I want to call your attention to Psalm 12 this afternoon. Psalm 12. Let us read verses 6 and 7. The words of the Lord are pure words. As silver tried in a furnace of earth. Purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord. That is speaking the them there is his words. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever. We want to take a little break from our study in the confession of faith today and consider a question and an issue, really one that we touched upon in a previous chapter of the confession, but did not go into as much detail as I hope to do by God's grace this afternoon. I want to raise a question and then, by God's grace, try to answer it. The question is, what Bible should we use? What Bible should we use? Let me say, before I try to answer that question, that in a way it is a tragedy that we have to ask Such a question. If we lived 150 years ago, we wouldn't have to ask that question. I would not be preaching a message like this because for many generations. There was only one Bible in English and all Christians of any kind or any denomination or whether they were truly regenerate or just outward professors, all read the same Bible. They memorized the same Bible. They appealed to the same Bible in their discussions with one another. But we no longer enjoy that luxury. What Bible should we use? There are plenty to choose from. Some of you here may not even be aware that there is much of an issue or any controversy on this subject. You may say, well, all Bibles are created equal. Just look them over, read them over, pick out the one that suits you. And use that one. Now, that can be really dangerous, a dangerous approach and dangerous advice. The some of the worst translations, like the Living Bible, may suit some people or the Reader's Digest Condensed Bible may suit some people. And so it's very dangerous just to say, well, pick out one that you like, that suits you, that speaks to you. Others among us have studied the matter in depth for themselves and have come to some definite conclusions on their own. And I simply want to explain my reasons for using the Bible that I use, which is the King James Version. We use this Bible in the pulpit here. We have made that our policy for many years. It was the policy before I was ever a member here at all. I'm sure that some first-time visitors notice this immediately. And I don't make a practice of going around asking people about it, but I can almost imagine what some of them must think. Who come from other backgrounds, they probably think What is wrong with these people? They look at us like spiritual, as if we were spiritual Neanderthals who refuse to leave our cave and come into the ease of modern civilization. Well, let me explain why I use the King James Version. I do not dare to speak for all who use the same version as I do. There are some who use the same version as I do for what I think are not good reasons. My reasons for using the King James Version are not that the King James translators were inspired. Nor is it that the King James Version could not stand some improvement in some places. Nor is it, and I have really searched my soul, I can honestly say this is not the reason. It is not just out of stubbornness to accept change and because I'm a conservative person, and that means I want to conserve what is here and not make changes. Or that. It is just a matter of the worship of tradition. Or a distrust of anything new. There's a name for that I can't think of what it's called. Remember, after all, at one time The King James Version was new. My reasons for using this Bible are pretty simple. Really, two major reasons. And these are what I think of as really requirements for a good Bible. First, It must be a good translation of the original. It must be a faithful translation. It cannot be a translation that takes all kinds of liberties. Secondly, it must be translated from the right Hebrew texts and Greek texts. Now I have not listed these necessarily in order of importance and so we're going to consider the second one first here and that is the question of the text or texts as Old Testament in Hebrew and New Testament in Greek. So as we consider this issue of what is the right text to translate from. Let me say that there are, under this heading, really, again, two issues to be considered. The first is inspiration. The second is preservation. Inspiration is a word that we find, for example, in 2 Timothy 3.16, In this very well used and but but far from worn out verse of scripture, all scripture that I say, Second Timothy 316, all scripture is given by inspiration of God. And is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. The scripture is given by inspiration of God. The word scripture, of course, means holy writing. It's the word writings, but it's but it carries the connotation of being sacred writings. All scripture is given how by inspiration of God. What does inspiration mean? The word literally means. Breathed by God. The phrase here given by inspiration of God is all one single word in the Greek language, and it is a compound word. The first half is the word theos, God, and the second word is noustos, theonoustos, which comes from the pneuma word, or neos, which means to breathe. All scripture is God breathed. Now this is a very wonderful thing. That God should breathe his word. That he should give words to mankind. Just let that sink in a moment. It is a marvelous and wonderful thing to contemplate. that God has revealed himself to mankind through language, through words. Inspiration is an action that occurred once. It occurred in the actual writing down of the documents, the 66 books of the Bible. as they were written one by one. Inspiration took place one by one. God breathed His Word to man as it was written. God was speaking. Listen. Remember that when you open your Bible, when you sit down, I hope, every morning and open your Bible and start to read. Remember, this is God speaking. Let us approach it with reverence and appreciation. How often do we read in the Old Testament statements like this, and the Lord spake unto Moses saying, and we read it so often we get a little tired of it, but let that sink in. That is a significant statement. The Lord spake. The word of the Lord came unto Jonah. Think of that. God speaking. to Jonah and through Jonah. Oftentimes the prophets would say, thus saith the Lord. It's God speaking. They recognized that. We must recognize it also. The New Testament tells us that unto Israel were committed the oracles of God. Oracles means the utterances. It carries the idea of brevity, short utterances, messages from God. We come to the New Testament and what do we find over and over? Well, we find the New Testament quoting the Old Testament. How often does the gospel of Matthew, for example, say this was done that it might be fulfilled, which was written in the prophet Isaiah and so forth. It was written Jesus himself. It would be interesting to count how many times he said it is written. He answered the temptations of Satan with those with that preface, it is written. The apostle Paul. Recognized that the