Dedication: To David Otis Fuller, "Valiant for the Truth", who more than any other man has encouraged me to defend the King James Version as the Word of God.

Chapter............................................................................................................Page
Introduction..............................................................................................................2
1. Who Are The "King James Fans"?..................................................................3
2. What About The Statements Of Faith?.............................................................6
3. An Infallible Bible And The Commentaries.....................................................20
4. Dr. Rice's Questions..........................................................................................24
5. The American Standard Version And The New American Standard Version.33
6. The Divine Preservation Of The Scripture........................................................36

          Within the last year we have noticed that a number of fundamental preachers have mounted an attack against the King James Version. These attacks simply cannot be ignored. It is regrettable that it is now necessary to call names, in order to properly answer some of these attacks upon God's Word.
         In spite of the efforts of Westcott and Hort with their Revised Version (1885), and the American Committee with their American Standard Version (1901), the King James Version had no serious rivals in the English speaking World. The KJV was the recognized Bible from 1611 until the advent of the Revised Standard Version of 1952. The Bible believers arose and denounced the RSV as a Bible produced by the modernistic National Council of Churches. However, during the 1960's and 1970's we have seen many new versions appear on the scene to challenge the KJV for supremacy. Some were modernistic, such as The New English Bible and others. Some were liberal paraphrases, such as The Living Bible and The Good News Bible. Unfortunately far too many fundamentalists have been almost totally unaware of what has been going on. They did not realize that The New American Standard Version and The New International Version have been translated from the same corrupt text type as all the modernistic versions. It is this lack of knowledge that has confused the issue so badly in our times.
         The battle is warming up, partly because of the volume of books and tracts that have been published in the last ten years on this vital subject. The defenders of the KJV are beginning to get their message across, at least to some. Ten years ago this writer could not name even one Bible School, College or Seminary that taught the Greek Textus Receptus in their language department. Now, we know of several vigorous and growing schools that openly advocate the KJV and are teaching the Textus Receptus. As information continues to be made available, this number will surely grow.
         The fundamentalists of the first half of the 20th Century did not face the rash of versions and perversions that we are facing today. Because they could see little danger, some of them unfortunately gave their approval to the American Standard Version. Most of them never seriously used it. The issue is far more critical today, and we cannot afford to yield to the liberal textual critics, who have unfortunately so influenced even the fundamental scholars. Our loyalty is to God and His infallible Word, and not unto men, therefore there is no place for compromise on this vital issue.

          The title for this booklet was not coined by this writer, but by Dr. John R. Rice. In the March 30, 1979 issue of "The Sword of the Lord", there is an article by Editor John R. Rice entitled, "Some Questions for King James Fans." For the sake of God's truth, this article must be answered.
         At the very beginning, I want to say that I am not angry at Dr. Rice. I hold no malice against him, and can honestly pray that God will bless his ministry. On a number of occasions when I was a boy, I remember hearing him over a Fort Worth radio station, when he was working with the late Dr. J. Frank Norris. Since I have been in the ministry, I have heard him preach in person a number of times, in Lubbock, Amarillo, San Angelo, Fort Worth, Wichita Falls, and other places. I have a number of his books in my library and I have been a reader of "The Sword of The Lord" for a number of years. I expect to continue to subscribe to the Sword, and I do find some good and helpful articles in it. This does not mean that I always agree with everything printed in the Sword, but I can disagree without getting an ulcer or having a nervous breakdown. Also, I respect Dr. Rice because of his age. I was brought up in an era, when younger people were taught to be respectful toward the aged. However, Dr. Rice is the Editor of the "Sword of the Lord", and he should be answered, because his inaccurate article has already gone into the homes of perhaps 300,000 people!

          Although Dr. Rice's article takes up over ½ page of his paper, he only mentions two people by name, Dr. David Otis Fuller and E. L. Bynum. Dr. Fuller is certainly capable of speaking for himself. His three books on the Bible version issue are excellent and are selling well. Although our own contribution on the Bible version issue may be small, nevertheless, we have printed and mailed out several hundred thousand tracts that deal with this issue, and with God's help we shall continue.
         While Dr. Rice seems to be criticizing the defenders of the King James Version (from here on KJV, for being too harsh and critical, he resorts to some pretty harsh words himself. He accuses the defenders of the KJV of "railing", "unchristian talk", and of "foolish, slanderous statements." He also uses such words as, "radicals", "ignorant", "bad motives", "they write mean letters", "slanderous charges", "suspicious", "innuendoes", and "carelessly or ignorantly wrong." He does not indicate just who all these bad words fit, but the only men mentioned in the article are Fuller and Bynum. If he had someone else in mind, he should have named them also, or left all names out. (Dr. Rice is challenged to produce just one "mean letter" containing even one "slanderous charge" written by E. L. Bynum). However, it doesn't bother me one bit for my name to be mentioned, since it gives me the perfect right to answer his article.

         "Some Questions For King James Fans" is not a title that would tend to create understanding, or give a sense of fair play. In the first place I have never thought of myself as being a King James fan. Webster's Unabridged Dictionary says, "fan, (probably from fanatic) a person enthusiastic about a specified sport, pastime, or performer; devotee; as baseball fan, movie fan (colloq)." Personally I prefer the correct title of this Bible, which is the "Authorized Version", the title that is used in England. However, since so many people in America know it as the "King James Version", we often use this title. If to hold to this version is being a fan or fanatic, then we will just have to accept the name, for there is not another English version that we can recommend.
         Dr. Rice begins his article with "We love the King James Bible." Then in the first paragraph he tells us what all he has done to circulate and use the KJV. He ends the paragraph by saying, "I have probably done more to promote the King James Bible than anyone else in America in many years." It may be only fair to say that dear Dr. Rice was not overwhelmed with modesty at the time he made that statement. He then begins the next paragraph with "But". Dr. Rice's method closely resembles the method that a famous preacher attributed to some church members. Some church members say, "I love my church, but. . ., I love my pastor, but. . ., I love the choir director, but. . ." This preacher said that they had billy goat religion or the butitis, for they went around butting all the time!!

         He wrote, "I have a tract before me by Brother E. L. Bynum of Lubbock which claims to be 'a resume of Dr. Otis Fuller's book, Which Bible?' I have that book also before me. The tract says, 'We as evangelicals believe the Bible to be the verbally inspired Word of God, inerrantnamely without error. THENwe ask, is there one version extant among the multiplicity of versions which is without error today? If there is not, then we worship a God who is either careless or impotent to keep His Word pure thru the ages. "' Dr. Rice was sadly mistaken when he wrote the above words. I did not write the tract that he is quoting from, and he can never produce such a tract at all. The tract that he is quoting from is entitled, "Is The King James Version Nearest To The Original Autographs?" Nowhere on the tract does it say or even hint that it was written by E. L. Bynum. It was written by Dr. David Otis Fuller. Less than two inches above the quote that Dr. Rice printed, in the same column and on the same page, it is clearly printed and set out by itself, "By David Otis Fuller." How could he miss that?
         He says that I have misquoted Fuller, but I did not. These are Fuller's own words. He did not finish Fuller's questions in the paragraph, which stated, "HOW can we say we believe in the inerrancy of the Word of God and yet say there are errors in every translation?" It appears that Brother Rice wanted to cast Fuller's statement in the very worst light possible, for the very next paragraph of the tract says, "We do not say that the KJV does not permit changes. There are a number that could be and should be made BUT there is a vast difference between a change and an error." Of course he couldn't print that, because that would have made the tract not seem to be so radical after all!!

         Although he had the tract right in front of him, he doesn't answer "Is The King James Version Nearest To The Original Autographs?" He doesn't answer the title, nor does he attempt to answer the material printed in the tract. We suggest that he can't and that is one reason he has to take off on a tangent and print a tirade against those who defend the KJV against the rash of revisers and critics. He also says, "Dr. Fuller overstates the case in his book, Which Bible? and is somewhat accountable for all the radicals who rush into controversy on this subject." This is a harsh statement to make against a man who pastored a great Church for about 40 years, and who has given his life to the preaching and teaching of the pure Word of God. Dr. Fuller cannot be responsible for what every defender of the KJV says, anymore than Dr. Rice can be responsible for what every critic of the KJV says. If Dr. Fuller has overstated the case, why doesn't Dr. Rice prove him to be wrong. Dr. Rice does not answer Which Bible? and we predict he won't.

         Dr. Rice lists several questions which he insists that the defenders of the KJV answer, and if they don't answer them, he charges them to say nothing to him or to anyone else. His questions are loaded, or stated in such a way that they would be difficult to answer. Some of them are like the old question, "Have you quit beating your wife yet?", and then insist upon a yes or no answer. Either way you answer it, your are guilty. However, we are going to take a look at some of Dr. Rice's questions.
         He asks, "What accepted Bible commentary, what statement of faith, of any church or denomination states that the King James Version is without error in translation?" He goes on to say, "There is not one such commentary or statement of faith or statement by a reliable authority that the King James Version is without an error in translation. Not one in the world!" He then launches into the tract he accuses me of writing and misquoting Fuller. He then closes that portion of his article with a repeat on the question by saying, "Again the question, and do not write me on this matter (and I hope you will never say a word to anyone else on the matter) without answering this question honestly: What authorities, commentaries, statements of faith of widely accepted Christian leaders say 'that the translators were infallible or that their work was perfect'? That is not sensible and it isn't true." Please note that he has now changed his question somewhat!
         In the first place, I don't know anyone who ever claimed "that the translators were infallible." I have many books on the Bible version issue, by defenders of the KJV. In my files I have article after article on this issue, and I cannot recall anyone ever saying the men were infallible who translated it! There has only been one man who was infallible, and that was our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The Bible does not teach that Moses or Paul were infallible, even though God used them and others to write down His Word. It is His Word that is infallible, not the men that we sometimes call authors.

