|
|
|
Republished April 10, 2007 (first published January 18, 2007)
David Cloud, The following is part 2 of 2 parts of this report.
See the Way of Life web site under "Articles Listed by Date"
for the entire article. THE FACT THAT MANY FUNDAMENTALISTS OF OLD DEFENDED THE KING JAMES BIBLE IS CONVENIENTLY IGNORED IN "TRUSTED VOICES ON TRANSLATIONS." I have documented this extensively in the 460-page book For Love of the Bible, which traces the defense of the KJV and the TR from 1800 to present (available from Way of Life Literature). Let me give three illustrations of fundamentalists of bygone days who renounced textual criticism and who held to the Received Text and the King James Bible. BENJAMIN FRANKLIN DEARMORE (1897-1969) is one example. Dearmore is an example of the many fundamentalist Baptists in Texas who stood for the King James Bible prior to 1950. Dr. Dearmore was Chairman of the Faculty at the Bible Baptist Seminary (J. Frank Norris's school in Ft. Worth) until 1948, and his son, Dr. James Dearmore, M.D. (1929- ), who worked with his father prior to going to the mission field in 1963, says in those days, "there was a very heavy emphasis on the KJV-AV Bible and a rejection of all other versions as 'per-versions'" (Letter, May 24, 1995). In 1948 B.F. Dearmore and a few other pastors founded the Worth Bible College, which graduated several hundred students during its existence through the mid-1960s. Again, James Dearmore tells us that this school "always consistently defended the KJV-AV Bible." The elder Dearmore also co-founded with Dr. L.E. Miller the Trinity Valley Seminary in the South Fort Worth Baptist Temple, a church he had founded. "From its founding until the deaths of B.F. Dearmore and L.E. Miller, none could have graduated from that school without strong teachings and belief in the defense of, and acceptance of, the KJV-AV as the ONLY acceptable English version of the Bible" (Letter from James Dearmore, May 24, 1995). The elder Dearmore also edited for many years an independent Baptist paper called The Message. According to his son, who co-edited this paper for a number of years, it "only recognized the KJV as truly God's Word in the English language, rejecting all other (per)versions." I have a copy of The Message dated May 28, 1959. The lead article is titled "Greek Versus English," and B.F. 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. . . . I do positively state that people who do not know a word of Greek can become real Bible scholars. Many times their understanding is far greater than the Greek scholars." To that statement we say Amen, because we know that it is true; though we do not despise or discredit the study of the preserved Greek text. But the point is that such a statement was made in a paper published by fundamental Baptists in the 1950s. This opens a window into a large segment of the fundamental Baptist movement during the first half of the twentieth century in the south central and southwestern United States. There were hundreds of independent Baptist churches in those days that stood exclusively for the King James Bible and that opposed the modern versions. Those who believe that the "King James Only" position is some kind of new invention are conveniently ignoring the facts of history, or they are defining "King James Only" as a Ruckman type belief in advanced revelation, double inspiration, etc. WILLIAM ABERHART (1878-1943) is another example of the many fundamentalists who defended the King James Bible. Aberhart stood for the Received Text and the King James Bible in western Canada during the first half of the twentieth century. He was a pastor, Bible school dean, radio Bible teacher, the principal of one of the most prestigious high schools in Canada, and a greatly beloved political leader. He was Premier of Alberta from 1935-43. For many years Aberhart expounded upon the Bible in weekly lectures attended by hundreds on Sunday afternoons in Calgary. He was an old-fashioned fundamentalist and dispensationalist. In November 1925, he began his pioneer radio broadcasts which were beamed across Alberta and which enjoyed a tremendously large and dedicated following. Aberhart also founded the Radio Sunday School. At the time of his death, six thousand young people were enrolled. In the late 1920s Aberhart separated from the Regular Baptists over issues such as Bible inspiration and prophecy, and in 1924 he established the Calgary Prophetic Bible Institute. The first student enrolled in this Bible Institute was Ernest Charles Manning, who eventually became the premier of Alberta, holding that position from 1943 until 1968. Aberhart also founded the Bible Institute Baptist Church, which was dedicated by the fundamental Baptist