This Memorial Day - Remember!

 

The English word “memorial” is kin to the English word “memory,” which speaks simply of “remembering.” I love Memorial Day because I love my country, and the freedoms enjoyed by the citizens and immigrants therein.

This Memorial Day weekend, I have been thinking of American Christian religious leaders who oppose patriotism, believing any such expression to be sinful. I can understand why Islam hates America at its core; for they hate Israel, and the United States has been a friend to Israel. But why in the world would an American man, supposing to be a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ, hate the slightest expression of patriotism?

Allow me first to say that I am patriotic, and I make no apology for being such. As a matter of fact, the American who is not patriotic is the one who should be offering apologies. Lest I be misunderstood, let me describe what I mean by the term “patriotic.”

By “patriotic,” I mean that I am of the opinion that the United States is the greatest nation on the face of the earth, and I would rather live nowhere else. I have, while in prayer on many occasions, thanked God that He allowed me to be born in America. Please note that I do not believe that I am better than anyone else for being an American; it is by God's marvelous grace that I was born and raised in this great country. Yes, I said it, and I do not apologize that I said it – that the United States is the greatest nation on the face of the earth. Our women are treated with far more respect than are the women of Iran, who are publicly flogged for showing their face in public. Our children enjoy a better quality of life than children in places such as Sudan. Yes, I am grateful that I live in the United States as opposed to Sudan. America is great in terms of the freedoms we enjoy. Many of these freedoms are at stake even within our borders. The most liberal of our own citizens hate freedom, and would silence the freedom of speech of any and all who would disagree with them. Make no mistake – America is a sinful nation who, in many ways, has turned from the God of the Bible. We have been engaged in a holocaust of the worst kind – the slaughter of millions of innocent children. We will not be guiltless. Judgment is certain to come to us. But for some reason, God Almighty has withheld judgment for a season. At this very moment, the United States is still the best place on earth to live. Many of the poor in our nation live like kings compared to some in other nations. Our nation, compared to many others, is a paradise. By the grace of God, we have been exalted.

By “patriotic,” I mean simply that I love my country. I love seeing the beautiful countryside as I travel. I love the sight of the majestic mountains; I love the sound of our beautiful rushing waters. I love the beautiful skylines of our major cities. I love to see the fields at harvest time. No matter what type of landscape you prefer – America has it, and we have the most beautiful examples.

By “patriotic,” I mean, not only that I love America, but that I also love Americans. I am exhausted with these American pastors who claim to be “big on missions,” but then claim that expressing patriotism is sinful. It is hypocritical to show concern for the lost across the seas, but to not as much shed a tear for the lost across the street. What do you think Paul the apostle would have said about someone who cares for the estate of the foreigner but has no concern for his own? He would have branded such an individual “worse than an infidel.” God called Paul to preach to the Gentiles, but in Romans 9, Paul reveals that he has a tremendous burden for the nation of Israel, his own people. When Daniel was in Babylon, I am sure that Daniel expressed care for the Babylonians. But in one of the greatest prayers in the Bible, recorded in Daniel 9, Daniel prayed one of the most heartfelt prayers for, not the Babylonians, but the Jews, his own people.

By “patriotic,” I mean that I am thankful for every individual who has served our nation both in the past and in the present. This weekend, I will enjoy the company of my family, but I realize that it is only made possible because, this weekend, a person in uniform will be separated from their family. Some of the same Christian leaders who oppose patriotism also oppose those who courageously serve our nation in peacetime as well as in wartime. There are pastors who will stand behind their pulpit, perhaps this weekend, and declare that no American Christian should support war; and that it is sinful to serve in our nation's military in any capacity. If I could say something to such pastors, it would be this: Go ahead and voice your opinion. In America, you have an unalienable right to do so. But there are countries where, if the government tells you to serve in the military, you will serve in the military or have your head severed from your shoulders. In America you have the right to choose whether to serve or not to serve. But know that, while you are voicing your opposition to our men in uniform, and while you are stating your opposition to the expression of patriotism, your right to do so is protected because a man in uniform died in a puddle of his own blood. Your right to state such a stupid opinion is protected by a woman in uniform who was captured on the battlefield and suffered heroically. So I now wish to take this time to thank every veteran who has selflessly served our nation to protect my God-given rights that I so freely enjoy. Thank you to every individual who is currently serving our nation so that I do not have to wake up to the sound of gunfire, missiles, and car bombs on American soil. Thank you to every mother, father, and spouse whose loved one will not be with you this Memorial Day. You have given much to your country, and are still giving. Please know that everyone has not forgotten.

If you are one who believes patriotism to be sinful, I only ask, “Where does the Bible condemn patriotism as I have described it?” Why am I wrong for acknowledging God's blessing upon America, and thanking Him for it? Why am I wrong for loving America's “amber waves of grain”? Why am I wrong for loving Americans, and for being more grieved over the sins of America than over the sins of other nations? And why am I wrong in making a meager effort to pay my debt – the debt of thankfulness I owe to every American who fought and never came home; to every American who fought and came home a “basket case” (I say that very respectfully); and to every American who is presently preserving our nation's freedoms? The American who is patriotic owes no explanation for his love to his country; it is the American who opposes patriotism who owes the explanation.

Thank you to all who serve! We remember!

O beautiful for heroes proved
In liberating strife,
Who more than self their country loved,
And mercy more than life!
America! America!
May God thy gold refine
Till all success be nobleness
And every gain divine!*

*Katherine L. Bates

Considering the Canticles

Excepting Jesus Christ, the wisest man to ever have lived is Israel’s third king – King Solomon. When we thumb through our Bibles, we come to the writings of Solomon. Tucked away in those writings is a book often neglected. Certainly, we love the Proverbs of Solomon. Here, we have only a portion of Solomon’s expression of his God-given wisdom. Many Bible teachers teach Solomon’s proverbs. Following the Proverbs, we come to the Ecclesiastes of Solomon. Far less popular than his proverbs, the book of Ecclesiastes outlines the vanity of vanities – the greatest of all futilities – life lived “under the sun” with no regard to the God who is “beyond the sun.” Beyond the Ecclesiastes, however, is a much neglected portion of scripture written by the wisest man among the mortals – the Canticles of Solomon. In the opening verse, we read:

The song of songs, which is Solomon’s (Canticles 1:1).

This is in deep contrast to the previous book. In the Ecclesiastes, Solomon gives us the vanity which excels all vanities; in the Canticles, Solomon gives us the song which excels all songs. In our Bible we have a song book containing one hundred fifty psalms. But we have another book which contains the words of a song – Solomon’s song – which Solomon claims to the “song of songs” – the song which exceeds all the others.

Adam Clarke notes that the Jews, in their history, have sung ten notable songs:

1. The first was sung by Adam when his sin was pardoned.
2. The second was sung by Moses and the Israelites at the Red Sea.
3. The third was sung by the Israelites when they drank of the rock in the wilderness.
4. The fourth was sung by Moses when summoned to depart from this world.
5. The fifth was sung by Joshua when the sun and moon stood still.
6. The sixth was sung by Deborah and Barak after the defeat of Sisera.
7. The seventh was sung by Hannah when the Lord promised her a son.
8. The eighth was sung by David for all the mercies given him by God.
9. The ninth is the present, sung in the spirit of prophecy by Solomon.
10. The tenth is that which shall be sung by the children of Israel when restored from their captivities.

As great as these songs are, the Song of Solomon excels them all.

The Subject of the Canticles

Some insist that there is no significance whatsoever to Solomon’s Song. The song is simply a piece of poetic literature written from King Solomon to a Shulamite woman who was one of many of Solomon’s objects of love. That the song is addressed to a Shulamite woman is undeniable from the thirteenth verse of the sixth chapter. But is that really the extent of the Holy Spirit’s intent? Did the Holy Spirit inspire the song to be written just so we could read one of Solomon’s love letters to one of his many lovers? The ancient Jews certainly believed there was spiritual significance to the song, as they publicly read it annually on the eighth day of the Passover.

A Literal Meaning

Certainly, the Song of Solomon has a literal implication to it, and like all historical events of the Bible, we should not attempt to discard its literalness. Solomon had many wives and many concubines. But as Jacob loved Rachel more than he loved Leah, Solomon loved one of his lovers above the rest. While we may glean spiritual truth from the Canticles (as all scripture is profitable for doctrine), let us never forget that it was a literal song written by a historical figure to his bride. Always remember that the gleaning of spiritual truth from a passage of scripture does not negate the literal implication of that scripture. For example, we are told in I Corinthians 10 that the Old Testament account of the congregation of Israel in the wilderness was written for our learning and for our admonition. While we compare the Israelites’ daily diet of manna in the wilderness to the “bread of heaven” of which we have partaken, we do not conclude that the manna in the wilderness never occurred. The Israelites literally ate manna from heaven. And what they ate literally is a picture of what we eat spiritually. But we do not conclude that, since the manna from heaven was a picture, it must have never happened literally. To quickly cite another example, Moses hit a rock with his rod, and water gushed out. The children of Israel then drank this water. This is a wonderful picture of how the Rock (Jesus Christ) was smitten at Calvary, and because of His sacrificial death, we can drink of living water. But, since the smiting of the rock in the wilderness represents the suffering of Christ, do we then say that Moses never smote a rock in the wilderness literally? Of course not. The event happened literally, and spiritual truth can (and should) be drawn from it. But it is a violation of honest hermeneutics to deny the literalness of a scriptural event (past, present, or future) on the basis of “spiritualizing” it. While there are many spiritual truths from which we can glean in the Canticles, we do not deny that the song was written by Solomon to a bride whom he loved above the others.

