|
Bible Study Resource 7a. Some FAQ”s (Frequently Asked Questions) About the KJV-Only Issue 1b. Instead of using the KJV, can we use the New King James Version (NKJV) and the 21st Century King James Version (KJ21)? The NKJV came into the scene in 1982. It claims to be an improvement of the old KJV. To its credit, the NKJV does not employ the dynamic but formal equivalence method of translation. It is thus a more reliable translation than the NIV. According to Arthur Farstad, the NKJV is more literal than the NIV, but more literary than the NASB. Although better than the other modern versions available today, it is not superior to the old KJV for the following reasons: Its failure to distinguish between the singular and plural of the 2d personal pronoun (ie "you"). For instance, "thou art" is "you (sg) are," "ye are" is "you (pl) are," "thee" is "you (sg)," and "you (KJV)" is "you (pl)." The Greek differentiates between the singular and plural "you," and the old KJV renders them accordingly. "But the NKJV the singular "thee" to "you," and in so doing gives us a less precise translation. Eg: in Luke 22:31-32, the NKJV reads, "Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you (sg or pl?), that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you (sg or pl?), . . ." Cf KJV, "Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you (pl), that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee (sg ), . . ." In Isa 7:14 on the virgin birth, the NKJV reads, "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you (sg or pl? just Ahaz or faithful believers?) a sign, . . ." Since the NKJV does not distinguish between the singular and plural pronouns, it allows for a popular and very wrong interpretation of this verse which claims that the sign of the virgin birth was directly given to Ahaz the faithless king, and so must be fulfilled in his time. Walter Kaiser for example says that the virgin birth was fulfilled in Ahaz”s wife, and the child born was Hezekiah! With the old KJV, it is clear that the plural "you" shifts the focus from Ahaz to the house of David hinting to us that Ahaz is not the recipient of this sign. So, the NKJV though superior to most modern versions is still inferior to the old KJV. There is therefore no good reason to replace the KJV with the NKJV. For more information, read G W and D E Anderson, The New King James Version (London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1995). How about the KJ21? The KJ21 unlike the NKJV is not a new translation but an update of the old KJV. As such (1) no textual changes were made, (2) the old and solemn pronouns (ie thee, thou, ye, etc) have been retained, (3) the important theological terms remain the same (eg judgment, doctrine, justification, santification, propitiation, atonement, etc). However, one drawback of the KJ21 is its costliness. Great Christian Books (a USA-based mail order bookseller) which sells books at significant discounts priced it at S$50.40 (hardcover). As an update, it serves as a useful companion to, not replacement of the KJV. 2b. When you say the KJV is the only reliable and accurate Bible, are you saying that the Chinese, Tamil, Korean Bibles are not? No, we are not saying that at all. We are also not saying that everyone in the whole wide world regardless of language must use only the English Bible. We are glad over the fact that the Bible is translated into so many languages. The Westminster Confession itself says that the Scriptures "are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation." However, we must ensure that the translation used must be faithful, accurate, and reliable. 3b. Was King James a homosexual as alleged by anti-KJVists? If King James was such a man, does that not detract from the version that bears his name? There are those who say that he was, and there are those who think otherwise. Before we pass judgment, we must hear from both sides viz, King James himself, and his accusers. We need concrete proof. Before we call someone a homosexual, we must be very sure he is so beyond doubt. But for argument”s sake, let”s say King James was gay. Being homosexual he would surely alter scriptural texts which speak against the sin of homosexuality. We do not find such alterations in the KJV. On the contrary, we find intact such passages as Rom 1:26-27 speaking out against "vile affections; for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which is meet." If King James was truly homosexual, why then did he leave this passage untampered? In any case, even if King James was gay, he was not among the translators, and had no part in the translating work. Whether he was a homosexual or not is a non-issue. Dr Samuel Gipp (The Answer Book [Tennessee: Bible & Literature Missionary Foundation, 1989], 9-10) said that King James had enemies. One such man was Anthony Weldon. Weldon, 25 years after King James had died, wrote a paper in 1650 calling him a homosexual. This