Textual Criticism Where Will It Lead

Texuual Criricism: Where Will It Lead http://www.biblefortoday.org/bennett/Articles/textual_criticism.
htm
Gateway to all our WebPages

OUR HOMEPAGE | AIB NEWSLETTERS | OUR PRAYER LETTERS | OUR
TIMELY ARTICLES | MINISTRY UPDATES | FACTS ABOUT AUSTRALIA |
FUTURE CHURCHES | THE BENNETTS | FROM DR. BENNETT | OUR
AUDIO SERMONS | OUR VIDEO SERMONS | HELPFUL LINKS
Pray for the Bennetts in Australia as they with God's help and for
His glory are seeking to establish: Western Plains Baptist
Fellowship, and Gilgandra Baptist Fellowship as New
Testament Baptist churches.
TEXTUAL CRITICISM: WHERE WILL

IT LEAD THE FUNDAMENTALISTS?
Missionary David C. Bennett, D. Min.
October 20, 2004
Dallas Seminary has been known as an evangelical school producing some

excellent Bible expositors even though the school has always followed the Westcott
and Hort (W & H) Greek text. Daniel Wallace, a professor at Dallas, is of course a
proponent ofthe Critical Greek Text as the school is. In his paper WITTENBERG 2002
Daniel Wallace said "This sabbatical has been dedicated to New Testament textual
criticism, the science of determining the wording of the original documents."
(Emphasis added). Daniel Wallace went on to say textual criticism is needed
"…because there are hundreds of thousands of differences among the extant
manuscripts (MSS). Only by a careful sifting of the data, and a rigorous comparison
of MSS, can one increase in certainty as to what the original text said."
(Emphasis added). Sifting to determine the words of God? OH, what "miserable
comforters."
Daniel Wallace adds that he took a trip to "Mt. Sinai, to St. Catherine’s
Monastery." Here he "spent a week looking at some of the ‘New Finds’ manuscripts.
These are 200 biblical manuscripts that were discovered in 1975 when a fire broke out
at St. George’s Tower, revealing a hidden compartment." Daniel Wallace continues
1 de 22 03/11/2014 11:37
Texuual Criricism: Where Will It Lead http://www.biblefortoday.org/bennett/Articles/textual_criticism.htm
saying that "In the compartment were 1200 manuscripts and 50,000 fragments (all
undamaged by the fire). Among the 1200 manuscripts are over 200 biblical
manuscripts. Most exciting among the discoveries were leaves of Codex Sinaiticus,
the fourth-century MS that Tischendorf carried off to Russia in 1844 and 1859." It
seems ironic that these manuscripts were found due to a fire as was Sinaiticus when
Tischendorf found it in a waste paper basket waiting to be added to the fire. Daniel
Wallace continues saying that "Sinaiticus contains the oldest complete Greek New
Testament in existence—by 500 years! It now resides in the British Library in London.
That’s another story. There are also over a dozen uncial MSS of the New Testament
(uncial MSS are capital-letter MSS on parchment; all of them are dated no later than
the tenth century and as early as the third century, making them quite valuable for
determining the wording of the original)." (Emphasis added). Note how this textual
criticism seeks to determine the wording of the originals!
Further on in this sabbatical paper Daniel Wallace writes that he "...headed out
for Münster, Germany." "On the western edge of the old city is the Institut für
neutestamentliche Textforschung, or the Institute for New Testament Textual Research.
Founded in 1959 by Dr. Kurt Aland, this…building houses microfilms and photographs
of virtually all Greek New Testament manuscripts known to exist. A few decades ago,
Dr. Eldon Epp noted that there are probably more textual critics at this institute than
there are in the rest of the world. That situation has changed to some degree, but
Münster is still the epicenter for New Testament textual studies. I am here working, in
part, on exhaustive collations of MSS of Paul’s letters. Every variant is noted for each
MS that is examined. By doing this kind of work, one can determine, to some degree,
what a particular scribe’s tendencies were. For example, if one MS tends to have
"Christ" where other MSS have "Lord," its voice is discounted in places where other
MSS join it in reading "Christ." But if that same MS has "Lord" in disputed places, its
voice is weighed more heavily." (Emphasis added). After all this determination done by
Mr. Wallace and other textual critics will we eventually have the Words and the Word of
the living God?
Daniel Wallace is following in the steps of those textual critics before him who
believed it is up to man to find and determine what the very words of God are. In
seeking to find God’s Words Sir Frederick Kenyon in his book (first published in 1937)
THE TEXT OF THE GREEK BIBLE page 14 says that "If the author’s original
manuscripts had survived, it would of course be unnecessary to trouble about later and
less accurate copies of it, or the works of revising editors; but since in the case of the
Bible books, as also of all works of the classical authors and of nearly all mediaeval
works, the original autographs and all early copies of them have disappeared, WE
HAVE TO DO AS BEST WE CAN with such later copies as have survived. Where (as
in the case of most classical authors) those copies are few in number and late in date,
it is possible that in many passages the truth has survived in none of them, and can
only be recovered, if at all, by conjecture; and such restorations can at best be
regarded as probabilities, not certainties. Where (as in the case of the Bible) the
extant copies are very numerous, and some of them very early, IT IS PERMISSABLE
TO HOPE THAT THE TRUE READING IS TO BE FOUND SOMEWHERE AMONG
THEM. TO FIND IT IS THE TASK OF THE TEXTUAL CRITIC." (Emphasis added).
2 de 22 03/11/2014 11:37
Where will this type of textual criticism lead?
In the INTRODUCTION to his book the KING JAMES DEFENDED Edward F. Hills
says there "...are two methods of New Testament textual criticism, the consistently
Christian method and the naturalistic method. These two methods deal with the same
materials, the same Greek manuscripts, and the same translations and biblical
quotations, but they interpret these materials differently. The consistently Christian
method interprets the materials of New Testament textual criticism in accordance with
the doctrines of the divine inspiration and providential preservation of the Scriptures.
The naturalistic method interprets these same materials in accordance with its own
doctrine that the New Testament is nothing more than a human book."
"Sad to say, modern Bible-believing scholars have taken very little interest in
the concept of consistently Christian New Testament textual criticism. For more
than a century most of them have been quite content to follow in this area the
naturalistic methods of Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort. And the result of
this equivocation has been truly disastrous. Just as in Pharaoh's dream the thin cows
ate up the fat cows, so the principles and procedures of naturalistic New
Testament textual criticism have spread into every department of Christian
thought and produced a spiritual famine." (Emphasis added). A "spiritual famine"
is what Dr. Hills said W & H’s principles and procedures has produced but has there
been worse fruit to appear from this method of textual criticism?
Charles Haddon Spurgeon wrote in the August 1887 Sword and Trowel that
"Certain ministers are making infidels. Avowed atheists are not a tenth as
dangerous as those preachers who scatter doubt and stab at faith. A plain man told us
the other day that two ministers had derided him because he thought we should pray
for rain. A gracious woman bemoaned in my presence that a precious promise in
Isaiah which had comforted her had been declared by her minister to be uninspired."
(Emphasis added). Spurgeon went on to say that "Germany was made unbelieving by
her preachers, and England is following in her track." He concluded by saying that that
these ministers no "doubt never intended it to go so far; but none the less they have
done the ill, and cannot undo it."
I believe the unbelief that took place in Spurgeon’s day came about through W
& H’s naturalistic textual criticism where man stands as judge over the Words and
Word of God. That is why Spurgeon relates how a dear lady was told a promise in
Isaiah was uninspired. Is this any different than fundamentalists saying the last twelve
verses of Mark are not authentic and therefore not a part of the inspired Word of God? I
believe this naturalistic textual criticism followed by many of today’s fundamentalists
will eventually produce within the ranks of fundamentalism unbelief just as it did in
preceding generations.
Even though the naturalistic method began before W & H as shown by Hills and
others, they are the one’s who made the naturalistic method of textual criciticism
acceptable and popular! The W & H method of textual criticism (as we shall see later)
displays a lack of faith in God’s preservation of His inspired Hebrew, Aramaic, and
Greek words. Through W & H’s textual criticism today’s fundamentalists have brought
3 de 22 03/11/2014 11:37
ill repute on the authenticity and therefore the inspiration of the last twelve verses of
Mark and the woman taken in adultery John 7: 53 – 8:11, to name just two passages.
The W & H naturalistic textual criticism method spreads doubt and stabs at the faith of
today’s believers as it did in Spurgeon’s day. As Spurgeon said of those in his day so it
may be said of today’s fundamentalist following W & H that they too probably "never
intended it to go so far; but none the less they have done the ill, and cannot undo it."
It is interesting to note that Spurgeon said the unbelief of his day sprang from
Germany. German unbelief is theological liberalism. Robert Lightner, of Dallas
Seminary, in his book NEO-LIBERALISM (published 1972) page 19 says the father of
liberalism was "Friedrich Daniel Schleiermacher (1768-1834)." Guess where
Schleiermacher was born? He went on to say that Schleiermacher "founded his
authority in the soul’s experiences rather than in the Bible." "Human reason became
the determining factor as to what was and what was not the Word of God.
Rather than the Bible standing as the judge over men, men stood over it as the
final authority." NEO-LIBERALISM page 21 (Emphasis added).
Lightner goes on to say that "With the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species
(1859), the creation of man and things seemed to be obsolete; thus this publication
placed disrepute in the minds of the people upon the first chapters of the Bible."
NEO-LIBERALISM page 22. "The reason for their gross unbelief was that they applied
the scientific method to the Bible." NEO-LIBERALISM page 23. Then on the same page
Lightner adds that even "The existence of Jesus in history was even doubted by many."
WHAT?! "THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS IN HISTORY WAS EVEN DOUBTED by