things he wrote were not just his own words. That they were God's words, he says to the Corinthians, the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. Again, in 2 Peter 3, 16, Peter acknowledges that Paul's writings are scriptures. That's the word that he uses. Scriptures, sacred writings. Now, this is inspiration. The actual giving of the writings. Exactly how this occurred remains somewhat of a mystery to us. We know that there was not a mechanical dictation going on, as if the men just became robots and didn't know what they were writing. No, the Lord worked through their understanding, the Lord worked through their vocabulary, the Lord worked through their style. You know, the writing of John is distinct from the writing of Paul. You can see a personality and a style and an approach that is distinct among the writers. And yet it is all God's words. The very words were from God, this passage that we read at the beginning. speaks of the words of God. We often speak of the word of God as the whole thing, but we should also at least remember that this book is composed of words and that the words are pure words and that it's the words that God himself is said to keep. He has given them and he will keep them, but I'm getting a little bit ahead of myself. There is mystery as to how God inspired the writers of scripture, but we know it happened. I think there is as much a mystery in the transmission of the word by or the words by inspiration as there is in the very incarnation of the living word. There's so there's much that we don't understand about how that the God man was both God and man, but that's what he was. It's what he is, thank God. He ever lives for us. And the inspiration of the written word is as mysterious in some ways as the incarnation of the living word. Well, there's much more to be said about inspiration, but that's enough for this message. Let's go on to preservation. Preservation refers to that which was given by inspiration being kept, not being lost, to preserve. God has preserved that which was once for all inspired. Understand, please understand, inspiration is a once and for all action. Preservation is this continuous action of keeping that which was inspired together intact. Accurate. Available for God's people. Again, if you are still with me here in Psalm 12. The words of the Lord are pure words, as silver tried in the furnace of earth purified seven times. And look at verse seven, especially thou shalt keep them. Here is the keeping, guarding. And then the very word preserve is used here, thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever. In other words, God will preserve his words from now on, David says. From this generation, from this present time, for good. We have many other references to the preservation of inspiration. For example, in Matthew 5, the Lord said, Verily I say unto you, that means this is an especially significant statement. Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled. Our Lord gives testimony here to the fact that not just the Hebrew letters, but the little embellishments we would think of on the letters were important. He said, it's easier for heaven and earth to pass than for one tittle of the law to fail. Again, in Matthew 24, 35, he said, heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. What a statement about preservation of inspiration. And 1 Peter 1 25 tells us that the word of the Lord endureth forever. There are so many of those statements in Psalm 119 that say something similar, you know, the word of the Lord endureth forever. When you think about it, preserving what was initially given. by God is no less miraculous than the giving in the first place. Certainly the giving of it, the act of inspiring the writers was miraculous, but preserving that through every generation is certainly accomplished only by divine intervention. Preservation involves copies being made by hand. Young people, believe it or not, there were times when there were not Xerox photostatic copiers and computers and all this kind of thing. And the only way, the only way to preserve A document was to write it by hand, to make a handwritten copy. And then the original might be worn out or given away or even lost, but you had a copy. That's how God preserved his word. And then that copy from that copy, other copies might be made. written out by hand. And you think how long would it take to copy by hand the book of Genesis? One chapter? How long would it take to write the whole Bible by hand? It would be a laborious task. It'd be a pleasure, but it would be a lot of work and time consuming. You'd probably have a sore hand after a while. And without having nice ballpoint pens that can just go without stopping for a long time, you'd have to be dipping a quill of some kind into a bottle, taking a long time to write things out. But this was how God, through human instruments, preserved his word, preserved inspiration. He did not need to inspire those copyists or copiers, the men who were writing. Inspiration referred to the ones who wrote the originals, but preservation refers to those who wrote copies. In the middle 1400s, Gutenberg invented printing with movable type. And thus arose a whole new method of preserving the word of God. Listen, the invention of the printing press was just a huge turning point in development. I mean, it's not as big as the cross of Christ, but it was certainly a defining moment in human history. It made the Word of God available to a world growing in population and growing in knowledge. Now, of the original documents, the ones written by Moses, written by Matthew, none of those exist today. Those are called autographs. or original autographs, there are no original autographs in existence today. They are gone, no doubt worn out by use. I mean, you think about it, how many nice leather bound Bibles do we wear out in a lifetime? I mean, this one's lasted me a long time because I only use it in the pulpit. I have others that I use at home and in my study and so forth, and they end up just falling to pieces. Well, how in the world could the original autographs, the original documents not turn into dust over time and use? But faithfully, they were preserved. They were faithfully preserved, I should say, through copies. Today, several thousand manuscripts and fragments in Greek exist. These were copies of copies of copies of the original documents. This, of course, this all refers to pre-Gutenberg, pre-printing time. The word manuscript literally means written by hand. And so there are thousands of portions, some of them bigger than others, some of them whole books and some of them just a page or a portion of a page or of an animal skin or a papyrus that exists. Also, there are ancient translations into other languages, some of which are older than the oldest Greek fragments that are available. And it's interesting that there are some translations of the Bible into other languages that were spoken in the early centuries of church history. that are actually older than any Greek manuscripts that we possess or that are in possession today. Why is that so? Well, the