The History of Texas Baptists, reprise

I wrote the following several years ago, when I was thinking about the need for a true Texas Baptist Historical Society, one that was not geared toward a particular flavor of Baptists. Now that I am doing a microcosm of that with my Rusk County Baptist history, I thought it would be could to republish this (slightly edited) before writing about my work in the county.

The history of Texas Baptists is one of the great loves of my life. I do not remember exactly when it happened, but it is an ongoing affair of about fifty years. In 2019, I focused on the history of the Sabine Baptist Association, the earliest Baptist association in our area (organized 1843). I found a treasure trove of information at Baylor University’s archives (oh, sure, I wish for more).[i] As I began to understand what is there, a sad wonderment struck my mind. How long has this information lain dormant there? How many historians who mention the Sabine Baptist Association ever bothered to check these primary documents? I would love to see a new history of Texas Baptists refocused on primary documents that have previously been undiscovered or ignored. Perhaps we have long had the big picture, but the devil is in the details.

Previous histories are too partisan in outlook. What is labeled “a history of Texas Baptists” is most often “a history of my Texas Baptists.” Don’t get me wrong. There is a place and need for denominational histories. The Free Will Baptists write theirs, Missionary Baptists write theirs, the National Baptists write theirs, Primitive Baptists write theirs, Southern Baptists write theirs, and so on.[ii] The plus side includes access to records not easily obtained, and that they offer their own unique perspective and understanding of themselves, things frequently missed by “outsiders.” The minus side is that they often fail to assimilate their story into the whole of the history of Texas Baptists (and miss the insight of “outsiders”). Even the large tomes of Carroll and McBeth, in my opinion, only make meager mention of the existence of other Baptists after they move on from the earliest years.

Previous histories are too narrow in research. Hand in hand with the partisanship in history writing is its narrowness.  For example, to many historians, Daniel Parker is a wart on the nose of Texas Baptists. Mention him we must, but let’s move on. Quickly![iii] However, those who bother to check might find that Asa Wright labored in the west in the late 1830s with “missionary” Z. N. Morrell and in the east in the early 1840s with “anti-missionary” Daniel Parker – then later hooked up with “missionary” Lemuel Herrin and “anti-missionary” Isaac Reed to form the Sabine Baptist Association. Or, that Thomas Hanks was a member of the “Separate” Union Baptist Church near Nacogdoches before he was a member (and later pastor) of the “Regular” Pilgrim Baptist Church of near Elkhart.[iv] Through this narrowness, historians fail to branch out and learn all they might about the vagaries of even their own partisans.

Previous histories are too predictable in narration. Too often the same sources are used repetitively without seeking for other available and overlooked primary sources. I know one person will never find them all. Nevertheless, I can’t express how mind-numbing it has been to see the same story about the Sabine Baptist Association repeated over and over, when the writers kept checking the same old source, apparently never bothering to check the Sabine’s own sources – their minutes. This must be true (unless they were afraid or dishonest). Had they checked the available Sabine Association minutes, reporting accurately and honestly, they would not have repeated the same old sad story of the association .[v] Leon McBeth writes, “Any history of Texas Baptists must begin with Z. N. ‘Wildcat’ Morrell…”[vi] I have no particular quarrel with that. Morrell’s book is a wonderful record of one who lived the early history of Texas Baptists, from when he arrived in December 1835. On the other hand, Morrell is the source of the some of the errors on the Sabine Baptist Association. I find no evidence that he ever attended its sessions.[vii] His information is second-hand. Should not those who attended and recorded their sessions receive some priority of testimony?

What to do? Southern Baptists have written the majority of the history of the Baptists of Texas. I don’t fault them. They are the majority of Baptists in Texas. They may have the “training and necessary leisure.” However, they have frequently been sectarian while at the same time blaming sectarianism on their foes. Smaller Baptist sub-denominations then rebut with their own clannishness, and ultimately we fail to read the whole story. Future writers could learn a lesson from Albert W. Wardin in his Tennessee Baptists: A Comprehensive History, 1779-1999. The bulk of the book is about the majority party, but Wardin clearly takes an interest in all the Baptists of Tennessee. Further exacerbating the Texas problem, in my opinion, is that the main (if not only) Baptist historical society (if it even still exists) is connected to and funded by the Baptist General Convention of Texas. Even though they don’t/didn’t restrict their membership to BGCT folks, others often feel restricted by the integral connection. Creating an historical society not connected to or dependent upon a particular association, conference, or convention might reflect the greater diversity of Baptists in the state, create greater buy-in of Baptists across the state, and promote the kind of research that sees the connectivity of early Texas Baptists of various “stripes.” Such a society would allow historical corroboration without compromising denominational connections. I have no problems wrestling with you over faith and practice while uniting with you to better understand our history. What about you?

Maybe one day we will have an integrated account of all Texas Baptists.

That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it.

---

[i] The Texas Collection “is Baylor University’s oldest special collections library.”

[ii] Some Texas Baptist denominational histories include A History of Texas Baptists: Comprising a Detailed Account of Their Activities, Their Progress and Their Achievements, James Milton Carroll, Dallas, TX: Baptist Standard Publishing Co., 1923; A History of the Primitive Baptists of Texas, Oklahoma and Indian Territories, Joseph Sylvester Newman, Tioga, TX: Baptist Trumpet, 1906; From the Red to the Rio Grande: a History of the Free Will Baptist in Texas, 1876 to 2014, Thurmon Murphy, Columbus, OH: FWB Publications, 2017; History of the Baptist Missionary Association of Texas, William Henry Parks, Cleburne, TX: [n.d., before 1916], Missionary Baptists in Texas, 1820-1998, Oran Heaton Griffith, Henderson, TX: History & Archives Committee of the Missionary Baptist Association of Texas, 1999; Texas Baptists: a Sesquicentennial History, Harry Leon McBeth, Dallas, TX: Baptistway Press, 1998.

