The King James Version Is Right!

The King James Version Is Right!
By David Otis Fuller, D. D.

Four Greek scholars had no use for the book until they read it for themselves: then they “saw the light!”

The Crowd Can Be Wrong!

Adam Thompson of Cincinnati, Ohio, filled the first bathtub in America in 1842. Doctors predicted rheumatism! inflammation of the lungs! by using it! A ban on using bathtubs was published by Philadelphia, from November 1st to March 1st! These facts are on record. The Crowd was wrong!

In 1896 England still had a law prohibiting any power-drive vehicle from traveling over 4 miles an hour on public highways! The law said all such vehicles should be preceded by a man bearing a red flag! Once more – the Crowd was wrong!

Alexander Bell was called a fool when he exhibited his telephone at the Centennial Exposition. Today? We talk around the world over his invention. Once again – the Crowd was wrong!

When Westinghouse proposed to stop a railroad train with wind (air brakes) he also was called a fool. The Crowd was wrong! Westinghouse was right!

Goodyear was “booed” by everyone, but his wife. He worked for eleven years on vulcanizing rubber. Today? America runs on rubber! Once again – the Crowd was wrong!

Jenner discovered vaccination. He was jeered! Some serious men predicted all animal diseases would be transferred to the human race! Yet Jenner erased the smallpox scourge by using is vaccine. The Crowd was wrong! – Again!

A Crowd of scholars and evangelical seminaries today claim the King James Version is filled with errors – out of date – old fashioned – hard to understand! Modern versions are more accurate! more understandable! more readable! Based on better manuscripts. Once again – the Crowd is wrong!

There is overwhelming proof (nearly 900 pages) of documented facts that the King James Version is the most accurate of all versions! It has proved itself for 350 years! The Bible God uses! – And Satan hates! The only version ever used in all great revivals of the past! The greatest masterpiece of perfect English prose ever written.

(Do you wish proof? All you want? And all you need?) Write Which Bible Society? Inc., 2233 Michigan Street, N. E., Grand Rapids, MI 49503.

Extracts of a letter from an excellent scholar who had studied under some great professors in seminary. He read “Which Bible?” and considered the author a ‘die-hard fundamentalist’ read the rest –

Dear Dr. Fuller:

On May 12, 1970 you wrote me a very kind letter sent me some sample materials from your book Which Bible? You might as well have been shooting a popgun at a stone wall. My mind was so strongly fortified in the doctrine of Westcott and Hort that I could not for one moment consider the King James Bible. (underlining ours)

Had I not studied Testural Criticism under the great Dr. A. T. Robertson? I thought that you were just one of those die-hard Fundamentalists who were striving to keep the Christian world under the bondage of traditionalism. Such men are interested only in pleasing the people by catering to their ignorance, prejudice and sentimentality!

But just a few weeks ago I happened to read your two books, Which Bible? And True Or False? For the first time a little new light shone in. I saw that there is another side to the argument. Dr. Roberson had not given us all the facts.

As I perused your selections from Burgon and Hoskier, the idols of B and Aleph started to totter, and soon they fell off their pedistals. That was all I needed. I bought a copy of the Textus Receptus and am now using it. Thanks to you…

Sincerely yours,
William T. Bruner, ThM–PhD

Have You Heard The Other Side Of The New Bible Version Question?

Mr. Cecil J. Carter
825 – 18th Avenue
Prince George, B. C. Canada
V2L 327

July 13, 1976
Dear Brother Cecil:

Greetings in our Lord Jesus Christ and in he joy of knowing Him, whom to know is life eternal. I well remember your visit a few years back when you expressed your deep concern to me over so many Christians who are using translations not based on the Textus Receptus (from which we get the King James Version). Also you gave me a copy of the book “Which Bible” by David Otis Fuller.

I received your book and exhortation at “arms length.” I considered your concern genuine but perhaps naïve. After all I had graduated from a seminary in California which had one of the highest accreditations on the west coast. I had majored in New Testament, taken 2 ½ years of New Testament Greek from a scholar who had his PhD in Greek studies and who also had many years of related Semitic studies. My studies also included a course in the text and canon of the New Testament as well as writing my graduation thesis titled “The Exegetical Value of the Greek Participle.” I was satisfied with the science of textual criticism and the “Nestles” text, which is based on the Westcott and Hort text.

I never knew then how mistaken I was! I had forgotten, or ignored, in Paul’s exhortation to the Corinthians, the folly of applying human reasoning to God’s pattern of revelation, “…that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God…” 1 Corinthians 1:21 (this is true both of Himself and His ways). I did not realize that I, like so many others who love the Lord Jesus, had accepted unquestioningly the unproved and unfounded reasoning that the ‘oldest manuscripts are the best.’ I had placed my confidence in the scholarship of others who have undoubtedly also accepted the same logic while at the same time ignoring the fact that men of God were quoting from the last 12 verses of Mark (which verses are not found in the so called “oldest and best” manuscripts) and that the writings of these men of God who quote from the last 12 verses in Mark predate the “oldest and best” i.e. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

I praise God for sending you to me and for the kind and loving manner in which you shared these kind and loving manner in which you shared these truths with me before I commenced the translation of the Carrier New Testament. I do pray that the Lord Jesus will continue to use your many, many years of solid research into this attack on the Word of God for the edification of other sincere but deceived believers. To the end that the day will come when believers in our Lord Jesus Christ will cease from using translations which are not the Word of God but corruptions of the Word of God.

