Center for Biblical Theology and Eschatology
Lesson Two: Presenting Some Basics
Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.
(Ps. 119:140)
In our first lesson we began with a Biblical starting point for the
study of textual criticism and a proper understanding of the doctrine of
preservation. Our conclusion consequently agrees with the Psalmist quoted. We can see this principle of preservation of both the text and the translation
of the New Testament itself. In Paul's letter to Timothy, the Apostle makes
reference to the holy scriptures: And that 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. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable
for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto
all good works. Here, Paul tells Timothy that he has known the holy scriptures ever
since he was a child. Yet, we must recognize that all Timothy had were
copies and translations of the original Hebrew texts. Young Timothy did
not have access to the original autographs of any of the Old Testament
writers. In the preservation of God, Paul refers to these copies as holy
scriptures. It would be unbiblical of us to think less of the word
of God today. How unfortunate that we find ourselves in a debate over this issuewith
born-again Christian scholars and teachers. When we say, "Thy word
is very pure," the born-again translator says of translations, "None
is perfect, but the poorest is better than none." (Jack Lewis, The
English Bible, 1981, p. 365). The real difference lies in the approach taken. The passage in Timothy
states, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God." The tense
of this verse demonstrates the difference between the Bible-believing Christian
and modern scholarship. The Bible-believer agrees that all scripture IS
given. The modern conservative scholar believes it WAS given. It is our
conviction that God used the correct tense, and that the modern scholar
is incorrect. There are many issues which arise concerning the preservation of Scripture.
Several of these will be covered in the upcoming lessons. We will look
at the various lines of manuscripts and a history of both Biblical preservation
and those who sought to correct it (2 Cor. 2:17). We will also note several
of the differences between modern versions and the Authorized Version.
We will discuss text types and bring to light the debate concerning the
differences in texts. We will also observe some of the argumentation raised
by modern scholars and address their concerns. However, we must first lay
a foundation of basic understanding in regard to textual criticism. It
is with that purpose in mind that we begin this lesson. The Bible was not originally written in English. The Old Testament was
written in Hebrew and Aramaic. The New Testament was written in Greek.
However, we no longer have any of these original manuscripts. The attempt
to reconstruct what was originally given is the study of textual criticism. There are more manuscripts of the New Testament than any other ancient
writing. To date, we have over 5,000 Greek manuscripts, and over 9,000
manuscripts of ancient translations of the New Testament. Where these manuscripts
disagree, it is called a textual variance. For the purpose of this
class, we are concerned with the manuscripts and their variance as they
relate to the New Testament. It is important to make basic definitions of terms. This will allow
the student to comprehend what is communicated and recognize when others
are using terms improperly. By originals or autographs we do not mean copies. We mean
what was originally penned by the original writers of the Old and New Testaments.
We no longer have any of these autographs. Only copies remain. By manuscripts we mean handwritten copies of the originals or
copies of copies. They are written by hand and thus called manuscripts.
They may be whole books, portion of books, or fragments. Greek Texts does not mean the original Greek nor does it mean
the Greek manuscripts. It means a Greek New Testament that has been reconstructed
by various manuscripts and other sources. Since manuscripts differ, and
sources disagree, we have a variety of Greek Texts. Some of these are Stephanus
Greek Text, Beza's Greek Text, Elzevir's Greek Text, Westcott and Hort
Greek Text, Nestle's Greek Text, and the United Bible Society's Greek Text. The history of New Testament manuscripts is divided, roughly, into three
periods: papyrus, vellum, and paper. The manuscripts we have were written
on one of these three, and often reflect the date of the manuscript. Papyrus is made from the papyrus plants, which grew in abundance in
Egypt. The inner bark of the plant was cut into thin strips and were laid
side by side and then crossed with other strips. They were then pressed
together and sun dried. The papyrus was, for the most part, written only
on one side and bound together in rolls. The custom was to write in very
narrow columns that had no separation of words, accents marks, or punctuation.
