QUESTION Who Wrote the AV (King
James Version)?
A. The "Great Scholars of 1611."
Dean Burgon commends the King James Bible translators as
follows: "The verb aitein confessedly means `to ask.' And perhaps no
better general English equivalent could be suggested for it. But then, IN A
CERTAIN CONTEXT, "ask" would be an INADEQUATE RENDERING: in another, IT WOULD
BE IMPROPER; in a third, IT WOULD BE SIMPLY INTOLERABLE. Of all this, THE GREAT
SCHOLARS OF 1611 SHOWED THEMSELVES PROFOUNDLY CONSCIOUS. . ." [Burgon, REVISION
REVISED, op. cit., p. 190.]
The King James translators knew well the
various nuances and shades of meaning of that Greek word "to ask." It is the
same Greek word, but in different contexts it has different shades of meaning.
Instead of stiffly saying "ask, ask, ask," in three different places, the
context would require sometimes "ask," sometimes "request" and sometimes
"demand." Was Dean Burgon in favour of the King James Bible? He certainly was.
He referred to the men who gave us that Bible as "the great scholars of 1611."
The King James Bible Is a "Priceless Treasure." Dean Burgon considered the
King James Bible as a "priceless treasure." Referring to that Bible, he wrote:
". . . It will teach FAITHFUL HEARTS . . ." This is what our King James Bible
will do. Was Dean Burgon in favour of the King James Bible? Yes. Did he want to
revise the English text of the King James Bible? No. Was he in favour of using
ONLY the King James Bible? Yes. Should he be included in James White's chapter
as favouring ONLY the King James Bible as our Dean Burgon Society does? Yes!
James White wrongfully said that Dean Burgon was in favour of "revision in
the KJB" as well as the Greek Text that underlies it. Though he thought there
might be some slight revision of the Greek Text, Dean Burgon wanted to keep the
English text of the King James Bible intact without a single change! Dean
Burgon was for ONLY the King James Bible in the pulpit as well as in the pew.
He held that view up to the day of his death in 1888. ". . . to CLING THE
CLOSER TO THE PRICELESS TREASURE which was bequeathed to them by the PIETY and
WISDOM OF THEIR FATHERS. It will dispel for ever the dream of those who have
secretly imagined that A MORE EXACT VERSION, undertaken with the boasted helps
of this nineteenth century of ours, would bring to light something which has
been hitherto unfairly kept concealed or else misrepresented. Not the least
service which the Revisionists have rendered has been the proof their work
affords, HOW VERY SELDOM OUR AUTHORIZED VERSION is MATERIALLY WRONG; HOW
FAITHFUL AND TRUSTWORTHY, on the contrary, IT IS THROUGHOUT." [Burgon, REVISION
REVISED, op. cit., p. 232.]
Yes, our King James Bible is indeed a precious,
"priceless treasure" that God has given to us. We must cling to it. If we do,
we shall be blessed by it.
The King James Bible Has "Habitual Fidelity."
Dean Burgon believed that the King James Bible had "habitual fidelity." He
wrote: "They held a NOBLE VERSION BEFORE THEM, . ." Dean Burgon was comparing
only two English versions: the King James Version of 1611 and the English
Revised Version of 1881. When a man fights and battles against this English
Revised Version of 1881 and clings to, praises, and uses ONLY the King James
Bible of 1611, what do you call that man? He's a King James Bible man! He
stands for it and he exalts it. Would James White exalt the King James Bible
like Dean Burgon? No! Would any of these New American Standard Version men, or
New International Version men, or even the New King James Version men exalt it
like Dean Burgon? No! What about the people in Bible believing colleges and
universities that USE the King James Bible in their pulpit, but in their Greek
classes, tear down the Greek textual base that underlies it (as in Bob Jones
University and other places)? Would they exalt the King James Bible with the
words used by Dean Burgon? I don't think so. ". . . which they contrived to
SPOIL in every part. Its DIGNIFIED SIMPLICITY and ESSENTIAL FAITHFULNESS, its
MANLY GRACE and its DELIGHTFUL RHYTHM, they have shown themselves alike unable
to imitate and unwilling to retain. . . . are sorry substitutes for THE LIVING
FRESHNESS, and ELASTIC FREEDOM, and HABITUAL FIDELITY OF THE GRAND OLD VERSION
WHICH WE INHERITED FROM OUR FATHERS, and which has sustained the spiritual life
of the Church of England, and of all English-speaking Christians, for 350
years. . . . the AUTHORIZED VERSION, wherever it was possible, SHOULD HAVE BEEN
JEALOUSLY RETAINED." [Burgon, REVISION REVISED, op. cit., pp. 225-26.] Dean
Burgon certainly favoured the King James Bible in the same measure as he
opposed the English Revised Version.