Christ and the Church

Knowing that the Canticles contain a literal aspect, it must be asked whether they contain a spiritual one. Should there be any spiritualization of the song? Can any part of the Canticles refer to a bride other than Solomon’s Shulamite? I answer with an emphatic “MOST CERTAINLY!” Many insist that the Canticles refer, not only to a Shulamite bride of Solomon, but also to the bride of Christ – the church. I believe that such a conclusion is scripturally sound. In Paul’s epistle to the Ephesian church, Paul gives instruction first to husbands in the church, then to their wives. Then, he quotes from the book of Genesis regarding marriage. Notice:

Ephesians 5:31 – “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.”

After Paul quotes this verse from Genesis regarding a man and his wife, he then states that he is speaking of something more than just any man and any wife. Notice:

Ephesians 5:32 – “This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.”

Clearly, any honest student of the Bible can see that Paul is comparing the relationship of a groom and his bride to Christ and His church. Since Solomon’s song is a dialog between a bride and groom, and since the church is the bride of Christ, there is no reason why the song cannot be applied to Christ and His bride, the church.

If we consider attributing the Song of Solomon as being a song from Christ to His church, then we must be honest in asking ourselves the question, “Is this interpretation scripturally sound?” I believe this interpretation is the most scripturally sound of all possible interpretations. Again, I am not denying that the song was originally written to a literal bride of Solomon. But I am affirming that this song can be applied to the bride of Christ - the church - for a number of reasons.

First, this interpretation portrays Solomon as a type of Christ, which is done elsewhere in scripture. Notice a verse relating specifically to the reign of Solomon:

I Kings 4:25 – “And Judah and Israel dwelt safely, every man under his vine and under his fig tree, from Dan even to Beersheba, all the days of Solomon.”

At first glance, you may see no reference to Christ in this verse. But look very carefully – it is stated that Judah and Israel dwelt safely, “every man under his vine and under his fig tree.” The phrase “every man under his vine and under his fig tree” is found in other places in Old Testament prophecy. It is found in Micah 4:4 and Zechariah 3:10. In both instances, the phrase does not refer to Solomon’s reign. We know this because both passages refer to a future kingdom in Israel, and at the time of both Micah and Zechariah, Solomon’s reign was past. It is clear that the prophecies of Micah and Zechariah refer to the coming kingdom of the Messiah upon the earth from His throne in Jerusalem. The picture of Christ’s kingdom is very similar to the picture of Solomon’s reign. Solomon’s kingdom is a great picture of Christ’s coming kingdom upon this earth. Consider:

1. Christ, like Solomon, will reign from Jerusalem (Isaiah 2:3; Micah 4:2).
2. Christ’s reign, like Solomon’s, will be characterized by peace (Isaiah 2:4; Micah 4:3)
3. As people came from all over the world to hear Solomon’s wisdom (I Kings 4:34), people will come from all nations to hear the teaching of Christ Himself in Jerusalem (Isaiah 2:3; Zechariah 8:23)
4. As Solomon built the temple in Jerusalem (I Kings 6:1), Christ will build the temple in the Millennium (Zechariah 6:12).
5. The phrase “every man under his vine and under his fig tree” refers to both Solomon’s reign (I Kings 4:25) and Christ’s reign (Micah 4:4; Zechariah 3:10).

As for the Song of Solomon, the teaching that Solomon is a type of Christ is supported clearly by other scriptures.

Second, applying the Canticles to a love song between Christ and His church is not only scripturally sound because it portrays Solomon as a type of Christ, but it also portrays the Shulamite woman as the bride of Christ (the church). We have already seen from Ephesians 5 that this is in accordance with the teaching of scripture.

Third, since it is in harmony with scriptural hermeneutics to typify Solomon as Christ and the Shulamite woman as the church, the Canticles would then portray a forgotten message that Christ desires to have an intimate relationship with His church, His bride. Solomon’s Song is a chorus that depicts intimacy (even physical intimacy) between a groom and his bride. Could this be why the song is neglected in both public and private worship? Could the neglect of this book reveal that much of the American church today contains the maturity of giddy schoolchildren?

In Solomon’s Song, we have a description of intimacy between a groom and his bride. Of course, in marriage, this intimacy includes physical intimacy. Please note that I am not teaching some ridiculous doctrine that Christ wants to have sexual intercourse with individuals in His church. But Christ does desire communion, fellowship, and closeness with His church. Could it be that the Canticles are neglected because we are ashamed to admit that we, the American church of today, know so little about communion with Christ and love for Christ? Could that be the reason that this song is so foreign to us? Very few in the church spend any real quality time in the presence of the groom, with a Bible and an altar, enjoying sweet communion with Christ. For many, prayer is simply a ritual where we fulfill a religious duty. Bible reading is something we engage in because we are supposed to do so! I would be bold in saying that very few in the church know what it is to enjoy a closeness with the Saviour, where the heart’s hidden secrets are poured out; where we learn what touches the heart of the groom; where we gain a consciousness of the Saviour’s presence; where we allow the groom to speak to us regarding anything – even the shortcomings in our lives. Solomon’s Song is convicting if we take it to heart, because Solomon enjoyed the company of a Shulamite woman more than many of us enjoy the presence of the Son of God.

There is much more that can be said regarding this spiritual song. But I will leave that for another post. Let us, as the bride in Solomon’s song, depart from our room and search for the groom! His sweet communion will be found in the precise spot where we left it!

Keeper of my Soul

There is One who keeps my soul,

He guards my soul’s salvation

From Satan’s snares, from worldly cares

He keeps me through temptation.

Mighty angels, men of war,

Though battles they do win,

They cannot keep the Master’s sheep

From falling into sin.

To keep myself in Thee O Lord,

Is too great a task for me.

From Thy great grace, Thy hidden face

Separated I would be!

Through raging storms, trials sore

Precious Saviour keep Thine own,

Keep us ‘ere Thou present us there

Faultless before the throne!

The Gift of God Given Me

The gift of God given me,

Salvation, full and free;

A gift of grace, undeserved,

Unearned entirely.

Condemned to die then was I

When in His hand I saw

The nail print there, just for me,

Who broke His moral law.

In a moment, in a word,

I called upon His name,

Believing Him Whom I heard,

Justified I became!

And my sins, though they were great,

Destroying yet my soul;

Jesus’ blood did compensate,

Did make me fully whole!

On the cross He stretched His hand

To rescue and to lift;

Now by faith I understand

The Giver is the gift!

The King James Translators

What They Teach Us in the Preface to the 1611 King James Bible

Noel Smith, writing for the Baptist Bible Tribune, recommends a book entitled God’s Word into English by Dewey M. Beegle. Informing the reader of what this book contains, Smith states that Beegle’s book contains “the complete text (24 pages) of the preface to the King James Version (which most Bible readers have never read and which all should read).”

The original King James Bible was translated with a Preface entitled “The Translators to the Reader.” For a preface, it is quite lengthy, but it is worthwhile read. It should be read by everyone who reads the Bible, but especially by those who recognize only the King James Version as God’s word in the English language. Although I love and use the King James Bible, honesty compels me to report that the King James translators, were they alive today, would not see the King James Version as the only valid translation of God’s word into the English language. I would like to emphasize six facts concerning the King James translators using their own words in the preface to the King James Bible. I will supply direct quotes from the preface, and I encourage the reader to download a copy of the preface here. Any unbiased reader will see that the beliefs of the translators articulated in this article will be factual.

The Translators Sought to Make One Good Principal Translation

It is true that the King James translators revered the previous English translations that existed before the translation they produced. As a matter of fact, they used the previous English translations to aid them in their most noble work. They referred to previous translations as “good,” believing them to be valuable English translations. In the words of the translators themselves:

Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one… but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one.

The idea that the King James Version is the only good translation in the English language did not originate with the King James translators. They counted the translations before them as good translations.

When, however, the translators spoke of making one “principal” translation, what did they mean? Did they mean that their translation would be the only valuable translation in the English language upon its completion? I believe that the translators’ words in the preface will refute this notion in a solid manner, as we will see later.

By a “principal” translation, I believe it is clear that the translators strove for a translation that would be acceptable for public reading as well as private; for family devotions as well as religious services; for the president as well as the miner; for the rich as well as the poor; for the clergy as well as the layman. It is certain that the translators did not disregard the translations before them, and I am convinced that they would not have derided every translation after them.

The Translators Regarded Nearly Every English Translation as God’s Word

By stating that they desired to make “one principal” translation, the King James translators were not knocking the translations either before or after them. This becomes clear when the translators declare that even the “meanest” (i.e. the most average, the most despicable, the lowest in rank) English translations were to be regarded as God’s word:

We do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession… containeth the word of God, nay, IS the word of God.

