Another King James Bible Believer

The "Historic, Orthodox Position" regarding the inspiration and preservation of the Holy Bible.

Reb Emmerson asks: "Will Kinney, why is it important to have a perfect and inerrant Bible now if it was not important that there was perfect and inerrant Bible prior to the King James Bible?"

That is a reasonable question. What I believe is happening is that people before the King James Bible didn't doubt the Bibles that they had. They thought that what they had was the words of God. In fact, I don't know of any formal confessions that were made about the inerrancy of Scripture prior to the time of the King James Bible.

But God Himself promised that He would preserve His words and heaven and earth shall pass away, but not His words. I believe the very nature of God itself requires that there be a perfect and inerrant Bible at some point in history.

What is happening today is that the majority of Christians do NOT believe in the inerrancy of the Bible - any Bible in any language. The issue of inerrancy is a relatively recent doctrine that was developed as a result of examining the very nature of Scripture and God's promises.

As far as I know the issue was first formally addressed in the Westminster Confession of 1646 by the church of England. You will notice that this is after the King James Bible and by the same group God used to give it to us.

But today the whole doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture and the Bible is being denied and the Bibles are becoming more and more corrupt textually.

You have some very shabby and poorly thought out attempts to defend inerrancy by groups like the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy and John MacArthur, but these only refer to "the originals", which ends up meaning absolutely nothing about having an inerrant Bible NOW.

And most of the "bibles" people are using and promoting today (other than the King James Bible believers) are in fact the new Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, etc. that nobody believes are the inerrant words of God.

God Himself said He would send a famine of hearing His words into the land, and Jesus said "Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?"

This growing apostasy and unbelief is all under the control of God's sovereignty; nothing is taking Him by surprise. The professing church will apostatize from the faith. And this is happening now.

 

Reb E. asks: "Will Kinney, why is it important to have a perfect and inerrant Bible now if it was not important that there was perfect and inerrant Bible prior to the King James Bible?"

Hi Reb. That is a reasonable question. What I believe is happening is that people before the King James Bible didn't doubt the Bibles that they had. They thought that what they had was the words of God. In fact, I don't know of any formal confessions that were made about the inerrancy of Scripture prior to the time of the King James Bible.

But God Himself promised that He would preserve His words and heaven and earth shall pass away, but not His words. I believe the very nature of God itself requires that there be a perfect and inerrant Bible at some point in history.

What is happening today is that the majority of Christians do NOT believe in the inerrancy of the Bible - any Bible in any language. The issue of inerrancy is a relatively recent doctrine that was developed as a result of examining the very nature of Scripture and God's promises.

As far as I know the issue was first formally addressed in the Westminster Confession of 1646 by the church of England. You will notice that this is after the King James Bible and by the same group God used to give it to us.

But today the whole doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture and the Bible is being denied and the Bibles are becoming more and more corrupt textually.

You have some very shabby and poorly thought out attempts to defend inerrancy by groups like the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy and John MacArthur, but these only refer to "the originals", which ends up meaning absolutely nothing about having an inerrant Bible NOW.

And most of the "bibles" people are using and promoting today (other than the King James Bible believers) are in fact the new Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, etc. that nobody believes are the inerrant words of God.

God Himself said He would send a famine of hearing His words into the land, and Jesus said "Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?"

This growing apostasy and unbelief is all under the control of God's sovereignty; nothing is taking Him by surprise. The professing church will apostatize from the faith. And this is happening now. (End of comments)

The "Historic, Orthodox Position" regarding the inspiration and preservation of the Holy Bible.

I often hear those who criticize the King James Bible and do not believe that any Bible or any text in any language is the inerrant, complete, pure, perfect and inspired words of God, appeal to their alleged "historic position" to support their views. They tell us that "only the originals" were inspired and that no existing texts or Bible translation is now the inerrant word of God.

However, as we shall see from the following Confessions of Faith regarding the inspired word of God, the historic position supports the King James Bible believer's view, that is, that we presently possess an inspired and inerrant Bible. Nowhere in any formalized Confession of Faith regarding the Holy Bible will you ever see such common phrases as used by the Inerrant Bible Deniers of today like "only in the originals" or "only in the autographs". These expressions, which in fact deny the existence of an inerrant Bible, do not begin to appear in the formalized Confessions until well into the 20th century, when the multitude of conflicting and contradictory bible versions began to gain ground in the seminaries which had abandoned faith in an inerrant Bible.

