|
|
Examining the Lies of the King James Attackers
As we press forward, I am seeing the end of these articles coming soon. There are at least two subjects left that I certainly want to deal with. Those two would put the total number at seven and seem like a fitting place to stop. However it is entirely possible that in writing #6 and #7 some other subjects may come up. The subject for this article is a lie that you have probably heard many times: The King James Only Position is a new idea and not a historical Baptist position. Obviously I don’t believe that statement to be accurate, if I did I wouldn’t be writing this article. Let’s examine this statement and see if it is accurate or not.
As we examine that statement, perhaps the first question that comes to mind is what is the King James Only position? This is a more difficult question to answer than you might originally think. Unlike in other doctrinal areas there are a number of different positions all of which are described as King James Only. Since there are probably more positions out there than I am familiar with and since this is a very fluid issue I will not try to list ever position but rather give you the extreme right and the extreme left side of what we would refer to as the King James Only position. The far right side of this stand would be the folks that say The King James is the best available English translation, it is based on the right manuscripts and it is the only Bible we use. These folks are often referred to as King James Preferred but what ever you call them they would represent the extreme right side of this Theological spectrum. On the other extreme you have the folks that say You can use the English of the King James to correct the errors in the Hebrew and Greek and If anyone wants to have, learn and read the Word of God, they need to learn English so they can read the King James. In between these two positions are many people who hold to a good number of slightly different positions but basically believe that God has preserved his word in English in the King James Bible, and all other English bibles are corrupted, based on flawed manuscripts and should be avoided. Many would further add that since God has preserved His Word in English, there is no need study or understand Greek or Hebrew.
Now that we have some knowledge of what is meant by King James Only, that leaves us with the second part of the statement, that this position is a new idea and not a historical Baptist position. I guess this could possibly be considered a partial truth. In the scope of the history of man (6,000 or so years) or in the scope of the history of New Testament Christianity (almost 2,000 years) then this is a new position, but the position is as old as it needs to be. Example: most people with any sort of common sense are against the use, sale and production of Crack Cocaine. This could be called a new position because Crack Cocaine was created in the 1970’s and rose to popularity in the 80’s. So while this is a new position, it is safe to say that it is as old as it needs to be. From 1611 until the late 1800’s there was no debate the King James (or Holy Bible, as it was called then) stood alone. Then the floodgates opened and along came the Revised Version, the American Standard Version, Young’s Literal Translation, The Darby NT and on and on we could go. I believe that while the King James Only position may be relatively new as compared to church history it is as old as it needs to be.
People who are bent on spreading this lie are quick to point to quotes from Jack Hyles in the 60’s and 70’s as he freely corrected the Bible and John R. Rice at any time in his life doing the same thing as proof that this is a new position. They will point to the writings of men like Peter Ruckman, William Grady, Sam Gipp and Douglas Stauffer and opine that these are new arguments and this is a new position. The reality of the situation is this, as I stated above, The King James Only position is as old as it needs to be. From the moment the new bibles began to be printed you can find men that were standing against them and for the truth of the King James. Consider several examples of this fact:
· Dean John William Burgon Those of us who know this name now probably owe that fact to the Dean Burgon Society, a Pro King James, Pro Textus Receptus group founded in 1978. Dean Burgon was a Bible Believer who lived from 1813-1888 and in the later years of his life stood vocally against the Revised Version, Westcott, Hort and their underlying critical texts (more on that in the next article) He often referred to the two main corrupted Greek manuscripts as the two false witnesses and said of them and others that Westcott and Hort used in compiling their critical text: “They are among the most corrupt documents extant. Each of these codices (Aleph B D) clearly exhibits a fabricated text - is the result of arbitrary and reckless recension.” (Revision Revised, Pg. 9)
· J. Frank Norris could be rightly called the father of the modern day Independent Baptist Movement. He was pastor of First Baptist Church in Forth Worth, TX when it was removed from the SBC in 1916 (a full 50 years before folks began separating en masse) In 1939 He (along with his associate Dr. Louis Entzminger) founded the Fundamental Baptist Bible Institute, which became the Bible Baptist Seminary and is now Arlington Baptist College. This School is generally considered to be the first modern Independent Baptist College in America. There was a large sign on the front of their building that said “ONLY SEMINARY IN THE WORLD TEACHING WHOLE ENGLISH BIBLE.” It was Dr. Norris’s conviction “that it was not only unnecessary but actually harmful to teach Greek if the goal was to train soul-winning, church-building, theologically orthodox, Bible-preaching and teaching pastors and missionaries rather than Bible correctors and textual critics”
· David Otis Fuller, J.J. Ray and others there were many old time preachers who held to the King James Only position before it was popular, en vogue or the thing to do. David Otis Fuller was written against in the Sword of the Lord by Dr. John R. Rice (November 28, 1975) for his stand on the King James.
In conclusion, lets remember the lie that is being addressed: The King James Only Position is a new idea and not a historical Baptist position. Is the King James Only position new? Perhaps in the scope of things, but again, it is as new as it needs to be. Bible Believers have stood against the modern bibles and critical texts as long as they have been in existence. Is it not a historical Baptist Position? Consider the previous statement and the fact that the first Independent Baptist Bible College in America taught no Hebrew and no Greek but rather the whole King James Bible, I would say that this lie has been dispelled.