It was the meaning of the word "turtle" that was in dispute, the word that is in the KJV.. not the meaning of the word "dove". A turtle-dove is a kind of dove.. but a turtle is a kind of reptile.
Again, the meaning of "turtle" is
not "in dispute":
turtle = a fowl of the genus Columba; called also the
turtle dove and
turtle pigeon. It is a wild species, frequenting the thickest parts of the woods, and its note is plainitive and tender. (
Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828).
But not in original manuscript. Because they are not direct translation from the original.. they are not inspired.
The above position seems to be the nexus of two of your major problems with the Word of God, the KJV.
To paraphrase, you believe that only the "original manuscript" is "inspired." And you fail to understand the significance of your uninformed use of the word "original."
The two points will be addressed here.
Point #1 will address your "original manuscript"
faux pas. Point #2 will reveal the origin of your "originals only" heresy.
Point #1 - Which 'original manuscript'?
Which “original Greek"? Is it Aleph1, Aleph2, Aleph3, B1, B2, B3, C, L, W, Textus Receptus, Westcott and Hort, Scrivener’s, Alfred, Griesbach, Elzevir, Erasmus, Tischendorf, Lachman, Souter, von Soden, Hodge-Farstad, Nestle’s-Aland (If so which edition between 1 and 26? which printing of the 26th?), USB-Aland, Black, Metzger, Wikgren (Which edition between 1 and 47?), or the Greek-English Diglot for the Use of Translators?
Dear reader, if you are convinced
most Christians use a recently published version of the bible, such as the NIV (debuted in 1973), NASB,
Living Bible, etc. - what you really mean is -
most that you have come in contact with, at your fellowship, in the U.S.A., use it. However, throughout the 2000-year history of the New Testament, people using a text like those of the new versions, were in a mathematically infinitesimal minority. So, if you want to be lined up with
most Christians ‘when the saints go marching in’, don’t take a quick spin of the head (like the girl in
The Exorcist) to see what’s happening around you. Take a long look back through history and around the world. It is safer.
The survival of ‘the’ original Greek New Testament is a dream which dissolves with the discovery that not all manuscripts and critical editions are alike. Those applying this term to a Greek text on the bookstore shelf or internet site are unacquainted with the volatile state of the text.
There are over 5366 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. A corrupt few give a view of the text much like a shifting kaleidoscope. They contain several hundred thousand variant readings. In an attempt to marry these ‘moody’ manuscripts, the ‘Wheel of Fortune’ is whirled and readings are selected for inclusion in what scholars call a ‘critical edition of the Greek text.’ There are more than two dozen of these texts, each a ‘prize’ stuffed with between 5000 and 8000 variations. As one scholar puts it, “...equally competent critics often arrive at contrary conclusions as to the same variation.”
The overwhelming majority (over 99%) of these manuscripts, lectionaries and writers agree generally with each other as to the readings of the New Testament. Manuscripts from the second century (P66) down through the Middle Ages (A.D. 1500) attest to the readings of this 'Majority Text', as Kurt Aland terms it. Dean Burgeon, who found this 'MajorityText' in most of the early writers collated, calls it "The Traditional Text.' It is also called the Syrian Text, the Byzantine Text and the K (Kappa) or Common Text.
This text type is available today in English in the
Authorized Version, or as it is called in the United States, the
King James Version. It's 809,000,000 copies since 1611, in 300 languages, demonstrates the continuum of this 'Majority Text'. {Unfortunately, the new versions are
not based on this "Majority Text', but on the dissenting handful of manuscripts which disagree with the Majority).
Best advice: stick with your King James Bible.
Point #2 - Clever Cowards: The Origin of the 'Originals Only' Heresy
Jesus Christ is the
target of hatred by this world. His living Spirit-inspired words, which give his express will on this earth, are the
bull's eye. Christians who stand with Christ's word at the very bull's eye will not only suffer persecution, but they will also be subject to a
constant barrage of attack. The word of God brings the same reproach he bore. His word is the only vestige on earth of Jesus Christ, other than the Holy Ghost and the testimony of born again Christians. Many move slightly off center to avoid the unremitting assault of questioning scribes and mocking bystanders. Those edging away from the bull's eye are still 'for Jesus,' but the desire not to appear "foolish" finds puffed egos seeking ways and means to avoid the "shame" that comes from saying that you have a book in which God actually talks to man (Acts 5:41, Heb 12:2).
