Certainty of the Words

by Charles L. Surrett

This book is an examination of the Bible's testimony about itself, to assist in formulating principles of textual criticism. This will verify the validity of the Textus Receptus Greek text, which underlies the King James Version. Also included is an exegetical evaluation of the old King James Version compared with the NKJV, showing by a study of every word in the books of Genesis, Romans, and Revelation, that the old KJV is a superior translation to the NKJV.

135 pages, Kindle Edition

First published July 27, 2013

Reviews

[Mark Jr. · Rating 1 out of 5]

I appreciate this clarification from Surrett, who writes like a gentleman and not a pugilist:

It should be noted that there is no theological reason (no statement from God) to believe that a translation into any language would be inspired in the same way that the original writings in Hebrew and Greek were.

But I find it suspicious that, somehow, almost no men who prefer the TR can ever find anything nice to say about the NKJV. And when Surrett turns his attention to the NKJV in this book (with as fair a mind as I have ever seen a King James Only man do so), all his points are contestable and one makes an overt Hebrew mistake:

In Genesis 2:18, where the KJV speaks of the woman as an “help meet” for her husband, the NKJV calls her a “helper comparable” to him. The quoted portions show each version’s rendering of one Hebrew word, עזר, which means “helper.” The KJV emphasizes that this helper is “meet,” or sufficient for the man, but the NKJV seems to reveal a desire for “political correctness,” attempting to focus on the equality of the man and woman. There is no reason to see this word as indicating “comparable,” especially since it is used many times in the Old Testament to refer to God as man’s Helper. In each of those cases, it is very clear that God is a “sufficient” Helper to man, and not “comparable” to him. There is certainly no justification from the Hebrew language for this change being made in the NKJV.

But it's the word "helper" (עזר) that is used of God in the Old Testament, not the word translated "meet" or "comparable to" (כְּנֶגְדּֽוֹ). "Comparable" seems to me to be a very suitable translation that should be acceptable to anyone, regardless of his or her respective level of political correctness. Every time I try to get to the bottom of KJVO aversion to the NKJV, this is the kind of thing I find: confusion.

How can laypeople be blamed for buying arguments like this one that they have no way of evaluating? It's a maddening problem.

Surrett says,

The KJV was produced in 1611 and revised to accommodate changes in the English language in 1769.

But no KJV-Only men can ever seem to come up with a revision of the KJV that they're happy with, or any changes in the English language since 1769 which warrant such a revision. Sigh. I just want a Bible translation I can understand, an English Bible in my language.

[David Zimmerman · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent, plainly written apologetic of the superiority the Greek Text from which the King James Bible is translated. The author begins where the debate over the text of the Bible should begin, with the text of the Bible itself. He begins with the premise that we should use Bible principles to evaluate the Bible. He breaks these down to four: accuracy, authentication, accessibility and accomplishment. In chapters 2-5, he demonstrates how the accepted rules of "textual criticism" that have produced nearly every new translation in this modern age conflict with what the Bible actually says of itself. He tackles the main issues between the Textus Receptus and the Critical Text with clarity, though with brevity, keeping with his aim to present his theological defense of the TR in layman's terms. That said, his work is scholarly to the degree it needs to be. It is a good place to begin on understanding the real nature of the Bible Version debate. All the clamor over readability means little if the Bible you read is translated from an inferior text, on inferior principles for evaluating the text from which it is translated.

[Emily Boyer · Rating 2 out of 5]

Confusing… but I guess that is why I have to take a class on the subject this semester.

Nothing wrong with the book I just gave it two stars because it was confusing and I didn’t rlly know what it was talking about.

[Tom Brennan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Surrett's work here is carefully theological. By that I mean, he espouses and defends a TR view in contrast to a CT view, and he does so for theological/biblical reasons. It is not that he ignores history or logic, et al, but rather that he prioritizes what Scripture says about itself. Surrett properly (in my view) believes Scripture is self-authenticating. He then shows us how, and how that impacts this entire debate.

The book itself is not long, and in that sense is helpful. It can be handed to any reasonably intelligent lay person as a way of explaining to them foundational concepts in the entire version debate. I'm quite sure a longer book could/should/maybe has been written on this approach, but I'm not deep enough in the debate to know it yet. Having said that, I found this to be helpful, clear, fair, and good. And I recommend it to your attention.