WIXLIB

OUR AUTHORIZED BIBLE VINDICATEDBENJAMIN G. WILKINSON, Ph. DTThe all-time bestseller. The most translated book.The most controversial title. The Bible.Throughout the ages this precious book has been both persecutedand preserved. Today, many question the inspiration of the Bible asthe Biblical fundamentals our society depends on crumble.Our Authorized Bible Vindicated was written to restore faith in thetrue, infallible word of God. With the lines blurring between true andfalse, there is a desperate need for usto return to the authentic roots of ourspiritual foundations. Satan is workingovertime so that, if it were possible, hewould deceive the very elect. FaultyBible translations draw minds away fromthe truth.Our Authorized Bible Vindicated exploresthe history of the Bible throughout thecenturies and how it has been preservedin its entirety untainted. The reader willbe led on a journey back to a solid beliefin the true word of God and how todiscern it from the false.Benjamin G. Wilkinson, PhD, worked asthe Dean of Theology at WashingtonMissionary College (now known asColumbia Union College). During hisyears of service to the cause he loved,he also dedicated his life to ministry andintensive study. Our Authorized BibleVindicated is the culmination of thisstudy. 15.006

Does it matterwhich BibleBible Versions:Walter J. VeithThe issue of Bible translationsis an issue of hot debate withadvocates on both sides of thedivide, pouring out publicationupon publication to defend theirparticularviewpoint.Thousandsofpages of evidence are brought to thesubject that seems to achieve nothingother than greater polarization. Oncedrawn into this debate, we end up ina vortex threatening to engulf us andit is tempting to throw up our handsin despair and ask: “Does it reallymatter?” Extreme views are of courseprevalent in all such debates, and sowe have our “King James Version only”advocates as apposed to our “NIVonly” advocates, both claiming thattheir version most accurately rendersthe original intent of God’s Word. I amreminded of one dear brother in myown country who stuck to his old highDutch translation of the Bible, saying,“If high Dutch was good enough forPaul, then it is good enough for me.”The King James Version (KJV) advocatewill point to the many verses missingand the numerous alterations andpartial omissions in the new versions.The advocates for the modern versionswill point to other passages of Scripturewhere the intent of the missing verses isstill present and proclaim that needlessrepetition has simply been removed.However, all these repetitions areprobably based on scribal errors, assome of the more ancient manuscriptsseem to verify. The modern versions falleasier on the ear and all this fuss aboutall these minor details merely detractsfrom the overall beauty of God’sWord. Biblical scholars who defendwe use?the new versions, however, base theirargument entirely on the “most ancientmanuscripts” which largely support themodern translations. Some of thesemanuscripts were only discoveredrecently, and are said to throw a wholenew light on the subject.When I became a Christian, I cameto know and understand the beautifulmessage of salvation in Christ throughthe NIV. Does it therefore matter whichversion I use? Martin Luther foundChrist in the Latin Vulgate and it ledhim to accept salvation in Christ. Doesit therefore matter what version heused? Wycliffe, the morning star of theReformation, translated the Vulgateinto English—it was never printed andcopies were few. Was God with him inthis venture? Did it matter what versionhe used? Tyndale and Martin Lutherlater translated the Bible from Erasmus’Greek text and gave the Word of Godto their respective countrymen in theirown mother tongue. Does it matterwhat version they used? Was Godwith them when they undertook thismonumental task? Does it matter?Did God make a mistake in firstpresenting the early reformers with thatto which they were accustomed, ordid he permit it until they were ready toreceive new light? “But the path of thejust is as the shining light, that shinethmore and more unto the perfect day”Proverbs 4:18.I believe that it does matter, but Ialso understand that no amount ofargument will convince either side.It will require a paradigm shift. I havealso come to realize that the issue ofBible manuscript translation can beapproached from two entirely differentperspectives, and these perspectiveswill determine one’s paradigm. I amreminded of my former experience asan evolutionist. I was fully convincedthat Darwinian evolution was true,because science had, or so I thought,proved it so. All the evidencepresented to us in my university