Psalm 12:6-7 and Bible Preservation

Alexander Ewing, minister of the Square Chapel Congregational Church in Halifax, West Yorkshire, England, used Psalm 12:6-7 as the basis for his discourse on “The Claims of the Bible to Be Received as a Divine Revelation,” which was printed in 1839.

“It is true, the scriptures have been assailed by the enemies of our faith, in every possible shape and form, and with all the subtlety and malignity of hell. But they have passed, through every fiery ordeal, uninjured, and have even gained additional brightness and strength, from the trial to which they have been subjected. The text affirms, ‘The words of the Lord are pure words; as silver tried in the furnace of earth, purified seven times.’ That is, as the precious metals, when cast into a crucible or fining pot, and subjected to the scorching flames, seven times, in succession, come forth with increasing brilliancy; so the words of the Lord, the more they have been tried, whether by friends or foes, the more their truth, their uncorruptness, and integrity have been manifested. While all the shafts of malice, have rebounded back upon those by whom they were discharged, the oracles of divine truth have remained impervious to their strokes. Nor shall infidels ever be permitted to succeed, in their desperate enterprise against the words of the Lord, for it is added, ‘Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.’ .... The care of divine providence, is remarkably displayed, in the preservation, and transmission of the sacred scriptures during so many ages, in all their integrity, and purity, to the present time. Indeed, when we consider, how the Bible has been assailed, and maligned, by its avowed enemies, and misrepresented by the infidelity and treachery of its professed friends, its preservation seems truly miraculous. But the Lord of all, who has never permitted the gates of hell to prevail against his church, has watched over with peculiar care, the sacred oracles, on which it rests ‘as the pillar and ground of the truth.’”

“Discourse III, The Claims of the Bible to Be Received as a Divine Revelation, Psalm XII. 6,7.” Discourses on Various Subjects, Designed to Illustrate the Excellency of Christianity, Alexander Ewing, London: Hamilton, Adams & Co., 1839, pp. 86-87, 94

Donner, Psalm 12:6-7

“True thus is the word of the true, infallible One who cannot lie. The faith of the poet rests upon it, fully assured that none of the words of God shall fall to the earth unfulfilled. And the ages have established the truth of David’s praise upon the word of the Lord. The unbeliever has cast God’s Word into the ungodly crucible of his critique, and still does every day. It has been subjected to the most severe experiments that science could devise, and it still boldly continues. And with what outcome? That our precious Bible, after each trial, became more and more manifest, to be the pure, infallible Word of our God. Faith, then, fears not those experiments of infidel criticism; one does not make silver, purified seven times, into tin or lead. They will not be able to take God’s Word from us, they will have to let the Word stand.” J. H. Donner (Netherland Reformed), De Psalmen Voor de Gemeente Uitgelegd (The Psalms Explained For The Church), Volume 1, 1893, p. 77 (English translation from the original Dutch) 

“Waarachtig is alzoo he Woord van den Waarachtige, onbredriegelijk van Hem die niet liegen kan; het geloof des dichters verlaat zich er op, ten volle verzekerd, dat geen der woorden God onvervuld op aarde vallen zal.”

“En de eeuwen hebben de waarheid van Davids lof op het Woord des Heeren bevestigd. Het ongeloof heef Gods Woord in den ongoddelijken smeltkroes van zijn critiek geworpen, en doet dit nog elken dage. Men heeft het aan de zwaarste proeven, die de wetenschap kon uitdenken, onderworpen, en gaat er nog stout en driest mede voort. En met welke uitkomst? Dat onze dierbare Bijbel, na elke proef bij toeneming openbaar werd, het reine, zuivere, onfeilbare Woord onzes Gods te zijn. Het geloof vreest dan ook die proefnemingen der ongeloovige critiek niet, men maakt geen zevenmaal gelouterd zilver tot tin of lood; zij zullen ons Gods Woord niet kunnen ontnemen, het Woord zullen zij moeten laten staan.”

“True thus is the word of the True, infallible of Him who cannot lie; the faith of the poet rests upon it, fully assured that none of the words of God shall fall to the earth unfulfilled. And the ages have established the truth of David’s praise upon the Word of the Lord. Unbelief has cast God’s Word into the ungodly crucible of its critique, and still does every day. It has been subjected to the most severe experiments that science could devise, and it is still bold and bold. And with what outcome? That our precious Bible, after each trial, became more and more manifest, to be the pure, pure, infallible Word of our God. Faith, then, fears not those experiments of unbelieving criticism; they do not make silver, purified seven times, into tin or lead; they will not be able to take God’s Word from us, they will have to let the Word stand.”

“David geloof is wonderbaar gesterkt geworden, hij erkent en verwacht, dat de Heer de ellendigen en nooddruftigen bewaren en behoeden zal van het valsch en trotsch geslacht der leugenaars en lage vleiers.”

“David’s faith has been wonderfully strengthened, he acknowledges and expects that the Lord will keep and keep the poor and needy from the false and proud generation of liars and low flatterers.”

“De Heere alleen kan er hen voor behoeden en bewaren; want niet dan kwaad, niet dan verderf is te watchten, wanneer zij de overhand krijgen en de macht in kerk of staat in hunne handen komt.”

“The Lord alone can keep them from it and keep them; for nothing but evil, nothing but destruction is to be watched when they gain the upper hand and power in church or state comes into their hands.”

“De goddeloozen draven rondom, zij verheffen zich, wanneer de snoodsten der menschenkinderen verhoogd worden, wanneer dit boos geslacht van vleiers en leugenaars de eereplaatsen van macht en heerschappij innemen.”

“The wicked trot about, they lift themselves up, when the vilest of the children of men are exalted, when this evil race of flatterers and liars take the honors of power and dominion.”

Abusing the word of God

It was deceitfully challenged by that old serpent.

• Yea, hath God said… Genesis 3:1

It was violently broken by the angry servant Moses.

• ...Moses’ anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount. Exodus 32:19

It was ignorantly forgotten by the Jewish leaders.

• And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord. And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it. 2 Kings 22:8

It was unscrupulously marred by King Jehoiakim.

• And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth. Jeremiah 36:23

It was effectively sterilized by accumulated tradition.

• making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. Mark 7:13

It was foolishly mocked by Gentile philosophers.

• And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked... Acts 17:32

but the word of God is not bound. 2 Timothy 2:9

but the word of the Lord endureth for ever. 1 Peter 1:25

Preservation of the Scriptures

In his lecture “How Has God Preserved His Word” at the TBS 2023 Trinity & Text Conference, Pastor Jeff Riddle of Christ Reformed Baptist Church made the following points that I want to repeat and accentuate here. In the modern era this classic biblical doctrine of preservation has been neglected, denied, and redefined.

Neglect. According to Brother Riddle, “Protestant pastors and theologians starting in the early 20th century largely stopped writing about the Divine preservation of scripture.” I think this is a valid observation, and that it was probably brought on by conservatives focusing on what they saw as an important strong point – inspiration – while avoiding focusing on a point of which they were becoming uncertain.

“What does it profit a man if he proves the Bible was originally inspired but he cannot point with certainty to the place where it has been preserved?”

Denial. Following in the path of neglect of the doctrine of preservation of scripture, “there’s been denial of this doctrine.” The denial is not a denial of normal preservation – that is, we have the manuscripts of scripture that in the course of natural means survived to the present. Daniel Wallace makes this historical argument, writing, “My own preference is to speak of God’s providential care of the text as can be seen throughout church history, without elevating such to the level of doctrine.” (“Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism”)

This denial is not a denial of the historical accident of preservation of written media, but a denial that the scriptures teach God’s determination to preserve them. Put another way, the absence of a doctrine of preservation is the absence of any promise from God to preserve his words written in scripture.

