Bruce Waltke and M. O’Connor write, “With these facts in mind, we may turn to the Hebrew system, which presents many similarities to English, so many, in fact, that is important for students to bear in mind the many differences between the languages.” Footnoting this statement, Waltke, O’Connor lend support to the Reformation era translators and cite Tyndale: “These similarities are an important basis for the claims of the Reformation translators that Hebrew ‘goes better’ into English than into Latin. Compare Tyndale’s famous remark, ‘The Greek tongue agreeth more with the English than with the Latin [which has no article]. And the properties of the Hebrew tongue agreeth a thousand times more with the English than with the Latin. The manner of speaking is both one; so that in a thousand places thou needest not but to translate into the English, word for word: thou must seek a compass in the Latin.'”

Bruce K. Waltke, M. O’Connor, An Introduction of Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 236, 236 fn2.

Whenever we open the sacred book of God, we should lift up our hearts to him, to teach us the true meaning of what we are going to read. This is necessary, because those doctrines, which are its very glory, offend our natural pride, and its precepts contradict our dearest lusts. To receive the one, therefore, with humility and thankfulness, and to submit to be governed by the other, requires assistance from heaven, and a blessing from the Father and Fountain of lights. Accordingly, in the Bible we are frequently taught that we cannot know the excellency of its doctrines, nor rely on them, with such a persuasion as to honor God by it, unless he opens our understandings; for “no man,” saith St Paul, “can say that Jesus Christ is Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.” And when the apostle speaks of those believers in Christ who knew the things which were freely given of God to them, he declares, they received ” the Spirit which is of God, that they might know them.” So deeply sensible were the holy men of old, of their own natural incapacity of reaping any profitable knowledge from the Scripture without the teachings of God, obtained by prayer, that with the Bible open before them they continually made request for illumination of their minds to understand it aright. “l am a stranger upon earth, O hide not thy commandments from me.—I am thy servant, give me understanding that I may know thy statutes. Open thou mine eyes that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.” These blessed servants of God we must imitate, and depend on the Spirit for light and instruction when we read God’s word. Not, indeed, expecting a new light, that is, any new doctrine, either distinct from the Scripture rule, or supplemental to it; nor laying aside our reason and understanding, relying upon an immediate inspiration to interpret Scripture. Either of these things is weak enthusiasm. But with the greatest sobriety we may expect, and ought to pray for the Spirit’s help, to give us real advantage and improvement whilst we are reading the word of God. Because the Spirit is promised to abide with the Church for ever, as a Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of the things of God, nor shall we ever know them so as to feel their power and authority on the heart, without internal illumination. There is, I readily grant, a knowledge of Scripture truths, which men of parts and penetration attain at once, upon turning their attention to them; so that they can talk and preach about them without detection amongst the multitude, whilst they themselves are workers of iniquity, blind and dead in their sins. But then this knowledge is speculative, worthless, resting in the head, and never changing the heart. And so must all knowledge of divine things be, unless the influence of the Spirit of God give it power to command and sway the soul. Because, by whatever method we attain the knowledge of any thing contrary to the bent of our own wicked hearts, we need much more than the most convincing external evidence of the truth of the thing, to determine our will against its own strong and corrupt propensity. If you demand a proof of this, consider the remarkable case of the Jews at Mount Horeb. Could any one of them doubt that the authority, which avouched the law given to them, was decisive. Nevertheless, how daringly did they rush into idolatry! They did it not only against the express letter of the law, but whilst the terrible voice, in which it was delivered, one would think, was still sounding in their ears. And though they could not doubt the authority of God, yet their rebellions are imputed to their infidelity. ” How long,” saith the Lord God, ” will this people provoke me? how long will it be ere they believe me?” Num. 14: 11. The very same is the case with ourselves. We turn aside from the known commandments of our God ; we prefer the service of some vile lust to our bounden duty, though we allow the Scripture to be a divine revelation, and read it as such; till we read it with prayer, imploring the God whose word it is, to grant, by the illumination of his Spirit, that his word may be put into our mind and exert a sovereign sway over it. This doctrine is of the utmost importance; for, if you take away the influence of the Holy Spirit from the members of the church, then the very Gospel of Christ will be no more than a sublime speculation, as ineffectual to change the heart or reform the world as the pagan philosophy. The Holy Spirit, the Comforter, is the inestimable promise made to the church; if therefore we would read the Bible for our reproof, our correction, our instruction in righteousness, we must before, and as we read, pray to God for his influence and teaching.  (Italics added) Henry Venn, The Complete Duty of Man, or A System of Doctrinal and Practical Christianity designed for the use of families, 1763, Revised and Corrected by H. Venn, (New York: American Tract Society, 1838), 389-391.