[iii] As does Baker in The Blossoming Desert, p. 26.

[iv] And [1] Deacon William Sparks was a member of the “Regular” Hopewell Baptist Church in Cooks Settlement (Nacogdoches County) before he was a member of the “Separate” Union Baptist Church. [2] William Brittain had been an ordained Elder nearly 30 years (ordained 1810) before he came to Texas. William and Rosanna moved from North Carolina to Arkansas, then they moved to Texas in 1837. They were first connected with the Pilgrim Church of Parker, with which church they united in 1838. They organized a church in Shelby County in 1841, then reorganized it in 1846 after splitting with the Parker churches. At this time they began to fellowship with Isaac Reed and the Sabine Baptist Association. While likely not called Missionary Baptist in the lifetime of Elder Brittain, they would come to be recognized as such.

[v] This is not to say that they got it all wrong, but that the minutes would have corrected what they did have wrong.

[vi] Texas Baptists: a Sesquicentennial History, p. 495

[vii] Z. N. Morrell does not say he did, neither is he mentioned in any of the existing minutes. On the other hand, Morrell does say he was informed on the subject by David Lewis (pp. 263-264). Though Morrell probably did not know, we have enough information today to know that Lewis was both a scoundrel and a primary cause of dissension in the association.

Criticizing criticizing

“We’ve stopped worshipping Christ and started worshipping ‘Nice’.” Charity Nicholson

It is certainly true that we can develop a hard and consistently critical spirit. However, try to combine criticizing and edifying. Criticism is most often viewed negatively in modern society – very negatively. But it isn’t inherently so (Galatians 2:11). Paul criticized Peter because he was “to be blamed.” Criticism is not mutually exclusive from encouraging, edifying, or helping. Sometimes we are in a place where we need to recognize what is wrong in order to do right!

Ironically, criticism is often criticized! The critics of criticism do not seem to see their critocrisy (critical hypocrisy). Nevertheless, criticism definitely serves a purpose. Over the years many criticisms I have received drove me to check my thoughts and beliefs. If taken seriously, the results will usually be that it causes you to confirm and strengthen your beliefs, or it causes you to modify and correct them. If we are the ones criticizing, we should consider to what end and to be careful to do it for the right reasons and in the right spirit. When we are receiving criticism, we should receive it in the right spirit (in order to benefit from it), whether or not it was given in the right spirit.

We must guard against developing a critical spirit. It is easy (perhaps natural) to develop one, and hard to guard against it. In many things in life and faith, I am and have been on the opposite end of the up side. In that position I have often found myself giving “the minority report,” so to speak. It can be a dangerous position to be in; one can develop a critical spirit, or just be perceived as having one. It was popular in our area in the 1960s-1980s (may still be, but I have relieved myself of the connection) to criticize folks who did not acquiesce to the prevailing new notions of how to do things. We were criticized as being “aginners” or “agin everything.” Certainly, there was some truth in the “against” part, even though we were the ones who had not changed, but it was not true in the “everything” part. (That charge was a carefully designed attack mechanism.) Sometimes it may be that diagnosing a critical spirit is in the eye of the beholder. All of us folks are often found being critical of being critical.

A person with a critical spirit delights in exposing the flaws of others, with an attitude of of fault-finding that seeks to tear others down rather than build them up. However, the popular secular definition of nice often does not align with the Christian worldview. Let us worship Christ, not nice. Let our criticisms proceed from the goal of building up, edifying one another.

...we speak before God in Christ: but we do all things, dearly beloved, for your edifying... 2 Corinthians 12:19.

Random comments re Mark Ward and the King James Bible

After his debate with Dan Haifley, Mark Ward made a few stabs at “clarifying” his debate answer to Haifley about not giving children a King James Bible – by which either he meant or has been interpreted by others to mean that giving a King James Bible to a child is a sin. If accurately copied from the transcript and properly tweaked by listening to the audio, here is what Mark said:

“There comes a point at which it’s so close to this ditch that actually it is a sin for a given Bible translation to be handed to children. I’m saying we’ve reached the point where there’s a sufficient number of readability difficulties that it’s time to turn away from the King James in institutional contexts. Would I say it’s a sin to hand to your child? Here’s what I’d say, quoting the King James: ‘to him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not to him it is sin.’”

In the original quote itself Mark seems to be “hedging his bets,” and has also done so in some of his “clarifications,” in my opinion. In a recent discussion on Dwyane Green’s channel, Mark was understood by one listener to mean the following. He writes,

“Here’s how I took his comment:

“‘If you, like me, believe the KJV has reached the point of not being sufficiently intelligible for your child’s reading...and yet you give it to them, to you it is sin (because you know better).’

“So if one doesn’t agree with his premise about readability, then he’s NOT saying to that one it’s sin.”

I think that is a “charitable” interpretation of what Mark said. It would be a sin for Mark to give a KJV to a child, because he “knows better.” It would not be a sin for me to give a KJV to a child, since I don’t know any better. Is that a fair interpretation of how he uses James 4:17?

Then that raises the question whether that is even a proper interpretation and understanding of James 4:17. “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” [Or for the modern reader who doesn’t understand James 4:17 - “So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin” (ESV). “So suppose someone knows the good deeds they should do. But suppose they don’t do them. By not doing these good deeds, they sin.” (NIrV).]

Is not this instruction about sinning by omission – omitting or failing to do the good one knows to do? Giving someone a Bible – regardless of what version one gives – is an act, is it not? It is not an omission. It seems that Mark’s use of James 4:17 here makes sin much more subjective than what James actually writes.

