John R. Rice and KJV Only
KJV Only is the relatively modern belief that the King James Version of the Bible is the only one that should be used by English speaking people. There are different versions, if you will, of this view. Some believe the KJV itself is inspired, perfect, and inerrant. Others would simply say it is by far the best and other English translations are in error, liberal, leave out the Word of God, or they are even of the devil.
Many have wondered what Dr. John R. Rice (AD 1895-1980), a well-known independent Baptist preacher, author, and founding editor of the Sword of the Lord, had to say about KJV Only. Some have wrongly assumed he was KJV Only.
Rice did use the KJV in the pulpit. It was obviously his favorite translation. And it should be remembered he was writing in 1969 when the KJV was by far the most popular and a number of the modern versions of today had not yet been translated. But Dr. Rice was far from KJV Only. In addition to the quotes below, during his leadership, Rice had others such as Robert L. Sumner write articles in the Sword of the Lord against KJV Only.
The quotes below are from -
Our God-Breathed Book The Bible
by John R. Rice, Sword of the Lord Publishers, Murfreesboro, TN; 1969.
“When we say that the Bible is inspired, we do not refer to the translations or copies but to the original autographs, written down under God’s direction.”
“We think now not of translations and copies but of the original autographs. Of them we are told that “…every word…proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matthew4:4). So all must be true. If the Scriptures are God-breathed, theopneustos, as II Timothy 3:16 says, then God did not breathe out errors and mistakes.”
“We are not now discussing the translations. Translators are not inspired, and there can be mistakes in translation although these mistakes are largely overcome by having translations checked and double checked by numerous godly scholars. There may be mistakes in copying, though such mistakes can usually be found by comparing manuscripts with manuscripts since there are hundreds of manuscripts of the New Testament available and many of the Old Testament. But when we speak of inspiration, we speak of the original autographs written down in the Old Testament in Hebrew, except for a small part of the book of Daniel which is in Chaldaic, and the New Testament, which is in koine Greek.”
“Well, there are many, many translations. The differences in the translations are so minor, so insignificant, that we can be sure not a single doctrine, not a single statement of fact, not a single command or exhortation, has been missed in our translations. And where the Word of God is not perfectly translated in one instance, it is corrected in another translation. And if the Word of God is not perfectly portrayed in one translation, it is portrayed, surely, in the winnowed sum of them all. And besides, one can go back to the original Greek and Hebrew texts to check for himself the translations. Or those who do not know Hebrew and Greek may use Young’s Analytical Concordance. There you will find in every single case the original Greek or Hebrew word, find how it is used, and thus can check the translations.”
“A perfect translation of the Bible is humanly impossible. The words in one language do not have exactly the same color and meaning as the opposite words in another language, and human frailty and imperfection enter in. So, let us say, there are no perfect translations. God does not inspire particular translations, although He may illuminate and give spiritual wisdom to the translator.”
“The translators of the American Standard Version had the advantage of having access to the three oldest manuscripts with which we are familiar - the Vatican, the Alexandrian, and the Sinaitic manuscripts.”
“The scholar and the preacher would do well to have the American Standard Version at hand and to consult it when necessary, but generally would do well, we think, to use the King James Version in the pulpit, in memory work, and in class teaching, since it is actually the translation of the mass of people. And the beauty of its language is not equaled in other translations, we think.”
-John R. Rice, Our God-Breathed Book The Bible, Sword of the Lord Publishers, Murfreesboro, TN; 1969.
-David R. Brumbelow, Gulf Coast Pastor, May 1, AD 2013.
B. H. Carroll on Inspiration of Bible
Following are quotes from B. H. Carroll on biblical inspiration from his book, Inspiration of the Bible, Southwestern Library of Centennial Classics, 1930, 2008.
“It has always been a matter of profound surprise to me that anybody should ever question the verbal inspiration of the Bible."
"The whole thing had to be written in words. Words are signs of ideas, and if the words are not inspired, then there is no way of getting at anything in connection with inspiration. If I am free to pick up the Bible and read something and say, ‘That is not inspired,’ and someone else does not agree with me as to which is and which is not inspired, it leaves the whole thing unsettled as to whether any of it is inspired."
"What is the object of inspiration? It is to put accurately, in human words, ideas from God. If the words are not inspired, how am I to know how much to reject, and how to find out whether anything is from God? When you hear the silly talk that the Bible ‘contains’ the word of God and is not the word of God, you hear a fool’s talk. I don’t care if he is a Doctor of Divinity, a President of a University covered with medals from universities of Europe and the United States, it is fool-talk. There can be no inspiration of the book without the inspiration of the words of the book.”
“The inspired word is irrefragable, infallible; that all the powers of the world cannot break one ‘thus saith the Lord.’”
“Let me say further that only the original text of the books of the Bible is inspired, not the copy or the translation.”
“The inspiration means that the record of what is said and done is correct. It does not mean that everything that God did and said is recorded. It does not mean that everything recorded is of equal importance, but every part of it is necessary to the purpose of the record, and no part is unimportant. One part is no more inspired than any other part.”
