Why
I Use The KJV
By
Milburn Cockrell
(1941-2002)
In
my 44 years in the ministry I have used the KJV
of the Bible, and so have the members of the churches I have pastored.
I urged all church members to secure and study the KJ Bible. I do not recommend
to them that they throw away their KJV and get new modem Bible
versions. That this is so can be ascertained
from any church where I have ever pastored, although there are rumors to
the contrary being circulated by some brethren.
Some
of the brethren use the KJV because they have read and studied books by
a cussing Arminian preacher in Florida, or because they are afraid they
will be called a liberal or modernist by the followers of this man. I,
for one, marvel that some brethren follow a cussing Arminian preacher and
are influenced by him. Our King James Version says in James 1:26:
“If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue,
but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.” Evidently,
some brethren do not believe the KJV
here and prefer a new version of some kind.>
Some
years ago I attended a Bible conference where one preacher got up and said
in his message that he was a follower of this cussing Arminian preacher
in Florida. I immediately wrote him down as an ultradispensationalist,
a universal church man, and an Arminian heretic. I did appreciate his honest
confession. Our churches need to be aware of such men so as to keep them
out of their pulpits.>
I
do not use the KJV because of the teachings of some cursing Arminian preacher.
Neither do I use it because I am afraid some of the followers of this man
in our group will call me a liberal or Bible corrector. I used the KJV
before I ever heard of this man. In fact the idea that this man teaches
is not as old as I am. It is a mere novelty never believed or taught by
any Baptist before the modern era.>
Brethren, here
are the reasons I use the KJV. >
1.) First, I believe
it was made from the best Greek and Hebrew texts, which are the preserved
Word of God. I refer to the Masoretic Hebrew Text preserved by the nation
of Israel, and the Textus Receptus Greek Text (or the Byzantine text).
This is the Greek text preserved from A. D. 452 to 1453 by the Greek church,
the Waldenses, and Albigenses.
>
All modern translations
are based upon the reconstructed Greek text of Westcott and Hort, two Romanist
oriented scholars, whose purpose was to replace the Protestant and Baptist
text with those of the Roman Church and thereby wean back Protestants to
the Roman fold. These two men denied the blood atonement of Jesus Christ,
exalted Mary worship and the Romanish mass, denied the Genesis record,
and were ardent evolutionists and had universalist tendencies.>
About 95 percent
of all Greek manuscripts that we have are the Byzantine type. This means
that the Westcott and Hort texts disagree with 95 percent of extant sources,
including Scripture quotations from the writings of the early church fathers,
who antedated the texts on which the Westcott and Hort reconstruction was
based. The Westcott and Hort texts came from Rome and Egypt, depicted as
God's enemies in Scripture, whereas the text of the KJV came from Syria
and Greece, the areas of the initial outreach of Christianity.>
All translations
since 1611 have not been made entirely from the Textus Receptus. These
did include some of the Textus Receptus but they largely depended on the
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Codex Vaticanus was found in the pope's library
in A. D. 1481 and Codex Sinaiticus was taken from a waste basket on a Mt.
Sinai monastery in 1859. Both of these manuscripts include the apocryphal
books outside of the New Testament canon. This makes the new translations
based largely on these texts essentially Roman Catholic translations. They
resemble Jerome's Latin Vulgate and the Rheims-Douai versions of 1582 authorized
by the Roman Catholic Church at the infamous Council of Trent.>
2.) The KJ translators
employed a method of verbal equivalence (a word for word translation) rather
than the method of paraphrase of dynamic equivalent (a meaning for meaning).
The idea of the KJ translators was to give us what the Bible writers really
wrote instead of what some committee of liberal scholars thought they wrote.
This practice was not followed by modern day translators.>
The KJ translators
believed every word placed in the original text was exactly as God intended.
Their regard for verbal inspiration is reflected in the use of italics
in translations wherever words were added in English, which were not in
the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. This practice has not been followed by
modern versions.>
Personally, I
look upon most modern versions (especially the New Testament) as new Bible
versions. I say this because a translation of the Bible to be true to its
name must be the writing down of the message into another language without
changing its meaning. The natural man cannot understand the things of God
(I Corinthians 2:14), and he cannot be trusted to put God's thoughts
into correct English.>
3.) The KJV has
been read and examined by some great minds since 1611, and wherein it has
weak translations these have been pointed out by men like, Henry, Pool,
Trapp, Gill, Spurgeon, Pink, Graves, etc. This is not true of any of these
modern versions. The examinations which have been made of these are limited,
and they have resulted in unsatisfactory reports.>
4.) The KJV has
been the Bible of my Baptist fathers. It is the one I have studied, memorized
and preached from for 44 years. It was the one being preached from
when I was converted to Christ. It was the Bible of the church which baptized
me, and of the church and men who ordained me to the ministry. It is the
Bible I have heard preached all of my life. I have no plans to throw my
KJV away for some new version made by infidels from Catholic manuscripts.>
5.) I believe
the KJV is a faithful translation of the preserved Word of God in the Hebrew
and Greek manuscripts. It is the best we have for the English speaking
world in this generation. As long as any translation follows the Textus
Receptus and the Masoretic Hebrew text, they are inspired. When they choose
to do otherwise, they are in error. This rule applies to the KJV as well
as to others. I believe that only the original autographs were perfect
or inspired. God has preserved His Word in Hebrew and Greek, but no translation
has come down to us from inspired translators, and this includes the KJV. >
(This
short article was from “Cockrell's Corner” in the Berea Baptist Banner
- April 5, 2002)
Return
To Elder Cockrell's Page
Return
To Baptist Authors
Return To
PBC Home