William Bucanus, 1659, Professor of Divinity in the University of Lausanne, on Scripture’s Self-attesting Witness

Common Place IIII.

Of the Holy Scripture

What is the Scripture called?

The Scripture, putting one name for another is used for the writings of the Prophets and Apostles, which the company of the faithful doth religiously use for the instruction in godliness. And it is called holy, because, being delivered of God, it containeth holy things necessary unto eternal life. And in the same sense it is called the written word of God, and the unappealable Judge of all controversies of religion. Isa. 8:20; Luke 16:29-31.

Who is the Author of it?

God himself, who did commit his will unto writing by men called immediately of himself, and inspired by the Holy Ghost as his servants at hand, (as his penmen and public notaries) 2 Peter 1:21. For the Prophecy was not at any time brought by the will of man, but the holy men spake as they were moved by the holy Ghost. Hereupon all the Prophets do with one accord repeat this, The mouth of the Lord hath spoken it, Isa. 58:14. These things saith the Lord, Eze. 12:25, 28. 2 Tim. 3:16, The whole Scripture is given of God by inspiration. 1 Cor. 2:13, Which things we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth. Whereupon depend the adjuncts of the Scripture, as the authority, the excellency, the truth, and fulfilling of them, which is necessary, as it must needs be that God is true. Whence also it comes to pass, that the Scripture alone is to be believed, for its self of its self is worthy to be believed. Neither is it subject to the censure, addition, diminution, or alternation of angels or men, Deut. 12:32; Rev. 22:18. It alone is without all error, and we are bound to believe it alone upon the bare affirmation thereof. By it alone all opinions which men shall read, are to be confirmed and to be decided. This alone is perfect, and containeth all things necessary unto life eternal. Lastly, it is firm and constant, Deut, 17:9,10; Isa. 8:20; Mal. 2:7; Acts 17:2; Joshua 1:8; Job 5:39; Acts 17:11; Psalm 19:8; Luke 16:29; John 15:15; Acts 20:20, 27; 2 Tim. 23:16,17; 2 Peter 1:19.

How may it appear that the writings of the Prophets and Apostles were indicted of God?

Partly by testimonies, partly by reason. And the testimonies, partly inward, partly outward. The internal witness is one alone; namely of the holy Ghost inwardly speaking to our heart, and persuading us that those writings are inspired of God, and sealing them up in our hearts, Eph. 1:13; 1 John 2:20, 27, Ye have an anointment of the Lord, and this anointment teaching you all things. For whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, can easily discern his power speaking in the Scriptures. As it is said, 1 Cor. 2:15, The spiritual man discerneth all things, and Isa. 53:1, The arm of the Lord is not revealed to all men. So, Luke 8:10 and Mark 13:11, The mysteries of the kingdom of heaven are not revealed to all men, but to whom it is given of God. And this testimony properly maketh for our confirmation, and this alone doth satisfy us, being known of them alone that are converted unto Christ, which doth evermore agree with the Scripture, without which the testimony of the Church can be no weight with us. For as none but God alone is a fit witness to testify of himself in his word, even so the word never findeth credit in our hearts, till such time as it be sealed up unto us by the inward testimony of the Spirit.*

*Note the continuity of Bucanus’ commentary with that of the Westminster Confession of Faith, 1647, Ch. 1.5., “yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit bearing witness with and by the Word in our hearts.”

William Bucanus, Body of Divinity or Institutions of the Christian Religion; framed out of the Word of God, and the writings of the best divines, methodically handled by was of questions and answers, fit for all such as desire to know and practice the will of God. Written in Latin. Translated into English by Robert Hill and Fellow at St. Johns College in Cambridge, for the benefit of the English Nation. (London: Printed for Daniel Pakeman, Abel Roper and Richard Tomlins, and are to be sold in Fleet-street, and at the Sun and Bible near Py-corner, 1659), 42, 45-46.

Which Translation is the Most Accurate?

In this video, Dr. Robert Plummer of Southern Seminary is asked whether the KJV is the most accurate translation. In the end, Dr. Plummer says that the KJV is not the most accurate translation but offers nothing in its place except to say there are many good translations out there to choose. So, I suppose they all equally miss the mark while simultaneously hit the mark in the same way? Assuming the argument offered here at StandardSacredText.com cannot answer the above question, how then do we answer this question of which translation is the most accurate?