Here is a transcription from about 5:38 to 6:10 in the second of Mark’s video interviews with Dwayne Green about the debate. Mark says:

“I’m opposed to exclusive use of the King James in general by anyone. I think at the very least you ought to have the liberty in your conscience to read other translations. I really don’t want to lay the burden on someone’s conscience to require them to use a modern translation even though I just said I don’t think it should be used exclusively. I do back off of saying that would be some kind of sin. I mean there must be millions – I don’t know, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of dear older saints who’ve grown up with the King James who do understand it sufficiently well…”

In light of the recent flare-up over whether it is a sin to give a child a King James Bible, there is this interesting comment: “I do back off of saying that would be some kind of sin.” I suppose “back off” might be taken one of two ways. The most common way to take it, I think, is that he is abandoning that position, retreating from what he had previously said. However, it might possibly mean to stop short of saying it, as in “I oppose the exclusive use of the King James, but stop short of saying that exclusive use is a sin.” I think Mark realized in reference to his making it a liberty of conscience issue, he needs to allow the liberty of conscience for those who want to exclusively read one translation.

On his opposition to the use of the King James Bible, I believe:

• Ward’s approach can be arrogant. He often implies only he is smart enough to know the answer.
• Ward’s method can be misleading. For example, his King James Quiz is defective in several regards, especially that it seems to try to direct a respondent to a wrong answer, so as to prove his point. Also there are no control questions.
• Ward’s interpretations can be inaccurate. He skews some definitions in his tests so that the range of meaning, not only in the translated word, but the original language word as well, is lost. His continual hammering on “halt” is an excellent example of this.
• Ward’s excess is unwise, and can start a chipping away at people’s faith in the Scriptures.

A somewhat peripheral general observation from me, on the multiplication of many different translations, and the continuing revision of the already multiplied ones:

If we would be faithful obeying “teach the generation following” (Deuteronomy 6:6-7; Psalm 48:13; 2 Timothy 2:2), there would not be a need for an every-generation update of the Bible.

Applying Caulking and Raising Children

“When someone does work for you, you also know the difference between the two [superior versus average, rlv]. You know the difference between a good caulking job, average, and poor. Probably many of you wouldn’t even accept average, let alone poor, and you know the distinctions.”

The above comment by Kent Brandenburg on his blog spurred some further thoughts in a slightly different direction from his main point. Brandenburg explained that when someone does work for you, you know “the difference between a good caulking job, average, and poor.”

A person does not have to be capable of doing a good caulking job to know a good caulking job when he sees it. If the homeowner complains, the caulker might retort, “Have you ever applied caulk?” The homeowner might be forced to answer, “No.” This, nevertheless is not an effective retort. One who cannot do a good caulking job can nevertheless have eyes to see and recognize a job that is not good!

Sometimes a person is trying to do something, or live in a certain way, and things are not going well. Someone else recognizes they are not doing a good job. Let’s say a parent is having difficulty raising a child. A childless unmarried Christian might advise the parent that he must not “spare the rod.” The parent might retort, “Have you ever raised a child?” The childless Christian is forced to answer, “No.” This, however, does not prove the advice itself is bad. (Yes, it is easy for a person with no children to hand out advice to folks who are in the midst of raising children, and sometimes even be arrogant about it.) Nevertheless, biblical counsel is true regardless who gives it, if they give it out correctly as God gave it. God knows all things. He knows how to raise children. He wrote the book on it! Knowing the Bible, you can know what a “good job” (regarding anything) is.

Lewis Foster on NKJV

Some interesting comments by Lewis Alvin Foster, who was a translator on both the NIV and NKJV. He wrote a book titled Selecting a Translation of the Bible. The bulk of the book consists of his going through nine English translations, giving some history, pro & cons, and recommendations. Concerning the “Weaknesses” of the New King James Version, he writes:

“The choice to follow the Greek text of the King James Version (1611) gives unwarranted precedence to the Textus Receptus (see above). Although much careful work has gone into the publishing of the Majority Text, the real use of this study has been thwarted by following whatever the King James reads whether supported by the Majority Text or not (for example, over 15 instances in the Gospel of Luke). Whether one agrees with advocates of the Majority Text in their consistent preference for its readings, one must recognize the healthy corrective that has been imposed on the Westcott-Hort tradition and long accepted assumptions in this area of textual criticism.” (Lewis A. Foster, Selecting a Translation of the Bible, Cincinnati, OH: Standard Publishing, 1983, pp. 123-124)

Foster makes an intriguing charge of dispensational bias in the translation of Matthew 24:33, in changing changing “it” to “He”. 

“Some changes that do appear in the NKJV cannot be explained by a difference in the Greek text, or by what was in the 1611 version, or by the demands of contemporary usage. Only the favoring of a particular interpretation has been served. Giving but one example, a passage reflects the dispensational view—when ‘it is near’ is changed in the NKJV to ‘He is near’ (Matthew 24:33).” (p. 125)

I wish he had given more examples of his belief that they followed doctrinal bias. This example is outdated. It was initially translated and published as “He”. “He” as in the 1979 NKJV NT was at some point changed back to “it”. Maybe someone noticed their bias was showing! The 1982 print edition of the whole Bible NKJV that I own has “it” but with a footnote that says “Or, He.”

The Cincinnati Enquirer, Sunday, March 28, 2004, p. B7

Himes on Providential Preservation

Saving this here. Comments by John R. Himes, grandson of Sword of the Lord editor John R. Rice. He seems to be a supporter of the Byzantine text generally, and not of the Textus Receptus specifically.

