2011 Grace School of the Bible Family Bible Conference Inerrancy and the King James Bible

Transcription

1 Grace Schl f the Bible Family Bible Cnference Inerrancy and the King James Bible Is it pssible r prper t claim inerrancy fr a translatin f the Scripture? Intrductin Hw many f yu believe that the Bible is inerrant? Hw many f yu believe that the KJB is inerrant? What d we mean when we say that the KJB is inerrant? In what sense is the KJB inerrant? Can we even sustain such a claim? Mst f evangelical Christians fancy us fls fr claiming that a translatin f the Bible can be inerrant. Please turn with me t every verse where the Bible uses the term(s) inerrant r inerrancy. The wrd(s) inerrant/inerrancy d nt appear in Scripture, hwever, neither d the wrds trinity nr rapture and yet many accept these terms as rthdx given hw these terms are understd. This ught t lead us t cnsider if there is a better, mre scripturally accurate term that the Bible uses t describe itself. In shrt, just because the Bible des nt explicitly declare itself t be inerrant des nt mean that the Bible is full f errrs. Psalm 12:6-7 declares that the wrds f the Lrd are pure. The Hebrew wrd fr pure ccurs 94 times in the Old Testament. The King James translatrs rendered the wrd in English as fllws: clean (50 times), pure (40 times), fair (2 times), purer (nce), variant (nce) Clean Genesis 7:2, 8; 8:20 Pure Exdus 25:11, 17, 24, 29, 31, 36, Clean in a general sense, free frm extraneus matter, r whatever is injurius r ffensive; hence its significatin depends n the nature and qualities f the substances t which it is applied. 4) Free frm mral impurity; inncent. Wh can bring a clean thing ut f an unclean? Jb 14. Acts 18. 5) Free frm ceremnial defilement. Lev. 10; Numb ) Free frm guilt; sanctified; hly. Jhn 13. Ps 51. 7) That might be eaten by the Hebrews. Gen. 7; Gen. 8. Clean (verb) t remve all freign matter frm; t separate frm any thing whatever is extraneus t it, r whatever is ful, nxius, r ffensive, as dirt r filth frm the hands, bdy r clthes, ful matter frm a vessel, weeds, shrubs and stnes frm a meadw; t purify. Thus, a huse is cleaned by sweeping and washing; a field is cleaned by plwing and heing. (Webster s 1828 Dictinary) Pure separate frm all hetergeneus r extraneus matter; clear; free frm mixture; as pure water; pure clay; pure sand; pure air; pure silver f gld. Pure wine is very scare. 2) Free frm mral defilement; withut spt; nt sullied r tarnished; incrrupt; undebased by mral turpitude; Pastr Bryan Rss

2 2 hly. Thu art f purer eyes than t behld evil. Hab.1. Prv.20. 3) Genuine; real; true; incrrupt; unadulterated; as pure religin. James 1. 4) Unmixed; separate frm any ther subject r frm everything freign; as pure mathematics. (Webster s 1828 Dictinary) The wrds f the Lrd given by inspiratin f Gd were/are pure and clean, that is they are withut defect, spt, r filthiness in any way. They d nt reprt things abut Gd r his creatin that are false. They are nt wrng r errant in anything they teach. While the Bible des nt explicitly use the term(s) inerrant/inerrancy t describe itself, the cncept can be clearly demnstrated frm Scripture. Scriptural Argument fr Inerrancy Traditinally the argument fr inerrancy has been stated using the fllwing lgical syllgism. Gd Cannt Err The Bible is the Wrd f Gd Therefre, the Bible Cannt Err In ther wrds, if ne culd prve that Gd cannt err and that the Bible is the Wrd f Gd, it wuld lgically fllw that the Bible cannt err and is, therefre, inerrant. Geilser and Hwe summarize the situatin as fllws, The cnclusin, then, is inevitable. The Bible cannt err. If the Bible erred in anything it affirms, then Gd wuld be mistaken. But Gd cannt make mistakes. (Geisler and Hwe, 11) Premise One the Bible clearly supprts the claim: Gd Cannt Err. Hebrew 6:8 Titus 1:2 Premise Tw asserts that the Bible is the Wrd f Gd. The fact that the Bible is the Wrd f Gd can be discerned frm the fllwing five Biblical affirmatins: 1) the Bible is Gd-breathed, 2) the Bible is a prphetic writing, 3) the Bible has divine authrity, 4) the Bible claims t recrd what Gd has said 5) the Bible is called the Wrd f Gd. II Timthy 3:16 II Peter 1:20-21 Jeremiah 1:9, 5:14, 36:1-4 accrding t the Hly Spirit s wn testimny, the very wrds f Gd were placed int the muth f human authrs wh subsequently recrded exactly what Gd had given them t say. In shrt, the prphets as the muthpieces f Gd, spke nly the wrds that Gd put in their muths. Genesis 12:1-6, Galatians 3:8--nt nly des the Bible claim t be the Wrd f Gd, but it als attributes t the Scriptures the qualities f Gd himself. The Bible equates the wrds f Gd as synnymus with the wrds penned by human authrs. Ntice that Genesis 12:3 tells us what Gd himself said t Abram, in thee shall all families f the Pastr Bryan Rss