You may ask whether the translators would accept a translation as God’s word if it differed from the original Greek and Hebrew. The translators answer this question clearly. They refer to the fact that the apostles quoted from the Septuagint (which they call “the Translation of the Seventy”) although it differed from the original Hebrew writings, referring to it as God’s Word:

The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it (which it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men do confess), which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy of the appellation and name of the word of God.

The Translators Referred to Their Work as a Revision

Although I have mentioned this in a previous post, I must again mention that the King James Bible was identified by its own translators as a revision! On the cover page of the 1611 edition of the King James Bible (as in many King James Bibles today) it reads:

Newly Translated out of the Original Tongues, and with the Former Translations Diligently Compared and Revised

This would be a good place to insert the fact that the King James Version was not the first English version of the Bible. When the King James translators set out to revise the previous English translations, they met much opposition. Would you like to guess what crime with which the King James translators were charged? They were changing God’s word! The English-speaking people already had the Bishop’s Bible, the Great Bible, the Coverdale Bible, and of course the translations of Tyndale and Wycliffe. Now, the King James translators had set out to revise the English Bible once again – and it was not welcomed.

Listen to the words of the translators as they acknowledge that their work of revising the word of God was not received with a warm greeting:

Zeal to promote the common good, whether it be by devising anything ourselves, or revising that which hath been laboured by others, deserveth certainly much respect and esteem, but yet findeth but cold entertainment in the world. It is welcomed with suspicion instead of love, and with emulation instead of thanks.

In defending their work of revising the English Bible, the King James translators further added that, if the translators of the previous English versions were yet alive, they would thank the King James translators for revising their works:

So, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, do endeavor to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us.

When one opposes the works of modern versions upon the grounds that “God’s word does not need to be revised,” that opponent, if he or she were alive in 1611, would have opposed the King James Version itself.

The Translators Did Not Regard the King James Text as the Only Correct Rendering of the Original Languages

King James Bibles today do not have the marginal notes that were present in the original King James Bible. I am not speaking of “center column references;” I am rather speaking of notes that the translators made themselves. In the margin of the original King James Bible, the translators provided alternate translations. Those alternate translations were preceded by the word “Or,” and were regarded as equivalent to the text itself. In essence, the translators were saying, “We have translated a Greek or Hebrew word this way, but it can read that way as well.” Thus, the translators were admitting that a Greek or Hebrew word could be translated more than one way.

As you can guess, the translators were criticized for this. Their critics claimed that, by placing alternate translations in the margin, they were tampering with the authority of God’s word. God’s word can only be translated one way, their critics argued. This is the argument of many today who claim that the King James rendering of a certain passage is the only way that passage can be translated. The King James translators, however, did not believe this. In the preface to the King James Bible, they defended first, their belief that some of their renderings were questionable; and second, their use of marginal readings:

Doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption… So diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.

The Translators Encouraged Using a Variety of Translations

Would the translators, if they were alive today, use the King James Version exclusively, or would they use a variety of translations? The answer is found in the preface to the King James Bible, where they quote St. Augustine in a positive light:

Therefore as St. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures.

The Translators Were Accused of Heresy

One reason for the widespread rejection of the King James Version in 1611 was due the opinion that some of the translators held to heretical beliefs. Because the translators are heretics, the argument went, their translation should be rejected. The translators responded to this:

And whereas they urge for their second defence of their vilifying and abusing of the English Bibles, or some pieces thereof, which they meet with, for that heretics (forsooth) were Authors of the translations (heretics they call us by the same right that they call themselves Catholics, both being wrong).

It is common for some to reject a version because of a heretical translator. Or, how many times have we been advised to reject modern versions because of the beliefs of Westcott and Hort? Opponents of the King James Version in 1611 called for its rejection on the same grounds. I am convinced that the King James translators would not reject a Bible translation on the basis of the beliefs of its translators, as they had received the same treatment.

The “King James Only” Debate

Like my recent posts concerning the King James Version, this post is designed to be informational rather than confrontational. It would benefit the reader to read my recent posts regarding the King James Version before reading this post (Fundamentalism and the King James Bible and Thoughts on the King James Version). In this post, I simply intend to put forth a few facts regarding the “King James Only” debate.

That there is such a debate raging today is undeniable. The argument in this debate is defined simply by stating that some insist on using the King James Version exclusively while others make no such insistence. Those who insist on the usage of the King James Version exclusively are known as “King James Onlyists.” King James Onlyists insist that the King James Bible is God’s word in the English language, and that no other translation is to be regarded as the word of God. In Fundamentalism and the King James Bible, I clearly and correctly identify great men of God on both sides of the debate. Out of all the men who stood (or stand) for godly living, the inspiration of the Bible, the literal and premillennial second coming of Christ, the virgin birth, the sinlessness and deity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith, and other fundamental doctrines of the faith, some of them used the King James Version exclusively, but some of them did not. Personally, I use the King James Bible and believe it to be a superior translation in many ways. I discuss this in Thoughts on the King James Version.

Although much can be said regarding this debate, I wish to focus primarily on one simple aspect of the discussion – the fact that I have personally found presuppositions, flawed logic, and inconsistencies on both sides of the debate. I will state them candidly and expound upon them briefly.

Those Opposing the King James Onlyists

I believe that those who oppose the King James Onlyists are inconsistent with, at times, flawed logic in their arguments.

A PRESUPPOSITION

To begin, those opposing the King James Onlyists have a presupposition for their foundation. They presuppose that “older manuscripts” is equivalent to “more reliable manuscripts,” as they like to call them. It is undeniable that the Greek manuscripts that were used in translating the King James New Testament differ in many places from the manuscripts that were used in translating the Revised Version of 1885, the American Standard Version of 1901, and the majority of all modern versions since. The King James translators used the Greek text originally translated by Erasmus. This Greek New Testament would become known as the Textus Receptus (meaning “Received Text”) and would be used from 1604 to 1611 by the King James translators.

In the mid-nineteenth century, very old Greek manuscripts were found. One set of manuscripts was found in the Vatican. We call this set of manuscripts “Codex Vaticanus.” Another set of manuscripts was found near Mount Sinai, thus referred to as “Codex Sinaiticus.” Other sets of manuscripts were found, but these two were the oldest. They were much older, of course, than the Textus Receptus, which was used in the translation of the King James Version. From these manuscripts, two Cambridge professors, Dr. Brooke Westcott and Dr. Fenton Hort, produced a Greek New Testament.

The first authorized revision of the King James Version was published in 1881 when the Revised Version of the New Testament was published. The Revised Version of the entire Bible was published in 1885. The American edition of this (British) revision was published in 1901. This New Testament of this revision was translated from the Greek New Testament produced by Westcott and Hort rather than the Textus Receptus. As a matter of fact, most modern translations use Westcott and Hort’s Greek text (or other similar texts) rather than the Textus Receptus.

Here’s where the “King James Only” debate comes in. Opponents of the King James Onlyists base their argument on a presupposition. For the foundation of their argument, they automatically assume, in most cases because they’ve heard it repeated over and over, that the manuscripts used by Westcott and Hort to produce their Greek New Testament are better manuscripts than the manuscripts used by Erasmus to produce his Greek New Testament (which was used by the King James translators). This argument is the basis of the argument (in many cases) for the one who accepts any English translation of the Bible as authentic. When the man who uses many Bible versions encounters the King James Onlyist, he often cites that the modern versions are based on “more accurate manuscripts.” And what evidence is offered for such a position? None, except that the manuscripts used to produce modern translations are older than those used in the translation of the King James Version. “Older is better,” they say. But such a statement is seldom proven. It is stated by the opponent of the King James Onlyist, and the opponent expects the King James Onlyist to use that presupposition as the basis for their argument without so much as questioning it.

I am simply stating that in a debate between a King James Onlyist and his opponent, the opponent of the King James Onlyist cannot merely use this statement without some degree of attempted proof. There is good reason, with respect to ancient manuscripts, to believe that, in fact, “older manuscripts” are not “better manuscripts.” For example, the King James Onlyist could argue that the manuscripts used to translate the Textus Receptus were newer because they were in use. Because the church used the Textus Receptus, there was need to recopy it through the years. Consequently, old copies of the Textus Receptus did not survive. Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, however, were only kept in tact for centuries because they were not used! If they were such superior manuscripts, then why didn’t the church use them? This is a valid question and deserves an answer. Although the oldest manuscripts would seem to reflect what the writer originally wrote, it must be considered that those “more reliable manuscripts” were not used by the church through the centuries.

MUCH OF THEIR ARGUMENT DEPENDS ON “SCRIBAL ERRORS”

As I have already stated, the New Testament Greek text used by the King James Version is a different Greek text than that used by modern Bible versions. To account for these differences, both King James Onlyists and their opponents have different explanations. According to King James Onlyists, the Greek text produced by Westcott and Hort was simply corrupted. That’s all there is to it. The Greek text in Westcott and Hort’s New Testament differed in places from the Received Text because the Received Text was inspired by God and Westcott and Hort’s text was corrupted by Satan.

