|
INSPIRATION IN RETROSPECT By HERB EVANS, Ltt.D. 157 PATTIES PLACE PORTERSVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA 16051 E-Mail: herbevans@juno.com
Much water has passed under this bridge since a few men in the 50’s and sixties began to realize that there was a threat to the English Bible and began to warn the English speaking world. There was Edward Hills and his scholarly approach to the threat; then there was Dr. Peter S. Ruckman and his, "If you can’t join ‘em—whip ‘em!" approach, coupled with his Manuscript Evidence. Then there was J. J. Ray and his "Let’s compare the Modern Bibles with the KJB" approach. Then there was David Otis Fulle r and his kind, gentlemanly, Historical/Biographical approach. It would be incorrect to say that all of these men were KJO’s at that time, including yours truly, Herb Evans with his practical approach, using one’s Bible to prove one’s Bible in his infamous, snail mail debate exchange with Dr. John R. Rice, "Dear Dr. John, Where Is My Bible?" Herb Evans is still using that approach today even though Bible Correctors have become increasingly more militant, knowledgeable, and equally abominable and obnoxious. The practical approach continues to be effective, since Bible Correctors continue to have one serious liability, their inability to prove their views and position from the scripture itself. Bible correctors are forced to use everything BUT the Bible itself, whether History, Textual Criticism Books and rules, Hebrew/Greek Grammars, Lexicons, linguists, and whatever Professor Whatchamahamaczyz says. We have invited and challenged them to prove their views on inspiration and preservation from the scripture itself, and we cannot seem to get any takers. After all, don’t we prove everything else from the internal precepts of the oracles of God, from the virgin birth to the resurrection, why not this doctrinal issue as well?
Our KJO Detractors versus Scripture . . . thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. – Psa. 138:2 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words 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 for ever. – Isa. 59:21 Every word of God is pure . . . The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. –Psa. 12:6 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it. –Psa. 119:140 . . . the scripture cannot be broken . . . John 10:35 Before you can even begin to discuss the KJO position, you must first adopt God’s attitude toward His scriptures as well as His attitude towards His scripture’s attributes. Moreover you must have God’s attitude towards inspiration and preservation as found in the scriptures. Where do you find God’s view on these things? In history? In a Greek/Hebrew Grammar? In a seminary? In a book on textual criticism? Or do you find God’s views in the Bible itself? Where is the Verse? For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Heb. 4:12 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of FULL AGE, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to DISCERN both good and evil.—Heb. 5:14 We are constantly being challenged to prove our King James Only position by producing a verse in the KJB that says "Use only the inspired KJB!" These same folks cannot even produce a verse that proves there ever was an inspired Bible or an original Bible or in which language the Bible was first written. Can you really prove an original inspired Bible by an uninspired Bible? There must needs be an element of faith involved in either of these propositions, but it must be an element of faith that is based on evidence and substance, for faith is the evidence of things not seen and the substance of things hoped for. Of course, we cannot even begin to discuss the KJO position with folks who cannot grasp God’s view of the scriptures, the attributes of the scriptures, and God’s views of inspiration and preservation. There is no common ground for discussion without these things. Still, there are a few passages that folks need to be aware of upon choosing God’s book. You must first decide whether God has preserved an inspired Bible that is extant or whether God has preserved an uninspired Bible. Then the first requirement for choosing the inspired Bible that God has already chosen (if one exists) is that it must first be ALIVE and be able to discern your thought and intents. It must also be powerful and sharper than ANY two-edged sword. The next thing that is incumbent on you to choose the Book, which God has chosen, is for you to be of FULL AGE and to have your senses exercised to DISCERN both good and evil through use. God’s Book must be ALIVE and have God’s breath or Spirit in it, for His words are spirit, and they are life. Next, God’s people must be able to DISCERN between good and evil and good and evil bibles, abstaining even from the appearance of evil. Bible Correctors do not have a clue on these things, which is an impediment to anyone attempting to discuss these things with our Bible Corrector friends without a common ground. The New Breed of KJB Defenders But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the HOLY scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 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. –2 Tim 3:14-17 In recent times, a new breed of Quasi KJB Defenders has arisen, KJB defenders who are afraid to get out on the limb lest someone saw it off. These new "Johnny come lately" defenders, however, still want to remain in the KJB tree. The Bible For Today Group and their satellite association, The Dean Burgon Society have always resented calling the King James Bible "inspired," while allowing the extant Hebrew/Greek copies and the copies that Timothy had to be inspired. We had challenged Don Waite to tell us how it was that the Masoretic Text, which