TWO ORIGINAL
GREEK MANUSCRIPTS?
HEBREWS NINE
AND SANCTUARY MESSAGE by Vance Ferrel
HEBREWS 9:
1-5
THE VEIL
TWO ORIGINAL GREEK
MANUSCRIPTS?
Revised
August 2002
Compiled by Julian Cano
Let us describe here an important history
of Bible manuscripts and translations:
"The twenty-seven books of the New
Testament were written in the second half of the first century
after Christ. Not one of the original writings is preserved.
However, early Christians carefully preserved copies of these
sacred writings, taking the greatest care to eliminate copyist
errors. Syria became the center of such copying endeavors.
Nevertheless, within a century of the writing
of the New Testament canon, serious alterations were made, especially
by scribes in the city of Alexandria in Egypt. These men were
motivated by a desire to support their Gnostic errors, which
included the view that Christ was not a member of the Godhead.
Once scribes tampered with Scripture they became increasingly
careless in their copying techniques, introducing numerous mistakes.
However, the scribes of Syria did not deviate from their meticulous
copying methods.
From these two copyist perspectives,
two quite different streams of
Greek manuscripts emerged. The eastern
stream, which became centered on Syria and Constantinople, remained
true to the original writings of the apostles, while the Western
stream, centered on Alexandria and Rome, was markedly flawed
by both deliberate and careless alterations.
Early in the fourth century, Emperor Constantine
commissioned Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, to prepare fifty copies
of the New Testament. Eusebius chose to copy the flawed
Western manuscripts, His decision was influenced
by his admiration of Origen, who himself was a corrupter of Holy
Writ.
It is thought that two of Eusebius' copies
survive in the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus.
These copies contained many errors, and during the sixth and the seventh centuries at least ten different scribes
attempted to make corrections to bring them somewhat closer
to the valid Eastern manuscripts. Despite this effort, deliberate
and careless errors remained in great
numbers.
Knowledge of the errors did not prevent
Jerome from using these faulty manuscripts as a basis for his
Latin version of the Bible. His translation became the official
Scripture of the Roman Catholic Church and is known as
Latin Vulgate. Disregarding all evidence to the contrary,
the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century proclaimed the
Latin Vulgate to be free from error.
But despite the great influence of the
Papacy, true Christians were not deceived. Believers such as
the Waldenses and the Gallic church of France and the Celtic
church of Britain refused such perversion of God's Word and used
only those translations arising from the Eastern stream. This
practice was also true of God's churches in Ethiopia, Persia,
India, and China." Modern
Bible Translations, Hartland Publications by Russel R. Standish
and Colin D. Standish © 1993, pg. 1-2:
Most people do not know that there are:
"two copyist perspectives, two quite different streams of
Greek manuscripts":
"The two competing Greek tests3 of
Scripture are typified by the Textus Receptus (Eastern
tradition) and the Codex Vaticanus (Western tradition). No translator
since early Reformation times has chosen these two forms of the
Greek Scripture in a vacuum. Each has made a deliberate decision
to choose one or the other. The translators who were chosen to
undertake this important task in the days of King James I
of England were well aware of the two basic manuscripts.
The Textus Receptus had a history extending back
to:
3'The apostolic churches and reappearing
at intervals down through the Christian era among enlightened
believers. [It] was protected by the wisdom and scholarship of
the pure church in her different phases; by such as the church
in Pella in Palestine where Christians fled, when in A.D. 70
the Romans destroyed Jerusalem; by the Syrian Church of Antioch
which produced eminent scholarship; by the Italic Church in northern
Italy; also at the same time by the Gallic Church in southern
France and the Celtic church in Great Britain; by the pre-Waldensian,
the Waldensian, and the churches of the Reformation.' Benjamin
George Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, p. 12, Washington,
1930.
This pedigree is impressive indeed, for
all these churches strove for purity of faith in an age of rampant
apostasy." Modern Bible Translations pg. 7.
"....William Tyndale in the
sixteenth century had access to uncorrupted Greek and Hebrew
manuscripts and it was from these that he prepared his English
translation. The Roman Catholic prelates condemned Tyndale's
work as willful perversion of the New Testament. His Bible
was consigned to the flames and he himself was burnt at the stake
in 1536 for daring to utilize Greek manuscripts uncorrupted by
deliberate alterations. So dear was the purity of God's Word
to Tyndale that life itself was less precious. We do well to
consider at what price the standard of purity of biblical manuscript
was preserved.
Tyndale's work was not extinguished by
the flames which consumed his body and his translation. It
lives on today in its worthy successor, the King James Version
of Scripture. Unfortunately, the tradition of the corrupted
manuscripts was not stayed by the success of the English Reformation.
It still survives in most modern translations. Indeed in 1986,
sales of one these versions, the New International Version, exceeded
that of the King James Version for the first time.
The great majority of Christians selecting
a modern version of Scripture do so, believing that they are
simply obtaining an authentic Bible translated in the English
language of today rather than that of the seventeenth century.
They would be astounded to learn that the most popular modern
versions have been translated from a different Greek manuscript
from that used in the King James Version.2 Few are aware that
from the earliest times, two Greek manuscripts have competed
for the right to be accepted as the original words written by
the apostolic authors." Modern Bible
Translations pg. 6.
2Among these are the Revised Standard Version, the American Standard
Version, the New International Version, Today's English Version,
the Jerusalem Bible, and the New English Bible"
....."One may inquire upon what evidence
we base the assertion that the Codex Vaticanus and the
Codex Sinaiticus are corrupted manuscripts. Since
much has made of the fact that each is a fourth-century document,
whereas the earliest Greek manuscripts utilized in the construction
of the Textus Receptus are dated a century later,
many, impressed by the antiquity of the two Codices, are unaware
that both are full of:
"Alterations of an obvious correctional
character---"brought in by at least ten different revisers,
some of them systematically spread over every page, others
occasional, all limited to separate portions of the MS, many
of these being contemporaneous, with the first writer, but for
the greater part belonging to the sixth or seventh century."
Dr. Scrivener, quoted in David Otis Fuller, True or False, p. 75.
