The Most Quoted Promise in the Bible

The Bible is full of promises. There are literally hundreds of promises in the word of God. Personally, I have stood on the promises of God. Repeatedly, I have taken God at His word. Faithfully, God has always fulfilled His promises.

There is one Biblical promise that seems to be quoted more than the others. On numerous occasions, I have heard preachers stand behind a pulpit and repeat it. Christians have stood up in the midst of a congregation to quote it. It is not likely that this particular promise is greater than any other. In my opinion, some preachers quote it as they begin the church service because they do not have anything else to say. Despite the motive of the one speaking the promise, it is a promise of God nonetheless. I am sure you have heard it quoted, and multiple times if you have been a Christian any length of time at all. Somewhere in your Christian walk, you have heard someone say, “I’m glad Jesus said, ‘I will never leave you nor forsake you.’”

There it is – the most quoted promise in the entirety of the scriptures (at least, in some of the circles in which I have been involved). The promise is found in Hebrews 13:5.

Two Prominent Messages in Christ’s Earthly Ministry

In the days when Jesus Christ walked the shores of Galilee, there were two messages that were constantly interwoven throughout the gospels. The first message was from Christ to His disciples. Christ continually told His disciples, “I’ve got to go.” Of course, He had to go to Calvary to suffer and die for the sins of mankind. The second message found throughout the gospels was the response of the disciples to Christ. When Christ spoke of His death, His disciples always replied, “Don’t go!”

In Matthew 16, Jesus spoke to His disciples, saying that He must be rejected of the scribes and elders of Jerusalem and be crucified. “I’ve got to go,” He says. Peter responded, “Far be it from Thee!” In other words, “Don’t go!”

In one instance, we find “the woman who was a sinner,” with her hands around the ankles of our Lord, as she washes the Lord’s feet with her tears and dries them with her hair. There’s something about her grip on the Savior’s feet that says, “Don’t go!” But He must go. He must be separated from the disciples to lay down His life for lost mankind.

In his account of the gospel, Luke tells us constantly that Christ’s face was “set” toward Jerusalem. What’s in Jerusalem? A cross. With His face set, His spirit firm, and His will determined, the Lord says, “I’ve got to go.”

Then came the day when Christ’s death upon the cross ceased to be a prophecy and became a fulfillment. He left His disciples for Calvary. The disciples would have loved to be able to claim the promise we claim so often, that their Lord would never leave nor forsake them. But the Lord left His disciples for Calvary.

Three days following the crucifixion of Christ, Christ is raised from the dead. On that resurrection day, Mary Magdalene is among those who found the tomb to be empty. When the others headed for the city, she remained in the garden where the empty tomb was. Weeping with her head in her hands, she earnestly believes that someone had taken away the body of her Lord. Suddenly, she sees a man. Since the man was evidently the gardener, Mary requested concerning Jesus, “Please tell me where you have laid Him.” Then, the “gardener,” who was none other than Jesus Christ Himself, said to her, “Mary.” Upon hearing the Lord speak her own name, Mary recognized Him. Mary must have fallen upon her knees, taking hold of the Saviour. But Jesus stopped her. “Touch me not,” He said. The word, “touch” here can mean more than just a simple touch. It can mean, “to hold on to; to cling to.” But again, Jesus says, “Don’t hold on to me.” In other words, “I’ve got to go.” Where is He going now? Since He has been resurrected, Christ must now go to the Father. He did not want Mary to get too attached. He is about to depart again. This is a good place to insert that the doctrine of the ascension of Christ is an underrated doctrine in the Bible. The entire discourse of John 14-16 centers around it. The arrival of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost depends on it. “If I go not away,” Christ said, “the Comforter will not come.”

Notice what Christ says to Mary. “Touch me not; do not hold on to me.” What does He go on to say? He says, “For I am not yet ascended.” That is where is going – to the Father.

The Ascension

Then, forty days after His resurrection, the day comes for Christ to go to the Father. Christ gathered with His disciples on the Mount of Olives. In Matthew’s version of the Great Commission, Christ gives His disciples His last words before His ascension. First, He instructs them to “teach all nations.” Secondly, He commissions them to “baptize them.” And third, “Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world.” I can’t help but chuckle when I read Matthew’s account of the Great Commission. Jesus says to His disciples, “I am with you always.” Then, what does He do? He ascends. He leaves. He says, “I’ll never leave you.” Then He leaves!