At this point, many modern deniers of the doctrine of preservation want to “have their cake and eat it, too” – that is, many will claim that the original words of scripture are found somewhere in “the entirety of the manuscript tradition.” At least to some of them, this means they think the right words exist “somewhere” in the extant manuscripts, if we can just find them. However, once God’s promise to preserve scripture is dismissed, so is any basis on which to believe that we must still have all the autographic words of scripture.

Redefinition. The neglect and denial of the doctrine of preservation leads to a redefinition of the meaning of “preservation.” This is inevitable because they still use the word “preservation.” Many who use the word “preservation” do not mean the historical doctrine of God’s providential preservation. Some may even continue to use the word “providential,” but without its traditional or expected meaning in reference to scripture. Jon Rehurek speaks of God’s providence with regard to the preservation of Scripture in a way that is no more special than the providence of preserving the works of Shakespeare or Plato (“Preservation of the Bible: Providential or Miraculous? The Biblical View”). Stripped down, the redefinition simply means that we have some manuscripts of scripture that still exist today. It is the manuscripts, the media, that have been preserved, and not necessarily the words. Therefore, we can have the extant preserved media, and not know that the original words are preserved. Again quoting Dan Wallace, “We do not have now—in our critical Greek texts or any translations—exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote. Even if we did, we would not know it.” (“Foreword,” in Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism, Elijah Hixson, Peter J. Gurry, editors, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2019, p. xii).

In contrast to the problem of neglect, denial, and redefinition, Pastor Riddle explains that “the classic Protestant biblical doctrine of divine preservation of scripture should be retrieved, maintained, and defended.”

Retrieval. If you have abandoned the doctrine, you need to retrieve it. It is sound, biblical, and historical teaching – and as a committed Baptist, I add that it is sound, biblical, and historical Baptist teaching.

Maintenance. If you have retrieved the doctrine, now maintain it. If you have not abandoned it, continue to maintain, hold, and support this biblical doctrine.

Defense. The doctrine – as with any and all biblical doctrines – should be defended as the truth taught in and by the scriptures. (See “What does the Bible speak of itself” in A Fundamental Problem for Fundamentalism.) Jude, verse 3 ...it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

Pastor Jeff Riddle exhorts that the retrieval of the older traditional bibliology “includes retrieval of the biblical doctrine of the divine preservation of scripture. We are not called upon to empirically reconstruct the text. We are called on to receive the text, as God’s people, which he has preserved.”

If we do not know what the Bible is, then we do not know what the Bible says. If we do not know what the Bible says, then we cannot speak with authority from it or about it.

The Text of the Bible

The TEXT of the Bible, not the papers, the covers, the title, the preface, the cross references, the study notes, or the concordance and maps in the back; yea, the text itself is the inspired and preserved word of God.

Francis Pieper: The Bible in Your Hand

F. Pieper: 1. Wir wiffen a priori aus der gӧttlichen Berheikung, daß wir in der Bibel, die in unsern hӓnden ist, Christi Wort haben, das bis an den Jüngsten Tag in der Kirche und von der Kirche zu lehren ist.

English translation: 1. We know a priori from the divine decree (or promise), that the Bible we have in our hands is the word of Christ that is to be taught by and in the church until the last day.

Christliche Dogmatik, Franz Pieper (1852-1931), St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1924, page 290

The context can be seen in this English translation of Christian Dogmatics by Theodore Engelder and others (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1950, p. 240):

We are not saying, however, that textual criticism should be eliminated entirely from our theological curriculum. We, too, in our theological seminary at St. Louis introduce our students to modern textual criticism. That is a part of the complete external equipment of a theologian of our day. But we point out two things to our students: 1) We know a priori from the divine promise that in our present Bible we have the Word of Christ which is to be taught in the Church and by the Church to the Last Day. 2) We recognize, too, a posteriori, that the divine providence has so wonderfully held its protecting hand over the Bible text that in spite of the variae lectiones not a single Christian doctrine has become a matter of doubt.

Pieper did not hold a King James position. Nevertheless, his bibliology is quite strong compared to modern evangelical theologians. He is clear that he thinks most of the variae lectiones are orthographical matters. Interestingly, on page 241 he advises (as a practical matter) to not use a challenged reading in a dispute.

...in a dispute with Unitarians on the doctrine of the Trinity relinquish I John 5:7-8 as a prooftext...One may be convinced, on the basis of scientific investigation, that these words are nevertheless genuine, that is, that they were in the original autographs. We personally hold this position...But in a dispute with a Unitarian, who denies the authenticity of I John 5:7, we at once disregard this passage as a prooftext. That does not make the doctrine of the Holy Trinity doubtful in any way...

[Note that Pieper holds I John 5:7-8 is genuine.]

The Synoptic Problem?

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God…” (2 Timothy 3:16)

The “Synoptic Gospels” are Matthew, Mark, and Luke, called this because of their similarities (taking the same point of view) as opposed to being quite different from John. A long-held general view has thought chronologically of the four Gospels in the order they stand in the New Testament – Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Synoptic Problem.

This “problem” concerns the similarities and differences of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) and their relationships to one another – in the sense of dependence, independence, or interdependence. A human explanation is sought. For simple Bible believers, the “problem” is not a problem because God is behind all of these Gospels and they are the way they are because of his divine choice. For many of the rest, the “problem” is resolved by settling on two sources for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke – the Gospel of Mark and an imaginary document called “Q.”

Markan Priority.

Liberal New Testament scholars in the 19th century began to reject the priority of Matthew’s Gospel in favor of Mark’s Gospel. “Markan Priority” theorizes that the authors of Matthew’s and Luke’s Gospels drew from or depended on the Gospel of Mark as a source of information in their own writings. This “resolves” the parts of these three Gospels that are similar. Since not all of the material that Matthew and Luke have in common is found in the Gospel of Mark, “Markan Priority” only resolves part of the “problem.” This necessitates another source for the parts that Matthew and Luke have in common with each other, but not with Mark.

“Q” or “Q source”.[i]

“Q” (aka “Logia Source Q”) is therefore the hypothetical document imagined as a “solution” to the so-called “Synoptic Problem,” when combined with “Markan Priority.” According to this hypothesis, Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source and also a second source for the material they have in common that is not found in Mark.[ii] This source does not exist, but it has been created in the imaginations of unbelieving scholars. Usually the “Q” material is a single theoretical lost written source, though some may include oral resources as well.[iii]

The real problem.

The real problem is the havoc caused among Bible believers who read so-called conservative commentators who spread the virus of unbelief in the inspiration of the Scriptures. Thomas Ross illustrates this in “Q, Synoptic Gospel Dependence, and Inspiration for the Bible.” John Nolland, author of The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), who passes for a conservative in evangelical circles, writes:

“On the basis of the tensions and difficulties in the account [in Matthew 25:31-46, rlv] many scholars have held that Matthew has cobbled this account together out of traditional fragments and OT resources…the adjustment is likely to be pre-Matthean, but this time it may be Matthew himself who is responsible for the change…With some brief, now-lost beginning to introduce the king, the restored parable is free of the tensions and difficulties that have been identified in the Matthean account.”[iv] 

A brief summary of what Nolland thinks is this. He posits that whatever Jesus Christ actually said got changed to something different than what Jesus said! This kind of talk is replicated in far too many “conservative” evangelical commentaries, sermons, etc.

The solution to the problem.

