W W W W  World Wide Web Witness Inc. Home Page   Contents Page for this Volume  What is New

Chapter Six

A Conversation

on the Bible's Self-Definition of Terms

Of course, I don't believe all those little things.

Of course not, I responded, somewhat dreamily, wondering what my new acquaintance might have in mind, but following the words of his inward spiritual scrutineer, casually.

You do, though, don't you ? he asked.

Not the little things people so often talk about, I replied, I mean those little nothings that create everything given time, without having anything to the point with which to do it, you know, the information genies, and the format fairies and the like, to bring the marvels of creation to be: always working, but never there;

	never evidenced, but always imagined;
	never operative but always in action;
	unfelicitous figments of anti-scientific method,
	brazen assemblages of nonentities,
	brought from the cupboard of intellectual inebriation,
	when the word of God and the ways of God,
	and the logical necessities of God and His workings,
	provide a coherent, consistent, verified and validated answer to this secular nonsense.

It is covered in SMR,

The gods of naturalism have no go!,

TMR,

Deity and Design ... and

LIGHT DWELLS WITH THE LORD'S CHRIST,
WHO ANSWERS RIDDLES AND WHERE HE IS, DARKNESS DEPARTS.

I don't mean that. Any sane person can see that God is the Creator.

Let us be kind, I noted, for they may be very sane, just spiritually deluded. God covers the point in Hosea 9:7, where it is the SPIRITUAL MAN who is deemed insane, and much the same is to be found in Romans 1:17ff., where spurious wisdom becomes incomparable foolishness on the part of those who resist the attestations of reality, and whirl off into worship of the creation, in part or in whole, in spirit or in mind, in mentality or urbanity, using the while, the powers provided by the causally competent Creator to do it!

The point is this, I continued: you see it both in religion and politics, and sometimes in family life, wherever one is in view AS A PERSON PRE-EMINENTLY. People love or hate, want or dislike, wander off focus, you know, and become rabid or rabbity, ferocious or frenzied, disdainful and murderous or any number of ludicrous things, being roused to their depths by their origin and responsibilities. In fact, in a sinful dispensation such as we now have,  for the creation called man, there is almost no limit (except in power) for what they get up to ...

Oh, I know people get fascinated with intrigue, and need a hair-cut for their long locks of imagination, drilling each other with seething words or sounding bullets; but what I have in mind is more refined than that. It is this: What does God mean to tell us in His book.

Why, the truth! I exclaimed.

Oh obvious is that! he said, extending his hands; and He being not only the truth, but the only possible entry for it by virtue of knowing before and during and over time, and being the alone witness of what He did, and knower of what He is going to do (I began to feel quite pleased that I had made this new acquaintance, but continued to listen), it is therefore He who is the only resource, recourse, basis and centre for truth.

Then what little things did you have in mind ? I asked. Is your thought this, that perhaps whether IN telling the truth He did not succeed ?

No, maybe He did not want to tell all of it.

Of course not, for as John says in his Gospel, if he told all that the Lord did, He who became incarnate as Jesus Christ, the world itself could scarcely contain the record (granting miniaturisation such as we have in our genes, perhaps even then, not). HE is infinite. The world is not. There is no limit for Him in knowledge, and in declaration, He can structure the truth so that it may be known; indeed, He can move into the personal realm with it, since He is the truth and is personal, thus completing the perspective for understanding, both uttering the words of truth and moving through them by His Spirit into our spirits, simultaneously.

What does the Bible say about this ?

There are several leading thrusts here. Thus,  in I Corinthians 13, we are expressly told that we know in part, but later will know as we are known. I confess I look forward to that. For example, I would just love to see a fast forward type of show on the creation and its earth movings, after they are put there, and the fascinating apparatus of light in its formation, information and settings for different eras, where this and that scientist readily tells us what could and could not be, as if systems ruled God and not God systems.

Well, if He did not tell ALL the truth, you know, Will you tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth ... the sort of things we have in courts now, the point is this: how can we tell just what the truth is, while bits are left out. For instance, suppose I told you that I had never spoken a harsh word to my wife, but kept from you the fact that I often quietly moaned, with severe restrictions on tone. Would you know the scene at all well ?

No, I wouldn't, and that would be because, in what I take to be the purely hypothetical case which you envisage, you are deliberating about becoming shady in an almost literal sense: you are keeping light OFF known things in order to mislead. As to truth, you are in such a case, being SUBVERSIVELY silent, aggressively so, desiring to distort the impact and the impression on your hearer.

