|
The King James Only
by Dr. Phil Stringer
Actually, I don't like the term King James Only. It is a name given to us by
our critics. I want everyone, in every language, to have the pure Word of God in their own
tongue. But in this case, I use the term so that it is clear who I am
talking about.
A
civil war rages among independent Baptists about the inspiration of
translations. I am not talking about the debate over which text of Scripture to
use. Prominent preachers who preach the King James Bible and who defend it against its critics,
are vigorously debating one another over the use of the term
inspiration in describing the King James Bible. Sometimes the conflict is
much hotter than a vigorous debate. Good men, with deep loyalties to the
King James Bible, are at odds with one another. Key terms are defined many
different ways, motives are called into question and the doctrinal soundness
of men is questioned.
Over the last few weeks I have been in
many verbal conversations and email discussions over this issue.
I have
been asked how these discussions are going. I have answered that I feel like a
man trying to stand on an ice flow, in an ocean full of sharks while juggling baby
elephants. A debate over the nature of the Bible generates deep emotions.
Good
men are trying to defend the King James Bible the best way that they know how.
They are tired of the
evangelical and fundamentalist critics of the King James Bible. They are tired
of self-absorbed, pseudo-scholars. They are
tired of people with slander language skills mocking the scholars who were used of God to translate the King
James Bible. I completely agree!
Let me
be crystal clear! I believe that the King James Bible is God's Word kept intact
in English. There is not one word in the King James Bible that I would change. I would
not change an italicized word.
I
believe that the American republic was created by the influence of the King
James Bible. I believe that the modern missions movement was created by the
preaching of the King James Bible. I believe that both the fundamentalist movement and
the independent Baptist movement were the product of the
King James Bible. I am not one of those preachers who believes that it is Christian liberty to attack the King James Bible but divisive to answer those attacks.
I
believe that the evangelical and fundamentalist critics of the King James Bible
should be answered. When I heard Elmer Fernandez say that the translators of the
King James Bible were evil and wicked men, I knew that he had to be opposed. When I
read Calvin George's desperate attempts to belittle the King James Bible
(in order to defend the Critical Text readings of the Reina Valera 1960), I
understand that he has to be answered.
When I
realize that the method of Bible teaching practiced by the professors of Bob
Jones University and Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary is to go verse by
verse and say a better translation would be. . . , I understand that
they are pseudo-scholars. The least of the Kings James translators was a
greater scholar than any of them.
When I
read that the translations sponsored by Charles Keen won't be King James
equivalent (his term), I understand what he is up to and that he must be answered by those
loyal to the Received Text.
When I
see the long-ago disproven criticisms of the King James Bible on the various
Trinitarian Bible Society websitesI realize that those loyal to the
King James Bible must answer the Trinitarian Bible Society's foolish attacks
on the King James Bible.
I believe that the King James Bible is pure, perfect and inerrant!
However, I do not believe that the King James Bible is inspired. That is not
because I believe that there is any weakness or any inferiority in the King James Bible.
There is nothing about the King James Bible that needs to be corrected
or improved.
The
Bible tells us what inspiration is! It defines itself. Many of my brethren
use the term inspiration as a synonym for inerrant. But it means much more than that!
Many of my brethren use the secular definition of the term
inspirationto motivate or cause by supernatural influence (Webster's
Illustrated Contemporary Dictionary). But this definition falls far short of
what the Bible says about its own inspiration.
Many of our most famous doctrinal books offer a weak definition of
inspiration.
One
prominent advocate of the King James Bible defines inspiration this way. By
inspiration we mean the supernatural control by God over the production
of the Old Testament and New Testaments. Another King James advocate defines
inspiration as divine influence. These men
would consider themselves as great advocates of the King James Bible and
would describe most other teachers as weak or modernist.
Yet
their doctrine of inspiration is very weak. It was invented by modernists and
spread by neo-evangelicals. Inspiration is much more than what they
say it is. If inspiration is really divine influence then many sermons, songs and books are inspired. However, Biblical inspiration is much more than that.
Inspiration took place when God took control of a person and spoke His words
through them or caused them to write down His words. Inspiration took place when God
dictated His words to a person or even through an animal (Balaam's donkey).
You
can't defend the King James Bible by weakening the doctrine of inspiration.
In their zeal to advance the King James Bible, some men have adopted a
liberal position about inspiration.
Many
of the brethren are quick to quote II Timothy 3:16All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. This is, of course, true. God gave His words to men
through the Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew languages. This verse means exactly
what it saysand nothing more.
However, the verse does not say that the words that God gave are preserved,
transmitted or
translated by inspiration. The verse means everything that it says but we
have no right to add anything to it.
No
matter how pure and proper our motives arewe do not help the cause of the King
James Bible
by defining incorrectly a Biblical term or by inventing a new Biblical
doctrine. Actually we help the critics of that King James Bible by using an argument
that they can easily refute.