The living "powerful" quality of the King James Bible incites sinful men to "mock" and "question" it, just as they did Jesus Christ, the living Word, when he was on earth (Mark 10:34, Matt 22:15, Mark 8:11, et al.). The thought seems to be -- 'Point a finger at it, before it points one back.') The apostles scurried away when Jesus was tried and crucified. When the KJB is likewise tried with accusing questions, even some of the best men scurry under the cover of a Greek text, some lexicon, or the elusive 'originals.'
Calvinists such as Carl Barth (1886-1968) and B. B. Warfield (1851-1921), although defending a semblance of traditional Christianity against German rationalism, were among the first to erect imaginary castles to house the word of God,
outside of the tangible 'Holy Bible.' Jesus is the "Word" (capital 'W' John 1:1); the scriptures are the "word" (small 'w'). Carl Barth (and Heinrich Brunner), the fathers of neo-orthodoxy, wrongly claimed that the 'word' of God did not actually exist on earth. To them the Bible was merely a fallible man-made book, speaking of Christ, the Word. Therefore Barth began capitalizing the letter 'W' when he referred to the 'word.' This was just one of many weak 'Christian' accommodations to the 19th century skeptics' claims that the Holy Bible could not stand up under their "science falsely so-called." (Today too many copy his liberal capitalization of the letter 'W' when referring to the 'word,' not knowing the unscriptural character of such a switch.)
Pastors, say, "Open your Bibles to..." Sunday School teachers say, "I hope you all brought your Bibles." There are those, however who say that the 'Bible is inspired,' but actually
mean that only the originals or some kind of Greek text is inspired. They are practicing Semler's deceptive theory of accommodation. They are trying to give the impression of orthodoxy to their listeners or readers. When I use the term 'Holy Bible' or 'Bible' I mean what every church-going person means and exactly what their dictionary calls the "Bible" -- "the sacred
book of Christianity including the Old and the New Testament." A 'book' is defined by Webster as "a set of written or printed pages fastened on an end and enclosed between protective covers." This describes precisely the Holy Bible Christians read and have in their homes. A 'book' is nowhere identified as 'dissolved animal skins or parchments which have been written on'; neither is a 'Bible' thought of by
anyone as a rare and unreadable Greek text. No living person identifies a 'Bible' as any of these things, except perhaps those 'clergy' who, like Humpty Dumpty say, "When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean." When children and politicians, like Clinton, do this, it is called lying. The new definition and usage of the word 'Bible,' as the lost originals or conflicting Greek and Hebrew manuscripts or editions, is a neologism, that is, "a new meaning for an already established word" (Webster's II New College Dictionary).
The Unabridged 20-volume
Oxford English Dictionary defines "
Bible" as, "The
Scriptures of the Old and New Testament." As such, the verse "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" would mean that the "Bible" "is given by inspiration of God." One merely needs to see the OED to determine that the
Bible is scripture and according to the Bible "All scripture is given by inspiration."
B. B. Warfield was one of the first American theologians to declare war on the Holy Bible's inspiration. In the 1800s this American Presbyterian theologian found himself too close to the bull's eye, the Holy Bible. He unwisely positioned himself under a constant barrage of attack when, in 1876, he went to study for a year in Leipzig, Germany under the highest critics, who denied that God had given man the Bible. Warfield brought to Germany a letter of introduction by Philip Schaff, ASV Chairman and organizer, with the Luciferians, of the Parliment of World Religions. Warfield's questionable associations and dead Calvinism left him no match for the twisted German assault on the Bible. There he readily absorbed the 18th century rationalism of German and other 'Enlightenment' philosophers, which exalt human reason and rule out revelation as a source of knowledge (e. g. Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz). Compounding this, he was exposed to the modernism of Schleiermacher, Hume, and Kant, which flatly deny any miraculous intervention by God. These philosophers all redirected their 'faith' from faith in the Holy Bible to a faith in man. Such dark naturalistic philosophies have cast a lingering shadow over the
miraculous nature of the Holy Bible in the minds of even seminary graduates.
Warfield sought to merge what he learned in Germany with his previous conservatism. On one hand Warfield wrote against the rank unbelief of Briggs, the German higher critic (and author with Brown and Driver of the corrupt English edition of Genenius'
Hebrew Lexicon, unwisely used today). However, Warfield could not defend the Bible in hand. He did not have a strong enough background in manuscript evidence or a humble enough faith in the scriptures to counter the barrage of textual variants and 'poblems' thrust at him in the German classroom. He invented a plan whereby he could retain the creed, that stated that 'the Bible' was inspired. He redefined the word 'Bible' for seminary students.
