XXXIV - 11(01)

“Watchman,

what of the night?”

"The hour has come, the hour is striking and striking at you,
the hour and the end!"          Eze. 7:6 (Moffatt)

 

THE KING JAMES VERSION

Page 2

Not Exactly a New Concept But Is It Valid?

Page 4

 

 

Editor's Preface

 

With this issue of WWN, we include the new Order Form for 2002. A book which we previously carried in stock, we are now again able to offer - Individuality in Religion by A. T. Jones.. With another printing of Letters to the Churches by Elder M.L. Andreasen, there are no longer limits on quantity ordered. Another manuscript EEOC vs PPPA which carries the major court documents in the Merikay Silver case is also available in limited supply. (To view what is currently available- Order Form is now found Here.)

One may ask, why the emphasis on these manuscripts and documents from the past, year after year? In the second article, we note that the bottom line of the Sabbath School lessons for the Third Quarter was "stay with the corporate body" as it is the true "remnant" for this final hour. How was this conclusion reached? The corporate body, though made up of faulty people, still holds the true doctrines. All one has to do is to become knowledgeable of the apostasy that has marked the Church's course over the past five decades to know that this is not true. These deviations from truth have not been corrected, neither have the official voices who sanctioned them been repudiated. One tape with its helps, will give you an outline into which you can put all the other factors, as well as see the fallacy which the Sabbath School Lessons sought to promote. That tape with its documented helps photographically reproduced from the sources is "The Sacred Trust Betrayed." Of course, if you do not want to see anything different from what the hierarchy wants you to see, then do not listen to it.

The article on the KJV calls your attention to two things: 1).How this version supports one position of Desmond Ford and how the NKJV compounds it; and 2).How Ellen G. White reacted to a new version in her day.

Page 2

Two factors motivate the discussing of the King James Version (KJV) in this issue of WWN. Earlier in the year at a camp meeting held by the "historics" near the Foundation, the use of other than the KJV by one of the "voices" produced a reaction. In the summer, the History Book Club to which I belong, had as one of their choices for the month the book, In the Beginning by Alister E. McGrath, Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University, and published by Doubleday. This book is a review of the background of the social, religious, and political forces which were involved in the publication of the KJV. McGrath is a lucid writer, and the book makes very easy and interesting as well as informative reading.

Before discussing the KJV further, let me state my position and use of the version. It is the only version that I have ever used in preaching from the lectern in evangelism, from the pulpit in the service of divine worship, or teaching the Scriptures in the college classroom. I see no reason to make any change even with the New King James Version available. If some text is better translated in another version than in the KJV, I do not hesitate to cite that translation and state why. For example, the KJV translates Hebrews 9:12 stating that "by His own blood (Christ) entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." If the English language means anything, the KJV is saying that Christ before He entered the first apartment of the Heavenly Sanctuary obtained for us "eternal redemption." In other words, the atonement was completed on the cross.

The translation in the NKJV is worse. It reads that Christ "with His own blood ... entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption." This gives support not only to a completed atonement on the Cross but also to the contention that Christ upon His ascension went directly into the Most Holy Place. It was quite ludicrous to hear a prominent "voice" among the historics railing on Ford, and then holding tenaciously to a translation of the Scriptures which sustains Ford's position.

On the other hand, the RSV reads:

He (Christ) entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but His own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

This translation can be sustained linguistically by Greek grammar. It is a case of the aorist (past tense) participle indicating "action identical with that of the main verb." (Nunn, A Short Syntax of NT Greek, #264)

Another observation on the use of translations is of interest. In 1901, the American Revised Version was published. In 1903 when the book, Education, was released, the footnotes of Scripture references reveal that some forty plus references from the new version were used, as well as one from Rotherham's translation.

It needs to be kept in mind that the KJV is a translation; the Old Testament from the Hebrew, the New Testament from the Greek. The Greek text from which the New Testament of the KJV was translated should be of the utmost concern. McGrath gives some background information on this text. He states:

Erasmus of Rotterdam produced a printed Greek text of the New Testament in 1516, which called into question some of the Latin translations found in the Vulgate. Erasmus was obliged to complete his Greek text on the basis of various manuscripts he was able to consult. None of these were especially ancient; Erasmus had to work on the basis of the criterion of accessibility. As far as we can ascertain, none of the half dozen manuscripts were earlier than the tenth century.

