|
KING
JAMES ONLY
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.”
Source: David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist
Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143,
fbns@wayoflife.org.
- Published in
The True Life
BPC's Weekly, Volume 6 Number 23.
Top
/ Back
|