A student of the Confessions of Faith knows that various articles were placed in the Confessions when certain problems arose over doctrine. Some of the early Confessions of Faith said nothing about the inspiration of the Bible. Yet it would be unfair to say that they did not believe that the Bible was inspired of God. The historical Confessions of Faith have a definite bearing on the Bible version issue.

The Westminister Confessions of 1646 is probably the most famous Confession of Faith ever written. It says, "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 therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them." This is of course not a Baptist Confession, but it has had great influence among Baptists. This Confession says that the Scriptures were "inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages..." How could anyone make such a statement, unless they believed that they had reliable copies of the originals and reliable translations?

The Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland formally states regarding the Westminister Confession - "The Authorised Version has had explicit and implicit Church sanction over many hundreds of years in various countries. It was the version used to support the documents of the Westminster Assembly both in their wording and in their proof texts, and so Presbyterian Churches claiming to hold to these standards ought to acknowledge the Authorised Version appropriately."

"Any Church that holds fully to the teaching of the Westminster Confession must recognise that the Bible teaches the full of providential preservation of the text of Scripture . Not least because various parts of the wording and teaching of the Westminster Standards depend on verses that are only in the Received Text and have therefore been omitted in most modern versions (e.g. Matt. 6:13, 1 John 5:7). They can only therefore allow and approve the use of a translation which is based on the providentially preserved text.

 

Only the Authorized Version follows the divinely preserved text completely however. Even the New King James Version, which claims to be based upon the same text as the AV, departs from the Received Text in over 1200 places. It also undermines the true text by printing all the textual variants in its margin giving as its reason that the reader can now select the 'true' reading for themselves. This is only likely to create serious confusion and doubt – on what basis should such selection be made and with what resources can the individual reader judge for themselves? Only the AV is a safe guide and faithful to the deposit of truth received of God.

 

The Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland

 

In view of these requirements, the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland believes that it is important to assert, maintain and defend the best translation available in the English language. In 1961 the Synod passed a resolution which continues to express the Church's position. The Synod 'states its firm conviction that the Authorized Version is the best and most faithful translation of the Word of God to be found in the English language'. This then is the only English translation that is used in the public worship of the Church and recommended by the Church for family and private use. "

 

This whole article of their Confession of Faith in the King James Bible can be seen here

  http://www.fpchurch.org.uk/Beliefs/AuthorisedVersion.php 

The Helvetic Consensus Formula of 1675 says, "God saw to it that His word, which is with power unto salvation to everyone who believes, was entrusted to writing not only through Moses, the prophets and apostles, but also He has stood guard and watched over it with a fatherly concern to the present time that it not be destroyed by the cunning of Satan or by any other human deceit." If these people had no reliable text and no reliable translation, how could they make such a statement? If their Greek and Hebrew texts were not pure, and they had no pure translation, why would they make such a foolish statement?

The Midland Confession, 1655, was adopted unanimously by the messengers of the churches meeting at Warwick, England. This group of Baptists said, "We profess and believe the Holy Scriptures, the Old and New Testament, to be the word and revealed mind of God, which are able to make men wise unto Salvation, through faith and love which is in Christ Jesus, and that they are given by inspiration of God, serving to furnish the man of God for every good work; and by them we are (in the strength of Christ) to try all things whatsoever are brought to us, under the presence of truth. II Tim. 3:15-17; Isaiah 8:20." We hardly see how the critics of the KJV can find any comfort in that statement of faith. Those who adopted the Midland Confession of 1655, believed in the inspiration of the Scriptures, they believed they had those Scriptures, and they believed that by those Scriptures they could "try all things whatsoever are brought to us, under the presence of truth." In 1655, you can well know what English version they used, and they had never heard of the Westcott & Hort text, and we can thank the Lord for that.

The Standard Confession of 1660 (Baptist), said, "That the holy Scriptures is the rule whereby Saints both in matters of Faith, and conversation are to be regulated, they being able to make men wise unto salvation, through Faith in Christ Jesus, profitable for Doctrine, for reproof, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." While they mention no version, and said nothing about the originals, yet they believed that they had the holy Scriptures. We are confident that they were using the KJV.