Thus many of the corrections postdate the earliest
manuscripts used in the Textus Receptus by one or two hundred years. The very fact
that it required so many corrections is proof beyond dispute
that it was regarded as impure. Indeed, the Codex Sinaiticus
would have been even more corrupted had it not been for the thoroughgoing
revision which Dr. Scrivener believed took place in the:
"6th or 7th century [in order] to
conform to manuscripts in vogue at that time which were "far
nearer to our modern Textus Receptus." Ibid.
Unlike scribes in the East, there is clear
evidence that those scribes who undertook the copying resulting
the Codex Sinaiticus were utterly incompetent." Modern
Bible Translations Unmasked pg. 19.
In reference to our particular point of study (Hebrews 9), when
studying several bible versions, it can also be seen that most,
almost all of them, agree in the definition given by
the author of the book Hebrews chapter 9, verses 1-3 (see
Table 1 on some Bible Versions comparison in Spanish and English):
In Hebrews 9:1,
Paul used the Greek word "hagion" meaning the
entire 2-apartment sanctuary.
In Hebrews 9:2 Paul
used the Greek word "Hagia" meaning the Holy
Place.
In Hebrews 9:3,
Paul used the Greek word, "hagia hagion",
meaning the "Most Holy" or "Holy of Holies"
or" Holiest"
However, when many translators find these
words in Hebrews chapter nine and ten, instead of using them
as Paul defined their use, (In Heb. 9:1-3), they instead translated
them inconsistently with its original author.
The New American Standard Hebrew-Greek
Key Study Bible, 1977, translated these words (Hagion, Hagia
& Hagia-Hagion), exactly as Paul defined their use throughout
the entire book.
Many people have been trying to prove that
Jesus
did not enter the Most Holy Place in 1844, but in AD 31. Others,
that Jesus entered the Most Holy Place in AD 1844 not in AD 31.
From our study of the Bible, it is clear that Jesus DID NOT
entered the Most Holy Place in AD 31. He entered the Holy
Place (Hagia) at that time.
One thing is very clear from accurate bible
truth: The original Greek as used by the original author
of the Book of Hebrews, chapter 9 states that Jesus went
into the "Hagia" or Holy Place
after the resurrection (that is AD 31!) and not into the Most
Holy place as many of the modern Bible translations state. Thus,
is a plain bible truth that Jesus entered the sanctuary in heaven
in the first apartment (Holy place) as many accurate Bible versions
also document.
When one looks at some concordances like
the Strong's for example, we find that the word "hagia"
can mean either holy or most holy. Keep in mind however, that
is not Strong's Concordance or any other concordance that defines
how a particular word is used in the Bible. It is the original
Bible authors or writers of the Bible that determine how the
words they wrote are to be used and what meaning they gave to
them. Let us always use the first and most important biblical
interpretation principle:
Let the
Word of God be its own
interpreter!
You must use however, the right Bible. It is important to understand
that it is impossible for any translation to be a perfect
reproduction of the original writings. Not one of the original
writings of the New Testament is preserved, but as was stated
earlier:
"Christians carefully preserved copies " of these
original sacred writings, "taking the greatest care to
eliminate copyist errors". However, "two copyist
perspectives, two quite different streams of Greek manuscripts
emerged. The Eastern stream, which became centered on Syria and
Constantinople, remained true to the original writings of the
apostles, while the Western stream, centered on Alexandria and Rome,
was markedly flawed by both deliberate and careless
alterations"
These alterations are found in
the Codex Vaticanus and Codex
Sinaiticus. The Latin Vulgate has its origins in these faulty
manuscripts. This translation became the official Scripture of the
Roman Catholic Church. This is why is so important to know on what
manuscripts are the Bibles translations based. It will make a great
deal of difference.
It is possible to discern the
original writings with great accuracy when one takes into account
from what Greek manuscript perspective is the Bible translation. God
has preserved His Word both in the Old and New Testaments. This
cannot be doubted. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls put doubts
to rest.
The sincere Bible student must
also take in to account the fact that accuracy may be sacrificed depending on the method used to
translate the Bible. According to Philip W. Comfort, Ph.D, "in
the simplest of terms, there are two basic methods:
"The first is
called formal equivalence (or word-for-word); the second is
called functional equivalence (or thought-for-thought). In
doing formal-equivalence translation, the translator attempts to
retain as much of the specific wording of the original languages
(Hebrew or Greek) as possible when rendering a sentence into the
language he or she is working with (in our case, English). In doing
a functional-equivalent translation, the translator tries to convey
the thoughts of the original languages into the closes natural
equivalent in English. This approach places a greater emphasis upon
meaning and style than a word-for-word approach does when rendering
a sentence in English....not one English translation is either
completely word-for-word or completely thought-for-thought.
Translation are usually a mixture, with tendencies toward one method
or the other.
Most of the older English
translations tended to be literal (word-for-word) translations of
the original languages. Some modern translations have continued this
trend toward literalness. Some of the these translators have
preferred the literal approach to guard against misrepresenting the
text in an attempt to make it more clear."
Quicknotes-English Bible Versions, pg.2. Philip W. Comfort, Ph,D. Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. Wheaton
Illinois-Copyright 2000).
If you use a
"Thought-for-Thought" Bible such as the New International
Version (NIV), there is "constant danger" of misrepresenting the text
in an attempt to make it more clear:
"This is a constant
danger of thought-for-thought translations, because the more freedom
a translator is given in rendering a phrase, the more subjective the
process becomes. The thought-for-thought translator must try, in a
sense, to enter into the mind of the author. And who can always know
with certainty what the author's original intended meaning was? For
this reason, a thought-for-thought- translation is usually done with
the cooperation of a large group of Bible scholars." Quicknotes-English Bible Versions,
pg.2-3. Philip W. Comfort, Ph,D. Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. Wheaton
Illinois-Copyright 2000).
A Paraphrase Bible use
different words than the author used. This makes this type of Bible
highly interpretive giving the reader the possibility of misunderstanding
the original writer and therefore coming to wrong conclusions or
interpretations. A Bible which has been translated literally but
with freedom to be Idiomatic such as the New Revised Standard
Version (NASV) has its shortcomings also. This translation
follows the current trend of translators in eliminating
"sexist" language:
"Perhaps the most notable
feature of the NRSV is its attention to gender-inclusive language.