I see ... hmm. Yes, the Truth would not try to prevent itself in telling itself, for this would be war upon itself, the ultimate case of what is at variance with what it wants to be, and so chained to a system of some kind: a contradiction in terms for God.  So He tells not all, since that is too big, but simply all that is ...

Required, in order that truth be known. For example, while I rejoiced in mathematics and competed with the best when young, yet I did not take it to tertiary level. I felt, it seems, that something deeper and more fundamental was needed, and this and Physics, fascinating as they were, lacked something that was more elemental. That was it for me; and I could even imagine being bored with physics, I suppose because other things more elemental HAD to be resolved first, or found, or known. Without that, where is one! I had to find, to keep, to secure, to know; and what I had to know was the truth, although this passion did not become overwhelming, I suppose, until I was about 20.

If you are saying that truth was your aim, and you meant to get it, how does that relate to our being successful in getting it ?

It relates in this way, as we have already begun to see. If THE TRUTH, as you yourself see, is speaking, then what it is, is what it does. Otherwise, it would be untrue to call it the truth.

All very well in theory, but what about the fact that God being personal, can have plans ?

If He is the truth, no plan can plane away what He is, without internal warfare, so that He would be a being with a fixed structure and a dynamic intrusion, having a hard time trying to resolve the conflict, rather like White Russians and Red Russians at war before the fall of Russia to its atheistic tormentors. Fine for the tormented, invented USSR State (alas! in the sense that it could - and did- happen), but for the Creator, He being what He desires and having invented the patience limit implied in time, is not subject to anything, and what assumes this, is a model of something or someone else.

You mean that no lie will proceed; and more, yes I see, no spirit of lie can come from Him, so that whatever is said BY Him, although it be not total

(because which of us could know the totality of truth when the Infinite One is the speaker and we are the auditors, the receptors - the very thought is absurd in our present state, and we will always be created beings, though eternal by grace),

will yet be true to truth.

What a strange concept! true to truth. However I see what you mean. There, you imagine it, is the truth, a beautiful structure, an encyclopedia beyond encyclopedias, and there is this Person who might want to twiddle it!  Is that your concept here ?

Well, now you mention it, that would make the very Person in view, NOT the truth, and merely make a bifurcation that deceives. I am deceiving myself in this.

True: that was false. But there is no possibility of deception from Him who is the Truth. His creation is exhibitive for Him, both of blessing and cursing, both of liberty to lie and freedom to be His. He allows options, and these teach all. His is the record and the overview, the oversight and the insight, the perspective and the look which can see all time as a creation, with all its appurtenances and appointments, such as matter, mind and spirit, at work within it.

A glorious thought of the Glorious God.

The world at this present time is just about disgusted with lies and pretence, and not just with pretension (that came a little earlier); and it is almost persuaded, like that murderer Herod, to believe the truth as in Acts 26:28: but not quite. It costs too much. Christ told of that element of cost in the record of Luke 14:27ff.. You have to count the cost of finding the binding of truth.

Is it so great ?

I have record in my memory of one who STATED that I had proved the truth to him; but declared that he found the cost of following it PERSONALLY, too high because of dangers.

In other words, the word of God, the Bible as one already knows, is not only the ONLY source of definitive truth for man, in written form (that is, truth which does not waver, have boils and pimples, but is truth, with no allowances for this or that desire or power or ultimate end in view, but is actuality itself), but it is specific. It deals with ... can I say it, words ?

So.

You would not actually come to words, would you ?

Why not ? These convey truth or error, lie or resplendent frankness and knowledge.

But what a strange thing, to become so minute as to cover words with truth. It means, in the vast things that when you arrive at the place of God in apprehending Him, you could understand a certain, no an infinite care on His part, to avoid anything misleading and all of that sort of thing, and a caution about anything which by omission might mislead. In fact, there would be, and no doubt is,  a certain fragrance of honour and truth, wisdom and justice, equity and honesty: but would the infinite God condescend to give the actual words of truth! It seems both necessary and staggering if it is to be conveyed rigorously, soundly, penetratingly, suitable for recall and sharing by all the race, who after all, constitute a creation prodigy.

