“If ‘King James Only’ defines one who believes the preserved Word of God is available only perfectly in English, I am not ‘King James Only.’ ”
I read somewhere yesterday on a sign…
“With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.”
Edit: I was thinking “Cloud is not KJVO when pigs fly…” but actually, his view is probably that each language has one perfectly preserved translation, which makes the statement true.
More context
“With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.”
Edit: I was thinking “Cloud is not KJVO when pigs fly…” but actually, his view is probably that each language has one perfectly preserved translation, which makes the statement true.
More context
[Cloud] If “King James Only” defines one who believes the preserved Word of God is available only perfectly in English, I am not “King James Only.” The Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament and Greek Received New Testament translated correctly into any language is the preserved Word of God in that language, whether it is German, Spanish, French, Korean, or Nepali.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I find the following very strange:
I realize Cloud’s view on this is much less extreme than others (and I do appreciate that) but how else can you describe his view other than “King James Only.”
The term “King James Only” was invented by those who oppose the defense of the King James Bible and its underlying Hebrew and Greek texts. It was intended to be a term of approbation, and it is usually defined in terms of extremism.If someone says, “I accept ONLY the KING JAMES as the true and preserved Word of God and ALL other modern versions are corrupt,” is calling that person “King James Only” a “term of approbation”?
I realize Cloud’s view on this is much less extreme than others (and I do appreciate that) but how else can you describe his view other than “King James Only.”
MS -------------------------------- Luke 17:10
Mr. Cloud’s definitions are, as I see it, contradictory.
In the first paragraph, he argues that it’s OK to endorse and use the Masoretic and Received Texts, but then in the very next paragraph argues that to engage in textual criticism is wrong. I suppose he’s trying to split between lower and higher text criticism, where one is concerned about reconstructing the texts as we have them from extant MSS, which is a legitimate practice, and the concept of higher criticism, which is problematic based on its’ Rationalistic roots. Furthermore, he not only confuses the two, but then he attacks manuscript families based on nothing more than where some MSS were originally kept and found.
I do appreciate his efforts to clear up where he stands, though. This kind of clarification can be immensely helpful at times.
In the first paragraph, he argues that it’s OK to endorse and use the Masoretic and Received Texts, but then in the very next paragraph argues that to engage in textual criticism is wrong. I suppose he’s trying to split between lower and higher text criticism, where one is concerned about reconstructing the texts as we have them from extant MSS, which is a legitimate practice, and the concept of higher criticism, which is problematic based on its’ Rationalistic roots. Furthermore, he not only confuses the two, but then he attacks manuscript families based on nothing more than where some MSS were originally kept and found.
I do appreciate his efforts to clear up where he stands, though. This kind of clarification can be immensely helpful at times.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
David Cloud suffers from “diarrhea of the word processor.” He says he served as a missionary in Nepal, which is an admittedly tough gig. But where is his church? Who oversees his ministry? To whom does he answer? I’d like to see someone who is such a polemicist serve as a pastor instead of a bomb thrower. John MacArthur does it. Surely some larger Fundamentalist church would have him on its staff. He probably doesn’t want the accountability.
On the other hand, he opposes the extreme views of Peter Ruckman, whom he considers an embarrasment to Fundamentalism. He has also repudiated Gail Replinger, whom I heard speak two years ago and walked out on. She teaches that NO Greek text or lexicon is accurate, that they are all corrupt. Wow. Cloud is a moderate compared to that view.
On the other hand, he opposes the extreme views of Peter Ruckman, whom he considers an embarrasment to Fundamentalism. He has also repudiated Gail Replinger, whom I heard speak two years ago and walked out on. She teaches that NO Greek text or lexicon is accurate, that they are all corrupt. Wow. Cloud is a moderate compared to that view.
When Cloud is ready to acknowledge English translations of the Bible other than the KJV as God’s Word, I will be ready to acknowledge he is not KJVO. Until then, he is a KJVO trying to stand out among KJVO’s by limiting his definition/discussion to the points of his choosing.
If “King James Only” defines one who believes it is important to have one biblical standard in a language as important as English and who believes that the multiplicity of competing versions has created confusion and has weakened the authority of the Word of God, call me “King James Only.”