many." This doubt still exists today. The Jesus Seminar is considered by most if not all
fundamentalists as anything but theologically conservative. The Jesus Seminar has
allowed human reason to be the determining factor as to what is and is not the Word of
God. To those at the Jesus Seminar the Bible does not stand over man as Judge but
man stands over the Bible as judge. Man is the final authority. The following is from the
EXCERPT ON VOTING AND COLOR-CODING FROM THE INTRODUCTION TO
THE FIVE GOSPELS. "Voting was adopted, after extended debate, as the most
efficient way of ascertaining whether a scholarly consensus existed on a given point.
Committees creating a critical text of the Greek New Testament under the
auspices of the United Bible Societies vote on whether to print this or that text and
what variants to consign to notes. These committees will "vote in the course of their
deliberations on which translation proposal to accept and which to reject." (Emphasis
added). Note the type of Greek text they constructed was a critical Greek text with the
support of the UBS! What kind of Greek text would one expect determined by human
reasoning?
The excerpt continues by saying "It was deemed entirely consonant with the
mission of the Jesus Seminar to decide whether, after careful review of the
evidence, a particular saying or parable did or did not fairly represent the voice
of the historical Jesus." (Emphasis added). These textual critics at the Jesus
Seminar set themselves in judgement over the Scriptures deciding what Jesus said or
did not say. This is the fruit of unbelief! Where did it stem from? The principles and
procedures set forth by W & H. In spite of what some fundamentalists may say W & H
4 de 22 03/11/2014 11:37
textual criticism eventually leads to liberalism and unbelief for it is not a consistently
Christian method of faith! Sadly, as the fundamentalists follow these same principles
and procedures of W & H the fruit will be that of unbelief.
Considering what the Jesus Seminar has done to the sayings of Jesus it is fair
to ask, what did Jesus mean in John 5: 39 "Search the scriptures; for in them ye
think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."? Did Jesus really
mean they had the Scriptures at that time to search or not? They certainly did not have
the originals so they must have had copies. So, was Jesus saying to search those
copies of the original Scriptures that would "testify of" Him? Or did Jesus mean they
needed to develop some procedures and principles by which they may critically
evaluate the copies of Old Testament writings hoping that by their critical evaluation
they might, just might, find the real words of the Old Testament Scriptures and then
they might, just might, ascertain those Scriptures of which Jesus said would "testify of"
Him? It is of utmost importance that God’s Word never be treated just like any other
book of antiquity for then human reason takes over and biblical faith ceases! This is the
W & H method.
Many fundamentalists find themselves bowing at the feet of so called

scholarship. This has often times placed man as judge and authority over the Word of
God. Man decides what God said and what God did not say. Did Jesus say that? On
page 11 FROM THE MIND OF GOD TO THE MIND OF MAN Randolph Shaylor says
that "Textual criticism is a necessary and POSITIVE discipline to determine which of
the present manuscripts most accurately represents the original in any given instance."
(Emphasis is in the book). Here, Shaylor, a fundamentalist and graduate of Bob Jones
University, is saying man will "determine" what God has said. This is exactly what
those in the Jesus Seminar did. This is the W & H naturalistic method of textual
criticism which allows human reasoning to be "the determining factor as to what was
and was not the Word of God. Rather than the Bible standing as the judge over men,
men stood over it as the final authority" page 21 NEO-LIBERALISM.
Dr. Thomas Strouse Dean of Emmanuel Baptist Seminary wrote a review of the
book FROM THE MIND OF GOD TO THE MIND OF MAN. He says "A fourth factor
for the book's failure is the extreme defense of fallible mortals such as Westcott and
Hort." He goes on to say "A fifth factor causing the failure of From the Mind of God to
the Mind of Man to achieve its purposes is the unbiblical nature of the major premise of
the Westcott-Hort position." Alas Shaylor along with many other fundamentalists
continue to follow the rules of textual criticism formulated by W and H. The following
summary are the principles of Westcott and Hort taken from Epp and Fee’s, Studies in
the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism (1993, pages 157-8). The
references in parentheses refer to sections of Hort's Introduction, from which the
principles have been extracted.
1. Older readings, manuscripts, or groups are to be preferred. ("The shorter the

interval between the time of the autograph and the end of the period of transmission in
question, the stronger the presumption that earlier date implies greater purity of text.")
(2.59; cf. 2.5-6, 31)
5 de 22 03/11/2014 11:37
2. Readings are approved or rejected by reason of the quality, and not the
number, of their supporting witnesses. ("No available presumptions whatever as to text
can be obtained from number alone, that is, from number not as yet interpreted by
descent.") (2.44)
3. A reading combining two simple, alternative readings is later than the two
readings comprising the conflation, and manuscripts rarely or never supporting
conflate reading are text antecedent to mixture and are of special value. (2.49-50).
4. The reading is to be preferred that makes the best sense, that is, that best
conforms to the grammar and is most congruous with the purport of the rest of the
sentence and of the larger context. (2.20)
5. The reading is to be preferred that best conforms to the usual style of the
author and to that author's material in other passages. (2.20)
6. The reading is to be preferred that most fitly explains the existence of the
others. (2.22-23)
7. The reading is less likely to be original that combines the appearance of an