Erasmus's edition of the Greek text of the New Testament was revised over the next century. The Parisian printer Robert Estienne produced a number of editions based on Erasmus's text, as did the Genevan theological and biblical scholar Theodore Beza later. It is known that the King James translators made use of Beza's edition of the Greek text of the New Testament; it was, after all, the best edition of the text then available.

This particular version of the text has become known as the textus receptus, ("the received text"), not because of any "official" church judgment or decision, but simply because New Testament scholars based their work upon it (p. 241).

Since 1611, the date of the first edition of the KJV, there have been found manuscripts of the New Testament much closer in time to the autographs, than were available in 1611. The result, we have available a much more accurate Greek text than the translators of the KJV knew. However, McGrath is quick to point

Page 3

out:

It must be made clear immediately that this does not call into question the general reliability of the King James Bible. The issue concerns minor textual variations. Not a single teaching of the Christian faith is affected by these variations, nor is any major historical aspect of the gospel narratives of early Christianity affected. The important point is that, in general, the King James Bible was based on the textus receptus. Scholarly fashions have changed, and the Alexandrinus text - named after the Codex Alexandrinus - is now preferred within the scholarly community to the Byzantine text, which the textus receptus reflects. (p. 242)

You will observe that McGrath uses the word, "fashions" - "scholarly fashions." Fashion should not dictate in the reading or study of the Bible. The NIV may be the "in" thing, or the use of the NKJV so that one may not be looked upon as "old fashioned," yet as McGrath concludes:

"The King James Bible retains its place as a literary and religious classic, by which all others continue to be judged" (p.300)

I shall continue to use it as the version of first choice, and yet I will be open to any translation of a particular verse which expresses the thought intended by the Greek text more clearly.

Returning to the example we have used previously - Heb. 9:12 - we find that the text of the textus receptus is identical to the "fashionable" Greek text referred to by McGrath. The difference between the translations involves a point in Greek grammar. I, therefore, accept the translation which harmonizes best with the whole of the priestly ministry of Jesus Christ as revealed in Scripture.

However, there are exceptions. After writing as quoted above from page 242, McGrath states on the page following, "we may note a remarkable exception to the statement, made above" (p. 243). This involves I John 5:7-8, known as the Comma Johanneum. The KJV reads:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

The RSV reads:

And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth. There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree.

Commenting, McGrath states: "This however, is an exceptional case. In general, the variations between the textus receptus and the Codex Alexandrinus are interesting, but slight" (p. 244). How then did this major gloss get into the KJV? Note the following:

The passage as given in the KJV is in no Greek MS earlier than the 15th and 16th centuries. The disputed words found their way into the KJV by way of the Greek text of Erasmus. It is said that Erasmus offered to include the disputed words in his Greek Testament if he were shown even one Greek MS that contained them. A library in Dublin produced such a MS (known as 34), and Erasmus included the passage in his text. It is now believed that the latter editions of the Vulgate acquired the passage by the mistake of a scribe who included an exegetical marginal comment in the Bible text he was copying. The disputed words have been widely used in support of the doctrine of the Trinity, but in view of such overwhelming evidence against their authenticity, their support is valueless and should not be used. (SDA Bible Commentary, Vol.7, p. 675)

Where does this leave one in respect to the Bible he reads? It is true that the English of 1611 is not in many respects, the English of 2001. There have been changes in word meanings. For example, the word, "prevent" used in I Thess. 4:15, carried the meaning of the word, "precede," which we now use. The NKJV reflects that change in word meaning. This is a minor variation when compared with the NKJV for Hebrews 9:12 which we cited above. While there is still retained a questionable translation of the Greek from the KJV, the NKJV compounds the error in its translation of the verse.

What Bible should one read? For me the answer is simple - the KJV. If I find a problem, I can compare the verse in question with another version, or go to the Greek texts available. For those who have questions and are unable to consult a Greek text, help is available. The library of this Foundation is open to aid any serious student of the Word of God.

Erratum – WWN 8(01), page 6. In the final paragraph is an incorrect sentence in parenthesis. This should be eliminated.  We regret the mistake.  The editor failed to carefully recheck the article before it went to press.

Page 4

Not Exactly a New Concept
But Is It Valid?

While preparing this issue of WWN, the editor received a call from a young man in Maryland calling his attention to the Sabbath School lessons (then current) for the Third Quarter. The lesson which prompted the call was Lesson 11, "The Remnant." The premise of this lesson was that God has had "many remnants" during sacred history beginning with Noah, yet in each instance, the people who composed the remnant though not perfect, proclaimed present truth. The criterion for character was loyalty, not perfection. The question is asked, "How perfect does one have to be in order to be in the remnant?" The key text was given as Rev. 12:17, and applied to the Seventh-day Adventist Church. This application is not new, but has been standard Adventist teaching.