3 3 earth be blessed. In cntrast, Galatians 3:8 states that the Scriptures said unt Abraham, in thee shall all natins be blessed. In additin t prving that Gd s written Wrd is equally authritative as His spken Wrd, Galatians 3:8 als ascribes the very attributes f Gd t the Scriptures. The Scriptures, like Gd Himself, can see the future. Mrever, the Bible is explicitly called the Wrd f Gd in multiple places thrughut Scripture and claims t have divine authrity. All f this prves, fr thse wh wish t functin by faith, that when ne reads the written Wrd he reads Gd s very wrds t humanity. Cnclusin finally, having prven the accuracy f Premise One that Gd cannt err and Premise Tw that the Bible is the Wrd f Gd, it lgically fllws that a bk written by Gd wuld reflect His nature and thus be inerrant. Therefre, the dctrine f inerrancy includes histrical and scientific matters and nt just mral and spiritual teachings. If the Bible des nt speak accurately abut the physical wrld, hw can it be trusted when it speaks abut the spiritual wrld? Inspiratin and inerrancy apply nt just t what the Bible explicitly teaches but als t that which the Bible tuches. This is true whether the Bible is tuching upn histry, science, r mathematics. Whatever the Bible declares is true whether it is a majr pint r a minr pint. The Bible is Gd s Wrd, and Gd des nt deviate frm the truth in any pint. (Geisler and Hwe, 12-13) A Shrt Histry f Inerrancy It is critical t pint ut that a frmal dctrine f inerrancy did nt exist until abut ne hundred years ag. The mdern debate arse between 1900 and the 1920s, and was develped int the 1970s, as a defense against histrical skeptics wh were launching sme very scathing attacks against the authrity f Scripture frm the perspective f histrical psitivism and scientific naturalism. (Bratcher) As a result, f the Scientific and Technlgical Revlutins f the 18 th and 19 th centuries, varius Biblical events (i.e., literal 6 day creatin, wrldwide fld, Jnah, etc.) were questined by mdern scientists and philsphers. This led t an increasing questining f the veracity f Biblical texts and events. The scientific premise that frms the basis fr mdern histrigraphy, and the basis fr challenge by skeptics is that nly empirically verifiable events can be accepted as true. They cntended that since many biblical events culd nt be verified by external dcuments r recrds r empirical data t have happened, then they never happened. Therefre, the accunts were nt true and therefre in errr. (Bratcher) Nte: This premise is irratinal. Cnsider the age ld questin: If a tree falls in the wds des it make a sund if n ne is arund t hear it? The bvius answer is yes, there is a sund. This scientific premise cnfuses whether smething is true with the issue f whether smene was there t witness it. Defenders f an inerrant Bible assumed that the Bible was true as a starting pint; hwever, their Pastr Bryan Rss