Accuracy implies a target or goal. Furthermore, accuracy implies an approximation to the target or goal. That is, accuracy is relative. Some X is more accurate than some Y. This again takes us back to the target or goal. Furthermore, it assumes there is some object intended to reach that goal whether an arrow to the bullseye or a soccer ball to the soccer goal or a basketball to the hoop. But who establishes that target and the aimed object? As we see it, the answer is either God or men.

Assuming the former, where would we find shape and dimensions of the target or goal. Perhaps God has defined a hockey goal or a basketball hoop and man a rugby goal. How are we to know what God has prescribed as the goal or target for our accuracy so that we could say which translation is the most accurate? Even further, how are we to know that the thing aimed is suited to meet the goal or target. Shall we include a bow and arrow as a means to score a touchdown in football or a dirt bike to score a 10 in synchronized swimming? Though such additions would certainly make things interesting, it seems the thing aimed does not fit the goal or target.

Then of course the goal and target are prescribed, they are standardized. AT&T Stadium, the home of the Dallas Cowboys, and Ford Field, the home of the Detroit Lions both have endzones. If there is a game in Dallas between these two teams the Lions cannot score touchdowns in Detroit even though there are endzones there. There are rules and standards. Both teams are expected to abide by those standards if they want to be counted among the teams of the NFL. Similarly, what are the rules and standards set up for what counts as an accurate translation and then the most accurate? Who made these rules and why do their opinions count?

Seeing our argument is largely dismissed by those who apparently know best, it seems that God has not prescribed the rules regarding the size and shape of the target, nor the object used in achieving that target, nor the rules and standards which govern both the target and the aimed object. In our day and age, in the church, in our seminaries and divinity schools, men do this work. Men tell us what the original is and where it is located. Men then determine the approximate value of formal equivalency and dynamic equivalency. Men tell us that the objected aimed is modern textual scholarship applied to the “embracement of riches” that is the manuscript tradition. Men tell us that the long ending in Mark may or may not belong in the Bible. They tell us that the story of the woman caught in adultery most certainly does not belong in the Bible. And when they say these things, they believe themselves to have hit the goal or target that they have set up for themselves.

As a result of assuming this largely transcendentless position Dr. Plummer does not give an answer to which version is the most accurate. Rather he simply states that the KJV is not the most accurate. Plummer has merely stated the party line. The fact is that for Plummer and those of his persuasion, there is no “most accurate” translation. “There are many good translations,” is the approved contemporary evangelical position. No one is truly more accurate than the other. Which of course is like saying, no shot on goal is truly more accurate than any other. For the modern evangelical textual critic, the goal is rather wide. Plummer considers the ESV, NASB, CSB and NLT to all be touchdowns. Who says? Well Dr. Plummer of course, but of course Dr. Plummer is one of the players and not the creator of football.

The players are telling us what counts as a goal or touchdown. The Creator of the game has been sidelined in the current modern evangelical text critical endeavor, only players get a say and especially the smart. The players debate about what is or is not the New Testament. There is no objective third will to adjudicate the call. We’re not allowed to ask the Creator of the game about how the game is supposed to be played. The players get to say what is out of bounds, and what is in bounds. They determine whether it’s a fourth-and-one or a first down. They determine the length of the field and who gets to play. So, of course, they are the ones to declare the touchdowns, hattricks, and hole-in-ones. They set their own standard, get close in meeting that standard, and then declare victory or simply changes the target from the Original to some other text and then change the method to the CBGM.

Finally, a most accurate translation does not exist. All that exists is good and bad translations. So, they are all equally accurate or inaccurate? They are all equally bullseyes? It’s like that part in Robin Hood where he strikes the bullseye with one arrow only to split that arrow with a second. Apparently, modern textual critics and translators have become the Robin Hood of Robin Hoods. They have shot a dozen arrows where each consecutive arrow splits the prior arrow at the bullseye. Well done! What is more likely though is that the goal is rather wide. So instead of a bullseye it is more like a soccer goal without a goalie where once the shot is taken the players stand around and declare, “Close enough is good enough. Yes, and Amen!” Certainly, if close enough is good enough for God’s word, then close enough is good enough for God. Amiright?

17th c. Apologetics

In Dr. Van Kleeck’s excellent article on “Reason and Theology” three uses of reason in the formulation and defense of theology are identified. This post is an excerpt from a 17th c. commentary on Daniel where reason is utilized to answer the doctrine of the ubiquitous presence of the body of Christ in the Eucharist.