While respecting historicity of the ancient texts, the NRSV
translators attempted to make this new revision more palpable to
modern readers by avoiding unnecessary masculine rendering wherever
possible. For example, in the New Testament Epistles, the believers
are referred to as adelphoi, which is traditionally rendered
"brothers", yet it is clear that these epistles were
addressed to all the believers both male and female. Thus, the
NRSV translators have use such phrases as "brothers" and
"sisters" or "friends" (always with a footnote
saying "Greek, brothers") in order to represent the
historical situation while remaining sensitive to modern
readers.
Metzger and the other
translators tried to be careful, however, not to overemphasize the
gender-inclusive principle. Some readers had been hoping for a more
radical revision regarding gender-inclusiveness, including changing
such phrases as
God our Father" to "God our parent." But the NRSV
revisers decided against this approach, considering it an inaccurate
reflection of the original text's intended meaning." Quicknotes-English Bible Versions,
pg.40.
Philip W. Comfort, Ph,D. Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. Wheaton
Illinois-Copyright 2000).
However careful, the
gender-inclusive principle used in this translation did produce
changes in original text's intended meaning.
"It
seems difficult for men and women today to comprehend the nature of
the English Language. Many do not understand that some
"masculine" words depend upon context for meaning. In some
contexts they are exclusive in their reference to those of the male
sex. There is nothing degrading to either men or women in this
linguistic arrangement. Many other other English words have
more than one meaning, and it causes no offense. Let us take the
word house as an example. Manifestly, it means an inanimate
structure in the context "He built a brick house." But in
the context, "Queen Elizabeth II belongs to the House of
Windsor," the same words refers to her family. Yet no one
asserts that it degrades the humanity of the Queen's family to use a
word which is also used for an inanimate object" Modern
Bible Translations pg. 144. Russell and Colin Standish-Hartland
Publications
"The biggest problem with
the New Revised Standard Version's gender-inclusive language,
however, is that is not what is found in the original language
manuscripts. The fact that the words God inspired are
masculine-language cannot be escaped; nor can the idea that, if not
for the women's movement in the 1970s and the resultant desire of
women to abandon their God-given positions in life, there would be
no argument for gender-inclusive language in the Scriptures. The
questions arises: Must God's word be changed to adapt to culture?
And if so, how far will those changes go?." G.W.
and D.E. Anderson, "The New
Revised Standard Version," Trinitarian Bible Society Quarterly
Record, Jan-Mar, 1991, 17
Furthermore, "As with
most modern translations in the scholars' desire to improve the
previous translation the end result produces more than it solves.
This is very true of the New Revised Standard Version. Although it
is more readable than the New American Standard version, and more
accurate than the New International Version, it still falls short of
what makes a translation great, long-lasting, and God-honoring. Thus
we cannot recommend this translation for those Christian people who
desire to understand God's Word." G.W.
and D.E. Anderson, "The New
Revised Standard Version," Trinitarian Bible Society Quarterly
Record, Jan-Mar, 1991, 21.
"A matter of more concern is the use
of Apocryphal statements within the text of the canon of Scripture.
It occurs in the book of Ezra, and in one instance in the book of
Nehemiah, where readings from the first book of Esdras in the
Apocrypha are inserted. Thus on the basis of 1 Esdras 9:2, Ezra 10:6
is altered:
and when
he came thither...Ezra 10:6 KJV
where he spent the night...Ezra 10:6 NRSV
and in Ezra
2:70 is added
lived in Jerusalem and its vicinity. Ezra 2:70,
NSRV
On the basis of these words 1 Esdras 5:46.
Thus by subtle means, the noncanonical books of the Apocrypha are
entering the Holy Scriptures. Perhaps the most serious shortcoming
of the new version is that some changes have been made purely upon
the conjectures of the translators without support of a single
example of manuscript evidence.
Occasionally it is evident
that the text has suffered in transmission and that none of the
versions provides a satisfactory restoration. Here we can only
follow the best judgment of competent scholars as to the most
probable reconstruction of the original text. Bruce
Metzger, op. cit., xii
On this basis Christ's eternity---from
everlasting----is altered to
from
ancient days...Micah: 5:2, NRSV
along with other unwarranted interference
in Holy Writ.
We shall add little further concerning the
New Testament, for the New Revised Standard Version follows most of
the basic mistakes already cited concerning other modern
translations. Suffice to say that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox,
and Jewish scholars were included with Protestant translators in the
work of translation. That they have produced such a faulted result
is cause for no surprise.
Nor is there surprise that the New
Testament translation is based upon the Greek text of the United
Bible Societies, Third Edition Corrected. In Latin America, it is a
translation based upon this text which the Roman Catholic Church
sees as stemming the tide of Protestant advance....It cannot be
recommended for serious Bible Study." Modern
Bible Translations Unmasked pg. 146-147.
We must remember that the NRSV is a
revision of the Revised Standard Version (RSV). Of the RSV we should
know that:
"The new Testament translators generally followed
the seventeenth edition of the Greek text by Eberhard Nestle (1941),
while the Old Testament translators followed the Masoretic Text.
Both groups, however adopted readings from other ancient sources
whey they were considered to be more accurate....There were other
significant revisions. The story of the woman caught in adultery
(John 7:52-8:11) was not included in the text but in the margin
because none of the early manuscripts contain this story, and the
ending of Mark (16:9-20) was not included in the text because is is
not found in two very early manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus and
Codex Sinaiticus....This revision [NRSV] was well received by
many Protestant churches and coon became their "standard"
text. The Revised Standard Version was later published with the
Apocrypha of the Old Testament (1957), in a Catholic Edition (1965),
and in what is called the Common Bible, which includes the
Old Testament, the New Testament and the Apocrypha, with
international endorsements by Protestants,
Greek Orthodox, and Roman Catholics.
Evangelical and fundamental Christians, however, did not receive the
Revised Standard Version very well--primarily because of one verse,
Isaiah 7:14, which reads. "Therefore the Lord himself will give
you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a
son, and shall name him Immanuel." Evangelicals and
fundamentalist contend that the text should read "virgin"
not "young woman." As a result the Revised Standard
Version was panned if not banned, by many evangelical and
fundamental Christians." Quicknotes-English Bible Versions,
pg.26-27. Philip W. Comfort, Ph,D. Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. Wheaton
Illinois-Copyright 2000).
