This episode concludes our series discussing Bible versions. Brother Jonathan briefly reviews some things, talks some more about Textual Criticism, and goes over the issue of the last 12 verses of Mark. It truly serves as an example of the differences in thinking that underlie the scholars behind the different Bible Versions.
__________________________________________________
Bible Versions
Part 6: Conclusion
Episode 16
Remnant Bible
Fellowship
I.
Introduction
a. The purpose of this series on Bible
Versions has not been to bring people to my view. The point, as I believe I
stated in the introductory episode to the series, was to provoke people to
examination.
b. There is an absence of care or concern to
be rooted and grounded in fact on important things like the text of Scripture.
There is too much guesswork going on, and there is too much apathy by believers
to check anything. If you don’t think so, just try warning professing believers
anything at all about…anything really. You usually just get a small smile and a
pleasant nod as if to say, “I really don’t believe you but I honestly don’t
know enough to prove you’re wrong.” It’s frustrating to say the least. Try to
get someone to read a book. Most people just Google something, Wikipedia
something, or Youtube something. Even still, they will usually only look long
enough to reassure them that they don’t really have to worry. Sad—but true.
c. The Bible version issue does matter. The
Word of God is central to Christianity and it tells you how to serve, seek, and
know the God of Heaven. It’s like the fence around the sheepfold that keeps the
wolves out, and teaches the sheep where it is safe to graze. If you have no
confidence in the Word of God then you will never have any sure ground on which
to stand in temptation or attack.
d. The fact that there are so many versions
is enough to show people that they need to figure out WHY there are so many
versions, and they need to find out if one is more reliable than the others.
They also need to do the research themselves and stop asking well-known
ministers that have book deals with the publishing companies that make all
these versions of the Bible. That’s not to say that it’s wrong to have a book
deal per se, but even Eric Ludy has talked openly about how many supposed
“Christian” book publishers have absolutely no regard for truth, the
scriptures, or Christianity at all really. Warren Smith well said that even
publishers like Harvest and Moody Press need to try a little ministry with their
business. So, you can’t just take well-known ministries’ words for it.
II.
Brief
Review
a. In our introductory episode I talked
about how the issue of Bible Versions is not something that should be thought
of as a denominational issue. Every Christian needs the written word of God.
That’s not up for debate. It’s a fact backed up by 1950 years of Christian
testimony and history. Even Muhammad, the false prophet of Islam, referred to
Christians as “the people of the Book” in the Quran in the 6th
century. If he were to judge by the way things are today he would probably just
refer to them as “the people of the nice buildings and potluck dinners”. Christianity
has always been historically equated with the Bible. The only people who argue
this point are skeptics, adversaries, or Catholics—because Catholic history is
vastly different than real history.
b. I said, too many people don’t base their
views on fact. It doesn’t take long to figure that out. Just talk to a college
graduate. Just because they sit through lectures for four years and write down
what the professor tells them they think they know something. Few people actually
strive to understand things today, and that’s why they are so easily led
astray.
c. So the first episode was mainly an appeal
for professing believers to examine things. Stop believing what people tell you
and do some research—time…consuming…research. The measure of how much you
really desire truth is shown in the lengths which you will take to find it—and
most don’t take any time for it at all.
d. Next, we talked about the nature of
translation. I mainly wanted to talk about it because most people don’t. In
certain denominations you are almost pressured to stay ignorant of how the
process of translation works and the original languages. That’s probably
because it undermines their doctrinal position. Some sincere people are just
wrong, and it wouldn’t be so bad if certain people wouldn’t make it the
linchpin of their entire denomination, their conferences, their meetings, their
books, etc. At least if they used a little logic and thought about things a
little better.
e. But just having a basic understanding of
how languages and translation work really helps you understand the Bible
Versions issue better. I’m study and learn things as much as I can with the
time that I have, and it does greatly help. Also, actually reading that preface
at the beginning of your Bible, where the translation committee gives some
comments on decisions they made, actually does answer some questions. I
recommend reading The Translators to the
Reader from the KJV because it really answers a lot of common arguments in
certain circles of the Bible Versions debate. You can probably find it online
for free pretty easily.
f.