4 4 defense tk shape as a lgical syllgism that wrked backward tward the ratinalists. Since the Bible is true as an assumptin, and since nly verifiable histrical events can be true (thus accepting the premise f the ratinalists), then the Bible must cntain nly actual and verifiable histrical events and can cntain n errr. Thus inerrancy as a very ratinalistic respnse t the ratinalists was brn. (Bratcher) In ur day, inerrantists believe the Bible s authrity is verified by its cntent. In ther wrds, it is reliable because it is factually accurate. N lnger is the Bible s reliable because it was authritative, it is reliable because f its cntent. Stated anther way, because it is assumed in ur day that the Bible cannt stand n its wn as a fundatin within mdern philsphy, it needs a further fundatin: inerrancy. Therefre, a certain view f the Bible supersedes (r at least exists alngside) the Bible itself as the fundatin f evangelical Christianity. We need t ask urselves the fllwing questin, des the Bible infrm ne s view f authrity r des ne s view f authrity infrm the Bible? It is t ften the case that what is authritative is nt really the Bible at all but the particular thelgy that is brught t the Bible and rules magisterially ver the text. (Perry) In an essay titled, The Meaning f Inerrancy, Paul D. Feinberg admits that the wrd inerrancy is a relatively yung wrd in the English language. The Latin wrd, inerrans was used by Cicer and Lactantius during the Rman perid in reference t fixed r nne wndering stars. The Oxfrd English Dictinary says that it was nt until 1837 that the English wrd inerrant was used in the mdern sense f exempt frm errr, free frm mistake, infallible. This explains why the wrd(s) inerrant/inerrancy are nt fund in the Webster s 1828 Dictinary. Mrever, the nun inerrancy is said t have ccurred fr the first time in Thmas Hartwell Hrne s frmidable furvlume Intrductin t the Critical Study and Knwledge f the Hly Scriptures ( ). (Geisler, 292) Pre-mdern thelgians and refrmers fund the Bible s authrity in its authr, nt in its inerrancy. (Perry) Therefre, there was n frmal dctrine f inerrancy until the secnd half f the 19 th century. In his essay, The View f the Held by the Church: The Early Church Thrugh Luther, authr Rbert D. Preus makes the fllwing statement regarding the emergence f the mdern dctrine f inerrancy, Nt until the divine, rigin, authrity and veracity f the Scripture were smehw undermined r threatened did these issues receive direct attentin frm Christian thelgians. (Geisler, 357) Until the mdern era, Christian thinkers funded the Bible s trustwrthiness nt in the dctrine f inerrancy but in the fact that the Bible is the wrd f Gd. Cnsider the fllwing statements: Irenaeus We must believe Gd, wh has given us the right understanding, since the Hly Scriptures are perfect, because they are spken by the Wrd f Gd and the Spirit f Gd. (Geisler, 360) Augustine Only t thse bks which are called cannical have I learned t give hnr s that I believe mst firmly that n authr in these bks made any errr in writing. I Pastr Bryan Rss