The Second London Confession of 1677 (Baptist) says, "The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule of all saving Knowledge, Faith, and Obedience. . ." We ask, how can the Holy Scriptures be a certain and infallible rule if we have no infallible Bible? To hear Dr. Rice and others tell it, all versions have errors in them, and if this be so, we are left in a tragic situation. The Second London Confession of 1677 says, "The Old Testament in Hebrew, (which was the Native language of the people 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, are therefore authentical; so as in an controversies of Religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them." The Baptists of 1677 believed that the Scriptures were inspired of God, and that "By His care and Providence kept pure in all Ages." They believed that the Church in all ages could appeal to the pure Scriptures. That is quite different than some of our modern fundamentalists who talk about inspiration, but who are constantly finding errors in the Bible.

Which Bible were the Baptists of 1677 using? It surely wasn't the NASV, ASV, RSV or the Living Bible. Don't you suppose that it was the King James Bible of 1611?

The General Baptists of England published the "Orthodox Creed" In 1678. It says, "And by the holy Scriptures we understand the canonical books of the Old and New Testament, AS THEY ARE NOW TRANSLATED INTO OUR ENGLISH MOTHER TONGUE, of which there hath NEVER been any doubt of their verity, and authority, in the protestant churches of Christ to this day." They then list the books of the Old and New Testament and then say, "All which are given by the inspiration of God, to be the Rule of faith and life." What Bible do you suppose these people were using in 1678? It was English and there can be little doubt that what they are talking about the Authorized Version of 1611.

The Philadelphia Confession of Faith was adopted in 1742 at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. This Confession was printed for the Baptist by none other than the famous Benjamin Franklin. It states, "The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience. . . " It further says, "Under the name of holy Scripture, or the word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these. . . " They then list the 66 books of our English Bible, and end that paragraph by saying, "All which are given by the inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life." It is clear that they were talking about an English Bible, and we do not have to guess as to which one they were talking about. Further on in this article they state that the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament were "inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in as controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them." It is clear that they are talking about something they had at that time, and could appeal unto.

They did not appeal to the "pure Word of God" preserved in heaven. No doubt God's Word is pure in heaven. However, we cannot appeal to something that we cannot see. No doubt the "originals" were pure and uncorrupted, but we cannot appeal to the "originals", because they are not available. We dare anyone to prove that any mortal man ever saw all of the originals on this earth. We know it cannot be done. If we do not have the pure Word of God today, it is extremely doubtful that anyone on this earth ever had all 66 books of the pure Word of God!! What kind of a God do we serve? Would He leave us in such a mess?


Excerpts from the Presbyterian Encyclopaedia - 1884 - under the section of English Bible -  W. Adams D.D.


"Nothing which diligence, circumspection, scholarship, love of truth, and prayer, could avail was wanting to perfect this version of the Word of God. It is what it professes to be, a translation not a paraphrase; each word and expression corresponding to the original. What has, by some, been deemed a defect, is in fact a great excellence in our translation; it preserves, as far as possible, the very idiom of the original, the peculiarities of Oriental diction; thus proving that the men who made it understood what was the best style of translation - that which a transparent glass is not seen itself but shows every thing which is beyond it."


"But so it happened, in the kind providence of God, that the received version was made just in that auspicious moment of peace mind and union among Protestants, which has secured its adoption by all as the common standard. None have charged it with partiality, as favoring this or that sect, for the good reason that these sects and partialities did not then exist."


Other Baptist Confessions Of Faith

In 1888, the Baptist Union of Great Britain adopted a doctrinal statement which contained the following: "The following facts and doctrines are commonly believed by the churches of the Union, The Divine Inspiration and Authority of the Holy Scripture as the supreme and sufficient rule of our faith and practice; and the right and duty of individual judgment in the interpretation of it." This is their entire statement so far as the inspiration of the Bible is concerned. They mention nothing about the "originals" or any particular version of the Bible. However, there can be no doubt as to what version ranked supreme with them at this time.

The New Hampshire Confession of Faith was adopted in 1833, and it states, "We believe the Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired, and is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction; that it has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter, that it reveals the principles by which God will judge us; and therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the world, the true centre of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried." Please note that they mention no "originals" and no version. There was one version that ruled supreme in the English language of 1833 and it was the King James Bible.

It should be apparent that if the Baptists of 1833 had a "supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried," it could not have been the originals, since not one of them had seen even the original manuscript of even one book of the Bible! Their "supreme standard" had to be a Bible, to which they had ready access.


