Best Contemporary Book on the Bible Versions Controversy

I think I've finally recognized that there is a more recent contribution to the Bible versions discussion than Dean Burgon's Revision Revised that I can wholeheartedly recommend, and that is David Cloud's For Love of the Bible.

It's a thorough compilation of writings on both sides of the controversy starting in 1800, showing the modernist mentality behind the new versions in quote after quote down through all the new translations and revisions.

A quote from the Preface to the First Edition, p. 6:

In light of the prophecies of the Scriptures that foresee the apostasy of the visible "church," I do not find it strange that the pure Bible is rejected by the majority of those that profess to be Christians today. Truth has long been a remnant position in this dark world.

And here is his statement of his basic position on the King James, page 11:

I believe the King James Bible is an accurate and lovely translation of the preserved Greek and Hebrew texts of Scripture. I do not believe the King James Bible contains any errors.* I believe that God had His hand upon the KJV in a special way because of the singular role it would play in the transmission of the Word of God during a long and crucial epoch of church history.

In contrast with the modern English versions, I believe the KJV is based upon a superior underlying text; it was produced by superior translators; it incorporates superior translation techniques; it demonstrates a superior theology; it embodies a superior style of English; it was created in a superior era; and it has a superior history. I believe the King James is the inspired Word of God because it accurately translates the inspired preserved text.

To reject the King James Bible for the modern versions is one's privilege this side of eternity; to claim or imply, on the other hand, that the King James Bible is no longer defensible and is only guarded today by sentimental, tradition-bound cultists is to darken the truth.

The book is available from Cloud's Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, or through his website, Way of Life dot org.

This is a fundamentalist Baptist ministry, by the way, and I consider myself to be a Calvinist, which is near-anathema to them, so it's not because I share their theology that I recommend this book. It's just a very good book that covers what needs to be covered and does it well.

[I see I did a post on Cloud's book back when I first read it, highlighting a great quotation from Martyn Lloyd-Jones. I didn't quite realize at the time, however, that I can recommend it as THE place to start on this subject as I realize now]

============
*For a while I was confused by the statement that the KJV has no "errors" as if it were a claim for its perfection on the superstitious level of the extremist KJV-onlies, but it's not. To say it has no errors is not to say that it couldn't be improved for modern readers by updating some of the English. I haven't yet studied all the claims about its supposed "errors" myself, but I'm convinced that if there is anything that deserves that label it's trivial, on the order of misidentifying a particular animal or something like that.
============

Another book that is good for correcting the propaganda on the side of the modernist versions is Cloud's The Glorious History of the King James Bible. He sketches the history of the English Bibles that preceded the King James and then shows what went into the King James itself, the character of the translators, how the work proceeded and so on. Then when you know anything about the revisionist versions it becomes very clear what a profane disaster they are by comparison.

=============

Well, I guess I can keep putting out tidbits on this topic but there's no reason anyone should pay attention to me of course. It can be pretty discouraging to keep encountering the stubborn prejudice for the modernist Bibles even by Christians who would otherwise oppose anything modernist in the churches. James White is going to have plenty to answer for, not to mention Bruce Metzger and Westcott and Hort and all the rest.

Affirming the superiority of the KJV, and a quote from D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones about it

My updated position on the KJV:

As I've been reading David Cloud's book, For Love of the Bible, my faith in the KJV is getting strengthened. I waver sometimes when I read criticisms of it saying it has many errors, but when I realize that those criticisms are almost exclusively generated from the modern-Bibles perspective, taking the Alexandrian texts and the abominable translation of Westcott and Hort and their followers as their standard, I recover from my lapse.

I see no reason why on principle the KJV COULDN'T need revision, however. I don't believe that any translation is perfect, directly inspired by God, and the translators themselves acknowledged that their work couldn't be perfect. They were, after all, revising previous versions of the English Bible that they considered to be God's word nonetheless.