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
We know David Cloud’s position. What was the position of the KJV translators?
1. I do not believe they were King James only.
2. I do not believe they were TR only.
1. I do not believe they were King James only.
2. I do not believe they were TR only.
I would have to commend David Cloud. Of course not because of its great enlightenment but because of the kind of believers who move in his circle tend to embrace one or more of the excesses which he clearly rejects.
I really do not care so much as to whether the label KJVO does or does not fit Cloud because he fails to meet the standard of consensus or whatever means from which this KJVO or KJVO-not standard is derived, though I do not dismiss such a conversation, just not here and now for me. What is most satisfying is his unanticipated (at least in my mind) willingness to be emphatic about these kinds of views which are common properties of KJVO groups:
While for many these might not seem like big steps or even notable steps seeing that long ago this was quite reasonable in their minds, from his quarter it is good to see and hopefully the excesses of these kinds will be considered by his readers if they currently hold to any.
I really do not care so much as to whether the label KJVO does or does not fit Cloud because he fails to meet the standard of consensus or whatever means from which this KJVO or KJVO-not standard is derived, though I do not dismiss such a conversation, just not here and now for me. What is most satisfying is his unanticipated (at least in my mind) willingness to be emphatic about these kinds of views which are common properties of KJVO groups:
If “King James Only” defines one who believes that the KJV was given by inspiration, I am not “King James Only.”
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, as it would mean the preserved Word of God did not exist before 1611.
If “King James Only” defines one who believes that the King James Bible is advanced revelation over the Hebrew and Greek texts 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.”
If “King James Only” defines one who believes the preserved Word of God is available only perfectly in English, I am not “King James Only.”
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.”
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.”
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.”
While for many these might not seem like big steps or even notable steps seeing that long ago this was quite reasonable in their minds, from his quarter it is good to see and hopefully the excesses of these kinds will be considered by his readers if they currently hold to any.
[Cloud] He has preserved that in the Hebrew Masoretic …That might be Cloud and his fellow KJBOists’ position, but it’s not Jesus’ or His Apostles’, witness the numerous quotes of the OT in the NT.
Instead, NT writers providentially (the Lord seeing what KJBOism and Vulgate-Onlyism would create centuries later) routinely used a different Hebrew text base than the Masoretic, whether they were quoting Isaiah 61 in Luke 4, or other parts of the OT elsewhere, in the Epistles. They also considered those non-Masoretic quotes nothing less than inspired “scripture.”
Nah, KJBOism and “Verbal Plenary Preservation”—its sophisticated strain touted out of Collingswood, NJ—runs counter to the spirit and works of the Protestant Reformation and the Apostles and their Christ.
The Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament and Greek Received New Testament translated correctly into any language is the preserved Word of God in that language… (emphasis mine)I’d love to read a follow-up article in which Mr. Cloud explains what he means by “translated correctly.” To me this is a hopelessly naive view of language. Because, let’s not forget, the standard is perfection in this view. Oh, and it gets even more difficult when you throw out “corrupt translation methodology (e.g., dynamic equivalency).”
I don’t mean to be flippant, but I’m really starting to wonder if Mr. Cloud has ever attempted what we he argues for.
Surely many if not most of the readers of this website hold onto an orthodox view of the inspiriation of the Scriptures. David Cloud and most of the KJVO’s believe the same thing, with the possible exception of “verbal inspiration.” John R. Rice, who was NOT a KJVO, thought verbal inspiration to be a more-or-less mechanical process where God dictated the words and the writer copied them, hence his statement, “Standing for the verbal inspiration of the Bible” on the masthead of the Sword of the Lord.
Dr. Shelton Smith, the Sword’s present editor and publisher, who by the way earned his doctorate from Luther Rice Seminary, writes:
WE BELIEVE the Bible, the Scriptures of the Old Testament and the New Testament, preserved for us in the Masoretic text (Old Testament) Textus Receptus (New Testament) and in the King James Bible, is verbally and plenarily inspired of God. It is the inspired, inerrant, infallible, and altogether authentic, accurate and authoritative Word of God, therefore the supreme and final authority in all things (II Tim. 3:16-17; II Peter 1:21; Rev. 22:18-19).
