Continuing Comparing Versions Of Translation--Necessary To Come To The Truth

The Law of the LORD 

is perfect, converting 

the soul;

the testimony of the LORD

is sure, making wise

the simple;

the statutes of the LORD

are right, 

rejoicing the heart;

the commandment'

of the LORD

is pure,

enlightening the eyes;

Psalm 19:7-8

     This psalm of David clearly underlines the need, the necessity to know the truth, especially when it come to know whether or not the Bible we hold in our hands, that we read, that we have come to teach us is truly the "testimony of the LORD." As David writes this knowledge will "enlighten the eyes." The only way to know is to examine those translations, and come to understand why there are variants, differences. The reason, most important reason for this examination is that these translation teach us Christology. Jesus Christ is the Gospel and His act, His death upon the cross is the outward expression of Him and His love; but none-the-less, it is Jesus Christ that is the Gospel, that God came to earth, His Wisdom clothed in humanity to pay a debt of sin that man could not pay for himself so as to have a hope of eternal life as promised in God's word. Guided by the Holy Spirit, God, the third Person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ, as man, and as God, accomplished the purpose of God, to have a people for eternity to live with Him and enjoy all that God has purposed for those who He redeems. How we view Jesus Christ, our Christology is most important and will determine our religion, our actions. A question to show that that is true, our religion is determined by our Christology we must look at an organization that has a Christology developed from certain manuscripts: i.e., Greisback translation, along with Westcott's and Hort's translating work, translating from the Vatanicus and Sinaiticus manuscripts, those Alexandrian texts, and have an Arian theology towards Jesus Christ, and this after so many years using the King James Version of the Bible; this is just one such organization, there are more. 

     From the beginning of the early Church the ante-Nicene fathers wrote and taught against heresies that were attempting and at times succeeding to enter into the lives of the Church; one such heresy is Gnosticism, so let us see how that heresy invaded and influenced some translations. By the third century, especially the fourth century, the Scriptures were distributed widely and Christians were by means of those translations able to compare texts, note those that were heretical and reject those heretical texts. With the cannonization of the Bible, the transmission of the texts had been solidified and now came the work of comparing these competing texts, which ones should be chosen by Christians and which should be rejected. In a previous blog I wrote about the age problem, that the oldest and best preserved thing is not always the best, and that criteria is not a valid assumption; for example, to own a car made in the 50's and having low mileage, let say, 1200 miles and never driven more, clean, sharp, and new-like, compared to a 2011 car that has many miles, let say, 100,000 and is dirty, bent in places and is not as clean or sharp, that the car that is older, even though in better physical shape is better is not necessarily true. Metal in time, even without use deteriorates, the engine has less power, and there is no modern digital radio, cd player, etc., which the 2011 car has, and the newer car has been cared for, regular oil changes, driven and repaired as needed, it is a car that has been used and proven itself to be a reliable car. So, let us look at the age of the Alexandrian texts and doing so it will be found that age actually works to the detriment of modern theories based upon antiquity. Let us look at the two basic medium for texts: 1. vellum, 2. papyrus. Neither of these two medias were durable for a long time, although vellum, made from dried sheep skins or other animals was more rugged and expensive. These were used in the copies of the Scripture that were known as "official" and for use by the Churches, and by the wealthy. Both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are vellum manuscripts, and most likely were used in Christian assemblies or liturgy. Here then is a problem with the vellum even if there were more rugged and expensive, they wore out over time through use and needed to be replaced. Without rebinding services as we have today the scroll had to be transcribed into a new manuscript. What do we do with those old worn out scrolls? We put them to rest, they are unusable for daily or regular use. Furthermore, being reverent towards those old manuscripts they would by purpose destroy them, these men of God would so revere these Scriptures so that they would not want these ragged Biblical manuscripts become tattered and fall to pieces for this would show a lack of concern and be careless. (see K. Lake, R.P. Blake, and S. New, "The Caesarean text of the Gospel of Mark," Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 21 (1928), p. 349). With no rebinding then the only thing to do is to transcribe a new manuscript. This thing begs a question: Why are such old manuscripts still in existence and are in relatively good condition, are they not over fifteen centuries old? Numerous scholars such as Jakob van Bruggen (1936), a professor of New Testament exegesis at the Reformed Theological College in Kampen, Netherlands, who holds a doctorate degree in theology, in his scholarly works he defends the trustworthiness of the Bible as the Word of God, and W.N. Pickering's: The Identity of the New Testament Text" in Westminster Theological Journal, 41 (1979), and others suggest that these scrolls are in good condition despite their age because the were not used, or regularly used, therefore they did not undergo repetitive unrolling and rolling back up, being contaminated with sweaty hands, humid breath, tears, bending, and these manuscripts sat on shelves most of their life. Another question raises its head: Why? Using our minds to come to a logical answer we find that logically they were not used because they were rejected from use by these early Christians who understood them to be flawed, and refrained from using them.(see J. Van Bruggen, The Ancient Text of the New Testament, pp. 26-27). Examining the other medium for the texts is papyrus which is even more fragile due to the consistence of low-grade paper. Papyrus was less expensive and was fairly easy to make and was abundant. The Egyptians had been using papyrus for at least two milleniums before Christians. Scholars understand that papyrus was used for personal copies of documents, those documents that were not as important as was the Scriptures that were under the care of pastors. (Early Christian church copies were probably in the care of the pastor/bishops. One of the stigmas against Christian bishops in North Africa, who had recanted during the 3rd century persecutions, which caused so much disdain from the Donatists was the willingness of these bishops to turn over their copies of the Scriptures to Roman persecutors in exchange for relief from persecution). There are some papyri that are in good condition suggesting that these documents, those translations or transcriptions of the Scriptures were little used, and this suggests that they were disdained. To rely upon these papyri in good condition as to relied upon, as do these "modern" theologians, does little to give us confidence as their methodology. In fact these "modern" theologians like these transcriptions or manuscripts because, not only of their age, but because the have at the least partial Alexandrian readings. Are these papyri good witnesses to be relied upon? No! Even the staunch theologians of the Westcott/Hort camp recognize and admit that they are full of scribal errors, additions, deletions, and many give evidence that those transcribers were not proficient in the Greek language. Gonther Zuntz speaks and writes about one such papyri, p46: "In spite of its neat appearance (it was written by a professional scribe and corrected - but very imperfectly - by an expert, P⁴⁶ is by no means a good manuscript. The scribe committed very many blunders...My impression is that he was liable to fits of exhaustion." ⁽G. Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles, p. 18). He further states very plainly that "p46 abounds with scribal blunders, omissions, and also additions" (G. Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles, p. 212). Hoskier also noted the large number of omissions made in this papyrus(H.C. Hoskier, "A Study of the Chester-Beatty Codex of the Pauline Epistles," The Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. 38 (1937), p. 162). Other papyri are similarly poor quality reproductions. Colwell says of several of them,"On these last and most important matters, our three scribes are widely divided. P⁷⁵ and P⁴⁵ seriously intend to produce a good copy, but it is hard to believe that this was the intention of P⁶⁶. The nearly 200 nonsense readings and 400 itacistic spellings in P⁶⁶ are evidence of something less than disciplined attention to the basic task. To this evidence of carelessness must be added those singular readings whose origin baffles speculation, readings that can be given no more exact label than carelessness leading to assorted variant readings. A hurried count shows P⁴⁵ with 20, P⁷⁵ with 57, and P⁶⁶ with 216 purely careless readings. As we have seen, P⁶⁶ has, in addition, more than twice as many 'leaps' from the same to the same as either of the others."(E.C. Colwell, "Scribal Habits in Early Papyri: A Study in the Corruption of the Text", The Bible in Modern Scholarship, ed. J.P. Hyatt, pp. 378-9).
     We must consider these many, even overwhelming extant Greek manuscripts that are of the "Byzantine" or "Syrian" text type. Yes, they are younger that the Alexandrian texts, and using the argument from above, it would seem to be apparent that this overwhelming majority of texts is preponderant and was used by the early Church, that these manuscripts were trustworthy. Used, translated, discarded, as they were rolled, unrolled, handled, etc, there was a need for more and newer transcriptions. These greater number of Byzantine texts suggests logically that there were preferred by the early Church, multiplied over the generations to be used by the later Church.
     This method to teach about the Bible may seem laborious, even tedious, at least to some, but when our Doctrine of Christ, our Christology is at stake, that stakes could not be higher. What we have come to believe may or may not be supported by manuscripts that the early Church trusted and has been corrupted by "modern" theologians who hold to a textual criticism that is unsupported by any logic, or by any evidence, unless that evidence is disdained and cast away, not to be considered. I won't do that: I will look, and give to you the evidence, you make the decision for yourself, and to be able to make a good decision you must have the information. The Bible is God's word to man for our faith and for our lives, we must have the correct version. I will continue this study and hope that you will do the same.


