Introduction
“I was raised on the King James (Version).” I expressed those words some time during my teen years during a discussion one Sunday after church on what version of the Bible we used. It was true. I had used the KJV in church, in private Christian school, and in my personal reading for my entire life up to that point, and after roaming through the NIV, NASB and NLT in my twenties, it’s the version I read, study, and teach from to this day.
When I articulated those words as a teenager, I couldn’t have told you why I read the KJV. (I wasn’t even saved!) It was mere tradition for me at the time, though I am grateful for it. Over the years, however, I now understand some of the underlying differences between the various English Bible versions and have come to uphold the superiority of the KJV over all other English Bibles. 1
I read the above pictured book, which, as the subtitle says, is a collection of essays written by twenty-five different contributors explaining their reasoning for using the Textus Receptus (TR) and the primary English version of the Bible derived from it, the King James. The following is my attempt at the same. May the Living God be glorified as I offer this “blog post by a Reformed Bible teacher and blogger.”
Why I Use the Received Text
So why do I use the TR/KJV? Primarily, I would say because the “logic of faith” demands it. What is this logic of faith? In short, this line of thinking believes what Scripture says about itself. It is a believing presupposition based on two foundational principles: the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture and its providential preservation.
The Logic of Faith: Inspiration and Preservation
All orthodox Christians affirm the Bible is inspired by God the Holy Spirit. 2 What if I told you that the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture is meaningless without its preservation? What if I also told you that the inspiration of Scripture assumes its preservation? The well-known passage regarding inspiration, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” For the Word of God to be “profitable” to mature the “man of God,” we have to know what God’s Word is. Everyone acknowledges the original inspired writings, known as the autographs, are gone. For a multitude of reasons, we no longer have them. All we have now are copies, or apographs, and translations from them. Readers must trust the copy/translation they hold in their hands. As readers who draw Divine hope and instruction from God’s Word, we must trust we have what it claims to be, the very words of God. Inversely, if we can’t have certainty about its identity, then it can’t be profitable. Therefore, if the Word of God is going to profit me, then the copy/translation I have in my hand must be equal to the autographs.3 To the degree it isn’t equal, it isn’t profitable.
The same applies to 2 Peter 1:21: “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” Peter assumes the apographs in his day were equivalent to the inspired original autographs. So we see that both the inspiration of every word of Scripture and its providential preservation by God are intertwined. This briefly explains the preservationist model provided by the logic of faith.
Modern Textual Criticism Opposed to Scripture
Rather than the faithful logic of the preservationist approach, Modern Biblical Textual Criticism (MBTC) follows a reconstructionist approach, in which newly discovered manuscripts are used in an attempt to reconstruct the original autographs of Scripture (which no currently living person has seen). 4 This model assumes the originals have been corrupted and/or lost and need to be restored/recovered. 5 To put it plainly, it assumes the words of God have been lost and need to be found again. This is contrary to Psalm 12:6-7:
“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.”
Also, Isaiah 59:21 adds:
"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."
Our Lord Himself speaks of the Word in Matthew 5:18:
"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."
Jesus speaks again in Matthew 24:35:
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."
Many other verses could be cited which would contradict MBTC.
To summarize, MBTC presumes the Word of God has failed, and it is up to the textual critic to restore the lost words of God. The folly of this should be evident.
Other Faulty Premises of MBTC
Its primary problem is that its basis is on evidence rather than sound exegesis, Biblical theology, and distinctly Christian presuppositions.
The shaky foundation of the restorationist method of MBTC is not only demonstrated in its opposition to the promise of God – as if that weren’t enough – but also by the subjective and arbitrary nature of the principles and axioms utilized by its practitioners. Some of these are as follows:
- Manuscripts are to be weighed and not simply counted;
- Older manuscripts are necessarily better;
- The shorter reading is preferred;
- The more difficult reading is preferred;
- Textual variants don’t affect any major doctrine 6
Much can be, and has been, written exposing the flaws in these premises. To do so goes beyond the scope of this piece. Perhaps we will do so at a later date.
Another inconsistency of the MBTC position is its view of Scripture. As I previously wrote, those who hold to MBTC will acknowledge the Bible’s inspiration. However, it appears they experience a bit of cognitive dissonance when practicing their discipline, because they end up treating Scripture like any other historical document. Is the Bible a historical document? Yes, but it is not merely a historical document. Being Spirit-inspired, it is in a different category than any other document or piece of literature from antiquity. No other document is breathed out and superintended by the Spirit of God, guaranteeing its accuracy in transmission through the generations. In the words of Chapter 1.8 of the 1689 London Baptist Confession, “The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic…” 7 As noted earlier, Scripture’s inspiration and preservation are inextricably linked, and modern textual critics affirm the inspiration of Scripture while in practice denying its preservation. If every word of Scripture was inspired, wouldn’t it also follow that every word was preserved? Would God inspire His Word but take no care in preserving it?
Conclusion
Much more could be, and has been, said regarding this topic. We could discuss philosophies of translation and manuscripts; we could dig deeper into the doctrine of inspiration, but those are peripheral to the foundational discussion. The crux of the debate is, has God preserved His Word? If so, how? In the mass of newly discovered manuscripts, or “in all ages” using His people the Church?
The analogy of faith teaches us that Scripture interprets Scripture. If that’s true, then we must let Scripture speak for itself and believe what it says. What does Scripture say about itself? Does it say it would be lost to time and restored by scholars? Or does God promise to preserve His Word through every generation? Once these questions are answered, each of us can then individually deal with the final question: do we believe it?
To me, the choice is clear. The logic of faith is the more faithful, logical model. In accordance with the prayer of Jesus in John 17:8, 8 the Word of God is something to be received, not criticized. This is why I use the TR/KJV. I pray the majority of the American, English speaking Church will do the same.
Footnotes
1 I reject Ruckmanism. It is unorthodox, nonconfessional and factious. My desire is to unify the Church.
2 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:21
3 Only the autographs are inspired. Once again, I reject Ruckmanism. But inspiration can, in a derivative sense, apply to translations. Translations from the apographa are derivatively inspired and doctrinally authoritative.
4 Modern textual critics are now beginning to admit they can’t reconstruct the original text; however this was the initial goal of this approach.
5 “In A History of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (1899) Marvin R. Vincent defined the goal of text criticism at the end of the nineteenth century as follows:
‘Text Criticism is that process by which it is sought to determine the original text of a document or of a collection of documents, and to exhibit it, freed from all those errors, corruptions and variations which it may have accumulated in the course of its transmission by successive copyings (p. 1).'”
The assumption is Scripture has been corrupted and it is up to the text critic to restore it. False teachers absolutely sought to tamper with and corrupt the Scriptures (ex. 2 Thess. 2:2). But the logic of faith assumes the preservation of Scripture by God despite these attempts, not that they were doctored to the extent they were lost and now must be restored.
6 This common claim is unsubstantiated exegetically or theologically. It is also presumptuous, arbitrary, and untrue.
7 Section 1.8 of the 1647 Westminster Confession reads nearly identically for my Presbyterian friends. 🙂
8 “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.”
gpluslighthouse 