Remove “preserved for us in the Masoretic text, Textus Receptus, and in the King James Bible,” and this statement matches most Evangelical and Fundamental doctrinal statements.
KJVO’s such as David Cloud and Dr. Smith hold so tightly onto preservation that it becomes almost indistiguishable from their view of inspiration. Both Cloud and Smith distinguish between the two in their theology but they fight furiously for preservation. Cloud is more moderate in his view concerning KJVO than is Dr. Smith, but his view is far stronger than the simple “I prefer the KJV.”
It is interesting to note that Cloud sharply criticized the Sword’s view of repentance, forcing Smith to write in response an article defending his view. Cloud recently placed Lancaster (CA) Baptist Church into his crosshairs over their use of more recent Christian songs in their worship services. Paul Chappell, the senior pastor, is a Sword board member. Perhaps this is a nod to the local Southern California culture where much of the Contemporary Christian music orginates. The music is played on a piano in the old style and the choir arrangements are similarly Revivalistic. This is not a new argument. Sankey and Moody were roundly criticized in their day about their hymnal and their style of music, which is now considered “tradtional.” Lancaster Baptist, however, remains on Cloud’s list of recommended churches.
Dr. Shelton Smith, the Sword’s present editor and publisher, who by the way earned his doctorate from Luther Rice Seminary, writes:
WE BELIEVE the Bible, the Scriptures of the Old Testament and the New Testament, preserved for us in the Masoretic text (Old Testament) Textus Receptus (New Testament) and in the King James Bible, is verbally and plenarily inspired of God. It is the inspired, inerrant, infallible, and altogether authentic, accurate and authoritative Word of God, therefore the supreme and final authority in all things (II Tim. 3:16-17; II Peter 1:21; Rev. 22:18-19).
Remove “preserved for us in the Masoretic text, Textus Receptus, and in the King James Bible,” and this statement matches most Evangelical and Fundamental doctrinal statements.
KJVO’s such as David Cloud and Dr. Smith hold so tightly onto preservation that it becomes almost indistiguishable from their view of inspiration. Both Cloud and Smith distinguish between the two in their theology but they fight furiously for preservation. Cloud is more moderate in his view concerning KJVO than is Dr. Smith, but his view is far stronger than the simple “I prefer the KJV.”
It is interesting to note that Cloud sharply criticized the Sword’s view of repentance, forcing Smith to write in response an article defending his view. Cloud recently placed Lancaster (CA) Baptist Church into his crosshairs over their use of more recent Christian songs in their worship services. Paul Chappell, the senior pastor, is a Sword board member. Perhaps this is a nod to the local Southern California culture where much of the Contemporary Christian music orginates. The music is played on a piano in the old style and the choir arrangements are similarly Revivalistic. This is not a new argument. Sankey and Moody were roundly criticized in their day about their hymnal and their style of music, which is now considered “tradtional.” Lancaster Baptist, however, remains on Cloud’s list of recommended churches.
[RPittman] Just goes to show that IFBs can disagree without separating or wrangling.
Or, it may just indicate an oversight, since Cloud’s list of recommended churches is fairly large and a particular recommendation may escape notice for some period of time.
Dave Barnhart
The Sword of the Lord’s statement on the Inspiration of the Scriptures minus the references to particular texts and versions is orthodox, in my opinion. In fact, their statement is stronger than my Fellowship of Grace Brethren Church’s Article I of the Covenant and Statement of Faith (see http://www.fgbc.org/contents/show/30 ). Though I subscribe to the “original autographs” theory its inclusion is not necessary in order to make a Statement of Faith orthodox. The Original Autograph Theory may well be one of those “details” that “(fall) within the parameters of orthodoxy.” The addition of the KJVO view of preservation to the Sword’s statement on inspiration is confusing at best and unorthodox as worst. Inspiration and preservation are two different theological topics and should be, ahem, separated.
Concerning your line, “Just goes to show that IFBs can disagree without separating or wrangling,” that is a wonderful statement if it is true. I honestly hope you are correct.