Words ? They concern you so much! Yet words are a medium of expression, like a face or eyes. You put into them what you are, to the extent you are efficient and effective, both, when talking about yourself, and what you do likewise; and provide with them perspective or specifics or both, according to need. If you are devious or deceitful or slack or stupid, then your eyes may reflect this, though you may try to make them inscrutable; but past all your means, an equal might read you, for all that and see to much for a devious person to appreciate it! In your words, then, you put what you are, do and see; and if you are precise and sure and honest and knowing, then your words reflect this.

What about being playful or merely saucy or something like that ?

Then your words will reflect your mode.

What if you just do not happen to want to be serious.

Then your fun will not be confused with frivolity or flippancy, unless you are like that.

That's rather a tall order; for if one wants a little verbal sparring, for example, then is it not quite possible that one would be misinterpreted ?

I should say it is eminently possible; but only because your notion to be playful is not matched by your ability to convey this, or your application in doing so. If you love truth, you will try to ensure that nothing is left dubious, in case it misleads. When God is concerned, there is infinite efficiency, proficiency and knowledge available, so that the misleading through fault or default is out of the question. It could only be by intention.

What, however, if He is only trying one out, seeing what lies in the heart, and so making it a little difficult to grab the heart of something He is saying ?

There are meat and milk, things to eat and drink, in the word of God: the simplicity of the basic and the thrilling depth of the recondite, alike.  It is the honour of kings to search out the difficult, we are told in Proverbs.

What on earth does that mean ?

It means that if you are not subject to spiritual squalor, but walking in the Lord, in His placement and way, then what you need to know will become available.

Will ANYONE be able to interpret aright what is deep ?

In Proverbs Ch. 1, you find the Lord offering to the young person stepping out into life, to MAKE His words known, pouring out His Spirit.

I pondered a moment and proceeded.

Look, anyone if called, could interpret. Clarity is not a mountain to block but from which to see, and God makes mountains. Even the simple are sometimes enabled to be sublime; but in general, the body of Christ has offices and gifts and what is needed if not for one to provide, is for another; and all share in the feast, as at a banquet (cf. Song of Solomon 2:4, Ephesians 2:19ff., 4:11ff., I Corinthians 12).

Properly, I continued, in the case of interpretation, of exposition of the word of God, this  feature is a specialty for elders and pastors, although n the day of Moses, we find the focussed case of two prophesying, Eldad and Medad, two not in those formally selected; and we see in this way that there is no need for formalism; and that functionality is broader than that.

It is not so difficult among Christians then, simply to expose what is there in a helpful sort of way, in an informal situation ?

If you have it, use it! God is evidently not keen on pretension, as well as disregarding pretence. Avoidance of both relates to truth quite clearly.

So God speaks ONLY the truth.

That is another way of saying He does not lie ?

Of course. Then He does not allow those who in all honesty or desperation are seeking Him,  to be misled through slipshod or careless speech ? He may taunt, but it is in truth. He may challenge, but it is with truth. He does not vary from what He is, though He may incite and invite to seek Him, by the sardonic, the scorchingly piercing, cauterising corruption within, or the quietness and confidence of an inward peace that brings listening, as one hears the welcome rain falling, greatly desiring it. He does not hide the truth.

Not if one is seeking Him with all the heart. One might be stuck for a little at one point, but in the end truth is available. Besides, He does not make slipshod (improperly worked) or careless (inadequately researched) speech. How then would it apply, to deal with what cannot be there! How could one have to interpret a nothing; for the word of God does not hold the lie, or any part of it.

He does, though, does He not, sometimes give us a vast arena to discover, and humble us as we seek to circumnavigate it ?

A sort of aqueous arena ?

Yes, one like that.

He certainly humbles the mighty and just the same, as with Daniel, He enables what lacks the power when the call is there! That can lead almost anywhere in the domains of His wisdom and power, as He overcomes the challenge and meets the need of His people - WHEN they are in heart, spirit and mind ready to receive ...

Then His words are all clear to the one who understands ... ?

That is a biblical quotation from Proverbs 8:8.

How about that!

HIS word does not fail, though His officers often fail here or there in dealing with them. Just as this can humble the flesh, however, the exaltation of His word above all things (another citation from the Bible - Psalm 138:2) is rather like the work of the Son.

In what way ?

His word verbally reflects Him -

certainly using idioms and figures as required,
but using them IN TRUTH,
without deception or defection in spirit,
or deflection in any way from what is reality,  from the truth -

and His Son vitally reflects Him.

Distinguish these things a little more please.

