DEAR PASTOR FRED

David C. Bennett, D. Min.

Recently I received an email from a Pastor Fred who objected to an article I wrote titled REGULAR BAPTIST PRESS AND THE KING JAMES BIBLE AND THE RECEIVED TEXT (http://www.biblefortoday.org/bennett/). Pastor Fred took offense to my writing this article because The folks at Regular Baptist Press are doctrinally sound, preach salvation and sanctification, and the authority and sufficiency of Scripture in all issues of life and Godliness. 

I encourage the reader to go to the web site and read the entire article but for the sake of this paper a couple of excerpts from the article will be given. In the mid 1980s I was studying for a Masters degree through Grand Rapids Baptist Seminary. By the providence and good hand of the Lord I transferred from Grand Rapids to Bethany Theological Seminary. One of the courses at Bethany required reading books on the Textual issue of the New Testament. The books chosen by the professor for the course were written by Dr. David Otis Fuller and Dean of Chichester John Burgon. Through reading these books my spiritual eyes were opened to the real Bible Textual issue. Therefore I became more conscious of the commentaries I used and the teaching materials we were using in our ministry.

I then wrote that In the very early 1990s the Executive Editor of Regular Baptist Press, Vernon Miller, now retired, visited Sydney, Australia. Mr. Miller had come to conduct a Sunday school conference for the independent Baptist churches in the surrounding Sydney area. At one of the sessions Mr. Miller made the comment that Regular Baptist Press only used the King James Bible. Most of the pastors attending that conference also used only the King James Bible so that assurance from Mr. Miller sounded good to their ears. Now read the following very carefully However, I was at that time teaching the adult Regular Baptist Sunday school material CHOOSING TO BE SPIRITUAL by Dave and Pat Warren. In the Instructors manual page 7 of CHOOSING TO BE SPIRITUAL the Warrens had sought to clarify something in the King James Bible saying that "In 1 Corinthians 3:1 the Greek word for carnal is sarkinos." Then they went on to say that "In 3:3 the term for carnal is sarkikos." This statement prompted me to do a little research concerning the Greek word found in these two verses. This research uncovered the fact that the Warrens consulted the Critical Greek Text, by Westcott and Hort, rather than the Greek text underlying the King James Bible, the Received Greek Text. The Critical Text did use different words than the Received Greek Text and therefore the difference. However, my question then and still is "Why did the Warrens use the Critical Text rather than the Received Text? Then I wondered why, James Dyet, the then editor of youth and adult Sunday school material at RBP did not at least make a note somewhere in the manual informing the teacher that the Critical Greek Text was used rather than the Received Greek Text? Was this a matter of dishonesty and deception by Regular Baptist Press?

I did approach Mr. Miller at the conference concerning this matter and he said I was being too picky. TOO PICKY CONCERNING THE WORDS OF GOD?! Think about it. What if I was to write a Bible study on 1 Timothy using the New American Standard Version (NASV) and when chapter three and verse sixteen is discussed I write Our NASV says And by common confession is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh… Now the Greek word which our NASV translates He who is the word theos which should be properly translated God and not He who. Am I being honest with the student? Yes, in one way I am being honest for the Greek text underlying the King James Bible is theos and should be translated God. However, this is not the Greek text underlying the NASV. Am I half honest? Was RBP half honest?

Pastor Fred then makes a suggestion. He writes Let me suggest to you that the controversy about the "received text" is a matter of philosophy not doctrine or integrity (Emphasis added). For all those Pastor Freds out there, CONTROVERSY over the Received Text should not be a controversy for The New Testaments of the King James Bible, William Tyndale's Bible, Luther's German Bible, Olivetan's French Bible, the Geneva Bible (English), as well as many other vernacular versions of the Protestant Reformation were translated from the Greek Text of Stephens, 1550, which (with the Elzevir Text of 1624) is commonly called the Textus Receptus, or the Received Text (TR). It is the "Traditional Text" (T.T.) that has been read and preserved by the Greek Orthodox Church throughout the centuries. From it came the Peshitta, the Italic, Celtic, Gallic, and Gothic Bibles, the medieval versions of the evangelical Waldenses and Albigenses, and other versions suppressed by Rome during the Middle Ages. Though many copies were ruthlessly hunted down and destroyed, the Received Text has been preserved by an Almighty Providence.[1] These people had the Word of God and they were persecuted for it. I for one do not mind being in the line of these dear people.