leader William B. Riley. The Bible Institute Baptist Church, which seated 1,250 counting the seats in the gallery, was a prominent church in Calgary in those days. Many well-known fundamentalist leaders from the United States, such as W.B. Riley and Harry Rimmer, preached there. Aberhart trained his people and his students to have confidence in the divine preservation of Scripture. Aberhart saw the Bible text issue as one involving the authority of God's Word. On his stationery in dark orange ink were the words "We believe in an inspired Bible." Aberhart was not satisfied to believe that an inspired Bible had come from the hands of the Scripture writers only to be corrupted in its transmission through the centuries. He argued that not only was it God's responsibility to give the Bible but also to keep it. He taught that the King James Bible is the preserved Word of God. A summary of Aberhart's teaching was given to me personally by Pastor Mark Buch (1910-1995), who was educated by Aberhart in the 1930s. Buch was the founder and pastor of the People's Fellowship Tabernacle in Vancouver, British Columbia. This church was a stronghold for biblical fundamentalism in western Canada from the time it was founded in 1939. Buch knew and preached with many of the well-known fundamentalist leaders of this century, including J. Frank Norris, G. Beauchamp Vick, and Bob Jones Sr. In 1990, Buch retired from the pastorate (though he continued his radio broadcasts until his death in 1995), and People's Fellowship Tabernacle merged with Bethel Baptist Church to become the Tabernacle Baptist Church of Vancouver. Its pastor, Gordon Conner, continues to hold a standard for the King James Bible and biblical fundamentalism in western Canada. When I was doing research for my book For Love of the Bible in the early 1990s, I had the pleasure of interviewing the gracious Mark Buch on a number of occasions. He told me that Aberhart taught on the subject of inspiration and preservation in a second year apologetics course at the Prophetic Bible Institute. In a book that Buch wrote on this subject, he testified as follows of the excitement he experienced during that course: "In the Fall I went back to the Prophetic Bible Institute in Calgary. I came to the second year of Apologetics. It opened the subject of Divine Inspiration and preservation in particular, of the original manuscripts. It was a very helpful and blessed time. During that time I also took Greek at Western Baptist Bible College in Calgary. My heart leaped for joy as my mind was saturated with new confidence. The moment the story began to dawn upon me as we were tracing our way following the pure stream of the divinely inspired Bible, back, back to the divinely inbreathed autographs, my whole life changed" (In Defence of the Authorized Version p. 31). In a conversation on March 1, 1995, Buch explained to me just how important the textual issue was to him: "When Aberhart helped me to see the Bible textual issue, it was like being saved again. I saw that God has preserved His Word and that the Authorized Version was an accurate translation of the divinely-preserved Scriptures." Note how Pastor Buch described Aberhart's position on Bible preservation: "Mr. Aberhart was one of the greatest Bible teachers in Canada. He was the first person I came in contact with WHO KNEW THE TRUE STORY OF THE DIVINE INSPIRATION AND PRESERVATION OF GOD'S HOLY WORD. He explained how it came down from the first apostolic faultless autograph, its safe keeping through the Byzantine church, the majority reformation copy by Erasmus of Rotterdam, William Tyndale's translation, the Authorized committee of mental and spiritual giants, and the resultant glorious treasure-the Authorized Version" (Mark Buch, In Defence of the Authorized Version, People's Fellowship Tabernacle, Vancouver, British Columbia, p. 25). During my interviews with Pastor Mark Buch, he gave me a copy of one of Aberhart's booklets on the subject of Bible versions. This rare jewel is titled The Latest of Modern Movements: Or What about the Revised Version of the Bible? Published in 1924 or 1925, it was printed and distributed by the thousands. In the title of his booklet, Aberhart was referring to the English Revised Version of 1885. He also mentioned J.N. Darby's Version, Russell's Diaglot, Moulton's Bible, American Revised Version, 20th Century in Modern Speech, Moffatt's Translation, Goodspeed's New Testament, and Kent's Shorter Bible. Aberhart warned that modern textual criticism and the multiplicity of modern versions was weakening the authority of the Bible. Consider the following excerpt from Aberhart's booklet: "How quickly Satan can get people to bow down to scholarship or the heroic in