So, Philippians 1:1-2 would read something like this: PAULANDTIMOTHEUSTHESERVANTSOFJESUSCHRISTTOALLTHESAINTS (Just as a side note, one can see from this example that the early scribes
were not concerned with making an easy to read translation or text of the
Bible.) Paragraphs were marked with a line in the margin of the text. A line
in the margin meant a new paragraph was beginning. (The Greek word para
means beside, and the Greek word graph means writing. Thus,
paragraph.) The papyrus manuscripts are very fragile. Most of what
we have are fragments. This period lasted until the seventh century. Next, we have the manuscripts written on vellum (or in some cases on
parchment). This covers the period from about the end of the third century
to the fifteenth century. The narrow columns that were used in the papyrus
manuscripts were maintained in the vellum manuscripts. Vellum are dried
animal skins which were cut into leaves and formed into a book. In textual
criticism, a book is called a codex. Some vellum manuscripts maintain
the same style of writing used in papyrus manuscripts. This style is referred
to as uncials, which consists of all capital letters written without
accent marks, punctuation, or separation of words or sentences. Later,
around the ninth century, the use of small letters with spacing between
words was used. These manuscripts are referred to as minuscules or
cursive. Manuscripts written on paper cover from about the fourteenth century
to the present. Up until this period, it was rare to have a complete Bible
in one book. Most of the papyrus and vellum manuscripts are fragments,
passages, or maybe a book of the New Testament. But, in the thirteenth
century whole books containing all or most of the New Testament became
common. There are three classes of evidence used by textual critics in the reconstruction
of the New Testament. (I use the term reconstruction because it
is a term used by textual critics. However, I personally do not believe
the New Testament needs to be reconstructed in the common use of the word
because I do not believe it was ever lost.) First, the main source for reconstructing the New Testament comes from
Greek manuscripts. These manuscripts exist in the forms listed above. There
are variances in all Greek manuscripts. These manuscripts are classified
into one of four families, or textual types. 1) The Byzantine Text. The name is derived from the Byzantine Empire
because it is the type of text copied by Byzantine monks. Most manuscripts
are of this family. In fact, there are far more manuscripts of this type
than of the other three combined. For this reason the family is sometimes
called the Majority Text. This line of manuscripts would also reflect the
Greek Texts used to translate the King James Bible. This textual line is
also called the Traditional Text. 2) The Alexandrian Text. The name comes from Alexandria, Egypt, where
most of these texts were prepared by scribes. It is from this family of
manuscripts most modern version are based. The three main manuscripts of
this family are Alexandrinus (5th century), Sinaiticus (4th century), and
Vaticanus (4th century). 3) The Western Text. There is a debate among scholars if this is a real
family of manuscripts or not. Some believe it reflects a different family.
Others believe the differences are so minor that they do not deserve a
classification of their own. 4) The Caesarean Text. This family seems to be a mixture of the above
family of manuscripts. Some believe it was derived in Egypt by Origen and
brought to Caesarea. Because it is a mixture, some question if this also
should be classified as a family. For the most part, therefore, there are two main families of manuscripts.
It is the differences between these two lines that make for the majority
of the difference in modern translations and the King James Bible. When
one takes the Textus Receptus, which was based on the Byzantine
line of manuscripts, and compares it with the Westcott and Hort Greek
New Testament, which was based on the Alexandrian line of manuscripts,
there are close to 6,000 differences within the two Greek Texts. This is
roughly 10% of the text. The second source for making a Greek Text comes from ancient versions.
Since these versions were translated from something, they are used as a
source for establishing a Greek Text. Like the Greek manuscripts, there
are a variety of ancient versions, and not all of these agree. Among these
are the Old Latin versions (including both the Old Latin and Jerome's Latin
Vulgate), Syrian (including the Old Syriac and the Peshitta), Coptic (Egyptian),
Gothic (early German), Armenian, Ethiopic, and others. These are useful
because they not only had to have a source for their translation, but also
show what the non-Greek reading world used. The third source comes form the quotations of the early Church Fathers.
These are called Patristic citations. When the theological writers
of the first few centuries quoted scripture, their quotations are used.
Again, we have a difference in several of the quotations, showing that
from the very start there were differences in New Testament texts. More
will be given about some of the early Church Fathers in later lessons. Of course, this is something the Bible-believer recognizes. Paul warned
that "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."
