From "The Answer Book" ©1989 Samuel C. Gipp. Reproduced by permission
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 sporadic 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 of Scripture.
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"
While popularizing his Alexandrian manuscripts via the press, he
began to promote his Alexandrian philosophy in and through
Christian Bible colleges.
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)