improvement in the sense with the absence of its reality; the scribal alteration will have
an apparent excellence, while the original will have the highest real excellence. (2.27,
29)
8. The reading is less likely to be original that shows a disposition to smooth

away difficulties (another way of stating that the harder reading is preferable). (2.28)
9. Readings are to be preferred that are found in a manuscript that habitually

contains superior readings as determined by intrinsic and transcriptional probability.
Certainty is increased if such a better manuscript is found also to be an older
manuscript (2.32-33) and if such a manuscript habitually contains reading that prove
themselves antecedent to mixture and independent of external contamination by other,
inferior texts (2.150-51). The same principles apply to groups of manuscripts
(2.260-61).
W & H had their rules but in the end what did they really do? Sir Frederic Kenyon
in THE TEXT OF THE GREEK BIBLE page 87 said that W & H "made the Vaticanus
the sheet-anchor of their edition." Kenyon stated further on page 168 that when
Sinaiticus and Vanticanus (B) differ Hort would "give the preference to B."
The question may be asked "what type of textual criticism was prominent
before Westcott and Hort?" Edward F. Hills says in the third chapter of his book THE
KING JAMES VERSION DEFENDED that "NEW Testament textual criticism cannot
properly be said to have begun until the New Testament was first placed in print in
1516, one year before the commencement of the Protestant Reformation. Hence the
first New Testament textual critics were editors such as Erasmus (1466-1536), printers
such as Stephanus (1503-1559), and Reformers such as Calvin (1509-1564) and Beza
(1519-1605). A study of Calvin's commentaries and the notes of Erasmus and Beza
indicates that these 16th-century scholars had not worked out any clearly defined
6 de 22 03/11/2014 11:37
system of New Testament textual criticism. In this department of biblical study they
were unmethodical, and some of their remarks concerning the New Testament canon
and text reflect the humanistic culture in which they had been reared. But in their actual
editing and printing of the New Testament they were guided by the common faith in the
Received Text. For in their appeal to the New Testament against the errors of the
papacy and the Roman Catholic doctrinal system these Reformers were not
introducing a novelty but were falling back on a principle which long before the
Reformation had been acknowledged by everyone. For centuries it had been
commonly believed that the currently received New Testament text, primarily the Greek
text and secondarily the Latin text, was the True New Testament Text which had been
preserved by God's special providence. It was out of this common faith, therefore, that
the printed Textus Receptus was born through the editorial labors of Erasmus and his
successors under the guiding hand of God. Hence during the Reformation Period the
approach to the New Testament text was theological and governed by the common
faith in holy Scripture, and for this reason even in those early days the textual criticism
of the New Testament was different from the textual criticism of other ancient books."
According to Hills then, the Reformers approach to textual criticism of the

"New Testament text was theological and governed by the common faith in
holy Scripture, and for this reason even in those early days the textual criticism of the
New Testament was different from the textual criticism of other ancient books." Their
approach was opposite of W & H’s which was naturalistic. In spite of W & H’s
naturalist approach many fundamental Christian colleges and universities
enthusiastically follow their rules. Bob Jones University has been a bastion for
fundamentalism for years but as 2 Kings 4:40 says "there is death in the pot" and that
death is in the pot known as the Greek department. In the POSITION OF THE BIBLE
DEPARTMENT OF BOB JONES UNIVERSITY ON THE SCRIPTURE it is stated that
"Today there are two Greek texts available. One is the Received Text, edited by [a]
Roman Catholic scholar, Erasmus, in the sixteenth century and based on manuscripts
of the late Middle Ages." Just from this you get the idea they do not like the Received
Text.
"The King James Version was based upon the "Received Text"; the American
Standard Version was based upon the text of Westcott and Hort. We do not believe
that either of these texts is ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative.’ Not only Erasmus but also
Westcott and Hort were seeking to present a close copy of the original text. We are
interested in which one is closer to the original text of the New Testament." I too am
interested in which text is closer to the originals.
"Therefore, along with the great majority of conservative scholars, we believe

that the text based upon the Alexandrian manuscripts is, as a whole, superior to
the text based upon manuscripts of the Middle Ages."
Now, how did they come to this conclusion? They came to this conclusion based
on W & H’s rules of textual criticism. Hills in DEFENDING THE KING JAMES BIBLE
quotes Hort saying "we dare not introduce considerations which could not reasonably
be applied to other ancient texts, supposing them to have documentary attestation of
7 de 22 03/11/2014 11:37
equal amount, variety, and antiquity." This is naturalistic rather than by faith. Dr. Strouse
says in his review of FROM THE MIND OF GOD TO THE MIND OF MAN that
"Assurance in God's having inspired and preserved His Words does not come through
Textual Criticism but through "faith [which] cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word
of God" (Rom. 10:17). This is the historical faith of those of whom Jesus declared, ‘My
sheep hear my voice’ (Jn. 10:27)."
POSITION OF THE BIBLE DEPARTMENT OF BOB JONES UNIVERSITY ON THE

