David's Sense of God's Inspiration

In giving his final charge to Solomon regarding the building of the Temple, King David included this statement: "All this He made clear to me in writing from the hand of the Lord, all the work to be done according to the plan" (I Chronicles 28:19). 

There is a lot of substance in this one sentence. 

First, David is explicit about the source of his plans for the Temple, i. e., God. He says, "He made clear to me." The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews develops this statement in Hebrews 8:5: "They [the levitical priests] serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For, when Moses was about to raise the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, 'See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.'" That writer was referring to statements that are found in Exodus 25:9, 25:40, 26:30, and 27:8. What Moses was shown regarding the construction of the tabernacle, David also received when the tabernacle was replaced by the Temple. 

Second, David tells us that he received God's words  by the mediatorial hand of the Lord, i. e., Yahweh, the preincarnate Son. This, too, is a pattern we see elsewhere: "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His servants" (Revelation 1:1). What God would inspire to be recorded in the Scriptures had its origin in the triune God, and was then mediated through the Son to the human writer. This is probably what Peter meant when he mentioned that the prophets were taught by the Spirit of Christ when they predicted His "sufferings and subsequent glories" (I Peter 1:11). 

This refutes some neo-orthodox teachers who claim that the writers of the Bible had no concept of divine inspiration when they wrote (compare II Timothy 3:16). While some may not have had such a concept, some did, as we see in the words of David recorded here. 

How Can I Know that the Bible Is the Inerrant Word of God?

The Christian philosopher and apologist Gordon Clark once wrote, "Because God is sovereign, God's authority can be taken only on God's authority. As the scripture says, 'Because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself' (Hebrews 6:13)" (from God's Hammer, p. 39). His point was that confirmation of authority comes from higher authority. However, there can be no authority higher than God by which to confirm what He says. By His own authority, therefore, He declares His own truth and authority. 

The thoughtful person sees this and asks, "But isn't this circular reasoning?" And it is. Yet, we can see the impossibility of an alternative if we ask a parallel question: "How can you prove logic without presupposing logic as the basis for its proof?" 

The thoughtful Christian might ask whether the unbeliever would be convinced by that argument. And the obvious answer is that an unbeliever would not be convinced. Yet we must deny that his disbelief is based on a reasonable doubt. On the contrary, his rejection would arise from his own presuppositions against God's authority. Those presuppositions are the inherent nature of unbelief (Romans 1:18). 

On the other hand, we know that there are many Christians who receive the Bible as God's word, and that it is necessarily, therefore, inerrant. I am one of those Christians. Yet that belief did not arise from a consideration of a chain of logical arguments or archeological verifications. 

So, from where did my belief come? 

Clark quotes from the Institutes of John Calvin: "It is, therefore, such a persuasion as requires no reason; such a knowledge as is supported by the highest reason and in which the mind rests with greater security and constancy than in any reasons; in fine, such a sense as cannot be produced but by a revelation from Heaven" (I. vii.5). By "revelation," Calvin meant no such thing as a voice whispering in the believer's ear. Rather, in the process of effectual calling, the Holy Spirit causes the man's spirit to recognize the truth of the Scriptures as he reads them or hears them preached. 

This concept was picked up later (1646) in the writing of the Westminster Confession of Faith (I:5), the doctrinal statement of the world's Presbyterians: "We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts." The Westminster divines added to Calvin's argument that Scripture provides good reasons for recognizing it as the Word of God. Yet the unbeliever suppresses his awareness of those qualities (Romans 1:18). He cannot recognize them exactly because of his unbelief (I Corinthians 2:14). He cannot be argued out of his unbelief, because his unbelief is a matter of sin, not ignorance. 

The case here demonstrates why we never see an apologetical situation in the New Testament in which Jesus or the Apostles ever argued for acceptance of Scriptural proofs. Even when Jesus faced Satan and when Paul preached to the pagan philosophers of Athens, each argued from Scripture as his starting point, not as a subsidiary point requiring proof. 

We must remember the promise of God: "So shall My Word be, that goes out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it" (Isaiah 55:11). God promises success to His word, not to our attempts to appeal to the fallen intellect of the unbeliever. "Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures" (James 1:18). There has never been any other way by which God has converted His elect (Romans 10:8-15).

Truth Is Truth, or It Is False

In today's America, it has become the norm to speak of all truth as subjective, my truth, your truth, etc. All truth, of course, except that all truth is subjective. No deviation from that can be tolerated. "I can't tolerate intolerance." But even that, as much as it is said, is not what people actually do. Tolerance is the norm for any idea to the left of one's own worldview. Intolerance is expected for any idea to the right.

Has that idea infiltrated the church? I think it has. My own governor had no tolerance for the plans of the Republican Party for its convention, regarding social distancing and the wearing of masks in response to the covid virus. But did you see the funeral for the late-Congressman John Lewis, a darling of the left? No social distancing, and not a peep of protest. Just a deafening silence.

However, the historic Christian faith, as opposed to the invented form of the political left, is built on objective truth.

We have the words of Jesus: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6). Not only did He have an unequivocal understanding of His role in salvation, but also of His nature. He is the way, the only way, and the truth. Not "a" truth, but "the" truth.

And this One who is ultimate truth said of the Bible, speaking to the Father: "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth" (John 17:17). This One who is Himself the truth, has revealed Himself in the Bible, which bears His truth.

And how is His truth, revealed in the truth of the Bible, then carried to His people? By the Spirit of truth, the Holy Spirit: "When the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13).

I think that what this demonstrates is that a subjective understanding of truth is incompatible with the Christian worldview. The Bible and Jesus personally present a worldview based on explicit events, in historical time. Deviation from it is not just an alternative truth or worldview; it is a choice to disbelieve, with the eternal consequences that come with that choice.