Today, people must know why
there are so many translations of the English Bible and which Bible
is best. The term 'best' however, must be defined. Do we want the
'best' Bible in terms of accuracy or do we want the 'best' Bible in
terms of readability. We also must know how each of these Bible
have been translated. No bible translation is perfect, but we
must know which Greek manuscripts were used. Also, as was stated
earlier, most of the older English translations tended to be literal
(word-for-word) translations of the original languages. This also
very important. Since literal translations make great study Bibles.
Accuracy is not sacrificed for readability.
In the study of the books of Daniel and
Revelation, the book of Hebrews or any other book of the Bible, one
may come to the wrong interpretation and conclusions depending on
the Bible Version being used. For example to one reader or Bible
student using the NRSV, he/she may think that the Hebrew word "nitsdaq"
does not mean "cleansed" thinking that NRSV accurately
reflects the Hebrew text. He/she may even think that the KJV is
inaccurate in its translation.
After years of studying and
research I found that we do not need to use Daniel 8:14 to determine
where Jesus went to heaven after his resurrection in A.D. 31, or to
base a particular Bible doctrine in one verse, chapter or one or two
books of the Bible. Our study on Hebrews 9 does not include a study
on Daniel 8:14, because it is not needed to prove the Biblical fact
that Jesus entered the Holy Place in AD 31 as opposed to the Most
Holy Place in Heaven. This study is essential because many
evangelical Christians like Walter Martin and many within the
Seventh Day Adventist Church such as Raymond Cottrell and others
based much of their arguments against the 2300 day prophecy based on
their "facts" on the NRSV or NIV and/or the assumption
like in the case of Walter Martin that if "Jesus at the resurrection went into the second
apartment of the heavenly sanctuary in heaven itself, with
his own blood and obtained eternal redemption for us, then there is
no 1844 investigative judgment. It is a myth..."
Our study of Hebrews 9 does
not consider all the issues that are also important on this matter.
One can not assume anything in either side of the arguments.
However, we must know and study all arguments to be objective. We
must also the foundations on which those arguments are based. I
stated earlier and I say it again. It is not just that simple. Let
us all study with an open mind. But let us all be truthful the Word
of God, the real World of God , not a corrupted "word of
God". The essential truths are found in the Bible from
beginning to end. From Genesis to Revelation. The sincere Bible
student will not miss it, for the promise of Holy Spirit
guiding us into the whole truth is a reality. When one studies the Scriptures, it becomes very obvious that God in his infinite wisdom
gave us all the truths that are essential to salvation. Furthermore, all the truths that are essential
for the last generation of living saints have been preserved for us
from Genesis to Revelation. We must not forget this. There is a
chain of Bible truth. The answer to a particular question is
found throughout the Bible not just in one passage here and there.
The Word of God does not contradict itself. It interprets itself.
Which Bible version are we to
trust? This is a questions we must all ask today. This is why is so
important to understand and study how and why we now have
"modern" translations of the Bible. This of course is also
important for those who are studying in other languages such as
Spanish, etc.
It is important, in fact, essential to
understand that modern Bible translations such as the NIV, NRSV,
etc., are supposedly "more accurate" because of the used
of older manuscripts. However, some of the manuscripts such as the Codex
Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are not to be trusted. As cited
earlier these manuscripts are full of "alterations of an
obvious correctional character." Dr. Scrivener describes
these corrections: "brought in by at least ten different
revisers, some of them systematically spread over every page, others
occasional, all limited to separate portions of the MS, many of
these being contemporaneous, with the first writer, but for the greater
part belonging to the sixth or seventh century."
Quoted in David Otis Fuller, True or False, p. 75.
Being older, these manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex
Vaticanus) are not more accurate, particularly in the light of the
many corrections that postdate the earliest manuscripts used in
textus Receptus (in which the KJV is based) by one or two hundred
years.
David Otis Fuller said: (a message recorded
on audio cassette in the 1970s. written on www.nisbett.com/versions/bible04.htm
)
: "...in 1881, the Revised Version
of the Scriptures was published. Brook Foss Westcott, late
Bishop of Durham, and Fenton John Anthony Hort, were both
professors at Cambridge University, and without question were two of
the most brilliant and erudite scholars of their day, and to this
day, nearly a century later. They command the attention and
admiration of textual critics, both liberal and conservative. The
two together had been working for twenty years on a Greek text of
the New Testament. Around 1870 there was a demand made for another
version of the Scriptures. Westcott and Hort spearheaded this
demand and influenced many scholars and theologians to form a
committee for a revised version which appeared in 1881.
The Westcott and Hort
text was based upon two of the oldest manuscripts extant, Codex
Aleph and Codex Vaticanus. One was found in the wastepaper basket by
the great scholar Tischendorf on Mt. Sinai. The other was found in
an out of the way place in the Vatican museum with dust over it. The
former was discovered around 1859; the later some centuries before
that; I believe in the thirteenth century or thereabouts.
These manuscripts are two of the
worse in existence. They are filled with contradictions and errors,
and they contradict each other. In the Vatican manuscript
all of Revelation is missing, as well as all the Pastoral Epistles
of Paul, and from the ninth to the thirteenth chapter of
Hebrews. They just aren’t there. So it was quite a
mutilated manuscript. But because they were the oldest, going
back to the fourth century, there were those scholars that almost
revered them and made much of the fact of these two manuscripts. The
theory was that the oldest manuscript was nearest to the original
autographs written by the Apostles and others
But it so happens that
this is not the case. The oldest manuscripts have proven to be the
worst, because in the early days of Christianity a war was raging
between Athanasius and Arius concerning the deity of the Lord Jesus
Christ. We cannot thank God enough that Athanasius won, even though
he was banished five times by the emperor, because he was so
tenacious and would not let this matter go. And when some of his
friends came to him and said, "Athanasius, the world is against
you," he drew himself up and uttered those famous words, "Athanasius
is against the world."
Arius and his followers
were unitarian, and it is clear that many manuscripts in those days
were corrupted doctrinally. [Further, the true manuscripts were used
and reused to such an extent that they wore out. The very fact that
the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus exist in excellent condition is
evidence that they were rejected and not used.]
Both ideas, evolution
and that of the Westcott and Hort theory, have no foundation
whatever. They are made up of cobwebs, yet the Westcott and Hort
Greek text was founded squarely upon these two manuscripts, with a
few others, but in the main Codex Aleph and Codex Vaticanus were the
ones that they relied upon the most.