allegation was largely ignored by the people at that time probably because it wasn”t true. It may be regarded as one of these hate mails that we get now and then. 4b. The many archaic words of the KJV make it difficult for me to understand the Scriptures. Is this not good reason for me to change to a modern version? No, it is not a good reason. The claim that the KJV has "many" archaic words and therefore not understandable is overstated. Out of 800,000 words, there are only about 600 archaic words in the KJV. These out-dated words comprise only 0.1% of the KJV. The meaning of these words may be easily found in the "Bible Word List" published by the Trinitarian Bible Society. Dr Laurence Vance has recently produced a helpful volume not only to give but also to explain the meaning of the archaic words comparing them to the words found in modern versions. See his book Archaic Words and the Authorized Version (Pensacola: Vance Publications, 1996). 5b. The KJV is not as readable as the modern versions. Is this true? After extensive research and study, D A Waite Jr says, "The entire KJV averages 1.31 syllables and 3,968 letters per word. This word length puts the KJV in the same readability category as the children”s books . . ." It is not true that the KJV is unreadable. For the details, go to D A Waite Jr, The Comparative Readability of the Authorized Version (Collingswood: Bible For Today, 1996). Those who want to improve their command of English would do well to use the KJV. 6b. There are so many revisions on the KJV. So which KJV is the correct one? The KJV was first published in 1611. However, there were revisions that followed soon after; all of which were completed in 1629. The revisions that occurred between 1611 and 1629 were due to printing errors. These errors were corrected by the KJV translators themselves, namely Samuel Ward and John Bois. In the course of typesetting, the printers have inadvertantly left out words or phrases; all such manifest typographical errors were corrected. For example, Ps 16:17 of the 1611 edition read "good" instead of "God." This was clearly a printer”s error, and was corrected in 1617. Another revision of the KJV was done between 1762 and 1769. This revision had to do with spelling. For example, old forms which had an "e" after verbs, and "u" instead of "v," and "f" for "s" were all standardised to conform to modern spelling. For example, "feare" is "fear," "mooued" is "moved," and "euill" is "evil," and "alfo," is "also." (To see the old-style printing type-face and spelling, you can go to the 16-17th century facsimile editions of John Calvin”s Sermons on the Epistles of Timothy and Titus reprinted by Banner of Truth found in the FEBC library.) All these Gothic and German spelling peculiarities have been Romanised by 1769. It is important to note that the 1769 edition is essentially the same as the 1611. There are not two or more KJVs but only one, and the one which is used today is the 1769 edition. (See Waite, Defending the King James Bible, 237-8.) 7b. Aren”t KJV-only or KJV-superiority advocates ignorant or unscholarly people? The accusation of not being up-to-date or unscholarly is leveled against KJV advocates by neo-evangelicals especially. If you do not buy their brand of mixed-up modernistic cum evangelical scholarship, and disagree with their liberal presuppositions, you are labeled an "ignoramus." Although there are KJV extremists who have a zeal but without knowledge, there are many who do their research, are proficient in the biblical languages, and are well-trained in theology. More importantly, all are ardent Christians who love the Lord, and His Word. This stigma of being called an "ignoramus" if you support the KJV and oppose WH was faced by Alfred Martin (former Vice-President of Moody Bible Institute) when he was at Dallas Theological Seminary. So he decided to write his ThD dissertation to prove the WH textual critical theory wrong. The title of his dissertation written in 1951 was, "A Critical Examination of the Westcott-Hort Textual Theory." This is what he said, "The present generation of Bible students, having been reared on Westcott and Hort, have for the most part accepted the theory without independent or critical examination. To the average student of the Greek New Testament today it is unthinkable to question the theory at least in its basic premises. Even to imply that one believes the Textus Receptus to be nearer the original text than the Westcott-Hort text is, lays one open to the suspicion of gross ignorance or unmitigated bigotry. . . . "At precisely the time when liberalism was carrying the field in the English churches the theory of Westcott and Hort received wide acclaim. These are not isolated facts. Recent contributions on the subject—that is, in the present century—following mainly the Westcott-Hort principles and method, have been made largely by men who deny the inspiration of the Bible. . . . "Textual criticism