Bookmark and Share print

Way of Life Literature


Publisher of Bible Study Materials

Was "King James Onlyism" Invented by a Seventh-Day Adventist?
August 16, 2017
David Cloud, Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061
The following is from THE BIBLE VERSION QUESTION-ANSWER DATABASE, which is available from Way of Life Literature in print and eBook formats. See end of report for details.


Some fundamentalists who are promoting modern textual criticism and who are particularly vicious toward the defense of the King James Bible, such as Bob Ross, Gary Hudson, Doug Kutilek, and the editor of From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man, are making the ridiculous and blundering accusation that the defense of the King James Bible can be traced to Benjamin Wilkinson, a Seventh-day Adventist. They claim that Wilkinson authored the view that the Traditional Text of the Protestant Reformation is the preserved Word of God that can be traced through history, and that J.J. Ray and David Otis Fuller picked up on Wilkinson’s teaching and passed it along to the “KJV Only” crowd.

It is true that in his 1930 book,
Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, Wilkinson defended the text of the King James Bible and attempted to trace the primacy of the Traditional Text among Bible believers through the centuries. And it is true that some of Wilkinson’s writings were republished in David Otis Fuller’s 1970 book, Which Bible. That much is fact. Whether Fuller was right or wrong in reprinting some of Wilkinson’s writings is something each reader will have to decide. I, for one, believe it was a mistake. I have obtained almost every book referenced by Wilkinson with the objective of checking his statements. And my conclusion is that while he did some good research and published some important facts, he also went out on a limb in some cases and made some statements that cannot be substantiated and others that are contrary to the evidence. Some of his history, in fact, is strongly influenced by his devotion to Seventh-day Adventist “prophetess” Ellen G. White. For example, Wilkinson got the idea that the Waldensian Bible is “preserved uncorrupted” from Ellen White’s Great Controversy, which he calls “the Spirit of Prophecy.” This is from Wilkinson’s Answers to Objections --

At the same time, to claim that David Otis Fuller’s views on the Bible version issue were derived from Wilkinson and to make Wilkinson the father of King James Bible defense is nonsense.


1. The defense of the King James Bible pre-dated Benjamin Wilkinson.

We have documented this extensively in our book
For Love of the Bible: The Defense of the KJV and the Received Text from 1800 to Present. Consider a few examples of men and institutions that stood for the King James Bible before Benjamin Wilkinson on the same basis that I and many other KJV defenders stand for it today.

John Jebb (1775-1833)

a. Jebb, bishop of Limerick, stated: “Let individuals give new versions ... but in days of epidemic quackery, let our authorized version be kept inviolate, and guarded as the apple of our eye” (John Jebb, 1829,
Life of John Jebb, ii, p. 454; cited by Samuel Hemphill, A History of the Revised Version of the New Testament, pp. 21, 22).

b. Dr. Jebb continued to oppose the revision of the Authorized Bible. During the discussion which surrounded the proposal for revision in May 1870, in the Lower House of the Province of Canterbury, Jebb gave his opinion that it was “
a fatal thing that a version, of which we have been now in possession for more than 250 years, should be subject to the criticism of this very hasty and not very orthodox age” (John Stoughton, Our English Bible, p. 288).

Henry John Todd (1765-1845)

a. Henry Todd was chaplain to the king of England and keeper of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s records at Lambeth Palace. In 1819 Todd published
A Vindication of Our Authorized Translation and Translators of the Bible. This work was occasioned by the clamor of some who wanted to correct the Received Greek New Testament and the King James Bible on the basis of modern textual criticism. This clamoring gradually increased among a relatively small segment of influential scholars through the 19th century and resulted, ultimately, in the Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament and the English Revised Version of 1881.