In
part 3 I went over what I believe is the most pivotal point in the entire Bible
Versions debate, Textual Criticism. There is absolutely a sense in which
Textual Criticism is necessary to sort through all the variant readings, but
what it has become is just silly. I’ll talk more about that in a minute. In
part 3 though, we well-documented, using quotations from their own scholars,
the fact that textual criticism after the manner of eclecticism is just based
on “subjective judgments”, “conjectures”, and “the individual mind of the
critic”. It was said by one of their own that even when equally competent
scholars came to the table to look at the same evidence for the same passage
they would still come to completely separate conclusions. That shows that it’s
not scientific. It is opinion based.
g. In part 4, we went over some theories of
textual criticism that were quite prominent in their time but were eventually
scrapped because they were found to be so completely without proof. Then we
talked about the truth of that oft-repeated “oldest and best manuscripts”
marginal reference that most bibles have today. I’m not against the age of a
manuscript being taken into consideration, as we went over, but the fact of the
matter is—if excrement is 1500 years old it doesn’t magically become a diamond.
Most textual critics will honestly consider any text as long as it’s old, even
if its garbage by their own standards. There are a lot of double-standards in
textual criticism. On the one hand a critic will try to tell you how difficult
it is to “choose” what to do when a scribe puts something in the margin that
looks like a correction, but then they try to sell you how great Codex
Sinaiticus is when it has been corrected by ten different scribes. First thing:
you shouldn’t be “choosing” anything. You should be looking at external evidence
that says which is correct. Second thing: just because a manuscript exists does
not mean it is something to rely on. You don’t know if Billy-Bob the scribe
just took the verses that he liked and left them in, put made-up renderings in
because he thought they sounded better, or whether or not he even knew how to
read the languages that he was copying. But because someone finds it they have
to honestly consider it. It’s maddening…really. Beza rejected whole manuscripts
from consideration because they spent time in Rome before he acquired them. He
said about Codex D, “I find nothing similar to this Mss. in other Mss; and I
find this Mss. was correlated in Italy where it was easy to add something in
hatred of the Bohemians.” The Bohemians were what the followers of John Huss
were called—the Catholics burned John Huss at the stake.
h. What do you know, another reference to
known historical corruption of manuscripts that everyone seems to be aware of
but textual critics. In fact, the Reformers rejected any manuscript that
differed from the Majority text no matter how old it was because they knew of
the extensive corruption of texts done by the Roman Catholic Church. That’s
just history—and it really doesn’t matter if you like it or not.
i.
Parts
5 and 6 were where I briefly talked about James White’s book The King James Only Controversy and who
were Westcott and Hort. I felt the need to comment on James White’s book
because lots of people have read it and just believed him. I will be honest and
just say that I do not support James White. Not because he’s a Calvinist—that’s
a separate issue—but because I’ve never seen humility in him. Arrogance is
something unbecoming of a Christian, just as pride, because it is so dangerous.
Debating is very different to me than earnestly contending for the faith; there
is a difference between trying to convince someone of the truth of the Gospel
for their sakes and trying to prove that you’re right about something. Knowledge
puffs up, and when it’s not true knowledge it’s vainly puffed up. I can’t
support the ministry of any man who does not show a desire for truth and
sincere humility; because when such things are absent there is something wrong
between the minister and God.
III.
Some
Final Thoughts
a. In the beginning of the New Testament,
the writings of the Apostles were rapidly copied and circulated. It was needful,
and it was important. This protected the scriptures from centralized
corruption. This is a point that people like James White do a good job of
pointing out. Once there were ten copies of the Gospel of Mark that were made
soon after its completion (with chapter 16 v. 20), and they were spread around
to the churches that used them, it would’ve been impossible to gather them up
and change them all to the same manufactured reading. This rapid copying and
spreading of the original manuscripts was the best way to protect its
integrity. The Lord knows what He is doing.
b. Now, let’s imagine that those ten copies
of the original autograph of Mark were each then copied ten times. Now we have
111 copies total: 1 original autograph of Mark, 10 copies of the original
autograph, and ten copies of each of those copies. In all this copying and
recopying, there will be slips of the eye and of the pen of the scribes: it’s
unavoidable. How could we then distinguish the true reading from the errors?
Let’s only think about all those second generation copies, the 100, and
eliminate the possibility of examining the original.
i.