careerconclusively upheld the evolutionaryparadigm and was presented withsuch conviction that there was noroom for doubt. The earth and the lifeit supported had evolved over millionsof years and every scientific disciplinewas in harmony with this belief. Afterall, how could all the thousands ofscientists and trained professional menin the world possibly be wrong?When I was convicted of the veracityof the Bible, however, all this changed.It was not a sudden change, becauseit required a huge paradigm shift inorder to even entertain the possibilitythat my evolutionary mindset was inneed of revision. It required nothingless than total detachment from myconvictions to even admit that allthe so-called proof for evolution wasbased on interpretive assumptions.The same data could, however, alsobe interpreted from a totally differentperspective and the conclusions thenreached could be in total harmony withthe Bible. The data had not changed,but the mindset had changed.I have also come to realize thatarguments from the facts alone willseldom convince the other side of this7

paradigm divide, because spiritualthings are spiritually discerned. Doesit matter how I view the data? Does itmatter whether I interpret it in the lightof God’s Word or naturalistically? Ofcourse it matters! I long for my atheistfriends to see things as I see them now,to get to know the Creator of all things,and the beauty of His character, andfor them to have the same hope thatI have now in place of the void thatled to nothing. Will they listen to thefacts? No! Something else needs tohappen; they need to be touchedby the Spirit of God before they willlisten and understand. Salvation is thusalways the work of God and neitherour knowledge nor articulate skillscan change the heart, lest we shouldboast.I believe that the same kind ofinterpretive assumptions are beingused by Bible manuscript (MSS)textual critics and scholars todayunintentionally as they are influencedby the inherited methods, assumptionsand principles of their discipline. Adiscipline that is shaped and mouldedby the ecumenical climate we livein. The interpretation of history is verysubjective and the same evidence hasoften been used to prove two exactopposite positions. Time is a greatequalizer, and age-old differencesand animosities are easily forgotten bysubsequent generations. History bookscan be rewritten and that which wasworth dying for in one generation canbe considered ludicrous or irresponsibleby subsequent generations. The sameapplies to the Bible. It is not only theveracity of the Bible which is at stake,or even its plainest teachings, but theauthenticity of the very manuscriptsfrom which it was derived are subject tothis debate. Protestants today have notonly swallowed the Catholic CounterReformation teachings on prophecy,hook, line, and sinker, but they arealso using the very manuscripts fromRome that the Protestant reformersand God’s people through the longDark Ages of apostasy rejected. Oneseldom mentioned advantage of theReformation Bibles is that they weretranslated at a time when God’s peoplehad just come out of the Dark Agesand knew the difference betweenRoman Catholicism and Protestantism.8Today this is not the case, as modernecumenical evangelical Protestantsreturn to Rome.To look at the arguments from a “KJVonly” perspective or “my favouritemodern day version only” perspectiveis, in my view, far too narrow a view totake. Translations are based on ancientmanuscripts, and the question shouldrather be—which ancient manuscriptsare the representation of God’sWord? Is it the Western, Alexandrian,or Byzantine manuscript that mostaccurately portrays what God reallydid say? In my study of the Bible andthe Spirit of Prophecy, I have found thatthe inspired account of the history ofGod’s people and His written Word, asfound in the great controversy themebetween Christ and Satan, opens toview the bigger picture of not onlyChrist’s great battle with Satan, butalso the great battle of God’s peopleto preserve the written Word and thetrue doctrines therein.The 12th chapter of Revelation opens tous a panoramic view of the entire historyof the great controversy betweenChrist and Satan from its beginning inheaven to its end on earth. The Wordof God is central in this battle betweengood and evil and it is just as vital nowas it was in the Garden of Eden to knowwhat God really did say. The enemytoday is that same wily foe who twistedthe Word of God then to say what Godabsolutely did not say and who alsotwisted the messianic prophesies at thetime of the first Advent to strip them ofall their authority and power regardingthis life saving subject. In that