The solution to the “Synoptic Problem” begins with “Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.” That is, I understand that the Synoptic Gospels are inspired by God, and I believe this even in light of the things I do not understand. “Let God be true, but every man a liar.”

My objection to “Markan Priority” and “Q” starts at a the most basic level – the inspiration of the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16). “Markan Priority” and “Q” theory emphasizes the human element in the writing of the Gospels. It essentially removes the divine element. Men imagine these Gospels rising from three authors without due emphasis on these three Gospels rising from one author using three inspired penmen. Since the human element is overemphasized, a need to fix the “problems” lends to the imagining of writers (particularly Matthew and Luke) copying their Gospels from Mark and an artfully invented fictional source – in order to explain why these books are the way they are. However, if God wrote the Gospels, that in itself explains why they are the way they are. They are how he wants them. This view may not suit our human curiosity in explaining all we think we want to know. Nevertheless, that must be the beginning point for the Bible believer.

Ultimately, we have gotten ourselves into this mess by rejecting the older view of inspiration that is closer to dictation than superintendence. “Dictation” has been pooh-poohed by modern evangelicals. Good people have rejected the term and preferred superintendence instead. Certainly, there is a human element to the writing of Scripture. That said, we cannot resolve “problems” by rejecting God as the divine author of Scripture. The majority of evangelicals in the United States may be emphasizing the human element to the removing of the divine element – while still giving lip service to inspiration. “Markan Priority” and “Q” are symptoms of the sickness of overemphasizing the “humanness” of the Gospels.

Considering the human standpoint of the authors, the Synoptic Gospels are independent accounts by three independent witnesses. That is, they do not need to depend on one another or any fictional sources. “Q” source is an inspiration-denying view, even if some of those who repeat it do not themselves deny inspiration.

There is one original ultimate source of the Synoptic Gospels. The Synoptic Gospels, the Gospel of John, and the whole of Scripture (all 66 books of the Old and New Testaments) are pure words from one source – God who gave the word. Believe it. Lord, help thou mine unbelief.

---

[i] “Q” is an abbreviation of the German word “Quelle”, meaning “source.” This should give the reader the hint that these doubts arise in large part from German higher criticism, which is an unbelief in the supernatural element of Christianity.
[ii] In addition to the Two Document (or Two Source) Hypothesis, there also exist hypotheses for three sources or four sources. When you start making this stuff up, there is no limit to how many sources there could be.
[iii] “Q” does not exist. There is no proof it ever existed. It exists only in the minds of those who need it to resolve their problems.
[iv] To read a long excerpt of John Nolland, with Thomas Ross’s comments, see “Q, Synoptic Gospel Dependence, and Inspiration for the Bible.”

Ever learning

Modern textual criticism, in the opinion of some of its leading minds, has given up its so-called search to recover the words of the original text or autographs. They are satisfied they cannot recover it, and seek now for the Ausgangtext (or texts), “a hypothetical, reconstructed text, as it presumably existed, according to the hypothesis, before the beginning of its copying.” Some more conservative (relatively speaking) text critics have pushed back against this. In the “Conclusion” of the book Can We Recover the Original Text of the New Testament (p. 87), editors Abidan Paul Shah and David Alan Black write:

“Lack of a settled original text only leads to a lack of a settled biblical theology which only leads to uncertain Christian doctrines and practice.”

This is most certainly true. No settled text = no settled theology = no settled faith and practice for modern Christians. Unfortunately, these authors’ solution is “to continue to practice a scientific approach to retrieving the original text of the New Testament.” What is the fruit of the scientific approach or method? The same kind of fruit against which they complain. Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the text leads to Christians tossed about by every wind of doctrine.

Let us look for a more stable foundation, a settled text that has been preserved and in the hands of the churches and Christians all along. Why go look for something you already have?

Scripture, Preservation, Jots, and Tittles

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

John Lightfoot (d. 1675), in “Hebrew and Talmudic Exercitations,” The Whole Works of John Lightfoot, Vol. XI, (ca. 1658/1823, pp. 99-100), commented:

But that our Saviour, by ἰῶτα καὶ κεραία “jot and tittle,” did not only understand the bare letters, or the little marks that distinguished them, appears sufficiently from verse 19, where he renders it, one of “these least commands:” in which sense is that also in the Jerusalem Gemara of Solomon’s rooting out Jod, that is, evacuating that precept נָשִׁים ְלֹא יָרבּה “He shall not multiply wives.” And yet it appears enough hence, that our Saviour also so far asserts the uncorrupt immortality and purity of the holy text, that no particle of the sacred sense should perish, from the beginning of the law to the end of it.

In A Chronological Treatise Upon the Seventy Weeks of Daniel (1725, p. 204), Benjamin Marshall (d. 1749), Rector of Naunton in Gloucestershire, wrote:

What our Saviour saith of the Law is also true of the Prophets. And as not one jot or tittle of the former was to pass without being fulfilled, so neither could any one jot, or tittle of the latter ever pass away without being accomplished. Consequently not one jot or tittle much less could one word, So significant a word especially as the word After in this part of the Prophecy pass away without its actual Completion, and full Accomplishment in the express letter of it.

Thomas Ridgley (circa 1667–1734), an English Dissenting minister, wrote in his Body of Divinity (1731, p. 66, 1814 printing):

Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass from the law, Mat. v. 18. and it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than for one tittle of the law to fail, Luke xvi. 17. If God will take care of every jot and tittle of scripture, will he not take care that no whole book, designed to be a part of the rule of faith, should be entirely lost? It is objected, indeed, to this, that our Saviour hereby intends principally the doctrines or precepts contained in the law; but if the subject matter thereof shall not be lost, surely the scripture that contains it shall be preserved entire.

In Theopneustia: the Plenary Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures (English translation, 1850, p. 102), Swiss Protestant Louis Gaussen (1790-1863) wrote:

Alas! in a few short years both the doctors and the disciples will be laid in the tomb, they shall wither like the grass; but not one jot or tittle of that divine book will have passed away…

“It is easier,” says he, “ for heaven and earth to pass, than for one tittle (χεραία) of the law to fall and by the law Jesus Christ understood the whole of the Scriptures, and even, more particularly, the Book of Psalms. What terms could possibly be imagined capable of expressing, with greater force and precision, the principle which we defend; that is to say, the authority, the entire divine inspiration, and the perpetuity of all the parts, and of the very letter of the Scriptures? Ye who study God’s Word, here behold the theology of your Master! Be ye then divines after his manner; be your Bible the same as that of the Son of God! Of that not a single tittle can fall.”

Dutch Theologian Herman Bavinck (1854-1921), in The Sacrifice of Praise (1922, translated from the Dutch, p. 38), wrote:

The cause of this power lies therein, that it is God’s Word. All scripture was not only once given by inspiration of God but it is also as such continually preserved by God by His Almighty and everywhere present power. The Gospel, which comes forth out of that Word unto man in manifold forms and along various ways, is always borne and animated by God. It is and always remains His Word. It is constantly accompanied by the Holy Spirit, who lives and dwells in the church and from out of her goes into the world and convinces her of sin, righteousness and judgment. It is a Word, that continually proceeds out of the mouth of God, that comes unto us in Christ, and that through the Spirit of Christ is declared unto our heart or conscience.

In a book, Fundamentalism Versus Modernism (1925, p. 175), Eldred C. Vanderlaan (1890-1974) quotes James M. Gray:

...Christ teaches that the Scriptures are inspired as to their words. In the Sermon on the Mount He said, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”...”One jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law.” The “jot” means the yod, the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet, while the “tittle” means the horn, a short projection in certain letters extending the base line beyond the upright one which rests upon it. A reader unaccustomed to the Hebrew needs a strong eye to see the tittle, but Christ guarantees that as a part of the sacred text neither the tittle nor the yod shall perish.