Concerning your line, “Just goes to show that IFBs can disagree without separating or wrangling,” that is a wonderful statement if it is true. I honestly hope you are correct.
Dawson Trotman, who admittedly said some unfortunate things in his day, hit the nail on the head when he stated, “God gave you a lot of leading when He gave you a brain.” The KJVO issue is a huge controversy that will not go away anytime soon.
On the one hand David Cloud says that ANY (my emphasis) “accurate translation” of the Masoretic and Received texts produce a preserved Bible (King James Only, para. 13). However, he also denies that the KJV is “advanced revelation,” and if it is, then “It would mean that the preserved Word of God did not exist before 1611” (para. 12). Though I’ve never formally studied logic, these two statements appear to be a “non sequitur,” that one idea does not follow the other. Preservation seems to be the logical development of two presuppostions that God is sovereign and that He inspired the Scriptures. God is indeed sovereign! God indeed gave us the inspired Scriptures! I can pull a few verses out from Psalm 119 and use them for proof texts for the Doctrine of Preservation. As I stated before, Cloud’s views on inspiration are accurate and orthodox. But when he states that God perfectly perserved His Word in the Masoretic and Received texts, is this a function of His sovereignty or of His inspiraton? This is the center of the KJVO contoversy and yet it utilizes rather fuzzy logic, in my mind at least. Does Scripture truly teach the Doctrine of the Preservation of Scripture? I say not. It is a logical construct.
Similarly, the Original Autograph theory is based on 2 Peter 1:20-21. Verse 21 states, “For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (NIV). We can be sure that when the prophet Jeremiah spoke and the Baruch wrote the words down, BOTH MEN KNEW that Jeremiah was speaking for God. Similarly, when Paul spoke on what became Romans and Tertius wrote it down, BOTH MEN KNEW that Paul was speaking for God. Moses was quite sure that God Himself wrote the Ten Commandments onto a tablet of stone. John was equally sure that Jesus Christ performed the seven miracles and spoke the words that he quoted when he wrote the Gospel of John many years after the fact. These men KNEW they were writing for God and the words they wrote were accurate and true in every detail.
The idea of the Original Autograph theory is when the prophet spoke or the evangelist put pen to paper, that action was inspired by God. However, when the OT scribe or the NT “grammateus” began making copies of what was written, these actions were not inspired. Can I point to a verse or a passage that proves this? No. It is a logical construct, but it makes good sense. In other words, it follows. Mr. Rittman is correct when he writes that the Original Autograph theory does not have Scriptural support. But as I stated above, “Its inclusion is not necessary in order to make a Statement of Faith orthodox.” I can hardly be much clearer, and if Mr. Rittman still objects to me writing about the Original Autograph theory on these pages, then he and I must agree to disagree agreeably.
May God bless you as you serve Him!
On the one hand David Cloud says that ANY (my emphasis) “accurate translation” of the Masoretic and Received texts produce a preserved Bible (King James Only, para. 13). However, he also denies that the KJV is “advanced revelation,” and if it is, then “It would mean that the preserved Word of God did not exist before 1611” (para. 12). Though I’ve never formally studied logic, these two statements appear to be a “non sequitur,” that one idea does not follow the other. Preservation seems to be the logical development of two presuppostions that God is sovereign and that He inspired the Scriptures. God is indeed sovereign! God indeed gave us the inspired Scriptures! I can pull a few verses out from Psalm 119 and use them for proof texts for the Doctrine of Preservation. As I stated before, Cloud’s views on inspiration are accurate and orthodox. But when he states that God perfectly perserved His Word in the Masoretic and Received texts, is this a function of His sovereignty or of His inspiraton? This is the center of the KJVO contoversy and yet it utilizes rather fuzzy logic, in my mind at least. Does Scripture truly teach the Doctrine of the Preservation of Scripture? I say not. It is a logical construct.