b. Todd understood that modern textual criticism was intimately associated with theological heresy. I searched for Todd’s treatise for five years before locating it in the British Library and having a copy made for my personal library. Consider the following important excerpt: “For when WE SEE MEN OF THE MOST LATITUDINARIAN PRINCIPLES UNIFORMLY PRESSING FORWARD THIS DANGEROUS PROPOSAL; when we see the most unbounded panegyrics [praise] bestowed on THOSE, WHO HAVE CONVERTED THE MOSAIC HISTORY INTO ALLEGORY, AND THE NEW TESTAMENT INTO SOCINIANISM; when we see these attempts studiously fostered, and applauded, by the advocates for this projected [Bible] revision; WE MUST CONJECTURE, THAT SOMETHING MORE IS MEANT THAN A CORRECTION OF MISTAKES, OR AN IMPROVEMENT OF DICTION. Those doctrines, the demolition of which we know to be, in late instances, the grand object of such innovators when they propose alterations in articles of faith, or correction of liturgical forms, are surely in still greater danger when attempted, by the same men, under the distant approaches of a revision of our English Bible (Todd,
A Vindication of Our Authorized Translation and Translators of the Bible, 1819, pp. 79, 80).

c. Todd represented the view of many 19th century men who understood that the critical Greek New Testament was a doctrinal issue.

John Dowling (1807-78)

a. Dowling, who pastored Baptist churches in Rhode Island (Providence) and New York (Broadway Baptist Church, New York City), was the author of the influential
History of Romanism.

b. In 1843 Dowling published a defense of the KJV in “
The Burning of the Bibles, Defence of the Protestant Version of the Scriptures Against the Attacks of Popish Apologists for the Champlain Bible Burners (Philadelphia: Nathan Moore, 1843). This was occasioned by the burning of hundreds of King James Bibles by Jesuit priests in Carbo, New York (near Champlain) in October 1842 and a subsequent newspaper article by a Roman Catholic priest named John Corry in which the accuracy and authority of the King James Bible was attacked. Dowling made the following defense of the KJV: “The Bible which Protestants now use, was translated by order of King James. It was published in A.D. 1611. It is perhaps, the most accurate that has been made, in any language. It is the joint labour of forty seven of the most learned oriental scholars in Europe; men of pure piety and christian honour. They were divided into six companies: each man had his share assigned to him: each company examined each translation made by individuals: each part of the translated Bible was examined, at least, fourteen times: and, was finally, adopted by the companies in full assembly. ... In this, have the defects, and errors of preceding translations, been carefully corrected” (Dowling, pp. 10, 11).

c. Dowling quoted from seven authorities in praise of the King James Bible, such as John Selden, who said, “The English translation of the Bible is the best translation in the world,” and J.W. Whitaker, who said, “It may be compared with any translation in the world without fear of inferiority; it has not shrunk from the most vigorous examination; it challenges investigation, and in spite of numerous attempts to supersede it, it has hitherto remained unrivalled in the affection of the country.” Dowling gave his own opinion that “as a whole, I have never yet seen a version which I would be willing to substitute for that as the commonly received version of the mass of the people” (p. 62).

d. In 1850 John Dowling published The Old-Fashioned Bible, or Ten Reasons against the Proposed Baptist Version of the New Testament (New York: Edward H. Fletcher, 1850). It was an edited version of a message he had delivered at Hope Chapel, Broadway, March 31, 1850, and again at First Baptist Church, Brooklyn, pastored by J. L. Hodge. Dowling used the strongest terminology to describe his concern over the new version of the English Bible that had been published by the American and Foreign Bible Society and he exalted the King James Bible in the highest manner: “The fact is that the common version which it is proposed to amend, is, taken as a whole, a wonderful translation, and although it may be conceded that it is not perfect--for what human performance is so?--yet it is exceedingly doubtful, whether a translation has ever been made from any ancient book, Greek, Latin, or Oriental--which in point of faithfulness to its original can be compared with this, or which has fewer errors in proportion to the entire amount of its contents. ... TO ATTEMPT TO SUPPLANT IT BY A ‘NEW VERSION,’ OR TO INTRODUCE ANY MATERIAL ALTERATIONS, WOULD BE LIKE ‘GILDING REFINED GOLD’... It is sufficient to say that the hundred thousand of New York Baptists, and the million of American Baptists, have been made so chiefly by means of the good old English Bible. ... In conclusion, then, I say, brethren, sisters and fathers, cling to your old-fashioned Bible!” (The Old-Fashioned Bible, or Ten Reasons against the Proposed Baptist Version of the New Testament, 1850, pp. 11, 12, 13, 27, 36).