         Dr. Rice's first question is as follows: "What accepted Bible commentary, what statement of faith, of any church or denomination states that the King James Version is without error in translation?" This is a question that is calculated to be a KJV straw man, that Dr. Rice will vanquish on the field of combat. I have a question for Dr. Rice. "What statement of faith, of any church or denomination states that the King James Version contains a considerable amount or ANY amount of errors? Our question is just as fair as Dr. Rice's, and I contend that the Confessions of Faith give more support to the defenders of the KJV, than they do to its critics. No Confession of Faith that I have seen makes any criticism of the KJV, nor do any of them suggest that another version is needed.
         A student of the Confessions of Faith knows that various articles were placed in the Confessions when certain problems arose over doctrine! Some of the early Confessions of Faith said nothing about the inspiration of the Bible. Yet, we dare say that it would be grossly unfair to say that they did not believe that the Bible was inspired of God. However, we believe that the historical Confessions of Faith, have a definite bearing on the translation issue.
         The Westminister Confessions of 1646, is probably the most famous Confession of Faith ever written. It says, "The Old Testament in Hebrew, and the New Testament in Greek, being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them." This is of course not a Baptist Confession, but it has had great influence among Baptists. This Confession says that the Scriptures were "inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages..." How could anyone make such a statement, unless they believed that they had reliable copies of the originals and reliable translations?
         The Helvetic Consensus Formula of 1675 says, "God saw to it that His word, which is with power unto salvation to everyone who believes, was entrusted to writing not only through Moses, the prophets and apostles, but also He has stood guard and watched over it with a fatherly concern to the present time that it not be destroyed by the cunning of Satan or by any other human deceit." (Emphasis ours). If these people had no reliable text and no reliable translation, how could they make such a statement? If their Greek and Hebrew texts were not pure, and they had no pure translation, why would they make such a foolish statement?
         The Midland Confession, 1655, was adopted unanimously by the messengers of the churches meeting at Warwick, England. This group of Baptists said, "We profess and believe the Holy Scriptures, the Old and New Testament, to be the word and revealed mind of God, which are able to make men wise unto Salvation, through faith and love which is in Christ Jesus, and that they are given by inspiration of God, serving to furnish the man of God for every good work; and by them we are (in the strength of Christ) to try all things whatsoever are brought to us, under the presence of truth. II Tim. 3:15-17; Isaiah 8:20." We hardly see how the critics of the KJV can find any comfort in that statement of faith. Those who adopted the Midland Confession of 1655, believed in the inspiration of the Scriptures, they believed they had those Scriptures, and they believed that by those Scriptures they could "try all things whatsoever are brought to us, under the presence of truth." In 1655, you can well know what English version they used, and they had never heard of the Westcott & Hort text, and we can thank the Lord for that.
         The Standard Confession of 1660 (Baptist), said, "That the holy Scriptures is the rule whereby Saints both in matters of Faith, and conversation are to be regulated, they being able to make men wise unto salvation, through Faith in Christ Jesus, profitable for Doctrine, for reproof, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." While they mention no version, and said nothing about the originals, yet they believed that they had the holy Scriptures. We are confident that they were using the KJV.
         The Second London Confession of 1677 (Baptist) says, "The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule of all saving Knowledge, Faith, and Obedience. . ." We ask, how can the Holy Scriptures be a certain and infallible rule if we have no infallible Bible? To hear Dr. Rice and others tell it, all versions have errors in them, and if this be so, we are left in a tragic situation. The Second London Confession of 1677 says, "The Old Testament in Hebrew, (which was the Native language of the people of old) and the New Testament in Greek, (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the Nations) being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and Providence kept pure in all Ages, are therefore authentical; so as in an controversies of Religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them." The Baptists of 1677 believed that the Scriptures were inspired of God, and that "By His care and Providence kept pure in all Ages." They believed that the Church in all ages could appeal to the pure Scriptures. That is quite different than some of our modern fundamentalists who talk about inspiration, but who are constantly finding errors in the Bible.
         Which Bible were the Baptists of 1677 using? It surely wasn't the NASV, ASV, RSV or the Living Bible. Don't you suppose that it was the KJV of 1611?
         The General Baptists of England published the "Orthodox Creed" In 1678. It says, "And by the holy Scriptures we understand the canonical books of the Old and New Testament, as they are now translated into our English mother tongue, of which there hath NEVER been any doubt of their verity, and authority, in the protestant churches of Christ to this day." They then list the books of the Old and New Testament and then say, "All which are given by the inspiration of God, to be the Rule of faith and life." What Bible do you suppose these people were using in 1678? It was English and there can be little doubt, but what they are talking about the Authorized Version (KJV) of 1611.
         The above confession may be found in "Baptist Confessions of Faith" by W. L. Lumpkin and published by Judson Press. If this does not answer Dr. Rice's question, we would like to know why? Of course it is not worded in the exact way that his question is asked, but that is not necessary, if it speaks to the point. Please note that the General Baptists in their Confession said, "And by the holy Scriptures we understand, the canonical books of the Old and New Testament, as they ARE NOW translated Into our English mother-tongue, of which there hath never been any doubt of their verity, and authority....All which are given by the inspiration of God, to be the Rule of faith and life." How much plainer does Dr. Rice want anyone to say it than that.
         These Baptists were not weighted down with 20th Century theories, which would rob them of confidence in an infallible Bible.
         The Philadelphia Confession of Faith was adopted in 1742 at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. This Confession was printed for the Baptist by none other than the famous Benjamin Franklin. It states, "The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience. . . " It further says, "Under the name of holy Scripture, or the word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these. . . " They then list the 66 books of our English Bible, and end that paragraph by saying, "All which are given by the inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life." It is clear that they were talking about an English Bible, and we do not have to guess as to which one they were talking about. Further on in this article they state that the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament were "inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in as controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them." It is clear that they are talking about something they had at that time, and could appeal unto.
         They did not appeal to the "pure Word of God" preserved in heaven. No doubt God's Word is pure in heaven. However, we cannot appeal to something that we cannot see. No doubt but what the "originals" were pure and uncorrupted, but we cannot appeal to the "originals", because they are not available. We dare anyone to prove that any mortal man ever saw all of the originals on this earth. We know it cannot be done. If we do not have the pure Word of God today, it is extremely doubtful that anyone on this earth ever had all 66 books of the pure Word of God!! What kind of a God do we serve? Would He leave us in such a mess?

         In 1888, the Baptist Union of Great Britain adopted a doctrinal statement which contained the following: "The following facts and doctrines are commonly believed by the churches of the Union:(1), The Divine Inspiration and Authority of the Holy Scripture as the supreme and sufficient rule of our faith and practice; and the right and duty of individual judgment in the interpretation of it." This is their entire statement so far as the inspiration of the Bible is concerned. They mention nothing about the "originals" or any particular version of the Bible. However, there can be no doubt as to what version ranked supreme with them at this time.
         In 1816, the Sandy Creek Association adopted their Principles of Faith. This group started or sprang from the mother church established at Sandy Creek, N.C. In 17 years the mother church planted 42 Separate Baptist churches and sent out 175 ministers. The Association was established in 1758, and in 1816 under the influence of Luther Rice (famous Baptist missionary) they adopted their principles of faith. W. L. Lumpkin in "Baptist Confessions of Faith" says, "The following Articles adopted on Oct. 28, 1816, reflect the outlook of the most influential Baptist association in the South during the eighteenth century." We doubt if anyone with a knowledge of Baptist history would rate this group of Baptists as being insignificant or unimportant. In their Principles of Faith they said, "We believe....That the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the word of God, and the only rule of faith and practice." That is their entire statement on the Scriptures. They do not mention the "originals" nor any version, but there can be no doubt but what they had in mind the KJV, for only something that they had in their hand could be "the only rule of faith and practice"!!
         In 1801, the Regular Baptists and the Separate Baptists in Kentucky united. They drew up what was known as the "Terms of Union Between The Elkhorn and South Kentucky, or Separate, Associations." Those terms state, "1st. That the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the infallible word of God, and the only rule of faith and practice." This is their entire statement on the subject. We solemnly ask, which version were these people talking about? We venture that they would have been shocked beyond words if they had been told that such a statement could only be made about the originals, or the many bits and pieces of the original readings that some think can be found and separated from the many errors in the many manuscripts now available!! There can be little doubt among honest students that these people used and believed in the KJV.

         The New Hampshire Confession of Faith must rank as one of the most important and influential Confessions of Faith ever published by a group of Baptists. It was slightly revised and published in "The Baptist Church Manual" by J. Newton Brown who was the editorial secretary of the American Baptist Publication Society in 1853. J. M. Pendleton placed it in his "Church Manual" and it became the doctrinal statement of the Landmark type Baptist, as well as many others. The American Baptist Association adopted it, and so did the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches in 1933. It was adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention in 1925, and they added ten new sections to it. It also greatly influenced the Confession of Faith adopted by the Baptist Bible Union of America in 1923. We say this, in order to make it clear that this is a very, very important document!
         The New Hampshire Confession of Faith was adopted in 1833, and it states, "We believe the Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired, and is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction; that it has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter, that it reveals the principles by which God will judge us; and therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the world, the true centre of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried." Please note that they mention no "originals" and no version. There was one version that ruled supreme in the English language of 1833 and it was the KJV. Dr. Rice's view is not correct and he can never prove it from Baptist Confessions of Faith!
         It should be apparent that if the Baptists of 1833 had a "supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried," it could not have been the originals, since not one of them had seen even the original manuscript of even one book of the Bible! Their "supreme standard" had to be a Bible, to which they had ready access.
         Our quotation of the statements on the Scriptures from the various Confessions of Faith, does not mean that this writer would accept every doctrine espoused in all of these Confessions. This would be particularly true of the one that I am about to quote from, which is that of the Free Will Baptists. However, since Dr. Rice speaks in some of their churches and sometimes prints sermons by Free Will Baptist preachers, we are sure that he will not be offended by our quoting them as an authority.
         We shall quote from "A treatise on the Faith of the Free Will Baptist, 1834 and 1948." "THE HOLY SCRIPTURES / These are the Old and the New Testaments; they were written by holy men, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and are God's revealed word to man. They are a sufficient and infallible rule and guide to Salvation and all Christian worship and service." Once again there is no mention of the originals or any version, but why not try to guess, in 1834 what version these people were using as an "infallible rule and guide?"
         The American Baptist Association was organized in 1905. By 1950 this group claimed churches in 34 States and a combined membership of over 200,000. We have before us a copy of the Copyrighted 1946 edition of "The Baptist Way-Book, A Manual Designed for use in Baptist Churches," by Ben M. Bogard. This book states that the New Hampshire Confession of Faith (considered above) was accepted by the ABA. The New Hampshire Confession is printed in the book. In addition it is stated, "We believe in the infallible verbal inspiration of the whole Bible." Again there is no mention of the originals or any version. In addition under Chapter IV, "The Way of Church Polity" there is printed a significant statement, that we would not dare leave out. It is stated, "Baptists regard the Scriptures as the only and all-sufficient rule of faith and practice, II Tim. 3:16,17. The church has no right to change one word of the Scriptures. It is the duty of the church to obey the Scriptures." This succulent statement goes right to the very heart of the matter. Dr. Rice and others today want to tell us that there are errors in all versions, and Greek texts. Then he proceeds to tell us what some of them are. No doubt he has others that he will point out at the proper time. It is absolutely certain that you cannot get any consensus of opinion among this group as to what belongs in the Scriptures and what does not. We end up with a group of men sitting in judgment on the Word of God, instead of the Word of God sitting in judgment upon man.
         The North American Baptist Association (now Baptist Missionary Association) of 1950 says in their Statement of Faith that they believe in "The infallibility and plenary verbal inspiration of the Scriptures. " This is their statement and there is no mention of the originals or any version.