Taken from the Association of Baptists 25th meeting 1830

We the church of Jesus Christ being regularly baptised upon the profession of our faith in Christ are convinced the concessive of associate churches. WE BELIEVE THAT THE SCRIPTURES OF THE OLD AND THE NEW TESTAMENTS AS TRANSLATED BY THE AUTHORITY OF KING JAMES TO BE THE WORDS OF GOD AND IS THE ONLY TRUE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 


1857: “The general excellence of the English Version being admitted, ITS PERFECTION ASSUMED, AND THEREFORE  ALL PRECEDING AND SUBSEQUENT VERSIONS MUST BE UNWORTHY OF NOTICE; nay, even the original text need not be consulted...” (Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, The English Bible, and Our Duty with Regard to It, 1857; 1871).

 
1881: The New York Times printed the sermon of Dewit Talmage who said, “Let not the hands of worldly criticism, pedantry, or useless disturbance touch that ark! Remember the fate of Uzzah! We are in the midst of an agitation caused by the revision of the New Testament. We had a translation 270 years old...satisfactory to all Christendom except a few doctors of Divinity... (Applause)...put it upon my study table, into my family room, or into my pulpit, as a substitute for the King James translation, I never will. (Great applause.) I put my hand upon the old book and take an oath of allegiance to it, so help me God!...Religion has not so much to fear from infidels as from mistaken friends of the Bible...I have some practical advice for private Christians. Hold on to your Bible… The old Bible is for me; it is good enough for you...The Bible in your houses is the Bible that will be quoted for all time to come…” ( June 6, 1881).

1882: “I unhesitatingly say, that the same Holy Ghost who gave inspiration to the Apostles to write out the New Testament, presided over and inspired those men in the translation and bringing out of the entire Bible in the English language. And I also say, that no version since, brought out in the English language, has the Divine sanction...Now, why would God cause at this age and in these trying times, versions in the same language to be brought out, to conflict...?...He would not...I FURTHERMORE SAY, THAT THE KING JAMES' TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE IS THE ONLY DIVINELY INSPIRED...”  (William Washington Simkins, The English Version of the New Testament, Compared with King James' Translation, 1882).

1890: The Supreme Court said, “…the practice of reading THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE, COMMONLY AND ONLY RECEIVED AS INSPIRED AND TRUE by the Protestant religious sects…” (Decision of the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin Relating to the Reading of the Bible in Public Schools, 1890).
 
1897: "A hundred years ago the Authorized Version, which had been in our fathers hands for nearly two hundred years, was no longer a version.  It had come to have all the significance of an original book. Outside the pulpit and the university no one dreamed that it was translated from another language...When our fathers, and they did, stoutly maintained the doctrine of verbal inspiration, the inspired words they really had in mind were not Hebrew or Greek, but English words; the words of that version which Selden called the best translation in the world, and of which the late Master of Balliol once remarked...IN A CERTAIN SENSE, THE AUTHORIZED VERSION IS MORE INSPIRED THAN THE ORIGINAL...(Minutes of the Annual Meeting, General Association of the Congregational Churches of Massachusetts, 1897.)

In 1882 author William W. Simkins wrote, “I unhesitatingly say, that the same Holy Ghost who gave inspiration to the Apostles to write out the New Testament, presided over and inspired those men in the translation and bringing out of the entire [KJV] Bible in the English language. And I also say, that NO VERSION SINCE, BROUGHT OUT IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, HAS THE DIVINE...Now, why would God cause at this age and in these trying times, versions in the same language to be brought out, to conflict...?...He would not....I FURTHERMORE SAY, THAT THE KING JAMES TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE IS THE ONLY DIVINELY INSPIRED TRANSLATION" (The English Version of the New Testament, Compared with King James' Translation, W.W. Simkins, pp. 41,42)


Commenting on the KJV Bible in 1922 William L. Phelps, Professor of English Literature at Yale, wrote, “The Elizabethan period—a term loosely applied to the years between 1558 and 1642—is properly regarded as the most important era in English literature.... the crowning achievement of those spacious times was the Authorised Translation of the Bible, which appeared in 1611.... the art of English composition reached its climax in the pages of the [KJV] Bible. WE ANGLO-SAXONS HAVE A BETTER BIBLE THAN THE FRENCH OR THE GERMANS OR THE ITALIANS OR THE SPANISH; OUR ENGLISH TRANSLATION IS EVEN BETTER THAN THE ORIGINAL HEBREW AND GREEK.  THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO EXPLAIN THIS; THE AUTHORIZED VERSION WAS INSPIRED."  (Human Nature in The Bible, William Lyon Phelps, 1922, pp. 10, 11)