In an undated paper “Jot” and “Tittle”, professor of Old Testament Willis E. Bishop (1914-2013) wrote:

In Matthew 5:18, Christ said the law is so perfect down to every jot and tittle. Every letter and every part of a letter is inspired by God. When the men who wrote the Scripture finished writing, it was not only letter perfect but part-letter perfect – perfect absolutely to a part of a letter in the original writings. [Note: Bishop refers to the original writings and probably would not apply this to copies and translations. However, he plainly applies the Lord’s statement about “jots and tittles” to written Scripture – something that has become anathema to many modern evangelicals. This was probably written between 1947 and 1982, the years he served as professor and chair of Old Testament Studies at Washington Bible College.]

Kuyper on predestined Scripture

Psalm 119:89 For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven.

Dutch original: 

De Schrift is gepraedestineerd. Die Schrift heeft bestaan in Gods raad, voor zij op aarde komen zou. Wat de inhoud zou zijn, door wie de stukken zouden geschreven worden, hoe de samenstelling zou zijn, hoe zij zou vertaald en uitgelegd worden, hoe zij werken zou – en nog veel meer; dat alles lage in den raad Gods besloten, voordat er not een letter van de Schrift geschreven was. Kortelijk dus: zij is gepraedestineerd; ook al gebruikt men he woord praedestinatie anders alleen van organisch levende wezens.

Maar behalve in dezen algemeenen zin (waarin he waar is van alle boeken) geldt het ook van de Schrift bij God bestaan heeft voor de Schrift er was, het geheel en de deelen omvattende; en date God de Heere zelf het geweest is, die naar dat bestek en plan de Schrift heeft gerealiseerd. Voor het eerste zie Hand. 15:18 : Gode zijn al zijne werken van eeuwigheif bekend. De Schrift is een werk Gods. Voor het tweede Num. 8:4, waar gezegd wordt, dat God de מַּרְאֶה van den kandelaar aan Mozes getoond heeft. Als het nu niet strijdt met den eerbied voor de Majesteit van het Goddelijke, een model van een kandelaar te geven, dan kan men ons nooit tegenwerpen, dat het strijdig zou zijn met de eere Gods, dat er een מַּרְאֶהֹ van de H. Schrift in den hemel geweest is.

 English translation:

Scripture is predestined. The Scripture existed in God’s counsel before it came to earth. What the content would be, by whom the pieces would be written, what the composition would be like, how it would be translated and explained, how it would work – and much more. All this was decided in the counsel of God, ere not a letter of the Scripture was written. In short: it is predestined; even if the word predestination is otherwise used only of organic living beings.

Not only in the general sense which it is true of all books, but it is also true that Scripture existed with God before Scripture existed, comprising the whole and the parts; and that it was the Lord God himself who, according to that plan and design, has realized his plan of the Scriptures. For the first, see Acts 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from eternity. Scripture is a work of God. For the second, see Numbers 8:4, where it is said that God showed the מַּרְאֶה (pattern) of the lampstand to Moses. Now, if it is not contrary to the reverence for the Majesty of the Divine to give a model of a lampstand, then it can never be objected that it would be contrary to the honor of God that there should be a מַּרְאֶהֹ (pattern) of the Holy Scriptures in heaven always.

Locus de Sacra Scriptura, Volume I, Dictaten dogmatiek, 1891, p. 92

--

It was not mistakenly, therefore, that a predestined Bible was spoken of in Reformed circles, by which was understood that the preconceived form of the Holy Scripture had been given already from eternity in the counsel of God, in which at the same time all events, means and persons, by which that preconceived form would be realized in our actual life, were predestined. Hence in the course of ages all sorts of events take place, and persons appear who do not know of each other, and in the midst of these events these several persons are induced, without the knowledge of a higher purpose. to commit to writing certain facts, thoughts and perceptions. These persons also write other documents, and other persons among their contemporaries write as well as they. But, nevertheless, all those other writings are lost, or are put aside, while those special documents, which were destined and ordered of God to compose His Holy Scripture, are not merely saved, but are made honorable, are compiled, and gradually attain that authority which He had ordained for these Scriptures. Thus, according to a plan, known to God alone, a structure is gradually raised on which in the course of many ages different persons have labored without agreement, and without ever having seen the whole. No one of the children of men had conceived the plan, to compile such a Scripture; not one had added his contribution with premeditation, nor exhorted others to supplement his contribution with theirs. Thus the plan of the Holy Scripture was hidden, back of human consciousness, in the consciousness of God, and He it is, who in His time has so created each of these writers, so endowed, led and impelled them, that they have contributed what He wanted, and what after His plan and direction was to constitute His Scripture. The conception, therefore, has not gone out of men, but out of God; and it was in connection with this conception, that in every document and by every writer in the course of the ages there should be contributed that very thing, of such a content and in such a form, as had been aimed at and willed by God. There is no chance, and hence this composition and compilation of human writings are not accidental, but predetermined. And this whole has thus been ordained, and in virtue of this fore-ordination has thus been executed, as it had to be, in order to respond to the spiritual needs and wants of the Church of God in every age and among every nation. For, of course, in the strict sense it may be said that every writing is predestined, and this we readily grant; but when our Reformed circles spoke of a “predestined Bible” they intended to convey thereby the idea of a medium of grace, which was taken up as a link in the counsel of God for the salvation of His elect. In the accomplishment of this purpose lay the justification of the Scripture, and the result has fully shown that this wondrous book contains within itself the mystery of being suited to every nation, new to every age, profound for the scholar and rich in comforts for the meek. pp. 474-476

Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920), Principles of Sacred Theology, (translated from the Dutch by J. Hendrik De Vries), Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1898/1954 [Also available HERE.]

Weak members of the herd

Some anti-KJV/KJVO debaters consistently appeal to King James defenders to judge the KJV by “the same weights and measures” as they judge other translations. Well, duh. Wishful thinking. If a person believes his Bible is the word of God, he is not going to judge it in the same way he does a Bible that he believes is spurious. This presupposition, though the polemicist thinks it is wrong, will not be defeated by such an approach.

Other approaches of disputing with the KJV and TR defenders miss the mark in the same or similar ways. If a person accepts his Bible because he hears the voice of the Shepherd speaking to him through it, or because of what he believes that it teaches about inspiration and preservation, or because he is convinced of the preservation of the traditional Reformation-era texts, and such like – he will not be easily dissuaded by arguments that assume that the testimony of scholars is the kind of convincing that is needed.

Wolves and other predators pick off the weak members of a herd. It is my opinion that many of the contemporary King James Only and Traditional Text people who leave the position are “weak members” of the herd. That is probably offensive to some. Here is what I mean. 

I have a settled conviction about the KJV and the traditional texts, based on my biblical belief of inspiration and preservation. I may be wrong, and others have the opportunity to convince me that I am. Nevertheless, my belief is not based on manuscript evidence, the testimony of scholars, and so forth. If scholars were to come up with persuasive proof that it is impossible for the water of the Red Sea to stand up as walls with dry ground in between, I would not believe them. I may not have the expertise to argue historical, archaeological, or scientific evidence for or against the proposition, but I do not need it. My belief is not based on evidence, but on faith – that is, because the Bible says so. I believe the Bible is God-inspired and God-preserved, not based on historical and/or manuscript evidence, but because the Bible says so. Many who disagree with me in the details may say they have the same kind of belief, but when it comes down to it, they cannot and will not directly and unapologetically defend specific texts as the inspired and preserved word of God. I believe the “weak members of the herd” are not necessarily those who do not agree with me on all points, but those who have been convinced – through a long and systematic process which is located in our theological seminaries and allied accomplices – that what they believe about the Bible must be founded on scholarship and physical evidence. They are ripe for picking.

