A strange mood of conflict permeates the modern inerrancy-inspiration controversy. The stage of conflict is not a drama of unbelievers against believers or fundamentalists versus modernists. It is now the verbal badinage of professing Bible believers attacking any who profess they possess the Word of God in the English language of the King James Version. The New-age Fundamentalism hurls stones and arrows of such vociferation that all who claim to possess God's perfect Word in English are considered men of "rabid insistence," "rank heresy," "obsession," are "cult-like or in fury," and a "heresy...arisen only in the last twenty-five to fifty years." Such is the written account of Bro. J.H. Melton, evangelist, in his three documents covering "two years" to describe those "uninformed (another word is more applicable) or dishonest or both" brethren, who would be so presumptuous as to consider a preacher of God's Word could actually possess the Word of God in the English language; especially if his claim considered the King James Bible the "Word of God in English."
Bro. Melton, in a monograph titled "To the Baptist Brethren," has indicated he has written to correct all this "rank heresy" in three (this monograph being the third) separate articles. These three articles I assume are (1) a letter to a concerned pastor dated June 1, 1985, (2) a Nov. 30, 1987, letter addressed, Dear Friend, and (3) the afore mentioned monograph "To the Baptist Brethren." Within these three documents are almost a dozen subjects of conflict which are addressed to present material which Bro. Melton has discussed. These areas are defined to correct all this wrong thinking about the Word of God and the King James Version. The various areas considered (some discussed at length while others are mentioned in passing) are:
1. Postulated Amentia of all who accept the
KJV as the Word of God in English.
2. The Original MSS.
3. Inspiration re. What is Inspired.
4. The KJV in particular.
5. The Character of King James.
6. The Apocrypha and the KJV.
7. The Preservation of the Scriptures.
8. The Translators and Inspiration.
9. Calvinism and Protestantism.
10. A Translation Corrector.
For convenience of review this outline will be followed. It should be apparent from the context and quotes relating to the context exactly what is reviewed under each point. For the reader's convenience of reference, the three articles reviewed of Evangelist Melton will be referred to as: #1 Pastoral letter of June 1, 1985; #2Dear Friend letter of Nov. 30, 1987; and #3the monograph: "To the Baptist Brethren. " Each document is numbered relative to its paragraphs and will be listed as a reference as "#1-1" meaning paragraph one of the Pastoral letter dated June 1, 1985, etc. with each document identified in this manner. In this plan of review those who have copies of the three references will be able to quickly locate the material and those who do not have the three references will know each document and its quotation by the number designations. Hopefully this will be satisfactory to supply any needed information.
It is never pleasant to find a principle of snobbery where one individual postures his right to speak on what he feels others do not possess. The snob principle usually finds its basis in the assumption of another man's ignorance and an over estimation of snobbery's intelligence. Bro. Melton denies from the very first the right to say anything relative to the KJV's being the Word of God by describing any such person as "uninformed (another word is more applicable) or dishonest or both." (#1-3). He concludes all who teach such are "not a faithful steward." (#1-3). Bro. Melton treats all the ignorant and uninformed to his qualifications (evidently standards set by himself for he names no other) stating, "I received my Bachelor of Arts Degree from Baylor in 1942 and my Master of Theology Degree from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in 1945. I had seventeen courses in Greek and eight courses in Hebrew in Baylor and Southwestern. I taught Greek and Hebrew in College." (#3-24).
If these qualifications give a person the right to speak, shall we next listen to the remaining class of Baylor and Southwestern graduates who have made their grades and received their degrees yet assure us such instruments as form criticism, J.P.E.D., and the evolutionary hypotheses are valid instruments to judge what constitutes the Word of God? If we permit this step, shall we also accept the Book of Mormon which Dr. Philip Johnson, a Mormon and language teacher, considers the Word of God? After all he is a man with a doctorate and not even honorary donated dignity. (See Norm Ellis, "Baylor Props LDS Beliefs Are Disturbing," The Southern Baptist Journal. Vol. 14, No. 2, July-Sept./86, p.l3) Or, shall we embrace the God denying concepts of Paul Tillich because of John P. Newport, Vice President of Academic Affairs and Provost at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote concerning Tillich's system it "is surely one of the most significant contributions to Christian thought in this century." (See James D. Bales and Herman Otten, "Newport and Atheist Tillich," The Southern Baptist Journal, Vol. 13, No. 3, p. 1).
Bro. Melton's position is clearly that which moves to create a new "priesthood" for Baptists. Baptists under this kind of thinking must have a priest of "scholarly qualifications" to interpret and translate for all the uninformed and dishonest. This Baptist rejects in total the innuendo of Bro. Melton, the principle of snobbery, and the very idea that education begets Truth. (I Cor. 8:1).
Bro. Melton uses as an instrument of knowledge certain assumptions concerning the "original MSS" of the Scriptures. He states,
The original manuscripts--the autographs--of the sixty-six books of the Word of God were infallible, inerrant, verbally inspired. The Word of God teaches that the Holy Spirit chose holy men of old to receive the Divine Revelation, which today we call the Word of God...We believe that the very words were inspired and this pertains to every book, every chapter, every verse of the original manuscripts. (#2-2).
In another paragraph, Bro. Melton states,
If your authority were the inerrant, infallible, verbally inspired autographs, your position for authority would not be called in question by this material. (#3-15).
Bro. Melton precedes the above with the statement: "There is not anything else that is the same as the original autographs." (#3-12). In this statement concerning the original autographs, we find more information that includes in fact Bro. Melton's definition of the Bible: "The Hebrew and Greek autographs are the inerrant, infallible, verbally inspired Word of God! The King James Version is a translation, and not the same thing as the Hebrew and Greek Autographs." (#2-6). To this Bro. Melton adds, "There never has been, there is not now, there never will be but one inerrant, infallible, verbally inspired writingthe original manuscripts of the sixty-six books comprising the one book, the Bible the Word of God." (#2-12).
