Powerpoint for this and hundreds more free sermons at our website:
http://gbcdecatur.org/sermons.html
audio at: http://gbcdecatur.org/sermons/KJV.html
The Bible / Versions / God’s Promise:
A test:
(count how many you remember and then I’ll tell you how old you are!)
1. Candy cigarettes
2. Wax coke-shaped bottles with colored sugar water inside
3. Soda pop machines that dispensed glass bottles
4. Coffee shops with tableside juke boxes
5. Blackjack chewing gum
6. Home milk delivery in glass bottles, with cardboard stoppers
7. Party lines
8. Newsreels before the movie
9. PF Flyers
10. Butch wax
11. Telephone numbers with a word prefix identifying the exchange
12. or the one which became a hit Glenn Miller song title! (Pennsylvania 6-5000)
13. Peashooters
14. Howdy Doody
15. 45 rpm records
16. S&H Green Stamps
17. Hi-fi’s
18. Metal ice cube trays-with levers
19. Mimeograph paper
20. Blue flash bulbs
21. Roller skate keys
22. Cork pop guns
23. Drive-ins
24. Studebakers
25. Wash tub wringers
26. The Fuller Brush man
27. Reel-to-reel tape recorders
28. Tinkertoys
29. The Erector Set
30. 5 cent packs of baseball cards…with a pink slab of bubblegum
If you remembered 10 or less: You’re still young.
If you remembered 11 - 15: You are getting old.
If you remembered 16-20: Don’t tell your age.
If you remembered 21 or more: You’re older than dirt!
I’m thankful for some old fashioned things, but none more than the timeless Word of God!
Ps 119:89 -
For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.
The Bible teaches that the Word has always existed in heaven (Jn. 1:1), and forever will!
There are many Scriptures that indicate God has providentially preserved His Word. Here are just a few.
Psalms 12:6-7 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
Psalms 33:11 "The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations."
Psalms 100:5 "For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations."
Matthew 24:35 (Jesus) "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."
Luke 16:17 "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."
1 Peter 1:23, 25 "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."
One of the most often asked questions of our Church is, “What Bible do you use?” We answer unapologetically, "our official church version we have chosen is the King James Version." (from the pulpit / lectern) Then we like to clarify, that it is not the ‘end all’, we don’t worship it as a version, and many people carry parallels and use other versions in their studies...and that’s ok. I do (the Greek and Hebrew, but not everyone can do that)
We have to choose something, and this is what it’s always been, it’s what I want it to be! We all need to be on the same page when scripture is read. This is not to say a person has to carry it or cannot carry something else. I don’t want this to be a test of fellowship. Rather than fight and grind that axe I’d rather just open it and preach from it, even tonite! And I want to distance myself from some KJV people who hold a similar position to mine, but have a rotten ‘disposition’ about it.
I’d like to explain why we’ve chosen the version we have. It’s by conviction, as well as by preference…but first…
…more and more individual Christians and unfortunately Bible-believing churches are forsaking the King James Version altogether in favor of the more modern translations.
o Revised Version
o American Standard Version
o Revised Standard Version
o New English Bible
o Today’s English Version/Good News For Modern Man
o Living Bible
o New American Standard Bible
o New International Version
o Several others being added all the time
We don’t judge those who have done this, and we won’t part company over it. But there exists a huge controversy among Bible-believing, Independent, Baptist Fundamentalists as to whether or not the King James Version of the Bible is the Bible to be used. A desire exists to forsake the King James Version (KJV) for the more “modern” translations. The argument is put forward that the more modern translations are easier to read because the translations update the language and leave out all those "thee’s" and "thou’s." I am very sympathetic and understanding of that. I even agree, and yet I still have good reason not to change.
Another argument tries to say that the new translations are more accurate than the KJV. Grace Baptist whole-heartedly disagrees with these and any arguments that claim that these translations are more accurate than the KJV. (flawed assumption that older is better [codex aleph, codex B, Sinaiticus/Vaticanus, Dead Sea Scrolls/Critical Text, Eclectic Text, Alexandrian Text, Byzantine Text]…we could talk about the Majority Text, Traditional Text, Received Text, Textus Receptus…Erasmus, Tyndale, Westcott, Hort…maybe privately if really interested...or bored!)
The bottom line is that virtually all modern versions which have come about the last century come from flawed texts, only a handful, which disagree constantly…the 2 big ones disagree 3k times! The King James is the only widely accepted English version which comes from the correct text-line! I’m not repeating talking points, I’ve studied this for myself and am fully convinced.