The LORD is good to those
     who wait for Him,
to the soul who seeks 
     Him.
                      Lamenations 3:25


Hope in the Lord You Will Not Be Disappointed 


Richard L. Crumb

How Relilable Are These Modern Versions Of The Bible?

Now the Spirit expressly says

that in latter times some

will depart from the faith,

giving heed to deceiving spirits

and doctrines of demons, 

speaking lies in hypocrisy,

having their own conscience

seared with a hot iron,

1Timothy 4:1-2

     Paul's warning to Timothy is relevant for us today; there will be those who are hypocrites, that is, their actions belie stated belief. They say they love God, they say that they are Christians, and this fact is between them and God and I cannot, and you cannot, or should not judge them in regards to their being of the elect, but we are to judge them on the basis of their fruits, and upon the doctrines that they purpose is the truth. Paul admonishes and advises Timothy to: "Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you" (1Timothy 4:16). When you became a Christian, did you put away those things that are surely not Christian: i.e., going to bars and drinking, carousing, getting drunk? Did you continue going to movies that depict sexual scenes? Did you not measuring your clothing, what you wear bathing, or dressing, was your dress permitting yourself to be sexual, desirable by others, or did you dress properly as one who is a child of God? Did you not leave those things in favor of the truth? So when you knew the truth you changed. Will you do the same if what you find with your present beliefs, your Bible that may not actually teach what the Apostles and other writers taught? If your Church holds to doctrines that are not Biblical will you remain or find a Church that teaches the Bible? These questions are important. This life on earth is temporary, as the the hymn states: "I'm just a passing through," all things we hold dear, those material things, as another hymn states: "They are borrowed for awhile," is this what you believe? Is this your attitude? As I discuss the various manuscripts and how they became the source for many of the modern versions, ask yourself, decide for yourself, are they the ones you want to teach the doctrines that we are, as Timothy was told, to hold onto, to teach us, to be the guide for our life?

     Should we be distrustful of these so-called "modern" version of the Bible, i.e., the New International Version, the New American Standard Version, The Revised Version, the Revised Standard Version, The E.S.V, the Message Bible, and so on? What about the older versions, the King James Version, or as known the Authorized Version, and the New King James Version? Do you know how these version came to be in existence, how and from what manuscripts they came into being, and more importantly, do they teach the truth, or have they been influence by manuscripts that have been influenced by Gnosticism, or other heretical views? It is the truth that we seek! Remember this old saying: "The first time the dog bites you it is the dog's fault...." 

     Many of the changes within the manuscripts are of minor importance, but some are not, they are very serious as they are doctrinal changes, changes that exist between the King James There are a number of reasons for the informed Christian to be distrustful of the so-called "modern" versions of the Bible, such as the New International Version, the New American Standard Version, the Revised Version, the Revised Standard Version, and so on. 

