“Let the Bible be the Bible!”
Augustine of Hippo stated, “If you believe what you like in the Gospel, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the Gospel you believe, but yourself.” Truly we could further reflect “If you believe what you like in the Bible, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the Bible you believe, but yourself.”
“Baptists and the American Standard Version of the Bible” by Doug Kutilek was first published in As I See It, Volume 19, No. 3.[i] It has been republished at Sharper Iron, and Kutilek (on 16 Feb 2024) republished it to the Baptist History Preservation group on Facebook. Doug Kutilek is a very active anti-King James Onlyist promoter of modern versions.
This curious excerpt from his post obtained perhaps more notice and discussion than the rest of what he wrote about the ASV.
“In a book written around 1967, Dr. Richard V. Clearwaters, founder of Central Baptist Seminary of Minnesota and Pillsbury Baptist College,
and widely recognized during his lifetime as a ‘Fundamentalist’s Fundamentalist,’ wrote:
“Honesty compels us to cite the 1901 American Revised as the best English Version of the original languages which places us in a position 290 years ahead of those who are still weighing the King James of 1611 for demerits.[ii] ... We know of no Fundamentalists ... that claim the King James as the best English translation. Those in the mainstream of Fundamentalism all claim the American Revised of 1901 as the best English translation.”[iii] The Great Conservative Baptist Compromise, pp. 192, 199.
The excerpt is curious in what it asserts and what it leaves out. The quote below includes a bit more material from before and after what Kutilek shared, plus a full sentence on page 199 without the ellipsis.
“One mark of scholarship at Central is that the Revised Standard Version of the Bible is never given praise or blame over the ‘straw man’ of the Authorized Version, either orally or in writing as some schools have delighted to do to impress people that they are up-to-date. Honesty compels us to cite the 1901 American Revised as the best English Version of the original languages which places us in a position 290 years ahead of those who are still weighing the King James of 1611 for demerits…We know of no Fundamentalists except the Carnell variety that claim the King James as the best English translation. Those in the mainstream of Fundamentalism all claim the American Revised of 1901 as the best English translation. We know of no competent scholar who would not rate it far above the Revised Standard Version, which Carnell quotes throughout his book.” The Great Conservative Baptist Compromise, pp. 192, 199.
By means of ellipsis (... three-dot punctuation to indicate material passed over, omission of words, admitting alteration of a direct quote), Doug Kutilek would have Richard Clearwaters say that no Fundamentalists thought the the KJV was better than the ASV. Additionally, Clearwaters himself creates some “plausible deniability” for his comment by later using the phrase “the mainstream of Fundamentalism,” thereby simply writing out
of “the mainstream” those who disagree with him about the ASV!
However, we could take for example Philip Mauro. Mauro was a
contributor to the original fundamentalist series The Fundamentals: A
Testimony to The Truth. Surely one of that pedigree could not be written out of
“the mainstream.” He wrote Which Version in 1924, defending the King James
Version over and against the English and American revisions, as superior in underlying
text, the quality of translation, as well as in its style and composition.
While Clearwaters touts the ASV as the Bible of “The” Fundamentalists, the editors of The Fundamentals: a Testimony, and particularly the author James M. Gray (then dean of Moody Bible Institute), criticizes the English Revised and ASV translation of 2 Timothy 3:16 – noting the superiority of the King James translation.
“As this verse is given somewhat differently in the Revised Version we dwell upon it a moment longer. It there reads, “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable,” and the caviller is disposed to say that therefore some scripture may be inspired and some may not be, and that the profitableness extends only to the former and not the latter.