But when He goes, He takes His place at the right hand of the Father. It is there that Jesus prayed for the Father to send the Holy Spirit to dwell with His disciples forever. This may be a news flash to you, but you do not have the Holy Spirit because you prayed; you have the Holy Spirit because He prayed. Christ said, “I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter” (John 14:16). Of course, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ. Wherever the Holy Spirit is, Christ is. When Christ prayed for the Father to give us the Holy Spirit, the Lord assured us that He would abide with us forever (John 14:16).

Throughout the gospels, mankind begged Christ, “Don’t leave us!” But He had to go. Now that the Holy Spirit has been given, I know that Christ will be with me through the trials of life, through tears and toils, and even to chilly Jordan – death itself. He will never leave me nor forsake me!

The Bible and The Cults

Seeing in my previous post the value of the word of God, it is my intent, at this time, to expose the attitude of the cults regarding the Bible. Before examining this, it is necessary to observe a few basic traits of cults in general.

First and primarily, the chief characteristic of a cult is brought out by its definition. Microsoft Encarta’s dictionary defines “cult” this way – “a system of religious or spiritual beliefs, especially an informal and transient belief system regarded by others as misguided or unorthodox.” So, the first characteristic of a cult, as shown by its very definition, is that it deviates from that which is fundamentally and Biblically true. There are fundamental truths brought about in the word of God. Such truths include the virgin birth of Christ; the deity of Christ; the literal and bodily second coming of Jesus Christ to this world; the existence of a literal heaven and a literal, burning hell; the Trinity, and others. To deviate from these is to characterize yourself with religious groups we call cults.

Secondly, a common trait of the cults is extreme exclusivism. Now understand that Christianity itself is an exclusivist religion. By this, I mean that true Christians teach that Jesus Christ is the only way to God’s heaven. Yes, true, born-again Christians are the ONLY ONES going to heaven. However, cults do not teach that you must go to heaven through Christ; they teach rather that you can only get to heaven through THEM! This is a major difference between true Christianity and the cults. Jehovah’s Witnesses will tell you that you must accept Christ, but their teaching goes further than that. Christ, they say, established ONE church (their church, coincidentally), and you must join THEIR CHURCH to be accepted by God. I was acquainted with a group years ago called “Gospel of the Kingdom,” or “Sowderites,” a movement started by William Sowders of Louisville, Kentucky. Among their far-out ideas was the suggestion that you are only a part of the body of Christ if you are in their group.

While I preach strongly that one must be a born-again Christian to be saved, I do not preach that one must be a part of my group to be saved. You do not need to join my denomination to be saved. You do not need to run with my crowd to be saved. There are true Christians who are not part of my group, and they are as saved as anyone. The cults, however, do not see it this way. You must be a part of their group to be saved.

Look at what Jesus Christ said regarding followers of Christ who are not in your group:

Luke 9:49, 50 – “And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.”

So, it is clear. Every cult that teaches that you must be a part of their group to be saved is as wrong as they can be! Yet, this is a major peculiarity of the cults.

Thirdly, a widespread custom of the cults is the fact that most all cults have a founder (other than Jesus Christ). Of course, Christianity has a founder. Yet, the cults seem to all have a man or a woman who founded their group. Charles Taze Russell founded the Kingdom Hall (Jehovah’s Witnesses); Joseph Smith founded the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons); William Sowders founded the so-called “Gospel of the Kingdom;” Ellen White was among the founders of the Seventh-day Adventists; Mary Baker Eddy is remembered for her role in founding the Church of Christ, Scientist. While there is no wrong in a group having a founder, you will notice when studying the cults how that the founders are idolized. Their words are often equal with the words of Jesus Christ.

The Worst Attributes of the Cults

Having briefly looked at three traits of the cults, I wish to expound upon two more; perhaps two of their worst characteristics.

A fourth feature of groups we call cults is the fact that their view of salvation is perverted. You will not find a cult that teaches that what Jesus Christ did upon the cross is sufficient for salvation. Roman Catholics, for example, teach that God gives us grace to perform sacraments to be saved. Even after fulfilling a lifetime of sacraments, the devout Catholic cannot know for sure that he has done enough to be saved. The Seventh-day Adventists make worship on Saturday a requirement for salvation. The so-called “Church of Christ” has a list (they tell me) of five things one must do to be saved, among which is baptism in water. Apostolic Pentecostals teach that one must be baptized in the name of Jesus only, and that one must speak in tongues in order to be saved. The message of the cults in regard to salvation is simple – what Christ did on the cross was insufficient. The cross, they say, is part of the plan, but it is not enough to save us. They all add laws and commandments one must keep in order to be saved. But look what the Bible says:

Galatians 2:21 – “I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.”