     Some of the changes between the manuscripts are of minor importance, others are very serious as they are doctrinal changes between the King James Version, the New King James Version and these so-called "modern" versions. It then is important for a person to take the time to sit down and compare the King James Version, (the New King James Version is the Authorized Version written in our language rather than the older form of the English language) against these older versions: this I will attempt to do so that you can have the information and be able to decide for yourself. Why are there differences? Are not all manuscripts, those texts used to translate our Bible(s) the same or nearly the same? This is what has been taught and accepted by many in the Church, but this is not the case. The King James Version of the New Testament is translated from the Textus Receptus, a Greek textual edition and is found to be closely the same as to the Majority text which makes up some 90% of all the existing Greek manuscripts. These so-called "modern" versions of the New Testament are translated form a textual set which have many manuscripts that are older than the majority texts, but are comprised of manuscripts which are very disparate in individual readings which show all the signs of corruption. There are many pastors who have little or no training in the original languages, even having a poor understanding of grammar that teach as though they do have such knowledge but do not exegesis the Bible in their sermons or teachings, rather import their presuppositions, or beliefs, in other words they are being hypocrite when they teach from their own beliefs, they belie the truth.

     Let us then examine these texts used for those "modern" versions, and those that are used for the older versions, the King James Version, which will include the New King James Version. The first to examine is The Alexandrian Manuscripts, are they reliable? If you listen to some textual scholars you will find that they claim that the Alexandrian unicals, relating to a style of writing characterized by somewhat rounded capital letters and found especially in Greek and Latin manuscripts of the fourth to the eighth century a.d., who often minimise and ignore those scribal problems contained in these supposed "oldest" and "best" manuscripts. One such scholar, George Eldon Ladd (1911-1982) had this to say: "Codex Vaticanus contains both Testaments, with only three missing portions, and most of the Apocrypha. Its excellent text is very close to that of Codex Sinaiticus" (G.E. Ladd, The New Testament and Criticism, p. 63). Is this fact? The actual facts of the matter contradict this claim. Upon examination of the Alexandrian texts, the basis of all "modern" Greek editions, a person will find that they are notorious for  their unreliability and general poor quality of transmission. Herman Charles Hoskier (1864–1938), was a biblical scholar, British textual critic, noted over 3,000 points in the Gospels alone of which Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, these are the two major texts used by modern textual critics to translate the newer "modern" versions, differ between themselves, and this is not taking into account those spelling errors and variants between synonyms which could be attributed to "provincial exchange" (H.C. Hoskier, Codex B and Its Allies, Vol. II, p.1). The Reverend Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, LL.D. (1813-1891) who was an important textual critic of the New Testament and a member of the English New Testament Revision Committee which porduced the Revised Version of the Bible said, concerning the Vaticanus (Known as Codex B): "One marked feature, characteristic of this copy, is the great number of its omissions...That no small portion of these are mere oversights of the scribe seems evident from the circumstance that this same scribe has repeatedly written words and clauses twice over, a class of mistakes which Mai and the collators have seldom thought fit to notice...but which by no means enhances our estimate of the care employed in copying this venerable record of primitive Christianity." (F.H.A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Vol. I, p. 120). As for other representatives of the Alexandrian texts used to critically challenge the Textus Receptus are not found to be any better. A well known text, Codex D (Bezae Cantabrigiensis) is found to be slipshod with scribal errors and is generally unreliable, still there are those scholars that give it weight and is used as a determiner when other preferred texts are found to differ at a point. Another text, Codex C (Ephraemi Rescriptus) likewise has many transmission issues, and is actually a parchment(s) from which writing has been partially or completely erased to make room for another text. These parchments have been found to have the original text rubbed off and replaced with copies of sermons from the 5th century Syrian patristic Ephraem Syrus, and we can see how the 5th century Christians held this text, by what esteem, a low esteem, given to these texts. Another textual scholar, Pickering, sums up this matter of reliability with the Alexandrian texts:

"The variation between two 'Byzantine' MSS will be found to differ both in number and severity from that between two 'Western' MSS or two 'Alexandrian' MSS -- the number and nature of the disagreements between two 'Byzantine' MSS throughout the Gospels will seem trivial compared to the number (over 3,000) and nature (many serious) of the disagreements between Aleph and B, the chief 'Alexandrian' MSS, in the same space.^" (W.N. Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, p.54).
      These blogs may be very scholarly, and not as exciting as studying the attributes of God, etc., but they are important as the Bible we used as our guide and for doctrine must contain the truth, be preserved in truth by God. But why do the so-called "modern" Greek editions that have been translated by renowned textual scholars be based upon such poor texts? This too will be answered in the upcoming blogs. Hang on, we entered into a discussion that is void among many Churches, but are of the most importance.

I urge you in the sight of God
    who gives life to all things,
and before Christ Jesus who
    witnessed the good confession
before Pontius Pilate, that you
    keep this commandment without 
spot, blameless until our Lord 
    Jesus Christ's appearing,
                     1Timothy 6:13-14

Guard the Faith

Richard L. Crumb

 

So Many Versions Of The Bible--How Does A Person Choose One?

Sanctify them

by Your truth,

Your word

is truth.

John 17:17

     In the beginning of Christianity the people of those times relied upon the spoken word and they spoke the truth without embellishment. This culture of ancient times gave great honor to the fact that the narratives remained intact as and held truth, speaking in truth, to be one of the most important features so that they would not blaspheme God and that they would not bring condemnation upon themselves. In time those people died and the narratives with them making it necessary that those events, the words of Jesus Christ could be transmitted to the following generations. This they did with great care for when they wrote, they wrote in times when those ancient Christians were still alive and could scrutinize what was written: what was truthful. The culture was changing but the need for God to speak to men remained and this He did by the power of the Holy Spirit causing men to write what God intended as the necessary narratives. Furthermore, God has always used men, the prophets of old, to write His words to His people; nothing had changed, people needed a written account of Jesus Christ and of His precepts, laws, commandments. The Bible was and is the written rule of life, and a source we go to for our faith. This God did by inspiration, He did not leave this important necessary book to chance: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2Timothy 3:16). Notice this one thing: "...is profitable for doctrine" making it necessary to have exactly what God inspired men to write as the very doctrines of the Church are to be found in His inspired written word. Unfortunately, heresy began to invade the Church and with heresy came corruption of the written word as they inserted their belief, their doctrinal positions. In time when the original manuscripts disappeared and many copies where being submitted to the Church some had deviated from the original making it hard for those seeking the truth to come to the truth. Confusion abounded, and that confusion is still  with us today as there are many versions of the Bible. Most of the confusion is with the New Testament as there is a general consensus about the manuscripts of the Old Testament; they hold that the manuscripts we have of the Old Testament as intact and had been carried forward in time with little corruption or variants. This is not true of the New Testament, we have some 24,000 pieces of manuscripts and there are many places within those manuscripts that the heretics inserted their doctrines, or simply left out portions of Scripture that did not conform to their way of thinking, their doctrinal positions. This is true of some textual criticisms today, there has been adherence to manuscripts that have some heretical insertions but have come to the Church as though they have the truth, that the word of God is to be found in those manuscripts that they have come to believe are closely translated to the original manuscripts. Are they? This we must examine so that we can have solid and sound faith that the book, the Bible, we hold in our hands is the preserved word of God, so that we can be sanctified by His word, that is to be set apart in truth as this is what sanctification will do for a person. 

