THE
TRINITARIAN BIBLE SOCIETY's
NON-VPP STAND
(by Philip Tang and Lim Seng Hoo)
INTRODUCTION
The Far
Eastern Bible College (FEBC) claims that the Trinitarian
Bible Society (TBS) supports their KJV-VPP view:
that the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Textus Receptus
copies (apographs) underlying / used by the 1611
KJV Translators are the verbal plenary preserved,
jot and tittle perfect and exact virtual photocopy
of the Divine Originals (Autographa).
This however
is sadly far from the truth. The only thing
in common that the TBS holds with FEBC on the
doctrine of Holy Scripture is its high regards
for the KJV. As for the underlying Masoretic
and Greek TR texts, the TBS regards this as being
providentially preserved and therefore accurate
and reliable. The TBS does not venture beyond
this into making extreme, and erroneous, assertions
on any of the forms of double inspiration, such
as: -
·
Ruckmanism: which teaches that the English
of the KJV was inspired (i.e. the translators
were inspired during their process of translation)
so that in any matter of doubt, even doubts regarding
conflicts between the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek
TR vis-ŕ-vis the English rendering, the Hebrew-Greek
is to be corrected by the English.
Ruckmanism
essentially holds that the English of the KJV
is divinely inspired and perfect.
·
VPPism: which necessarily teaches that
the KJV Translators were inspired in their textual
criticism or recognition of the Hebrew and Greek
texts, so as to select all the very words down
to the smallest jot and tittle that fully, exactly
and perfectly replicated the Divine Original Autographs
from among these texts. (NB: This despite
the paucity of manuscripts/texts that were available
to the Translators).
VPPism
essentially holds that the Hebrew-Greek texts
used by the KJV Translators are divinely inspired
and perfect.
·
There exists in the literature at times
a hybrid view of the both, which asserts that
both the English of the KJV is perfect, and the
Hebrew-Greek of the KJV is also perfect.
This brief
review includes examining and comparing one FEBC
statement versus three TBS statements, enclosed
as Appendices:-
Appendix 1
“The Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) of Sacred
Scripture” [Official Statement on FEBC Website]
Appendix 2
“The
Trinitarian Bible Society’s Statement of Doctrine
of Holy Scripture”
Appendix
3 “The Received
Text - A Brief Look at the Textus Receptus” by
G. W. and D. E. Anderson, Trinitarian Bible Society
Appendix
4 “Email explaining
the necessity of the legal suit against TBS (Canada)”
from David Cooke MA (Oxon) FCA, Accountant, Trinitarian
Bible Society
NB:
Throughout this article, the new
VPP extremities are highlighted in red,
and contrasted with the traditional
status quo as represented by the TBS in deep blue.
I.
VPP: PRESERVATION “PROVIDENTIA EXTRAORDINARIA”
Paragraph
2 of the FEBC Statement (Appendix 1) states: -
“The
"providential" preservation of Scriptures
is understood as God’s special and not
general providence. Special
providence or providentia
extraordinaria speaks of God’s miraculous
intervention in the events of history and
in the affairs of mankind in fulfilment of His
sovereign will for the sake of His elect and to
the glory of His Name. The divine preservation
of the Canon (books) and Text (words) of Scripture
comes under God’s special
providence.”
In contrast,
the TBS Doctrine of Holy Scripture, [Appendix
2, (footnote 3)] states: -
“The
Trinitarian Bible Society recognises and receives
the Masoretic Hebrew and the Greek Received Texts
as providentially
preserved
and authentic. In so doing, it follows the historic,
orthodox Protestant position of acknowledging
as Holy Scripture the Hebrew and Greek texts adopted
and preserved by the Church. These texts had remained
in common use in different parts of the world
for more than fifteen centuries and they faithfully
represent the texts used in New Testament times.”
II.
VPP: “KJV UNDERLYING TEXTS EXACT AUTOGRAPH REPLICA”
FEBC claims the KJV Translators
were inspired in their textual recognition so
that the texts that they used were/are an
exact
replica
of the Divine Original
Writings
(Autographa).