It is the position of Grace Baptist Church to reject these arguments and these translations, and to confidently say that we use the King James Version of the Bible exclusively in all services, ministries, or activities associated with our ministry. It would benefit you to carry it here.
But, why do we use the King James Version? Is it because Independent Baptist churches have always used the KJV and we can’t break tradition? Is it because we have adopted whole-heartedly, or even without knowing, the unbiblical teachings of Peter Ruckman and believe the KJV is advanced revelation? Or is it because the KJV is the most accurate translation in English because it comes from the preserved Hebrew and Greek texts? It is the latter reason why Grace uses the KJV. It is a conviction.
DEFINITIONS
Before we can accurately state what we believe about the Bible we must first establish some definitions of the terminology that we intend to use. These definitions will aid the reader in a clearer understanding of the position that will be explained.
Inspiration - is that process by which “God breathed” or wrote the books of the Bible by holy men of God, as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, in such a definite way that their writings were supernaturally and verbally inspired and free from error, as no other writings have ever been or ever will be inspired. (2 Timothy 3:16, II Peter 1:19-21)
Plenary Inspiration - is the view that all of the Bible is inspired.
Verbal Inspiration - is the view that "God-breathedness" extends to the choice of the words of Scripture. It asserts that the God-breathed truth was grasped by God-appointed men who were guided by the Holy Spirit in their selection of words.
Preservation - is the view that God will, and has, preserved His Word in pure form, (the word of God is pure…purified 7 x’s in a furnace of earth) including the most minute details (the jots and tittles, the words)
Inerrancy - is the view that the Bible is without error, that the Bible is correct in every statement it makes.
Infallibility - is the view that the Bible is effective in everything it does. When the Bible is used, it always works. It never fails us. The Bible is incapable of error.
But then translation occurs, and uninspired men get involved…a new variable (but is man capable of hurting God’s Word? Evidently, Revelation tells us not to!) On the other hand, the Word of God is so powerful, that I can see it’s power even in modern versions which I know have errors in them, but God’s Word cannot be overcome and never returns void. I’ve led people to the Lord out of most of the modern versions, even the Douay Catholic Bible!
OUR POSITION
Grace believes that God has preserved His Word as He promised, and that He has preserved it in the traditional texts or in the set of manuscripts known as the Textus Receptus. We also believe that the King James Version of the Bible is an accurate, faithful, and reliable translation of these manuscripts and that the English reader, therefore, can study it with utmost confidence and rely upon it. Grace can confidently say the King James Version is the inspired Word of God, not because God “breathed” again in 1611, but because the King James Bible was translated from the preserved texts.
AN EXPLANATION OF OUR POSITION
While Grace Baptist holds to the position that the original manuscripts were given by inspiration of God and are, therefore, perfect and inerrant both verbally and plenarily, we do not believe that inspiration as a process extends to any translation including the King James Version. Therefore, neither perfection nor inerrancy can be extended to the King James Version in the same sense that the original manuscripts were perfect and inerrant. To believe otherwise would lead to several conclusions which are unacceptable. Some of these unacceptable conclusions will now be explained.
First, to believe that the King James Version of the Bible is perfect and inerrant in the same sense that the original manuscripts were perfect and inerrant would result in our believing that the italicized words constitute additional revelation to that which was given at the time of the original writings. Revelation ceased with the completion of the New Testament. This is based on the position that the phrase “when that which is perfect is come” in I Corinthians 13 refers to the completion of the New Testament. At that time “that which is in part shall be done away” refers to several things mentioned including prophecy. Prophecy (or the giving forth of divine revelation) ceased when the New Testament was completed. Grace Baptist believes that the King James Version of the Bible is an accurate, reliable, and trustworthy translation of the best manuscripts. Although the italicized words were well done and properly included in the translation in order to help the English reader understand what he is reading and to aid in the smoothness of the translation, the italicized words are not inerrant.
The translators used italics in order to make it abundantly clear that these words were not part of the original, and that they had not added them to the original, because they knew well the Biblical statements warning against adding to the words of God. (Proverbs 30:6, Revelation 22:18)
Secondly, if a passage in the Greek or Hebrew text happens to be capable of more than one translation, all of which are equally accurate, viewing the King James Version as perfect and inerrant (in the same sense that the original manuscripts were perfect and inerrant) would lead one to conclude that the King James Version shows which of these possibilities God intended. This sort of thinking would in turn lead one to conclude that the King James Version of the Bible serves as a clarifier or corrector of the original manuscripts and is, therefore, actually superior to, and thus more authoritative than, the original Greek or Hebrew manuscripts. Grace does not believe that the King James Version of the Bible is superior to, and thus more authoritative than, the original manuscripts. We also do not believe that the King James Version of the Bible can be used as a corrector or clarifier of the original Greek or Hebrew manuscripts.