He moved the locus of inspiration from the Holy Bible to the lost originals. This "biblical paradigm shift" by B. B. Warfield contravenes every previous belief and church confession (e. g. Turretin c. 1687, Westminster, 1646, London Baptist, 1677 et al.). Warfield could still defend the inspiration of 'the Bible' with vigor, and he did, but he
now stated that this inspiration related only to the originals. He was the spokesman for his compromising contemporaries at Princeton who felt that only the originals "were" inspired. A. A. Hodge, son of textual critic Charles Hodge, who himself had studied two years in Germany, had planted the seed in Warfield's mind; Warfield's fellow associates
first put this new heresy in print at the Niagara Conference in 1878. Princeton was the first place in history to harbor this particular shift from an inspired Holy Bible in hand to inspired originals, long gone. Warfield used the Westcott and Hort RV; his "heresies" in other areas (Ecumenical Calvinism) reveal that he was not "approved" according to 1 Cor 11:19. Hence his view of inspiration should be rejected.
In order to divest themselves of a living book that contains the words of the Spirit of God, today's liberals have adopted his distinction between the so-0called 'originals' and the word of God extant today in vernacular Holy Bibles. His 'original' idea about the originals has "crept in unaware" into Bible school textbooks and doctrinal statements. It provides a comfortable respite for those who, as Jesus said, are "ashamed of me and my words," when questions arise (Mark 8:38).
Commenting on Warfield's departure from the historic faith is Dr. James Sightler, a medical doctor and son of Dr. Harold Sightler, the famous and now deceased pastor from Greenville, S. C.. Dr. Sightler took the pulse of the King James Bible and determined that it was alive. His booklet
Lively Oracles is his dissertation on the inspiration of the KJB. In his earlier classic,
A Testimony Founded Forever, Dr. James Sightler writes,
"It has been stated by Sandeen that the
Princeton Theologians Archibald Alexander Hodge and Benjamin Breckenridge
Warfield, in 1881, were the
first to claim inspiration for the original autographs only and to exchange the doctrine of providential preservation for restoration of the text by critics. This
shift was accompanied by a change from reliance on internal verification of the scripture by the
witness of the spirit and the structural integrity of the
entire Bible to reliance on external evidences. Actually it was Warfield's teacher and predecessor at Princeton, Charles Hodge, father of A. A. Hodge, who was the first to take up naturalistic text criticism and abandon the doctrine of providential preservation. It should also be remembered that the Niagara Creed of 1878, adopted at the Niagara Conference on Prophecy, which was dominated by a coalition of
Princeton graduates and followers of J. N. Darby, may well have been the
first document to claim inspiration for every word of scripture "provided such word is found in the
original manuscripts"" (emphasis mine; See Ernest R. Sandeen,
The Roots of Fundamentalism, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House 1970, pp. 103-131 as cited by James Sightler,
A Testimony Founded Forever, Greenville, SC: Sightler Publications, 2001, pp. 31, 32 et al.; Sightler's book gives an entire chapter which documents Warfield's heretical shift. John Asquith has written a book entitled
Further Thoughts on the Word of God: Defending the Inspiration of the AV 1611, which I also recommend.)
Dr. Gary La More of Canada wrote an entire paper detailing Warfield's cowardly retreat,
"Having been encouraged by A. A. Hodge to defend the Princeton view of verbal inspiration against an attack by the critical theories of Charles A. Briggs, Warfield found himself on the horns of a dilemma...Warfield's solution was to
shift his doctrine of inerrancy to include only the original autographa; no longer holding to the belief in the inerrancy of the Bible of the Reformers, the Traditional Text. Thus he moved that
if the locus of providence were now centered in restoration via "Enlightenment" textual criticism, rather than preservation of the traditinal texts, then
we need not concern ourselves with the criticism lodged at the text of Scripture presently (and historically!) used in the Church" (Gary La More,
B. B. Warfield and His Followers, Scarborough, Ontario, Canada: Grace Missionary Baptist Church, 2007, pp. 27-28).
Warfield accommodated the Bible to modern scientific rationalism, empiricism, and naturalism. Like doubting Thomas, Warfield must see it, not just believe it. Many were drawn to his naturalistic idea because they did not know how to defend their Bibles from the barrage of questions arising out of Germany. As La More observed, Warfield's accommodation is a comfortable resort today for those who cannot answer questions about why the KJB reads as it does and do not want to appear "foolish." It is frightening to think that a non-soul-winning German-trained Calvinist is dictating from the grave his originals-only theory of inspiration to those who disavow many of his other beliefs and practices. Warfield's inspired 'originals only' still stains many churches; 'Statement of Faith.' The churches who have such statements think that their creed is orthodox and have no knowledge if its heterodox origin. They do not realize that it was merly an accommodation to the infidels of Germany who found imaginary faults in the Bible.
