Why
I Use the KJB
CONVERSTAION WITH A COMPROMISER
The following is an edited version of an email I had with an assistant pastor (soon to be acting pastor) of an Independent Baptist Church. The pastor is also a part-time missionary with New Tribes Mission which does not limit their missions work to the King James Bible.
He spoke at a Wednesday night service and mentioned churches that compromise. During the Q/A session I stated that my observation is that compromise starts with rejecting a standard Bible.
Please understand that my reference to “compromise” implicates a pastor as a compromiser. The label “compromiser” does not connote contempt, but rather compassion.
Karl Priest (May 6, 2010)
ME:
Your Wednesday night response to my statement about the beginning of local church compromise beginning when churches fail to use a standard Bible did not address the point I wanted to make. I will take the blame for that because I did not want to create a debate at that time. So I did not pursue the subject. It was interesting that you brought up the Jehovah Witness bible. I will use that excellent idea to make myself clear.
When you say that some churches have settled on a particular version, I wonder which churches. The only churches I know that have settled on a standard version are the King James Only (KJO) churches. Even a local “Bible” Church allows multiple versions and I have witnessed the confusion that causes with my own eyes and ears.
But, for the sake of discussion, let’s say that a church picks a version. The most popular version (I call all non King James Bibles versions “perversions”) is the New International Version (NIV). Do you know that the NIV is corrupt and comparable to the New World Translation (NWT) of the Jehovah Witnesses?
There are multiple verses omitted by both the NIV and the NWT. One writer asks about only one verse:
“This is one of the GREATEST verses testifying of the trinity. That is why the Jehovah's Witnesses leave it out. They do not believe in the trinity and they do not believe that Jesus is God. Why does the NIV leave it out...?” (http://www.sound-doctrine.net/VersesDeletedFromNIV.htm)
A detailed paper concludes that
1) The NIV is as corrupt as the NWT, or
2) The NWT is as accurate as the NIV
(http://www.scionofzion.com/nivx.htm)
The New American Standard bible (NASV) is another popular perversion. Here is a link to a handy chart that compares the King James (AV) with the NASV, NIV, and NWT: http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/various.html.
Another article (http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/NIV/vt.htm) states that “The NIV and the NASB are the same bibles as the Jehovah Witnesses' New World Translation.”
There are no bibles that are proven to be pure and sure except the AV. “Most of the modern Bibles line up very closely with the NIV--and so does the New World Translation--the Bible of the Jehovah's Witnesses which predates the NIV!” (http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nivdelet.htm)
A flock will follow its shepherd. Even if you do not become the pastor, the next pastor may have a position similar to yours—“The church uses the King James, but I (the pastor) use other bibles.” Should the next pastor decide not to lead the church away from officially embracing (in the constitution) a “King James Only” position, here is an idea someone else tried:
One day I read to my church a number of verses. I asked them if they sounded right. None agreed. They agreed to a one that something was wrong. Then I showed them the camouflaged Bible I read from was a JW's New World Translation. Everyone was relieved. Then I told them: "Every verse you heard is essentially the same in the NIV." (http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/saved.asp) By the way, the man who wrote that (you should read the entire article) seems very much like you regarding his interest in scholarship.
I will not stir up division over this issue, but I will not compromise my stand.
In Christ,
P.S. I previously sent you a link (http://insectman.us/testimony/why-king-james.htm) that provides other reasons for not using bible perversions. Perhaps you missed the email.
Him: Thanks for writing. I do realize that you are very passionate about the KJV and I respect that. When you made the comment Wednesday night I understood the direction that you were going, and I appreciate that you didn’t pursue it.
I would like to clarify to you my stand regarding different English versions: I use and preach from the KJV. You mentioned the NIV and I can tell you that several years ago I essentially came to the same conclusion as described in the web site you sent me. I do not use the NIV in my work. However it is useful for a Bible translator to see how other qualified translators rendered passages of scripture. Even the King James translators did so; as much as was available to them. Therefore I use several other versions (in three different languages) as references.
I have studied in and out of my formal Bible school training about the history of the KJV and some of the more popular modern English versions. A few years back, I was home on furlough and looked up something about it on the internet. I came across a KJVO web site and was shocked to see how big of controversy it had become. I was surprised at the mean spiritedness that is evident in many of the blogs where the KJVO position is debated; I’m speaking about people that are defending both sides of the issue. I do not share the passion of the KJVO movement to condemn other English versions. My passion is for those in the world who have NO version of the Bible in their language. Therefore, I am not one to debate the KJVO issue.
Me: Thank you for your thoughtful response.
The issue is not complicated.
Is there a Bible that has no errors? If so, which one?