mankind. Let us be warned. Š Are we blind to the force of a statement such as this: 'You have many different Bibles and no two are alike'? Can you estimate the effect upon the rising generation to have nothing settled? Will our children not soon begin to think that Holy Scripture is a nose of wax to be twisted hither and thither? No wonder the Roman Catholics smile as they say, 'Where does the infallibility of your Bible come in?' What a fog! Would to God I could use a dispeller that would roll back this fog in every direction, for I believe God has spoken. Psalm 11:3-'If the foundation be destroyed, what can the righteous do?' Š "I can still believe the Lord Jesus Christ, when he said: 'For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled' (Matt. 5:18). 'Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away' (Matt. 24:35). If these words mean anything, they inform us that the Lord Jesus intended to see to it that the Bible, His Word, would be preserved for us in a perfect, infallible state. "No one questions the need of Bible revision. It is an obvious fact, that, as centuries pass by, the spoken language will become different from the printed page. We are constantly changing the import of various words that we use. For example, take the word 'let.' In 1611, when the Authorized Bible was published, this word meant 'hindered,' the very opposite of its meaning today. ... But when the revisers take the ground that more reliable manuscripts and better translations have been discovered, I claim this is too uncertain and vague to carry conviction and it makes one become a living interrogation point. ... "No, Modernists, serious-minded people who recognize the latest Modern Drift will need to be shown more convincingly before they will hand over the Bible of our forefathers. ... HERE AND THERE AND EVERYWHERE MEN ARE RISING UP ABOVE THE SCRIPTURES TO CORRECT THEM. THE TABLES ARE BEING TURNED TODAY. INSTEAD OF THE BIBLE CORRECTING MEN AND MEN'S OPINIONS, SOME ARE CORRECTING THE BIBLE. ... Personally, I am willing to accept Christ's declaration at its face value. 'Verily, I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled' (Matt. 5:18). "Why then should we be attracted by the error and nonsense which everywhere plead for a hearing because they are new? To suppose that theology can be new is to imagine that the Lord Himself is of yesterday. To propose that we need a new Bible is to declare that God has not spoken. A doctrine that declares itself new must of necessity be false. Falsehood has no beard, but Truth is hoary with age immeasurable. Pity should be our feeling toward those young preachers who cry, 'See my new theology! See my latest Revision!' in just the same spirit as little Mary says, 'See my pretty new frock!' "The time has not yet come when all things have been fulfilled. The heavens and the earth have not yet passed away. Therefore not one jot nor one tittle has passed. The Authorized Version is reliable. I believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice" (William Aberhart, The Latest of Modern Movements, 1925). Aberhart influenced thousands of fundamentalists. The point is that there were fundamentalists in days gone by who defended the KJV against modern versions and took an educated stand against modern textual criticism. Though many fundamentalists did not take such a stand, many others did. Those today who are claiming that King James Bible defense is a new thing or a thing that was held in the past only be a very few crackpots are simply wrong. The position William Aberhart held on the Bible version issue in the 1920s is the position that I hold today, nothing more or less. PHILIP MAURO (1859-1952) is another example of the many fundamentalists of old who defended the King James Bible. A third illustration, of the many that could be given, is Philip Mauro, a famous patent lawyer who argued before the bar of the United States Supreme Court, and a fundamentalist leader who contributed at least two articles to The Fundamentals. Mauro was converted in 1903, ten years after he had been admitted to the bar. He had an Episcopalian background, but by age 45 he was a skeptic in regard to religion. In the spring of the year 1903 he attended a church service almost by accident, and it changed his life. Impressed with the friendliness of the people, Mauro returned to the church several times and was eventually born again. After his conversion Mauro became a bold Christian and wrote many books on biblical themes. He was a fundamentalist and taught believer's baptism by immersion. In addition to a copy of the original printing of his book Which Version, I have collected several other books by Mauro for my library. He defended the faith in