by David Cox (c) 2004
Quick Jumps:
What we use and recommend
What we do not believe in: Secondary Inspiration Restriction of Others Invalid arguments
What do we believe as to Bible Versions? Is the KJV the best Bible version?
What we use and recommend: the King James Version in English. In Spanish we use and recommend the Reina Valera, 1960 version.
We believe that the King James is a good, faithful version of the Bible, and we recommend and use it in our ministry when we preach, teach, witness, memorize Scriptures, or have devotions in English. Since I was saved, I have not used to any considerable degree, any other very version. I have read some in the American Standard Version and the New International Version, as well as in the New World Translation (Jehovah's Witness), and the Book of Mormon. I have done so to broaden my understanding in order to deal with issues as a minister. My devotions, Bible memorization, Bible study, preaching, etc. all come from either the KJV or the Spanish Reina Valera.
We have no plans to move to any other version.
(1) Secondary Inspiration of translators - We do not hold to the Peter Ruckman extremes on Bible versions. We not believe that God gave the KJV translators a secondary inspiration as they translated the Bible from the original languages into English.
Why do you hold to this position? Because the original Bible authors clearly understood that they were a part of something much larger, in which God was supernaturally causing what they wrote to be God inspired ("God breathed"). What they produced (in the Bible, not in any other writings) was "Scripture".
They also recognized between one and another author of Bible books that each was inspired, such as Peter recognizing that Paul's writings are inspired.
The KJV translators (in the preface to the reader) clearly stated that their work was not finished, that there would need to be revisions, clarifications, and changes in what they produced. This clearly is not what a person who produces "Scripture" would say.
(2) Restriction of others as to Bible versions - We do not believe that it is correct to restrict or make the Bible version a person uses an issue.
We are Baptists, and as such we believe in "Soul Liberty", which briefly is the right of each Christian (through personal Bible study, his own experiences and understanding, and the leading of the Holy Ghost) to make their own decisions in matters that are not clearly and unequivocally stated in the Scriptures. There is no verse in the KJV that says, "Thou shalt only use the KJV". If there is, I haven't found it.
The issue of Bible versions is very difficult. It is a matter for scholars to guide the rest of Christianity. When good scholars (those that are strong Fundamentalists and separatists) disagree on the details and even the major points of a matter, it is wise to walk carefully.
But as a Baptist, I cannot raise an issue to "Thus saith the Lord" when it just is not that clear or forcefully stated in the Scriptures. This is not a matter that I do not understand, it is a matter that God has not spoken on. Therefore falls into the area of Christian conscience and conviction, and cannot be legislated as say stealing, lying, or adultery.
Where good men differ, be reserved.
(3) Invalid arguments to defend my position See below.
My Qualifications in this issue - I was a Greek minor in school. Beyond the normal courses for this minor, I continued to take more Greek classes. I have a year and half of Hebrew studies. I have two Masters, and I was a missions major meaning I have had 3 courses of linguistics. I fluently speak Spanish in addition to English. Although I have more qualification that the majority of KJV "radicals" that I have talked with, I do not consider myself an expert in any way. I am cautious, weighing both sides of an argument and comparing what each says with Scripture. I am not easily convinced.
First of all, let's put things into perspective. All of these arguments and experts floating around making comments on Bible versions are just not valid. For a person to be authoritative on an issue, they had better fulfill the basic most requirements. In this case, the "expert" on Bible versions needs
(1) to have a minimum of being able to sight read the New Testament (the most difficult part of the Bible as far as versions and variants are concerned). Knowledge of the Old Testament Hebrew is also a requirement, preferably being able to sight read also the Old Testament.
(2) to have linguistic studies on the issue of translation.
(3) to have a sound understanding and study of textual transmission (how one text is copied and continued from one generation to the next).
(4) Be intellectually honest.
This last point needs to be elaborated. It is faulty reasoning to hold a position first, then find things to defend that position no matter what the evidence reveals.
We believe the Bible because it is true. But "proof texting" is clearly unbiblical, and this is where sects, cults, false religions, and abusive churches come from. Christ never resorted to twisting truth, evidence, or facts to suit Him. Quite the opposite, truth supported what Christ taught because Christ and truth are one.
WARNINGS: It is an extremely dangerous thing to make up arguments that are illogical, wrong, improper hermeneutics, or just dishonest in order to prove your point. This is what false religions have done for centuries in attacking true Christianity. I read and study both sides of an issue, and it greatly disturbs, annoys, and causes me great concern when supposedly Fundamental, separated Baptists (the people I identify with) use cultic, dishonest, illogical arguments to prove something, then beat to death anybody that disagrees with them. One generation of this kind of thing as acceptable, and Christianity ceases to exist (period)!