Such strong words are the words above, but there is as much truth in them as there is strength. The Bible is clear – what Christ did on the cross is sufficient. Placing faith IN HIS BLOOD gives propitiation:

Romans 3:24-26 – “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through FAITH IN HIS BLOOD, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.”

Yes, it is the doctrine of the Bible that faith in Christ’s blood gives salvation. It is trusting Christ’s work, not commending our own, that saves from sin. The cults, however, teach that Christ did not do enough to save us. He did much of what needs to be done, they teach, but we must do the rest. How blasphemous!

A fifth element of the dogma of the cults is stated as follows – Not only is the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross insufficient, but the Bible is insufficient. Every one of the cults, without exception, teach that the Bible is not sufficient to be the sole rule of faith and practice. Every cult adopts one or more false statement regarding the Bible. At least the cults are honest – if the Bible is absolutely correct, complete, and accurate, then their ideas MUST be wrong. So, instead of changing their beliefs, they attack the Bible.

The attack on the Bible by the cults is manifested in a couple of ways. First, some cults teach that the Bible is inaccurate. Listen carefully. If a Jehovah’s Witness stands at your door and tells you that the Bible is erroneous, what does that tell you about the teachings of this group? They are admitting that their teachings do not line up with the Bible! This is the sole reason why Jehovah’s Witnesses have scrapped the King James Bible, and have written their own “New World Translation.” The Mormons teach this regarding the Bible – “The King James Bible is the word of God, SO LONG AS IT IS TRANSLATED CORRECTLY.” And guess what? When the Mormons’ teaching disagrees with the Bible, guess where they say the error lies – with the Bible! Anyone can say that the Bible is correct until it disagrees with them! It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that if someone must write their own Bible because the King James Bible disagrees with their teaching, their teaching must not be Biblical! If someone claims that the Bible is accurate until it disagrees with them, an honest person can see what is happening! The cults, instead of admitting that they are wrong, have the audacity to say that the Bible is wrong!

There is a second method in which the cults attack the word of God. As we have seen, some say the Bible is inaccurate. Others, however, state that the Bible is insufficient. The Bible is right, some cults say, but it is not enough. The Mormons are number one on our list. The Bible may contribute something to their church, but it is not the sole authority. The Book of Mormon was added, because the Bible is not the complete word of God. I spoke earlier regarding the Sowderites, or the “Gospel of the Kingdom.” One attribute of this group is that they speak often regarding revelation. A good deal of you seeing the scriptures as they do depends upon God REVEALING it to you! The Bible is good, but there must be extra-biblical revelation, according to the cults.

Dear reader, you may not attend a “kingdom hall.” You may not be a member of the “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.” You may not be a part of a “Gospel of the Kingdom” church. You may not be an Adventist. But if your pastor teaches that the Bible is erroneous, or that the Bible is not enough, or that there must be extra-biblical revelation, BEWARE! There is a reason why the Bible does not line up with your pastor’s teaching! If your pastor gets up and says, “This passage was not translated correctly,” WATCH OUT! He’s teaching that the Bible is wrong and he is right! If your pastor teaches this, there is great danger here! Your church may not be a cult, but your pastor most definitely possesses one of the cults’ characteristics.

The Bible is absolutely complete and accurate. It needs nothing more to substantiate it. Anyone who adds to it, takes from it, rewrites it, or contradicts it is absolutely wrong in every instance!

The Value of the Word of God

In this world, it is neither scarce nor surprising to hear the attacks against the word of God. Those who are deemed intelligent mock its principles, deny its miracles, and scorn its prophecies. Yet, in spite of all the attacks, its principles are true, its miracles occurred as recorded, and every prophecy regarding the first coming of our Lord Jesus Christ came to pass precisely as written. Though I desire for every reader to believe the Holy Scriptures, the scriptures do not need your belief in them to strengthen them. They are completely accurate, without anyone’s approval of them. The world mocks; yet the scripture stands.

Then, I come into the church. It is sad to say, but in many churches, the word of God takes a back seat. I have been to churches (some recently) where you will find someone who is always having a dream that “God gave him.” There are churches in which you’ll discover someone who is constantly seeing visions. God is always speaking to them in an audible voice. “God told me this,” they say. “God told me that,” they affirm.