5 5 read ther authrs nt with the thught that what they have thught and written is true just because they have manifested hliness and learning. (Geisler, 365) Luther Yu are s t deal with the Scriptures that yu bear in mind that Gd Himself is saying this. Luther It is cursed unbelief and the dius flesh which will nt permit us t see and knw that Gd speaks t us in Scripture and that it is Gd s Wrd, but tells us that it is the merely f Isaiah, Paul, r sme ther man, wh has nt created heaven and earth. Luther Natural reasn prduces heresy and errr. Faith teaches and adheres t the pure truth. He wh adheres t the Scriptures will find that they d nt lie r deceive. Luther Scripture cannt err. The Scriptures have never erred. Luther Whever is s bld that he ventures t accuse Gd f fraud and deceptin in a single wrd and des s willfully again and again after he has been warned and instructed nce r twice will likewise certainly venture t accuse Gd f fraud and deceptin in all f His wrds. (all Luther citatins are quted in Geisler, ) Calvin The fllwing is a listing f Calvin s statement regarding Scripture: The sure and infallible recrd, The inerring standard, The pure Wrd f Gd, The infallible rule f His Hly Truth, Free frm every stain r defect, Infallible racles Calvin He cmmanded als that the prphecies be cmmitted t writing and be accunted part f His Wrd. T these at the same time histries were added, als the labur f the prphets, but cmpsed under the Hly Spirit s dictatin... Yet they were nt t d this except frm the Lrd, that is, with Christ s Spirit ging befre them and in a sense dictating their wrds... Calvin... that the law and the prphecies are nt teaching delivered by the will f men, but dictated by the Hly Ghst... Mses and the prphets did nt utter at randm what we have frm their hand, but, since they spke by divine impulse, they cnfidently and fearlessly testified as was actually the case, that it was the muth f the Lrd that spke... (all Calvin citatin are quted in Geisler, ) It shuld be nted that Augustine and thers used the verbs inspire and dictate interchangeably when describing the Hly Spirit s rle in cmmunicating the frm and cntent f the sacred writings t the human authrs f scripture. (Geisler, 364) Westminster Cnfessin Chapter 1 Article V We may be mved and induced by the testimny f the Church t an high and reverent esteem f the Hly Scripture. And the heavenliness f the matter, the efficacy f the dctrine, the majesty f the style, the Pastr Bryan Rss

6 6 cnsent f all the parts, the scpe f the whle (which is, t give all glry t Gd), the full discvery it makes f the nly way f man's salvatin, the many ther incmparable excellencies, and the entire perfectin theref, are arguments whereby it des abundantly evidence itself t be the Wrd f Gd: yet ntwithstanding, ur full persuasin and assurance f the infallible truth and divine authrity theref, is frm the inward wrk f the Hly Spirit bearing witness by and with the Wrd in ur hearts. Westminster Cnfessin Chapter 1 Article VII The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language f the peple f Gd f ld), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time f the writing f it, was mst generally knwn t the natins), being immediately inspired by Gd, and, by His singular care and prvidence, kept pure in all ages, are therefre authentical; s as, in all cntrversies f religin, the Church is finally t appeal unt them. But, because these riginal tngues are nt knwn t all the peple f Gd, wh have right unt, and interest in the Scriptures, and are cmmanded, in the fear f Gd, t read and search them, therefre they are t be translated in t the vulgar language f every natin unt which they cme, that, the Wrd f Gd dwelling plentifully in all, they may wrship Him in an acceptable manner; and, thrugh patience and cmfrt f the Scriptures, may have hpe. All f these men believed the Bible t be inerrant simply because it was the wrd f Gd. The Civil War in the United States in the 1860s and changes in science after Charles Darwin published The Origin f the Species in 1859 led many t challenge the idea that the Bible was literally the wrd f Gd and factually true in every respect. Arguments abut evlutin and biblical authrity fr slavery divided churches and led t a revised view f inerrancy amng sme factins that claimed nly the riginal manuscripts f the Bible t be withut errr. Cnsider the fllwing statement n the Bible taken frm the 1878 Niagara Creed. We believe "that all Scripture is given by inspiratin f Gd," by which we understand the whle f the bk called the Bible; nr d we take the statement in the sense in which it is smetimes flishly said that wrks f human genius are inspired, but in the sense that the Hly Ghst gave the very wrds f the sacred writings t hly men f ld; and that His Divine inspiratin is nt in different degrees, but extends equally and fully t all parts f these writings, histrical, petical, dctrinal, and prphetical and t the smallest wrd, and inflectin f a wrd, prvided such wrd is fund in the riginal manuscripts. (Sandeen, 273) When cmpared with the Westminister Cnfessin it is bvius hw Darwinian Evlutin and mdern philsphy were affecting the articulatin f dctrine within the church. The fundamentalists f the late 19 th and early 20 th centuries tk the bait and frmulated an inerrancy dctrine based n terms set by their ppnents rather than simply standing n the authrity f Scripture. The fllwing three results have dne majr damage t the Bdy f Christ during the intervening century: Pastr Bryan Rss