cannot be divorced entirely from theology. No matter how great a Greek scholar a man may be, or no matter how great an authority on the textual evidence, his conclusions must always be opened to suspicion if he does not accept the Bible as the very Word of God. . . . "The great difficulty in New Testament textual criticism today, which makes it impossible for Bible-believing Christians to be sanguine about the results of present research, is the almost universally held view among critics of the relative nature of truth. Textual criticism has become more and more subjective since Westcott and Hort opened the door of subjectivism wide" (David Cloud, Myths About the King James Bible [Oak Harbor: Way of Life, 1993], 18-9). We thank the Lord that some anti-TR/KJV scholars later changed their position. They were honest about their initial blindness or ignorance, and spoke for the TR/KJV after knowing the truth. One such man is William Bruner, ThM, PhD. In a letter to D O Fuller he said, ". . . you wrote me a very kind letter and sent me some sample materials from your book Which Bible?. You might as well have been shooting a pop gun at a stone wall. My mind was so strongly fortified in the doctrine of Westcott and Hort that I could not for one moment consider the King James Bible. Had I not studied Textual Criticism under the great Dr. A.T. Robertson? I thought that you were just one of those die-hard Fundamentalists who were striving to keep the Christian world under the bondage of traditionalism. Such men are interested only in pleasing the people by catering to their ignorance, prejudice and sentimentality! But just a few weeks ago I happened to read your two books, Which Bible? and True or False?. For the first time a little new light shone in. I saw that there is another side of the argument. Dr Robertson had not given us all the facts" (Ibid, 4). Apparently there has been a conspiracy of silence! This silence is promoted in most Bible colleges and seminaries when NT Introduction and NT Exegesis are taught. This is testified by D A Waite, ThD, PhD, who wrote, "For about twenty years I was in darkness about this issue. I knew nothing of it from roughly 1951 to 1971. . . . I was at Dallas Theological Seminary from 1948-1952. That was my Master of Theology. Then I stayed an extra year, 1953. Throughout those years we were simply told to use the Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament, which we did in the Greek classes. It was the actual text Westcott and Hort developed. It was not simply another text—the Nestles [sic] Text or the Souter Text—but it was Westcott and Hort. And I didn”t know there was any other Greek text. . . . "I majored in classic [sic] Greek and Latin at the University of Michigan, 1945-48. Took three years to get my four years of work. I went summer and winter, so that I could marry my wife. Then I came to Dallas Seminary. I was learning New Testament Greek, and I didn”t pay much heed to the text. I didn”t care. I just wanted to learn the forms and get good grades, which I did. But I did not examine the textual base that we were using. I just assumed that was the only one to use. "You ask the question, then, how I came to understand the Bible version issue. . . , my mother-in-law to be, Mrs. Gertrude Grey Sanborn, gave me the book God Wrote Only One Bible. I didn”t say or think too much about it. I didn”t study it at that time, but that was my first introduction. Then as I was teaching as professor of Greek at Shelton College in Cape Maine [sic], New Jersey, one of my pupils, Sandra Devos—Sandra Phillips, I think, was her name then—said that there was a book in our library at Shelton by Dean John William Burgon that defends not only the King James Bible, but also the Greek text, the Received Text, that underlies the Bible. "‘Have you ever seen that book, Dr Waite?” she asked me. I said, ‘Well, no, I haven”t.” I think I might have looked at it; I might have glanced at it. I thought to myself, ‘Here is an interesting thing. Here is the first book that I have seen that says there is a difference in the Greek text that the modern versions are using, and that the King James Bible that underlies it, the Textus Receptus, is superior to the Westcott and Hort-type text, or to the critical text.” ". . . Then about that time, I think it was about 1969 or 1970, along in there, Dr. Fuller came out with his book Which Bible?. I read that. Also I looked at at least one of the books by Dr. Edward F. Hills—Believing Bible Study. I don”t think I saw at the time his other book, The Defense of the King James Bible [sic]. "So in 1971, having read these various books, I was deeply convicted and convinced that the King James Bible and the Greek text that underlies it, as well as the Hebrew text—although I got into the Hebrew text a little bit later—but I was convinced that the Greek text that underlies the New Testament of the King James Bible was the accurate text to