Only an observation it may be, but here is what I have surveyed regarding many of those who are always seeing visions, dreaming dreams, and hearing voices: They are so spiritual that “God” is always speaking to them; yet, they do not know that salvation is by grace. They constantly see visions; but they cannot see that a person has the Holy Ghost living within them the instant they believe on Jesus Christ. They are always dreaming dreams, but quite frankly, they don’t know soup beans from apple butter regarding the word of God! Again, it should be noted that these observations are in reference to “many of those” who are always seeing visions, dreaming dreams and hearing voices.

Now, am I against a man having a dream that is from the Lord? No; for then I would be against the Joseph of the Old Testament, as well as the Joseph of the New. Am I against someone having a vision? In no wise. But if you are one of these people who often refer to “the last dream I had,” or “the last vision I had,” then I am talking to you.

Here is yet another observation regarding those who are always having dreams and seeing visions: they talk a lot. You may ask, “What do you mean?” In the Bible, when someone had real visions from the Lord, they didn’t talk about their visions. Whether the reader has seen a real vision from the Lord or not, I do not know. But I know for a fact that Paul the apostle had visions and revelations from the Lord, and look what he says about them:

II Corinthians 12:1 – “It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.”

Paul, in his discourse to the Corinthians, states here that he will at this time talk about visions and revelations of the Lord. Then, he proceeds to speak concerning those visions and revelations:

II Corinthians 12:4 – “How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.”

Paul goes on to tell about a man, perhaps himself, who was caught up into paradise. Then, Paul tells us something pertaining to what he saw – “…it is not lawful for a man to utter.” Paul said, “I’m not allowed to tell you what I saw.” No one reading this post will ever know what Paul saw in paradise – he didn’t blab it!

Yet, so many who claim to have visions today are very quick to reveal what they saw and heard. This makes me wonder about these vision-seeing individuals.

I do not know whether the reader has seen visions or heard voices from heaven or not, but I know for a fact that Mary, the mother of Jesus, heard the voice of an angel, because the Bible states it to be so. Yet, when the angel spoke to her, the Bible says in Luke 2:19 that “Mary pondered these things in her heart.” She neither told nor bragged about everything she heard from the angel. Yet, when someone has visions and dreams today, they quickly let the world know what they saw and heard! It makes me wonder!

A Message for Vision-Seeing Individuals and Dreamers

As for those who claim to have seen visions or had dreams from the Lord, I am not writing this post to convince you otherwise. But, each individual who constantly sees visions and has dreams from the Lord needs to read what I am writing.

Your visions and dreams are not very spiritual. There is no indication whatsoever that Pilate’s wife was a follower of Christ, yet she informs her husband in Matthew 27:19, “I have suffered many things in a dream because of [Christ].” The wise men who came to see the Christ child were warned of God in a dream in Matthew 2:12; yet there is nothing said as to whether or not they believed that Christ was anything more than “the king of the Jews.” The fact is this: you do not have to be spiritual at all to have visions or dreams. Actually, it is possible for a devil to be disguised as an angel of light, and approach someone in a vision.

II Corinthians 11:13, 14 – “For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.”

Paul even warned us, that if an angel from HEAVEN came to us, and told us something different than what the Bible teaches, we are to let that angel be accursed; or let that angel go to hell!

Galatians 1:8, 9 – “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”

So, I do not care much about your dreams and visions. Every dream you’ve dreamed and every vision you’ve seen takes a back seat to the word of God! I have made the following statement in this blog before, but I make it again. If an angel came to me and said, “Bob, I came from heaven to give you two choices. You can either have dreams and visions every day, or you can learn something every day from the Bible, the word of God. It’s your choice.” My choice would be easy to make. I would rather learn more and more of God’s word than have dreams and visions. I would rather be skillful with the Bible and know to use it to convince people to be saved than to boast of dreams and visions!

Allow me to examine one more passage. Peter tells in II Peter of his experience on the mount of transfiguration. Peter was on the mountain with Christ when the Lord’s face shone brightly. He saw Moses and Elijah on that mountain! What a glorious experience this must have been:

II Peter 1:17, 18 – “For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.”

In these verses, Peter tells of his great experience upon the mountain of transfiguration. Now, in the next verse, Peter says that you and I have something more sure than even the vision he had!

II Peter 1:19-21 – “We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

“We have a more sure word of prophecy!” A more sure word? What could be surer than a vision? He tells us what is more sure than a vision – the prophecy of the scripture! God’s written word – the Bible – is far surer than any dream or vision.

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.

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