Virtually everyone in our movement, including me, has used the term
inspiration carelessly at one time or another. It is time to start being
careful. Recently, I was communicating by email with the head of a translation project
in a foreign country. He assured me that
his translation was inspired. I told him that I didn't think so.
He was
just finishing ten years of his translation effort. Men who were moved by the
Holy
Spirit (II Peter 1:21) of God wrote down the Words as God gave them. They
didn't need ten years. Can you imagine John spending ten years figuring out what to
write down in the book of Revelation?
The
translator had a team of sixteen national helpersmen who are inspired don't
need a team of helpers. Can you imagine a team of sixteen helpers helping King
Saul figure out what to say when the Holy Spirit took him over?
This
gentleman is getting ready to release his second edition. Men who are
inspired of God don't need a second edition. Can you imagine Balaam's
donkey issuing a second edition of his words to Balaam.
The response of this translator was to call me a modernist!
The
Words of God have been settled forever in heaven. God gave some of them to
Moses to record on earth. He gave some to Jeremiah, some to Paul, some to Peter
and so on. They recorded the exact words that God gave them. God finished delivering His
words to men as John finished the Book of Revelation. That is how
inspiration works!
The
translators of the King James Bible did not need to be inspired. They already
had God's inspired Words in front of them. They simply needed to faithfully and
accurately translate the Words that had already been given by inspiration. Translators
today do not need to be inspired. They
already have God's inspired words available. They simply need to translate
them correctly. John
Selden described the method of the King James translators. The translation in
King James time took an excellent way. That part of the Bible was given to him who
was most excellent in such a tongue (as the Apocrypha to Andrew Downes) and then
they met together and one read that translation the rest holding in their hands
some Bible either of the learned tongues or French, Italian, Spanish, etc. If
they found any fault they spoke, if not, they read on. This
was not the method of King Saul, Malachi, Isaiah, Matthew or Balaam's donkey
when they were
being inspired of the Lord. It is an example of men being used of God to
preserve and transmit His Word. I know
that many men use the word inspired to describe the King James Bible because
they want
to defend it against its many attackers. But the King James Bible doesn't need
that kind of help from us. It stands up to its attackers just fine. They
always fade away and the King James Bible goes on. It doesn't need us to invent
a new definition of inspiration or to weaken the doctrine of divine
inspiration the way that the secular
writers do. There
seem to be three prominent positions among those who use the term inspired to
describe the King James Bible. Some
teach that God repeated the miracle of inspiration in 1611. They believe that
the English language
is the only language that currently has an inspired Bible. Their concept of
missions is to preach and teach from the
English Bible to the whole world. This destroys most mission works. This is an easy doctrine to maintain, if you are only concerned for white,
Anglo-Saxon people. Of course, there is not the slightest hint of any such doctrine anywhere
in the King James Bible. The
second group teaches the miracle of inspiration took place in 1611 in English
and
continues to take place in other languages today. They teach that you can
recognize an inspired Bible if it is used by large soul-winning churches For
those brethren, soul-winning is not based upon doctrine, doctrine is based upon
soul winning. Since most of the Bibles in use around the world are Critical
Text Versions and contradict the King James Bible, they assume that God gave one
set of words in English and differing words in other languages. Their
doctrine of inspiration justifies liberal translations. They
usually teach that only a Bible produced by a modern miracle of inspiration
can be used to lead
someone to Christ. Consequently, they would put their stamp of approval on
hundreds of modernist translations. But you can't protect the King James Bible by undermining the basis for Scriptural revelation.
Interestingly enough, both groups spend a lot of time attacking fundamental
Baptists who explain inspiration in any way different than themselves. But you can't imagine
them refuting modernists or liberal Bible societies. Their venom is reserved for
the English speaking brethren who use the same Bible that they do.
There
is a third group that teaches what they call derivative inspiration. They are
often very good brethren, devoted to the Bible. They understand that
the miracle of inspiration only took place with the original earthly
Scriptural penmen.
They
teach that the Bible today has all the authority, influence, Holy Spirit power
and purity of the original inspired Words of God. That is exactly what
the Bible teaches about itself.
Faithful copies of the Words given by inspiration have all the authority and
Holy Spirit power of the originals. Faithful copies of Scripture are
Scripture.
Faithful translations of the Words given by inspiration have all the
authority and Holy Spirit power of the originals. Faithful translations of
Scripture are Scripture.
However, the Bible calls this preservation not derivative inspiration (try
finding that term in the King James Bible).
At
least the teachers of derivative inspiration describe the original act of
inspiration correctly, they describe the current state of the Bible correctly
and it is possible for them to translate the Bible into other languages
correctly. They are good brethren and I do not want to be separated from them.
However, their terminology is not Scriptural. Their teaching is easily confused
with the other more dangerous teachings about inspiration.
You do
not defend the Kings James Bible by weakening the Bible's teaching about
preservation. One Bible teacher called preserved words cold, dead museum
words. What an insult to a sovereign God!
