Even I Wouldn’t Burn an ESV…

A North Carolina pastor to have an old-fashioned book burning, modern Bible Versions included

Um, no.

Now I’m as staunch a King James Bible defender as there is and I’ve been very critical on the modern version glut as well. But even an ESV or an NIV has enough truth in it for it to have some value. As D. A. Waite noted, after his exhaustive research, the critical text versions agree with the King James about 93% of the time on average. I know 93% isn’t good enough to use (it has to be 100%, or as close as we can get) when dealing with souls and the truth, but there are more rational ways to express your opposition to modern versions than this.

This pastor has given the enemies of the King James great occasion to blaspheme. Most anti-King James/pro-modern version bloggers jump on this as an excuse to pull out their broad brush and paint every traditional text supporter as no better than this pastor. Such assertions are a violation of the Ninth Commandment, regarding bearing false witness and these men have great need to repent. I have yet to meet or read about any genuine, rational King James man who would go this far or support this nonsense.

As for Rick Warren and Billy Graham, well, let them take care of themselves. If their God is God, then He would certainly plead for them on His behalf.

Why We Hold to the King James Bible

I preached this message (really a two-part sermon) on October 11 and I am currently transcribing it. When I am finished, I will post it on the website.

A few weeks ago, I preached on “Why I Am Not a Calvinist”, which was a public stand against the revival of Calvinism among the “Young Fundamentalists” and the evangelicals they are following. The “King James” sermon lays out a clear line of separation among historical and classical fundamentalism from the 4th generation of fundamentalists who have abandoned the King James in favor of the corrupt English Standard Version.

I can see two more sermons in this series, “Why I Am A Baptist” and “Why I Am Premillennial”. Every preacher occasionally has to preach such sermons to better define exactly where they stand, any why. I may also transcribe these sermons after I preach them. I’m going to “take a break” this week and preach through Psalm 84 this coming Sunday, Lord willing.

This is a Joke, I Hope

If it’s Wednesday, it must be Yet Another Proposal For a Brand New, Easy To Read, Non-Liberal Bible Version.

The King James isn’t good enough for these folks, but their own translation would be just swell, I’m sure.

The idea of filtering a Bible version through a political ideology is just as dangerous as filtering it through a theological bias. Any resulting “conservative Bible” would be just as “accurate” and “reliable” as the NIV or the ESV, which this group criticizes.

And I wonder about the “scholarship” of such a group.

The Pilgrim and His Bible

The Christian Pilgrim, on his long journey from the City of Destruction to the Heavenly Mount Zion needs a guidebook and a map. Only a fool would embark on a long and dangerous journey without such reference materials at his disposal. For the Christian, the issue is “What is my map?” The answer to that is obvious- it is the Bible and nothing else. The Pilgrim will reject unreliable maps and guides such as the Book of Mormon, Roman Catholic traditions, the Koran or Science and Health With Key to the Scriptures.

Once this has been established, the Pilgrim’s next decision will prove to be daunting. He immediately realizes that there are dozens of Bible versions to choose from. He goes into his nearest Christian bookstore with a hopeful heart to obtain the necessary guidebook for his long quest. But he is confronted with the King James Bible, the English Standard Version, the New International Version, the Holman Standard Christian Bible, Good News For Modern Man, the New American Standard Version, The Message, the Contemporary English Version, the New King James Version, and who knows what else. Now if “things that are different are not the same”, is the Pilgrim to assume that all of these various translations are the same?

Our Pilgrim friend immediately starts his investigation of the materials available to him. As a result of his research, he comes to a few basic conclusions:

1. Despite the number of versions available, there are just two basic Bibles- the King James Bible, and then everything else. These modern versions generally agree with the readings in the King James Bible about 93% percent of the time (according to Dr. D. A. Waite). But in those verses where there are disagreements, the changed verses tent to attack major doctrines of the faith. There are about 200 New Testament verses that have been identified as standards by which to judge the orthodoxy of a translation. The modern versions tend to attack all of these 200 verses that are left intact in the King James Bible.

2. He notices that the King James Bible is nearing its 400th anniversary. Imagine, a 400-year old translation, full of supposedly “archaic” language that no one can read or understand (supposedly!) on the shelves, and usually, taking up quite a bit of real estate. Who is buying such an “outdated” version? Obviously, someone is, and in volume, if there is this level of demand. There must be something very special and unusual about this King James Version for it to be so popular year after year, even in this 21st century, in spite of no marketing campaign for the King James Bible. He notices slick and attractive advertisements for the other versions, but the King James Bible get no “play”. Yet it still sells.

3. He also looks at who is recommending what version. Most “Christian celebrities” and television personalities are promoting that new version of this new version but hardly anyone recommends the King James. Why is that? What’s wrong with the King James that it seems to be treated like the “red-headed stepchild” in comparison to, say, the English Standard Version or the New International Version? Why are there practically no Bible colleges, “major ministries” or “nationwide ministries” recommending it?