The Promises of God Defined by His Mercy

Isaiah 55:11 is a verse which is well-known among orthodox Protestants: "So shall My word be that goes out from My mouth; it shall not return to Me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it." And there is good reason for it to be well-known, because it powerfully teaches that the Bible is infallible and trustworthy. Where we are weak, the Scriptures are invincible!

However, there is another aspect to that verse that many such Protestants pass over: the Scriptures don't achieve what we plan, but what God plans. This is where orthodoxy stands against the so-called Prosperity Gospel - which is really no gospel at all - which claims that spouting some claim from anyone on the basis of his personal desire and interpretation guarantees that God is obligated to give it.

Where this is especially important is in evangelism. Paul tells us that "faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ" (Romans 10:17). That is, the preaching of the Word is God's usual means of converting unbelievers (see the Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter X). Some people claim that means that we are just to proclaim the Word, and then every person has an equal ability to respond, based on his choice to believe or not. Yet, we know that not all believe, even when presented with the Gospel through the Scriptures. Doesn't this "choice" doctrine then imply that the promise of Isaiah 55:11 is false? or, at least, unreliable? God forbid such a blasphemous assertion!

Rather, such people ignore the third and fourth lines of the verse: "It shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it." The promise of God never fails! The mere idea is impossible! Rather, it is effectual when He intends it, not us. As Paul also says: "So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy" (Romans 9:16; see also John 1:12-13).

More importantly, we have the assertion of Jesus: "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and whoever comes to Me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will but the will of Him who sent Me. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that I should lose nothing of all that He has given Me, but raise it up on the last day" (John 6:37-39). His promise here parallels the one in Isaiah, but is more explicit. To whom does the promise apply? To those who choose? No, it says no such thing. Rather, Jesus specifies that it applies to those whom the Father has given Him. Does He know who those people are? Of course. Can we know? Of course not. That is a part of the creator/creature distinction. Therefore, we are to proclaim the Word to whomever will hear us, knowing that those redeemed by Jesus will respond in faith, and the others will reject it (II Corinthians 2:16). What we must remember is that the promise of Isaiah is effectual, and that promise should stimulate us in our evangelism (Acts 18:10), knowing that God will apply that word to the conversion of all whom He intends (Acts 13:48).

Mormons, the Canon, and the Trustworthiness of the Bible

While this appears on April 1, it is not a joke.

One of the ways that Mormons attract novice Christians to their religion is by undermining the trust of the Christians in the Bible as the word of God. A major thrust in that effort is to point to books named in the Bible, but not included in it, such as the Book of Jasher. If the Bible is trustworthy, the Mormon asks, then how have those books been lost?

For example, the Mormon scriptures, the Book of Mormon, claim (I Nephi 13:26), "For they have taken away from the gospel of the lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away."

In contrast, the Book of Mormon is said to contain "the fullness of the gospel" (Doctrine and Covenants 20:9), "the fullness of the everlasting gospel" (27:5), and again "the fullness of the gospel" (42:12). Yet, mysteriously, the books supposedly lost from the Bible never appear in the Book of Mormon, or any other Mormon Scripture. If they were so valuable, why are they not found in "the fullness of the gospel"?

Smith's Scriptures

More interestingly, the "missing books" also don't appear in Joseph Smith's "translation" of the Bible, supposedly written through supernatural inspiration. He doesn't restore these lost books! In addition, Smith lost another book, the Son of Solomon! If the Mormons are correct about the Bible, then they refute their own "prophet," because he increased the supposed defection of the Bible! This is the man of whom "God" said, "I have sent forth the fullness of my gospel by the hand of Joseph Smith" (Doctrine and Covenants 35:17).

The essence of this is that Christians have nothing to fear from this challenge from Mormons. If the Mormon claim is true, it undermines their own religion. In other words, if Mormonism is true, then Mormonism is false!

The truth of these books which were supposedly lost from the Bible is that they were never part of the Bible. They were consulted by the Bible writers, and the relevant information entered the biblical text through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It is comparable to this blog post. I have cited books which I have not included in the text itself. Are the books, therefore, lost? Of course not!

The Extent of the Noachic Flood

There has long been a debate on the extent of the Flood of Noah. Was it literally worldwide? Or is that language intended to refer to the world as the Mosaic audience knew it. Either usage is possible, and can be seen in other uses.

Here is the primary description of the Flood (Genesis 7:17-24: "The flood continued forty days on the earth. The waters increased and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. The waters prevailed and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind. Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark. And the waters prevailed on the earth 150 days."

However, I think that there are two contextual references that require a literal global interpretation of that passage.

The first is in the prior chapter (Genesis 6:11-13): "Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. And God said to Noah, 'I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth.'" So, God tells us that mankind was thoroughly corrupt, such that He, anthropomorphically speaking, regretted creating them. The relevance of this is that a regional flood would not have dealt with a worldwide problem.

Furthermore, to cut off any claim that this is mere hyperbole, it is not rational to believe that such a radical solution would have been required for a merely-regional problem. Therefore, we are logically compelled to believe that the Flood was necessarily worldwide.

The second issue is back in chapter 7 (Genesis 7:2-9): "'Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate, and seven pairs of the birds of the heavens also, male and female, to keep their offspring alive on the face of all the earth. For in seven days I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground.' And Noah did all that the Lord had commanded him. Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters came upon the earth. And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives with him went into the ark to escape the waters of the flood. Of clean animals, and of animals that are not clean, and of birds, and of everything that creeps on the ground, two and two, male and female, went into the ark with Noah, as God had commanded Noah."