an uncompromising and gracious Christian manner and saw people saved through the distribution of his colporteur booklets. Though not a dispensationalist, he stood against theological modernism, evolution, Pentecostalism, and other isms of his day, and boldly defended the infallibility and preservation of Scripture. Mauro wrote the legal brief that was used by William Jennings Bryan to defend the Tennessee law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in the public schools. This was the famous "Skopes Trial." Bryan won the case against the famous trial lawyer Clarence Darrow. Because of his profession, Philip Mauro had opportunity to witness to many well-placed individuals. For example, as patent counsel for the Columbia Phonograph Company, Mauro had repeated encounters with Thomas Edison and shared the gospel with him. Interestingly, Mauro was aboard the Carpathian when it rescued survivors from the ill-fated Titanic in 1912. Mauro contributed material to The Fundamentals, a series of books published in the 1920s to resist the tide of theological liberalism that was entering America from Europe and England. The name "Fundamentalist" was derived from these books. Thus, Mauro was one of the fathers of the fundamentalist movement. Beginning in the early 1920s, Mauro wrote in defense of the King James Bible and in opposition to the critical Greek text which had been published by Westcott and Hort thirty years earlier, and to the modern versions which were beginning to flow from it. Mauro's 1924 work Which Version? Authorized or Revised? was reprinted 50 years later in David Otis Fuller's True or False. Mauro leaned heavily upon the research of John Burgon, but his logic was his own. This brilliant lawyer carefully represented the side of the Traditional or Received Text. The thing that characterized Mauro is that which characterizes each defender of the Received Text and the KJV: faith in God's providence and an emphasis on Bible preservation: "In view also of the leading part the English speaking peoples were to play in shaping the destinies of mankind during the eventful centuries following the appearance of the Version of 1611, we are justified in believing that it was through a providential ordering that the preparation of that Version was not in anywise affected by higher critical theories in general, or specifically by the two ancient Codices we have been discussing. For when we consider what the A.V. [Authorized Version] was to be to the world, the incomparable influence it was to exert in shaping the course of events, and in accomplishing those eternal purposes of God for which Christ died and rose again and the Holy Spirit came down from heaven--when we consider that this Version was to be, more than all others combined, 'the Sword of the Spirit,' and that all this was fully known to God beforehand, we are fully warranted in the belief that it was not through chance, but by providential control of the circumstances, that the translators had access to just those Mss. which were available at that time, and to none others. This belief in no way conflicts with the fact that man's part in the preparation of the A.V. is marked, and plainly enough, by man's infirmities" (Mauro, Which Version?). Thus, the claim that fundamentalist leaders of bygone days ignored the Bible version question, or refused to make Bible versions an issue, or came down consistently on the side against "King James Onlyism" is simply false. The position held on the Bible version issue in the 1920s and 1930s by Benjamin Dearmore, William Aberhart, and Philip Mauro was held by thousands of other fundamentalists. Fundamentalist leaders have always taken different positions on this issue as they have on most other issues. They held different positions on Bible versions in the first half of the twentieth century, and they hold different positions today. Some might protest that it was only a minority of fundamentalists of bygone days who defended the King James Bible, but I, for one, do not believe that is true and I doubt any other man has looked into the history of this more than I have. At the same time, no one has done an exhaustive study on this to prove it one way or the other. Such a project would require years of diligent and expensive research, and even at the end of such a project one would know only a little about some of the more visible fundamentalist leaders who left a written record touching this subject. EVEN IF MANY FUNDAMENTALIST LEADERS OF THE PAST AND PRESENT HELD A CERTAIN POSITION, IT MEANS VERY LITTLE. This is a good place to reminds ourselves that our authority is not human leaders but the Word of God itself (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Some