THE KJV IS STILL THE BEST

Elder Wee Chin Kam

As God’s Word teaches, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God” (Rom 10:17), it is important for us to ensure that the hearer receives the Word of God for his salvation as well as for the subsequent building up of his faith to help him work out his salvation with fear and trembling (Phil 2:12) and to “continue in the faith grounded and settled” (Col 1:23). The pure Word of God is very important since Christians (especially those of Reformed persuasion) regard it as inerrant (without mistakes) and infallible (incapable of making mistakes) and consequently the supreme/final rule in faith and life/practice. Sola Scriptura!

Corrupt Modern Versions

The writer of the blog at followingjesuschrist3.com tells his readers that he is a former attorney who gave up his legal career to study the scriptures intently before answering God’s call to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ every day in the streets of Florida. This same writer, in the Epilogue of “Repentance, Salvation and The New Bible Versions: Yes, it Really Does Matter” wrote, “I loved the NIV and NKJV for 25 years and I had believed what was taught in seminaries and bible colleges about the superiority of the Greek foundation for these new versions (the critical Greek text, whose primary components are Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus)” until he “studied into the issue for [himself] and found well over a hundred serious doctrinal changes” after “[his] wife (also an NIV’er at the time) had raised serious questions as to why the KJV was so different doctrinally than modern Bibles (after reading straight through six different versions).”

“Sola Scriptura” in his article titled “The Bible Version Controversy: A Brief History of The War over God’s Eternal Written Word” like Dr SH Tow (see his book Beyond Versions) and the late Rev Dr Timothy Tow (see his hymn “The King James Bible vs. The Hundred Versions”) points to the tactics employed by Satan in Genesis 3:1b (“Yea, hath God said…?”) in casting doubt on God’s Word and in using Westcott and Hort (and others) as agents to corrupt or distort the Word of God leading him (“Sola Scriptura”) to conclude: “After much study, and after hoping against hope to come to a conclusion that allowed me to keep my NIV, my NKJV or even my brand new MEV, I determined, along with countless other men and women far smarter than me, that the only legitimate Greek manuscript used as a foundation for a Bible is the Textus Receptus – and despite the claims of the NKJV and MEV editors, the only true Textus Receptus Bible in English is the KJV.”

Even though the NT of the NKJV is said to be translated from the Textus Receptus, the rejection by “Sola Scriptura” late in his life of the NKJV (and the MEV) is based on reasons which are also similar to some held by Dr Tow, viz., corruption of the Word and the sowing of doubt in it by adding footnotes of alternative readings from the Westcott and Hort text – see the critiques of the NKJV produced by the Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS) at tbsbibles.org/page/articles.

Don’t Replace the KJV

Dr Martin Lloyd-Jones’ article “The Authorized (King James) Version and New Translations” which was published in the July/August 2011 issue of The Banner of Sovereign Grace Truth wrote: “What we need is, therefore, not to replace the Authorized Version with what, I am tempted at times to call, the ITV edition of the Bible. We need rather to reach and train people up to the standard and the language, the dignity and the glory of the old Authorized Version....” Dr Lloyd-Jones had earlier in the article remarked, “Yet we are told, ‘It [the Bible] must be put in such simple terms and language that anybody taking it up and reading it is going to understand all about it.’ My friends, this is nothing but sheer nonsense! What we must do is to educate the masses of the people up to the Bible, not bring the Bible down to their level.”

In the same issue of the magazine, Dr Joel Beeke in “Practical Reasons for Retaining the KJV” wrote that “… our children need to hear them in the KJV as part of their nurture and education” and “[c]hildren well instructed in the KJV will be advantaged over other children, spiritually, linguistically, educationally, and culturally.” Diane Kleyn in “the benefits of Good Habits for our children” further down the issue wrote to reinforce Dr Beeke: “One of these [good habits] is to spend time reading God’s Word. ‘Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee’ (Psalm 119:11).”

In also the same issue, Dr Michael Barrett in “The King James Version: A Tribute” wrote: “The beauty, elegance, and cadence of the KJV – not to speak of its translation accuracy – create dignity and contribute to our perceiving the matchlessness of God’s Word and to our worshipping the Lord in the beauty of holiness. Whether in ministerial reading or in congregational responsive reading, the KJV is peerless in fostering a spirit of reverence before the Word of God.”

Mixing and Compromising

I can only hope that Dr Beeke and Dr Barrett are like Dr Lloyd-Jones (1899–1981) in their love and fervour for the KJV and that their articles in the July/August 2011 issue of The Banner of Sovereign Grace Truth were not written merely to commemorate the 400^th anniversary of the KJV 1611. However, I’ve seen some disconcerting reports of Dr Beeke on the internet at pccmonroe.org.¹ A mixed or fluid position often leads to compromise. God’s Word warns, “A double minded man is unstable in all his ways” (Jas 1:8).