The Spirit of God "Was Mightily Upon"
the Translators of the King James Bible. Dean Burgon believed that God's Spirit
was upon the translators of the King James Bible. He wrote: ". . . who does not
respond gratefully to the EXQUISITE TASTE AND TACT with which "BONDMAID" itself
has been exchanged for "BONDWOMAN" by OUR TRANSLATORS OF 1611, in verses 23, 30
and 31? . . . Verily, THOSE MEN UNDERSTOOD THEIR CRAFT! `There were GIANTS IN
THOSE DAYS.' As little would they submit to be bound by the new cords of the
Philistines as by their green withes. Upon occasion, they could shake
themselves free from either. And why? For the selfsame reason: viz. BECAUSE THE
SPIRIT OF THEIR GOD WAS MIGHTILY UPON THEM." [Burgon, REVISION REVISED, op.
cit., p. 196.] That doesn't mean that Dean Burgon thought that the Holy Spirit
of God breathed out (or inspired) the exact English words to put down
(including the italics) like Dr. Ruckman and/or his followers teach. He didn't
believe that the King James English Bible (including the italics) supersedes
and takes precedence over the Hebrew and Greek. He did not believe it was a new
REVELATION, but only an accurate, faithful TRANSLATION. Dean Burgon did believe
that the Spirit of God was leading and guiding these men that gave us our
Bible. "The Spirit of God was mightily upon them." That is a good stand to
make.
The KJB translators were not only intellectually superior, but they
were spiritually superior to men of the English Revised Version. Spiritual
ability is a must for all Scriptural endeavors.
The King James Bible Is a
"Sacred Bond" to All English-speaking People. Dean Burgon believed that the
King James Bible was a "sacred bond" between all English-speaking people. He
wrote: "Whatever may be urged in favour of BIBLICAL REVISION, it is at least
undeniable that the undertaking involves a tremendous RISK. . . ." Notice that
Dean Burgon believes that it is a "risk" to tamper with the King James Bible.
Anytime you touch something that is suitable, excellent, accurate, and "God's
Word Kept Intact in English," there is a "risk" involved. I realize that this
illustration and analogy perhaps is not exact, but there is an element of truth
in it. Uzzah wanted with all his heart to steady the Ark of God that had been
placed on the "new cart" contrary to God's express wishes. He had a motivation
that he thought was sound, sane, and sensible, but it was unscriptural. He had
to lay hands upon that holy Ark of God that was moving. He never should have
put the Ark on a new cart to start with. God said that the Ark should be
carried on the shoulders of the priests. Uzzah thought he was doing a good and
noble work by touching the Ark so it wouldn't fall over. When we touch the
Bible that God has given to us as English-speaking people, "God's Word kept
intact in English," our King James Bible, I believe, with Dean Burgon, that we
take a serious "risk."
Something else is true. These translators (of the
ERV and also those of today's perversions) have touched these "precious words"
of the King James Bible. They have "blotted them out," and "silently revised"
many of these "precious words" so that few people suspect that they are gone.