“But aside from the fact that Paul would hardly be guilty of such a weak truism as that, it may be stated in reply first, that the King James rendering of the passage is not only the more consistent scripture, but the more consistent Greek. Several of the best Greek scholars of the period affirm this, including some of the revisers themselves who did not vote for the change.” The Fundamentals: a Testimony to the Truth, Volume II, R. A. Torrey, editor. Los Angeles, CA: BIOLA, 1917, pp. 16, 21[iv]
When Richard V. Clearwaters writes “the Carnell variety” of Fundamentalists, he means the type of Fundamentalist mentioned by Edward John Carnell, a Baptist preacher and president of Fuller Seminary, in his book The Case for Orthodox Theology. Clearwaters is not identifying Carnell as a Fundamentalist. Rather, in his book Carnell complained of Fundamentalists clinging to the King James Version, writing:
“The mentality of fundamentalism is dominated by ideological thinking. Ideological thinking is rigid, intolerant, and doctrinaire…The fundamentalists’ crusade against the Revised Standard Version illustrates the point. The fury did not stem from a scholarly conviction that the version offends Hebrew and Greek idioms, for ideological thinking operates on far simpler criteria. First, there were modernists on the translation committee, and modernists corrupt whatever they touch. It does not occur to fundamentalism that translation requires only personal honesty and competent scholarship. Secondly, the Revised Standard Version’s copyright is held by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ. If a fundamentalist used the new version, he might give aid and comfort to the National Council; and that, on his principles, would be sin. By the same token, of course, a fundamentalist could not even buy groceries from a modernist. But ideological thinking is never celebrated for its consistency.” The Case for Orthodox Theology (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1959), p. 114
“The intellectual stagnation of fundamentalism can easily be illustrated. Knowing little about the canons of lower criticism, and less about the relation between language and culture, the fundamentalist has no norm by which to classify the relative merits of Biblical translations. As a result, he identifies the Word of God with the seventeenth-century language forms of the King James Version. Since other versions sound unfamiliar to him, he concludes that someone is tampering with the Word of God.” The Case for Orthodox Theology, p. 120
So, Clearwaters is not trying to make an accurate historical statement, but rather a polemical point, to distance himself from the Fundamentalists that Carnell criticized – and in doing so to assert that the “true” Fundamentalists are those who do not hold such a position. Carnell knew better, Clearwaters knew better,[v] and we know better. Kutilek should know better. This claim cannot be considered a completely valid historical statement of the relationship of the Fundamentalists (or Baptists) to the King James Bible.
Ellipses serve a purpose. When we quote authors there is not usually room to reproduce everything they said. Brevity has its place. However, we should not “ellipsize” out the facts in order to make our point – most especially when that point contradicts the original source.[vi] Too many “Bible version arguers” of all stripes do just that. Let us resolve to do better!
Ephesians 4:15 but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
Deuteronomy 6:5 and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
Matthew 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Matthew 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Matthew 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Proverbs 23:23 Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding.
2 Thessalonians 2:10 and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
“That’s easy for you to say” is a common rejoinder used by a person who is getting advice to suggest that the person who is giving advice is not affected by the advice. For example, someone might say, “You really need to get out more and get more exercise.” The person receiving the advice replies, “That’s easy for you to say. You live alone; you have no kids; you’ve got to plenty time to do what you wish.”
There seems to be a certain logic in the retort, and it often can be true that what is said is easier for the advice giver than for the advice getter. However, what is often missed is this – even though the advice may be “easier” for the giver to give than the getter to get, that does not mean that the advice is bad advice or not true. Just because the above adviser has plenty of time on her hands, it does not mean that the receiver does not need to get out and get more exercise.
Often in the realm of teaching biblical truth, the teacher receives the rejoinder “That’s easy for you to say.” In preaching it is not uncommon for me to say, “That is easier said than done.” In other words, just because it is “easy” to preach the truth does not mean it is “easy” to obey that truth. That is a recognition of something but at the same time not saying the truth is not the truth.
When we have just received advice or truth that is “easier for the other person to say,” let us not just cast it off for that reason. Even though it is not easy to hear or do, it nevertheless may be the truth. Search the scriptures, whether or not the things that are easy for someone else to say are so. They just may be.
Psalm 116:15 Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints.
Death.
Death is spoken of in several ways in the Scriptures – physical death (Genesis 5:5), spiritual death (Eph. 2:1, 5), eternal death (the second death, Rev. 20:14-15). In the context of Psalm 116, the word speaks of physical death, the time when our temporal bodies cease to function and return to the dust.
A clinical, medical, or scientific definition of death is the permanent cessation of all vital bodily functions. A legal definition of death is the irreversible cessation of cardiorespiratory function or irreversible cessation of all brain function. These are clinically measurable criteria, though ultimately imperfect and fallible. Folks who have been pronounced dead have later been found to have life – some before burial, fortunately.
The biblical definition of death is true and accurate, but not clinically measurable. “The body without the spirit is dead.” James 2:26.
Saints.