Opponents of the King James Onlyist, however, present a different viewpoint. They believe that differences occur between the Greek texts because of scribal errors primarily. Through the centuries, the scriptures were copied by hand, usually in monasteries. Opponents of the King James Onlyist believe that, as monks and scribes were copying the scriptures, through the years, they added and deleted words, phrases, and entire sections of scripture! To the opponent of the King James Onlyist, I would ask you to think about the argument you are presenting.

This, in my humble opinion, seems to be a weak argument, considering the fact that most of the time, the monk in the monastery or the ancient scribe had veneration for the scriptures. That they made mistakes is not debatable, but that they “accidentally added entire sections of scripture” seems to the logical mind unlikely. It has been my observation that, along with the “older is better” argument, this argument comprises the bulk of the argument for those who oppose King James Onlyists.

GOD’S WORD BECOMES COMMON AND ORDINARY

My final observation regarding the argument of the opponents of the King James Onlyists is not related to their argument itself, but rather the conclusion of their argument. I do understand that those who disagree with the King James Onlyist will take their liberty to read from a variety of translations. But I wonder how a reader of various versions chooses which version to read and regard as God’s word? It is seldom articulated by the opponents of the King James Onlyists how they go about choosing a Bible version. Most of what I have observed is this – that he who is not constrained to the King James Version sees all English versions as suitable translations of God’s word. But is this the case? It is very difficult to believe that every Bible translation is an accurate rendering of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. I am simply stating this to say that if one is going to oppose the King James Onlyist, he should at least explain how one finds a genuine translation of the Bible from among the many versions offered today.

One thing that disturbs me about those who use multiple versions of the Bible is the fact that God’s word seems to become common and ordinary. Translating the Bible from its original tongues into the English language (or any language) ought to be done with reverence. To put it plainly, it seems to be done these days for monetary profit. As I thumb through many new versions in book stores, there seems to be no sense of reverence to most of these modern versions. Everybody seems to translate the scriptures these days. It may be true that, as for the modern versions, the Bible is as “easy to read” as the newspaper; but it equally true that the Bible has become as “respected” as the newspaper. All I am saying is that the King James translators had a sense of reverence for the word of God (this is easily proven by simply reading the Epistle Dedicatory or the Preface to the King James Bible). This reverence is missing in many, many translations today. Many modern translators gallop and skip where angels fear to tread.

The King James Onlyists

Those who honor only the King James Version as God’s word in the English language are not without inconsistencies and flawed logic in their argument.

GOD’S WORD NEEDS NO REVISION!

This is a primary argument presented by the King James Onlyists. It is inconsistent in the simple fact that the King James Bible was identified by its own translators in 1611 as a revision! On the cover page of the 1611 edition of the King James Bible (as in many King James Bibles today) it reads:

Newly Translated out of the Original Tongues, and with the Former Translations Diligently Compared and Revised

This would be a good place to insert the fact that the King James Version was not the first English version of the Bible. When the King James translators set out to revise the previous English translations, they met much opposition. Would you like to guess what crime with which the King James translators were charged? They were changing God’s word! The English-speaking people already had the Bishop’s Bible, the Great Bible, the Coverdale Bible, and of course the translations of Tyndale and Wycliffe. Now, the King James translators had set out to revise the English Bible once again – and it was not welcomed.

In the Preface to the 1611 edition of the King James Bible, the translators stated that their work of revising the previous translations was not received with a warm greeting:

Zeal to promote the common good, whether it be by devising anything ourselves, or revising that which hath been laboured by others, deserveth certainly much respect and esteem, but yet findeth but cold entertainment in the world. It is welcomed with suspicion instead of love, and with emulation instead of thanks.

In defending their work, the King James translators further added that, if the translators of the previous English versions were yet alive, they would thank the King James translators for revising their works:

So, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, do endeavor to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us.

When a King James Onlyist opposes the works of modern versions, stating that “God’s word does not need to be revised,” that opponent, if he or she were alive in 1611, would have opposed the King James Version itself.

CIRCULAR REASONING OF KING JAMES ONLYISTS

The King James Onlyist believes that the King James Version is the only English version that is to be regarded as God’s word. One of their supreme arguments, however, is based upon a presupposition that leads to circular, flawed reasoning. Please try to follow me.

The “King James Only” debate is a debate over the question of whether or not the King James Version is the only translation that should be regarded as God’s word in the English language. When the King James Onlyist sets out to prove this statement, he does so by using circular reasoning. He uses the statement he is trying to prove (that the King James Version is the only English translation to be regarded as God’s word) as his premise.

Let me illustrate. During the debate of a King James Onlyist and his opponent, the King James Onlyist will at some point show his opponent a chart containing a list of verses. The chart will show several verses with the King James rendering on one side, and renderings from a modern version on the other. They will show what the modern versions have “omitted.” The question is, “Omitted from what?” From the King James Version of course! This type of reasoning makes the King James Version the standard for measuring all other versions. Of course, that is really what the whole debate is about – whether or not the King James Version is the only version that can be regarded as God’s word in the English language.

Here are the points of the King James Onlyist in this debate:

1. Premise – The King James Version is God’s word in the English language.
2. The text of modern versions differs from the text of the King James Version.
3. Therefore, the text of modern versions differs from the text of God’s word in the English language.
4. Modern versions cannot be God’s word in the English language.
5. Conclusion – The King James Version is God’s word in the English language.

The King James Onlyist would prove his point in a more logically sound manner if he would begin with a premise that is both different from his conclusion and that is agreed to by his opponent. The fact that the Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek would be a good premise.

ACCUSATIONS OF DOCTRINAL TAMPERING

The King James Onlyist is quick to refer you to passages in modern versions that “omit” words, phrases, or entire verses. “Why do modern versions ‘omit’ certain words, phrases, and verses?” you may ask. According to the King James Onlyist, words and phrases that are present in the King James Version but missing in modern versions are missing because the modern versions are trying to “do away” with certain doctrines. But is that really the case?

I could provide a number of examples, but I will only show a few of the very common ones cited often by King James Onlyists. Perhaps the most common example of a verse that is found in the King James Version but is missing from many modern translations is I John 5:7. In the King James Version, I John 5:7 reads:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

This verse is not found in the New International Version (although it is included in the footnotes). King James Onlyists insist that the NIV translators are “trying to do away with the Trinity!” But this claim is unsubstantiated. So, why is this verse missing from the NIV and other modern versions?

As stated earlier, the Greek New Testament that was used in translating the King James New Testament was produced by Erasmus. In Erasmus’ first edition of his Greek New Testament, the text of I John 5:7 was absent. This caused a stir, as the text had always been present in the popular Latin Vulgate. When asked why it was missing from his Greek New Testament, Erasmus replied that the verse was not found in any Greek manuscripts available to him. He then promised that if someone could produce a Greek manuscript that included the verse, he would include it in his next edition. Someone supplied such a manuscript (which was probably a brand new manuscript produced solely so the verse would be included), and Erasmus, faithful to his word, produced a Greek New Testament with the words of I John 5:7 in it. Just think of it – had the King James translators used Erasmus’ first edition of his Greek New Testament instead of a later one, the words of I John 5:7 would be missing in the King James Version!

The point is this – no one sat among the NIV translators and said, “We don’t like the Trinity; let’s take it out!” If the NIV translators were indeed determined to do away with the Trinity, don’t you think that they would have removed Matthew 28:19 (the Trinitarian formula for baptism)? What about Jesus’ statement claiming that the Son doesn’t know when His return would be; only the Father knows? In the NIV, that statement is intact (Matthew 24:36). What about the Trinity in Acts 7:55, where Stephen was full of the Holy Ghost, looked up and saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God. In the NIV, this verse is intact. The one who accuses the NIV translators of trying to do away with the Trinity is simply not making a judgment on the basis of fact.

Another verse used by King James Onlyists to prove that the modern versions try to remove certain Bible doctrines is Luke 2:33, which in the King James Version states:

And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

In the NIV, the verse is stated this way:

The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him.

Where the King James has “Joseph and his mother,” the NIV translates, “his father and mother.” Of course, the accusation is that the NIV is trying to make Joseph the father of Jesus, which would mean that Jesus was not virgin born. “The NIV denies the virgin birth!” the King James Onlyist exclaims. But is that a correct assessment? In the NIV, the virgin birth is clearly upheld in Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23.

So, what about Luke 2:33, where the NIV refers to Joseph as the child’s father? There is a simple answer. The simple answer is that if the King James Onlyist believes that the NIV denies the virgin birth by referring to Joseph as “the child’s father,” then, if they are consistent, the same King James Onlyist would have to conclude that Mary, the mother of Jesus, the virgin herself, did not believe in the virgin birth either. In the King James Bible, it is written where Mary referred to Joseph as Jesus’ father. Notice the King James rendering of Luke 2:48:

His mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.

In addition to this, if the King James Onlyist will be consistent in his accusations, he must then conclude that the King James translators were trying to do away with the virgin birth of Christ when they translated Luke 2:41. Speaking of Mary and Joseph, the King James rendering of Luke 2:41 is:

Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.

