Scripture Endures Forever

What are we as Christians to make of these passages? Are we to disregard them as oriental hyperbole, or a literary device, or a contextually limited application? Or are we to accept the clear and conspicuous, historically anchored meaning of “forever”? To reject the truth of Scripture’s “foreverness” presents the need to reinterpret the passages below which is no small feat. And critics capriciously say, “No doctrine is effected with the reconstruction of novel texts and versions, except is this case the doctrine of Scripture’s “foreverness.”

I leave you, gentle reader, with the following list for your reading pleasure.

Job 19:24, “Oh that my words were now written! oh that they were printed in a book! That they were graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever!” Psalm 12:7, Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever (לְעוֹלָֽם, olam). Psalm 33:11, “The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations (לְעוֹלָ֣ם, olam).” Psalm 105:8, “He hath remembered his covenant for ever (לְעוֹלָ֣ם, olam), the word which he commanded to a thousand generations.” Psalm 117:2, “For his merciful kindness is great toward us: and the truth of the LORD endureth for ever (לְ֜עוֹלָ֗ם, olam). Praise ye the LORD.” Psalm 119:89, “Forever (לְעוֹלָ֥ם, olam), O Lord, they word is settled in heaven.” Psalm 119:111, “Thy testimonies have I taken as an heritage for ever (לְעוֹלָ֑ם, olam): for they are the rejoicing of my heart.” Psalm 119:144, “They righteousness of thy testimonies is everlasting (לְעוֹלָ֑ם, olam); give me understanding, and I shall live.” Psalm 119:152, “Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever (לְעוֹלָ֣ם, olam).” Psalm 119:160, “Thy Word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever (וּ֜לְעוֹלָ֗ם, olam).” Ecc. 3:14, “I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever (לְעוֹלָ֔ם, olam): nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.” Isa. 30:8, “Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever (עוֹלָם, olam) and ever” or “forever to eternity.” Isaiah 40:8, “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever (עוֹלָם, olam).” Isaiah 54:10, “For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the LORD that hath mercy on thee.” Isaiah 59:21, “As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; My spirit that is upon thee, and my Words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever (עוֹלָם, olam).” Matthew 5:18, “For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass (οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ) from the law, til all be fulfilled.” Matthew 24:35, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away (οὐ μὴ παρέλθωσιν).” Luke 16:17, “And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.” 1 Peter 1:23-25, “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God which liveth and abideth forever (αἰῶνα). For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth forever (αἰῶνα). And this is the Word which by the gospel is preached unto you.”

What is Standard Sacred Text.com – Sacred

Eminent scholar, Daniel Wallace opines in the following manner,

“I would question whether it is an epistemologically sound principle to allow one’s presuppositions to dictate his text-critical methodology. This is neither honest to a historical investigation nor helpful to our evangelical heritage.”

Daniel Wallace, “Challenges in New Testament Textual Criticism for the Twenty-First Century” in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Vol. 52, Iss. 1 (March 2009): 79-100. 93.

Here at StandardSacredText.com we do not question whether it is an epistemologically sound principle to allow one’s theological presuppositions to dictate text-critical methodology. Indeed, we argue the opposite. We argue that it is honest to historical investigation. Why? Well of course the Scriptures are a historical particular but so is divine revelation.

The fact that the Red Sea parted is a historical fact. According to the Christian worldview, the fact that God made the Red Sea part is also a historical fact. In fact, divine revelation is just as much a historical “artifact” as the physical document we call the Scriptures. The apostle John’s writing of the gospel of John is a historical fact. In the same way, according to the Christian worldview, God’s inspiring John to write the inspired words of the gospel of John is also a historical fact.

As such we do not exclude the Triune God or Christian theology from any of our academic endeavors whether that be linguistic, scientific, historical, or other. What we believe about what the Bible says about itself is a sacred issue, indeed, a sacred duty. And by sacred we mean set apart to God. Paul reminds us in I Corinthians 10: 31, “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.” Text-critical method falls under “whatsoever ye do. ” If the glory of the Triune God is your aim in text-critical methodology then it seems something of your theological presuppositions is dictating your methodology.