---

Note: Other weak members of the herd are those who have been taught by “KJVO Quacks” – those who would be teachers, but don’t know the first thing about the KJV, inspiration, preservation, and transmission. These are often followers of authority figures as well.

Jesus and the Scriptures

 The Relation of Jesus Christ to the words of Scripture.

1. Christ Himself was inspired as to His words - Deuteronomy 18:18; John 6:63; 8:26, 28, 40; 12:49-50; Luke 4:18; Acts 1:2; Revelation 1:1; 2:1, 11.
2. Christ used the Scriptures as though they were inspired to their words - Matthew 22:31-32, 42-45; John 10:34-36; Matthew 4:4, 6-7.
3. Christ teaches that the Scriptures are inspired as to their words - Matthew 5:17-18.

[Based on the writings of James Martin Gray, as quoted in Fundamentalism Versus Modernism, by Eldred C. Vanderlaan. Gray notes the several texts of Scripture above with his points, pages 173-175]

’Twas the Night Before... What?

“This volume is like a beautiful old picture which has come down to us in a state of extraordinary perfection.”

Clement Clarke Moore (1779-1863) is best known as author of the poem “A Visit from St. Nicholas” (also known as “’Twas the Night Before Christmas.”[i] Additionally, Moore was Professor of Oriental & Greek Literature and Divinity & Biblical Learning at the General Theological Seminary in New York City – a seminary of the Protestant Episcopal Church (i.e., the Anglican Church in the United States). He compiled A Compendious Lexicon of the Hebrew Language, in Two Volumes (New York, NY: Collins & Perkins, 1809).

On November 14, 1825, Clement C. Moore gave a lecture at Christ Church in New York City. Professor Moore’s lecture was reported in the February 1826 issue of The Christian Journal and Literary Register (Vol. X, No. 2, pages 51-52). The author said Moore’s “description of the Bible is unequalled.”

“Such, my young friends, is the wonderful volume, to the study of which a large portion of the time to be passed by you in the seminary is allotted. When the difficulties of its language are surmounted, it opens an abundant store of treasures to the antiquary, the historian, the chronologer, the philologist, the grammarian, the orator, the poet, and the divine. Its entire freedom from every thing that makes the least approach to affectation; the unrivalled simplicity of its style; its admirable touches of pathos; the perfect picture of nature in its narratives and descriptions; the beautiful metaphors, allegories, and similies; the noble hymns of praise; the profound strains of penitence and prayer with which it abounds, added to its high and holy import, render it a work of a nature fitted, in every point of view, to excite the most intense interest, and to afford the most exquisite gratification. And I hope it is not presumptuous in a layman to dissuade you from being influenced by the practice of those bold critics who, by conjectural emendations of the original text, attempt to throw light upon such parts of it as the lapse of ages has rendered obscure. This volume is like a beautiful old picture which has come down to us in a state of extraordinary perfection. Some defects and blemishes, it is true, appear; but they materially hurt neither the design nor the colouring; and it is not for modern and obtrusive hands to attempt to repair the injuries done by time to such a venerable and matchless work.” 

Moore’s discourse was printed by T. and J. Swords of New York in a booklet as A Lecture Introductory to the Course of Hebrew Instruction in the General Theological Seminary of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States.

---

[i] The poem was first published anonymously in the Troy, New York Sentinel on December 23, 1823. Moore later claimed authorship.

Mark Ward Giving 10 Reasons Against a Single Standard English Bible

... and sowing discord while charging KJV-Onlyists with sowing discord.

The more succinctly titled video “Do We Need a Standard English Bible?” is a response to an address by Lloyd Read at the West Coast Baptist College Spiritual Leadership Conference called “Readability of the Bible.”

Starting at about 8 minutes in the linked video, Mark gives “10 Quick Reasons Why We Shouldn’t Insist on a Single Standard English Bible.” Though he frames the title that way, a more proper title would have been “10 Quick Reasons Why We Shouldn’t Insist on the KJV being the Single Standard English Bible.” (Of course, he does not believe in any standard Bible.)

Some of the objections deserve a thoughtful response, and some are quite lame. For example, No. 10 “To insist that other churches adopt the same standard your church has implies an authoritative structure above that of the local church.” There are plenty of denominations that have hierarchies that tell the local churches what to do in all sorts of matters. Our church is an unaffiliated independent autonomous congregation. We congregationally choose to fellowship or not fellowship with any number of churches. No authoritative structure is needed or required.

1. God nowhere in Scripture says we have to have a standard Bible translation.

A ghosting, something almost everyone uses against what others believe to settle the debate and walk away – “God nowhere in Scripture says that.” (If Mark can tweak “false friends” to what he wants, I can tweak “ghosting” to mean what I want.)

If you’re looking for the prooftext that says “Thou shalt have one standard Bible translation,” then you’re done. Of course, very few theological questions are settled that way. Obviously, there is a standard. “For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven.” “Let God be true, but every man a liar.” What God inspired (1 Timothy 3:16) is the standard. If so, then an accurate translation of what God has inspired also should be the standard.

Is there a standard canon? Most Protestants will argue so, against Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Marcionites, Mormons, and so on. Here most will probably agree. However, the canon is not just a list of 66 books that are the right books, but it includes the text of those books. The difference in text is where we differ. I believe the content of the Textus Receptus (TR) is “standard” against the content of the Critical Text (CT). If I am right (and I know some of you don’t think so, but bear with me)… if I am right, then a translation of the words of the TR is “standard” against a translation the words of the CT. Which translation of the TR then becomes the rub for some. Here is an intriguing thing. Almost no one who uses an English Bible thinks their translation is the standard, except those who use the KJV! Then, it seems the debate for a standard sacred English text comes down to a debate about the King James Bible. Is it not so? And the KJV is the standard to which most translations compare themselves? The KJV is what almost every English Bible either aspires to be or desires to replace. Is that not so?

Oddly, there is one body, and one Spirit, one hope of our calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all … and hundreds of English Bible translations, with perhaps at least dozens vying to be the standard sacred text. (I know at least 10 that use “Standard” in their names: American Standard Version, Christian Standard Bible, English Standard Version, Holman Christian Standard Bible, International Standard Version, Legacy Standard Bible, Literal Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, New Revised Standard Version, Revised Standard Version.)

We might also use Mark’s reason against his reason, “God nowhere in Scripture says we have to have multiple Bible translations…” and/or “God nowhere in Scripture says we have to have continuously updated Bible translations…” and/or … ad infinitum.

These are some things for his hearers and my readers to think about; things that Mark probably will not raise for you to think about.

A standard text promotes unity, and unity is a positive goal presented in the Bible. “…till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:13). See also Psalm 133:1; John 17:21-23; 1 Corinthians 1:10; Ephesians 4:3-6.

I submit that the King James Version is currently the only possible Bible on which we could unite as a standard. It is still the most popularly read Bible. It is the only English Bible generally considered an actual standard.

2. The KJV translators specifically deny that their translation was perfect or God-inspired.

Where is that? Mark said he’d be brief because he had addressed it elsewhere. So we’ll have to look elsewhere. However, in distinction to what Mark says, the translators did say that their translation was perfect in the sense of complete, that it could not be justly excepted against, and that they were making a more exact translation to replace the others that preceded it.