The Pilgrim goes home, and starts researching the issue on the internet. He sees that most evangelical ministries are recommending everything but the King James. He notices that most so-called Fundamentalist ministries are also recommending anything but the King James. His immediate reaction might be “well, these modern versions may be better, since they seem to be so popular”. But then the Holy Spirit reminds him of certain truths that he has heard before. One is “That which is highly esteemed among men is abomination to God” (Luke 16:15). If these “men” are all for modern versions and against the King James, does that mean their opinions are an abomination to God on this matter? If truth is often in the minority, can the opinions of the majority on this issue be trusted?

The Pilgrim does notice a remnant of ministries and men that seem to be supporting the King James Bible. It appears that they are mainly smaller, unpretentious ministries. They don’t have much name recognition. Their education may not be as impressive as the other men who are against the King James. These King James men are also maligned and attacked on most of the blogs and Christian message boards. They tend to be called every name in the book. Yet these men stand their ground, in the face of the furious assaults and invectives hurled against them. They can’t be bullied or intimidated to compromise for that translation. Is it that special and dear to them that they are willing to endure the very darts of hell to stand for a mere translation of the Bible?

The Pilgrim sits down and considers all that he has seen. He knows he is a stranger and a pilgrim in the world. He knows the world crucified his Savior and is no friend to the church. He knows that whole world lieth in the wicked one and that there is a great apostasy in the churches today that will only get worse as we draw closer to the end of the age. He then sits down and prayerfully weighs the evidence. He comes to the conclusion that he will take the old King James Bible as his guide for his pilgrimage.

How many of us have been in this situation? After my salvation in February, 1978, I bought a Good News For Modern Man. My reasons were two-fold. First, it seemed easy to read, which was important for a 13-year old new convert. Plus, it had cute line drawings scattered through the text. I used that Good News Version up into the years I was at the University of Maryland, as late as 1985. But my mother had a King James Bible and I always KNEW, even as a young convert, that her King James Bible was a REAL Bible and what I had was a compromise at best, that my Good News For Modern Man was not quite a real Bible. After I started attending an Independent Baptist church in 1985, I came to realize just how important the issue is and I switched my allegiance to the King James Bible.

The King James Bible is truly a pilgrim Bible. Pilgrims tend to be vilified, attacked, rejected, shunned and otherwise mistreated by the world and even by the carnal Daughters of Jerusalem in the church. Studying the trials and tribulations of Pilgrim in John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress illustrates that quite well. A despised Pilgrim will naturally gravitate toward a Bible version that is likewise despised, and there is no version today so despised as the King James. It is nothing new, for the ink on the first edition was hardly dry before the attacks began. For four centuries, that one translation has suffered more abuse and grief than any other book since. There have been dedicated campaigns to destroy it and to relegate it to the scrapheap of church history.

Our friend Pilgrim has cast in his lot with the old Book because the King James speaks to his heart as nothing else can. That is a Book bathed in blood. It has traveled the hills with the circuit riders and has “sailed through bloody seas” with missionaries. It has won more battles than any general you care to name. There is a lingering odor of gunpowder surround that book and one can almost see the scars and burn marks from the battles it has won. No other translation can make such a claim. What battles has the NIV won? What great missionary movements has the NASV sparked? How many souls were won with the RSV? What great revivals were kindled by the preaching of a Good News For Modern Man? And the ESV is simply too young to be given any trust.

We must be as our Pilgrim when it comes to our maps. It is simply too late in church history to switch Bibles now. We must go with the Bible that got us here, that sparked great revival and missionary movements, and that was used to lead uncounted millions to Christ. That King James Bible virtually created our modern English language. There is simply no good reason to abandon the Bible that got us here and to take up with something else. Since 1881 the advocates of modern versions have been trying to talk Christian Pilgrims into changing their road maps for their pilgrimage to “new”, “better”, “improved”, “more accurate” and “easier to read” Bible versions. But since the King James has never steered any pilgrim wrong, why change?

The ESV-RSV Connection

When the Revised Standard Version came out in the early 1950s, Fundamentalists and other theological conservatives all lined up against it for a variety of reasons. It was sponsored by the Communist National Council of Churches. It also attacked the virgin birth in Isaiah 7:14. The outcry was overwhelming.