use. . . . "So can you say the first twenty years, from 1951-71, I was in somewhat of a daze, somewhat of a darkness, concerning the issues. Then from 1971-91, twenty more years, I have been writing, I have been studying, I have been preaching, I have been teaching, I have been debating, I have been arguing, I have been talking about, I have been preaching from, I have continued to memorize from and believe the King James Bible and the text that underlies that Bible. So for twenty years I”ve been a stalwart defender of that Book" (Ibid., 4-5; see also D A Waite, Defending the King James Bible, 218-9). Consider also the testimony of Edward F Hills (BD, Westminster, ThM, Columbia, ThD, Harvard). On how he became a KJV believer, Dr Hills wrote, "I have been interested in the problem of New Testament textual criticism since my high school days in the 1920's. At that time I began to read the commentaries of Charles Hodge, books that were a part of my Presbyterian heritage. I noticed that Hodge would sometimes mention variant readings, most however, just to show that he was knowledgeable, for he rarely departed from "the common text" (textus receptus) and "our English version" (King James). Even so my curiosity was roused, so that in 1931, when I was a sophomore at Yale University I took down C. R. Gregory's Canon and Text of the NT from a library shelf and began to read. I was dismayed at the large number of verses that, according to Gregory and his teachers Westcott and Hort, must be rejected from the Word of God. Nor was I much comforted by Gregory's assurance that the necessary damage had been done and the rest of the text had been placed on an unassailable basis. How could I be sure of this? It seemed to me that the only way to gain assurance on this point was to go to Westminster Seminary and study the question under the tutelage of Dr. Machen, who preached in New Haven rather frequently in those days, talking to Yale students at least twice. "When I began to study New Testament textual criticism at Westminster (under Dr. Stonehouse) I found that the first day or so was mainly devoted to praising Dr. B. B. Warfield. He was lauded for being among the first to recognize the "epoch making" importance of the theory of Westcott and Hort and for establishing the Westcott and Hort tradition at Princeton Seminary, a tradition which was now being faithfully perpetuated at Westminster Seminary. To me, however, all this was very puzzling. Dr. Warfield was a renowned defender of the Reformed faith and of the Westminster Confession, yet in the department of New Testament textual criticism he agreed entirely with liberals such as Westcott, Hort and C. R. Gregory. He professed to agree with the statement of the Westminster Confession that the Scriptures by God's "singular care and providence" had been "kept pure in all ages", but it was obvious that this providential preservation of the Scripture was of no importance to Dr. Warfield when he actually began to deal with the problems of the New Testament. When he engaged in New Testament textual criticism, Dr. Warfield ignored the providential preservation of the Scriptures and treated the text of the New Testament as he would the text of any book or writing. "It matters not whether the writing before us be a letter from a friend, or an inscription from Carchemish, or a copy of a morning newspaper, or Shakespeare, or Homer, or the Bible." "I may be reading back into my student days some of my later thinking, but it seems to me that even at that time I could see that the logic of Warfield's naturalistic New Testament textual criticism led steadily downward toward modernism and unbelief. For if the providential preservation of the Scriptures was not important for the study of the New Testament text, then it could not have been important for the history of the New Testament text. And if it had not been important for the history of the New Testament, then it must have been non-existent. It could not have been a fact. And if the providential preservation of the Scriptures was not a fact, why should the infallible inspiration of the Scriptures be regarded as a fact? Why would God infallibly inspire a book and then decline to preserve it providentially? For example, why would God infallibly inspire the Gospel of Mark and then permit (as Warfield thought possible) the ending of it (describing the resurrection appearances of Christ) to be lost? "Why was Dr. Warfield so inconsistent in the realm of New Testament textual criticism? Dr. Van Til's course in apologetics enabled me to supply the answer to this question. Dr. Warfield's inconsistency was part of his scholastic inheritance, an error which had been handed down to him from the middle-ages. Let me explain. During the middle-ages the school men tried to reconcile the philosophy of Aristotle with the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church by separating faith from reason and praying from