Daniel 3:27

Controversy: Against Ubiquitarians

“They which maintain the omnipresence of Christ’s flesh, and the body of Christ may be in the Eucharist, without the essential properties thereof, as circumscription, quantity, visibility, and such life, do thus reason out of this place [Daniel 3:25]. The burning heat is an essential property of the fire, but this was separated from the fire, and yet the essence of the fire remained. Therefore the essential properties of a thing may be separated from it, the nature still remaining.

Contra 1. The burning faculty of the fire is not an essential property, but an effect of the heat, which is an essential quality of fire.

2. The heat was not separated from the fire, for then it should no longer be fire but the heat thereof was only restrained and hindered from working, and that not generally but only where the servants of God were, for without the furnace of flames killed the king’s ministers. If the fire had lost the heat, the miracle had not been so great, for the thing not being hot, not to be burnt. Polan.

3. If all this were admitted, it serveth not their turn, for the Scriptures testifieth that there was fire and it burned not. They must then allow the like warrant for their miracle in the Eucharist, that the body should be there without the due properties. It followeth not because it pleased God at this time to set forth his glory, that he should do so continually.

Andrew Willet, Hexapla in Danielum: that is, a sixfold commentary upon the most divine prophecy of Daniel. Printed by Cantrell Legge, Printer to the University of Cambridge, 1610, 115.

Henry Ainsworth, 1609, on Translating the Scripture into English

God’s word may be set over into English, for the most part word for word without absurdity. Where our language will not bear the strict propriety of the original phrases, we are warranted by the Apostles allegations of Scripture in another tongue, to use such words as the language will afford, to express other withal. Though tongues differ one from another in propriety of speeches, yet God hath sanctified them all, for instruments to convey his word and law unto us, and this is writing as well as in speaking, Dan. 2:4, etc., Acts 1:4; 8:9-11; 15:23; Rev. 1:11, 19.

Written sermons are the works of men. God’s book set into English, though with some diversities of phrase, is God’s book and word still, (as hath been shown) it is not the letter or sound, but the thing signified and meant by them, which properly is God’s word, and which we are so to reverence.

Henry Ainsworth, A Defense of the Holy Scriptures, worship and ministry used in the Christian Churches separated from Antichrist: Against the challenges, cavils and contradiction of M. Smith, in his book entitled The Differences of the Churches of the Separation (Amsterdam: Giles Thorp, 1609), 60.

Reason and Theology

“usus rationis: the use of reason;

specifically, the use of reason in theology.”

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

Can the use of reason be abused in the work of theology? We know that human reason enables the Christian to come to many truths, but can it also get in the way of the truth? How about the methods used which are considered rational or fair uses of human reason? Indeed, both human reason itself and the methods constructed by reason can serve as impediments to the truth. The Reformers recognized this double-edged sword called human reason and accounted for it in their work. Muller observes,

“In order to avoid what they [the Protestant Orthodox] saw as the abuse of reason in medieval scholasticism, early modern Socinianism, and the new rationalist philosophies of the seventeenth century, the Protestant orthodox distinguished between legitimate use of reason in theology.”

Muller, Dictionary, Term: usus rationis.

The Protestant Orthodox understood the proper use of reason as divided into three uses – the organic, instrumental, or ministerial uses of reason. Additionally, there was one improper use – the magisterial use. Of the three proper uses Muller observes,

“The ordinary, instrumental, or ministerial use of reason recognizes the inherent rationality of human beings and of human discourse, including theology. Reason thus is used organically, according to its place among the natural faculties of soul, and instrumentally or ministerially, as a tool to aid to logical or rational discourse.”

Muller, Dictionary, Term: usus rationis.

In a similar vein the Reformed Orthodox also differentiated between different uses of philosophy. Again, the different uses are divided into three:

“(1) the organic use, i.e., the use of philosophy to train the reason, analyze arguments, and serve theology in a purely instrumental manner.”

Muller, Dictionary, Term: usus philosophiae.

“(2) the use for argument or for proof, the use of philosophy to adduce ancillary arguments to support theological proof; this use is possible only in the articuli mixti…in which both theology and philosophy have a role, e.g., the existence of God.”

Muller, Dictionary, Term: usus philosophiae.

“(3) the use for demolition (of an argument), the use of philosophy to refute error and find logical gaps in argumentation.”

Muller, Dictionary, Term: usus philosophiae.

In sum, philosophy can be used to train thinkers how to think, offer support to theological arguments where relevant, and serve as a secondary form of argumentation in the work of defeating other arguments.

As for the magisterial use of reason, a faulty use of reason, the issue lies in asking, “What serves as the source of theological content?”