Has God providentially preserved His Word in the original languages? I believe He has. There is not much debate over the text of the Hebrew Old Testament (the Masoretic text), but criteria that to me are fulfilled by the Byzantine textform include:

1. It was the most widely dispersed and thus widely used of the early church. I know, I know, the Alexandrian text type has earlier mss, but then those early mss were not copied by Christians much.

2. It is the most coherent text with the best Greek. It seems to me that the Lord would inspire and preserve good grammar. This is not much of an argument on its own, though.

3. It is the text used most by those to whom Greek was a first language. In the Alexandrian and Western areas, where those two text types were preserved, the Byzantine area (including Antioch) is where Greek was usually the first language of the copyists. Being fluent in Japanese as my second language, I know how easy it is to make semantic mistakes and copy errors in one’s second language, even if one’s grammar is perfect. Caveat: I realize there were probably Greeks living in Alexandria, but the MSS we know to be copied in that area (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, etc.) are noted for copyist errors.

4. The Byzantine is right in the middle linguistically between the Alexandrian and Western text types. That is, the Alexandrian has fewer words and the Western has more. Thus, it makes sense to me to call it a neutral text (no apologies to Westcott and Hort) by virtue of its centrally located content, if I may phrase it that way. Remember that there is a curse on those who add to or take away from Revelation (22: 18-20), though I do not say that means a careless copyist or printer is headed for Hell!

T. Cassidy and Dean Burgon Society

Saving these links here.

• Textual Criticism: Fact and Fiction (1/4)
• Textual Criticism: Fact and Fiction (2/4)
• Textual Criticism: Fact and Fiction (3/4)
• Textual Criticism: Fact and Fiction (4/4)
• Dr. Waite Reply to Thomas Cassidy (Cached: The Reply of Pastor D. A. Waite)

Arrogantly assuming Academic Elevation

In a Facebook group dedicated to the subject of “New Testament Textual Criticism,” a contributor using the name Stephen Ford posted a criticism of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. Probably an atheist or agnostic (since he speaks of Christians in the 3rd person), his primary aim is to show that “The fact that the 4 gospels’ portrayals of the Easter story do indeed contradict each other…calls into question the essential reliability of the narratives as historical or eyewitness sources.”[i] At the moment I bypass the fact that Ford is merely regurgitating claims that have been reliably answered multitudes of times. What I want to notice is a peculiar, or particular, example of the arrogance of some textual critics. The names are changed to protect the guilty, and the particular group is not named because I respect the creator of the group (who was not involved in the exchange).[ii] 

The post was wrongly placed in this group because Stephen Ford does not (hopefully now, “did not”) understand the difference between New Testament textual criticism and criticizing the New Testament.[iii] When challenged for being “off topic,” he replied, “Pointing out discrepancies in a text is a criticism of the text, is it not?” Eventually, this led to mocking on the part of two text critics (and the moderator, who may also be a text critic).  

Boyd Stevens wrote: “If one doesn’t know what textual criticism is, it’s hard to take serious the entire post above.” The moderator who called attention to it being off topic agreed with Stevens (yet continued to leave the post up for commenting).[iv] 

Mitchell Timmons agreed: “I mean, the basic meaning of Textual Criticism is something that one learns about in Bibliology 101.”

J. Phillips correctly pointed out to Ford, “The sorts of discrepancies you see in the accounts are exactly what you see in real historical reporting. There are no actual contradictions.” Also, an exchange developed between Ford and a defender of the resurrection accounts, to which text critic Timmons looked down disgustedly and replied, “oh boy...”

Now, I understand that the post did not belong in this group, based on the criteria of what for and why the group exists. However, the particular moderator chose to leave it up for discussion before deleting it, to make an example as an illustration of people not knowing what text criticism is. Fair enough, I suppose. However, the mockery misses the point of truth by a mile. It is not that Ford does not know what text criticism is – but that he does not believe and misunderstands the Bible itself. You don’t have to be a text critic to harmonize and believe the Gospel accounts of the resurrection.

The comments of text critics Stevens and Timmons illustrate the arrogance of the Academy, the uplifting of the universities, and smirk of the scholastics. Knowing and understanding the biblical truth of the resurrection has nothing to do with knowing what the definition of text criticism is. Plenty of lay church members who know their Bibles “inside and out” and yet know little to nothing about text criticism. They understand the resurrection historically and theologically. You do not have to know what text criticism is to know what the Bible teaches,[v] however arrogantly some academics assume they know it all – and that you must bow before them if you wish to know it all. These text critics and the moderator do not get an “A” for effort, should go directly to jail, do not pass go, and do not collect $200!

• “Don’t let your boy’s schooling interfere with his education.” – Grant Allen
• “Pride brings a person low, but the lowly in spirit gain honor.” Proverbs 29:23

---

[i] This likely is his real name, since he linked to an article “Conflicting Details in the Easter Story” on his blog.
[ii] And does not himself usually play the scholar card.
[iii] Textual criticism is the study of a literary work that aims to establish the original text, including the analysis of the transmission of said text from its origin to the present. Bart Ehrman explains it this way: “Textual criticism is the attempt to establish what an author originally wrote whenever there is some uncertainty about it. For example, if Dante wrote the Inferno by hand, and we don’t actually have the hand-written copy he produced, and different surviving copies of the work have differences among them – which one is most like what he actually wrote?”
[iv] The thread was closed after staying up for reading and commenting 48 hours. In contrast, some moderator in that same group quickly closed a critique of Mark Ward’s KJV Parallel Bible website – even though both Ward and leading evangelical text critic have called it “A New Tool for Teaching Textual Criticism to English Speakers” (therefore patently relevant to the group’s purpose).
[v] Unless they are wrong in constantly claiming their work affects no major Bible doctrine.