Also, as to this so-called controversy it is only a controversy to those who refuse to accept the fact that God has preserved His Word. Now, as to accepting the Received Text as Gods Word is only ones philosophy, according to my computer thesaurus some synonyms for philosophy are; viewpoint, thinking, way of life, values and beliefs. YES, Pastor Fred, it could be said what one believes concerning the text of Scripture is ones philosophy according to these synonyms.

BUT to say the controversy about the text of Scripture is NOT DOCTRINE is absurd! Again allow this writer to quote Dr. Jones. It is often stated that no matter what Greek text one may use no Christian doctrine is actually affected, hence, the whole controversy is but a "tempest in a teapot". Not so, for although as many as half of the differences between the "majority" and "minority" texts be termed "inconsequential", about 25 pages of significant discrepancies remain and the "minority" omits words from the text that total 10 pages.[2]

TWO EXAMPLES:

WHAT ABOUT THE DOCTRINE OF THE BLOOD OF CHRIST? In the Critical minority Text it is omitted in Colossians 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.

WHAT ABOUT THE DOCTRINE OF REPENTENCE? It is omitted in the Critical minority Text in Matthew 9:13 …for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

To sum it up Dr. D. A. Waite writes that Theology is affected in the Bible versions in two possible ways: (1) Either the PARAPHRASE found in the versions causes doctrinal changes, or (2) The basic TEXT OF GREEK is in error.[3]

WHAT ABOUT INTEGRITY? NOTE some synonyms for integrity are honesty, truth, truthfulness, honour, veracity, reliability, and uprightness.  RBP was not honest in not telling the reader they were criticizing, critiquing the King James Bible with a Greek text upon which the King James Bible is not based!

Pastor Fred chastises this writer by saying It seems to me that God has called us to fulfill the great commission -- making disciples of all nations -- not fighting with other fundamentalist believers.  So to be true to the great commission Pastor Fred seems to believe it is acceptable for other fundamentalist believers to publish works that criticize or critique the King James Bible with a Greek text upon which the King James Bible is not based and it is not required for the publisher, in this case RBP, to tell the unsuspecting reader this is what they have done! Very strange thinking!   

Pastor Fred then reproves this writer by saying It is a shame that someone who is a Bible Believing Christian would be divisive over an issue of philosophy in direct contradiction to the Bible's directives against making an issue of things that are "doubtful disputations". Romans 14: 1 has nothing to do with being honest and open concerning this issue under discussion. However, critiquing the King James Bible with the Critical minority text and not telling the reader, that is divisive!  

Pastor Fred then lists six things he believes this writer is guilty or ignorant of and they are: 

1. What does the Bible say about the original texts?

2. How did Jesus treat the LXX?

3. What makes the "received" text any different than any of the other Western texts?

4. Actually, what we call the textus receptus today, is not identical to the text that our beloved KJV was translated from.

5. You arrived at you personal conclusions after reading someone else 's  conclusions -- not by studying the texts yourself.

6. I'm not sure, but it appears that you are more concerned about being a man pleaser (saying what pleases those from a sectarian camp) than you are about proclaiming the grace of God to a world desperately in need of the Gospel -- not about what text the Gospel comes from.

This writer will now seek to answer these six points Pastor Fred has made.

1. What does the Bible say about the original texts? 

a.       Gods Word says the original texts were breathed out by God Himself, 2 Timothy 3: 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God...   This is INSPIRTATION! However, inspiration without preservation is useless, nothing. Through the ages the originals were worn out by their continual use so the question is; did God leave His breathed-out Words unprotected and unpreserved? The answer is NO, God did not!

b.      Gods Word calls copies Scripture, 2Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures... Dr. Floyd Jones writes Thus, when Timothy was a child, there was no New Testament collection of Scripture anywhere. Nor was Paul speaking of the "ORIGINALS" of the Old Testament for there was not an original Old Testament piece of paper or vellum extant at that time.

