Today, the Lord willing, we're going to consider the Greek texts from which the New Testament was translated. I think this is the most important issue, rather than pitting one translation against another, because some of the modern translations are good translations of inferior texts. It's not that they're bad translations, it's that which they are translated from is less than what it ought to be. On Thursday, Lord willing, we'll compare the old King James and the new King James because they both are professing to be from the same Greek texts. But today, we want to deal with the issue of the Greek texts Because if we can establish the superiority of the Textus Receptus, the received text from which the King James is translated, then all of the modern translations which are not taken from the Textus Receptus will be automatically, in my judgment at least, disqualified from being the very best versions of God's Word. Now please understand that this is not a matter of heresy versus orthodoxy, okay? We're not saying that everybody who uses a modern translation or everybody who uses the critical text is a heretic, nor would it be fair to say that everybody who uses the King James is everything he ought to be either, okay? It's not a matter of heresy versus orthodoxy. Some extremists have said that if you were led to the Lord with any other version than the King James, then you didn't really get saved. But I would ask you this question. Suppose you're witnessing somebody, and you're quoting the Scripture, and you misquote a verse. Does that mean the person can't get saved? I would hope you have more sense than to believe that, okay? It's possible to understand that Christ died for our sins without getting the precise words correct in every quotation, right? So, understand that in the controversy, I think there has been a lot of unfair accusations made on both sides of the issue, and there is so much heat, there's very little light in the debate. I was not, in my theological training, I was not trained in the TR tradition. When I went through college and seminary, we used a version of the West Cotton Hort Greek text, and I didn't know any different. That was my training. In those days, I was not a heretic or a Bible denier or a Pharisee. And therefore, I have not judged all of my classmates to be the same thing either. I just didn't know the issues. And I think there is a difference in whether a person hasn't studied the issues as opposed to whether he's hostile against the TR position. That makes a difference, I think, in the way we ought to relate to them. There's a lot of information that I want to deal with, and the biggest challenge I have is figuring out what to leave out. I will try to make this as clear as I can, but I hope I don't scare up more rabbits than we can kill in a way. One thing that is going to be involved a part of the time is we'll use the screen. And if you're on the extreme edges, you might have a hard time seeing it well. In fact, especially since I'll be standing over here, some of you might have a problem. And if your eyesight's like mine, if you're sitting very far away, you might have difficulty because not only do you need to see the screen, but we're going to have words written on it. So, if in this time you aren't able to see clearly, please feel free to move where you can. I want you to see it and be able to follow what we're dealing with. If you would, please turn with me to the book of Isaiah, chapter 59. If I were to choose one single portion of Scripture as a proof text that will ultimately bring me to the King James translation of the Bible, it would be Isaiah chapter 59 and verse 21. There God says, as for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord. My Spirit that is upon thee, and my words, plural, which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord from henceforth and forever. Now there are two very important things that God is saying to us here. The first thing is, God is not just saying the general idea or concepts of the Bible will be preserved. He says, my words, plural. You know, sometimes we use the word word in a general sense, like somebody might say, I have a word for you. And then they talk for 30 minutes. What they really mean is a lot of words, but when they say, I have a word for you, or I'd like to have a word with you, they're saying, there's a message that I want to discuss. And it is possible and legitimate to use the word, word, singular, to describe a message. But this is not a general message. It's the specific words that make up that message that God said would be preserved. It's not just concepts, but words, plural. And there are numbers of times when we see Bible statements about the preservation that God uses the word, word, in a plural sense, meaning not just the ideas or the concepts, but the very words that make up those concepts. That is an important issue. The second thing that I think is critical that will ultimately cause us to wind up using the King James English, alright, is that God indicates His words will be available to every generation of mankind from the time of their writing. Notice again in verse 21, In the middle of the verse, My words which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, that would be the next generation, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, that would be the generation after that one, saith the Lord. And then, from henceforth and forever. Now, does it not look as though God is saying, His words will never be lost to mankind. Is that not what he say? Now, he doesn't say every person will have my words. He doesn't say every nation will have my words. But he does say every generation will have my words. And that tells me that from the time of the writing of Scripture, there has never been a generation in which the words of God were not available somewhere. And that is very important because it's going to give us clear direction