So, as part of the preparation for Noah and his family, God commanded him to collect samples of every animal, presumably limited to land animals ("everything on the dry land," 7:22), two of some kinds, seven (or seven pairs) of other kinds. Thus, provision is made for the entire ecological system on which man is dependent. But why? If the Flood were merely regional, then God could merely have caused them to migrate beyond the range of the Flood. They would have been preserved by not having to pass through the high waters at all. However, their survival is guaranteed, not by migration, but by resorting to the Ark with Noah. Again, that is rational only if we take the Flood as general, worldwide, and not merely regional.

Election and Reprobation: Treating Biblical Truths as Shameful

Regarding the hesitancy to preach on election, Southern Presbyterian Theologian James Henley Thornwell wrote, "This squeamish timidity is no less dishonoring to God [than is to be inquisitive and speculative], as it supposes that He has communicated some truths, in a moment of unlucky forgetfulness, which it would have been better to conceal, and flatly and palpably contradicts the assertion of Paul that all Scripture is 'profitable' [II Timothy 3:16]" (Thornwell, "Election and Reprobation").

Thornwell is correct to identify Paul's words as the issue here: "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (II Timothy 3:16). This verse is fundamental to the Christian attitude toward the Bible. First, it is literally the word of God, not given directly, but through the instrumentality of men. Therefore, as God is necessarily incapable of error, then, too, His word is necessarily free from error. Second, Paul tells us that this origin with God, and as given to men, is profitable, "that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (verse 17). God gave His word that His people may be trained for the work that He has given us to do. Therefore, there can be nothing in it that is harmful or irrelevant. Yet, there are many men in the pulpit who avoid dealing with the myriad passages that discuss the doctrines of grace.

I had this experience once. I had moved to a new community, and needed to find a new church. There was a Presbyterian congregation - I won't specify, but each was of an orthodox denomination, though not the same one - at about equal distance north and south of my house. To help in choosing between them, I asked the minister of one whether he would preach on predestination if it were a natural part of whatever text he was using. His response, word for word, was, "Oh, no! That would offend too many people!" I went to the other church and never looked back.

Is that not a rebuke to God, as Thornwell says? Is such a refusal not telling God, "You screwed up by putting this in Your word, so I have to fix your mistake"?

Here is the instruction from the Westminster Confession of Faith III:8, to which this minister had committed his subscription: "The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending to the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel." Handling with prudence does not mean don't handle at all.

Enthusiasm versus the Scriptures

In our day, the largest portion of evangelicalism consists of pentecostal denominations and charismatics within non-pentecostal denominations. Such groups are marked by their claims of miraculous gifts of unknown languages, prophecies, healings, etc.  I have explained before why I do not consider such "gifts" to be legitimate expressions of the Holy Spirit, such as here. Not only do I consider the original gifts to have ceased, but I do not believe that their modern forms are even like the biblical gifts.

One major concern I have with such claims is that people receive revelations from God. Especially in Africa and South America, so-called "evangelists" claim that God has given them messages, whether for the crowds they attract or for individuals. Sometimes they claim that such revelations are of less authority than Scripture; other times they don't. Theologian Wayne Grudem even claims that modern prophecy is fallible, while biblical prophecy was infallible. How can a revelation from God be fallible? And how can one revelation from God be less revelatory than another? These are distinctions without differences!

Furthermore, what happens when a "revelation" contradicts Scripture? That would be true of all of the revelations claimed by Mormonism. Yet, even a single isolated revelation would be the word of God! It would be from the same source as Scripture. Therefore, to claim that it has less authority is irrational.

This is why I don't just refuse to seek such revelations for myself, but I am forced to deny the biblical faith of those who claim such revelations. Either they are lying or they are under the influence of lying spirits. Either way, such claims are inconsistent with a sincere profession of faith, which must, necessarily, include receiving the Bible as the inerrant and all-sufficient word of God.

The Prophet Isaiah dealt with such men - let's call them by the term used by the Puritans, Enthusiasts - who claimed revelations from various methods of divination, including necromancy. Here was the answer that God gave such men through His real prophet: "When they say to you, 'Inquire of the mediums and the necromancers who chirp and mutter,' should not a people inquire of their God? Should they inquire of the dead on behalf of the living? To the teaching and to the testimony! If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn" (Isaiah 8:19-20). Point them to the Scriptures! If their revelation agrees with them, then those revelations are unnecessary. If they conflict with the Scriptures, then those revelations are lies. 

"A deep conviction of the fullness and sufficiency of the Scriptures, combined with a hearty regard for their disclosures, is the only effectual check to this [inquisitive and speculative] presumptuous pride of intellect" (James Henley Thornwell, "Election and Reprobation").

The Catholic Apologetic for Scripture

While professing to believe in the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible, the Church of Rome claims that acceptance of that authority is dependent on the testimony of the Church. That is, her church. They enjoy quoting the words of Augustine: "I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me." Of course, they hide the fact that "catholic" is merely the Greek word for "universal.' It is circular reasoning to equate Augustine's use of the word with the Roman organization.

However, let us consider the logic of Rome's assertions. By doing so, I think we will conclude not only that her assertion is false, but that it is also destructive to real biblical faith.

First, it makes the basis of authority to be an organization, lodged in the hierarchy of Rome. They explicitly state this. They claim that the Bible even teaches this: "The church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth" (I Timothy 3:15). This is both begging the question, equating "church" in this verse with Rome's organization, and cherry-picking, ignoring another applicable verse: "[The Church is] built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone" (Ephesians 2:20). Not only does the Scripture not make the Roman hierarchy the foundation of Scripture, but it, instead, makes the writings of the Apostles (the New Testament) and the prophets (the Old Testament) the foundation of the Church, the twofold witness of Christ, the real head of the Church, exactly the opposite of the claims of Rome.