         In 1925, the Southern Baptist Convention adopted the New Hampshire Confession of Faith, with minor revisions. However, they made no revision of the article on the Scriptures, but adopted it as written. Everything that we said about the New Hampshire Confession of Faith above, holds true here. There is no reference to the originals nor to any version. Although there were undoubtedly "scholars" (?) who would not have applied this to the KJV, we dare say that there would have been a battle royal that would have gone down in Church history, if they had tried to downgrade the KJV, or suggest that it was filled with errors and put any such thing in their Confession of Faith.

         There are a number of significant Confessions of Faith by Baptists in foreign lands. While we would not for a moment suggest that these foreign language Baptists were using the KJV, it is apparent that these people thought that they had a reliable translation of the Bible for their use. It is not necessary for us to prove that their translation was reliable, but only that they believed that it was. Because of space, we will only quote from the very significant French Confession.
         Confession of Faith of the Evangelical Association of French-speaking Baptist Churches, 1879 and 1924. "Concerning The Holy Scriptures: We believe that the canonical writings of the Old and the New Testaments are the Word of God and constitute the only and infallible rule of faith and Christian life and the only touchstone by which every doctrine, every tradition and every religious and ecclesiastical system as well as every method of Christian action are to be tested. / We believe that the Holy Scripture is a providential document and that the Holy Spirit presided in sovereign manner at its origin and at the formation of the biblical story. We believe that He has Himself assured therein the perfect teaching and the entire historic truth, despite the imperfection of the human instruments who, by His divine inspiration and under His control, have contributed toward communication to us the divine oracles. / We believe that the Holy Scriptures reveal to us all that we must know in the spiritual realm. We believe that they need not be modified or completed by any other revelation in the course of the present dispensation." (From Baptist Confessions of Faith, by Lumpkin).
         These French Baptists make no mention of the originals or any version, but they did believe that God had providentially given to them the Holy Scriptures!

         The Confession the Fundamental Fellowship was adopted in 1921. The modernist controversy was going full blast. The Fundamental Fellowship was formed within the Northern Baptist Convention, by those who opposed the Convention drift toward modernism. In 1921 Frank M. Goodchild presented a Confession to the Fellowship, as they met in a pre-convention meeting in Des Moines, Iowa. When the Conservative Baptist Fellowship became the Conservative Baptist Association of America in 1947, they accepted Goodchild's Confession almost word for word. It says, "We believe the Bible is God's word, that it was written by men divinely inspired, and that it has supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct." They say nothing about the originals nor any version. What do you think they meant by "The Bible"? Who would suppose that they were talking about the ASV, Nestle's Greek Text, or this theory that there are mistakes in all Bibles.
         The fundamentalist movement in America has never received the recognition that it deserved, because it has never been organizationally united, but we believe that this is as it should be. The battle with modernism could no longer be suppressed by the Northern Baptist Convention (now American Baptist Convention), so there was a "Call and Manifesto" issued in 1921 by 130 conservatives. This resulted in the formation of the Baptist Bible Union in 1923. Some of the leaders were W. B. Riley, O. W. Van Osdel (David Otis Fuller's predecessor at Wealthy Street Baptist Church, Grand Rapids), W. L. Pettingill, R. E. Neighbour, T. T. Shields (Canada), A. C. Dixon and the fiery J. Frank Norris of Fort Worth, Texas. Lumpkin says that T. T. Shields was "it appears. . . chiefly responsible for the Confession of Faith of the group." Although the Baptist Bible Union did not long survive, yet their Confession of Faith did continue on and has had a tremendous influence on a number of groups and movements that came into being!! I have here before me a copy of that Confession of Faith, as adopted on May 15, 1923 at Kansas City, Missouri. It reads as follows:
         "I. Of The Scriptures / We believe that the Holy Bible was written by men supernaturally inspired; that it has truth without any admixture of error for its matter; and therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the age, the only complete and final revelation of the will of God to man; the true center of Christian union and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds and opinions should be tried" Now you will note that this article has heavily borrowed from the New Hampshire Confession and that there is no mention of any version or text. However, these men must have believed that the Scriptures had been providentially passed down to us, otherwise how could they say, "the Holy Bible...is, and shall remain to the end of the age, the only complete and final revelation of the will of God to man . . . " ???
         However, there is a paragraph just below this article of their Confession, that may be responsible for the spreading of some misunderstanding in our day and time. It is labeled as being "(Explanatory)" and the quotation below is exactly as found in the Confession.
         "(Explanatory) 1. By 'THE HOLY BIBLE' we mean that collection of sixty-six books, from Genesis to Revelation, which as originally written, does not only contain and convey the word of God, but IS the very Word of God." We have emphasized "as originally written" since there are those who seize upon this phrase and try to show that these people who wrote and approved of this Confession did not think that they had a pure Bible for their use. Certainly anyone who believes in inspiration should believe that the original autographs were inspired and without error. But please keep in mind that the "Holy Bible" that they were talking about was not a Bible full of errors, nor a Bible to be found fragmented among the manuscripts, nor to be found and separated from the several Greek texts, nor from the several versions.
         We know this for certain, because the Confession says, " . . . the Holy Bible was written by men supernaturally inspired; that it has truth without any admixture of error for its matter; and therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the age, the only complete and final revelation. . . " Anyone should be able to see that they were talking about something they had, for it was written in the present and future tense, and not the past tense.

         NO, it never has existed at one time in one place upon the face of the earth. If the only infallible Bible was the originals, then anyone would know that no mortal man that ever lived saw them at one time here upon the earth. Only the naive would believe that Peter, James, John and Paul had the original copies written by Moses and all the different prophets. Roughly speaking, the Old Testament copies would have been from 400 to 1500 years old, and there is not one hint in the Bible that any of the original autographs existed by New Testament times, much less all of them. Yet, Peter wrote about having a "more sure word of prophecy" (II Pet. 1:19-21). Paul wrote about "All scripture is given by inspiration of God. . . " (II Tim. 3:15). Paul wrote to Timothy, "...from a child thou has known the holy scriptures..." (II Tim. 3:14). Surely no one would assume that Timothy had all of the original autographs from the time he was a child. Remember, there were no printing presses, and even if everyone of the original manuscripts had survived, there could have been only one copy of each, and putting them all together, you would have only had one infallible inerrant Bible for only one person in the whole world.
         As a matter of fact, you never hear Jesus Christ, Peter, Paul or any New Testament writer criticizing the Bible that they had. Many scholars believe that in New Testament times, that they used a Greek version known as the Septuagint. Other scholars seriously question that belief. It is not in the province of this article to try to settle that question. But the point is, that whether they used that or some other Greek version, or whether they used the Hebrew, in no case did they have access to the original autographs. Jesus Christ was God and He knew all things, yet, you never hear Him or any of His apostles correcting the manuscript or version that they had. Imagine Paul saying, our Greek version says this, but if the Hebrew had been translated right, or if the scribes had not made an error, it would have said this!! No, they spent their time declaring the Word of God, rather than criticizing it!! I am utterly worn out with all the corrections, better translations, better renderings, etc., that we are forced to listen to when we hear the average preacher preach or teach. It is doing untold harm to the cause of Christ, by destroying the faith of people in the Word of God. Certainly we do not oppose the use of dictionaries, lexicons and concordances, but this correction of the Bible has become a ruinous hobby, even among fundamentalists.

         J. Frank Norris was one of the founders of the Baptist Bible Union, and one of those who approved of its Confession of Faith. When he founded his own movement (which is now the World Baptist Fellowship), he used that Confession of Faith with only very minor changes and by adding two articles. He used it in the churches he pastored and it was adopted by the Fellowship. (We shall not try to defend everything that he did, but neither are we one of his critics). Beyond any doubt he was the greatest pulpit preacher that 20th Century America has produced. In his prime there was no one even close to him in preaching ability. He was a graduate of Baylor University and he finished Southern Baptist Seminary with the highest honors. He sat at the feet of the great Baptist language scholars of that day. I heard him hundreds of times over a period of 15 or more years. I can never recall him correcting the Bible and trying to impress people with his knowledge of Greek or Hebrew.
         As a matter of fact, the school that he founded in 1939 and was associated with until the time of his death in 1952, was not allowed to teach Hebrew or Greek. At that time it was known as the Bible Baptist Seminary and was advertised with a large sign on the front that said, "Only Seminary In The World Teaching Whole English Bible." Some would laugh at Norris' lack of teaching Hebrew and Greek, but nevertheless they turned out some of the strongest preachers and strongest church builders to be found anywhere. His preaching built faith in the Word of God, it did not destroy that faith!
         Today, the World Baptist Fellowship uses that same Confession of Faith. The school has moved to Arlington, Texas and the name changed to Arlington Baptist Schools. While we cannot speak for them, nor would we try to drag them into this controversy, yet it is highly significant that even though they now teach Greek at the School, they use only the King James Version and the Greek Textus Receptus.

         The G.A.R.B. and other groups have used the phrase "as originally written" in their Confessions of Faith. This includes the Baptist Bible Fellowship (their Confession being identical with that of the World Baptist Fellowship). Hundreds of Baptist churches not affiliated with any of these groups use the same Confession or one that is very similar. Lumpkin said that T. T. Shields probably wrote the Confession of Faith of the Baptist Bible Union. It is certain that the Confession of Faith used by Jarvis St. Baptist Church, Toronto, Canada and the Toronto Baptist Seminary is very similar in the article on the Scriptures. (Dr. Shields has long been with the Lord, but this is the Church he pastored and the School he founded). That Church has hosted the Canadian branch of the Trinitarian Bible Society. Trinitarian accepts only the Authorized Version (KJV) in English and the Greek Textus Receptus. The present pastor Dr. Gurr has taken a strong stand for the KJV and the Textus Receptus.