concerning the choice of Greek texts that we use. And I want to demonstrate that with a chart that I'd like to show you at this time. Get ready for that. Need the screen down. Here it comes. Isn't that amazing? What I want to do is try to show you, in general terms, a chart that illustrates the centuries of church history in which Greek manuscripts were written that have been discovered. Now, understand this is not going to be precise. I'm just going to give centuries. I'm not going to say in, you know, 132. I'm going to say in the first hundred years. But I think you can generally get the concept that throughout church history, The Greek texts that we now call the Textus Receptus have been available, whereas the Greek texts that we now call the critical text, or the Westcott and Hort Greek texts, the one from which the modern English translations are taken, that text was not available throughout church history. All right. This is a, again, not intended to be precise, but to give you a general concept of the history of the transmission of the text of the New Testament. On the left side, the Westcott and Hort text, that's the critical text, that's the one from which the modern English translations are taken. On the right side, the TR tradition, that Textus Receptus, that from which the King James is translated. And down the center will be the centuries A.D. that these manuscripts were not the centuries they were discovered, but the manuscripts from which they are dated. Archaeologists dig up manuscripts. They can date them by the kinds of writing materials or the style of writing, various things they use to determine about when they were written. So the middle column, the centuries, will be the centuries in which the scholars believe these were written. And nobody really debates those centuries. The first thing we find is not a Greek manuscript, but a Syriac translation of the New Testament called the Peshitta. The reason it's important is that those who follow the Westcott and Hort Greek text concept say that there was no TR type manuscript available They say that because they haven't dug one up and found it. But they say it didn't exist until later in church history. But the interesting thing is that there are parts of the Syriac Peshitta that clearly appear to be translations of a TR type text or a Byzantine type text, which later names for the same thing. And in fact, This Peseta has a translation of the last 11 verses of the book of Mark, which the Westcott and Hort text does not have. Now, when they tell us that the TR type text did not exist, my question is, then how did it get translated in the 2nd century? Okay? Now, I'm not real smart, But I think that if it was translated, it had to somehow exist. I teach logic, okay? But I think this is important. It's not that the Syriac Peshitta is exactly in line with the TR type text all across the board. But where did they get those last 11 verses in Mark? if they didn't have a Greek manuscript from which to translate. Understand when we talk about manuscripts, they're not all full New Testaments from Matthew all the way through Revelation. Some of them are just a single book or a chapter or a page or a scrap, okay? But when we talk about manuscripts, The evidence can still be divided into two categories, the Westcott and Hort type or the T.R. type. The oldest Greek manuscripts that have been discovered are what's called Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. They're called Aleph and Bee also. And they are from about the 4th century A.D. The Westcott and Hort advocates say oldest is best. Now, I think that's true as far as a college family is concerned, right? But, not necessarily true as far as Greek manuscripts are concerned. I have worn out a number of Thompson chain reference Bibles. Some of them are in terrible shape. On the other hand, I've got a new American standard that I've had for decades that's in great condition. The reason is, even though my Thompson chain references are newer, they're worn out because I've handled them. I've used them. My New American Standard sat on the shelf for years and years, and I just pulled it off the shelf every now and then, like for what we're doing today. It could last a really long time. Not because it's better than my Thompson Chain reference Bibles, but because I have not used it, have not handled it, it hasn't been worn out. I think it's arrogant of us to conclude that the only thing that ever existed in history is what we have dug up and found. If you were to go by that logic, you go back a couple hundred years in history, there weren't hardly any Greek manuscripts that ever existed, you know. So, the mere fact that these are older does not necessarily demonstrate the fact they're best. The 5th century, there was the Codex Alexandria, which is a TR type text. Then in the 6th century, the Codex Basiliensis. We'll just call them A and B here, OK? These were TR type texts. And something interesting happened in these ages. Between the 7th, 8th, 9th, in that time, in those centuries, there are many, many manuscripts found that support the TR type texts. Many of them. Starting at 800, 900, in that area, there were a few copies found that supported the West Cotton Hort text. Then, in one century alone, almost 2,000 TR type manuscripts were found. 