Second, the implication of Rome's doctrine is that God can preserve the testimony of the church, but not of His own word. What does that say about the power of God? It is also contrary to the explicit statement of Scripture: "You have exalted above all things Your name and Your word" (Psalm 138:2). God prizes His name first, and His word second, over anything else.

And third, we have the testimony of the creation to her Creator: "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims His handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world" (Psalm 19:1-4). If even nature gives a testimony to God, such that it leaves no man with excuse (Romans 1:18ff), how much more must that be the case in His word!

The Bible, Truth, and the Myth of Autonomy

In dealing with agnostics or atheists, I, of course, use the Bible as my source of truth. That is what distinguishes me as a Christian. To act otherwise is to be a non-Christian. However, the other person will often respond with a challenge to the effect of, "Prove that the Bible is authoritative." Yet, the atheist, even as he is demanding rational evidence, doesn't recognize the irrational presupposition of his question.

As a Christian, I accept what the Bible says about itself: "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (II Timothy 3:16-17). Since the Bible is the word of God, then it carries His truth and His authority. But that isn't the information that the atheist is demanding. He wants evidence that convinces him, from his worldview of autonomy. Therefore, if I answer his question according to his standards, then I am necessarily abandoning my worldview and adopting his. Therefore, as a Christian, I cannot argue that way. Nor do you ever see Jesus or any of the apostles arguing in such a way. They always presuppose the reality of God and the truth and authority of the Bible.

Rather, from the Scriptures, I can demonstrate that the godless worldview of human autonomy is exactly what Satan offered to Adam and Eve in the garden: "The serpent said to the woman, 'You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil" (Genesis 3:4-5, "knowing" meaning "deciding" here). Accepting that premise, Adam rejected the world created for him by God, a world without disease, suffering, or death, and chose instead the world we have. That was an irrational choice.

The atheist repeats, and wants me to repeat, that same irrational choice. That is the implication of his demand that I satisfy his supposed autonomous human will. And, since I reject the choice that Adam made, I cannot answer him the way the atheist demands.

First, we must understand that the atheist's demand is a dishonest one. He knows the truth of God, because it is revealed to him in the creation (Psalm 19:1-4) and in his conscience (Romans 2:15). So, why isn't he a Christian? Because part of that knowledge is that the existence of God and our accountability to Him necessarily mean that men are not autonomous, in spite of Satan's promise in Genesis. Therefore, to maintain the illusion of autonomy, the atheist suppresses his knowledge of God (Romans 1:18-22). That means that, when I explain to him the truth from God's word, I am not addressing someone who does not understand. He simply hates the truth, and is trying to avoid it.

Second, this is not a matter of human persuasion. God promises to prosper His word: "So shall my word be that goes out from My mouth; it shall not return to Me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it" (Isaiah 55:11). If this atheist is one bought by the blood of Jesus, then God will make His word effectual in breaking through his suppression of knowledge, thus bringing him to saving faith. The battle is the Lord's! As Luke says of a particular evangelistic occasion: "When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48).

More Patristics versus the Apocrypha

In the Fourth Century, Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers, continued the tradition of counting the books of the Old Testament canon in accordance with the Hebrew alphabet, i. e., twenty-two. He enumerated them in his Prologo in Psalmos: "Five of Moses; Joshua the son of Nun, the sixth; Judges and Ruth, the seventh; first and second Kings [what we call "Samuel"], the eighth; third and fourth Kings, the ninth; two books of Chronicles, the tenth; Ezra, the eleventh; Psalms, the twelfth; Ecclesiastes and Canticles, the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth [sic, Proverbs dropped by a copyist]; the Twelve Prophets, the sixteenth; then Isaiah and Jeremiah, together with his Lamentations and his epistle; Daniel and Ezekiel; and Job and Esther make up the full number of twenty-two books."

In the same time period, Cyril of Jerusalem was even more forceful: "Learn diligently from the Church what are the books of the Old Testament and what of the New, but read me none of the Apocryphal; for, if you do not know the books acknowledged by all, why do you vainly trouble yourself about the disputed books? Read, then, the divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, which have been translated by the seventy-two interpreters [i. e., of the Septuagint]. Of the Law first are the five books of Moses, then Jesus the son of Nave [Greek for Joshua the son of Nun], and the book of Judges with Ruth, which is numbered the seventh; then follow other historical books, the first and second of the Kingdoms [i. e., Samuel]; the third and fourth are also one book [i. e., the books of Kings]; the first and second of Chronicles are, in like manner, reckoned as one book; the twelfth is Esther. These are the historical books. The books written in verse are five - Job and the book of Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs - making the seventeenth book. After these are the five prophetical books - one of the Twelve Prophets, one of Isaiah, one of Jeremiah, with Baruch, Lamentations, and an Epistle; then Ezekiel and the book of Daniel, the twenty-second book of the Old Testament" (emphasis added).

And in that same century, Epiphanius of Salamis wrote, "Twenty-seven books, acknowledged and received into the Old Testament, which, according to the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, are counted as twenty-two, have been interpreted... [The Jews] enumerate their books as twenty-two, though in reality twenty-seven; for the book of Ruth is joined to the book of Judges, and the two are counted as one by the Hebrews. The first and second Kings [i. e., Samuel] are also counted as one book, and in like manner the third and fourth of Kings are reckoned as one. And in this way all the books of the Old Testament are comprehended in five pentateuchs, with two other books not included in these divisions. Five pertain to the law: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy... Five are poetical: Job, Psalms, Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles. Then another pentateuch embraces the Hagiographa: Joshua, Judges and Ruth, first and second Chronicles, first and second Kings [Samuel], and third and fourth of Kings. This is the third pentateuch. Another pentateuch contains the Twelve Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel. Besides these there remain the two books of Ezra [i. e., Ezra with Nehemiah], which are counted as one, and the book of Esther. In this way, the twenty-two books are made out according to the number of the Hebrew letters."