         The Confessions of Faith give little or no comfort to the critics of the KJV. The KJV was the English Version that reigned supreme from the time of the London Confession of 1677, the New Hampshire Confession of 1833, the Baptist Bible Union of 1923, and all of the other Confessions in between and afterward. The burden of proof falls upon Dr. Rice and others who agree with him, to take all of these Confessions of Faith and prove that the KJV has errors. Where is the Confession of Faith that says or hints at any errors in the KJV.
         It will do no good to quote some obscure passage from some preacher that had a part in writing one of these Confessions. There may well have been some who would agree with Dr. Rice, if they were here today. What we do say, without any fear of successful contradiction, is this, at no time when any of these Confessions were being written could there have been any hope of getting any one of them passed, if they had said in any way that "there are errors in the King James Version." It couldn't be added to any Confession of Faith by any fundamental group today, and expect it to be accepted by the churches.

         Whether Dr. Rice knows it or not, there are already many fundamental and independent Baptist Churches who have placed the KJV either in their Confession of Faith or in their Constitution and Bylaws. More will be doing it in the days ahead, and especially the more they study the issues, and the more that they read in fundamental publications that there are "errors" in the KJV.
         Here is the example of a fundamental Baptist Church amending their Church Constitution to read, "We accept the Authorized Version of 1611 (commonly called the King James Version) as the Word of God, preserved in accordance with Psalm 12:6,7 and Matthew 24:35, and as the official Bible of this church, required for all functions." Here is another strong Baptist Church that states in their Confession of Faith as follows, "We accept the King James Version of the Bible as our text book in our church."

         We have added one paragraph to the Confession of Faith and this has been approved by the Tabernacle Baptist Church of Lubbock, Texas. This paragraph states, "We believe that the Texts which are the closest to the original autographs of the Bible are the Masoretic Hebrew Text for the Old Testament, and the Textus Receptus Greek Text for the New Testament, and that the King James Version of the English Bible is a true and faithful translation of these two providentially preserved Texts. " Brethren here we stand, we can do no other. Any Baptist Church can amend their Confession of Faith or their Constitution, in order to enforce the use of the KJV in that Church. No Church has to wait for some Convention, Association or Fellowship to act. We urge those with like convictions to do so!
         While we lay no claim to scholarship, nor do we pretend that we can answer any and every question asked about the KJV, nevertheless we will gladly stand up for this glorious book. Those who stand on the KJV do not have to be able to answer all the critics. It is the critics who must be called upon to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are right.

         Those who read The Sword of the Lord and some of Dr. Rice's books, will find a considerable amount of criticism of the King James Version. It seems certain that he has become more vocal in his criticism of the KJV in recent years. While I do not have access to copies of all the back issues of the Sword, I do believe that a study of them would be quite revealing to say the least. In the May 18, 1979 issue of The Sword of the Lord, Dr. Rice has answered his own criticism of the KJV. In this recent issue, there was printed "Where Will God And Churches Get Workers?" This was a sermon preached by Dr. Rice, at an Ordination Service at Claim Street Baptist Church, Aurora, Illinois, June 12, 1945. I quote a part of a paragraph of this sermon, which I assure you is quoted word for word, and is not taken out of context. Here is what Dr. Rice said 34 years ago. "There is a man-power shortage with God. I am not irreverent when I say it: God does not need any more truth or any better Bible. We have a perfect Bible. God does not need any better gospel. This Gospel is the best there will ever be in the world. God Himself could not improve on that." (Emphasis ours). So there you have it in his own words. Over thirty years ago, he had "a perfect Bible." Now, he has a Bible that has errors in it, and that must continually be corrected. Which John R. Rice shall we believe? Shall we believe the one of today, or the one who had "a perfect Bible" over thirty years ago.
         There is no need to ask which Bible Dr. Rice had over thirty years ago. It was not the "New American Standard Version" or the "New International Version", for neither one of them had been produced in 1945. According to the Scripture quotations in his sermon, it was none other than the KJV. If Dr. Rice was right in 1945, then he is wrong today. If he is right today, then he was wrong in 1945, and should apologize for printing the same error in 1979. Would the right Dr. John R. Rice please stand up!!

         While many commentaries have been critical of the KJV in certain places, this has usually been the work of one man or a small number of scholars (?). However, this is not always the case, as the careful student can find some material in commentaries that will cheer the heart of the KJV defender. One of the problems with commentaries, is the fact that many who have written them, have been liberal are semi-liberal in their theology and they often write seemingly to impress the scholars(?). However, Dr. Rice seems to think that no commentary really supports the KJV.
         The most famous Baptist preacher that has lived since the days of the New Testament was none other than Charles Haddon Spurgeon. More of his sermons and writings have been put into print than any preacher of any denomination that has ever lived. Many of the things that Spurgeon said about the Bible, certainly can be quoted against the views held by Dr. John R. Rice.
         We are going to give some to those quotes, as space permits. However, we do not hold the views that we hold, because of what Spurgeon said, or because of what we have read in the Confessions of Faith. Our belief is based squarely on the Word of God. But since Dr. Rice has challenged us on the basis of Confessions of Faith and Commentaries, we are going to give the reader a taste of the real truth on this issue!

         "When we open this sacred Book, and say of that which is here recorded, 'The mouth of the Lord hath spoken it,' then it gives to the teaching a special character." He wasn't talking about the ASV, NO or the originals. He went on to say, "Where are we if our Bibles are gone? Where are we if we are taught to distrust them? If we are left in doubt as to which part is inspired and which is not, we are as badly off as if we had no Bible at all." (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 33, page 152). (Hereafter we will abbreviate as follows: C. H. Spurgeon to CHS and Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit to MTP).
         I have in my library 56 volumes of the MTP, containing over 3,200 of Spurgeon's sermons, plus his large unabridged commentaries on the Psalms, along with many other volumes of his works. Over and over again he affirms his belief in the plenary, verbal inspiration of the Scriptures. Many, many of his statements certainly do not support the statements made by Dr. Rice and other critics of the KJV.
         "All Scripture, being inspired of the Spirit, is spoken by the mouth of God. However this sacred Book may be treated nowadays, it was not treated contemptuously, nor negligently, nor questioningly by the Lord Jesus Christ, our Master and Lord. It is noteworthy how he reverenced the written Word. The Spirit of God rested upon him personally, without measure, and he could speak out of his own mind the revelation of God, and yet he continually quoted the law and the prophets, and the Psalms; and always he treated the sacred writings with intense reverence, strongly in contrast with the irreverence of 'modern thought.' I am sure, brethren, we cannot be wrong in imitating the example of our divine Lord in our reverence for the Scripture, which cannot be broken." (CHS, MTP, Vol. 34, p. 145).
         Please keep in mind that Christ and the Apostles did not have the originals, since some of them would have been approximately 1,500 years old. No doubt that what they had were copies of copies of copies, but yet you do not find Christ criticizing the Scriptures they had. What a vast difference between them and our modern day Bible teachers, who are all the time correcting the Bible.
         "Dear brethren, because the mouth of the Lord hath spoken the truth of God, we therefore endeavour to preach it with absolute fidelity. We repeat the Word as a child repeats his lesson. It is not ours to correct the divine revelation, but simply to echo it. I do not take it to be my office to bring you new and original thoughts of my own; but rather to say, 'The word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.' Believing that 'The mouth of the Lord hath spoken it,' it is my duty to repeat it to you as correctly as I can after having heard it and felt it in my own soul. It is not mine to amend or adapt the gospel. What! Shall we attempt to improve upon what God has revealed? The Infinitely Wiseis he to be corrected by creatures of a day? Is the infallible revelation of the infallible Jehovah to be shaped, moderated, and toned down to the fashions and fancies of the hour? God forgive us if we have ever altered his Word unwittingly; wittingly we have not done so, nor will we." (CHS, MTP, Vo. 34, p. 147).
         "We have a more sure word of testimony, a rock of truth upon which we rest, for our infallible standard lies in, 'It is written.' Of this inspired Book we say'This is the judge that ends the strife when wit and reason fail.' It is said that it is hard to be understood, but it is not so to those who seek the guidance of the Spirit of God. There are in it great truths which are above our comprehension, placed there on purpose to let us see how shallow are our finite minds, but concerning vital and fundamental points the Bible is not hard to be understood, neither is there any excuse for the multitudes of errors which men pretend to have gathered from it. A babe in grace taught by the Spirit of God may know the mind of the Lord concerning salvation, and find its way to heaven by the guidance of the word alone. But be it profound or simple, that is not the question; It is the word of God, and is pure, unerring truth. Here is infallibility, and nowhere else. I wish to speak this morning upon this grand, infallible book, which is our sole court of appeal. . . " (CHS, MTP, Vol. 20, p. 699).
         "To me it is an intense joy to search diligently in my Father's book of grace. It grows upon me daily. It was written by inspiration In old times, but I have found while feeding upon It, that not only WAS it inspired when written, but it is so still. It is not a mere historic document, it is a letter fresh from the pen of God to me. It is not a sermon once delivered and ended; it speaks still. It is not a flower dried and put by in the hortus siccus, with its beauty clouded and its perfume evaporated; but it is a fresh blooming flower in God's garden, as fragrant and as for as when he planted it." (Emphasis ours). (CHS, MTP, Vol. 20, p. 702). Keep in mind that CHS is talking about the Bible that he had in his possession, not the originals or something that was only written in heaven.
         "How are we to handle this sword of 'It is written'? First, with deepest reverence. Let every word that God has spoken be law and gospel to you. Never trifle with it; never try to evade its force or to change its meaning. God speaks to you in this book as much as if again he came to the top of Sinai and lifted up his voice in thunder." (CHS, MTP, Vol. 20, p. 706). "Here is the only infallibility;the Holy Ghost's witness in this book." (CHS, MTP, Vol. 20, p. 708).
         "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." Psa. 12:6. In a sermon on the proceeding text, Spurgeon had the following to say: "We believe that we have the words of God preserved for us in the Scriptures. We are exceedingly grateful that it is so. If we had not the words of the Lord thus recorded we should have felt that we live in an evil time, since neither voice nor oracle is heard today. I say, we should have fallen upon evil days if the words that God spake of old had not been recorded under his superintendence. With this Book before us, what the Lord spake two thousand years ago he virtually speaks now: for 'He will not call back his words' (Isa. 31:2). His word abideth for ever; for it was spoken, not for one occasion, but for all ages. The Word of the Lord is so instinct with everlasting life and eternal freshness, that it is as vocal and forceful in the heart of the saint to-day as it was to the ear of Abraham when he heard it in Canaan; or to the mind of Moses in the desert; or to David when he sang it to his harp. I thank God that many of us know what it is to hear the divine word re-spoken in our souls! By the Holy Ghost the words of Scripture come to us with a present inspiration: not only has the Book been inspired, IT IS inspired." (CHS, MTP, Vol. 35, p. 254, 255).
         "If I did not believe in the infallibility of the Book, I would rather be without it. If I am to judge the Book, it is no judge of me. If I am to sift it, like the heap on the threshing-floor, and lay THIS aside and only accept THAT, according to my own judgment, then I have no guidance whatever, unless I have conceit enough to trust to my own heart. The new theory denies infallibility to the words of God, but practically imputes it to the judgments of men; at least, this is all the infallibility which they can get at." (CHS, MTP, Vol. 35, p. 257).
         "Unchanged, unchangeable are the words of the Ever Blessed. They are as silver without dross, which will continue from age to age. This we do believe, and in this we do rejoice. Nor is it a tax upon our faith to believe in the permanence of Holy Scripture, for these words were spoken by him who is Omniscient, and knows everything; therefore there can be in them no mistake. They were spoken by him who is omnipotent, and can do everything; and therefore his words will be carried out. Spoken by him who is immutable, these words will never alter. The words which God spake thousands of years ago are true at this hour, for they come from him who is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever. He that spake these words is infallible and therefore they are infallible." (CHS, MTP, Vol. 35, p. 259).