Similarly, the Original Autograph theory is based on 2 Peter 1:20-21. Verse 21 states, “For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (NIV). We can be sure that when the prophet Jeremiah spoke and the Baruch wrote the words down, BOTH MEN KNEW that Jeremiah was speaking for God. Similarly, when Paul spoke on what became Romans and Tertius wrote it down, BOTH MEN KNEW that Paul was speaking for God. Moses was quite sure that God Himself wrote the Ten Commandments onto a tablet of stone. John was equally sure that Jesus Christ performed the seven miracles and spoke the words that he quoted when he wrote the Gospel of John many years after the fact. These men KNEW they were writing for God and the words they wrote were accurate and true in every detail.
The idea of the Original Autograph theory is when the prophet spoke or the evangelist put pen to paper, that action was inspired by God. However, when the OT scribe or the NT “grammateus” began making copies of what was written, these actions were not inspired. Can I point to a verse or a passage that proves this? No. It is a logical construct, but it makes good sense. In other words, it follows. Mr. Rittman is correct when he writes that the Original Autograph theory does not have Scriptural support. But as I stated above, “Its inclusion is not necessary in order to make a Statement of Faith orthodox.” I can hardly be much clearer, and if Mr. Rittman still objects to me writing about the Original Autograph theory on these pages, then he and I must agree to disagree agreeably.
May God bless you as you serve Him!
As Bro. Frank so eloquently stated, the fact that the “Original Autographs” were inspired is clearly in the Bible, but the question comes when we try to decide what happened to them afterwards. I think we can also conclude from passages like Isa. 40:8 and Matt. 5:18 that God will preserve His Word in some way. However, the problems come when we try to make conclusions, saying HOW God did these things without clear Scriptural support, and then making these conclusions into doctrines as (or more) important than the Virgin birth of Christ.
When it comes right down to it, we all must decide whom to trust when we are trying to understand how God has preserved His Word. NONE of us has the ability to dig up and examine the thousands of manuscripts and pieces of parchment that have been found. None of us has the ability to compare the any of the extant texts with the autographs, so whether you believe the Majority Text, Textus Receptus or Critical Text is closest to the originals, you must base your conclusions on the evidence and opinions of others. (Unless, of course, you believe that God has revealed this to you directly! :( )
Sadly, these arguments about which text and which English version is “correct” among fundamentalists usually produce a lot more heat and smoke than light.
When it comes right down to it, we all must decide whom to trust when we are trying to understand how God has preserved His Word. NONE of us has the ability to dig up and examine the thousands of manuscripts and pieces of parchment that have been found. None of us has the ability to compare the any of the extant texts with the autographs, so whether you believe the Majority Text, Textus Receptus or Critical Text is closest to the originals, you must base your conclusions on the evidence and opinions of others. (Unless, of course, you believe that God has revealed this to you directly! :( )
Sadly, these arguments about which text and which English version is “correct” among fundamentalists usually produce a lot more heat and smoke than light.
MS -------------------------------- Luke 17:10
[RPittman]………..Thank you, sir, for admitting that the “original autograph theory” is a human construct and not a Biblical doctrine. Thus, it is open to question and debate. It ought not be a test of orthodoxy. Would you agree that if the “original autograph theory” is true, then we have no text of Scripture that we can call “inspired” today?You mention two things that must be defined before one can make conclusions on them:
- The Original Autograph Theory: I think we all agree that the “original autographs” were inspired, but the debate comes if you mean that inspiration refers ONLY to the production of the originals.
- Inspiration: We all agree that “theopneustos” refers to the fact that everything God wanted to be written in the autographs was written without error. However the question is, does theopneustos also refer to some inexplainable quality of the writing that can actually be passed on to a translation if it is true to the original? I have a book by Edward Goodrick called Is My Bible the Inspired Word of God? where he makes the following argument, based on 2 Tim. 3:16, “All Scripture [graphé] is given by inspiration of God [theopneustos] “:
Just as the Bible indicates that copies of the autographs are inspired because they are graphé and every graphé is inspired, so also can a translation be inspired. Going back through the fifty appearances of graphé in the New Testament, we ask if any of them clearly refer to the Greek Old Testament, which, of course, is a translation. Henry Barclay Swete lists some 160 quotations from the Septuagint in the New Testament. An examination of their contexts reveals that thirteen of these quotations are called graphé.
Then he goes on to list the passages.
I find this argument very compelling.
MS -------------------------------- Luke 17:10
Discussion