(2 Cor. 2:17). And again, "But have renounced the hidden things of
dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully;
but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience
in the sight of God." (2 Cor. 4:2). There have always been those who
sought to corrupt the incorruptible word of God. And, like Satan, questions
and quotes scripture dishonestly for their own gain (Gen. 3:1; Matt. 4:6).
This is not to say all the early church theologians or manuscripts are
corrupt. It is to say that we can not trust any one of these sources as
the final authority. Instead, we must depend upon the providence of God
to preserve His words without error and then demonstrate where this preserved
word is. Other sources would be lectionaries and apocryphal writings. Lectionaries
were books used by the early church which contained lessons and hymns.
There were also citations from passages of scripture. These would show
that certain scriptures were in use at a given time, and substantiate a
questioned text. Apocryphal writings would be citations from books contemporary with
the New Testament but were not inspired. Often they quote scripture. Allow
me to illustrate with a few examples. The King James Bible reads, "For we shall all stand before the
judgment seat of Christ" (Rom. 14:10). Most modern versions read as
the New American Standard Version: "For we shall all stand before
the judgment seat of God." The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians
quotes the verse, "And must all stand before the judgment seat of
Christ." (2:18). Rather Polycarp wrote this letter or not we do not
know. We do know that manuscripts of the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians
date to 150 AD. Thus we have a second century reading supporting the textual
variant in favor of the Traditional Text and the Authorized Version of
1611. The same is true of 1 John 4:3--"And every spirit that confesseth
not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that
spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even
now already is it in the world." Modern versions leave out the phrase
"is come in the flesh." Again, in Polycarp to the Philippians
3:1 we read, "For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ is
come in the flesh, he is antichrist." We can see that the writer of
this book agreed with the rendering of the King James Bible. Another example using Polycarp comes form 1 Timothy 6:10: "For
the love of money is the root of all evil." Modern versions read,"a
root." But Polycarp's letter to the Philippians, 2:5, reads, "But
the love of money is the root of all evil." There are many other examples,
but these illustrate the point. For the purposes of this class, there are three main views concerning
textual criticism. They are listed as follows. 1) Modern Textual Criticism.
2) The Traditional Text. 3) The King James Bible as the Preserved Word
of God for the English-speaking people. To say most textual critics hold to modern textual theories would be
a vast understatement. Almost all who study textual criticism support the
modern approach. Thus, this is the view of modern scholars, rather conservative,
moderate, or liberal. Basically there are two fundamental principles to
this approach of textual criticism; the age of known existing manuscripts
and the use of eclecticism. In the past 150 years several manuscripts have been found which pre-dated
existing manuscripts. The famed manuscripts of Codex Vaticanus and Codex
Sinaiticus date to the forth century. They were discovered and used in
the 1800's. Some papyrus date before the forth century. For example P52
dates to early second century, and P66 dates to around 200 AD. Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are questionable as they have added
passages and books to the contexts of both the Old Testament and New Testament,
while omitting other portions of scripture. Sinaiticus contains most of
the Old Testament and all of the New (except for Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11;
and some other verses). The Old Testament Apocrypha books are contained
in Sinaiticus laced within the Testament as part of the sacred text. It
also contains some New Testament Apocrypha books as part of the New Testament
text. For example it contains the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd
of Hermans as scripture. Vaticanus does likewise with Apocrypha books
in both Testaments as part of the Biblical text. (Vaticanus has Matthew
through Hebrews 9:14. The remainder of the NT is missing.) Codex Bezae (which is also called D and dates between 450 to
550 AD) adds to the text. One, of the many exampes, is found in Luke 6:5,
"On that day, seeing a certain man working on the Sabbath, he (i.e.
Jesus) said to him, Man, if you know what you are doing, blessed are you.
