Defending Chris Myers’ point

...without agreeing with everything he wrote.

Why I Preach from the Received Text, a book I recently reviewed quite positively, has come under specific attack for its Chapter 19 – “The Invincible Word” – by Christopher Myers.

First, a few general observations on Christopher Myers’ chapter. It struck me as different from most of the previous essays I had read in the book. Many of those were much more personal and testimonial. After extolling the word of God as invincible and indestructible, Myers quickly transitioned to a history of the transmission of God’s word, with the transmission of Satan’s work along with and against it. In this relation of the history, the writer affirmed Satan’s various attacks on the word of God, through uninspired writings competing with those of the apostles, hindering the laity’s access to the word of God, variations that diminished the deity of Christ, and so forth (pp. 187-191). Ultimately, the Christian reader must choose between the faulty text disrupted by the work of Satan and the reliable one that has stood the test of time.

Mark Ward and Matthew Everhard have both charged Chris Myers of accusing folks who use certain modern translations of using Satan’s Bible. In his blog review of the book, Ward writes:

“Myers makes it clear that when he refers to Satan’s Bible, he is not speaking of the sectarian New World Translation or the Book of Mormon, but to the Bible that I carried to church this very day as I write (the ESV), and to the one my pastor preached from (the NASB), and, by a small extension, to the Bible I preached from in our Spanish ministry (the NVI, related to the NIV).” (Review: Why I Preach from the Received Text)

In a YouTube video, Everhard states:

“One of the authors calls some of the modern translations, including the NIV and the ESV, Satan’s Bible.” (Sparring TR & KJV Advocates! Interview with Dane Johannsson and Brett Mahlen, @ 49:10)

Myers wrote:

“Modern translations based on Satan’s Bible, that omit some of the Word of God, include the New American Standard Bible, New International Version, English Standard Version, and many others.” (Why I Preach, p. 192)

I understand that those who use the ESV, NASB, NIV, et al., will take offense at Myers above expression. However, I do not believe the quotes from Ward and Everhard exactly or accurately portray Myers’ statement, in its context. While one might extrapolate that from what Myers wrote, it is not what he wrote. There is a fine line. He did not say they are using Satan’s Bible, but that these Bibles are “based on” it (“based on,” an adjective that in context seems to mean that they have attachment to or reliance on it as a source item for their translations). The attempts Satan has made against God’s word affect all these Bibles.[i] The more I look at “Chapter 19,” the more I think people have misunderstood and misapplied what Myers wrote. Is it just vacant talk that provides some sort of “moral high ground” when we say we are seeking to understand and fairly represent our opponents? If not, then we must all try to understand and then fairly represent our opponents, including Chris Myers and what he wrote. He wrote strong words. Very strong words. These words cannot help but sound inflammatory to modern Bible proponents. He is calling them out. The point he is making is that the modern translations founded on the NU Greek text are heirs to the defects (especially deletions) that have entered into the texts through the leavening work of Satan.

Possibly many TR and KJV proponents failed the Dale Carnegie “How to Win Friends and Influence People” course, while most CT and modern Bible proponents passed with flying colors! Myers sharply spells out the consequences of what he understands as an assault against the word of God, whereas the other side simply says we are adding verses instead of their removing verses, usually leaving us to intuit the rest that goes with that accusation.[i] Who is nicer? Regardless, pleasing demeanor and affable tone are not the arbiters of truth.

Satan has an interest in opposing, questioning, and confusing God’s word. This is not some KJVO or TRO conspiratorial viewpoint. The text and teaching of the Bible itself verifies this.[ii] From the beginning the serpent questioned the word of God. A wicked king tried to burn it. False apostles mimicked letters in the name of Paul. The multiplication of Bible translations, the words written about textual variants, and so on, can work to his advantage. There are textual variants (and translations thereof) that do matter. George Vance Smith, an Unitarian, served on the English Bible Revision Committee created in 1870 that produced the English Revised Version. He believed the variants had theological impact, and he wrote with some pleasure that he thought the new revision muted the doctrine of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and the atonement (see Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament Affecting Theological Doctrine Briefly Reviewed). You do not have to be a TR or KJV advocate to recognize this. James Snapp, Jr., an advocate of “Equitable Eclecticism,” exhibits this when he writes, “But we should not let ourselves pretend that some textual variants cannot be used against orthodox doctrines...There was, and is, a spiritual battle going on” (see Abner Kneeland, Forgotten American Translator (and Apostate)). A spiritual battle!

In “Mark of the beast, is it 666 or 616?” our friend Dwayne Green discusses text criticism, the mark of the beast, and the variant number 616 instead of 666. He says:

“It makes senses that the Devil would want to confuse you about what that number is.” (Mark of the beast, is it 666 or 616? @ 0:43)

Dwayne is neither KJVO nor TRO. Yet he recognizes that Satan has an interest in confusing us about God’s word. Is it only okay for those who are not KJVO or TRO or Confessional Bibliologists to point this out? No, it is truth, regardless of who says it, and regardless of who objects.