And finally, let me quote Gregory of Nazianzus: "There are twelve historical books of the most ancient Hebrew wisdom: the first Genesis; then Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; the next Joshua, the Judges, Ruth, the eighth; ninth and tenth the acts of the Kings [i. e., I and II Samuel and I and II Kings], and then the Remains [i. e., Chronicles], and Esdras the last [i. e., Ezra and Nehemiah]. Then the five books of verse, the first Job, next David [i. e., Psalms], then the three books of Solomon: Ecclesiastes, the Song, and Proverbs. The prophetic books are five: the Twelve Prophets are one book, Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Jonah, Obadiah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, all these make one book; the second is Isaiah, then Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; which make twenty-two books, according to the number of the Hebrew letters." That he refers to the Twelve prophets, and then lists only eleven probably indicates a copyist error in dropping Zephaniah, likely because of its similarity to the name Zechariah.

Patristic Views of the Old Testament Canon

The Church of Rome makes bold claims about the Apocrypha, the books in her Old Testament Canon, though rejected by both Jews and Protestants. Catholic apologists will often challenge, "By what authority did Protestants remove them from the canon?" Of course, that question ignores their exclusion from the Jewish canon.

However, what that catholic challenge ignores is the testimony of the Church fathers against the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the canon.

Consider first Melito, the Bishop of Sardis (died 180AD). His friend Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, had asked his opinion of the Apocrypha, so Melito investigated their standing. In his Letter to Onesimus, he wrote, "Having come to the East and arrived at a place where these things were preached and done, and having accurately learned the books of the Old Testament, I have subjoined a list of them and sent it to thee. The names are as follows: of Moses, five books, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy; Joshua, son of Nun, judges, Ruth; four books of Kings, two of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, which is also called Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, and Job; of Prophets, the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah, writings of the Twelve Prophets in one book. Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra, from which I have made selections." Nehemiah and the Hebrew text of Esther appear to be included under the title of Ezra. No Apocrypha.

Origen testified, "Let it not be unknown that the canonical books, as the Hebrews transmit them, are twenty-two, for such is the number of letters among them... These are the twenty-two books of the Hebrews: the book called Genesis..., Exodus..., Leviticus..., Numbers..., Deuteronomy... These are the Words: ...Joshua ben Nun, Judges, Ruth...; Kings, first and second... in one called Samuel; the third and fourth of Kings in one book...; the first and second of Chronicles, in one book...; the first and second of Esdras, in one book called Ezra...; the Book of Psalms...; the Proverbs of Solomon; Ecclesiastes; the Song of Songs...; Isaiah; Jeremiah, with the Lamentations and his epistle, in one volume, Jeremiah; Daniel; Ezekiel; Job; Esther. Beside these there are also the Maccabees." The Epistle of Jeremiah refers to chapter 29 of that book. The Twelve Prophets were left out by a transcriber. Some manuscripts of Origen's work return them. Notice that the books of Maccabees are described as beside the canon of twenty-two books of the Hebrew Bible. the other apocryphal works don't even rate a mention.

Athanasius, in his Festal Epistle, wrote, "All the books of the Old Testament are two and twenty in number, for, as I have heard, this is the order and number of the Hebrew letters. To name them, they are as follows: the first, Genesis, the next, Exodus, then Leviticus, after that the Numbers, and then Deuteronomy; next to them is Jesus the son of Nave [sic, Greek for Joshua son of Nun], and Judges; after that, Ruth; and again the next in order are the four books of the Kingdoms [I and II Samuel, I and II Kings]...; after them the first and second of the Remains, or Chronicles...; then the first and second of Esdras...; after them the Book of Psalms; then the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs; besides these there is Job, and, at length, the Prophets; the twelve are reckoned one book; then Isaiah and Jeremiah, and with him Baruch, the Lamentations, the Epistle; and after them Ezekiel and Daniel. Thus far the books of the Old Testament." Like Melito, Athanasius seems to include the Hebrew version of Esther with Ezra. He also refers to Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah, not as the names of the apocryphal books, but as portions of Jeremiah. What he adds after this is also important: "For the sake of greater accuracy I will add - and the addition is necessary - that there are also other books beside these, not, indeed, admitted into the canon, but ordained by the Fathers to be read by such as have recently come over to us, and who wish to receive instruction in the doctrine of piety - the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, the Doctrine of the Apostles, as it is called, and the Shepherd." Thus this father cannot be accused of overlooking or being ignorant of the Apocrypha. rather, he mentions them as being read, but then excludes them from the canon.

This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but rather just some explicit examples. While Rome makes much of her so-called sacred tradition, they contradict that tradition here. The Council of Trent made into Scriptures books which Christians had traditionally rejected as such. In contrast, the statement of the Westminster Confession of faith (I:3) is consistent with the true tradition: "The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the Canon of Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings."

Judging the Truth of the Bible

In our political system, courts have the power to judge the validity of laws passed by Congress. What is the basis on which they  - at least, hypothetically - base their judgments? On the basis of the Constitution. That is, the Constitution has a higher, a priori, status than do Congressional acts. That makes sense, doesn't it? We expect to judge a thing by a standard which is higher than the thing judged.