Now this statement will
make some of you who listen upset, but I’m going to make it
anyway. You and I at the present time are witnessing the most
vicious and malicious attack ever made upon the Word of God since
the Garden of Eden. And this modern attack began in 1881 with the
publication of the Revised Version.
In the ten years that it
took the committee in the Jerusalem Chamber in England to produce
this Revised Version, Westcott and Hort domineered, engineered, and
dominated the whole committee from beginning to end. They issued
their Greek text, which had not yet been released for publication,
to all of the members and swore them to secrecy that they would not
tell anyone what they had done until after the Revised Version was
published. And if it had not been for Prebendary Scrivener, who
was a scholar as great as Westcott and Hort and who fought tooth and
nail against many of the things Westcott and Hort were
constantly seeking to insert into the Revised Version from their two
oldest texts, we would have had a far worse version of the Bible in
the RV than we do now.
The vast majority of the
people are confused, and you can’t blame them, with a hundred
versions of the Scriptures now extant [in English]. Some of them are
good versions, but for the most part they are perversions, vagrant
versions, and in some cases, plain bastard Bibles. If you, my
friend, think that such a term is too harsh, then will you please
let me turn to the read the King James Version in Psalm
22:16--"...they pierced my Lord and Saviour, is it not? But
what does the NEB say? It says, "... they hacked off my hands
and my feet." That is blasphemy and comes straight from the pit
of hell, and I don’t care who knows it.
Satan has from the very
beginning hated two objects more than anything else in this world
and universe. One is the Bible, the holy, infallible, inerrant,
inspired Word of God, and the second is Jesus Christ, the eternal
Son of God. God has spoken once and for all in His Word, and He says
in Proverbs 30:5, "Every word of God is pure." In Psalm
138:2, "Thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."
And in Exodus 34:14 we read these words concerning God Himself:
"For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name
is Jealous, is a jealous God."
When our Lord Jesus
Christ was on earth, the Father’s voice was heard from heaven, and
it said in the plainest of terms, "This is my beloved Son, in
whom I am well pleased; hear ye him." And what He has said
about His Son, He also can and does say about His holy Word. When
our Lord Jesus was in the wilderness, being attacked for forty days
by Satan, our Lord used the Old Testament, God’s holy Word,
exclusively when meeting the attacks of Satan. That is exactly what
we should do today. If we have a Bible riddled with errors, how in
the world can we use it as our final authority? If all versions
today have errors in them, including the KJV, then where is the
doctrine of inerrancy gone?
INERRANCY WITHOUT
PRESERVATION IS SENSELESS
But someone replies, We
believe in the inerrancy of the original manuscripts. All right, I
agree with you there. But then we ask the question, and it’s a
good one, too: Was God careless? Or didn’t He realize that these
errors were creeping in? Or was He impotent that He could not keep
His Word even if He wanted to? Look out yonder into space, will you
please? Listen to some of the Christian astronomers and scientists
who study the stars and all the planets and constellations there in
outer space, and they will tell you that God has so created them in
such a meticulous fashion that they obey all the laws that He has
laid down for His whole vast creation. If God is that careful to
keep His universe, do you think He is going to be careless about His
sacred, holy Word upon which hangs the destiny of the souls of men,
whether for heaven or hell? You know good and well He could not
possibly be careless about such a wonderful Book. But if you want to
go ahead and believe in a God who has just let his book go and
become filled with errors through the mistakes of men, you go ahead,
but please count me out as of now.
I gave an illustration
of how men are tampering with the Word of God in the New English
Bible over against the KJV. Now let me give you another one. In the
New American Standard Version, which has been heralded and
advertised as the nearest to the originals, we find that in sixteen
different places the name of Christ is left out of His title, and in
twelve different places the name of the Lord is left out.
We are facing a
gigantic, titanic battle that is raging all around us, and my prayer
is that the sleeping, snoring, satisfied Christians will become
aroused to the need of taking their stand for God’s holy Word.
There are two books we
have had the privilege of publishing, together over 600 pages,
giving definite, positive proof, documented fully, that the King
James Version is the nearest to the original autographs. They are
entitled Which Bible and True Or False, and can be secured for
[$9.00 each post-paid from Way of Life Literature]. We are not
making any money out of the royalties. I have ordered the publisher
to make out the last two royalty checks to the Wealthy Street
Baptist Church, and we are using the funds for the purpose of giving
them to missionaries and ministers who cannot afford them, so they
may have something solid to sink their teeth in and to stand upon
when these so-called intellectual critics begin to expound from
their ivory towers and look down their long noses at those who
refuse to go along with them in their pernicious errors.
I just received recently
a letter from a good friend of mine I have known for years. He’s
one of the best Bible teachers in this country, and if I mentioned
his name I know that many of you would know who he was immediately.
This is what he says:
"If I knew how to
repent in sackcloth and ashes, I would begin immediately for the
unpardonable delay in acknowledging receipt of two of the most
helpful and timely volumes I have ever owned. [He is referring to
Which Bible and True Or False.] I have carried these titles with me
all summer and immersed myself in them. I have never underscored
books so much as I have done in these. They enhanced my appreciation
of the King James Version as the true revelation of God as no other
writings. I appreciate so much your sending them to me. As a member
of the editorial committee in the production of the Amplified New
Testament, we honestly and conscientiously felt it was a mark of
intelligence to follow Westcott and Hort. Now, what you have in
these books strikes terror to my heart. It proves alarmingly that
being conscientiously wrong is a most dangerous state of being. God
help us to be more cautious lest we fall into the snare of the
archdeceiver." Davis Otis Fuller.
WHAT IS RIGHT WITH THE KJV?
Davis Otis Fuller.
"Now let’s ask another question. What
is right with the King James Version? I believe with all my heart
that there was a time in the early church when God blessed certain
men to choose the twenty-seven books which comprise our New
Testament, and in this order we have them now. The proof for that is
in the Bible. There they are. Twenty-seven books in that particular
order. Just so, I believe God was very definitely in the choosing of
the forty-seven scholars who came together at the command of King
James I around 1605 to produce a new version of the Bible. We are
bold enough to say that we don’t believe there was ever such a
collection of great, I mean truly great, scholars as these who were
so chosen.