1,997 in just that one century. Then we go to 1500, we have Erasmus, who was the Catholic monk who put together what we now call the TR, and another individual, Stephanas, who worked with that same type text. There were others. A man by the name of Beza and the Elsevier brothers, they also worked with Greek text along the TR tradition. But also at this time, the 16, obviously 1611, we have the King James Version translated into English. Now there were some other English translations prior to this. But this King James Translation, was taken from the TR type text that is represented through this, the bulk of church history. In the 18th century, 1700, late 1700s, a man by the name of Tischendorf discovered the texts that have become the main sources for the Westcott and Hort text. Now, Tischendorf, in fact, in one occasion, he found monks burning copies of this for heat. They obviously didn't know what they had. They obviously did not revere it as the Word of God. But Tischendorf stopped them and saved the copies and helped assemble what later became the Westcott & Hort text. And that was in 1881 that the Westcott & Hort text was put together based on primarily Greek copies that were not available through 1400 years of church history. In 1901, that Westcott and Hort version was translated into the American Standard Version of the Bible. In the 20th century, there's been an explosion of translations from the Westcott and Hort type texts. Almost all of the modern versions are from the Westcott and Hort Greek text. The New King James Version is an English translation that claims to be from the TR. Now, We'll talk Thursday about the new King James versus the old King James. I'll just tell you right now, I am persuaded the old King James is a superior translation. But, for the time being, suffice it to say, as we look at what we see on the chart, there Scattered really throughout church history have been opportunities for people to see the TR type text. Virtually in every, if I get the right button here, all through this time, there have been lots of copies, or some at least, and for much of time, lots of copies available that have been discovered. Please understand, we haven't necessarily found everything that ever existed. But There are very few copies of this and the Sinaiticus Vaticanus, the main ones from which Westcott and Hort put together their Greek New Testament, were not used for 14 centuries of church history. That's a time frame. But notice the total number of manuscripts that have been found in both these categories. For the Westcott and Hort type tradition, Approximately 400 manuscripts have been found, either New Testaments or books or pages or scraps or parts of, you know, approximately 400. With the TR type text, approximately 5,250 manuscripts have been found. Now, Both in the fact that it's been available throughout the centuries of church history, and the enormous difference in the number of manuscripts that have been found. I think both of these are good reasons for us to say when God promised that His Word would be available to every generation of mankind, that it sure seems to me like He's talking about this right here, the TR type tradition. All right, thank you gentlemen, that's all I need on the screen. We've looked at one verse of scripture, Isaiah chapter 59, verse 21. Now I want to look at one more verse, Proverbs 22, actually two verses, one more passage, Proverbs 22, Verses 20 and 21. Proverbs 22, verses 20 and 21. Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge, that I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth? That thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee. Notice what God says here in verse 21, that thou mightest, I'm sorry, that I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth. Now we saw in Isaiah 59 that God's Word is going to be available for every generation of mankind after it's writing. Here, does not it look as though God is saying, you're going to know for sure what the words are. that you're going to know the certainty of the words. And I think this, too, is very important. Very important for one reason, because those who put together the Westcott and Hort translation, and that's when I say I meant version, those two gentlemen themselves, Westcott and Hort, did not feel that they were certain about the words they put together in their text. People have asked me what book I would recommend on the subject. It's this little one here. Entitled, Which Greek Text? I know the author well. But I'd just like to read here some quotations that I've taken. taken out of the introduction to West Cotton Horse Greek New Testament. They have a very lengthy description of the process they went through and how they came up with their text and give us a, you know, they make their own rules about how to choose texts and then they choose the texts that follow those rules. That's basically the way it works. Such as oldest is best. They also Well, I don't have time to cover the other aspects of it, but in my judgment, none of their rules make much sense and are arbitrary at best. But here's what these men, what Westcott and Hart thought about the text that they put together. And I'm quoting here. The imperfection of our knowledge more commonly leaves unreconciled the apparent conflict of the two kinds of probability. Does that sound like certainty of words? How about this? And this is another quote. This is what is meant when it's said in popular language that good manuscripts should be trusted. A presumption of relatively high authority is conferred by priority of date. In other words, oldest is best. A presumption verified on the average by experience, but still no more than a presumption. That's what they're saying about their work. Here's another quote. On the other hand, the inequalities and occasional ambiguities in the evidence for the genealogical relations frequently leave room for more than one interpretation. Now, ambiguities are uncertainties, okay? And they use this word often. Here's another quote. But all these drawbacks, however they introduce ambiguity into the evidence for single passages, end of quote. I mean, they go on with the sentence, but They're saying their work is ambiguous. Here's another quote. Numerous variations remain in which the distribution of documentary evidence may be reasonably interpreted in more ways than one. So that a reference of the several readings to this or that principle ancient text is open to doubt. Here's another quote. If B and Aleph, those are the two primary texts that they