The Report on The History and Recent Collation of The English Version of The Bible presented by the Committee on Versions to the Board of Managers of the American Bible Society and adopted in 1851 stated that when the King James Bible was completed in 1611 it “immediately became the standard English Bible, and superseded all the other versions.... it had the effect at once to develope and fix the structure and character of the English language; and with that language it has since been borne abroad even to the ends of the earth.... At the present day, the English [language] is probably the vernacular tongue of more millions than any other one language under heaven; and the English [KJV] Bible has brought and still brings home the knowledge of God's revealed truth to myriads more of minds, than ever received it through the original tongues.” (Report on The History and Recent Collation of The English Version of The Bible, 1857, p. 7).


1945: President Harry S. Truman said, “THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE IS THE BEST THERE IS OR EVER HAS BEEN OR WILL BE, and you get a bunch of college professors spending years working on it, and all they do is take the poetry out of it.”
(President Harry S. Truman, quoted in, Merle Miller, Plain Speaking: An Oral Biography of Harry S. Truman, 1985)

1946: “When a Bible teacher refers to the original languages of the Bible, there is a danger of giving a wrong impression about the authority and true value of the standard King James Version. Too many are ready to say that they have a better rendering [saying, 'that word means'], and often in such a way as to give an impression that the King James Version is faulty, or that other versions are much better. WE BELIEVE THAT GOD OVERRULED HIS GIFT OF THE KING JAMES VERSION OF 1611, SO THAT IN IT WE HAVE THE VERY WORD OF GOD."  (Le Baron Wilmont Kinney, Acres of Rubies, Loizeaux, 1946)
 
 
Winston Churchill“In the crowded emigrant ships which sailed to the New World of America, there was little room for baggage. If the adventurers took books with them, they took the Bible, Shakespeare, and later Pilgrim’s Progress; and the Bible they mostly took with them was the Authorized Version of King James I. About ninety million copies are thought to have been published in the English language alone. It has been translated into more than seven hundred and sixty tongues. The Authorized Version is still the most popular in England and the United States. This may be deemed James’ greatest achievement, for the impulse was largely his. The Scottish pedant built better than he knew. The scholars who produced this masterpiece are mostly unknown and unremembered. But they forged an enduring link, literary and religious, between the English-speaking peoples of the world.”
 
Churchill, Winston, Churchill’s History of the English-Speaking Peoples, Commager, One volume edition, Mead and Co., 1965, p. 160

 

 



Charlton Heston - ”…the King James translation has been described as 'the monument of English prose' as well as 'the only great work of art ever created by a committee'. Both statements are true. Fifty four scholars worked seven years to produce the work from its extant texts in Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and English. Such an undertaking can be expected to produce great scholarship, but hardly writing as spare and sublime as the King James....  

 

The authors of several boring translations that have followed over the last fifty years mumble that the KJV is "difficult" filled with long words. Have a look at the difficult long words that begin the Old Testament, and end the Gospels: 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; darkness was upon the face of the deep.' and 'Now, of the other things which Jesus did, if they should be written every one, I suppose the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.' Shakespeare aside, there's no comparable writing in the language, as has been observed by wiser men than I. 


Over the past several centuries it's been the single book in most households, an enormous force in shaping the development of the English language. Carried around the world by missionaries, it provided the base by which English is about to become the lingua franca of the world in the next century. Exploring it during this shoot [Ten Commandments] was one of the most rewarding creative experiences of my life." 


--Charlton Heston, Actor 


In the Arena: An Autobiography, pp. 554-555


 

 1975: The Cambridge History of the Bible admits, “...its victory was so complete that its text acquired a sanctity properly ascribable only to the immediate voice of God; to multitudes of English-speaking Christians it has seemed little less than blasphemy to tamper with the words of the King James Version.” (Stanley Lawrence Greenslade, The Cambridge History of the Bible, Volume 1, 1975)
 
1977 Ronald Reagan speaking about the King James Bible -
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08_KByUwH6c
 
The following transcript is one of Ronald Reagan's famous radio addresses. In this address (which aired September 6, 1977) - "What would you say if someone decided Shakespeare's plays, Charles Dicken's novels, or the music of Beethoven could be rewritten & improved?  Writing in the journal "The Alternative", Richard Hanser, author of The Law & the Prophets and Jesus: What Manner of Man Is This?, has called attention to something that is more than a little mind boggling. It is my understanding that the Bible (both the Old & New Testaments) has been the best selling book in the entire history of printing.
 