men seem to think that if John Rice or Bob Jones or Charles Spurgeon believed something, that I must be some sort of nut for not holding the same position. I don't understand that mindset. I don't unquestioningly follow fundamentalist leaders past or present on any issue. I appreciate all of the good things they have stood for, but they were only men. Furthermore, fundamentalism has never been a homogenous thing; it has always been extremely divided. Fundamentalists have never agreed even on the doctrine of baptism or on eschatology, not to speak of the doctrine of preservation. Even fundamental Baptists themselves are an extremely divided group. The men who wrote The Fundamentals in the 1920s represented a wide variety of doctrine and practice. In fact, some of them held serious error. For example, James Orr of Scotland denied the verbal inspiration of Scripture and allowed for theistic evolution. J. Campbell Morgan denied the literal fire of hell and believed that men could be saved even if they do not hear of or exercise personal faith in Christ. Thus, to uphold fundamentalist leaders of old as the standard will not do. Further, as we have said, none of the quotations in "Trusted Voices on Translations" deal with our foundational reasons for rejecting the critical text. Thus they miss the mark entirely in dealing with the heart of the textual issue. SOME SUGGESTIONED RESOURCES ON THIS SUBJECT As a good starting point in understanding the textual issue I suggest the following books: THE KING JAMES VERSION DEFENDED by Edward F. Hills. Dr. Hills (1912-1981) was a professionally trained textual scholar as well as a godly Christian. He was a distinguished Latin and Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Yale University. He also earned the Th.B. degree from Westminster Theological Seminary and the Th.M. degree from Columbia Theological Seminary. After doing doctoral work at the University of Chicago in New Testament textual criticism, he completed his program at Harvard, earning the Th.D. in this field. Though largely ignored by professional textual critics and translators, Hills has encouraged thousands of pastors, evangelists, missionaries, and Bible teachers by his defense of the Received Text and his exposure of the unbelief of modern textual criticism. In 1956, he published the first edition of The King James Version Defended: A Christian View of the New Testament Manuscripts. It was enlarged through the years. Key chapters include "A Short History of Unbelief," "A Christian View of the Biblical Text," "The Facts of New Testament Textual Criticism," "Dean Burgon and the Traditional New Testament Text," and "The Textus Receptus and the King James Version." Hills devastated the Westcott-Hort textual theories and exposed the rationalistic foundation of the entire modern version superstructure. Unlike most modern textual scholars, Dr. Hills approached his topic with humility and with confidence in God's promise to preserve the Scriptures. Most of the questions which are raised today in the Bible version debate were already answered by Dr. Hills 50 years ago. 280 pages, 5X8, hard bound. Available from Bible for Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108, 800-564-6109, www.BibleForToday.org. THE REVISION REVISED by John Burgon, one of the greatest textual scholars of the last 200 years. This is Burgon's masterly refutation of the Westcott-Hort theories of modern textual criticism. Though published in 1883, it almost as relevant to the Bible text issue now as the day it first appeared. 549 pages, hard bound. Available from Bible for Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108, 800-564-6109, www.BibleForToday.org. SEVENTY-FIVE PROBLEMS WITH CENTRAL BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY'S BOOK "THE BIBLE VERSION DEBATE" by Lloyd Streeter. This excellent book is helpful for three categories of believers: (1) It is helpful for those who defend the King James Bible, because the author provides almost a handbook for answering the challenges of the modern Bible version defenders and for clearing up misconceptions pertaining to this important subject. (2) It is helpful for those who are confused by the Bible version issue and do not know who to believe. By using this book, the reader can analyze for himself the modern version position side-by-side with the King James Bible position. (3) It is helpful to those who are leaning toward the critical text, because they will see that many of the standard arguments in its favor are indefensible, or at the very least, they will see that "King James onlyism" is not what they thought it was. Though written from a non-technical position and for a general audience, it is obvious that Pastor