thinking. While dealing with dogma. faith and prayer were appropriate, but the study of philosophy was reason's province. So the medieval school men contended, and soon this doctrine of the separation of faith from reason became generally accepted throughout the medieval Roman Catholic Church. "The Protestant Reformers were fully occupied with other matters. Hence they spent but little time combating this medieval, Roman Catholic error of the separation of faith and reason. Hence this false scholastic doctrine survived the Reformation and soon became embedded in the thinking of conservative Protestants everywhere. In the 18th century Butler and Paley built their apologetic systems on this false principle of the separation of faith and reason, and in the 19th century, at Princeton and other conservative theological seminaries, this scholastic principle even governed the curriculum and the way in which the several subjects were taught. Systematic theology, practical theology and homiletics were placed in one box labeled FAITH. All the other subjects, including New Testament textual criticism, biblical introduction, apologetics and philosophy, were placed in another box labeled REASON. "We see now why Dr. Warfield was so inconsistent. We see why he felt himself at liberty to adopt the naturalistic theories of Westcott and Hort and did not perceive that in so doing he was contradicting the Westminster Confession and even his own teaching in the realm of systematic theology. The reason was that Dr. Warfield kept these subjects in separate boxes. Like an authentic, medieval scholastic, he kept his systematic theology and the Westminster Confession in his FAITH box and his New Testament textual criticism in his REASON box. Since he never tried to mingle the contents of these two boxes, he was never fully aware of the discrepancies in his thinking. "When I began to study New Testament textual criticism at Westminster in 1935, I noticed another thing. Almost as much time was spent in disparaging Dean Burgon as in praising Dr. Warfield. This again aroused my curiosity. Who was this Dean Burgon? Upon investigation. I found that he had been a British scholar that had not fitted into the usual scholastic mold. He had not kept his theology and his New Testament textual criticism in two separate boxes, but had actually dared to make his theology the guiding principle of his New Testament textual criticism. For this he was pronounced "unscholarly". "Actually, however, he was merely following the logic of faith. He believed that the New Testament was the infallibly inspired Word of God. Hence it had been preserved down through the ages by God's special providence, not secretly in holes and caves and on forgotten library shelves but publicly in the usage of God's Church. Hence the text found in the vast majority of the New Testament manuscripts is the true text because this is the text that has been used by God's Church. As soon as I began to read Burgon's works, I was impressed by this logic of faith and also by the learned arguments by which Burgon refuted the contention of Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott, Hort, etc. Finally, after some years of hesitation, I definitely committed myself to his view in 1952. . . . "Therefore, the true New Testament text is found today in the majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts, in the Textus Receptus, and in the King James Version and other faithful translations of the Textus Receptus. And therefore also this same preserving providence operating today through the agency of all those true believers, however humble, who retain and defend the King James Version." (Copyright 1996 by Majorie J Hills). Another such story is that of Dr S Franklin Logsdon (1907-87) who translated the NASB. Dr Logsdon in his testimony—"From NASV to KJV"—wrote, "Back in 1956-57 Mr. F. Dewey Lockman of the Lockman Foundation [contacted me. He was] one of the dearest friends we”ve ever had for 25 years, a big man, some 300 pounds, snow white hair, one of the most terrific businessmen I have ever met. I always said he was like Nehemiah; he was building a wall. You couldn”t get in his way when he had his mind on something; he went right to it; he couldn”t be daunted. I never saw anything like it; most unusual man. I spent weeks and weeks and weeks in their home, real close friends of the family. "Well, he discovered that the copyright [on the American Standard Version of 1901] was just as loose as a fumbled ball on a football field. Nobody wanted it. The publishers didn”t want it. It didn”t get anywhere. Mr. Lockman got in touch with me and said, ‘Would you and Ann come out and spend some weeks with us, and we”ll work on a feasibility report; I can pick up the copyright to the 1901 if it seems advisable.” "Well, up to that time I thought the Westcott and Hort was the text. You were intelligent if you believed the Westcott and Hort. Some of the finest people