The Trinitarian Bible Society of England (TBS)

a. The TBS was formed in 1831 from a conflict within the British and Foreign Bible Society (BFBS) over the doctrine of the Trinity and the deity of Jesus Christ.

b. With the publication of the English Revised Version New Testament and the Westcott-Hort Greek text of 1881, the TBS began to take an active position on texts and versions. A number of articles were published in the TBS
Quarterly Record at the turn of the century critiquing the ERV and supporting the Received Text. Some of these drew heavily upon John Burgon’s The Revision Revised, as well as the research of F.C. Cook and Frederic Scrivener. The Trinitarian Bible Society has continued to stand for the Received Text and the King James Bible. Their published writings have promoted all of the major points commonly given in defense of the KJV. Consider some examples:

(1) In 1904 the British & Foreign Bible Society issued an edition of the critical Greek text prepared by Eberhard Nestle and based upon the work of Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and Weiss. That same year the Annual Report of the Trinitarian Bible Society made this plain statement in contradiction to the confusion being promoted by their liberal counterparts: “There is a great shaking going on all around us; the foundations are being displaced; ancient landmarks are being removed; institutions are being assailed; confusion is written on all things ecclesiastical and political. There is only one thing that can sustain us in times like these, and that is living faith in the living God. It is the design of the enemy to quench the lamp of Inspiration, to get rid of the supernatural and miraculous in the Word of God; to break down its authority and integrity by minimising differences of translations; for, IF THE BIBLE IS NOT THE WORD OF GOD, BUT ONLY ‘CONTAINS’ IT, THEN ONE VERSION CAN CONTAIN IT, OR AS MUCH OF IT, AS ANOTHER. IF THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ‘THE BIBLE,’ THEN “A BIBLE’ OR ANY BIBLE WILL DO. The enemy cares not by what agency he gains his great end of making the Word of God of none effect. The enemy will use any instrument to accomplish his purposes; and the greater and the better the agent, the more effectually will he obtain his ends” (Holding Fast the Faithful Word, p. 15).

(2) “The architects and advocates of the modern English translations of the Holy Scriptures often assure us that their numerous alterations, omissions and additions do not affect any vital doctrine. While this may be true of hundreds of minute variations there is nevertheless a substantial number of important doctrinal passages which the modern versions present in an altered and invariably weakened form” (God Was Manifest in the Flesh, TBS Article No. 10).

(3) “For too long the ‘science’ of Textual Criticism has been in bondage to the authority of a small class of ancient manuscripts, with the Sinai and Vatican copies at their head, which are in thousands of instances at variance with the Greek Text preserved in the great majority of the documents now available for ascertaining the true text. ... The result has been that
even in the ‘evangelical’ seminaries generations of theological students have been encouraged to accept without question theories which involve the rejection of the historical text and the adoption of an abbreviated and defective text cast in the mold of the Vatican and Sinai copies” (Many Things, TBS Article No. 33).

(4) “No evangelical Christian, learned or unlearned, would wish to follow [modernistic] writers along the perilous paths of infidelity in which they strode with such presumption. There is another danger, no less serious, in that
Textual Criticism, the evaluation of the actual manuscripts in the ancient languages, the preparation of printed editions of the Hebrew and Greek Text, and the modern translations now being made in English and many other languages, are very largely conducted under the direction or influence of scholars who by their adoption of these erroneous theories have betrayed the unreliability of their judgment in these vital matters. WE MUST NOT PERMIT OUR JUDGMENT TO BE OVERAWED BY GREAT NAMES IN THE REALM OF BIBLICAL ‘SCHOLARSHIP’ WHEN IT IS SO CLEARLY EVIDENT THAT THE DISTINGUISHED SCHOLARS OF THE PRESENT CENTURY ARE MERELY REPRODUCING THE CASE PRESENTED BY RATIONALISTS DURING THE LAST TWO HUNDRED YEARS. Nor should we fail to recognise that scholarship of this kind has degenerated into a skeptical crusade against the Bible, tending to lower it to the level of an ordinary book of merely human composition” (If the Foundations Be Destroyed, TBS Article No. 14).

