A PODCAST AND AN ARTICLE

VERBAL EQUIVALENCE VERSUS PSALM 40

“Verbal equivalence” is a hypothesis taught by US Baptist teacher Bryan Ross (and co-author David Reid). It argues that because the Bible does not quote itself verbatim, and because there are good Reformation translations that differ and because there are tiny variations in the printed history of the KJB, that God must have worked by “verbal equivalence” rather than by exactness/precision. They term the view that they are opposing as “verbatim identicality”. However, they are unclear what exactly this means, because it is critical of anyone insisting on an exact extant text of the Bible today as much as it is critical of someone insisting that we have an exact replica of the original autographs today.

This “verbatim identicality” notion seems like a straw man. Mark Ward, an ardent attacker of the perfection and future usage of the King James Bible attacks an idea that he claims and implies that King James Bible supporters hold, namely, that we hold to a line of perfect Bibles through history or perfect manuscripts going back to the autographs. In a way, it seems like this “verbatim identicality” attack is similarly false.

To be clear, the King James Bible is in English, and the autographs were in Hebrew and Greek, so they cannot be “verbatimly identical”. The English can only match for readings/text (the version) and can match for sense/meaning (the translation). And it is the King James Bible supporting position that the KJB is indeed representing in its version and translation the words and meanings of the original autographs.

Of course, we cannot compare the KJB to actual existing autographs so the view about the KJB is not based on empiricism, etc., but this is the problem for the modernist, who is reliant only upon post-Enlightenment philosophies of modern Infidelity.

“For the bed is shorter than that a man can stretch himself on it: and the covering narrower than that he can wrap himself in it.” (Isaiah 28:20).

How then can a perfect KJB have arisen from imperfect sources? The answer is that the true Scripture, though subject to “scattering” through history, has also been gathered. This means that from among the variations, corruptions or possibilities which existed on a textual level, and likewise on a translational level, a good Bible could be formed that represents for us the same as autographs.

More than that, since the Scripture is in Heaven and was in Heaven before any inspiration took place on Earth (see Psalm 40), then we can assert that the KJB is representing for mankind what position the perfect Bible in the heavenly tabernacle represents in Heaven.

So then, to have Bryan Ross’ verbal equivalence means that the King James Bible is just like or near to what is in the heavenly book, but may not be the same. Whereas, for God’s promises to be exactly true, it does require that His exact words are manifest. (There was exactness in the inspiration, why would we not have a more excellent exactness now?)

“Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,” (Psalm 40:7). This passage speaks of Jesus in Heaven, and His fulfilling of the prophecies and doing of the commands written in the book. This book is the Heavenly Bible. How can we know if we cannot check something which represents this Bible exactly? Moreover, how can Jesus do things if the Bibles on Earth are just an approximation or maybe simulacra of the Heavenly master volume? This is because Jesus is not just fulfilling an unknown, hidden Heavenly book, He is fulfilling a revealed and manifest Earthly.

THE VERBAL EQUIVALENCE HYPOTHESIS ACCOMMODATES

If Jesus is fulfilling the stipulations of the Heavenly Book of Psalm 40, should not that content also be in Earth? It has to be, because Jesus lived an Earthly life. Moreover, it is not just Jesus’ ministry on Earth that is important, but the fact that Psalm 40 has implications about the Church age, the revelation of God’s message through history (e.g. verses 9 and 10), the preservation and presence of God through time (verses 11, 12 and 13) and future interventions from God (e.g. verse 17).

So then, the Bible of God must be true and present for the “great congregation” and for the future coming of God’s deliverance as referred to in Psalm 40, else, what exactly is God’s law and His promises? Precision and exactness are required in Earth by the end of time.

The Verbal Equivalence hypothesis is a way of not insisting upon precision and exactness.

I will repeat the words of Jeffrey Riddle, who refuted Mark Ward, in relation to interpreting Psalm 12. (Video WM 325.)

Riddle stated that one of Ward’s problems “is that he insists that the purity and preservation of scripture in Psalm 12:7 can only apply to the content of scripture and not to the words of scripture.”

Notice the parallel to the “Verbal Equivalence” view, which says that preservation is about the message, but the phrasing, wording and grammar can strictly vary. (That is to say, to vary from a strict form.)

Back to Riddle, “And this is a really significant theological issue with, not only Mark Ward’s interpretation of the Bible and the doctrine of preservation, but it’s a major problem as I see it with many modern interpreters of the Bible, and that is they want to talk about the infallibility of the content of scripture but not the infallibility of the words of scripture…”

To be plain, the “Verbal Equivalence” position does not insist on a specific set of words of Scripture, but only a message which can be communicated by a small range of varieties and possible variabilities of words.