SCRIPTURE continues saying "The portion of the New Testament that has any
substantial variation between the various manuscripts is only about one word in a
thousand. These variations in no way change the teaching of the New Testament on
any doctrine. Therefore, we consider this not an issue of modernism versus
conservatism but a matter of individual judgment on the part of Fundamental
Christians. Christians should be free to choose and use either of these texts and still
work together in harmony to teach and preach the Word of God to those who are
without it." Is this true that the variation "is only about one word in a thousand"?
Dr. Strouse aptly says in his review of FROM THE MIND OF GOD TO THE MIND
OF MAN that "A third factor for the book's failure is its misstatement of fact. Several
authors declare that the variants between the modern texts/translations and the Textus
Receptus (TR) and the Authorized Version are so small ("less than one page of my
entire Testament" p. 86) that no concern should be taken (pp. 97, 183). The fact of the
matter is that the Critical Text of Westcott-Hort differs from the TR, mostly by deletions,
in 9,970 words out of 140,521, giving a total of 7% difference. In the 480-page edition of
the Trinitarian Bible Society Textus Receptus this would amount to almost 34 pages,
the equivalent of the final two books of the New Testament, Jude and Revelation. This
certainly does not sound like ‘no cause for concern.’" THIRTY FOUR PAGES! The
equivalent of Jude and Revelation! This is not a small insignificant matter!
Dr. Floyd Jones in his paper RIPPED OUT OF THE BIBLE writes on page 27 that
"It is necessary to go to the Greek texts underlying these versions to obtain such. Even
this will not yield a completely accurate count since a version will usually not follow one
of the standard Greek editions at every point. However, the matter may be simplified by
the realization that there are really only two kinds of Greek New Testaments – the
Received Text and the Modern Critical Text. The Authorized (King James) Bible and all
other Reformation Bibles were based on the former and practically all modern Bibles
on the latter. We will not here examine their relative merits but will rather show book by
book and chapter by chapter that the Critical Text is shorter.
The two most popular editions of the Critical Text are: The Nestle–Aland 26th
Edition, and The United Bible Society 3rd Edition. These have a different format,
but their text is identical. The most widely used edition of the Received Text was that
prepared by Robert Stephanus in 1550. The KJB does not follow Stephanus in every
instance, nor is the NIV text identical with the Nestle–Aland, but they are extremely
close. Thus these two Greek Testaments provide a basis for comparison. The following
gives a chapter by chapter comparison of the Stephanus 1550 (number of words given
first) and the Nestle–Aland 26th. Keep in mind that word omissions are only part of the
8 de 22 03/11/2014 11:37
story, there are also many word alterations in the modern version text."
Dr. Jones then gives the following chart with emphasis being his:
"MATTHEW
(1) 445 - 438 (2) 458 - 457 (3) 334 - 335 (4) 432 - 427
(5) 841 - 822 (6) 683 - 653 (7) 514 - 517 (8) 599 - 585
(9) 657 - 646 (10) 721 - 724 (11) 498 - 493 (12) 920 - 905
(13) 1096 - 1076 (14) 565 - 561 (15) 625 - 610 (16) 533 - 525
(17) 517 - 496 (18) 695 - 668 (19) 549 - 533 (20) 572 - 542
(21) 869 - 865 (22) 668 - 661 (23) 688 - 656 (24) 835 - 825
(25) 773 - 763 (26) 1274 - 1239 (27) 1036 - 1008 (28) 341 - 329
Total: 18,738 – 18,359 = 379 fewer words in the modern version text
MARK
(1) 721 - 708 (2) 558 - 541 (3) 541 - 547 (4) 698 - 682
(5) 710 - 697 (6) 1017 - 981 (7) 631 - 605 (8) 644 - 630
(9) 914 - 858 (10) 919 - 885 (11) 595 - 563 (12) 837 - 793
(13) 637 - 606 (14) 1234 - 1197 (15) 689 - 667 (16) 301 - 308*
LUKE
(1) 1204 - 1186 (2) 864 - 849 (3) 594 - 585 (4) 799 - 767
(5) 760 - 754 (6) 957 - 924 (7) 913 - 890 (8) 1117 - 1086
(9) 1199 - 1151 (10) 808 - 782 (11) 1028 - 978 (12) 1059 - 1036
(13) 672 - 663 (14) 612 - 607 (15) 564 - 561 (16) 605 - 595
(17) 583 - 570 (18) 688 - 683 (19) 767 - 762 (20) 719 - 702
(21) 593 - 586 (22) 1113 - 1086 (23) 878 - 852 (24) 843 - 818
JOHN
9 de 22 03/11/2014 11:37
(1) 844 - 829 (2) 434 - 430 (3) 671 - 658 (4) 952 - 946
(5) 830 - 792 (6) 1283 - 1241 (7) 871 - 861 (8) 1115 - 1070*
(9) 698 - 692 (10) 711 - 695 (11) 985 - 944 (12) 888 - 892
(13) 668 - 665 (14) 592 - 580 (15) 499 - 500 (16) 601 - 581
(17) 512 - 499 (18) 804 - 779 (19) 821 - 821 (20) 627 - 614
(21) 551 - 547
*The modern versions either omit, place in the footnotes, question their authenticity, or
place in brackets, Mark
16:9 – 20 and John 7: 53 – 8:11.
ACTS
(1) 511 - 506 (2) 848 - 839 (3) 504 - 506 (4) 682 - 687
(5) 787 - 771 (6) 280 - 280 (7) 1136 - 1113 (8) 723 - 695
(9) 812 - 786 (10) 872 - 837 (11) 533 - 528 (12) 496 - 501
(13) 954 - 932 (14) 481 - 472 (15) 716 - 694 (16) 723 - 721
(17) 677 - 673 (18) 528 - 511 (19) 766 - 756 (20) 694 - 676
(21) 814 - 798 (22) 584 - 567 (23) 676 - 662 (24) 495 - 459
(25) 539 - 530 (26) 597 - 596 (27) 748 - 755 (28) 618 - 597
ROMANS
(1) 547 - 543 (2) 452 - 448 (3) 432 - 429 (4) 408 - 402
(5) 431 - 432 (6) 372 - 367 (7) 467 - 469 (8) 662 - 652
(9) 531 - 524 (10) 345 - 340 (11) 595 - 581 (12) 307 - 305
(13) 275 - 270 (14) 393 - 379 (15) 550 - 543 (16) 437 - 424
I CORINTHIANS
(1) 502 - 501 (2) 293 - 288 (3) 347 - 341 (4) 347 - 345
10 de 22 03/11/2014 11:37
(5) 231 - 220 (6) 344 - 335 (7) 690 - 686 (8) 227 - 225
(9) 452 - 450 (10) 484 - 463 (11) 538 - 531 (12) 475 - 471
(13) 199 - 196 (14) 624 - 608 (15) 852 - 847 (16) 328 - 323
II CORINTHIANS
(1) 488 - 488 (2) 286 - 285 (3) 299 - 296 (4) 323 - 322
(5) 343 - 338 (6) 266 - 266 (7) 331 - 329 (8) 413 - 409
(9) 287 - 284 (10) 314 - 311 (11) 502 - 500 (12) 415 - 412
(13) 242 - 236
GALATIANS
(1) 362 - 364 (2) 383 - 386 (3) 464 - 454 (4) 451 - 445
(5) 319 - 314 (6) 272 - 267
EPHESIANS
(1) 404 - 401 (2) 362 - 362 (3) 337 - 325 (4) 486 - 483
(5) 472 - 457 (6) 401 - 393
PHILIPPIANS
(1) 499 - 501 (2) 434 - 431 (3) 349 - 340 (4) 359 - 357
COLOSSIANS
(1) 552 - 538 (2) 403 - 388 (3) 378 - 369 (4) 288 - 286
I THESSALONIANS
(1) 219 - 214 (2) 393 - 390 (3) 253 - 248 (4) 308 - 310
11 de 22 03/11/2014 11:37
(5) 322 - 319
II THESSALONIANS
(1) 237 - 235 (2) 319 - 310 (3) 278 - 274
Total: 834 – 819 = 15 fewer words in the modern version text
I TIMOTHY
(1) 310 - 306 (2) 190 - 186 (3) 209 - 207 (4) 225 - 221
(5) 336 - 328 (6) 354 - 343
II TIMOTHY
(1) 318 - 317 (2) 361 - 358 (3) 238 - 236 (4) 337 - 327
TITUS
(1) 253 - 251 (2) 190 - 189 (3) 223 - 219
PHILEMON
HEBREWS
(1) 255 - 256 (2) 321 - 313 (3) 281 - 283 (4) 292 - 291
(5) 234 - 232 (6) 303 - 301 (7) 459 - 456 (8) 283 - 274
(9) 509 - 512 (10) 559 - 550 (11) 639 - 633 (12) 479 - 474
(13) 376 - 378
JAMES
(1) 411 - 406 (2) 428 - 416 (3) 300 - 295 (4) 278 - 277
(5) 346 - 348
12 de 22 03/11/2014 11:37
I PETER
(1) 415 - 409 (2) 395 - 393 (3) 378 - 370 (4) 322 - 305
(5) 214 - 207
II PETER
(1) 385 - 384 (2) 376 - 374 (3) 343 - 341
I JOHN
(1) 207 - 207 (2) 579 - 587 (3) 471 - 469 (4) 453 - 449
(5) 465 - 429
II JOHN
III JOHN
Total: 218 – 219 = 1 more word in the modern version text
JUDE
Total: 452 – 461 = 9 more words in the modern version
REVELATION
(1) 500 - 469 (2) 636 - 622 (3) 526 - 525 (4) 293 - 293
(5) 351 - 338 (6) 422 - 417 (7) 406 - 398 (8) 307 - 319
(9) 495 - 497 (10) 292 - 292 (11) 494 - 496 (12) 436 - 438
(13) 444 - 447 (14) 545 - 549 (15) 222 - 217 (16) 484 - 470
(17) 444 - 442 (18) 622 - 626 (19) 535 - 526 (20) 411 - 407
(21) 621 - 611 (22) 455 - 452
13 de 22 03/11/2014 11:37
SUB TOTAL: 140,523 - 137,976 = 2,547* fewer words in the modern version text
*After taking the two well-known passages into account in Mark 16 and John 7:53 -
8:11 (as shown on page 35), the final tally is:
FINAL TOTAL: 140,523 - 137,601 = 2,922 fewer words in the modern version
text."
Dr. Jones then writes on page 31 "Thus, the modern version text is shorter in the
New Testament than that of the King James Bible by about the total number of words
contained in I and II Peter combined!" Is Bob Jones University telling the truth in their
paper when they say "These variations in no way change the teaching of the New
Testament on any doctrine."?
I firmly believe BJU and other fundamental schools are following a path leading
to unbelief. Remember what Lightner said on page 22 of NEO-LIBERALISM
concerning Darwin’s book, Origin of Species? "With the publication of Darwin’s Origin
of Species (1859), the creation of man and things seemed to be obsolete; thus this
publication placed disrepute in the minds of the people upon the first chapters of the
Bible." What did W & H think of Darwin and his book, Origin of Species? Hort said "But
the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a
book that one is proud to be contemporary with. I must work out and examine the
argument in more detail, but at present my feeling is strong that the theory is
unanswerable." Life, Vol. I, p.416. Did Hort’s belief in Darwin’s theory have any
influence on his work in constructing the Critical Greek Text? In 1890, several years
after the publication of the Critical Greek text, Westcott said "No one now, I suppose,
holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history – I could
never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did - yet
they disclose to us a Gospel. So it is probably elsewhere." Did this unbelief show itself
in their work and eventually in their students?
What did Westcott and Hort think of the Textus Receptus which underlies the
King James Bible? Hort said "I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of
texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus
Receptus. Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late MSS.; it is a
blessing there are such early ones" Life, Vol.I, p.211. His opinion of the Textus
Receptus was not a high one for sure. Does their aversion for the Textus Receptus
show itself with their followers? What did Westcott and Hort believe about the
infallibility of the Scriptures? In 1860 Westcott said "...I reject the word infallibility -
of Holy Scripture overwhelming." Life, Vol.I, p.207. These are statements from the men
who formed the Critical Greek Text which according to Douglas Kutilek in his paper
WESTCOTT & HORT VS. TEXTUS RECEPTUS: WHICH IS SUPERIOR? is the basis
for the "New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses." There is death in the pot!
Again going back to BJU’s POSITION OF THE BIBLE DEPARTMENT OF BOB

