It has been alleged that I believe that the Word of God is not 100% perfect but preserved with copy errors. In response to the allegation, I would like to state clearly my position on the doctrine of inspiration and preservation of the Holy Scriptures:
1. Inspiration is the truth that the Scriptures are the Word of God because everything that it says, God has said. (By the term “Scripture” only the 66 books included in the Old and New Testaments are meant. The books called “Apocrypha” are not inspired by God.
2. As article 4.2.1 in the Constitution of Life B-P Church testifies, “We believe in the divine, verbal and plenary inspiration of the Scriptures in the original languages*, their consequent inerrancy and infallibility, and, as the Word of God, the Supreme and final authority in faith and life.” (*this refers to the autographs that came from the pen of the inspired writers)
3. And as the solemn Dean Burgon oath testifies, “The Bible is none other than the voice of Him that sitteth upon the throne. Every book of it, every chapter of it, every verse of it, every syllable of it, every letter of it, is direct utterance of the Most High. The Bible is none other than the Word of God, not some part of it more, some part of it less, but all alike the utterance of Him that sitteth upon the throne, faultless, unerring, supreme.”
4. This truth is expounded in the Scriptures itself by none other than our Lord in Matthew 5:18: “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”
5. The apostle Paul expressed the truth of the plenary, verbal inspiration of the scriptures in 2 Timothy 3:16: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”
6. God used human writers to pen His words. These men were specially chosen by God, and perfectly guided by the Holy Spirit to put the very words of God on paper so that the Bible would be completely free from any error (2 Peter 1:21). Inspiration was given by the Holy Spirit “in diverse manners” (Heb 1:1), including the use of existing records, research, and word for word dictation.
7. A.A. Hodge says: “The nature of this divine influence we, of course, can no more understand than we can in the case of any other miracle. But the effects are plain and certain – viz., that all written under it is the very Word of God, of infallible truth, and of divine authority; and this infallibility and authority attach as well to the verbal expression in which the revelation is conveyed as to the matter of the revelation itself.”
8. It is not necessary however, to include the book titles, order of arrangement of books, chapter and verse divisions, within the category of inspired words, since these were added in later, and changed from time to time by human editors. However, divine providence has worked through men to make them a reliable and useful guide to facilitate the study of the scriptures.
The Implications of This Truth
1. Since the Bible is inspired by God it must be: infallible, inerrant and authoritative.
2. Infallibility means that the Bible is perfect and incapable of error in its entirety (unlike the decrees of popes and church councils). We know from the very nature of God that He is infallible (Psalm 18:30). If this infallible, unchanging God has revealed Himself to man in the Scriptures then the Scriptures must also be infallible.
3. Inerrancy means that there are absolutely no mistakes in the Bible. Even though the men of God that wrote the words under inspiration were imperfect men, their imperfection did not enter into the Scriptures because their writing was not on their own will but they were moved by God.
4. The Bible is authoritative, and this means that it demands our absolute trust and obedience to all its contents. The authority of the Bible is derived from God and not from the church: “The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or Church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.” (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter I, Section IV.)
Defending The Truth
1. For 1800 years of church history there was no deviation from the position of biblical inspiration and inerrancy, with the exception of a few small cultic groups. In the 18th and 19th centuries however, theologians in Europe began to apply the ideas of unbelieving philosophies to the Scriptures. This eventually led to modernist attacks on the doctrine of inspiration, that continue to plague the church to this day.
2. Muslim scholars allege that though the original manuscripts of the Bible were fully inspired by God, the Bible has been so corrupted with errors and additional teachings over the years that it is no longer reliable and trustworthy.
3. In our present time the attack on Scripture has become more subtle. Many from within the camp now claim to believe that the Scriptures are the inspired Word of God, but deny that it is inerrant. Out of the discussions and debates, two views have emerged: Limited inerrancy teaches that the Bible merely contains the Word of God and neoorthodoxy teaches that the Bible becomes the Word of God only when it convicts or inspires us. Both views are heretical. The Bible is the Word of God.
4. Their refusal to accept a full inerrancy is based on the false assumption that there are apparent errors in the Bible, at least in areas of science and history. But if the Bible cannot be trusted to be accurate and inerrant on matters of science and history then it cannot be accurate and inerrant on matters of doctrine, since doctrine is intricately interwoven together with portions containing history and science.