But if not, cursed are you and a transgressor of the law." (Dr. Kenneth
Clark, The Transmission of the New Testament as found in The
Interpreter's Bible, vol. 12; 1980, p. 623). These type of additions
are found throughout various manuscripts within the Alexandrian and Western
line. And, it is from these manuscripts that many of the changes and revisions
within both the Greek and English New Testament are based. Age may not be the determining factor in the authenticity of a given
manuscript. Manuscripts which are not used would naturally last longer
than manuscripts where were used. Also, most of the papyrus manuscripts
we have come from Egypt and reflect the Alexandrian Text. The climate of
Egypt is more conducive than the climate of other places in the world for
keeping old documents. Most of the Gnostic Gospels come from manuscripts
found in Egypt. Many of the supporters of the Traditional Text (such as
Edward F. Hills, Zane Hodges, Robert Wilson, Peter Ruckman, and David Otis
Fuller) have stated or suggested that Gnosticism influenced the philosophy
of the scribes copying the manuscripts in Egypt. Gnosticism is known as
an ancient heresy, teaching that all that is spiritual is good and all
that is physical is evil. The heresy also suggests that since Jesus was
created, and all that is physical is evil, Christ was not coming back in
the flesh. This is the false doctrine which John addresses in his first
epistle. Thus manuscripts coming from Egypt are questionable. What has been called the Majority Text is based on this view
of textual criticism, as is the Received Text (also called the Textus
Receptus ). Until the publishing of textual scholars, such as Westcott
and Hort, this view was the main view. In fact, one could argue until the
early 1800's it was the only view, at least where Protestant scholarship
is concerned. Dr. Kurt Aland (of the Aland Greek NT and the Institute for
NT Textual Research) wrote: Finally it is undisputed that from the 16th to the 18th century orthodoxy's
doctrine of verbal inspiration assumed this Textus Receptus. It was the
only Greek text they knew, and they regarded it as the 'original text.'
Close beside it there was Luther's translation of the New Testament which
in practice frequently enjoyed the same esteem, although there were differences
between its various editions, just as there were for the Greek text. ("The
Text of the Church?" in Trinity Journal, Fall, 1987. p.131). Critics of the Traditional Text cite that this lane of manuscripts is
recent and not reflective of early manuscripts. It is true that the majority
of all Greek manuscripts date after 1000 AD, but to insinuate that there
is no textual support for this line before 1000 AD is absurd and without
informative substance. The Chester Beatty Papyri (P. 45, 46, and 66) all
have readings that reflect the Traditional Text against all other line
of manuscripts. These papyri date to the early third century. Codex W dates
from the fourth to early fifth century. It contains the Gospels, yet uses
several of the various lines of manuscripts. While most of Mark and part
of John reflect the Alexandrian and Western lines, "(all of) Matthew
and Luke 8:13-24:25 are Byzantine (Traditional text)" (Geisler and
Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, p. 281). Even Codex A
(i.e. Codex Alexandrinus, dating around 450 AD) reflects the Traditional
Text in the Gospels, leaving the Epistles to reflect the Alexandrian line.
And, of course, the early translations such as the Peshitta (second century)
and the Gothic (dating around 350 AD) also reflect the Traditional Text
over against the Alexrandian Text. In fact, Sir Fredric Kenyon, noted textual
scholar, has stated that the Gothic version represents the type of text,
"which is found in the majority of Greek manuscripts" (Handbook
To The Textual Criticism Of The New Testament by Kenyon, p. 240). The best manuscripts are the ones which have been traditionally used
by Bible believing Christians throughout the years, and the vast majority
of all existing manuscripts reflect this type of manuscript. These manuscripts
were used to produce the King James Bible and reflects the history of early
Protestantism and Reformation. Additionally, many of the old early translations
agree with this line of manuscripts, as do some very early papyrus manuscripts. The question has been asked, why would God allow the majority of manuscripts
to be of this line if it is incorrect, while only a handful of manuscripts
reflect the views of modern textual critics? (Such was the question raised
by Dr. John Burgon). We would also ask; If this line is the wrong line
of manuscripts, why would God allow born-again Christians to use this line
and suffer persecution, while giving to those who were persecuting the
true Church the correct line? Is that consistent with the nature of God?
If those who were persecuting the Church had the correct line of manuscripts,
why did they prohibit it from being translated for so many years, even
hiding it from their own people? If the Traditional line of manuscripts
is not the correct line, why has God so greatly blessed this line and the
translations of the Traditional Text throughout the history of the Church?
Would not God bear witness to which is good and which is corrupt? (Matt.