in the world believe in that Greek text, the finest leaders that we have today. You”d be surprised; if I told you you wouldn”t believe it. They haven”t gone into it just as I hadn”t gone into it; [they”re] just taking it for granted. "At any rate we went out and started on a feasibility report, and I encouraged him to go ahead with it. I”m afraid I”m in trouble with the Lord, because I encouraged him to go ahead with it. We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped to interview some of the translators; I sat with the translators; I wrote the preface. When you see the preface to the New American Standard, those are my words. "I got one of the fifty deluxe copies which were printed; mine was number seven, with a light blue cover. But it was rather big and I couldn”t carry it with me, and I never really looked at it. I just took for granted that it was done as we started it, you know, until some of my friends across the country began to learn that I had some part in it and they started saying, ‘What about this; what about that?” "Dr. David Otis Fuller in Grand Rapids [Michigan]. I”ve known him for 35 years, and he would say (he would call me Frank; I”d call him Duke), ‘Frank, what about this? You had a part in it; what about this; what about that?” And at first I thought, Now, wait a minute; let”s don”t go overboard; let”s don”t be too critical. You know how you justify yourself the last minute. "But I finally got to the place where I said, ‘Ann, I”m in trouble; I can”t refute these arguments; it”s wrong; it”s terribly wrong; it”s frightfully wrong; and what am I going to do about it?” Well, I went through some real soul searching for about four months, and I sat down and wrote one of the most difficult letters of my life, I think. "I wrote to my friend Dewey, and I said, ‘Dewey, I don”t want to add to your problems,” (he had lost his wife some three years before; I was there for the funeral; also a doctor had made a mistake in operating on a cataract and he had lost the sight of one eye and had to have an operation on the other one; he had a slight heart attack; had sugar diabetes; a man seventy- four years of age) ‘but I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can”t refute them. The only thing I can do—and dear Brother, I haven”t a thing against you and I can witness at the judgment of Christ and before men wherever I go that you were 100% sincere,” (he wasn”t schooled in language or anything; he was just a business man; he did it for money; he did it conscientiously; he wanted it absolutely right and he thought it was right; I guess nobody pointed out some of these things to him) ‘I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard.”" For other scholars who hold to the KJV-only position, see Myths About the King James Bible: Myth #5, True Scholars Reject the Received Text by David Cloud. 8b. Who is Peter Ruckman? Do we agree with him in his defence of the KJV? Peter Ruckman is a KJV-only defender, but extreme. Actually Ruckman has done more harm than good for the KJV cause. Anti- or Non-KJVists like D A Carson and J R White have attacked legitimate KJV defenders by wrongly and unfairly linking them to Ruckman. Actually I prefer to call myself a KJV-superiority rather than a KJV-only advocate. This is because the KJV-only label has often been misrepresented and caricatured, and many unfortunately connect the KJV-only position with Ruckmanism. One of the heresies of Ruckman is that the KJV was "given by inspiration of God." He also claims that the KJV is advanced revelation, and surpasses the inspiration of the original manuscripts. But 2 Tim 3:16 and 2 Pet 1:21 tell us that only the original writings or autographs can be considered "God-breathed." The apographs (ie copies) are inspired if they are accurate copies. The translations are "inspired" in so far as they are accurate and faithful translations. In any case, the inspiration attached to translations is derived not direct. We believe in the preservation of the Scriptures, but it is not miraculous but providential preservation (so E F Hills). Moreover, Ruckman takes pleasure in calling people who disagree with him names like "jackass," "incredible idiot," "depraved scoundrels," "uneducated suckers," etc. He is mean-spirited and rude. For example, he calls Robert Sumner "Bobbie Scumner," Bob Jones III "Bobby III," and "Bobby Wobby," and Robert Hymers "Hot Dog Hymers. Christian grace is clearly lacking in Ruckman”s speech. David Cloud says he absolutely rejects Ruckman because of "his strange ideas, his multiple divorces, his angry spirit, his arrogancy, his Alexandrian cult mentality, his extremism regarding the KJV being advanced revelation, . . ." (What About Ruckman? [Oak Harbor: Way of Life Literature, 1995], 4). 