copies were worn out by use, no doubt, like the originals were worn out by use, by being copied and used. There are also available to us quotations in writings of early church history that quote from the Bible that they had or the manuscripts that they had in those days. And those quotations of verses in the writings of early preachers also are very helpful to confirm the word of God and compare what we find in the manuscripts. So there is inspiration and preservation. As far as the Old Testament is concerned, there is little or no controversy over the Hebrew text. Most everyone agrees that the Masoretic Hebrew text is accurate, sound, it is the preserved word of God. There was a group known as Masoretes who were in the Jewish community, working from about 500 A.D., some say much earlier, to about 1000 A.D., and they were meticulous scholars in the Hebrew language. They were scribes who were very careful to make sure that every jot and tittle was just right. And they passed down the Hebrew Old Testament text from Bible times to modern times. There was little or no controversy over the New Testament Greek text for the greater part of 1800 years. That's not to say that there were not great doctrinal debates and that great serious doctrinal errors that arose early on in church history that did occur before the closing of the New Testament. We read of some serious heresies. We considered one this morning, a denial of the resurrection. The apostle Paul had to address that to the Corinthians. Other heresies mentioned in Colossians, in Galatians, in Hebrews, in first John, all kinds of attacks upon the truth. But the truth stands. The truth cannot be destroyed. We know that one of the early heresies was a denial of the Trinity, especially a denial of the eternal pre-existence of Christ. Some who espoused this heresy evidently attempted to remove many of the great verses and phrases from the Bible that teach the sonship, the eternal pre-existence, the full deity of Christ. Robert L. Dabney, who wrote some on this subject, some very interesting and I think insightful writings, Suggests that origin of Alexandria, who is though he's not considered a he's not called a church father or an early church father. He was acquainted with them and is highly regarded by many. He was a teacher. In Alexandria, Egypt. That ought to make a warning alarm go off in your mind. He lived about 185 to about 254 A.D. Dabney suggests that the removal of many references to the deity of Christ falls at the feet of origin. Thus, Corruption of doctrine coincided with the corruption or the attempted corruption of the Bible itself. But thankfully, the pure word of God prevailed and was preserved from this generation forever. The overwhelming majority of the manuscripts in existence today agree so closely that they may be said to present the same Greek text called by those who work in this field the Byzantine text because it was the text The Greek text of the New Testament that prevailed throughout the Byzantine era of church history, so-called, which runs the length of years from 312, Constantinople came to be called Byzantium, as you know. The Byzantine era runs from 312 AD to 1453 AD. During those years, this Byzantine text was the one commonly used for translating into other languages. Let me say that there were many translations done in the first five centuries of church history into the languages of the day, such as Latin, Syriac, Ethiopic, et cetera, et cetera. The ancient Italic translation or the one in Italian, it's called the Italic translation. The one used by the Waldenses came from this same Byzantine text type or Byzantine manuscript line. Now, what happened in 1453 was Byzantium fell to the Muslims. who were conquering that part of the world. Christian scholars who had been there in the East, in Byzantium, fled to Western Europe for their lives and they took with them, guess what? Their Bible, their Greek text. This is 1453, providentially at the exact same time What else was going on in Western Europe? Gutenberg. Printing. 1440s and 50s is when that all started. And so here's 1453, the fall of Byzantium or Constantinople. There was a renewed interest in Greek scholarship. And so it was inevitable that with the invention of printing that there should be a a call for a demand for the New Testament to be printed in Greek for the first time up until then had been copied by hand. Now it's going to be printed. And so, as a renewal in the Greek language and Greek scholarship was taking place, a man named Erasmus, who was considered in his own time as the greatest scholar of the day, he compiled the First Greek New Testament that was published or that was printed. He was the compiler. He had a, or he used a relatively small number of manuscripts. And there's debate as to. I mean, some say that he didn't have enough available. Others say he had others available, but he didn't trust them and therefore did not use them. Whatever the case, Erasmus compiled the Greek New Testament, was the first to compile a Greek New Testament. And though he used a relatively small number of manuscripts, his work has been vindicated over the years as more manuscripts have been discovered. There were various editions of Erasmus' New Testament. various printings various revisions correcting printing mistakes and so forth each time this text came to be called the received text or another name for it is the traditional text it was the text used by Christians and churches throughout the world. For. Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years. The better part, I say, of 1800 years. Now, we come to the mid-1800s. There were two Greek manuscripts that were discovered. They were from the fourth century. And these two manuscripts seriously differed in many passages from the traditional text. Two British scholars named Westcott and Hort advanced the theory that because these manuscripts were older than any from the actual Greek language that were in possession at that time, that they were the more accurate and that all the others were untrustworthy, even though there was, virtually speaking, universal agreement among the other manuscripts. These two that were different were older, and therefore they were considered to be of more weight than the others. And of course, the problem with that assumption is that the ones that were oldest, and of course one of these was found in a trash can, these had not been used because they were not accurate. The ones that were accurate had been used and used and used and worn and copied and worn out. It's very simple. But Westcott and Hort compiled and printed a new text. When they first started their work in the 1880s, they declared that they were only going to make a revision of the traditional text. But once their work was done, it was so different that it could not be called the same text, and it came to be called the critical text. So you have the traditional text and the critical text. Westcott and Hort appealed to many in the intellectual community of their time and presented their work as being more scientific. After all, this was the age of