The Dean Burgon Society, headed by Dr. D. A. Waite, celebrated the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible in Collingswood, NJ this week. It has been their position from the their founding King James Bible cannot be said to be inspired. However, this year’s conference contained a couple of topics that directly addressed this controversial issue. The titles were: “Dangers of the Inspired KJB Position”, “KJB-Inspired or Translated Words?”, and “Does the KJB Replace the Hebrew and the Greek?” Now admittedly the latter topic does not squarely fit into the category of a treatise against using the term inspired when referring to the KJB. Nevertheless, Dr. Waite addressed the same issue with some very strong words in part of the message, calling the KJB ‘inferior’ to the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts of the Bible. There were also exchanges with visitors over the issue in the Q & A sessions, and a couple of other speakers made it a point to bring it up.
The first speaker to address the subject, Daniel Waite, treasurer of the DBS, did a very poor job not only in the presentation of his theme (“Dangers of the Inspired KJB Position”) but also in his arguments. His basic premise, while true in some cases (those who believe the KJB translators were themselves inspired), is not true with regard to the inspiration of the King James Bible in and of itself as a faithful translation of inspired words. Daniel’s premise was that modern believers have unintentionally ‘twisted’ the term ‘inspiration’ into something that can be used to promote false doctrine. And, while it is true that Bible believers may be seen as being in agreement with Ruckmanite heretics because we claim to hold to the inspiration of the KJB; the Dean Burgon Society members are in danger of being seen as agreeing with Critical Text supporters who claim that only the originals can be said to be inspired, and all copies are flawed or ‘inferior’ in some way, thus undermining the authority of Scripture. This possibility was not considered by any of the speakers. In fact, it appeared to me to be intentionally avoided.
Daniel’s second assertion was that those who disagree with the DBS position endanger their followers with neo-orthodoxy, and are necessarily causing doctrinal drift by redefinition of terms. However, none of the speakers dealt with the actual words of 2 Timothy 3:16 to allay any fears with exegetical clarity. No attempt was made to carefully explain how and why the adjective ‘theoneustos’ is rendered as a present perfect tense when an adjective has no tense. The alternative is a past perfect tense, which would agree with the Society’s position. Yet, the King James translators chose the present perfect. Also, only a failed attempt was made to clear up how that Paul is clearly referring to copies of the originals as inspired scripture.
Dr. Paul Reno did assert in his presentation, “KJB-Inspired or Translated Words?”, the fact that ‘scriptures’ in verse 15 of 2 Timothy 3 is not the same as ‘scripture’ in verse 16. And, Dr. Waite in his session even read many references where graphe is used throughout the New Testament. But, the fact that often graphe is clearly used to refer COPIES of the Scriptures and not the originals was not brought up. Instead a series of philosophical arguments were used by Dr. Reno; arguments that in many cases can just as easily be turned to disprove his assertions. For instance, Reno claimed that the existence of multiple editions of the King James Bible proves that it is not the inspired Word of God. But, Dr. Reno didn’t explain how that multiple editions of the Greek Text can be discredited as the inspired Word of God when constrained by the same sort of thinking.
He also asserts that if God promised to preserve His Word from the time of its writing that somehow negates the King James Bible being inspired. I am not sure how that works in Dr. Reno’s favor. Obviously the words of the King James Bible were not GIVEN by inspiration at the moment of the translation. But, as they are indeed formally equivalent words for the original preserved and inspired text of Scripture, they must therefore be said to be not only the preserved, but also inspired Words of God. Granted there were changes made to the original King James Bible in all its revisions that were not merely orthographical, but similar changes were made in the Textus Receptus over the years from Erasmus to Scrivener. How can that be perfect preservation of God’s inspired words, and the revision of the King James not? It can and it is. We have never wavered from saying that even as it concerns the Greek and Hebrew this is not a tidy issue of one complete book being proven as a clear and present standard through all the centuries from Christ until now. But, there is a clear lineage of preserved and very accurate texts that testify to the pure and perfect Words of God. And as such, they are necessarily to be considered inspired words.