This fact was lost to the Christian world, until
recognised by D A Waite, the best of all luminaries
of “Textual Recognition” per paragraph 6 of the
FEBC Statement [Appendix 1]: -
“Knowing where the perfect
Bible is, is a matter of textual recognition
and NOT textual criticism. In
the field of textual recognition, Burgon is good,
Hills is better, Waite
is best.”
In contrast, the TBS Doctrine of Holy Scripture
[Appendix 2, paragraph 7] states: -
“The
scope of the Society’s Constitution does not extend
to the science of textual criticism and hence
the
minor variations
between
the printed editions of the Textus Receptus are
not within the remit of the Society.”
The TBS
Doctrine of Holy Scripture [Appendix 2 WORD List]
also defines: -
“Received
Text: The
Byzantine text was the text underlying the earliest
printed editions of the New Testament. The
various editions of the Received Text, or Textus
Receptus, of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
represented (with
a few very minor differences)
the Byzantine Text—type.”
The TBS
Doctrine of Holy Scripture, [Appendix 2, (footnote
4)] also states that the F H A Scrivener text
of 1894 is a reconstructed (post-engineered) one:
-
The
Greek Received Text is the name given to a group
of printed texts, the first of which was published
by Desiderius Eramus in 1516. The Society believes
that the latest
and best edition
is the text reconstructed by F. H. A. Scrivener
in 1894. This text was
reconstructed
from the Greek underlying the New Testament of
the Authorised version.
Finally,
“A Brief Look at the Textus Receptus” [Appendix
3] recognises TR variations: -
Are the variations between
the editions of the Textus Receptus significant?
No. These
variations include spelling, accents and breathing
marks, word order and other minor kinds of differences.
As it is stated in the preface to the Trinitarian
Bible Society edition of the Textus Receptus,
"The editions of Stephens, Beza and the Elzevirs
all present substantially the same text, and
the variations
are not of great significance and rarely affect
the sense".
III.
VPP: “THE PRESERVED APOGRAPHS ARE STRICTLY INERRANT”
Paragraph
3 and 4 of the FEBC Statement [Appendix 1] states:
-
“The Bible is not only infallible
and inerrant in the past (in the Autographs),
but also infallible and
inerrant today (in the Apographs).”
“The infallible and inerrant
words of Scripture are found in the faithfully
preserved Traditional/Byzantine/Majority manuscripts,
and fully represented in the Printed and Received
Text (or Textus Receptus) that underlie the Reformation
Bibles best represented by the KJV, and NOT
in the corrupted and rejected texts of Westcott
and Hort that underlie the many modern versions
of the English Bible like the NIV, NASV, ESV,
RSV, TEV, CEV, TLB etc.”
In contrast,
the TBS Doctrine of Holy Scripture, [Appendix
2, (footnote 4)] states: -
“Errors,
omissions, and additions in particular manuscripts
do not impinge upon the qualities of Scripture,
including inerrancy, because the errors are, in
fact,
no part of inerrant Scripture.”
In other
words, errors, omissions and additions exist in
particular manuscripts but these are errors later
introduced by the subsequent copying processes
(copyists errors), which does not change the fact
that the Original Autographs are without error.
IV.
VPP: “THERE ARE NO ERRORS IN THE KJV”
Paragraph
5 of the FEBC Statement (Appendix 1) states implicitly
of the KJV: -
There are no mistakes in
the Bible, period. If
there are "discrepancies" in the Bible,
the "discrepancies" are only seeming
or apparent, NOT real or actual.
Any inability to understand or explain difficult
passages in the Bible in no way negates its infallibility
and inerrancy, applying the faithful Pauline principle
of biblical interpretation: "let God be true,
but every man a liar" (Rom 3:4).”
In contrast,
the TBS Doctrine of Holy Scripture, (Appendix
2, footnote 3) states that the translation process
must be uninspired (no second inspiration) and
hence not absolute: -
“Translations
made since New Testament times must use words
chosen by uninspired
men
to translate God’s words. For this reason
no translations
of the Word of God can have an absolute or definitive
status.