The words are missing in action. Like our missing servicemen (MIA's), we have
words that are "missing in action." We have sentences missing in action. We
have verses missing in action. We have whole sections missing in actions such
as: Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53--8:11. There are twelve verses in each of those two
sections. We have a "risk." I would not want to be in their place at the
Judgement Seat of Christ if they are believing Christians. Some of these men
are undoubtedly believers. If they are believers and are to appear before the
Judgement Seat of Christ to give account of that which they have done in their
body according to what they have done whether it be good or bad, I would not
want to be in their place. I would not want to face the Lord Jesus Christ after
I had laid cruel hands on the words of the precious Scripture, destroying them,
taking from the believers, and preaching from the housetops out of the false
versions of their day. Biblical revision is a tremendous "risk" Dean Burgon
said. He was right. ". .Our AUTHORIZED VERSION is the ONE RELIGIOUS LINK which
at present. ." He was writing in 1883. ". .binds together NINETY MILLIONS of
English-speaking men scattered over the earth's surface. ." There are many more
millions of English-speaking people today. The King James Bible still binds us
today. Do you think that the NIV is ever going to bind millions and millions of
English-speaking people? Do you think it's going to be the New American
Standard or the New King James that will bind all these millions together?
Versions have come and gone. The English Revised Version of 1881 cannot even be
bought, except in a second hand book shop if you can find one that has it. They
have stopped publication. The American Standard Version of 1901, which is the
American counterpart of the English Revised Version of 1881, is out of print as
far as we know. It won't be long until these other versions have disappeared as
well. Take a look at all the old ones down through the century. It is hard to
buy a good book that is more then four or five years old. When the publishers
stop making money on a book, they stop reprinting it. The same is true with the
Bibles. They come and go. ". . . Is it reasonable that so UNUTTERABLY PRECIOUS,
so SACRED A BOND should be endangered, for the sake of representing certain
words more accurately,- here and there translating a tense with greater
precision,- getting rid of a few archaisms? . "
Dr. Bob Doom, President of
the Global Bible Society, located in North Carolina, needs our prayers. For
many years now, he has been working to give us a special edition of the King
James Bible. The text will be unaltered, but the few words that may be
outmoded, a little different, or hard to understand will be clarified in the
margin. This will enable the average reader to unlock all the treasures of the
Word of God for himself. Pray for him. He has already spent $10,000 on this
project. He said he's got the Greek words done and at least part of it done in
English from the New Testament (Matthew to Revelation). He is trying to get out
something for the Gospel of John by the end of 1995 if possible. We don't need
to get rid of a few archaisms. Just leave the words alone and put the
clarifications in the margins. This is not like the new versions that change
the words right in the text of the Bible. We should not endanger the
unutterable precious "sacred bond" of the King James Bible for any of these new
versions. ". It may be CONFIDENTLY ASSUMED THAT NO 'REVISION' OF OUR AUTHORIZED
VERSION, HOWEVER JUDICIOUSLY EXECUTED, WILL EVER OCCUPY THE PLACE IN PUBLIC
ESTEEM WHICH IS ACTUALLY ENJOYED BY THE WORK OF THE TRANSLATORS OF 1611--THE
NOBLEST LITERARY WORK IN THE ANGLO-SAXON LANGUAGE." [Burgon, REVISION REVISED,
op. cit., p. 113.]
"Ever" is a long time, isn't it. Do you think that holds
for the year of 1995? I believe it does. Do you believe Dean Burgon is for ONLY
the King James Bible? Do you believe that is a misstatement in The King James
Only Controversy book?
No "Rival Translation" Should Ever Take the Place of
the King James Bible. Was Dean Burgon in favor of a revision of the text of the
King James Bible? If so, how would he advise that it be done? Dean Burgon did
not want to have any "rival translation" in the English language to compete
with the King James Bible. He wrote: "To be brief, . . ." Dean Burgon was never
brief. The BIBLE FOR TODAY has reprinted five of Dean Burgon's books on textual
matters. The Dean Burgon Society has decided to reprint in real book-type form
of The Last Twelve Verses of Mark by Dean Burgon. We had a committee meeting at
supper time and we decided on that book as a beginning project. Dean Burgon was
never brief. He wrote five books: (1) The Revision Revised, (2) The Last Twelve
Verses of Mark, (3) The Traditional Text, (4) Causes of Corruption, and (5)
Inspiration and Interpretation. These five books make up almost 2,000 pages.