No person who claims to be a Bible believer denies the inerrancy of the original autographs. This is really not an issue. It becomes a smoke-screen for hidden problems which surface when an analysis of what Bro. Melton has said is inspected. He claims several things in the previous quotes: (1) The original autographs were infallible, (2) Authority is only in the original autographs, (3) There is nothing like the autographs, (4) There will never be but one infallible writingthe autographs, and (5) The original autographs alone comprise the Bible, the Word of God. Bro. Melton contradicts himself by saying, "Yes, anyone and everyone in this day and every day since the writing of the New Testament has the Word of God preserved in the Greek manuscripts." (#2-5). He adds to this contradiction, "I believe...the Word of God, the sixty-six books in the autographs are absolutely without error. I do not believe this about any other writingversion, translation, etc." (#3-11). He continues, "There is not anything else that is the same as the original autographs." (#3-12). He concludes his argument saying, "There is only one Bible, the autographs comprising the sixty-six books of the Word of God. If that were your Bible, it could not be taken away from you." (#3-14). The problems and contradictions in Bro. Melton's statements are plain. He says every one has the Word of God in the Greek and Hebrew MSS and then says there is not anything else the same as the original autographs. He has defined himself right out of having a Bible in any languageGreek, Hebrew, English, or any other.
It is legitimate in a context of such false ideas concerning the Scripture and ultimately its preservation through the ages to ask, "What does Bro. Melton preach?" If he preaches anything but the original autograph, he, by his own statements, is preaching error. Bro. Melton has fallen prey to subjective relativity. He makes a claim for perfection in something that cannot be inspected because it flatly does not exist today for men to handle in its "original autograph. " The Son of God did not hold in His hands the original autographs. Yet, we find He referred to what He read as "Scripture. " (Lk. 4:21). Over twenty times Jesus said, "It is written. " This is in the perfect tense and expresses it is still written. The N.T. expresses in this way the preservation of the O.T. as Scripture in all three divisions: The LawIn. 8:17; the ProphetsLk. 19:46; and the Psalms or Writings Acts 1:20. Timothy is said to have "known the holy Scriptures." (II Tim. 3:15). Paul told Timothy in the next verse"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God..." (II Tim. 3:16). This is God's definition of Scripture. If it is Scripture, it is inspired; if it is inspired, it is Scripture. The facts are Timothy did not possess the original autographs, Jesus did not hold the original autographs, and Peter did not have the original autographs to read to the church in their meeting in Acts 1. Yet all these references are to God's Word, Divinely inspired, and Scripture. Every verse referred to is in the New Testament a quotation in Greek of the Old Testament Hebrew. This therefore, is a translation of the original and is the same inerrant Bible and considered Divinely inspired.
Bro. J.H. Melton deals with inspiration and what is inspired to deny the KJV is the Word of God. This is in fact done while confessing, "I use the KJV." (#1-16). It takes on a very significant aspect when Bro. Melton denies the KJV or any other translation or any other writing is inerrant, infallible, or inspired. (#1-15). Bro. Melton thus has denied what he preaches or translates is the Word of God. This is an evangelist hung on the horns of a "Quadrulema"he has no autograph; he has no inspired Greek or Hebrew; he has no translation; and he therefore has nothing to preach.
Bro. Melton evidently knows if he has no Bible, he actually has nothing to preach. He makes a compensating statement to humbly explain "if a boy with my background could learn to use the languages in which the Scriptures were verbally inspired, anyone else could if he desired to know what the Holy Spirit said instead of what is translated." (#3-24). But this statement cannot be proven by Bro. Melton's standards. The autographs are nowhere to be found. To ease past this problem, Bro. Melton claims "...Everyone in this day and every day since the writing of the New Testament has the Word of God preserved in the Greek manuscripts." (#2-5). Then we find another obstacle when Bro. Melton negates this position by claiming "the only absolutely inerrant, infallible, verbally inspired books ever written are the autographs of the sixty-six books constituting the one Book, the Bible, the Word of God." (#3-27). It appears the evangelist giveth and the evangelist taketh away, blessed be the game of the scholar for he hath said, "There is not anything else that is the same as the original autographs." (#3-12).
Bro. Melton, in denying the KJV is God's Word in English, says, "To claim the KJV does not have any errors or mistranslations is to claim for it verbal, plenary inspiration." (#1-5). He adds..."inspiration ceased with the Book of Revelation in the New Testament. " (#1-5). These are words spoken from the penumbra of sophism. It would be a difficult task to find many Bible believing Baptists who would deny the inspired canon closed with the Book of Revelation. There exist few if any who believe translators are inspired. The value of the KJV is not in its being a "newly inspired translation" but its value and position relative to inspiration, inerrancy and infallibility in its affinity to the autographs in expressing the identical message from God. The KJV men so violently opposed by Bro. J.H. Melton view the MS evidence which gives the basis for the KJV as the evidence of God's Divine Providence in preserving His Word as He said He would. Things equal to the same things are equal to each other. Bro. Melton denies this by producing instances he believes are errors in the KJV relating to words, transliterations, omissions, additions, etc. (These shall be addressed in section #4).
A new discovery is made by Bro. Melton when he postulates that believing the KJV is the Word of God in English "is a heresy which has arisen only in the last twenty-five to fifty years. " (#3-2). Actually, the turn of the century confrontation of Fundamentalism and Modernism coming as a result of the mid-nineteenth century rise of evolution and rationalism is the source of the theories relating to "inspiration only in the Originals." The Princeton theologians argued effectively with modernists concerning inerrancy and inspiration by basing their claims with "the original autographs were inspired. "
Lester DeKoster, back in 1977, discussed this time and area of controversy relative to the autographs. He called this the "lost Princeton Bible" and Greg Bahnsen wrote of him that he
...Has gone to the limit of his reach in pressing sarcasm into service against those who restrict inerrancy to the autographs; nobody can use those lost autographs; the Bible on our table is not the inerrant and infallible word of God, and so today the church has no inerrant Bible by which to live, and preaching is thereby made impossible because, it would be founded on the uninspired word of man. (See Greg L. Bahnsen, "The Inerrancy of the Autographs," in Inerrancy, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979, pp. 158, 159).
These modernistic claims and denials are exactly those of Bro. J.H. Melton in denying the Word of God in the KJV. Bro. Melton contends for a "lost Phantom" that not even our Lord held in His hand and He with Paul, Peter, and others claimed to handle, study, and preach the SCRIPTURES. This was not the autograph copy, was at times a translation, and always inerrant, infallible, and Divinely inspired. At least for the Scriptures quoted we are assured they are equal to the autographs though at times copies and translations. They were also considered inerrant and thus Divinely inspired. Yes, things equal to the same things are equal.
Bro. Melton speaking of the "heresy" of the KJV and inspiration being a mere twenty-five to fifty years of age adds for proof the statement:
The historic Baptist position has always been that the original manuscripts, and only the original manuscripts, were inerrant, infallible, verbally inspired. There has not been, and will not be this side of heaven, any other inerrant, infallible, verbally inspired writing. (#3-2)
This is a sophism and has no foundation. A study of history and Baptists always turns up controversy because history is only as accurate as the historian.