The former does it in words for those who have them, and the Son does it for spirits who need Him; and since there is no need to adapt to the paths of language in this case, He reflects Him entirely with a sovereign directness that cannot be misinterpreted, if you look with the heart, spirit free and eyes ... open (unlike a norm to the contrary in Jerusalem in Christ's day on this earth - Matthew 13:15ff.). Some are wilfully blind, but He does not mislead them, but their own self-inflicted condition. Those blind who claim to see, abandon hope! (John 9:41).

Well then what did Christ say about the written words, for these stay around and are not psychically derivative or emotionally subject to distortion ?

He said they would be fulfilled, the law and the prophets (Matthew 5:17-20), an encompassing phrase, to the jot and tittle: that is to the smallest letter and the smallest notable difference between any two letters, what makes the difference between two rather similar letters in the Hebrew alphabet.

How can it be fulfilled so closely as all that ?

When one is doing a task for the Lord, one often finds that there is what can only be called a certain constraint, a brake and steering additive to one's words, so that although there is for the ordinary Christian, and we are all in that category, no guarantee of infallibility, one can sense the sort of thing it would be. There is a nearness of communion, an energising of power, a sense of His presence and the sort of communication which a man might give to his dog, in some adventurous setting, and the dog gathers the meaning. It is marvellous how MUCH they CAN gather, and that is one of the exquisite joys of having a dog. Personally, however, unless I had a farm or something such, I could scarcely bear now to have a dog, since they are so circumvented in their liberty, and I should hate to bring up a creature with such restrictions as that. It would make me feel sad for their lot.

So you imply, do you not, that when God spoke, it was like an overpowering presence, with intimacy of fellowship and thrust of power, together with a means of intimation according to the nature of the task, so that the scriptures of the Bible came, not by the will of man, not unloosed as it were by his wit or wisdom, but freed up by the power of God Himself. That is marvellous.

Actually, what you have just said is almost a paraphrase of II Peter 1:19-20. There we have a literary and spiritual characterisation of the way in which God spoke through the Old Testament prophets. The RESULT is that we have a light in a dark place (II Peter 1:19). This is defined as "the prophetic word".

Is that still for now ?

In fact, it is to proceed until the day of Christ's epochal manifestation (as in Revelation 1, Matthew 24:17ff.) finally occurs. That is the nature of the product, the 'prophetic word'. Then, immediately, In explanation of this phenomenon, this word of light and guidance, Peter goes on to state with sublime simplicity, what this word is NOT. These scriptures were not some kind of emptying of men's brains or minds:  were not private matters of insight or outreach or origin, what man THOUGHT or interpreted the case to be (as so many of the philosophers were doing routinely and incredibly foolishly as seen in Spiritual Refreshings Ch. 13).

No, it was not that, I proceeded. That is the basis of the discourse here in II Peter 1:19ff.. You get the light in the darkness, you get the guidance in the danger, and you are told why is this so. You are told the basis of such knowledge, which gives such a prodigious encouragement. Indeed, Peter proceeds to divulge on what doctrine concerning God and His speech, this assurance of light and guidance that Peter has given, is to be received. Thus the apostle goes on to explain further.

You were dealing with what is NOT its basis, weren't you ?

True. It is NOT FROM ANY PRIVATE unloosing, origin, interpretation that  these things come. It is not man's work at all. It is contradistinct from that. In what way then does Peter indicate that it DID come, since this is how it did not come; and in what way, these feeble options being removed from sight, does he give ground for conceiving this 'prophetic word' to be  reliable to do the job, to provide as  just described, utterly reliable light for life as time progresses.

Ah! I've looked it up. II Peter 1:21. It DID come by ... oh no, it first reinforces the part about how it did not come, it says ..it NEVER CAME by the will of man. That fits. Not loosed by him, not originated in him, not a feature of his magnificent features of thought (precisely as Paul makes so clear in I Corinthians 1 and Galatians 1 alike): not of this kind is the word of the prophets. That is two negatives. Now it is time to learn then just HOW IT DID COME.

That's fine, leaving us just about 11 words in the actual English for this declaration from the apostle: "but holy men of God spoke, moved by the Holy Spirit." They were, more literally in translation, being borne along by the Holy Spirit. The same term is used of Paul's ship, when as a prisoner sent to Rome, it was borne along by the tempest. When you bear something alone, yours is the force in view. The thing is the recipient of the bearing force.