“When, however, reason assumes a magisterial function and presumes to teach theology its contents, it oversteps its limits; the content of theology must rest solely on revelation.”

Muller, Dictionary, Term: usus rationis.

An example of the magisterial use of reason may be when scholars conclude that the Bible must have errors in the text and/or in historical reliability and/or in scientific reliability because the manuscript evidence says so and/or current archeological stances say so and/or “Look over there, ancient cosmologies!” = scientifically wrong. In these cases, man’s reason is dictating the content of theology rather than revelation.

Certainly, reason is a fundamental part of the human experience and the formulation of theological thought. Our use of reason is of course human and should be logical but all under the lordship of Christ and His revelation. For example:

1.) It is reasonable and logical to believe that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead.
2.) Furthermore, it is reasonable and logical to employ historical, archeological, philosophical etc data and arguments to support (1).
3.) For the Christian, it is neither reasonable nor logical to conclude that Lazarus did not rise from the dead nor was Christ able to raise Lazarus even after we look all those who remain in their graves and interview millions of people incapable of raising the dead.

In like manner,

1′.) It is reasonable and logical to believe that every jot and tittle of the Greek and Hebrew is kept pure in all ages, never to pass away.
2′.) Furthermore, it is reasonable and logical to employ historical, archeological, philosophical etc. data and arguments to support (1′).
3′.) For the Christian, it is neither reasonable nor logical to conclude that some or much of the Bible has passed away given the manuscript evidence and some’s current inability to reconcile this or that reading.

Human reason has its place, and that place is in submission to Christ and His revelation.

Thomas Hall, 1658, on 2 Timothy 3:16 and Scripture’s Inspiration

The Apostle, better to encourage Timothy to study the Holy Scriptures, goeth on to prove that they are able to make one wise unto salvation, and that by drawn from a full and sufficient enumeration of those things which are necessary to salvation, where he commends the Holy Scriptures upon, a threefold account: 1. For their Dignity and Authority; 2. For their Utility; 3. For their Perfection.

  1. He commends them for their Dignity and Divine Authority, as coming immediately from God. Verse 16, All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. (By inspiration of the Holy Ghost who is the Spirit of Truth, and led the writers of these Writings into all Truth, so that they could not err. Dutch Annot. In locum.

2. For the singular Utility, which is four-fold. First, for Doctrine to teach the Truth. Secondly, for Reproof of error and false doctrine. Thirdly, for correction of sin and evil manners. Fourthly, for Instruction in Righteousness and good works.

3. For their complete perfection, enabling a Minister for his office, verse 17, especially those four parts of it before named, v. 16.

The Apostle commends the Scriptures in respect of their Divine Authority, they have not angels or men for their Author; the Prophets and Apostles were but penmen, secretaries and instruments of the Holy Ghost, to write what he should dictate to them. So the angels were God’s messengers to declare the Law to his people, Galatians 3:19. The Scriptures have God himself for their more immediate Author, All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, all and every part of Scripture is Divinely inspired, or breathed by God, both for Matter, Order, Style and Words.

Those Holy men of God did not only utter their words by the Holy Ghosts immediate direction, but by the same direction did commit them to writing, that they might be standing Rule to the Church forever: for the bare memories of men would not have kept them for us with such certainty as they have been kept in Scripture, and delivered to us. So that what David said of himself, is true of all penmen of Holy Scripture, the Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his Word was in my tongue, 2 Samuel 23:2. It is he that spake by the mouth of his Holy Prophets, Luke 1:70, and bid them write, Revelation 14:12. They spake not what pleased themselves, but they spake and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, 2 Peter 1:21. They were powerfully moved; acted, and carried out of themselves to write, say and do, what God would have them, Nehemiah 9:30, Micah 3:8, Acts 28:25, Hebrews 13:7.

Thomas Hall. A Practical and Polemical Commentary of Exposition upon the Third and Fourth Chapter of the latter Epistle of Saint Paul to Timothy wherein the Text is explained, some controversies discussed, sundry cases of conscience are cleared, Many common places are succinctly handled, and dicers useful, and seasonable Observations raised (London: Printed by E. Tyler, for John Starkey, at the Miter at the North door of the middle Exchange in Saint Pauls Church-yard, 1658), 272-273.

Belief in What the Scripture Says About Itself.