For instance, there was John Boys. What a
scholar he was! At the age of five years old, he could read the
Bible in Hebrew, and at the age of fourteen he was a proficient
Greek scholar. And for years he spent from four o’clock in the
morning until eight o’clock at night at the Cambridge library
studying languages. You see, friend, listen, he was nor cursed with
television, or telephone, or radio. He had time to think, and to
meditate, and to study. He wasn’t flitting from this Bible
conference to another one, and being "oh’d" and "ah’d"
at by an adoring crowd.
Another was Lancelot Andrewes, who was the
overall chairman of the committee. He was the greatest linguist of
his day. He knew, was familiar with, and spoke nearly twenty
languages, including Arabic, Hebrew, and many others. He spent five
hours a day in prayer.
Not only Lancelot Andrewes and John Boys, but
practically all the other men chosen for this monumental work of the
King James Version were men of note throughout, not only in their
own country, but in other countries as well.
You see, God knows what he is doing. He always
does, and He chose that particular time and age when the English
language was at its zenith, to use these men for that purpose.
Something else of note should be mentioned
here, too. I am sure some of you who hear this message know of
William Tyndale. He was one of the greatest of scholars. He was the
one who said the time will come when every plough boy in England
will be able to read the Bible. William Tyndale was at home in eight
languages. He translated all of the New Testament and some parts of
the Old Testament. He did such a tremendous job that the King James
translators kept well over sixty percent of his translation intact,
just as it was, to be used in the King James translation. William
Tyndale was hounded like a wild animal by those who hated him and
wanted him burned at the stake. Finally King Henry VII, through one
of his stooges, caused Tyndale to be betrayed. He was thrown in
prison, and finally at Vilvord, just outside of Brussels, Belgium,
he was strangled to death by order of the king, and then his body
was burned. Now, the last thing he said before he died, was this:
"Oh, God, open the eyes of the king of England!" And do
you know what? God answered that prayer in less than a year, when
all of England had the Bible in the English language. It has been my
privilege to stand there at that small monument that was erected
some years after in Tyndale’s memory.
Another thing we need to note also is that
practically every one of the committee of the revisers of the King
James Version had been through suffering of one kind or another.
Either they themselves had been apprehended and put in jail, or
loved ones of theirs had the same thing done to them. Now such men
had deep convictions and also a holy reverence for the Word of God
which you don’t find in modern-day scholars. Many scholars of many
versions this day, such as the Revised Standard Version, or the New
English Bible, or the Good News for Modern Man, and many others, do
not believe that the Bible should be approached in any different way
from any other book. They refuse to accept it as the infallible,
inerrant, inspired Word of God, and Westcott and Hort believed this
same thing. Nowhere can you find in their writings a statement that
they believed in the verbally, inspired Word of God.
Now let me say here before I go any further, I
have never claimed to be a scholar. I do not claim to be one now,
and I never expect to claim to be one. But there are two very
definite claims that I make without hesitation, or trepidation, or
reservation. One is I claim to have studied under some of the
greatest scholars this country has ever produced, if not the world.
It was my privilege to be a student at Princeton Seminary and to
graduate from that institution just before the flood. I mean by that
before the flood of modernism. Today Princeton is modernistic in
every sense of the world, but not then. There were giants in the
earth in those days. Consider Robert Dick Wilson. He was one of the
greatest linguists this country has ever seen. He was at home in,
and knew, and spoke forty-five languages and dialects. He was a
contemporary of the great scholar of Oxford, England, Dr. Driver,
who claimed that the book of Daniel was wrong because of certain
statements or phrases in it. Dr. Wilson spent years going through
some 50,000 manuscripts to prove that Driver was wrong and that
Daniel was right.
A second claim is that I can tell a true
Christian scholar when I hear him, or read his works, or talk with
him. By Christian I mean one who holds to and reverences the Word of
God as being The Word of God, and as being different from any other
book that has ever been published because it is the only book that
God ever wrote.
And the men of Princeton in my day believed
just that. When we went out of their classes, we were strengthened
in our faith concerning the Word of God to be just what it is. Today
they tear it down, criticize it, emasculate it, make fun of it. May
God help such men when they stand before a holy God...." Davis
Otis Fuller
ERASMUS
"Some of you have heard the name
Desiderius Erasmus. He was born in 1466 and died in 1536. He was
known as a Renaissance humanist, born in Rotterdam, Holland,
educated by the Brethren of the Common Life. He entered an
Augustinian monastery; he was ordained a priest in 1492 and became
secretary to the Bishop of Cambrai. Later, after studying four years
of theology at the Sorbonne in Paris, he became disgusted with the
decadent scholasticism. In 1499 he went to England where he became
friends with John Colet and Thomas More. It was Colet that revealed
to him his true vocation, the rejuvenation of theology by basing it
on scientific, accurate documents, especially the Greek originals of
the New Testament and the earliest fathers of the church.
Erasmus could do the work of ten men. He was
that brilliant. And such an indefatigable worker. He was courted by
kings. The reigning king of England offered him anything in his
realm if he would become a citizen of that nation. The king of
France did the same thing. Holland made great preparations to
advertise him as their own native son.
He refused to take sides when the Reformation
storm broke with Luther’s 95 Theses, but I honestly believe that
Erasmus was saved. He held in the deepest reverence the Word of God.
We are told that he had access to Codex Vaticanus and was offered it
to be used in his studies. He rejected it because he had found it
untrustworthy. He was offered the cardinal’s hat by the pope of
Rome. This he refused. It is also said that he could have become
pope if he had engineered it in the right way and pulled the right
strings, but he refused to do this because in his famous book, In
Praise of Folly, in a very satirical way he exposed the terrible
sins of the Roman Catholic Church of that day.
Erasmus was responsible for the Textus
Receptus, or the Received Text, that Greek text upon which the King
James Version is founded. He made five editions of it, we are told,
and in each one he made small changes that enhanced the meaning of
certain phrases, or verses. Then the Elzevir brothers brought out
several editions of it, and so did Stephens, and Beza, the successor
of Calvin, who brought out nine editions. All in all there were some
twenty-one editions of the Textus Receptus from Erasmus through Beza,
but from the first edition to the last there were no major changes,
but merely minor ones, which is another proof of the way in which
God kept His Word all through the ages.
