[The following material is from O Timothy magazine, Volume 12, Issue 10, 1995. David W. Cloud, Editor. This material cannot be placed on BBS or Internet sites without express permission from the author. All rights are reserved. O Timothy is a monthly magazine. Annual subscription is US$20 FOR THE UNITED STATES. Send to Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, Michigan 48061, fbns@wayoflife.org. FOR CANADA the subscription is $20 Canadian. Send to Bethel Baptist Church, P.O. Box 9075, London, Ontario N6E 1V0.]

F.B.F. MAKES STRANGE STATEMENT ON BIBLE VERSIONS

By David W. Cloud

The Fundamental Baptist Fellowship met for its 75th meeting in Greenville, South Carolina, in June. John Vaughn and the Faith Baptist Church hosted the meeting. James Singleton of Tempe, Arizona, is Chairman. Pastor Rod Bell of Tabernacle Baptist Church, Virginia Beach, Virginia, is another prominent member of the FBF. The Resolutions Committee was composed of these men, plus Tim Jordan, President of Calvary Baptist Seminary; Dave Doran, President of Detroit Baptist Seminary; and Colorado Pastor Mat Olson.

Most of the Resolutions adopted were excellent. They spoke out against such things as Promise Keepers, Evangelicals & Catholics Together, the Laughing Revival, and Jerry Falwell's Neo-evangelicalism. We are thankful for every voice which is raised in these important matters.

I must take strong exception, though, to the FBF Resolution titled "Regarding Translations." I would like to draw our readers' attention to some of the dangerous and insufficient statements contained in this FBF Resolution. I believe it reflects a growing antagonism which exists in some Fundamentalist circles toward the defense of the Old English Bible which has been uniquely owned by God for more than three and one-half centuries. Those who stand firmly in the Old Paths in regard to the Bible text are considered trouble makers, while the apostasy surrounding the modern texts and versions is strangely ignored. According to this position, it is acceptable to use only the KJV, but one is not supposed to defend it boldly against perversions, nor to make an issue of it.

In August I sent a copy of this report to Dr. James Singleton, who in turn sent it to other FBF leaders. I waited two months before printing this, hoping they would issue a clarification, but this has not been done. I have decided to print this in O Timothy, because I believe it illustrates a dangerous position. Dr. Singleton did call me, and he told me that he supported the KJV and that his school used only the KJV and the Received Text. I know this is also the position of Pastor Rodney Bell in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Dr. Singleton told me the statement was chiefly a reaction to "Ruckmanism." The problem is that the wording of the statement rebukes any man who takes a decisive position on texts and versions and who rejects the modern versions as corruptions of God's Word. If these men really support the KJV, why make a statement like the following?

It is all very strange. Consider the statement carefully:

"The FBF, while recognizing that God has used the King James version of the Bible in a special way in the English speaking world, reaffirms its belief that the original manuscripts of Scripture are the documents which are inspired by God and that Bible translations may be considered trustworthy only if they accurately reflect the original manuscripts (II Timothy 3:16)" (Fundamental Baptist Fellowship, June 1995).

While there are things with which we can agree in the FBF statement, the sum of it is confusion. We are told that only the "original manuscripts" are wholly dependable, yet nowhere in this Resolution are we told precisely what is meant by "original manuscripts." Are we to understand this to mean those original documents which came from the pens of the Bible writers? If so, they no longer exist and no one living today can have anything whatsoever to do with them. Or are we to understand "original manuscripts" to mean some Hebrew and Greek text which exists today? If this is the case, would it be wrong to ask WHICH ONE?

We are told we can only depend upon the "original manuscripts" but we are not told where they are. This is strange. We are talking about the Bible. We are talking about the very Foundational Authority for everything we believe and do as Christians. Yet absolutely no mention is made of the fact that there are TWO basic lines of Bible manuscripts and that one has been preserved commonly among God's people down through the centuries (thus the name "Received" or "Traditional" Text) and the other is a recent novelty developed by nineteenth century heretics.

Most King James Bible defenders that I know defend it, first and foremost, on the basis of its underlying Hebrew and Greek TEXT.

They believe that the KJV is an accurate translation of the preserved Greek and Hebrew text. We don't believe the KJV translators were inspired; we believe they worked with an inspired text. But there are TWO types of texts purporting to be representations of the "original manuscripts": The Received Text and the Modern Critical Text. Why is this fundamental issue ignored by the FBF in their Resolution "regarding translations"?

"In light of the considerable discussion among Fundamentalists about the issue of manuscripts and textual theories, no particular belief about the best textual theory should be elevated to the place of becoming a core fundamentalist belief" (Fundamental Baptist Fellowship, June 1995).

This is wishful thinking. Nothing is more CORE than the question of what Bible we are to use. It is wishful thinking to presume that KJV defenders will consider this matter non-essential. Those who are convinced the Received Text is the preserved Word of God and that the King James Bible is the God- honored English translation of that preserved text must of necessity consider this a crucial issue. They are convinced the KJV is the only accurate English translation of the preserved, inspired Word of God. It is the inspired Word of God, not in the sense that the King James translators were inspired, but in the sense that it accurately reflects the inspired text. The modern English versions, on the other hand, are founded upon a corrupted text and are therefore corruptions of the inspired Word of God. The KJV position demands such a mind set. It cannot be avoided. If the KJV-Received Text position is correct, the modern versions must be rejected. It is not an either-or situation.