     The parameters one uses determines much of the outcome, and one's presuppositions, or theories, those belief systems control how a word, or verse, is to be translated. It does not matter so much how fluent a person is in the original languages, Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic, it is important but is not the total important feature. It is not to be construed that just because there are a large number of manuscripts that belong to a family of manuscripts, for anyone can go to a copying store and copy many thousands of copies claiming that just be the sheer number of manuscripts that they contain the truth. Or, as some have propagated, the oldest is the most sure to be directly similar to the original texts. If I wrote a letter and set it aside and it never was read, or handled very little, and yet another person wrote a letter, and this letter was read and copied as the older copies were unusable, but was to the people reading this letter to be a copy of the original letter, does not make a letter that has not been worn over time, has not been copied and read so that it would be worn out, make it to be truer than one that is newer and is read by the people. Yet, this is the very reason that some hold to certain manuscripts as being closer to the original. Are they? Is the oldest the best? Some of the modern textural critics hold a somewhat uncritical reliance upon the text' antiquity. This antiquity is held above everything else.These scholars give more weight to the age of a manuscript causing those manuscripts that are not considered to be older, a newer copy making the newer copies to be inferior. Are they? This issue of age, the age of a manuscript sound to be plausible until one examines the existing manuscripts. Remember those scholars that give such weight to an older text could easily be assumed to be correct, that these older manuscripts are more closely approximate to the original autographs. Sounds logical, right? When the manuscripts are tested this argument will be found not to hold up under this examination. 

     Using antiquity as the parameter or rule that those interpretations, those translation falls under the microscope and is to be found that these modern scholars have left out an important feature so that we can come to a correct conclusion. This feature is that the corruptions to be found in the New Testament occurred in the greatest way in the first two centuries (roughly 80-200 A.D.). It has been argued and with some very important certainty that the majority of corruption came within a century after their composition.  

 Further, Colwell states that "The overwhelming majority of readings were created before the year 200..." (E.C. Colwell, "The Origin of Texttypes of New Testament Manuscripts," Early Christian Origins, ed. A. Wikgren, p. 138). It was during the early stages of Christianity that many heresies attempted and succeeded in some cases, to infect the Church. This infection or invasion by those heretics made it necessary that there be a written statement, such as the Creeds, and that the Bible be composed into one book. There as a filtering out of those books that were being written, such as those Apocryphal books, and a determination as to which books were to be canonized. It was in these early days that the heretics would have the advantage to insert their doctrines and pass off their beliefs as legitimate Scripture. When the era of the third century came there came with it a nearly impossibility to change the text of the New Testament in a way that would cause the people to accept or that those insertions of change would go unnoticed by Christians at large.

     Most Churches speak little of anything about the various texts and how the Bible came to be in existence and whether or not the Bible you have come to accept is really a preserved text of the original autographs. For instance, have you heard of the Critical text? The Byzantine text? The Textus Receptus? Which one of those texts is your Bible founded upon and which one is correct? Remember, this is important for it is the Bible that determines our doctrine and our doctrine determines our religion and our religion determines our character, how we act and apply God's truth in our lives. I believe that any honest person will want the truth. I will in the future blogs attempt to give to you information so that you can determine for yourself, which one of the versions is best, the one that you should read and adhere to, the one that God has preserved throughout the ages. 

But you must continue in the

     things which you have learned

and been assured of, knowing form 

    whom you have learned them.

                                2Timothy 3:14

Grace be with your spirit

Richard L. Crumb

 

Corruptions Of The Bible Exist; This We Cannot Deny--We Must Understand These Problems

I have not spoken

in secret,

in a dark place

of the earth;

I did not say 

to the seed 

of Jacob,

'Seek Me in vain';

I, The LORD,

speak righteousness

I declare things that

are right.

Isaiah 45:19

     The Holiness that is God, His attribute of Holiness that He has surrounded Himself with as one of the attributes that are present are due to His being Holy; therefore He has not left man without the ability to know Him for He has revealed Himself; and His written word is one way by which He has done so. Reading His word will not cause us to "Seek Him in vain." Yet, with so many confusing problems; i.e., corruptions, variants and many translations that are available, it is difficult to know which one is right, which one is declaring and revealing God, His precepts, His commandments, and His Gospel a Gospel that is leading is not only to salvation, but to have the truth in how we are to know Him, His Savior, and how we are guided by His word. Are you confused or have you just acquiesced? 

