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 and got him to write an article that he should have written, after Don not being able to answer Herb Evans. Clearly, they do not believe in any “Inspired Bible” extant. 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, 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 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.
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 NEO orthodox category. In our addendum to this critique, we see who is NEO ORTHODOX or OLD MODERNIST or LIBERAL.
An Accountability To The Words
Dan: The authority of Scripture is always under attack.
Evans: Obviously by this comment, Dan does not think that the KJB is 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 Defenders that 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, 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 a 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 works. Again, we await Don’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. Okay, we have Dan’s position.
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 number of chapters and verses that belong? 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 feeling 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 MODERNIST AND 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,