the explosion of scientific knowledge and the scientific method. Remember, this was the same time that Darwinism began to be presented as scientific. There were some scholars who raised their voices against the work of Westcott and Hort. Men who to this day are considered scholars. Not everyone who argues is considered a scholar. The men who do this for a living, they would not listen to a word that I say because I'm not a scholar. But names such as Frederick Von Nolan, John Bergen, and in more recent times, Edward Hills, all were scholars in the fullest sense of the word who raised their voices in protest to the text that Westcott and Hort had produced but sadly their voices were ignored and drowned out and the text of Westcott and Hort has gained ascendancy in most all seminaries and publishing houses since then. And I must say many good and godly men. have unwittingly followed this critical text of the Bible, which I consider to be a corrupted text of the Bible. I don't blame them altogether. I have some good friends, some very good and dear friends who are on the other side of this issue. And I think that they've just been deceived. I don't think it's intentional. They were taught by professors who were taught by professors to scorn the traditional text, to laugh at it as unscientific and so forth. I just think that many good men have been duped. And really, when it all comes down to it, we have to trust somebody's scholarship. I'm not an authority on the subject of manuscript evidence. And so I read after those who are. And as you read after those who are, you quickly discern there's two very different camps. And the question is, whose scholarship do you trust? Well, as I have done a little reading over the years about even Westcott and Hort themselves, I have a great difficulty trusting them, trusting their scholarship, even trusting and especially trusting their commitment to evangelical truth. And those who have continued their work to this day are so often men whose commitment to the gospel and whose commitment to a high regard for inspiration must be called into question. For example, one who passed away just about 15 or 16 years ago, named Kurt Alland. He was considered a great scholar carrying on the work of Westcott and Hort. You'll see his name listed as the compiler and one who was very much involved in the latest edition of the critical text. the one that's used in practically all the seminaries and all the Bible publishing houses now. Kurt Allen denied the authorship of all four of the Gospels. In other words, he said Matthew didn't write Matthew, Mark didn't write Mark, etc. He vigorously denied that several of the New Testament letters were inspired and should be in the text, the so-called general epistles. He said, none of them are valid. I say such a one is not a reliable guide. The Bible that he continued to produce is untrustworthy. I was looking up about Kurt Allen last night and on Wikipedia you can pull up a photograph of his appearance and greeting, shaking hands with Pope John Paul II. The liberalism and the affinity with Romanism and oftentimes with Unitarianism have marked the critical text scholars from the days of Westcott and Hort to this day. May I say that I don't think it's any secret that the method of Westcott and Hort was far from scientific. Even men who aren't particularly fond of the King James Version have admitted this and written about it. I have quite a few articles and books that I'd be glad to share with you if you're interested in delving into these questions. Their method of deciding what to include in their Greek New Testament was far from scientific. It's laughable to call it scientific. Their method of determining true readings was subjective, arbitrary, and cavalier. Their whole theory, in my opinion, rightly deserves the name fabrication. The most significant differences between the traditional text and the critical text are in one area of vital doctrine. And I've already mentioned it, the deity of Christ. R.L. Dabney brings this out so plainly. Many people say, well, all the Bibles, in spite of their differences, they all teach the same doctrine. Well, yes and no. If a large number of references to the deity of Christ are omitted, questioned, then that's a serious departure. And it shows a low view of scripture, a low view of inspiration. God's words are preserved from this generation and forever. It should not surprise us that the rise of ancient anti-Trinitarian heresy in the modern garb of Unitarianism, coincided with the publishing of the critical text. The timing is remarkable. I personally believe that the same deceiver who first tampered with God's word in Genesis 3, taking out some, adding some, and twisting and changing some, tampered with many references to Christ's full deity in the critical text of the New Testament. My most recent discussion with a Jehovah's Witness revealed to me the high appreciation that that Christ-denying cult has for the scholarship of Westcott and Hort. They're glad to have a Bible that has fewer references to the deity of Christ. Makes their job a little easier. Now, what I'm about to say may not make any difference to some of you, but it will to some. Some may ask, what about the majority text that was printed a few years ago, which is supposedly taking all that is available today, manuscript-wise, and just letting the majority speak. Well, even though the majority text and the traditional text, or the received text, are very close, there are a few differences. Some of them, a couple of them at least, are significant. And The problem that I see with the majority text and that whole method is this. Since thus far, no detailed collation or collection of all surviving manuscripts has taken place, there are some in the Vatican that they will not let anyone see. The exact majority text cannot really be determined. And if it were, it would only require the discovery of more manuscripts to change what is now a minority reading into a majority reading or vice versa. Thus, there would be a constant state of flux and uncertainty. and that hardly fits with God's promise to preserve his word for all generations. And so I believe that God has preserved his word, the word that he gave initially by inspiration he has preserved throughout the ages in the traditional text with which the vast majority of manuscripts agree. The agreement among the majority is very great. It is estimated that there is agreement in 92% of all the manuscripts. That should be very comforting. Let me quote from one of the articles here published by the Trinitarian Bible Society, it must be emphasized that the argument is not between an ancient text and a recent one, but between two ancient forms of the text, one of which was rejected and the other adopted and preserved by the church as a whole and remaining in common use for more than 15 centuries. The assumptions of modern textual criticism are based upon the discordant testimony of a few specimens of the rejected text recently disinterred or recently uncovered, dug up, from the oblivion to which they had been deliberately and wisely