5. Some have said that the Bible is the infallible rule of faith and practice in all matters of religious, ethical and spiritual value, but not in other matters. But to say that the Bible, which is the Word of God is not a science text book nor a history book, and thus cannot speak with authority on these areas, is to question the omniscience of God. To say that God or Christ merely accommodated His revelation to the culture and understanding of ancient peoples is to question His truthfulness and honesty.
6. Thus, the doctrine of inspiration must be defended by specifying that the Bible is without error not only in matters of faith, and not only in what it affirms, but in every area in which it speaks, when properly interpreted and understood in its context.
7. Alleged discrepancies and errors that have been adduced as proof of limited inerrancy can be explained in several ways: Changes in spelling, changes in units of weight and measurement, different calendar systems, or mistakes made by scribes during the copying of manuscripts. For those that evade explanation at present, we believe that explanations do exist for them, though we do not know them yet, with our limited understanding.
8. It can also be demonstrated that these actually affect a very small percentage of the Scriptures and that the text has been well preserved by divine providence, from error, throughout centuries of transcription. The Word of God that we possess today is therefore essentially as pure, reliable and trustworthy as the original inspired manuscripts.
Bible Texts and Versions
My position on this follows the first five statements in the Doctrinal Positional Statement of Life B-P Church (as found in the Life B-P Church 50th Anniversary Golden Jubilee Magazine, 2000), and the explanatory notes provided for each statement:
1. “We do believe that the Hebrew and Greek texts that were used for the King James Version of the English Bible (KJV) were providentially preserved by God and are therefore closest to the original autographs of the Bible.”
a. It is often claimed that the Greek source text used by the translators of the KJV for translating the New Testament is of inferior quality. This subjective opinion was popularised by Westcott and Hort, who were trying to elevate a different source text above the Majority Text, which is the source text for the KJV. The thorough research of Dean John Burgon however has brought this opinion into serious question. It can be demonstrated that the Majority Text is of far superior quality to the Westcott and Hort text.
b. The Westcott and Hort text present in a weakened form many of the passages of Holy Scripture which speak most plainly of the deity of Christ (e.g. 1 Tim 3:16). This made it appealing to Liberal scholars who tend to play down this doctrine. It omits many verses that are familiar to us, e.g. Mark 16:9-21, John 7:53- 8:11 (the woman caught in adultery), and 1 John 5:7, which gives clear teaching on the Trinity.
c. The Westcott and Hort text represents only a small family of documents which the Church as a whole rejected before the end of the 4th century and were not used for making copies. The more reliable Majority Text was multiplied and copied from generation to generation, and the great majority of existing documents (about 99.44 % of the 5,000 documents) exhibit a faithful reproduction of the true text.
d. The implication of accepting the Westcott and Hort text is that for 15 centuries (AD 330 to 1881) the true Church of God has not had the Word of God, but has been using a very faulty text all along!
2. “We do believe that the KJV is a true, faithful and accurate translation of these Hebrew and Greek texts, and is therefore better than all of the other English translations. We can without apology hold up the KJV and say, “This is the Word of God!” while at the same time realising that in some verses, we must go back to the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts for complete clarity, and also compare Scripture with Scripture.”
a. Fifty-four men, including the greatest Hebrew and Greek scholars of the age, formed six companies to undertake the task of translation of the KJV. Using their Greek sources and the best commentaries of European scholars, and referring to Bibles in Spanish, Italian, French and German, they expressed the sense of the Greek in clear, vigorous and idiomatic English.
b. The KJV translators were men of unquestioned faithfulness to the Scriptures, godly men whose one burden was to render a translation as close to the text as possible. They were men of impeccable integrity, with no hidden agenda of injecting some personal or sectarian views into their scripts. In contrast to this, some of the people who were involved in the new versions are definitely of questionable background. For example, the Revised Version, which was the first modern English translation of the Bible, had a Unitarian scholar named Dr G. Vance Smith on its committee. Dr Smith denied the deity of Christ and this infuriated the church so much that they demanded his removal from the committee. However, the influential Bishop Thirwall threatened to leave the revision project if Dr Smith was removed, and so the Unitarian scholar remained.