If God’s glory is not the aim of the Christian, then said Christian violates Paul’s injunction. Certainly, we would say this of a marriage which has some other aim. Or a business that has some other aim. In fact, some may say that this “other aim” may amount to idolatry.

“The glory of the Triune God” is a Christian theological presupposition.
A: All the things a Christian does should be done to the glory of the Triune God.
B: Text-critical methodology is something a Christian does.
Conclusion: For a Christian, text-critical methodology should be done to the glory of the Triune God.

Weekly Question – What if we had a Standard Sacred Text?

What if we had a standard sacred text?

Say the English-speaking believing community was to arrive at and agree on a standard sacred text. What negative outcomes do you think will come about? What are the cons? How would the Church be injured? What does the worst-case scenario look like? What is the likely scenario? Why is this the case?

Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.

The Department of Education, Big Pharma, and Bible Publishers

Riding home from a family visit, we were listening to the radio and a commentor’s observation on the existence of the Department of Education. He scoffed at the notion that the DOE functioned to educate children. In summary, he concluded that the education of children was not the department’s purpose because well-educated children would give the DOE no reason to exist. Departmental preservation required that there not be a solution to the issue of public education only the constant requirement for additional funding of the DOE due to poor grades and perpetually failing school systems. Implementing a solution would put the DOE out of business.

The pharmaceutical industry, “Big Pharma” then came to mind. Drug making companies that have been in existence well over 100 years have never produced medicine to cure one disease. Because solutions or cures are not what they are in business for. Cures would put them out of business. Drug after drug is marketed and sold but solutions to sickness and disease is not part of their business model because keeping the masses just sick enough is part of the plan.

Carry this business model over into Bible publishing. After over 100 years of bible publishing, the brightest academic minds have been incapable of coming up with a solution to the problem of divergent bible versions. And lest one think this be an unwarranted comparison with the DOE and drug manufactures, consider the profound hypocrisy of bible publishers who had a solution in the King James Bible but abandoned the answer so they could go back to the drawing board and start over again. Bible publishers have taken a page out of governmental and big business models that never intend a solution only a self-perpetuating income stream with the multiplication of novel bibles that some misguided saints argue are the word of God.

Every discipline has its spokesmen and “professionals” to write academic and scholarly propaganda in support of these high-tech rackets, and bible publishers are no different. Even bible publishers have their Anthony Fauci to tell us to omit the 1 John 5:7. The essential element of each business plan is to never provide an answer or solution; do enough to keep the consumer on the hook by creating a sensed need but never come to the place where the consumer no longer needs the business. The Church is living with scholarly imposed “masks,” the saints always fearful of being ostracized for not doing what they are told.

When the education of children was the responsibility of the community where the kids lived, families were better educated; when garden grown food was the staple diet and homeopathic medicine was appreciated and utilized communities were healthier; and before professional scholars took over the reconstruction of the Bible, the Church was stronger. It’s amazing how well our schools, medical practitioners, and Churches performed without the need of experts. Common sense people want solutions to problems not just more money thrown at the dilemma but solutions are not what the “mystery of iniquity which doth already work” (2 Thess. 2:7) has to offer.

The last thing the academy wants to hear is that we don’t need anymore experimental bibles, the Church has a standard sacred text, and it’s the King James Bible. This statement is more than a confession of faith. It strikes at the foundation of a multi-billion-dollar industry that like the DOE and Big Pharma has power through the accumulation of wealth as their driving motivations.

It’s time for the Church, but most of all the Pastors, to stop listening to so-called experts who have failed to produce solutions and return to the Bible God has blessed. A Bible that has the proven solution to the spiritual need of the lost and is the ground upon which the Church and home may grow and abound, the King James Bible.

You may say to yourselves, this post sounds too secular and crass to be true. Is the accumulation of wealth by keeping the textual critical enterprise barely alive, already on life support because of Artificial Intelligence, and by being propogandists for the bible publishing company. Is the “love of money” really at the core of this issue? Was it money that drove scholars to write and publish now irrelevant paperback rags attacking the King James Bible? Would Mark Ward and James White cease their textual escapades if it cost them their living? If the King James Bible was again accepted by the Church as the standard sacred text, an industry that has its fingers in many disciplines would be out of business and many would be out of work. In a world that runs on wasted resources, who wants that to happen?

