There are many Bible versions in the
English language today and many of them claim themselves to be the most
accurate translation.
Greg Gilbert in his article published
on the website of Crossway (the copyright holder of ESV), listed the benefits of
a multitude of versions before concluding that the different versions are meant
for different people with different motivations and approaches towards Bible
study. Gilbert’s conclusion is commonly used by many to justify the need for a
multitude of versions. However, I absolutely disagree with Gilbert.
The Authorised Version (KJV) was the
only English Bible read by Christians between 1611 and 1885, and continued to
be the Bible read and preached in many English-speaking churches until after
the Second World War. The vast majority of modern versions only appeared
recently, some in the last quarter of a century. Therefore, Gilbert’s
conclusion about the need for a multitude of versions cannot be reasonably nor
historically justified.
Opponents of the KJV commonly claim
changes to the English language and the availability of better manuscripts to
modern scholars as reasons that justify a need for a new translation. However,
the first claim about English cannot be justified. The KJV revolutionised the
English language in the seventeenth century, transforming mediaeval English
into modern English. If the modern man could read Shakespeare and sing
eighteenth century Wesleyan songs such as And can it be? That I should gain,
then he would certainly understand the English of the KJV. Furthermore, many
non-White people like myself read the KJV and this fact absolutely smashes the
popular misconception that the old English of the KJV hinders missionary work.
Concerning the second claim about
better manuscripts, are the manuscripts available to modern scholars really
better than those used for the translations of the KJV, Geneva Bible, William
Tyndale’s New Testament, and other Reformation era Bibles? Do you know that
many modern versions actually use a totally different Greek text for their New
Testament translation? Do you know that many of the scholars who edit and
promote this different Greek text used by many modern versions, are the same
people who do not believe in the Divine Preservation, the truth, and the
infallibility of the Bible?
The Greek New Testament text used as
the basis for translation of the KJV and other Reformation era Bibles is the
Traditional Text (Textus Receptus). This is the text faithfully passed
down by Christians from generation to generation throughout the centuries. This
is also the text read and accepted by the Reformers and Puritans. The truth of
the Divine Preservation of the Word of God and the faith of the Christians
throughout the centuries, prove that the Traditional Text is the Word of God
and the true representative of the original New Testament text. The doctrine of
the Divine Preservation of the Word of God is taught in the first chapter of
both the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith and the 1689 London
Baptist Confession of Faith.
On the other hand, the Greek text
used for the translation of nearly all modern versions is called the Modern
Critical Text. This text is primarily based on the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus,
two fourth century manuscripts that were lost for 1,400 years only to be
discovered in the nineteenth century. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus
displayed a so-called Alexandrian text that is significantly different from the
Traditional Text. The Alexandrian text was used in ancient Egypt before the
fifth century (the time and place of the Arian heresy), was rejected by ancient
Christians, and effectively disappeared for 1,400 years before it was promoted
by modern scholars who deny the Divine Preservation, the truth, and the
infallibility of Scriptures. Remember, it is also modern scholars who question
if St. Peter was the author of 2 Peter and who claim that six of the Pauline
Epistles were not written by St. Paul. This is despite authorship is clear in
the very first verse of these Epistles.
Sinaiticus
and Vaticanus have missing verses (examples include Mark 16:9-20, John
5:4, John 7:53-8:11, Acts 8:37) and readings (different from the Traditional
Text) that obscure the truth of the divinity of Christ (examples include Romans
14:10, 1 Timothy 3:16). This is the reason you see in many modern versions,
notes and brackets with questionable comments that introduce doubts to the
reader such as ‘the most reliable and best manuscripts do not contain these
verses’ and ‘some manuscripts have [a certain reading]’.
Are Sinaiticus and Vaticanus
the best and most reliable manuscripts as the modern scholars claim? Clearly
not. Both manuscripts have different readings even from each other. It is
estimated that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have 3,000 differences
between them in the Gospels. At the same time, they also show signs of
corrections. For example, the reading of Hebrews 1:3 in Vaticanus has
been changed at least twice. There is also an unusual blank space between Mark
16:8 and Luke 1:1 in Vaticanus, clearly proving that the scribe was
aware of the twelve concluding verses of St. Mark’s Gospel. Although the same
verses are also missing in Sinaiticus, the original pages of the
manuscript containing the conclusion of St. Mark’s Gospel and the beginning of
St. Luke’s Gospel have been replaced. The present pages display an unusual font
size that clearly show a scribal attempt to fill all the blank space created by
the absence of the twelve verses. There is also a scribal note at the end of
the Book of Esther in Sinaiticus that testify of Sinaiticus’
suspicious origin.