Since Bro. J.H. Melton gave us his SBC credentials of authority, let us quote from this source to find perhaps some insight into this historical claim. Leon McBeth, Professor of Church History, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary wrote:
During the Elliott controversy and the struggle over the Broadman Bible Commentary, the term "inerrancy" was rarely used, even by the most extreme conservatives. At that time, the word most used by Baptists to describe the Bible was "infallible." The comprehensive Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists, with three large volumes published in 1971, has no article on inerrancy, though it has several various views of Biblical inspiration. No major Baptist confession of faith has ever specified a belief that inspiration was limited to the inerrancy of the original writings. Neither W.W. Barner nor Robert A. Baker, widely respected historians mention inerrancy in his history of the Southern Baptist Convention Bakers book, published in 1974, deals with recent theological controversy in an objective fashion and does not mention inerrancy as a major issue. One is forced to conclude that inerrancy understood to be limited to the original autographs of Scripture, is a recent issue in Southern Baptist life, though the concept was known earlier. (See Leon McBeth, "Fundamentalism in The Southern Baptist Convention in Recent Years," Review And Expositor. Louisville: Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Vol. LXXIX, No. 1, 1982, p.96).
This does not give much credibility to Bro. Melton's claim of the "Historic Baptist" position. (#3-2). The "Historic Baptist Position" is a matter of historical fact evidenced by statements on this subject. Historians can search back to the mid 1800's and find liberals and modernists attacking the KJV as the Word of God and its value. This is the very area of history that produced Westcott and Hort and all those who fell under their influence sweeping the "scholarly" into a common bin of bashing the KJV. History, however, goes back two hundred more years to the birth of the KJV. Instances of historical confession of The KJV as the preserved Word of God in English can be openly attested from its translation to our day.
William Kiffin, who signed the 1644 Baptist Confession, wrote:
Now it is no less than blasphemy to charge either of these (he is referring to "viscousness to be corrected or a defect to be supplied") upon the pure and perfect Word of God, and any glosses that take away or diminish the force of it, or human traditions that argue any defect, or equally dangerous and impious. (See William Kiffin, A Sober Discourse of Right To Church Communion. London: Printed by George Larkin, 1681, pp. B5,B6).
McGlothlin records the London 1644 Confession of Faith and in this confession we find:
VII The rule of this knowledge, Faith and obedience, concerning the worship and service of God, and all other Christian duties, is not man's inventions, opinions, devices, lawes, constitution, or tradition unwritten whatsoever, but only the Word of God contained in the canonical! Scriptures.
VIII In this written Word God hath (Note they do not confuse "had" in the originals etc.) plainly revealed whatsoever he hath thought needful for us to know, believe, and acknowledge...
They plainly believed they possessed the pure Word of God in their KJV English translation. Hansord Knollys who was in America in 1638 wrote:
As the whole Scripture being given by inspiration of God, is the revelation (Note: it is not said was the revelation in the originals) of His holy will, Eph. 3:4,5. So this last part of the Holy Scripture is (Note, not "was") the Revelation of Jesus Christ...
That the churches might know that this (Note: not the original autograph copy) is also that part of the Holy Scripture of Truth unto which nothing is to be added, nor anything taken away. (See Hansord Knollys, An Exposition of the Book of the Revelation. London: William Marshall, 1689, pp.2,8.).
William Kiffin also believed he possessed the Word of God in English. He wrote in his commentary on the right to Church communion:
Now these are some of the properties of a General Rule to try controversies by...Recorded in the Scriptures, which were given our instruction, II Tim. 3:16 written by the immediate dictates of the Spirit preserved by the gracious providence of God in the church from the injuries of time, ignorance, and fraud through all ages: they have been kept with much greater care than any other books translated into all languages, retained both by orthodox and heretics, diligently observing and watching each other, so that there could not possibly happen any remarkable variation or alteration in them, but that presently the whole world would have exclaimed against it. (See William Kiffin, A Sober Discourse of Right to Church Communion. London, Printed by George Larkin, 1681, pp. B2,B3).
It is profitable to note this historic brother believed he possessed the Word of God in English preserved by the providence of God and with no alteration.
The London Confession of the English Baptists signed by both Kiffin and Knollys states concerning the Scripture:
8. The Old Testament in Hebrew, (which was the Native Language of the people of God of old) and the New Testament in Greek, which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, and therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of Religion, the Church is filially to appeal unto them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the scriptures, and are commanded to fear God to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation, unto which they come, that the word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope. (See W.J. McGlothlin, Baptist Confessions of Faith. Boston: American Baptist Publication Society, 1911, p.230).
Here again is the Word of God in English and preserved by the hand of God"KEPT PURE IN ALL AGES." This shows historically what Baptists believed.
The Baptists in America adopted the Philadelphia Confession of Faith in 1742 which is "an exact reprint of the Assembly Confession of 1689, with the addition of...Articles (2), taken verbatim from Keach's Confession." (See McGlothlin, op.cit., p.297).
In the circular letter of Abel Morgan is a real testimony of "Historical Baptists." Morgan wrote:
The Scriptures are likewise useful...Hence, be exhorted, brethren, to consider what a special privilege God has granted you, and continued with you. The BIBLE IN YOUR HANDS! (emp. mine). Let this Word of God dwell richly in your hearts... Some are forbid the use of the Bible, others are taught and persuaded to slight the Scriptures, while others again corrupt the Word of God... and always admire God and praise Him for His special kindness in giving you the Holy Bible.) (See A.D. Gillette, ed. The Minutes of the Philadelphia Association. Otisville: Baptist Book Trust Reprint, 1851, p.137).
These are American Baptists who were told in 1774 to thank God for their Bible. It was God's Word "in your hands" and the KJV in English is what is marked out as the Historical Baptists' Book of God!!!