         "Furthermore, these words of God are TO BE PRESERVED. Give up no line of God's revelation. You may not know the particular importance of the text assailed, but it is not for you to assess the proportionate value of God's words: if the Lord has spoken, be prepared to die for what he has said....This Book deserves the sacrifice of our all for the maintenance of every line of it." (CHS, MTP, Vol. 35, p. 264).
         In The Sword And The Trowel (CHS's monthly paper), we find the following quotation along with Spurgeon's comments: "In The Sunday School Chronicle, of April 12, occurs an editorial note, which concludes as follows:'Almost all writers now recognize the human element in the Bible, and see that this brings human infirmity in matters of detail. We had a letter from a friend the other day, and there were several mistakes of spelling in it, but the letter quite full conveyed to us our friend's thought. And if there are some inexactness, and even some mistakes, in the Bible, it carries to us, nevertheless, the mind and will of God. A lamp may give light to the feet on a dark night, even if the tin is a little bent in, and one of the panes is cracked.' Is the Sunday School Union going to teach our youth that the Bible is like an old cracked lantern? To this we call the attention of those who are charged with the superintendence of the Union literature. Surely there are members of the Committee who annot allow such teaching to pass unchallenged." (CHS, The Sword And The Trowel, May 1889).
         So what if Spurgeon did quote from some other version on very rare occasions, it does not nullify what he preached in the above sermons and many more. He was not perfect, but he believed in an infallible Bible, and he preached the KJV throughout his ministry. (Some of us today, quoted from some of the other versions on a few occasions, before we learned the truth on the matter). Spurgeon fought hard against the modernism in the Baptist Union of England, which he called the "down grade" movement. When they refused to take a stand, he withdrew from the Baptist Union. The Church of England was also swamped with modernism, and it was two modernists from that denomination, by the names of Westcott and Hort, who led with the translation of the Revised Version from their corrupt Greek text based on the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts. If they had been just half as sound on the Scriptures, as was Spurgeon, then we would have been spared from their Greek text and the Revised Version.

         Since we have dealt at some length with Dr. Rice's first question, we shall now proceed to comment on his remaining questions.

         "Where in the Bible does God guarantee that any translator of the Bible, anyone who copies the Bible, anyone who preaches the Bible, or anyone who teaches the Bible, will be infallibly correct?"
         We have never claimed infallibility for any man. This is a straw man question, meant to make the defenders of the KJV look foolish. Not even Paul or Peter were infallible. It is God's Word that is infallible and inspired of God. We maintain that God has providentially looked over the preservation of His Word. This is a Bible doctrine, and one which many confessions of faith state to be true. (We shall deal more directly with this under the case for divine preservation of the Word).

         "If the King James Version is the only perfectly translated Version, without errors, in the English language, then what about the Bishop Bible and the others that it superseded in the English language?"
         Dr. Rice further asks: "If God was under obligation to make a perfect translation of the King James Version, in 1611, then you mean God was either unwilling or unable to guarantee the translation before the King James Version, before 1611? If God was under obligation to make the King James Version perfect, then why would he leave English-speaking people for 1600 years without a translation they could rely on?"
         We can hardly believe that Dr. Rice would ask the last question. Surely he must know that the English language was not 1600 years old when the KJV was translated in 1611. For those who are interested, we quote the following information about the English language. "There are three periods in its history, including the Old English, Middle English, and Modern English. The first of these (Old English) extends from the German conquest of England in about 450 to the Norman Conquest in 1066; the second (Middle English) to about 1400; and the last (Modern English) embraces all the period from the latter date. Old English or Anglo-Saxon included several dialects, all of which were highly inflected. Two languages were spoken from the Norman Conquest until about the middle of the 13th century, but these became greatly mixed, and, after a time, the French merged with the Anglo-Saxon, forming the Middle English, the language of Chaucer, Langland, and Wycliffe. Modern English differs so materially from the older forms that few words of the latter resemble the English of the present time."The New Teachers' And Pupils' Cyclopaedia. (According to the above classification, Modern English was being used at the time of the translation of the King James Version).
         From the above quotation, anyone can see that the English language was in the process of being formed for several hundred years before the KJV of 1611. It was changing rather fast and quite radically to say the least.

         An article on the English language in The World Book Encyclopedia throws considerable light on this subject. It clearly reveals why there could have been no English Bible for 1600 years before the KJV of 1611, nor even 500 years for that matter. The Old English was in reality Anglo-Saxon, and was in reality several different dialects of Low German. This period lasted from approximately 500 to 1100 A.D. There was no standard written language in this period. West Saxon was the dialect used by the most important writers of that period. Concerning the Middle English period, we quote the following:
         "Middle English Period (1100-1500). The conquest of England in 1066 by William Duke of Normandy, had important effects on the English language. French was used in the upper classes, in the law court, and in the schools for about the next 300 years. Anglo-Saxon still served as the speech of the conquered people in their daily life. But it was kept alive only as a spoken language during this period. The careless tendency to slur the last syllable increased. The result was that the highly complex language of the Anglo-Saxons began to lose its inflections and become more simplified.
         "English began to emerge once more as a written language at the end of those years. But now it was greatly changed and much enriched. Most of its literary words and all of the terms relating to culture or to anything outside common speech had to be borrowed from the French. The English tongue absorbed practically all the French of the conqueror in this way.
         "The Middle English period was one of change, marked by confusion and the absence of any standard English tongue. All writers wrote in the dialect they knew. Men of one section of the country could not understand the dialect of another. Three distinct dialects were spoken, the Northern, Midland, and Southern." The World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 5, pages 248-250.
         This should explain to anyone, why that there could not have been an English Bible for 1600 years before the KJV of 1611. From around 1100 to around 1400, French was the official language of England and the schools did not teach English.
         There were attempts to give the English people the Bible in their own tongue, before the days of the KJV. Some of those attempts were apparently less than perfect, but we are not going to criticize the efforts of those who did the best they could. William Tyndale did a commendable work, and many of the words that he used can be found in the KJV. At the time of the KJV translation in 1611, the English language had reached its highest and best, and it is no accident that scholarship was also at its highest mark. In the providence of God, the KJV was translated and published. We can say without any fear of contradiction that the KJV has been used to reach more souls for Christ, to organize more churches, and to send out more missionaries than any version in any language that this world has ever known. The greatest revivals in Church history have taken place under the preaching of the KJV. For nearly 370 years it has met the test, and we are persuaded that it will be the blessed of God version in English, until the Lord shall come!!!

         No other language in the world has as many versions of the Bible, as do the English speaking people. Although we would not endorse all of these versions, nevertheless we must understand why there has been so much effort put forth in the English. We are not saying that there are not good versions in some of the other languages of the world. It is our understanding that quite a number of them have Bibles that were translated from the Textus Receptus, as was the KJV of 1611.
         During the last 300 years, Bible Christianity has had its greatest growth in the English speaking world. There are more Bible believing Christians in the English speaking countries, than among any other language group. The missionaries and the money for world evangelism has come from this group. Therefore, it is only natural that we would see more effort put forth in translation than anywhere else.
         God chose the Hebrew language to convey the Old Testament to a people. He chose the Greek language to convey His New Testament word. God has never needed to give another Testament through another people. The Bible is complete, and it does not need to have any additions. However, we believe that He has chosen the English speaking Christians to carry His Word to the world. (This is no affront to Christians of other languages).
         I do not find it surprising that we have the providentially preserved Old Testament Text and New Testament Text and the Word of God so marvelously provided and preserved in the KJV of 1611. Whenever God calls a people to do a great work, He always gives them the tools to do the job with. I for one, am convinced that God has given us a Bible that will do the job without any changes at all. It has stood the test for almost 370 years, and it will do until the rapture.
         Please notice the following quotations about the English language, which were taken from the same World Book Encyclopedia as the other quotations above. "More people can speak English than any other single language of the world except Chinese.... It also serves as a second language for many other people whose native tongue IS not English....Even foreign language scholars admit that English is the STRONGEST language spoken."
         The above facts may well help us to understand why that God in His Divine providence gave us the KJV. It also helps us to see why that the devil is out to destroy the KJV and to substitute a counterfeit series of bibles. His objective is to neutralize true Christianity in the English speaking world, stop real mission work, and to pave the way for the Anti-Christ's one world religion and one world government.
         God was not under "obligation" to give any version, and anyone should know that it is of His grace and mercy that the Bible is given to any people. All of the English Versions of any note, that were made before the KJV, were made from the Textus Receptus, with the exception of Wycliffe's. His was made from the Latin Vulgate. None were made from the corrupt Westcott and Hort text that was based on two of the worst manuscripts in existence. Since the translation of the KJV, all of the more popular new versions have been translated from a text that was based upon those two corrupt manuscripts.