Thirdly, Grace believes that the sixty-six books comprising the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God and that the apocryphal books have no place whatsoever in the sacred canon. Note that the apocryphal books were included in the first edition of the King James Version but were later (and properly) removed. Thus, to believe that the King James Version is perfect and inerrant in the same sense that the original manuscripts were perfect and inerrant would bring us into conflict with our view of the apocryphal books and with their original inclusion in the King James Version of the Bible.
Fourthly, the King James Version has undergone several revisions. While recognizing that these were minor revisions consisting mainly of spelling and typographical corrections, this would have been totally unnecessary if the King James Version were perfect and inerrant in the same sense that the original manuscripts were perfect and inerrant. There was no necessity of revising the original writings. God the Holy Spirit so superintended their writing that the finished product was exactly what He wished to say the very first time He said it. Furthermore, the fact that there have been a number of revisions of the King James Version (however minor they may have been) implies that, if the King James Version of the Bible were perfect and inerrant in the same sense as the original manuscripts, we would then have to decide which particular version of the King James Version was perfect and inerrant (ie., whether it was the original King James Version manuscripts, the first revision, the second revision, or one of the others.)
Grace Baptist does not believe that there are “mistakes” in the King James Version, and does not perform any correcting of the King James Version. Grace does not believe that the translation of the King James is wrong or that the King James Version should have been translated differently (perhaps “could have” in a very few incidents). The only English version of the Bible we use is the King James Version. Grace believes that the King James Version IS an accurate translation of the Bible. At the same time, however, we do not believe that there is necessarily only one correct way in which a verse may have been translated. Therefore, we study Greek in order that we might better understand the Word of God and accurately teach and preach it. The Greek text is frequently used to clarify the meaning of the original in the thinking of the English reader. Therefore, it would not be uncommon for our preacher to say something such as, “Baptism is to be understood in the sense of immersion.”, or “Conversation is to be used in the sense of behavior or manner of life.”
A POSITION ON THE KJV THAT WE REJECT
Grace rejects the arguments of those who, in their pursuit to defend the King James Version against the onslaught of modern translations, textual criticism and the liberal church movement, have accepted questionable theology concerning the Scriptures and particularly the King James Version of the Bible. This questionable theology centers around what one believes the King James Version actually is. Some may feel the King James Version is given certain qualities, that it is inspired, inerrant, or preserved, and that these qualities will automatically settle the Bible version debate. However, when leaders of local churches accept a belief system that has no Scriptural authority, they end up with a theology that is corrupt, inaccurate, or completely out of line with what the Scripture teaches. The result is that these leaders then pass their flawed theology on to their members through their preaching and teaching ministries. Any theory which assigns divine origin to the King James Version, or which in any way includes the idea of inspiration or even preservation in its view of the production of the King James Version, is borrowing ideas from Ruckmanism.
What is Ruckmanism? A working definition of Ruckmanism is the belief that the King James Version is absolutely inerrant, containing advanced revelation over the Greek and Hebrew from which it came, with the demand for one exact, inerrant version to preach and teach. Ruckman teaches that the KJV English translation is superior to any Greek text (including the Textus Receptus), that it corrects the errors in any Greek text, and that it is “advanced revelation.” (“only thing you can be saved with!”…not true!)
About the modern versions:
Extremely popular, and can be helpful…but be careful!
Dr. Frank Logsdon was the Co-founder of the New American Standard Bible (NASB). He since has renounced any connection to it.
"I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I’m afraid I’m in trouble with the Lord . . . We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface . . . I’m in trouble; I can’t refute these arguments; it’s wrong, terribly wrong . . . The deletions are absolutely frightening . . . there are so many . . . Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?”
The major areas where the modern English translations are not doctrinally correct include:
• The Deity Of Christ
• The Virgin Birth
• God’s Method Of Salvation
• The Blood
• The Word Of God
They say they have to get down to the language of man. No, that is what makes it the Bible - the language of God. It is a landmark…it’s majestic, it’s not common —let’s not water it down! Let’s make accuracy and truth our deciding factors, and be willing to do the work necessary to understand a few places that get a little deep on us.
There’s only 1 version, and that’s God’s Word!
You can carry what you want, read what you want privately…if called upon in class, it should be KJV. You’ll be on the same page and not cause confusion…you will benefit!
