Fundamental Baptists who are promoting the rejection of the King James Bible, such as Bryan Samms and Joshua Barzon (author of The Forgotten Preface), do not properly understand the issue. For example, Barzon quotes from the preface to the 1611 King James Version and contends that the KJV translators would support the modern versions, not understanding that the King James Bible is our authority, not the King James translators. The translators themselves were wrong about many things, including church-statism, territorial bishops, the authority of the “church fathers,” and infant baptism. 

Further, the King James translators did not know that within 300 years Protestant and evangelical biblical scholarship would be deluged by unbelief and skepticism and this would terribly leaven the fields of textual criticism and translation. 

In light of their stance on the infallible inspiration of Scripture, as beautifully expressed in the Preface to the 1611, it is certain that the King James translators would not look with favor on this.

And in light of the King James translators’ fervent anti-Papism, it is certain that they would not support the critical Greek text’s sympathy for the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus and the pro-Catholic climate that permeates the field of Bible translation today. They would understand that this is no small matter.

Consider John Rainolds, leader of the Puritan party at Hampton Court when James I was presented with the request for a new translation. Rainolds had converted from Catholicism and became one of England’s greatest champions for Protestantism. He defeated the Romanist John Hart in a national debate. “After several combats, the Romish champion owned himself driven from the field” (Alexander McClure, Translators Revived). Rainolds also publicly refuted Cardinal Bellarmine, who was considered Rome’s greatest apologist. 

If the churches are not properly educated on this subject, it is impossible that they will stand against the storm of error and confusion that is raging today. Sooner or later they will be swept into the world of the multiplicity of Bible versions, the world of textual criticism, the world of every individual doing that which is right in his own eyes, the world of the destruction of absolute biblical authority, the world of evangelicalism, with its lack of proper boundaries and its bridges to every heresy in the “broader church” today.  

The New King James Version is recommended by Samms and Barzon as the next step in the abandonment of the King James Version, but the NKJV is not a standard in itself, it is a convenient bridge to the modern versions. 

Protection requires that the pastors and preachers and teachers first be properly educated. Then they must educate the entire flock. 

Education is available from many sources. We recommend Why We Hold to the King James Bible, which is available at the Book and the Course sections of the Way of Life web site, www.wayoflife.org.

Further, it is not enough that the churches be properly educated on the text/translation issue. They must be serious students of the King James Bible. Serious study is the solution to the slight antiquation that is held forth as a reason to abandon the KJV. 

A great many fundamental Baptist churches are biblically shallow. The preaching and teaching is shallow. Most of the people are not serious Bible students. They don’t know the principles of Bible interpretation. They don’t know how to have an effectual daily Bible study. They don’t have the right tools and don’t know know how to use them. This is evident in the homes. The fathers and mothers are not serious Bible students, and the children are not taught to be Bible students. The youth are entertained but not seriously discipled. 

What good is it that such a church is “KJV”? There is still death in the pot.

The following is excerpted from Why We Hold to the King James Bible -

THE LITERARY CLIMATE OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE

1. By the early 17th century, the English Bible had been developing for more than two centuries. 

The wording of the King James Bible represents the labors of centuries of brilliant, believing, sacrificial, godly scholarship. Dozens of some of the best biblical linguists who have ever lived applied their minds and their prayers to translating into English precisely what the Hebrew and Greek text mean. 

“Thus it came to pass, that the English Bible received its present form, after a fivefold revision of the translation as it was left in 1537 by Tyndale and Rogers. During this interval of seventy-four years, it had been slowly ripening, till this last, most elaborate, and thorough revision under King James matured the work for coming centuries” (Alexander McClure, The Translators Revived, 1855, p. 59). 

2. By the early 17th century, the English language was at its apex. 

Alexander McClure observed: “The English language had passed through many and great changes, and had at last reached the very height of its purity and strength. The Bible has ever since been the grand English classic. It is still the noblest monument of the power of the English speech. It is the pattern and standard of excellence therein” (The Translators Revived).