JONES UNIVERSITY ON THE SCRIPTURE it is stated that "When we teach the
content of the Bible, we naturally study a passage in the Greek Testament. To aid the
students in understanding that passage, we will take to class the King James
14 de 22 03/11/2014 11:37
Bible, which often gives an exact rendering of the Greek." (Emphasis added). Note
they "will take to class the King James Bible." Do they say this to keep on side certain
preachers and churches? But, the Greek text that will be used in the BJU Greek
department will be the Critical Text for they "…believe that the text based upon the
Alexandrian manuscripts is, as a whole, superior…" (Emphasis added). This is
like working on a Ford with a Chevrolet manual.
Dr. Thomas Strouse in BIBLE TRANSLATIONS AND BIBLE COLLEGES says a

"problem develops when a Bible college uses the AV in Bible classes and uses
the CT in Greek. This practice gives the appearance of inconsistency to supporting
churches and it raises questions in the mind of the student concerning the authority of
Scripture." That is exactly what it does! When the authenticity of certain passages of
Scripture is denied the authority of Scripture will be denied leading to unbelief!
But what about the variations "between the various manuscripts" which BJU
says "is only about one word in a thousand."? They say "These variations in no way
change the teaching of the New Testament on any doctrine." (Emphasis added).
Again I ask, "Are they correct?" Dr. Thomas Strouse in BIBLE TRANSLATIONS
AND BIBLE COLLEGES says the variants among the texts comprising the Textus
Receptus are very few but the "Variants between the texts underlying the CT, however,
are on such a large scale as to stagger the textual scholar who considers them. For
example, in the Gospels alone there are 7,578 differences between codex B and the
TR, and 8,972 differences between codex Aleph and the TR. From these facts it is
evident that even among the two favorite texts of the CT adherents there are thousands
of differences! How can these variant readings among the CT supporting texts be
sorted out and any single dependable text restored?" Good question but the BJU
professors do not see it as a problem.
Remember when Edward F. Hills said that "during the Reformation Period the
approach to the New Testament text was theological"? Dr. Strouse says in BIBLE
TRANSLATIONS AND BIBLE COLLEGES that "A very large number of the changes,
omissions, and additions in the CT are of theological significance. The full name and
title of the Lord Jesus Christ is changed repeatedly. Entire portions of Scriptures, such
as Mk. 16:9-20 and Jn. 7:53-8:11, included in the TR MSS, are left out. CT proponents
often argue that these changes affect no doctrine, but what about the doctrine of
Providential Preservation which is inextricably woven with the foundational doctrine of
verbal, plenary inspiration? If words are added, omitted, or changed, how can
these two doctrines remain unaffected?" (Emphasis added). So who is telling the
truth, BJU who follows W & H’s naturalistic principles and procedures or Dr. Strouse?
Bob Jones University says it believes in the inspiration of the original

autographs which is fine but the problem is in their belief of preservation. They
say in their POSITION OF THE BIBLE DEPARTMENT OF BOB JONES UNIVERSITY
ON THE SCRIPTURE that "…God in His providence has preserved for us the original
reading through the large number of manuscripts in existence that witness to the text of
the New Testament." But they conclude the best Greek text brought forth from those
manuscripts is the so-called W & H "Alexandrian text". This is the text differing from the
15 de 22 03/11/2014 11:37
Received Text in enough places to comprise the books of Jude and Revelation
together. This is preservation?
Again quoting Dr. Strouse in his review of FROM THE MIND OF GOD TO THE
MIND OF MAN "It is very difficult to understand why fundamentalists resist the Biblical
and theological teaching of the Verbal Plenary Preservation View and yet default to the
dangerous Conceptual Preservation View. Westcott and Hort wanted to restore the 4th
Century text, based on Catholic (B) and Egyptian (papyri) MSS, arguing that there was
no textual tampering and utilizing inapplicable Genealogies, assumed Text-types, and
the supposed Lucianic Rescension to dispose of the Textus Receptus. The goal of
modern Textual Criticism is to restore or reconstruct the Biblical text (p. 106) that God
apparently chose not to preserve. The liberals' humanistic approach seems obvious,
but why do some fundamentalists fail to see that the Lord does not need man's help? It
is strange indeed for fundamentalists to countenance liberal views, either deliberately
or by default."
There is death in the pot at BJU and unbelief will be the result!
Another fundamental school following the W & H path of naturalistic textual