That creates a problem when you seek to judge the highest thing. Against what would you judge the validity of the Constitution? In the field of law, there is no such higher standard.

That brings me to the discussion of the truth of the Bible. The challenge from the atheist is to prove the Bible. Yet, no one seems to notice the supposition hidden in the words of that question. That is, no one admits that it is a loaded question.

When the atheist (or whomever) demands proof for the Bible, he is demanding that the Bible be judged by a higher standard, one that he accepts. Not only must that standard, whether reason or experience, etc., be higher than the Bible, but it must be something that satisfies his intellectual nature. Thus, there are really two higher standards, with his mind as the highest of all.

Ah, here is that dastardly hidden supposition: that atheist is presupposing his own sovereignty, autonomy, his right to judge God.

This is as if some Congressman claimed that, before his law could be subjected to the Consitution, the Constitution must first be subjected to his personal satisfaction. Would he not be considered presumptuous? Perhaps even irrational?

Yet, no one makes any such judgment of the atheist who expects to judge God and His word before it can be accepted! Here is his argument, though it is never made explicit: "The Bible is not God's word; therefore, I am not responsible to its authority."

The only legitimate approach is to consider the Bible on its own authority. That is, for example, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (II Timothy 3:16). Is that circular reasoning? After a fashion. However, as I have sought to demonstrate, a certain circularity is unavoidable when dealing with ultimate standards. If the Bible is God's word, then I must accept it as true. Any other approach assumes that it is not God's word, and is, thus, also circular: "It is not God's word; therefore, it is not God's word."

That's why no one in Scripture ever attempts to prove the truth of Scripture. The Prophets, Jesus, the Apostles, all assumed that it is absolute truth, and proceeded, not to prove it, but to apply it.

Is It a Sin to Say That There Is Hyperbole in Scripture?

A Skyline in Canaan?

In discussing Isaiah 14:3-23, I have denied that it refers to the fall of Satan. I insist that it really is about the king of Babylon, just as it says in verse 4. There is always someone who points out that there are specific references in the passage that exceed something that could be true of a mere human king. And, if one insists on taking a literal approach, that would be true. However, is it not inconsistent to insist on being literal about that, while being figurative about the subject of the passage? After all, Satan is mentioned nowhere in it.

My answer is simply that the Prophet is using hyperbolic language to emphasize the arrogance of Babylon, and especially of her king (compare Daniel 4:30-33). Hyperbole is a widely used literary form, using exaggerated language to emphasize a point. Yet, people accuse me of denying the inerrancy of Scripture by claiming that it contains hyperbole. Would I do so if I claimed that it uses poetry? Or allegory? Or humor? Certainly not! God uses all of the literary forms that any other form of human literature uses.

Here is another example: "Hear, O Israel: you are to cross over the Jordan today, to go in to dispossess nations greater and mightier than you, cities great and fortified up to heaven" (Deuteronomy 9:1). Would anyone suggest that Moses was literally saying that the Canaanites had skyscrapers in their defensive walls? I hope not! Rather, he is using hyperbole, deliberately-exagerrated language, to impress on Israel how powerful their human foes were, before pointing them (verse 3) to the power of their God: "Know therefore today that He who goes over before you as a consuming fire is the Lord your God. He will destroy them and subdue them before you. So you shall drive them out and make them perish quickly, as the Lord has promised you."

Hermeneutics requires the awareness of the literary form used in any particular passage. That isn't liberalism, but merely sound exegesis.

Grace and Faith Do not Justify Antinomianism!

One thing at which Dispensationalism has succeeded is in making modern evangelicalism utterly hostile to God's Law. A phrase everyone seems to have memorized is, "We are under grace, not under law," a corruption of Romans 6:14. I bet you can't remember what the rest of the verse says!

However, one thing I have frequently noticed is that this shibboleth gets drawn out only when something in the Pentateuch disproves something an evangelical says. But, whenever the subject of homosexuality, for example, comes up, that same evangelical will pop out with Leviticus 18:22. And quoted correctly, unlike Romans 6:14!

There are so many problems with this doctrine, called antinomianism. Just logically speaking, it is offensive! The Law is the expression of God's moral nature. His precept for us is to reflect His holiness: "Consecrate yourselves, therefore, and be holy, for I am the Lord your God. Keep My statutes and do them; I am the Lord who sanctifies you" (Leviticus 20:7-8, quoted in I Peter 1:16). If a person rejects the Law out of hand, is he not rejecting the holiness of God? And with what is he replacing it? Whose holiness will he now imitate?

Also, biblically speaking, the assertion that Romans 6:14 eliminates the Law from the life of the Christian is contrary to what Paul himself tells us elsewhere in the same epistle: "Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law" (Romans 3:31). How can the same man in the same epistle endorse the Law in one verse and repudiate it in another? What does the assertion that he does so say about the view of Scripture of such persons? Or of the God who inspired the Scripture?

Let's look at another comment by Paul regarding the Law: "The law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted" (I Timothy 1:9-11). Ah, here is the solution! The Law is not for those who are now living consistently with our new nature in Christ. It is for those who require an outside limit on their wickedness. Notice that he even includes false doctrine. That's something very few people will consider, a proper role of the state in the suppression of heresy.

Lets look once more at Romans 6:14, but the whole verse, properly quoted: "Sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace." Now we can see that Paul's contrast isn't between law and grace, but between grace and bondage to sin. This is exactly what he says in I Timothy, that the Spirit-controlled man has his sin nature shackled on the inside. But the natural man has no such control, and, therefore, requires an external control, the Law of God.