use. If B and Aleph were for a great part of their text derived from a proximate common original, that common original, whatever might have been its date, must have had a very ancient and a very pure text. There is, however, no tangible evidence for this supposition. And I could go on and on. The wrong readings of B, being for the most part due only to sporadic corruptions. That's what they say about the text that they have chosen to prefer. A more recent version of this was put together by Olin and Metzger. And they have a system Let me skip here. They have a system of evaluating the certainty of their text. And I'll read this quotate from them. By means of the letters A, B, C, and D enclosed within braces at the beginning of each set of textual variants, the committee has sought to indicate the relative degree of certainty for the reading adopted as the text. The letter A signifies that the text is virtually certain, while B indicates that there is some degree of doubt. The letter C means that there is considerable degree of doubt, while D shows that there is a very high degree of doubt concerning the reading selected for the text. So when you read your Bible, be sure you look for the A, B, C, and D. The A you can pretty well count on. And it gets worse from there. Now, does this sound as though the people who put these texts together believed in the certainty of the words? It doesn't sound like it to me. And I could have read many other quotations, just for the sake of time, trying to give you a sampling of it. When God said that you might know the certainty of the words of truth, He was not talking about suppositions or ambiguities. Certainties means certainties. You know, God expects us to live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. How could we do that if we had no assurance that we had every word? There are many, many passages in the Scripture that teach its own preservation. And, in fact, in the New Testament, you have examples where clearly the Old Testament has been preserved. We often quote 2 Timothy 3, 16. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction for instruction, righteousness, etc. But you know that in verse 15, Paul said to Timothy, And that from the child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures. Now, Timothy did not have the original manuscripts the original writing materials that Moses wrote on 1500 years before, but he had the words that were on those manuscripts. You see, it's not the original. Often people have misunderstood the concept that we don't have the originals. We don't have the original materials, but I believe we can say with certainty we have the original words that were on those materials, and that's what counts. It's the words that we're interested in. But Paul said to Timothy, from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, and then he went ahead and said, all Scriptures given by inspiration of God, stands to reason, what Timothy had and what Timothy knew is what God inspired. And I don't see any other fair reading of that context. But to conclude then, that the Old Testament was preserved until the New Testament era. Same thing in Peter's writings, when we often quote concerning inspiration, holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. In that context, when Peter talks about his experience with Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration, he said, We have also a more sure word of prophecy. More sure even than his own eyewitness experience is the written word that he had, which holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Peter is saying, we have the words that God inspired. So clearly there's New Testament evidence that the Old Testament was preserved, the very words. And then we have in the New Testament the challenge to the local church to be the vehicle of preserving those same words. And there are numbers of passages like Hold Fast, the form of sound words, where God challenges his people to be the agents of the preservation of his word. Now, I want to digress to a subject that a lot of people, I think, get out of proportion. Because I don't think the real debate is this translation versus that translation. I think the real debate is which Greek texts are the best. Now in translation, you have different philosophies of translation. And this is something we'll deal with more on Thursday, Lord willing. There is what's called formal equivalency. Not using formal in the sense of liturgical, cold, deaf, stiff, boring, but in the sense of following the same form as the original language and translate it in a way that tries to follow the same form. That's one philosophy of translation. The other is dynamic equivalency, which says, well, we're not going to try to follow the same form. We'll just tell you what we think it meant. Now, many of the modern versions of the English translations are following a dynamic equivalency of inferior texts. That is, even the text they translate, they aren't telling you what exactly the text says, they're telling you what they think it means. Some of them, however, like the New American Standard, I think is a good translation. That is, I think it's a formal equivalency translation. But it is a good translation of inferior Greek texts. So it's flawed at the very beginning. The King James is a formal equivalency translation of the best text, okay? And in my judgment, if you want a translation, that's as good as it gets. A formal equivalency translation of the best text. But I don't think English translation is the main issue. Nor do I think the character of the people involved in handling the text over the centuries of history is the main issue. One thing that has become a big part of the argument is that people on the King James side have found fault with Westcott and Hort, and people on the Westcott and Hort side have found fault with Erasmus, and I think we can find fault with all of them. I'm not sure that