SATURDAY CONTROVERSIES - IS THERE ONLY ONE TRUE BIBLE? (PART 3)

Years ago, I taught a small Sunday School class. There were four of us. We were going through books of the Bible, and each of us had a different Bible version: A King James, a New King James, a New Living Translation, and a New American Standard. One of us referred to his translation as "The One True Bible." Which one was that?

The last couple of weeks I dealt with issues relating to Theology Proper (the Doctrine of God), and am moving into Bibliology (want to guess what that means?). There are controversies dealing with the Bible, and most of them deal with questioning the authority of Scripture, such as inerrancy. To be honest, I believe these show a desire to follow the word of fallible men than the infallible God. Thus, since I'm focusing on disputes between those who have a strong Bibliology, I won't be dealing with those areas.

Another set of disagreements fall into hermeneutics (i.e. Biblical interpretation). I thought of focusing on it here and decided not to; there are debates that are rooted in hermeneutics, and I'll deal with some of those later.

This leaves one area of division, and that is Bible translations and versions. And for the most part, in spite of the staggering number of English versions, there isn't a lot of division there. Except for those who believe there's one true Bible. By the way, I'm not talking about my classmate who used that term to describe his NASB! No, the version that has that claim is the King James - many KJV Onlies don't accept the New King James.

Let's start with an important fact, and that's the texts we have. In looking at ancient manuscripts, two things looked at are the number of texts and the time between the writing of the work and its oldest existing manuscript. The New Testament is the strongest in both categories. Now, hold on to that thought for a minute.

History time. When Erasmus did his manuscript around 1500 AD, shortly after the printing press came out, he used half a dozen complete manuscripts (technically, a fragment can be counted as a manuscript, up to the complete work). The Textus Receptus' had about 10. Now, we have thousands - last I knew, it was 4500.In the 1800s, they discovered a pair of complete texts dating to the 300's. That sounds like a long time, but that is not at all long for ancient manuscripts. 

Of course, with handwritten copies, variations of the texts are given. And there were differences between the manuscripts Erasmus and the Textus Receptus used and the 300 year ones found later. So should we go with the texts that were most common, or the ones closest to the originals? 

There are two main reasons for those believing the King James is the one true Bible. No, let me rephrase it. One reason is because the believe the TR text better represents the original manuscripts than translations based on the older texts. The other reason is really an excuse - it's simply tradition. (By the way, the Geneva Bible is an English translation predating the KJV, and there were others as well).

At this point, let me mention two different types of translations - I'm not counting paraphrases, which is putting the text in one's own words and doesn't need any Greek texts as you would for a translation. Those two forms are formal (word for word) equivalent and dynamic (thought for thought). One way you can tell which one you're using is look at Luke 9:44a - 

• "Let these words sink down into your ears..." NKJV
• "Listen carefully to what I am about to tell you..." NIV

You'll notice that there is no difference in meaning, but we are more apt to talk like the Dynamic Equivalent NIV than the Formal Equivalent NKJV.

Let's go back to my Sunday School class. The person reading the KJV would struggle reading it. Well, he was excited when his wife bought him a NIV for Christmas, which he was able to read easier. But three weeks later, he was back to his KJV. Why? Because he could follow when I read from the NKJV or the other guy read from "the One True Bible" aka NASB. Those all were formal equivalents.

This blog is long enough, so let me focus on two arguments for the KJV Only view. One is that all translations since the KJV are copywritten, and thus that shows profit motive. Well, no. Another reason for copyrights is to make sure someone doesn't release a version without changing words and meanings. And when I look at the NKJV and the NIV, I see the copyright item allows churches to use it with certain reasonable considerations without charging anything.

The other is the complaint that the Greek texts used for the NASB, NIV, and most other translations take Christ's blood out in Colossians 1:14. Really? True, some translations don't have the blood in Colossians but do in the parallel passage Ephesians 1:7. I learned that when there are parallel passages, the different alternative is preferred. After all, we're more apt to make the two passages match than to make them different.

I will close with this observation. I've mentioned that the dates and the number of manuscripts set the Bible apart from all other ancient writings. Another is the amount of agreement. No major doctrine and no minor doctrine is affected by the textual variations. It might affect the meaning of a verse, but when you look at the whole of Scripture, you'll see that they fit together.

 

SUNDAY PSALMS PART 4 OF 48 - PSALM 12

 

Downtown, Indianapolis.

1    Help, Lord, for the godly man ceases!
    For the faithful disappear from among the sons of men.
2   They speak idly everyone with his neighbor;
    With flattering lips and a double heart they speak.
3   May the Lord cut off all flattering lips,
    And the tongue that speaks proud things,
4   Who have said, "With our tongue we will prevail;
    Our lips are our own;
    Who is lord over us?"

5   "For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy,
    Now I will arise," says the Lord;
    "I will set him in the safety for which he yearns."
6   The words of the Lord are pure words,
    Like silver tried in a furnace of earth,
    Purified seven times.
7   You shall keep them, O Lord,
    You shall preserve them from this generation forever.
8   The wicked prowl on every side,
    When vileness is exalted among the sons of men.

Psalm 12:1-8, NKJV

Another Psalm that seems relevant today, doesn't it? Doesn't it seem like the righteous and faithful have vanished? Don't we regularly hear a lot of idle talk, flattery (e.g. "You are enough"), and pride? 

Verse 4 makes me think of the Libertarian principle "You own yourself." Now, don't misunderstand me. I know exactly what the Libertarian means: it's talking about the human level, where we're not slaves, where we have personal liberty, where we're not obligated to vote for the major parties just because they're the major parties. However, the reality is that principle is a lie, because God owns us. If we're believers, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 makes it crystal clear that our Lord owns us. If we're not, we fall under the first verse of Psalm 24: "The earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof, the earth and they that dwell within" (meaning everyone). 

Then, we get to verse 5. The Lord is watching, and will give the poor safety. Stop a second. If you put how verse 5 starts in place with the previous four verses, you realize that the poor are not in safety with the SFL (Society of Flattering Lips). In other words, those who think they have no accountability are at best selfish and arrogant and couldn't care less about the needs of others, and at worse are downright oppressive.

When I first noticed this Psalm, verses 6 and 7 got my attention, and I wrote a chorus for that Psalm. Verse 6 clearly talks about the purity of God's Word. But is verse 7 still talking about the Bible when it says "You will keep them.... you shall preserve them forever?" Some King James Only people make that claim, and hold that God's Word is preserved by their preferred translation. But does "them" in verse 7 go back to verse 5, where it talks about the oppressed poor and needy?

The final verse of this Psalm goes from the future hope that God will put an end to oppression to the present reality. Is vileness exalted among men? How many movies and Jerry Springer episodes do you need to watch to realize it is? 

Pardon me, but I'm not going to make things more comfortable before I close today's blog. How often does the church fall into the same category, exalting vileness? Do we cover our TV/movie/listening with prayer? Do we, as Paul encourages in Philippians 4:8, think on what is pure and lovely and true and noble and just and of good report? Or are we allowing our minds to be defiled by the world? And yes, I face the same temptations.