Fundamentalist leader William Aberhart (1878-1943)

a. Aberhart was both a Christian leader and a greatly beloved political leader. He was Premier of Alberta from 1935-43. In the late 1920s, Aberhart separated from the Regular Baptists over issues such as Bible inspiration and the interpretation of prophecy. In 1924 he established the Calgary Prophetic Bible Institute. The first student enrolled in this Bible Institute was Ernest Charles Manning, who eventually became the premier of Alberta from 1943 until 1968. Aberhart also founded the 1,250-seat Bible Institute Baptist Church, which often featured the preaching of well-known fundamentalist leaders such as William B. Riley and Harry Rimmer.

b. Aberhart trained his people and his students to have confidence in the divine preservation of the Bible. He defended the King James Bible as the preserved Word of God.

c. A summary of Aberhart’s teaching was given to me personally by Pastor Mark Buch (1910-1995), who was educated by Aberhart in the 1930s. Buch was the founder and pastor of the People’s Fellowship Tabernacle in Vancouver, British Columbia. This church was a stronghold for biblical fundamentalism in western Canada from the time it was founded in 1939. Buch knew and preached with many of the well-known fundamentalist leaders of the last century, including J. Frank Norris, G. Beauchamp Vick, and Bob Jones Sr. Buch took the second year apologetics course Aberhart taught on the subject of inspiration and preservation at the Prophetic Bible Institute. Note how Pastor Buch described Aberhart’s position on Bible preservation: “Mr. Aberhart was one of the greatest Bible teachers in Canada. He was the first person I came in contact with WHO KNEW THE TRUE STORY OF THE DIVINE INSPIRATION AND PRESERVATION OF GOD’S HOLY WORD. He explained how it came down from the first apostolic faultless autograph, its safe keeping through the Byzantine church, the majority reformation copy by Erasmus of Rotterdam, William Tyndale’s translation, the Authorized committee of mental and spiritual giants, and the resultant glorious treasure—the Authorized Version” (Mark Buch,
In Defence of the Authorized Version, People’s Fellowship Tabernacle, Vancouver, British Columbia, p. 25).

d. During my personal interviews with Pastor Buch, he gave me a copy of one of Aberhart’s booklets on the subject of Bible versions. It was titled
The Latest of Modern Movements: Or What about the Revised Version of the Bible? Published in 1924 or 1925, it was printed and distributed by the thousands. In the title of his booklet, Aberhart was referring to the English Revised Version of 1885. He also mentioned Darby’s Version, Russell’s Diaglot, Moulton’s Bible, the American Revised Version, 20th Century in Modern Speech, Moffatt’s Translation, Goodspeed’s New Testament, and Kent’s Shorter Bible. HE WARNED THAT MODERN TEXTUAL CRITICISM AND THE MULTIPLICITY OF MODERN VERSIONS WAS WEAKENING THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE.

e. The position William Aberhart held on the Bible version issue in the 1920s is exactly the position that David Otis Fuller taught, and ABERHART WAS WRITING AND TEACHING THIS YEARS BEFORE THE PUBLICATION OF WILKINSON’S BOOK. In the course of my research, I looked into the sources of Aberhart’s position. One of his sources was the writings of John William Burgon, whose book
Revision Revised was first published in 1883 and was reprinted many times. Mark Buch testified to me that Aberhard used Burgon’s material in his Bible institute classes.