England's King James was pure in his morals, but that doesn't mean that the Bible is defective. When you think about it, in initial inspiration, God used imperfect vessels into whom he breathed his words so they could write them down. Do you know that one person who wrote two books of the Bible cursed and swore and denied that he knew Christ? Do you know that one person who wrote a fairly significant portion of the Bible was an adulterer and a murderer? Did you know that one wavered in his faith and smote the rock instead of just speaking to it like God told him to do? Do you know that one was a blasphemer and a persecutor and injurious to the cause of Christ? And God used him to write, I think, 14 books. Original inspiration did not depend upon perfect vessels through whom God's Word was given. And neither do we have to have everybody handling the manuscripts throughout history to be fundamental independent Baptists. in order for us to have confidence that we have a reliable Bible. I don't think we have to try to make Erasmus into something that he apparently wasn't. Because the preservation of the Word of God does not depend upon Erasmus. It depends upon the God who gave us the words in Isaiah 59-21 that those words would be available to every generation. So I don't think the character assassination really is relevant to the debate. You can dig up quotations from West Cotton Hort in their college days. They said a lot of weird things, and some of you said some pretty weird things in your college days here. So did I. But I don't think that's really the relevant issue. The matter is, God's promise to preserve His Word and the availability of that Word to every generation of mankind since the time of its writing. But let's just talk for a moment about English translations. Sometimes people, King James advocates, will turn to Revelation 22, and I'd like you to do that with me. Revelation 22, verse 18 to 19. There we find these strong words from God. For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life and out of the holy city and from the things which are written in this book. And some have read these words out of the King James Bible and said, Aha, that proves every other translation is wrong because their words are different from these words. They're adding to or taking away. Now what I'm saying is, to merely pull out the English and say, this says you shouldn't change the words, doesn't necessarily prove the issue because all of their Bibles say you shouldn't change their words. The issue is not English translations. The issue is what Greek texts are they translating. To me, that's the foundational concept. The reason I would reject these translations here, well, some of them are worse than one of them was pretty good. But the primary reason, the very first reason where I could stop and start is they translate inferior Greek text. But just to pull out one English translation and say, this condemns the others, therefore the others are wrong, it would only be fair to say, but the others condemn yours as well. And that doesn't settle it. What settles it is, what has God preserved down through the generations of church history and it's the Greek manuscripts that we now call the Textus Receptus, from which the King James was translated. And therefore, that's why I use the King James Bible, because it's an excellent translation of the very best Greek texts. To me, the most untenable position of all, the most illogical position of all, is for a church to say, it does not make any difference what translation you use, just bring whatever Bible you're comfortable with and we'll go with that. When in fact, everybody in that church has Bibles that refute each other. Unless you decide, well, this isn't an important part of the Bible here. The part that talks about the words isn't important, we'll disregard that. To me, the craziest position of all is to say, it doesn't make a difference what translation you use. Because, in fact, the translations all condemn each other, if every word is important. We've really looked at two passages of Scripture that I think give us excellent reasons to see the superiority of the Textus Receptus as opposed to the Westcott and Hort Greek texts. One reason is that God has said His Word would be available to every generation of mankind from the time of its writing until, well, forever. The Westcott and Hort Greek texts were based upon the two main manuscripts that were not accessible for 1400 years. The reason I personally made the choice, in about 1980 or 81, to switch from my Westcott & Hort, it was actually Nestle's, but it's a version of it, Greek text, to using the TR, because I just began to think, what has been available to the largest number of people over the longest period of time? And there's no question the answer to that is the TR type text. So from Isaiah 59, 21, we have that concept that God's Word is going to be available for every generation. From Proverbs 22, we get the idea that we can be certain about the words, that it's not conjecture, it's not ambiguity, it's not supposition, but it's certainty. And that's why I use the King James Bible. Lord willing, on Thursday, we'll talk about the two translations from the TR text, the Old King James and the New King James, and we'll make some comparisons there to demonstrate why I believe that this is a superior translation of those Greek texts. But let's start with our loyalty to the Texas Receptors. Let's pray. Father in heaven, in this time of instruction, Thank You that You have given us a Bible that's been preserved, and we can know the certainty of these words. And we don't have to guess or conjecture or suppose. Father, I pray that we would not use this just to argue with people, but that, Lord, we'd have the confidence to obey and preach Your Word knowing that you have preserved it for us. Thank you for this wonderful book. Help us to obey it. We pray in Jesus' name. Amen.