No Final Authority - The Dangerous Acceptable Variant Philosophy

Proverbs 30:5–6 Every word of God is pure: He is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Add thou not unto his words, Lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

In Proverbs 30:5-6 the Lord tells us that every one of God’s words are pure words. “Every word of God is pure” means that the Bible does not contain corrupted or lost words. God’s words are pure, all of them. The commandments in Scripture are simple, do not add to or take away from God’s pure words.

Regarding foreign Bible translation projects, the principle should be simple, we should translate the Bible into other languages in a way that does not add to or take away from God’s pure words. In the world of Spanish translations, those that promote the RVG Spanish Bible are motivated by the above desire. We believe that every language should have a Bible that follows the preserved text of Scripture. The Spanish people (and all people) need a Bible version in their language that does not add to or take away from the pure words of God.

The critics of our position cannot be successful in attacking the commandment of God to not add or take away from His words. This fact has forced them to take up a different strategy to promote foreign Bible translations that depart from the preserved text of Scripture. Their tactic is simply to teach God’s people that we really do not know exactly what the pure words of God are.

This is the method of Calvin George as he attempts to promote the Critical Text ridden RV1960. In his article (available on his website) attacking one of my sermons in which I denounced the removal of the Lord’s name from many verses in the RV1960, George wrote:

“…some seem to insist that nothing less than absolute certainty in every non-doctrinal technicality is acceptable in preservation. On one hand, such a desire is admirable, but we must be realistic and transparent with what has indeed been preserved for us, which provides adequate, wonderful, trustworthy certainty, even though it may not meet the threshold of absolute certainty in every non-doctrinal technicality as in the original autographs." (emphasis mine)

Calvin George tells his readers that we cannot have absolute certainty as to what the true biblical text is. He claims that it once existed in the original autographs but has since been lost. We should not fret however, because what we do have is “adequate” certainty. Not perfect, not absolute, not pure, just “adequate.” In one of his books, he explains further:

“What is essential is that we have the Word preserved collectively among all the manuscripts, and in a reliable (though not perfect) form in the editions of the Textus Receptus.”

(La Contraversia Reina-Valera en el fundamentalismo (2023), pg 154. Translated from Spanish.)

According to Mr. George, the words of God are out there somewhere scattered amongst the manuscripts (though we can never find it) and if we look to all various editions of the Textus Receptus we can find something “reliable” but “not perfect.” This claim that God’s Word is not perfect and is simply “adequate” seems strange to me as God told me that His Word is perfect. The Bible states in Psalm 19:7:

The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.

We are left to decide whether to believe the faithless cries of Calvin George, or the direct words of God written in the Bible. As for me, I choose to believe God. Mr. George also contradicts Jesus Christ with his claim that only the original autographs could possibly contain the perfect words of God. Jesus said in Matthew 5:18:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Once again, I choose to believe Jesus Christ over the faithless modernism of Calvin George.

It is interesting to observe that modernist Bible critics like Calvin George, Mark Ward, James White, and others never use the Scriptures to prove their claims that the Bible has been hopelessly lost since we no longer have the original autographs. Their evidence is always that of humanistic logic and their personal opinions rather than that of faith and the promises of the Bible. Let us look at the reasoning given by George on his website for his claim that the perfect Scriptures have been lost:

“we must be realistic and transparent with what has indeed been preserved for us, which provides adequate, wonderful, trustworthy certainty, even though it may not meet the threshold of absolute certainty…” (emphasis mine)

The reason provided as to why we should ignore the promises of God Himself and trust in George’s claims is that we must be “realistic and transparent.” Well, that settles it then. God must be a liar, and Mr. George must be correct. I hope the reader senses my sarcasm. In another article George wrote against me he wrote:

“…despite certain technicalities in textual matters that disqualify a belief in absolutely perfect preservation…”

Once again, his evidence is not Scripture, but rather a vague statement based in humanistic

reasoning. We are told that we cannot believe in the perfect preservation of the Scriptures because of “certain technicalities in textual matters.”