What is the chance that the church will embrace (in its constitution) the King James Bible?
There cannot be a healthy church that compromises on bible versions. My webpage “Why I Use the KJB” explains why. Below are some ideas from webpages of other Bible believing churches.
>Unashamedly KJV http://www.biblebelievers.com/churches/
>We believe the King James Bible AV 1611 is the Scriptures (2 Tim 3:16) and we accept it as the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. http://www.biblebelievers.com/churches/
>The instruments of government of this church shall be the Holy Bible, (King James Version), the Church Covenant (Instrument Number I), Articles of Faith (Instrument Number II), Constitution and Bylaws (Instrument Number III), and the Church Policy (Instrument Number IV). http://www.biblebelievers.com/churches/
>We believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. We believe the Bible to be without fault and fully trustworthy. We believe the Bible to be the final authority of the church and believer, and that it is the sole basis for all practice and doctrine. We believe God has preserved the Bible through the majority or received text and only use the Authorized King James Version. http://www.biblebelievers.com/churches/
We believe that the God who inspired the Scriptures is powerful enough to preserve them in the manner for which He intended us to have them. We believe in the providential PRESERVATION of the true word of God, as well as the providential INSPIRATION of the word of God; and that the purpose of this is to preserve the Infallibility of the Inspired Original Text. We believe that the providential preservation of the New Testament concentrated itself on the GREEK text within the sphere of the Greek Church through Antioch of Syria and that the text of the majority of manuscripts from this area is the providential preserved and AUTHORIZED text; the text of the majority is the standard text. This text is the Textus Receptus of the Syrian (Byzantine) extraction coming to the English speaking people through the Reformation of the Balkans and Germany. The final and outstanding representative of this text is the Authorized King James, A.V. 1611, which represents a purified, neutral, inerrant text (Beza's fifth edition with improvements over Erasmus). We also believe the A.V. 1611 to be the absolute, final, sole authority in all matters of life, faith and practice. (Ps. 12:6-7; II Pet. 1:17-21; II Tim. 3:16-17; Deut. 3:3; Matt. 24:35) http://www.biblebelieversbaptist.com/What_We_Believe/page_2269882.html
Him: Regarding an amendment to the church constitution: The board spent much time and energy in developing the current constitution. We were very deliberate in what was said and did not say. Our discussions about Bible versions affirmed that we are KJVP, but not KJVO.
We will, of course, continue using the KJV for teaching and preaching. However, we will not forbid using other versions for reference material. The KJV translators certainly did the same. Brother, I understand your concern. We all have a certain degree of difference in our opinions. Nevertheless Christian fellowship thrives when we are in agreement about the essentials of faith. I believe that we have that blessed connection.
Me: I reread your emails and in this, my last, correspondence on this issue I want to clarify some things.
1. The tone of debate on Internet sites is irrelevant.
2. The KJV translators used earlier translations which God had preserved. They improved them.
3. Missionaries used the KJB for over 400 years. To provide innocent indigenous people a compromised bible is unnecessary.
4. Sadly, the main difference between your Baptist church and other denominations (like the Methodists) is that the others have traveled further down the slope of compromise.
5. You said that you “essentially came to the same conclusion” as I did regarding the corrupt NIV. Let me pose some rhetorical questions. You say that your church is KJVP. Does that mean that you prefer a bible which you think is imperfect over other imperfect bibles? If someone wanted to teach or preach out of the NIV at your church would they be allowed? Is the church going to issue a statement that bibles A, B, and C are OK, but bibles C, D, and E are not? Don’t you see the confusion that will result in your silence or any attempt to make sense of multiple bibles that do not say the same thing?
6. No multi-version preacher has ever told me which version is God’s inerrant Word. I wonder how a man can stand in the pulpit and preach from a book he believes has errors. It would be better to stand up with a Matthew Henry Commentary to preach rather than a perversion that the congregation incorrectly assumes is the Word of God.
7. A church board has considerable responsibility for allowing a membership to compromise, but the board’s responsibility is far below that of the pastor who leads a flock into confusion. The cartoon at the bottom of “Why I Use the KJB” is serious.
I have spoken to you out of brotherly love. I will not pursue the matter with the church. My conscience is clear. We both will be held accountable for what we do regarding God’s Holy Word.
The conclusion of this issue is simple. Compromise leads to confusion. God is not the author of confusion. Confusion leads to corruption ( made inferior by errors or alterations-- http://dictionary.reference.com/ . A corrupted church will collude with the world.
I pray for pastors.
Should you desire further study, I suggest seeing the answer to these questions at http://www.insectman.us/testimony/kjb-questions.htm.
In Christ,
Return to “Why I Use the KJB”.
|
