A Balanced Approach to the King James Only Controversy

...Some comments.

Back in May 2023, a Facebook group member quoted from something titled “A Balanced Approach to the King James Only Controversy.” It said that “King James Only advocates” commonly claim “that all modern translations leave out the name of Satan as a part of a devious scheme to destroy the faith.” I thought that statement was both unusual and regarding something I do not expect to be “common.”

I searched for “A Balanced Approach to the King James Only Controversy.” I found it online at Liberty University’s Digital Commons. It is a 2010 Liberty University Doctor of Ministry thesis by A. B. [Aulton Bruce] Brown. Brown is an ordained Free Will Baptist minister, a former teacher and dean at Southeastern Free Will Baptist College, and currently (or at least at that time) an adjunct professor at Liberty University. This is not a review of the thesis, but just some random comments on some things that stood out to me.

After reading the “Abstract” and “Introduction,” I felt the work starts with a defect – of writing about the King James Only Controversy without clearly defining what the term “King James Only” means. I would expect a definition to be found at least in the “Introduction.” The lack of a clear definition makes the entire discussion problematic and mars the purpose of the thesis. When the author identifies various folks holding distinct views as “KJVO” (e.g., Edward F. Hills, Gail Riplinger, Peter S. Ruckman, Charles L. Surrett, D. A. Waite, etc.), this implies that they hold the same view. Yet they do not.

I am not sure whether there is any widespread knowledge of or reference to this thesis. Therefore, this post calling attention to it perhaps gives it too much credit. Overall, I am not impressed. Lots of introductory material, history, etc., and lots of talk about the KJVO view not being biblical, but the thesis itself is not all that balanced or biblical, in my opinion. The approach is more logical and philosophical, rather than biblical. Brown does finally directly deal with two biblical texts – Psalm 12:5-8 and Matthew 5:17-19 in Appendix E.

As an example of the approach being logical and philosophical, consider from the “Introduction.” The author sets forth “four natural human tendencies help explain why some cling to the KJV.” With little difficulty of thought, a “KJVO” advocate could as easily come up with “four natural human tendencies help explain why some clamor for new versions.”

When I saw the word “balanced” in the title, it struck a different connotation for me than whatever the author had in mind. A “balanced approach” to the KJVO Controversy would critique problems on both sides. This critique is of but one side. The author and university advisers nevertheless assume this one-sided approach is balanced. 

Perhaps it is just me, but I either saw or imagined I saw anger toward KJVO in the thesis. If so, this might be because of what happened at the college where the author had taught. He wrote that the administration “eventually caved in and banned the use of the Nestle text in the classroom.”

In the sub-heading “Unholy Exaggerations about the Omission of the names Satan and Lucifer” (p. 121), Brown writes, “The claim that all modern translations leave out the name of Satan as a part of a devious scheme to destroy the faith is common among King James Only advocates.” He then gives a lengthy quote on the occurrence of “Satan” in various Bible translations.

Brown seems to be confused or misleading here. He does not identify or reference anyone who has made this so-called “common” claim. Which KJVO advocates are making this claim? How common is it? How (in what words) are they making it?

The sub-heading implies he means “the names” both “Satan” and “Lucifer.” There seems to be an attempt to make KJV advocates look stupid or deceptive, by showing that “Satan” is hardly left out of any Bibles despite what they “claim.” Is this some kind of “bait and switch”? If there is a complaint that is common about modern translations leaving out the name “Satan,” I haven’t seen it. Most often the discussion is much narrower – in reference to the name “Lucifer” removed from Isaiah 14:12. In this case most modern translations do not have Lucifer, but rather “morning star,” “day star,” “star of the morning,” and such like. 

This point is bungled and confused. Just what is he saying? The author needs to be clear. He should identify and refer to which KJVO advocates have made this “common” claim, show how & where they state it, and whether it is actually common.

Despite my overall negative impression, A. B. Brown came up with some “quotable quotes.” Here are a couple:

• “Bad doctrine and bad deeds both reflect a lack of submission to the sole and supreme authority of the Scriptures.” p. 162
• “Truth is a straight line that favors neither the right nor the left.” p. 163

If the thesis is as poorly researched as it is poorly prepared and presented, perhaps supporters should place little confidence in it. Right out the gate the word “Controversey” is misspelled in the title on the title page. As I looked through this thesis, I found myself asking this question (while feeling sort of guilty for doing so): “Is this what passes for doctor’s theses at Liberty?” This is not a personal criticism of Brown, who was 72 years old when he produced the thesis. I understand how age affects us. Readers of this blog can see what kind of typographical messes I am capable of making. So, I sympathize with Brother Brown. However, I do not sympathize with Liberty University. It is a matter of standards for theses – first readers and supervisors requiring corrections before a thesis can be accepted, etc. High quality for a high degree. Not only did Liberty apparently miss those steps, but then they posted it online demonstrating that they missed the steps! If they posted a draft of an uncorrected document, that is also a mistake on their part (altbeit a lesser one). 

The most egregious extreme of the thesis is the charge that, by becoming King James Only advocates, these people “deny both the sole authority and the complete sufficiency of the Scriptures” – with no mature and corresponding (balanced) reflection of how the Modern Version advocates may do the same thing by “creating their doctrines not found in the Scriptures.” All Bible-believing Christians (if they are Bible-believing Christians) hold the inspired Scriptures as our sole rule of faith and practice. In practice we fall below that high ideal. It is still the ideal.