     Remember this: All religions have their holy book. The followers of the various religions read and practice what their holy book admonishes them to do, and their religion is considered the "right one." As Christians we have a book, the Bible as written by some 40 men that we say are inspired of God and is the Word of God, written for His children and we hold close to our hearts His word, and we follow what His word has to teach us. Therefore, with so many variations, translations being thrust upon the Christian, each saying they have a better translation we must come to know if that is true: which one is the better translation? Many if not most Churches and Church leaders will not discuss the fact that there are corruptions, variations among the manuscripts and that scholars of the Bible have promoted one group of manuscripts over another. Their silence is a problem, maybe it is fear, fear if they truly spoke of such problems that some would leave the Church, some would leave Christianity in favor of another religion, or no religion at all. There is a lack of trust in God, that He will maintain His promise to always have His word preserved even if man distorts His word in their efforts to translate the available manuscripts: "Listen to Me, O house of Jacob, and all the remnant of the house of Israel, who have been upheld by Me from birth, who have been carried from the womb: even to your old age, I am He, and even to gray hairs I will carry you! I have made, and I will bear; even I will carry, and will deliver you" (Isaiah 46:3-4). God has not spoken in secret and God will deliver you; this is His promise and God never goes back on His promises. 

    Taking a look briefly and come to an understanding of those corruptions and variants is important and will aid us to grow in our faith and be able to present to those who would ask as to why we believe that our Bible is God's word, even over all the other religious books. Let us then examine those problems of corruption and variants: In the many thousands of manuscript copies we possess of the New Testament, scholars have discovered that there are some 150,000 "variants."This may seem like a staggering figure to the uninformed mind. But to those who study the issue, the numbers are not so damning as it may initially appear. Indeed, a look at the hard evidence shows that the New Testament manuscripts are amazingly accurate and trustworthy. To begin, we must emphasize that out of these 150,000 variants, 99 percent hold virtually no significance whatsoever. Many of these variants simply involve a missing letter in a word; some involve reversing the order of two words (such as "Christ Jesus" instead of "Jesus Christ"); some may involve the absence of one or more insignificant words.

Really, when all the facts are put on the table, only about 50 of the variants have any real significance - and even then, no doctrine of the Christian faith or any moral commandment is effected by them. This is true except where Gnostic renderings have been inserted in the manuscripts and some of the manuscripts have diminished the Gospel and Jesus Christ. These we must examine and determine if they are correct or false. For more than ninety-nine percent of the cases the original text can be reconstructed to a practical certainty. Even in the few cases where some perplexity remains, this does not impinge on the meaning of Scripture to the point of clouding a tenet of the faith or a mandate of life.Thus, in the Bible as we have it (and as it is conveyed to us through faithful translations) we do have for practical purposes the very Word of God, inasmuch as the manuscripts do convey to us the complete vital truth of the originals.

      Having a Bible in our language is not to be disparaged as wrong, in fact God has never not spoken to people in their language, examine the account in Acts; therefore we do need a Bible we can read and this demands that it be in our language; but what about all those versions of the Bible. In regard to Bible versions many contemporary Christians are behaving like spoiled and rebellious children. They want a Bible version that pleases them no matter whether it pleases God or not. "We want a Bible version in our own idiom," they clamor. "We want a Bible that talks to us in the same way in which we talk to our friends over the telephone. We want an informal God, no better educated than ourselves, with a limited vocabulary and a taste for modern slang." And having thus registered their preference, they go their several ways. Some of them unite with the modernists in using the R.S.V. or the N.E.B. Others deem the N.A.S.V. or the N.I.V. more "evangelical". Still others opt for the T.E.V. or the Living Bible. But God is bigger than you are, dear friend, and the Bible version which you must use is not a matter for you to decide according to your whims and prejudices. It has already been decided for you by the workings of God's special providence. If you ignore this providence and choose to adopt one of the modern versions, you will be taking the first step in the logic of unbelief. For the arguments which you must use to justify your choice are the same arguments which unbelievers use to justify theirs, the same method. If you adopt one of these modern versions, you must adopt the naturalistic New Testament textual criticism upon which it rests. This naturalistic textual criticism requires us to study the New Testament text in the same way in which we study the texts of secular books which have not been preserved by God's special providence. In other words, naturalistic textual criticism regards the special, providential preservation of the Scriptures as of no importance for the study of the New Testament text. But if we concede this, then it follows that the infallible inspiration of the Scriptures is likewise unimportant. For why is it important that God should infallibly inspire the Scriptures, if it is not important that He should preserve them by His special providence?

Where, oh where, dear brother or sister, did you ever get the idea that it is up to you to decide which Bible version you will receive as God's holy Word. As long as you harbor this false notion, you are little better than an unbeliever. As long as you cherish this erroneous opinion, you are entirely on your own. For you the Bible has no real authority, only that which your rebellious reason deigns to give it. For you there is no comfort no assurance of faith. Cast off, therefore, this carnal mind that leads to death! Put on the spiritual mind that leads to life and peace! Receive by faith the True Text of God's holy Word, which has been preserved down through the ages by His special providence and now is found in the Masoretic Hebrew text, the Greek Textus Receptus, and the King James Version and other faithful translations!

     I believe it is safe to say; "You want to have a Bible that you know is trustworthy and is actually teaching us and guiding us accordingly to the words of the original writings. You want a Bible that has real authority, one that has been preserved down through the ages; do you not? This examination is demanded and commanded by God so that His people will be protected: "Be diligent to know the state of your flocks, and attend to your herds" (Proverbs 27:23). Cast away your fear, do not be apathetic and just accept what is and has been for you truth and if there is a problem with what you have come to believe, will you change? Unless we examine the various versions we will never know. I invite you then, to take this "safari" into the world of textural criticism and do not accept just what you have been accustomed. It is exciting and it will deepen your faith in God and in His Savior Jesus Christ. This will begin next week in my blogs.

One who turns away

     his ear from hearing

the law, Even his prayer

    is an abomination.

                         Proverbs 28:9

The Righteous Considers All Things

Richard L. Crumb

The Corruption Question---Variants Among The Manuscripts

I will worship toward 

your holy temple,

and praise Your name

for Your lovingkindness

and Your truth;

For You have magnified
Your word above 

all Your name.