First, was there ever such a being named Lucifer? The answer is yes because of what we read in the KJB in Isaiah 14:12, “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!” However, according to the ESV in Isaiah 14:12 the answer is no. No one named Lucifer ever existed, the entry blamed on bumbling King James Bible translators. Instead, for the modern bible version translator, the verse refers to an ancient practice of speaking of rulers in deified terms. The verse reads, “How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! For the editors of the ESV, this passage refers to Nebuchadnezzar and the desolation of Babylon, not the fallen angel named Lucifer. The KJB alone translates הילל Lucifer and הילל is found only in this place in the Hebrew OT. Jerome’s Latin reads, quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes. It is interesting to note that advocates of the ESV translation argue that הילל simply means “morning star” or “day star.” Albeit the ESV capitalizes “Day Star” after the manner of a name or title. While arguing a strictly literal rendering against the KJB, derived from the Latin, the ESV translates הילל as the name or title of someone or something. In any case the Latin lexical defense of the modern reading is significantly diminished considering the way the English was translated. The question then is, who does “Day Star” refer to? After long linguistic criticisms of the King James translators, the translation choice can be summarized to who, not what, does הילל refer to – Lucifer or Nebuchadnezzar. Given the gravity of the immediate context of verse 12, “being fallen from heaven,” the heavenly setting of verses 13 and 14, and the fact this is the only time הילל is in the Hebrew OT, “Lucifer” is the superior rendering. The Holy Spirit, through Isaiah, also would have been the author of Nebuchadnezzar’s supposed inspired deification, another argument against this passage that is set in the context of heaven referring to a man.

With the omission of the name “Lucifer” from the ESV, so also the angel Lucifer ceases to exist from the biblical record. Bible study helps, concordances, commentaries, lexicons, etc., based on the new Bibles have erased the name and person of Lucifer from their content. With the ESV and other similar translations, the end of Lucifer has come to the Church. Who might you consider the principal beneficiary of this omission?

“A supreme and infallible judge is one who never errs in judgment, nor is he able to err; is uninfluenced by prejudice and from whom is not appeal. Now these requisites can be found in nether the church, nor councils, nor pope, for they can both err and often have erred most egregiously, and they are the guilty party. They are accused of being falsifiers and corruptors of the Scriptures and from them appeals are often made to the Scriptures (1 Jo 4:1; Is 8:20; Jn 5:39; Acts 17:11). But God speaking in the Scriptures claims these as his own prerogative alone, as incapable of error in judgment, being truth itself, uninfluenced by partiality, being no respecter of persons (aprosopoleptes); nor can any appeal be made from him because he has no superior.”

Turretin, Institutes, 156.

Penned in 1523, Luther’s hymn elegantly reflects his interpretation of Psalm 12 and that of Jerome in the 4^th c. and Ayguan in the 14^th. The first strophe of the sixth stanza has as its antecedent the pure Word: “Thy Word, thou wilt preserve, O Lord, From this vile generation.”

Of this hymn Lambert references its importance to the Reformation: “This hymn, and its companion, Nun freut euch, greatly furthered the cause of the Reformation. Bunsen, 1833, says, it is ‘A cry, by the Church, for help, founded upon the Word of God, and as a protection against its contemners and corrupters.’ Its strong and passionate temper is easily estimated from Luther’s personal experiences.”^[1]

Ach Gott bom Himmel sieh barein

“Look down, O Lord, from heaven behold”

Salvum me fac, Domine

“Lord, Save me!”

Psalm 12

Title: The Word of God, and the Church

The Silver seven times tried is pure

From all adulteration;

So, through God’s Word, shall men endure

Each trial and temptation:

Its worth gleams brighter through the cross,

And, purified from human dross,

It shines through every nation.

Thy truth thou wilt preserve, O Lord,

From this vile generation,

Make us to lean upon thy Word,

With calm anticipation.

The wicked walk on every side

When, ‘mid thy flock, the vile abide

In power and exaltation.^[2]

---

[1] James Franklin Lambert, Luther’s Hymns (Philadelphia: General Council Publication House, 1917), 52.

[2] Lambert, Luther’s Hymns, 52.

That the Scriptures are a proposal of all these truths to our understandings in a way of most fair and full credibility, and that appears in these three things.

1. The way of proposal is most credible.
2. The things propounded are in themselves evidently true.
3. The expressions in which they are laid down, are plain, and fairly intelligible.

No man can say, but when things are propounded so, he is fairly dealt withal.

First, the way of proposal is most credible. That whatsoever God says is true is the ground upon which this assertion sets its foot, and that is such a great Truth, that it is above the necessity or proof. He which believes there is a God, believes his veracity and he which believes not that there is a God hath no reason to believe anything. He hath no reason to believe anything, if there be not Truth. And if there be not a God, there is nothing, and so no truth.

