July 13, 1998 (David W. Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, Michigan 48061, fbns@wayoflife.org) - One of the confusing things in our day is the strange position taken by some who say they believe the King James Bible is dependable and who use only the King James Bible, but they WILL NOT take a stand against the modern versions and they do not like the division which results from the Bible version controversy. This an impossible situation. Indeed, things that are different are NOT the same! A Bible text or version, for example, which removes or questions (through brackets or marginal notations) dozens of key verses is not the same as a version which includes them. A text or version which includes the word "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16 is not the same as a text or version which omits it. A choice must be made and a stand taken.

Some do not want to have any conflict over the Bible version issue, though. Friends, if the Bible itself is not worthy of conflict, what is? The deity of Christ? What do we know about Christ's deity that we did not learn from THE BIBLE? Salvation by grace alone through faith alone? What do we know about salvation apart from THE BIBLE? The Bible is the foundation for everything we believe and do as Christians, and if we are not willing to contend for a pure Bible, we are shadow boxing in regard to everything else. It is the Bible which God has said He has MAGNIFIED ABOVE ALL HIS NAME (Psalm 138:2). In light of this I cannot understand how it would be possible to be TOO zealous for the details of the Word of God. Preacher, if you are tired of fighting for the Truth, you need to do one of two things: retire from the ministry, or stir up your calling and renew your zeal. Truth is falling to the ground, and any preacher not willing to enter the fray is a traitor and a coward. Contention itself can be good or bad, depending upon the motive and the objective; but it is a fact that truth has always been defended at the point of contention (1 Thess. 2:2) and God requires that His people contend earnestly for the truth (Jude 3).

Why do so many men who use the King James Bible refuse to fight for it? At root, the reason is simple: lack of conviction. They use it but don’t really believe it is the preserved Word of God in English. They use it but they don’t have a heart-felt, God-given conviction about its authority. They use it but they don’t really care about it. If a man of God man really believes something and really cares about something, he fights for it.

If a man is convinced that the King James Bible is the preserved Word of God in English, his conviction motivates him to stand for it and against that which undermines it. Such a man does not say to himself, "Self, you need to cause a lot of trouble among the brethren and become very unpopular with a large portion of them by making an issue of the KJV." The trouble and unpopularity is not a conscious design. It is a byproduct of standing for a conviction.

I understand what it means to not have a conviction about the King James Bible, because that was basically my condition when I graduated from Bible school in 1977 at age 27. During my Bible training (at Tennessee Temple), I was not taught anything about the history of the various texts and versions. The King James Bible was the only version used in the pulpit, but some of our teachers frequently corrected it. One of my teachers used the New American Standard Version in the classroom. In Greek class I was given a United Bible Societies text, and though we assumed it was the inspired Word of God, we were not told that it differed from the Received Text underlying the King James Bible. My Greek teacher held the position that the TR and the Eclectic text and the NASV and the KJV are all conservative and accurate. He did not believe that any text or version is perfectly the Word of God, but that all are generally the Word of God.

As a result of this training I began to question the absolute dependability of the KJV. I found myself questioning the text rather than believing it. Instead of merely analyzing the meaning of the Bible text, I found myself debating the authenticity of the text.

When I began missionary deputation in 1978 to go to South Asia, I was somewhat prejudiced against the "King James Only" position. I used only the KJV in my preaching, but I was very ignorant about the Bible text-version issue and was filled with misconceptions. I called one pastor to request a meeting and he said: "Son, I have a question for you. What do you believe about the King James Bible." I don’t remember what answer I gave him, but I do know that he discerned by my answer that I did not know what I was talking about! After hanging up I remember thinking that this pastor was obviously one of those "King James Only" hillbillies. (Pride is an intimate companion with the defense of the critical Greek text and the modern versions.)

I am saying that as a young preacher I did not personally make an issue of the King James Bible and I did not like the divisiveness caused by standing for the King James Bible and against the modern versions. The reason I did not make an issue of it then was because I lacked understanding and conviction on the subject.

A man who has conviction about the authenticity of the King James Bible as the preserved Word of God in English does not need to be obnoxious, but he does need to stand on his convictions. And he should not be surprised that the man who lacks such conviction misunderstands and misrepresents him.