3. By the early 17th century, knowledge of biblical languages was at an apex. 

Consider the following descriptions of that time, called “a period which was remarkable both in its wealth of eruditional effort and in the significance of its concentration of deepest learning on the Bible centre,” from The Cambridge History of English and American Literature (1907–21): 

- “LARGE PORTIONS OF THE SCRIPTURES WERE KNOWN BY HEART, NOT ONLY BY MINISTERS, BUT, ALSO, BY THE LAITY, AND EVEN BY CHILDREN, who were also well drilled in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs and other histories of persecutions. Whilst French Huguenot children were trained, Spartanlike, to look forward to dying for the faith, English children, from the earliest age, were disciplined in prayer, in reading books of devotion and in the close knowledge of Bible histories and Bible doctrine. ... Hence, we notice psychologically, THERE WERE DEVELOPED ENORMOUS INDUSTRY IN LEARNING, endurance in listening to preachers and teachers, tenacious memory and the power of visualising and concentrating the thoughts on Bible heroes, Bible stories, Bible language and Bible aspirations. Scripture students were indefatigable workers. Bishop Morton was at his studies before four o’clock in the morning, even after he was 80 years of age. Matthew Poole rose at three or four o’clock, ate a raw egg at eight or nine, another at twelve and continued his studies till late in the afternoon. Sir Matthew Hale, for many years, studied sixteen hours a day. For several years John Owen did not allow himself more than four hours’ sleep. FEATS OF MEMORY ARE AS REMARKABLE FOR THEIR FREQUENCY AS FOR THEIR COMPREHENSIVENESS, AND WERE PRACTISED FROM EARLY CHILDHOOD in the repeating of sermons, in the learning of Latin grammar and in almost every academic discipline. Moreover, the number of references to memory testifies to the conscious cultivation of the art. ... In short, the scholarship and learning of this period, by their direct bearing upon the Bible, permeated and transfigured the national life in a rare degree, giving it, in spite of all its excesses and deficiencies, A STRENUOUSNESS, SOBRIETY, AND, ON THE WHOLE, A SINCERITY, PROBABLY NEVER SO LARGELY SUSTAINED, BY BOOK LEARNING, IN ANY AGE, and rarely in any country” (The Cambridge History of English and American Literature, Vol. VII, Cavalier and Puritan, Part XIII, “Scholars and Scholarship, 1600–60”).

- “From the time of the new Elizabethan and Stewart foundations of grammar schools, THE THREE ‘HOLY’ LANGUAGES--LATIN, GREEK AND HEBREW--HAD BEEN THE AIM OF PROTESTANT WORKERS IN EDUCATION, not only for providing antagonists capable of meeting Catholic opponents in disputation, orally and in books, but, also, for coming ‘nearer’ to the primitive times of the Christian era. BOYS IN SCHOOL WERE TO LEARN THEIR CATECHISM IN A GREEK TEXT, READ THE NEW TESTAMENT IN GREEK, LEARN, IF MIGHT BE, TO SPEAK IN GREEK. The aim of school and university, in their Greek studies, was, in the long run, theological” (The Cambridge History of English and American Literature, Vol. VII, Cavalier and Puritan, Part XIII Scholars and Scholarship, 1600–60, “Hebrew scholarship”). 

Consider the testimony of J.W. Whittaker, two centuries after the completion of the KJV. In 1820, Whittaker, Fellow of St. John’s, Cambridge, published An Historical and Critical Enquiry into the Interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures, with Remarks on Mr. Bellamy’s New Translation. It was a brilliant defense of the Authorized Version against John Bellamy’s harsh criticisms. Bellamy had launched a vicious attack on the accuracy of the King James Bible and had made the accusation that the translators of the KJV and its predecessors were not skilled in Hebrew. Whittaker, a Hebrew scholar, carefully described the linguistic excellencies of Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, John Rogers, and the translators of the Great Bible, the Geneva, the Bishops, and the Authorized 1611. Whittaker made the following statement about the early 17th century: “Had this gentleman [Bellamy] consulted any historical authority, or in the slightest degree investigated the characters of our translators, he would have found that many of them were celebrated Hebrew scholars, and could not have failed to perceive that THE SACRED LANGUAGE WAS AT THAT TIME CULTIVATED TO A FAR GREATER EXTENT IN ENGLAND THAN IT HAS EVER BEEN SINCE. ... The Universities, and all public bodies for the promotion of learning, flourished in an extraordinary degree, and AT THIS HAPPY JUNCTURE OUR TRANSLATION WAS MADE. Every circumstance had been conspiring during the whole of the preceding century to extend the study of Hebrew. The attempts of the Papists to check the circulation of the translations, the zeal of the Protestants to expose the Vulgate errors, the novelty of theological speculations to society at large, and even the disputes of the Reformed Churches, GAVE AN ANIMATED VIGOUR TO THE STUDY OF THE ORIGINAL SCRIPTURES WHICH HAS NEVER SINCE BEEN WITNESSED (Whittaker, pp. 99-104).