7 7 Divine r Mechanical Dictatin was ridiculed and replaced with Verbal Plenary Inspiratin. The Dctrine f Preservatin has been almst cmpletely lst. The inerrancy f the Bible was limited t the riginal autgraphs. Mdern Evangelical View f Inerrancy In their attempt t defend the inerrancy f Scripture mdern evangelical schlarship undermines their wn psitin. In Octber 1978, 300 schlars, pastrs, and laymen meet in Chicag, IL t discuss the subject f Biblical inerrancy. The Internatinal Cnference n Biblical Inerrancy drafted The Chicag Statement n Biblical Inerrancy, a 19 Article statement f their psitin alng with a detailed explanatin f their findings. Please cnsider their statements regarding Transmissin and Translatin: Since Gd has nwhere prmised an inerrant transmissin f Scripture, it is necessary t affirm that nly the autgraphic text f the riginal dcuments was inspired and t maintain the need f textual criticism as a means f detecting any slips that may have crept int the text in the curse f its transmissin. The verdict f science hwever, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appear t be amazingly well preserved, s that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Cnfessin, a singular prvidence f Gd in this matter and in declaring that the authrity f Scripture is n n way jepardized by the fact that the cpies we pssess are nt entirely errr-free. (Geisler, 502) The bk Inerrancy, edited by Nrman Geisler cntains edited cpies f 14 schlarly papers presented at the ICBI in Octber Please cnsider the fllwing qutatins frm the sixth chapter titled, The Inerrancy f the Autgrapha by Greg L. Bahsen.... the view that has persisted thrughut the centuries and is cmmn amng evangelicals tday is that the inerrancy (r infallibility, inspiratin) f the Scriptures pertains nly t the text f the riginal autgrapha. ( ) Carl F. Henry Inerracy pertains nly t the ral r written prclamatin f the riginally inspired prphets and apstles... Inerracy des nt extend t cpies, translatins, r versin hwever. (157) We can believe ur cpies f Scritpure and be saved withut having the autgraphic cdex, fr the Bible itself indicates that cpies can faithfully reflect the riginal text and therefre functin authritatively. Secnd, the paramunt features and qualities f Scripture such as inspiratin, infallibility, and inerrancy are unifrmly identified with Gd s wn riginal wrd as fund in the autgraphic text, which alne can be identified and esteemed as Gd s wn wrd t man. ( ) Gd has nt prmised in His Wrd that the Scriptures wuld receive perfect transmissin, and thus we have nt grund t claim it...cnsequently we cannt be thelgically blind t the significance f transmissinal errrs, nr can we thelgically Pastr Bryan Rss

8 8 assume the absence f such errrs. We are therefre thelgically required t restrict inspiratin, infallibility, and inerrancy t the autgraha. (175)... Scripture nwhere gives us grund t maintain that its transmissin and translatin wuld be kept withut errr by Gd. There is n scriptural warrant fr hlding that Gd will perfrm the perpetual miracle f preserving His written Wrd frm all errrs in its being transcribed frm ne cpy t anther. (176) Psalm 12:6-7 (NIV) clearly there is n understanding f the prmise f preservatin r the prcess by which that preservatin wuld ccur. In the end, mdern evangelical schlarship has articulated a dctrine f n practical cnsequence. Why bther arguing fr the inerrancy f the riginals when everyne knws that they n lnger exist? Inerrancy and the King James Bible The questin f whether r nt it is prper t claim inerrancy fr a translatin (KJB) depends n hw ne defines inerrancy. When mdern evangelicals limit inerrancy t the riginals nly they are pstulating a definitin f inerrancy that demands exact sameness. In ther wrds, the reasn nly the riginals are inerrant is because the cpies d nt all read exactly the same. This is true even within the Majrity Text/TR textual traditin. While the mss that cmprise the TR agree amngst themselves in 95% f the readings there are still bvius spelling errrs, cpyist mistakes, and variant readings in the remaining 5% accrding t textual critics. In my view, the prblem is that many defenders f the King James psitin have used exact sameness as their definitin f inerrancy. The nly way the text culd have traversed the seas f time and histry and maintained exact sameness is if Gd was physically intervening thrughut the dispensatin f Grace t ensure that n errrs entered int the cpies. If Gd were directly intervening in this manner why nt just preserve the riginals and remve all dubt? This is why the multiplicity f cpies (taught by the dctrine f preservatin) becmes s vital in identifying the true Biblical text. The real questin when discussing inerrancy shuld nt be d we pssess tday exactly every wrd (verbatim, r exactly the same) as penned in the riginal autgraphs but rather d we pssess the pure wrd f Gd? In thers, d the wrds we pssess cmmunicate the clean and pure wrds f Gd? As we have already seen, the majrity f prfessing Christendm d nt believe that any translatin f the Wrd f Gd can rightly be called inerrant. The fact that there are clear printer errrs in 264 verses (number des nt include the Preface, chapter summaries/headings, r the Apcrypha) in the 1611 text is enugh prf fr mdern evangelicals that a translatin cannt be inerrant. (Nrtn, ) Until very recently, I was under the impressin that the nly differences between the varius Pastr Bryan Rss