The King James translators are here referring to Mary and Joseph as “his parents.” Were they trying to “do away” with the virgin birth? Of course not, and neither were the translators of the NIV.

Lastly, I want to examine perhaps the most common example provided by the King James Onlyist as proof of translators of modern versions trying to “do away” with certain doctrines. Notice Colossians 1:14 in the King James Version:

In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.

See if you can spot what is missing from the NIV rendering of the same verse:

In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

The phrase “through his blood” is present in the King James rendering, but absent from the NIV rendering (actually the phrase is absent from the NIV text, but is present in the NIV footnotes). Many King James Onlyists have ranted and raved about the NIV being a “bloodless” version. But is that an accurate statement?

The reason for the absence of the phrase “through his blood” in the NIV’s rendering of Colossians 1:14 is simple. As stated before, the modern versions use a different Greek New Testament for their source of translation than the King James translators. In the Received Text, the phrase “through his blood” was in the Greek text. In the Greek New Testament used by modern versions, the phrase is absent. The translators of both the NIV and KJV were being true to the text before them. The translators of the NIV were being very honest by stating in a footnote that the phrase “through his blood” was found in a few late manuscripts. There is no conspiracy on the part of the NIV translators to “do away” with the blood, a charge with which they are often accused.

Six verses later, in Colossians 1:20, the NIV translates the following:

…by making peace through his blood…

There is a Bible verse that is very similar to Colossians 1:14 and that verse is Ephesians 1:7. In the New International Version, notice its rendering:

In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins.

The King James Onlyist who claims that translators of modern versions “omit” words and phrases in order to tear down, do away with, or hide Biblical doctrines is either very dishonest or very ignorant.

VILIFICATION OF WESTCOTT AND HORT

As stated previously, the Greek text used in translating the New Testament of modern versions was produced by Dr. Brooke Westcott and Dr. Fenton Hort. A tactic used by many King James Onlyists is to argue that modern versions should be rejected because Westcott and Hort were rascals! Most often, it is brought out that Westcott and Hort were men who defended Roman Catholic doctrine and practice. The inconsistency of this argument is clearly seen when we remember that the Textus Receptus was produced initially by Erasmus, who was a Catholic priest who defended the Mass and the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Muslims Are Not Bible Scholars!

Recently I obtained a small, very colorful book* by I.A. Ibrahim entitled A Brief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam. In it, I learned much concerning Islamic beliefs on various subjects. I learned, for example, that “Islam, a religion of mercy, does not permit terrorism” (p. 59). When I read that sentence, I was amazed! I had just learned something that was foreign to the Muslims in the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Somebody send this book to Al-Qaeda! They evidently don’t know that the merciful religion of Islam is forbidden to use terrorism! How differently circumstances could have turned out if only the Fort Hood shooter and the Boston bombers could have read this book!

Oh but wait! There’s more! I learned further that “the life and property of all citizens in an Islamic state are considered sacred, whether a person is Muslim or not” (p. 61). I never would have guessed that the lives of non-Muslims are sacred. When I examine Sharia-practicing countries, I notice that under blasphemy laws citizens lose their “sacred” lives, often by having their sacred heads cut off, for simply converting to Christianity. Someone please send this book to the government in Iran!

Then, my education continued. I learned that “Islam sees a woman, whether single or married, as an individual in her own right, with the right to own and dispose of her property and earnings without any guardianship over her (whether that be her father, husband, or anyone else)” (p. 63). Any casual student of modern Islamic social science, if honest, is forced to admit that none of the more than fifty Muslim states is known for the freedom of its citizens, to put it mildly. And the most oppressed among Muslim citizens are the women, who in many Muslim nations, are publicly flogged for removing the veil from their faces. Evidently, political leaders in Pakistan have never read this book!

These “truths” were eye-openers. But the sentence that perhaps seized my attention more than the others was the sentence that was directed to Bible believers. Ibrahim (the author) made the claim that if a person believes the Bible, they must believe that Muhammad is a prophet sent from God. The Bible supposedly teaches this. Look at the author’s own words:

The Biblical prophecies on the advent of the prophet Muhammad are evidence of the truth of Islam for people who believe the Bible. (p. 33)

Deuteronomy 18:18-19

Given as proof, the first Bible passage stated by Ibrahim is Deuteronomy 18:18-19:

Deuteronomy 18:18-19 – “I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.”

The Prophet in this passage whom God promised to send, according to Muslims, is Muhammad. A simple study of the Bible will refute this solidly. Look at the above text. It says that God will raise up a Prophet “from among their brethren.” Ibrahim believes that the phrase “from among their brethren,” means that God promised to raise up a Prophet from among the Ishmaelites, because Ishmael was the brother of Jacob (Israel). Look at Ibrahim’s words:

The prophet spoken of was not to come from among the Jews themselves, but from among their brothers, i.e. the Ishmaelites. Muhammad, an Ishmaelite, is indeed this prophet. (p. 34)

This interpretation seems plausible, but is this interpretation actual? Does the Bible teach that the phrase “their brethren” in Deuteronomy 18 refers to the Ishmaelites (descendents of Ishmael, i.e. Arabs)? To see if this interpretation holds out, let us back up one chapter from Deuteronomy 18. Let us quickly examine a passage from Deuteronomy 17. This passage also contains the phrase “from among their brethren.”

Deuteronomy 17:15 – “Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one FROM AMONG THY BRETHREN shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.”

This verse speaks of the time when Israel would want a king to reign over them. The Lord made it plain that, when that time arrived, they were to set a king over them “from among thy brethren.” Is there anyone who would make any feeble attempt to claim that God wanted Israel to set an Ishmaelite over them as king? In I Samuel 9, the Lord indeed chose Israel’s first king. Whom did He choose? Did He choose an Ishmaelite? Absolutely not. However, He did choose a man from among Israel’s brethren. I Samuel 9:17 tells us that God chose Saul to be king. Who was Saul? He was an Israelite, of the tribe of Benjamin (I Samuel 9:21).

If I interpret the scripture fairly and honestly, I must admit that the phrase “from among thy brethren” in Deuteronomy 17 refers to God raising up an Israelite to be king, not an Ishmaelite. To be faithful to the laws of hermeneutics, I must interpret the same phrase one chapter later the same way. When God promised to raise up a Prophet “from among thy brethren” in Deuteronomy 18, that Prophet would also be an Israelite.

As for the Prophet of Deuteronomy 18, the Bible clearly identifies Him. In Acts 3, Peter the apostle is preaching. In Acts 3:22-23, Peter quotes Deuteronomy 18:18-19:

Acts 3:22-23 – “For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.”

In verse 26, Peter identifies this Prophet plainly and unmistakably:

Acts 3:26 – “Unto you first God, having RAISED UP HIS SON JESUS, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.”

The Prophet of Deuteronomy 18 is an Israelite, not an Ishmaelite; a Jew, not an Arab; a Saviour, not a murderer; and His name is Jesus, not Muhammad.

Isaiah 42:1-4

Ibrahim uses yet another passage scripture to indict Bible believers for their rejection of Muhammad as the Prophet. He states that the “servant” of Isaiah 42 is Muhammad. Let us look at the passage:

Isaiah 42:1-4 – “Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth. He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.”

Pointing to verse 11 of the same chapter, Ibrahim states that the above passage must refer to Muhammad:

Verse 11 connects that awaited messenger with the descendants of Kedar. Who is Kedar? According to Genesis 25:13, Kedar was the second son of Ishmael, the ancestor of the Prophet Muhammad. (p. 35)

Actually, verse 11 does not connect the “servant” of verses 1-4 with a man by the name of Kedar. Let us look at verse 11:

Isaiah 42:11 – “Let the wilderness and the cities thereof lift up their voice, the villages that Kedar doth inhabit: let the inhabitants of the rock sing, let them shout from the top of the mountains.”

Verse 11 does not say that the “servant” of verse 1 is a descendent of Kedar. That is a nice try in twisting the scriptures, but that is plainly not what is said. In verse 11, the villages of Kedar were exhorted to lift up their voice and sing because of the servant of verse 1! Verse 11 says nothing about the “descendents of Kedar.”

So, who is the “servant” of verse 1? Matthew 12:15-20 quotes Isaiah 42:1-4, identifying the servant very plainly:

Matthew 12:15-20 – “But when JESUS knew it, he withdrew himself from thence: and great multitudes followed him, and he healed them all; And charged them that they should not make him known: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory.”

Jesus Christ told some of His followers to not make Him known. Why? So that Isaiah 42:1-4 could be fulfilled. Jesus Christ is the servant of Isaiah 42, not Muhammad.

John 14:16

Some time ago, while on Facebook, there was a thread of discussion regarding the Holy Spirit. At some point in the conversation, a Muslim gave his point of view, claiming that he was a former Christian. He converted to Islam upon understanding that the Comforter of John 14:16 was the prophet Muhammad. Notice John 14:16:

John 14:16 – “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever.”

I never thought I would hear a man say that he believes that the Comforter of John 14 is the prophet Muhammad. Any so-called Christian who converts to Islam after seeing that Muhammad is the Comforter never had a genuine experience with Jesus Christ a day in his life. The claim that Muhammad is the Comforter of John 14 is so absurd that I hate to ask you for even a second of your time to read my refutation of such a notion.

