“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.’ ”

8254 reads

There are 25 Comments

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

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

Cloud wrote:
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.

MShep2's picture

I find the following very strange:

Quote:
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

Jay's picture

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.

"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

jimfrank's picture

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.

Chip Van Emmerik's picture

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.

Quote:
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?

Pastor Joe Roof's picture

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.

Alex Guggenheim's picture

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:

Quote:

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.

J Ng's picture

Cloud wrote:
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.

Dan B.'s picture

Quote:
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.

RPittman's picture

Bro. Cloud tried to clarify this views. One need not agree with him but one need NOT ridicule the man. Often Bro. Cloud has been accused of being unkind or intolerant of others but he has been no worse than his critics have been toward him. If one wants to refute ideas, that is okay. To simply denigrate the person is another matter. Some of the attitudes and smugness of these posts say more about the posters than Bro. Cloud. Shame!

RPittman's picture

J Ng wrote:
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."
Not having the originals, it follows that they considered copies inspired. Is this your belief?

jimfrank's picture

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.

RPittman's picture

jimfrank wrote:
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.
Just goes to show that IFBs can disagree without separating or wrangling.

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

RPittman wrote:
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

RPittman's picture

jimfrank wrote:
Surely many if not most of the readers of this website hold onto an orthodox view of the inspiriation of the Scriptures.
It depends upon what you mean by orthodox. Warfield, JRR, et. al. all fell within the parameters of orthodoxy but they disagreed on details. There's latitude and diversity within orthodoxy. Are you specifically referrring to the "original autograph theory" meaning that only the originals, not the copies, are inspired? If so, I would argue that this is not a tenet necessary for orthodoxy because there is not one iota of Scriptural support. All arguments originate from extra-Biblical sources.

RPittman's picture

dcbii wrote:
RPittman wrote:
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.
Or, maybe he missed a synaptic connection . . . . .

RPittman's picture

J Ng wrote:
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.
Although I would certainly NOT question the foreknowledge of God but how do we know that He did a thing for a specific reason if He doesn't tell us? Bro. Ng, did God reveal this to you or did you think this up on your own?

jimfrank's picture

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.

RPittman's picture

jimfrank wrote:
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."
Should a theory with no Biblical support, such as the "original autographs" theory, be made a test of orthodoxy? Then, it depends on what you mean by orthodoxy. Is what a body of men call orthodox or is it what Scripture teaches. If it is what Scripture teaches, then I hardly see how the "original autographs" theory could be a part of the body of teaching (i.e. doctrine) that we call orthodoxy because it is not based on Scriptural support.

jimfrank's picture

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!

MShep2's picture

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! Sad )

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's picture

jimfrank wrote:
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.
Thank you, sir, for the clarification rather than an obfuscation as is too often the case. Rather than hammering the above quotation, I'll just hit it in passing. Although our brain (i.e. mind) is an avenue of God's dealing with mankind, it is not necessarily a means of knowledge. The mind is as capable of as much falsity as right thinking (e.g. atheism, cults, racism, perversion, ad infinitum). In fact, it was somewhat through the perversity of the mind that Satan beguiled Eve. Without right leading (e.g. the Holy Spirit, God's Word, etc.), it would appear that the human mind is more prone to wandering than following the path of righteousness. Nuff said.[/quote]

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![/quote]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?

MShep2's picture

RPittman wrote:
...........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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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 ]":
    Quote:
    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

RPittman's picture

MShep2 wrote:
RPittman wrote:
...........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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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 ]":
    Quote:
    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.

Thank you for clearly stating this position, although you did steal some of my thunder. This is exactly where I was leading but that's okay. I'm glad that someone else is familiar enough with the debate to bring this point-of-view to light. Yes, I agree. It is a compelling argument that I want to see the naysayers refute. My argument has been that the "Scriptures" in II Timothy 3:15, which Timothy had known from his youth, are the same "Scriptures" described as inspired in II Timothy 3:16. Obviously, Timothy and Paul were not reading the originals. Although the "original autograph theory" proponents usually argue for a semantic distinction based on the two words translated in verses 15 and 16 respectively, the context and common sense meaning of the text doesn't allow for it. Thank you!

BTW, thank you for mentioning Goodrick's book. I have not read it but it is going on my to read list.

MShep2's picture

Goodrick begins his book by saying,

Quote:
“Your Bible is not inspired! In fact, nobody’s is, because only the autographs were inspired. That is, inspiration is limited to the words as they were originally written down. Divine inspiration is both inerrant and infallible, and this can be said only of the autographs, the very first copy of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans and the very first recording of Isaiah’s prophecies. Copies and, much less, translations cannot be inspired, for both contain errors; and translations, being in different languages, contain none of the inspired words.

The preceding paragraph ought to disturb every pastor, every teacher, every pew-run Christian who loves his Bible, loves to study it, loves to teach it. It disturbs me considerably, especially when it comes from the very champions of orthodox inspiration. Something is very wrong with that paragraph. It leads us to conclude that, inasmuch as it is virtually certain that all of the autographs have perished, we are left with only copies and translations of an extinct inspired Bible. How it must knock the props out from under the simple, believing Christian when he is told that the church has been bereft of an inspired Bible for almost all of its lifetime.

This book is an effort to correct this viewpoint and, by examining the character of the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that survive and the character of their translation, to restore confidence in the very Bible you and I hold in our hands. It is a corrective that is needed by each one of us. For to the degree that the Bible we hold in our hands is inspired, to that degree is it authoritative. A person who cannot quote Scripture with a confident “Thus saith the Lord” is a shorn Samson.

Most books written to defend the inspiration of the Bible say little or nothing about the inspiration of that particular Bible you and I actually hold in our hands. The authors of these books are called apologists, and they often write in response to attacks against the Bible. Since the apologist doesn’t defend a segment of the wall not under attack but the segment that is, he can’t choose his subject matter. When infidelity attacks the character of what Paul actually wrote or Isaiah actually said, it sets the parameters for the attention of the apologist. This is why most books written today to defend the inspiration of the Bible zero in on the autographs to the neglect of your own Bible, the translation you bought and now read and study.

Since he uses the NIV in this book when he quotes Scripture, he definitely is not a KJVO person.

MS
--------------------------------
Luke 17:10