Let us sum up the main issue here. The Bible tells us that it is perfectly preserved. Mr. George and other modernists like him tell us that it is not. He tells us it has errors and that it is only “adequate.” This philosophy is terribly dangerous for the believer. It is the death blow to efforts to promote textual purity. This is the philosophy that teaches us that we can have no final authority regarding what the actual true text of the Bible is. It teaches that there is no authoritative Bible and that the text of the Bible is flexible.

Once these modernists have accomplished their goal, the now flexible Bible can say what we want it to say. It can follow our own opinions and preferences. We get to pick and choose what is in the Bible. We get to decide what God said and, in a sense, become our own god.

We see this same modernist textual philosophy being promoted by the Trinitarian Bible Society to defend critical readings in their new Spanish Bible the RV-SBT. Many were surprised to see that they included the common Alexandrian reading to grow “in your salvation” in 1 Peter 2:2.

RV - SBT 1Pedro 2:2 desead, como niños recién nacidos, la leche espiritual no adulterada, para que por ella crezcáis en la salvación,

The RV1960 also includes this corruption but translates it “para salvación” or “for salvation.” There is no debate that this is an Alexandrian reading. It is a not part of legitimate Scripture and should not be included in our foreign Bible translations. The phrase appears mainly in corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts such as Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sianiticus. No serious scholar would consider this a legitimate part of the Traditional Text but rather a critical and eclectic reading.

Despite this fact, the Trinitarian Bible Society included this corruption in their Spanish Bible and is making the bizarre claim that it is really a “part of the Received Text.” On their website, they feature an article (only in Spanish) that tries to convince us that they were correct in including this critical reading. Quoting from their article:

“Although it is true that the phrase is found in the Critical Text, what many do not know is that this is a variant within the same Received Text from the time of the Reformation. …This phrase is found in the edition of the Received Text by Simon of Colines of 1534.” (Translated from Spanish)

The truth is that this Alexandrian reading is not supported by the great majority of Greek manuscripts. There are around 30 editions (collations) of the Received Text Manuscripts and only one (1534 by Simon of Colines) contains the phrase. It is debatable as to whether this text should even be considered an edition of the Received Text because of its critical readings.

Despite the massive evidence to the contrary, the Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS) wants us to believe that this corrupt reading is part of the Received Text and a legitimate part of Scripture. Their article does not explain why most of their other foreign translations do not include this Alexandrian phrase. Is their Spanish Bible correct and their other language Bibles wrong?

The TBS does not seem to think along the lines of one Bible being right and others wrong, rather that both can be correct. “In your salvation” is considered an acceptable textual variant.

A logically thinking person might ask, “How could it be possible that both readings are acceptable variants? Did not God write only one Bible?” A child in Sunday School could easily answer this question correctly. God wrote only one Bible. There are no acceptable variants, there is only one perfect text of Scripture.

This fact, that is obvious to children, seems to be far above the comprehension of those who are working on and promoting our foreign Bible translations. According to them, the Bible could include this corrupt phrase in 1 Peter 2:2 or it could not. Both Bibles are adequate, and we are free to choose which reading we like the best.

Those who believe that salvation is a process could choose the Alexandrian reading. Those that believe that salvation is by grace alone could choose to omit it. The Bible is flexible and so you get to choose which reading you like best. You get to determine what God said and therefore you get to be your own god.

This method of calling corruptions acceptable variants has allowed these modernists to justify any Alexandrian corruption that they please. Within the same article by the TBS justifying their use of the textual corruption in 1 Peter 2:2, they make this ridiculous statement.

“We must recognize that the Critical Text of Westcott and Hort is from 1881 (after the translation of Casiodoro de Reina), therefore, this proves that Reina in 1569 must have had some type of Greek text from which he translated this phrase.”

In reference to the Alexandrian reading appearing in the 1569 Spanish Bible by Reina they argue that it should not be considered a Critical Text reading because it can be found in manuscripts prior to 1881. Incredibly, Calvin George tries this same argument. In an article written against me he writes:

“17 of 18 cases were before 1881 (94%). If the conference speaker was trying to imply that the discrepancies over divine names in the Spanish Bible can be linked to two controversial figures, the historical timeline does not add up!”

According to this acceptable variant philosophy, if a corruption existed before 1881 in any manuscript, then it cannot be condemned as part of the Critical Text. Using this bizarre logic, they can now justify any Alexandrian reading as not part of the Critical Text. If we can find the corrupt reading in just one resource that is generally considered part of the Traditional Text family, then we can even call it a Received Text reading!