3. To say we have to have a standard and our favorite translation is it so get in line puts KJV-Onlyists in a group of awkward bedfellows: medieval and early modern Catholics.

A red herring, guilt by association, and attempting to poison the well. A doctrine is not judged by heretics who held something similarly, but by searching the scriptures whether these things are so.

4. To say we have to have a standard and the KJV is it puts you in tension with other languages’ Bibles.

I agree that this has not always been addressed properly, but that in itself does not deny the principle of a standard. Most people accept the idea of one standard in one language, though a few people try to make the KJV the standard for all languages.

5. To say we must have a standard and the KJV is it amounts to telling God he didn’t do things right, because he didn’t prepare any instructions for us on how to create or identify this standard.

6. To say we have to have a standard and it’s the KJV amounts to asking God to give us additional revelation beyond his word.

Numbers 5 and 6 basically the same argument, just stated differently, and are essentially included in No. 1. (See that answer above.)

7. To say that the KJV is the standard empirically leads to schools that don’t teach Greek, or teach it poorly.

Answering in the spirit and near letter of Mark’s No. 1, “God nowhere in Scripture says we have to have schools that teach Greek.” See how that works?

8. To say that the KJV is the standard introduces a point of division among Christians that doesn’t come from God.

“What exactly is the status of believers who read a different translation?...Does Read really think I’m not a Christian?...What exactly is our status? Are we disobeying? He is dividing from me, separating, over my choice of Bible translation. If his doctrine isn’t taught in Scripture, then this division shouldn’t be there; and the Bible has something to say about dividing Christ’s body unnecessarily.”

This from the guy who has written a book, blog articles, and journal articles against KJVO (and is writing another book and perhaps issuing a 2nd edition of his first book); does interviews, and has (as of 30 Sept 2023) 225 videos on YouTube mostly to do with Bible versionism, as well as another site which says “creating YouTube videos on Bible translation” of which one can become a member for up to $65/month (as of 30 Sept 2023). Ward conceived, designed, and organized the KJV Parallel Bible to show the differences and make comparisons in the Greek texts behind the KJV and modern English Bibles. He’s all over the place spreading his views. And I’m “dividing Christ’s body unnecessarily?” Nay but, O man, who art thou?

Interestingly, I have heard folks make almost the same arguments against Baptists “dividing Christ’s body unnecessarily” because of their view on baptism! As far as Read’s doctrine not being taught in Scripture, I am quite sure Read believes that it is. I certainly believe mine is, or, God being my helper, I would not hold my doctrine. Is Mark trying to set up some kind of authoritative structure in which he rather than I decides whether my doctrine is taught in Scripture? He doesn’t have to believe my doctrine, but he doesn’t get to decide whether I think the things I believe are scriptural.

There was a time (a very long time) when practically every English Christian was reading and believing the King James Bible. Then some come along and make a new translation, then another, and another, and another – and I, staying the course, am “dividing Christ’s body unnecessarily?” And they have no part in it? Pshaw.

Mark asks what is their status (those who use new translations), are they disobeying? Yes, I believe so. I am not one who believes there can not be any changes, updates to words and spelling, etc. It has been done a number of times since 1611, and could still be done. However, each new translation adds a new category of Bible users. Each becomes another case of “dividing Christ’s body unnecessarily” – and should be wrong by Mark’s own measuring stick. 

Mark also asks, “Does [Lloyd] Read really think I’m not a Christian?” I can’t speak for Read, but I have read quite a few folks on Facebook who think Mark is not. I do not agree, but it is not some wild anomaly to find Christians who think others who claim to be Christians are not Christians. I know Calvinists who think Arminians are not saved, and Arminians who think Calvinists are not saved. Many fundamentalists think Catholics are not saved, and surely, if Catholics really believe their own doctrine, must think many non-Catholics are not saved. The Campbellites think we Baptists are not saved, and we try to return the favor. Regardless, I think Mark is wrong, dead wrong, in what he believes about the Bible, and is dangerously wrong in what he is doing.

Honestly, Mark thinks we introduce a point of division that doesn’t come from God, but I suspect that he chooses and will choose to stay divided from KJV-Onlyists. He even advises folks to divide from their KJVO church. Sophistry much, Mark?

9. To say that we must have a standard and it’s the KJV turns a matter of local church prudence into a totem, a banner, a tribe.

Mark says he objects to tribalism, but having a standard sacred text – which he opposes – would actually promote unity and counter tribalism! A standard text promotes unity, and unity is a positive goal presented in the Bible. “…till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:13). See also Psalm 133:1; John 17:21-23; 1 Corinthians 1:10; Ephesians 4:3-6. The King James Version is the only possible Bible on which we could reasonably unite. It remains the most popularly read Bible. The only Bible that a majority of Christians consider standard is the King James Bible. Let those who oppose “tribalism” think on these things.

10. To insist that other churches adopt the same standard your church has implies an authoritative structure above that of the local church.

Numbers 9 and 10 are somewhat like two sides of a coin. We are divided into many “tribes,” denominationally. While that in itself is not a constructive condition, it is a fact. According to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity, there are more than 45,000 Christian denominations worldwide and more than 200 in the United States. While we need less tribalism rather than more, one more based on using a Bible that most all of the English-speaking tribes were already using before the explosion of new translations should not be all that noticeable. And surely some of the issues creating the more than 200 U.S. denominations (and then subdivisions within them) are more troubling than using the King James Bible only. But, then again, I guess Mark says he has been called as the apostle to KJVOs, so he has to fulfill his calling!!

And then there is the fact that there used to be basically only one English Bible for over 300 years (roughly 1640s to 1940s; the RV and ASV seem to have never been popularly accepted). The folks who use the King James Bible are not the ones who introduced the tribalism.

Mark’s number 10 assumes all tribes are somewhat like his tribe – congregationally governed. However, there are plenty of denominations that have “an authoritative structure above that of the local church” –  they have governing hierarchies that tell their local churches what to do in all sorts of matters (in some cases, including Bible versions). Mark’s argument cannot touch them. On the other hand, it does not touch congregationalism either! Our church is an unaffiliated independent autonomous Baptist congregation. We do not insist other churches do anything. We do not try to govern them. We simply congregationally choose who to fellowship or who to not fellowship, based on a number of spiritual and scriptural criteria. Other churches do as they wish and we do the same. If what they wish is biblically unacceptable to us, we simply and straightforwardly do not have fellowship with them. In most cases, we just “Let them alone.” No authoritative structure is needed or required.

Funny thing. Jeff Riddle and Christian McShaffrey were taken to task for words in the appendix of their book Why I Preach from the Received Text. They were charged with advising folks to leave their Critical Text churches and find a TR church. I wonder if any of these same folks will take Mark Ward to task for advising folks to leave their KJVO churches? He quite plainly states “…you need to leave.” Start about 22:37 in the video to get the context.

In reason No. 8 (starting about 15:33), Ward says KJV-Onlyists tend not to tackle this question head-on – then he goes on toward to end of the video to incite division and dividing from KJVO churches.

Says Mark, “I’m not [boasting]. I’m heartbroken every time I tell an assistant pastor who graduated from West Coast, ‘I’m sorry, brother, but out of respect to the clear but erroneous doctrinal commitments of your pastor, you just need to have a simple conversation with him in which you object to KJV-Onlyism by citing 1 Corinthians 14, and then you need to leave.”

There is something odd that Mark does, in sort of calling out someone as the only KJVO who can match him. As sort of the only one. Starts about 24:08.