Dr Thomas Strouse in his critique of From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man remarked: “Strangely and dangerously, neo-fundamentalists hold mixed views regarding Verbal Plenary Inspiration, Dynamic Preservation, the Critical Text, Dynamic Equivalence, and Modern Versions. This mixed and fluid position moves in only one direction: away from fundamentalism and into liberalism. For one to take the initial step into this moving stream, either deliberately or by default, may lead to drowning in the ocean of apostasy.”²

Dr Barrett’s Inconsistency

I was pointed to Dr Michael Barrett’s May 10, 2017 interview with the Jerusalem Chamber on the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) I:8.³ I think Dr Barrett’s interpretation of preservation as being an ordinary work of God or event is inconsistent with WCF I:8: “The Old Testament in Hebrew..., and the New Testament in Greek…, being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.”

In the Oxford dictionaries “singular” means “just one person or thing” or “exceptionally good or great; remarkable”.⁴ The synonyms for “singular” include “exceptional”, “extraordinary”, “remarkable”, “uncommon”, “unusual”, “special”, “out-of-the-way”.⁵

It is clear from the above that God, according to the Westminster divines, exercises special or extraordinary – rather than general or ordinary – care and providence in preserving His Words so that they are kept pure in all ages. The divines used as proof text Matthew 5:18: “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

Because Dr Barrett views preservation as an ordinary work or event (accomplished through the general or ordinary providence of God), it is not a surprise that he takes a fluid or lax view of modern Bible versions since their underlying Westcott and Hort texts are also “preserved” (albeit by God’s general providence), ignoring the WCF’s reference to God’s “singular care and providence” in keeping the original texts pure in all ages. Despite “[a] little leaven leaveneth the whole lump” (Gal 5:9), Dr Barrett is not as concerned about the 5% or even 10% differences as he is more attracted by the 95% (or 90%) similarities in all the texts. He even holds that the Septuagint, which he says is sometimes wrong, is as a whole the Word of God. (However, see Rev Dr Prabhudas Koshy’s “Did Jesus and the Apostles Rely on the Corrupt Septuagint?”⁶)

Dr Barrett holds to the Majority Text (MT) method in his search for the ipsissima verba (i.e., the “very words” or the “precise words”) of the NT writers. This is somewhat inconsistent or incongruous with his extolment of the KJV, which has its New Testament translated from the Textus Receptus. The MT method is a statistical construct that does not correspond exactly to any known manuscript, being arrived at by comparing all known manuscripts with one another and deriving from them the readings that are more numerous than any others. (See “What about the Majority Text” by Michael D Marlowe.⁷)

The TBS says that the exact MT cannot yet be determined; and even if this became possible one day, the resultant text could only be provisional and tentative as the discovery of further manuscripts might change minority readings to majority readings, or vice versa, but the doctrine of special providential preservation teaches that the Church is – and always has been – in possession of the true text of Scripture.⁸

The Authorised Version or the KJV of 1611 was in wide or official use when the Westminster divines met to draw up the Confession of Faith (1643–1648). Since it is a matter of faith that the original inspired Holy Scriptures are preserved as Dr Barrett himself says in the interview, then it should not be difficult to see the inspired words of Holy Scripture – which the divines had in mind as preserved pure by God in all ages – to be the Hebrew and Aramaic words in the Masoretic Text and the Greek words in the Textus Receptus underlying the KJV.

Recommended Reading

One may also read Dr Jeffrey Khoo’s defence of the underlying original language words/texts in “Can Verbal Plenary Inspiration Do Without Verbal Plenary Preservation? The Achilles’ Heel of Princeton Bibliology”.⁹ This article is indicated as a “must read” on page 3 of the Standard Bearers Browser found at the end of the pdf book Which Version Is the Bible? by Dr Floyd Nolen Jones.¹⁰ Read also Dr Khoo’s book Kept Pure in All Ages on WCF I:8.¹¹

References:

¹ http://www.pccmonroe.org/downward-spiral-of-joel-beekes-ministries.html and http://www.pccmonroe.org/beeke-in-bad-company-ndash-and-taking-good-men-with-him.html

² http://deanburgonsociety.org/Preservation/mind.htm

³ https://jerusalemchamber.com/2017/05/10/special-episode-interview-with-dr-michael-barrett

⁴ https://en.oxforddictionaries.com

⁵ http://www.thesaurus.com

⁶ http://www.febc.edu.sg/v15/article/def_Jesus_and_septuagint

⁷ http://www.bible-researcher.com/majority.html

⁸ https://www.tbsbibles.org/?page=DoctrineofScripture

⁹ https://www.biblefortoday.org/PDF/Verbal_Plenary.pdf

¹⁰ http://standardbearers.net/uploads/Which_Version_is_the_Bible_Dr_Floyd_Nolen_Jones_PhD_ThD.pdf

¹¹ http://www.febc.edu.sg/assets/pdfs/febc_press/Kept%20Pure%20In%20All%20Ages.pdf

Ed: The above (adapted) is an excerpt of Elder Wee’s reply to a pastor of a certain Reformed Church in Singapore who advocates reading the Bible even in modern English versions as he considers such versions to be also the Word of God, and holds in very high regard Dr Michael Barrett’s view on WCF I:8. It ought to be highlighted that the modern corrupt versions and Barrett’s view on preservation and textual criticism are not very Reformed and Confessional at all.