 |
| The Bible Book |
Top reviews from the United States
Reviewed in the United States on July 16, 2021
Verified Purchase
Gregory L Jackson PhD is a Lutheran theologian, teacher, and pastor. He received a STM degree in Biblical studies from Yale in 1973 and he earned a Master's degree and a PhD in theology at the University of Notre Dame in 1982.
The purpose of the Bible is to teach faith. Faith is the instrument God uses to save us. Doubt is the instrument the devil uses to lead us away from God.
In this book, Dr Jackson demonstrated why the King James Version (KJV) is the Bible which faithful English-speaking Christians should read.
Bible salesmen claim that 99% of the text is the same in all Bible translations. Hence, a preference for a particular Bible translation is simply a matter of opinion or personal taste. (The unspoken assumption is that no Bible is inspired, all are simply books written by men about God). Except for the KJV, which they state is inferior to “modern” translations.
However, there are objective criteria one may use to determine whether a Bible translation is truly the inspired Word of God. Scholars tell us that a Bible can be deemed to be inspired based on its origin, nature, and effect.
To demonstrate that the KJV is an inspired and trustworthy Bible, Dr Jackson described how the authentic texts of the Bible were preserved and passed down by faithful men, as what we call the Majority Texts (origin). Dr Jackson described how faithful men translated the texts from Hebrew and Greek into English to create the 1611 Authorized Version, which we call the King James Version (nature). And how the KJV creates saving faith in those who read it (effect).
Dr Jackson then demonstrated how modern Bible translations such as the RSV and NIV cannot be considered inspired because they are based on defective texts, translated by faithless men, and they create doubt in their readers.
The primary source texts for recent Bible translations are not the preserved texts passed down from antiquity but instead Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. Proponents claim that these are the world's oldest Bibles and the best source documents, however their antiquity and accuracy are doubtful.
Dr Jackson related the story of how Constantine Von Tischendorf, the discoverer of Sinaiticus, claimed that he rescued it from destruction at hands of the monks at St Catherine's monastery, who were burning it for heat. The problem with his story is that Codex Sinaiticus is written on velum, which doesn't burn. In any other situation, such a deception would disqualify Sinaiticus from consideration as a valid source. However, since the text of Sinaiticus accords with the religious viewpoints of modern-day rationalists, they claim it as an authoritative source.
Regarding the origin of Codex Sinaiticus, if you believe that a forgery could never fool Bible scholars, please go to Wikipedia and read the article on “Codex 2427”. Kurt Aland placed Codex 2427 in Category 1 in his classification of ancient New Testament documents. This category includes the earliest manuscripts. In 2006, Codex 2427 was conclusively proved to be a 19th century forgery.
Dr Jackson demonstrated that Bible translators since the late 19th century do not submit themselves to the authority of the Word of God as revealed in Scripture, but instead they claim the right to judge Scripture by their human reason. These rationalists reject clear teachings such as the divinity of Christ, His Virgin birth, His resurrection, and His Great Commission. They contend that the Bible is not divinely inspired, but rather a book written by men about God. This places the Bible on a plane with any other human book and, as such, makes it subject to interpretation based on culture, history, etc. From this standpoint, they claim the right to add/change/delete the text of Scripture in order “to correct it”, in light of what they believe it should say.
Here's an analogy to illustrate this point. A rationalist sees the Bible as a tractable document into which he can read his beliefs about religion. An American leftist sees the US Constitution as a tractable document into which he can read his beliefs about politics.
To support their position that the Bible is not divinely inspired and hence should be subject to human interpretation, rationalists claim that only original autographs of sacred texts can be considered inspired. We don't have the original writings, therefore no Bible can be considered inspired. From this it follows that rationalists have the right, more so the obligation, to interpret the text to make it say what they believe it should say.
Many conservative Christian ministers and lay-people agree with rationalists that no present-day Bible can be considered inspired since we don't have the original autographs. Such a claim exposes these people as faithless Biblical illiterates. We can indeed consider a Bible created from faithfully preserved texts to be inspired and trustworthy. The Lord Jesus Christ himself says so.
In the Gospel of Luke chapter 4, Jesus was in the synagogue at Nazareth. He was given the scroll containing the book of Isaiah and he read Isaiah chapter 61, verses 1 and 2. After he completed reading he stated: “This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears”. Jesus did not read from the “original autograph” of the book of Isaiah, he read from a copy made 600 years after Isaiah wrote the words, yet Jesus deemed the copy from which he read to be “scripture”. Thereby, the claim that only an original autograph can be considered inspired is refuted by the Lord Jesus himself.
Many conservative ministers and lay-people agree with rationalists that a translation of the Bible cannot be considered inspired because divine inspiration applies only to the original autograph in the original language. The Holy Spirit refutes this contention through the words of the Apostle Paul.
In the second letter to Timothy, Paul writes “from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus”. The Scriptures that Timothy read and from which Paul preached were the Septuagint, a Greek-language translation of the Hebrew Old Testament made in the third century BC. Yet Paul deemed this Greek-language translation of the original Hebrew to be “Holy Scripture.” Thereby, the claim that only the original language of a sacred text can be considered inspired is refuted by the Holy Spirit through the words of St Paul.
By the end of this book the reader will see that Dr Jackson proved what he set out to prove: The KJV is based on accurate faithful texts, translated by faithful men, and it generates faith in its readers. The KJV meets the criteria for an inspired Bible - origin, nature, and effect - and it is the Bible that an English-speaker should read. The modern translations such as RSV and NIV fail on all 3 counts.