“A final little comment. Joe Shakour was one of the panelists for the Q&A that followed Lloyd Read’s session. Joe is a sharp guy, and we’ve had some cordial private conversations. If there’s anyone in mainstream KJV-Onlyism who I think has the chops and the disposition to engage my thinking, it’s Joe.”

See also “Answering my Best Opponent,” at about 1:20.

“I get the sense with him, as with no one else ‘across the aisle’ from me that he has actually taken a lot of time to listen to me.”

However, though said like whoever is the only one, there’s always another one. For example, in this video when Mark says: “Joe is a sharp guy, and we’ve had some cordial private conversations. If there’s anyone in mainstream KJV-Onlyism who I think has the chops and the disposition to engage my thinking, it’s Joe.”

Contrasted to, “I get the sense with him, as with no one else ‘across the aisle’ from me that he has actually taken a lot of time to listen to me.” That, before banning this other brother from commenting at his YouTube channel!

I have heard Mark do this sort of thing several other times, but didn’t take the extra time to try to find more quotes. What’s up with that? Everybody can’t be his best opponent? Maybe he thinks this is someone he’s getting over to his side, then kicks him to the curb when he finds he isn’t coming? Then finds a new friend? I don’t know, I just find it weird. Anyone else ever noticed this?

And there is the silly Siri thing, starting about 20:26. I reply.

Mark: Siri, can’t people just use a dictionary to look up archaic and unfamiliar words in the KJV?

Siri: No. How are people supposed to look up words they don’t realize they’re misunderstanding?

Robert: If a person has a word and dictionary, they can look it up whether or not they realize they are misunderstanding it.

I hate to say it “out loud,” but I have come to the conclusion that there is a lot of disingenuousness in what Mark says. (I didn’t originally think this way, and have fought coming to this conclusion.) “Nobody has answered me” is a tactic of claiming victory and does not describe the actual facts (because many have answered). At the least, this should be “many have tried to answer me, but uneffectively and I still think I’m right.”

Here is another claim I find disingenuous, and have called his attention to it in the online comments to this video:

Mark mentioned at about 23:58 that his next book, “KJV Words You Don’t Know You Don’t Know,” will “leave KJV-Onlyism” out of it. How so, if it is only about KJV words? Passive-aggressive Anti-King James Onlyism is still Anti-King James Onlyism. In fact, “leaving it out” by way of just not mentioning it seems to be disingenuous, when probably at least a plurality of Mark’s videos (likely many many more than that) somehow connect to the King James Bible and KJV-Onlyism. If he wants to “leave KJV-Onlyism” out of it, how about teaching about the very false friend “you” in modern Bibles as well? It is a word people often don’t know they don’t know (the essence of a false friend in Mark’s world). Because Mark is only focused on KJV-Onlyism? Don’t hold your breath.

Mark Ward has gained a large following online. The video focused on in this post has received 6450 views and almost 400 comments at the time I write this – many of which sound quite groupie-esque, even though they may be made by otherwise mature Christians. Perhaps Mark could do a U-turn, change course, and use his language skills to help people understand the King James Bible instead of as a cover to draw away disciples after himself. If not, I pray that God might mute his influence and his manner of teaching that leads Bible-believing Christians to doubt the Bibles they hold in their hands and read with their eyes.

Ruckman’s seven times purified, et al

“Happy Birthday, God’s Bible! You were born in 1611; you were born as the seventh in the lists of Bibles that preceded you (see Psa. 12:6-7). You were the culmination of God’s word in history: 1) a Hebrew received text (1780–400 B.C.), an Aramaic received text (603–515 B.C.), a Greek received text (A.D. 35–96), a Syrian received text (A.D. 120–180), a Latin received text (A.D. 140–150), a German received text (Martin Luther, A.D. 1520-1600), an English received text (the AV, A.D. 1526–1611). It was the culmination of the Bible in the English language: Tyndale (1525), Coverdale (1535), Matthew (1537), Great (1539), Geneva (1539 [sic]), Bishops’ (1568), King James (1611). You were seventh on the lists of two sevens.” Happy Anniversary KJV: a Collection of Articles from the 2011 Bible Believers’ Bulletins Honoring the Authorized Version, Peter S. Ruckman, Pensacola, FL: BB Bookstore, 2011

The idea that the King James Bible has been purified seven times has become a popular theory in King James circles. I do not know whether it originated with Peter Ruckman (quoted above), or elsewhere. It probably does not matter. There are a number of differing theories vying to be the correct one. (Although, fascinatingly, this seems to be one area folks do not get incensed about, as long as you agree that it has in some way or every way been purified seven times.)

I am a staunch KJV supporter and defender. I do not hold the idea that Psalm 12:6 somehow applies to the right Bible having to be purified seven times. One of the primary proofs against this is the various ways people achieve making the King James Bible in some way be Number 7 in a series, which appear contrived, in my opinion. For some it is pinnacle Bible in the seventh language. There are other ways to achieve the goal, all different in method and purpose, to make it be the seventh Bible. If I were going to do so, I would keep it simple. The King James translators’ rule number 14 mentions six predecessors – Tindoll’s, Matthew’s, Coverdale’s, Whitchurch’s, Geneva, and Bishop’s – making the 1611 translation the seventh. Duane Bryant uses this system also. Why not stop there, if you are going there in the first place?

One problem seldom seems settled on, which should be settled before beginning, is what do we mean in terms of the groups of seven Bibles? Does it mean complete Bibles that contain all the Old and New Testaments (e.g. Tyndale only translated the NT and Pentateuch)? (Some, in fact, include Wycliffe rather than Tyndale because Wycliffe was complete and Tyndale was not.) Does it mean translations made from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek (Wycliffe and Douay-Rheims are based on the Latin Vulgate). Does it only mean translations made from the Textus Receptus? Lots of things need to be asked and answered before the discussion even starts.

[Other connections to the number 7 are made as well. For example, the King James Bible uses the term Jehovah only seven times and only in the Old Testament; the King James Bible is the product of seven years of translation work, the English purification process took seven decades, etc.] 

Geoffrey Grider says Psalm 12:6 means the Bible “shall be preserved from that 7th generation forever. It’s probably just an amazing coincidence, but, the Bible has undergone 7 main iterations and they are as follows:”

1. The Aramaic Received Text: 603 – 515 BC
2. The Hebrew Received Text: 1780 – 400 BC
3. The Greek Received Text: 35 – 96 AD
4. The Syriac Received Text: 120 – 180 AD
5. The Latin Received Text: 140 – 500 AD
6. The German Received Text: 1520 – 1600 AD
7. The English Received Text: 1525 – 1611 AD

The Help Through Hope website uses a seven-fold division with the same languages (above, though with some differences in order and dating).

Afterward, they posit the purification of the Scriptures in English is seven-fold also:

1. The Gothic
2. The Anglo-Saxon
3. The Pre-Wycliffe
4. The Wycliffe
5. The Tyndale/Coverdale/Great/Geneva
6. The Bishops
7. The King James Bible

The English Bible’s seven-fold purification in the above list is equivalent to that proposed by the popular author Gail Riplinger.

In two “Line Upon Line” lessons (Gathering Into One and Standing for Purity), Matthew Verschuur spells out the seven times without (prior to), and within the King James Bible.

When the King James Bible was translated, their instructions were to follow the following versions:

1. Tyndale’s (1525, 1534),
2. Matthew’s (1537),
3. Coverdale’s (1535),
4. The Great (1539),
5. The Geneva (1560),
6. The Bishops’ (1568).