7:15-20) This view draws most of its textual support form the Traditional Text,
since the Greek Text which underlined the King James Bible came from the
Traditional Text. The view covers preservation, final authority, and the Sovereignty of
God. The view states that the Authorized Version is the preserved word
of God for the English-speaking people. It stands as the final authority
for all matters of faith and practice without any proven error. The Sovereign
hand of God can be seen in using this version to bring revival and reform. This view begins with a basis of Scriptural promises. Namely, that God
would keep and preserve His words. (Psalm 12:6-7; Matt. 4:4; 5:18; 24:35;
1 Pet. 1:23). Preservation would mean more than a general term. It would
mean that God kept all of His words without error, and that these words
are preserved in a book which can be read and tested. Throughout church
history God has kept His words, and since 1611 for English-speaking people,
it is found in the Authorized Version. The information in this lesson will provide the student with a basic
munderstanding of some of the terms used in the study of textual criticism,
and in our study of the King James Bible and its text. Additional information
will be provided in time as we look more closely at opposing views in this
study. In our next lesson we will cover some of the differences in the
Greek texts as reflected in various English translations. In our first lesson, I called this section Problem Passages.
I think it would be better to call this section Questions From Students,
in that some of the questions received deal with areas other than problem
passages. Such is the following question. "I love the KJB of the Bible and it's all I use. My one question
would be about the new KJ21 ... do you know about it ... what do you think
... are there any specific problems with it? Thank you." All I can offer is my opinion. I do not own a copy of the KJ21, so I
had to borrow one from my library. My observations, therefore, are not
in-depth. KJ21 stands for the 21st Century King James Version. It
was published in 1994 by Deuel Enterprises, Inc. in Gary, SD. This is not
a new translation or revision of the King James Bible. Instead, it takes
the text of the KJB and seeks to update some of the words considered outdated.
This was the same thing Porter Barrington did with his Christian Life
New Testament.Words like minish become diminish and prevent
become precede.It keeps archaic words which are still understandable
to modern readers, such as "thee, thou, hath, art, cometh, and hast."
The text is not presented in column verse form as most King James Bible's
are. Instead it is presented in paragraph form like many modern versions
have been. Some verses are placed in bold print because they denote "the
most powerful, most familiar, best loved, and most often quoted and memorized."
(from KJ21, p. v). It also contains an appendix which I was glad to see.
The KJ21 has added the original Preface to the KJB entitled The Translators
to the Reader (presented in an updated and abridged form).
(2 Tim. 3:15-17) ANCIENT TEXTS:
INCHRISTJESUSWHICHAREATPHIPIPPIWITHTHEBISHOPSANDDEACONS
GRACEBEUNTOYOUANDPEACEFROMGODOURFATHERANDFROMTHELORD
JESUSCHRISTSOURCES FOR NEW TESTAMENT TEXTS:
VIEWS OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM:
Modern Textual Criticism:
The Traditional Text:
The King James Bible View:
QUESTIONS FROM STUDENTS:
The editors of the KJ21 states:
For your ease of reading, we have replaced obsolete and archaic words by the most exact modern synonyms, painstakingly chosen so as to insure no change in meaning. For example, the word gins has been replaced by traps; bewray by betray; stablish by establish; dehort by dissuade; reins by inmost being; minish by diminish; wist by knew; listed by pleased; carefully by intricately. These are only a few examples among many. (Preface, p. ix)
I can say that this statement, and the examples used, cause me some alarm. First, if these are "only a few examples among many" I wonder what the other changes are. What are the "many"? It is my nature to be skeptical when men take it upon themselves to alter God's word. Even when the motivation is to clarify, sometimes context is compromised. In times past, I have been told that modern version simply revise the "obsolete and archaic words" in the Authorized Version; only to find that the text has been changed or words and verses omitted. I was told the New Scofield Reference Bible simply updated many of the "archaic words" of the King James, but did not change the text; then discovered that this was not true. (Such as in Daniel 3:25 where the KJB states "and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God." The NSRB reads "a son of the gods," thus taking Christ out of the fiery furnace). And so it was with the New King James Version, changing the text while claiming it was a King James Bible. I alway become skeptical when I am lied to.