Bro. J.H. Melton has an unusual body of contradictions in his approach to the KJV. His approach is from the standpoint of "I use the KJV" (#1-16). and "I use only the King James Version in my meetings..." (#4-1). He adds to this "I have never attacked the BIBLE. PERIOD." (#3-16). Added to this idea is the claim "The KJV is the most divisive issue among independent Baptists today." (#1-4). He explains this point saying, "...there is so much propaganda on the one side of the issue, I feel I should address the other side. " (#1-4). The other side evidently is the utter denial of the KJV for he states, "There are errors in the King James Version. " (#1-9). He openly calls all who believe the KJV is the Word of God men who occupy a position of "a Satanic Protestant teaching" equating "the claim of inerrancy for the KJV is in the same category." (#1-12). He contends in words of contradiction "the King James Version is the most beautiful and one of the best translations we havebut it is NOT inerrant, infallible or inspired. Neither is any other translation or any other writing. The antiquated Shakespearean English of the KJV is difficult of understanding." (#1-15). He adds to this denial the Apocrypha in the KJV "proves that the King James Version is not inerrant" and precedes this with the claim "good men are blinded by traditionalism and emotion on this issue." (#3-5).
The product of the above claims is an obvious body of accusations and denials. The end result is no person can preach the Word of God for no one has the Word of God. Bro. Melton says he always uses the KJV in his meetings and then denies it is the Word of God. This means by his own admission he is not a preacher of the Word. He says there are obvious errors in the KJV. This means by his own admission he preaches from an error filled book of obvious mistakes. He says he has never attacked the Bible. He viciously attacks the KJV. This means he declares the KJV is NOT the Word of God. Bro. Melton classes all who claim the KJV is the Word of God as Satanic and Protestant. The obvious world of contradictions Bro. Melton hides behind is a swarthy threnody of words against all who know if you have no Bible, you have nothing to preach. It would do well if our evangelist recognized he is speaking from two directions. To preach inspiration is in the originals and deny there is any preserved Word of God inerrant today is to contend there is NO SCRIPTURE TO PREACH. If there is no message to preach, one wonders why our evangelist continues to poison peoples' minds from a well of errors, Satanic Protestant heresy, and antiquated difficult to understand Shakespearean English. It is a blatant exposition of mendacity to hold such a position against the KJV and state, "Let us continue to use the King James Version, but not to claim for it inerrancy." (#3-26). It leaves the pastor with the obligation to direct his peoples' attention to the position of not believing the text of the message but accept the message of the preacher. Indeed we are faced with a gospel of philosophy in words from a hierophany that excels in quality the very Word of God.
To validate claims of errors in the KJV and it not being the pure Word of God, Bro. J.H. Melton has gleaned from the KJV a series of proofs to illustrate he truly knows. He postulates one of the most grievous errors in the KJV is the usage of the word "church." (#1-9 & #3-6). Several statements are basic to the alleged "most grievous" error. He states "the translators were ordered by King James not to use assembly or congregation, but to use a word with a more universal meaning...The word 'church' has associations and connotations utterly foreign to the 'ekklesia' of the New Testament." (#1-9 c/f #3-6). Bro. Melton adds,
The King James Version is, to a large degree, responsible for confusion about the doctrine of the ecclesia, the 'assembly.' The King James Version used 'church ,' a word which has connotations utterly foreign to ecclesia. (#2-7). And while it is true that Martin Luther invented the invisible, universal church heresy, it is also true that the King James Version is responsible for the contemporary popular acceptance of this heresy. The KJV is responsible for using the word 'church' instead of the word 'assembly.' The word 'church' is not a translation of the word 'ekklesia,' but of 'kuriakos.' The KJV translators used the word 'church' because it had more of the meaning of universal. The KJV translators were universal church men. (#3-21).
While honesty demands the admission of the meaning of "Kuriakos" as meaning that which belongs to the Lord, it is also equally demanded that Bro. Melton's insisting "ekklesia" means "assembly" has a problem of equal or greater existence in his own usage. "Assembly" in English comes from the Old French meaning a gathering of persons. "Ekklesia" is from two Greek words meaning "out" and "to call." The full thrust means in the N.T. theological usage a local visible body called out for a specific purpose. Jesus called this "my church" (Matt. 16: 18) which certainly gives the connotation of belonging to the Lord. Even the sixth meaning of "church" in the Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary states the meaning as "A body of Christian believers having the same creed, rites, etc." (p.148). The word "church" in its history goes back in English (Middle English) with the meaning relative to "kurios" a lord, originally mighty and this from kuros - strength c/f Sanskirt cure - a hero. (See Walter W. Skeat, Etymological Dictionary of the English Language. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1901, p.90). In 1340 The Apostle's Creed in English translated ultimately from Greek states, "Ich y-leve ine ye holy gost. Holy cherche general ische." (See A.C. Champneys, History of English. London: Rivington, Percival and Co., 1893, p.263). It is to be noted the date is 1340 or 271 years before the KJV and the word "cherche"church is even THEN translated as such for "ekklesia." It is also a fact Wickiff uses "churche" even though he translates the N.T. from Latin; the point is in 1380 he uses the term "church" as opposed to assembly (Mt. 16:18). William Tyndale, in 1534, uses "my congregation" in his translation as does the Cranmer Bible in 1539 and the Geneva of 1557. "Congregate" comes from the Latin - "to collect into a flock" (See Skeat, op.cit., p.107). This would not help Luther much as he would simply state an "invisible universal flock." It would in fact be more to the point for Bro. Melton to take Scripture and define "church" theologically rather than blunder in 1611 "archaic hard to understand English" trying to dig up an "error." This would at least help in not having to make new signs, business cards, letter heads etc. to get "church" removed so there would no longer be universal church theology.
Bro. Melton gives absolutely no proof of his claims nor examples of history to validate the statement the KJV is responsible for confusion re. the doctrine of the ecclesia. The universal church theory existed years before King James was even born. The term "church" was used years before Martin Luther and its usage determined its meaning years before the KJV of 1611 even into Kentish English of 1340.
Another "error" Bro. Melton parallels with church doctrine is the blast at I Cor. 12:13. He makes four statements concerning this verse of Scripture in the KJV. Bro. Melton says "the KJV of I Cor. 12:13 is an inexcusable translation responsible for the heretical universal church and Holy Spirit baptism teachings. The Scripture should be translated, 'In one spirit were we all baptized into one body.' " (#1-13). He adds to this "the King James Version is responsible, to a large degree, for the false teaching that the church began on the day of Pentecost by the Holy Spirit baptism into an invisible, universal body. " (#2-7). He repeats his claim for the translation "In one spirit were we all baptized into one body." "The Greek verb translated 'are' by the KJV translators is in the Aorist Tense. It has an augment. The failure of the KJV translators to translate in the past tense can only be attributed to their desire to teach universal church and Holy Spirit baptism. The Holy Spirit never baptized anyone. " (#3-9 c/f #2-7). Later he comments on this verse again saying,
You did not get your local church belief from the King James Version. Thousands of so-called Baptists men got their universal church doctrine from the King James translation. The King James mistranslation of I Cor. 12:13 is responsible for most of the interdenominationalism rampant in the world today. (#3-22).