In
the mind of an eclectic textual critic your goal is trying to identify which
variant reading led to all the others. Here is a quote from E.C. Colwell
stating the method of textual criticism after this manner:
1. “Today textual criticism turns for its
final validation to the appraisal of individual readings, in a way that
involves subjective judgment. The trend has been to emphasize fewer and fewer
canons of criticism. Many moderns emphasize only two. These are: 1) that
reading is to be preferred which best suits the context, and 2) that reading is
to be preferred which best explains the origin of all others. These two rules
are nothing less than concentrated formula of all that the textual critic must
know and bring to bear upon the solution of his problem. The first rule about
choosing what suits the context exhorts the student to know the document he is
working on so thoroughly that its idioms, its ideas as well known as a familiar
room. The second rule about choosing what could have caused the other readings
requires that the student know everything in Christian history which could lead
to the creation of a variant reading. This involves knowledge of institutions,
doctrines, and events…This is the knowledge of complicated and often
conflicting forces and movements.” (E.C. Colwell, “Biblical Criticism: Lower
and Higher,” Journal of Biblical Literature, LXVII (1948), pp. 4-5)
2. Notice that there is nothing of objective
fact or proof used in this method. It is based on “subjective judgment”, the
reading that “best suits the context” (which depends upon the critics own
opinion of what fits), and it assumes that no reading is manufactured—which
contradicts known history and testimony of scholars who themselves had
translated the scriptures for centuries. In essence, this method makes the
Critic a god of sorts who has some mystical intuition to discern between that
which is right and that which is wrong without any objective fact.
ii.
If
you’re using objective means, you would simply see which form of the text
enjoys the earliest, the fullest, the widest, the most respectable, and—above
all things—the most varied witness. In essence, you are basing the truth upon
that which is objective fact and not someone’s opinion.
c. Think about this, if you were to tell 100
hundred people to hand-copy the Gettysburg Address, each of them would have
errors in them. What is the likelihood though of the majority of the people
making the same mistake in the exact same spot? Zero. In this manner you can
see that by looking at a series of variants you can easily discern which is
most likely the true reading.
d. Whenever you take into account early
translations of the scriptures (called Versions), quotations from early church
teachers (called Fathers), and copies of passages of scripture elsewhere in the
lectionaries, all you do is heap up a pile of witnesses.
e. So if we are to think about those copies
of the Gospel of Mark, how could we discern the true form of the text? Well, we
would first look at all the forms of the text that are shown in the
manuscripts. Then we would look at each manuscript and examine its
respectability—where was it copied, is there any signs of corruption, etc. That
is, if we can determine those things. But we would look mainly at the outside
evidence. Did any church fathers quote from the Gospel of Mark? What passages,
and how did they reference them? In the early translations, or Versions, of the
scriptures, how did they render the passages in question in those Versions?
Also, check the lectionaries of the churches and see how they copied the
passages in general for reading in the church services. Finally, consider the
grammatical structure of the passages. There are rules in grammar, especially
in Koine Greek, that can enable you to discern an incorrect copy mistake
sometimes. Notice that none of this is left to the opinion of a man.
f.
When
you really look at these two methods of ascertaining the true textual reading
it really does make you wonder why anyone would have any problem in seeing the
difference in methodology. Perhaps it’s the people whose authoritative opinion
would be undermined that have a problem.
IV.
An
Example
a. Let’s consider, as an example, the issue
of the last 12 verses of the Gospel according to Mark. Because in some early
manuscripts the last 12 verses of Mark chapter 16 isn’t there some people have
said that it is not supposed to be there at all. They allege that those 12
verses which appear later—practically everywhere else—were supplied by a
scribe. The 12 verses we are talking about are the normal ending of Mark 16
that everyone is familiar with. This is a highly contested passage for some
people, and others were unaware there was ever even an issue in the first
place. I’ll briefly talk about some points brought up in the discussion.
b. James White says:
i.
“Only
the dreaded, hated [aleph and B] (and one other manuscript) do not have the
passage, and even then room is left for it in B.”
1. So James White here admits that the only
manuscripts that don’t have it are those two uncials we talked about at length:
Sinaiticus and Vaticanus; and also one other manuscript as well. That other
manuscript not dating any older than the 12th century.
ii.