1.) The Scripture speaks authoritatively about itself.
2.) Because the Scripture speaks authoritatively about itself every Christian is morally compelled to believe what the Scripture says about itself.
3.) It is neither rational to conclude nor is it Scripturally supported that you must or should have even a single hour of seminary education to believe what the Scripture says about itself.
4.) If you ought to do something it implies that you can do something.
5.) If plumbers and businessmen and stay-at-home moms and schoolteachers ought to believe what their Bible says about itself, then it is implied that they can believe without seminary training and/or the approval of this or that Ph.D. or professor at this or that seminary or divinity school.

In believing what Scripture says about itself I give you ten Scripture passages that compel us to believe. If you would like to read a thorough exposition of each of these passages you can find it in Dr. Van Kleeck Sr’s new book, An Exegetical Grounding for a Standard Sacred Text.

“The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”

Psalm 12:6-7

“For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.”

Psalm 119:89

“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.”

Isaiah 59:21

“For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

Matthew 5:18

“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”

Matthew 24:35

“If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken.”

John 10:35

“And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”

2 Timothy 3:15-17

“Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of the grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.”

1 Peter 1:23-25

“We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shinneth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2 Peter 1:19-21

“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”

Jude 3

The Bible Version Debate and Fellowship

Perusing YouTube looking for version related discussions I came across this video, How I Respond to King James Only Christians. In the video Mike Winger explains that when he encounters a KJV advocate he looks to see if that advocate will break fellowship with him over the issue. If the KJV Christian will not, then Mike sees the relationship as two brothers disagreeing and ultimately, amiable.

Being a TR/KJV advocate I agree with his answer in that I do not break fellowship with Christians who do not read the TR/KJV. I would say it is difficult to commit a Christian to the devil for the destruction of the flesh while regularly engaging in formal and informal discussions in an attempt to persuade my interlocutor. Admittedly, I am especially susceptible to interactions of this sort where coffee/tea and pie are part of the interaction.

That said I think it is important to make a few observations which really militate against a kind of kumbaya type of fellowship. First, we can’t both be right. Indeed, I have shared meals with and studied with and fellowshipped with Molinist, paedobaptists, a-millenialists, charismatics and on and on. I disagree with these positions and for important reasons, reasons that should not be trivialized for the sake of harmony.

Either the TR/KJV Christian or the CT/MVO Christian is right, or they are both wrong. That said, while there may be fellowship there will still be things that come between us, and it will remain that way so long as we hold mutually exclusive positions. A cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same way. It is not possible that the word of God be the KJV, the ESV, and the Message at the same time and in the same way.

Second, according to Scripture the world will know that we are Christ’s by our love one toward another. So, when two brothers disagree on the topic of which version, it will be our love which will allow us to remain in fellowship with each other and that love will demonstrate that we are Christ’s. That said, we must be clear that given the first argument above, we are not one in Christ. As much as we are united through our love for Christ and thereby our love for each other, the point is that we are not united any more than the Molinist, Calvinist, and Arminian are united in Christ on the topic of the sovereignty of God in the affairs of men’s souls. We are commanded to let this mind – Christ’s mind – be in you. Unless Jesus’ mind is caught between the horns of Molinism and Calvinism, the bride of Christ is not reflecting His mind as a body and institution.

Third, consider Jesus’ teaching on jots and titles. We here at StandardSacredText.com believe that Jesus really taught that every jot and tittle of the original will be preserved by God. Other believe that Jesus’ words are a natural or oriental hyperbole. Still, others claim that Jesus merely meant that the meaning of the Scriptures would be preserved. Again, either one of us is right about Christ’s revelation concerning jot and tittles or all the above are wrong. Either way, at a bare minimum, one of us is not understanding, perhaps even “misquoting/misrepresenting”, Jesus’ teaching. One of us is claiming a Jesus that taught A, and the other of us is claiming that Jesus taught B, and yet another of us is claiming Jesus taught C. On this point we are postulating something of a different Jesus given the existential proximity of Jesus’ teaching/words with Jesus as Word. Put simply, when we comment on Jesus’ teaching we are commenting on Jesus.

I admit that conflict and differences of belief and opinion can serve as a means of sharpening and sanctification. I also admit that such interactions have been and will be a fixture of public and ecclesiastical Christian discourse. Assuming these both, while we can be united around our love for Christ and then for each other, that love has and will include certain disputations and controversies all of which can only ultimately be solved by appealing to Scripture.

“The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures.”

Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.10.