c. The KJV has clearly stood the test of time for nearly 400 years and has seen abundant blessings poured out from God when it was used in the Revivals in England (Wesley, Whitefield), Scotland (Burns) and America (Jonathan Edwards), and in the powerful preaching of preachers like Spurgeon. The KJV has an excellent track record. Thousands of lives have been saved and blessed through it. In contrast to this, the short time that the NIV has been used by Neo-evangelicals, has seen greater compromises made by the movement as a whole. The signs and wonders movement which began at Fuller Theological Seminary, the birthplace of Neo-evangelicalism is a case in point. The signing of the Evangelicals and Catholics Together document in 1994 is another. Overall, the NIV does not seem to have a good track record.
d. It is claimed by some that the New King James Version (NKJV) is as good as the KJV, if not better than it, since it is also based on the Majority Text. Many of members of the committee for the NKJV were godly men. Among all the modern versions this is one that perhaps comes closest to the KJV. But there are also some serious deficiencies in the NKJV. The godly men in the committee had little control over how it finally turned out. They hoped to follow the KJV closely and just update the archaic words, but in the end it has unfortunately not just updated the archaic words but also altered many more words. (It has changed the KJV text in about 60,000 places) Some of the changed words were perfectly good terms in the KJV that should have remained unchanged. For example, the Comforter (Holy Spirit) in John 14:16, 26 and 15:26 and 16:7 has been changed to “the Helper” (following the NASV, and this is the same term used by Jehovah’s Witnesses).
3. “We do employ the KJV alone as our primary scriptural text in the public reading, preaching and teaching of the English Bible.”
a. Most of the elements of our church worship service are based on the KJV. How moving it is to hear our whole congregation saying the Lord’s prayer together with the words, “Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name...” Any church that abandons the KJV for the NIV would have to end their Lord’s prayer without the words “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen” if they want to be consistent with their text! If we were to remove the KJV from our worship service many words and phrases in our worship would gradually lose their significance. For example, the “Holy Ghost” which we mention when we sing our Gloria Patri and Doxology would become obscure to those who use modern versions which do not have this term at all. Besides this, the lyrics of many of our best-loved hymns and old-time gospel choruses follow the KJV. For example,“Great is Thy Faithfulness” which is based on Lamentations 3:22-23.
b. Some dislike the KJV on the grounds that its English belongs to the 17th century and is archaic. Those who have studied literature would know that Shakespeare’s English is even more difficult to understand than KJV English. In almost any thick book there is always bound to be some words that the reader will not know. The KJV is the same. In most cases, the surrounding context of a word will give a good idea of what it means to the reader, who needs only to make the extra effort to learn and explain some of the old English words in the KJV. For example, “froward” means “wayward”, “usury” means “interest”.
4. “We do consider as unreliable all Bible versions (eg. The New International Version or NIV) that modify or change the meaning of the original text or interpret it, instead of giving a literal and accurate translation.”
a. The KJV translators adhered to the “formal equivalence” or “verbal equivalence” method of translation. This means that they followed the text very closely and did not modify or change the meaning. They took no liberties with God’s Word, and only rephrased certain expressions, when changes were really necessary. The KJV reading may sometimes be hard to understand but that is only because it has given a literal translation of the wording of the Greek or Hebrew text. And the wording of the original text of a particular verse may itself be difficult to understand and may be interpreted in several ways as commentaries on that verse will show. Modern translators overcome the difficulty by interpreting the verses for the reader. But this totally obscures all other possible ways of interpreting them. What we read then may not be God’s Word any more but what some people think it means.
5. We do believe “the Bible is none other than the voice of Him that sitteth upon the throne. Every book of it, every chapter of it, every verse of it, every syllable of it, every letter of it, is direct utterance of the Most High. The Bible is none other than the Word of God, not some part of it more, some part of it less, but all alike the utterance of Him that sitteth upon the throne, faultless, unerring, supreme.”
a. We must declare the KJV Bible to be nothing less than God’s powerful inspired Word, just as any faithful translation of God’s Word into any language can also be presented as being His inspired word. In 2 Timothy 3:15-17, Paul refers to the Scriptures that Timothy had and calls them inspired despite the fact that he had only a copy. It is possible that he had the Old Testament in Hebrew, but it is more likely that he had the Greek translation of the Old Testament, since his father was a Greek and he lived in Lystra, which was definitely Greek-speaking. We can therefore confidently say, when we hold the KJV in our hands, that what we are holding is God’s inspired word.