Proof of these claims is woefully lacking and is based mainly on assumption. First, the translation Bro. Melton submits is not really that much better nor more accurate. The preposition "en" is translated in the N.T. "in" 1863 times; "with" 139 times; "by" 142 times; and "among"114 times. "By" is a legitimate translation. The problem arises in the use of the preposition: "by" as instrumental or locative.
"By" can be a dative of sphere as well as an instrumental dative. Bro. Melton has insisted on "in" when "by" can just as easily mean "By one Spirit" in the sense of the leadership of the Holy Spirit. He, the Holy Spirit, leads to be baptized into the true local church. Bro. Melton condemns the translation "are we all baptized into one body" saying the Aorist with augment must be past tense etc. His ability to read the King James translators' minds is not based on fact but assumption even as he missed the truth by claiming "you did not get your local church belief from the King James Version." I am one who did and all the men I know who are local church KJV preachers give the same testimony. Few of them lived before 1611 and none of them accept the perversions of our contemporary thinkers.
Perhaps the real area of concern is the understanding of the English language. While I agree with the normal aspect of the Greek Aorist Tense mentioned by Bro. Melton, it is a fact the Aorist is expressed dependent on the verbal aktionsart: "With the culminative aorist, although the verb simply related the act, the focus of attention is upon the results or consequences of that act. English translations will often use the perfect tense for this function." (See J.A. Hewett, New Testament Greek. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1986, pp.69,70). In the Elizabethan English of the KJV we learn from the historical use of English "if the past tense and past participle were 'for practical purposes' the same, then the past tense could be used for the past participle. Instances of this are by no means uncommon in Shakespeare." (See A.C. Champneys, History of English. London: Revington, Percival and Co., pp.334-335). Certainly the Holy Spirit does not and has never baptized anyone (Mt. 3:11; Mk. 1 :8) and we also see plainly, even in the English of I Cor. 12:13, that water baptism is meant and that into the local church of I Cor. 12:15,22,25, etc. "Baptized" is passive as stated by Melton and also an Aorist verb as stated. But, the action that our attention is drawn to is more than just "were" because the believers still "are" baptized if they ever were Scripturally in that condition.
Bro. Melton says of Acts 12:4 and "Easter""In Acts 12:4, the Greek word translated 'Passover' elsewhere in the New Testament is mistranslated 'Easter.' " (#1-14). He later says, "Another error or mistranslation (take your choice) is in Acts 12:4, where the Greek word translated 'Passover' elsewhere in the New Testament is mistranslated 'Easter.' " (#3-10). Bro. Melton shows a lack of two things in this ill-founded claim. First, he neglects the context of the verse for it is a season that is also noted. Second, in English the season or time of year marked as the Passover Season has for years been expressed in English as "Easter." The KJV translators did not invent this usage nor were they wrong. The Geneva Bible of 1557 translates Acts 12:4 as "Easter. " This is also true of the 1539 Cranmer Bible"Easter," and the Tyndale Bible of 1534 "ester." This takes the time element back almost 100 years for the usage of "Easter." Alfric, at the beginning of the eleventh century, wrote a Homily using the term Easter: "Fram dam halgan easterlican (Easter) daege sind getealde fiftig daga to pysum daege, and des doeg is gehaten Pentaecostes, paet is, se fifteogoda daeg paere easterlican tide (Easter season). (See Champneys, op.cit., p.178). This calls the Passover season "Easter" season and it is some five hundred years plus before the KJV saw its publication with "Easter" in Acts 12:4. It thus shows the KJV men were "right on" and Bro. Melton flat wrong.
Bro. Melton charges the KJV with gross error in the treatment of the Greek proposition "en" relative to "baptism" and says:
In Matthew 3:11, the KJV reads, "I indeed baptize you with water." The KJV translators used 'with' instead of 'in' because the Church of England sprinkles. They translated 'unto repentance' because they believed baptism saved! A man who says the KJV is without error contends for the inerrancy of a baptismal regeneration translation. (#1-10)
Bro. Melton repeats this claim in #3-7. The historical fact is the Church of England immersed up to the time of 1611 and James I. Sir John Floyer is quoted by Crosby stating:
I shall only now further observe, that the practice of immersion or dipping in baptism, continued in the church until the reign of James I or about the year 1600. (See Thomas Crosby, History of the English Baptists. Lafayette: C.H.R.A. Reprint, Vol. II, p.xlvi).
John Christian writing of this same subject quotes Sir John Floyer and his note from John Lightfoot. It is interesting that they both are said to speak of immersion as the mode of Church of England baptism to 1644.
Christian quotes Floyer who said:
The age which has practiced sprinkling in England began 1644, and to the present year are 77 years (Floyer, An Essay To Restore the Dipping of Infants, 61. London, 1722). Once more Floyer says: 'Dr. Lightfoot wrote about 1644, near the time that sprinkling was introduced' (ibid. 33). (See John T. Christian, A History of the Baptists. Texarkana: Baptist Sunday School Committee, 1922, Vol. I, p.173).
The fact of the matter is "en" can be translated "in" or "with" and to claim "with" is an error that produced "baptismal regeneration" is historically wrong. Before the English language had the word "with" men had invented "baptismal regeneration."
Bro. Melton argues the transliteration of "baptidzo" in the KJV makes the version "responsible, to a large degree, for the baptismal regeneration heresy." (See #1-10; #2-7; and #3-7). How could this be possible if "baptismal regeneration" was taught BEFORE the KJV? It is sad indeed that such statements are made to condemn the very Scripture Bro. Melton confesses he uses. (c/f #1-4 and #1-16).
Romans 8: 1 is given as an example of "error" in the KJV. Bro. Melton says, "The words 'who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit,' are not in the best Greek manuscripts. The addition of these words by the translators denies the saving efficacy of the blood of Jesus. " (#1-11; see also #3-8). Several points are wrong in the conclusions Bro. Melton has jumped to. The matter of "best manuscripts" is a matter of debate and a subjective statement of sophism. The interpretation of Rom. 8: l that says the words denied to the text teach a denial of the saving efficacy of the blood of Christ is a wrong interpretation to say the least. Bro. Melton misses the difference in "evidential salvation" and "experiential salvation." If his claim to deny these words from 8: l is valid, why does he not protest on the same grounds (best MSS etc.) that they should be dropped from Rom. 8:4???
