life Literature, 1995
Colwell, Earnest C." Scribal Habits in Early Papyri, a Study in the Corruption of the Text." The Bible in Modern Scholarship, NY. Abingdon Press, 1965
______________What is the Best New Testament?. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1952
Fowler, Everett W. Evaluating Versions of the New Testament. Watertown, WI: Maranatha Baptist Press, 1981
Gromacki, Robert. New Testament Survey. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974
Hodges, Zane, and Arthur Farstad. The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text. Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982
Lewis, Jack. The English Bible From KJV to NIV: A History and Evaluation. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982
Lumpkin, William. Baptist Confessions of Faith. Valley Forge PA: Judson Press, 1983
Maynard, Michael. A History of the Debate over I John 5:7-8. Tempe, AZ: Comma Pub. 1995
Metzger, Bruce. The Text of the New Testament NY: Oxford University Press, 1968
The New King James Bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Inc. Publ. 1982
The New Testament: The Greek Underlying the English Authorized Version of 1611. London: The Trinitarian Bible Society, 1977
Paisley, Ian R.K. "The Authority of the Scriptures Vs. The Confusion of Translations." World Congress of Fundamentalism Sermons. Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University, August 1983. Cassette
Pickering, Wilbur. The Identity of the New Testament Text. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Inc., Publ. 1977
Robertson, A.T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934
Sproul, R.C. Explaining Inerrancy: A Commentary Oakland, CA: International Council on Inerrancy, 1980
Strouse, Thomas M. The Lord God Hath Spoken: A Guide to Bibliology. Virginia Beach, VA: Tabernacle Baptist Theological Press, 1992
Vance, Laurence. A Brief History of English Bible Translations. Pensacola, FL: Vance Publications, 1993
Waite, D.A. Defending the King James Bible. Collingswood, NJ: The Bible for Today Press, 1992
Waite D.A. Jr. "The Reading Ease of the King James Bible" The Dean Burgon Society (1978-1994) Messages From the 16th Annual Meeting. Collingswood, NJ. The Bible For Today Press, 1994
Wallace, Daniel. "The Majority Text Theory: History, Methods and Critique." Journal of the Evangelical Society (June 1994): 194.
The Westminster Confession of Faith. Philadelphia: The Great Commission Publications, N.D.
Which English Translation of the Bible is Best for Christians to use Today? Chattanooga, TN: The Ankerberg Theological Research Institute, 1995
David Cloud dcloud@whidbey.net http://wayoflife.org/~dcloud/ 1219 N. Harns Rd., Oak Harbor, WA 98277