Who is the Comforter of John 14? Jesus Christ, in the Bible, clearly identifies the Comforter.

John 14:26 – “But the Comforter, WHICH IS THE HOLY GHOST, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”

The Comforter is the Holy Ghost. And just in case a Muslim Bible scholar tries to claim that Muhammad is the Holy Ghost, let me go ahead and refute that idea. Muhammad was not born until the sixth century A.D. The book of Acts was written in the first century A.D. In the book of Acts chapter 5, Peter asked Ananias why he lied to the HOLY GHOST. The Holy Ghost could not have been Muhammad because there was no Muhammad for five more centuries.

Conclusion

I will not be having any Bible studies with my local imam unless he is the student. The above passages of scripture do not refer to the prophet Muhammad. I must be fair, however. There is one Bible verse that very well may refer to Muhammad and his followers:

John 16:2 – “…the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.”

*I.A. Ibrahim. A Brief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam: Second Edition. Darussalam. Houston, TX. ©1997, 1996.

Thoughts on the King James Version

In my previous post, I wrote concerning Fundamentalism and the King James Bible. I simply supplied the reader with information. It is my intention that this post, like the previous one, be informational rather than confrontational. It is my aim to simply present my own observations on the King James Bible, comparing it to other versions, especially the English Revised and the American Standard versions.

The Production of the King James Bible

To begin, allow me to present a few facts concerning the King James Bible that will likely already be familiar to most of my readers. First, the Bible was not written in the English language, let alone in the King James Version. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew for the most part, and the New Testament was written in Greek. Second, the King James Version was not the first Bible to be translated in the English language. The title page in nearly any King James Bible declares that the King James Version was “Translated out of the Original Tongues and with the Former Translations diligently compared.” In the fourteenth century, Wycliffe’s Bible was translated. In the sixteenth century, the English language welcomed Tyndale’s translation, the Coverdale Bible, and the Geneva Bible. Then, in 1604, King James I issued an edict for a new English translation. Seven years later, it was completed.

Another fact to be noted concerning the King James Version is that the King James Version that is published today is not the 1611 edition, but is rather the 1769 edition. Most English-speaking people cannot read the 1611 edition. Since 1611, the King James Version has undergone a few revisions, the latest being in 1769. These revisions changed very little wording and focused mainly on updating the spelling and grammar.

The First Revisions of the King James Version (KJV)

For nearly three centuries, the King James Version was the prominent Bible translation in the English language. However, in the nineteenth century, a new set of manuscripts (copies of ancient scriptures) was found in the Vatican. With the discovery of these manuscripts, an English revision of the King James Bible was on the way. In England, scholars produced a revision known as the English Revised Version in 1885. This revision is commonly referred to as simply “The Revised Version” (RV). An American Revision Committee then went to work to produce the American edition of the Revised Version. This revision was completed in 1901 and is known as the American Standard Version (ASV).

I will mention other versions besides the RV and the ASV, but I want to focus primarily on these versions in comparison to the KJV for a couple of reasons. First, many prominent Bible teachers of years gone by have referred to these versions in their writings. Second, these revisions were the first versions to be offered as alternates to the King James Bible. Third, nearly all modern versions are revisions of the RV or ASV. Consequently, nearly all modern versions translate the Bible from the same manuscripts as the RV and ASV.

The English Revised Version and the American Standard Version Were Never Popular

The first Bible versions offered as alternates to the KJV, though used by famed Bible expositors, were never made popular. It is noteworthy that until recent years, the King James Version has been by far the most popular Bible translation. This is a remarkable fact for many reasons.

In 2012, the King James Version ranked #2 in sales, second only to the New International Version. Please consider a few things with me. First, when Bibles are ranked by number of sales, only the sales of new Bibles are counted. This is because publishers release how many new Bibles they sold in a given year. Used Bibles are not counted because used book stores do not order Bibles and books from the publishers. Please stay with me. Many Christian book stores that sell new Bibles have an extremely limited selection of King James Bibles. Plainly stated, it is becoming harder and harder to find King James Bibles in Christian book stores that sell new Bibles. Because of this, those looking for King James Bibles often buy them used. This is the case especially with those looking for King James Bibles. A considerable percentage of King James Bibles that were put into the hands of consumers in 2012 were used rather than new, but not a single of those Bibles were counted as sales. Secondly, there is a growing demand for digital Bibles today. Many people have Bibles on their phones, computers, and tablets. In most cases, modern versions that are downloaded to electronic devices are sold because they are copyrighted. Digital copies of the King James Version, however, are often free, because the King James text is not copyrighted. The free downloads of the King James Version are not included in the number of sales for 2012. Third, the Gideons International exists for the distribution of Bibles. They do not sell Bibles, but distribute an incredible number of Bibles in the United States annually. Because these Bibles are not sold, they are not counted as sales. The Gideons International publishes the King James Version and the New King James Version, but they do not publish the New International Version.

I am simply pointing out that, though the King James Bible ranked #2 in sales in 2012, it may actually be more popular than what is reported. But for the sake of discussion, let us take for granted that the King James Bible is #2 in terms of sales. This is remarkably amazing! For well over 100 years, the King James Version has been ruthlessly attacked by theological professors in Christian universities. For over 100 years, we have heard the common propaganda that the King James Bible is hard to understand; the King James Bible needs to be updated; the King James Bible is inaccurate and needs to be corrected; the King James Bible is obsolete. The modernist in the pulpit and the professor in the classroom would like nothing more than to push the King James Bible out of existence. But after more than 100 years of their efforts to do just that, they can’t even push the King James Bible off the top ten list, let alone out of existence!

In the midst of many Bible versions today, the King James Version is remarkably popular. But let us return to the turn of the twentieth century, when the American Standard Version was first published in the United States. It was realized very quickly that the ASV would not replace the KJV. The ASV would become, at best, a reference tool that would sit on the shelf of the pastor. It never made it into the hands of the common people. Its unpopularity was very promptly realized.

C.I. Scofield believed the RV and the ASV to be authoritative. However, when expounding upon why he chose the King James text as the text for his reference Bible, Scofield says:

After mature reflection it was determined to use the Authorized Version [King James Version]. None of the many Revisions have commended themselves to the people at large. The Revised Version, which has now been before the public for twenty-seven years gives no indication of becoming in any general sense the people’s Bible of the English-speaking world.

Why Was the ASV Unpopular?

Besides the KJV, the first English version of the Bible available to Americans was the American Standard Version. It never became popular. A question that is provoked at this point is “Why?”

I have thumbed through the American Standard Version, and I see a few characteristics that may have contributed to the growing unpopularity of the American Standard Version.

First, the ASV simply does not have the majesty in its words that is present in the King James Version. In other words, the King James Version has a “ring to it” that is absent from the ASV, and all modern versions for that matter.

Noel Smith, who commended the ASV for being an accurate and authoritative translation, admits:

The American Standard Version has not been generally accepted because it doesn’t have in it the music of cadence and rhythm that the majestic King James Version has. And the King James Version has been here for more than 300 years. Its long history with all its associations with the mighty events that have transpired among English-speaking peoples during the time, have given the King James Version a vast authority and dignity. And justly so. (Noel Smith, “Translations of our English Bible,” Baptist Bible Tribune, December 13, 1968)

I believe that any literary critic who will critique the King James Version will testify to the literary beauty of the KJV. The individual who cannot see the literary beauty of the King James Bible is illiterate, dishonest, or unqualified to critique literature. Anyone who can read and comprehend at a second grade level can notice the majestic tone in the words of the King James Bible.

Another characteristic of the ASV that, I believe, contributed to its eventual departure into obscurity is in its removal of familiarity. In 1901, when the ASV was published, most of the English-speaking world was familiar with phrases found in the KJV. The ASV took away some of these familiarities. For example, the revisers of the ASV replaced the KJV “LORD” with the word “Jehovah.” Most likely, this translation is not inaccurate. But do you know how many verses in the KJV contain the phrase “the LORD”? Most of my readers are probably familiar with Psalm 100:1, which states, “Make a joyful noise unto the LORD.” Can you imagine, after being familiar with that phrase, opening an ASV Bible, and finding, “Make a joyful noise unto Jehovah”? There are many verses that people located in the ASV, only to find the familiarity taken away.

Another characteristic that contributed to the fall of the ASV is that the text was printed in paragraph form. This is all right for casual reading, but it is very inconvenient for looking up references. The King James Bible lists verses in a column. It makes it very easy to look up a particular verse. If you are sitting in a church, however, with an ASV Bible, and the minister says, “Turn to Acts chapter 20 and verse 4,” you will soon find that verse 4 is in the middle of a paragraph. I can see where, even though this is a small inconvenience, people would lay their ASV aside and stick with their King James. It is noteworthy that many of the modern versions print the text of their Bibles in paragraph form.