However, I've more and more come to believe that in our time it is increasingly dangerous to think of revising the KJV at all. Who would do it? There is no authority who could authorize it as the English Crown could in the day of King James, and there are not enough experts today who deserve to be trusted with the task. The general mentality is utterly changed since the time of the King James translators. The King James was translated from a perspective of God-fearing reverence which can hardly be said for the revisions after it. Also, it seems to me that the revisions themselves with their abominable English have come to define what the text SHOULD say in a subtle but compelling way that makes it hard to defend the King James text even where it is clearly superior. For instance, "charity" even at the time of the revision was no doubt superior to "love" for translating "agape," at least in 1 Cor 13, but we are now so used to the revisions' "love" that the very use of "charity" that the King James had enshrined in the English language no longer carries the same meaning it did then. I suspect that meaning was still quite alive when the revision was first made, but by now it isn't and there is little hope of reinstating it. However, I do not capitulate. I now say we have to stick to the King James no matter what, even in the face of a clear error if there is such a thing in the KJV. ALL the other alternatives are dangerously more undesirable for many reasons.

I'm no longer going to be wavering about the KJV, such as by looking for a new translation from the Received Text as I had been doing from time to time before.

In David Cloud's book I've found many heartening quotes from men before and after Westcott and Hort who understood what was at stake and what was being challenged by the revisions, as they battled against the tide of rationalism that was bringing in destructive doubts about the Bible from many angles. I want to post some of those quotes as I go along with this blog, but right now I want to quote what Martyn Lloyd-Jones said in favor of the KJV back in 1961:

From Cloud, For Love of the Bible page 251, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones speaking at a rally at the Royal Albert Hall in 1961:

I suppose that the most popular of all the proposals at the present moment is to have a new translation of the bible. ... The argument is that people are not reading the Bible any longer because they do not understand its language-- particularly the archaic terms-- what does your modern man ... know about justification, sanctification, and all these Biblical terms? and so we are told the one thing that is necessary is to have a translation that Tom, Dick and Harry will understand, and I began to feel about six months ago that we had almost reached the stage in which the Authorised Version was being dismissed, to be thrown into the limbo of things forgotten, no longer of any value. Need I apologise for saying a word in favour of the Authorised Version in this gathering? ...

It is a basic proposition laid down by the Protestant Reformers, that we must have a Bible 'understanded of the people.' That is common sense ... we must never be obscurantists. We must never approach the Bible in a mere antiquarian spirit ... but it does seem to me that there is a very grave danger incipient in so much of the argument that is being presented today for these new translations. There is a danger, I say, of our surrendering something that is vital and essential ...


Take this argument that the modern man does not understand such terms as justification, sanctification and so on. I want to ask a question. When did the ordinary man ever understand those terms? ... Did the colliers to whom John Wesley and George Whitefield preached in the 18th century understand? They had not even been to a day school ... they could not read, they could not write. Yet these were the terms that were used. This was the version that was used--Authorised Version. The common people have never understood these terms. ...We are concerned here with something that is spiritual something which does not belong to this world at all; which, as the Apostle Paul reminds us, the princes of this world do not know. Human wisdom is of no value here--it is a spiritual truth. This is truth about God primarily, and because of that it is a mystery. ...

Yet we are told---it must be put in such simple terms and language that anybody taking it up and reading it is going to understand all about it. My friends, this is sheer nonsense. WHAT WE MUST DO IS TO EDUCATE THE MASSES OF THE PEOPLE UP TO THE BIBLE, NOT BRING THE BIBLE DOWN TO THEIR LEVEL. One of the greatest groubles today is that everything is being brought down to the same level, everything is cheapened. The common man is made the standard of authority; he decides everything, and everything has to be brought down to him....

Are we to do that with the Word of God? I say No! What has happened in the past has been this -- ignorant, illiterate people, in this country and in foreign countries, coming into salvation have been educated up to the Book and have begun to understand it, to glory in it, and to praise God for it, and I say that we need to the same at this present time. What we need is therefore, not to replace the Authorised Version ...we need rather to reach and train people up to the standard and the language, the dignity and the glory of the old Authorised Version. [The emphases in all caps and underlining are Cloud's, those in boldings and italics are mine]

Whenever I start wavering, thinking that the KJV really IS too hard for people as so many complain it is, I'm going to remember this quote from one of my favorite preachers, Lloyd-Jones. He's right. The KJV improved the English language, it should go on improving the English language for every individual.