My View of King James Only: Reprise

I am here revising and tweaking the past writing “My View of King James Only.” This is primarily because I believe it too readily acknowledged the bogus categories created by James R. Whiteout White – which I now reject as polemic, confusing, and doing more harm than good to fruitful discussion.

I consider myself “King James Only.” Unlike some, I am not bothered by association with the terminology. However, I find myself at odds with different ideas proclaimed in my own “camp,” in addition to not fitting how others perceive of or categorize us. I think it will be good (for me, and perhaps my readers) to again clarify by own thoughts and ideas.

I believe the Scriptures are inspired, infallible, inerrant, trustworthy, and our only rule of faith and practice. The autographs are inspired and inerrant in the most direct and immediate fashion.[i] The Holy Spirit moved on men (2 Peter 1:19-21), the result being that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God (cf. 2 Timothy 3:16-17). In that sense, neither copy nor translation is on par with the original, that is, in the sense of the “autograph” being the time and place where the divine transaction between God and his penman occurred. This does not mean we should doubt having the word of God in the present tense. All scripture is given by inspiration.

I accept phrasing used by Francis Turretin – authentic formally & authentic materially. Doubtless I have a slightly nuanced meaning. The scriptures in their present condition may not be “authentic formally” because they are not the original form or writing on the original media. They are “authentic materially” because the same truth is expressed in words that are providentially preserved. The word of the Lord is forever settled in heaven (Cf. Psalm 119:89). The original documents were written on perishable media (think “paper”[ii]). The original text, the words of God, survive and exist without the original media. The original message is not a physical object that has perished. It is a living word that is preserved. God’s message is not lost, when copied or translated accurately.

I accept the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts as equivalent to the autographs, and the King James Bible as the trustworthy available English translation of those words (texts). Or, as Edward Hills and others might put it, the King James Bible is a representative TR text (“the King James Version ought to be regarded … as an independent variety of the Textus Receptus,” Hills, King James Version Defended). King James advocates receive the traditional texts of the Old and New Testaments, rather than try to reconstruct them. Why? Either the text we have received is preserved by God, or we don’t have an accurate or preserved text. If we don’t have a received/preserved text, we neither can have an authentic text nor even know whether we have a true representation of the autographs. The advocates of the critical text must admit that we are all in the same leaky boat if they are correct.

I believe that the Scriptures are inspired by God; that the original words (but not the original media) are preserved by God; and that the preserved words have been accurately translated into languages other than the original languages.[iii] In the English language, I believe the King James Bible represents this work of God, is an accurate translation of the originally inspired words, and can therefore confidently be considered the inspired words of God, preserved and translated. (Some people express it this way: Copies and translations have derivative inspiration. Derivative means not original, i.e., secondary. That seems okay to me. I’m not sure, however, that everybody means the same thing when they use the terminology.) I do not believe the King James translators were inspired. I believe King James Bible can be referred to as inspired and inerrant because it accurately reflects the original documents, the preserved original language manuscripts, and the copies derived from them – all of which are both inspired and inerrant. I do not believe that God’s words are only preserved in English.[iv]

Unlike some in the “King James Only” camp, I do not spend much of my time on tirades against other printed translations of the Bible.[v] I am loathe to say that the words “Jesus wept” (John 11:35) or “Eber, Peleg, Reu” (1 Chronicles 1:25) somehow are no longer God’s words when printed within the lids of the American Standard Version, Christian Standard Bible, New International Version, or the Revised Standard Version. When the Douay-Rheims Version (DRA, 1899 American Edition) says in John 14:6 “Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me” it is a clear testimony that Jesus is the only way, even though contained in a Catholic translation. This is not an endorsement of these Bible translations, but a simple acknowledgement that God’s word cannot be bound or broken! (Compare 2 Timothy 2:9, John 10:35, & Isaiah 55:11, for examples). Wherever it is accurately translated – even in translations with which I otherwise disagree – God’s word is God’s word! (To be clear, I do disagree with specific ways words and verses are translated in other Bibles and discuss such things. For example, read my essays on John 7:8 or Luke 3:36.)

The King James Bible translators, in The Translators to the Reader, put it this way:

“Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King’s speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.”

God’s word is resilient; it is powerful and persistent; it cannot be bound or broken. Bury it and it will rise again! John 6:63 “…the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” (Jeremiah 23:29, Ephesians 6:17)

---

[i] In theological terms, the autographs (or autographa) refer to the first or original writing (or manuscript) of the documents of the Bible. Therefore, for example, the first document created when Matthew penned his gospel is the “autograph.” When the original document is copied, it is still the Gospel of Matthew but the copy is not considered the autograph.
[ii] Much of the scripture, so it is believed, was originally written on papyrus, a writing material made from a papyrus or reed plant. We get our English word paper from the word papyrus. It may not seem troublesome to scholars to discuss our “not having” the inspired writings, but it is troublesome to destroy the people’s confidence in the Bible.
[iii] “Another rendering of the authentic version is itself also Sacred Scripture, so long as it has been translated into other languages as devoutly as possible, and corresponds to it precisely and completely—as much, at least, as this can be done. Such translation is not only permitted and useful (contrary to what certain papal teachers have determined), but also entirely necessary (Acts 2:4, 6, 11; Nehemiah 8:8, 9, 14, 18), so that it may be of use to all people (Deuteronomy 31:11; Colossians 3:16), and so that it may be understood, read, and heard by all people and those of any kind—also lay-people.” – Synopsis Purioris Theologiae, or Synopsis of a Purer Theology
[iv] Some people think – some even insist – that “King James Only” implies or means this.
[v] Nevertheless, the multiplying of translations, in and of itself, causes a great deal of confusion with bad consequences. By “tirades” I have in mind rants that call modern translations things like the “Energized Satanic Version,” as well as the condemning of all translators or users of modern texts to eternity in hell. There is plenty of room for and need of pushback against bad translations of bad texts, bad translations of good texts, and good translations of bad texts. If a translation includes some of God’s truth, we should acknowledge that while pointing out the errors.