The final appeal must always be to the original
languages, in the Traditional Hebrew and Greek
texts (as defined in
Note 1).”
V.
VPP: “NT AUTHORS NEVER QUOTED GREEK OT (SEPTUAGINT)”
FEBC claims that our Lord Jesus
and the Apostles never quoted from the Greek Old
Testament (Septuagint), which they viewed as corrupt.
In “Did
Jesus and the apostles rely on the corrupt SEPTUAGINT?”
(The Burning Bush, July 2004), Prabhudas Koshy
wrote: -
“The
claim that Jesus and the New Testament writers
always used the Septuagint to quote from the Old
Testament is without biblical evidence. .......
There was no need for Jesus and the New Testament
writers to rely on the Septuagint to quote the
Old Testament. Jesus Himself was the Author of
the Holy Scriptures. He could quote Hebrew Scriptures
and translate them infallibly into Greek. As far
as the Apostles were concerned, the Holy Spirit
was their Chief Aide who supervised their writing
of the Scriptures.”
In contrast,
the TBS Doctrine of Holy Scripture (paragraph
1. 7) states: -
“Translations from the original
languages are likewise to be considered the written
Word of God in so far as these translations are
accurate as to the form and content of the Original.
Acts 8:32f, 15:14-18, Romans 15:8-12
include Old
Testament quotations rendered in Greek,
and yet they are still accorded the status of
the Word of God by the Holy Spirit, as indicated
by the usage of the expressions ‘scripture’ and
‘it is written'. The variants found in these
and other quotations in the New Testament have
a divine warrant.”
VI.
LEGAL SUIT BETWEEN TBS (UK) AND TBS (CANADA) DUE
TO VPP
One of the sad outcomes of
the VPP error was the necessity forced upon TBS
(UK) to take
up a civil suit against TBS
(Canada),
to safeguard the good name of the Trinitarian
Bible Society from the excesses and error of Perfect
KJV-VPPism. The court settlement resulted
in TBS (Canada) changing its name to the
Graceway Bible Society, whose subscribers
include Dr Thomas Strouse
and Dr Philip Stringer among others.
Dr Strouse, wrote in his “Biblical
Defense for the Verbal, Plenary Preservation of
God's Word”: -
"My
Sheep Hear My Voice." Christ not only teaches
that He will preserve the words of the Father,
but also that believers
will hear His voice (John 10:26). Where is the
voice of the Lord Jesus Christ? HIS VOICE IS HIS
WORDS.
The Lord has given believers the means by which
to verify the "received
words."
Believers, indwelt with the Holy Spirit, "hear"
and know which words are Christ's "received
words." Furthermore, according to John 10:5,
believers
"know not the voice of strangers."
Consequently,
believers
not only recognize a "received text,"
but
believers also reject the voice of strangers ("rejected
text").
Applying the teaching of these verses to the version
debate, one must conclude that the Lord has preserved
His words in a "received text" and that
believers will hear the voice of the Lord in this
text. This is why Christians have maintained that
the textus receptus is the voice of the Lord and
that the variants in the modern versions are the
voice of strangers.
Since
John 10:26 states “But ye believe not, because
ye are not of my sheep, as I
said unto you” and John 10:5, states that believers
"know not the voice of strangers", Dr
Strouse can only mean that those who do not use
the Textus Receptus are not our Lord’s sheep and
lost! This would imply that our Chinese
brethren who use the CUV and our Indonesian brethren
who use the Alkitab are not regenerated. Dr Strouse’s
works are published in “The Burning Bush” while
the FEBC website has a direct link to Graceway’s
website.
Dr Stringer
believes in the ability of spirits taking complete
possession of a person, to use as a robot to do
things without the person being aware of it. In
his article, “The Means of Inspiration”, Dr Stringer
related a personal experience with an evil spirit
and then applied this to biblical preservation.
“The
mother claimed that the spirit would take her
over and write out messages through her.