Fundamentalist leader Philip Mauro (1859-1952)

a. Mauro was a famous patent lawyer who argued before the bar of the United States Supreme Court. He wrote the legal brief that was used by William Jennings Bryan at the famous “Scopes Trial” to defend the Tennessee law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in public schools. Converted in 1903, at age 45, Mauro became
a bold witness for Jesus Christ. He testified of his faith to Thomas Edison, the famous inventor. Mauro was aboard the Carpathian when it rescued survivors from the ill-fated Titanic in 1912. He wrote many books on various themes, including The Truth about Evolution, The Progress of the Apostasy, The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation, The Wonders of Bible Chronology, and Speaking in Tongues. Mauro also wrote articles for The Fundamentals, the books that gave the fundamentalist movement its name in the 1920s.

b. Mauro’s position on the Bible version issue was no secret. In 1924 he published
Which Version? Authorized or Revised? This was several years before the Adventist Benjamin Wilkinson published his book on this subject. Like Aberhart, Mauro leaned heavily upon the research of John Burgon. Note the following statement: “In view also of the leading part the English speaking peoples were to play in shaping the destinies of mankind, we are justified in believing that it was through a providential ordering that the preparation of that Version was not in anywise affected by higher critical theories in general, or specifically by the two ancient Codices [Vaticanus and Sinaiticus] we have been discussing” (Mauro, Which Version?).

Thus, it is obvious that the defense of the King James Bible did not begin with the Adventist Benjamin Wilkinson in the 1930s. In the book For Love of the Bible I have given dozens of other examples of men and organizations that stood for the KJV prior to then. Of course, this was not a Ruckmanite defense of the KJV. These men did not claim that the KJV was given by inspiration or that it is “advanced revelation” or that it is better than the Hebrew and Greek or that it was perfect in every detail. Such claims began with Peter Ruckman in the 1970s, and even Benjamin Wilkinson and David Otis Fuller did not hold to them.

To say that Ruckmanism did not begin until the 1970s is a true statement, but it is a gross error to paint the overall defense of the King James Bible with the narrow brush of Ruckmanism or to claim that a reasoned defense of the KJV (based on its superior Greek text, its superior English, etc.) began in the 1930s and is based on the writings of a Seventh-day Adventist.

To say that D.O. Fuller was brainwashed by any one certain man or book is to ignore the facts.

a. While it is true that David Otis Fuller published some of Wilkinson’s writings, he also published the writings of a wide variety of men on the Bible version issue, and to focus on Wilkinson as the basis for Fuller’s views is something that is done for the sole purpose of demagoguing Fuller and other defenders of the KJV.

b. By his enemies, Dr. Fuller is made out to be some sort of scheming madman, and an ignorant one at that! But consider the facts: He obtained the Master of Divinity degree at Princeton University and was honored with a Doctor of Divinity degree by Dallas Theological Seminary. He pastored the prominent Wealthy Street Baptist Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan, for 40 years (1934-74). While there, he founded the Grand Rapids Baptist Institute, which later became the Grand Rapids Baptist Bible College. Fuller co-founded the Children’s Bible Hour radio program in 1942 and for 33 years was its chairman. For 52 years Fuller was on the board of the Association of Baptists for World Evangelism. He was on the Council of 14 in the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches. Fuller published between fifteen to twenty books.

c. When he first began investigating the Bible version issue for himself in the 1970s, Fuller came across not only Wilkinson’s work, but also the following, among others:

(1) Philip Mauro’s Which Version? from 1924.
(2) John Burgon’s
The Revision Revised. Fuller was so industrious in his zeal to search out the facts on this issue that he sought out John Burgon’s unpublished works in the British Museum. “It was the privilege of this compiler, after struggling through several rounds of red tape, to see for myself three of the sixteen folio volumes Burgon had written in his own hand, a compilation of eighty-seven thousand quotations from the early Church Fathers. I make bold to say there is no other collection like this in existence” (Fuller, Counterfeit or Genuine, introduction, p. 11).
(3) Alfred Martin’s doctoral dissertation against the Westcott-Hort Text
(A Critical Examination of the Westcott-Hort Textual Theory). Martin was Vice President of Moody Bible Institute and defended the Received Text against the critical text in his doctoral dissertation to the faculty of Dallas Theological Seminary graduate school in May 1951. Martin corresponded with Fuller on the Bible text issue and allowed Fuller to publish a condensation of his dissertation in Which Bible.
(4) Donald Brake’s dissertation to the faculty of the Department of Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Theology Degree, The Preservation of the Scriptures, May 1970.
(5) Wilbur Pickering’s thesis presented to the faculty of the Department of New Testament Literature and Exegesis at the Dallas Theological Seminary in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Theology Degree, An Evaluation of the Contribution of John William Burgon to New Testament Textual Criticism, May 1968.
(6) Writings on the Bible version issue by Joseph Philpot
(7) Writings on the Bible version issue by Samuel Zwemer
(8) Writings on the Bible version issue by Herman Hoskier
(9) Writings on the Bible version issue by Edward F. Hills
(10) Writings on the Bible version issue by Terence Brown, editorial secretary of the Trinitarian Bible Society