Not a private thing, not a thing by the will of man at all is the word which enlightened for all generations, being made of light from Him who is so bright that the brightness lasts for ever (I Peter 1:25). We have these two negatives, these two mutually reinforcing and clarifying features: as to MAN in his power to originate or interpret, NOT; as to man in his power to will, NOT. It is not like that. It did not COME like that. This is the issue: then HOW DID IT COME ?

Not like that, but by a method adequate to ensure the powerful functions specified in terms of light and guidance did it come. Peter is explaining and justifying this focus on the prophetic word and its functionality.

That is a domain excluded. Think of a man, think of his mind, think of his will; then cease to do so. THAT is neither the explanation nor the imputation. What then is ? Well, what would you expect ?

I would frankly expect that what has the power and will of the most able known, materially enabled being on earth, man rigorously excluded, and yet is to give light in darkness, is easily recognised. We are being brought to a focus on the will and power of the One who is greater than man on earth, knows more, is better able, wiser, comprehends all time in His survey. It is then from this source that these prophetic words come.  That is both the flow and the show of the text here.

On other words, you would expect by contrast, and moving outside the exclusion zone (MAN-FREE ZONE), to find God at work.

At work ? I should expect something worthy of His power since He has excluded what does not possess it.

What is worthy then of His power ?

Himself, for there is no equal in heaven or on this earth (Psalm 89).

Then Christ, the second Person of the Trinity being the definitive personal expression of God as shown in I Peter 1:20, and in II Peter 1:16ff., as indeed in Hebrews 1 and Colossians 1-2, we find it is the Spirit of God who has given these words by a bearing along, through a thrust, by means of a motion, a work of power correlative with His mission to give truth, not fables, facts and not mere earthly furnishings (cf. John 3:12).

That's right, and that's just what it says here in II Peter 1:21... those who were enabled to write these things in the prophetic word, were borne along by God, by HIS SPIRIT. It was emphatically not by the spirit of man, but dramatically by the Spirit of God that this was done. Man is out; God is in AS GOD, not as part of mankind in their sinfulness at all. That whole domain is excluded. The divine domain is focussed by double negative and clear positive. What has man to do with it, AS SUCH ? "Cease from man," says Isaiah 2:22, "whose breath is in his nostrils, for of what account is he!"

In this field of divine inspiration and provision of the prophetic word, then, we are quite cut off from all or any of the powers of man, of mind, of spirit or of culture. You know, that reminds me of Galatians 1, where Paul declares that no one taught him the Gospel, neither tradition nor scholar, but it was revelation from God.

 When it comes to the ultimate and to the Source, Original and Creator, you have only one place to go. Surrogates are zero for the word of God: for how could the infinite allow what is sinful, partial and simply ignorant speak on HIS own behalf! It is BY HIS OWN SPIRIT that just as creation came, just as redemption comes, so the word of God came, all by works miraculous, direct action by God, implantations by the power of God.

Quite so, nothing! In fact, in I Peter 1:25, we find that the Greek term for words as such, is used relative to the authorised utterance of God in the scriptures, as distinct from thought or causal formats (logos) more broadly. In Matthew 4:4, it is the same strict term: EVERY WORD from the mouth of God, articulating expression, is what man is to live by. It would be hard to do so if they did not exist! That is the level of accuracy from the Lord! In fact, in SMR Appendix D, this little excerpt puts it:

Again, the passage in John 12:48-50 indicates that Jesus speaks what God the Father Almighty gives Him to say. The Greek term used here for 'words' is REMATA, which reflects what is spoken, the series of actual words (so Thayer q.v.). REMATA also has parallel use for Biblical prophecy, Old and New Testaments, in Romans 10:17, I Peter 1:25, II Peter 3:2,16, Matthew 4:4*, cf. John 14:26. Just as Christ spoke what His Father commanded, utterance, articulation by articulation, so the prophets' diction was subjected to an absolute spiritual control... a control by the Spirit of God, of which we shall see more in 3) infra. Whatever approach God uses in Scriptural inspiration, there is therefore at least such a jurisdictive control as to reach in the resultant, to the... words. By this time taught, inspired, authorised, proclaimed, the words are fine tuned, attuned, harmonious with the divine desire for content wholly in accord with the mind of God (cf. pp. 1171, 1176-1179 infra), guaranteed. (For *, see p. 1169 infra.)