Just
like I said about textual critics, James White says this:
1. “One must explain the existence of the
shorter ending and the use of asterisks and obeli in some manuscripts to set
off verses 9 through 20 and the long paragraph’s inclusion in W and the
manuscripts that put both endings together. There simply would be no need for
all these different endings if verses 9 through 20 were a part of the
originally written gospel.” (James White, The
King James Only Controversy, p. 318)
c. My question is WHY do we have to explain
all the variations in how the passage is recorded? It has absolutely nothing to
do with figuring out which form of the text is the original. Also, White
falsely says that this would not happen if the passage in question was in the
original. That doesn’t follow, and he bases that on nothing else but his
opinion. If the passage was intentionally changed very early on, as we know the
scriptures were, and no one else had the original to check either, what should
we expect but people trying to patch the obviously
missing text? The fact that some scribes tried to patch the ending proves
that there was a longer ending there in the first place.
d. Instead of trying to figure out what led
to what, let’s just see that at some point it all diverged into the variants.
Because these aren’t variants like normal variants. These are endings several
verses long made-up by people who saw that something had been taken out. Now,
you read verse 8 of Mark 16 and tell me if you think that’s how God ended this
account of the gospel. It wouldn’t have been Mark who screwed something up,
unless you deny that God inspired its writing. For someone to say that some
theorized different original ending has been “lost”, and many say that, that
have to believe and teach that God’s originally inspired text has been lost.
That is something that undermines the entire integrity of someone’s view of the
preservation of God’s Word. For someone even to say that and to openly teach
that God may have permanently “lost” a portion of the Gospel of Mark seems to
me intentionally designed to cast doubt upon the written Word of God. And as
you’ll see it’s completely without merit.
e. James White himself states that only 3
manuscripts don’t have an ending longer than verse 8—those MSS dating from the
4th century and the 12th century. Then he states that
there are several early Versions that have different endings, and some have
critical marks around the passage—none earlier than the 4th century
I believe. Next he proceeds to discuss internal considerations (Which are
simply people not liking how other people use words most of the time), because
as he himself states it—there is no more external evidence.
i.
So
the earliest supposed evidence that the traditional passage is incorrect is no
earlier than the 4th century. The two early uncials Sinaiticus and
Vaticanus don’t have those verses of Mark. One of them doesn’t have the last 3
chapters of the book of Hebrews either though—but that’s a separate matter.
ii.
What
is interesting though, is that the earlier of the two codices leaves a space
just large enough for this entire passage to be there. It’s the only place in
the entire manuscript where the scribe ends a book like that—the only place.
Odd that a scribe would just happen to leave a space just large enough for a
passage 12 verses long when that passage in question is supposed to have never
existed before. It’s also a strange coincidence that the scribe never ends
another book in the entire MSS like that anywhere else. It’s almost like it was
intentional…odd.
f.
Since that is ALL the evidence against these
verses being there according to James White, and he has publicly stated that he
believes they aren’t supposed to be there, let’s consider the evidence FOR this
passage being there.
i.
In
the 4th century (the same century as the earliest against the
passage) you have 5 Greek writers that quote from it, one Syriac writer that
quotes from it, two Latin Fathers that quote from it (excluding the Vulgate),
the Gothic and Memphitic Versions all testifying to this passage being there.
ii.
But
let’s go earlier! In the 3rd century Hippolytus references from this
passage, and both the Curetonian Syriac and the Thebaic Versions bear testimony
that in these three different provinces there was no suspicion of this passage.
iii.
But
let’s go earlier! In the 2nd century Irenaeus quotes from the
passage, and the Peshito and the Italic Versions have it. That means that in
Gaul, Mesopotamia, and Africa (a good geographical distance) this passage was
received as scripture within 100 years of the original inspired autograph.
iv.
To
summarize, the earliest Fathers, the most respected early Versions, and ALSO
the lectionary evidence all bear witness to the legitimacy of this passage.
g. There is something very interesting to
note at this point. It used to be claimed that a Victor of Antioch was an early
source against this passage. John Burgon showed quite succinctly that that was
not the case at all. Burgon quotes from Victor of Antioch, and then explains:
i.
This
is from Victor of Antioch’s commentary on the Gospel according to Mark:
“Notwithstanding that in very many copies of the present Gospel, the passage
beginning, ‘Now when (Jesus) was risen early the first day of the week, he
appeared first to Mary Magdalene,’ be not found (certain individuals having
supposed it to be spurious)—yet we, at all events, inasmuch as in very many we
have discovered it to exist, have, out of accurate copies, subjoined also the
account of our Lord’s ascension (following the words ‘for they were afraid’) in
conformity with the Palestinian exemplar of Mark which exhibits the Gospel
verity: that is to say, from the words, ‘Now when (Jesus) was risen early the
first day of the week,’ &c., down to ‘with signs following. Amen’
ii.