was invented by a bunch of unsaved Jewish Rabbins adding the Hebrew vowel points to the Hebrew, between the 8th and 12th century (depending on whom you read), and it still be the original text or even the original language. That was the end of that discussion. Nevertheless, some of the Dean Burgon members began to promote the high sounding theological term "derivative inspiration" and began to irritate the powers that be there. Now, everyone knows that there were the scripture Autographs, scripture copies, scripture copies from copies, and scripture translations. Supposedly all that this term "derivative" was saying was that the Autographs were derived from God, the copies were derived from the Autographs, copies were derived from copies, and the translations were derived from the copies. That seemed innocent enough in itself until you say that the Autographs were inspired by God, the copies were inspired by the Autographs, the copies were inspired from the copies, and the translations were inspired by the copies (4 kinds or degrees or qualities of inspiration). We would not have challenged this theological term if a mere differentiation between the four groups had been all there was to it. Well, to say the least, Bible Corrector Don Waite saw through this "derivative inspiration" ploy and insisted that the Dean Burgon members sign a paper denying "derivative inspiration." Some would not sign it nor deny "derivative" inspiration. Nevertheless, in the course of applauding David Cloud for his resignation from the Dean Burgon Society and his refusal to sign the paper, we had an occasion to discuss the issues with David Cloud as we did with Don Waite on the internet. David Cloud consented to the KJB being inspired but Don Waite refused. Both consented to the Hebrew/Greek copies as being inspired as well as the Autographs. David Cloud, who claims that the KJB is inspired (derivatively), however, dropped the bomb that anyone who taught that the King James Bible was "GIVEN BY INSPIRATION" was a "HERETIC." Immediately, if not sooner, we realized that the term "derivative" inspiration was not for us, realizing that the term was a mask for mental reservations and an opportunity to sit on the fence between the two camps. Although "derivative inspiration" aficionados deny it, they are advocating degrees of inspiration and/or differing scripture quality by placing adverbs or adjectives in front of the word, i.e., "directly" inspired scripture versus "derivatively" inspired scripture, "verbally" inspired scripture versus "plenary" inspired scripture, and etc. We attempted to pin David Cloud down as we had Don Waite, and like Don Waite, he promptly ended our discussion. The New Derivatives And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts . . . – 2 Pet. 1:18,19 What we possess in our hands is a more sure word of prophecy than the voice of God itself, because it is written down. We challenged a not so very well known KJB Defender (supposedly) to prove his "derivative inspiration" by the scriptures. After some wrangling, he chose 2 Tim 3:16 as his proof text. After more wrangling and agreeing that Timothy did not have the Original Autographs, this seminary president could not force the word or even the concept into his own proof text, for the passage said that ALL SCRIPTURE is given BY INSPIRATION of God, making the placing of adjectives or adverbs in front of the word "inspiration" totally unnecessary and even misleading by implying that there were degrees of inspiration or successive inspirations from the first one. Of course, the man denied that and reluctantly agreed that "inspiration" is "inspiration" is "inspira- tion," even though the tone of his other comments suggested otherwise. The new King James defender was unable to tell us how to tell which Greek and Hebrew was correct, when they differed from one another, except to give us his educated and knowledgeable pontification as well as some humanly invented rules of textual criticism. At one point, he heralded the Stephanus 1551 on his desk that he used to deal with Ruckmanites. He tried to bluff us by telling us that ". . . all the editions of Stephen’s 1551 NT are inspired," and although he acknowledged minor spelling errors in the TR texts, he claimed that there were no errors of fact in them, something even David Cloud does not or would not do. We reminded this new breed that in Romans 12:11 of the Stephanus 1551, it says "serving the TIME," while the King James Bible and other TR’s say, "serving the LORD." Certainly to us uneducated KJO’s that seemed like an error of fact, an inspired error of fact per this theologue’s views. We also reminded him that in James 2:18 in the Stephanus 1551 it says, "by thy works," whereas the King James Bible and other TR’s say "without thy works." We could have also cited 1 Tim. 1:4 in the Stephanus which has "dispensation of God," whereas other TR’s and the KJB have "godly edifying." So much for errors of fact in one thing or other. Now, David Cloud says that we should choose the Greek that matches the KJB in these cases. You know -- correct the Greek with the English. I thought only Dr. Peter Ruckman did that??? Well, the come back to all this is that Herb Evans does not know the difference between, verbal and plenary inspiration. Again, this is hiding behind theological modifiers to maintain one’s liberal, mental reservations. Unfortunately, the mental reservations that such theological terms and such adjectives / adverbs placed in front of inspiration afford one that uses them does not help defend the King James Bible but rather muddies the water and allows folks to sit on the fence and hold onto both camps, the KJO camp and the KJB Almost camp. KJO’s believe the Book by the Book — not by theology. ²
|
|
|
|