         "If God has obligated Himself, as some fanatics say, to make one translation in English, that is, the King James Version, perfectly translated without error, then would not God be obligated to furnish such a translation in every other language also?"
         NO! God is under no obligation to give the Bible to anyone. That any have it, is of God's grace. Furthermore, Dr. Rice's reasoning here is faulty and far off the mark. We can take the same line of reasoning and prove that God never gave a perfect Bible! (not even the originals) to anyone. We might just as well say"If God obligated Himself, to give the Old Testament in Hebrew to Israel, would he not be obligated to furnish such a revelation in every other language also?" We could say the same thing about the Greek New Testament. Man had better not try to dictate to God what He could or should do! "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid." Rom. 9:14.
         The truth of the matter is, that many people of the world do not have the Bible translated into their language at all. It is tragic that so much money, talent and energy has been used to produce the many English versions, when so many have not the Word of God.

         What about the translation in Acts 12:4 that Herod was " intending after Easter to bring him [Peter] forth to the people. "
         This is supposed to be the knockout blow to the defenders of the King James Version. This is one of the first verses that the modern critics harp on, when they get ready to vanquish the KJV. It seems strange to me, that most of the same critics that object to "Easter" in Acts 12:4, make a big celebration of Easter in their churches. They play Easter to the hilt, in an attempt to draw as big a crowd as possible, yet they object to Easter in Acts 12:4.
         We have never celebrated Easter in the pastorate. We do celebrate the resurrection every Lord's day, and we may preach on His resurrection on what is called "Easter Sunday", but we do not celebrate Easter. The people that celebrate and make a big thing out of Easter, never use Acts 12:4 to justify it.
         The Greek word "PASCHA" is found in the Textus Receptus and all other Greek Texts, as far as I know. It is translated Passover the other 28 times it is found in the Textus Receptus and the KJV. As to why the KJV translators said Easter, we can but speculate, but surely there is no problem here that would cause us to throw out the KJV and the Textus Receptus.

         "Again, in Revelation 22:14 the King James Version teaches that one is to be saved and go to Heaven because they 'do his commandments'. "
         In the next paragraph, Dr. Rice further says, "It says 'Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.' In that the translation is not correct and that is not really what the Greek says in the original manuscript."
         This would be laughable, if it were not so tragic. Brother Rice has never seen the original manuscript, so how can he be so sure that it was not in the original. It is certainly to be found in the Textus Receptus published by the Trinitarian Bible Society of London, England. It is found in The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, edited by George Ricker Berry, and published by Zondervan. While we do not recommend the King James II Version by Jay P. Green, nevertheless it is to be found in it. Neither do we recommend Young's Literal Translation of The Bible by Robert Young, yet it is to be found in it. This translation was made in 1898 by the author of Young's Concordance, and he said that it was made from the Textus Receptus. It is also found in "The New King James Bible, New Testament", published by Thomas Nelson Publishers, which we do not recommend.
         Also, we venture to say that this verse does not teach what Dr. Rice says that it does, in his first paragraph above. However, whatever it teaches, we had better believe, rather than trying to find some excuse to throw it out of the Bible. It is a matter of interpretation and of rightly dividing the Word of truth. There are other verses just as troublesome as this one unless they are rightly divided and understood. Shall we throw them out also?
         Some critics of the KJV, who favor the use of a number of versions, claim that no recognized version of the Bible actually teaches false doctrine. Dr. Rice seems to be saying this in one of his books where he says, "Do the various translations differ materially on any doctrine, any fact of history, any Christian duty, on the plan of salvation, or the Person of Christ, or any Scriptures." (Emphasis ours)."Our God-Breathed Book—The Bible" by Dr. John R. Rice, page 355.
         It would appear that Dr. Rice contradicted what he said in his book, by the article in the Sword of the Lord.
         I have met a lot of people who believed in works and keeping commandments, in order to be saved. They generally have a number of Scriptures that they quote to try to prove their point, but I cannot remember any of them using Rev. 22:14.
         Dr. Rice says of this verse, "I think the correct translation is, 'Blessed are they that wash their robes, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city,' as it is given in the American Standard Version." His quotation is not exactly that of the American Standard, for he has left out two words. However, be that as it may, it seems difficult to show that this translation proves salvation by grace, at this point, anymore than the KJV. We will have more to say about the American Standard Version later on.

         "One great edition of the King James Version of the Bible left out the word 'not' in the commandment, 'Thou shalt not commit adultery,' and had it, 'Thou shalt commit adultery.' "
         Dr. Rice goes on to say, "Did God protect that version from error?"
         This has to be a question of desperation, and shows how really pathetic is his position. He knows, and we all know that this was a printing error that was corrected. You cannot buy a Bible that has that error in it today. This is not the only time that printers have made errors in printing the Bible, and it will not be the last. Honest publishing companies do find the printing errors and correct the future editions, and this question has almost nothing to do with the subject under discussion.

         Dr. Rice has mentioned what he believes to be two errors in the KJV. We sincerely wish that these two "errors" were all he had in mind, but we know it is not. It is only a tiny tip of the iceberg. In the Sword of the Lord, and in a number of his books, Dr. Rice has mentioned quite a number of verses in the KJV that he thinks are in error. We know of quite a few of these, but we have not seen Dr. Rice's complete list. It would be much too time consuming for us to try to run them all down in his many books and articles.
         However, we would like to challenge Dr. Rice to list all of the errors in the KJV. He could simply run a list of them in the Sword of the Lord for the benefit of all the "ignorant" people who do not have the knowledge or ability to find all these "errors." Some of us would like to know how much "error" we have been believing all these years. If he knows about "errors", the only honest thing he can do is to publish them all. Will he do it? We shall wait and see.
         The awful tragedy of this "error" hunting generation is that no two "scholars" agree on the exact number of "errors". Any list that Dr. Rice would compile would be disputed by others who find "errors" in the KJV. Some would want to take some off of his list, and others would want to add on many others. Now, we are not talking about what the modernists would do, but we are talking about what those who say they are fundamental and believe in verbal inspiration would do, who find "errors" in the KJV.

         We would like to know if Dr. Rice knew about these "errors" in the KJV when he preached the ordination sermon on June, 12, 1945? If he did, then why did he say in that sermon, "We have a perfect Bible"? If he did not know about them in 1945, why did he print the sermon on May 18, 1979 in the Sword of the Lord? These questions deserve a frank and honest answer from Dr. Rice.

         This writer would be foolish to leave the impression that he can prove every verse, word and letter belongs in the Bible. Believing the Bible is a matter of faith and not scholarship. I cannot answer all the questions that some might ask about the Bible. Neither can I prove from a human standpoint, that all that is in the KJV is correct. It is utterly foolish to think that the Bible can be reduced to fit the changing fancies of human reasoning. This is a book of faith, and without faith it cannot be understood or believed. While this line of reasoning does not suit the intellectual and even many who call themselves Bible scholars, it certainly fits the need of the simple believer in Christ. Millions of Christians have lived and died, believing everything in the Bible, not because they could prove it all, but because it was in the Bible.
         Millions of faithful martyrs died rather than give up doctrines that they found in the Word of God. They believed these doctrines and principles because they were in the Bible, and not because they could prove them to the satisfaction of the religious critics of their day. Until God's people return to a faith in an infallible, inerrant bible, there can be no heaven sent revival. We are talking about a Bible that we have today, and not one that exists in heaven, or once existed long ago in the originals. If we do not already have such a Bible, we are indeed in a terrible mess, to put it bluntly!!
         In our next chapter, we will discuss briefly the New American Standard Version and other modern versions. We shall also consider the theory that the Bible may be found in all the versions, Greek texts and manuscripts. Then we shall present the case for the providentially preserved and accessible Word of God that can be bought and read by anybody in the English speaking world today!
         One thing that amazes me, is the continued inconsistency of those who criticize the King James Version. Of course we are now talking about the fundamentalists, and not the modernists. Many of these brethren have written and spoken on the infallibility of the Word of God. They read their text from the KJV, all of their other proof texts from the KJV. They hold the KJV up in the air and wave it around, and loudly acclaim their belief in an inerrant Bible that is inspired of God. Everyone in the audience believes that they are talking about the KJV, but lo and behold they are not. They are talking about the originals, which no living man has ever seen on this earth!

         At this point it will suit our purpose to show just one example, as follows: "I have a miracle in my hands in this Book. I don't mean the paper, I don't mean the leather cover. I have in my hands a message from God, the infallible, eternal Word of God. And ten thousand years from now this will still be the Word of God."Dr. John R. Rice, Sword of the Lord, April 13, 1973, p. 5. This is a classic example of what we are talking about. There can be little doubt which version Dr. Rice was holding in his hand. It was the Bible that he says that he does his preaching and teaching from, the Authorized Version, better known in the U.S.A. as the KJV of 1611. Then in other issues of the Sword of the Lord and in his books, Dr. Rice would have us to believe that there are a considerable number of errors in the KJV. Which statement of Dr. Rice shall we believe? Both statements cannot be true!

         Unfortunately quite a number of fundamentalists speak favorably of the American Standard Version (hereafter ASV). Dr. Rice has spoken quite favorably of the ASV in a number of his writings. The truth of the matter is, that the ASV slavishly follows the corrupt English Revised Version of 1885, engineered by two corrupt scholars named Westcott and Hort. They are both filled with the corruptions introduced from the Vatican manuscript (Codex B), and the equally corrupt Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph), discovered by Tischendorf. Westcott and Hort were not fundamental Bible believers, but rank modernists. (For proof of this you may obtain from us, the book, "Heresies Of Westcott & Hort" by Dr. D. A. Waite, for $2.50).
         The American Revision Committee worked closely with Westcott and Hort and the English Revisers. The chairman of the American Revision Committee was none other than Dr. Philip Schaff. He made several trips across the ocean to consult with Westcott and Hort, during the process of revision. Just a few facts about Dr. Schaff would seem to be in order at this time. He came to America from Germany in 1844, to assume his duties as a Professor in the Theological Seminary of Mercersburg, Pa. His inaugural address created such a furor that he was tried for heresy. However, he was acquitted, which may not speak well for the denomination that tried him. Schaff's theology was warped by German Higher Criticism and by the Puseyite and Oxford movements of England. He stayed at Mercersburg Seminary for about 20 years and then moved on to New York, where he was connected with the notorious Union Theological Seminary for 25 years. He was sympathetic to the views of John Henry Newman who left the Church of England and went into the Church of Rome. His doctrine was deeply affected by the false theology of his day. (All this and more, is documented in Chapter XIV of "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated" by Wilkinson).