consigned in the fourth century. I think that's a good summary of the argument and the debate over preservation. OK, so if we can move on to point number two, and this won't take nearly as long, we have the question of which text to translate from. Well, it's the one that God inspired and that God has preserved. That's been in all generations. And listen, that's a powerful argument. To say what Westcott and Hort said is to say that for 1,850 years we didn't have the New Testament. Now doesn't that sound remarkably similar to what the Jehovah's Witnesses say, and the Mormons say, and every Christ-denying cult says? It's a very dangerous position. Well, let's move on to Roman numeral 2, the question of translation. And this is not all that complicated. Translations of the word of God are necessary. The Tower of Babel made translations needful. A translation may be considered to be the word of God. In so far as it is accurate to the original. Translating requires competent people. Translating of scripture requires competent people with a high regard for scripture. Making as much as possible a word-for-word translation that is readable and suitable to the target language. I say as much as possible a word-for-word translation Believe me, as one who has studied Spanish more than I've studied any biblical language, it is impossible sometimes to have an exact word-for-word translation. But we should get as close to it as we can and not go into what are called dynamic equivalency or dynamic equivalence. The King James Version meets the requirements of translation. The men who translated it were well qualified. They started out there in the early 1600s with 50, was it 54 or 56 men. Over the years in which they worked diligently on the subject, some of them died and they ended up with 46 or 48 actually being on hand at the completion of the work, you can read about them. Men whose scholarship, whose credentials is unquestionable, probably unmatched. I doubt that any group of men ever worked on any project with such great qualifications. They were not only qualified academically, they were qualified spiritually. I was reading about one of them. He prayed for five hours a day. And as he got older and sicker and towards the end of his life, after he'd done his part of the his contribution to the translation. They worked in teams and they double checked and then triple checked each other in their work and so forth. They were very, very careful. They said he prayed all day until he died. He couldn't see, he couldn't hear. He just prayed all day. Many of them were men of Puritan commitment. They were all God-fearing scholarly men. They held to the highest view of inspiration. They were very careful in their work. You know how careful they were? When they came to a passage that might allow of more than one interpretation, what we would call an ambiguous passage, They didn't try to interpret it for us. They left it ambiguous. Let me give you an example. They intentionally did not capitalize any of the pronouns in scripture. If you ever noticed that, you know, even as I'm writing my scripture, my, my, my sermon notes, when a, he refers to the Lord, I capitalize it. It just seems like the right thing to do. They didn't do that. In the King James Version. Because not because of a low view of the deity. But because there are passages, for example, Psalm 3723. That can be understood in more than one way. The steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord and he delighteth in his way. Who is the he? And whose way is it? Is it God delighting in his people's way? Or is it his people or the man of God delighting in the Lord's way? Did you ever read that and wonder which it was? The translators did the same. And the Hebrew. Doesn't distinguish. It can be either one. And so they were honest. in their work. Their work is faithful to the original. It is clear, it is readable, it is memorizable. It's amazing how that scripture memory has become almost unheard of because of the variety of translations now. Their work is also majestic and dignified, it is authoritative. You know, you read this version and it just speaks with authority and you read some of the modern ones and. It's not there, it's not the same. I don't know what it is just that way. Most of the great English preachers and writers of the past whose works we possess quoted it. I mean, if you're going to read Spurgeon, it is so helpful. To be acquainted with the same Bible that he preached from, if you're going to read John Owen, you know, by by the mid eight, the last edition of the last printing of the Geneva Bible was in the 1640s. The King James Version just became the Bible in English. Knowing the King James Version enables you to pick up. The riches of our English preachers in the past with much ease. You may be surprised to know that the translators did not claim perfection. Let me read you what they wrote in a little treatise to the reader. Truly good Christian reader. We never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation. They didn't consider what they did as a new translation nor yet to make of a bad one a good one. But to make a good one better. Or out of many good ones one principle good one. In other words. They were not casting a shadow of doubt upon earlier English translations. They used them. They compared them. A large portion, a huge percentage of the King James Version is the same as Tyndale's New Testament. They did not claim perfection. But they were trying to take a good thing and make it better. They were the first to include alternate translations in the margin. And they state right here in this little treatise to the reader that they did that in order to encourage the reader to deeper study on his own. The translation then meets the qualifications. Now, to tie it all together, we must simply say this, the King James Version is the only translation in English from the traditional text, from the received text. The New King James claims to do so in the introduction. But many times in footnotes throughout the text, it casts doubt upon the traditional text and gives credibility to the critical text. And so it tries to have it both ways. The New King James changes too much, in my opinion, and interprets too much. Let me give you just one example and I found this on my own and I was surprised to find others referring to it. Here in more recent years but. He who now let us will let until it be taken out of the way he who now hinders will hinder. Who is the he there. Well the translators decided to interpret for us rather than translate for us. In the new King James and they capitalized he. showing their dispensational bias, which has always been the contention of dispensationalism that he is the Holy Spirit there. Whereas the text does not indicate that necessarily. And certainly outside of dispensationalism, it was viewed as the Roman emperor. In all fairness, I do think there could be some minor improvements in the King James Version, in some verb tenses in the Book of Romans, for example. I pointed one out there in 1 Corinthians 15. It's even translated as a