Letters    

ON THE INSPIRATION AND INERRANCY OF SCRIPTURE

Dear H. B.                                                                                                           May 20, 1983

       ...I was relieved that you desire to treat the Scriptures in an honorable manner. But, you have me puzzled, for while you are quick to maintain the "King James is a faithful translation of the Bible", yet, you claim it is "errant." It appears to me that you are fudging. If it is errant, it is definitely not "faithful."

     You affirm your conviction in the preservation of God's Word, yet, you say no translation is inerrant. If the tomatoes my wife preserved are errant, the whole will shortly stink. I believe the same is true regarding the Bible. When you pretend to find faults, when do you make an end? It is to open Pandora's Box.

     The "faults" you find in the King James Version such as chapter divisions in no way harms the text, nor would typographical errors such as the "Breeches" Bible or the "Vinegar" Bible. I use the Geneva on occasion. The obscurities you mention such as the words "prevent," and "let" can easily be explained in three minutes as can the "eth" on the end of verbs such as the present-progressive tense.

     In your first letter, you said, "We have no qualms about correcting the King James Version where necessary." In your recent letter you say, "I believe that the greatest attack upon Scripture is the view than man can correct the Word of God." From this, it appears that you do not believe the King James Version to be the Word of God, but only to "contain" the Word of God. How does your position differ from the Neo-Orthodox position?

     I very much appreciated your point that to believe in present day revelation or inspiration is to accept the present day use of tongues, and all the other signs of an apostle. I heartily concur, and could not have stated it better than you did. However, you misunderstand my position of the preservation of Scripture. I do not believe men are inspired today in the same sense as the amanuenses of Scripture. Rather, I believe that, nothing being too hard for the Lord, God has superintended His Word—that He has protected it, and has guided godly translators. Luther was so solicitous of his German translation, that he refused to translate unless there were two or three present. This does not make these men to be great, but God great who guided them.

      Basically, this is my position: l.) The Bible I have in my possession is the very Word of God, no less so than the Organic Word which was used in Creation when God verbally spoke creation into being. 2.) While my Bible is not inspired, it being "given by inspiration", yet it is inerrant because God has preserved it from error. 3.) I can rely upon my Bible, for not alone are the original manuscripts reliable. 4.) The Bible was designed for common men, and not for the intelligentsia alone. It is therefore to be received in simple child-like faith in the plain meaning. If faith is rooted in scholarship, how could the uneducated believe? "May God Smile On You."—J. S. Bach

TO ONE WHO BELIEVES THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE WAS TAMPERED WITH BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT IN ORDER TO REGAIN CONTROL OF HER AMERICAN COLONIES

Dear M. B.                                                                                                           July 14, 1987

     King James did not set out to have his own version of the Bible. Actually, for several hundred years, possession of the Bible was forbidden to "lay people." For instance, the Lollards, for so the followers of John Wycliffe were nicknamed, if apprehended were burned at the stake with their Bible tied about their neck. And, much documentation exists that Rome felt that if common men had possession of the Scriptures it would be the death of the Roman Catholic Church.

     After suffering 80 years of passionate persecution, Protestants deemed the best way to have free circulation of God's Word was to obtain permission from the king. Since James was sympathetic to Rome, and was a dissolute man, the Puritans played upon his vanity telling the monarch that if he would allow free distribution of the edition, they would dedicate it to him, and wherever the Bible went, so would the name of James. The king conceded and called for 54 translators, although history records the names of only 48.

     Even though the English parliament had passed two acts in 1534 that broke ties with the foreign pontiff, yet England faced recurring struggles with Roman Catholic intrigue for the next 100 years. During this time, some of the kings of England were Roman Catholic, and attempts were made to destroy Protestantism.

      William Tyndale had been burned at the state in Brussels on October 6, 1536. Granted, it was with the intrigue of the English government since Tyndale was forever smuggling copies of God's Word into his homeland. The King James translators actually used about 80 percent of Tyndale's translation. Many of the words found in the English Bible now were coined by the martyr. Words like "propitiation", and "mercy-seat" were unknown in the English language until Tyndale coined them.

      Although Puritans went to James to obtain his permission for the publication of the "Authorized Version," most Puritans refused to use the translation because it was dedicated to the ungodly king. Most preferred to use the Geneva Bible.

     The first Bible printed in the United States was authorized by Congress in 1782. Mr. Robert Aitken's publication was but the King James Version. However, your notion that the King James Version of the Bible was part of a conspiracy by England to regain control over her American colonies is utter nonsense. It lacks all proof, and the thought is pernicious at its source.

Contents

Previous Next