The argument from consistency

“Consistency, thou art a jewel!” – Unknown, though often attributed to Shakespeare

“The essence of Christian maturity is to have a high tolerance for ambiguity.” – Fred Smith

“Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson[i]

Emerson, Fred Smith, and Faux Shakespeare may all be on to something! “Consistency, thou art jewel” is an oft-quoted proverb used to good effect.  On the other hand, we often misunderstand the argument from inconsistency, or the argument for consistency.

Consistent is an adjective, and means “agreeing or accordant, not self-contradictory.” Consistency is the noun form, referring to such non-contradictory agreement or logical coherence of a thing (thought) and its parts. Logical inconsistency refers to making arguments that are not internally consistent. In logic or debate a consistent argument does not contain or lead to any logical contradiction.

An OUP blog post says:

“A theory is inconsistent if we can prove a contradiction using basic logic and the principles of that theory.”

The proprietor of “The Logic of Science” blog writes:

“[Consistent reasoning] is a fundamental requirement of the law of non-contradiction. It is, therefore, vital to make sure that your views are internally consistent, and pointing out inconsistent arguments can be an extremely powerful debate tool (it’s actually among my favorites).”

Sometimes it is a too-powerful debate tool. Over the years, in discussions of religious topics (which I cannot bring to mind at the moment) I have seen debaters throw down the gauntlet of “inconsistency,” thinking they then might confidently walk away the winner. Sometimes their opponents and their hearers misunderstand and submissively agree. However, they may have only given proof of inconsistency, and not proof of which inconsistent position is wrong or whether neither or both might be.

A simple but extravagant example can illustrate the point. A person may invoke an unsound argument for a conclusion, even though the conclusion itself is true. An inconsistent argument is proof of an inconsistent argument. It does not necessarily mean the conclusion is false. One might argue, Joe Biden is a Democrat because the ocean is blue. Donald Trump is a Republican because a strawberry is red.  These arguments are obviously non sequitur (Latin, “it does not follow”). The ocean is blue and strawberries are red, though those premises have little or nothing to do with the conclusion (the colors are related). Nevertheless, despite the hapless argumentation, the conclusions are true. Joe Biden is a Democrat. Donald Trump is a Republican

Be careful and be sure. Don’t immediately admit that inconsistency is proof of an error of your part and point – just proof of inconsistency. If your argument is inconsistent but your conclusion true, develop a consistent argument. If your conclusion is false, find the truth! (Proverbs 23:23; John 8:32) The truth shall make you free.

---

[i] From the essay “Self-Reliance” by Ralph Waldo Emerson, a fuller quote is “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”

Ruckman’s seven times purified, et al

“Happy Birthday, God’s Bible! You were born in 1611; you were born as the seventh in the lists of Bibles that preceded you (see Psa. 12:6-7). You were the culmination of God’s word in history: 1) a Hebrew received text (1780–400 B.C.), an Aramaic received text (603–515 B.C.), a Greek received text (A.D. 35–96), a Syrian received text (A.D. 120–180), a Latin received text (A.D. 140–150), a German received text (Martin Luther, A.D. 1520-1600), an English received text (the AV, A.D. 1526–1611). It was the culmination of the Bible in the English language: Tyndale (1525), Coverdale (1535), Matthew (1537), Great (1539), Geneva (1539 [sic]), Bishops’ (1568), King James (1611). You were seventh on the lists of two sevens.” Happy Anniversary KJV: a Collection of Articles from the 2011 Bible Believers’ Bulletins Honoring the Authorized Version, Peter S. Ruckman, Pensacola, FL: BB Bookstore, 2011

The idea that the King James Bible has been purified seven times has become a popular theory in King James circles. I do not know whether it originated with Peter Ruckman (quoted above), or elsewhere. It probably does not matter. There are a number of differing theories vying to be the correct one. (Although, fascinatingly, this seems to be one area folks do not get incensed about, as long as you agree that it has in some way or every way been purified seven times.)

I am a staunch KJV supporter and defender. I do not hold the idea that Psalm 12:6 somehow applies to the right Bible having to be purified seven times. One of the primary proofs against this is the various ways people achieve making the King James Bible in some way be Number 7 in a series, which appear contrived, in my opinion. For some it is pinnacle Bible in the seventh language. There are other ways to achieve the goal, all different in method and purpose, to make it be the seventh Bible. If I were going to do so, I would keep it simple. The King James translators’ rule number 14 mentions six predecessors – Tindoll’s, Matthew’s, Coverdale’s, Whitchurch’s, Geneva, and Bishop’s – making the 1611 translation the seventh. Duane Bryant uses this system also. Why not stop there, if you are going there in the first place?

One problem seldom seems settled on, which should be settled before beginning, is what do we mean in terms of the groups of seven Bibles? Does it mean complete Bibles that contain all the Old and New Testaments (e.g. Tyndale only translated the NT and Pentateuch)? (Some, in fact, include Wycliffe rather than Tyndale because Wycliffe was complete and Tyndale was not.) Does it mean translations made from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek (Wycliffe and Douay-Rheims are based on the Latin Vulgate). Does it only mean translations made from the Textus Receptus? Lots of things need to be asked and answered before the discussion even starts.