Consider the testimony of Alexander McClure, author of The Translators Revived (1855): “As to the capability of those men, we may say again, that, by the good providence of God, their work was undertaken in a fortunate time. Not only had the English language, that singular compound, then ripened to its full perfection, but THE STUDY OF GREEK, AND OF THE ORIENTAL TONGUES, AND OF RABBINICAL LORE, HAD THEN BEEN CARRIED TO A GREATER EXTENT IN ENGLAND THAN EVER BEFORE OR SINCE” (The Translators Revived, pp. 59, 61). 

Biblical scholars of that day grew up with Latin, Greek, and Hebrew and were as at home in these languages as in their mother tongue. One of the KJV translators, as we will see, could read the Hebrew Bible at age five. In our day, scholars don’t ordinarily even begin to learn the biblical tongues until college days or later. 

- Note on becoming a “Fellow”* of a college at Cambridge or Oxford: There were a severely limited number of Fellow positions in a college and the competition was fierce. It was a much more prestigious and sought after position than it is today. Alexander McClure describes that as “A TIME WHEN THE STUDY OF SACRED LITERATURE WAS PURSUED BY THOUSANDS WITH A ZEAL AMOUNTING TO A PASSION.” It attracted some of the nation’s brightest men. Such an atmosphere in the field of theology exists nowhere in the world today. It could be compared today only to something like the field of sports, in which thousands of athletes compete earnestly from their youth to win a place on a professional team. [* A Fellow was a teacher and usually had a company of five or six students and was also involved in college administration -- Opfell, The King James Bible Translators, p. 45.]

- The educational climate at Oxford and Cambridge in that day was very serious. At Emmanuel College, for example, “The recreational schedule consisted only of one hour after dinner at 11 a.m. and one hour after supper at 5 p.m. Undergraduates were expected to be at work ‘in the college’ at all other times” (Opfell, p. 48). For those familiar with conditions in colleges and seminaries today, it is obvious that the level of scholarship has deteriorated significantly; recreation takes up a much larger portion of the average student’s time today.

4. The fierce religious debates of that time resulted in zeal for biblical scholarship and caution about the details of biblical translation that has no comparison in our day. 

“The time when our authorized version was completed was a time of awful contention between catholics and protestants; a contest in which whole nations were embarked to a man, arranged under their respective civil authorities. Every nerve was strained on both sides to obtain the ascendency. Learning, talents, piety and zeal rushed forth to the conflict. AND THE MIGHTY FIELD ON WHICH THEY MET WAS, ‘THE TRANSLATION OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES INTO THE VULGAR TONGUES.’ In this fearful combat England stood at the head of the Protestant union; and both sides were fully aware of the incalculable consequences connected with an authorized version of the sacred scriptures into the English tongue. The catholics watched every measure of our government, and put every verse of our translation to the severest scrutiny. The Catholics had already sanctioned the Vulgate, and were prepared to inpugn every sentence wherein our version should differ from their authorized text. The mass of protestant learning was engaged on the one side to make our version as fair a copy as possible of the matchless originals; and the mass of popish erudition, on the other side, stood fully prepared to detect every mistake, and to expose without mercy every error of our public version” (James Lister, The Excellence of the Authorized Version of the Sacred Scriptures Defended against the Socinian, 1820, pp. 14, 15).

5. Further, it is essential to understand that biblical scholarship has taken a dramatically rationalistic turn since the 19th century. 

Most of the great names in this field have been affected by this spirit of unbelief, including the authors of many of the important lexicons and study aids, such as Joseph Thayer, Samuel Driver, Eberhard Nestle, Hermann von Soden, Gerhard Kittel, Eugene Nida, Kurt and Barbara Aland, and Bruce Metzger. 

