|TESTIMONIES OF KING JAMES BIBLE DEFENDERS|
|DR. Tom Strouse|
|The following is excerpted from
Strouses book The Lord God Hath Spoken: A Guide to Bibliology, published in
"The student of the Bible must recognize that the Bibles underlying texts are extremely important. ... The student of the Word should use the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew OT because it is the standardized and traditional text of the OT, and the student should use the Received Text of the Greek NT because it is superior to the Critical Text and Majority Text textually, historically, and Christologically. Not only is the text of the Bible important, but so is the translation of the Bible. Since the Masoretic and Received Texts are superior, it follows that their resultant translation, the KJV, is superior. ... THE KJV IS THE WORD OF GOD IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. It has no errors in it because it carefully reflects the original language texts closest to the autographs. The AV, like all translations, has language limitations, but these are not errors."
"One of the key issues in contemporary fundamental Christianity is Bibliology, the doctrine of Scripture. Included in this controversial issue certainly is the authority, inspiration and preservation of Scripture. ... Satan has cleverly fostered a barrage of translations upon the Christian public to cause doubt to be cast upon both the doctrine of Scripture and subsequently all doctrines. Certainly God is not the author of this confusion concerning His Word. And because of this confusion, Christian pastors, laymen, missionaries, etc., are doubting the validity and fidelity of their long-standing translation of the Word of God, the AV. ...
"In conclusion, it is hoped that the concerned pastor or layman is not mislead by Carsons fourteen theses. It is apparent that Carson presents only one side of the picture, and certainly his picture is not beyond refutation. In fact, his position is permeated with theologically fallacious arguments and with statements insensitive to historical data. He stresses conflation, harmonization, and transcriptional probability similar to his mentorsWestcott and Hort. CARSONS APPROACH TO TEXTUAL CRITICISM IS NATURALISTIC, LEADING TO THE SUBJECTIVE, ECLECTIC TEXT. THE SUPERNATURAL APPROACH, WHICH CARSON IGNORES, STARTS WITH GODS PROMISES AND ENDS WITH GODS WORD. May believers realize that the AV is the best English translation available today because it is based on the best Greek text (TR), and may believers use this approved standard both in private and public worship unto the praise of His glory!" (Strouse, A Critique of D.A. Carsons The King James Version Debate, pp. 1,21).
"The real issue beneath the textual debate between the Received Text (TR) and the Critical Text (CT) is whether or not God, having verbally inspired His Word, has indeed cast 7% of it into the furnace of rationalism. Those who hold that the TR is essentially equal to the autographa believe themselves to be on solid footing Biblically, Theologically, Practically and Historically.
"Perhaps the strongest theological argument for holding to the TR as the preserved words of God is simply that the position itself arises from a strong sense of the mighty power and faithfulness of God Himself. TR adherents believe in a God Whose wisdom foresaw the need for an inspired and preserved Scripture, and Whose omnipotence guaranteed that men throughout Christian history would have one. One wonders about the theology of those who are still in the process of deciding upon the best of numerous readings in their Greek NT.
"In practical terms the TR adherent has enormous assurance when he preaches from any passage of Scripture in his Bible, confidently believing all of it to be the Word of God. But what must the CT adherent or MT adherent do when he preaches from a passage which has variant readings? Does he decide himself or take the editor's variant reading? It is hard to imagine such a ministry having any solid footing, especially if expository preaching is being attempted.
"The unsettled text of the Critical Text and the uncertain translational techniques of the modern versions should be sufficient cautions to the fundamentalist about moving away from the certainty of the standard, received and authorized Bible.
"The author has some concerns for fundamentalism. Why would some want to move away from the tried and reliable 400 year heritage of the TR/AV for new translations based on uncertain textual techniques and unproven spiritual value. After all, the AV has been identified with fundamentalism for many years. James Barr makes an astute observation:
"For fundamentalist society as a whole the Authorized Version functioned as the direct and immediate expression or transcript of divine revelation. ...The virtual use of only one English version, and it one originating within very traditional early seventeenth-century Christianity, thus indirectly but very powerfully supported the alienation of the fundamentalist public from, and its opposition to, the positions, interests and methods from which all biblical criticism grew and on which it depended (James Barr, Fundamentalism, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1978, pp. 210-211).
"Others make the same claim for the AV with fundamentalism. The new-evangelical Robert Gromacki admits that the AV is the Bible of fundamentalism (Robert Gromacki, New Testament Survey, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974, p. xii). Fundamentalist leader Ian K. Paisley preached a sermon in the World Congress of Fundamentalism at Bob Jones University Campus in 1983, citing the resolution of the congress on the Holy Scriptures: We recognize the unique and special place of the Authorized King James Version providentially preserved by God in the English-speaking world (Ian R.K. Paisley, The Authority of the Scriptures vs. The Confusion of Translations, Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University, August 1983, cassette).
"This author believes that Beza's 1598 Greek Edition of the New Testament is essentially equivalent to the very words of the NT autographa. This view is based on Christ's promises of Providential Preservation of Scripture, on the inextricable relationship between the doctrine of verbal, plenary inspiration and the doctrine of verbal, plenary preservation, on the practical consideration that 93% of it is without doubt the preserved text, and the remaining 7% has been universally received by Christians as authentic, and on the historical validation that this is the received, standard, and authorized text of multitudes of believers.
"MAY FUNDAMENTALISTS UNDERSTAND AND PROCLAIM THE GREAT BIBLIOLOGICAL TRUTHS OF INSPIRATION, INERRANCY, INFALLIBILITY AND PRESERVATION, SO THAT FUTURE BELIEVERS WILL HAVE THE SAME OPPORTUNITY AND ASSURANCE OF MICHAIAH, WHO HAD HEARD OUT OF THE BOOK ALL THE WORDS OF THE LORD (JER. 36:11)" (Dr. Thomas M. Strouse, Fundamentalism and the Authorized Version, Tabernacle Baptist Theological Seminary, 717 N. Whitehurst Landing Rd., Virginia Beach, VA 23464. 804 420-1960).