Wilbur Pickering, like Dwayne Green, is neither KJVO nor TRO. He is a modern textual critic advocating what is called the Family 35 Majority Text. He has strong words about Satan’s influence on the text of the Bible.[iii]

“Since eclectic textual criticism is based on falsehoods, it belongs to Satan. Since most theological seminaries and Bible schools teach eclectic textual criticism, even the most conservative ones, and since that is the only option that they teach, most students graduate thinking that is all there is. The graduate may believe the NT to be inspired and inerrant in the autographs, but he uses and teaches from an eclectic Greek text and modern versions based on an eclectic text. He embraced a lie because he trusted the teachers who assured him it was the truth. But that lie has become a stronghold of Satan in his mind, which is why so many evangelicals seem to be unable to reconsider what they were taught.” (Textual criticism and the spiritual factor)

The above examples demonstrate that speaking of Satan working against the word of God is not a feature of any one brand of “Bible Onlyism,” neither is it a relic of the past. Others believe and say that there is Satanic influence in textual transmission and Bible translation.

That agreement with Myers laid out, I also diverge somewhat with his approach. We should exercise caution not to cause sincere believers (even sincerely wrong ones) to doubt God’s word. For those who completely exclude any part of critical texts and modern translations from being God’s word, my point will fall flat. However, (the rest of you) consider that in many places the critical text and traditional text have the same readings. Some translations of verses have the same words as those same verses in the King James translation. In good conscience and the spirit of truth, we cannot deny those portions are the word of God, regardless of where they appear.

Here is Romans 1:1 from four different Greek texts. Which one is the word of God?

• παυλος δουλος ιησου χριστου κλητος αποστολος αφωρισμενος εις ευαγγελιον θεου
• παυλος δουλος ιησου χριστου κλητος αποστολος αφωρισμενος εις ευαγγελιον θεου
• παυλος δουλος ιησου χριστου κλητος αποστολος αφωρισμενος εις ευαγγελιον θεου
• Παῦλος δοῦλος Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ κλητὸς ἀπόστολος ἀφωρισμένος εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ

Here is Romans 1:1 from three different English translations. Which one is the word of God?

• Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
• Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
• Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

These examples are all the same (with the exception of the capitalization and pointing in the fourth Greek example, and, of course, the difference between Greek and English). Either every one is the word of God or none is the word of God. We cannot keep a consistent (or biblical) textual view if the same word of God ceases to be the word of God when sewn under the wrong two leather covers. SO, in my opinion, we need to respect the word of God that is the word of God, whether it is printed under the covers of a Bible text or translation we do not like, quoted in a book we would not read, printed on a banner, posted on Facebook, or spoken from the mouth of either the godly or godless. This position does not mean we cannot or should not oppose what is wrong in the the ESV, NASB, NIV, and other modern translations, as defective and deficient. It means that we carefully choose to apply or not apply certain terminology to books that contain some of God’s word, mistranslate some of it, and/or leave out some of it. It may be that we need to use that book, and the words of God contained within it, to convince some sincere believer concerning his or her views. For example, say there is a sincere believer who thinks the NIV is the word of God. Adamantly I say, “No, it is Satan’s book.” Then that person may begin to question God’s word (in other words, question God’s word in principle, not just the NIV, because he or she thinks it is God’s word). Later they may not accept any Bible as authoritative! A speaker may intend for a person to question the NIV and/or critical text and accept the KJV and/or traditional text. However, there is no guarantee that will be the results.

It is not necessary to believe that evangelical text critics and modern Bible translators are Satanists in order to believe they have been led astray in creating, adopting, and/or translating a certain defective text.[iv] Some of us believe that the Westcott-Hort/NU text tradition leaves out and changes some of God’s words. If we are correct, then the basic point Christopher Myers makes is correct. Some of us might make the point in different language than Myers, but the general point is true nevertheless.

It will be interesting to hear whether and how Myers himself responds to these criticisms.

Greater is he that is in his word (God) than he who opposes it (Satan). The word of God is not bound. It is not broken. The Devil cannot defeat it.

---

[i] In fact, if our opponents are correct, then the attempts that Satan has made against God’s word affects MY Bible. They may not wish to say that plainly, but they are saying it when they say that the Textus Receptus adds to the word of God. “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar” (Proverbs 30:5-6). Biblically speaking, if we add to the word of God, we are liars, following the father of lies (John 8:44), and our Bible, at least in its additions, is “based on” Satan’s Bible. Refusing to state the conclusion that follows your position may seem nice, but those are the consequences nevertheless. “Translations based on Satan’s Bible, that add to the Word of God, include the Geneva Bible, King James Bible, Modern English Version, New King James Version, 21st Century King James Version, and several others.” If you think I am wrong, tell me precisely, instead of beating around the proverbial bush.
[ii] See, for example, Genesis 3:1; Luke 4:9-10; 8:11-12; John 8:44; 1 Corinthians 14:33; 2 Corinthians 11:13-15; Ephesians 6:10-18; 2 Timothy 4:3-4; Revelation 12:9.
[iii] Pickering is more emphatic in this interview, Transcript of TF Radio Episode 12- Dr. Wilbur N. Pickering.
[iv] Humility and honesty makes the “traditional-text Christians” admit that we have been and can be led astray in many areas of life.