The errors of the Granville Sharp rules

[bibleprotector]

The Granville Sharp set of rules are designed to confute the King James Bible as it stands.

The false premises of these rules are that the King James Bible is not the perfect Text of Scripture, and that such a Text is not said to exist; and that the translation of the King James Bible is not perfect, and that a perfect translation is not said to exist.

Even though the series of men involved in bringing the Bible into English, and the King James Bible translators themselves, were all very learned, it was the opinion of one man in opposition to them, that they all had blundered so badly in their work, as to botch up the translation of the originals in relation to cases where the word “the” affected the noun after the word “and” in the Greek (the-noun-and-noun).

This whole matter is nothing but an ingenious ploy to take away faith in the Word given in English, by battling over the Greek. And it is not merely concerned with describing the method of translation, because in order to make the modern rules to work, the textual basis of the King James Bible itself has to be rejected.

The fact is that the GSR are not viewed as conclusive, binding rules by all those who support them, but are seen as descriptive, not proscriptive. They is used by modernists to attempt to describe how they think first century Greek writers wrote. This illustrates their subjective and interpretative nature.

The problem then arises where there appear to be situations which counter or do not match the rules. Here the modernist assumption that the rules are binding is used: the problem must be that there are errors in the present form of the text, but if the text were restored, the rule would be seen at work.

Granville Sharp himself gives such examples:

“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” (Acts 20:28).

GS says, “In the Alexandrian and a few other MSS instead of ‘the God’, which is the most general reading, the word ‘Lord’ is substituted; but many old MSS have both words, ‘the Lord and God’, whereby the text is brought within the construction of the 1st Rule, and should be rendered — ‘To feed the church of the Lord, even of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.’”

This is an example of starting with the corrupt and depraved reading, and then making a rule justify it.

“For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.” (Ephesians 5:5).

GS says, “of the Christ and God ... is the generally approved of reading of the printed Greek copies, and as this reading is confirmed by the Alexandrian MS and by all other Greek MSS of known authority”

It is very dubious to twist Scripture in order to support a doctrine, even if the doctrine is correct. Wresting the words should not be done, and is not required.

“For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.” (Philippians 3:3).

GS says, “in the Alexandrian MS it is ‘the Spirit God’, which seems to be the true reading”

“That the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and ye in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.” (2 Thess. 1:12).

GS says, “In the Alexandrian MS the text before us is awkwardly divided by one of these points, placed after the word ‘of-us’ (our), which point, for the reason before given, must necessarily be deemed a period, and which did not exist in the original text of the sacred penman. The intention of the transcriber, or interpolator, by adding this point to the text, (for it cannot justly be attributed to the original writer,) has been probably to make a distinction of person”.

Here his view is that the process of copying the Scripture has been marred, and that “If literally rendered, it ought to be, — ‘according to the grace of the God and Lord of us, Jesus Christ”, a clearly depraved rendering.

“I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.” (1 Tim. 5:21).

GS says, “The word ‘Lord’ is omitted in the Alexandrian MS where the reading is ... plainly to be understood; as, — ‘I charge (thee), before the GOD and CHRIST, Jesus,’ (or rather, before Jesus, the God and Christ,) ‘and (before) the elect angels, that thou observe these things.” Thus far the testimony of the Alexandrian MS. — But, according to the commonly-received text of the Greek, it ought to be rendered, in the English idiom, ‘I chare (thee), before Jesus Christ, the GOD and LORD, and (before) the elect angels, etc.’”

“Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13).

GS says, “The text in question, if the truth of the original be duly regarded, must inevitably be rendered, ‘Expecting the blessed hope and appearance of the glory of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ.’”

What part of the rules could justify changing “Looking” to “Expecting”? None, of course. The nonsense is that the English Bible is not so plain and clear, but in truth, Granville Sharp has corrupted the sense with his rules.

We can easily see in English that the great God is our Saviour. But more, we can expect an appearing in a secondary sense of JEHOVAH Himself, besides the primary and usual understanding of the appearing of Christ Jesus.

Thus, Granville Sharp’s rewriting of this passage not only takes away reference to two distinct parts of the Godhead, but also is a false correction, as though the King James Bible does not clearly identify Jesus as God.

There are so many provisos in the rules, that the rules cannot be applied with any authority.

Often, it is said that there is a "Granville Sharp Rule", as if it is single and binding, when in reality, there are a set of rules, each giving so many provisos that the system of thinking must be wishful rather than actual.

Yet, there was barely any effective resistance in 1798 to GS. The consequence of his work was the RV of 1881. Thankfully, in 1882, the spirit to change the KJB was fully exposed, and so the seeds which GS introduced in 1798 never will cause the Authorized Version to be actually altered or lost.

Ironically, too, in the very period of the KJB's laying dead for 84 years, it went further abroad to many nations. This seems to be the fulfilment of the Historicist view of Revelation 11, where the recently discovered principle of using one hour to equal one year is apt, as it is in other prophetic passages.