 
Now another attempt has been made to improve it. I say another because there have been several fairly recent efforts to quote "make the Bible more readable and understandable" unquote. But as Mr. Hanser so eloquently says, "For more than 3 1/2 centuries, its language and its images, have penetrated more deeply into the general culture of the English speaking world, and been more dearly treasured, than anything else ever put on paper." He then quotes the irreverent H. L. Mencken, who spoke of it as purely a literary work and said it was, "probably the most beautiful piece of writing in any language."  
 
They were, of course, speaking of The Authorized Version, the one that came into being when the England of King James was scoured for translators & scholars. It was a time when the English language had reached it's peak of richness & beauty.
 
Now we are to have The Good News Bible which will be in, "the natural English of everyday adult conversation." I'm sure the scholars and clergymen supervised by the American Bible Society were sincerely imbued with the thought that they were taking religion to the people with their Good News Bible, but I can't help feeling we should instead be taking the people to religion and lifting them with the beauty of language that has outlived the centuries.
 
The sponsors of the Good News version boast that their Bible is as readable as the daily paper – and so it is. But do readers of the daily news find themselves moved to wonder, "at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth"? Mr. Hanser suggests that sadly the "tinkering & general horsing around with the sacred texts will no doubt continue" as pious drudges try to get it right. "It will not dawn on them that it has already been gotten right."
 
This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening. — aired September 6, 1977

David Cloud writes concerning the famous lawyer - "Philip Mauro (1859-1952) is another example of the many fundamentalists of old  who defended the King James Bible. Beginning in the early 1920s, Mauro wrote in defense of the King James Bible and in opposition to the critical Greek text which had been published by Westcott and Hort thirty years earlier, and to the modern versions which were beginning to flow from it. Mauro's 1924 work "Which Version? Authorized or Revised?" was reprinted 50 years later in David Otis Fuller's True or False. This brilliant lawyer carefully represented the side of the Traditional or Received Text. The thing that characterized Mauro is that which characterizes each defender of the Received Text and the KJV: faith in God's providence and an emphasis on Bible preservation.

"In view also of the leading part the English speaking peoples were to play in shaping the destinies of mankind during the eventful centuries following the appearance of the Version of 1611, we are justified in believing that it was through a providential ordering that the preparation of that Version was not in anywise affected by higher critical theories in general, or specifically by the two ancient Codices we have been discussing. For when we consider what the A.V. [Authorized Version] was to be to the world, the incomparable influence it was to exert in shaping the course of events, and in accomplishing those eternal purposes of God for which Christ died and rose again and the Holy Spirit came down from heaven--WHEN WE CONSIDER THAT THIS VERSION WAS TO BE, MORE THAN ALL OTHERS COMBINED, "THE SWORD OF THE SPIRIT", AND THAT ALL THIS WAS FULLY KNOWN TO GOD BEFOREHAND, WE ARE FULLY WARRANTED IN THE BELIEF THAT THIS WAS NOT THROUGH CHANCE, BUT BY PROVIDENTIAL CONTROL OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, that the translators had access to just those Mss. which were available at that time, and to none others." (Mauro, Which Version?)