Psalm 138:2

     I will begin with a question: How could an imperfect book come from a perfect God? As you read through the Scriptures, there are a great number of footnotes that say that we can’t be sure if certain passages should be included. Christians are told that these problems exist because of alleged "copyist errors," and that the "original writings" of the Bible are perfect. But how does anyone know? We don’t have the original writings! With the production of so many Bibles, the King James Version, the New King James Version, the New International Version, The ESV, The ASV, the Moffat Bible, the Scofield bible, the paraphrase Bibles: Oh! So confusing; which one is correct?  Furthermore, with so many variants, corruptions, and not having the original manuscripts, the question is not impetuous; it needs to be answered. God promised to preserve His word in Isaiah 55:10-11; 59:21; 1 Peter 1:24-25; Matthew 24:35. God is perfect, and a God of truth. Everything God said in the original manuscripts was true. Copyist errors do not affect the truth of what was originally said, copyist errors do not show an imperfect book came from a perfect God. When someone, such as myself, says the Bible is inerrant, they mean the Bible is without any error in the original manuscripts and without significant error (infallible) today. However, I think part of that question that is being asked is, how we can trust the message in a book that has copyist errors in it. I do not believe an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent God of truth allowed His word to be messed up.

Another question:  Is something true just because someone writes it down? Christians are often taught that the "manuscript evidence" proves the truthfulness of the Bible. More specifically, Christians are told that there are thousands of copies of manuscripts of the scriptures, and this somehow makes the Bible reliable. But how? Anyone could write something down, and produce thousands of copies of what they’ve written. Does that somehow make what they wrote down true? Of course not! In establishing the truthfulness of our Bible today, you have to establish that it originally was God’s word, and has been preserved without significant error. Thus the manuscript evidence Christians talk about is necessary but not sufficient. Manuscripts are important to establish b), but they do not address a). When I have taught about the reliability of the Bible in Sunday school, I believe it is important to point out both aspects. 

     It is difficult in many of the Churches of today to hear the word; Reformation, or Reformer, in fact it is hard to find a Church that even uses the word; Protestant, it is though those words have become pejorative. Why do I bring this fact to your attention? Because the Reformation was not a heretical movement within the Church; it was a return to the Bible, the Bible as the infallible word of God and the rule for faith and life. These men, Calvin, Luther, Swingli, and others protested against the Roman Catholic Church and their teachings and exercise of theology that was not Biblical. The Reformers, those Protestant men believed and taught that the Bible was the living Word of God. In this book God reveals HIMSELF, not mere information concerning Himself. The Protestant Reformers understood this fact. To them the Bible was no mere book of doctrine but the revelation of the living God. In the Bible Christ revealed Himself. Martin Luther emphasized this in the preface of his German New Testament version (1522). "Briefly, St John's Gospel and his first Epistle, St. Paul's Epistles, especially those to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and St. Peter's First Epistle: these are the books which show you Christ and teach all which it is needful and blessed for you to know, even if you never see nor hear any other book or any other doctrine." And there is no doctrine in Scripture which would be affected if all the various readings were allowed or if all the disputed words, or those about which there is any doubt, were omitted. It is also true that many Churches fail to mention such as the Thirty Nine Articles and the Westminster Confession of Faith, written by the men of the Reformation, a statement of the position of the Church. The official position of the Church of England (Episcopal Church), as defined in the Thirty Nine Articles (1562), was in agreement with the Protestant Reformers as far as the authority of the Bible was concerned. "Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church." This Article was included in the Methodist Articles of Religion, an abridgement of the Thirty Nine Articlesprepared by John Wesley and adopted by American Methodists in 1784.

The first chapter of the Westminster Confession is generally regarded as containing the fullest exposition of the orthodox Protestant faith concerning the holy Scriptures. The section on the testimony of the Holy Spirit is especially notable and reads (substantially) as follows: "We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the agreement of all the parts, the purpose of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full explanation it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection of it, are arguments by which it abundantly proves itself to be the Word of God. But our full persuasion and assurance of its infallible truth and divine authority is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts."

This Westminster Confession was adopted not only by Presbyterians (1647) but also by Congregationalists (1658) (41) and by Baptists (1677). Some parts of the Confession were altered to agree with Congregational and Baptist convictions, but in regard to the chapter on the Scriptures all three denominations found themselves in complete accord. These thoughts and statement were taken from The King James Bible Defended by Edward F. Hills;  INTRODUCTION; TEXTUAL CRITICISM AND CHRISTIAN FAITH.

     This failure by the Churches in their omission to speak and teach in regards to the creeds, to admit of their Protestant roots, the very fact that they are supposed to be Protestants, not in name only, but in fact, has caused a failure and that failure has been one of the major factors that has allowed the entrance of modern philosophy to enter the world and most importantly into the Church. This entrance taught a neutrality in regards to the world, a Neutral World-view. Modern philosophy made its appearance immediately after the Protestant Reformation. The leaders of this new movement ridiculed both sides in the then current religious controversy. "Once there was a man," they quipped, "who had two sons, one Catholic and one Protestant. And so each brother converted the other, and God had mercy on them both because of their zeal." But in order to escape punishment these early modern philosophers denied that they were antichristian. They were only being impartial, they insisted, and unprejudiced. And from this claim has arisen the modern world-view, which has always pretended to be neutral and unbiased in all religious matters.

     Weakened by dead orthodoxy and pietism, conservative Protestants of the late 17th and 18th centuries failed to resist the rising neutral world-view as vigorously as they should have done. Instead of taking their stand upon God's revelation of Himself in holy Scripture and pointing out that the neutral world-view is not really neutral but antichristian and full of contradictions, they began to adopt it themselves, especially in those areas of thought not specifically covered by their Reformation creeds, namely, philosophy and biblical introduction and above all New Testament textual criticism. Soon a serious inconsistency developed in the thinking of orthodox Protestants. At their colleges and theological seminaries especially students and teachers alike were torn between two world-views. In their study of systematic theology they maintained the believing world-view of the Protestant Reformation, but in their study of philosophy, biblical introduction, and New Testament textual criticism they adopted the neutral world-view of Post-Reformation rationalism. Today this illogical state of affairs is still being perpetuated in a few theological schools, but most of them have resolved the tension by becoming completely modernistic. The purpose of this blog is to endeavor to reverse this trend by promoting consistently Christian thought especially in the sphere of New Testament textual criticism.