Dean Burgon's biography is almost 1,000 pages. This makes a total of about
3,000 pages we have put back into print either by or about Dean Burgon. In
referring to any study edition of the King James Bible, he wrote: ". .As a
COMPANION IN THE STUDY and FOR PRIVATE EDIFICATION: as a Book OF REFERENCE FOR
CRITICAL PURPOSES, especially in respect of DIFFICULT AND CONTROVERTED
PASSAGES: . " Notice, this was for a limited purpose. It was to be used "in the
study" and for "private edification," and not for church services or general
use at all. ". .we hold that a REVISED EDITION OF THE AUTHORIZED VERSION OF OUR
ENGLISH BIBLE (IF EXECUTED WITH CONSUMMATE ABILITY AND LEARNING,) That is a big
"if." Do you believe that these new versions and perversions have been executed
with consummate ability and learning? I do not. ". .would at any time be a WORK
OF INESTIMABLE VALUE. . The METHOD of such a performance, whether BY MARGINAL
NOTES . . ." As mentioned above, this is what Dr. Bob Doom is trying to do with
his special edition of the King James Bible. He will have a marginal notes with
the meanings of a few words that have changed their meanings somewhat over the
years. There are only five to six hundred such words since 1611. We have almost
800,000 words in our English King James Bible. To have only five to six hundred
words that have changed their meaning slightly since 1611 is a minute
percentage indeed. ". . . or in SOME OTHER WAY, we forbear to determine. . But
certainly ONLY AS A HANDMAID is it to be desired. ." What is a handmaid? We
would call her a "maid" today. If the maid or servant starts taking over the
house, she turns into something other then a maid. We have had some who have
tried this. We must know the difference between a handmaid and the lady of the
house. You better treat the lady of the house like the lady of the house and
not like a handmaid. When you have your "priceless treasure," our King James
Bible, you HAVE the Lady of the house. You better not treat her as a handmaid
by using the new versions and perversions.
". . . As something INTENDED TO
SUPERSEDE OUR PRESENT ENGLISH BIBLE, we are THOROUGHLY CONVINCED that the
project of a RIVAL TRANSLATION IS NOT TO BE ENTERTAINED FOR A MOMENT. For
ourselves, WE DEPRECATE IT ENTIRELY." [Burgon, REVISION REVISED, op. cit., pp.
113-14. Dean Burgon did not believe that ANYTHING should "supersede our present
English Bible." Which was that? It was the King James Bible. As for have a
"rival translation" for the King James Bible, Dean Burgon "deprecated it
entirely." Is there any other language that could be introduced to make it any
clearer that for Dean John William Burgon, there was ONLY one English Bible,
and that was the King James Bible!
CONCLUDING REMARKS We have in the name
of our "Dean Burgon Society," the name of Dean John William Burgon, a man who
unequivocally not only stood against the false version of his day (the English
Revised Version), but also stood in favour of the King James Bible of his day.
The King James Bible is now 384 years old. The same arguments used against this
grand old Bible in Dean Burgon's day are used today, such as: "Oh, my, isn't
the King James Bible too antiquated? We can't understand it. Don't we need
something new and fresh?" Dean Burgon stuck firmly to his King James Bible. We
ask the question again. Did Dean Burgon have confidence in his King James
Bible? He certainly did. We want, as a Dean Burgon Society, to show forth and
radiate to those around us, Christians and non-Christians alike, that we do
have confidence both in our King James Bible and the Greek and Hebrew texts
that underlie it. I always say on every one of our radio broadcasts, whether it
is the five minute daily broadcast Monday through Friday or our thirty minute
weekly broadcast, "We're building Bible confidence, confidence in the King
James Bible, because the King James Bible is the Bible for Today." My friends,
the King James Bible is the Bible for today. It was the Bible for yesterday.
And it will be the Bible for tomorrow. We praise God that we had a Dean John
William Burgon who stood together with us on this issue. We would both agree
that the King James Bible is "THE NOBLEST LITERARY WORK IN THE ANGLO-SAXON
LANGUAGE"!! We would also join Dean Burgon in his statement concerning our King
James Bible (if you would permit me to repeat it once again): "We are
THOROUGHLY CONVINCED that the project of a RIVAL TRANSLATION IS NOT TO BE
ENTERTAINED FOR A MOMENT. For ourselves, WE DEPRECATE IT ENTIRELY"!!
Back to the FAQ page