His whole move seems to revolve around a bias against the KJV based on his own intellectual superiority. He says in denial of the superiority of the KJV texts:
This is one of the greatest monstrosities perpetrated concerning this heresy...The King James translation came from the Stephanus Text, which came from the Erasmus Text. The Erasmus Text was a Catholic Text, dedicated to the Pope. The concoction of the 'pure and corrupt' Greek manuscripts is a heresy promulgated by the King James Inerrantists. Dr. A.T. Robertson, perhaps the greatest Greek scholar who ever lived, said that there is not one one-thousandth of a difference between the Textus Receptus and the Westcott and Hort Text, and that no major doctrine is affected by that difference. (See #3-16).
When I remember Bro. Melton has condemned the KJV because it is a "Protestant Bible" and a "Church of England" Bible (See #3-4; #2-10; and #1-7), I am made to wonder why he uses all those friendly adjectives to describe as heresy, monstrosity, obsession, uninformed, dishonest, etc. etc. all who believe the KJV is the Word of God in English. If there is only one one-thousandth difference and NO doctrinal changes, what is the problem with the Greek? How does this conform to the bold statements concerning Rom. 8: 1; Mk. 16: 15; Acts 2:38; or 22: 16? The problem is there is a difference and it is a big one whether admitted by J.H. Melton, A.T. Robertson, or any other person. John William Burgon has catalogued nearly 6,000 changes Westcott and Hort made in differing with the Greek of the KJV. (See John W. Burgon, The Revision Revised. Paradise: Conservative Classics, 1883, p.107). The Westcott and Hort work on the New Testament and its Greek is a work of revision basically of Church of England influence and other Protestants, and even a Unitarian. The work is unacceptable not because of its Church ties but its utter abandoning of true Greek readings.
It is no secret that Westcott and Hort used the B and Aleph MSS as their guide with B holding the position of primacy. B and Aleph are two Uncial MSS prepared by Eusebius as directed by Constantine. In the Aleph MS a colophon at the close of Ezra (and a similar one follows Esther) connects the MS with the gnostic work of the School of Alexandria and Origen. The colophon states: "Taken and corrected according to the Hexpla of Origen, Antonius compared (it), Pamphilus (I) corrected (it)." (KJ-translation). (See F.H.A. Schrivener, A Plain Introduction to New Testament Criticism. London: George Bell and Sons, 4th Edition, 1894, p.55). For a person to speak of the Traditional Text as a "heresy promulgated by the King James inerrantists" and write off the Erasmus Text as a "Catholic Text" is symbolic of bias founded on prejudice. Erasmus did not invent the Traditional Text. Ximenes who collated the Complutension Polyglot gave a text to the world like that of Erasmus yet they were not working together. The facts of the case indicate openly for all to see that the eclectic and W. & H. texts along with Nestle, Souter, Tischendorf et.al. are corrupt based on A, B. Aleph, D, L, etc. All translations since the 1881 work of Westcott and Hort are from corrupt influences and reflect it in the doctrine they present. This of course is a point of debate, but so be it.
Bro. J.H. Melton follows a predictable path in his attack on King James' personality and morals to gain some foundation for condemning the King James translation. He makes five attempts to bring the King's moral flaws to bear as proof of the unworthiness of the KJV:
King James was a homosexual (#1-6)...was a bitter persecutor of our forefathers. (ibid. and repeated in #2-9).
Bro. Melton confuses the morals of Henry VIII and James I by making James the evident heir of Henry's corruption as head of the Protestant Church of England. (#1-7). Bro. Melton also declares James' position as a leading cause of claimed defects in the KJV:
King James chose the King James translators, instructed the King James translators, approved and disapproved portions of the translations. The final completed translation was presented to King James. The dedication of the translation 'to the high and mighty King James' should remove any question as to whether he was a vital part of the translation. (#3-25).
This information is supposed to convince of the reckless determined errors of an error filled translation. A translation in fact which Bro. Melton says he uses. (c/f #1-4 and #1-6). Of course he does admit he "corrects" those portions he determines are errors. We know by his own confession that his 17 courses in Greek and 8 in Hebrew makes him the final authority for he went to Baylor, Southwestern Seminary (SBC) and has a son who is a Harvard man (we shall not hold that against him; I even went to a Lutheran seminary and I am no Protestant).
While no one would claim moral perfection for King James, it is equally true Bro. Melton was born a sinner and saved by grace out of and from the condemnation of sin. David was a morally bankrupt man when he lusted for Uriah's wife and took her for his own. He murdered Uriah and then married his widow. This man wrote Scripture that God's Spirit inspired. He was not even a man working on something so lowly as a "translation." He did "directly" put God's Word on the pages of Psalms. Even Moody Monthly, no friend of the KJV, admitted "when the actual work of the translation later began, however, James had nothing to do with it. He refused to undertake any financial responsibility for the project, and the formal authorization required by English law was never imposed." (See Moody Monthly, "The Real King James." July/August, 1985, p.88).
Trying to blacken the KJV with the sins of King James is a sad weakness. It would hold more credibility to mark by research the documents of the translators and display their work to change the Scripture or deny them. Yet, in the "translator's Preface to the Authorized Version" we find:
We commend thee to God, and to the Spirit of His grace, which is able to build further than we can ask or think. He removeth the scales from our eyes, the veil from our hearts, opening our wits that we may understand His Word, enlarging our hearts, yea, correcting our affections, that we may love it above gold and silver, yea, that we may love it to the end.
It would profit Bro. Melton to measure his credentials with a standard other than self. The actual work of translation and the KJV was by men with abilities not matched in our day.
Bro. J.H. Melton openly makes the claim that any Bible with the Apocrypha included is not truly inerrant:
No knowledgeable and honest person denies that the books of the Apocrypha were a part of the 1611 King James Version. This fact alone proves that the King James Version is not inerrant. (#3-5).
He earlier declares:
The original KJV had the books of the Apocryphal. The first KJV not to have the books of the Apocrypha was the 1690 edition. This is not surprising, given the Catholic origin of the Church of England and all other Protestant denominations. Baptists do not have any more kinship to Protestants than we do to Catholics. (#1-8).
It is also said after scoffing at those who believe they have the Word of God in the KJV:
If they hold in their hands the original KJV 1611, they hold in their hands books of the Apocrypha, for the books of the Apocrypha were a part of the King James Version until the seventh edition. (#2-4).