criticism is Detroit Baptist Seminary (DBS). In November 1996 Detroit Baptist
Seminary formed a statement on INSPIRATION AND PRESERVATION. This statement
says that "…even as a New Testament author could use the Septuagint, a Greek
translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, as the authoritative Word of God (e.g., Heb 2:7
quotes Ps 8:5 from the Septuagint; Heb 11:21 likewise quotes Gen 47:31), so may any
translation that is faithful to the autographs be held up as the Word of God." (Emphasis
added). What is the character of this Septuagint of which the DBS statement says a
New Testament author used? Dr. D. A. Waite in his book DEFENDING THE KING
JAMES BIBLE page 29 says the Septuagint "is a very deficient translation from the
Hebrew into the Greek. In many books and places, it is just like the LIVING VERSION.
It is a paraphrase, a perversion." (Emphasis is in the book). Dr. Waite does not
believe any New Testament author quoted from the Septuagint but rather from the
Hebrew Old Testament itself.
The DBS statement continues by saying that "While the Bible clearly teaches the
ultimate indestructibility of the verbal revelation of God (Matt 24:35; 1 Pet 1:25), it does
not tell how and where the written manuscript lineage of that Word is
preserved. We believe that God has providentially preserved His word in the
many manuscripts, fragments, versions, translations, and copies of the
Scriptures that are available, and that by diligent study, comparison, and
correlation, the original text (words) can be ascertained. We therefore hold that
the integrity of any text, text type, translation, version, or copy of the Scriptures is to be
judged by the autographs only and not by an English translation or any other
reproduction or translation." (Emphasis added).
In the Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal (DBSJ) the Fall of 2000 William Combs
wrote the article THE PRESERVATION OF SCRIPTURE. William Combs says in this
article on page 6 that "preservation can be classified a number of ways. At the most
fundamental level, one can make a twofold division: (1) those who deny the Scriptures
16 de 22 03/11/2014 11:37
teach any doctrine of preservation and (2) those who affirm there is a doctrine of
preservation taught by the Scriptures, either directly or indirectly. However, a threefold
division is more helpful since those in group 2, who affirm a doctrine of preservation,
are themselves sharply divided as to what that doctrine teaches. On one side are those
who believe that the Scriptures have been preserved in the totality of the biblical
manuscripts (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek), and, on the other side, are those who
believe that the Scriptures have only been accurately preserved in the KJV/TR/MT
tradition—that any other textual tradition is corrupt." He then states on page 7 that
"Those in group 1, who deny a doctrine of preservation, believe Scripture has been
preserved, but it is only a historical reality—a fact that is clear from the historical
evidence. Those in group 2, who affirm a doctrine of preservation, also believe that the
historical evidence demonstrates the preservation of Scripture, but add that this
preservation is a theological necessity—Scripture must be preserved because
Scripture itself promises its own preservation."
William Combs on page 7 then discusses the position of Daniel Wallace, Dallas
Seminary, and Ed Glenny, formerly a professor at Central Baptist Seminary,
Minneapolis, MN as "a rather novel one." William Combs says "It is clearly the rise of
the KJV/TR movement that has sparked the recent discussions by Wallace and
Glenny, and it is principally the particular doctrine of preservation found in the KJV/TR
position that they are seeking to refute—a preservation that hints at, and often openly
declares, the perfect preservation of the text of Scripture. But in refuting that
extreme view, they have eliminated any vestige of the preservation of Scripture
as a doctrine." (Emphasis added).
William Combs then on page 11 quotes the DBS statement on INSPIRATION

AND PRESERVATION which says that those at Detroit Baptist Seminary "…believe
that God has providentially preserved His word in the many manuscripts, fragments,
versions, translations, and copies of the Scriptures that are available, and that by
diligent study, comparison, and correlation, the original text (words) can be
ascertained." He then states on pages 11 and 12 that "There is nothing new about this
viewpoint. B. B. Warfield understood this to be the clear teaching of the Westminster
Confession" and he quotes the Westminster Confession.
Dr. Combs then on page 12 gives two quotes from two contemporary men. The
first is a quote from BJU’s Thurman Wisdom saying "Verbal inspiration is useless
without verbal preservation." The second quote is from Faith Baptist Theological
Seminary’s Dr. Myron Houghton saying "A view of inspiration without a corresponding
view of preservation is of no value." I would agree with both men but it isn’t only what a
man says it is what a man does not say.
On pages 12 and 13 William Combs says the King James Bible advocates "In
order to prove a doctrine of preservation, a number of Scripture passages in which the
phrase "the word(s) of God" (or Lord) is used are commonly appealed to. It is
customarily assumed, usually with no supporting argumentation, that this expression
universally refers to Scripture, God’s written revelation. However, a study of this phrase
suggests that, more often than not, God’s written revelation is not in view." Combs says
this because he personally believes the "texts that seem to promise preservation of ‘the
17 de 22 03/11/2014 11:37
word of God’ need to be examined carefully to determine if such an application is

valid." THE PRESERVATION OF SCRIPTURE page 14.
William Combs’ argument comes close to what Dr. Thomas Strouse warns us of
in his review of the book A CRITIQUE OF GOD’S WORD IN OUR HANDS: THE
BIBLE PRESERVED FOR US. He writes that "Neo-orthodoxy developed out of
liberalism after World War I as apostates began to redefine Biblically orthodox terms.
One major area of redefining was with regard to the Bible. Neo-Orthodox theologians
referred to the Word of God but did not identify it with the Scriptures. GWOH gives a
new and un-Biblical definition to the expression "the Word of God," coming strikingly
close to the claims of the old Neo-Orthodoxy. Neo-Orthodoxy speaks of the Word of
God as something other than the written Bible. One of the academicians, Samuel
Schnaiter, has labored under cloud of the charge of Neo-Orthodoxy since 1983 when
Charles Woodbridge labeled him thus. Although ‘Word of God’ may mean the spoken
or preached message of God, it ultimately refers to the inscripturated canonical Words
of God, which definition GWOH rejects. The thesis of the GWOH is that God has
preserved the Word of God, or ‘the message,’ in the totality of manuscripts (pp.
xxi-xxii). Harding bemoans that ‘serious departures from the preserved message in
Scripture are occurring…’ (p. 335). This suggests two Neo-Orthodox affirmations:
God’s Word is the message and the message (God’s Word) is in, but not identical to,
the Scripture. Furthermore, Downey asserts ‘God’s Word transcends written
documents, even the physical universe, and will be completely and ultimately fulfilled if
not one copy remains. The power and effectiveness and duration of the Word of God,
and man’s responsibility to obey it, do not demand the presence or even the existence
of any physical copy’ (p. 376). These surmisings are not Biblical since the Lord
identifies the inspired Word of God with the inscripturated canonical Words of God,
stating, "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words (remata), hath one that
judgeth him: the word (logos) that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last
day" (Jn. 12:48; cf. Rev. 20:12). The writers emphasize that not all of Christ’s Words or
God’s Words are written down (p. 367). That is true. But that for which the mankind will
be responsible are the preserved, written canonical Words of God (Mt. 24:35). Christ
wrote some unknown Words in the sand (Jn. 8:6, 8), but man will not be held
responsible for them at the judgment. Christ presumably said things in His teachings
that were not written down (Jn. 21:25) and man won’t be accountable for those words.
Believers will now be accountable for "it is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts
20:35) only because Paul preached and Luke recorded this "agrapha" of the Lord. Man
will not be held responsible for God’s spoken revelation other than the perfectly
preserved and inscripturated canonical Scriptures."
The first passage Dr. Combs deals with is Psalm 12:6–7. His conclusion on page
15 is "most interpreters and versions understand the promise of preservation in verse
7 to apply to the ‘poor’ and ‘needy’ of verse 5." He then quotes the New International
Version of Psalm 12:6-7. On page 14 his concluding remark on Psalm 12: 6-7 is that
"this passage has no bearing on the doctrine of preservation."
Dr. Thomas Strouse comes to a different conclusion to Psalm 12:6-7 than Dr.
Combs does. Dr. Strouse writes on page five in the conclusion of his paper on PSALM
18 de 22 03/11/2014 11:37
12:6-7 AND THE PERMANENT PRESERVATION OF GOD’S WORDS that "The