What is Standard Sacred Text.com – Standard

The term “canon” means rule, reed, or standard. We often refer to the Scriptures as the canon of Scripture. This is to say that the Scriptures are the rule, the reed, and the standard. Just as the Triune God is the archetypical Rule, Reed, and Standard so also the Scriptures are rule, reed, and standard. As the London Baptist Confession puts it,

“The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.”

London Baptist Confession, On Holy Scripture 1. i.

Note the orthodox formulation concerning the extent of this rule. It is not merely infallible in issues of salvation but also in issues of faith. Indeed, the canon of Scripture reminds us that “whatsoever is not of faith is sin” [Rom. 14:23]. This is to say that Scripture is the standard for an entire life lived in faith not only the standard for salvation. Remember the words of the apostle Peter in that the Scriptures have given unto us “all things that pertain to life and godliness” [II Peter 1:3]. Furthermore, the Confession goes on to say that the Scripture is canon for all obedience and our obedience is born from love. As Christ says, “If ye love me, keep my commandments” [John 14:15]. Scripture is the measure and rule of all means of salvation, right living, obedience, and love.

Furthermore such an appeal to “standard” should not come as a shocker for so many of the believing community in that they read the English Standard Version or the New American Standard Version or the Christian Standard Version. I hope you see the theme here. It seems the editors of these versions hope, even aim, for a standard. But are these versions the standard? Nope, at least not in the sense of canon. In what sense they are “standard,” we are unsure.

It seems then that Standard Sacred Text folks (i.e., KJV Only folks and Confessional Bibliology folks) as well as ESV, NASB, and CSB folks [at least] seek some kind of standard. It seems then that a large cross-section of Christians desire such a standard. On this point, we can agree on the same goal. StandardSacredText.com exists to realize that goal or at the very least assist in realizing that goal.

Autographa

“autographa: autographs, originals;

specifically, the original autograph copies of the books of the Bible as they came from the hands of the inspired authors.”

Richard Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology, Term: autographa.

NOTES: It is interesting to observe that the “autographa” was for the Protestant Scholastics of the Reformation, “original autograph copies.” For the Protestants of old and for us here at StandardSacredText.com, we look to the copies of the autographic words as autographic. Thus Francis Turretin writes concerning “The Purity of the Sources,”

“By the original texts, we do not mean the autographs written by the hand of Moses, of the prophets and of the apostles, which certainly do not now exist. We mean their apographs [copies] which are so called because they set forth to us the word of God in the very words of those who wrote under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Ghost.”

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 10, Sec. II.

Why Do Christians Defend the Bible Like the Unbeliever?

Why do Christians defend their Bible in a manner similar to the unbeliever? Instead of asserting the Bible as infallible and the preserved Word of God, contemporary apologetics often begins with Christians on the defensive. The apologist typically counteracts the critic’s evidential defeaters using a similar set of evidential arguments, leading to a back-and-forth of secular reasoning. This approach, unfortunately, has become the normative method for defending the Bible in modern apologetics.

Several concerns arise about the efficacy of this apologetic methodology. First, arguments centered around grammar, syntax, and diction are inherently secular. If the Bible is not presupposed to be the Word of God, then any linguist, whether Christian or not, is equally qualified to engage in such debates. In this context, the apologetic merely mirrors secular discussions, resulting in arguments that can never definitively establish that the Bible is the Word of God. Instead, these debates may only lead to a relative degree of uncertainty about the text’s reading, but they fall short of affirming the divine nature of the Scriptures.

Similarly, arguments from history present significant challenges when the Bible is not assumed to be the Word of God. History, by its nature, is messy and often contradictory. It rarely aligns neatly with contemporary expectations, and historians must interpret and sometimes manipulate data to fit particular narratives. The credibility of historical claims depends heavily on the historian’s character and biases, as true neutrality in historical reporting is rare. In fact, history itself does not “choose sides”—it simply records past events. The idea that modern scholars have all the necessary data to make definitive conclusions about historical events is often an illusion, as many details have been lost to time. The gaps and irregularities in historical records only make the task of affirming the Bible as the Word of God more difficult, if not impossible, when history is the primary focus.