In the above statements, Bro. Melton does two things. First, he does tell the truth about the Apocrypha being included in the early editions of the KJV. Second, he does not bring to our attention the evidence the translators believed this to be a part of the inspired Word of God. This leaves a blank spot in his own thinking. For instanceif Bro. Melton quotes the Greek of the eclectic text of the United Bible Societies, is he saying the fifty-five pages of titles, Preface, Introduction, Bibliography are a part of their New Testament and the Word of God? Can we also conclude he believes their critical apparatus is part of their New Testament and thus included in the Word of God?
I personally do not entertain the thought for a moment that such thinking on our brother's part is true; he is more highly esteemed than such. Curiosity, if nothing else, should have provoked a look at the translator's purpose in adding the Apocrypha to the early KJV editions. No one thinks the footnotes, marginal references, or other aids of the 1917 Scofield Bibles are a part of the Scripture from God. William Muir writing of the KJV and the Apocrypha says:
Yet in 1604 a company was appointed to translate these books (Apocrypha), very much as a matter of course. NOT (emph. mine) that the translators of the Authorized Version thought of the Apocrypha as having the same authority or as being of the same value as the other books...In 1629, one edition of the Authorized Version actually appeared without the Apocrypha...Dr. Lightfoot, preaching before the House of Commons in St. Margaret's (1643), Westminister, spoke of the "wretched Apocrypha"... The Church of England adopted Jerome's view, and the sixth Article reads that "the Church doth read (these books) for example of life and instruction of manners, but yet doth not apply them to establish any doctrine." (See William Muir, Our Grand Old Bible. London: Morgan and Scott Ltd., 1911, pp.l45-150).
This Sixth Article mentioned above is from a 1571 translation from the Latin of 1563. (See Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977, Vol.3, pp.490,491). This evidence reveals the translators had a far better perspective on Scripture than Bro. J.H. Melton incorrectly asserts. (And this is inspire of his Harvard son's giving to him a "large King James translation of the Bible published in 1823"). (See #3-30).
Bro. J.H. Melton has several statements that indirectly define his concept of the Word of God, revelation, and inspiration. The statements also present another thrust which is contrary to fact in their denial of preservation of the Word of God. He states of this subject:
The last piece of literature to be revealed from God the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Trinity, was the Book of Revelation in the New Testament. There has not been a Divine revelation since the Book of Revelation, and there will not be another Divine revelation this side of heaven. All that we need to know about the Lord and His dealings with men this side of heaven is in the inerrant, infallible, verbally inspired Word of God. The Book of Revelation was verbally inspired. There has not been any other verbally inspired book since the Book of Revelation, and there will not be this side of heavennot any other piece of literature, translation, version, cult writing, etc. (See #2-3).
We believe that the very words were inspired, and this pertains to every book, every chapter, every verse of the original manuscripts. (See #2-2).
...Anyone and everyone in this day and every day since the writing of the New Testament has the Word of God preserved in the Greek Manuscripts. (See #2-5).
Bro. Melton displays a weak position and does not recognize the problem he presents in contradictions and Scripture conflict. We must totally agree the Scripture closed as to Canon with the Book of Revelation. This means God is not inspiring new revelation material or speaking prophets etc. It does not mean, however, that we do not have the inspired Word of God preserved. Bro. Melton says (#2-2), "The words were inspired...every verse of the original manuscripts." He next says, "All that we need to know about the Lord...is in the inerrant, infallible, verbally inspired Word of God." (See #2-5).
These three statements contradict the facts. We possess no autograph copy of Scripture (the originals). We are told "inspired" pertains to the "originals," not to "any other piece of literature, translation, version, cult writing, etc." While we deny any NEW Scripture has been given since the close of the New Testament, it is a Scriptural fact God has promised to preserve His Word: I Pet. 1 :19-21; Isa. 40:8; I Pet. 1:23-25; and Ps. 119:89,160.
In all the public ministry of Christ, He never once handled a scroll of Scripture and expounded on its errors or weakness as a copy. Christ quoted the manuscripts of the Jews as the Word of God! The Apostles never once explained they were only giving part of the truth when they quoted Greek translation of Hebrew passages for New Testament saints' instruction. They spoke of what IS written and never used a past tense verb WAS to confuse the issue by indicating the Scripture no longer existed. Bro. Melton has asserted:
The historic Baptist position has always been that the original manuscripts, and ONLY (emph. mine) the original manuscripts were inerrant, infallible, verbally inspired! (See #3-2).
Such a claim is historically inaccurate and theologically false (c/f also III.)
London Confession of 1644 VII The rule of this knowledge, faith, and obedience concerning the worship and service of God, and all other Christian duties, is not man's inventions, opinions, devices, lawes, constitutions, or tradition unwritten whatsoever, but only the Word of God contained in the canonical Scriptures.
VIII In this written Word God HATH (note it is not had) plainly revealed whatsoever he hath thought needful for us to know, believe and acknowledge...
Second London Confession Chapter 1, #8 8. The Old Testament in Hebrew, (which was the native language of the people of God of old) and the New Testament in Greek, (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations being immediately inspired by God), and His singular care and providence KEPT PURE IN ALL AGES (emph. mine), are therefore authentical;
New Hampshire Confession Article I The Holy Bible...has God for its author...truth without any mixture or error for its matter, that it...Therefore is, and SHALL REMAIN TO THE END OF THE WORLD...(emph. mine).
It should also be noted that these Baptists in their confession quote II Tim. 3:16-17 and Prov. 30:5-6 from the KJV indicating they believed in preservation and give the KJV as evidence of the historical fact. (See E.T Hiscox, New Directory for Baptist Churches. Grand Rapids: Kregei Publications, 1974 reprint of the 1894 edition, p.543).
Philadelphia Confession 1742 The Old Testament in Hebrew...and the New Testament in Greek being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, ARE (emph. mine) therefore authentical... (See William Cathcart, The Baptist Encyclopedia, Vol. II, p. 1312).
The Philadelphia Association The Scriptures are likewise useful...Hence, be exhorted, brethren, to consider what a special privilege God has granted you and CONTINUED WITH YOU (emph. mine). The BIBLE IN YOUR HANDS! (emph. mine) Let this Word of God dwell richly in your hearts...(See A.D. Gillette, ed. The Minutes of The Philadelphia Association, pp. 136-137).