Now
listen to Burgons comments on this quotation: “And with these words Victor of
Antioch brings his Commentary on St. Mark to an end. Here then we find it
roundly stated by a highly intelligent Father, writing in the first half of the
fifth century—
1. That the reason why the last twelve
verses of St. Mark are absent from some ancient copies of his Gospel is because
they have been deliberately omitted by copyists;
2. That the ground for such omission was the
subjective judgment of individuals, not the result of any appeal to documentary
evidence. Victor, therefore, clearly held that the verses in question had been
expunged in consequence of the (seeming) inconsistency with what is met with in
the other Gospels;
3. That he, on the other hand, had convinced
himself by reference to “very many” and “accurate” copies, that the verses in
question are genuine;
4. That in particular the Palestinian Copy,
which enjoyed the reputation of “exhibiting the genuine text of St. Mark,” contained
the verses in dispute. To opinion, therefore, Victor opposes authority. He
makes his appeal to the most trustworthy documentary evidence with which he is
acquainted; and the deliberate testimony which he delivers is a complete
counterpoise and antidote to the loose phrases of Eusebius on the same subject;
5. That in consequence of all this,
following the Palestinian exemplar, he had from accurate copies furnished his
own work with the last twelve verses in dispute…” (Burgon, as quoted in Counterfeit or Genuine?, edited by David
Otis Fuller, pp. 56-7)
iii.
Now
may I ask, “Does the margin of your Bible mention any of that?” Just to prove a
point, let me reread the marginal notes in a few Bible versions:
1. In my copy of the NLT the margin says,
“The most reliable early manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark end at verse 8.” In
my copy of the ESV the margin says this, “Some manuscripts end the book with
16:8.” In my copy of the CEB the margin says this, “In most critical editions
of the Gk New Testament, the Gospel of Mark end at 16:8.” In the NASB the
passage is in brackets. In my copy of the NIV, the 2008 edition, they don’t
even try to hide anything. It says in the margin, “Serious doubt exists as to
whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark. They are absent from
important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary,
style, and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel
probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost.”
iv.
Listen
to that! The 2008 NIV says that there are “serious doubts” based upon 2 early
uncials, a 12th century MSS, and “vocabulary, style, and theological
content”. I want you to ask yourself what objective fact is there in
determining another author’s choice of vocabulary or style of writing as being
correct or incorrect? Or what gives someone license to say that something
should not be there because they don’t believe that the “theological content”
is correct? According to who, you? That rests entirely upon your opinion! Given
the external evidence which is overwhelming I find myself scratching my head
when I read things like this. Now let me ask you, given the evidence that I
just went over is there any doubt in your mind about which tips the scale?
V.
Problems with People’s Arguments for Bible
Versions
a. Before I talk specifically about whether
I would specifically endorse one version of the Bible more than any other, let
me comment a little on arguing the issue. There are a lot of times when you
read one book or another on the Bible versions issue and you just get
frustrated.
b. I came out of Independent Fundamental
Baptists, I disagree with them doctrinally now but it was my foundation. The
frustrating thing when I read their books or something now is that they argue
about the “perfection” of the English translation of the KJV. I commented about
this in the second part of this series so I won’t dwell upon it long. I’m not
bashing them either, so please don’t take my comments that way. There is a
pressure in the IFB camp to not ever study Greek or Hebrew, to not ever read
anything that is not IFB, and you are thought of as almost a heretic if you
even so much as read non-IFB books.
c. But my main frustration comes when you
hear an argument for the perfection of the KJV which shows a lack of knowledge
of anything. They’re the type of arguments that just come from repeating what
you are told. I can speak plainly about this because it’s what I used to do.
It’s very easy to just read a couple of books and think that you know
something. You can just throw a couple of pre-memorized “proof texts” and
think, “Oh yeah, I got them!” It’s a lot different learning to study and
examine things and to be willing to be corrected if you are wrong.
d. An argument that I’ll use as an example
is one that is based around John 4:24 where Christ says in the KJV, “God is a
Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” (John
4:24) Then they’ll point out that in the NAS77, NASB, ISV, CEB, NIrV, NIV,
NKJV, and the TNIV all have “God is Spirit”. They would then say, “God is not
ALL spirit, he is a particular spirit: this verse in the modern versions
teaches pantheism!” Now, on the face of it it seems pretty reasonable right? We
know that God is not a pantheistic God. What is not mentioned, at least I’ve
never heard it said by KJV-only perfectionists is that in Koine Greek there is
no indefinite article. What that means is that in Koine Greek, the language of
the NT originally, it never says “a word”. The “a” there signifying that it is
indefinite. If it was definite it would say “the word” and include the definite
article “the”.