{Seven times refined as in a furnace is the description given in Psalm 12:6 of the words of God, pure words.}

Jesus then spoke as commanded. This stresses the authority and the ultimacy of the SOURCE, just as Paul stresses the dynamism and the adequacy of the METHOD of inspiration, leading to revelation from God Himself. Jesus Christ also stresses that not merely has He not CONCOCTED this doctrine, but that it is positively not His at all in any differentiable sense as a man, relative to His Father: John 7:17-18; 17:16. Similarly, He claims identity with the Lord ('Jehovah') of the Old Testament - John 8:58 (cf. Exodus 3:14); and that His words will sit in irrepressible judgment in their intrinsic and precise force and diction (John 12:48-50).

Whatsoever He speaks is a replica of the Father's command to HIM. Christ, of course, unlike Paul, is GOD in human form; so that there is this rigorously intrinsic stress on authority, on immense personal relationship. What of the production, however, the word
given ? It is infallible, wholly authoritative, God-given revelation, admitting of no adjustment or error. In this, the result is the same.

That mentions Paul - what did he as an apostle,  add on this ?

In I Corinthians 2:9-13, he has much to say. At first, it begins to sound perilous, as if we are to be left in a kind of happy vagueness - Eye has not seen nor ear heard nor has it entered into the heart of man the things that God has prepared for His those who love Him.

THEN GOD ACTS to present that for which this is a prelude. BUT.... He adds through His apostle.

But what ?

But GOD HAS REVEALED THEM TO US.

Revealed what precisely ?

Precisely the things that God has prepared for us who love Him.

How deep does He go then, for this is crucial; for you see, if He omitted some of the deepest and most penetrating principles, when He gave this self-revealing and directive communication to man, then we would never know for sure just what the outcomes would be in the end, would we ?

Oh his TRUTHFULNESS would guarantee that. But it would leave a certain sense of query in the mind, which God is careful to exclude.

What then does He say on this ?

He states in I Cor. 2:10, that the things He has revealed to us are EVEN THE DEEP THINGS, and that the Spirit of God searches these things. There is, to revert to your earlier thoughts, nothing of the slack or casual about this. In an atomic bomb, yes, there might be (in fact, look what happened in another field, that of the Challenger of sad flame). It is not so here, infinity the fixture, application the function! Thus we find that the SPIRIT OF GOD (deity) SEARCHES OUT (there is research to infinitude) the deep things WHICH God has revealed to us.

That hits the spot, does it not!

How often do preachers talk about the mystery and wonder in terms of 'eye has not seen' and so on, and then omit the basic point: that GOD HAS REVEALED to us those things to which, in their depth and entirety, man cannot reach; and He has done so BY HIS SPIRIT.

What sort of revelation does He then vouchsafe from this searching and revealing ?

Paul declares this, that no man knows the mind of man, for just as you need the spirit of man to know the inward things of a man, even so, God moves by His Spirit to show them. He does it "FREELY" (I Cor. 2:12), and so that we MIGHT KNOW. In other words, the purpose of the exercise is this, that we know. Hence the tutelary facility and function is guaranteed.

Does Paul indicate how he as an apostle acts in this heavily and powerfully directed domain ?

Yes, indeed. Paul indicates in I Cor. 2:12, that those given this function, such as himself,  had received NOT the spirit of this world, but something else. We saw that before. NOTHING of man or his thoughts or abilities was involved. It was, by CONTRADISTINCTION, a work of God. This doubly defines it. Accordingly, here again in the perfect consistency of the word of God (not surprising since God is its productive author and He governs the impact in teaching, according to the material in view and His own diligence), we find that there is a government.

What is it ?

It is that of this same Holy Spirit, the Spirit who is from God. He, being received by the apostle and those who wrote in this way, is sent so that they might know these things freely given. KNOWLEDGE is therefore guaranteed in this word of God contradistinctly from any or all the efforts and abilities and knowledge of man, as to its origin, meaning and outcome.

So it has to come with this impact. We of course can see the certainty of the divine nature; but this is not seeing, this is TELLING. This is not going so far, it is coming from the depths of God Himself!

Yes, in fact we are even told that, apart from the substance of the KNOWLEDGE, guaranteed, the words in which it is expressed are once more, specialised in guarantee as given. It is NOT in words taught by man's wisdom, but in those which the Holy Spirit teaches, that this word of prophecy came. Expression as well as illumination, expressiveness as well as knowledge: all is provided from impact to imprint, from reception to expression. What is thus involved is a specifically select category.