The Scripture which indicates seven times of purification can also be applied to the editions of the King James Bible. There are seven major editions. They are:

1. The First 1611,
2. The Second 1611,
3. The 1613,
4. The 1629,
5. The 1638,
6. The 1769,
7. The Pure Cambridge Edition from around 1900.

Summarized, the most common theories seem to be:

1. The King James Bible is the seventh major translation into major world languages.
2. The King James Bible is the seventh major early English translation.
3. The King James Bible itself has gone through a seven-fold purification process.

Many seem to see these three theories as complementary rather than exclusive.

Would the idea that purified seven times in Psalm 12:6 is a prophecy that must be fulfilled mean that: 

1. the Bible translated into each language must eventually have a seven times translation process (of some sort) in order to be the pure word of God? 
2. the Bible in the English language only, specifically the King James Bible, is the pure word of God?

I know there are those who believe No. 2. I am not sure how many arrive at the No. 1 position.

Psalm 12:6 says “The words of the Lord are pure words.”  They in the past and in the present are pure. They always have been pure. They always will be pure. Psalm 12:6 does not say “The words of the Lord have been, are, or will be purified seven times.” “Purified seven times” modifies “silver” rather than “words.” Then the figure of speech (beginning with “as”) suggests by analogy a similarity of the purity of an observable temporal process (silver) with an eternal spiritual force (words of the Lord). Silver – intensely, expertly, and purposefully purified – gives us a manner of comparison to the word of God, which is pure always and forever. See Psalm 119:89. (Note that both “tried” and “purified” both grammatically modify “silver.” Only by the extension of the simile do they relate to “The words of the Lord.”) I am suggesting to us, then, that we interpret the meaning of Psalm 12:6 by what the King James Bible says rather than what people say about the King James Bible.

While I know good solid Christians who hold the idea of the Bible being purified seven times, this seems to me—boiled down to its essence—actually to be a “low” view of the Bible and its preservation rather than a high one. I cannot get around the fact that, though it may not mean to, this theory actually denies that God preserved his word to all generations.

Louis Gaussen on Preservation

(6.) Last, by a new assemblage of other facts, not less striking and incontestable, all of which attest, with equal force, the same continued agency of the Most High for the preservation of the New Testament.

422. This doctrine, we affirm, is already proved, for every one who believes in the inspiration of the Scriptures, by the simple consideration of the divine wisdom and veracity.

This is almost a question of the plainest common sense. Only suppose that a clever watchmaker, by a wonderful exertion of his abilities, prepares and finishes, at great expense, all the parts of a perfect chronometer, which is intended for the use of his beloved son in his travels to foreign parts; shall we not admit, as we would an axiom, that, having thus made it, he would not intentionally leave it out of doors exposed to all the accidents of the weather, or to injuries of passers-by? And who, then can admit that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ would cause His only Son to come down from heaven for His chosen people, without guaranteeing for them the record of His life and teachings? or that He would have commissioned His apostles to write their books by the Holy Spirit, without taking care to preserve in aftertime so precious a deposit? that He watched over these books while they were being written, and ceased to watch over them when once they were given to the world? that He cared no more about them when the churches had received them from the hands of the apostles? and that, in consequence, they have been transmitted from age to age, from country to country, from one generation to another, abandoned henceforward, like any common book to all the hazards of eighteen centuries? Would such negligence be in harmony with the principles of His government; with the care which He takes of the Church to the end of time; with His declarations of the value of the Scriptures, and the permanent certainty of their declarations; with His denunciations against the crime of adding anything to them, or taking anything from them? He numbers the hairs of our head, and would He not number the books of His oracles? He does not allow a sparrow to fall to the ground without His permission, and would He allow the Scriptures to fall from heaven to the ground, which have been given by Himself for the universal gathering together of His elect? What good to give them divinely inspired, unless He transmit them divinely guarded? Why preserve them from all error, if not preserved afterwards from all dangers? He who said, “Every word of God is pure, .... add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee,” will He not keep a jealous eye upon it? And if, by the mouth of Paul, He pronounced an anathema against any who should preach “any other gospel than what His apostles preached,” would He afterwards permit this condemnation to fall on the entire collection of their oracles, by allowing inspired writings to be lost from it, or forged writings to be admitted into it? This is not possible. And we must all admit that, the inspiration of the Scriptures being recognised, our doctrine is already proved by the simplest knowledge of the wisdom and veracity of God.

Francois Samuel Robert Louis Gaussen in Le Canon des saintes ecritures au double point de vue de la science et de la foi (The Canon of the Holy Scriptures from the Double Point of View of Science and Faith) 1860, pp. 430-432.

Since Jesus Christ, my Lord and my God, ‘created all things in heaven and earth, and by him all things subsist,’ (Col. i. 16) I said to myself, how could I doubt that He has taken care of His own revelations, whether in giving them at the first, or in their subsequent preservation and transmission? Our only business, was to study them for the purpose of regulating each one’s faith, and conscience, and life.

Francois Samuel Robert Louis Gaussen in Le Canon des saintes ecritures au double point de vue de la science et de la foi (The Canon of the Holy Scriptures from the Double Point of View of Science and Faith), p. viii.

Bible preservation and Deism

It sadly has become quite popular in supposedly conservative Christian circles to claim that God’s inspired word has been preserved by natural causes no differently than the words of Genghis Khan, Hugo Grotius, or John Gill. Notice William W. Combs in the “The Preservation of Scripture” (pp. 9-10):

“…the preservation of Scripture is not different in method from any other ancient book God has determined to preserve, as, for example, Caesar’s Commentaries on the Gallic War—both Scripture and Caesar’s work have been preserved providentially, by secondary causation, by essentially ordinary human means.”

Harry A. Sturz, in The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism (p. 38), wrote, “God…was under no special or logical obligation to see that man did not corrupt it.” Others like Daniel Wallace and Edward Glenny go further than Combs. For example, Wallace says, “I don’t hold to the doctrine of preservation.” The essential difference of Wallace and Combs is not in the historical process or end result, but rather the unwillingness or willingness to attach any theological significance to preservation (i.e., as a “doctrine”). Combs writes: “…we must distinguish between belief in a doctrine of preservation and, simply, belief in preservation” (pp. 6-7). It seems to me that the natural and incidental view of the preservation of Scripture has superseded the providential and supernatural view as the mainstream position among the conservative evangelical classes. Regretfully, we have allowed many foreign ideas to flood in and water down our once strongly-held absolute support of an inspired, infallible, and preserved Bible.

While listening to Jeff Riddle’s presentation on biblical preservation (How Has God Preserved His Word? at the 2023 Trinity and Text Conference of the Trinitarian Bible Society), something struck me about the natural view of the preservation of Scripture. It seems somewhat akin to Deism. In the religious theology or philosophical position of Deism, the Creator does not intervene or interfere in human affairs. In the naturalistic view of preservation, the Creator does not affect or intervene in the history of the transmission of his inspired word.

I meditated on this from my own standpoint as a sometimes “creator” of written records. Unlike God, I obviously cannot produce an errorless and infallible document. However, in the course of its transmission I take an interest in it. I try to correct any errors I find. When and where able, do not leave it to its own devices. When I find an error online, I correct it. If it is something in print, if able, I will correct when I reprint. On the other hand, we are led by the naturalistic and incidental view to accept that God is either disinterested or powerless in the face of the historical transmission of his word – or both! He does not care or is not able to care? Who can believe it?

Does not God rather by his infinite power and wisdom uphold, direct, dispose, and govern not only the inspiration, but also the preservation, of his Scripture by his wise and holy providence, according to his infallible foreknowledge and the free and immutable counsel of His own will: to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, infinite goodness, and mercy.