The Inspiration of the Scriptures, Part 2

This week I continue to present edited excerpts of my response to the pastor who had questions regarding the inspiration of the A.V. 1611. Having called the A.V. “God’s purified, inspired word for an English-speaking world,” I wrote:

And that brings me to this point: God Himself tells us that His words go through a purification process.

Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Observe that this passage connects the purification process with the preservation of God’s words. There is a reason for this process. You see, even when the New Testament was in the process of being delivered, the word of God was already being corrupted.

2 Corinthians 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

According to this verse there was a lot of corrupting going on since many were doing it. Since corruptions manage to get into the text of God’s word, a purification process is necessary to get them out. And Psalm 12:6-7 clearly teaches God uses more than one purification in the process. This could explain the several English translations leading up to the A.V. To be sure, God could do the purifying all at once. But that is not how He has chosen to do it. You will have to ask Him why this is the case. I just accept what He said about it. And for the reasons I have already cited, I accept the A.V. 1611 as the seven-times purified words of God.

Now the question arises as to what English-speaking Christians had before they had the A.V.? This question is really akin to the question: What do Christians, who do not speak English, do for a Bible? For example, I have a copy of Luther’s translation of the Bible in German, which I have read with the exception of the Apocrypha inserted between the testaments. It is written in the old German Buchstabe. I can attest that it does not measure up to the A.V. is all respects. In fact, I once had a correspondence with a German preacher regarding the subject of divine sovereignty. One of my main proof texts in the English, Psalm 76:10, is so off in Luther’s German Bible that I could not use it to prove my point. To make my point, I simply translated the verse from the A.V. into German and left it to God to do with it what He would believing that I was giving this man the word of God in German. I have looked at other German translations and they do not even measure up to Luther. So what are Germans to do? The same could be said for many other languages. My take on it is that when the German Bible says the same thing in German as the A.V., then that much of it is God’s pure word and God can use it. I find it interesting that God did not use Germany as He used England in spreading the gospel throughout this earth. Could that have something to do with the respective Bibles of those countries?

While addressing this question of the English-speaking Christians before the advent of the A.V., let me pose another question. Both questions will be answered in my reply. The afore-mentioned preacher, who was contending for the Geneva, asked me this: If the Geneva Version was the word of God in English, then what about the prohibition to add to the word or to take away from the word (REV 22:18-19)? Did the A.V. add to or take away? Good question! First, one need not have the entire Bible in order to have the word of God. A single word from the mouth of God is as much His word as all the words He has spoken put together. For example, the patriarch Abraham most certainly had the word of God, even though he did not have the entire revelation of God as it stood complete after the ministry of the apostles of Jesus Christ. If all I had access to was the gospel of John, I would have the word of God and would be responsible for the knowledge I gain from that much of the divine revelation. Therefore, if I were to simply print one book of the Bible or a few verses of the Bible on a tract, I would still be giving out the word of God. I am giving out the word of God when I cite various passages in a sermon, but I am by no means quoting every single word God ever said. See my point? In other words, if only a portion of the word of God is given out, this does not mean that the word of God itself has necessarily been taken from or added to. Adding to or taking from refers to tampering with the pure text itself so as to make it say what one wants it to say. An example of the crime described in REV 22:18-19 would be the modern versions deleting the word firstborn from Matthew 1:25 or leaving 1John 5:7 out of the text. Secondly, the A.V. is the book that God has most abundantly used to produce the effect that He says His word produces, as I showed above. It is for this reason that I judge all versions against this one. I cannot base my judgments on a Bible I have never read. I do not know either Hebrew or Greek. To be able to read the Bible with clear understanding in those languages would require mammoth effort. Being a student of foreign languages, I know whereof I speak. Furthermore, I have never read where God requires me to know those languages in order to know His word. Believing the A.V. to be the pure words of God in English, I conclude that any version that says the same things that the A.V. says, has that much of the word of God in it. Insofar as the Geneva says what the A.V. says, it is God’s pure, inspired word. And God blesses His word and it accomplishes His purposes (Isaiah 55:11). It may well be that because the English-speaking believers were faithful to the stock of the divine revelation that they had, God gave them His complete revelation in a thoroughly purified form. Any portions that they did not have, God, who preserved them, could bring them forward to the translators just as the word of God was brought forward in Josiah’s day after it had been tucked away in the temple (2 Kings 22:8). The Scriptures teach that God gives increased knowledge to those who are faithful with the knowledge that they have (Matthew 13:12; Proverbs 1:5; 2:1-7).

For me the question is: What Bible has God given to me? I am not responsible to answer for what God has done or does with other people in other times and climes. That is His business. He can give them whatever He wants, as much as He wants, for as long as He wants, to accomplish what He wants. My calling is to follow Him and to do that I need His direction. For my part, I am satisfied that I have that direction in the A.V. 1611. I seek no more.

Finally, the entire issue revolves around whether there is an absolute, final authority to which appeal can be made and against which all others can be weighed. The A.V. unmistakably bears God’s seal as being that authority by virtue of the use God has made of it and its fruits. It bears the insignia that God Himself described in the Book that proves it to be the Book God wants us to have in our language. A faithful adherence to the A.V. will confirm this fact abundantly.