e. In Koine Greek there is no indefinite
article like in English. If you study Koine Greek you know that the Greeks used
the article very different than we would in English. So if you were to see the
phrase in Koine Greek, “o logos”, it would be translated “the word” because it
has the definite article. If you were to see the phrase “logos” you could
translate it either “word” or “a word”. It’s up to the translator to see
whether the context allows for the indefinite article in English. So because
there is no indefinite article in English the phrase in John 4:24 can
legitimately be translated either “a Spirit” or “Spirit”. It’s just an issue
where a little language study can clear something up.
f.
Now,
someone could argue and say that the context of scripture should make it clear
that it ought to be translated with the indefinite article and say “a Spirit”
so as to not appear to teach pantheism, and they would have a good argument.
But if I were to take the opposing viewpoint I would then counter-argue that
the problem is an interpretive one. The passage is not actually emphasizing the
fact that God is a Spirit, though He is, it is emphasizing that because God is
a Spirit or Spirit and not flesh and bones He must be worshipped in spirit and
truth—deeper than flesh and bones or carnal ordinances. That would also fit the
context of scripture and the immediate passage given what Christ was trying to
teach the Samaritan woman. You see though how either way it goes in this
particular instance that neither viewpoint is heretical.
VI.
Which
Bible Version?
a. So let me go on the record as saying that
the only Bible version that I read, use, or study is the King James Version.
Although I understand that it is not perfect. The studying that I have done up
to this point has really solidified me in using the King James Version, not
necessarily for the English translation, but because of the underlying text—the
Traditional Text.
i.
I
understand that there are thee’s and thou’s. The fact of the matter is that
they don’t bother me. It takes about 2 minutes to understand why they’re there
and that it’s actually for a good reason.
ii.
I
understand that there is “archaic” language that could be updated, and there is
some legitimacy to that point. I just don’t believe that there is enough
archaic language to legitimately claim it needs to be completely redone.
iii.
I
understand that in some places the translators rendered some things leaning
toward Calvinism, but the fact of the matter is I read it and I have never seen
Calvinism in it anyways. Besides, it’s nothing that actually studying the
passage and its original languages cannot clear up.
b. Also, one main contributing point that
reinforces my use of the KJV is the fact that every other version I have ever
looked into has been 10 times worse, and has even greater errors in their
textual choices and translation choices. I am sincere though in saying that
when or if I find a translation that rectifies these problems, and stays based
upon the traditional text, prayerfully considering it I will use it.
VII.
In
closing
a. Now, does that mean that I esteem someone
who uses another version to be a heretic? Absolutely not. Demonizing people for
that reason is not only unscriptural, it’s just silly. There are people in the
world, and in times past, who have and do legitimately corrupt the scriptures.
But most people are just sincere, and a lot are just sincerely incorrect on
some assumptions and ideas that they have regarding Bible versions because they
haven’t examined some things yet. They may be guilty of negligence like an
ostrich with their head in the sand, but most of them are not demonic
enemies—most. Though I could point some legitimate ones out for you.
b. So, if you’re interested, here’s a list
of some reading that I would recommend for you no matter where you stand on the
Bible versions issue.
i.
The Traditional Text by John Burgon
ii.
The Revision Revised by John Burgon
iii.
Which Bible? Edited by David Otis Fuller
iv.
True or False? Edited by David Otis Fuller
v.
Counterfeit or Genuine? Edited by David Otis Fuller
c. I mainly recommend the last three as a
good starting point because they point to so many other good sources. If you
take the time to go over the footnotes and quoted works you get a wealth of
good reading.
d. In the end you need to examine your
position carefully, and never take anyone’s word for it. The battle today is
over not just the inerrancy of scripture or its integrity it is over the
sufficiency of scripture. In temptation or trial if you have no sure footing
for your faith to rest on then you will be driven with the wind and tossed
about continually. You need to have your faith resting on objective fact, and
the objective truth of Christianity is always God’s Word. He’s the same
yesterday, today, and for ever—we should not expect His Word to be just as
faithful.