God's Opposition to Those Who Despise His Word

Isn't it natural for a person to think of rejection of something he has made as equivalent to rejection of him? Think of the child that brings home the clay mug that he has made at school. If his father responds with, "This is garbage!" how crushed that child would be. Or imagine the woman who has invested the day in Thanksgiving dinner, only to have her husband spit it out and pronounce it swill. Would we not expect her to harbor resentment of such treatment?

Yet, we think that the rejection and despising of the things of God is merely being "modern." How could He hold us guilty for such independent thinking?

In Psalm 138:2, King David demonstrates an opposite attitude: "I bow down toward Your holy temple and give thanks to Your name for Your steadfast love and Your faithfulness, for You have exalted above all things Your name and Your word." 

David recognizes the two things that God values most, His reputation and His Word, the Bible. Then, in acknowledgement of God's priorities, David submits to them, and doesn't even put forward his own.

It has been de riguer to treat God as an object of disrespect. Do we not treat Him as Santa Claus, existing to give us baubles? Do we not use His name as a curse? A bunch of curses at that! And is it not scholarly and respectable to express doubts about, and independence from, His word in the Bible?

Yet, David tells us that, in God's priorities, those two things are the most important to Him. And, if our priorities are different from His, what can we expect, except futility, resentment, even judgment?

The Bible as the Only Means of Sanctification

"How can a young man keep his way pure?
     By guarding it according to Your word.
I have stored up Your word in my heart,
     that I might not sin against You.
Your word is a lamp to my feet
     and a light to my path.
Keep steady my steps according to Your promise, 
     and let no iniquity get dominion over me."
- Palm 119:9, 11, 105, 133

Muslims and cultists around the world speak of the morality of professing American Christians and claim that it is a reflection of the nature of Christianity. And, in a sense, they are right to look at us. After all, if we profess that faith, then we should live accordingly. What is sad, however, is that they understand that, but all of those professing Christians don't. As I have pointed out here, the religion of America ceased long ago to be Christianity, and is, instead, deism, though baptized with Christian terminology.  

However, for the true Christian, what brings moral failure? How should he judge whether his life reflects the Lord that he professes? In the four verses above, the Psalmist gives us clear and explicit counsel.

In each of these four verses, there is a reference to the Scriptures. In the first three, it is called the "word." That emphasizes that the Bible is no mere word of men, but is really the word of God (I Thessalonians 2:13), God-breathed (II Timothy 3:16). And the last verse calls it  the "promise," because it is God's word to us, His message of salvation, of sanctification, and of glorification (Romans 8:30).

Then, also in all four verses, the Psalmist describes a role for the Scriptures in our sanctification, that is, the process of repudiating sin and striving more and more to be like Jesus. He desires to be "pure" (verse 9), "not to sin" (verse 11), to be enlightened (verse 105), and that "iniquity will not have dominion" (verse 133). Each of those phrases describes his desire to repudiate his old life of sin and to live as the new creation he is in Christ (II Corinthians 5:17). He refuses the deistic, humanistic mindset, which says that doing right is what he feels is right. Rather, doing right is doing what God says is right. And that we can find only in Scripture.

What the Bible Says About Its Own Inspiration: Old Testament

I understand that an atheist, for example, won't be convinced by the Bible's description of itself as the Word of God. However, I'm not addressing that question here. Rather, I am presenting the Bible's testimony about itself as a first step. After all, if the Bible makes no claims of inspiration and inerrancy, then there is nothing to defend.

I want to look at three Old Testament passages.

First, Numbers 1:1: "The Lord spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the tent of meeting, on the first day of the second month, in the second year after they had come out of the land of Egypt." This is a very simple profession. The Bible says of itself that it is a record, not of men's words about God, but of God's words to men about Himself. That is the essential starting point, and what separates the Bible from traditional myths of, for example, Greece and Rome. Those myths come from plays or poems written by professionals, and make no claim or pretense of supernatural origin. They are men's stories about their ideas of the spiritual reality, not even claiming to be from that reality. In contrast, the Bible sets forth an unequivocal claim to be the words of God, though recorded by men.

Second, turn to Deuteronomy 18:18-19: "I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put My words in his mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. And whoever will not listen to My words that He shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him." This is a prophecy to Moses, predicting the coming of Christ, in His prophetic office (applied to Him in Acts 3:22). But that isn't my point in mentioning it here. the reason I cite it is because of its description of the inspirational process. What is the source of Moses's words (as he is the prophet to whom the words are given)? They are from the mouth of God. That is, as in Numbers 1:1 above, they do not have their origin in the mind of the prophet, but are rather given him by God to be recorded. So, again, the Bible claims for itself to have a divine origin (compare II Peter 1:21).

And third, turn to II Samuel 23:2-3: "The Spirit of the Lord speaks by me; His word is on my tongue. The God of Israel has spoken; the Rock of Israel has said to me." So we see for a third time that an Old Testament figure, in this case King David, claims that the words that are recorded are not from his mind, or his imagination, but rather are from God.

This is far from an exhaustive list. Rather, I chose three examples to represent the consistent testimony of the Old Testament. The testimony to what? To its own divine inspiration. The implication of that is, first, that the professing Christian who denies the inerrancy of Scripture is denying the basis of the faith that he professes. It is a self-refuting profession, and proof that he is either ignorant of his faith, or that he is irrational. Furthermore, it puts the professing unbeliever on notice. There is no such thing as agnosticism, some vague profession that one is noncommittal. We must be flexible, our culture says! But Scripture says, "This is what God says. Believe it, or accept the consequences." There is no in-between, neutral position (Matthew 12:30). To the professing unbeliever, the Bible doesn't congratulate you on your sophisticated scepticism. Rather, it says that you are commanded to believe (Acts 17:30). If you refuse, then you are saying that you accept the consequences. Don't deceive yourself: unbelief is not a form of immunity, as if refusing makes you free of the requirements of God.