timelessclassic on the life of Christ The Desire ofAges, Ellen White sums up this strategyof Satan as follows:When God’s written wordwas given, Satan studied theprophecies of the Saviour’sadvent. From generation togeneration, he worked toblind the people to theseprophecies, that they mightreject Christ at His Coming.Many among Christ's hearerswho were dwellers at Jerusalem,and who were not ignorant ofthe plots of the rulers againstHim, felt themselves drawn toHim by an irresistible power.The conviction pressed uponthem that He was the Son ofGod. But Satan was ready tosuggest doubt; and for this theway was prepared by theirown erroneous ideas of theMessiah and His coming.The very words of prophecywere so perverted as tosanction error.Many are deceived todayin the same way as were theJews. Religious teachers readthe Bible in the light of their ownunderstanding and traditions;and the people do not searchthe Scriptures for themselves,and judge for themselves as towhat is truth; but they yield uptheir judgment, and committheir souls to their leaders. Thepreaching and teaching of Hisword is one of the means thatGod has ordained for diffusinglight; but we must bring everyman's teaching to the test ofScripture. DA115, 457, 458, 459Darkening the understanding of whatGod really did say is one strategy thatyielded fruits of disobedience andignorance in the past, as it is doing evento this day. Modern society choosesto ignore or twist even the plaineststatements of Scripture regarding thequestions of origins or the many socialissues ranging from pro-choice lobbiesto gay rights which are so central tomodern society. The debates cut acrosspolitical and ecclesiastical divides withas many opinions as there are groupsto defend them. It does not seem tomatter what God really did say, it onlymatters what we think He meant whenHe said it. A somewhat more slipperyroad is when we come to the point ofdenying that God said it at all or sayingthat perhaps it was a scribal error oreven a deliberate insertion. After all,if one would wish to pervert Scripture,then deliberate changes to the Wordof God would seem an obvious way togo. Where, however, does this leavethe believer who wishes to place histrust in the Word of God? Faith in theWord of God necessarily also implies

faith in the preservation of the Word,because one without the other is afoundation built on sand.God cannot expect obedience to HisWord if that Word is not available to us.It is therefore essential that Scripturemust have been preserved by Him inan uncorrupted form in order for us tocomply with its demands. Moreover,should deliberate changes have beenintroduced into certain manuscripts,then a distinct line of demarcationmust exist between corrupt and purelines of manuscript lineages. Duringthe “falling away” period following thetime of the apostles and the 1260 yearsof papal supremacy, every phase ofheresy had been introduced into theChurch. Ellen White describes how Godpreserved His Word during this periodof apostasy and who the guardians ofthat Word were:Satan had urged on the papalpriests and prelates to burythe Word of truth beneaththe rubbish of error, heresy,and superstition, but in a mostwonderful manner it waspreserved uncorrupted throughall the ages of darkness. The faithwhich for centuries was heldand taught by the WaldensianChristians was in markedcontrast to the false doctrinesput forth from Rome. Theirreligious belief was foundedupon the written word of God,the true system of Christianity.But those humble peasants,in their obscure retreats, shutaway from the world, andbound to daily toil among theirflocks and their vineyards, hadnot by themselves arrived atthe truth in opposition to thedogmas and heresies of theapostate church. Theirs wasnot a faith newly received.Their religious belief was theirinheritance from their fathers.They contended for the faithof the apostolic church, .”thefaith which was once deliveredunto the saints.” (Jude 3)The church in the wilderness,and not the proud hierarchyenthroned in the world's greatcapital, was the true churchof Christ, the guardian of thetreasures of truth which God hascommitted to His people to begiven to the world GC 64, 69.The Waldenses were among thefirst of the peoples of Europe toobtain a translation of the HolyScriptures. Hundreds of yearsbefore the Reformation theypossessed the Bible in manuscriptin their native tongue. Theyhad the truth unadulterated,and this rendered them thespecial objects of hatred andpersecution. They declaredthe Church of Rome to bethe apostate Babylon of theApocalypse, and at the perilof their lives they stood up toresist her corruptions. While,under