PARROTINGS from the PAST

Numerous neo-evangelical articles are being written concerning inspiration versus the King James Bible, saturated with double mindedness and double-talk (the latter more than the former). Even defenders of the King James Bible hedge, when they are pinned down to the question, “Is the King James Bible Inspired or not?” There are reasons why good brothers verbally hedge on this issue (more so in the past than now), even while they mentally accept the King James Bible that we have as the word of God. It is not because they are modernistic or they are anti King James Bible but because: 1. They have been brain washed by the Scholar’s Union into thinking that “inspiration” was the act of God giving the Scriptures to the apostles and prophets for the first time or “transmission.” In other words, if you had only the “Original Autographs” and three sets of photo copies, only the Originals could be said to be “inspired.” Anything else would be DOUBLE inspiration. 2. They have reasoned that to halt further apostasy, they must fall back to a more defensible position, i.e., “The king James Bible is the closest to the Originals.” 3. They have been unsuccessful in resolving some problem passage or word to the satisfaction of some critic or of themselves. All this makes them afraid that if they go too far out on a limb, some scholar will cut it off. A more conservative posture would make for charges and arguments, which would be too hot to handle - they think, and they would be embarrassed. There are only two major scripture passages that may be used as proof texts for the inspiration issue (2 Timothy 3:15-17; 2 Peter 1:19-21). Moreover, only one of these two mentions the word “inspiration” (2 Timothy 3:16). It is noteworthy that the “scriptures,” which were said to be “inspired” were known by Timothy as a child (hardly the Originals) and were profitable for doctrine hundreds of years after they were initially transmitted. It follows that the “scriptures” were in their possession! Even the staunchest proponents of the “Original Manuscript” theory admit that neither Jesus nor the early Christians had the Original Autographs. Isn’t it strange that the ONE AND ONLY passage in the whole Bible that uses the word “inspiration” does not have the ancient time element forced into it that Bible Correctors insist. Nor does it line up with the traditional theological definition of the word “inspiration.” Nor does it say anything about any particular, special language upon which Bible Correctors insist. The second passage (2 Pet. 1:19-21) where Peter tells us that “We have (present tense) a MORE SURE word of prophecy (than the very voice of God). Peter indicated that he possessed what holy men of old had been moved to write this more sure word of prophecy. Now, the conclusion that we draw from these two lone passages is that we are confronted with a horde of opinionated, subjective, hypothesizing, humanists, who are charging Bible believers with being the nuts, fanatics, and double inspiration-ists, and heretics with nothing more for evidence than the PARROTINGS FROM THE PAST plus self-invented theological definitions. The scholar’s Union does not have one shred of internal biblical evidence to support their hypothesis of “inspiration” nor a refutation of our definition. Shall we insist on a “thus saith the Lord” for every other doctrine except inspiration? We trow not. It is hard to find a PRACTICAL, tangible view of preservation among our neo-evangelical opponents of the KJB, although there are many more scriptures that deal with preservation than there are with inspiration. Gainsayers and hedgers both might consider a few things. 1. Is the miracle of preservation anything less than the miracle of inspiration? 2. What did God preserve, if you believe it? Did He preserve the Autographs? Did He inspire inspired scripture or Uninspired scripture? If He did preserve inspired scripture, Where is it? If He inspired Uninspired scripture, could you explain that to us? 3. How can the Scholar’s Union use the Authority of faith and practice authoritatively, when they do not believe it to be the Authority? Shall we deal with the English Bible differently than the Greek or Hebrew Bible? Well, yes. A Greek or Hebrew Bible is not extant. Greek Bibles were pieced together from manuscript fragments that differ. Moreover, there are different versions of the Greek Bibles, from differing manuscripts, which were pieced together, some more corrupt than others. Do we believe that the English King James Bible is the inspired word of God in English without mental reservation? Of Course! Why would we believe it was the Uninspired word of God or of men? You see, 2 Timothy 3:16 does not say anything about any particular language. It says ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God. ALL! To deny that the King James Bible is inspired is to deny that it IS scripture, or else we must deny that ALL scripture is inspired. It really does not matter what Burgon, Ray, Fuller, Rice, Ruckman, Jones, Evans, Kutilek, Minton, Ross, Panosian or parrotings from the past say. The inspiration of the KJB does not rest on whether we can raise or answer questions and objections. It rests upon the test of whether the King James Bible can pass the test: 1. Is it quick (alive) and powerful? 2. Does it have God’s breath in it? 3. Does it divide the soul, spirit, and marrow? 4. Does it discern the thoughts and intents of the heart? 5. Does it have God’s stamp of approval upon it? 6. Is it able to be possessed?

All the counterfeits must also pass this test. That is inspiration! Not parrotings from the past! Amen!

-- by Herb Evans, Published in the Florida Fundamentalist, November 1979, p. 5