She let me read some of them. They were full of
blasphemy, obscenities, and attacks on the Lord
Jesus. My visitation partner and I both became
convinced that a spirit was really writing through
her. My point is simple, Satan and demon spirits
have the power to dictate their messages. The
Lord has more power than they do... The Scripture
is supernaturally preserved as God superintends
the activities of faithful copyists and translators.”
In an email response on behalf
of the Chairman, TBS, David Cooke MA (Oxon) FCA
Accountant, Trinitarian Bible Society, explained
the difference that the TBS (UK) had with their
Canadian branch: -
However, in October 1984, a new General Secretary
of TBS (Canada) was appointed, the Rev. R A Baker.
In the following years, Mr Baker began gradually
to distance himself and TBS (Canada) from Head
Office, though the implications of this were not
realised for some time. Throughout
the early 1990s there was a recurring problem
of Mr Baker circulating materials which were unscholarly
and did not accurately reflect the position of
the Society on textual matters. (The most
notable example of this was his circulation of
Gail Riplinger’s book, “New Age Bible Versions”.) On more than one occasion
he promised to cease circulating such items, but
it was afterwards discovered that he was continuing
to do so.
Thus was the start of the problem,
which led to the legal suit and the complete dissociation
of the two organisations from each other.
CONCLUSION:
It
is unequivocally clear that the Trinitarian Bible
Society stand is not the Perfect KJV - Verbal
Plenary Preservation view promoted by FEBC.
APPENDIX 1: THE FAR EASTERN
BIBLE COLLEGE STAND ON VPP
(Source:
“The Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) of Sacred
Scripture” (FEBC Website))
The Far Eastern Bible College
upholds the VPP of Scripture and believes in the
following tenets:
(1) God
has supernaturally preserved each and every one
of His inspired Hebrew/Aramaic OT words and Greek
NT words to the last jot and tittle, so that in
every age, God’s people will always have in their
possession His infallible and inerrant Word kept
intact without the loss of any word (Ps 12:6-7,
Matt 5:18, 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33, John
10:35).
(2) The
"providential" preservation of Scriptures
is understood as God’s special and not
general providence. Special providence or
providentia extraordinaria speaks of God’s
miraculous intervention
in the events of history and in the affairs of
mankind in fulfilment of His sovereign will for
the sake of His elect and to the glory of His
Name. The divine preservation of the Canon (books)
and Text (words) of Scripture comes under God’s
special providence.
(3)
The Bible is not only infallible and inerrant
in the past (in the Autographs), but
also infallible and inerrant today (in the Apographs).
(4)
The infallible and inerrant words of Scripture
are found in the faithfully preserved Traditional/Byzantine/Majority
manuscripts, and fully represented in the Printed
and Received Text (or Textus Receptus) that underlie
the Reformation Bibles best represented by the
KJV, and NOT in the corrupted and rejected
texts of Westcott and Hort that underlie the many
modern versions of the English Bible like the
NIV, NASV, ESV, RSV, TEV, CEV, TLB etc.
(5)
There are no mistakes
in the Bible, period. If there are "discrepancies"
in the Bible, the "discrepancies" are
only seeming or apparent, NOT real
or actual. Any inability to understand or
explain difficult passages in the Bible in no
way negates its infallibility and inerrancy, applying
the faithful Pauline principle of biblical interpretation:
"let God be true, but every man a liar"
(Rom 3:4).
(6)
Knowing where the perfect
Bible is is a matter of textual recognition
and NOT textual criticism. In the field
of textual recognition, Burgon is good, Hills
is better, Waite is best.
(7)
The Chinese Union Version (CUV) is the "Word
of God" for the Chinese people today since
it is the best, most faithful, most reliable,
and most accurate version among the Chinese versions
presently available. Great care ought to be taken
not to undermine our Chinese brethren’s confidence
in the CUV. Nevertheless, versions or translations
are never superior to the inspired and preserved
Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Scriptures; thus there
is a need to consult these original language Scriptures
for clarity and fulness of meaning, and to compare
Scripture with Scripture.