As I have said before so say I now again,
there are those people who tell us today that there is no version of
the Scripture that is without error. Very well, then, where does the
doctrine of inerrancy go if there are errors in the Bible? They come
back with that statement, Well, we believe that the original
autographs were inspired, but not those copies of them.
We agree that the originals were inspired, but
my question is simply this:
If God wrote this Book in the beginning,
wasn’t He able to keep it intact and pure and without error all
through the ages? My answer to that is that He certainly was and He
still is so capable. I would remind you again that God is jealous
for His Word, just as much as He is jealous for His blessed Son,
Jesus Christ.
If someone says to you that all manuscripts
and all versions today have errors in them, then ask them in return
what kind of a God they worship. A careless or impotent God in my
book is a monstrosity. I believe that the King James Version does
not have any errors.
Please remember this. You and I are facing, as
I have said before, the most vicious and malicious attack upon the
Word of God that has ever been made since the garden of Eden, and
the modern attack began with the publication of the Revised Version
of 1881. This is an unpopular cause at present in Christian circles.
I have found this out again and again, and I am going to find it out
in the future. But I can say as far as I am concerned it doesn’t
make any difference what happens to me, but it makes a whale of a
difference what happens to the cause of Jesus Christ. And someday
you and I, my friend, will have to stand before a holy God and give
an account to what we did or did not do in seeking to open the eyes
of people to the facts that have been covered up for so long
concerning His holy, indestructible, impregnable Word.
The hour is late; the time is short; hell is
filling; Christ is coming; and what do we had better do in a hurry.
I have told my people, and I am telling you, if you are willing to
sweep the television cobwebs out of your brain and put that boob
tube down in the basement two, three, or four weeks, or even longer,
as far as I am concerned, and sit down and study these books and
other material, you will learn firsthand just what the score is. And
it will increase your faith immeasurably, even as it has done mine.
I give all the credit to God Himself for
having these books published. The material that we have collected
for these books, I want to be frank with you, I marvel again and
again at how God led me to this source, and to that source, and
helped me to put it together. I don’t want to take one bit of
credit for this. I want to give God all of the glory and the honour,
and I am hoping that those who are listening will get the vision of
this whole situation, because if we do not have an infallible,
inerrant, inspired Book to rest our weary souls upon for time and
eternity, then your salvation and mine isn’t worth the paper
it’s printed on.
This is the most important question anybody
could ever discuss in Christian circles, far more than your
salvation and mine. The reason for that is that the battleground is
the Bible. Is it true, or is it not true? Is it without error, or is
it filled with error? I maintain that the whole reason why there are
nearly one hundred versions in print is because of one main reason:
MONEY. And you can spell that with capitals, and you can underscore
it, and put it in red, if you want to. May God help us! May God help
you listening now to take your stand for what you know is right, and
not budge or move for one single minute. You may be laughed at,
scorned and scoffed at, and treated with contempt, but so what. If
God be for us who can be against us? Those in the past who have done
a tremendous work for God have had these same things to face. We
need men, we need women, we need young people today with backbone
made out of pig iron instead of wet spaghetti.
I want you to keep clearly in mind this, which
is a basic essential to understanding something about this complex
question, namely, the King James Version is founded squarely on the
Textus Receptus, which is in 90-95% agreement with the five thousand
extant Greek manuscripts. But the Westcott and Hort text is in
disagreement with them just about as much, and is founded upon two
of the worst of texts, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Thus if
you reject or look down upon the KJV, and settle for a mutilated
Bible, you go ahead, but count me out. I do not say that you cannot
profit from reading other versions. You can. But if they are based
on the Westcott and Hort text, they are immediately suspect and you
should be mighty careful that you check that version with the KJV as
closely as possible.
Now practically all versions of the Scriptures
today, with exception to the King James, are based upon the Westcott
and Hort Greek text. So there you are; take your choice. When you
see that the King James Version is nearest to the original
manuscripts, in spite of what hundreds and thousands of others say,
it’s going to be an uphill battle and it’s going to be a rough.
But, then, who are we "to be taken to the skies on flowery beds
of ease, while others fought to win the prize and sailed through
bloody seas?"
There is so much at stake just now—the
authority, the accuracy, the inerrancy of the holy Word of a holy
God. And if ever the Lord needed those of His followers to take a
stand for His Word and refuse to budge, it is now.
Over one hundred years ago, in 1863, a
convocation of the bishops and archbishops of the Church of England
was held. They were meeting to protest and censor the heresy of one
of their number, Bishop Colenzo, concerning the Word of God. They
issued the following statement: "All our hopes for eternity,
the very foundation of our faith, our nearest and dearest
consolation, are taken away from us if one line of that sacred book,
the Bible, be declared unfaithful or untrustworthy."
And this man wants the world to know that he
stands squarely with these great scholars of the last century on
this all-important subject, the infallibility and inerrancy of the
Holy Scriptures. It is true that God can use almost anything or
anyone to bring souls to Himself. He used Balaam to utter some of
the greatest prophecies, and God also used a dumb animal to rebuke
the madness of the prophet (2 Pet. 2:16). And God uses perversions
of His Word in the salvation of souls, but this fact does not for
one moment warrant us in keeping quiet when the holy Bible is being
treated in such a slipshod, untrustworthy manner.
These are desperate days. They are filling
with fear and foreboding. The end is in sight. Multitudes of
Christians are confused, with nearly a hundred versions, or
paraphrases, of God’s Holy Word in print. We dare not, if we truly
love Him, play with the living Word of the living God. I urge my
listener to keep before him the KJV as the one safe, sure standard
to go by in measuring other versions." David
Otis Fuller
For an excellent study of Bible
versions, I found the following internet address an excellent
source: http://www.nisbett.com/versions/bible03.htm
Today many Seventh Day Adventist Christians are following a New
Theology related to the sanctuary and other Bible doctrines
that is filled with statements such as "we do not
worry about celestial geography (in relation to the Sanctuary).
If we assume this "statement" to be true, then we can
similarly state that the place where Jesus was born or the "geography"
of His birth is not important. But the Bible specifically stated
where Jesus birth was going to take place for a particular purpose.