So the power and the precision are all there, in this prophetic word, just as Christ indicated of the divine product, the law and the prophets, as shown in Matthew 5:17ff.. How amazing the way these different points of origin to the topic always and all lead to the one assimilable, mutually reinforcing body of knowledge about His revelation.

The power here, the precision there, the outcome again, the method from the Trinity, again, the depth and the knowledge, the outcome: ALL is covered.

So God does give words to express truth, with admirable precision. What about the transmission over the millenia ?

When Christ indicated that not a jot or tittle of the law or the prophets would fail till all was fulfilled, this implies a most substantial availability of the same, so that where there is to be an impact in fulfilment, to the last point, there is something to be fulfilled. Moreover, the purpose was that we receive this knowledge. Hence transmission CANNOT prevent the truth from finding us, or the prophecies in their precision. If there are minor matters here or there, uncertain, that is not relevant, in terms of transmission. What matters is sure, what is to be and to be done, to the jot and tittle, and what is the knowledge of God is guaranteed against any delusive or intrusive error.

How does this affect your understanding when you preach ?

Well, this will take a little while.

As shown in Bible Translation, I would not dare move from the Majority text, without necessity and reinforcement elsewhere in the word of God. I have never found any necessity in anything at all significant to do so. The point has been dealt with in some detail, in that work. As to the Authorised Version, it is not identical with the Majority Text, but there is little difference of significance; and in fact, I have specified cases where the latter excels the former. The AV however did a marvellous job, and in practical terms, there is little to be improved on. One has to realise however, that that translation was done centuries ago, and verbal meanings change. I have specified a case or two which needs attention, but there is no serious error in terms of teaching in the AV, though there are  matters for improvement in terms of the Majority Text which, after all, is what the Lord has provided, a vast and substantial indication in terms of percentage of manuscripts of one family, which cannot be overlooked.

One text might be noted even here, and that is Matthew 11:27, where it does not say in current English that none knows the Father except the Son and the one to whom the Son will reveal Him. In the AV, it has 'will reveal Him' which does not translate the  Greek in modern English. The Greek has this: ... the one to whom the Son WILLS to reveal Him (caps. added).

More clarity is good in some places, the old language being one major difficulty where people don't know the old forms. Modern translations vary enormously; but I know of nothing so reliable to text as the AV. I normally advise, for non-scholars, that one use the AV if this is understood, but use the NKJV where special clarity is needed. Indeed I have listed  60 or so places  where care is needed,  and have sought to provide careful translations there in terms of all the scripture. Rarely is the AV, for its own part,  wrong; and only on the most rare occasion does it fail.

As to the NKJV, it must be borne in mind that it is not as reliable as the AV in spiritual care as shown in the book noted, namely Biblical Translations. Nevertheless, in the main, it does reasonably well, being normally quite sound,  and this with the AV makes a good combination. It would be all but impossible to err if you are diligent in this, and at that, only in the slightest field. On that, you would have no significant defect as a basis. If you want the Greek, it is not hard to learn. If you want to check cases, my listing is available. In any case, you will receive no significant error from the combination as noted above, though renderings are available which surpass these in some cases. These however are not by any means consistently so. When it comes to this sort of degree of specialisation, that is one of the things pastors are for, and books are written.

I think I'll use the NKJV and check where any of your 60 or so  points are involved, if a thing troubles me. It is good to have it so simple.

In fact, there are VERY few places where you need to make much revision in the NKJV, but perhaps three or so occur that are surprisingly inept, in terms of the text,  in that version.

So the Lord has given, and given freely, and we have what is reliable, readily available, with scarcely a quiver. All doctrine and prophecy is safe, comparing one text with another, and the AV has great doctrinal reliability, being the work of many, with many revisions, with passionate desire to be true to the text.

I for my part, find no difficulty with respect to the teaching of any text, as to what that text is. The manuscripts are readily followed, and almost all of the work has been done; and what remains ? The AV, or else this used as a filter for nearly every case, is something that  works very well. This with the NKJV as a help in modern language, is something that leaves us quite well supplied. If you want the NKJV as basis, then there are a very few places needing watchful care, all sound in the very discerning AV; and these are noted. Very occasionally, a rendering not found in either has a better ground for it.

