Fundamental
Evangelistic Association
selected
articles from:
©FOUNDATION
April-June 2006, Volume XXVII Issue 2
A MAGAZINE OF BIBLICAL FUNDAMENTALISM
Dennis W. Costella, Editor-in-Chief; Matt D. Costella,
Managing Editor
M.H. Reynolds, Jr. (1919-1997), Founding Editor
King James Only
by David Cloud
There is a lot of debate and confusion
surrounding the man-made term "King James Onlyism." This term has been
popularized in recent years by men who claim they are concerned about an
alleged dangerous and cultic view of the King James Bible. Rarely do
they carefully define this term, though, and as a result a wide variety
of Bible-believing men are lumped together and labeled with a term the
meaning of which is nebulous.
The term “King James Only” was invented by those
who oppose the defense of the King James Bible and its underlying Hebrew
and Greek texts. It was intended to be a term of approbation, and it is
usually defined in terms of the extremism.
I have been labeled “King James Only” because of
my writings on the subject of Bible texts and versions and my defense of
the King James Bible. To set the record straight, let me explain what I
believe. I know from decades of experience and extensive travels that
this is also what a large number of other King James Bible defenders
believe.
I WILL ACCEPT THE LABEL OF “KING JAMES ONLY” IF
IT MEANS THE FOLLOWING:
If “King James Only” defines one who believes
that God has given infallible Scripture in the original Greek and Hebrew
writings and that He has preserved that in the Hebrew Masoretic and
Greek Received Text underlying the King James Bible and other
Reformation Bibles and that we have an accurate translation of it in the
English language in the Authorized Version, call me “King James Only.”
If “King James Only” defines one who believes
modern textual criticism is heresy, call me “King James Only.” I have
spent hundreds of dollars to obtain the writings of the men who have
been at the forefront of developing the theories underlying modern
textual criticism, and I have read them. They are not dependable. They
refuse to approach the Bible text from a position of faith in divine
preservation. Most of them are unbelievers, and I refuse to lean upon
their scholarship. I am convinced they do not have the spiritual
discernment necessary to know where the inspired, preserved Word of God
is located today.
If “King James Only” defines one who believes
that God has preserved the Scripture in its common use among apostolic
churches through the fulfillment of the Great Commission and that He
guided the Reformation editors and translators in their choice of the
Received Text and that we don’t have to start all over today in an to
attempt to find the preserved text of Scripture, call me “King James
Only.” The theories of modern textual criticism, on the other hand, all
revolve around the idea that the pure text of Scripture was not
preserved in the Reformation text but that the Reformation editors,
because of their alleged ignorance and or lack of resources, rejected
the pure text and chose, instead, an inferior text. In fact, modern
textual criticism is predicated upon the theory that the best text of
the New Testament (the Egyptian or Alexandrian) was rejected in the
earliest centuries and was replaced with a corrupt recension that was
created through the conflation of various manuscript readings (the
Byzantine or Traditional text) and that the corrupt text became the
dominant text throughout most of church history (for 1,500 years) until
the best text was rediscovered in the 19th century. You are free to
accept such views if it suits you. I, for one, believe this is absolute
nonsense, and if that is “King James Only,” count me in.
Similarly, if “King James Only” defines one who
rejects the theory that the “preserved” Word of God was hidden away in
the Pope’s library and in a weird Greek Orthodox monastery at the foot
of Mt. Sinai (a monastery which has a room full of the skulls of dead
monks) for hundreds of years, call me “King James Only.”
If “King James Only” defines one who believes it
is important to have one biblical standard in a language as important as
English and who believes that the multiplicity of competing versions has
created confusion and has weakened the authority of the Word of God in
this century, call me “King James Only.”