It is true that each "remnant" cited, from salvation history beginning with Noah, including the returned captives from the Babylon, and the new "Israel" composed of some who came from the nation which rejected Jesus Christ, were imperfect. The conclusion would appear to be validated that this same standard of imperfection would apply in the case of the final remnant. But the key text itself nullifies this conclusion. Revelation 12:17 reads that the warfare of "the dragon" is with "the remnant" which "keep [not "are trying to keep"] the commandments of God." And - there is a difference! Further, those who respond to the Three Angels' Messages of Revelation 14:6-10 - the basic present truth committed to the Seventh-day Adventist Church - are defined not only as keeping the commandments of God, but also as they who "keep ... the faith of Jesus" (14:12). Whatever is not of this faith which Jesus authored, is sin (Rom. 14:23); and it is this faith, and this faith alone which gives victory (I John 5:4). The question is simple: Does this faith provide an incomplete victory, or a complete victory? Further, the fact, that the final generation of mankind closes when the final atonement of Jesus' High Priestly mediation is completed, sets the last "remnant of her seed" in a different category than any previous "remnant"!

The lesson sets forth two premises:

1) Adventists may have the quiet confidence that we are a special people, entrusted by God with present truth to share with the world in these last days. Our basic identity is tied up with that understanding. If we ever lose that understanding, we'll lose our mission, message, and the purpose to exist as a separate entity. (p. 133, Teacher's Quarterly)

2) Being part of the remnant, however much a privilege, is no guarantee of salvation, as the history of the remnant church proves. Being among the remnant means only that you're a part of the corporate body that has been given great light and truth, "present truth." How we as individuals, respond to that light and truth is what will determine our ultimate destiny. (Box in Thursday's study)

Herein a lesson is missed. Though the historical data is given illustrating one of the "remnants" in salvation history - "The Remnant According to Grace" (Tuesday) - this remnant included Jews who to be a part of such a remnant had to separate from their previous "corporate" identity. This same factor involving the final "remnant" is avoided in the lesson. However, the gift of the spirit of prophecy is noted as a key characteristic of the final remnant. (Thursday section) In that gift is found this statement:

In the balances of the sanctuary the Seventh-day Adventist church is to be weighed. She will be judged by the privileges and advantages she has had. If her spiritual experience does not correspond to the advantages that Christ, at infinite cost, has bestowed upon her, if the blessings conferred have not qualified her to do the work entrusted to her, on her will be pronounced the sentence, "Found wanting." By the light bestowed, the opportunities given, will she be judged. (8T:247)

No one who has any knowledge of the history of the Church over the past five decades can deny that the Church corporately has met the conditions which would warrant the Divine sentence indicated. (Study carefully, "The Sacred Trust Betrayed." See Order Form.) Actually the Sabbath School lessons for the Third Quarter were deceptive. It has been a long time since various doctrines as appeared in the Quarterly had been studied in Sabbath School. This now leads to the perception that the deviations from truth that have marked the past five decades are no more. Yet statements by men speaking in official capacity, and a book published by direct General Conference authorization and control, denying some of the very teachings as set forth in the Quarterly, have not been repudiated.

#

Page 5

Do It Correctly
Eugene Lincoln

If you want to draw a single Muslim to your evangelistic meetings, don't call them Crusades. When talking of the Sabbath and Sunday, don't accuse the Catholics or Constantine - or anyone else, for that matter - of changing the Sabbath. The fact remains that no one has changed it. People in past times have tried to change it, however. The Lord would not, and humans cannot, change this weekly memorial. So the seventh day, commonly called Saturday, remains as the Sabbath.

When presenting the Sabbath, do not use a human-made seal to illustrate what a seal must contain: The person's name, his or her office, and the territory over which he or she exerts authority. The U.S. President's seal does not contain the name of the current president. The only wording on it is "SEAL OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES." Few seals contain all three elements. If you regard the Sabbath as God's seal, you can find more illustrations to prove your point.

Do not enter the discussion with an "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude. Pray for the right words to say. And remember that presenting the Sabbath, apart from the Messiah of the Sabbath, has no saving power.

+++++

God has given so much to me ... Give one thing more - a grateful heart.

George Herbert

 

 

WEBSITE

Adventistlaymen.com

E-MAIL
webmaster@adventistlaymen.com