Neutral on the Bible Texts and Versions?

Those who want to take a neutral position on the issue of Bible texts and versions often claim that the current defense of the King James Bible and its underlying Greek Received Text is an unnecessarily divisive, near-cultic position that has no historical precedent among Fundamentalists and other strong Bible believers. This is historic revisionism of the worst sort. The fact is that only recently have professing Fundamentalists begun using and defending the modern versions. Though some Fundamentalist leaders might have had their "fingers crossed" when they spoke of the King James Bible as the preserved Word of God in English, multitudes of others believed it was exactly that and believed it without equivocation. As for the underlying Greek text, there have been many strong Bible believers among English speaking churches of the last two centuries who have defended the Received Text as the preserved Word of God and who have condemned modern textual criticism as heresy. This is not a new and obscure position that was devised only a few decades ago by a Seventh-day Adventist or by Peter Ruckman, as some would have us believe!

In a newly-published book FROM THE MIND OF GOD TO THE MIND OF MAN: A LAYMAN'S GUIDE TO HOW WE GOT OUR BIBLE (1999, Ambassador-Emerald Press, Greenville, South Carolina), we find the latest example of the aforementioned revision of history. This book is edited by James B. Williams. Contributors and other men associated with the book include John Ashbrook of the Ohio Bible Fellowship; Keith Gephart of International Baptist College; William Smallman of Baptist Mid Missions; Ernest Pickering of Baptist World Mission; Larry Oats of Maranatha Baptist Bible College; James Price of Temple Baptist Seminary; Douglas McLachlan of Central Baptist Theological Seminary; Sam Horn of Northland Baptist Bible College; and David Beale of Bob Jones University. This book was promoted at the World Congress of Fundamentalists at Bob Jones University last year. An autographed copy was presented to Bob Jones III at an evening session, and he made a passionate speech about it. Within a matter of hours, their stock of the book was sold out and more copies were delivered the next day.

In the Introduction to this book, Dr. J.B. Williams calls the defense of the KJV a "cancerous sore" that has resulted in "a deplorable condition in Fundamentalism." He describes the defense of the KJV a "mass of misinformation." Dr. Williams then traces the history of what he calls "King James Onlyism" back largely to Seventh-day Adventist Benjamin Wilkinson and to Dr. Peter Ruckman. He then lists "others who have joined in this parade of misinformers, including D.A. Waite, E.L. Bynum, Jack Chick, and Walter Beebe" (page 7). He says: "The list increases with time as more unqualified proponents of the KJV Only view join in the confusion". Those are not mild words, my friends. These men say they are concerned about the "mean-spiritedness" and divisiveness of those who defend the KJV, but FROM THE MIND OF GOD TO THE MIND OF MAN sounds very mean-spirited and divisive to me. Furthermore, having studied this topic diligently for almost 20 years, having spent many thousands of dollars to purchase related books, having developed one of the most extensive bibliographies on the subject, having gone to great expense to travel to serious research facilities such as the Regent College Library and the British Library, having corresponded with hundreds of men, and having written an extensive history of the defense of the Received Text and the King James Bible, I am convinced that Dr. Williams presents a slanderous caricature of the truth. Dr. Williams ignores the fact that many King James Bible defenders have scholarly credentials that equal or surpass that of the contributors to, "From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man". The defense of the Received Text and the KJV did not originate with a Seventh-day Adventist, but with godly men in Britain in the 1800s who defended the Greek text underlying the KJV against the new theories of textual criticism, which they considered to be unbelieving and heretical. I have documented this extensively in my 500-page hardcover book, For Love of the Bible: The History of the Defense of the KJV and the Received Text from 1800 to Present.

Dr. Thomas Strouse of Emmanuel Baptist Theological Seminary said, "Liberals hold to Dynamic Inspiration. This leads to Dynamic Preservation, as manifested in the Critical Text, translated with Dynamic Equivalence to produce the Modern Versions. Historic fundamentalists hold to Verbal Plenary Inspiration which demands Verbal Plenary Preservation, manifested in the Textus Receptus, and translated to produce the KJV. Strangely and dangerously, neo-fundamentalists hold mixed views regarding Verbal Plenary Inspiration, Dynamic Preservation, the Critical Text, Dynamic Equivalence, and Modern Versions. This mixed and fluid position moves in only one direction: away from fundamentalism and into liberalism. For one to take the initial step into this moving stream, either deliberately or by default, may lead to drowning in the ocean of apostasy. The Lord Jesus Christ has required believers of all ages to receive His preserved words (Jn. 17:8, 20; Acts 2:4 1; 8:14; 1 1: 1; 17:1 1; I Thess. 1:6; 2:13). Since man cannot restore what they say God allegedly has not preserved, it would be folly for fundamentalists to embrace any of the modern translations. Fundamentalists must return to the centuries-old confidence of God's people in the Traditional Text. They must not be swept away with the relatively recent, rationalistic theories of Westcott, Hort, and others. The proponents of the Received Text position do not magnify the men involved with the Received Test; because the originator of the Received Text is not Erasmus, Stephens, Beza, Burgon, Wilkinson, Hills, or Fuller, but the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. He it was Who promised to preserve all of His words perfectly and requires believers to receive them (Jn. 17:8, 20). He is the sovereign One alone worthy of exaltation, who both promised verbal plenary preservation and used fallible men to achieve it.

Dr. David Cloud
DCloud@WayofLife.org