  • In his book “Which Bible Would Jesus Use?”, Jack McElroy quotes from previous writers who alluded to the widespread belief among Christians that the King James Bible was the inspired words of God.
  • In chapter 5, titled “Why the Lord can’t choose the King James Bible without looking foolish to scholars” he writes: “You’d think Dr. Bob Jr. and the others would have noticed this quote from Philip Schaff (1819–1893), Protestant theologian, church historian, author of History of the Christian Church, and president of the committee that translated the 1901 American Standard Version of the Bible, Phillip Schaff said this in 1891: “to the great mass of English readers King James’s Version is virtually the inspired Word of God”.
  • Sounds like there was a “great mass” of average Christians who believed the King James Bible was the inspired word of God. That was then. You were allowed to believe that then and only gentlemen like Philip Schaff and other academics who were promoting competing Bibles would make fun of you. 
  • And it goes back even further. David Daniell, professor of English at University College London and Honorary Fellow of Hertford and St. Catherine’s Colleges, Oxford, wrote: “From 1769, effectively, there grew the notion that the KJV was peculiarly, divinely, inspired.”
  • That’s quite a lofty view of the Scripture in English, but this would be among the common people. And it’s not surprising, for the Scripture says: …the common people heard him gladly. (Mark 12:37) Certainly, the intelligentsia would never have shared that opinion.
  • Looks like the Lord would have to condescend into the ranks of “the great unwashed” if he chooses the King James Bible. Referring to the King James Bible, Anglican archbishop and famous philologist Richard Chenevix Trench (1807–1886) wrote in 1858: “We must never leave out of sight that for a great multitude of readers the English Version is not the translation of an inspired Book, but is itself the inspired book.”
  • Evidently, there was “a great multitude” of readers back in 1858 who thought pretty highly of the King James Bible. But, you’re no longer allowed to believe the King James Bible is the inspired word of God like Christians did in 1858 and 1891. They call it heresy now.” 
  • To learn more:
  • http://www.amazon.com/Which-Bible-Would-Jesus-Use-ebook/dp/B00KTV5GM2/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1404136513&sr=1-1&keywords=which+bible+would+jesus+use


  • Thus, the claim that fundamentalist leaders of bygone days ignored the Bible version question, or refused to make Bible versions an issue, or came down consistently on the side against "King James Onlyism" is simply false. The position held on the Bible version issue in the 1920s and 1930s by Philip Mauro was held by thousands of other fundamentalists.

The Confessions of Faith give little or no comfort to the critics of the KJB. The KJB was the English Version that reigned supreme from the time of the London Confession of 1677, the New Hampshire Confession of 1833, the Baptist Bible Union of 1923, and all of the other Confessions in between and afterward.

It all boils down to how big of a God we serve. Did He have the power and desire to preserve the word in written form for us today, so that we are not left in the dark concerning what is the word of God? Is His power so weak or His Divine purpose so unsure, that we must now search out all the manuscripts, all the Hebrew and Greek texts, and all the versions, in order to say that we do have the word of God mixed in with all the errors. If we are reduced to this state, may the Lord help us, for we are in absolute confusion unmatched in human history. If we are still looking for the word of God, and do not have an infallible Bible, it should be obvious to all, that we never will have such a Bible. This means that God has not kept His promise, and where do we stand, if we have such a God?

Regarding the practical outworking of the doctrine of the preservation of God's words, the modern version proponents either believe the true words of God are "out there somewhere" in all the variant manuscripts but we are not sure which ones they are; or they reduce "preservation" to the idea that the general, overall message is in all "reliable translations", though the particular words and numbers, many whole verses and the meaning of much of Scripture remains uncertain or even lost. Neither view really means that "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" has actually been divinely preserved through history to the present day.

Instead of "heaven and earth shall pass away, but MY WORDS shall not pass away" (Matthew 24:36), the modern versionist really thinks along the lines of "heaven and earth shall pass away, but most of the general sense of what I said won't pass away."

In contrast to the historic Confessions of Faith regarding the Holy Bible, let's now look at some quotes and polls from the Evangelical community of today.

The following quotes come from men prepared the way for and later adopted the textual theories of Westcott and Hort, whose Greek text forms the basis of most modern New Testament versions, as the NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV, and Holman Standard.

As early is 1771 Griesbach wrote, "The New Testament abounds in more losses, additions, and interpolations, purposely introduced then any other book."

In 1908 Rendel Harris declared that the New Testament text had not at all been settled but was "MORE THAN EVER, AND PERHAPS FINALLY, UNSETTLED."

In 1910 Conybeare gave it as his opinion that "the ultimate (New Testament) text, IF THERE EVER WAS ONE THAT DESERVES TO BE SO CALLED, is FOR EVER IRRECOVERABLE."

In 1941 Kirsopp Lake, after a life time spent in the study of the New Testament text, delivered the following judgment: "In spite of the claims of Westcott and Hort and of von Soden, WE DO NOT KNOW the original form of the Gospels, AND IT IS QUITE LIKELY THAT WE NEVER SHALL."