9 9 editins f the KJB were the crrectin f printer errrs r the updating f spelling and punctuatin. Cnsequently, I had n prblem with demanding exact sameness as my definitin f inerrancy. Hwever, new research has caused me t refine my psitin slightly. There are mre differences between the 1611 editin and the standard 1769 editin f the KJB that yu can buy in the stre tday than simply crrect f printer errrs and updates in the spelling f wrds. Please cnsider the fllwing examples: Genesis 15:18 Genesis 19:21 Genesis 22:7 Matthew 3:12 Matthew 9:34 Matthew 12:23 Rmans 4:12 Rmans 6:12 Rmans 7:2 Rmans 12:2 I Crinthians 12:28 I Timthy 1:4 Revelatin 1:4 Revelatin 5:13 (Nrtn, Appendix 8) Nrtn devtes Appendix 8 f his bk t this subject. It cnsists f 155 pages and identifies apprximately 952 verses where differences in wrds exist (numbers d nt include the Apcrypha). (Nrtn, ) Des everyne see the prblem fr demanding that inerrancy mean exact sameness? If inerrancy means exact sameness than ne is frced t determine which editin f the King James text is inerrant and which ne is nt. Hw culd ne even make such a determinatin? Likewise there are differences between the Oxfrd and Cambridge editin f the 1769 text. D all f yu wh utilized an Oxfrd text nt pssess the Wrd f Gd? II Chrnicles 33:19 Jeremiah 34:16 In sum, the 1611 des nt have the same wrds as the The Oxfrd and Cambridge editins f the 1769 d nt have the same wrds. If the scriptural dctrine f preservatin required the exact same wrds, then we wuld be frced int cncluding that either the 1611 r the 1769 was nt the wrd f Gd. It wuld be incnsistent with the believing viewpint that Gd has allwed his wrd nt t exist fr hundreds f years in the mst widely-spken language in the wrld. Pastr Bryan Rss

