Francis Turretin (1623-1687) Codifier of theological orthodoxy.

“By the original texts, we do not mean the autographs written by the hand of Moses, or of the prophets and of the apostles, which certainly do not know exist. We mean their apographs 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 Spirit.” Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 106.

“the autographs and also the accurate and faithful copies may be the standard of all other copies of the same writing and of it translations. If anything is found in them different from the authentic writings, either autographs or apographs, it is unworthy of the name authentic and should be discarded as spurious and adulterated, the discordance itself being a sufficient reason for its rejection.” Turretin, Institutes, 113.

William Whitaker (1548-1595) Whitaker is the theological link to John Calvin and most quoted theologian by the Westminster Divines.

“We proceeded to break the force of this portion also of Bellarmine’s defense, and to show that the Greek original (apografh) in the New Testament is purer than the Latin edition.” William Whitaker, A Disputation of Holy Scripture Against the papists especially Bellarmine and Stapleton, 193.

Whitaker held that the Greek edition in his possession “is no other than the inspired archetypical [the original pattern] Scripture of the New Testament, commended by the apostles and evangelists to the Christian church.” Whitaker, Disputation, 142.

“The state of the controversy, therefore is this: Whether we should believe that these Scriptures which we now have are sacred and canonical merely on account of the church’s testimony or rather on account of the internal persuasion of the Holy Spirit, which, as it makes the Scripture canonical and authentic in itself, make is also to appear such to us, and without which the testimony of the church is dumb and inefficacious.” Whitaker, Disputation, 280.

Of the Hebrew text Whitaker wrote, “We must hold, therefore, that we have now those very ancient Scriptures which Moses, and the other prophets published, although we have not perhaps, precisely the same forms and shapes of the letters.” Whitaker, Disputation, 117.

Andrew Willet (1562-1621) Prolific Hebrew exegete

“so that it appeareth to be an unreasonable opinion to prefer a translation (Latin) full of corruptions before the pure Originals (apographa).” Andrew Willet, Hexapla in Leviticum, that is, a six-fold commentary upon the third book of Moses, called Leviticus, 1631, 101

Sect. 13. Thus far have we proceeded. The Scripture, the Written Word hath its infallible Truth in its self; John 17 from whence it hath is Verity, thence it hath its Authority; for its Authority is founded upon its Truth. Its Authority in its self, is its Authority in respect to us; nor hath it any whit more in its self, then de jure it hath towards and over them to whom it comes; That de facto some do not submit themselves unto it, is their sin and rebellion. This Truth and consequently this Authority, is evidenced and made known to us, by the public Testimony which is given unto it by the Holy Ghost speaking in it, with divine Light and Power, to the minds, souls and consciences of men: being therein by its self proposed unto us, We being enlightened by the Holy Ghost, (which in the condition wherein we are, is necessary for the Apprehension of any spiritual thing of truth in a spiritual manner)we receive it, and religiously subject our souls unto it, as the Word and Will, and judge of all: And if this be not at the bottom and foundation of faith, I here publicly Profess, that for ought I know, I have no faith at all.

John Owen, Of the Divine Original, Authority, self-evidencing Light, and Power of the Scriptures: With an Answer to that Enquiry, How we know the Scripture’s to be the Word of God. Also A Vindication of the Purity and Integrity of the Hebrew and Greek Texts of the Old and New Testaments; in some Considerations on the Prolegomena (Oxford: Printed by Henry Hall, Printer to the University for Tho: Robinson, 1658), 99-100.

But least any man think, that by arguments, which us reason by a natural light to be found, without the singular grace of the Spirit this may be wrought in the minds of the wicked, as either to obey the truth, or to leave off to reproach it, first he must remember that the arguments or testimonies are of two sorts which shew the certainty of the Christian religion, and maintain the authority of the Scripture. For there is but one only testimony, which is appropriated unto them alone who are regenerated by the Spirit of Christ, and unto them alone is known, the force of which the testimony is so great, that it doth not only abundantly testify and seal in our minds the truth of the doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles, but it also forcibly inclineth and moveth our hearts to the embracing and following of it. Other testimonies whatsoever may be brought, they are understood indeed both of the godly and the wicked, and do compel their consciences to confess, that this religion rather than others is pleasing to God, and that it came from him. But unless that one other come also, which is know of the godly alone, these testimonies will never bring to pass that man shall embrace the truth, although it be known to them. The arguments which shew the truth and certainty of the Scripture are these.