We have documented this sad story in the book The Modern Bible Version Hall of Shame, which is available as a free eBook from the Books section of the Way of Life web site, www.wayoflife.org.

As an example, consider the following statements by Bruce Metzger, one of the most prominent textual critics of the 20th century and an editor of the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament, which is used all over the world:

The Pentateuch is “a matrix of myth, legend, and history” (Bruce Metzger and Herbert May, The New Oxford Annotated Bible).

“The opening chapters of the Old Testament deal with human origins. They are not to be read as history” (Metzger and May, New Oxford Annotated Bible).

Genesis contains “traditions that go back in some cases to Moses” (Metzger, Reader’s Digest Condensed Bible).

“Archaeological evidence suggests that traditions of a prehistoric flood covering the whole earth are heightened versions of local floods” (Metzger and May, New Oxford Annotated Bible).

“The ancient FOLKTALE of Job ... was probably written down in Hebrew at the time of David and Solomon or a century later (about 1000-800 B.C.)” (Metzger and May, New Oxford Annotated Bible).

“Only chs. 1-39 can be assigned to Isaiah’s time; it is generally accepted that chs. 40-66 come from the time of Cyrus of Persia (539 B.C.) and later” (Metzger and May, New Oxford Annotated Bible).

“The book of Jonah is ... a POPULAR LEGEND” (Metzger and May, New Oxford Annotated Bible).

In the mid-1800s, Charles Philpot, leader of the Gospel Standard Baptists and Fellow of Worcester College, Oxford, took up the question of “Who would undertake a revision of the Authorized Version today?” He said: “Of course they must be learned men, great critics, scholars, and divines. BUT THESE ARE NOTORIOUSLY EITHER TAINTED WITH POPERY OR INFIDELITY. Where are the men, learned, yet sound in Truth, not to say alive unto God, who possess the necessary qualifications for so important work? And can erroneous men, dead in trespasses and sins, carnal, worldly, ungodly persons, spiritually translate a Book written by the blessed Spirit? We have not the slightest ground for hope that they would be godly men, such as we have reason to believe translated the Scriptures into our present version.”

As we have seen, in the 20th century, even “evangelical” scholars became infected with rationalistic views of the Bible, as has been documented in many books, such as Harold Lindsell’s The Battle for the Bible (1976) and The Bible in the Balance (1979), Richard Quebedeaux’s The Worldly Evangelicals (1978), Francis Schaeffer’s The Great Evangelical Disaster (1983), David Wells’s No Place for Truth (1993), and Iain Murray’s Evangelicalism Divided: A Record of Crucial Change in the Years 1950 to 2000. For extensive documentation see Faith vs. the Modern Bible Versions, Part VII, “We Hold to the King James Bible Because Evangelical Scholarship Is Unreliable.”

The dramatic change that occurred between the 17th century and the 21st is recognized by men who are not fundamentalists. 

“The churches and biblical scholarship have, by and large, abandoned the frame of mind which created this translation [the KJV]. The social structures which gave rise to it--rigid hierarchies; a love of majesty; subservience; an association of power with glory--have all gone. The belief in the historical and authentic truth of the scriptures, particularly the Gospels, has been largely abandoned, even by the religious. The ferocious intolerances of the pre-liberal world have been left behind ... and perhaps as a result of that change, perhaps as a symptom, religion, or at least the conventional religion of ordinary people, has been drained of its passion. There is no modern language that can encompass the realities which the Jacobeans accepted as normal. Modern religious rhetoric is dilute and ineffectual, and where it isn’t, it seems mad and aberrational. ... These men, and their Bible, exist on the other side of a gulf, which can be labelled liberal, secular, democratic modernity. WE DO NOT LIVE IN THE SAME WORLD” (Adam Nicholson, God’s Secretaries, 2003, p. 239). 

Indeed!

_________

For more about Bryan Samms, see the report “Transitioning Away from the King James Bible,” Oct. 16, 2024, www.wayoflife.org.

For another defense of the King James Bible, see David Sorenson, Touch Not the Unclean Thing, www.northstarministries.com.

_____________