b. We need to be firmly convinced that it is important to keep on promoting and using the KJV. As more and more English-speaking churches around us abandon the KJV for one or more of these newer versions, it is important to understand the reasons why Bible-Presbyterians should continue to hold on to it. We live in the end times and we cannot afford to be blind to the forces that are working around us in the Christian world. Our theological position is recognised by the version we use. For example, if a person promotes and uses the Douay version or Jerusalem Bible, he is probably a Roman Catholic. If a person promotes and uses the RSV or NRSV, he is probably Liberal. If a person promotes and uses The TEV, NIV or Living Bible he is probably a New Evangelical. In fact the NIV can with full justification be called the “New Evangelical Version” (NEV) because of the deep involvement of the National Association of Evangelicals in its production and promotion.
The Preservation of the Scriptures
1. In our zeal to defend the Word of God and the important doctrine of the preservation of the Scriptures, it is needful that we should not find ourselves defending an untenable view, and thus give grounds to opponents to ridicule our KJV-only position.
2. I believe that God has fully preserved His Word in the body of manuscripts (or texts or copies) after the original autographs were lost. I uphold the Byzantine/Majority Texts as the very Word of God. The Hebrew and Greek Texts underlying the KJV of the English Bible were providentially preserved by God and therefore closest to the original autographs. I do not ascribe perfection to any single manuscript or edition (i.e. 100% exact replica of the autographs) or say that it is THE preserved text to the exclusion of other manuscripts and editions within the family of Received Texts.
3. I believe that this understanding of the doctrine of the preservation of the Scriptures is fully consistent with the following statements made by various KJV-only advocates:
· The Westminster Divines, Samuel Rutherford (St. Andrews) or Richard Capel (Pitchcombe): “I do not only say, that all saving fundamental truth is contained in the Original Copies [i.e. the autographs], but that all revealed truth is still remaining entire; or, if any error or mistake have crept in, it is in matters of no concernment, so that not only no matter of faith, but no considerable point of Historical truth, Prophecies, or other things, is thereby prejudiced, and that there are means left for rectifying any such mistakes where they are discovered…To make one Copy a standard for all others, in which no mistake in the least can be found, he cannot, no Copy can plead this privilege since the first autographs were in being.” (emphasis mine)
· A. A. Hodge, who was professor of Systematic Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary, 1877-1886, wrote in his book, The Confession of Faith - A Handbook of Christian Doctrine Expounding the Westminster Confession:
“The section teaches,---
1. That the Old Testament having been originally written in Hebrew, and the New Testament in Greek -- which were the common languages of the large body of the Church in their respective periods-- the Scriptures in those languages are the absolute rule of faith and the ultimate appeal in all controversies.
2. That the original sacred text has come down to us in a state of essential purity.
3. That the Scriptures should be translated into the vernacular languages of all people, and copies put into the hands of all capable of reading them.
The true text of the ancient Scriptures is ascertained by means of a careful collation and comparison of the following:-
1. Ancient manuscripts. The oldest existing Hebrew manuscripts date from the ninth or tenth century. The oldest Greek manuscripts date from the fourth to the sixth century. Many hundreds of these have been collated by eminent scholars in forming the texts of modern Hebrew and Greek Testaments. The differences are found to be unimportant, and the essential integrity of our text is established….” (emphases added)
· Dr Theodore Letis: “And while the reformers do not hold to a perfectionist view of this received text (TR) as it is reflected in their notes, they nevertheless preserved its form for purposes of canonicity” (emphasis mine).