Streeter has studied this issue diligently for many years. He is passionate about his subject, zealous for the Word of God, and unhesitating in its defense, while at the same time kindly and patient toward those who are opposed to his view. I believe this attitude pleases the Lord. The author is blessed with the ability to get to the heart of an issue and to simplify difficult concepts. Following are some of the questions that are answered in the book: Do the textual variants impact theology? Have most fundamentalists been KJV only? Do we believe that all non-English Bibles must be translated from the KJV? Is a good new English version possible? Are inspired translations possible? Were any miracles involved in Bible preservation? Is "baptism" a mistake in the KJV? Who owns the term fundamentalist? Is something wrong with the Masoretic Hebrew text? Do historical negative factors make a perfect KJV impossible? Is modern textual criticism destructive? Was Erasmus a Catholic humanist? Does God depend on natural processes for preservation? Was the Traditional Text in the majority throughout history? Was the first Traditional Text version made at the end of the Fourth Century? Do we believe in "reinspiration"? Do we opt for simplistic answers? Do Dead Sea Scrolls vindicate emendations on the basis of conjecture? Didn't the KJV have the Apocrypha? Has the KJV been revised? Is the NASB the best translation? Is the NIV a good translation? Is the KJV hard to read? Is there ever a time to separate over Bible versions? Pastor Streeter concludes the book with two appendixes. The first contains an insightful 29-page review of "From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man." The second edition of Pastor Streeter's book (2003) contains a new appendix critiquing Central Seminary's second book entitled One Bible Only? Order from Lloyd Streeter, First Baptist Church, P.O. Box 1043, LaSalle, IL 61301, THREE HUNDRED FIFTY-SIX DOCTRINAL ERRORS IN THE NIV AND OTHER MODERN BIBLE VERSIONS by Jack Moorman. "The Digest records the bare facts of a warfare that has raged through the centuries over the doctrinal heart of the New Testament. From the beginning, the pressure has been upon God's people to surrender the doctrinal edge of their Sword until it is something not much more than a butter knife! The 356 doctrinal passages listed here are what makes the Authorized Version unique among today's 'Bibles.' Despite the enemy's rage against these precious lines of truth -- in one manuscript, out of another -- they have all come home to their rightful place in the pages of the King James Bible. The Digest is, therefore, not only a record of the substantial support they command, but is also something of a chronicle of their warfare and travels through the manuscript period of transmission history." Available from Bible for Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108, 800-564-6109, www.BibleForToday.org. TOUCH NOT THE UNCLEAN THING by Dr. David Sorenson. The following review first appeared in The Fundamentalist Digest, Nov.-Dec. 2001: "This 'explosive new' book is a powerful defense of the KJV, as well as a thoroughly documented expose of the modem versions and their inextricable links to religious apostasy. In the reviewer's opinion, this book is not only the newest release on the market on this important issue, it is the most logical presentation and most thoroughly documented treatise since the publication of Dr. D.A. Waite's excellent treatise several years ago Defending The King James Bible. This book fills a much-needed void because it centers on a vital theme that has been vastly neglected in many otherwise excellent studies in this area: the application of the Scriptural doctrine of separation to the Bible textual/translation issue. Because of its logical order, reading format style and extensive documentation, this book can be equally used in a seminary classroom, as a college or Bible institute text, or as resource for church adult training unions. The 296-page book contains 11 information-packed chapters, plus five extensive appendixes, a selected biography divided into two sections citing books and articles. Sorenson has superbly woven the difficult twins of scholarship and simplicity into a treatise that can be readily grasped not only by full-time Christian vocational workers, but also by the average layman in the pew if he will seriously ponder the book's contents. In the book's introduction, (chapter one), the author indicates that he is a 'convert' to the TR/KJV position, having accepted the critical text without question during his college and seminary training. He began his pastoral ministry adhering to that position. After a friend gave him a copy of