9b. What do you think of Gail Riplinger, and her recent book—New Age Bible Versions? Although Riplinger is to be commended for defending the KJV, her methodology is flawed. For this reason, I would suggest you take what she says with a grain of salt. The Trinitarian Bible Society, in a review of her book, wrote, "Mrs. Riplinger”s books contains no bibliography and many of the endnotes lack such necessary documentation as author and publisher. In addition, the book contains many factual errors, false innuendos, mistakes in logic, misquotations and instances of misleading research as well as general English language errors. . . . This does not mean that there is no value to the verifiable, truthful or factual statements made in this book; however, many things in this book are without support and therefore untrustworthy." (The full report can be obtained from the Trinitarian Bible Society, 1710 Richmond NW, Grand Rapids MI 49504, USA.) This is what Dave Hunt—author of The Seduction of Christianity—wrote about Riplinger”s New Age Bible Versions, "Those who have a preference for the KJV, as we do, will find no encouragement in Riplinger”s endeavor. Her writing is driven by a misleading style and loaded with contrived ‘evidence." She starts off misrepresenting people and continues to do so throughout the entire book" (Berean Call, May ”94). David W Cloud—editor of O Timothy magazine—also criticised Riplinger”s book, "For every person who turns from modern versions due to the influence of this book, I praise the Lord. Let me say very plainly at the outset . . . , I do not believe New Age Bible Versions is a dangerous book; I believe it is an undependable book" (O Timothy 11:8 [1994]). 10b. Which Colleges or Seminaries hold to the KJV-only position? Besides Far Eastern Bible College, the following schools take a strong KJV stance (there may be others, but these are the ones I managed to locate). Most of the colleges and seminaries which take a KJV-stand are baptistic. FEBC is one of the very few Presbyterian or Reformed colleges that defends the KJV. 1c. Ambassador Baptist College, P O Box 158, Stockton Street, Lattimore NC 28089, USA. Its NT Textual Criticism course description states, "An examination of the methods employed in textual criticism with special emphasis on the reliability of the Received Text" (1907-9 Catalog, 59). 2c. Baptist Bible College and Graduate School of Theology, 628 East Kearney, Springfield MO 65803, USA. In its 1995-9 catalog, under the section "Approved Bible Text for Baptist Bible College Curriculum" (26), the school states, 1d. We agree that the Bible in its original languages was inspired by God. 2d. By the 16th century, Wycliff and Tyndale had both translated the Bible into the English language. These were both considered acceptable translations. 3d. Through the efforts of the King of England, a new English translation was placed into the hands of the common man. 4d. In the process of time, the changes in word usage and punctuation necessitated several revisions. 5d. We believe that our students should be undergirded by an unshakable faith in the Word of God. We believe that the King James Version is God”s Word kept intact for the English-speaking people. 6d. This statement does not preclude the study of the individual Greek and Hebrew words in the original languages for clarity of meaning. 7d. The Textus Receptus is the approved Greek text of our curriculum. 8d. Stop Press: The above position statement has recently been removed from their website. It appears that they no longer hold to the KJV/TR superiority position. 3c. Baptist Bible College East, 950 Metropolitan Avenue, Boston MA 02136, USA. Their doctrinal statement on the Bible is the same as that of #2c above). 4c. Bethany Bible College and Theological Seminary, 2311 Hodgesville Road, P O Box 1944, Dothan AL 36302, USA. The 1994 catalog states, "We accept the Scriptures of both the Old and New Testaments to be the verbally inspired Word of God, and that they are the Supreme and final authority for faith and practice. We further accept the 1611 King James Version of the Bible to be the preserved Word of God and use no other translation in our classroom." 5c. Faithway Baptist College of Canada, 1964 Salem Road, Ajax, Ontario L1S 4S7, Canada. They say, "We believe in the plenary, verbal inspiration of the sixty-six books of the Bible. The Old and New Testaments are inerrant in the original writings, and they are the supreme and final authority in all matters of faith and practice. We believe that the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and the Textus Receptus of the New Testament are the preserved Word of God. It is our practice to use only the King James Version." 6c. Florida Baptist College, 506 South Oakwood Avenue, Brandon FL 33511, USA. Its General Catalog, Volume XVII contains a positional statement which reads "We believe that the Scriptures are verbally inspired; that it is uncumbent upon every believer to ‘study to shew himself approved unto God”. We recommend the use of the King James Version for public preaching and teaching." 