present, but we read over it without even realizing it. No doubt some word order might be tweaked a little bit. You know, every time I read or refer to this verse, 2 Corinthians 5, 21, I want to put it in the order in which it is in the Greek. Why the translators didn't, I don't understand. I can't ask them now. But the verse says. He hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin, but the phrase who knew no sin doesn't refer to us, it refers to Christ. He hath made him who knew no sin. To be seen for us. I think it might be helpful to translate it that way. There are a few terms that are so outdated. That they should be updated. I was thinking this morning at listening to Brother Bob, the meat offering. Was not flesh, it was meal. Someone translated a cereal offering that sure gets gets the idea of grain or meal meal But the problem is it seems that when people for example in the New King James started making some of these changes they went way too far and Leave the these and the ye's alone. We need those. They're not that hard to learn. And they do a world of help in distinguishing singular from plural. The means you yourself. Ye means you all. The precision of the these and the ease is very helpful. Just let me give you an example or two here. Jesus said to Nicodemus. Let me make sure I get it word for word, especially in this message. Marvel not that I said unto thee, ye must be born again. He says, Nicodemus, don't be surprised that I said to you yourself that all of you must be born again. And if you take away the thee out of there and put you, you lose that distinction. Let me give you another example. The Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you. That he may sift you as wheat, but I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not. See the picture? The Lord says Satan desired all of the disciples. Especially Peter, no doubt. But the Lord says specifically to Peter, I prayed for you, Peter. That your faith fail not. He didn't say, I prayed for you all. Why not? Because he didn't pray for Judas Iscariot. And may I also say, leave the italicized words italicized. That shows us the words added by translators. for good grammar that's necessary in English. I haven't checked all of them, but I know most, if not all, of the new translations do not show that distinction in italicized words. Well, let me just make some closing observations. You're a patient people. Uh, but I do want to emphasize just a few points here and then we'll close in the confession of faith. We read way back in chapter one, this statement in paragraph eight, let me read it again. And I hope that after the things you've heard today, this paragraph will mean more to you. Chapter one verse or paragraph eight. The Old Testament in Hebrew, which was the native language of the people of God of old, and the New Testament in Greek, which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations, being immediately inspired by God and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic. So as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have a right unto and interest in the scriptures and are commanded in the fear of God to read and search them. Therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar or the common language of every nation unto which they come that the word of God dwelling plentifully in all they may worship him in an acceptable manner. and through patience and comfort of the scriptures may have hope." You notice that in all controversies, we should go to the original languages. And I say amen to that. There are some who use the King James Version for other reasons than those for which I use it, and they would deny that statement. They would say, you don't need the Hebrew or the Greek, just the English. Thank God for the English, use it with confidence. But debates had better be settled by the original. I've given a long summary here, but it's really been a very brief summary. There's so much more. hit the high points, I would encourage you to do your own study. I can help provide you with some materials. Um, and I'm going to make some available to you and I'll show you what I've got. And I'm going to have them on the table here at the close. These are all printed by the Trinitarian Bible society. The only Bible society that is committed to the King James version in English. exclusively. I met the author of this booklet years ago before he died. He was a secretary of the publishing house there in England, Terence Brown. The Learned Men. It is short biographies and sketches or whatever information he could find on the men that did the translating. Very interesting. Please, if you're interested at all in this subject, read the Divine Original. It goes into detail on the very things that I've discussed today. I've quoted even from it. This is one that we've had out there on the book table for a long time. That's excellent. Doesn't deal so much with translation, just as the, as with the inspiration and preservation of scripture, the divine inspiration. I'll take that back. That's not the same one. The one out there is called, uh, the Lord gave the word. Be sure you read that one too. This is different. The cover looks the same, but it's different. This is the divine inspiration of the Holy scriptures. articles by preachers of the past on the same subject. Here's a little, little leaflet on omissions showing some of the references to the deity of Christ that are omitted in the critical text and the translations coming from it. Another little short one called the excellence of the authorized version. You can read that very quickly. I have. Supply of I don't know eight or ten or twelve of all of these the translators to the reader. This is really interesting it's It's pretty demanding reading, but but it is worth The effort this is a short little book by an English Baptist Contemporary Mr.. Rams bottom on how we got our English Bible very short even the children could appreciate this and Then I have one dealing with the New King James Version, a critique by Malcolm Watts, who is a preacher that I have a great regard for. He shows how often they question the traditional text even in the notes in the New King James Version. And last of all, a little pamphlet here on the Greek New Testament by a husband and wife team of, from what I know about them, remarkable scholars. I would like to know more about them. They are alive and do a lot of work for the Trinitarian Bible Society. May I say? These are the scholars that I lean on in a great way. I appreciate the work of that Bible Society because I think they defend the King James Version on sound solid grounds. That's very important. There's also a document online if you go to their website. This is one of the best things, most helpful things you can read. I printed up a copy of it. I didn't print up one for everybody, but if you want one, I'll be glad to help you print one or get one. It's their statement of doctrine of Holy Scripture. They also have a short history in 12 or so, 15 pages here, of the beginning of their society, showing why they began in 1831. It's a fascinating