[Other connections to the number 7 are made as well. For example, the King James Bible uses the term Jehovah only seven times and only in the Old Testament; the King James Bible is the product of seven years of translation work, the English purification process took seven decades, etc.] 

Geoffrey Grider says Psalm 12:6 means the Bible “shall be preserved from that 7th generation forever. It’s probably just an amazing coincidence, but, the Bible has undergone 7 main iterations and they are as follows:”

1. The Aramaic Received Text: 603 – 515 BC
2. The Hebrew Received Text: 1780 – 400 BC
3. The Greek Received Text: 35 – 96 AD
4. The Syriac Received Text: 120 – 180 AD
5. The Latin Received Text: 140 – 500 AD
6. The German Received Text: 1520 – 1600 AD
7. The English Received Text: 1525 – 1611 AD

The Help Through Hope website uses a seven-fold division with the same languages (above, though with some differences in order and dating).

Afterward, they posit the purification of the Scriptures in English is seven-fold also:

1. The Gothic
2. The Anglo-Saxon
3. The Pre-Wycliffe
4. The Wycliffe
5. The Tyndale/Coverdale/Great/Geneva
6. The Bishops
7. The King James Bible

The English Bible’s seven-fold purification in the above list is equivalent to that proposed by the popular author Gail Riplinger.

In two “Line Upon Line” lessons (Gathering Into One and Standing for Purity), Matthew Verschuur spells out the seven times without (prior to), and within the King James Bible.

When the King James Bible was translated, their instructions were to follow the following versions:

1. Tyndale’s (1525, 1534),
2. Matthew’s (1537),
3. Coverdale’s (1535),
4. The Great (1539),
5. The Geneva (1560),
6. The Bishops’ (1568).

The Scripture which indicates seven times of purification can also be applied to the editions of the King James Bible. There are seven major editions. They are:

1. The First 1611,
2. The Second 1611,
3. The 1613,
4. The 1629,
5. The 1638,
6. The 1769,
7. The Pure Cambridge Edition from around 1900.

Summarized, the most common theories seem to be:

1. The King James Bible is the seventh major translation into major world languages.
2. The King James Bible is the seventh major early English translation.
3. The King James Bible itself has gone through a seven-fold purification process.

Many seem to see these three theories as complementary rather than exclusive.

Would the idea that purified seven times in Psalm 12:6 is a prophecy that must be fulfilled mean that: 

1. the Bible translated into each language must eventually have a seven times translation process (of some sort) in order to be the pure word of God? 
2. the Bible in the English language only, specifically the King James Bible, is the pure word of God?

I know there are those who believe No. 2. I am not sure how many arrive at the No. 1 position.

Psalm 12:6 says “The words of the Lord are pure words.”  They in the past and in the present are pure. They always have been pure. They always will be pure. Psalm 12:6 does not say “The words of the Lord have been, are, or will be purified seven times.” “Purified seven times” modifies “silver” rather than “words.” Then the figure of speech (beginning with “as”) suggests by analogy a similarity of the purity of an observable temporal process (silver) with an eternal spiritual force (words of the Lord). Silver – intensely, expertly, and purposefully purified – gives us a manner of comparison to the word of God, which is pure always and forever. See Psalm 119:89. (Note that both “tried” and “purified” both grammatically modify “silver.” Only by the extension of the simile do they relate to “The words of the Lord.”) I am suggesting to us, then, that we interpret the meaning of Psalm 12:6 by what the King James Bible says rather than what people say about the King James Bible.

While I know good solid Christians who hold the idea of the Bible being purified seven times, this seems to me—boiled down to its essence—actually to be a “low” view of the Bible and its preservation rather than a high one. I cannot get around the fact that, though it may not mean to, this theory actually denies that God preserved his word to all generations.

The New Covenant

Jeremiah 31:31-34 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Hebrews 8:8-13 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: and they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Comments from Crossway:

The old covenant was thus breakable but not bad itself. Though the apostle Paul is often enlisted in Christian theology to criticize the old covenant, he asserts in more than one place that the OT law is fundamentally good (e.g., Rom. 7:12, 16; 1 Tim. 1:8).

Given such theological continuity, why does the writer of Hebrews emphasize discontinuity in stating that “Now hath [Christ] obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.” (Heb. 8:6–7)? And, following a full citation of Jeremiah 31:31–34 (Heb. 8:8–12, the longest quotation of the OT in the NT), the passage continues, “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.” (Heb. 8:13). It is crucial in this respect that the author of Hebrews introduces the Jeremiah quotation with the editorial phrase, “For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord...” (Heb. 8:8). That is, the fault of the old covenant (8:7) lay in how the people themselves were faulty and prone to breaking it (Heb. 8:8a), thus incurring the need for the “new covenant,” which follows in the passage (Heb. 8:8b–12).5 Indeed, the writer to the Hebrews explains that Yahweh instituted the better promises of the new covenant for this reason: “They continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord” (Heb. 8:9).

--

It is a new covenant, unlike the old covenant.

The old covenant was breakable.

The new covenant is sure.

I love the King James Bible, but...