In 1960 H. Greeven also has acknowledged the uncertainty of the neutral method of New Testament textual criticism - "In general, the whole thing is limited to probability judgments; THE ORIGINAL TEXT, according to its nature, must be and REMAINS A HYPOTHESIS."

In 1963 R. M. Grant adopts a still more despairing attitude - "The primary goal of New Testament textual study remains the recovery of what the New Testament writers wrote. We have already suggested that to achieve this goal is well-nigh impossible."

 The NIV -What do the NIV editors think about their own version? They tell us in the NIV Introduction -"Like all translations of the Bible, made as they are by imperfect men, this one UNDOUBTEDLY FALLS SHORT of its goals."

They got two things wrong and only one right. By their saying all translations fall short, they have effectively stripped the inerrant Bible out of the hands of the common man, and imply that no translation can be the pure words of God. They sure didn't get this unbelief from the Bible itself. The Bible clearly teaches that a translation CAN BE the inspired and pure words of God.

They also reveal their unbiblical stand and deep ignorance by their stupid statement "made by imperfect men". If God cannot use "imperfect men" to give us His words, then we would never have had "the originals" to begin with!

The only thing they got right was " this one UNDOUBTEDLY FALLS SHORT." Maybe the NIV committee will get it right when they come out with their announced "major revision" to come out in 2011.  Ya think?

You can get saved using versions like the NIV, NASB, NKJV, ESV and Holman, but your faith will be weakened and you will be more open to the fiery darts of the wicked concerning the truth of your faith in the gospel of Christ. Why? Because this gospel is only found in a Book than none of them believe is 100% true. At what point does God start to tell them the truth? 

Modern Evangelicalism

The following testimonies about the character of Evangelicalism today were not made by Fundamentalists; they were made by key Evangelical leaders.

"A GROWING VANGUARD OF YOUNG GRADUATES OF EVANGELICAL COLLEGES WHO HOLD DOCTORATES FROM NON-EVANGELICAL DIVINITY CENTERS NOW QUESTION OR DISOWN INERRANCY and the doctrine is held less consistently by evangelical faculties. ... Some retain the term and reassure supportive constituencies but nonetheless stretch the term's meaning" (Carl F.H. Henry, first editor of Christianity Today, chairman for the 1966 World Congress on Evangelism, "Conflict Over Biblical Inerrancy," Christianity Today, May 7, 1976)

"MORE AND MORE ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS HISTORICALLY COMMITTED TO AN INFALLIBLE SCRIPTURE HAVE BEEN EMBRACING AND PROPAGATING THE VIEW THAT THE BIBLE HAS ERRORS IN IT. This movement away from the historic standpoint has been most noticeable among those often labeled neo-evangelicals. This change of position with respect to the infallibility of the Bible is widespread and has occurred in evangelical denominations, Christian colleges, theological seminaries, publishing houses, and learned societies" (Harold Lindsell, former vice-president and professor Fuller Theological Seminary and Editor Emeritus of Christianity Today, The Battle for the Bible, 1976, p. 20).

"WITHIN EVANGELICALISM THERE ARE A GROWING NUMBER WHO ARE MODIFYING THEIR VIEWS ON THE INERRANCY OF THE BIBLE SO THAT THE FULL AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE IS COMPLETELY UNDERCUT. But is happening in very subtle ways... What may seem like a minor difference at first, in the end makes all the difference in the world ... compromising the full authority of Scripture eventually affects what it means to be a Christian theologically and how we live in the full spectrum of human life" (Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, 1983, p. 44).

A Recent Poll

Amazing Statistics - I was listening to my radio today, and happened to catch Pastor Michael Youseff's Message on His "Leading The Way" program. The title of today's message was "The Bible, The World's Most Relevant Book.

In his message he gave statistics of a poll that was conducted. Here is what the poll revealed:

85% of students at America's largest Evangelical Seminary don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

74% of the Clergy in America no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

"Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled...Let no man deceive you by any means; for that day shall not come, except there come A FALLING AWAY FIRST, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition..." 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3

Will Kinney

For those who may be interested, Dr. Jason Gastrich challenged me to debate the King James Only position over at the Baptist Board. The BB has since removed the whole debate, but Mr. Gastrich was kind enough to leave it up at his site. I think you will find it very interesting.

http://jcsm.org/1on1/KJVOnlyismDebate.htm,

 

Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm 

 

Historic Confessions of Preservation support KJB view