Thus, a “Verbal Equivalentist” can agree that a present edition of the KJB is to be usable, but is open to the variations which have occurred in the printed history of the KJB, and maybe even to new editorial improvements. Likewise, while preferring the King James Bible, is open to credence for other historical translations (anachronistically?). And this as all constructed from the idea that when the New Testament quoted the Old Testament differently to how the Old Testament read, that this phenomenon could be applicable outside of the inspiration to different translations.

Which is to really show that the “Verbal Equivalent” view is just a convoluted way of trying to justify differences as being valid, and to not insist upon one singular or final representation of Scripture.

Again, Riddle’s refutation is pertinent, “Mark Ward and other modern evangelicals have basically given up on the idea of the preservation of the words of the Bible and instead are arguing much (interestingly enough as liberal Protestants did in the late 19th and early 20th century), that we can only talk about the purity of the ideas, the purity of the so-called content of scripture or doctrines, but we shouldn’t expect the purity of the words. In the past generation it was an argument about inerrancy and infallibility of scripture, and the Protestant liberals said yes we can accept the authority of the Bible the authority of the ideas, and the infallibility of the ideas, but we can’t expect that scripture is without error, we can’t really expect that it’s pure. In these modern days we have modern evangelicals say I believe in inerrancy, I just don’t believe the Bible has been providentially preserved so that we can now point with confidence to what the words of the Bible actually are.”

Thus on the way to be like Mark Ward, Bryan Ross’ view also becomes hazy on what the exact words of God actually are, because he is willing to accommodate the possibility of other words (certainly historically) as to what God’s words are.

(As an aside, both Riddle’s Confessional Bibliologists and the Textus Receptus Onlyists don’t have a narrow view of the KJB for the future since they keep pointing back to the Hebrew and Greek as though that still is the authority even though the KJB was made ostensibly to replace Hebrew and Greek, and now is considered the final form of the received text.)

THE VERBAL EQUIVALENCE HYPOTHESIS IS INCONSISTENT

Bryan Ross has stated about Psalm 12, “In the end, I believe that the passage is teaching the preservation of the ‘words’. That being said, I would disagree … that His promise necessitates ‘exact sameness’ or ‘verbatim’ wording.”

It becomes hard to pin down what set of “words” Bryan Ross believes are being preserved. Does he mean the original languages, various translations and various Protestant English iterations and grammatical variations within the KJB’s own history as being “THE words”? This would mean multiplicity of words not a tight “the” singular set of words.

Or does he mean the meaning as conveyed by words, and that the words could vary but the meaning does not? If that is the case why does the Bible even bother talking about the words, when really Ross would be leaning more towards a preservation via the medium of words of meaning.

He seems to move somewhere near an originals-primacy and TRO position by stating, “It was those Hebrew words that God preserved thereby giving the King James translators something to translate into English. This is not to say that translations cannot be part of the preservation process, it simply means that David is not referring to or speaking about the KJB in Psalm 12.”

On discussing Matthew 5:18, he wrote, “God’s promise to preserve His word assures the existence of a text that has not been altered in its ‘character’ or ‘doctrinal content’ despite not being preserved in a state of ‘verbatim identicality’.”

Thus, Ross is not concerned about actual specific words, but rather, is open to words that keep the character and doctrinal content of the Scripture, which is to say, he thinks that the KJB represents the character and doctrinal content of the Hebrew and Greek, but variation to KJB (English) words become permissible.

With that permission or allowance for variation, first the trickle, then the flow and at last the flood. “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” (Galatians 5:9).

Accommodation with the smallest ideas of modernist thinking is dangerous. The problem becomes interpretation. First, in the interpretation of Scripture, for example, Ross says, “David is not referring to or speaking about the KJB in Psalm 12”, yet the Scripture is not limited to what David knew. The Scripture is the Holy Ghost’s words, and the real question is, “Was the Holy Ghost referring to the KJB in Psalm 12?”

Second, the problem of interpretation comes in how we look at the facts (data). When we see variation in the New Testament quoting of the Old, do we assume God’s will is variation from His strict set of words in Heaven? Or do we rather understand that in each iteration of inspiration, the Holy Ghost is free at every point to express Himself as He will? And if so, then we should never explain the “facts” of observable variation with what happened in inspiration. What we observe in historical Bibles varying should never be considered the infallible will of God, in that it was God’s will to gather from and overcome variations to one final, singular form.

“Because I will publish the name of the Lord: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.” (Deuteronomy 32:3, 4).