"Preach the Word,

I was going to start my post with 'Da' instead of 'The' just to keep all the 'D', but I decided not to punish you with all of my attempts at humor. I flipped back and forth from using "dying" to "dazed" and went with dazed because I feel that many faltering Christians can be restored and revitalized with proper Godly preaching and teaching of the whole truth. Anyways as most of you may already know (if not...surprise!), I have tendered my resignation at our current ministry and am seeking a Senior Pastorate position. But as I contact and am contacted by churches I have been saddened (and slightly annoyed) by the big three issues affecting Baptist Churches. Bible Version, Blended Music, and Divorce...I have covered divorce in my last couple of postings [editor's note: not referring to my Anniversary posting!!] and will eventually get around to the music issues (because I do think it is important) but this Bible version debate is destroying churches, weakening Christians, and ruining our testimony to the world. So I would like to share some excerpts from some emails from a church I was communicating with regarding their open pastoral position and my stand on issues. Primarily, my stand on the Bible become a matter of interest and so I have posted nearly all of my email which is my simple, non-eloquent defense of the Bible. I pray it is a blessing to you and I would enjoy hearing some of your feedback, both for or against my points.


Email Sent Me From an Independent Baptist Church -
Pastor Coon,
Thank you for your prompt answers. For the record our church is struggling with the answer to the KJV question. We as a deacon board have a problem with the phraseology you use as the only preserved version for the English language. We are attempting to remove any type of suggestion of such from the constitution of the church.We find that the KJV while wonderfully written, does not communicate God’s word as effectively as a style written in a more modern day style such as the NASB or NIV, but we are going to recommend that we will accept the NKJV or the KJV from the pulpit only. If this stance concerns you We understand, but we as deacons feel that if we do not amend the constitution then we allow the, mindset of Ruckman to possibly infiltrate the minds of people and then to pollute the interpretation of scripture.

My response to their email and my simple position regarding the Bible...

Brother,
Thank you for your honesty and frankness. I was not going to respond because I did not want to seem as if I was trying to sway you over to my side of thinking or because I seemed desperate to minister to your church. I know and pray that the Lord’s Work will be done in both of our lives as we seek to serve and please Him. But I do feel led to share with you some thoughts on these issues and would like to provide a resource for your consideration. For the record, I’m not KJV-Only as is often assigned to those of the Ruckman mentality…but I would proudly claim to be Only KJB. It is sad to have to separate like this but I think there is a difference as explained in this email.

First, I understand the dilemma that the inappropriate, confusing defense of the King James Bible by the likes of Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, and others have caused though I would encourage some hesitation so as ‘not to throw the baby out with the bath water.’ I already appreciate your wisdom that you show in recognizing there are issues and I understand your fear of falling into the trap of the philosophy of Ruckman as so many good churches have. For us Baptists, it is easy to rally behind a preacher who wants to defend God’s Word, but most often these churches would do better to more thoroughly research both the man and his testimony before ‘jumping on the bandwagon.’ I believe that Peter Ruckman’s gross abuse started well before his misrepresentation of the King James Version…one must only look at his two divorces, which in my Bible disqualify him from pastoring yet he has condoned this through some extra-interpretation of word tenses and extra-biblical apostasy regarding the gifts of the Spirit. I use a strong word here but I do it on purpose…I despise those that for the sake of a “higher cause” willingly ignore or invalidate the truth. I also despise those that defend anything (favorite color, football team, Bible version) in a mean-spirited, vulgar way…this is not God honoring nor is it a worthy witness of one who claims Christ as their Savior.