Example - "Wescott and Hort were Marianists (worshipped Mary) because they were Anglicans."
I read in a work defending the KJV this accusation against Wescott and Hort. The explanation of this accusation was taken from Wescott's diary, when he recounted that they were traveling cross country and a rainstorm overtook them. They ran into a small chapel that they had never seen before. As was the custom of the time, the church was unlocked. After the rain stopped, they looked up as the sun broke forth and they saw a Madonna and Child stain glass window over them with the sun lighting it up brightly. The comment, "God must be in this place" was made, and that is construed to be a statement in favor of Mary worship, therefore Wescott and Hort are bad.
This kind of convoluted logic is simply scary. If that makes a person a Mary worshipper, then we have confused what worshipping Mary is. I would make the observation that Wescott and Hort were Anglicans. As such the Anglican church is warmed over Catholicism. But at their time in history, the Anglican church had just broke with Rome and the Pope, and there was a strong desire to separate from Roman Catholicism and return to a more biblical form of Christianity, i.e. criticize Rome as much as possible on doctrinal grounds. This time period of the Anglican church produces some writers that were strongly anti-Catholic.
So I am not convinced that this "ruins" Wescott and Hort and everything they ever did because they were impressed by a stain glass window. Bottom line, this is faulty thinking at its worst.
Other observations - Just to put this in perspective, the KJV were good loyal Anglicans. Anglicans were not normally Mary worshippers. But they did have problems. For example they believed in a church hierarchy similar to Rome. They believed in Baptismal Regeneration. Those are the points you need to examine in dealing with Anglicans.
"Bishop" - I note that the KJV translators deliberately kept the Bishop's Bible (Catholic) use of bishop instead of "supervisor" (as they were ordered by King James in his directions to the translators). The idea is to keep, defend, or invent support for a church hierarchical system.
"Baptism" - On the issue of baptism, equally, the KJV translators mistranslated the word bautizo using a transliteration effectively creating a new word in English instead of using the most obvious word in English that fits, "submersion". I note that the Anglican church held to sprinkling as a valid form of Baptism and therefore it made defense of that position easier.
Let's play devils advocate for a minute and say that because of that statement, Wescott and Hort and all the scholastic work they did is tainted and unusable by Fundamental Baptists because of that statement in support of Rome. Anything they produced is therefore anathema. Okay.
I read about Erasmus, which was a Roman Catholic priest until his death, and I read where his fellow bishops accused him of being with the Reformers (Luther). Erasmus was a reformer but from inside the Catholic church. This accusations arrived at Rome with the Pope, and Erasmus was called in to question. His position was, "I am loyal to the Mother Church of Rome, to Mary, and to the Pope. If the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church is in error, I will be in error with them." This is a "dyed in the wool" loyal Catholic. This is his position until his death, and I suppose without any doubt, he is in hell because of his belief in the Catholic doctrine of salvation.
Now Erasmus compiled and edited the 5 versions of the Textus Receptus. Do we throw out the Textus Receptus and his work because of that statement? I think not.
My point is, people are using illogical, invalid, and stupid arguments to prove their point. Their point being, "my Bible is the KJV and it is right and everything else or different in any way is wrong." I am sorry, but I do not buy into a person with so little Bible understanding of the principle of soul liberty, the liberty of the believer, and how God works.
My position is that whatever principle, method of interpretation, form of arguing a point must be a two edged sword. It must be valid for me as against me. I cannot misuse the rules just to prove "my" "correct" position.
The above argument is an ad homen (against the man) argument which is invalid in debate. You cannot attack the person of your opponent, and therefore conclude that all his positions are invalid. In point of fact, the Roman Catholic Church believes in the trinity, and just because they are in error on other important doctrines does not mean they are wrong on their position on the Trinity.
You might also be interested to know how strongly the cults coming from the Seventh Day Adventist group have used the issue that they "alone" use the King James Version, and therefore they are the only God approved church. This was their position for years. Many other cults hold to the same type of argument (their use and support and view of the KJV makes them uniquely biblical). David Koresh in Waco Texas with the Branch Davidians also strongly held this position. What does all this mean? Nothing. It does not prove the position right nor wrong because somebody holds the position.
Every issue needs to be independently examined. If a connection between a position and their doctrine is apparent, then that is valid, but that buttresses other arguments, it cannot be used alone. For example, above I showed where the Anglican doctrine on baptism and church government swayed their actions in translation. They had a reason for translating a particular word the way they did. That is not to say that they were faulty on everything else they translated, it is to say they by passed the best word for something else, and there is a correlation with a doctrinal bias. I do not see anything in Westcott and Hort's work where they leaned toward Mary worship. The attack against them as Mary worshippers is simply ridiculous.
See also these studies
Which Bible Version is Best? (and why?)