Pastors are taught the Greek and Hebrew, or should be taught it; and the Greek used in the New Testament  in so blessedly easy to learn that one can normally, if not too old, learn it without too much trouble. Where not, pastors are supplied to help such refinements! as well as to help to avoid any errors of any kind, by reference to the safely transmitted word of God. That is the sole basis for doctrine, that best-selling, long impelling Bible; and this, not man is the crux. In fact, this being the word of God, and there being one God and one authorised repository of His will and word for man (Mark 7:7ff., Revelation 20:18-19, Galatians 1 cf. SMR Appendix   C and   D, Sparkling Life ... Ch. 2), it endures.

Nothing else is guaranteed in this field; or even given basis for belief. In fact, ostensibly authorised addition is close to perdition, as you find when you read the word of God! You see from Jeremiah 23 just how much God hates this presumptuous proclamation in type, and worse still if possible, it is often thrust out in hype!

Sales where God is concerned are not attractive, and the principle is the one which found the Son of God using a whip to indicate the extent of His detestation of improper intrusions into the Temple (Matthew 21:12ff.)^*1. Just so is it in the case of the temple of divine understanding, this time not in architectural symbolism, but in grammatical speech! 

To practical terms again ? Yes, off hand, I can think of nothing other than the point mentioned in the AV, which could mislead in teaching, in doctrine at all, except one marginal reference, to which there is no need to look at this point.

The word of God to man! That leaves the Gospel insulated, the truth evidenced, the obligations of man attested, the grandeur of God manifested, and no room for any doubt on any point, as the Age nears its end. Praise God! It is just as in Psalm 111:7-9.

The word of His truth and the work of His power alike require in us ... patience and longsuffering and virtue and goodness and knowledge, brotherly love and especially love as II Peter 1 attests. These are joyful companions, and Paul even speaks of longsuffering with joyfulness! (Colossians 1:11). Do you not agree and relish these things ?

 Indeed yes. In fact, sometimes to suffer is great joy, since it is such a privilege to contribute something, anything to such a cause of that of Jesus Christ, Creator, Redeemer and Regality itself, Lord of Lords, the very definitive expression of the Father Himself. In Him, why there is my sufficiency and my joy.

NOTE

*1

In fact, Christ spoke of those using the temple for their own profit, in terms of a den of thieves. Similarly, Jeremiah speaks of false prophets, the case where God does not send with a message, one confused or arrogant, who nevertheless holds forth without authority, in God's own name!

 Says Jeremiah from the mind of the Lord (Jeremiah 23:20ff. - colour added):

"The anger of the Lord will not turn back

Until He has executed and performed the thoughts of His heart.

In the latter days you will understand it perfectly.

 

'I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran.

I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied.

But if they had stood in My counsel,

And had caused My people to hear My words,

Then they would have turned them from their evil way

And from the evil of their doings.

 

'Am I a God near at hand,' says the Lord,

And not a God afar off?

Can anyone hide himself in secret places,

So I shall not see him?' says the Lord;

'Do I not fill heaven and earth?' says the Lord.
 

'I have heard what the prophets have said

who prophesy lies in My name, saying,

"I have dreamed, I have dreamed!"

'How long will this be in the heart of the prophets
who prophesy lies?

'Indeed they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart, who try to make My people forget My name
by their dreams which everyone tells his neighbor,
as their fathers forgot My name for Baal.

'The prophet who has a dream, let him tell a dream;

And he who has My word, let him speak My word faithfully.

What is the chaff to the wheat?' says the Lord.

'Is not My word like a fire?' says the Lord,

'And like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?

'Therefore behold, I am against the prophets,"
says the Lord, 'who steal My words
every one from his neighbor.

'Behold, I am against the prophets,' says the Lord,
'who use their tongues and say, "He says."

'Behold, I am against those who prophesy false dreams,' says the Lord, 'and tell them, and cause My people to err by their lies and by their recklessness.

'Yet I did not send them or command them;
therefore they shall not profit this people at all,'
says the Lord."

Notice the concept of 'stealing' here then also, just as in the case of Christ exposing the corruption in the temple. There is a sort of consciousness, it seems, of these 'theologians' or in this case false prophets, who perhaps receive honour from one another (as in some churches so-called cf. John 5:44). There comes to be a sort of professional clique which rules with its own mutually provided support. In such cases, the Lord declared in Jerusalem, the truth is ousted by their mutual support in their own traditions (and novel ones 'arise' from time to time, to become encrusted, like broken statuettes of mermaids).  

"How can you believe," He cried,
"who receive honour from one another,
and do not seek the honour that comes from the only God ?"

One reason, and a predicted one, is pay (II Peter 2:1ff.). It often seems to pay rather well, even to millions.