Secondly, I have noticed that when others care for my "ease of reading" and revise the text with "no change in meaning," that it does in fact change. Even though it may surprise some, God is not concerned with my "ease of reading." Instead, He expects me to study and search it out for myself (2 Tim. 2:15; Prov. 25:2; John 5:39). Otherwise, our Lord never would have taught in parables. He did not do so to make it easy or to illustrate, He did it, "because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." (Matt. 13:13 and context).
Thirdly, once the words have been changed, the meaning is changed. We approach our study of the Bible with the attitude of "what does it mean?". God's attitude in scripture has always been, "what does it say." What God says is more important than what we think it means.
Finally, once you change the words, you have destroyed the cross-reference. We study and understand scripture in light of scripture. The word sheds light on the word. If words are replaced with modern words, our cross-reference has been rendered ineffective. One of the examples given by the editors of the KJ21 is that reins has been changed to inmost being. The word reins appears 15 times in the KJB. Of these, only 6 times has it been changed to inmost being (Ps. 26:2; 73:21; Prov. 23:16; Jer. 12:2; 17:10; 20:12. Instead it appears as loins (Job 16:13), heart (Job 19:27), souls (Ps. 7:9), inner self (Ps. 16:7), reins (Ps. 139:13; and Isa.11:5), passions (Jer. 11:20), inmost parts (Lam. 3:13), and thoughts (Rev. 2:23). One could argue that these words mean the same thing most of the time. But then we are back to "what it means" instead of "what it says." If I want to see how God uses the English word reins in His Book, I will have trouble doing so in the KJ21.
Another concern is found in Acts 7:45. The King James Bible reads, "Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;" Here, the KJ21 has changed the text to read "which also our fathers, who came later, brought with Joshua into the territory of the Gentiles, whom God drove out before the face of our fathers until the days of David."
This is an example of the editors disregarding what the text says, and translating what they think it means. This is not updating "obsolete and archaic words," unless they think Jesus is either obsolete or archaic in this passage. Nor is this a clarification of Greek. The Greek word used is Iesou (which is the genitive form of Iesous; the Greek word for Jesus. ) If one is reading the Greek text (any Greek text) it would read just as the King James Bible reads. Nor, is the KJ21 consistent in its changing of the text when the editors believe the word Iesou should be Joshua. In Hebrews 4:8 the same Greek word is used and revised as Joshua in modern versions of the Bible (such as the NASV, NIV, and NRSV). Yet, the KJ21 renders the passage "For if Jesus had given them rest, then He would not afterwards have spoken of another day." If Iesou in Acts 7:45 means Joshua, then why not translate it as Joshua in Hebrews 4:8? (The real truth is that the Holy Spirit, in Greek or in the English of the KJB, shows no difference because Joshua of old is a picture of Jesus; in that Joshua is a type of the second coming of Jesus Christ leading the nation of Israel into the promised land).
I am sure there are other examples and passages where the KJ21 falls short of its predecessor. However, that will be up to the student to research and locate additional examples.
I am not sure that the KJ21 will make a great deal of difference. Those who wish to revise or change the Authorized Version are never satisfied with what they have accomplished. This is why we have had so many versions and revisions over the past one hundred years. We have been told that some versions are given to make the Bible stronger in its text. So out comes the RV, ASV, RSV, ASV, Amp., NASV, and so on, only to fall out of favor within a few years and replaced with a newer version or revision. We have also been told that some versions are given to simplify the meaning of the Bible. So out comes the TEV, NIV, NRSV, TLB, Phillips, and so on. One wonders how many times it needs to be made simple.
I do not believe the KJ21 will be effective. Those who stand for the preservation of the word of God will not use it as their main Bible. Those wishing for an easy to read version will still use the NIV (which is revised every five years) or one of its kind. Sooner or later we will begin to understand that the Bible is God's Book, and if there is to be any revision or retranslating, it will be up to God to bring it to pass. And if He ever does, He will testify to it as He has the Authorized Version for the past four hundred years.
Until later, God bless as you labor for Him.
Yours in Christ Jesus, Thomas Holland Psalm 118:8
Index < Content