THE BIBLE VERSION QUESTION-ANSWER DATABASE Answering the Myths Promoted by Modern Version Defenders By David Cloud Copyright @ 2005 by David W. Cloud 1-58318-088-5 This material cannot be placed on BBS or Internet Web sites Published by Way of Life Literature P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061 866-295-4143 (toll free)  [email protected] (e-mail) http://www.wayoflife.org (web site) Canada: Bethel Baptist Church, 4212 Campbell St. N., London, Ont. N6P 1A6  519-652-2619 (voice)  519-652-0056 (fax)  [email protected] (e-mail) Printed in Canada by Bethel Baptist Print Ministry 2 This book is one of two companion volumes for Faith vs. the Modern Bible Versions: A Course on Bible Texts and Versions and a 10-Fold Defense of the King James Bible. The other companion volume is The Modern Bible Version Hall of Shame. It is suggested that the student first read Faith vs. the Modern Bible Versions, which gives a background for understanding the Bible version issue, before studying the companion volumes. 3 CONTENTS Introductory and General Questions ....................................................................... 7 What is “King James Only”? Don’t King James Only people believe that God’s Word is only in English and that God’s people should not study Greek and Hebrew? How important is the Bible version issue? Is it worth division and trouble? Can the common Christian understand the Bible version issue? Shouldn’t the Bible be translated into simple language that everyone can understand? Was “King James Onlyism” invented by a Seventh-day Adventist? Is it true that there are no significant doctrinal differences between the modern versions and the KJV? Does the Bible explicitly teach that God would preserve the Scripture? Does Psalm 12:7 refer to the preservation of Scripture? Does the Bible teach how God would preserve the Scripture? Where was the preserved Word of God before 1611? Are the modern versions of the devil? Aren’t the modern versions accomplishing God’s work around the world? Can people be saved through them? Are the modern versions associated with the apostasy of these days? Don’t all of the scholars support the modern versions? What about the Bible in other languages? Is the preserved word of God only available in English? Should foreign language translations be based on the King James Bible? Is it wrong to use other versions even for Bible study? What about the “oldest and best manuscripts” that I read about in the margin of the modern versions? Did fundamentalists defend the King James Bible before David Otis Fuller in the 1970s? How does the defense of the KJV differ from Rome’s position toward the Latin Vulgate? I have read that the KJV defenders make a lot of mistakes; is that true? Can a person be saved through the modern versions? What has the modern bible version issue done to Bible memorization? What are some of the books that you recommend on the Bible version issue? Are there any Bible colleges today that stand for the King James Bible? Questions Pertaining to the King James Version ............................................... 132 Was the King James Bible authorized? Didn’t the original KJV include the apocrypha? Was the King James Bible ever copyrighted? Hasn’t the KJV been updated in thousands of places? Was King James I a homosexual? 4 Were the King James translators universally godly and without doctrinal blame? Since the KJV translators were so flawed, how do they differ from the authors of modern textual criticism that you reject? Was the scholarship of the KJV translators inferior? Isn’t it a detriment that the translators retained ecclesiastical terminology from the Bishops Bible? (e.g., “baptize” instead of “immerse” or “church” instead of “congregation”) Isn’t It Wrong to Translate “Love” as “Charity”? What about Peter Ruckman? What about the term “God forbid”? Since the KJV had a large number of marginal notes, why do you condemn this in the modern versions? Why does the King James Bible use the word “Easter” in Acts 12:4? Didn’t the KJV translators say all versions are good? Is the King James Bible inspired? Could the KJV ever be revised again? Or could there ever be a better English translation of the Textus Receptus then what we have in the KJB? Isn’t the King James Bible too difficult to understand? Shouldn’t we remove the old language such as Thee, Thou, and Thine? Is it wrong for a preacher to correct the King James Bible? Questions Pertaining to the Greek Received Text .............................................. 171 Wasn’t the term “Textus Receptus” merely an advertising blurb? What about the differences between the various editions of the Received Text and which edition should we prefer? Wasn’t Erasmus a Roman Catholic humanist? Wasn’t Erasmus’ Greek New Testament hastily done and filled with errors? Didn’t Erasmus use a mere handful of manuscripts? Didn’t Erasmus and the Reformation editors of the Greek Received Text use textual criticism? Why aren’t there ancient Greek uncial manuscripts of the Traditional type? Is it true that most of the manuscript evidence supports the Traditional Text of the Reformation? Questions Pertaining to Modern Textual Criticism ........................................... 247 What is modern textual criticism? Why we reject modern textual criticism? Isn’t the actual difference between the Greek Received Text and the Westcott-Hort text small and insignificant? Isn’t the Critical Greek text based on older manuscripts? Why do we reject the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts? Was the Sinaiticus manuscript actually found in a waste paper container? 