1. Purity and perfections of doctrine. For we have the pure and perfect doctrines of the Gospel, so also the Law. Now other sects have not both the tables of the Law perfect. The first many have in part. The second but in some part also, and stained with many lies.
2. The Gospel itself. Because it yieldeth sure consolation to men’s consciences, shewing the only way of escaping sin and death. The nature of man was not created to destruction. Wherefore that doctrine, which sheweth delivery, without violating the justice of God, is undoubtedly true and certain.
3. The antiquity of this doctrine. Because it is found to be most ancient, party by conference. For we confer this with other doctrines, we shall find it to be pure and most true, as delivered by God, from which men afterwards fell away. Other sects have sprung up at other times, and again have perished. This hath continued, though it hath been mightily expunged by her enemies. (Continued)

Zacharias Ursinus, The Sum of the Christian Religion: Wherein are debated and resolved the Questions of whatsoever points of moment, which have been or are controversed in Divinity. Translated into English by Henry Parrie, out of the last and best Latin Editions (Oxford: Printed at Joseph Barnes and are to be sold in Pauls Churchyard at the sign of the Tigers head, 1587), 20-21.

Of the truth and accomplishment of the holy scriptures

The truth of the holy Scriptures dependeth upon the truth of God who is the author of them. He that doubteth the truth of them, either does not believe that they were uttered by the instance of the Holy Spirit, or else if he doubts not of that, he does not believe that God cannot lie. Or if he does believe that also, he takes him mutable as man, so that the same to which he would have to say tomorrow changing his mind, he would none of it. All which opinions be far from them that be of the number of true believers. For they do doubt nothing at all, but that the holy Scriptures be of God, and that God can never lie, neither be changed. They do say with the Apostle: “Let God rather be true, and every man a liar.” And with the Prophet: “The word of God is tried by fire, cleansed seven times.” They know the saying, “I am GOD, and am not changed. “And that also of Isa, “Like as the dew and the snow cometh from the heaven and returneth not thither again but moiseneth the earth, so is the word that goeth out of my mouth, it returneth not unto me void, but doeth whatsoever I will, and doth prosper in those matters whereunto I sent it. ” Wherefore they that be persuaded of the truth of God are persuaded also of the certainty and truth of the saying of God, which he set forth to us in holy scriptures.

Wolfgang Musculus, Common Places of the Christian Religion. Translated out of the Latin into English by John Man of Merton College (London: Imprinted at Henry Bynneman, 1578), 387-388.

Of the King James Version, editors Robert Alter and Frank Kermode in The Literary Guide to the Bible write, “Here is a miscellany of documents containing ancient stories, poems, laws, prophecies, which most of us cannot even read in the original languages, and which are a best, if we are English speakers, in an English that was already archaic when the King James (or “Authorized”) Version was published in 1611, and may now often seem distant and exotic: ‘that old tongue,’ as Edmund Wilson one vividly expressed it, ‘with its clang and flavor.’ Yet, as Wilson went on to say, ‘we have been living with it all our lives.’ In short, the language as well as the message it conveys symbolizes for us a past, strange and yet familiar, which we feel we somehow must understand if we are to understand ourselves.”

Later in the General Introduction we read, “We have as a rule used the King James Version in translation, and our reasons for doing so must be obvious: it is the version most English readers associate with the literary qualities of the Bible, and it is still arguably the version that best preserves the literary effects of the original languages.”

Robert Alter, Frank Kermode, eds., The Literary Guide to the Bible (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987), 1, 7.

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.