7c. Foundations Bible College, Interstate 95, Dennings Road Exit #77, P O Box 1166, Dunn NC 28335, USA. Dr O Talmadge Spence, President of FBC, and Director of the Society for Fundamental Studies, believes that "The Authorized (King James) Version of the Scriptures is the only English Translation that will be read from the Congress Platform of Fundamentalists" (exact quotation from the "We Believe" resolutions of the World Congress of Fundamentalists, Edunburgh Scotland, 1976). 8c. Great Plains Baptist College, 412 South Hawthorne, Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57104, USA. The doctrinal information in 1995-7 catalog states, "We believe the Bible is verbally and plenarily inspired, and that it is authoritative for all faith and practice; that the King James Version is the only true and accurate translation of God”s Word in the English language." 9c. Independent Baptist College, 3940 Blue Ridge Blvd, Dallas TX 75233, USA. An abridged statement of faith on page 6 of its 1997-8 catalog says that they use the King James Version as their official classroom text. 10c. Kentucky Bible College, P O Box 156, Bowling Green KY 42102, USA. They say, "We believe in the verbal inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of the scriptures. We further believe that the Word of God has been preserved in the English language, in the King James Bible also known as the ‘Authorized Version” or ‘1611” Bible." An additional note says, "We only use, and allow in study and writing requirements, the King James, 1611, A.V. Bible. No other English translations will be used." 11c. Landmark Baptist College, 2222 East Hinson Avenue, Haines City FL 33844, USA. Its doctrinal statement says, "We believe in the original verbal inspiration and eternal preservation of the Scripture. We believe that the Bible is preserved for the English speaking world in the King James Bible." Entering students must accept the fact that "The King James Bible will be the basis for all classroom teaching, chapel messages, and student assignments at LBC. Students who cannot accept this have no place at Landmark Baptist College." 12c. Landmark University, P O Box 757, Bristol TN 37621, USA. Its statement of faith under "Bible Translations" states, "Landmark accepts only the KING JAMES 1611 as the word of God, holding all other English translations to be based on faulty and heretical manuscripts, and thus glutted with errors. Private ‘rendering of the original languages” is unacceptable in all cases, since the King James rendering of the original languages will always be the superior, most finely expressive and accurate." The position taken is extreme. The founder and president is Roy L Branson. 13c. Pacific Coast Baptist Bible College, 1100 S Valley Center Avenue, San Dimas CA 91773, USA. The following states its educational philosophy, "[It] is our philosophy that the training of students . . . should be undergirded by an unshakable faith in the divine inspiration and infallibility of the Word of God. We believe the King James Bible is God”s Word preserved for the English-speaking people" (1995-6 catalog, 9). 14c. Pensacola Christian College, 250 Brent Lane, Box 18000, Pensacola FL 32523, USA. "At Pensacola Chrisitan College, we believe in the plenary, verbal inspiration of the Bible, and it is our practice to use only the King James Version in the pulpit and in classroom instruction. We believe the Textus Receptus is a superior text, and we use it for Greek instruction." 15c. Tabernacle Baptist Bible College and Theological Seminary, 717 N Whitehurst Landing Road, Virginia Beach VA 23464, USA. The 1996-7 catalog states, "We believe that the process of inspiration ceased with the autographa. The textus receptus is essentially the preserved autographa and the Authorized Version is an accurate and trustworthy translation of the TR, and consequently is the Word of God in the English language." Dr Rod Bell is the president, and Dr Thomas Strouse is dean. 16c. Trinity Baptist College, 426 South McDuff Avenue, Jacksonville FL 32254, USA. Its doctrinal statement on the Scriptures states, ". . . We also believe that the King James version of the Bible is the divinely preserved Word of God for the English-speaking people (Psalm 12:6-7) and that it has enjoyed a miraculous manifestation of God”s approval all during its history and use" (1993-4 catalog, 10). Dr Bob Gray is the Chancellor. 11b. "Should Creationists Abandon the King James Version?" The above question is the title of an essay written by Dr Henry Morris, founder and president emeritus of the Institute for Creation Research, P O Box 2667, El Cajon CA 92021, USA. It is an excellent summary of the KJV-superiority position; an appropriate conclusion to our study of the KJV-NIV Debate. Dr Morris wrote: Should Creationists Abandon the King James Version?
Is God the Author of Confusion?
Which Version Best Renders The Original Manuscripts?
How About The Archaic Language In The King James?
Conclusion
|