The English Standard Version is really nothing more than a revision of the old RSV. But my, how times have changed. The version our spiritual fathers and grandfathers attacked is now embraced by their children. Sure, the ESV “fixed” the reading in Isaiah 7:14 and the NCCC is irrelevant today, but the ESV is nothing more than a re-packaged RSV. If the RSV was the “devil’s translation” 50 years ago, why is the ESV accepted today? It would seem that the “softening up” process over the last 50 years by the devil with regards to critical text translations has been a success. We have had so many “new and improved” translations that “bring the text to life” (all marketing cliches) that the church thinks nothing of it any more. But the fact that the ESV is embraced by evangelicals and neo-fundamentalists where the RSV was soundly rejected before only shows that there is a major lack of spiritual discernment on this issue.

There is a need to do a comparison between the texts of the RSV and the ESV, to see just how similar they are. Sounds like a job for someone like D. A. Waite!

While many fundamentalist churches are following the fad of the ESV, Grace Baptist Church will stay with the old paths and the good way, with the Bible that God has blessed over these past 400 years. We reject the ESV as we reject the RSV, mainly out of a desire to be consistent. If we reject one, we must reject the other.

The ESV Study Bible Notes Call Jude a Liar

From my Pilgrim Way Commentary on Jude, verse 14.

“How very interesting that the note in the ESV Study Bible (at Jude 14) calls Jude a liar, when the note reads “Enoch, the seventh from Adam does not necessarily imply that Enoch was literally the seventh generation descended from Adam; it may mean simply that he is the seventh one listed in the line of Adam in the Genesis narrative (Gen. 5:18–24; cf. 1 Chron. 1:3).” But both Jude and Moses (who wrote Genesis) says Enoch was the seventh from Adam, as well as the writer of 1 Chronicles (Jeremiah? Ezra?). Now who are you going to believe- inspired writers of Scripture or uninspired Bible correctors and promoters of corrupt English versions?”

If men like this are responsible for the translation of the ESV, then it’s a genuine wonder why any Christian would use it. It is even a greater mystery why any Fundamentalist would be caught dead with it. The fact that this corrupt revision of the corrupt RSV is so popular among men and churches who ought to know better is only another sign of the deep apostasy within professing, mainline Fundamentalism. We knew the Evangelicals would fall in love with the ESV, but we were really hoping for a better response from the Fundamentalists. So far, it hasn’t come. We are disappointed by not surprised.

Revising a Failed Version = More Failure

Updating the NIV?

So they are going to re-do the highly flawed and grossly corrupt New International Version. I guess the old one ran out of steam, with the equally flawed and equally corrupt ESV hogging up most of the bookstore sales. What to do? Re-package your product! When it hits the shelves, it will be the new wunderkind of the Modern Version market and it will be sucked up by modern Athenians who need another ear-tickling.

Here’s a thought- instead of revising it, why not just bury the thing? The modern church has the ESV. What need is there of a revised NIV?

So this gives me an excuse to post a FAIL picture…my first one in this blog!

What is the True “Standard” Version?

Many critical text English translations of the Bible try to anoint themselves with a false sense of authority and acceptance. Consider the American STANDARD Version of 1901, the Revised STANDARD Version of 1952, the New American STANDARD Version of 1960-something and the current darling among apostate Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, the grossly-misnamed English STANDARD Version.

But who determines a standard English Bible version? Certainly not the publishing house that puts that translation out, for that is nothing but slick marketing. The general acceptance of the Church (as the overall Body of Christ) and history determine that, as well as the Holy Spirit, of course!

None of the above mentioned translations have any claim to be a standard English version. The first three are just about forgotten. Who uses an ASV, RSV or NASV anymore? They have all been bypassed and forgotten. If they were truly “standard versions”, they would still be in use today.

The ESV is also heading for the city dump eventually. Marketing plans only run for so long before the fickle Christian public grows tired and starts to clamor for a new translation to tickle their ears and to waste their money on. Who will be using the ESV in 20 years? It, too, will be replaced. So much for it’s claim to be a “standard version”!

Only the so-called King James Bible (I like to call it our English Received Text) has any claim to be a standard version in English. It celebrates its 400th birthday in 2011. Will anyone be using an ESV 400 years for now (besides for firewood)? The KJV has stood the test of time. It has survived the attacks of its enemies and the neglect of its friends. It has conquered every translation that challenged it. The scholars hate it but the common man loves it. It is still the standard by which all other translations are judged by.

The “English Standard Version” is a horselaugh. It is nothing of the sort. Only the KJV is worthy of such a title.

A Question About the “English Standard Version”

Critics of our English Received Text, usually known as the King James Version or the Authorized Version, sometimes asked “who authorized it?” Well, can the same question be asked regarding the current “flavor of the month” among fundamentalists and evangelicals, the English Standard Version? Who decreed it to be the “standard version” in English? By what authority? I think history has vindicated the KJV being referred to as the “Authorized Version” but the ESV is still just a puppy- raw, untested in battle, that will probably be forgotten in 50 years when it is replaced by the next major English translation of the critical text. So why should we refer to it as the English “Standard” Version? What right does it have to bear such a title?