· Dr Dell Johnson, the Dean of Pensacola Theological Seminary: “God preserved his word down the centuries through the ages, we have the very word of God in our mother tongue (KJV) based on the best text (Received, Traditional ).We ought to advocate and adopt the best text and the best English translation.”(ie KJV).” (emphasis mine)
· A.J. Brown, secretary of the Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS): “Truthfulness – It is right to encourage an overall confidence in the Bible, and a faith in the perfection of the inspired originals, and to give due recognition to the workings of divine providence, but in common with orthodox Christian scholars in every age we should also make a realistic acknowledgement that the manuscript copies and the translations are to some extent subject to the fallibility of human creatures. It is potentially damaging for a minister to pretend to his congregation that there are no differences or difficulties among the manuscripts. Sooner or later the pretence will be found out by those who use the minds which God gave them, and the damage to faith may be far greater than if the existence of difficulties had been candidly admitted. The interests of truth and faith are not well served by suppressing information about the historical evidence.” (emphasis mine)
· Edward F. Hills, author of the book The King James Version Defended: “God’s preservation of the New Testament text was not miraculous but providential. The scribes and printers who produced the copies of the New Testament Scriptures and the true believers who read and cherished them were not inspired but God-guided. Hence there are some New Testament passages in which the true reading cannot be determined with absolute certainty. There are some readings, for example, on which the manuscripts are equally divided…Also in some of the cases in which the Textus Receptus disagrees with the Traditional Text it is hard to decide which text to follow. Also, as we have seen, sometimes the several editions of the Textus Receptus differ from each other and from the King James Version. And, as we have just observed, the case is the same with the Old Testament text…In other words, God does not reveal every truth with equal clarity. In biblical textual criticism, as in every other department of knowledge, there are still some details in regard to which we must be content to remain uncertain. But the special providence of God has kept these uncertainties down to a minimum…”
4. According to the Reformers, there were copyists’ errors that came into the text during the copying of manuscripts of the Bible, but they were too few and insignificant to affect the integrity and trustworthiness of the Bible. Many of them often interacted with other manuscripts in their Bible commentaries, a fact which indicates that they did not see the underlying text of the KJV as the exact replica of the autographs. For example, see John Calvin’s commentary on James 4:2.
5. While commenting on the discrepancy found between 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2 regarding the age of king Ahaziah, Matthew Henry (a contemporary of the Westminster Divines) pointed out the following:
“Many good expositors are ready to allow that this, with some few more such difficulties, arise from the mistake of some transcriber, who put forty-two for twenty-two, and the copies by which the error should have been corrected might be lost. Many ancient translations read it here twenty-two. Few books are now printed without some errata, yet the authors do not therefore disown them, nor are the errors of the press imputed to the author, but the candid reader amends them by the sense, or by comparing them with some other part of the work, as we may easily do this.”
6. The Reformers’ faith in the Bible remained firm because they reasoned that the Sovereign God who permitted these few insignificant copyists’ errors to enter in must have ensured that the integrity of the Bible remains intact and completely reliable for man’s use.
Statement of Reconciliation
I hope that this paper will make it clear to you that the allegation that I “believe that the Word of God is not 100% perfect but preserved with copy errors” is false.
However, while I disagree with those who teach that the Hebrew and Greek texts immediately underlying the KJV is an exact replica of the autographs, I fully uphold the Statement of Reconciliation that was issued by the Board of Elders of Life B-P Church on 1st January 2003 which reads as follows:
For the past 52 years, Life B-P Church has been holding forth the Word of Life, and upholding the use of the King James Version (KJV) which is the best English translation of the Scriptures, made by godly translators from the best Greek and Hebrew texts.
Among all English Bibles today there is none that can surpass the KJV. We believe that this statement on the KJV being the very Word of God, and fully reliable, which was arrived at after the careful deliberation of the Board of Elders, is acceptable by all other members of the Session.
And thus we should continue to exclusively use the KJV for all ministries of the church and for our members’ use, and refrain from all Modern English versions, like the RSV, NASV and NIV. One of the many deficiencies of these Modern English versions is that they are based on the corrupted Westcott and Hort Greek and Hebrew Text; whilst the KJV is based on the uncorrupted family of the Greek Received Text and the Masoretic Hebrew Text.
In the last few months, a debate has arisen within our church concerning the Greek Received Text and the Masoretic Hebrew Text underlying the KJV. We have come to the conclusion that neither of the views propounded is dogma but personal conviction or preference. We confess our sins and repent before God that we have caused grief, consternation and confusion. We pray that God will forgive us, and that He may enable us to serve Him more lovingly and zealously till He comes. (emphasis added)
Rev Charles Seet