But as that foundation is firm and unquestionable, what God saith is true, I must build two things upon it, and on them the credibility of the first particular is founded. Viz.

1. That since, what God says is true, we ought to receive whatsoever, we have abundant reason to believe that God did say it.
2. Whatsoever comes to us as God’s word, we ought by no means to reject it, without most weighty reasons to make us think that God did not say it.

As to the first, Scripture is the way of proposal, (i.e.) God hath written his mind to us; now we have two great reasons to make us believe this writing to be his word.

1. Because writing was the fittest way to communicate his will to us.
2. Because since all writings need witness, that we might not doubt this to be his, he hat sent it attested by the witness of all those that were worthy to be believed, (i.e.) the good men of all ages.

Because writing was the fittest way to communicate the Gospel or his will to us, that appears thus; all nations and ages of the world, could not be present at the birth of Christ, nor be eyewitnesses of his miracles, see him rise out of the grave, and ascend into heaven, put their finger in his side, etc., what then? Will they not believe unless they do? Shall Christ be crucified afresh in every age, that we may see him rise from the dead? But because Christ was not to remain always below, not come again in that manner, and it concerned the world to know the Gospel, God committed it to writing, and hath made the holy Scriptures the safe repositories of his Truth, that is, excellent preservatives against weakness of memory, and the rust of malicious designs, Monumentam Christi est divina Scriptura, in qua divinitatis humanitatis ejus mysteria densutate litera veluti quadam muniuntur Petra.

                How much God was in love with this way appeared of old, for though he was pleased to converse familiarly with his plain friends the Patriarchs, yet lest his counsels should slip out of the frail minds of men, he commanded Moses to write them. Litera scripta manet. The Jews nice care of the letters was well made us use by God; for it became Septum Legis, while they looked to the words; God secured the sense: and how unsure all other ways are, we may perceive in that the Church hath not preserved the remembrance of Christ’s miracles which were unwritten. Language in the garb of truth, it comes not abroad till it be clothed in words; and since Christ was not to stay here to preach always, he enabled those whom he deputed to declare his will in several languages, that it might be understood by divers nations, when it was spoken and heard, and because the Apostles were to die too, he commanded them to write it, and hath enabled his Church to translate it into several languages of the world, and so they understand it being written and read.

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), 63-69

The advocates of a Stand Sacred Text (SST) are held to a level of consistency unknown to the formulators of the Critical Text (CT). The comparison is the difference between a document that claims to be from God, which is inherently absolute in its declarations–pure, infallible, inspired, preserved — and a document that is inherently relative based upon claims that are various measures of a subjective human enterprise. The first, to be consistent, is held to an absolute standard for truth, while the later, also to be consistent, is not a standard for anything. In a transcendentless culture, absolutes are rejected uncritically, prima facia, while relative commodities fit the cultural milieu perfectly. The CT is of human design, so nothing exceptional is expected of the document because the CT is like every other human writing. Furthermore, the CT is not a standard for anything. Standards by definition are settled. Because nothing in the CT is settled it cannot be the measure of morality, spirituality, or theology. Moreover, the CT is inherently unfinished alleviating any pressure to bring about its completion. None of these three characteristics are allowed for the SST, which begs the question, “How can a humanly designed, non-standard for anything, incomplete document be made the standard for the rejection of anything including something absolute?” Minimally, the CT proponents should be agnostic when considering the SST, as they are with the CT, not knowing themselves what the CT or SST looks like. After all, maybe they passed over the final text in Westcott and Hort’s 1881 Greek NT and should have stopped there. Or perhaps Beza’s 1598 Greek text and the King James Version of the Bible are what the CT group has been looking for all this time and given another Renaissance and Reformation come to the conclusion they now reject? Only time will tell.

It’s Sunday Morning and everyone is on their way to church, to greet the saints and gather around the preaching of the Word. The parking lot is full. Ushers are at the front door with a welcoming handshake and a visitors card for those who are looking for a church to attend. Kids are running everywhere but especially to the senior saint all the children know has a pocket full of candy for them. The pastor is welcoming the adult Sunday School class that meets in the auditorium, walking back and forth across the pews shaking hands with the saints as they gather. At 10:00am, the Pastor opens in prayer, asking the Lord’s blessing on the Lord’s Day, opens his Bible, and begins teaching the flock what God says in His Holy Word. He doesn’t once mention is advanced theological degrees, nor does he create questions in the minds of the people as to the authority of the Word. He is the under-shepherd of God’s flock and counts his care for the saints both a burden for their spiritual well-being and a honor for being called of God to minister. Some of the material is not easy. Questions are asked seeking clarification. Illustrations are given and cross references are read to assure the saints of the truth of what is being taught. Growing in the Word is an exhilarating thing. It makes coming to Sunday School worthwhile.