Nothing
could be a stronger statement about words than to say these words are God's
preserved words. God's preservation maintains all the authority and Holy Spirit
power that God originally placed on and in His words.
The
doctrine of preservation is not a weak doctrine. It is a doctrine filled with
Holy Spirit power. It does not need to be upgraded, improved or strengthened.
It is the power of God in practice.
I am
for everyone that preaches, practices and defends the words of the King James
Bible. If my brethren do not use the exact terminology that I think
reflects the teaching of Scripture, I will be a little
disappointed in them, but I will not reject them. I do not expect perfection
from men. I wish to be the friend of all those that honor the words of the King James
Bible.
However, I do believe that this discussion has important consequences.
Using
a Biblical term in a non-Biblical way opens a new avenue of attack for the
enemies of the King James Bible. There is no reason to make it easier for them
to make their unholy attacks.
Secondly, this debate is creating unfortunate confusion about the matter of
Bible translations. Around the world dozens of projects are taking place.
Believers are concerned about getting a faithful translation of the Bible in
their national language. There is a revival of understanding the issue of the
Received Text.
However, too many men are producing a first edition of a translation, calling
it inspired and stopping right there. A proper translation requires a rigorous
purification process (such as the one that took place with the King James
Bible). A weak or secular definition of inspiration is hindering the most
important work of Bible translation. Thirdly, this debate causes people to miss the genuinely important debate going
on about Scripture today. Some men who are loud advocates of the inspiration of
the King James Bible are also strong proponents of a Critical Text Bible for
the Spanish people and for other language groups.
It may
be expedient politics to advocate a Received Text Bible for the English
speaking world and a Critical Text Bible for the Spanish speaking world, but it is
horrible doctrine. Why would a King James man want the Hispanic world to
use a Bible that conflicts with the King James Bible in hundreds of
places and thousands of words?
This
is hypocritical and it has a great price attached to it. If you promote the
Critical Text in any language you can no longer consistently oppose Critical
Text Bibles in English. Sooner or later your hypocrisy will catch up to
you. There is simply no doctrinal or textual foundation to prevent such a
change. No matter how loudly a man or a ministry proclaims their loyalty to the
King James Bible today, if they advocate the Critical Text in other languages they
will probably be using a Critical Text Bible in English in a few years.
No one
can consistently claim to be a King James preacher and support the Reina
Valera 1960 or the TBS Spanish Bible. No one can consistently claim to be a King
James preacher and support the French Louis Segond Version (either
the Bible Society version or the TBS version). The same is true for the
Chinese Common Union Version (CUV) and a host of other foreign translations.
Some
of the people influenced by Dr. Ruckman have called me a modernist and a Bible
corrector (even though they can't identify one word of the King James
Bible that I would change). Most recently, some have called me a King James Bible hater.
Other men influenced by Dr. Ruckman have been
much kinder to me. I have been called a Ruckmanite by advocates of the Critical Text. However I have never been influenced by the writings or teachings of Dr. Ruckman (in the interest of full disclosure I met him once when I was fifteen).
Some
Hispanic preachers refer to me by their pet nickname, The Antichrist. I am
sure that they mean that in Christian love. However I am grateful to have
many Hispanic preacher friends who love me in spite of my faults and limitations.
I am used to being called names. Somehow, I doubt that this article will
end that experience. If you preach, practice and defend the words of the King
James Bible, I am for you!
I hope that we will all preach, practice and defend those blessed words
wisely.
One
missionary wrote, As I understand the Scriptures, inspiration' is the process
by which God directed
and controlled the recording of His exact words for mankind. But after those
words were recorded, God ceased to inspire'.
The process was completed and the message was recorded. God, from that point on,
perfectly preserved exactly what He gave so that we would have every word
exactly as He gave it. This is called
preservation. So if you were to ask me if I believed the Bible is inspired, I
would answer by saying, Yes, however,
to be more theologically accurate, it was inspired and is now preserved.'
Amen and Amen!
Actually, it seems that much of the civil war today is not really about
doctrine at all. It seems to be about who is going to speak for fundamental Baptists. Again, let
me be crystal clear. I am an independent Baptist. I do not recognize a pope,
bishop, church councils or a Baptist Sanhedrin. I don't believe
in model churches or that anyone pastors to pastors. I have no headquarters! I
have a Bible and that is my sole authority.
Finally,
let me appeal for grace for and from all of us. The founders of fundamentalism,
for all their wonderful accomplishments, were not clear or consistent on their
definition of inspiration or their identification of the Biblical text.
We are paying for that confusion now!
Most of
the leaders of the independent Baptist movement can be quoted several different
ways on both the definition of inspiration and on textual issues.
Vigorous debate is appropriate and even beneficial. A civil war is not. Let us
all find some grace in our hearts for those who love the Bible and strive to reach the
souls of men!
Verbal, plenary inspiration, verbal, plenary
preservation, verbal, plenary translation: any other doctrine
of Scripture is just not enough.
|
|