structure, content and exegesis of the Masoretic Hebrew Text of Psalm 12 all argue
forcefully and irrefragable for the promise of the everlasting preservation of the perfect
Words of the Lord. This is one of several clear passages in which the Lord promised to
preserve His canonical Words for every generation. Man’s pervasive words are lies,
God’s ever-present Words are Truth. This is the tangible help from the Lord that the
righteous man has in every generation."
This paper will not take the time to look at all the passages Combs takes up
which are; Psalms 119:89, 152, 160; Isaiah 40:8; Matthew 5:17–18, 24:35; John 10:35;
and 1 Peter 1:23–25. We will simply quote what he says on page 26 which is "Thus we
conclude that some of the verses discussed above do teach a doctrine of preservation,
some more directly and others more indirectly. However, they do not support the view
of preservation that is put forth by the KJV/TR camp—that God has perfectly preserved
the Bible to our day. Instead, they only suggest a general promise of preservation
without specifying how (what method) or to what extent (how pure) God has
chosen to preserve his Word." (Emphasis added).
On page 30 Dr. Combs under the heading THE METHOD AND EXTENT OF
PRESERVATION says that "Though it has been demonstrated that a doctrine of
preservation can be rightly affirmed both directly and indirectly from the overall biblical
teaching, it is important to make clear that none of these Scripture texts and arguments
tell us how God would preserve his Word, only that he would preserve it. We are told
neither the method nor the extent of this preservation."
Dr. Combs asks on Page 32 under the heading of THE EXTENT OF

PRESERVATION the question of "How pure have the original words of the biblical
writings been preserved?" Combs’ answer is that "It is an indisputable fact, proven by
the manuscript and versional evidence, that God has not perfectly (that is, without
error) preserved the Scriptures throughout their long history of transmission.
There is no single manuscript, printed text, or version that can be shown to be error
free. This is patently obvious to anyone who is at all familiar with the transmission
history of the Scriptures. First, we should note that no two Greek manuscripts of the
New Testament agree exactly; these thousands of manuscripts all differ from one
another to some degree. No one has ever suggested, even within the KJV/TR camp,
that a particular one of these manuscripts is a perfect copy of the autographs—that it is
error free. This conclusively demonstrates that God has permitted errors to
enter the transmission process, which is the inevitable result of providential
preservation. So clearly, at least for 1500 years, once the autographs had perished
and before the age of printing, no one had access to an error-free Bible." (Emphasis
added). A real comfort to a dying man!
Then on page 37 William Combs somewhat wraps up his discussion of

preservation by saying "The true situation is this: God has preserved his Word to this
day, but because of the means he has chosen to use to accomplish this preservation—
providentially, through secondary causation—the words of the autographs have not
been inerrantly preserved. Instead, God has chosen to allow for variations to
occur—variants within the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek copies of the autographs. God
19 de 22 03/11/2014 11:37
has providentially provided all these copies in order to preserve the Scriptures. So it is
proper to say that preservation has taken place in the totality of manuscripts. Because
God chose this method of preservation, it was not possible to provide a perfectly pure
text with no variations (errors). It was sufficient for God’s purpose to preserve his
Word in copies of the autographs whose exact wording contains some
variation. This level of purity is sufficient for God’s purposes."
Now William Combs of Detroit Baptist Seminary says he and the Seminary
believe in the inspiration of the original autographs and "That God has preserved
the Scriptures in the totality of the manuscript tradition has traditionally been the
position of most evangelicals and fundamentalists on the subject of preservation."
Page11 THE PRESERVATION OF SCRIPTURE by of William Combs. But do they?
Bob Jones University says much the same in that "God in His providence has
preserved for us the original reading through the large number of manuscripts in
existence that witness to the text of the New Testament." But do they?
John Burgon asks two questions on pages 16 and 17 of THE TRADITIONAL

TEXT OF THE HOLY GOSPELS Volume I pertinent to what BJU and Detroit Baptist
Seminary say they believe. He asks "Does the truth of the Text of Scripture dwell with
the vast multitude of copies, uncial and cursive, concerning which nothing is more
remarkable than the marvelous agreement which subsists between them? Or is it
rather to be supposed that the truth abides exclusively with a very little handful of
manuscripts, which at once differ from the great bulk of witnesses, and-strange to
say-also among themselves?" If this is true what Burgon is saying, which it is, you
would think BJU and Detroit Baptist Seminary would be on the side of the vast
multitude! However, this is not the case! Why?
According to Dr. Waite in his book DEFENDING THE KING JAMES BIBLE page
53 "As of 1967, the Greek manuscripts which have survived numbered 5,222. Kurt
Aland...has copies of many manuscripts, most of them in microfilm, (about 90% of the
total available, according to one source)." However, Dr. Waite says that "every time
Aland comes to a manuscript that goes along with the Received Text, he disregards
and says it is just a copy of some other text and is not to be counted as a separate
witness or as valuable." He then says "Therefore, the number of texts that agree with
are not 500, 1,000, or over 5,000, but just one witness." This is all because Aland and
others such as those at Bob Jones University and Detroit Baptist Seminary follow W &
H’s naturalist principles and procedures.
Let us consider the evidence further. On page 57 Dr. Waite in DEFENDING THE
KING JAMES BIBLE gives a chart of the total of manuscripts that agree with the W & H
text and the Textus Receptus. Again Dr. Waite states there are a total of 5,255. Of
those 5,255 only 45 agree with W & H but 5,210 agree with the Textus Receptus. That
is 1% to 99%. Ninety Nine percent!
How can Detroit Baptist Seminary say they believe "God has preserved the
Scriptures in the totality of the manuscript tradition"? How can Bob Jones
University say "God in His providence has preserved for us the original reading
20 de 22 03/11/2014 11:37
through the large number of manuscripts in existence that witness to the text of
the New Testament."? They can and do say it because they count the evidence for the
Textus Receptus as W & H did, merely as one. In spite of W & H’s rules, principles and
procedures for textual criticism, which BJU and Detroit Baptist Seminary follow, John
Burgon says the Traditional Text "cannot be vanquished by theories grounded upon
internal considerations-often only another name for personal tastes-, or for scholarly
likes or dislikes, or upon fictitious recensions, or upon any arbitrary choice of favourite
manuscripts, or upon a strained division of authorities into families and groups, or upon
a warped application of the principle of genealogy."
John Burgon says on page 12 of THE TRADITIONAL TEXT OF THE HOLY