Warfield's invention has darkened the sense and spread a faltering faith to even good Christians such as John Burgon, Edward Hills, and their modern day proponents, some of whom have cowered and acquiesced to alleged spots or conceivable future updates or improvement to the KJB. These men have become rationalists, naturalists and modernists
in practice by exalting man's role in the transmission of the Bible and denying the miraculous intervention of God. The Bible says. "
Thou shalt preserve them..." It is
his work. What shall he preserve? He shall preserve
his words -- not replce them with men's words. Unwittingly, they have in a sense adopted the neo-orthodox position that the Bible (that we have) only contains God's message (but accurately translated by men into English).
To them Bibles are no longer God's own English words. Remember, he said "I speak" "other tongues." Practically speaking they have adopted the same view as those who create and use modern versions, who say that the Bible was inspired only in the originals and consequently they are free to reconstitute it themselves according to rationalistic methods. There is not a lot of difference (in presumption, not text) between
men making NIVs and
men making the 'updated' KJV Easy-Reader or KJV Evidence Bible (Ray Comfort). Is the Holy Bible God's words or man's? There is no middle ground. The title even says 'Holy' Bible. Since when can unholy men make a wholly holy book?
Another author observes,
"Throughout the twentieth century, a view of inspiration gained ascendancy among evangelicals and many fundamentalists that marked a
departure from that which was
previously confessed by believers since New Testament days...Recent scholarship has shown that men like Princeton professor Benjamin Warfield (1851-1921) were not as committed to the Biblical doctrine of verbal inspiration as we are sometimes led to believe. Thinking to answer rationalist theologians on their own ground and legitimize textual studies, these men began to suggest that only the autographs (originals) were inspired; apographs (copies) were not. For this reason many of the Statements of Faith issued by various bodies now speak of the Scriptures being inspired 'as originally given' whereas before this time the conviction was that inspired Scripture was preserved in the copies.
All this took place almost unnoticed, but we are being asked to swallow a real whopper! The apostle Paul is right, "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:22).
What this means is that as the originals have long since turned to dust, no inspired text exists today...Warfield's book on biblical inspiration is still hailed as a 'classic,' but his viewpoint has done more to undermine confidence in Scripture than almost any other in the last 150 years or so." (David W. Norris,
The Big Picture, pp. 295-296 as cited in La More, pp. 20-21).
Warfield fought higher criticism, but adopted lower criticism, which is the rationalistic belief that the inspired originals had been lost for a millennium and a half and could be reconstructed by Westcott, Hort, and Schaff on the RV and ASV committees. Warfield said Westcott and Hort "furnish us for the first time with a really scientific method" which "will meet with speedy universal acceptance" (as cited in La More, note 13 pp. 17, 27, et al.; also see Mark A. Noll,
Between Faith and Criticism, 2nd ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1991).
In 1886 Warfield wrote the first book in America promoting textual criticism (
Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament). Calhoun's history of Princeton says, "His positive attitude toward textual criticism influenced many to appreciate the science and to value the new translations of the Bible [RV and ASV]..." (David Calhoun,
Princeton Seminary, Vol. 2, "The Majectic Testimony 1869-1929," pp. 113-115) Schaff invited Warfield to contribute his Hortian views on manuscript genealogy to his heretical
Companion to the Greek Testament and English Version. Sightler says, "Westcott, Hort, Schaff, and Warfield...all knew that Griesbach openly denied the Diety of Christ, and yet they followed his methods in preference to those of Frederick Nolan, who was a believer. They reasoned in circular fashion that the best readings were in codices B and Aleph, therefore B and Aleph gave the best textual evidence [Vaticanus and Sinaiticus]" (Sightler, p. 31).
Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield should have followed in his maternal grandfather and namesake's footsteps. Robert Breckenridge was a lawyer and Presbyterian minister who single-handedly stopped the wavering American Bible Society from printing their own revised version of the KJB thirty years before the RV. This version was edited and corrupted by men including John McClintock (of McClintock and (James) Strong's
Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature). This version omitted such important doctrines as, "God was manifest in the flesh" (Sightler, p. 35).
Each generation must remember that --
"With the ancient is wisdom; and in length of days understanding" (Job 12:12)
"...ask for the
old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they say, We will not walk therein." (Jer 6:16)
The Holy Bible has always been recognized as the locus of inspiration, that is, until the Egyptian locusts saw its fruiitful boughs and swarmed to consume it.
