QUESTION: Isn't the devil behind all the confusion
and fighting over Bible versions?
EXPLANATION: It is a great irony that many of the
critics of the Bible claim rather indignantly that the devil is behind the
battle over the King James Bible. In this they are correct. But
somehow they have managed to assume that it is the people
claiming perfection for the Bible who the devil is guiding. Is this a
correct assumption? Let us consider the history of the battle.
From the time of its publication in 1611 the King James Bible has
grown in popularity. Although not mandated by the King to be used in the
churches of England, it did, in a matter of a few years, manage to
supplant all of the great versions translated before it. Though it was not
advertised in the Madison Avenue fashion of today's versions, it soon
swept all other versions from the hearts and hands of the citizenry of
England and its colonies.
With the conquest of the British Empire behind it, it crossed the
Atlantic to the United States. Landing here it overwhelmed the double
foothold of the Roman Catholic Church planted previously under the flags
of Spain and France.
It then began to permeate young America with its ideals. Its truths
led to the establishment of an educational system, based on Scripture,
that was unparalleled in the world. It instilled in men the ideals of
freedom and personal liberty, thoughts so foreign to the minds of men that
their inclusion in our Constitution could only be described as an
"experiment" in government.
It commissioned preachers of righteousness who, on foot and horseback,
broke trails into the wilderness and spread the truth of the gospel and of
right living. In its wake was left what could only be described..."one
nation, under God..." This accomplished, it set out for
the conquest of the heathen world. Bible colleges (Princeton, Harvard,
Yale) were founded. Mission societies formed. And eager young missionaries
began to scour the globe with little more than a King James Bible and
God's Holy Spirit.
But these activities did not go unnoticed by Satan. He who had
successfully counterfeited God's church, ministers and powers certainly
could not be expected to let God's Bible roam the world unchallenged.
Through agents such as Brook Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort,
he published his own translation in 1884. (The New Testament had been
published in 1881.) Though there had been sporatic personal translations
between 1611 and 1884, this new translation, called the Revised Version,
was the first ever to be designed from its outset to replace God's
Authorized Bible. It failed to replace God's Bible, but the arguments of
its adherents were the first shots fired in a nearly 400 year battle for
the hearts and minds of God's people concerning the authority and fidelity
In 1901 another round was fired in the form of the American Revised
Version, later called the American Standard Version. (An intentional
misnomer since it never became the "standard" for anything.)
This version, other than being the darling of critical American
scholarship met a dismal end when, twenty-three years later, it was so
totally rejected by God's people that its copyright had to be sold. (Does
this sound like God's blessing?)
The ASV was further revised and republished in 1954 as the Revised
Standard Version. This sequence of events has repeated itself innumerable
times, resulting in the New American Standard Version of 1960, the New
Scofield Version of 1967, the New International Version of 1978, and the
New King James Version of 1979 to name a few.
The process has never changed. Every new version that has been
launched has been, without exception, a product of Satan's Alexandrian
philosophy which rejects the premise of a perfect Bible. Furthermore, they
have been copied, on the most part, from the corrupt Alexandrian
manuscript. (Although a few have been translated from pure Antiochian
manuscripts after they were tainted by the Alexandrian philosophy.)
THIS then was Satan's battle in print, BUT by
no means was it his exclusive onslaught. He used a standard
military "two-pronged" attack.
While popularizing his Alexandrian manuscripts via the press, he began
to promote his Alexandrian philosophy in and through Christian Bible
Soon sincere, naive, young, Bible students attending
FUNDAMENTAL Bible colleges began to hear the infallibility of the
Bible challenged in their classrooms. In chapel services the Bible's
perfection was much touted. But then, the very same speakers,
would debase, degrade, and even mock the English Bible, always assuring
their students that they were not a "liberal" or "modernist" because they
believed that the Bible was infallible in "the originals". That
non-existent, unobtainable, mystical entity which ALL apostates shield
their unbelief behind.
Soon stalwartness gave in to acceptance and fidelity to a perfect
bible became fidelity to one's "Alma Mater". Young graduates, disheartened
and disarmed by their education, found themselves in pulpits across
America parroting the professor's shameful criticism of the Word of God.
They readily accepted new versions hot off the Alexandrian presses.
Then, when some Christian approached them claiming to believe the
Bible (one you could hold in your HAND, not a lost relic
from bygone days) was word perfect (a belief they
had once held before their education stole it from them) they felt
threatened. They try to dispel this "fanatic," this "cultist". Finally
they look this faith filled Christian in the eye and piously ask, "Don't
you feel that the devil is using this Bible version issue to divide and
hinder the cause of Christ?"
"Undoubtedly," comes back the answer "But I'm certainly glad it's not
MY CROWD that he's using."
Who's side are YOU on?
Here's something that you need to think about. If we King James Bible
believers have our way, a Preacher would stand in a pulpit to read
Scripture and everyone else in the church would read from the same
Bible. Isn't that UNITY?
But if the Bible-correctors have their way everyone would read from a
different bible. That's confusion. And who is the author
of confusion? (I Cor. 14:33)