story. I also have in my possession, and I might loan this out. I have to think about that. The Word of God Among All Nations, a brief history of the Trinitarian Bible Society published by them in 1981, covering the first 150 years of their existence. And this is not available anymore. And it is a fascinating read. Let me read to you something. This will be the last thing that I read and then we'll close. Many people have appealed to the Trinitarian Bible Society, I think, without knowing how careful and cautious they are. The question of revising the underlying Hebrew and Greek text of the Bible has already been alluded to. Because of a radical revision of the underlying text, modern versions of the Bible differ from earlier versions in literally thousands of places. The idea of correcting the New Testament text by reference to ancient manuscripts was attractive. They're speaking of the West Cotton Hort tradition. And in the later 19th century, the Trinitarian Bible Society, like other Bible societies, began to adopt some foreign language translations in which the revised text was used. Then came a growing suspicion that the early manuscripts popular among some scholars were not representative of the text generally accepted throughout the ancient church and that much of the manuscript evidence was being deliberately ignored. In other words, they came to see that the traditional text had priority. The society therefore chose the safer course of retaining the form of text known as the received text, which was the text adopted by the 16th century reformers and which is relatively close to the text found in most Greek manuscripts. This course was followed in the belief, not that the received text was perfect, but that it was superior to the available alternatives. The possibility was left open that at some future time when better principles of New Testament textual criticism had been established, improvements could be made in the received text in those passages where it did not already conform with the traditional text found in the majority of manuscripts. Such a revision would be very different from the drastic revisions popular since the 19th century. Alongside the question of textual revision is the question of the principles of translation. On the one hand are the numerous attempts to update older translations by removing expressions no longer in common use and on the other hand is the tendency to replace literal word for word translations and to adopt instead a form of paraphrase. These tendencies have often been criticized as resulting in the abandonment of much that is good in the older translations. It might be expected that with advances in scholarship, the chief aim of a new translation would be greater accuracy, but the modern form of paraphrase has often led to a severe departure from the exact meaning of the original text. The Trinitarian Bible Society, while acknowledging the need for improvements in text and translation, favored the retention of the older versions on the grounds that these not only followed a superior Greek text, but also were more faithful in conveying the correct meaning compared with modern versions. In the English language, for example, the society continued to circulate the authorized version alone. while leaving open the possibility of modest future revision in passages where the English was obscure or where the traditional Greek text could be followed more closely. That was and still is the position of the Trinitarian Bible Society. Which Bible should we use? In my opinion, the King James Version is the best in English. For me, it's the only English Bible. Of course, I make use of the original and helps to the original constantly. But in English, the King James Version is a trustworthy and beautiful translation of God's word from the right manuscripts that speaks with authority. Yes, I would rather see people reading most any Bible than none at all. But I would like to see them reading this one. Let us. Go from this place today determined to appreciate God's word to read it. To meditate upon it, to use it, to believe it, to live it. To die with it. to die for it. Since it's so late, we'll forego a closing hymn. Let's just pray. Heavenly Father, thank you for your word. Thank you for a good translation. Having it in our possession, help us to get some good out of it. Help us to hide it in our hearts. Guide us Keep us from error. Go with us now. Dismiss us with Your blessing. We pray in Jesus' name, Amen. Let us turn together to Psalm 12. Psalm 12. And let's read this Psalm. This is the psalm that we took as a text Sunday afternoon in the message on. What version of the Bible should we use? And I have a correction, you know, the Lord works in wonderful ways and he knows how to humble a preacher. And so I have a correction. that I want to explain here, but let's read the whole psalm. To the chief musician upon Sheminith, a psalm of David. Help Lord for the godly man ceaseth for the faithful fail from among the children of men. They speak vanity everyone with his neighbor with flattering lips and with a double heart. Do they speak? The Lord shall cut off all flattering lips and the tongue that speaketh proud things who have said, with our tongue will we prevail. Our lips are our own. Who is Lord over us? For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord. I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him. The words of the Lord are pure words. As silver tried in a furnace of earth purified seven times, thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever. The wicked walk on every side when the vilest men are exalted. May the Lord bless the reading of Psalm 12. The correction that I want to give is in verse seven. I took this as one of several texts, but this was the first one in the main one, and I think the only one that we actually looked up and read together to prove that the Lord preserves his word in every generation. And I have studied this psalm before, but my memory did not kick in. this time around. In fact, I looked at my notes and saw that it was the 12th of April of 2000 on a Wednesday night that we studied Psalm 12 together. And when I prepared for that message, I got it right. And I looked at those notes again. Them of Psalm 12 seven is probably not the words of verse six. Some commentators say it can go either way, but I think that Dr. Gill probably settles it pretty clearly by pointing out that there is a masculine here in them and not a feminine. And the words mentioned in verse six are feminine. There is a masculine at verse five, the word needy. It is probably people that the Lord, his people that he is said to preserve. Here in this verse, this, moreover, fits very neatly with the whole thrust of the psalm. From verse one, David laments that the godly man ceases. That the godly are becoming, it seems, an extinct species, as it were, on the earth, and he cries to the Lord for help, the faithful fail. from among the children of men. This is in contrast to those who oppose them and those who hate them. They are described beginning in verse two. They speak vanity, everyone