Wrestle with this! Come to grips with it! These are the verses upon which many of us base our faith and say we believe in the "ORIGINALS". Yet these very verses are not speaking of the original manuscripts!

But are the copies inspired? The Bible itself clearly teaches that faithful copies of the originals are also inspired. The word "Scripture" in II Timothy 3:1617 is translated from the Greek word "graphé" (grafhj/). Graphé occurs 51 times in the Greek New Testament and at every occurrence it means "Scripture" in fact, it usually refers to the Old Testament text.

A perusal of the N.T. reveals that the Lord Jesus read from the "graphé" in the synagogue at Nazareth (Luk.4:21) as did Paul in the synagogue at Thessalonica (Acts 17:2). The Ethiopian eunuch, returning home from worshipping at Jerusalem, was riding in his chariot and reading a passage of graphé (Acts 8:3233). These were not the autographs that they were reading; they were copies moreover, copies of copies! Yet the Word of God calls them graphé and every graphé is "given by inspiration of God" (II Tim.3:16). Thus, the Holy Writ has testified and that testimony is that faithful copies of the originals are themselves inspired. Selah!

Therefore, it all comes down to a promise given by God that He would preserve the text which He gave us. Timothy never saw an original when he was a child of either the Old or New Testament, yet in verse 16 God says that what Timothy learned as a child was given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. Now if God were talking about something which had been lost and/or is no longer true and accurate, why did He give verse 17?[4] j

This writer agrees with God that a faithful copy of the original inspired words of God is Scripture! THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE IN THE GREEK TEXTUS RECEPTUS the original words breathed out by God! A few verses speaking of Gods protection and preservation of His ORIGINAL Words are;

Mark 13:31 "Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away". Did Jesus mean what He said?

Isaiah 40:8 "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth; but the word of our God shall stand for ever".  Gods Word is composed of His Words! Did God mean what He said?

Psalm12:6, 7 "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shall keep them, O Lord, thou shall preserve them from this generation forever".  Did God really mean He would preserve His words or is God a liar?

John 12:48 "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day."

I believe God breathed out His Words (inspiration) and men such as Jeremiah and Paul wrote them down. God then protected and preserved those original words in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek for such men as our King James translators to bring across into our English language and therefore giving us the King James Bible.

The next point Pastor Fred puts forth is:

2. How did Jesus treat the LXX? The existence of the LXX before the birth of Christ is debated by many learned men but this question leads me to believe that Pastor Fred assumes the LXX existed when Jesus was walking this earth.  Again making reference to Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones in his THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, page 15, he writes that ...if the Savior, the apostles and the early church used the Septuagint for their Bible, why would the true believers have ever left it and why did they return to the Hebrew Text? The answer is obvious they would never have done so.  Again I emphasize that 2 Timothy 3: 16 is referring to the Hebrew Old Testament Scriptures and not to the LXX!  
3. What makes the "received" text any different than any of the other Western texts?  Is there such a text as Western? Neither Dean Burgon nor his close associate, Rev. Edward Miller, believed that there were such things as text families. Textual families were concoctions of Fenton John Anthony Hort and Bishop Brooke Foss Westcott as they expressed it in their Introduction of the Greek New Testament of 1881. They had to devise the so-called text families in order to put down and defeat the Textus Receptus which contains the greatest number of manuscripts in existence today—about 5,210 or over 99% of the 5,255 manuscripts as of 1997.[5]

Dr. Jack Moorman in his book FOREVER SETTLED says …the basic idea of textual types or families has its source in the naturalistic viewpoint and we do not believe that it represents the facts concerning the distribution of MSS in the early centuries.[6]

Dr. Moorman further states concerning the Western family that …Klijn, speaking of a pure or original Western text affirms that such a text did not exist.[7]

4. Actually, what we call the textus receptus today, is not identical to the text that our beloved KJV was translated from. Dr. Frederick Scrivener produced a Greek text and is published by the Dean Burgon Society. This edition says this is ...THE EXACT GREEK TEXTUS RECEPTUS THAT UNDERLIES THE KING JAMES BIBLE.[8]