     The Bible has been scrutinized over and over again and again; never has a book been so investigated. It has been the problem that has plagued the Church; that problem being that many liberal preachers and Churches teach that the Bible has flaws. This causes the congregants to believe that the Bible is not infallible, and this belief underlies their actions of life. Notice one fact: More than 50% of marriages in the Church end up in divorce. Furthermore, some Churches allow homosexuals to become leaders in the Church, or allow women to be teachers and preachers of men: all of these practices are unScriptural, yet are allowed by these modern liberal Churches. It is not enough to hold up the Bible, as does Joel Osteen, and claim that you teach from it, but in reality this is not true for what is being taught is only their opinions, and those opinions are mediated by modern philosophical thought. 

     I will cover some of the variants and corruptions in the next blogs. My goal is to bring you to understand that the Bible is true and that those variants and corruptions have not caused God's word to become untrustworthy, rather that we can trust that God has kept His word, even allowing man to translate into the vernacular languages so that all men could find Him Who has revealed Himself in the Bible. 

Do not grant, 

     O LORD, 

the desires of 

   the wicked;

Do not further

    his wicked scheme,

lest they be exalted.

                     Psalm 140:8

Take Time To Pray

Richard L. Crumb

The Bible Is The Rule of Life; The Ground Of Our Faith!--Is It?

"Come now, and let us

reason together."

says the LORD;

"Though your sins are 

like scarlet, they 

shall be white

as snow."

Isaiah 1:18

     Back from a working vacation, I laid 140 sq. yds. of carpet and other projects for my children. Ugh! I am sore! Ha!. It is time to continue this blog on the Bible, the Word of God. When we have come to the conclusion that the Bible is the Word of God then we have no excuse for not following the commandments, and the admonitions, the precepts outlined in this book. God is not waiting for us to be good, for us to choose Him. He is not sitting back wringing His hands wondering if we will choose Him and do good things. If you are a Deist then this will be your theology, but if you are not a Deist then this is not your theology. God elected His people before the foundation of the world (Romans 8:28-29). God foreknew His people: "God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew.....(Romans 11:2a). We as His Children are the called ones to be His people; His Church, The ekklesia (The called out ones): "Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these he also justified; and whom He justified these He also glorified" (Romans 8:30). How clear can it be made to us; we are not chosen by our choosing, rather we choose God who has given us the gift of faith and that choosing by Him is according to His will; not ours: "Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will" (Ephesians 1:4-5). It is by grace that we are saved for grace must be present due to the fact that there is a justice that requires satisfaction, but God in His patience bestows His grace upon those to whom He has chosen, and not to others. You may object to that statement; that God chooses some and not others, but if you cavil over that statement you are denying Scripture. God receives glory, not that He needs to be glorified for He is complete in totality within Himself, but glory is due to Him as the one who choose His people and saves them for He has made His children to be adopted as sons through the grace bestowed upon through His son Jesus Christ: "To the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the beloved. In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace" (Ephesians 16-7). To whom is Paul writing? Is it the whole world, the complete people of the world, all those who will come into the world, those who have come into the world? Is this to whom Paul is writing? NO! It is to God's chosen ones: "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God. To the saints who Ephesus, and faithful in Christ Jesus: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ" (Ephesians 1:1-3). All the Bible writers speak only of the elect, God's children, the saints, therefore it is to be noted that the Bible is clear on this subject; listen to Peter: "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of god the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1Peter 1:1-2).

     Why focus on this subject of the elect? Because the Bible speaks of the elect, and the fact that our faith to believe on Jesus Christ is not due to our goodness, some good, some leftover good after the fall of Adam and Eve; rather it is the gift of God: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9). Jesus Christ made it plain and clear that without this gift you cannot choose Him: "Jesus answered and said to her: "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, 'Give Me a drink, you would have asked Him and He would have given you living water" (John 4:10). The Samaritan woman is told that she could not even ask for salvation unless she had the gift, that gift is faith, faith to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Unfortunately there are many preachers, pastors, and teachers who hold the Bible up and proclaim to teach the truth. This they do with compelling words, with programs that seemingly are "Christian" but are only a philanthropic work; necessary, but do not cause a person to be more holy in the the sight of God. Oh! these men sound so good, have such good things to say, it tickles our ears, it makes us fees so good! Most is nothing more than psychological babble: pay a psychologist his fee and you would hear a preacher. Paul is clear on this subject: "As many as desire to make a good showing in the flesh, these would compel you to be circumcised, only that they may not suffer persecution for the cross of Christ" (Galatians 6:12). Speak words that sound Biblical, speak words that are easy to hear, do not raise questions, do not speak the truth that is clearly proclaimed in the Bible, do not raise  the eyebrows of the congregants, call them forward to accept Christ, sing songs that compel people to be emotionally moved to accept Jesus Christ: but do not speak of depravity, our depravity, our need to come to Jesus Christ because we are deserving of death. There should be words to that lead a person to understand that they are reprehensible to God as sinners, that they need to repent of their sins, not because they are caught, that they have been found out, rather because they have offended God. It is when we know that we have offended a Holy God, not because God has the right to kill us, not because God has promised heaven for His children, rather it is because we have offended, blasphemed God who is Holy, Who is the creator, who delights in His children, who has give us the Bible to be our guide, our rule, for our lives. Yes, God is merciful, and that mercy is due to His patience, and that mercy is available because God is just, and without that justice then there would be no need for mercy; God is merciful: "But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us" (Ephesians 2:4). 

     You may only believe these things if you believe the Scripture, the Bible, as the Word of God. In comparison with other books that claim to be a book of God, I have shown that those books cannot claim with any truth to be from God and that the Bible is the only book that truly can claim that God had men write His laws so that men of all ages can know Him, and follow Him as they live their lives in this world. But, do you truly believe that this is true? Do you believe that God had men using the circumstances of life write His words and that those words are true and should be followed? Do you still have some questions? How about the supposed corruptions, those variations among the manuscripts? This I will tackle in the next blog. 