Dr. David Otis Fuller's book Which Bible, however, Sorenson began to see that 'the critical text had connections with apostasy' which made him, as a Fundamentalist, 'quite ill at ease.' The crux of the book is stated on pp. 4-5 when the author relates that the history of the Received Text is associated with 'persecuted, martyred brethren,' while the 'lineage of the critical text' is 'linked to apostasy at virtually every step of its history.' As the book unfolds it becomes readily apparent 'that one lineage is linked with apostasy, and the other with true believers.' On p. 7, Sorenson makes a potent statement that zeroes in on the heart of the issue. Sorenson's quote is the reason why the Fundamentalist Digest (FD) editor has become so vitally involved in this issue: It is because leading Fundamentalists are standing now at apostasy's door but are seemingly unaware of where they stand! Sorenson discerningly writes: 'As the debate regarding the textual issue continues, those supporting the critical text come perilously close to the position of "thought" inspiration.' Sorenson staunchly believes 'the integrity of the Word of God is at stake' (p. 9) over this matter, a statement with which the reviewer heartily concurs! Another timely observation by Sorenson is that he believes that loyalist graduates of Fundamentalist schools that promote the critical texts are in danger of moving in a direction that violates Biblical Principles. For Sorenson, as well as this reviewer, 'the issue at hand is the 'integrity, accuracy, and trustworthiness' of 'the Word of God' (p. 13)." Order from Northstar Baptist Ministries, 1820 West Morgan Street, Duluth, MN 55811. Phone: 218-726-0209 MODERN BIBLES--THE DARK SECRET by Jack Moorman. In my estimation, this 48-page booklet contains one of the best concise presentations in print today refuting the modern versions and defending the King James Bible. Using the popular New International Version as his basis, Pastor Moorman notes the serious omissions in the modern versions, the attack upon the Deity of Jesus Christ, and many other doctrinal corruptions. Some defenders of the modern versions, such as James White, have denied that the modern Bibles weaken the doctrine of Christ's deity, but they are dead wrong. In the 19th century, the Unitarians readily observed that they could support their doctrinal errors much more easily from the critical Greek text than the Received Text. The Unitarians in the first half of the 19th century were among the first to call for the removal of the word "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16 and for the obliteration of 1 John 5:7 from the Bible. The Unitarians could see what James White and D.A. Carson other defenders of the modern versions today claim they cannot see, that the critical Greek text is more in conformity with heretical theology. In Modern Bible Versions--the Dark Secret, Pastor Moorman also refutes the Westcott-Hort theory of textual criticism, gives much helpful information about the history of the Bible text, and presents an outline of the all-too-neglected doctrine of Bible preservation. Pastor Moorman has a gift of making the complicated subject of Bible texts and versions understandable to the average Christian. Available from Plain Paths Publishers, P.O. Box 830, Columbus, NC 28722, http://www.plainpath.org, 828-863-2736, plain@juno.com. THE BIBLE VERSION QUESTION ANSWER DATABASE by David Cloud gives accurate, diligently-researched, in-depth answers to 82 of the most important questions on this topic. A vast number of myths are exposed, such as the myth that Erasmus promised to add 1 John 5:7 to his Greek New Testament if even one manuscript could be produced, the myth that the differences between the texts are slight and insignificant, and the myth that there are no doctrines affected by the changes in the modern versions. The author has carried on extensive correspondence with men on all sides of this issue for the past 25 years, and this book answers the challenges that are made by the opponents of "King James Onlyism," including James White, D.A. Carson, Doug Kutilek, the editors of From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man and One Bible Only, etc. It also includes reviews of several of the popular modern versions, including the Living Bible, New Living Bible, Today's English Version, New International Version, New American Standard Version, The Message, and the Holman Christian Standard Bible. 423 pages. Available from Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061. 866-295-4143, The previous is part 2 of 2 parts of this report. See the Way of Life web site under "Articles Listed by Date" for the entire article. http://www.wayoflife.org |
|
|
|