GOSPELS Volume I that he is "utterly disinclined to believe-so grossly improbable
does it seem-that at the end of 1800 years 995 copies out of every thousand suppose,
will prove untrustworthy; and that the one, two, three, four or five which remain, whose
contents were till yesterday as good as unknown, will be found to have retained the
secret of what the Holy Spirit originally inspired."
At least Detroit Baptist Seminary is honest in that they have abandoned the
King James Bible for an English Version that is a product of the Critical Greek Text
and rightfully so they should! On the other hand Bob Jones University continues to use
the King James Bible in the class room but the Critical Greek Text in their Greek
department. Bob Jones University is not honest. They should do as Detroit Baptist
Seminary and abandon the King James Bible for the New American Standard Version
or the New International Version that is supported by the Greek text used in their Greek
department. Does Bob Jones University hesitate doing this because they may lose the
support of some pastors and churches?
Now where will all this naturalistic textual criticism lead these fundamentalists
who have abandoned the Greek Text of the Reformers and underlies the King James
Bible? Dr. Strouse sums it up well in his review of FROM THE MIND OF GOD TO THE
MIND OF MAN. Speaking of the W & H naturalistic textual method he says "This
mixed and fluid position moves in only one direction: away from
fundamentalism and into liberalism. For one to take the initial step into this
moving stream, either deliberately or by default, may lead to drowning in the
ocean of apostasy." (Emphasis added).
Please click here for the Most Important Message of the Bible
Concerning You. "
Is any of the following a blessing to you today?

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not
pass away."
Matthew 24:3
21 de 22 03/11/2014 11:37
"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other

name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be
saved."
Acts 4:12
"But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither
have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath
prepared for them that love him."
1 Corinthians 2:9
Missionaries David and Pamela Bennett

The Bennetts Serving the Lord in Australia Since 1979.
Phone/Fax: 011-61-2-6884-2846
E-Mail: revdocbennett@gmail.com or aussiedubbo@yahoo.com
Blog: www.bennettsnews.blogspot.com.au/
Address: Dr. and Mrs. Bennett, PO Box 1241 Dubbo NSW 2830, AUSTRALIA
Send Support to: The Bible For Today Baptist Church -- c/o Dr. and Mrs. Bennett
Mission Fund --
900 Park Avenue -- Collingswood, New Jersey 08108 USA revdocbennett@gmail.com
Send e- mail to Webmaster@BibleForToday.org with questions or comments about

this web site.
Copyright © 2012 - 2014 David and Pamela Bennettt - All Rights Reserved
Worldwide.
WebSite PageViews
22 de 22 03/11/2014 11:37

Textual Criticism Where Will It Lead

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Textual Criticism Where Will It Lead

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Texuual Criricism: Where Will It Lead http://www.biblefortoday.org/bennett/Articles/textual_criticism.

Gateway to all our WebPages

TEXTUAL CRITICISM: WHERE WILL

October 20, 2004

Dallas Seminary has been known as an evangelical school producing some

Where will this type of textual criticism lead?

WHAT?! "THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS IN HISTORY WAS EVEN DOUBTED by

Many fundamentalists find themselves bowing at the feet of so called

1. Older readings, manuscripts, or groups are to be preferred. ("The shorter the

7. The reading is less likely to be original that combines the appearance of an

8. The reading is less likely to be original that shows a disposition to smooth

9. Readings are to be preferred that are found in a manuscript that habitually

According to Hills then, the Reformers approach to textual criticism of the

"Therefore, along with the great majority of conservative scholars, we believe

POSITION OF THE BIBLE DEPARTMENT OF BOB JONES UNIVERSITY ON THE

(21) 551 - 547

16:9 – 20 and John 7: 53 – 8:11.

Total: 7,204 – 7,108 = 96 fewer words in the modern version text

(13) 242 - 236

Total: 4,509 – 4,476 = 33 fewer words in the modern version text

(5) 319 - 314 (6) 272 - 267

Total: 2,251 – 2,230 = 21 fewer words in the modern version text

(5) 472 - 457 (6) 401 - 393

Total: 2,462 – 2,421 = 41 fewer words in the modern version text

Total: 1,641 – 1,629 = 12 fewer words in the modern version text

Total: 1,621 – 1,581 = 40 fewer words in the modern version text

(5) 322 - 319

Total: 1,495 – 1,481 = 14 fewer words in the modern version text

(1) 237 - 235 (2) 319 - 310 (3) 278 - 274

Total: 834 – 819 = 15 fewer words in the modern version text

(5) 336 - 328 (6) 354 - 343

Total: 1,624 – 1,591 = 33 fewer words in the modern version text

Total: 1,254 – 1,238 = 16 fewer words in the modern version text

(1) 253 - 251 (2) 190 - 189 (3) 223 - 219

Total: 666 – 659 = 7 fewer words in the modern version text

Total: 339 – 334 = 5 fewer words in the modern version text

(13) 376 - 378

Total: 4,990 – 4,953 = 37 fewer words in the modern version text

(5) 346 - 348

Total: 1,763 – 1,742 = 21 fewer words in the modern version text

(5) 214 - 207

Total: 1,724 – 1,684 = 40 fewer words in the modern version text

(1) 385 - 384 (2) 376 - 374 (3) 343 - 341

Total: 1,104 – 1,099 = 5 fewer words in the modern version text

(5) 465 - 429

Total: 2,175 – 2,141 = 34 fewer words in the modern version text

Total: 249 – 245 = 4 fewer words in the modern version text

Total: 218 – 219 = 1 more word in the modern version text

Total: 452 – 461 = 9 more words in the modern version

(21) 621 - 611 (22) 455 - 452

Total: 9,941 – 9,851 = 90 fewer words in the modern version text

Again going back to BJU’s POSITION OF THE BIBLE DEPARTMENT OF BOB

Dr. Thomas Strouse in BIBLE TRANSLATIONS AND BIBLE COLLEGES says a

Bob Jones University says it believes in the inspiration of the original

Another fundamental school following the W & H path of naturalistic textual

William Combs then on page 11 quotes the DBS statement on INSPIRATION

word of God’ need to be examined carefully to determine if such an application is

12:6-7 AND THE PERMANENT PRESERVATION OF GOD’S WORDS that "The

Dr. Combs asks on Page 32 under the heading of THE EXTENT OF

Then on page 37 William Combs somewhat wraps up his discussion of

John Burgon asks two questions on pages 16 and 17 of THE TRADITIONAL

John Burgon says on page 12 of THE TRADITIONAL TEXT OF THE HOLY

Is any of the following a blessing to you today?