The B-I-B-L-E, yes that’s the book for me…
• The NIV Casts Doubt on God’s Word
o The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)
o The Last Twelve Verses of Mark (Mark 16:9-20)
• The NIV Scissors Out God’s Word
o Entire Passages Questioned
o Entire Verses Omitted
o Portions of Verses Omitted
In Matthew
In Mark
In Luke
In John
In Acts
In Romans
In 1 Corinthians
In 2 Corinthians
In Galatians
In Ephesians
In Philippians
In Colossians
In 1 Thessalonians
In 2 Thessalonians
In 1 Timothy
In 2 Timothy
In Hebrews
In James
In 1 Peter
In 1 John
In Revelation
o The Johannine Comma Removed (1 John 5:7-8)
• The NIV Attacks Vital Doctrines of the Christian Faith
o Attack on the Eternal Generation of God the Son
o Attack on the Virgin Birth of Christ
o Attack on the Theanthropic Person of Christ
o Attack on the Eternal Punishment of Sinners in Hell
o Attack on Christ as the Judge Who is God
• The NIV Mistranslates God’s Word
o Mistranslation of Ps 12:7 on the Preservation of God’s Word
o Mistranslation of Isa 49:12 on God’s Promise to the Chinese
o Mistranslation of 2 Thess 3:6 on Secondary Separation
• The NIV Opposes a Strictly Messianic Fulfillment of Isa 7:14 in its Study Bible
English Revised Version (1885)
American Standard Version (1901)
The first full-scale frontal attack on the Word of God came with the publication of the ERV in 1885, and its counterpart, the ASV in 1901. Only a few voices of protest were raised. Most staunch defenders of the faith of that day were apparently unaware that the ASV differed from the KJV in over 36,000 places or that the Greek text underlying the translation of the ASV (the Westcott-Hort Text) differed from the Textus Receptus (underlying the KJV) in over 5,700 instances. Possibly it was because the Fundamentalists then were too busy combating the modernists’ infiltration of seminaries and churches; or, perhaps it was due to the fact that the ASV never really found great acceptance publicly. It was not until the publication of the Revised Standard Version in 1946 and 1952 that many Fundamentalists became aware of how effectively a new Bible version or translation could be used as a tool of Satan.
Revised Standard Version (1946, 1952)
Some of God’s people woke up with a start when the Revised Standard Version was published in 1952. This version, supposedly a revision of the ASV of 1901, eliminated the word virgin in the prophecy of Christ’s birth in Isaiah 7:14; made numerous other blatant changes; and was copyrighted by the apostate National Council of Churches. Protests were heard far and wide! Sadly, many failed to recognize that some of the things they found so objectionable in the RSV were also true of the ASV. The furore over the RSV gradually died down. But this was the version which plowed the ground and paved the way for future perversions of the Scriptures. It had conditioned people to accept changes in the Bible -- changes dictated by modern scholarship. At least the RSV left the word virgin in the New Testament references to the birth of Christ. It remained for the Good News Bible to remove it in both the Old and New Testaments.
Good News For Modern Man (1966)
Good News Bible (1976)
When the first edition of Good News For Modern Man (The New Testament in Today’s English) was published in 1966, the word virgin appeared in all the texts in Matthew and Luke referring to the birth of Christ. But, when the 2nd and 3rd editions were published and then the entire Good News Bible was published in 1976, the word virgin had mysteriously disappeared from Luke 1:27 while remaining in Luke 1:34 and Matthew 1:23. Of course, the latter two verses have no meaning at all if the word virgin is removed or replaced. Also, the blood of Christ, a most important and precious word and theme, was lacking in many key New Testament references. It was replaced by "death" or "costly sacrifice," both good words in their own place but now what the Holy Spirit gave in the original text. The heretical views of the main translator, Dr. Robert Bratcher, help to explain the many places in which the Deity of Christ is played down or omitted. The Good News Bible is one of the worst versions, yet it has been distributed by the millions, largely due to endorsements by Billy Graham, Bill Bright and other evangelical leaders.