d. Altogether D.O. Fuller edited three major volumes totaling 900 pages on the Bible version issue:
Which Bible? (1970), True or False? (1973), and Counterfeit or Genuine? (1975). These volumes are evidence of Dr. Fuller’s diligent research on the subject of texts and versions.

e. Dr. Fuller did not claim that the King James Bible was given by inspiration or that it could not be improved or changed. He claimed simply that it is the only reliable English translation of the preserved Greek and Hebrew text of Scripture. He did not believe the KJV has errors, but he differentiated plainly between improvements and errors. “We do not say that the KJV does not permit of changes. There are a number that could be AND SHOULD BE made, but there is a vast difference between a change and an error” (D.O. Fuller,
Is the King James Version Nearest to the Original Autographs?, nd., p. 1). “The compiler of this book, and the able writers whom he quotes, all contend that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant and authoritative word of God and that there has been a gracious exercise of the divine providence in its preservation and transmission. They are also deeply convinced that the inspired text is more faithfully represented by the Majority Text--sometimes called the Byzantine Text, the Received Text or the Traditional Text--than by the modern critical editions which attach too much weight to the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus and their allies. For this reason the reader is encouraged to maintain confidence in THE KING JAMES VERSION AS A FAITHFUL TRANSLATION BASED UPON A RELIABLE TEXT” (D.O. Fuller, Which Bible? pp. 5, 6).

f. An honest evaluation of Fuller’s
Which Bible? was given by Dr. John Holliday in the Gospel Witness: “WHICH BIBLE? is not a repudiation of scholarship. It is not an argument for the inerrancy of a translation. It is not a defense of out-dated forms of speech. It is an exposure of the presence of enemies in the field of Bible translation. It is a warning against adulterated versions of the Scriptures, particularly versions which show evidence of having been deliberately corrupted in order to destroy belief in vital Biblical truths. It is a long-overdue defense of the worth of the old Authorized Version ... A DEFENSE THAT IS GROUNDED UPON THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF ITS UNDERLYING TEXT AND THE FAITHFULNESS OF THE TRANSLATION.”

g. Fuller did not gain anything, from an earthly perspective, for his stand for the King James Bible. He was a highly respected pastor and Christian leader BEFORE he published
Which Bible. He certainly did not gain in prestige or influence, generally speaking, from his stand for the KJV. Rather, he was mocked, ridiculed, slandered, and ostracized, even by many of his own fundamentalist and Baptist brethren. He made no personal financial gain from the sell of his books, having turned all of the profit back into the Which Bible Society ministry.

3. It is hypocritical for the defender of modern textual criticism to make an issue of somone using the writings of a Seventh-day Adventist.

This is true for the simple reason that textual criticism is founded upon the writings of hundreds of men at least as unsound in the faith as Benjamin Wilkinson. The influential names in the field of textual criticism include
UNITARIANS such as Johann Wettstein, Edward Harwood, George Vance Smith, Ezra Abbot, Joseph Thayer, and Caspar Gregory; RATIONALISTS such as Johann Semler, Johann Griesbach, Bernhard Weiss, William Sanday, William Robertson Smith, Samuel Driver, Eberhard Nestle, James Rendel Harris, Hermann von Soden, Frederick Conybeare, Fredric Kenyon, Francis Burkitt, Henry Wheeler Robinson, Kirsopp Lake, Gerhard Kittel, Edgar Goodspeed, James Moffatt, Kenneth Clark, Ernest Colwell, Gunther Zuntz, J.B. Phillips, William Barclay, Theodore Skeat, George Kilpatrick, F.F. Bruce, George Ladd, J.K. Elliott, Eldon Epp, Brevard Childs, Bart Ehrman, C.H. Dodd, Barclay Newman, Arthur Voobus, Eugene Nida, Jan de Waard, Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland, Matthew Black, Allen Wikgren, Bruce Metzger, and Johannes Karavidopoulos; and ROMAN CATHOLICS such as Richard Simon, Alexander Geddes, Johann Hug, and Carlo Martini. For documentation of the theological position of these and many other men in the field of modern textual criticism see The Modern Bible Version’s Hall of Shame, available from Way of Life Literature, 866-295-4143,