Secondly, I do not change my belief of preservation versus inspiration. I do believe that God’s Word and history shows us that He has always protected and preserved His Word throughout the centuries. One needs only to consider even after the many raids and pillages of the temple where the ark of the covenant, the scrolls, and other temple items used in the worship of God were either stolen, destroyed or lost or into the time of Christ where foreign rulers controlled the land and treated the Jews as they pleased…yet somehow God preserved His Word and tools for worship. This may not be a new thought but of further interest, God has always preserved His Word in the common language of the largest, target audience. During the Old Testament period, we see that the Scriptures were given in the common language of Aramaic & Hebrew since these were the common languages of both the target audience (Hebrew) and the region (Aramaic). I think that we have simple proof of this because of the testimony of people such as Caleb, Rahab, and Ruth, who were outsiders that chose to follow the God of the Israelites. Furthermore in the New Testament age (before and after Christ’s earthly ministry) and especially as the Word was spread to the Gentiles this opened up the Word to the new common language of Koine Greek which is the language of the New Testament (yes even the Old Testament was translated into Greek as well). As we approach more the “modern times” of the Renaissance and Reformation periods we see English becoming the more common language which is still true today. Being a former Marine I have traveled extensively to live in a foreign country or on missions to foreign lands; I have been surprised at the widespread use of English through-out the world…this is truly a common language for business, science, education, and tourism. So as the world-wide domination of Alexander the Great brought a common (Koine) Greek language to most of the known world so did the crusades and other social factors do a wonderful job of spreading English as a common language. So it was only natural for God’s Word to be preserved in the common language of then and now…which is English.

Thirdly, my view of the other English versions is not an issue of their translation into a modern jargon but is more an issue with ignoring what scholars throughout time have clearly said were the best texts to translate from. I whole-heartily disagree with the mindset that ‘older is better’ when it comes to the ancient texts, while I can understand this view it does not endue unmitigated authority based on age alone. The recent discovery of The Book of Judas should clearly identify this for us…just because something is written in ancient days should not be considered truth. I would commend the earlier scholars and translators in saying that the decisions they made to establish the canon of Scriptures was a logical and trustworthy sign of God’s preservation of His Word. I think that we often overlook the fact that many of the original texts were lost or destroyed not through misuse but through overuse. Many of the original texts were copied over and over because they were validated by Church tradition and leaders who knew the authors and passed on their texts to other churches for their discipleship. So the many wise ancient scholars that understand these things, for more than we of the modern age that somehow feel it is our responsibility to question everything, used the many criteria for establishing the canon of Scripture and we should accept that this is another sign of God’s preservation. I believe that the King James Bible was translated from the best and most accurate preserved texts and thus continues the line of being preserved.

Fourthly, I take issues with the fact that modern versions leave out words, phrases, and verses and then imply that this version is the more correct translation. So does this mean that God’s people have not had accurate translations throughout the centuries? How did we ever accomplish so much what with the great revivals, mission endeavors, worldwide spiritual awakening throughout Christian history? I believe that not only all the points of #2 and #3 apply here but that God preserves His Word to be used and actively empowers it. God has always provided the Truth for man to see so there is no way that the ‘real truth’ would be hidden in a cave for thousands of years waiting to be discovered by someone. This alone should be validation of the King James Bible over modern versions that the revivals of the past have not been repeated since the Bible version debates began. How can they if people cannot clearly see the truth? If the ‘truth’ is whatever you find easier to read or understand whether a non-gender Bible, or perhaps an Ebonics Bible, how about if we make God of the feminine gender…is this the truth? Can we have revival?