The Waldensean Baptists Their (Vaudois5 Waldenses) doctrines were equally analogous, or rather were remarkably identical with those of the Apostolic times, and of the earliest fathers of the church. They may be briefly summed up in these words:...'We believe that all which is contained in the Old and New Testaments is sealed and authenticated by the seal of the Holy Spirit,...And that the whole law of Christ is so firmly established in truth, that NOT ONE LETTER NOR ONE POINT OF IT CAN BE LACKING OR FAIL' (emph. mine). (See Alexis Muston, The Israel of the Alps, Vol. I, pp.20-21).
I (Robert Olivetan) present this precious treasure in the name of a certain poor people thy friends and brethren in Jesus Christ, who ever since they were blessed and enriched there with BY THE APOSTLES (emph. mine) and ambassadors of Christ, have still enjoyed and POSSESSED THE SAME (emph. mine) out of the Hebrew and Greek cabinets, and having wrapt up the same (note-SAME) in a French mantle...Thou hast nothing left thee but voice and words (yet) the Word of Truth and Life, the Word of God which endureth forever. . . (See Samuel Morland, History of The Evangelical Churches of the Piedmont. London: Henry Hills, His Highness' Printer, 1658, p.17).
"Historic Baptists" have believed from the first that they had the Scripture in hand and have continued to have the same by the Providential care of God.
One of the strange arguments men have argued against the KJV and its being the Word of God in English is the proclamation of a smoke screen: "The translators were not and are not inspired." To this we admit the truth is spoken. Even the Apostles were not inspired; it is the Word of God that is inspiredHeb. 1:1. Bro. Melton correctly states, "The King James translators did not claim verbal inspiration for their translation." (#3-3). He then asks all "claimants of KJV inerrancy" to read the statement of the translators. The indication he would like to leave is that the translators did not believe they had the Word of God and were trying to update the English to a better position. Reading paragraph four of the document in question one finds:
The Scriptures then being acknowledged to be so full and so perfect, how can we excuse ourselves of negligence, if we do not study THEM? (emph. mine).
Paragraph 8 ...They provided translations into the vulgar for their countrymen, insomuch that most nations under heaven did shortly after their conversion hear Christ speaking to them in their mother tongue, not by the voice of their minister only, but also by the written word translated.
Paragraph 12 ...The very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God.
The translators truly made no claim to being inspired but purposed to bring to the English speaking people of their day the Word of God in English from its vessels of the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic storehouse of the Eternal Word.
Bro. Melton also refers to some who would feign correct the Greek and Hebrew with the KJV. (#2-4). I have never heard of such animals who would state such as Bible believing Baptists. If they exist, they are wrong. How can the perfect originals be improved? They can only be duplicated by equal expression.
Bro. J.H. Melton makes a passing slur at all those "Calvinists," "Satanic Protestant teaching," and proclaims his theology of "unlimited atonement." (See #1-12 and #3-28). He, very ignorant of history and theology, says, "Calvinism is a Satanic Protestant teaching." (See #1-12). Calvin was a heretic; he baptized babies and formed a state church. His principle of theology which relates to "predestination" was taught him by Farel, a Waldensean Baptist. Calvin did not invent what Bro. Melton claims is Satanic. History validates without question this fact:
Aeneas Sylveus (afterward Pope Pius II) declares the doctrine taught by Calvin to be the same as that of the Waldenses. In this opinion he was followed John de Cardonne, who, in his life of the Monk of the Vallies of Sernay, thus quaintly expresses himself,
'What the sect of Geneva doth admit, The Albigenses did commit,' To these impartial testimonies, which are more than sufficient to settle the question of family likeness, I shall only add that of the learned Limborch professor of divinity in the university of Amsterdam, and that of Dr. Mosheim, the ecclesiastical historian. The former, comparing them with the Christians of his own time, says 'To speak candidly what I think, of all the modern sects of Christians, the Dutch Baptists most resemble both the Albigenses and Waldenses.' The latter, not withstanding the flimsy, confused, and, in many instances, the erroneous account which he has given of the Waldenses, yet has expressly owned, that 'before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay concealed, in almost all the countries of Europe, persons who adhered tenaciously to the principles of the modern Dutch Baptists.' (See William Jones, The History of the Waldenses. London: Gale and Fenner, 1816, Vol. II, p.88).
This writer patiently waits the publication of Bro. Melton's A Biblical Baptist Systematic Theology with a "strong emphasis on unlimited atonement." Only Baptists of recent years have held to such universalism. Apslund shows in 1790 there were 795 Regular or Particular "atonement" Baptist churches in America and 30 General provision or Arminian variety. About the same time men developed doubts of the Word of God being preserved they also put salvation in the hands of men rather than leaving it in the heart of God. I hope someone will send me a complimentary set of this work for the purpose of reviewing the same.
Besides being one who speaks in condemnation of all who profess to have the Word of God in English, Bro. Melton proclaims himself an instrument to explain the Hebrew and Greek in the BEST way. He humbly states:
When a word or passage in the KJV is not rendered in the BEST POSSIBLE MANNER (emph. mine) from the Hebrew or Greek text, I try to explain some so that the people get the meaning. (See #1-16).
Bro. Melton evidently means by this statement that he is "not a Bible corrector, BUT A TRANSLATION CORRECTOR." (See #3-4). This by his definition of terms means he must have the original Greek and Hebrew autographs. This must mean he does not have a Bible in any translation note he doesn't correct the Bible only a translationand what he translates therefore could not be Scripture for it is only a "TRANSLATION." This position is one of subjective relatively and is one of utter abandoning of the existence of the Word of God in any authoritative expression.
The position Bro. J.H. Melton accepts and displays is the popular position of our contemporary crowd of theologians. Southern Baptists embrace this with open arms in both their campsModernists and Conservatives they both say the same.
The New Evangelicals in their inerrancy statements reflect Bro. Melton's position in that limited errancy (translations) and limited inerrancy (only in the autographs) is admitted. The results are the same:
1. Where are the 66 books of the autographs
to hold as an observable standard authority?
2. Who has ever possessed such a volume?
3. How do we know we have such a volume of this 66 book phantom?
4. Without this standard, who can say they preach THE WORD OF GOD?
5. Without THE WORD OF GOD, who can prove anything is true on any spiritual
subjectincluding the redemption of our souls? (Maybe this is why Bro. Melton
advocates his form of universalism!)
Bro. J.H. Melton has given us a Bible based
on a depth no deeper than the mind of man and no higher than his level of
education. I PREFER TO ACCEPT THE PRESERVED WORD OF GOD BY FAITH!!!