Let me briefly explain why this argument is so ridiculous. First, every single Alexandrian corruption existed in manuscripts prior to 1881. The 1881 Westcott and Hort Greek text is a collation of Alexandrian manuscripts. All these manuscripts existed prior to 1881.

Second, using this logic, one can now justify any Critical Text reading. For example, 1 John 5:7 (the Johannian Comma) does not appear in the first two editions of Erasmus’s Greek Received Text. It was not until he found further evidence to support it that he included it in his later editions. If we use the flawed textual philosophy of the critics, we can now justify removing this verse from our Bibles and still claim that we are following the “Received Text.” For one to not include the famous verse that proves the doctrine of the Trinity could be just an acceptable textual variant of the Received Text tradition. Any textual corruption is justifiable if you are just willing to go through a few hoops.

This is the reason why it is so important to have a final authority. If you do not have a final textual authority, these Bible critics will destroy your faith in God’s Word.

The good news is that God has not hidden his perfect words amongst thousands of manuscripts in a way that they can never be found. They can be found, and they have been found. God has allowed the collation of the thousands of manuscripts and textual recourses to determine what the true text of the Bible is.

A collation of manuscripts is the process of comparing many manuscripts with each other and other textual resources (such as ancient Bible translations and biblical quotes of ancient Christians). The reader should understand that all the various editions of the Critical Text are collations of Alexandrian (corrupted) manuscripts. Likewise, all the editions of the Received Text are collations of the over 5000 Greek manuscripts (and many thousands of Latin ones) that make up the Traditional Text family. Through collation, we can find what the exact words of God are. We can and we have.

The greatest collation ever done of reliable biblical textual resources was done by the dozens of great scholars that made up the King James translation committee. You could put our greatest modern Greek, Hebrew, or textual scholars up against any one of the KJV scholars and it would be no contest that the KJV men were vastly superior in academic, translation, and textual prowess. No modern textual critic could hold a candle to any of the men that worked on the KJV translation and collation. Even 400 years later, many textual experts agree that the collation of the Traditional Text manuscripts and resources that was completed in 1611 cannot be improved upon.

The great scholar, Dr. Edward Hill, said that the KJV is an independent edition of the Received Text. It is much more than just an immaculate English translation of the Bible. The base Greek and Hebrew text of the KJV should be the text that is followed in all our foreign Bible translations. This is not “double inspiration” or “Ruckmanism” as the ignorant critics claim, this is legitimate scholarship.

The King James Bible has for 400 years proved that it is the standard for textual purity. The collation done by its scholars is without fault. Over 6 billion copies of this Bible have been produced and distributed. This is likely more than all other Bible versions combined. It has been used as a resource in over 700 Bible translations and God has used it as the Bible of the modern mission’s movement and many great revivals.

The fact that the TBS found a corrupt Alexandrian reading in a random edition of the Received Text does not bother me, because I have a final authority. My final authority is the King James Bible and its base text. To me the text of the Bible is not flexible, its firm and unmovable. I have an authoritative Bible. I have a final authority.

The critics will quickly mock these statements with supposed gotcha questions like “where was the perfect Bible before 1611?” I will unashamedly answer that it was preserved in the manuscripts and ancient versions of the Traditional Text family. The difference between myself and the critics is that I believe that the pure text could be easily found through collation. Through comparison, the errors could be identified and eliminated. These textual critics are fine with the pure text being scattered amongst manuscripts so long as no one ever finds it. They want the ability, as the TBS does, to choose a corrupt reading from one edition of the Received Text and ignore the other. They want a flexible Bible. A Bible in which any corruption can be justified.

God’s Word is not lost, nor is it uncertain. It is perfectly preserved and available for us to read and follow today. We can find it in the King James Version in English as well as in all other foreign language translations that faithfully follow the Traditional Text of the Bible. The base text of the KJV and the KJV itself have been bulwarks against generations of liberal critics who seek to justify textual corruption. God has given us certainty as to what He said in His Word. We have a final authority.

Proverbs 22:21 That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; That thou

mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?