Another characteristic that made the ASV unpopular, in my opinion, is its failure as an English translation. There are some words in the ASV that, instead of being translated, are transliterated. For example, in the ASV, Psalm 9:17 says, “The wicked shall be turned back into Sheol.” Now, the average American, in 1901 as well as now, does not know what “sheol” is. “Sheol” is a Hebrew word. The purpose of an English translation is to give us the English meanings of words in the original language(s). Leaving words in the original Hebrew language instead of translating it causes the ASV to fail as a translation. In the ASV, Psalm 9:17 is virtually unintelligible. In the KJV, however, Psalm 9:17 is understandable to a first grader – “The wicked shall be turned into hell.”

The ASV furthermore leaves the Greek word “hades” in the text, as well as the Greek word “anathema.” This would make the ASV an unpopular translation, in my opinion.

Closing Thoughts

The King James Version has a majesty about it that is missing in the RV, ASV, and other modern versions. In addition to this, the King James Bible has contributed more to the English language than any literary work anywhere. In December 2011, the National Geographic published a tribute to the King James Bible. In it, the National Geographic indicated how much the King James Bible has contributed to the English language:

The King James translation introduced 18 classic phrases into the English language and made famous some 240 more from earlier English translations.

No other Bible translation, no other holy book of any kind, and no other literary work, whether prose or poetry, has contributed to the English language as has the King James Bible. In this regard and many others, they all take a back seat to the King James Bible.

In terms of accomplishments, the King James Bible is superior to all others. Charles Spurgeon, who used the King James Bible in his sermons, built one of the largest churches ever. D.L. Moody used it to shake two continents for Christ. With it, Dr. Jack Hyles built the world’s largest Sunday School. Using it as his textbook, Billy Sunday held citywide campaigns that literally shut taverns down. With the King James Bible at his side, Lester Roloff rescued juvenile delinquents, pointing them to Christ.

Robert L. Sumner said, “I have never even preached from the NKJV, although I consider it a superior product because I have not wanted my congregations to be distracted by word changes.” Mr. Sumner believes the NKJV to be a superior product to the KJV. I would be interested in asking him, “On what grounds?” Does it have the majesty of the KJV? No. Has it enjoyed the widespread popularity that the KJV has? No. Has it contributed anything whatsoever to the English language? No, not even a syllable’s worth! Has it produced citywide revivals? Not one.

You can have Saul’s shining armor. It is shiny. It is new. It looks great. But it doesn’t fit, and it has never won a battle. I’ll take the sling and the stone – the old, black-back book – the translation that has, for over 400 years, been tried, tested, and proven.

Fundamentalism and the King James Bible

I Am a Fundamentalist!

I believe in the fundamental doctrines of the Bible, as the Bible teaches them. This makes me, by definition, a fundamentalist. I believe that all scripture is given by inspiration of God. I believe that Christ, before He was born in the flesh, was God. I believe that, at His birth and during His earthly ministry, His name was “Emmanuel,” meaning “God with us.” I believe that Jesus Christ presently is God, and that His throne of deity is forever and ever. I believe that salvation is by grace, through faith, and without the works of the law. I believe that it is the blood, not the water, that cleanses from all sin. I believe in the literal and premillennial second coming of Christ. I believe that heaven is real, hell is hot, and both are eternal.

Fundamentalism, however, is not only defined by what it believes, but also by what it opposes. A fundamentalism that opposes nothing is not fundamentalism at all. I oppose the ecumenical push for ecclesiastical unity. I oppose the fellowship of fundamental, Bible believing Christians with religious crowds who have forsaken Biblical truth. I oppose the “name it and claim it” doctrine of the charismatic movement. I oppose any gospel that preaches that financial gain is equivalent to godliness. I oppose the junk that many churches call “worship” today. I do not know how I can make it any plainer – I believe strongly in the fundamental doctrines of the Bible.

I want to discuss fundamentalism and the King James Bible. What I have to say in this post will be informational rather than confrontational. I am not afraid of controversy, as any reader of my blog can affirm. However, in this particular post, I will mostly be relating information to the reader. I do believe that most of my readers will find this post somewhat interesting.

Among English-speaking fundamentalists historically there have been two basic positions regarding the King James Bible. First, some fundamentalists, in the past as well as in the present, use the King James Bible exclusively. They see it as God’s Word to the English-speaking people. Second, some fundamentalists prefer the King James Bible over other versions, but they use other versions either in their preaching or in their personal study. These two positions are by and large the positions of fundamentalists past and present. It has been my observation that those who absolutely despise the King James Version are almost always not fundamental in doctrine.

Please note a couple of points here. First, it must be admitted that not all fundamentalists are “KJV only,” but nearly everyone who is “KJV only” is a fundamentalist. Second, it has been my observation that those who cling to the King James Version seem to be conservative in doctrine, dress, and practice, while those who favor other versions tend to migrate toward liberalism. A little research will prove this. Ask your nearest United Methodist Church which Bible version they use. I can almost assure you that almost no church in this gay-promoting organization uses the King James Version. Ask your nearest Unitarian church which version they use. I can assure you that they did not get the notion that “everybody will eventually be saved” out of the King James Bible. It has simply been my observation that, as a rule, the English-speaking Christians who favor the King James Bible tend to be straight on the fundamentals of the faith. Those who migrate toward other versions tend to equally migrate toward theological, political, and practical liberalism.

Some Fundamentalists Favor the King James Version Exclusively

If you believe that the King James Bible is the Word of God in the English language and that no other version should be consulted, then you are in good company. Let us examine a few men who held this position.

First, Dr. Harold Sightler, a fundamentalist, was a staunch advocate of the King James Bible. In his sermon “The Zeal of the Lord,” Dr. Sightler said the following:

When I was a young preacher, I was given the impression that the King James Bible had a lot of mistakes in it; a lot of contradictions. But you know, after nearly forty years of preaching, I haven’t found one. It looks like I should have stumbled on one by now. But I haven’t found anything wrong with the King James Bible. I use it. I’m honest in that observation… I’m not a Greek scholar, but I am a Greek major, one of the few Greek majors to ever graduate from a university… Even with that, I have yet to find anything wrong with the King James Bible. You can quote me on that.

Another well-known fundamentalist who held exclusively to the King James Bible was Lester Roloff of Corpus Christi, Texas. In his famous sermon “The Mule Walked On,” Bro. Roloff said the following:

The snow will be falling in August in Dallas before I’d ever permit one of my boys to get up on Sunday morning and throw anything like the newspaper… I wouldn’t mind if he was throwing Bibles! Oh, my, I’d help him… I’d say, “We’re going to put the Bible in every home,” and it won’t be Good News for Modern Man either! It’ll be the King James Version for sinful man!

Another fundamentalist who studied under the famed J. Frank Norris was Benjamin Dearmore. Dearmore wrote an article entitled “Greek versus English” in a periodical called The Message, dated May 28, 1959. In this article, Dearmore said:

As for me, I will take the King James translation as the very word of God for the English people. I believe it is without error. It is 100 percent correct.

Any list of fundamentalists who used the King James Version exclusively would be incomplete without Dr. Jack Hyles. Hyles, in his book The Blood, the Book and the Body said the following:

I want to go out fighting vehemently for the King James Bible. For years this did not seem necessary, but I feel compelled to do it now. I believe that the King James Bible has been preserved word for word. I believe in original inspiration and divine preservation, and come what may, I plan to make that a major battle in the last years of my ministry. (Jack Hyles. The Blood, the Book and the Body. Hyles-Anderson Publishers. Hammond, IN. ©1992. p. 1)

Fundamentalists Who Prefer the King James Version, but Not Exclusively

To say that every fundamentalist has historically held to the King James Version exclusively would not be accurate by anyone’s standards. As a matter of fact, it may surprise the reader to know which fundamentalists have expressed their belief that there are errors in the King James Bible. It may surprise the reader to know which fundamentalists have quoted from other versions in a positive light. Please note that I am neither commending nor criticizing these individuals or groups. I am in no way calling into question their devotion to the fundamental doctrines of the Bible. I am simply stating matters of documented fact.

Let us look first at the Sword of the Lord, an independent Christian publication that is distributed bi-weekly. Let me say here that I subscribe to the Sword of the Lord and recommend it to anyone who is interested in fine Christian literature with a fundamental emphasis. In my opinion, the Sword of the Lord is a quality publication that will benefit ministers and laity alike. The Sword of the Lord is without a doubt a leading voice of fundamentalism both historically and today. The Sword of the Lord sells Bibles, books, and church materials and supplies. The only Bibles that can be ordered through them are King James Bibles. They sell no other version. The bulletins they offer contain only King James Bible verses.

The Sword of the Lord also publishes books. I have a set of sermon books published by the Sword of the Lord Publishers called Great Preaching. Each book features sermons on a particular subject. One book is entitled Great Preaching on the Second Coming, for example.