And one cried to another and said:

     "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts;

the whole earth is full of His glory."

                                     Isaiah 6:3

Keep searching, Keep Praying

Richard L. Crumb

Vacation Time

I will be gone for about 5 days maybe 6 but will attempt to continue the blog. I will be helping my daughter with her new house. Until then, read your Bible, prayer, think upon what has been taught. I do appreciate each and everyone that takes the time to read the blog and to respond.

May God Bless You

Richard L. Crumb

What Is And Why Not Include the Apocryphal Books?

And further, by these,

my son, be admonished:

of making many books

there is not end;

and much study is a 

weariness of the flesh.

Ecclesiastes 12:12

     There it is, in plain writing, in the Scriptures: we have no real need to spend time studying and writing books. This may be a proof Scripture for person who is lazy, desires to just have a good time, and call himself a "Christian." Besides, what should we do about those writings, those books that were at one time read in the early Churches. Such books as, Clement of Rome, Ignatious' letters, The Shepherd of Herme, etc.? Does not the Roman Catholic Church include the Apocryphal books in the Bible? Yes!

The Apocrypha were formally canonized by the Roman Catholic 'Church' on April 8, 1546 A.D. at the Council of Trent. In fact the Kings James Bible until 1885 included those books, but there were not considered Scripture, that is, they were not considered to be inspired of God. The writer of Ecclesiastes was not telling us not to study, not to make books, in fact if the above Scripture is your proof Scripture then all you have done is to allow your presuppositions to rule your understanding for you have not taken time to read the Bible and come to know what the writer's position and theme of this book, and why it was necessary for it to be written. It is when we allow other writings, other books to become a source for our faith, all we have done is devalue the Bible, it is no longer the only truth, it is no longer the only means by which we can come to know the revelation of God. In fact many do diminish the Bible by having some "vision" or some "revelation" given to them as though God needed to reveal His will outside of Scripture. The term "apocrypha" comes from the Greek word meaning "hidden"

or "secret" and in general use, the word "apocrypha" came to mean "false, spurious, bad, or heretical. Early in Church history these books were not considered, although some almost were, to be inspired of God; they were denied by the influential theologians, like Irenaeus and Tertullian. Here is the list of those books:

Wisdom of Solomon       30 B.C.  Didactic

Ecclesiasticus                32 B.C.  Didactic  

Tobit                          c. 200 B.C.  Religious Novel  

I Esdras                     c. 150 B.C. Historic & Legendary  

I Maccabees              c. 110 B.C.  Historic  

II Maccabees             c. 100 B.C.  Historic & Legendary

Judith                         c. 150 A.D.  Romantic Novel  

Baruch                       c. 100 A.D.  Prophetic  

Letter of Jeremiah      c. 200 B.C.  Prophetic  

II Esdras                     c. 100 A.D.  Prophetic  

Additions to Esther     c. 130 B.C.  Legendary  

Prayer of Azariah*      c. 100. B.C.  Legendary  

Suzanna (Daniel 13)   c. 100 B.C.  Legendary

Bel & the Dragon (Daniel 14)  c. 100 B.C.  Legendary

Prayer of Manasseh   c. 150 B.C.  Legendary 

 

     Probably the most important, that is a book(s) that can give some valuable information in regards to early historicity of the Church is the Maccabees. I have given not only the names of the books, their dates, but as to their content. Reading them is useful for information but unless, and this is true for any books we read, we read those books with a lens, that lens is the Bible. To read otherwise is to allow non-Scripture renderings to mislead us. 

     The Wisdom of God is Jesus Christ, personified in the flesh, the Incarnation, and Jesus made is extremely clear, He is the truth, His words are truth, and those words from Wisdom is the wisdom that we obtain from Scripture. It is that wisdom, Scripture, that we desire to lead and guide our lives: "Wisdom is good with an inheritance: and by it there is profit to them that see the sun. For wisdom is a defense, and money is a defense: but the excellency of knowledge is, that wisdom giveth life to them that have it" (Ecclesiastes 7:11-12). Our search for God, our understanding of God, begins and ends with Scripture. Other information is helpful, and needed for complete understanding of history, and the events that led up to the Reformation that reformed the Church by returning to Scripture. The Reformation can be stated as a return to the Doctrines of the Bible. That the Bible is the infallible word of God. To clear this manner up: The Reformation when mentions causes some to cavil, to object to the term, this term to them is pejorative and to be avoided, this we find to be true in some Churches, especially those that are liberal in their theology. It was not the Apocryphal books that cause the Reformation, it was the Bible: read Luther, Calvin, and Wesel, and others, the Reformation began earlier that Luther, Calvin, and others; it became alive when men read the Word of God, and saw that the Roman Catholic Church had abused the Word of God, that the ills forced upon people were not Scripture and that salvation did not come because you belong to a Church, that salvation was a gift of God, it was salvation due to the Grace of God. We became known as Protestants because we opposed the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. It is when men who loved God and desired to know Him, and live by His Word that the Bible, not the Apocrypha, led them to know about the Grace of God. Furthermore: "All this have I proved by wisdom: I said, I will be wise; but it was far from me. That which is far off, and exceeding deep, who can find it our? I applied mine heart to know, and to search and to seek out wisdom, and the reason of things, and to know the wickedness of folly, even of foolishness and madness" (Ecclesiastes 7:23-25).

     "That is all nice and interesting," you say; but how did the Bible, those collection of letters and writings become the Bible I hold in my hand. And how can I know, by what reason did the Bible come to be understood to be inspired and is the actual Word of God? Good questions, and this I will address in the next blogs. Until then, read the Bible, yes, read the Apocrypha, but read them through the microscopic lens of the Bible.

But in vain they do 

     worship me, teaching

for doctrines the 

    commandments of men.

                             Matthew 15:9

May God Say; "Well Done, Good and Faithful Servant

 

Richard L. Crumb