Sincerely in Christ,
Dick Walker
Bible Translator

The following was written by a well known scholar and Bible conference speaker. He was a member of the Amplified Version committee and the New American Standard committee, when he “saw the light” and stepped aside from both.

On The Authorized Version

God produced it! God preserves it! God conveyed it! God controls it! God presented it! God protects it! God manifested it! God magnifies it!

“Providential preservation is a necessary consequence of Divine Inspiration”

Most arguments against the Authorized Version – abandon reason!

IF – the Authorized Version is not authentic – which is?

IF – the Authorized Version is not God’s revelation – have we been deceived?

IF – the Authorized Version has been incorrect – what harm has resulted?

IF – the True Revelation was lost – where was God when it happened?

ARE – we so naïve that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?

DID – God wait 1900 years to reveal His true Word?

WAS – man left in darkness when the Authorized Version was his only Bible?

WERE – we wrong these years in claiming the Authorized Version to be indeed God’s Word?

WHO – would risk his integrity in saying that any present-day volume excels the Authorized Version?

Dr. Frank Logsdon, Scholar and
Bible conference speaker

A Telling Testimony From One Who Was Totally Opposed To The Book “Which Bible?”

Dear Dr. Fuller;

Thank you for your kind letter and the enclosed material. Since school days I have remained a student of the Greek New Testament. The most of my classmates lost little time in selling their books after graduation. I’ve attempted to continue where my teachers left off, believing that a knowledge of the original was more than an academic treasure but a great spiritual heritage as well.

For the past seven years I’ve spent many happy hours studying the pages of my Greek New Testament. God has rewarded that study and I have been confident that the text I possessed was as near the original as current scholarship could produce.

You can understand, then, my shock when I happened to pick up the book “Which Bible?” a few months ago, and read the condensed dissertation of one of my professors attacking the W-H textual theory. Not only was I unaware that this was his position but I was unaware that such a position existed! The issue of a rival theory was not even mentioned in class and was given one page in my textbook for textual criticism.

I laid the book (Which Bible?) aside, but it continued to haunt me. That professor had always impressed me as keen in scholarship and with a deep reverence for the Word of God. How could he have committed intellectual suicide in continuing to cling to the defunct TR? My curiosity drove me back to the book and I began to read. Frankly for the past three days it is all I have read.

As I carefully sifted through the various arguments I would bring my counter-arguments. I restudied by class-notes, re-read my text books, re-evaluated the apparatus of my New Testament.

Slowly I began to run out of arguments until I was left with only one – older is better. That too was smashed under the weight of the evidence that the traditional text is in fact the oldest.

It’s late in the evening and I’m exhausted but I had to write and tell you that on this subject my eyes seem clearer now than they have been for years. It is as if someone removed the scales, or turned on the light, it is all so clear.

Even thou my eyes are clear and my body is exhausted I have a compelling desire to do something, anything, to see that the information in this little volume (Which Bible?) is made available to as many people as possible…

Thank you again for being the channel through whom the Holy Spirit worked to open my eyes to the truth. Grace unto you,

David L. Garrett, California Pastor

The Modern Scholars Are “Getting The Message” Of The T. R. And The K. J. V.

A scholar in Hebrew, Greek and Syriac wrote me from England. He had found a book in one of the libraries which mentioned a book we had published. We checked at he Calvin College Library and found the Journal Of Biblical Literature 1974 No. 93 an article by Prof. Eldon Jay Epps, School of Religion in California. The following are extracts;

P. 288 “A surprise is, that Vogel and Souter, even in their later editions side with the Textus Receptus… Nestle and Aland are closest to W & H.”

P. 390 Kurt Aland closed one of his messages before a group of scholars thus;

“None of us would entrust himself to a ship of the year 1881 (the year the RV was published) in order to cross the Atlantic, even if the ship were renovated or he was promised danger money… why then do we still do so in New Testament Textual criticism?”

P. 405 The Return of the T. R. “Perhaps the most curious and certainly the most ironic evidence that we stand in the situation of W & H, is the revival in our own generation of the view that the T. R. represents the best N. T. text.”

“In 1956 E. H. Hills (PhD from Yale; ThD from Harvard) published a book entitled, “The King James Version Defended” and only months ago David Otis Fuller edited a volume called “True Or False?” The Westcott Hort Textual Theory Examined.

I suspect that no one of us will need take these books seriously but that they could be written at all and published in our day is, in a way, an indictment of our discipline. These works not only attack the theories of W & H but they attack us as representatives of W & H views.

In a striking way they return us to the days when Dean Burgon made his vehement, acrimonious and abusive attacks upon W & H and upon their malicious intentions and corrupt manuscripts.

I am being facetious only to a limited extent when I ask, if the T. R. can still be defended, albeit in merely a pseudo-scholarly fashion, how much solid progress have we made in Textual criticism in the 20th Century?

This tells us, the scholars are floundering but still refuse to accept the T. R. on which the K. J. V. is founded and nearest of any text or version to the originals.

Article “The King James Version Is Right!” edited by David Otis Fuller is published by Institute For Biblical Textual Studies.

This article may not be written by an Apostolic author, but it contains many excellent principles and concepts that can be adapted to most churches. As the old saying goes, “Eat the meat. Throw away the bones.”