Consider an outré approach to expressing belief about the Bible, that has exploded into the mainstream. Will Kinney has dubbed this the “praise and then blast” syndrome. This is especially popular when discussing the King James Bible. When I was a young preacher, honest detractors disparaged the KJV head on. Take no prisoners. Apparently that is not “PC” in our perpetually-offended culture. You have to play nice. Start with deference to the old man before you kick him to the curb. And so, we have gotten the perpetually pervasive putrid phrase “I love the King James Bible, but...” And watch out for those buts; some of them can be quite a doozy. I love the King James Bible, but... – then they proceed page after page to blast away at all the alleged “errors” they think they have found in this Bible they profess to love so much! If spouses preferred that approach, they might get slapped – a lot. “I love my spouse, but…”

The King James Version has with good reason been termed “the noblest monument of English prose.” Its revisers in 1885 expressed admiration for “its simplicity, its dignity, its power, its happy turns of expression ... the music of it cadences, and the felicities of its rhythm.” It entered, as no other book has, into the making of the personal character and the public institutions of the English-speaking peoples. We owe to it an incalculable debt. Then they began to wildly whack away at the monument. By the time of the Revised Standard Version, the noble monument had “grave defects.”

“Yet the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision of the English translation.” (RSV revisers, 1971 edition)

In previous writings on my blog, I have mentioned this passive-aggressive “I love the KJV, but...” phrase. Today I post some such statements that I have collected off the internet for possible future reference/use. Many include complaints about “archaic words,” but it takes all kinds. Here are some gleanings. [Bracketed comments are mine.]

• I love the King James Version, but I fear it is filled with so many archaic words that I find it easier to read the passage in Hebrew. [Fortunately, biblical Hebrew does not have any archaic words, right?]
• I love the King James Version, but if you are just beginning, then I would recommend the New Living Translation, since it is pretty easy to read and it doesn’t have any “thous” and “thees” to make it confusing. [Yep, they use other things to confuse you.]
• I love the King James Version, but if that’s the only version you use, you’d better do some digging in the original languages. [So you would not recommend that folks using modern translations should do some digging in the original languages?]
• I love the King James Version, but it has some significant problems because the language has changed. [The more significant problems are likely your ineptitude of study.]
• I love the King James version but don’t read it because I’m thrown off by the THEE and THOU and THUS. [Yes, I can clearly see you are thrown off by the “thuses.”]
• I love the King James Version, but it has a few problems. This is why it’s good to use multiple versions of the Bible when we study the text. [Especially since these multiple versions have no problems?]
• I love the King James Version but sometimes the words used are not what we are accustomed to choosing in our daily conversation today. [I know thousands of words I do not use in daily conversation.]
• I love the King James version, but finally decided to make a change. I’m glad I did. [I am glad I didn’t.]
• I love the King James Bible, but it waters down the truth about obeisance to state power. [Huh? Dilutes deference to governmental authority?]
• I love the King James Bible, but it could also be made gender neutral / gender inclusive. [I think we’re good. Go find something modern if you want gender neutral / gender inclusive, and leave the KJV alone.]
• I love the KJV, but you have to read with your eyes open. [I usually do.]
• I love the KJV, but use the ESV while doing official church functions and such...for the sake of polity. [Sounds like you have bad church polity.]
• I love the KJV, but I can say the same of the NIV, NASB and NKJV. [You can say anything you want.]
• I love the KJV, but it is not the best for study. [It has been studied for over 400 years. That is a pretty fair recommendation!]
• I love the KJV, but I get more out of the 1984NIV. [Better hold on to it. The NIV committee is how many iterations away from that one by now?]
• I love the KJV, but I wouldn’t go over to China and give it to its people. [Yep, probably give them a Bible in Chinese, or whatever language they read, instead.]
• I love the KJV, but there are passages that are beautiful more than meaningful. [Actually, it is beautiful and meaningful. Fortunately, you cannot accuse most modern translations of being beautiful!]
• I love the KJV, but sometimes, it doesn’t convey the truth as it should. [IOW, how you think it should.]

Pitbull Pidcock

Rick Pidcock, a freelance writer and graduate of Bob Jones University, at times seems trying to establish himself at the pitbull of the left of liberal Not-Baptist Opinion Everywhere (aka Baptist News Global. He is a prolific contributor to BNG, but, like Martha, he is careful and troubled about many things – especially if those things have anything to do with “white evangelical conservatives.” It is almost like he has an insecurity rooted in fear.

Like many on the left, he fears the possibility of no longer being able to kill babies in the womb. He and they are enamored with that “right.”

The primary case against abortion is theological, not political. When conservatives declare that “life begins at conception,” that is a theological claim based on Psalm 139:13, not a scientific claim or a public policy claim.[i]

No great surprise for people who claim the Bible as their authority. And while biblical claims do not find their genesis in science, they do not necessarily contradict one another. And even if Pidcock can’t see it, “science,” which parses its words carefully in the current “politically-charged” atmosphere, is near the same place as Christians. Even the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute admits, “Pregnancy is established when a fertilized egg has been implanted in the wall of a woman's uterus.” And Encyclopedia Brittanica states, “The zygote (fertilized egg cell)...represents the first stage in the development of a genetically unique organism.”

Logic, common sense, and the American College of Pediatricians are slightly ahead of them, and right there with the Bible and Christians. There is one point in which something changes from two to one. “The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop.”

Rick cannot take it. In another diatribe, he makes clear his holier-than-thou position: If you want to discuss abortion with him, you must lay aside what you believe and discuss it on his terms. What hubris!

Drop that concept [belief in hell], and then maybe we can talk about abortion with a modicum of humanity and common sense. Until then, I can’t take anything conservative evangelicals in the pro-life movement have to say about abortion the least bit seriously.

See how the “liberal-minded” left operates? Acquiesce to my position before we can even begin to discuss an issue. Oh, the intolerance of tolerance!

---

[i] Note two things about “a theological claim based on Psalm 139:13, not a scientific claim or a public policy claim.” 1. “As if” that is the only theological prop we have. 2. He seems to disallow Christians using their source of truth in “public policy.” Get your truth elsewhere if you wish to unveil it in the public square. This from the folks who talk talk talk about “religious freedom.”

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.