with his neighbor and so forth. Then it says the Lord will judge them. The Lord will cut off those flattering lips. There is emphasis here on The speech of the ungodly. And that is no doubt in contrast with the words of the Lord, verse six. The words of man in contrast with the words of the Lord, man's words are deceitful words, but the Lord will cut off. The flattering lips and cut off the tongue that speaks proud things. The tongue, verse five, that puffs at the godly who are described there as poor and needy. Now, there's certainly reference to God's words here in verse six that they are pure and tried in a furnace of earth seven times. They are steadfast. They stand the test, as it were. They stand the furnace. They cannot be burned up. Perhaps there is some reference to the preservation of God's words there in verse six and even in verse seven when godly people are preserved from generation to generation. It might be implied that God's word will be with them. Would God leave his people in any generation on this earth without his word? That seems very. Unlikely. Even in this song. And of course, it's impossible, according to other promises that we have concerning the preservation. Of scripture, but I just wanted to Clarify this and make sure that we've not taught incorrectly on anything or taught two different things. I do believe that this is the right interpretation of this particular verse. However, since we're on this subject, let me add a few more verses to reinforce the preservation of God's word, I referred to two or three others from the New Testament. Let me add a few to that list. Since we're possibly subtracting one, we'll add about 15 more. Turn with me to Psalm 19. Here in Psalm 19, we have in the latter portion of the Psalm, beginning at verse 7, praise for God's words, His law, His testimony, verse 7, His statutes, the commandment, verse 8, it's called the fear of the Lord in verse nine and the judgments of the Lord, verse nine. Notice what it says in the first part of verse nine, the fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever. We don't normally use the word fear of the Lord as a title for the scriptures, but that's obvious. It is obvious that that is what is in view here. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring Forever. I'm not going to ask you to look at all of these, but just listen as I go through them. Some of them are more direct and some are more indirect. But it says in Psalm 119, 86, all thy commandments are faithful, says in Psalm 119, 89 forever. Oh Lord, thy word is settled in heaven. Isaiah 40 verse eight says the grass withereth, the flower fadeth, but the word of our God shall stand forever. When the Lord was tempted in Matthew chapter four, he answered and said, it is written, man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. And in as much as God's people live in any generation on this earth, then the word that proceeds out of the mouth of God must be available to them. I believe I gave these next two In the message Sunday, Matthew 518, till heaven and earth pass one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled. And then Matthew 2435 in the Olivet discourse, heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. But think of a verse such as this from Romans 15, four. whatsoever things were written aforetime, that's referring to the Old Testament, were written for our learning that we, through patience and comfort of the scriptures, might have hope. Well, how will we learn from them and have hope from them if we don't have them, if we're not able to read them? And Romans 1626, I didn't put the beginning of the sentence here in this reference, so let me look it up and read it. The very closing words of Romans now to him that is of power to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God made known to all nations for the obedience of faith. To God only wise be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen. It says here that the gospel is made manifest. By the scriptures of the prophets. And made known to all nations. There's a similar statement in first Corinthians 10. To what we saw a moment ago in Romans 15, it says all these things happened unto them that is unto Israel in the Old Testament for examples, and they are written for our admonition upon whom the ends of the world are come. These things are written for us. That certainly implies the preservation of God's word. Christ loved the church and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word. As long as he has any elect people, his word will be with them to sanctify and cleanse them. Ephesians 6, 17, we're admonished to take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God. As long as there are Christian soldiers taking up the Christian armor and fighting the Christian warfare, there must be the Christian sword, the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God. Paul admonished the Colossians to let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom. And unless we want to think that that's that that command is not for every generation of believers, then we must say that this implies that the words of Christ or the word of Christ will be available to us. Same with Second Timothy two fifteen study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. As long as there are those who follow in the footsteps of Timothy as preachers of the word, then they must have the word to preach to. Rightly divide. And declare. And of course, we considered that all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof. for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. As long as there are men of God that need to be made perfect and throughly furnished unto all good works, then there must be the word of God with them to accomplish that. Look at this last one, if you would, with me. First, Peter. Chapter one. First Peter 123. And following first Peter 123. Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible by the word of God which liveth and abideth forever. For all flesh is as grass and all the glory of man is the flower of grass, the grass withereth and the flower thereof falleth away, but the word of the Lord endureth forever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. God's word is not like the grass and the flower that appears a little while and then vanishes. It endures forever. And so there are many scriptures that testify to God's preservation of his word. And even Psalm 12, seven sort of implies it, but some of these other statements are very direct and. We should thank the Lord for his word, and I do want to emphasize again the importance of reading it, paying heed to it. It is not enough to just sit back and say, well, we have the word of God. We have the word of God. We have the word of God. It's about like if that's all we do, it's like those Israelites in the Old Testament that said the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord. We have the temple of the Lord. And they did not worship the Lord in his temple. Having the word of God, let us profit from it, let us read it, let us use it, let it be our constant companion.