Everything that is in the Bible is not just important, but very
important. The place of Jesus birth was very important for the
wise men from the east. This knowledge not only helped them
to locate Him (Jesus), but also to find out what He was
going to do, why He was going to do and where He
was going to to do it. What Christian in his right mind will
tell another that this is not important.
What about telling a Jew that Jerusalem
is not the most important piece of real estate on the
face of the earth, or that the "place" of His
Sanctuary is somewhere else. You'll be surprised of
the answer!
Many people who do not regard Bible prophecy
as important in terms of the "places" and "events"
that are soon to take place, will be surprised to find out who
is the one who "magnifies himself" above God
and where he is going to magnify himself.
Accordingly, many who have known the truth
but have departed from it, will soon find out that they lost
the knowledge to find out God's plan for the last generation
of living saints who are going to be translated without seeing
death. Suddenly, will they realize how important was to know
not only WHAT He is, but WHERE He
was and WHAT He did there.
Today, we
can have the spiritual and practical experience of redemption.
We can determine through Jesus what the nature of our experience
can be and is to be. The impartation of divine light for consciousness
and awareness of sin and the impartation of power and
of glory by Him (Jesus), the only one that can make "the
service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience" (Heb.
9: 9).
Today,
we can still follow Him where He is and find out what
He is doing and what He is about to do. Then the ministry
of Christ in the Most Holy Place becomes so very important,
so necessary for it is through His enabling Grace that we
can do all things in Jesus Christ. May the Lord bless all
those sincere students of the Bible, who want to find out what
"is written" in the Word of God.
Several years ago, I read several articles written by Vance
Ferrel of Pilgrims' Rest - - Beersheba Spgs, TN 37305. They
are some of the best articles I have ever read on the subject
of the Sanctuary Message. I particularly liked them for three
main reasons:
1. The author's intention to let the Word of God speak for
itself.
2. The depth of study into Hebrews
nine and particularly the use of at least 38 Bible translations.
3. The historical background and history
of the Evangelical Conferences with Walter Martin in the
1950's and the Seventh Day Adventist Church.
For the benefit of those sincere bible
students who want to have a deep study on this subject, I have
here printed some good portions of Vance Ferrel articles. Some
points will be repetitious. However, the reader will find new
insight and new meanings in the subject we are studying:
HEBREWS NINE AND SANCTUARY MESSAGE
by Vance Ferrel
[Bold letters and emphasis are
ours-J. Cano]
"Just now, let us you and I examine
Hebrews 9, verses 11 and 12, and see what it means in the Greek.
Let us let it speak to us.
In our study, our question will be this:
Does the Greek of Hebrews 9:11-12 agree with our Seventh-Day
Adventist historic teachings, or, as Walter Martin so boldly
claimed, can it only point us to the camp of the modern--Protestant
Evangelicals?
But first, let us briefly review the overall pattern of the
book, and what Paul was trying to say as he arrived in his epistle
to Hebrews 9: 11-12. That is part of
letting the Word speak for
itself. The Book of Hebrews is the most systematic presentation
in all the writings of the Apostol Paul.
Hebrews
1: explains that Christ is fully God and not a mere angel.
Hebrews
2: tells us that He fully became a man like us, for He
took the inheritance of Abraham's descendants, not that of his
ancestors-or of Adam.
Hebrews
3: Christ is greater than Moses and the entire
Hebrew economy (remember that this letter was written to Jews).
Hebrews
4: Christ can give us the Sabbath rest in its fullness-that
deeper experience with Him in our Sabbath keeping, which Moses
could only begin to reveal through his proclamation of the Fourth Commandment.
Hebrews 5: Christ is a perfect high priest, because
of the things which He suffered as a man.
Hebrews 6: A parenthetical chapter; please put
away your Jewish prejudices, for I have new light for you, in
fact Jesus has already passed through the veil as our Forerunner
Hebrews
7: Back to the subject; Jesus is greater than the earthly
priests, and He is already ministering as our high priest! {even
though Martin says that after A D 31 nothing more happens}.
Hebrews
8: Jesus has a better Sanctuary, and He is even now mediating
and mediating a better covenant.
It is an awesome fact that historic
Adventism is the most mature set of theological teachings in
the world. And we find it all through
the Book of Hebrews.
Instead
of saying that Christ died to free us from obedience and enable
us to be saved in sin, this mature concept explains that He died
to forgive our past and enable us to perfectly obey God in the
future.
Instead
of saying that Christ could not have taken a human nature like
ours, because then He would have been over-come by Satan, this
mature concept teaches that Christ took our nature after 4,000
years of sin, and in that nature resisted every temptation through
reliance upon His father, as we may do through steadfast reliance
upon Him.
Instead....
this mature view explains
that Christ is ministering on our behalf even now in the Sanctuary
above, and that if we come to Him we may have strength to overcome
as He overcame.
HEBREWS 9: 1-5
But now come to Hebrews 9. Chapter
8:1, 2, and 5 explained that Christ ministry within
the heavenly Sanctuary is the great archetype that earthly tabernacle
and its ministry was patterned after. So chapter 9 begins
with a description of the early sanctuary (9:1-5). In
those five verses we are given most of the crucial definition
of terms needed to guide us through Hebrews 6:19 to 10:23.
Please remember that fact!
There
is no doubt but that Paul
uses some unique Greek words.
We can only know what he has in mind by learning his definitions--and
the most important of them are in 9: 1-5. In contrast,
the Evangelicals (our own "new theology" advocates
teach the same errors) try to prove what Hebrews says, not
from Paul's own definitions, but from their opinions and
from the use of the words in the Old Testament....
THE VEIL
....we
need to learn Paul's definition of the "veil."
This is important because there were two veils in the
sanctuary, one before the first apartment (the first
or entering veil) and another dividing the first from the
second apartment (the second or dividing veil). This definition
is given in 9:3, where Paul speaks of "to
deuteron Katapetasma," or "the
second veil." Thus, we know that when Paul speaks of
the second veil, he will say "second veil"
in the Greek that is, "to deuteron Katapetasma
Therefore, we can know that when he speaks
of the first veil-the entering veil into the
sanctuary,-he will only use the word " katapetasma"
or "veil."
With those four definitions we are
able to explain the basic passages In Hebrews which the Evangelicals
use to try to confuse people with.
Back
to Index | Next