When we turn to philosophy, the situation is no less complicated. Unlike theology, which is anchored in specific doctrines, philosophy often lacks definitive boundaries. Philosophical inquiry can be useful for theologians, but only when it assumes that the Bible is the Word of God. Without this assumption, philosophy’s open-ended nature leads to speculative and anthropocentric systems that, at best, are self-contained but disconnected from divine revelation. Philosophy, like linguistics and history, cannot determine the Bible’s status as the Word of God if this truth is not presupposed from the outset.

This brings us back to the central question: Why do Christians argue for the truth of God’s Word in the same manner as the unregenerate? Why do they not begin with the self-authenticating, self-interpreting, and self-attesting nature of Scripture, along with the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit to the believer? Christians should not seek to defend the faith by first trying to establish its truth through evidential reasoning. Instead, they should assert the Bible’s divine authority and present arguments based on Scripture’s internal witness.

Historically and anecdotally, evidentialist arguments defending the Bible’s preservation and inspiration have been largely ineffective since the 1970s. While these discussions may appeal to the academic elite, they have not successfully advanced the authority of Scripture within the Church. If the Bible is not presupposed to be the infallible Word of God from the outset, then linguistic, historical, and philosophical arguments are ultimately inadequate substitutes for the Bible’s own self-attestation.

It’s 2025: Where is Dr. Ward on Psalm 12:6-7

Looking through the archived posts of Standard Sacred Text you will find several articles relating to Psalm 12:6-7, verbal preservation, historic churchly and academic exegetical support for the rendering and Dr. Mark Ward’s strong objection to the passage referring to the verbal preservation of Scripture. For Ward, the notion that any self-attesting witnesses to the Scripture’s providential preservation exist is alien to his theological construct. As we have pointed out previously, Ward is not a scholar in the traditional sense of doing academic research that contributes to existing scholarly literature. Instead, Ward serves as a willing propogandist for anyone who rejects precritical exegesis and theological formulation. He is most recognized for a feckless, negative attack of the English language utilized for the translation of the King James Bible. See the articles written by Dr. Van Kleeck, Jr. on Ward’s conspicuously confused mind. Only the most arrogant would presume to speak for the Church at large, but Ward has taken it upon himself to be the post-critical prophet of doom not critical of all versions but of the only standard sacred text in English. There is nothing critical about a so-called scholar who is incapable of challenging the theological status quo with historic, philosophical, and exegetically grounded orthodoxy.

Ward prescribed his own timetable to refute the pre-critical argument for Psalm 12:6-7 and verbal preservation. His self-imposed deadline of 2024 has passed without any response. This is the second time Ward has failed to follow through with his public and grandiose claims. The first was when he made a public call to debate which Dr. Van Kleeck, Jr. readily agreed to. After additional consultation Ward decided not to debate Dr. Van Kleeck, Jr. Not providing a scholarly response, or any response for that matter, to the case presented for Psalm 12:6-7 after he agreed to do so is his second public failure. On a scholarly level, Ward’s inability to provide a defense of his a-historical position contributes to the mounting evidence that he is a propogandist not a scholar. From a theological perspective, allowing Psalm 12:6-7 to stand unrefuted comprehensively undermines his post-critical notion of the value of Scriptures’ recent secular reconstruction. The fact that Psalm 12:6-7 teaches verbal preservation continues to stand firm against a prominent spokesman of the critical position. The historic rendering of the passage by Ward’s failure is again vindicated for its historic and exegetical grounding and remains unscathed. Like so many before him, Ward is a theological bomb thrower, asserting a falsehood, hiding, and hoping that his assessment is never followed up on.

The kind of failure Ward embraces is heightened when his attack is upon the theologiae cognoscenti, the cognitive foundation of the Christian faith. It’s not that he has blundered by putting oil in the radiator, he has chosen instead to attack the very cognitive source of Christianity, God’s Word. The exegetical tradition is divided in Psalm 12:6-7 but the Holy Spirit intended only one interpretation. Without repeating the previously cited evidence, the better supported rendering, the rendering with the greatest explanatory scope is the preservation of the words.

So Happy New Year! I don’t think there is any surprise here. Blessings!