The Living Bible (1967, 1971)
This is neither a translation nor a version -- it is a paraphrase. The Living Bible, praised by Billy Graham and other new-evangelical leaders, has already reached a publication figure of 21 million copies and has made its author, Ken Taylor, a wealthy man. It is very readable, but at the expense of truth in so many places. Taylor admits that the principle he worked from was not a "word-for-word" translation but rather a "thought-for-thought" paraphrase which he called, "dynamic equivalence." Taylor said he worked for the most part from the ASV of 1901, a corrupt translation to begin with. The Living Bible decimates the Scriptures, almost completely eliminating important and precious words and truths as grace (see John 1:17; Acts 4:33, 15:11,20:24; Romans 3:24; 2 Corinthians 9:8; Ephesians 2:8-9; Jude 4) and repentance (see Matthew 9:13 and Acts 17:30). "Honor" is substituted for "begotten" in Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5. Significant changes are made regarding such matters as creation in Genesis 1:1-2 and a prophecy of Christ in Zechariah 13:6. The meaning of Romans 8:28 is changed completely. Vulgar language is used in John 9:34, 11:39 and 2 Kings 18:27. The language of I Samuel 20:30 in early editions of TLB shocked many but it has now been softened. The author has left the door open for further suggestions, corrections and clarifications. Who knows what future editions may contain? Do you want a Bible that is being constantly revised?
New American Standard Version (1960, 1971)
The NASV was to be the Bible for conservatives, evangelicals and fundamentalists. The Foreword states that the NASV "has been produced with the conviction that the words of Scripture as originally penned in the Hebrew and Greek were inspired of God." The basic problem with this translation, however, is revealed in this statement: "This translation follows the principles used in the American Standard Version 1901 known as the Rock of Biblical Honesty." Who gave the ASV such a title? In the Principles of Revision, it is stated: "In revising the ASV consideration was given to the latest available manuscripts with a view to determining the best Greek text. In most instances the 23rd edition of the Nestle Greek New Testament was followed." This gets right to the heart of the major difficulty of all modern Bible versions -- most are patterned after the corrupted Westcott-Hort Greek Text instead of the Textus Receptus. The word virgin does appear in Isaiah 7:14, but a footnote says, "or, young woman" -- no doubt a sop to the liberals. Verses like Matthew 18:11 and Matthew 23:14 appear in brackets with a footnote saying, "most ancient manuscripts omit this verse" or, "this verse is not found in earliest manuscripts." A corrupted Greek text thus becomes the basis for raising questions about the entire verse. In other instances as in Luke 24:40, the number of the verse appears followed by "see marginal note" which explains that "some ancient Mss. add verse 40." One wonders if the NASV translators were determined to list everything anyone ever added or left out of a manuscript until one discovers that some parts of verses are left out with no explanation whatsoever as in Colossians 1: 14 and I Timothy 6:5. It is sad to see so many conservatives pushing this version and downgrading the KJV.
New International Version (1973, 1978)
Like the NASV, the NIV was produced by those who are said to "hold a high view of Scripture." Sponsored by the New York Bible Society, they admitted the N IV translators represent a "broad spectrum in evangelical Christianity" and the list of names confirms the broadness of the spectrum. Instead of being a revision of a previous version, the Preface says, "It is a completely new translation made by many scholars working directly from the Greek." The Greek text used is an "eclectic one." Translated into common language, that means they made a choice of different texts supposedly in "accord with sound principles of textual criticism." However, they did not state what those principles were -- and much of the previous undermining of the Scripture has been done on the supposed basis of "sound principles of textual criticism." Examining the text, you find that the NIV leaves out many of the same verses and portions that the ASV and the NASV also omit. An added problem, however, stems from the fact that where an entire verse is omitted, even the verse number is missing and only a small letter refers to a footnote of explanation. A careful study of this version confirms what one Christian leader said several years ago, "For every verse or word clarified in these new translations, two new problems are created." We agree with his statement. In a critique of the New International Version, one Fundamentalist scholar correctly objected that "words were dropped out; words were added; and key words were sometimes changed." Yet, the same objection must also be raised concerning the NewAmerican Standard Version which this same Fundamentalist scholar defends and recommends. This objection --the deletion or addition of words -- also applies to all the other modern versions. We still insist on using and recommending only the Authorized Version.
New King James Version (1979, 1982)
The NKJV is at least partially from the correct original texts, but not entirely, and was an attempt to help this problem we are discussing today, but I don’t think it did a good job, and I only recommend it as a parallel version at most.
New Revised Standard Version (1990)
The NRSV is the latest produce of ecumenical scholarship and will soon replace the RSV, thus helping to fill the financial coffers of the apostate National Council of Churches which holds the copyrights on both the RSV and NRSV. Translated by liberal Protestant, Catholic and Jewish scholars, and eliminating so-called sexist language, the NRSV with the Apocrypha, has already received the Imprimatur of the Roman Catholic Church and may well become the ecumenical Bible of the future.
--------
Again, we don’t preach this as a divisive issue, but simply a proclamation of why WE do what we do. We consider you a friend even if you disagree and use something else. Thanks for keeping an open mind as we do.
http://gbcdecatur.org/sermons/KJV.html