A saint in the minds of many people is a person of great virtue and holiness – and in the Roman Catholic sense especially a virtuous holy person who has been declared a “capital S” Saint. However, in the biblical sense a saint is a child of God, either living or dead. Jude 1:14 demonstrates the latter, “Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints.” (Cf. 1 Thessalonians 3:13) So does Matthew 27:52 (“bodies of the saints which slept arose”). But primarily in the New Testament, saints are the living born again believers in the gathered congregations (e.g., Acts 9:13, 32, 41; 26:10). They assemble together (Romans 16:15; 1 Corinthians 1:2), the Spirit intercedes for them (Romans 8:27), act carnally (1 Corinthians 5-6), need perfecting (Ephesians 4:12), experience want (2 Corinthians 9:12), need refreshing (Philemon 1:7), have feet that need washing (1 Timothy 4:10), pray & are prayed for (Revelation 5:8; Ephesians 6:18), and have had the faith delivered unto them (Jude 1:3).
In context these saints are initially physical alive, since it talks about their coming physical death.
Precious.
Precious is an adjective that means highly esteemed; cherished; dear; beloved; of great value; valuable. Some things described in the Bible as precious are: costly stones, metals, jewels, ointments, & spices (1 Kings 10:2; 2 Kings 20:13); thoughts (Psalm 139:17), a good name (Ecclesiastes 7:1), the fruit of the earth (James 5:7), life (2 Kings 1:14; Psalm 49:8), faith (2 Peter 1:1), promises (2 Peter 1:4), and – most of all – “the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Peter 1:19).
All of these things named are either costly, cherished, beloved, and/or highly esteemed, by God or man.
In the sight of the Lord.
“In the sight of the Lord” ties together precious, death, and saints. The separation of the body and spirit in physical death of the born again children of God (his saints – not Catholic saints, not imagined saints on earth – his saints) is valuable, cherished, and highly esteemed.
“In the sight of the Lord” – This fact is based on God himself (i.e., his truth and his perspective) and by extension to all who then understand death from God’s point of view. To be precious, death must be viewed in a certain light. God is truth (John 3:33), his word is truth (John 17:17), and God’s point of view is truth. “Let God be true, but every man a liar.”
To the dying saint going home, from God’s point of view, and in truth itself, death is gain (Philippians 1:21): a removal from mortal life in the temporal world to immortal life in the eternal world, a reunion of saints living on earth with saints already in heaven, a rest from strife and struggling, and a relief from pain and sorrow.
To the living saint left behind, from God’s point of view, and in truth itself, death is a readjustment at which time we know that we can have sorrow for our loss, but that we “sorrow not, even as others which have no hope” (1 Thessalonians 4:13). The dead in Christ are with him in spirit (2 Corinthians 5:8), and when he comes again, the bodies of those saints will rise from their graves.
Death is not precious to the world. It is a hated and despised enemy. Like Ahab to Elijah, when death comes the world must say “Hast thou found me, O mine enemy?” And like Elijah and Paul, death answers, “I have found thee…for the wages of sin is death.” Those who have no hope beyond the grave cannot see that there is the victory over death – yea, cannot obtain victory over death, and can have neither feeling nor understanding that it is precious.
To be precious, death must be viewed in a certain light – the light of God’s word, God’s will, and of God himself.
1 Corinthians 15:51-57.
Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
“It is the misfortune of discussions of a controversial character, that they are apt to degenerate into mere personalities. The enquiry after truth, which should be the sole thing aimed at, is thus avoided, and the question becomes one of supposed misrepresentation, or inconsistency of statement, on the one side or the other, upon a matter not affecting the main point of the issue.”
G. P., The Gospel Herald, Vol. XX, pp. 268-269.
“Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.” I discovered Wikipedia around 2003 and started working as an “editor”. My first attempt at editing began with adding information about Baptists on their “List of Christian denominations” page. Therefore, my working relationship with them has been almost 20 years.
This is a “free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.” Because of that, there are negatives. Bad edits are made. On the other hand, very many articles on Wikipedia provide a quick, easy to find, and helpful entry point of research. There can be a wealth of sources in the footnotes, references, resources, and external links. Numerous blog posts I have made at “Seeking the Old Paths” include the words “According to Wikipedia.” However, future posts will not.
It probably happened long long before I noticed it – but “Wikipedia” is now “Woke-ipedia.” Political correctness expelled exactness of encyclopedic entries. Accuracy is sacrificed on the altar of expediency. If you cannot trust an encyclopedia to be accurate, you cannot trust an encyclopedia. You cannot trust Wikipedia – at least you cannot know whether you can trust it.