10 10 The faith viewpint cncludes that the 1611 and bth the Oxfrd and Cambridge editins f the 1769 are all the wrd f Gd because the scriptural dctrine f inerrancy des nt require exact sameness but that the wrds accurately reflect the meaning f the riginal. We need t be careful nt t demand mre frm ur dctrine than the Bible claims fr itself. There are many places where Christ qutes frm the Old Testament but des nt use the exact same language. Yet the believing viewpint wuld affirm that what the LJC spke was an accurate representatin f the Old Testament verse. Please lk at the fllwing cmparisns. Matthew 2:18 Jeremiah 31:15 Matthew 22:31-32 Exdus 3:6 Matthew 26:31 Zechariah 13:7 Mark 7:6 Isaiah 29:13 Luke 4:16-19 Isaiah 61:1-2 What these cmparisns illustrate is that different wrds can have the same meaning. The wrds we pssess cnvey the exact same meaning expressed in the riginals withut necessitating we pssess the exact same wrds. Cnsider Jude 25 as an example. I threw the ball t Andrew and Daniel. I threw the ball t bth Andrew and Daniel. I threw the ball t Andrew. This des nt diminish the issue f the wrds n the page. Rather it takes int accunt the facts as we have them befre us. T what end are the wrds the issue? T the end that if yu alter the wrds yu alter their meaning. Jude 25 means exactly the same thing in a 1611 as it des in a 1769 ne is just anther way f saying the same thing. Use the example f 4 4, 4 (fnt size), 4 (bld), 4 (italics), 2+2, 2 2, 4 x 10 0 (scientific ntatin), 100 base2 (binary), iv (rman) Mdern versins err because the wrds have been altered s drastically that their meaning is changed. In shrt mdern versins and their underlying Greek text reprt infrmatin abut Gd that is false. In ther wrds, they are nt pure in what they teach. II Samuel 21:19 David did nt kill Gliath I Samuel 17:48-51 Pastr Bryan Rss

11 11 Isaiah 14:12 Jesus Christ fell frm heaven Revelatin 22:16 Matthew 5:22 leaves ut the phrase withut a cause. Mark 3:5 Jesus gets angry. By leaving ut the phrase withut a cause, in Matthew 5:22 mdern versins have Jesus Christ cndemning himself ut f his wn muth. Mark 1:1-2 mdern versins are mistaken and err when they read as it is written in Isaiah the prphet. Luke 2:33 undermines the dctrine f the virgin birth f Christ by teaching that Jseph was the father f Jesus. The KJB clearly prtects this vital dctrine. Jhn 1:18 the NASB teaches heresy, by undermining the deity f Christ. Mark 16:9-20, Jhn 5:3-4 mitting verses is the mst fundamental change in meaning f the wrds f Gd. The KJB and its underlying Greek text are pure because they reflect the meaning f the wrds cntained in the riginals withut deviatin. If Gd culd translate the thrne f Israel frm Saul t David (II Samuel 3:10), r translate Ench directly t heaven (Hebrews 11:5), then as the authr f language Gd is perfectly capable f stating smething in ne language (Egyptian), recrding it in anther (Hebrew, i.e., translating it), and then calling the translatin Scripture (Luke 24:27, 44). Gd has the ability t express the exact same meaning in any language. As the inventr f language, Gd als has the ability t express the exact same thught multiple different ways in the same language. Cnclusin Preparing fr this study has led me t a deeper appreciatin f the dctrine f preservatin. I think this understanding f inerrancy is mre in line with textual facts and des nt verreach and demand mre than the Bible claims fr itself. The KJB is the pure wrd f Gd fr the fllwing reasns: It was translated frm the Preserved Text. It was translated using the crrect translatin methd/philsphy: literal equivalence. It was translated by the mst educated and qualified grup f men ever assembled. It was translated using a superir methdlgy: cmpany methd with built in checks and balances t ensure accuracy. It was translated during the height f the English Renaissance by a grup f men wh were prducts f the literary culture wh tried and tested every wrd t ensure the majesty and grandeur f the finished prduct. Pastr Bryan Rss

12 12 The end result f this prcess is a Bible that pssesses all the wrds necessary t reflect the wrds f the riginal withut deviatin. The King James Bible truly is the pure Wrd f Gd fr English speaking peple. Wrks Cited Bratcher, Dennis. The Mdern Inerrancy Debate. Geisler, Nrman. Inerrancy. Grand Rapids, MI: Zndervan, Geisler, Nrman and Thmas Hwe. When Critics Ask: A Ppular Handbk n Bible Difficulties. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Bks, Nrtn, David. A Textual Histry f the King James Bible. Cambridge University Press, Perry, Jhn. Disslving the Inerrancy Debate: Hw Mdern Philsphy Shaped the Evangelical View f Scripture. Pastr Bryan Rss