I WILL NOT ACCEPT THE LABEL OF “KING JAMES ONLY”
IF IT MEANS THE FOLLOWING:
If “King James Only” defines one who believes
that the KJV was given by inspiration, I am not “King James Only. The
King James Bible is the product of preservation, not inspiration. The
term “inspiration” refers to the original giving of the Scripture
through holy men of old (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20-21). At the same time,
I agree with the Pulpit Commentary when it says, “We must guard against
such narrow, mechanical views of inspiration as would confine it to the
Hebrew and Greek words in which it was written, so that one who reads a
good translation would not have ‘the words of the Lord.’” To say that
the King James Bible is the inspired Word of God in the English language
because it is an accurate translation of the preserved Hebrew and Greek
is not the same as saying that it was given by inspiration.
If “King James Only” defines one who believes
the English KJV is superior to the Hebrew and Greek texts upon which it
was based, I am not “King James Only.” In fact, I believe such an idea
is pure nonsense, as it would mean the preserved Word of God did not
exist before 1611.
If “King James Only” defines one who believes
the English Authorized Version is advanced revelation over the Hebrew
and Greek text that God gave through inspiration to holy men of old, I
am not “King James Only.”
If “King James Only” defines one who believes
that we do not need to study Greek and Hebrew today or that it is not
proper to use lexicons and dictionaries, I am not “King James Only.”
God’s people should learn Greek and Hebrew if possible and use (with
much caution and wisdom) study tools. When the Bible says that “holy men
of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,” we know that the
words they spake were Hebrew and Greek words. I encouraged my youngest
son to begin studying Greek in high school, and he is scheduled to have
four years of Greek and two of Hebrew when he graduates from Bible
College. But foundational to the study of the biblical languages is a
thorough understanding of the textual issue. We must study the right
Greek and Hebrew, and we must also be careful of the original language
study tools, because many of them were produced from a rationalistic
perspective and with great bias against the Received Text.
If “King James Only” defines one who believes
the preserved Word of God is available only in English, I am not “King
James Only.” The Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament and Greek Received New
Testament translated properly into any language is the preserved Word of
God in that language, whether it is German, Spanish, French, Korean, or
Nepali. There is a list of Received-text based translations in the
“Directory of Foreign Language Literature” at the Way of Life web site.
(See the Apostasy Database.)
If “King James Only” defines one who believes
that translations in other languages should be based on English rather
than (when possible) Greek and Hebrew, I am not “King James Only.” (I
also believe that a good translation can be made directly from the King
James Bible when necessary if it is done by men who are capable in the
use of dictionaries so that they understand the somewhat antiquated
language of the KJV properly.)
If “King James Only” defines one who believes
that a person can only be saved through the King James Bible, I am not
“King James Only.” It is the Gospel that is the power of God unto
salvation (Rom. 1:16), and even a Bible that is textually corrupt
contains the Gospel.
If “King James Only” defines one who believes
that the King James Bible’s antiquated language is holy or who believes
the KJV could never again be updated, I am not “King James Only.” I
doubt the KJV will ever be replaced in this apostate age, but to say
that it is wrong to update the language again after the fashion of the
several updates it has undergone since 1611 is not reasonable, in my
estimation. Having dealt constantly with people who speak English as a
2nd or 3rd language, I am very sympathetic to the very real antiquation
problem in the King James Bible. At the same time, I am not going to
trade an excellent Bible with a few problems due to old language for a
Bible filled with error due to a corrupt text and/or a corrupt
translation methodology.
If “King James Only” defines one who believes he
has the authority to call those who disagree with him silly asses,
morons, and jacklegs, and to treat them as if they were the scum of the
earth because they refuse to follow his peculiar views, I am not “King
James Only.”
(Republished November 29, 2005 -Updated and enlarged
March 2, 2005; first published January 20, 1996 - David Cloud,
Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI
48061, 866-295-4143,
http://www.wayoflife.org)
FOUNDATION Magazine is available from the Fundamental Evangelistic Association. Click
here
to go to the ordering form / price list.
Return to FOUNDATION
Magazine Index of Articles