APPENDIX 2: THE TBS STATEMENT OF DOCTRINE
OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
Preface:
The Reformation Confessions such as the Westminster
(1647), the Savoy (1658). and the London Baptist
(1689), state regarding Scripture that ‘The
Old Testament in Hebrew, (which was the native
language of the people of God of old,) and the
New Testament in Greek, (which at the time of
the writing of it was most generally known to
the nations,) being immediately inspired by God,
and, by his singular care and providence, kept
pure in all ages, are therefore authentical '
(WCF 1:8).
With this the Society is in full agreement, believing
that it accurately summaries the following doctrine:
1.
Only the self-interpreting Holy Scripture
is competent to define Scripture. The Scripture's
witness to itself can be briefly summarised in
the following propositions:
1)
The Bible is God's written revelation to
mankind (Exodus 24:3-4: Psalm 119:43. Matthew
4:4)
2)
Through the process of inspiration (which
has the meaning 'breathed out by God’), a
supernatural power was exerted by the Holy Spirit
upon certain chosen men, governing and directing
them to write the very words of God, without admixture
of error (1 Corinthians 2:13; 2 Timothy 3:16
17; 2 Peter 1:21). This is not to deny that each
of the biblical writers had a distinctive style
and vocabulary, but it is to affirm that
the divine superintendence was such that the end
product (verbally inspired) was the very Word
of God, and as such, absolute and pure truth
(Romans 3:2; 1 Corinthians 14:37).
3)
The
supernatural power involved in the process of
inspiration, and in the result of inspiration,
was exerted only in the original product
on of the sixty-six Canonical books of the Bible
(2 Peter 1:20-21; 2 Peter 3:15-16).
4)
In conformity to God's purpose, promise.
and command, faithful
and accurate copies were made (Deuteronomy 17:18;
Proverbs 25:1) and, through God's special providential
care, His Word has been preserved in all generations
(Psalm 119:152; Matthew 5:18; 24:35; Luke 16:17;
1 Peter 1:25). The professing people of God under
the Old: and New Testaments have been the appointed
custodians of His Word (Psalm 147:19, 20; Romans
3:2; Colossians 4:16: 1 Thessalonians 5:27), in
a process sometimes referred to in textual criticism
as 'ecclesiastical transmission’.
5)
The Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles
received the preserved and standard Hebrew text
of the Old Testament as Scripture (Luke
4:16-19, 21; 2 Timothy 3:16). This serves as our
pattern far accepting the historically received
text of the New Testament also as Scripture
(1 Timothy 5:18 cf. Luke 10:7; 2 Peter 3:15-16).
6)
These texts of Scripture
reflect the qualities of God-breathed Scripture,
including being authentic holy, pure, true, infallible,
trustworthy, excellent, self-authenticating, necessary,
sufficient perspicuous, self-interpreting, authoritative
and inerrant (Psalm 19:7-9, Psalm 119). They are
consequently to be received as the Word of God
(Ezra 7:14; Nehemiah 8:8, Daniel 9:2: 2 Peter
1:19) and the correct reading at any point is
to be sought within these texts.
7)
Translations
from the original languages are likewise to be
considered the written Word of God in so far as
these translations are accurate as to the form
and content of the Original. Acts 8:32f, 15:14-18,
Romans 15:8-12 include Old Testament quotations
rendered in Greek,
and yet they are still accorded the status of
the Word of God by the Holy Spirit, as indicated
by the usage of the expressions ‘scripture’ and
‘it is written'. The
variants found in these and other quotations in
the New Testament have a divine warrant.
In order to achieve the necessary accuracy in
translation, the method to be followed should
be that of formal equivalence, not dynamic equivalence.
The translation should best reflect both the form
and the content of the Original, by being as literal
as is possible and as free as is necessary; that
is, by translating the words, and following the
arrangement and propositional content of the original
text as much as is possible, and by being free
of human invention, addition, and subtraction,
except as is necessary.
2.
As affirmed above, the Lord Jesus endorsed
the preserved and standard Old Testament of His
day as 'scripture’ (Luke 4:17-21), regarding it
as reliable to each particular word and incapable
of being 'broken’
|