“It is perfectly foolish to talk about degrees of inspiration. What Jesus said in the flesh, as we find it in the four Gospels, is no more His word than what the inspired prophet or apostle said.”
“What Jesus said after He ascended to heaven, through Paul or any other apostle, is just as much Jesus’ word as anything He said in the flesh.”
“Here are some objections: First, ‘only the originals are inspired, and we have only copies.’ The answer to that is that God would not inspire a book and take no care of the book. His providence has preserved the Bible in a way that no other book has been preserved.”
“We do not find that verbal inspiration stereotypes the style, even in the case of a single man. It is nothing mechanical like that, nor does it in the least destroy the individuality of the inspired man. When Paul writes, he writes in Paul’s style; when Peter writes, he writes in Peter’s style.”
“The Holy Spirit inspires the penman and not the pen, and we must not be disturbed when we find Paul’s style, when he is writing spiritual things in spiritual words, or Peter’s style in his writings. We should accept that fact as we go along.” -B. H. Carroll, Inspiration of the Bible, Southwestern Library of Centennial Classics, 1930, 2008.
Benajah Harvey Carroll (AD 1843-1914) was born in Mississippi, a veteran of the Civil War, and was pastor of First Baptist Church, Waco, Texas.
B. H. Carroll was founder and first president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas. His book, Inspiration of the Bible, has been influential among Baptists. It was reprinted and promoted during the SBC Conservative Resurgence and was reprinted again in 2008 in a set of books commemorating the Centennial of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Note: Plenary Verbal Inspiration means every word of all 66 books of the Bible is inspired by God and is therefore the inerrant, living, authoritative, sufficient Word of God.
Plenary - all
Verbal - every word
Inspiration - God breathed. Divinely inspired in such a way that no other book is inspired by God.
-David R. Brumbelow, Gulf Coast Pastor, July 12, AD 2011.
by: Dave Hunt
http://www.a-voice.org/discern/kjhunt.htm
Question:
Dave, you have been accused lately of undermining the Bible and opposing the authority of God's Word because you don't insist upon using the King James Version exclusively. How do you respond to such indictments?
Answer:
I will publicly defend God's truth and expose false doctrine regardless of who teaches it, without judging hearts and motives. Heresy that is taught publicly must be opposed publicly. But I will not publicly defend myself in response to personal attacks against me, no matter how vicious and false-and there have been some lately. In obedience to Christ I am obliged to pursue Matthew 18:15-17 privately with individuals who make false charges (though publicly) against me personally, and I have done so.
As for undermining the Bible and opposing the authority of God's Word, the falsity of such charges should be apparent to anyone who has read my writings or listened to my talks. Anyone with doubts may read the chapter on Sola Scripture in my latest book, A Woman Rides the Beast, or listen to the tape of my debate with Karl Heating on that same subject, or the five-tape series of messages I preached on the sufficiency, inerrancy and authority of God's Word. Nor is it true that I defend the modern versions and run down the King James Version. I have been living in the KJV for more than 50 years and it is the KJV which I use when I preach and teach. The record speaks for itself. In the past, on occasion, I have quoted a modern version in my books where it seemed to be more understandable to the average reader, particularly the non-Christian.
As for the KJV-only debate, I hesitate to step into that arena because whatever one says only seems to heighten the controversy. However, we have received so much mail on this topic, reflecting confusion from both sides, that I will try once again to bring some balance where I believe it is badly needed. Where doctrinal purity is not involved, we need to respect one another's sincere differences of opinion. We must disagree courteously and in love and deal with the issues rather than attack persons or motives. There are godly and sincere people on both sides of this controversy.
Let both sides remember that all versions are translations. For the KJV to be perfect in every word, the translators must have had the same infallible inspiration of the Holy Spirit in their translating as those who wrote the original Greek and Hebrew documents (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pe 1:21) had in their writing. Claiming such inspiration for the KJV's translators, some KJV-only advocates even denounce all other translations as New Age or of the Devil. Yet the King James Bible translators themselves, far from claiming inspiration or perfection, confessed that they had consulted other "translators and commentators" to improve their work. They acknowledged that the KJV was not perfect but could be improved, and that there were places where they were uncertain of the exact meaning of some words. They even recommended consulting a variety of translations. Why should I be castigated for agreeing with the KJV translators? The following is from the introduction to the 1611 KJV, titled "The Transla tors to the Reader" (note that in seventeenth- century English the "u" and "v" were reversed):
- Neither were we barred or hindered from going over it again, having once done it [the work of translation]...[nor] were we the first that fell in hand with translating the Scripture into English, and consequently destitute of former helps....Neither did we thinke much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrewe, Syrian, Greeke, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdaine to reuise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anuill that which we had hammered...vsing as great helps as were needfull....
Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled...[that] it hath pleased God in his diuine prouidence, heere and there, to scatter wordes and sentences of that difficultie and doubtfulnesse, not in doctrinal points that concerne saluation (for in such it hath beene vouched that the Scriptures are plaine) but in matters of lesse moment, that fearfulnesse would better beseeme vs than confidence. . .and to resolue upon modestie....There be many words in Scripture, which be neuer found there but once. ..there be many rare names of certaine birds, beastes and precious stones, &c. concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves...so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (euen in thejudgement of the iudicious) questionable, can be no lesse than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures; so diuersitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the tex t is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea, is necessary, as we are perswaded....They that are wise, had rather haue their judgements at libertie in differences of readings, then to be captiuated to one, when it may be the other.
In fact, the KJV translators take up many pages of their introduction arguing that the Bible needs to be in every language so that all may read it in their "mother tongue" and thus understand it better. That fact, they say, is the justification for their labors to put it into the daily language of their countrymen. These men even argued that "the very worst translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession...is the word of God." How far they were from what some are claiming today! Of course, the KJV translators had not encountered the deliberately perverted translations of today's cults.
They were confident that while the many translations in English or other languages differed on some words and phrases, no doctrine was affected. (Doctrine is affected, however, in today's perverted versions such as the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses, Joseph Smith's Inspired Version, and a few others.) Thus, to tell the millions of people who were saved through reading the NAS or NIV, for example, and who are edified and growing in faith through daily study of such versions that they are using the Devil's false Bibles, is, in my opinion, extremism and only causes division and confusion. Rather, suggest consulting the KJV as well.
I was reared on the KJV and use it exclusively in all my study and speaking, only rarely consulting other translations for comparison. Why consult other translations at all? The KJV translators did so and recommended the practice! In following their advice we discover that, whereas in some places modern versions are deficient, in other places they excel. For example, the KJV at 2 Thes 2:2 says not to be troubled by rumors that "the day of Christ is at hand." If one believes in a pre-trib rapture which marks the beginning of the Day of Christ, then it is not disturbing but good news if that day is "at hand." Nor need that be disturbing even if one believes in a mid- or post-trib rapture. It would only be disturbing if the day of the Lord had already come, for that would mean one had been left behind at the rapture-which is why it is obvious that Paul had taught a pre-trib rapture to these people. The KJV 1611 edition had many marginal notes elsewhere, but none here. One was added late r: both the Greek and common sense required it. Today's KJV margin suggests "is now present." That changes the meaning entirely, makes sense, and admits that the 1611 edition wasn't perfect. The NAS reads "that the day of the Lord has come," and the NIV, "has already come." So a required later revision (one of many) in the KJV shows that the 1611 edition was not "inspired"-and the revision agrees with the NAS, the NIV and the NKJV!
Furthermore, some modern versions excel in places, even when it comes to declaring the deity of Christ. For example, there are eight verses in the New Testament that clearly declare that Jesus is God: Jn l:l, Acts20:28; Rom9:5; 2Thes 1:12; Ti 2:13; Heb 1:8; 2 Pt 1:1 and Rv 1:8. The KJV is only clear in four of these (Jn 1:1; Acts 20:28; Rom 9 :5 and Heb 1:8), whereas the NAS and NIV are clear in seven of the eight (the same four plus Ti 2:13; 2 Pt 1:1 and Rv 1:8) For example, in Ti 2:13 the KJV says "the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ," while both the NAS and NIV say "our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," certainly a more definite declaration that Jesus is God. In 2 Pt 1:1 the KJV says "God and our Saviour Jesus Christ," whereas again both the NAS and NIV say "our God and Savior Jesus Christ." (Actually that's what the Textus Receptus says in the Greek-the KJV translators simply made a mistake, which was corrected in the NKJV as well.) At Rv 1:8 the KJV says "the Lord," wh ereas the NAS and NIV say "the Lord God," clearly declaring that Jesus is God.
If the situation were the other way around (i.e., the KJV clearly declared Christ to be God in seven of the eight places and the modern versions in only four), some KJV-only advocates would surely accuse the modern versions of downplaying Christ's deity. Instead, they ignore the weaknesses in the KJV while jumping on those in other versions. It is surely helpful to the church to have the deficiencies in modern versions pointed out, and those using them should beware of such improper renderings . At the same time, however, those championing the KJV should honestly acknowledge those places where the modern versions excel.
The fact is that the KJV, NKJV, NAS, and NIV (in spite of some failings in each) clearly teach that Jesus is God, one with the Father; and all four clearly present the gospel and all of the other cardinal doctrines of the Bible if one reads the entire text and doesn't take an isolated verse here or there to prove a point. Therefore, to suggest that the NAS and NIV are "the Devil's Bibles" and part of a New Age conspiracy to usher in a oneworld religion by destroying God's Word is simply not true and places an unwarranted condemnation upon those who use such versions. Tragically, this faulty perception is causing confusion and division in the church. We must repeat our earlier warning that Gail Riplinger's book, New Age Bible Versions, is literally filled with errors and cannot be relied upon as a defense of the KJV. She even lumps the NKJV in with modern versions, whereas it is based upon the same Hebrew and Greek texts as the 1611 King James Version.
No comments:
Post a Comment