On The Other Hand
By Bro. David Cloud
I WILL NOT ACCEPT THE LABEL OF “KING JAMES ONLY” IF IT MEANS THE FOLLOWING:
If "King James Only" defines one who believes that the KJV was given by inspiration, I am not "King James Only." The King James Bible is the product of preservation, not inspiration. The term "inspiration" refers to the original giving of the Scripture through holy men of old
(2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21). At the same time, I agree with the Pulpit Commentary when it says, "We must guard against such narrow, mechanical views of inspiration as would confine it to the Hebrew and Greek words in which it was written, so that one who reads a good translation would not have 'the words of the Lord.'" To say that the King James Bible is the inspired Word of God in the English language because it is an accurate translation of the preserved Hebrew and Greek is not the same as saying that it was given by inspiration.
If "King James Only" defines one who believes the English KJV is superior to the Hebrew and Greek texts upon which it was based, I am not "King James Only." In fact, I believe such an idea is pure nonsense and would mean the preserved Word of God did not exist
before 1611.
If "King James Only" defines one who believes the English Authorized Version is advanced revelation over the Hebrew and Greek text that God gave through inspiration to holy men of old, I am not "King James Only."
If "King James Only" defines one who believes that we do not need to study Greek and Hebrew today or that it is not proper to use lexicons and dictionaries, I am not "King James Only." God's people should learn Greek and Hebrew if possible and use (with much caution and wisdom) study tools. When the Bible says that "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," we know that the words they spake were Hebrew and Greek words. I encouraged my youngest son to begin studying Greek in high school, and he is scheduled to have four years of Greek and two of Hebrew when he graduates from Bible College. But foundational to the study of the biblical languages is a thorough understanding of the textual issue. We must study the right Greek and Hebrew, and we must also be careful of the original language study tools, because many of them were produced from a rationalistic position and most were produced with great bias against
the Received Text.
If "King James Only" defines one who believes the preserved Word of God is available only in English, I am not "King James Only." The Masoretic Hebrew and Greek Received texts translated properly into any language is the preserved Word of God in that language, whether it be German, Spanish, French, Korean, or Nepali. There is a list of Received-text based translations in the "Directory of Foreign Language Literature" at the Way of Life web site. (See the Apostasy Database.)
If "King James Only" defines one who believes that translations in other languages should be based on English rather than (when possible) Greek and Hebrew, I am not "King James Only." (I also believe that a good translation can be made directly from the King James Bible when necessary if it is done by men who are capable in the use of dictionaries so that they understand the somewhat antiquated language of the KJV properly.)
If "King James Only" defines one who believes that a person can only be saved through the King James Bible, I am not "King James Only." It is the Gospel that is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16), and even a Bible that is textually corrupt contains the Gospel.
If "King James Only" defines one who believes that the King James Bible's antiquated language is holy or who believes the KJV could never again be updated, I am not "King James Only." I doubt the KJV will ever be replaced in this apostate age, but to say that it is wrong to update the language again after the fashion of the four updates it has undergone since 1611 is not reasonable, in my estimation. Having dealt constantly with people who speak English as a 2nd or 3rd language, I am very sympathetic to the very real antiquation problem in the King James Bible. At the same time, I am not going to trade a Bible with a few problems due to old language for a Bible filled with error due to a corrupt text and/or a corrupt translation methodology.
If "King James Only" defines one who believes he has the authority to call those who disagree with him silly asses, morons, and jacklegs, and to treat them as if they were the scum of the earth because they refuse to follow his peculiar views, I am not "King James Only."
Like This Page? Send It To A Friend!
Click Back