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