Fifthly, I take issue that if one defends a pure and holy Bible as many defenders of the King James Bible do, how can this be bad? I don’t mean one who defends the lies of Ruckman and his crowd but one who truly believes that the Bible I preach from is not man’s opinion but are the very words of God preserved for me to study, to model my life after, to preach from, and to pass on to others in witnessing. Modern versions seem to attack the very notion that we can have a pure and holy Bible and that the idea that one would defend this notion is paramount to heresy. That me say that if I can’t believe a Bible is God’s preserved Word then I can’t believe the words or thoughts of any Bible and my salvation is brought into doubt. Does the NIV, NASB, Living Bible, the Message, etc claim to be God’ s preserved Word or do they claim to be another translation in modern language and jargon? Why condemn anyone for saying that there is a pure and preserved Bible? It is sad that if I believe the King James Bible to be truth and argue with others who don’t, I’m considered intolerant and archaic but if it is in protecting the preservation of God’s Word that one must be considered intolerant then so be it. I’m intolerant because I will not tolerant the attacks of the devil on my faith or the truth of my salvation. Does one who excepts the NIV or NASB consider the feminine gendered Bible heresy? Or how about the Ebonics Bible? So can one defend the NIV in the same way that I defend the KJB? So am I wrong then in defending to a higher scale than one who defends the NIV or NKJV? I defend, study, and preach from a preserved work that is based on/translated from the inspired words of God…how can that be weak theology or wrong? I have found that many times the issue of modern versions becomes a slippery slope that may lead a church away from Baptist Fundamentals towards a weakening of church doctrine, church leadership, and the worship of God.

Sixthly, I take issue that many modern versions try to compare their language as English to English so that many modern versions are understood to be better English translations. But what is often missed is that the King James Bible is still the only Bible based on the Received Text (TR – Textus Receptus) which was the canon of Scripture established by the early church leaders, church historians, and scholars as the best and most accurate text. Yes I know that there were other solid English Bibles based on the TR but many of them gave way to the King James Bible because of its superiority in translation and preservation. This was done not just in the literal word for word translation but the KJB was recognized as having also captured the tone and temperament of the original writers. Another things often not disclosed is that many of the modern versions are based on a Greek text (Wescott & Hort) which has only more recently been accepted and has been found lacking as a proper translation by many Bible scholars. So should we question the legitimacy of any Bible translated from this Greek text? Is this why most modern versions try to paint themselves as a Bible of modern language and terms, updating the KJB? When in reality they should admit to being a new translation rather than an updating to the King James Bible. Is this a true issue of Olde English verse modern language? I don’t think so. Do we find Shakespeare being updated and considered still has poetic or beautiful? Why is it okay for Scripture to be subjected to ‘updating’ but Chaucer, Raleigh, Lovelace, and others are allowed to maintain their beauty and elegance through the original form? Many tests have been conducted that show the timing, rhythm, and poetry of the language of the King James Bible can be understood better by all ages and all education levels. Yet this is often overlooked and modern versions are often misunderstood to be the same Bible with newer words, when in fact they are new Bibles that as I mentioned in my fourth point make changes to or remove things from the English Bible.

Lastly and meant more as a side comment than an actual argumentative fact. Why are all modern versions copyrighted? Why if they are the truth are they not freely available? This has the ring of the moneychangers in the temple that Jesus chased out. Understand they were not chased out because they were selling in the temple [note: as was a common practice established in the OT for travelers from far away to buy lambs, turtle-doves, etc to be used for sacrificing in the temple rather than travel with their own] but rather they were chased out because of their attitude towards the worship of God. They were not there to see others worship the one true God and it seems that many modern Bible versions are in the same classification of making money off of God’s worship.

I don’t mean to take liberty with your honesty or openness but I pray that this may make you reconsider how you separate in your decision of Bible translations. I know God has a man that can come in and protect your church from apostasy through proper preaching and teaching. These Biblical elements are much more powerful than a constitution because God blesses and empowers them more than we can know through the power and convicting of the Holy Spirit. I am always available to discuss more with you either about these points, the church, or any other teaching issue. I will not ‘preach at you’ or pester you again unless in response to your emails but I do pray that God blesses you as you seek His man for your church.

PS. A man I admire and whose opinion and teachings I trust, David Cloud, is much more knowledge on these issues than I and so I would encourage you to check out his website at http://www.wayoflife.org/.

Now I know I don't have the years of study of many others but how difficult can it be? God made all things so simple that a child could see the evidence and put their faith in Jesus.