Does Having the Bible Allow Continuing Revelation?

The question in the title of this post should have brought immediate images to mind, such as the Book of Mormon. And that is certainly one of the things that I have in mind. However, we should also think of Pentecostal "prophets," the Pope, and a lot of common Christians who claim that "God told me."

I am opposed to all of these claims of revelation because they undermine the sufficiency of the true Scriptures, the Bible, in both the Old and the New testaments.

First, what does the Bible say about itself? Paul, writing to his apprentice Timothy, said (II Timothy 3:14-17): "As for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." Notice what he tells us about the Scriptures. First, they are "breathed out by God," i. e., their authority derives from their ultimate authorship by God. Second, they make us wise for salvation. And third, they equip the believer, so that he is complete, equipped for every good work.

The desire for additional revelation indicates that the person does not believe that the Scriptures are sufficient for salvation, and would leave a believer incomplete, ill-equipped for every good work. That is, that they fail to achieve their intended purpose (see Isaiah 55:11).

Notice, secondly, what Jude 1:3 also says: "Beloved, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." While it may be true that the full explanation was not yet complete when Jude wrote, he clearly indicates that the content was delivered once for all. This brother of the Lord saw no need for the revelation of any new doctrines, as both Rome and the Mormons have done. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews said the same thing (Hebrews 1:1-2): "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but, in these last days, He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed the heir of all things, through whom also He created the world." There is progressive revelation from the creation to the Gospels to the founding of the church, because all revelation was to point to Jesus Christ. Once He came, there was some apostolic explanation necessary, but no additional content was necessary or possible. That rules out the new dogmas decreed by Rome, such as papal infallibility, or the ascension of Mary, as well as "another testimony of Jesus Christ" pretended by the Mormons.

Some Thoughts on Bible Translations

Discussions about the various bible translations (in English) have left me with some thoughts on the matter. However, let me say up front that I cannot read Greek or Hebrew, nor am I an expert on manuscript history. So, please do not take my remarks as scholarly, but rather as just the opinions of an experienced Christian who knows his Bible.

If someone asks me which Bible translation I would recommend (assuming that he is an adult with commensurate reading comprehension), I usually refer him to one of four translations: the New American Standard Bible, the English Standard Version, the Modern English Version, or the New King James Version. What these four have in common is a commitment to a formal equivalence principle of translation. That is, they seek to translate on a word-for-word basis, within the constraints of comprehensibility. The alternative is dynamic equivalence, a translation on a thought-by-thought basis, that is, what does this verse mean in the source language, and how would we express that thought in the target language (English, in this case). It isn't strictly an either-or consideration, since translations fall along a continuum between the absolutes of translation principle.

My concern with dynamic equivalence is that it relies on the translator to determine the meaning, which would tend to subjectivity, or even paraphrasing. Formal equivalence is, relatively speaking, far more objective, leaving interpretation to the reader. That is what I want, to read the Bible for myself, and interpret according to my knowledge, conscience, and experience. I can then add whatever assistance I need, such as concordances, commentaries, or pastoral input. I have not been pre-fed the interpretation of a translator that may be an unbeliever or a rank heretic. That is because I believe what the Bible says of itself: "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (II Timothy 3:16).

Among the translations above, the New American Standard Version (hereafter, "NASB") is usually described as the most literal, that is, with the least interpretation by its translators. I cut my spiritual teeth on the NASB, back in the early eighties. It was my first Bible for several years after my conversion. In its original edition, the NASB still used "thou" and other archaisms in addresses to God. In 1995, the publisher did an extensive revision which updated all of that language. I find it very readable. I also like that it uses capital letters for pronouns that refer to deity, which is a personal peeve of mine. It also uses italics for words not in the original text, used to clarify or smooth something that doesn't work in English. While the NASB can't be called popular, It is being promoted by well-known pastors John MacArthur and Charles Stanley.

The English Standard Version (hereafter, "ESV") is the Bible we use in my church. Such usage is becoming more common as the New International Version implodes as a result of its unpopular 2011 revision. The ESV is slightly less literal than the NASB, but reads more smoothly. What I don't like is the use of small letters when referring to deity, and the lack of indication of inserted words. However, I like its use of footnotes to indicate, where relevant, when "you" is singular or plural in the original. And a very specific advantage is the use of "Jesus," instead of "Lord," in Jude 1:5, following the earliest Greek manuscripts. Even the NASB missed that one!

The Modern English Version is a new translation, having been published in 2013. Most people aren't even aware of its existence. This is the translation that I use for my private reading. It uses capitalized pronouns, but lacks italicization, so it's a mixed bag on those issues. However, it maintains the poetic dignity of the King James Version, just without the archaic language. The New King James is much older, of course, by roughly thirty years, and has all of the same advantages, plus italicization. These two versions are so similar that they are almost interchangeable.

The main difference among these translations is the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts used as their text basis. This is an issue that I don't stress, but some people do. The first two follow the Critical Text, that is, a collection of manuscripts based on the best efforts of scholars to identify transmission errors and reproduce the original autographs. The latter two are translated from the Textus Receptus, a much later class of manuscripts. The reason I don't stress this issue is that the differences between the two classes of manuscript are so tiny that most people don't even notice, and none of those differences affects any biblical doctrine.

Now, having expressed my own opinion, I welcome comments regarding the preferences of others. However, I will warn in advance that I will not post any comments promoting the mystical views that some King James-only folks have. I will not provide space for anyone claiming that the KJV is somehow an inspired translation, and therefore of authority beyond that of the Greek and Hebrew from which it was translated.