The above is from THE BIBLE VERSION QUESTION-ANSWER DATABASE, which is available from Way of Life Literature in print and eBook formats. This book provides in-depth answers to 82 of the most important questions on this topic. A vast number of myths are exposed, such as the myth that Erasmus promised to add 1 John 5:7 to his Greek New Testament if even one manuscript could be produced, the myth that the differences between the Greek texts and versions are slight and insignificant, and the myth that there are no doctrines affected by the changes in the modern versions. The book answers the challenges that are made by the opponents of “King James Onlyism,” including James White, D.A. Carson, Doug Kutilek, the editors of From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man and One Bible Only, etc. It also includes reviews of several of the popular modern versions, including the New International Version, the New American Standard Version, The Message, and the Holman Christian Standard Bible. 423 pages.

We have also published the only extensive history of the defense of the King James Bible in print. The title of the 522-page book is
For Love of the Bible: The Battle for the King James Version and the Received Text from 1800 to Present. It includes hundreds of testimonies and biographies; sketches of churches, schools, and organizations that have defended the KJV and its underlying text; a digest of reviews and condensations of major books and articles written in defense of the KJV in the past 200 years; excerpts from rare books on this subject; a comprehensive overview of the varied arguments in favor of the KJV. For Love of the Bible also gives a history of the major modern English versions, beginning with the English Revised of 1881. The author spent thousands of dollars researching the book and wrote several hundred letters in this connection (before the advent of Internet and e-mail), communicating with men from around the world who stand for the KJV, many of whom are now deceased. Michael Maynard, author of A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7,8, wrote: “For Love of the Bible is a masterpiece. It ought to be in every academic, public, and special library in the world.” It is available in print and eBook formats from Way of Life Literature.

- Receive these reports by email
- "About" David Cloud


Sharing Policy: Much of our material is available for free, such as the hundreds of articles at the Way of Life web site. Other items we sell to help fund our expensive literature and foreign church planting ministries. Way of Life's content falls into two categories: sharable and non-sharable. Things that we encourage you to share include the audio sermons, O Timothy magazine, FBIS articles, and the free eVideos and free eBooks. You are welcome to make copies of these at your own expense and share them with friends and family, but they cannot be posted to web sites. You are also welcome to use excerpts from the articles in your writings, in sermons, in church bulletins, etc. All we ask is that you give proper credit. Things we do not want copied and distributed freely are items like the Fundamental Baptist Digital Library, print editions of our books, electronic editions of the books that we sell, the videos that we sell, etc. The items have taken years to produce at enormous expense in time and money, and we use the income from sales to help fund the ministry. We trust that your Christian honesty will preserve the integrity of this policy. "For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward" (1 Timothy 5:18).

Goal:Distributed by Way of Life Literature Inc., the Fundamental Baptist Information Service is an e-mail posting for Bible-believing Christians. Established in 1974, Way of Life Literature is a fundamental Baptist preaching and publishing ministry based in Bethel Baptist Church, London, Ontario, of which Wilbert Unger is the founding Pastor. Brother Cloud lives in South Asia where he has been a church planting missionary since 1979. Our primary goal with the FBIS is to provide material to assist preachers in the edification and protection of the churches.

Offering: We take up a quarterly offering to fund this ministry, and those who use the materials are expected to participate (Galatians 6:6) if they can. We do not solicit funds from those who do not agree with our preaching and who are not helped by these publications. We seek offerings only from those who are helped. OFFERINGS can be mailed or made online with with Visa, Mastercard, Discover, or Paypal. For information see: