DANGERS OF AN INSPIRED KJB
Daniel Waite, December 2011, DBS News #103, Page 7
(A critique by Herb Evans)
They say that an apple does not fall far from the tree. Evidently, Don Waite of the BFT and Dean Burgon Society has brainwashed his son, Dan, not being able to previously answer Herb Evans. Clearly, they do not believe in any extant “Inspired Bible." If they do, let us see it!
“Inspiration” A Technical Doctrine
Dan: The subject that is before us deals with a very precise and very technical doctrine. The doctrine of inspiration has been misused in these last days. It is dangerous to modify or alter the precise and technical doctrinal term of “inspiration.” The doctrine of inspiration has been under attack by the modernists and by the liberals both in our day and in days gone-by.
Evans: Yes, we would have to agree that the doctrine of inspiration has been misused and abused. Still, we would have to add that not only is it under attack by liberals and modernists, but it is under attack by King James Bible, Pretender Defenders which includes the BFT, the Dean Burgon Society, David Cloud, Phil Stringer, Bob Sumner, and Jack Schaap. Now, we do not know what Dan means by a “technical” doctrine. We would love for him to tell us which Bible doctrines are technical and which are not. At the onset, we would also like to ask him as to which Bibles (complete and intact) extant, if any, fall into the category of being inspired or given by inspiration.
“A New Type Of “Inspiration”
Dan: God-breathed (theopneustos) or “inspired” Words are confined to the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words of the Old and New Testaments (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
Evans: Now, it is not clear whether Dan means the Autographs or the manuscript fragments or the eclectic Texts derived from no greater than 5% of the 5,000 manuscripts fragments none of which are complete or intact. Regardless, neither the original copies nor the original Autographs are available to us. We would also like to know how that Dan arrives at the conclusion that theopnuestos is either an adjective or a verb, when it is a noun. Also, we would like to know how Dan arrives at the conclusion that it means "God-breathed.)
Dan: Some who abhor the tenets of modernism and liberalism are embracing a new type of “inspiration”—a style of “inspiration” that includes translations of Scripture. Like the Neo Orthodox, they have been making slight changes to the definition of “inspiration.” Some of our dearest friends, whether directly or indirectly, are teaching that translations of Scripture are “inspired.” This is a very touchy issue. This issue of “inspiration” of translations is a riveting subject. It was a riveting subject in past generations, and it is a riveting subject in this present hour. It is wrong and misleading to teach that translations of Scripture are “given by inspiration” or “inspired.” It is wrong to teach the “inspiration" of the KJB, NASV, NIV, NKJV, ESV, or any other English or foreign language translation.
Evans: Dan’s choice of terminology for folks like me is interesting in that he puts me in the NEOorthodox category. In our addendum to this critique, we will see who is NEO ORTHODOX, Old MODERNIST, or Old LIBERAL.
An Accountability tothe Words
Dan: The authority of Scripture is always under attack.
Evans: Obviously by this comment, Dan does not think that the KJB is inspired scripture let alone being any authority.
Dan: Many people want to remove any accountability that they have to the Words of God. The pagans want to remove the accountability, so they can be free to do what we want to do. Bible believing Christians should never act or behave like the heathen. This is why it is important to have a high standard, to have a proper standard, and to have an accurate and precise standard of “inspiration.” It is wrong to redefine “inspiration,” yet many of our dearest friends are doing so.
Evans: We agree with this statement, but it is the NEO King James Defender Pretendersthat do not think that the KJB consists of the words of God. We also affirm that a precise standard of “inspiration” should be held and that not from Lexicons, Systematic Theology Works, Colleges, or Dictionaries. A precise standard of “inspiration” should be obtained from the scriptures, the word of God, even the Bible itself from that which throughly furnishes the Man of God in all spiritual things. And as to who is redefining “inspiration,” we shall expose whomever in our addendum.
A Precise Doctrinal Word
Dan: The issue today concerns the “inspiration” of a translation, a translation that we love and cherish. There are some today who say that the King James Bible is “inspired” in some way. Perhaps some understand what they mean and, perhaps, some are confused as to what they mean. The reason why some might understand, and the reason why some might be confused at the same time, is because “inspiration” is a very precise and doctrinal word. When a precise doctrinal word is used in an imprecise manner it causes great confusion.
Evans: Not any a translation, but the KJB Bible translation. The confusion is being caused by King James Pretender Defenders. We await the precise biblical definition of “inspiration” from that which thoroughly furnishes the man of God unto DOCTRINE.
Altering Doctrinal Terms
Dan: Our friends who make these statements mean well. However, when one starts altering definitions of doctrinal terms, one could begin to run into problems, and to begin to set a precedent for other doctrinal terms, and other doctrinal words to be slightly changed and altered. This completely destroys theology which is an exact study of different disciplines of the Bible.
Evans: Well, I am not a friend of DBS but rather an adversary, but I hope that I fall in the category of meaning well. As for altering the meaning of “inspiration, both DBS and the BFT are the guilty ones, parroting the definition from their Bible Correcting extra-scriptural authorities. Again, we await Dan’s precise biblical definition of “inspiration” from that which thoroughly furnishes the man of God unto DOCTRINE.
The Doctrine Falls under Bibliology
Dan: There are ten major doctrines of the Bible. One of the ten major doctrines of the Bible is Bibliology. The doctrine of “inspiration” falls under the umbrella of Bibliology. The issue is about the "inspiration” of the King James Bible, a translation we have rejoiced over for 400 years, a translation for which we thank God. We are grateful for the heritage of the faithful martyrs, persecuted translators, and suffering saints who, through the centuries, God used to pave the way for the King James Bible. But is it accurate? Is it precise? Is it right to call a translation of the Scripture “inspired”? No. It is wrong and imprecise to refer to any translation of Scripture as “inspired.”
Evans: How quickly Dan runs to “Yea, hath God said(s)," namely, Garden of Eden type questions. Dan, evidently, does not believe the KJB is accurate or precise, or at least Dan is questioning those qualities. So, Bible Believer, now you know that it is wrong to call the KJB “inspired,” because Dan says so.
Is It Proper To Call It “Inspired”?
Dan: There are many translations of the Scripture in many different languages. In fact, one could pile quite a few of them on a table reaching to the ceiling. That table could be filled with Bibles from all the languages of the world. I am not sure how many tables we could fill with Bibles stacked to the ceiling—but is it proper to call one of them or all of them inspired? No. It is not proper! It is dangerously improper!
Evans: Well, we could care less what others think of their Bibles in other languages. Nevertheless, for English speaking people, there is only one currently published Bible that claims “inspiration” by its believers. For a while, none of the modern perversions would even put the term “HOLY” Bible on their perversions.
God Gave Exact Words
Dan: God is the One Who gave particular exact Words in precise languages at particular points in history when He gave us our Bible. When God gave us the Words of Scripture, He gave them to us in Hebrew, in Aramaic, and in Greek. He did not give them to us over a short period of time either.
Evans: Is that a precise doctrine? Can you prove with exact words in a verse of scripture that God originally gave us words of scripture in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek? Can you even prove the number of Books that there are in the biblical canon by scripture or by Professor Whachamahamaczysz? If you cannot prove the number of Books, how can you prove the rest that belongs? Or must you trust God for such things?
Dangers of “Inspired” Translations
Dan: The King James Bible has been cherished by millions of people in the last 400 years. But, as I mentioned before, it is dangerous to assert that any translations are “inspired.” There are signs that say, “Danger: The bridge is out.” So when a person says it is dangerous to call the King James Bible “inspired,” a person could liken it to driving towards a bridge that is out. If he keeps on that path, he will fall into the river. If a person insists on an “inspired” translation, then it will not be long until he will insist on altering other doctrinal terms.
Evans: The KJB is not just any Bible. The danger is in saying that it is not the word of God, not the scripture, and/or not the Bible. I am sure that you read the warnings in Revelation in regard to tampering with it. If you claim that this is in regard to the original Autographs or the original Copies. How can they be tampered with? If you mean the 5,000 plus scraps and fragments extant, how do you tamper with something that is neither complete nor intact? But tell me, if you claim any of this, can you tamper with an “inspired” translation or even with the standard translation that has been accepted for centuries. You are the fellow that has ignored the warnings in Revelation, and you are over the bridge.
Stop Changing Doctrinal Terms
Dan: Another example of danger is, “Danger: Falls ahead.” If a person does not want to fall over the doctrinal falls of apostasy then he must stop changing the definitions of doctrinal terms. It is certain that a person does not want to drive into a ravine nor does he want to fall over the falls. But when a person fails to use inspiration in an exact sense, he could have just as tragic result as falling over the falls or diving off the bridge. The doctrine of “inspiration” must not be based on abstract feelings but entirely on the Scripture.
Evans: It is you that are messing with the doctrinal falls of apostasy and your abstract emotion and feelings in which you cannot find a verse of scripture to back them. Instead you must pontificate and use logic and innuendo to formulate your philosophical sophistry and views.
Redefining Doctrinal Terms
Dan: It is dangerous when individuals redefine what a doctrinal term means based on feelings or circles of associates.
Evans: Then why do you do it? You and your Dad get emotional and have fits of rage when someone calls the KJB “inspired and the force them to sign a statement to the contrary. That is why David Cloud had to resign from the Dean Burgon Society. And he is not half the “inspired KJB” guy that I am.
Dan: When people re-define the doctrinal word of “inspiration,” they act like the Neo Orthodox has done in the past. The Neo Orthodox, the liberals, and the modernists, use particular doctrinal words differently because those words have been redefined without anyone‘s knowledge. Many doctrinal words, from all areas of theology, have been redefined by the Neo Orthodox.
Evans: Ah . . . excuse me . . . but you are the NEO ORTHODOX and NEO BIBLE DEFENDER as well as the NEW MODERNISTAND NEW LIBERAL and the NEW LEXICON PARROTS! Why don’t you explain your doctrinal theories from the Bible?
Use of Non-Precise Words
Dan:The term “inspired” should never be attributed to translations--whether they be English translations, German translations, French translations, Spanish translations, or any translation from any language of the world.
Evans: Oh? Are you the one that makes the rules? Or do you get those rules from the liberal and the modernist?
Dan: Anyone who alters or changes the definition of “inspiration” is behaving like the Neo Orthodox behave. If a teacher is not careful, the people in the pews, and the men and women who sit in his classes will grow comfortable to his use of words in a non-precise way. And so future generations will have a tendency to use other words in imprecise ways also.
Evans: You are the one that alters the biblical definition and behave like the Bible Correctors. We have yet to see your “exact/precise” definition, but I am sure that you will get around to it, so I will try to endure the baloney (bologna).
Redefining Doctrinal Terms
Dan:Avoid gradual doctrinal drifts. Redefining doctrinal words is a drifting away from truth. One may start with the precise, accurate definitions, but then when a person gives a little bit of excuse, or gives a little bit of wiggle-room to justify an acceptance of an imprecise definition—pretty soon, he will be ready to adopt wrong theology. It is sloppy and wrong theology to redefine “inspiration” to include translations of the Scripture. It is dangerous to call a translation “inspired” because it will lead to wrong theology. It will create Neo Orthodox thinking.
Evans: Amen! But how about practicing what you preach? It is you that has drifted from the truth and redefined the word. You birds would not have dared to denigrate the KJB and say these things when the DBS first started. You would have been dumped immediately. Still, some saw through DBS equivocation and quit.
The KJB Translators Translated
Dan: Today we have the God-preserved apographs (copies of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words underlying the KJB) from which translators can carry the Words of the original languages into the vernacular of the peoples of the world.
Evans: Oh, do we now? I know we do not have the copies that Timothy had that Paul called scriptures given by inspiration. So what copies do you have? From what were they copied? The eclectic Greek Texts? Were they copied from the Masoretic Text to which the UNSAVED Masoretes were supposed to add the vowel points in the latter centuries? Or do you have copies of the Original Hebrew Text, with or without vowel points? Where were these Texts found?
Dan: That is exactly what the King James Translators did—they translated.
Evans: Oh did they now? I guess the claim that the KJB is 90% Tyndale is false. Also, it must be false, which claims that the KJB translators did not translate but rather consulted the Hebrew and Greek as well as the extant pre-KJB English Bibles and foreign Bibles, namely, Luther’s Bible.
Dan: When the King James translation of 1611 was completed, it included the Apocrypha. If a person believes the King James Bible of 1611 was “inspired,” then he must also accept the Apocrypha as “inspired.”
Evans: Well, perhaps Dan should check out the meaning of the word “Apocrypha,” namely, non-canonical writings of dubious authority. The translators never once imagined that it was scripture. They included it between the Testaments as Jewish historical writings without changing the name, from “Apocrypha” to something less suspicious.
“Inspiration”—But Not In 1611
Dan: It is wrong to label the King James Bible’s sixty-six canonical books of 1611, and the Apocrypha contained therein as “inspired.”
Evans: Who did that? But now that you ask, which ones of those 66 books are canonical? Then tell us how you know that they are canonical. Then tell us how you know that there are not additional Books in the canon?
Dan: It is dangerous to claim that God gave special “revelation” in 1611.
Evans: Who does that? I only know of one man that is close to that!
Dan: It is misleading to claim that “God breathed-out” His Words in 1611.
Evans: Yes, for the term “theopneustos” does not mean that in regard to the 1611 or to the Autographs or to any of the copies. Do you want to retract that or to discuss it further?
Dan: Whatever synonym one wants to use for “inspiration,” it is very dangerous to say that inspiration occurred in 1611, because there are things that were included in the 1611-edition that do not belong in the Bible of a born-again Bible-believing Christian. Many of our friends, perhaps, do not realize that the King James Bible we hold in our hands, is the 1769 edition of the King James Bible, and not the 1611 edition of the King James Bible.
Evans: Technically, to use Dan’s terminology, both instances of inspiration are nouns in both Testaments. The word inspiration is not used as an adjective or a verb like anti-KJB-inspirationists are wont to use them. Inspiration is a noun in both the O.T. and the N.T. It is not a verb or an adjective, so are you talking about the 1611, the 1769, the Autographs, or the copies, or the copes of copies? The so called process is called “given by inspiration” if the noun applies to any of these. Were the copies, which you say that you have, “given by inspiration” in whatever year you say that they were given. An example of scripture given by inspiration is like water given by distillation.