5 Who are Westcott and Hort, and what did they believe? Isn’t it true that modern versions are no longer based on Westcott and Hort? Should 1 John 5:7 be in the Bible since it has minority support among the Greek manuscripts? What about the last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark? Should the Dead Sea Scrolls be used to modify the Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament? Was the Koine Greek of the New Testament colloquial? Don’t the Papyri prove that the Alexandrian text is the best? Isn’t it wrong to paint the entire field of modern textual criticism with the brush of skepticism, seeing that there are also Bible-believing men such as Samuel Tregelles, A.T. Robinson, and B.B. Warfield in this arena? Does it matter if the influential names in modern textual criticism are skeptics? What about the Septuagint? Who was Origen? Is there an issue today with the Old Testament Hebrew text as there is with the New Testament Greek? What about the Greek “Majority Text” Questions Pertaining to the Modern English Versions ...................................... 368 What about the New King James Bible? Isn’t the New American Standard Version basically the same as the King James except for updated language? What about the New International Version? Is It True that the NIV Is Owned by a Publisher of Pornography? What about the Today’s English Version? What about the Living Bible? What about the Today’s English Version? What about The Message? What about the Holman Christian Standard Bible? 6 INTRODUCTORY AND GENERAL QUESTIONS WHAT IS “KING JAMES ONLY”? DON’T “KING JAMES ONLY” PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT GOD’S WORD IS ONLY IN ENGLISH THAT WE SHOULD NOT STUDY GREEK AND HEBREW? ANSWER: 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. 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 7 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.” ON THE OTHER HAND 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 8 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.” HOW IMPORTANT IS THE BIBLE VERSION ISSUE? IS IT WORTH DIVISION AND TROUBLE? ANSWER: 1. The Bible is the foundation for everything in the Christian life and ministry (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Thus, this is a foundational issue. If the child of God is not willing to take a strong stand for the Word of God, what will he stand for? When John Burgon wrote against the Westcott-Hort 9 theories of textual criticism at the end of the 19th century, he was charged with causing unnecessary division and with being too militant on the issue. He replied, “If, therefore, any do complain that I have sometimes hit my opponents rather hard, I take leave to point out that when the words of Inspiration are seriously imperiled, as now they are, it is scarcely possible for one who is determined effectually to preserve the Deposit in its integrity, to hit either too straight or too hard” (Burgon, The Revision Revised). I am convinced that Burgon was correct in this. 2. God is concerned about His Word, having exalted it highly (Ps. 138:2). We are not left to wonder what God thinks about the issue of the Scripture. This Psalm tells us that God has magnified His word above all His name, and that is an amazing statement. Consider how high and holy God’s name is, the name of Jehovah; the name of Jesus Christ! And yet God has exalted His Word above that. It is impossible to be too zealous for the Bible. And it is not merely the Scripture as an abstract concept that we are to be zealous for, it is the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament that has been passed down to us and is translated into our common languages. Those who fight only for an “inspired original” are fighting a sham battle because there are no originals today, only copies and translations. 3. The man who has a true conviction about the textual issue is motivated by his very conviction to take a stand. He believes the preserved Scripture is found in an exact text and translations thereof and he must therefore take a stand for it as the eternal Word of God. It is impossible for him not to be dogmatic and strident on the issue. On the other hand, the man who accepts the modern texts and versions has no such conviction. To him, the preserved Scripture is not found in any one text or version but is scattered mystically throughout the whole and it is his prerogative to pick and choose as he sees fit. Such a position is far removed from textual dogmatism, and the man who holds this position finds it difficult to understand those who are dogmatic and unbending. He wonders why the TR-KJV defender cannot treat the issue as casually as he treats it, but this is not possible because of the very nature of the KJV defender’s convictions. For the TR-KJV defender, the textual issue is deeply heartfelt. The late evangelist Lester Roloff likened the Bible to his mother (1 Peter 1:23) and said that he must be as zealous and earnest in his defense of the Bible as he would be of his mother. If someone threatened to cut off “just a few unnecessary pieces” of his mother, he would go immediately to her defense. Likewise, he refused to keep silent when textual critics and modern Bible translators are cutting “a few unnecessary pieces” out of the Bible. In my experience, those who support the modern Greek texts and versions do not understand this attitude. They approach the issue in a different fashion, more as an exercise in scholarship. 4. Further, it is not those who are defending the Hebrew Masoretic and the Greek Received Text and the English King James Bible and other translations thereof that are causing the division. These are merely standing in the old paths (Jer. 6:16). The division is being caused by those who are introducing the new, the “modern” things. 10