The purpose of the Bible is to teach faith. Faith is the instrument God uses to save us. Doubt is the instrument the devil uses to lead us away from God.
In this book, Dr Jackson demonstrated why the King James Version (KJV) is the Bible which faithful English-speaking Christians should read.
Bible salesmen claim that 99% of the text is the same in all Bible translations. Hence, a preference for a particular Bible translation is simply a matter of opinion or personal taste. (The unspoken assumption is that no Bible is inspired, all are simply books written by men about God). Except for the KJV, which they state is inferior to “modern” translations.
However, there are objective criteria one may use to determine whether a Bible translation is truly the inspired Word of God. Scholars tell us that a Bible can be deemed to be inspired based on its origin, nature, and effect.
To demonstrate that the KJV is an inspired and trustworthy Bible, Dr Jackson described how the authentic texts of the Bible were preserved and passed down by faithful men, as what we call the Majority Texts (origin). Dr Jackson described how faithful men translated the texts from Hebrew and Greek into English to create the 1611 Authorized Version, which we call the King James Version (nature). And how the KJV creates saving faith in those who read it (effect).
Dr Jackson then demonstrated how modern Bible translations such as the RSV and NIV cannot be considered inspired because they are based on defective texts, translated by faithless men, and they create doubt in their readers.
The primary source texts for recent Bible translations are not the preserved texts passed down from antiquity but instead Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. Proponents claim that these are the world's oldest Bibles and the best source documents, however their antiquity and accuracy are doubtful.
Dr Jackson related the story of how Constantine Von Tischendorf, the discoverer of Sinaiticus, claimed that he rescued it from destruction at hands of the monks at St Catherine's monastery, who were burning it for heat. The problem with his story is that Codex Sinaiticus is written on velum, which doesn't burn. In any other situation, such a deception would disqualify Sinaiticus from consideration as a valid source. However, since the text of Sinaiticus accords with the religious viewpoints of modern-day rationalists, they claim it as an authoritative source.
Regarding the origin of Codex Sinaiticus, if you believe that a forgery could never fool Bible scholars, please go to Wikipedia and read the article on “Codex 2427”. Kurt Aland placed Codex 2427 in Category 1 in his classification of ancient New Testament documents. This category includes the earliest manuscripts. In 2006, Codex 2427 was conclusively proved to be a 19th century forgery.
Dr Jackson demonstrated that Bible translators since the late 19th century do not submit themselves to the authority of the Word of God as revealed in Scripture, but instead they claim the right to judge Scripture by their human reason. These rationalists reject clear teachings such as the divinity of Christ, His Virgin birth, His resurrection, and His Great Commission. They contend that the Bible is not divinely inspired, but rather a book written by men about God. This places the Bible on a plane with any other human book and, as such, makes it subject to interpretation based on culture, history, etc. From this standpoint, they claim the right to add/change/delete the text of Scripture in order “to correct it”, in light of what they believe it should say.
Here's an analogy to illustrate this point. A rationalist sees the Bible as a tractable document into which he can read his beliefs about religion. An American leftist sees the US Constitution as a tractable document into which he can read his beliefs about politics.
To support their position that the Bible is not divinely inspired and hence should be subject to human interpretation, rationalists claim that only original autographs of sacred texts can be considered inspired. We don't have the original writings, therefore no Bible can be considered inspired. From this it follows that rationalists have the right, more so the obligation, to interpret the text to make it say what they believe it should say.
Many conservative Christian ministers and lay-people agree with rationalists that no present-day Bible can be considered inspired since we don't have the original autographs. Such a claim exposes these people as faithless Biblical illiterates. We can indeed consider a Bible created from faithfully preserved texts to be inspired and trustworthy. The Lord Jesus Christ himself says so.
In the Gospel of Luke chapter 4, Jesus was in the synagogue at Nazareth. He was given the scroll containing the book of Isaiah and he read Isaiah chapter 61, verses 1 and 2. After he completed reading he stated: “This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears”. Jesus did not read from the “original autograph” of the book of Isaiah, he read from a copy made 600 years after Isaiah wrote the words, yet Jesus deemed the copy from which he read to be “scripture”. Thereby, the claim that only an original autograph can be considered inspired is refuted by the Lord Jesus himself.
Many conservative ministers and lay-people agree with rationalists that a translation of the Bible cannot be considered inspired because divine inspiration applies only to the original autograph in the original language. The Holy Spirit refutes this contention through the words of the Apostle Paul.
In the second letter to Timothy, Paul writes “from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus”. The Scriptures that Timothy read and from which Paul preached were the Septuagint, a Greek-language translation of the Hebrew Old Testament made in the third century BC. Yet Paul deemed this Greek-language translation of the original Hebrew to be “Holy Scripture.” Thereby, the claim that only the original language of a sacred text can be considered inspired is refuted by the Holy Spirit through the words of St Paul.
By the end of this book the reader will see that Dr Jackson proved what he set out to prove: The KJV is based on accurate faithful texts, translated by faithful men, and it generates faith in its readers. The KJV meets the criteria for an inspired Bible - origin, nature, and effect - and it is the Bible that an English-speaker should read. The modern translations such as RSV and NIV fail on all 3 counts.
 |
| I have three Greek New Testaments - Stephanus Majority Text, Westcott-Hort Invented, and the Nestle Aland UBS, a Westcott-Hort with notes. |