I discovered this a couple of weeks ago when I wanted to know Rachel Levine’s birth name. Simple. Just check good old Wikipedia. Nope. Wikipedia’s policy excludes giving the “dead-name” of a transgender person. They have to pretend that Richard Levine was born Rachel Levine, regardless of the facts. That’s a no go for me.
Henceforth Wikipedia is a “dead-name” to me. (Perhaps try Conservipedia instead.)
“A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying, ‘You are mad; you are not like us.’”
In the spirit of irony, Bible verse “translations” consistent with modern text critical views of the preservation of Scripture. (Select the blue links to see what the scriptures really say.)
Matthew 21:42 - Jesus saith unto them, I know ye never read in the scriptures, since ye only have copies with errors instead of the autographs.
Matthew 22:29 - Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not having the scriptures, nor even perfect copies thereof.
Mark 15:28 - And the scripture might have been fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors (that is, if the copy that recordest those words be accurate).
Luke 16:29 - Abraham said to the rich man, I know that thy brothers do not have Moses and the prophets, since the autographs have not been kept pure in all ages. However, they do have manuscript copies, which they can accept as mostly correct, since Moses and the prophets are probably scattered in these various manuscripts. They can check that out.
Luke 24:44 - And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, and had to explain, because they were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me, but have not been accurately preserved until this time in history.
John 5:39 - Search for the scriptures; for ye think ye have them: but ye have them not. Ye have only inaccurate copies.
John 7:42 - Hath not the scripture said? (We really dost not know, since the inspired autographs have not been preserved.)
Acts 8:35 - Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and showed the eunuch he could not be sure what Isaiah wrote or meant, since there were variants in all the copies.
Acts 17:11 - These acted differently than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all sorts of questions in their minds, and searched the manuscripts daily, whether they had the word of God or no.
Romans 4:3 - For what saith the scripture? Without the autographs we cannot be sure, but we think that maybe Abraham believed God, and hope that it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Romans 15:4 - For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning. However, since God didst not preserve them pure in all ages, we through the scriptures do not know how much hope to have, or whether we have hope.
2 Timothy 3:15 - And that from a child thou hast thought thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are really only inaccurate copies and poor translations, unable to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2 Timothy 3:16 - All scripture was given by inspiration of God, and would be profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, hadst God chosen to preserve them pure in all ages.
James 4:5 - Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy? Yea, probably so, since thou canst never be sure it was copied accurately.
Wow! What a difference in how Jesus and the apostles described the scriptures versus how the modern text critics and the scholars and teachers who depend on them describe the scriptures!
This little exercise in irony is intended to stress that the old approach to the scriptures as true is wildly different from the new approach to the scriptures as uncertain. Jesus, his apostles, and the inspired writers neither criticized nor corrected Scripture (even though they had copies and did not possess the original autographs, i.e., those written in the hands of the original authors). The focus is always “the scriptures say this,” “the scriptures are true,” “believe what the scriptures say.” We need to drink from the pure well of Jesus and the apostles, not the poisoned well of modern textual criticism.
Please forgive the brevity, but because of my limitations I have to keep this short.
I did not die. I did not go to Heaven.
I said I went to heaven because I thought it would get me attention. When I made the claims that I did, I had never read the Bible. People have profited from lies, and continue to. They should read the Bible, which is enough. The Bible is the only source of truth. Anything written by man cannot be infallible.
It is only through repentance of your sins and a belief in Jesus as the Son of God, who died for your sins (even though he committed none of his own) so that you can be forgiven may you learn of Heaven outside of what is written in the Bible…not by reading a work of man. I want the whole world to know that the Bible is sufficient. Those who market these materials must be called to repent and hold the Bible as enough.
In Christ,Alex Malarkey.
"In 2004, Kevin Malarkey and his six-year-old son, Alex, suffered an horrific car accident. The impact from the crash paralyzed Alex—and medically speaking, it was unlikely that he could survive. “I think that Alex has gone to be with Jesus,” a friend told the stricken dad. But two months later, Alex awoke from a coma with an incredible story to share. Of events at the accident scene and in the hospital while he was unconscious. Of the angels who took him through the gates of heaven itself."The publisher has announced that it will take this book out of print, and the Southern Baptist's LifeWay Resources have vowed to quit selling the book.