         For the sake of space we will only point out one example of blasphemy in the ASV of 1901. It is to be found in John 9, where Jesus is talking with the man born blind, that He had just healed. Jesus asked him, " .... Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, And who is he, Lord, that I may believe on him? Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and he it is that speaketh with thee. And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him." John 9:35-38, ASV. The small footnote number 2 is found by worshipped, where it reads "And he worshipped him." Footnote 2 reads, "The Greek word denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature (as here) or to the Creator." There you have it, the translators of the ASV refer to Jesus Christ as a creature and not the creator. This ought to be enough to turn any Bible believer away from the ASV. (If you look this up in your ASV, make sure that you have an official edition, that carried the certification across from the Preface page, showing that it is an edition approved by the Revision Committee. This is so stated over the names of George E. Day and J. Henry Thayer. Some unofficial editions were published that left out this footnote).

         Some fundamentalists and some fundamental schools, unfortunately recommend the New American Standard Version (hereafter NASV). In the foreword it is stated, "(This translation follows the principles used in the American Standard Version 1901 known as the Rock of Biblical Honesty.)" This translation was sponsored by "The Lockman Foundation", which was financed by a Christian business man by the name of Dewey Lockman. This same foundation produced the Amplified Version.
         We have been told many times that the translators of the NASV were fundamental Bible believers. However, that statement can never be proven, because the Lockman Foundation promised to keep the names of the translators secret. To this day their names have never been published. We do not know who they were and what they believed, and we believe that this is both tragic and sinister. So when someone tells you that the translators were fundamental, ask for proof. It will not and cannot be given.

         S. Franklin Logsdon is a well known writer, and Bible Conference speaker. He pastored a number of churches including the Moody Church of Chicago. He was a personal friend of Dewey Lockman of the Lockman Foundation, and stayed in his home on many occasions. He was on the Editorial Committee of the Amplified New Testament. In a letter to Dr. David Otis Fuller, dated September 5, 1973, he said: "As a member of the Editorial Committee in the production of the Amplified New Testament, we honestly and conscientiously felt it was a mark of intelligence to follow 'Westcott and Hort.' Now, what you have in these books (speaking of the books on the versions by Fuller), strikes terror to my heart. It proves alarmingly that being conscientiously wrong is a most dangerous state of being. God help us to be more cautious, lest we fall into the snares of the arch deceiver."
         When the Lockman Foundation was getting ready to take up the copyright of the ASV and get translators to produce the NASV, he invited S. Franklin Logsdon to visit with him for a few days. Lockman told him of his plans and asked his advice. Logsdon encouraged him to go ahead with the project. In a letter to Dr. Fuller dated Oct. 15, 1973, he lamented about his part in the whole affair. The thing that bothered him most, was the knowledge that he could very likely have prevented the production of the NASV, if he had known the facts, as he knows them now.
         In a tape recording Logsdon tells how that he wrote the preface to the NASV. It was originally written as guidelines for the translators to follow, but when the NASV was published, it was printed as the preface. It is some 4 pages long. When he received his copy of the 50 deluxe copies that were printed, his was number seven. Even then he did not examine it at the first, but when he began to hear criticism of it, he found that there was no truthful answer. He could not refute the arguments against the NASV, and came to the conclusion that the NASV "was wrong, terribly wrong." After about four months of soul searching, he wrote to Dewey Lockman and said, "I must under God, renounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version." Because of his involvement with the NASV, he said, "I may be in trouble with the Lord."
         Now Brother Logsdon is going up and down the land, repudiating the NASV and the other new versions. He now recommends only one version, The Authorized Version of 1611 (KJV). It is our prayer, that others will see the error of endorsing these corrupt versions, and admit it publicly as this brother has done. Why are not these facts generally known today? It needs to be told and we are telling it. (A reel to reel tape recording made by Logsdon, can be obtained from The Bible For Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, N.J. 08108. This tape documents the above facts).

         Satan was the first to question and cast doubt upon the Word of God. He began in Genesis 3, by saying, "Yea, hath God said. . . ?" Down through the ages, he has been the captain of a band that seeks to cast doubt upon and corrupt the Word of God. Paul wrote, "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God. . . " II Cor. 2:17. In Deut. 4:2 and Rev. 22:18,19, we are warned against taking from or adding to the Word of God. However, there is no doubt that the Bible would have been hopelessly corrupted and changed, if it had not been for God's Divine Providential oversight and preservation of it.
         God's Word is called a "more sure word of prophecy" in 11 Pet. 1:19-21. Parts of the Bible were about 1,500 years old when Peter wrote this, yet, he called it a "more sure word of prophecy." He never did see the originals, but he called the copies "sure".
         Parts of the Old Testament were over 500 years old, when "Every word of God is pure. . . ", was penned in Prov. 30:5. This statement could not have been true unless God had providentially protected His Word. Psa. 19:7-11, testifies to the preservation of the Word. Jesus said, ". . .had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" John 5:46,47. The only writings they had of Moses, were copies, and they did not have the originals. Yet, Jesus does not hint that there are errors in what they had.
         "For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven." Psa. 119:89. While God's Word may not be settled on earth, at least in the minds of many, yet it is settled in heaven. We believe that it is settled on earth, at least as far as God is concerned. Even Dr. Rice says of this verse, "We think that infers that the Scriptures will be preserved among men...." Psa. 119:160 says, "Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." This verse certainly means that God will preserve His Word.
         Isa. 40:8 clearly states, "....the word of our God shall stand for ever." Reference to this verse is found in I Pet. 1:23-25. "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever....the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. " Here we learn that the word of God is incorruptible, that it liveth and abideth for ever, and that it endureth for ever. We know he is not talking about it being preserved only in heaven, for he states that "this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you." How can anyone question God's preservation of His Word?
         Jesus said, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matt. 5:18. The jot is from the Hebrew yod, the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet. The tittle is the little horn or pen stroke that was used to distinguish one letter from another in the Hebrew. Yet, Jesus said that not one letter or one pen stroke would pass away from the law, until it was all fulfilled. Even then, the law was about 1,500 years old, and they did not have the originals at that time. They only had copies. This verse is a real knuckle ball which the critics of the KJV inevitably strike out on. Dr. Rice in "Our God-Breathed Book — The Bible" tries his hand at bat on this verse. He says, "Jesus makes it clear in what intricate detail the Scriptures will be preserved. Not a jot nor a tittle will pass away!" This is all well and good and we could wish that Dr. Rice would have stopped here. Unfortunately in the next sentence he goes on to say, "The Lord here guarantees even the verbal accuracy of the translations and copiesnot of one particular copy nor of one particular translation but of the inspired Word in all of them together."
         Then in the next paragraph Dr. Rice says, "Here, then, is a clear Bible doctrine that the Word of God abides forever, it endures forever, it shall never pass away! So, if we know the detailed methods by which God preserves His Word, well and good. If we do not know how providence has overruled the wrath of men, the errors of copyists, the bias of translators, we can still know that He does overrule them. And not altogether, perhaps, in one copy or in one translation, but in them all collectively God has His perfect Word, never to be destroyed, never to pass away. The Word of God abides forever. "
         We could just as well say that all of God's words are contained in Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, or better still in Strong's Concordance, since we believe that all the words of the Bible are to be found in it. Dr. Rice gives no proof of his theory, because there is no proof of it. If his theory is correct, then a believer would have to have every Greek and Hebrew text, every manuscript and every version of the Bible. With all of these he could be assured that he had all the words of God. However, he would be hopelessly confused about which words would be the true Word of God, since the versions and texts differ in thousands of places. If the scholars cannot agree, and they can't, as to which words are correct, how could the average Bible believer ever be assured that he knows what God has said in His Word? It is our contention that such a theory will drive people to unbelief and despair.

         We don't believe that Dr. Rice meant it that way, but his theory leads to a view that is not far from modernism. The liberals, at least many of them, believe that the Bible contains the words of God, along with some of the words of men and errors that they placed in the Bible. They believe that this was true from the beginning, and that copyists and translators have added additional mistakes. Now Dr. Rice believes that the originals were verbally inspired and therefore infallible and inerrant. However, he also believes that the copyists and the translators have so changed the Bible until no version or text contains all of the Word of God, and therefore all texts and versions have errors in them. So if we think this through, the man that has all the texts and versions, does indeed have all of the Word of God, BUT he also has a lot of errors and words that are NOT the Word of God. The end result is that only a matter of degrees separate Dr. Rice and the liberals as they look at the texts and versions today.
         The liberals believe that part or most of the originals were truly the Word of God. Dr. Rice, and others like him, believe that all of the originals were the Word of God. Both groups believe that the texts and versions we have today are corrupted. So the end result is that both groups end up with Bibles that they do not believe are infallible and inerrant.
         It is our belief that God has providentially preserved His inspired Word in the Old Testament Masoretic Hebrew Text and the New Testament in the Textus Receptus Greek Text. We also believe that the King James Version is a true and faithful translation of these two providentially preserved Texts, and that it is God's Word in the English language. We are not in favor of changing one verse or one word, but believe it needs to be used just as it has come to us.