Further reading of this exceptional publication tells us Tyndale himself followed the second and third editions of Erasmuss Greek text (1519, 1522). In the revisions of his translation previous to 1611 a partial use was made of other texts; of which ultimately the most influential were the various editions of Beza from 1560 to 1598, if indeed his Latin version of 1556 should not be included. Between 1598 and 1611 no important edition appeared; so that Bezas fifth and last text of 1598 was more than likely than any other to be in the hands of King Jamess revisers, and to be accepted by them as the best standard within their reach.[9]

We can hold the Greek text of Dr. Scrivener and see those exact God breathed Words given to Paul, Peter, James, John and the other New Testament writers. Then, praise God, we can hold up our precious English Bible, the Authorized King James Bible, and say those King James translators faithfully carried across into English language those God-breathed Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic Words!

The fifth statement of my learned correspondent is,

5. You arrived at you personal conclusions after reading someone else 's  conclusions -- not by studying the texts yourself.  I take affront to this from my correspondent. Be assured I think for myself. However, as a matter of fact we are all students and our conclusions are somewhat formed from what we are taught.

Pastor Fred, going back to point #2 NO ONE, and I stress NO ONE, would read the New Testament thinking Jesus was reading and quoting from a source known as the LXX. Why? It is not in the sacred Text as to what source language the Lord was reading. So I ask you how you came about to ask the question if you did not learn it from someone?

Also before the proliferation of all these new English versions a reader of the Bible would not dare question the last 12 verses of Mark 16. Pastors and others question these verses because of some notes in their Bible or some critical teacher of the Bible taught them this lie.

Oh, Pastor Fred, going back to point #3 how did you know there were supposedly different families of Texts? You didnt by chance read that somewhere or get taught that by someone else did you?  

To conclude Pastor Freds inquiry he says,     

6.  I'm not sure, but it appears that you are more concerned about being a man pleaser (saying what pleases those from a sectarian camp) than you are about proclaiming the grace of God to a world desperately in need of the Gospel -- not about what text the Gospel comes from.

Undoubtedly you and I are not in the same camp Pastor Fred, or this article would not need to be written. If I belong to any camp it is the camp that holds to the fact that we have an accurate Greek Text in Scriveners Greek New Testament and a faithful and accurate translation of those preserved Words in our King James Bible.  

Pastor Fred, you say I am more concerned about being a man pleaser! I do not know how the Lord has led you and undoubtedly you do not know how He has led me.  

If I may, may I take just another moment or two of your time and share a little of my life experiences. I left a mission agency, with full support, because of what the Bible teaches concerning ecclesiastical separation and in that departure we lost friends and support. However, obedience to the Word always brings the blessing of God.

I have always used the King James Bible but never fully understood why until I was taught by others that God has preserved in the original Hebrew and Greek languages those inspired Words. These preserved Words are found in the Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament & the Received Greek New Testament. Then I learned God had faithful and scholarly translators in 1611 carry over into our English language those very Words of God and thereby providing us with the King James Bible. Thank the Lord for these teachers! If it had not been for those teachers I may be teaching today that Jesus used the LXX or that the last twelve verses of Mark are not genuine! How sad that would have been!

My position on the King James Bible and its underlying texts has cost us both friends and support. Pastor Fred, if I am trying to please man, or any particular group of men, I am not doing a very good job of it!

As to preaching the Gospel I seek to do all I can through preaching, witnessing and the radio programmes God has allowed us to have in getting out the Gospel. However, in doing this I use those Words God has had faithfully and lovingly carried over into our English language in the King James Bible from those preserved original Hebrew and Greek Words.   

It is always good to go back over territory once traversed so thank you Pastor Fred for writing. Your email stirred me to research again those precious teachings concerning the Word and Words of God. 

In closing, Jeremiah 26:2 says Thus saith the LORD; Stand...and speak unto all...all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word. TODAY THIS IS ACCOMPLISHED IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE ONLY BY USING THE RIGHT TEXT AS FOUND IN THE KING JAMES BIBLE!