Nathaniel Ingelo, 1659, on the Credibility of Translations

And herein God shewed his care for the unlearned, who are the greater part of the world; for though they cannot read the Original, yet having a Translation, which, in that it is a Translation, agrees with the Original.1 They receive the same mind of God that the learned do. Why should any man be unsatisfied with this way of delivery, whereas Princes and States, in matters which they esteem greatest, receive proposals and Ambassadors by an interpreter? If to read, or bear these read, be not sufficient to direct us, what shall become of the blind, who can neither read Original or Translation? And if any think that say a great matter against Translations, when they affirm, That we know not the configuration of Hebrew and Greek words, but by the report of men. They may well say so of our Mother-tongue; for we know not that this word “Book” signifies, that which men commonly understand when they hear that word pronounced, but that they were told so; shall Englishmen for this same reason doubt, whether he can speak true English or no? or shall the child neglect his duty to his parents, whom he can know but by report? Behold how many ways can the divine Providence use one thing? The first division of tongues broke a foolish attempt of scaling the skies; this second furthered a noble design of lifting us up the right way to heaven. By the courtesy of so many Translations, the Holy Ghost appears again in cloven tongues. Those men which would make us believe the written word is no fit Rule, because everybody is skilled not in the Hebrew and Greek, do not only say that they are not a rule to us, but that there were not to the Jews or Grecians. For it is probable, that many Greeks could no more read Greek or Hebrew, than many can now read English: and how did they do? If we may be deceived by those which interpret, so might they by those which read.

1By Original, Ingelo, with 17th C. post-Reformation scholarship, is referring to the apographa, actual original language manuscripts within their possession.

Nathaniel Ingelo, The Perfection, Authority, and Credibility of the Holy Scriptures. Discoursed in a sermon before the University of Cambridge at the Commencement, July 4, 1658 (London: Printed by E.T. for Luke Fawn at the sign of the Parrot in Pauls Church-yard, 1659), 69-73.

The Church has Not Escaped the “Great Reset”

It is beyond question that the TR/King James Version has been the Standard Sacred Text for English reading people for 22% or over 1/5 of Church history since the giving of the immediately inspired NT Originals. No other contender either in Greek or English can make this claim. Indeed, every other Greek text and English version are so far temporal anomalies, literary novelties compared to the longevity of the TR/King James Version. To reject this irrefutable truth, one must undo what the Church has been impelled to accept the authority of the self-attesting, self-authenticating, and self-interpreting Greek and English words of the TR/King James Version for four centuries. The TR/King James Version has not pointed away from itself to another version in the same manner as the 1560 Geneva pointed away from itself to the 1611 King James Version. If the historic trajectory were consistent, the  TR/King James Version would have led the Church to receive the 1901 English Revised Version. This transition, of course, did not happen largely due to the animosity held against the pre-critical presupposition that God’s Word was inspired and preserved that produced the TR/King James Version coupled with the affinity for a transcendentless scientific methodology that treated the Scripture like any other book. For 410 years the Church has never experienced the theological, ecclesiastical, evangelical, and moral continuity derived from the authority of the TR/King James Version, indicative of redemptive history’s eschatological trajectory. Only since the turn of the 20th century has the introduction of secularly created “bibles” brought theological, ecclesiastical, evangelical, and moral havoc to the Church and culture. For the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries the King James Bible tradition and the King James Bible itself has endured throughout 5 centuries of cultural changes, wars, and political and economic upheavals. Only now, in the 20th and 21st centuries has the Standard Bible become obsolete, as if the 20th century presents an epoch of unprecedented literary, theological, and subsequently, spiritual, decline, a decline so severe that the thought of a Standard Bible is considered untenable. Beyond the abundance of niche and boutique bibles, which speak to the opulence and leisure of the culture, none of the bloated number of bibles claim to be the Standard. This truth is the intractable indicator that modern bibles have reversed course from the positive and constructive theological trajectory away from the King James Version and are on a negative and deconstructive secular trajectory (which is perpetually evolving) toward increasing relativity. To borrow an Orwellian term, the Church has not escaped the “great reset” which attempts to erase 400 years of Church history whereby men seek to free themselves from the authority of God over them. In the “great reset” there is no longer talk about, sin, judgment, Satan, or hell. Man is essentially good and no longer requires God to be the “Big Brother” to lean upon. “History” reformulated is whatever the academic elite say it is. Everything that has to do with the TR/King James Version, literature, text, and exegesis, is demonized, purged, and reduced to some radically historic enterprise. To start over with the new bible, the old Bible and its orthodoxy must be purged from the Academy, the Church, and culture because the great reset will not tolerate dissension. Welcome to the Brave New World.