         We cannot begin to explain by what method and what means God has preserved His Word. Indeed we agree with Dr. Rice that it is not necessary for us to know the means which God used, we only need to believe. Jesus said, "...the scripture cannot be broken." John 10:35. Indeed it cannot and will not be broken. He also said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Matt. 24:35. If Jesus could not keep this promise, how can we know that He will keep any of His other promises?? In fact He said, " . . . it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." Luke 16:17. Neither heaven or earth have passed, and neither has God's Holy Word passed! The first two could happen easier than the third. He also guaranteed the New Testament by saying, "Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away." Luke 21:33.
         Paul wrote to Timothy by Divine inspiration and said " . . . from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine. . ." II Tim. 3:15,16. We cannot suppose that Timothy or his parents had the originals, for they could have only had copies. Yet, Timothy had known the "holy scriptures" since childhood. Can we suppose that the "scriptures" of verse 15, is different than the "scripture" of verse 16? No, we cannot! God had preserved the Old Testament down to Timothy's day, and we are persuaded that He has preserved the New Testament as well, down to this present hour.
         If God has preserved His word in every age, and He has, then there can be but one true Bible in the English language today. It cannot be the ASV, the NASV or the NIV, for they are all translated from a text that was unknown to God's people for over a thousand years. Not until 1881-1885 was the Westcott & Hort Text known. It is a text that was rejected many centuries ago and only survived in the Vatican Manuscript of the Roman Catholic Church in Rome, and in the Sinaiticus Manuscript that Tischendorf barely saved from being burnt as kindling. "The first appearance of the Vatican MS is 1481 A.D. when it was discovered in the Vatican library. According to authorities the date of its writing is placed within the years of 325 to 350 A.D. This date fits in with the conviction of those who claim that it is the product of Eusebius who was ordered by emperor Constantine to make 50 copies of the scriptures in the year 331 A.D."(From "God Wrote Only One Bible" by J. J. Ray. You may obtain this book from us for $2.95). However, the Vatican MS was not available for Protestant and Baptist scholars until the middle 1800's. The Sinaitic MS was not found by Tischendorf until 1844. This means that all of God's true churches and people did not have the true Word of God for over 1,000 years, if the Westcott & Hort theory is correct. Without the Westcott & Hort theory, there would be no ASV, NASV, NIV or any of the other mutilated versions today. (Of course there are a few other manuscripts that are classified with the above two manuscripts, but no one would have ever built a text from them. It is of a text type that is at variance with 85 % to 95 % of all other manuscripts. Although these two manuscripts may be the oldest, they do not represent the oldest text type. There is not a century when this text type ever prevailed among God's people. It is only in this 20th Century of apostasy, unbelief and rank modernism, that this text type has even come close to prevailing.

         The Textus Receptus is the text type of 85% to 95% of all Greek manuscripts. This text type was the Bible of the Greek and Byzantine churches. It was the text type of the Italic churches (not Roman); and of the Gallic churches of Southern France; and of the Celtic churches of Great Britain. It was the text type of the Waldensian churches (Baptist), going all the way back to the First Century. (See page 194-215 of "Which Bible" by David Otis Fuller, 5th edition). It was the text of the Reformers, including Luther, Calvin and all the others. It was the text type used by Tyndale and all the other early English translators, with the sole exception of Wycliffe who translated from the Latin Vulgate, because he did not know Greek. It was the text of the KJV translators, and it reigned supreme until the advent of the Westcott and Hort text of the 1880's.
         Even though Westcott and Hort did not succeed in getting their English Revised Version to supplant the KJV, they were able to get their Greek text into the schools, where the deadly speckled birds of modernism always lay their eggs and hatch them. For over 50 years while the Christians in the pews were content and blessed with the KJV, and preachers continued to preach from it, the liberals were busy in the colleges and seminaries implanting the depraved text of Westcott and Hort in the fertile minds of the young theologs. While being told that the text of Westcott and Hort was best, and the ASV was the most accurate, nevertheless they should preach from the beautiful and beloved King James Version. (In our opinion, those who do not study, teach and preach what they believe to be the most accurate version, are just plain hypocrites).
         Although there were some individual efforts to produce a new Bible, by such men as Goodspeed, Williams and others, there was no united effort to dethrone the KJV until the 1940's. In 1946 the National Council of Churches published the Revised Standard Version New Testament. They then published the complete Revised Version in 1952. It was translated by some of the most liberal and modernistic scholars in America. No self respecting fundamentalist would accept it, and rightly so. However, in the 1960's when the NASV was published, many fundamentalists accepted it, because they were told that it was fundamental and had been translated by conservatives. However, no list of translators has ever been published and so we do not know who translated it. Yet, we know that they followed "In most instances the 23rd edition of the Nestle Greek New Testament", according to the preface. The Nestle Greek Text is based on the Westcott and Hort theory and their text. So no matter how fundamental the scholars were, their version could never be correct when translated from a corrupt text. When the New York Bible Society came out with the New International Version (NIV) in the 1970's, many fundamentalists fell for the same old propaganda.
         When a believer compares the RSV and the NASV, there is an amazing similarity between the two. The reason should be obvious. They are both translated from a corrupt text type and not from the Textus Receptus. In fact in "God Wrote Only One Bible" by J. J. Ray, we find that in 162 key verses, the Revised Standard Version disagrees with the KJV and the Textus Receptus in 158 places, and the New American Standard Version disagrees with the KJV in 147 places. This means that in these 162 key Scriptures that the NASV agrees 147 times with the RSV and disagrees 147 times with the KJV and the Textus Receptus. In fact in these 162 key Scriptures the NASV agrees with the New World Translation of the Bible, which is the Jehovah's Witness Bible, much, much more than it does with the KJV. It is almost impossible to see how an informed Bible believer could ever recommend the NASV or NIV.

         Nearly all writers who believe in divine inspiration of the Scriptures, do believe in some form of Divine preservation of the Scriptures. This can be said of Dr. John R. Rice, B. B. Warfield, Edward J. Young, W. A. Criswell, L. Gaussen and others. This is not to say that any or all of them would agree with all our conclusions. However, all of these state that they believe in Divine preservation. Without a doubt, we would have no Bible worthy of the name, unless God had Divinely and providentially preserved His Word.
         It all boils down to how big of a God we serve. Did He have the power and desire to preserve the Word in written form for us today, so that we are not left in the dark concerning what is the Word of God? Is His power so weak or His Divine purpose so unsure, that we must now search out all the manuscripts, all the Hebrew and Greek texts, and all the versions, in order to say that we do have the Word of God mixed in with all the errors. If we are reduced to this state, may the Lord help us, for we are in absolute confusion unmatched in human history. If we are still looking for the Word of God, and do not have an infallible Bible, it should be obvious to all, that we never will have such a Bible. This means that God has not kept His promise, and where do we stand, if we have such a God?
         It is strange and contradictory to this writer, that those who teach and preach that God gave us an infallible Bible in the original manuscripts, take the KJV and get all of their proof texts from it. Then they turn right around and tell us that the KJV contains many errors! May I suggest that you think that through for a little while.
         This writer is convinced that we have God's Word in the English language, providentially preserved in the very form in which He wanted us to have it, and that it is the KJV. If this is ignorance, heresy or insanity, make the most of it, for this is where we stand.

         The Trinitarian Bible Society of England is about 150 years old. We quote from their "Laws and Regulations" the following: "This Society shall circulate the Holy Scriptures, as comprised in the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments, without note or comment, to the exclusion of the Apocrypha; the copies in the English language shall be those of the Authorized Version." It should be obvious to all that this old historic Society and Bible publisher believes that the Authorized Version (KJV) is the only reliable version in English.
         The Dean Burgon Society (a Bible Society) was founded in Philadelphia in 1978. I am quoting from the official Articles of Faith, Operation and Organization of this Society. The object or purpose of this Society is: "To defend the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text of the Old Testament which underlies the King James Version. To defend the Traditional Received Greek Text of the New Testament which underlies the King James Version (as found in 'The Greek Text Underlying The English Authorized Version of 1611' as published by The Trinitarian Bible Society in 1976). To defend the Traditional English Translation of the Bible the King James Version (or Authorized Version)as a true, faithful, and accurate translation from the underlying original Texts which have been providentially preserved for us. . . " This is further strengthened by a further quote from the object of the Society. "To acquire, sell, and distribute English Scriptures in the King James Version, and translations in other languages which are based solely and exclusively on the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text and the Traditional Received Text which underlies the King James Version.. ." This makes it clear that The Dean Burgon Society only recommends one version and that is the KJV.

         While we do not state that all of these would agree with all our conclusions, the truth of the matter is that widely known Christian leaders of the past, have believed in the Divine providential preservation of God's Word. While we would not endorse all of the beliefs of some of these men, yet they were scholars and do deserve a hearing.
         John Calvin (1509-1564) said: "But since we are not favored with daily oracles from heaven, and since it is only in the Scriptures that the Lord hath been pleased to preserve His truth in perpetual rememberance; it obtains the same complete credit and authority with believers, when they are satisfied of its Divine origin, as if they heard the very words pronounced by God Himself." (Quoted in "Counterfeit or Genuine" by David Otis Fuller, p. 178).
         John Owen (Puritan scholar) said: "The providence of God hath manifested itself as no less concerned in the preservation of the writings than of the doctrine contained in them; the writing itself being the product of His own eternal counsel for the preservation of the doctrine, after a sufficient discovery of the insufficiency of all other means for that end and purpose. And hence the malice of Satan hath raged no less against the Book than against the truth contained in it." (Quoted in "The Providential Preservation of the Greek Text of the New Testament" by W. MacLean, M.A., page 7).
         John William Burgon (1813-1888) said: "There exists no reason for supposing that the Divine Agent, who in the first instance thus gave to mankind the Scriptures of truth, straightway abdicated His office; took no further care of His work; abandoned those precious writings to their fate." (Quoted in "Counterfeit or Genuine" p. 178).
         C. H. Spurgeon said: "We believe that we have the words of God preserved for us in the Scriptures." (MTP, Vol. 35, p. 254). "Furthermore, these words of God are to be preserved. Give up no line of God's revelation. You may not know the particular importance of the text assailed, but it is not for you to assess the proportionate value of God's words: if the Lord has spoken, be prepared to die for what he has said .... This Book deserves the sacrifice of our all for the maintenance of every line of it." (Ibid p. 264).
         George Sayles Bishop, D.D., a contemporary of Westcott & Hort, and an opponent of their revision, had this to say, "We take the ground that on the original parchment, the membrane, every sentence, word, line, mark, point, pen-stroke, jot, tittle, was put there by God.
         "On the original parchment. Men may destroy the parchment. Time may destroy it. To say that the membranes have suffered in the hands of men, is but to say that everything Divine must suffer, as the pattern Tabernacle suffered, when committed to our hands. To say, however, that the writing has sufferedthe words and lettersis to say that Jehovah has failed.
         "The writing remains. Like that of a palimpsest, it will survive and reappear, no matter what circumstances,what changes come in to scatter, obscure, disfigure, or blot it away. Not even one lonely 'Theos' writ large by the Spirit of God on the Great Uncial 'C' as, with my own eyes I have seen itplain, vivid, glittering, outstarting from behind the pale and overlying ink of Ephraem the Syriancan be buried. Like Banquo's ghost, it will rise; and God himself replace it, and, with a hammer-stroke, beat down deleting h