On the other hand, this is not the case for those who accept the modern theories of textual criticism. For these, there is no such thing as the perfect, preserved Word of God today. There is no one text or translation that they can point to as the authoritative, preserved, inspired Word of God. Thus they can easily have a take-it-or-leave-it attitude toward this issue. The underlying premise of modern textual criticism is that the preserved Scripture was misplaced through the centuries and only began to be recovered by textual critics in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. According to textual criticism, the Received Text which went to the ends of the earth for so many centuries represents a corrupted text. The purest text lay undiscovered and unused in such unlikely places as the Pope's library and a strange Orthodox monastery at Mt. Sinai. According to textual criticism, the text is still in a state of flux and probably will never be perfectly recovered. By its very nature, the Eclectic Greek text is fluid and unsettled.

These positions cannot be reconciled. I believe many good men have been brainwashed by their theological education in this area and have never taken the time to look diligently at the issue for themselves. How many men, for instance, have studied John Burgon's works for themselves? How many have studied Edward F. Hills? How many have taken the time carefully to study the volumes edited by D.O. Fuller which contain many works by scholarly nineteenth century Bible defenders? I certainly was not trained to be a KJV defender at school. I was trained in the eclectic position. It was only after becoming disturbed by the loss of perfect confidence in my Bible that I began to research the issue for myself.

I don't hate or despise those who differ with me on this, but I do consider it a CORE issue and it is one which I will not and cannot treat lightly. I cannot lightly dismiss what I consider to be GROSS ERRORS AND HERESIES underlying the modern version position. I cannot lightly dismiss that which I perceive to be one of the chief causes behind the weakening of the authority of God's Word in this century.

By the way, my statement that the Greek text underlying the modern English versions was developed by nineteenth century heretics is disputed by some men. We have therefore gone to the trouble of proving this beyond a shadow of doubt in our new book For Love of the Bible, which traces the defense of the Authorized Version and the Received Text from 1800 to present. Through an intensive process of research, this Editor has examined most of the important works touching this subject, both nineteenth century and early twentieth century. Few men have a more extensive library on this issue than we do. The bibliography in the new book is probably the largest in print on the issue of Bible texts and versions. We are not basing our convictions on hearsay, or on second-hand research. We have spent at least $10,000 in the research which went into the new book. We corresponded with hundreds of men from around the world. We interviewed dozens of key men. We have spent at least 200 hours in various theological libraries pursuing this matter, in addition to hundreds of hours in our own library.

You can disagree with me if you so desire, but please don't follow the popular line and claim that all King James Bible defenders are unscholarly country bumpkins. That, my friends, is a bald faced lie, and I, for one, am tired of hearing it. I believe it is a smokescreen which men use to avoid the real issues in this matter.

"Since no translation can genuinely claim what only may be said of the original, inspired writings, any attempt to make a particular English translation the only acceptable translation of fundamentalism must be rejected" (Fundamental Baptist Fellowship, June 1995).

Here again we find terms used with no clear definition. What is meant by the "original, inspired writings"? Where are they today? What is wrong with making a particular English translation the only acceptable translation of fundamentalism if that translation has demonstrated itself to be the preserved Word of God for the English-speaking people? Why is no distinction made between the KJV and the Received Text which uniquely exalt Jesus Christ and the Triune God, and other Greek texts and English versions which detract from Christ's deity? THE MODERN TEXTS AND TRANSLATIONS ARE ACCEPTABLE TO MODERNISTS, ROMANISTS, ECUMENISTS, CULTISTS, AND EVERY SORT OF HERETIC. THE KING JAMES BIBLE IS ALMOST UNIVERSALLY REJECTED BY THIS SAME CROWD. THAT TELLS ME SOMETHING.

That speaks volumes to the man who has ears to hear. We Biblical Fundamentalists reject the doctrines, philosophy, and methodology of the apostate and compromised crowd. How is it that some Fundamentalists are so quick to accept this same crowd's Bible? Doesn't make any sense to me, folks. I see it as a GLARING inconsistency.

In chapter three of our new book we demonstrate the fact that those most responsible for giving us the modern critical Greek text were nineteenth century heretics. Unitarians and German Rationalists had the prominent role in rejecting the Received Text. At least three Unitarians participated on the Anglo-American Revision at the end of the 1800s--G. Vance Smith, Ezra Abbot, and Joseph Henry Thayer. Other participants, while not openly Unitarian, were sympathetic to the wicked heresies of these men. Smith and Abbot were very influential in the project.

Both men gloried in the defeat of the Received Text and noted that the new critical Greek text conformed more closely to their own unitarian views. The vast majority of noted textual critics have been heretics who have denied the verbal-plenary inspiration of Scripture and have held various historical-critical views. The Fundamental Baptist who follows an eclectic textual position is following in the footsteps of heretics. [See the next entry in this month's "Digging in the Walls."]

Instead of warning about the supposed schismatic influence of those who cling to the traditional Bible text, the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship would do better to spend its energies sounding a clear alarm against the incredible multiplicity of corrupt versions and texts. This multiplicity has undermined the very authority of the Word of God in the minds and hearts of this apostate generation. There is no perfect Bible. There is no absolute standard. Every man is his own textual critic. It is a wicked hour, friends, and I, for one, refuse to keep quiet about this crucial issue.

[From "Digging in the Walls," O Timothy magazine, Volume 12, Issue 10, 1995. Editor, David W. Cloud. O Timothy is a monthly magazine which is available by subscription from Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, Michigan 48061, fbns@wayoflife.org. Subscription price is $20.]

See also--
"Dr. Bell's Flip Flop"
"F.B.F. Committed to Modern Versions"