the pressure of longcontinued persecution, somecompromised their faith, littleby little yielding its distinctiveprinciples, others held fastthe truth. Through ages ofdarkness and apostasy therewere Waldenses who deniedthe supremacy of Rome, whorejected image worship asidolatry, and who kept the trueSabbath. Under the fiercesttempests of opposition theymaintained their faith. Thoughgashed by the Savoyard spear,and scorched by the Romishfagot, they stood unflinchinglyfor God's word and His honorGC 65.2.By the Spirit of Prophecy EllenWhite further says, “I saw thatGod had especially guardedthe Bible; yet when copies of itwere few, learned men had insome instances changed thewords, thinking that they weremaking it more plain, when inreality they were mystifying thatwhich was plain, by causingit to lean to their establishedviews, which were governedby tradition EW220.This changing of the Word wasundertaken by the likes of Origen,Eusebius, and Jerome in the fourthcentury, and today learned scholarsare again changing the words of theBible, thinking that they are making itmore plain. In reality, they are mystifyingthat which was plain by causing it tolean to their established views. EllenWhite writes this:While Luther was opening aclosed Bible to the peopleof Germany, Tyndale wasimpelled by the Spirit of Godto do the same for England.Wycliffe's Bible had beentranslated from the Latin text,which contained many errors.It had never been printed,and the cost of manuscriptcopies was so great thatfew but wealthy men ornobles could procure it, and,furthermore,beingstrictlyproscribed by the church, ithad had a comparativelynarrow circulation. In 1516, ayear before the appearanceof Luther's theses, Erasmus hadpublished his Greek and Latinversion of the New Testament.Now for the first time the Word ofGod was printed in the originaltongue. In this work manyerrors of former versions werecorrected, and the sense wasmore clearly rendered. It ledmany among the educatedclasses to a better knowledgeof the truth, and gave a newimpetus to the work of reform.But the common people werestill, to a great extent, debarredfrom God's Word. Tyndalewas to complete the work ofWycliffe in giving the Bible tohis countrymen GC88 245.1.9

Wycliffe did not have the Greekmanuscripts from which to translatehis Bible, so he used the Latin Vulgateas his source which “contained manyerrors.” Did God make a mistake whenHe inspired Wycliffe to translate theBible from a flawed text? I believe not.The time had come to instill a hungerfor the Word of God in the minds ofthe people. The art of printing had notbeen invented in the time of Wycliffe,and so copies had to be preparedby painstaking copying the originaltranslated work. Thus only a very limiteddistribution could be achieved, but thisvery condition created the hunger andprepared the way for that which was tofollow. Which Word did Tyndale give tohis countrymen to complete the workthat Wycliffe began? Was it not theReceived Text, as the Greek translationof Erasmus came to be known, whichhe used as the basis for his translation?The art of printing had only just beeninvented and the printing presses werechurning out the writings of Luther andthe other Reformers to light a fire thatconsumed the dross of superstitionand darkness which permeated theDark Ages. Was this not the work thataroused the ire of Rome? Did this notlead to war and bloodshed even to thepoint of sending the Spanish Armadato halt the work?The doctrines of Rome could notstand the scrutiny of the Word ofGod, and when it was available in thenative tongue of the people, even aploughman could know more of theWord of God than prelates and Popeswho were concerned more with lovefor power than the power of love. Warand bloodshed could not prevail, and itwas obvious to all that Rome was at warwith the Word of God itself. To escapethis stigma, Rome proclaimed that itwas not the Word they were warringagainst, but the “faulty Protestantversion” of that Word that they wereopposed to. The Jesuits were assignedto write the Roman counter Bible whichbecame known as the Douay Version.The Douay was based on Jerome’sVulgate and the Vaticanus manuscript,which both find their origin in the 4thcentury, the century of apostasywhen every wind of doctrine wasbrought into the Church. Regardingthe stealthful progress of apostasy in10the early Church and the events of

Bible versions is not new. We have received much opposition on this subject. New Bible version advocates feel that the discussion of the authenticity of the NIV is an attack on something very personal—their understanding of and relationship with God. New version advocates bel