In the book Great Preaching on the Second Coming, one sermon is entitled “Answering Those Who Teach Great Tribulation Comes Before Rapture” by John Meredith. The whole chapter is devoted to proving that II Thessalonians 2:3 is mistranslated in the King James Bible. Look at Meredith’s words:

Many devout and capable Bible scholars have come to see that there is a mistranslation of II Thessalonians 2:3, and that Paul was still explaining the rapture as he wrote this second letter to the Thessalonian church. The Greek text shows that the words “a falling away” are translated from hee apostasia, and Liddell and Scotts Greek Lexicon gives “department” or departure as one of the definitions of the word apostasia… The Geneva Bible of 1537 gives this as “a departing.” William Tyndale, in his 1539 Bible, speaks of it as “a departynge.” Cranmer’s Bible of 1537 also gives the same meaning of “departure.” The first Bible to translate this “a falling away” is the King James Version. (p. 205)

In the same book, there is a sermon entitled “Jesus May Come Today” by Dr. John R. Rice. He insists that the King James Bible mistranslates not only verse 3 of II Thessalonians 2, but also verse 2 of the same chapter. Notice Dr. Rice’s words:

In verse 2 the term “day of Christ” should be “the day of the Lord.” (p. 218)

Regarding verse three of the same chapter, Dr. Rice says:

We believe, with Dr. E. Schuyler English and many other scholars that this would be better translated “…except there come a departure first,” or literally, the catching away of Christians at Christ’s coming. (p. 218)

Dr. John R. Rice was the founder of the Sword of the Lord. Personally, I honor him as a soldier who fought for fundamentalism. I honor him as a respected teacher of the Bible, as well as a devout soul winner. I am simply stating the fact here that Dr. Rice corrected the King James Bible, which he considered to be erroneous in at least these two places.

Dr. Rice not only corrects the King James Bible, but he furthermore quotes from the American Standard Version in a positive light. Look what Dr. Rice says in a pamphlet where he refers to John 5:24:

The American Standard Version will make it clearer even yet, for as translated there this verse says about the believer that he “hath eternal life, and cometh not into judgment.” (John R. Rice. Can a Saved Person Ever Be Lost? Sword of the Lord Publishers. Murfreesboro, TN. ©1943)

Another pillar of fundamentalism was Dr. R.A. Torrey. His sermons were often published by the Sword of the Lord Publishers. William P. Grady, in his book Final Authority, says concerning R.A. Torrey:

There was, of course, the occasional exception of a dedicated soul winner succumbing to the spirit of his age. Dr. R.A. Torrey is an excellent case in point. Opponents of the King James Bible derive great security from Torrey’s preference of the Revised Version. (William P. Grady. Final Authority: A Christian’s Guide to the King James Bible. Grady Publications. Schererville, IN. ©1993. p. ix)

I know of no one who has at least thumbed through Torrey’s Topical Textbook who would even attempt to assert that Torrey was anything other than a doctrinal fundamentalist. In many of his works, he used the King James Version, but referred to the English Revised Version at times, believing it to be authoritative.

Next, we have Dr. Louis Talbot. His sermons were often published by the Sword of the Lord Publishers. He had a strong preference for the King James Version, but used other versions. His own words will testify to this:

For public reading and worship, so do I prefer the King James Version. And nothing in the English language can compare with it for beauty and majesty and dignity of style. It is still the Bible of the people. It is familiar to most Christians and therefore desirable for public reading, to avoid confusion. These are the reasons why I use it in the church services. Moreover, it is remarkably accurate in its translation. It was the product of forty men’s work; therefore this precluded any one man’s coloring the translation with his own prejudices or inclinations. Truly God guided the translators who, in 1611, under the supervision of King James of England, worked so diligently at their task! Yet since that date, many valuable manuscripts, versions, and archaeological discoveries have become available to scholars; and therefore, by careful scrutiny of these devout, scholarly men have been able to improve on the accuracy of an English translation here and there – so far as rendering the literal meaning of the original Hebrew and Greek is concerned. Accordingly, the American Standard Version and the English Revised Version, which are practically the same in most respects, are the most accurate translations in our English language. (Robert L. Sumner. Bible Translations [n.p.: Biblical Evangelist, 1978]. p. 10)

W.B. Riley, a noted fundamentalist whose sermons were often published by the Sword of the Lord Publishers, certainly did not believe that the King James Version was infallible:

To claim, therefore, inerrancy for the King James Version… is to claim inerrancy for men who never professed it for themselves. (Sumner. Bible Translations. p. 13).

Another well-known fundamentalist was Dr. Monroe Parker. In his sermon “The Depravity of Man and the New Birth,” Dr. Parker, though preaching from the King James Bible, when expounding upon Jeremiah 17:9, refers to a translation by “Dr. Stewart,” who translated it “The heart is deceitful above all things, and incurable.”

Dr. C.I. Scofield was a noted fundamentalist who popularized dispensational fundamentalism. In his reference Bible, Dr. Scofield on more than one occasion corrects the King James text. Ironically, Dr. Harold Sightler, an unyielding adherent to the King James Bible, repeatedly recommended the Scofield Reference Bible. Concerning II Thessalonians 2:2, Dr. Scofield said:

The theme of Second Thessalonians is, unfortunately, obscured by a mistranslation in the A.V. [Authorized Version, or King James Version] of 2:2, where “day of Christ is at hand” (I Cor. 1:8, refs.) should be, “day of the Lord is now present” (Isaiah 2:12, refs.).” (C.I. Scofield. The Holy Bible: Edited by Rev. C.I. Scofield, D.D. World Publishing. Grand Rapids, MI. p. 1271)

In his notes on I John 5:7, Dr. Scofield agrees with the English Revised Version and the American Standard Version, stating that I John 5:7 should not be in the text:

It is generally agreed that v. 7 has no real authority, and has been inserted. (Scofield, p. 1325)

Another well-known fundamentalist and noted Bible teacher is Dr. H.A. Ironside. In his commentary on the eighth chapter of Romans, Ironside prefers the rendering of the Revised Version:

It is, of course, hardly necessary for me to point out and emphasize what is now familiar to every careful student of the original text: that the last part of verse one is an interpolation (which properly belongs to verse 4), obscuring the sense of the great truth enunciated in the opening words: “There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.” This magnificent statement requires no qualifying clause. It does not depend on our walk. It is true of all who are in Christ, and to be in Him means to be of the new creation. A glance at the R.V. or any critical translation will show that what I am pointing out is sustained by all the editors. (H.A. Ironside. Lectures on the Epistle to the Romans. Loizeaux Brothers, Inc. Neptune, NJ. pp. 94-95)

Finally, we have Noel Smith. Some of his sermons are featured by the Sword of the Lord Publishers. I quote from his article in the Baptist Bible Tribune entitled “Translations of our English Bible,” published on December 13, 1968. Noel Smith clearly believed that, though he favored the King James Version, there were three versions that were authoritative:

The King James, the English Revised, and the American Standard versions remain the great and authoritative translations of the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament into English.

Smith goes on to cite the New Scofield Reference Bible as an “invaluable resource”:

The New Scofield Reference Bible, printed by Oxford in the King James text, has made these corrections, and it has made some corrections not made by the English Revised and American Standard versions. The latest edition of the Scofield Bible is invaluable.

Noel Smith reserved some criticism for the King James Version:

There are mistranslations in the King James. In any number of cases ‘heathen’ or ‘Gentiles’ should read ‘nations.’ I think nearly all authorities agree that in II Thessalonians 2:2, the reading should be ‘the day of the Lord,’ not ‘the day of Christ,’ as in the King James.

Smith further criticizes the King James Version:

But it is in the 8th chapter of Romans that the King James revisers (and it is a revision) are deserving of the severest criticism. In the first verse they capitalize “Spirit” as they should… But in the 16th verse what do we have? “The Spirit ITSELF beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.”

Although Noel Smith considers the American Standard Version an authoritative translation, the ASV does not escape his criticism:

The American Standard Version is not perfect. It is justly criticized for its reading in II Timothy 3:16: “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.”

Noel Smith admits that the ASV cannot compete with the KJV on several levels:

No matter how accurate it may be, no matter if it is a word-for-word translation of the Hebrew and Greek, the American Standard Version cannot compete with that mountain of history, tradition, and vast dignity and authority [of the King James Version].

After praising and criticizing both the KJV and the ASV, Noel Smith concludes:

But you don’t have to go from one extreme to another. You don’t have to follow the fanatics. You have the King James Version, the American Standard Version, and the New Scofield Reference Bible. You don’t have to discard your King James. You have all three (and of course, again, The New Scofield Reference Bible is printed in the King James text). You can keep on using your King James Version, as I do. But you should have the American Standard Version, if you are a real Bible student and an authentic and accurate expositor of the Word of God. You should use the American Standard Version as a commentary on the King James Version.

Conclusion

I do not believe that any reader who is the least bit familiar with the writings of John R. Rice, R.A. Torrey, H.A. Ironside, or Noel Smith would attempt to argue that any of these men are not fundamentalists. I do not believe that anyone who is familiar at all with the Sword of the Lord would try to argue that it is not a leading voice of fundamentalism because in one of its pamphlets, its founder, Dr. John R. Rice, quoted from the ASV in a positive light. The truth must be told, and the truth is that there have been great fundamentalist men who have stood for the King James Bible exclusively, giving no attention whatsoever to any other Bible version. But it also must be told that there are others who have also won souls and fought for fundamentalism that referred to other Bible versions than the King James Version.

More Thoughts on the King James Version