Dr. D. A. Waite himself did the most to discredit the Society’s view by making his whole session an expose of Gail Riplinger’s disobedience to Scripture and personal offenses toward him and his wife. The stated subject was the superiority of the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts. But, in truth, not much proof was offered about that. Instead, in its place a patently false assertion was made that the King James Bible is “inferior” to the original language texts. This crossed the line which many supporters of the Dean Burgon Society have and smacks of higher textual critic lingo, which hardly honors the King James Bible on its anniversary.
So, lets honor the King James Bible on its 400th Anniversary by saying it is the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God in English. To not do so twists the clear teaching of the Bible on inspiration and damages the faith of its followers. It establishes a new priesthood of leaders who alone study the Hebrew and the Greek to give the ‘true’ sense of God’s Word for the ‘laity’. It casts a shadow on pastors whose members can throw off their arguments by simply questioning his understanding of the original languages. This is indeed a dangerous position taken by the Dean Burgon Society.
2 Timothy 3:16 clearly states that the copies that were available to Timothy, Paul, Jesus, and Peter were just as inspired as the originals. The King James translators recognized this when chose to use the present perfect tense “is given” to communicate the meaning of the adjective theoneustos. They could well have chosen to be clearer, if they held the same DBS position by saying, the Scripture “was given” by inspiration. But, they did not. This is telling. Then Dr. Waite unknowingly revealed a fallacy in his position by reading many verses that refer to the graphe. That word is clearly used to refer, not only to the originals, but also copies. Timothy did not have the autographs. Not even Jesus had the autographs in hand when he told the pharisees that they did not understand the copies. Nevertheless, those same copies were said to be the Words of God, the Scriptures. And they were treated as wholly reliable and inspired.
This the same respect that should be shown the time-honored King James Bible, as it is indeed God’s preserved Words in English. It isn’t difficult to understand that when we say the King James Bible is the inspired Word of God we do not mean that it was given by a process of inspiration in 1611, but rather that it IS in fact the same inspired Word of God that was given in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, accurately translated into English. And, it is just as authoritative and reliable.
I submit Dean Burgon’s own words to challenge the notion that the Bible was only inspired in the originals…
“And this brings me naturally back to the subject of my first Sermon from this place; and enables me to conclude, as I began, with an earnest entreaty to the younger men present, that,– whatever their future destination in life may be,– but especially if the Ministry is to be their high privilege, (and the blessedness of their choice they can have no idea of, until they prove it by experience !); — an entreaty, I say, that they would now be assiduous, and earnest, and regular, and punctual, and devout, in their daily study of one chapter of the Bible.– And while you read the Bible, read it believing that you are reading an inspired Book :– not a Book inspired in parts only, but a Book inspired in every part…” (Inspiration and Interpretation, pg.114)
“And,– (forgive me for keeping you so long; but I cannot let you go until I have emptied my heart a little more on this great, and most concerning subject ; ) — mark you, Sirs, however reluctant some of you may be to admit that you agree with me, you do agree with me,– almost to a man. For, what mean your reasonings on Holy Scripture,– your sermons, and your dissertations, and your catechizings,– your formulae of belief, and your definitions of Faith,– except you believe in a vast deal more than the substance of Holy Scripture? How can you pretend to expound a text, unless you hold the words of that text to be inspired?” (Ibid., pg.117)
If Dean Burgon himself encouraged young preachers to hold to the inspiration of their Bibles, then shouldn’t the Dean Burgon Society do the same today?
AMEN!
The DBS News letter states,THE DEAN BURGON SOCIETY, INC., proudly takes its name in honor of John William Burgon (1813-1888), the Dean of Chichester in England, whose tireless and accurate scholarship and contribution in the area of New Testament Textual Criticism; whose defense of the Traditional Greek New Testament Text against its many enemies; and whose firm belief in the verbal inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible…”
My question is, what Bible?