How is the truth of the divinity of
Christ obscured in the Modern Critical Text and therefore, in modern versions?
An example is shown in the reading of part of 1 Timothy 3:16. The Traditional
Text reads ‘God (θεος)
was manifest in the flesh’, the Modern Critical Text however, reads ‘He (ος) was manifest in the flesh’ instead. Who
is ‘he (ος)’?
Clearly, Christ was manifest in the flesh because He is a man. The Traditional
Text very clearly without doubt proclaims that Christ is God (θεος) manifest in the flesh and
therefore, the divinity of Christ. This is the confession made by generations
of faithful Christians. On the other hand, the Modern Critical Text
unfortunately, does not show this truth.
Meanwhile, there are two translation
philosophies, namely word-for-word and thought-for-thought. The KJV is a very
accurate word-for-word translation. I absolutely reject the thought-for-thought
translation philosophy because meanings would be lost and subjected to the
interpretations of the translators.
Man does not live by bread alone, but
by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God (Deuteronomy 8:3 and Matthew
4:4). The inspiration of Scriptures is verbal and plenary and therefore, every
word and alphabet is important. A difference between the Traditional Text and
the Modern Critical Text that show the importance of every single word and
alphabet is shown in the account of Christ calling St. Peter as recorded in the
fifth chapter of St. Luke’s Gospel. According to the Traditional Text, Christ
commanded St. Peter to lay down the nets (δικτυα), however, St. Peter only lay down
one net (δικτυον),
indicating that not only did St. Peter doubted, he did not completely fulfil
the command of Christ. This in my opinion, explains the reason St. Peter fell
before Christ after the miraculous catch of fish. However, according to the
Modern Critical Text, St. Peter lay down multiple nets (δικτυα) and therefore, the reader would
instead have mistakenly thought that while St. Peter doubted, he still
completely obeyed the command of Christ.
There is a common claim that no
doctrine is affected by using the Modern Critical Text (and by extension, the
multitude of versions based on it) as important doctrines are still taught in
other parts of the Bible. For example, while Romans 14:10 and 1 Timothy 3:16 in
the Modern Critical Text do not show the divinity of Christ, Modern Critical
Text supporters say a man could still learn this truth from other verses in the
Scriptures.
The mentioned common claim is false.
The doctrines of the Divine Preservation and infallibility of the Word of God
are immediately affected. By supporting the Modern Critical Text, you are in
fact accepting the false idea that God has hidden His Word for 1,400 years and
during those years Christians had no access to the Word of God. It is
ridiculous to think that man has to use his own methods based on his own
understanding to figure out the true New Testament text. The effective
disappearance of the Alexandrian text for 1,400 years clearly shows that the
Modern Critical Text is not the Word of God and is rejected by ancient
Christians.
Furthermore, outright denial or
complete absence of important doctrines are not necessarily required for a text
or a version to be invalid and rejected. Eve did not outrightly deny the Word
of God, she simply produced the world’s very first revised version of the Word
of God before she fell in the Garden of Eden.
Some thoughts to add here, von
Tischendorf discovered pages of Sinaiticus in a wastebasket in the Sinai
monastery in 1844. Some pages were said to have been burnt. Do the actions of
the Orthodox monks show that Sinaiticus is a rejected manuscript because
of a rejected Alexandrian text that happened to survive for 1,400 years?
Erasmus might be aware of Vaticanus (it was in the papal library since
at least the fifteenth century) but he did not use it for the Traditional Text
he published. The Alexandrian text shows Arian inclination and is
unsurprisingly accepted and used by the self-claimed Witnesses who are the
modern Arians.
In conclusion, it is my position that
the KJV is the most accurate English translation of the Word of God. This is
supported by both history and the faith of the Reformers. I do not recognise
the Modern Critical Text and all versions translated from it to be the Word of
God. In my opinion, the Modern Critical text is an Arian text that must be
absolutely rejected. The science of textual criticism does not shield
supporters of the Modern Critical Text from criticism and opposition. The
expertise of those unbelieving modern scholars who reject the Traditional Text
through unbelief does not mean that the same scholars must be correct nor their
work has any value at all.
The Word of God is the only rule of
life and faith. We need to ensure the Bible we are reading is the Word of God.
Therefore, I read only the Hebrew Masoretic Text of the Old Testament, the
Greek Traditional Text of the New Testament, and word-for-word translations
like the KJV that are based only on them.
No comments:
Post a Comment